Kenilworth’s Park Place moves forward — kind of

Perhaps the most contentious Kenilworth project in years is moving forward after a “consequential revision”; however, a series of conditions applied by village trustees could stop the current proposal dead in its tracks.

Kenilworth’s Village Board during its Monday, June 15, meeting voted 5-1 to issue preliminary approval to a scaled-down, residential-only redevelopment pitch for the properties at 515-519 Park Drive.

Trustees, though, attached two conditions to their decision: a requirement that the developer incorporate a commercial use on the first floor of the proposed development and that provisions related to building setbacks and stepbacks as well as alley improvements are added.

Prior to the board’s decision, representatives from the development team earlier in the meeting on multiple occurrences told trustees that their current proposal cannot feasibly accommodate a requirement of a first-floor retail use.

Michael P. Freiburger, one of the project’s lead developers, told the board the condition requiring ground-floor retail would make the endeavor “fundamentally a different project.” He added that it would change the purchase structure from a for-purchase format to for-rent units.

“In this particular project and design, as presented, as a luxury, for-sale product, there cannot be any commercial space,” he said. “We would not accept conditions of that I don’t think, because we cannot do that.”

Reed Edwards, also part of the project’s development group, said any retail space would be “severely compromised,” adding it would not be “accreted to what the community wants for a gathering space.”

“The answer is that (the project) would look dramatically different,” he said. “We would sacrifice the ceiling heights on the upper levels, we would have to build to a slightly lesser quality and we’re probably a little bit hand-cuffed on the level of public benefit we could support by way of beautification of Green Bay Road or enhancements to the alley.”

Freiburger declined to comment when asked by The Record after the meeting if project plans will still move forward following Monday’s vote.

The approved plan and how we got here

Updated plans presented to the board June 15 call for a significant reduction from developers’ initial proposal of 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.

The latest iteration that appeared in front of trustees Monday night removed the fourth floor — which has been an aspect of the potential project since its inception last year — and instead proposed a three-story, 35-foot tall, residential-only building.

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

But from the start, the effort — coined frequently through submittal documents and village meetings as Park Place — was met with criticism from both neighbors and local officials. Concerns largely related to the project’s fit in the neighborhood; its height, which started at nearly 50 feet and eventually narrowed to closer to 46; and the massing of the building.

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.

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 early spring pitch adjusted to a maximum height of 40 feet.

Another significant change was the removal of the project’s retail component, which the development team at the time said was necessary to get the building height down.

Kenilworth trustees during a late April meeting opted to table a decision on that revised plan.

But in the time since that session, developers submitted a new version of the project that limited building height to 35 feet, removed the fourth floor entirely and carried over the modified residential-only design that was showcased in April.

In a letter to village trustees submitted in May, Freiburger said the new concept would “better align with the priorities expressed by staff, elected officials, and members of the community, but maintains the quality and character of what we have set out to achieve from the beginning.”

He also, at that point, stated fitting retail into that footprint would not be possible.

“We understand that retail use on the ground floor is important to certain Board trustees and community members, but it remains unfeasible at a height limitation of 35 feet, and removing the retail component from the plan alleviates concerns many residents have expressed regarding traffic, loading, and lack of parking in the vicinity,” he said.

As part of the meeting on June 15, before moving to their consideration of the revised proposal, trustees also formally considered the original 46-foot, four-story building for the site.

The board quickly reached a consensus against that vision, issuing a unanimous 6-0 vote against it.

‘Completely goes against our vision for this area’

While the plan based on the 35-foot building caught more favor from the board, the lack of retail still proved to be a sticking point for several trustees.

Board member Christopher Ottsen, who motioned to add the condition related to commercial space on the first floor, said his desire to see retail at this site was rooted in the village’s Green Bay Road vision statement.

“We as a Village Board cannot dismiss what is written in our own vision statement and I think we need to take careful consideration when we make these decisions,” said Ottsen, who later during the meeting said an all-residential development goes against the guiding principles of the vision.

“I think the building design, the smaller building, is a very nice building design. The thing that really concerns me is that we’re now putting all residential right in the middle of a stretch that has been historically commercial. That, I have unease with.”

Trustee Amy Hannus described the plan as “so close and so far away.” Hannus argued that losing some of Kenilworth’s “precious” real estate that could accommodate commercial use would be a “big loss for the community.”

Board member John Gottschall struck a different tone during his remarks, saying he believes the project represents a “vast improvement” over what currently sits on the site.

Saying “no one wants more retail businesses in Kenilworth” than him, Gottschall suggested the building would be an asset to the community and said he believes the village will have “ample opportunities” to bring in new retail options on Green Bay Road in the future.

Sharing similar thoughts to Gottschall, Trustee Matt Lojkovic said the project “shows a step forward by the village in terms of development.” He called the development a “good step forward in upgrading the space and signaling where we want to take the village.”

The board ultimately voted 4-2 to add the commercial condition to its approval. Gottschall and Lojkovic were the dissenters, while Hannus, Ottsen, Tim Ransford and Joseph Vitu Jr. voted in support.

Residents urge board to take time deliberating ‘stunning change in Kenilworth’

A key argument brought forward by several residents on June 15 was the desire to have further discussion, particularly at the advisory-board level, on the revised proposal.

Resident David Joyce said he believed the proposal was not right for a vote June 15, arguing that residents were not made aware of the revisions until late the week prior.

He described the shift to an all-residential building in that area as a “stunning change in Kenilworth.” He also said he believes the proposal still features “all kinds of safety and parking issues.”

“If this board doesn’t want to get in the weeds and look into the issues and come up with legitimate findings of fact … let this go back to the committees,” he said. “They do look for the facts.”

Eric Miller, who lives on Melrose in Kenilworth and has collected a petition with more than 250 signatures opposing the project, asked for continued collaboration from the board with residents.

“I request that you work with us to come up with something that works,” he said, adding that he believes “it’s possible.”

Brendan Appel, an attorney representing more than 40 of the homeowners who signed that petition, echoed similar remarks as Joyce.

“A deliberate process should be followed, he said, adding that he feels the plan was not fit for a vote and “should go back to neighborhood discussions because it has so materially changed.”

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.