Kenilworth trustees send Park Place back for further review

By the narrowest of margins, the Kenilworth Village Board is giving a proposed luxury condominium another shot, requesting changes be made.

Following a 4-3 vote Monday, with Village President Cecily Kaz casting the tiebreaking vote, the plans for the development known as Park Place will reappear in front of the Architectural Review Commission and the Plan Commission, before another chance with the Village Board.

Kaz voted alongside Trustees John Gottschall, Joseph Vitu and Matthew Lojkovic to remand the plans to the commissions, while Trustees Amy Hannus, Christopher Ottsen and Tim Ransford voted against.

The discussion on Monday, Jan. 26, came six days after Kenilworth trustees first discussed the plans during a nearly three-hour meeting on Jan. 20.

Park Place, as proposed, is a four-story, mixed-use building planned for 515-519 Park Drive. At 46 feet 4 inches, the proposed height exceeds both Kenilworth’s regular development’s maximum of 36 feet and planned unit development cap of 40 feet.

The height has been a point of contention ever since the project had its first neighborhood meeting last summer, with neighbors telling developer Michael P. Freiburger they felt the height and massing were too much.

It was also an issue for both the ARC and Plan Commission, both of which recommended denial of the plans at their respective meetings.

Freiburger had said that, after the ARC meeting, the height was reduced to 46 feet 4 inches, and thus, commissions had not had an opportunity to provide feedback on the most-recent plans.

The split Village Board, in its decision to remand, also included specific directions for the commissions to “evaluate possible design changes to mitigate the impact of the height.” Amendments could include removal of the fourth-floor penthouse, alteration of the fourth-floor setbacks or elimination of the top floor altogether. The Plan Commission was also directed to provide feedback on any public benefit Freiburger and his team would offer.

A mix of feedback

Multiple trustees during Monday night’s discussion acknowledged the work that has gone into the project and the difficult decision that was before them.

Gottschall, who said that he’s lived in the village for 11 years, reiterated his views from the previous meeting that he’s concerned, if the village denies Freiburger’s proposal, it will give Kenilworth a reputation of being opposed to new development.

“In those 11 years, nothing’s happened (in Kenilworth) while downtown Winnetka and downtown Wilmette have boomed,” he said. “I don’t think that the window of opportunity to attract developers to downtown Kenilworth is going to go on forever.”

He supported sending the plans back to the ARC specifically to see if the penthouse can be reconfigured.

Ransford said he didn’t want to go against the recommendations of the village commissions, but at the same time didn’t want to deny the proposal based solely on the height issue.

“I don’t think it’s correct to go against the committees,” Ransford said. “But this is the work. We have to continue to do the work. How are we going to figure out a way forward?”

Vitu, who called the proposal “a beautiful building,” was also torn on what to do but supported sending the plans back to the commissions.

“If we don’t do anything, we’ll have nothing,” he said.

Addressing the board, Freiburger said he and his team were receiving “excellent feedback that we are actively listening to, and really do want to try to find something that works for everybody.”

He reiterated that the fourth floor penthouse is critical to the plans, and that any proposal without it or without the fourth floor at all is a “much different conversation.”

Reed Edwards, with RED3 Development, said his team has done everything possible to make the building smaller.

“I think that those efforts would probably be pretty well received by the Architectural Review Committee based upon the discussions that we had with them at the time,” he said. “But there’s a limit to how much further we can go. Maybe we can massage the penthouse level even further. We’re not sure, but it’s something that we can certainly study and may be feasible.”

Ottsen, who participated virtually, said the elimination of the penthouse is a “nonstarter,” and questioned if sending the plans back to the commissions would make a difference.

He added that he used the village’s Green Bay Road vision statement, which was created in 2022, as a guide for his decision.

“I really did try to keep a very open mind,” he said. “I would like to see this vision about revitalization. I just don’t think that providing exceptions are going to be in the best interests of the village. I think it’s creating more consternation than it is gathering people in the village and creating excitement around developing this.”

Hannus agreed.

“We (as trustees) have to give appropriate weight to the commissions that weighed in on this, and we received denial recommendations from the ARC and the Plan Commission,” she said. “We really need to take their expert advisory recommendations seriously.”

Following the vote to remand, Freiburger told trustees that he would be meeting with the development team to discuss next steps and would be in touch with the village’s community development department.

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.