_01202026-746

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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