Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · October 13, 2025
Minutes
Minutes adopted 11.10.2025
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 OCTOBER 13, 2025
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10
11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender
12
13 Village Staff: Steve Mangum, Director of Community Development
14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
15 Development
16
17 Call to Order & Roll Call:
18 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
19 present.
20
21 Public Comment:
22 No comments were made at this time.
23
24 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
25 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the September 8, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
26 approve the September 8, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Hanley.
27 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
28 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
29 NAYS: None
30
31 Community Development Report.
32 Mr. Mangum provided an update on the 314 Walnut appeal with the appellant having filed a case in Circuit
33 Court.
34
35 Continued Cases:
36 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to
37 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The
38 requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted
39 gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west
40 property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the August 11, 2025, Zoning
41 Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this
42 item to the October 13, 2025, meeting.
43 Ms. Klaassen noted although the request had been continued, discussion has not been opened until this
44 meeting. She identified the property location, zoning classification and size along with site photos
45 containing the proposed addition. Ms. Klaassen summarized the two variations for front yard setback and
46 GFA requested by the applicant in connection with the proposed addition. She then identified the
47 proposed building elevations and noted public correspondence was received regarding the request and
48 provided to the ZBA. Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and
October 13, 2025 Page 2
1 Board discussion, a Board Member may make a motion to either continue the matter to a date specific to
2 address any questions or concerns or consider a motion recommending approval or denial with a draft
3 motion included on page 13 of the agenda packet. She then asked if there were any questions.
4
5 Ms. Hanley stated the packet of materials indicate for the 1997 addition, the applicant was denied the
6 front yard setback and asked if the proposed addition would be in the same location. Ms. Klaassen
7 responded it must have been and identified the 50-foot front yard setback. No additional questions were
8 raised at this time.
9
10 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
11 Wilmette, introduced himself along with the property owners, Emily and John Thomas, Scott Walker, the
12 builder, and Healy Rice, the architect. He stated the GFA and front yard setback variations are being
13 requested for the flag lot which originally contained a ranch home and described the subsequent additions
14 which conformed to GFA requirements in 1997. Mr. Canning stated the applicants purchased the home in
15 2021 and noticed the garage was being used for storage and a gym. He stated the home had inadequate
16 storage and described the alternatives they discussed with Mr. Walker and Ms. Rice to obtain more
17 storage and which would require variations. Mr. Canning stated the proposed plan represented the best
18 alternative and would not increase impervious coverage. He referred to the concerns raised by the
19 neighbors and explained that the proposed addition would not be built into the front yard. Mr. Canning
20 then stated with regard to GFA, there was no GFA request made for the 1997 addition with the home now
21 being out of compliance by no action of the applicants. He stated the flag lot penalized them in terms of
22 the amount of GFA available for use and a GFA variation would not have otherwise been necessary.
23
24 Mr. Canning stated in response to the standards, he referred to reasonable return and several price
25 reductions in the price of the home due to the lack of a basement. He then summarized their responses
26 to the remaining standards and asked for the Board to make a positive recommendation to the Village
27 Council. Mr. Canning then asked if there were any questions.
28
29 Chairman Bradley asked if the existing nonconformity with regard to lot size and questioned the math
30 calculations. Mr. Canning referred to the worksheets prepared and explained the method for the lot area
31 calculations. Chairman Bradley then questioned the difference between the existing and proposed GFA
32 when the flagpole area is taken out. The Board Members discussed how the figures were calculated. Ms.
33 Klaassen provided further information with regard to the GFA calculation. Chairman Bradley questioned
34 the amount of storage the applicants need to allow reasonable return.
35
36 Scott Walker, general contractor, explained how the size of the proposed addition was balanced by
37 loading the second floor on the perimeter walls with the second-floor addition to blend in with the
38 remaining home’s architecture. He stated to make it 100 square feet less would make it less architecturally
39 appealing and would be more difficult to build. Chairman Bradley asked if the applicants are justifying the
40 need for the zoning variation as being due to the fact that the property is located in the flood plain which
41 did not allow them to have a basement which would have been used for storage. Mr. Walker responded
42 yes.
43
44 Mr. Haller referred to the plat of survey which referenced a basement. Mr. Walker confirmed there is no
45 basement and there is an error on the plat of survey. Mr. Haller referred to the area to be built over the
46 garage. Mr. Walker responded it would remain as a garage for use by the applicants. No additional
47 questions were raised at this time.
48
October 13, 2025 Page 3
1 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. He then swore in those speaking to this matter. Amy Burke,
2 181 DeWindt, introduced herself as president of the DeWindt Homeowners Association representing the
3 neighbors. She stated after receiving the public notice, she met with the applicants with regard to their
4 plans. Ms. Burke stated they are still concerned with regard to the wording vagueness and future
5 implications for those requesting similar projects with similar setbacks and GFA.
6
7 David Nelson, 130 Evergreen Lane, provided information with regard to the property’s history and stated
8 with regard to the hardship claim, the applicants purchased the home knowing what they were getting.
9 He also referred to the number of price reductions due to the prior owners’ contentious situation and the
10 fact that it is a flag lot. Mr. Nelson stated those reasons are not justifiable to claim hardship and the price
11 of the older, deteriorated home reflected its market value. He also stated the area is in the 100-year flood
12 plain and referred to the applicants’ plan to build a pool in connection with their claim regarding hardship.
13 Mr. Nelson also informed the Board of the landscaping permit approval process they went through as well
14 as a lack of privacy concern relating to his house and pool. He added the home has a third floor and an
15 area above the garage which is currently used for storage. No additional comments were made at this
16 time.
17
18 Mr. Haller asked if consideration was given to creating a basement area underneath the home. Mr.
19 Canning confirmed they considered it but it would have been cost prohibitive due to engineering
20 concerns. He noted the pool installation is not a part of this application. Mr. Walker also stated there
21 would not have been access to the basement other than through the garage which would have made it a
22 1.5 garage.
23
24 Chairman Bradley asked if there was any other public comment. No additional comments were made at
25 this time. He then called the matter in for discussion and summarized the relief being requested by the
26 applicants and the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen also provided additional information with
27 regard to a GFA text amendment.
28
29 Ms. Hanley stated she had trouble with the first three standards and is leaning toward voting against the
30 request and explained her reasoning in detail. Ms. Leister agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments noting a
31 lack of a basement in this area as typical. She agreed that a flag lot is not an unusual condition and referred
32 to the denial of the second-floor addition in 1997 as well as the neighbors’ comments. Ms. Leister
33 concluded she would vote against the request. Mr. Ritter stated while he appreciated the attempt to not
34 change the nonconforming setback and the potential height addition, he agreed with the comments made
35 that the first three standards were not met. He stated he would vote against the request. Mr. Nielsen
36 agreed with the comments made and referred to the reduced purchase price comments. He also agreed
37 with the statements relating to flag lots and how that is addressed with zoning. Mr. Nielsen concluded he
38 would vote against the request. Mr. Haller agreed with the comments made and stated he would lean
39 toward voting against the request and the garage would become two stories which would potentially
40 impinge on the neighborhood character. Chairman Bradley stated the front yard setback is not an issue
41 for him and referred to the sensitivities of homeowners in the flood plain where he stated homes have
42 been adequately priced. He referred to the discussion of properties having pools and creating a basement
43 in the flood plain. Chairman Bradley also referred to the flag lot and the smaller lot size. He then stated
44 he was leaning toward recommending approval and the fact that the situations can be mitigated.
45
46 Chairman Bradley offered the applicant the opportunity to either move forward with the Village Council
47 or modify their plans to evaluate the Board’s comments. The applicants’ team discussed their options and
48 decided to request that the item be continued to the January 12, 2026, meeting.
October 13, 2025 Page 4
1 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the application to the January 12, 2026, meeting. A
2 motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A vote was
3 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
5 NAYS: None
6
7 New Cases:
8 a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications seeking approval of a
9 Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties, which requires variations
10 to allow: (i) Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street
11 line for an interior lot; (ii) Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required
12 lot depth; and (iii) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe less than the minimum required
13 total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as
14 a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width. The Village Council
15 has final jurisdiction on this request.
16 Ms. Klaassen summarized the proposed lot line relocation dividing the two properties and noted the
17 request is limited to the proposed subdivision and zoning variations required with no proposed
18 improvements being presented at this time. She then identified the property’s location, zoning
19 classification, size and improvements and noted both lots are flag lots. Ms. Klaassen stated both lots are
20 legally nonconforming which she identified for the Board. She stated there is a contingent sales contract
21 entered into between the property owners and identified the triangular area to be subdivided which
22 represented approximately 5% of existing lot area for 883 Private Road. Ms. Klaassen also summarized
23 the two variations required by the proposed subdivision. She then informed the Board of the Plan
24 Commission’s findings after their consideration of the application at its September 24, 2025, meeting as
25 well as the ZBA’s standards they are to consider. Ms. Klaassen stated no public comment was received
26 and following the applicant’s presentation, Board discussion and public comment, a Board Member may
27 follow the two options identified in the packet of materials and asked if there were any questions.
28
29 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Hanley asked if moving the lot line would
30 do nothing for the variations created when the lot was originally subdivided. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that
31 is correct and provided additional information with regard to the increase in average lot width creating
32 the nonconforming total side yard setback. Mr. Haller asked if the length of the flagpole nonconformity is
33 being extended in connection with the triangular area. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and
34 provided further clarification. No additional questions were raised at this time.
35
36 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
37 introduced himself as representing the owner, Jesse Van Dyke, along with Dan Creaney, the project
38 engineer. He explained the detachment of a triangular portion from 883 Private Road and confirmed
39 nothing would change with regard to two existing variations with the third variation representing an
40 unintended consequence. Mr. Canning identified the existing noncompliant aspects of the lot and noted
41 those would not change. He noted the two lots were conforming at the time they were created and
42 became nonconforming when the code changed. Mr. Canning also identified five other homes on Private
43 Road which have similar conditions in terms of the front lot line, and he submitted FOIA requests for
44 information relating to the surveys of those homes and related easements.
45
46 Mr. Canning described the unintended consequences by the addition of the triangular portion to 881
47 Private Road noting the purchase and sale is contingent upon zoning approval. He also summarized their
48 responses to the standards including reasonable return. Mr. Canning informed the Board that the
October 13, 2025 Page 5
1 applicants realized after the property purchase that the north garage bay was being used for storage due
2 to the inability to access it. He referred to a photo which was shown to the Plan Commission on page nos.
3 73 and 74 which showed the property conveyance. Mr. Canning concluded by asking for a positive
4 recommendation to the Village Council and if there were any questions.
5
6 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any public comments. No comments were made at this time.
7
8 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion. Mr. Haller stated he had no problem with the request
9 and described the request as a modest ask which would improve the property’s utility. He also stated he
10 had no problems with regard to the standards and would recommend approval of the request. Mr. Nielsen
11 stated he would also recommend approval with all of the standards being met. He stated a new
12 nonconformity would not be created over the existing nonconformities. Ms. Hanley stated she would also
13 be in favor of the request and that it would not be so much a resubdivision but would return the lot line
14 to a better design which would reduce the lot’s irregular shape. She also stated it would be a small
15 adjustment and that the variations would not be altered or increased. Ms. Hanley concluded she would
16 be in favor of the request.
17
18 Ms. Leister stated she is also in favor of the request and granting the 10-inch exception would be de
19 minimus with regard to the value being added. She concluded she would be in favor of the request. Mr.
20 Ritter agreed the standards have been met and he would also be in favor of the request with there being
21 no change to the front street line, lot depth, and side yard setback. He concluded he would also be in
22 favor of the request. Chairman Bradley agreed with the comments made and stated the standards have
23 been met, particularly with regard to reasonable return which is being applied to the zoning relief of an
24 existing nonconforming street line, lot depth and a total side yard setback resulting in less than 1 foot. He
25 concluded the standards have been met and would perfect the lot’s design and allow for the 881 parcel
26 to have a wider turn to gain access to the garage’s second parking bay. He also noted there have been no
27 comments from the public.
28
29 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as indicated on page 10 of the memo.
30 A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was
31 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
32 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
33 NAYS: None
34
35 b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision
36 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to
37 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the
38 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
39 Ms. Klaassen noted the request being presented is limited to the proposed subdivision and existing site
40 improvements with no proposed improvements being presented by the applicant. She then identified the
41 property’s location, existing improvements, zoning classification and size. Ms. Klaassen described the two
42 buildable lots created by the proposed subdivision and how the original lot was platted as well as provided
43 an explanation of the areas of compliance and noncompliance with the lot area and rectangular area
44 requirements in detail. She also summarized the MWRD and Village requirements with regard to flood
45 plain regulations, storm water detention, compensatory storage and requirements in detail. Ms. Klaassen
46 then described the future improvements to the Skokie Ditch and reiterated any future development
47 would be required to comply with flood plain and storm water regulations upon submittal of permits in
48 connection with any site improvements.
October 13, 2025 Page 6
1 Ms. Klaassen informed the Board the Plan Commission considered the final plat, zoning variations and
2 subdivision code variation to allow a rear lot line to abut a side lot as well as a finding of no material
3 increased adverse impact for the existing nonconforming front yard and corner yard setbacks as well as
4 the front-facing attached garage door width. She advised the Board of the Plan Commission’s
5 consideration of the request and vote to recommend approval with the condition that the existing
6 nonconforming playhouse be relocated to comply with zoning regulations or be removed. Ms. Klaassen
7 stated the Board is to consider whether the two variations are in harmony with the general purpose and
8 intent of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the eight standards for granting the variations have been
9 met. She noted all public correspondence was provided to the Board and asked if there were any
10 questions.
11
12 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then
13 swore in those speaking to this matter.
14
15 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself, the property owners, Bob and
16 Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer and author of the Exhibit presented to the Board
17 and who is available to answer questions. He provided a summary of the Plan Commission’s discussion
18 including the history of the property and subdivision noting the existing conditions were not created by
19 the applicants and they are attempting to undo the lot consolidation. Mr. Canning stated the request is
20 similar to 860 Lamson that was approved by the Village Council.
21
22 Mr. Canning stated the Plan Commission made a positive recommendation with conditions to be
23 addressed including variations for minimum lot area and referred to the discussion regarding moving the
24 lot lines which would result in two conforming lots but would still require variations. Ms. Klaassen
25 provided additional clarification for the Board following questions from the Board regarding a lot depth
26 variation that would be required for proposed Lot 1 if the lot line between the two lots were to be shifted
27 north. Mr. Canning agreed Lot 2 could be made conforming but they decided it was better to return the
28 lot to its original condition. He referred to eight other lots of similar sizes in the area. Mr. Canning then
29 referred to the Exhibit, which addressed the spirit of meeting the minimum rectangular area requirement
30 and reiterated no new home is being proposed with the Exhibit being done in response to the Village
31 Engineer’s concerns.
32
33 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the flood plain and storm water concerns raised by the neighbors,
34 he summarized the Plan Commission’s discussion relating to their prior application submitted in 2014
35 which addressed the compensatory story and storm water detention issues. He confirmed any future
36 potential construction would have to meet the Village’s engineering and storm water requirements. Mr.
37 Canning then summarized their response to the eight standards and first referred to John Satter’s
38 appraisal and response in that the parcels were more valuable separately as opposed to the combined
39 parcel in connection with the reasonable return standard. He stated they are available to answer any
40 questions relating to storm water or zoning.
41
42 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Ritter asked if subdivision approval was granted,
43 would the tennis court be removed. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and referred to the condition
44 of removing the playhouse. Ms. Leister asked what the cost of engineering the potential home would be
45 and its impact to the value of selling this parcel of land. Mr. Canning responded they did not consider that
46 and stated their focus was on the land subdivision. Mr. Haller asked if there would be overall height
47 restrictions for any new potential building due to it being raised to be out of the flood plain. Mr. Canning
48 responded this engineering technique has been used on other homes in the neighborhood.
October 13, 2025 Page 7
1 Dan Creaney, the civil engineer, stated with regard to the flood plain, he explained the standard flow
2 through crawl space construction which is used and how roof angles could be modified to comply with
3 potential height. Mr. Canning confirmed the height limit is 33 feet. No additional questions were raised at
4 this time.
5
6 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. James Langer,
7 956 Sunset, stated his concerns relate to the view of proposed Lot 2. He stated the request did not meet
8 the standards and failed to specifically comply with Section 16.12.010 since a side lot abutting a rear lot
9 line would be created. He noted they never received notification with regard to the neighborhood meeting
10 held by the Marrens and described the water issues they experience on their property. Mr. Langer stated
11 the proposal would definitely lower their property value with regard to reasonable return with flooding
12 concerns representing their main issue. He then stated with regard to the 2014 findings; the exact same
13 case was presented and rejected as not meeting the standards.
14
15 Githesh Ramamurphy,916 Higginson, identified his home for the Board and stated he has lived in his home
16 since 2006 and described the substantial flooding issues they experienced. He stated in his line of
17 business; he is very familiar with flooding issues and any potential new home would exacerbate the
18 flooding issues even more and referred to the amount of water they currently experience. Mr.
19 Ramamurphy stated the second issue is that the compliance standards are not being met as well as the
20 amount of water in the Skokie Ditch which is located next to his home. He stated two neighboring homes
21 would also be affected by them having severe property damage. Mr. Ramamurphy stated the only way
22 the applicants would be able to realize reasonable return would be if a home is built on the subdivided
23 lot. No additional comments were made at this time.
24
25 Chairman Bradley asked the applicants if they would like to respond. Mr. Canning identified the square
26 footage of several surrounding lots which he outlined in his letter that are smaller or similarly sized to
27 proposed Lot 2. He confirmed no decision was made on the 2014 application and the matter was
28 continued and ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the neighbors’ comments,
29 the home’s views are raised since they are located in the flood plain. He stated the Langers’ home
30 immediately to the west submitted photos which included compensatory storage which is being proposed
31 for Lot 2. Mr. Creaney then described the Skokie Ditch improvements in detail and referred to the MWRD
32 and Village engineering requirements. He also stated they have built several homes in the Village which
33 he identified for the Board and which comply with MWRD and Village engineering standards. Chairman
34 Bradley confirmed the Board is not voting on any potential new build for the proposed lot.
35
36 Chairman Bradley closed public comment and called the matter in for discussion. He reminded the Board
37 of the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the zoning variations the Board is to
38 consider.
39
40 Mr. Ritter stated the standards for granting the variance have arguably been met and described the lot
41 area variance as de minimus as well as the fact that the rectangular area variance did not seem significant
42 either. He stated while he understood the neighbors’ concerns with regard to flooding, if there is a
43 residence built on the lot, there are lot of stringent requirements which would need to be met. Mr. Ritter
44 then stated the tennis court removal would result in a significant impervious surface area being removed
45 which would help both lots and concluded by stating he would be in favor of the request. Ms. Leister
46 stated with regard to 1(a), she is fine with regard to where the lot line would be drawn with there being
47 precedent for it. She also stated it would trigger the least amount of variances but she struggled with (b)
October 13, 2025 Page 8
1 and that there would be constraints in terms of building a home. Ms. Leister stated she would prefer for
2 it to meet the rectangular requirements.
3
4 Ms. Hanley agreed with Ms. Leister’s comments in that she is not sure it would be an ideal buildable lot
5 as well as standard nos. 2 and 3 which would make Lot 2 more unique. She stated with regard to the
6 essential character of the locality; there would be a ditch that ran through a significant portion of the lot
7 and into the buildable area. Ms. Hanley stated it would ultimately require a variation for a home to be
8 built on Lot 2. Chairman Bradley stated he would be in favor of the request and although he sympathized
9 with the neighbors’ concerns and if this request was not located in the flood plain, it would not have been
10 an issue. He stated there are storm water regulations in place for new development to adhere to and the
11 lots would be returned to their original condition. Chairman Bradley then stated if the applicants’ home
12 is sold, the home could be torn down with a new home conforming to the requirements of the
13 consolidated lot. He stated the Board should not consider what is possible for the lot and also commented
14 in detail the consideration of any new potential construction on the proposed irregularly shaped and
15 undersized lot with new construction being considered a clean slate which would be extremely difficult in
16 terms of obtaining zoning relief.
17
18 Ms. Hanley clarified her comment in that the issue before the Board is that the code stated if a lot is
19 subdivided, it had to result in two, clean lots without variances. She stated they have to apply the current
20 zoning code in that the ditch created a unique circumstance which would alter the essential character of
21 the locality and would create a unique circumstance which should prohibit the subdivision. Mr. Nielsen
22 summarized Chairman Bradley’s and Ms. Hanley’s comments and referred to the 2014 previous review of
23 the Board. He stated with the tennis court removal, the applicants could consider installing compensatory
24 storage where the courts are currently to help mitigate everyone’s concerns. He then stated he would
25 recommend approval.
26
27 Mr. Haller shared Ms. Hanley’s and Ms. Leister’s concerns and stated he is less persuaded by what the lot
28 would have been had it stayed the way it was. He stated they are being asked to create an irregular lot
29 and he had difficulty with the idea of giving the applicants a pass on some elements of the lot. Mr. Nielsen
30 stated he could be persuaded and reiterated he had difficulty with standard nos. 2 and 3 being
31 troublesome to him. The Board Members discussed their positions at length.
32
33 Ms. Hanley suggested the matter be continued to allow the applicants time to resubmit the application
34 with a conforming, buildable Lot 2 being perfected to be a buildable lot with the variation to be requested
35 on Lot 1. Ms. Klaassen informed the Board that Lot 1 measured 165 feet in width and referred to an
36 illustration. The Board Members discussed alternatives with regard to various lot line measurements.
37
38 Chairman Bradley stated in ordered to sway the undecided Board Members, he offered the applicants the
39 opportunity to continue the matter to a date certain to come back before the Board with a nonconforming
40 Lot 1 or proceed with a vote at this time. Ms. Leister and Mr. Haller stated they would like to see the
41 alternative presented to the Board or the applicants can proceed at this time.
42
43 Chairman Bradley then presented the options to the applicants to either continue the request to a future
44 meeting to consider the variances or proceed with a vote on the request with a negative recommendation
45 to the Village Council. Mr. Canning stated it would be up to the Village staff and stated it may be a
46 worthwhile exercise with the December 8, 2025, meeting date being a possibility. While the Board was
47 discussing their availably for December 8, Mr. Mangum noted there is one Board Member absent from
48 this meeting.
October 13, 2025 Page 9
1 Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued to the December 8, 2025, meeting. A motion was made
2 by Ms. Hanley to continue the request to December 8, 2025, and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken
3 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
5 NAYS: None
6
7 New Business:
8 a. November 10, 2025, Meeting - Quorum Check.
9 The Board Members discussed their availability.
10
11 Public Comment:
12 No comments were made at this time.
13
14 Adjournment:
15 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and
16 seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
17 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
18 NAYS: None
19 The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22
23 Antionette Johnson
24 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. September 8, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of
zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing
residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The requested variations would permit the
proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area;
and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west
property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the
August 11, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the
Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this item to the October 13,
2025, meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications
seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the
two properties, which requires variations to allow: (i) Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private
Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street line for an interior
lot; (ii) Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum
required lot depth; and (iii) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe
less than the minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to an
increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as a result of the
proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width. The Village
Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final
Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which
requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to (i) provide less than the minimum
required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the minimum
required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this requst.
6. New Business
a. November 10, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
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
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. September 8, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of
zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing
residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The requested variations would permit the
proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area;
and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west
property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the
August 11, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the
Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this item to the October 13,
2025, meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications
seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the
two properties, which requires variations to allow: (i) Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private
Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street line for an interior
lot; (ii) Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum
required lot depth; and (iii) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe
less than the minimum required total side yard setback, which is due to an
increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as a result of the
proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width. The Village
Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final
Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which
requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to (i) provide less than the minimum
required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the minimum
required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this requst.
6. New Business
a. November 10, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
Page 1 of 182
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 182
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10 Todd Vender
11
12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None
13
14 Village Staff: Steve Mangum, Director of Community Development
15 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
16 Development
17
18 Call to Order & Roll Call:
19 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
20 present.
21
22 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
23 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the August 11, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
24 approve the August 11, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A
25 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
26 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
27 NAYS: None
28
29 Community Development Report.
30 Mr. Mangum stated there is no Community Development Report.
31
32 Continued Cases:
33 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to
34 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The
35 requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted
36 gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west
37 property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the August 11, 2025, Zoning
38 Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this
39 item to the October 13, 2025, meeting.
40 Chairman Bradley stated the applicant asked for the case to be continued to the October 13, 2025,
41 meeting.
42
43 New Cases:
44 a. Case No. 25-17-V: 270 Birch Street: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to
45 allow construction of an attached garage addition to the existing residence at 270 Birch Street. The
46 requested variation would permit the proposed improvement to provide less than the minimum
47 required front yard setback from the east property line along Birch Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals
48 has final jurisdiction on this request.
Page 3 of 182
September 8, 2025 Page 2
1 Ms. Klaassen provided a summary of the July ZBA meeting when the Board considered three variations
2 requested by the applicant and noted that application was subsequently withdrawn. She identified the
3 property’s location, zoning classification and current site photographs. Ms. Klaassen then referred to a
4 prior variation presented in November 2024 for a three-car garage and summarized the consideration of
5 that request by the ZBA and the Village Council. She stated the Board would now consider a two-car, side
6 loaded attached garage with the shaded area on the site plan representing the proposed addition. Ms.
7 Klaassen informed the Board the beech tree would be removed and that the Village Forester has reviewed
8 the tree, and he would allow the removal, due to the tree’s location close to the house and slight decline.
9
10 Ms. Klaassen identified the front yard setback related to the proposed addition as well as its floor plan,
11 the conversion of existing garage space to storage space and the front elevation of the proposed addition.
12 She summarized the proposed addition’s size and referred to additional elevations from the north and
13 south. Ms. Klaassen noted two emails were received from neighbors and provided to the Board. She
14 stated two resolutions were drafted for the Board’s consideration, one for approval and one for denial
15 and asked if there were any questions.
16
17 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time.
18
19 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Alex Kaehler introduced herself to the Board
20 and apologized for the confusion surrounding the application’s presentation in July. She identified the
21 current proposal as similar to their initial request and stated it was their hope to save the tree. Mrs.
22 Kaehler stated the two-car garage would be as shallow as possible and they would use the existing garage
23 space for storage.
24
25 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Haller asked about the roof line of the proposed
26 addition in relation to the existing residence. Mrs. Kaehler explained that the intent was to preserve a
27 second story window and having a flat roof portion would have reduced the roof’s size which would have
28 appeared heavy with a second story addition. Ms. Hanley asked the current garage’s dimensions. Mrs.
29 Kaehler responded it is 19.5 feet deep, and the request is for it to have a depth of 21 feet. No additional
30 questions were raised at this time.
31
32 Chairman Bradley noted there are no members of the public present to comment and called the matter
33 in for discussion. Mr. Nielsen stated he was not present at the November 2024 meeting and asked for the
34 Board to identify the garage portion approved at that time versus what is being requested now. The Board
35 Members and applicant identified and discussed the area questioned by Mr. Nielsen. Chairman Bradley
36 summarized his position with regard to the previous request and stated he would be in support of the
37 current request. Mr. Vender stated he would also be in support and the applicants have worked diligently
38 on the older home to find a solution for the garage’s location. He also commented a two-car garage would
39 fit nicely with the home. Ms. Leister stated she is also in favor of the request and that an appropriately
40 sized garage is fine given the home’s modernization and added locating it on the south side would have
41 an effect on the neighbors. Mr. Ritter agreed with the comments made and stated he is also in favor of
42 the request. He congratulated the homeowners in modernizing the home as opposed to demolishing it.
43 Mr. Nielsen stated he would also be in favor of the request. Ms. Hanley stated since the existing garage
44 would be used as storage, she did not understand why the new garage would have to measure 27x22 feet
45 and there is no justification under the standards for the setback. She stated standard nos. 1 and 3 were
46 not met and concluded she would not be in favor of the garage variation.
47
Page 4 of 182
September 8, 2025 Page 3
1 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the request as indicated on page 38. A motion was made
2 to approve the request by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and the motion
3 passed, 6 to 1:
4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
5 NAYS: Hanley
6
7 New Business:
8 a. October 13, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check.
9 The Board Members discussed their availability.
10
11 Public Comment:
12 No comments were made at this time.
13
14 Adjournment:
15 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and
16 seconded by Mr. Nielsen A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
17 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender
18 NAYS: None
19 The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22
23 Antionette Johnson
24 Recording Secretary
Page 5 of 182
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2025
SUBJECT: 175 DEWINDT ROAD – VARIATIONS (CASE NO. 25-14-V2)
INTRODUCTION
On October 13, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application
submitted by Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located
at 175 DeWindt Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning
variations to allow a second-floor addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property:
1. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet is
permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%) [Section 17.30.040 – Maximum Building
Size][Note: The existing improvements currently consist of 6,033.09 square feet. The proposed
addition would add 797.4 square feet of GFA]; and
2. Front Yard Setback of 25.03 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 50 feet is
required, a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]
[Note: The residence currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet].
This application was previously scheduled for the August 11, 2025, ZBA meeting, but was continued to the
October 13, 2025, ZBA meeting at the request of the Applicant. Mail notices were sent to property owners
within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the
August and October ZBA meetings. The originally scheduled hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka
Talk on July 24, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has received two written comments from the
public regarding this application, which are included as Attachment C.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request as only the Council has the authority to grant a
variation to allow a zoning lot with a pre-FAR building (constructed before 1989) to exceed the
maximum permitted GFA by more than 10%. Typically, the ZBA has final jurisdiction to reduce a front
yard setback for a principal building by no more than 50% of the required setback; however, since this
request includes additional relief for which the ZBA does not have jurisdiction, the Village Council also
has final jurisdiction on the request to reduce the front yard setback.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.39 acres in size, is located on the south side of DeWindt
Road between Hill and Sunset Roads and contains an existing two-story residence with an attached garage
(see Figure 1). The Subject Property is a flag lot, which is an irregularly shaped lot consisting of two
sections: the primary mass of the lot (the “flag” portion), which is set back from the street frontage
access and is behind one or more other lots; and a narrow access corridor (the “flagpole” portion).
Page 1
Page 6 of 182
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (see Figure
2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential
development. The zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The existing lot is a legally nonconforming interior lot that is 17,073.24 square feet in net lot area, while
the minimum required lot area for an interior lot in the R-2 District is 24,000 square feet. The area of the
“flagpole” portion of the lot (4,805.58 square feet) as well as the area of the private road easement (600
square feet) are excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes. Also, the lot has an average lot width of
91 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for an interior lot in the R-2 District is 100 feet.
The lot also has a lot depth of 187.62 feet, while the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet.
Thorntree
DeWindt Lane
Road
Evergreen
Lane
Subject Property
Figure 1 – Aerial Map
DeWindt
Road
Thorntree
Lane
Subject Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
Page 2
Page 7 of 182
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
The existing residence was constructed in 1960. Subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1997 to construct a second floor and attic addition; and
2. 2024 to remodel the kitchen.
Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in
2021. There is one previous zoning case on file for the Subject Property. In 1997, ZBA Case No. 97-02-V2
was an application requesting zoning relief to allow a second-floor addition that would encroach into the
required front yard setback and south side yard setback. The side yard setback variation was approved;
however, the front yard setback variation was denied by the Village Council. It should be noted that the
existing residence complies with current side yard setback requirements due to an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance that now bases the required side yard setbacks on average lot width rather than the
Zoning District in which a lot is located.
Subsequent to the submittal of the variation application that is currently before the ZBA, the Applicant
submitted a building permit application to allow installation of hardscaping and a pool. This permit has
been reviewed and approved by Village staff. These improvements comply with the zoning regulations
and are not part of the zoning relief being considered by the ZBA.
Figures 3 and 4 below are current photos of the Subject Property.
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (North) Elevations
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (South) Elevations
Page 3
Page 8 of 182
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is requesting variations to construct a second-floor addition on the existing residence. The
addition would be above the existing attached garage on the west side of the existing residence and
consist of an open room as well as additional storage space. The addition would measure 30 feet by 26.58
feet (797.4 square feet). The proposed addition is intended to maintain the existing setbacks along the
west and south facades of the residence. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plan, building
elevations, and a rendering are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 5 through 11. The
complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment B).
Proposed Addition
Red Lines Represents
50’ Front Yard Setback
Figure 5 – Site Plan
Proposed Addition
Figure 6 – Existing Second Floor Plan
Page 4
Page 9 of 182
Figure 7 – Proposed Second-Floor Addition Floor Plan
Proposed Addition
Figure 8 - Proposed North Elevation
Proposed Addition
Figure 9 - Proposed South Elevation
Page 5
Page 10 of 182
Proposed Addition
Figure 10 - Proposed West Elevation
Proposed Addition
Figure 11 – Rendering of Proposed North and West Elevations
The proposed improvement with this variation request does not include any additional impermeable lot
coverage. However, upon submittal of the building permit for the proposed addition, Village Engineering
staff will review the permit for compliance with the Village stormwater regulations to verify stormwater
is being managed on-site.
Figure 12 on the following page represents the Subject Property’s location in the floodplain; the cyan
represents the 100-year floodplain; the orange represents the 500-year floodplain. The Subject Property
Page 6
Page 11 of 182
is located in the 100-year floodplain. Any improvements within the 100-year floodplain are subject to the
Village’s Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)
Water Management Ordinance (WMO). Compliance with these ordinances will be verified by Village
Engineering staff upon submittal of the necessary permits to construct the proposed improvement.
Subject
Property
Figure 12 - GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with
the R-2 zoning district regulations (Attachment A). The Applicant requests two variations: (1) gross floor
area; and (2) front yard setback.
Gross Floor Area (GFA). The site currently contains 6,033.09 square feet of GFA, exceeding the maximum
permitted GFA by 224.25 square feet (3.86%). The increase in GFA with the proposed addition is 797.4
square feet, bringing the total GFA to 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet
is permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%).
The Zoning Ordinance states that for any flag lot that was lawfully in existence on October 7, 1997, the
“flagpole” portion of the lot shall be excluded when calculating the GFA; provided that the resulting
maximum GFA shall not be less than 85% of the maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes
both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the lot. In this instance, the permitted GFA is 85% of the
maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the
lot. This results in an additional 487.52 square feet of permitted GFA.
Front Yard Setback (West). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the front yard
setback as it currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet, encroaching into the minimum required
setback of 50 feet by 24.97 feet. The proposed addition would also provide a front yard setback of 25.03
feet, requiring a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%).
Page 7
Page 12 of 182
FINDINGS
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a
variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative
addressing how this proposal meets these standards. After hearing from the Applicant, and the public,
the ZBA may decide to act on one of 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 ZBA; or
2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the request, a ZBA member may wish to
make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variations granting:
1. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square
feet is permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%) [Section 17.30.040 –
Maximum Building Size]; and
2. Front Yard Setback of 25.03 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 50
feet is required, a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%). [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner
Yard Setbacks].
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variations requested are in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be
associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related
to the occupants.
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Zoning Matrix
Attachment B: Application Materials
Attachment C: Public Correspondence
Page 8
Page 13 of 182
ATTACHMENT A
ZONING MATRIX
ADDRESS: 175 DeWindt Road
CASE NO: 25-14-V2
ZONING: R-2
MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (3)
Min. Lot Size 24,000 SF 22,479 SF N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Average Lot Width 100 FT 91 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Lot Depth 200 FT 187.62 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 4,268.36 SF (1) 3,431.52 SF 3,431.52 SF 0 SF OK
Max. Gross Floor Area 5,808.84 SF (2) 6,033.09 SF 6,830.49 SF 797.4 SF 1,021.65 SF (17.59%) VARIATION
Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 8,536.71 SF (1) 7,478 SF 7,478 SF 0 SF OK
Min. Front Yard (West) 50 FT 25.03 FT 25.03 FT 0 SF 24.97 FEET (49.94%) VARIATION
Min. SIde Yard (South) 9.1 FT 11.9 FT 11.9 FT 0 SF OK
Min. Total Side Yards 22.75 FT 14.22 FT 14.22 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Rear Yard (East) 25 FT 89 FT 89 FT 0 FT OK
NOTES: (1) Based on zoning lot area of 17,073.42 square feet which excludes flag portion and private road easement
(2) Based on Zoning Ordinance provision that any flag lot in existence before October 7,1997, shall not be allowed less than 85% of
the maximum permited GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the "flagpole" and "flag" portions of the lot.
(3) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement.
Page 14 of 182
ATTACHMENT B
Page 15 of 182
Page 16 of 182
Page 17 of 182
Page 18 of 182
Page 19 of 182
Page 20 of 182
Page 21 of 182
Page 22 of 182
Page 23 of 182
Page 24 of 182
Page 25 of 182
Page 26 of 182
Page 27 of 182
Page 28 of 182
Page 29 of 182
Page 30 of 182
Page 31 of 182
Page 32 of 182
Page 33 of 182
Page 34 of 182
Page 35 of 182
Page 36 of 182
Page 37 of 182
July 30, 2025
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Village of Winnetka—Community Development Department
Building & Zoning Division
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-14-V2 – 175 DeWindt Road (Request for Front-Yard-Setback &
Gross-Floor-Area Variations)
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
I serve as President of the DeWindt Road Association (“DRA”), the homeowners’ organization
responsible for safeguarding the character, safety, and shared infrastructure of our private
street. A number of residents have asked me to convey their concerns regarding the
above-referenced variance petition. Although this letter does not purport to speak for every
member of the DRA, it reflects the position of a significant group of homeowners who will be
most directly affected by the requested relief.
1. Front-Yard-Setback Variation (Request #1)
• Lack of quantifiable detail. The application does not state the precise setback proposed
(only that it will be “less than” the 50-ft minimum). Without an exact dimension,
neighbors cannot meaningfully evaluate visual impact, emergency-vehicle access, or
potential precedent for future encroachments.
• Cumulative precedent. DeWindt Road lots are unusually deep, and the 50-ft setback has
preserved the street’s spacious, park-like setting for decades. Granting an open-ended
reduction will invite similar requests from other properties, incrementally eroding
neighborhood character.
2. Gross-Floor-Area (GFA) Variation (Request #2)
• Incomplete calculations. Neither the application nor its exhibits reconcile the proposed
GFA with the Village’s R-1 zoning formula. Without a clear table of existing vs. proposed
floor area, it is impossible to verify hardship.
• Storm-water implications. This is a major concern. Increased bulk typically triggers
larger roof area and impervious surface, exacerbating runoff onto DeWindt Road, which
Page 38 of 182
lacks public storm-sewer infrastructure. Neighbors already experience ponding during
heavy rain; added mass will worsen this condition unless fully mitigated.
3. Catch-All “Any Other Relief Deemed Necessary” (Request #3)
A blanket request for unspecified relief circumvents the transparency the ZBA and neighbors
require. It would be helpful to have each variance should listed with: (a) the precise numerical
deviation, (b) the ordinance section, and (c) the hardship claimed. Without this, it’s very difficult
for us to comment.
4. Construction-Management Concerns
DeWindt Road is a narrow, private lane with limited to no public turn-around. For safety and
emergency access:
1. On-site parking only. All contractor vehicles must be confined to the 175 DeWindt
driveway or a remote staging lot; no curbside parking or idling.
2. Hours of work. Heavy deliveries limited to 9 a.m.–3 p.m. on weekdays to avoid
school-bus and commuter traffic.
While these items are construction-phase issues rather than zoning standards, they illustrate
the practical difficulties posed by a project of this scale on a constrained site.
5. Requested Action
For the reasons above, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Zoning Board deny the
variance petition unless and until the applicant produces:
1. A fully dimensioned site plan showing the exact front-yard setback requested.
2. A certified GFA worksheet demonstrating the minimum relief necessary.
3. A revised application listing every ordinance section from which relief is sought, with
quantified deviations and hardship statements.
4. A construction-management plan, reviewed by Village staff, guaranteeing safe access
and protection of DeWindt Road infrastructure.
Page 39 of 182
Emily and John Thomas are valued neighbors, and we remain committed to working
collaboratively toward a solution that meets their family’s needs and upholds the standards that
have long protected property values and quality of life on DeWindt Road.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Burke
President, DeWindt Road Association
[contact information]
Page 40 of 182
DAVID & COURTNEY NELSON
130 Evergreen Lane
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
Community Development
Village of Winnetka, IL
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
RE: Contesting Case No. 25-14-V2, 175 Dewindt Road – Residential Addition
Dear Board:
My wife and I occupy the residence at 130 Evergreen Lane. The above referenced residential
address shares the Southern property line with our residence. The Residential Addition, as proposed,
violates a 50’ setback and introduces privacy concerns. Additionally, the current proposal shows windows
on the South facing, second-level façade exacerbating such privacy concerns. This Proposed Addition
would not be allowed under current zoning and as such, we respectively request either: (1) all three of
the proposed variances be denied; or (ii) provide for privacy restrictions on title that would forever restrict
views into or out of the South-Facing, second-level façade of the Proposed Addition.
To provide the Board with visuals, attached is a satellite image of the existing conditions today
(attached as Image 1). The current landscaping shown for 130 Evergreen Lane took 3 years to accomplish
and provided for the mutual privacy for both residences at great consideration and cost. We worked with
the Village of Winnetka Department of Planning and Engineering, the state of Illinois Department of
Engineering, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Chicago District, and the Winnetka Forestry
Departments. The second attached image (Image 2), shows the current plantings and that the large 20-
foot trees were strategically placed to provide privacy to both residences. Such plantings required
sufficient lot line set-back to accommodate such large trees in these exact locations. However, in order
to comply with stringent 200-year flood water retention requirements, the landscaping set-backs had to
be reduced allowing for only smaller evergreens along the entire lot line. As such, we cannot
accommodate larger trees sufficient to block the proposed windows shown on the Residential Addition.
It also does not appear that 175 Dewindt has sufficient lot line relief due to the existing garage to provide
for similar natural plantings to mitigate the loss of privacy should the required 50-foot set-back be waived.
As an overall argument against the proposed Application, we simply ask what is the required
“Hardship” identified in order to provide such variance? We have attached a Google AI report that the
Board members are far better to assess than we are. (See attached, Image 3). In assessing the Hardship,
we merely want to provide the Board with the following facts: The existing home was advertised by
publicly available listing agents and advertised to be in excess of 6,300 square feet. The existing “garage”
as labelled on plans, is actually a finished room and all parking is in the driveway with no access to a
“garage” in its typical use. After a number of years on the market, the home was purchased between
October 28-November 3, 2021 in its existing condition. As such, the Applicant had sufficient time to do
its due-diligence and was aware of all existing conditions and current “legal, non-conforming” zoning
conditions. It is our understanding that no changes have been made to underlying zoning that would
create any new information from what the Applicant knew at the time of purchase. These facts and other
Page 41 of 182
implied reasons for the Applicants request for zoning variance seem to fall into convenience categories or
for financial gain. Without any further knowledge, it seems this cannot be granted based on simply facts.
We appreciate the Board’s time in hearing our perspective and are available for any further
questions and to host a tour if necessary. We will unfortunately not be able to attend the Public Hearing
on Monday, August 11th but hope our absence does not negatively impact our case and request to
respectively Deny the Applicant’s request.
Sincerely,
David B. Nelson
Attachments:
1) Image 1 – Satellite Image of Existing Conditions Along South Lot Line of 175 Dewindt and 130
Evergreen Lane
2) Image 2: Current Image of 20’ Tall Trees/Planting Providing for Mutual Privacy
3) Image 3: Source: Google AI Search
Page 42 of 182
Image 1 – Satellite Image of Existing Conditions Along South Lot Line of 175 Dewindt and 130
Evergreen Lane
Page 43 of 182
Image 2: Current Image of 20’ Tall Trees/Planting Providing for Mutual Privacy
Page 44 of 182
Image 3: Source: Google AI Search:
Winnetka zoning hardship requirements for obtaining a variation:
In Winnetka, Illinois, a property owner seeking a zoning variance based on hardship must demonstrate
that strict adherence to zoning regulations creates a "practical difficulty or particular hardship". This
burden of proof rests with the applicant.
Here are the key aspects to proving hardship for a zoning variation in Winnetka:
1. Defining "hardship"
• Unique to the property: The hardship must be a consequence of the specific characteristics of
the property, not related to the owner's personal circumstances or a general condition shared by
the neighborhood or community.
• Not self-created: The hardship cannot be a result of actions taken by the current or past property
owner.
• Beyond mere inconvenience: The hardship must be more than simply a preference for a
different standard or a general inconvenience.
• Impact on reasonable return: The property in question must be unable to yield a reasonable
return if used only under the conditions allowed by the zoning district's regulations.
2. Examples of what doesn't constitute hardship
Winnetka's regulations specifically state that the following situations do not qualify as a practical
difficulty or particular hardship:
• Improvements to the property's appearance or neighborhood
• Personal convenience or preference
• Making the property more readily saleable or increasing its selling price
• A family member's physical disability or handicap
• Changes in family size or age
• Lack of awareness of a zoning provision
• The existence of practical alternatives to the proposed request
Page 45 of 182
• Neighbor approval of the variance request
• Hardship created by past property development
• Increased costs associated with complying with the Zoning Ordinance
3. Necessary evidence for variation requests
When applying for a variation, the Zoning Board of Appeals will require evidence that the property
cannot yield a reasonable return under existing regulations, that the circumstances are unique, and that the
variation will not negatively impact the locality's character, adjacent properties, fire risk, taxable value,
traffic, or public welfare
Page 46 of 182
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2025
SUBJECT: 881 & 883 PRIVATE ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
AJV SUBDIVISION (CASE NO. 25-12-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On October 13, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an
application submitted by Jesse Van Dyke, as the owner of the property located at 881 Private Road and
CLB Children GRAT Trust II UAD 7/29/2008, as the owner of the property located at 883 Private Road
(collectively, the “Subject Property”). Jesse Van Dyke along with CLB Children GRAT Trust II UAD
7/29/2008 (collectively the “Applicant”), have filed an application seeking the following approvals as part
of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties:
1. Variations to permit:
a. Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide a front street line of 10.1 feet, whereas a
minimum of 20 feet is required, a variation of 9.9 feet (49.5%) [Section 17.30.020 Lot
Width and Street Frontage];
b. Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide a lot depth of 177.25 feet, whereas a
minimum of 200 feet is required, a variation of 22.75 feet (11.37%) [Section 17.30.010 Lot
Area, Shape and Dimensions]; and
c. The existing residence at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2) to observe a total side yard
setback of 42.45 feet, whereas a minimum of 43.34 feet is required, a variation of 0.89
feet 2.05%) [Section 17.30.060 Side Yard Setback].
This application is limited to the subdivision request, the associated relief, and the existing
improvements, no proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. The ZBA
is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the zoning variations. At its
September 24, 2025, meeting the Plan Commission (PC) considered the Final Plat of Subdivision, the
requested relief listed above, as well as a finding of “no material increased adverse impact” for the
existing nonconforming front-facing attached garage door width for the existing residence at 881 Private
Road. By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommended approval of the request. Details regarding the
PC’s consideration are provided later in this report.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,
informing them of public hearing being held by the ZBA. The hearing was also properly noticed in the
Winnetka Talk on September 25, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written
comments from the public regarding this application.
Page 1
Page 47 of 182
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the north side of Private Road, between Sheridan and Old Green Bay
Roads and currently consists of two buildable lots. The property at 881 Private Road contains a two-story
single-family residence and 883 Private Road is a vacant lot. The area of each existing lot is as follows:
1. 883 Private Road: 26,406 square feet (0.61 acres)
2. 881 Private Road: 24,223 square feet (0.56 acres)
Both of the existing lots, as well as the proposed lots, are flag lots. A flag lot is an irregularly shaped lot
consisting of two sections: the primary mass of the lot (the “flag” portion), which is set back from the
street frontage access and is behind one or more other lots; and a narrow access corridor (the “flagpole”
portion). For zoning purposes, the area of the “flagpole” portion of each lot, as well as the area of the
private road easement, are excluded from the lot area. The lot areas noted above, as well as when lot
area is referenced throughout this report, are the net lot areas reflecting the exclusions of the “flagpole”
and private roadway easement.
Additionally, both of the existing lots are legally nonconforming. The 881 Private Road parcel has a lot
depth of 177.25 feet, while the minimum required lot depth in the R-2 District is 200 feet. The 883
Private Road parcel has a front street line of 10.1 feet, while the minimum required front street line for
interior lots is 20 feet. The existing parcels and improvements are identified below in Figure 1.
883 Private Road
881 Private Road
Private Road
Sheridan Road
Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (Figure 2).
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential
development. The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district.
Page 2
Page 48 of 182
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVOIUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
881 Private Road. The original date of construction of 881 Private Road cannot be determined from
Village records; however, it is estimated that the residence was constructed in 1908. The following
subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1925 to construct a two-story garage addition;
2. 1938 to construct an addition and alter the interior and of the two-story residence;
3. 1941 to construct a one-story, one-car garage;
4. 1942 to construct one-story accessory building (studio);
5. 1969 to construct an attached garage; and
6. 1993 to construct an addition and remodel the residence.
Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. The owner of 881 Private Road
acquired the property in 2022. There are two previous zoning cases on file for 881 Private Road:
1. In 1970, Case No. 1049 was denied by the ZBA to allow completion of a garage roof that
encroached into the minimum required north side yard setback; and
2. In 1993, Case No. 1564 was approved by the ZBA to allow construction of an addition to the
attached garage within the minimum required north side yard setback.
883 Private Road. In January 2024, demolition and site restoration permits were issued to allow the
removal of a single-family residence on the 883 Private Road parcel, which was constructed in 1967. The
lot is currently vacant. The owner of 883 Private Road acquired the property in 2023.
Page 3
Page 49 of 182
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
As described in the written narrative provided by the Applicant and included in Attachment A, the
owners of each lot that make up the Subject Property have entered into a sales contract to convey a
triangular portion of the 883 Private Road parcel and consolidate it with the 881 Private Road parcel.
The owner of the 881 Private Road parcel is seeking the additional land to allow for improved access to
the existing attached garage. The triangular area to be subdivided is 1,387 square feet and is highlighted
below in Figure 3.
Triangular
Area to be
Subdivided
Figure 3 – Map View of Area to be Conveyed
The proposed subdivision would create new lots that would measure:
• 24,842 square feet (0.57 acres) - Proposed Lot 1 – 883 Private Road
• 25,610 square feet (0.59 acres) - Proposed Lot 2 – 881 Private Road
A neighborhood view of the proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 4 on the following page. An
excerpt of the proposed AJV Subdivision is provided in Figure 5.
Page 4
Page 50 of 182
Proposed Lot 1
(883 Private Road)
Proposed Lot 2
(881 Private Road)
Figure 4 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view)
Figure 5 – Excerpt of AJV Subdivision Plat
Page 5
Page 51 of 182
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 2 earlier in this report.
Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5
Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small estate” (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense”( (“relatively intense”
Hierarchy character) character) suburban character) suburban character) suburban character)
Minimum Lot
48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.
Area
Minimum Lot
150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Width
Minimum Front
50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.
Setback
Minimum Rear
50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Setback
Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS
All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum
quantitative measures including but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c)
minimum lot depth.
The proposed AJV Subdivision does not comply with minimum lot depth and minimum front street line
requirements as summarized in Table 2 on the following page. Specifically, Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private
Road) would have a front street line measuring 10.1 feet, whereas the minimum required front street line
is 20 feet, a variation of 9.9 feet (49.5%). Additionally, Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) would have a
lot depth of 177.25 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth for lots in the R-2 District is 200 feet, a
variation of 22.75 feet (11.37%). It is important to note that both of the existing lots are nonconforming
with respect to these same zoning standards. However, Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision
standards of the Subdivision Code requires all lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply
with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, the proposed subdivision requires approval of
variations (standards highlighted yellow in Table 2) for which both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board
of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council.
Page 6
Page 52 of 182
Table 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
R-2 Zoning Standards 883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Minimum Lot 24,842 sq. ft. 25,610 sq. ft. 26,406 sq. ft. 24,223 sq. ft.
Area (Interior lot) 24,000 sq. ft. COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
Minimum Lot 120.35 feet 144.48 feet 127.92 feet 136.66 feet
100 feet
Width (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
Minimum Lot 10.1 feet 10.1 feet
40 feet 40 FEET
Width (at front 20 feet VARIATION OF DOES NOT
COMPLIES COMPLIES
street line) 9.9 FT (49.5%) COMPLY
177.25 feet 177.25 feet
Minimum Lot 206.42 feet 206.42 feet
200 feet VARIATION OF DOES NOT
Depth COMPLIES COMPLIES
22.75 FT(11.37%) COMPLY
Minimum
90 feet
Rectangular Area
x COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES
within Lot
181.5 feet
Boundaries
Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE
The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the
buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and
the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result,
staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether
any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any
existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of
a proposed subdivision, relief must be granted by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Staff evaluation of the proposed AJV Subdivision is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 on the following pages,
indicating the extent to which the proposed resubdivided lots comply with (or fall short of) zoning
standards. The item highlighted (in yellow) in Table 3 indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity.
Description of minimum sum of setbacks of both side yards requirement – Side yard setback requirements
are calculated based on a lot’s width:
• Lots with an average lot width that is 100 feet or more: The minimum required sum of side yards
setback is 30% of the average lot width.
• Lots with an average lot width that is less than 100 feet: The minimum required sum of side yards
setback is 25% of the average lot width or 14 feet, whichever is greater.
Newly created zoning nonconformity (zoning variation required) – The proposed subdivision has the effect
of increasing the average lot width of 881 Private Road to 144.48 feet, resulting in an increase in the
required minimum sum of side yard setback to 43.34 feet. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders
the existing 881 Private Road residence (which has a total side yard setback 42.45 feet), nonconforming
with the new minimum side yard requirement of 43.34 feet. The existing improvements providing a
total side yard setback of 42.45 feet, are deficient with the new requirement by 0.89 feet or 2.05%.
Page 7
Page 53 of 182
Table 3 – Zoning Setback
Requirements Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Minimum Required Front Yard
50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
(West)
Front yard provided by
N/A 58.31 feet N/A 58.31 feet
existing structures
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
Side yard provided by
N/A 12.3 feet N/A 12.3 feet
existing structures
Minimum Required Total Side
36.1 feet 43.34 feet 38.38 feet 41 feet
Yard
42.45 feet
Total Side Yard provided
N/A VARIATION OF N/A 42.45 feet
by existing structures
0.89 FT (2.05%)
Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 12 feet
Rear yard provided by
N/A 63.5 feet N/A 63.5 feet
existing structures
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements
Table 4 – Zoning Building Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot
Size Requirements 883 Private 881 Private 883 Private 881 Private
Maximum Allowed
Gross Floor Area 7,528.66 ft. 7,705.3 sq. ft. 7,888.35 sq. ft. 7,386.29 sq. ft.
(GFA)
GFA provided by
existing N/A 6,770.57 sq. ft. N/A 6,770.57 sq. ft.
structures
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE
Maximum Allowed
Roofed Lot
Coverage (RLC) (25% 6,210.5 sq. ft. 6,402.5 sq. ft. 6,601.47 sq. ft. 6,055.75 sq. ft.
of lot area)
RLC provided by
existing N/A 4,599.63 sq. ft. N/A 4,599.63 sq. ft.
structures
Maximum Allowed
Impermeable Lot 12,421 sq. ft. 12,805 sq. ft. 13,202.94 sq. ft. 12,111.5 sq. ft.
Coverage (ILC) (50% of
lot area)
ILC provided by
existing N/A 9,215.63 sq. ft. N/A 9,215.63 sq. ft.
structures
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements
Page 8
Page 54 of 182
STORMWATER
The proposed subdivision consists of relocating the lot line dividing two properties. Any future
improvements on either lot will be evaluated by Village Engineering staff for compliance with Village
stormwater regulations upon submittal of permits necessary for site improvements.
For reference, Figure 6 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the 100-year flood plain. The
cyan represents the 100-year flood area.
Subject
Property
Figure 6 – GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING CONSIDERATION
The Applicant is requesting approval of three variations from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the
subdivision of the Subject Property, which would relocate the lot line dividing 881 Private Road and 883
Private Road.
Front Street Line of Interior Lots. The existing 883 Private Road parcel is legally nonconforming with
respect to the minimum front street line as it currently has a front street line of 10.1 feet, whereas a
minimum of 20 feet is required. This lot dimension would remain the same with the proposed subdivision;
therefore, Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) would have a front street line of 10.1 feet, requiring a
variation of 9.9 feet (49.5%).
Lot Depth. The existing 881 Private Road parcel is legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum
required lot depth as it currently has a lot depth of 177.25 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth
is 200 feet. The lot depth would remain the same with the proposed subdivision. Therefore, Proposed
Lot 2 (881 Private Road) would have a lot depth of 177.25 feet, requiring a variation of 22.75 feet (11.37%).
Total Side Yard Setback. As explained earlier in this report, the proposed subdivision increases the average
lot width of 881 Private Road to 144.48 feet, and in turn increases the minimum required sum of side yard
setback to 43.34 feet, which the existing residence does not comply with. Zoning relief is being requested
to permit the existing residence to provide a total side yard setback of 42.45 feet, a variation of 0.89 feet
(2.05%).
Page 9
Page 55 of 182
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Plan Commission (PC). On September 24, 2025, the PC held a public hearing on this request. After hearing
from staff and the Applicant, and receiving no written or verbal public comments, the Commission
discussed the request. The owner of 881 Private Road explained that his intent is to add approximately 8
feet of asphalt to the existing driveway to provide vehicular access to the existing garage. Members of
the Commission noted that the proposed subdivision does not impact neighbors and does not violate
goals of the Comprehensive Plan. By a vote of 7-0, the PC recommended approval of the request.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a
variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative
addressing how this proposal meets these standards.
After hearing from the Applicant, and the public, the ZBA may decide to act on one of 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 ZBA; or
2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member may
wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variations to allow:
A. Proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide a front street line of 10.1 feet, whereas a
minimum of 20 feet is required, a variation of 9.9 feet (49.5%) [Section 17.30.020 Lot
Width and Street Frontage];
B. Proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide a lot depth of 177.25 feet, whereas a
minimum of 200 feet is required, a variation of 22.75 feet (11.37%) [Section 17.30.010 Lot
Area, Shape and Dimensions]; and
C. The existing residence at 881 Private Road (Proposed Lot 2) to observe a total side yard
setback of 42.45 feet, whereas a minimum of 43.34 feet is required, a variation of 0.89
feet 2.05%) [Section 17.30.060 Side Yard Setback].
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variations requested are in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be
associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related
to the occupants.
Page 10
Page 56 of 182
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (AJV Subdivision)
Page 11
Page 57 of 182
ATTACHMENT A
25-12-SD
Page 58 of 182
25-12-SD
Page 59 of 182
Page 60 of 182
Page 61 of 182
Page 62 of 182
Page 63 of 182
Page 64 of 182
Page 65 of 182
0EcE,vEn
n JUN 1 2 2025 u Village of Winnetka
SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATION APPLICATION
BY: \LL.LLAGE OF WINNETKA, ILLINOIS
DEPARTME NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATION APPLICATION
CaseN�-IJ-.b
Property Information
Site Address: 881 Private Road purchase of portion of 883 Private Road
Parcel Identification Number(s) (PIN): 881 Private: 05172000590000, 883 Private Road: 05172000580000
Property Owner Information Surveyor Information
Name:
Jesse Van Dyke Company Name:
8.H. Suhr & Company, Inc.
Primary Contact: Jes
se Van Dyke P rimary Contact: Tanja Zee
A�dress: 881 Private Road Address: 45
0 Skokie Blvd.
e
City, state, Zip: _Winn tka, IL. 60
093 city, state, Zip: Northbrook, IL. 60062
Phone No. 847-864-6
315
Ema Email: tanja@bhsuhr.com
Date owner acquired p roperty: O?l 15l2022
Architect Information Attorney Information
Name:
N/A N/A
Name: ------ ·------
Primary Contact: ____________ Primary Contact :._________
Address: ______________ Address: ____________
City, State, ZIP :____________ City, State, Zip: ________
Phone No. _____________ Phone No. ___________
Email: _______________ Email:
P roperty Owner Signature: Date:__J_ u_n _e_1_2_,_20_ 2_5______
Page 4 of4
Page 66 of 182
Page 67 of 182
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
August 14, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Layla Danley
Chair, Plan Commission
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Application for Subdivision at 881-883 Private Road.
Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Jesse Van Dyke and Victoria Malkin (the “Van Dykes”) the
owners of 881 Private Road regarding their joint application with The CLB Children Grant Trust
II under agreement dated July 29, 2008, the owners of 883 Private Road (the “Trust”)
(collectively the “Applicants”) to subdivide a small parcel of the lot at 883 Private Road (the
“Triangle”) and consolidate it with the lot at 883 Private Road. The Applicants have entered into
sales contract contingent on the approval of the subdivision. The Trust has authorized the Van
Dykes to proceed with the application for the subdivision and any variations that may be needed.
As set forth more fully below, the Van Dykes seeks to acquire the Triangle and attach it to their
lot to preserve the existing home, to gain access to the garage and to square the corner of their
lot. For the reasons set forth below, the Applicants respectfully request that the Plan Commission
of Village of Winnetka recommend the granting of the requested subdivision.
I. 881 and 883 Private Road.
Both 883 and 881 Private Road are located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District.
Both properties are located on legal, non-conforming flag lots. Both properties are surrounded by
Page 68 of 182
August 14, 2025
Page 2
single-family homes. Presently, the lot at 883 Private Road has a lot area of 29,315 sq. ft. and the
lot at 881 Private Road has a lot area of 27,653. The Triangle to be subdivided and conveyed
from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road has a lot area of 1,387 sq. ft. (Photos of the Triangle
are attached as Exhibits A and B).
II. A brief history of 881 and 883 Private Road.
Constructed in 1908, the residence currently known as 881 Private Road, formerly
designated as 960 Sheridan Road, is believed to have been the first dwelling constructed west of
Sheridan Road within the Hubbard Woods Estate subdivision. The property originally comprised
a substantially larger tract spanning multiple acres. Over the course of several decades,
successive owners subdivided and conveyed portions of the original parcel through a series of
recorded transactions. In or around 1965, a then-owner of 881 Private Road completed the final
subdivision of the remaining land, resulting in the creation of a separate legal parcel now known
as 883 Private Road. Both the 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road lots were platted as “flag”
lots.
At the time of this subdivision, the parcel designated as 883 Private Road included the
location of the coach house formerly associated with 881 Private Road. The coach house was
subsequently demolished, and a new single-family residence was constructed on the 883 Private
Road lot, with completion occurring approximately in 1967. The driveway width of 10.1’ was
presumably created at or before that time. In 2024, the Trust demolished that residence.
In 1994, the owners of 881 Private Road undertook significant improvements to the
property, including the demolition of a detached single-car garage and the construction of an
attached two-car garage. Due to the configuration of the lot line established by the 1965
subdivision, particularly along the northwest corner of the 881 parcel, vehicular access to the
northernmost garage bay is severely constrained. The northernmost parking bay’s limited
usability is due to the impracticality of vehicular ingress and egress, which requires a series of
difficult turning maneuvers. As of the date of this statement, the northernmost bay remains
unused for parking purposes because of these access limitations.
A reconfiguration of the lot lines to regularize and square off the respective parcels at 881
Private Road and 883 Private Road would materially reduce the irregularity of the existing lot
shapes and resolve the long-standing vehicular access issue affecting the northernmost garage
bay at 881 Private Road.
The proposed subdivision resulting in the Triangle meets all the minimum Village of
Winnetka zoning criteria for both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road except for two criteria.
For 881 Private Road, if the subdivision is granted, the 883 Private Road lot will have a lot depth
measuring 177.25 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet. As for 883 Private
Road, if the subdivision is granted, the lot will have a front street line measuring 10.1 feet,
whereas the minimum required front street line is 20 feet. It is important to note that the current
front street line is and has been 10.1 feet for many years. A front street line of this dimension is
very common on Private Road. The following lots all have front street lines of a similar size: 887
Private Road, 10’, 901 Private Road, 10’, 903 Private Road, 11.07’, 949 Private Road, 10’, 953
Page 69 of 182
August 14, 2025
Page 3
Private Road, 10’. The subdivision will not change this legal nonconformity. For 881 Private
Road, the proposed subdivision results in increased lot area and average lot width causing the
existing improvements to not comply with the total side yard setback requirement for the new lot
and thus relief is being sought from the Zoning Board.
Therefore, the Applicants are asking by a separate application that the Zoning Board
grant them the variations to allow the proposed subdivided lot to be under the required lot depth,
the total side yard setback requirement and the minimum required front street line.
III. Standards of Review.
Pursuant to the Village of Winnetka Code and Zoning Ordinance, any application to
subdivide a parcel must meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code related to Subdivisions
and §17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the yard regulations for the
R-2 Residential zoning district.
Chapter 16.12.10 D requires subdivided lots to adhere to the following standards:
1. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.
2. All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to
curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement
would enhance public safety or convenience.
3. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot area requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. All lot area calculations shall exclude all easements for ingress and
egress, all public or private streets, all public or private alleys, and the access corridor, or
“flagpole,” of any flag lot.
4. Where a lot is already improved with buildings or structures, the plan shall show whether
the dimensions and locations of such improvements comply with the use, intensity of use of lot
(including impermeable surface requirements), setback, side yard, rear yard and other bulk
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. If a prior legal nonconformity, or a
previously granted variation, with respect to any such requirements exists, the Plan Commission
shall determine whether such nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of
the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public
health, safety or welfare. If such a determination is made, the Plan Commission may deny the
plan for land subdivision. No plan for land subdivision which itself creates a departure from
such requirements shall be approved by the Plan Commission until such time as a variation for
such departure is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Council, as the case
may be, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
5. At intersections with major streets, acute angle intersections and other places where, in
the opinion of the Plan Commission, safety or convenience of traffic movement would be
enhanced, corners shall be cut back by joining the intersecting street lines through circular arcs
having adequate radii.
6. No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or
more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.
Page 70 of 182
August 14, 2025
Page 4
7. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot depth requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the access corridor, or “flagpole,” shall
be excluded when measuring the lot depth of a flag lot.
8. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot width requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all new flag lots shall meet the minimum
lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, both as measured by excluding the access
corridor, or “flagpole,” and as measured by including the access corridor or “flagpole.”
9. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet all yard and setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any flag lot that has a
front street line that is less than fifty (50) feet long and that is at least seventy-five (75) feet wide
at its widest point, all yards and setbacks shall be measured based both on using the actual front
street line as the front lot line, and on using as the front lot line the lot line from which the
Director determines the front setback shall be measured for development purposes.
The Applicants request for a subdivision complies with or seeks to comply through
variances as permitted under the Code with these requirements in the following ways:
1. Both the lots at 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road are legal nonconforming flag lots.
They comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance except in two respects. To the extent
that 883 Private Road has a minimum front street line less than required and to the extent that
881 Private Road has a lot depth less than required, the Applicants will seek a variation from the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Both the lots at 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road meet and will continue to meet
this standard after the subdivision of the Triangle from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road.
3. Both the lot at 881 Private Road and the lot at 883 Private Road exceed the minimum lot
area requirement.
4. Both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road are legal nonconforming flag lots. The
subdivisions of the Triangle and the conveyance from 883 Private Road to 881 Private Road will
not change the legal nonconforming status of either lot or increase the nonconformity of either
lot.
5. This standard is inapplicable for both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road.
6. This standard is met by both 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road.
7. The “new” 883 Private Road lot meets this standard. The “new” 881 Private Road does
not meet this standard and thus, the Van Dykes are seeking a variation from this standard.
8. The “new” 883 Private Road lot meets this standard. The “new” 881 Private Road meets
this standard, but the existing improvements do not comply with the existing total side yard
setback requirement or the new total side yard setback requirement. The Van Dykes will seek a
variation from this requirement.
9. See Response to Standard #8
Page 71 of 182
Page 72 of 182
Page 73 of 182
Page 74 of 182
Page 75 of 182
Page 76 of 182
Page 77 of 182
ATTACHMENT B
AJV Subdivision FINAL PLAT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
PLAT of SUBDIVISION
09/12/2025
216.51'
S87° 30' 38"W
9'
0
24.9
6° ZONED R-2
S2
"W
7'
' 33
90.7
7'
° 06
50
"E
N19
LOT 1
13'
155.
S1
4"E 8' 8"W
4' 3 8 . 5
17 1' 3
9° 0 S70
° 5
° 06
15'
134. ' 33"W
N19
57
"E
'
LOT 2
'
46
N6
3°
9. 0 5'
1
13 "E
58'
N70
5
°
.0 0'
10
262
S2
"E
0"E 50
.71'
237 ' 5 7'
07 ° 0
6° S26
.58'
58"W
6'
SH
2
6 '
7 .4 ER
1
ID
° 2
AN
N18
RD
.
' 1 3"E
° 46
N71
0 . 0 0
'
T E R OAD 10.1 13"E 0' 4
PRIV A 6'
1° 4 N7
AREAS TABLE LOT 1
450 SKOKIE BLVD. SUITE 105, NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS, 60062
TEL. (847) 864-6315 / FAX (847) 864-9341
E-MAIL: SURVEYOR@BHSUHR.COM
EXISTING P.I.N.'S Lot 2
Page 78 of 182
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2025
SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (CASE NO. 25-16-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On October 13, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) 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 an application 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 a lot area of 23,171.89 square feet, whereas a minimum of 24,000 square feet is
required, a variation of 828.11 square feet (3.45%) [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape
and Dimensions]; and
b. Provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet
[Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions].
As part of the Final Subdivision Plat approval, the Applicant is also requesting approval of the following:
• 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);
• 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
c. Exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors.
This application is limited to the subdivision request, the associated relief, and the existing
improvements, no proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. The ZBA
is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the zoning variations
described above. The Plan Commission (PC) considered the Final Plat of Subdivision and all the relief
outlined above at its September 24, 2025, meeting. By a vote of 6-1, the PC recommended approval of
the request. Details regarding the PC’s consideration are provided later in this report.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,
informing them of the public hearing being held by the ZBA. The hearing was also properly noticed in the
Page 1
Page 79 of 182
Winnetka Talk on September 25, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has received three written
comments from the public regarding this application. The comments are included in this report as
Attachment D.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset Road and Higginson
Lane and currently consists of one buildable lot; it 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 Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (Figure 2).
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential
development 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 2 – Zoning Map
Page 2
Page 80 of 182
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:
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 ZBA 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 3 on the following page. An
excerpt of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision is provided in Figure 4.
Page 3
Page 81 of 182
Proposed Lot 1
(936 Sunset Road)
Proposed Lot 2
Figure 3 – Proposed Subdivision (Neighborhood Map View)
Figure 4 – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat
Page 4
Page 82 of 182
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 2 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 5
Page 83 of 182
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 5 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 5 – 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 6
Page 84 of 182
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
page, 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 7
Page 85 of 182
Existing Lot
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
936 Sunset
Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot
Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Front yard provided by 49.91 feet
49.91 feet NA EXISTING
existing structures
NONCONFORMITY
Minimum Required Corner Yard 50 feet N/A 50 feet
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
49.52 feet
Corner yard provided by 49.52 feet (5.52 feet playhouse)
N/A
existing structures (5.52 feet playhouse) EXISTING
NONCONFORMITY
Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
Side yard provided by
14.35 feet N/A 14.35 feet
existing structures
Minimum Required Total Side
N/A 31.6 feet N/A
Yard
Total Side Yard provided
N/A N/A N/A
by existing structures
Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rear yard provided by
81.23 feet N/A +160 feet
existing structures
Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot
Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset
Maximum Allowed Gross Floor
9,404.7 sq. ft. 7,144.53 sq. ft. 14,734.33 sq. ft.
Area (GFA)
GFA provided by existing
5,751.63 sq. ft. N/A 5,751.63 sq. ft.
structures
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE
Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot
Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 8,249.67 sq. ft. 5,792.97 sq. ft. 14,042.75 sq. ft.
RLC provided by existing
4,162.76 sq. ft. N/A 4,162.76 sq. ft.
structures
Maximum Allowed
Impermeable Lot Coverage 16,499.34 sq. ft. 11,585.94 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft.
(ILC) (50% of lot area)
ILC provided by existing
10,667.11 sq. ft. N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft.
structures
Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements
Page 8
Page 86 of 182
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 6 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 6 – 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 9
Page 87 of 182
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 7). 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 7 – Engineering Exhibit Provided by Applicant for Proposed Lot 2 (South Lot)
Page 10
Page 88 of 182
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.
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The Applicant is requesting approval of two variations from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the two-lot
subdivision of the Subject Property.
Lot Area. The proposed southerly lot (Lot 2 fronting on Higginson Lane), would have a lot area measuring
23,171.89 square feet, whereas a minimum of 24,000 square feet is required for an interior lot in the R-2
Single Family Residential Zoning District, a variation of 828.11 square feet (3.45%).
Rectangular Area. Given the irregular shape of the lot, Proposed Lot 2 would also provide less than the
minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet for a lot in the R-2 Single Family
Residential Zoning District. Thus, zoning relief is being requested to allow the proposed lot.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Plan Commission (PC). On September 24, 2025, the PC held a public hearing on this request. After hearing
from staff and the Applicant, and receiving letters from five neighbors in opposition to the request, the
Commission discussed the application. 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
Page 11
Page 89 of 182
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.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a
variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative
addressing how this proposal meets these standards.
After hearing from the Applicant, and the public, the ZBA may decide to act on one of 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 ZBA; or
2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member may
wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to:
A. Provide a lot area of 23,171.89 square feet, whereas a minimum of 24,000 square feet is
required, a variation of 828.11 square feet (3.45%) [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape
and Dimensions]; and
B. Provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet
[Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions].
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variations requested are in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be
associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related
to the occupants.
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
Page 12
Page 90 of 182
8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (Marren’s Resubdivision)
Attachment C: January 13, 2014, ZBA Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Attachment D: Public Correspondence
Page 13
Page 91 of 182
ATTACHMENT A
Page 92 of 182
Page 93 of 182
Page 94 of 182
Page 95 of 182
Page 96 of 182
Page 97 of 182
Page 98 of 182
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 99 of 182
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 100 of 182
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 101 of 182
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 102 of 182
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 103 of 182
Page 104 of 182
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 105 of 182
Page 106 of 182
Page 107 of 182
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 108 of 182
Page 109 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Front View
Rear View
Page ii
Page 110 of 182
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 111 of 182
Page 112 of 182
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 113 of 182
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 114 of 182
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 115 of 182
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 116 of 182
Page 117 of 182
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 118 of 182
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 119 of 182
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 120 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Living Room
Dining Room
Page 11
Page 121 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Kitchen
Family Room
Page 12
Page 122 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Den
Primary Bedroom
Page 13
Page 123 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Primary Bathroom
Second Floor Hall Bedroom
Page 14
Page 124 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Private Bathroom
Basement Recreation Room
Page 15
Page 125 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Basement Mechanical Room
Two-Car Garage
Page 16
Page 126 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Tennis Court
Rear Yard
Page 17
Page 127 of 182
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 128 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP WHOLE ANALYSIS
Page 19
Page 129 of 182
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 130 of 182
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 131 of 182
File R21-1101
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP FRONT PORTION ANALYSIS
Page 22
Page 132 of 182
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 133 of 182
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 134 of 182
File R25-003
936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
LOCATION MAP REAR LOT ANALYSIS
Page 25
Page 135 of 182
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 136 of 182
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 137 of 182
ADDENDUM
Comparable Sales
Page 138 of 182
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 139 of 182
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 140 of 182
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 141 of 182
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 142 of 182
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 143 of 182
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 144 of 182
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 145 of 182
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 146 of 182
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 147 of 182
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 148 of 182
ADDENDUM
State Certification/Qualifications
Page 149 of 182
ADDENDUM
Page 150 of 182
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 151 of 182
ATTACHMENT B
Page 152 of 182
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 153 of 182
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 154 of 182
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 155 of 182
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 156 of 182
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 157 of 182
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 158 of 182
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 159 of 182
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 160 of 182
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 161 of 182
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 162 of 182
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 163 of 182
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 164 of 182
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 165 of 182
ATTACHMENT D
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 166 of 182
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 167 of 182
Page 168 of 182
Page 169 of 182
Page 170 of 182
Page 171 of 182
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 172 of 182
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 173 of 182
• 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 174 of 182
Page 175 of 182
Page 176 of 182
Page 177 of 182
Page 178 of 182
Page 179 of 182
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 180 of 182
Page 181 of 182
Page 182 of 182