Park Place pushed again as height, retail criticism continues

Kenilworth trustees are not yet sold after a developer’s “fundamental” changes to a tightly contested proposal for the village’s business district.

Project planners behind a redevelopment pitch for the properties at 515-519 Park Drive appeared in front of Kenilworth’s Village Board on Monday, April 20, with hope of pushing plans forward.

But after hours of presentations, board discussions and public comment Kenilworth trustees voted to take no formal action on the proposal and table their consideration of the case until the board’s May meeting.

After the meeting, Freiburger declined to answer The Record‘s follow-up questions regarding the project’s status moving forward, and The Record’s subsequent request for comment was not returned as of publication time.

As previously reported by The Record, RED3 Development, a principal holding company associated with Wilmette-based NEWLOOK Development, proposed its plans for the site to the Village in the summer of 2025.

The applicant’s original request included demolishing the existing properties and constructing a four-story, mixed-use development that would feature two ground-level commercial spaces, seven residential units spread throughout the second and third floors, and a top-level penthouse.

Additionally, the effort, coined frequently through submittal documents and village meetings as Park Place, also included 14 on-site parking spaces proposed in a shared indoor garage that would be accessed from the adjacent alley.

Both Kenilworth’s architectural review commission and Plan Commission recommended denial of the proposal. Then, after two meetings in January of this year, village trustees remanded the proposal back to their advisory board for further feedback.

New plan’s ‘singular focus’ is to address height

Planners returned to both of the village’s advisory boards in March and April to showcase a revised proposal that attempted to address some of the key concerns from both town officials and residents.

Chief among those hesitations was the size (height and mass) of the building, which developers in their latest efforts adjusted to a maximum height of 40 feet tall.

Initially, Park Place was proposed at 48 1/2 feet, before it was reduced to 46 1/2 feet prior to its presentation to the Village Board in January, The Record reported. By reducing the building to 40 feet, it still exceeds Kenilworth’s building guidelines (35 feet) but falls within the planned unit development guidelines (40 feet).

Another significant change was the removal of the project’s retail component. Planners said the removal was necessary to get the building height down.

The new plan also lowered the first floor two feet below grade to incorporate four residential floors, including the penthouse, without exceeding 40 feet in height.

Michael Freiburger, a representative of the development team, told the board Monday night that he and his team were “hopeful to agree on a path moving forward.”

He also said the latest iteration of the plan had the “singular focus” of addressing concerns over the building’s height.

Lowering the height and removing the inclusion of retail allowed the team to “rethink how the building is actually experienced from the street,” Freiburger said.

He later described how the building is designed to read at 33 feet at the street, saying the “upper level is fully recessed and intentionally designed to be visually secondary.”

“While the building technically measures 40 feet … it does not feel or read as a 40-foot building,” Freiburger said.

Near the conclusion of his presentation to the board, Freiburger argued the updated building “truly does live within the spirit of the code and the neighborhood.”

“We completely understand that this board and this community is here trying to protect the great character of this town and we agree with that mission and think everyone is doing a great job,” Freiburger said.

“But what I think is important to understand is that the (Planned Unit Development) process and the potential ability to allow a 40-foot building is exactly for a proposal like this — one that is truly understanding and appreciative of the spirit of the code and listening to the community, creating a solution that is actually better than that listed in the code.”

Developers believe the current plans in front of the board reflect “not just progress but alignment with the feedback we’ve received,” Freiburger concluded.

No retail a concern

Board members throughout their deliberations expressed appreciation for the developer’s willingness to refine the plans, but trustees still feel there are sticking points, including the lack of retail.

Trustee Amelia Hannus noted that removing retail is a significant change and that she’d considered it an aspect that is not “just a small thing to swap out.”

Hannus, who called the subject property an “anchor corner” of the business district, stressed that resident feedback regarding the village’s business corridor over the years has placed an importance on bringing in more retail options where possible.

Moving forward with this effort would take away a notable potential to do so in the future, she said.

“We only have so much valuable precious real estate that’s able to be retail or commercial and so we’re really taking away a significant amount of potential for us and our residents,” she said,

Hannus continued on to note that she appreciated the developer’s reception to feedback and willingness to go back to the drawing board so many times but that excluding retail is essentially a “nonstarter” for her.

Trustee Christopher Ottsen shared similar sentiments, saying that he “can’t support this if there isn’t some component of retail in our business district” and is not in favor of “making this a completely residential development in the middle of a business district.”

Ottsen later shifted gears in his commentary, turning to what he called the “overwhelming public opposition” to the project.

“Let’s be clear: There is not public support for this,” he said. “This isn’t a not-in-my-backyard couple of adjacent residents. … This is a significant portion of our community that is against this project.”

A smaller contingent of the board expressed some favor toward the project and a certain level of acceptance to the exclusion of retail.

Trustee John Gottschall said he “loved” the new design and asserted that he didn’t have a problem with the fourth floor given it’s largely not visible from the street level.

He did detail some hesitation on the lack of retail but said that he believes there will be ample opportunities in the future to bring retail additions to town.

“I think this building would be a great added asset to Kenilworth,” he said.

Village President Cecily Kaz said that she also “shared some concern about removing retail from the business district.” Doing so, she said, would seem “like a step back.”

The majority of the board also indicated continued pause related to the height of the proposed structure, especially if future plans call for increasing it to previous totals to bring back retail.

Public opposition was again on display in force Monday night, as Village Hall welcomed a standing-room-only crowd for the meeting. A baker’s dozen of residents spoke in person, while three others spoke virtually during the public-comment portion of the meeting.

Trustees’ vote to push consideration of the proposal means the project’s next public appearance will come at the board’s May 18 meeting. Kaz said the board is tabling the project as-is, meaning it’s unlikely a new iteration will be presented in May.

Kaz told the development team that the board needs time to grasp the public comment heard at the meeting and determine what it would like to suggest as the next steps.

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.