Agenda & Packet

There will be a special meeting of the Plan Commission at Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road, Kenilworth, IL. The public may attend in person or by utilizing the following link: TEAMS MEETING LINK If you do not have access to a computer, you may attend via telephone: +1 872-242-8055 Meeting ID: 898995005# Plan Commission Special Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road Agend a I. Ca ll to Order / Roll Call II. Ap proval of Minutes A. December 9, 2025 Special Meeting Minutes III. Reg ular Business A. Consideration of a referral by the Village Board regarding further evaluation of a Preliminary Plan for a Planned Unit Development at 515-519 Park Drive IV. Ot her Business V. Business from the Public Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vok.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment VI. Adjo urn Village of The Village of Kenilworth is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities are requested to contact the Village Manager at 847-251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 1 VI LLAGE OF KE NILWORTH, IL Plan Commission Meeting Tuesday, December 9, 2025 CAL L TO ORDER A special meeting of the Plan Commission of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, Kenilworth, Illinois was held at 7:00 pm on Tuesday, December 9, 2025. Chair Mohr called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. At tendance was as follows: Pl an Commissioners Present: Justin Mohr Chair Anna Simpson Commissioner Joby Berman Commissioner Ian Fisher Commissioner Ken Kaufman Commissioner Shannon Stoelting Commissioner Pl an Commissioners Absent: None A quorum was present. Ot her Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager Kathy Thake Village Manager (Remote) Carol Brobeck Village Planner, Teska Associates Megan Mack Village Attorney, Ancel Glink Dennis Garvey New Look Development Michael Freiburger New Look Development Jeanne Keiler Pete Ruck Greg Kirrish 2 Marjie Zander Lois Stanley Laura Fitzpatrick Mike Kelly Kathy Kirrish Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 1, 2025 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES The Minutes of the Plan Commission meeting of December 1, 2025, were placed before the Commissioners. Commissioner Simpson made a motion to approve the December 1, 2025 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes, as presented, and Commissioner Berman seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Mohr, Simpson, Berman, Kaufman, Fisher, Stoelting Nay: None Absent: None Abstain: None The motion was approved 6 – 0 Agenda Item III.A. REGULAR BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A MIXED-USE BUILDING AT 515-519 PARK DRIVE IN THE B BUSINESS DISTRICT The commissioners began their discussion and questioned whether the public hearing should be opened for additional testimony. The commissioners agreed so long as comments were limited to five minutes each, and 45 minutes collectively. Commissioner Simpson made a motion to reopen the public hearing, and Commissioner Berman seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Mohr, Simpson, Berman, Kaufman, Fisher, Stoelting Nay: None Absent: None Abstain: None The motion was approved 6 – 0 Public testimony from those in attendance is summarized below: Greg Kirrish Mr. Kirrish stated that the Village’s rules are not arbitrary and protect the residents’ interests. Over 100 neighbors have signed a petition in opposition to the project. 3 Mike Kelly Mr. Kelly recommended that the Plan Commission deny the zoning relief request in light of Kenilworth’s design guidelines and petition in opposition to the project. David Joyce Mr. Joyce stated that he lives two blocks from the proposed project. Mr. Joyce shared that Kenilworth’s building height maximum has remained at 35’ for a reason, and that the Plan Commission does not have the authority to consider the Planned Unit Development request. Mr. Joyce further explained that parking in the project area is already difficult. Jeanne Keiler Ms. Keiler noted several concerns with the proposal, including traffic safety implications for children, parking impacts, and the accuracy of the developer’s traffic study. In addition, Ms. Keiler referenced the Architectural Review Commission’s concerns regarding the building’s mass and height. Pete Ruck Mr. Ruck stated that he was not opposed nor in favor of the project. Mr. Ruck acknowledged that traffic is bad on Park Drive, however he wished an opportunity for families to downsize in Kenilworth was available. If the Village’s zoning standards were met, Mr. Ruck shared that he would support the request. Margie Zander Ms. Zander relayed that she does not believe the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. If the proposed building was comparable to the one with Duda Dental, she would be able to support the request. Lydia Barhight Ms. Barhight shared that a recent zoning survey indicated that height was very important to the Kenilworth community. She further expressed concern that the development would create negative traffic impacts for children walking in the area. Lois Stanley Ms. Stanley stated that homes in Kenilworth sell quickly at high prices and value green space. Ms. Keiler does not believe the Village is getting anything in return for the project. It is difficult for retail survive, she explained, and there would be little sales tax generated. **End of public testimony** Applicant, Michael Frieburger, responded to Ms. Stanley’s comment, explaining that the development could help revitalize the downtown area and offer the community something they have asked for: a place to downsize. Changes to the building’s size and cornices were also noted by Mr. Freiburger. He further stated that the existing structures do not warrant reinvestment, and that a practical alternative would be for the businesses to remain vacant or to construct higher density apartment buildings. Chair Mohr made a motion to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Berman seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: 4 Yea: Mohr, Simpson, Berman, Kaufman, Fisher, Stoelting Nay: None Absent: None Abstain: None The motion was approved 6 – 0 Commissioner Berman stated that she has been a resident for 41 years, and during her time on the Plan Commission, there have not been many projects to review. Rules, she explained, stifle an open mind. After her career working on many major projects with the State, cities, and tollway, Commissioner Berman stated that projects would never take place if based only on the opinions of immediate neighbors. She noted that Kenilworth has become a bedroom community, and that to survive, the residents would need to be open to new ideas. Commissioner Simpson stated that she agreed. In her two years on the Commission, they have had no substantive requests to review. Commissioner Simpson explained that a principle of good urban development is to not have setbacks, and that since retail is often not feasible for developers, they need to build up. She noted that the request was in line with the vision and the Business District is under utilized. Commissioner Fisher noted that Kenilworth is a unique and lower density community. He shared that the height requirement exists for a reason and, while he is for development, he was not sure that the standards for the height had been met. Commissioner Kaufman shared that height is a community wide issue, and that due to the area’s existing parking and traffic issues, the proposal should not go forward. Commissioner Stoelting stated that she does not want to walk by empty buildings, but also does not want to see neighboring properties shadowed. She questioned where people would park if there was new retail and asked that the rear appearance be improved. Chair Mohr stated that other developers may ask for different relief. He asked the group that if the request was rejected, would it be the death nail for all future height requests? Mr. Freiburger responded to one of the comments and explained that the neighboring residence would be shadowed if the new building was constructed at the permitted height of 35’. Commissioner Simpson stated that the request was subtle and that rear of the building has dimension. She explained that Planned Unit Developments are not precedent setting, and it is important that each request is evaluated on its own merits. Commissioner Kaufman shared that he would not be able to offer a positive recommendation at this point. Commissioner Simpson made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to grant the approval of the request submitted by RED3 Development LLC, for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development plan for a new mixed-use planned unit 5 development located at 515-519 Park Drive in accordance with the following materials: Traffic and Parking Study prepared by KLOA, dated 11/24/25, received 11/25/25 • Written Narratives to support Planned Unit Development Application, dated 11/24/25 received 11/25/25 • Traffic and Parking Mitigation Study (during construction) prepared by NEWLOOK Design | Building + Development, received 11/25/25 • Floor Plans prepared by NEWLOOK Design | Building + Development, received 11/25/25 • Boundary and Topologic Survey prepared by United Survey Service, LLC dated 9/29/25, received 10/7/25 Commissioner Berman seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Simpson, Berman Nay: Mohr, Kaufman, Fisher, Stoelting Absent: None Abstain: None The motion failed 4 – 2 Agenda Item IV.A. OTHER BUSINESS None Agenda Item V. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC None Agenda Item VI. ADJOURN Chair Mohr made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Mohr, Simpson, Berman, Kaufman, Fisher, Stoelting Nay: None Absent: None Abstain: None The motion was approved 6 – 0 The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager 6 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: III.A. Staff Contact: Michael Blue, Teska Associates Heather McFarland, Assistant to the Village Manager Subject: Consideration of a referral by the Village Board regarding further evaluation of a Preliminary Plan for a Planned Unit Development at 515-519 Park Drive Petitioner: RED3 Development LLC, 515-519 Park Drive Series Tenants: (515 Park) Federalist Antiques / (519 Park) Vacant Ownership: 515 Park, LLC – Michael S. Corbett / Travel – 519 Park LLC – Lawrence Weiner/Gerald Nudo Location: 515-519 Park Drive Zoning: B Business District Purpose: Construction of a new development Applicable Regulations: Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance §153.246 Planned Developments Summary: RED3 Development LLC submitted an application for a preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) in September 2025. The request considers redeveloping the properties at 515-519 Park Drive to construct a four-story mixed-use building. Both the Architectural Review (ARC) and Plan (PC) commissions have recommended denial of the request. The Village Board considered the request at their January 20 th and 26th meetings and has requested additional feedback from the ARC and PC. Background of Matter: RED3 Development LLC applied for a preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) in September 2025. The original request proposed mixed-use development would include two (2) small commercial spaces on the ground floor, with entrances facing Park Drive, and a total of seven (7) luxury dwelling units on the 2 nd and 3rd floors, plus a single penthouse dwelling unit on the 4th floor (which was setback from the other floors). A total of 14 on-site parking spaces were proposed in a shared indoor Considered By: Date: Plan Commission Arch. Review Commission Village Board Village Board Plan Commission Plan Commission Arch. Review Commission Arch. Review Commission 04/07/26 03/02/26 01/26/26 01/20/26 12/09/25 12/01/25 10/28/25 10/15/25 Village of 7 garage accessed from the alley. The proposal would require the demolition of the two existing structures. After evaluating the request late last year, both the Architectural Review (ARC) and Plan (PC) commissions recommended denial to the Village Board. The Village Board discussed recommendations of the ARC and PC, as well as public comment at their January 20 th and 26th meetings. After considering the requested PUD application, the Village Board determined there was need for additional deliberation and desired further input from the ARC and PC. In remanding the matter, they’d like the commissions to: • Evaluate possible design changes to mitigate the impact of height. This could include, but is not limited to: o Removing the penthouse o Altering the setbacks for the fourth floor o Eliminating the top floor o Explore a maximum building height of 40’ • Provide feedback on the potential public benefits the development provides The applicant has since provided additional materials to propose how the development can be more in keeping with previous input of the ARC, PC, Village Board, and community comments. The redesign (described below) was presented to and discussed by the ARC on March 2, 2026. A summary of previous deliberations on the matter is attached to this report. Revised Applicant Proposal To address the concerns about the development, the applicant has provided a revised development proposal with a maximum 40’ height. The proposal includes two first floor (two level) “duplex condominium” units in lieu of first floor commercial. In the B District, residential use is allowed only above the first floor. However, this proposal may be considered by the Village through the Planned Unit Development process. The applicants indicate their primary considerations for this revised plan are: • Market expectations for retail spaces and residential condominiums include tall ceiling heights, which makes constructing a mixed-use building of less than 44’ impractical. • Strictly limiting height to 40’ is the most consistent feedback received from the community to date. • A modified scheme without the retail component removes the driver of the height and massing (given common first floor ceiling heights for modern commercial development). • A fully residential design can maintain the character and integrity of the proposed development and fit the context of the neighborhood. • The proposed design lowers the first floor two feet below grade to incorporate four residential floors (including the penthouse) without exceeding 40' in height. • The applicants consider this development to be economically viable and responsive to Village concerns about building height. • Additional information provided by the applicant regarding construction materials, Village design standards, traffic and alley safety, and public benefit, are included in the attached March 2, 2026 ARC Packet. 8 PUD Request Summary Proposal Comparison Initial Proposal Current Proposal Location 515-519 Park Drive Same Use First floor retail, seven residential units on floors 2-4 Eight residential dwellings (duplex condominium + multiple family dwellings) and accessory parking Zoning District B-Business District Same Height Four stories, 46’4” Four stories, 40 feet Total Lot Size 8,610.36 sq. ft. Same Setbacks 0 Same Dwelling Units Seven units: Three on floors 2 & 3, one penthouse on floor 4 Eight units: First floor: two dwellings (two- story duplex condominiums) Second floor: upper level of units + two additional units Third floor: three units Fourth floor: one penthouse unit / rooftop Dwelling Size Floors 2-3: 2,101 sq. ft. (2), 2,419 sq. ft. (2), 2,527 sq. ft. (2) Penthouse:3,424 sq. ft. (1) Floor 1 - duplex condominiums (2 story): 2,349 sf + 2,140 sf Second floor units: 2,113 sf + 2,270 sf Third floor units: 2,424 sf + 2,113 sf + 2,270 sf Penthouse unit: 3,389 sf Retail Spaces Two retail spaces None provided Retail Space Size Space 1: 1,535 sq. ft., Space 2: 916 sq. ft. NA Parking Spaces 14 parking spaces for condominium owners Same Zoning Relief • Exceeds height limit (35’) by 11’4” • Exceeds height limit with special use permit approval (40’) by 6’4” • Planned Unit Development for relief from required 1st floor commercial and 40’ height allowance Proposed Demolition • 515 Park Drive – Requires BRC review; within one year demolition stay period • 519 Park Drive – No special approval required Same 9 Current Proposal: South Elevation (March 2, 2026) Prior Proposal: South Context Elevation Considered by Village Board (January 20th and 26th, 2026) Current Proposal: South Context Elevation (March 2, 2026) 10 Financial Impact: None. Costs associated with the review and recordation are recoverable through the Village’s escrow requirements. Recommendation: The Plan Commission is asked to consider the Village Board’s remand of this matter and provide feedback regarding consensus on the questions below (a formal motion is not required): 1. Does the revised maximum building height of 40’ address the Commission’s concern related to the previous proposal? 2. Are the reduced building height and proposed plans generally in keeping with the standards for a Planned Unit Development at this location? 3. What public benefit might be appropriate for this PUD application? Attachments: 1. ARC Packet – March 2, 2026 o https://www.vok.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03022026-753 o Packet Excerpt – Applicant Statement and Plans 2. ARC March 2, 2026 Meeting Draft Minutes 3. January 20, 2026 Village Board Packet o https://www.vok.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01202026-746): 4. Minutes of January 20 and January 26, 2026 Village Board Meetings o January 20th: https://www.vok.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01202026-746 o January 26th: https://www.vok.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_01262026-749 5. Summary of Previous Review Discussions by ARC and PC 11 newlookdevelopment.com 224.408.2280 907 Ridge Road Wilmette, IL 60091 EST. 1 985 02/24/2026 Village o f K enilworth 419 R ichmond R oad Kenilworth, I L 6 0043 info@vok.org Re: 5 15 a nd 5 19 P ark D rive - N arrative R elated t o t he M otion t o R emand a nd S upplemental Statements Narrative R elated t o t he M otion t o R emand Dear V illage o f K enilworth, We a ppreciate t he V illage B oard’s m otion t o r emand t he p roject t o t he A rchitectural R eview Commission a nd P lan C ommission t o f urther e valuate d esign c hanges i ntended t o m itigate height i mpacts, i ncluding e xploration o f a m aximum b uilding h eight o f 4 0 f eet a nd a dditional consideration o f p ublic b enefits. Having n ow h ad t he b enefit o f p ublic c ommentary a nd f eedback f rom t he A rchitectural R eview Commission, P lan C ommission, a nd V illage B oard, w e h ave c arefully r eassessed o ur p roposal. One t heme h as b een c onsistent t hroughout t his p rocess: b uilding h eight i s t he c ommunity’s most s ignificant c oncern. W ith t hat i n m ind, w e f ocused o ur e fforts p rimarily o n t he B oard’s directive t o e xplore a 4 0-foot m aximum b uilding h eight. Our o riginal p roposal i ncorporated g round-floor r etail w ith t hree r esidential c ondominium f loors above. I n s tudying w hether t his p rogram c ould b e d elivered w ithin 4 0 f eet, w e a nalyzed minimum r equired c lear c eiling h eights f or r etail a nd r esidential u se, a s w ell a s s tructural a nd mechanical r equirements. Based o n t hese o bjective b uilding c onstraints, t he m inimum a chievable o verall h eight f or a b uilding w ith r etail a nd t hree r esidential f loors i s a pproximately 4 4 f eet. A s a r esult, m aintaining retail w hile m eeting a s trict 4 0-foot c ap d oes n ot p resent a v iable p ath f orward. Recognizing t hat h eight h as e merged a s t he c learest c ommunity p riority, w e e xplored a m ore fundamental m odification. W e a re t herefore p roposing a r evised s cheme t hat r emoves t he r etail component — a s ignificant d river o f o verall h eight a nd m assing — w hile m aintaining t he architectural c haracter a nd i ntegrity o f t he d evelopment. NEWLOOK is a f amily o wned c ompany in bus iness f or 40 Y ears e xperienced in r esidential and c ommercial design an d c onstruction. NEWL OOK is fully licens ed and ins ured. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 By eliminating retail, we are able to lower the first residential level partially below grade, maintain three full residential floors, and limit the building to no more than 40 feet above grade. We have also been able to reduce the height of the lower parapet height to 33’-2”. We believe this approach represents a thoughtful and appropriate response to the Board’s motion and to the community’s most consistently expressed concern. Public Benefit While removal of retail changes one aspect of the originally proposed public benefits, the modified scheme continues to provide meaningful value, including: ● Contextual scale and design ● High-quality residential investment in the Business District ● Expansion of the Village’s tax base ● Long-term condominium ownership ● Enhancement to the landscape within the parkway where Park Drive meets Green Bay Road We remain committed to working collaboratively with the Architectural Review Commission, Plan Commission, and Village Board and look forward to presenting this revised 40-foot alternative for further discussion. Supplemental Statements based on our new 40’-0” Project - Responses in (Italics). ☐ Quality of Materials: Updated materials have been shown on the elevations sheets in the previously submitted. The only new materials being introduced are full dimensional stone in a color and pattern typical of Kenilworth, “dark bronze / tudor brown siding with custom metal detailing. The other materials are similar as previously presented. ☐ Traffic and Alley Safety : Given the proposed removal of the retail component of the project the primary focus on the safety and traffic of the alley is solely comprised of the residential units. The development will access its enclosed 14-space garage from the existing east-west public alley, replacing an existing access point and maintaining current alley width and two-way operation. The preliminary traffic analysis indicates approximately 14 morning peak hour trips and 20 evening peak hour trips, volumes that are significantly less than the commercial use being replaced. Given the site’s proximity to the Metra station and its location within the Business District, overall traffic demand is expected to remain moderate. Construction parking will be coordinated with the Village to avoid impacts to nearby residential streets. Based on these factors, the project is not anticipated to materially alter existing alley operations and is expected to improve traffic and parking on Park Drive. NEWLOOK is a family owned company in business for 40 Years experienced in residential and commercial design and construction. NEWLOOK is fully licensed and insured. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 ☐ Statement of appropriateness/Meets business district guidelines This application seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness for the erection of a residential building consisting of eight (8) residential condominium units above a first-floor parking for the residences, located within the Business District. This project is designed to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Village ordinances, regulations, and specifically the Kenilworth Design Guidelines — Business District, as required under § 153.242(C). The proposed building strengthens the architectural continuity of the surrounding commercial corridor by employing compatible massing, scale, and facade articulation. The height and proportions of the structure are carefully modulated to align with adjacent business district buildings, ensuring that the streetscape maintains a cohesive character. At the pedestrian level, the design introduces a canopy at the lobby entrance, consistent with the Design Guidelines’ intent to foster a vibrant and walkable environment. The two-story lobby creates an activated street front. The lobby will be bright and inviting, creating a welcoming refresh to the Kenilworth Business District. Durable, high-quality materials are specified for the exterior, reinforcing the long-term architectural integrity of the district. Vertical and horizontal design elements are introduced to break down the overall massing, creating two “anchoring” architectural elements that reflect the visual compatibility with neighboring structures. The residences above appear to be set back subtly from the primary street façade, reducing perceived scale while integrating landscaped roofscapes and textures to further enhance visual interest. Outdoor living spaces are also introduced on the sides of the building to further break up the facade. At these outdoor living spaces, the incorporation of greenery also supports the principles of biophilic design, offering a human-centered experience along the streetscape and reinforcing Kenilworth’s tradition of thoughtful, context-sensitive development. The project also draws inspiration from Kenilworth’s 2040 Green Bay Road Corridor Vision as it plans to revitalize the Business District retail. In doing so, the development will include the previously mentioned enhancement to the landscape within the parkway where Park Drive meets Green Bay Road. The proposed building has charm and unique personality, while being appropriately scaled with design consideration to make the upper level appear to be less visible from the pedestrian experience. (Also submitted as part of the Demolition Statement) This project meets the standards for appropriateness by: 1. Consistency with Village Standards – The building complies with the ordinances, codes, and appearance plan requirements established under § 153.242. NEWLOOK is a family owned company in business for 40 Years experienced in residential and commercial design and construction. NEWLOOK is fully licensed and insured. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 2. Alignment with Design Guidelines – The design adheres to the Kenilworth Design Guidelines — Business District, respecting scale, proportion, materiality, and façade articulation. 3. Contribution to District Character – The mixed-use nature of the building supports the vitality of the Business District, complementing existing land uses and reinforcing the urban fabric of the corridor. This project has been thoughtfully designed to align with the Kenilworth Business District Design Guidelines and to reinforce the architectural character, scale, and pedestrian quality of Park Drive. Throughout this process, we have carefully listened to feedback from the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, Village Board, and residents, and we have refined the proposal to ensure compatibility with the surrounding context. With the building height now brought into compliance at 40’-0” and key elements further articulated to reflect neighboring structures, the project meets the applicable design standards while contributing to the long-term vitality of the Business District. We respectfully believe the proposal represents a balanced and appropriate addition to Kenilworth and request a positive recommendation from the Commission. NEWLOOK is a family owned company in business for 40 Years experienced in residential and commercial design and construction. NEWLOOK is fully licensed and insured. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15 EXISTING PLAN 16 RESIDENTIAL ONLY 17 ARC 1 18 PLANNING COMMISSION 19 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 5'-4" REDUCTION FROM ARC 1 TO ARC 3 20 PLAN UPDATES 21 ARC 1 22 ARC 2 23 VILLAGE BOARD 24 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 25 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 26 ARC 1 27 ARC 2 28 VILLAGE BOARD 29 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 30 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 31 ARC 1 32 ARC 2 33 VILLAGE BOARD 34 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 35 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 36 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 37 PLAN UPDATES 38 PLAN UPDATES 39 PLAN UPDATES 40 PLAN UPDATES 41 42 VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH, IL Architectural Review Commission Meeting Monday, March 2, 2026 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Architectural Review Commission of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, Kenilworth, Illinois, was held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2026. Management Analyst Jordan Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Attendance was as follows: Architectural Review Commissioners Present: Chip Hackley Present Paul Armstrong Present Paul Ozga Present Gunta Cepuritis Present Erin Paul Absent Joel Joyce Present John Pilant Present (online) A quorum was present. Other Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Kathy Thake Village Manager Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst Michael Blue Teska, Village Planner Megan Mack Ancel Glink, Village Attorney Others, Signing In: Jeanne Keiler Eric Miller Alice Read Greg Kirrish Jennifer Swain Anne Bird Rob Wiebking Bill Tribe David Joyce Justin Kozlowski April Palin Marjie Zander Jolie Schwartz Dorthy Karr Henry Gaunaurd Chad Emigolz Rick Gordon Laura Fitzpatrick 43 Laura Divecchio Ken Kaufman Louis Keiler Ian Fisher Matt Hogan Anna Simpson Boyd Zander J.T. Mohr Emily Wilson Lydia Barhight Cecile Fosco Leslie Burke Vivian Vahlberg 414-331-4064 Mr. Schmidt indicated that he was in receipt of a request from Chair Pilant to attend the meeting electronically in accordance with the Electronic Meeting Attendance Policy. As a quorum is physically present, the Chair will be authorized to attend electronically unless a motion is made and passed by a two-thirds majority of those physically present to deny the request. Hearing no such motion, Mr. Schmidt deemed the Chair Present as a voting member. Due to the physical absence of Chair Pilant, an Acting Chair was required to be appointed. Commissioner Hackley volunteered to fill the role. Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to approve the appointment. Commissioner Ozga seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Hackley, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Mr. Schmidt declared Commissioner Hackley the Acting Chair Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acting Chair Hackley introduced the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Commissioner Joyce made a motion to approve January 21, 2026, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes and Commissioner Armstrong seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Hackley, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the January 21, 2026, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes approved. Agenda Item III. REGULAR BUSINESS a. Public Hearing to Consider the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Purpose of Constructing a New Building at 515-519 Park Drive Remanded by Village Board 44 Village Planner Michael Blue, Teska Associates, provided an overview of the application history, noting that the project has been reviewed at two Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meetings, two Plan Commission meetings, and two Village Board meetings. Mr. Blue summarized the Village Board’s decision to remand the application to both the ARC and the Plan Commission for additional review. He explained that the Village Board requested the commissions to: • Evaluate potential design modifications to mitigate the impact of the building’s height. These considerations may include, but are not limited to: o Removal of the penthouse o Adjustments to the fourth-floor setbacks o Elimination of the top floor o Exploration of a maximum building height of 40 feet • Provide feedback regarding the potential public benefits associated with the development proposal Mr. Blue also presented a brief overview of the applicant’s revised concept. The updated proposal eliminates the previously proposed commercial uses and instead consists entirely of residential units, with a maximum building height of 40 feet. The applicant, Michael Freiburger, then introduced the revised proposal in greater detail. Mr. Freiburger reviewed the feedback provided at the prior ARC meeting and summarized the various design iterations that had been considered. He presented the updated concept and discussed how, in his view, the proposal aligns with the key components of the Village’s design guidelines. Mr. Freiburger also outlined potential public benefits associated with the project. Among these was a proposed contribution toward enhancements to the Park Drive median to support its function as a community gathering space. Following the applicant’s presentation, the Commission began deliberations. Commissioner Armstrong asked several technical questions regarding floor-to-floor heights. Acting Chair Hackley acknowledged the applicant’s efforts to reduce the building height to 40 feet and stated that the overall scale was moving closer to what had been requested. He suggested further refinement of architectural elements to continue reducing perceived scale. Commissioner Ozga commented favorably on the design and expressed the view that the applicant had made meaningful efforts to reduce the building’s scale. Chair Pilant continued to express concern regarding the massing and scale of the building in relation to surrounding structures. He noted the complexity of transitioning between commercial and residential uses along the corridor. Commissioner Joyce raised concerns about setbacks along the remaining sides of the building and the potential for long, uninterrupted wall planes. Commissioner Armstrong commented on the “shed dormer” and the curved or “swooping” design element, suggesting these could be further set back to help reduce massing. He also suggested recessing the building entrance as a way to reduce perceived scale. Acting Chair Hackley stated that the building’s solid-to-void relationship helped mitigate massing concerns, a view with which Commissioner Ozga agreed. Commissioner Cepuritis stated that if the project is now exclusively residential, the design should more clearly reflect a residential character and better align with the surrounding context. He also inquired whether any portion of the building would overhang adjacent properties; Mr. Freiburger confirmed that it would not. Hearing no further discussion from the Commission, Acting Chair Hackley opened the meeting for public comment. David Joyce expressed concern regarding the application process, stating that residents did 45 not have sufficient time to review the revised concept. Eric Miller, a rear neighbor, expressed concern about the building’s height and its visual impact on his backyard, stating that he was concerned about facing a large wall. Bill Tribe raised concerns about the procedural process and suggested that the application should restart. Alice Read questioned whether the proposed public benefits justified an increase in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. Justin Kozlowski stated that the design did not fit within Kenilworth and described it as overly modern. Rob Wiebking expressed continued concerns regarding massing and the design of the rear elevation, noting that it would directly affect his view and potentially impact alley traffic. April Palin stated that the design did not align with the historic character of the Village. Jeanne Keiler raised concerns about the proposed height and the perception that developers may be permitted to exceed standards that residents must follow. Marjie Zander expressed concerns regarding the application process, as well as the size and density of the development. She also stated that, in her view, the proposal does not meet the design guidelines. Vivian Vahlberg emphasized the importance of the rear elevation design and suggested exploring whether similar residential development could extend further down Park Drive. Mr. Freiburger responded to questions and comments from both the Commission and the public. He sought clarification on specific concerns and expressed openness to exploring additional design refinements, particularly regarding the rear elevation and potential modifications to address concerns about the building’s modern character. The Commission then discussed next steps and clarified what action or feedback was being requested at this meeting. Village Attorney Megan Mack and Mr. Blue provided guidance, reiterating that the matter had been remanded to the ARC at the direction of the Village Board to obtain additional feedback on the proposal. Ms. Mack posed the following question to the Commission: Are the reduced building height and proposed design in keeping with the intent of the design guidelines for the Green Bay Road Corridor? A straw poll was conducted. The results were as follows: • Yes: Hackley • No: Joyce, Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, and Pilant Ms. Mack requested that the Commission provide specific, actionable feedback to be forwarded to the Plan Commission and Village Board. The Commission identified the following areas for further exploration: 1. The design was described as overly “crisp”; consider incorporating more traditional Tudor elements to soften the appearance. 2. If the building is exclusively residential, the architectural character should more clearly reflect a residential design while maintaining an appropriate transition along the corridor. 3. Explore alternative designs or modifications to the shed dormer. 4. Revisit the “swoop” design element to address massing concerns. 5. Consider additional step-backs for residential portions of the building. 6. Provide more detailed information regarding the rear elevations. 7. Explore reducing ceiling heights to approximately 8 feet to 8 feet 6 inches to further reduce overall building height and massing. 8. Consider recessing the lobby entrance. 9. Evaluate the incorporation of horizontal banding within the window bays. 10. Explore asymmetrical design elements to further break up the building’s mass and reduce perceived scale. 46 Hearing no further discussion, Commission Cepuritis made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Joyce seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Pilant, Hackley Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the public hearing closed. Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS None. Agenda Item IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC None. Agenda Item V. ADJOURN Acting Chair Hackley made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Joyce seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, Joyce, Pilant, Hackley Opposed: None The roll call vote was six in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 47 Attachment 5 Original Proposal Review Process Summary Summary of Architectural Review Commission Considerations – Certificate of Appropriateness Review The ARC’s initial discussion regarding the requested CoA and proposed development occurred over two meetings on October 15th and 28th of 2025. Their discussion focused on design elements, including the massing of the building in relationship with the neighboring properties, roof design, color of the building materials, garage access, and visibility of the 4 th floor trellis. The Commission considered the building design generally acceptable but found that the visual impacts and loss of light from the proposed height was not in keeping with the intent of the Business District Design Guidelines. During the public meetings, the Commission received public comments with concerns about the size and scale of the building, impacts of the development on pedestrian safety, and the overall fit of the development in the neighborhood. At the petitioner’s request, the Commission voted on the application, recommending denial (5 for denial, 1 abstention, 1 absent) of the Certificate of Appropriateness based on the presented design. The petitioner revised their designs in an attempt to address the ARC concerns, which were reflected in materials presented to the Plan Commission and Village Board, and sought to: • Soften bulk and height of building • Modify color palette to a softer/warmer tone • Integrate all mansard corners to reflect true mansard style and reduce the bulk of the building • Provide additional views/renderings from different perspectives • Add chamfered corners (notched) to garage access • Set the entrance back 2 feet to match neighboring garage apron access • Lower the trellis height by 1 foot, stepping it back from front façade Summary of Architectural Review Commission Considerations – Certificate of Appropriateness Review of Revised Proposal At the March 2, 2026 meeting, the applicant shared a further revised development that met the 40’ height special use limit and removed the retail component. This change was made with the intent of indicating how concerns over the total height of the building could be addressed. After public comment and commissioner deliberation, the Commission took an informal straw poll to identify a consensus as to whether the revised plan addressed Commission concerns about the previous submittal and met the intent of the Village’s Green Bay Road Design Guidelines. Consensus of the Commission was that the new plan did not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Feedback noted that: 1. At 40’ in height, the proposed building cannot meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. 2. As presented, the building does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines but might be able to with further refinement. 3. Determining whether the building meets the Design Guidelines requires knowing whether the building will be a mixed use or all residential development, as different design elements would be required for each of those approaches to meet the guidelines. Summary of Plan Commission Considerations – PUD Request Review 48 The Plan Commission met on December 1, 2025, and December 9, 2025, to review the preliminary PUD request. The proposal, modified following the ARC’s initial review, presented reduced bulk at the front facade through setbacks at the 2 nd and 3rd stories, a modified mansard roof design, elimination of trellises on the 4th floor facing the street, and an overall reduced building height by 2 ft. 2 in. Written public comments, as well as public comments shared at the meeting were extensive and focused on concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed height at the location, that additional traffic in the alleys would increase congestion, and that the demand for parking along Park Drive would increase, adding congestion along a narrow one-way lane. Commissioner discussion of the application reflected concerns about the proposal, mainly impacts related to building height, appearance of the portion of the building facing the alley, and failure of the request to receive a positive ARC recommendation. The Commission also noted redevelopment could support the Village’s goals to revitalize the Business District. Following discussion, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the PUD request to the Village Board (4 for denial, 2 for approval). Summary of Village Board Considerations – PUD Request Review Village Board discussion of the proposed development was consistent with that of the ARC and PC, and included: • Concern for the impact of the proposal’s height on the character of the area and impact on surrounding neighbors. • Questions regarding pedestrian and traffic safety that may result from of the project – and businesses – creating congestion on the one lane of Park Drive. • Potential benefits from the project related to adding activity to the Green Bay Road business corridor and tax revenue. As part of the discussion, the applicant answered questions about the project from the Village Board, particularly the need for the proposed height, penthouse, and potential congestion created by proposed retail element. The applicant indicated that given current market expectations, higher ceilings and the penthouse are necessary for a financially viable project. The applicant further noted that the proposed ~1,200 square feet of retail is a reduction from the existing ~8,000 square feet of retail. After extensive discussion, the Village Board determined that before making a final decision on the application, additional feedback from the ARC and PC would be valuable in their analysis of the building height (and its impact on design) and congestion/safety on Park Drive. The Village Board specifically asked the commissions to: • Evaluate possible design changes to mitigate the impact of height. This could include, but is not limited to: o Removing the penthouse o Altering the setbacks for the fourth floor o Eliminating the top floor o Explore a maximum building height of 40’ • Provide feedback on the potential public benefits the development provide 49