New design, similar concerns for Kenilworth project Park Place

In their latest attempt to receive approval from Kenilworth officials, the developers of a proposed condominium project have modified its design.

The changes come in the wake of negative recommendations from two Village commissions and a directive from the Village Board that sent the proposal back to those commissions for more feedback.

But members of those commissions have still expressed concerns with previously shared issues, while also discussing new ones introduced with the redesign.

Representatives from RED3 Development, a principal holding company associated with Wilmette-based NEWLOOK Development, presented its latest design for Park Place, 515-519 Park Drive, to Kenilworth’s Plan Commission on Tuesday, April 7, when it continued to be met with not only concerns from commissioners but also neighbors, who have spoken out against the proposal since it was first revealed in 2025.

How did we get here?

Park Place is being proposed to replace 515-519 Park Drive, which includes a vacant storefront and an antique store.

When first presented to neighbors in August 2025, Park Place was described as a “luxury” mixed-use development with retail on the first floor, housing units on the second and third floors, and a fourth-floor penthouse. But many neighbors present criticized the height and massing of the building, among other things.

Those concerns followed Park Place as it made its way through the Village Review process, earning a negative recommendation from the Architectural Review Commission in October 2025, followed by another negative recommendation from the Plan Commission in December 2025.

Along the way, RED3 Development continued to alter the designs to reduce the height and massing, and in January, the Village Board, on a 4-3 vote, remanded the plans back to the commissions so they could provide feedback on the changes that had been made since those initial meetings.

The changes

Michael P. Freiburger, with RED3 and NEWLOOK, said Tuesday that he and his team created their most recent designs with the feedback they received from the commissions, Village Board and members of the public.

“We’ve taken that feedback very seriously at every step,” he said.

The current proposal reduces the maximum height of Park Place to 40 feet at the penthouse, which is set back approximately 10 feet from the top floor of the building. From the street, Freiburger said the building was designed to appear to be 33 feet tall.

“That is the primary street wall, the portion of the building people actually see and experience,” he said. “The upper level is fully recessed and intentionally designed to be visually secondary. So while the building technically measures 40 feet, it does not feel or read as a 40-foot building.”

Initially, Park Place was proposed at 48 1/2 feet, before being reduced to 46 1/2 feet prior to its presentation to the Village Board in January. 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).

To get that reduced height, Freiburger said he and his team removed the retail element of the project and are now proposing a fully residential building.

“(Removing retail) allowed us to lower the building, bring the first floor residential level partially below grade and deliver a scheme that stays within the 40-foot framework,” he said. “But more importantly, it allowed us to rethink how the building is actually experienced from the street.”

Prior to the Plan Commission meeting, the revised design had appeared in front of the ARC on March 2. According to the draft minutes from that meeting, found in the Plan Commission’s packet, a straw poll taken found that five ARC members didn’t believe the reduced height and design were in line with the Green Bay Road Corridor guidelines, while one member believed it was.

Commissioners debate changes

While the Plan Commission, which only had four of its members present Tuesday, did not take another vote, they spent more than 50 minutes discussing the proposed changes.

Commission Chair JT Mohr said he was concerned about keeping retail out of the building, which would require a variance from the Village.

“We don’t know what the future holds,” Mohr said. “Maybe retail’s going to come roaring back and we’ll never get that space back. So how do we prorate that for basically an eternity of losing any potential of having that retail space? That really impacts the potential public benefit.”

He also noted that Kenilworth has a small business district and limited retail space already, and questioned whether a plan that reduces it was a good idea.

Commissioner Shannon Stoelting asked Freiburger, if there is no retail, what public benefit Park Place would bring to Kenilworth.

He responded by listing off several potential benefits, including the demolition of “dilapidated” buildings, increased property values, and the addition of luxury condominiums, an amenity for which residents have reportedly asked.

Commissioner Ian Fisher expressed concerns about granting a special use to a building that exceeds Kenilworth’s 35-foot maximum building guidelines, and specifically said he was concerned it would set a precedent.

“That is, to me, a higher good to preserve than any of the other factors that we’re currently trying to weigh,” he said.

Commissioner Anna Simpson, who had previously voted to recommend Park Place, noted that 40 feet is allowed as a planned unit development.

“We wrote that code. We approved that code,” she said. “It says you can go to 40 feet if you have special permission, and you get that special permission by making all these accommodations to your design.”

“If we aren’t willing to go to 40 feet with this design, what is the difference?” she later asked. “What is the design we would be willing to go to 40 feet for?”

Fisher asked Freiburger if the building could get down to 35 feet, and Freiburger responded that “we would have a long conversation amongst our team” if that should happen.

“I don’t even know if it would work,” he said.

Reed Edwards, with RED3 Development, said if that were the case, the proposal that would come to the Village would look different than the current iteration. He believes the only viable option would be to create rental properties.

Another suggestion from commissioners was to reexamine side of the building that faces the alley, which they said is used by children and families to walk to school and get around town.

“I think we could think more creatively about how to appease and enhance the lives of the people who are going to be to the back of this,” Simpson said. “And that could be one of the public benefits that we recommend.”

Public continues to speak out

Nine neighbors spoke in opposition to Park Place during public comment, with many of them continuing to criticize the height of the building.

One neighbor, Eric Miller, presented to commissioners a packet of information containing multiple criticisms he has with Park Place, which he referred to as “the wall.” He concluded his public comments by asking for consistent rules for construction.

“If you support this new plan, you should support 40-foot heights throughout the Village,” he said. “You should allow four stories for every house in Kenilworth. You should allow houses in Kenilworth to build on their entire lot and build fences as tall as they want.”

Following Tuesday’s meeting, Park Place will next reappear in front of the Village Board.

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.