Design Review Board

Village of Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Special Meeting May 7, 2026 at 7:00 PM Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 16, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Recommendations and Determinations a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road — Centennial Beach: Consideration of approval of findings and recommendation of the Design Review Board on the Certificate of Appropriateness application to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach at 225 Sheridan Road. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 5. New Applications a. Case No. 26-04-DR: 562 Lincoln Avenue — Kaage Homes: A Sign Permit to allow installation of a double-faced projecting sign on the existing frame on the street frontage of Subject Property. b. Case No. 26-05 DR: 385 Winnetka Avenue — New Trier High School: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow multiple directional signs on the existing building and the property. c. Case No. 26-06-DR: 547 Chestnut Street — The Lake Effect: A Sign Permit to allow replacement of the awning valance and valance sign on the existing awning at Subject Property. d. Case No. 26-07-DR: 902 Green Bay Road — Found by Steph: A Sign Permit to allow installation of a window, door, and double-faced projecting sign on the existing frame on the street frontage of Subject Property. e. Case No. 26-08-DR: 1010 Green Bay Road — Bank of America: A Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing exterior light fixture at the main entrance of the Bank of America building on the Subject Property 6. New Business a. May 21, 2026, Regular Meeting Quorum Check b. June 3 or 4, 2026, Special Meeting - Quorum Check 7. Adjournment Page 1 of 158  NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 2 of 158  1 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 2 April 16, 2026 3 Members Present: Katie Moor, Chairperson 4 Chris Baggett 5 Westley Barker 6 Colin Kennedy 7 Heather Niehoff 8 Peter Evanich 9 Members Absent: Fritz Duda 10 Village Staff: Davorka Kirincic, Building and Code Enforcement 11 Manager 12 Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 13 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 14 Development 15 16 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 17 Call to Order & Roll Call: 18 Chairperson Moor called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken of the Board Members present. 19 Public Comments: 20 No public comments were made at this time. 21 Approval of Minutes: 22 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any comments or corrections to the March 26, 2026, meeting 23 minutes. A motion to approve the March 26, 2026, meeting minutes was made by Member Baggett and 24 seconded by Member Barker. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 6–0. 25 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy, Niehoff, Moor 26 NAYS: None 27 Continued Applications: 28 a. Case No. 26-02-DR: 1050 Scott Avenue — Hubbard Woods Public Parking Structure: A Certificate of 29 Appropriateness to allow installation of a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance of 30 the public parking structure (Amended case). 31 Ms. Kirincic summarized the revised application, noting the Board previously requested alternative 32 designs. Four options were presented: two plaque sign options and two pin-mounted letter options. 33 Lighting was reduced from four fixtures to three as directed by the Board. Page 3 of 158  Design Review Board April 16, 2026 Page 2 1 The applicant, Tom Powers, Director of Public Works, noted that gold lettering was not recommended 2 due to low contrast and indicated preference for black or bronze. Option 1 was believed to offer best 3 visibility and alignment with Village streetscape signage. 4 Board members discussed contrast, visibility, aesthetics, and consistency with Village design guidelines. 5 General consensus favored Option 1 plaque sign with black lettering and three black gooseneck fixtures. 6 Chairperson Moor asked if there was any public comment and there was none. 7 A motion was made by Member Niehoff, second by Member Barker, to approve Option 1 as presented 8 with three black gooseneck light fixtures. A vote was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 6 9 to 0: 10 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy, Niehoff, Moor 11 NAYS: None 12 New Applications: 13 a. Case No. 26-03-DR: 588 Lincoln Avenue — Rail Splitter Capital Management: A Certificate of 14 Appropriateness to allow storefront improvements at Subject Property. 15 Ms. Kirincic reviewed the façade changes. No new signage was requested. 16 Dave Szafarz, representing Downey Szafarz Architects, explained that the proposal for 588 Lincoln 17 Avenue was intended to refresh and modernize a worn storefront while maintaining its existing layout 18 and overall character. He stated that the new design keeps the door and windows in their current 19 locations but replaces them with a new wood door and new wood-framed windows. The surrounding 20 storefront panels would also be replaced with real painted wood to provide an updated and more 21 refined appearance. He also described the plan to install three new LED lighting fixtures with clear 22 cylinders, ensuring the lighting would complement the updated materials. 23 Board members responded with questions and comments focused on lighting and long‑term flexibility 24 of the façade. Member Barker asked for clarification on whether the lighting would use a clear lens, and 25 Mr. Szafarz confirmed that it would. Member Niehoff inquired about why the fixtures were located 26 within the lower horizontal band rather than the upper band, and Mr. Szafarz explained that the design 27 team preferred the proportions created by their current placement. Member Niehoff noted that 28 positioning the lights higher could potentially serve future storefront signage, though this was not a 29 requirement for the current application. 30 The Board generally expressed appreciation for the clean appearance of the proposed updates and 31 agreed that the improvements were appropriate for the building and consistent with the Village’s design 32 standards. No concerns were raised about the materials or design approach, and the Board concluded 33 that the application was straightforward, aesthetically suitable, and ready for approval. 34 Chairperson Moor asked if there was any public comment and there was none. 35 A motion was made by Member Evanich, second by Member Kennedy, to approve the application as 36 submitted. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 6–0. Page 4 of 158  Design Review Board April 16, 2026 Page 3 1 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy, Niehoff, Moor 2 NAYS: None 3 b. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road — Centennial Beach: A Certificate of Appropriateness to 4 allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this 5 request. 6 Ms. Klaassen presented a thorough overview of the two fence proposals submitted for Centennial Beach 7 and explained the procedural context for the Design Review Board’s review. She emphasized that the 8 DRB’s role was limited to evaluating the design appropriateness of the proposed fencing and did not 9 include consideration of land‑use questions or the merits of the off‑leash dog beach itself. Ms. Klaassen 10 reviewed both the original plan, which was the plan presented to the Plan Commission, which consisted 11 of galvanized chain‑link fencing extending into the lake, and the new plan, which was the plan presented 12 to the ZBA, which consisted of black vinyl‑coated chain‑link, mounted to the existing steel groins and 13 reduced the overall footprint of the dog beach. She noted that both the Plan Commission and the ZBA 14 had previously recommended denial of the related special use permit, but that those decisions were 15 independent of the DRB’s design-focused evaluation. 16 Ms. Klaassen also explained that the Village’s design guidelines were originally created for commercial 17 districts and institutional buildings and therefore did not perfectly align with lakefront conditions. She 18 highlighted compliance matters such as allowable fence height, described the planned seasonal removal 19 of some fence sections, and summarized the procedural steps available to the Board. Ms. Klaassen then 20 asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none at this time. 21 Mr. Kutulas spoke on behalf of the Winnetka Park District and explained that the intent of the project 22 was to restore and properly manage Centennial Beach as an off‑leash dog beach in compliance with 23 Village and Cook County regulations. He stated that fencing was intended to keep dogs safely contained, 24 prevent movement to adjacent beaches—including the soon‑to‑reopened Elder Lane Beach—and 25 ensure that the Park District met all regulatory obligations. 26 Mr. Kutulas described how the revised plan was developed in response to community feedback, noting 27 that it significantly reduced the size of the fenced area and added a dedicated pedestrian bypass so 28 people could walk the shoreline without entering the dog area. He explained the choice of black 29 vinyl‑coated chain‑link fencing as a pragmatic response to harsh lakefront conditions, emphasizing 30 durability and reduced visual impact compared to galvanized metal. He also outlined the seasonal 31 removal of fence segments to prevent ice damage, the shift of key‑fob access from the bluff to the 32 beach level, and the functional reasons for placing fencing on existing steel groins. 33 Mr. Kutulas presented fence material samples to the Board and acknowledged that decorative or 34 heavier architectural fencing had been considered but determined such materials would be vulnerable 35 to wave action, ice, and shifting sand, making chain‑link the only feasible option for a temporary but 36 necessary containment solution. He concluded by reiterating that the Park District attempted to balance 37 safety, public access, environmental conditions, and community feedback while preserving this 38 long‑standing community amenity. 39 Chairperson Moor asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Page 5 of 158  Design Review Board April 16, 2026 Page 4 1 Kim Marsh, 360 Forest – Expressed long‑term use of the dog beach and strong opposition to fencing. 2 She stated that chain‑link fencing would further harm already obstructed views, diminish the natural 3 beauty of Centennial Beach, and be “unconscionable.” Ms. Marsh then provided a photograph 4 illustrating the vista concern. 5 Joanna Karatzas, 476 Provident Avenue – Argued that the DRB cannot meaningfully separate design 6 aesthetics from shoreline conditions such as groins, breakwaters, and property lines. She raised 7 concerns specifically about the south fence, stating the geometry “pinches” awkwardly and does not 8 work in plan view. Ms. Karatzas suggested that fencing into the lake may be unnecessary because 9 existing rock structures discourage dog passage. She recommended a simpler gate at the top of the 10 south steps instead of extending fencing lakeward. 11 Susie Schreiber, 152 Glenwood – Provided comments from the perspective of lake users (swimmers, 12 paddlers, kayakers). She stated that Lake Michigan conditions can change rapidly and black chain‑link 13 fencing may be difficult to see from the water, posing collision or entrapment risk. Ms. Schreiber raised 14 concerns about obstructing rescue operations and creating new safety hazards. She also noted potential 15 accumulation of invasive mussels on fence structures. 16 Linda Welch,– Opposed fencing based on aesthetics, safety, and community sentiment. She noted that 17 past fencing remnants caused hazards. Ms. Welch expressed concern that new fencing would mar the 18 beauty of the beach and could trap dogs, wildlife, or people. She concluded that if fencing is required, 19 the area should revert to a people-only beach rather than degrade a natural setting. 20 David Stevens, 333 Sheridan Road – Noted that chain‑link fencing contradicts the design standards 21 applied to the rest of the Village. Mr. Stevens argued the lakefront should not be treated like a 22 residential/commercial site and that extending fencing into the lake is inappropriate. He believes fencing 23 is unnecessary, unsafe, and unattractive. 24 Peggy Martay, Sunset Road – Spoke about Winnetka’s identity as “beautiful land.” She compared the 25 proposed fencing to other rejected aesthetic elements in Village history (e.g., “golden arches”). Ms. 26 Martay urged the DRB to deny the request based on aesthetics and to preserve the appearance of 27 Centennial Beach. 28 Tom Borders, Old Green Bay Road – Framed comments around public access and civic responsibility. He 29 asserted that a fenced dog beach serves a small percentage of residents while restricting shoreline 30 access for families. Mr. Borders believes the Park District’s investment in fencing contradicts traditional 31 concepts of shared public land. 32 Steve Juliusson, 1436 Asbury Avenue – Criticized the proposal as unnecessary (no major incidents over 33 30 years), unreliable (prone to damage by lake conditions), and unsafe (barrier could slow rescue efforts 34 or create hazards). He called the fencing “ugly” and predicted that the consequences of installing it 35 could be worse than the aesthetic impact. 36 Melissa Mizel – Argued that fencing and some associated signage act as “repellents” to public beach use. 37 She criticized wording on recently installed signage as intentionally discouraging the public from using 38 the beach and lakefront. Ms. Mizel described fencing as limiting access and benefiting interests other 39 than the general public. She urged the DRB to stand for “good, true, and beautiful.” Page 6 of 158  Design Review Board April 16, 2026 Page 5 1 Maggie Hayes, 525 Orchard Lane – Shared personal appreciation for Centennial Beach’s natural beauty. 2 She explained that she opposed “uglification” of the beachfront through chain‑link fencing. Ms. Hayes 3 expressed concern about cost and about altering a well-used space and enjoyed during all seasons. She 4 stated long‑term use of the beach does not justify physical barriers. 5 Dave Robertson, longtime resident near Centennial – Opposed fencing and expressed concern that 6 fencing supports private interests over community-wide public access. He characterized the lakefront as 7 an important public resource that should remain open and unobstructed. 8 Chairperson Moor emphasized the DRB’s limited purview — design appropriateness, not policy or 9 land‑use decisions. She highlighted the Board’s responsibility to evaluate materials, quality, aesthetics, 10 and alignment with Village design standards. 11 Member Niehoff expressed concern that chain‑link fencing is materially inappropriate for a natural 12 waterfront setting. She stated she prefers natural materials and higher-quality design solutions 13 consistent with Village standards elsewhere. 14 Chairperson Moor stated chain‑link fencing is not aligned with design expectations for the Village; 15 compared it to selecting low‑grade materials in commercial design review. She encouraged exploring 16 alternative materials and more thoughtful design. 17 Member Kennedy supported a motion to deny based on inappropriate design. 18 Member Barker concurred that chain‑link fencing is not appropriate and supported the motion for 19 denial. 20 A motion was made by Member Kennedy, second by Member Barker, to direct staff and the Village 21 Attorney to prepare written findings recommending denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for both 22 the Original Plan and the New Plan. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 6–0. 23 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy, Niehoff, Moor 24 NAYS: None 25 Other Business. 26 a. May 21, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check. 27 The Board Members discussed their availability. 28 29 Adjournment: 30 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Niehoff and 31 seconded by Mr. Baggett. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 32 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy, Niehoff, Moor 33 NAYS: None 34 35 The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Page 7 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 1, 2026 SUBJECT: CENTENNITAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (CASE NO. 25-28-SU) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board (“DRB”) is scheduled to consider the attached findings and recommendation of the DRB in response to an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”) and considered by the DRB on April 16, 2026, (Attachment A2). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. As of the date of this memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this request. Written comments that were not included in the April 16 DRB agenda packet but were distributed to the DRB in time for that meeting, as well as written comments received since the April 16 meeting, are included in Attachment C2. The public correspondence included in the April 16 agenda packet was divided into two attachments and are available on the Village website: 1. Public Correspondence Previously Included in the ZBA and PC Agenda Packets: https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1212/files/attachment/5814 2. Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of March 16, 2026, ZBA Agenda Packet: https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1212/files/attachment/5815 APRIL 16, 2026, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING On April 16, 2026, the DRB held a public hearing on the Applicant’s certificate of appropriateness application for proposed improvements to the existing beach located on the Subject Property. The staff memo and application materials for the April 16 meeting can be found in Attachment B2. After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the DRB heard from 11 members of the public who all expressed concerns about design and safety. The DRB then discussed the request. Members expressed significant concern about the quality and appropriateness of the proposed fencing material in both plans presented by the Applicant, which consisted of the original plan presented to the Plan Commission with galvanized chain link fencing as well as the new plan that was presented to the ZBA with black vinyl-coated chain link fencing. Members also expressed concern about potential safety issues with regard to the materials and location of the proposed fencing Page 1 Page 8 of 158 Ultimately, the DRB found that the proposed fencing does not satisfy the required standards for a certificate of appropriateness and by a vote of 6-0 the DRB directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the DRB’s discussion for consideration at a future DRB meeting. A copy of the draft April 16 meeting minutes is included in the May 7 agenda packet for the DRB’s consideration. CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS On February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the Plan Commission approved written findings and its recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit, based on the original plan submitted by the Applicant. On March 16, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved written findings and its recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit, based on the new plan submitted by the Applicant. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION As noted in the April 16 staff report, the DRB is charged with evaluating a certificate of appropriateness for consistency with the four standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness. Attachment A2 contains the findings and recommendation with regard to the Applicant’s original plan and new plan that were prepared at the DRB’s direction during the April 16 meeting. At the May 7, 2026, meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the findings and recommendation and take a final vote on the request. If the DRB is prepared to make a final decision regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness request, a member must make a motion approving the written findings and recommendation to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness as requested by the Applicant in its application to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the Subject Property. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A2: Findings and Recommendation of DRB on Certificate of Appropriateness application for Case No. 25- 28-SU Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road Attachment B2: April 16, 2026, DRB Meeting Staff Report Attachment C2: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of April 16, 2026, DRB Agenda Packet Page 2 Page 9 of 158  ATTACHMENT A2 Winnetka Design Review Board Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU Certificate of Appropriateness Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road 1 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO. 25-28-SU CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION BACKGROUND 1. The Winnetka Park District (“Applicant”) is the owner of property commonly known as Centennial Beach, located at 225 Sheridan Road (“Subject Property”). 2. The Applicant filed its original application on October 21, 2025 (“Application”), seeking approval of a special use permit (“Special Use”) and a certificate of appropriateness to install two chain link fences (“Proposed Fencing”) to provide an enclosed area on the Subject Property for an off-leash dog beach (“Original Plan”). 3. The Subject Property is located in the Village’s R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District pursuant to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”). 4. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.3 acres and is located on the east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane. 5. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards (i) the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the east. 6. The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the Park District’s Original Plan for the special use permit (the only plan that the Park District presented to the PC) at its January 28, 2026, meeting, at which it directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the February 25, 2026, PC meeting. On February 25, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit for the Original Plan. 7. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use permit on February 9. However, the item was continued without presentation to the March 9, 2026, ZBA meeting because the Winnetka Park District Board had authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and it had not been submitted to the Village for review before the February 9 ZBA meeting. On March 9, the ZBA considered the Applicant’s new plan (the only plan that the Park District presented to the ZBA) (“New Plan”) and by a vote of 7-0 the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determination for consideration at the March 16 special ZBA meeting. On March 16, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit for the New Plan. Page 10 of 158  Winnetka Design Review Board Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU Certificate of Appropriateness Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road 2 of 4 REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS The Applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction and use of fencing at Centennial Park. The Applicant is asking the Design Review Board (“DRB”) to consider two options -- the Original Plan that the Applicant presented to the Plan Commission and the New Plan that the Applicant presented to the ZBA. The Original Plan is described in detail on pages 7 – 9 of the April 10, 2026 staff memorandum to the DRB and generally includes fencing with galvanized chain link fencing. The New Plan is described in detail on pages 9 – 13 of that same staff memorandum and generally includes black vinyl-coated chain link fencing. PUBLIC HEARING 1. A public hearing was properly noticed as a mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the public hearing. 2. The Winnetka Design Review Board commenced the public hearing on March 26, 2026, and continued and concluded the public hearing on April 16, 2026. 3. During the public hearing, the Applicant presented testimony and exhibits for both the Original Plan and the New Plan. The Applicant and its team discussed the proposed architectural design and materials and operational features of the Proposed Fencing for the off-leash dog beach and the location of the various elements of the fencing and the interplay with public access to and from north and south of the Property under both Plans. The Applicant testified that in its opinion, the project maintains public access, improves safety and maintains shoreline connectivity. 4. Approximately 11 members of the public expressed significant concerns about the design and safety of both the Original Plan and the New Plan. 5. Members of the Design Review Board expressed significant concerns about the quality and appropriateness of the Proposed Fencing material included in both proposed Plans, including potential safety issues with regard to the materials and location of the proposed fencing. FINDINGS REGARDING STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Section 15.40.010 of the Village Code provides the procedures and criteria for consideration of a certificates of appropriateness. The Design Review Board has considered the following issues as required by Section 15.40.010.F of the Village Code: (1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; Page 11 of 158  Winnetka Design Review Board Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU Certificate of Appropriateness Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road 3 of 4 (2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. Due to the materials, design, and location of the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan, the DRB finds that the external architectural features of these proposals are inappropriate and incompatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood and the public beach environment of the Subject Property and may cause substantial depreciation in the effectiveness and value of the improvements on and surrounding the public property location of the proposed fencing. Accordingly, the Design Review Board finds that, notwithstanding the Applicant’s representations regarding compliance with the standards for certificates of appropriateness under the Village Code, that the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan does not satisfy the required standards and thus denial is appropriate under Section 15.40.010.I.1 of the Village Code. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board recommends to the President and Trustees denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Proposed Fencing under either the Original Plan or the New Plan. This report is adopted by a __ to __ vote of the Design Review Board, this 7th day of May, 2026. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Respectfully Submitted, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA Page 12 of 158  ATTACHMENT B2 MEMORANDUM VILLAGEOF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 10, 2026 SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (CASE NO. 25-28-SU) INTRODUCTION On April 16, 2026, the Design Review Board (“DRB”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. This item was originally scheduled for the March 26, 2026, DRB meeting; however, the Applicant requested the item be continued to the April 16, 2026, DRB meeting. The DRB granted the Applicant’s request and continued the item to the April 16 DRB meeting. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, in compliance with the Village Code, informing them of the original public hearing on March 26. The Applicant has also submitted a Special Use Permit application to allow the proposed fencing. Information about the special use permit review is provided to the DRB for reference only. The DRB’s purview is limited to consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the Park District’s original plan for the special use permit (the only plan that the Park District presented to the PC) at its January 28, 2026, meeting, at which it directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the February 25, 2026, PC meeting. On February 25, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use permit on February 9. However, the item was continued without presentation to the March 9, 2026, ZBA meeting because the Winnetka Park District Board had authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and it had not been submitted to the Village for review before the February 9 ZBA meeting. On March 9, the ZBA considered the Applicant’s new plan (the only plan that the Park District presented to the ZBA) and by a vote of 7-0 the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determination for consideration at the March 16 special ZBA meeting. On March 16, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Details regarding the PC’s and ZBA’s considerations are provided later in this report. Page 1 Page 13 of 158 As of the date of this memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Most of these comments were received by the Village for consideration by the PC and ZBA. Additional comments have also been received since the ZBA’s consideration of the Applicant’s request. Comments previously included in the PC and ZBA packets are provided in Attachment B. Comments received since the posting of the March 16, 2026, ZBA agenda packet are provided in Attachment C. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i) the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the east. The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses, which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve Land (see Figure 2). The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family Residential to the west (see Figure 3). In addition, the Zoning Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit approval. The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well. Subject Property Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Page 14 of 158  Subject Property Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan Subject Property Figure 3 – Zoning Map Page 15 of 158 Figures 4 and 5 below are photos of the Subject Property taken in January. Figures 6 through 9 on the following pages were taken in the summer of 2024. Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026) Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026) Page 16 of 158 Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Page 17 of 158  Figure 8 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Figure 9 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024) PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the beach to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach. The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Currently, patrons are required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above and dogs are required to be leashed. As explained by the Applicant in the attached letter dated April 3, 2026, included in Attachment A, the Applicant is proceeding in an unusual way. The Page 18 of 158 Applicant is asking the DRB to consider two options; the original plan (“Original Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the Plan Commission and the new plan (“New Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the ZBA. Original Plan (presented to the Plan Commission). The Original Plan consists of two rows of galvanized steel chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the beach into the lake. Both the north and south fence would have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates that they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate to remain at the top of bluff. North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate 10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM. South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall east towards the water (Figure 12). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of the proposed fencing and gates for the Original Plan are provided below and on the following pages (Figures 10-16). The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A. OHWM (Front Lot Line) Proposed Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence (key fob access) and Gate Proposed Existing Steel North Fence Sheet Pile Wall and Gate Figure 10 –Original Plan - Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0) Page 19 of 158  OHWM (Front Lot Line) Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 261 Sheridan Road Proposed Access Gate Figure 11 – Original Plan - Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 205 Sheridan Road Proposed OHWM Access Gate (Front Lot Line) Figure 12 – Original Plan - Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Page 20 of 158 As proposed in the Original Plan, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin. Figure 13 – Original Plan - North Access Gate Figure 14 – Original Plan - South Access Gate Figure 15 – Original Plan - Elevation of North Fence Figure 16 – Original Plan - Elevation of South Fence New Plan (presented to the ZBA). Following the Applicant’s special meeting on February 5, the Applicant submitted a New Plan, which is also included in Attachment A. In the New Plan, the existing gate at the top of the bluff would remain but access would be controlled with a programed timed locking system that would operate from 6:00am to 10:00pm, this allows for public access to the beach. While entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area would be restricted with the key fob system currently in place at the top of the bluff. There would be a double-entry gate system to allow for unleashing and leashing of dogs. There would also be a 10-foot wide maintenance access gate that would remain locked and used by Park District staff. The Fire Department has requested access to the maintenance gate for emergency responses and the Applicant has agreed to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide access. The proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet Page 21 of 158 of the beach frontage for dogs to be off-leash (Figure 17). This represents a reduction of approximately 50% from the Original Plan presented to the PC in terms of the linear frontage of the dog beach area. Another major difference in the New Plan is the addition of a west fence that would be located 12 feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without entering the off- leash dog area. This fence would be 4 feet in height above grade (sand level) and be black chain-link, rather than the galvanized chain-link proposed in the Original Plan. Use of Remaining Beach Area. Included in Attachment A, is a narrative dated March 4, 2026, provided by the Applicant explaining the use of the remainder of Centennial Beach given the New Plan limits the dog beach area to roughly half of Centennial Beach. The remaining portion of the beach consists of approximately 260 feet of lake frontage and would be used as a passive beach without swimming. The Applicant indicates that staffing for the passive beach would generally be late May through early September and that access to the beach would require a beach pass. The beach will remain accessible from 6:00am until 10:00pm outside the typical beach season, but it will not be staffed. North Fence. The north portion of the fence would be 46’-6” feet in length with approximately 20 feet of the fence extending from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) lakeward (Figure 18). The 4-wide access gate would be located where the west and north fence meet. Patrons would enter through this gate into an unleashing and leashing area measuring 10 feet by 10 feet. The extent to which the proposed fence would extend beyond the OHWM is reduced by approximately 20 feet in the New Plan. South Fence. The south fence would be 49’-3” in length, and also extend approximately 20 feet from the OHWM towards the lake (Figure 19). There would not be an access gate in this portion of the fencing. At the west end, the fence would be set back 5 feet from the south property line. Due to the angle of the existing steel groin, upon which the proposed fencing would be installed, in relation to the south property line, the distance between the proposed fence and the south property line would narrow from 5 feet at the west end until it meets the south property line and ends. Given the proximity of the proposed fence to the south property line, it is important to note the distance between the property line and the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin is approximately 10 feet and at this location the fence would be north of the property line by at least 1’-11”. In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the two lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular, so that these sections could be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of the proposed fencing in the New Plan are provided on the following pages (Figures 17 through 21). The complete set of the New Plan is included in Attachment A. Page 22 of 158  Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 261 Sheridan Road OHWM Proposed (Front Lot Line) Fence Existing Stairs to Beach Proposed (time restricted access) Access Gate Figure 17 – New Plan - Site Fencing Plan (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Proposed Proposed Unleashing/Leashing Area Fence (key fob access) Proposed Maintenance Existing Sea Wall Access Gate Figure 18 – New Plan - North and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Page 23 of 158  Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 205 Sheridan Road Proposed Fence Figure 19 – New Plan - South and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Figure 20 – New Plan - Elevation of North Fence Figure 21 – New Plan - Elevation of South Fence Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM. Page 24 of 158 The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed fence complies with the zoning regulations. CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Plan Commission. On January 28, 2026, the PC considered the Applicant’s Original Plan and the only Plan the Applicant presented to the PC for approval of a special use permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. 15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request. By a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion of the Original Plan for consideration at the next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026. On February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Zoning Board of Appeals. As noted at the beginning of this report, on February 9, 2026, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use. However, since the Winnetka Park District Board authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and the new plan had not been submitted to the Village for review in advance of the February 9 ZBA meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA voted to continue the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. At the March 9 meeting, after hearing from staff and the Applicant, the ZBA heard from 15 members of the public. Approximately 14 members of the public expressed significant concerns about safety, public access, parking, private property encroachments, and beach obstructions. By a vote of 7-0, the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the ZBA’s discussion of the New Plan for consideration at the next ZBA meeting on March 16. On March 16, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the DRB is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The DRB will need to determine if the proposed fencing on the existing beach located at Centennial Beach Page 25 of 158 complies with the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines provide recommendations and standards on the appearance of site and building design for commercial and institutional uses. The Design Guidelines were predominantly developed for use within the three business districts and nearby multi-family residential and institutional structures. Therefore, it is challenging to use the Design Guidelines for areas outside of the three business districts. With respect to fencing, the Design Guidelines focus on fencing for screening of mechanical equipment and streetscape elements, including obscuring the view of parking lots, in the business districts, multifamily residential, and institutional areas, which are not applicable to this request. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the April 16 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed fencing on Centennial Beach. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. If the DRB is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the request, a DRB member should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following findings of fact and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and determinations for the DRB’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting: a. The proposed fencing is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] As noted above, any motion on a decision by the Design Review Board should direct the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and determinations for the Design Review Board to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting. ATTACHMENTS Page 26 of 158 Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Public Correspondence Previously Included in ZBA and PC Agenda Packets Attachment C: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of March 16, 2026, ZBA Agenda Packet Page 27 of 158  ATTACHMENT A Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District 1380 Willow Road Winnetka Illinois 60093 April 3, 2026 Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka Winnetka Illinois 60093 Re: Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach Design Review Board Meeting Ann, Per our recent conversation, I wanted to follow up with additional clarification regarding the design elements associated with the Centennial Dog Beach fencing project currently under review as part of Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU. This letter and exhibits are intended to supplement the materials previously submitted to the Village of Winnetka in advance of the Design Review Board meeting scheduled for April 16, 2026. I have also included an updated Certificate of Appropriateness Application, which has been revised to clearly reflect the optionality of the two proposed plan configurations. As you are aware, the Park District initially submitted its Special Use Permit application on October 21, 2025. Since that time, the Park District has continued to refine the plans in response to staff review, Plan Commission feedback, and Park Board direction. The most recent plan set was submitted on February 13, 2026, with a corrected plan illustration transmitted on February 17, 2026. Additional materials outlining operational considerations and providing further design detail were submitted on March 4, 2026, to support the ongoing review process for Centennial Beach. Based on the materials provided to date, it is our understanding that the primary design elements relevant to the Design Review Board’s review have been incorporated within the submitted plan sets. However, I would like to clearly communicate that the Park District is formally requesting 1 Page 28 of 158 Design Review Board consideration of both the original fencing plan (submitted October 21, 2025) and the revised Alternate 1 plan (submitted February 17, 2026). Given the progression of this application through the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, where only a single plan configuration (though differing between boards) was presented at each stage, the Park District believes it is important to provide the Design Review Board, and ultimately the Village Council, with the opportunity to evaluate both design approaches concurrently. This approach is intended to provide greater flexibility and transparency in the review process, while ensuring that all viable design options remain under consideration as part of the final decision-making process. For reference, the Park District has received permits from IDNR, IEPA, and USACE for the original plan design. As discussed, additional clarification regarding fencing materials and color palette will assist the Design Review Board in completing its review. The original plan (Exhibit A), submitted October 21, 2025, illustrates two galvanized fencing runs inset approximately 20 feet from both the north and south park property lines. These fence lines extend approximately 15 feet into the lake from the existing western seawall and incorporate double-entry gate systems to facilitate safe leashing and unleashing of dogs while minimizing the potential for unintended egress, consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control (CCDARC) requirements. Fence posts are designed to be driven into the sand to refusal and cut to a height of approximately 4 feet above grade. The northern fence segment is approximately 76 feet in length, and the southern segment approximately 63 feet, with the easternmost 15 feet of each segment designed for seasonal removal to accommodate winter lake conditions. The fencing is intended to follow the existing beach profile and be maintained accordingly. Both options maintain the gate at the top of the bluff allowing access to Centennial Beach accordingly. Alternate 1 (Exhibit B), submitted February 17, 2026, represents a revised approach that reduces the overall length of the off-leash dog beach area by approximately half and responds directly to concerns raised during Plan Commission review. Under this alternative, the existing gate at the top of the bluff will remain, maintaining access from the upland area and allow for closure of the site during off hours. This gate is metal and finished in black, consistent with its existing condition. At the beach level, the proposed fencing includes both post-driven sections for the western fence run (approximately 265 linear feet, offset 12 feet from the existing seawall) as well as panels affixed to the existing steel groins, which will serve as the structural support for the east-west fence runs. All fencing materials will consist of black vinyl-coated chain link with black metal components. The imagery included in Exhibit B provides representative examples of the proposed material and appearance. This fencing type is consistent with installations throughout the Park District system and community, including the Skokie Playfield campus (COA approved) and Duke Child Fields and was selected for its durability and adaptability within the dynamic shoreline environment of Lake Michigan. Like the original plan, the easternmost 20 feet of fencing will be seasonally removed to prevent damage from winter storm events. 2 Page 29 of 158 All proposed beach-level gates will be constructed of matching materials and finished in black to maintain a cohesive and consistent visual appearance. The use of black fencing in lakefront settings is a widely accepted design approach, as it minimizes visual prominence, preserves sightlines toward Lake Michigan, and blends more effectively with the surrounding landscape. Similar applications can be observed at both Elder Lane and the Centennial Park bluffs, where black fencing is used to reduce visual impact and integrate with natural surroundings. The outer beach-level gate will operate with a key fob-controlled locking system to ensure compliance with CCDARC access control requirements for off-leash dog areas. Regardless of the option ultimately selected, signage will be installed in accordance with the Park District’s standard signage branding program to ensure consistency across facilities while providing clear operational and wayfinding information for users. Representative examples are included in Exhibit B. If the Design Review Board or Village staff require any additional information in advance of the April 16, 2026 meeting, please do not hesitate to reach out. The Park District appreciates the continued coordination with Village staff as the review process moves forward. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District Harold W. Francke, Legal Counsel, Winnetka Park District Centennial Beach Project 3 Page 30 of 158 Exhibit A Winnetka Park District – Special Use Permit Case No 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Beach Original Plan and additional images of the proposed project materials for the fencing. Image from January 2023 showing the approximate location size and scale of the northern fence (no fabric was installed in the photo) 4 Page 31 of 158 Image from January 2023 showing the proposed fencing materials (galvanized chain-link) 5 Page 32 of 158 Image from 2010 of the previous fencing that was installed at Centennial Beach near the north property line. (Galvanized posts and fabric). 6 Page 33 of 158 Images of 4’ Galvanized Chain-Link Fencing (similar in design to what proposed for original design Design) 7 Page 34 of 158  8 6 575 56 4 57 57 575 57 5 1 East Wacker Drive Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 577 p 312.467.5445 574 f 312.467.5484 3 574 575 thelakotagroup.com 57 575 576 575 575 580 PREPARED FOR 577 Winnetka Park 580 580 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W 580 District 580 585 540 Hibbard Rd 586 Winnetka, IL 60093 584 584 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH 585 585 584 Temporary 586 Dog Beach Fencing 261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 REVISIONS No Date Issue VICINITY MAP SCALE IN FEET 1" = 30' 0' 15' 30' 90' NORTH SHEET NUMBER SHERIDAN ROAD L1.0 C 2025 The Lakota Group Page 35 of 158  570 574 8 1 East Wacker Drive 5 575 56 4 Suite 2700 7 57 Chicago, Illinois 60601 6 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 57 thelakotagroup.com 5 577 574 PREPARED FOR 4 57 57 575 Winnetka Park 3 575 District 15'-0" 540 Hibbard Rd WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093 575 ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) 575 59'-0" CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH NORTH FENCE 48" TALL WITH 580 Temporary 15'-0" TWO 10'-0" DOUBLE GATES SOUTH FENCE 48" TALL WITH SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0 TWO 3'-3" SINGLE GATES SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0 Dog Beach WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY 6'-0" ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) 577 3'-3" Fencing 57'-0" 580 580 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W 16'-0" 225 Sheridan Rd 580 585 586 Winnteka, IL 60093 6'-0" 20'-0" 10'-0" 584 584 585 24'-0" 585 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg 586 20'-0" 205 SHERIDAN RD It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 261 SHERIDAN RD Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 REVISIONS No Date Issue CL 5' o.c., 3'-3" typ. o.c., typ. Double gate latch for public access Steel frame, attached to hinges Gate hinges, mounted to gate (2) Gate hinges, mounted to gate Single gate latch Steel frame, attached for public access to hinges SITE FENCING PLAN SCALE IN FEET 1" = 20' 0' 10' 20' 60' NORTH SHEET NUMBER 1 Double Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 Single Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" C L2.0 2025 The Lakota Group Page 36 of 158  24'-0" 10'-0" 57'-0" 15'-0" 6'-0" Normal Water Line 1 East Wacker Drive ELEV 578.6 Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com Plan Fence ties, 12" o.c. 2" Line post, typ. 10'-0" Double gate with PREPARED FOR 8'-0" eq. to gate evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. 10'-0" latch for public access See Detail 1, Sheet L1.0 Winnetka Park District 1 83" dia. top rail, continuous 540 Hibbard Rd 4'-0" Chain link fencing, typ. Winnetka, IL 60093 9'-6" eq. to gate CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TBD in field, Temporary see notes Normal Water Line Dog Beach Fencing 585 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence Notes: 1 580 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts. 575 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2. Posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Posts will then be cut 48" above the sand line H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 6'-0" Call before Call Before You Dig 15'-0" you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 16'-0" 3'-3" 59'-0" ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 Plan REVISIONS No Date Issue 8'-0" eq. to gate Fence ties, 12" o.c. 3'-3" Single gate with latch for public access See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 2" Line post, typ. evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail, continuous 9'-10" eq. to gate TBD in field, FENCE see notes ELEVATIONS Normal Water Line SCALE IN FEET 1/4" = 1'-0" 0' 2' 4' 12' NORTH SHEET NUMBER 2 Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" C L3.0 2025 The Lakota Group Page 37 of 158 Exhibit B Winnetka Park District – Special Use Permit Case No 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Beach Alternate 1 Plans and additional images of the proposed project materials for the fencing. Images of 4’ Black Chain-Link Fencing (similar in design to what proposed for Alternate 1 Design) Image of black chain-link fencing similar in design to the proposed Alternate 1 dog fence double access gate area. 8 Page 38 of 158 Image of the existing Centennial Beach Kep Fob Gate with signage (top of bluff) Image of the existing Centennial Beach black fencing (top of bluff) Site images of the project location were already included in the original Certificate of Appropriateness (Dated 10-21-2025) Additional images will be provided to the Design Review Board the evening of the meeting (April 16, 2026). 9 Page 39 of 158  FENCE MOUNTED TO GROINS 4’ HT - GOES TO 5’ DIFFERENTIAL IN SAND HEIGHT AT E R L I NE NORMAL W FENCE INSTALLED ON STEEL JETTI DOUBLE GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS 4’ HT - GOES TO 5’ DIFFERENTIAL RELOCATED KEY FOB ACCESS 4’ HEIGHT, TWO DOORS FOR EQUIPMENT ACCESS IN SAND HEIGHT AT E R L I NE HIGH W LEGEND SHEET PILE (EXISTING) PROPOSED DOG BEACH FENCING 4’H BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAIN LINK EXISTING PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESS GATE DOUBLE-GATED DOG BEACH ENTRY ACCESS TO BEACH EXISTING STAIRCASE TO REMAIN ACCESS TO BEACH KEY CARD ACCESS GATE CENTENNIAL BEACH & BLUFF IMPROVEMENTS CENTENNIAL DOG FENCE PLAN: ALTERNATE 1 SCALE: 1”=10’ 0 5’ 10’ 20’ NORTH WINNETKA, ILLINOIS MARCH 5, 2026 © 2026 THE LAKOTA GROUP Page 40 of 158  1 East Wacker Drive TW 581.70 Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com TW 582.40 TW 582.20 TW 582.80 PREPARED FOR TW 583.00 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 583.20 Winnetka Park District TW 588.80 TW 591.60 540 Hibbard Rd Winnetka, IL 60093 TW 584.00 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 588.80 Dog Beach Fencing Alternate Plan 1 261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue VICINITY MAP SCALE IN FEET 1" = 30' 0' 15' 30' 90' NORTH SHEET NUMBER C L1.0 2026 The Lakota Group Page 41 of 158  1 East Wacker Drive Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com TW 581.70 SOUTH FENCE PREPARED FOR SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0 Winnetka Park District TW 582.40 540 Hibbard Rd WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093 ELEV. 581.5 (HIGH WATER LINE) ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) TW 582.20 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 582.80 1'-11" NORTH FENCE Dog Beach 49'-3" SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0 TW 582.50 10'-0" Fencing 265'-0" 33'-2" WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) Alternate Plan 1 TW 583.20 TW 583.00 5'-0" PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 225 Sheridan Rd 46'-6" 42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 588.80 12'-0" Winnteka, IL 60093 10'-0" TW 591.60 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" TW 584.00 EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRS 4'-0" LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 10 FT TW 588.80 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE RESIDENT ACCESS GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS GATE WEST FENCE AT DOG BEACH WITH RELOCATED KEY SEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET CHAIN LINK FABRIC TO BE EXTEND CENTENNIAL BEACH FOB ACCESS 1'-0" BELOW SAND ELEVATION ACCESS GATE, SEE DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 3, THIS SHEET TIMER CONTROLLED 205 SHERIDAN RD It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 261 SHERIDAN RD Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue CL 5' o.c., 4' o.c., typ. typ. Double gate latch for maintenance access Steel frame, attached to hinges Key Card Access for Gate hinges, Residents mounted to gate (2) Gate hinges, mounted to gate Fence Post (behind) Steel frame, attached to hinges SITE FENCING 4' from sand elevation Chain Link Fabric, typ. Notes: PLAN 1. Posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut 48" above the sand line SCALE IN FEET 1' Chain Link Fabric with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be 1" = 20' buried below grade for fence panels. Gate panels shall not have buried buried into sand Post Footing driven to 0' 10' 20' 60' refusal, typ. chain link fabric condition. See Note NORTH SHEET NUMBER 1 Maintenance Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 Resident Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 West Fence at Dog Beach - Cross Section Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" C L2.0 2026 The Lakota Group Page 42 of 158  12'-0" 583 10'-0" 582 581 580 36'-6" 579 578 577 58 4 4'-0" High Water Line Chain Link Fencing Normal Water Line ELEV 581.5 mounted to groin ELEV 578.6 Relocated Key 1 East Wacker Drive 10'-0" Fob Access Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Access Gate p 312.467.5445 See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 f 312.467.5484 4'-0" thelakotagroup.com 577 Embedded Fence Posts, typ. 583 582 581 580 578 See notes 579 Plan 2" Line post mounted to groin, typ. PREPARED FOR TW 588.80 evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ. 9'-1" eq. 1 83" dia. top rail Winnetka Park 10'-0" Sand Elevation Fence ties, 12" o.c. Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin District 540 Hibbard Rd 4'-0" 4'-4" Winnetka, IL 60093 3'-8" 3'-11" 3'-2" 2'-11" High Water Line 3'-5" 2'-8" 2'-2" 584.00 TW 584.00 2'-5" ELEV 581.5 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 583.00 583.00 TW 582.50 582.00 Dog Beach 4'-10" from sand 5'-0" height 581.00 5'-0" height 5'-0" height from sand from sand from sand 580.00 579.00 Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 Fencing elevation, typ. elevation, typ elevation, typ elevation 578.00 577.00 Alternate Plan 1 Notes: 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 225 Sheridan Rd 2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. 3. Posts shown over steel groin to be surface-mounted onto the steel groin. Winnteka, IL 60093 4. At-grade fence posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade. Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence 1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg 586 585 584 583 580 579 578 577 582 581 High Water Line 575 12'-0" ELEV 581.5 576 49'-3" Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 5'-0" to It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Call before Property Line Before You Dig you dig. 1'-11" to Chain Link Fencing ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 Property Line mounted to groin Approximate location of stone steps is 10FT south of WPD property line for public access ISSUED FOR PERMIT Plan March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue 2" Line post 2" Line post mounted Chain link fencing, typ. Approximate location of stone steps is 10 FT driven into sand to groin, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail south of the WPD property line for public access Sand Elevation See Notes. 9'-10" eq. evenly spaced, 10'-0" 588.80 o.c. max. Fence ties, 12" o.c. Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin 4'-0" 586.00 4'-11" 4'-0" 4'-2" 585.00 4'-0" 4'-2" 584.00 3'-9" TW 583.00 TW 582.80 2'-4" 2'-6" High Water Line Fence post footing depth 583.00 582.00 TW 582.40 ELEV 581.5 FENCE 4'-8" height TBD in Field, 581.00 5'-0" height from ELEVATIONS 5'-0" height from 580.00 Normal Water Line see Notes from sand 579.00 ELEV 578.6 elevation sand elevation sand elevation 578.00 SCALE IN FEET 1/4" = 1'-0" Notes: 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 0' 2' 4' 12' 2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. NORTH SHEET NUMBER 3. Westernmost post identified in elevation to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will L3.0 then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade. Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence 2 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" C 2026 The Lakota Group Page 43 of 158  Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION 225 Sheridan Road Project Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Winnetka Park District Name of Business(es):__________________________________________________________________________ Application is hereby made for the following work (please check all that apply):  Sign Sign Permit Application attached?   Awning Awning Permit Application attached?   Other (general description) Installation of Dog Beach Fencing _______________________________________________________________ Please provide a detailed description of the proposed work (attach additional information such as material specifications, photographs, etc.): ________________________________________________________________ Looking to install dog beach fencing at Centennial Park. There are two different ____________________________________________________________________________________________ options submitted, Park District is formally requesting Design Review Board consideration of both the original fencing plan ____________________________________________________________________________________________ (submitted 10/21/2025) and the revised Alternate 1 Plan (submitted 2/17/2026). 4/3/2026 Letter to Village CD describes both plans. I/We hereby certify that as Owner _________(Lessee/Owner) of the property located at ________________________(address), I am/we are authorized to submit plans for alterations of the subject 225 Sheridan Road property. I/We agree to perform the subject work in accordance with the conditions of approval by the Winnetka Design Review Board as well as all other applicable codes, rules and regulations of the Village of Winnetka. SIGNED __________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PRINTED NAME(S) Costa Kutulas __________________________ COA applied for (date): __________ ADDRESS 540 Hibbard Road __________________________ COA Case Number: __________ PHONE NO. 847-501-2052 __________________________ COA Issued (date): __________ EMAIL ckutulas@winpark.org __________________________ The Lakota Group PRIMARY DESIGN FIRM ______________________________ CONTACT NAME Costa Kutulas ______________________________ ADDRESS 540 Hibbard Road ______________________________ Winnetka IL 60093 ______________________________ PHONE NO. 847-501-2052Page 4 of 4 ______________________________ EMAIL ckutulas@winpark.org ______________________________ Page 44 of 158 Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District 1380 Willow Road Winnetka Illinois 60093 March 4, 2026 Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka Winnetka Illinois 60093 Re: Park Board Operational Direction – February 26, 2026 Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach (Alternate 1) Dear Ann, This letter is intended to formally document the operational direction provided by the Winnetka Park Board at its February 26, 2026 meeting regarding Centennial Beach and the proposed fenced off-leash dog beach (Alternate 1), in connection with Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28- SU. Following approval of Alternate 1 on February 5, 2026, the Park Board reviewed operational components necessary to refine the Special Use Permit application and to ensure that the proposed use satisfies applicable standards relating to public health, safety, welfare, compatibility, and site management. The actions summarized herein were approved contingent upon issuance of the necessary permits. With respect to access control and site management, the Board directed staff to maintain the existing access-controlled gate at the top of the bluff and to install a new access-controlled gate at the beach level, as reflected in Alternate 1. This dual-gate configuration provides layered access control and operational flexibility. The upper gate will operate pursuant to Park District Ordinance #504 and standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. through a programed timed locking system. The lower beach-level gate will operate during the same hours but will require a key fob for entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area. The key-fob system allows the Park District to regulate access, suspend operations during hazardous lake or weather 1 Page 45 of 158 conditions, and enforce compliance with dog beach eligibility requirements. We will also maintain the existing exit button which allows beach walkers to leave the site if there is an instance where someone might be exiting the beach outside of permitted hours or closures due to storm events. Collectively, these measures enhance public safety, improve enforceability, and ensure controlled access consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control regulations and Village leash law requirements. The Board further designated the approximately 260-foot section of Centennial Beach located immediately north of the fenced off-leash dog beach as a staffed passive beach with no swimming permitted. This designation was selected to maintain public shoreline access while avoiding the establishment of an additional programmed swimming beach and limiting the operational intensity of the site. Staffing for the passive beach will align with the typical swimming beach season, generally late May through early September. During that period, staff presence will provide oversight and management only, again no swimming will be permitted at the northern beach area. During this time the northern passive beach area will require a beach pass to utilize the beach area. This is the same review as practiced last Fall at Elder Lane Beach. This will help limit the potential influx of beach users if it was a “free beach” which could cause issues with parking on site and the adjacent streets. Outside of the traditional beach season, the passive beach will remain accessible during standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. but will not be staffed. This measured approach maintains access to the shoreline, limits potential conflicts between uses, and supports compatibility with adjacent properties and lakefront activities. The Board confirmed that the fenced off-leash dog beach will operate year-round, consistent with its longstanding historical operation at Centennial Beach. Daily operating hours for both the fenced off-leash dog beach and the northern passive beach were established at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. These hours align with standard park hours, provide predictability for neighboring properties, support enforceability through the timed gate system, and limit late-night activity that could affect neighborhood compatibility. The continuation of year-round dog beach operations, combined with defined daily hours and controlled access, reflects a continuation of an existing community amenity under strengthened regulatory and operational controls. Recognizing that parking and traffic considerations remain part of the Special Use Permit review, the Board established a prioritized parking management framework to guide implementation and allow flexibility for potential conditions of approval. The Board directed that permit-required parking access for dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents remain 2 Page 46 of 158 the primary strategy. If necessary, a two-hour parking restriction may be implemented to promote turnover. As a further measure, parking access could be reduced to dog beach pass holders only. The Board also authorized staff to evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service and to explore potential land-banking opportunities at Centennial Park. This structured hierarchy provides the Village and reviewing bodies with clear operational parameters while preserving the ability to implement additional mitigation measures should they be deemed necessary. Based on prior parking analysis and the shared use of the Elder Lane Park parking lot, the Park District believes that existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate projected demand; however, the District remains willing to evaluate additional measures as part of the review process. The project remains subject to review and approval by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control, and the Village of Winnetka. Revised plans reflecting the Board’s operational direction will be submitted to the appropriate agencies for evaluation. The timing of those reviews will depend upon each agency’s independent review process. The Park Board’s February 26, 2026 actions were intended to strengthen access control, clarify operational parameters, maintain shoreline access, limit intensity of use in the northern beach area, provide enforceable daily hours, establish a structured parking management hierarchy, and enhance overall site safety and compatibility. The Park District respectfully submits this operational clarification for inclusion in the Special Use Permit record and consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please advise if additional information would assist the Village in preparation for the March 9, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 3 Page 47 of 158 Winnetka Park District 540 Hibbard Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 February 13, 2026 Scott Mangum Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 RE: Centennial Beach Dog Fencing – Alternate Plan 1 Revision Narrative Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU – 225 Sheridan Road Dear Scott, On February 6, 2026, the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners reviewed the dog fencing proposal for Centennial Beach in consideration of the January 28, 2026 Plan Commission comments, public input, and Village staff review comments from the initial Special Use Permit review. Following that discussion, the Board directed staff to proceed with Alternate Plan 1 (attached), which represents a material redesign in response to that feedback. The original submittal proposed a contained enclosure defined by perpendicular fencing extending toward Lake Michigan at both the north and south ends of the beach. During the review process, concerns were raised regarding public safety, shoreline access, visual impact, and the interaction between fencing and lake conditions. The revised plan shifts the project away from installing new fencing across the beach to create an enclosed dog park. Instead, it uses the existing shoreline infrastructure and beach geometry to define the dog beach limits while maintaining continuous public access along the lakefront with a 12’ bypass to the west of the dog beach area. Page 48 of 158 Most notably, the revised design eliminates the previously proposed four-foot chain-link fence runs at the north and south ends of the beach, thereby minimizing fencing located within active wave zones. Rather than projecting fencing across the beach and into the lake to form an enclosed area, Alternate Plan 1 attaches boundary fencing to the existing steel groins and relocates the controlled entry point directly to beach level. This change significantly reduces the perceived enclosure of the beach and removes physical barriers previously identified as potential safety concerns. The relocated fencing runs will be modular, allowing seasonal removal of the easternmost sections in areas subject to ice damming and winter lake conditions. A dedicated pedestrian bypass corridor has also been incorporated into the revised design. This feature allows residents and visitors to walk the shoreline without entering the dog beach area and directly addresses concerns that general beach users would otherwise be required to pass through an active off-leash area. By separating circulation paths, the revised layout improves user clarity and reduces potential interaction conflicts between dog owners and non-dog users. The bypass itself is shown on the attached Alternate Plan 1. It is created by installing a fence line approximately twelve feet lakeward of the steel seawall at the toe of the bluff and extending between the existing southern steel jetties. This run is approximately 265 feet in length and reduces the overall dog beach frontage by approximately fifty percent. Integrated into this fence line is the electronic key-fob entry gate, along with a secondary ten-foot maintenance access gate that will remain locked and secured for staff use. The fence is proposed at an overall height of five feet, with four feet exposed above grade and one foot buried below grade to accommodate fluctuating sand levels and reduce the possibility of dogs digging beneath the fencing. Operational control is further improved through relocation of the key-fob entry to beach level and the use of a defined double-gate leash-up area. This eliminates the need for interior fencing corridors while maintaining controlled access for permitted users. The double-entry gate system is also a requirement of the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control. In addition, the revised plan substantially reduces the amount of fencing interacting with lake forces by utilizing existing structural elements and shortening fence exposure in areas subject to wave and ice movement. The existing steel shoreline structures are designed to withstand year-round lake conditions, allowing the Park District to reduce the overall length of installed fencing. For ease of review, the primary differences between the previously submitted plan and Alternate Plan 1 are summarized below. Page 49 of 158 Plan Comparison Summary Previous Temporary Alternate Plan 1 Design Element Resulting Impact Fencing Plan (Approved 2-6-26) Enclosed containment Shoreline-defined Reduces enclosed park Overall Layout area formed by boundary using existing appearance perpendicular fencing groins Approximately 15 ft Fencing attached to Fencing Into Minimizes wave/ice lakeward fence runs at existing structures with Lake interaction risk both ends reduced lake exposure Public Shoreline Users pass through an 12-ft pedestrian bypass Maintains continuous Access active off-leash dog area outside dog beach public access Clearer entry and safer Beach-level controlled circulation while Access Control Inland gated corridor entry vestibule improving access for non- dog users Double corridor Removes internal Interior Fencing Eliminated containment system obstacles Safety Potential cross-traffic Separated circulation Improves user safety Considerations conflicts paths Reduced fencing Visible enclosure across Less intrusive shoreline Visual Impact footprint at north and beach presence south boundaries In summary, Alternate Plan 1 reduces the installation of new freestanding fence infrastructure at the north and south boundaries by utilizing existing steel groins, improves shoreline access through the addition of a defined pedestrian bypass, separates user groups to enhance safety, and minimizes fencing interaction within active lake areas while still providing a controlled off-leash area consistent with regulatory requirements. These revisions were intentionally developed in direct response to Plan Commission discussion, public input, and Village staff feedback, and intends to fully satisfy the applicable Special Use Permit standards. The design preserves the open character of Centennial Beach while incorporating operational controls necessary to manage off-leash use in a safe and regulated manner. Page 50 of 158 Staff is also planning to discuss additional items with the Park Board at the February 26, 2026 meeting to obtain direction regarding the north beach area of Centennial Beach and how to proceed. Staff will follow up after that meeting to inform the Village of any items related to SUP Case No. 25-28-SU. We appreciate the continued coordination with Village staff and look forward to the next steps in the review process. Please let me know if any additional clarification would be helpful. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community Development Page 51 of 158 Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest) Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East) Page 52 of 158  Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East) Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South) Page 53 of 158 Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West) Dog Beach (Looking North) Page 54 of 158  North Seawall (Looking West) North Seawall (Looking Northwest) Page 55 of 158 Dog Beach (Looking South) Bog Beach (Looking South) Page 56 of 158 Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West) Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West) Page 57 of 158  Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South) Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest) Page 58 of 158 Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West) Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South) Page 59 of 158 Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West) Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland Page 60 of 158 Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East) Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East) Page 61 of 158 Upper Park (Looking South) Upper Park (Looking East) Page 62 of 158  Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North) Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East) Page 63 of 158 Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East) Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North) Page 64 of 158 Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest) Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast) Page 65 of 158  Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest) Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North) Page 66 of 158 Page 67 of 158 ATTACHMENT C2 Page 68 of 158 Letter to Village Counsel April 12, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1. Case No. 25-28-SU Revised Dog Fence Design (Revised Plan) The ZBA unanimously recommended against the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan is a Major Change from the original design Case No. 25-28-SU Original (Original Plan) presented to the Plan Commission on January 28, 2026, and seen in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. Case No. 25-28-SU Original Dog Fence Design (Original Plan) Placement of the fences differ substantially between the Original Plan and the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan splits Centennial beach into an off-leash dog beach and a passive beach for people materially changing the Original Plan’s use that had the entire beach dedicated to an off-leash dog beach. While discussing the merits of the Revised Plan before the ZBA, Mr. Hal Franke, attorney for the Park, stated the following: Timestamp (1:54:21 - 1:54:52) The last thing I would say, just as a point of order and clarification, because this came up at the beginning of our discussion, I would like to just make, again, as I say, a point of order, and I haven't discussed this with anybody at the Village, but the issue came up as to what about the plan (Original Plan) that was considered by the Plan Commission. That was recommended unanimously for denial. That plan (Original Plan) has not been officially withdrawn by the Park District. Timestamp (1:54:52 - 1:55:11) So, in my mind, what would eventually end up at the, will eventually end up at the Village Council is both recommendations and both plans (Original Plan & Revised Plan). I'm only saying that I don't think we've withdrawn the first plan (Original Plan). You can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Friedman. (ZBA meeting March 9. 2026) Page 69 of 158 Letter to Village Counsel April 12, 2026 Page 3 of 5 To which Peter Friedman, Village attorney responds: Timestamp: (1:55:11 - 1:55:30) Friedman: I don't know if you use the words withdrawn, but you, at the Plan Commission, said you want to provide an alternative plan, and then you submitted, and usually an alternative plan replaces the one that preceded it. (ZBA meeting March 9. 2026) Table 1 below shows status of review of the two dog fence plans before the various boards of the Village. Table 1: Status of Dog Fence SUP(s) Nothing that I have read in the Village ordinances indorses presentation of multiple SUPs simultaneously; such a procedure would increase complexity of the permit process and would be an undue burden on the time commitments of members of Winnetka volunteer boards. Under Section 17.56.030, it is the administrative responsibility of Community Development to schedule the application before ZBA, Plan, and Design Review; therefore, Community Development has the statutory authority to limit one permit at a time per property. I urge Community Development to restrict SUPs to one plan at a time in order to keep the process streamlined. I would also note that the ZBA has not reviewed the Original Plan, so neither ZBA nor Plan committees have reviewed both Original and Revised Plans. At the ZBA meeting of March 9. 2026 the following exchange occurred between Lynn Hanley and Anne Klassen: Timestamp (16:24 - 16:53) Lynn Hanley: So, Anne, because they (the Park) amended (their plan) since they were at the Plan Commission, after they're done with us, do they go back to the Plan Commission with their amended plan? Anne Klassen: No, the plan commission made their recommendation of denial on the original application. And were not interested in seeing an amended plan. This amended plan will be presented to the Design Review Board unless there are further changes as a result of this evening's meeting. (ZBA meeting March 9. 2026) Ms. Klassen’s was referring to the following exchange between members of Plan Commission and Hal Franke on January 28, 2026: Page 70 of 158 Letter to Village Counsel April 12, 2026 Page 4 of 5 (2:53:55 - 2:54:23) Hal Franke: Could I respond before you vote? Sure. I hear and appreciate everything that you've said. It seems to me, and I understand, first and foremost, as you just said, Madam Chair, that you're not, and nobody's inclined to make a recommendation of approval subject to conditions based on the concerns that seem to be, have been expressed unanimously. (2:54:24 - 2:55:07) So, my question to you is, would it be helpful if two of the primary concerns that were addressed by everybody, which is that there would be a bypass, so that you wouldn't have to go through (the off-leash dog enclosure), and if there was no fencing in the lake, and if you saw an actual plan instead of written conditions, would that be something that would warrant us coming back to you at your next meeting, or a next meeting? Layla Danley: Members? Plan Commision Member: I don't particularly think so. I think we have the concept of the plan. I don't think it's gonna add much. (2:55:11 - 2:55:32) Hal Franke: I mean, I have to say, I don't understand. Layla Danley: So, you can, if you choose to, take what has been said by this board, and when you meet with the ZBA, you can certainly present them with something that takes into consideration what has been said this evening. (Plan Commission meeting January 28, 2026) The Park had made no presentation on what the elements of this Revised Plan would entail before Mr. Franke made the above inquiry of whether the Park should return for another meeting to review a Revised Plan. Mr. Franke in the statement above suggested that a Revised Plan could eliminate fencing in the lake and provide a pedestrian bypass. Mr. Franke failed to mention that this new Revised Plan made a Major Change of the special use in the Original Plan for an off- leash dog beach to a dual use off-leash dog beach and a people passive beach. Lacking the knowledge that the Park was considering a Major Change to the Park’s Original Plan; the Plan Commission recommended to Mr. Franke that another meeting would not be useful. However, Plan Commission members did not foreclose the Park from presenting a Revised Plan with a Major Change to the Plan Commission in the future. It is the administrative responsibility of Community Development under Section 17.56.030, to schedule SUP applications before ZBA, Plan, and Design Review Commissions for any application that had received a Major Change to its special use. Section 17.56.130 Amendments to Special Use Permits requires that a SUP holder to amend the SUP when a “Major Change” occurs in the special use. The Original Plan was for a single use off-leash dog beach whereas the Revised Plan consisted of a dual use off-leash dog beach and passive people beach. The Revised Plan changed programming in a way that altered the Page 71 of 158 Letter to Village Counsel April 12, 2026 Page 5 of 5 fundamental character of the special use in the Original Plan (17.56.130 A. 3) and added new uses (17.56.130 A. 4). Section 17.56.130 B. 1 requires a holder of a SUP to begin the SUP process from scratch when the SUP holder seeks to make a Major Change in the use. The Park has submitted the Revised Plan to Village Staff which Village Staff reviewed and Staff scheduled a review of the Revised Plan before the ZBA on March 9. 2026. Under Section 17.56.030 it is the administrative responsibility of Community Development to schedule the application before ZBA, Plan Commission, Design Review Commission, and Community Development has failed to schedule the required review of the Revised Plan by the Plan Commission to date. I urge Community Development to schedule this review of the Revised Plan before the Plan Commission before it is taken up by Village Counsel. As noted above, the ZBA has unanimously recommended against the Park’s Revised Plan and the Park has scheduled a review of the Revised Plan before Design Review Commission on April 15, 2026. Once the review before the Design Review Commission is complete Community Development will schedule the Park’s application for review before Village Counsel Village ordinance Section 17.56.070 A. establishes the procedure for review of a SUP: A. Village Council Deliberations. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the findings of fact, minutes, and recommendation of the Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission, in accordance with their respective jurisdictions …. The requisite review of the Plan Commission of the Revised Plan has yet to be made and any evaluation by Village Counsel would be incomplete without such a review. Under Section 17.56.070 B., Village Counsel has discretion to return the Park’s SUP for further consideration and findings. I urge Village Counsel to return the Revised Plan to the Plan Commission in order for Plan to make its findings of fact and make its recommendations to Village Counsel. I believe that Village Counsel should follow its own procedure for review for SUPs in order to make a thorough evaluation of the Revised Plan that will enable Village Counsel to make a determination that safeguards the health, safety, and welfare of the community while also permitting the Park to develop Centennial for the benefit of the community. Sincerely, /s/ John W. Root 326 Woodland Ave. Winnetka, IL 60093 Page 72 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Davorka Kirincic Subject: Centennial Beach Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 5:50:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom This May Concern, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed fencing that is being proposed for Centennial Beach in Winnetka. The fencing would be unattractive, possibly dangerous, and will diminish the beauty of the beach. Centennial Beach, as is, is a gem and asset to our community. Therefore, please deny the Winnetka Park Board’s request for an enclosed fence/cage. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Deborah Z. Creigh 132 Glenwood Ave, Winnetka, IL 60093 Debbie Creigh Page 73 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Propose Fencing at Centennial Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 5:21:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 14 April 2026 Joanna Karatzas Winnetka, IL Design Review Board Regarding: Fence proposed by the Winnetka Park District on Centennial Beach. Board Members; The Winnetka Park District presented plans during the Winnetka Park Board meeting on 26 February 2026 for extensive fencing at Centennial Beach. As I mentioned to the Zoning Board back in March, the plans do not include visuals of adjacency conditions such as the breakwater at the south boundary of Centennial. Furthermore, critical dimensions are missing, minimized, or obscured from the drawings. In other words they are hard to read. What is the width of the passage between the proposed fence and the steps over the breakwater? Where exactly is the property line between Centennial and 205 Sheridan? Before any critical decisions can be made the WPD should bother to provide this board and the public with descriptive drawings showcasing neighboring conditions; accurate dimensions; and a staked survey for review. The introduction of a fence at the south boundary of Centennial is a complicated design problem. The proposed fence, the property line and the breakwater all angle toward each other converging near the steps of the breakwater. Whose property is the public going to be walking on when exercising their Public Trust Doctrine rights? How tight is the space between the steps and the stairs? WPD never seems to get to that level of detail. Due to agreements with 205 Sheridan, the placement of the fence is slated to last for 50 years. Shouldn’t this board see a staked survey and exact dimensions before reviewing the feasibility or necessity of the fence? Also, I question the necessity of the amount of fencing proposed. While the WPD Board claims Cook County demands it for off-leash dog parks; if anyone cares to go to Montrose and look at the fencing for that dog park, as of last Fall, the fence doesn’t go much pass the ordinary water line of the lake. I don’t know who is advising the WPD or how they are coming to their conclusions. Please don’t rush into anything and please deny this special use permit. Joanna Karatzas Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Page 74 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Davorka Kirincic Subject: For the Design Review Board Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 8:44:18 PM Attachments: Chain Link Fencing.pages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Ann. Would you please give this letter and attachments to the DRB members? Thank you very much. Irene Smith To the Design Review Board: I'm sorry I won't be able to attend your meeting on April 16, but I'd like to give you a bit of information. The attachment below comes from wildlifegardeners.org I found it very interesting, and the photos tell a story, too. I've also sent 2 photos of chain link fencing at other places. Not pretty. I hope you will deny the Winnetka Park District's application for a special use permit. Thank you very much. Irene Smith 40-year resident of Winnetka ******************************************************************************************* Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide. John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020. Page 75 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Irene Smith"s letter to DRB. Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 5:11:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Wildlife-friendly Fencing and the Problem With Link Chain Fencing May 9, 2024 - By tara In recent years, the conversation around sustainable living and environmental conservation has highlighted the importance of wildlife-friendly fencing. Traditional barriers, particularly chain link fences, often pose significant hazards to local wildlife, obstructing natural movements and causing injuries. This article explores some wildlife-friendly fence options, the challenges of chain links, and inexpensive ways to cover a chain link fence to enhance its safety for wildlife. What Makes a Fence Wildlife-Friendly? Visibility Wildlife-friendly fencing is designed to be highly visible to animals to prevent collisions and entanglement. By using larger, more reflective materials or adding colorful flagging tape to wires, the fence stands out better in natural environments. This visibility helps animals like deer, elk, and even birds recognize the barrier from a distance, allowing them to navigate safely around it. Enhanced visibility is especially crucial in areas where animal movement is high, ensuring that the fence serves as a gentle deterrent rather than a lethal obstacle. Permeability The concept of permeability in fencing is crucial for maintaining natural wildlife migration and movement patterns. Wildlife-friendly fences are constructed with gaps or are flexible enough to allow animals to pass through safely when necessary. For instance, drop-down sections or large spaces between the lower wires enable smaller animals to crawl under, while taller species might jump over without harm. This approach helps in preserving the ecological balance and allows animals to continue their natural behaviors such as foraging and migration without severe disruption. Height and Spacing Adjusting the height and spacing of the wires in a fence can significantly enhance its wildlife- friendliness. The design considerations include ensuring that fences are not too high that they trap animals or too low that they pose a tripping hazard. Ideally, a fence should be high Page 76 of 158 enough to deter or contain livestock yet low enough or properly spaced so that wildlife like deer can jump over safely. Moreover, sufficient ground clearance is provided to allow smaller creatures, such as turtles and rodents, to pass underneath, facilitating free movement across their habitat. Material The choice of material in wildlife-friendly fencing is vital to minimize potential injuries to wildlife. Using smoother and more flexible materials can reduce the chances of animals getting caught or injured by the fence. Smooth wire is often preferred over barbed wire, as it is less likely to cause harm if an animal attempts to cross through or over the fence. This consideration not only protects wildlife but also maintains the integrity and purpose of the fence over time. Gate Placement and Design Integrating strategically placed gates or removable sections in wildlife-friendly fencing can significantly improve accessibility for wildlife. These gates are often designed to accommodate seasonal migration patterns, allowing animals to pass through key areas during specific times of the year. This design strategy helps to ensure that fencing does not permanently fragment habitats or obstruct essential migratory routes, thus supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity. Avoiding Barbed Wire One of the fundamental aspects of wildlife-friendly fencing is the avoidance of barbed wire. Barbed wire can cause severe injuries to wildlife, leading to entanglement and even death. By substituting barbed wire with smoother alternatives, the risk to animals is greatly reduced. This practice is crucial in areas with high wildlife activity, ensuring that the fence fulfills its purpose without becoming a lethal hazard to the local fauna. The Problem With Link Chain Fencing Chain link fencing is not typically recommended for wildlife-friendly fencing due to several potential issues it can pose for animals: Limited Permeability: Chain link fences offer little to no flexibility for animals to pass through or over, effectively creating barriers that can restrict wildlife movement and fragment habitats. Injury Risks: The mesh design of chain link fences can pose risks for smaller wildlife, which might attempt to pass through the openings and become stuck or injured. Obstacle to Larger Animals: Larger wildlife, like deer or elk, cannot jump over high chain link fences without risking injury. Likewise, they can’t pass through it, which can disrupt natural migration and foraging paths. Cheap Ways to Cover a Chain Link Fence Page 77 of 158 Page 78 of 158 Page 79 of 158 Page 80 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Irene Smith’s article for DRB Date: Wednesday, Apr l 15, 2026 5:17:54 PM CAUTION This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ***************************** Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide. John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020. Page 81 of 158 Page 82 of 158 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Robert Dearborn Subject: Re: 2026-04-21-01-SCHRIESHEIM Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:02:31 PM Attachments: image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I corrected the Trib article's date, thanks for providing this version to DRB. Thank you for your patience. On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 10:45 AM Kris Schriesheim < > wrote: Hello Ann: Would you please provide this to DRB members ahead of their next meeting? Thank you. To: Design Review Board, Village Council President Dearborn From: Kristine Schriesheim Re: WPD Dog Beach Fencing COA Application Date; April 29, 2026 I am forwarding a Freedom of Information Act Request ("FOIA") email chain because of WPD's representations on the independence of its fencing designs, and how its effort to delay providing access to public documents is implicated in that. On April 21, 2026 I requested WPD records on 205 Sheridan's attorney's, Mr. David Williams', concern about WPD's 2026 Dog Beach Pass Application. WPD's executive director referenced this concern in her April 9, 2026 Weekly Report (relevant page attached). I also requested WPD's records dated 3/1/26-4/21/26 on Cook County's review of WPD's dog beach fencing project, which Mr. Kutulas referenced in his April 17, 2026 memorandum to WPD's executive director (relevant page attached). Mr. Kutulas stated that Cook County had two additional questions about it. Despite asking for what I presume are limited documents--based on WPD's claims to have designed the dog beach project independently and in order to meet the Cook County Code's legal requirements--WPD now asserts that responding to my FOIA request is unduly burdensome. Like WPD's fencing project itself, WPD's effort to delay its FOIA officer's production of a limited number of specifically identified, responsive documents reflects how disconnected it is from the public. The Chicago Tribune's April 24, 2026 article on DRB's April 16, 2026 meeting, quotes WPD's executive director as saying "This is a Winnetka Park District application and has nothing to do with the owner of 205 Sheridan." My question is, if that is correct why is 205 Sheridan's attorney expressing "concern" about the minutia of WPD's dog beach pass application? For your information, WPD's 2026 dog beach pass application contains a startling ban on children ten years old and younger from using the dog beach, even with adult supervision. Families with children would be unable to use the beach, presumably even to cross it. The dog beach pass application also features its incorporation of WPD"s "Conduct Ordinance 504," threatening "eviction" not only from the dog beach for violating its conditions, but by extension from all District Property, which includes certain sidewalks, Page 83 of 158 crosswalks, the ice facility, its beaches, A.C. Nielsen, other parks, etc. It may even result in families being banned from using "District Waters," i.e., Lake Michigan. WPD's dog beach pass application threatens $1000 fines, and also convictions. I do not think this is in the community's best interests. It certainly is anti-family. You may be interested in reading the attached Wilmette Park District Gillson Dog Beach Pass application and rules, which seem both rational and reasonable. The rules state that " [d]og owners/handlers must be at least 14 years old or a freshman in high school." Neither the dog beach pass application nor the rules ban children from using Gillson dog beach. They do not threaten convictions or the imposition of $1000 fines. Cook County's two additional questions about WPD's effort to install dog beach fencing that would create barriers to passage from either side of Centennial beach, appear to reinforce its awareness that, as it informed Ms. Nazzal on November 10, 2025, "our ordinance does not speak directly to this unique situation . . . our bureau is still reviewing the legalities." Raising more questions two years after WPD prepared its first SUP application for dog beach fencing/structures, hardly signals that Cook County "requires" Lake Michigan dog beach fencing, particularly because there is no known precedent for other Cook County localities trying to entwine Animal Control in efforts to put up barriers violating the public trust doctrine and/or blocking off Lake Michigan dog beaches. Thank you for adopting DRB's findings of fact and denying WPD's COA application, which reflects an effort that is quite contrary to the public interest. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: FOIA <FOIA@winpark.org> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:27 PM Subject: RE: 2026-04-21-01-SCHRIESHEIM To: Kris Schriesheim < > Cc: Simon, Adam <asimon@ancelglink.com>, FOIA <FOIA@winpark.org> Dear Ms. Schriesheim, After careful review, we have initiated the process of gathering the requested information. Due to the nature of this request, more than five (5) business days are required. This falls under: 5 ILCS 140/ 3) (from Ch. 116, par. 203) Page 84 of 158 Sec. 3. (e) The time for response under this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 5 business days from the original due date for any of the following reasons: vi) the request for records cannot be complied with by the public body within the time limits prescribed by subsection ( d) of this Section without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body; It is expected that a follow-up will be able to be provided by Tuesday, May 5, 2026. If any fees are associated with processing your request, we will inform you of the estimated costs before proceeding. In the event that we encounter any additional challenges or require further clarification regarding your request, we may contact you to ensure the accuracy and completeness of our response. For your reference, you may track the status of your request by referencing the unique identification number assigned to it: 2026-04-21-01-SCHRIESHEIM. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding the status or processing of your request. You have a right to have this reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 5 ILCS 140/ 9.5(a). You can file your Request for Review with the PAC by writing to: Leah Bartelt, Public Access Counselor Office of the Attorney General 500 South 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 E-mail: public.access@ilag.gov 877-299-3642 You also have the right to seek judicial review by filing a lawsuit in the circuit court. 5 ILCS 140/ 11. If you choose to file a Request for Review with the PAC, you must do so within 60 calendar days of the date of this letter. 5 ILCS 140/ 9.5(a). Please note that you must include a copy of your original FOIA requests and this letter when filing a Request for Review with Page 85 of 158 the PAC. Sincerely, From: FOIA <FOIA@winpark.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 4:31 PM To: Kris Schriesheim > Cc: Simon, Adam <asimon@ancelglink.com>; FOIA <FOIA@winpark.org> Subject: 2026-04-21-01-SCHRIESHEIM Dear Ms. Schriesheim, This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated April 21, 2026 in which you are seeking the following: I hereby request WPD records related to Mr. David Williams’ concerns about WPD’s dog beach application, which is described as a “constituent concern” in E.D. Nazzal’s April 9, 2026 Weekly Report. I also request WPD records related to Cook County’s review of WPD’s dog beach fencing project, between the dates 3/1/26-4/21/26, including Cook County’s two additional questions, as mentioned in Costa Kutulas’s April 17, 2026 Parks and Planning Weekly Report to E.D. Nazzal. We appreciate your interest in the Winnetka Park District’s records and are committed to providing a timely and thorough response to your request. Please be advised that, in accordance with the FOIA, we have five (5) business days to respond to your request. If additional time is required, we will notify you promptly and provide an estimated completion date. If any fees are associated with processing your request, we will inform you of the estimated costs before proceeding. In the event that we encounter any challenges or require Page 86 of 158 clarification regarding your request, we may contact you to ensure the accuracy and completeness of our response. For your reference, you may track the status of your request by referencing the unique identification number assigned to it: 2026-04-21-01-SCHRIESHEIM. Feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns regarding the status or processing of your request. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work to fulfill your FOIA request. Our goal is to provide you with the requested information in a thorough and timely manner. Sincerely, Saba Koya Administrative Operations Coordinator O: (847) 501-2076 E: skoya@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org 540 Hibbard Rd, Winnetka, IL 60093 From: Kris Schriesheim > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 PM To: FOIA <FOIA@winpark.org> Subject: FOIA Request Page 87 of 158 I hereby request WPD records related to Mr. David Williams’ concerns about WPD’s dog beach application, which is described as a “constituent concern” in E.D. Nazzal’s April 9, 2026 Weekly Report. I also request WPD records related to Cook County’s review of WPD’s dog beach fencing project, between the dates 3/1/26-4/21/26, including Cook County’s two additional questions, as mentioned in Costa Kutulas’s April 17, 2026 Parks and Planning Weekly Report to E.D. Nazzal. Thank you. Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer Page 88 of 158 Page 89 of 158 From: Shannon Nazzal Cc: Saba Koya; Costa Kutulas; Elizabeth Dostert; Alisa Kapusinski; Mileak Harper; FOIA Subject: Weekly Status Report - 4/10/26 Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 2:16:34 PM Attachments: Outlook-jupnya0m.png Commissioners, All are BCC’d. [ATTACHMENTS LINKED AT BOTTOM] I am out on Friday, so you are receiving a day early. Costa and Saba are in the office. Constituent Concerns Mr. David Williams reached out last Friday to voice concern about the dog beach pass application. Responded. Mr. Ted Wynnychenko sent a complaint to the Board separately. Major Concerns/Items the Board may be contacted about: Please complete the cybersecurity training sent to you by ExcalTech. If you need that reset or are having trouble accessing, please let me know. SEI filing is open! You have until May 1, 2026 to complete. Not all commissioners have completed. Audit work is ongoing. On track with document submission to Auditors. Vehicle at Elder incident sent to Commissioners separately. Had to remove a power washer and screens that were discarded in the Centennial parking lot. Matt Barton was recertified this week as a Red Cross Lifeguard Instructor! ED Nazzal attended Cook County Commissioner Scott Britton's "State of the County" this week in Wheeling. Non-reoccurring open session items being briefed to the Board in the next 30 days: Awards / Recognition - GFOA Award for 2024 Audit. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Consent - More bank signature changes. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Consent - Truck replacement. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Consent - Surplus Equipment Disposal. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Consent - Window Project Award. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Presentations - Sponsorship Request: Alliance for Early Childhood. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Unfinished Business - Northfield Park Lightning Detection. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Unfinished Business - Policy Updates 5.01, 5.03 - 5.15, 5.22. Scheduled 04/23/2026 Page 90 of 158 Page 91 of 158 Page 92 of 158 Page 93 of 158 Page 94 of 158 Page 95 of 158  Waiver + Release Waiver + Release of All Claims + Indemnification Agreement Please read this form carefully and be aware that in consideration for permission to use this facility/park, you will be expressly assuming the risk and legal liability and waiving and releasing all claims for injuries, damages or loss which you or your dog might sustain as a result of participating in any and all activities connected with and associated with use of this facility or surrounding area. I recognize and acknowledge that there are certain risks of physical injury to the dog and its handler/owner in association with participating in animal activities, and I voluntarily agree to assume the full risk of any injuries, damages or loss, regardless of severity, that I might sustain as a result of participating in any and all activities connected with or associated with use of this facility or surrounding area. I do hereby agree to waive, relinquish, release and forever discharge the Winnetka Park District, including its officials, agents, volunteers and employees (hereafter collectively “District”) from any and all claims for injuries, damages or loss that I may have or which may accrue to me and arising out of, connected with, or in any way associated with this use of this facility or surrounding area. I further agree to indemnify and hold harmless and defend the District from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, cause of actions, and expenses (including attorney fees), on account of personal injuries or death to any person or dog, or damages to property occurring, growing out of, incident to, or resulting directly or indirectly from my use of this facility or surrounding area. Residency Policy Recreation program residency rates apply to everyone who lives within Park District boundaries and pays Winnetka Park District taxes. Non-residents pay an additional non-resident fee per program. Non- residents fees are the second fee shown in program descriptions. Photo/Video Policy Photos and video footage are periodically taken of participants in a class, during a special event or at the District’s parks and facilities. Please be aware that, by signing this waiver and release you are authorizing the Park District to use these photos and video footage for District advertising and promotion without your further permission and without any compensation to you. All photos/video are property of the Park District. Please call the Administration Office at (847) 501-2040 for more information. Winnetka Park District 540 Hibbard Rd, Winnetka, IL 60093 P: (847) 501-2040 E: wpdinfo@winpark.org Page 96 of 158  Dog Access to Park Property Waiver Important Information You are solely responsible for supervising your dog and determining whether or not this is an appropriate activity to participate in. You must understand that you are participating in this activity at your own risk (and risk of your dog). You are solely responsible for determining if you and/or your dog are physically fit and/or adequately skilled for the activities contemplated by this agreement. It is always advisable, especially if the owner/handler or dog is pregnant, disabled in any way or recently suffered an illness, injury or impairment, to consult a physician or veterinarian before undertaking any physical activity. Warning of Risk Dog exercise, walking, training, leashed or simply allowing your dog off lead, is intended to provide a fun and rewarding experience for a dog and his owner/handler. However, despite careful and proper preparation, instruction, medical advice, conditioning and equipment, there is still a risk of serious injury, including death to either the dog or its owner/handler. Understandably, not all hazards and dangers associated with animal activities can be foreseen. Certain inherent risks include the propensity of any dog to behave in dangerous ways that may result in injury to the owner/handler or other patron or dog. Certain risks include but are not limited to the negligence or irresponsibility of another dog owner/handler; the inability to predict a dog’s reaction to sound, movements, objects, persons, or other animals; and actions by the dog due to fright, anger, stress, insect bites, or natural reactions such as jumping, pulling, resisting and biting. Other risks include the hazards associated with environmental and traffic conditions, acts of God, inclement weather, slipping, falling, premises defects, equipment failure, failure in instruction/supervision, and all other circumstances inherent to animal and outdoor activities. Should you attempt to break up a fight between dogs, you may be attacked and severely mauled by the other dog or attacked by the other handler/owner. In this regard, it must be recognized that it is impossible for the Winnetka Park District to guarantee absolute safety. Page 97 of 158  Centennial Park / Dog Beach Rules and Regulations* *Rules are subject to change Leashed Area: Beach, Park + Parking Lot • You are solely responsible for the actions of your dog. • Keep your dog leashed at all times. (* See Ordinance below) • Leashes must not exceed 6 feet. • You must bring your pass each visit. Attendants are not allowed to let anyone through the gate without a pass. • Keep an eye on your dog and always keep your dog’s leash with you. • For safety reasons children must be at least 10 years of age to use the park and they must be closely supervised. • Children will be expected to behave in an appropriate manner: no running, no chasing dogs, no petting of other dogs unless permission is granted from the owner first. • Be polite: pick up dog feces and dispose of the dog feces in the waste receptacles, which are available throughout the park. • Dogs must wear current license tag and be up to date on shots. • Cover any holes your dog digs. • No more than 2 dogs per person on any one visit. • Check with your veterinarian before bringing a puppy under the age of four months to the park. • No dogs known to be aggressive toward other dogs or people may enter the area. • Owners/handlers are asked to closely supervise their dogs and at no time should anyone leave the area without his/her dog(s). • Do not bring rawhide or food into the dog area as dogfights may result. • Please remove pinch and spike collars from your dog prior to entering the dog run. • Hours are sunrise to sunset. • No swimming is allowed for people. Winnetka Park District Ordinance 596, Adopted March 23, 2023* Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control wardens and Winnetka Police Department officers are authorized to issue a citation to a dog owner or their agent who does not have their dog on a leash, has their dog on a leash exceeding six (6) feet in length, does not have the dog under control, or does not have in their immediate possession a receptable for the transportation and removal of dog excrement at Centennial Beach. Page 98 of 158  2026 Dog Beach Permit Application Application must be accompanied by paper documentation of vaccinations/tests from a veterinarian. Owner’s Full Name: ____________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ City: _____________________ State: ___________ Zip Code: _______________ Phone: _____________________________________ Email: ______________________________________________________ Resident= $52 for first dog, $11 each additional Non-Resident= $247 for first dog, $83 each additional Dog #1 Name: _______________________ Breed: ____________________________ Dog #2 Name: _______________________ Breed: ____________________________ Dog #3 Name: _______________________ Breed: ____________________________ I, the undersigned, have received, read and understand the Wilmette Park District's Dog Rules and Fines and agree to abide by them. Failure to do so may result in loss of privileges for me and all users. I do hereby fully release the Wilmette Park District and its officers, agents, servants and employees from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss which may occur in the course of my participation and that of my dog. I further agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Park District and its officers, agents, servants and employees from any and all claims resulting from injuries, including death, damages and losses sustained by others arising out of, in connection with, or in any way associated with the activities affiliated with use of this permit. Signature: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________ Payment information is required for all permits being mailed in or dropped off. Card # ________ ________ ________ ________ Expiration Date ______ / ______ Billing Zip Code ____________________ Authorizing Signature ___________________________________________ Below Is For Park District Use Only Tag # Rabies Distemper Hepatitis Parvovirus Para-Influenza Bordetella Lepto Fecal #1 #2 #3 Page 99 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 30, 2026 SUBJECT: 562 LINCOLN AVENUE – KAAGE HOMES – PROJECTING SIGN PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-04-DR) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a sign permit application submitted by Kaage Homes (the “Applicant”), as the lessee of the commercial space located at 562 Lincoln Avenue (the “Subject Property”), to allow a double-faced projecting sign on the existing frame on the street frontage of the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is one of the commercial spaces located in the mixed-use building at 564-572 Lincoln Avenue, often referred to as The Winnetka Galleria (“The Galleria”), located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Elm and Pine Streets. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The Applicant is leasing a commercial space, which Kjus most recently occupied. In addition to the Applicant space is the Compass Retail Area, including their office and vendor Anne Loucks Gallery, which is located on the south side of the courtyard. The Beauty Lash is on the north side of the courtyard. The Galleria has residential condominiums on the second and third floors. Figure 1 below shows the Applicant’s storefront on Lincoln Avenue. An oval blade sign is currently installed at the storefront. The sign consists of a white background with a black logo and the text “THE KAAGE HOMES”. There is no approval for this signage on file. The previous tenant had a black oval projecting sign with orange and white text. Location of Kaage Homes Storefront Figure 1 – Subject Property – View of the entire building from Lincoln Avenue Page 100 of 158 PREVIOUS REQUEST On April 14, 2026, staff administratively approved compliant window signage for the Kage Homes storefront at the Subject Property, as shown in the illustration below. CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to install a new double-face projecting sign on the existing frame. The proposed sign would identify and promote their business and would be the same size and shape as the other projecting signs on the building. Signs will feature the logo, text, and colors of their businesses, as shown in the illustrations below: Subject Property – Location and Proposed double sign face change and detail Page 101 of 158 The existing building’s double-faced projecting sign frame would receive a new face change identifying the business, as shown in the illustrations below: • Existing frame o projecting 48 inches from the building wall o 9.46 feet from the finish grade; and • 24 x 36 inches oval vinyl graphic on the existing projecting sign frame with a warm mustard yellow background and black text stating ”THE WORKSHOPPE” and “by KAAGE HOMES”. A copy of the Application materials is included in Attachment A. SIGN CODE ANALYSIS Section 15.60.120 of the Village Sign Code establishes standards for projecting signs in commercial districts. Projecting sign standards • One projecting sign per business; • Extends no more than 2 feet from the building wall; • No more than 3 feet high; • Clearance between the bottom of the sign and the sidewalk is at least 8 feet; and • Containing the name of the business and a maximum of three words containing a general description of types of products or services, and the occupant logo or trademark; and The proposed projecting sign extends more than 2 feet from the building wall, but the existing projecting sign frames were previously approved for the entire building. Given that the Applicant is changing just the double face of the projecting sign, there is no need for a sign variation request. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS When reviewing the design of any signs, the Board is to consider the following standards and criteria of Section 15.60.150(F) of the Sign Code. F. Standards and Criteria for Issuance. The following factors and characteristics relating to the safety and appearance of signage shall govern the Board’s evaluation of design submittals: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings, and the neighborhood and shall be designed not adversely to affect adjacent structures. In this respect, the sign shall relate to its building, structure, and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint; excessive brightness shall be avoided; and 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines for the proposed sign. See Attachment B. Page 102 of 158 SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB find the proposed sign appropriate and compatible with the Design Guidelines and approve the application as proposed. Should the DRB find the proposed improvements appropriate, the Applicant would first need to obtain the approved sign permit from the Community Development Department before installing the sign. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the May 7 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed projecting sign. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed projecting sign is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for issuance of a sign permit: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings and the neighborhood, and shall be designed so as not to adversely affect adjacent structures. In this respect the sign shall relate to its building, structure and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint and excessive brightness shall be avoided; 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 103 of 158  ATTACHMENT A Village of Winnetka SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ILLI �HE1ven APR -7 2026 u SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION BY:------ Tenant/Lessee ·::;�-c:90i7 Name of Business Primary contact name The Kaage Company dba Kaage Homes KC Kaage Project Address 562 Lincoln Ave. City State Zip Code Email Winnetka IL 60093 kc@kaagehomes.com Sign Company Name of Sign Company Primary contact name Phone No. Fast Signs Kim Hackl I Street Address City State Zip Code l Email Property Owner Name of Company Primary contact name Phone No. Hoffman Real Estate Jenn Epstein 847-512-3191 Street Address: 552 Lincoln Avenue Suite 202 City Winnetka I State IL Zip Code 60093 I Email jepstein@hoffmanncre.com Sign type(s): D window graphics D wall-mounted sign D ground-mounted sign (check all that apply) [ii projecting sign D other______________ Additional description of sign type and materials.____________________ OFFICE USE ONLY SIGN FEE: $80 NON-ILLUMINATED PER SIGN TYPE $t,30.00 r $195 ILLUMINATED SIGN $.____ STAFF REVIEW FEE: $70 WAIVE FEE $ -=,o.oo TOTAL PERMIT FEE $ 1&>.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: _______________________ Page 4 of 4 Page 104 of 158  562 Lincoln Ave Winnetka, IL 60093 Double-Sided Sign Face Replacement Only Existing sign is a 36" x 24" oval that hangs from a pole bracket that is mounted to the exterior wall. LANDLORD INFORMATION 562-72 Lincoln Avenue, LLC 847-512-3191 jepstein@hoffmanncre.com Phone & E-mail FASTS/GNS. I SKOKIE 3437 Dempster I (847)423-3456 Page 105 of 158 562 Lincoln Ave Winnetka, IL 60093 Double-Sided Sign Face Replacement Only Existing sign is a 36'' x 24" oval that hangs from a pole bracket that is mounted to the exterior wall. THE WORKSHOPPE. by KAAGE HOMES FA5TS/GNS. I SKOKIE 3437 Dempster I (847)423-3456 Page 106 of 158  ATTACHMENT B d. Building Signage Commercial signs should reflect the character of the building style, while expressing each store’s individuality. There are several prominent sign styles that are appropriate to Winnetka: surface mounted, pin-mounted, interior, decal and projecting blade signs. Sign materials are limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass and metal. Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures. Lettering color can be unique to the image of the retailer/user. Metal sign and plaque material such as brushed bronze, antique bronze, aluminum, stainless steel and painted cast iron or similarly appearing materials are preferred. Highly reflective metallic signs are not allowed. Signs should be lit by marquee or spot lighting; neon lighting is not permitted. Spot lighting should be minimal and unobtrusive and, per the Village Code, the source of illumination shall not be visible from any street, sidewalk or dwelling. Simplified industrial light fixtures are not permitted. Contextual solutions are recommended. The majority of the signs will be mounted within the building’s sign band, defined as the wall area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” above grade and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Signs must comply with the general provisions of the Winnetka Sign Ordinance as well as design provisions contained within these Design Guidelines. 1. Surface mounted commercial signs are either fabricated from painted wood or cast metal plaques and are to be mounted within the sign band or within the storefront transom. The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the area of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The sign band of a building consists of the area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. Refer to figures 28, 29, and 30 for location. Surface mounted or pin- mounted signs are not permitted on secondary elevations without a defined sign band. 2. Pin-mounted commercial signs consist of reverse channel, cast metal and flat cut metal letters mounted above the storefront in the masonry sign band or suspended in front of the storefront at the transom or recessed entry. The size of the lettering is restricted so that the height of the letters does not exceed 75% of the height of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The length of the lettering is to be Figure 38 contained within 75% of the length of the sign band. (See figure 38) 19 Building & Architecture Page 107 of 158 Village of Winnetka, Illinois Figure 39 & 40 3. Projecting blade commercial signs can MC-01-2023, Removed, 01/17/2023 be round, square or vertical, mounted from the face of the building at the second floor level between the windows or at the head of the storefront and are oriented to pedestrian scale. The signs are to be mounted on fixed hardware; no swinging or chain-mounted signs are allowed. The dimensions of the sign are not to exceed 6 square feet (36” high and 24” deep) (See figure 41). If illuminated, the signs should be lit with an unobtrusive light source. Figure 41 4. Incidental wall signs such as building management identification and directory signs should be integrated into a single sign and be constructed of brushed bronze, antique bronze or painted cast iron. Such signs should not be placed on the prominent street front facade and should be directed to public residential entries (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Design Guidelines 20 Page 108 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 30, 2026 SUBJECT: 385 WINNETKA AVENUE - NEW TRIER HIGH SCHOOL - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW MULTIPLE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ON THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY (CASE NO. 26-05-DR) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness Application submitted by New Trier High School District 203 (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 385 Winnetka Ave. (the “Subject Property”), to allow multiple directional signs on the existing school building and the property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the north side of Winnetka Avenue, between Fuller Lane and Woodland Avenue, and is zoned R-4 Single-Family Residential. It contains an existing public high school. Figure 1 below shows the location maps with approximate locations for the proposed 7 signs for New Trier High School. Subject Property Page 1 Page 109 of 158  Figure 1- Subject Property Site Map showing the location of all directional CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant has filed an application seeking approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to install multiple directional signs, including 2 wayfinding signs, 1 wall sign, and 4 ground signs, on the existing school building and property as shown below. Page 2 Page 110 of 158  Page 3 Page 111 of 158  Details for each of the proposed directional signs at the Subject Property A copy of the Applicant’s application materials is included in Attachment A. Page 4 Page 112 of 158 SIGN CODE ANALYSES Per Village Code Chapter 15.60 (Signs), staff has determined that the subject sign is exempt from the Sign Code requirements. Pursuant to Section 15.60.070, signs, flags, and emblems of and on the premises of the United States, the State, the Village, or other municipal corporations and public bodies of the State shall be exempt from the regulations of Chapter 15.60 (Signs). Notwithstanding this exemption, the proposed signage remains subject to review and approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Design Review Board and the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application. In rendering its decision, the Design Review Board shall evaluate the application in accordance with the required findings of fact outlined below in section “CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.” CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness of Design: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines when considering the proposed multiple directional signs. The Design Guidelines provide guidance on the design and appropriate placement of wall signs. o The sign should harmonize with the building and reflect the character of the building style; o Sign Materials should be limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass, and metal; o Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures; o The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the sign band or 14 inches – whichever is less; o Sign should be located at least 8 feet above grade, but no more than 15 feet above grade; and o Sign should be externally illuminated or highlighted where possible. Page 5 Page 113 of 158 SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB find the proposed multiple directional signage, as appropriate and compatible with the Certificate of Appropriateness design factors and the Village Design Guidelines and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the May 7 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the proposed multiple directional signs. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed externally illuminated wall sign is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 6 Page 114 of 158  ATTACHMENT A Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION 385 WINNETKA AVENUE, WINNETKA, IL 60093 Project Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of NEW TRIER HIGH SCHOOL Business(es):__________________________________________________________________________ Application is hereby made for the following work (please check all that apply): ✔ ❑ Sign Sign Permit Application attached? ❑ Awning Awning Permit Application attached? ❑ Other (general description) _______________________________________________________________ Please provide a detailed description of the proposed work (attach additional information such as material INSTALLATION OF 7 SIGNS FOR NEW TRIER HIGH SCHOOL specifications, photographs, etc.): ________________________________________________________________ 2 WAYFINDING, 1 WALL, 4 GROUND ____________________________________________________________________________________________ I/We hereby certify that as OWNER ______________________________________(Lessee/Owner) of the property located at 385 WINNETKA AVE ___________________________(address), I am/we are authorized to submit plans for alterations of the subject property. I/We agree to perform the subject work in accordance with the conditions of approval by the Winnetka Design Review Board as well as all other applicable codes, rules, and regulations of the Village of Winnetka. FOR LESSEE/OWNER USE ONLY FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SIGNED __________________________ COA applied for (date): __________ PRINTED NAME(S) MIKE FESS __________________________ ADDRESS 385 WINNETKA AVE, WINNETKA IL 60093 __________________________ COA Case Number: __________ PHONE NO. (847) 784-2074 __________________________ COA Issued (date): __________ EMAIL FESSM@NEWTRIER.K12.IL.US __________________________ COA Fee ❑ $135 ❑ $575 PRIMARY DESIGN FIRM ___________________________ KDN SIGNS INC. CONTACT NAME BRIANNA KOZI ___________________________ ADDRESS ___________________________ 245 BEINORIS DR, WOOD DALE, IL 60191 ___________________________ PHONE NO. 773-590-6428 ___________________________ EMAIL KDNSIGNS_WINNETKA_IL@PERMITFLOWTEAM.COM ___________________________ Page 4 of 4 Page 115 of 158  TRIER 385 Winnetka Avenue 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE WOOD DALE, IL 60191 Winnetka, IL 60093 (630) 422-1708 contact@kdnsigns.com artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may not be copied or reproduced QUOTE# 22193 02/09/2026 Page 116 of 158  1'-10" 5'-9" Approx +- 1"h copy 2" arrow EXISTING SIGN By N19 Proposed Proposed Proposed Sign #3 1'-10" Sign #1 Sign #2 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE N19 E25 Proposed N16 NE WOOD DALE, IL 60191 Sign #2 N15 NW N17 N18 Entrance Entrance (630) 422-1708 6'-0" Approx +- E24 1"h copy contact@kdnsigns.com 2" arrow artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may Proposed not be copied or reproduced Proposed Sign #4 Sign #1 & #1a W11 EAST 385 Winnetka Avenue Winnetka, IL 60093 E104 Entrance TRIER SOUTH Entrance 385 Winnetka Avenue S2 S1 Winnetka, IL 60093 W10 E102 W9 STAFF DRAWN BY: Pamela F PARKING ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer ONLY W8 PAGES: 1 of 7 S6 S6 S1L E100 Proposed Sign #4 Proposed Proposed Sign #6 Sign #5 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 NOTES: NORTH SITE PLAN Page 117 of 158  4'-10" Updated 2" 05.05.25 2½" 9½" 5" Vinyl wood grain digital laminate 14'-0"+- 1'-6" 9½" 4¼" SHIPPING & returns Flat aluminum panel 13'-0"+- 4'-6" +- 4¼" RECEIVING painted to match Matthews Brushed Aluminum Black cut vinyl copy and arrow, applied West View first surface Side View S/F Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #1 EXISTING VIEW Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 7.25 Aluminum pan sign with first surface vinyl, painted to match brushed aluminum. Exact installation method to be determined after field survey. Drawing for concept purposes only. 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE 12" WOOD DALE, IL 60191 (630) 422-1708 contact@kdnsigns.com artwork in this document is property of SHIPPING & RECEIVING W11 12" W11 .125" Aluminum panel painted background to match Matthews Paint #41313SP Dark Bronze with White Cut Vinyl copy Font: Helvetica Neue LT Pro 57Cn, Panel to be screwed into wall surface the kdn signs and may not be copied or reproduced DOOR ID 2 - Wall Application - Sign #1a Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 1.0 TRIER Digitally produced vinyl overlay with UV Protection Film. Door ID Decal applied 385 Winnetka Avenue first surface to door window as shown. Exact installation method to be determined Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - WEST after field survey. Drawing for concept purposes only. DRAWN BY: Pamela F ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 2 of 7 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 Proposed 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 Sign #1 & #1a NOTES: Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - BIRDSEYE VIEW - Page 118 of 158  2'-6" 4" 2'-6" 2" 2" 2" 2" NEW Digitally produced NEW TRIER TRIER 6½" TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL on vinyl applied TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL first surface 4" 3" MAIN ATHLETIC ENTRANCE N16 Black cut vinyl copy ENTRANCE N19 and arrow, applied first surface MAIN ENTRANCE N16 Flat aluminum panel painted to match EXISTING VIEW 5'-0½" Matthews Brushed Aluminum Updated 6'-0" 2½" 1¾" Updated 07.17.25 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE 05.05.25 WOOD DALE, IL 60191 (630) 422-1708 Vinyl wood grain contact@kdnsigns.com digital laminate returns artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may not be copied or reproduced 1/2"h Reveal painted to match 1/2" 11" Matthews Black Flat aluminum panel TRIER painted to match 385 Winnetka Avenue Matthews Black Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - WEST East View Side View West View DRAWN BY: Pamela F D/F Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #2 ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 3 of 7 Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 15.00 Aluminum extruded sign body with first surface vinyl copy and logo. New main support and foundation required. Field survey required. Drawing for concept purposes only. 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 Proposed NOTES: Sign #2 Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - Section View - at top BIRDSEYE VIEW - Page 119 of 158  2'-6" 4" 2'-6" 2" 2" Updated 02.09.26 NEW NEW TRIER Digitally produced TRIER EXISTING VIEW 6½" TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL on vinyl applied TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL first surface 3'-0½" Flat aluminum panel ATHLETIC painted to match ATHLETIC 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE Matthews Brushed ENTRANCE N19 Aluminum ENTRANCE N19 WOOD DALE, IL 60191 1¾"2½" 4" 3" Black cut vinyl copy MAIN and arrow, applied MAIN (630) 422-1708 ENTRANCE N16 first surface ENTRANCE N16 contact@kdnsigns.com 4'-0" Vinyl wood grain artwork in this document is property of VISITOR digital laminate the kdn signs and may PARKING returns Updated not be copied or reproduced ALL LOTS/SPACES 1/2"h Reveal 05.05.25 ALL LOTS/SPACES OPEN DURING EVENTS painted to match OPEN DURING EVENTS 1/2" EN EN TRAN CE MAI N16 N ETIC ATHL N19 CE TRAN SITOR VI ING PARK 11" Matthews Black Flat aluminum panel TRIER painted to match 385 Winnetka Avenue Matthews Black Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - NORTH South View Side View North View DRAWN BY: Pamela F DF Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #3 ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 4 of 7 Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 10.00 Aluminum extruded sign body with first surface vinyl copy and logo. New main support and foundation required. Field survey required. Drawing for concept purposes only. 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 Proposed NOTES: Sign #3 Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - Section View - at top Page 120 of 158  4'-10" Updated 2" 05.05.25 2½" 9½" 5" Vinyl wood grain 9½" GROUNDS digital laminate returns 1'-6" 4¼" 4¼" GARARGE Deliveries on West side of Flat aluminum panel painted to match Matthews Brushed 1½" campus on Woodland Ave. Aluminum Black cut vinyl copy Updated and arrow, applied West View first surface Side View 06.10.25 S/F Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #4 EXISTING VIEW Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 7.25 Aluminum pan sign with first surface vinyl, painted to match brushed aluminum. Exact installation method to be determined after field survey. Drawing for concept purposes only. 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE WOOD DALE, IL 60191 (630) 422-1708 contact@kdnsigns.com artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may not be copied or reproduced GROUNDS GARARGE Deliveries on West side of campus on Woodland Ave. TRIER 385 Winnetka Avenue Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - WEST DRAWN BY: Pamela F ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 5 of 7 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 NOTES: Proposed Sign #4 Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - Page 121 of 158  2'-6" 4" 2'-6" 2" 2" NEW Digitally produced NEW TRIER TRIER 6½" TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL on vinyl applied TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL first surface Flat aluminum panel ATHLETICS painted to match ATHLETIC ENTRANCE N19 Matthews Brushed ENTRANCE N19 Aluminum MAIN MAIN Black cut vinyl copy ENTRANCE N16 and arrow, applied ENTRANCE N16 first surface STAFF VISITOR EXISTING VIEW 5'-0½" PARKING PARKING ONLY WINNETKA 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE 6'-0" VISITOR Updated ENTRANCE S2 PARKING 05.05.25 WOOD DALE, IL 60191 (630) 422-1708 Updated Updated 02.05.26 Vinyl wood grain contact@kdnsigns.com digital laminate 02.05.26 returns artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may not be copied or reproduced ALL LOTS/SPACES 1/2"h Reveal ALL LOTS/SPACES OPEN DURING EVENTS painted to match OPEN DURING EVENTS 1/2" STAFF PARKING Matthews Black TRIER ONLY VISITOR PARKING ATHLETICS ENTRANCE N19 MAIN ENTRANCE N16 Flat aluminum panel 11" painted to match 385 Winnetka Avenue Matthews Black Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - WEST West View Side View East View DRAWN BY: Pamela F D/F Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #5 ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 6 of 7 Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 15.00 Aluminum extruded sign body with first surface vinyl copy and logo. New main support and foundation required. Field survey required. Drawing for concept purposes only. 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 Proposed 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 Sign #5 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 NOTES: Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - Section View - at top Page 122 of 158  2'-6" 4" 2'-6" 2" 2" 2" 2" NEW Digitally produced NEW TRIER TRIER 6½" TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL on vinyl applied TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL first surface Flat aluminum panel ATHLETIC painted to match DELIVERIES ENTRANCE N19 Matthews Brushed Aluminum DELIVERIES Updated Updated 07.17.25 MAIN 02.05.26 ENTRANCE N16 EXISTING VIEW 5'-0½" VISITORS Black cut vinyl copy and arrow, applied PARKING first surface 831 N CENTRAL AVENUE 6'-0" WINNETKA Updated WOOD DALE, IL 60191 ENTRANCE S2 05.05.25 (630) 422-1708 Vinyl wood grain contact@kdnsigns.com digital laminate VISITORS ENTRANCE PARKINGS2 returns artwork in this document is property of the kdn signs and may ATHLETIC GAFFNEY AUDITORIUM ENTRANCE N19 MAIN ENTRANCE N16 DELIVERIES not be copied or reproduced ALL LOTS/SPACES 1/2"h Reveal ALL LOTS/SPACES OPEN DURING EVENTS painted to match OPEN DURING EVENTS 1/2" 11" Matthews Black Flat aluminum panel TRIER painted to match 385 Winnetka Avenue Matthews Black Winnetka, IL 60093 PROPOSED VIEW - WEST West View Side View East View DRAWN BY: Pamela F D/F Non-Illuminated Wayfinding Sign - Sign #6 ACCOUNT REP: Patrick Blazer PAGES: 7 of 7 Scale 1" = 1'-0" | Qty: (1) Required | Square Footage: 15.00 Aluminum extruded sign body with first surface vinyl copy and logo. New main support and foundation required. Field survey required. Drawing for concept purposes only. 06-17-25 QUOTE#: 22193-00 07-17-25 DATE: 02-13-25 10-09-25 REVISED: 03-25-25 02-05-26 05-05-25 04-02-25 02-09-26 06-10-25 04-25-25 NOTES: Proposed Sign #6 Vinyl Wood Grain Digital Laminate - Matthews Paint - Section View - at top BIRDSEYE VIEW - Page 123 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 30, 2026 SUBJECT: 547 CHESTNUT STREET – THE LAKE EFFECT – A SIGN PERMIT TO ALLOW AWNING VALANCE AND VALANCE SIGN REPLACEMENT (CASE NO. 26-06-DR) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a sign permit application submitted by The Lake Effect (the “Applicant”) as the current lessee of the commercial space located at 547 Chestnut Street (the “Subject Property”), to allow replacement of the awning valance and valance sign on the existing awning. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Chestnut Street between Spruce and Elm Streets in the Elm Street Business District and is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial, while being within the Commercial Overlay District. The Subject property contains a three-story mixed-use building that includes the Applicant’s business along with Classic Stitch, Peet’s Coffee, and The Book Stall. Figure 1 below shows the main building and approximate location of the Applicant’s business. Figure 2 on the following page shows the current storefront, which still displays the awning valance and window signage from the previous business, Chestnut Street Flowers, along with a temporary window sign for the new business, The Lake Effect. All existing and temporary signage will be removed upon approval of the proposed valance signage. The storefront of “The Lake Effect” Figure 1 – Subject Property – View of the main building along the east side of Chestnut Street Page 124 of 158  Figure 2 – Storefront of The Classic Stitch and The Lake Front Effect at Subject Property PREVIOUS APPROVALS The existing black-and-cream awnings for The Classic Stitch and The Lake Effect (formerly Chestnut Street Flowers), including updated awning fabric and window signage, received DRB approval in September 2023. CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing awning black valance with a navy-blue valance and to install new valance signage for both businesses, “The Lake Effect,” and the neighboring business, “The Classic Stitch.” The proposed signage will provide identification and promotion for each business at the Subject Property. Both signs will display the respective business names, as illustrated below. Proposed awning valance sign: • Recover the existing awning valance with a new canvas in navy blue; o Existing awning frame 7.5 feet above finish grade; • Awning sign of 5-inch white text that provides name and address of the Applicant’s business and neighboring business. • Awning sign area 5.71 square feet. Page 125 of 158  The Lake Effect – Proposed awning valance sign A copy of the Applicant’s application materials is included in Attachment A. SIGN CODE ANALYSIS Chapter 12.24.030 of the Village Code establishes standards for the installation of awnings located within the public right-of-way. The proposed awning valance would utilize the existing frame, which has a clearance of 7.5 feet above the public sidewalk. In the future, if the support apparatus of the awning is replaced, the awning must provide a minimum clearance of 8 feet above the public sidewalk. The proposed Page 126 of 158 awning valance on the existing frame would not project over more than three-fourths of the width, as required by the Village Code, Section 12.24.030. Section 15.60.120 of the Village Sign Code establishes standards for awning signs in commercial districts. Awning sign standards • Shall not contain information other than the name of the business, the street address numbers, and the occupant’s logo or trademark; • The total area of all signs on an awning not to exceed fifteen percent of the awning area; • Letters, logos, or trademarks not to exceed six inches in height; and • Shall be placed on the vertical front skirt only. The proposed valance sign meets all the above standards for awning signs. Signage Street Exposure Area Square Percentage Foot Street Exposure 112 - Max Allowed per Sign Code 16.80 15% (15% of the Street Exposure) All Existing and Proposed Signs Counted Toward 5.71 2.86% Street Exposure The proposed signs comply with the maximum allowed sign area street exposure requirement. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS When reviewing the design of any signs, the Board is to consider the following standards and criteria of Section 15.60.150(F) of the Sign Code. F. Standards and Criteria for Issuance. The following factors and characteristics relating to the safety and appearance of signage shall govern the Board’s evaluation of design submittals: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings, and the neighborhood and shall be designed not to affect adjacent structures adversely. In this respect, the sign shall relate to its building, structure, and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint; excessive brightness shall be avoided; and Page 127 of 158  6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines for the proposed signage. See Attachment B. SUMMARY The Applicant respectfully requests that the DRB determine that the proposed awning valance fabric and valance sign replacements are appropriate and compatible with the Village’s Design Guidelines, and approve the awning application as submitted. Should the DRB find the proposed signage acceptable, the Applicant will then obtain the required awning permit from the Community Development Department prior to installing the new awning valance fabric and valance sign. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the May 7 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed awning. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed awning is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for issuance of a sign permit: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings and the neighborhood, and shall be designed so as not to adversely affect adjacent structures. In this respect the sign shall relate to its building, structure and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint and excessive brightness shall be avoided; 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 128 of 158  u ATTACHMENT A �C'2tW�Winnetka AJfA�NG pEftrM'f�TION 'f( 1; Jn2 V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I .L I N o-r � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN� AWNING PERMIT APPLICATION Tenant/Lessee Awning Company Phone No. �1�· AWNING: -□ '@ retractable or �. rigid new awning or J;,4' recovering of existing frame • f 1/'_l..- �!,:;71 vl re D(CAv//1)(;\ fr-01tf c(: ne,iJ 1 N �fV'li:- ___j Fabric type and colo� !,a!tach samples! Dimensions: Length� Height f---, Projection from Building Fae� /) re�c,,. Clearance from sidewalk ·::] _,..____ , vv,�fi\ AWNING VALANCE SIGN COPY/LOGO: Height_kinches, LengtrP4 �1{,, inches- !LG l�V j� �/4 w/ N/J4/V e,. 1/ ?<., TC-,S lO� 11 11 f) Description of sign material, method of application, and color: tf2- OFFICE USE ONLY: AWNING PERMIT FEE: $90 EACH NUMBER OF AWNING S__ $ ___ STAFF REVIEW FEE: $70 c WAIVE REVIEW FEE $ ___ TOTAL PERMIT FEE: $ ___ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ________________________ Page 4 of4 Page 129 of 158  417/26,3:38 PM Gmail - Fwd: BOLD LOGO Gmail chestnut st flowers <chestnutstreetflowers@gmail.com> Fwd: BOLD LOGO Acme Awning <acmeawning@att.net> Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:55 AM Reply-To: Acme Awning <acmeawning@att.net> To: chestnut st flowers <chestnutstreetflowers@gmail.com> Hello again Allison, I dropped off the samples at The Classic Stitch for your review. I also include the current solid Black fabric of your existing valance for contrast against the Navy. Regarding dimensions, they are as follows: • Awning: 20'8" Width x 3'2" Projection (from wall) with a 53-1/2" Vertical length (Black and White Striped portion). • Valance (loose curtain): 20'8" Width x 8" total height.,�u oposecl White text measures 6- 11 �� 1JP'l!leight x 75-9/16" Width (The Lake Effect) and 6 eight x 57-1/8" Width (The �assic Stitch) Ground Clearance varies as it is a Retractable Awning, but at 90 degree projection (awning against wall), the ground clearance to the bottom of the valance is 7'. To awning it is 7'8" without including the loose valance. Let me know if you need anything else and thanks again, Eirith Garza, Sales Manager & Design Consultant @Acme Awning Co., Inc. 3080 Skokie Valley Rd Suites 3 & 4 Highland Park, IL 60035 (847)446-0153 acmeawningonline.com �· �e- vt.;10() *Please note all lead times are approximate and may vary based on seasonal demand* �cht"e1( [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d7900a3ccc&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1861193592910036735&simpl=msg-f:1861193592910036735 Page 130 of 158 1/1  411126, 12:41 PM Gmail - Fwd: BOLD LOGO ·Gmail chestnut st flowers <chestnutstreetflowers@gmail.com> Fwd: BOLD LOGO Acme Awning <acmeawning@attnet> �d. Apr 1, 2026 at 4:50 PM Reply-To: Acme Awning <acmeawning@att.net> To: chestnut wers <chestnutstreetflowers@gmail.com> P ase see attached with new dimensions and bold logo TCS: 6" x 52-3/4" TLE: 6" x 84-13/16" 3080 Skokie Valle� & 4 mt�..., "-· k:7'(f:o()()J5 (847)446-0153 acmeawningonline.com *Please note all lead times are approximate and may vary based on seawnal deman� (Quoted text hidden) Bold BW Stripe Navy Valance TCS TLE-rendering.png 652K https://mail .google.com/mail/u/Ol?ik=d7900a.1ccc& view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f: I 86 J306518287839092&si mpl=msg-f: I 86 I 306518287839092 Ill' Page 131 of 158 j  3130/26, 9:59 AM BW Stripe Navy ValanceTCS TLE-rendering.png https:/ /mai I .goo gle.com/mai l/u/0/ #search/acmeawni ng%40att.net/FMfc gzQgK v Fkh\vJ DFhhmqcw vCH LZO\J;i ts !proJtc,u� 1 &u •�•:sai;cr .u uu--u. , Page 132 of 158  ATTACHMENT B d. Building Signage Commercial signs should reflect the character of the building style, while expressing each store’s individuality. There are several prominent sign styles that are appropriate to Winnetka: surface mounted, pin-mounted, interior, decal and projecting blade signs. Sign materials are limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass and metal. Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures. Lettering color can be unique to the image of the retailer/user. Metal sign and plaque material such as brushed bronze, antique bronze, aluminum, stainless steel and painted cast iron or similarly appearing materials are preferred. Highly reflective metallic signs are not allowed. Signs should be lit by marquee or spot lighting; neon lighting is not permitted. Spot lighting should be minimal and unobtrusive and, per the Village Code, the source of illumination shall not be visible from any street, sidewalk or dwelling. Simplified industrial light fixtures are not permitted. Contextual solutions are recommended. The majority of the signs will be mounted within the building’s sign band, defined as the wall area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” above grade and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Signs must comply with the general provisions of the Winnetka Sign Ordinance as well as design provisions contained within these Design Guidelines. 1. Surface mounted commercial signs are either fabricated from painted wood or cast metal plaques and are to be mounted within the sign band or within the storefront transom. The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the area of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The sign band of a building consists of the area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. Refer to figures 28, 29, and 30 for location. Surface mounted or pin- mounted signs are not permitted on secondary elevations without a defined sign band. 2. Pin-mounted commercial signs consist of reverse channel, cast metal and flat cut metal letters mounted above the storefront in the masonry sign band or suspended in front of the storefront at the transom or recessed entry. The size of the lettering is restricted so that the height of the letters does not exceed 75% of the height of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The length of the lettering is to be Figure 38 contained within 75% of the length of the sign band. (See figure 38) 19 Building & Architecture Page 133 of 158 Village of Winnetka, Illinois Figure 39 & 40 3. Projecting blade commercial signs can MC-01-2023, Removed, 01/17/2023 be round, square or vertical, mounted from the face of the building at the second floor level between the windows or at the head of the storefront and are oriented to pedestrian scale. The signs are to be mounted on fixed hardware; no swinging or chain-mounted signs are allowed. The dimensions of the sign are not to exceed 6 square feet (36” high and 24” deep) (See figure 41). If illuminated, the signs should be lit with an unobtrusive light source. Figure 41 4. Incidental wall signs such as building management identification and directory signs should be integrated into a single sign and be constructed of brushed bronze, antique bronze or painted cast iron. Such signs should not be placed on the prominent street front facade and should be directed to public residential entries (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Design Guidelines 20 Page 134 of 158 e. Awnings and Banners Awning scale and proportions are to be appropriate for the building on which they are mounted as well as the adjacent structures. It is highly recommended that awnings be uniform in size, shape (except for arched openings, see “Forms” below) and color in order to unify multiple storefronts within a single building. The length of the awning is to be restricted to the length of the storefront opening; awnings must not continue over masonry piers. The vertical and horizontal dimension should be proportional to the overall projection of the awning. (See figure 42) Figure 42 Awning projection is preferred at 36 inches, but awnings will be considered which range from a minimum of 24 inches to a maximum of 36 inches. Projection depth should match the existing adjacent awnings provided they comply with the acceptable minimum and maximum projection. Awnings should be placed at a minimum height of 8 feet above the sidewalk. If awnings are lit it should be from an outside source; no backlit awnings are allowed. Forms: Awning forms are to conform to the general shape of the opening. Arched openings are to receive ½-round domed awnings, whereas rectangular openings are to receive rectangular, gently sloping; planar forms with closed ends. Valances may be fixed or loose. Mounting: Awnings may be fixed or retractable. Retractable awnings must be kept either in the fully projected position or the fully closed position. Fixed awnings are to have concealed rigid metal frames. Retractable awnings should have a canopy cover and automatic retractable rollers mounted to the building. Underpanels are not desired. Frames should be painted to match or compliment the color of the awning cover material or its underside. Materials: The awning material should be taut, not relaxed. Awning materials may include matte finish painted army duck, vinyl-coated cotton, acrylic-coated polyester, and vinyl-coated polyester or cotton and solution-dyed acrylic. All materials should receive silkscreen, painted, cutout lettering, heat color-transfer, pressure sensitive vinyl films or sewn appliqué signs. Awning signs and logos are limited to a height of six inches, and may be placed on the valence only. 21 Building & Architecture Page 135 of 158 Village of Winnetka, Illinois Colors: Awning and banner colors must take into account the color selection of the surrounding materials, buildings, signs, awnings, and image of the retailer/user and district. All awnings located on the same building must be the same color. Colors should enhance and compliment the building and are restricted to earthtones and primary and secondary colors. Final color selection is contingent on approval by the Design Review Board and compliance with the Village awning ordinance. Banners should be considered as identification of commercial districts. Banners may be location, event, holiday or sponsor specific and can create a unifying thread between the independent districts. Banners are to be mounted on existing poles by fixed brackets and hardware. The Design Review Board must approve the final design. All new or replacement Awnings and Banners must comply with Village Ordinances and the Design Guidelines. f. ADA Compliance: Federal and State regulations require all public spaces to be accessible. Accessibility alterations shall allow access from either the primary or the secondary facade; additions of elevators or ramps should be designed as an integral element of the building. Entrances: Commercial and mixed-use facilities should provide first floor access from the primary or secondary facade. Elevators: Where possible, elevators should be incorporated into the existing building envelope. If physically impossible, the elevator and stair core can be located on the exterior of the building but should be located so as not visible from the main public way. Ramps: Where required, the slope of the ramp should be as gradual as possible to eliminate the need for handrails. Although a 1:12 slope is permitted, 1:20 is encouraged. A ramp should be an integral design element, reflecting the design of the building it serves and surrounding site. This can be accomplished by concealing the ramp behind a low screen wall. g. Mechanical Equipment 1. Location Mechanical Equipment must not be visible from pedestrian view. Roof top equipment should be located either in the center of the roof or in one corner away from the street elevation so as not to be visible from the primary or secondary approach. Design Guidelines 22 Page 136 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 30, 2026 SUBJECT: 902 GREEN BAY ROAD – FOUND BY STEPH – WINDOW, DOOR, AND PROJECTING SIGN PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-07-DR) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a sign permit application submitted by Found by Steph (the “Applicant”), the current lessee of the commercial space located at 902 Green Bay Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow the installation of a new window, door, and double- faced projecting sign on the Green Bay Road frontage of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located west of Green Bay Road between Gage Street and Tower Road in the Hubbard Woods Business District. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial and is located within the Commercial Overlay District. Figures 1 below and 2 on the following page identify the location of the Subject Property, and Figure 3 identifies the storefront on the building's exterior facade. Location of Subject Property Figure 1 – Subject Property – Location Map Page 137 of 158  Location of Found by Steph Storefront Figure 2 – Found by Steph Business Location-View from Green Bay Road Figure 3 – Found by Steph Current Storefront CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to install a door sign, a window sign on the central windowpane, and a new double-face projecting sign frame, all of which would provide identification and promotion for their new business location, as shown in the illustrations below: Window Sign • Individual text painted on the glass, in black, stating “VINTAGE”; • 6 inches tall and 36 inches long text • Located in the bottom two-thirds portion of the glass; and • Sign area 1.50 square feet. Door Window Sign • Individual logo sign painted on the glass, in white, stating “found by steph”; • 6 inches tall and 24 inches long text • Located in the middle portion of the door window; and • Sign area 1.00 square feet. Page 138 of 158  Subject Property – Proposed window and door sign Projecting Sign The proposed new double-faced projecting sign identifies new businesses. • Frame o projecting 24 inches from the building wall o bottom of the sign will be 8 feet from the finished grade; and • Proposed double face nonilluminated 20 inches wide by 14 inches tall, with a white background, with text stating “found by steph” in black. Subject Property – Proposed new double-face sign Page 139 of 158 A copy of the Applicant’s application materials is included in Attachment A. SIGN CODE ANALYSIS Section 15.60.120 of the Village Sign Code establishes standards for window signs and projecting signs in commercial districts. Window and door window signs that meet the following standards can be administratively approved by staff: • Window signs limited to 10% or less of the single window pane; • Door sign limited to 50% or less of the single door window; • Limited letters and logos no taller than 8”, except one logo, and the first letter of each word may be up to no taller than 24”, and except store hours and contact information shall be limited to 2” in height; • Window signs limited to letters and logos of no more than two colors on a solid background of another color, a total of three colors; • Height of the sign to not exceed 1/3 of the height of the glass area and 90% of the glass width; • Located in the lower two-thirds of the window opening; • Shall not extend over or through architectural features/window muntin; • Without reflective materials; • No window sign should be illuminated, and • Comply with the following: for each street exposure, the total area of all wall signs, window signs, and awning signs other than exempt signs and permitted directional and incidental signs shall not exceed 15% of the street exposure. Sign Window Maximum Allowed Maximum Proposed Proposed Sign Area Sign Area Allowed Sign Sign Area Area as % of (sf) (% of Window Area) Area (sf) (sf) Window Area Center Windowpane 101.60 10% 10.16 1.50 1.48% Door Window 16.08 50% 8.04 1.00 6.22% The proposed signs meet all of the above standards for window signs. Signage Street Exposure Area Square Percentage Foot Street Exposure 235.06 - Max Allowed per Sign Code 35.26 15% (15% of the Street Exposure) All Proposed Signs counted toward Street Exposure 4.45 1.89% The proposed signs comply with the maximum allowed sign area street exposure requirement. Projecting sign standards • One projecting sign per business; • Extends no more than 2 feet from the building wall; • No more than 3 feet high; • Clearance between the bottom of the sign and the sidewalk is at least 8 feet, and • Containing the name of the business and a maximum of three words containing a general Page 140 of 158  description of types of products or services, and occupant logo or trademark. The proposed projecting sign meets all the above standards for projecting signs. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS When reviewing the design of any signs, the Board is to consider the following standards and criteria of Section 15.60.150(F) of the Sign Code. F. Standards and Criteria for Issuance. The following factors and characteristics relating to the safety and appearance of signage shall govern the Board’s evaluation of design submittals: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings, and the neighborhood and shall be designed not to adversely affect adjacent structures. In this respect, the sign shall relate to its building, structure, and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint; excessive brightness shall be avoided; and 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines to approve existing signage to remain. See Attachment B. SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB find the proposed signage as appropriate and compatible with the Design Guidelines and approve the application as proposed. Should the DRB find the proposed improvements appropriate, the Applicant would first need to obtain the approved sign permit from the Community Development Department prior to installing the signs. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the May 7 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed signage. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: Page 141 of 158  a. The proposed signage is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for issuance of a sign permit: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings and the neighborhood, and shall be designed so as not to adversely affect adjacent structures. In this respect the sign shall relate to its building, structure and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint and excessive brightness shall be avoided; 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 142 of 158  ATTACHMENT A R!pc:�:�1·-:t Village of Winnetka SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, ILLIN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 81";· SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION � Tenant/Lessee Name of Business Primary contact name Phone No. Found by Steph LLC Stephanie Harris 630-453-1305 Project Address 902 Green Bay Road City Winnetka I State IL Zip Code 60093 I Email foundbysteph@gmail.com Sign Company Name of Sign Company Primary contact name Phone No. Piece of Sign Anveil NA Street Address 42-9 Kamiyamacho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan City NA State l NA Zip Code NA I Email contact@pieceofsign.com Property Owner Name of Company Key Renter Chicago I Primary contact name Mary Gilardi I Phone No. 708-435-2900 Street Address: 1010 Lake St. Suite 200 City Oak Park I State IL I Zip Code 60301 I Email mary@keyrenterchicagometro.com Sign type(s}: � window grap hics D wall-mounted sign D ground-mounted sign (check all that apply) (Bl projecting sign D other________________ Additional description of sign type and materials 'fflow Graphic: 6in Tall Hand Painted White Sign, ''found by steph" Window Graphic: 6in Tall Hand Painted White Sign, "VINTAGE" Projecting Sign: >8ft from ground+ <2ft from wall projecting metal sign, ''found by steph" OFFICE USE ONLY SIGN FEE: $80 NON-ILLUMINATED PER SIGN TYPE $ 80.­ J-o. -­ □ $195 ILLUMINATED SIGN $ STAFF REVIEW FEE: $70 WAIVE FEE $1-cJ- TOTAL PERMIT FEE $ lS0.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: _______________________ _ Page4of4 Page 143 of 158 Found By Steph – 902 Green Bay Road Design Review Board Sketches Window Sign Application A E F N C M found by steph I H J G L B K D 1. Sign Dimensions & Area (360in, 2% total area) 3. Sign Lettering & Details • “VINTAGE” Sign: 216in • “VINTAGE” Sign • G: 6in H • Color: Black • H: 36in W • Material: Paint • “found by steph” Logo Sign: 144in • Height: 6in • I: 6in H • “found by steph” Sign • J: 24in W • Color: White 2. Window Dimensions & Area (17874.4in) • Material: Paint • Large Windows: 14,620.5in • Height: 6in • A: 85.5in H 4. Sign Location • B: 171in W • “VINTAGE” Sign • Door Windows: 2318in • Location: lower, middle window • C: 76in H • K: 12in • D: 30.5in W • L: 10.5in • Above Door Window: 936in • “found by steph” Sign • E: 26in H • Location: middle, door window • F: 36in W • M: 3.25in • N: 20in Page 144 of 158 Projecting Sign Application C A found by steph E D B 1. Sign Dimensions & Area • C: 20in (sign width + mounting pole separation from wall) 2. Sign Height • E: 16in • D: 16in (sign width) 3. Sign Vertical Projection • B: 8ft (from ground to bottom of sign) • A: 8ft 18in (from ground to top of sign) 4. Sign Appearance & Material • Material: Metal • Color: White, Black Font • Text: found by steph 5. Exterior Lighting: None Page 145 of 158 APPENDIX Projecting Sign Application Sketch Page 146 of 158  ATTACHMENT B d. Building Signage Commercial signs should reflect the character of the building style, while expressing each store’s individuality. There are several prominent sign styles that are appropriate to Winnetka: surface mounted, pin-mounted, interior, decal and projecting blade signs. Sign materials are limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass and metal. Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures. Lettering color can be unique to the image of the retailer/user. Metal sign and plaque material such as brushed bronze, antique bronze, aluminum, stainless steel and painted cast iron or similarly appearing materials are preferred. Highly reflective metallic signs are not allowed. Signs should be lit by marquee or spot lighting; neon lighting is not permitted. Spot lighting should be minimal and unobtrusive and, per the Village Code, the source of illumination shall not be visible from any street, sidewalk or dwelling. Simplified industrial light fixtures are not permitted. Contextual solutions are recommended. The majority of the signs will be mounted within the building’s sign band, defined as the wall area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” above grade and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Signs must comply with the general provisions of the Winnetka Sign Ordinance as well as design provisions contained within these Design Guidelines. 1. Surface mounted commercial signs are either fabricated from painted wood or cast metal plaques and are to be mounted within the sign band or within the storefront transom. The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the area of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The sign band of a building consists of the area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. Refer to figures 28, 29, and 30 for location. Surface mounted or pin- mounted signs are not permitted on secondary elevations without a defined sign band. 2. Pin-mounted commercial signs consist of reverse channel, cast metal and flat cut metal letters mounted above the storefront in the masonry sign band or suspended in front of the storefront at the transom or recessed entry. The size of the lettering is restricted so that the height of the letters does not exceed 75% of the height of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The length of the lettering is to be Figure 38 contained within 75% of the length of the sign band. (See figure 38) 19 Building & Architecture Page 147 of 158 Village of Winnetka, Illinois Figure 39 & 40 3. Projecting blade commercial signs can MC-01-2023, Removed, 01/17/2023 be round, square or vertical, mounted from the face of the building at the second floor level between the windows or at the head of the storefront and are oriented to pedestrian scale. The signs are to be mounted on fixed hardware; no swinging or chain-mounted signs are allowed. The dimensions of the sign are not to exceed 6 square feet (36” high and 24” deep) (See figure 41). If illuminated, the signs should be lit with an unobtrusive light source. Figure 41 4. Incidental wall signs such as building management identification and directory signs should be integrated into a single sign and be constructed of brushed bronze, antique bronze or painted cast iron. Such signs should not be placed on the prominent street front facade and should be directed to public residential entries (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Design Guidelines 20 Page 148 of 158  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 30, 2026 SUBJECT: 1010 GREEN BAY ROAD – BANK OF AMERICA - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE AT THE MAIN BANK ENTRANCE (CASE NO. 26-08-DR) INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider an application submitted by Meredith Szargowicz (the “Applicant”) as a representative of 1010 Green Bay Road, LLC (the “Owner”) of the property located at 1010 Green Bay Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the exterior light fixture at the main entrance of the Bank of America building on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Avenue and Green Bay Road in the Hubbard Woods Business District. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial and is not located in the Commercial Overlay District. The Subject Property consists of a two-story commercial building with Bank of America as its primary tenant. The existing building location is identified in Figure 1 below, and the building's main entrance view is shown in Figures 2 and 3 on the following page. Figure 1 – Subject Property location – Corner of Scott and Green Bay Road Page 1 Page 149 of 158  Figure 2 – Subject Property – Corner of Scott and Green Bay Road Figure 3- Subject Property – View of the Main Entrance CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to replace the existing exterior light fixture at the main entrance of the Bank of America on the Subject Property. Page 2 Page 150 of 158 The proposed light fixture Embrace the allure of yesteryear with the Vintage Rustic Cylinder Waterproof Outdoor LED Lantern Pendant Lights. Crafted with meticulous attention to detail, these stunning lanterns will elevate your outdoor space with their timeless beauty and modern functionality. • Durable die-cast aluminum and tempered glass construction • Waterproof to IP56 standards for reliable all-weather use • Energy-efficient LED bulbs last up to 50,000 hours • Adjustable hanging cord for customizable placement • Suitable for illuminating up to 171 sq ft of your yard or patio Hang these vintage-inspired lanterns from a trellis, pergola, or tree to create a warm, inviting ambiance that's perfect for entertaining guests or enjoying quiet moments under the stars. The rustic bronze or black finish seamlessly blends with a variety of outdoor decor styles, making them a versatile addition to your backyard oasis. DETAILS Product Name: Outdoor Pendant Lights Style: Vintage, Rustic Lamp Color: Bronze, Black Material: Die-cast Aluminum + Glass Waterproof: IP56 Light Source: LED E27 Power Supply: Hardwired Voltage 110-240V Color Rendering Index: 80 Working Temperature: -25 - 65℃ Lamp Life (hours): 50000 Lighting Area: 54 sq ft - 171 sq ft Applicable Scene: Outside, Yard, Garden, Patio Other WEIGHTS & DIMENSIONS L: Weight: 6.61lb Size: 9.45 ''Lengthx9.45 ''Widthx20.87 ''Height Hanging Cord: Adjustable (19.69") Page 3 Page 151 of 158 The design specifications for the proposed light fixture are included in the application materials as Attachment A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The Board must determine if the proposed existing exterior light fixture complies with the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines give guidance on exterior lighting. The Guidelines state: “Exterior Uses and Types: Exterior building lighting should be carefully designed. Incandescent and low-voltage lighting may be allowed. Fixtures should be contextual with the building and the adjacent building design. Building lighting should focus on illuminating building signs and enhancing architectural details on the facade. All lighting shall be located and shielded from direct visibility from any dwelling or public street per the Winnetka Village Code. Wall lanterns and architectural highlighting should be considered. Sodium and fluorescent lighting are not allowed.” Page 4 Page 152 of 158 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the May 7 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed exterior light fixture replacement. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed exterior light fixture replacement is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 5 Page 153 of 158  ATTACHMENT A Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I LL A G E O F W INN E T K A, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENTOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION Project Address: 1010 Green Bay Road C00...d�.p - L/01 i a _________________________ Name of Business(es):_B_an_k_ o_f _Am_er_ _c_ § Application is hereby made for the following work (please check all that apply): Sign Awning Sign Permit Application attached? LJ Awning Permit Application attached? LJ EGE IVE� � APR 2 3 2026 Other (general description) -- --------------B-'"":i"'-: ==- ----- �--============'- Please provide a detailed description of the proposed work (attach additional information such as material specifications, photographs, etc.): _C_ h_an_ g_ni _g _o u_t li_ g_h__lni g_fi_1x_tu_er ______________ ____ I/We hereby certify that as Bank of Amer ica (Lessee/Owner) of the property located at 1010 Green Bay Road (address), I am/we are authorized to submit plans for alterations of the subject property. VWe agree to perform the subject work in accordance with the conditions of approval by the Winnetka Design Review Board as well as all other applicable codes, rules, and regulations of the Village of Winnetka. FOR LESSEE/OWNER USE ONLY FOR OFFICE USE ONLY sIGNED COA applied for (date): pRINTED NAME(S) MeredithSzar gowicz ADDRESS 1 010 Green Bay Road COA Case Number: pHONE NO. (312) 937-3605 COA Issued (date): EMAIL meredi th.sza r gowicz@cushwake.com COAFee $ 13 5 --+t, k3:'. �, d □ $575 PRIMARY DESIGN FIRM CONTACT NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. EMAIL Page 4 of 4 Page 154 of 158  C �. flyach1lles.com/products/vintage-rust1c-cyl1nder-waterproof-outdoor-led-lantern-pendant-lights?vanant=44276866613443 * D � R N g • Portfolio• Bancare,... � Home - OneOnve i:; EarthCam "\ Trustlayer >( Nexonia E3 ADP Workforce Now SAC Workplace & F... 0 Chase Retail Gu1deh... (I Terracon Compass � Total81d Construcho... m PMWeb Jll logm Experian Credit Rep... @ OpenSpace - Ba NEW ARRIVAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING WALL LIGHTS CEILING LIGHTS EVENT LIGHTING SERIES FURNITURE SALE SHOP BY ... Lighting I Outdoor Lighting I Outdoor Ceiling Lights A Vintage Rustic Cylinder Waterproof Outdoor LED Lantern Pendant Lights ITEM#:012167-03 0 lnstock.Ready To Ship � l•I � $244.99 -20% Shipping calculated at checkout. +Free Shipping 15% OFF on 3+ items Code: FLY150V3 - FINISH Bronze SIZE s ■ MULTI-PACK DISCOUNT APPLIED PACK SIZE Single 2-Pack 4-Pack 6-Pack 8-Pack 1 + ADO TO CART Buy with shop I'll 9235 .,,. More payment options Page 155 of 158  Davorka Kirincic From: Meredith Szargowicz/USA < Meredith.Szargowicz@cushwake.com> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 9:43 AM To: Davorka Kirincic Subject: RE: IL2-100 Winnetka - Changing Pendant Lighting at Front/Main Entrance Attachments: COA Application Package- Page- Updated.pdf; Screenshot 2026-04-03 084037.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Davorka, Below and attached is an option for your review. Hanging Cord (All): Adjustable (19. 69'') Embrace the allure of yesteryear with the Vintage Rustic Cylinder Waterproof Outdoor LED Lantern Pendant Lights. Crafted with meticulous attention to detail, these stunning lanterns will elevate your outdoor space with their timeless beauty and modern functionality. • Durable die-cast aluminum and tempered glass construction • Waterproof to IP56 standards for reliable all-weather use • Energy-efficient LED bulbs last up to 50,000 hours • Adjustable hanging cord for customizable placement • Suitable for illuminating up to 171 sq ft of your yard or patio Thank you, Meredith Szargowicz Manager, Facilities Mobile: +1 312 937 3605 meredith.szarqowicz@cushwake.com 11111 CUSHMAN & Ill 1, 111111 WAKEFIELD From: Davorka Kirincic <DKirincic@Winnetka.org> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 2:53 PM To: Meredith Szargowicz/USA <Meredith.Szargowicz@cushwake.com> Subject: RE: IL2-100 Winnetka - Changing Pendant Lighting at Front/Main Entrance I External Mail I Received. Would you please send me a proposed light picture, and I will confirm if can be approved administratively. In mid time I am sending you Certificate of Appropriateness Application Package. Warm Regards, Davorka 1 Page 156 of 158 Davorka I. Kirincic, AICP Building and Code Enforcement Manager Village of Winnetka Community Development 84 7. 716.3522 I dkirincic@winnetka.org From: Meredith Szargowicz/USA <Meredith.Szargowicz@cushwake.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 2:35 PM To: Davorka Kirincic <DKirincic@Winnetka.org> Subject: IL2-100 Winnetka - Changing Pendant Lighting at Front/Main Entrance You don't often get email from meredith.szargowicz@cushwake.com. Learn why this is important CAUTIOI\I: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Per our conversation - thank you for your help! 2 Page 157 of 158 Thank you, Meredith Szargowicz Manager, Facilities Mobile: +1 312 937 3605 3 Page 158 of 158