Plan Commission
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · February 25, 2026
Minutes
Minutes adopted 3-25-2026
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 FEBRUARY 25, 2026
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Matthew Bradley
6 Mamie Case
7 Chris Enck
8 King Poor
9 Cyrus Subawalla
10 Kate Van Vlack
11
12 Members Absent: Jonathan Alt
13 Christopher Blum
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 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
22
23 Call to Order & Roll Call:
24 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
25 Commission Members present.
26
27 Approval of January 28, 2026 Meeting Minutes:
28 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the January 28, 2026, meeting minutes. A motion to
29 approve the January 28, 2026, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Case and seconded by Ms. Van Vlack.
30 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
31 AYES: Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
32 NAYS: None
33 NON-VOTING: Orsic
34
35 Public Comment:
36 No comments were made at this time.
37
38 Community Development Report:
39 Mr. Mangum provided the Commission with an update on the Solidcore special use permit application.
40
41 Chairperson Danley first outlined two procedural issues in connection with tonight’s meeting and moved
42 to consider the 936 Sunset Road application to the end of the agenda. No comments were made at this
43 time from the Commission Members. Chairperson Danley then stated with regard to Case No. 25-05-SU
44 for 730 Elm Street which related to the One Winnetka development, she summarized the significant
45 concerns and issues raised with regard to non-retail uses on the first floor and the special use standards
46 being met. She suggested the matter be deferred to the next meeting in order for additional information
47 to be provided. Chairperson Danley then asked for a quorum check for the March 25, 2026, meeting.
48 The Commission Members discussed their availability.
February 25, 2026 Page 2
1 Recommendations:
2 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of approval of
3 written findings and recommendation of the Plan Commission on the Special Use Permit application
4 to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
5 Chairperson Danley referred to the findings and recommendations included in the agenda packet as
6 Attachment A2 on page 16 of the packet and asked for a motion to approve the written findings and
7 recommendations to deny the special use as requested by the applicant. A motion as stated by
8 Chairperson Danley was made by Mr. Poor and the motion was seconded by Ms. Case. A vote was taken
9 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
10 AYES: Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
11 NAYS: None
12 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
13
14 New Applications:
15 a. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An application seeking
16 approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center to operate in the existing church. The
17 Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
18 Ms. Klaassen summarized the request to lease space in the existing church building to operate a
19 childcare center with the applicant seeking a recommendation of approval of an amendment to a special
20 use permit which she described to the Commission. She identified the property’s location, zoning
21 classification and the limited amount of additional uses allowed in addition to single family residential
22 uses. Ms. Klaassen stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the property as appropriate for uses she
23 identified and that the applicant’s use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation
24 and R-2 zoning. She then referred to site illustrations and outlined the number of employees and hours
25 of operation and noted there are no plans for expansion. Ms. Klaassen stated if in the future, the
26 applicant decided to add a playground, they would have to request special use approval. She stated the
27 applicant received preliminary approval from the DCFS in order to move forward which is contingent
28 upon minor facility modifications and Village approval.
29
30 Ms. Klaassen described plans for employee parking with the applicant having provided a traffic study
31 and noted the Village Engineer offered recommendations on the application which she described for the
32 Commission. She stated the ZBA would consider the request at a special meeting on March 16 and
33 referred to the standards they are to consider. Ms. Klaassen then stated following the applicant’s
34 presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the Commission may decide to either
35 continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or recommend
36 approval or denial with draft language for a motion provided in the packet. She noted additional
37 correspondence was received and provided to the Commission. Ms. Klaassen then asked if there were
38 any questions.
39
40 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if the playground
41 discussion had been tabled. Ms. Klaassen responded the applicant is not currently proposing a
42 playground. Mr. Subawalla asked how many church members and employees there are. Ms. Klaassen
43 responded the applicant can answer that question. Ms. Van Vlack asked if the Commission is to consider
44 timely drop-off plans. Chairperson Danley responded that could be part of their consideration.
45
46 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter.
47
48 Amy Falkowski, Winnetka Congregational Church Director of Operations, introduced Pastor Paulo
February 25, 2026 Page 3
1 Franca, Julie McConnell, Chair of Congregation, Christie Sullenberger, committee member, Dan
2 Brinkman of Gewalt Hamilton Associates and Victor Cuebas of Jumpstart Early Learning Services. Ms.
3 Falkowski summarized the church’s history in the community and stated they discussed their proposed
4 plans with neighbors whose only concern related to traffic. She stated the traffic study resulted in little
5 to no traffic in the neighborhood.
6
7 Ms. Falkowski referred to the space which would be renovated and described their collaboration with
8 Jumpstart which would result in resolving the community’s need for additional childcare. She also
9 summarized the capacity which would increase incrementally. Ms. Falkowski then referred to
10 illustrations and identified drop-off and pickup locations. She stated with regard to the traffic study,
11 since it would be a daycare and not a school, she described the traffic pattern and their willingness to
12 resolve any issues that may arise. Ms. Falkowski referred to an illustration of the long driveway and
13 described the process as having a smooth transition. She informed the Commission they have
14 coordinated their approval with DCFS and confirmed there would be no footprint expansion. Ms.
15 Falkowski concluded by describing how the request would be beneficial for the community.
16
17 Chairperson Danley referred to Slide 16 which contained the parking lot outline and asked for the
18 specific family directive in terms of a specific traffic pattern. Ms. Falkowski described the entrance and
19 exit through the parking lot circle. Mr. Subawalla asked how many church employees would come to the
20 building during school days. Ms. Falkowski provided the staffing schedule for the Commission. Mr.
21 Subawalla asked if the property entrance is within 150 feet of Pine, Prospect and Lincoln. Ms. Falkowski
22 responded it is less than 150 feet.
23
24 Mr. Poor referred to the Village Engineer’s comments relating to the need for ongoing modifications or
25 monitoring how it would work and asked if they would be open to considering meeting with the Village
26 Engineer or neighbors after a few months of operation to determine its effectiveness. Ms. Falkowski
27 confirmed they would. Mr. Cuebas described their operations in terms of volume for their other two
28 locations which operate under a staggered start and release time. He also stated they do not have a
29 playground onsite and described how outdoor time is utilized.
30
31 Mr. Bradley asked if the capacity is set by code. Ms. Falkowski confirmed that is correct. Mr. Cuebas
32 informed the Commission the 64 figure for maximum capacity was derived by ratio and class size. He
33 also described the classroom makeup in terms of the children’s ages as well as the pickup times and
34 staff accommodation times for the rush periods. Mr. Cuebas then provided background check and
35 liability insurance information for their staff. Chairperson Danley asked if there is a structured
36 curriculum. Mr. Cuebas confirmed that is correct and described the curriculum to the Commission. Ms.
37 Case asked how infant drop-off is handled, which would impact traffic and parking. Mr. Cuebas
38 described the drop-off process, which varied on how families want it handled.
39
40 Mr. Enck referred to the Harkness House, which had limited daycare options and asked if they discussed
41 with them or the Winnetka Community Nursery School in terms of need. Ms. Falkowski confirmed they
42 have and stated they would relieve pressure for families on the waiting list. She stated the model would
43 be similar to Jumpstart’s other locations. Mr. Cuebas provided further information with regard to
44 electronic sign in and sign out. Ms. Van Vlack stated while she understood the concerns raised with
45 regard to traffic and the fact that there is an off-street area for parents to utilize, a lot of consideration
46 was provided in that regard. She also asked how many homes were included in the 150 foot area in
47 terms of impact. Ms. Falkowski estimated 60 homes with their having received a response from only one
48 family which attended the open house. Mr. Bradley asked if the facility would be ADA compliant. Ms.
February 25, 2026 Page 4
1 Falkowski informed the Commission there is an elevator and ADA bathrooms. She added that section of
2 the building is fully ADA compliant. No additional questions were raised at this time.
3
4 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment. She swore in those speaking to this matter.
5
6 Bob Forbes, 684 Pine Street, stated he is a 27 year resident and described the parking and traffic
7 situation as well as the potential for accidents. He stated consideration needed to be given during peak
8 times. Mr. Forbes also referred to the Pine and Maple intersection and stated with the new commercial
9 use, there would be more traffic. He stated the One Winnetka development would also add more traffic
10 in the area.
11
12 Beckley Maggio, a Winnetka resident and Harkness House president, stated they have had several
13 conversations with the church with regard to the child care need. She agreed there is no formal drop-off
14 with day care uses and stated she is concerned with regard to the student/teacher ratio and the possible
15 violation of DCFS regulations. Ms. Middleton stated the entire facility would need to be secure during its
16 hours of operation. She also questioned the time the traffic study was conducted and stated the parking
17 and traffic concerns should not be taken lightly. Ms. Middleton concluded by stating while there is a
18 need for additional child care options, she is concerned with regard to safety of students in connection
19 with parking and the lack of an outside playground facility.
20
21 Julie McConnell, Chair of Winnetka Congregational Church, described their visioning process which
22 included being a bigger part of the community and the need expressed for day care facilities by
23 neighbors. She stated there would be no footprint change and minimal interior changes. No additional
24 comments were made at this time.
25
26 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond.
27
28 Ms. Falkowski stated in response to Harkness House comments, they have approval by DCFS and there
29 are no issues with regard to security and children/teacher ratios. She stated with regard to traffic and
30 parking; they are willing to work to make changes after they begin operations if issues arise and it is
31 their intent to not be a neighborhood nuisance. Mr. Bradley referred to the pickup and drop-off pattern
32 and asked if it would create concerns in connection with DCFS ratios. Mr. Cuebas confirmed that was
33 part of their approval process. Chairperson Danley referred to commercial truck traffic. Mr. Cuebas
34 explained how the food van caterer would drop off food early in the morning. Mr. Subawalla questioned
35 the right-of-way width at Pine and Prospect. Dan Brinkman stated he did not have that information and
36 described the process of how traffic counts were taken and observations and the traffic study being
37 done on a Thursday in December. Mr. Poor referred to the comments raised with regard to the effect of
38 One Winnetka on traffic. Mr. Brinkman explained the process which took into account growth and five
39 year projections. Mr. Poor questioned whether traffic signs would be utilized similar to those used in
40 school zones. Mr. Brinkman explained the difficulty of school zone signage utilization and stated he is
41 not aware of the requirement for such a commercial use. Ms. Klaassen stated they could look into what
42 would be required to install such signage. Ms. Van Vlack commented on the safety issues and parking in
43 the area. No comments were made at this time.
44
45 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion. Trustee Orsic stated with parking and traffic
46 being the biggest concern, she referred to a preschool in a church in the city which was able to work out
47 issues. She also stated neighborhood parents would walk and there would be varied hours with
48 staggered amounts of traffic. Trustee Orsic agreed with Mr. Poor’s suggestion to ensure any issues be
February 25, 2026 Page 5
1 discussed and resolved. Mr. Poor commented the presentation was thoughtful and agreed there are
2 traffic concerns which he indicated are manageable. He stated the church is agreeable to manage any
3 issues with monitoring of the situation over the first several months which he would suggest as a
4 condition. Mr. Poor added signage and speed limits should also be investigated. He concluded he would
5 vote to recommend approval with the modifications he suggested. Mr. Subawalla stated the request
6 would be good for the community and traffic should be done in a multi-directional flow. He also
7 suggested limiting parking on the Prospect side of the street and that there would be numerous vehicles
8 onsite at any given time. Mr. Subawalla concluded the proposal would be very valid for the community.
9
10 Ms. Case agreed with the proposal and the need for additional childcare opportunities for the
11 community. She stated she is very concerned with regard to the pickup/drop-off situation and agreed
12 with the one way traffic suggestion. Ms. Case referred to the amount of activity in the area and agreed
13 conditions should be placed on the recommendation. Mr. Enck referred to the difficulty in finding
14 childcare in the area and stated the proposal would be in line with the Comprehensive Plan and would
15 be a benefit to the community. He stated the other concerns raised are resolvable and agreed there are
16 ways in which to resolve any issues. Mr. Enck also referred to the amount of traffic at Harkness House
17 and suggested working with the Village Engineer and the Police Department with regard to Pine Street.
18
19 Ms. Van Vlack agreed with the comments made and stated it would be important to establish rules in
20 terms of traffic for those using the facility. She also stated there are many preschools set within
21 neighborhoods and referred to the amount of traffic on Sundays which was not mentioned in the traffic
22 study. Ms. Van Vlack then stated with the cell phone alert suggestion, she would encourage a system
23 utilizing more of an advanced warning system rather than encouraging cell phone use while driving. She
24 also stated turning around in driveways should be prohibited. Ms. Van Vlack concluded there is a need
25 for child care options and agreed the proposal would represent a great use of the unused space. Trustee
26 Orsic agreed with Ms. Van Vlack’s comments with regard to cell phone use and referred to geo tracking,
27 which they would be using. Mr. Bradley referred to the roundabout as a unique solution that other day
28 care schools do not have to alleviate congestion and agreed with the conditions suggested which would
29 be difficult to enforce. He suggested exploring starting with a lower child count to ensure a smooth
30 traffic flow as opposed to having 64 children initially. Chairperson Danley agreed with the comments
31 made and agreed there is a community need with the main concern relating to traffic with specific
32 issues she identified. She then stated she did not agree that streets need to be turned into one way
33 direction and she would suggest the condition of having a defined traffic plan submitted with the
34 application to direct parents in terms of the pickup and drop-off function.
35
36 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion and referred to page no. 407 with the condition as stated.
37 Mr. Poor moved to recommend approval of the request based on the Commission Members’ collective
38 comments. He stated a condition for approval should be a requirement of a traffic flow and parking plan
39 reviewed and approved by the Village Engineer and the Police Chief to be made to the Village Council.
40 Mr. Poor also stated a condition of approval would be the benefit of having a monitoring function of
41 one, two or three months with the Village Engineer, Police Department and neighbors to ensure any
42 issues are resolved. He stated the issue of signage should be taken up with Public Works. Chairperson
43 Danley asked Mr. Friedman if there is a way to include the parking and traffic plan condition as a
44 recommendation of approval. Mr. Friedman confirmed it has been done before in terms of a specific
45 review period with Village monitoring being done to ensure compliance.
46
47 Mr. Poor moved to recommend approval of the request conditioned upon a traffic flow plan prepared
48 by the church, and approved by the Village Engineer and Police Department, that would be included in
February 25, 2026 Page 6
1 any presentation made to the Village Council. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
2 motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
3 AYES: Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
4 NAYS: None
5 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
6
7 Ms. Case left the meeting at this time.
8
9 b. Case No. 26-05-SU: 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 - DUET Audiology Clinic: An application seeking
10 approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by DUET audiology clinic, as the prospective lessee of the
11 commercial space located at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120, to allow a medical office in the C-2 General
12 Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The
13 Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
14 The Commission Members previously moved to defer the discussion of this item to the March 25, 2026,
15 meeting.
16
17 c. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application seeking approval of a Final Plat
18 of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow:
19 (a) proposed Lot 1 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth; (b) a side lot line abutting a
20 rear lot line; (c) a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line; and (ii) a finding of "No
21 Material Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road)
22 which (a) observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe
23 less than the minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the
24 maximum permitted width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
25 this request.
26 Ms. Klaassen summarized the discussion on the application from the September 2025 meeting as well as
27 the ZBA’s consideration of the request. She then identified the amendments made to the subdivision
28 request which included compliance with zoning requirements for the south lot (Lot 2) with the north lot
29 (Lot 1) requiring relief from the minimum lot depth requirement. Ms. Klaassen referred to a table
30 showing the prior and current zoning requirements. She also stated the proposed amended subdivision
31 required two variations from the subdivision code which she identified for the Commission and referred
32 to illustrations for the Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the amended subdivision would not
33 create zoning nonconformities on the proposed Lot 1 and one of the existing playhouses would have to
34 be removed to accommodate the new lot line dividing the two lots. She then identified the existing
35 nonconformities which would remain.
36
37 Ms. Klaassen identified the factors the Commission is to consider with regard to the proposed
38 subdivision and stated following the applicant’s presentation and Commission discussion (she noted
39 there were no members of the public in attendance), the Commission may decide to either continue the
40 matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or consider a motion to
41 recommend approval or denial of the request with draft language included in the packet. She noted no
42 additional public comments were received regarding the amended plan and asked if there were any
43 questions.
44
45 Mr. Poor referred to a prior 2014 zoning case and asked if the ZBA denied the request for variations for
46 something similar. Ms. Klaassen responded the similar application was withdrawn prior to presentation
47 to the Commission with the concerns related to the flood plain. She confirmed no home was built on Lot
48 2. Chairperson Danley noted Mr. Blum was on the ZBA at that time and described the flood issues and
February 25, 2026 Page 7
1 home appearance at that time. She asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions
2 were raised at this time.
3
4 Chairperson Danley asked for the applicant’s presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter.
5 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself and Dan Creaney, the civil
6 engineer, and Susan Marren, the property owner, to the Commission. He first disclosed his previous
7 working relationship with Mr. Poor and summarized the September 2025 request and the 2014 ZBA
8 presentation in detail. Mr. Canning also described their attempts to rectify the concerns which resulted
9 in the current presentation of Option 1 and how the lot lines would be configured. Mr. Canning
10 addressed how the subdivision would meet various standards relating to the side lot line and their
11 request for a finding of no material increased adverse impact. He then asked if there were any
12 questions.
13
14 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Mr. Poor referred to the variation for the
15 side lot line which would abut the rear lot line. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and would result in
16 the same condition as it existed in 1976. Mr. Poor also referred to the Lot 2 depth requirement which
17 would become part of Lot 1. Mr. Canning referred to illustrations and explained the issues which related
18 to the configuration. He also explained their response to the concerns the Commission raised and the
19 various items the Commission is to consider. No additional questions were raised at this time.
20
21 Chairperson Danley noted there are no members of the public present to comment and called the
22 matter in for discussion. Mr. Bradley referred to an illustration and summarized the ZBA’s review of the
23 request. Chairperson Danley described the proposal as a better solution and stated she had no problem
24 with the request as presented. Ms. Van Vlack described the proposal as a great solution and she would
25 be in favor of the request. Mr. Enck and Mr. Subawalla agreed with the comments made and stated they
26 would recommend approval. Mr. Poor stated his concern is that there are certain things that cannot be
27 avoided and the driver of the request is building a home in the flood plain and the concerns with regard
28 to flooding. He also referred to the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Poor stated then with regard to restoring
29 the home to the 1976 condition, there are a lot of different factors which were not a concern at that
30 time. He referred to several substantial rain events over the years and the work done by the Village
31 Council in terms of mitigation. Mr. Poor stated if the request was not located in a flood plain, there
32 would be no issue and that any compensatory storage required may not be adequate to alleviate
33 concerns. Chairperson Danley informed Mr. Poor that the Commission discussed these issues
34 significantly in September. Mr. Poor and the Commission Members explained their positions in
35 significant detail.
36
37 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion as indicated on page 272 which included a condition to remove
38 the playhouse. Mr. Enck moved to recommend approval of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision Final
39 Plat known as 936 Sunset Road into two new lots of record in the final plat of subdivision which
40 subdivision required the variations listed on page 272 with the condition of the removal of the
41 playhouse. Ms. Van Vlack seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4 to 1:
42 AYES: Danley, Enck, Subawalla, Van Vlack
43 NAYS: Poor
44 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
45
46 New Business.
47 a. March 25, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check.
48 The Commission Members previously discussed their availability.
February 25, 2026 Page 8
1 Adjournment:
2 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bradley and
3 seconded by Mr. Enck. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
4 AYES: Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
5 NAYS: None
6 NON-VOTING: Trustee Orsic
7 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
8
9 Respectfully submitted,
10
11 Antionette Johnson
12 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Plan Commission Regular Meeting
February 25, 2026 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. January 28, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. Recommendations
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of
approval of written findings and recommendation of the Plan Commission on the
Special Use Permit application to allow installation of fencing on the existing
beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
6. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application 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 1 to provide
less than the minimum required lot depth; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot
line; (c) a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street 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.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request.
c. Case No. 26-05-SU: 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 - DUET Audiology Clinic: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by DUET
audiology clinic, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at
730 Elm Street, Suite 120, to allow a medical office in the C-2 General Retail
Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by MDG WInnetka
One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
7. New Business
a. March 25, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
8. 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
February 25, 2026 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. January 28, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. Recommendations
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of
approval of written findings and recommendation of the Plan Commission on the
Special Use Permit application to allow installation of fencing on the existing
beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
6. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application 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 1 to provide
less than the minimum required lot depth; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot
line; (c) a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street 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.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request.
c. Case No. 26-05-SU: 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 - DUET Audiology Clinic: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by DUET
audiology clinic, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at
730 Elm Street, Suite 120, to allow a medical office in the C-2 General Retail
Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by MDG WInnetka
One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
7. New Business
a. March 25, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
Page 1 of 547
8. 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 547
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 JANUARY 28, 2026
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Matthew Bradley
8 Mamie Case
9 Chris Enck
10 King Poor
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: 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 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
21
22 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
23 Courtney Trefil
24
25 Call to Order & Roll Call:
26 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
27 Commission Members present.
28
29 Approval of December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes:
30 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the December 17, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
31 approve the December 17, 2025, regular meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley and seconded by Mr.
32 Poor. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
33 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
34 NAYS: None
35 NON-VOTING: Orsic
36
37 Public Comment:
38 No comments were made at this time.
39
40 Community Development Report:
41 Mr. Mangum stated there has been no action on any items to present to the Commission.
42
43 New Applications:
44 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
45 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
46 jurisdiction on this request.
47 Peter Friedman outlined the public hearing requirements and procedures to be followed in connection
48 with the Centennial Beach agenda item.
Page 3 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 2
1 Ms. Klaassen summarized the Park District’s proposal to install two chain link fences to provide an
2 enclosed area for off leashed dogs for review by the Commission with the applicant seeking a
3 recommendation of approval for a special use permit. She identified the Commission’s role in the review
4 and summarized the administrative and public review processes and referred to a table for the
5 Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the proposed fences’ appearance is not within the
6 Commission’s purview and would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (“DRB”).
7
8 Ms. Klaassen stated since the property is located on Lake Michigan, it would be subject to lakefront
9 construction and steep slope regulations and noted the proposed fencing is not located within the steep
10 slope zone. She then summarized the lakefront construction regulations and the review and permit
11 approval procedures as well as the public trust doctrine. Ms. Klaassen then identified the property’s
12 location and zoning classification which is located in the lakefront preservation overlay district. She stated
13 public parks and recreational facilities are allowed as a special use in the R-2 district and summarized the
14 appropriate Comprehensive Plan and land use designations.
15
16 Ms. Klaassen referred to beach images in an illustration and identified the existing improvements with the
17 applicant to provide additional detail relating to the proposed two rows of chain link fencing which she
18 described in detail to the Commission as well as the existing dog beach use and its access. She also
19 summarized the Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the refinement of the front lot line along the
20 lake. Ms. Klaassen noted that at 4 feet in height the proposed fences comply with the maximum permitted
21 height of 6.5 feet. She then informed the Commission the ZBA is scheduled to consider the special use
22 permit at its February 9, 2026, meeting and the DRB is scheduled to consider a Certificate of
23 Appropriateness for the design of the proposed fencing on February 19, 2026, with the Village Council
24 having final jurisdiction.
25
26 Ms. Klaassen stated the Commission is to consider the six special use standards included on page 19 of
27 the agenda packet and following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission
28 discussion, the Commission may decide to: (i) act on the application with a recommendation, (ii) direct
29 Village staff and the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation with or without conditions and
30 written findings and determinations for consideration at a subsequent meeting, (iii) direct the applicant
31 or Village staff to provide new or additional information in connection with the application or (iv) take
32 such other action as may be permitted by law. She then asked if there were any questions.
33
34 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if dogs have ever been
35 allowed off leash on the property before there was a fence. Ms. Klaassen responded there has not been
36 a special use permit approved for that and there are leash laws. She then stated she could not answer as
37 to whether Cook County considered it a dog park or a dog friendly area. Mr. Blum referred to recreation
38 as a permitted use and asked if the request had to be approved or meet those qualifications. Ms. Klaassen
39 confirmed the request for the proposed improvements had to meet the six special use standards. No
40 additional questions were raised at this time.
41
42 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Hal Francke of Meltzer Purtill and Stelle
43 introduced himself as the Park District’s attorney and provided an overview of their presentation to the
44 Commission. He noted they attempted to address in their presentation the public comment already
45 received with the expectation of more public comment to be made. Mr. Francke then described the dog
46 beach as a community amenity and that the request would allow the Park District to continue to operate
47 the dog beach in accordance with law and the legal regulations as well as allow users of the dog beach in
48 compliance with the law. He stated the proposed fencing would further public safety and maintain
Page 4 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 3
1 shoreline access and connectivity along the lakefront and would not require any zoning variation requests.
2
3 Mr. Francke then provided an overview of the Winnetka leash law as well as a detailed summary of the
4 Cook County regulations. He also referred to Illinois state law and language in the Illinois Animal Control
5 Act. Mr. Francke stated Costa Kutulas, Director of Parks and Maintenance for the Park District, would now
6 provide the Commission with a history of the Centennial dog beach.
7
8 Costa Kutulas stated he would provide a history of the dog beach which was established in 1995. He noted
9 the Park District installed temporary chain link fencing from 2009-2015 similar in design to the proposal
10 which did not require permits. Mr. Kutulas stated the Winnetka Master Plan for the lakefront was then
11 undertaken from 2014-2016 with the decision to remove the deteriorating fence. He outlined the creation
12 of the dog beach committee to review other beach locations to relocate the Centennial dog beach and its
13 findings. Mr. Kutulas stated in 2023, their staff was directed by the Executive Director to install the
14 temporary fencing which was pulled due to improper permitting. He noted the Park District board adopted
15 the ordinance requiring leashes at the beach. Submittals to the IDNR and the Army Corp of Engineers
16 (“ACOE”) for the permit request were made in April 2025. Mr. Kutulas stated following the fence and
17 debris cleanup, he referred to approvals received from the IDNR and other agencies for their permit
18 process with the ACOE and Cook County approvals to follow shortly.
19
20 Mr. Kutulas then described the project overview which included delineation between a temporary
21 Centennial dog beach versus Centennial dog beach fencing. He also described the proposed fencing in
22 detail which would have a 4 foot height and extend approximately 15 feet into the lake. Mr. Kutulas then
23 referred to illustrations of the prior fencing from 2010 as well as illustrations of the proposed fencing
24 which he described in detail. Mr. Kutulas then outlined the existing parking conditions with no change in
25 use being proposed and described the dog season timeline and timeline of average use. He also described
26 neighboring dog beaches and their uses in detail. He then summarized the project’s regulatory review
27 process as well as their responses to the first round of review comments. Mr. Kutulas stated Mr. Francke
28 would now address the public trust doctrine and additional finer project points.
29
30 Mr. Francke stated in response to the public concerns raised, he referred to the public trust doctrine
31 summary and provided additional information in that regard. He noted it stated that the state cannot sell
32 submerged land to a private party, but it can permit its improvement with structures such as wharfs, docks
33 and piers that improve the use of the lake for public purposes without impairment of the public’s interests.
34 He stated based on its provisions, the IDNR issued the permit previously referenced and reviewed the
35 Park District’s application and concluded that allowing the proposed fencing would not obstruct or
36 interfere with navigation, is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District code, it would not impair
37 the rights, interests or uses of the public and is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability or other
38 littoral properties. Mr. Francke further described additional provisions from the doctrine and summarized
39 in detail the applicant’s response that the special use standards have been satisfied. He asked for the
40 Commission to recommend approval of the fencing and for the entire application to be concluded quickly
41 so that the fencing can be installed. Mr. Francke then asked if there were any questions.
42
43 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members if they had any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if
44 there is any record of unintended interactions between dogs and humans in the event additional security
45 measures are needed. Mr. Francke responded there have been no concerns at the Park District level
46 although there may have been testimony in the public comments received. Ms. Van Vlack asked what the
47 depth of the water is where the 15 feet of fence is in the water. Mr. Kutulas stated there have been no
48 documented records of interactions with dogs or citations although there were concerns which led to the
Page 5 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 4
1 fence being installed in 2009 at Elder Lane Park, which has been closed for the last five years. He added
2 the water depth at the end of the 15 feet would range from 1 to 1.5 feet.
3
4 Ms. Van Vlack noted dog park regulations require four enclosed walls and water is not a barrier. She stated
5 to call the area a dog park would not then be accurate in terms of Cook County regulations. Mr. Francke
6 stated the word “enclosed” is used in the Cook County regulations but is not defined and the question
7 related to the lake being considered as part of the enclosure. He then identified several similar examples
8 of other dog beaches having the fourth side barrier being the lake. Ms. Van Vlack questioned whether it
9 would need to be redefined as a dog friendly park. Mr. Francke stated the term “dog friendly park” is not
10 clearly defined and having the fence extend across the length of the shoreline to serve as the fourth barrier
11 is not desirable. Ms. Van Vlack stated they have to determine which rules need to be defined and applied.
12
13 Trustee Orsic referred to the 2010 photo and fence and asked if the new fence would be in the same exact
14 location. Mr. Kutulas explained that the fence in the photo is approximately 20-30 feet south of the
15 proposed fence location. He noted to enlarge it and keep it more close to what it is or what it was
16 originally to go further to the north. Mr. Kutulas stated by design that it is very similar. He noted it would
17 be smaller than the previous dog park by approximately 40 feet.
18
19 Mr. Blum asked if the proposal is for a dog park or for a dog friendly area. Mr. Francke explained the
20 differences in the language between the Cook County ordinance for a dog park and the Village ordinance
21 which did not distinguish between the two terms of off leash dogs or a dog friendly area. He confirmed
22 the Park District wanted to be in compliance with the law. Mr. Blum then referred to the second and fifth
23 standards and whether the lake is considered as a second property. Mr. Francke responded the
24 application of special uses standards for adjoining properties are those that are used, occupied and
25 enjoyed by neighbors. He confirmed there is fencing in the Lake Bluff example which is not a chain link
26 fence with the remaining examples to have at least one chain link portion. Mr. Kutulas explained how the
27 dog beach operated seasonally. He also summarized in detail the survey response for the dog beach
28 location.
29
30 Ms. Case asked if other municipalities have gates in terms of traversing the beach. Mr. Kutulas referred to
31 Lake Bluff and identified a gate on the southbound side and described security procedures in other
32 locations. Mr. Bradley asked when the Cook County regulation was passed. Mr. Kutulas responded the
33 Park District was made aware in 2021 or 2022 that they were out of compliance with the county. Mr.
34 Bradley asked why the Park District put their ordinance into effect to disregard it, and for over 30 years
35 there has been negligence by multiple entities in terms of being aware of Cook County regulations that
36 required dog beaches to operate. Mr. Kutulas explained how they sought to become compliant in 2009
37 when the fence was put in place to have a north safety boundary and to ensure they are following the
38 proper permitting and procedures. Mr. Francke added the dog beach had already been operating after
39 the ordinance went into effect in 2010 and could be perceived as being grandfathered in. Mr. Bradley
40 asked why two gates are needed. Mr. Kutulas explained the reasoning for the off-leashing and on-leashing
41 area in a secured area. He also explained the rationale for the distance of the 15 feet of fencing into the
42 water and the rationale for having 240 linear feet of shoreline as opposed to the 170 feet decided on the
43 Park District Master Plan. He then explained how the request complied with the first two standards
44 although residents are required to pass through two gates to gain access to the beach through the dog
45 beach with compliance including the installation of signage. He referred to the number of obstructions
46 which prevent people from walking along the shoreline. Mr. Francke also stated the Commission has the
47 ability to recommend conditions relating to this concern.
48
Page 6 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 5
1 Mr. Poor referred to other chain link fences at other dog beaches and to a letter submitted which stated
2 that none of them protrude 15 feet into the water. Mr. Francke confirmed they all have fencing at some
3 level and the Gillson Beach photo was taken at a time of year when the fence was not in the water. No
4 additional questions were raised at this time.
5
6 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment and for the comments to focus on issues which have not
7 been raised. She then swore in those speaking to this matter.
8
9 John Root referred to Section 6.8.20 of the Village ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large. He
10 stated an exception to the ordinance would be approved to have this fence and referred to a photo of
11 Gillson Beach which showed a fence at the water line. Mr. Root also referred to photos of other beaches
12 where the fences do not extend into the lake.
13
14 Joanna Karatzas from Winnetka described the plans for the off leash dog beach as vague and misleading
15 and she read her statement into the record. She asked for the special use permit to be denied.
16
17 Laurie Peterson read Mary Garrison’s letter into the record who asked for the special use permit request
18 to be denied.
19
20 Mark Hecht from Winnetka described the proposed plan as an ill-conceived use of Village and Park District
21 property with there being better ways to handle the issue. He suggested entirely prohibiting dogs from all
22 lakefront property during regular swimming hours and allow everyone to freely use the entire lakefront.
23 Mr. Hecht also suggested the use of stone jetties with the suggestion that these alternatives be used for
24 a couple of years to determine if they are effective.
25
26 Jude Overly, a 33 year Fuller Lane resident, stated she has never seen any aggressive behaviors over her
27 years of using the beach and there is no need to have a fence to protect dogs and residents. She described
28 incidents of dogs having issues with fences. Ms. Overly referred to one particular non-Winnetka resident
29 who hoped for the fence and asked for the application to be denied and for the dog beach to be left open
30 for all residents and their dogs.
31
32 Susie Schreiber, past Park District commissioner and a past member of this Commission, read a statement
33 into the record which referred to the numerous amount of accidents and deaths in Illinois beach state
34 parks and along the shorelines as well as the lack of Illinois shoreline safety regulations. She concluded by
35 asking for the terminology of shoals not to be used in reference to Centennial beach.
36
37 Irene Smith, a 40 year Winnetka resident, referred the Commission to a photo of Centennial Beach and
38 described the Park District’s convoluted proposal to have a fence in the lake. She stated creating a cage
39 for the limited number of Winnetka pass holders did not make sense. Ms. Smith stated the waters are
40 navigable and did not contain shoals and asked for the special use permit be denied.
41
42 Angie Dahl, a 40 year Winnetka resident, stated she has served as a Park District President and on several
43 Village advisory boards. She described the unsafe and impassable condition of the beach which has
44 occurred over the years. Ms. Dahl stated when the public went to the IDNR to ask for clarification with
45 regard to several lakefront matters, the response was that the Village could have denied all of the
46 approvals since the Village has final jurisdiction over the lakefront. She then referred to the amount of
47 complaints with regard to the proposal and asked the Commission to deny the request.
48
Page 7 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 6
1 Alexandra Nichols, 900 Mt. Pleasant, stated there are serious safety concerns with fences at the dog beach
2 and there has been a violation of the doctrine of public use. She then read her statement into the record
3 and asked for the special use permit be denied.
4
5 Peggy Martay, a 50 year Winnetka resident, read her statement into the record and asked for the special
6 use permit to be denied.
7
8 Steve Juliusson, a 20 year Winnetka resident, read his statement into the record and asked for the special
9 use permit to be denied.
10
11 Susan Curry, 375 Hawthorn, stated the dog beach and park are important to the community and the
12 described discussions relating to moving some of those facilities to other parts of the area as off. She
13 described the dog beach as a family beach and stated they can all come together find a way for everyone
14 to enjoy the beach. Ms. Curry also stated she had not heard of any issues regarding safety or security with
15 there being diversity across the waterfront and concluded nothing needed to be changed.
16
17 Katie Stevens referred to the restrictive covenant signed between Orchard 2020 and the Park District
18 which did not include a fence permit at that time and would freeze Centennial Beach’s use for 50 years.
19 She stated the fencing may become permanent and may end up on private land with a land swap. Ms.
20 Stevens also referred to access limitations with fencing becoming a nuisance and referred to specific code
21 requirements.
22
23 David Stevens, Winnetka resident, referred to the referenced water depth which would be well over 3
24 feet and would present a restriction in terms of those who want to use the beach.
25
26 Ted Wynnychenko asked for the special use permit to not be approved and referred to the half-truths
27 being presented at this meeting. He also referred to fences and restrictions at other beaches, the lack of
28 shoals, etc. Mr. Wynnychenko questioned the Park District’s right to put a fence across the high water
29 mark area and referred to the binding exchange agreement in place with regard to the overlay district
30 requirements which would result in private land ownership.
31
32 Melissa Meizel, a 30 year Winnetka resident, referred to the 460 linear foot proposal and contemplated
33 use by dog owners which she described as an excessive allocation of resources. She also referred to
34 whether it would be a dog beach, dog park and that “temporary” would result in “until further notice.”
35 Ms. Meizel stated there has been no investigation in connection with fences at other beaches other than
36 the one which supported the applicant’s position. She concluded they are being treated with ambiguity,
37 obfuscation, distortion, etc. and asked for the special use permit to be denied. No additional comments
38 were made at this time.
39
40 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond at this
41 time.
42
43 Mr. Francke clarified the reason as to why Mr. Kutulas explained the term “temporary fencing” in some
44 places and not others. He also stated with regard to the plan being presented in bits and pieces, the Park
45 District is working on plans for Elder and Centennial Beaches following the Commission’s consideration of
46 the prior plan in 2025 which is what was intended by the term “temporary.” Mr. Francke also referred to
47 the written comment relating to guidelines with regard to temporary approval which the Park District
48 would not be opposed to. He stated with regard to the dog beach size, if these concerns are shared and
Page 8 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 7
1 recognizing the shared beach and making it a condition that the Park District explore alternatives including
2 a design which did not require pass through. Mr. Francke stated there are alternatives to address a
3 number of responses made.
4
5 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion and summarized the issue presented to the
6 Commission as to whether the fencing met the standards. Mr. Alt stated he would not be in favor for a
7 number of reasons and referred to the waste of time and money the Park District continued to bring to
8 the Commission and others. He stated while the presentation was strong, he asked the applicant to put
9 together a plan that is safe and would work for the community. Ms. Van Vlack stated the Commission
10 should not decide what the dog beach should be called and although delineation would have been helpful,
11 she identified the tasks the Commission is to consider. She stated based on the presentation, it is not clear
12 that the proposal met that documented necessity and she also had an issue of approving an item
13 categorized as temporary. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would not vote in favor of the request.
14
15 Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made and stated generally, if a fence is needed for use separation
16 but it is only three sided, it did not meet that requirement and no one wants a four sided fence. He stated
17 extending the fence an arbitrary distance into the lake did not solve the issue. Ms. Case agreed with the
18 comments made and stated standards (a) and (b) have not been met. She stated she is concerned with
19 regard to safety in terms of the fence in the water and having to go through four air locks to get to the
20 beach. Ms. Case stated the Commission is being asked to approve something in a vacuum when they do
21 not know what the rest of the proposal would be. Mr. Blum agreed with the comments made and
22 indicated the ZBA may address the issue of increased parking. He then referred to the restrictive covenant
23 issue and asked that they find a path forward to get the beaches open. Mr. Blum concluded most of the
24 standards have not been met and asked the Village Attorney to draft language which outlined the
25 Commission’s opposition.
26
27 Mr. Poor stated he came to the similar conclusion as the rest of the Commission Members and described
28 his use of the dog beach. He stated a 15-foot fence in the lake would present security issues for dogs who
29 love the water. Mr. Poor stated the dog beach existed prior to 2010 and worked well. He described the
30 risks and safety issues a 15-foot fence presented and the request did not satisfy the first two standards
31 and he would vote against the request. Mr. Bradley stated there may be a call for everyone to work
32 towards a temporary condition and viable path which would bide some time in connection with the issues
33 between the prior plan and future plans for Centennial and Elder Beaches. He stated a strict standard
34 interpretation of the standards would put a zero sum solution on the table. Mr. Bradley stated the beaches
35 cannot be left alone and littoral drift among other issues needed to be addressed. He concluded by stating
36 a short term solution needed to be reached while a longer term plan can be achieved. The Commission
37 Members agreed a solution is needed.
38
39 Trustee Orsic informed the Commission dog beach pass owners came to a Village Council meeting and
40 stated they are not in favor of fences or wedded to this location. She stated while there has not been a
41 fence there for a period of time, she referred to the dangers of having children and dogs play in the water
42 with a submerged fence. Trustee Orsic referred to the wood slat temporary fence at Highland Park and
43 agreed a solution needed to be reached for Elder Beach to be opened. Chairperson Danley agreed with
44 Mr. Bradley’s comments and reiterated her statement at the time the entire plan was presented to the
45 Commission is that in making a decision, they all want the beaches to be open. She stated she is concerned
46 with the first two standards and referred to the safety concerns raised with regard to children and dogs.
47 Chairperson Danley stated having a fence in the water would not serve to address the safety concerns.
48 She also referred to the difficulty if they were to impose conditions which would be numerous as well as
Page 9 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 8
1 the interaction between those beach goers and dog owners with a solution being made that took that
2 into account with the posted sign being insufficient. Chairperson Danley concluded she is not in favor of
3 the request.
4
5 Mr. Francke asked if the Park District could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and
6 provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach at a future Plan Commission meeting. The
7 Commission was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them after all the public comments
8 related to the submitted plan. Chairperson Danley suggested the applicant can present those options to
9 the ZBA. She then asked for a motion.
10
11 Mr. Blum moved to recommend denial of the special use request permit and to direct the Village Attorney
12 and Village staff to prepare written findings and determinations consistent with the Commission’s
13 comments and the record from this public hearing for proposed consideration at the Commission’s next
14 meeting. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
15 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
16 NAYS: None
17 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
18
19 b. Case No. 26-02-SU: 736 Elm Street - Solidcore: An application seeking approval of a Special Use
20 Permit submitted by Solidcore, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 736 Elm
21 Street to allow a personal fitness facility in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The
22 property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this
23 request.
24 Mr. Marx summarized the special use permit requested and identified the property’s location in the One
25 Winnetka development and zoning classification with the proposed space to be occupied in the
26 Commercial Overlay District. He then identified the Overlay District boundaries as well as the proposed
27 use in an illustration for the Commission. Mr. Marx summarized the business operations, number of
28 employees and hours of operation which would be appointment-only classes. He also summarized the
29 proposed parking plan and use occupancy in detail. Mr. Marx summarized the One Winnetka final planned
30 development approval, the partial approval of special use findings for medical and financial service uses
31 and noted cultural recreational and entertainment uses, which includes personal fitness facilities, did not
32 receive partial approval in the One Winnetka planned development with all 12 special use standard being
33 applicable that are provided on pages 101 and 102 of the agenda packet.
34
35 Mr. Marx stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the
36 Commission may decide to either continue the application to a date certain to allow time to address any
37 questions or comments or consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the special use permit
38 with draft language included on pages 101-102. He then asked if there were any questions.
39
40 Chairperson Danley referred to the Commission's prior discussion regarding the allowance for special use
41 permits and asked what information is there available on other building tenants other than the Ballyhoo
42 restaurant. Mr. Mangum referred to the Charles Schwab and the Winnetka Aesthetic Studio approved
43 special uses as well as the Arkadia restaurant which would be a permitted use in the development. He
44 noted there is one additional special use application which was submitted for a medical-related use as
45 well as another restaurant concept which would be a permitted use. Chairperson Danley asked if there
46 were any questions.
47
48 Ms. Van Vlack asked if any of the remaining space available would be a restaurant or special use. Mr.
Page 10 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 9
1 Mangum confirmed all of the spaces have been leased. He stated they do not have all of the information
2 available yet for the upcoming special use request. Ms. Klaassen confirmed there are limits for medical
3 and financial special uses. Ms. Van Vlack asked how many potential retail spaces remain on Elm Street.
4 Mr. Mangum stated there are no retail spaces remaining. No additional questions were raised at this time.
5
6 Chairperson Danley asked for the applicant’s presentation. She swore in those speaking to this matter.
7 Melanie Nifong, Solidcore Senior Director of Operations and Sean Jackson of DxU Architects introduced
8 themselves to the Commission. Chairperson Danley referred to the proposed hours of operation and the
9 applicant’s other locations around the country. She asked if there has been discussion whether the
10 proposed schedule would generate the same amount of people as in their other locations. Ms. Nifong
11 stated other suburban locations have a fully robust schedule which she described for the Commission.
12 She noted their closest location to the Village is in Buffalo Grove which has over 600 members. Ms. Nifong
13 also described the demographic. Mr. Bradley stated he is concerned with regard to the evening hours and
14 whether the space would compete with other uses such as a restaurant. Mr. Jackson identified the existing
15 parking on Lincoln and Elm as well as the dedicated spaces in the One Winnetka development. He noted
16 their patrons would not all drive to the location which include those using the train. Mr. Jackson also
17 stated a parking analysis was previously done for the entire One Winnetka development. Mr. Bradley also
18 questioned the noise component. Mr. Jackson responded it would be in the 40-50 decibel range, and they
19 have a consultant which provided recommendations for their locations which include the fact that
20 residents are located above the location. Ms. Nifong estimated 50% of their locations are in mixed use
21 buildings.
22
23 Chairperson Danley asked the applicant if they considered any other properties. Mr. Jackson responded
24 the applicant’s real estate team reviewed other properties in the area. Ms. Nifong stated they had to close
25 their Vernon Hills location during Covid. Chairperson Danley asked if there were any questions.
26
27 Ms. Van Vlack questioned the in-person staff makeup which Ms. Nifong described for the Commission.
28 Mr. Jackson confirmed there would be times no music is being played during in the 10 minute gap between
29 classes and stated they were advised by an acoustical engineer in terms of sound. Ms. Nifong described
30 the coaching staff and noted the door would be locked. Mr. Blum stated he is concerned with regard to
31 double counting parking spaces in terms of overlap. Ms. Nifong added no shower amenities would be
32 provided.
33
34 Mr. Poor stated while he appreciated the acoustical mitigation efforts, he referred to the residential units
35 above and asked if they would be able to hear music. Mr. Jackson explained the way in which the space
36 would be defined. He informed the Commission the acoustical report can be provided to the Commission.
37 Ms. Nifong noted sound testing is done prior to opening their locations. Ms. Van Vlack asked what would
38 be done to keep with the building’s aesthetic in terms of signage. Mr. Marx explained that the applicant
39 was asked to provide a general context for the proposed signage for consideration by the DRB and referred
40 to the elevation renderings. He also noted backlit lighting was originally proposed for the sign but it was
41 changed to external illumination. No additional questions were raised at this time.
42
43 Chairperson Danley stated there is no one in the audience to comment and called the matter in for
44 discussion.
45
46 Ms. Case stated this is not the right venue for this use and referred to the amount of issues relating to
47 parking. She stated the Commission was under the impression that the developer would seek retail or
48 restaurant uses as opposed to another special use. Ms. Case identified several special use businesses in
Page 11 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 10
1 the area and stated given the parking use by the applicant, parking would be full constantly. She concluded
2 this space would not be a good fit for this use. Mr. Blum agreed with Ms. Case’s comments and stated if
3 the Overlay District is worth having, the requirements should be enforced. He stated there should be some
4 semblance of retail in the front and he would not be in favor of the request.
5
6 Mr. Poor stated he appreciated the applicant’s presentation and agreed with the comments made. He
7 stated he would not be in favor of the request. Trustee Orsic stated while there is a demographic which
8 would like the use, she suggested the applicant look for another location. She questioned why the
9 developer did not come to the meeting to further explain the request. Mr. Alt stated while they want the
10 business in the community and there is a demand for it, he referred to the One Winnetka project being
11 an idea for a decade and there has not been a demand for a retailer in this space. He questioned whether
12 this business would be a more modern use for the space and stated this type of business would be
13 attractive to the area and would draw a diverse demographic. The Commission Members discussed similar
14 cases which were denied and the Commission Members summarized their positions.
15
16 Mr. Enck stated his initial concern related to parking and referred to other special uses which generate
17 foot traffic for other businesses. He commented it would be nice if the use was in an area which supported
18 other businesses. Mr. Bradley stated his initial thought was to recommend approval and agreed with Mr.
19 Alt’s comments relating to hanging on to retail uses at the cost of denying other businesses. He questioned
20 why they would deny a use that would be preferred by the younger generation and good for the Village.
21 Mr. Bradley also stated he is concerned with the door being locked and commented the number of people
22 in and out of the use would be beneficial. He agreed parking is an issue and commented they should not
23 recommend denial of a cool and upcoming use.
24
25 Chairperson Danley commented while the proposed use may be a great idea and a good business draw
26 for the Village, she would feel better if it was in a different location. She also stated she is concerned with
27 regard to standard nos. 5 and 7 and referred to the post office site development and the draw on parking.
28 Chairperson Danley stated there would not be a pedestrian draw with only special uses in the area and
29 described the process as unfair to the applicant. She stated if they were to accept the premise that this
30 would only be a special use building, they would kill any type of pedestrian nature for the area.
31 Chairperson Danley concluded it came down to the space they are evaluating and whether the use met
32 the standards and in this instance, it did not and she would not be in favor of the request. The Commission
33 Members discussed whether the application would have been approved at a different point in time.
34
35 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll of the Commission Members and asked for a motion. A motion was
36 made by Mr. Poor to recommend denial of the special use request. The motion was seconded by Mr.
37 Blum. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 3:
38 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Poor
39 NAYS: Alt. Enck, Van Vlack
40 NON-VOTING: Orsic
41
42 New Business.
43 a. February 25, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check.
44 The Commission Members discussed their availability.
45
46 Adjournment:
47 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made and the motion was
48 seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
Page 12 of 547
January 28, 2026 Page 11
1 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
2 NAYS: None
3 NON-VOTING: Orsic
4 The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
5
6 Respectfully submitted,
7
8 Antionette Johnson
9 Recording Secretary
Page 13 of 547
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNITAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) is scheduled to consider the attached findings and
recommendation of the PC in response to an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the
“Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”) and
considered by the Plan Commission on January 28, 2026 (Attachment A2). The Applicant is proposing
installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the
following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
As of the date of this memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this
request. Written comments that were not included in the January 28 PC agenda packet but were
distributed to the PC in time for that meeting, as well as written comments received since the January 28
meeting are included in Attachment C2.
JANUARY 28, 2026, PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
On January 28, 2026, the PC held a public hearing on the Applicant’s zoning relief application for proposed
improvements to the existing beach located on the Subject Property. The staff report for the January 28
meeting can be found in Attachment B2.
After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the
public. 15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request.
Members expressed concerns regarding, among other things, safety of the fencing in the water and
people having to walk through an area designated for dogs to be off-leash in order to traverse the beach.
Hence, the Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the standards for granting a special
use permit. After all public comment and after hearing the comments of the PC, the Applicant
immediately prior to the vote asked if it could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and
provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach at a future PC meeting. The PC was not
receptive to an amended plan being presented to them after all of the public comments related to the
submitted plan. Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft
Page 1
Page 14 of 547
recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion for
consideration at the next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026. A copy of the draft January 28
meeting minutes is included in the February 25 agenda packet for the PC’s consideration.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS
The proposed fence also requires review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) (Special Use) and the
Design Review Board (“DRB”) (Certificate of Appropriateness). Given the Park District Board authorized
an amended plan at its February 5, 2026, meeting, and the amended plan had not been submitted to the
Village for review prior to the February 9, 2026, ZBA meeting, when the ZBA was scheduled to consider
the request, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA continued the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. The DRB is
tentatively scheduled to consider the Certificate of Appropriateness for the design of the proposed
fencing on March 26, 2026.
PLAN COMMISSION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
As noted in the January staff report, the PC is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with
the six standards for granting specials use permits. Attachment A2 contains the findings and
recommendation with regard to the Applicant’s special use permit application that were prepared at the
PC’s direction during the January 28 meeting. At the February 25, 2026, meeting, the PC is scheduled to
consider the findings and recommendation and take a final vote on the request.
If the PC is prepared to make a final decision regarding the Special Use Permit request, a member must
make a motion approving the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use as requested
by the Applicant in its application to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the Subject
Property.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A2: Findings and Recommendation of PC on Special Use Permit application for Case No. 25-
28-SU Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
Attachment B2: January 28, 2026, PC Meeting Staff Report
Attachment C2: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of January 28, 2026, PC Agenda Packet
Page 2
Page 15 of 547
ATTACHMENT A2
Winnetka Plan Commission
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
1 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
PLAN COMMISSION
CASE NO. 25-28-SU
SPECIAL USE
APPLICATION BACKGROUND
1. The Winnetka Park District (“Applicant”) is the owner of property commonly known as
Centennial Beach, located at 225 Sheridan Road (“Subject Property”).
2. The Applicant filed an initial application on October 21, 2025 (“Application”), seeking
approval of a special use permit (“Special Use”) to install two chain link fences (“Proposed
Fencing”) to provide an enclosed area on the Subject Property for an off-leash dog beach.
3. The Subject Property is located in the Village’s R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District
and the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District pursuant to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance,
as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”).
4. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.3 acres and is located on the east side of
Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane.
5. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards (i) the street
frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
REQUESTED SPECIAL USE
The Applicant requests a Special Use for the construction and use of the Proposed Fencing. The
Zoning Ordinance generally allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the
Village but only by special use permit. Therefore, any new park and recreational facilities or major
changes proposed to existing park and recreational facilities, such as the Proposed Fencing,
requires approval of a special use.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. A public hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 8, 2026, mail
notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, and a sign
was posted on the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the public hearing.
2. The Winnetka Plan Commission held the public hearing on January 28, 2026.
3. During the public hearing, the Applicant presented testimony and exhibits for the
Page 16 of 547
Winnetka Plan Commission
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
2 of 4
Application. The Applicant and its team discussed the proposed architectural design
and materials and operational features of the Proposed Fencing for the off-leash dog
beach. The Applicant testified that in its opinion, the project maintains public access,
improves safety and maintains shoreline connectivity.
4. Some members of the public and the Plan Commission raised concerns about, among
other things, the possible hazards that are created by the Proposed Fencing, the need
for the Proposed Fencing, the size of the Proposed Fencing, the location of the Proposed
Fencing, as well as the size of the proposed off-leash dog beach and the impact of the
Proposed Fencing on neighboring public property.
5. Members of the Plan Commission further expressed concerns regarding the safety of
the Proposed Fencing for both individuals and dogs, and the size of the Proposed
Fencing. They also questioned the location of the Proposed Fencing, as the design plans
would have the Proposed Fencing along the full depth of the beach and thus require
members of the public to enter the off-leash dog beach in order to fully traverse the
beach from north to south or south to north, which would block access to the beach and
create significant safety issues.
6. Additionally, members of the Plan Commission noted that the Proposed Fencing for
the off-leash dog beach was piecemeal because the Application was only for a small
portion of the Village’s beachfront and that approving the Proposed Fencing for the
off-leash dog beach without an application for the full lakefront project as a whole was
not reasonable. Further, members explained that based on the Applicant’s presentation,
they did not believe the Proposed Fencing was necessary or used the least intrusive
means to accomplish the Applicant’s plans.
FINDINGS REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE
Section 17.56.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides certain 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 special use is a type of property use permitted
within a zoning district so long as the use meets certain criteria or conditions. The purpose of
special uses is to provide for those uses that are either necessary or generally appropriate for a
community but that may require special regulation because of unique or unusual impacts
associated with them. Pursuant to Section 17.56.120, a special use permit will not be granted unless
it satisfies, in the Village Council’s legislative discretion, the following six standards:
1. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use will not be
Page 17 of 547
Winnetka Plan Commission
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
3 of 4
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general
welfare;
2. That 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. That the establishment of the 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. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a
manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public
ways;
5. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities necessary
to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
6. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this
and other Village ordinances and codes.
The Plan Commission finds that, notwithstanding the Applicant’s representations, regarding
compliance with the standards for special uses under the Zoning Ordinance, that the Proposed
Fencing does not satisfy the required standards under Section 17.56.120 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission recommends to the President and Trustees denial of the Special Use as
requested in the Application for the Proposed Fencing.
This report is adopted by a __ to __ vote of the Plan Commission, this 25th day of February, 2026.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Respectfully Submitted,
PLAN COMMISSION
OF THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
Page 18 of 547
ATTACHMENT B2
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission is scheduled to commence a public hearing on an application
submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225
Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing
beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
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 January 8, 2026. Additionally, a public notice sign was
posted on the Subject Property informing the public of the Plan Commission meeting. As of the date of
this memo, staff has received five written comments from the public regarding this application which are
included in Attachment B.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Page 1
Page 19 of 547
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
Page 20 of 547
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 3).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Page 21 of 547
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
Page 22 of 547
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject
to approval by the Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial
of, to allow improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025,
the Plan Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope
exceptions. The application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its
recommendation. The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being
considered by the Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising
its previous plans and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be
considered first by the advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 4 and 5 on the following page are current photos of the Subject Property. Figures 6 through 9
were taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 23 of 547
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026)
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin
at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026)
Page 24 of 547
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 25 of 547
Figure 8 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 26 of 547
Figure 9 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
Page 27 of 547
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change The test of what change is gradual,
as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has been
made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may protect
his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which is a
corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing installation of two rows of chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set
back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would
be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the
beach into the lake. As described by the Applicant in the attached project narrative included in
Attachment A, the purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Patrons are
required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above. The proposed
fencing would enclose the beach area for dogs to be off-leash. Both the north and south fence would
have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates in its narrative that
they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate
to remain at the top of bluff.
North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the
base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate
10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area
would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and
approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM.
Page 28 of 547
South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall
east towards the water (Figure 12). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM
into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in
width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward
sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing and gates are provided on the following pages. The complete set of plans is provided
in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Steel
North Fence Sheet Pile Wall
and Gate
Figure 10 –Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0)
Page 29 of 547
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Access Gate
Figure 11 – Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line
Between Centennial
Park & Beach and 205
Sheridan Road
Proposed
OHWM
Access Gate
(Front Lot Line)
Figure 12 – Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 30 of 547
As proposed, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice
versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog
beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines
by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin.
Figure 13 – Proposed North Access Gate Figure 14 – Proposed South Access Gate
Figure 15 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 16 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required
front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed
fence complies with the zoning regulations.
Page 31 of 547
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
The proposed fence also requires review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (Special Use) and the Design
Review Board (Certificate of Appropriateness). Their respective reviews will occur after the Plan
Commission’s review is complete.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for
granting specials use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the
Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets
the standards for granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission.
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the Plan Commission
is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a
Commissioner should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based
upon the following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings
and determinations for the Plan Commission’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent
meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions 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;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions 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;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
Page 32 of 547
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the Plan Commission should direct the Village Attorney to
prepare written findings and determinations for the Plan Commission to consider and vote on at a
subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Public Correspondence
Page 33 of 547
ATTACHMENT A
Page 34 of 547
Page 35 of 547
Page 36 of 547
Page 37 of 547
Page 38 of 547
Page 39 of 547
Page 40 of 547
Page 41 of 547
Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest)
Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East)
Page 42 of 547
Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East)
Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South)
Page 43 of 547
Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West)
Dog Beach (Looking North)
Page 44 of 547
North Seawall (Looking West)
North Seawall (Looking Northwest)
Page 45 of 547
Dog Beach (Looking South)
Bog Beach (Looking South)
Page 46 of 547
Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West)
Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West)
Page 47 of 547
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest)
Page 48 of 547
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West)
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Page 49 of 547
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West)
Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland
Page 50 of 547
Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East)
Page 51 of 547
Upper Park (Looking South)
Upper Park (Looking East)
Page 52 of 547
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East)
Page 53 of 547
Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Page 54 of 547
Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest)
Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast)
Page 55 of 547
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest)
Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North)
Page 56 of 547
Page 57 of 547
Page 58 of 547
Page 59 of 547
Page 60 of 547
ATTACHMENT B
From:
To: "Snow, Renee"; Altman, Steve; Hall, Soren G CIV USARMY CELRC (US); Robert Dearborn
Cc: Ann Klaassen; Otto, Eric L.; Sophia R CIV Morgan
Subject: Please include this message and attached documents in SUP request for Centennial Park fencing and in IDNR
permit files LM2023004 and C20250015
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 6:36:52 PM
Attachments: Orchard 2020 behind the scenes instructions for Centennial Park Fence.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Snow and President Dearborn:
Please consider the attached e-mail correspondence between a team of consultants and lawyers
employed by Justin Ishbia or his proxies, and Commissioners and executives of the Winnetka
Park District regarding Winnetka's Centennial Beach development. I ask the attached
communication be included in your IDNR permit application files (LM2023004 and
C20250015) and in the Village's file for the Winnetka Park District's current request for a
Special Use Permit (SUP) to develop Centennial Park and beach.
You already have in the public record copies of the Ishbia Family Foundation/Winnetka Park
District January 2024 restrictive covenant involving a $3 million donation. The restrictive
covenant agreement allows the Ishbia Foundation control over every detail of the proposed
Centennial Fence design and gives the Foundation control over the proposed fenced area at
Centennial Beach for half a century. Many see this agreement as a way for the Ishbia family
to pay others to do something the IDNR forbids --- privatize a public beach built using an
IDNR shore protection permit. Ms. Snow has received an enforcement request asking the
IDNR to prevent the WPD from building a fence funded by Ishbia that would prohibit access
to the new 205 beach. The attached below demonstrates direct and early involvement by
Ishbia's team and their efforts to use the Park Board to gain a private beach.
The attached communication pre-dates the 2024 donor agreement, but has the same flavor.
The e-mail exchange is dated March 25, 2022. Warren James, a prominent Winnetka citizen
and in 2022 an elected Commissioner of the Winnetka Park District, has received a long
message from Tricia Charbonneau, a PR consultant and project manager for Seiler
Consulting, the firm employed by Ishbia interests to guide the Winnetka Park Board toward a
grand Centennial Beach development design that would effectively cut off public access
across the beach below Centennial and the beach below 205 Sheridan. At the time there was
one flat continuous beach interrupted only by a few small iron groins. A large new public
beach was recently completed below 205 Sheridan using IDNR permit #LM2023. The Justin
Ishbia residence continues under construction on the upland.
Mr. James promises to respond fully to Ms. Chabonneau. You will not find his response in
Park District records. I'm told, but can't confirm, the e-mail conversation shifted to a private
messaging platform.
Mr. Jame's e-mail is copied to John Peterson, former elected Commissioner and then the
Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District. (Mr. Peterson continues to be Arbiter of the
Ishbia Foundation Centennial Beach restrictive covenant agreement); WPD legal Counsel
Steven Adams of Ancel Glink; Ishbia attorneys David Williams and Andrew Aron, both
Page 61 of 547
principals of Williams, Bax and Saltzman; and Charbonneau's boss Gregg Seiler.
In her e-mail Ms. Charbonneau critiques the performance of tax payer- funded consultants as
they presented the Centennial Beach development plan to the public and elected
Commissioners for the the first time during a March 24, 2022 Park Board special meeting.
(Which I attended).
Ms. Charbonneau chides Jon Shabica for speaking about public access over and around
lakeward structures. ("no reason to write or publicly discuss unless specifically asked" she
says). During subsequent open houses re Centennial Beach Jon's slide re the IDNR's public
access requirements isn't included.
Ms. Charbonneau continues "Nor is there any reason for him ever to mention again the idea of
permitting the Centennial project without the fence." (emphasis added). Here you see a team
of lawyers and consultants in the employ of the neighboring private owner and IDNR fill
permittee directing an elected Commissioner and the WPD's senior paid staff to steer their
own consultants away from any word or drawing that might inform the public or keep the 205
neighbor from getting a private beach. No one in this conversation is protecting the public
interest.
Scott Freres, the WPD's landscape architect, is criticized for not using language "consistent"
with their goals, and for unfolding design views that actually show everyone how massive a
proposed stone pier will be. And then the Ishbia consultant objects other slides
communicating the height of the project to the public.
Skip down to item 5. of the e-mail, where Ms. Charbonneau plans another meeting for the
Park District attorneys, staff and Mr. James to strategize how to "get ahead of the public" on
the beach development push.
If there was ever any doubt the WPD has lost control of the Centennial Development plans,
the proof is here, where we see it early in the process. And it continues, as Ishbia's team
pummels a minor Cook County veterinary office with dog beach complaints and WPD staff
nfind reasons (rabies control?) to justify a fence that doesn't belong on a beach. Its sad, but I
don't think the Village or the IDNR can or should regard the Centennial Fence applications as
products of an independent and public-facing Park District.
I hope the attached and above is useful to State and Federal Beach regulators and the Village
staff tasked with reviewing the SUP application. In a separate e-mail I will send a photo of the
entire beach area under discussion. Please let me know if you are not able to open this
attachment.
Best regards,
Laurie Morse
Page 62 of 547
Sent: 3/25/2022 12:00:00 AM
From: Warren James <WJames@winpark.org
To: "Tricia Charbonneau" "Costa Kutulas"
Cc: "John Peterson" "Steven Adams" williams@wbs-law.com "Andrew Arons" "Gregg
Seiler"
Bcc:
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: Orchard - notes on last night's presentation
Thanks for the feedback Tricia. Very helpful. Will respond more fully before Tuesday.
Warren James
Commis s ioner
P: (847) 501-2040
E: wja mes @winpa rk.org
Winnetka Pa rk Dis trict | winpa rk.org
From: Tricia Charbonneau <tc@seilerconsulting.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:26:42 PM
To: Costa Kutulas
Cc: Warren James; John Peterson; Steven Adams; williams@wbs-law.com; Andrew Arons; Gregg Seiler
Subject: Orchard - notes on last night's presentation
Team,
Thank you again for the prep and presentation last night. Below please find some feedback, being shared to supplement the content and strategies for
the future open houses and successful public comment period.
1. Shabica
a. Take out the language in his slides that note the IDNR and Corps guidance about access up and over lakeward structures. No reason to
write this or publicly discuss the grey area unless asked.
b. Nor is there any reason for him to ever mention again the idea of permitting the project without the fence. It’s not helpful to anyone
except the opposition.
c. Please coach Jon on what topics to address in future forums. It would likely be best if answers only questions directed to him.
2. Scott Freres
a. His opening comments about “this conversation happening in communities all up and down the lake” and “looking for creative solutions,
new ideas, greater community benefit” and “focus on access - for more residents, for seniors, more with alternative abilities” is fantastic.
b. However, as discussed with Warren, he was not in top form last night. For the future, please make sure he is more versed in the technical
details of the project and nomenclature (use ‘planting pocket’ and other terms correctly).
c. Graphics
i. Change all language about “louvered air screens” to “louvers”. All presentations need to speak the same language.
ii. The new elevation diagrams shown - the unfolded breakwater views - were not helpful in my opinion. First, they did not show the
water line (they just showed the beach/lakebed) and this made the breakwater look super tall when further out in the lake.
Furthermore, the louvers look 100% monolithic in this view and don’t help the cause. Oblique views that show the water line
through and the horizon are much more effective. Is this new drawing conveying something essential?
iii. One graphic showed a dimension string of 169’-9” as the length of the louvers (I think). This dimension relates to nothing else we
show - does that drawing and dimension have a specific purpose?
3. When Colleen asked last night if the planting pockets (and she implied fences) had been installed anywhere else, I was dying for someone to
mention Lee Street Beach - and that it’s similar to what’s proposed here, but this project will be so much better (this kind of came up). Lee Street
doesn’t have planting pocket but is one of many precedents for fence on a breakwater structure. And we keep saying that other municipalities
have this, but I don’t think this has actually been shown much to the public. Slides that show a photo of Lee Street on the left, and they this
project on the right - will demonstrate how much better this project is. And roll through all the cities - show the beat up Kenilworth stuff, yucky
Lake Bluff, etc. to pound it home. Armed with the right script, this could be a good thing for Jon to speak to.
4. I was thinking more about the questions that Colleen Root raised last night and how to get in front of those and expose them rather than feel like
they need to be defended against. Would it make sense to build a portion of the presentation to somehow say no plan is perfect, and thousands
of hours of work have gone into building the best and current plan possible, and the Board won’t let “perfect the enemy of good”.
a. Therefore, the PD has thoughtfully addressed some of the parts that aren’t perfect and here’s how:
i. Make a slide that shows the pros versus cons in a side by side table; and then present that data.
b. Write a one page “Frequently Asked Questions” document to answer some of these questions (I’m offering sample answers for a couple of
them).
i. Is beach and lake access being improved or reduced by this project?
ii. What new or improved amenities are made possible by this project?
iii. Why isn’t there access up and over the breakwaters?
iv. Why are the louvers needed and why are they so tall?
v. Why is there a planting pocket in the project?
vi. Do structures or barriers like this exist anywhere else on the north shore? Yes, other municipalities in the north shore have barriers
Page 63 of 547
installed at the edges of their lakefront parts for a variety of reasons. Examples can be found in Glencoe, Kenilworth, multiple
places in Evanston, Lake Bluff.
vii. Is the ability to look up and down the shoreline being lost? Some shoreline views will be lost simply by the installation of the
breakwater itself and the dimensions it must be to perform correctly. So yes, some shoreline views will be lost, mostly those closest
to the toe of the bluff. To minimize this, the proposed project offers two strategies. First, the height of the stone breakwater is
being lowered, and that material replaced with angled louvers. When past the planting pocket, most users will be able to see over
the top of the stone and through the louvers. The louvers are angled so users can look through them to the shoreline and the lake
horizon. Second, the proposed project will provide brand new shoreline vistas for thousands of users (including seniors and
persons with disabilities) at the new middle pier, which is situated in the center of the new park and located 300’ into the lake. This
vantage point exists in no other north shore community and is only made possible by the consolidation of Elder and Centennial.
5. In the continued push to reach more groups to get their support now and before public opinion - we’d like to discuss the strategy for this next
Tuesday. What groups does WPD have access to and what’s the strategy to contact them to garner support? The time before public comment is
likely to go by quickly, people will be out of town, etc. so getting going now with after school groups, kid’s groups, special ed groups, senior
citizen groups, etc. is critical.
Best regards,
Tricia
TRICIA CHARBONNEAU
PROJECT EXECUTIVE
C 312.438.0005
O 312.836.0540
tc@seilerconsulting.com
SEILER CONSULTING, LTD.
116 W Illinois Street
Suite 4W - N
Chicago, IL 60654
seilerconsulting.com
This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the
intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify us by calling (312) 836-0540. Seiler Consulting, Ltd. accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use of this message and/or any attachments, including damage from viruses.
Page 64 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen; Scott Mangum; Kristin Kazenas; Christopher Marx
Cc:
Subject: WPD October 2025 SUP Application
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:42:47 PM
Attachments: 02C2CD02-CAC7-4D80-88B4-3E5425875182.png
EF61C7C1-28CE-4A92-85F5-6669FC016A48.png
IDNR MemoLM2025011.pdf
OneDogBeachMustBeADAEvanston.pdf
60”MinimumWidthBAR.pdf
BernahlGroinMap1623.pdf
IDNRMemoPage1ExhibitA.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Hello:
Would you please include this email dated 1/20/26 in the packet for Plan’s 1/28/26 meeting and also send it to the
Trustees?
This is my only comment and submission for Plan and the Trustees,
Thank you.
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
To: Village Trustees And Plan Commission
From: Kristine Schriesheim
Re: Comments Dated January 20, 2026 on WPD October 2025 SUP Application for Lake Michigan Fencing
TOPIC ONE: WPD’s 8/27/25 NON-PUBLIC MEETING WITH IDNR AND USACE
I respectfully request that the Trustees and Plan Commission members listen to this meeting recording. It is
illuminating in terms of understanding WPD’s true fencing purpose and ultimate goal—executing WPD’s 2020
Exchange Agreement with Orchard 2020 Trust.
https://winparkdistrict-
my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/snazzal_winpark_org/Ea_fE4tEGE5DkrL6Voe0ikABGWtk0Ku6xS2ju5VEu5ZJOA
Background: 2025 WPD MEMO REPORTING FENCING REQUEST
Page 65 of 547
TOPIC TWO: WPD’S OCTOBER 2025 SUP APPLICATION MISREPRESENTS ITS DESIGNS,
MISREPRESENTS DOG BEACH LEASH REQUIREMENT, VIOLATES THE VILLAGE CODE, FAILS TO
MEET 2040 FUTURES PLAN GUIDELINES, VIOLATES VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS, CONFUSES THE
PROJECT AREA, VIOLATES ADA, VIOLATES PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Background: WPD October 2025 SUP application to Village
Page 66 of 547
WPD’S OCTOBER 2025 SUP APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT, MISLEADING AND UNRELIABLE
Background: WPD’s permit applications and IDNR’s December 11, 2025 memorandum (attached) set forth WPD’s
claims: (1) that Centennial is an off-leash dog beach (it is an on-leash dog beach); (2) that its fencing would extend
15’ lakeward from the toe of Centennial’s bluffs—in fact, it would extend 106’ lakeward on the park’s northern end
and 93’3” lakeward on the park’s southern end, understating the fencing’s length by over 80%; (3) that its fencing
Page 67 of 547
has two sets of double gates, which it does not; and (4) that WPD-owned Centennial Park’s southern lot line falls on,
rather than south of, its southernmost steel groin.
Background: Centennial dog beach is an on-leash area
Page 68 of 547
VILLAGE CODE VIOLATION: WPD’S Centennial fencing would unlawfully extend far beyond Village front lot
line/OHWM limits and into Lake Michigan, unlawfully blocking a “public street.” Fencing that ends at Centennial’s
front lot line/OHWM would extend 34’ on the northern end, and 16’ on the southern end.
DELIBERATE PERMIT MISREPRESENTATION: WPD’S fence permit misrepresents that the plans include
double gates at Centennial’s southern end leading to 205 Sheridan.
Background: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required WPD to provide detailed project rendering with proposed
fencing’s length and location relative to the bluffs and OHWM. Note also there are no double gates depicted on the
project’s southern end.
WPD’S CHAIN LINK FENCING IS INCONSISTENT WITH 2040 FUTURES PLAN, VIOLATES VOW DESIGN
GUIDELINES’ PROHIBITION AGAINST CHAIN LINK FENCING, AND DENIGRATES SHERIDAN ROAD
NEIGHBORHOOD’S GRACIOUS CHARACTER
Background: Village Design Guidelines
Page 69 of 547
Background: WPD Centennial SUP Testimony to Plan in 2025
Page 70 of 547
Background: VOW Design Guidelines were enforced when WPD applied for Elder Park SUP, prohibiting the use of
chain-link fencing.
WPD PERMIT SUBMISSIONS CONTAIN INEXPLICABLY CONFLICTING PROJECT AREAS
Background:
In connection with its Public Trust Doctrine presentation, WPD’s 2024 Centennial SUP testimony to the Village
said that the park’s southern lot line falls south of the steel groin closest to 205 Sheridan. Despite this, IDNR’s
December 11, 2025 permit review memorandum seems to state that Centennial’s southern lot line/205 Sheridan’s
northern lot line is the steel groin. This is at odds with WPD’s 2024-2025 sworn testimony that fencing on the same
steel groin would not violate the Public Trust Doctrine given WPD’s ownership of sandy beach south of that groin.
It also conflicts with Village Engineer Bernahl’s map of groin locations in Winnetka.
Background: See IDNR Memorandum Page One and Village Engineer Bernahl’s groin map attached as pdfs at
bottom.
TOPIC THREE: FURTHER UNLAWFULNESS
1. IL Rivers and Streams Act Section 3704, which is the sole source of IDNR’s permit authority here, does not allow
permit issuance for a non-shoreline structure such as a local dog fence.
From IDNR’s January 2023 presentation to the Village Council:
Page 71 of 547
2. IL Park District Code Section 1205/11-2 does not grant IDNR shoreline permit issuance authority, nor does it
grant park districts the authority to claim state land under false pretenses—namely, WPD’s specious claim that
Centennial’s shoreline is shoal-ridden and “nonnavigable,” which it is not.
From IDNR’s December 11, 2025 permit review memorandum:
Lake Michigan is now and for centuries has been a “navigable” body of water. IDNR’s website links to a GIS
waterways map and the Code of Federal Regulations, both designating Lake Michigan as a navigable body of public
water. Locally, WPD’s 2030 Waterfront Plan designated Winnetka’s anticipated continuous, 1000’ beach as both a
BOATING BEACH and a swimming beach. The beach is navigable, and would not lose its status as a place of
historic, commercial navigation simply because WPD wants to put up a local dog fence to impede the public’s right
to traverse the shoreline.
3. 510 ILCS 5, IL Animal Control Act, ONLY provides the local Animal Control Administrator and Deputy
Administrator with statutory authority pursuant to which the Cook County Code regulates dog friendly areas and dog
parks. It does not allow non-Administrators to order the creation of fenced in dog parks without complying with the
Cook County Code’s requirement that land-based dog parks be completely enclosed with a contiguous fence. Actions
Page 72 of 547
to the contrary would constitute misdemeanor violations of the law. SEE 510 ILCS 5/26 and the Cook County Code.
4. Under 510 ILCS 5, CCDARC has enacted animal control-related fencing authority that is jurisdictionally limited
to the land. Accordingly, CCDARC informed WPD of its lack of interest in acting outside of its established
regulatory framework, stating it will not evaluate WPD’s fencing scheme until after IDNR and USACE make their
decisions. Building a dog beach fence that extends beyond the land, past the OHWM, onto submerged lands and/or
into the public waters, exceeds the scope of CCDARC’s regulatory framework.
5. 510 ILCS 5, 5/9–The IL Animal Control Act was amended by P.A. 102-329, effective 1-1-22, to provide that: “A
dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE
DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” CCDARC, which solely and exclusively possesses
Animal Control Act authority under 510 ILCS 5, wrote to WPD Executive Director Nazzal in 2024 categorizing
Centennial beach as a “dog friendly area.” CCDARC has not mandated fencing barriers at dog friendly areas to
broadly contain dogs that would otherwise be “running at large,” and lacks waiver authority over its four-sided
fencing rules for dog parks.
6. 510 ILCS 5/9 provides that a dog may train for hunting in a dog friendly area, which is an area of land that
the Cook County Code does not require to be fenced. The Cook County Code simply requires proof of proper
vaccination and health records to enter a dog friendly area. A person can bring a dog to Centennial beach to engage
in training for hunting by swimming, fetching sticks, balls, decoys and the like. By matter of right, 510 ILCS 5/9
allows canines using dog friendly areas to train in proximity to Lake Michigan’s waters, as well as without
Page 73 of 547
restriction on the lakebed or in the lake.
7. There is no state law that grants jurisdictional authority to any governmental body that would build fencing to
restrict dogs from swimming or otherwise using public waters and the lakebed via access from the water—for
example, from a boat, jet ski, paddleboard or otherwise. I believe WPD’s fencing project represents a potential effort
to unlawfully limit this access.
8. ILLINOIS ACCESSIBILITY CODE VIOLATION: The Illinois Accessibility Code (“IAC”) requires public
improvement projects to be accessible unless an exception is met. Violating ADA requirements is considered a civil
rights violation, subject to enforcement by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office as well as by other government
bodies. Interpreting the IAC requires “erring” on the side of more accessibility because: 1-Winnetka, the Winnetka
Park District, Cook County, and the State of Illinois are or should be fully committed to being welcoming and
inclusive communities with access to public facilities; and 2-the penalties for failing to comply with the IAC are
severe and impact all parties, including the permitting authority.
Because the construction project at issue involves a public accommodation—Winnetka’s only dog beach—yet makes
no effort to add ADA accessibility to the designs, it violates the Illinois Accessibility Code and the 2040 Futures
Plan. It is obvious that WPD’s single 39” beach gates at either end of a confined 6’ southern passageway are too
narrow for an ADA-compliant turning radius. There are neither lights nor flashing signals for low vision persons, let
alone for safety. A potential WPD appeal in opposition to complying with IAC must be made to the Illinois Capital
Development Board.
Background: WPD’S 2024 Centennial breakwater SUP “Project Elements” would similarly unlawfully prevent ADA
access to the dog beach—for half a century. From Village staff questions about WPD’s 2024 Centennial SUP
application—
Page 74 of 547
9. WPD’s 2025 memorandum at the top of this email documents that Centennial’s southern neighbor requested dog
beach fencing for which WPD now seeks a Special Use Permit. Private efforts to support “public” fencing that would
restrict the public’s right to traverse the shoreline violates Illinois law. Building an unlawful dog fence as discussed
in paragraphs 1-8, above, would violate the Public Trust Doctrine (“PTD”) by effectively privatizing the lakebed to
the benefit of an adjacent property owner. See Lake Michigan Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 742 F.
Support 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990), stating that (1) courts should be critical of attempts by the state to surrender valuable
public resources to a private entity; (2) the public trust is violated when the primary purpose of a legislative grant is
to benefit a private interest; and (3) any attempt by the state to relinquish power over a public resource should be
invalidated under the doctrine. Furthermore, state/local units of government cannot permit violations of the public
trust in advancement of WPD’s efforts. If and when WPD receives permits to build its grand breakwater scheme
using public and private funds, that same neighbor will have a half-century long interest in major “Project Elements,”
including fixtures on the beach and lakebed. The Environmental Law and Policy Center has stated that using the
Lake Michigan lakebed and/or waters for construction of an offshore project by a private entity directly or indirectly,
would likely violate the applicable public trust and the State of Illinois’s legal responsibilities.
OTHER: Building unlawful fencing to keep out anyone who cannot pay $100s of dollars on veterinary fees and
exams, and/or purchasing an expensive dog beach fob from WPD during limited office hours Monday through
Friday, is wrong. Despite requests to WPD for public access codes to allow beachwalkers to use Centennial beach,
which the Park District of Highland Park and other park districts allow, WPD is attempting to make Centennial Park
as inaccessible as possible, harming the public to maximum effect, and violating our rights.
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s October 2025 SUP application.
Sincerely,
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka Taxpayer
Page 75 of 547
Office of Water Resources, Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St., S-703, Chicago, IL 60601
Memorandum
Date: December 11, 2025
To: Steve Altman
From: Eric Otto
RE: IDNR/OWR application-for-permit C20250015 by the Winnetka Park District for the construction of fencing, in
Lake Michigan, at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
Authority
The application for permit (application) was reviewed using the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of
Water Resources (Department) Part 3704 rules “REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATERS” which implement and are authorized
by the Rivers, Lakes and Streams Act [615 ILCS 5]. The application was also reviewed using the Park District Code [70 ILCS
1205/11-2] (Exhibit PDC).
Existing Conditions (Exhibit A)
The applicant has three contiguous littoral lots, north to south, 260, 250, and 246 Sheridan Road, which form Centennial
Park, on Lake Michigan. The beach is used as an off-leash dog swimming beach. The property is located immediately
south of 261 Sheridan Road and immediately north of 205 Sheridan Road. Existing structures consist of:
1. A shore-parallel steel sheetpile seawall at the toe of the bluff
2. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the approximate center of the site
3. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the south property line
Proposed Project (Exhibit B)
The applicant proposes to install two shore-perpendicular rows of fencing (North and South), beginning at the existing
steel sheetpile seawall, and extending 15 ft. into Lake Michigan. Both fences will consist of 4 ft. high chain link fence
without concrete footings. The fence posts will be directly driven into clay substrate to the point of refusal. The North
fence will be 91 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. south of the north property line. The South fence will be 78.25 ft. long
and will be located 20 ft. north of the south property line. Gates will be installed in both rows of fencing to allow public
access along the shoreline.
Department Application Review History
An application-for-permit was received on April 25, 2025. A permit application review fee of $3,360 was received on
May 20, 2025. The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025. The public notice expired on June 13,
2025. Comments from 34 individuals were received in response to the notice. These comments were forwarded to the
applicant for response on June 16, 2025. The applicant’s responses were received on September 30, 2025. IDNR/DEE’s
sign off was received on April 29, 2025. The IEPA’s Final Determination Letter was received on August 8, 2025. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing the proposed project for authorization by an Individual Permit.
Page 76 of 547
Recommendation
Department staff reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the applicant has shown that the proposed work:
• will not obstruct or interfere with navigation.
• is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2].
• will not impair any rights, interests or uses of the public.
• is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability on other littoral properties.
Based on a detailed review of the application, comments received in response to the Public Notice, and the applicant’s
response to the Public Notice comments, the project is permissible under the Department’s Part 3704 rules and issuance
of a Department permit is recommended. Approvals have been received from the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecosystems and Environment (DEE).
Department Permit No. LM2025011 is attached for your approval and signature upon concurrence with this
recommendation.
It is important to acknowledge Section 1205/11-2 Reclamation, of the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2], which
states that park districts that border upon any navigable body of water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which
is vested in the State of Illinois, said district may take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of
such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation and
shall have the power to establish, construct and maintain parks and boulevards over and upon the same, and all right,
title and interest of the State of Illinois in and to the bed or submerged land of such body of water so taken possession
of, enclosed, filled in and reclaimed is hereby granted and ceded to such park district and the title thereto shall vest in
such park district to be held for the use and benefit of the public as a part of said park district for park and boulevard
purposes exclusively, and said district shall have power for the purpose of reclaiming such submerged land and
protecting the same thereafter, to construct all necessary break-waters, or protection for the building and maintenance
of such parks and boulevards, and the enclosing or reclamation of such submerged lands.
Department Review
Section 3704.55 Permit Application Fee requires the Department to charge permit application review fees. It was
determined that the review of this application fell under 3704.55 a) 1) C) and required a $3,360 review fee. The
applicant submitted a check for that amount.
The application has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of Section 3704.70, Land Conversion and Fill
Material Placement. Subsection a) prohibits the conversion of public waters to private land by filling. The applicant does
not propose to convert public waters to private land by filling. Subsection b, allows for the placement of fill, in public
waters, for the listed purposes. The applicant does not propose the placement of fill material.
The project has been evaluated using Section 3704.80 a) for its potential to result in:
1. An obstruction to, or interference with, the navigability of any public body of water. The term navigability as
used in the Department’s Part 3704 Rules refers to commercial navigation. The proposed fencing will be
constructed close to shore in relatively shallow water and will not extend lakeward of the existing groin located
along the southern property line of Centennial Park (i.e., the northern property line of 205 Sheridan Road) or the
existing groin located along the southern property line of Elder Lane Park (i.e., the northern property line of 261
Sheridan Road), and as such should not interfere with commercial navigation. This, along with the fact that the
proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses concerns that the
proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan.
2. An encroachment on any public body of water. The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However,
the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to
Page 77 of 547
the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take
possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over
which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. Therefore, it is an acceptable encroachment.
3. An impairment of any rights, interests, or uses of the public in any public body of water or in the natural
resources thereof. The proposed fencing will be constructed within the shadow of the existing steel groins to
the north and south. Therefore, the public’s ability to use the waters of Lake Michigan for recreation will not be
diminished. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline.
Therefore, the public’s ability to use the shoreline for recreation will not be diminished.
4. Bank or shoreline instability on other properties. The proposed fencing will be permeable, and as such will not
trap sand from the littoral drift. Therefore, the proposed fencing is unlikely to cause bank or shoreline instability
on other properties.
The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park District Code provides broad rights and powers
related to, title to, and interest in, the bed or submerged land of Lake Michigan that was vested in the State. Therefore,
the applicant is not required to submit the supplemental information stated in Section 3704.80 b).
Public Notice Comments
The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025, with an expiration date of June 13, 2025. The public
notice was mailed via U.S. Mail and posted on the Department’s website with the complete application-for-permit
package.
The Department received comments in response to the public notice, from 34 individuals (Exhibit C). The applicant was
given the opportunity to response, in writing, to the commentors (Exhibit D).
The comments from the 30 commentors, listed below, were almost identical, with only minor variations, and had no
references or relation to the Part 3704 rules. Those comments are not summarized in this memo but are included in the
Exhibits.
Raheela Gill Anwar Steve Juliusson
Vicki Apatoff Lina Lubbat
Jeff Axelrod Kim Marsh
Anne M. Coladarci Mark D. Mitchell
Debbie Creigh Patricia Mitchell
Charles H Dowding Sherry Molitor
Jennifer Duboc David Mulligan
Neva Egan Kim Mulligan
Dian Eller Alexandra C. Nichols
Lisa Fogt J. A. Offerle
Mary Garrison Irene Smith
Gina Gooden Katie Stevens
Nina D. Gray Linda Welch
Dr. Garry and Michele Grygotis Constance & Kenneth Yonan
Stephanie Heraty Nancy Yurek
Page 78 of 547
The comments from the four commentors, listed below, contained references or relation to the Part 3704 rules. Those
comments, and the applicant’s and Department staff responses are summarized below.
Laurie Morse (PH) Robert A. Schriesheim (PH)
Kristine Schriesheim Ted Wynnychenko (PH)
PH: Comments that included a request for a public hearing.
Laurie Morse (comments dated 06/10/25, 06/13/25)
1. Remove the word “temporary” from all correspondence. The IDNR does not impose “temporary” conditions on
its permits. We must take care the WPD does not succeed in misleading the public with this language.
a. Applicant response: The Park District confirms the permit request language referring to “temporary”
reflects the intended nature of the installation as low-impact and adjustable, although we recognize the
IDNR’s terminology and will comply accordingly.
b. Department staff response: Staff are reviewing an application for fencing. If and when an IDNR/OWR
permit is issued there will be no special conditions concerning the duration of time the fencing will be in
place.
2. The application isn’t signed.
a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies,
including signatures and authorizations.
b. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the
Department web site.
3. There is no name or signature on the application’s “STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION” page 1.
a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies,
including signatures and authorizations.
b. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the
Department web site.
4. The application’s (page 2, section 9) need statement lacks veracity. The applicant says the fences are needed to
allow Centennial Beach to continue operating as an off-leash dog area. Centennial Beach is a leashed dog area
and has been for years.
a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy.
The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to an off-leashed dog beach
area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving
recommendations.
b. Department staff response: The comment has no reference or relation to the Part 3704 rules.
5. The application is frivolous. This applicant doesn’t need fences and gates to maintain the status quo.
a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy.
The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to a off-leashed dog beach
area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving
recommendations.
b. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering
upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of
Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any
portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water
not fit for navigation.
6. Veracity and the consequences of errors and omissions. The errors and omissions in this application are grave.
a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies,
including signatures and authorizations.
b. Department staff response: Staff find no errors or omissions in the application materials.
7. It is the IDNR’s responsibility to identify, among other things, the responsible parties for and beneficiaries of the
structures built using State permits. This application fails to mention, and the Public isn’t told, that getting an
IDNR permit to install rows of shore-perpendicular chain link fences across Centennial beach and into the water
on the boundary of the donor’s beach at 205 Sheridan Road is a triggering factor for a donor agreement
Page 79 of 547
between the Winnetka Park District and the Ishbia Family Foundation. The controlling partes of the Foundation
are in the public record as demanding privacy along this boundary, despite having agreed to the terms and
conditions of their own IDNR permit for shore protection that forbids privatization of the new artificial beach
below 205 Sheridan Road. It is easy for anyone to conclude the real purpose of WPD’s application for Centennial
fences is to privatize the donor’s beachfront, while keeping the donor at arm’s length from the process.
a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial
Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding
partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands.
b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. Any
relationship or agreement between the Park District and another entity is outside the authority of the
IDNR/OWR.
8. Public Benefit. Since the WPD currently operates a leashed dog area on Centennial Beach and no regulatory
authority has asked them to stop, there is no public benefit to the project proposed in this application.
a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy.
The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to a off-leashed dog beach
area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving
recommendations.
b. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering
upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of
Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any
portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water
not fit for navigation.
9. Minimum Size. We don’t have to spend much time asking ourselves if this proposal meets Section 17 of the
Illinois Administrative code 3704.90 C requiring a design with minimal impairment to public rights while
achieving its purpose.
a. Department staff response: The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park
District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the
bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to
take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation.
10. Controlling Parties. Can the applicant please supply the IDNR and the Public with all correspondence, including
but not limited to meeting (in person, telephonic, electronic remote) notes, phone call notes; e-mails, records,
and other communications between representatives of the Winnetka Park District (Staff, elected officials,
appointed committee members, etc.) and the Ishbia Family Foundation, Orchard 2020, Justin Ishbia and all
representatives of these entities that address or involve the design, planning, positioning, size and boundary
selection for the proposed project?
a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial
Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding
partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands.
b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. Any
relationship or agreement between the Park District and another entity is outside the authority of the
IDNR/OWR.
11. Similar Structures. IDNR requires proposed development along a Lake Michigan beach be similar or “like” other
nearby structures.
a. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering
upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of
Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any
portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water
not fit for navigation.
12. Safety. The applicant, in their April 25, 2025, cover letter says “The proposed fencing installation is intended to
enhance safety…for beach users.” The Department’s Part 3704 rules do not permit fences on beaches or barriers
atop fill on the Illinois shore based on safety, for dogs or for humans.
Page 80 of 547
a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules that explicitly prohibits fencing. The
Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title
to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right
to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation.
13. Harm. The fences as proposed extend into deep water, 15 feet under current conditions, and much further
under high-water conditions. The fence posts, once under water, pose fatal danger to people who swim or
paddle along the shoreline. Water pollution is also an issue. Please ask the applicant to explain why they haven’t
considered Federal ADA beach access requirements when planning and submitting this design. These fences will
collect trash, ice in winter, and limit the public’s ability to escape through or beyond the enclosed area should
there be lightning, storms, or other danger or accident.
a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial
Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding
partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands.
b. Department staff response: The fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water, and the
fact that the proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses
concerns that the proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan. There is
nothing in the Part 3704 rules related to water pollution or ADA requirements. The fencing may catch
debris and ice, the removal of which is considered operation and maintenance, and is outside the
authority of the IDNR/OWR. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access
along the shoreline.
14. What other options has the applicant considered?
a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules that requires an alternatives analysis.
15. Exclusivity. The IDNR should consider the applicant’s restrictive beach access policies when thinking of awarding
WPD extra privileges.
a. Applicant response: We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any
funding partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands.
b. Department staff response: The proposed fencing will include gates with latches (not locks) to allow
continued public access along the shoreline.
16. Politics and local authorities. Your rules and the terms and conditions of your Lake Michigan permits require an
applicant to obtain approvals from local authorities before starting work on a Lake Michigan project.
a. Applicant response: We continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and regulatory agencies to ensure
the project preserves the natural beauty and public use of this cherished community resource.
b. Department staff response: Condition #4 of IDNR/OWR permits states that “this permit does not relieve
the permittee of the responsibility to obtain other federal, state or local authorizations required for the
construction of the permitted activity; and if the permittee is required by law to obtain approvals from
any federal or other state agency to do the work, this permit is not effective until the federal and state
approvals are obtained”.
Kristine Schriesheim (comments dated 06/09/25, 06/10/25, 06/12/25; only comments that contained references or
relations to the Part 3704 rules are summarized below)
1. WPD’s unsigned Joint Permit Application misrepresents to IDNR that the fence will have double entry gates on
Centennial’s northern and southern ends. It will not. WPD’s attached schematics show that the northern end
will have a set of 10-foot double entry gates. The southern end will have a stacked set of single 39 inch entry
gates —not double entry gates. There is no valid justification for making the public maneuver through two
narrow gates stacked one in front of the other, on a public beach. Also, it is important to note that 39 inches is
barely wider than a yardstick.
a. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the
Department web site. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the
shoreline. The number and orientation of the gates is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR.
2. After stating the obvious—that the fencing will serve as a barrier for dogs—WPD’s Joint Permit Application
misrepresents that its fencing designs will not create barriers for people. Because the fencing will extend 15 feet
Page 81 of 547
into the lake, even with gates it will obviously create barriers that prevent people from navigating along the
actual shoreline—for no valid reason, as I laid out in detail yesterday. Furthermore, both WPD and IDNR are
aware that in times of high water the gates may be underwater. Fencing that runs from steel sheet piling at the
toe of the bluffs all the way out into the lake will block people from traversing the public shoreline. Also,
swimmers will be hard-pressed to see chain-link fencing in Lake Michigan’s waters, even with goggles or masks
on. I predict there will be numerous instances of people cracking their heads and/or cutting themselves on
unnecessary lake-based fencing that is hard to see. If and when that happens, WPD’s fencing going from the toe
of the bluffs all the way into Lake Michigan, will impede rescues, whether or not the fencing is submerged. Lake-
based fencing may also incite people to climb up and jump from 15 feet out into the water onto whatever rocks
or other items may exist at that depth. The fencing will also trap debris and make the overall lakefront area look
even worse than it does now—see recent photo.
a. Department staff response: The term navigation in the Department’s 3704 Rules refers to commercial
navigation. The fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water, and the fact that the
proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses concerns that the
proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan. The fencing may catch debris
and ice, the removal of which is considered operation and maintenance, and is outside the authority of
the IDNR/OWR. The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any
navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and
allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of
such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for
navigation.
3. IDNR’s Public Comment Notice presents an unsigned application. Why is the permit application unsigned?
a. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the
Department web site.
4. WPD’s proposed narrow, 39” stacked set of single gates framing a 6-foot-long corridor, would unlawfully create
an impassable barrier to challenged individuals’ ability to traverse the beach. As you and the other government
officials on this email can see, 39 inches is too narrow to meet beach access standards, even for temporary
structures.
a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules related to ADA requirements.
Robert A. Schriesheim (comments dated 06/13/25)
1. Generally, I am concerned that the installation of the proposed fencing at Centennial Dog Beach, in Lake
Michigan at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, would encroach upon a public body of water and
impair the rights, interests, and uses of the public in using a public body of water and the natural resources
thereof. See Department’s Part 3704 Rules, Section 3704.10. Specifically, the proposed fence would have the
effect of limiting public access to Lake Michigan and its historically submerged lakebed, which is held in trust for
the public. This encroachment and impairment would be in violation of the Department’s Part 3704 Rules. As
such, the permit application should be denied. See Sections 3704.80(a), 3704.90.
a. Applicant response: The proposed temporary fencing is intended to support safe and responsible
operation of Centennial Dog Beach and is not designed to restrict public access to Lake Michigan.
b. Department staff response: The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park
District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the
bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to
take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. The proposed fencing
will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline.
2. The proposed fence has been inconsistently described in various materials made public by the permit applicant.
For example, the Public Notice issued by the Department describes the southerly fence line as including gates
and being “located 20 ft. north of the south property line.” However, in materials submitted for consideration by
zoning authorities at the municipal level, the fence does not appear to include gates and abuts (and crosses) the
southern property line. This latter configuration certainly impairs the rights, interests, and uses of the public in
using Lake Michigan and its historic lakebed.
Page 82 of 547
a. Applicant response: We acknowledge that previous plan submissions may contain slight differences.
However, the IDNR application reflects the most current design intent. The southern fence line will
remain on park property, and gates on both ends are being designed to allow public access and
operational flexibility.
b. Department staff response: The submitted application materials include gates to allow continued public
access along the shoreline, and does not include work on adjacent properties.
3. The permit application is ambiguous regarding the type of gate latch to be used for the access gates in the north
and south fence. See Detail 1 and Detail 2, Sheet L2.0. The Project Description notes that certain aspects of the
Centennial Dog Beach are subject to a “fob-controlled gate”, which inherently limits access to public land. Given
the permit applicant’s history in controlling access to this space, it is unclear whether the proposed gates will be
lockable or locked, thereby inhibiting the public’s ability to access, use, and enjoy public land.
a. Applicant response: The project will not enclose or privatize public land, and any gates or latches will
remain unlocked for public access. The current electric fob gate at the top of the bluff is existing and
helps manage usage to ensure safe use of the dog beach.
b. Department staff response: The submitted application materials describe the proposed gates as
including latches for public access and make no mention of locks. The existing steel seawall at the base
of the bluff will define the western boundary, with beach access maintained through the current
stairway and fob-controlled gate.
4. No explanation is provided by the permit applicant as to why the north fence line has a double gate (at 10’ wide)
and the south fence has a single gate (approximately 3’ wide). See Detail 1 and Detail 2, Sheet L2.0. The public
should be able to equally access and traverse public land from the north and south.
a. Applicant response: The differing gate sizes (north: 10', south: 3') reflect maintenance needs and site
constraints, not an intent to limit access from one side.
b. Department staff response: The number and orientation of the gates is outside the authority of the
IDNR/OWR.
Ted Wynnychenko (comments dated 06/02/25)
1. I believe it is important to note that, while the WPD describes the fencing as “temporary,” there is no provision
within Part 3704 Rules for “temporary” structures. As such, and, apparently, as the Department has already
noted, the permit application is for a “permanent” structure across the beach/lakeshore below the bluff and
within the waters of the Lake.
a. Applicant response: Regarding the characterization of the fencing as “temporary,” we understand the
IDNR reviews all structures within its permitting jurisdiction based on their location, intended use, and
potential environmental impact, regardless of duration. The fencing described in our proposal is not
intended to be permanent infrastructure, but rather a management tool to clearly delineate the off-
leash dog area, minimize conflicts, and support the safe, continued operation of the dog beach in a
responsible manner.
b. Department staff response: Staff are reviewing an application for fencing. If and when an IDNR/OWR
permit is issued there will be no special conditions concerning the duration of time the fencing will be in
place.
2. I believe it is importation to correct the WPD’s misstatement of fact. In its application, the WPD states that the
purpose of the fencing is “to be compliant with Illinois Cook County Animal Control Ordinance.” The proposed
fencing will not make the proposed site for an “off-leash” dog park/area “compliant” with any County
Ordinance. It appears the WPD is referring to Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance, Part II,
Regulation VIII, which considers “Dog Parks and Areas,” as the WPD’s stated purpose for this area of public trust
land along the shore, and into the waters, of the Lake is for its use as an “Off-Leash Dog Park.” Furthermore, it
appears that the WPD is asserting that “two shore perpendicular rows of fencing ... being[ing] at the existing
sheetpile seawall and extend[ing] 15 ft. into Lake Michigan” will be compliant the County’s Ordinance. This is not
true. Regulation VIII requires that any off-leash “Dog Park must be completely enclosed by a contiguous fence.”
[Emphasis added.] As such the proposed 3 sided “fencing,” where one side is the sheetpile seawall, for this area
does not meet requirements of the County’s Ordinance, and the WPD’s assertion that it does is misleading and
deceptive. As it is not entirely relevant to this application, I will conclude by simply stating that the Cook County
Page 83 of 547
Department of Animal Control has not, at any time, explicitly endorsed that any incompletely, or non-
contiguously, enclosed area would meet the requirements of Regulation VIII, and that the Department of Animal
Control has no procedures, processes, or authority which allows it to issue any waivers or other exemptions to
Regulation VIII. As such, the stated purpose of the permit application will not be accomplished by the requested
fencing.
a. Applicant response: With respect to regulatory requirements, the Park District has remained in regular
communication with Cook County Animal and Rabies Control (CCARC). According to their current
ordinance, all dog parks (or dog friendly areas) must be fully enclosed and include a gated entry system.
The Park District has submitted the plans for the temporary fencing at Centennial Dog Beach to CCARC
and is currently awaiting their review and confirmation that the proposed design meets all applicable
requirements.
b. Department staff response: The comment has no reference or relation to the Part 3704 rules. The Park
District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the
bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to
take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation.
3. The permit application does not provide any benefit to the general public, represents a direct encroachment on
the Lake, is an obstruction to navigation along the Lake’s shore, and impairs the rights of the public.
a. Applicant response: Importantly, the fencing will not restrict public access to the beach or the lake. As
clearly stated in our application, double entry gates are planned at both the north and south ends of the
designated dog beach area to allow for continuous shoreline passage. This configuration aims to balance
secure, off-leash use by dogs with the broader community's ability to traverse the shoreline. The design
does not create a privatized or exclusive zone, but rather continues the decades-long management of
this space as a designated dog-friendly area.
b. Department staff response: While the fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan, the Park District
Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or
submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take
possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. IDNR/OWR’s concern
is for commercial navigation; the fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water. The
proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline.
4. As this application appears to be a “first of its kind,” where a municipal entity is requesting the right to seize
control of public trust land for the benefit of a select few at the expense, and to the detriment, of the people of
the State, I am concerned that there may be further attempts to “privatize” the Lake’s shore with the
installation of fencing expressly designed to bar or limit public entry to public land for the benefit of private
parties.
a. Applicant response: The Winnetka Park District is not acting on behalf of a small group of private
individuals. This proposal stems from ongoing operational evaluations and a desire to responsibly
manage high-use recreational areas that involve dogs, which inherently carry added safety and
compliance considerations. The proposed approach reflects feedback received from residents, staff
assessments, and a continued commitment to provide access while minimizing risks. Finally, we
recognize the importance of preserving access to public lands and waters. We will continue to work
closely with regulatory agencies, including IDNR, to ensure that any activities undertaken are legal,
appropriate, and aligned with the values of this community.
b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. The Park
District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the
bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to
take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering
thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. The proposed fencing
will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline.
Page 84 of 547
Public Hearing
Of the 34 individuals, agencies, and local governments that responded to the public notice, issued for this project, three
requested a public hearing. At this time, it is the opinion of Department staff that no additional relevant information can
be obtained by holding a public hearing and therefore, do not recommend a public hearing be held.
As a result of comments received in response to the public notice, issued for this project, no changes were made to the
project as originally proposed.
Page 85 of 547
Letter to the Editor: The Dog
Beach and lakefront accessibili-
ty
July 22nd, 2024
Editor’s note: This is the City of Evanston’s response to resident John Kennedy’s recent
letter that brought up concerns about accessibility at city beaches.
While there are definitely additional steps that the city can take to increase accessibility on
the lakefront, there are many steps that the city has already taken to make the lakefront
accessible for individuals with disabilities. Please know that it is difficult to compare the
other beaches and their accessibility to the Dog Beach. As the city only has one dog beach,
the ADA requires that it must be accessible.
Please take a look at what the city has currently done to increase accessibility on all of its
beaches:
In 2022, the city developed the ADA Transition Plan to remove barriers to city services
and make it easier for community members with disabilities to participate. The plan
places ADA access at the forefront of city planning, construction and policies.
In early 2023, the city installed Mobi Mats at each of the city’s six beaches, providing a
path to closer proximity to the water for those in wheelchairs.
Page 86 of 547
Page 87 of 547
August 24, 2023
Steve Wilson
Executive Director
Wilmette Park District
1200 Wilmette Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
Review for Langdon Park Beach
Dear Steve:
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback for the two new SmithGroup options for
access to Langdon Park Beach. The first is an at grade option that is a hybrid of plans II and
IV that were shared in the August board meeting, using the name Concept ORA 2. The
second is a newer boardwalk option than what was presented at the August board meeting,
using the name Concept ORA 3. Tanya Scheibe reviewed these plans. Tanya, one of our
Project Managers, has a degree in architecture and is a Registered Accessibility Specialist. I
also reviewed her work. The following are our remarks.
Connection of Permeable Pavers to New Path
Limited information is shown on these options regarding the pavers. Although this portion of
the paver surface may be part of the outdoor recreation access route, we recommend the
paver section comply with the requirements of a typical accessible route as the existing
portions of this surface type are a typical accessible route. As a reminder, the requirements
of a typical accessible route are:
minimum width of 36” wide;
gaps no greater than .5”;
changes in level no greater than .5”;
running slope maximum 5%; and
cross slope maximum 2.08%.
This surface can follow all requirements for the outdoor recreation access route instead and
have higher slopes with resting intervals as required for this path type.
At Grade Outdoor Recreation Access Route Design (Concept ORA 2)
In the design shown, the portions of the path that will begin beyond the permeable paver
path extension will meet requirements for running slopes of an outdoor recreation access
route as well as the requirements for resting intervals necessary. As a reminder, with a
typical running slope of 9.8% specified for each section, resting intervals are needed every
30’ and these resting intervals must be a minimum of 60” wide and 60” long with slopes not
greater than 2.08% for a paved surface. This is met in the design presented.
Page 88 of 547
Steve Wilson
Langdon Park Beach
August 24, 2023 Page 2
Handrails are not required on an outdoor recreation access route and are not included in this
current design, but may be desirable with these steeper slopes. Should handrails be
provided at the final stage, they must meet all requirements for handrails typical of ramps.
This includes:
a mounting height of 34” to 38” to the top of the gripping surface;
a diameter of 1.25” to 2”;
have extensions at the top and bottom of each run, and
continue to a floor, post, or wall at the ends.
Boardwalk Outdoor Recreation Access Route Design (Concept ORA 3)
The same requirements mentioned above apply to this boardwalk design as well. This design
uses two different surface types. It is important to ensure that the transitions between surface
types have a maximum of .5” change in elevation. As shown in the plans, the running slopes
of the outdoor recreation access route and the boardwalk will meet requirements and will
include the necessary resting intervals.
As noted earlier, handrails are not required on an outdoor recreation access route. Should
handrails be provided, they must meet all requirements for handrails typical of ramps as
described earlier.
Beach Access Route Requirements (applies to all plans)
When work is underway at an Illinois beach, beach access routes must be part of the project.
A beach access route (BAR) must meet certain requirements for access and connect to an
appropriate water level based on the type of beach. Authorities consider Lake Michigan and
the other Great Lakes non-tidal lakes. Therefore, the Park District must provide access to
the normal recreation water level. This is not defined within the 2018 Illinois Accessibility
Code nor does there appear to be a definition for normal recreation water level in other texts.
We believe that the long-term average data provided by the Army Corps of Engineers may
be the best benchmark here. We are not experts in the determination of normal recreation
water level in this environment and encourage the Park District to identify this water level or a
means of determining it should that level fluctuate over the years.
A BAR can be a permanent surface like the path that is being added or can be removable,
being rolled out or set up during hours the beach is open and stored when the beach is
closed. Regardless of surface type, the beach access route must be a minimum of 60” wide,
have changes in level or obstacles maximum .5”, have gaps maximum .5”, and must be free
of protruding objects. If the beach access route is a permanent surface, it must also meet
requirements for slopes and resting intervals. The cross slope of a beach access route must
not exceed 2.08%. The running slope can be:
Up to 5% for any length of the beach access route without requiring resting intervals;
Between 5% and 8.33% for a maximum length of 50’ with resting intervals at each
end of the segment; and
Between 8.33% and 10% for a maximum length of 30’ with resting intervals at each
end of the segment.
These running slopes match the requirements of an Outdoor Recreation Access Route and
are not as generous as the allowances for trails which can reach 12.5% for a maximum of
10’.
Page 89 of 547
Page 90 of 547
Page 91 of 547
Page 92 of 547
Office of Water Resources, Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St., S-703, Chicago, IL 60601
Memorandum
Date: December 11, 2025
To: Steve Altman
From: Eric Otto
RE: IDNR/OWR application-for-permit C20250015 by the Winnetka Park District for the construction of fencing, in
Lake Michigan, at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
Authority
The application for permit (application) was reviewed using the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of
Water Resources (Department) Part 3704 rules “REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATERS” which implement and are authorized
by the Rivers, Lakes and Streams Act [615 ILCS 5]. The application was also reviewed using the Park District Code [70 ILCS
1205/11-2] (Exhibit PDC).
Existing Conditions (Exhibit A)
The applicant has three contiguous littoral lots, north to south, 260, 250, and 246 Sheridan Road, which form Centennial
Park, on Lake Michigan. The beach is used as an off-leash dog swimming beach. The property is located immediately
south of 261 Sheridan Road and immediately north of 205 Sheridan Road. Existing structures consist of:
1. A shore-parallel steel sheetpile seawall at the toe of the bluff
2. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the approximate center of the site
3. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the south property line
Proposed Project (Exhibit B)
The applicant proposes to install two shore-perpendicular rows of fencing (North and South), beginning at the existing
steel sheetpile seawall, and extending 15 ft. into Lake Michigan. Both fences will consist of 4 ft. high chain link fence
without concrete footings. The fence posts will be directly driven into clay substrate to the point of refusal. The North
fence will be 91 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. south of the north property line. The South fence will be 78.25 ft. long
and will be located 20 ft. north of the south property line. Gates will be installed in both rows of fencing to allow public
access along the shoreline.
Department Application Review History
An application-for-permit was received on April 25, 2025. A permit application review fee of $3,360 was received on
May 20, 2025. The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025. The public notice expired on June 13,
2025. Comments from 34 individuals were received in response to the notice. These comments were forwarded to the
applicant for response on June 16, 2025. The applicant’s responses were received on September 30, 2025. IDNR/DEE’s
sign off was received on April 29, 2025. The IEPA’s Final Determination Letter was received on August 8, 2025. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing the proposed project for authorization by an Individual Permit.
Page 93 of 547
Page 94 of 547
I am attaching a copy of a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers that I also mailed to each of you
today. I'm sending it to you by email as well because of my significant public safety concerns
involving an unfenced dog beach reopening at Centennial Park when repairs are complete. By way
of this email, my husband and I are asking three things:
1. Act together to clear the hurdles to the temporary fencing for the dog beach, and get it
erected, as soon as possible.
2. Do not reopen the dog beach until the fencing is up.
3. Direct our police department to enforce the Village's and the Park District's leash laws,
especially in our local parks.
As you will see in the letter, in early July we had two instances of dogs in our backyard coming off
the unfenced dog beach. In one case, it was a pair of them traveling together. These dogs have no
business roaming free in our community, and I am deeply disappointed that the Village, the Park
District, and local law enforcement all continue to look the other way on unleashed dogs on the
beach and in Centennial and Elder Lane parks. This situation is of particular concern regarding Elder
Lane Park, which prohibits dogs altogether, on or off leash. This park teems with children daily,
ranging from the toddlers at the tot lot, to the primary school children with their flag football and
soccer practices, to the teens with the parking for New Trier, and to all kinds of families who
regularly picnic in the park.
I do not understand the failure of our local government to enforce our leash laws in these two parks
and their beaches. As you will see in the letter, my own experience with a vicious dog attack in
Elder Lane Park has shaped my views on this. I apologize for the graphic nature of the attached
photos, but I think they illustrate well just what a dog is capable of doing in a very short period of
time. The four photos were taken by the vet after Toby's attack. The largest wound was five inches
long and an inch wide, the other very deep wound was approximately an inch deep into his tissue.
Can you imagine if the Elder Lane victim had been a child in the park instead?
My husband and I are happy to discuss this further. Besides contacting us by email, you can reach
us on our landline, Thank you.
Fran and John Edwardson
Page 95 of 547
Page 96 of 547
Page 97 of 547
Page 98 of 547
Page 99 of 547
Page 100 of 547
Page 101 of 547
TALKING POINTS—FENCING FOR DOG BEACH
My name is Fran Edwardson, and I live at 301 Sheridan Rd, next to Elder Lane Park.
Since the dog beach at Centennial reopened with a supposed “leash” requirement,
lower lake levels, and no fencing, we have had multiple dogs coming into our yard
from the dog beach.
They are traveling nearly a quarter mile from Centennial: across the 261 Sheridan
and Elder Lane beaches, then onto our property, up our stairs, and into our yard.
They have neither leashes nor owners with them. I’m grateful that our
grandchildren weren’t outside as this could have put them in harm’s way.
Worse yet, the dogs could have easily come up at Elder Lane Park next to the tot
lot, or at an adjacent home where young children live and play in their yard often.
Elder Lane Park is used by lots of kids, including the toddlers at the playground, Jr
Trevians at sports practices, and the teenagers who park there to attend New Trier.
Elder Lane is a “people park” and all dogs, whether on or off leash, are specifically
prohibited in it by Park District ordinance.
I have firsthand experience with an attacking dog, and know the serious injuries
they can cause. In 2020, while I was walking my leashed dog Toby, he was tackled
and dragged into Elder Lane Park by a very large, unleashed, uncollared German
shepherd. He pinned Toby down, and began to eat my dog alive until the owner
was able to pull the attacking dog off. It was horrifying. But, it could have been
worse. What if the dog had attacked me instead? Or worse yet, a child playing in
the park?
While we love our dogs, they can be dangerous animals. That’s why we have laws
that regulate them. Whether on the beach, in the parks, or on our streets, dogs
should not be roaming unleashed in Winnetka. It presents an important public
safety risk, which should be given the highest priority.
Not just the law, but common sense, dictates that a dog beach must be fenced. This
is not the Park District’s problem alone. The Village’s own leash laws specifically
declare that unleashed dogs off the owner’s property are a “public nuisance.” Our
zoning ordinances put this squarely in front of the Village, too. The plastic
1
Page 102 of 547
TALKING POINTS—FENCING FOR DOG BEACH
construction fencing that’s up at Elder Lane beach right now isn’t going keep dogs
from roaming for long.
Two recent surveys done by the Park District and the Caucus indicate that the full
reopening of Elder Lane beach is one of our community’s highest priorities. Our
beaches should be safe for all beach goers and park visitors. Resilient fencing can
create a safe and enjoyable environment for everyone, and mitigate the risks of
unintended encounters between dogs and human beings.
The Army Corps’ and IDNR’s review of the Park District’s temporary dog beach fence
application is nearly complete. I urge the Village to cooperate with its fellow
government agencies and grant all necessary approvals for the temporary dog fence
as quickly as you possibly can.
Thank you.
2
Page 103 of 547
To: Village of Winnetka Plan Commission
From: Kimberley Marsh, 360 Forest Street, Winnetka, IL
Re: Winnetka Park District Centennial Fence SUP Application Violates Design Standards,
Conflicts with the 2040 Futures Plan & Misrepresents Facts and the Law
Date: January 21, 2026
Please vote against recommending the Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Village Code-
violating, SUP standard breaching, unlawful and 2040 Futures Plan-indifferent permanent
fencing permit application.
1. Design Standards prohibit chain-link fencing. WPD’s proposed black
chain-link animal cage on the shores of Lake Michigan would violate this
prohibition. It cannot be recommended to the Village Council.
2. VOW 2040 Futures Plan promotes open space and the preservation of
Winnetka’s graceful character, neighborhood design standards, and the
environment. WPD’s SUP application clearly violates all of these tenets.
There is no standalone black chain link fencing along any neighboring
Centennial Park property owner’s lakefront front lot line, nor along any
Sheridan Road front lawn. There is no standalone chain link fencing in
the neighborhood that extends into Lake Michigan. WPD’s SUP permit
application cannot be recommended to the Village Council.
3. When the Village approved WPD’s 2001 Elder Lane and Beach SUP
application, it required WPD to install Code-compliant non-chain link
fencing. Despite this, WPD seeks to install Code non-compliant, design
standard violating, 2040 Futures Plan -inconsistent chain link fencing on
Centennial beach.
4. WPD’s proposed black chain link animal cage is not minimally necessary
nor consistent with Code Section 15.78.010. WPD’s fencing is designed to
stretch106’ from the toe of the bluffs into Lake Michigan on the north, and
93’3” into Lake Michigan to the south. The fencing extends 72 feet beyond
the OHWM--WPD’s front lot line—on the north, and 77’3” beyond WPD’s
front lot line to the south. Fencing that extends beyond a property owner’s
front lot line is prohibited.
5. The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it defines as fencing or other
barriers that would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan
and its submerged lands.
Page 104 of 547
6. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as
fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing
police and other first responder access to Centennial beach/Lake
Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates on the
northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed
two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide
corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would
unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent
public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first
responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide
corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the
fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the
OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to
persons/dogs/boats/paddlers.
7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental
bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD
designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a
wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that would trap
people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of
Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village
Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan and cannot be recommended for
approval.
8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in
animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores
of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time
constraints or removal requirement.
9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code
abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south
of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of
known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that
may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly
stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach,
or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves
2
Page 105 of 547
at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large
section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach,
which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies
WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of
its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage.
10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s
animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations,
despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and
phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC
Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial
beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or
any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can
produce no documentation supporting its specious claims.
11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at
large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog
that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE
RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED
BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted
usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority.
WPD is deliberately mis-defining what constitutes “running at large” to
force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design
Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s
nuisance provisions.
12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog
parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to
exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are
NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of
compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks
waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement.
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and
misleading fencing permit application.
3
Page 106 of 547
Friends -
What a surprise to receive an email from Eric Otto on Christmas Eve saying that the IDNR had
issued Permit LM2025011 allowing the Winnetka Park District to put fencing into Lake
Michigan around Centennial Park!
This is a terrible idea for so many reasons. First of all, this fence de es Illinois law (615 ILCS
5/27). This is a beach for public use.
I understand that the Park District application described the fencing as going into the lake 15
feet. Take a look at the WPD's own drawings. They want to have a fence which would go 106
feet lakeward from the seawall to the north, and 93 feet 3 inches lakeward from the seawall to
the south.
Think of the hazards these fences will present to swimmers, boaters, and even dogs!
Mr. Otto mentions that the area where the Park District wants to put its fences is made up of
shoals and water not t for navigation. That's simply not true. According to USACE, all of Lake
Michigan's waters are navigable.
Finally, this really is moot since a public notice was not posted to inform the Winnetka residents
about the Park District's plans and application.
I believe Laurie Morse's comments, which you have, sum up our problems here:
Mr. Otto's permit of multiple fences on Centennial Beach is a precedent-setting decision
with consequences leadership at the Corps and the IDNR
have not considered, and which are far-reaching. The IDNR failed to hold a public hearing
that included all managers of waterside state and county
recreational areas in Illinois prior to making this permit decision.
Please reconsider your decision and rescind Permit LM2025011.
Please keep me updated. Thank you.
Irene Smith
1087 Elm Street
Winnetka, IL 60093
Page 107 of 547
fi
fi
ATTACHMENT C2
From:
To: Kristin Kazenas; ContactCouncil; Planning
Cc: Shannon Nazzal; ; Christina Codo; scorley@winpark.org; dseaman@winpark.org; cyrapp@winpark.org;
jtyson@winpark.org; Kutulas Costa
Subject: Winnetka Dog Beach Fencing
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 10:52:57 AM
Attachments: Exhibit 2 - Dog Park and Beach - History and Consideration of Alternatives.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Village of Winnetka Board of Trustees, Staff and Plan Commissioners,
As you prepare for the upcoming Plan Commission Hearing regarding the dog beach, I thought if
would be helpful to list some salient facts regarding the Winnetka Dog Beach and attach the
exhibit that was included in the prior plan commission submittal regarding the history of the
Winnetka Dog Beach.
The dog beach at Winnetka's Centennial Park opened in 1995.
The Village of Winnetka adopted leash laws in 2007, requiring dogs to be on leash in
public spaces
Cook County Animal Control Ordinance has detailed requirements for operating off-
leash dog parks including fences and controlled access.
A chain link fence was in place at the near the north end of Centennial beach extending
into the water for the better part of a decade before it was obliterated by wave action
accompanying rising water levels peaking in 2020.
The Winnetka Park District developed thoughtful plans that meet the various
requirements to keep the dog beach in compliance with governing regulations and be
consistent with the public trust doctrine.
The Park District studied all other locations and determined Centennial is best suited for
the purpose of the dog beach (see attached document included in prior public
submittals to the Village of Winnetka).
Centennial Beach, with 520 feet of shoreline represents more than 21% of the publicly
accessible shoreline in Winnetka.
The number of Winnetka households with dog beach passes averages less than 7% of
the households.
The Park District voted UNANIMOUSLY in October of 2022, to keep the dog beach at
Centennial but reduce the size to not less than 170 and not more than 270 feet of
shoreline and to provide public access to the balance of Centennial Park.
ANY other proposed dog beach in Winnetka would require the granting of a special use
permit before it could be used as an off-leash dog park and it would have to meet the
same requirements.
Page 108 of 547
The Village of Winnetka requires a Special Use Permit for ALL: Parks, Schools, Churches
and other Institutional uses because it does not have a land use category in its zoning
ordinance for such uses.
But for the lack of proper zoning classification this request would be a simple
administrative process requiring a building permit.
Despite the fact that the dog beach has been in the same location for the past 30 years,
the Village of Winnetka is insisting upon a new special use permit for a temporary fence
to allow dogs to run off leash at Centennial Beach.
The Winnetka Park District is obligated to follow the ordinances enacted by the Village of
Winnetka, County of Cook and State of Illinois; its not an option.
The Village should explain to its constituents who made the decision to require a special use
permit and why it is required for a statutorily required fence. It's been more than 3 years since
the Park District agreed to modify the lakefront master plan to keep the dog beach at
Centennial and people are still arguing over a simple plan to meet the basic code requirements
for an off-leash dog park.
Politics involves compromise. Operating a dog beach requires compliance with
governing regulations. The proposed interim fencing solution properly secures the dog beach
while affording the public access to the balance of Centennial Park and Beach. The plan
should be approved without further delay.
Warren James
Page 109 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
Centennial Park was established in 1969 with the acquisition of the former North Shore Health Resort
Property. Park features are largely the same today as when it was first developed, with the notable
exceptions of the bluff and shoreline repairs in 1987 and the formation of the Centennial Park off-
leash “Dog Beach” in 1995.
Above: Drone image dated 2020-09-29 Below: Drone image dated 2020-08-26
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 110 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
Publicly owned shoreline in Winnetka is detailed below:
Publicly Owned Lakefront Property – Village of Winnetka & Winnetka Park District
BeachPa
Shore Beach Access WPD WPD Managed
frontag Shore Access Allowed Managed with Beach
e frontage Allowed (% of Beach Access
Description (feet) (% of total) (feet) total) (feet) Allowed (%)
Sheridan Rd – Ravines 100 3.3% 100 3.9% 0 0.0%
Tower Rd Beach (WPD) 200 6.6% 200 7.9% 200 8.3%
Tower Rd Beach (VofW) 320 10.6% 320 12.6% 320 13.3%
Tower Rd Power Plant 215 7.1% 0 28.3% 0 0.0%
Lloyd Beach 720 23.8% 720 9.2% 720 29.9%
Maple Beach 235 7.8% 235 0.0% 235 9.8%
Spruce Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Elm Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Oak Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Cherry Street ROW 40 1.3% 40 1.6% 0 0.0%
Willow Road ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Elder Lane Beach 410 13.6% 410 16.1% 410 17.0%
Centennial Beach 520 17.2% 520 20.4% 520 21.6%
TOTALS: 3024 100.0% 2545 100.0% 2405 100.0%
Note: Centennial Beach represents 21.6% of the total usable beachfront managed by the WPD.
Winnetka Park District – Dog Beach Pass Holders – Summary Report: 2010-2022
Year Resident Non-Resident
2010 351 75
2011 311 73
2012 320 89
2013 275 71
2014 285 65
2015 267 63
2016 315 70
2017 333 80
2018 371 94
2019 356 105
2020 245 56
2021 300 86
2022 232 54
AVERAGE: 305 75
Approx. 4500 Households within the WPD (includes parts of Northfield, Glencoe, Kenilworth)
The 13 year average of 305 resident dog beach passes represents only 6.8% of WPD households.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 111 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
DOG BEACH TIMELINE
• 1995 – Dog Beach Created at Centennial Park by Winnetka Park District
• 2007 – Village of Winnetka adopts leash ordinance
• 2015 – Lakefront Advisory Committee recommends relocating dog park in the event Elder and
Centennial are unified, recognizing that Elder and Centennial combined with 261 Sheridan
would result in a 1000-foot public beach.
• April 2016 - Lakefront Master Plan Adopted
• May 2016 – Community needs assessment survey identified dog park as top 5 priority
• Dec 2018 – Residents approach WPD Board to advocate for an off-leash (land based) dog
park
• Jan 2019 – Board directs staff to prioritize dry land dog park assessment
• Mar 2019 – Staff evaluated 33 sites and identifies 4 as meeting minimum requirements
• Jun 2019 – WPD host meeting to present findings from community engagement
• Aug 2019 – WPD Board reviews information regarding dog park locations
o During the board meeting, the need to find a suitable alternative location for a dog
park was highlighted, noting that the Lakefront Master Plan called for relocating the
dog park away from Centennial Beach in the event the parks were unified.
o WPD identifies West Elm Park and Crow Island Woods best suited locations for off-
leash dog park.
o West Elm area residents mobilize to oppose dog park at portion of West Elm Park
o Euclid Avenue residents mobilize to oppose dog park at portion of Crow Island Woods
o WPD Board drops proposal for dog beach at West Elm or Crow Island due to
community opposition and focuses on off leash park on portion of the Village
municipal yard south of Willow Road.
• March 2020 – Covid Outbreak
o WPD meetings to go to zoom only
o Caucus participation plummets to low 20’s total participation
o Randy Whitchurch and Bill Murphy – both residents of Fuller Lane volunteer to serve
on Winnetka Caucus Council Park District commissioner selection committee
• August 19, 2020 – Caucus zoom interviews of candidates for WPD Commissioner; conducted
by Randy Whitchurch and Bill Murphy; seven candidates for one open seat; Eric Lussen and
Warren James, both incumbents interviewed for second term.
• October 10, 2020 – Winnetka Park District enters into Exchange Agreement to acquire 261
Sheridan.
• November 11, 2020, Caucus Town Hall, presentation of Candidates via zoom:
o Candidate Colleen Root was recommended by the Winnetka Caucus Council as
nominee for park board commissioner.
o Candidate Root introduces herself as an attorney from Houston, TX, who moved to
Winnetka in 2018, is familiar with the Army Corps of Engineers by virtue of the fact her
home was flooded and destroyed by a hurricane, stated one of the reasons she moved
to Winnetka was for its dog beach.
• March 10, 2021, Caucus Spring Town Hall – question regarding dog beach/parks directed to
candidate Colleen Root in lieu of board President Mickey Archambault.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 112 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
• May 27, 2021, Commissioner Root sworn in as newly elected Commissioner
• Jun 24, 2021, first Regular Board meeting with new board members, including Commissioner
Root (in attendance.)
• Aug 26, 2021, WPD Board meeting: 50+ attendees demanding reinstatement of dog beach in
lakefront master plan – led by Commissioner Colleen Root & Randy Whitchurch
• WPD Board responded to community input and established Dog Beach Committee which
included volunteer time/board liaison from Village President Chris Rintz.
• Village of Winnetka reiterated its offer to allocate land for off leash dog park at Village
Municipal Yard, for which specific plans were prepared by WPD. However, the Village noted
that off leash park on municipal yard would not be able to be constructed until after the
completion of the stormwater project in SW Winnetka.
• Village of Winnetka offered to establish dog beach on a portion of Tower Road Beach owned
by the Village of Winnetka immediately adjacent and north of Tower Road pier.
• As detailed above, the total usable publicly owned shoreline at Tower Road Beach is
approximately 520 feet. Comprised of 320 feet owned by the Village of Winnetka, leased to
the WPD and the 200-foot-wide lot owned by the WPD.
Cook County Viewer – GIS Image – Village of Winnetka Owned Property
Cook County Viewer – GIS Image – Winnetka Park District owned property
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 113 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
• Spring 2022 - Dog Beach Committee developed specific plans for dog beach at Tower Road.
• Spring 2022 - Dog Beach Committee worked with staff and consultants to prepare plans for
dog beach on the southern portion of Tower Road Beach, including a fence surrounding the
dog beach extending to the waterline.
• WPD Board of Directors reviewed proposed plan for Tower prepared by Dog Beach
Committee. The WPD Board made the following observations:
o With 520’ total available shoreline, proposed dog park at 258’ wide as depicted on the
proposed plan would result in swimming beach of only 262 feet.
o The exposure to waves from the North-northeast would require more substantial
barrier than a temporary chain link fence to properly separate dog beach users from
swimmers – likely sheet pile groin and stone breakwater that would add significant
expense to the project.
o Wave action and riptide adjacent to Tower Road pier presents hazard to dogs.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 114 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
• Randy Whitchurch public comment to WPD Board during Tower Road location consideration:
Mr. Whitchurch objected to relocation of dog beach to Tower Road citing steep slope of
access drive and parking limitations.
o Note: given that most dog beach users arrive on foot, moving the dog beach to Tower
would result in potential conflicts between dogs, automobiles, pedestrians and
cyclists on the steeply sloping access drive at Tower Road Beach, 15’-6” wide.
• June 9, 2022, WPD Board votes 3-2 with (Commissioners Codo and Lussen absent) to
withdraw permit applications for Elder and Centennial beaches from the IDNR & ACOE.
• July 8, 2022, Orchard 2020 (Ishbia) acquires 195 Sheridan Road and informs WPD of their
intent to move house plans south of Centennial Park, excluding Exchange parcel.
• October 24, 2022; Winnetka homeowner Robert Schriesheim files lawsuit against Winnetka
Park District, challenging the Property Exchange Agreement
o Note: Shriesheim v. Winnetka Park District was settled on January 16, 2025. The
Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions: “the Parties have agreed to
the terms herein for the sole purpose of settlement, and nothing herein may be taken
as or construed to be an admission or concession of any violation of law, rule, or
regulation, or of any other matter of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing or lack
thereof” AND “The WPD agrees not to transfer title to the beach property at
Centennial Park which lies east (or lakeward) of the current steel sheet piling at the
toe of the bluff to any non-governmental entity.”
o The Settlement Agreement assures that the southern end of Centennial Beach will
remain part of the WPD owned shoreline and the proposed dog beach will not be
altered.
• October 27, 2022, WPD Board UNANIMOUSLY approves a motion to maintain dog beach at
south end of Centennial Park (present location) with several conditions as detailed below.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 115 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
• Excerpts from Board Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022, read as follows:
Commissioner Lussen made a motion to amend the Waterfront 2030 Lakefront Master Plan to
Include a Dog Beach at the south end of Centennial Beach subject to the following conditions:
a. Shore frontage allocated to dog beach use shall not be less than 170 feet and not be greater
than 270 feet;
b. The dog beach area must include a secure boundary to prevent dogs from straying beyond the
borders of the dog beach while off leash;
c. The electric gate system be relocated to the beach or boardwalk level to afford public access
to the remainder of Centennial Beach; and
d. Dog beach boundaries shall accommodate public passage along the lakefront in keeping with
the IDNR guidelines.
Commissioner Archambault seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lussen acknowledged a Cook County law which requires a fenced in dog beach.
Commissioner Root commented it appears the Park District is tying design to the desires of Orchard
2020. Commissioner Lussen commented the dog beach provides an important element to our
community. Commission Codo stated keeping the dog beach at the south end is a neutral location.
The IDNR phrasing in the motion allows the Park District to control what happens on its property and
the IDNR to control what happens on adjacent property. Following discussion, item “d” of the motion
was amended as follows: “Dog beach boundaries shall accommodate public passage along the
lakefront”.
• A roll call vote was taken.
• Ayes: Archambault, Codo, James, Lussen, Rapp, Root, Seaman
• Nays: None
• Motion carried as amended
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources, published Guidelines for
the submittal of applications for Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources
Permits for Shore Protection Projects in Lake Michigan in November 2015.
The Guidelines contain the following provisions:
“Where possible, notably in areas where existing access along the lakeshore is available, the project
should provide some type of reasonable access over or around it on the landward side.”
The WPD proposed plans for the Centennial dog beach comply with the IDNR guidelines by providing
a bypass around the dog beach on the landward side of the proposed dog beach.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 116 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
The Foreword to the Cook County Animal Control Act reads in part as follows:
The Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance was developed and passed to establish
guidelines in the development of harmonious relationships between animals and man. This
Ordinance is the law in all municipalities within Cook County. Any municipality regardless of its
population may pass an ordinance effective within its jurisdiction more strict than the County
Ordinance.
No person including a municipal corporation, forest preserve district or park district shall designate
within the County an outdoor area, even if fenced, as an area where dogs may run off leash unless
such person, municipal corporation forest preserve district or park district complies with such
regulation as may be issued by the Administrator of the operation of outdoor off leash areas.
Computer Generated scaled image of proposed Dog Beach with perimeter fence and bypass along
landward side as required by Cook County and IDNR.
The shoreline frontage dedicated to the proposed dog beach is approximately 240 feet, slightly less
than 10% of the WPD managed shoreline in Winnetka, which is a more appropriate allocation of
shoreline than the entire Centennial beach which is 520 feet of shoreline, representing 21.6% of the
total usable shoreline managed by the WPD.
The proposed pier provides robust protection from waves coming from the northeast and proper
separation between the dog beach and the swimming beach to the north.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 117 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
In January 2023, at the Elder-Centennial Open House, the WPD presented the following images to
demonstrate the relative size of the combined Elder-Centennial to the existing Lloyd Beach.
The picture above demonstrates that the entire 730 feet of Lloyd Beach and Stepan Boat launch
easily fits within the 1000-foot combined Elder-Centennial Beach with 270 feet remaining at the
south end.
This image above, also from January 2023, depicts the plan view of Lloyd (in gray) with the
contemplated headland beach system and adjacent dog beach planned for Centennial and Elder (in
orange). Note that the Lloyd breakwaters project the same distance into the lake as the proposed
improvements at Centennial and Elder, while the Stepan boat launch extends further into the lake.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 118 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
For comparison purposes, the WPD notes the following attributes of the Gillson Park Dog Beach in
Wilmette.
• The shoreline dedicated to the dog beach is approximately 225 feet.
• The dog beach is oriented in an easterly direction and it is protected by a 475-foot long stone
breakwater to the north.
• A chain link fence as seen near the middle of the beach area which defines the northerly edge
of the dog beach is protected from waves from the northeast by the stone breakwater.
The following page provides and update on the proposed bypass of the dog beach and access to the
steps up and over the stone breakwater at 205 Sheridan.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 119 of 547
Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach
History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives
Sand level at Centennial South Groin, Oct-17-2024 Sand level at Centennial South Groin, Feb-9- 2025
The steel groin (jetty) is located near the south property line of Centennial Dog Beach. The temporary
construction fence is located along the northerly property line of 205 Sheridan. The convergence of the fence
and steel jetty is the approximate location of where the extended property line of 205 Sheridan intersects the
pre-existing steel groin. As of Oct-24, the sand on both sides of the steel extended afforded easy passage over
the steel groin. As of Feb-25, the vertical drop on the north side has increased due to the loss of sand.
Accumulated sand between the steel groin and the newly constructed stone groin provides dry passage to the
steps leading over the stone groin at 205 Sheridan. Proposed dog beach fence to be secured to existing steel
groin.
Note: Sand trapped between stone & steel provides 6-foot wide pathway to the steps over the stone groin
Accreted sand between steel & stone groin, Feb-9-2025 Steps over stone groin at 205 Sheridan, Feb-9-2025
There are three options to ensure safe, legal passage for pedestrians desiring to transit the shoreline:
1) Secure legal determination that accumulated sand between steel and stone groin is public land.
2) Secure easement agreement to ensure legal passage to reach steps up and over stone groin.
3) Relocate steel sheet pile to provide pedestrian pathway on the north side of the extended property line
between Centennial Dog Beach and 205 Sheridan.
Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025
Page 120 of 547
Page 121 of 547
6. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that
would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police and other first responder
access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates
on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely
passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the
OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress
to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders
and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach
emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern
breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to
persons/dogs/boats/paddlers.
7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as
WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach
corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that
would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake
Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040
Futures Plan and cannot be recommended for approval.
Page 122 of 547
Page 123 of 547
Please deny the Park District's application for an SUP.
Thanks for considering!
Best, Mack
Instagram
Facebook
Enjoy hearing new music?
Please check out my new singles. Share 'em, if you like 'em!
"We Need More Santas"
"One Step Ahead of the Law"
"No Words"
"You're My Everything (Alexa!)"
"Second Chances"
Second place Grand Prize Winner, 2024 Dallas Songwriters Association Contest;
Outstanding Achievement in Songwriting, 2024 Great American Song Contest;
Nashville Songwriters Association Bob Kingsley 2024 "Top 10"
Spotify/AppleMusic: MackSongs: First Cuts
https://soundcloud.com/macksongs
Page 124 of 547
Page 125 of 547
the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design
violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval.
8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along
and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no
time constraints or removal requirement.
9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will
never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of
known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s
armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public
beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025.
WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-
Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false
statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal
cage.
10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and
USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and
phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed
Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or
any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation
supporting its specious claims.
11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act,
510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED
TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is
no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act
authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at large” in an effort to force the
Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation
Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions.
12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal
Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are
NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD
knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement.
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit
application.
Stephanie Heraty
195 Fuller Lane
Winnetka IL
Page 126 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Comments for Plan Commission Meeting January 28, 2026
Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:41:05 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
January 26, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence
Plan Commissioners:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The plans for the off-leash dog beach, as drawn on April 2025 and submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet
(January 28, 2026 meeting,) are vague and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the plan committee and
the public of the breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan Rd. or the south boundary of
Centennial Park. Had the breakwater been included, the benign looking gap between the thin line representing the
fence and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem entirely redundant and hazardous. The proposed fence
is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake Michigan. It runs into the lake at a distance
of 16-19ft. from the ordinary water line, but that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high
water mark of 581.5 ft. At best the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be
a trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between jagged rocks and an
ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and wavy.
The need to provide a fence when there is already a pile of rocks at that property line is questionable. Dogs aren’t
going to pick their way over rocks in favor of running and playing on the beach.
Drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and describe adjacency. In this case
they fail to do so. Therefore, please deny this Special Use Permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Page 127 of 547
From:
To: Planning
Subject: Urging denial of SUP for chain link fencing in Lake Michigan
Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:31:42 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the members of the Winnetka Planning Commission:
We are respectfully urging the Commission to deny the requested special use permit to place chain link fencing into
Lake Michigan for a dog beach at Centennial Park. Such a fence has not been necessary previously, is an obvious
eyesore on a natural beach scape thereby impairing use and enjoyment and creates risks to swimmers, boaters, and
dogs being caught in the fencing. Further, such fencing has the potential to obstruct public use of the shoreline as
protected under IL law.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please vote to deny the special use permit request for the chain link
fencing into Lake Michigan at Centennial Park.
Sincerely,
Kim and David Mulligan
Pelham Road
Page 128 of 547
John William Root
326 Woodland Avenue
Winnetka, IL 60093
Telephone:
Email:
Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org
Mr. Scott Mangum January 26, 2026
Village of Winnetka
Director of Community Development
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU
225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach
Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing
Dear Mr. Mangum:
I have reviewed the Winnetka Park District’s (Park’s) Special Use Permit Application (SUP) for
Centennial Park, dated October 10, 2025. My following comments summarize my concerns
about the proposed WPD Centennial dog fence and how that design conflicts with Village
ordinances, particularly the Village zoning ordinances. I would appreciate your assistance in
sharing my comments as part of the official packet to be delivered to the members of the Village
of Winnetka Plan Commission.
Design Concerns
I have reviewed the SUP, and I believe that WPD’s design violates provisions in the Lakefront
Construction ordinances and violates Village dog ordinances. WPD has offered inadequate
reasons or justification for exceptions from these regulations.
Village Dog Ordinances
The Park’s SUP seeks to establish an off-leash dog beach where dogs run at large in the same
space with the general public. Village Ordinance Section 6.08.020 “Responsibilities
of dog owners” states the following:
A. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of any dog in the Village to keep
such dog or to cause such dog to be kept under control at all times and to prevent
such dog from doing any of the following prohibited acts, each of which is declared to be
a public nuisance:
Page 129 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 2 of 11
1. Running at Large. "Running at large" means being unconfined on or in property
not owned or lawfully possessed by the owner of the dog, including public property,
without being under immediate control by the owner of the dog or a responsible member
of his or her family or by a responsible agent of the family, by means of a leash, cord,
chain or like device.
This ordinance is unambiguous and the Park’s SUP for an off-leash dog park clearly violates the
ordinance. Section 6.08.020 is designed to protect the public from loose dogs and is designed to
keep the public safe during interactions with dogs. Members of the public who dislike or fear
dogs should not have share a public beach with loose dogs in an off-leash dog beach. The
public should not be forced into a dog pen to cross a public beach. By violating Section
6.08.020 A. 1. The Park also violates Section 17.56.010:
1. “That 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;”
6. “That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of
this and other village ordinances and codes.”
Fencing on Lake Michigan Dog Beaches
The proposed design of the Park’s Centennial dog fence violates Lakefront Construction
ordinance:
Section 15.78.080(D). Project Scope. The covered construction and any related
structures include only what is minimally necessary to achieve the intended and proper
purpose of the project and to be consistent with the purposes set forth in
Section 15.78.010 of this chapter.
The WPD proposed fences extend further into the lake than is necessary to keep dogs confined to
the dog beach. The Park’s current design would extend the northern and southern fences 15’
into the lake at current lake levels (see figures 1 & 2) (highlighting for emphasis).
Page 130 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 3 of 11
Page 131 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 4 of 11
However, lake levels vary and the lake reached the Ordinary High Water Mark in late 2019. In
2019 the Park’s northern fence would have extended 31’ (figure 1) into the lake and 45’of the
southern fence (figure 2) would have extended into the lake. Neither fence needs to be extended
into the lake. Dogs are accompanied by their owners and owners keep their dogs confined to the
dog beach. If the fence stops at the water’s edge and a dog goes around the fence, then the
owner would be able to quickly follow the dog and return the dog to the enclosed area. Fences
that run from the toe of the bluff to the water line are sufficient to demark the dog beach. The
fact that no other lake Michigan dog beach operator has seen the need to extend a standalone
chain link fence into the lake shows that such extensions are not needed.
Lake Michigan Dog Beaches
There are six dog beaches other than Centennial on Lake Michigan in Illinois: Sunrise Dog
Beach in Lake Bluff, Moraine Dog Beach in Highland Park, Gillson Dog Beach in Wilmette,
Evanston Dog Beach in Evanston, Montrose Dog Beach in Chicago, and Belmont Dog Beach in
Chicago. Please note that four of these dog beaches are located in Cook County. None of these
beaches have a free-standing chain-link fence that extends into the lake.
Page 132 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 5 of 11
Sunset Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach
Sunset Dog Beach is bounded on the north by private property and on the south by a public
swimming beach (figure 3).
Figure 3: Sunset dog beach Lake Bluff
There is a 4’ high split rail fence covered in wire mesh on the southern boundary of the dog
beach that separates the dog beach form the people swimming beach and a rocky shore to the
north keeps the dogs confined to the beach. The split rail fence is located behind a metal groin
and is not located in the water.
Page 133 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 6 of 11
Gillson Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach
Gillson Dog Beach is bounded on the north by Gillson Swimming Beach and bounded to the
south by Wilmette Harbor. (figure 4).
Figure 4: Gillson dog beach Wilmette
The chain link fence 4’-5’ high on the northern boundary separates the dog beach from the
people swimming beach. You can see that the northern chain link fence stops at the water’s edge.
In fact, the chain link fence is made of panels that are removed from the park upon the
conclusion of the Summer swimming season. The Wilmette Harbor to the south also keeps the
dogs confined to the dog beach. A plastic safety barrier fence keeps dogs off the rubble stone
lining the harbor.
Page 134 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 7 of 11
Evanston Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach
Evanston Dog Beach is bounded on the north by Clark Street Swimming Beach and bounded to
the south by Church Street Power Boat Ramp (figure 5).
Figure 5: Evanston dog beach Evanston
There is a 4’ high chain link fence welded to a preexisting 4’ high steel groin on the northern
boundary separating human swimmers from dogs and the Church Street Power Boat Ramp to the
south keeps the dogs confined to the dog beach. The chain link fence serves a primary purpose of
fall prevention for beach goers on Clark Street beach and also separates dogs from swimmers.
However, the chain link fence is not directly installed in the lake.
Page 135 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 8 of 11
Montrose Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach
Montrose Dog Beach is bounded on the north by a concrete revetment and bounded to the south
by a chain link fence that separates it from Montrose Swimming Beach (figure 6).
Figure 6: Montrose dog beach Chicago
The chain link fence is 4’ to 5’ high on the southern boundary. The fence separates swimmers
from dogs and terminates at the water’s edge. The revetment to the north keeps the dogs
confined to the dog beach.
Page 136 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 9 of 11
Belmont Dog Beach
Belmont Dog Beach, located in Belmont Harbor in Chicago, does not border a public swim
beach or private property. The western boundary of the dog park is an iron fence 4’ high
separating a public sidewalk from the dog beach and the remaining three sides of the beach are
bordered by the harbor (figure 7).
Figure 7: Belmont dog beach Chicago
Page 137 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 10 of 11
Moraine Dog Beach
Moraine Dog Beach is located in Highland Park. A ravine confines the dogs to the north and a 4’
high wooden slat snow fence confines the dogs to the south. The snow fence is attached to posts
driven into the beach adjacent to a steel groin. The snow fence does not extend into the water.
Figure 8: Moraine dog beach Highland Park
This review of the North Shore Lake Michigan dog beaches in Illinois shows that fencing is the
most popular method used to separate, confine, and “delineate” dog beaches from human
beaches. Municipalities also use natural boundaries such as ravines and rocky shorelines to
confine the dogs and separate them from people. Artificial structures such as stone lined harbors,
steel groins, and boat launches also serve a secondary purpose of confining dogs and separating
them from humans on the beaches. This survey also shows that no municipality has installed a
standalone fence into the lake and that installed standalone fences terminate at the water’s edge.
One can conclude that fences terminating along the water’s edge are adequate for separating
dogs from humans
Page 138 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
January 25, 2026
Page 11 of 11
“Temporary Dog Fence”
The Park’s SUP calls for a “temporary” dog fence while not specifying a date certain for when
the fence would be removed or replaced. A fence that can remain indefinitely is not temporary.
Village Counsel should require the Park to remove the fence should Centennial Park cease to be
operated as an off-leash dog park by the Park or for that portion of the dog beach that is
subsequently transferred to a private entity. These limitation requirements should be a condition
of issuance of the permit.
Conclusion
For all the reasons enumerated above, I respectfully request that Plan Commission recommend
against the granting of Park’s SUP. Thank you and member of the Village of Winnetka Plan
Commission for your consideration of these comments.
cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission
Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager
By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org
Ms. Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director
By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org
Page 139 of 547
Page 140 of 547
The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it defines as fencing or other barriers that
would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan and its submerged lands.
Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that
would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police7. 8. 9. and other
first responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would
have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern
end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long,
39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would
unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach
south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers
either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency
situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern
breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to
persons/dogs/boats/paddlers.
The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as
WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant
beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning
radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the
waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village
Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval.
WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage
extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The
fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement.
WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide,
6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing.
This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake
Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone
breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible
public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy
waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section
of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach, which required
removal efforts by both the Village and WPD.
That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its
unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage.
10.Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until
after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not
only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s
attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that
Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or
any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dogfriendly areas, WPD can produce no
documentation supporting its specious claims.
Page 141 of 547
11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL
Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly
area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG
IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification
for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act
authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at large” in an
effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design
Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance
provisions.
12.CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even
if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its
definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided
fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s
Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement.
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and
misleading fencing permit application.
Best regards,
Stephanie Tokarczyk
Page 142 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Cc:
Subject: 1/28/26 Plan Commission meeting, WPD Centennial Fence SUP
Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 5:24:08 PM
Attachments: January2026CookCountyFOIAExcerpt.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share this email dated 1/26/26 with the Plan Commission?
The attached pdf consists of communications related to WPD’s ongoing efforts to leverage
Cook County’s Animal Control Ordinance/Regulations to the advantage of certain interests.
Cook County expresses disinterest in a matter outside of its jurisdiction: Lake Michigan-
based, non-contiguous dog beach fencing extending across public lands and waters.
As background, beginning in 2022-2023 (post-withdrawal of controversial lakefront joint
permit designs featuring louvered steel walls) WPD began to claim Centennial dog beach was
an unlawfully unfenced “dog park” that required four-sided contiguous fencing
. . . despite its status as an on-leash Lake Michigan beach area for which Cook County requires
no fencing at all.
During the Plan Commission’s and ZBA’s 2024-2025 permit reviews, WPD shifted to calling
Centennial dog beach a “dog friendly area” (“DFA”) requiring fencing despite the fact that the
Cook County Code does not proscribe this for Lake Michigan DFAs. CCAC’s lack of interest
in WPD’s scheme consisted of telling Ms. Nazzal that Centennial is a “DFA”—not subject to
CCAC’s four-sided “dog park” fencing rules.
Subsequent WPD permit applications and narratives in 2025 continue to misrepresent
that Cook County requires “dog park” fencing at Centennial. All of this conflicts with WPD’s
response to the Village in its final 8-4-25 Centennial Breakwater SUP (excerpt below) in
which WPD acknowledges the Cook County Code fails to require fencing for dog beaches,
spuriously suggesting that at some point in the future it might.*
Page 143 of 547
Please do not recommend WPD’s untruthful, misleading fencing SUP for approval. Cook
County’s Animal Control Ordinance does not require it. Veracity should be required for WPD,
as it is for the Village’s homeowners, business owners, and our other units of local
government.
Thank you.
Kris Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
*ATTACHMENT: WPD’s Final 8-4-25 SUP application to the Village. Village staff’s
question is: “Regarding the dog beach, are there any other applicable State, County, etc.
regulations which the dog beach must comply (e.g. fencing requirements, leash requirements,
etc.)? . . . WPD’s answer stating that there are not is as follows: “It was suggested that the
Winnetka Park District submit for a waiver at this time until they address this matter at a
future date for all dog parks that abut Lake Michigan. []”
As a reminder, CCAC ordinance/regulations do not provide the Administrator with waiver
authority.
Page 144 of 547
Page 145 of 547
looking in to.
Because Cook County does not issue a permit for this type of temporary set up and instead
relies on the applicable provisions of the Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance
and Regulation VIII. Dog Parks and Areas, we respectfully request clarification regarding the
scope and substance of the County’s review. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand:
1. What statutory or administrative authority governs Cook County’s evaluation in
circumstances such as this;
2. What criteria or standards you intends to apply once the other agencies have issued their
determinations;
3. What documentation or findings Cook County requires in order to complete its review;
and
4. Any prior instances, case examples, or determinations in which Cook County has
applied this type of review process to an off-leash area, dog beach, or comparable
recreational facility.
As you can appreciate, we must provide our Board with a clear and accurate explanation of
each agency’s jurisdictional role, review process, and the basis for any deferral. Receiving the
above information will ensure that we are fully aligned with the County’s expectations and able
to plan appropriately as the external reviews proceed.
We will continue to keep Cook County informed as we receive updates from IDNR and USACE.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in providing these clarifications.
Shannon Q. Nazzal, CPRE (she / her)
Executive Director
Office: +1.847.501.2074
Email: snazzal@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 9:17 AM
To: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou
Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Page 146 of 547
Page 147 of 547
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:54 AM
To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
<Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control)
<Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
Good morning Costa,
Thank you for reaching out. Please be advised that Cook County will complete its
evaluation once determinations have been made by DNR and the Army Corps of
Engineers. We trust that you will keep us informed on the permitting progress, and
we remain available should you have any questions or need clarification in the
meantime.
Thank you,
Megan Carolan, DVM
Deputy Administrator
Cook County Animal and Rabies Control
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:03:49 AM
To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>; Shannon Nazzal
<snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>;
Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
External Message Disclaimer
This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Page 148 of 547
Good Morning Mamadou,
I hope that you're doing well and enjoy the cooler weather. I wanted to check in regarding the
status of CCDARC’s final determination. We are in the process of advancing the project’s
design and permitting, and confirmation of compliance with the Cook County Department of
Animal and Rabies Control requirements is an important step in that process.
When you have a moment, could you please provide an update on the review or let us know if
any additional information is needed to complete your determination?
Thank you again for your time and assistance, we appreciate your help in keeping this moving
forward.
Regards,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
P: (847) 501-2052
E: ckutulas@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
<Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control)
<Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-
Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
Good Morning Megan, (and CCDARC Team),
I wanted to follow up on our last Teams meeting from a few weeks ago. As I recall, it was my
understanding that your team had all the materials needed to make a final determination
regarding our request on whether our proposed Centennial Beach Fencing Plan meets the
Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control regulations.
We’re continuing to move forward with project permitting and would greatly appreciate
confirmation that our proposed plan satisfies the CCDARC requirements.
I also left a voicemail for you and Mark R., but I wanted to reach out via email as well to close
Page 149 of 547
the loop. If someone from your team could please provide an update or an anticipated timeline
for the final determination, I’d greatly appreciate it.
Thank you for your time and effort on this matter. I look forward to hearing back from a member
of your team soon.
Regards,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
P: (847) 501-2052
E: ckutulas@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 12:29 PM
To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
<Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control)
<Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-
Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
Megan,
I have some availability this afternoon between 1:00–2:00 PM. I realize that’s short notice, but
let me know if that works for you. Otherwise, we can find a time later this week that’s more
convenient.
Thanks,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
P: (847) 501-2052
E: ckutulas@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
Page 150 of 547
This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good Afternoon Megan,
Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon regarding the items noted in
your earlier email exchange with Shannon.
As we discussed, I appreciate your confirmation that no formal application has been submitted
to CCDAC from the WPD regarding the Centennial Beach Dog Park. Rather, your comments
were based on your review of the Park District’s signage and the Dog Beach Users submission
to CCDAC, in response to the District’s request to ensure our proposed Temporary Dog
Fencing Plan meets CCDAC requirements.
Regarding the signage statement, “Check with your veterinarian before bringing a puppy
under the age of four months to the park”, you noted that, in your opinion, the four-month
reference could be reconsidered due to variations in vaccination schedules across breeders
and veterinary offices. This is a point the Park District may want to consider in future planning.
We'll keep that in mind as we move forward with your future planning for dog run sites.
I believe this summarizes our conversation accurately, but please feel free to follow up if I’ve
misunderstood or misstated anything.
Thank you again for your time, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
Best regards,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
P: (847) 501-2052
E: ckutulas@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 10:19 AM
To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal
(Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control)
<Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>; Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
Ms. Carolan,
Page 151 of 547
Thank you for the email. Is the requirement from Cook County to remove that line on proposed
signage? I'm also curious about it being considered an application review as we didn't submit
an application per say, but a request for review. Is it now considered an application for
approval or permit?
Thank you for any clarification you can offer.
Shannon Q. Nazzal, CPRE (she / her)
Executive Director
Office: +1.847.501.2074
Email: snazzal@winpark.org
Winnetka Park District | winpark.org
From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:59 AM
To: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>
Cc: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark
Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski
(Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Dog Beach Signage
Good morning Shannon,
Our department is reviewing the Centennial Dog Beach application, and we wanted to check in
regarding one point on the suggested signage-
"Check with your veterinarian before bringing a puppy under the age of four months to the
park."
Puppies are generally not considered fully vaccinated until they reach four months of age.
Verifying the pet's vaccination status via the application process would probably be more
suitable than this statement.
Page 152 of 547
Page 153 of 547
Page 154 of 547
Executive Director
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:54 AM
To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
<Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control)
<Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
Good morning Costa,
Thank you for reaching out. Please be advised that Cook County will complete its
evaluation once determinations have been made by DNR and the Army Corps of
Engineers. We trust that you will keep us informed on the permitting progress, and
we remain available should you have any questions or need clarification in the
meantime.
Thank you,
Megan Carolan, DVM
Deputy Administrator
Cook County Animal and Rabies Control
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:03:49 AM
To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Cc: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>; Shannon Nazzal
<snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>;
Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage
External Message Disclaimer
This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and
Page 155 of 547
Page 156 of 547
Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Carolan (Animal
Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: RE: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach
External Message Disclaimer
This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dr. Diakhate:
I was wondering if there was any updated information about the Winnetka Park District's attempts to
authorize a off-leash dog park that lacks the "contiguous" fencing required by regulations.
I am attaching a letter from the Park District to the Village of Winnetka, it which the District asserts
that they "anticipate confirmation of [CCARC] review soon." (page 1, paragraph 5)
While I am uncertain what to make of this statement, I would like to ask, once again, what the
published process and/or rules are for your department to grant variations or waivers of the
regulations, and how public participation/comment in such a waiver is allowed.
As I previously stated, I can find no regulations or guidance, or, in fact, any authority, that would allow
any variation to the fencing requirement in the regulation.
Thank you for your assistance.
Ted Wynnychenko
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
> [mailto:Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 1:00 PM
> To: t
> Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control); Megan Carolan (Animal Control)
> Subject: Re: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach
>
> Dear Mr. Wynnychenko,
>
> I am in receipt of your email, and I am grateful that you reach out to my
> department for information.
>
> The Winnetka Park District has submitted plans for a dog park and Cook County
Page 157 of 547
> Animal & Rabies Control is still evaluating it.
>
> Should more information become available, I would be happy to share them.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Mamadou Diakhate, D.V.M.
> Administrator
> Cook County Animal and Rabies Control
> P: 708-974-6147 / M: 773-965-5852
> mamadou.diakhate@cookcountyil.gov
>
> www.cookcountyil.gov <http://www.cookcountyil.gov/>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ted Wynnychenko >
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2025 8:01 AM
> To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
> Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Natalia
> Derevyanny (Bureau of Administration) <Natalia.Derevyanny@cookcountyil.gov>
> Subject: RE: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach
>
>
> External Message Disclaimer
>
> This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment
> and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
> email.
>
> Dr. Diakhate:
>
> I would appreciate an acknowledgement that my prior email message was
> received, and, if possible, any information on how your Department will
> consider variations from published regulations and your Department's
> authority to effect such variations on a case-by-case basis.
>
> Thank you
> Ted Wynnychenko
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Wynnychenko
> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 6:34 PM
Page 158 of 547
> > To: 'Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)'
> > Subject: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach
>>
> > Dr. Diakhate:
>>
> > I previously contacted your office to ask whether an incompletely fenced
> > area could be considered an off-leash dog park by your Department.
>>
> > I have attached a copy of my letter and your response from
> > October-November 2024.
>>
> > I have now been led to believe that your Department is "considering" a
> > request from the Winnetka Park District to approve an incompletely fenced
> > area as acceptable, under your published regulations, as an off-leash dog
> > park.\
>>
> > If my belief is incorrect, I am sorry for troubling you.
>>
> > However, if your Department is considering "approving" any incompletely
> > fenced area as allowable under Regulation VIII, despite the clear and
> > unambiguous language of the regulation which demands that an off-leash dog
> > park be "completely enclosed by ... a fence," then I request that you
> > provide answers to the questions I posed in 2024, as I am not aware of any
> > published process for the granting of any "waiver" to the requirements of
> > Regulation VIII.
>>
> > Furthermore, I would appreciate being advised on how the public will be
> > permitted to comment on any requests for waivers that may be submitted to
> > your Department.
>>
> > Thank you for your assistance.
>>
> > Ted Wynnychenko
Page 159 of 547
From: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)
To: Scott Britton (Board of Commissioners)
Cc: Allison Davidson (Bureau of Administration); Alexis Jenkins (Bureau of Administration); Zahra Ali (Bureau of
Administration)
Subject: Re: Centennial Dog Beach Follow Up
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:53:16 AM
Attachments: Outlook-Cook Color.png
Outlook-4vqbdcah.png
Outlook-ngp314wa.png
Outlook-3rlfqp2b.png
Outlook-n3wxlqse.png
Dear Commissioner Britton,
Thank you for reaching out to ARC, your continuous support is dearly appreciated.
Animal and Rabies Control has decided not to issue any decision until Illinois Department of Natural
Resources and Army Corps of Engineers have given approval, as they will be looking at whether the
plans provide sufficient access to the water under the law.
Assuming they approve, the plan appears to meet the requirements of our regulations, but BOA is still
reviewing the legalities.
Should you have further questions, feel free to reach out to our BOA Senior Legal Counsel Allison
Davidson here copied.
Sincerely,
Mamadou Diakhate, D.V.M.
Administrator
Cook County Animal and Rabies Control
P: 708-974-6147 / M: 773-965-5852
mamadou.diakhate@cookcountyil.gov
www.cookcountyil.gov
From: Scott Britton (Board of Commissioners) <Scott.Britton@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:41 AM
To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>
Subject: Centennial Dog Beach Follow Up
Dear Administrator Diakhate,
Thank you for your thoughtful compliance review of Winnetka Park District’s plan for a
Page 160 of 547
special use permit for an off-leash dog beach at Centennial Park.
I understand that a review by the Cook County Animal and Rabies Control (CCARC) has
been completed and is now under review by the Bureau of Administration. Would it be
possible to view the preliminary findings?
With gratitude,
Commissioner Britton
--
Scott Britton
Commissioner | 14th District
(O): (312) 603-4932 | (F): (312)603-3686
www.CommissionerScottBritton.com
Sign up for my newsletter!
Page 161 of 547
Page 162 of 547
To Village of Winnetka Plan Commission
From: The Cacciatore Family @ 140 Sheridan Rd
Re: Winnetka Park District Centennial Fence SUP Application Violates Design
Standards, Con icts with the 2040 Futures Plan, Misrepresents Facts and the Law
Date: January 26, 2026
Please vote against recommending the Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Village Code-
violating, SUP standard breaching, unlawful and 2040 Futures Plan-indifferent
permanent fencing permit application.
1. VOW Design Standards prohibit chain-link fencing. WPD’s proposed black chain-
link animal cage on the shores of Lake Michigan would violate this prohibition. It
cannot be recommended to the Village Council.
2. VOW 2040 Futures Plan promotes open space and the preservation of
Winnetka’s graceful character, neighborhood design standards, and the
environment. WPD’s SUP application clearly violates all of these tenets. There is
no standalone black chain link fencing along any neighboring Centennial Park
property owner’s lakefront front lot line, nor along any Sheridan Road front lawn.
There is no standalone chain link fencing in the neighborhood that extends into
Lake Michigan. WPD’s SUP permit application cannot be recommended to the
Village Council.
3. When the Village approved WPD’s 2001 Elder Lane and Beach SUP application,
it required WPD to install Code-compliant non-chain link fencing. Despite this,
WPD seeks to install Code non-compliant, design standard violating, 2040
Futures Plan -inconsistent chain link fencing on Centennial beach.
4. WPD’s proposed black chain link animal cage is not minimally necessary nor
consistent with Code Section 15.78.010. WPD’s fencing is designed to
stretch106’ from the toe of the bluffs into Lake Michigan on the north, and 93’3”
into Lake Michigan to the south. The fencing extends 72 feet beyond the
OHWM--WPD’s front lot line—on the north, and 77’3” beyond WPD’s front lot line
to the south. Fencing that extends beyond a property owner’s front lot line is
prohibited.
5. The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it de nes as fencing or other
barriers that would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan and its
submerged lands.
6. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as
fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police
Page 163 of 547
fi
fl
and other rst responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s
animal cage would have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On
Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single
gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s
unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to
the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force rst
responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide
corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing
and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into
Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers.
7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies
such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA
non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an
insuf cient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link
fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful
design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be
recommended for approval.
8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal
cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake
Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal
requirement.
9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating,
39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-
link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up
from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s
armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’
strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after
encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently
described nding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-
Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD.
That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required
south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage.
10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal
cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated
entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard
2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed
Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County
does not require four-sided or any other speci c fencing for Lake Michigan dog
Page 164 of 547
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious
claims.
11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.”
The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-
friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE
IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no
lawful justi cation for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive
Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misde ning what constitutes
“running at large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040
Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and
the Village Code’s nuisance provisions.
12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on
land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly
areas from its de nition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,”
WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD
knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing
requirement.
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and
misleading fencing permit application.
Page 165 of 547
fi
fi
fi
Centennial Beach Temporary Dog Beach Fence January 28, 2026
To: Members of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission
The Winnetka Park District (WPD) is requesting a special use permit (SUP) for a chain link fence
on the Centennial Park Beach. Currently, the purpose of this Beach is mainly a dog beach. The
WPD is planning major restrictions for this Beach. The Beach belongs to all the people for the
enjoyment of each and everyone who desire to walk, run, or just spend time gazing at the
beauty of the Centennial Beach. The WPD is absolutely ignoring the people’s rights, which is
not a smart action for a Park District. Winnetka Park District’s duty is to listen to all citizens
and not a select group with special requests.
The WPD is requesting a permit for a fence which will flat outright stop this Beach being in
compliance with what it is meant to be - by law - in the State of Illinois, a Beach for public use.
The WPD is not obeying an existing law in the State of Illinois. A fence, temporary or
permanent, is defying the law. (615 ILCS 5/27).
The proposed fence is a safety hazard, as it extends into Lake Michigan near extremely large
boulders in the water. The proposed fence, next to the huge boulders that exist in the waters,
is an accident waiting to happen when the water is wavy or when a person, dog or boater is in
distress. Fencing extending into the water is hinderance to safety. Safety must be a top priority
for our Village.
The WPD request for a SUP clearly defies (615 ILCS 5/27). The Beach is for the public. This
Beach is not to be blocked from the public. The Beaches are for all citizens and not for one
citizen or entity.
The biggest violation for the Winnetka Park District, aside from the public’s rights by law,
to enjoy all beaches, is the creation of an unnecessary safety hazard. This proposal
defies the safety standards that the elected officials on the Winnetka Park Board are
ignoring. This proposal is NOT safe for the public, for a paddle boarder, for the boaters,
or anyone enjoying Lake Michigan. The fence is definitely unsightly, creates an
unnecessary hazard, and without a doubt goes against the high standards and
principles that have always been a top priority for the elected commissioners and the
staff at the Winnetka Park District.
Please review this SUP knowing there are many stumbling blocks ahead. People’s
rights to walk this Beach are violated, and the proposed fencing is a major safety issue.
Any design for a proposed fence on Centennial Beach is a safety hazard, is costly, is
unsightly and is a violation of the rights of our citizens.
I request that the Plan Commission of the Village of Winnetka, deny
the requested special use permit (SUP) for any type of fence on the Beach and waters
at Centennial Park.
Thank you for your dedication to our Village,
Mary Garrison
Past President of the WPD Board of Commissioners
Past Member, Plan Commission
Page 166 of 547
Page 167 of 547
WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide
corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably
obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its
animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers either into the
lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’
area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past
the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers.
7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such
as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant
beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning
radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the
waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code
as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval.
8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage
extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The
fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement.
9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39”
wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link
fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake
Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone
breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible
public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves
at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide
rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach, which required removal efforts
by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance
will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage.
10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage
until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not
only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s
attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that
Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or
any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can produce no
documentation supporting its specious claims.
11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The
IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly
area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE
DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful
justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal
Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at
large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its
Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s
nuisance provisions.
12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land.
Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its
definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided
fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s
Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement.
Page 168 of 547
Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and
misleading fencing permit application.
Thank you,
Laura Sorensen
173 Fuller Lane
Winnetka
Page 169 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Fencing dog beach
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:00:15 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ann,
I’m currently not able to attend the meeting Thursday and would like my letter read at this weeks meeting.
I’ve been a Winnetka resident for most of my life, and have spent a portion of that time living on Sheridan enjoying
the privilege of seeing the majestic Lake Michigan during all 4 seasons .
Our family uses the beaches often,
including Centennial and find this proposal for a chain link fence to be unnecessary , dangerous, improper use of
funds and catering to one wealthy individual who has never lived in Winnetka .
The park district should represent the village,
not one individual and what a shame to ruin the view and potentially cause harm in our most important resource .
Lake Michigan cannot be tamed by an ugly chain link fence.
Please listen.
Thank you,
Iretta Brennan
Sent from my iPhone
Page 170 of 547
Page 171 of 547
January 27, 2026
To the Winnetka Village Planning Commission,
I strongly disapprove of the Winnetka Park District’s application to
install two chain link fences into Lake Michigan at Centennial
Park. The fences present a great danger to swimmers, boaters,
and dogs. Such an installation completely ignores the Doctrine of
Public Trust.
This is nothing more than a backdoor attempt on spurious
grounds for de facto approval of the Winnetka Park District’s
Master Plan!
Therefore, please deny the Park District’s request for a Special
Use Permit!
Most sincerely,
Carol Rasmus
175 Sheridan Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Page 172 of 547
Page 173 of 547
Page 174 of 547
Page 175 of 547
Page 176 of 547
Page 177 of 547
Page 178 of 547
My name is Angie Dahl. I have been a resident of Winnetka for over 40 years. During
that time I served as President of the Winnetka Park District as well as a member of
several Village advisory boards.
Historically, the Winnetka shoreline was beautiful and accessible—you could walk,
swim, kayak, and paddleboard unimpeded from Glencoe to Kenilworth. The water and
sand levels fluctuated naturally, as they should.
However, in the past 25 years, that same stretch has become dangerous and in some
places impassable. Massive rock walls have been erected which hinder safe passage,
exacerbate bluff destruction, and cause unchecked ecosystem damage. These
changes were made under IDNR and Army Corps oversight, or the lack thereof. I do
not hesitate to say that saying that something has been approved by the IDNR is not a
positive.
Until quite recently the Village of Winnetka mistakenly believed that it had no control or
standing to protect the beaches and the bluffs. However, when the public recently
went to the IDNR to express concerns and request clarification on several lakefront
matters, the response from Jim Casey was that the Village of Winnetka could have
denied all of it as they have final jurisdiction over the lakefront. It was shocking to learn
that all of the other north shore communities had been exercising this control for years
making Winnetka a magnet for over-building along the beach and lack of adherence to
the public trust doctrine.
Although there are countless pictures to show what has happened to the formerly
pristine beaches along the Winnetka shoreline, I share with you two pictures directly
related to the special use permit you are considering now: a huge chain link fence in
front of an already massive stone structure which totally obstructs the previously
priceless view of the shoreline all the way to Evanston and creates a significant safety
hazard.
You continue to hear from the large amount of letters sent to you and through the
turnout of residents protesting the Elder Centennial plan. One of the biggest
complaints from them, your own board and the Zoning board, was about the fence and
disregard for the safety of the public. Now the WPD is asking you to ignore all of that
and approve the fence without seeing the rest of what they plan to do to our beaches.
What do Winnetka residents want? Residents want access to their lakefront and the
ability to walk along it's beautiful shores. Residents of Winnetka want their voices to be
heard as they continuously and strongly object to the desecration of the lakefront ~ a
design and changes, including this fencing which only became an issue due to recent
interactions between former Winnetka Park District board members and officials and a
singular property owner. Winnetka deserves so much better than this and it is
imperative the Plan Commission deny this request.
Page 179 of 547
Page 180 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: January 26, 2026
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 9:00:34 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
January 28, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence
Plan Commissioners:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague and therefore
misleading. The drawings fail to inform the plan committee and the public of the breakwater now existing at the
north boundary of 205 Sheridan (South Centennial boundary) or highlight the existing sheet pile. Furthermore the
fence elevations are not presented in the context. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly drawn, the
benign looking gap between the thin line representing the fence and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would
seem entirely hazardous and redundant. The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern
terminus in Lake Michigan. It runs into the lake at a distance of about 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but that
stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will
be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might
get stuck and battered between jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get
choppy and wavy.
The need to provide a fence when there is already a pile of rocks at that property line is questionable. Dogs aren’t
likely to pick their way over rocks in favor of running and playing on the beach.
Drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and describe adjacency. In this case
they fail to do so. Therefore, please deny this Special Use Permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Page 181 of 547
Page 182 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Cc:
Subject: SUP Condition One: Protecting the Public"s General Welfare
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 9:48:14 AM
Attachments: 84873FB4-55E3-4619-B884-F87243E1E88A.png
5D0B060A-04EE-493E-994C-7ACE4E0C34A5.png
5FF65C27-B208-4173-9487-781E85A6832A.png
01F18412-4280-40C5-B55E-0209643B9AEC.png
BEEB76DD-1FC7-4F2D-8ECE-D5B846ECEB0A.png
7F94034E-27D5-4836-8CB3-A4E6B1D16190.png
261 Sheridan Property Exchange - Path Forward(5) copy.pdf
AnonymousDonorHemmingsRomanoff.pdf
Final Signed Donation Agreement.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share this email with ZBA for its 2/9/26 meeting? Thank you.
To: Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Centennial fencing application does not meet the Village’s conditions for
granting a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) because it violates Village Zoning Code Section 17.56.010 Condition One:
that the special use not be detrimental to or endanger the public’s general welfare. Embarking on a massive project
with no cost caps or inflation factors, including a dog beach fencing project initiated for spurious reasons, would be
detrimental to the public's general welfare. Unusually generous indemnification provisions, egregiously one-sided
terms, and a framework more closely resembling a privately-oriented control agreement than a donation would
endanger the public's general welfare for over fifty years. While benefitting the park’s neighbor, Centennial Park’s
diminution would permanently harm the public. It is contrary to the public’s general welfare and against the public
interest to benefit a private landowner at Winnetka residents’ expense.
CENTENNIAL PROJECT’S PRIVATE ORIENTATION AND FINANCIAL BURDEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLIC’S GENERAL WELFARE
WPD’s 2020 Exchange Agreement and 2024 Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant (the “Agreements”)
impose significant burdens upon 12,400 Winnetkans. WPD’s fencing SUP is part of the scheme. This violates
Village Code Section 17.56.010 SUP Condition One, which states that a SUP may not operate to the public’s
detriment.
1. WPD’s 8/27/25 Zoom meeting with IDNR and USACE was primarily focused on advancing its swap agreement
and breakwater projects. WPD’s discussion of this dog beach fencing can only be understood as a next-step in
achieving WPD’s property exchange, as well as launching WPD’s $15,588,815 Elder-Centennial plan—the cost
estimates for which contain neither an inflation factor nor caps. It is against the public interest to recommend
granting a SUP for this plan.
https://winparkdistrict-
my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/snazzal_winpark_org/Ea_fE4tEGE5DkrL6Voe0ikABGWtk0Ku6xS2ju5VEu5ZJOA
Page 183 of 547
2. ZBA Commissioners should know that in 2020 WPD issued $9 million in G.O. Bonds to finance its lakefront
projects—after which the Exchange Agreement fell apart. WPD has not drawn down the 2020 G.O. bonds’
remaining balance and had to make a $258,653.02 bond arbitrage rebate payment to the U.S. Treasury in 2025.
According to Commissioner David Seaman, WPD cannot issue more debt without going to referendum, which WPD
refuses to do because the public will not approve it.
The lack of public support dates back to 2014-2015. WPD’s 2030 Lakefront Master Plan is speciously based on a
statistically invalid survey that tallied only 37 votes in support of acquiring 261 Sheridan. This raises further
suspicions about WPD’s fencing SUP and what is behind its effort to build barriers across public lands and waters.
Page 184 of 547
3. Over the past several years WPD has been levying taxes at the maximum rate, plus a surtax related to separately
issued 2014 debt. Unlike other park districts, WPD has declined to adjust the tax rate downward when Cook
County’s Equalized Assessed Values skyrocket. WPD has run up at least $2.3 million in fees related to the Elder-
Centennial project. Its repulsion of an anonymous donor’s $3 million minimum donation offer in 2023-2024—based
on an exaggerated fear of litigation, which WPD elevated above the public’s interest in saving Centennial Park—
brings out-of-pocket and economic costs up to nearly $6 million. WPD’s lack of desire to contain the project’s costs
and to protect Centennial Park will continue until WPD’s plans are voted down—at ZBA, at the Design Review
Board, and ultimately at the Village Council.
Page 185 of 547
4. Donation Agreement Paragraph 4 contemplates payment of the $3 million in two parts: $1 million when a notice
to proceed to construction is issued, and $2 million within 30 days of the project’s completion. Despite this, WPD
included the entire conditional $3 million payment as revenue in its 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets. At best, it should
have been included as a footnote.
Page 186 of 547
Illinois Office of the Comptroller-WPD Delinquency Report
5. The Agreements contemplate issuing charitable deduction letters. The Exchange Agreement relies
Page 187 of 547
upon coordinated appraisals that are outdated. The target value of the Exchange Agreement’s charitable deduction
letter is the figure that carried over into 2024’s Donation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant. In either case, WPD’s
issuance of a charitable deduction letter for $3 million would almost certainly be regarded by tax authorities as a
“quid pro quo.” The offsetting value of getting adjacent parkland that would increase 205 Sheridan’s value while
keeping the public further at bay, and/or the value of a fifty year restrictive covenant over “Project Elements”
spanning North-South and East-West across a neighboring 5.3 acre public park and lakebed, could exceed $3
million. These values have not been appraised, which is detrimental to the public’s general welfare.
Exchange Agreement
WPD seems to discuss coordinating appraisal values to arrive at the desired charitable deduction.
“The Appraisal Problem”
261 Sheridan was acquired in an off-the-market transaction
Page 188 of 547
Appraisals appear to be coordinated
Broader Issue of Concern: WPD suggests moving conversations to phone calls and WhatsApp
Page 189 of 547
6. WPD’s civil design engineer estimated the useful life of WPD’s proposed Centennial breakwater at 20 years, see
winpark.org. USACE estimates the typical armored stone breakwater’s useful life at 25 years. The Donation
Agreement and Restrictive Covenant impose maintenance obligations upon taxpayers for 50 years—including
Centennial’s armored stone breakwater, which will be subject to shoreline conditions and Lake Michigan storms for
twice as long as its useful life. WPD’s open-ended maintenance obligations beyond the Project Elements’ useful
lives impose unreasonable burdens that benefit a private landowner. They are detrimental to the public’s general
welfare.
7. WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant fails to define an essential term: Force Majeure:
Page 190 of 547
WPD’s 2025 agreement with the Damico Family Foundation defines Force Majeure Events for a playfield
scoreboard.
WPD’s Stormwater IGA with the Village also defines force majeure:
Page 191 of 547
WPD’s 2024 agreement with IFF leaves an entire universe of taxpayer-borne expenses wide open, imposing
maintenance, repair and replacement costs related to Project Elements, including the stone breakwater if it is
damaged other than by some undefined Force Majeure Event. The omission benefits IFF. It is detrimental to the
public’s general welfare.
8. The Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant has other objectionable language as well, such as unusually
broad taxpayer indemnifications to the benefit of a private landowner for half a century. Nonspecific tax
indemnification language does not exclude increased property taxes. Inadequate non-reciprocal insurance coverage
language also exists.
Indemnification Concerns
(a) IFF Has Approval Authority Over WPD Counsel
(b) Conditions Do Not Have An Expiration Date
WPD Appraisal Process Activity Could Result in Tax Liability.
Potential State or Local Tax Liability is Not Carved Out from Indemnification and Hold Harmless Language.
Page 192 of 547
9. The Restrictive Covenant contains a $3 million liquidated damages clause— a huge potential liability. It explicitly
permits IFF to file a specific performance claim and to receive WPD’s general ledger of project expenses.
Additionally, WPD agrees to retain its project-related records for at least seven years. These terms are more
characteristic of a control agreement than a donation.
The Restrictive Covenant gives the payor rights to have an arbiter—former WPD Executive Director John Peterson,
who was intimately involved in the Agreements—determine if the five defined Project Elements satisfy IFF’s
expectations for half a century. This time period is measured not from the date of the agreement, but after
Centennial's "grand opening." If IFF raises questions about the Project Elements’ conformance to agreed upon
designs, current and future taxpayers would have to pay half of the costs for employing “design experts” over the
course of 50 years. This burden is unreasonable. It ties future boards’ hands and prevents community members’ input
into flexible, alternative designs and future uses of Centennial Park—again, a matter of significant public interest
because it is more consistent with a control agreement that benefits private interests than a donation.
10. Beginning in 2025 WPD began to discuss financial pressures publicly, ascribing them to increased salaries
relative to its revenue streams. It had already proposed adjustments to and increases in fees and program costs. WPD
also moved money between various funds. Because that was not enough to address WPD’s financial challenges, in
January 2026 WPD voted 5-2 to begin advertising more of its parks as rental space-athletic facilities. This changes
WPD’s existing Policy Manual, which had listed only the four rentable categories that we are familiar with:
Page 193 of 547
Say goodbye to our tranquil neighborhood parks.
WPD’s next step may be selling off more public parkland, which WPD has already done under guise of labeling
certain parks “underperforming assets.” WPD forced the Winnetka-Northfield Library District’s purchase of Library
Park to pay for its Elder-Centennial plans. WPD threatened to sell this so-called “underperforming asset” to a real
estate developer, mentioning its zoning influence with the Village. Winnetka Caucus Council survey results confirm
that the public broadly opposes getting rid of parkland. All of this violates SUP Condition One’s prohibition against
issuing a permit to the detriment of the public’s general welfare. Excerpts from WNPLD's forced purchase
presentation are attached at bottom.
CONCLUSION: WPD’s Centennial fencing project is an overall disaster in the making. This is a matter of great
public interest. Please protect our welfare and decline to recommend WPD’s permit application for approval.
Thank you.
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
Page 194 of 547
Sent: 5/24/2021 12:00:00 AM
From: David Seaman <DSeaman@winpark.org
To: "John Peterson"
Cc:
Bcc:
Importance: Normal
Subject: 261 Sheridan Property Exchange - Path Forward
John,
As discussed. I'll be sending this each Commissioner later today. I would like to enter into record/discuss at next Board meeting.
Thank you,
David
Director Peterson, Board President Archambault and fellow Commissioners,
I respectfully request the Board reconsider the decision to pursue litigation after the 10-day notice of default has expired with Orchard 2020 in order to force
performance of terms in the Property Exchange. My request for reconsideration is based upon the following:
1. Considerable Litigation "Unknown Knowns"
a. Unknown knowns = things you think you know but later you determine you didn’t know. There are many unknown knowns in litigation.
b. It is unclear what legal and non-legal consequences WPD Staff and Board are underwriting by pursuing litigation against Orchard 2020.
c. A “good” or “strong” case does not equate to an “easy” , “inexpensive” , or “right” case.
d. It will be very difficult to turn back after initiating litigation, this is the inertia of litigation.
2. Legal Services Expense
a. In 2016 WPD spent approximately 25k for legal services, in 2020 nearly 100k, and in March of 2021 alone (billed in April) $21k in legal services.
April/May?
b. It is logical to conclude that litigation will be an expensive endeavor. 250k? 500k?
c. Orchard 2020 is an extremely well-resourced entity which could lead to a very long litigation timeline. Think potentially years not months.
d. WPD needs every dollar for capitals over the next several years.
3. Future Relationship with Orchard 2020
a. If we move forward with litigation, WPD will permanently impair any chance of a respectful and functional relationship with Orchard 2020.
b. Regardless of “win” or “lose”, Orchard 2020 could prove to be an extremely challenging neighbor and will present roadblocks on the development or use
of 261 Sheridan and Elder/Centennial Beach.
4. Significant Business to Manage
a. As we all know, WPD has 5 beaches, 27 parks/properties (own or maintain), tennis facility, hockey rink, golf facility, and paddle facility. It’s a lot!
b. WPD needs all resources focused on managing these assets.
5. Existing Financial Challenges
a. WPD has $7.5mm in Elder/Centennial Beach budgeted improvements, but only $5mm remaining proceeds from the most recent debt financing.
b. WPD has nearly $5.3mm of budgeted operating capitals in the next three years, not major but operating. This is an unusually large amount.
c. There will also be considerable losses due to golf course closure in 2022 and 2023. The Golf Fund is budgeted to lose $1mm in 2022. Will 2023 be any
better?
d. WPD has very limited forecasted unrestricted reserves, approximately $2.5mm.
e. WPD has no current ability to service additional non-referendum debt.
f. It is fair to assume there will be no contribution as previously budgeted to help defer the costs of the south breakwater.
6. Moving Forward
a. Initiating litigation will only slow down the improvements to Elder/Centennial Beach, we can move forward more expeditiously without litigation.
Page 195 of 547
b. There could be another devastating weather event that may cause additional damage to Elder/Centennial Beach. To delay improvements = increasing our
financial exposure.
c. WPD has flourished without owning 261 Sheridan. WPD has great assets, fantastic programming and a wonderful reputation within the community.
d. Importantly, Director Peterson should maintain informal contact with Orchard 2020 as needed.
It has been said, “possession is 9/10 of the law”. Orchard 2020 owns 261 Sheridan, unfortunately WPD does not. Yes, we have the right to pursue litigation to
attempt to enforce performance of the Property Exchange. However, litigation comes with risks, uncertainties, and costs, both financial and non-financial, that I
believe outweigh our right to pursue litigation with Orchard 2020.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
David Seaman
Page 196 of 547
John Peterson
Subject: FW: Confidential circulation to Board only-Following up [LP-
ACTIVE.38463.38463-86858.FID1345222]
From: Robert A. Romanoff < >
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 3:14 PM
To: Robert A. Romanoff < >; James Hemmings <jhemmings@winpark.org>
Cc: Christina Codo <CCodo@winpark.org>; Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Simon, Adam
<ASimon@ancelglink.com>
Subject: RE: Following up [LP-ACTIVE.38463.38463-86858.FID1345222]
James –
Thanks for your message from earlier this week. I have copied your questions, with our client’s
response to the questions. Prior to responding to your individual questions, I wanted to share
that the donors’ only criteria are that WPD must “refund” the donation (in a manner described
below) if WPD transfers any portion of the Centennial or Elder Lane park property to a private
party or enters into an agreement, easement or similar restriction with a private party that
restricts the design, modification or operation of the park. The goal is to provide funds to support
the parks free and clear of such private restrictions.
One of the conditions you expressed on behalf of your client is that funds should not be
used toward a project that would inure to the benefit of an individual. There are many
public projects that have a primary public purpose that also have an incidental private
benefit. Would the WPD be forbidden from using the donation in a way that results in any
incidental private benefit? No. How would you propose such a condition be worded in a
donation agreement?
Answer - TBD, based on points above.
One of the concerns you mentioned the donor articulating is the existence of plans to build
a fence that the donor believes will provide a benefit to an individual, in this case the
neighboring property owner to the south. This feature is set out in the current permit
drawings that were developed by the WPD independent of any land swap or donation
agreement. Are there concerns that the donor has with the current permit drawings, a
change to which would be required as a condition of the donation?
Answer - The donors do not seek to impose their own design requirements on WPD. The donors
do not love the fencing design, but as long as WPD is not building the fence because it is bound by
an agreement to a private party to build or maintain the fence in a certain way, there is no impact
on the donation.
1
Page 197 of 547
One of the conditions of the proposed donation is that the WPD cancel the land swap
agreement relating to 261 Sheridan Avenue. Would your client be willing to indemnify,
defend and hold the WPD harmless from any litigation or other legal proceedings resulting
from the cancellation of that agreement?
Answer - The funds are unrestricted and could be used for any purpose, including responding to
any lawsuit. If there is a need for more money, please advise how much and the donors will
consider.
You expressed that the desire of the donor is to maintain Elder and Centennial as free and
clear for the public. Can you please confirm that free and clear is in reference to the
existence of easements, encumbrances, etc., rather than placing a restriction on the WPD
should it elect to charge for access to those parks (for example, through the requirement of
a beach pass)? Assuming that free and clear is limited to the non-existence of easements,
encumbrances, etc., can you also please confirm that the desire to ensure free and clear
applies only to Elder and Centennial parks, and not other WPD property? How would you
propose a condition to this end be written for purposes of a donation agreement?
Answer – The restrictions are limited to Elder and Centennial and are not intended to limit the
WPD from imposing beach pass requirements.
Are there other conditions to the proposed donation beyond those identified in the
questions above? If so, what are they?
Answer - Not that we can think of at this time.
The donation is characterized as unrestricted as to the use of the funds. Can you confirm
that WPD may use these funds for any purpose, and not just for any purpose associated
with either Elder or Centennial parks?
Answer – Yes
You have mentioned that you can provide references to the creditworthiness of the
donor. Can you please provide those references?
Answer - Yes, if we have an understanding in principle, we will provide a letter from bank holding
funds.
What remedy would the donor have if the donor believes the Park District has violated the
conditions of the donation?
2
Page 198 of 547
Answer - Refund of donation (by transferring the donation to another 501(c)(3) organization to
be identified in agreement).
What is your client’s timeframe for negotiating this donation agreement to completion?
Answer - 45 days seems reasonable once we reach an understanding.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best regards,
Rob
Robert A. Romanoff Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC
(he/him/his) 120 S Riverside Plaza
Past Managing Partner Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606 USA
lplegal.com
Are you prepared for the Corporate Transparency Act that goes into effect January 1, 2024?
Click here to learn more.
Sign up for LP’s weekly newsletter, LP3
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this
message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message
and deleting it from your computer.
3
Page 199 of 547
Page 200 of 547
Page 201 of 547
Page 202 of 547
Page 203 of 547
Page 204 of 547
Page 205 of 547
Page 206 of 547
Page 207 of 547
Page 208 of 547
Page 209 of 547
Page 210 of 547
Page 211 of 547
Page 212 of 547
Page 213 of 547
Page 214 of 547
Page 215 of 547
Page 216 of 547
Page 217 of 547
Page 218 of 547
Page 219 of 547
Page 220 of 547
Page 221 of 547
Page 222 of 547
Page 223 of 547
Page 224 of 547
Page 225 of 547
Page 226 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen;
Subject: Fwd: Special Use Permit Concerns
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 10:09:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please send my email with attachments to the ZBA ahead of its 2/9/26 meeting?
Thank you.
To the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Given WPD’s multiple misrepresentations in connection with its Centennial SUP
applications, please use strict scrutiny in your permit review. WPD’s fencing would stretch far
beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark, ending 91’ from Centennial’s bluffs to the north and
78’ from the bluffs to the south. Plan has already considered the dangerous and unnecessary
nature of this fencing application and declined to recommend approval. I ask ZBA to do the
same.
WPD will attempt to direct ZBA’s safety concerns toward the dog beach under pretext of
protecting people who use Elder Lane Beach for a very short summer swim season. This
makes no sense. I respectfully suggest that rather than putting dogs before people, attention to
beach safety should be more focused on Elder—an important but lightly used swimming
beach. It is the most polluted of Winnetka’s beaches, and for that reason is likely to be open
fewer days each summer than Tower or Maple.
For your information, using WPD’s “rainout line” in 2024 I made a good faith effort to track
beach closures. Based on WPD information, I tallied approximately 50 total open days for
Maple Beach. Some days were half open-half closed, depending on weather and water
conditions. Some days the beach was fully closed because of weather, water conditions or high
bacteria counts. Beginning with Memorial Day and ending in mid-August, Maple was opened
and closed depending on whether it could be staffed. Before New Trier adjourned in June, it
was open on a limited basis. By mid-August it had closed for the summer—only Tower Road
Beach was staffed intermittently at that point before closing over Labor Day weekend. In my
opinion, staffing shortages will also cause Elder Beach to be open less than the full season.
https://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/ilbeaches/public/BeachDetail.aspx?BeachID=381
My suggestion is to ask the beach-going community itself to come up with sensible measures
for the young families/kids who bike or walk to Elder on the days it is open. Take a look at
this already-ADA accessible beach and find a way to delineate its southern boundary. One
option could be a simple row of rocks. Or, fully removable, truly temporary, summer-only
ropes or block-mounted posts with ropes ending at or above the OHWM—without obstructing
the use of beach wheelchairs. The materials should not obstruct sight lines for first responders,
lifeguards, parents, or other beachgoers. They should not make it harder to run across the
sandy beach, within or past any seasonal beach boundaries, or into lake for a water rescue.
Consideration should also be given to changing waterlines. Today's lake levels are at or below
Page 227 of 547
normal. Once the water rises again, whatever is used should be moveable so as not to create a
submerged threat.
Community efforts could include obtaining advice from recognized safety experts. Neutral
community members should also ask (1) the lifeguards if ropes or removable posts would be
helpful or a hindrance to their duties, (2) if they feel they are necessary, and (3) Elder Beach
users themselves if they feel barriers would enhance their safety. As an aside, I am not aware
of any dog-related incidents at Elder Beach over multiple years when three of my kids were
WPD Lake Michigan lifeguards. I do know that every minute counts when making a water
rescue.
WPD’s REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE OF LAKEFRONT CHAIN-LINK FENCING
I appreciate the Plan Commission’s decision to decline recommending WPD’s dog beach
fencing plans and I hope ZBA will do the same. There is no reason to pound metal poles all
the way to what WPD describes as the “point of resistance” to install dog beach fencing that is
Page 228 of 547
neither required nor safe. IDNR has described standalone lakefront fencing as an obstacle to
be navigated around. The further out a person ventures to avoid a fence, the bigger the waves
and the colder the water well into the summer months (July-August). Water-based fencing
increases the likelihood of drowning for this reason. I believe low lake water temperatures
were responsible for at least one of the drownings in Winnetka within the past few
years. Please take this into account and decline recommending approval of WPD’s fencing
SUP.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
Page 229 of 547
Philip Enquist
476 Provident Ave.
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
February 3, 2026
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, and
Design Review Board….
Last week, at the January 28th Plan Commission meeting, the Winnetka community learned
further details about the proposed beach fences which would define the future dog beach as
proposed by the Winnetka Park District.
The proposed design is for two, 4’ high fences, that will
run into the lake waters for approximately 15’ to a water depth of 1.5’ to 2’. Four gates will
create entrances, a pair at the north and a pair at the south.
As I listened to this presentation, I wondered who is representing child safety
concerns? Shallow water (1.5 – 2 feet) allows easy wading around these fences and children
potentially meandering behind fences and become vulnerable to separation from families and
potential water related accidents. A dog owner also spoke that obstructions like fences can
create unsafe conditions for the dogs. Centennial Beach, perhaps Winnetka’s most beautiful
beach, is today, open and free of physical obstacles across its shoreline.
Residents at the January 28th meeting suggested rational strategies that would avoid fences
extending into the water. These alternative concepts should be explored. The community also
showed research of what other Illinois communities are doing, especially the letter (dated
January 26, 2026) from John Root. The WPD admitted that they had not gone to see these other
beaches.
The proposal is a bad idea.
These fences would fragment Winnetka’s open, unobstructed beach, but more importantly, I
believe they would create significant safety issues. The Winnetka Park District’s proposal is full
of issues and is poorly conceived. Please do not approve this fence special use permit proposal,
but rather recommend further research and alternative concepts that may not require fencing on
the actual beach.
Thank you for your diligence and time related to these issues.
Phil Enquist
Fellow, American Institute of Architects
Page 230 of 547
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, January 28th2026
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST
WHILE THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE FENCES AT THE DOG BEACH,
I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST IF FENCES ARE
INSTALLED.THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC USE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1842, IS ONE OF THE
UNDERPINNINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHANGED LAW OR
REGULATION SINCE THAT TIME – ONLY THE CONTINUED INTERNAL ASSERTION FROM WPD STAFF THAT
FENCING IS “REQUIRERD”, DESPITE REPEATED DOCUMENTATION TO THE CONTRARY. THIS DOCTRINE
MANDATES THAT THE BEACHES IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND IN OTHER STATES, REMAIN OPEN AND
AVAILABLE FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC. NO PRIVATE BEACH OR DOG BEACH MAY PREVENT PEOPLE
FROM PASSING OVER IT BECAUSE OF THIS DOCTRINE.
THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING AT CENTENNIAL BEACH WOLD BE AN UNNECESSARY AND
DAMAGING INTRUSION ON PUBLIC LAKEFRONT ACCESS. IT WOULD UNDERMINE THE NATURAL
AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE BEACH WHILE IMPLYING A LEGAL NECESSITY THAT SIMPLY DOES
NOT EXIST.
THIS PROP0SED FENCE AROUND THE DOG BEACH IS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC
TRUST. THEREFORE, I ASK THAT YOU DENY THE PARK DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THANK YOU.
ALEXANDRA C. NICHOLS
Page 231 of 547
Page 232 of 547
Page 233 of 547
Page 234 of 547
Page 235 of 547
Page 236 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Cc:
Subject: WPD Fencing SUP Application—Comments for ZBA
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:54:52 AM
Attachments: 79D77E9B-AC52-4CC5-AC9C-CBC0E793E569.png
72EF620F-8882-4826-AD60-142297EB47FF.png
6596EEA3-476F-4B03-BB96-772A53BF06ED.png
4BC6BF5B-798F-455D-A353-CE0AB1157213.png
57171C5D-38A9-4395-853A-65804F652783.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share this with ZBA ahead of its February 9, 2026 meeting?
On February 5, 2026 the Winnetka Park District adopted a motion approving new permanent
fencing designs for Centennial Beach. I did not see the new plans in ZBA’s publicly available
February 9, 2026 meeting packet. The new permanent fencing project differs in design, scope
and description from what WPD presented to ZBA for Monday’s meeting, which I believe
requires it to make new permit submissions to the Village.
WPD’s new permanent fencing designs
“The public beach has to end.”
Page 237 of 547
WPD continues to misrepresent the reasons for a fencing project that Cook County’s Deputy
Administrator categorizes as falling outside the scope of its ordinance. Further
misrepresentations and confusion related to WPD’s new dog beach fencing designs are as
follows.
1. Despite WPD’s awareness of the Village’s commitment to protecting the public’s health,
Page 238 of 547
safety and welfare, it adopted new designs that are at least as detrimental as the designs Plan
voted 7-0 not to recommend. This fencing would induce people to step onto the steel sheet
piling and use it to travel east as far as WPD’s proposed fencing extends, from where they
could jump off—potentially hitting 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwater. People will be
hard to see in the water/on the rocks/below the fencing, and difficult to rescue.
Two men climbed onto the steel groin and sidestepped along it by using the fencing. Note that
WPD’s designs would permanently induce future beachwalkers to do the same while
traversing Lake Michigan’s actual shoreline.
2. I understood WPD’s Costa Kutulas to say sand levels on either side of the new designs’
steel groin-mounted fencing would differ by approximately 4’, creating a hazardous drop off.
He also made an assumption that people would choose the safest route to reach 205 Sheridan’s
northern breakwater steps. I do not think it is reasonable to make this assumption, and I hope
ZBA asks him about it.
3. At the February 5, 2026 meeting, WPD’s board majority was coy about its intentions for
2024’s WPD-IFF Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. The board majority said
they want to get all the permits for the groin-mounted fencing plan, and then revisit the
Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. It does not take much to suspect an eventual
plan to encumber the park, freeze its use, build dangerous structures and impede access to
Centennial’s southern shoreline, all to the detriment of the public’s general welfare for over
half a century.
Page 239 of 547
4. WPD’s new permanent fencing designs would cost $50,000-$100,000–adding to over $2.3
million spent to date, plus a foregone genuine $3 million donation offer that would have
advanced more funds to cover litigation threats WPD is using as an excuse. The effect is
detrimental to the public’s general welfare.
Page 240 of 547
5. WPD’s new designs would involve relocating electrical wiring all the way down the bluffs
and onto the sandy beach 12 feet east of the toe of the bluffs. The OHWM on Centennial’s
southern end—closest to 205 Sheridan—is only a short distance east of the fencing and
electric fob.
Page 241 of 547
As water levels change, the electrical wiring, key fob, gate and even the “watertight” dog
waste receptacle will be fully or partly underwater. This will be unsafe, unsanitary and
difficult to maintain. I therefore request that ZBA ask WPD why in the surveys of dog beaches
throughout Lake and Cook Counties, nothing has surfaced depicting other dog beaches with
locked electric gates only feet away from the OHWM. It is obviously much safer and more
usable for the key fob operated gate to remain at the top of the bluffs with no risk of it being
submerged in Lake Michigan.
Page 242 of 547
Page 243 of 547
Metal cover over Centennial’s current electric fob operated gate’s emergency exit button was
broken off and not fixed over multiple summers.
6. I think it may be difficult for an electric gate that is sitting in sand or water to swing open. If
it does open, it may take more than a reasonable amount of time. Once inside the 10’ square
Page 244 of 547
enclosure leading to the main area for dogs, there would be another gate people would have to
unlatch and physically pull open (or closed) manually to enter or leave the 10’ square
enclosure. It is unclear if the designs include an emergency exit button inside the 10’ square
enclosure.
7. On February 5, 2026 Mr. Kutulas said the new designs’ black chainlink fencing would be
HARDER TO SEE. This will cause more accidents involving swimmers, paddle boarders,
kayakers, jet skiers and other watergoers along with dogs, getting tangled up with the fencing
and hurt, and/or possibly drowning.
8. WPD is loath to respect the Ordinary High Water Mark as the easternmost boundary of its
lot line for zoning purposes. Approving fencing that extends into a public street—Lake
Michigan—would set a terrible and dangerous precedent. You may not be aware of this, but a
threatening sign was placed off of the Cherry Street Beach sometime after 2023. In the fall of
2025 the sign was still on public beach below the OHWM. I believe it would create even more
dangers for the public if ZBA votes to recommend fencing below the OHWM. Others will use
this as precedent in their determined efforts to block off Lake Michigan.
Page 245 of 547
Sign south of Cherry Street Beach in 2025
9. WPD has not formed a plan for the isolated northern half of Centennial beach that its
designs would create. ZBA does not have enough information to assess whether an
immediately adjacent swimming beach would be safe for people and dogs traveling up and
down the stairs to the same watershed, whether it would be legal under the Illinois Swimming
Page 246 of 547
Facilities Act, whether WPD would comply with the law and build bathrooms within 300 feet
of the shoreline, or other potential issues. I am confounded by WPD’s consideration of designs
that could put human swimmers strictly on the north side of Centennial’s center steel groin
where they will face what WPD describes as northeasterly rip currents. It would be safer to put
people on the southern side of the steel groin . . . obviously not WPD’s choice since it would
foil efforts to fence Centennial’s southern boundary.
10. On February 5, 2026 WPD mentioned its allocation of funding to police Centennial beach
with “wardens.” WPD’s Centennial beach vision appears to be putting people and their dogs
in a cage, with roaming police issuing tickets and/or warning people away. This is out of line
with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it is repugnant.
11. WPD seems confused about Wilmette’s Gillson Dog Beach. Dogs have to remain leashed
until they get to Gillson’s sandy dog beach, but not when they are on the sand.
12. It is unclear if Centennial’s 11 parking spots would be sufficient if Winnetka’s only dog
beach is next to a passive use or swimming beach. I think a dual-use beach will draw a lot of
people, like Lloyd Beach does. The lack of adequate parking will spill onto tabletop parkland,
into the neighborhood across Sheridan Road and around the area. This in itself is sufficient
reason to deny approving WPD’s SUP application.
13. Pounding fencing onto the steel groin that crosses over Centennial’s lot line with 205
Sheridan could be destabilizing and potentially give rise to damages. WPD should be asked
about this.
14. WPD makes no commitment to get a professional assessment of whether its designs—
particularly the gates—meet ADA requirements for Winnetka’s only dog beach, which is a
public accommodation.
WPD’s February 5, 2026 Special Meeting just appeared on its calendar on Monday, February
2, 2026. Its meeting agenda with two small images of the new permanent fencing designs
appeared on Tuesday, February 4, 2026. The public had 48 hours to evaluate the designs, if
they happened to read WPD’s agenda ahead of Thursday’s meeting. This is the same and also
inadequate timeframe that the public and non-majority board members had to try to evaluate
designs attached to WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant when they
appeared in WPD’s October 19, 2023 meeting agenda—48 hours. Furthermore, the new
designs are not included in ZBA’s meeting packet. The Village Engineer, Police Chief and
Fire Chief have not had an opportunity to assess the designs’ narrow bypass width, the gates,
placing electrical on the beach, the 4’ drop-off, and other questions. WPD’s efforts to force
down cumbersome designs that impede access to public lands and threaten the public’s
general welfare—physically, financially and legally, are concerning. Please uphold the
public’s interest and decline to recommend approving them.
Thank you.
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
Page 247 of 547
The Zoning Board of Appeals shouldn’t do anything to advance the current plans
of the Winnetka Park District for a dog area at Centennial Beach, because setting
aside any lakefront property of the Village of Winnetka is simply an ill-conceived
use of Village and Park District lakefront.
There are better ways to handle this issue.
What the Village and the WPD should do in regard to canine access to the
lakefront is to [i] entirely prohibit dogs from all lakefront property during regular
swimming hours, but [ii] allow dog-owners and their dogs and the public to freely
use the lakefront – just the beach, not any park areas – in the evenings, after
regular hours for permitted swimming and for the public in general.
I have personally seen this regulatory scheme in action at beaches on the Atlantic
Ocean in New Jersey, and it has worked well for years.
And according to remarks by Zoning Board Chair Matthew Bradley at the January
28th Plan Commission meeting, the usage regime suggested above appears to be
how ‘the dog beach” has, in fact historically operated in Winnetka anyway.
Fully realizing this proposal and beach accessibility to Winnetka residents would,
of course, mean opening up all the lakefront that is now effectively barricaded by
the kind of massive rock jetties that have recently been erected at either end of
the Ishbia property, but even if it isn’t possible to address that particular aspect
right now, the regulatory scheme suggested above will still work well.
The proposed regulatory scheme will, obviously cost a great deal less than the
current Park District proposal, and it won’t involve further environmental
degradation -- assuming that dog-owners pick up after the pets.
It’s at least worth a try, isn’t it? So why not turn off the seemingly endless
governmental process for now, and give it a try for a year or two?
Marc Hecht
Page 248 of 547
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: February 9, 2026
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 5:46:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ann,
Please forward my letter below to the Zoning Board and the Design Review Board.
Thank You,
Joanna Karatzas
February 9, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence at Centennial Beach
Zoning Board:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
It’s hard writing about a moving target. Since the Park Board altered schematics for the dog
beach on February 5, 2026, the letter I previously wrote regarding the scheme presented to the
Planning Commission on January 28, 2026 is irrelevant. However, I don’t know if procedure
allows for a switch at this point without first going back to the Planning Commission.
Therefore, I’m retaining my response to that first scheme in this letter.
See Below.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the public on February 5, 2026.
As I stated previously regarding the scheme presented to the Planning Commission on January
28, 2026, tonight’s plans are again vague, and therefore misleading. Because the drawing
doesn’t include the breakwater at 205 Sheridan, it may give the viewer an overly optimistic
perception of its true feasibility. It’s important to convey the entire existing condition on the
south boundary of Centennial. It’s a point of contention and I’ll never understand why the
drawing is incomplete.
In looking at the plan, it looks like pedestrians would have to walk on property belonging to
205 Sheridan when transversing southward along the lake. Also, the width of the passage in
front of the stairs over the breakwater seems especially narrow and is endanger of being
swamped should the lake rise to the high water mark.
A park commissioner at last week’s meeting mentioned the need for a staked survey at this
edge. It seems like a good idea and should have happened before this plan was presented.
More importantly, it’s worth asking ourselves what’s driving a fenced dog beach there at all?
The answer lies in a donation held out to the Park District by the Ishbia Family Foundation
(IFF), also known as the owner of 205 Sheridan. The donation isn’t a pure act of kindness, it
has strings attached. It mandates a fenced dog beach located at the south end of Centennial;
ADA access; and a very over-scaled pier placed near where the north dog beach fence is
Page 249 of 547
proposed. I wish someone would tell me what IFF’s motivations are, particularly regarding the
pier.
The entanglement between IFF and the WPD has resulted in some very weird proposals and
solutions over the last four years. I have been critical of the proposed designs, but I know the
designers aren’t at fault. The root of the problems lie with decisions and agreements the
Winnetka Park Board has made. Cutting the cord between IFF and WPD would allow for a
rational solution at Elder/Centennial.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026.
The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague
and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the Zoning Board and the public of the
breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan, also known as the south
boundary of Centennial, nor do they highlight the existing sheet pile at the same location.
Furthermore, the fence elevations are not presented in context— therefore the observer can’t
see what lurks behind proposed south fence. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly
drawn in plan, the benign looking 20 ft.-gap between the thin line representing the south fence
of the proposed dog beach and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem hazardous
and redundant.
The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake
Michigan. It runs into the lake at a proposed distance of 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but
that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. Should
the lake level stay at the ordinary water mark, the water depth at the east terminus of the fence
would be 1.5-2 ft. That makes me wonder, would that depth be if we experience a high tide?
At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a
trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between
jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile, and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and
produce strong currents.
The need to provide a fence where there is already a pile of rocks is questionable. Dogs aren’t
likely to pick their way over wet, slimy rocks in favor of running and playing on a wide open
beach.
Finally, drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and
describe adjacency conditions. In this case they fail to do so, therefore, please deny this
Special Use Permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Page 250 of 547
John William Root
326 Woodland Avenue
Winnetka, IL 60093
Telephone:
Email:
Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org
Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026
Village of Winnetka
Director of Community Development
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU
225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach
Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing
Dear Mr. Mangum:
As you may be aware, the Winnetka Park Board (WPD) met on February 5, 2026, and approved
a new design for the dog fence for its Special Use Permit (SUP) for Case No. 25-28-SU. The
design can be seen below in figure 1.
Figure 1. Revised Dog Fence Design
Page 251 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 2 of 3
The February 5 redesign appears to be a material change from the fence configuration presented
in the pending SUP application and circulated to the public. Among other things, the redesign
relocates the fence elements and reconfigures Centennial Beach by dividing it into an off-leash
dog area and a separate “passive” beach area for the general public, which materially alters the
character and impacts of the proposed special use.
Section 17.56.130 (Amendments to Special Use Permits) recognizes that when a SUP holder
seeks a material change to the approved special use, the change must be processed as an
amendment with the required administrative review and public process. The Park District is not
merely refining details; it has approved a substantively different configuration. At minimum, the
Village should require the Park District to proceed through the appropriate administrative
procedure under the Zoning Ordinance for a material modification—i.e., staff review, a complete
and current plan set, and legally adequate public notice—before the matter is heard on the merits.
This is also a basic procedural due process issue. The public hearing process only works if
residents and affected property owners have meaningful notice of what is being proposed and a
fair opportunity to review and comment on the operative design. A last-minute substitution of a
materially different fence plan on the eve of a hearing undermines the integrity of the
administrative record and deprives interested persons of a fair opportunity to be heard on the
actual proposal.
As of the date of this letter: (1) no notice of postponement of the February 9, 2026, ZBA hearing
appears to have been posted; and (2) the February 5 revised fence design does not appear to be
posted on the Village’s ZBA webpage. It therefore appears likely that the Park District may
present the superseded fence design at the February 9 hearing, despite having approved a
materially different plan on February 5. That would be inefficient for the ZBA and unfair to the
public, and it risks a recommendation based on a plan the applicant itself has abandoned.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Village require the Park District to submit a complete
amended plan set reflecting the new February 5 design and then restart or continue the SUP
process as required for material changes, including staff review and proper notice to surrounding
property owners and the public. If the Park District nonetheless intends to proceed on February
9 using the older design, then the ZBA should limit the presentation time (e.g., 15 minutes for
staff and 15 minutes for the applicant) and avoid devoting substantial hearing time to an
outmoded plan that is no longer the applicant’s approved design.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
/ s/
John W. Root
Page 252 of 547
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 3 of 3
cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager
By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org
Ms. Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director
By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org
Page 253 of 547
To: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Angie Dahl
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road-Centennial Beach
Date: February 9 2026
Members of the ZBA:
You are being asked tonight to consider and approve an application from the Winnetka Park
District to allow installation of fencing on the existing Centennial beach in order to create a
dog beach. On January 28 2026, this application was unanimously rejected by the Plan
Commission.
Tonight, Park District staff and legal counsel may also present an alternative plan, differing in
size, scope and accessibility, which was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Park Board held
on February 5, 2026 at 4:30 in the afternoon.
The plan rejected by the Plan Commission, which is before you this evening, and the newly
designed plan adopted by the Winnetka Park Board on February 5 have one purpose in
common: the creation of a dog beach with substantial fencing.
Several years ago the Winnetka Park District solicited input from dog owners and dog beach
users on an ad hoc advisory board whose purpose was to evaluate options within the
community for an off leash dog area. The recommendation from that group was to move the
dog beach from Centennial and relocate it at an area near the power plant at Tower Road.
The timing of this ad hoc committee and its subsequent recommendation overlapped with
new, private and ongoing discussions between several members of the Winnetka Park District
Board of Commissioners, and an individual property owner purchasing land adjacent to
Centennial Park. During this same period, concerned residents attempted but failed to locate
or review any meeting minutes or video recordings of meetings where the Centennial/Elder
project was discussed. This resulted in an inquiry to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and
a subsequent finding that the Winnetka Park District was in violation of the requirements in
the Open Meetings Act of timely posting meeting minutes and videos for public review.
Interestingly, the missing information being sought directly related to the negotiations taking
place in private with a specific home owner. The findings of the ad hoc dog beach advisory
committee were put aside.
I bring this to your attention tonight because of the repetitive nature of the SUP applications
from the Park District.
I am a dog owner, a user of the dog beach, and was a Park District Commissioner at the time
the Centennial Dog Beach was conceived and implemented. My husband was a member of
Page 254 of 547
the ad hoc Dog Beach Committee which addressed a possible change in location. I believe
there is a simple solution to this ongoing merry-go-round of hearings regarding this issue.
Remove the dog beach from Centennial. If that happens, there will be no need for a SUP and
no need for the fencing that is opposed by so many.
I don’t know if it is within your purview to make this decision. If so, please consider this
option and please deny the Winnetka Park District’s application for a SUP.
Angie Dahl
1277 Forest Glen Dr N
Page 255 of 547
MEM0
February 9, 2026
TO: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Laurie Morse
RE: Centennial Fence Designs 1-3. Which will the ZB review today?
Zoning Board reviewed and rejected fence design 1. at meetings in 2024. This fence blocks
public access stairs to the new 205 beach, which is now complete and open for public use.
1. Fence plan from WPD/IFF restrictive Covenant Agreement dated January 19, 2024:
access stairs to 205 Sheridan beach 1
Page 256 of 547
2. WPD Fence Plan chosen at WPD Board Meeting February 5, 2026
The Feb. 5 WPD Board Meeting was theater. This “new” fence design conforms nicely to
Ishbia Family Covenant agreement requirements. Walkways and other features can be
added later. This plan includes locked gates at beach level but is not materially di erent
from 1. above already rejected by ZB. Access stairs to new public 205 beach blocked.
The “temporary fence” 3. Below, scheduled for ZB review today doesn’t conform to the
Ishbia Covenant agreement fence plan. “Temporary” language in IDNR permit application
was meant for Ishbia Family team. “Temporary fence” was e ective test of IDNR permit
review. WPD no longer plans to build this design and will seek new permits from all
regulators.
3. IDNR permitted this fence design on December 24, 2025. Permit LM20250015.
Page 257 of 547
From: Ann Klaassen
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:55:14 AM
From: Irene Smith >
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Ann Klaassen <AKlaassen@winnetka.org>
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, Ann. Is it too late to add something to the ZBA packets? This is a poster I’m bringing tonight, but I’m afraid
the printing is too small. It would be better understood if the Commissioners could read it in their packets.
Many thanks.
Irene
Page 258 of 547
*****************************
Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly
Page 259 of 547
believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more
excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.
When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid
down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to
you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.
John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020.
Page 260 of 547
Page 261 of 547
Page 262 of 547
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2026
SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-16-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an amended
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 amended applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final
Subdivision Plat approval to create two new Lots of Record:
1. Zoning Variation to allow Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to provide a lot depth of 172.64 feet,
whereas a minimum of 200 feet is required, a variation of 27.36 feet (13.68%) [Section 17.30.010
Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];
2. Subdivision Code Variations from Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards to
allow:
a. The side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset
Road);
b. The creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line
(Proposed Lot 2); and
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 the request. The PC is charged with making a
recommendation to the Village Council regarding the subdivision, including the requested relief
described above. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) considered the Applicant’s initial request for
zoning relief associated with a Final Subdivision Plat to create two new lots of record at its October 13
and December 8, 2025, meetings. Following the December ZBA meeting, the Applicant amended its
request in response to concerns raised by some members of the ZBA. Subsequently, the ZBA considered
the amended request on February 9, 2026, and by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval. Details
regarding the ZBA’s consideration are provided later in this report. Given the amended request requires
Page 1
Page 263 of 547
different zoning and subdivision code relief, the PC needs to consider the amended Final Plat of
Subdivision and the requested relief associated with the amended request.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the
Village Code, informing them of the public hearing before the PC. The hearing was also properly noticed
in Winnetka Talk on February 5, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written
comments on the amended application. Written comments that were not included in the September 24,
2025, PC agenda packet but distributed to the PC in time for that meeting, when it considered the
Applicant’s initial request, as well as the written comment received since the September 24 meeting are
included in Attachment C2.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025, PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
The PC considered the previous version of the Applicant’s proposed two-lot subdivision at its September
24, 2025, meeting. The staff report for the September 24 meeting, as well as the meeting minutes can
be found in Attachment B2.
At the September meeting, the PC heard from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, and
received letters from five neighbors in opposition to the request. The written correspondence from the
neighbors expressed concerns with development in the floodplain, drainage, and noncompliance with
the zoning lot standards. Some members of the PC noted that the zoning relief requested was minimal
and that increasing the lot area of Proposed Lot 2 to comply with the minimum required lot area would
require Proposed Lot 1 to seek relief from the lot depth requirement. Some members also noted that
the proposed subdivision would revert the Subject Property back to its original two-lot configuration prior
to the consolidation in 1976. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-1, the Commission recommended approval of the
request with a condition that the existing nonconforming playhouse be removed or relocated to comply
with the zoning regulations.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW
On October 13, 2025, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s request for approval of
zoning variations to allow the proposed two-lot subdivision. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s
legal counsel and civil engineer, the ZBA heard from two members of the public who are neighbors of the
Subject Property. The ZBA then discussed the request. A significant amount of the ZBA’s discussion was
focused on the relief requested and how that would impact the ability to develop the lot in a reasonable
manner that would be appropriate in the neighborhood. The six members in attendance were split on
the application. The Applicant heard the concerns expressed by the members of the ZBA leaning towards
recommending denial of the relief and requested that the item be continued to the December 8, 2025,
ZBA meeting to allow them time to explore amending the proposed plat of subdivision so that proposed
Lot 2 would comply with the lot area and rectangular lot area requirements. At the Applicant’s request,
the ZBA continued the item to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to provide the Applicant with time to
respond to the ZBA’s comments.
On December 8, 2025, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on the Applicant’s request. In response
to comments heard at the October ZBA meeting, the Applicant provided an exhibit with two options to
illustrate the implications of relocating the lot line between the two proposed lots so that Proposed Lot
2 (south lot) complies with lot area and rectangular area requirements. Both of the options represented
proposed lots that complied with the minimum required rectangular area requirement; however, the
options included a variety of additional zoning variations and Subdivision Code variations. Figure 1 below
Page 2
Page 264 of 547
illustrates the two options presented to the ZBA. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel
and civil engineer, and receiving no additional written or verbal public comment on the application, the
ZBA discussed the request and asked questions of the Applicant. The questions focused on the
buildability of Proposed Lot 1 in “Option 1” presented to the ZBA as an alternative to the originally
proposed subdivision, which required two zoning variations for Proposed Lot 2 while Proposed Lot 1 did
not require zoning variations. Following a recess to allow the Applicant time to discuss with their legal
counsel and civil engineer, the Applicant requested the application be continued to the January 12, 2026,
ZBA meeting to allow them time to evaluate whether to amend the application to move the proposed lot
line between the two lots to the north. By a vote of 6-0, the ZBA granted the Applicant’s request and
continued the item to the January 12 ZBA meeting.
Prior to the January 12 ZBA meeting, the Applicant informed staff that they were amending the proposed
subdivision. Because the amended subdivision requires different zoning relief, public notice of the
amended relief was required. Therefore, the ZBA did not take any action on this item on January 12.
Rather, new public notice was provided for the ZBA’s consideration of the amended request at the
February 9, 2026, ZBA meeting.
Figure 1 – Subdivision Options Exhibit (December 8, 2025 ZBA Meeting)
On February 9, 2026, the ZBA held a public hearing on the Applicant’s amended application, which
consists of Option 1 in Figure 1 above. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel, and
receiving no additional written or verbal comments, the ZBA discussed the amended request. The ZBA
was complimentary of the Applicant addressing the concerns expressed by some members of the ZBA.
Ultimately, the ZBA found the amended request met the standards for granting a variation while noting
the playhouse that is located within the required corner yard along Higginson Lane needs to be removed
or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations.
Page 3
Page 265 of 547
AMENDED PROPOESD PLAN
In response to comments heard at both the October 13 and December 8 ZBA meetings, the Applicant has
provided the attached written explanation describing the amended plat of subdivision (Attachment A2).
The change to the proposed plan involves shifting the proposed lot line dividing the two lots 27.36 feet
to the north. As a result, the lot area and rectangular buildable area requirements are met for the
proposed southerly lot (Lot 2 facing Higginson Lane). However, Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) now
requires zoning relief from the minimum lot depth requirement. The lot depth would be reduced from
200 feet (the minimum required lot depth) to 172.64 feet, a difference of 27.36 feet.
The images below and on the following pages compare the originally proposed plat of subdivision
considered at the September PC meeting with the current amended plat of subdivision.
Figure 2 – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat (September Meeting)
Page 4
Page 266 of 547
Side Lot Line is not
Perpendicular to
Street Line
Rear Lot Line Abutting
Side Lot Line
Figure 3 – Excerpt of Amended Marren’s Resubdivision Plat
Compliance with Zoning Standards – Lot Size and Dimensions. The amended Marren’s Resubdivision does
not comply with one provision of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot area and dimensions (highlighted
yellow in Table 2). In comparison, the plat of subdivision originally proposed did not comply with two
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Previously, the requested relief was limited to Proposed Lot 2
(southerly lot fronting on Higginson Lane); Proposed Lot 1, (lot with existing residence) fully complied with
the zoning regulations. Whereas, the amended plat of subdivision shifts the requested zoning relief to
Proposed Lot 1, while Proposed Lot 2 would comply. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the extent
to which the lots created with the original plat of subdivision complied with, or fell short of, the minimum
zoning standards and Table 2 does the same but for the amended subdivision.
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 one zoning variation for which both the Plan Commission and
Zoning Board of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council.
Page 5
Page 267 of 547
Table 1 – Marren’s Resubdivision 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 1 – R-2 Zoning Standards – Proposed Marren’s Resubdivision (October & December Meetings)
Table 2 – Amended Marren’s
Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot
Resubdivision
936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset
R-2 Zoning Standards
24,000 s.f. 28,485 s.f. 27,686 s.f. 56,171 s.f.
Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f.
COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
corner lot)
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 125.84 feet 158.67 feet
115 feet
(average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
(corner lot)
Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 62.62 feet 165 feet
20 feet
(at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
172.64 feet
VARIATION OF 220 feet 206.42 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet
27.36 FT COMPLIES COMPLIES
(13.68%)
Minimum
90 feet
Rectangular Area
x COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
within Lot
181.5 feet
Boundaries
Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards – Amended Marren’s Resubdivision
Compliance with Zoning Standards – Required Setbacks and Building Size. No additional zoning variations
related to building size and setbacks are created with the amended subdivision. In fact, the required
setbacks remain the same with the exception of the total side yard setback requirement for Proposed Lot
2, which is increased from 31.6 feet to 37.75 feet. The existing nonconformities that would remain in the
Marren’s Resubdivision would also remain in amended subdivision. Tables 3 and 4 on the following page
summarize the allowable building size and setback requirements for the proposed lots in the amended
Page 6
Page 268 of 547
subdivision. Those items highlighted green are existing nonconformities that would also remain with the
amended subdivision.
Existing Lot
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
936 Sunset
Requirements (Amended Subdivision) 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)
(5.52 feet N/A
existing structures EXISTING
playhouse)
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 37.75 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
53.87 feet N/A +160 feet
existing structures
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements (Amended Marren’s Resubdivision)
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot
Requirements (Amended Subdivision) 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset
Maximum Allowed Gross Floor
8,366.55 sq. ft. 8,182.78 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.
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE
structures
Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot
Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 7,121.25 sq. ft. 6,921.5 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 (ILC) 14,242.5 sq. ft. 13,843 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft.
(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 (Amended Marren’s Resubdivision)
Page 7
Page 269 of 547
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS
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 depth, and the existing nonconforming improvements that will
remain, two variations from Section 16.12.010 of the Subdivision Code are required to allow: (i) the side
lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); and (ii) creation of
a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line (Proposed Lot 2) (Figure 3).
Section 16.12.010(D.2) states that “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines,
or radial to curved street lines unless, in the opinion on the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement
would enhance public safety or convenience.” Also, 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.”
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 8
Page 270 of 547
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Front Yard Setback
that will remain
Location of Existing
Nonconforming
Front-Facing Garage
Door that will remain
Existing
Playhouse & Location of Existing
Tennis Court to Nonconforming
be Removed to Corner Yard Setbacks
Accommodate that will remain
Proposed
Subdivision
Figure 4 - Excerpt of 936 Sunset Road Plat of Survey
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and whether the variations listed on the following page 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
Page 9
Page 271 of 547
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 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for a lot
in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District;
b. A side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 that is not perpendicular to the street line; and
c. A side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 that abuts the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1.
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.”
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 1 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet
for a lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District [Section 17.30.010 Lot
Area, Shape and Dimensions];
b. A side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line [Section 16.12.010
Minimum land subdivision standards]; 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;
Page 10
Page 272 of 547
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.
[If the Commission chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of
approval, it will want to include the conditions here.]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A2: Applicant’s Amended Request and Plat of Subdivision
Attachment B2: September 24, 2025, PC Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Attachment C2: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of September 24, 2025, PC Agenda
Packet
Page 11
Page 273 of 547
ATTACHMENT A2
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
January 21, 2026
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: Amended 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 amended application to subdivide the existing 165’ wide lot at 936 Sunset Road
(the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 28,485 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot
containing 27,686 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 conforming lot. Bob and Susan originally proposed a subdivision in
keeping with the two separate lots that existed in 1976 before they were consolidated. The plan
required two zoning variations on the proposed Lot 2, specifically for minimum lot area and for
minimum rectangular area. Under the amended plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 becomes
shorter, but the proposed Lot 2 becomes larger. As a result, if the subdivision is granted, Lot 1
will not meet the minimum lot depth of 200 feet as required in the R-2 Zoning District but will
be approximately 172.64 feet. Lot 2 will comply with the minimum lot area and minimum
rectangular area and will not require any variations. Therefore, in a separate application, Bob and
Susan seek a zoning variation from that requirement.
The proposed subdivision also needs a variation from the Subdivision Code. Section
16.12.010.D.2 states “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street line, 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.” The amended plat of subdivision
Page 274 of 547
January 21, 2026
Page 2
requires a variation to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of
Proposed Lot 1. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and Susan respectfully request that the Plan
Commission recommend the granting of the requested Subdivision Code variation.
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
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 28,485 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a
lot area of 27.686 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. The original subdivision application.
Bob and Susan’s original plan of subdivision has two goals. Bob and Susan sought to
subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2,
Bob and Susan sought to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the 1976 lot consolidation.
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 current 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 put a tennis court on the south lot. The Plan Commission
unanimously approved the consolidation.
In 2025, Bob and Susan filed a plat of subdivision seeking to return the two lots to their
pre-1976 configurations. On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission held a public hearing the
plat of subdivision. After hearing from the applicant and neighbors, the Commission by a vote of
6-1 recommended approval of the request with a condition that the existing nonconforming
playhouse be removed or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations.
Under the original proposed plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 was conforming in all
material respects, but Lot 2 did not meet the minimum rectangular buildable area requirement
and the minimum lot area requirement. Therefore, Bob and Susan sought zoning variations in
relation to those requirements.
Page 275 of 547
January 21, 2026
Page 3
III. The amended subdivision application.
After attending two Zoning Board meetings, receiving feedback from the Commission,
the Board and neighbors, Bob and Susan have amended their subdivision application. Under the
amended plat of subdivision, the lot line between the two proposed lots is moved 27.36 feet
north. As a result, proposed Lot 1 does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of
200 feet. However, both proposed lots comply with the minimum required lot area and minimum
rectangular area which they did not under the original proposed subdivision. The amended plat
of subdivision does not create any additional zoning variations related to building size and
setbacks. The proposed plat of subdivision will require one Subdivision Code variation. Section
16.12.010.D.2 states “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street line, 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.” The amended plat of subdivision
requires a variation to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of
Proposed Lot 1.
IV. 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
Page 276 of 547
January 21, 2026
Page 4
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.”
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 belief that the two amended lots meet the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance except for lot depth on proposed Lot 1. By their application to the Zoning Board, Bob
and Susan seek a variation from this requirement since they did not create the situation.
2. Bob and Susan require a variation from this standard and it will be addressed below.
3. This standard is met.
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.
7. Bob and Susan are seeking a zoning variation to the lot depth requirement.
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
Page 277 of 547
Page 278 of 547
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
January 12, 2026
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Matthew Bradley, Chair
Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Amended request for Variations related to Application for Subdivision at 936
Sunset Road.
Dear Chairperson Bradley and Members of the Zoning Board:
I am writing on behalf of Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren (“Bob and Susan”)
regarding their amended application to subdivide the existing 165’ wide lot at 936 Sunset Road
(the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 28,485 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot
containing 27,686 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 conforming lot. Bob and Susan originally proposed a subdivision in
keeping with the two separate lots that existed in 1976 before they were consolidated. The plan
required two zoning variations on the proposed Lot 2, specifically for minimum lot area and for
minimum rectangular area. Under the amended plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 becomes
shorter but the proposed Lot 2 becomes larger. As a result, if the subdivision is granted, Lot 1
will not meet the minimum lot depth of 200 feet as required in the R-2 Zoning District but will
be approximately 172.64 feet. Lot 2 will comply with the minimum lot area and minimum
rectangular area and will not require any variations. Therefore, Bob and Susan seek a variation
Page 279 of 547
January 12, 2026
Page 2
from that requirement. The proposed subdivision will need a variation from the Subdivision
Code. Bob and Susan have applied to the Plan Commission to grant that variation. The Plan
Commission will hear the matter on February 25, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and
Susan respectfully request that the Zoning Board recommend the granting of the requested
zoning variation.
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
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 28,485 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a
lot area of 27.686 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. The original subdivision application.
Bob and Susan’s original plan of subdivision has two goals. Bob and Susan sought to
subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2,
Bob and Susan sought to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the 1976 lot consolidation.
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 current 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 put a tennis court on the south lot. 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 1976 consolidation and return the
proposed Lot 2 to its prior status as a separate lot.
Under the original proposed plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 was conforming in all
material respects but Lot 2 did not meet the minimum rectangular buildable area requirement and
the minimum lot area requirement. Therefore, Bob and Susan sought variations in relation to
those requirements.
III. The Amended Subdivision application.
After attending two Zoning Board meetings, receiving feedback from the Board and
neighbors, Bob and Susan have amended their subdivision application. Under the amended plat
Page 280 of 547
January 12, 2026
Page 3
of subdivision, the lot line between the two proposed lots is moved 27.36 feet north. As a result,
proposed Lot 1 does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of 200 feet. However,
both proposed lots comply with the minimum required lot area and minimum rectangular area
which they did not under the original proposed subdivision. The amended plat of subdivision
does not create any additional zoning variations related to building size and setbacks. The
proposed plat of subdivision will require one Subdivision Code variation and the Plan
Commission will consider that variation.
IV. Standards of Review for variations.
For the Zoning Board to grant the requested variation, the Zoning Board requires evidence on the
following issues:
1. that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used
only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that district;
2. that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
3. that the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
4. that an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired;
5. that the hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased;
6. that the taxable value of land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish;
7. that the congestion in the public street will not increase; and
8. that the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the
Village will not be otherwise impaired.
Bob and Susan’s request for variation meets each of these standards:
Bob and Susan bought their home in 2006 at the height of the housing market. See
Rodkin, D. (2019, September 25), Home prices peaked here in 2006. We’re still way behind that.
Crain’s Chicago Business. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/home-prices-
peaked-here-2006-were-still-way-behind. Since that time, Bob and Susan have made numerous
improvements to their home. Despite these improvements and the post-Pandemic housing
market, they have received unsolicited offers to purchase the current home and the current lot
that do not permit Bob and Susan to make a reasonable return on the investment in their home
and improvements. Certainly, the value of their home has not kept up with the rate of inflation or
the stock market returns. Bob and Susan believe that the sale of Lot 2 combined with the
eventual sale of their home on Lot 1 may yield a reasonable return.
Bob and Susan’s situation was not created by them but due to the unusual conditions they
face 49 years after the lots were consolidated. As discussed above, the two lots were conforming
lots of record when the consolidation occurred. After the 1999 zoning amendment, the original
proposed Lot 2 now became non-conforming in Lot Area. That amendment occurred well before
Bob and Susan owned the Subject Property. The minimum rectangular area requirement was also
created after the 1976 consolidation. By permitting the subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 will now be
Page 281 of 547
Page 282 of 547
Page 283 of 547
ATTACHMENT B2
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 284 of 547
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 285 of 547
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 286 of 547
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 287 of 547
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 288 of 547
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 289 of 547
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 290 of 547
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 291 of 547
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
49.52 feet
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
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 292 of 547
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 293 of 547
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 294 of 547
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 295 of 547
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 296 of 547
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 297 of 547
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 298 of 547
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 299 of 547
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (Marren’s Resubdivision)
Attachment C: January 13, 2014, ZBA Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Page 17
Page 300 of 547
ATTACHMENT A
Page 301 of 547
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 302 of 547
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 303 of 547
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 304 of 547
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 305 of 547
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 306 of 547
Page 307 of 547
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 308 of 547
Page 309 of 547
Page 310 of 547
Page 311 of 547
Page 312 of 547
Page 313 of 547
Page 314 of 547
Page 315 of 547
Page 316 of 547
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 317 of 547
Page 318 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Front View
Rear View
Page ii
Page 319 of 547
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 320 of 547
Page 321 of 547
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 322 of 547
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 323 of 547
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 324 of 547
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 325 of 547
Page 326 of 547
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 327 of 547
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 328 of 547
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 329 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Living Room
Dining Room
Page 11
Page 330 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Kitchen
Family Room
Page 12
Page 331 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Den
Primary Bedroom
Page 13
Page 332 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Primary Bathroom
Second Floor Hall Bedroom
Page 14
Page 333 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Private Bathroom
Basement Recreation Room
Page 15
Page 334 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Basement Mechanical Room
Two-Car Garage
Page 16
Page 335 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Tennis Court
Rear Yard
Page 17
Page 336 of 547
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 337 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP WHOLE ANALYSIS
Page 19
Page 338 of 547
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 339 of 547
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 340 of 547
File R21-1101
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP FRONT PORTION ANALYSIS
Page 22
Page 341 of 547
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 342 of 547
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 343 of 547
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP REAR LOT ANALYSIS
Page 25
Page 344 of 547
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 345 of 547
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 346 of 547
ADDENDUM
Comparable Sales
Page 347 of 547
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 348 of 547
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 349 of 547
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 350 of 547
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 351 of 547
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 352 of 547
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 353 of 547
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 354 of 547
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 355 of 547
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 356 of 547
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 357 of 547
ADDENDUM
State Certification/Qualifications
Page 358 of 547
ADDENDUM
Page 359 of 547
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 360 of 547
ATTACHMENT B
Page 361 of 547
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 362 of 547
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 363 of 547
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 364 of 547
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 365 of 547
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 366 of 547
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 367 of 547
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 368 of 547
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 369 of 547
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 370 of 547
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 371 of 547
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 372 of 547
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 373 of 547
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 374 of 547
Minutes adopted 11.19.2025
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT
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 ***
23
24 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision
25 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed
26 Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required
27 rectangular buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No Material
28 Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a)
29 observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the
30 minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum permitted
31 width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
32 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members for any preliminary comments with regard to the
33 application. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen described the proposed subdivision of
34 the existing lot into two buildable lots. She noted the request is limited to the subdivision itself and the
35 existing improvements with no proposed improvements included as part of the request. Ms. Klaassen
36 identified the property’s location, zoning classification, existing improvements and measurements. She
37 stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property and surrounding properties as
38 appropriate for single family residential uses and the applicant’s use of the site is consistent with the
39 Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
40
41 Ms. Klaassen described Lots 1 and 2 and the existing improvements on Lot 1. She noted the site was
42 originally platted as two lots similar to the current proposal and described the 1976 parcel created to
43 allow construction of the tennis court which would be removed as part of the proposal. Ms. Klaassen
44 noted Lot 1 complied with the zoning standards and summarized Lot 2’s noncompliance and the current
45 requirements in detail. She then identified the subdivision standards that proposed subdivisions are to
46 comply with which she described in detail. Ms. Klaassen referred to irregularly shaped lots in the
47 neighborhood and identified the three existing nonconformities.
48
Page 375 of 547
September 24, 2025 Page 2
1 Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the site is located entirely in the 100 year flood plain with
2 development on either lot being subject to the Village’s flood hazard protection ordinance as well as
3 MWRD requirements. She stated development on Lot 2 would require storm water detention and flood
4 plain compensatory storage. Ms. Klaassen referred the Commission to an image of a conceptual possible
5 home on the proposed vacant lot in response to the Village’s engineering comments on the proposed
6 subdivision which she described in detail along with compensatory storage and storm water detention.
7 Ms. Klaassen stated the Village’s Engineering Department confirmed with MWRD that surface
8 compensatory storage is acceptable provided it did not impact the storm water conveyance easement
9 and noted there are planned improvements to the Skokie Ditch resulting in increased capacity. She
10 reiterated the applicant is not proposing any new improvements on either lot at this time.
11
12 Ms. Klaassen stated the Water and Electric Department requested a 5-foot utility easement on proposed
13 Lot 2. She stated the ZBA would consider the request at its October 13, 2025, meeting and since the
14 agenda packet was posted, two letters were received from neighbors and provided to the Commission.
15 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission deliberation,
16 a draft motion is provided on page 56 for the Commission. She then asked if there were any questions.
17
18 Mr. Blum stated as his initial preliminary comment, he disclosed that he was on a different zoning board
19 for which an application for this property was presented 11 years ago and the application was withdrawn.
20 Mr. Bradley asked for clarification with regard to the lots appearing to be mirror properties and the forced
21 consolidation by the Village at the time. He asked if the application is a request to put the property back
22 to its original condition. Ms. Kunkle stated after the property was divided, it appeared that the Village
23 increased lot sizes with the neighborhood character now being called small estates. Mr. Alt asked if this is
24 the first stop for this application. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and outlined the application’s
25 presentation before the various boards. She stated there has been no record of a home being on the lot.
26 Ms. Klaassen also stated by shifting the dividing line between the two lots, it would require zoning relief
27 from the minimum lot depth requirement for Lot 1. Ms. Van Vlack expressed concern in the neighborhood
28 with regard to water displacement. She then referred to 901 and 905 Higginson which represented similar
29 situations of lots being subdivided into a nonconforming size in the R-2 district as well as the lot area
30 requirements at the time. Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the lot area requirement was increased
31 in 1999 and that it is likely a nonconforming lot with respect to at least the lot area requirements. She
32 added she is not sure when those lots were subdivided.
33
34 Mr. Subawalla asked if the southwest corner represented the lowest point in the neighborhood for the
35 adjacent lots and would result in a water catch point from the surrounding lots. He also asked if the
36 surrounding homes have their own storm water detention systems and where did the storm water
37 detention from this lot get released. Ms. Klaassen responded the proposed lot if developed would drain
38 to the Skokie Ditch and stated she could not speak to the elevation of this lot compared to others. She
39 confirmed the newer home to the west had compensatory storage and noted storm water detention
40 compliance is required with water runoff not being allowed to run to other lots. Mr. Blum questioned the
41 forced consolidation which Ms. Klaassen explained to the Commission. No additional questions were
42 raised at this time.
43
44 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
45 introduced himself, Bob and Susan Marren, the property owners, and the project engineer, Dan Creaney
46 who prepared the exhibit the Commission Members discussed at the request of the Village Engineer
47 following the comments they made. He confirmed the matter did not relate to a hypothetical home but
48 only the lot. Mr. Canning stated to address Mr. Blum’s question, he explained the reason for their first
Page 376 of 547
September 24, 2025 Page 3
1 request to the ZBA. He then referred to 860 Lamson which added a tennis court on their property which
2 had to be consolidated which happened to this property in 1976 in connection with the 936 Sunset, and
3 further explained how 860 Lamson went through the same process to subdivide the lot back to its original
4 configuration.
5
6 Mr. Canning stated the current owners purchased the property in 2006 and are asking for the two lots to
7 be restored to the pre-1976 condition. He stated he discussed with Ms. Klaassen moving the lot line
8 between the lots, and the applicants are willing to amend their application. Mr. Canning stated if the
9 property line is moved north, they would be able to achieve the 3% needed to comply with lot area but it
10 would result in a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1. Mr. Canning stated they decided to go with the
11 pre-1976 condition and are willing to revisit the alternative if required by the ZBA. He stated it would not
12 change the rectangular variation issue, any storm water calculations or detention areas. Mr. Canning also
13 referred to other smaller homes in the area identified in the application materials and with regard to the
14 minimum rectangular area, he referred to the previous discussion which he cited for the Commission. Mr.
15 Canning referred to the standard addressing the minimum rectangular area which has not been met
16 resulting in the variation being sought in which the spirit of requirement existed has been met.
17
18 Mr. Canning also addressed the comment relating to rear lot lines not abutting side lot lines which
19 currently existed as well as in other areas on Higginson. He then addressed the no material increased
20 adverse impact comment and the letter received from the neighbor which only related to the existing
21 home and not the proposed Lot 2. Mr. Canning addressed the north setback issue which did not represent
22 a material adverse impact as well as the garage door measuring 16 feet which has existed for a long time.
23 He reiterated there is no request pertaining to the proposed Lot 2.
24
25 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the concerns raised with regard to the flood plain and storm water
26 section of Ms. Klaassen’s memo, the neighbors’ concerns relating to storm water need to be addressed.
27 He stated Mr. Creaney was brought in to address the concerns relating to storm water management
28 regulations and which was a concern to only one neighbor who raised no further concerns. Mr. Canning
29 summarized their response in the materials to the Village Engineer’s request addressing the easements,
30 rights-of-way, setback, maximum building footprint and available space for detention. He emphasized
31 that Exhibit 10 represented a demonstrative example of what could be done and cited language requiring
32 compliance with Village Engineering requirements. Mr. Canning identified surrounding homes built which
33 complied with the engineering requirements and identified 956 Sunset as an example. He then asked if
34 there were any questions.
35
36 Chairperson Danley asked if the applicants have a buyer for the adjacent lot. Mr. Canning responded there
37 is not. Chairperson Danley asked if thought was given to the lot being kept together which would create
38 a situation for the existing home being torn down and replaced and questioned the cost of building
39 detention on the lot. Mr. Canning responded it has not been priced out and an appraisal was submitted
40 estimating the value of the 936 parcel as consolidated and the two separate lots with there being a higher
41 return on two separate lots.
42
43 Mr. Blum asked for an explanation in terms of raising the home in the flood plain which Mr. Creaney
44 explained to the Commission in detail. Mr. Subawalla stated his concern related to if and when the lot
45 went into potential construction, if it would result in it being a contributory catch area for the other lots.
46 Mr. Creaney confirmed they are aware of it. Mr. Canning also referred to the engineering comments with
47 regard to the flood plain elevation. Mr. Blum asked if the lot line is moved north, what is the process in
48 that regard. Ms. Klaassen indicated it is possible to come back to the Commission at the next meeting.
Page 377 of 547
September 24, 2025 Page 4
1 The Commission Members discussed the possible outcomes if the lot line is moved and a new, larger home
2 is built and Ms. Klaassen referred to Table 4 on page 9 of the staff memo. Mr. Canning referred to homes
3 built on Meadow which are similar to this property with regard to the flood plain concerns raised. Mr.
4 Blum asked if the only factors the Commission are to consider is whether the nonconformity resulted in a
5 material increased adverse impact with regard to the front yard setback as well as the play structure. Mr.
6 Canning confirmed the play structure can be removed if necessary.
7
8 Ms. Van Vlack referred to flood water being a reality in the area and asked if any analysis was done of the
9 projected impact in terms of what has already been accomplished in connection with the Village’s flood
10 water project. Mr. Creaney described the project in detail that the Village has been working on it for years.
11
12 Chairperson Danley asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commission or the
13 public. No additional questions were raised at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion.
14
15 Mr. Blum stated this area has been particularly affected by flooding and described the proposal as well
16 presented the concerns being addressed. He referred to the Commission’s narrow scope in terms of their
17 review and stated the requested variations are minimal and there will be no increased adverse impact
18 along with the property’s history. Mr. Blum indicated he would be inclined to recommend approval not
19 knowing what may happen in the future in terms of development. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments
20 made and stated the lot line moving discussion would create another issue with regard to the variation.
21 He also referred to the fact the property would be reverting back to its original condition as well as there
22 being no precedent for it in this particular location. Mr. Enck stated future engineering issues would be
23 addressed at that point. Mr. Subawalla stated as long as the Village Council is cognizant of what is coming
24 down the pike, legally, it would be fine. Mr. Alt stated he had concerns with regard to the precedent it
25 would set and if the Commission decided a subdivision is fine knowing going forward what is possible
26 which did not adhere to conformity requirements, he would vote against the request. Ms. Van Vlack
27 commented the opinions expressed are valid and with regard to the scope of the Commission’s review,
28 she described it as straightforward. She then stated the concerns expressed with regard to it not
29 conforming to be a 24,000 square foot lot, that would warrant revisiting maintaining those standards
30 although that did not address water concerns and there being an effort to mitigate those issues by the
31 Village.
32
33 Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request with consideration of revisions to comply
34 with lot standards. Mr. Bradley stated he appreciated the flood plain and storm water comments and with
35 regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the request would result in the creation of two legally complying R-2
36 lots with the exception of the 3% minimum lot area and rectangular shape. He stated it would be difficult
37 to say these two lots would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and referred to the problems in
38 connection with building in the flood plain which would be addressed by engineering and compliance
39 requirements. Mr. Bradley stated it would be difficult for this proposal to fail if it were not in the flood
40 plain and he would reserve the rest of his comments for the ZBA meeting.
41
42 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she did not see a basis to refuse the request
43 based on what is possible down the road noting her concerns were addressed. She agreed the lot would
44 be brought back to its original configuration and she would be in favor of the request. Chairperson Danley
45 stated she also had concerns and referred to the standards changed in neighborhoods to keep homes in
46 a certain configuration. She also referred to the concerns raised with regard to setting precedent which is
47 a concern to her as well as the flooding issues. Chairperson Danley stated if this configuration was not the
48 original lot configuration, she would not consider agreeing to the request but is persuaded by the fact that
Page 378 of 547
September 24, 2025 Page 5
1 it would be reverted back to its original configuration. She then asked for the applicant to maintain the
2 lot as is and referred to the significant amount of comments from the neighbors. Chairperson Danley
3 stated based on the Commission’s narrow scope, she is still concerned but that is not a reason to reject
4 the proposal. Trustee Orsic suggested asking the applicant to seek unsolicited offers for the property and
5 although she is not voting, she had concerns which were raised with good reason. Mr. Alt noted the
6 concern of neighborhood in opposition, particularly from five specific neighbors.
7
8 Mr. Bradley stated since the standards the Commission are asked to consider are different than those of
9 the ZBA, he suggested the Commission consider the applicant’s testimony with regard to the possible
10 concession and the play structure removal be included as an approval condition. Mr. Blum agreed with
11 Mr. Bradley’s suggestion and that they do not know what will happen the future.
12
13 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll in terms of making an approval recommendation with a condition
14 related to the play structure removal. Ms. Klaassen agreed the play structure located within the corner
15 yard setback being brought into compliance can be a condition of the motion.
16
17 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Blum moved to recommend approval of the proposed
18 resubdivision final plat as referenced in the materials with the condition that the existing play structure
19 be either removed or moved to a conforming location. Ms. Kunkle seconded. A vote was taken and the
20 motion passed, 7 to 1:
21 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack
22 NAYS: Alt
23 NON-VOTING: Orsic
24
25 ***
26
27 Respectfully submitted,
28
29 Antionette Johnson
30 Recording Secretary
Page 379 of 547
ATTACHMENT C2
Recommendation to deny 936 Sunset Road –
Final Plat Approval: Marren’s Resubdivision (Case No. 25-16-SD)
Dear Chairs and Members of the Winnetka Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals,
We are writing to respectfully urge you to recommend denial of Case No. 25-16-SD, the proposed
subdivision of 936 Sunset Road - Final Plat Approval Marren's Resubdivision. After careful review of the
application, supporting materials and relevant Village ordinances, it is clear that this submission would
be detrimental to the neighborhood, inconsistent with Winnetka's subdivision standards and contrary to
the public health, safety, and welfare.
1. Floodplain and drainage concerns
The subject property lies in the floodplain with many areas below floodplain and in a low-lying drainage
area. Construction of an additional residence which needs to be raised up 4+ feet from the base
floodplain would increase impervious surface area, reducing storm water absorption and potentially
redirecting flood water onto adjacent properties. Any fill placed to elevate a new building pad risks
displacing water and the compensatory storage requirement will be in conflict with the open Skokie
Ditch as it serves as the neighborhood's stormwater repository and uses this open land as its overflow.
2. Noncompliance with lot standards
The subdivision requires significant variations:
• Proposed Lot 2 fails to meet the minimum lot area and lacks the required rectangular buildable
area -a side lot line would abut a rear lot line, creating an irregular and awkward lot
configuration that is inconsistent with the Village's subdivision principles. Additionally, because
the house must be raised, it will look out of character since it would be built in the backyards
and side yards of the surrounding properties.
These conditions directly undermine the intent of Winnetka's zoning and planning standards, which are
designed to ensure orderly safe and equitable land use.
3. Material adverse impacts on the neighborhood
The required finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" cannot be reasonably made here. This
subdivision would:
• increase flood and drainage risks for the surrounding properties
• reduce green space which the open Skokie Ditch uses as overflow
• introduces a house out of scale with the neighborhood lots
• depresses property values of the neighboring lots by creating a precedent for building into the
flood plain on an undersized irregular lot
• creates a situation where an existing driveway is compromised by the lack of turnaround space
due to the narrow street and new driveway being built directly across from it.
4. Precedent and neighborhood integrity
Approving this subdivision would set a troubling precedent, inviting future applications for non-
conforming, substandard lots in flood prone areas.
For these reasons, the proposed 936 Sunset Road-Final Plat Approval Marren's Resubdivision (Case No.
25-16-SD) cannot be found to meet the Village's requirements for subdivision approval. It would create
Page 380 of 547
new risks and adverse impacts without any corresponding public benefit. Please also note the
attached photos of the flooding we experience at this exact site.
We respectfully request that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend denial of
this application.
Sincerely,
Githesh Ramamurthy
916 Higginson Lane
James and Cait Langer
956 Sunset Road
Nick and Jen Morse
150 Meadow Lane
Higgwinn LLC
900 Higginson Lane
Greg Case
901 Higginson Lane
Page 381 of 547
Page 382 of 547
Page 383 of 547
Page 384 of 547
Page 385 of 547
James & Caitlynde Langer
956 Sunset Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
September 23, 2025
To:
Chairs and Members of the Winnetka Plan Commission
Chairs and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Objection to Marren’s Resubdivision – Case No. 25-16-SD
Dear Chairs and Members of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals,
We write as the immediate next-door neighbors at 956 Sunset Road to respectfully but strongly
object to the proposed two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road (Marren’s Resubdivision, Case
No. 25-16-SD).
While we support the detailed concerns raised by other neighbors, we believe it is critical for
the Commission and Board to recognize both the legal deficiencies of this application and the
direct personal harms it would cause to our family and property.
1. Failure to Comply with Core Zoning and Subdivision Standards
The proposed subdivision requires multiple fundamental variations that undermine Winnetka’s
ordinances:
• Lot Area & Rectangular Buildable Area (Section 17.30.010): Proposed Lot 2 is 828 square
feet smaller than the required 24,000 sq. ft. minimum and fails the rectangular buildable
area test of 16,335 sq. ft. with legs of at least 90 feet.
• Irregular Lot Configuration (Section 16.12.010): The plan creates a side lot line abutting
a rear lot line, which the Subdivision Code expressly prohibits.
• Existing Nonconformities: Lot 1 would continue to violate required front and corner
setbacks and garage door width standards. The Code requires a finding of “No Material
Increased Adverse Impact”, yet approving a subdivision that perpetuates these
nonconformities clearly increases adverse impact.
These are not minor deviations. They are core standards designed to preserve the integrity of
the R-2 District’s “small estate” character.
Page 386 of 547
2. Entire Property Lies in the Floodplain
The staff report confirms that 100% of 936 Sunset Road lies within the 100-year floodplain. Any
new home on Lot 2 would need to be elevated approximately four feet above grade, displacing
water and increasing drainage burdens on neighboring properties, including ours.
Our yard already experiences significant flooding during rainstorms. Adding another house and
additional impervious surfaces on this site would almost certainly increase that flooding, forcing
us to bear major additional upkeep costs to protect and maintain our property.
Village engineering staff warned that detention and compensatory storage would be extremely
difficult to achieve on the proposed Lot 2 given easements and setbacks. As the immediate
abutters, we face the greatest risk of increased runoff, water displacement, and damage to our
property.
Importantly, a subdivision should also require that the existing residence on Lot 1 be brought
into compliance with today’s floodplain requirements. The current application does not address
this, leaving an already nonconforming structure in place within a high-risk flood zone. The Plan
Commission must take this into account before considering approval.
3. Neighborhood Character, Green Space, and Property Values
The R-2 zoning district was created for larger “small estate” lots, with a minimum area of
24,000 sq. ft. Approving this subdivision would:
• Introduce an oddly shaped, undersized lot inconsistent with surrounding parcels.
• Significantly reduce the open green space that contributes to the character of our
neighborhood and to the enjoyment of our own backyard.
• Place a raised house awkwardly in our backyard, destroying privacy and diminishing the
aesthetic and market value of our home.
• Depress surrounding property values. The collective real estate losses to neighbors from
reduced lot quality, diminished privacy, and floodplain complications would far exceed
any private financial gain to the Applicant. In short, the result would be a net loss in
value for the neighborhood as a whole.
4. History of Repeated Denial and Prior ZBA Findings
This is not the first time the Marren’s have sought to subdivide this property. In 2014, the
Zoning Board of Appeals raised nearly identical concerns and continued the case after
concluding the Applicant had failed to meet the required standards. At that time, the Board and
neighbors identified:
• Severe Flooding: Residents testified about Sunset becoming impassable during the 2013
storms, while expert studies confirmed this area as one of Winnetka’s most flood prone.
Page 387 of 547
• Subdivision Code Violation: The Board acknowledged that Section 16.12.010 expressly
prohibits creating a lot where a side lot line abuts a rear lot line.
• Lack of Hardship: ZBA members questioned whether the property could already yield a
reasonable return as a single lot, undermining any claim of true hardship. The Marren’s
declined to address the eight required standards for granting variations, despite signing
the application that required them.
• Neighborhood Character: Members worried about the awkward siting of a new house,
which would look directly into neighboring backyards and alter the established
character of Sunset Road.
Nothing material has changed since 2014. Approving this subdivision now would not only
ignore these previously identified concerns but also contradict the Village’s own consistent
reasoning.
5. Lack of Public Benefit and Hardship Justification
The Village’s subdivision standards require that variations only be granted when a true hardship
exists and when public health, safety, and welfare are protected. In this case, the Applicant has
not demonstrated the type of proven financial or practical hardship that would justify relief
from multiple core zoning standards. Instead, the only clear benefit is a private financial gain to
the Applicant.
The public cost, however, is real: increased flood risk, loss of neighborhood character,
diminished green space, and erosion of zoning integrity.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the proposed subdivision fails to meet the minimum requirements of
the Zoning and Subdivision Codes, presents real floodplain and drainage dangers, undermines
the character and open green space of the R-2 District, and repeats an already rejected scheme.
It would also impose collective economic harm on neighboring property owners that far
outweighs the Applicant’s private gain, producing a net loss for the community.
We respectfully urge the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to recommend denial
of this application to the Village Council.
Thank you for your careful consideration. We have also attached views of our backyard after
rains.
Sincerely,
James and Caitlynde Langer
956 Sunset Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Page 388 of 547
Page 389 of 547
Page 390 of 547
Page 391 of 547
Page 392 of 547
Page 393 of 547
From:
To: Planning
Subject: Marren,s proposed lot subdivision in our neighbrhood Caso NO. 25-16-SD 936 Sunset rd
Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 6:35:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning
My husbund and I own property at 972 Sunset rd across the open Skokie ditch.
Every time its raining on subject proprerty is standing water, like a small lake.We can observe this from
our second floor bedrooms.
This is in addition to overflowing Skokie ditch.
House on this lot will add to this problems , no matter how well it will be constructed.
We strongly oppose this two lot subdivision., besides it will not fit with the character of the neighborhood.
Sincerley
Arie and Bozena Zweig
Page 394 of 547
Page 395 of 547
Page 396 of 547
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2026
SUBJECT: WINNETKA CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH – 725 PINE STREET
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-24-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application
submitted by Winnetka Congregational Church (the “Applicant”), as owner of the property located at 725
Pine Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing operation of a childcare center within the
existing church located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following:
1. An amendment to an existing Special Use Permit that allowed expansion of the existing church
building on the Subject Property in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The
requested amendment would allow a childcare center as an accessory use to the existing church
on the Subject Property.
This request also requires review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”). Once the public hearing before
the ZBA is scheduled, public notice of the meeting date will be provided.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, in compliance with
Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing before the Plan Commission (“PC”). The hearing
was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on February 5, 2026. Additionally, a public notice sign was
posted on the Subject Property informing the public of the PC meeting. As of the date of this memo,
staff has received one written comment from the public regarding this application. The comment is
provided in Attachment D.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request as only the Council has the authority to grant or
amend a Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 2.36 acres (102,920.6 square feet) in size, is located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Street and Prospect Avenue and contains the Winnetka
Congregational Church and a parking lot (Figure 1).
Page 1
Page 397 of 547
Prospect Avenue
Subject Property
Community House
Pine Street
Lincoln Avenue Arbor Vitae
Road
Figure 1 – Location Map
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Institutional (Religious
Institution, School, Governmental & Other Facilities” uses (Figure 2). The Subject Property is located in
a residential area with single-family residences surrounding the site, and the Community House in close
proximity. The Land Use Plan Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single
Family Residential” uses.
The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following goals relevant to the proposed application:
Goal 1.4: The Village will continue to ensure institutional uses, such a schools, religious institutions,
and the Public Library are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are located.
Initiative 1.4.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for institutional
uses or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 5.1: Recognizing that educational excellence is one of the primary reasons residents choose
Winnetka, the Village will support the community’s public school districts, private schools, and
other educational organizations by fostering a culture of student engagement and lifelong
learning, as well as supporting the health and safety of students.
Initiative 5.1.1: Consider amendments to the zoning ordinance to provide additional clarity
regarding pre-kindergarten and daycare institutions to better support the establishment and
operation of early childhood education in the Village. This could include changing special uses to
permitted uses.
Page 2
Page 398 of 547
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan
The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and it is bordered by the same to the north and east,
R-5 and R-4 Single Family Residential to the south, and R-3 Single Family Residential to the west (Figure
3). In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses
by Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library.
The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property as a church is generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district.
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
Page 3
Page 399 of 547
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
According to Village records, construction of the church began in 1935. Subsequent building permits were
issued in:
1. 1976 to construct a vestibule addition, enclose a portico, and remodel the church; and
2. 1996 to construct an addition to the church.
Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. There are four previous zoning
cases on file for the Subject Property:
1. In 1955, the Village Council granted a variation to allow the church to use the easterly 125 feet
of the church property as a church yard permitting interment of ashes;
2. In 1975, the ZBA reversed the decision of the Village Superintendent of Public Works to issue a
permit to construct a driveway and parking lot on an adjoining lot owned by the church.
Subsequently, in 1976 the two adjoining lots owned by the Applicant (725 Pine Street and 651
Prospect Avenue) were consolidated into a single Lot of Record and construction of the parking
lot was allowed to proceed;
3. In 1996, Ordinance M-450-96 was adopted by the Village Council granting variations and a special
use permit to allow expansion of the church building and parking lot. The approved variations
were for gross floor area for the building addition and the front yard setback from Prospect
Avenue for expansion of the parking lot. The expansion of the church was to the north and
provided new fellowship space and classrooms. A copy of Ordinance M-450-96 is provided in
Attachment C; and
4. In 2000, an application was submitted by the Winnetka Park District requesting approval of an
amendment to the church’s special use permit to allow use of the church’s north addition by the
Park District for limited recreational facilities. After receiving recommendations of approval from
both the ZBA and the PC, the Park District withdrew the application prior to the Village Council
considering introduction of an ordinance approving the request.
Figures 4 through 7 on the following pages are current photos of the Subject Property.
Page 4
Page 400 of 547
Figure 4 – Subject Property – West Elevation (Pine Street)
Figure 5 – Subject Property West Elevation of Parking Lot (Prospect Avenue)
Page 5
Page 401 of 547
Figure 6 – Subject Property – South Elevation (Pine Street)
Figure 7 – Subject Property – East Elevation (Pine Street)
Page 6
Page 402 of 547
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing leasing space within the existing church building to Jumpstart Early Learning
Services (“Jumpstart”) to operate a childcare center. As described by the Applicant in the attached
narrative included in Attachment A, the center would have 11 teachers, one director, and up to 64
students. The center would operate Monday through Friday, 7:00am until 6:00pm for children ages 6
weeks to 6 years old.
The proposed plan does not include any expansion of the existing church building or parking lot, nor is a
playground currently proposed on the Subject Property. The Applicant indicates that the existing
multipurpose room in the church provides opportunity for physical activity, exercise, and play. If this
request should ultimately be approved by the Village and the Applicant proposes a playground in the
future, the Applicant would need to receive approval of an amendment to the special use permit to allow
a playground.
Childcare centers are licensed and regulated by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
(“DCFS”). The Applicant has indicated that they have received preliminary approval from DCFS for the use
of the north wing of the church as a daycare facility. Therefore, the Applicant is moving forward with the
formal application process with DCFS. Final DCFS approval is contingent upon completion of minor facility
modifications, full build-out of the space, and receipt of Village approval.
Parking and Traffic. The Applicant indicates that staff for the center will park in the existing on-site parking
lot located on the Subject Property. There are currently three marked parking spaces in the circle
driveway and 22 spaces in the lot itself, four of those are accessible spaces and one is occupied by the
church’s rummage sale truck. In addition to responding to the standards used for evaluation of special
uses, the Applicant has provided a traffic impact study prepared by Gewalt Hamilson Associates, Inc.
(Attachment A). The analysis concluded:
“The capacity analysis results indicated that the increase in project site-generated traffic has little
to no effect upon Peak Hour operations or the area roadway network with the recommendations
contained herein:
• The location of the only full movement church access will be located approximately 125
feet northeast of the Prospect Avenue and Pine Street intersection.
• Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within this study.
• To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking
on Prospect Avenue between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.
• The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up operations to help
ensure orderly traffic flow on-site.”
Director of Engineering/Village Engineer James Bernahl has reviewed the analysis and has the following
recommendation based on the information provided by the Applicant:
• The proposed Childcare Center can operate at this location with minimal overall impacts to the
area. However, it may be necessary to perform ongoing evaluation and possible modifications
based on drop-off and pick-up conditions.
• Appropriate staffing will be critical in reducing the potential for on-street queuing of vehicles
entering the site which would cause safety concerns at this curve on Prospect Avenue.
• Parking for staff members on-site should be required to reduce any additional impacts to available
Page 7
Page 403 of 547
on-street parking near the site.
• Consideration should be given to overlapping of any other existing or future programs that are
offered during the day. Previously attendants of church groups during the day would utilize the
current on-site parking spaces for these activities. With the increase in additional staff members
this could cause additional on-street parking issues.
• The Church will need to consider its other current and future programming impacts as it relates
to parking needs.
Mr. Bernahl has prepared a memo with his conclusions and recommendation, which is included in
Attachment B.
Figure 8 – October 2,2025 - Plat of Survey of Subject Property
Page 8
Page 404 of 547
General Location
of Classrooms Figure 9 – Main Level Floor Plan
Figure 10 – Upper Level Floor Plan
Page 9
Page 405 of 547
Driveway Access to
Existing On-Site Parking
Pine Street
Figure 11 – Aerial of Subject Property
Figure 12 – Subject Property – Driveway Access to Parking and Entrance
Page 10
Page 406 of 547
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistence with the six standards for
granting special use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the
Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets
the standards for granting the requested Special Use permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two
options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission or the public; or
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. 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] a Special Use Permit to allow an amendment to the existing
special use granted by Ordinance M-450-96 to allow a childcare center to operate within the existing
church building on the Subject Property, based on evidence in the record, or a public document,
and upon the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the granting of
Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That 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;
b. That 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;
c. That the establishment of the 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;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations
of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
[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 11
Page 407 of 547
Attachment B: Director of Engineering/Village Engineer Bernahl February 11, 2026, Memo
Attachment C: Ordinance M-450-96, adopted by the Village Council on March 19, 1996
Attachment D: Public Correspondence
Page 12
Page 408 of 547
ATTACHMENT A
Page 409 of 547
Community Benefits Statement
Winnetka Congregational Church (WCC) – Proposed Childcare
Center
For nearly 150 years, Winnetka Congregational Church (WCC) has partnered with the
Village of Winnetka to create and sustain community institutions and traditions. From
helping to establish the public library and the Community House, to hosting the annual
Fourth of July celebration, to raising millions of dollars for social service agencies through
our Rummage Sale, WCC has continually worked to serve beyond its walls.
Our proposal to lease space for a licensed childcare center, Jumpstart Early Learning
Service to operate Monday-Friday 7:00am-6:00pm for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years
old. Jumpstart will operate with 11 Teachers, 1 Director, and up to 64 children at full
capacity.
Why This Matters for Winnetka
• Supports working families
Convenient weekday care in the Village center strengthens Winnetka’s ability to attract
and retain young families who want to live and work here. Research shows many other
local childcare centers have waiting lists of up 30 children. Jumpstart’s reputation and this
need have already started a quiet list of families hoping to enroll.
• Activates the pedestrian environment
Parents walking children to and from the center add daily vitality to the Village’s
business district, consistent with the Winnetka Futures 2040 vision for a walkable, family-
friendly community.
• Protects neighborhood character
The use adapts existing space within WCC’s historic building. No retail storefronts are lost;
no new building is proposed.
• Shares resources responsibly
WCC’s parking lot, largely unused during weekdays, will meet the center’s needs without
reducing parking available for nearby shops and restaurants.
• Continues a tradition of service
Just as WCC helped launch community institutions in the past, this project invests in
today’s needs—supporting children, parents, and neighbors.
Our Commitment
• To operate in compliance with all Village codes and safety standards.
• To collaborate with Village staff and neighbors on traffic, parking, and design details.
Page 410 of 547
• To create a welcoming, high-quality environment that reflects Winnetka’s values.
DCF Details for Teacher/Student Ratios:
Based on DCFS guidelines the infant room must have a 1:4 ratio (1 teacher for every 4
children). We are anticipating approval for 16 infants. That would be 16 children and 4
teachers for our infant program. Toddler rooms are a 1:5. We are anticipating 15 children
so that would be 3 teachers and 15 students in our toddler program. Two-year-old classes
are 1:8. We are anticipating approval for 16 children so that would be 2 teachers and 16
children. Preschoolers are 1:10. We are anticipating an approval of 17 children. That would
be 2 teachers and 17 children. 64 children and 11 teacher’s and 1 Director total.
In short: This childcare center is not just about adapting space within WCC—it’s about
continuing a 150-year partnership with the Village of Winnetka to ensure our community
remains vibrant, family-friendly, and supportive of all who call it home.
Page 411 of 547
V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ILLINOIS
SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS
1. That 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;
Jumpstart Early Learning Services (Jumpstart) will be fully licensed and regulated under
the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) standards, ensuring
compliance with all state-mandated health, safety, and operational requirements. These
standards govern everything from staff qualifications and background checks to
classroom ratios, emergency procedures, sanitation, and food service, guaranteeing
that the center maintains the highest level of care and accountability. Based on DCFS
staffing guidelines, Jumpstart’s program is structured to ensure appropriate supervision
and high-quality care across all age groups. The infant room operates at a 1:4 ratio; with
anticipated approval for 16 infants, the program will be staffed by four teachers. Toddler
classrooms follow a 1:5 ratio, supporting 15 children with three teachers. Two-year-old
classes maintain a 1:8 ratio, accommodating 16 children with two teachers. Preschool
classrooms operate at a 1:10 ratio, with planned enrollment of 17 children supported by
two teachers. In total, the program is designed to serve 64 children with a dedicated
team of 11 teachers, and one Director, fully aligned with DCFS requirements.
All classroom doors will be equipped with keyed entry and interior latch locks. All main
entrance doors will feature secure keypad buzzer entry systems. The existing room
numbering system will be retained to minimize confusion and ensure clear
communication among WCC staff, Jumpstart staff, and emergency responders,
including police and fire personnel. The Jumpstart staff will undergo all necessary
training to ensure all processes and procedures are followed in case of emergency. (As
a bonus the Executive Director of Operations at WCC was the Associate Dean of
Budget and Administration at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago for many years
and worked with CPD and CFD on shelter-in-place drills, and actual campus
emergencies and threats. We have a solid team of experience on both sides of the
building).
An administrative office will be located at the building’s main entrance, along with a
secure keypad-access door separating the church space from the childcare facility on
the main floor. We expect the office will always be staffed when the center is open. A
similar keypad-access entry will be installed on the second floor. WCC currently
maintains lockdown doors as part of its Vanderbilt security system, and Jumpstart will
explore implementing a system with comparable features and/or in-classroom panic
Page 412 of 547
buttons. While the primary focus is education, creativity, motor skill development, and
overall childhood growth, maintaining a safe and secure environment remains one of
the highest priorities as well.
In addition to meeting rigorous state standards, Jumpstart will serve as a
valuable community asset by supporting the growing demand for quality early childhood
care in the area. By providing a safe, nurturing, and educational environment, Jumpstart
will allow parents and guardians to work or study with peace of mind, knowing their
children are in capable hands. This service directly enhances the general welfare of the
community by strengthening family stability, supporting local employment, and
contributing to the family-friendly neighborhood fabric.
2. That 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;
The proposed childcare center will not be substantially injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity, nor will it diminish or impair
property values. Operations will be limited to weekday daytime hours, aligning with
typical neighborhood activity patterns and minimizing any potential disruption to
adjacent properties. Outdoor playtime is not a requirement of DCFS and does not
require a waiver; however, opportunities for fresh air and outdoor activity are always
beneficial for children. The gymnasium within the building provides a substantial and
well-equipped space to support fine and gross motor skill development,
offering children ample opportunities for physical activity, exercise and play. While a
dedicated playground would be ideal; it is not essential at this stage and may be
considered in future phases subject to additional special use permits and a certificate of
appropriateness.
Jumpstart currently has two staff members who assist with pick-up and drop-off at their
existing locations, and this arrangement has proven effective. They are prepared to
adapt and adjust should backup or traffic flow issues or complications arise. Because
the traffic study no longer requires a one-way entrance and exit, we do not anticipate
significant queuing or overflow onto Prospect. Their team follows efficient, well-
organized procedures to assist children and families safely and promptly when entering
and exiting their vehicles.
High-quality childcare centers such as Jumpstart are widely recognized as
neighborhood assets that contribute to a community’s vitality and desirability. By
offering a trusted, licensed service that meets the needs of local families, the proposed
use will likely have a neutral to positive effect on nearby property values and enhance
the overall appeal of the area as a family-oriented, well-supported neighborhood.
Page 413 of 547
3. That the establishment of the 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;
The proposed use will occupy existing building space, requiring only modest interior
improvements and site adjustments that will not alter the physical character or
development potential of surrounding parcels. Because the project does not introduce
new large-scale structures, traffic-intensive operations, or environmental impacts, it will
maintain compatibility with the existing mix of nearby residential, commercial, and
institutional uses. Adjacent properties will retain full opportunity for continued
improvement and redevelopment consistent with zoning allowances.
Furthermore, by activating an existing space with a stable, community-serving tenant,
the childcare center may encourage continued investment in the surrounding area. The
presence of families and staff during weekday hours can increase neighborhood vitality,
pedestrian activity, and local patronage of nearby businesses—all of which contribute
positively to the district’s normal and orderly development.
Recent research indicates a growing demand among families for high-quality childcare
options such as Jumpstart Early Learning Services. Well-run childcare centers promote
socialization, healthy development, consistency, and a strong sense of security for
young children while providing dependable support for working families. Nearby
childcare providers currently maintain waitlists exceeding 30 children, leaving many
families feeling overwhelmed by the limited availability of care close to home. At the
same time, our facility has remained largely vacant Monday through Friday for several
years. Again, with only minor interior modifications, this underutilized space presents a
valuable opportunity to deliver a much-needed service and meaningful resource to the
surrounding community.
4. That 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.
A traffic management plan has been developed and submitted as part of this
application, outlining clear procedures for drop-off and pick-up operations during peak
times. The site’s design includes a single circular drive entry and exit point, allowing
vehicles to move in a continuous flow without the need for backing or extended idling.
Childcare center staff will be present during arrival and departure periods to assist with
the safe loading and unloading of children, ensuring that vehicles move promptly and
that pedestrians remain protected. Signage may be installed to ensure proper safety
routes are followed.
Page 414 of 547
The plan prioritizes safety and efficiency by separating vehicular circulation from
pedestrian pathways, providing designated crosswalks, and maintaining clear sightlines
for drivers. These coordinated measures will effectively minimize congestion in the
public right-of-way, reduce potential traffic conflicts, and promote an orderly flow of
vehicles throughout the day.
5. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other
facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exists or are
to be provided;
Twelve Jumpstart staff members will be on site during normal operations. Staff will park
in the Winnetka Congregational Church parking lot, which has ample capacity and
remains largely underutilized during weekday business hours. The WCC parking lot has
4 handicap spaces and 20 other parking spaces, including parking along Pine Street,
which is sufficient for WCC staff, Jumpstart staff, visitors and vendors. Staff may also
arrive by public transportation. In the event WCC needs use of the parking lot for
concurrent programming, staff may be directed to park in nearby Village public parking
lots, consistent with existing shared-parking practices in the East Elm district. Current
occupancy levels, observed by the Village, indicated adequate capacity during daytime
hours. Jumpstart catering deliveries will occur at 7:30am-11:30am by catering van.
All essential utilities—including water, sewer, electricity, and internet—are already
established and sufficient to meet the operational demands of the childcare facility. The
building’s existing systems comply with current codes and will be reviewed as part of
the DCFS licensing process to ensure continued safety and reliability.
The site’s access roads and drainage infrastructure are also in place and in good
condition. No new impervious surface or major site alteration is proposed, and
stormwater will continue to be managed through the existing system without impact to
surrounding properties. Collectively, these existing and planned measures ensure that
all necessary operational facilities are adequate to support the proposed special use.
6. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the
applicable regulations of this and other village ordinances and
codes.
The project will meet or exceed all requirements related to building, zoning, life safety,
and accessibility, and will be reviewed by Village departments as part of the permitting
process to ensure full compliance.
Jumpstart Early Learning Services will also adhere to all Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) licensing standards, which govern health, safety, staffing,
and facility operations.
Page 415 of 547
By meeting every relevant local and state requirement, the project ensures that the
special use will operate safely, responsibly, and in full harmony with surrounding uses
and the broader goals of the Village’s zoning and development ordinances.
Page 416 of 547
Page 417 of 547
Page 418 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part I. Introduction and Project Context
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. (GHA) has conducted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed daycare
program to be operated from the existing Winnetka Congregational Church building at 725 Pine Street. The Winnetka
Congregational Church is seeking a Special Use Permit from the Village of Winnetka. No changes to the site
development are proposed as part of the requested Special Use. Existing, there is one full movement access to the
church site on Prospect Avenue.
The following summarizes our findings and provides various recommendations for your consideration. Appendices
referenced are in the Technical Addendum at the end of this document.
Part II. Background Information
Site Location Map and Roadway Inventory
Exhibit 1 provides a site location map. The existing traffic operations in the site area are illustrated on Exhibit 2.
Appendix A provides a photo inventory of operations along the site frontage. Pertinent comments to the adjacent
roadways include:
Lincoln Avenue
Lincoln Avenue is a north-south local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of Winnetka.
Lincoln Ave provides one travel lane in each direction and terminates at Humboldt Ave to the north and Oak
St to the south of the site.
Lincoln Ave is one-way southbound between Humboldt Ave and Pine St.
Lincoln Avenue is under stop-sign control at its “T” intersection with Prospect Avenue.
No speed limit is posted on Lincoln Avenue and no historical AADT volume is available.
Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue is a curved east-west and north-south local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of
Winnetka.
Prospect Ave provides one travel lane in each direction and terminates at Tower Road to the north and
Lincoln Ave at the south end.
Prospect Ave is under stop-sign control at its “T” intersection with Pine Street.
Parking is prohibited by signage on the church side of the street. On the opposite side of the street, on-street
parking is limited to 4 hours between 7AM and 5PM on weekdays.
No speed limit is posted on Prospect Avenue and no historical AADT volume is available.
Pine Street
Pine Street is an east-west local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of Winnetka.
On-street parking is permitted on the church side of the street along Pine Street and prohibited by signage
on the opposite side of the street.
No speed limit is posted on Pine Street and no historical AADT volume is available.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalk is provided on both sides of Lincoln Avenue, Prospect Avenue, and Pine Street within the site
vicinity.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
1
Page 419 of 547
Page 420 of 547
Page 421 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Existing Traffic
Exhibit 3 summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes. Peak period traffic
turning movement counts were conducted by GHA on Thursday December 4, 2025, from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
and from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the intersections of Lincoln Avenue and Prospect Ave and Prospect Avenue and
Pine Street. The observed weekday morning and evening peak hours generally occurred from 8:00 to 9:00 AM,
3:30 to 4:30 PM, respectively.
No unusual activities (e.g., roadway construction, or inclement weather) were observed during our counts that
would be expected to impact traffic volumes or travel patterns in the vicinity. Summaries of the 2025 existing
traffic counts and can be found in Appendix B.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
4
Page 422 of 547
Page 423 of 547
Page 424 of 547
Page 425 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part III. Traffic Evaluation
Future Site Characteristics
Proposed Program Plan
Winnetka Congregational Church is seeking to operate a daycare program in the existing church building at 725
Pine Street. No changes to the site development are proposed. There is an existing church full movement access
along Prospect Avenue approximately 125 feet northeast of the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Pine Street.
The daycare is expected to have operating hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and hold a maximum of 64 attendants.
This dimension is also illustrated on Exhibit 5.
Trip Generation
Table 2 summarizes the traffic generation calculations for the proposed development. Trip generation rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the 12 th Edition of the Manual Trip Generation were
used to determine the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development. As can be seen in Table 2 the
proposed daycare program is expected to generate approximately 51 trips (combined inbound and outbound)
during each of the Peak Hours and approximately 244 trips (again inbound and outbound total) in a 24-hour
period.
Daycare facilities tend to have more spread out arrival and departure times than typical schools experience with
drop-off and pick-up occurring generally within a two-hour window. By combining the anticipated trips with the
observed Peak Hours, we have considered the maximum impacts of the proposed daycare program.
See Appendix E for excerpts of the ITE manual.
Table 2: Trip Generation Calculations
Weekday Peak Hours
Morning Evening
Land Use ITE 8:00-9:00 AM 3:30-4:30 PM Daily
Size Code In Out Sum In Out Sum In Out Sum
Day Care Center 64 Attendants 565 27 24 51 24 27 51 122 122 244
New Trips 27 24 51 24 27 51 122 122 244
Sources:ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition - See Appendix E
Trip Distribution
Table 3 provides the anticipated distribution of site traffic. This was based on existing site travel patterns,
proposed access, and the operational characteristics of the adjacent street system. The majority of daycare traffic
is expected to be destined to and from the west along Lincoln Avenue and ultimately Green Bay Road further
west.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
8
Page 426 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 3: Trip Distribution
Percent Route
Route & Direction
To/From Site
Lincoln Avenue
North of Propsect Avenue 35%
South of Propsect Avenue 35%
Prospect Avenue
East of Pine Street 10%
Pine Street
South of Propsect Avenue 20%
Totals = 100%
Traffic usage of the area roadway network is also illustrated on Exhibit 5
Site and Total Traffic Assignments
Exhibit 5 illustrates the site traffic assignments for the development’s trips, which is based on the traffic
characteristics summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (traffic generation and trip distribution) and assigned to the area
roadways. As previously noted, the proposed daycare program is anticipated to open in 2026. Therefore, we
have considered the total impacts of the complete development for the year 2031, or buildout plus five years.
The site traffic (Exhibit 5) and 2031 No-Build traffic (Exhibit 4) were combined to produce the 2031 Total traffic,
which is illustrated on Exhibit 6.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
9
Page 427 of 547
Page 428 of 547
Page 429 of 547
Page 430 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1. Lincoln Ave & Prospect Ave AWSC - NB/SB/WB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.7 - - - 7.6 - - 8.4 -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 10.2 - - 17.9 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.7) A (7.6) A (8.4)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
AM • Delay - - - 7.7 - - - 7.6 - - 8.4 -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 10.2 - - 20.5 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.7) A (7.6) A (8.4)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.9 - - - 7.7 - - 8.6 -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 12.7 - - 20.5 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.9) A (7.7) A (8.6)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.4 - - - 7.8 - - 8.3 -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 5.0 - - - 15.1 - - 17.6 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.4) A (7.8) A (8.3)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
PM • Delay - - - 7.4 - - - 7.8 - - 8.3 -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 5.0 - - - 15.1 - - 17.6 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.4) A (7.8) A (8.3)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.6 - - - 7.9 - - 8.5 -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.6 - - - 15.1 - - 20.2 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.6) A (7.9) A (8.5)
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
13
Page 431 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary (cont.)
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2. Prospect Ave & Pine St TWSC - NB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.5) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
AM • Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.5) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.1 - 9.6 - - - - -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 7.5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.6) A (9.6) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.3) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
PM • Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.3) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.1 - 9.6 - - - - -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.6) A (9.6) -
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
14
Page 432 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary (cont.)
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
3. Prospect Ave & Church Full Access TWSC - NB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
AM • Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 2.6 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (0.8) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
PM • Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.2 - - - - -
A. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 2.6 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (0.8) A (9.2) -
Capacity analysis summary printouts are provided in Appendix F.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
15
Page 433 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Access Spacing
The only existing church full access is located approximately 125 feet northeast of Prospect Avenue & Pine
Street.
Recall, this dimension is illustrated on Exhibit 5.
The following summarizes the findings of the Capacity Analyses.
Lincoln Avenue & Prospect Avenue
Currently, all movements operate at LOS A or better and are expected to remain at LOS A or better through
buildout.
Prospect Avenue & Pine Street
Currently, all movements operate at LOS A or better and are expected to remain at LOS A or better through
buildout.
Prospect Avenue & Church Full Access
After the daycare program is instituted the Church Full Access is expected to operate at LOS A or better for all
movements.
Parking Analysis
Table 6 illustrates the required and projected parking based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6 th Edition
(See Appendix G). The Village of Winnetka Ordinance does not provide specific guidelines for off-street parking
for a Daycare Center facility.
Table 6: Parking Generation Calculations
Parking Spaces
ITE
ITE Parking Muncipal Code Projected
Use Code Size Unit Manual Code Required Demand Provided
0.25 Space
Day Care Center 565 64 Attendants N/A N/A 16 25
per Attendant
Total: N/A 16 25
Sources: ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition - See Appendix G
As shown in Table 6, the ITE projected demand for a Day Care Center of similar 64 attendants are 16 spaces.
The site currently provides more than adequate parking spaces of 25. On street parking along Pine Street is also
available for the daycare. It is estimated that the daycare program will have 10-15 full-time staff.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
16
Page 434 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part IV. Recommendations and Conclusions
Analyses have been conducted under existing and future conditions to determine the impact from the proposed
daycare program on the study area intersections. The capacity analysis results indicate that the increase in project
site-generated traffic has little to no effect upon the Peak Hour operations of the area roadway network with the
recommendations contained herein:
The location of the only full movement church access will be located approximately 125 feet northeast of
the Prospect Avenue & Pine Street intersection.
Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within this study.
To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking on Prospect
between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.
The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up operations to help ensure orderly
traffic flow on-site.
Part V. Technical Addendum
The following Appendices were previously referenced. They provide technical support for our observations, findings
and recommendations discussed in the text.
Appendices
A. Photo Inventory
B. 2025 Traffic Count Summaries
C. Crash Summary Map
D. CMAP Traffic Projections
E. ITE Trip Generation Manual Excerpts
F. Capacity Analysis Worksheets
G. ITE Parking Generation Manual Excerpts
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic TIS 011226.docx
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
17
Page 435 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
Page 436 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDICES
A. PHOTO INVENTORY
B. 2025 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARIES
C. CRASH SUMMARY MAP
D. CMAP 2050 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
E. ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL EXCERPTS
F. CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
G. ITE PARKING GENERATION MANUAL EXCERPTS
Page 437 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX A
Photo Inventory
Page 438 of 547
Looking North along Lincoln Avenue approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South along Lincoln Avenue approaching Prospect Avenue
Looking East across Lincoln Avenue at Prospect Avenue Looking West along Prospect Avenue approaching Lincoln Avenue
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 1
Page 439 of 547
Looking North along Pine Street approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South across Prospect Avenue at Pine Street
Looking East along Prospect Avenue approaching Pine Street Looking West along Prospect Avenue approaching Pine Street
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 2
Page 440 of 547
Looking North along Church Full Access approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South across Prospect Avenue at Church Full Access
Looking East along Prospect Avenue approaching Church Full Access On Street Parking along Pine Street
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 3
Page 441 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX B
2025 Traffic Count Summaries
Page 442 of 547
Appendix B
Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc.
Lincoln Ave at Prospect Ave 625 Forest Edge Drive Count Name: Lincoln Ave at Prospect Ave
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic Site Code:
6 AM - 9 AM, 3 PM - 6 PM Vernon Hills, Illinois, United States 60061 Start Date: 12/04/2025
GHA Mio (847) 478-9700 poster@gha-engineers.com Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Prospect Ave Lincoln Ave Pine St
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
U-Turn Left Thru Peds App. Total U-Turn Left Right Peds App. Total U-Turn Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 3 5
6:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 4 8
6:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 6 0 7 12
6:45 AM 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 2 0 6 10
Hourly Total 0 1 2 1 3 0 8 4 1 12 0 8 12 2 20 35
7:00 AM 0 1 4 0 5 0 2 2 0 4 0 6 6 1 12 21
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 4 0 9 0 7 4 1 11 21
7:30 AM 0 6 4 0 10 0 4 3 0 7 0 5 7 1 12 29
7:45 AM 0 7 10 1 17 0 6 5 0 11 0 9 8 0 17 45
Hourly Total 0 14 19 1 33 0 17 14 0 31 0 27 25 3 52 116
8:00 AM 0 10 5 1 15 1 10 11 4 22 0 17 15 0 32 69
8:15 AM 0 4 17 1 21 0 10 7 0 17 0 12 17 1 29 67
8:30 AM 0 8 6 0 14 0 15 8 0 23 0 24 24 0 48 85
8:45 AM 0 4 6 0 10 0 26 13 0 39 0 22 27 0 49 98
Hourly Total 0 26 34 2 60 1 61 39 4 101 0 75 83 1 158 319
*** BREAK *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3:00 PM 0 4 7 0 11 0 14 7 2 21 0 15 15 2 30 62
3:15 PM 0 3 10 0 13 1 10 8 0 19 0 12 11 0 23 55
3:30 PM 0 2 10 0 12 0 15 9 4 24 0 20 13 1 33 69
3:45 PM 0 3 11 3 14 0 32 7 2 39 0 18 28 1 46 99
Hourly Total 0 12 38 3 50 1 71 31 8 103 0 65 67 4 132 285
4:00 PM 0 2 12 2 14 0 31 17 0 48 0 24 21 0 45 107
4:15 PM 0 4 11 0 15 0 14 10 0 24 0 14 15 0 29 68
4:30 PM 0 2 7 1 9 0 20 7 0 27 0 11 12 5 23 59
4:45 PM 0 3 11 0 14 0 21 7 3 28 0 12 22 2 34 76
Hourly Total 0 11 41 3 52 0 86 41 3 127 0 61 70 7 131 310
5:00 PM 0 4 6 2 10 1 48 14 0 63 0 17 23 0 40 113
5:15 PM 0 1 8 0 9 0 26 9 0 35 0 15 15 0 30 74
5:30 PM 0 3 11 0 14 0 20 5 0 25 0 8 20 0 28 67
5:45 PM 0 4 8 0 12 0 7 7 0 14 0 8 9 0 17 43
Hourly Total 0 12 33 2 45 1 101 35 0 137 0 48 67 0 115 297
Grand Total 0 76 167 12 243 3 344 164 16 511 0 284 324 17 608 1362
Approach % 0.0 31.3 68.7 - - 0.6 67.3 32.1 - - 0.0 46.7 53.3 - - -
Total % 0.0 5.6 12.3 - 17.8 0.2 25.3 12.0 - 37.5 0.0 20.9 23.8 - 44.6 -
Lights 0 75 166 - 241 3 342 163 - 508 0 280 322 - 602 1351
% Lights - 98.7 99.4 - 99.2 100.0 99.4 99.4 - 99.4 - 98.6 99.4 - 99.0 99.2
Mediums 0 1 1 - 2 0 2 1 - 3 0 4 2 - 6 11
% Mediums - 1.3 0.6 - 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 - 0.6 - 1.4 0.6 - 1.0 0.8
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
1
Page 443 of 547
Appendix B
% Articulated Trucks - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
% Bicycles on Road - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Pedestrians - - - 12 - - - - 16 - - - - 17 - -
% Pedestrians - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - -
2
Page 444 of 547
Appendix B
Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc.
Pine St at Prospect Ave 625 Forest Edge Drive Count Name: Pine St at Prospect Ave
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic Site Code:
6 AM - 9 AM, 3 PM - 6 PM Vernon Hills, Illinois, United States 60061 Start Date: 12/04/2025
GHA Mio (847) 478-9700 poster@gha-engineers.com Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Prospect Ave Pine St Prospect Ave
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
U-Turn Left Thru Peds App. Total U-Turn Left Right Peds App. Total U-Turn Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2
6:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 4 6
6:45 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 4 6
Hourly Total 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 0 6 5 0 11 16
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 4 0 6 2 0 8 14
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 7 4 0 11 14
7:30 AM 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 6 0 6 3 0 9 20
7:45 AM 0 0 6 0 6 0 7 1 0 8 0 3 8 0 11 25
Hourly Total 0 0 13 0 13 0 16 5 1 21 0 22 17 0 39 73
8:00 AM 0 4 9 0 13 0 10 4 1 14 0 9 17 0 26 53
8:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3 0 17 9 0 26 0 11 10 0 21 50
8:30 AM 0 1 4 0 5 0 10 3 1 13 0 22 12 0 34 52
8:45 AM 0 0 4 1 4 0 8 4 0 12 0 19 11 0 30 46
Hourly Total 0 5 20 1 25 0 45 20 2 65 0 61 50 0 111 201
*** BREAK *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3:00 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 3 3 0 6 0 10 16 1 26 39
3:15 PM 1 1 8 0 10 0 6 5 0 11 0 8 10 0 18 39
3:30 PM 0 1 3 0 4 0 6 9 0 15 0 11 18 0 29 48
3:45 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 4 0 14 0 14 12 0 26 45
Hourly Total 1 2 23 0 26 0 25 21 0 46 0 43 56 1 99 171
4:00 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 9 1 1 10 1 24 16 0 41 55
4:15 PM 0 0 3 1 3 0 13 1 0 14 0 13 12 0 25 42
4:30 PM 0 1 2 2 3 0 7 0 5 7 0 11 9 0 20 30
4:45 PM 0 1 4 0 5 0 10 2 0 12 0 8 8 0 16 33
Hourly Total 0 4 11 3 15 0 39 4 6 43 1 56 45 0 102 160
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 5 1 11 22 0 34 41
5:15 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 7 4 0 11 0 12 10 0 22 35
5:30 PM 0 1 7 0 8 0 9 0 0 9 0 7 7 0 14 31
5:45 PM 0 1 3 0 4 0 10 2 0 12 0 8 8 0 16 32
Hourly Total 0 3 13 0 16 0 31 6 0 37 1 38 47 0 86 139
Grand Total 1 16 81 4 98 0 158 56 11 214 2 226 220 1 448 760
Approach % 1.0 16.3 82.7 - - 0.0 73.8 26.2 - - 0.4 50.4 49.1 - - -
Total % 0.1 2.1 10.7 - 12.9 0.0 20.8 7.4 - 28.2 0.3 29.7 28.9 - 58.9 -
Lights 1 16 81 - 98 0 157 54 - 211 2 224 215 - 441 750
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - 99.4 96.4 - 98.6 100.0 99.1 97.7 - 98.4 98.7
Mediums 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 2 - 3 0 2 4 - 6 9
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.6 3.6 - 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.8 - 1.3 1.2
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
3
Page 445 of 547
Appendix B
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - 1 1
% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 - 0.2 0.1
Pedestrians - - - 4 - - - - 11 - - - - 1 - -
% Pedestrians - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - -
4
Page 446 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX C
Crash Summary Map
Page 447 of 547
Page 448 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX D
CMAP 2050 Projections
Page 449 of 547
Page 450 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX E
ITE Trip Generation Manual Excerpts
Page 451 of 547
Appendix E
Land Use: 565
Day Care Center
Description
A day care center is a facility where care for preschool children is provided, normally during daytime hours.
A day care facility generally includes classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds. A center may also
provide after-school care for school-age children.
Additional Data
The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in California, Florida,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, and Wisconsin.
Source Numbers
335, 336, 337, 355, 418, 536, 550, 562, 583, 633, 734, 866, 869, 877, 878, 954, 959, 981, 1236
General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400–799) 481
Page 452 of 547
1
Page 453 of 547
Page 454 of 547
Page 455 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX F
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Page 456 of 547
Page 457 of 547
Page 458 of 547
Page 459 of 547
Page 460 of 547
Page 461 of 547
Page 462 of 547
Page 463 of 547
Page 464 of 547
Page 465 of 547
Page 466 of 547
Page 467 of 547
Page 468 of 547
Page 469 of 547
Page 470 of 547
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX G
ITE Parking Generation Manual Excerpts
Page 471 of 547
Page 472 of 547
Appendix G
Land Use: 565 Day Care Center
Description
A day care center is a facility where care for pre-school age children is provided, normally during
daytime hours. A day care facility generally includes classrooms, offices, eating areas, and
playgrounds. A day care center may also provide after-school care for school-age children.
Time-of-Day Distribution for Parking Demand
The following table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand on a weekday at 17 study
sites in a general urban/suburban setting.
Hour Beginning Percent of Weekday Peak Parking Demand
12:00–4:00 a.m. —
5:00 a.m. —
6:00 a.m. 11
7:00 a.m. 45
8:00 a.m. 89
9:00 a.m. 93
10:00 a.m. 100
11:00 a.m. 100
12:00 p.m. 97
1:00 p.m. 93
2:00 p.m. 88
3:00 p.m. 82
4:00 p.m. 88
5:00 p.m. 96
6:00 p.m. 61
7:00 p.m. —
8:00 p.m. —
9:00 p.m. —
10:00 p.m. —
11:00 p.m. —
356 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition 2
Page 473 of 547
Appendix G
Additional Data
For this land use, any child enrolled at a day care center is considered a student. The number of
students refers to the total number of enrolled children, not just those present at the time the study
is conducted.
The average parking supply ratio for the 36 study sites with parking supply information and located
in a general urban/suburban setting is 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. The average peak
parking occupancy at these 36 sites is 63 percent. For the single study site in a dense multiuse
urban setting, the parking supply ratio is 1.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA and its peak parking
occupancy is 86 percent.
The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in California, Kansas,
Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Source Numbers
221, 223, 289, 291, 433, 555, 556, 557, 563, 603, 618, 622, 632, 633
3 Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 357
Page 474 of 547
Page 475 of 547
Page 476 of 547
Page 477 of 547
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
Phone: 312-814-8960 Fax: 312-814-3459 Email: SFM.Techservices@illinois.gov
January 8, 2026 OSFM #25148
Victor Cuebas
Jumpstart Early Learning Academy II
5644 West Diversey Avenue
Chicago, IL 60639
Re: Jumpstart Early Learning Academy Day Care Center
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, IL 60093
COOK COUNTY
Dear Victor,
Plans submitted for the above referenced day care center occupancy were reviewed on
this date under the requirements of the 2015 edition of the NFPA 101-Life Safety Code
and applicable references as adopted in Title 41 Illinois Administrative Code Parts 100,
109, and 251. This review pertains to:
A NEW DAY CARE CENTER IN AN EXISTING TYPE III (211), PER
NFPA 220, TWO-STORY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT AND NO
OCCUPIED ATTIC. IT WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED BY FIRE
ALARM AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THERE WILL BE NO
COMMERCIAL COOKING OPERATIONS.
Please note that OSFM’s plan reviews are strictly advisory in nature and that the local
authority having jurisdiction retains the ultimate responsibility for compliance
determinations. This advisory plan review is conducted based only on the information OSFM
was provided. There may be information, details, or variables in existence but unknown to
OSFM that would alter its technical analysis were those items made known to OSFM at the
time of its advisory review.
The drawings appear to conform with the applicable requirements with the following
noted exceptions:
1. In accordance with Section 16.1.3.1, multiple occupancies shall be in accordance
with 6.1.14.
555 W. Monroe Street 1035 Stevenson Drive 2309 W. Main
Suite 1300-N Marion, IL 62959
Chicago, IL 60661
Springfield, IL 62703 (618) 993-7085
(312) 814-2693 (217) 785-0969
www.sfm.illinois.gov
Page 478 of 547
Victor Cuebas 2 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
2. In accordance with Section 16.1.6.1, day-care occupancies, other than day-care
homes, shall be limited to the locations, construction types, and sprinkler protection
features specified in Table 16.1.6.1. based on the number of stories in height as
defined in 4.6.3. (See 8.2.1.)
3. In accordance with Section 16.1.6.2, where day-care occupancies, other than day-
care homes, with clients who are 24 months or less in age or who are incapable of
self-preservation are located one or more stories above the level of exit discharge, or
where day-care occupancies are located two or more stories above the level of exit
discharge, smoke partitions shall be provided to divide such stories into not less than
two compartments. The smoke barriers shall be constructed in accordance with
Section 8.4 but shall not be required to have a fire resistance rating.
4. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.2, any door in a required means of egress from
an area having an occupant load of 100 or more persons shall be permitted to be
provided with a latch or lock only if the latch or lock is panic hardware or fire exit
hardware complying with 7.2.1.7.
5. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.4, every door latch to closets, storage areas,
kitchens, and other similar areas shall be such that clients can open the door from
inside the space or area.
6. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.5, every bathroom door lock shall be designed to
allow opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening
device shall be readily accessible to the staff.
7. In accordance with Section 16.2.4, the number of means of egress shall be in
accordance with Section 7.4. Not less than two separate exits shall be in accordance
with both of the following criteria:
(1) They shall be provided on every story.
(2) They shall be accessible from every part of every story and mezzanine, however,
exit access travel shall be permitted to be common for the distance permitted as
common path of travel by 16.2.5.3.
8. In accordance with Section 16.2.5.2, no dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 ft, other
than in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, in which case dead-end corridors
shall not exceed 50 ft.
9. In accordance with Section 16.2.5.3.1, common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft
in a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Page 479 of 547
Victor Cuebas 3 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
10. In accordance with 16.2.5.3.2 common path of travel shall not exceed 75 ft. in a
building not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 9.7
11. In accordance with Section 16.2.6.2, travel distance shall meet the following criteria,
unless otherwise permitted by 16.2.6.3:
(1) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit access and an
exit shall not exceed 100 ft.
(2) The travel distance between any point in a room and an exit shall not exceed 150
ft.
(3) The travel distance between any point in a sleeping room and an exit access door
in that room shall not exceed 50 ft.
12. In accordance with 16.2.6.3, the travel distance in 16.2.6.2(1) and (2) shall be
permitted to be increased by 50 ft in buildings protected throughout by an approved,
supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
13. In accordance with Section 16.2.8, means of egress shall be illuminated in
accordance with Section 7.8.
14. In accordance with Section 16.2.9, emergency lighting shall be provided in
accordance with Section 7.9 in the following areas:
(1) Interior stairs and corridors
(2) Assembly use spaces
(3) Flexible and open plan buildings
(4) Interior or windowless portions of buildings
(5) Shops and laboratories
15. In accordance with Section 16.2.10, means of egress shall have signs in accordance
with Section 7.10.
16. In accordance with Section 16.2.11.1, every room or space normally subject to client
occupancy, other than bathrooms, shall have not less than one outside window for
emergency rescue that complies with the following:
(1) Such windows shall be openable from the inside without the use of tools and
shall provide a clear opening of not less than 20 in. in width, 24 in. in height,
and 5.7 ft2 in area.
(2) The bottom of the opening shall be not more than 44 in. above the floor.
(3) The clear opening shall allow a rectangular solid, with a width and height that
provides not less than the required 5.7-ft2 opening and a depth of not less than
20 in., to pass fully through the opening.
Page 480 of 547
Victor Cuebas 4 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply to buildings protected throughout
by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply where the room or space has a
door leading directly to the outside of the building.
17. In accordance with Section 16.3.1, any vertical opening, other than unprotected
vertical openings in accordance with 8.6.9.1, shall be enclosed or protected in
accordance with 8.6.
18. In accordance with Section 16.3.2.1, rooms or spaces for the storage, processing, or
use of materials specified in 16.3.2.1(1) through (3) shall be protected in accordance
with the following:
(1) Separation from the remainder of the building by fire barriers having a fire
resistance rating of not less than 1 hour or protection of such rooms by
automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 8.7 in the following
areas:
a. Boiler and furnace rooms, unless such rooms enclose only air handling
equipment
b. Rooms or spaces used for the storage of combustible supplies in quantities
deemed hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction
c. Rooms or spaces used for the storage of hazardous materials or flammable
or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by recognized
standards
d. Janitor closets
(2) Separation from the remainder of the building by fire barriers having a fire
resistance rating of not less than 1 hour and protection of such rooms by
automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 8.7 in the following
areas:
a. Laundries (Note: It is not the intent to classify a room with a domestic-type
clothes washer and a domestic-type clothes dryer as a laundry).
b. Maintenance shops, including woodworking and painting areas
c. Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of combustible supplies deemed
hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction
d. Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of hazardous materials or
flammable or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by
recognized standards
(3) Where automatic extinguishing is used to meet the requirements of 16.3.2.1 (1)
and (2), protection as permitted in accordance with 9.7.1.2
19. In accordance with Section 16.3.2.4, food preparation facilities protected in
accordance with 9.2.3 shall not be required to have openings protected between food
preparation areas and dining areas. (See OSFM policy for domestic cooking
equipment that is used for food warming or limited cooking).
Page 481 of 547
Victor Cuebas 5 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
20. In accordance with Section 16.3.3.2, interior wall and ceiling finish materials in
accordance with 10.2. shall be Class A in stairways, corridors, and lobbies; in all
other occupied areas, interior wall and ceiling finish shall be Class A or Class B.
21. In accordance with Section 16.3.3.3, interior floor finish materials in accordance
with 10.2. shall be not less than Class II within corridors and exits if not separated by
walls complying with 14.3.6.
22. In accordance with Section 16.3.4.1, day-care occupancies, other than day-care
occupancies housed in one room, shall be provided with a fire alarm system in
accordance with Section 9.6. The fire alarm system shall comply with the following:
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.2, initiation of the required fire alarm system
shall be by manual means and by operation of any required smoke detectors and
required sprinkler systems. (See 16.3.4.5.)
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.3.1, occupant notification shall be in
accordance with 9.6.3.
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.4, fire department notification shall be
accomplished in accordance with 9.6.4.
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.5, a smoke detection system in accordance
with Section 9.6 shall be installed in day-care occupancies, other than those
housed in one room. Detectors shall be installed on each story in front of the
doors to the stairways and in the corridors of all floors occupied by the day-care
occupancy. Detectors also shall be installed in lounges, recreation areas, and
sleeping rooms in the day-care occupancy.
➢ In accordance with NFPA 72-National Fire Alarm Code, the acceptability of the
location of the fire alarm control panel shall be confirmed by the local fire
department having response jurisdiction to the occupancy.
➢ The installation of fire alarm systems is required to be performed by a licensed
electrical and/or fire alarm installation company. Contact the Illinois
Department of Professional Regulation for further information.
23. In accordance with Section 16.3.6, every interior corridor shall be constructed of
walls having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with 8.2.3.
Exception No. 1: Corridor protection shall not be required where all spaces
normally subject to client occupancy have not less than one door opening directly to
the outside or to an exterior exit access balcony or corridor in accordance with
7.5.3.
Exception No. 2: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, corridor walls shall not
be required to be rated, provided that such walls form smoke partitions in
accordance with 8.2.4.
Page 482 of 547
Victor Cuebas 6 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Exception No. 3: Where the corridor ceiling is an assembly having a 1-hour fire
resistance rating where tested as a wall, the corridor walls shall be permitted to
terminate at the corridor ceiling.
Exception No. 4: Lavatories shall not be required to be separated from corridors,
provided that they are separated from all other spaces by walls having not less than
a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with 8.2.3.
24. In accordance with Sections 16.5.1.1 and 16.5.2.1, utilities and HVAC equipment
shall comply with the provisions of Sections 9.1 and 9.2 which require compliance
with the following referenced codes and standards:
NFPA 54 National Fuel Gas Code
NFPA 70 National Electrical Code
NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems
NFPA 111 Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power
Systems
NFPA 90A Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating
Systems,
NFPA 90B Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning
Systems
Additionally, in accordance with State statute (431 ILCS 75) every boiler and each
pressure vessel over the minimum capacity must have a current inspection certificate
issued by the Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal posted in the boiler room.
Heating boilers (both steam and water), hot water supply boilers (hot water heaters)
and other types of boilers are exempt from inspection and registration if the BTU
output does not exceed 200,000. Contact the OSFM Division of Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Safety for further information pertaining to boiler and pressure vessel
registration.
25. In accordance with Section 16.5.1.2, special protective covers for all electrical
receptacles shall be installed in all areas occupied by clients.
26. In accordance with Section 16.5.2.2, unvented fuel-fired room heaters, other than gas
space heaters in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, shall not be
permitted.
27. In accordance with Section 16.5.2.3, any heating equipment in spaces occupied by
clients shall be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients
from hot surfaces and open flames. If solid partitions are used to provide such
protection, provisions shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and
ventilation for the heating equipment.
Page 483 of 547
Victor Cuebas 7 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Concealed Spaces
28. In accordance with Section 8.2.7.1, in new Type III, Type IV, or Type V
construction, any concealed space in which materials having a flame spread rating
greater than Class A (as defined in Section 10.2) are exposed shall be effectively
firestopped or draftstopped as follows:
(1) Every exterior and interior wall and partition shall be fire-stopped at each floor
level, at the top story ceiling level, and at the level of support for roofs.
(2) Every unoccupied attic space shall be subdivided by draftstops into areas not to
exceed 3000 ft2.
(3) Any concealed space between the ceiling and the floor or roof above shall be
draftstopped for the full depth of the space along the line of support for the floor
or roof structural members and, if necessary, at other locations to form areas not
to exceed 1000 ft2 for any space between the ceiling and floor and 3000 ft2 for
any space between the ceiling and roof.
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply where the space is protected
throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply to concealed spaces serving as
plenums. (See NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and
Ventilating Systems.)
Furnishings and Similar
29. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.1, draperies, curtains, and other similar
furnishings and decorations in day-care occupancies shall be in accordance with the
provisions of 10.3.1.
OPERATING FEATURES
(The following requirements should be shared with the facility administrator):
30. In accordance with Section 16.7.1, the facility shall have a comprehensive written
fire emergency response plan. Copies of the plan shall be made available to all
employees. All employees shall be periodically instructed and kept informed with
respect to the duties of their position under the plan.
31. In accordance with Section 16.7.2.2, emergency egress and relocation drills shall be
conducted as follows:
(1) Not less than one emergency egress and relocation drill shall be conducted every
month the facility is in session.
Exception: In climates where the weather is severe, the monthly emergency
egress and relocation drills shall be permitted to be deferred, provided that the
Page 484 of 547
Victor Cuebas 8 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
required number of emergency egress and relocation drills is achieved and not
less than four are conducted before the drills are deferred.
(2) All occupants of the building shall participate in the drill.
(3) One additional emergency egress and relocation drill, other than for day-care
occupancies that are open on a year-round basis, shall be required within the
first 30 days of operation.
32. In accordance with Section 16.7.3.1, fire prevention inspections shall be conducted
monthly by a trained senior member of the staff. A copy of the latest inspection
report shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the day-care facility.
33. In accordance with Section 16.7.3.2, it shall be the duty of site administrators and
staff members to inspect all exit facilities daily to ensure that all stairways, doors,
and other exits are in proper condition.
34. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.2, clothing and personal effects shall not be stored
in corridors.
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply to corridors protected by an
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply to corridor areas protected by a
smoke detection system in accordance with Section 9.6.
Exception No. 3: This requirement shall not apply to storage in metal lockers,
provided that the required egress width is maintained.
35. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.3, artwork and teaching materials shall be
permitted to be attached directly to the walls and shall not exceed 20 percent of the
wall area.
36. In accordance with Section 16.7.5, adequate adult staff shall be on duty, alert,
awake, and in the facility at all times where clients are present.
This review credited the presence of a complete automatic sprinkler system throughout
the occupancy. The review did not however, consider specific information concerning the
system water supply, pipe sizing, head placement, or hydraulic feasibility
Compliance with these noted exceptions is mandatory.
No guarantee is rendered as to the completeness of the plan review, and the responsibility
for full compliance with both state and locally adopted codes, standards and regulations
rests with the owner or his authorized agent or subcontractor. Subsequent discovery of
errors or omissions shall not be construed as authority to violate, cancel or set aside any
provision of any applicable codes.
Page 485 of 547
Victor Cuebas 9 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
The rules of the Office of the State Fire Marshal are concurrently applicable with those of
local authorities having jurisdiction. The Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
recommends contact with the local fire and/or building department to ensure compliance
with local regulations in the event that they may have requirements that are more
stringent.
Day care center occupancies are licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services, therefore, the OSFM will not conduct a final inspection of this
occupancy until formally requested to so by DCFS. Please DO NOT NOTIFY the OSFM
when this work has been completed, but rather contact the applicable DCFS licensing
representative who will request an OSFM inspection. The returned plans shall be retained
on-site and made available to the assigned Fire Prevention Inspector of the Office of the
Illinois State Fire Marshal for use in conducting an on-site inspection.
Respectfully,
Bernie Arends
OSFM Technical Services
c: OSFM Fire Prevention Portal
OSFM Technical Services Plan Review File
Fire Chief, Winnetka Fire Department
Page 486 of 547
OSFM Plan Review #
(To be completed by OSFM)
OSFM PLAN SUBMITTAL FORM
PROJECT INFORMATION
Name of Project: Jumpstart Winnetka
Address of Project: 725 Pine St.
City: Winnetka 60093
ZIP Code ___________ County: Cook
SUBMITTER INFORMATION
Submitter’s Name: Victor Cuebas
Jumpstart Early Learning Services
Company Name: __________________________________
7559 W. Addison St
Address: _______________________________________ Chicago
City: ____________________________
60634
Zip: _____________ Telephone: 312.860.4205 jumpstartels@gmail.com
Email: _____________________________
The plans are for:
New construction
An addition to an existing building
Remodeling of an existing building:
To serve the same occupancy classification as the most recent occupancy
Changing the occupancy classification from that of the most recent occupancy.
What was the previous occupancy classification? _______________________
Occupancy Classification as defined in NFPA 101 (2015)
____ Ambulatory Health Care ____ Detention & Correctional ____ Residential Board & Care
____ Assembly ____ Hotel ____ Storage
____ Apartment Building ____ Dormitory ____
____ Business ____ Industrial
____ Day Care Center ____ Lodging or Rooming
____ Day Care Home ____ Mercantile
Mixed Occupancy Classifications:
Number of Stories
One Two Three Four > Four “High rise” (> 75 ft)
Is there a Basement or one or more levels below the level of exit discharge?:
Yes No
Page 487 of 547
Construction Classification per NFPA 220
_____ Type I(442) ____ Type II(222) _X_ Type III(211) ____ Type V(111)
_____ Type I(332) ____ Type II(111) ____ Type III(200) ____ Type V(000)
____ Type II(000) ____ Type IV(2HH)
Or provide construction classification per the International Building Code or BOCA Code: __IIIA_see
email dated 12/16/25
Will the building be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system?:
_____ No
_____ Only partially in some areas or rooms. Please specify sprinklered areas:
If yes, the standard to which the sprinkler system will be designed:
NFPA 13 NFPA 13R NFPA 13D
Will the building be protected by an automatic fire alarm system?:
No
Only partially in some areas or rooms:
Please Specify:
Yes
Will kitchen cooking fire suppression systems be included in the building?:
No Yes
If yes, will the systems comply with NFPA 96?
Yes No
If food services are provided for occupants, is the cooking onsite or will food be catered?
_______________________________________________________________________
Catered
Are there any exceptions to the 2015 Life Safety Code included in this project?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
2
Page 488 of 547
Provide a description of the project to help us understand what you are proposing:
______________________________________________________________________
We are proposing a 2 story childcare center in existing classrooms.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Plans are permitted to be submitted in PDF format via email (more than one email
depending upon the size of the attachments) to SFM.Techservices@illinois.gov. OSFM
is not permitted to use links to view stored plans in clouds or other similar types of
storage. If hard copy submittal is preferred, please send an email to the address above
to obtain an address for shipping.
Victor Cuebas 12/12/25
Signature of Submitter Printed Name Date
3
Page 489 of 547
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum
To: Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission
CC: Ann Klaassen
From: James J. Bernahl, Director of Engineering/Village Engineer
Date: February 11, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit Application – 725 Pine Street (Winnetka Congregational
Church) – Childcare Center
The Engineering Department has reviewed the Special Use permit application to allow
for the implementation of a Childcare Center at the Winnetka Congregational Church,
located at 725 Pine Street. The proposed location is located east of the intersection of
Prospect Avenue and Pine Street. Based on responses provided from the applicant the
Engineering Department is submitting this revised memo.
The Engineering Department reviewed the information provided as part of this request
which included a cover letter from the applicant, a copy of the Village of Winnetka
Special Use Permit application, and a Traffic Impact Study; prepared by the
Engineering firm Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. Among the conditions for being
satisfied for a Special Use to be granted is the following:
“That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided;”
To demonstrate compliance with the above, the applicant affirmed that no proposed
exterior modifications to the current structure, or exterior grading are proposed. Based
on this statement the Engineering Department does not have concerns about any
impact on the existing utility infrastructure or drainage concerns.
Traffic Impact Study Overview
The largest potential impact to the surrounding area is the inclusion of additional
vehicles and pedestrian movements related specifically to the proposed Childcare
Center. As noted above, the applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Study, the
professional consultants’ conclusion are as follows:
Page 490 of 547
February 11, 2026
“Analyses have been conducted under existing and future conditions to determine the
impact from the proposed daycare program on the study area intersections. The
capacity analysis results indicate that the increase in project site-generated traffic has
little to no effect upon the Peak Hour operations of the area roadway network with the
recommendations contained herein:
• The location of the only full movement church access will be located
approximately 125 feet northeast of the Prospect Avenue & Pine Street
intersection.
• Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within
this study.
• To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider
restricting parking on Prospect between the church driveway and Lincoln
Avenue.
• The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up
operations to help ensure orderly traffic flow on-site.”
The Engineering Department has reviewed the technical information provided in the
Traffic Study and offered comments to the consultant. Some of the information
requested for additional clarification was as follows:
• There was a discrepancy between the actual number of students being
proposed and the number of students considered in the traffic study; 60 versus
64. Engineering is seeking a final clarification on the number of students to
ensure the traffic study correctly reflects the impacts on traffic and pedestrian
traffic.
o This item has been addressed with a clarification that there will be 64
students.
• The consultant indicated that, “The report references the “Village of Winnetka
Traffic Count Map (Q1 2025).” The Engineering Department requested
clarification on where this residential map comes from as it is not familiar with
this document.
o This item has been addressed and clarified.
• Engineering stated that consideration should be given to the location of the
existing church driveway entrance to this intersection. Parents wanting to head
west will have site line issues for any queuing that would take place on
Prospect. The narrow roadway, proximity to Lincoln, and the curve on
Prospect would make it very difficult for vehicles to have a clear site line to
the west.
o The applicant has provided a response that the traffic study
demonstrates that vehicles will be permitted to enter and leave the site
from the north or south on Prospect without any impact. The
2
Page 491 of 547
February 11, 2026
Engineering Department believes that this will need to be evaluated on
an ongoing basis based on actual traffic patterns for users entering
and exiting the site. Should traffic issues arise from this additional
coordination to address this issue will need to occur between the
applicant, Engineering, and Police.
• Engineering asked how many staff members are proposed to assist with
vehicle drop off and pick up. This will be a big factor considering that it will
drive any queuing efforts onto Prospect.
o The applicant has provided a response that 2 staff members will be
present. This will need to be evaluated on a long-term basis based on
actual drop-off and pick-up operations. Additional personnel may be
required based on the actual needs.
• As noted above the Traffic Consultant recommended that, “To facilitate
vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking
on Prospect between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.” The
Engineering Department has concerns about this recommendation as the
removal of these temporary parking spaces where requested would reduce
parking near the entrance, but it would push on street parking further north on
Prospect Avenue. In the past the residents of Prospect have requested that this
not be permitted as it reduced available parking in front of their homes. In
addition, the bend of Prospect creates reduced visibility due to the bend.
Engineering Department Recommendation:
Based on the information provided by the applicant the Engineering Department
believes that the proposed Childcare Center can operate at this location with minimal
overall impacts to the area. However, as noted above it may be necessary to perform
ongoing evaluation and possible modifications based on drop-off and pick-up
conditions. Engineering believes that appropriate staffing will be critical in reducing
the potential for on-street queuing of vehicles entering the site which could cause
safety concerns at this curve on Prospect Avenue. In addition, parking for staff
members on site should be required to reduce any additional impacts to available on
Street parking near the site.
Consideration should be given to any overlapping of any other existing or future
programs that are offered during the day. Previously attendants of church groups
during the day would utilize the current onsite parking spaces for these activities.
With the increase in additional staff members this could cause additional on-street
parking issues. The Church will need to consider its other current and future
programming impacts as it relates to parking needs.
3
Page 492 of 547
ATTACHMENT C
Page 493 of 547
Page 494 of 547
Page 495 of 547
Page 496 of 547
Page 497 of 547
Page 498 of 547
Page 499 of 547
Page 500 of 547
Page 501 of 547
Page 502 of 547
Page 503 of 547
ATTACHMENT D
From:
To: Planning
Subject: Winnetka Congregational Childcare Center
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2026 4:53:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Winnetka Plan Commission,
We enthusiastically support making whatever Village zoning changes are necessary so a child
care center can be operated at Winnetka Congregational Church.
We have reviewed the plans and possible impact to the neighborhood. We feel the slight
inconveniences are inconsequential trade-offs to have greatly needed additional childcare
space here.
We’ve been homeowners at Lincoln & Pine for over 40 years. We’re used to traffic ebbs &
flows especially from both the Community House & Home Alone house tourists. Added
traffic during childcare drop off & pickups won’t be an issue.
Thanks,
Nancy & Bill Yurek
647 Lincoln Ave
Page 504 of 547
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2026
SUBJECT: 730 ELM STREET, SUITE 120 – DUET AUDIOLOGY CLINIC
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-05-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider an
application submitted by DUET Audiology Clinic (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of the
property located at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 (the “Subject Property”), to allow a medical office to occupy
the Subject Property. The property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP.
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 medical office in the C-2 General Retail
Commercial Overlay District at the Subject Property. The Applicant currently operates similar audiology
clinics in Lake Forest and Northfield and is looking to relocate the Northfield clinic to the Subject Property.
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 one of the commercial spaces located in the four-story mixed-use building that is
currently under construction at 720-736 Elm Street and 515-525 Lincoln Avenue (newly assigned
addresses), often referred to as One Winnetka, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Elm
Street and Lincoln Avenue. The approximately 1,565 square-foot space at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 is a
portion of the 20,955 square feet of commercial space in the One Winnetka building and is on the eastern
portion of the building’s north facing commercial space. To date, the other tenants within the
development that have received approvals are the Winnetka Aesthetic Studio medical office and a Charles
Schwab financial services office. The Solidcore fitness studio special use permit application was before the
Village Council on February 17, 2026, for policy direction and is anticipated to return to the Village Council
at a future date with additional information about parking demand and class schedules. A full-service
restaurant is expected to occupy the northwestern space on the first floor near the street intersection
with a quick-casual format restaurant occupying the remaining tenant space. There will also be 59
residential units on the second, third, and fourth floors.
Page 1
Page 505 of 547
The Subject Property is located within the Village’s Commercial Overlay District, which allows non-retail
uses, such as medical offices; however, the Zoning Ordinance requires that they be evaluated by the Plan
Commission and Village Council as a special use. Figures 1 through 3 below and on the following page
identify the One Winnetka site and the proposed location of the medical office.
Proposed Location of
DUET Audiology Clinic
Figure 1 – One Winnetka Site – GIS Map
Proposed Location of
DUET Audiology Clinic
Figure 2 – One Winnetka Site - Aerial Location Map
Page 2
Page 506 of 547
Proposed Location of
DUET Audiology Clinic
Entrance
into Shared
Vestibule
Figure 3 – One Winnetka – North Facing Elm Street Façade
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.
ELM STREET BUSINESS DISTRICTS OVERLAY BOUNDARIES
A map depicting the zoning classifications of the Elm Street Business Districts is included on the following page
as Figure 4. The One Winnetka site 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.
Page 3
Page 507 of 547
Subject
Property
Figure 4 – Elm Street Business Districts
PREVIOUS APPROVALS
On January 21, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-01-2025, an Ordinance Granting Final
Approval of a Planned Development, Zoning Exceptions, a Special Use for Ground Floor Parking, and
Special Use Findings for Medical and Financial Services Uses (511-515 Lincoln Avenue and 714-740 Elm
Street - One Winnetka). An excerpt of Ordinance M-01-2025 is provided in Attachment B. Section 7 of M-
01-2025 granted partial approval of certain special use findings for medical and financial services. The
Village Council found that medical uses, including medical and dental offices, and financial uses, including
accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services, bank or credit unions without drive-through facilities, and
financial counseling services, satisfy the following special use standards set forth in Section 17.56.120(A)
and Section 17.44.020 (B)(2)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance that apply in the Commercial Overlay District,
provided certain conditions are met, which are outlined later in this report:
All Special Use Standards:
1. That 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. That 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. That 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;
Page 4
Page 508 of 547
Commercial Overlay District Standards:
I. 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;
II. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for active 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.
The location and amount of space occupied by medical uses and financial service uses are
limited as follows:
a. No such uses shall occupy the northwesternmost corner of the commercial space
of the ground floor commercial space;
b. No such uses shall occupy an aggregate space greater than 50% of the gross
commercial square footage, or 9,750 square feet of the building;
c. No individual financial service use shall occupy more than 1/3 of the gross commercial
square footage, or 6,500 square feet of the building;
d. No individual medical use shall occupy more than 3,250 square feet of the gross
commercial square footage of the building;
e. Approval of the “appropriateness” of such uses is limited to 10 years from the
approval of Ordinance M-01-2025.
There have been three other special use permit applications submitted for the One Winnetka building,
two of which have been approved by the Village Council and one that is pending:
1. Charles Schwab. On September 16, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-12-2025, an
Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Financial Counseling Office Within
the C-2 Commercial Overlay District, which approved the special use permit for Charles Schwab
financial services to occupy office space at 720 Elm Street.
2. Winnetka Aesthetic Studio. On December 2, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-18-
2025, an Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Medical Office Within
the C-2 Commercial Overlay District, which approved the special use permit for Winnetka
Aesthetic Studio to occupy commercial space at 730 Elm Street, Suite 130.
3. Solidcore. On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission considered a special use permit application
submitted by Solidcore fitness studio and by a vote of 5-3 recommended denial of the request.
The application was before the Village Council on February 17, 2026, for policy direction. It is
anticipated that the applicant will return to the Village Council at a future date with additional
information about parking demand and class schedules.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST
The Applicant is proposing to open a medical office in the One Winnetka building for an audiology practice
that would specialize in hearing related medical treatment using a wide range of technologies, therapies,
and techniques that the Applicant describes as holistic and preventative care. The proposed audiology
clinic would occupy approximately 1,565 square feet towards the eastern center of the One Winnetka
building with approximately 28 feet of street frontage along Elm Street. Access into the space would be
Page 5
Page 509 of 547
through a shared entrance vestibule that would also be used by Winnetka Aesthetic Studio and a quick-
casual format restaurant. The front of the clinic would be an open greeting area with a concierge desk and
seating area, with offices, workstations, and exam rooms located down the hallway towards the back of
the space. The proposed medical office use, and the other previously approved uses, would comply with
the location and size limitations outlined earlier this report. No individual medical use would be greater
than 3,250 square feet in size and in aggregate the proposed medical and financial services uses would
total 8,585 square feet, which is less that the maximum of 9,750 square feet allowed. The Applicant’s
written description of the proposed use is included in the application materials which are provided as
Attachment A.
The audiology clinic would have business hours between 8:30am and 4:30pm from Monday through
Friday with occasional appointments on one or two Saturdays each month. The audiology clinic would
have a maximum of 8 occupants between employees and patients in any given hour, with 3 to 5
employees and 2 to 3 patients, and an average of 8 to 10 appointments per day with occasional walk-in
visits, in a clinical environment that the Applicant describes as low volume. Some of the services that
would be offered include diagnostic hearing evaluations, hearing aid consultations, hearing-related
massage therapy, a proprietary ear-to-brain fitness system for music training, and related audiology care.
The audiology clinic would provide retail offerings towards the front of the office with products related to
its practice including hearing protection earmuffs, headphones, hearing aids, therapeutic goggles, small
musical instruments and musical accessories.
For parking, the Applicant is proposing that its employees secure the necessary parking permit and park
in public parking lots in the district, including the Village-owned parking lot adjacent to One Winnetka,
which does contain “A” permit parking spaces for employees. The Applicant indicates that patients will
utilize parking spaces in the ground level of the commercial parking within the One Winnetka building.
The off-street parking provided on the One Winnetka site for commercial uses consists of 39 spaces in the
ground level of the building, which is the same number of parking spaces required by the Zoning
Ordinance. For reference, the Zoning Ordinance requirement for commercial uses is two spaces for every
1,000 square feet of tenant space. Ten of the ground level spaces are to be reserved for the Charles
Schwab office that was approved in a previous special use permit case. The Applicant indicates that some
employees and patients will also take advantage of the Winnetka stop on the Union Pacific North Metra
line that is immediately adjacent to the One Winnetka Building.
Figure 5 on the following page highlights the commercial space the Applicant is proposing to occupy in
the north section of the One Winnetka building. Figure 6 shows the proposed floor plan and layout for
the audiology clinic.
Page 6
Page 510 of 547
Proposed Location Proposed “Fare” Quick
Charles Schwab
of Solidcore Casual Restaurant
Proposed
“Arcadia” Full
Service Restaurant Winnetka Aesthetic Studio
Proposed
Location of DUET
Audiology Clinic
Figure 5 – One Winnetka Ground Level Plan
Figure 6 – Excerpt of Proposed Floor Plan
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW
The Applicant has indicated that it has no plans to alter the exterior of the building that is currently under
construction, except for potential commercial signs that will be applied for at a later date. Any proposed
signage or exterior alterations, including lighting, will require submission of a Sign Permit application or
Certificate of Appropriateness application that must be reviewed and approved by the Village’s Design
Review Board.
Page 7
Page 511 of 547
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. Although the previous approval granted by Ordinance M-01-2025
found a medical office use, such as the Applicant’s proposed use, complies with four of the 12 special
use standards, the Applicant has supplied as part of its application materials a narrative addressing
how this proposal complies with all twelve (12) standards.
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, DUET Audiology Clinic, to operate a medical office at 730 Elm Street,
Suite 120 within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District, based on the following findings of
fact:
“The medical office (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;
Page 8
Page 512 of 547
6. The Special Use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and
other village ordinances and codes;
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 additional 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
Attachment B: Excerpt of Ordinance M-01-2025, adopted on January 21, 2025
Page 9
Page 513 of 547
ATTACHMENT A
Page 514 of 547
Healthy Hearing – Healthy Brain
DUET Proposed Business Operation
The proposed use for DUET is a private audiology practice employing an innovative
paradigm shift in hearing care, based on scientific biologic evidence. DUET leads with
preventive care and wholistic hearing treatment, to engage neuroplasticity in the brain
employing auditory biohacking methods such as music for Ear to Brain Fitness,
Prescription Fit Hearing Aids to deliver precise sound detail. MTP Massage to increase
circulation, Sound Bath to calm the nervous system. Services will include diagnostic
hearing evaluations, hearing aid consultations and fittings, trademarked Ear to Brain
Fitness with music training, massage therapy and related audiology care.
The practice will be staffed by four employees, including board certified doctors of
audiology, master degreed musician, certified massage therapist and administrative
support staff.
The practice is designed to serve a low-volume patient population, with approximately two
to three patients on site at any given time. Operations are conducted in a quiet, clinical
setting with no manufacturing, hazardous materials, or retail sales beyond audiology-
related medical devices.
Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with one to
two Saturday per month for scheduled appointments and Sound Bath experiences. The
business use is consistent with a professional medical office and is not expected to
generate excessive noise, traffic, or disruption to surrounding properties.
Page 515 of 547
Healthy Hearing – Healthy Brain
SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS C-2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
1. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
The proposed audiology clinic and medical retail operation will enhance public health by providing diagnostic
hearing services and access to hearing health products that improve quality of life. All clinical operations will
comply with applicable state healthcare regulations, ADA accessibility standards, and village building and
fire codes, ensuring that the establishment, maintenance, and operation are safe, sanitary, and non-
disruptive to the public welfare.
2. Compatibility and Property Values
The clinic’s professional medical use and attractive retail frontage are consistent with surrounding
commercial uses. Exterior design, signage, and operation will be in keeping with nearby retail
establishments, ensuring that the use will not diminish property values or interfere with the enjoyment of
neighboring properties. Instead, the clinic is expected to increase foot traffic and contribute to the economic
vitality of the block.
3. Orderly Development
The proposed use is compatible with the village’s comprehensive plan and surrounding land uses.
It will not impede the normal development of nearby parcels; rather, it supports the village’s goal of
attracting health-related and service-oriented businesses that complement traditional retail.
4. Ingress, Egress, and Traffic
Adequate and safe ingress and egress will be provided from [insert street name(s)].
Parking and site access will comply with village standards, and the use is expected to generate low traffic
volumes comparable to other medical offices.
The layout is designed to minimize pedestrian and vehicular congestion while ensuring ADA accessibility
5. Parking, Utilities, and Facilities
Page 516 of 547
The property has access to existing municipal utilities, drainage, and roadways.
Adequate on-site or shared parking is available in accordance with zoning requirements.
No significant improvements to infrastructure are required beyond normal tenant build-out and signage
installation.
6. Ordinance Compliance
The clinic and retail operation will comply fully with all village building, signage, health, fire safety, and zoning
codes. All applicable business licenses and healthcare professional certifications will be obtained prior to
operation.
7. Continuity and Pedestrian Orientation
The proposed use will enhance pedestrian activity by offering a welcoming storefront, consistent with nearby
retail establishments. Retail educational and product displays (e.g., hearing aids, ear care products) will be
visible from the sidewalk, inviting walk-in traffic and fostering street-level vibrancy.
8. Minimal Interruption of Retail Continuity
The clinic’s retail frontage will be designed to maintain the visual and functional continuity of retail uses
along the block. The clinic’s signage, window displays, and regular hours of operation will contribute to the
active rhythm of the streetscape rather than interrupt it.
9. Active Display Windows and Compatible Design
The storefront will include transparent, well-lit display windows showcasing retail hearing products and
educational materials about hearing health.
Signage, lighting, and façade materials will be compatible with adjacent retail stores, maintaining a cohesive
aesthetic consistent with village design guidelines.
10. Location of Retail Areas
The retail merchandising area will be located adjacent to the sidewalk, clearly visible from the street, and
designed to invite browsing. Clinical rooms will be situated behind the retail area to ensure privacy while
maintaining an active public frontage.
11. Retail Frontage and Active Use
The proposed design provides a minimum of 20 feet of retail frontage and over 400 square feet of dedicated
retail space. The retail area will be devoted to active merchandising of hearing-related products and will
maintain typical retail hours consistent with nearby businesses
Page 517 of 547
12. Parking Availability
The proposed use will not significantly diminish the availability of parking for other retail patrons.
Traffic generation is limited, as appointments are scheduled to manage patient flow. Available shared or on-
site parking will adequately accommodate both clients and staff without affecting surrounding businesses.
Page 518 of 547
From:
To: Christopher Marx
Subject: Re: DUET One Winnetka
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:26:26 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Outlook-A person w
Outlook-Title_ Lin.png
Outlook-Title_ Twi.png
Outlook-Title_ goo.png
IMG_3346 Frank sign color change.MOV
One Winnetka DUET location.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chris,
It is a pleasure to meet you! Please see the information you requested in red.
What is the sign policy for the village of Winnetka? I have attached a video of the sign we use in
my Lake Forest clinic.
DUET takes a science driven approach to hearing and brain health based on research from
Brain Volts lab at Northwestern. We are leading the field with a paradiagm shift from "wait
until it is bad enough" to preventive care now, similar to the dental model to avoid the damage
hearing loss can have on the brain. I invite you or any village member to experience this new
model live at our Lake Forest DUET location.
I am excited to move my Northfield clinic to One Winnetka to deliver the same preventive care
model to every ear of every age in your community. We also lead a very active role in our
Hearing the Call charity, refurbishing hearing aids donated by the community and fitting them
on children in need around the world, refugee camps in Jordon, orphanages in Tanzania,
communities in need around Chicago.
Please let me know if you need anything else from me. I look forward to serving your
community.
All Ears!
Preserving Hearing & Brain Health,
Page 519 of 547
Lori A Halvorson, AuD, FAAA
Preservation Audiologist
Founder DUET Hearing Preservation
Lake Forest Hearing Professionals
Sounhaus
Phone: 847-295-1185
Fax: 847-295-1165
Email: lakeforesthearing.com
267 Westminster
Lake Forest, IL 60045
www.lakeforesthearing.com
From: Christopher Marx <CMarx@winnetka.org>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 12:03 PM
To: Dr. Lori Halvorson, Au.D.
Subject: RE: DUET One Winnetka
You don't often get email from cmarx@winnetka.org. Learn why this is
important
WARNING: This is an external email. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless
you trust the sender.
Dr. Halvorson,
Good morning. Thanks for providing the application materials for the special use permit
application. We will need some more information to prepare the application for the February
25th meeting agenda. The Plan Commission typically expresses interest in knowing the full
context of a proposed use, so
Commercial Space Size
Do you know the approximate square footage of the overall commercial space
that would be leased? 1696 sq feet
Commercial Signage and Exterior Alterations – As you might or might not be aware, signs and
Page 520 of 547
any exterior alterations (on the street frontage) must seek approval through separate permits
with the Design Review Board. While Plan Commission does not do a thorough review of
proposed signs and sign code, they do like to know what the intended signage is for purposes
of context.
What does the business intend to install for signage and identification on the
exterior of the storefront street façade? Please provide specifics about what
signage appearance and form would entail, if possible. If that hasn’t been
determined as of yet, try to be as specific as possible. If it’s, say, just a window
graphic and a wall sign, then specify that. If there’s an intended logo or
wordmark, that should be provided as well. If you have renderings from a sign
rep, that’s even better, but provide the best that can be made available. See
attached
Does the business intend any other exterior alterations (new windows, exterior
lighting, new doorway, etc.) besides signage? No this is a new building
Employee-Client Volume and Traffic Flow
How many employees would be on the premise at any one time? 3-5
How many client visits or appointments would occur on an average daily basis?
Is it appointment only or are walk-ups accepted? About 8-10, Primarily
appointments, occasional walk-ins
Based on the typical number of employees on site at any given hour and the
typical number of clients at any given hour, what would you expect the parking
demand to be for any given hour? 2-4, some employees will be taking the train
Retail – The Plan Commission is usually very interested in what retail component is being
provided in the business, even if it serves a very secondary purpose.
What sorts of retail offerings will the establishment be providing? The standards
response states that the offerings will be located towards the front, but can you
specify some of the items that would be sold? Hearing Protection: ear muffs for
kids and adults, Head Phones for kids and adults, Therapeutic Googles,
Hearing Aids and accessories, Musical Instruments: small key boards, small
steel drums, metronomes.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
-Chris
Christopher Marx, AICP
Associate Planner
Village of Winnetka – Department of Community Development
Page 521 of 547
I have attached:
Winnetka Commercial Overlay Application
Special Use Permit Standards
These documents were emailed to aklaassen@winnetka.org and sent by mail together with
our check for $1200.00.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Preserving Hearing & Brain Health,
Lori A Halvorson, AuD, FAAA
Preservation Audiologist
Founder DUET Hearing Preservation
Lake Forest Hearing Professionals
Sounhaus
Phone: 847-295-1185
Fax: 847-295-1165
Email: lakeforesthearing.com
267 Westminster
Lake Forest, IL 60045
www.lakeforesthearing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, and any
documents attached to it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for
the use of the addressee. Access to this information by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, discrimination,
duplication, or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify this office, and immediately delete
this message and all its attachments, if any.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, and any
documents attached to it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for
the use of the addressee. Access to this information by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, discrimination,
duplication, or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
Page 522 of 547
DUET Preservation Audiology – Dr. Lori Halvorson, AUD, FAA founded DUET’s hearing preservation
clinic, which uses a groundbreaking, scientifically proven holistic approach that considers your
entire hearing system, going beyond hearing aids to preserve your hearing and brain health.
Page 523 of 547
1.2 1 500 North Dearborn Street
Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60654
312.260.7300
VESTIBULE
SMART WALL
DUET - WINNETKA
4 3.8 3.4 3.1 3 2.1 2
ELEC. PANELS
COAT HOOKS CONCIERGE COUNTER
DISPLAY DISPLAY DISPLAY PRINTER G
XFR 3'-0" IT CLOSET BEVERAGES
1'-4 3/4"
MOBILE CARTS 4'-11" 3'-0"
7'-6" Project Address
4'-2 1/2" 5'-6" 723 Elm St
SMART WALL
CLR 4'-0" Winnetka, IL 60093
3'-0" 1'-1" 3'-0"
Project Number
3'-0"
3'-1"
STORAGE
25079.00
LOCKERS 9'-0" 13'-6" 7'-0" 7'-0"
23 SF
CLEANING Date
1'-8" 5'-4"
8'-11 3/4" 9'-1 1/2"
STATION
STAFF AREA
3'-0"
10'-2" 1/15/2026
11'-3" 11'-3"
92 SF
ADA CLINICAL DOCTOR MANGO ROOM Sheet Name
7'-6"
RESTROOM EAR CANAL LAB & SPA AREA & SOUND BOOTH WORKSTATIONS SELF-TESTING
56 SF 8'-3 1/2" 102 SF 153 SF 79 SF 76 SF REVISED FLOOR PLAN
7'-6" SOUND BOOTH SMART WALL
W/D
REF
Sheet Number
ASK-04
© 2026 Valerio Dewalt Train Associates P.C.
Page 524 of 547
ATTACHMENT B
Page 525 of 547
Page 526 of 547
Page 527 of 547
Page 528 of 547
Page 529 of 547
Page 530 of 547
Page 531 of 547
Page 532 of 547
Page 533 of 547
Page 534 of 547
Page 535 of 547
Page 536 of 547
Page 537 of 547
Page 538 of 547
Page 539 of 547
Page 540 of 547
Page 541 of 547
Page 542 of 547
Page 543 of 547
Page 544 of 547
Page 545 of 547
Page 546 of 547
Page 547 of 547