Following lengthy session, Kenilworth trustees delay decision on Park Place

After working their way through two of the Village of Kenilworth’s commissions, plans to demolish two storefronts and replace them with a multi-story luxury condominium building made their first appearance in front of the Kenilworth Village Board on Tuesday.

But after learning more about the plans, asking questions, and hearing mostly opposition from community members, a majority of Village trustees said they were not ready to make a decision.

In a 5-1 voice vote on Jan. 20, the Kenilworth Village Board tabled their discussion on whether to grant a certificate of appropriateness and special use permit to RED3 Development that would allow them to build the development, known as Park Place, at 515-519 Park Drive.

The board is expected to continue its discussions at a special meeting on Monday, Jan. 26.

What is Park Place?

As previously reported by The Record, Park Place is a proposed four-story, mixed development that would include seven “luxury” condominium units, a fourth-floor penthouse, and two spaces for retail on the ground level. It would also add 14 street-level parking spaces for residential.

The plans call for the demolition of current storefronts at 515-519 Park Drive, one of which is vacant and the other is Federalist Antiques.

Park Place is a concept from RED3 Development, a principal holding company. The project designer is NEWLOOK Development. Both firms are owned by Michael P. Freiburger.

Developers are seeking zoning relief from height restrictions. While Kenilworth’s zoning code limits planned unit developments to 40 feet tall and all other developments are capped at 36 feet, Park Place is proposed at 46 feet 4 inches.

In October, Park Place appeared in front of the Village’s Architectural Review Commission, where, after two meetings, five commissioners recommended denying a certificate of appropriateness, with one commissioner abstaining and another absent.

And in December, the village’s Plan Commission voted 4-2 against recommending denial of the planned unit development requests.

Since the development’s initial appearance in front of the Architectural Review Commission, Freiburger told Kenilworth trustees on Tuesday night, the plans have been altered with “increase(d) setbacks, reduce(d) floor to floor heights, removal of visible rooftop units, soften(ing) building massing.”

“We shrunk about everything we possibly could,” he said.

Trustee John Gottschall asked Freiburger about the necessity of the rooftop penthouse, and Freiburger responded that it needs to be included for economic reasons.

“Given the restraints of the building size, given the restraints of having retail space, having to include the parking, selling six condos at a reasonable market price doesn’t pencil out to make the development valuable,” he said. “We just can’t make that work. It’s the seventh unit — that we can’t seem to find any other way other than on the penthouse — that actually makes the project work.”

Neighbors continue to object, but not all neighbors

Of the 14 residents who spoke Tuesday during public comment, the vast majority spoke out against the project. Many of the speakers are neighbors to the property who have spoken out at previous meetings, like Mike Kelly, who asked the board Tuesday to follow the recommendations of the ARC and Plan Commission.

“These zoning rules that were established were put there for a reason,” he said. “These committees were put there for a reason. So we ask that you reject this bid.”

Alice Reed said that “neighborhoods have rhythms,” and that Park Place would interfere with that.

“There’s a visual rhythm to sight lines, similar building heights, setbacks, proportions,” she said. “A taller building would be out of rhythm with the rest of the neighborhood and the qualities that make this neighborhood so appealing to us.”

While most voiced opposition to Park Place, a few supporters also provided commentary.

North Shore native Marc Malnati said he and his wife have lived in Kenilworth for five years, moving from Chicago where they lived in a condominium. He believes Kenilworth needs a development like Park Place.

“We’d love the opportunity to live in a condo in this town,” he said, later adding about the proposed units, “They’re larger, they’re nice, they’re going to be high-end. And I think there’s a real lack of that (in Kenilworth).”

Anna Simpson, who serves on the Plan Commission and was one of two votes to support the development, encouraged trustees to send the plans back to the ARC so they could weigh in on the revisions, which were made after their December vote.

“I think it’s a great project,” Simpson said. “I think it very closely adheres to our current goals for the business district.”

She also encouraged trustees to work with Freiburger to make the plan work.

Trustees request time

By the time public comment finished after 9 p.m., a majority of Kenilworth’s trustees said they need more time to digest what they learned Tuesday night.

Saying “a lot of work’s gone into” the plans, Trustee Tim Ransford felt continuing the hearing to a future date was the most appropriate option.

“I think we’d do everyone a disservice by making a decision tonight,” he said, adding that making a decision Tuesday wouldn’t allow them to ask “broader questions.”

“We all want to see a durable, long-term, clean result,” he said. “And we’re going to keep moving forward.”

Gottschall indicated that he would also support sending the plans back to the ARC. He said Park Place “would be a benefit to Kenilworth and its residents,” while also saying that he’s concerned about the appearance of Kenilworth’s business district.

“My fear is that if we don’t start attracting developers like this we will continue to be kind of like a retail wasteland in between downtown Wilmette and downtown Winnetka,” he said. “And I’m not happy with that.”

Trustee Amy Hannus was the lone vote against continuing the meeting, becoming the only board member to publicly state opposition to the plans.

She said she puts “high value” in the discussions that have previously been had, plus the feelings of several neighbors.

“I’ve heard, through reviewing all of the previous discussions that the commissions have had, as well as the resident feedback, that there are negative impacts on the residents with no public benefit,” Hannus said.

She added that she believes there are alternative options available to the developer.

“There is a solution already there, which is to keep within the by-right zoning,” she said, which would not require zoning relief.

The Record is a nonprofit, nonpartisan community newsroom that relies on reader support to fuel its independent local journalism.

Become a member of The Record to fund responsible news coverage for your community.

Already a member? You can make a tax-deductible donation at any time.