Design Review Board

Village of Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Regular Meeting April 16, 2026 at 7:00 PM Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Approval of Minutes a. March 26, 2026, Special Meeting Minutes 4. Continued Applications a. Case No. 26-02-DR: 1050 Scott Avenue — Hubbard Woods Public Parking Structure: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow installation of a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance of the public parking structure (Amended case). 5. New Applications a. Case No. 26-03-DR: 588 Lincoln Avenue — Rail Splitter Capital Management: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow storefront improvements at Subject Property. b. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road — Centennial Beach: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 6. Other Business a. May 21, 2026, Regular Meeting — Quorum Check 7. Adjournment NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 1 of 396  1 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Special Meeting Minutes 2 March 26, 2026 3 4 Members Present: Katie Moor, Chairperson 5 Chris Baggett 6 Westley Barker 7 Fritz Duda 8 9 Members Absent: Peter Evanich 10 Colin Kennedy 11 Heather Niehoff 12 13 Village Staff: Davorka Kirincic, Building and Code Enforcement Manager 14 Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 15 16 Call to Order & Roll Call: 17 Chairperson Moor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members present. 18 19 Public Comments: 20 No comments were made at this time. 21 22 Approval of Minutes: 23 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any comments or corrections or for a motion to approve the February 19, 24 2026, meeting minutes. A motion to approve theFebruary 19, 2026, meeting minutes were made by member. 25 Baggett and seconded by member Barker. A vote was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 26 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Moor 27 NAYS: None 28 29 New Applications: 30 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow 31 installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. On March 32 17, 2026, the Winnetka Park District submitted a request that the Design Review Board continue the public 33 hearing to April 16, 2026, Design Review Board meeting. At its March 26, 2026, meeting, the Design Review 34 Board only intends to continue the item to its April 16, 2026, meeting and will not be accepting public comment. 35 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to continue the matter to the April 16, 2026, meeting. A motion to continue 36 the matter to the April 16, 2026, meeting was made by member Baggett and seconded by member Duda. A vote 37 was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 38 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Moor 39 NAYS: None 40 41 b. Case No. 26-02- DR: 1050 Scott Avenue — Hubbard Woods Public Parking Structure: Sign Permit to 42 allow installation of a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance of the public parking structure. 43 Ms. Kirincic identified the property’s location, zoning classification, and existing signage and measurements. She 44 summarized the proposed wall sign request and described the wording, logo, and measurements. Ms. Kirincic 45 referred to an illustration of the existing and proposed signs, along with the design guideline recommendations. 46 She also referred to the application materials and the sign code requirements, which were met. Ms. Kirincic noted 47 that the sign exceeds the recommended height per the Village’s Design Guidelines and cited instances in which 48 approval was granted. She referred to the applicable sections of the Village’s Design Guidelines that the Board is to 49 consider, and stated Ms. Niehoff provided her comments on the application, which Chairperson Moor read into 50 the record. 51 Page 2 of 396  Design Review Board March 26, 2026 Page 2 1 Ms. Kirincic stated that, following the applicant’s presentation, public comment, and Board discussion, the Board 2 may either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a 3 motion to recommend approval or denial of the request. She then asked if there were any questions. 4 5 Chairperson Moor also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 6 7 Tom Powers, Director of Public Works, summarized the history of how the request came about, which resulted 8 from the public’s lack of awareness of public parking. He stated they attempted to match the district's wayfinding, 9 street signage, and street lighting and offered to consider the Board’s suggestions. Mr. Powers also stated the 10 request would be done in conjunction with the public garage repairs and referred to the feedback they received 11 from the Village Council. He identified the design company that did the streetscape signage standards with whom 12 they are working. 13 14 Michelle Forys from the Parvin Clauss sign company stated that their presentation would align with the original 15 design intent and explained the comparison to the current signage. She also explained that the sign’s size was due 16 to the font and the number of light fixtures. A Board Member questioned the 14-inch height limitation and the sign 17 band measurements. Ms. Kirincic provided clarification to the Board and noted that the design guidelines are 18 recommendations and not code requirements. 19 20 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any other questions. She commented that the sign appeared large, not 21 proportional to the building, and suggested that it be made less bulky in terms of its appearance, and referred to 22 examples from other locations. Chairperson Moor also stated she agreed with Ms. Niehoff’s comments. A Board 23 Member questioned the cost difference. Michelle responded that the letters and emblem are dimensional and 24 explained how the concept was addressed in terms of visibility. She suggested using a thicker font and explained 25 the need for the backing on the sign band. Chairperson Moor suggested reducing the number of lights to three. 26 Ms. Kirincic questioned whether the drawings are drawn to scale and accurately reflect the proportions of the 27 lights relative to the proposed wall sign. Michelle agreed with the suggestions made. Mr. Powers informed the 28 Board that he spoke with the electrical engineer regarding the light fixture’s spread. Chairperson Moor suggested 29 and demonstrated a sample of three-dimensional individual pin-mount letters and changed the letter color for 30 better visibility. She also mentioned that it would be nice to have a backlit sign. 31 32 A Board Member suggested that the other letters on the proposed plaque wall sign be lowercase and asked 33 whether the proposed font is consistent with the current Winnetka font. Mr. Powers confirmed it is the same font. 34 A Board Member agreed with the comments made and confirmed they required Metra to scale down their 35 signage. 36 37 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to continue the matter to allow the applicant time to present other options, 38 or to approve the request with conditions, including direction from the Board. A motion was made by member 39 Bagget to continue the request to the April 16, 2026, meeting, with the Board's recommendations to provide a few 40 options for the wall sign for review, and the motion was seconded by member Duda. A vote was taken, and the 41 motion was unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 42 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Moor 43 NAYS: None 44 45 Other Business. 46 a. April 16, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check. 47 The Board Members discussed their availability. 48 49 Adjournment: 50 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Duda and seconded by 51 Mr. Baker. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 52 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Moor 53 NAYS: None Page 3 of 396  Design Review Board March 26, 2026 Page 3 1 2 The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. 3 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 6 Antionette Johnson 7 Recording Secretary 8 Page 4 of 396  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 9, 2026 SUBJECT: 1050 SCOTT AVENUE – HUBBARD WOODS PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE – CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS FOR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN (AMENDED CASE NO. 26-02 DR) INTRODUCTION On April 16, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to hold a continued public hearing on an amended application — previously submitted as a Sign Permit and now revised to a Certificate of Appropriateness, — by the Village of Winnetka (the “Applicant”), owner of the public parking structure located at 1050 Scott Avenue (the “Subject Property”). The application seeks approval to remove the existing wall sign and install a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance to the public parking structure. MARCH 26, 2026, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING SUMMARY On March 26, 2026, the DRB considered the Applicant’s request for a Sign Permit to remove the existing wall sign and install a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance to the public parking structure. The staff report prepared for the March 26, 2026, meeting is included as Attachment B1. Following presentations by staff and the Applicant, the DRB discussed the proposed wall sign and expressed concern that the plaque-style design appeared oversized and out of proportion to the building. The Board recommended that the Applicant revise the design and provide at least two alternative options: one featuring individual pin-mounted letters, and another consisting of a plaque sign using primarily lowercase lettering, with only the first letter of each word capitalized. The DRB continued the item to the April 16, 2026, meeting to allow the Applicant time to address the Board’s comments and incorporate the requested revisions. March 26, 2026, meeting minutes are included in the April 16, 2026, agenda packet for the DRB’s review and approval. AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN In response to the comments from the March 26, 2026, DRB meeting, the Applicant has submitted revised sign renderings (Attachment A1). The primary updates include four options for the revised wall sign and reducing the number of gooseneck lights above it from 4 to 3. OPTION 1 Revised Wall Sign/Plaque Sign with All Capital-Case Letters • 1’-2” x 9”-4” Single face aluminum sign; • Sign panel 2" deep, fabricated aluminum, painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish; • Frame is 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish; • City logo is 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount; Page 5 of 396  • Letters are 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, flush stud-mount, and • Plaque sign mounted on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors, and hardware appropriate for conditions. Revised Proposed Sign - OPTION 1: Plaque Sign-/All Capital Case Letters OPTION 2 Revised Wall Sign/Plaque Sign with All Capital Letters with Larger First Letter • 1’-2” x 7”-6” Single face aluminum sign; • Sign panel is 2" deep, fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish; • Frame is 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish; • City logo is 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount; • Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish flush stud-mount; and • Plaque sign mounted on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors, and hardware appropriate for conditions. Revised Proposed Sign - OPTION 2: Plaque Sign-/All Capital Case Letters with Larger First Letter OPTION 3 Revised Wall Sign/Pin-mounted Individual Letters • 1/2" thick FCO acrylic graphics; • City logo is 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted MP 46400SP Brilliant Gold, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied; • Letters are 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted MP 46400SP Brilliant Gold, satin finish stating, “PUBLIC PARKING”, and • Logo and each letter are flush stud-mounted on the exterior wall. Revised Proposed Sign - OPTION 3: Pin-Mounted Individual Letters- Gold Finish Page 6 of 396 OPTION 4 Revised Wall Sign/Pin-mounted Individual Letters • 1/2" Thick FCO bronze Graphics • City Logo is 1/2" thick FCO 22000 Bronze alloy precision plaque, brushed finish, horizontal grain, 3130 Duranodic background • Letters are 1/2" thick FCO 22000 Bronze alloy, brushed finish, horizontal grain stating, “PUBLIC PARKING”. • Logo and each letter are flush stud-mounted on the exterior wall Revised Proposed Sign - OPTION 4: Pin-Mounted Individual Letters- Bronze Finish All four proposed wall sign options will be externally illuminated with three goose-neck LED lighting fixtures proposed in the original application, shown in Attachment B1. A copy of the Applicant’s revised proposed wall sign renderings are included in Attachment A1. SIGN CODE ANALYSES Following further review of Village Code Chapter 15.60 (Signs), staff have determined that the subject sign is located on Village-owned property and is therefore exempt from the Sign Code requirements. Pursuant to Section 15.60.070, signs, flags, and emblems of and on the premise of the United States, the State, the Village, or other municipal corporations and public bodies of the State shall be exempt from the regulations of Chapter 15.60 (Signs). Notwithstanding this exemption, the proposed signage remains subject to review and approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Design Review Board. Based on this interpretation of the Village Code, the applicant (the Village) has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application in place of the sign permit application. In rendering its decision, the Design Review Board shall evaluate the application in accordance with the required findings of fact outlined below in section “CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.” CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness of Design: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement Page 7 of 396  considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines when considering the proposed modified sign. The Design Guidelines provide guidance on the design and appropriate placement of wall signs. o The sign should harmonize with the building and reflect the character of the building style; o Sign Materials should be limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass, and metal; o Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures; o The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the sign band or 14 inches – whichever is less; o Sign should be located at least 8 feet above grade, but no more than 15 feet above grade; and o Sign should be externally illuminated or highlighted where possible. The revised sign options follow the recommendations of the above-listed Design Guidelines, except for option 3, where the pin-mounted letters would be made of acrylic. At the April 16 meeting, the Applicant will review all four options of the revised wall sign proposal and explain the design decisions in response to the Board’s comments. SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB find the proposed external illuminated wall sign as appropriate and compatible with the Certificate of Appropriateness of Design factors, Village Design Guidelines, and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness of Design for the revised wall sign. Should the DRB determine that the proposed modified sign is appropriate, the Applicant will obtain the necessary electrical permit from the Community Development Department prior to installing the gooseneck lighting above the wall sign. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the April 16 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s revised proposed externally illuminated wall sign. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed externally illuminated wall sign is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; Page 8 of 396  (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A1: Applicant’s Revised Proposed Sign Renderings Attachment B1: March 26, 2026, DRB Staff Memo and Attachments Page 9 of 396  ATTACHMENT A1 16'-0" 2" 15'-10" PROJECT: 2'-0" 1'-10" 1'-6" 13½" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage (1) 2'-0" x 16'-0" Single Face Aluminum Wall Sign Tower Ct. 1" Winnetka, IL 60093 Sign panel: 2" deep fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE Frame: 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish City Logo: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, flush stud-mount AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors and hardware appropriate for conditions REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 3/4" = 1' SHEET NO. 1 of 5 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3.30.26 3 3.31.26 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 10 of 396 Option 1 9'-4" 2" 9'-2" 1'-2" 1'-0" 10½" 8" PROJECT: 1" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage (1) 1'-2" x 9'-4" Single Face Aluminum Wall Sign Tower Ct. Winnetka, IL 60093 Sign panel: 2" deep fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE Frame: 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish City Logo: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, flush stud-mount AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors and hardware appropriate for conditions REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY (3) Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 1" = 1' SHEET NO. 2 of 5 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3.30.26 3 3.31.26 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 11 of 396 Option 2 7'-6" 2" 7'-4" 1'-2" 1'-0" 10½" 6" 8" PROJECT: 1" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage (1) 1'-2" x 7'-6" Single Face Aluminum Wall Sign Tower Ct. Winnetka, IL 60093 Sign panel: 2" deep fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE Frame: 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish City Logo: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, flush stud-mount AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors and hardware appropriate for conditions REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY (3) Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 1" = 1' SHEET NO. 3 of 5 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3.30.26 3 3.31.26 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 12 of 396 Option 3 15'-0" PROJECT: 1'-6" 14" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage Tower Ct. Winnetka, IL 60093 (1) 1/2" Thick FCO Acrylic Graphics CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE City Logo: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted MP 46400SP Brilliant Gold, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted MP 46400SP Brilliant Gold, satin finish AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: flush stud-mount on exterior wall REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY (3) Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 3/4" = 1' SHEET NO. 4 of 5 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3.30.26 3 3.31.26 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 13 of 396 Option 4 15'-0" PROJECT: 1'-6" 14" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage Tower Ct. Winnetka, IL 60093 (1) 1/2" Thick FCO Bronze Graphics CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE City Logo: 1/2" thick 22000 Bronze alloy precision plaque, brushed finish, horizontal grain, 3130 Duranodic background Letters: 1/2" thick FCO 22000 Bronze alloy, brushed finish, horizontal grain AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: flush stud-mount on exterior wall REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY (3) Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 3/4" = 1' SHEET NO. 5 of 5 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3.30.26 3 3.31.26 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 14 of 396  ATTACHMENT B1 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: MARCH 19, 2026 SUBJECT: 1050 SCOTT AVENUE – HUBBARD WOODS PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE – EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-02 DR) INTRODUCTION On March 26, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a sign permit application submitted by the Village of Winnetka (the “Applicant”), the owner of the public parking structure at 1050 Scott Ave. (the “Subject Property”), to allow the removal of the existing wall sign and installation of a new externally illuminated wall sign above the entrance of the public parking structure. The Subject Property is located East of Green Bay Road with street frontage on both Merrill Street and Scott Avenue in the Hubbard Woods Business District. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial. Figure 1 below and Figure 2 on the following page identify the Subject Property. Location of Subject Property Figure 1 – Subject Property – Location Map Page 15 of 396  Figure 2 – Subject Property Public Parking Structure - South Entrance Elevation with existing wall sign CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant seeks approval for a new wall sign for the existing public parking structure. The proposed wall sign would be externally illuminated with four lights above the sign, pointing down, and would feature the text “PUBLIC PARKING” in addition to the Village logo, as shown in the illustration below. Proposed wall sign • Located on the south public parking structure elevation above the main entrance; • Sign panel 2 inch thick fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish; • 1x1 inch aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish; • Village Logo ½ inch thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish & fool color digital print, flush-stud mount; • Top of sign is less than 14 feet above grade at the entrance; • Total sign area is 32.00 square feet; • Externally illuminated sign with four gooseneck lights above pointing down; and • Each gooseneck light is Baselite, Angle Shade, LED (details shown in specification sheet included in the Application Materials). Location of Proposed Externally Illuminated Wall Sign Rendering of Proposed Externally Illuminated Wall Sign Page 16 of 396 A copy of the Applicant’s application materials is included in Attachment A. SIGN CODE ANALYSIS Section 15.60.120 of the Village Sign Code establishes commercial district wall sign standards. Wall sign standards • Sign may only contain the business name, a three-word generic description of the types of products or services offered, and the occupant’s logo or trademark; • Sign may not exceed 70 square feet in area; • Sign shall be placed substantially parallel to the surface of the wall; • Sign shall not be located above the second-floor windowsill level and shall not be higher than fourteen (14) feet above grade if there is no second-floor windowsill; and • For a building that contains more than one type of sign (e.g. wall, window, awning, etc.), the total sign area for all signs shall not exceed 15% of the street exposure. The proposed wall sign meets all the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS When reviewing the design of any signs, the Board is to consider the following standards and criteria of Section 15.60.150(F) of the Sign Code. F. Standards and Criteria for Issuance. The following factors and characteristics relating to the safety and appearance of signage shall govern the Board’s evaluation of design submittals: 1. The sign area shall be in proportion and scale to the building or to other buildings or signs in the surrounding area; 2. A signage package for a business establishment that includes a number of signs and graphics shall have an overall plan that demonstrates the compatibility of the design and colors of all the signs that are part of that package; 3. The amount of text and graphics contained in or on any sign or group of signs shall be limited so that it results in a clear and readable design; 4. Signs and graphics shall have a harmonious relationship with nearby signs, buildings, and the neighborhood and shall be designed not to affect adjacent structures adversely. In this respect, the sign shall relate to its building, structure, and neighborhood in terms of size, shape, material, color, texture, lettering, location, arrangement, lighting, and the like; 5. Colors shall be used with restraint; excessive brightness shall be avoided; and 6. The additional provisions of this chapter, as specified in this chapter, shall be part of the criteria of the design review process. The Board should also consider the Village Design Guidelines to approve the proposed signage. The Design Guidelines provide guidance on the design and appropriate placement of wall signs. See Attachment B. o The sign should harmonize with the building and reflect the character of the building style; o Sign Materials should be limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass, and metal; Page 17 of 396  o Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures; o The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the sign band or 14 inches – whichever is less; o Sign should be located at least 8 feet above grade, but no more than 15 feet above grade; and o Sign should be externally illuminated or highlighted where possible. SUMMARY The Applicant respectfully requests that the DRB find the proposed externally illuminated wall sign to be appropriate and consistent with the Design Guidelines and approve the Sign Permit Application as submitted. Should the DRB determine that the proposed signage is appropriate, the Applicant will obtain the necessary electrical permit from the Community Development Department prior to installing the gooseneck lighting above the wall sign. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 18 of 396  Village of Winnetka ATTACHEMENT A SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 0nEcE1ve FEB O 4 2026 u VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Tenant/Lessee BY· • q;.,( '2..,CJ ) V. - O<oO Name of Business Primary contact name Phone No. Village of Winnetka Tom Powers 847-716-3270 Project Address 1050 Scott Ave City Winnetka I State IL Zip Code 60093 I Email tpowers@winnetka.org Sign Company Name of Sign Company Primary contact name Phone No. Parvin Clauss Bill Marlow 630-510-2020 Street Address 165 Tubeway Drive City Carol Stream I State IL Zip Code 60188 I Email Signs@Parvinclauss.com Property Owner Name of Company Primary contact name Phone No. I I Village of Winnetka Tom Powers 847-716-3270 Street Address: 1050 Scott Ave City Winnetka I State IL I Zip Code 60093 I Email tpowers@winnetka.org Sign type(s): 0 window graph ics Ii) wall-mounted sign 0 ground-mounted sign (check all that apply) O projecting sign O other_______________ Additional description of sign type and materials Materials and sign to match vow Streetscape Standards OFFICE USE ONLY SIGN FEE: $80 NON-ILLUMINATED PER SIGN TYPE $___ $195 ILLUMINATED SIGN $____ STAFF REVIEW FEE: $70 WAIVE FEE $_ __ TOTAL PERMIT FEE $ __ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ________________________ Page 4 of4 Page 19 of 396 Page 20 of 396  16'-0" 2" 15'-10" PROJECT: 2'-0" 1'-10" 1'-6" 13½" Hubbard Woods Parking Garage (1) 2'-0" x 16'-0" Single Face Aluminum Wall Sign Tower Ct. 1" Winnetka, IL 60093 Sign panel: 2" deep fabricated aluminum painted MP 25833 Bone White, satin finish CUSTOMER APPROVAL: DATE Frame: 1x1 aluminum tube construction painted to match Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish City Logo: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, full-color digital print on H.P. White vinyl applied, flush stud-mount Letters: 1/2" thick FCO acrylic painted Williamsburg CW401 Market Square Tavern Dark Green, satin finish, flush stud-mount AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Mounting: on exterior wall w/ angle clips, masonry anchors and hardware appropriate for conditions REPRESENTATIVE Site survey required prior to production House / KZ DRAWN BY Gooseneck lights by others - TBD Bill Goodwyn DATE 2.3.26 SCALE 3/4" = 1' SHEET NO. 1 of 1 ESTIMATE / JOB NUMBER 17807 FILE NAME WINN17807 REVISIONS: 1 2.10.26 2 3 4 5 6 7 Remove & dispose of existing 8 Existing Proposed 9 This sign is built to UL Standards "This Document is owned by, and the information contained in it is proprietary to, Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. By receipt hereof the holder agrees not to use the information, disclose it to any third party, 10 Copyright 2026 by Parvin-Clauss Sign Co. for operation in North America. nor reproduce this document without the prior written consent of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company. Holder also agrees to immediately return this document upon request of Parvin-Clauss Sign Company." Page 21 of 396  BASELITE – ANGLE SHADE – LED – SPEC SHEET PROJECT NAME: PROJECT TYPE: MODEL # / / / / / / / / / / A v1 A812 B C D E F G H I J K EXAMPLE: 41 E16 CB ½” 43 25W 3K LDM120 PR3 GU-2 44 *SKIP SECTION IF OPTION DOES NOT APPLY NOTES: A810/62/E1/CB½”/64/100INC A - SHADES E – MOUNTING COLOR K – ACCESSORY COLOR ANGLE SHADE SERIES SEE SECTION “B” FOR COLOR OPTIONS. SEE SECTION “B” FOR COLOR A807 - 12WLED (MAX) OPTIONS. A810 - 12WLED (MAX) A812 - 25WLED (MAX) F – LIGHT SOURCE NOTES A814 - 25WLED (MAX) (SEE PAGE 4 FOR WATTAGE LIMITATIONS) LIGHT EMITTED DIODE (LED) (1). FINISH OPTIONS 38, 40, 49, 54, 61, 62, 63 H B - FINISH OPTIONS 12W, 25W ONLY AVAILABLE INSIDE AND OUT OF FIXTURE. OTHER FINISHES ARE WHITE INSIDE. (*SEE NOTES FOR LIMITATIONS*) (2). FINISH OPTIONS FOR SHADES ≤ 10” IN (SEE WEBSITE FOR SWATCH COLORS) G – LED COLOR TEMP DIAMETER ARE THE SAME INSIDE AND OUT 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, OF FIXTURE. SHADES > 10” IN DIAMETER ARE W 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 27K – 2700 K WHITE ON THE INSIDE. 63, 74, 81, 87, 97 3K – 3000 K (3). FINISH OPTIONS 61 AND 62 ARE 35K – 3500 K FINISHED WITH A SUPERCHROME ON THE C – MOUNTING OPTIONS 4K – 4000 K INSIDE FOR ALL LED LIGHT SOURCE OPTIONS. 5K – 5000 K (4). COLOR CORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR LED OPTIONS. A807 H - 8” W - 7” ½” ARM EXTENSIONS E1, E2, E2S, E3, E4, B1, E16, H – ELECTRICAL OPTION *ALL ARMS COME WITH A CAST BACKPLATE A810 H - 10.75” W - 10” (CB1/2”, CB3/4”, LWTM, CFWTM, ECT.). E17, E18A, E22, E23, E24 *ACCORDING TO THE LIGHT SOURCE THE A812 H - 12.25” W - 12” ¾” ARM EXTENSIONS (SEE PAGE 4 FOR DIMMING OPTION SPECIFICATIONS) E3A, E4A, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, LDM120 BACKPLATE MAY VARY IN SIZE. (EXAMPLE: A814 H - 14” W - 14” LED LIGHT SOURCE WILL HAVE A DEEPER E10, E11, E12, E13, B15, LDM277 BACKPLATE TO HOUSE THE DRIVER.). E19, E20, E21, E25 LDM0-10 *ALL FIXTURES MOUNT TO A 4-O JUNCTION E14 - CREATE YOUR OWN BOX. (BASELITE WILL TAKE YOUR SKETCH AND *FIXTURE DIMENSIONS MAY VARY ± 0.25. FABRICATE A CUSTOM ARM EXTENSION TO I – GLASS OPTIONS *CORD AND CANOPY COME IN THE SAME MEET YOUR NEEDS). COLOR. LED CORD MOUNT CL3, CL4, CLT3, CLT4, BL3, BL4, RE3, RE4, LBLC, LWHC, LTCB, LTCW, LTCHB, LTCHW, GR3, GR4, AH3, AH4, FR3, FR4, FRT3, FRT4, LTLB, LTLW, LTLB, LTLW, LRCB, LRCW, PR3, PR4 LRCHB, LRCHW, LFHB, LFHW, LHBLC, LHWHC, LCBLC, LCWHC J – ACCESSORIES STEM MOUNT DP24, ST6, ST12, ST18, ST24, ST36, GU-1, GU-2, GR7, GR10, GR12, GR14 ST48, STXX D – MOUNTING ADD-ONS LED ADD-ONS LWTM, LSLC, LSTC UNIVERSAL ADD-ONS FH ½”, FH ¾”, TRB ½”, TRB ¾”, LGSWL, SMSWL BASELITE CORPORATION 12260 EAST END AVE. CHINO, CA 91710 PH: 877-999-1990 FAX: 909-548-4774 EMAIL: SALES@BASELITE.COM WEBSITE:WWW.BASELITE.COM PAGE 1 Page 22 of 396  PROJECT NAME: BASELITE SIGN LIGHTS CATALOG PROJECT TYPE: C - MOUNTING OPTIONS 1/2" ARM EXTENSIONS *ARMS RATED FOR WET LOCATION * MAXIMUM SECTIONS OF ARMS ARE DIMENSIONED E1 8.5”(H) 18.5”(W) E2 18.5”(H) 35”(W) E2S 18.5”(H) 35”(W) E3 16”(H) 24.75”(W) E4 14.5”(H) 22.25”(W) E18A 4.75”(H) 24”(W) 24”(Proj.) E22 2”(H) 14”(W) E23 6”(H) 32.25”(W) E24 9.5”(H) 24”(W) 3/4" ARM EXTENSIONS *ARMS RATED FOR WET LOCATION * MAXIMUM SECTIONS OF ARMS ARE DIMENSIONED E4A 14.5”(H) 23.75”(W) E5 15”(H) 38.5”(W) E6 9”(H) 23.75”(W) E3A 16.375””(H) 26.25”(W) E20 85”(H) 27.25”(W) E11 19”(H) 36.5”(W) E7 9”(H) 49.75”(W) E8 12”(H) 31.25”(W) E9 41.75”(H) 28.125”(W) E10 18”(H) 55.75”(W) E25 32.625”(H) 28.5”(W) E12 6(H) 39”(W) E13 30.625”(H) 26.75”(W) E19 10.625”(H) 11.5”(W) B15 7.5”(H) 24.5”(W) E14 NOTES: * Baselite will take your SELITE * All arms sold with sketch and fabricate a BA custom arm extension Cast Backplate (CB) to meet your needs * Backplate may vary in CAL A I size depending on light I FOR N * Dimensions to be source. determined by customer B15S 7.5”(H) 19.5”(W) E21 12.5”(H) 28.5”(W) BASELITE CORPORATION 12260 EAST END AVE. CHINO, CA 91710 PH: 877-999-1990 FAX: 909-548-4774 EMAIL: SALES@BASELITE.COM WEBSITE:WWW.BASELITE.COM PAGE 2 Page 23 of 396  PROJECT NAME: BASELITE RLM CATALOG SIGN LIGHTS CATALOG PROJECT TYPE: C - MOUNTING OPTIONS (CONTINUED) STEM MOUNTS *STEMS RATED FOR DAMP LOCATION DP24 DOUBLE PENDANT 20”(H) 24”(W) ST(XX) STEM- 1/2” NPT XX = LENGTH OF STEM *DP24 COMES STANDARD WITH LSTC AND ST18 (EXAMPLE – “ST18” = STEM MOUNT 18” LENGTH) *CANOPY NOT INCLUDED, ADD IN SECTION D * 1/4" NPT AND 3/4" NPT AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST LED CORD MOUNTS *FOR LED & COMPACT FLUORESCENT OPTIONS, CANOPIES WILL VARY IN SIZE DUE TO SIZE OF THE DRIVER/BALLAST THAT WILL BE LOCATED INSIDE OF THE CANOPY. *CORDS RATED FOR DRY LOCATION *CANOPY DIMENSIONS: 3” (H) 6” (W) *CORD AND CANOPY COME IN THE SAME COLOR. LBLC 8’ BLACK CORD LTCB 8’ BLACK CORD, CABLE, and LOOP LTCHB 8’ BLACK CORD, 3” CHAIN, and LOOP LWHC 8’ WHITE CORD LTCW 8’ WHITE CORD, CABLE, and LOOP LTCHW 8’ WHITE CORD, 3” CHAIN, and LOOP LTLB 8’ BLACK TELEPHONE CORD AND CABLE LRCB 8’ BLACK CORD, CABLE, and LOOP LRCHB 8’ BLACK CORD, 3” CHAIN, and LOOP LTLW 8’ WHITE TELEPHONE CORD AND CABLE LRCW 8’ WHITE CORD, CABLE, and LOOP LRCHW 8’ WHITE CORD, 3” CHAIN, and LOOP * Not available with compact fluorescent NOTES: 10" *DISTANCE TO LAMP (CF) 10’ LFHB 8’ BLACK CORD WITH FLAT HUB LCBLC 8’ BLACK CORD and CABLE *All compact fluorescent and LED housings may vary in size according LFHW 8’ WHITE CORD WITH FLAT HUB LCWHC 8’ WHITE CORD and CABLE to light source chosen. D - MOUNTING ADD-ONS (CONTINUED) LED - STEM AND ARM ADD-ONS * FOR LED & COMPACT FLUORESCENT OPTIONS, CANOPIES WILL VARY IN SIZE DUE TO SIZE OF THE DRIVER/BALLAST THAT WILL BE LOCATED INSIDE OF THE CANOPY. 3.5" 6" 6" 6" 2.5" 3.75" LWTM WEATHERTIGHT LED WALL MOUNT LSLC LED SLOPE CEILING CANOPY LSTC LED STEM MOUNT CANOPY BASELITE CORPORATION 12260 EAST END AVE. CHINO, CA 91710 PH: 877-999-1990 FAX: 909-548-4774 EMAIL: SALES@BASELITE.COM WEBSITE:WWW.BASELITE.COM PAGE 3 Page 24 of 396  PROJECT NAME: BASELITE SIGN LIGHTS CATALOG PROJECT TYPE: D - MOUNTING ADD-ONS (CONTINUED) UNIVERSAL STEM AND ARM ADD-ONS * EXAMPLE FOR MULTIPLE MOUNTING ADD-ONS: MODEL #: -/-/-/LWTM, TRB ½”, LGSWL/-/-/-/-/-/-/- A B C D E F G H I J K 5.5" 4.75" SWL 1/2" NPT swivel LGSWL 1/2" NPT SWIVEL FH 1/2" FLAT HUB 1/2" TRB 1/2"-4’ Cable SUPPORT For all arms 7” wide in For all shades greater than FH 3/4” FLAT HUB 3/4" TRB 3/4”-4’ Cable SUPPORT diameter or smaller 7” wide in diameter v F – LIGHT SOURCE BASELITE’S PUBLISHED LUMINAIRE PHOTOMETRIC TESTING WAS PERFORMED IN A 3-METER INTEGRATING SPHERE USING THE 4TT GEOMETRY METHOD. DATA IS CONSIDERED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONFIGURATIONS SHOWN, WITHIN THE TOLERANCES ALLOWED BY LIGHTING FACTS. TO OBTAIN AN IES FILE SPECIFIC TO YOUR PROJECT, PLEASE CONTACT THE FACTORY. LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) *IMPORTANT – FOR LIGHT EMITTED DIODE (LED) LIGHT SOURCE OPTION FIXTURES ARE LED 12W (MAX) - A807, A810 LIMITED DUE TO SIZE OF THE FIXTURE AND THE CORD WATTAGE RESTRICTIONS. PLEASE SEE LED 25W (MAX) - A812, A814 AVAILABILITY CHART TO THE LEFT. EXAMPLE: / LED12W / OPTION WATTAGE LUMENS CRI VOLTAGE DIMMING LED12W 12W 1515 >90 120-277 VAC See section “H” LED25W 25W 2760 >90 120-277 VAC See section “H” @3500K H – ELECTRICAL OPTION MOST BASELITE’S ELECTRICAL OPTIONS ARE ONLY COMPATIBLE FOR CERTAIN FIXTURES. PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW AND FOR FURTHER DEATIALS CONTACT THE FACTORY. FOR DIMMING BALLAST OPTION PLEASE CHOOSE MARK X OR MARK VII, SO RESTRICTIONS APPLY DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BALLAST AND FIXTURE. LED DIMMING OPTIONS FOR TRIAC OR 0-10V OPTOIN CHOOSE FROM THE FOLLOWING. CONTACT DRIVER MANUFACTURER FOR SPECIFICATIONS. LDM120 - TRIAC DIMMING AT 120 VOLT LDM277 - TRIAC DIMMING AT 277 VOLT LDM0-10V – 0 – 10v BASELITE CORPORATION 12260 EAST END AVE. CHINO, CA 91710 PH: 877-999-1990 FAX: 909-548-4774 EMAIL: SALES@BASELITE.COM WEBSITE:WWW.BASELITE.COM PAGE 4 Page 25 of 396  PROJECT NAME: BASELITE SIGN LIGHTS CATALOG PROJECT TYPE: I – GLASS OPTIONS *NOTE: MUST USE TEMPERED GLASS FOR LIGHT FIXTURES USING HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) LIGHT SOURCE OPTION. CL3 3” CLEAR GLASS PR3 3” PRISMATIC GLASS RE3 3” RED GLASS BL3 3” BLUE GLASS CLT3 3” CLEAR TEMPERED D GLASS – DIMENSIONS 3” GLASS Diameter 3.34” Height 6.93” Fitter 3.29” H FR3 3” FROSTED GLASS AH3 3” AMBER HYDE GLASS GR3 3” GREEN GLASS FRT3 3” FROSTED TEMPERED GLASS – MAX WATTAGE 3” GLASS – 100W INC / LED12W F J – ACCESSORIES 9.875" 7.5" 4" 5.5" GR07 7” WIRE GRILL GU-1 CAST ALUMINUM GUARD GU-2 CAST ALUMINUM GUARD GR10 10” WIRE GRILL GR12 12” WIRE GRILL GR14 14” WIRE GRILL BASELITE CORPORATION 12260 EAST END AVE. CHINO, CA 91710 PH: 877-999-1990 FAX: 909-548-4774 EMAIL: SALES@BASELITE.COM WEBSITE:WWW.BASELITE.COM PAGE 5 Page 26 of 396  ATTACHMENT B d. Building Signage Commercial signs should reflect the character of the building style, while expressing each store’s individuality. There are several prominent sign styles that are appropriate to Winnetka: surface mounted, pin-mounted, interior, decal and projecting blade signs. Sign materials are limited to painted wood, canvas, architectural glass and metal. Sign color must harmonize with the building upon which it is mounted and adjacent structures. Lettering color can be unique to the image of the retailer/user. Metal sign and plaque material such as brushed bronze, antique bronze, aluminum, stainless steel and painted cast iron or similarly appearing materials are preferred. Highly reflective metallic signs are not allowed. Signs should be lit by marquee or spot lighting; neon lighting is not permitted. Spot lighting should be minimal and unobtrusive and, per the Village Code, the source of illumination shall not be visible from any street, sidewalk or dwelling. Simplified industrial light fixtures are not permitted. Contextual solutions are recommended. The majority of the signs will be mounted within the building’s sign band, defined as the wall area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” above grade and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. (MC-01-2023, amended, 01/17/2023) Signs must comply with the general provisions of the Winnetka Sign Ordinance as well as design provisions contained within these Design Guidelines. 1. Surface mounted commercial signs are either fabricated from painted wood or cast metal plaques and are to be mounted within the sign band or within the storefront transom. The height of the sign is restricted to 75% of the area of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The sign band of a building consists of the area located above the ground floor storefront opening and below the second floor windowsill, and is located a minimum of 8’-0” and a maximum of 15’-0” above grade. Refer to figures 28, 29, and 30 for location. Surface mounted or pin- mounted signs are not permitted on secondary elevations without a defined sign band. 2. Pin-mounted commercial signs consist of reverse channel, cast metal and flat cut metal letters mounted above the storefront in the masonry sign band or suspended in front of the storefront at the transom or recessed entry. The size of the lettering is restricted so that the height of the letters does not exceed 75% of the height of the sign band or 14 inches - whichever is less. The length of the lettering is to be Figure 38 contained within 75% of the length of the sign band. (See figure 38) 19 Building & Architecture Page 27 of 396  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: APRIL 9, 2026 SUBJECT: 588 LINCOLN AVE. – CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR STOREFRONT IMPROVEMENTS (CASE NO. 26-03-DR) INTRODUCTION On April 16, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness application submitted by Rail Splitter Capital Management (the “Applicant”), the current lessee of the commercial space located at 588 Lincoln Avenue (the “Subject Property”), seeking approval for removing existing wall sign and storefront improvements, including the replacement of existing wood panels, the entrance door, and windows. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue between Elm and Pine Streets. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial District and is occupied by Rail Splitter Capital Management. Figure 1 below and 2 on the following page identify the Subject Property. Location of the Subject Property Figure 1 – Subject Property- Location Map Page 28 of 396  Location of the Rail Splitter Capital Management Storefront Figure 2 – Subject Property - View of the existing storefront from Public Parking Lot CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to improve the storefront, including the removal of the existing wall sign and the replacement of existing wood panels, door, and windows as shown in the illustration below. Proposed Exterior Storefront Changes • New storefront wood panels attached to the existing brick wall, painted white; • Install a new window and door painted white, and • Install three new Tech Lighting LED dimmable light fixtures in charcoal with clear cylinders. Proposed Storefront Changes A copy of the Applicant’s application materials is included in Attachment A. Page 29 of 396 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The Board must determine if the proposed storefront improvements comply with the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines provide guidance on the materials and color of exterior facades and exterior lighting for commercial buildings. 1) The brick color palette of a building should be “restricted to those present in the district but can vary in color from reds to yellows and have varying levels of iron spotting.” 2) The number of façade colors should be minimized, and the use of white and cream stucco with reds and browns should be considered to emphasize earth tones and eliminate saturated colors. 3) Incandescent and low-voltage lighting may be allowed. 4) Fixtures should be contextual with the building and adjacent building design. 5) Building lighting should focus on providing light on building signs and enhancing architectural details on the facade. 6) All lighting shall be located and shielded from direct visibility from any dwelling or public street per the Winnetka Village Code. 7) Wall lanterns and architectural highlighting should be considered. Sodium and fluorescent lighting is not allowed.” The Village’s Design Guidelines provide general guidance on the design and appearance of exterior façades on commercial buildings and additionally provide guidance on commercial storefront doors and window material and color selection, recommending that the selection be sympathetic to the overall building color palette and consider the adjacent building materials within the structure, immediately adjacent structures, structures within the same block, and structures across the street. The Project abides by the Village Design Guidelines, as the applicant maintains the materials and colors currently on the building. Excerpts of the Village Design Guidelines related to windows and doors on commercial buildings are included in Attachment B. Page 30 of 396 SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB approve the proposed storefront improvements as appropriate and compatible with the Certificate of Appropriateness Standards and Design Guidelines and approve the application as proposed. Should the DRB find the proposed improvements appropriate, the Applicant would first need to obtain the approved permit from the Community Development Department before making storefront improvements. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the April 16 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed storefront improvements. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion for approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. A DRB member should make a motion for approval or denial based upon the following findings of fact: a. The proposed storefront improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 31 of 396 Page 32 of 396 Page 33 of 396 Page 34 of 396 Page 35 of 396 Page 36 of 396 Page 37 of 396 Page 38 of 396 Page 39 of 396  ATTACHEMENT B Architectural Series of Asphalt Shingles (3 ply) (See figure 49) Wood Shingles (Fire treated) Slate (See figure 48) Real Copper (No other metal roofs are allowed) Figure 46 Institutional only Flat roofs must be hidden by parapet on primary / secondary facades. Commercial and Multiple- Family Flat roof must not be visible from street, pedestrian, or open spaces. d. Door and Window Materials: Commercial, Mixed Use, Institutional, Multiple- Family Residential: Entry doors should be wood or aluminum stile and rail with varying degrees of glass. Public entry doors should be Figure 47 fully glazed whereas private and semi- private entries should be primarily solid panel doors. Storefront window units should be either paneled aluminum or brass. Many original storefronts, some with transom windows, remain in the districts. Efforts should be taken to repair and renovate these systems Figure 48 where feasible. Window frames should be wood, steel or aluminum. Vinyl windows are not acceptable. Muntin divisions should be real divided glass or simulated with spacer bars. Snap-in muntins are not acceptable. Color selection should be sympathetic with the overall building color palette and take into account the adjacent building materials within the structure, immediately adjacent structures, structures within the same block and Figure 49 structures across the street. Entry door hardware is to be exterior grade with weather-resistant finish. Hardware design and finish is to be appropriate with facade articulation, color palette and district character. Glazing should be clear glass without tint or film. 25 Building & Architecture Page 40 of 396  MEMORANDUM VILLAGEOF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 10, 2026 SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (CASE NO. 25-28-SU) INTRODUCTION On April 16, 2026, the Design Review Board (“DRB”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. This item was originally scheduled for the March 26, 2026, DRB meeting; however, the Applicant requested the item be continued to the April 16, 2026, DRB meeting. The DRB granted the Applicant’s request and continued the item to the April 16 DRB meeting. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, in compliance with the Village Code, informing them of the original public hearing on March 26. The Applicant has also submitted a Special Use Permit application to allow the proposed fencing. Information about the special use permit review is provided to the DRB for reference only. The DRB’s purview is limited to consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the Park District’s original plan for the special use permit (the only plan that the Park District presented to the PC) at its January 28, 2026, meeting, at which it directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations for consideration at the February 25, 2026, PC meeting. On February 25, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use permit on February 9. However, the item was continued without presentation to the March 9, 2026, ZBA meeting because the Winnetka Park District Board had authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and it had not been submitted to the Village for review before the February 9 ZBA meeting. On March 9, the ZBA considered the Applicant’s new plan (the only plan that the Park District presented to the ZBA) and by a vote of 7-0 the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determination for consideration at the March 16 special ZBA meeting. On March 16, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Details regarding the PC’s and ZBA’s considerations are provided later in this report. Page 1 Page 41 of 396 As of the date of this memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Most of these comments were received by the Village for consideration by the PC and ZBA. Additional comments have also been received since the ZBA’s consideration of the Applicant’s request. Comments previously included in the PC and ZBA packets are provided in Attachment B. Comments received since the posting of the March 16, 2026, ZBA agenda packet are provided in Attachment C. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i) the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the east. The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses, which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve Land (see Figure 2). The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family Residential to the west (see Figure 3). In addition, the Zoning Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit approval. The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well. Subject Property Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Page 42 of 396  Subject Property Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan Subject Property Figure 3 – Zoning Map Page 43 of 396 Figures 4 and 5 below are photos of the Subject Property taken in January. Figures 6 through 9 on the following pages were taken in the summer of 2024. Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026) Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026) Page 44 of 396 Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Page 45 of 396  Figure 8 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024) Figure 9 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024) PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the beach to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach. The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Currently, patrons are required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above and dogs are required to be leashed. As explained by the Applicant in the attached letter dated April 3, 2026, included in Attachment A, the Applicant is proceeding in an unusual way. The Page 46 of 396 Applicant is asking the DRB to consider two options; the original plan (“Original Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the Plan Commission and the new plan (“New Plan”) that the Applicant presented to the ZBA. Original Plan (presented to the Plan Commission). The Original Plan consists of two rows of galvanized steel chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the beach into the lake. Both the north and south fence would have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates that they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate to remain at the top of bluff. North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate 10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM. South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall east towards the water (Figure 12). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet. In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of the proposed fencing and gates for the Original Plan are provided below and on the following pages (Figures 10-16). The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A. OHWM (Front Lot Line) Proposed Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence (key fob access) and Gate Proposed Existing Steel North Fence Sheet Pile Wall and Gate Figure 10 –Original Plan - Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0) Page 47 of 396  OHWM (Front Lot Line) Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 261 Sheridan Road Proposed Access Gate Figure 11 – Original Plan - Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 205 Sheridan Road Proposed OHWM Access Gate (Front Lot Line) Figure 12 – Original Plan - Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Page 48 of 396 As proposed in the Original Plan, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin. Figure 13 – Original Plan - North Access Gate Figure 14 – Original Plan - South Access Gate Figure 15 – Original Plan - Elevation of North Fence Figure 16 – Original Plan - Elevation of South Fence New Plan (presented to the ZBA). Following the Applicant’s special meeting on February 5, the Applicant submitted a New Plan, which is also included in Attachment A. In the New Plan, the existing gate at the top of the bluff would remain but access would be controlled with a programed timed locking system that would operate from 6:00am to 10:00pm, this allows for public access to the beach. While entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area would be restricted with the key fob system currently in place at the top of the bluff. There would be a double-entry gate system to allow for unleashing and leashing of dogs. There would also be a 10-foot wide maintenance access gate that would remain locked and used by Park District staff. The Fire Department has requested access to the maintenance gate for emergency responses and the Applicant has agreed to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide access. The proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet of the beach frontage for dogs to be off-leash (Figure 17). This represents a reduction of approximately Page 49 of 396 50% from the Original Plan presented to the PC in terms of the linear frontage of the dog beach area. Another major difference in the New Plan is the addition of a west fence that would be located 12 feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without entering the off- leash dog area. This fence would be 4 feet in height above grade (sand level) and be black chain-link, rather than the galvanized chain-link proposed in the Original Plan. Use of Remaining Beach Area. Included in Attachment A, is a narrative dated March 4, 2026, provided by the Applicant explaining the use of the remainder of Centennial Beach given the New Plan limits the dog beach area to roughly half of Centennial Beach. The remaining portion of the beach consists of approximately 260 feet of lake frontage and would be used as a passive beach without swimming. The Applicant indicates that staffing for the passive beach would generally be late May through early September and that access to the beach would require a beach pass. The beach will remain accessible from 6:00am until 10:00pm outside the typical beach season, but it will not be staffed. North Fence. The north portion of the fence would be 46’-6” feet in length with approximately 20 feet of the fence extending from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) lakeward (Figure 18). The 4-wide access gate would be located where the west and north fence meet. Patrons would enter through this gate into an unleashing and leashing area measuring 10 feet by 10 feet. The extent to which the proposed fence would extend beyond the OHWM is reduced by approximately 20 feet in the New Plan. South Fence. The south fence would be 49’-3” in length, and also extend approximately 20 feet from the OHWM towards the lake (Figure 19). There would not be an access gate in this portion of the fencing. At the west end, the fence would be set back 5 feet from the south property line. Due to the angle of the existing steel groin, upon which the proposed fencing would be installed, in relation to the south property line, the distance between the proposed fence and the south property line would narrow from 5 feet at the west end until it meets the south property line and ends. Given the proximity of the proposed fence to the south property line, it is important to note the distance between the property line and the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin is approximately 10 feet and at this location the fence would be north of the property line by at least 1’-11”. In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the two lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular, so that these sections could be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring. The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of the proposed fencing in the New Plan are provided on the following pages (Figures 17 through 21). The complete set of the New Plan is included in Attachment A. Page 50 of 396  Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 261 Sheridan Road OHWM Proposed (Front Lot Line) Fence Existing Stairs to Beach Proposed (time restricted access) Access Gate Figure 17 – New Plan - Site Fencing Plan (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Proposed Proposed Unleashing/Leashing Area Fence (key fob access) Proposed Maintenance Existing Sea Wall Access Gate Figure 18 – New Plan - North and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Page 51 of 396  Property Line Between Centennial Park & Beach and 205 Sheridan Road Proposed Fence Figure 19 – New Plan - South and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0) Figure 20 – New Plan - Elevation of North Fence Figure 21 – New Plan - Elevation of South Fence Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM. Page 52 of 396 The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed fence complies with the zoning regulations. CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Plan Commission. On January 28, 2026, the PC considered the Applicant’s Original Plan and the only Plan the Applicant presented to the PC for approval of a special use permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. 15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request. By a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion of the Original Plan for consideration at the next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026. On February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. Zoning Board of Appeals. As noted at the beginning of this report, on February 9, 2026, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use. However, since the Winnetka Park District Board authorized a new plan at its February 5 special meeting and the new plan had not been submitted to the Village for review in advance of the February 9 ZBA meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA voted to continue the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. At the March 9 meeting, after hearing from staff and the Applicant, the ZBA heard from 15 members of the public. Approximately 14 members of the public expressed significant concerns about safety, public access, parking, private property encroachments, and beach obstructions. By a vote of 7-0, the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the ZBA’s discussion of the New Plan for consideration at the next ZBA meeting on March 16. On March 16, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the ZBA approved the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the DRB is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The DRB will need to determine if the proposed fencing on the existing beach located at Centennial Beach Page 53 of 396 complies with the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines provide recommendations and standards on the appearance of site and building design for commercial and institutional uses. The Design Guidelines were predominantly developed for use within the three business districts and nearby multi-family residential and institutional structures. Therefore, it is challenging to use the Design Guidelines for areas outside of the three business districts. With respect to fencing, the Design Guidelines focus on fencing for screening of mechanical equipment and streetscape elements, including obscuring the view of parking lots, in the business districts, multifamily residential, and institutional areas, which are not applicable to this request. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION At the April 16 DRB meeting, the DRB is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed fencing on Centennial Beach. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the DRB will have the following options: 1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the DRB; or 2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. If the DRB is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the request, a DRB member should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following findings of fact and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and determinations for the DRB’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting: a. The proposed fencing is consistent [is not consistent] with the following standards used for evaluating a certificate of appropriateness: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. b. [If the DRB chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] As noted above, any motion on a decision by the Design Review Board should direct the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and determinations for the Design Review Board to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting. ATTACHMENTS Page 54 of 396 Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Public Correspondence Previously Included in ZBA and PC Agenda Packets Attachment C: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of March 16, 2026, ZBA Agenda Packet Page 55 of 396  ATTACHMENT A Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District 1380 Willow Road Winnetka Illinois 60093 April 3, 2026 Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka Winnetka Illinois 60093 Re: Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach Design Review Board Meeting Ann, Per our recent conversation, I wanted to follow up with additional clarification regarding the design elements associated with the Centennial Dog Beach fencing project currently under review as part of Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU. This letter and exhibits are intended to supplement the materials previously submitted to the Village of Winnetka in advance of the Design Review Board meeting scheduled for April 16, 2026. I have also included an updated Certificate of Appropriateness Application, which has been revised to clearly reflect the optionality of the two proposed plan configurations. As you are aware, the Park District initially submitted its Special Use Permit application on October 21, 2025. Since that time, the Park District has continued to refine the plans in response to staff review, Plan Commission feedback, and Park Board direction. The most recent plan set was submitted on February 13, 2026, with a corrected plan illustration transmitted on February 17, 2026. Additional materials outlining operational considerations and providing further design detail were submitted on March 4, 2026, to support the ongoing review process for Centennial Beach. Based on the materials provided to date, it is our understanding that the primary design elements relevant to the Design Review Board’s review have been incorporated within the submitted plan sets. However, I would like to clearly communicate that the Park District is formally requesting 1 Page 56 of 396 Design Review Board consideration of both the original fencing plan (submitted October 21, 2025) and the revised Alternate 1 plan (submitted February 17, 2026). Given the progression of this application through the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, where only a single plan configuration (though differing between boards) was presented at each stage, the Park District believes it is important to provide the Design Review Board, and ultimately the Village Council, with the opportunity to evaluate both design approaches concurrently. This approach is intended to provide greater flexibility and transparency in the review process, while ensuring that all viable design options remain under consideration as part of the final decision-making process. For reference, the Park District has received permits from IDNR, IEPA, and USACE for the original plan design. As discussed, additional clarification regarding fencing materials and color palette will assist the Design Review Board in completing its review. The original plan (Exhibit A), submitted October 21, 2025, illustrates two galvanized fencing runs inset approximately 20 feet from both the north and south park property lines. These fence lines extend approximately 15 feet into the lake from the existing western seawall and incorporate double-entry gate systems to facilitate safe leashing and unleashing of dogs while minimizing the potential for unintended egress, consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control (CCDARC) requirements. Fence posts are designed to be driven into the sand to refusal and cut to a height of approximately 4 feet above grade. The northern fence segment is approximately 76 feet in length, and the southern segment approximately 63 feet, with the easternmost 15 feet of each segment designed for seasonal removal to accommodate winter lake conditions. The fencing is intended to follow the existing beach profile and be maintained accordingly. Both options maintain the gate at the top of the bluff allowing access to Centennial Beach accordingly. Alternate 1 (Exhibit B), submitted February 17, 2026, represents a revised approach that reduces the overall length of the off-leash dog beach area by approximately half and responds directly to concerns raised during Plan Commission review. Under this alternative, the existing gate at the top of the bluff will remain, maintaining access from the upland area and allow for closure of the site during off hours. This gate is metal and finished in black, consistent with its existing condition. At the beach level, the proposed fencing includes both post-driven sections for the western fence run (approximately 265 linear feet, offset 12 feet from the existing seawall) as well as panels affixed to the existing steel groins, which will serve as the structural support for the east-west fence runs. All fencing materials will consist of black vinyl-coated chain link with black metal components. The imagery included in Exhibit B provides representative examples of the proposed material and appearance. This fencing type is consistent with installations throughout the Park District system and community, including the Skokie Playfield campus (COA approved) and Duke Child Fields and was selected for its durability and adaptability within the dynamic shoreline environment of Lake Michigan. Like the original plan, the easternmost 20 feet of fencing will be seasonally removed to prevent damage from winter storm events. 2 Page 57 of 396 All proposed beach-level gates will be constructed of matching materials and finished in black to maintain a cohesive and consistent visual appearance. The use of black fencing in lakefront settings is a widely accepted design approach, as it minimizes visual prominence, preserves sightlines toward Lake Michigan, and blends more effectively with the surrounding landscape. Similar applications can be observed at both Elder Lane and the Centennial Park bluffs, where black fencing is used to reduce visual impact and integrate with natural surroundings. The outer beach-level gate will operate with a key fob-controlled locking system to ensure compliance with CCDARC access control requirements for off-leash dog areas. Regardless of the option ultimately selected, signage will be installed in accordance with the Park District’s standard signage branding program to ensure consistency across facilities while providing clear operational and wayfinding information for users. Representative examples are included in Exhibit B. If the Design Review Board or Village staff require any additional information in advance of the April 16, 2026 meeting, please do not hesitate to reach out. The Park District appreciates the continued coordination with Village staff as the review process moves forward. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District Harold W. Francke, Legal Counsel, Winnetka Park District Centennial Beach Project 3 Page 58 of 396 Exhibit A Winnetka Park District – Special Use Permit Case No 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Beach Original Plan and additional images of the proposed project materials for the fencing. Image from January 2023 showing the approximate location size and scale of the northern fence (no fabric was installed in the photo) 4 Page 59 of 396 Image from January 2023 showing the proposed fencing materials (galvanized chain-link) 5 Page 60 of 396 Image from 2010 of the previous fencing that was installed at Centennial Beach near the north property line. (Galvanized posts and fabric). 6 Page 61 of 396 Images of 4’ Galvanized Chain-Link Fencing (similar in design to what proposed for original design Design) 7 Page 62 of 396  8 6 575 56 4 57 57 575 57 5 1 East Wacker Drive Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 577 p 312.467.5445 574 f 312.467.5484 3 574 575 thelakotagroup.com 57 575 576 575 575 580 PREPARED FOR 577 Winnetka Park 580 580 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W 580 District 580 585 540 Hibbard Rd 586 Winnetka, IL 60093 584 584 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH 585 585 584 Temporary 586 Dog Beach Fencing 261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 REVISIONS No Date Issue VICINITY MAP SCALE IN FEET 1" = 30' 0' 15' 30' 90' NORTH SHEET NUMBER SHERIDAN ROAD L1.0 C 2025 The Lakota Group Page 63 of 396  570 574 8 1 East Wacker Drive 5 575 56 4 Suite 2700 7 57 Chicago, Illinois 60601 6 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 57 thelakotagroup.com 5 577 574 PREPARED FOR 4 57 57 575 Winnetka Park 3 575 District 15'-0" 540 Hibbard Rd WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093 575 ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) 575 59'-0" CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH NORTH FENCE 48" TALL WITH 580 Temporary 15'-0" TWO 10'-0" DOUBLE GATES SOUTH FENCE 48" TALL WITH SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0 TWO 3'-3" SINGLE GATES SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0 Dog Beach WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY 6'-0" ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) 577 3'-3" Fencing 57'-0" 580 580 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W 16'-0" 225 Sheridan Rd 580 585 586 Winnteka, IL 60093 6'-0" 20'-0" 10'-0" 584 584 585 24'-0" 585 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg 586 20'-0" 205 SHERIDAN RD It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 261 SHERIDAN RD Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 REVISIONS No Date Issue CL 5' o.c., 3'-3" typ. o.c., typ. Double gate latch for public access Steel frame, attached to hinges Gate hinges, mounted to gate (2) Gate hinges, mounted to gate Single gate latch Steel frame, attached for public access to hinges SITE FENCING PLAN SCALE IN FEET 1" = 20' 0' 10' 20' 60' NORTH SHEET NUMBER 1 Double Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 Single Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" C L2.0 2025 The Lakota Group Page 64 of 396  24'-0" 10'-0" 57'-0" 15'-0" 6'-0" Normal Water Line 1 East Wacker Drive ELEV 578.6 Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com Plan Fence ties, 12" o.c. 2" Line post, typ. 10'-0" Double gate with PREPARED FOR 8'-0" eq. to gate evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. 10'-0" latch for public access See Detail 1, Sheet L1.0 Winnetka Park District 1 83" dia. top rail, continuous 540 Hibbard Rd 4'-0" Chain link fencing, typ. Winnetka, IL 60093 9'-6" eq. to gate CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TBD in field, Temporary see notes Normal Water Line Dog Beach Fencing 585 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence Notes: 1 580 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts. 575 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2. Posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Posts will then be cut 48" above the sand line H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2023\23008 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park\07 Graphics\03 DD CD\01 CAD\20250422 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 6'-0" Call before Call Before You Dig 15'-0" you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 16'-0" 3'-3" 59'-0" ISSUED FOR PERMIT April 25, 2025 Plan REVISIONS No Date Issue 8'-0" eq. to gate Fence ties, 12" o.c. 3'-3" Single gate with latch for public access See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 2" Line post, typ. evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail, continuous 9'-10" eq. to gate TBD in field, FENCE see notes ELEVATIONS Normal Water Line SCALE IN FEET 1/4" = 1'-0" 0' 2' 4' 12' NORTH SHEET NUMBER 2 Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" C L3.0 2025 The Lakota Group Page 65 of 396 Exhibit B Winnetka Park District – Special Use Permit Case No 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Beach Alternate 1 Plans and additional images of the proposed project materials for the fencing. Images of 4’ Black Chain-Link Fencing (similar in design to what proposed for Alternate 1 Design) Image of black chain-link fencing similar in design to the proposed Alternate 1 dog fence double access gate area. 8 Page 66 of 396 Image of the existing Centennial Beach Kep Fob Gate with signage (top of bluff) Image of the existing Centennial Beach black fencing (top of bluff) Site images of the project location were already included in the original Certificate of Appropriateness (Dated 10-21-2025) Additional images will be provided to the Design Review Board the evening of the meeting (April 16, 2026). 9 Page 67 of 396  FENCE MOUNTED TO GROINS 4’ HT - GOES TO 5’ DIFFERENTIAL IN SAND HEIGHT AT E R L I NE NORMAL W FENCE INSTALLED ON STEEL JETTI DOUBLE GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS 4’ HT - GOES TO 5’ DIFFERENTIAL RELOCATED KEY FOB ACCESS 4’ HEIGHT, TWO DOORS FOR EQUIPMENT ACCESS IN SAND HEIGHT AT E R L I NE HIGH W LEGEND SHEET PILE (EXISTING) PROPOSED DOG BEACH FENCING 4’H BLACK VINYL-COATED CHAIN LINK EXISTING PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS BEACH ACCESS GATE DOUBLE-GATED DOG BEACH ENTRY ACCESS TO BEACH EXISTING STAIRCASE TO REMAIN ACCESS TO BEACH KEY CARD ACCESS GATE CENTENNIAL BEACH & BLUFF IMPROVEMENTS CENTENNIAL DOG FENCE PLAN: ALTERNATE 1 SCALE: 1”=10’ 0 5’ 10’ 20’ NORTH WINNETKA, ILLINOIS MARCH 5, 2026 © 2026 THE LAKOTA GROUP Page 68 of 396  1 East Wacker Drive TW 581.70 Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com TW 582.40 TW 582.20 TW 582.80 PREPARED FOR TW 583.00 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 583.20 Winnetka Park District TW 588.80 TW 591.60 540 Hibbard Rd Winnetka, IL 60093 TW 584.00 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 588.80 Dog Beach Fencing Alternate Plan 1 261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD 225 Sheridan Rd Winnteka, IL 60093 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue VICINITY MAP SCALE IN FEET 1" = 30' 0' 15' 30' 90' NORTH SHEET NUMBER C L1.0 2026 The Lakota Group Page 69 of 396  1 East Wacker Drive Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 p 312.467.5445 f 312.467.5484 thelakotagroup.com TW 581.70 SOUTH FENCE PREPARED FOR SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0 Winnetka Park District TW 582.40 540 Hibbard Rd WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093 ELEV. 581.5 (HIGH WATER LINE) ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) TW 582.20 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 582.80 1'-11" NORTH FENCE Dog Beach 49'-3" SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0 TW 582.50 10'-0" Fencing 265'-0" 33'-2" WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE) Alternate Plan 1 TW 583.20 TW 583.00 5'-0" PROJECT SITE LOCATION: 225 Sheridan Rd 46'-6" 42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 588.80 12'-0" Winnteka, IL 60093 10'-0" TW 591.60 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" TW 584.00 EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRS 4'-0" LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 10 FT TW 588.80 H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE RESIDENT ACCESS GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS GATE WEST FENCE AT DOG BEACH WITH RELOCATED KEY SEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET CHAIN LINK FABRIC TO BE EXTEND CENTENNIAL BEACH FOB ACCESS 1'-0" BELOW SAND ELEVATION ACCESS GATE, SEE DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 3, THIS SHEET TIMER CONTROLLED 205 SHERIDAN RD It's smart. It's free. It's the law. 261 SHERIDAN RD Call Before You Dig Call before you dig. ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 ISSUED FOR PERMIT March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue CL 5' o.c., 4' o.c., typ. typ. Double gate latch for maintenance access Steel frame, attached to hinges Key Card Access for Gate hinges, Residents mounted to gate (2) Gate hinges, mounted to gate Fence Post (behind) Steel frame, attached to hinges SITE FENCING 4' from sand elevation Chain Link Fabric, typ. Notes: PLAN 1. Posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut 48" above the sand line SCALE IN FEET 1' Chain Link Fabric with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be 1" = 20' buried below grade for fence panels. Gate panels shall not have buried buried into sand Post Footing driven to 0' 10' 20' 60' refusal, typ. chain link fabric condition. See Note NORTH SHEET NUMBER 1 Maintenance Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 Resident Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 West Fence at Dog Beach - Cross Section Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" C L2.0 2026 The Lakota Group Page 70 of 396  12'-0" 583 10'-0" 582 581 580 36'-6" 579 578 577 58 4 4'-0" High Water Line Chain Link Fencing Normal Water Line ELEV 581.5 mounted to groin ELEV 578.6 Relocated Key 1 East Wacker Drive 10'-0" Fob Access Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Access Gate p 312.467.5445 See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 f 312.467.5484 4'-0" thelakotagroup.com 577 Embedded Fence Posts, typ. 583 582 581 580 578 See notes 579 Plan 2" Line post mounted to groin, typ. PREPARED FOR TW 588.80 evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ. 9'-1" eq. 1 83" dia. top rail Winnetka Park 10'-0" Sand Elevation Fence ties, 12" o.c. Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin District 540 Hibbard Rd 4'-0" 4'-4" Winnetka, IL 60093 3'-8" 3'-11" 3'-2" 2'-11" High Water Line 3'-5" 2'-8" 2'-2" 584.00 TW 584.00 2'-5" ELEV 581.5 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH TW 583.00 583.00 TW 582.50 582.00 Dog Beach 4'-10" from sand 5'-0" height 581.00 5'-0" height 5'-0" height from sand from sand from sand 580.00 579.00 Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 Fencing elevation, typ. elevation, typ elevation, typ elevation 578.00 577.00 Alternate Plan 1 Notes: 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 225 Sheridan Rd 2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. 3. Posts shown over steel groin to be surface-mounted onto the steel groin. Winnteka, IL 60093 4. At-grade fence posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade. Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence 1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg 586 585 584 583 580 579 578 577 582 581 High Water Line 575 12'-0" ELEV 581.5 576 49'-3" Normal Water Line ELEV 578.6 5'-0" to It's smart. It's free. It's the law. Call Call before Property Line Before You Dig you dig. 1'-11" to Chain Link Fencing ILLINOIS ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811 Property Line mounted to groin Approximate location of stone steps is 10FT south of WPD property line for public access ISSUED FOR PERMIT Plan March 3, 2026 REVISIONS No Date Issue 2" Line post 2" Line post mounted Chain link fencing, typ. Approximate location of stone steps is 10 FT driven into sand to groin, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail south of the WPD property line for public access Sand Elevation See Notes. 9'-10" eq. evenly spaced, 10'-0" 588.80 o.c. max. Fence ties, 12" o.c. Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin 4'-0" 586.00 4'-11" 4'-0" 4'-2" 585.00 4'-0" 4'-2" 584.00 3'-9" TW 583.00 TW 582.80 2'-4" 2'-6" High Water Line Fence post footing depth 583.00 582.00 TW 582.40 ELEV 581.5 FENCE 4'-8" height TBD in Field, 581.00 5'-0" height from ELEVATIONS 5'-0" height from 580.00 Normal Water Line see Notes from sand 579.00 ELEV 578.6 elevation sand elevation sand elevation 578.00 SCALE IN FEET 1/4" = 1'-0" Notes: 1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 0' 2' 4' 12' 2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. NORTH SHEET NUMBER 3. Westernmost post identified in elevation to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will L3.0 then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade. Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence 2 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" C 2026 The Lakota Group Page 71 of 396  Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION 225 Sheridan Road Project Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ Winnetka Park District Name of Business(es):__________________________________________________________________________ Application is hereby made for the following work (please check all that apply):  Sign Sign Permit Application attached?   Awning Awning Permit Application attached?   Other (general description) Installation of Dog Beach Fencing _______________________________________________________________ Please provide a detailed description of the proposed work (attach additional information such as material specifications, photographs, etc.): ________________________________________________________________ Looking to install dog beach fencing at Centennial Park. There are two different ____________________________________________________________________________________________ options submitted, Park District is formally requesting Design Review Board consideration of both the original fencing plan ____________________________________________________________________________________________ (submitted 10/21/2025) and the revised Alternate 1 Plan (submitted 2/17/2026). 4/3/2026 Letter to Village CD describes both plans. I/We hereby certify that as Owner _________(Lessee/Owner) of the property located at ________________________(address), I am/we are authorized to submit plans for alterations of the subject 225 Sheridan Road property. I/We agree to perform the subject work in accordance with the conditions of approval by the Winnetka Design Review Board as well as all other applicable codes, rules and regulations of the Village of Winnetka. SIGNED __________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PRINTED NAME(S) Costa Kutulas __________________________ COA applied for (date): __________ ADDRESS 540 Hibbard Road __________________________ COA Case Number: __________ PHONE NO. 847-501-2052 __________________________ COA Issued (date): __________ EMAIL ckutulas@winpark.org __________________________ The Lakota Group PRIMARY DESIGN FIRM ______________________________ CONTACT NAME Costa Kutulas ______________________________ ADDRESS 540 Hibbard Road ______________________________ Winnetka IL 60093 ______________________________ PHONE NO. 847-501-2052Page 4 of 4 ______________________________ EMAIL ckutulas@winpark.org ______________________________ Page 72 of 396 Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District 1380 Willow Road Winnetka Illinois 60093 March 4, 2026 Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka Winnetka Illinois 60093 Re: Park Board Operational Direction – February 26, 2026 Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach (Alternate 1) Dear Ann, This letter is intended to formally document the operational direction provided by the Winnetka Park Board at its February 26, 2026 meeting regarding Centennial Beach and the proposed fenced off-leash dog beach (Alternate 1), in connection with Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28- SU. Following approval of Alternate 1 on February 5, 2026, the Park Board reviewed operational components necessary to refine the Special Use Permit application and to ensure that the proposed use satisfies applicable standards relating to public health, safety, welfare, compatibility, and site management. The actions summarized herein were approved contingent upon issuance of the necessary permits. With respect to access control and site management, the Board directed staff to maintain the existing access-controlled gate at the top of the bluff and to install a new access-controlled gate at the beach level, as reflected in Alternate 1. This dual-gate configuration provides layered access control and operational flexibility. The upper gate will operate pursuant to Park District Ordinance #504 and standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. through a programed timed locking system. The lower beach-level gate will operate during the same hours but will require a key fob for entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area. The key-fob system allows the Park District to regulate access, suspend operations during hazardous lake or weather 1 Page 73 of 396 conditions, and enforce compliance with dog beach eligibility requirements. We will also maintain the existing exit button which allows beach walkers to leave the site if there is an instance where someone might be exiting the beach outside of permitted hours or closures due to storm events. Collectively, these measures enhance public safety, improve enforceability, and ensure controlled access consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control regulations and Village leash law requirements. The Board further designated the approximately 260-foot section of Centennial Beach located immediately north of the fenced off-leash dog beach as a staffed passive beach with no swimming permitted. This designation was selected to maintain public shoreline access while avoiding the establishment of an additional programmed swimming beach and limiting the operational intensity of the site. Staffing for the passive beach will align with the typical swimming beach season, generally late May through early September. During that period, staff presence will provide oversight and management only, again no swimming will be permitted at the northern beach area. During this time the northern passive beach area will require a beach pass to utilize the beach area. This is the same review as practiced last Fall at Elder Lane Beach. This will help limit the potential influx of beach users if it was a “free beach” which could cause issues with parking on site and the adjacent streets. Outside of the traditional beach season, the passive beach will remain accessible during standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. but will not be staffed. This measured approach maintains access to the shoreline, limits potential conflicts between uses, and supports compatibility with adjacent properties and lakefront activities. The Board confirmed that the fenced off-leash dog beach will operate year-round, consistent with its longstanding historical operation at Centennial Beach. Daily operating hours for both the fenced off-leash dog beach and the northern passive beach were established at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. These hours align with standard park hours, provide predictability for neighboring properties, support enforceability through the timed gate system, and limit late-night activity that could affect neighborhood compatibility. The continuation of year-round dog beach operations, combined with defined daily hours and controlled access, reflects a continuation of an existing community amenity under strengthened regulatory and operational controls. Recognizing that parking and traffic considerations remain part of the Special Use Permit review, the Board established a prioritized parking management framework to guide implementation and allow flexibility for potential conditions of approval. The Board directed that permit-required parking access for dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents remain 2 Page 74 of 396 the primary strategy. If necessary, a two-hour parking restriction may be implemented to promote turnover. As a further measure, parking access could be reduced to dog beach pass holders only. The Board also authorized staff to evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service and to explore potential land-banking opportunities at Centennial Park. This structured hierarchy provides the Village and reviewing bodies with clear operational parameters while preserving the ability to implement additional mitigation measures should they be deemed necessary. Based on prior parking analysis and the shared use of the Elder Lane Park parking lot, the Park District believes that existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate projected demand; however, the District remains willing to evaluate additional measures as part of the review process. The project remains subject to review and approval by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control, and the Village of Winnetka. Revised plans reflecting the Board’s operational direction will be submitted to the appropriate agencies for evaluation. The timing of those reviews will depend upon each agency’s independent review process. The Park Board’s February 26, 2026 actions were intended to strengthen access control, clarify operational parameters, maintain shoreline access, limit intensity of use in the northern beach area, provide enforceable daily hours, establish a structured parking management hierarchy, and enhance overall site safety and compatibility. The Park District respectfully submits this operational clarification for inclusion in the Special Use Permit record and consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please advise if additional information would assist the Village in preparation for the March 9, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 3 Page 75 of 396 Winnetka Park District 540 Hibbard Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 February 13, 2026 Scott Mangum Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 RE: Centennial Beach Dog Fencing – Alternate Plan 1 Revision Narrative Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU – 225 Sheridan Road Dear Scott, On February 6, 2026, the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners reviewed the dog fencing proposal for Centennial Beach in consideration of the January 28, 2026 Plan Commission comments, public input, and Village staff review comments from the initial Special Use Permit review. Following that discussion, the Board directed staff to proceed with Alternate Plan 1 (attached), which represents a material redesign in response to that feedback. The original submittal proposed a contained enclosure defined by perpendicular fencing extending toward Lake Michigan at both the north and south ends of the beach. During the review process, concerns were raised regarding public safety, shoreline access, visual impact, and the interaction between fencing and lake conditions. The revised plan shifts the project away from installing new fencing across the beach to create an enclosed dog park. Instead, it uses the existing shoreline infrastructure and beach geometry to define the dog beach limits while maintaining continuous public access along the lakefront with a 12’ bypass to the west of the dog beach area. Page 76 of 396 Most notably, the revised design eliminates the previously proposed four-foot chain-link fence runs at the north and south ends of the beach, thereby minimizing fencing located within active wave zones. Rather than projecting fencing across the beach and into the lake to form an enclosed area, Alternate Plan 1 attaches boundary fencing to the existing steel groins and relocates the controlled entry point directly to beach level. This change significantly reduces the perceived enclosure of the beach and removes physical barriers previously identified as potential safety concerns. The relocated fencing runs will be modular, allowing seasonal removal of the easternmost sections in areas subject to ice damming and winter lake conditions. A dedicated pedestrian bypass corridor has also been incorporated into the revised design. This feature allows residents and visitors to walk the shoreline without entering the dog beach area and directly addresses concerns that general beach users would otherwise be required to pass through an active off-leash area. By separating circulation paths, the revised layout improves user clarity and reduces potential interaction conflicts between dog owners and non-dog users. The bypass itself is shown on the attached Alternate Plan 1. It is created by installing a fence line approximately twelve feet lakeward of the steel seawall at the toe of the bluff and extending between the existing southern steel jetties. This run is approximately 265 feet in length and reduces the overall dog beach frontage by approximately fifty percent. Integrated into this fence line is the electronic key-fob entry gate, along with a secondary ten-foot maintenance access gate that will remain locked and secured for staff use. The fence is proposed at an overall height of five feet, with four feet exposed above grade and one foot buried below grade to accommodate fluctuating sand levels and reduce the possibility of dogs digging beneath the fencing. Operational control is further improved through relocation of the key-fob entry to beach level and the use of a defined double-gate leash-up area. This eliminates the need for interior fencing corridors while maintaining controlled access for permitted users. The double-entry gate system is also a requirement of the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control. In addition, the revised plan substantially reduces the amount of fencing interacting with lake forces by utilizing existing structural elements and shortening fence exposure in areas subject to wave and ice movement. The existing steel shoreline structures are designed to withstand year-round lake conditions, allowing the Park District to reduce the overall length of installed fencing. For ease of review, the primary differences between the previously submitted plan and Alternate Plan 1 are summarized below. Page 77 of 396 Plan Comparison Summary Previous Temporary Alternate Plan 1 Design Element Resulting Impact Fencing Plan (Approved 2-6-26) Enclosed containment Shoreline-defined Reduces enclosed park Overall Layout area formed by boundary using existing appearance perpendicular fencing groins Approximately 15 ft Fencing attached to Fencing Into Minimizes wave/ice lakeward fence runs at existing structures with Lake interaction risk both ends reduced lake exposure Public Shoreline Users pass through an 12-ft pedestrian bypass Maintains continuous Access active off-leash dog area outside dog beach public access Clearer entry and safer Beach-level controlled circulation while Access Control Inland gated corridor entry vestibule improving access for non- dog users Double corridor Removes internal Interior Fencing Eliminated containment system obstacles Safety Potential cross-traffic Separated circulation Improves user safety Considerations conflicts paths Reduced fencing Visible enclosure across Less intrusive shoreline Visual Impact footprint at north and beach presence south boundaries In summary, Alternate Plan 1 reduces the installation of new freestanding fence infrastructure at the north and south boundaries by utilizing existing steel groins, improves shoreline access through the addition of a defined pedestrian bypass, separates user groups to enhance safety, and minimizes fencing interaction within active lake areas while still providing a controlled off-leash area consistent with regulatory requirements. These revisions were intentionally developed in direct response to Plan Commission discussion, public input, and Village staff feedback, and intends to fully satisfy the applicable Special Use Permit standards. The design preserves the open character of Centennial Beach while incorporating operational controls necessary to manage off-leash use in a safe and regulated manner. Page 78 of 396 Staff is also planning to discuss additional items with the Park Board at the February 26, 2026 meeting to obtain direction regarding the north beach area of Centennial Beach and how to proceed. Staff will follow up after that meeting to inform the Village of any items related to SUP Case No. 25-28-SU. We appreciate the continued coordination with Village staff and look forward to the next steps in the review process. Please let me know if any additional clarification would be helpful. Sincerely, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance Winnetka Park District CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community Development Page 79 of 396 Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest) Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East) Page 80 of 396  Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East) Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South) Page 81 of 396 Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West) Dog Beach (Looking North) Page 82 of 396  North Seawall (Looking West) North Seawall (Looking Northwest) Page 83 of 396 Dog Beach (Looking South) Bog Beach (Looking South) Page 84 of 396 Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West) Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West) Page 85 of 396  Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South) Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest) Page 86 of 396 Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West) Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South) Page 87 of 396 Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West) Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland Page 88 of 396 Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East) Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East) Page 89 of 396 Upper Park (Looking South) Upper Park (Looking East) Page 90 of 396  Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North) Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East) Page 91 of 396 Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East) Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North) Page 92 of 396 Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest) Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast) Page 93 of 396  Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest) Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North) Page 94 of 396 Page 95 of 396  ATTACHMENT B From: To: "Snow, Renee"; Altman, Steve; Hall, Soren G CIV USARMY CELRC (US); Robert Dearborn Cc: Ann Klaassen; Otto, Eric L.; Sophia R CIV Morgan Subject: Please include this message and attached documents in SUP request for Centennial Park fencing and in IDNR permit files LM2023004 and C20250015 Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 6:36:52 PM Attachments: Orchard 2020 behind the scenes instructions for Centennial Park Fence.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Snow and President Dearborn: Please consider the attached e-mail correspondence between a team of consultants and lawyers employed by Justin Ishbia or his proxies, and Commissioners and executives of the Winnetka Park District regarding Winnetka's Centennial Beach development. I ask the attached communication be included in your IDNR permit application files (LM2023004 and C20250015) and in the Village's file for the Winnetka Park District's current request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to develop Centennial Park and beach. You already have in the public record copies of the Ishbia Family Foundation/Winnetka Park District January 2024 restrictive covenant involving a $3 million donation. The restrictive covenant agreement allows the Ishbia Foundation control over every detail of the proposed Centennial Fence design and gives the Foundation control over the proposed fenced area at Centennial Beach for half a century. Many see this agreement as a way for the Ishbia family to pay others to do something the IDNR forbids --- privatize a public beach built using an IDNR shore protection permit. Ms. Snow has received an enforcement request asking the IDNR to prevent the WPD from building a fence funded by Ishbia that would prohibit access to the new 205 beach. The attached below demonstrates direct and early involvement by Ishbia's team and their efforts to use the Park Board to gain a private beach. The attached communication pre-dates the 2024 donor agreement, but has the same flavor. The e-mail exchange is dated March 25, 2022. Warren James, a prominent Winnetka citizen and in 2022 an elected Commissioner of the Winnetka Park District, has received a long message from Tricia Charbonneau, a PR consultant and project manager for Seiler Consulting, the firm employed by Ishbia interests to guide the Winnetka Park Board toward a grand Centennial Beach development design that would effectively cut off public access across the beach below Centennial and the beach below 205 Sheridan. At the time there was one flat continuous beach interrupted only by a few small iron groins. A large new public beach was recently completed below 205 Sheridan using IDNR permit #LM2023. The Justin Ishbia residence continues under construction on the upland. Mr. James promises to respond fully to Ms. Chabonneau. You will not find his response in Park District records. I'm told, but can't confirm, the e-mail conversation shifted to a private messaging platform. Mr. Jame's e-mail is copied to John Peterson, former elected Commissioner and then the Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District. (Mr. Peterson continues to be Arbiter of the Ishbia Foundation Centennial Beach restrictive covenant agreement); WPD legal Counsel Steven Adams of Ancel Glink; Ishbia attorneys David Williams and Andrew Aron, both Page 96 of 396 principals of Williams, Bax and Saltzman; and Charbonneau's boss Gregg Seiler.   In her e-mail Ms. Charbonneau critiques the performance of tax payer- funded consultants as they presented the Centennial Beach development plan to the public and elected Commissioners for the the first time during a March 24, 2022 Park Board special meeting. (Which I attended). Ms. Charbonneau chides Jon Shabica for speaking about public access over and around lakeward structures. ("no reason to write or publicly discuss unless specifically asked" she says). During subsequent open houses re Centennial Beach Jon's slide re the IDNR's public access requirements isn't included. Ms. Charbonneau continues "Nor is there any reason for him ever to mention again the idea of permitting the Centennial project without the fence." (emphasis added). Here you see a team of lawyers and consultants in the employ of the neighboring private owner and IDNR fill permittee directing an elected Commissioner and the WPD's senior paid staff to steer their own consultants away from any word or drawing that might inform the public or keep the 205 neighbor from getting a private beach. No one in this conversation is protecting the public interest. Scott Freres, the WPD's landscape architect, is criticized for not using language "consistent" with their goals, and for unfolding design views that actually show everyone how massive a proposed stone pier will be. And then the Ishbia consultant objects other slides communicating the height of the project to the public. Skip down to item 5. of the e-mail, where Ms. Charbonneau plans another meeting for the Park District attorneys, staff and Mr. James to strategize how to "get ahead of the public" on the beach development push.   If there was ever any doubt the WPD has lost control of the Centennial Development plans, the proof is here, where we see it early in the process. And it continues, as Ishbia's team pummels a minor Cook County veterinary office with dog beach complaints and WPD staff nfind reasons (rabies control?) to justify a fence that doesn't belong on a beach. Its sad, but I don't think the Village or the IDNR can or should regard the Centennial Fence applications as products of an independent and public-facing Park District.   I hope the attached and above is useful to State and Federal Beach regulators and the Village staff tasked with reviewing the SUP application. In a separate e-mail I will send a photo of the entire beach area under discussion. Please let me know if you are not able to open this attachment. Best regards, Laurie Morse Page 97 of 396  Sent: 3/25/2022 12:00:00 AM From: Warren James <WJames@winpark.org To: "Tricia Charbonneau" "Costa Kutulas" Cc: "John Peterson" "Steven Adams" williams@wbs-law.com "Andrew Arons" "Gregg Seiler" Bcc: Importance: Normal Subject: Re: Orchard - notes on last night's presentation Thanks for the feedback Tricia. Very helpful. Will respond more fully before Tuesday. Warren James Commis s ioner P: (847) 501-2040 E: wja mes @winpa rk.org Winnetka Pa rk Dis trict | winpa rk.org From: Tricia Charbonneau <tc@seilerconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:26:42 PM To: Costa Kutulas Cc: Warren James; John Peterson; Steven Adams; williams@wbs-law.com; Andrew Arons; Gregg Seiler Subject: Orchard - notes on last night's presentation Team, Thank you again for the prep and presentation last night. Below please find some feedback, being shared to supplement the content and strategies for the future open houses and successful public comment period. 1. Shabica a. Take out the language in his slides that note the IDNR and Corps guidance about access up and over lakeward structures. No reason to write this or publicly discuss the grey area unless asked. b. Nor is there any reason for him to ever mention again the idea of permitting the project without the fence. It’s not helpful to anyone except the opposition. c. Please coach Jon on what topics to address in future forums. It would likely be best if answers only questions directed to him. 2. Scott Freres a. His opening comments about “this conversation happening in communities all up and down the lake” and “looking for creative solutions, new ideas, greater community benefit” and “focus on access - for more residents, for seniors, more with alternative abilities” is fantastic. b. However, as discussed with Warren, he was not in top form last night. For the future, please make sure he is more versed in the technical details of the project and nomenclature (use ‘planting pocket’ and other terms correctly). c. Graphics i. Change all language about “louvered air screens” to “louvers”. All presentations need to speak the same language. ii. The new elevation diagrams shown - the unfolded breakwater views - were not helpful in my opinion. First, they did not show the water line (they just showed the beach/lakebed) and this made the breakwater look super tall when further out in the lake. Furthermore, the louvers look 100% monolithic in this view and don’t help the cause. Oblique views that show the water line through and the horizon are much more effective. Is this new drawing conveying something essential? iii. One graphic showed a dimension string of 169’-9” as the length of the louvers (I think). This dimension relates to nothing else we show - does that drawing and dimension have a specific purpose? 3. When Colleen asked last night if the planting pockets (and she implied fences) had been installed anywhere else, I was dying for someone to mention Lee Street Beach - and that it’s similar to what’s proposed here, but this project will be so much better (this kind of came up). Lee Street doesn’t have planting pocket but is one of many precedents for fence on a breakwater structure. And we keep saying that other municipalities have this, but I don’t think this has actually been shown much to the public. Slides that show a photo of Lee Street on the left, and they this project on the right - will demonstrate how much better this project is. And roll through all the cities - show the beat up Kenilworth stuff, yucky Lake Bluff, etc. to pound it home. Armed with the right script, this could be a good thing for Jon to speak to. 4. I was thinking more about the questions that Colleen Root raised last night and how to get in front of those and expose them rather than feel like they need to be defended against. Would it make sense to build a portion of the presentation to somehow say no plan is perfect, and thousands of hours of work have gone into building the best and current plan possible, and the Board won’t let “perfect the enemy of good”. a. Therefore, the PD has thoughtfully addressed some of the parts that aren’t perfect and here’s how: i. Make a slide that shows the pros versus cons in a side by side table; and then present that data. b. Write a one page “Frequently Asked Questions” document to answer some of these questions (I’m offering sample answers for a couple of them). i. Is beach and lake access being improved or reduced by this project? ii. What new or improved amenities are made possible by this project? iii. Why isn’t there access up and over the breakwaters? iv. Why are the louvers needed and why are they so tall? v. Why is there a planting pocket in the project? vi. Do structures or barriers like this exist anywhere else on the north shore? Yes, other municipalities in the north shore have barriers Page 98 of 396  installed at the edges of their lakefront parts for a variety of reasons. Examples can be found in Glencoe, Kenilworth, multiple places in Evanston, Lake Bluff. vii. Is the ability to look up and down the shoreline being lost? Some shoreline views will be lost simply by the installation of the breakwater itself and the dimensions it must be to perform correctly. So yes, some shoreline views will be lost, mostly those closest to the toe of the bluff. To minimize this, the proposed project offers two strategies. First, the height of the stone breakwater is being lowered, and that material replaced with angled louvers. When past the planting pocket, most users will be able to see over the top of the stone and through the louvers. The louvers are angled so users can look through them to the shoreline and the lake horizon. Second, the proposed project will provide brand new shoreline vistas for thousands of users (including seniors and persons with disabilities) at the new middle pier, which is situated in the center of the new park and located 300’ into the lake. This vantage point exists in no other north shore community and is only made possible by the consolidation of Elder and Centennial. 5. In the continued push to reach more groups to get their support now and before public opinion - we’d like to discuss the strategy for this next Tuesday. What groups does WPD have access to and what’s the strategy to contact them to garner support? The time before public comment is likely to go by quickly, people will be out of town, etc. so getting going now with after school groups, kid’s groups, special ed groups, senior citizen groups, etc. is critical. Best regards, Tricia TRICIA CHARBONNEAU PROJECT EXECUTIVE C 312.438.0005 O 312.836.0540 tc@seilerconsulting.com SEILER CONSULTING, LTD. 116 W Illinois Street Suite 4W - N Chicago, IL 60654 seilerconsulting.com This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify us by calling (312) 836-0540. Seiler Consulting, Ltd. accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use of this message and/or any attachments, including damage from viruses. Page 99 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Scott Mangum; Kristin Kazenas; Christopher Marx Cc: Subject: WPD October 2025 SUP Application Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:42:47 PM Attachments: 02C2CD02-CAC7-4D80-88B4-3E5425875182.png EF61C7C1-28CE-4A92-85F5-6669FC016A48.png IDNR MemoLM2025011.pdf OneDogBeachMustBeADAEvanston.pdf 60”MinimumWidthBAR.pdf BernahlGroinMap1623.pdf IDNRMemoPage1ExhibitA.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello: Would you please include this email dated 1/20/26 in the packet for Plan’s 1/28/26 meeting and also send it to the Trustees? This is my only comment and submission for Plan and the Trustees, Thank you. Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer To: Village Trustees And Plan Commission From: Kristine Schriesheim Re: Comments Dated January 20, 2026 on WPD October 2025 SUP Application for Lake Michigan Fencing TOPIC ONE: WPD’s 8/27/25 NON-PUBLIC MEETING WITH IDNR AND USACE I respectfully request that the Trustees and Plan Commission members listen to this meeting recording. It is illuminating in terms of understanding WPD’s true fencing purpose and ultimate goal—executing WPD’s 2020 Exchange Agreement with Orchard 2020 Trust. https://winparkdistrict- my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/snazzal_winpark_org/Ea_fE4tEGE5DkrL6Voe0ikABGWtk0Ku6xS2ju5VEu5ZJOA Background: 2025 WPD MEMO REPORTING FENCING REQUEST Page 100 of 396 TOPIC TWO: WPD’S OCTOBER 2025 SUP APPLICATION MISREPRESENTS ITS DESIGNS, MISREPRESENTS DOG BEACH LEASH REQUIREMENT, VIOLATES THE VILLAGE CODE, FAILS TO MEET 2040 FUTURES PLAN GUIDELINES, VIOLATES VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS, CONFUSES THE PROJECT AREA, VIOLATES ADA, VIOLATES PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE Background: WPD October 2025 SUP application to Village Page 101 of 396 WPD’S OCTOBER 2025 SUP APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT, MISLEADING AND UNRELIABLE Background: WPD’s permit applications and IDNR’s December 11, 2025 memorandum (attached) set forth WPD’s claims: (1) that Centennial is an off-leash dog beach (it is an on-leash dog beach); (2) that its fencing would extend 15’ lakeward from the toe of Centennial’s bluffs—in fact, it would extend 106’ lakeward on the park’s northern end and 93’3” lakeward on the park’s southern end, understating the fencing’s length by over 80%; (3) that its fencing Page 102 of 396 has two sets of double gates, which it does not; and (4) that WPD-owned Centennial Park’s southern lot line falls on, rather than south of, its southernmost steel groin. Background: Centennial dog beach is an on-leash area Page 103 of 396 VILLAGE CODE VIOLATION: WPD’S Centennial fencing would unlawfully extend far beyond Village front lot line/OHWM limits and into Lake Michigan, unlawfully blocking a “public street.” Fencing that ends at Centennial’s front lot line/OHWM would extend 34’ on the northern end, and 16’ on the southern end. DELIBERATE PERMIT MISREPRESENTATION: WPD’S fence permit misrepresents that the plans include double gates at Centennial’s southern end leading to 205 Sheridan. Background: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required WPD to provide detailed project rendering with proposed fencing’s length and location relative to the bluffs and OHWM. Note also there are no double gates depicted on the project’s southern end. WPD’S CHAIN LINK FENCING IS INCONSISTENT WITH 2040 FUTURES PLAN, VIOLATES VOW DESIGN GUIDELINES’ PROHIBITION AGAINST CHAIN LINK FENCING, AND DENIGRATES SHERIDAN ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD’S GRACIOUS CHARACTER Background: Village Design Guidelines Page 104 of 396 Background: WPD Centennial SUP Testimony to Plan in 2025 Page 105 of 396 Background: VOW Design Guidelines were enforced when WPD applied for Elder Park SUP, prohibiting the use of chain-link fencing. WPD PERMIT SUBMISSIONS CONTAIN INEXPLICABLY CONFLICTING PROJECT AREAS Background: In connection with its Public Trust Doctrine presentation, WPD’s 2024 Centennial SUP testimony to the Village said that the park’s southern lot line falls south of the steel groin closest to 205 Sheridan. Despite this, IDNR’s December 11, 2025 permit review memorandum seems to state that Centennial’s southern lot line/205 Sheridan’s northern lot line is the steel groin. This is at odds with WPD’s 2024-2025 sworn testimony that fencing on the same steel groin would not violate the Public Trust Doctrine given WPD’s ownership of sandy beach south of that groin. It also conflicts with Village Engineer Bernahl’s map of groin locations in Winnetka. Background: See IDNR Memorandum Page One and Village Engineer Bernahl’s groin map attached as pdfs at bottom. TOPIC THREE: FURTHER UNLAWFULNESS 1. IL Rivers and Streams Act Section 3704, which is the sole source of IDNR’s permit authority here, does not allow permit issuance for a non-shoreline structure such as a local dog fence. From IDNR’s January 2023 presentation to the Village Council: Page 106 of 396 2. IL Park District Code Section 1205/11-2 does not grant IDNR shoreline permit issuance authority, nor does it grant park districts the authority to claim state land under false pretenses—namely, WPD’s specious claim that Centennial’s shoreline is shoal-ridden and “nonnavigable,” which it is not. From IDNR’s December 11, 2025 permit review memorandum: Lake Michigan is now and for centuries has been a “navigable” body of water. IDNR’s website links to a GIS waterways map and the Code of Federal Regulations, both designating Lake Michigan as a navigable body of public water. Locally, WPD’s 2030 Waterfront Plan designated Winnetka’s anticipated continuous, 1000’ beach as both a BOATING BEACH and a swimming beach. The beach is navigable, and would not lose its status as a place of historic, commercial navigation simply because WPD wants to put up a local dog fence to impede the public’s right to traverse the shoreline. 3. 510 ILCS 5, IL Animal Control Act, ONLY provides the local Animal Control Administrator and Deputy Administrator with statutory authority pursuant to which the Cook County Code regulates dog friendly areas and dog parks. It does not allow non-Administrators to order the creation of fenced in dog parks without complying with the Cook County Code’s requirement that land-based dog parks be completely enclosed with a contiguous fence. Actions Page 107 of 396 to the contrary would constitute misdemeanor violations of the law. SEE 510 ILCS 5/26 and the Cook County Code. 4. Under 510 ILCS 5, CCDARC has enacted animal control-related fencing authority that is jurisdictionally limited to the land. Accordingly, CCDARC informed WPD of its lack of interest in acting outside of its established regulatory framework, stating it will not evaluate WPD’s fencing scheme until after IDNR and USACE make their decisions. Building a dog beach fence that extends beyond the land, past the OHWM, onto submerged lands and/or into the public waters, exceeds the scope of CCDARC’s regulatory framework. 5. 510 ILCS 5, 5/9–The IL Animal Control Act was amended by P.A. 102-329, effective 1-1-22, to provide that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” CCDARC, which solely and exclusively possesses Animal Control Act authority under 510 ILCS 5, wrote to WPD Executive Director Nazzal in 2024 categorizing Centennial beach as a “dog friendly area.” CCDARC has not mandated fencing barriers at dog friendly areas to broadly contain dogs that would otherwise be “running at large,” and lacks waiver authority over its four-sided fencing rules for dog parks. 6. 510 ILCS 5/9 provides that a dog may train for hunting in a dog friendly area, which is an area of land that the Cook County Code does not require to be fenced. The Cook County Code simply requires proof of proper vaccination and health records to enter a dog friendly area. A person can bring a dog to Centennial beach to engage in training for hunting by swimming, fetching sticks, balls, decoys and the like. By matter of right, 510 ILCS 5/9 allows canines using dog friendly areas to train in proximity to Lake Michigan’s waters, as well as without Page 108 of 396 restriction on the lakebed or in the lake. 7. There is no state law that grants jurisdictional authority to any governmental body that would build fencing to restrict dogs from swimming or otherwise using public waters and the lakebed via access from the water—for example, from a boat, jet ski, paddleboard or otherwise. I believe WPD’s fencing project represents a potential effort to unlawfully limit this access. 8. ILLINOIS ACCESSIBILITY CODE VIOLATION: The Illinois Accessibility Code (“IAC”) requires public improvement projects to be accessible unless an exception is met. Violating ADA requirements is considered a civil rights violation, subject to enforcement by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office as well as by other government bodies. Interpreting the IAC requires “erring” on the side of more accessibility because: 1-Winnetka, the Winnetka Park District, Cook County, and the State of Illinois are or should be fully committed to being welcoming and inclusive communities with access to public facilities; and 2-the penalties for failing to comply with the IAC are severe and impact all parties, including the permitting authority. Because the construction project at issue involves a public accommodation—Winnetka’s only dog beach—yet makes no effort to add ADA accessibility to the designs, it violates the Illinois Accessibility Code and the 2040 Futures Plan. It is obvious that WPD’s single 39” beach gates at either end of a confined 6’ southern passageway are too narrow for an ADA-compliant turning radius. There are neither lights nor flashing signals for low vision persons, let alone for safety. A potential WPD appeal in opposition to complying with IAC must be made to the Illinois Capital Development Board. Background: WPD’S 2024 Centennial breakwater SUP “Project Elements” would similarly unlawfully prevent ADA access to the dog beach—for half a century. From Village staff questions about WPD’s 2024 Centennial SUP application— Page 109 of 396 9. WPD’s 2025 memorandum at the top of this email documents that Centennial’s southern neighbor requested dog beach fencing for which WPD now seeks a Special Use Permit. Private efforts to support “public” fencing that would restrict the public’s right to traverse the shoreline violates Illinois law. Building an unlawful dog fence as discussed in paragraphs 1-8, above, would violate the Public Trust Doctrine (“PTD”) by effectively privatizing the lakebed to the benefit of an adjacent property owner. See Lake Michigan Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 742 F. Support 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990), stating that (1) courts should be critical of attempts by the state to surrender valuable public resources to a private entity; (2) the public trust is violated when the primary purpose of a legislative grant is to benefit a private interest; and (3) any attempt by the state to relinquish power over a public resource should be invalidated under the doctrine. Furthermore, state/local units of government cannot permit violations of the public trust in advancement of WPD’s efforts. If and when WPD receives permits to build its grand breakwater scheme using public and private funds, that same neighbor will have a half-century long interest in major “Project Elements,” including fixtures on the beach and lakebed. The Environmental Law and Policy Center has stated that using the Lake Michigan lakebed and/or waters for construction of an offshore project by a private entity directly or indirectly, would likely violate the applicable public trust and the State of Illinois’s legal responsibilities. OTHER: Building unlawful fencing to keep out anyone who cannot pay $100s of dollars on veterinary fees and exams, and/or purchasing an expensive dog beach fob from WPD during limited office hours Monday through Friday, is wrong. Despite requests to WPD for public access codes to allow beachwalkers to use Centennial beach, which the Park District of Highland Park and other park districts allow, WPD is attempting to make Centennial Park as inaccessible as possible, harming the public to maximum effect, and violating our rights. Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s October 2025 SUP application. Sincerely, Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka Taxpayer Page 110 of 396  Office of Water Resources, Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St., S-703, Chicago, IL 60601 Memorandum Date: December 11, 2025 To: Steve Altman From: Eric Otto RE: IDNR/OWR application-for-permit C20250015 by the Winnetka Park District for the construction of fencing, in Lake Michigan, at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 Authority The application for permit (application) was reviewed using the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources (Department) Part 3704 rules “REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATERS” which implement and are authorized by the Rivers, Lakes and Streams Act [615 ILCS 5]. The application was also reviewed using the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] (Exhibit PDC). Existing Conditions (Exhibit A) The applicant has three contiguous littoral lots, north to south, 260, 250, and 246 Sheridan Road, which form Centennial Park, on Lake Michigan. The beach is used as an off-leash dog swimming beach. The property is located immediately south of 261 Sheridan Road and immediately north of 205 Sheridan Road. Existing structures consist of: 1. A shore-parallel steel sheetpile seawall at the toe of the bluff 2. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the approximate center of the site 3. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the south property line Proposed Project (Exhibit B) The applicant proposes to install two shore-perpendicular rows of fencing (North and South), beginning at the existing steel sheetpile seawall, and extending 15 ft. into Lake Michigan. Both fences will consist of 4 ft. high chain link fence without concrete footings. The fence posts will be directly driven into clay substrate to the point of refusal. The North fence will be 91 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. south of the north property line. The South fence will be 78.25 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. north of the south property line. Gates will be installed in both rows of fencing to allow public access along the shoreline. Department Application Review History An application-for-permit was received on April 25, 2025. A permit application review fee of $3,360 was received on May 20, 2025. The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025. The public notice expired on June 13, 2025. Comments from 34 individuals were received in response to the notice. These comments were forwarded to the applicant for response on June 16, 2025. The applicant’s responses were received on September 30, 2025. IDNR/DEE’s sign off was received on April 29, 2025. The IEPA’s Final Determination Letter was received on August 8, 2025. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing the proposed project for authorization by an Individual Permit. Page 111 of 396 Recommendation Department staff reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the applicant has shown that the proposed work: • will not obstruct or interfere with navigation. • is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2]. • will not impair any rights, interests or uses of the public. • is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability on other littoral properties. Based on a detailed review of the application, comments received in response to the Public Notice, and the applicant’s response to the Public Notice comments, the project is permissible under the Department’s Part 3704 rules and issuance of a Department permit is recommended. Approvals have been received from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecosystems and Environment (DEE). Department Permit No. LM2025011 is attached for your approval and signature upon concurrence with this recommendation. It is important to acknowledge Section 1205/11-2 Reclamation, of the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2], which states that park districts that border upon any navigable body of water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, said district may take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation and shall have the power to establish, construct and maintain parks and boulevards over and upon the same, and all right, title and interest of the State of Illinois in and to the bed or submerged land of such body of water so taken possession of, enclosed, filled in and reclaimed is hereby granted and ceded to such park district and the title thereto shall vest in such park district to be held for the use and benefit of the public as a part of said park district for park and boulevard purposes exclusively, and said district shall have power for the purpose of reclaiming such submerged land and protecting the same thereafter, to construct all necessary break-waters, or protection for the building and maintenance of such parks and boulevards, and the enclosing or reclamation of such submerged lands. Department Review Section 3704.55 Permit Application Fee requires the Department to charge permit application review fees. It was determined that the review of this application fell under 3704.55 a) 1) C) and required a $3,360 review fee. The applicant submitted a check for that amount. The application has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of Section 3704.70, Land Conversion and Fill Material Placement. Subsection a) prohibits the conversion of public waters to private land by filling. The applicant does not propose to convert public waters to private land by filling. Subsection b, allows for the placement of fill, in public waters, for the listed purposes. The applicant does not propose the placement of fill material. The project has been evaluated using Section 3704.80 a) for its potential to result in: 1. An obstruction to, or interference with, the navigability of any public body of water. The term navigability as used in the Department’s Part 3704 Rules refers to commercial navigation. The proposed fencing will be constructed close to shore in relatively shallow water and will not extend lakeward of the existing groin located along the southern property line of Centennial Park (i.e., the northern property line of 205 Sheridan Road) or the existing groin located along the southern property line of Elder Lane Park (i.e., the northern property line of 261 Sheridan Road), and as such should not interfere with commercial navigation. This, along with the fact that the proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses concerns that the proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan. 2. An encroachment on any public body of water. The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to Page 112 of 396  the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. Therefore, it is an acceptable encroachment. 3. An impairment of any rights, interests, or uses of the public in any public body of water or in the natural resources thereof. The proposed fencing will be constructed within the shadow of the existing steel groins to the north and south. Therefore, the public’s ability to use the waters of Lake Michigan for recreation will not be diminished. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. Therefore, the public’s ability to use the shoreline for recreation will not be diminished. 4. Bank or shoreline instability on other properties. The proposed fencing will be permeable, and as such will not trap sand from the littoral drift. Therefore, the proposed fencing is unlikely to cause bank or shoreline instability on other properties. The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park District Code provides broad rights and powers related to, title to, and interest in, the bed or submerged land of Lake Michigan that was vested in the State. Therefore, the applicant is not required to submit the supplemental information stated in Section 3704.80 b). Public Notice Comments The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025, with an expiration date of June 13, 2025. The public notice was mailed via U.S. Mail and posted on the Department’s website with the complete application-for-permit package. The Department received comments in response to the public notice, from 34 individuals (Exhibit C). The applicant was given the opportunity to response, in writing, to the commentors (Exhibit D). The comments from the 30 commentors, listed below, were almost identical, with only minor variations, and had no references or relation to the Part 3704 rules. Those comments are not summarized in this memo but are included in the Exhibits. Raheela Gill Anwar Steve Juliusson Vicki Apatoff Lina Lubbat Jeff Axelrod Kim Marsh Anne M. Coladarci Mark D. Mitchell Debbie Creigh Patricia Mitchell Charles H Dowding Sherry Molitor Jennifer Duboc David Mulligan Neva Egan Kim Mulligan Dian Eller Alexandra C. Nichols Lisa Fogt J. A. Offerle Mary Garrison Irene Smith Gina Gooden Katie Stevens Nina D. Gray Linda Welch Dr. Garry and Michele Grygotis Constance & Kenneth Yonan Stephanie Heraty Nancy Yurek Page 113 of 396 The comments from the four commentors, listed below, contained references or relation to the Part 3704 rules. Those comments, and the applicant’s and Department staff responses are summarized below. Laurie Morse (PH) Robert A. Schriesheim (PH) Kristine Schriesheim Ted Wynnychenko (PH) PH: Comments that included a request for a public hearing. Laurie Morse (comments dated 06/10/25, 06/13/25) 1. Remove the word “temporary” from all correspondence. The IDNR does not impose “temporary” conditions on its permits. We must take care the WPD does not succeed in misleading the public with this language. a. Applicant response: The Park District confirms the permit request language referring to “temporary” reflects the intended nature of the installation as low-impact and adjustable, although we recognize the IDNR’s terminology and will comply accordingly. b. Department staff response: Staff are reviewing an application for fencing. If and when an IDNR/OWR permit is issued there will be no special conditions concerning the duration of time the fencing will be in place. 2. The application isn’t signed. a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies, including signatures and authorizations. b. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the Department web site. 3. There is no name or signature on the application’s “STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION” page 1. a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies, including signatures and authorizations. b. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the Department web site. 4. The application’s (page 2, section 9) need statement lacks veracity. The applicant says the fences are needed to allow Centennial Beach to continue operating as an off-leash dog area. Centennial Beach is a leashed dog area and has been for years. a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy. The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to an off-leashed dog beach area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving recommendations. b. Department staff response: The comment has no reference or relation to the Part 3704 rules. 5. The application is frivolous. This applicant doesn’t need fences and gates to maintain the status quo. a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy. The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to a off-leashed dog beach area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving recommendations. b. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 6. Veracity and the consequences of errors and omissions. The errors and omissions in this application are grave. a. Applicant response: We are working closely with the IDNR to address any application deficiencies, including signatures and authorizations. b. Department staff response: Staff find no errors or omissions in the application materials. 7. It is the IDNR’s responsibility to identify, among other things, the responsible parties for and beneficiaries of the structures built using State permits. This application fails to mention, and the Public isn’t told, that getting an IDNR permit to install rows of shore-perpendicular chain link fences across Centennial beach and into the water on the boundary of the donor’s beach at 205 Sheridan Road is a triggering factor for a donor agreement Page 114 of 396  between the Winnetka Park District and the Ishbia Family Foundation. The controlling partes of the Foundation are in the public record as demanding privacy along this boundary, despite having agreed to the terms and conditions of their own IDNR permit for shore protection that forbids privatization of the new artificial beach below 205 Sheridan Road. It is easy for anyone to conclude the real purpose of WPD’s application for Centennial fences is to privatize the donor’s beachfront, while keeping the donor at arm’s length from the process. a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands. b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. Any relationship or agreement between the Park District and another entity is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. 8. Public Benefit. Since the WPD currently operates a leashed dog area on Centennial Beach and no regulatory authority has asked them to stop, there is no public benefit to the project proposed in this application. a. Applicant response: It is currently designated as a leashed dog area, consistent with Park Board policy. The fence proposal is intended to allow the Park District to change this use to a off-leashed dog beach area and will provide additional safety and operational clarity in compliance with evolving recommendations. b. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 9. Minimum Size. We don’t have to spend much time asking ourselves if this proposal meets Section 17 of the Illinois Administrative code 3704.90 C requiring a design with minimal impairment to public rights while achieving its purpose. a. Department staff response: The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 10. Controlling Parties. Can the applicant please supply the IDNR and the Public with all correspondence, including but not limited to meeting (in person, telephonic, electronic remote) notes, phone call notes; e-mails, records, and other communications between representatives of the Winnetka Park District (Staff, elected officials, appointed committee members, etc.) and the Ishbia Family Foundation, Orchard 2020, Justin Ishbia and all representatives of these entities that address or involve the design, planning, positioning, size and boundary selection for the proposed project? a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands. b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. Any relationship or agreement between the Park District and another entity is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. 11. Similar Structures. IDNR requires proposed development along a Lake Michigan beach be similar or “like” other nearby structures. a. Department staff response: The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 12. Safety. The applicant, in their April 25, 2025, cover letter says “The proposed fencing installation is intended to enhance safety…for beach users.” The Department’s Part 3704 rules do not permit fences on beaches or barriers atop fill on the Illinois shore based on safety, for dogs or for humans. Page 115 of 396  a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules that explicitly prohibits fencing. The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 13. Harm. The fences as proposed extend into deep water, 15 feet under current conditions, and much further under high-water conditions. The fence posts, once under water, pose fatal danger to people who swim or paddle along the shoreline. Water pollution is also an issue. Please ask the applicant to explain why they haven’t considered Federal ADA beach access requirements when planning and submitting this design. These fences will collect trash, ice in winter, and limit the public’s ability to escape through or beyond the enclosed area should there be lightning, storms, or other danger or accident. a. Applicant response: Please note the Park District retains full management responsibility for Centennial Beach. We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands. b. Department staff response: The fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water, and the fact that the proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses concerns that the proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan. There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules related to water pollution or ADA requirements. The fencing may catch debris and ice, the removal of which is considered operation and maintenance, and is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. 14. What other options has the applicant considered? a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules that requires an alternatives analysis. 15. Exclusivity. The IDNR should consider the applicant’s restrictive beach access policies when thinking of awarding WPD extra privileges. a. Applicant response: We are committed to ensuring public access remains open and unimpeded, and any funding partnership supports these goals without transferring control or privatizing public lands. b. Department staff response: The proposed fencing will include gates with latches (not locks) to allow continued public access along the shoreline. 16. Politics and local authorities. Your rules and the terms and conditions of your Lake Michigan permits require an applicant to obtain approvals from local authorities before starting work on a Lake Michigan project. a. Applicant response: We continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and regulatory agencies to ensure the project preserves the natural beauty and public use of this cherished community resource. b. Department staff response: Condition #4 of IDNR/OWR permits states that “this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain other federal, state or local authorizations required for the construction of the permitted activity; and if the permittee is required by law to obtain approvals from any federal or other state agency to do the work, this permit is not effective until the federal and state approvals are obtained”. Kristine Schriesheim (comments dated 06/09/25, 06/10/25, 06/12/25; only comments that contained references or relations to the Part 3704 rules are summarized below) 1. WPD’s unsigned Joint Permit Application misrepresents to IDNR that the fence will have double entry gates on Centennial’s northern and southern ends. It will not. WPD’s attached schematics show that the northern end will have a set of 10-foot double entry gates. The southern end will have a stacked set of single 39 inch entry gates —not double entry gates. There is no valid justification for making the public maneuver through two narrow gates stacked one in front of the other, on a public beach. Also, it is important to note that 39 inches is barely wider than a yardstick. a. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the Department web site. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. The number and orientation of the gates is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. 2. After stating the obvious—that the fencing will serve as a barrier for dogs—WPD’s Joint Permit Application misrepresents that its fencing designs will not create barriers for people. Because the fencing will extend 15 feet Page 116 of 396  into the lake, even with gates it will obviously create barriers that prevent people from navigating along the actual shoreline—for no valid reason, as I laid out in detail yesterday. Furthermore, both WPD and IDNR are aware that in times of high water the gates may be underwater. Fencing that runs from steel sheet piling at the toe of the bluffs all the way out into the lake will block people from traversing the public shoreline. Also, swimmers will be hard-pressed to see chain-link fencing in Lake Michigan’s waters, even with goggles or masks on. I predict there will be numerous instances of people cracking their heads and/or cutting themselves on unnecessary lake-based fencing that is hard to see. If and when that happens, WPD’s fencing going from the toe of the bluffs all the way into Lake Michigan, will impede rescues, whether or not the fencing is submerged. Lake- based fencing may also incite people to climb up and jump from 15 feet out into the water onto whatever rocks or other items may exist at that depth. The fencing will also trap debris and make the overall lakefront area look even worse than it does now—see recent photo. a. Department staff response: The term navigation in the Department’s 3704 Rules refers to commercial navigation. The fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water, and the fact that the proposed fencing will be easily visible to all small watercraft and swimmers, addresses concerns that the proposed project will be a hazard to recreational users of Lake Michigan. The fencing may catch debris and ice, the removal of which is considered operation and maintenance, and is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 3. IDNR’s Public Comment Notice presents an unsigned application. Why is the permit application unsigned? a. Department staff response: Signatures are redacted from the public notice that is posted to the Department web site. 4. WPD’s proposed narrow, 39” stacked set of single gates framing a 6-foot-long corridor, would unlawfully create an impassable barrier to challenged individuals’ ability to traverse the beach. As you and the other government officials on this email can see, 39 inches is too narrow to meet beach access standards, even for temporary structures. a. Department staff response: There is nothing in the Part 3704 rules related to ADA requirements. Robert A. Schriesheim (comments dated 06/13/25) 1. Generally, I am concerned that the installation of the proposed fencing at Centennial Dog Beach, in Lake Michigan at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, would encroach upon a public body of water and impair the rights, interests, and uses of the public in using a public body of water and the natural resources thereof. See Department’s Part 3704 Rules, Section 3704.10. Specifically, the proposed fence would have the effect of limiting public access to Lake Michigan and its historically submerged lakebed, which is held in trust for the public. This encroachment and impairment would be in violation of the Department’s Part 3704 Rules. As such, the permit application should be denied. See Sections 3704.80(a), 3704.90. a. Applicant response: The proposed temporary fencing is intended to support safe and responsible operation of Centennial Dog Beach and is not designed to restrict public access to Lake Michigan. b. Department staff response: The fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan. However, the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. 2. The proposed fence has been inconsistently described in various materials made public by the permit applicant. For example, the Public Notice issued by the Department describes the southerly fence line as including gates and being “located 20 ft. north of the south property line.” However, in materials submitted for consideration by zoning authorities at the municipal level, the fence does not appear to include gates and abuts (and crosses) the southern property line. This latter configuration certainly impairs the rights, interests, and uses of the public in using Lake Michigan and its historic lakebed. Page 117 of 396  a. Applicant response: We acknowledge that previous plan submissions may contain slight differences. However, the IDNR application reflects the most current design intent. The southern fence line will remain on park property, and gates on both ends are being designed to allow public access and operational flexibility. b. Department staff response: The submitted application materials include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline, and does not include work on adjacent properties. 3. The permit application is ambiguous regarding the type of gate latch to be used for the access gates in the north and south fence. See Detail 1 and Detail 2, Sheet L2.0. The Project Description notes that certain aspects of the Centennial Dog Beach are subject to a “fob-controlled gate”, which inherently limits access to public land. Given the permit applicant’s history in controlling access to this space, it is unclear whether the proposed gates will be lockable or locked, thereby inhibiting the public’s ability to access, use, and enjoy public land. a. Applicant response: The project will not enclose or privatize public land, and any gates or latches will remain unlocked for public access. The current electric fob gate at the top of the bluff is existing and helps manage usage to ensure safe use of the dog beach. b. Department staff response: The submitted application materials describe the proposed gates as including latches for public access and make no mention of locks. The existing steel seawall at the base of the bluff will define the western boundary, with beach access maintained through the current stairway and fob-controlled gate. 4. No explanation is provided by the permit applicant as to why the north fence line has a double gate (at 10’ wide) and the south fence has a single gate (approximately 3’ wide). See Detail 1 and Detail 2, Sheet L2.0. The public should be able to equally access and traverse public land from the north and south. a. Applicant response: The differing gate sizes (north: 10', south: 3') reflect maintenance needs and site constraints, not an intent to limit access from one side. b. Department staff response: The number and orientation of the gates is outside the authority of the IDNR/OWR. Ted Wynnychenko (comments dated 06/02/25) 1. I believe it is important to note that, while the WPD describes the fencing as “temporary,” there is no provision within Part 3704 Rules for “temporary” structures. As such, and, apparently, as the Department has already noted, the permit application is for a “permanent” structure across the beach/lakeshore below the bluff and within the waters of the Lake. a. Applicant response: Regarding the characterization of the fencing as “temporary,” we understand the IDNR reviews all structures within its permitting jurisdiction based on their location, intended use, and potential environmental impact, regardless of duration. The fencing described in our proposal is not intended to be permanent infrastructure, but rather a management tool to clearly delineate the off- leash dog area, minimize conflicts, and support the safe, continued operation of the dog beach in a responsible manner. b. Department staff response: Staff are reviewing an application for fencing. If and when an IDNR/OWR permit is issued there will be no special conditions concerning the duration of time the fencing will be in place. 2. I believe it is importation to correct the WPD’s misstatement of fact. In its application, the WPD states that the purpose of the fencing is “to be compliant with Illinois Cook County Animal Control Ordinance.” The proposed fencing will not make the proposed site for an “off-leash” dog park/area “compliant” with any County Ordinance. It appears the WPD is referring to Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance, Part II, Regulation VIII, which considers “Dog Parks and Areas,” as the WPD’s stated purpose for this area of public trust land along the shore, and into the waters, of the Lake is for its use as an “Off-Leash Dog Park.” Furthermore, it appears that the WPD is asserting that “two shore perpendicular rows of fencing ... being[ing] at the existing sheetpile seawall and extend[ing] 15 ft. into Lake Michigan” will be compliant the County’s Ordinance. This is not true. Regulation VIII requires that any off-leash “Dog Park must be completely enclosed by a contiguous fence.” [Emphasis added.] As such the proposed 3 sided “fencing,” where one side is the sheetpile seawall, for this area does not meet requirements of the County’s Ordinance, and the WPD’s assertion that it does is misleading and deceptive. As it is not entirely relevant to this application, I will conclude by simply stating that the Cook County Page 118 of 396  Department of Animal Control has not, at any time, explicitly endorsed that any incompletely, or non- contiguously, enclosed area would meet the requirements of Regulation VIII, and that the Department of Animal Control has no procedures, processes, or authority which allows it to issue any waivers or other exemptions to Regulation VIII. As such, the stated purpose of the permit application will not be accomplished by the requested fencing. a. Applicant response: With respect to regulatory requirements, the Park District has remained in regular communication with Cook County Animal and Rabies Control (CCARC). According to their current ordinance, all dog parks (or dog friendly areas) must be fully enclosed and include a gated entry system. The Park District has submitted the plans for the temporary fencing at Centennial Dog Beach to CCARC and is currently awaiting their review and confirmation that the proposed design meets all applicable requirements. b. Department staff response: The comment has no reference or relation to the Part 3704 rules. The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. 3. The permit application does not provide any benefit to the general public, represents a direct encroachment on the Lake, is an obstruction to navigation along the Lake’s shore, and impairs the rights of the public. a. Applicant response: Importantly, the fencing will not restrict public access to the beach or the lake. As clearly stated in our application, double entry gates are planned at both the north and south ends of the designated dog beach area to allow for continuous shoreline passage. This configuration aims to balance secure, off-leash use by dogs with the broader community's ability to traverse the shoreline. The design does not create a privatized or exclusive zone, but rather continues the decades-long management of this space as a designated dog-friendly area. b. Department staff response: While the fencing is an encroachment into Lake Michigan, the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. IDNR/OWR’s concern is for commercial navigation; the fencing is proposed to be installed in shallow, nearshore water. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. 4. As this application appears to be a “first of its kind,” where a municipal entity is requesting the right to seize control of public trust land for the benefit of a select few at the expense, and to the detriment, of the people of the State, I am concerned that there may be further attempts to “privatize” the Lake’s shore with the installation of fencing expressly designed to bar or limit public entry to public land for the benefit of private parties. a. Applicant response: The Winnetka Park District is not acting on behalf of a small group of private individuals. This proposal stems from ongoing operational evaluations and a desire to responsibly manage high-use recreational areas that involve dogs, which inherently carry added safety and compliance considerations. The proposed approach reflects feedback received from residents, staff assessments, and a continued commitment to provide access while minimizing risks. Finally, we recognize the importance of preserving access to public lands and waters. We will continue to work closely with regulatory agencies, including IDNR, to ensure that any activities undertaken are legal, appropriate, and aligned with the values of this community. b. Department staff response: The Winnetka Park District is the property owner and applicant. The Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] gives park districts bordering upon any navigable water, the title to the bed or submerged land of which is vested in the State of Illinois, and allows said districts the right to take possession of, enclose, fill in, reclaim and protect any portion of such submerged land bordering thereon, over which there shall be shoal and shallow water not fit for navigation. The proposed fencing will include gates to allow continued public access along the shoreline. Page 119 of 396 Public Hearing Of the 34 individuals, agencies, and local governments that responded to the public notice, issued for this project, three requested a public hearing. At this time, it is the opinion of Department staff that no additional relevant information can be obtained by holding a public hearing and therefore, do not recommend a public hearing be held. As a result of comments received in response to the public notice, issued for this project, no changes were made to the project as originally proposed. Page 120 of 396 Letter to the Editor: The Dog Beach and lakefront accessibili- ty July 22nd, 2024 Editor’s note: This is the City of Evanston’s response to resident John Kennedy’s recent letter that brought up concerns about accessibility at city beaches. While there are definitely additional steps that the city can take to increase accessibility on the lakefront, there are many steps that the city has already taken to make the lakefront accessible for individuals with disabilities. Please know that it is difficult to compare the other beaches and their accessibility to the Dog Beach. As the city only has one dog beach, the ADA requires that it must be accessible. Please take a look at what the city has currently done to increase accessibility on all of its beaches: In 2022, the city developed the ADA Transition Plan to remove barriers to city services and make it easier for community members with disabilities to participate. The plan places ADA access at the forefront of city planning, construction and policies. In early 2023, the city installed Mobi Mats at each of the city’s six beaches, providing a path to closer proximity to the water for those in wheelchairs. Page 121 of 396 Page 122 of 396 August 24, 2023 Steve Wilson Executive Director Wilmette Park District 1200 Wilmette Avenue Wilmette, IL 60091 Review for Langdon Park Beach Dear Steve: Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback for the two new SmithGroup options for access to Langdon Park Beach. The first is an at grade option that is a hybrid of plans II and IV that were shared in the August board meeting, using the name Concept ORA 2. The second is a newer boardwalk option than what was presented at the August board meeting, using the name Concept ORA 3. Tanya Scheibe reviewed these plans. Tanya, one of our Project Managers, has a degree in architecture and is a Registered Accessibility Specialist. I also reviewed her work. The following are our remarks. Connection of Permeable Pavers to New Path Limited information is shown on these options regarding the pavers. Although this portion of the paver surface may be part of the outdoor recreation access route, we recommend the paver section comply with the requirements of a typical accessible route as the existing portions of this surface type are a typical accessible route. As a reminder, the requirements of a typical accessible route are:  minimum width of 36” wide;  gaps no greater than .5”;  changes in level no greater than .5”;  running slope maximum 5%; and  cross slope maximum 2.08%. This surface can follow all requirements for the outdoor recreation access route instead and have higher slopes with resting intervals as required for this path type. At Grade Outdoor Recreation Access Route Design (Concept ORA 2) In the design shown, the portions of the path that will begin beyond the permeable paver path extension will meet requirements for running slopes of an outdoor recreation access route as well as the requirements for resting intervals necessary. As a reminder, with a typical running slope of 9.8% specified for each section, resting intervals are needed every 30’ and these resting intervals must be a minimum of 60” wide and 60” long with slopes not greater than 2.08% for a paved surface. This is met in the design presented. Page 123 of 396 Steve Wilson Langdon Park Beach August 24, 2023 Page 2 Handrails are not required on an outdoor recreation access route and are not included in this current design, but may be desirable with these steeper slopes. Should handrails be provided at the final stage, they must meet all requirements for handrails typical of ramps. This includes:  a mounting height of 34” to 38” to the top of the gripping surface;  a diameter of 1.25” to 2”;  have extensions at the top and bottom of each run, and  continue to a floor, post, or wall at the ends. Boardwalk Outdoor Recreation Access Route Design (Concept ORA 3) The same requirements mentioned above apply to this boardwalk design as well. This design uses two different surface types. It is important to ensure that the transitions between surface types have a maximum of .5” change in elevation. As shown in the plans, the running slopes of the outdoor recreation access route and the boardwalk will meet requirements and will include the necessary resting intervals. As noted earlier, handrails are not required on an outdoor recreation access route. Should handrails be provided, they must meet all requirements for handrails typical of ramps as described earlier. Beach Access Route Requirements (applies to all plans) When work is underway at an Illinois beach, beach access routes must be part of the project. A beach access route (BAR) must meet certain requirements for access and connect to an appropriate water level based on the type of beach. Authorities consider Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes non-tidal lakes. Therefore, the Park District must provide access to the normal recreation water level. This is not defined within the 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code nor does there appear to be a definition for normal recreation water level in other texts. We believe that the long-term average data provided by the Army Corps of Engineers may be the best benchmark here. We are not experts in the determination of normal recreation water level in this environment and encourage the Park District to identify this water level or a means of determining it should that level fluctuate over the years. A BAR can be a permanent surface like the path that is being added or can be removable, being rolled out or set up during hours the beach is open and stored when the beach is closed. Regardless of surface type, the beach access route must be a minimum of 60” wide, have changes in level or obstacles maximum .5”, have gaps maximum .5”, and must be free of protruding objects. If the beach access route is a permanent surface, it must also meet requirements for slopes and resting intervals. The cross slope of a beach access route must not exceed 2.08%. The running slope can be:  Up to 5% for any length of the beach access route without requiring resting intervals;  Between 5% and 8.33% for a maximum length of 50’ with resting intervals at each end of the segment; and  Between 8.33% and 10% for a maximum length of 30’ with resting intervals at each end of the segment. These running slopes match the requirements of an Outdoor Recreation Access Route and are not as generous as the allowances for trails which can reach 12.5% for a maximum of 10’. Page 124 of 396 Page 125 of 396 Page 126 of 396 Page 127 of 396  Office of Water Resources, Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St., S-703, Chicago, IL 60601 Memorandum Date: December 11, 2025 To: Steve Altman From: Eric Otto RE: IDNR/OWR application-for-permit C20250015 by the Winnetka Park District for the construction of fencing, in Lake Michigan, at 225 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 Authority The application for permit (application) was reviewed using the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources (Department) Part 3704 rules “REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATERS” which implement and are authorized by the Rivers, Lakes and Streams Act [615 ILCS 5]. The application was also reviewed using the Park District Code [70 ILCS 1205/11-2] (Exhibit PDC). Existing Conditions (Exhibit A) The applicant has three contiguous littoral lots, north to south, 260, 250, and 246 Sheridan Road, which form Centennial Park, on Lake Michigan. The beach is used as an off-leash dog swimming beach. The property is located immediately south of 261 Sheridan Road and immediately north of 205 Sheridan Road. Existing structures consist of: 1. A shore-parallel steel sheetpile seawall at the toe of the bluff 2. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the approximate center of the site 3. A shore-perpendicular steel sheetpile groin at the south property line Proposed Project (Exhibit B) The applicant proposes to install two shore-perpendicular rows of fencing (North and South), beginning at the existing steel sheetpile seawall, and extending 15 ft. into Lake Michigan. Both fences will consist of 4 ft. high chain link fence without concrete footings. The fence posts will be directly driven into clay substrate to the point of refusal. The North fence will be 91 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. south of the north property line. The South fence will be 78.25 ft. long and will be located 20 ft. north of the south property line. Gates will be installed in both rows of fencing to allow public access along the shoreline. Department Application Review History An application-for-permit was received on April 25, 2025. A permit application review fee of $3,360 was received on May 20, 2025. The Department issued a 30-day public notice on May 12, 2025. The public notice expired on June 13, 2025. Comments from 34 individuals were received in response to the notice. These comments were forwarded to the applicant for response on June 16, 2025. The applicant’s responses were received on September 30, 2025. IDNR/DEE’s sign off was received on April 29, 2025. The IEPA’s Final Determination Letter was received on August 8, 2025. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing the proposed project for authorization by an Individual Permit. Page 128 of 396 Page 129 of 396 I am attaching a copy of a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers that I also mailed to each of you today. I'm sending it to you by email as well because of my significant public safety concerns involving an unfenced dog beach reopening at Centennial Park when repairs are complete. By way of this email, my husband and I are asking three things: 1. Act together to clear the hurdles to the temporary fencing for the dog beach, and get it erected, as soon as possible. 2. Do not reopen the dog beach until the fencing is up. 3. Direct our police department to enforce the Village's and the Park District's leash laws, especially in our local parks.   As you will see in the letter, in early July we had two instances of dogs in our backyard coming off the unfenced dog beach. In one case, it was a pair of them traveling together. These dogs have no business roaming free in our community, and I am deeply disappointed that the Village, the Park District, and local law enforcement all continue to look the other way on unleashed dogs on the beach and in Centennial and Elder Lane parks. This situation is of particular concern regarding Elder Lane Park, which prohibits dogs altogether, on or off leash. This park teems with children daily, ranging from the toddlers at the tot lot, to the primary school children with their flag football and soccer practices, to the teens with the parking for New Trier, and to all kinds of families who regularly picnic in the park. I do not understand the failure of our local government to enforce our leash laws in these two parks and their beaches. As you will see in the letter, my own experience with a vicious dog attack in Elder Lane Park has shaped my views on this. I apologize for the graphic nature of the attached photos, but I think they illustrate well just what a dog is capable of doing in a very short period of time. The four photos were taken by the vet after Toby's attack. The largest wound was five inches long and an inch wide, the other very deep wound was approximately an inch deep into his tissue. Can you imagine if the Elder Lane victim had been a child in the park instead? My husband and I are happy to discuss this further. Besides contacting us by email, you can reach us on our landline, Thank you. Fran and John Edwardson Page 130 of 396 Page 131 of 396 Page 132 of 396 Page 133 of 396 Page 134 of 396 Page 135 of 396 Page 136 of 396 TALKING POINTS—FENCING FOR DOG BEACH My name is Fran Edwardson, and I live at 301 Sheridan Rd, next to Elder Lane Park. Since the dog beach at Centennial reopened with a supposed “leash” requirement, lower lake levels, and no fencing, we have had multiple dogs coming into our yard from the dog beach. They are traveling nearly a quarter mile from Centennial: across the 261 Sheridan and Elder Lane beaches, then onto our property, up our stairs, and into our yard. They have neither leashes nor owners with them. I’m grateful that our grandchildren weren’t outside as this could have put them in harm’s way. Worse yet, the dogs could have easily come up at Elder Lane Park next to the tot lot, or at an adjacent home where young children live and play in their yard often. Elder Lane Park is used by lots of kids, including the toddlers at the playground, Jr Trevians at sports practices, and the teenagers who park there to attend New Trier. Elder Lane is a “people park” and all dogs, whether on or off leash, are specifically prohibited in it by Park District ordinance. I have firsthand experience with an attacking dog, and know the serious injuries they can cause. In 2020, while I was walking my leashed dog Toby, he was tackled and dragged into Elder Lane Park by a very large, unleashed, uncollared German shepherd. He pinned Toby down, and began to eat my dog alive until the owner was able to pull the attacking dog off. It was horrifying. But, it could have been worse. What if the dog had attacked me instead? Or worse yet, a child playing in the park? While we love our dogs, they can be dangerous animals. That’s why we have laws that regulate them. Whether on the beach, in the parks, or on our streets, dogs should not be roaming unleashed in Winnetka. It presents an important public safety risk, which should be given the highest priority. Not just the law, but common sense, dictates that a dog beach must be fenced. This is not the Park District’s problem alone. The Village’s own leash laws specifically declare that unleashed dogs off the owner’s property are a “public nuisance.” Our zoning ordinances put this squarely in front of the Village, too. The plastic 1 Page 137 of 396 TALKING POINTS—FENCING FOR DOG BEACH construction fencing that’s up at Elder Lane beach right now isn’t going keep dogs from roaming for long. Two recent surveys done by the Park District and the Caucus indicate that the full reopening of Elder Lane beach is one of our community’s highest priorities. Our beaches should be safe for all beach goers and park visitors. Resilient fencing can create a safe and enjoyable environment for everyone, and mitigate the risks of unintended encounters between dogs and human beings. The Army Corps’ and IDNR’s review of the Park District’s temporary dog beach fence application is nearly complete. I urge the Village to cooperate with its fellow government agencies and grant all necessary approvals for the temporary dog fence as quickly as you possibly can. Thank you. 2 Page 138 of 396 To: Village of Winnetka Plan Commission From: Kimberley Marsh, 360 Forest Street, Winnetka, IL Re: Winnetka Park District Centennial Fence SUP Application Violates Design Standards, Conflicts with the 2040 Futures Plan & Misrepresents Facts and the Law Date: January 21, 2026 Please vote against recommending the Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Village Code- violating, SUP standard breaching, unlawful and 2040 Futures Plan-indifferent permanent fencing permit application. 1. Design Standards prohibit chain-link fencing. WPD’s proposed black chain-link animal cage on the shores of Lake Michigan would violate this prohibition. It cannot be recommended to the Village Council. 2. VOW 2040 Futures Plan promotes open space and the preservation of Winnetka’s graceful character, neighborhood design standards, and the environment. WPD’s SUP application clearly violates all of these tenets. There is no standalone black chain link fencing along any neighboring Centennial Park property owner’s lakefront front lot line, nor along any Sheridan Road front lawn. There is no standalone chain link fencing in the neighborhood that extends into Lake Michigan. WPD’s SUP permit application cannot be recommended to the Village Council. 3. When the Village approved WPD’s 2001 Elder Lane and Beach SUP application, it required WPD to install Code-compliant non-chain link fencing. Despite this, WPD seeks to install Code non-compliant, design standard violating, 2040 Futures Plan -inconsistent chain link fencing on Centennial beach. 4. WPD’s proposed black chain link animal cage is not minimally necessary nor consistent with Code Section 15.78.010. WPD’s fencing is designed to stretch106’ from the toe of the bluffs into Lake Michigan on the north, and 93’3” into Lake Michigan to the south. The fencing extends 72 feet beyond the OHWM--WPD’s front lot line—on the north, and 77’3” beyond WPD’s front lot line to the south. Fencing that extends beyond a property owner’s front lot line is prohibited. 5. The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it defines as fencing or other barriers that would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan and its submerged lands. Page 139 of 396 6. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police and other first responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers. 7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan and cannot be recommended for approval. 8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement. 9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves 2 Page 140 of 396  at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage. 10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious claims. 11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately mis-defining what constitutes “running at large” to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions. 12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement. Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit application. 3 Page 141 of 396 Friends - What a surprise to receive an email from Eric Otto on Christmas Eve saying that the IDNR had issued Permit LM2025011 allowing the Winnetka Park District to put fencing into Lake Michigan around Centennial Park! This is a terrible idea for so many reasons. First of all, this fence de es Illinois law (615 ILCS 5/27). This is a beach for public use. I understand that the Park District application described the fencing as going into the lake 15 feet. Take a look at the WPD's own drawings. They want to have a fence which would go 106 feet lakeward from the seawall to the north, and 93 feet 3 inches lakeward from the seawall to the south. Think of the hazards these fences will present to swimmers, boaters, and even dogs! Mr. Otto mentions that the area where the Park District wants to put its fences is made up of shoals and water not t for navigation. That's simply not true. According to USACE, all of Lake Michigan's waters are navigable. Finally, this really is moot since a public notice was not posted to inform the Winnetka residents about the Park District's plans and application. I believe Laurie Morse's comments, which you have, sum up our problems here: Mr. Otto's permit of multiple fences on Centennial Beach is a precedent-setting decision with consequences leadership at the Corps and the IDNR have not considered, and which are far-reaching. The IDNR failed to hold a public hearing that included all managers of waterside state and county recreational areas in Illinois prior to making this permit decision. Please reconsider your decision and rescind Permit LM2025011. Please keep me updated. Thank you. Irene Smith 1087 Elm Street Winnetka, IL 60093 Page 142 of 396 fi fi From: To: Kristin Kazenas; ContactCouncil; Planning Cc: Shannon Nazzal; ; Christina Codo; scorley@winpark.org; dseaman@winpark.org; cyrapp@winpark.org; jtyson@winpark.org; Kutulas Costa Subject: Winnetka Dog Beach Fencing Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 10:52:57 AM Attachments: Exhibit 2 - Dog Park and Beach - History and Consideration of Alternatives.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Village of Winnetka Board of Trustees, Staff and Plan Commissioners, As you prepare for the upcoming Plan Commission Hearing regarding the dog beach, I thought if would be helpful to list some salient facts regarding the Winnetka Dog Beach and attach the exhibit that was included in the prior plan commission submittal regarding the history of the Winnetka Dog Beach. The dog beach at Winnetka's Centennial Park opened in 1995. The Village of Winnetka adopted leash laws in 2007, requiring dogs to be on leash in public spaces Cook County Animal Control Ordinance has detailed requirements for operating off- leash dog parks including fences and controlled access. A chain link fence was in place at the near the north end of Centennial beach extending into the water for the better part of a decade before it was obliterated by wave action accompanying rising water levels peaking in 2020. The Winnetka Park District developed thoughtful plans that meet the various requirements to keep the dog beach in compliance with governing regulations and be consistent with the public trust doctrine. The Park District studied all other locations and determined Centennial is best suited for the purpose of the dog beach (see attached document included in prior public submittals to the Village of Winnetka). Centennial Beach, with 520 feet of shoreline represents more than 21% of the publicly accessible shoreline in Winnetka. The number of Winnetka households with dog beach passes averages less than 7% of the households. The Park District voted UNANIMOUSLY in October of 2022, to keep the dog beach at Centennial but reduce the size to not less than 170 and not more than 270 feet of shoreline and to provide public access to the balance of Centennial Park. ANY other proposed dog beach in Winnetka would require the granting of a special use permit before it could be used as an off-leash dog park and it would have to meet the same requirements. Page 143 of 396  The Village of Winnetka requires a Special Use Permit for ALL: Parks, Schools, Churches and other Institutional uses because it does not have a land use category in its zoning ordinance for such uses. But for the lack of proper zoning classification this request would be a simple administrative process requiring a building permit. Despite the fact that the dog beach has been in the same location for the past 30 years, the Village of Winnetka is insisting upon a new special use permit for a temporary fence to allow dogs to run off leash at Centennial Beach. The Winnetka Park District is obligated to follow the ordinances enacted by the Village of Winnetka, County of Cook and State of Illinois; its not an option. The Village should explain to its constituents who made the decision to require a special use permit and why it is required for a statutorily required fence. It's been more than 3 years since the Park District agreed to modify the lakefront master plan to keep the dog beach at Centennial and people are still arguing over a simple plan to meet the basic code requirements for an off-leash dog park.   Politics involves compromise. Operating a dog beach requires compliance with governing regulations. The proposed interim fencing solution properly secures the dog beach while affording the public access to the balance of Centennial Park and Beach. The plan should be approved without further delay. Warren James Page 144 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives Centennial Park was established in 1969 with the acquisition of the former North Shore Health Resort Property. Park features are largely the same today as when it was first developed, with the notable exceptions of the bluff and shoreline repairs in 1987 and the formation of the Centennial Park off- leash “Dog Beach” in 1995. Above: Drone image dated 2020-09-29 Below: Drone image dated 2020-08-26 Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 145 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives Publicly owned shoreline in Winnetka is detailed below: Publicly Owned Lakefront Property – Village of Winnetka & Winnetka Park District BeachPa Shore Beach Access WPD WPD Managed frontag Shore Access Allowed Managed with Beach e frontage Allowed (% of Beach Access Description (feet) (% of total) (feet) total) (feet) Allowed (%) Sheridan Rd – Ravines 100 3.3% 100 3.9% 0 0.0% Tower Rd Beach (WPD) 200 6.6% 200 7.9% 200 8.3% Tower Rd Beach (VofW) 320 10.6% 320 12.6% 320 13.3% Tower Rd Power Plant 215 7.1% 0 28.3% 0 0.0% Lloyd Beach 720 23.8% 720 9.2% 720 29.9% Maple Beach 235 7.8% 235 0.0% 235 9.8% Spruce Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Elm Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Oak Street ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Cherry Street ROW 40 1.3% 40 1.6% 0 0.0% Willow Road ROW 66 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Elder Lane Beach 410 13.6% 410 16.1% 410 17.0% Centennial Beach 520 17.2% 520 20.4% 520 21.6% TOTALS: 3024 100.0% 2545 100.0% 2405 100.0% Note: Centennial Beach represents 21.6% of the total usable beachfront managed by the WPD. Winnetka Park District – Dog Beach Pass Holders – Summary Report: 2010-2022 Year Resident Non-Resident 2010 351 75 2011 311 73 2012 320 89 2013 275 71 2014 285 65 2015 267 63 2016 315 70 2017 333 80 2018 371 94 2019 356 105 2020 245 56 2021 300 86 2022 232 54 AVERAGE: 305 75 Approx. 4500 Households within the WPD (includes parts of Northfield, Glencoe, Kenilworth) The 13 year average of 305 resident dog beach passes represents only 6.8% of WPD households. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 146 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives DOG BEACH TIMELINE • 1995 – Dog Beach Created at Centennial Park by Winnetka Park District • 2007 – Village of Winnetka adopts leash ordinance • 2015 – Lakefront Advisory Committee recommends relocating dog park in the event Elder and Centennial are unified, recognizing that Elder and Centennial combined with 261 Sheridan would result in a 1000-foot public beach. • April 2016 - Lakefront Master Plan Adopted • May 2016 – Community needs assessment survey identified dog park as top 5 priority • Dec 2018 – Residents approach WPD Board to advocate for an off-leash (land based) dog park • Jan 2019 – Board directs staff to prioritize dry land dog park assessment • Mar 2019 – Staff evaluated 33 sites and identifies 4 as meeting minimum requirements • Jun 2019 – WPD host meeting to present findings from community engagement • Aug 2019 – WPD Board reviews information regarding dog park locations o During the board meeting, the need to find a suitable alternative location for a dog park was highlighted, noting that the Lakefront Master Plan called for relocating the dog park away from Centennial Beach in the event the parks were unified. o WPD identifies West Elm Park and Crow Island Woods best suited locations for off- leash dog park. o West Elm area residents mobilize to oppose dog park at portion of West Elm Park o Euclid Avenue residents mobilize to oppose dog park at portion of Crow Island Woods o WPD Board drops proposal for dog beach at West Elm or Crow Island due to community opposition and focuses on off leash park on portion of the Village municipal yard south of Willow Road. • March 2020 – Covid Outbreak o WPD meetings to go to zoom only o Caucus participation plummets to low 20’s total participation o Randy Whitchurch and Bill Murphy – both residents of Fuller Lane volunteer to serve on Winnetka Caucus Council Park District commissioner selection committee • August 19, 2020 – Caucus zoom interviews of candidates for WPD Commissioner; conducted by Randy Whitchurch and Bill Murphy; seven candidates for one open seat; Eric Lussen and Warren James, both incumbents interviewed for second term. • October 10, 2020 – Winnetka Park District enters into Exchange Agreement to acquire 261 Sheridan. • November 11, 2020, Caucus Town Hall, presentation of Candidates via zoom: o Candidate Colleen Root was recommended by the Winnetka Caucus Council as nominee for park board commissioner. o Candidate Root introduces herself as an attorney from Houston, TX, who moved to Winnetka in 2018, is familiar with the Army Corps of Engineers by virtue of the fact her home was flooded and destroyed by a hurricane, stated one of the reasons she moved to Winnetka was for its dog beach. • March 10, 2021, Caucus Spring Town Hall – question regarding dog beach/parks directed to candidate Colleen Root in lieu of board President Mickey Archambault. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 147 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives • May 27, 2021, Commissioner Root sworn in as newly elected Commissioner • Jun 24, 2021, first Regular Board meeting with new board members, including Commissioner Root (in attendance.) • Aug 26, 2021, WPD Board meeting: 50+ attendees demanding reinstatement of dog beach in lakefront master plan – led by Commissioner Colleen Root & Randy Whitchurch • WPD Board responded to community input and established Dog Beach Committee which included volunteer time/board liaison from Village President Chris Rintz. • Village of Winnetka reiterated its offer to allocate land for off leash dog park at Village Municipal Yard, for which specific plans were prepared by WPD. However, the Village noted that off leash park on municipal yard would not be able to be constructed until after the completion of the stormwater project in SW Winnetka. • Village of Winnetka offered to establish dog beach on a portion of Tower Road Beach owned by the Village of Winnetka immediately adjacent and north of Tower Road pier. • As detailed above, the total usable publicly owned shoreline at Tower Road Beach is approximately 520 feet. Comprised of 320 feet owned by the Village of Winnetka, leased to the WPD and the 200-foot-wide lot owned by the WPD. Cook County Viewer – GIS Image – Village of Winnetka Owned Property Cook County Viewer – GIS Image – Winnetka Park District owned property Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 148 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives • Spring 2022 - Dog Beach Committee developed specific plans for dog beach at Tower Road. • Spring 2022 - Dog Beach Committee worked with staff and consultants to prepare plans for dog beach on the southern portion of Tower Road Beach, including a fence surrounding the dog beach extending to the waterline. • WPD Board of Directors reviewed proposed plan for Tower prepared by Dog Beach Committee. The WPD Board made the following observations: o With 520’ total available shoreline, proposed dog park at 258’ wide as depicted on the proposed plan would result in swimming beach of only 262 feet. o The exposure to waves from the North-northeast would require more substantial barrier than a temporary chain link fence to properly separate dog beach users from swimmers – likely sheet pile groin and stone breakwater that would add significant expense to the project. o Wave action and riptide adjacent to Tower Road pier presents hazard to dogs. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 149 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives • Randy Whitchurch public comment to WPD Board during Tower Road location consideration: Mr. Whitchurch objected to relocation of dog beach to Tower Road citing steep slope of access drive and parking limitations. o Note: given that most dog beach users arrive on foot, moving the dog beach to Tower would result in potential conflicts between dogs, automobiles, pedestrians and cyclists on the steeply sloping access drive at Tower Road Beach, 15’-6” wide. • June 9, 2022, WPD Board votes 3-2 with (Commissioners Codo and Lussen absent) to withdraw permit applications for Elder and Centennial beaches from the IDNR & ACOE. • July 8, 2022, Orchard 2020 (Ishbia) acquires 195 Sheridan Road and informs WPD of their intent to move house plans south of Centennial Park, excluding Exchange parcel. • October 24, 2022; Winnetka homeowner Robert Schriesheim files lawsuit against Winnetka Park District, challenging the Property Exchange Agreement o Note: Shriesheim v. Winnetka Park District was settled on January 16, 2025. The Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions: “the Parties have agreed to the terms herein for the sole purpose of settlement, and nothing herein may be taken as or construed to be an admission or concession of any violation of law, rule, or regulation, or of any other matter of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing or lack thereof” AND “The WPD agrees not to transfer title to the beach property at Centennial Park which lies east (or lakeward) of the current steel sheet piling at the toe of the bluff to any non-governmental entity.” o The Settlement Agreement assures that the southern end of Centennial Beach will remain part of the WPD owned shoreline and the proposed dog beach will not be altered. • October 27, 2022, WPD Board UNANIMOUSLY approves a motion to maintain dog beach at south end of Centennial Park (present location) with several conditions as detailed below. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 150 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives • Excerpts from Board Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2022, read as follows: Commissioner Lussen made a motion to amend the Waterfront 2030 Lakefront Master Plan to Include a Dog Beach at the south end of Centennial Beach subject to the following conditions: a. Shore frontage allocated to dog beach use shall not be less than 170 feet and not be greater than 270 feet; b. The dog beach area must include a secure boundary to prevent dogs from straying beyond the borders of the dog beach while off leash; c. The electric gate system be relocated to the beach or boardwalk level to afford public access to the remainder of Centennial Beach; and d. Dog beach boundaries shall accommodate public passage along the lakefront in keeping with the IDNR guidelines. Commissioner Archambault seconded the motion. Commissioner Lussen acknowledged a Cook County law which requires a fenced in dog beach. Commissioner Root commented it appears the Park District is tying design to the desires of Orchard 2020. Commissioner Lussen commented the dog beach provides an important element to our community. Commission Codo stated keeping the dog beach at the south end is a neutral location. The IDNR phrasing in the motion allows the Park District to control what happens on its property and the IDNR to control what happens on adjacent property. Following discussion, item “d” of the motion was amended as follows: “Dog beach boundaries shall accommodate public passage along the lakefront”. • A roll call vote was taken. • Ayes: Archambault, Codo, James, Lussen, Rapp, Root, Seaman • Nays: None • Motion carried as amended ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources, published Guidelines for the submittal of applications for Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources Permits for Shore Protection Projects in Lake Michigan in November 2015. The Guidelines contain the following provisions: “Where possible, notably in areas where existing access along the lakeshore is available, the project should provide some type of reasonable access over or around it on the landward side.” The WPD proposed plans for the Centennial dog beach comply with the IDNR guidelines by providing a bypass around the dog beach on the landward side of the proposed dog beach. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 151 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives The Foreword to the Cook County Animal Control Act reads in part as follows: The Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance was developed and passed to establish guidelines in the development of harmonious relationships between animals and man. This Ordinance is the law in all municipalities within Cook County. Any municipality regardless of its population may pass an ordinance effective within its jurisdiction more strict than the County Ordinance. No person including a municipal corporation, forest preserve district or park district shall designate within the County an outdoor area, even if fenced, as an area where dogs may run off leash unless such person, municipal corporation forest preserve district or park district complies with such regulation as may be issued by the Administrator of the operation of outdoor off leash areas. Computer Generated scaled image of proposed Dog Beach with perimeter fence and bypass along landward side as required by Cook County and IDNR. The shoreline frontage dedicated to the proposed dog beach is approximately 240 feet, slightly less than 10% of the WPD managed shoreline in Winnetka, which is a more appropriate allocation of shoreline than the entire Centennial beach which is 520 feet of shoreline, representing 21.6% of the total usable shoreline managed by the WPD. The proposed pier provides robust protection from waves coming from the northeast and proper separation between the dog beach and the swimming beach to the north. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 152 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives In January 2023, at the Elder-Centennial Open House, the WPD presented the following images to demonstrate the relative size of the combined Elder-Centennial to the existing Lloyd Beach. The picture above demonstrates that the entire 730 feet of Lloyd Beach and Stepan Boat launch easily fits within the 1000-foot combined Elder-Centennial Beach with 270 feet remaining at the south end. This image above, also from January 2023, depicts the plan view of Lloyd (in gray) with the contemplated headland beach system and adjacent dog beach planned for Centennial and Elder (in orange). Note that the Lloyd breakwaters project the same distance into the lake as the proposed improvements at Centennial and Elder, while the Stepan boat launch extends further into the lake. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 153 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives For comparison purposes, the WPD notes the following attributes of the Gillson Park Dog Beach in Wilmette. • The shoreline dedicated to the dog beach is approximately 225 feet. • The dog beach is oriented in an easterly direction and it is protected by a 475-foot long stone breakwater to the north. • A chain link fence as seen near the middle of the beach area which defines the northerly edge of the dog beach is protected from waves from the northeast by the stone breakwater. The following page provides and update on the proposed bypass of the dog beach and access to the steps up and over the stone breakwater at 205 Sheridan. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 154 of 396  Winnetka Park District – Centennial Park Dog Beach History and Consideration of Off Leash Dog Park & Dog Beach Alternatives Sand level at Centennial South Groin, Oct-17-2024 Sand level at Centennial South Groin, Feb-9- 2025 The steel groin (jetty) is located near the south property line of Centennial Dog Beach. The temporary construction fence is located along the northerly property line of 205 Sheridan. The convergence of the fence and steel jetty is the approximate location of where the extended property line of 205 Sheridan intersects the pre-existing steel groin. As of Oct-24, the sand on both sides of the steel extended afforded easy passage over the steel groin. As of Feb-25, the vertical drop on the north side has increased due to the loss of sand. Accumulated sand between the steel groin and the newly constructed stone groin provides dry passage to the steps leading over the stone groin at 205 Sheridan. Proposed dog beach fence to be secured to existing steel groin. Note: Sand trapped between stone & steel provides 6-foot wide pathway to the steps over the stone groin Accreted sand between steel & stone groin, Feb-9-2025 Steps over stone groin at 205 Sheridan, Feb-9-2025 There are three options to ensure safe, legal passage for pedestrians desiring to transit the shoreline: 1) Secure legal determination that accumulated sand between steel and stone groin is public land. 2) Secure easement agreement to ensure legal passage to reach steps up and over stone groin. 3) Relocate steel sheet pile to provide pedestrian pathway on the north side of the extended property line between Centennial Dog Beach and 205 Sheridan. Prepared by Park District Commissioner, Warren James, last updated February 2025 Page 155 of 396 Page 156 of 396 6.      Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police and other first responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers. 7.      The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan and cannot be recommended for approval. Page 157 of 396 Page 158 of 396 Please deny the Park District's application for an SUP. Thanks for considering! Best, Mack Instagram Facebook Enjoy hearing new music? Please check out my new singles. Share 'em, if you like 'em! "We Need More Santas" "One Step Ahead of the Law" "No Words" "You're My Everything (Alexa!)" "Second Chances" Second place Grand Prize Winner, 2024 Dallas Songwriters Association Contest; Outstanding Achievement in Songwriting, 2024 Great American Song Contest; Nashville Songwriters Association Bob Kingsley 2024 "Top 10" Spotify/AppleMusic: MackSongs: First Cuts https://soundcloud.com/macksongs Page 159 of 396 Page 160 of 396  the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval. 8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement. 9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder- Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage. 10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious claims. 11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions. 12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement. Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit application. Stephanie Heraty 195 Fuller Lane Winnetka IL Page 161 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Comments for Plan Commission Meeting January 28, 2026 Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:41:05 PM [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 26, 2026 Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence Plan Commissioners: Thank you for your attention to this matter. The plans for the off-leash dog beach, as drawn on April 2025 and submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet (January 28, 2026 meeting,) are vague and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the plan committee and the public of the breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan Rd. or the south boundary of Centennial Park. Had the breakwater been included, the benign looking gap between the thin line representing the fence and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem entirely redundant and hazardous. The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake Michigan. It runs into the lake at a distance of 16-19ft. from the ordinary water line, but that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark of 581.5 ft. At best the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between jagged rocks and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and wavy. The need to provide a fence when there is already a pile of rocks at that property line is questionable. Dogs aren’t going to pick their way over rocks in favor of running and playing on the beach. Drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and describe adjacency. In this case they fail to do so. Therefore, please deny this Special Use Permit. Joanna Karatzas Winnetka Resident Sent from my iPhone Page 162 of 396 From: To: Planning Subject: Urging denial of SUP for chain link fencing in Lake Michigan Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 4:31:42 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the members of the Winnetka Planning Commission: We are respectfully urging the Commission to deny the requested special use permit to place chain link fencing into Lake Michigan for a dog beach at Centennial Park. Such a fence has not been necessary previously, is an obvious eyesore on a natural beach scape thereby impairing use and enjoyment and creates risks to swimmers, boaters, and dogs being caught in the fencing. Further, such fencing has the potential to obstruct public use of the shoreline as protected under IL law. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please vote to deny the special use permit request for the chain link fencing into Lake Michigan at Centennial Park. Sincerely, Kim and David Mulligan Pelham Road Page 163 of 396  John William Root 326 Woodland Avenue Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: Email: Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org Mr. Scott Mangum January 26, 2026 Village of Winnetka Director of Community Development 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Case No. 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing Dear Mr. Mangum: I have reviewed the Winnetka Park District’s (Park’s) Special Use Permit Application (SUP) for Centennial Park, dated October 10, 2025. My following comments summarize my concerns about the proposed WPD Centennial dog fence and how that design conflicts with Village ordinances, particularly the Village zoning ordinances. I would appreciate your assistance in sharing my comments as part of the official packet to be delivered to the members of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission. Design Concerns I have reviewed the SUP, and I believe that WPD’s design violates provisions in the Lakefront Construction ordinances and violates Village dog ordinances. WPD has offered inadequate reasons or justification for exceptions from these regulations. Village Dog Ordinances The Park’s SUP seeks to establish an off-leash dog beach where dogs run at large in the same space with the general public. Village Ordinance Section 6.08.020 “Responsibilities of dog owners” states the following: A. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of any dog in the Village to keep such dog or to cause such dog to be kept under control at all times and to prevent such dog from doing any of the following prohibited acts, each of which is declared to be a public nuisance: Page 164 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 2 of 11 1. Running at Large. "Running at large" means being unconfined on or in property not owned or lawfully possessed by the owner of the dog, including public property, without being under immediate control by the owner of the dog or a responsible member of his or her family or by a responsible agent of the family, by means of a leash, cord, chain or like device. This ordinance is unambiguous and the Park’s SUP for an off-leash dog park clearly violates the ordinance. Section 6.08.020 is designed to protect the public from loose dogs and is designed to keep the public safe during interactions with dogs. Members of the public who dislike or fear dogs should not have share a public beach with loose dogs in an off-leash dog beach. The public should not be forced into a dog pen to cross a public beach. By violating Section 6.08.020 A. 1. The Park also violates Section 17.56.010: 1. “That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare;” 6. “That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other village ordinances and codes.” Fencing on Lake Michigan Dog Beaches The proposed design of the Park’s Centennial dog fence violates Lakefront Construction ordinance: Section 15.78.080(D). Project Scope. The covered construction and any related structures include only what is minimally necessary to achieve the intended and proper purpose of the project and to be consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 15.78.010 of this chapter. The WPD proposed fences extend further into the lake than is necessary to keep dogs confined to the dog beach. The Park’s current design would extend the northern and southern fences 15’ into the lake at current lake levels (see figures 1 & 2) (highlighting for emphasis). Page 165 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 3 of 11 Page 166 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 4 of 11 However, lake levels vary and the lake reached the Ordinary High Water Mark in late 2019. In 2019 the Park’s northern fence would have extended 31’ (figure 1) into the lake and 45’of the southern fence (figure 2) would have extended into the lake. Neither fence needs to be extended into the lake. Dogs are accompanied by their owners and owners keep their dogs confined to the dog beach. If the fence stops at the water’s edge and a dog goes around the fence, then the owner would be able to quickly follow the dog and return the dog to the enclosed area. Fences that run from the toe of the bluff to the water line are sufficient to demark the dog beach. The fact that no other lake Michigan dog beach operator has seen the need to extend a standalone chain link fence into the lake shows that such extensions are not needed. Lake Michigan Dog Beaches There are six dog beaches other than Centennial on Lake Michigan in Illinois: Sunrise Dog Beach in Lake Bluff, Moraine Dog Beach in Highland Park, Gillson Dog Beach in Wilmette, Evanston Dog Beach in Evanston, Montrose Dog Beach in Chicago, and Belmont Dog Beach in Chicago. Please note that four of these dog beaches are located in Cook County. None of these beaches have a free-standing chain-link fence that extends into the lake. Page 167 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 5 of 11 Sunset Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach Sunset Dog Beach is bounded on the north by private property and on the south by a public swimming beach (figure 3). Figure 3: Sunset dog beach Lake Bluff There is a 4’ high split rail fence covered in wire mesh on the southern boundary of the dog beach that separates the dog beach form the people swimming beach and a rocky shore to the north keeps the dogs confined to the beach. The split rail fence is located behind a metal groin and is not located in the water. Page 168 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 6 of 11 Gillson Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach Gillson Dog Beach is bounded on the north by Gillson Swimming Beach and bounded to the south by Wilmette Harbor. (figure 4). Figure 4: Gillson dog beach Wilmette The chain link fence 4’-5’ high on the northern boundary separates the dog beach from the people swimming beach. You can see that the northern chain link fence stops at the water’s edge. In fact, the chain link fence is made of panels that are removed from the park upon the conclusion of the Summer swimming season. The Wilmette Harbor to the south also keeps the dogs confined to the dog beach. A plastic safety barrier fence keeps dogs off the rubble stone lining the harbor. Page 169 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 7 of 11 Evanston Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach Evanston Dog Beach is bounded on the north by Clark Street Swimming Beach and bounded to the south by Church Street Power Boat Ramp (figure 5). Figure 5: Evanston dog beach Evanston There is a 4’ high chain link fence welded to a preexisting 4’ high steel groin on the northern boundary separating human swimmers from dogs and the Church Street Power Boat Ramp to the south keeps the dogs confined to the dog beach. The chain link fence serves a primary purpose of fall prevention for beach goers on Clark Street beach and also separates dogs from swimmers. However, the chain link fence is not directly installed in the lake. Page 170 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Montrose Dog Beach & Adjacent Swimming Beach Montrose Dog Beach is bounded on the north by a concrete revetment and bounded to the south by a chain link fence that separates it from Montrose Swimming Beach (figure 6). Figure 6: Montrose dog beach Chicago The chain link fence is 4’ to 5’ high on the southern boundary. The fence separates swimmers from dogs and terminates at the water’s edge. The revetment to the north keeps the dogs confined to the dog beach. Page 171 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 9 of 11 Belmont Dog Beach Belmont Dog Beach, located in Belmont Harbor in Chicago, does not border a public swim beach or private property. The western boundary of the dog park is an iron fence 4’ high separating a public sidewalk from the dog beach and the remaining three sides of the beach are bordered by the harbor (figure 7). Figure 7: Belmont dog beach Chicago Page 172 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 10 of 11 Moraine Dog Beach Moraine Dog Beach is located in Highland Park. A ravine confines the dogs to the north and a 4’ high wooden slat snow fence confines the dogs to the south. The snow fence is attached to posts driven into the beach adjacent to a steel groin. The snow fence does not extend into the water. Figure 8: Moraine dog beach Highland Park This review of the North Shore Lake Michigan dog beaches in Illinois shows that fencing is the most popular method used to separate, confine, and “delineate” dog beaches from human beaches. Municipalities also use natural boundaries such as ravines and rocky shorelines to confine the dogs and separate them from people. Artificial structures such as stone lined harbors, steel groins, and boat launches also serve a secondary purpose of confining dogs and separating them from humans on the beaches. This survey also shows that no municipality has installed a standalone fence into the lake and that installed standalone fences terminate at the water’s edge. One can conclude that fences terminating along the water’s edge are adequate for separating dogs from humans Page 173 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum January 25, 2026 Page 11 of 11 “Temporary Dog Fence” The Park’s SUP calls for a “temporary” dog fence while not specifying a date certain for when the fence would be removed or replaced. A fence that can remain indefinitely is not temporary. Village Counsel should require the Park to remove the fence should Centennial Park cease to be operated as an off-leash dog park by the Park or for that portion of the dog beach that is subsequently transferred to a private entity. These limitation requirements should be a condition of issuance of the permit. Conclusion For all the reasons enumerated above, I respectfully request that Plan Commission recommend against the granting of Park’s SUP. Thank you and member of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission for your consideration of these comments. cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org Ms. Ann Klaassen Assistant Director By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org Page 174 of 396 Page 175 of 396 The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it defines as fencing or other barriers that would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan and its submerged lands. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police7. 8. 9. and other first responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage. 10.Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dogfriendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious claims. Page 176 of 396 11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions. 12.CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement. Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit application. Best regards, Stephanie Tokarczyk Page 177 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Cc: Subject: 1/28/26 Plan Commission meeting, WPD Centennial Fence SUP Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 5:24:08 PM Attachments: January2026CookCountyFOIAExcerpt.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ann: Would you please share this email dated 1/26/26 with the Plan Commission? The attached pdf consists of communications related to WPD’s ongoing efforts to leverage Cook County’s Animal Control Ordinance/Regulations to the advantage of certain interests. Cook County expresses disinterest in a matter outside of its jurisdiction: Lake Michigan- based, non-contiguous dog beach fencing extending across public lands and waters. As background, beginning in 2022-2023 (post-withdrawal of controversial lakefront joint permit designs featuring louvered steel walls) WPD began to claim Centennial dog beach was an unlawfully unfenced “dog park” that required four-sided contiguous fencing . . . despite its status as an on-leash Lake Michigan beach area for which Cook County requires no fencing at all. During the Plan Commission’s and ZBA’s 2024-2025 permit reviews, WPD shifted to calling Centennial dog beach a “dog friendly area” (“DFA”) requiring fencing despite the fact that the Cook County Code does not proscribe this for Lake Michigan DFAs. CCAC’s lack of interest in WPD’s scheme consisted of telling Ms. Nazzal that Centennial is a “DFA”—not subject to CCAC’s four-sided “dog park” fencing rules. Subsequent WPD permit applications and narratives in 2025 continue to misrepresent that Cook County requires “dog park” fencing at Centennial. All of this conflicts with WPD’s response to the Village in its final 8-4-25 Centennial Breakwater SUP (excerpt below) in which WPD acknowledges the Cook County Code fails to require fencing for dog beaches, spuriously suggesting that at some point in the future it might.* Page 178 of 396 Please do not recommend WPD’s untruthful, misleading fencing SUP for approval. Cook County’s Animal Control Ordinance does not require it. Veracity should be required for WPD, as it is for the Village’s homeowners, business owners, and our other units of local government. Thank you. Kris Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer *ATTACHMENT: WPD’s Final 8-4-25 SUP application to the Village. Village staff’s question is: “Regarding the dog beach, are there any other applicable State, County, etc. regulations which the dog beach must comply (e.g. fencing requirements, leash requirements, etc.)? . . . WPD’s answer stating that there are not is as follows: “It was suggested that the Winnetka Park District submit for a waiver at this time until they address this matter at a future date for all dog parks that abut Lake Michigan. []” As a reminder, CCAC ordinance/regulations do not provide the Administrator with waiver authority. Page 179 of 396 Page 180 of 396 looking in to. Because Cook County does not issue a permit for this type of temporary set up and instead relies on the applicable provisions of the Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance and Regulation VIII. Dog Parks and Areas, we respectfully request clarification regarding the scope and substance of the County’s review. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand: 1. What statutory or administrative authority governs Cook County’s evaluation in circumstances such as this; 2. What criteria or standards you intends to apply once the other agencies have issued their determinations; 3. What documentation or findings Cook County requires in order to complete its review; and 4. Any prior instances, case examples, or determinations in which Cook County has applied this type of review process to an off-leash area, dog beach, or comparable recreational facility. As you can appreciate, we must provide our Board with a clear and accurate explanation of each agency’s jurisdictional role, review process, and the basis for any deferral. Receiving the above information will ensure that we are fully aligned with the County’s expectations and able to plan appropriately as the external reviews proceed. We will continue to keep Cook County informed as we receive updates from IDNR and USACE. Thank you in advance for your assistance in providing these clarifications. Shannon Q. Nazzal, CPRE (she / her) Executive Director Office: +1.847.501.2074 Email: snazzal@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 9:17 AM To: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Page 181 of 396 Page 182 of 396 Get Outlook for iOS From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:54 AM To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage Good morning Costa, Thank you for reaching out. Please be advised that Cook County will complete its evaluation once determinations have been made by DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. We trust that you will keep us informed on the permitting progress, and we remain available should you have any questions or need clarification in the meantime. Thank you, Megan Carolan, DVM Deputy Administrator Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Get Outlook for iOS From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:03:49 AM To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>; Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage External Message Disclaimer This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Page 183 of 396 Good Morning Mamadou, I hope that you're doing well and enjoy the cooler weather. I wanted to check in regarding the status of CCDARC’s final determination. We are in the process of advancing the project’s design and permitting, and confirmation of compliance with the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control requirements is an important step in that process. When you have a moment, could you please provide an update on the review or let us know if any additional information is needed to complete your determination? Thank you again for your time and assistance, we appreciate your help in keeping this moving forward. Regards, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance P: (847) 501-2052 E: ckutulas@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 11:42 AM To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola- Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage Good Morning Megan, (and CCDARC Team), I wanted to follow up on our last Teams meeting from a few weeks ago. As I recall, it was my understanding that your team had all the materials needed to make a final determination regarding our request on whether our proposed Centennial Beach Fencing Plan meets the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control regulations. We’re continuing to move forward with project permitting and would greatly appreciate confirmation that our proposed plan satisfies the CCDARC requirements. I also left a voicemail for you and Mark R., but I wanted to reach out via email as well to close Page 184 of 396 the loop. If someone from your team could please provide an update or an anticipated timeline for the final determination, I’d greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time and effort on this matter. I look forward to hearing back from a member of your team soon. Regards, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance P: (847) 501-2052 E: ckutulas@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 12:29 PM To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola- Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage Megan, I have some availability this afternoon between 1:00–2:00 PM. I realize that’s short notice, but let me know if that works for you. Otherwise, we can find a time later this week that’s more convenient. Thanks, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance P: (847) 501-2052 E: ckutulas@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:08 PM To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) Page 185 of 396  This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Good Afternoon Megan, Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon regarding the items noted in your earlier email exchange with Shannon. As we discussed, I appreciate your confirmation that no formal application has been submitted to CCDAC from the WPD regarding the Centennial Beach Dog Park. Rather, your comments were based on your review of the Park District’s signage and the Dog Beach Users submission to CCDAC, in response to the District’s request to ensure our proposed Temporary Dog Fencing Plan meets CCDAC requirements. Regarding the signage statement, “Check with your veterinarian before bringing a puppy under the age of four months to the park”, you noted that, in your opinion, the four-month reference could be reconsidered due to variations in vaccination schedules across breeders and veterinary offices. This is a point the Park District may want to consider in future planning. We'll keep that in mind as we move forward with your future planning for dog run sites. I believe this summarizes our conversation accurately, but please feel free to follow up if I’ve misunderstood or misstated anything. Thank you again for your time, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening. Best regards, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance P: (847) 501-2052 E: ckutulas@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 10:19 AM To: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov>; Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage Ms. Carolan, Page 186 of 396 Thank you for the email. Is the requirement from Cook County to remove that line on proposed signage? I'm also curious about it being considered an application review as we didn't submit an application per say, but a request for review. Is it now considered an application for approval or permit? Thank you for any clarification you can offer. Shannon Q. Nazzal, CPRE (she / her) Executive Director Office: +1.847.501.2074 Email: snazzal@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:59 AM To: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org> Cc: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Dog Beach Signage Good morning Shannon, Our department is reviewing the Centennial Dog Beach application, and we wanted to check in regarding one point on the suggested signage- "Check with your veterinarian before bringing a puppy under the age of four months to the park." Puppies are generally not considered fully vaccinated until they reach four months of age. Verifying the pet's vaccination status via the application process would probably be more suitable than this statement. Page 187 of 396 Page 188 of 396 Page 189 of 396 Executive Director Get Outlook for iOS From: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:54 AM To: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org>; Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage Good morning Costa, Thank you for reaching out. Please be advised that Cook County will complete its evaluation once determinations have been made by DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. We trust that you will keep us informed on the permitting progress, and we remain available should you have any questions or need clarification in the meantime. Thank you, Megan Carolan, DVM Deputy Administrator Cook County Animal and Rabies Control Get Outlook for iOS From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:03:49 AM To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Cc: Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov>; Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Rola-Podczaski (Animal Control) <Megan.Rola-Podczaski@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Re: Dog Beach Signage External Message Disclaimer This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and Page 190 of 396 Page 191 of 396 Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Megan Carolan (Animal Control) <Megan.Carolan@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: RE: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach External Message Disclaimer This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Dr. Diakhate: I was wondering if there was any updated information about the Winnetka Park District's attempts to authorize a off-leash dog park that lacks the "contiguous" fencing required by regulations. I am attaching a letter from the Park District to the Village of Winnetka, it which the District asserts that they "anticipate confirmation of [CCARC] review soon." (page 1, paragraph 5) While I am uncertain what to make of this statement, I would like to ask, once again, what the published process and/or rules are for your department to grant variations or waivers of the regulations, and how public participation/comment in such a waiver is allowed. As I previously stated, I can find no regulations or guidance, or, in fact, any authority, that would allow any variation to the fencing requirement in the regulation. Thank you for your assistance. Ted Wynnychenko > -----Original Message----- > From: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) > [mailto:Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 1:00 PM > To: t > Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control); Megan Carolan (Animal Control) > Subject: Re: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach > > Dear Mr. Wynnychenko, > > I am in receipt of your email, and I am grateful that you reach out to my > department for information. > > The Winnetka Park District has submitted plans for a dog park and Cook County Page 192 of 396 > Animal & Rabies Control is still evaluating it. > > Should more information become available, I would be happy to share them. > > Sincerely, > > > Mamadou Diakhate, D.V.M. > Administrator > Cook County Animal and Rabies Control > P: 708-974-6147 / M: 773-965-5852 > mamadou.diakhate@cookcountyil.gov > > www.cookcountyil.gov <http://www.cookcountyil.gov/> > ________________________________ > > From: Ted Wynnychenko > > Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2025 8:01 AM > To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> > Cc: Mark Rosenthal (Animal Control) <Mark.Rosenthal@cookcountyil.gov>; Natalia > Derevyanny (Bureau of Administration) <Natalia.Derevyanny@cookcountyil.gov> > Subject: RE: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach > > > External Message Disclaimer > > This message originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment > and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this > email. > > Dr. Diakhate: > > I would appreciate an acknowledgement that my prior email message was > received, and, if possible, any information on how your Department will > consider variations from published regulations and your Department's > authority to effect such variations on a case-by-case basis. > > Thank you > Ted Wynnychenko > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Wynnychenko > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 6:34 PM Page 193 of 396 > > To: 'Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control)' > > Subject: Winnetka Park Dristrict Dog Beach >> > > Dr. Diakhate: >> > > I previously contacted your office to ask whether an incompletely fenced > > area could be considered an off-leash dog park by your Department. >> > > I have attached a copy of my letter and your response from > > October-November 2024. >> > > I have now been led to believe that your Department is "considering" a > > request from the Winnetka Park District to approve an incompletely fenced > > area as acceptable, under your published regulations, as an off-leash dog > > park.\ >> > > If my belief is incorrect, I am sorry for troubling you. >> > > However, if your Department is considering "approving" any incompletely > > fenced area as allowable under Regulation VIII, despite the clear and > > unambiguous language of the regulation which demands that an off-leash dog > > park be "completely enclosed by ... a fence," then I request that you > > provide answers to the questions I posed in 2024, as I am not aware of any > > published process for the granting of any "waiver" to the requirements of > > Regulation VIII. >> > > Furthermore, I would appreciate being advised on how the public will be > > permitted to comment on any requests for waivers that may be submitted to > > your Department. >> > > Thank you for your assistance. >> > > Ted Wynnychenko Page 194 of 396 From: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) To: Scott Britton (Board of Commissioners) Cc: Allison Davidson (Bureau of Administration); Alexis Jenkins (Bureau of Administration); Zahra Ali (Bureau of Administration) Subject: Re: Centennial Dog Beach Follow Up Date: Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:53:16 AM Attachments: Outlook-Cook Color.png Outlook-4vqbdcah.png Outlook-ngp314wa.png Outlook-3rlfqp2b.png Outlook-n3wxlqse.png Dear Commissioner Britton, Thank you for reaching out to ARC, your continuous support is dearly appreciated. Animal and Rabies Control has decided not to issue any decision until Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers have given approval, as they will be looking at whether the plans provide sufficient access to the water under the law. Assuming they approve, the plan appears to meet the requirements of our regulations, but BOA is still reviewing the legalities. Should you have further questions, feel free to reach out to our BOA Senior Legal Counsel Allison Davidson here copied. Sincerely, Mamadou Diakhate, D.V.M. Administrator Cook County Animal and Rabies Control P: 708-974-6147 / M: 773-965-5852 mamadou.diakhate@cookcountyil.gov www.cookcountyil.gov From: Scott Britton (Board of Commissioners) <Scott.Britton@cookcountyil.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:41 AM To: Mamadou Diakhate (Animal Control) <Mamadou.Diakhate@cookcountyil.gov> Subject: Centennial Dog Beach Follow Up Dear Administrator Diakhate, Thank you for your thoughtful compliance review of Winnetka Park District’s plan for a Page 195 of 396 special use permit for an off-leash dog beach at Centennial Park. I understand that a review by the Cook County Animal and Rabies Control (CCARC) has been completed and is now under review by the Bureau of Administration. Would it be possible to view the preliminary findings? With gratitude, Commissioner Britton -- Scott Britton Commissioner | 14th District (O): (312) 603-4932 | (F): (312)603-3686 www.CommissionerScottBritton.com Sign up for my newsletter! Page 196 of 396 Page 197 of 396 To Village of Winnetka Plan Commission From: The Cacciatore Family @ 140 Sheridan Rd Re: Winnetka Park District Centennial Fence SUP Application Violates Design Standards, Con icts with the 2040 Futures Plan, Misrepresents Facts and the Law Date: January 26, 2026 Please vote against recommending the Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Village Code- violating, SUP standard breaching, unlawful and 2040 Futures Plan-indifferent permanent fencing permit application. 1. VOW Design Standards prohibit chain-link fencing. WPD’s proposed black chain- link animal cage on the shores of Lake Michigan would violate this prohibition. It cannot be recommended to the Village Council. 2. VOW 2040 Futures Plan promotes open space and the preservation of Winnetka’s graceful character, neighborhood design standards, and the environment. WPD’s SUP application clearly violates all of these tenets. There is no standalone black chain link fencing along any neighboring Centennial Park property owner’s lakefront front lot line, nor along any Sheridan Road front lawn. There is no standalone chain link fencing in the neighborhood that extends into Lake Michigan. WPD’s SUP permit application cannot be recommended to the Village Council. 3. When the Village approved WPD’s 2001 Elder Lane and Beach SUP application, it required WPD to install Code-compliant non-chain link fencing. Despite this, WPD seeks to install Code non-compliant, design standard violating, 2040 Futures Plan -inconsistent chain link fencing on Centennial beach. 4. WPD’s proposed black chain link animal cage is not minimally necessary nor consistent with Code Section 15.78.010. WPD’s fencing is designed to stretch106’ from the toe of the bluffs into Lake Michigan on the north, and 93’3” into Lake Michigan to the south. The fencing extends 72 feet beyond the OHWM--WPD’s front lot line—on the north, and 77’3” beyond WPD’s front lot line to the south. Fencing that extends beyond a property owner’s front lot line is prohibited. 5. The Village Code prohibits nuisances, which it de nes as fencing or other barriers that would extend into the public way, including Lake Michigan and its submerged lands. 6. Village Code Section 15.78.080 prohibits the creation of nuisances, such as fencing that would create Public Safety Hazards, including by impairing police Page 198 of 396 fi fl  and other rst responder access to Centennial beach/Lake Michigan. WPD’s animal cage would have 10” double gates on the northern side of Centennial. On Centennial’s southern end, WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force rst responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers. 7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insuf cient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval. 8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement. 9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain- link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described nding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder- Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage. 10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or any other speci c fencing for Lake Michigan dog Page 199 of 396 fi fi fi fi fi  friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious claims. 11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog- friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justi cation for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misde ning what constitutes “running at large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions. 12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its de nition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement. Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit application. Page 200 of 396 fi fi fi Centennial Beach Temporary Dog Beach Fence January 28, 2026 To: Members of the Village of Winnetka Plan Commission The Winnetka Park District (WPD) is requesting a special use permit (SUP) for a chain link fence on the Centennial Park Beach. Currently, the purpose of this Beach is mainly a dog beach. The WPD is planning major restrictions for this Beach. The Beach belongs to all the people for the enjoyment of each and everyone who desire to walk, run, or just spend time gazing at the beauty of the Centennial Beach. The WPD is absolutely ignoring the people’s rights, which is not a smart action for a Park District. Winnetka Park District’s duty is to listen to all citizens and not a select group with special requests. The WPD is requesting a permit for a fence which will flat outright stop this Beach being in compliance with what it is meant to be - by law - in the State of Illinois, a Beach for public use. The WPD is not obeying an existing law in the State of Illinois. A fence, temporary or permanent, is defying the law. (615 ILCS 5/27). The proposed fence is a safety hazard, as it extends into Lake Michigan near extremely large boulders in the water. The proposed fence, next to the huge boulders that exist in the waters, is an accident waiting to happen when the water is wavy or when a person, dog or boater is in distress. Fencing extending into the water is hinderance to safety. Safety must be a top priority for our Village. The WPD request for a SUP clearly defies (615 ILCS 5/27). The Beach is for the public. This Beach is not to be blocked from the public. The Beaches are for all citizens and not for one citizen or entity. The biggest violation for the Winnetka Park District, aside from the public’s rights by law, to enjoy all beaches, is the creation of an unnecessary safety hazard. This proposal defies the safety standards that the elected officials on the Winnetka Park Board are ignoring. This proposal is NOT safe for the public, for a paddle boarder, for the boaters, or anyone enjoying Lake Michigan. The fence is definitely unsightly, creates an unnecessary hazard, and without a doubt goes against the high standards and principles that have always been a top priority for the elected commissioners and the staff at the Winnetka Park District. Please review this SUP knowing there are many stumbling blocks ahead. People’s rights to walk this Beach are violated, and the proposed fencing is a major safety issue. Any design for a proposed fence on Centennial Beach is a safety hazard, is costly, is unsightly and is a violation of the rights of our citizens. I request that the Plan Commission of the Village of Winnetka, deny the requested special use permit (SUP) for any type of fence on the Beach and waters at Centennial Park. Thank you for your dedication to our Village, Mary Garrison Past President of the WPD Board of Commissioners Past Member, Plan Commission Page 201 of 396 Page 202 of 396  WPD designed two barely passable, stacked, single gates that form a 6’ long, 39” wide corridor in the lake east of the OHWM. WPD’s unsafe designs would unreasonably obstruct and interfere with ingress/egress to the adjacent public beach south of its animal cage. The cage would force first responders and other rescuers either into the lake through a yardstick wide corridor to try to reach emergency situations on the 20’ area south of the fencing and north of 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater, or 77’3” past the OHWM into Lake Michigan to attempt to render aid to persons/dogs/boats/paddlers. 7. The 2040 Futures Plan contemplates ADA access. For local governmental bodies such as WPD, compliance is mandatory. Despite this, WPD designed an ADA non-compliant beach corridor that is too narrow for a wheelchair to use, with an insufficient turning radius that would trap people and dogs inside the chain link fencing, possibly in the waters of Lake Michigan. This dangerous and unlawful design violates the Village Code as well as the 2040 Futures Plan, and cannot be recommended for approval. 8. WPD misrepresents the permanent nature of its black chain-link fenced in animal cage extending along and well past its front lot line on the shores of Lake Michigan. The fencing would be permanent, with no time constraints or removal requirement. 9. WPD claims its ADA-violating, public nuisance creating, Design Code abrogating, 39” wide, 6’ corridor will never be used for maintenance south of the black chain-link fencing. This is out of line with the realities of known debris that washes up from Lake Michigan, as well as boats that may crash into 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwaters, possibly stranding boaters/boats on a narrow 20’ strip of inaccessible public beach, or beyond. A 34’ long boat was stranded after encountering heavy waves at Lloyd in October 2025. WPD also recently described finding a large section of wide rubber pipe washed up onto the Elder-Centennial beach, which required removal efforts by both the Village and WPD. That belies WPD’s false statement that no maintenance will ever be required south of its unlawful black chain-link lakefront animal cage. 10. Cook County Animal Control (“CCAC”) has refused to evaluate WPD’s animal cage until after IDNR and USACE make their determinations, despite repeated entreaties not only from WPD, but also via email and phone calls from Orchard 2020 Trust’s attorneys. In 2024, CCAC Administrator Dr. Diakhate informed Shannon Nazzal that Centennial beach is a “dog friendly area.” Cook County does not require four-sided or any other specific fencing for Lake Michigan dog friendly areas, WPD can produce no documentation supporting its specious claims. 11. The Village Code prohibits dog owners from allowing their pets to “run at large.” The IL Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5, 5/9, provides that: “A dog that is in a dog-friendly area or a dog park is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RUNNING AT LARGE IF THE DOG IS MONITORED OR SUPERVISED BY A PERSON.” There is no lawful justification for WPD’s attempted usurpation of CCAC’s sole and exclusive Animal Control Act authority. WPD is deliberately misdefining what constitutes “running at large” in an effort to force the Village of Winnetka to violate the 2040 Futures Plan, its Design Standards, the Lakefront Preservation Ordinance, and the Village Code’s nuisance provisions. 12. CCAC regulations require fully enclosed four-sided fencing for “dog parks” on land. Even if the IL Animal Control Act were amended to exclude dog friendly areas from its definition of places where canines are NOT “running at large,” WPD’s two-sided fencing would be out of compliance with the rules. As WPD knows, CCAC’s Administrator lacks waiver authority for the four-sided fencing requirement. Page 203 of 396 Please vote to deny recommending WPD’s grant of a SUP for its unlawful, specious and misleading fencing permit application. Thank you, Laura Sorensen 173 Fuller Lane Winnetka Page 204 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Fencing dog beach Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:00:15 AM [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ann, I’m currently not able to attend the meeting Thursday and would like my letter read at this weeks meeting. I’ve been a Winnetka resident for most of my life, and have spent a portion of that time living on Sheridan enjoying the privilege of seeing the majestic Lake Michigan during all 4 seasons . Our family uses the beaches often, including Centennial and find this proposal for a chain link fence to be unnecessary , dangerous, improper use of funds and catering to one wealthy individual who has never lived in Winnetka . The park district should represent the village, not one individual and what a shame to ruin the view and potentially cause harm in our most important resource . Lake Michigan cannot be tamed by an ugly chain link fence. Please listen. Thank you, Iretta Brennan Sent from my iPhone Page 205 of 396 Page 206 of 396 January 27, 2026 To the Winnetka Village Planning Commission, I strongly disapprove of the Winnetka Park District’s application to install two chain link fences into Lake Michigan at Centennial Park. The fences present a great danger to swimmers, boaters, and dogs. Such an installation completely ignores the Doctrine of Public Trust. This is nothing more than a backdoor attempt on spurious grounds for de facto approval of the Winnetka Park District’s Master Plan! Therefore, please deny the Park District’s request for a Special Use Permit! Most sincerely, Carol Rasmus 175 Sheridan Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Page 207 of 396 Page 208 of 396 Page 209 of 396 Page 210 of 396 Page 211 of 396 Page 212 of 396 Page 213 of 396 My name is Angie Dahl. I have been a resident of Winnetka for over 40 years. During that time I served as President of the Winnetka Park District as well as a member of several Village advisory boards. Historically, the Winnetka shoreline was beautiful and accessible—you could walk, swim, kayak, and paddleboard unimpeded from Glencoe to Kenilworth. The water and sand levels fluctuated naturally, as they should. However, in the past 25 years, that same stretch has become dangerous and in some places impassable. Massive rock walls have been erected which hinder safe passage, exacerbate bluff destruction, and cause unchecked ecosystem damage. These changes were made under IDNR and Army Corps oversight, or the lack thereof. I do not hesitate to say that saying that something has been approved by the IDNR is not a positive. Until quite recently the Village of Winnetka mistakenly believed that it had no control or standing to protect the beaches and the bluffs. However, when the public recently went to the IDNR to express concerns and request clarification on several lakefront matters, the response from Jim Casey was that the Village of Winnetka could have denied all of it as they have final jurisdiction over the lakefront. It was shocking to learn that all of the other north shore communities had been exercising this control for years making Winnetka a magnet for over-building along the beach and lack of adherence to the public trust doctrine. Although there are countless pictures to show what has happened to the formerly pristine beaches along the Winnetka shoreline, I share with you two pictures directly related to the special use permit you are considering now: a huge chain link fence in front of an already massive stone structure which totally obstructs the previously priceless view of the shoreline all the way to Evanston and creates a significant safety hazard. You continue to hear from the large amount of letters sent to you and through the turnout of residents protesting the Elder Centennial plan. One of the biggest complaints from them, your own board and the Zoning board, was about the fence and disregard for the safety of the public. Now the WPD is asking you to ignore all of that and approve the fence without seeing the rest of what they plan to do to our beaches. What do Winnetka residents want? Residents want access to their lakefront and the ability to walk along it's beautiful shores. Residents of Winnetka want their voices to be heard as they continuously and strongly object to the desecration of the lakefront ~ a design and changes, including this fencing which only became an issue due to recent interactions between former Winnetka Park District board members and officials and a singular property owner. Winnetka deserves so much better than this and it is imperative the Plan Commission deny this request. Page 214 of 396 Page 215 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: January 26, 2026 Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 9:00:34 PM [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 28, 2026 Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence Plan Commissioners: Thank you for your attention to this matter. The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the plan committee and the public of the breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan (South Centennial boundary) or highlight the existing sheet pile. Furthermore the fence elevations are not presented in the context. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly drawn, the benign looking gap between the thin line representing the fence and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem entirely hazardous and redundant. The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake Michigan. It runs into the lake at a distance of about 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and wavy. The need to provide a fence when there is already a pile of rocks at that property line is questionable. Dogs aren’t likely to pick their way over rocks in favor of running and playing on the beach. Drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and describe adjacency. In this case they fail to do so. Therefore, please deny this Special Use Permit. Joanna Karatzas Winnetka Resident Sent from my iPhone Page 216 of 396 Page 217 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Cc: Subject: SUP Condition One: Protecting the Public"s General Welfare Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 9:48:14 AM Attachments: 84873FB4-55E3-4619-B884-F87243E1E88A.png 5D0B060A-04EE-493E-994C-7ACE4E0C34A5.png 5FF65C27-B208-4173-9487-781E85A6832A.png 01F18412-4280-40C5-B55E-0209643B9AEC.png BEEB76DD-1FC7-4F2D-8ECE-D5B846ECEB0A.png 7F94034E-27D5-4836-8CB3-A4E6B1D16190.png 261 Sheridan Property Exchange - Path Forward(5) copy.pdf AnonymousDonorHemmingsRomanoff.pdf Final Signed Donation Agreement.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ann: Would you please share this email with ZBA for its 2/9/26 meeting? Thank you. To: Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Winnetka Park District’s (“WPD”) Centennial fencing application does not meet the Village’s conditions for granting a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) because it violates Village Zoning Code Section 17.56.010 Condition One: that the special use not be detrimental to or endanger the public’s general welfare. Embarking on a massive project with no cost caps or inflation factors, including a dog beach fencing project initiated for spurious reasons, would be detrimental to the public's general welfare. Unusually generous indemnification provisions, egregiously one-sided terms, and a framework more closely resembling a privately-oriented control agreement than a donation would endanger the public's general welfare for over fifty years. While benefitting the park’s neighbor, Centennial Park’s diminution would permanently harm the public. It is contrary to the public’s general welfare and against the public interest to benefit a private landowner at Winnetka residents’ expense. CENTENNIAL PROJECT’S PRIVATE ORIENTATION AND FINANCIAL BURDEN IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC’S GENERAL WELFARE WPD’s 2020 Exchange Agreement and 2024 Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant (the “Agreements”) impose significant burdens upon 12,400 Winnetkans. WPD’s fencing SUP is part of the scheme. This violates Village Code Section 17.56.010 SUP Condition One, which states that a SUP may not operate to the public’s detriment. 1. WPD’s 8/27/25 Zoom meeting with IDNR and USACE was primarily focused on advancing its swap agreement and breakwater projects. WPD’s discussion of this dog beach fencing can only be understood as a next-step in achieving WPD’s property exchange, as well as launching WPD’s $15,588,815 Elder-Centennial plan—the cost estimates for which contain neither an inflation factor nor caps. It is against the public interest to recommend granting a SUP for this plan. https://winparkdistrict- my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/snazzal_winpark_org/Ea_fE4tEGE5DkrL6Voe0ikABGWtk0Ku6xS2ju5VEu5ZJOA Page 218 of 396 2. ZBA Commissioners should know that in 2020 WPD issued $9 million in G.O. Bonds to finance its lakefront projects—after which the Exchange Agreement fell apart. WPD has not drawn down the 2020 G.O. bonds’ remaining balance and had to make a $258,653.02 bond arbitrage rebate payment to the U.S. Treasury in 2025. According to Commissioner David Seaman, WPD cannot issue more debt without going to referendum, which WPD refuses to do because the public will not approve it. The lack of public support dates back to 2014-2015. WPD’s 2030 Lakefront Master Plan is speciously based on a statistically invalid survey that tallied only 37 votes in support of acquiring 261 Sheridan. This raises further suspicions about WPD’s fencing SUP and what is behind its effort to build barriers across public lands and waters. Page 219 of 396 3. Over the past several years WPD has been levying taxes at the maximum rate, plus a surtax related to separately issued 2014 debt. Unlike other park districts, WPD has declined to adjust the tax rate downward when Cook County’s Equalized Assessed Values skyrocket. WPD has run up at least $2.3 million in fees related to the Elder- Centennial project. Its repulsion of an anonymous donor’s $3 million minimum donation offer in 2023-2024—based on an exaggerated fear of litigation, which WPD elevated above the public’s interest in saving Centennial Park— brings out-of-pocket and economic costs up to nearly $6 million. WPD’s lack of desire to contain the project’s costs and to protect Centennial Park will continue until WPD’s plans are voted down—at ZBA, at the Design Review Board, and ultimately at the Village Council. Page 220 of 396 4. Donation Agreement Paragraph 4 contemplates payment of the $3 million in two parts: $1 million when a notice to proceed to construction is issued, and $2 million within 30 days of the project’s completion. Despite this, WPD included the entire conditional $3 million payment as revenue in its 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets. At best, it should have been included as a footnote. Page 221 of 396 Illinois Office of the Comptroller-WPD Delinquency Report 5. The Agreements contemplate issuing charitable deduction letters. The Exchange Agreement relies Page 222 of 396 upon coordinated appraisals that are outdated. The target value of the Exchange Agreement’s charitable deduction letter is the figure that carried over into 2024’s Donation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant. In either case, WPD’s issuance of a charitable deduction letter for $3 million would almost certainly be regarded by tax authorities as a “quid pro quo.” The offsetting value of getting adjacent parkland that would increase 205 Sheridan’s value while keeping the public further at bay, and/or the value of a fifty year restrictive covenant over “Project Elements” spanning North-South and East-West across a neighboring 5.3 acre public park and lakebed, could exceed $3 million. These values have not been appraised, which is detrimental to the public’s general welfare. Exchange Agreement WPD seems to discuss coordinating appraisal values to arrive at the desired charitable deduction. “The Appraisal Problem” 261 Sheridan was acquired in an off-the-market transaction Page 223 of 396 Appraisals appear to be coordinated Broader Issue of Concern: WPD suggests moving conversations to phone calls and WhatsApp Page 224 of 396 6. WPD’s civil design engineer estimated the useful life of WPD’s proposed Centennial breakwater at 20 years, see winpark.org. USACE estimates the typical armored stone breakwater’s useful life at 25 years. The Donation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant impose maintenance obligations upon taxpayers for 50 years—including Centennial’s armored stone breakwater, which will be subject to shoreline conditions and Lake Michigan storms for twice as long as its useful life. WPD’s open-ended maintenance obligations beyond the Project Elements’ useful lives impose unreasonable burdens that benefit a private landowner. They are detrimental to the public’s general welfare. 7. WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant fails to define an essential term: Force Majeure: Page 225 of 396 WPD’s 2025 agreement with the Damico Family Foundation defines Force Majeure Events for a playfield scoreboard. WPD’s Stormwater IGA with the Village also defines force majeure: Page 226 of 396 WPD’s 2024 agreement with IFF leaves an entire universe of taxpayer-borne expenses wide open, imposing maintenance, repair and replacement costs related to Project Elements, including the stone breakwater if it is damaged other than by some undefined Force Majeure Event. The omission benefits IFF. It is detrimental to the public’s general welfare. 8. The Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant has other objectionable language as well, such as unusually broad taxpayer indemnifications to the benefit of a private landowner for half a century. Nonspecific tax indemnification language does not exclude increased property taxes. Inadequate non-reciprocal insurance coverage language also exists. Indemnification Concerns (a) IFF Has Approval Authority Over WPD Counsel (b) Conditions Do Not Have An Expiration Date WPD Appraisal Process Activity Could Result in Tax Liability. Potential State or Local Tax Liability is Not Carved Out from Indemnification and Hold Harmless Language. Page 227 of 396 9. The Restrictive Covenant contains a $3 million liquidated damages clause— a huge potential liability. It explicitly permits IFF to file a specific performance claim and to receive WPD’s general ledger of project expenses. Additionally, WPD agrees to retain its project-related records for at least seven years. These terms are more characteristic of a control agreement than a donation. The Restrictive Covenant gives the payor rights to have an arbiter—former WPD Executive Director John Peterson, who was intimately involved in the Agreements—determine if the five defined Project Elements satisfy IFF’s expectations for half a century. This time period is measured not from the date of the agreement, but after Centennial's "grand opening." If IFF raises questions about the Project Elements’ conformance to agreed upon designs, current and future taxpayers would have to pay half of the costs for employing “design experts” over the course of 50 years. This burden is unreasonable. It ties future boards’ hands and prevents community members’ input into flexible, alternative designs and future uses of Centennial Park—again, a matter of significant public interest because it is more consistent with a control agreement that benefits private interests than a donation. 10. Beginning in 2025 WPD began to discuss financial pressures publicly, ascribing them to increased salaries relative to its revenue streams. It had already proposed adjustments to and increases in fees and program costs. WPD also moved money between various funds. Because that was not enough to address WPD’s financial challenges, in January 2026 WPD voted 5-2 to begin advertising more of its parks as rental space-athletic facilities. This changes WPD’s existing Policy Manual, which had listed only the four rentable categories that we are familiar with: Page 228 of 396 Say goodbye to our tranquil neighborhood parks. WPD’s next step may be selling off more public parkland, which WPD has already done under guise of labeling certain parks “underperforming assets.” WPD forced the Winnetka-Northfield Library District’s purchase of Library Park to pay for its Elder-Centennial plans. WPD threatened to sell this so-called “underperforming asset” to a real estate developer, mentioning its zoning influence with the Village. Winnetka Caucus Council survey results confirm that the public broadly opposes getting rid of parkland.  All of this violates SUP Condition One’s prohibition against issuing a permit to the detriment of the public’s general welfare. Excerpts from WNPLD's forced purchase presentation are attached at bottom. CONCLUSION: WPD’s Centennial fencing project is an overall disaster in the making. This is a matter of great public interest. Please protect our welfare and decline to recommend WPD’s permit application for approval. Thank you. Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer Page 229 of 396  Sent: 5/24/2021 12:00:00 AM From: David Seaman <DSeaman@winpark.org To: "John Peterson" Cc: Bcc: Importance: Normal Subject: 261 Sheridan Property Exchange - Path Forward John, As discussed. I'll be sending this each Commissioner later today. I would like to enter into record/discuss at next Board meeting. Thank you, David Director Peterson, Board President Archambault and fellow Commissioners, I respectfully request the Board reconsider the decision to pursue litigation after the 10-day notice of default has expired with Orchard 2020 in order to force performance of terms in the Property Exchange. My request for reconsideration is based upon the following: 1. Considerable Litigation "Unknown Knowns" a. Unknown knowns = things you think you know but later you determine you didn’t know. There are many unknown knowns in litigation. b. It is unclear what legal and non-legal consequences WPD Staff and Board are underwriting by pursuing litigation against Orchard 2020. c. A “good” or “strong” case does not equate to an “easy” , “inexpensive” , or “right” case. d. It will be very difficult to turn back after initiating litigation, this is the inertia of litigation. 2. Legal Services Expense a. In 2016 WPD spent approximately 25k for legal services, in 2020 nearly 100k, and in March of 2021 alone (billed in April) $21k in legal services. April/May? b. It is logical to conclude that litigation will be an expensive endeavor. 250k? 500k? c. Orchard 2020 is an extremely well-resourced entity which could lead to a very long litigation timeline. Think potentially years not months. d. WPD needs every dollar for capitals over the next several years. 3. Future Relationship with Orchard 2020 a. If we move forward with litigation, WPD will permanently impair any chance of a respectful and functional relationship with Orchard 2020. b. Regardless of “win” or “lose”, Orchard 2020 could prove to be an extremely challenging neighbor and will present roadblocks on the development or use of 261 Sheridan and Elder/Centennial Beach. 4. Significant Business to Manage a. As we all know, WPD has 5 beaches, 27 parks/properties (own or maintain), tennis facility, hockey rink, golf facility, and paddle facility. It’s a lot! b. WPD needs all resources focused on managing these assets. 5. Existing Financial Challenges a. WPD has $7.5mm in Elder/Centennial Beach budgeted improvements, but only $5mm remaining proceeds from the most recent debt financing. b. WPD has nearly $5.3mm of budgeted operating capitals in the next three years, not major but operating. This is an unusually large amount. c. There will also be considerable losses due to golf course closure in 2022 and 2023. The Golf Fund is budgeted to lose $1mm in 2022. Will 2023 be any better? d. WPD has very limited forecasted unrestricted reserves, approximately $2.5mm. e. WPD has no current ability to service additional non-referendum debt. f. It is fair to assume there will be no contribution as previously budgeted to help defer the costs of the south breakwater. 6. Moving Forward a. Initiating litigation will only slow down the improvements to Elder/Centennial Beach, we can move forward more expeditiously without litigation. Page 230 of 396  b. There could be another devastating weather event that may cause additional damage to Elder/Centennial Beach. To delay improvements = increasing our financial exposure. c. WPD has flourished without owning 261 Sheridan. WPD has great assets, fantastic programming and a wonderful reputation within the community. d. Importantly, Director Peterson should maintain informal contact with Orchard 2020 as needed. It has been said, “possession is 9/10 of the law”. Orchard 2020 owns 261 Sheridan, unfortunately WPD does not. Yes, we have the right to pursue litigation to attempt to enforce performance of the Property Exchange. However, litigation comes with risks, uncertainties, and costs, both financial and non-financial, that I believe outweigh our right to pursue litigation with Orchard 2020. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, David Seaman Page 231 of 396 John Peterson Subject: FW: Confidential circulation to Board only-Following up [LP- ACTIVE.38463.38463-86858.FID1345222] From: Robert A. Romanoff < > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 3:14 PM To: Robert A. Romanoff < >; James Hemmings <jhemmings@winpark.org> Cc: Christina Codo <CCodo@winpark.org>; Shannon Nazzal <snazzal@winpark.org>; Simon, Adam <ASimon@ancelglink.com> Subject: RE: Following up [LP-ACTIVE.38463.38463-86858.FID1345222] James – Thanks for your message from earlier this week. I have copied your questions, with our client’s response to the questions. Prior to responding to your individual questions, I wanted to share that the donors’ only criteria are that WPD must “refund” the donation (in a manner described below) if WPD transfers any portion of the Centennial or Elder Lane park property to a private party or enters into an agreement, easement or similar restriction with a private party that restricts the design, modification or operation of the park. The goal is to provide funds to support the parks free and clear of such private restrictions.  One of the conditions you expressed on behalf of your client is that funds should not be used toward a project that would inure to the benefit of an individual. There are many public projects that have a primary public purpose that also have an incidental private benefit. Would the WPD be forbidden from using the donation in a way that results in any incidental private benefit? No. How would you propose such a condition be worded in a donation agreement? Answer - TBD, based on points above.  One of the concerns you mentioned the donor articulating is the existence of plans to build a fence that the donor believes will provide a benefit to an individual, in this case the neighboring property owner to the south. This feature is set out in the current permit drawings that were developed by the WPD independent of any land swap or donation agreement. Are there concerns that the donor has with the current permit drawings, a change to which would be required as a condition of the donation? Answer - The donors do not seek to impose their own design requirements on WPD. The donors do not love the fencing design, but as long as WPD is not building the fence because it is bound by an agreement to a private party to build or maintain the fence in a certain way, there is no impact on the donation. 1 Page 232 of 396   One of the conditions of the proposed donation is that the WPD cancel the land swap agreement relating to 261 Sheridan Avenue. Would your client be willing to indemnify, defend and hold the WPD harmless from any litigation or other legal proceedings resulting from the cancellation of that agreement? Answer - The funds are unrestricted and could be used for any purpose, including responding to any lawsuit. If there is a need for more money, please advise how much and the donors will consider.  You expressed that the desire of the donor is to maintain Elder and Centennial as free and clear for the public. Can you please confirm that free and clear is in reference to the existence of easements, encumbrances, etc., rather than placing a restriction on the WPD should it elect to charge for access to those parks (for example, through the requirement of a beach pass)? Assuming that free and clear is limited to the non-existence of easements, encumbrances, etc., can you also please confirm that the desire to ensure free and clear applies only to Elder and Centennial parks, and not other WPD property? How would you propose a condition to this end be written for purposes of a donation agreement? Answer – The restrictions are limited to Elder and Centennial and are not intended to limit the WPD from imposing beach pass requirements.  Are there other conditions to the proposed donation beyond those identified in the questions above? If so, what are they? Answer - Not that we can think of at this time.  The donation is characterized as unrestricted as to the use of the funds. Can you confirm that WPD may use these funds for any purpose, and not just for any purpose associated with either Elder or Centennial parks? Answer – Yes  You have mentioned that you can provide references to the creditworthiness of the donor. Can you please provide those references? Answer - Yes, if we have an understanding in principle, we will provide a letter from bank holding funds.  What remedy would the donor have if the donor believes the Park District has violated the conditions of the donation? 2 Page 233 of 396 Answer - Refund of donation (by transferring the donation to another 501(c)(3) organization to be identified in agreement).  What is your client’s timeframe for negotiating this donation agreement to completion? Answer - 45 days seems reasonable once we reach an understanding. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Best regards, Rob Robert A. Romanoff Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC (he/him/his) 120 S Riverside Plaza Past Managing Partner Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 USA lplegal.com Are you prepared for the Corporate Transparency Act that goes into effect January 1, 2024? Click here to learn more. Sign up for LP’s weekly newsletter, LP3 This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 3 Page 234 of 396 Page 235 of 396 Page 236 of 396 Page 237 of 396 Page 238 of 396 Page 239 of 396 Page 240 of 396 Page 241 of 396 Page 242 of 396 Page 243 of 396 Page 244 of 396 Page 245 of 396 Page 246 of 396 Page 247 of 396 Page 248 of 396 Page 249 of 396 Page 250 of 396 Page 251 of 396 Page 252 of 396 Page 253 of 396 Page 254 of 396 Page 255 of 396 Page 256 of 396 Page 257 of 396 Page 258 of 396 Page 259 of 396 Page 260 of 396 Page 261 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen; Subject: Fwd: Special Use Permit Concerns Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 10:09:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ann: Would you please send my email with attachments to the ZBA ahead of its 2/9/26 meeting? Thank you. To the Zoning Board of Appeals: Given WPD’s multiple misrepresentations in connection with its Centennial SUP applications, please use strict scrutiny in your permit review. WPD’s fencing would stretch far beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark, ending 91’ from Centennial’s bluffs to the north and 78’ from the bluffs to the south. Plan has already considered the dangerous and unnecessary nature of this fencing application and declined to recommend approval. I ask ZBA to do the same. WPD will attempt to direct ZBA’s safety concerns toward the dog beach under pretext of protecting people who use Elder Lane Beach for a very short summer swim season. This makes no sense. I respectfully suggest that rather than putting dogs before people, attention to beach safety should be more focused on Elder—an important but lightly used swimming beach. It is the most polluted of Winnetka’s beaches, and for that reason is likely to be open fewer days each summer than Tower or Maple. For your information, using WPD’s “rainout line” in 2024 I made a good faith effort to track beach closures. Based on WPD information, I tallied approximately 50 total open days for Maple Beach. Some days were half open-half closed, depending on weather and water conditions. Some days the beach was fully closed because of weather, water conditions or high bacteria counts. Beginning with Memorial Day and ending in mid-August, Maple was opened and closed depending on whether it could be staffed. Before New Trier adjourned in June, it was open on a limited basis. By mid-August it had closed for the summer—only Tower Road Beach was staffed intermittently at that point before closing over Labor Day weekend. In my opinion, staffing shortages will also cause Elder Beach to be open less than the full season. https://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/ilbeaches/public/BeachDetail.aspx?BeachID=381 My suggestion is to ask the beach-going community itself to come up with sensible measures for the young families/kids who bike or walk to Elder on the days it is open. Take a look at this already-ADA accessible beach and find a way to delineate its southern boundary. One option could be a simple row of rocks. Or, fully removable, truly temporary, summer-only ropes or block-mounted posts with ropes ending at or above the OHWM—without obstructing the use of beach wheelchairs. The materials should not obstruct sight lines for first responders, lifeguards, parents, or other beachgoers. They should not make it harder to run across the sandy beach, within or past any seasonal beach boundaries, or into lake for a water rescue. Consideration should also be given to changing waterlines. Today's lake levels are at or below Page 262 of 396 normal. Once the water rises again, whatever is used should be moveable so as not to create a submerged threat. Community efforts could include obtaining advice from recognized safety experts. Neutral community members should also ask (1) the lifeguards if ropes or removable posts would be helpful or a hindrance to their duties, (2) if they feel they are necessary, and (3) Elder Beach users themselves if they feel barriers would enhance their safety. As an aside, I am not aware of any dog-related incidents at Elder Beach over multiple years when three of my kids were WPD Lake Michigan lifeguards. I do know that every minute counts when making a water rescue. WPD’s REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE OF LAKEFRONT CHAIN-LINK FENCING I appreciate the Plan Commission’s decision to decline recommending WPD’s dog beach fencing plans and I hope ZBA will do the same. There is no reason to pound metal poles all the way to what WPD describes as the “point of resistance” to install dog beach fencing that is Page 263 of 396 neither required nor safe. IDNR has described standalone lakefront fencing as an obstacle to be navigated around. The further out a person ventures to avoid a fence, the bigger the waves and the colder the water well into the summer months (July-August). Water-based fencing increases the likelihood of drowning for this reason. I believe low lake water temperatures were responsible for at least one of the drownings in Winnetka within the past few years. Please take this into account and decline recommending approval of WPD’s fencing SUP. Thank you. Sincerely, Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer Page 264 of 396 Philip Enquist 476 Provident Ave. Winnetka, Illinois 60093 February 3, 2026 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, and Design Review Board…. Last week, at the January 28th Plan Commission meeting, the Winnetka community learned further details about the proposed beach fences which would define the future dog beach as proposed by the Winnetka Park District. The proposed design is for two, 4’ high fences, that will run into the lake waters for approximately 15’ to a water depth of 1.5’ to 2’. Four gates will create entrances, a pair at the north and a pair at the south. As I listened to this presentation, I wondered who is representing child safety concerns? Shallow water (1.5 – 2 feet) allows easy wading around these fences and children potentially meandering behind fences and become vulnerable to separation from families and potential water related accidents. A dog owner also spoke that obstructions like fences can create unsafe conditions for the dogs. Centennial Beach, perhaps Winnetka’s most beautiful beach, is today, open and free of physical obstacles across its shoreline. Residents at the January 28th meeting suggested rational strategies that would avoid fences extending into the water. These alternative concepts should be explored. The community also showed research of what other Illinois communities are doing, especially the letter (dated January 26, 2026) from John Root. The WPD admitted that they had not gone to see these other beaches. The proposal is a bad idea. These fences would fragment Winnetka’s open, unobstructed beach, but more importantly, I believe they would create significant safety issues. The Winnetka Park District’s proposal is full of issues and is poorly conceived. Please do not approve this fence special use permit proposal, but rather recommend further research and alternative concepts that may not require fencing on the actual beach. Thank you for your diligence and time related to these issues. Phil Enquist Fellow, American Institute of Architects Page 265 of 396 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, January 28th2026 DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST WHILE THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE FENCES AT THE DOG BEACH, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST IF FENCES ARE INSTALLED.THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC USE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1842, IS ONE OF THE UNDERPINNINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHANGED LAW OR REGULATION SINCE THAT TIME – ONLY THE CONTINUED INTERNAL ASSERTION FROM WPD STAFF THAT FENCING IS “REQUIRERD”, DESPITE REPEATED DOCUMENTATION TO THE CONTRARY. THIS DOCTRINE MANDATES THAT THE BEACHES IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND IN OTHER STATES, REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC. NO PRIVATE BEACH OR DOG BEACH MAY PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PASSING OVER IT BECAUSE OF THIS DOCTRINE. THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING AT CENTENNIAL BEACH WOLD BE AN UNNECESSARY AND DAMAGING INTRUSION ON PUBLIC LAKEFRONT ACCESS. IT WOULD UNDERMINE THE NATURAL AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE BEACH WHILE IMPLYING A LEGAL NECESSITY THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. THIS PROP0SED FENCE AROUND THE DOG BEACH IS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST. THEREFORE, I ASK THAT YOU DENY THE PARK DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THANK YOU. ALEXANDRA C. NICHOLS Page 266 of 396 Page 267 of 396 February 4, 2026 0n FEB O 5 2026 u ecE1ven To: Winnetka Plan Commission Members BY-·------ From: Jean B. Schreiber-"Susie" Re: Copies of my public comment at: January 28, 2026 - 7 p.m. Winnetka Plan Commission meeting Commissioners. Because of the updated instructions by your Chair at the January 28, 2026 Winnetka Plan Commission meeting, I did not hand out my pre-printed comments. The instructions were quite reasonable. For your records, I am herewith including copies of the prepared comments I had planned to hanc:t out to each of you and to staff. I have highlighted, in yellow, the remarks I actually made during the Public Comment session, leaving the rest of the text which was not read into the mic, without highlights. The map at the end of the handout was purely FYI for each of you to have in your files as a reference point. Thank you all, and to staff, for a very well run and thoughtfully prepared meeting on January 28th . Jean B. Schreiber-"Susie n Winnetka Park District resident, former Winnetka Park District Commissioner, and former Winnetka Plan Commission member Page 268 of 396 Page 269 of 396 Page 270 of 396 Page 271 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Cc: Subject: WPD Fencing SUP Application—Comments for ZBA Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:54:52 AM Attachments: 79D77E9B-AC52-4CC5-AC9C-CBC0E793E569.png 72EF620F-8882-4826-AD60-142297EB47FF.png 6596EEA3-476F-4B03-BB96-772A53BF06ED.png 4BC6BF5B-798F-455D-A353-CE0AB1157213.png 57171C5D-38A9-4395-853A-65804F652783.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ann: Would you please share this with ZBA ahead of its February 9, 2026 meeting? On February 5, 2026 the Winnetka Park District adopted a motion approving new permanent fencing designs for Centennial Beach. I did not see the new plans in ZBA’s publicly available February 9, 2026 meeting packet. The new permanent fencing project differs in design, scope and description from what WPD presented to ZBA for Monday’s meeting, which I believe requires it to make new permit submissions to the Village. WPD’s new permanent fencing designs “The public beach has to end.” Page 272 of 396 WPD continues to misrepresent the reasons for a fencing project that Cook County’s Deputy Administrator categorizes as falling outside the scope of its ordinance. Further misrepresentations and confusion related to WPD’s new dog beach fencing designs are as follows. 1. Despite WPD’s awareness of the Village’s commitment to protecting the public’s health, Page 273 of 396 safety and welfare, it adopted new designs that are at least as detrimental as the designs Plan voted 7-0 not to recommend. This fencing would induce people to step onto the steel sheet piling and use it to travel east as far as WPD’s proposed fencing extends, from where they could jump off—potentially hitting 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwater. People will be hard to see in the water/on the rocks/below the fencing, and difficult to rescue. Two men climbed onto the steel groin and sidestepped along it by using the fencing. Note that WPD’s designs would permanently induce future beachwalkers to do the same while traversing Lake Michigan’s actual shoreline. 2. I understood WPD’s Costa Kutulas to say sand levels on either side of the new designs’ steel groin-mounted fencing would differ by approximately 4’, creating a hazardous drop off. He also made an assumption that people would choose the safest route to reach 205 Sheridan’s northern breakwater steps. I do not think it is reasonable to make this assumption, and I hope ZBA asks him about it. 3. At the February 5, 2026 meeting, WPD’s board majority was coy about its intentions for 2024’s WPD-IFF Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. The board majority said they want to get all the permits for the groin-mounted fencing plan, and then revisit the Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. It does not take much to suspect an eventual plan to encumber the park, freeze its use, build dangerous structures and impede access to Centennial’s southern shoreline, all to the detriment of the public’s general welfare for over half a century. Page 274 of 396 4. WPD’s new permanent fencing designs would cost $50,000-$100,000–adding to over $2.3 million spent to date, plus a foregone genuine $3 million donation offer that would have advanced more funds to cover litigation threats WPD is using as an excuse. The effect is detrimental to the public’s general welfare. Page 275 of 396 5. WPD’s new designs would involve relocating electrical wiring all the way down the bluffs and onto the sandy beach 12 feet east of the toe of the bluffs. The OHWM on Centennial’s southern end—closest to 205 Sheridan—is only a short distance east of the fencing and electric fob. Page 276 of 396 As water levels change, the electrical wiring, key fob, gate and even the “watertight” dog waste receptacle will be fully or partly underwater. This will be unsafe, unsanitary and difficult to maintain. I therefore request that ZBA ask WPD why in the surveys of dog beaches throughout Lake and Cook Counties, nothing has surfaced depicting other dog beaches with locked electric gates only feet away from the OHWM.  It is obviously much safer and more usable for the key fob operated gate to remain at the top of the bluffs with no risk of it being submerged in Lake Michigan. Page 277 of 396 Page 278 of 396 Metal cover over Centennial’s current electric fob operated gate’s emergency exit button was broken off and not fixed over multiple summers. 6. I think it may be difficult for an electric gate that is sitting in sand or water to swing open. If it does open, it may take more than a reasonable amount of time. Once inside the 10’ square Page 279 of 396 enclosure leading to the main area for dogs, there would be another gate people would have to unlatch and physically pull open (or closed) manually to enter or leave the 10’ square enclosure. It is unclear if the designs include an emergency exit button inside the 10’ square enclosure. 7. On February 5, 2026 Mr. Kutulas said the new designs’ black chainlink fencing would be HARDER TO SEE. This will cause more accidents involving swimmers, paddle boarders, kayakers, jet skiers and other watergoers along with dogs, getting tangled up with the fencing and hurt, and/or possibly drowning. 8. WPD is loath to respect the Ordinary High Water Mark as the easternmost boundary of its lot line for zoning purposes. Approving fencing that extends into a public street—Lake Michigan—would set a terrible and dangerous precedent. You may not be aware of this, but a threatening sign was placed off of the Cherry Street Beach sometime after 2023. In the fall of 2025 the sign was still on public beach below the OHWM. I believe it would create even more dangers for the public if ZBA votes to recommend fencing below the OHWM. Others will use this as precedent in their determined efforts to block off Lake Michigan. Page 280 of 396 Sign south of Cherry Street Beach in 2025 9. WPD has not formed a plan for the isolated northern half of Centennial beach that its designs would create. ZBA does not have enough information to assess whether an immediately adjacent swimming beach would be safe for people and dogs traveling up and down the stairs to the same watershed, whether it would be legal under the Illinois Swimming Page 281 of 396 Facilities Act, whether WPD would comply with the law and build bathrooms within 300 feet of the shoreline, or other potential issues. I am confounded by WPD’s consideration of designs that could put human swimmers strictly on the north side of Centennial’s center steel groin where they will face what WPD describes as northeasterly rip currents. It would be safer to put people on the southern side of the steel groin . . . obviously not WPD’s choice since it would foil efforts to fence Centennial’s southern boundary. 10. On February 5, 2026 WPD mentioned its allocation of funding to police Centennial beach with “wardens.” WPD’s Centennial beach vision appears to be putting people and their dogs in a cage, with roaming police issuing tickets and/or warning people away. This is out of line with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it is repugnant. 11. WPD seems confused about Wilmette’s Gillson Dog Beach. Dogs have to remain leashed until they get to Gillson’s sandy dog beach, but not when they are on the sand. 12. It is unclear if Centennial’s 11 parking spots would be sufficient if Winnetka’s only dog beach is next to a passive use or swimming beach. I think a dual-use beach will draw a lot of people, like Lloyd Beach does. The lack of adequate parking will spill onto tabletop parkland, into the neighborhood across Sheridan Road and around the area. This in itself is sufficient reason to deny approving WPD’s SUP application. 13. Pounding fencing onto the steel groin that crosses over Centennial’s lot line with 205 Sheridan could be destabilizing and potentially give rise to damages. WPD should be asked about this. 14. WPD makes no commitment to get a professional assessment of whether its designs— particularly the gates—meet ADA requirements for Winnetka’s only dog beach, which is a public accommodation. WPD’s February 5, 2026 Special Meeting just appeared on its calendar on Monday, February 2, 2026. Its meeting agenda with two small images of the new permanent fencing designs appeared on Tuesday, February 4, 2026. The public had 48 hours to evaluate the designs, if they happened to read WPD’s agenda ahead of Thursday’s meeting. This is the same and also inadequate timeframe that the public and non-majority board members had to try to evaluate designs attached to WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant when they appeared in WPD’s October 19, 2023 meeting agenda—48 hours. Furthermore, the new designs are not included in ZBA’s meeting packet. The Village Engineer, Police Chief and Fire Chief have not had an opportunity to assess the designs’ narrow bypass width, the gates, placing electrical on the beach, the 4’ drop-off, and other questions. WPD’s efforts to force down cumbersome designs that impede access to public lands and threaten the public’s general welfare—physically, financially and legally, are concerning. Please uphold the public’s interest and decline to recommend approving them. Thank you. Kristine Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer Page 282 of 396 The Zoning Board of Appeals shouldn’t do anything to advance the current plans of the Winnetka Park District for a dog area at Centennial Beach, because setting aside any lakefront property of the Village of Winnetka is simply an ill-conceived use of Village and Park District lakefront. There are better ways to handle this issue. What the Village and the WPD should do in regard to canine access to the lakefront is to [i] entirely prohibit dogs from all lakefront property during regular swimming hours, but [ii] allow dog-owners and their dogs and the public to freely use the lakefront – just the beach, not any park areas – in the evenings, after regular hours for permitted swimming and for the public in general. I have personally seen this regulatory scheme in action at beaches on the Atlantic Ocean in New Jersey, and it has worked well for years. And according to remarks by Zoning Board Chair Matthew Bradley at the January 28th Plan Commission meeting, the usage regime suggested above appears to be how ‘the dog beach” has, in fact historically operated in Winnetka anyway. Fully realizing this proposal and beach accessibility to Winnetka residents would, of course, mean opening up all the lakefront that is now effectively barricaded by the kind of massive rock jetties that have recently been erected at either end of the Ishbia property, but even if it isn’t possible to address that particular aspect right now, the regulatory scheme suggested above will still work well. The proposed regulatory scheme will, obviously cost a great deal less than the current Park District proposal, and it won’t involve further environmental degradation -- assuming that dog-owners pick up after the pets. It’s at least worth a try, isn’t it? So why not turn off the seemingly endless governmental process for now, and give it a try for a year or two? Marc Hecht Page 283 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: February 9, 2026 Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 5:46:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ann, Please forward my letter below to the Zoning Board and the Design Review Board. Thank You, Joanna Karatzas February 9, 2026 Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence at Centennial Beach Zoning Board: Thank you for your attention to this matter. It’s hard writing about a moving target. Since the Park Board altered schematics for the dog beach on February 5, 2026, the letter I previously wrote regarding the scheme presented to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026 is irrelevant. However, I don’t know if procedure allows for a switch at this point without first going back to the Planning Commission. Therefore, I’m retaining my response to that first scheme in this letter. See Below. Response to the Dog Beach plan presented by Winnetka Park District to the public on February 5, 2026. As I stated previously regarding the scheme presented to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026, tonight’s plans are again vague, and therefore misleading. Because the drawing doesn’t include the breakwater at 205 Sheridan, it may give the viewer an overly optimistic perception of its true feasibility. It’s important to convey the entire existing condition on the south boundary of Centennial. It’s a point of contention and I’ll never understand why the drawing is incomplete. In looking at the plan, it looks like pedestrians would have to walk on property belonging to 205 Sheridan when transversing southward along the lake. Also, the width of the passage in front of the stairs over the breakwater seems especially narrow and is endanger of being swamped should the lake rise to the high water mark. A park commissioner at last week’s meeting mentioned the need for a staked survey at this edge. It seems like a good idea and should have happened before this plan was presented. More importantly, it’s worth asking ourselves what’s driving a fenced dog beach there at all? The answer lies in a donation held out to the Park District by the Ishbia Family Foundation (IFF), also known as the owner of 205 Sheridan. The donation isn’t a pure act of kindness, it has strings attached. It mandates a fenced dog beach located at the south end of Centennial; ADA access; and a very over-scaled pier placed near where the north dog beach fence is Page 284 of 396 proposed. I wish someone would tell me what IFF’s motivations are, particularly regarding the pier. The entanglement between IFF and the WPD has resulted in some very weird proposals and solutions over the last four years. I have been critical of the proposed designs, but I know the designers aren’t at fault. The root of the problems lie with decisions and agreements the Winnetka Park Board has made. Cutting the cord between IFF and WPD would allow for a rational solution at Elder/Centennial. Response to the Dog Beach plan presented by Winnetka Park District to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026. The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the Zoning Board and the public of the breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan, also known as the south boundary of Centennial, nor do they highlight the existing sheet pile at the same location. Furthermore, the fence elevations are not presented in context— therefore the observer can’t see what lurks behind proposed south fence. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly drawn in plan, the benign looking 20 ft.-gap between the thin line representing the south fence of the proposed dog beach and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem hazardous and redundant. The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake Michigan. It runs into the lake at a proposed distance of 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. Should the lake level stay at the ordinary water mark, the water depth at the east terminus of the fence would be 1.5-2 ft. That makes me wonder, would that depth be if we experience a high tide? At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile, and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and produce strong currents. The need to provide a fence where there is already a pile of rocks is questionable. Dogs aren’t likely to pick their way over wet, slimy rocks in favor of running and playing on a wide open beach. Finally, drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and describe adjacency conditions. In this case they fail to do so, therefore, please deny this Special Use Permit. Joanna Karatzas Winnetka Resident Sent from my iPhone Page 285 of 396  John William Root 326 Woodland Avenue Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: Email: Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026 Village of Winnetka Director of Community Development 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Case No. 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing Dear Mr. Mangum: As you may be aware, the Winnetka Park Board (WPD) met on February 5, 2026, and approved a new design for the dog fence for its Special Use Permit (SUP) for Case No. 25-28-SU. The design can be seen below in figure 1. Figure 1. Revised Dog Fence Design Page 286 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026 Page 2 of 3 The February 5 redesign appears to be a material change from the fence configuration presented in the pending SUP application and circulated to the public. Among other things, the redesign relocates the fence elements and reconfigures Centennial Beach by dividing it into an off-leash dog area and a separate “passive” beach area for the general public, which materially alters the character and impacts of the proposed special use. Section 17.56.130 (Amendments to Special Use Permits) recognizes that when a SUP holder seeks a material change to the approved special use, the change must be processed as an amendment with the required administrative review and public process. The Park District is not merely refining details; it has approved a substantively different configuration. At minimum, the Village should require the Park District to proceed through the appropriate administrative procedure under the Zoning Ordinance for a material modification—i.e., staff review, a complete and current plan set, and legally adequate public notice—before the matter is heard on the merits. This is also a basic procedural due process issue. The public hearing process only works if residents and affected property owners have meaningful notice of what is being proposed and a fair opportunity to review and comment on the operative design. A last-minute substitution of a materially different fence plan on the eve of a hearing undermines the integrity of the administrative record and deprives interested persons of a fair opportunity to be heard on the actual proposal. As of the date of this letter: (1) no notice of postponement of the February 9, 2026, ZBA hearing appears to have been posted; and (2) the February 5 revised fence design does not appear to be posted on the Village’s ZBA webpage. It therefore appears likely that the Park District may present the superseded fence design at the February 9 hearing, despite having approved a materially different plan on February 5. That would be inefficient for the ZBA and unfair to the public, and it risks a recommendation based on a plan the applicant itself has abandoned. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Village require the Park District to submit a complete amended plan set reflecting the new February 5 design and then restart or continue the SUP process as required for material changes, including staff review and proper notice to surrounding property owners and the public. If the Park District nonetheless intends to proceed on February 9 using the older design, then the ZBA should limit the presentation time (e.g., 15 minutes for staff and 15 minutes for the applicant) and avoid devoting substantial hearing time to an outmoded plan that is no longer the applicant’s approved design. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, / s/ John W. Root Page 287 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026 Page 3 of 3 cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org Ms. Ann Klaassen Assistant Director By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org Page 288 of 396 To: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals From: Angie Dahl Re: Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road-Centennial Beach Date: February 9 2026 Members of the ZBA: You are being asked tonight to consider and approve an application from the Winnetka Park District to allow installation of fencing on the existing Centennial beach in order to create a dog beach. On January 28 2026, this application was unanimously rejected by the Plan Commission. Tonight, Park District staff and legal counsel may also present an alternative plan, differing in size, scope and accessibility, which was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Park Board held on February 5, 2026 at 4:30 in the afternoon. The plan rejected by the Plan Commission, which is before you this evening, and the newly designed plan adopted by the Winnetka Park Board on February 5 have one purpose in common: the creation of a dog beach with substantial fencing. Several years ago the Winnetka Park District solicited input from dog owners and dog beach users on an ad hoc advisory board whose purpose was to evaluate options within the community for an off leash dog area. The recommendation from that group was to move the dog beach from Centennial and relocate it at an area near the power plant at Tower Road. The timing of this ad hoc committee and its subsequent recommendation overlapped with new, private and ongoing discussions between several members of the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners, and an individual property owner purchasing land adjacent to Centennial Park. During this same period, concerned residents attempted but failed to locate or review any meeting minutes or video recordings of meetings where the Centennial/Elder project was discussed. This resulted in an inquiry to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and a subsequent finding that the Winnetka Park District was in violation of the requirements in the Open Meetings Act of timely posting meeting minutes and videos for public review. Interestingly, the missing information being sought directly related to the negotiations taking place in private with a specific home owner. The findings of the ad hoc dog beach advisory committee were put aside. I bring this to your attention tonight because of the repetitive nature of the SUP applications from the Park District. I am a dog owner, a user of the dog beach, and was a Park District Commissioner at the time the Centennial Dog Beach was conceived and implemented. My husband was a member of Page 289 of 396 the ad hoc Dog Beach Committee which addressed a possible change in location. I believe there is a simple solution to this ongoing merry-go-round of hearings regarding this issue. Remove the dog beach from Centennial. If that happens, there will be no need for a SUP and no need for the fencing that is opposed by so many. I don’t know if it is within your purview to make this decision. If so, please consider this option and please deny the Winnetka Park District’s application for a SUP. Angie Dahl 1277 Forest Glen Dr N Page 290 of 396  MEM0 February 9, 2026 TO: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Laurie Morse RE: Centennial Fence Designs 1-3. Which will the ZB review today? Zoning Board reviewed and rejected fence design 1. at meetings in 2024. This fence blocks public access stairs to the new 205 beach, which is now complete and open for public use. 1. Fence plan from WPD/IFF restrictive Covenant Agreement dated January 19, 2024: access stairs to 205 Sheridan beach 1 Page 291 of 396 2. WPD Fence Plan chosen at WPD Board Meeting February 5, 2026 The Feb. 5 WPD Board Meeting was theater. This “new” fence design conforms nicely to Ishbia Family Covenant agreement requirements. Walkways and other features can be added later. This plan includes locked gates at beach level but is not materially di erent from 1. above already rejected by ZB. Access stairs to new public 205 beach blocked. The “temporary fence” 3. Below, scheduled for ZB review today doesn’t conform to the Ishbia Covenant agreement fence plan. “Temporary” language in IDNR permit application was meant for Ishbia Family team. “Temporary fence” was e ective test of IDNR permit review. WPD no longer plans to build this design and will seek new permits from all regulators. 3. IDNR permitted this fence design on December 24, 2025. Permit LM20250015. Page 292 of 396 From: Ann Klaassen To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA? Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:55:14 AM From: Irene Smith > Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 10:52 AM To: Ann Klaassen <AKlaassen@winnetka.org> Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Ann. Is it too late to add something to the ZBA packets? This is a poster I’m bringing tonight, but I’m afraid the printing is too small. It would be better understood if the Commissioners could read it in their packets. Many thanks. Irene Page 293 of 396 ***************************** Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly Page 294 of 396 believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring. When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide. John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020. Page 295 of 396 Page 296 of 396 Page 297 of 396 From: To: Robert Dearborn; Kristin Kazenas Cc: Ann Klaassen; Brian O"Connell Subject: Can we resolve question re beach below 205 Sheridan prior to March ZBA meeting? Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:16:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear President Dearborn and Manager Kazenas, Winnetka's Zoning Board of Appeals will review yet another Park District fencing design for Centennial Beach at its March meeting. The south end of new proposal fences off the stone steps the IDNR and the Village required for public access over the rock breakwater to the new public engineered beach below 205 Sheridan Sheridan Road. Am drafting comments on the fences for the ZBA and realize it is essential the Village establish for ZBA Commissioners the public nature of the new beach below 205 Sheridan. That the new beach is a public asset in Winnetka. I could write a long spiel for the ZBA, but it takes the Village to settle for its own commissioners any question of the public's rights to use the new beach. The terms of the State permit allowing the 205 beach construction are clear: All the fill is public and open for use to all. The permit award letter to the 205 owner from the IDNR specifies the rock steps from Centennial over the 205 rock breakwater need to be far enough up the beach to provide safe access for all. The Village in its own permits also required stairs over the 205 structure's rocks so the public can safely cross to the new beach. Further, the IDNR underscored the public nature of the beach by requiring stairs down south side of new 205 groin so the public can proceed south if they wish. All of these documents are in your files. In November, 2025, after the 205 beach construction fence was removed, a friend and I enjoyed our first visit to the new beach, using the rock stairs from Centennial for access. Due to a misunderstanding by the upland owner, the police were called. Your public safety team resolved the misunderstanding and recognized the rights of my friend and I to stay and enjoy the new beach as long as we liked. I and others have subsequently visited the beach below 205 frequently and look forward to further visits during warm weather. This E-mail is only a request that the Village confirm for Zoning Board members the public nature of the new beach on Centennial's southern border. I am not asking for a public declaration or announcement. Only that members of the ZBA are fully informed prior to their hearing on Park District fencing. They deserve clarity before considering the WPD application for permission to fence off public access to the new public beach below 205. Am copying Ann Klaassen with a request to share this note with Chairman Bradley of ZBA. Am copying Chief O'Connell for information only. Best regards, Page 298 of 396 Laurie Morse Page 299 of 396 Page 300 of 396 Wildlife-friendly Fencing and the Problem With Link Chain Fencing May 9, 2024 - By tara In recent years, the conversation around sustainable living and environmental conservation has highlighted the importance of wildlife- friendly fencing. Traditional barriers, particularly chain link fences, often pose significant hazards to local wildlife, obstructing natural movements and causing injuries. This article explores some wildlife-friendly fence options, the challenges of chain links, and inexpensive ways to cover a chain link fence to enhance its safety for wildlife. What Makes a Fence Wildlife-Friendly? Visibility Wildlife-friendly fencing is designed to be highly visible to animals to prevent collisions and entanglement. By using larger, more reflective materials or adding colorful flagging tape to wires, the fence stands out better in natural environments. This visibility helps animals like deer, elk, and even birds recognize the barrier from a distance, allowing them to navigate safely around it. Enhanced visibility is especially crucial in areas where animal movement is high, ensuring that the fence serves as a gentle deterrent rather than a lethal obstacle. Permeability The concept of permeability in fencing is crucial for maintaining natural wildlife migration and movement patterns. Wildlife-friendly fences are constructed with gaps or are flexible enough to allow animals to pass through safely when necessary. For instance, drop-down sections or large spaces between the lower wires enable smaller animals to crawl under, while taller species might jump over without harm. This approach helps in Page 301 of 396 preserving the ecological balance and allows animals to continue their natural behaviors such as foraging and migration without severe disruption. Height and Spacing Adjusting the height and spacing of the wires in a fence can significantly enhance its wildlife-friendliness. The design considerations include ensuring that fences are not too high that they trap animals or too low that they pose a tripping hazard. Ideally, a fence should be high enough to deter or contain livestock yet low enough or properly spaced so that wildlife like deer can jump over safely. Moreover, sufficient ground clearance is provided to allow smaller creatures, such as turtles and rodents, to pass underneath, facilitating free movement across their habitat. Material The choice of material in wildlife-friendly fencing is vital to minimize potential injuries to wildlife. Using smoother and more flexible materials can reduce the chances of animals getting caught or injured by the fence. Smooth wire is often preferred over barbed wire, as it is less likely to cause harm if an animal attempts to cross through or over the fence. This consideration not only protects wildlife but also maintains the integrity and purpose of the fence over time. Gate Placement and Design Integrating strategically placed gates or removable sections in wildlife- friendly fencing can significantly improve accessibility for wildlife. These gates are often designed to accommodate seasonal migration patterns, allowing animals to pass through key areas during specific times of the year. This design strategy helps to ensure that fencing does not permanently fragment habitats or obstruct essential migratory routes, thus supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity. Page 302 of 396 Page 303 of 396 Chain link fencing is not typically recommended for wildlife-friendly fencing due to several potential issues it can pose for animals: Limited Permeability: Chain link fences offer little to no flexibility for animals to pass through or over, effectively creating barriers that can restrict wildlife movement and fragment habitats. Injury Risks: The mesh design of chain link fences can pose risks for smaller wildlife, which might attempt to pass through the openings and become stuck or injured. Obstacle to Larger Animals: Larger wildlife, like deer or elk, cannot jump over high chain link fences without risking injury. Likewise, they can’t pass through it, which can disrupt natural migration and foraging paths. Cheap Ways to Cover a Chain Link Fence If you already have a chain link fence and want to make it more wildlife- friendly, there are a few modifications you can consider to reduce its impact on local fauna: There are some affordable ways to cover a chain link fence to create a wildlife-friendly space in your garden. Adding visual markers such as colorful ribbons or reflective materials increases visibility to animals, helping to prevent collisions. Implementing affordable covers like finer mesh or burlap can protect smaller creatures from getting trapped while also concealing the industrial look of the fence. Strategically creating gaps or installing wildlife-friendly gates facilitates natural animal movement. Planting vegetation, such as climbing vines near the fence, provides a green cover, seamlessly integrating the fence with its natural surroundings. Page 304 of 396 These cost-effective modifications not only ensure the safety of local wildlife but also improve the overall appearance of the fence. Thank you for your consideration. Irene Smith 1087 Elm St. Page 305 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: A photo for the ZBA packet. Date: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:47:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Ann. Would you please copy the following for the ZBA packets? Thanks so much. Irene Page 306 of 396 To the ZBA members- This is a photo of the beach at Old Lyme, CT. I cannot imagine 2 such cages on Centennial Beach, one for people with dogs and one for people without dogs. Executive Director of Parks, Shannon Nazzal, says the fences they are proposing will be permanent. Again, you are getting a piecemeal proposal. How can you approve such a thing without seeing the plans for Elder / Centennial? Please deny the request by the Park District for an SUP. Thank you for your consideration. Irene Smith 1087 Elm Street Page 307 of 396 From: To: ; Ann Klaassen Subject: March 9 ZBA Meeting Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 11:23:39 AM Attachments: F1C79686-0224-415B-9367-EA360D628FF9.png 399185DD-6164-4D62-9319-383230965428.png A6D6EBD7-8147-47BD-950C-09E86B4131C4.png DFC6549F-CF1B-47F2-9247-A78EBF9C1927.png CentennialFlyoverVideo.MP4 Alex Ross Email Redacted.pdf IL OSHA Employee SanitaryFacilities.pdf WPD AECOM FailedSteelGroin Breakwater 2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Ann: Would you please share my comments on WPD's revised Centennial fencing designs with ZBA, along with the attachments? Thank you. Kris Schriesheim Winnetka taxpayer WPD’s description of Centennial as Winnetka’s largest and highest quality beach weighs against recommending a dangerous fencing scheme that is detrimental to and would threaten the public’s general welfare permanently. DESIGNS BLOCK PASSAGE AND PRIVATIZE BEACH Page 308 of 396 WPD’s seeks to obtain a permit for designs that would block passage along and privatize the beach. This breaches multiple Village Code sections; threatens the public's health, safety and welfare; threatens the essential character of Winnetka's Sheridan Road neighborhoods; diminishes property values with fencing that does not exist elsewhere in the neighborhood; creates congestion in the street; uses non-minimal designs; and creates parking issues. Most of these SUP issues were raised during ZBA's 2024 review, yet WPD appears to have made no effort to resolve them during the ensuing 14 months. Driving WPD's fencing efforts are inflexible, unsafe, unaffordable, unpopular, twice-rejected breakwater-heavy designs. WPD's current SUP application mirrors almost exactly WPD's fencing designs from its 2024 Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant for which it unsuccessfully sought ZBA's approval. I. WPD's fencing designs Violate SUP Condition 1, which requires: "That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare." Page 309 of 396 The impetus for WPD's beach designs was purportedly to address periodic high lake levels and (undocumented) erosion. This appears to have fallen by the wayside. At WPD's February 5, 2026 board meeting, staff said that although current lake levels are low, the electric gate and fencing's placement on the sandy beach would eventually be in or under the waters of Lake Michigan. WPD's rush to permitting for dangerous fencing that would threaten the public's general welfare permanently, while disregarding the potential impact of Lake Michigan's high water levels, is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline recommending WPD's SUP application. Page 310 of 396 In the very recent past WPD also said ADA concerns were a reason for "developing" Centennial Park and Beach. It appears to have forgotten all about this with permanent fencing designs that neither contemplate nor incorporate any ADA elements. A complete absence of ADA-compliance efforts is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline recommending WPD's SUP application for permanent fencing. According to staff, WPD's southern fencing's placement would only provide a 4 foot wide passage area—effectively privatizing the southern neighbor's beach, while making it extremely difficult for WPD maintenance crews to reach debris, dead animals/fish, and other things that may be trapped against the fencing. Attaching chain-link fencing to two mid-century steel groins extending over 100 feet into Lake Michigan is neither advisable nor safe. Last year AECOM did inform WPD of Page 311 of 396 Centennial's southern steel groin’s lack of maintenance. Despite possessing this information, WPD failed to inform Plan in May 2025 that it was proposing to build permanent fencing on an unsafe groin. Today's plans would see the fencing's partial removal and then re-pounding it into both steel groins twice a year. This is concerning. AECOM's 2025 letter says Lake Michigan wave action damaged 205 Sheridan's northern breakwater before construction was even complete. WPD's half-century obligation to maintain the Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant's Project Elements, groin-mounted fencing included, could result in extremely expensive, ongoing repairs to its own and neighboring properties. Centennial's proposed structures may sustain wave damage constantly, which would inflict major costs with resultant harm to the public. The search for online information on open water chain-link fencing was challenging. A professional engineering forum discussed the perils of gated fencing in dynamic water conditions; considerations include entrapment; fencing designed to float away when water levels reach 3 inches so people are not trapped within the enclosure; that once released, the fencing could incidentally damage other property; and other potential legal issues. Page 312 of 396 Leaving a chain-link fence on steel groins in Lake Michigan year-round would create similar safety and liability issues, injure wildlife, alter habitat, and create damaging ice pressure points. Page 313 of 396 One other point to consider is that fencing in or near water--including pools—typically has gates that are designed to open away from the water, which minimizes the risks of children pushing them open from the outside to get in. WPD's gates appear to be designed to open towards the water. WPD's apparent lack of attention to safety protocols is sufficient reason to deny recommending WPD's SUP application. II. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 2, which requires: "That the special use not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity." As discussed above, permanently attaching chain-link fencing to old steel groins may result in damage to neighboring properties. Using electric beach-mounted gates and fencing that could detach and damage neighboring areas violates SUP Condition 2. Neighbors have the right to expect WPD to comply with Village design standards that are meant to protect property values. There are no fenced park district beaches in Winnetka. Page 314 of 396 III. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Conditions 4 and 5, which require: "That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways" and "That adequate parking . . . and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided." Because WPD merely replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs, it has not addressed concerns about ingress and egress along Sheridan Road. This alone is sufficient to decline recommending WPD's SUP application. WPD still suggesting cars park on Centennial’s tabletop, like Lloyd. Page 315 of 396 WPD essentially replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs converting Centennial into a dual use beach, without defining resultant parking needs first or neighborhood impact. This alone is sufficient to decline recommending WPD's SUP application. IV. WPD's replication of 2024's Centennial SUP designs lacking sanitary facilities that are necessary to Centennial's operation violates SUP Condition 5. WPD plans to hire Centennial staff who would have to reach Elder Beach to find bathroom facilities. Failing to provide necessary facilities violates Village Code Section 15.08.080--International Property Maintenance Code--#39, 503.3, which obligates Winnetka employers to provide access to toilet facilities from within the employees' working area. The required toilet facilities must be located so that the path of travel to such facilities does not exceed a distance of 300 feet from the employees' regular working area. This alone is sufficient to deny recommending WPD's SUP application. V. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 6, which requires; "That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes." With respect to the Public Trust Doctrine, the Village Attorney has already stated WPD needs to address the fencing's placement by obtaining an access easement, moving the fencing, or in some other lawful manner. Village Code Section 17.60.035 prevents placement of WPD's fencing across the southern neighbor's lot line. FURTHER CODE VIOLATIONS THAT PREVENT GRANTING A SUP Village Code Section 9 forbids the creation of a public nuisance, which WPD’s chain-link fencing would do. Page 316 of 396 Then-Trustee Andy Cripe prepared a January 2023 memorandum for the Council’s lakefront study session.The memorandum lays out how shoreline obstructions would create a public nuisance. It is available on the Village website. Village Code Section 12.04.040 forbids encroachment onto public streets, including Lake Michigan. WPD's fencing would unlawfully encroach onto the public street. This is my analysis of certain applicable Village Code sections that were entirely new to me. Village Code Section 15.08.070--Amendment to National Electric Code 2020 Edition--states that the Village's Water and Electrical Department must install all new and modified underground electrical services. At WPD's February 26, 2026 meeting WPD staff gave the impression that it would install the underground electrical services itself. Query whether running electrical lines down to the lakefront would require steep slope and/or slope transition zone work. Village Code Section 15.08.130--Amendment to MWRD-WMO Section 602.9--This Page 317 of 396 incorporated section says new structures that are substantial improvements 'shall (D) Elevate electrical and other service facilities to the FPE or higher and (E) Provide a back-up power source that will activate without human intervention if electricity is required.' Development includes changes in land use and practices. ZBA should consider whether WPD is aware of or intends to comply with this Code requirement given the complete absence of floodway permitting consideration in the SUP application, the designs' placement of electrical below FPE, and the lack of a backup power source. Village Code Section 15.32.030--New structures in Flood Hazard Areas (which includes Centennial's lakefront) cannot get a building permit until the applicant complies with Section 15.68 (Floodplain Construction provisions) and the Watershed Management Ordinance. I do not believe WPD has made an effort to do so. Village Code Section 15.32.080--Criteria for Permit Approval (C]-Zoning conformity. Any property upon which the construction of any primary structure is to occur, shall be a single lot of record, and (D)-No work may affect the Public Way and Property, and no permit shall be issued unless the applicant first complies with Village Code Section 12 (this is violated by encroaching upon a public street, see above). Assuming that the gate and fencing constitute primary structures, WPD's permit designs fail to meet these Code requirements. Village Code Section 15.68.060-Occupation and Use of Identified Floodways. All floodway modifications shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of the project. WPD's fencing is far from the minimum necessary for a Cook County project. Village Code Section 15.68.060: Consider whether WPD plans violate Subsections (1)— Underground utilities are only permitted if they do not require the placement of above ground structures in the floodway and (3)--Centennial beach is in a coastal high hazard area (Zone VE), and no fences are allowed under a regional permit. This section also provides that WPD would need to retain a professional engineer for its fencing project. Before the Village can issue a permit, the IDNR/OWR first has to issue a permit or written documentation for a Floodplain Development permit. Further, subsection (D) states that no development is allowed in a floodway if it will be a threat to public health and safety. Building an electric gate that will at times be in the water, as will chain-link fencing mounted to old, unstable, possibly eroded steel groins above and in Lake Michigan's waters, with dog waste stored upon and within a high coastal hazard zone, would pose multiple threats to the public's health and safety. Village Code Section 15.68.025 states that a Floodplain Development Permit Application must use a specific form, which to the best to of my knowledge WPD has not complied with. Village Code Section 15.68.080 contains permitting requirements applicable to all floodplain areas, in addition to those contained in Sections 15.68.050. 15.68.060 and 15.68.070. Its (A) public health standards state that no developments shall include locating animals' waste below the FPE unless such materials are stored in a floodproofed and anchored storage tank and certified by a professional engineer; (D) public utilities such as electric must be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages (WPD's designs create/maximize the risk of flood damages by adding an electric gate to the beach/waterfront instead of leaving it at the top of the bluffs); and (E) all other developments, such as fences, shall be designed so as not to . . . increase potential flood damage. Sheared off metal fencing would increase potential flood- related damage, as would possible electric shocks from exposed wires if the gate breaks. Page 318 of 396 Installation of electric and fencing that at times will be submerged maximizes, rather than reduces, the dangers of flood damage. WPD plans to install “waterproof” containers for dog waste on the beach itself, instead of leaving receptacles on the tabletop, seems unlikely to meet Section 15.68.080’s requirements. Village Code Section 15.68.100 - Variances- Former Trustee Andy Cripe's memorandum discusses this section, which prohibits variances from being granted to any development located in a regulatory floodway. WPD would have to apply to MWRD to obtain permission for its unsafe project, which does not meet the section's requirements. Village Code Section 15.78.010-Lakefront Construction Section 15.78.080(C] says the construction must comply with all other applicable Village Code provisions (WPD's project does not), (D) the project scope must be only what is minimally necessary to achieve the intended and PROPER purpose (emphasis added) of the project (extending fencing beyond a single lot, across a public street, violating the Public Trust Doctrine and creating a private beach are not proper purposes); (E) fencing must not interfere with Public Safety Operations (WPD's structures would block and unreasonably interfere with the ability of public safety personnel to conduct search and rescue or other safety operations; and (G) existing sightlines may not be altered more than minimally necessary (WPD's designs would unreasonably alter sightlines by building permanent black chain link fencing on Winnetka’s beautiful beaches, and also would violate WPD Policy Manual's presumptive preference to avoid fencing and leave open spaces intact). Village Code Section 17.04.020- Objectives-Every single one of the Village's Zoning Code precepts is or would be violated by WPD's electric gate and chain-link fencing. Village Code Section 17.04.030 (8) prohibits WPD's fencing from impermissibly and Page 319 of 396 unlawfully extending across the OHWM/Street Line, into the open waters of Lake Michigan. Village Code Section 17.04.030 (3) states that a zoning lot on Lake Michigan does not lie beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Village Code does not permit issuance for fencing beyond a single lot. See also Section 17.60.035, discussed above. Thank you for reading these comments, which I prepared after spending some time studying the Village Code. Based upon my review, I respectfully request that ZBA decline to recommend approving WPD's SUP application. Page 320 of 396 Page 321 of 396 Page 322 of 396 Page 323 of 396 2024 Winnetka Caucus Council (WCC) - Proposed Platforms 1 Page 324 of 396  Winnetka Park District Board Platform Plank #1: Intergovernmental Cooperation - Elder Beach The Winnetka Park District and Village of Winnetka continue to work through the application process for the Centennial-Elder project. In the meantime, there is a clear desire for a temporary solution that will enable the Elder beach to be opened. As can be seen below, more than 60% of respondents are in favor of the temporary solution. Yes 61.30% 955 No 19.58% 305 No Opinion 19.13% 298 Total 100% 1558 Skipped 65 While the issues surrounding the Centennial and Elder parks / beaches are complex, the Village and the Parks Department should work together to prioritize a solution for beach access and swimming at Elder Park in the near-term. —----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: The questions below are based on percentage information provided directly from the survey software, which did not account for people who skipped answering the question. Of those who skipped the questions we identified that there were 264 respondents who did not answer any of the questions, so we do not consider these respondents valid for the questions. 3 Page 325 of 396 Plank #2: Donation Agreement The Park District entered into a Donation Agreement with restrictive covenants with a private party. The survey question asked if this should be renegotiated or go forward, with the results below: Continue with the donation, as negotiated. 29.33% 366 Renegotiate to eliminate restrictive covenants with the 49.20% 614 possibility that the WPD will have to seek alternative funding (reserves, debt, etc.) if negotiations fail. No Opinion 21.47% 268 Total 100% 1,248 Skipped 375 The results of the survey show that nearly 50% of all responders agree that the Park District should reconsider the Donation Agreement. In addition, when excluding those who responded with “No Opinion,” 63% of responders indicated that the Donation Agreement should be renegotiated. The Park District should renegotiate the terms of the Agreement to eliminate the restrictive covenants, or pursue alternative funding if Necessary. Plank #3: Organic Parks In 2018 the Park District staff conducted a pilot program using an organic herbicide in one park. More than 68% of survey respondents have expressed a desire for the Park District to launch another pilot program. Yes 68.26% 899 No 11.24% 148 No Opinion 20.50% 270 Total 100% 1317 Skipped 306 With a view toward examining the viability of making more parks organic, the Park District should undertake a new pilot program utilizing any updated organic management techniques and exploring the use of a consultant. 4 Page 326 of 396 Plank #4: WPD Top Areas of Interest (Q16) The top three areas of interest WPD constituents would like to see addressed are a) an outdoor pool, b) an improved Green Bay Trail (requiring coordination with the Village) and c) an indoor pool. As can be seen in the results below, two other options were close to the top three: Outdoor Pool 30.49% 397 Green Bay Trail 27.73% 361 Indoor Pool 22.50% 293 Non-Beach Off-Leash Dog Park 22.12% 288 Multi-Use Center (general use) 20.35% 265 Total 1302 Skipped 321 Taken together, interest in a pool option remains a top priority for constituents. Taking direction from the unimplemented Plank #4 in 2022, the WPD should commission a comprehensive study on the feasibility and economics of various pool options, including partnerships with other towns and New Trier High School. This should be presented to the community, including location preferences, cost to build, cost to maintain, and revenue generation potential, and options to meet any potential shortfall. 5 Page 327 of 396 Page 328 of 396  can an employer legally require beach employees to swim across the waters of lake michigan to reach bathroom facilities at a different beach? Short answer: No — that would almost certainly be illegal and a serious safety violation. Requiring beach employees to swim across Lake Michigan to access restroom facilities would likely violate multiple laws and safety standards. OSHA Sanitation & Safety Rules Under federal OSHA standards (enforced in Illinois), employers must: Provide readily accessible toilet facilities Ensure facilities are sanitary and safe to access Not impose unreasonable restrictions on restroom use Requiring employees to swim across open water to use a restroom would almost certainly violate OSHA’s sanitation standards and general duty clause, which requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. Enforcement would fall under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Swimming across Lake Michigan presents obvious hazards: Drowning risk Strong currents and rip tides Cold water exposure Boat traffic Severe weather changes That would not be considered “reasonable access.” Illinois Workplace Requirements Illinois plumbing and workplace regulations require employers to provide adequate restroom facilities for employees at places of employment. Forcing workers to travel off-site — especially by swimming — would likely fail the requirement that facilities be accessible and adequate. The Illinois Department of Labor could also treat this as an unsafe working condition. Liability Exposure Beyond regulatory violations, this would expose the employer to major liability: Workers’ compensation claims Personal injury lawsuits Potential wrongful death liability OSHA fines and penalties If l i j d d d th l l ld b Page 329 of 396 Page 330 of 396 Page 331 of 396 Page 332 of 396 Page 333 of 396 Page 334 of 396 Page 335 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: Letter to ZBA for March 9 meeting packet Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:34:22 PM Attachments: ZBA Comments for Packet 3-4-26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Anne - Hope this finds you well. Would you please include my letter and the attached photos to the ZBA in the March 9, 2026 meeting packet? Thank you very much for your assistance. Vicki Page 336 of 396 Vicki Garrison Apatoff Page 337 of 396 Dear Zoning Board of Appeal Commissioners: Less than 30 years ago, residents and visitors could walk, swim, kayak, and paddleboard unimpeded along Winnetka’s shoreline from Glencoe to Kenilworth. It was a beautiful, peaceful stretch of beach that functioned as nature intended — water levels rose and fell, sand came and went, and people walked past the dog beach without fear or fences. Due to the lack of oversight by the IDNR and Army Corps of Engineers, that same shoreline has been transformed into a dangerous and, in some areas, impassable section of Lake Michigan that is no longer freely accessible to the public. By turning a blind eye to the destruction of lakefront bluffs and the installation of massive rock walls that block safe passage, the IDNR has allowed unchecked and irreversible damage to the entire ecosystem of Winnetka's lakefront. When concerned residents contacted the IDNR Director, Jim Casey, he stated that Winnetka held ultimate authority over what could occur along the beach and a half-mile into the lake — and that complaints should be directed to the Village, not the IDNR. Residents were stunned to learn that so much destruction had occurred without Village oversight. The Village ultimately asserted its authority through lakefront ordinance protections, which is what has brought this special use permit request before you tonight. It is time to stop further degradation of our beaches. Please consider the stated purpose of the Winnetka Lakefront Preservation Overlay District: “to preserve and maintain the character” of the lakefront and “to conserve and encourage the use of land adjacent to Lake Michigan for open space preservation… to protect natural resources and save scenic vistas.” Now consider the Winnetka Park District’s own mission statement: “To provide a balance of quality recreation and leisure opportunities while protecting assets, natural resources, and open space to benefit present and future generations.” The Village and the WPD share the same goals. That makes it all the more alarming that the WPD’s current request runs directly counter to them — particularly given that the proposed fenced dog beach was never requested by residents or dog beach pass holders - but only emerged as a concession during negotiations with the neighbor to the south of Centennial Park. We ask the WPD and this Board to consider the following: ∙ How does a massive chain-link enclosure on one of Winnetka’s most beautiful beaches conserve the character of our natural resources, preserve open space, or protect scenic vistas? ∙ When metal fence cages and electrified fob posts are installed along the beach, how does that benefit present or future generations? For over 30 years, people and dogs have enjoyed this beach in its natural state — not confined in a cage. ∙ What liability do present or future generations of Winnetka taxpayers assume when an untested system falls into disrepair, or someone is seriously injured when trapped between metal structures and boulders by an artificial wall in the water? Have the Winnetka police and fire departments reviewed this fence proposal to comment on any impact it may have on the ability of first responders to do their job in an emergency? Page 338 of 396  ∙ How does locking Winnetka taxpayers into a 50-year moratorium — requiring written approval from a neighboring private party before anything can be done in that area — serve the public interest? ∙ Has a signed easement been provided by the same neighbor to allow the public to traverse the shoreline if expected changes in shoreline conditions require passage along private property due to the addition of a fence? ∙ The ZBA asked the WPD to come back with a global picture of the Elder/ Centennial beach plan in its entirety so that permit decisions could be made in context with its surrounding areas. Is it possible to determine the viability or prudence of an unusual and unprecedented request for a fence on the beach when the rest of the surrounding project has not yet been finalized? The residents of Winnetka deserve better — and they are counting on the ZBA to reach the same conclusion as the Plan Commission, which voted unanimously to deny a special use permit for any fence on the beach. The future of our precious and fragile lakefront depends on it. Please remember what the word Winnetka means: A beautiful place. Our beachfront is called Winnetka's greatest natural asset for a reason. Please honor that designation. There are no conditions that would make this SUP request for a fence/cage acceptable. Please deny the request for a Special Use Permit.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Thank you very much for your time and consideration, Vicki Apatoff 730 Ardsley Road Winnetka Page 339 of 396 Page 340 of 396 Page 341 of 396 Engineers Comment 11 from 5 Aug version of WPD application for SUP 11. Proposed fence around dog park, specifically along the southern end of the dog area, will need to be placed far enough away from the existing steel groin and new stone groin on neighboring property to allow for ample safe passage between the properties. a. PD Response: The proposed dog beach fence is to be located on the existing steel groin to the south, offset 6’ min. width from the newly installed stone groin at the south neighbor property, as shown on sheet C138. b. Engineering Response: Recommend a larger space between the two elements be provided, as a wider pathway opening would be preferred to allow for easier passage and for access of emergency equipment to the adjoining property. winpark.org | (847) 501-2040 | 540 Hibbard Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 c. WPD Response: The dimension verified in the field is a minimum of 6’ between two currently fixed structures, the new stone breakwater built on 205 Sheridan Road Property and the current southernmost steel groin, which has been in place for over 70+ years. The 6’ dimension is from the newly built passage steps across the 205 Sheridan Road Breakwater and widens from there as you move west to over 10’ plus as you approach the existing steel groin. The area between the western off-leash dog fencing and existing steel sheet piling is greater than 12’, which leaves ample room for access. The fencing plan is detailed on sheet C147 of the Bid and Construc Page 342 of 396  John William Root 326 Woodland Avenue Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: Email: Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org AKlaassen@winnetka.org Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Village of Winnetka Director of Community Development Ms. Ann Klaassen Assistant Director 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Case No. 25-28-SU 225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach Comments for 3/9/2026 Hearing Dear Ms. Klaassen and Mr. Mangum: I have reviewed the Winnetka Park District’s (Park’s) revised Special Use Permit Application 25-28-SU for Centennial Park. My following comments summarize my concerns about the proposed Centennial dog fence and access to the beach by a shared staircase and how these designs are unsafe, prevent access to public beaches, and conflict with Village ordinances, particularly the Village zoning ordinances. I would appreciate your assistance in sharing my comments as part of the official packet to be delivered to the members of the Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals for the hearing scheduled for Monday, March 9th. Permit History The Park’s first permit, 24-08-SU, was reviewed February 26, 2025, at the ZBA and on May 28, 2025, at the Plan Commission. This design for Centennial park included a dog fence, boardwalk, access ramp, and pier and can be seen in Figure 1 below. Page 343 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 2 of 8 Figure 1: Centennial Beach Design Permit 24-08-SU Both Commissions unanimously recommended against the special use, 24-08-SU, because the design violated Village standards. The Commissions found that the pier’s rubble stone boulders presented a safety risk for swimmers. Many Commissioners have commented that the access ramp design was dangerous for pedestrians who had to share the ramp with dogs to access the beach. The Commissions have also previously commented that the southern dog fence obstructed public access to the adjoining property. The Park “suspended” permit 24-08-SU in June of 2025. While permit 24-08-SU was still pending, in March of 2025, the Park filed a new permit 25-28- SU with the IDNR and USACE as seen in Figure 2. Page 344 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 3 of 8 Figure 2: Centennial Beach Design Permit 25-28-SU Permit 25-28-SU had two fences that extended approximately 15’ into the Lake and pedestrians walking the beach would have to pass through gates attached to the fences to cross the dog beach. Permit 25-28-SU was presented to the Plan Commission on January 28, 2026, and Plan recommended against approval of the design. Plan found that forcing pedestrians to walk with unleashed dogs to traverse the dog beach and was unsafe. Plan also found that the gates were burdensome to pedestrians and obstructed their free transit across the off-leash dog beach. During the February 5, 2026, Park Special Board Meeting and during the February 26, 2026 Park Regular Board Meeting, the Park Board voted to make material changes to Permit 25-28-SU which brings us to the pending ZBA meeting scheduled for Monday, March 9, 2026. ZBA Meeting Scheduled March 9, 2026 I urge the ZBA to recommend against the Park’s revised Permit 25-28-SU because the design restricts pedestrians from transiting the public beach. Revised Permit 25-28-SU involves installation of three fence segments that create a dog pen on the south half of Centennial beach (Figure 3 below). Page 345 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 4 of 8 Figure 3: Centennial Beach Design Revised Permit 25-28-SU The revised Permit 25-28-SU design for the dog fence is very similar to Permit 24-08-SU with the fence mounted on the southern steel groin. The southern segment of the dog beach fence will be installed on top of an existing sheet pile groin near the southern boundary of Centennial. The only difference of the current proposed southern fence design from the earlier Permit 24-08-SU is that the fence will not extend out as far into the Lake. As currently proposed, the northern fence of the dog beach will also be located on an existing steel groin. The western fence of the dog beach will be 20’ from the toe of the bluff and will connect to the northern and southern fence segments forming the dog pen (Figure 3). The western boundary fence and the bluff create a bypass corridor for pedestrians on a strip of beach that terminates at the southern boundary of Centennial (figure 3). To walk the beach onto the adjacent property of 205 Sheridan, a person would have to cross the sheet pile groin and walk east between the southern dog beach fence and the stone breakwater on 205 Sheridan until the individual reaches the stone steps through the breakwater on 205 Sherridan (Figure 4). Page 346 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 5 of 8 Figure 4: South Centennial Dog Fence This path will take the pedestrian onto 205 Sheridan’s private property located above the ordinary high-water mark forcing the pedestrian onto 205 Sheridan’s front yard to reach the stairs in the breakwater. Winnetka ordinance establishes the front lot line on property bordering Lake Michigan at the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). The Park’s northern dog fence blocks pedestrians walking along the OHWM and pedestrians must bypass around the dog pen to continue south to reach the public beach in front of 205 Sheridan. However, the Park’s bypass fails to deliver a pedestrian back to the OHWM where the pedestrian could continue their journey without trespassing on private property. Park Commissioner David Seaman at the Park meeting of February 26th claimed that pedestrians can complete their journey to the stairs in the breakwater at 205 Sheerridan without trespassing asserting that property above the OWHM on 205 Sheridan is accreted beach and the public should be able to cross accreted beach pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine. Attorney Adam Simon, Park counsel, further asserted that the public has the right to access the stairs on the breakwater by the most direct route. However, the No Trespassing sign as shown in Figure 5 is posted by the Park on Park property and contradicts Page 347 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Seaman and Mr. Simon’s assertions that the public can access the stairs on 205 Sheridan without trespassing. Figure 5: No Trespass Sign Posted Near Boundary of Centennial Park and 205 Sheridan Figure 5 shows a sign posted by the Park on Centennial park beach property approximately 10’ north of the property line of 205 Sherridan and 10’ from the bluff. The sign has the Winnetka Park logo with the following text: “Private Property Beyond This Point, No trespassing. No sitting or standing for a long period of time. Walking along the water’s edge only. Walker’s must follow riparian rights.” The Park is discouraging pedestrians from crossing onto 205 Sheridan and reaching public beach on 205 Sheridan. If the Park is allowed to install the dog- fence this sign will be in the middle of the pedestrian bypass path (Figure 4). The message from the Park’s sign is clear, the end of the bypass is a dead end and persons continuing are trespassing unless they sprout wings and fly to the water’s edge. The ZBA and Plan Commissions voiced objections to the southern fence when first presented a year ago in permit 24-08-SU (Figure 1) and suggested that the Park should seek an easement to allow the public to transit 205 Sheridan’s private property. The Park has failed to obtain that easement. In summary the Park’s dog fence will block direct access from Centennial to the stairs in the breakwater on 205 Sheridan and will prevent pedestrians from walking along the ordinary highwater mark in violation of Village Ordinance Section 15.78.080 (E) obstructing or otherwise interfering with ingress or egress to adjacent public beaches or private property. As a result, the Park’s permit should be denied. Page 348 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 7 of 8 Beach Access The only access to Centennial beach is by a metal staircase that is 4’ wide (Figure 3). This staircase has functioned adequately for as long as Centennial Beach has functioned exclusively as a dog beach. The Park is now proposing to have the north half of Centennial designated as a non-swimming passive beach and the staircase will not be safe for this dual use. Costa Kutulas, Director of Parks and Maintenance, explained some of the issues of proposed dual use of Centennial beach with shared access to the stairway during the February 26, 2026, Park Board meeting: (Time stamp 1:47:10 - 1:47:45 of the video of the Park 2/26/26 February Board Meeting) Costa Kutulas: “Considerations, as you think about swimming, non-swimming, as it's usage (for north half of Centennial beach), of course, is the proximity to the Fenced Dog Beach and the single path of usage. As we heard through the previous design for special use, there was a lot of concern. And one of the things that kind of put the project back on its heels was the mixed usage of that single ADA access way for both dogs, strollers and dog walkers, kids, everybody else competing for the same access point, when we know a lot of people have a tendency to let their dogs off leash from the parking lot into the park.” (Time stamp 1:47:46 - 1:48:02 of the video of the Park 2/26/26 February Board Meeting) Costa Kutulas: “Well, by having the attendant or with the park patrol, we can help curb some of those issues with people not following the rules and regulations. But that is something to consider. The other thing to consider is the operational control for the Illinois Department of Public Health criteria in regard to restrooms.” Mr. Kutulas further elaborates that two park attendants, one stationed at the top of the stairs, and one stationed on the beach, will enforce the requirement that dogs be leashed until they reach the fenced dog pen. These attendants will be on duty from 6:00 am – 10 pm during beach swimming season. While enforcing dog leash regulations, the attendants will also check for beach passes and enforce no swimming requirements on the passive beach portion of the proposed segmented Centennial Beach. The plan Mr. Kutulas is proposing is impractical and unsafe for passive beachgoers. The staircase to the beach provides a 48” wide narrow corridor to the beach. Dogs with their owners will pass by passive beach goers who are climbing up and down this staircase simultaneously. The only exit points from the staircase are at the top or base of the stairs and a pedestrian has no way to avoid a dog once on the stairs. I have often witnessed owners with dogs on leashes who have lost control of their dogs while descending the stairs. This situation creates a danger to pedestrians on the staircase. The staircase runs east from the table land and then turns north and lands on the beach (Figure 3). Due to its configuration a person entering at the table land will not be able to see the exit at the beach where a dog may be entering (Figure 5). Page 349 of 396 Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026 Page 8 of 8 Figure 6: View From Top of Staircase Centennial Beach A passive beach goer will be unable to avoid a dog they cannot see. The beach attendants Mr. Kutulas describes are assigned the duty to see that dogs are leashed, not to act as traffic cops for the staircase. If this traffic control were assigned, you would need three beach attendants to cover all the sight lines, and they would need flags to signal when the staircase is available for dogs or for passive beach goers. The gate will be open during the day all year round, but the Park only plans to hire beach attendants for swim season. Therefore, there will be no supervision of the stairs for three quarters of the year. The Commissions had concerns for safety of the shared pedestrian and dog access ramp contained in 24-08-SU and recommended against granting that permit. The current permit, 25- 28-SU, using the existing staircase for beach access by passive beach goers and dogs is even more dangerous than the ramp the Commissions recommended against last year. The ZBA should recommend against 25-28-SU because shared access of the staircase by dogs and passive beach goers is detrimental to the public health and safety of the public. Sincerely, John W. Root cc: Members of the Village Zoning Board of Appeals Page 350 of 396 Page 351 of 396 Page 352 of 396 Page 353 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Subject: ZBA Meeting 9 March 2026 Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:23:46 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. Ann, Please pass letter below on to the Zoning Board of Appeals for tonight’s meeting. I can’t attend tonight. Thank you very much. Joanna Karatzas 9 March 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding: Fence proposed by the Winnetka Park District on Centennial Beach. Commissioners; The Winnetka Park District presented plans during the Winnetka Park Board meeting on February 26, 2026 for extensive fencing at Centennial Beach. Again the plans do not include visuals of adjacency conditions such as the breakwater at the south boundary of Centennial. Furthermore, actual critical dimensions are missing from the drawings. What is the width of the passage between the proposed fence and the steps over the breakwater? Where exactly is the property line between Centennial and 205 Sheridan? Before any decisions can be made the WPD should bother to provide this board and the public with a staked survey and accurate dimensions. The fence, the property line and the breakwater all angle toward each other converging near the steps of the breakwater. Whose property is the public going to be walking on when exercising their Public Trust Doctrine rights? How tight is the space between the steps and the stairs? WPD never seems to get to that level of detail yet asks for a special permit. Shouldn’t this board see a staked survey and accurate dimensions before reviewing the feasibility or necessity of the fence? Please deny this special use permit. Joanna Karatzas Winnetka Sent from my iPhone Page 354 of 396 Page 355 of 396 Page 356 of 396 Page 357 of 396 Page 358 of 396 Page 359 of 396  ATTACHMENT C From: To: Ann Klaassen Cc: Subject: Centennial Beach signage language and origin re WPD fence SUP permit Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:21:13 AM Attachments: WIlliams to Simon May 2 2025 4921-8378-0506.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ann, At a recent ZBA meeting addressing the WPD's request for fencing on Centennial Beach there were public comments and applicant responses regarding current signage on Centennial and other WPD beaches. Signs placed by the Park District. Please see attached conversation between WPD's attorney Adam Simon and 205 Sheridan Road upland owner's attorney David Williams. Attorney Williams requests beach signage and specific wording. After this communication, the WPD ordered, paid for, and installed the signage requested by the private neighbor. At the ZBA meeting, WPD staff said the Centennial signs had been in place since 2023. That can't be correct, given the attached is dated May, 2025. Please share this information with ZBA members and Village Board. Thank you, Laurie Morse - Page 360 of 396 Simon, Adam From: David B.H. Williams <williams@wbs-law.com> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 3:55 PM To: Simon, Adam Subject: RE: 261 Sheridan [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Use Caution when opening attachments or links from unknown senders. Adam: Following on our call, please find below the sign that we discussed that is currently at the southern boundary of Lloyd Beach: 1 Page 361 of 396 After you discuss with staff, I look forward to having the same signs installed on the beach at:  The southern boundary of Centennial.  The northern boundary of Centennial.  The southern boundary of Elder; and  The northern boundary of Elder. 2 Page 362 of 396 Philip Enquist 476 Provident Ave. Winnetka, Illinois 60093 April 9, 2026 Dear Design Review Board At the January 28th Plan Commission meeting, the Winnetka community learned of the details for the proposed fences which would define the future dog beach at Centennial Beach, as proposed by the Winnetka Park District. The proposed design was for two, 4’ high fences, that would run into the lake waters for approximately 15’ to a water depth of 1.5’ to 2’. Four gates would create entrances, a pair at the north and a pair at the south. As I listened to this presentation, I wondered who is representing child safety concerns? Shallow water (1.5 – 2 feet) allows easy wading around these fences and children potentially meandering behind fences and become vulnerable to separation from families. A dog owner also spoke that obstructions like fences can create unsafe conditions for the dogs. Residents at the January 28th meeting suggested rational strategies that would avoid fences extending into the water. These alternative concepts should be explored and alternatives presented publicly. The community also showed research of what other Illinois communities are doing, especially the letter (dated January 26, 2026) from John Root. The WPD admitted that they had not gone to see these other beaches. TheWPD proposal is a bad idea. These fences would fragment Winnetka’s open, unobstructed beach, but more importantly, I believe they would create significant safety issues. The Winnetka Park District’s proposal is full of issues and is poorly conceived. Please do not approve this fence special use permit proposal, but rather recommend further research and alternative concepts that may not require fencing on the actual beach. A month or so later, a second proposal was offered by the WPD that had extensive fences running parallel to the waterfront on the sand beaches. It was another WPD bad idea. Both I think, are up for your review and discussion. Page 363 of 396 Centennial Beach is one of the most beautiful beaches in Winnetka and it should simply remain that way. It is common sense. We all have a responsibility to protect this beach for future generations. It is on our watch and we must be its stewards. It doesn't need to be fragmented, fenced, or chopped up into separate pieces. It should remain open, respected and cherished. Thank you for your diligence and time related to these issues. Phil Enquist Fellow, American Institute of Architects Adjunct Professor, UIC College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs Page 364 of 396 From: To: Ann Klaassen Cc: Robert Dearborn; Subject: WPD’s Lake Michigan chain-link fencing designs Date: Friday, April 10, 2026 10:46:42 AM Attachments: 4D787307-BD84-4E61-B778-9F98D1D93368.png 3D7923BD-0EDE-473C-8767-8CD0E21ECBA7.png F376E833-751E-405D-B62A-74521007C2A5.png DA384C67-FD72-4273-8566-7662D91F6F4C.png 9BAEA904-59BF-4645-9894-2384ED54F434.png Seiler Kutulas Text1.PNG Seiler Kutulas Text2.PNG WPD AECOM FailedSteelGroin Breakwater 2025.pdf 2006 Meeting MinutesDogParkRejected.pdf Kutulas Seiler USACE PublicCommentsOnFence.pdf Follow UpSeiler Kutulas CentennialFence.pdf WIlliams to Simon May 2 2025 4921-8378-0506.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Ann: Would you please provide my email and attachments to the Design Review Board (“DRB”) ahead of its April 16, 2026 meeting? The Village of Winnetka is known for its exacting design standards. It was the first locality in the nation to prohibit McDonalds from putting up its golden arches. Today, I ask the DRB to uphold Winnetka’s well-known standards by declining to recommend what would be WPD’s only lakefront chainlink fencing. It is ugly, out of character, would denigrate the neighborhood, and pose many unacceptable risks—including property value degradation. VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS PROHIBIT CHAIN LINK FENCING Page 365 of 396  As a point of reference, when the Village granted WPD a Special Use Permit for Elder in 2001, it did not include approval for using chain-link fencing, see pdf attached. Allowing chain-link fencing at Centennial now would degrade not only the neighborhood’s remaining character, but the entire Village. Page 366 of 396 Page 367 of 396 Centennial Beach looking south in 2025, with fencing on groin: Page 368 of 396 January 2023 photos of WPD’s unlawful fencing Page 369 of 396 WPD’s Policy Manual recognizes the importance of ensuring park designs are consistent with community standards, mentioning their impact on property values. Page 370 of 396 PUBLIC OPPOSITION The public has consistently opposed barriers and structures that block passage and views at the beach, and relies on Village guidelines to protect design integrity. Page 371 of 396 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Falling within the Zoning Code’s comprehensive framework, Winnetka’s design guidelines contemplate safe building methods. I am worried that the Village Engineer and consulting coastal engineer may not have been informed that AECOM told WPD at least 12 months ago that the steel groin(s) to which WPD would attach and re-attach its dangerous fencing, has not been maintained. See attached pdf below. WPD’s southern steel groin, and possibly the northern groin as well, is unsafe, unstable, eroded, and needs to be stabilized. This is safety information that the Design Review Board should use. Unsafe designs for WPD’s implausible Great Lakes chainlink fencing project are unacceptable in Winnetka. Page 372 of 396 MAINTENANCE ISSUES With respect to WPD’s sandy beach-based chain-link fencing, I point you to Mr. Kutulas’s response to prior questions on the 39” stacked single gate corridor on the fencing’s southern end. He said WPD would not maintain the public beach south of this yardstick wide corridor. However, debris, dead marine life, and even boats will inevitably wash ashore between the fencing and 205 Sheridan’s stone breakwater. People may have to be rescued. Standards set by the Village’s design guidelines require these maintenance considerations to be taken into account. Boat beached at Lloyd after being buffeted by waves in 2025–first responders were called to the scene. Page 373 of 396 DESIGN STANDARDS SHOULD NOT BE DISCARDED TO SERVE OBSCURE INTERESTS WPD has been communicating with 205 Sheridan’s counsel/representatives about dog beach fencing and zoning. WPD even agreed to put up publicly-funded signage warning people away from traversing the shoreline. WPD staff proactively sent the public’s comments for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“USACE”) fence permit review to 205 Sheridan’s project manager (see attachments below). The rest of us had to submit FOIA requests to receive USACE’s public comment file. That same 205 Sheridan project manager texted staff to ask whether, after WPD’s 2025 sandy beach-based fencing project was approved, the fencing would be moved to the steel groins under an amended permit. See attached texts at bottom. Page 374 of 396 In 2022 Orchard’s consultant directed WPD to emphasize dog beach usage numbers to support a need for beach walls. Similar efforts related to chainlink fencing are not legitimate reasons to waive Winnetka’s Design Guidelines. Page 375 of 396 COOK COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL RULES ARE A SMOKESCREEN Cook County’s Animal Control rules do not require dog beach fencing. What the Code does require is four-sided fencing on “areas of land” that are “dog parks,” or vicious animal Page 376 of 396 enclosures. This is why, over the course of multiple years, WPD has been unable to produce documents from Cook County ordering it to put up fencing in conformance with dog park rules. Cook County’s known inquiries about WPD’s project concern signage, waste receptacles, and vaccination requirements. Like the public, Cook County’s further concern is “whether the fencing provides sufficient access to the water under the law.” WPD’s efforts do not warrant waiving Village design guidelines. WPD representatives’ March 2026 meeting. 2025 email communication Page 377 of 396 Page 378 of 396 Please decline to recommend approval of WPD’s design guideline-violating fencing on Centennial beach. Thank you. Kris Schriesheim Winnetka resident Page 379 of 396 Page 380 of 396 Page 381 of 396  AECOM 847-323-2171 tel 303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601-5276 www.aecom.com April 17, 2025 Mr. James P. Casey Mr. Steve Altman Illinois Department of Natural Resources Lake Michigan Section 160 N LaSalle Street, Suite 703 Chicago, IL 60601 Subject: Shoreline Protection Project in Lake Michigan (Permit LM 2023004) 205 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, Ill. North Stone Groin Design Adjustment Dear Jim and Steve, This letter is with reference to a shoreline project that was approved by IDNR on May 2, 2023. Winter storms have caused erosion at the east end of the North Stone Groin. The Winnetka Park District steel groin, which is located immediately north of the stone groin, has experienced failure. The steel cap on top of the steel groin has been dislodged by wave attack this past winter. Also, the steel sheet piles at the eastern portion of this groin are loose due to the damaged cap. Winter wave conditions have caused significant erosion at the end of the Orchard stone groin. Wave attack at the east end of the damaged groin causes water jets through the steel sheet joints and uneven overtopping flow and turbulence on the Orchard side of the steel groin. This situation has caused a deep scour hole formation on both sides of the groin. On the Orchard beach side of the scour, the scour hole is 7’ or deeper with a scour hole width that is 50 to 60 feet wide. The deepest area is immediately south of the steel groin and east of the Orchard stone groin. The scour extends to the Orchard stone groin toe of slope. We propose to add toe stones to buttress the existing stone groin toe stones to address the scour impacts. The proposed line of toe stones will front the existing toe of the stone groin and will be buried to the clay layer elevation. The added toe stones will rest on clay. And the toe stones will be recessed below the existing lakebed as shown on the attached drawings. We have met with the Park District to discuss this issue. We have met with the Winnetka Park District to make them aware of this matter. Please let us know if you approve this request. Please issue a letter of determination regarding this proposed plan adjustment. If you have any questions, please call me on the following number (847 - 323 -2171). Best Regards, William J. Weaver, P.E., BC.WRE Vice President – Sr. Principal Engineer 1|1 Page 382 of 396  SCOUR HOLE BOTTOM (7' DEEP) OUR RE UEST FOR TOE STONES TO ADDRESS THE EROSION CAUSED BY THE WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT GROIN NO LONGER INCLUDES REPAIR TO THAT GROIN. THIS GROIN IS A WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT STRUCTURE. WE HAVE NOTIFIED THE PARK DISTRICT AND MET WITH THEM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER A PROPOSED 4.25 TON TOE STONES ON CLAY B 7' 30 20 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 577 x586 x587 578 1.5:1 1.5:1 577 579 578 1.5:1 579 0 58 580 1.5:1 581 581 582 2 x586 58 1.5:1 N 583 583 584 584 585 585 Page 383 of 396  Amended MINUTES OF THE 2, 172ND REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND OFFICERS OF THE WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2006 President Garrison called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. and Secretary McElroy took roll call. Present were Commissioners Murphy, Sherman, Thomas, Snyder and Garrison. Also present were staff members McElroy, Farmer, Smith, Volpe, and Gullen. Absent: Kurtz and Smith . Visitors: Jill Meyer, Frank Bickmore, Dorothy Bickmore, Joanne Benson, Pat Horne and Angie DeMars. AUGUST VOUCHERS The Board reviewed the voucher list and questions were answered by staff. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Voucher List as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Snyder and a roll call vote was taken. — Voting Aye: Commissioners Murphy, Sherman, Snyder, Thomas and Garrison — Voting Nay: None Absent: Kurtz and Smith MOTION CARRIED JULY 2006 FINANCIALS The Board was presented with the Financials for June 2006. After review, Commissioner Murphy moved to approve the Financials as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and passed by a voice vote. Page 384 of 396 REMARKS FROM VISITORS Frank and Dorothy Bickmore along with Jill Meyer business owners in the Hubbard Woods District, presented the Board with a petition with 35 signatures from the businesses in the Hubbard Woods area. Mr. Bickmore said that the owners support the Hubbard Woods park improvements. They will continue to seek more signatures. The Board thanked them for their support. Commissioner Smith arrived at 7:10 pm. CONSENT AGENDA Park Board Minutes from July 13 & July 20 Safety Minutes from July Fence Bids Commissioner Murphy moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by — Nay: Aye: CARRIED MOTIONKurtz Voting Absent: None Commissioners Murphy, Sherman, Snyder, Thomas, Smith and Garrison  Continued Minutes from the 2,172nd Regular Board meeting, August 17, 2006 LONG RANGE PLAN The Board was presented with the Long Range Plan. A lengthy discussion ensued with minor adjustments to the LRP. After further review, Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the 2006-2007 Long Range Plan as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Murphy and a roll call vote was taken. — Voting Aye: Commissioners Murphy, Thomas, Smith and Garrison — Voting Nay: None Abstained: Sherman and Snyder Absent: Kurtz MOTION CARRIED ENVIRONMENTAL, PERSONNEL, BOARD COMIVIITTEE AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS POLICIES The Board reviewed the policies presented. The Board directed staff under the Educational Policy to include a “Unless death or disability”, to the reimbursement statement. Commissioner Thomas asked that the policies as presented be approved at the next meeting for further comments. Thomas further stated that a policy be drafted on the review and approval of all policies. Page 385 of 396 Policies should be presented and reviewed at one meeting in draft form. The policy would then be placed on agenda at the following meeting for ?nal approval. DOG PARK OPTIONS Pat Horne and Angie DeMars were present to encourage the District consider a Dog Park in the community. Mrs. Horne and Ms. DeMars would spearhead fundraising for fencing, the gate system and any other essentials needed for the park. The park would be paid for with private funding. Director McElroy stated that the Caucus survey results indicated that the community might be interested in a dog park. Staff investigated six sites, but only two should be considered. Crow Island Woods west of the Shelter and Centennial Park on the upper bluff. Discussion ensued on the consideration of both sites. Some Commissioners feel that we are overloading Crow Island. McElroy suggested having public hearings to discuss both sites. meet STRATEGIC Commissioner Director PLAN withMcElroy noted Ron Vine October moved on that Murphy staff will adjourn to5th meeting to be the incorporate to regular new survey aat thedevelop meeting results pm. Strategic 8:40into to enter the strategic Board Plan. into an and plan. staff will Executive  Continued‘Minutes from the 2,172“l Regular Board meeting, August 17, 2006 Session for the purpose of discussion of lease or purchase of real property pursuant to Section 2(c)(5) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sherman and a roll call vote was taken. — Voting Aye: Commissioners Murphy, Sherman, Snyder, Thomas, Smith and Garrison — Voting Nay: None Absent: Kurtz MOTION CARRIED At 9:03 p.m., President Garrison stated that the Board met in Executive Session for the purpose of discussion of lease or purchase of real property pursuant to Section 2(c)(5) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.. The Board will not be taking any ?nal action at this meeting on the matter discussed in closed session. Commissioner Murphy moved to adjourn the Board meeting at 8:52 pm. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed by a voice vote. Page 386 of 396  Amended MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT, WINNETKA, ILLINOIS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 President Garrison called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. and Secretary McElroy took roll call. Present were Commissioners Kurtz, Sherman, Snyder, Thomas, Smith and Garrison. Also present were Attorney Holtz, Ted F lickinger, Executive Director of the Illinois Association of Park Districts. Absent: Murphy Commissioner Thomas moved to enter into Executive Session under Section 2 c (16) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act for the purpose of self evaluation with a representative of the statewide association of which the Winnetka Park District is a member. The motion was seconded by Kurtz and a roll call vote was taken. Voting Aye: Snyder, Sherman, Thomas, Kurtz, Smith and Garrison. Voting Nay: None Absent: Murphy MOTION CARRIED Commissioner arrived at 7:05 pm. At 8:50 pm, the Board reconvened in open session, President Garrison stated that the Board met in Executive Session for the purpose of self evaluation with a representative of the state association of which Winnetka is a member pursuant to Section 2 c (16) of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The Board took no action at this time. Commissioner Murphy moved to adjourn the Special Meeting of the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners at 8:55 pm. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith and passed with a voice vote. Page 387 of 396  MINUTES OF THE DOG PARK PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, AND SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 2006 Approximately 85 residents attended the Public Hearings. President Garrison at both Hearings stated that the Winnetka Park District, in response to last year’s Caucus Survey have come up with two options for a dog park. One being, Centennial Park on the lakefront and Crow Island Park. Garrison also stated that the Park District received over 50 letters and e-mails opposing a dog park. At both Hearings, those opposed to a leash free dog park in either Crow Island Park or Centennial outnumbered the proponents. Neighbors of Centennial Park voiced their concern by the possibility that nearly all its bluff open space be given over to the dogs. Many Sheridan Road residents who are dog owners, even opposed the proposal. Concern was expressed over the size of the proposed park. One acre would not be large enough and should be at least two to four maybe even ?ve acres and neither site is large enough. Crow Island Park is currently used as more of a nature park with trails and open space, allot of barking dogs added to this area would disrupt the quiet nature of this park. There is limited parking and Euclid, the road next the park is a dead ends and not suitable for this amount of traf?c. The park is right next to a grade school and many children are afraid of dogs. Concerns regarding Centennial Park included the proximity to Sheridan road and dogs getting loose and running into the busy street. This park has less parking than Crow Island and can barely accommodate the beach users. The space at Centennial is the last of the open space along the lakefront and should not be fenced and use limited to dogs. This is a beautiful park and should be kept that way. Page 388 of 396 There were residents in favor of a dog park, but not in the two locations presented. Suggestions were offered of other locations such as the land?ll or the Cook County Forest preserve land.  Continued minutes of the 2,175‘h Regular Board Meeting October 26, 2006 Further, anyone making such a proposal should be aware the Park District does not have capital funds available for building a new children’s park nor relocating the forest area. Commissioner Snyder seconded the amendment. Further discussion ensued. President Garrison asked for a vote on the amended motion. — Voting Aye: Commissioners Murphy, Sherman, Snyder, Thomas, Smith and Garrison — Voting Nay: None Absent: Kurtz MOTION CARRIED President Garrison stated the Park District would work with the Village on this project. DOG PARK OPTIONS President Garrison stated that the Park District held two public hearings on potential site options for a dog park. Based on the feedback neither Crow Island nor Centennial are feasible options for a dog park. McElroy stated that surrounding park districts are also looking for dog park options. McElroy continued that a piece of land just east of Eden’s would be a great location, but is owned by the Cook County Forest Preserve. The Northfield Park District is also interested in pursuing this site. Staff will be contacting other District’s to see if it’s worth pursuing that piece of property and then contact Cook County Forest Preserve District. Commissioner Smith moved that a dog park is not an option within the Winnetka Park District boundaries, Page 389 of 396 and that staff pursue the forest preserve for a piece of land. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Murphy and passed by a voice vote. SERVICE CENTER Commissioner Kurtz joined the meeting via phone at 7:45 pm. President Garrison stated that a motion was tabled at the last meeting regarding the service center and asked if anyone would like to remove the motion from the table. Commissioner Sherman moved to remove the table and was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and passed by a voice vote. President Garrison restated the motion that was tabled at the last Board meeting: Commissioner Thomas moved to adopt the location in Option 1 for the site of the new service center and any further facilities that the Park District may construct. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kurtz. Mr. & Mrs. Hilardes voiced their concern about locating the Service Center on the Morrow site. to storage Center be without Option relocated1: usedand location residential area. for isThere Site golf $3,689,807. Service were course Center utilities centrally isruptionduring is constructed Service areonly Existing not locatedtwo to A construction; An few Center the adjacent operations. golfsite. toofisthe adjacent disadvantages: to course; nine additional Morrow The One demolished new andis advantages hole play?eld on were: Property converted the Service created o site. Par at3 course Service Center Center Estimated is location play?eld. existing cost Compost is not site; The new recon?gured, can one without Area operations totee Service adjacent any heated box continues continue From: Gregg Seiler To: Costa Kutulas Subject: Re: Centennial Temporary Dog Fencing Permit - USACE - Public Comment Date: Thursday, July 24, 2025 1:38:20 PM Attachments: inky-injection-inliner-6f42d488d348cfcd86bff9497caf9f6a.png inky-injection-inliner-6a9e59993396d34ff3b949b1a5797016.png External (gs@seilerconsulting.com) Safe Spam Phish More... FAQ Protection by INKY Costa, Thank you for the heads up. I’ll call you if I have any questions. Best, Gregg GREGG SEILER PRESIDENT/CEO O 312.836.0540 C 312.320.4800 gs@seilerconsulting.com SEILER CONSULTING, LTD. 730 N Franklin Street Suite 501 Chicago, IL 60654 seilerconsulting.com This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by calling (312) 836- 0540. Seiler Consulting, Ltd. accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use of this message and/or any attachments, including damage from viruses. From: Costa Kutulas <CKutulas@winpark.org> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 1:31:56 PM To: Gregg Seiler <gs@seilerconsulting.com> Subject: Centennial Temporary Dog Fencing Permit - USACE - Public Comment Afternoon Gregg, Page 390 of 396 I wanted to share with you a link to the USACE public comment for the Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Permit. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jul/15/2003754325/-1/-1/0/LRC-2023-082_PN.PDF If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Thanks, Costa Kutulas Director of Parks and Maintenance P: (847) 501-2052 E: ckutulas@winpark.org Winnetka Park District | winpark.org Page 391 of 396 From: Costa Kutulas To: Gregg Seiler Subject: Follow Up Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 10:21:51 PM Attachments: Updated Dog Beach Temp Fencing Plan w_Dog Waste Receptacles, Signage, Waste Bags 5-22-2025.pdf Gregg, This is the current design that is out for permit. Have a good weekend, Costa Sent from my iPhone Page 392 of 396 Simon, Adam From: David B.H. Williams <williams@wbs-law.com> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 3:55 PM To: Simon, Adam Subject: RE: 261 Sheridan [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Use Caution when opening attachments or links from unknown senders. Adam: Following on our call, please find below the sign that we discussed that is currently at the southern boundary of Lloyd Beach: 1 Page 393 of 396 After you discuss with staff, I look forward to having the same signs installed on the beach at:  The southern boundary of Centennial.  The northern boundary of Centennial.  The southern boundary of Elder; and  The northern boundary of Elder. 2 Page 394 of 396 ORDINANCE NO. M-14-2001 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RENOVATION OF ELDER LANE PARK WHEREAS, the Winnetka Park District is the owner of a parcel of real estate (the “Subject Property”) located at 225 Sheridan Road, which is commonly known as the Elder Lane Park and is legally described as follows: Lots 2, 3 and 4 and the north 30 feet of Lot 5, and the vacated street known as Bellevue Place, in the re-subdivision of Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the vacated street known as Bellevue Place, lying between Blocks 1 and 2 on the east and Blocks 3 and 4 on the west, in the Lake Shore Subdivision of Lot 1 in Nicholas Simon and others’ Subdivision of part of the Southeast fractional quarter of Section 21 and the Southwest fractional quarter of Section 22, Township 42 North, Range 13, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located adjacent to Lake Michigan in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District of the Village of Winnetka, as provided in Chapter 17.24 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Winnetka Village Code; and WHEREAS, Elder Lane Park is a public park consisting of a playground area, bushes, patios, walkways, stairways, fencing, lighting and a parking area at the top of the bluff, and a beach and beach house along the shore of the lake; and WHEREAS, Elder Lane Park is a public use, permitted as a special use in all zoning districts, subject to the conditions and requirements pertaining to special uses, as set forth in Chapter 17.56 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Winnetka Park District has submitted an application to the Village of Winnetka seeking a special use permit pursuant to said Chapter 17.56, to permit the renovation of the existing facilities at Elder Lane Park by providing new playground equipment, picnic tables, benches, patios, walkways, stairways, fencing, landscaping and lighting, and by replacing the beach house and by adding a handicap accessible parking space; and WHEREAS, upon due notice on April 9, 2001, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the proposed special use and, by the unanimous vote of the five members then present, has reported to the Council recommending that the requested special use be granted; and WHEREAS, upon due notice, the Design Review Board met on April 5, 2001, to consider the redesign of the playground and by the unanimous vote of the five members then present, has submitted comment on the proposal, stating that the proposed alterations would be an improvement to the park, that the playground, lighting and arrangement of the fixtures are excellent additions, and that the proposed new beach house, particularly the all-stone alternative, is an improvement over the existing structure; and WHEREAS, upon due notice, the Plan Commission met on April 11, 2001, to consider the application of the Park District and, by the unanimous vote of the nine members then present, recommended that the special use be granted, based on findings that the proposed renovations to Elder Lane Park are consistent with (a) the goals and objectives of Winnetka 2020, the Winnetka Comprehensive Plan, pertaining to the preservation of open space and recreational opportunities, the encouragement of landscaping and other efforts to beautify the Village, the reduction and control of light pollution, the preservation and enhancement of the bluffs, beaches and Lake Michigan shorelines, and the use of high quality design and materials for public improvement; and (b) with the recommendations of Winnetka 2020 pertaining to providing adequate parking, developing on-site solutions for parking, and minimizing the adverse impact of recreational uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the proposed renovation of Elder Lane Park will benefit the public health, safety, comfort, morals and general welfare of the Village, in that: (a) the safety, accessibility and appearance of the entire park will be improved by the installation of new playground equipment and safety surfacing; and (b) the other proposed improvements will bring Elder Lane Park into compliance with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including providing accessibility to the beach that is not currently provided; and WHEREAS, the proposed special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity, because the park is established in the neighborhood, and the renovation of the park: (a) will not increase the intensity of the existing use; (b) will enhance parking lot screening; (c) will not result in the loss of green space; (d) will improve both the functionality and appearance of the park; and (e) will improve the appearance of the park because the Park District has modified its plans to incorporate comments from the neighbors by replacing an unattractive chain link fence with decorative fencing, using muted colors, and restricting light placement, levels of illumination and hours of operation; and WHEREAS, the proposed special use will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted under applicable zoning regulations, because the park is a long-established use in the neighborhood and neither the type nor intensity of use of the Subject Property will be changed; and WHEREAS, adequate measures have been taken to provide parking and to provide ingress and egress in a manner that minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion by maintaining the existing parking area, including the existing points of ingress and egress, and by adding a handicap accessible parking space adjacent to the beach house; and WHEREAS, adequate access roads, utilities, drainage and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exist, including existing overhead utilities, which will be placed underground; and WHEREAS, the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do ordain: SECTION 1: The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as their findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Winnetka Village Code, and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, a special use permit is hereby granted with respect to the Subject Property, commonly known as Elder Page 395 of 396 Lane Park, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District provided in said Zoning Ordinance, to permit the renovation of the Subject Property by installing new playground equipment, picnic tables, benches, patios, walkways, stairways, fencing, lighting and landscaping, by replacing the existing beach house and by adding handicap accessible parking, said work to be done in accordance with the application for special use permit and the plans dated October 19, 2000, with modifications as presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 3: The special use permit hereby granted is subject to the following conditions: (1) the proposed construction shall commence within 12 months after the effective date of this Ordinance; (2) the proposed practice ball field, soccer field and volleyball courts depicted in the bluff area of the site plan shall not be used for regularly scheduled program activities; (3) no permanent improvements or structures shall be added to allow the use, as such, of the proposed ball field, soccer field and volleyball courts depicted in the bluff area of the site plan; and (4) the final landscape, lighting plan and building materials shall be subject to approval by the Village Council, following review and recommendations from the Design Review Board and Forestry Commission. SECTION 4: Pursuant to Section 17.56.010.G of the Zoning Ordinance, all stipulations, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Ordinance as part of the terms under which the special use is granted, may be modified or revised from time to time by the Village Council following public notice and hearing, using the same procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for processing the original special use application. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and posting. ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 2001, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: Trustees Aquilino, Brower, Greenough, Powell, Presser and Woodbury NAYS: None ABSENT: None APPROVED this 5th day of June, 2001. Signed: /s/Michael F. Duhl Village President Countersigned: /s/Douglas G. Williams Village Clerk Introduced: May 15, 2001 Posted: May 16, 2001 Passed and Approved: June 5, 2001 Posted: June 6, 2001 Page 396 of 396