_01212026-747

VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH, IL Architectural Review Commission Meeting Monday, March 2, 2026 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Architectural Review Commission of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, Kenilworth, Illinois, was held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2026. Management Analyst Jordan Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Attendance was as follows: Architectural Review Commissioners Present: Chip Hackley Present Paul Armstrong Present Paul Ozga Present Gunta Cepuritis Present Erin Paul Absent Joel Joyce Present John Pilant Present (online) A quorum was present. Other Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Kathy Thake Village Manager Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst Michael Blue Teska, Village Planner Megan Mack Ancel Glink, Village Attorney Others, Signing In: Jeanne Keiler Eric Miller Alice Read Greg Kirrish Jennifer Swain Anne Bird Rob Wiebking Bill Tribe David Joyce Justin Kozlowski April Palin Marjie Zander Jolie Schwartz Dorthy Karr Henry Gaunaurd Chad Emigolz Rick Gordon Laura Fitzpatrick Laura Divecchio Ken Kaufman Louis Keiler Ian Fisher Matt Hogan Anna Simpson Boyd Zander J.T. Mohr Emily Wilson Lydia Barhight Cecile Fosco Leslie Burke Vivian Vahlberg 414-331-4064 Mr. Schmidt indicated that he was in receipt of a request from Chair Pilant to attend the meeting electronically in accordance with the Electronic Meeting Attendance Policy. As a quorum physically present, the Chair will be authorized to attend electronically unless a motion is made and passed by a two-thirds majority of those physically present to deny the request. Hearing no such motion, Mr. Schmidt deemed the Chair Present as a voting member. Due to the physical absence of Chair Pilant, an Acting Chair was required to be appointed. Commissioner Hackley volunteered to fill the role. Commissioner Cepuritis made a motion to approve the appointment. Commissioner Ozga seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Hackley, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Mr. Schmidt declared Commissioner Hackley the Acting Chair Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acting Chair Hackley introduced the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Commissioner Joyce made a motion to approve January 21, 2026, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes and Commissioner Armstrong seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Hackley, Pilant Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the January 21, 2026, Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes approved. Agenda Item III. REGULAR BUSINESS 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 Village Planner Michael Blue, Teska Associates, provided an overview of the application history, noting that the project has been reviewed at two Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meetings, two Plan Commission meetings, and two Village Board meetings. Mr. Blue summarized the Village Board’s decision to remand the application to both the ARC and the Plan Commission for additional review. He explained that the Village Board requested the commissions to: Evaluate potential design modifications to mitigate the impact of the building’s height. These considerations may include, but are not limited to: Removal of the penthouse Adjustments to the fourth-floor setbacks Elimination of the top floor Exploration of a maximum building height of 40 feet Provide feedback regarding the potential public benefits associated with the development proposal Mr. Blue also presented a brief overview of the applicant’s revised concept. The updated proposal eliminates the previously proposed commercial uses and instead consists entirely of residential units, with a maximum building height of 40 feet. The applicant, Michael Freiburger, then introduced the revised proposal in greater detail. Mr. Freiburger reviewed the feedback provided at the prior ARC meeting and summarized the various design iterations that had been considered. He presented the updated concept and discussed how, in his view, the proposal aligns with the key components of the Village’s design guidelines. Mr. Freiburger also outlined potential public benefits associated with the project. Among these was a proposed contribution toward enhancements to the Park Drive median to support its function as a community gathering space. Following the applicant’s presentation, the Commission began deliberations. Commissioner Armstrong asked several technical questions regarding floor-to-floor heights. Acting Chair Hackley acknowledged the applicant’s efforts to reduce the building height to 40 feet and stated that the overall scale was moving closer to what had been requested. He suggested further refinement of architectural elements to continue reducing perceived scale. Commissioner Ozga commented favorably on the design and expressed the view that the applicant had made meaningful efforts to reduce the building’s scale. Chair Pilant continued to express concern regarding the massing and scale of the building in relation to surrounding structures. He noted the complexity of transitioning between commercial and residential uses along the corridor. Commissioner Joyce raised concerns about setbacks along the remaining sides of the building and the potential for long, uninterrupted wall planes. Commissioner Armstrong commented on the “shed dormer” and the curved or “swooping” design element, suggesting these could be further set back to help reduce massing. He also suggested recessing the building entrance as a way to reduce perceived scale. Acting Chair Hackley stated that the building’s solid-to-void relationship helped mitigate massing concerns, a view with which Commissioner Ozga agreed. Commissioner Cepuritis stated that if the project is now exclusively residential, the design should more clearly reflect a residential character and better align with the surrounding context. He also inquired whether any portion of the building would overhang adjacent properties; Mr. Freiburger confirmed that it would not. Hearing no further discussion from the Commission, Acting Chair Hackley opened the meeting for public comment. David Joyce expressed concern regarding the application process, stating that residents did not have sufficient time to review the revised concept. Eric Miller, a rear neighbor, expressed concern about the building’s height and its visual impact on his backyard, stating that he was concerned about facing a large wall. Bill Tribe raised concerns about the procedural process and suggested that the application should restart. Alice Read questioned whether the proposed public benefits justified an increase in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. Justin Kozlowski stated that the design did not fit within Kenilworth and described it as overly modern. Rob Wiebking expressed continued concerns regarding massing and the design of the rear elevation, noting that it would directly affect his view and potentially impact alley traffic. April Palin stated that the design did not align with the historic character of the Village. Jeanne Keiler raised concerns about the proposed height and the perception that developers may be permitted to exceed standards that residents must follow. Marjie Zander expressed concerns regarding the application process, as well as the size and density of the development. She also stated that, in her view, the proposal does not meet the design guidelines. Vivian Vahlberg emphasized the importance of the rear elevation design and suggested exploring whether similar residential development could extend further down Park Drive. Mr. Freiburger responded to questions and comments from both the Commission and the public. He sought clarification on specific concerns and expressed openness to exploring additional design refinements, particularly regarding the rear elevation and potential modifications to address concerns about the building’s modern character. The Commission then discussed next steps and clarified what action or feedback was being requested at this meeting. Village Attorney Megan Mack and Mr. Blue provided guidance, reiterating that the matter had been remanded to the ARC at the direction of the Village Board to obtain additional feedback on the proposal. Ms. Mack posed the following question to the Commission: Are the reduced building height and proposed design in keeping with the intent of the design guidelines for the Green Bay Road Corridor? A straw poll was conducted. The results were as follows: Yes: Hackley No: Joyce, Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, and Pilant Ms. Mack requested that the Commission provide specific, actionable feedback to be forwarded to the Plan Commission and Village Board. The Commission identified the following areas for further exploration: The design was described as overly “crisp”; consider incorporating more traditional Tudor elements to soften the appearance. If the building is exclusively residential, the architectural character should more clearly reflect a residential design while maintaining an appropriate transition along the corridor. Explore alternative designs or modifications to the shed dormer. Revisit the “swoop” design element to address massing concerns. Consider additional step-backs for residential portions of the building. Provide more detailed information regarding the rear elevations. Explore reducing ceiling heights to approximately 8 feet to 8 feet 6 inches to further reduce overall building height and massing. Consider recessing the lobby entrance. Evaluate the incorporation of horizontal banding within the window bays. Explore asymmetrical design elements to further break up the building’s mass and reduce perceived scale. Hear no further discussion, Commission Cepuritis made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Joyce seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Joyce, Cepuritis, Pilant, Hackley Opposed: None Abstain: None Absent: Paul The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the public hearing closed. Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS None. Agenda Item IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC None. Agenda Item V. ADJOURN Acting Chair Hackley made a motion to adjourn and Commissioner Joyce seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: For: Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, Joyce, Pilant, Hackley Opposed: None The roll call vote was six in favor, and none opposed. Acting Chair Hackley declared the meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst