Agenda & Packet

There will be a special meeting of the Architectural Review Commission at Kenilworth 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 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 401 996 759# Architectural Review Commission Special Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Call to Order / Roll Call Approval of Minutes A. January 21, 2026, Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting 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 Other Business Business from the Public Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vok.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment Adjourn 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 Village Administration at 847-251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 1 VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH, IL Architectural Review Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 21, 2026 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER A regular 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 Wednesday, January 21, 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 Absent Paul Armstrong Present Paul Ozga Present Gunta Cepuritis Present Erin Paul Absent Joel Joyce Present John Pilant Absent A quorum was present. Other Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Kathy Thake Village Manager Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst Michael Blue Teska, Village Planner Others, Signing In: Maddie Zonino (Applicant) Due to the absence of Chair Pilant, an Acting Chair was required to be appointed. Commissioner Joyce 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 Opposed: None 2 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 2 January 21, 2026 Abstain: None Absent: Hackley, Pilant, Paul The roll call tally was four votes in favor, and none opposed. Mr. Schmidt declared Commissioner Joyce the Acting Chair Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acting Chair Joyce introduced the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to approve October 28, 2025, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes and Commissioner Ozga seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Hackley, Pilant, Paul The roll call tally was four votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Joyce declared the October 28, 2025, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes approved. Agenda Item III. REGULAR BUSINESS a. Public Meeting to Consider the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to Install a new Sign at 624 Green Bay Road The Village Planner, Michael Blue, introduced the item, and gave an overview of the request. Next, Mr. Blue introduced the applicant, Maddie Zonino who provided some additional context to her request. With no further discussion from the applicant, the Commission began discussing the proposed sign, requesting clarification on if the sign was for one or two separate businesses. Ms. Zonino confirmed it was two businesses sharing the space now. The Commission continued discussing the sign, and recommended spacing the two out, to help differentiate the two businesses, centering each with the lights above and portion of the trellis below. Ms. Zonino was open to the recommendation. Along with separating the two signs, the Commissioners also recommended removing the line separating the two signs and lowering its position as well. Mr. Schmidt summarized the recommended changes and confirmed they could be included in the approval as conditions. With no further discussion, Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, as requested by Maddie Zohino of Toned Yoga, to install a sign as shown in the Sign Plans prepared by J&D Instant Signs with the conditions that the signs be further separated and align with the lights or trellis, the bar separating the signs be removed, and the sign be slightly lowered. Commissioner Ozga seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis 3 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 3 January 21, 2026 Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Hackley, Pilant, Paul The roll call tally was four votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Joyce declared the motion approved. Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings of Fact from October 28, 2025 Architectural Review Commission Meeting Mr. Schmidt reviewed the item and provided additional details on the current status of the PUD application at 515-519 Park Drive. Several of the Commissioners expressed confusion over what was being requested of them. Given the confusion along with missing Commissioners, it was recommended the item be tabled to a future meeting to allow additional time for review. With no further discussion, Commissioner Armstrong made a motion to table the Findings of Fact from the October 28, 2025, meeting till a future Architectural Review Commission meeting. Commissioner Ozga seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, Opposed: Joyce Abstain: None Absent: Hackley, Pilant, Paul The roll call tally was three votes in favor, and one opposed. Acting Chair Joyce declared motion to table to item approved. Agenda Item IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC None. Agenda Item V. ADJOURN Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Paul seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, Joyce Opposed: None The voice vote was all in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Joyce declared the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 4 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 4 January 21, 2026 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 5 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: III.A Staff Contact: Michael Blue, Teska Associates Jordan Schmidt, Management Analyst Subject: Consideration of a Referral by the Village Board Regarding Further Evaluation of a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 §153.242 Certificates of Appropriateness Summary: RED3 Development LLC submitted an application for a preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) in September 2025. The request considered 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 20th 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 proposal included 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 2nd 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 garage accessed from the alley. The proposal would require the demolition of the two existing structures. Considered By: Date: Arc. Review Commission Village Board Village Board Plan Commission Plan Commission Arch. Review Commission Arch. Review Commission 03/02/26 01/26/26 01/20/26 12/09/25 12/01/25 10/28/25 10/15/25 Village of 6 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 considered the recommendations of the ARC and PC, as well as public comment at their January 20th 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. Specifically, 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 indicate how the proposed development can be more in keeping with previous input of the ARC, as well as feedback from the PC, Village Board, and community comments. Previously Proposed Building, Front Facade Summary of Architectural Review Commission – Certificate of Appropriateness Review The ARC’s previous 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 4th 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. 7 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 facade Summary of Plan Commission – PUD Request Review 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 review, presented reduced bulk at the front facade through setbacks at the 2nd 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 – PUD Request Review Village Board discussion of the proposed development was consistent with that of the ARC and PC. Prior to, and informing the motion to remand the matter to the ARC and PC for further consideration, discussion by the Village Board 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 8 the building height (and its impact on design) and congestion/safety on Park Drive. As noted above, 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 provides Revised Applicant Proposal To address the concerns about the development from the ARC, PC, Village Board, and community feedback, 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 and residential condominium clear ceiling heights make it impractical for constructing a mixed-use building of less than 44’. • 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 three full residential floors (plus 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 applicant submittal. PUD Request Summary Proposal Comparison Initial Proposal Current Proposal Location 515-519 Park Drive Same Use First floor retail, residential floors 2-4 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 9 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 addition 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 South Context Elevation Considered by Village Board (January 20th and 26th, 2026) 10 South Context Elevation Currently Proposed (March 2, 2026) Questions for Commission deliberation, based on Village Board direction to remand the matter and the proposed design changes: 1. Does the revised maximum building height of 40’ and the building’s design address Commission’s concern related to the previous proposal? 2. Are the reduced building height and proposed design in keeping with the intent of the design guidelines for the Green Bay Road Corridor? 3. Is there additional feedback on potential public benefits the development provides or should provide to the Village? Requested Action: The Architectural Review Commission is asked to consider the revised development proposal in light of: 1. The Village Board motion to remand the matter, and 2. Provide the Village Board with their judgement regarding the extent to which the revised design is in keeping with the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Next Steps: Following consideration by the ARC, the Plan Commission will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application against the PUD and Special Use standards. Upon completion of the Plan Commission’s review, both bodies’ recommendations will be forwarded to the Village Board for final action. If approved, the petitioner will begin working on Final PUD Plans, which subsequently will be reviewed by the ARC, Plan Commission, and Village Board at a future date, to ensure the final plans substantially conform to the preliminary plan. Example Motions for Consideration: I move to forward a recommendation to the Village Board, in care of the Plan Commission, to grant the approval of the request submitted by RED3 Development LLC, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new mixed-use planned unit development located at 515-519 Park Drive in accordance with the following materials: 1. Design Renderings prepared by NEWLOOK Design | Building + Development, received 10/24/25 with the following condition(s) [LIST IF ANY]. 11 Attachments: 1. Written Narratives to support Planned Unit Development Application, dated 2/24/26 2. Design Renderings prepared by NEWLOOK Design | Building + Development, received 2/13/26 3. Boundary and Topologic Survey prepared by United Survey Service, LLC dated 9/29/25, received 10/7/25 4. January 20, 2026 Village Board Packet. o https://www.vok.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01202026-746): 5. Minutes of January 20 and January 26, 2026 Village Board Meetings 6. Design Guidelines – Business District 12 newlookdevelopment.com 224.408.2280 907 Ridge Road Wilmette, IL 60091 EST. 1985 02/24/2026 Village of Kenilworth 419 Richmond Road Kenilworth, IL 60043 info@vok.org Re: 515 and 519 Park Drive - Narrative Related to the Motion to Remand and Supplemental Statements Narrative Related to the Motion to Remand Dear Village of Kenilworth, We appreciate the Village Board’s motion to remand the project to the Architectural Review Commission and Plan Commission to further evaluate design changes intended to mitigate height impacts, including exploration of a maximum building height of 40 feet and additional consideration of public benefits. Having now had the benefit of public commentary and feedback from the Architectural Review Commission, Plan Commission, and Village Board, we have carefully reassessed our proposal. One theme has been consistent throughout this process: building height is the community’s most significant concern. With that in mind, we focused our efforts primarily on the Board’s directive to explore a 40-foot maximum building height. Our original proposal incorporated ground-floor retail with three residential condominium floors above. In studying whether this program could be delivered within 40 feet, we analyzed minimum required clear ceiling heights for retail and residential use, as well as structural and mechanical requirements. Based on these objective building constraints, the minimum achievable overall height for a building with retail and three residential floors is approximately 44 feet. As a result, maintaining retail while meeting a strict 40-foot cap does not present a viable path forward. Recognizing that height has emerged as the clearest community priority, we explored a more fundamental modification. We are therefore proposing a revised scheme that removes the retail component — a significant driver of overall height and massing — while maintaining the architectural character and integrity of the development. 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 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 ☐ 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 EXISTING PLAN 17 RESIDENTIAL ONLY 18 ARC 1 19 PLANNING COMMISSION 20 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 5'-4" REDUCTION FROM ARC 1 TO ARC 3 21 PLAN UPDATES 22 ARC 1 23 ARC 2 24 VILLAGE BOARD 25 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 26 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 27 ARC 1 28 ARC 2 29 VILLAGE BOARD 30 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 31 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 32 ARC 1 33 ARC 2 34 VILLAGE BOARD 35 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 36 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 37 UPDATED FOR ARC 3 38 PLAN UPDATES 39 PLAN UPDATES 40 PLAN UPDATES 41 PLAN UPDATES 42 43 VILLAGE OF 1 2 3 KENILWORTH, IL 4 5 Village Board of Trustees 6 Meeting 7 January 20, 2026 8 9 Call to Order 10 11 President Kaz called to order the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth at 7:03 p.m. on 12 January 20, 2026, inviting all meeting participants to review the agenda available from a number of sources. 13 She then took time to address the agenda item #VB4 concerning consideration of a Request for a Planned 14 Unit Development at 515-519 Park Drive, citing procedural protocol, the Board’s desire to hear from all 15 interested parties, and asking everyone recognized by the Board to observe respectful decorum and wise 16 usage of their time allotted. 17 18 Roll Call 19 20 President Kaz requested a roll call, and the results were as follows: 21 22 Trustees: 23 Trustee Tim Ransford Present 24 Trustee Christopher Ottsen Present 25 Trustee Amy Hannus Present 26 Trustee John Gottschall present 27 Trustee Matthew Lojkovic Present 28 Trustee Joseph Vitu Present 29 President Cecily Kaz Present 30 31 32 A quorum was present in person. 33 34 Others Recorded as in Attendance: 35 Village Officials and Staff: 36 Michael Gagnon Village Clerk 37 Peter Shadek Village Treasurer 38 Kathy Thake Village Manager 39 Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager 40 Megan Mack Village Attorney 41 V V I L L A G E O F V I L L A G E O F l l a g e o f 44 Donicio Silva Village Police Chief 1 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 2 Donald Leicht Superintendent of Public Works 3 4 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 5 6 Louis Keiler Jeanne Keiler 7 Jim Lawson Patricia Corbett 8 JT Mohr Laura Divecchio 9 Sybil Benson Marjie Zander 10 Davis Hayes Vivian Vahlberg 11 Emily Wilson Eric Miller 12 Paul Ardizzoni Steve Economen 13 Mike Cottick Shamus McLaughlin 14 Vivaan Mehta Kylee Rader 15 David Rader David Joyce 16 Laura Fitzpatrick Ian Fisher 17 Anna Fisher Jeanne Malnati 18 Mark Malnati Sam Sachs 19 Rick Gordon Prathvi Hegde 20 Alice Read Anna Simpson 21 Patrick Day Kathy Kirrish 22 Greg Kirrish Jon Biasetti 23 Mike Kelly Stacey Sunderland 24 Lois Stanley 25 26 27 Approval of Minutes 28 29 President Kaz asked if there any questions or comments regarding the following minutes: 30 31 A. Village Board – December 9, 2025 32 B. Village Board – December 9, 2025 Executive Session 33 34 Hearing none, President Kaz then asked for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Trustee Lojkovic 35 so moved, and Trustee Gottschall seconded the motion. 36 37 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 38 39 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 40 41 Opposed: None 42 43 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the minutes approved. 44 45 46 47 45 Approval of the Warrant List 1 2 President Kaz asked Trustee Gottschall to report on the Warrant List. He highlighted Class B payments as 3 payroll related and Class A warrant payments for work on the ongoing Lakefront Improvement Project (LIP), 4 the Village’s Property and Casualty Insurance premium, and for the Village’s Health Insurance Program. 5 6 Hearing no further comments from the Board, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the warrants as 7 presented. Trustee Ottsen so moved, and Trustee Vitu seconded the motion to approve the Class A warrants 8 in the amount of $815,857.11 and to ratify the Class B warrants in the amount of $189,549.22. 9 10 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 11 12 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 13 14 Opposed: None 15 16 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the warrants approved and 17 ratified. 18 19 Village President’s Report 20 21 A. Beach Construction Update (Bulley and Andrews) 22 23 President Kaz began her report by apologizing for her failure to follow the meeting agenda sequence properly 24 and then introduced representatives from Bulley & Andrews LLC, a construction management firm assigned to 25 the ongoing Lakefront Improvement Project (LIP). Mr. Michael Cottick reviewed a slide presentation which 26 reviewed the present project status for safety, financial standing after the addition of an access ramp to the 27 project, pending change orders due to unforeseen construction challenges, use of project contingency funds, 28 days of work lost due to prohibitive weather conditions for outside work, and construction progress 29 submittals and pending materials procurement. He then presented the Board with photos of progress 30 achieved in the demolition and excavation phase of the project, culminating in a drone assisted video 31 presentation of the present condition of the project. 32 33 Trustees discussed the likelihood of more unforeseen construction challenges, the status of infrastructure 34 installations, the likelihood of more weather-related delays, and the status of pressures on the critical 35 completion path. Mr. Cottick and his colleague Mr. Paul Attizoni addressed those concerns to the Board’s 36 satisfaction. Hearing no further discussion among the Board, President Kaz opened the floor to questions 37 from the public. There were none. President Kaz then thanked the representatives of Bulley & Andrews for 38 their presentation and stated that this would conclude her report. 39 40 Regular Scheduled Business 41 42 President Kaz began consideration of Regular Scheduled Business by reading Items for Consideration by 43 Omnibus Vote aloud as follows: 44 45 46 A. Items for Consideration by Omnibus Vote 1 1. Resolution Authorizing the Use of the Municipal Partnering Initiative (MPI) Contractual 2 Pricing Pursuant to Government Joint Purchasing Act, 30 ILCS 525/0.01, et. seq., with 3 Advanced Tree Care for the 2026 Tree Trimming Program in the Amount of $25,000 4 5 2. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Easement Agreement with Commonwealth Edison 6 for a Relocated Vault Near 604 Green Bay Road 7 8 President Kaz then asked whether any Trustees would like to take any item out of Omnibus Consideration. 9 They did not. Trustees clarified the Easement Agreement with Commonwealth Edison. Hearing no further 10 comment from the Board, President Kaz opened this discussion to the public. Village resident Mr. David Joyce 11 questioned the need to relocate the Commonwealth Edison vault and clarified the Village’s expectation of 12 cost for doing so. Village resident Ms. Jeanne Keiler inquired about the status of this need when the property 13 was originally purchased. Village Manager Thake addressed those questions to their satisfaction. 14 15 President Kaz then asked for a motion to authorize the resolutions as stated. Trustee Ransford so moved, and 16 Trustee Ottsen seconded the motion. 17 18 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 19 20 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 21 22 Opposed: None 23 24 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the resolutions authorized. 25 26 B. Items for Consideration by Individual Vote 27 3. Presentation and a Resolution to Accept Planning Technical Assistance Services Delivered 28 by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 29 30 President Kaz then moved to Items for Consideration by Individual Vote on the agenda by asking Management 31 Analyst Jordan Schmidt to present on this item. He reviewed the history of the Village’s application for a 32 technical assistance grant from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning to assist the Village in the 33 development of a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which resulted in the receipt of $8,000 in 34 assistance. Consequent to this receipt the Village must enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with 35 CMAP to receive the service requested. Mr. Schmidt then asked Ms. Prithvi Hegde, Planner for the Chicago 36 Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) to discuss this arrangement in more detail. Ms. Hegde introduced 37 her colleague Mr. Patrick Day, Principal Planner for CMAP and then proceeded to engage the Board’s 38 attention. Ms. Hegde reviewed CMAP’s responsibilities for coordinating the planning of capital improvement 39 projects among 284 municipalities residing in 7 counties located in northeastern Illinois. Having developed a 40 broad planning outline for the future of the region, known as ON TO 2050, CMAP endeavors to coordinate the 41 pursuit of capital improvement projects among its many clients by offering technical planning assistance 42 adhering to the ON TO 2050 principles at a low cost to its applicants. Ms. Hegde described CMAP’s present 43 portfolio of over 200 ongoing CIPs as being large in size, scope or cost, having long-term usefulness and 44 47 permanence, and requiring non-recurring expenditures. The services provided by CMAP include reviewing 1 existing CIP processes the Village employs, providing recommendations to increase the capacity for the Village 2 to develop efficient and effective CIPs, assisting in the development of a 5-Year CIP and a Summary 10-YR CIP, 3 and identifying opportunities to incorporate the principles espoused in CMAP’s ON TO 2050 planning 4 guidelines. Ms. Hegde went on to describe how a CIP is used to identify, prioritize and schedule projects and 5 purchases using research on existing conditions affecting the CIP, public engagement to help prioritize 6 activities, and training workshops for staff to evaluate and maintain long-term projects. She concluded her 7 remarks by offering three steps to be taken by the Village: 1.) selecting a consultant to support the project; 2.) 8 creating a steering committee to guide community engagement throughout the project; and 3.) setting a 9 target kickoff date early in FY 2026. Trustees clarified the scope of CMAP’s ON TO 2050 guidelines and 10 services. Mr. Day and Ms. Hegde responded to these inquiries to the Board’s satisfaction. Mr. Day concluded 11 the remarks by complimenting the Village for their efforts to create a professional CIP. 12 13 President Kaz then asked for a motion to authorize the resolution as stated. Trustee Gottschall so moved, and 14 Trustee Ottsen seconded the motion. 15 16 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 17 18 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 19 20 Opposed: None 21 22 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the resolution authorized. 23 24 4. Action on the Following Items Pertaining to a Request for a Planned Unit Development at 25 515-519 Park Drive: 26 27 a) Public Hearing to Consider a Certificate of Appropriateness 28 29 President Kaz then turned to Item #B4a on the Board agenda by convening a Public Hearing to Consider a 30 Certificate of Appropriateness related to a Planned Unit Development at 515-519 Park Drive at 7:41 p.m. and 31 asking the Village Clerk to call the role. The results were as follows: 32 33 Trustees: 34 Trustee Tim Ransford Present 35 Trustee Christopher Ottsen Present 36 Trustee Amy Hannus Present 37 Trustee John Gottschall Present 38 Trustee Matthew Lojkovic Present 39 Trustee Joseph Vitu Present 40 President Cecily Kaz Present 41 42 President Kaz then asked Mr. Michael Blue, Vice President of Planning for Teska Associate, Inc. to present on 43 this item. Mr. Blue began by reviewing the process for approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that 44 requires the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). He established that the PUD was reviewed by 45 the Plan Commission (PC) which voted to recommend denial of the PUD with a vote of 4 for denial and 2 for 46 48 approval. The Certificate of Appropriateness was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) 1 which voted to recommend denial of the COA with a vote of 5 for denial, 1 abstention, and 1 absent. The final 2 decision regarding this item rests with the Village Board after the completion of the Public Hearing presently 3 in session. He reviewed four main categories of zoning regulations that impact the PUD application: 1.) 4 Permitted and Special Uses; 2.) Maximum Height Requirements; 3.) Minimum Yard Requirement; and 4.) 5 Schedule of Parking Requirements. He then reviewed specifics of the project pointing out the variance that 6 needs to be granted to approve the PUD. He then listed the four options the Board has for responding to the 7 PUD as presented: 1.) approving the Special Use Permit (SUP) and the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA); 8 2.) denying the SUP and COA; 3.) remanding consideration of the SUP and COA back to the Architectural 9 Review Commission (ARC) and/or the Plan Commission (PC) with specific instructions on aspects of the 10 requested SUP and COA for further review and consideration; or 4.) continuing to discuss the item as 11 presented among the Board. Mr. Blue then concluded his remarks. 12 13 Hearing no further discussion with Mr. Blue, President Kaz thanked him for his remarks and then invited Mr. 14 Michael Freiburger and Mr. Reed Edwards from RED3 Development, LLC, developers of the project, to present 15 on this item. Mr. Freiburger began his remarks by reviewing the process he and his colleagues have pursued 16 to bring the development concept before the Board. He turned to specific details of the proposed project, the 17 present status of the project site, and the need for a variance from the height limit for the project found in 18 the zoning code presently. He presented details of the proposed project by floor including the fourth-floor 19 penthouse that is directly affected by the height limit requirement. He reviewed efforts to minimize the 20 impact of the penthouse on sightlines, plans for a “green roof” around the living structure, plans to preserve 21 the existing tree canopy, a rendering of the architectural design from the front, from the side, and from the 22 back, as well as during the summer months, and during the winter months 23 24 Trustees commented that natural obstructions to selected sightlines do not change the fact that the building 25 will be significantly taller than surrounding structures. Mr. Freiburger continued his presentation showing 26 various renderings of the project from different perspectives to provide further context. He then reviewed 27 public documents regarding development in the area that were used to shape the dimensions of the 28 proposed SUP. To demonstrate the level of demand among real estate buyers for the project’s housing units, 29 Mr. Freiburger asked a local realtor, Ms. Laura Fitzpatrick to comment on the project’s desirability. She 30 reviewed her professional credentials and status as a long-standing Kenilworth resident. She profiled a large 31 section of the home-buying population that would find the proposed project highly desirable. Mr. Freiburger 32 concluded his remarks by describing the zoning requirements that were met with this proposed project and 33 the changes that were made in concert with the desires of the ARC, and presented a list of enhancements he 34 is willing to consider in order to convince the Board that approving the SUP would provide public benefit to 35 the Village. He concluded by reviewing less desirable development concepts that do meet all zoning 36 requirements and suggesting these would be less desirable to the Village. President Kaz thanked Mr. 37 Freiburger for his presentation and opened discussion among the members of the Board. 38 39 Trustees clarified the need for the fourth-floor penthouse to the success of the project, the parking 40 accommodations, the square footage of the retail space to be included, the approximate changes to the 41 property tax collections before and after the construction of the project, any historical precedence to 42 exceeding the 40’ variance allowed presently under the zoning code or addressing height variances using 43 setbacks, the possibility of acquiring adjacent properties, the placement of HVAC infrastructure, any traffic 44 impact studies relating to the project, the disposition of the retail space, aspects of the project’s impact on 45 shade to surrounding buildings, and commercial logistics for supporting the retail businesses. 46 47 Hearing no further discussion among the Board, President Kaz opened the discussion to the members of the 48 public. Village Attorney Mack began by swearing in all participants in accordance with the mandates of a 49 49 Public Hearing. Resident Mike Kelly of 504 Park Drive commented on the impact of the height of the building 1 on him personally, the process followed, the existence of a petition against approving the project, and the 2 importance of following zoning requirements. Resident Alice Read agreed with the previous speaker and 3 supported denying the height variance as being out of step with the Village character. Resident Anna Simpson 4 of 336 Sterling Road and member of the Kenilworth Plan Commission voiced her support of the project and 5 asked the Board to give the process more time for the participants to negotiate for changes that would be 6 acceptable to both sides. 7 8 Resident Greg Kirrish of 524 Melrose Avenue for over 30 years provided examples of individual real estate 9 transactions that impacted changes to the zoning code during that time that have resulted in an increase of 10 property values for surrounding properties. He urged the Board to stay within those established rules. 11 Resident Kathy Kirrish of 524 Melrose spoke about the traffic consequences of the increased residential 12 density in the area which will make the area less safe. Resident David Joyce of 534 Wayland Avenue reviewed 13 his personal history with the Village of Kenilworth and related it to the origins of the zoning restrictions 14 designed to keep Kenilworth a quiet residential community. He thought the project would make too high an 15 impact on the density of the Village and urged the Board to follow the recommendation of the ARC and PC by 16 denying the request of the developer. Resident Eric Miller of 522 Melrose reviewed his 58-year history of 17 living in the Village and supporting the bird population. He expressed satisfaction with many Village initiatives 18 but felt the proposed PUD would threaten the harmony of supporting the Village’s natural habitat and was 19 not in keeping with the it’s residential character. Resident Jeanne Keiler of 551 Park Drive urged the Board to 20 consider safety concerns more carefully citing personal experience to demonstrate the existing pressures on 21 parking and traffic and suggesting the proposed PUD will only worsen the problem. She felt there should be 22 greater scrutiny of the potential impact of the PUD on traffic and safety. 23 24 Resident Mark Malnati of 442 Warwick expressed support for the PUD citing how attractive it would be to him 25 as a potential residence allowing him to address existing health concerns while enabling him and his wife to 26 continue to live in close proximity to extended family. He related a personal experience with a similar project 27 requiring a zoning variance that had a satisfactory outcome and felt the PUD as proposed would too. 28 Resident Ian Fisher of 142 Abingdon expressed support for the present effort to improve the Village’s housing 29 stock. He suggested that the current economic forces affecting the feasibility of a project that could satisfy 30 existing zoning restrictions could change in the future and urged the Board to be patient when considering a 31 variance to overcome those present economic realities. Resident Lois Stanley urged the Board to continue 32 pursuing the process of working within the present zoning restrictions. Resident Marjie Zander expressed 33 concern about the “findings of fact” included in the PUD application that could nullify its qualification for a 34 variance. She expressed support for following the zoning code as it presently exists. Louis Keiler of 551 Park 35 Drive clarified the author of “findings of fact” in the PUD application suggesting that they were insufficient. 36 Resident Emily Wilson at 415 Sterling did not support the variance application because of concerns about 37 height violations, density, safety, and incompatibility with Kenilworth’s residential character. This concluded 38 the public comment period for the public hearing. 39 40 Hearing no further discussion, President Kaz requested a motion to close the public hearing. Trustee Ottsen 41 so moved, and Trustee Vitu seconded the motion. 42 43 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 44 45 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 46 47 Opposed: None 48 49 50 The roll call tally was 6 votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the public hearing closed at 1 9:17 p.m. 2 3 President Kaz then turned to Item #B4b on the Board agenda. 4 5 b) Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit to RED3 Development LLC for a 6 Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Approving a Certificate of 7 Appropriateness 8 9 After Village Attorney Mack reviewed the options available to the Board for action on this item which 10 included: 1.) approving the Special Use Permit (SUP) and the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA); 2.) denying 11 the SUP and COA; 3.) remanding consideration of the SUP and COA back to the Architectural Review 12 Commission (ARC) and/or the Plan Commission (PC) with specific instructions on aspects of the requested SUP 13 and COA for further review and consideration; or 4.) continuing to discuss the item as presented among the 14 Board. President Kaz turned to the Board members for comments. Trustees acknowledged the input of 15 specialized commissions like ARC and PC, the developers of the project, and resident input. They echoed 16 concern for careful judgment when considering the approval of development proposals in general, and those 17 requiring a variation from the Village’s Zoning Code in particular. They recognized the careful consideration 18 undertaken by both the ARC and PC and the resulting recommendation by both groups to deny the 19 application for variance. They went on to describe concern about striking a potential imbalance between 20 providing a benefit to the developer by granting the zoning variance without receiving a requisite benefit in 21 the best interests of the Village. They expressed a frustration with the pace of development in the Village and 22 acknowledged the developer’s expressed desire to make whatever economically feasible changes to the 23 project he could to gain the Board’s approval of the SUP and COA. A consensus was reached to continue 24 discussion among the Board regarding the specific instructions on aspects of the requested SUP and COA for 25 further review and consideration by the ARC and/or the PC that will be included when the item is remanded 26 back to them. An upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for January 26, 2026, recast as a 27 Special Meeting of the Board, was identified as the forum for this discussion. President Kaz recognized 28 resident Jeanne Keiler who sought clarification of the finding of facts referred to in the SUP and COA request. 29 Village Attorney Mack addressed those concerns. Resident David Joyce asked for clarification on public 30 participation during this Special Meeting. Village Attorney Mack addressed those concerns. President Kaz 31 reminded meeting participants that they are always welcome to write to the Board to express any concerns 32 they have. 33 34 Hearing no further discussion, President Kaz asked for a motion to continue the discussion of this item among 35 the Board at a Special Meeting scheduled for January 26, 2026 at 6:00 pm. Trustee Vitu so moved, and 36 Trustee Ransford seconded the motion. 37 38 A voice vote was taken as follows: 39 40 For: A majority 41 42 Opposed: A minority 43 44 51 President Kaz declared the motion adopted. 1 2 President Kaz then turned to reports from staff and asked Police Chief Silva to address the Board. 3 4 Report from Staff 5 A. Community Development 6 B. Finance 7 C. Police 8 9 Chief Silva reviewed his monthly report on police activity for the prior month. These included traffic safety in 10 the school area of the Village, home security surveillance, and community engagement. There was no 11 significant criminal activity to report for this time period. He announced changes he will be making to the 12 tabulation of police activity statistics going forward and reviewed staffing developments and professional 13 training activity. 14 D. Public Works 15 There was nothing to report. 16 E. Legal Counsel 17 There was nothing to report 18 F. Village Manager 19 Village Manager Thake reviewed payment activity of property taxes due the Village from Cook County. 20 21 Business from the Public 22 23 President Kaz asked whether there was any business from the public on items not on the agenda. There was 24 none. 25 26 Adjourn 27 28 Having no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Lojkovic so 29 moved, and Trustee Ottsen seconded the motion. 30 31 A voice vote was taken as follows: 32 33 For: All 34 35 Opposed: None 36 37 President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. 38 39 52 VILLAGE OF 1 2 KENILWORTH, IL 3 4 Village Board Special Meeting 5 January 26, 2026 6 7 Call to Order 8 9 President Kaz called to order the Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth at 7:00 10 p.m. on January 26, 2026. 11 12 Roll Call 13 14 President Kaz then requested that the Clerk call the roll and the results were as follows: 15 16 Trustees: 17 Trustee Tim Ransford Present 18 Trustee Christopher Ottsen Present* (Remote, Voting) 19 Trustee Amy Hannus Present 20 Trustee John Gottschall Present 21 Trustee Matt Lojkovic Present 22 Trustee Joseph Vitu Present 23 President Cecily Kaz Present 24 25 *Trustee Ottsen experienced audio difficulties and re-established connection at 6:13 pm. 26 27 The Board was in receipt of a request from Trustee Ottsen to attend the meeting electronically in accordance 28 with the Electronic Meeting Attendance Policy. As a quorum physically was present, the Trustee will be 29 authorized to attend electronically unless a motion is made and passed by a two-thirds majority of those 30 physically present to deny the request. Hearing no such motion, the Trustee was deemed Present as a voting 31 member. 32 33 A quorum was present in person and via video conference. 34 35 Others recorded as in attendance in person or via video conference: 36 37 Village Officials and Staff: 38 Michael Gagnon Village Clerk 39 Kathy Thake Village Manager 40 Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager 41 Greg Jones Village Attorney 42 Donicio Silva Chief of Police 43 53 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 1 Molly Burns Management Analyst 2 3 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 4 5 Jeanne Keiler Rob Wiebking 6 Eric Miller Bill Tribe 7 Matthew Reuter Mike Kelly 8 Anna Simpson David Joyce 9 Dave Olbrisch Alice Read 10 April Palin Ian Fisher 11 Bob Dold Rich Gordon 12 Laura Fitzpatrick Danielle Dold 13 Chad Engle Drew Paul 14 Laura Divecchio Lois Stanley 15 Justin Mohr NL 16 Louis Keiler Margie Zander 17 David Rader 18 19 President Kaz introduced consideration of Regular Scheduled Business. 20 21 Regular Scheduled Business 22 23 A. Presentation and Discussion – Green Bay Road Enhancement Project 24 25 President Kaz reviewed the recent discussions regarding the ongoing Green Bay Road Enhancement Project 26 (GBREP) and felt that a reiteration of the history and goals for this project would be constructive. She then 27 asked Village Manager Kathy Thake and Assistant to the Village Manager Heather McFardland to present on 28 this agenda item. 29 30 Manager Thake reviewed the 20-year history of the GBREP and its focus on safety, parking, and economic 31 vitality. Ms. McFarland cited the Village of Kenilworth Comprehensive Plan authored in 2008, the Green Bay 32 Road Conceptual Transportation and Streetscape Plan ( “Streetscape Plan” ) submitted to the Board in 33 October 2013, the Visioning Process conducted in 2021, and the 2023-2024 Enhancement Study as providing 34 many of the ideas and concepts regarding the GBREP presently. In 2023, the villages of Kenilworth and 35 Winnetka entered into a joint agreement with Ciorba Group, Inc., an engineering consulting firm, to initiate a 36 study of Green Bay Road between Kenilworth Avenue and Winnetka Road. The purpose of the study was to 37 explore the feasibility and desirability of roadway reconfiguration concepts and identify streetscape 38 enhancements before pursuing a formal project plan with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). 39 Staff from both communities worked with Ciorba to develop potential concepts inspired by the Streetscape 40 Plan to share with residents. In 2024, several open houses were held to gather public input on potential 41 streetscape and alignment concepts for Green Bay Road. Ciorba subsequently submitted a recommendation 42 to the Village in September 2024. The Village Board directed staff to proceed forward with Ciorba’s 43 recommended path. The goals for the GBREP presently are as follows: 44 45 • Improved safety (e.g. reduced lanes, slowed traffic, crosswalks) 46 54 • Improved walkability (e.g. wider sidewalks, crosswalks) 1 • Increased parking (e.g. diagonal parking) 2 • Beautification (e.g. landscaped bump-outs, trees) 3 • Places to gather (e.g. wider sidewalks for outdoor dining) 4 5 During this time period there were many improvements made that were aligned with these goals including 6 the Sterling Road realignment in 2019, the Richmond Road parking area in 2020, pedestrian safety 7 improvements in 2021 and 2022, the development opportunity at 604 Green Bay Road, a variety of Zoning 8 Code amendments, and initiating an ongoing program for adding decorative planters on Village walkways in 9 2024. 10 11 Manager Thake continued the discussion of additional enhancement concepts including a reduction of traffic 12 lanes on Green Bay Road, the widening of pedestrian sidewalks, the addition of bike lanes, the installations of 13 protective “bump outs” in areas where diagonal parking was configured. She assured the Board that final 14 decisions around any of these alternatives have yet to be made. She then outlined the three phases of 15 pursuing a project involving IDOT, the agency with ultimate responsibility for any changes to Green Bay Road. 16 She was seeking the Board’s approval of a Phase 1 engineering study conducted by Ciorba in cooperation with 17 the Village’s Department of Public Works to provide a more precise engineering analysis of potential 18 enhancement alternatives, an in-depth traffic and safety review, and to enable staff to engage Village 19 residents for feedback and suggestions. Approved enhancement possibilities would then be submitted to 20 IDOT for approval to enter into Phases 2 and 3 of the GBREP. She reviewed the duration, the estimated cost, 21 and the impact on Village budgeting of Phase 1 and went on to briefly describe Phases 2 and 3 of the IDOT 22 process suggesting that construction of any plans would not commence until roughly FY 2030. She suggested 23 that the likelihood of obtaining substantive financial relief through outside grants was high and staff intended 24 to pursue those possibilities aggressively. 25 26 Trustees discussed the need for land acquisition, the status of the Village of Winnetka’s participation in this 27 process, the prioritization of the multiple goals listed for the project, the process and cost for achieving 28 approval of plans from IDOT, the use of Tax Increment Funds for this project, and identified all stakeholders in 29 the project. Hearing no further discussion from the Board, President Kaz opened the floor to comment from 30 the public. 31 32 Resident Lois Stanley asked for clarification of the possible transfer of ownership of Green Bay Road from 33 IDOT to the Village of Kenilworth. Resident David Joyce expressed concern about the impact on parking in the 34 area. Resident Bill _____requested more information to help stakeholders choose among multiple options for 35 GBREP. Resident Jeanne Keiler related anecdotal information concerning parking and traffic concerns and 36 asked the Board to consider them during their deliberations on this project. Resident David Rader expressed 37 support for the GBREP and looked forward to participating in the public discussion when appropriate. With 38 no further discussion, the Board gave its approval to Manager Thake to pursue a Phase 1 Study for IDOT to be 39 conducted by Ciorba Group, Inc. with costs shared by the Villages of Kenilworth and Winnetka. 40 41 Old Business 42 43 55 President Kaz then turned the Board’s attention to a matter first considered at the Board of Trustees meeting 1 held on January 20, 2026 and continued for further consideration presently. 2 3 B. Ordinance Approving of a Certificate of Appropriateness and Granting a Special Use Permit to 4 RED3 Development LLC for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (Continued from January 5 20, 2026) 6 7 President Kaz reviewed the discussion of this item that took place at the regularly scheduled Board of 8 Trustees meeting on January 20, 2026, highlighting the events occurring during the Public Hearing conducted 9 that evening which included a presentations by the Village Planning Consultant as well as representatives of 10 RED3 Development LLC (RED3), and concluding with public testimony on the item. It was decided at that time 11 to continue the discussion among the Board before choosing among three options available to the Board to 12 respond to the zoning code variance requested in the PUD proposed by RED3. She then reviewed the options 13 the Board has for responding to the PUD as presented: 1.) approving the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) 14 and granting the Special Use Permit (SUP); 2.) denying the COA and the SUP; 3.) remanding consideration of 15 the COA and SUP back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and/or the Plan Commission (PC) with 16 specific instructions on aspects of the requested COA and/or SUP for further review and consideration. 17 Before opening the floor to Board members to resume their deliberations, President Kaz assured meeting 18 participants that there would be time devoted during the meeting for registering further public comment on 19 the item. 20 21 At Manager Thake’s suggestion, the Board’s discussion began with a review by Village Attorney Jones of 22 “findings of fact” associated with PUD request. Attorney Jones stated that there were three sets of “finding of 23 facts”. One set, authored by the Architectural Review Commission addresses the COA. Another set, authored 24 by the Plan Commission addresses the SUP. And a third set, authored by Village staff addresses both the COA 25 and the SUP. Reflecting their recommendations to deny the PUD variance request, the ARC and PD findings of 26 fact present negative aspects of the request. Findings of fact prepared by staff present a draft of positive 27 aspects of the request for consideration by the Board in the instance of approval. While the Board is expected 28 to take all of these presentations under advisement, it is not bound by findings of fact from any one source. 29 Trustees clarified the impact of the three decision options under consideration, the preliminary status of the 30 PUD request, the process the applicant would follow to submit an alternative proposal, and the nature of 31 recommendations that should accompany a decision to remand. They went on to examine the 2022 Village 32 Vision Statement for the Green Bay Road Corridor and offered opinions regarding how the PUD variance 33 request aligns with it, discussed the weight to be given to ARC and PC recommendations, declared the 34 importance of attracting development to the Village, opined on the attractiveness of the PUD and the lack 35 development in recent years, discussed the prospects for development in the future and strategies for 36 encouraging development, offered suggestions for changes to the PUD, reviewed the origins of the zoning 37 requirements that prompted the PUD variance request, clarified the scope of options related to each of the 38 three resolutions available to the Board, and took time to indicate individually which of three decision options 39 they would most likely support. At the behest of the Board, Attorney Jones reviewed the timeframe for when 40 the process of reviewing the PUD variance request would expire, clarified, in the case of a decision to remand, 41 the nature of recommendations to be made to ARC and PC. At the behest of the Board, Manager Thake 42 reviewed a recent meeting of the Zoning Code Update Workgroup, the subject of which was the appropriate 43 56 height requirements for a Zoning Code generally. Plan Commissioner Anna Simpson was recognized to discuss 1 the aspects of new construction that are attractive to retail businesses. She suggested that market demands 2 by these businesses with regard to space height combined with market demands by individuals with regard to 3 the height of residential development, will challenge the ability of developers to offer both and still comply 4 with the Village Zoning Code’s existing height limits. 5 6 President Kaz stated that engaging in the PUD discussion during a time when the Village is undergoing a 7 comprehensive overhaul of its zoning code complicates deliberations. Making a decision bound by zoning 8 code restrictions that might change in the near future could result in stifling a possible development 9 opportunity unnecessarily. That notwithstanding, the PUD developer deserves a prompt response under 10 existing zoning regulations and processes. She pointed out that design specifications for the PUD which the 11 Board are reviewing presently differ from those that were denied by the ARC and PC. She suggested the Board 12 might pursue a consensus around a motion to remand the item to the ARC with instructions to review revised 13 design specifications that could eliminate the need for a height variance and open the possibility for a change 14 in their recommendation regarding the PUD. Attorney Jones suggested that these same changes should be 15 reviewed by the PC for a similar reaction. Trustees clarified with Attorney Jones the language to be used for 16 these instructions specifically regarding the height of the structure and its contribution to the public good. 17 After a discussion of outcomes from this strategy, President Kaz invited the developer to comment on the 18 current discussion. Michael Freiberger and Reed Edwards of RED3 indicated that design changes to the 19 present PUD that could eliminate the need for a height variance and open the possibility for a change in their 20 recommendation regarding the PUD are unlikely. They went on to exhibit a heightened sensitivity to serving 21 the public benefit, suggested additional efforts they could make, and reviewed the history of the process 22 RED3 followed prior to reaching the Board that could impact the decisions made by the ARC and PD should 23 the item be remanded. Trustees clarified their position relative to possible language to be used in a motion to 24 remand. 25 26 President Kaz asked for more discussion of what motion could be made that a Board consensus could accept 27 and opened the floor for comment from the public. Resident Mike Kelly expressed frustration with the 28 process available to variance petitioners and felt rules set in place to manage this process were being broken. 29 He cited aspects of project duration, child safety, population density, and the lack of direction as to tenants 30 for the retail space to be built as being overlooked, making the PUD proposed unworkable. Resident Jeanne 31 Keiler cited actions taken by the developer during the approval process which she felt undermined public 32 acceptance of the proposed PUD and commented that public participation in ARC and PD meetings on this 33 matter was not given a time limit. She reviewed the history of occupancy for the Park Drive properties and 34 expressed frustration that the properties in question are not being properly marketed for alternative uses. 35 She then expressed skepticism of claims that a PUD conforming to present zoning regulations was financially 36 unfeasible. President Kaz thanked Ms. Keiler for her comments and took time to reiterate that the present 37 public comment period should be focused specifically on the Board’s deliberation of the three options 38 available to them regarding the PUD as previously stated. In the interest of having time to hear all who have 39 comments to make, she reminded commenters to summarize their thoughts on the topic as stated, and to 40 keep their commentary under three minutes long. Resident David Joyce reviewed his personal history with 41 the Village of Kenilworth as both an observer and a resident, He described the attributes of the Village that he 42 saw as the strongest as being antithetical to aggressive development. He suggested that proponents of 43 57 development in general and this PUD in particular were pursuing greater property tax revenue which would 1 benefit the limited Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District in the Village disproportionately to the whole of 2 Kenilworth. He felt that there were Village priorities outside of the TIF District that would be neglected. He 3 concluded his comments by reviewing his recent history of property tax assessments which led him to 4 conclude that Kenilworth receives enough tax revenue already and does not need to promote development to 5 receive more. 6 7 Resident Ian Fisher, a member of the Plan Commission, acknowledged the existence of two reasonable 8 primary perspectives to be considered: From residents who are focused on scale, density, and neighborhood 9 character and from a developer who is trying to make a project economically viable subject to physical and 10 regulatory constraints. These perspectives are at odds and need to be reconciled. He encouraged the Board to 11 be realistic about the choices available for reconciling them. He suggested that because the community has 12 taken time to express support for addressing vacant space in the business district through development in the 13 Village, an outright denial of the request was not a neutral position for the Board to take. He expressed 14 skepticism that alternative development concepts that satisfy zoning restrictions would provide an outcome 15 that a majority of residents would prefer over the PUD in question. He offered a definition of “the public 16 good” in this case as keeping density and scale down while still achieving development, while at the same 17 time, recognizing that there is a cost to not developing the site at all. He wondered if a narrow-tailored, time-18 limited tax incentive could be a way for the Village to incent the developer to propose a three-story, lower 19 density project that was economically feasible but does not violate height restrictions in the zoning code. The 20 Village would be investing in outcomes that they prefer rather than defaulting to outcomes that technically 21 comply with regulations but don’t reflect present neighborhood priorities. He hoped that framing the 22 discussion in this manner could lead to reconciling those conflicting perspectives more acceptably. 23 24 Resident Anna Simpson, also a member of the Plan Commission, encouraged the Board to vote to remand in 25 order to consider some of the ideas raised by the previous speaker, Mr. Fisher. She expressed support for 26 changes that would enhance the public benefit of the project, and a willingness to address the height variance 27 constructively. She felt that the Village should be more aggressive around negotiating terms for approval of 28 the variance that enhances the spaces afforded to Village residents. She advised the Board to vote to remand 29 the variance request to the PC with instructions for it to find ways to enhance the public benefit derived from 30 an approved PUD request. Resident Mathew Reuter of 708 Roger Avenue voiced support for the project and 31 suggested there are ways to improve it. He related personal history during his time as a resident that stoked 32 his enthusiasm for development in the Village and his subsequent disappointment in the lack of progress in 33 that area. He urged the Board to remand the item to the ARC and PC for further refinement. Resident Rob 34 Wiebking of 526 Melrose did not support the project and did not want the Board to remand the item without 35 a height maximum of 35 feet as stipulated in the zoning code. He felt that pursuit of development in business 36 district was misguided and expressed pleasure with its current configuration. He felt people did not move to 37 Kenilworth to experience aggressive development. 38 39 Resident Rick Gordon of 530 Melrose Ave. expressed concern about the size and scale of the PUD as 40 presented. He asked the Board to seek a better balance between prevailing retail space desires and the limits 41 of lot size and configuration in the Green Bay Road business district. He did not think the PUD as proposed 42 was a realistic addition given those constraints. Resident April Palin reviewed her history of living in 43 58 Kenilworth and how she likes the present condition of the business district. She urged the Board to restrict 1 any new development to the 35-foot height restriction listed in the zoning code. Resident Tyler _____ of 2 Earlston Road expressed support for development generally but did not support the PUD, as proposed, as 3 keeping with the character of the Village. Resident Bo Palin reviewed the number of extended family 4 members living in Kenilworth and expressed concern about the impact of the proposed PUD on them. He did 5 not believe there was a clear public benefit for granting the variance for the project. Alice Read of 546 6 Melrose Avenue thanked the Board for taking the time to listen to public comments. She recounted the 7 history of a discussion had in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin about development she felt was germane to the PUD 8 discussion. In 2005, officials of that village granted a variance to their zoning code which resulted in four-9 story condominium building that residents now regret being granted. She felt granting RED3 a variance would 10 be a source of regret for Kenilworth residents in the future. She asked the Board to deny the variance 11 request. 12 13 Resident Danielle Dold recounted her extended family involvement in the Village of Kenilworth. She 14 expressed support for development but felt the 35-foot height limitation should be enforced and without that 15 stipulation, the Board should not remand the item for further consideration. Resident Dave Olbrisch felt that 16 the Board should not engage in granting financial incentives to developers asking for zoning variances, that 17 there was not sufficient contribution to the public good to grant the variance, and that granting the variance 18 could lead to litigation in the future. Resident Paul O’Connor at 550 Melrose Avenue supported denying the 19 variance and asked the Board to consider the impact of granting the variance on development of adjacent 20 properties. He advocated using TIF funds to incent the developer to reconfigure his project using adjacent 21 properties that would otherwise be undevelopable and still comply with the zoning code. He felt the 22 likelihood that a reduced project could still be viable economically was high. Resident Lois Stanley felt a 23 compliant project was possible and urged the Board to not grant the variance. Resident Margie Zander felt a 24 project with a fourth floor is a non-starter and advocated starting over with a new project that complies with 25 the zoning code that the Village might help finance. 26 27 President Kaz noted the contributions from two members of the Plan Commission and the introduction of the 28 concept of the Village investing in a compliant project that best meets everyone’s concerns. She 29 characterized the instructions to be included, should the Board choose to remand to the ARC, as soliciting 30 changes that would soften the impact of the height variance as it presently exists, acknowledged some 31 trustees are not in support of any project configuration that includes a fourth floor, and noted calls for 32 remanding the request to the PC for a further examination of the public benefit achievable from the project. 33 Trustees clarified with Attorney Jones the ability of the Board to use TIF District funds to subsidize the 34 developer, reiterated their unwillingness to approve a project that includes a fourth floor and their support 35 for one that observes the 35-foot limit, and clarified with Attorney Jones the impact on the status of the 36 proposal of choosing among the three options available to the Board. Upon being recognized by President 37 Kaz, the developer expressed a willingness to make changes that work for the Village and requested as much 38 substantive feedback as possible. Attorney Jones then offered guidance as to the phrasing of any motion 39 made. 40 41 Hearing no further discussion, President Kaz asked for a motion from the Board. Trustee Gottschall moved to 42 remand the item to the Architectural Review Commission and Plan Commission to evaluate possible design 43 changes to mitigate the impact of height, including and without limitation, removing the penthouse, altering 44 59 the setbacks for the fourth floor, eliminating the top floor, and reaching a maximum building height of 40’. 1 And to solicit additional feedback on potential public benefits the development provides the Village. Trustee 2 Vitu seconded the motion. 3 4 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 5 6 For: Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu, Kaz 7 8 Opposed: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus 9 10 The roll call tally was four votes in favor, and three opposed. President Kaz declared the motion approved. 11 12 Business from the Public 13 14 President Kaz then asked whether there was any business from the public. Resident Lois Stanley asked for 15 clarification of the directions given to the ARC and PC to consider when agenda Item III. B. is remanded back 16 to them. Attorney Jones addressed this to her satisfaction. 17 18 Adjourn 19 20 With no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Lojkovic so 21 moved, and Trustee Gottschall seconded the motion. 22 23 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 24 25 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 26 27 Opposed: None 28 29 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. 30 31 President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. 32 33 34 60 Kenilworth Design Guidelines Business District Adopted: April 29, 2013 61 A. Architectural Style and Considerations B. Placement and Orientation C. Building Height D. Building Materials E. Facades F. Doors and Entrances G. Windows and Bays H. Roofs and Dormers I. Awnings and Canopies J. Lighting K. Parking, Overhead Doors and Service Areas L. Other Considerations 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 2. DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Contents A. Statement of Purpose B. Village History and Character C. Desired Development Character and Pattern D. Scope of Application and Review Process 4 5 6 8 1. INTRODUCTION Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates2 62 Introduction A. Statement of Purpose B. Village History and Character C. Desired Development Character and Pattern D. Scope of Application and Review Process 4 5 6 8 4 5 6 8 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 3 63 The primary objectives of the Kenilworth Business Dis- trict Design Guidelines are to: (1) help transform those properties located along Green Bay Road and Park Drive in the Village’s Business District into a vibrant and attrac- tive mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented district reflecting the Village’s overall character and quality; (2) maximize the Village’s opportunities to diversify and strengthen its tax base by enhancing property values in the Business District as well as revenue opportunities; (3) ensure that adjacent residential neighborhoods are respected; (4) encourage design that provides friendly, safe multi-modal transporta- tion access to the Business District; and (5) promote new development and rejuvenation within the Business Dis- trict. In community workshops conducted as part of the Com- prehensive Planning process, the residents of Kenilworth expressed a strong desire for an attractive Green Bay Road commercial area and a comfortable “pedestrian en- vironment.” Specifically, the combination of architecture, signage, lighting, paving materials, landscaping and street furnishings should create a friendly and safe environment for residents, commuters, and business patrons alike, thereby increasing protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The intent of these Business District Design Guidelines is to further the vision of the Comprehensive Plan by providing a standard for evaluating proposed commercial, mixed-use, multiple-family and institutional development in the Business District. These guidelines require that proposed designs create a contextual relationship with the Village character. The goal of these guidelines is to foster desired new development that helps achieve the Village’s expressed vision for its Business District. It is also the intent of these Design Guidelines to support the Village’s earlier vision of an architecturally cohesive business district in the English-inspired architectural style of the 1920s so as to promote redevelopment of the busi- ness district into a vibrant and attractive commercial area, which aesthetically complements the architecture of the Village’s residential districts. 1A. statement of Purpose 4 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 64 The Village of Kenilworth has a rich architec- tural history dating from the English-inspired vision of Joseph Sears in 1889. Kenilworth’s streets and homes were designed by the greatest planners and architects of their time, including planner/architect Franklin Burnham, architect George Maher and landscape architect Jens Jensen. The Village contains houses designed by a number of esteemed architects, including a significant collec- tion of buildings by George Maher, a contemporary of Frank Lloyd Wright. Maher lived in Kenilworth and saw nearly 40 of his designs constructed be- tween 1893 and 1926. As a village planner, he also fashioned the limestone pillars that mark the Sheri- dan Road entrances to the Village, and the town’s central fountain. Consistent with the over all English theme of the Vil- lage, Kenilworth’s buildings are strongly influenced by the English architects of the Arts and Crafts movement and other designs that reference the Prai- rie School. Kenilworth’s distinctive stone commuter train station built in 1890, its numerous European- influenced residences, and its Old English-style street lamps and park-like setting continue to evoke the pastoral image of an earlier time and vision of community. The English theme of the early Village architec- ture became the design foundation of the business district. The present Business District was created in the 1920’s when the area west of Green Bay Road was annexed. Seeking a general style of architecture for the new Business District, the Village established an architectural commission whose recommendation of “the English style of architecture” was intended to be the District’s future identity. 1B. Village history and character 5Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 65 The revitalization of the Business District, pro- vides Kenilworth with the opportunity to reinforce its strong history and commitment to quality archi- tecture. The Village encourages new construction that complements the traditional architectural styles evident within many homes and prized buildings found in the Village. Moreover, because the major- ity of the Business District abuts residential districts, the size, scale and architectural compatibility of the buildings in the Business District with those in the residential districts are important. The Village seeks to establish and maintain high quality design and construction in its Business Dis- trict with development that is attractive and consis- tent with a pedestrian-oriented character. Whether a proposed project is for new development or an improvement to an existing building or landscape, it is important that each proposal enhances the con- textual character of its surroundings and contributes positively to the goals of the community while also respecting the existing adjacent residential neigh- borhoods. Standardized, formulaic, non-regional architecture and architectural features used primar- ily for advertising purposes are not allowed. The most prominent existing architectural style in the Business District is English Tudor as represented in the signature building at the corner of Green Bay Road and Park Drive. This commercial building has a heavy masonry base with the upper floors articu- lated by timber and stucco bays and punched win- dows. Renovation and new development should be of an architectural style compatible with the existing prominent Tudor, Tudor Revival, or other historic English-influenced designs. In the limited instances where renovation should be considered, the Village encourages improvements that lead to a design which is consistent with the desired architectural style outlined above. For those existing buildings with a quality design of another period that is not Tudor, Tudor Revival, or other his- toric English-influenced designs, the building may be renovated to be consistent with the style in which it was originally built. Successful and thriving walkable commercial dis- tricts are characterized by continuous rows of mixed use buildings constructed at the front property line. This development pattern creates a distinctive “streetwall” that adds visual interest, enhances the pedestrian environment, and establishes a pedes- trian scale within an area. Building placement and orientation objectives in these guidelines strive to create this development pattern throughout the Business District. 1c. Desired Development character and Pattern 6 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 66 1c. Desired Development character and Pattern 1c. Desired Development character and Pattern (continued) Although not always possible or practical, providing building or site design elements at the property line is encouraged, and noticeable gaps or other discon- tinuities at the streetwall are discouraged. Land- scaping, landscape hedges, and low masonry walls should be considered where gaps in the streetwall exist. The building placement is an important consider- ation in maintaining pedestrian comfort. Attention should be paid to all existing streetscape/pedes- trian zones to ensure that those created by future development continue to provide for safe, efficient pedestrian-friendly movement for Business District users. T o maintain an active pedestrian environ- ment, buildings should be oriented toward streets and sidewalks. In general, the Business District public parkway character is that of a paved streetscape pedestrian zone. The Village encourages street trees and un- derstory plantings as outlined in these guidelines. Finally, existing and new developments should preserve existing trees and minimize disruptions through grade changes or installation of under- ground utilities and structures. Tree planting in the public way and/or on adjacent setbacks should extend and complement the existing street character or establish a character if none exists. 7Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 67 1D. scope of Application and review Process The Business District includes properties situ- ated along the Green Bay Road corridor, as well as the commercial properties along the north side of Park Drive. These guidelines shall apply to all development, public or private, within the Busi- ness District, as designated on the Kenilworth Zoning Map, pursuant to the Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance, 1969, as amended. The Architectural Review Commission has the authority to review and grant certificates of appro- priateness for the erection, construction, altera- tion or repair of any building or structure in the Business District in accordance with Section 17.2 and 17.3 of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance. The Architectural Review Commission is given the authority to review and approve the exterior design for new commercial and multi-family development and redevelopment including fa- çade architecture and materials, colors, lighting, awnings, signage, and landscaping. The Archi- tectural Review Commission will review proposed projects relative to the appearance of any structure and site improvements to ensure that the exterior design, materials, and colors maintain the ap- propriate aesthetic relationships and standards of design. As part of the review, the Architectural Re- view Commission may recommend specific design conditions and limitations regarding architecture, awnings, signage, lighting, landscaping, screen- ing or other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of the Village regulations. The Architec- tural Review Commission considers effects upon adjacent properties or improvements in the vicin- ity of the property that is the subject of the appli- cation for a certificate of appropriateness. 8 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 68 The Design Guidelines are to be used as a framework by Village staff, the Architec- tural Review Commission, and others, as processes require, in reviewing plans and proposals for the Business District. The Design Guidelines are to be used by the Village and Business District owners, developers, and businesses to advise and encourage Business District merchants and property owners in the improvement and redevelopment process. The Design Guidelines are to be distrib- uted to property owners and prospective designers and developers as a statement of the Village’s desires and preferences re- garding Business District redevelopment. They are to be used as a reference by developers and architects as they prepare plans for redevelopment projects. 1D (continued). Application of Design guidelines 1. 2. 3. 9Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 69 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates10 70 Design Guidelines A. Architectural Style and Considerations B. Placement and Orientation C. Building Height D. Building Materials E. Facades F. Doors and Entrances G. Windows and Bays H. Roofs and Dormers I. Awnings and Canopies J. Lighting K. Parking, Overhead Doors and Service Areas L. Other Considerations 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 11 71 1 Following the architectural intent of Ke- nilworth’s early planners as well as consideration for the limited size of the Business District, develop- ment within the Business District should consist of historic English architec- tural styles. New buildings need not be historic repli- cas, but should offer high quality and compatible interpretations of Tudor, Tudor Revival, and other historic English styles present within Kenilworth. Interpretations should foster a residential feel for the Business District as a whole. 2 In the limited in- stances where renovation should be considered, the Village encourages im- provements that lead to a design which is consistent with the desired architec- tural style outlined. For those existing buildings with a quality design of another period that is not Tudor, Tudor Revival, or other historic English- influenced designs, the building may be reno- vated to be consistent with the style in which it was originally built. 3 The prominent building at the southern entrance to the Busi- ness District, 400 Green Bay Road, exhibits the traditional architectural details of smaller struc- tural bays and massing, limited building heights, variety in roof forms, mix of materials and special attention to detailing and fenestration proportions and patterns. Build- ings within the Business District should incorpo- rate similar traditional architectural details. 4 Buildings within the Business District should reflect sensitivity to the immediate site surround- ings and the Village-wide character. 5 All exterior walls of buildings should be treated with consistent architecture, details, and materials. A. Architectural style and considerations Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates12 72 6 The image below highlights some of the fundamental elements of Tudor Revival and other historic English styles for development that is consistent with anticipated uses in the Busi- ness District. Steep pitched, highly visible roofs with high-quality materials Half-timbered walls consisting of exposed decorative wood on the upper façade Exposed wood structural elements that penetrate the building façade Windows with a predominantly vertical proportion and framed panes Plaster or masonry fill between half-timber elements on the upper façade Ground floor transom or awning area that creates a clear separation between the commercial storefront and upper façade Ground floor commercial display area that creates a transparent and engaging façade Bulkhead that establishes a firm façade base and relationship with the ground plane A. Architectural style and considerations (continued) Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 13 73 B. Placement and orientation 6 The placement of mid-block buildings at odd or irregular angles to the street is prohibited. 1 Buildings in the Business District should be positioned at the prop- erty line and occupy the entire lot-width to assist in creating a “streetwall” that enhances pedestrian comfort and maintains pedestrian scale. 2 Gaps between buildings in the streetwall should be avoided, except where pedestrian access to rear parking is designed and planned for. 3 In addition to pro- viding pedestrian scale, a street wall contributes to the pedestrian inter- est and circulation of the area. T o this end, long, blank facades are discour- aged. 4 Buildings through- out the Business District should have strong pedestrian orientation, providing opportunities for window shopping, and outdoor dining. 5 Corner buildings should take advantage of their prominent locations with angled, rounded or recessed corner entranc- es. Buildings located on corner lots should be built out to both the front and corner side prop- erty lines. Given that the Business District is only one lot deep, corner lots also play an important role in the transition between the commercial and residential districts. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates14 74 c. Building height 1 Buildings should be 2½ to 3½ stories in height (25’-35’). 2 When buildings are adjacent to residential neighbors, consideration should be given to setting back portions of the build- ings located at the second story or above from the rear and side to soften the bulk and visual scale of the building. This may include terracing or step- ping rooflines, in keeping with the overall architec- tural style of the building. 3 Careful consider- ation should be given to building elements at the ground level to ensure that the buildings have human scale and create a harmonious environment. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 15 75 D. Building Materials 6 Overhead doors for the covered parking for upper floor residential units are preferred to replicate stile and rail paneled doors if they are in view of the public or pedestrian way. Overhead doors are allowed only on building openings that face alleys. 7 Building color should be compatible with the area’s character and enhance the build- ing’s visual appeal. Color should be used to comple- ment the materials of a façade and to highlight architectural features. Primary, bright, or exces- sively brilliant colors are discouraged. 1 Authentic and high quality building materi- als are desired to convey the image of the Village. These include natural color brick, stone, cast or carved stone, terra cotta, and timbers with limited stucco on portions of Tudor-styled buildings. Decorative metal and stone are desirable as fin- ish materials for flashing, ornamentation around doors and windows, and cornices. 2 Brick, stone and cast stone should be the primary building materi- als on all exterior walls of buildings in the Busi- ness District. Brick and stone selections should be designed in a com- patible range of colors rather than a single color selection for an entire building, in order to avoid a flat and modern appear- ance. 3 Buildings obtain some of their character from the mix of materi- als, and creative use of material combinations is encouraged to break up the massing. The number of façade colors should be minimized to maintain a unified district. 4 Stucco may be permitted only when used on second floor walls or above. Exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS) or Dryvit, wall siding of all types, metal/vinyl wall panels, and wood siding are prohibited within the Business District. 5 Detail should be included on each building such as stone, brickwork and metalwork to highlight windows and doors. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates16 76 e. facades 1 Exterior side walls visible from the public way shall be finished in materials similar to the front facade. 2 The relationship of horizontal banding among buildings unifies the street elevation and, the division of a building façade into horizontal bands provides human scale and propor- tion to the façade. 3 A building base, middle and top should be strongly articulated through materials, details and changes in the plane of the wall. Retail store- fronts should be differ- entiated from the façade of the upper stories. Storefront systems, aw- nings, and entrance doors should be harmonious. 4 The use of decora- tive building elements consistent with the archi- tectural style in a rhythmic pattern is encouraged to break up large building masses. Columns, pilas- ters, window placement and other architectural features should be used to divide facades of large buildings into several smaller vertical segments. Structural elements and bays should be architectur- ally expressed on the fa- çade to add interest, scale, proportion, and detail. 5 Multiple storefronts that are part of the same building should have complementary façade designs, particularly with respect to color, cornice line and other architectur- al details, and decorative materials. As used in these guide- lines, facade shall mean the exterior wall of the building. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 17 77 f. Doors and entrances 3 The primary busi- ness entrance should be evident from the public way and differentiated from the semi-public and private residential entrances. 1 The entrances and their architectural details should be influenced by the overall architectural style of the building, its intended use, and be appropriately sized and designed. The entrance should be proportion- ately scaled to the overall building design. 2 Front entrances and retail storefronts should be prominent, easily discernible, attractive and inviting to pedestrians, and add visual interest to the street. 4 Primary business en- trances should consist of full glass panel doors and transoms where appropri- ate. Recessed doorways are encouraged to provide cover from the elements and to allow safer open- ing of doors. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates18 78 g. windows and Bays 1 Windows and window details should be appropri- ate for the architectural style of the building, and true divided lites are en- couraged where appropri- ate. 2 Large ground-floor bays and display windows on facades with bulkheads and transom lites are strongly encouraged within the Business District. 3 Upper floor bal- conies, decks, terraces, and bay windows are appropriate on all sides of buildings, but should not extend or overhang into the public right-of-way without Village approval. 4 Windows on the upper floors’ exterior walls are encouraged and should be consistent with the architectural style of the building. Upper floor windows should appear to be “punched” openings within a solid wall, rather than a continuous row of windows separated only by their frames. Upper floor windows shall be re- cessed, not flush with the surface of the building. 5 Window glass should be clear or slightly tinted. Dark-tinted, spandrel, frosted, back-painted, and smoked glass are discouraged on the front of buildings. If part of the architectural design, they should be used sparingly and only where necessary to screen the function of the interior space (such as storage areas, kitchens, bathrooms). Mirrored or reflective glass is not per- mitted within the Business District. 6 Expanses of walls should not be visible from the public right-of-way. Consideration should be given to incorporating features such as display windows, and material and color variations. 7 Ground floor windows can be used for displays; however business owners shall allow full and unobstructed views into their businesses. Com- pletely obstructing win- dows from the interior of a building with shelving, display cases, or other objects is discouraged. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 19 79 h. roofs and Dormers 1 Rooflines, roof slopes, and architectural details should comple- ment the building’s archi- tectural style. 2 Dormers and gables with purposeful space are encouraged to be incor- porated within the roof structure of a building, and not just applied decorative elements. Shed dormers should not extend for more than 50% of the façade length. 3 Sloped mansard style roofs are prohib- ited within the Business District. 4 Roof parapets shall be utilized only in achieving the appropriate gabled architecture. 5 Cornices and other decorative detail are strongly encouraged along the rooflines of buildings. 6 Eaves should have depth and should be ap- propriate to the building’s architectural style as to create shade and shadow on the upper floor of the building. Eaves should be of sufficient depth to accommodate ornamen- tation such as decorative brackets, dentils and cornices. 7 Slate roofing is encouraged in the Business District, although clay tile and simulated slate or tile may also be permitted pro- vided they are consistent with the architectural style and of high quality. Cedar shingles, cedar shakes, and asphalt shingles, including architectural shingles, are not encouraged. 8 Flashing, gutters, and downspouts are en- couraged to be copper or other high quality, metal materials. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates20 80 i. Awnings and canopies 1 Awnings are desired elements as they protect pedestrians from the ele- ments, add color and vi- sual interest to the street, and contribute significant- ly to an area’s pedestrian scale and interest. 2 Canopies should only be utilized for en- trances to the residential portions of buildings with- in the Business District. 3 Awnings and canopies shall be made of a canvas or durable fabric material that can be easily cleaned. Hard plastic, vinyl, metal or other materials are prohibited. 4 Internal illumination of awnings is prohibited. 5 Awnings shall be constructed and erected so that the lowest por- tion of the projecting frame and descending skirt shall not be less than 7’6” above the level of the sidewalk or ground located below the awning. 6 Awnings may project over the public way but they should not be within two feet of the curb line of a public street. A recom- mended minimum awning projection is three feet; however the projection should be consistent with the style of awning and scale of the building. 7 Where several storefronts are developed as a single building, they should have awnings of a similar style, alignment, and color in order to maintain a sense of visual continuity. 8 Awnings and cano- pies should fit within the frame of the storefront window; they should not hide the building’s façade, distort its proportions, or cover architectural features. 9 Awnings may be fixed or retractable. Retractable awnings must be kept either in the fully projected position or the fully closed position. Fixed awnings are to have concealed rigid metal frames. Retractable awnings should have a canopy cover and retract- able rollers mounted to the building. 10 The color of aw- nings and canopies shall complement and enhance the overall color scheme of the building façade. Recommended colors are solid black, dark green and dark blue. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 21 81 J. lighting 1 Appropriate and judicious lighting of a building’s façade is encouraged to identify stores and businesses, pro- mote a sense of safety and security, and highlight prominent buildings and building features in the Business District. Exces- sive up-lighting shall be avoided to reduce light pollution. 2 Lighting shall be used to illuminate pedes- trian and parking areas. 3 Lighting shall provide a sense of safety without having a nega- tive effect on neighboring properties and shall be located, aimed, lamped, or shielded to minimize glare, sky glow, and stray light. Lights should not shine across property lines, especially along alleys and into residential neighborhoods. 4 Lighting in the rear or side of Business Dis- trict properties, including parking lot and building lighting, shall not spill over into adjacent resi- dential areas. 5 Building light- ing fixtures should be subtle and understated, and consistent with the architectural style of the Business District. 6 Fluorescent lighting with exposed fluorescent lamps is discouraged in street-level interiors where visible from the public way. 7 Light fixtures and poles for parking areas should be consistent with the Village’s architectural style. 8 Exterior lighting with an incandescent quality is encouraged, regardless of the lamp type, to create a warm atmosphere. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates22 82 K. Parking, overhead Doors, and service Areas 1 When possible, park- ing lots should be located behind buildings. Parking lots in front of buildings are discouraged. Infill redevelopment of exist- ing surface parking lots located between buildings is encouraged. 2 Access to parking lots should be provided from alleys to maximize the development potential of the Business District and to maintain a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment along Green Bay Road. 3 New curb cuts and access drives are discour- aged along Green Bay Road, and redundant and unnecessary curb cuts should be eliminated. 4 Parking lots should be screened from view from all public right- of-way except alleys, including sidewalks and streets, through the use of landscaping and low ma- sonry walls. Planters and landscaped areas should buffer parking and ser- vice areas from adjacent uses. Plantings should consist of low evergreen and deciduous shrubs planted in conjunction with low-growing an- nual or perennial plants and groundcover. Large expanses of exposed mulch shall be avoided. 5 Parking lot land- scaping should include “landscape islands” at a ratio of approximately one per fifteen parking spaces. Landscape islands should consist of canopy trees (initially 3 to 4 inches in caliper), attractive ground- cover, and/or decorative shrubs (initially 2 to 3 feet in height). 6 All parking lots should be well marked, sufficiently lit, provided with proper drainage and include clearly marked pedestrian pathways. 7 In order to reduce or minimize paved parking areas, shared parking is encouraged where adjacent buildings have interior uses which offset each other in their use of the parking lot subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. For example, a business with daytime employee and shopper parking may create an opportunity for evening use of the same lot by eve- ning shoppers or restaurant patrons. 8 Trash receptacles, dumpsters and service areas shall be located inside the primary building or be fully enclosed by masonry walls and screened with landscap- ing. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 23 83 9 Service areas and overhead doors are to be located off secondary streets or alleys. All service areas are to be treated with masonry walls and/or appropriate landscaping at 6 feet in height from the ground level. 10 Decorative metal fencing should be used where appropriate to enhance and define open spaces, landscaped areas and building entrances. Such fencing should not be more than four feet in height. Chain link fences are prohibited. 11 The rear of com- mercial buildings shall be well kept, with rear exterior walls being com- parable to the facades. Secondary rear entrances to stores and shops are encouraged in blocks where public parking or pedestrian walkways are located behind the build- ings. 12 Mechanical equip- ment must not be visible from the public-right- of-way. Roof-mounted equipment should be located so as not to be vis- ible from the primary or secondary approach and screened from residential areas. 13 Grade-level me- chanical and utility equip- ment should be screened from public view with an enclosure or screening element integral to the building design, masonry walls or landscaping. K. Parking, overhead Doors, and service Areas (continued) Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted april 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates24 84 l. other considerations 5 Throughout the de- sign and building process, the Village encourages a sustainable approach that balances environmental responsiveness, resource efficiency, and cultural and community sensitivity, with the owner’s economic vi- ability. Using the USGBC LEED Rating System as a tool or guide is a good measure of a project’s sustainable performance and benefits the property owner, the residents, and the planet. 1 Sidewalk seating and tables for cafes are en- couraged. However, these improvements should not overwhelm the sidewalk nor impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. 2 Parkway landscap- ing should consist of salt-tolerant street trees, groundcover and peren- nials. Street trees and other landscaping along the public rights-of-way should be protected from motorized and pedestrian traffic by street curbs and tree grates. 3 Landscaping should be healthy and attractive. Maintenance programs performed on a regular basis should be established as part of new development approv- als. Maintenance should include turf mowing, periodic fertilization, pruning, and the clean-up of litter and debris. 4 Decorative planters may be placed at Business District entrances only where they will not impede the safe flow of pedestrian traffic. Kenilworth Design guiDelines for Business District | adopted arpil 29, 2013 Houseal lavigne associates 25 85