Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenilworth ARC split over revised 515–519 Park Drive design; straw poll rejects proposal
Summary
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed a remanded application for a new building at 515–519 Park Drive revised to an all-residential project with a 40-foot height limit. A majority in a straw poll found the reduced height and design inconsistent with corridor guidelines and provided ten specific design refinements for further review.
The Village of Kenilworth Architectural Review Commission reviewed a remanded application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 515–519 Park Drive on March 2, 2026. The applicant, Michael Freiburger, presented a revised concept that eliminates proposed commercial space and limits the structure to residential units with a maximum height of 40 feet. Village Planner Michael Blue told commissioners the Village Board remanded the application to the ARC and Plan Commission to evaluate design modifications and potential public benefits.
Village Attorney Megan Mack asked commissioners, "Are the reduced building height and proposed design in keeping with the intent of the design guidelines for the Green Bay Road Corridor?" Commissioners then debated technical elements of massing and scale. Acting Chair Chip Hackley acknowledged the applicant's effort to reduce the height, but several commissioners—Joel Joyce, Paul Armstrong, Paul Ozga, Gunta Cepuritis, and Chair John Pilant—continued to express concerns about the building's massing, transitions between commercial and residential contexts, and the rear elevation.
Commissioner Armstrong pressed the applicant on floor-to-floor heights and suggested lowering ceiling heights and recessing the entrance to reduce perceived scale. Commissioners also discussed adjusting fourth-floor setbacks, removing the penthouse, and exploring additional step-backs. Several commissioners said the building should exhibit clearer residential character if it is exclusively housing.
The Commission then took a straw poll on whether the reduced height and proposed design align with the Green Bay Road Corridor design guidelines; Acting Chair Hackley voted yes, and Commissioners Joyce, Armstrong, Ozga, Cepuritis, and Pilant voted no, producing a majority opposition. The ARC compiled a list of specific, actionable feedback—ranging from revisiting the "swoop" and shed-dormer elements to exploring horizontal banding and more traditional Tudor elements—and asked staff to forward those points to the Plan Commission and Village Board.
Public comment included multiple neighbors who raised procedural concerns and objections to the design. For example, rear-neighbor Eric Miller said he was concerned about "facing a large wall" from his backyard if the design proceeds as proposed. Applicant Michael Freiburger responded that he was open to additional refinements, particularly to the rear elevation and elements perceived as overly modern.
Next steps: the ARC provided its feedback to be forwarded to the Plan Commission and Village Board. No formal change to the application was approved at this meeting; the ARC closed the public hearing and adjourned.
