Planning and Zoning Commission

Meeting Agenda PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 23, 2026 MEETING #87 Planning & Zoning Commission meetings air live on Geneva Broadcast LOCATION Network, which can be viewed on Comcast Ch. 10, AT&T U-Verse Ch. 99, City Hall or the City’s YouTube Channel. Council Chambers 109 James Street 1. Call to Order Geneva IL, 60134 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda TIME 4. Approval of Minutes: July 9, 2026 7:00 P.M. 5. Public Hearing: a. 813 Elm Avenue Porch Variations: Requests for: 1) Variation to reduce the side yard setback from 6 ft. to 4.7 ft.; and 2) Variation COMMISSIONERS to increase the allowable lot coverage from 45% to 59.4% for a John Mead, Chair front porch. Tim Moran, Vice-Chair Applicant: Jeff and Ann Douglas Mim Evans Michael Slifka Location: 813 Elm Avenue Rebecca Holoman 6. Public Comment Adam Matyskiel When recognized by the Chair, proceed to the podium, state your Brittany Eve Baker name for the record, and provide your public comments. Please understand this is your time to be heard and the public body’s time to listen. No discussion or debate will follow. STAFF LIASION 7. Other Business Matt Buesing 8. Adjournment City Planner Phone: (630) 845-9654 Email: mbuesing@geneva.il.us This Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is being audio and video tape-recorded, transcribed by a court reporter and/or summary minutes are being taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any individual with a disability requesting a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a public meeting should contact the Community Development Department at least 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting. The Community Development department can be reached in person at Geneva City Hall, by telephone at (630)-232-0871, or via email at mbuesing@geneva.il.us. Every effort will be made to allow for meeting participation. Notice of this meeting was posted consistent with the requirements of 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (Open Meetings Act).  Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2026 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS It is the Planning and Zoning Commission’s job to conduct public hearings in order to receive testimony for and against petitions for comprehensive plan amendments, zoning map amendments, zoning ordinance text amendments, special use permits and variations. The procedure followed for public hearings is as follows: • First, the Planning and Zoning Commission secretary or the designated representative will read or describe written items, reports, and plans into the record. • Second, staff will present a brief summary of their report to the Commission. • Third, the petitioner will present testimony in favor of the petition and will present any supporting plans or exhibits. • Fourth, the Commission members will have an opportunity to question the petitioner. • Fifth, the Commission will then receive citizen testimony both for and against the petition. Questions about the proposal may be directed to the petitioner or petitioner’s witnesses, and questions about the Planning and Zoning Commission process may be directed to the Chairman. Following such testimony, the petitioner and the Planning and Zoning Commission may respond to and ask questions of those who testified. • Finally, the petitioner may provide a rebuttal to any testimony in opposition. When all the testimony is brought into the record the hearing will be closed and the Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a motion or motions. • Participants giving testimony will need to remember to speak directly into the microphone to be heard. Participants must first begin their testimony by stating their name. If participants speak additional times, they will need to state their name each time for the record. • It is asked that presented testimony remain concise. If a point has already been made, it is not necessary to repeat it. Each of these points is recorded and will be considered as the Commission develops findings of fact and a recommendation or recommendations. • Participants may provide testimony in written form, but such written testimony must be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission secretary or the designated representative prior to the closing of the public hearing. • After the process is completed and everyone wishing to present testimony has spoken, the Commission will then decide whether it has heard adequate testimony in order to make a decision. If it has, the public hearing will be closed. After a public hearing is closed, the Planning and Zoning Commission will refrain from receiving any additional testimony either for or against the petition.  PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Geneva 109 James Street - City Council Chambers July 9, 2026 — Meeting #86 1. Call to Order Chairman Mead called the meeting of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. and read a prepared statement of procedures for the meeting. He swore in any individuals planning to speak during the hearing. 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Baker, Evans, Matyskiel, Moran, Slifka; Chairman Mead Absent: Commissioner Holomon Staff Present: City Planner Matt Buesing 3. Approval of the Agenda Motion by Commissioner Moran, seconded by Commissioner Evans to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 6-0. 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes, June 11, 2026 Motion by Commissioner Moran, seconded by Commissioner Matyskiel to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2026, meeting. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 6-0. 5. Public Hearing 5a. Chianti’s Text Amendment & Special Use: Requests for: 1) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add “Restaurant” as a special use in the D-IM (Light Industrial Mixed-Use) zoning district; and 2) a Special Use for a restaurant at 321 Stevens Street, Suite N. Applicant: Joe Stanton Location: 321 Stevens Street, Suite N City Planner Matt Buesing presented the staff report. He explained that the property had previously operated as a restaurant under the former I-1 zoning district; however, the previous Special Use approval lapsed when the restaurant ceased operating in 2014. Following the City's 2019 downtown zoning update, the property was rezoned to the D-IM (Light Industrial Mixed-Use) district, where restaurants are no longer identified as a Special Use. Buesing reviewed the applicant's requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow restaurants as a Special Use within the D-IM district and to approve a Special Use Permit for a 20-seat restaurant at the subject property. He noted that the district contains approximately 17 parcels with a variety of industrial, office, and commercial uses and already permits similar food-related uses, including catering operations and production breweries with on-site dining. Staff reviewed the applicable Special Use Standards and found that the requests met all required standards. Buesing then invited the applicant to present the proposal. Applicant Joe Stanton described Chianti's plans to convert the existing catering and carry-out operation into a small sit-down restaurant in response to customer demand. He stated that City staff, the Fire Department, and Building Department reviewed the proposal prior to submission and confirmed the space could accommodate approximately 20 seats without significant modifications. Mr. Stanton explained that no exterior changes were proposed and that the building owner has been transitioning the property toward office and service-oriented tenants. He also noted that many anticipated customers already visit the property for nearby businesses and the Playhouse, minimizing additional parking impacts. If approved, the applicant would subsequently seek to modify its existing liquor license to allow on-site dining. Commissioner Questions Commissioners questioned the applicant and staff regarding: • the possibility of future outdoor seating, which the applicant indicated is not planned at this time; • the restroom configuration, confirming that the restroom accessed from the common hallway serves only the Chianti's tenant space; • the similarities between the current request and the previous restaurant approval for the property; and • the proposal's parking accommodations. Public Testimony Jeff Lescher, 416 Stevens Street, expressed concerns regarding increased commercial activity in the area, including parking, noise, outdoor events, and the cumulative impacts of recent restaurant and brewery approvals. He questioned whether approving additional restaurant uses could gradually transform the area into an entertainment district and encouraged the Commission to consider the impacts on nearby residential properties. In response, staff explained that future restaurant proposals would continue to require individual Special Use approval and that issues such as outdoor seating, entertainment, and operating conditions could be addressed through Special Use conditions or Code Enforcement, as appropriate. MOVE TO CLOSE Motion by Commissioner Moran to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Slifka. AYE: Baker, Evans, Matyskiel, Moran, Slifka, Mead NAY: None MOTION CARRIES 6-0 Commission Discussion Commissioners discussed the resident's concerns regarding the long-term evolution of the D-IM district and agreed that future restaurant or entertainment proposals should continue to be evaluated individually through the Special Use process, with appropriate conditions considered when warranted. Commissioner Moran asked staff about the City's decision to prepare the parking study rather than require one from the applicant. Staff explained that, due to the limited scale of the proposal and the 20- seat maximum, a consultant was not necessary and staff determined through its own parking analysis that adequate parking existed to support the proposed use. Commissioner Evans thanked the nearby resident for providing public testimony and asked staff how future restaurant uses, outdoor seating, entertainment, and similar activities would be regulated within the district. Buesing explained that such elements may require separate approvals, could be addressed through Special Use conditions when appropriate, and that noise-related issues would be handled through the City's Code Enforcement process. Commissioners agreed that each future Special Use request should continue to be evaluated on its own merits. Commissioners generally agreed that the proposed 20-seat restaurant represented a modest expansion of the existing use and was unlikely to create significant impacts on surrounding properties.  During deliberations, the applicant was permitted to clarify that a recent food truck event at the property had been a one-time operational test conducted with the property owner's permission and was not intended to become a recurring event. He also explained that the requested liquor license modification would allow indoor dining under the existing business rather than establish a new entertainment venue. MOVE TO APPROVE Motion by Commissioner Moran to approve the request to amend Section 114A-4 of the Geneva Zoning Ordinance to add Restaurant as a Special Use in the D-IM (Light Industrial Mixed-Use) zoning district, subject to the staff findings of fact. Seconded by Commissioner Slifka. AYE: Baker, Evans, Matyskiel, Moran, Slifka, Mead NAY: None MOTION CARRIES 6-0 MOVE TO APPROVE Motion by Commissioner Moran to approve the request for designation as a Special Use for a restaurant in the D-IM zoning district at 321 Stevens Street, Suite N, subject to the staff findings of fact. Seconded by Commissioner Evans. AYE: Baker, Evans, Matyskiel, Moran, Slifka, Mead NAY: None MOTION CARRIES 6-0 The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration on July 20, 2026. 6. Public Comment No public comment was offered. 7. Other Business City Planner Matt Buesing provided the following updates: • The proposed solar farm project, originally scheduled for City Council consideration on July 6, was postponed and is now anticipated to be considered by the City Council on July 20, 2026. • Assistant Planner Jessie Malkosky welcomed a baby boy, and staff extended congratulations. • Chairmen Mead formally welcomed Commissioner Brittany Baker to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Evans moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:34 p.m. Community Development Department Report PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 23, 2026 AGENDA ITEM 5.A – 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations APPLICANTS Jeff & Ann Douglas LOCATION 813 Elm Avenue PIN 12-02-128-019 REQUESTS (1) Variation from Section 11- 5F-4(B)(1) to reduce the side yard setback from 6 ft. to 4.7 ft. for a front porch; and (2) Variation from Section 11- 5F-4(C)(1) to increase the allowable lot coverage from 45% to 59.4%. RECOMMENDATION Staff may provide a recommendation at the conclusion of the public hearing. Figure 1. Location Map. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, July 2026. STAFF LIASION BACKGROUND Matt Buesing As shown in Figure 1, the subject property is located northeast of the City Planner High Street and Elm Avenue intersection. The site is an interior lot with Phone: (630) 845-9654 frontage along Elm Avenue and features a single-family residential Email: mbuesing@geneva.il.us dwelling with a rear-yard detached garage. Access to the garage is granted from a driveway at the north end of the site, which is shared with the abutting neighbor. The property is also sited directly across the street from Elm Park. The home does not currently have a front porch or other front yard living space. As such, the applicants are proposing a covered front porch that would span the front façade of the home. According to the applicants, the proposed porch would enhance the safety, functionality, and architectural character of the home, while also providing an outdoor living space to enjoy the surrounding area. The subject property is located in the R4 High Density Single-Family Residential zoning district and is permitted a maximum lot coverage of 40% with an additional 5% bonus because the property features a rear-yard detached garage. The existing improvements on the subject  Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 6 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations property combine to a nonconforming total lot coverage of 57.5% (this includes the home, garage, shed, driveway, rear-yard patio, and walkways). As part of their application, the applicants are also proposing to reduce certain hardscape elements (flagstone and paver block walkways) to minimize total lot coverage on the site as much as reasonably possible. The total lot coverage with the proposed porch would be 59.4%. The proposed porch would align with the existing dwelling, which has a nonconforming south side yard setback of 4.7 ft. (instead of the required 6 ft. side yard setback for principal buildings). The zoning ordinance allows for additions to existing nonconformities in the side or rear yards to be expanded vertically and horizontally to the same extent as the existing nonconformity. The proposed porch would also not encroach into the street yard. Therefore, the proposed porch is permitted by-right to be set back 4.7 ft. in the side yard instead of the required 6 ft. While the proposed encroachment is technically allowed, the applicant is requesting a variation to reduce the side yard setback to memorialize the nonconformity. REQUESTS The applicants are requesting the following: • A Variation from Section 11-5F-4(B)(1) to reduce the side yard setback from 6 ft. to 4.7 ft.; and • A Variation from Section 11-15F-4(C)(1) to increase the allowable lot coverage from 45% to 59.4% for a proposed front porch. PROPERTY INFORMATION The subject property is located in the R4 High Density Single-Family Residential zoning district and is identified by the City’s Comprehensive Plan for Single-Family Residential. Please see Table 1 below and Figures 2 and 3 on the following pages for surrounding property information, including existing zoning, existing land uses, and future land use designations. COMPREHENSIVE LOCATION ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN R4 High Density Single- Single-Family Single-Family Subject Property Family Residential Residential Residential R4 High Density Single- Single-Family Single-Family North Family Residential Residential Residential R4 High Density Single- Single-Family Single-Family South Family Residential Residential Residential R4 High Density Single- Single-Family Single-Family East Family Residential Residential Residential West RR Rural Residential Park Open Space Table 1. Surrounding Property Information. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, July 2026.  Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 6 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations Figure 2. Zoning Map of Subject Properties and Surrounding Area. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, July 2026. Figure 3. Future Land Use Designation of Subject Properties and Surrounding Area, based on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by the Geneva Planning Division, July 2026.  Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 6 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations ANALYSIS OF REQUESTS Variations Staff has prepared an analysis of the request in relation to the four variation standards, as set forth in Section 11-14-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has also prepared responses to the four standards, which are attached to this report for the Planning & Zoning Commission’s review and consideration. Based on evidence and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to use this analysis as the basis for its findings of fact, adopt the applicant’s responses, or formulate its own findings. 1. Reasonable Return: The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if to be permitted to be used only under the regulations of the district in which it is located. A. Setback The existing dwelling is set back 4.7 ft. from the south side yard, an encroachment of 1.3 ft. into the required 6 ft. side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variation to memorialize the nonconforming setback, which would enable the home and any other encroaching improvements to be rebuilt in the nonconforming location. Due to the narrow width of the lot and the shared driveway at the north side yard, the property may not be able to yield a reasonable return without the reduced side yard setback. The request meets Standard #1. B. Lot Coverage The applicants would be unable to construct any size front porch to the property without either first obtaining a variation or removing a significant portion of the site improvements because of the existing nonconforming lot coverage. By the nature of the variation request, however, the subject property’s existing condition features an overabundance of site improvements (i.e., principal dwelling, detached garage, rear-yard patio, walkways, and driveway) than would be permitted by-right. Therefore, the applicants would be expected to yield a reasonable return on the property without the proposed front porch. While covered front porches can be found on many homes throughout the city, the lack of a front porch would not prevent the subject property from yielding a reasonable return. The request does not meet Standard #1. 2. Unique Hardship or Practical Difficulty: The shape, topography, or other conditions of the land is such that it is extremely difficult to comply with the regulations generally applicable to the property. A. Setback The proposed porch would maintain the existing dwelling’s side yard setback of 4.7 ft. Per Section 11-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, nonconforming buildings and structures may be expanded horizontally to the same degree as the existing encroachment into the side or rear setback. The proposed variation is technically permitted by the code, but the request is being  Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 6 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations made to memorialize the existing nonconforming setback for both the porch and the home. Standard #2 is met. B. Lot Coverage The subject property has an existing total lot coverage of 57.5%, which is 12.5% above the maximum 45% allowed in the R4 zoning district. Based on historical aerial imagery for Kane County, the subject property appears to have had the same site configuration since at least 1970. In conjunction with the construction of the proposed front porch, the applicants are also proposing to remove about 3% of their existing lot coverage. The proposed front porch would add about 5% to the total lot coverage, but with the removal of paver block and flagstone walkways, the final lot coverage increase would be limited to about 2%. The total proposed lot coverage would be 59.4%, which is 14.4% more than the zoning ordinance allows. The applicants note that the existing lot size and site improvements make it impossible to construct a front porch while also meeting the lot coverage requirement. While this is correct, the lot size is approximately 50 ft. by 140 ft., with a total lot area of 7,038 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for the R4 zoning district is 6,500 sq. ft., so the subject property is not an undersized lot. The existing site improvements do make it impossible for any addition to be made to the property without first obtaining a variation, but this does not constitute a land-based hardship. The request does not meet Standard #2. 3. Character of the Area: The applicant must show that the variation requested will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use or development of property or improvements permitted in the vicinity; will not materially impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties and improvements in the vicinity; will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets due to traffic or parking or increase the danger of flood or fire; will not unduly tax public utilities and facilities in the area; or will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. A. Setback The proposed front porch would maintain the existing home’s nonconforming encroachment into the south side yard. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of narrow, 50 ft. lots where it was common for homes to be constructed within several feet of the side yard property lines. Many homes in the area, including the subject property, also feature detached garages, which require driveways to run along one side yard, thereby further pushing the homes closer to the opposite property line. The proposed setback variation memorializes the existing encroachment and would not be out of character for the area. Standard #3 is met. B. Lot Coverage As previously noted, the proposed front porch addition and associated work would increase the total lot coverage for the site by about 2%, or about 140 sq. ft. A front porch is consistent with the architectural character of the surrounding area and the city as a whole, and a porch  Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 6 813 Elm Ave. Porch Variations would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed porch would also not restrict or hinder development on neighboring properties, but would rather allow the applicants to create a welcoming and safe entrance and a functional outdoor living space at the front of their home. Standard #3 is met. 4. Minimum Variation: Any variation considered by the planning and zoning commission shall be considered the minimum variation necessary for the reasonable use of the land. A. Setback The proposed porch would not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing home. The porch would be 8 ft. in depth and would comply with the required front street yard setback. The requested variation would memorialize the 4.7 ft. side yard setback for both the home and the front porch, and is therefore the minimum variation required. Standard #4 is met. B. Lot Coverage The applicants are requesting a front porch addition that spans the full front façade of the principal dwelling; the porch would add about 350 sq. ft. Due to the nonconforming status of the property in regard to lot coverage, a front porch addition of any size would result in the need for a variation. In staff’s opinion, the front porch could be reduced in size to, at a minimum, maintain the existing lot coverage percentage. A porch with about 215 sq. ft. of coverage would be the maximum size that maintains the existing lot coverage (in conjunction with the proposed removal of paver block and flagstone walkways). The proposed porch and associated improvements result in an increase of the existing nonconformity by 2%. The request does not meet Standard 4. RECOMMENDATION Staff will provide a recommendation at the conclusion of the public hearing. REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS: NEXT STEPS* 1. August 3, 2026 – City Council consideration of requests *This timeline is provided for informational purposes only; exact dates are subject to change. ATTACHMENTS Project Narrative Response to Variation Standards Architectural Drawings Plat of Survey June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Geneva 22 South First Street Geneva, IL 60134 Jeffrey and Ann Douglas 813 Elm Avenue Geneva, IL 60134 Dear City of Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission, We are the owners and occupants of the single-family residence located at the above address. We respectfully submit this Letter of Intent in support of our application for zoning variations to allow the construction of a covered front porch on our home. The proposed porch is intended to enhance the safety, functionality, and architectural character of our residence while remaining consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. Due to existing lot conditions and the configuration of the home, drive and garage, strict compliance with the zoning ordinance creates a practical difficulty. As such, we are requesting the following variations: 1. Side Setback Variation We are requesting a variation to permit a 4.7-foot side yard setback, where a greater setback is otherwise required by the zoning ordinance. The proposed covered front porch would extend modestly into the side yard setback area. This encroachment is minimal in scale and is limited to the porch structure only. The primary structure of the home remains unchanged. 2. Lot Coverage Variation We are requesting a variation to permit lot coverage of 59.4 % to accommodate the covered front porch. The addition of the porch marginally increases total lot coverage. The increase is limited to what is necessary to construct a functional, code-compliant porch and does not materially alter site drainage, open space, or the overall balance of built versus unbuilt area on the lot. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request approval of the setback and lot coverage variations. Granting these variations will relieve a practical difficulty, allow a reasonable residential improvement, and remain consistent with the intent and spirit of the zoning ordinance. We appreciate your consideration of this request and are happy to provide any additional information or documentation as needed. Respectfully, Jeffrey and Ann Douglas  Standards for Variations Compliance Evidence A. Reasonable Return Strict enforcement of the zoning regulations would prevent us from constructing a covered front porch of reasonable size and functionality. A covered porch is a common and desirable residential feature that provides weather protection, improves accessibility, enhances safety by providing a stable, sheltered transition area at the front entrance, and supports safer access during rain, snow, and icy conditions. It also enhances the everyday use of the home. Without the requested variations, the porch would either be infeasible or so reduced in size as to be impractical, thereby depriving us of a reasonable residential improvement that is consistent with similar homes in the area. B. Unique Hardship or Practical Difficulty The hardship is not self-created but arises from the existing lot size, lot coverage, and the placement of the home on the lot, which limits the ability to add a porch while complying with current setback and lot coverage requirements. These conditions are unique to this parcel and are not generally applicable to other properties within the zoning district. Compliance with the ordinance, as written, imposes a practical difficulty that makes the proposed improvement extraordinarily difficult without relief. C. Character of the Area The proposed covered front porch is designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing home and surrounding residences. Front porches are a common feature in the neighborhood and contribute positively to streetscape character, walkability, and neighborhood interaction. The porch will not negatively impact light, air, privacy, or property values of neighboring properties and will maintain the established residential character of the area. D. Minimum Variation Necessary The requested variations represent the minimum relief necessary to allow for the construction of a modest, functional covered front porch. The design has been carefully considered to limit encroachment into the setback and to minimize additional lot coverage. No additional variations beyond those listed are being requested. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request approval of the setback and lot coverage variations. Granting these variations will relieve a practical difficulty, allow a reasonable residential improvement, and remain consistent with the intent and spirit of the zoning ordinance. We appreciate your consideration of this request and are happy to provide any additional information or documentation as needed.  Current Coverage PLAT OF SURVEY *SURVEYOR'S NOTE: BUILDING LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE House 1,481.4 Sq. Ft. 21.0% LOT 21 IN BLOCK 13 OF WESTERN SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION, GENEVA - ST.' CHARLES, DERIVED FROM CITY OF GENEVA Garage 595.8 Sq. Ft. 8.5% IN THE CITY OF GENEVA, KANE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. R-4 ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Shed 46.6 Sq. Ft. 0.7% Driveway 1,228.7 Sq. Ft. 17.5% COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 813 ELM AVENUE, GENEVA, ILLINOIS. Concrete Patio .316.2 Sq. Ft. 4.5% Flagstone Paver Block Total 25.3.5 Sq. Ft. 12.3. 5 Sq. Ft. 4,045. 7 Sq. Ft. 3.6% 1.8% 57.5% PROPERTY CONTAINS: 7,038.1 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 0 V Lot 27 Lot 20 G) "T\ a, 'a Proposed Coverage a 3 ~ (1) House 1,481.4 Sq. Ft. 21% Garage 595. 8 Sq. Ft. 8.5% gross Shed 46.6 Sq. Ft. 0.7% ·. 34,0' •·· •· · d. asp. halt vinyl shed . ·shore 22 5' Driveway 1,228.7 Sq. Ft. 17.5% ·. 01 · driveway cone block) ~· 3.s' on ( Concrete Patio .316. 2 Sq. Ft. 4.5% Flagstone 163. 7 Sq. Ft. 2 . .3% . .. ... Proposed Cone Porch .348.5 Sq. Ft. 4.9% 477' Total 4,180.9 Sq. fl. 59. 4% Al STA TE OF ILLINOIS ) (1) ~. "T\ ci l/) a_::) I rl- Lot ) ss (1) ::) () :) 0 (1)' '< 21 COUNTY OF KENDALL ) (1) WE, CORNERSTONE SURVEYING, P. C., AN ILL/NOIS PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FIRM LAND SURVEYOR CORPORA T/ON NO. 184.006522, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PROFESSIONAL 1 0 SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM 140.32 () STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY SURVEYOR HAS MADE ,1111111,,, 11 (J) (1) (1) :, Lot 25 NO INVEST/GA T/ON OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR EASEMENTS OF ,,,,,,~,~L LAN{/11/// Q_ RECORD, ENCUMBRANCES, RESTRICT/VE COVENANTS, OWNERSHIP $''~'~·············· .. TITLE EVIDENCE, OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH AN ACCURATE Jt;]/ ···.~S ~u.;~ 0) Lot 22 TITLE SEARCH MA y DISCLOSE. 3 ~ / ERIC c POKORNY ••• -< ~ = n: : 035--003818 : O = ::O...: ;::U~ DA TED AT YORKVILLE, ILL/NOIS ON FEBRUARY 19, 2026. ~ u1 •.. YORKVlLLE, . .••c.::, ~ _ ..._ /~ C IL ~ ->-..<1 ·•... • •• •· a' $ /// 1 J-1: ········ \'<;;' ,,. . ///1 0 F I L\.. ,,,, 1111 ~----~- IIJ11111111 111' Client: Scale: l "= 20' Eric C. Pokorny, P.L.S. 3818, Exp. 11/30/2026 Jeffrey Douglas Book #· sheets Drawn B . ER.ME2 Plat #· 1257 O=Found 3/4" Dia. Iron Pipe ®=Found 3/4" Dia. Iron Rod Reference: 6 =Found Mag Nail (XX.XX')= Record Distance XX.XX'= Measured Distance N= North £= East Tovv SuRVEYINCi Professional Land Surveying Services Field Work Completed: 02/17/2026 easement revisions S= South W= West "Cornerstone Surveying PC" X X X = Fence 759 John Street, Suite D c=:J= Concrete/Asphalt Yorkville, IL 60560 Project Number: Phone: 630-892-1309 / Email: info@toddsurvey.com ~FFFrn= Loose Paver Blocks 2026-0118 lffl= Flagstone Survey is only valid if original seal is shown in red.