Plan Commission

Village of Winnetka Plan Commission Regular Meeting December 17, 2025 at 7:00 PM Police Department Classroom 410 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. November 19, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Public Comments 4. Community Development Report 5. New Applications a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, which requires (i) variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation along the north side buildings walls; and (ii) a finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue which observes less than the minimum required rear yard setback from the easterly property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 6. New Business a. January 28, 2026, 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 1 of 31  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 19, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Jonathan Alt 6 Christopher Blum 7 Matthew Bradley 8 Chris Enck 9 King Poor 10 Kate Van Vlack 11 12 Members Absent: Mamie Case 13 Cyrus Subawalla 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 21 Call to Order & Roll Call: 22 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the 23 Commission Members present. 24 25 Approval of September 24, 2025, and October 22, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes: 26 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the September 24, 2025, regular meeting minutes. A 27 motion to approve the September 24, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley. The motion was 28 seconded by Mr. Alt. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 29 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack 30 NAYS: None 31 NON-VOTING: Orsic 32 33 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the October 22, 2025, regular meeting minutes. A 34 motion to approve the October 22, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Poor. Mr. Bradley seconded 35 the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 36 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack 37 NAYS: None 38 NON-VOTING: Orsic 39 40 Public Comment: 41 No comments were made at this time. 42 43 Community Development Report: 44 Mr. Mangum stated the special use permit for Sit Still Kids was approved by the Village Council, as well as 45 the approval of a zoning text amendment regarding solar panels. 46 47 Continued Applications: Page 2 of 31  November 19, 2025 Page 2 1 a. Case No. 25-21-SU: 564 Lincoln Avenue - Corley North Shore LLC Real Estate Office: An 2 application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Corley North Shore LLC, as the 3 prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 564 Lincoln Avenue to allow a real estate office 4 in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by 562-72 Lincoln 5 Avenue, LLC. This item was continued from the October 22, 2025, Plan Commission meeting. The 6 Applicant has withdrawn this application. The Plan Commission will not be taking any action on this 7 application. 8 Chairperson Danley noted the applicant withdrew the application. 9 10 New Applications: 11 a. Case No. 25-25-SD: 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of (i) 12 a Final Plat of Subdivision to consolidate the two existing lots known as 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset 13 Road into a single Lot of Record, which requires (a) a zoning variation to permit the existing residence 14 at 464 Sunset Road to observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the west 15 property line; (b) a finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at 464 16 Sunset Road, which does not provide the required building line articulation; and (c) a Special Use Permit 17 to allow the consolidation that is greater than two times the minimum required lot size for an interior 18 lot in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this 19 request. 20 Ms. Klaassen stated the request is to consolidate two existing lots into a single lot of record to 21 accommodate an addition to the 464 Sunset residence. She summarized the requested variation, special 22 use permit and finding of “no material increased adverse impact” being sought. Ms. Klaassen then 23 identified the property’s location, zoning classification and size for both parcels and existing 24 improvements. She also identified current photos noting the applicant resided at 464 Sunset and acquired 25 the 458 Sunset property in 2023. Ms. Klaassen stated the demolition permit application for 458 Sunset 26 was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and was approved without delay. She then 27 described the consolidated lot’s measurements and the utility easement required by the Water and 28 Engineering Department. 29 30 Ms. Klaassen confirmed the subdivision request complied with zoning standards with the special use being 31 required since the consolidation would result in a lot measuring more than two times the minimum 32 required lot area. She noted since this is the second time the Commission has considered a special use for 33 a residential consolidation, it may help to note that the typical special use standards the Commission 34 would normally consider applied in this case and that the Zoning Ordinance allowed for conditions to be 35 placed on such approvals which she summarized. Ms. Klaassen stated the applicant’s preliminary plans 36 for their intentions for the consolidated lot were provided for the Commission to determine whether the 37 proposed plans are consistent with the special use standards along with any conditions they felt are 38 appropriate. 39 40 Ms. Klaassen summarized in detail the zoning relief necessary for the consolidated lot due to the increased 41 lot size. She stated the proposed addition complied with the zoning regulations for the proposed lot and 42 referred to the preliminary elevations provided by the applicant. Ms. Klaassen stated the Village’s 43 Engineering Department would review the stormwater regulations and proposed development to ensure 44 stormwater is managed on site when the building permit is submitted, which will include engineering 45 plans. She then summarized the Historic Preservation Commission’s consideration of the request with the 46 ZBA to review the side yard setback variation at its December 8, 2025, meeting. Ms. Klaassen summarized 47 the Commission’s role in considering the request which she identified on page 34 of the agenda packet. 48 She then stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the Page 3 of 31  November 19, 2025 Page 3 1 Commission may decide to continue the matter to a date certain or make a motion to recommend 2 approval or denial noting no public comment has been received. Ms. Klaassen asked if there were any 3 questions. 4 5 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Trustee Orsic asked if this is the first R-5 6 request being considered under the new ordinance for lot consolidations. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is 7 correct for a single family residential project. Mr. Bradley questioned the reasoning as to whether the 2x 8 minimum was established as the minimum threshold point whereby the special use standards are 9 required in that they are applying R-5 standards to a property which would essentially become an estate 10 sized lot. Ms. Klaassen explained the discussion at the Village Council level. Trustee Orsic referred to the 11 concern relating to maintaining the neighborhood character. Mr. Bradley stated his second question 12 related to conditions and asked if the seven standards were established to provide the Commission with 13 guidance in terms of what could be done on the consolidated lot. Ms. Klaassen responded yes and that if 14 the proposed plan is thought to be appropriate but the Commission did not think further expansion for 15 the home would be appropriate conditions on setbacks or building size could be recommended. 16 17 Mr. Blum referred to page 12 and the highlighted language in the subdivision code Section 16.12.010 and 18 asked for clarification and whether it represented an additional standard or a condition. Ms. Klaassen 19 responded it is a consideration for the Commission to make. Mr. Blum asked if the proposed addition’s 20 net result would result in a net gain in impermeable surface following the home to be torn down. Ms. 21 Klaassen summarized the figures in Table 4 on page 10. No additional questions were raised at this time. 22 23 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Tom DeCoste of Hackley & Associates 24 Architects stated he represented the applicants and offered to answer any questions. He added the special 25 use request is new to him in terms of the R-5 district and described Ms. Klaassen’s presentation as 26 complete. 27 28 Mr. Enck asked if the proposal is schematic in nature or if it is ready to be submitted for permitting. Mr. 29 DeCoste responded what they have is what they are planning on the proposal together with any minor 30 changes required. He stated they are planning to submit plans before the holidays in an effort to begin 31 construction in the spring. Mr. Blum questioned the square footage increase. Mr. DeCoste identified the 32 existing square footage for 464 Sunset and stated following project completion, the GFA would measure 33 approximately 5,982 square feet. Mr. Enck referred to the allowable impermeable square footage for the 34 two lots and asked if there would be a net increase following consolidation. Mr. DeCoste responded since 35 approval for the demolition was received, he estimated there would be a slight reduction based upon the 36 improvements to be torn down which would be more beneficial to the neighborhood and the east 37 neighbor. He noted both buildings have taken on water due to the homes being so close together but 38 since the amount of impervious coverage would be removed due to the driveway removal, it would be 39 very beneficial to the east neighbor with final drainage plans to confirm there would not be any issues for 40 the neighbors. Ms. Van Vlack asked if there are plans for compensatory water storage on the property 41 although that is not in the Commission’s purview. Mr. DeCoste stated if there is an overall net increase of 42 25%, they are required to install compensatory storage but the drainage plan has not yet been finalized. 43 No additional questions were raised at this time. 44 45 Chairperson Danley noted there are no audience members present to comment and called the matter in 46 for discussion. She reiterated this is the first time the Commission has considered such a request in the 47 R-5 district where they are considering the combining of two existing lots which are compatible in 48 character and size to the surrounding lots which would result in the lot measuring more than twice as Page 4 of 31  November 19, 2025 Page 4 1 large as the lots surrounding it which required a special use permit. 2 3 Trustee Orsic stated the special use process was put in place for properties which would become two 4 times larger since many of the consolidation requests they have received worked against the Village’s 5 goals she identified. She stated the request would result in a home becoming significantly larger than the 6 surrounding homes which is what this process was designed for. Mr. Blum agreed with the comments 7 made and described the area as unique with the area being designed as dense for a reason. He stated the 8 consolidation would result in them not doing something which moved toward a Village goal although 9 keeping them separate lots with separate structures there is very consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 10 and for that reason, he would recommend against the consolidation. 11 12 Mr. Enck summarized the Historic Preservation Commission’s consideration of the request and stated 13 while the proposed addition would not be maxed out on the property, he referred to the amount of 14 demolitions they have considered which resulted in much larger homes being built. He stated a home 15 much larger could be built down the road with this approval. Chairperson Danley stated the Commission’s 16 purview is to consider what fundamentally happened to the lots and referred to the Comprehensive Plan 17 discussion. She stated the consolidated lot would measure over two times more than surrounding lots 18 which would significantly change the neighborhood character and she would vote against the special use 19 request with the zoning issues falling by the wayside. 20 21 Mr. Alt referred to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the precedent which would be set in creating lots 22 which would fundamentally change the entire neighborhood. Ms. Van Vlack agreed with the comments 23 made and stated since this is the first request of this type, she referred to subsequent requests which 24 would follow suit. She stated without those types of guardrails in place, she would vote against the request 25 since they do not know what implications would happen down the road although the request is well 26 thought out and designed. 27 28 Mr. Poor agreed with the comments made and agreed it would be precedent setting. He then referred to 29 the amount of work which went into the Comprehensive Plan and for the Commission to agree to this 30 type of request. He commented it is a nice proposal but there is a reason the Comprehensive Plan was 31 created and to approve the request would undermine the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Poor concluded he 32 would not vote in favor of the request. Mr. Bradley referred to their previous discussion relating to 33 protecting and preserving the diversity of housing stock as a goal in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan but 34 that it did not mean lot consolidations are bad. He stated any lot consolidation would result in larger lots 35 and that requiring conditions were meant to be a check on this type of rare situation. The Commission 36 Members discussed the matter at length. 37 38 Mr. Blum stated he is not concerned with regard to precedent in this instance due to the fact that the 39 request in his opinion did not meet the standards on an ad hoc basis. He described this process as the 40 guardrails and added lot consolidation should be reviewed as a rarity. 41 42 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Tim Iida stated with regard to the 43 Commission’s discussion relating to inconsistent lot sizes, he described the varying lot sizes of the 44 neighboring lots and lots across the street. Ms. Van Vlack stated they are aware of the minimum lot size 45 in the R-5 district, which is 8,400 square feet but they do not have information on the average size of each 46 property in this particular area and without that context, this request did stand out. She referred to the 47 sizes of several properties in the R-4 and R-5 district. Ms. Van Vlack referred to her previous concern 48 relating to what is the limit although their plan is well thought out. She added in terms of the Commission’s Page 5 of 31  November 19, 2025 Page 5 1 consideration, the consolidated lot would result in an R-2 sized lot as opposed to an R-5 lot. 2 3 Mr. Iida asked how any type of lot consolidation can be done if the lots are already over the minimum 4 square footage. Mr. DeCoste advised the Commission of their initial consideration of subdividing the lot 5 and selling off a portion of 458 Sunset to the east neighbor. He referred to the difficulties relating to any 6 possible additions as well as their initial thought to subdivide and sell off a portion of the lot which would 7 have required two lot consolidations which he described as taking a very big risk. Chairperson Danley 8 responded there are plenty of lot consolidations and there are a set of standards the Commission has to 9 evaluate for each consolidation when it hit a certain benchmark. She informed the applicant a special use 10 would not be necessary if the lot did not measure more than two times the size and reminded the 11 applicant the Commission is an advisory body. 12 13 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Blum made a motion to recommend denial of the special 14 use permit to allow consolidation of 458 Sunset and 464 Sunset based on the record, the documents 15 reviewed and the presentation in that the consolidation would not be consistent with the standards for 16 granting a special use permit. He referred to standard nos. (a)-(f) as well as Section 16.12.010 noting no 17 decision was made with regard to the zoning request. He then recommended denial of the application of 18 the final plat of subdivision as proposed. Ms. Van Vlack seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the 19 motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 20 AYES: Alt, Blum, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack 21 NAYS: None 22 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic 23 24 New Business. 25 a. December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting – Quorum Check. 26 The Commission Members discussed their availability. 27 28 Adjournment: 29 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Alt and seconded 30 by Mr. Poor. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 31 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack 32 NAYS: None 33 NON-VOTING: Orsic 34 The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. 35 36 Respectfully submitted, 37 38 Antionette Johnson 39 Recording Secretary Page 6 of 31  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2025 SUBJECT: 829 & 833 FOXDALE AVENUE – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 829/833 FOXDALE AVE. CONSOLIDATION (CASE NO. 25-29-SD) INTRODUCTION On December 17, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on applications submitted by Deanna and Stephen Nied (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the properties located at 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue (collectively, the “Subject Property”). The Applicant has filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, together with the following relief: 1. Variations to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: a. observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; b. not provide the required building line articulation along the north side building walls; and 2. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue, which does not provide the minimum required rear yard setback from the easterly property line. This application is limited to the consolidation 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 consolidation, including the requested zoning relief described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates a request for 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 January 12, 2026. The Applicant has also submitted a demolition application to demolish the existing residence 829 Foxdale Avenue. The Historic Preservation Commission considered the demolition application on May 5, 2025, and by a vote of 5-0 approved the demolition without delay. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing being held by the Plan Commission. The hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on November 27, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Page 1 Page 7 of 31 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road, is zoned R-5 Single Family Residential and currently consists of two buildable lots. The area of each existing lot is as follows: 1. 829 Foxdale Avenue: 7,498 square feet 2. 833 Foxdale Avenue: 7,499 square feet Both of the existing lots are legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet for an interior lot in the R-5 District. Also, each of the existing lots has an average lot width of 50 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for an interior lot in the R-5 District is 60 feet. Each of the existing lots contains an existing two-story residence and a detached garage. The existing parcels and improvements are depicted below and on the following page in Figures 1 and 2. Lincoln Foxdale Avenue Avenue 833 Foxdale Eldorado 829 Foxdale Street Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots Page 2 Page 8 of 31  833 Foxdale 829 Foxdale Figure 2 – Subject Property The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses (Figure 3). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The Land Use Plan Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses. Subject Property Figure 3 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan Page 3 Page 9 of 31 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 Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-5 zoning district. PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS There are no previous zoning cases on file for either of the lots that make up the Subject Property. The building permit history for each lot is provided below. 829 Foxdale Avenue. The existing residence at 829 Foxdale was constructed in 1921. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1922 to construct a detached garage; and 2. 1979 to replace the detached garage. In October of this year, the Applicant submitted a site restoration permit to remove the existing residence and detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue. The permit has been approved and is ready to be issued. 833 Foxdale Avenue. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue was also constructed in 1921. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1959 to construct a one-story enclosed porch and powder room; 2. 2003 to construct a two-story addition and detached garage; and 3. 2018 to construct a one-story addition on the rear elevation. Other minor permits have been issued for both properties over the last several years. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION / RESUBDIVISION The Applicant resides at 833 Foxdale Avenue, which they acquired in 2005. Subsequently, the Applicant acquired the adjacent property at 829 Foxdale Avenue in 2024. If approved, the Applicant will demolish the existing residence and consolidate the two parcels into a single buildable lot measuring 14,997 square feet. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue would remain. As described in the attached application materials (Attachment A), the Applicant intends to construct an addition on the south side of the existing residence on the 833 Foxdale Avenue parcel, and replace the existing detached garages with a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the proposed lot. During construction of the proposed addition, both of the existing detached garages would remain. The 833 Foxdale garage for Page 4 Page 10 of 31 vehicle storage and the 829 Foxdale garage for temporary storage of salvaged building materials removed from the 829 Foxdale Avenue residence. As noted earlier in this report, preliminary plans for the proposed improvements have not been provided, the Applicant is simply explaining what their intent for the proposed consolidated lot is at this time. The proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 4 below and an excerpt of the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation plat is provided in Figure 5 on the following page. Figure 4 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view) Page 5 Page 11 of 31  Figure 5 – Excerpt of Proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation Plat DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS As noted earlier in this report, the Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-5 zoning district provides for the densest form of single-family development compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-5 zoning district’s purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “relatively intense suburban” character. Residential Zoning Hierarchy A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 on the following page) 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 lots surrounding the Subject Property are similarly zoned for smaller lot sizes called for in the R-5 zoning district (minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet for interior lots), as depicted in Figure 6. There are currently 13 lots on the east side of Foxdale Avenue (between Eldorado Street and Tower Road), 7 of Page 6 Page 12 of 31 which measure 50 feet by 150 feet (7,500 square feet). There is one lot that has the same lot dimensions and area as the proposed lot, 100 feet by 150 feet (15,000 square feet). There are two other lots that are more than 11,000 square feet, there are also two lots that are smaller than the existing parcels that make up the Subject Property. In summary, the average lot size of the existing lots on the east side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road, is 8,837 square feet. The majority of the lots on the west side of Foxdale Avenue are 6,000 square feet due to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The average lot size for lots on the west side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road is 6,917 square feet. 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 - interior lots Minimum Lot Width – interior 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. lots Minimum Required Front 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Setback 15% of lot 15% of lot depth, depth, but not 15% of lot depth, but 15% of lot depth, but Required Rear but not less than 10 50 ft. less than 10 ft. not less than 10 ft. nor not less than 10 ft. Setback ft. nor more than 25 nor more than more than 25 ft.. nor more than 25 ft. ft. 25 ft. Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy Subject Property Figure 6 – Area Zoning Map Page 7 Page 13 of 31  COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to ensure 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 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation fully complies with minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements as summarized in Table 2 below. Both of the existing lots are nonconforming in two respects: (i) the minimum required lot area of 8,4000 square feet, with each lot measuring approximately 7,500 square feet; and (ii) the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet, with existing average lot widths of 50 feet. The proposed consolidation would eliminate two nonconforming lots and create one conforming lot. Table 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot Proposed Lot R-5 Zoning Standards 829 Foxdale Avenue 833 Foxdale Avenue Minimum Lot 14,997 sq. ft. 7,498 sq. ft. 7,499 sq. ft. Area 8,400 sq. ft. COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DOES NOT COMPLY (Interior lot) Minimum Lot 100 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet 60 feet Width (average) COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DOES NOT COMPLY Minimum Lot 100 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet Width (at front 20 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES street line) Minimum Lot 150 feet 150 feet 150 feet 120 ft. Depth COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Table 2 – R-5 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 reviewed by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, with the Village Council having final jurisdiction. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation does not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks: (i) minimum required side yard setback; and (ii) building line articulation. Staff evaluation of the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 later in this report, indicating the extent to which the proposed consolidated lot complies with (or falls short of) zoning standards. The item highlighted (in yellow) in Table 3 indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity. The items highlighted (in green) in Table 3 indicate an existing zoning nonconformity. Description of minimum side yard setback requirements – 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 side yard setback Page 8 Page 14 of 31  is 12 feet. • Lots with an average lot width that is more than 60 feet, but less than 100 feet: The minimum required side yard setback is 10% of the average lot width. • Lots with an average lot width of 60 feet or less: The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet on one side and 8 feet on the other side. Newly created zoning nonconformities (zoning variations required) – The proposed consolidation has the effect of increasing the average lot width to 100 feet, resulting in an increase in the required minimum side yard setback to 12 feet. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders the existing 833 Foxdale Avenue residence (which is set back 7.55 feet from the northerly property line), nonconforming with the new minimum side yard requirement of 12 feet. The existing improvements providing a minimum side yard of 7.55 feet, are deficient with the new requirement by 4.45 feet or 37.08%. In addition to the variation required for the side yard setback, a variation from the building line articulation requirement is also necessary as a result of the proposed consolidation. The northerly building walls of the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue do not provide the required building line articulation, with unarticulated northerly building walls totaling 45.34 feet in length. The Zoning Ordinance requires the side building walls that face the smaller side yard, on a residence constructed prior to April 1999, be articulated by at least 18 inches when the residence is more than 40 feet long. Currently, the smaller side yard is along the southerly property line and the existing residence complies with the building line articulation requirement. However, as a result of the proposed subdivision the smaller side yard is now along the northerly property line and the existing north side building walls do not comply with the building line articulation requirement. The existing north side building walls measuring 45.34 feet in length are deficient with the articulation requirement by 5.34 feet or 13.35%. Page 9 Page 15 of 31 Table 3 Existing Lot Existing Lot Proposed Consolidated Lot Zoning Setback Requirements 829 Foxdale 833 Foxdale Minimum Required Front Yard 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Front yard provided existing 35.84 feet 35.88 feet 35.84 feet structures Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 6 feet 6 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 7.55 feet (north) Side yard provided by VARIATION of 4.45 FT 8.57 feet (south) 6 feet (south) existing structures (37.08%) Minimum Required Remaining 18 feet 8 feet 8 feet Side Yard Side yard provided by 9.85 feet 7.55 feet (north) 63.55 feet (south) EXISTING existing structures (north) NONCONFORMING Minimum Required Rear Yard 22.5 feet 22.5 feet 22.5 feet Rear yard provided by 57.56 feet 79.49 feet 57.56 feet existing structures Minimum Required Rear & Side Yard Setbacks for 2 feet 2 feet 2 feet Accessory Structures in Rear Quarter Rear yard provided by 1.71 feet 1.71 feet EXISTING 3.4 feet existing garages 3.4 feet NONCONFORMING Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements Page 10 Page 16 of 31 Table 4 below, highlights (green) one existing zoning nonconformity that would be eliminated with the proposed subdivision. The existing improvements on the 833 Foxdale Avenue parcel currently exceed the maximum permitted impermeable lot coverage by 605.96 square feet or 16.16%.. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation would eliminate the impermeable lot coverage nonconformity. Table 4 – Zoning Existing Lot Building Size Proposed 829 Foxdale Avenue Existing Lot Requirements Consolidated Lot (house to be torn down, 833 Foxdale Avenue garage to remain) Maximum Allowed Gross 4,814.4 sq. ft. 2,999.2 sq. ft. 2,999.6 sq. ft. Floor Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 3,349.67 sq. ft. 1,864.58 sq. ft. 2,952.16 sq. ft. structures ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage 4,049.19 sq. ft. 2,024.46 sq. ft. 2,024.73 sq. ft. (RLC) RLC provided by existing 2,193.88 sq. ft. 1,129.8 sq. ft. 1,796.37 sq. ft. structures Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot 7,498.5 sq. ft. 3,749 sq. ft. 3,749.5 sq. ft. Coverage (ILC) (50% of lot area) ILC provided by 4,355.46 sq. ft. existing 4,440.97 sq. ft. 2,723.8 sq. ft. EXISTING structures NONCONFORMING 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 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 complies with all requirements of Section 16.12.010. Additionally, the proposed subdivision conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development, which is the proposed use of the newly created lot. Pre-existing zoning nonconformity (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – One existing nonconformity will remain on the proposed consolidated lot. The existing detached garage on 829 Foxdale Avenue parcel provides a nonconforming rear yard setback of 1.71 feet from the easterly Page 11 Page 17 of 31 property line, whereas a minimum setback of 2 feet is required (deficient by 0.29 feet or 14.5%). According to the Applicant, they do intend to remove the existing nonconforming detached garage upon completion of an addition to the existing residence that is to remain. 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.” Location of Existing Nonconforming Rear Yard Setback that will remain Figure 7 – 829 & 833 Foxdale Avenue Plat of Survey Excerpt STORMWATER The proposed subdivision consists of consolidating two lots into a single larger lot. As previously mentioned, the Applicant intends to demolish the existing residence at 829 Foxdale Avenue, construct an addition to the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue, and eventually demolish both of the existing detached garages on the Subject Property. The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed consolidation and has noted that upon submittal of the necessary permits to construction any proposed improvements, the Engineering Department will evaluate grading and stormwater detention as part of final engineering approval to verify stormwater is being managed on-site and complies with Village stormwater regulations. Additionally, the stormwater utility fee will be reviewed and adjusted based on final impermeable lot coverage calculations. Page 12 Page 18 of 31 For reference, Figure 8 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain. Subject Property Figure 8 – 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 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 consolidation and are not requiring any utility easements. With respect to plat formatting, the Applicant is working with staff to finalize all of the necessary signature blocks on the plat of subdivision. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed consolidation complies with the Subdivision Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Consolidation. 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: A. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation Final Plat consolidating the two existing lots commonly known as 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue into a single Lot of Page 13 Page 19 of 31  Record, as the Final Plat of Consolidation, which consolidation requires: a. A variation to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to observe a north side yard setback of 7.55 feet, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required [Section 17.30.060 Side Yard Setback]; b. A variation to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to have unarticulated north side building walls 45.34 feet in length, whereas building line articulation of at least 18 inches is required when the residence is more than 40 feet in length [Section 17.30.090 Building Line Articulation]; c. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale, which does not provide the required rear yard setback of 2 feet from the east property line; and d. A finding that the lot consolidation is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” development. Based upon these findings, the Plan Commission recommends [does not recommend] that the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Plat of Consolidation be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Final review and approval of the plat by the Village Attorney prior to recordation of the plat. [If the Commission chooses to place additional 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 Consolidation (829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation) Page 14 Page 20 of 31  25-29-SD Page 21 of 31 The proposed consolidation of 833 Foxdale Avenue and 829 Foxdale Avenue will create a unified parcel totaling approximately 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres). Each existing residential lot measures 50 feet in width and 150 feet in depth, allowing for a seamless merger into a single, rectangular parcel that aligns with the contextual pattern of neighboring properties. The new parcel complies with the R-5 zoning district requirements, which mandate a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet and minimum width of 60 feet. All proposed structures will conform to current setback ordinances and will be designed to respect the scale, massing, and architectural rhythm of the surrounding neighborhood. The primary goals of this consolidation are: • Expand the living space of 833 Foxdale in a manner consistent with neighborhood character. • Relocate and consolidate detached garages into the southeast corner of the new parcel. • Enhance privacy and increase green space by removing the existing structure at 829 Foxdale. • Reduce overall building bulk and improve pervious landscaping. This proposal is not intended to maximize buildable floor area. Instead, it aims to preserve and elevate cottage-style architectural elements that define Foxdale Avenue, while improving air flow, natural light, privacy, and visual openness for both the property and its neighbors. Chip Hackley - Principal Hackley & Associates Architects, Inc. Architect for Owners of 833/829 Foxdale Ave Page 22 of 31  25-29-SD Page 23 of 31 1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that district. This variation request stems from a change in lot width due to the proposed lot consolidation. The increased width alters the side yard setbacks, resulting in the existing house becoming non-conforming. However, the proposed addition does not affect the portion of the home that is rendered non-conforming, so no further relief is required. 2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. This variation request is unique due to the proposed consolidation with the neighboring property to the south. The increased lot width will result in greater side yard setback requirements, causing the existing home to become non- conforming on the north side. These setback regulations are part of the Village’s zoning code and were not established by the homeowners. 3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue will remain, with a proposed addition to the south. The property will continue to function as a single-family home, consistent in scale, materials, and character with other homes along Foxdale Avenue. The new addition will fully comply with all current zoning and setback requirements. 4) An adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired. The increased setbacks resulting from the lot consolidation will enhance the supply of light and air, and the proposed addition will not negatively impact neighboring properties. The larger lot will help reduce congestion, and the design will improve privacy for the adjacent homes. Page 24 of 31 5) The hazard from fire and other damage to the property will not be increased. The encroaching portion of the residence at 833 Foxdale will remain unchanged. The proposed addition will increase separation between adjacent properties, thereby reducing potential risks associated with close proximity. 6) The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. The proposed addition and overall property improvements are expected to enhance the taxable value of the home. 7) The congestion in the public street will not increase. Public street congestion will be reduced as the consolidation results in one single- family residence instead of two. This change will decrease the number of vehicles and equipment typically associated with multiple households. 8) The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not be otherwise impaired. The proposed enhancement will benefit the Foxdale Avenue community by increasing greenspace, improving treescapes, enhancing sun exposure, and reducing automobile presence. Page 25 of 31 Page 26 of 31 Page 27 of 31 Page 28 of 31 Page 29 of 31 Page 30 of 31 ATTACHMENT B Page 31 of 31