Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenilworth ARC finds reduced Park Drive proposal still too large in straw poll; requests specific design changes
Summary
After remand from the Village Board, the applicant revised 515–519 Park Drive to all-residential with a maximum height of 40 feet; the Architectural Review Commission opposed the design in a 1–5 straw poll and provided ten specific areas for redesign, including reduced massing and traditional details.
The Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission reviewed a remanded application for a new building at 515–519 Park Drive on March 2, 2026, after the Village Board asked the ARC and Plan Commission to re-evaluate massing, height and public benefits. Village Planner Michael Blue summarized the project history and the Board's request that the commissions "evaluate potential design modifications to mitigate the impact of the building's height."
Applicant Michael Freiburger presented a revised concept that removed proposed commercial uses in favor of all-residential units and set a maximum building height of 40 feet. Freiburger said the proposal included a potential contribution toward enhancements to the Park Drive median as a public benefit. "The updated concept eliminates the previously proposed commercial uses and instead consists entirely of residential units, with a maximum building height of 40 feet," the planner reported.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on technical and design details. Commissioner Paul Armstrong asked about floor-to-floor heights and suggested further setback of the "shed dormer" and recessing the building entrance to reduce perceived scale. Acting Chair Chip Hackley and Commissioner Paul Ozga acknowledged the applicant's efforts to lower height, but Chair John Pilant and Commissioner Joel Joyce continued to express concern about the building's massing and the difficulty of transitioning between commercial and residential uses along the corridor. Commissioners also flagged long, uninterrupted wall planes and recommended additional step-backs.
Village Attorney Megan Mack and Planner Michael Blue clarified that the commission's role on remand was advisory: to provide actionable feedback to the Plan Commission and Village Board. The ARC produced a list of recommended refinements including: incorporating more traditional Tudor elements to soften an overly "crisp" appearance; ensuring residential character if the building is exclusively residential; revisiting the "swoop" design element; exploring additional step-backs and horizontal banding; providing detailed rear elevation drawings; and studying reduced ceiling heights (to about 8 to 8.5 feet) to lower overall height and massing.
The commission took a straw poll asking whether the reduced building height and proposed design were in keeping with the intent of the Green Bay Road Corridor design guidelines. The result was one yes (Hackley) and five no votes (Joyce, Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, Pilant). The ARC did not approve or deny the application at the meeting; instead it closed the public hearing and forwarded specific feedback to the Plan Commission and Village Board for further review.
