Plan Commission
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · September 24, 2025
Minutes
Minutes adopted 11.19.2025
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Matthew Bradley
8 Chris Enck
9 Liz Kunkle
10 Cyrus Subawalla
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: Mamie Case
14
15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic
16
17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
19 Development
20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
21
22 Call to Order & Roll Call:
23 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
24 Commission Members present.
25
26 Approval of July 23, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes:
27 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the July 23, 2025, regular meeting minutes. A motion
28 to approve the July 23, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley and seconded by Mr. Blum. A
29 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
30 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack
31 NAYS: None
32 NON-VOTING: Orsic
33
34 Public Comment:
35 No comments were made at this time.
36
37 Community Development Report:
38 Mr. Mangum provided an update on the affordable housing plan approved by the Village Council and
39 submitted for review by the state. He also provided an update on the special use permit application by
40 Charles Schwab in the One Winnetka development which was approved by the Village Council.
41
42 New Applications:
43 a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications seeking approval of a
44 Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties, which requires (i) variations
45 to allow: (a) proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street
46 line for an interior lot; (b) proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required
47 lot depth; (c) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe less than the minimum required
48 total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as
September 24, 2025 Page 2
1 a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (ii) a finding of
2 "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at 881 Private Road, which exceeds
3 the maximum permitted width for a front-facing attached garage. The Village Council has final
4 jurisdiction on this request.
5 Chairperson Danley summarized the application and asked the Commission Members if they had any
6 preliminary comments. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen referred to the variations
7 being requested as well as the finding of no material increased adverse impact from an existing
8 nonconformity for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Village Council. She identified the
9 properties’ location, zoning classification, size and the existing structures and noted both are flag lots and
10 legally nonconforming. She noted the applicants have entered into a sales contract to convey a triangular
11 portion of the 883 Private parcel and consolidate with the 881 Private parcel. Ms. Klaassen also
12 summarized the application review by the ZBA and noted no easements are required by the Village’s
13 Engineering and Water and Electric Departments. She then identified the factors the Commission is to
14 consider and stated following the applicant’s presentation and public comment, a draft motion is included
15 on page 19 of the agenda packet for the Commission to consider. Ms. Klaassen noted no public comment
16 was received on the application and asked if there were any questions.
17
18 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time.
19
20 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
21 introduced himself and Jesse Van Dyke, the property owner of 881 Private Road, to the Commission and
22 stated the engineer, Dan Creaney, is also present to answer any technical plat questions. Mr. Canning
23 stated the parcel in question is a triangular parcel measuring 1,387 square feet with a sales contract being
24 conditioned upon zoning approval. He also stated the request would be presented to the ZBA and
25 described the two flag lot configurations. Mr. Canning summarized the existing conditions as well as the
26 front lot line and minimum lot depth. He then outlined the FOIA request he submitted to the Community
27 Development Department with regard to minimum front lot line and referred to lots which are similarly
28 situated in terms of driveway width. Mr. Canning stated there is an unintended consequence of moving
29 the triangle which resulted in the home encroaching into the side yard and confirmed the home would
30 not become larger. He also referred to the no material increased adverse impact standard and the 1993
31 garage expansion following the Commission’s approval which was not an issue at that time. Mr. Canning
32 asked the Commission to agree with that finding in that the garage is of a greater width than is permitted.
33 He stated the requested variations are for existing conditions and are a result of the attempt to square
34 off the lot. Mr. Canning referred to a slide in the presentation which depicted the area they are attempting
35 to rectify by the purchase of the triangular portion of the 883 parcel so that the 881 parcel can make full
36 use of the garage bay. He concluded by asking for a positive recommendation and asked if there were any
37 questions.
38
39 Chairperson Danley asked if there has never been garage access since the applicants purchased the home.
40 Mr. Canning responded the prior owner used the north bay for storage and described the many
41 movements required to get a vehicle into the north bay.
42
43 Mr. Blum asked if there was ever access on the northwest corner via Ravine Drive to the 883 parcel. Mr.
44 Canning responded he did not know and referred to the number of flag lots in the area and also described
45 the dimension as not being unusual. Mr. Enck asked if there are any immediate plans to build on the 883
46 parcel. Mr. Canning responded it is not considered as part of the application. Mr. Enck asked if there is
47 future building on the lot later, would be problematic in terms of access. Mr. Canning described proposed
48 siting for any future building on the site. Ms. Van Vlack asked about eliminating access and how that could
September 24, 2025 Page 3
1 be an issue. Mr. Canning stated the purchase and sale agreement is related to the triangle and the
2 authorization provided to the 881 parcel by the 883 parcel.
3
4 Mr. Alt asked if the driveway on the 881 parcel would be modified. Mr. Van Dyke informed the
5 Commission that approximately 8 feet of asphalt would be added to access the northernmost garage bay
6 as well as landscaping. No additional questions were raised at this time.
7
8 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. She then called the
9 matter in for discussion. Chairperson Danley described the request as a neighbor to neighbor exchange
10 and noted there is no public comment.
11
12 Trustee Orsic stated due to the fact no neighbors are involved, this isn’t facing a street, it isn’t impacting
13 neighbors or the character other than a future home being built, she is not a voting member but had no
14 issue with the request. Mr. Blum stated it made sense for it to be done with regard to the small triangular
15 area and he had no problem with the request. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made. Mr. Subawalla
16 also stated he had no issue with regard to the request. Mr. Alt agreed with the comments made and stated
17 there would be no material increased adverse impact and he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Bradley
18 stated he would reserve his comments until the matter is presented to the ZBA but agreed the garage
19 width did not rise to the level to meet the standard that there would be an increased material adverse
20 impact. Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and noted the property is located on a private road
21 and would have a minimal impact on neighbors. Chairperson Danley agreed with the comments and
22 referred to the existing nonconformities and the existing front facing garage. She concluded she is in favor
23 of the request.
24
25 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion as indicated on page 19 of the agenda packet. A motion to
26 recommend approval as indicated on page 19 for the proposed AJV Subdivision Final Plat relocating the
27 lot line dividing 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road as the final plat of subdivision was made by Ms.
28 Van Vlack and seconded by Ms. Kunkle. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
29 AYES: Alt, Blum, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack
30 NAYS: None
31 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
32
33 b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision
34 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed
35 Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required
36 rectangular buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No Material
37 Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a)
38 observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the
39 minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum permitted
40 width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
41 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members for any preliminary comments with regard to the
42 application. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen described the proposed subdivision of
43 the existing lot into two buildable lots. She noted the request is limited to the subdivision itself and the
44 existing improvements with no proposed improvements included as part of the request. Ms. Klaassen
45 identified the property’s location, zoning classification, existing improvements and measurements. She
46 stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property and surrounding properties as
47 appropriate for single family residential uses and the applicant’s use of the site is consistent with the
48 Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
September 24, 2025 Page 4
1 Ms. Klaassen described Lots 1 and 2 and the existing improvements on Lot 1. She noted the site was
2 originally platted as two lots similar to the current proposal and described the 1976 parcel created to
3 allow construction of the tennis court which would be removed as part of the proposal. Ms. Klaassen
4 noted Lot 1 complied with the zoning standards and summarized Lot 2’s noncompliance and the current
5 requirements in detail. She then identified the subdivision standards that proposed subdivisions are to
6 comply with which she described in detail. Ms. Klaassen referred to irregularly shaped lots in the
7 neighborhood and identified the three existing nonconformities.
8
9 Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the site is located entirely in the 100 year flood plain with
10 development on either lot being subject to the Village’s flood hazard protection ordinance as well as
11 MWRD requirements. She stated development on Lot 2 would require storm water detention and flood
12 plain compensatory storage. Ms. Klaassen referred the Commission to an image of a conceptual possible
13 home on the proposed vacant lot in response to the Village’s engineering comments on the proposed
14 subdivision which she described in detail along with compensatory storage and storm water detention.
15 Ms. Klaassen stated the Village’s Engineering Department confirmed with MWRD that surface
16 compensatory storage is acceptable provided it did not impact the storm water conveyance easement
17 and noted there are planned improvements to the Skokie Ditch resulting in increased capacity. She
18 reiterated the applicant is not proposing any new improvements on either lot at this time.
19
20 Ms. Klaassen stated the Water and Electric Department requested a 5-foot utility easement on proposed
21 Lot 2. She stated the ZBA would consider the request at its October 13, 2025, meeting and since the
22 agenda packet was posted, two letters were received from neighbors and provided to the Commission.
23 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission deliberation,
24 a draft motion is provided on page 56 for the Commission. She then asked if there were any questions.
25
26 Mr. Blum stated as his initial preliminary comment, he disclosed that he was on a different zoning board
27 for which an application for this property was presented 11 years ago and the application was withdrawn.
28 Mr. Bradley asked for clarification with regard to the lots appearing to be mirror properties and the forced
29 consolidation by the Village at the time. He asked if the application is a request to put the property back
30 to its original condition. Ms. Kunkle stated after the property was divided, it appeared that the Village
31 increased lot sizes with the neighborhood character now being called small estates. Mr. Alt asked if this is
32 the first stop for this application. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and outlined the application’s
33 presentation before the various boards. She stated there has been no record of a home being on the lot.
34 Ms. Klaassen also stated by shifting the dividing line between the two lots, it would require zoning relief
35 from the minimum lot depth requirement for Lot 1. Ms. Van Vlack expressed concern in the neighborhood
36 with regard to water displacement. She then referred to 901 and 905 Higginson which represented similar
37 situations of lots being subdivided into a nonconforming size in the R-2 district as well as the lot area
38 requirements at the time. Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the lot area requirement was increased
39 in 1999 and that it is likely a nonconforming lot with respect to at least the lot area requirements. She
40 added she is not sure when those lots were subdivided.
41
42 Mr. Subawalla asked if the southwest corner represented the lowest point in the neighborhood for the
43 adjacent lots and would result in a water catch point from the surrounding lots. He also asked if the
44 surrounding homes have their own storm water detention systems and where did the storm water
45 detention from this lot get released. Ms. Klaassen responded the proposed lot if developed would drain
46 to the Skokie Ditch and stated she could not speak to the elevation of this lot compared to others. She
47 confirmed the newer home to the west had compensatory storage and noted storm water detention
48 compliance is required with water runoff not being allowed to run to other lots. Mr. Blum questioned the
September 24, 2025 Page 5
1 forced consolidation which Ms. Klaassen explained to the Commission. No additional questions were
2 raised at this time.
3
4 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
5 introduced himself, Bob and Susan Marren, the property owners, and the project engineer, Dan Creaney
6 who prepared the exhibit the Commission Members discussed at the request of the Village Engineer
7 following the comments they made. He confirmed the matter did not relate to a hypothetical home but
8 only the lot. Mr. Canning stated to address Mr. Blum’s question, he explained the reason for their first
9 request to the ZBA. He then referred to 860 Lamson which added a tennis court on their property which
10 had to be consolidated which happened to this property in 1976 in connection with the 936 Sunset, and
11 further explained how 860 Lamson went through the same process to subdivide the lot back to its original
12 configuration.
13
14 Mr. Canning stated the current owners purchased the property in 2006 and are asking for the two lots to
15 be restored to the pre-1976 condition. He stated he discussed with Ms. Klaassen moving the lot line
16 between the lots, and the applicants are willing to amend their application. Mr. Canning stated if the
17 property line is moved north, they would be able to achieve the 3% needed to comply with lot area but it
18 would result in a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1. Mr. Canning stated they decided to go with the
19 pre-1976 condition and are willing to revisit the alternative if required by the ZBA. He stated it would not
20 change the rectangular variation issue, any storm water calculations or detention areas. Mr. Canning also
21 referred to other smaller homes in the area identified in the application materials and with regard to the
22 minimum rectangular area, he referred to the previous discussion which he cited for the Commission. Mr.
23 Canning referred to the standard addressing the minimum rectangular area which has not been met
24 resulting in the variation being sought in which the spirit of requirement existed has been met.
25
26 Mr. Canning also addressed the comment relating to rear lot lines not abutting side lot lines which
27 currently existed as well as in other areas on Higginson. He then addressed the no material increased
28 adverse impact comment and the letter received from the neighbor which only related to the existing
29 home and not the proposed Lot 2. Mr. Canning addressed the north setback issue which did not represent
30 a material adverse impact as well as the garage door measuring 16 feet which has existed for a long time.
31 He reiterated there is no request pertaining to the proposed Lot 2.
32
33 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the concerns raised with regard to the flood plain and storm water
34 section of Ms. Klaassen’s memo, the neighbors’ concerns relating to storm water need to be addressed.
35 He stated Mr. Creaney was brought in to address the concerns relating to storm water management
36 regulations and which was a concern to only one neighbor who raised no further concerns. Mr. Canning
37 summarized their response in the materials to the Village Engineer’s request addressing the easements,
38 rights-of-way, setback, maximum building footprint and available space for detention. He emphasized
39 that Exhibit 10 represented a demonstrative example of what could be done and cited language requiring
40 compliance with Village Engineering requirements. Mr. Canning identified surrounding homes built which
41 complied with the engineering requirements and identified 956 Sunset as an example. He then asked if
42 there were any questions.
43
44 Chairperson Danley asked if the applicants have a buyer for the adjacent lot. Mr. Canning responded there
45 is not. Chairperson Danley asked if thought was given to the lot being kept together which would create
46 a situation for the existing home being torn down and replaced and questioned the cost of building
47 detention on the lot. Mr. Canning responded it has not been priced out and an appraisal was submitted
48 estimating the value of the 936 parcel as consolidated and the two separate lots with there being a higher
September 24, 2025 Page 6
1 return on two separate lots.
2
3 Mr. Blum asked for an explanation in terms of raising the home in the flood plain which Mr. Creaney
4 explained to the Commission in detail. Mr. Subawalla stated his concern related to if and when the lot
5 went into potential construction, if it would result in it being a contributory catch area for the other lots.
6 Mr. Creaney confirmed they are aware of it. Mr. Canning also referred to the engineering comments with
7 regard to the flood plain elevation. Mr. Blum asked if the lot line is moved north, what is the process in
8 that regard. Ms. Klaassen indicated it is possible to come back to the Commission at the next meeting.
9 The Commission Members discussed the possible outcomes if the lot line is moved and a new, larger home
10 is built and Ms. Klaassen referred to Table 4 on page 9 of the staff memo. Mr. Canning referred to homes
11 built on Meadow which are similar to this property with regard to the flood plain concerns raised. Mr.
12 Blum asked if the only factors the Commission are to consider is whether the nonconformity resulted in a
13 material increased adverse impact with regard to the front yard setback as well as the play structure. Mr.
14 Canning confirmed the play structure can be removed if necessary.
15
16 Ms. Van Vlack referred to flood water being a reality in the area and asked if any analysis was done of the
17 projected impact in terms of what has already been accomplished in connection with the Village’s flood
18 water project. Mr. Creaney described the project in detail that the Village has been working on it for years.
19
20 Chairperson Danley asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commission or the
21 public. No additional questions were raised at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion.
22
23 Mr. Blum stated this area has been particularly affected by flooding and described the proposal as well
24 presented the concerns being addressed. He referred to the Commission’s narrow scope in terms of their
25 review and stated the requested variations are minimal and there will be no increased adverse impact
26 along with the property’s history. Mr. Blum indicated he would be inclined to recommend approval not
27 knowing what may happen in the future in terms of development. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments
28 made and stated the lot line moving discussion would create another issue with regard to the variation.
29 He also referred to the fact the property would be reverting back to its original condition as well as there
30 being no precedent for it in this particular location. Mr. Enck stated future engineering issues would be
31 addressed at that point. Mr. Subawalla stated as long as the Village Council is cognizant of what is coming
32 down the pike, legally, it would be fine. Mr. Alt stated he had concerns with regard to the precedent it
33 would set and if the Commission decided a subdivision is fine knowing going forward what is possible
34 which did not adhere to conformity requirements, he would vote against the request. Ms. Van Vlack
35 commented the opinions expressed are valid and with regard to the scope of the Commission’s review,
36 she described it as straightforward. She then stated the concerns expressed with regard to it not
37 conforming to be a 24,000 square foot lot, that would warrant revisiting maintaining those standards
38 although that did not address water concerns and there being an effort to mitigate those issues by the
39 Village.
40
41 Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request with consideration of revisions to comply
42 with lot standards. Mr. Bradley stated he appreciated the flood plain and storm water comments and with
43 regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the request would result in the creation of two legally complying R-2
44 lots with the exception of the 3% minimum lot area and rectangular shape. He stated it would be difficult
45 to say these two lots would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and referred to the problems in
46 connection with building in the flood plain which would be addressed by engineering and compliance
47 requirements. Mr. Bradley stated it would be difficult for this proposal to fail if it were not in the flood
48 plain and he would reserve the rest of his comments for the ZBA meeting.
September 24, 2025 Page 7
1 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she did not see a basis to refuse the request
2 based on what is possible down the road noting her concerns were addressed. She agreed the lot would
3 be brought back to its original configuration and she would be in favor of the request. Chairperson Danley
4 stated she also had concerns and referred to the standards changed in neighborhoods to keep homes in
5 a certain configuration. She also referred to the concerns raised with regard to setting precedent which is
6 a concern to her as well as the flooding issues. Chairperson Danley stated if this configuration was not the
7 original lot configuration, she would not consider agreeing to the request but is persuaded by the fact that
8 it would be reverted back to its original configuration. She then asked for the applicant to maintain the
9 lot as is and referred to the significant amount of comments from the neighbors. Chairperson Danley
10 stated based on the Commission’s narrow scope, she is still concerned but that is not a reason to reject
11 the proposal. Trustee Orsic suggested asking the applicant to seek unsolicited offers for the property and
12 although she is not voting, she had concerns which were raised with good reason. Mr. Alt noted the
13 concern of neighborhood in opposition, particularly from five specific neighbors.
14
15 Mr. Bradley stated since the standards the Commission are asked to consider are different than those of
16 the ZBA, he suggested the Commission consider the applicant’s testimony with regard to the possible
17 concession and the play structure removal be included as an approval condition. Mr. Blum agreed with
18 Mr. Bradley’s suggestion and that they do not know what will happen the future.
19
20 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll in terms of making an approval recommendation with a condition
21 related to the play structure removal. Ms. Klaassen agreed the play structure located within the corner
22 yard setback being brought into compliance can be a condition of the motion.
23
24 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Blum moved to recommend approval of the proposed
25 resubdivision final plat as referenced in the materials with the condition that the existing play structure
26 be either removed or moved to a conforming location. Ms. Kunkle seconded. A vote was taken and the
27 motion passed, 7 to 1:
28 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack
29 NAYS: Alt
30 NON-VOTING: Orsic
31
32 The Commission Members took a break at this time.
33
34 c. Case No. 25-18-SU: 986 Green Bay Road - Sit Still Kids Salon: An application seeking approval of
35 a Special Use Permit submitted by Sit Still Kids Salon, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space
36 located at 986 Green Bay Road to allow a hair salon in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay
37 District. The property is currently owned by 986 Green Bay Road, LLC. The Village Council has final
38 jurisdiction on this request.
39 Chairperson Danley called the meeting back to order. Mr. Marx identified the applicant, the property’s
40 location, the prior and current tenants, its size and zoning classification and referred to an illustration. He
41 also identified the surrounding businesses. Mr. Marx then referred to Attachment A as a summary of the
42 proposed plan for the space and business operation plans which he described in detail. He noted there
43 would be no exterior front façade changes other than a sign to be reviewed by the DRB at their October
44 2025 meeting. Mr. Marx summarized the hours of operation and the number of employees and proposed
45 customers during regular hours and special events. He stated in terms of parking available; he described
46 the plan to use on-street parking and in the Hubbard Woods parking deck during peak and non-peak hours
47 as well as the number of proposed special events and length of time customers would be in the location.
48 Mr. Marx asked if there were any questions.
September 24, 2025 Page 8
1 Ms. Van Vlack asked what is the maximum defined space occupancy. Ms. Klaassen stated it would have
2 to comply with building code ordinances and regulations which included occupancy limits. Mr. Bradley
3 asked in situations where a special use has certain events which occur outside of its normal use such as is
4 done by a church, if they have ever conditioned how the space is used. Ms. Klaassen responded she is not
5 aware of such a condition noting special event permits are required by churches.
6
7 Chairperson Danley asked if employees would be required to park in the employee lot. Ms. Klaassen
8 responded they would have to park in employee designated areas which she identified for the
9 Commission. Mr. Subawalla referred to the fluctuation in terms of potential occupancy during special
10 events and asked what are the Village restrictions in terms of occupancy counts. Mr. Marx stated the
11 applicant can respond. Ms. Klaassen stated the permit approval would have to comply with occupancy
12 limits which would be based on the space.
13
14 Mr. Blum asked how many of the buildings are special uses in terms of the overlay district. Ms. Klaassen
15 identified two special uses with others down the block. Mr. Blum asked how can they limit the number of
16 special uses in order to not lose the retail overlay district. The Commission Members discussed the
17 location of several other special uses in the area and the type of clientele the special use would occupy.
18 No additional questions were raised at this time.
19
20 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Brett and Chris Jordan introduced themselves
21 to the Commission. Mr. Jordan described the unique offerings proposed by the salon which would bring
22 positive foot traffic to the local businesses and asked if there were any questions.
23
24 Chairperson Danley asked if it would be a franchise. Mr. Jordan confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Jordan
25 described in detail the services in the small space they planned to offer and noted parties would not be a
26 common occurrence. Mr. Jordan described the components in terms of occupancy for the small types of
27 parties they planned to offer and noted there were no concerns raised by the Fire Marshall. He described
28 the proposal as a very unique and different offering for their clientele. Mr. Bradley commented on the
29 types of private parties which are done in other locations which would generate a lot of traffic. Mrs. Jordan
30 provided clarity in terms of their offerings for the Commission.
31
32 Ms. Van Vlack referred to a neighbor’s concern relating to noise and asked where the courtyard is located
33 and if children would have access to that space. Mrs. Jordan responded it is not and identified the door
34 opened to an alleyway which would not be accessed by children and would be used as a fire exit only. She
35 also identified their primary door. Mr. Enck referred to the small space being planned as a party space
36 and asked if the main space would also be used for parties. Mrs. Jordan responded in a buyout situation,
37 they would have to match the profitability of turning 15-20 chairs which would not be a common
38 occurrence in the other locations and would not be common for them. She confirmed they would ensure
39 that sound would not be an issue in response to the neighbor’s concern.
40
41 Ms. Van Vlack asked Mrs. Jordan if other salons are trending to stay open later and suggested the
42 Commission request a condition relating to the late hours of operation. Mrs. Jordan informed the
43 Commission they are not intending to change their hours of operation and noted they served a wide range
44 of customers. No additional comments were made at this time.
45
46 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Marlene Calders, from the Winnetka Manor
47 Condominium Association stated they would be most impacted by the commercial space use. She
48 identified their concerns relating to traffic and the number of accidents. She also stated the proposed use
September 24, 2025 Page 9
1 would cause detrimental harm to the building in terms of drainage, sewer and pipe issues. Ms. Calders
2 described the proposed concept as a great use but not for this building and asked the Commission to
3 consider how the use would affect the condominium owners.
4
5 Cav Smith, 1095 Merrill, commented the proposed use would not be a good fit for the residential building
6 and referred to the difficulty finding parking with the proposed use making it worse. Mr. Smith questioned
7 the precedent for a commercial party venue in a 1919 building and described the narrow alley condition.
8 He also stated the use being open on Sunday would impact available parking.
9
10 Kathleen Geary, 1095 Merrill, stated her bedroom would be located immediately above the party room
11 and described the issues with regard to noise carrying in the condo building. She informed the Commission
12 she questioned sound barrier requirements in mixed use buildings years ago and was told there was no
13 higher standard for noise reduction barriers between commercial and residential units. Ms. Gary stated
14 the building code enforcement manager at the time informed her the issue would be brought up at the
15 next building and code enforcement meeting. She stated there would be a negative effect on the residents
16 and described how she was able to hear people speaking in connection with the prior tenant. Ms. Gary
17 described how loud the occupants and patrons utilizing the space would be as well as the potential
18 dangerous traffic issues. She concluded by stating children’s beauty parties are non-essential to the
19 Village.
20
21 Sarah Lyon, a 35-year Winnetka resident, commented Winnetka is about supporting children and
22 described the applicants as hardworking who have done their due diligence. She referred to other uses
23 which support families and while she understood the concerns raised, it would be unfair to single out this
24 use as being detrimental. Ms. Lyon described the proposal as a great opportunity.
25
26 Chairperson Danley swore in Beata Krzynska, a 25-year Winnetka Manor resident and owner, who stated
27 the most important issue related to client parking and referred to a number of accidents that happened
28 over the last several years. She questioned the amount of haircuts required to be profitable and stated
29 the amount of customers would be problematic. No additional comments were made at this time.
30
31 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicants if they would like to respond to
32 public comment. No comments were made at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion.
33 Chairperson Danley referred to the crosswalk concerns and asked if those issues had been looked into.
34 Ms. Klaassen responded it has been discussed as part of the Village’s streetscape project and noted it is
35 located in an IDOT right-of-way with the Village being aware of the concerns raised.
36
37 Mr. Subawalla asked if the Teska streetscape plan was subject to the Village’s jurisdiction in terms of the
38 bump outs. Ms. Klaassen responded some are under IDOT jurisdiction. Ms. Van Vlack referred to the
39 dentist’s office and stated while she did not object to this type of business, the building having clay pipes
40 represented a significant issue due to its deterioration over 100 years along with the building housing 29
41 residents. She suggested any future business should consider whether they would add to this issue and
42 any the potential use contributing to the issue and asked where the responsibility lied in addressing these
43 issues. Ms. Van Vlack also stated the Commission is tasked to consider maintaining reasonably priced
44 home options on which a use of this type could negatively affect.
45
46 Chairperson Danley responded those are landlord issues to mitigate and noted a retail space could go into
47 the space without a special use. The Commission Members discussed alternative businesses which could
48 occupy the space and the parking issues which would result from the space being occupied. Mr. Blum
September 24, 2025 Page 10
1 agreed with the comments made. Mr. Bradley described the use of the Hubbard Woods parking lot and
2 stated the proposed business use would be viable in this commercial district. He stated his concern related
3 the number of special uses which have been allowed in the area with the lack of parking and he would
4 generally be in favor of recommending approval which would result in storefronts being filled. He added
5 the residents’ issues need to be dealt with by Hoffman.
6
7 Chairperson Danley referred to the lack of a parking study and stated the dangerous crosswalk issues are
8 valid but are out of the Village’s control. She stated she understood the residents’ concerns for any
9 business which would occupy the space and encouraged them to discuss the issues with the landlord.
10 Chairperson Danley stated she would be in favor of the application and the standards relate to issues
11 which arose no matter what occupied the space. Mr. Enck stated his initial thought on the application was
12 that it would be good for business although parking is an issue. He agreed some of the issues are worth
13 exploring and are outside of the Commission’s purview. Mr. Enck also agreed with the suggestion that the
14 residents discuss their issues with the landlord.
15
16 Mr. Alt stated with regard to the residents’ concerns, the applicant’s biggest concerns relate to the clients
17 who are children and suggested the applicant listen to the neighbors and that having a conversation would
18 help. Ms. Van Vlack stated it is imperative for Hoffman to perform their due diligence and address the
19 potential clay pipe issue as well as address the concerns raised. She suggested the applicant address the
20 residents’ concerns before their presentation to other boards. Ms. Van Vlack also commented on whether
21 the business would be profitable and the amount of traffic generated which she commented is unrealistic.
22 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she is familiar with the parking difficulty in
23 Hubbard Woods. She stated although hearing the residents’ concerns is impactful, it is more of a landlord
24 issue and stated any business would be substantially injurious to the residents. Ms. Kunkle added they do
25 not want to jeopardize the Village’s housing stock and she would lean toward supporting the request. No
26 additional comments were made at this time.
27
28 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Bradley to recommend approval
29 as indicated on page 7 to allow the applicant to operate within the C-2 commercial overlay district based
30 on the findings of fact nos. 1-12 which have been met. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. A vote was taken
31 and the motion unanimously, 7 to 1:
32 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla
33 NAYS: Van Vlack
34 NON-VOTING: Orsic
35
36 New Business.
37 a. October 22, 2025 Meeting – Quorum Check.
38 The Commission Members discussed their availability. Ms. Kunkle informed the Commission she would
39 be stepping down from the Commission as the EFSC liaison.
40
41 Adjournment:
42 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Alt and the
43 motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
44 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack
45 NAYS: None
46 NON-VOTING: Orsic
47 The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
48
September 24, 2025 Page 11
1 Respectfully submitted,
2
3 Antionette Johnson
4 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Plan Commission Regular Meeting
September 24, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. July 23, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications
seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the
two properties, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed Lot 1 (883
Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street line for an
interior lot; (b) proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the
minimum required lot depth; (c) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to
observe less than the minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to
an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as a result of the
proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (ii) a
finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at
881 Private Road, which exceeds the maximum permitted width for a front-facing
attached garage. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a
Final Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road,
which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the
minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required rectangular
buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No
Material Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot
1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a) observe less than the minimum required front
yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the minimum required
corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum
permitted width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final
jurisdiction on this request.
c. Case No. 25-18-SU: 986 Green Bay Road - Sit Still Kids Salon: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Sit Still Kids
Salon, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 986 Green
Bay Road to allow a hair salon in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay
District. The property is currently owned by 986 Green Bay Road, LLC. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
6. New Business
a. October 22, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Adjournment
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).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Plan Commission Regular Meeting
September 24, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. July 23, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications
seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the
two properties, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed Lot 1 (883
Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street line for an
interior lot; (b) proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the
minimum required lot depth; (c) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to
observe less than the minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to
an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as a result of the
proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (ii) a
finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at
881 Private Road, which exceeds the maximum permitted width for a front-facing
attached garage. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a
Final Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road,
which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the
minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required rectangular
buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No
Material Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot
1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a) observe less than the minimum required front
yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the minimum required
corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum
permitted width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final
jurisdiction on this request.
c. Case No. 25-18-SU: 986 Green Bay Road - Sit Still Kids Salon: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Sit Still Kids
Salon, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 986 Green
Bay Road to allow a hair salon in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay
District. The property is currently owned by 986 Green Bay Road, LLC. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
Page 1 of 158
6. New Business
a. October 22, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Adjournment
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 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 JULY 23, 2025
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Matthew Bradley
6 Jonathan Alt
7 Christopher Blum
8 Mamie Case
9 Kate Van Vlack
10
11 Members Absent: Chris Enck
12 Liz Kunkle
13 Cyrus Subawalla
14
15 Non-Voting Members Absent: Bridget Orsic
16
17
18 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
19 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
20 Development
21
22 Call to Order & Roll Call:
23 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
24 Commission Members present.
25
26 Approval of June 25, 2025, Meeting Minutes:
27 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the June 25, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
28 approve the June 25, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley, and seconded by Ms. Case. A vote
29 was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
30 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Van Vlack
31 NAYS: None
32 NON-VOTING: None
33
34 Public Comment:
35 No comments were made at this time.
36
37 Community Development Report:
38 Mr. Mangum advised the Commission of the status of the Hubbard Woods train station special use and
39 Certificate of Appropriateness application considered by the Village Council.
40
41 Chairperson Danley noted the second agenda item would be renoticed for consideration at a future
42 meeting.
43
44 New Applications:
45 a. Case No. 25-11-SU: 720 Elm Street - Charles Schwab & Company: An application seeking
46 approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Charles Schwab & Company, Inc., as the prospective
47 lessee of the commercial space located at 720 Elm Street to allow a financial counseling office in the C-
Page 3 of 158
July 23, 2025 Page 2
1 2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One,
2 LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
3 Ms. Klaassen summarized the application to relocate an existing Charles Schwab office in the Village into
4 the One Winnetka building and identified the property owner, its location and zoning classification in the
5 overlay district. She then identified allowed special uses and referred to the red cross hatched area in an
6 illustration which represented the overlay district. Ms. Klaassen then summarized the partial approval of
7 special uses and findings granted by the Village Council for the One Winnetka Planned Development. She
8 stated the applicant provided illustrations of other offices which showed how they are viewed from the
9 street as well as the proposed signage package to be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Ms.
10 Klaassen summarized the proposed occupancy and street frontage with the financial service use
11 complying with the required location and limitations outlined in the ordinance approving One Winnetka
12 and the medical uses and financial service uses, and identified the number of employees, office hours,
13 planned event functions and current level of use by employees and visitors.
14
15 Ms. Klaassen then described the proposed parking plan and the amount of parking provided in the One
16 Winnetka development. She then identified the special use standards the Commission is to focus on and
17 the applicant’s responses which are included on page nos. 15 and 16. Ms. Klaassen stated following the
18 applicant’s presentation, the Commission Members may make a motion recommending approval or
19 denial with draft language provided in the agenda packet and noted staff did not receive any public
20 comment on the request. She then asked if there were any questions.
21
22 Mr. Alt questioned the East Elm parking lot and asked if the parking lot would remain as part of the
23 development site. Ms. Klaassen responded that area is no longer part of the development site with the
24 Village owned public parking lot to remain. She added there would be underground parking spaces for
25 the residents on the One Winnetka site and described the amount and location of the proposed parking
26 and how it would function. Mr. Bradley referred to the previous discussion with regard to certain allowed
27 special uses in terms of how the Commission would consider the standards. He also referred to the
28 amount of adequate parking and issues with regard to signage being consistently applied for subsequent
29 tenants. Ms. Klaassen responded signage issues would be individually addressed in terms of consistency.
30 Chairperson Danley stated the DRB would review those issues.
31
32 Mr. Blum questioned the lease term and how the space would be divided. Ms. Klaassen responded the
33 applicant can respond and referred to the different floor plans provided to show proposed locations of
34 the commercial spaces. He then questioned parking for commercial tenants. Ms. Klaassen confirmed
35 reserved spaces are not required. Ms. Van Vlack questioned the hours of operation and whether their
36 other locations had Saturday hours and parking during the week. She also commented on the proposed
37 signage for the building which would not fit in terms of Village standards. Ms. Van Vlack then referred to
38 the building’s visual appearance on the weekends when the tenant is closed. Ms. Klaassen responded the
39 Village has a restrictive sign code which needed to be met or they would have to request approval of a
40 sign code variation. She stated the representation presented by the applicant may not necessarily be
41 approved by the DRB. No additional questions were raised at this time.
42
43 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Brandon Garnett, Project Manager of the
44 Charles Schwab Commercial Real Estate Development Group, introduced the team to the Commission.
45 Linda Short, Charles Schwab Leasing Manager, and Deirdre Clein, with MDG Winnetka One, the landlord.
46 He then referred to the provisionally approved sign in 2024 for One Winnetka and explained that the
47 photos provided an image of the proposed lobby space. Mr. Garnett stated their signage package
48 represented their initial design and they are working with the landlord’s group in terms of consistency.
Page 4 of 158
July 23, 2025 Page 3
1 He also described the approval package with regard to parking including hours of operation, etc. Mr.
2 Garnett then described the traffic flow and the amount of time customers would visit the location. He
3 informed the Commission of the limited amount of anticipated planned evening events.
4
5 Chairperson Danley asked if the 12 employees would be at the office at the same time. Mr. Garnett
6 confirmed that is correct and explained the amount of employees anticipated to use the space and their
7 plans to fully maximize the space. Mr. Blum asked what the current square footage of their existing space
8 is. Ms. Short responded the current square footage is 3,500 square feet and that the new space would be
9 approximately 1,000 square feet larger and explained the reasoning for relocating to the larger space.
10
11 Ms. Case asked if the evening events are for customers. Ms. Short responded they would be client events
12 or investment seminars as well as how parking would be addressed for such events by using valet parking.
13 She also explained their consideration of several other areas for relocation. It was confirmed the lease
14 term would be for 15 years. Ms. Van Vlack questioned security measures. Ms. Short responded the
15 deposits made are not cash and confirmed they do not have a security guard. Mr. Garnett explained the
16 wireless holdup buttons and security system they have in place. Ms. Short and Mr. Garnett explained their
17 community wall and how the space would appear visually in terms of window heights, etc. Chairperson
18 Danley referred to the proposed plan in Figure 5 with regard to the window’s appearance. Mr. Garnett
19 summarized the items contained in view of the window. He also explained the beverage bar and proposed
20 planting they planned to use. Mr. Garnett and Ms. Short then explained how confidential transactions
21 would take place and not in public view in the front conference room. Mr. Garnett added they are in the
22 planning phases in terms of signage for all of the retail tenants in the building, in terms of consistency. He
23 also explained the staircase in the center and access between the parking on-site and the office.
24
25 Mr. Blum questioned the parking lot access off Lincoln and referred to the limited number of doors in that
26 area. Deidre Clein explained the division of the space and the grade change with the ground floor being
27 occupied by four tenants as well as the rear corridor access. Mr. Blum asked about the allocation of
28 interior parking spaces. Ms. Clein explained the parking spaces to be occupied by residents would be
29 accessed separately and would be below grade, and that 10 of the ground level commercial spaces would
30 be reserved for Charles Schwab during business hours and the remaining spaces would be first-come first-
31 served. She also informed the Board of letters of intent for future tenants which may require special use
32 approval. Ms. Clein also explained how the future tenants may not need special use permits. No additional
33 questions were raised at this time.
34
35 Chairperson Danley noted there is no one in the public to comment and called the matter in for discussion.
36 Mr. Bradley stated he would be in support of the request and commented the applicant did a wonderful
37 job, with his only concern relating to the signage cohesiveness on the exterior which is not within the
38 Commission’s purview. Ms. Van Vlack agreed with the comments made and stated she would be in
39 support of the request. Mr. Alt agreed with the comments made and stated that he would be in support
40 of the request. Ms. Case, Mr. Blum, and Chairperson Danley also stated they would be in support of the
41 request. Chairperson Danley noted her only concern related to standard no. 9 in connection with the
42 windows. She then asked the applicant to be conscious with regard to its appearance not being a blank
43 space and asked for a motion.
44
45 Mr. Alt moved to recommend approval of the requested special use to allow the applicant to operate a
46 financial counseling office at 720 Elm Street in the commercial overlay district based on the findings of
47 fact he read into the record from page nos. 15 and 16. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken
48 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
Page 5 of 158
July 23, 2025 Page 4
1 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Van Vlack
2 NAYS: None
3 NON-VOTING: None
4
5 b. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications seeking approval of (i)
6 a Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties, which requires a finding
7 of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing improvements on proposed Lot 2 (881
8 Private Road), which currently (a) observe less than the minimum required total side yard setback; and
9 (b) exceed the maximum permitted width for a front-facing attached garage; and (ii) zoning variations
10 to permit: (a) proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street
11 line for an interior lot; and (b) proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum
12 required lot depth in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The Village Council has final
13 jurisdiction on this request. This item is not ready for this meeting. Notices will be sent when the item
14 is ready for consideration by the Plan Commission at a future meeting.
15 This agenda item would be renoticed for consideration at a future meeting.
16
17 New Business.
18 a. August 27, 2025, Meeting – Quorum Check.
19 The Commission Members discussed their availability.
20
21 Adjournment:
22 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bradley. The
23 motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
24 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Van Vlack
25 NAYS: None
26 NON-VOTING: None
27 The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
28
29 Respectfully submitted,
30
31 Antionette Johnson
32 Recording Secretary
Page 6 of 158
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
SUBJECT: 881 & 883 PRIVATE ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
AJV SUBDIVISION (CASE NO. 25-12-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application
submitted by Jesse Van Dyke, as the owner of the property located at 881 Private Road and CLB Children
GRAT Trust II UAD 7/29/2008, as the owner of the property located at 883 Private Road (collectively, the
“Subject Property”). Jesse Van Dyke along with CLB Children GRAT Trust II UAD 7/29/2008 (collectively
the “Applicant”), have filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat
approval to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties:
1. Approval of the following variations to permit:
a. Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street
line for interior lots of 20 feet;
b. Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required lot depth
of 200 feet for a lot in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District;
c. The existing residence at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2) to observe less than the
minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum
required total side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and
increase in average lot width; and
2. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing residence at 881 Private Road
(Proposed Lot 2), which exceeds the maximum permitted width for a front-facing attached
garage.
This application is limited to the subdivision request and the existing improvements, no proposed
improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. The Plan Commission is charged with
making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the subdivision, including the requested relief
described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates zoning relief, the application is subject
to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the variations. The ZBA is scheduled to consider the
request on October 13, 2025.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Village Code. The
hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on September 4, 2025. As of the date of this
memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application.
Page 1
Page 7 of 158
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the north side of Private Road, between Sheridan and Old Green Bay
Roads, is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and currently consists of two buildable lots. The property at
881 Private Road contains a two-story single-family residence and 883 Private Road is a vacant lot. The
area of each existing lot is as follows:
1. 883 Private Road: 26,406 square feet (0.61 acres)
2. 881 Private Road: 24,223 square feet (0.56 acres)
Both of the existing lots, as well as the proposed lots, are flag lots. A flag lot is an irregularly shaped lot
consisting of two sections: the primary mass of the lot (the “flag” portion), which is set back from the
street frontage access and is behind one or more other lots; and a narrow access corridor (the “flagpole”
portion). For zoning purposes, the area of the “flagpole” portion of each lot, as well as the area of the
private road easement, are excluded from the lot area. The lot areas noted above, as well as when lot
area is referenced throughout this report, are the net lot areas reflecting the exclusions of the “flagpole”
and private roadway easement.
Additionally, both of the existing lots are legally nonconforming. The 881 Private Road parcel has a lot
depth of 177.25 feet, while the minimum required lot depth in the R-2 District is 200 feet. The 883
Private Road parcel has a front street line of 10.1 feet, while the minimum required front street line for
interior lots is 20 feet. The existing parcels and improvements are identified below in Figure 1.
883 Private Road
881 Private Road
Private Road
Sheridan Road
Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential”
uses (Figure 2). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The
Land Use Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses.
Page 2
Page 8 of 158
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following vision statement and goal relevant to the proposed
application:
Pillar 1: Quality Liveable Neighborhoods Vision Statement: A community of connected
neighborhoods with safe, pedestrian-oriented streets, tree-lined parkways, and a variety of well-
maintained housing offerings to meet the needs of all of its residents and create a unique and
powerful sense of place.
Goal 1.1: The Village will encourage renovation of existing homes and construction of new
homes to be contextually consistent with existing single-family housing in its
neighborhood.
Initiative 1.1.6: Strengthen and maintain the rich and diverse character of the
Village’s neighborhoods and sense of identity by highlighting each
neighborhood’s unique elements that contribute positively to the Village.
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (Figure 3).
The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district.
Page 3
Page 9 of 158
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVOIUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
881 Private Road. The original date of construction of 881 Private Road cannot be determined from
Village records; however, it is estimated that the residence was constructed in 1908. The following
subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1925 to construct a two-story garage addition;
2. 1938 to construct an addition and alter the interior and of the two-story residence;
3. 1941 to construct a one-story, one-car garage;
4. 1942 to construct one-story accessory building (studio);
5. 1969 to construct an attached garage; and
6. 1993 to construct an addition and remodel the residence.
Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. The owner of 881 Private Road
acquired the property in 2022. There are two previous zoning cases on file for 881 Private Road:
1. In 1970, Case No. 1049 was denied by the ZBA to allow completion of a garage roof that
encroached into the minimum required north side yard setback; and
2. In 1993, Case No. 1564 was approved by the ZBA to allow construction of an addition to the
attached garage within the minimum required north side yard setback.
883 Private Road. In January 2024, demolition and site restoration permits were issued to allow the
removal of a single-family residence on the 883 Private Road parcel, which was constructed in 1967. The
lot is currently vacant. The owner of 883 Private Road acquired the property in 2023.
Page 4
Page 10 of 158
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
As described in the written narrative provided by the Applicant and included in Attachment A, the
owners of each lot that make up the Subject Property have entered into a sales contract to convey a
triangular portion of the 883 Private Road parcel and consolidate it with the 881 Private Road parcel.
The owner of the 881 Private Road parcel is seeking the additional land to allow for improved access to
the existing attached garage. The triangular area to be subdivided is 1,387 square feet and is highlighted
below in Figure 4.
Triangular
Area to be
Subdivided
Figure 4 – Map View of Area to be Conveyed
The proposed subdivision would create new lots that would measure:
• 24,842 square feet (0.57 acres) - Proposed Lot 1 – 883 Private Road
• 25,610 square feet (0.59 acres) - Proposed Lot 2 – 881 Private Road
A neighborhood view of the proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 5 on the following page. An
excerpt of the proposed AJV Subdivision is provided in Figure 6.
Page 5
Page 11 of 158
Proposed Lot 1
(883 Private Road)
Proposed Lot 2
(881 Private Road)
Figure 5 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view)
Figure 6 – Excerpt of AJV Subdivision Plat
Page 6
Page 12 of 158
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS
The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five
different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-2 zoning district provides for
larger, wider lots compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-2 zoning district’s
purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “small estate” character.
Residential Zoning Hierarchy
A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 below) shows the
hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods, ranging from larger
“estate” character lots in portions of the Village, to smaller, more intensive developed areas.
Surrounding Zoning
Neighboring properties of the Subject Property are similarly zoned for larger lot sizes called for in the R-2
zoning district (minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet), as depicted in Figure 3 earlier in this report.
Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5
Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small estate” (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense”( (“relatively intense”
Hierarchy character) character) suburban character) suburban character) suburban character)
Minimum Lot
48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.
Area
Minimum Lot
150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Width
Minimum Front
50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.
Setback
Minimum Rear
50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Setback
Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS
All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum
quantitative measures including but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c)
minimum lot depth.
The proposed AJV Subdivision does not comply with minimum lot depth and minimum front street line
requirements as summarized in Table 2 on the following page. Specifically, Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private
Road) would have a front street line measuring 10.1 feet, whereas the minimum required front street line
is 20 feet, a variation of 9.9 feet (49.5%). Additionally, Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) would have a
lot depth of 177.25 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth for lots in the R-2 District is 200 feet, a
variation of 22.75 feet (11.37%). It is important to note that both of the existing lots are nonconforming
with respect to these same zoning standards. However, Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision
standards of the Subdivision Code requires all lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply
with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, the proposed subdivision requires approval of
variations (standards highlighted yellow in Table 2) for which both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board
of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council.
Page 7
Page 13 of 158
Table 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
R-2 Zoning Standards 883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Minimum Lot 24,842 sq. ft. 25,610 sq. ft. 26,406 sq. ft. 24,223 sq. ft.
Area (Interior lot) 24,000 sq. ft. COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
Minimum Lot 120.35 feet 144.48 feet 127.92 feet 136.66 feet
100 feet
Width (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
Minimum Lot 10.1 feet 10.1 feet
40 feet 40 FEET
Width (at front 20 feet VARIATION OF DOES NOT
COMPLIES COMPLIES
street line) 9.9 FT (49.5%) COMPLY
177.25 feet 177.25 feet
Minimum Lot 206.42 feet 206.42 feet
200 feet VARIATION OF DOES NOT
Depth COMPLIES COMPLIES
22.75 FT(11.37%) COMPLY
Minimum
90 feet
Rectangular Area
x COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
within Lot
181.5 feet
Boundaries
Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE
The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the
buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and
the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result,
staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether
any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any
existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of
a proposed subdivision, relief must be granted by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Staff evaluation of the proposed AJV Subdivision is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 on the following pages,
indicating the extent to which the proposed resubdivided lots comply with (or fall short of) zoning
standards. The item highlighted (in yellow) in Table 3 indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity.
Description of minimum sum of setbacks of both side yards requirement – Side yard setback requirements
are calculated based on a lot’s width:
• Lots with an average lot width that is 100 feet or more: The minimum required sum of side yards
setback is 30% of the average lot width.
• Lots with an average lot width that is less than 100 feet: The minimum required sum of side yards
setback is 25% of the average lot width or 14 feet, whichever is greater.
Newly created zoning nonconformity (zoning variation required) – The proposed subdivision has the effect
of increasing the average lot width of 881 Private Road to 144.48 feet, resulting in an increase in the
required minimum sum of side yard setback to 43.34 feet. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders
the existing 881 Private Road residence (which has a total side yard setback 42.45 feet), nonconforming
with the new minimum side yard requirement of 43.34 feet. The existing improvements providing a
total side yard setback of 42.45 feet, are deficient with the new requirement by 0.89 feet or 2.05%.
Page 8
Page 14 of 158
Table 3 – Zoning Setback
Requirements Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Minimum Required Front Yard
50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
(West)
Front yard provided by
N/A 58.31 feet N/A 58.31 feet
existing structures
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
Side yard provided by
N/A 12.3 feet N/A 12.3 feet
existing structures
Minimum Required Total Side
36.1 feet 43.34 feet 38.38 feet 41 feet
Yard
42.45 feet
Total Side Yard provided
N/A VARIATION OF N/A 42.45 feet
by existing structures
0.89 FT (2.05%)
Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 12 feet
Rear yard provided by
N/A 63.5 feet N/A 63.5 feet
existing structures
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements
Table 4 – Zoning Building Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
Size Requirements 883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Maximum Allowed
Gross Floor Area 7,528.66 ft. 7,705.3 sq. ft. 7,888.35 sq. ft. 7,386.29 sq. ft.
(GFA)
GFA provided by
existing N/A 6,770.57 sq. ft. N/A 6,770.57 sq. ft.
structures
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE
Maximum Allowed
Roofed Lot
Coverage (RLC) (25% 6,210.5 sq. ft. 6,402.5 sq. ft. 6,601.47 sq. ft. 6,055.75 sq. ft.
of lot area)
RLC provided by
existing N/A 4,599.63 sq. ft. N/A 4,599.63 sq. ft.
structures
Maximum Allowed
Impermeable Lot 12,421 sq. ft. 12,805 sq. ft. 13,202.94 sq. ft. 12,111.5 sq. ft.
Coverage (ILC) (50% of
lot area)
ILC provided by
existing N/A 9,215.63 sq. ft. N/A 9,215.63 sq. ft.
structures
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements
Page 9
Page 15 of 158
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS
All changes to the configuration of parcels of land are classified as Land Subdivisions under the Village
Code and are subject to review by the Plan Commission and approval by the Village Council. As part of
that review process, resubdivisions are subject to review for compliance with both the Village Subdivision
Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance.
According to Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, subdivisions
shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in Section
16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. The proposed subdivision does
not comply with the minimum subdivision standards as it would result in: (i) one lot that does not comply
with the minimum lot depth requirements of the Zoning Ordnance, and (ii) one lot that does not comply
with the minimum front street line requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted earlier in this report
and represented in Table 2, the existing lots are also nonconforming with respect to these standards.
Section 16.12.010(F) [Minimum land subdivision standards – Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision
Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by
such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real
difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such
requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that,
public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.”
Pre-existing zoning nonconformity (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – One
existing nonconformity will remain on the 881 Private parcel (Lot 2). The existing residence has a
nonconforming front-facing garage 26.9 feet in width, whereas the maximum permitted width for an
attached garage with garage doors that face a front yard is 22 feet. Even though the lot is a “flag lot” that
does not have a traditional front yard facing the street, the regulation still applies.
Existing
Nonconforming
Front-Facing Garage
to Remain
Figure 7 – Front (West) Elevation of 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2)
Page 10
Page 16 of 158
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Front-Facing
Attached Garage
that will remain
Figure 8 – Excerpt of 881 Private Road Plat of Survey
Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, in the instance of such nonconformity, the Plan
Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformity, and “shall determine whether such
nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse
impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”
In terms of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed subdivision conforms with the
Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single-family
residential uses, which are the proposed uses of the resubdivided lots.
STORMWATER
The proposed subdivision consists of relocating the lot line dividing two properties. Any future
improvements on either lot will be evaluated by Village Engineering staff for compliance with Village
stormwater regulations upon submittal of permits necessary for site improvements.
Page 11
Page 17 of 158
For reference, Figure 9 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the 100-year flood plain. The
cyan represents the 100-year flood area.
Subject
Property
Figure 9 – GIS Floodplain Map
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
The Village Code does not require an applicant to obtain preliminary plat approval as a precondition of
final plat approval. In this case, the Applicant has chosen to directly proceed with the final plat review.
In addition to evaluating prescriptive standards of the zoning and subdivision code, consideration of Final
Subdivision Plat approval also needs to consider the details of the final plat such as utility easements, final
plat formatting and related matters. The Village Water & Electric and Engineering Departments have
reviewed the proposed subdivision and are not requiring any utility easements. All necessary signature
blocks are provided on the plat of subdivision.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and whether the variations listed below comply with Section 16.12.010.F. “Variations
and Exceptions”, which states:
“Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such
development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real
difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such
requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided
that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.”
Requested Variations to allow:
a. Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street
line for interior lots of 20 feet;
b. Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required lot depth
of 200 feet for a lot in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and
Page 12
Page 18 of 158
c. The existing residence at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2) to observe less than the
minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum
required total side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and
increase in average lot width.
Lastly, the Commission is to consider the existence of the nonconforming front-facing attached garage
that will remain and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed
subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two
options:
1) Continue further review of the application to a specific date in order to provide the Applicant
and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission; or
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Final Plat of Subdivision. If the
Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the
requested relief, a Commissioner may wish to make a motion recommending approval or
recommending denial based upon the following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of:
The proposed AJV Subdivision Final Plat relocating the lot line dividing 881 Private Road and 883
Private Road, as the Final Plat of Subdivision, which subdivision requires:
A. Variations to allow:
a. Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required
front street line for interior lots of 20 feet [Section 17.30.020 Lot Width and Street
Frontage];
b. Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required lot
depth of 200 feet for lots in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District
[Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];
c. The existing residence at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2) to observe a total side
yard setback of 42.45 feet, whereas a minimum of 43.34 feet is required [Section
17.30.060 Side Yard Setback];
B. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing front-facing attached
garage at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2), which exceeds the maximum permitted
width of 22 feet;
C. A finding that the subdivision is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land
Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family
Residential” development.
[If the Commission chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of
approval, it will want to include the conditions here.]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (AJV Subdivision)
Page 13
Page 19 of 158
Page 20 of 158
Page 21 of 158
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
August 14, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Layla Danley
Chair, Plan Commission
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Application for Subdivision at 881-883 Private Road.
Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Jesse Van Dyke and Victoria Malkin (the “Van Dykes”) the
owners of 881 Private Road regarding their joint application with The CLB Children Grant Trust
II under agreement dated July 29, 2008, the owners of 883 Private Road (the “Trust”)
(collectively the “Applicants”) to subdivide a small parcel of the lot at 883 Private Road (the
“Triangle”) and consolidate it with the lot at 883 Private Road. The Applicants have entered into
sales contract contingent on the approval of the subdivision. The Trust has authorized the Van
Dykes to proceed with the application for the subdivision and any variations that may be needed.
As set forth more fully below, the Van Dykes seeks to acquire the Triangle and attach it to their
lot to preserve the existing home, to gain access to the garage and to square the corner of their
lot. For the reasons set forth below, the Applicants respectfully request that the Plan Commission
of Village of Winnetka recommend the granting of the requested subdivision.
I. 881 and 883 Private Road.
Both 883 and 881 Private Road are located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District.
Both properties are located on legal, non-conforming flag lots. Both properties are surrounded by
Page 22 of 158
August 14, 2025
Page 2
single-family homes. Presently, the lot at 883 Private Road has a lot area of 29,315 sq. ft. and the
lot at 881 Private Road has a lot area of 27,653. The Triangle to be subdivided and conveyed
from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road has a lot area of 1,387 sq. ft. (Photos of the Triangle
are attached as Exhibits A and B).
II. A brief history of 881 and 883 Private Road.
Constructed in 1908, the residence currently known as 881 Private Road, formerly
designated as 960 Sheridan Road, is believed to have been the first dwelling constructed west of
Sheridan Road within the Hubbard Woods Estate subdivision. The property originally comprised
a substantially larger tract spanning multiple acres. Over the course of several decades,
successive owners subdivided and conveyed portions of the original parcel through a series of
recorded transactions. In or around 1965, a then-owner of 881 Private Road completed the final
subdivision of the remaining land, resulting in the creation of a separate legal parcel now known
as 883 Private Road. Both the 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road lots were platted as “flag”
lots.
At the time of this subdivision, the parcel designated as 883 Private Road included the
location of the coach house formerly associated with 881 Private Road. The coach house was
subsequently demolished, and a new single-family residence was constructed on the 883 Private
Road lot, with completion occurring approximately in 1967. The driveway width of 10.1’ was
presumably created at or before that time. In 2024, the Trust demolished that residence.
In 1994, the owners of 881 Private Road undertook significant improvements to the
property, including the demolition of a detached single-car garage and the construction of an
attached two-car garage. Due to the configuration of the lot line established by the 1965
subdivision, particularly along the northwest corner of the 881 parcel, vehicular access to the
northernmost garage bay is severely constrained. The northernmost parking bay’s limited
usability is due to the impracticality of vehicular ingress and egress, which requires a series of
difficult turning maneuvers. As of the date of this statement, the northernmost bay remains
unused for parking purposes because of these access limitations.
A reconfiguration of the lot lines to regularize and square off the respective parcels at 881
Private Road and 883 Private Road would materially reduce the irregularity of the existing lot
shapes and resolve the long-standing vehicular access issue affecting the northernmost garage
bay at 881 Private Road.
The proposed subdivision resulting in the Triangle meets all the minimum Village of
Winnetka zoning criteria for both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road except for two criteria.
For 881 Private Road, if the subdivision is granted, the 883 Private Road lot will have a lot depth
measuring 177.25 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet. As for 883 Private
Road, if the subdivision is granted, the lot will have a front street line measuring 10.1 feet,
whereas the minimum required front street line is 20 feet. It is important to note that the current
front street line is and has been 10.1 feet for many years. A front street line of this dimension is
very common on Private Road. The following lots all have front street lines of a similar size: 887
Private Road, 10’, 901 Private Road, 10’, 903 Private Road, 11.07’, 949 Private Road, 10’, 953
Page 23 of 158
August 14, 2025
Page 3
Private Road, 10’. The subdivision will not change this legal nonconformity. For 881 Private
Road, the proposed subdivision results in increased lot area and average lot width causing the
existing improvements to not comply with the total side yard setback requirement for the new lot
and thus relief is being sought from the Zoning Board.
Therefore, the Applicants are asking by a separate application that the Zoning Board
grant them the variations to allow the proposed subdivided lot to be under the required lot depth,
the total side yard setback requirement and the minimum required front street line.
III. Standards of Review.
Pursuant to the Village of Winnetka Code and Zoning Ordinance, any application to
subdivide a parcel must meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code related to Subdivisions
and §17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the yard regulations for the
R-2 Residential zoning district.
Chapter 16.12.10 D requires subdivided lots to adhere to the following standards:
1. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.
2. All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to
curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement
would enhance public safety or convenience.
3. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot area requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. All lot area calculations shall exclude all easements for ingress and
egress, all public or private streets, all public or private alleys, and the access corridor, or
“flagpole,” of any flag lot.
4. Where a lot is already improved with buildings or structures, the plan shall show whether
the dimensions and locations of such improvements comply with the use, intensity of use of lot
(including impermeable surface requirements), setback, side yard, rear yard and other bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. If a prior legal nonconformity, or a
previously granted variation, with respect to any such requirements exists, the Plan Commission
shall determine whether such nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of
the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public
health, safety or welfare. If such a determination is made, the Plan Commission may deny the
plan for land subdivision. No plan for land subdivision which itself creates a departure from
such requirements shall be approved by the Plan Commission until such time as a variation for
such departure is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Council, as the case
may be, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
5. At intersections with major streets, acute angle intersections and other places where, in
the opinion of the Plan Commission, safety or convenience of traffic movement would be
enhanced, corners shall be cut back by joining the intersecting street lines through circular arcs
having adequate radii.
6. No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or
more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.
Page 24 of 158
August 14, 2025
Page 4
7. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot depth requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the access corridor, or “flagpole,” shall
be excluded when measuring the lot depth of a flag lot.
8. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot width requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all new flag lots shall meet the minimum
lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, both as measured by excluding the access
corridor, or “flagpole,” and as measured by including the access corridor or “flagpole.”
9. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet all yard and setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any flag lot that has a
front street line that is less than fifty (50) feet long and that is at least seventy-five (75) feet wide
at its widest point, all yards and setbacks shall be measured based both on using the actual front
street line as the front lot line, and on using as the front lot line the lot line from which the
Director determines the front setback shall be measured for development purposes.
The Applicants request for a subdivision complies with or seeks to comply through
variances as permitted under the Code with these requirements in the following ways:
1. Both the lots at 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road are legal nonconforming flag lots.
They comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance except in two respects. To the extent
that 883 Private Road has a minimum front street line less than required and to the extent that
881 Private Road has a lot depth less than required, the Applicants will seek a variation from the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Both the lots at 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road meet and will continue to meet
this standard after the subdivision of the Triangle from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road.
3. Both the lot at 881 Private Road and the lot at 883 Private Road exceed the minimum lot
area requirement.
4. Both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road are legal nonconforming flag lots. The
subdivisions of the Triangle and the conveyance from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road will
not change the legal nonconforming status of either lot or increase the nonconformity of either
lot.
5. This standard is inapplicable for both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road.
6. This standard is met by both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road.
7. The “new” 883 Private Road lot meets this standard. The “new” 881 Private Road does
not meet this standard and thus, the Van Dykes are seeking a variation from this standard.
8. The “new” 883 Private Road lot meets this standard. The “new” 881 Private Road meets
this standard, but the existing improvements do not comply with the existing total side yard
setback requirement or the new total side yard setback requirement. The Van Dykes will seek a
variation from this requirement.
9. See Response to Standard #8
Page 25 of 158
Page 26 of 158
Page 27 of 158
Page 28 of 158
Page 29 of 158
Page 30 of 158
Page 31 of 158
Page 32 of 158
Page 33 of 158
Page 34 of 158
Page 35 of 158
Page 36 of 158
Page 37 of 158
Page 38 of 158
Page 39 of 158
ATTACHMENT B
AJV Subdivision FINAL PLAT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
PLAT of SUBDIVISION
09/12/2025
216.51'
S87° 30' 38"W
9'
0
24.9
6° ZONED R-2
S2
"W
7'
' 33
90.7
7'
° 06
50
"E
N19
LOT 1
13'
155.
S1
4"E 8' 8"W
4' 3 8 . 5
17 1' 3
9° 0 S70
° 5
° 06
15'
134. ' 33"W
N19
57
"E
'
LOT 2
'
46
N6
3°
9. 0 5'
1
13 "E
58'
N70
5
°
.0 0'
10
262
S2
"E
0"E 50
.71'
237 ' 5 7'
07 ° 0
6° S26
.58'
58"W
6'
SH
2
6 '
7 .4 ER
1
ID
° 2
AN
N18
RD
.
' 1 3"E
° 46
N71
0 . 0 0
'
T E R OAD 10.1 13"E 0' 4
PRIV A 6'
1° 4 N7
AREAS TABLE LOT 1
450 SKOKIE BLVD. SUITE 105, NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS, 60062
TEL. (847) 864-6315 / FAX (847) 864-9341
E-MAIL: SURVEYOR@BHSUHR.COM
EXISTING P.I.N.'S Lot 2
Page 40 of 158
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (CASE NO. 25-16-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application
submitted by Robert and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property
located at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the Subject Property.
The Applicant has filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat
approval to create two new Lots of Record:
1. Zoning Variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to:
a. Provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for an interior lot
in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District; and
b. Provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet
in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District;
2. A variation from the Subdivision Code to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear
lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road);
3. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing improvements at 936 Sunset
Road (Proposed Lot 1), which:
a. Observe less the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet from Sunset Road;
b. Observe less than the minimum required corner yard setback of 50 feet from Higginson
Lane; and
a. Exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors.
This application is limited to the subdivision request and the existing improvements, no proposed
improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. The Plan Commission is charged with
making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the subdivision, including the requested relief
described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates zoning relief, the application is subject
to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the variations. The ZBA is scheduled to consider the
request on October 13, 2025.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Village Code. The
hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on September 4, 2025. As of the date of this
memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application.
Page 1
Page 41 of 158
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset Road and Higginson
Lane, is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and currently consists of one buildable lot. The Subject
Property contains a two-story single-family residence, accessory playhouses, and a tennis court. The
existing lot measures 56,171 square feet (1.29 acres); the lot and the existing improvements are
illustrated below in Figure 1.
Sunset Road
Higginson Lane
Figure 1 – Existing Lot
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential”
uses (Figure 2). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The
Land Use Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses.
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Page 2
Page 42 of 158
The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following vision statement and goal relevant to the proposed
application:
Pillar 1: Quality Liveable Neighborhoods Vision Statement: A community of connected
neighborhoods with safe, pedestrian-oriented streets, tree-lined parkways, and a variety of well-
maintained housing offerings to meet the needs of all of its residents and create a unique and
powerful sense of place.
Goal 1.1: The Village will encourage renovation of existing homes and construction of new
homes to be contextually consistent with existing single-family housing in its
neighborhood.
Initiative 1.1.6: Strengthen and maintain the rich and diverse character of the
Village’s neighborhoods and sense of identity by highlighting each
neighborhood’s unique elements that contribute positively to the Village.
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (Figure 3).
The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district.
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVOIUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
The existing residence on the Subject Property was constructed in 1955. The following subsequent
building permits were issued in:
1. 1963 to remodel the basement, add a dormer over the garage, and a second-floor bathroom;
2. 1976 to enlarge a porch and add a greenhouse;
3. 1992 to construct a dormer on the west elevation; and
4. 2009 to remodel the kitchen, breakfast room, and mudroom.
Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the
property in 2006. There are three previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property:
Page 3
Page 43 of 158
1. In 1955, ZBA Case No. 871 was denied by the ZBA to allow construction of a new single-family
residence within the minimum required corner yard setback from the east property line along
Higginson Lane;
2. In July 1976, ZBA Case No. 1171 was approved by the Village Council to allow tennis court fencing
10 feet in height, subject to the property being consolidated into a single Lot of Record;
3. In November 1976, the Seabury Consolidation was approved by the Village Council consolidating
two lots into the existing parcel. The Subject Property was originally platted as two lots, in a
fashion similar to what is now being requested. The 1976 consolidation was submitted in order
to allow construction of a tennis court, which would straddle the lot line between two lots. The
tennis court prompting the consolidation of the then-two lots can be seen in current plats of
survey and maps included throughout this report; and
4. On January 13, 2014, the ZBA considered Case No. 14-01-V2 to allow a two lot subdivision for
which one of the proposed lots required variations from the minimum required lot area and the
minimum rectangular buildable area. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Board
discussed the request. Members found that the standards for granting a variation were not
adequately addressed. At the request of the Applicant, the item was continued to the next ZBA
meeting. Then in March 2014, prior to returning to the ZBA, or having the proposed subdivision
considered by the Plan Commission, the Applicant withdrew the application. Minutes of the
January 2014 ZBA meeting are included in this report as Attachment C. The proposed subdivision
and the associated relief currently before the Commission is the same as what was proposed in
2014.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
As described in the written narrative provided by the Applicant and included in Attachment A, they
reside at 936 Sunset Road and are seeking approval to subdivide the existing single lot into two lots. The
existing tennis court on the Subject Property would be removed to accommodate the proposed lots. The
proposed subdivision would restore the Subject Property to its original configuration that existed prior
to the 1976 Seabury Consolidation.
The proposed subdivision would create two new lots that would measure:
• 32,998.69 square feet (0.76 acres) – Proposed Lot 1 – 936 Sunset Road (north lot)
• 23,171.89 square feet (0.53 acres) – Proposed Lot 2 (south lot, fronting on Higginson Lane)
A neighborhood view of the proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 4 on the following page. An
excerpt of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision is provided in Figure 5.
Page 4
Page 44 of 158
Proposed Lot 1
(936 Sunset Road)
Proposed Lot 2
Figure 4 – Proposed Subdivision (Neighborhood Map View)
Figure 5 – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat
Page 5
Page 45 of 158
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS
The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five
different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-2 zoning district provides for
larger, wider lots compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-2 zoning district’s
purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “small estate” character.
Residential Zoning Hierarchy
A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 below) shows the
hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods, ranging from larger
“estate” character lots in portions of the Village, to smaller, more intensive developed areas.
Surrounding Zoning
Neighboring properties of the Subject Property are similarly zoned for larger lot sizes called for in the R-2
zoning district (minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet), as depicted in Figure 3 earlier in this report. Lots
in the surrounding neighborhood were first developed under the Village’s R-2 Zoning classification, which
at that time required a minimum lot area of 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre). The Village would later increase
the minimum lot area in all residential zoning districts in 1999, increasing the minimum lot area for the
R-2 district from 21,780 square feet to 24,000 square feet for interior lots.
Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5
Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense” ( (“relatively intense”
Hierarchy character) estate” suburban character) suburban character) suburban character)
character)
48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.
(50,400 s.f. (25,200 s.f.
Area (16,800 s.f. corner lots) (13,300 s.f. corner lots) (8,900 s.f. corner lots)
corner lots) corner lots)
100 ft.
Minimum Lot 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
150 ft. 115 ft.
Width (85 ft. corner lots) (70 ft. corner lots) (70 ft. corner lots)
(corner lots)
Minimum Front
50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.
Setback
Minimum Rear
50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Setback
Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS
All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum
quantitative measures including, but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c)
minimum lot depth.
The proposed Marren’s Resubdivision does not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
related to lot area and dimensions. The proposed southerly lot (Lot 2 fronting on Higginson Lane),
measuring 23,171.89 square feet, does not comply with (a) the minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet
and in a related standard, does not meet (b) the minimum rectangular area. The extent to which the
proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 on the following page.
Page 6
Page 46 of 158
Rectangular Area Requirement. In order to effectively control the overall shape and size of irregularly
shaped lots, in the R-2 District, zoning requirements include a minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet for
an interior lot, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 16,335 square feet.
The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg
of 90 feet. Figure 6 below, prepared by staff for the Applicant in 2007, depicts in yellow, the extent to
which Proposed Lot 2 (south lot, fronting on Higginson Lane) is not able to contain the minimum
rectangular area (measuring 90 feet by 181.5 feet) within its boundaries.
The minimum rectangular area is thought to have originated due to the existence of areas in the village
such as ravine areas where terrain or other natural features make regular, rectangular lots impossible.
The minimum rectangular area standard has the intended effect of assuring that irregularly shaped lots,
when contemplated, still provide an adequate concentration of lot area on which to build.
Figure 6 – Minimum Rectangular Area – Proposed Lot 2 (South Lot)
Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, requires all lots created
by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, the
proposed subdivision requires approval of variations (standards highlighted yellow in Table 2) for which
both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to
the Village Council.
Page 7
Page 47 of 158
Table 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot
R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset
24,000 s.f. 23,171.89 s. f.
32,998.69 s.f. 56,171 s.f.
Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. VARIATION OF 828.11 SF
COMPLIES COMPLIES
corner lot) (3.45%)
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 105.33 feet 158.67 feet
115 feet
(average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
(corner lot)
Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 35.26 feet 165 feet
20 feet
(at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
200 feet 220 feet 206.42 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet COMPLIES
COMPLIES COMPLIES
Minimum
90 feet
Rectangular Area
x COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY COMPLIES
within Lot
181.5 feet
Boundaries
Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE
The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the
buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and
the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result,
staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether
any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any
existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of
a proposed subdivision, relief must be granted by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Staff evaluation of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 on the following
pages, indicating the extent to which the proposed lots comply with (or fall short of) zoning standards.
Those items highlighted green are existing nonconformities that would remain with the proposed
subdivision.
Page 8
Page 48 of 158
Existing Lot
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
936 Sunset
Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot
Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Front yard provided by 49.91 feet
49.91 feet NA EXISTING
existing structures
NONCONFORMITY
Minimum Required Corner Yard 50 feet N/A 50 feet
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
49.52 feet
Corner yard provided by 49.52 feet (5.52 feet playhouse)
N/A
existing structures (5.52 feet playhouse) EXISTING
NONCONFORMITY
Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
Side yard provided by
14.35 feet N/A 14.35 feet
existing structures
Minimum Required Total Side
N/A 31.6 feet N/A
Yard
Total Side Yard provided
N/A N/A N/A
by existing structures
Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rear yard provided by
81.23 feet N/A +160 feet
existing structures
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot
Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset
Maximum Allowed Gross Floor
9,404.7 sq. ft. 7,144.53 sq. ft. 14,734.33 sq. ft.
Area (GFA)
GFA provided by existing
5,751.63 sq. ft. N/A 5,751.63 sq. ft.
structures
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE
Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot
Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 8,249.67 sq. ft. 5,792.97 sq. ft. 14,042.75 sq. ft.
RLC provided by existing
4,162.76 sq. ft. N/A 4,162.76 sq. ft.
structures
Maximum Allowed
Impermeable Lot Coverage 16,499.34 sq. ft. 11,585.94 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft.
(ILC) (50% of lot area)
ILC provided by existing
10,667.11 sq. ft. N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft.
structures
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS
All changes to the configuration of parcels of land are classified as Land Subdivisions under the Village
Code and are subject to review by the Plan Commission and approval by the Village Council. As part of
that review process, resubdivisions are subject to review for compliance with both the Village Subdivision
Page 9
Page 49 of 158
Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance.
According to Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code,
subdivisions shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in
Section 16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. In addition to the zoning
relief requested for the proposed lot size and shape, and the existing nonconforming improvements that
will remain, Section 16.12.010(D.6) states that “No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it
results in the creation of one or more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.”
The proposed subdivision does result in the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 abutting the side lot line of
Proposed Lot 2 (Figure 7). Section 16.12.010(F) [Minimum land subdivision standards – Variations and
Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual
size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this
section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may
vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner;
provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Commission will want
to consider this standard as it considers the variation requests from the following requirements: (i)
minimum lot area; (ii) minimum rectangular area; and (iii) the creation of a lot with a side lot line abutting
a rear lot line.
Rear Lot Line of
Proposed Lot 1
Abutting Side Lot Line
of Proposed Lot 2
Figure 7 – Rear Lot Line
Pre-existing zoning nonconformities (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – Three
existing nonconformities will remain on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1). The existing residence on the
Subject Property provides a nonconforming front yard setback from the north property line along Sunset
Road of 49.91 feet and a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from the east property line along Higginson
Lane, whereas setbacks of 50 feet are required. There is also an existing playhouse that provides a
nonconforming corner yard setback of 5.52 feet. These existing nonconformities that will remain are
highlighted (in blue) on Table 3 on the previous page. Additionally, the existing residence has a
nonconforming front-facing garage door that exceeds the maximum permitted width of 9 feet for an
individual door.
Page 10
Page 50 of 158
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Front Yard Setback
that will remain
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Front-Facing Garage
Door that will remain
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Corner Yard Setbacks
that will remain
Figure 8 – Excerpt of 936 Sunset Road Plat of Survey
Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, in the instance of such nonconformities, the
Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such
nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse
impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”
In terms of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed subdivision conforms with the
Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single-family
residential uses, which are the proposed uses of the subdivided lots.
Page 11
Page 51 of 158
FLOODPLAIN AND STORMWATER
The proposed subdivision consists of creating two new lots; one lot would contain the existing residence
and the other would be a vacant lot to be developed. As noted earlier, no improvements are currently
proposed on either of the lots. As represented in Figure 9 below, the Subject Property lies entirely within
the 100-year floodplain. The cyan represents the 100-year flood area and the orange represents the 500-
year flood area. As a result, development on both lots is subject to the Village’s Flood Hazard Protection
Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Water Management Ordinance
(WMO).
Subject
Property
Figure 9 – GIS Floodplain Map
For construction or site work in the floodplain, compensatory storage is required. Compensatory storage
is an excavated area that provides an equivalent volume (1:1 ratio of cut/fill) of storage that balances the
loss of natural floodplain storage when artificial fill or structures have been placed within the floodplain,
ensuring that there is no net fill within the floodplain. From a site development standpoint, it’s also worth
noting that the Village Flood Hazard Protection regulations restrict the depth and location of
compensatory storage. In no case shall the depth of excavation for any compensatory storage in the front
and side yards of the lot exceed 18 inches, as measured from the previously existing natural grade. Also,
compensatory storage may be constructed with retaining walls, provided that the retaining walls are not
constructed along the sides of the storage area adjacent to a property line.
The Village Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has provided the
following comments specific to the development of Proposed Lot 2 (south lot):
1. The elevation of the floodplain at this location is 625.3. To meet Village requirements, the top of
the foundation for a new residence would need to be at an elevation of 627.3, which is
approximately 4 feet above the elevation of Higginson Lane;
2. Any new residential development would require the installation of stormwater detention and
possible compensatory storage for any proposed increases in grading of the lot. Because the
proposed lot is currently undeveloped, the Village will require a larger detention volume than
what is typical for an existing developed lot;
3. Installation of detention or above ground compensatory storage will be very difficult to achieve
due to easements and setbacks. It is recommended that the Applicant provide an exhibit of the
Page 12
Page 52 of 158
lot showing all easements, rights-of-way, and setbacks to show maximum building footprint and
available space for detention/compensatory storage;
4. Home should be built on a crawl space foundation with openings in the foundation to allow for
the pass through of stormwater. This would require all mechanical equipment to be placed at a
minimum elevation of 627.3, above the base flood elevation (BFE). The maximum allowable crawl
space height shall not exceed 5 feet;
5. Due to grade concerns from the roadway to the proposed structure, any proposed driveway may
have a steep slope. To address this grading issue, any proposed garage floor elevation may be
below the BFE. The property owner would need to design a garage with openings to allow for the
passing of stormwater through the foundation walls.
In response to the Village Engineering comments above, the Applicant has provided an engineering exhibit
of a possible house on the proposed vacant lot to help address the engineering comments (Figure 10).
The exhibit represents a proposed house with the following characteristics:
a. No basement. House planned on a flowable crawl space with vented openings to allow
floodwater to enter and drain out of the crawl space, which would be less than 5 feet in height;
b. First floor elevation of 627.5 and an attached garage elevation of 626.5. The garage and a portion
of the driveway would also be built on a flowable crawl space;
c. Proposed compensatory storage would be provided as surface storage and be graded to drain to
the Skokie Ditch (easement along southwest portion of lot). The stormwater detention would be
provided in an underground vault with a pumped discharge to the Skokie Ditch; and
d. A building footprint of approximately 2,500 square feet in addition to an attached garage with a
footprint of 650 square feet.
Detention
Vault
Surface
Compensatory Existing Stormwater Conveyance
Storage Easement (“Skokie Ditch”)
(southwesterly 33 feet of lot)
Figure 10 – Engineering Exhibit Provided by Applicant for Proposed Lot 2 (South Lot)
Page 13
Page 53 of 158
The Village Engineering Department has reviewed the exhibit above and has the following general
comments:
• Compensatory storage within the easement: The Engineering Department reached out to MWRD
to confirm that surface compensatory storage would be allowed within the stormwater
conveyance easement. MWRD confirmed that compensatory storage in the easement is
acceptable provided it will not interfere with storm water conveyance. Fill within the easement
is not allowed.
• Attached garage: The garage must meet all requirements for unfinished areas below the flood
protection elevation. It may only be used for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. It
must be designed with flood vent openings to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls.
Stormwater. For new development within the Village each site must manage its stormwater on-site and
not cause additional stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties. New home construction on a previously
undeveloped lot, such as Proposed Lot 2, requires stormwater detention. It is important to note that
stormwater detention is in addition to any required floodplain compensatory storage.
In order to provide detention, the site must be engineered to pick up the runoff from the site (house,
impermeable surfaces). This is typically achieved with a combination of grading, storm sewers, storm inlet
structures, depressional storage, or underground storage. The site is graded to create low points, where
storm inlets are placed to collect the runoff from the site. This runoff is then conveyed, via a storm sewer
system into the stormwater detention facility, be it depressional storage, underground pipe or vault
storage, or a combination of these methods. As the stormwater is being collected and detained on-site,
the release of this stormwater into the public storm system is restricted on its release rate before entering
the public system.
Any future improvements on either lot will be evaluated by Village Engineering staff for compliance with
Village floodplain development regulations and stormwater regulations, upon submittal of permits
necessary for site improvements.
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
The Village Code does not require an applicant to obtain preliminary plat approval as a precondition of
final plat approval. In this case, the Applicant has chosen to directly proceed with the final plat review.
In addition to evaluating prescriptive standards of the zoning and subdivision code, consideration of Final
Subdivision Plat approval also needs to consider the details of the final plat such as utility easements, final
plat formatting and related matters. The Village Water & Electric Department has reviewed the proposed
subdivision and is requesting an easement to cover the existing transformer and high voltage
underground wires on the Subject Property. The 5-foot wide easement would be located in the
southwesterly corner of Proposed Lot 2. Figure 11 on the following page is an excerpt of the plat of
subdivision with the easement outlined in red.
With respect to plat formatting, all of the necessary signature blocks are provided on the plat of
subdivision.
Page 14
Page 54 of 158
Utility Easement
Requested by Village
Water & Electric
Figure 11 – Excerpt of Plat of Subdivision - Utility Easement
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and whether the variations listed below comply with Section 16.12.010.F. “Variations
and Exceptions”, which states:
“Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such
development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real
difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such
requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided
that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.”
Requested Variations to allow:
a. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet
for an interior lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District;
b. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of
16,335 square feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and
c. The side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset
Road.
Lastly, the Commission is to consider the existence of the nonconforming residence and accessory
playhouse on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1) that will remain and “shall determine whether such
nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse
impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”
Page 15
Page 55 of 158
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two
options:
1) Continue further review of the application to a specific date in order to provide the Applicant
and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission; or
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Final Plat of Subdivision. If the
Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the
requested relief, a Commissioner may wish to make a motion recommending approval or
recommending denial based upon the following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of:
The proposed Marren’s Resubdivision Final Plat subdividing the existing lot commonly known as
936 Sunset Road into two new Lots of Record, as the Final Plat of Subdivision, which subdivision
requires:
A. Variations to allow:
a. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000
square feet for an interior lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District
[Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];
b. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable
area of 16,335 square feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District
[Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions]; and
c. A side lot line abutting a rear lot line [Section 16.12.010 Minimum Land
subdivision standards];
B. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” with respect to the existing zoning
nonconformities for the existing improvements on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Proposed
Lot 1):
a. the existing residence observes a front yard setback of 49.91 feet from Sunset
Road, versus the required front yard setback of 50 feet;
b. the existing residence observes a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from
Higginson Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet;
c. an existing playhouse observes a corner yard setback of 5.52 feet from Higginson
Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet; and
d. the existing front-facing garage door exceeds the maximum permitted width of
9 feet for an individual door.
C. A finding that the subdivision is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land
Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family
Residential” development.
[If the Commission chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of
approval, it will want to include the conditions here.]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Page 16
Page 56 of 158
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (Marren’s Resubdivision)
Attachment C: January 13, 2014, ZBA Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Page 17
Page 57 of 158
ATTACHMENT A
Page 58 of 158
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
July 17, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Layla Danley
Chair, Plan Commission
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Application for Subdivision at 936 Sunset Road.
Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren (“Bob and Susan”)
regarding their application to subdivide the existing lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject
Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 32,998 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot containing
23,171.89 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). As set forth more fully below, Bob and Susan seek to subdivide the
Subject Property to preserve the existing home in which they have lived for the last 19 years and
to create a new lot effectively restoring what was a conforming lot of record prior to a mandated
lot consolidation in 1976. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and Susan respectfully request
that the Plan Commission of Village of Winnetka recommend the granting of the requested
subdivision.
I. The Subject Property.
The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District. The Subject
Property is surrounded by single family homes. The Subject Property has approximately 165’ of
frontage on Sunset Road and 215’ of frontage on Higginson Road. At its deepest dimension, the
Page 59 of 158
July 17, 2025
Page 2
current lot has an approximate depth of 385’. It is improved with a single-family residence and a
tennis court.
Bob and Susan intend to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots. Lot 1 will have a
lot area of 32,998 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a
lot area of 23,171.89 square feet. Lot 2, which once was the site of a tennis court, will now be
available for green space, a recreational area, or a new home.
II. Bob and Susan’s current lot.
Bob and Susan’s plan of subdivision has two goals. First, Bob and Susan seek to
subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2,
Bob and Susan simply seek to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the lot consolidation
mandated by the Village of Winnetka in 1976.
In 1976, both the lot at 936 Sunset Road and the lot to the south were located within the
R-2 Zoning District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater than one half acre,
both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Even though the two lots
were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the prior owner, Mr. Seabury, to apply for a
lot consolidation presumably because the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that
accessory uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record. Mr. Seabury told the Plan
Commission that he wanted to install a tennis court on the south lot. The tennis court is an
accessory structure under the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan Commission unanimously approved
the consolidation. Now that Bob and Susan’s children have grown and the tennis court is no
longer used, they seek to undo the consolidation and return the proposed Lot 2 to its prior status
as a separate lot of record.
The proposed subdivision of t he south lot meets all the minimum Village of Winnetka
zoning criteria except for minimum rectangular buildable area (minimum rectangular buildable
area in an R-2 district is 16,335 square feet), and the Village of Winnetka's minimum lot area
requirement of (24,000 square feet). Therefore, Bob and Susan are asking by a separate
application that the Zoning Board grant them two variations to allow the proposed subdivided lot
to be under the minimum lot area requirement and minimum rectangular buildable area. In
addition to the zoning variations, as addressed below, the proposed south lot needs variations
from the subdivision portion of the Zoning Ordinance as well.
Both the northern and southern portions of the property are in the designated flood plain.
Therefore, it is understood that any new improvements situated on the land must adhere to the
strict storm water management engineering requirements established by the Village of Winnetka.
Furthermore, storm water detention must be designed and implemented to accommodate such a
structure which is standard practice when building in the Village of Winnetka. Civil Engineer
Daniel Creaney, who has worked on projects in Winnetka for decades, will submit a separate
report addressing the storm water management that would be needed if the lot were to be used
for a future single-family home.
Page 60 of 158
July 17, 2025
Page 3
III. Standards of Review.
Pursuant to the Village of Winnetka Code and Zoning Ordinance, any application to
subdivide a parcel must meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code related to Subdivisions
and §17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the yard regulations for the
R-2 Residential zoning district.
Chapter 16.12.10 D requires subdivided lots to adhere to the following standards:
1. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.
2. All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to
curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement
would enhance public safety or convenience.
3. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot area requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. All lot area calculations shall exclude all easements for ingress and
egress, all public or private streets, all public or private alleys, and the access corridor, or
“flagpole,” of any flag lot.
4. Where a lot is already improved with buildings or structures, the plan shall show whether
the dimensions and locations of such improvements comply with the use, intensity of use of lot
(including impermeable surface requirements), setback, side yard, rear yard and other bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. If a prior legal nonconformity, or a
previously granted variation, with respect to any such requirements exists, the Plan Commission
shall determine whether such nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of
the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public
health, safety or welfare. If such a determination is made, the Plan Commission may deny the
plan for land subdivision. No plan for land subdivision which itself creates a departure from
such requirements shall be approved by the Plan Commission until such time as a variation for
such departure is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Council, as the case
may be, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
5. At intersections with major streets, acute angle intersections and other places where, in
the opinion of the Plan Commission, safety or convenience of traffic movement would be
enhanced, corners shall be cut back by joining the intersecting street lines through circular arcs
having adequate radii.
6. No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or
more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.
7. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot depth requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the access corridor, or “flagpole,” shall
be excluded when measuring the lot depth of a flag lot.
8. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot width requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all new flag lots shall meet the minimum
lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, both as measured by excluding the access
corridor, or “flagpole,” and as measured by including the access corridor or “flagpole.”
Page 61 of 158
July 17, 2025
Page 4
9. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet all yard and setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any flag lot that has a
front street line that is less than fifty (50) feet long and that is at least seventy-five (75) feet wide
at its widest point, all yards and setbacks shall be measured based both on using the actual front
street line as the front lot line, and on using as the front lot line the lot line from which the
Director determines the front setback shall be measured for development purposes.
Bob and Susan’s request for a subdivision complies with or seeks to comply through
variances as permitted under the Code with these requirements in the following ways:
1. It is Bob and Susan’s intent that the lots meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. At
the time the lots were consolidated in 1976, the lots did meet those standards. The Zoning
Ordinance was amended in 1999, well after the consolidation and well before Bob and Susan
bought the lots, and those standards have changed rendering the proposed Lot 2 to be non-
conforming. By their application to the Zoning Board, Bob and Susan seek a variation from this
requirement since they did not create the situation.
2. This standard is met.
3. While this standard was met at the time of the lot consolidation in 1976, the proposed lots
created by the proposed subdivision do not meet the lot area requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Lot 1 is conforming, but Lot 2 is 97% of the required lot area. Bob and Susan
considered making Lot 2 conform to the Lot Area requirement but if that were done, then they
would need a variation from the Minimum Lot depth requirement of 200’ for Lot 1. Bob and
Susan considered this alternative but because they share the conforming 200’ lot line with their
neighbors to the west, Bob and Susan decided that seeking a small variation for lot area was
preferred to seeking a variation that would impact their neighbors to the west. Bob and Susan
seek a variation from this requirement.
4. Bob and Susan believe that this standard is met. The existing home on the proposed Lot 1
was a conforming structure when built. Maintaining the home on Lot 1 and subdividing the
Subject Property will not result in a material increase or adverse impact upon the public health,
safety, or welfare.
5. This standard is inapplicable.
6. Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement. When the lots were consolidated,
that consolidation created a situation where a side lot abutted a rear lot line of the neighbor to the
south. That condition has remained unchanged since 1976. The granting of a variation to this
requirement will not change the status quo.
7. This standard is met.
8. This standard is met.
9. This standard is met.
To the extent that the subdivision standards are not met, the Code permits the Plan
Commission to recommend the granting of variations under the following circumstances:
Variations and Exceptions. Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape
or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this
section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan
Page 62 of 158
July 17, 2025
Page 5
Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the
land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are
protected.
Here, variations from the strict application of the Code are appropriate due to the unusual
conditions Bob and Susan face 49 years after a prior owner consolidated the lots. As discussed
above, the two lots were conforming lots of record when a consolidation was mandated in 1976
so the prior owner could install a tennis court. By permitting the subdivision, the lots will return
to their prior sizes; a size more in keeping with the prevailing standard of lot sizes in the zoning
district.
This request is similar to the subdivision sought and approved at 860 Lamson Drive. In
that matter, the applicant acquired the home in 1959. In 1975, the applicant purchased the
adjoining home at 901 Tower Road, demolished the home, and built a tennis court for the family.
In 1975, both the lot at 860 Lamson Drive and the lot at 901 Tower Road were located within the
“A” (One-Half Acre) Residence District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater
than one half acre, both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Despite
the fact that the two lots were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the applicant to
apply for a lot consolidation because “this request for approval of a preliminary and final plat of
consolidation was prompted by the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that accessory
uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record.” (Village of Winnetka Plan
Commission Minutes, November 12, 1975, pg.2). The Plan Commission unanimously approved
the consolidation. In 2018, the applicant applied for a subdivision and variations to restore the
two lots to their prior condition. The Village Council approved the requested zoning variations
and granted preliminary plat approval (M-2-2018) and granted final plat approval of the
subdivision (R-45-2018).
The requested variations also arise from the unusual shape of the lot. Here, the proposed
lot 2 is 97% of the minimum lot area. As discussed above, Bob and Susan considered moving the
proposed north lot line of Lot 2 to make the lot area conforming for Lot 2, but it would lead to
the need for a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1 that would impact their neighbors. A lot
smaller than the minimum required lot area is not unusual for this neighborhood, For example,
894 Sunset Road (21,867 sq. ft.), 906 Sunset Road (21,867 sq. ft.), 920 Sunset Road (22,041 sq. ft.),
955 Sunset Road (23,579 sq. ft. located in flood plain), 970 Sunset Road (21,344sq. ft. located in
flood plain), 901 Higginson Road (21,506 sq. ft.), 905 Higginson Road (22,041 sq. ft.) and 915
Higginson Road (20,386 sq. ft.) are all smaller than the minimum lot area.
As for the minimum rectangular area, the staff report explains that “the minimum
rectangular area is thought to have originated due to the existence of areas of the village such as
ravine areas where terrain or other natural feature make regular, rectangular lots impossible. The
minimum rectangular area standard has the intended effect of assuring that irregularly shaped
lots, when contemplated, still provide an adequate concentration of lot area on which to build.”
(Brian Norkus memo dated December 10, 2013, pg.3). An unusually shaped lot is common in
this neighborhood. Several unusually shaped lots in the neighborhood include 884 Higginson
Road, 905 Higginson Road, 915 Higginson Road and 970 Sunset Road and to that extent, Lot 2
Page 63 of 158
Page 64 of 158
July 29, 2025
Layla Danley
Chair, Plan Commission
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
RE: CONSTRUCTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN WINNETKA
Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission:
I have been retained by Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren regarding their application to subdivide the existing
lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 32,998 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the
other lot containing 23,171.89 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). There are several areas within Winnetka where the elevation of
the lot is below the base flood elevation as determined by FEMA. In Winnetka, development must comply with
the Village’s storm water detention requirements and compensatory storage requirements for fill in the flood
plain. Daniel Creaney Company has provided engineering services for new houses, house additions, and pools
within the floodplain through Winnetka generally and in the area near the Subject Property specifically. All these
projects that have needed storm water detention have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Village of
Winnetka.
The proposed Lot 2 is in the flood plain. I am confident that we can provide engineering services for the proposed
house that will meet the Village’s storm water detention requirements and flood plain requirements. I plan to
attend the Plan Commission and Zoning Board meetings regarding the proposed subdivision and answer any
questions that the members may have. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Daniel A. Creaney, P.E.
P.E. 36-33917
J:\DCC\Forms, Letters, Notes\Construction in floodplain in Winnetka .docx
Page 65 of 158
Page 66 of 158
Page 67 of 158
Page 68 of 158
Page 69 of 158
Page 70 of 158
Page 71 of 158
Page 72 of 158
Page 73 of 158
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
Located At:
936 Sunset Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
Prepared For:
Robert & Susan Marren
Prepared By:
JCS Real Estate Services, Inc.
1694 1st Street
Highland Park, Illinois 60035
Page 74 of 158
Page 75 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Front View
Rear View
Page ii
Page 76 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Address: 936 Sunset Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Location: Southwest Winnetka
Property Type/Use: Detached single-unit residence
Expanded ranch style
69 years old
Two garage spaces
Gross Living Area: 5,151 square feet +/-
Site Area: 56,171 square feet +/-
Occupancy: Owner
Highest and Best Use: Continued use – residential
Date of Inspection: July 22, 2025
Effective Date of Appraisal: July 22, 2025
Date of Report: August 12, 2025
Extraordinary Assumptions: The gross living area calculations are based on
the plat of survey, prior mortgage appraisal and
Cook County Assessor records.
Purpose: Estimate an opinion of fair market value
Intended Use: Planning/Proposed Subdivision
Intended User: Robert & Susan Marren and legal counsel
Opinion of Market Value – Whole $2,600,000
Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days
Opinion of Market Value – Front $2,300,000
Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days
Opinion of Market Value – Rear Lot $1,200,000
Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days
Page 1
Page 77 of 158
Page 78 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
Extraordinary Assumptions & Hypothetical Conditions
The gross living area is based off the plat of survey, prior mortgage appraisal, and Cook County
Assessor records. Please note that the use of the extraordinary assumption may have affected the
assignment results.
General Assumptions
Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated and
there are no leases encumbering the property at this time.
Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed.
The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.
This includes the information provided by the property contact, MLS published information, opinions from
real estate agents interviewed, and public record data relied upon.
Illustrative material in this report is included only to help the reader visualize the property.
It is assumed that there are no hidden or concealed conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that
render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the
engineering studies that may be required to discover them.
It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered
in the appraisal report.
General Limiting Conditions
Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication.
The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to
be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been
previously made.
Environmental Considerations
The value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property
or in such proximity thereto that would cause a loss in value.
Competency of the Appraiser
The appraiser has the appropriate knowledge valuing the property type and experience working in
the subject market to complete this assignment competently. See attached qualification addenda.
Page 3
Page 79 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE APPRAISAL
The client has requested opinions of the real property’s market value for planning/proposed subdivision use. The
scope of work will include:
1. Agreement on the purpose, methodology, use and users of appraisal and acceptance of the assignment;
2. Preliminary analysis and research of county records on the property and MLS and county records on
comparable sale data;
3. Inspecting the subject property. The interior and exterior of the property was inspected July 22, 2025. The
effective date of value is July 22, 2025. Our observations during our inspection have been relied upon for this
assignment.
4. Analyzing the subject neighborhood, competing neighborhoods and the area market.
5. Analyzing the highest and best use of the property.
6. Investigated and selected the most relevant and reliable improved sales for deriving an opinion of market value
for the whole property, as is, by the Sale Comparison Approach to value and deriving an opinion of market
value for the front portion of the site improved with the residence excluding the rear 24,000-square-foot buildable
lot portion of the site.
7. Investigated and selected the most relevant and reliable vacant land sales (including tear downs) for use in the
Sales Comparison Approach and deriving an opinion of market value for the rear buildable lot,
8. Preparing an appraisal report.
Data Collection and Verification
I contacted local real estate brokers involved in sales or listings to research and confirm factors that affect
property values including pricing and location, marketing periods, transaction totals and trends. Comparable
sale information has been gathered from the Midwest Real Estate Data Multiple Listing Service, residential
brokerage firms, third party data services and the county assessor’s records.
Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate three opinions of market value of the property commonly known
as 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, Illinois
Intended Use, Client and Users of the Appraisal
The intended use of the appraisal is for planning/proposed subdivision. The client is Robert and Susan
Marren that engaged JCS Real Estate Services, Inc. to complete the assignment. Other intended users are
legal counsel and parties involved in the subdivision.
Property Rights Appraised
The subject property has been appraised as a whole, as if owned in fee simple, free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and special assessments.
Fee Simple Estate is defined as "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject
only to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation."
Definition of Market Value
The definition of market value as applied in this report is defined as:
“The most widely accepted components of market value are incorporated in the following definition. The most
probable price that the specified property interest should sell for in a competitive market after a reasonable
exposure time, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, under all conditions requisite to
a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, for self-interest, and assuming that
neither is under duress.” 1
1
The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, The Appraisal Institute 2022
Page 4
Page 80 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
The real property being appraised is an 69-year-old, detached single-unit residential property that has the
common address of 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093. The property is identified by the Cook County
Assessor as PIN: 05-20-407-071-0000.
Legal Description
The legal description below is copied from a boundary survey provided by the client.
Personal Property
No items of personal property are included in the estimated value.
Three Year Sales History
A search of the county records (via MLS/REDI) reveals no sale of the property in the past three years. The
property las sold in April 2006 for $2.50 million. The property has not been listed for sale during the past three
years based on search of the MLS and other real estate web-based platforms.
Aerial Image
Page 5
Page 81 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
NEIGHBORHOOD DATA
Introduction/Location
The subject property is located in the Village of Winnetka, Illinois and is situated in the southwest portion of the
village. Winnetka is a mature suburban community located approximately 20 miles northwest of the Chicago’s
central business district.
The Village of Winnetka’s boundaries are somewhat irregular and are generally Scott Avenue to the north, Lake
Michigan to the east, Hill Road to the south and the Edens Expressway (I-94) to the west. Bordering communities
include Glencoe to the north, Northbrook and Northfield to the west, and Wilmette to the south.
The village is fully developed and has a balance of land uses and characteristics and amenities common for
Chicago’s northern suburbs. Land use is mostly residential with commercial uses developed in the downtown
district, along Green Bay Road, and at major intersections of commercial corridors.
Access
The market area has good linkage to the Chicago business districts with access to the Edens Expressway (I-94)
one mile to the west of the subject and Sheridan Road running parallel to Lake Michigan. The Tri-State Tollway (I-
294) is located approximately 10 miles to the west of the subject providing access to O’Hare International Airport
and suburban business districts.
Willow Road links the area to the Edens Expressway and the Tri-State Tollway. Public train and bus services link
Winnetka to the Chicago Loop business district. PACE bus service runs along Green Bay Road through Winnetka.
Drivers use the area expressways or primary streets to reach Chicago’s central business district in 30 to 40 minutes.
Page 6
Page 82 of 158
Page 83 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
SITE DATA
The site is level and irregular shaped with 165 feet of frontage on the south side of Sunset Road, 235.29 feet of
frontage along Higginson Lane, 282.30 feet of depth on the west side and 179.13 feet of depth on the east side. It
totals 56,171 SF of area and is two combined lots of record due to a consolidation by a prior owner to meet an
accessory use requirement. The site size is toward the high end of the range for the community and nearly twice
that of adjacent properties. The plat of survey below illustrates the large vacant rear portion of the site.
Sunset Road is a two-way, two lane public right of way and Higginson Lane is a two-way, two-lane public right that
links Sunset Road with Birch Street. Street improvements including concrete curbs and sidewalks, street gutters
and storm/sanitary drain lines, and overhead street lighting. Natural gas, city water and sewer and electricity utilities
are all available and connected to the site. The topography is level and soil quality conducive for development.
Storm water is managed through the city’s storm water system.
Page 8
Page 84 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
ZONING
The Village of Winnetka classifies the site as R-2, Single-Family Residential District. The district has a minimum
size requirement of 24,000 square feet. There are several other bulk restrictions including a minimum front line of
20 feet and a minimum average width of 100 feet. The ordinance should be reviewed by an attorney familiar with
real estate and the existing site analyzed by an architect or civil engineer to render opinions of the viability of
achieving the stated goal of subdividing the site into two buildable lots.
The site is over twice as large as the minimum site area required for the R2 zoning district. The irregular shape
presents some challenges for the rear lot to meet all size requirements such as frontage; however, the shape allows
for an ample sized building envelope to construct a moderately sized residence.
Subdivision Rendering
The below image was prepared as a visual representation of a potential subdivision of the site into front and rear
lots that is the property’s highest and best use.
Page 9
Page 85 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
IMPROVEMENTS
The subject property is an expanded Ranch style residence with finished first and second levels, and finished partial
basement level. The building has a frame structure with brick veneer and sided exterior, gable style wood shingle
roof with dormers, copper gutters and downspouts, double-pane windows in wood frames and an attached two-car
garage with an electric overhead door.
The original portion of the residence was constructed in 1956 as a ranch style. It was expanded over the years with
the upper floor built out with bedrooms, bathrooms and recreational space. The residence has 5151 square feet of
gross living area on floors one and two, plus approximately 1,596 square feet of finished basement area.
The first floor has approximately 3,131 square feet of gross living area with entry, living room, dining room, family
room, kitchen, den, primary bedroom-bathroom suite, half bathroom and mudroom. The second floor is
approximately 2,020 square feet with five bedrooms and three full bathrooms. There is a small storage area off the
west end. The partial basement is approximately 2,281 square feet and 1,596 square feet are finished with a large
recreation room, exercise room, full bathroom, laundry room, and storage room that also houses mechanical
equipment.
Interior finishes are good quality including drywall board walls and ceilings, ceiling mounted lights, painted wood
trim, and solid wood doors. Flooring is a mix of hardwood, carpet and tile. The kitchen finishes are good quality due
to renovation including painted wood cabinets, granite counters and good cost-quality appliances. The bathroom
finishes are a mix of stone and ceramic tile floors and shower surround, wood cabinets and stone or composition
counters.
The building has five zones for forced air heat and cooling. The property has city water/sewer, natural gas and
electric meters.
Site improvements include asphalt paved circular drive with two curb cuts off Sunset Road, brick entry walk, covered
front porch, slate patio, tennis court with covered sitting area and landscaping with mature trees and bushes and
flower beds, etc.
Overall, the residence is ranked average condition and exterior quality and good interior quality of construction for
the neighborhood. Our inspection revealed no immediate major repairs needed.
Page 10
Page 86 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Living Room
Dining Room
Page 11
Page 87 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Kitchen
Family Room
Page 12
Page 88 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Den
Primary Bedroom
Page 13
Page 89 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Primary Bathroom
Second Floor Hall Bedroom
Page 14
Page 90 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Private Bathroom
Basement Recreation Room
Page 15
Page 91 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Basement Mechanical Room
Two-Car Garage
Page 16
Page 92 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Tennis Court
Rear Yard
Page 17
Page 93 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
Introduction
Highest and best use is defined as: “the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property,
which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The
four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legally permissibility, physically possible, financially feasible
and maximally productive”. 2
Highest and Best Use as Vacant
Based on the zoning, subject property physical characteristics, and trends in the neighborhood, the
highest and best use of the site is to develop the site with two detached single-unit residences. The
timing of development is immediate.
Highest and Best Use as Improved
The subject property is an average to good cost quality detached single-unit residential unit on a 1.29-
acre site in the southwest section of Winnetka. The improvements are in average condition and have
average modernization. The improvements contribute to value; however, the site is larger than typical
and is underutilized with the rear section functioning to support the tennis court accessory use. The
south yard area is excess land and should be subdivided from the parcel for development of a single-
unit residence. No alternative use results in a higher residual value to the land. Therefore, continued
use as improved with the rear buildable lot subdivided out for development is the highest and best use
as improved. Timing is immediate.
VALUATION PROCESS
An opinion of the market value for a single-unit residential property as is (whole) and with only the front lot area
(front) has been requested. Also, an opinion of the rear 24,000 square foot buildable lot (rear) has been requested.
The opinions of value will be estimated by direct comparison with improved sales and vacant land sales from the
neighborhood. The Cost Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach are not applicable due to the design
and age of the improvements and as properties in this market are acquired for occupancy and not as investments.
Therefore, only the Sales Comparison Approach will be developed.
The Sales Comparison Approach is a set of procedures in which a value is derived by comparing the property
being appraised to similar properties that have sold recently. Applying appropriate units of comparison and making
adjustments to the sale prices of the comparable sales based on the elements of comparison. The sale comparison
approach may be used to value improved properties, vacant land or land being considered as though vacant; it is
the most common and preferred method of valuation when comparable sales data is available. 3
The reliability of the sales comparison approach is subject to the degree of similarity between the subject property
and the comparable properties; however, as no properties are identical, adjustments for differences in financing
terms, conditions of the sale, market conditions, location, physical and income characteristics are often necessary.
The best indication of value for the subject property is recent sales or available listings from within the immediate
market area. Realtor generated data on property listings and sales are available from the MRED, LLC Multiple
Listing Service (MLS). Physical data on the sales presented in the MLS such as site area, residence size, and
zoning were verified with the county or city records. Real estate agents involved in the sale or listing are interviewed
for opinions on the condition, updating and buyer-seller motivation. A search of MRED, the primary MLS serving
the area, reveals several closed sales within the immediate neighborhood. The best closed sales are presented
and compared to the subject property.
2
The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, The Appraisal Institute 2022
3
Ibid
Page 18
Page 94 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP WHOLE ANALYSIS
Page 19
Page 95 of 158
File R21-1101
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
COMPARABLE SALE SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID - WHOLE
Property Subject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5
Address 936 Sunset Road 844 Hibbard Road 70 Woodley Road 1240 Hill Road Rd 58 Woodley Road 62 Woodley Road
City Winnetka, IL Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka
Sale Price - $2,100,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,850,000
Concessions - None None None None None
Date of Sale* 7/22/2025 7/30/2024 12/18/2024 7/18/2025 8/30/2024 Active
Location SW Winnetka NW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka
Site Area - SF 56,171 38,934 44,610 37,984 40,480 66,707
View Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
Design Expanded Ranch Colonial Expanded Ranch Georgian Colonial Colonial
Exterior Quality Frame/Brick Veneer Brick Frame, Brick Brick Brick Frame, Brick
Interior Quality Good Good Good Good Good Good
Age - years 69 100 70 87 85 92
Condition Average Average Average Average Average Average
HVAC Zoned FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC
Parking 2 Garage Spaces 2 Garage Space 3 Garage Space 2 Garage Spaces 3 Garage Space 2 Car Garage
Project Amenities Patio, Tennis Ct Patio, Pool, Pool House Patio, Porch, Pool Patio, Porch, Pool Patio Patio, Balconies
Fireplaces 3 2 3 3 4 5
Basement Area (SF) 2,281 1,329 0 1,017 3,201 2,275
Finished Basement Area (SF) 1596 657 0 627 2,500 0
GLA – SF 5,151 4,885 5,000 4,337 8,754 5,000
Above Grade Rooms 12 11 13 12 12 13
Above Grade Bedrooms 6 5 5 5 7 6
Above Grade Baths 4.1 5.1 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.2
Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid
Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5
Sale Price Adjustment Rate $2,100,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,850,000
Market Conditions / Sale-List Ratio $0 $0 $0 $0 ($142,500)
Location $105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site Area $15.00 $258,555 $173,415 $272,805 $235,365 ($158,040)
Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
View $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Quality $0 $0 ($59,000) $0 $0
Condition $25.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Car Storage $0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $0
Basement Area/Finish $10/$20 $28,300 $54,730 $32,020 ($27,280) $31,980
Gross Living Area $50.00 $13,300 $7,550 $40,700 ($180,150) $7,550
Kitchen Finish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Numb er of Baths ($10,000) ($25,000) $0 ($25,000) ($5,000)
Bath Finishes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Amenities ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) $0 $0
Overall Adjustment $370,155 $160,695 $261,525 $2,935 ($266,010)
Adjusted Sale Price $2,470,155 $2,510,695 $2,621,525 $2,682,935 $2,583,990
% Net Adjustment 17.6% 6.8% 11.1% 0.1% -9.3%
% Gross Adjustments 19.8% 12.2% 17.1% 17.5% 12.1%
Low $2,470,155
High $2,682,935
Average $2,573,860
Median $2,583,990
Effective date for appraisal of subject property
The sales are all located in the subject’s west Winnetka area and are similar vintage traditional style residences.
Due to the large site area of the subject property, sales from the nearby Woodley Road subdivision have been
considered.
The sales have closing dates between July and December 2024 with one active listing. The sales are adjusted for
significant differences and require gross adjustments of 12.1 to 19.8 percent for differences in list to sale price ratio
and physical characteristics including location, site area, exterior quality, car storage, basement area and finish,
gross living area, condition, number of bathrooms and amenities.
Page 20
Page 96 of 158
File R21-1101
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
The adjustments are based on market data, contributory value based on replacement cost and our judgment and
experience working in the market area. The sales have an adjusted price range of $2,470,155 to $2,682,935 with
a median of $2,583,990 and an average of $2,573,860.
Conclusion
The subject property is reconciled to a value near the median and average of the adjusted range with equal weight
on the Sales. Our opinion of market value as of the effective date is $2,575,000.
Opinion of Market Value for the Whole Property as of July 22, 2025: $2,575,000
Page 21
Page 97 of 158
File R21-1101
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP FRONT PORTION ANALYSIS
Page 22
Page 98 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
COMPARABLE SALE SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID - FRONT
Property Subject Sale 6 Sale 7 Sale 8 Sale 9 Sale 10
Address 936 Sunset Road 200 Linden Street 70 Woodley Road 1240 Hill Road Rd 58 Woodley Road 143 Birch Street
City Winnetka, IL Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka
Sale Price - $2,057,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,149,900
Concessions - None None None None None
Date of Sale* 7/22/2025 9/30/2024 12/18/2024 7/18/2025 8/30/2024 12/6/2024
Location SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka
Site Area - SF 32,171 18,700 44,610 37,984 40,480 18,700
View Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
Design Expanded Ranch Colonial Expanded Ranch Georgian Colonial English
Exterior Quality Frame/Brick Veneer Brick Frame, Brick Brick Brick Frame
Interior Quality Good Good Good Good Good Good
Age - years 69 97 66 82 81 98
Condition Average Average Average Average Average Average
HVAC Zoned FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC
Parking 2 Garage Spaces 2 Garage Space 3 Garage Space 2 Garage Spaces 3 Garage Space 1 Car Garage
Project Amenities Patio, Tennis Ct Deck Patio, Porch, Pool Patio, Porch, Pool Patio Deck, Porch
Fireplaces 3 2 3 3 4 3
Basement Area (SF) 2,281 1,200 0 1,017 3,201 2,053
Finished Basement Area (SF) 1596 700 0 627 2,500 0
GLA – SF 5,151 4,592 5,000 4,337 8,754 4,318
Above Grade Rooms 12 12 13 12 12 10
Above Grade Bedrooms 6 5 5 5 7 4
Above Grade Baths 4.1 3.1 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.2
Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid
Sale 6 Sale 7 Sale 8 Sale 9 Sale 10
Sale Price Adjustment Rate $2,057,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,149,900
Market Conditions / Sale-List Ratio $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Location $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site Area $15.00 $202,065 ($186,585) ($87,195) ($124,635) $202,065
Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
View $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Quality ($41,140) $0 ($47,200) $0 $42,998
Condition $25.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Car Storage $0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $25,000
Basement Area/Finish $10/$20 $28,730 $54,730 $32,020 ($27,280) $34,200
Gross Living Area $50.00 $27,950 $7,550 $40,700 ($180,150) $41,650
Kitchen Finish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Numb er of Baths ($10,000) ($25,000) $0 $0 ($5,000)
Bath Finishes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Amenities ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) $0 $0
Overall Adjustment $182,605 ($199,305) ($86,675) ($332,065) $340,913
Adjusted Sale Price $2,239,605 $2,150,695 $2,273,325 $2,347,935 $2,490,813
% Net Adjustment 8.9% -8.5% -3.7% -12.4% 15.9%
% Gross Adjustments 15.1% 12.7% 8.8% 12.4% 16.3%
Low $2,150,695
High $2,490,813
Average $2,300,475
Median $2,273,325
Effective date for appraisal of subject property
For this analysis, the reduced site area of 32,171 square feet is used assuming the rear 24,000 square feet
are subdivided out for development of a single-unit residence.
The sales are all located in the subject’s SW Winnetka area and are similar vintage traditional style residences. The
sales have closing dates between August 2024 to July 2025. The sales are adjusted for significant differences and
require gross adjustments of 8.8 to 16.3 percent for differences in physical characteristics including site area,
Page 23
Page 99 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
exterior quality, car storage, basement area and finish, gross living area, condition, number of bathrooms and
amenities.
The adjustments are based on market data, contributory value based on replacement cost and our judgment and
experience working in the market area. The sales have an adjusted price range of $2,156,695 to $2,490,813 with
a median of $2,273,325 and an average of $2,300,475.
Conclusion
The subject property is reconciled to a value near the median and average of the adjusted range with equal weight
on the Sales. Our opinion of market value as of the effective date is $2,300,000.
Opinion of Market Value for the Whole Property as of July 22, 2025: $2,300,000
Page 24
Page 100 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP REAR LOT ANALYSIS
Page 25
Page 101 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
The rear lot is assumed to be 24,000 square feet and to generally meet the size requirements of the R2 zoning
district. The site is within Zone AE, a flood hazard district and will be subject to development guidelines to provide
compensatory storm water storage. Development in a flood hazard district is occurring in Winnetka and has been
done successfully on many siters with similar flood plain elevations as the subject property.
The image below illustrates a potential building envelope for the south parcel. The scenario includes removal of the
tennis court.
Page 26
Page 102 of 158
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
The table below summarizes land sales (many of which are tear downs) in Winnetka considered in the valuation
scenario of the rear buildable lot.
FLOOD PLAIN TEAR DOWN LAND SALES
No Address City, St Flood Zone Sale Date Sale Price Size - SF $PSF
1 265 White Oak Lane Winnetka, IL A 10/21/2020 $1,200,000 29,297 $40.96
2 385 Rosewood Ave Winnetka, IL A 10/15/2018 $405,000 8,850 $45.76
3 1155 Ash Street Winnetka, IL A 3/22/2022 $525,000 10,800 $48.61
4 111 Thorntree Lane Winnetka, IL A/X 2/17/2022 $1,400,000 42,244 $33.14
5 956 Sunset Rd Winnetka, IL A 8/21/2014 $1,200,000 37,510 $31.99
6 884 Higginson Ln Winnetka, IL A 7/1/2013 $1,425,000 27,443 $51.93
7 945 Pine Tree Lane Winnetka, IL X 1/21/2025 $1,175,000 26,563 $44.23
8 875 Private Rd Winnetka, IL X 10/30/2023 $1,570,000 31,078 $50.52
9 338 Linden St Winnetka, IL X 5/15/2025 $1,130,000 12,628 $89.48
10 174 Linden St Winnetka, IL X 1/18/2024 $1,050,000 12,716 $82.57
Low $31.99
High $89.48
Average $51.92
Ten tear down and vacant land sales in Winnetka have a sale price per square foot of $31.99 to $89.48 per square
foot plus in most cases, tear down costs. The sales have an average of $51.92 per square foot of land area.
Given the subject’s AE flood zone rating and size, the market value of the site, if available for development as a
buildable lot subject to the R2 zoning requirements with some needed variances, would be toward the lower end of
the midpoint of the range given current market demand and significant price appreciation of residences in Winnetka
the past five years.
Therefore, based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the value of the south 24,000 square foot lot is $50.00 per
square foot or $1.2 million.
Page 27
Page 103 of 158
ADDENDUM
Comparable Sales
Page 104 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 1
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 844 Hibbard Road Contract-Sale Date 7/30/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,100,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 9
Improvement Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 4,885 Site Data
Year Built 1924 Acres (Gross) 0.89
Condition Average Square Feet (Gross) 38,934
Exterior Quality Brick Acres (Net) 0.89
Interior Quality Good Square Feet (Net) 38,934
Parking 2 Garage Space Shape Rectangle
Bedrooms 5 Topography/Elevation Level
Bathrooms 5.1 Utilities All available
Fireplace(s) 2 Zoning R2
Amenities Patio, Pool, Pool House
Prior Sales
None in prior 3 Years
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $429.89
Source
MRED #12058179, Public Records, Listing Broker.
Page 105 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 2
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 70 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 12/18/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,350,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 27
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.02
Year Built 1954 Square Feet (Gross) 44,610
Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.02
Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 44,610
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle
Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County
Fireplace(s) 3
Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool
Prior Sales
Jul-23 $1,900,000
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $470.00
Source
MRED #12204141, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 106 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 3
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 1240 Hill Road Rd Contract Sale Date 7/18/2025
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,360,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 10
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 4,337 Acres (Gross) 0.87
Year Built 1938 Square Feet (Gross) 37,984
Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.87
Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 37,984
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular
Parking 2 Garage Spaces Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 4.1 Zoning R2
Fireplace(s) 3
Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool
Prior Sales
None is 3 years
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $544.15
Source
MRED #12349801, Public Records
Page 107 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 4
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 58 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 8/30/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,680,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length
Marketing Period (days) 15
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 8,754 Acres (Gross) 0.93
Year Built 1939 Square Feet (Gross) 40,480
Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.93
Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 40,480
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle
Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 7 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County
Fireplace(s) 4
Amenities Patio
Prior Sales
Jun-22 $2,625,000
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $306.15
Source
MRED #12094231, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 108 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 5
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 62 Woodley Road Sale Date Active
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,850,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length
Marketing Period (days) 5
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.53
Year Built 1933 Square Feet (Gross) 66,707
Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.53
Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 66,707
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular
Parking 2 Car Garage Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 6 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 4.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County
Fireplace(s) 5
Amenities Patio, Balconies
Prior Sales
Mar-07 $3,100,000
Feb-24 $2,649,000
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $570.00
Source
MRED #12429588, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 109 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 6
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 200 Linden Street Contract-Sale Date 9/30/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,057,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 15
Improvement Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 4,592 Site Data
Year Built 1923 Acres (Gross) 0.43
Condition Average Square Feet (Gross) 18,700
Exterior Quality Brick Acres (Net) 0.43
Interior Quality Good Square Feet (Net) 18,700
Parking 2 Garage Space Shape Rectangle
Bedrooms 5 Topography/Elevation Level
Bathrooms 3.1 Utilities All available
Fireplace(s) 2 Zoning R3
Amenities Deck
Prior Sales
None in prior 3 Years
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $447.95
Source
MRED #12090653, Public Records, Listing Broker.
Page 110 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 7
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 70 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 12/18/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,350,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 27
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.02
Year Built 1954 Square Feet (Gross) 44,610
Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.02
Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 44,610
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle
Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County
Fireplace(s) 3
Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool
Prior Sales
Jul-23 $1,900,000
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $470.00
Source
MRED #12204141, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 111 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 8
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 1240 Hill Road Rd Contract Sale Date 7/18/2025
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,360,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length
Marketing Period (days) 10
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 4,337 Acres (Gross) 0.87
Year Built 1938 Square Feet (Gross) 37,984
Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.87
Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 37,984
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular
Parking 2 Garage Spaces Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 4.1 Zoning R-2
Fireplace(s) 3
Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool
Prior Sales
None is 3 years
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $544.15
Source
MRED #12349801, Public Records
Page 112 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 9
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 58 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 8/30/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,680,000
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length
Marketing Period (days) 15
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 8,754 Acres (Gross) 0.93
Year Built 1939 Square Feet (Gross) 40,480
Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.93
Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 40,480
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle
Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 7 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County
Fireplace(s) 4
Amenities Patio
Prior Sales
Jun-22 $2,625,000
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $306.15
Source
MRED #12094231, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 113 of 158
ADDENDUM
Improved Comparable Sale # 10
Location Data Transaction Data
Street Address 143 Birch Street Sale Date 12/6/2024
City Winnetka Sale Price $2,149,900
State IL Property Rights Fee Simple
County Cook Financing Cash to Seller
Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length
Marketing Period (days) 4
Improvement Data Site Data
Gross Living Area (SF) 4,318 Acres (Gross) 0.43
Year Built 1922 Square Feet (Gross) 18,700
Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.43
Exterior Quality Frame Square Feet (Net) 18,700
Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular
Parking 1 Car Garage Topography/Elevation Level
Bedrooms 4 Utilities All available
Bathrooms 4.2 Zoning R3
Fireplace(s) 3
Amenities Deck, Porch
Prior Sales
None
Analysis
Price/Sq Ft $497.89
Source
MRED #12164633, Listing Broker, Public Records
Page 114 of 158
ADDENDUM
State Certification/Qualifications
Page 115 of 158
ADDENDUM
Page 116 of 158
ADDENDUM
Qualifications for John C. Satter, MAI, GAA
1997 - Present JCS Real Estate Services, Inc.
President
1992 - 1996 Wayne L. Wnek, MAI & Associates, Inc.
Real Estate Appraiser
Scope of Experience:
Mr. Satter is the President and owner of JCS Real Estate Services, Inc., a real estate appraisal firm that
provides one-to-four-unit residential appraisal services. Responsibilities include business development,
staff management, and appraisal production and review. Mr. Satter has over 32 years of experience in
the valuation of a wide variety of real property types.
Mr. Satter has broad experience in the valuation of residential, commercial, industrial and special use
real estate throughout the Chicago metropolitan area.
Mr. Satter has experience as an expert witness and has been qualified as an expert in the Circuit Courts
of Cook, Lake, DuPage, and Will Counties of Illinois, the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals, Lake and
Cook County property tax appeal boards, the Chicago Planning and Zoning Commission, the U.S. District
Court for Northern Illinois, and the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan.
Mr. Satter is a designated Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) and General Accredited Appraiser
(GAA) of the National Association of Realtors. He has been engaged in the appraisal of real estate since
1992 with experience rendering opinions of value for private clients, financial institutions, mortgage
brokers, attorneys, governmental agencies, accountants, and public corporations.
Professional Associations and Affiliations:
Appraisal Institute MAI #12452 (Awarded March 2007)
National Association of Realtors General Accredited Appraiser #4683 (Awarded January 2005)
IL Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
Illinois Coalition of Appraisal Professionals (ICAP)
Former Member of the Glencoe Zoning Board of Appeals and Liaison to the Plan Commission
Formal Education:
Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering, University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign
Specialized appraisal and real estate education, Appraisal Institute and North Shore Barrington Board of
Realtors
Page 117 of 158
ATTACHMENT B
Page 118 of 158
ATTACHMENT C
Minutes adopted 02.10.2014
WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT
JANUARY 13, 2014
Zoning Board Members Present: Joni Johnson, Chairperson
Chris Blum
Andrew Cripe
Mary Hickey
Carl Lane
Jim McCoy
Scott Myers
Zoning Board Members Absent: None
Village Staff: Michael D’Onofrio, Director of Community
Development
***
936 Sunset Rd., Case No. 14-01-V2, Robert and Susan Marren, Variations by Ordinance:
(1) Lot Area and (2) Rectangular Buildable Area
Mr. D’Onofrio read the public notice. The purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony and receive
public comment regarding a request by Robert and Susan Marren concerning variations by
Ordinance from Section 17.30.010 [Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions] of the Winnetka Zoning
Ordinance to permit Lot 2 of the proposed Marren’s Subdivision to have a lot area of 23,171.88
s.f., whereas a minimum of 24,000 s.f. is required, a variation of 828.12 s.f. (3.45%) and not provide
the minimum rectangular buildable area of 16,335 s.f.
Chairperson Johnson stated that before she swore in the witnesses, she would like to read a
statement which would be applicable to this case as well as the Birch Street case. She stated that
for those of you who were at the last meeting on December 9, 2013 you would recall that one of
the questions raised with regard to new construction was whether Cook County had passed the
Watershed Management Ordinance (“WMO”). Chairperson Johnson stated that the engineer for
the applicant stated that he did not think that the ordinance had been passed. In fact the ordinance
was passed on October 3, 2013 and would take effect May 1, 2014. She stated that the storm
water master plan which was presented to the Village Council made several recommendations
relating to the WMO. Chairperson Johnson stated that in addition, the plan discusses the issue of
“deep basements” and the implications of flooding and storm water management.
Chairperson Johnson stated that consequently, she briefly discussed with Mr. D'Onofrio that it
would helpful to have the Village staff or the Public Works Department present at the meeting at
which the Birch Street case is next presented. She stated that Susan Chen of the Public Works
Department planned to attend the Plan Commission meeting on January 22, 2014 to address storm
water issues relating to new construction and in particular, relating to the subdivision request for
Page 119 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 2
936 Sunset. Chairperson Johnson stated that meeting was supposed to take place in December,
but that for various technical reasons, the meeting was continued until January 22, 2014.
Chairperson Johnson stated that due to the inadequacy of the information presented at the meeting,
it is imperative that we obtain the input of Village staff. She stated that if this were a typical
adversarial process, they could rely on opposing parties to present expert testimony reporting their
respective positions. Chairperson Johnson stated that although they are a quasi-judicial body,
they do not typically have an adversarial presentation of evidence and that it is difficult if not
impossible for members of the Board to fill in gaps to weigh one side of the evidence, etc. She
noted that the WMO is approximately 280 pages and that she did not expect anyone on this Board
to be able to digest or understand how it would apply to the Birch Street case or other new
construction cases which may come before the Board.
Chairperson Johnson stated that she brought the matter up at this meeting since there are flood
water implications for this case. She stated that if the applicants wanted to proceed, after the
presentation of testimony if the Board members feel that storm water and flooding issues are not
adequately addressed, the case could be continued until the next meeting in order to obtain input
from the Village staff or in the form of a written report. Chairperson Johnson commented that
while the new WMO did not currently apply, it will in 3 months. She also stated that in the agenda
report, the architects for the Marrens stated that they did not believe that any new construction will
be able to have a basement and that there has not been a final determination in that regard.
Chairperson Johnson also stated that the basement issue may not come up at this meeting, but that
it is relevant. She then asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised by the Board
at this time.
Chairperson Johnson swore in those that would be speaking on this case.
John Ballack of Timm T. Martin Architects introduced himself to the Board and stated that he
would be representing the property owners. He informed the Board that the property owners are
seeking to subdivide their property on the corner of Higginson and Sunset and that they are asking
for two variations. Mr. Ballack stated that the first variation is to allow for a minimum lot area
for the south portion to be under the 24,000 square foot minimum. He stated that since the
rectangular building area of the southern lot would be compromised in doing so, they are
requesting that the Board allow that to pass as well.
Mr. Ballack then stated that with regard to the past history of the lot pre-1976, it was known as the
Seabury’s Consolidation and that it used to be two lots which are identical to the proposal. He
added that it is documented in the records and that the property was owned by John and Charlene
Seabury. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that the reason behind that consolidation was to allow
a tennis court to straddle both properties and stated that the subdivision would bring the property
back to its historical intent. He noted that the corner lot would be fully compliant with zoning
and that the south lot would be complaint except for two issues. Mr. Ballack then stated that it is
their hope that the Board passed the request and asked if there were any questions.
Ms. Hickey stated that in terms of the ordinance, it states that the rectangular building area is
16,335 square feet. She then asked what is the rectangular building area.
Page 120 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 3
Mr. Ballack stated that with regard to the old ordinance, it was designed for irregularly shaped lots
such as this. He then stated that one side has to be 90 feet and that they would have to fit that
shape within the boundaries of the irregularly shaped lot. Mr. Ballack stated that with regard to
the agenda report, there is a diagram drawn (on page 3) which showed how the corners fall outside
of the south property lines. He indicated that it is close, but that it did not fit.
Ms. Hickey referred to the rectangular building area out of the proposed parcel.
Mr. Ballack responded that they did not explore the exact number. He then stated that if they
were to take 10 feet off of the bottom of the rectangular area, it would fit. Mr. Ballack informed
the Board that there are two scenarios shown and that the long rectangle at the top showed the area
up and down on the page.
Mr. Blum informed the applicants that one thing that the Board considers is whether there are
conforming alternatives. He then stated that after looking at the proposal, he asked the applicants
if they explored conforming alternatives and that it appeared as though lot 1 is significantly over
the minimum lot size. Mr. Blum also asked if they could divide it 10 feet to the north and have
two conforming lots.
Mr. Ballack responded that they did explore conforming alternatives and that if they were to move
the boundary line north, they would not have a compliant lot depth because it is a corner lot. He
noted that the established north corner lot is to be legally compliant.
Chairperson Johnson asked the applicants if they were to do Mr. Blum’s suggestion, could they
seek a variation for the corner lot.
Mr. Ballack confirmed that they could, but that it would be best to maintain the corner lot as close
as possible and to focus on the south lot. He also stated that unless there is input from the
neighbors, they would welcome alternatives and that they are flexible.
Mr. Cripe asked if they were to take the other approach and ask for a variation on the corner lot,
would that address the rectangular issue.
Mr. Ballack agreed that it would work on the north lot and that the minimum rectangular building
area would fit if they were to adjust the north boundary. He indicated that it is very close as it is.
Mr. Ballack reiterated that they would have two noncompliant lots, but that alternative would
satisfy the minimum building area.
Mr. Lane asked if it would hang over the lot line of the west property.
Mr. Ballack noted that only one side has to be a 90 feet minimum. He indicated that while they
could play around with the shape, there is no way of telling that here.
Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. D'Onofrio for his input.
Mr. D'Onofrio informed the Board that the issue was discussed with the applicants in terms of
Page 121 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 4
moving the lot line further north. He stated that at the same time, they would need zoning relief
for lot 1 on the corner lot. Mr. D'Onofrio noted that it is important for the Board to understand
that this buildable area concept came about in large part because there are so many lots with
different topography like ravines where there is a lot area of “X” and 30% of it is table land and
70% of it is on the slope. He stated that therefore, in order to take advantage of the entire lot area,
from a practical point of view, it would have to take up the tableland and have the home “cheek to
jowl.” Mr. D'Onofrio referred to an adequate space on a similar plane to build a new single family
home. He stated that is the reason behind creating buildable area. Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that
this situation is a little bit different in that they are not dealing with steep topography. Mr.
D'Onofrio then stated that in connection with a large flag lot, a significant portion of the lot area
is not usable or buildable. He stated that it is a proportionality issue of how to build a home on a
lot which has steep topography that fits on the tableland.
Chairperson Johnson referred the Board to Attachment A in the packet of materials and the Village
Council and ordinance recitals which go through quite a bit of detail as to why the ordinance was
enacted. She stated that you can see the rationale for the change in 1999. Chairperson Johnson
noted that there didn’t appear to be many standards governing subdivisions, but that one identified
in the Plan Commission agenda packet is that subdivisions should not result in the creation of side
lot lines abutting rear lot lines.
Mr. Blum stated that it is the ordinance.
Mr. D'Onofrio stated that those criteria are for the Plan Commission to consider when looking at
subdivision requests.
Chairperson Johnson stated that while it is not relevant in that the Board is not ruling on the
subdivision request per se, the Board has to have an understanding of the issues raised by
subdivision requests.
Mr. D'Onofrio referred the Board to Section 16.12.010 of the Village code which is the subdivision
regulations. He read the following statement: “that subdivisions shall not result in the creation
of one or more lots which have a side lot line which abut rear lot lines.” Mr. D'Onofrio stated that
is what would be happening as a result of the subdivision request. He stated that with regard to
lots, most of the time, there are side yards abutting side yards, but in that case, they could end up
with a rear yard abutting a side yard and that there may not be a positive impact.
Mr. Myers stated that he is struggling with regard to how to apply the first criteria to a subdivision
which is that the property cannot yield a reasonable return. He stated that in this instance, there
is a property that can yield a reasonable return and that if it was divided, there would be a totally
different equation in terms of that term.
Mr. D'Onofrio responded that it is a little bigger scale in this case and that with regard to reasonable
return, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on a decision as to whether this should
remain one lot or be re-subdivided into two lots.
Chairperson Johnson stated that is why it was discussed with Mr. D’Onofrio earlier as to whether
Page 122 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 5
to go forward with the consideration of this case until both the Plan Commission and the Village
Council make a decision on the subdivision because if they do not go ahead with the subdivision,
then the applicants would obviously not need a variance since the Board is to provide an advisory
opinion. She then stated that while she felt uncomfortable with that, it was Mr. D'Onofrio's
suggestion that they go ahead.
Mr. Lane asked if it was possible to have access off of Sunset and have the front yard off of Sunset
for the south lot.
Mr. Ballack indicated that he did not believe so. He referred to the current home on the corner
and stated that they would have to put an easement across the north lot. Mr. Ballack then stated
that in looking at the survey, it showed the existing home and that on the west boundary, for the
west property line, there is only 14½ feet which would be very tight to put in an easement to allow
access to the south lot. He then referred the Board to page 7 of the materials.
Mr. Lane asked the applicants if they considered trying to attach a piece of 916 Higginson to make
the lot 24,000 square feet.
Mr. Ballack responded that they did not.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there was any other possibility to subdivide and sell part of the lot
to 916 Higginson.
Mr. Ballack stated that they are only working within their property.
Chairperson Johnson asked the applicants if they have a rough drawing of what the home would
look like with a driveway on Higginson and that she assumed that the garage would be in the front.
Mr. Ballack stated that on the east side, a hypothetical home was designed to show realistically
how a home could be placed within the lot. He stated that it would have a side loaded driveway
and referred the Board to page 18 which showed the existing lot with the existing home and the
south lot with a hypothetical home. Mr. Ballack also stated that the driveway would be off of
Higginson and that a driveway apron would be created. He then informed the Board that a four
car garage is shown and that it could be a three car garage. Mr. Ballack added that the front of
the home would face northeast.
Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. Ballack if his firm is working on the project across the street as
their sign is there. She also asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Lane asked how big the hypothetical home is. He referred to the calculation of the
approximate square footage of the first floor being 4,200 square feet.
Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they submitted a complete zoning study in the packet of
materials. He also stated that the total square footage is 7,144 and that half of that would be the
first floor.
Page 123 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 6
Ms. Hickey asked if they could put restrictions on the square footage of the proposed home.
Chairperson Johnson stated that it could be on the deed.
Mr. Ballack stated that a home of that size would be sufficient for that lot.
Chairperson Johnson asked what is the square footage of the home across the street on a similar
lot.
Mr. Ballack stated that he did not know.
Mr. Cripe indicated that it looked like the front of the home would be staring into a backyard which
he commented seemed awkward.
Mr. D'Onofrio stated that in connection with that standard on subdivisions, that showed what that
issue is.
Mr. Cripe asked if there is no way around that issue and referred to the lot having a different shape.
Mr. Ballack responded that there is and that the diagram represented a random example case
showing a home to be placed there. He noted that his firm was not retained to design that house
and that it was done as a courtesy.
Chairperson Johnson stated that another issue is that even if the subdivision goes through, with
regard to the variations, there is nothing barring a future owner from asking for more variations.
She added that 915 Higginson is almost the exact same shaped lot.
Bonnie Rickard identified herself as the property owner and informed the Board that the square
footage is half that size.
Mr. Myers stated that the applicants are making it clear that they are only showing the possibility.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Blum stated that it would be helpful for the applicants to run through the factors applied to
variations and their position on the standards.
Mr. Cripe also asked for the applicants to state the reason they cannot get reasonable return on the
property as it exists.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. McCoy stated that the presented option is purely graphic and that the ordinance did not allow
for the front door of a home to look into someone’s backyard. He stated that if they were to grant
the proposal, they would be creating another problem for a future owner of that lot. Mr. McCoy
questioned how they do that to avoid violating the ordinance.
Page 124 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 7
Mr. Ballack stated that he would like to stress that the home is a hypothetical home and that the
zoning code would prevent that.
Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Ballack to inform the Board where they would put the front door on a home
on this lot as a reasonable person where it would not violate the ordinance.
Mr. Myers stated that they would end up violating some zoning regulation such as side yard and
front yard direction with regard to the way the home is facing. He indicated that you would either
have an extremely small home which fit on the lot and met all of the criteria or there would have
to be variations on one of those dimensions.
Mr. Ballack stated that architecturally speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat and that
they can make it work. He stated that the home would be oriented perpendicular to the north
setback and that the main mass of the home would be to the north. Mr. Ballack added that the
front door would face due east on Higginson.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised
by the Board at this time. She then swore in the property owners.
Bob Marren introduced himself and his wife to the Board and stated that they have a history in
Winnetka with a lot of family in Winnetka. He also stated that they are committed to the
community and that they have six children who were raised here. Mr. Marren stated that prior to
this home, they lived at 787 Sunset.
Mr. Marren informed the Board that when his wife’s parents looked for a home to downsize to,
they had a hard time finding a smaller home. He stated that they were looking for a home with a
master bedroom on the first floor and that there were not many homes which accommodated that
regardless of the price tag and that they finally found a home on Birch which fit their needs. Mr.
Marren then stated that the prior owner of their home passed the home to their daughter and that
only one family lived in the home.
Mr. Marren stated that when they looked at the set of old plans for the property; they discovered
that it had been two lots. He confirmed that they have no plans to build a home on the property
to sell and that the hypothetical rendering is not what he would recommend. Mr. Marren also
stated that in no way was the architect charged with coming up with a home for that lot and that
the rendering was only done to show that a home could be built. He added that they have no
immediate plans to do anything and that the situation seemed like a nice idea, to revert the property
to what it had previously been and to be in conformity with the neighborhood.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any questions.
Mr. McCoy stated that the Board is charged with the eight standards to be answered and that they
have to see if the request meets the standards. He then referred to the very first standard of
reasonable return, as well as unique circumstances. Mr. McCoy described the big one in this case
is whether the request would alter the character of the locality. He indicated that while the
Page 125 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 8
property owners obviously care about that, they may want to sell the property in the future to
someone who may not have the same history as the property owners. Mr. McCoy stated that he
would be more swayed if they were able to get past the first three standards in deciding whether
or not to approve the request.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions not relating to the standards. She
noted that the home and the proposed south lot are in the flood plain and referred to the base flood
elevation and that most of the lot is in the flood plain and asked if they had any flood detention on
the property.
Mrs. Marren responded that they have two sump pumps. She informed the Board that they do get
standing water in the back.
Mr. Marren informed the Board that there is a creek in the back of the property.
Chairperson Johnson stated that they understood that there is a lot of water in that area. She then
asked if the subdivision is approved and the variations are approved and a home is built at some
point, will that exacerbate the flooding on the Marren’s existing property.
Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they did look into that and that they have had many
conversations with Susan Chen who walked them through the process and the minimum lot grade
formula to see whether they can build on a lot in the flood plain. He stated that you take the
survey and average of spot elevations on the survey and that if those average lot grade numbers
are less than the calculated number in the formula, then you cannot build a basement. Mr. Ballack
informed the Board that the calculation for the lot with the subdivision is 622.67 feet at the base
elevation. He also stated that the average grade calculation is 622.30 feet which meant that you
cannot build a basement, not even on a pad. Mr. Ballack stated that left one option and that the
south lot would have to do a floodable crawl space which is what was done at 931 Sunset.
Chairperson Johnson stated that if a home is built according to code and that there is a crawl space
underneath with no basement, did that mean that the property owners would be in no worse of a
position than they are now.
Mr. Ballack confirmed that is correct.
Mrs. Marren stated that the alternative is that if there is not a subdivision, there could be a huge
home on the property and that a basement could be allowed.
It was stated that there would be a negative impact on the flood plain issues.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Myers commented that it is unfair to the property owners to ask them to reply to the standards
now. He stated that the applicants got a sense that the Board is struggling and that the Board is
charged to address the eight standards to say that there is some rationale. Mr. Myers referred to
the proposed zoning change which met these standards and that for some of the standards, there is
no question in that there would be no hazard from fire or impact on the light and air of adjacent
Page 126 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 9
properties. He then stated that it is really the first three standards that the Board is struggling with
in regard to how to take a reasonable request and put the standards and rationale together.
Chairperson Johnson stated that the property owners signed the standards form. She then stated
that if they are not prepared to address the standards, the case could be continued in order for them
to do so.
Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they would like to decline to address the standards, regroup
and discuss the issues in more detail. He then asked for a continuance.
Chairperson Johnson asked the Board if they should ask the neighbors to come back or let them
speak. She then asked for a vote on letting the neighbors speak.
Joseph Szokol of 976 Sunset stated that everyone who is here is busy and that they are ready to
speak.
Chairperson Johnson stated that she is not sure that the basis to continue the case is adequate. She
then stated that the Board would let the neighbors speak and that they also have the opportunity to
attend the Plan Commission meeting and if this case is continued, to come back before the Board.
Mr. Szokol then stated that in connection with the two variations the applicants are asking for,
there may be more in the future for a property which is 100% in the flood plain. He described the
land as too stressed and that to allow potentially another home is outrageous. Mr. Szokol referred
to the fact that while there are no plans to build a home, there are designs for a home which he
described as disingenuous. He stated that when it rained, there is flooding which is the most
compelling reason. Mr. Szokol also stated that if there is no compelling reason to make a zoning
variation, then it should not be done and that to allow the request is outrageous.
Bill Krucks, 920 Sunset, informed the Board that he has been a resident for 35 years and that he
lives across the street from the property. He stated that he would like to have the opportunity to
help the Board and give insight to the neighborhood. Mr. Krucks described the elephant in the
room as storm water. He then distributed information to the Board for their review which
contained photographs of a rainstorm in April and June 2013 with flooding in the streets. Mr.
Krucks then referred to an emergency incident in the neighborhood and that the water was so
severe, that emergency vehicles had a difficult time coming down Sunset.
Mr. Krucks then stated that with regard to background, he stated that it is not personal, but that in
the neighborhood, they are concerned every time there is new construction which asks for
variations. He also referred to the connection between parts of the ordinance, especially as it
concerned GFA and the mass of the home, which is the reason why the size and mass of homes
are restricted. Mr. Krucks stated that in connection with storm water, the stress on infrastructure
on the neighborhood is one of the factors which goes into the ordinance. He then stated that in
connection with rain causing severe flooding and property damage, the Village engaged Mr.
Christopher Burke to study drainage systems which dated to September 2009 and which was
presented to the Village Council. Mr. Krucks informed the Board that Steve Saunders identified
Birch, Sunset, DeWindt and White Oak as the areas which have the most severe area for flooding
Page 127 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 10
in the Village due to the watershed of the Skokie ditch. He noted that the map of the Skokie ditch
in the information dated back to 1864 and that it was referred to as the waterway in the combination
of the lots in 1976. Mr. Krucks stated that the entire storm sewer systems fill with 2 inches of
rain in the neighborhood and that the water then floated over land.
Mr. Krucks stated that the Burke study identified a limiting factor in the area as the area where the
Skokie ditch runs open and closed and that it is open all the way to Sunset where it attempted to
enter a 24 inch storm sewer but cannot. He also stated that the Burke study found that the
waterway was not maintained and that it is filled with debris, fencing material and silt and that as
a result, it backed up beginning at Birch and continued through the neighborhood. Mr. Krucks
also stated that the Burke study recommended improvements to alleviate the problem and that the
construction of a brand new storm sewer system never occurred.
Mr. McCoy stated that if they were to grant the variations limiting a future owner of the existing
property from building a 14,000 square foot home on that property and also limiting a future home
on the property to the south from having a basement, he asked Mr. Krucks if the question he is
asking is for the Board to either approve the variations or if it is his testimony that he wanted to
keep things the way they are. He indicated that a new owner could tear down the home and build
a 14,000 square foot home which would add more problems.
Mr. Krucks stated that the request should be rejected because there is nothing worse that can
happen now. He stated that a new home would result in the loss of permeable surface. Mr.
Krucks informed the Board that the Higginson storm water measured 8 inches and that in the Burke
study; it was recommended that no more water be brought to the Skokie ditch since it would
otherwise increase flooding downstream to the rest of the neighborhood.
Ms. Hickey asked with regard to the new storm water solution by the Village, would Ms. Chen be
covering the impact of that at the Plan Commission meeting.
Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that he did not know, but that they would be dealing with the issue specific
to this area and plan.
Mamie Case, 901 Higginson, stated that as far as the Willow Road project, it superseded the Burke
plan. She stated that if it occurred, it would be their only relief from the current situation. Ms.
Case described it as still hypothetical and so far out in the future like 2018. She then stated that
as it currently stands, there are no additional pumping stations at the DeWindt corner or relief other
than the Willow Road project for the neighborhood and that she did not know when it would be
put in. Ms. Case stated that until then, she described the stress on the area as crazy. She also
stated that the Skokie ditch is an open waterway and that as you drive off of Sunset, that is an open
waterway of the Skokie ditch and part of another reclamation district and that any request would
have to be approved through other municipal channels.
Mr. D'Onofrio noted that it is controlled by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.
Ms. Case then stated that is why you cannot face the home to the spur on Sunset because of the
open ditch there. She stated that it is part of the storm sewer system and that the general runoff
Page 128 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 11
goes there.
Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. D’Onofrio who is responsible for maintaining the Skokie ditch.
The audience responded that it is the Village’s responsibility.
Ms. Case went on to state that the open land now served as overflow for storm water management
for the Skokie ditch. She stated that the applicants are proposing variations to create a buildable
lot where the lot elevation is so far below the base flood plain, even FEMA standards did not apply.
Ms. Case indicated that you would have to build a raised home and put in storm water management
for the general runoff. She questioned how you can put storm water management for an interior
nonconforming lot when the runoff to the Skokie ditch is part of storm water management.
Chairperson Johnson stated that Ms. Chen would address the issue with the Plan Commission.
She noted that the hypothetical home did not show any storm water or compensatory storage which
would be required even without a basement.
Ms. Case then asked how the Board can rule on variations for something which is not ever going
to be built.
Chairperson Johnson responded that it might be built and that the Board is to render an advisory
opinion. She also stated that based on what the Board has heard from everyone, they realize that
there is a water problem and that they see evidence of it.
Ms. Case then stated that with regard to the property being sold as a whole and whether a 14,000
square foot home could be built, that is sheer speculation. She stated that she would prefer that
the lot stay together and that they would welcome a 14,000 square foot home versus two homes,
one of which would be nonconforming on a corner interior lot. Ms. Case noted that the math
calculations from the proposal page reveal that if they were to add square footage from the
proposed nonconforming home and the current home, they would still have over 14,000 square
feet of space built. She concluded by stating that in granting the variation, some of that space
would straddle the flood plain and infringe on the surrounding properties and that she did not see
the benefit of granting the variations.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments.
Mike Klein, 955 Sunset, asked if the existing lot would be brought into conformity with regard to
detention.
Mrs. Marren responded that it would stay the same.
Chairperson Johnson stated that if the south lot is developed, it would have to be addressed.
Mr. Klein then asked if there was no requirement for the existing home to be brought up to the
code if the subdivision is approved.
Chairperson Johnson stated that only new construction needed to address compensatory storage
Page 129 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 12
and detention.
Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that he is not aware of any subdivision where the existing lot and home
is required to make storm water changes if there is already an improved lot.
Chairperson Johnson indicated that they could make that a condition of approval. She asked if
there were any other comments.
Linda Krucks, 920 Sunset, informed the Board that she took most of the photographs which were
distributed to the Board and that they live to the east of the property owners. She described them
as lovely people. Mrs. Krucks stated that the issue is incomprehensible since they have lived
there for so long. She then referred to the property owners and the Sholten’s property to the west
as Lake Sunset when there is two inches of rain. Mrs. Krucks also stated that with regard to the
property line that the property owners and the Sholtens share, all of the neighbors here are in
agreement that they are opposed to the variations. She then stated that in connection with the
property owners and the Sholtens, the Sholtens have a crawl space which is floodable and that they
have no basement. Mrs. Krucks informed the Board that the Sholtens live at 956 Sunset which is
directly to the west.
Mrs. Sholten informed the Board that the home was built in 1947 without a basement.
Chairperson Johnson stated that they would like to hear from the 915 Higginson property owner.
She then stated that if the proposal went through, they would have a driveway and a narrow street.
Bonnie Rickard stated that there would be no way to turn around and that the 3,300 or 3,400 square
foot home was built in 1970.
Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments.
Mrs. Marren informed the Board that they get water in their backyard and that they have lived in
the home for 7 years. She also stated that they had water once in the basement when there was
no electricity. Mrs. Marren then informed the Board that builders have contacted them and that
if they sold their property, a home could be built on the lot which would measure 14,000 square
feet without any variation.
Chairperson Johnson also stated that the applicants may be able to add onto the home without a
variation. She asked if there were any other comments. Chairperson Johnson stated that the
Board has to decide on the motion to continue the case to the next meeting.
Mr. Myers moved to continue the case for 936 Sunset until the next meeting date. Mr. Blum
seconded the motion.
Mr. McCoy stated that when the case is continued, the applicants are to have addressed the
standards.
Mr. Myers stated that the only reason the case is being continued is so that the applicants can
Page 130 of 158
Final Minutes
January 13, 2014 Page 13
address the standards.
Chairperson Johnson stated that the applicants had the opportunity to address the standards, they
signed the application and chose not to address them in writing or orally and take no responsibility.
She stated that she is in favor of a continuance only because they will have the benefit of the Plan
Commission meeting and Village staff input on the issues. Chairperson Johnson then stated that
when the applicants address the standards when they come back, they should look at the backyards
on Sunset, the two homes to the west, the open backyards to the south with no structure there, the
issue about changing the character of the neighborhood if the variations are granted and the home
which would be built on the south lot. She also stated that they should address changing the
character of the neighborhood by adding a home on the south lot.
Mr. Cripe asked Mr. D’Onofrio if the applicants can withdraw their petition and come up with
specific plans, without prejudice to the subsequent petition.
Mr. D'Onofrio responded as long as no action is taken, the applicants can withdraw and resubmit
their application.
Mr. Cripe indicated that it may be worth considering.
Chairperson Johnson stated that the applicants need to decide before the Plan Commission meeting
unless there is a Plan Commission continuance. She then asked if there were any other questions.
No additional questions were raised by the Board at this time.
A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 7 to 0.
AYES: Blum, Cripe, Hickey, Johnson, Lane, McCoy, Myers
NAYS: None
***
Respectfully submitted,
Antionette Johnson
Page 131 of 158
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
SUBJECT: 986 GREEN BAY ROAD – SIT STILL KIDS SALON
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-18-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider an
application submitted by Sit Still Kids Salon, (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of a commercial
space located at 986 Green Bay Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow a hair salon to occupy the Subject
Property. The property is currently owned by 986 Green Bay, LLC.
The Applicant has filed an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 17.56
[Special Uses] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to permit a hair salon in the C-2 General Retail Commercial
Overlay District at the Subject Property. The Applicant is seeking the Special Use Permit to allow a children’s
hair salon franchise specializing in haircuts and styling for kids.
A sign has been posted on the Subject Property and a website notice has been posted on the Village
website indicating the time and date of the Plan Commission public hearing. A mail notice has been sent
to property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property. As of the date of this memo, staff has not
received any written comments from the public regarding this application.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is the northernmost commercial space on the first floor of a three-story mixed-use
building at 976-986 Green Bay Road, which is located on the west side of Green Bay Road between Merrill
Street and Scott Avenue in the Hubbard Woods Business District. The commercial space is approximately
1,377 square feet with approximately 26 feet of street frontage along Green Bay Road and was most
recently occupied by Aqualta retail boutique. The overall building also contains City Kids Dental, Robbins
Architecture, and residential units above.
The Subject Property is located within the Village’s Commercial Overlay District, which allows non-retail
uses, such as barber shops, nail salons, and hair salons; however, the Zoning Ordinance requires that they
be evaluated by the Plan Commission and Village Council as a special use.
Figures 1 through 6 on the following pages identify the Subject Property and the proposed location of Sit
Still Kids Salon.
Page 1
Page 132 of 158
Proposed Location
of Sit Still Kids Salon
Figure 1 – 986 Green Bay Road – GIS Map
Proposed Location
of Sit Still Kids Salon
Figure 2 – Aerial Location Map
Page 2
Page 133 of 158
Proposed Location
of Sit Still Kids Salon
Figure 3 – 986 Green Bay Road – Street Frontage of Proposed Kids Hair Salon
Figure 4 – 986 Green Bay Road – Street Frontage of Proposed Kids Hair Salon
Page 3
Page 134 of 158
Proposed Location
of Sit Still Kids Salon
Figure 5 – 986 Green Bay Road – Neighboring Uses to South - City Kids Dental and Robbins
Architecture
Figure 6 – 986 Green Bay Road – Neighboring Uses to North – Aqualta boutique and Mattie M
boutique
Page 4
Page 135 of 158
COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT BACKGROUND
The Overlay District was established in 1987 out of concern about the viability of the business districts as
a whole if non-retail occupancies were allowed to proliferate and occupy significant areas within retail
shopping districts. At the time of adoption there was a concern about the possible proliferation of real
estate offices and financial institutions.
The Village Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the Overlay District and its restrictions on non-
retail uses as being:
“to encourage retailing of comparison shopping goods and personal services compatible with such
retailing on ground floor in order to encourage a clustering of such uses, to provide for a wide variety of
retail shops and expose such shops to maximum foot traffic, while keeping such traffic in concentrated
(yet well distinguished) channels throughout the district.”
Since its adoption in 1987, the Overlay District has been revised on more than one occasion to alter district
boundaries, or to modify the types of uses which are permitted within each district. The most recent
amendment occurred on April 4, 2019, when the Village Council adopted MC-01-2019, amending the
Zoning Ordinance regarding uses and regulations in the three commercial districts, including amendments
to the Overlay District and the standards used to evaluate a special use.
HUBBARD WOODS BUSINESS DISTRICTS OVERLAY BOUNDARIES
A map depicting the zoning classifications of the Hubbard Woods Business District is included as Figure 7. The
Subject Property is highlighted yellow.
Gray areas indicate the underlying C-2 General Retail Commercial zoning, which permits by right a relatively
broad array of uses, including various retail uses, along with a number of non-retail uses such as professional
offices, financial service firms, medical offices and the like.
Red crosshatch areas represent those areas subject to the restrictions of the Commercial Overlay District. The
boundaries of the Overlay District are established along certain public streets and extend for a depth of 50 feet
from the front property line.
Subject
Property
Figure 7 – Hubbard Woods Business District
Page 5
Page 136 of 158
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST
The Applicant is proposing a hair salon specializing in haircuts for kids in a vacant commercial space on
the first floor of the building. As noted earlier, the space the Applicant is proposing to occupy is the
northernmost space of the building, which measures approximately 1,377 square feet. The hair salon
would offer premium haircut services for children in addition to providing special accommodations for
children with sensitivity to the haircut experience. As explained by the Applicant in the attached
application materials provided in Attachment A, some retail offerings would be available including hair
products, gifts, and small toys in addition to a small party room in the rear of the commercial space that
would host occasional special events. The Applicant estimates that there would be an average of three
special events per month, based on estimates from other franchise owners.
The salon’s business hours would be between 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays (excluding Tuesdays,
when the business would be closed), 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and 11:00 am to 4:00 pm on
Sundays. The salon would have up to seven employees at any given time with an estimation of
approximately three employees during non-peak hours. The Applicant estimates that a typical
appointment visit would last 30 to 45 minutes with the salon averaging between 12 to 15 haircuts per
day. The Applicant anticipates that the event space would host occasional special events with a volume
of 10 attendees, creating a maximum volume of 38 people between employees, haircut customers, and
event attendees.
The Applicant has also provided an explanation of their expected parking impact, which is based on the
employee and customer estimates in the application. The parking requirements are approximately five
total cars during regular business hours, based off figures of two haircuts per hour and 30 minute to 45
minute cycle times for a haircut along with three employee vehicles and two customer vehicles. For less
frequent peak business hours, the business could have as many as ten vehicles with six employee vehicles
and four customers vehicles. A business day with peak-hours and a special event would have a vehicle
parking volume of approximately 12 vehicles, with some of the children being dropped off by parents
according to the Applicant. The Applicant indicates that customers and employees would utilize the
Hubbard Woods Public Parking Garage, as well as on-street parking on Green Bay Road, Merrill Street,
and Tower Court.
Figure 8 below is a floor plan provided by the Applicant representing the layout of the proposed space.
Figure 8 – Excerpt of Proposed Floor Plan
Page 6
Page 137 of 158
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW
The Applicant has submitted an application for a sign permit that is tentatively scheduled for consideration
by the Design Review Board on October 16, 2025. With the exception of signage, the Applicant has
indicated that it has no plans to alter the exterior of the building.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW / FINDINGS
The “Purpose” section of Chapter 17.56 Special Uses, states the following regarding special uses:
It is recognized that there are special types of uses which because of their specific characteristics
in relationship to uses permitted by right in a particular district, or the services which they provide,
cannot be properly permitted by right in a particular district without consideration, in each case,
of the impact of such uses upon neighboring land, or of the public need for such uses at a particular
location.
A land use classified as a special use is an allowed land use as long as the Applicant can demonstrate that
the proposed use in its proposed specific location meets the applicable standards for granting special use
approval.
Section 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance provides a series of twelve (12) standards for the evaluation of
Special Use applications within the Commercial Overlay District, which provides a framework for
evaluation by the Plan Commission. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a
narrative addressing how this proposal complies with the twelve (12) standards. (See Attachment A)
Following conclusion of public comment and Commission discussion, a Commission member may
choose to make the following motion:
I make a motion that:
The Plan Commission recommends approval [denial] of the requested special use to allow the
Applicant, Sit Still Kids Salon, to operate a hair salon at 986 Green Bay Road within the C-2
Commercial Overlay District, based on the following findings of fact:
“The hair salon (the “Special Use”) is [is not] consistent with the Standards for granting of Special
Use Permits in the Commercial Overlay District, which are as follows:
1. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Special Use will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare;
2. The Special Use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor
substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
3. The establishment of Special Use will not impede the normal and orderly development or
improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district
or districts of concern;
4. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which
minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways;
5. Adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the
operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided;
6. The Special Use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other
village ordinances and codes;
Page 7
Page 138 of 158
7. The proposed special use at the proposed location will encourage, facilitate and enhance the
continuity, concentration, and pedestrian nature of the area in a manner similar to that of retail
uses;
8. The location of the proposed special use along a block frontage shall provide for a minimum
interruption in the existing and potential continuity and concentration of the retail uses along the
block’s frontage;
9. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for display windows, provided that
the street facing windows remain open and transparent as viewed from the sidewalk into the tenant
space. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for facades, signage and
lighting similar in nature and compatible with that provided by retail uses;
10. If the proposed special use provides multi-use areas, such as retail merchandise areas, restaurant
dining areas, general office space, private offices, reception areas, or employee work areas, any
proposed retail merchandise area or restaurant dining area shall be concentrated and located
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and clearly visible from the street in such a fashion as to invite
customers to browse or dine;
11. If a proposed new building contemplates a mix of retail, office and service type uses, the minimum
frontage for each retail use adjacent to the sidewalk shall be 20 feet with a minimum gross floor
area of 400 square feet. In addition, such retail space shall be devoted to active retail
merchandising which maintain typical and customary hours of operation; and
12. The proposed location and operation of the proposed special use shall not significantly
diminish the availability of parking for district clientele wishing to patronize existing retail
businesses.”
The Commission’s recommendation is subject to no conditions [the following conditions]:
1. [Insert conditions…]
As noted above, the Commission may also wish to consider if there are any conditions it may want to
place on the facility’s operation.
This request is subject to final approval by the Village Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Page 8
Page 139 of 158
ATTACHMENT A
Village of Winnetka
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – C2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY 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
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
C-2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
Case No.__ _ __ __
Property Information
986 Green Bay Road, Winnetka IL 60093
Site Address:________________________________________________________________________________
Children's Hair Care Services
Proposed type of occupancy:___________________________________________________________________
Applicant Information Name:_Sit Still Kids Salon____
Address:_986 Green Bay Road____________________
Jenn Epstein
Primary Contact:__________________________
City, State, ZIP:_Winnetka, IL 60093______________
847-512-3191
Phone No._______________________________
jepstein@hoffmanncre.com
Email:___________________________________
Applicant Signature:_____________________________
08/12/2025
Date:___________________________________
Attorney Information
Name:_Hecht Schondorf LLC Architect Information
Primary Contact:__Adam Hecht___________________ Name:_Mason Miller Architect_
Address:_900 Skokie Blvd., Suite 104_______________
Mason Miller
Primary Contact:_________________________
City, State, ZIP:_Northbrook, IL 60062 ____________ Address:________________________________ _
Phone No._312-878-1206___________________ City, State, Zip:_______________________
Email:_ahecht@hechtschondorf.com_____________ Phone No._847-920-8071__________________
Email:_mason@masonmillerarchitect.com
Property Owner Acknowledgment
986 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL
I hereby certify that I am the owner of the property located at ____________________, and have provided the
attached proof of ownership. (address)
Sit Still Kids Salon
I consent to the filing of an application for a Special Use Permit by______________________________________.
(Applicant name)
Property Owner Signature:_ 08/12/2025
Date:___________________________________
Printed Name: ________________________________
Page 3 of 4
Page 140 of 158
Special Use Permit Application
Business Description: Sit Still Kids Salon is a U.S.-based children’s hair salon franchise
specializing in professional haircuts and styling for kids of all ages, differentiated by its fresh,
modern, approach. Founded in 2007, the company operates upscale, family-friendly, salons
across the country. Services include basic haircut offerings such as haircuts, braids, curls, updos,
in addition to other, more unique, offerings such as glitter tattoos, sparkle strands, and fun
offerings(e.g., “BFF packages” where friends go together to get their hair braided together).
The brand is designed to foster an inclusive environment that eases children’s salon experiences.
Sit Still features a sign-in process that allows parents to share if their child needs additional care
(e.g., sensory needs, tablet or no tablet, etc.), making it a personalized and premium salon
experience for parents. The store also offers high quality retail offerings, which include hair care
products as well as fun toys and gifts for kids.
Brit and Chris Jordan have purchased franchise rights to the Sit Still brand across all of
Chicagoland, and are targeting the Northshore to open their first, and flagship, location.
Operational Overview:
The intended hours of operation are:
a. Weekdays (excl. Tuesdays, when the business is closed): 10am – 6pm
b. Saturdays: 10am – 5pm
c. Sundays: 11am – 4pm
There will up to 7 employees in store (6 salon artists + 1 front desk employee) at any one time.
During non-peak times, there will generally be 3 employees in the store at a given time. A typical
appointment takes between 30 and 45 minutes, depending on if any add-on features are
supplemented to hair cut treatment(s). Sit Still averages between 12 and 15 haircuts per day,
spread out over the ~7 hours of operation (or approximately 2 per hour).
Occasionally, and particularly on weekends, the Sit Still space will have an area available for
customers to host birthday parties and similar events, each typically hosting ~10 children. When
parties are run concurrently with salon operations, the number of people in the store at any one
time would be, at most: 7 employees, 6 haircut customers, 10 party goers, 15 parents
=38individuals.
Page 141 of 158
Conformance with Special Use Standards:
1) The salon will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or
general warfare of those around it. The salon is a family-friendly, safe, environment where
memories are made.
2) Nothing will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, as
the salon is a self-contained operation that will not interfere with neighboring businesses.
3) For the same reasons, SSK will not impede the normal and orderly development or
improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity.
4) Measures will be taken to provide ingress or egress that minimize pedestrian and vehicular
traffic congestion. The majority of customers (parents) book by appointment through an app,
which helps promote efficiency and ensures backlog and congestion are minimized. We will
encourage our customers to use the parking garage to ensure they have a smoother experience
getting into the store.
5) Adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the
operation of the business will be provided for. The salon requires one wash basin, which will
connect to the existing drainage offered through the existing, ADA-compliant, bathroom. And
customers will find ample parking available through street-side parking on Green Bay Road
and/or at the Hubbard Woods Metra Station Parking Deck. This, in context with the
aforementioned info around operations (e.g., 30-45 min cycle times, and averaging 2 cuts per
hour) means the typical parking necessary to run operations would be 3 employee cars + 2
customer cars = 5 total cars, and that peak operations (less frequent in nature) would be ~6
employee cars + ~4 customer cars = 10 total cars. We believe this can be accommodated by
street-side spots on Green Bay Rd./Merrill Street/Tower Court, as well as the Hubbard Woods
Metra Station Parking Deck (where we will encourage employees to park). In addition, our
operations will close daily between 4pm and 6pm and thus not compete heavily with other,
nearby, businesses that see heavier evening and night-time traffic (e.g., Mino's, Guanajuato).
6) The use of the salon will conform to the applicable regulations of all necessary ordinances and
codes. We have received a Fire Code inspection by the Village of Winnetka, marking just one (1)
item that would need to be brought up to code: ensuring the back door can more freely swing
open and shut.
7) The salon will encourage, facilitate, and enhance the continuity, concentration, and pedestrian
nature of the area in a manner similar to that of retail uses. As a children-focused business
model, we believe the salon will promote the pediatric dentistry (located next door), other
relevant kids stores nearby, and overall use of Hubbard Woods Park.
8) Nothing in the construction or use of the salon shall interrupt the existing retail use along the
block or that portion of the Green Bay corridor.
9) The proposed special use will provide for active display windows, facades, and signage that are
all compatible with the Village’s guidelines, and consistent with the Signage applications. As a
minimalistic model, the signage out front will feature “sit still.” in simple, lower-case lettering,
and have simple, fresh, window decals that are also simple in overall aesthetic (example
Page 142 of 158
photos below). We do not anticipate using an awning as part of our overall front signage. In
addition, we plan no exterior, structural, changes to the windows or doors. The Sign/Design
permit (which has been submitted to the Village) elaborates on the window decals used and
outside signage used. We do not plan to make any masonry modifications, and do not plan to
paint any of the exterior. (Shown below is an example of the brand’s iconography, from the
Louisville location)
10) Sit Still sells various retail products. These include, but are not limited to: hair care products
(child-friendly shampoos, conditioners, detanglers, and styling products), hair accessories
(clips, headbands, bows, scrunchies), and eco-friendly toys, gifts and novelties. Such retail
products will be located along the wall, perpendicular to the sidewalk, and highly visible to
pedestrians, positioned in a manner that invites walk-ins.
11) The square footage devoted to retail will comply with the guidelines set forth by the Village, and
commensurate for the overall property, which is approximately 1,300 square feet.
12) The proposed location will not diminish the availability of parking for district clientele;
customers typically book by appointment thereby evening out any one influx of patrons.
Deed proving ownership: We have asked the owners to provide a deed proving ownership. Their
response was to have Anita contact Jenn Epstein directly if the Village does, indeed, require this
deed evidencing Hoffman’s ownership of the 986 Green Bay location.
Traffic study and/or parking study. In speaking with the Economic Development Office of the
Village, it was determined that a traffic and/or parking study would likely not be required given a)
this is not a new construction, and b) the modest levels of traffic that our business will bring to the
existing flows on surrounding streets and intersections (as outlined in the operational overview
section, and bullet #5, both listed above) would not warrant the studies to be commissioned.
We hope the answers above sufficiently address all of the special use conformances with city
guidelines. We are happy to elaborate on any topics that require additional detail.
Thank you.
Page 143 of 158
COPYRIGHT C 2014
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY MeritCorp G R O U P , L L C
OFFSITE PROPERTY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
MEASURED DISTANCE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DEED DISTANCE
PARCEL 5:
FOUND IRON PIPE
NORTH
UNIT NUMBER 1-S1 IN WINNETKA MANOR CONDOMINIUM AS DELINEATED ON A SURVEY OF
FOUND IRON ROD
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE:
FOUND PK NAIL
LOTS 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 2 IN LAKESIDE JARED GAGE'S SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE 1" = 10'
GRAPHIC SCALE
FOUND CUT CROSS NORTHWEST 1/4 OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 17 AND PART OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST
STORM SEWER
OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WHICH SURVEY IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" TO THE
N
SANITARY SEWER DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 90300819 AND
EE
CONSOLIDATED, AMENDED AND RESTATED BY DECLARATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12,
WATERMAIN 2000 AS DOCUMENT 0076659, TOGETHER WITH ITS UNDIVIDED PERCENTAGE INTEREST IN
GR
THE COMMON ELEMENTS, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
UNDERGROUND GAS LINE
UNDERGROUND CABLE LINE NOTES:
YR
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE DOCUMENT NUMBER 90300919 WAS PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PREPARING THIS
SURVEY, MINUS THE PLAT OF SURVEY REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT A IN THE ABOVE
BA
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
DESCRIPTION. MEASUREMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES REFLECTING ACTUAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE UNIT AT THE TIME FIELD WORK WAS
D.
COMPLETED.
GRADING CONTOUR
FENCE LINE DOCUMENT NUMBER 0076659 WAS PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PREPARING THIS
SURVEY. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
DEPRESSED CURB INCORRECTLY REFERS TO THIS DOCUMENT AS 0076649.
TREELINE
TREE
DESCRIPTION:
POWER POLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
TRANSFORMER
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
OVERFLOW ROUTE
LIGHT POLE
WALL PACK
ISSUED TO CLIENT
SANITARY MANHOLE
SANITARY CLEANOUT
FIRE HYDRANT
VALVE AND VAULT
GATE VALVE
STORM CURB FRAME & GRATE DATE:
STORM MANHOLE
STORM CATCH BASIN
11-21-2014
12-04-2014
STORM FLARED END SECTION
MANHOLE (UNKNOWN UTILITY)
Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Environmental
MeritCorp
SURVEYOR'S NOTES C
1. BASIS OF BEARING, NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MERRILL STREET BEARS L
SOUTH 62 DEGREES WEST PER OLD PLAT OF SURVEY.
L
2. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON IS THE SAME AS PORTIONS OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY'S FILE NO. 1401 ,
008975771 D2.
P
3. NO SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION WAS PERFORMED TO LOCATE UNDERGROUND U
UTILITIES. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE LIMITED TO AND ARE PER OBSERVED
EVIDENCE ONLY. O
4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF. R
5. THERE WERE NO OBSERVABLE DEDICATED PARKING SPACES ON SITE. G
6. COMPARE DEED DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS WITH THE DATA GIVEN ON
THIS PLAT AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE SURVEYOR AT ONCE.
7. THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE LOCATED AT THE TIME OF THE
SURVEY AND ARE NOT A REPRESENTATION OF ANY PHYSICAL STRUCTURES THAT
MAY HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTED BY SNOW, ICE, LANDSCAPING, OR BRUSH.
8. THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICES GIS MAPPING.
9. NO APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS WERE OBSERVED DURING THIS SURVEY,
OTHER THAN NOTED.
10. NO VISIBLE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUNDS WERE OBSERVED ON PROPERTY
AT TIME OF FIELD WORK.
11. NO EVIDENCE OF EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, OR
986 GREEN BAY ROAD LLC
BUILDING ADDITIONS WERE OBSERVED ON PROPERTY AT TIME OF FIELD WORK.
12. NO EVIDENCE OF SITE BEING USED AS A SOLID WASTE DUMP, SUMP, OR
SANITARY LANDFILL WERE OBSERVED ON PROPERTY AT TIME OF FIELD WORK.
13. INFORMATION OR PLATS FOR RIGHT OF WAY OR TAKINGS FOR LINDEN AVENUE
(NOW GREEN BAY ROAD) WAS NOT PROVIDED.
986 GREEN BAY ROAD
T .
S SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
FLOOD NOTE RILL
PROPERTY IS IN ZONE "X" PER FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO.
MER STATE OF ILLINOIS )
17031C0251J WITH AN REVISED DATE OF AUGUST 19, 2008. ) SS
COUNTY OF COOK )
ALTA/ACSM
TO: 986 GREEN BAY ROAD LLC , U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL BANKING
ZONING ASSOCIATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS AND CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY.
THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS ZONED C-2 - RETAIL OVERLAY. FOR ZONING
QUESTIONS, CONTACT THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA AT 847-501-6000. PER THIS IS TO DECLARE THAT THIS MAP AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN
ALTA/ACSM STANDARDS, LAND SURVEYORS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ACCORDANCE WITH THE "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND
ZONING INTERPRETATIONS. CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION, BUILDING TITLE SURVEYS", JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS IN 2011.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT AND FLOOR SPACE AREA RESTRICTIONS
LAND TITLE SURVEY
WERE NOT PROVIDED. FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
ORIGINALLY ISSUED: NOVEMBER 21, 2014 - FOR PRELIMINARY REVIEW
DATE OF LAST REVISION: DECEMBER 4, 2014
035-3295
ITEMS CORRESPONDING TO
SCHEDULE B PROJECT NO. M14088
______________________________________________
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT NUMBER 1401 008975771 D2
JAMES P. MEIER, PE, PLS, CFM
WAS REVIEWED FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT.
ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. 3295 DRAWN BY: MTS
AS RELATED TO PARCEL 5 AS DESCRIBED THEREIN, THERE ARE NO
CURRENT LICENSE EXPIRES NOVEMBER 30, 2016
SURVEY-RELATED MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE COMMITMENT.
CHECKED BY: JPM
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A
BOUNDARY SURVEY IN ILLINOIS.
SHEET NO. 1/1
Page 144 of 158
/Users/hgf5/Dropbox/01 project folder/Hoffmann/986 Greenbay Road/11.0 Drawings/11.2 Working Drawing/986 Greenbay Road.pln
16'-01/4"
1'-113/4"
8'-4"
4'-41/2"
26'-93/4"
A: 843.18 sq ft STORAGE
38'-3"
24'-8"
11'-101/2"
13'-5"
11'-9"
27'-7"
24'-71/2"
14'-2"
A: 606.6 sq ft
BACK ROOM
Page 145 of 158
9'-21/2"
1
SCALE: 1/4"
= 24'-91/2"
1'-0"
6.54 in 26'-2"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A: 720.86 sq ft
SHOW ROOM
1,376.97 sq ft
WINDOW SILL
H. GARY FRANK ARCHITECTS AIA, LTD DATE
523 Chestnut Street, Winnetka, IL 60093
Office: 847.501.4212 9 8 6 G R E E N BAY R OAD
A1.1 email: gary@hgaryfrankarchitects.com
9 8 6 G R E E N BAY R OAD W I N N E T KA I L L I N O I S 6 0 0 9 3
All Copyrights 2018 H. Gary Frank Architects AIA, LTD All Rights Reserved ISSUE NAME
party room
16X12
break room
13'-0"X7'-5"
option c
Page 146 of 158
2024
Page 147 of 158
Page 148 of 158
Page 149 of 158
Page 150 of 158
Page 151 of 158
Page 152 of 158
Page 153 of 158
Page 154 of 158
Page 155 of 158
Page 156 of 158
Page 157 of 158
Page 158 of 158