Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting December 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM Police Department Classroom 410 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. November 10, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Community Development Report 4. Continued Cases a. 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 request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 5. New Business a. January 12, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 1 of 124  1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 10, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 9 Zoning Board Members Absent: Mike Nielsen 10 Michael Ritter 11 Todd Vender 12 13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 17 18 Call to Order & Roll Call: 19 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members 20 present. 21 22 Public Comment: 23 No comments were made at this time. 24 25 Approval of Meeting Minutes. 26 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the October 13, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to 27 approve the October 13, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Ms. Leister. A 28 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 29 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister 30 NAYS: None 31 32 Community Development Report. 33 Ms. Klaassen confirmed there is no Community Development Report. 34 35 New Cases: 36 a. Case No. 25-22-V2: 20 Fox Lane: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation to allow 37 construction of an addition to the existing detached garage at 20 Fox Lane. The requested variation 38 would permit the proposed improvement to provide less than the minimum required side yard setback 39 from the east property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 40 Mr. Marx summarized the side yard setback variation request and identified the property’s location, 41 improvements and zoning classification. He referred to photos of the home and identified the detached 42 garage as well as the existing storage shed. Mr. Marx stated the proposal included removing the shed and 43 building a one story addition in its place on the south side of the garage. He stated the highlighted area 44 represented the area of the proposed addition which would cause the addition to have a setback of 5.96 45 feet at the closest point to the east property line representing a variation of 6.04 feet or 50.33%. Mr. Marx 46 stated the garage currently encroached into the side yard setback. 47 Page 2 of 124  November 10, 2025 Page 2 1 Mr. Marx summarized the proposed addition’s measurements which would be built over the existing 2 shed’s footprint and would be aesthetically contiguous with the existing garage’s design. He also identified 3 the proposed front building elevation and noted the request was reviewed by the Historic Preservation 4 Commission (HPC), since the property is a locally designated landmark. Mr. Marx stated the HPC found 5 the proposed alterations were appropriate to the property’s preservation. He then summarized the 6 Board’s purview in reviewing the application and stated following the applicant’s presentation, public 7 comment and Board discussion, the Board may either continue the matter to a date certain to allow the 8 applicant and Village staff time to address any additional questions or consider a motion recommending 9 approval or denial of the variation with draft language included on page nos. 7 and 8. He asked if there 10 were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 11 12 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Jeff Letzter of Aspect Design, Inc. stated he 13 represented the applicants, Brendan and Colleen Carroll, who are also present. He stated the variation 14 being more than 50% is due to the property line not being parallel with the building’s construction. 15 16 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. He then asked if there is a reason the design had to 17 be flush with the garage in order to maintain the existing nonconformity by less than one foot which 18 would obviate the need to increase the existing nonconformity. Mr. Letzter responded they are 19 attempting to keep the addition in line with the existing building and not create a 6-8 inch jog which would 20 also affect the roofline. He stated the proposal would be more aesthetically pleasing and referred to the 21 HPC’s appreciation that the proposed addition would keep in line with the existing building. Mr. Letzter 22 added since it is a painted brick building, they were able to keep it flush and allow it to appear as if it had 23 always been there. 24 25 Chairman Bradley noted there are no audience members to comment and called the matter in for 26 discussion. Ms. Hanley stated her initial consideration was to vote against the request but the alternatives 27 of shrinking the addition, etc. did not make sense. She then stated she is struggling to see where the 28 request met the hardship standard. Ms. Leister stated the standards are met with reasonable return being 29 the only questionable standard and commented it did not make sense for a home of this type to have a 30 shed. She concluded by stating due to the size of the ask, she is fine with the request. Mr. Haller agreed 31 with the comments made and referred to the de minimus amount of the request and the HPC’s comments. 32 He also stated the home next door is located 65 feet away and there would not be a hardship in that 33 regard. Mr. Haller stated the difficulty related to the home not being squarely sited on the lot and he 34 would vote in favor of the request. Chairman Bradley stated he would be in support of the request as well 35 noting some of the anomaly derived from the awkward lot shape and the penalty being placed on the 36 garage in terms of where it was originally situated. He stated the modest addition would improve the site 37 and result in an adequate amount of storage which is not an automatic guarantee. Chairman Bradley also 38 referred to the issue of possible precedent setting but the request is due to the variation being 50% for 39 an actual de minimus amount. Ms. Hanley concluded she would be in favor of the request. 40 41 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to recommend approval as included on page 7. A motion to 42 recommend approval of the variation was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A vote was 43 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 44 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister 45 NAYS: None 46 47 New Business: 48 a. December 8, 2025, Meeting - Quorum Check Page 3 of 124  November 10, 2025 Page 3 1 The Board Members discussed their availability. 2 3 Adjournment: 4 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and 5 seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 6 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister 7 NAYS: None 8 The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. 9 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 12 Antionette Johnson 13 Recording Secretary 14 Page 4 of 124  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2025 SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (CONTINUED CASE NO. 25-16-SD) INTRODUCTION On December 8, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a continued 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. The initial public hearing on October 13, 2025, was properly noticed on September 25, 2025, in the Winnetka Talk and a mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property informing them of the initial public hearing being held by the ZBA, in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As of the date of this memo, staff has received three written comments from the public regarding this application; these comments were all included in the October 13 ZBA agenda packet (Attachment B1). Staff has not received any additional written comments from the public regarding this application since the October ZBA meeting. Page 1 Page 5 of 124 OCTOBER 13, 2025, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING On October 13, 2025, the ZBA held a public hearing on the Applicant’s request for approval of a Final Subdivision Plat to allow a two-lot subdivision of the Subject Property. The staff report and meeting minutes of the October 13 meeting can be found in Attachment B1. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, the ZBA heard from two members of the public who are neighbors of the Subject Property. The ZBA then discussed the request. A significant amount of the ZBA’s discussion was focused on the relief requested and how that would impact the ability to develop the lot in a reasonable manner that would be appropriate in the neighborhood. The six members in attendance were split on the application. The Applicant heard the concerns expressed by the members of the ZBA leaning towards recommending denial of the relief and requested that the item be continued to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to allow them time to explore amending the proposed plat of subdivision so that proposed Lot 2 would comply with the lot area and rectangular lot area requirements. At the Applicant’s request, the ZBA continued the item to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to provide the Applicant with time to respond to the ZBA’s comments. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COMMENTS In response to comments heard at the October 13 ZBA meeting, the Applicant has provided an exhibit with two subdivision options to illustrate the implications of relocating the lot line between the two proposed lots so that Proposed Lot 2 (south lot) complies with lot area and rectangular area requirements (Attachment A1). Both of the options represent proposed lots that comply with the minimum required rectangular area requirement; however, the options include a variety of additional zoning variations and Subdivision Code variations that are described later in this report. It is important to note the Applicant is not amending its application; it has provided the exhibit in response to comments and questions at the October ZBA meeting. Figure 1A – Subdivision Options Exhibit Page 2 Page 6 of 124 Before describing the relief necessary for the two subdivision options provided by the Applicant, the following is a brief summary of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision (Figure 1B). As explained in detail in the October staff report (Attachment B1), the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision considered by the ZBA at the October 13 meeting 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 the minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 1A on the following page. With respect to the required setbacks and building size requirements, the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision does not create any zoning nonconformities on Proposed Lot 1. However, a variation from the Subdivision Code is required to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) for which the Plan Commission made a recommendation of approval to the Village Council. Although Subdivision Code variations are not within the purview of the ZBA, this is noted for the ZBA’s information. Figure 1B – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat (October Meeting) Page 3 Page 7 of 124  Table 1A – Marren’s Resubdivision Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset 24,000 s.f. 23,171.89 s. f. 32,998.69 s.f. 56,171 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. VARIATION OF 828.11 SF COMPLIES COMPLIES corner lot) (3.45%) Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 105.33 feet 158.67 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 35.26 feet 165 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES 200 feet 220 feet 206.42 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 1A – R-2 Zoning Standards – Proposed Marren’s Resubdivision (October Meeting) Exhibit Option 1 - Option 1 (Figure 1C) pushes the lot line between the two proposed lots 27.36 feet north. As a result, Option 1 does not comply with one provision of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot dimensions. Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road), with a lot depth of 172.64 feet, does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of 200 feet. However, both lots comply with the minimum required lot area and rectangular area. Table 2A on the following page summarizes the extent to which Option 1 complies with the minimum zoning standards. The standard highlighted yellow requires zoning relief. No additional zoning variations related to building size and setbacks are created in Option 1. In fact, the required setbacks remain the same with the exception of the total side yard setback requirement for Proposed Lot 2, which is increased from 31.6 feet to 37.75 feet. The existing nonconformities that would remain in the Marren’s Resubdivision would also remain in this option. In addition to the zoning variation for lot depth, Option 1 requires one additional Subdivision Code variation that is not required with the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision. Section 16.12.010.D.2 states “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.” Option 1 also requires the Subdivision Code variation to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road). The Plan Commission would need to consider this additional relief; it is not within the purview of the ZBA. Page 4 Page 8 of 124  Side Lot Line is not Perpendicular to Street Line Rear Lot Line Abutting Side Lot Line Figure 1C – Option 1 Table 2A – Exhibit Option 1 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 24,000 s.f. 28,485 s.f. 27,686 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. COMPLIES COMPLIES corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 125.84 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 62.26 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES 172.64 feet 220 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet VARIATION OF 27.36 FT COMPLIES (13.68%) Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 2A – R-2 Zoning Standards – Exhibit Option 1 Page 5 Page 9 of 124 Exhibit Option 2 – Option 2 (Figure 1D) pushes the lot line between the two proposed lots 76.38 feet north. As a result, Option 2 does not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot area and dimensions. Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road), measuring 20,275 square feet and 165 feet in depth, does not comply with (a) the minimum lot area of 25,200 square feet for a corner lot, and (b) the minimum lot depth of 200 feet. One significant change with Option 2 is that Higginson Lane becomes the front lot line for the 936 Sunset Road parcel because it would be the shortest street line of the corner lot, whereas currently, and in the Marren’s Resubdivision as well as Option 1, the front lot line is along Sunset Road. As a result, the yard designations for Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) in Option 2 are as follows: • Front Yard – Higginson Lane • Corner Yard – Sunset Road • Rear Yard – West lot line • Side Yard – South lot line Given these changes in yard designations and lot size, the existing improvements on the 936 Sunset Road lot become nonconforming with respect to three provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to building size and setbacks: (a) the rear yard setback; (b) the side yard setback; and (c) impermeable lot coverage. Additionally, due to the decrease in lot depth, a portion of the existing walk and patio would have to be removed since the lot line dividing the two lots would be within these existing improvements (Figure 1E). Tables 3A through 5A on the following pages indicate the extent to which Option 2 complies with (or falls short of) zoning standards. The items highlighted (yellow) indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity. Rear Lot Line Abutting Side Lot Line Side Lot Line is not Perpendicular to Street Line Figure 1D – Option 2 Page 6 Page 10 of 124  Table 3A – Exhibit Option 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 24,000 s.f. 20,275 s.f. 35,896 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. VARIATION OF 4,925 SF COMPLIES corner lot) (19.54%) Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 122.88 feet 163.16 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 122.15 feet 113.11 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES 165 feet 220 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet VARIATION OF 35 FT COMPLIES (17.5%) Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 3A – R-2 Zoning Standards – Exhibit Option 2 Table 4A – Exhibit Option 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Zoning Setback Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 49.52 feet Front yard provided by 49.52 feet (5.52 feet playhouse) NA existing structures (5.52 feet playhouse) EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Corner Yard 37.15 feet N/A 50 feet 49.91 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Corner yard provided by 49.91 feet N/A EXISTING existing structures NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 4.41 feet Side yard provided by VARIATION OF N/A 14.35 feet existing structures 7.59 FT (63.25%) Minimum Required Total Side N/A 48.95 feet N/A Yard Total Side Yard provided N/A N/A N/A by existing structures Minimum Required Rear Yard 24.75 feet 25 feet 25 feet 14.35 feet Rear yard provided by VARIATION OF N/A +160 feet existing structures 10.4 FT (42.02%) Table 4A– Zoning Setback Requirements – Exhibit Option 2 Page 7 Page 11 of 124  Table 5A – Exhibit Option 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Zoning Building Size Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset Maximum Allowed Gross Floor 6,303.38 sq. ft. 10,071.88 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) 5,068.75 sq. ft. 8,974 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 10,137.5 sq. ft. 17,948 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft. (ILC) (50% of lot area) 10,667.11 sq. ft. ILC provided by existing VARIATION OF N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft. structures 529.61 SF (5.22%) Table 5A – Zoning Building Size Requirements – Exhibit Option 2 In addition to the five zoning variations required for Option 2, two Subdivision Code variations are also necessary. The same variation required for Option 1 from Section 16.12.010.D.2 regarding a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line is required as well as a variation from Section 16.12.010.D.6 to allow the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to abut the side lot line of the neighboring property to the west. The Plan Commission would also need to consider this additional relief; it is not within the purview of the ZBA. Page 8 Page 12 of 124  Red Line Represents Dividing Line between Lots in Option 2 Figure 1E – Existing 936 Sunset Road Lot - Plat of Topography REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF As noted earlier in this report, the Applicant is not amending its request; it is proceeding with the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision that was first considered by the ZBA on October 13. Therefore, 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%). Page 9 Page 13 of 124 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). As noted in the October ZBA staff report (Attachment B1), on September 24, 2025, by a vote of 6-1, the PC 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. Page 10 Page 14 of 124  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 A1: December 4, 2025, Exhibit Provided by Applicant Attachment B1: October 13, 2025, ZBA Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt Page 11 Page 15 of 124  ATTACHMENT A1 EXHIBIT SUNSET ROAD SUNSET ROAD HIGGINSON LN. HIGGINSON LN. OPTION 1 OPTION 2 450 SKOKIE BLVD. SUITE 105, NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS, 60062 TEL. (847) 864-6315 / FAX (847) 864-9341 E-MAIL: SURVEYOR@BHSUHR.COM Page 16 of 124  ATTACHMENT B1 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 17 of 124 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 18 of 124 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 19 of 124  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 20 of 124 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 21 of 124 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 22 of 124  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 23 of 124  Existing Lot Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 936 Sunset Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Front yard provided by 49.91 feet 49.91 feet NA EXISTING existing structures NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Corner Yard 50 feet N/A 50 feet 49.52 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Corner yard provided by 49.52 feet (5.52 feet playhouse) N/A existing structures (5.52 feet playhouse) EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Side yard provided by 14.35 feet N/A 14.35 feet existing structures Minimum Required Total Side N/A 31.6 feet N/A Yard Total Side Yard provided N/A N/A N/A by existing structures Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear yard provided by 81.23 feet N/A +160 feet existing structures Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset Maximum Allowed Gross Floor 9,404.7 sq. ft. 7,144.53 sq. ft. 14,734.33 sq. ft. Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 5,751.63 sq. ft. N/A 5,751.63 sq. ft. structures ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 8,249.67 sq. ft. 5,792.97 sq. ft. 14,042.75 sq. ft. RLC provided by existing 4,162.76 sq. ft. N/A 4,162.76 sq. ft. structures Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot Coverage 16,499.34 sq. ft. 11,585.94 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft. (ILC) (50% of lot area) ILC provided by existing 10,667.11 sq. ft. N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft. structures Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements Page 8 Page 24 of 124 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 25 of 124  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 26 of 124 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 27 of 124 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 28 of 124  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 29 of 124 ATTACHMENT A Page 30 of 124 Page 31 of 124 Page 32 of 124 Page 33 of 124 Page 34 of 124 Page 35 of 124 Page 36 of 124  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 37 of 124 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 38 of 124 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 39 of 124 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 40 of 124 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 41 of 124 Page 42 of 124 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 43 of 124 Page 44 of 124 Page 45 of 124  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 46 of 124 Page 47 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Front View Rear View Page ii Page 48 of 124 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 49 of 124 Page 50 of 124  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 51 of 124  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 52 of 124  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 53 of 124  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 54 of 124 Page 55 of 124  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 56 of 124  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 57 of 124  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 58 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Living Room Dining Room Page 11 Page 59 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Kitchen Family Room Page 12 Page 60 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Den Primary Bedroom Page 13 Page 61 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Primary Bathroom Second Floor Hall Bedroom Page 14 Page 62 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Private Bathroom Basement Recreation Room Page 15 Page 63 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Basement Mechanical Room Two-Car Garage Page 16 Page 64 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Tennis Court Rear Yard Page 17 Page 65 of 124  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 66 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP WHOLE ANALYSIS Page 19 Page 67 of 124  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 68 of 124  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 69 of 124 File R21-1101 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP FRONT PORTION ANALYSIS Page 22 Page 70 of 124  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 71 of 124  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 72 of 124 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP REAR LOT ANALYSIS Page 25 Page 73 of 124  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 74 of 124  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 75 of 124  ADDENDUM Comparable Sales Page 76 of 124  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 77 of 124  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 78 of 124  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 79 of 124  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 80 of 124  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 81 of 124  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 82 of 124  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 83 of 124  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 84 of 124  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 85 of 124  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 86 of 124  ADDENDUM State Certification/Qualifications Page 87 of 124  ADDENDUM Page 88 of 124  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 89 of 124 ATTACHMENT B Page 90 of 124  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 91 of 124 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 92 of 124 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 93 of 124 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 94 of 124 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 95 of 124 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 96 of 124 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 97 of 124 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 98 of 124 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 99 of 124 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 100 of 124 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 101 of 124 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 102 of 124 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 103 of 124  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 104 of 124 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 105 of 124 Page 106 of 124 Page 107 of 124 Page 108 of 124 Page 109 of 124 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 110 of 124 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 111 of 124  • 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 112 of 124 Page 113 of 124 Page 114 of 124 Page 115 of 124 Page 116 of 124 Page 117 of 124 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 118 of 124 Page 119 of 124 Page 120 of 124  Minutes adopted 11.10.2025 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 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 *** 18 19 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 20 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to 21 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the 22 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 23 Ms. Klaassen noted the request being presented is limited to the proposed subdivision and existing site 24 improvements with no proposed improvements being presented by the applicant. She then identified the 25 property’s location, existing improvements, zoning classification and size. Ms. Klaassen described the two 26 buildable lots created by the proposed subdivision and how the original lot was platted as well as provided 27 an explanation of the areas of compliance and noncompliance with the lot area and rectangular area 28 requirements in detail. She also summarized the MWRD and Village requirements with regard to flood 29 plain regulations, storm water detention, compensatory storage and requirements in detail. Ms. Klaassen 30 then described the future improvements to the Skokie Ditch and reiterated any future development 31 would be required to comply with flood plain and storm water regulations upon submittal of permits in 32 connection with any site improvements. 33 34 Ms. Klaassen informed the Board the Plan Commission considered the final plat, zoning variations and 35 subdivision code variation to allow a rear lot line to abut a side lot as well as a finding of no material 36 increased adverse impact for the existing nonconforming front yard and corner yard setbacks as well as 37 the front-facing attached garage door width. She advised the Board of the Plan Commission’s 38 consideration of the request and vote to recommend approval with the condition that the existing 39 nonconforming playhouse be relocated to comply with zoning regulations or be removed. Ms. Klaassen 40 stated the Board is to consider whether the two variations are in harmony with the general purpose and 41 intent of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the eight standards for granting the variations have been 42 met. She noted all public correspondence was provided to the Board and asked if there were any 43 questions. 44 45 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then 46 swore in those speaking to this matter. 47 Page 121 of 124  October 13, 2025 Page 2 1 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself, the property owners, Bob and 2 Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer and author of the Exhibit presented to the Board 3 and who is available to answer questions. He provided a summary of the Plan Commission’s discussion 4 including the history of the property and subdivision noting the existing conditions were not created by 5 the applicants and they are attempting to undo the lot consolidation. Mr. Canning stated the request is 6 similar to 860 Lamson that was approved by the Village Council. 7 8 Mr. Canning stated the Plan Commission made a positive recommendation with conditions to be 9 addressed including variations for minimum lot area and referred to the discussion regarding moving the 10 lot lines which would result in two conforming lots but would still require variations. Ms. Klaassen 11 provided additional clarification for the Board following questions from the Board regarding a lot depth 12 variation that would be required for proposed Lot 1 if the lot line between the two lots were to be shifted 13 north. Mr. Canning agreed Lot 2 could be made conforming but they decided it was better to return the 14 lot to its original condition. He referred to eight other lots of similar sizes in the area. Mr. Canning then 15 referred to the Exhibit, which addressed the spirit of meeting the minimum rectangular area requirement 16 and reiterated no new home is being proposed with the Exhibit being done in response to the Village 17 Engineer’s concerns. 18 19 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the flood plain and storm water concerns raised by the neighbors, 20 he summarized the Plan Commission’s discussion relating to their prior application submitted in 2014 21 which addressed the compensatory story and storm water detention issues. He confirmed any future 22 potential construction would have to meet the Village’s engineering and storm water requirements. Mr. 23 Canning then summarized their response to the eight standards and first referred to John Satter’s 24 appraisal and response in that the parcels were more valuable separately as opposed to the combined 25 parcel in connection with the reasonable return standard. He stated they are available to answer any 26 questions relating to storm water or zoning. 27 28 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Ritter asked if subdivision approval was granted, 29 would the tennis court be removed. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and referred to the condition 30 of removing the playhouse. Ms. Leister asked what the cost of engineering the potential home would be 31 and its impact to the value of selling this parcel of land. Mr. Canning responded they did not consider that 32 and stated their focus was on the land subdivision. Mr. Haller asked if there would be overall height 33 restrictions for any new potential building due to it being raised to be out of the flood plain. Mr. Canning 34 responded this engineering technique has been used on other homes in the neighborhood. 35 36 Dan Creaney, the civil engineer, stated with regard to the flood plain, he explained the standard flow 37 through crawl space construction which is used and how roof angles could be modified to comply with 38 potential height. Mr. Canning confirmed the height limit is 33 feet. No additional questions were raised at 39 this time. 40 41 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. James Langer, 42 956 Sunset, stated his concerns relate to the view of proposed Lot 2. He stated the request did not meet 43 the standards and failed to specifically comply with Section 16.12.010 since a side lot abutting a rear lot 44 line would be created. He noted they never received notification with regard to the neighborhood meeting 45 held by the Marrens and described the water issues they experience on their property. Mr. Langer stated 46 the proposal would definitely lower their property value with regard to reasonable return with flooding 47 concerns representing their main issue. He then stated with regard to the 2014 findings; the exact same 48 case was presented and rejected as not meeting the standards. Page 122 of 124  October 13, 2025 Page 3 1 Githesh Ramamurphy,916 Higginson, identified his home for the Board and stated he has lived in his home 2 since 2006 and described the substantial flooding issues they experienced. He stated in his line of 3 business; he is very familiar with flooding issues and any potential new home would exacerbate the 4 flooding issues even more and referred to the amount of water they currently experience. Mr. 5 Ramamurphy stated the second issue is that the compliance standards are not being met as well as the 6 amount of water in the Skokie Ditch which is located next to his home. He stated two neighboring homes 7 would also be affected by them having severe property damage. Mr. Ramamurphy stated the only way 8 the applicants would be able to realize reasonable return would be if a home is built on the subdivided 9 lot. No additional comments were made at this time. 10 11 Chairman Bradley asked the applicants if they would like to respond. Mr. Canning identified the square 12 footage of several surrounding lots which he outlined in his letter that are smaller or similarly sized to 13 proposed Lot 2. He confirmed no decision was made on the 2014 application and the matter was 14 continued and ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the neighbors’ comments, 15 the home’s views are raised since they are located in the flood plain. He stated the Langers’ home 16 immediately to the west submitted photos which included compensatory storage which is being proposed 17 for Lot 2. Mr. Creaney then described the Skokie Ditch improvements in detail and referred to the MWRD 18 and Village engineering requirements. He also stated they have built several homes in the Village which 19 he identified for the Board and which comply with MWRD and Village engineering standards. Chairman 20 Bradley confirmed the Board is not voting on any potential new build for the proposed lot. 21 22 Chairman Bradley closed public comment and called the matter in for discussion. He reminded the Board 23 of the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the zoning variations the Board is to 24 consider. 25 26 Mr. Ritter stated the standards for granting the variance have arguably been met and described the lot 27 area variance as de minimus as well as the fact that the rectangular area variance did not seem significant 28 either. He stated while he understood the neighbors’ concerns with regard to flooding, if there is a 29 residence built on the lot, there are lot of stringent requirements which would need to be met. Mr. Ritter 30 then stated the tennis court removal would result in a significant impervious surface area being removed 31 which would help both lots and concluded by stating he would be in favor of the request. Ms. Leister 32 stated with regard to 1(a), she is fine with regard to where the lot line would be drawn with there being 33 precedent for it. She also stated it would trigger the least amount of variances but she struggled with (b) 34 and that there would be constraints in terms of building a home. Ms. Leister stated she would prefer for 35 it to meet the rectangular requirements. 36 37 Ms. Hanley agreed with Ms. Leister’s comments in that she is not sure it would be an ideal buildable lot 38 as well as standard nos. 2 and 3 which would make Lot 2 more unique. She stated with regard to the 39 essential character of the locality; there would be a ditch that ran through a significant portion of the lot 40 and into the buildable area. Ms. Hanley stated it would ultimately require a variation for a home to be 41 built on Lot 2. Chairman Bradley stated he would be in favor of the request and although he sympathized 42 with the neighbors’ concerns and if this request was not located in the flood plain, it would not have been 43 an issue. He stated there are storm water regulations in place for new development to adhere to and the 44 lots would be returned to their original condition. Chairman Bradley then stated if the applicants’ home 45 is sold, the home could be torn down with a new home conforming to the requirements of the 46 consolidated lot. He stated the Board should not consider what is possible for the lot and also commented 47 in detail the consideration of any new potential construction on the proposed irregularly shaped and Page 123 of 124  October 13, 2025 Page 4 1 undersized lot with new construction being considered a clean slate which would be extremely difficult in 2 terms of obtaining zoning relief. 3 4 Ms. Hanley clarified her comment in that the issue before the Board is that the code stated if a lot is 5 subdivided, it had to result in two, clean lots without variances. She stated they have to apply the current 6 zoning code in that the ditch created a unique circumstance which would alter the essential character of 7 the locality and would create a unique circumstance which should prohibit the subdivision. Mr. Nielsen 8 summarized Chairman Bradley’s and Ms. Hanley’s comments and referred to the 2014 previous review of 9 the Board. He stated with the tennis court removal, the applicants could consider installing compensatory 10 storage where the courts are currently to help mitigate everyone’s concerns. He then stated he would 11 recommend approval. 12 13 Mr. Haller shared Ms. Hanley’s and Ms. Leister’s concerns and stated he is less persuaded by what the lot 14 would have been had it stayed the way it was. He stated they are being asked to create an irregular lot 15 and he had difficulty with the idea of giving the applicants a pass on some elements of the lot. Mr. Nielsen 16 stated he could be persuaded and reiterated he had difficulty with standard nos. 2 and 3 being 17 troublesome to him. The Board Members discussed their positions at length. 18 19 Ms. Hanley suggested the matter be continued to allow the applicants time to resubmit the application 20 with a conforming, buildable Lot 2 being perfected to be a buildable lot with the variation to be requested 21 on Lot 1. Ms. Klaassen informed the Board that Lot 1 measured 165 feet in width and referred to an 22 illustration. The Board Members discussed alternatives with regard to various lot line measurements. 23 24 Chairman Bradley stated in ordered to sway the undecided Board Members, he offered the applicants the 25 opportunity to continue the matter to a date certain to come back before the Board with a nonconforming 26 Lot 1 or proceed with a vote at this time. Ms. Leister and Mr. Haller stated they would like to see the 27 alternative presented to the Board or the applicants can proceed at this time. 28 29 Chairman Bradley then presented the options to the applicants to either continue the request to a future 30 meeting to consider the variances or proceed with a vote on the request with a negative recommendation 31 to the Village Council. Mr. Canning stated it would be up to the Village staff and stated it may be a 32 worthwhile exercise with the December 8, 2025, meeting date being a possibility. While the Board was 33 discussing their availably for December 8, Mr. Mangum noted there is one Board Member absent from 34 this meeting. 35 36 Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued to the December 8, 2025, meeting. A motion was made 37 by Ms. Hanley to continue the request to December 8, 2025, and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken 38 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 39 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 40 NAYS: None 41 42 *** 43 44 Respectfully submitted, 45 46 Antionette Johnson 47 Recording Secretary Page 124 of 124