Agenda & Packet

There will be a 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: 127 252 998# Architectural Review Commission Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 21, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order / Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes A. October 28, 2025, Architectural Review Commission Regular Meeting III. Regular Business A. Public Hearing to consider the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new Sign at 624 Green Bay Road IV. Other Business A. Approval of Findings of Fact from October 28, 2025 Architectural Review Commission Meeting V. Business from the Public Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vok.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment VI. 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 Architectural Review Commission 1 October 28, 2025 VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH, IL Architectural Review Commission Meeting Tuesday, October 28, 2025 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Architectural Review Commission of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, Kenilworth, Illinois, was held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2025. Chair Pilant called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Attendance was as follows: Architectural Review Commissioners Present: Chip Hackley Present Paul Armstrong Absent Paul Ozga Present Gunta Cepuritis Present Erin Paul Present Joel Joyce Present John Pilant, Chair Present A quorum was present. Other Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst Carol Brobeck Village Planner Erin Monforti Village Attorney Others, Signing In: Michael Freiburger (Applicant) Dennis Garvey (Applicant) Sybil Benson (Applicant) Steve Economou (Applicant) Reed Edwards (Applicant) Jeanne Keiler Louis Keiler Anna Simpson (Virtual) Greg Kirrish Andy DiVecchio Laura DiVeccho Dorothy Karr Henry Gaunaurd David Joyce 2 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 2 October 28, 2025 Eric Miller Mariam Pahl Shyamala Gupta Lynn Collins Louis Keiler III Anne Wortel Michael Kelly George Wishart Tom Guo Stacy Sunderland Kelly Vaez (Virtual) Ron Kochman (Virtual) Prior to introducing the first Item, Chair Pilant read an opening statement thanking those in attendance for coming and explaining the process for tonight’s meeting, and when the public would have an opportunity to speak and ask questions. Chair Pilant recommended a 9:00 p.m. cutoff time for the meeting to ensure the discussion stays focused. The Commission expressed support for the idea. Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Resident, David Joyce, said the minutes should clarify that the continuation of the prior meeting did not preclude the public from participation. Commission Cepuritis asked that clarification be added about the applicants’ need for air rights for their proposal as presented. Hearing no further comments, Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to approve the October 15, 2025, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes as amended and Commissioner Paul seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Hackley, Ozga, Paul, Joyce, Cepuritis, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Armstrong The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Chair Pilant declared the October 15, 2025, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes approved as amended. Agenda Item III. REGULAR BUSINESS a. PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT 515-519 GREEN BAY ROAD Village Planner Carol Brobeck introduced the item and provided a summary of the request. She reviewed feedback from the ARC and public at the October 15th meeting, including the following design considerations: - Modify design to soften building bulk and height - Consider a softer color palette - Revisit the mansard-style roof corners; explore feasibility of a more authentic mansard design - Provide additional elevations from neighboring perspectives to illustrate visibility of the fourth- floor penthouse - Reevaluate garage access design in the rear alley to improve safety, visibility, and circulation - Reconsider the fourth-floor trellis design to reduce its prominence from the front façade 3 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 3 October 28, 2025 Ms. Brobeck also reviewed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, the current status of the application, and the applicable design guidelines. Next, Ms. Brobeck introduced the applicant, Michael Freiburger. Mr. Freiburger introduced his team, shared examples of past projects, and provided an update on the property. He highlighted changes made in response to prior feedback: Building Massing: - Middle sections stepped back by 6 inches - Cornice and roof elements lowered - Mansard roof corners revised to reflect a more authentic style Color Palette: - Updated to a softer, warmer tone Visibility & Context: - Additional renderings provided from neighboring viewpoints Garage Access: - Chamfered corners added - Entrance set back 2 feet to align with neighboring garage aprons Trellis Design: - Lowered by 1 foot - Stepped back from the front façade - Profile modified to reduce visibility from the street Chair Pilant thanked the applicants for their presentation and opened the meeting to questions and discussion from the commission. Commissioner Cepuritis appreciated the design revisions but expressed concern about the building’s context within the neighborhood. Commissioner Cepuritis also asked whether air rights would be required from adjacent properties. Mr. Freiburger confirmed they would. Commissioner Hackley questioned the necessity of the fourth floor and suggested reducing floor-to- floor heights to minimize mass. He expressed concern about the building’s scale relative to nearby properties. Commissioner Ozga viewed the project as a three-story building with a concealed fourth floor and expressed support for the overall design. Commissioner Paul supported the design but raised concerns about the building’s bulk. Commissioner Paul reviewed the ARC’s purpose and intent, noting that while the proposal met standards related to property value and design compatibility, it may not fully meet the standard related to public welfare. Chair Pilant echoed concerns about massing, suggesting that setbacks on the second and third floors could help reduce the building’s visual impact. Commissioner Joyce showed appreciation for the design of the building, but also expressed concern about the building’s mass, noting how small the Village’s business district is in comparison to our neighboring communities, and how it’s important to keep that in mind when considering the proposal. Hearing no further discussion from the commission, Chair Pilant opened the meeting to comments from the public. Greg Kirrish opposed the building’s height, stating it conflicted with long-standing community planning efforts to limit building heights to 35 feet. Mike Kelly and Jeanne Keiler also expressed concern about the height. Mrs. Keiler additionally questioned the compatibility of materials with Village design guidelines and suggested alternative development ideas. Eric Miller, whose property is directly behind 4 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 4 October 28, 2025 the proposed development, voiced concerns about the impact on his property. He also read a letter from his mother opposing the project. Louis Keiler III and David Joyce raised concerns about the building’s size and compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Joyce also criticized the PUD process. Louis Keiler inquired about the absence of a traffic study. Ms. Brobeck clarified that a traffic study will be required before the Plan Commission review, but was not necessary for ARC consideration. Mr. Freiburger responded to public concerns and emphasized that the ARC’s focus should remain on architectural and design elements, while broader planning issues would be addressed by the Plan Commission. The Commission discussed whether to continue the meeting or make a recommendation. Mr. Freiburger requested a recommendation to proceed to the Plan Commission for further feedback. Village Planner Brobeck and Village Attorney Erin Monforti explained the Commission’s options: - Recommend approval, - Recommend approval with conditions, or - Recommend denial. Ms. Brobeck clarified that if a recommendation was made at this meeting, the ARC would not review the design again unless directed by the Village Board. Hearing no additional comments, Commissioner Joyce made a motion to forward a recommendation of denial of the plans as presented to the Plan Commission and Village Board. Commissioner Cepuritis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Hackley, Joyce, Paul, Cepuritis, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: Ozga Absent: Armstrong The roll call tally was five votes in favor, and one abstention. Chair Pilant declared the motion approved. Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS None. Agenda Item IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC None. 5 Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission 5 October 28, 2025 Agenda Item V. ADJOURN Commissioner Hackley made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Paul seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken as follows: For: All Opposed: None The voice vote was all in favor, and none opposed. Chair Pilant declared the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 6 Request for Recommendation Agenda Item: III.A Staff Contact: Jordan Schmidt, Management Analyst Andrew Dunham, Teska Associates, Inc. Subject: Certificate of Appropriateness – 624 Green Bay Road Petitioners: Maddie Zonino of Toned Yoga, LLC, and Jeff Dolphin of Home Ice Hockey, LLC Tenant: Home Ice Hockey, LLC and Toned Yoga, LLC Owner: Andrew Ratts of Homemaker, LLC Location: 624 Green Bay Road Zoning: B Business District Requested Action: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness Purpose: Construction of exterior stud-mounted black acrylic mounted signage with the name of the building’s two tenants (Toned Yoga and Advantage Strength & Performance Training) above the shared front entryway facing Green Bay Road. Applicable Regulations: Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance §153.242 Certificates of Appropriateness Summary: The Petitioner, Maddie Zonino, seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a black acrylic sign, stud mounted with silicone, at 624 Green Bay Road with the business names, “ADVANTAGE STRENGTH & PERFORMANCE TRAINING”, in serif lettering and “TONED YOGA” in sans serif lettering. The two business signs would be situated in either a side-by-side or stacked configuration, separated by a vertical or horizontal line, respectively. The proposed commercial signage would be located on the front façade of the building above the shared entryway, projecting slightly outward above the trellis. The adjacent business, Sherman- Williams Paints at 614 Green Bay Road, has similar existing signage, with black mounted business signage. Considered By: Date: Architectural Review Commission 01/21/2026 Village of 7 Master Sign Plan Village Code also requires a master sign plan for buildings with multiple occupants. Signage from the previous occupant, Home Ice, has been removed, and images thereof are included for reference. Excluding the proposed wall sign, no other signage is proposed, therefore the proposed signage constitutes the Master Sign Plan, and any additional exterior signage proposed in the future will be assessed for compatibility with the proposed sign. Applicable Sign Standards: The applicable regulations of the Kenilworth Sign Code are as follows. Specification Requirement Proposed Sign §153.052(B)(1) Permanent commercial message signs in the B District must be oriented toward Green Bay Road or Park Drive COMPLIANT; Proposed sign is oriented toward Green Bay Road Building §153.052(B)(3)(b) Front Façade Area = 948 square feet (estimated) Estimated 948 square feet Total Combined Sign Area Permitted The lesser or 7.5% of the total area of the front façade or 25 square feet, for each occupant in a multi-occupant building. 25 square feet Total Proposed Combined Sign Area COMPLIANT; 24.5 sq. ft. sign area proposed (12.25 per occupant) §153.052(C)(2) Design Criteria for Permanent Commercial Message and Institutional Signs The proposed sign is designed and installed in a safe manner, utilizing high- quality materials, appropriate colors, appropriately limited graphic elements and wording, and not covering architectural elements of the building. Sign will consist of a silicone stud-mounted acrylic material in a uniform black color, illuminated through existing lighting, located in place of previous signage above the shared front door of the building. (1) Calculation was derived using Google Maps, site visit, and Cook County GIS Required Action: Consideration of the required Certificate of Appropriateness approval. Architectural Review Commission Action: The Architectural Review Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Example Motions for Consideration: I move that 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 be approved. I move that consideration of 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 be deferred until ________(date) to allow the applicant additional time to respond to comments heard this evening. Attachments: • Certificate of Appropriateness Application – 624 Green Bay Road 8 • 624 Green Bay Road Proposed Signage Proposed Signage: Proposed side-by-side signage (24” height, 147” width) Existing Building Photos: 9 Existing Building Existing South Side of Building (no signage proposed) Proposed Signage Area 10 Village of 419 Richmond Road Phone: 847-251-1666 Kenilworth, IL 60043 Fax: 847 -251-3908 E-mail: info@vok.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Property Address:______________________________________ Date:__________________ Applicant Information Applicant: Name ________________________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone/Fax __________________________________________________________________ Tenant /Business Information (if different than Applicant): Name _________________________________________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________________________________ Phone/Fax ____________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if different than Tenant/Business): Name ________________________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone/Fax __________________________________________________________________ Consultants (as applicable): Name _____________________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________ Phone/Fax ___________________________________________________________ 11 2 Application Requirements 1. Submit 12 copies of the applicable items on the Certificate of Appropriateness Application Submission Checklist attached. 2. Description of Project: 3. Application Acknowledgements: By execution of this application in the space provided below, the applicant, tenant/business or owner do hereby certify, acknowledge, agree and affirm to the Village of Kenilworth that the information contained in this application is true and correct. Signature ____________________________________________________________ Name ____________________________________________________________ Date __________________________________ Certificate of Appropriateness Process: After this application and all necessary materials are submitted, the application will be put on the docket for an Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting. It is recommended that the application be submitted 45 days prior to the ARC meeting. The Village will provide the Applicant with a notification packet containing a notice to be delivered to all property owners living within 250 feet of the property and the Village will publish a legal notice in a local newspaper. Notifications must be done not less than 15 days or more than 30 days in advance of the public hearing date. Applicants should expect a hearing within 60 days of submitting an application. All applicants are encouraged to read the Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance. Call Community Development Department at (847) 251-1666 or email community@vok.org with any questions. 12 Certificate of Appropriateness Application / Submission Checklist This checklist summarizes the Certificate of Appropriateness application requirements for a submission to the Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission to be submitted after the pre-application meeting. It is used to evaluate proposals for consistency with the Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines for the Business District. The checklist is intended to serve as a tool for the building owner and architect or designer. The submission should refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines for the Business District in order to achieve a successful outcome. Design Guidelines for the Business District are on the Village of Kenilworth’s website: www.vok.org , under “Forms”, “Community Development Page” All of the following items must be submitted before the Certificate of Appropriateness application will be scheduled for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission at an upcoming meeting. This checklist must be completed and submitted with the application. Provide 12 copies of all applicable items. Fees: o Certificate of Appropriateness filing fee of $350.00 Signage and/or Awning Requests: o Certificate of Appropriateness Application form o Statement of Intent: describe the proposed sign and/or awning, the materials, and details of installation o Site plan showing location of proposed sign and/or awning, with any associated landscaping or lighting o Elevation or photograph of building façade with proposed sign and/or awning shown o Sign and/or awning drawing with dimensions, materials, letter size, typeface and colors o Samples of sign letters and/or awning materials and colors o Sign Illumination: details regarding source, type and level of illumination (if applicable); level of illumination must be measured in foot candles o Master Sign Plan if required by the Kenilworth Sign Code o On-site mock-up may be requested by ARC to better understand the sign proposal General Exterior Requests: o Certificate of Appropriateness Application form o Description of exterior materials 13 o Samples of new exterior materials (including, but not limited to, manufactured cut sheets and/or product samples of roof materials, wall materials, window/door products, storefront glazing, light fixtures, etc); If appropriate, local addresses of buildings that use such materials o Statement of Intent : identify existing site and building conditions; describe the proposed project and how the project meets the criteria in the Design Guidelines for the Business District; explain the design rationale Drawings and Supporting Documents - General Exterior Requests: o Plans and elevations to illustrate the existing site (drawings should be to scale) o Plans and elevations of the proposal (drawings should be to scale); windows and doors with dimensions, materials and glazing patterns; exterior details, as appropriate, of millwork and any proposed special conditions. o Streetscape elevations, showing rooflines and materials of adjacent structures o Color photographs of the site and existing buildings adjacent to the site o Supporting documentation, if any, related to the project o Perspectives, drawings, sketches or model of the proposal , if requested by ARC, to show relationship to neighboring structures, the overall streetscape and human scale, with figures and dimensions o Parking Lot Layout (if applicable) o Lighting Plan of parking lot (if applicable) o Landscape Plan (if applicable) with proposed species of vegetation and size at the time of planting; existing trees and vegetation to remain or be removed; existing and proposed hardscapes 14 15 16 Architectural Review Commission Findings of Fact Meeting Summary The Architectural Review Commission met on October 15, 2025 and October 28, 2025 to review the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) in connection with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) request for 515-519 Park Drive. At the October 15th meeting the Commission’s discussion focused on several elements, including the massing of the building in relationship with the neighboring properties, roof design, color of the building materials, garage access, and the visibility of the 4th floor trelli s from the public way . In addition, members of the public raised 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. The Commission voted to continue the meeting, requesting the applicant provide additional details on the following design considerations: - Modify design to soften building bulk and height - Consider a softer color palette - Revisit the mansard-style roof corners; explore feasibility of a more authentic mansard design - Provide additional elevations from neighboring perspectives to illustrate visibility of the fourth-floor penthouse - Reevaluate garage access design in the rear alley to improve safety, visibility, and circulation - Reconsider the fourth-floor trellis design to reduce its prominence from the front façade At the October 28th meeting, the applicant highlighted changes made in response to prior feedback: Building Massing: - Middle sections stepped back by 6 inches - Cornice and roof elements lowered - Mansard roof corners revised to reflect a more authentic style Color Palette: - Updated to a softer, warmer tone Visibility & Context: - Additional renderings provided from neighboring viewpoints Garage Access: - Chamfered corners added - Entrance set back 2 feet to align with neighboring garage aprons Trellis Design: - Lowered by 1 foot - Stepped back from the front façade - Profile modified to reduce visibility from the street The Commission was appreciative of the applicant’s efforts to address their comments, however remained concerned about the overall size and mass of the proposed development in comparison with the neighboring properties. The Commission expressed desire to continue the meeting to allow 17 for additional discussion and to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to modify the design. The applicant, however, requested the Commission make a recommendation to allow the process to continue, and give them the opportunity to gain feedback from the Plan Commission. Given the Commission’s concerns about the compatibility of the building’s size with its neighboring properties, the Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial of the proposal as presented. Business District Design Guidelines – Chapter 153 Zoning: Appendix C (1) Architectural Style and Considerations a. Following the architectural intent of Kenilworth’s early planners as well as consideration for the limited size of the Business District, development within the Business District should consist of historic English architectural styles. New buildings need n ot be historic replicas, 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. b. 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. 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 renovated to be consistent with the style in which it was originally built. c. The prominent building at the southern entrance to the Business District, 400 Green Bay Road, exhibits the traditional architectural details of smaller structural bays and massing, limited building heights, variety in roof forms, mix of materials and speci al attention to detailing and fenestration proportions and patterns. Buildings within the Business District should incorporate similar traditional architectural details. d. Buildings within the Business District should reflect sensitivity to the immediate site surroundings and the Village-wide character. e. All exterior walls of buildings should be treated with consistent architecture, details, and materials. f. 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 Business District. RESPONSE: Although the proposed development does not clearly represent a true to form Tudor, Tudor Revival or other historical English architectural style, the Commission commented that the design is be a modern interpretation. Adjustments were made to the design, in particular the mansard roof design, in response to feedback from the Commission seeking the design to be more in line with a traditional mansard roof design. (2) Placement and Orientation a. Buildings in the Business District should be positioned at the property line and occupy the entire lot-width to assist in creating a “streetwall” that enhances pedestrian comfort and maintains pedestrian scale. b. Gaps between buildings in the streetwall should be avoided, except where pedestrian access to rear parking is designed and planned for. 18 c. In addition to providing pedestrian scale, a street wall contributes to the pedestrian interest and circulation of the area. To this end, long, blank facades are discouraged. d. Buildings throughout the Business District should have strong pedestrian orientation, providing opportunities for window shopping, and outdoor dining. e. Corner buildings should take advantage of their prominent locations with angled, rounded or recessed corner entrances. Buildings located on corner lots should be built out to both the front and corner side property 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. f. The placement of mid -block buildings at odd or irregular angles to the street is prohibited. RESPONSE: The proposed developments placement and orientation are consistent with the design guidelines. (3) Building Height a. Building Height Should be 2 ½ to 3 ½ stories in height (25’ – 35’) b. When buildings are adjacent to residential neighbors, consideration should be given to setting back portions of the buildings 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 stepping rooflines, in keeping with the overall architectural style of the building. c. Careful consideration should be given to building elements at the ground level to ensure that the buildings have human scale and create a harmonious environment. RESPONSE: The proposed building height is 47’ 4”, exceeding the recommended height. The fourth floor is setback to soften the bulk and visual scale of the building. The Commission discussed the potential to further set the 2nd and 3rd floors back as well to further soften the bulk of the building. The proposed development’s height is not consistent with the design guidelines. (4) Building Materials a. Authentic and high quality building materials 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 met al and stone are desirable as finish materials for flashing, ornamentation around doors and windows, and cornices b. Brick, stone and cast stone should be the primary building materials on all exterior walls of buildings in the Business District. Brick and stone selections should be designed in a compatible range of colors rather than a single color selection for an entire building, in order to avoid a flat and modern appearance. c. Buildings obtain some of their character from the mix of materials, 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. d. 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. 19 e. Detail should be included on each building such as stone, brickwork and metalwork to highlight windows and doors. f. 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. g. Building color should be compatible with the area’s character and enhance the building’s visual appeal. Color should be used to complement the materials of a façade and to highlight architectural features. Primary, bright, or excessively brilliant colors are discouraged. RESPONSE: Proposed building materials include manufactured Indiana limestone, wood clad / aluminum casement windows, ¾” Cementitious stucco, James Hardie composite panel & trim, Davinci roofscapes composite slate roof, and wood pergola/trellis. The proposed colors are “buff”, “castle gray”, and a warm grayish brown. For additional details on the building materials and color, please refer to the meeting minutes. (5) Facades a. Exterior side walls visible from the public way shall be finished in materials similar to the front facade. b. 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 proportion to the façade. c. A building base, middle and top should be strongly articulated through materials, details and changes in the plane of the wall. Retail storefronts should be differentiated from the façade of the upper stories. Storefront systems, awnings, and entrance doors should be harmonious. d. The use of decorative building elements consistent with the architectural style in a rhythmic pattern is encouraged to break up large building masses. Columns, pilasters, 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 architecturally expressed on the façade to add interest, scale, proportion, and detail. e. Multiple storefronts that are part of the same building should have complementary façade designs, particularly with respect to color, cornice line and other architectural details, and decorative materials. As used in these guidelines, facade shall mean the exterior wall of the building. RESPONSE: Vertical and horizontal design elements are introduced to break down the overall massing. Storefront awnings and doorways and consistent in design. Second and third stories are partially setback to help differentiate between ground floor retail and residential units. For additional details on the facade, please refer to the meeting minutes. (6) Doors and Entrances a. 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 proportionately scaled to the overall building design. b. Front entrances and retail storefronts should be prominent, easily discernible, attractive and inviting to pedestrians, and add visual interest to the street. c. The primary business entrance should be evident from the public way and differentiated from the semi-public and private residential entrances. 20 d. Primary business entrances should consist of full glass panel doors and transoms where appropriate. Recessed doorways are encouraged to provide cover from the elements and to allow safer opening of doors. RESPONSE: The proposed doorways and entrances are consistent with the design guidelines. The business entrances consist of full glass panel doors, and are evident from the public right-of-way. (7) Windows and Bays a. Windows and window details should be appropriate for the architectural style of the building, and true divided lites are encouraged where appropriate. b. Large ground-floor bays and display windows on facades with bulkheads and transom lites are strongly encouraged within the Business District. c. Upper floor balconies, 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. d. 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 recessed, not flush with the surface of the building. e. 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 permitted within the Business District. f. 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. g. Ground floor windows can be used for displays; however business owners shall allow full and unobstructed views into their businesses. Completely obstructing windows from the interior of a building with shelving, display cases, or other objects is discouraged. features such as display windows, and material and color variations. RESPONSE: The proposed ground floor windows are full glass panel doors. The upper floor windows are recessed rather than flush with the surface of the building. No expanses of walls are visible from the public right -of-way, as windows wrap the entire building. (8) Roofs and Dormers a. Rooflines, roof slopes, and architectural details should complement the building’s architectural style. b. Dormers and gables with purposeful space are encouraged to be incorporated 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. c. Sloped mansard style roofs are prohibited within the Business District. d. Roof parapets shall be utilized only in achieving the appropriate gabled architecture. e. Cornices and other decorative detail are strongly encouraged along the rooflines of buildings. 21 f. Eaves should have depth and should be appropriate 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 ornamentation such as decorative brackets, dentils and cornices. g. Slate roofing is encouraged in the Business District, although clay tile and simulated slate or tile may also be permitted provided they are consistent with the architectural style and of high quality. Cedar shingles, cedar shakes, and asphalt shingles, in cluding architectural shingles, are not encouraged. h. Flashing, gutters, and downspouts are encouraged to be copper or other high quality, metal materials. RESPONSE: The proposed pitched roofs and traditional gabled forms attempt to reflect Kenilworth’s architectural vernacular. A more traditional mansard roof was incorporated into the design to reflect recommendations from the Architectural Review Commission. The use of slate tiles is proposed for roofing materials. Cornices were incorporated and lowered to help soften the bulk of the building. (9) Awnings and Canopies a. Awnings are desired elements as they protect pedestrians from the elements, add color and visual interest to the street, and contribute significantly to an area’s pedestrian scale and interest. b. Canopies should only be utilized for entrances to the residential portions of buildings within the Business District. c. 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. d. Internal illumination of awnings is prohibited. e. Awnings shall be constructed and erected so that the lowest portion 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. f. Awnings may project over the public way but they should not be within two feet of the curb line of a public street. A recommended minimum awning projection is three feet; however the projection should be consistent with the style of awning and scale of the building. g. 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. h. Awnings and canopies should fit within the frame of the storefront window; they should not hide the building’s façade, distort its proportions, or cover architectural features. i. 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 retractable rollers mounted to the building j. The color of awnings and canopies shall complement and enhance the overall color scheme of the building façade. Recommended colors are solid black, dark green and dark blue. RESPONSE: The proposed awnings and canopies over the proposed business and residential entry ways. The proposed awnings and canopies are consistent with the design guidelines. 22 (10) Lighting a. Appropriate and judicious lighting of a building’s façade is encouraged to identify stores and businesses, promote a sense of safety and security, and highlight prominent buildings and building features in the Business District. Excessive up-lighting shall be avoided to reduce light pollution b. Lighting shall be used to illuminate pedestrian and parking areas. c. Lighting shall provide a sense of safety without having a negative 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 alo ng alleys and into residential neighborhoods. d. Lighting in the rear or side of Business District properties, including parking lot and building lighting, shall not spill over into adjacent residential areas. e. Building lighting fixtures should be subtle and understated, and consistent with the architectural style of the Business District. f. Fluorescent lighting with exposed fluorescent lamps is discouraged in street -level interiors where visible from the public way. g. Light fixtures and poles for parking areas should be consistent with the Village’s architectural style. h. Exterior lighting with an incandescent quality is encouraged, regardless of the lamp type, to create a warm atmosphere. RESPONSE: Exterior lighting fixtures will use full cut ‐off and shielded designs so that no glare reaches adjacent properties. Safe lighting levels will be provided at the public street level. (11) Parking, Overhead Doors and Service Areas a. When possible, parking lots should be located behind buildings. Parking lots in front of buildings are discouraged. Infill redevelopment of existing surface parking lots located between buildings is encouraged. b. 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. c. New curb cuts and access drives are discouraged along Green Bay Road, and redundant and unnecessary curb cuts should be eliminated. d. 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 masonry walls. Planters and landscaped areas should buffer parking and service areas from adjacent uses. Plantings should consist of low evergreen and deciduous shr ubs planted in conjunction with low -growing annual or perennial plants and groundcover. Large expanses of exposed mulch shall be avoided. e. Parking lot landscaping 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 groundcover, and/or decorative shrubs (initially 2 to 3 feet in height). f. All parking lots should be well marked, sufficiently lit, provided with proper drainage and include clearly marked pedestrian pathways. g. 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 23 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 evening shoppers or restaurant patrons. h. Trash receptacles, dumpsters and service areas shall be located inside the primary building or be fully enclosed by masonry walls and screened with landscaping i. 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. j. 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. k. The rear of commercial buildings shall be well kept, with rear exterior walls being comparable to the facades. Secondary rear entrances to stores and shops are encouraged in blocks where public parking or pedestrian walkways are located behind the buildings. l. Mechanical equipment must not be visible from the public right-of-way. Roof - mounted equipment should be located so as not to be visible from the primary or secondary approach and screened from residential areas. m. Grade-level mechanical and utility equipment should be screened from public view with an enclosure or screening element integral to the building design, masonry walls or landscaping. RESPONSE: The proposed parking garage is built into the ground floor of the development, with entry via the alley. The garage access includes chamfered corners to setback the entry to match neighboring garage apron access. The parking garage is intended for residents o f the building only. Ductwork, HVAC, waste handling will be located away from adjacent residential windows and public view. The design will include screening of visible service or mechanical areas, landscaping buffers, and architectural transitions so that the building’s form does not seem harsh or jarring to adjacent properties. (12) Other Considerations a. Sidewalk seating and tables for cafes are encouraged. However, these improvements should not overwhelm the sidewalk nor impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. b. Parkway landscaping should consist of salt -tolerant street trees, groundcover and perennials. 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. c. Landscaping should be healthy and attractive. Maintenance programs performed on a regular basis should be established as part of new development approvals. Maintenance should include turf mowing, periodic fertilization, pruning, and the clean- up of litter and debris. d. Decorative planters may be placed at Business District entrances only where they will not impede the safe flow of pedestrian traffic. e. Throughout the design 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 viability. 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. 24 RESPONSE: The proposed development showcases sidewalk seating for potential businesses. Proposed landscaping includes planters and rooftop plantings. 25