Plan Commission

Village of Winnetka Plan Commission Regular Meeting November 19, 2025 at 7:00 PM Police Department Classroom 410 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order & Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. September 24, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes b. October 22, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Public Comments 4. Community Development Report 5. Continued Applications a. Case No. 25-21-SU: 564 Lincoln Avenue - Corley North Shore LLC Real Estate Office: An application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Corley North Shore LLC, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 564 Lincoln Avenue to allow a real estate office in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by 562-72 Lincoln Avenue, LLC. This item was continued from the October 22, 2025, Plan Commission meeting. The Applicant has withdrawn this application. The Plan Commission will not be taking any action on this application. 6. New Applications a. Case No. 25-25-SD: 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of (i) a Final Plat of Subdivision to consolidate the two existing lots known as 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road into a single Lot of Record, which requires (a) a zoning variation to permit the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road to observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the west property line; (b) a finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road, which does not provide the required building line articulation; and (c) a Special Use Permit to allow the consolidation that is greater than two times the minimum required lot size for an interior lot in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 7. New Business a. December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check 8. Adjournment Page 1 of 62  NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 2 of 62  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Jonathan Alt 6 Christopher Blum 7 Matthew Bradley 8 Chris Enck 9 Liz Kunkle 10 Cyrus Subawalla 11 Kate Van Vlack 12 13 Members Absent: Mamie Case 14 15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic 16 17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 19 Development 20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 21 22 Call to Order & Roll Call: 23 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the 24 Commission Members present. 25 26 Approval of July 23, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes: 27 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the July 23, 2025, regular meeting minutes. A motion 28 to approve the July 23, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley and seconded by Mr. Blum. A 29 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0: 30 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack 31 NAYS: None 32 NON-VOTING: Orsic 33 34 Public Comment: 35 No comments were made at this time. 36 37 Community Development Report: 38 Mr. Mangum provided an update on the affordable housing plan approved by the Village Council and 39 submitted for review by the state. He also provided an update on the special use permit application by 40 Charles Schwab in the One Winnetka development which was approved by the Village Council. 41 42 New Applications: 43 a. Case No. 25-12-SD: 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road: Applications seeking approval of a 44 Final Plat of Subdivision to relocate the lot line dividing the two properties, which requires (i) variations 45 to allow: (a) proposed Lot 1 (883 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required front street 46 line for an interior lot; (b) proposed Lot 2 (881 Private Road) to provide less than the minimum required 47 lot depth; (c) the existing residence at 881 Private Road to observe less than the minimum required 48 total side yard setback, which is due to an increase in the minimum required total side yard setback as Page 3 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 2 1 a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; and (ii) a finding of 2 "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" for the existing residence at 881 Private Road, which exceeds 3 the maximum permitted width for a front-facing attached garage. The Village Council has final 4 jurisdiction on this request. 5 Chairperson Danley summarized the application and asked the Commission Members if they had any 6 preliminary comments. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen referred to the variations 7 being requested as well as the finding of no material increased adverse impact from an existing 8 nonconformity for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Village Council. She identified the 9 properties’ location, zoning classification, size and the existing structures and noted both are flag lots and 10 legally nonconforming. She noted the applicants have entered into a sales contract to convey a triangular 11 portion of the 883 Private parcel and consolidate with the 881 Private parcel. Ms. Klaassen also 12 summarized the application review by the ZBA and noted no easements are required by the Village’s 13 Engineering and Water and Electric Departments. She then identified the factors the Commission is to 14 consider and stated following the applicant’s presentation and public comment, a draft motion is included 15 on page 19 of the agenda packet for the Commission to consider. Ms. Klaassen noted no public comment 16 was received on the application and asked if there were any questions. 17 18 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 19 20 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., 21 introduced himself and Jesse Van Dyke, the property owner of 881 Private Road, to the Commission and 22 stated the engineer, Dan Creaney, is also present to answer any technical plat questions. Mr. Canning 23 stated the parcel in question is a triangular parcel measuring 1,387 square feet with a sales contract being 24 conditioned upon zoning approval. He also stated the request would be presented to the ZBA and 25 described the two flag lot configurations. Mr. Canning summarized the existing conditions as well as the 26 front lot line and minimum lot depth. He then outlined the FOIA request he submitted to the Community 27 Development Department with regard to minimum front lot line and referred to lots which are similarly 28 situated in terms of driveway width. Mr. Canning stated there is an unintended consequence of moving 29 the triangle which resulted in the home encroaching into the side yard and confirmed the home would 30 not become larger. He also referred to the no material increased adverse impact standard and the 1993 31 garage expansion following the Commission’s approval which was not an issue at that time. Mr. Canning 32 asked the Commission to agree with that finding in that the garage is of a greater width than is permitted. 33 He stated the requested variations are for existing conditions and are a result of the attempt to square 34 off the lot. Mr. Canning referred to a slide in the presentation which depicted the area they are attempting 35 to rectify by the purchase of the triangular portion of the 883 parcel so that the 881 parcel can make full 36 use of the garage bay. He concluded by asking for a positive recommendation and asked if there were any 37 questions. 38 39 Chairperson Danley asked if there has never been garage access since the applicants purchased the home. 40 Mr. Canning responded the prior owner used the north bay for storage and described the many 41 movements required to get a vehicle into the north bay. 42 43 Mr. Blum asked if there was ever access on the northwest corner via Ravine Drive to the 883 parcel. Mr. 44 Canning responded he did not know and referred to the number of flag lots in the area and also described 45 the dimension as not being unusual. Mr. Enck asked if there are any immediate plans to build on the 883 46 parcel. Mr. Canning responded it is not considered as part of the application. Mr. Enck asked if there is 47 future building on the lot later, would be problematic in terms of access. Mr. Canning described proposed 48 siting for any future building on the site. Ms. Van Vlack asked about eliminating access and how that could Page 4 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 3 1 be an issue. Mr. Canning stated the purchase and sale agreement is related to the triangle and the 2 authorization provided to the 881 parcel by the 883 parcel. 3 4 Mr. Alt asked if the driveway on the 881 parcel would be modified. Mr. Van Dyke informed the 5 Commission that approximately 8 feet of asphalt would be added to access the northernmost garage bay 6 as well as landscaping. No additional questions were raised at this time. 7 8 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. She then called the 9 matter in for discussion. Chairperson Danley described the request as a neighbor to neighbor exchange 10 and noted there is no public comment. 11 12 Trustee Orsic stated due to the fact no neighbors are involved, this isn’t facing a street, it isn’t impacting 13 neighbors or the character other than a future home being built, she is not a voting member but had no 14 issue with the request. Mr. Blum stated it made sense for it to be done with regard to the small triangular 15 area and he had no problem with the request. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made. Mr. Subawalla 16 also stated he had no issue with regard to the request. Mr. Alt agreed with the comments made and stated 17 there would be no material increased adverse impact and he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Bradley 18 stated he would reserve his comments until the matter is presented to the ZBA but agreed the garage 19 width did not rise to the level to meet the standard that there would be an increased material adverse 20 impact. Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and noted the property is located on a private road 21 and would have a minimal impact on neighbors. Chairperson Danley agreed with the comments and 22 referred to the existing nonconformities and the existing front facing garage. She concluded she is in favor 23 of the request. 24 25 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion as indicated on page 19 of the agenda packet. A motion to 26 recommend approval as indicated on page 19 for the proposed AJV Subdivision Final Plat relocating the 27 lot line dividing 881 Private Road and 883 Private Road as the final plat of subdivision was made by Ms. 28 Van Vlack and seconded by Ms. Kunkle. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 29 AYES: Alt, Blum, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack 30 NAYS: None 31 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic 32 33 b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 34 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed 35 Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required 36 rectangular buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No Material 37 Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a) 38 observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the 39 minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum permitted 40 width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 41 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members for any preliminary comments with regard to the 42 application. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen described the proposed subdivision of 43 the existing lot into two buildable lots. She noted the request is limited to the subdivision itself and the 44 existing improvements with no proposed improvements included as part of the request. Ms. Klaassen 45 identified the property’s location, zoning classification, existing improvements and measurements. She 46 stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property and surrounding properties as 47 appropriate for single family residential uses and the applicant’s use of the site is consistent with the 48 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Page 5 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 4 1 Ms. Klaassen described Lots 1 and 2 and the existing improvements on Lot 1. She noted the site was 2 originally platted as two lots similar to the current proposal and described the 1976 parcel created to 3 allow construction of the tennis court which would be removed as part of the proposal. Ms. Klaassen 4 noted Lot 1 complied with the zoning standards and summarized Lot 2’s noncompliance and the current 5 requirements in detail. She then identified the subdivision standards that proposed subdivisions are to 6 comply with which she described in detail. Ms. Klaassen referred to irregularly shaped lots in the 7 neighborhood and identified the three existing nonconformities. 8 9 Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the site is located entirely in the 100 year flood plain with 10 development on either lot being subject to the Village’s flood hazard protection ordinance as well as 11 MWRD requirements. She stated development on Lot 2 would require storm water detention and flood 12 plain compensatory storage. Ms. Klaassen referred the Commission to an image of a conceptual possible 13 home on the proposed vacant lot in response to the Village’s engineering comments on the proposed 14 subdivision which she described in detail along with compensatory storage and storm water detention. 15 Ms. Klaassen stated the Village’s Engineering Department confirmed with MWRD that surface 16 compensatory storage is acceptable provided it did not impact the storm water conveyance easement 17 and noted there are planned improvements to the Skokie Ditch resulting in increased capacity. She 18 reiterated the applicant is not proposing any new improvements on either lot at this time. 19 20 Ms. Klaassen stated the Water and Electric Department requested a 5-foot utility easement on proposed 21 Lot 2. She stated the ZBA would consider the request at its October 13, 2025, meeting and since the 22 agenda packet was posted, two letters were received from neighbors and provided to the Commission. 23 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission deliberation, 24 a draft motion is provided on page 56 for the Commission. She then asked if there were any questions. 25 26 Mr. Blum stated as his initial preliminary comment, he disclosed that he was on a different zoning board 27 for which an application for this property was presented 11 years ago and the application was withdrawn. 28 Mr. Bradley asked for clarification with regard to the lots appearing to be mirror properties and the forced 29 consolidation by the Village at the time. He asked if the application is a request to put the property back 30 to its original condition. Ms. Kunkle stated after the property was divided, it appeared that the Village 31 increased lot sizes with the neighborhood character now being called small estates. Mr. Alt asked if this is 32 the first stop for this application. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and outlined the application’s 33 presentation before the various boards. She stated there has been no record of a home being on the lot. 34 Ms. Klaassen also stated by shifting the dividing line between the two lots, it would require zoning relief 35 from the minimum lot depth requirement for Lot 1. Ms. Van Vlack expressed concern in the neighborhood 36 with regard to water displacement. She then referred to 901 and 905 Higginson which represented similar 37 situations of lots being subdivided into a nonconforming size in the R-2 district as well as the lot area 38 requirements at the time. Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the lot area requirement was increased 39 in 1999 and that it is likely a nonconforming lot with respect to at least the lot area requirements. She 40 added she is not sure when those lots were subdivided. 41 42 Mr. Subawalla asked if the southwest corner represented the lowest point in the neighborhood for the 43 adjacent lots and would result in a water catch point from the surrounding lots. He also asked if the 44 surrounding homes have their own storm water detention systems and where did the storm water 45 detention from this lot get released. Ms. Klaassen responded the proposed lot if developed would drain 46 to the Skokie Ditch and stated she could not speak to the elevation of this lot compared to others. She 47 confirmed the newer home to the west had compensatory storage and noted storm water detention 48 compliance is required with water runoff not being allowed to run to other lots. Mr. Blum questioned the Page 6 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 5 1 forced consolidation which Ms. Klaassen explained to the Commission. No additional questions were 2 raised at this time. 3 4 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., 5 introduced himself, Bob and Susan Marren, the property owners, and the project engineer, Dan Creaney 6 who prepared the exhibit the Commission Members discussed at the request of the Village Engineer 7 following the comments they made. He confirmed the matter did not relate to a hypothetical home but 8 only the lot. Mr. Canning stated to address Mr. Blum’s question, he explained the reason for their first 9 request to the ZBA. He then referred to 860 Lamson which added a tennis court on their property which 10 had to be consolidated which happened to this property in 1976 in connection with the 936 Sunset, and 11 further explained how 860 Lamson went through the same process to subdivide the lot back to its original 12 configuration. 13 14 Mr. Canning stated the current owners purchased the property in 2006 and are asking for the two lots to 15 be restored to the pre-1976 condition. He stated he discussed with Ms. Klaassen moving the lot line 16 between the lots, and the applicants are willing to amend their application. Mr. Canning stated if the 17 property line is moved north, they would be able to achieve the 3% needed to comply with lot area but it 18 would result in a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1. Mr. Canning stated they decided to go with the 19 pre-1976 condition and are willing to revisit the alternative if required by the ZBA. He stated it would not 20 change the rectangular variation issue, any storm water calculations or detention areas. Mr. Canning also 21 referred to other smaller homes in the area identified in the application materials and with regard to the 22 minimum rectangular area, he referred to the previous discussion which he cited for the Commission. Mr. 23 Canning referred to the standard addressing the minimum rectangular area which has not been met 24 resulting in the variation being sought in which the spirit of requirement existed has been met. 25 26 Mr. Canning also addressed the comment relating to rear lot lines not abutting side lot lines which 27 currently existed as well as in other areas on Higginson. He then addressed the no material increased 28 adverse impact comment and the letter received from the neighbor which only related to the existing 29 home and not the proposed Lot 2. Mr. Canning addressed the north setback issue which did not represent 30 a material adverse impact as well as the garage door measuring 16 feet which has existed for a long time. 31 He reiterated there is no request pertaining to the proposed Lot 2. 32 33 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the concerns raised with regard to the flood plain and storm water 34 section of Ms. Klaassen’s memo, the neighbors’ concerns relating to storm water need to be addressed. 35 He stated Mr. Creaney was brought in to address the concerns relating to storm water management 36 regulations and which was a concern to only one neighbor who raised no further concerns. Mr. Canning 37 summarized their response in the materials to the Village Engineer’s request addressing the easements, 38 rights-of-way, setback, maximum building footprint and available space for detention. He emphasized 39 that Exhibit 10 represented a demonstrative example of what could be done and cited language requiring 40 compliance with Village Engineering requirements. Mr. Canning identified surrounding homes built which 41 complied with the engineering requirements and identified 956 Sunset as an example. He then asked if 42 there were any questions. 43 44 Chairperson Danley asked if the applicants have a buyer for the adjacent lot. Mr. Canning responded there 45 is not. Chairperson Danley asked if thought was given to the lot being kept together which would create 46 a situation for the existing home being torn down and replaced and questioned the cost of building 47 detention on the lot. Mr. Canning responded it has not been priced out and an appraisal was submitted 48 estimating the value of the 936 parcel as consolidated and the two separate lots with there being a higher Page 7 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 6 1 return on two separate lots. 2 3 Mr. Blum asked for an explanation in terms of raising the home in the flood plain which Mr. Creaney 4 explained to the Commission in detail. Mr. Subawalla stated his concern related to if and when the lot 5 went into potential construction, if it would result in it being a contributory catch area for the other lots. 6 Mr. Creaney confirmed they are aware of it. Mr. Canning also referred to the engineering comments with 7 regard to the flood plain elevation. Mr. Blum asked if the lot line is moved north, what is the process in 8 that regard. Ms. Klaassen indicated it is possible to come back to the Commission at the next meeting. 9 The Commission Members discussed the possible outcomes if the lot line is moved and a new, larger home 10 is built and Ms. Klaassen referred to Table 4 on page 9 of the staff memo. Mr. Canning referred to homes 11 built on Meadow which are similar to this property with regard to the flood plain concerns raised. Mr. 12 Blum asked if the only factors the Commission are to consider is whether the nonconformity resulted in a 13 material increased adverse impact with regard to the front yard setback as well as the play structure. Mr. 14 Canning confirmed the play structure can be removed if necessary. 15 16 Ms. Van Vlack referred to flood water being a reality in the area and asked if any analysis was done of the 17 projected impact in terms of what has already been accomplished in connection with the Village’s flood 18 water project. Mr. Creaney described the project in detail that the Village has been working on it for years. 19 20 Chairperson Danley asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commission or the 21 public. No additional questions were raised at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion. 22 23 Mr. Blum stated this area has been particularly affected by flooding and described the proposal as well 24 presented the concerns being addressed. He referred to the Commission’s narrow scope in terms of their 25 review and stated the requested variations are minimal and there will be no increased adverse impact 26 along with the property’s history. Mr. Blum indicated he would be inclined to recommend approval not 27 knowing what may happen in the future in terms of development. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments 28 made and stated the lot line moving discussion would create another issue with regard to the variation. 29 He also referred to the fact the property would be reverting back to its original condition as well as there 30 being no precedent for it in this particular location. Mr. Enck stated future engineering issues would be 31 addressed at that point. Mr. Subawalla stated as long as the Village Council is cognizant of what is coming 32 down the pike, legally, it would be fine. Mr. Alt stated he had concerns with regard to the precedent it 33 would set and if the Commission decided a subdivision is fine knowing going forward what is possible 34 which did not adhere to conformity requirements, he would vote against the request. Ms. Van Vlack 35 commented the opinions expressed are valid and with regard to the scope of the Commission’s review, 36 she described it as straightforward. She then stated the concerns expressed with regard to it not 37 conforming to be a 24,000 square foot lot, that would warrant revisiting maintaining those standards 38 although that did not address water concerns and there being an effort to mitigate those issues by the 39 Village. 40 41 Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request with consideration of revisions to comply 42 with lot standards. Mr. Bradley stated he appreciated the flood plain and storm water comments and with 43 regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the request would result in the creation of two legally complying R-2 44 lots with the exception of the 3% minimum lot area and rectangular shape. He stated it would be difficult 45 to say these two lots would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and referred to the problems in 46 connection with building in the flood plain which would be addressed by engineering and compliance 47 requirements. Mr. Bradley stated it would be difficult for this proposal to fail if it were not in the flood 48 plain and he would reserve the rest of his comments for the ZBA meeting. Page 8 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 7 1 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she did not see a basis to refuse the request 2 based on what is possible down the road noting her concerns were addressed. She agreed the lot would 3 be brought back to its original configuration and she would be in favor of the request. Chairperson Danley 4 stated she also had concerns and referred to the standards changed in neighborhoods to keep homes in 5 a certain configuration. She also referred to the concerns raised with regard to setting precedent which is 6 a concern to her as well as the flooding issues. Chairperson Danley stated if this configuration was not the 7 original lot configuration, she would not consider agreeing to the request but is persuaded by the fact that 8 it would be reverted back to its original configuration. She then asked for the applicant to maintain the 9 lot as is and referred to the significant amount of comments from the neighbors. Chairperson Danley 10 stated based on the Commission’s narrow scope, she is still concerned but that is not a reason to reject 11 the proposal. Trustee Orsic suggested asking the applicant to seek unsolicited offers for the property and 12 although she is not voting, she had concerns which were raised with good reason. Mr. Alt noted the 13 concern of neighborhood in opposition, particularly from five specific neighbors. 14 15 Mr. Bradley stated since the standards the Commission are asked to consider are different than those of 16 the ZBA, he suggested the Commission consider the applicant’s testimony with regard to the possible 17 concession and the play structure removal be included as an approval condition. Mr. Blum agreed with 18 Mr. Bradley’s suggestion and that they do not know what will happen the future. 19 20 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll in terms of making an approval recommendation with a condition 21 related to the play structure removal. Ms. Klaassen agreed the play structure located within the corner 22 yard setback being brought into compliance can be a condition of the motion. 23 24 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Blum moved to recommend approval of the proposed 25 resubdivision final plat as referenced in the materials with the condition that the existing play structure 26 be either removed or moved to a conforming location. Ms. Kunkle seconded. A vote was taken and the 27 motion passed, 7 to 1: 28 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack 29 NAYS: Alt 30 NON-VOTING: Orsic 31 32 The Commission Members took a break at this time. 33 34 c. Case No. 25-18-SU: 986 Green Bay Road - Sit Still Kids Salon: An application seeking approval of 35 a Special Use Permit submitted by Sit Still Kids Salon, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space 36 located at 986 Green Bay Road to allow a hair salon in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay 37 District. The property is currently owned by 986 Green Bay Road, LLC. The Village Council has final 38 jurisdiction on this request. 39 Chairperson Danley called the meeting back to order. Mr. Marx identified the applicant, the property’s 40 location, the prior and current tenants, its size and zoning classification and referred to an illustration. He 41 also identified the surrounding businesses. Mr. Marx then referred to Attachment A as a summary of the 42 proposed plan for the space and business operation plans which he described in detail. He noted there 43 would be no exterior front façade changes other than a sign to be reviewed by the DRB at their October 44 2025 meeting. Mr. Marx summarized the hours of operation and the number of employees and proposed 45 customers during regular hours and special events. He stated in terms of parking available; he described 46 the plan to use on-street parking and in the Hubbard Woods parking deck during peak and non-peak hours 47 as well as the number of proposed special events and length of time customers would be in the location. 48 Mr. Marx asked if there were any questions. Page 9 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 8 1 2 Ms. Van Vlack asked what is the maximum defined space occupancy. Ms. Klaassen stated it would have 3 to comply with building code ordinances and regulations which included occupancy limits. Mr. Bradley 4 asked in situations where a special use has certain events which occur outside of its normal use such as is 5 done by a church, if they have ever conditioned how the space is used. Ms. Klaassen responded she is not 6 aware of such a condition noting special event permits are required by churches. 7 8 Chairperson Danley asked if employees would be required to park in the employee lot. Ms. Klaassen 9 responded they would have to park in employee designated areas which she identified for the 10 Commission. Mr. Subawalla referred to the fluctuation in terms of potential occupancy during special 11 events and asked what are the Village restrictions in terms of occupancy counts. Mr. Marx stated the 12 applicant can respond. Ms. Klaassen stated the permit approval would have to comply with occupancy 13 limits which would be based on the space. 14 15 Mr. Blum asked how many of the buildings are special uses in terms of the overlay district. Ms. Klaassen 16 identified two special uses with others down the block. Mr. Blum asked how can they limit the number of 17 special uses in order to not lose the retail overlay district. The Commission Members discussed the 18 location of several other special uses in the area and the type of clientele the special use would occupy. 19 No additional questions were raised at this time. 20 21 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Brett and Chris Jordan introduced themselves 22 to the Commission. Mr. Jordan described the unique offerings proposed by the salon which would bring 23 positive foot traffic to the local businesses and asked if there were any questions. 24 25 Chairperson Danley asked if it would be a franchise. Mr. Jordan confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Jordan 26 described in detail the services in the small space they planned to offer and noted parties would not be a 27 common occurrence. Mr. Jordan described the components in terms of occupancy for the small types of 28 parties they planned to offer and noted there were no concerns raised by the Fire Marshall. He described 29 the proposal as a very unique and different offering for their clientele. Mr. Bradley commented on the 30 types of private parties which are done in other locations which would generate a lot of traffic. Mrs. Jordan 31 provided clarity in terms of their offerings for the Commission. 32 33 Ms. Van Vlack referred to a neighbor’s concern relating to noise and asked where the courtyard is located 34 and if children would have access to that space. Mrs. Jordan responded it is not and identified the door 35 opened to an alleyway which would not be accessed by children and would be used as a fire exit only. She 36 also identified their primary door. Mr. Enck referred to the small space being planned as a party space 37 and asked if the main space would also be used for parties. Mrs. Jordan responded in a buyout situation, 38 they would have to match the profitability of turning 15-20 chairs which would not be a common 39 occurrence in the other locations and would not be common for them. She confirmed they would ensure 40 that sound would not be an issue in response to the neighbor’s concern. 41 42 Ms. Van Vlack asked Mrs. Jordan if other salons are trending to stay open later and suggested the 43 Commission request a condition relating to the late hours of operation. Mrs. Jordan informed the 44 Commission they are not intending to change their hours of operation and noted they served a wide range 45 of customers. No additional comments were made at this time. 46 47 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Marlene Calders, from the Winnetka Manor 48 Condominium Association stated they would be most impacted by the commercial space use. She Page 10 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 9 1 identified their concerns relating to traffic and the number of accidents. She also stated the proposed use 2 would cause detrimental harm to the building in terms of drainage, sewer and pipe issues. Ms. Calders 3 described the proposed concept as a great use but not for this building and asked the Commission to 4 consider how the use would affect the condominium owners. 5 6 Cav Smith, 1095 Merrill, commented the proposed use would not be a good fit for the residential building 7 and referred to the difficulty finding parking with the proposed use making it worse. Mr. Smith questioned 8 the precedent for a commercial party venue in a 1919 building and described the narrow alley condition. 9 He also stated the use being open on Sunday would impact available parking. 10 11 Kathleen Geary, 1095 Merrill, stated her bedroom would be located immediately above the party room 12 and described the issues with regard to noise carrying in the condo building. She informed the Commission 13 she questioned sound barrier requirements in mixed use buildings years ago and was told there was no 14 higher standard for noise reduction barriers between commercial and residential units. Ms. Gary stated 15 the building code enforcement manager at the time informed her the issue would be brought up at the 16 next building and code enforcement meeting. She stated there would be a negative effect on the residents 17 and described how she was able to hear people speaking in connection with the prior tenant. Ms. Gary 18 described how loud the occupants and patrons utilizing the space would be as well as the potential 19 dangerous traffic issues. She concluded by stating children’s beauty parties are non-essential to the 20 Village. 21 22 Sarah Lyon, a 35-year Winnetka resident, commented Winnetka is about supporting children and 23 described the applicants as hardworking who have done their due diligence. She referred to other uses 24 which support families and while she understood the concerns raised, it would be unfair to single out this 25 use as being detrimental. Ms. Lyon described the proposal as a great opportunity. 26 27 Chairperson Danley swore in Beata Krzynska, a 25-year Winnetka Manor resident and owner, who stated 28 the most important issue related to client parking and referred to a number of accidents that happened 29 over the last several years. She questioned the amount of haircuts required to be profitable and stated 30 the amount of customers would be problematic. No additional comments were made at this time. 31 32 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicants if they would like to respond to 33 public comment. No comments were made at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion. 34 Chairperson Danley referred to the crosswalk concerns and asked if those issues had been looked into. 35 Ms. Klaassen responded it has been discussed as part of the Village’s streetscape project and noted it is 36 located in an IDOT right-of-way with the Village being aware of the concerns raised. 37 38 Mr. Subawalla asked if the Teska streetscape plan was subject to the Village’s jurisdiction in terms of the 39 bump outs. Ms. Klaassen responded some are under IDOT jurisdiction. Ms. Van Vlack referred to the 40 dentist’s office and stated while she did not object to this type of business, the building having clay pipes 41 represented a significant issue due to its deterioration over 100 years along with the building housing 29 42 residents. She suggested any future business should consider whether they would add to this issue and 43 any the potential use contributing to the issue and asked where the responsibility lied in addressing these 44 issues. Ms. Van Vlack also stated the Commission is tasked to consider maintaining reasonably priced 45 home options on which a use of this type could negatively affect. 46 47 Chairperson Danley responded those are landlord issues to mitigate and noted a retail space could go into 48 the space without a special use. The Commission Members discussed alternative businesses which could Page 11 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 10 1 occupy the space and the parking issues which would result from the space being occupied. Mr. Blum 2 agreed with the comments made. Mr. Bradley described the use of the Hubbard Woods parking lot and 3 stated the proposed business use would be viable in this commercial district. He stated his concern related 4 the number of special uses which have been allowed in the area with the lack of parking and he would 5 generally be in favor of recommending approval which would result in storefronts being filled. He added 6 the residents’ issues need to be dealt with by Hoffman. 7 8 Chairperson Danley referred to the lack of a parking study and stated the dangerous crosswalk issues are 9 valid but are out of the Village’s control. She stated she understood the residents’ concerns for any 10 business which would occupy the space and encouraged them to discuss the issues with the landlord. 11 Chairperson Danley stated she would be in favor of the application and the standards relate to issues 12 which arose no matter what occupied the space. Mr. Enck stated his initial thought on the application was 13 that it would be good for business although parking is an issue. He agreed some of the issues are worth 14 exploring and are outside of the Commission’s purview. Mr. Enck also agreed with the suggestion that the 15 residents discuss their issues with the landlord. 16 17 Mr. Alt stated with regard to the residents’ concerns, the applicant’s biggest concerns relate to the clients 18 who are children and suggested the applicant listen to the neighbors and that having a conversation would 19 help. Ms. Van Vlack stated it is imperative for Hoffman to perform their due diligence and address the 20 potential clay pipe issue as well as address the concerns raised. She suggested the applicant address the 21 residents’ concerns before their presentation to other boards. Ms. Van Vlack also commented on whether 22 the business would be profitable and the amount of traffic generated which she commented is unrealistic. 23 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she is familiar with the parking difficulty in 24 Hubbard Woods. She stated although hearing the residents’ concerns is impactful, it is more of a landlord 25 issue and stated any business would be substantially injurious to the residents. Ms. Kunkle added they do 26 not want to jeopardize the Village’s housing stock and she would lean toward supporting the request. No 27 additional comments were made at this time. 28 29 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Bradley to recommend approval 30 as indicated on page 7 to allow the applicant to operate within the C-2 commercial overlay district based 31 on the findings of fact nos. 1-12 which have been met. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. A vote was taken 32 and the motion unanimously, 7 to 1: 33 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla 34 NAYS: Van Vlack 35 NON-VOTING: Orsic 36 37 New Business. 38 a. October 22, 2025 Meeting – Quorum Check. 39 The Commission Members discussed their availability. Ms. Kunkle informed the Commission she would 40 be stepping down from the Commission as the EFSC liaison. 41 42 Adjournment: 43 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Alt and the 44 motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0: 45 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack 46 NAYS: None 47 NON-VOTING: Orsic 48 The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Page 12 of 62  September 24, 2025 Page 11 1 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 Antionette Johnson 5 Recording Secretary Page 13 of 62  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 22, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Matthew Bradley 6 Mamie Case 7 Chris Enck 8 King Poor 9 Cyrus Subawalla 10 Kate Van Vlack 11 12 Members Absent: Jonathan Alt 13 Christopher Blum 14 15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic 16 17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 19 Development 20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 21 22 Call to Order & Roll Call: 23 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the 24 Commission Members present. 25 26 Public Comment: 27 No comments were made at this time. 28 29 Community Development Report: 30 Mr. Mangum provided the Commission Members with an update on the Sit Still Kids special use 31 application and the Post Office site. 32 33 New Applications: 34 b. Case No. 25-21-SU: 564 Lincoln Avenue - Corley North Shore LLC Real Estate Office: An 35 application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Corley North Shore LLC, as the 36 prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 564 Lincoln Avenue to allow a real estate office 37 in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by 562-72 Lincoln 38 Avenue, LLC. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 39 Chairperson Danley stated the applicant, Corley North Shore LLC, asked for a continuance of this matter 40 and asked for the agenda to be taken out of order. Mr. Enck made a motion to take the agenda out of 41 order. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 7 to 0. Chairperson Danley then 42 asked for public comment on this item. No comments were made at this time. Chairperson Danley then 43 asked for a motion to continue the Corley North Shore LLC matter to the next meeting. Ms. Case made a 44 motion to continue the matter to the November 19, 2025, meeting. Mr. Subawalla seconded the motion. 45 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 46 AYES: Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack 47 NAYS: None 48 NON-VOTING: Orsic Page 14 of 62  October 22, 2025 Page 2 1 The Commission Members discussed their availability for the November 19, 2025, meeting. 2 3 New Applications: 4 a. Case No. 25-20-SU: 730 Elm Street, Suite 130 - Winnetka Aesthetic Studio: An application 5 seeking approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Paul Phelps of Winnetka Aesthetic Studio, as the 6 prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 730 Elm Street to allow a medical office in the 7 C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, 8 LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 9 Mr. Marx identified the applicant who is seeking a special use to open a Winnetka location for their 10 existing cosmetic surgery practice and identified the space in the One Winnetka building currently under 11 construction. He identified the property’s location and the proposed space to be occupied on Elm Street, 12 as well as its zoning classification with a portion of the space being located in the Overlay District. Mr. 13 Marx noted Charles Schwab would also occupy space in the building and identified the Overlay District in 14 a map for the Commission as well as the proposed space’s shared entrance location. He also summarized 15 the special use standards and Overlay District standards. Mr. Marx referred to the applicant’s floor plan 16 and noted any signage would have to be approved by the DRB. He also summarized the proposed medical 17 office’s floor plan, use, and hours of operation. 18 19 Mr. Marx then summarized the parking requirements and the applicant’s proposed parking plan. He also 20 summarized the approved ordinance relating to One Winnetka and that the proposed use complied with 21 the special use standards. Mr. Marx referred to the applicant’s responses to the remaining standards 22 identified on page nos. 9 and 10 and stated the Commission is to review whether the request is consistent 23 with the remaining standards. He stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment, and 24 Commission discussion, a Commission Member may make a motion to continue the hearing to a date 25 certain to provide the applicant time to answer any questions or consider a motion recommending 26 approval or denial of the special use permit. Mr. Marx then asked if there were any questions. 27 28 Chairperson Danley referred to the ground floor plan and asked for clarification with regard to the 29 windows and the tenant’s visibility which Mr. Marx explained to the Commission. Mr. Bradley questioned 30 a specific standard relating to the northwest corner’s occupancy. Mr. Marx provided clarification to the 31 Commission and referred to Attachment B on page 26. He confirmed the proposed tenant and Charles 32 Schwab are the first two tenants for the building. Ms. Van Vlack asked if it is typical for the first two typical 33 tenants to be special use requests. Ms. Klaassen responded it is not common to have a new commercial 34 building constructed in Winnetka, so this isn’t a common occurrence, and referred to the size of the 35 building being constructed and explained how the applicant went through the planned development 36 process in connection with the special use requests. 37 38 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to the matter. Paul Phelps stated he had nothing to add to 39 Mr. Marx’s presentation. Chairperson Danley then asked if there were any questions from the 40 Commission. 41 42 Mr. Subawalla asked for clarification with regard to the OR. Mr. Phelps explained the different standards 43 for different operating procedures and how the operation rooms are used in other locations and the 44 procedures they perform. Ms. Van Vlack questioned anesthetic equipment and how it would be safely 45 stored so as not to affect the other tenants. Mr. Phelps explained how the setup would be similar to that 46 used in their Lincoln Park location in terms of storage and ventilation requirements. He also stated he 47 could provide the architect’s information who could provide additional information as well as how 48 equipment would be delivered and their delivery schedule. Mr. Phelps then explained how the minimal Page 15 of 62  October 22, 2025 Page 3 1 amount of surgical waste would be disposed. Mr. Poor questioned how signage would be displayed. Mr. 2 Phelps explained where the signage would be located and that there would be no window frontage. 3 4 Chairperson Danley stated the space would accommodate more patients than his existing satellite office 5 and asked if this location would operate significantly different than the satellite office. Mr. Phelps 6 explained the consultation and post-operative services they would provide and the minimal surgical waste 7 produced. Chairperson Danley referred to the ground floor plan illustration and commented on the small 8 space sizes. Mr. Phelps referred to the discussion of possible tenants for those spaces. He added there 9 would be revenue generated by their use. Trustee Orsic described the request as a good use of the medical 10 office space and referred to the amount of traffic the use would generate compared to other medical 11 uses. Mr. Phelps confirmed the Lincoln Park location would remain open and provided his schedule to the 12 Commission. No additional questions were raised at this time. 13 14 Chairperson Danley stated there is no one in the audience to comment and called the matter in for 15 discussion. She identified the standards the Commission is tasked to consider. Mr. Bradley stated he would 16 be fully in support of the request with the anticipation of special use requests of this type as a result of 17 planned development process. He stated the request conformed in all other respects. Trustee Orsic 18 agreed it is a great plan. Ms. Case agreed with the comments made and that the request would bring in 19 more traffic. She described the plan as well thought through. Ms. Van Vlack agreed the plan is great and 20 the applicant would be a good tenant for the space with her only concern being patient privacy. She 21 referred to the limited amount of space in the back for vehicles parked there in terms of patient pick up. 22 Ms. Van Vlack concluded the applicant would be a wonderful tenant for the space. Mr. Poor stated he is 23 comforted by the fact that these would be the only two special uses on the ground floor which respected 24 the purpose of the Overlay District. He stated he is also satisfied that the requirements were met and it 25 would be a good fit for One Winnetka. Mr. Enck stated the request made sense for the space designed 26 since it would be set back with commercial spaces on either side having more street frontages. He stated 27 he had no issues with regard to the request. Chairperson Danley stated she had no concerns with regard 28 to the request and described it as a good use for the space. She stated they need to be deliberate in 29 connection with the spaces which would flank the use on either side and agreed the use of the space met 30 the standards. 31 32 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion. A motion was made by Ms. Case to recommend approval of the 33 requested space use of the applicant to operate a medical office at 730 Elm Street, Suite 130, within the 34 C-2 Commercial Overlay District, based on the findings of fact and citing standard nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 35 and 12. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 36 AYES: Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack 37 NAYS: None 38 NON-VOTING: Orsic 39 40 New Business. 41 a. November 19, 2025, Meeting – Quorum Check. 42 The Commission Members previously discussed their availability. 43 44 Adjournment: 45 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Bradley. The 46 motion was seconded by Mr. Poor. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 47 AYES: Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack 48 NAYS: None Page 16 of 62  October 22, 2025 Page 4 1 NON-VOTING: Orsic 2 The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. 3 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 6 Antionette Johnson 7 Recording Secretary Page 17 of 62  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2025 SUBJECT: 458 & 464 SUNSET ROAD FINAL PLAT APPROVAL & SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-25-SD) INTRODUCTION On November 19, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on applications submitted by Tim and Nancy Iida, as the owners of the property located at 464 Sunset Road and managers of East Wing LLC, owner of the property located at 458 Sunset Road (collectively, the “Subject Property”). Tim and Nancy Iida along with East Wing LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”), have filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, together with the following relief: 1. A Final Plat of Subdivision to consolidate the two existing lots known as 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road into a single lot of record, which consolidation requires: a. A variation to permit the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road to observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the west property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; b. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road, which does not provide the required building line articulation; and 2. A Special Use Permit to allow the consolidation of 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road, which results in a lot that is greater than two times the minimum required lot size for an interior lot in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the consolidation, including the requested zoning relief described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates a request for zoning relief, the application is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the variation. The ZBA is scheduled to consider the request on December 8, 2025. The Applicant has also submitted a demolition application to demolish the existing residence 458 Sunset Road. The Historic Preservation Commission considered the demolition application on September 15, 2025, and by a vote of 4-0 approved the demolition without delay. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing being held by the Plan Commission. The hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on October 30, 2025. Additionally, a public notice sign was posted on the Subject Property informing the public of the Plan Commission meeting. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. Page 1 Page 18 of 62 The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the south side of Sunset Road, between Woodland Avenue and Myrtle Street, is zoned R-5 Single Family Residential and currently consists of two buildable lots. The area of each existing lot is as follows: 1. 458 Sunset Road: 8,927 square feet 2. 464 Sunset Road: 12,694 square feet Each of the existing lots contains an existing two-story residence. The 458 Sunset Road parcel also contains a detached garage and the 464 Sunset Road parcel contains a pool and pool equipment shed. The existing parcels and improvements are depicted below and on the following page in Figures 1 through 3. 458 Sunset Sunset Road 464 Sunset Woodland Avenue Myrtle Street Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots Page 2 Page 19 of 62  464 Sunset Figure 2 – Subject Property 458 Sunset Figure 3 – Subject Property (looking southwest) Page 3 Page 20 of 62 The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses (Figure 4). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The Land Use Plan Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses. Subject Property Figure 4 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following vision statement and goal relevant to the proposed application: Pillar 1: Quality Liveable Neighborhoods Vision Statement: A community of connected neighborhoods with safe, pedestrian-oriented streets, tree-lined parkways, and a variety of well- maintained housing offerings to meet the needs of all of its residents and create a unique and powerful sense of place. Goal 1.1: The Village will encourage renovation of existing homes and construction of new homes to be contextually consistent with existing single-family housing in its neighborhood. Initiative 1.1.6: Strengthen and maintain the rich and diverse character of the Village’s neighborhoods and sense of identity by highlighting each neighborhood’s unique elements that contribute positively to the Village. The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-5 zoning district. Page 4 Page 21 of 62 PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS 458 Sunset Road. The existing residence at 458 Sunset Road was constructed in 1921. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1952 to construct a detached garage; 2. 1973 to construct an addition; 3. 1988 to remodel the kitchen; 4. 1996 to construct a new detached garage; and 5. 2005 to construct an addition and remodel the primary bedroom. Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. There are two previous zoning cases on file for 458 Sunset Road: 1. In 1973, Case. No. 1097 was approved by the Village Council to allow an addition to the residence within the minimum side yard setback from the west property line; and 2. On February 1, 2005, Ordinance M-2-2005 was adopted by the Village Council, granting: (a) impermeable lot coverage; (b) west side yard setback; and (c) building line articulation variations to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence. 464 Sunset Road. The existing residence at 464 Sunset Road was constructed in 1949. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1969 to construct a second floor addition; 2. 1998 to remodel the primary bedroom and bathroom, and the kitchen, and add windows; 3. 2004 to construct additions; and 4. 2011 to construct an in-ground pool and shed for pool equipment. Other minor permits have also been issued for this property over the last several years. There is one previous zoning case on file for 464 Sunset Road. In 2004, Case No. 04-26-V was approved by the ZBA, granting a gross floor area variation to allow construction of additions to the existing residence. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION / RESUBDIVISION The Applicant resides at 464 Sunset Road, which they acquired in 1998. Subsequently, the Applicant acquired the adjacent property at 458 Sunset Road in 2023. If approved, the Applicant will demolish the existing residence and detached garage at 458 Sunset Road and consolidate the two parcels into a single buildable lot measuring 21,621 square feet. The existing residence at 464 Sunset Road would remain. As represented in the attached application materials (Attachment A), the Applicant also intends to construct an addition on the east side of the existing residence on the 464 Sunset Road parcel. The existing driveway on the 464 Sunset Road parcel would be removed while the existing driveway on the 458 Sunset Road parcel would remain but be reduced in size. The necessary permit applications for these proposed improvements have not been submitted to date, the Applicant is simply demonstrating what their intent for the proposed consolidated lot is at this time. However, a preliminary zoning review of the proposed improvements has been completed to verify that what is being presented to the Commission complies with all zoning regulations. Page 5 Page 22 of 62 The proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 5 below and an excerpt of the proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision Plat of Consolidation is provided in Figure 6. Details regarding the proposed addition are included later in this report. Figure 5 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view) Figure 6 – Excerpt of Proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision Consolidation Plat Page 6 Page 23 of 62 DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS As noted earlier in this report, the Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-5 zoning district provides for the densest form of single-family development compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-5 zoning district’s purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “relatively intense suburban” character. Residential Zoning Hierarchy A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods, ranging from larger “estate” character lots in portions of the Village, to smaller, more intensive developed areas. Surrounding Zoning Neighboring lots surrounding the Subject Property are similarly zoned for smaller lot sizes called for in the R-5 zoning district (minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet for interior lots), as depicted in Figure 7 below. Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small estate” (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense”( (“relatively intense” Hierarchy character) character) suburban character) suburban character) suburban character) Minimum Lot 48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f. Area - interior lots Minimum Lot Width – interior 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. lots Minimum Required Front 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Setback 15% of lot 15% of lot depth, depth, but not 15% of lot depth, but 15% of lot depth, but Required Rear but not less than 10 50 ft. less than 10 ft. not less than 10 ft. nor not less than 10 ft. Setback ft. nor more than 25 nor more than more than 25 ft.. nor more than 25 ft. ft. 25 ft. Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy Subject Property Figure 7 – Area Zoning Map Page 7 Page 24 of 62  COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to ensure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including, but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c) minimum lot depth. Additionally, with the adoption of Ordinance MC-12-2023 by the Village Council on December 19, 2023, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Code were amended to require special use approval for consolidations of any number of lots in a single-family residential district that results in a lot that is greater than two times the minimum lot size or two times the minimum average lot width for the lot in question. The proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision fully complies with minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth requirements as summarized in Table 2 below. It should be noted that the existing 458 Sunset Road parcel is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet, with an existing average lot width of 49.86 feet. The proposed consolidation of the two parcels would create a new lot measuring 21,621 square feet with an average lot width of 104.96 feet. Therefore, the proposed consolidation would eliminate one nonconforming lot while creating one lot that is more than two times greater than the minimum required lot area (by 4,821 square feet). Hence, the proposed consolidation requires approval of a special use permit for which the Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council. Table 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot Proposed Lot R-5 Zoning Standards 458 Sunset Road 464 Sunset Road Minimum Lot 21,621 sq. ft. 8,927 sq. ft. 12,694 sq. ft. Area 8,400 sq. ft. >2X MINIMUM COMPLIES COMPLIES (Interior lot) Minimum Lot 104.96 feet 49.86 feet 68.62 feet 60 feet Width (average) COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY COMPLIES Minimum Lot 127.32 feet 50 feet 77.32 feet Width (at front 20 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES street line) Minimum Lot 178.5 feet 178.5 feet 178.45 feet 120 ft. Depth COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Table 2 – R-5 Zoning Standards COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result, staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of a proposed subdivision, relief must be reviewed by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, with the Village Council having final jurisdiction. Staff evaluation of the proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 later in this report, indicating the extent to which the proposed consolidated lot complies with (or falls short of) zoning standards. The item highlighted (in yellow) in Table 3 indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity. Page 8 Page 25 of 62  Description of minimum side yard setback requirements – Side yard setback requirements are calculated based on a lot’s width: • Lots with an average lot width that is 100 feet or more: The minimum required side yard setback is 12 feet. • Lots with an average lot width that is more than 60 feet, but less than 100 feet: The minimum required side yard setback is 10% of the average lot width. • Lots with an average lot width of 60 feet or less: The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet on one side and 8 feet on the other side. Newly created zoning nonconformity (zoning variation required) – The proposed consolidation has the effect of increasing the average lot width to 104.96 feet, resulting in an increase in the required minimum side yard setback to 12 feet. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders the existing 464 Sunset Road residence (which is set back 5.7 feet from the west property line), nonconforming with the new minimum side yard requirement of 12 feet. The existing improvements providing a minimum side yard of 5.7 feet, are deficient with the new requirement by 6.3 feet or 52.5%. Table 3 Proposed Consolidated Existing Lot Existing Lot Zoning Setback Requirements Lot 458 Sunset 464 Sunset Road Minimum Required Front Yard 33.58 feet 30 feet 33.58 feet Front yard provided existing 34.24 feet 37.11 feet 34.24 feet Structures or to be provided Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 6 feet 6.86 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Side yard provided by 5.7 feet (west) existing structures or to be VARIATION of 6.3 FT 2.58 feet (west) 5.7 feet (west) provided (52.5%) Minimum Required Remaining 19.49 feet 8 feet 10.29 feet Side Yard Side yard provided by 20.16 feet existing structures or to be 31.1 feet (east) 6 feet (east) (east) provided Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear yard provided by existing structures or to be 88.28 feet 83.04 feet 88.28 feet provided Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements Page 9 Page 26 of 62 Table 4 below, highlights (green) two existing zoning nonconformities that would be eliminated with the proposed subdivision. The existing improvements on the 458 Sunset Road parcel currently exceed the maximum permitted impermeable lot coverage and provide less than the minimum required side yard setback from the west property line by 3.42 feet (57%) (highlighted green in Table 3 on previous page). Also, the existing improvements on the 464 Sunset Road parcel currently exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area and provide less than the minimum required side yard setbacks. The proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision would eliminate the gross floor area and impermeable lot coverage nonconformities. Table 4 – Zoning Existing Lot Proposed Existing Lot Building Size 458 Sunset Road Consolidated Lot 464 Sunset Road Requirements (to be torn down) Maximum Allowed Gross 6,746.86 sq. ft. 3,570.8 sq. ft. 4,353.8 sq. ft. Floor Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 5,899.94 sq. ft. 3,084.29 sq. ft. 4,538.2 sq. ft. structures or to be provided Maximum ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage 5,837.67 sq. ft. 2,410.29 sq. ft. 3,427.38 sq. ft. (RLC) RLC provided by existing 3,817.76 sq. ft. 1,834.84 sq. ft. 2,857.26 sq. ft. structures or to be provided Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot 10,810.5 sq. ft. 4,463.5 sq. ft. 6,347 sq. ft. Coverage (ILC) (50% of lot area) ILC provided by existing 8,078.36 sq. ft. 4,493.19 sq. ft. 5,800.29 sq. ft. structures or to be provided Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS All changes to the configuration of parcels of land are classified as Land Subdivisions under the Village Code and are subject to review by the Plan Commission and approval by the Village Council. As part of that review process, resubdivisions are subject to review for compliance with both the Village Subdivision Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance. Page 10 Page 27 of 62 According to Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, subdivisions shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. The proposed subdivision complies with all requirements of Section 16.12.010. Additionally, the proposed subdivision conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development, which is the proposed use of the newly created lot. Pre-existing zoning nonconformity (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – One existing nonconformity will remain on the proposed consolidated lot. The west side building walls of the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road do not provide the required building line articulation. The Zoning Ordinance requires the side building walls that face the smaller side yard, on a residence constructed prior to April 1999, be articulated by at least 18 inches when the residence is more than 40 feet long. Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, in the instance of such nonconformities, the Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” Location of Existing Nonconforming Building Line Articulation that will remain Figure 8 – 464 Sunset Road Plat of Survey Page 11 Page 28 of 62 Section 16.12.010 of the Subdivision Code was amended, as explained earlier in this report, so that the consolidation of any number of lots that results in a lot that is greater than two times the minimum lot size or greater than two times the minimum average lot width for the lot in question, as established by the Zoning Ordinance, is only permitted by a special use permit. In addition to considering the Village’s typical special use standards, the Plan Commission and Village Council may also “consider such factors as, without limitation, the extent to which the proposed special use would be inconsistent with the general lot size, average lot width, or character of properties located adjacent to or on the same block face of the subject lot”. When the Plan Commission and the Village Council consider granting a special use permit request to consolidate any number of lots that results in a lot within a single-family residential district that is greater than two times the minimum required lot size or two times the minimum required average lot width for the lot in question, the Village Council would be authorized to impose certain conditions, including without limitation, any one or more of the following conditions: (i) the installation of additional landscaping on the lot; (ii) an increase in any minimum required yard or yards on the lot beyond what is required by the zoning ordinance; (iii) a restriction on the maximum gross floor area on the lot; (iv) a restriction on the maximum roofed lot coverage on the lot; (v) a restriction on the maximum total area of impermeable surfaces on the lot; (vi) a requirement to provide preliminary conceptual plans as are reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposed special use request; and (vii) restrictions to mitigate the impact of construction activity. The Applicant has provided plans for the lot in question so that the Plan Commission can determine if the proposed plans are consistent with the Village’s special use standards, and the Commission may consider any conditions that may be appropriate. PROPOSED PLAN The Applicant is proposing an addition to the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road. Proposed improvements on the first floor include expansion of the existing attached garage, front porch, and kitchen, and the addition of an office and breakfast room. On the second floor, the Applicant is proposing expansion of the primary suite. The proposed improvements comply with all zoning regulations. Excerpts of the proposed site plan and building elevations are provided on the following pages as Figures 9 through 13. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment A). Page 12 Page 29 of 62 Existing 464 Sunset Residence Red Line Represents Required Setbacks Proposed Addition Figure 9 – Excerpt of Proposed Site Plan Page 13 Page 30 of 62 Figure 10 – Proposed North Elevation (Sunset Road) Figure 11 – Proposed Rear Elevation (South) Figure 12 – Proposed East Elevation Figure 13 – Proposed West Elevation Page 14 Page 31 of 62 STORMWATER The proposed subdivision consists of consolidating two lots into a single larger lot. As previously mentioned, the Applicant intends to demolish the existing residence and detached garage at 458 Sunset Road and construct an addition to the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road. The Village Engineer has reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed consolidation and has noted that stormwater detention will be evaluated, as well as any existing detention that may exist on site, as part of final engineering approval upon submittal of the building permit for the proposed improvements to verify the stormwater is being managed on-site. Additionally, the stormwater utility fee will be reviewed and adjusted based on final impermeable lot coverage calculations. Figure 14 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain. Subject Property Figure 14 – GIS Floodplain Map COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The Village Code does not require an applicant to obtain preliminary plat approval as a precondition of final plat approval. In this case, the Applicant has chosen to directly proceed with final plat review. In addition to evaluating prescriptive standards of the zoning and subdivision code, consideration of Final Subdivision Plat approval also needs to consider the details of the final plat such as utility easements, final plat formatting and related matters. The Village Water & Electric has reviewed the proposed subdivision and is requiring an easement to cover existing overhead high voltage lines on the Subject Property. The 5-foot utility easement would be located along the south property line and a portion of the western lot line of the proposed lot. Figure 15 on the following page is an excerpt of the plat of subdivision with the easement outlined in red. With respect to plat formatting, the Applicant is working with staff to finalize all of the necessary signature blocks on the plat of subdivision. In addition to considering the final plat of subdivision, the Plan Commission is charged with evaluating the special use for the large lot consolidation for consistency with the six (6) standards for granting special use permits. The Applicant’s response to the standards is included in Attachment A. Page 15 Page 32 of 62  Figure 15 – Excerpt of Plat of Subdivision – Utility Easement FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission is to consider whether the requested special use to allow the large lot consolidation is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and with the Village’s special use permit standards. Additionally, the Commission is to consider whether the proposed consolidation complies with the Subdivision Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, the Commission is to consider the existence of the nonconforming unarticulated west side building walls that will remain and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two options: 1) Continue further review of the application to a specific date in order to provide the Applicant and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission; or 2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use and Final Plat of Subdivision. If the Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council Page 16 Page 33 of 62 regarding the requested relief, a Commissioner may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of: A. The proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision Final Plat consolidating the two existing lots commonly known as 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road into a single Lot of Record, as the Final Plat of Consolidation, which consolidation requires: a. A variation to permit the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road to observe a west side yard setback of 5.7 feet, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required [Section 17.30.060 Side Yard Setback]; b. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing residence at 464 Sunset Road, which does not provide the required building line articulatio; c. A finding that the lot consolidation is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” development; and B. A Special Use Permit to allow the consolidation of 458 Sunset Road and 464 Sunset Road, which results in a lot that is greater than two times the minimum required lot size for an interior lot in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Based on evidence in the record, or a public document, and upon the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed consolidation is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the granting of Special Use Permits, as follows: a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare; b. That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity; c. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of concern; d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways; e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and f. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes. Based upon these findings, the Plan Commission recommends [does not recommend] that the proposed 458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision Plat of Consolidation be approved subject to the following condition: Page 17 Page 34 of 62  1. Final review and approval of the plat by the Village Attorney prior to recordation of the plat. [If the Commission chooses to place additional conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Consolidation (458 – 464 Sunset Road Subdivision) Page 18 Page 35 of 62 ATTACHMENT A 25-25-SD Page 36 of 62 We are proposing the consolidation of lots 464 and 458 Sunset Road. These two lots have differing lot widths. 464 Sunset has a lot width of 65.00 feet while 458 Sunset has a lot width of just 50 feet. This 50 foot lot width is under the minimum lot width of the R-5 zoning district by 10 feet. The consolidation of these lots will result in a property whose width is 115 feet. This new width is under 2x the minimum lot width of the district. The two lots also have differing lot areas. 464 Sunset has a lot area of 12,694 sq.ft. and 458 Sunset has an area of 8,927 sq.ft. The consolidation of these lots will result in a lot area of 21,621 sq.ft. This lot area is more than 2x the minimum lot area of the R-5 zoning district and will require a “Special Use Permit” to be approved. We have applied for this Special Use Permit with the submittal of the consolidation. If there are any questions regarding the consolidation of these two lots, please reach out to our office. Sincerely, Tom DeCoste Page 37 of 62  25-25-SD Page 38 of 62 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. - The consolidation of lots 464 and 458 Sunset road will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare . The consolidated lot will be used for a single family residence and will remain a part of the R-5 zoning district. It will be required to conform with all R-5 zoning rules as all its neighboring properties must. 2) That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity. - The consolidation of these two lots will not injure or diminish the neighbor’s use nor value of their properties. The consolidation of these 2 lots will not change the use nor zoning of the property. It will be required to conform to the same standards as the neighboring properties in the R-5 zoning district. 3) That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of concern. - The request for special use is solely due to the lot exceeding 2x the minimum width of a lot within the R-5 Zoning district. We are not requesting a change of use or zoning to this property so no neighboring properties will be impacted by this consolidation. Page 39 of 62 4) That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways. - The consolidation of the two lots will not change traffic patterns, increase vehicular traffic or impact pedestrian use of the neighborhood. This Special Use request is solely due to the proposed lot area exceeding 2x the minimum lot area of the R-5 zoning district. 5) That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exists or are to be provided. - No additional parking, utilities or access roads will be necessary for the consolidation. All required drainage for the consolidated lot will be done in accordance with the Village’s Public Works Department codes. 6) That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other village ordinances and codes. - As mentioned above, the consolidation of these two lots will not change the use of the property, the zoning district of the property, and will not impact the neighbors in any way. Page 40 of 62  25-25-SD Page 41 of 62 1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allow by regulations in that district. - The request for this variation is due to a change in lot width after the consolidation with the neighboring lot to the East. The increase in lot width changes the side yard setbacks and puts the existing house into non-conformity. Our proposed addition is not to impact the portion of the home that will be put in to non-conformity, so no additional request for relief will be required. 2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. - The uniqueness of this variation request is due to the consolidation with the neighboring property to the East. The increased width of the consolidated lot will increase the side yard setbacks and force the existing home into non- conformity on the West side. These setback rules are part of the Village’s Zoning Code and were not created by the home owners. 3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. - The existing residence at 464 Sunset is to remain and an addition to this home is proposed to the East. The property will remain as a single family residence and this will conform to all the zoning rules and regulations as it previously was. 4) An adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired. - The supply of light and air will not be impaired to neighboring properties. In fact, more air and light will be available to the neighboring property to the East as a result of this consolidation and addition to the home as 464 Sunset. Page 42 of 62 5) The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased. - The risk of fire spread or other damages to the neighboring properties will not be impacted by granting this request. The existing home at 464 Sunset will remain as it is and additional distance between the neighboring property to the East will be increased by nearly 11 feet. 6) The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. - The taxable land value of the property in question or its neighboring properties should not be impacted by granting this request. 7) The congestion in the public street will not increase. - The property is currently and will remain as a single-family residence. No additional street or foot traffic is predicted as a result of granting this request. 8) The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not be otherwise impaired. - Granting this request should not have any negative impacts on the community’s health, safety, comfort, morals or welfare. Page 43 of 62 Page 44 of 62 Page 45 of 62 Page 46 of 62 Page 47 of 62 Page 48 of 62 Page 49 of 62 Page 50 of 62 Page 51 of 62 Page 52 of 62 Page 53 of 62 Page 54 of 62 Page 55 of 62 Page 56 of 62 Page 57 of 62 Page 58 of 62 Page 59 of 62 Page 60 of 62 Page 61 of 62 Page 62 of 62