Plan Commission
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · January 28, 2026
Minutes
Minutes adopted 2-25-2026
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 JANUARY 28, 2026
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Matthew Bradley
8 Mamie Case
9 Chris Enck
10 King Poor
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: Cyrus Subawalla
14
15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic
16
17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
19 Development
20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
21
22 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
23 Courtney Trefil
24
25 Call to Order & Roll Call:
26 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
27 Commission Members present.
28
29 Approval of December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes:
30 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the December 17, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
31 approve the December 17, 2025, regular meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradley and seconded by Mr.
32 Poor. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
33 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
34 NAYS: None
35 NON-VOTING: Orsic
36
37 Public Comment:
38 No comments were made at this time.
39
40 Community Development Report:
41 Mr. Mangum stated there has been no action on any items to present to the Commission.
42
43 New Applications:
44 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
45 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
46 jurisdiction on this request.
47 Peter Friedman outlined the public hearing requirements and procedures to be followed in connection
48 with the Centennial Beach agenda item.
January 28, 2026 Page 2
1 Ms. Klaassen summarized the Park District’s proposal to install two chain link fences to provide an
2 enclosed area for off leashed dogs for review by the Commission with the applicant seeking a
3 recommendation of approval for a special use permit. She identified the Commission’s role in the review
4 and summarized the administrative and public review processes and referred to a table for the
5 Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the proposed fences’ appearance is not within the
6 Commission’s purview and would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (“DRB”).
7
8 Ms. Klaassen stated since the property is located on Lake Michigan, it would be subject to lakefront
9 construction and steep slope regulations and noted the proposed fencing is not located within the steep
10 slope zone. She then summarized the lakefront construction regulations and the review and permit
11 approval procedures as well as the public trust doctrine. Ms. Klaassen then identified the property’s
12 location and zoning classification which is located in the lakefront preservation overlay district. She stated
13 public parks and recreational facilities are allowed as a special use in the R-2 district and summarized the
14 appropriate Comprehensive Plan and land use designations.
15
16 Ms. Klaassen referred to beach images in an illustration and identified the existing improvements with the
17 applicant to provide additional detail relating to the proposed two rows of chain link fencing which she
18 described in detail to the Commission as well as the existing dog beach use and its access. She also
19 summarized the Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the refinement of the front lot line along the
20 lake. Ms. Klaassen noted that at 4 feet in height the proposed fences comply with the maximum permitted
21 height of 6.5 feet. She then informed the Commission the ZBA is scheduled to consider the special use
22 permit at its February 9, 2026, meeting and the DRB is scheduled to consider a Certificate of
23 Appropriateness for the design of the proposed fencing on February 19, 2026, with the Village Council
24 having final jurisdiction.
25
26 Ms. Klaassen stated the Commission is to consider the six special use standards included on page 19 of
27 the agenda packet and following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission
28 discussion, the Commission may decide to: (i) act on the application with a recommendation, (ii) direct
29 Village staff and the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation with or without conditions and
30 written findings and determinations for consideration at a subsequent meeting, (iii) direct the applicant
31 or Village staff to provide new or additional information in connection with the application or (iv) take
32 such other action as may be permitted by law. She then asked if there were any questions.
33
34 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if dogs have ever been
35 allowed off leash on the property before there was a fence. Ms. Klaassen responded there has not been
36 a special use permit approved for that and there are leash laws. She then stated she could not answer as
37 to whether Cook County considered it a dog park or a dog friendly area. Mr. Blum referred to recreation
38 as a permitted use and asked if the request had to be approved or meet those qualifications. Ms. Klaassen
39 confirmed the request for the proposed improvements had to meet the six special use standards. No
40 additional questions were raised at this time.
41
42 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Hal Francke of Meltzer Purtill and Stelle
43 introduced himself as the Park District’s attorney and provided an overview of their presentation to the
44 Commission. He noted they attempted to address in their presentation the public comment already
45 received with the expectation of more public comment to be made. Mr. Francke then described the dog
46 beach as a community amenity and that the request would allow the Park District to continue to operate
47 the dog beach in accordance with law and the legal regulations as well as allow users of the dog beach in
48 compliance with the law. He stated the proposed fencing would further public safety and maintain
January 28, 2026 Page 3
1 shoreline access and connectivity along the lakefront and would not require any zoning variation requests.
2
3 Mr. Francke then provided an overview of the Winnetka leash law as well as a detailed summary of the
4 Cook County regulations. He also referred to Illinois state law and language in the Illinois Animal Control
5 Act. Mr. Francke stated Costa Kutulas, Director of Parks and Maintenance for the Park District, would now
6 provide the Commission with a history of the Centennial dog beach.
7
8 Costa Kutulas stated he would provide a history of the dog beach which was established in 1995. He noted
9 the Park District installed temporary chain link fencing from 2009-2015 similar in design to the proposal
10 which did not require permits. Mr. Kutulas stated the Winnetka Master Plan for the lakefront was then
11 undertaken from 2014-2016 with the decision to remove the deteriorating fence. He outlined the creation
12 of the dog beach committee to review other beach locations to relocate the Centennial dog beach and its
13 findings. Mr. Kutulas stated in 2023, their staff was directed by the Executive Director to install the
14 temporary fencing which was pulled due to improper permitting. He noted the Park District board adopted
15 the ordinance requiring leashes at the beach. Submittals to the IDNR and the Army Corp of Engineers
16 (“ACOE”) for the permit request were made in April 2025. Mr. Kutulas stated following the fence and
17 debris cleanup, he referred to approvals received from the IDNR and other agencies for their permit
18 process with the ACOE and Cook County approvals to follow shortly.
19
20 Mr. Kutulas then described the project overview which included delineation between a temporary
21 Centennial dog beach versus Centennial dog beach fencing. He also described the proposed fencing in
22 detail which would have a 4 foot height and extend approximately 15 feet into the lake. Mr. Kutulas then
23 referred to illustrations of the prior fencing from 2010 as well as illustrations of the proposed fencing
24 which he described in detail. Mr. Kutulas then outlined the existing parking conditions with no change in
25 use being proposed and described the dog season timeline and timeline of average use. He also described
26 neighboring dog beaches and their uses in detail. He then summarized the project’s regulatory review
27 process as well as their responses to the first round of review comments. Mr. Kutulas stated Mr. Francke
28 would now address the public trust doctrine and additional finer project points.
29
30 Mr. Francke stated in response to the public concerns raised, he referred to the public trust doctrine
31 summary and provided additional information in that regard. He noted it stated that the state cannot sell
32 submerged land to a private party, but it can permit its improvement with structures such as wharfs, docks
33 and piers that improve the use of the lake for public purposes without impairment of the public’s interests.
34 He stated based on its provisions, the IDNR issued the permit previously referenced and reviewed the
35 Park District’s application and concluded that allowing the proposed fencing would not obstruct or
36 interfere with navigation, is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District code, it would not impair
37 the rights, interests or uses of the public and is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability or other
38 littoral properties. Mr. Francke further described additional provisions from the doctrine and summarized
39 in detail the applicant’s response that the special use standards have been satisfied. He asked for the
40 Commission to recommend approval of the fencing and for the entire application to be concluded quickly
41 so that the fencing can be installed. Mr. Francke then asked if there were any questions.
42
43 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members if they had any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if
44 there is any record of unintended interactions between dogs and humans in the event additional security
45 measures are needed. Mr. Francke responded there have been no concerns at the Park District level
46 although there may have been testimony in the public comments received. Ms. Van Vlack asked what the
47 depth of the water is where the 15 feet of fence is in the water. Mr. Kutulas stated there have been no
48 documented records of interactions with dogs or citations although there were concerns which led to the
January 28, 2026 Page 4
1 fence being installed in 2009 at Elder Lane Park, which has been closed for the last five years. He added
2 the water depth at the end of the 15 feet would range from 1 to 1.5 feet.
3
4 Ms. Van Vlack noted dog park regulations require four enclosed walls and water is not a barrier. She stated
5 to call the area a dog park would not then be accurate in terms of Cook County regulations. Mr. Francke
6 stated the word “enclosed” is used in the Cook County regulations but is not defined and the question
7 related to the lake being considered as part of the enclosure. He then identified several similar examples
8 of other dog beaches having the fourth side barrier being the lake. Ms. Van Vlack questioned whether it
9 would need to be redefined as a dog friendly park. Mr. Francke stated the term “dog friendly park” is not
10 clearly defined and having the fence extend across the length of the shoreline to serve as the fourth barrier
11 is not desirable. Ms. Van Vlack stated they have to determine which rules need to be defined and applied.
12
13 Trustee Orsic referred to the 2010 photo and fence and asked if the new fence would be in the same exact
14 location. Mr. Kutulas explained that the fence in the photo is approximately 20-30 feet south of the
15 proposed fence location. He noted to enlarge it and keep it more close to what it is or what it was
16 originally to go further to the north. Mr. Kutulas stated by design that it is very similar. He noted it would
17 be smaller than the previous dog park by approximately 40 feet.
18
19 Mr. Blum asked if the proposal is for a dog park or for a dog friendly area. Mr. Francke explained the
20 differences in the language between the Cook County ordinance for a dog park and the Village ordinance
21 which did not distinguish between the two terms of off leash dogs or a dog friendly area. He confirmed
22 the Park District wanted to be in compliance with the law. Mr. Blum then referred to the second and fifth
23 standards and whether the lake is considered as a second property. Mr. Francke responded the
24 application of special uses standards for adjoining properties are those that are used, occupied and
25 enjoyed by neighbors. He confirmed there is fencing in the Lake Bluff example which is not a chain link
26 fence with the remaining examples to have at least one chain link portion. Mr. Kutulas explained how the
27 dog beach operated seasonally. He also summarized in detail the survey response for the dog beach
28 location.
29
30 Ms. Case asked if other municipalities have gates in terms of traversing the beach. Mr. Kutulas referred to
31 Lake Bluff and identified a gate on the southbound side and described security procedures in other
32 locations. Mr. Bradley asked when the Cook County regulation was passed. Mr. Kutulas responded the
33 Park District was made aware in 2021 or 2022 that they were out of compliance with the county. Mr.
34 Bradley asked why the Park District put their ordinance into effect to disregard it, and for over 30 years
35 there has been negligence by multiple entities in terms of being aware of Cook County regulations that
36 required dog beaches to operate. Mr. Kutulas explained how they sought to become compliant in 2009
37 when the fence was put in place to have a north safety boundary and to ensure they are following the
38 proper permitting and procedures. Mr. Francke added the dog beach had already been operating after
39 the ordinance went into effect in 2010 and could be perceived as being grandfathered in. Mr. Bradley
40 asked why two gates are needed. Mr. Kutulas explained the reasoning for the off-leashing and on-leashing
41 area in a secured area. He also explained the rationale for the distance of the 15 feet of fencing into the
42 water and the rationale for having 240 linear feet of shoreline as opposed to the 170 feet decided on the
43 Park District Master Plan. He then explained how the request complied with the first two standards
44 although residents are required to pass through two gates to gain access to the beach through the dog
45 beach with compliance including the installation of signage. He referred to the number of obstructions
46 which prevent people from walking along the shoreline. Mr. Francke also stated the Commission has the
47 ability to recommend conditions relating to this concern.
48
January 28, 2026 Page 5
1 Mr. Poor referred to other chain link fences at other dog beaches and to a letter submitted which stated
2 that none of them protrude 15 feet into the water. Mr. Francke confirmed they all have fencing at some
3 level and the Gillson Beach photo was taken at a time of year when the fence was not in the water. No
4 additional questions were raised at this time.
5
6 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment and for the comments to focus on issues which have not
7 been raised. She then swore in those speaking to this matter.
8
9 John Root referred to Section 6.8.20 of the Village ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large. He
10 stated an exception to the ordinance would be approved to have this fence and referred to a photo of
11 Gillson Beach which showed a fence at the water line. Mr. Root also referred to photos of other beaches
12 where the fences do not extend into the lake.
13
14 Joanna Karatzas from Winnetka described the plans for the off leash dog beach as vague and misleading
15 and she read her statement into the record. She asked for the special use permit to be denied.
16
17 Laurie Peterson read Mary Garrison’s letter into the record who asked for the special use permit request
18 to be denied.
19
20 Mark Hecht from Winnetka described the proposed plan as an ill-conceived use of Village and Park District
21 property with there being better ways to handle the issue. He suggested entirely prohibiting dogs from all
22 lakefront property during regular swimming hours and allow everyone to freely use the entire lakefront.
23 Mr. Hecht also suggested the use of stone jetties with the suggestion that these alternatives be used for
24 a couple of years to determine if they are effective.
25
26 Jude Overly, a 33 year Fuller Lane resident, stated she has never seen any aggressive behaviors over her
27 years of using the beach and there is no need to have a fence to protect dogs and residents. She described
28 incidents of dogs having issues with fences. Ms. Overly referred to one particular non-Winnetka resident
29 who hoped for the fence and asked for the application to be denied and for the dog beach to be left open
30 for all residents and their dogs.
31
32 Susie Schreiber, past Park District commissioner and a past member of this Commission, read a statement
33 into the record which referred to the numerous amount of accidents and deaths in Illinois beach state
34 parks and along the shorelines as well as the lack of Illinois shoreline safety regulations. She concluded by
35 asking for the terminology of shoals not to be used in reference to Centennial beach.
36
37 Irene Smith, a 40 year Winnetka resident, referred the Commission to a photo of Centennial Beach and
38 described the Park District’s convoluted proposal to have a fence in the lake. She stated creating a cage
39 for the limited number of Winnetka pass holders did not make sense. Ms. Smith stated the waters are
40 navigable and did not contain shoals and asked for the special use permit be denied.
41
42 Angie Dahl, a 40 year Winnetka resident, stated she has served as a Park District President and on several
43 Village advisory boards. She described the unsafe and impassable condition of the beach which has
44 occurred over the years. Ms. Dahl stated when the public went to the IDNR to ask for clarification with
45 regard to several lakefront matters, the response was that the Village could have denied all of the
46 approvals since the Village has final jurisdiction over the lakefront. She then referred to the amount of
47 complaints with regard to the proposal and asked the Commission to deny the request.
48
January 28, 2026 Page 6
1 Alexandra Nichols, 900 Mt. Pleasant, stated there are serious safety concerns with fences at the dog beach
2 and there has been a violation of the doctrine of public use. She then read her statement into the record
3 and asked for the special use permit be denied.
4
5 Peggy Martay, a 50 year Winnetka resident, read her statement into the record and asked for the special
6 use permit to be denied.
7
8 Steve Juliusson, a 20 year Winnetka resident, read his statement into the record and asked for the special
9 use permit to be denied.
10
11 Susan Curry, 375 Hawthorn, stated the dog beach and park are important to the community and the
12 described discussions relating to moving some of those facilities to other parts of the area as off. She
13 described the dog beach as a family beach and stated they can all come together find a way for everyone
14 to enjoy the beach. Ms. Curry also stated she had not heard of any issues regarding safety or security with
15 there being diversity across the waterfront and concluded nothing needed to be changed.
16
17 Katie Stevens referred to the restrictive covenant signed between Orchard 2020 and the Park District
18 which did not include a fence permit at that time and would freeze Centennial Beach’s use for 50 years.
19 She stated the fencing may become permanent and may end up on private land with a land swap. Ms.
20 Stevens also referred to access limitations with fencing becoming a nuisance and referred to specific code
21 requirements.
22
23 David Stevens, Winnetka resident, referred to the referenced water depth which would be well over 3
24 feet and would present a restriction in terms of those who want to use the beach.
25
26 Ted Wynnychenko asked for the special use permit to not be approved and referred to the half-truths
27 being presented at this meeting. He also referred to fences and restrictions at other beaches, the lack of
28 shoals, etc. Mr. Wynnychenko questioned the Park District’s right to put a fence across the high water
29 mark area and referred to the binding exchange agreement in place with regard to the overlay district
30 requirements which would result in private land ownership.
31
32 Melissa Meizel, a 30 year Winnetka resident, referred to the 460 linear foot proposal and contemplated
33 use by dog owners which she described as an excessive allocation of resources. She also referred to
34 whether it would be a dog beach, dog park and that “temporary” would result in “until further notice.”
35 Ms. Meizel stated there has been no investigation in connection with fences at other beaches other than
36 the one which supported the applicant’s position. She concluded they are being treated with ambiguity,
37 obfuscation, distortion, etc. and asked for the special use permit to be denied. No additional comments
38 were made at this time.
39
40 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond at this
41 time.
42
43 Mr. Francke clarified the reason as to why Mr. Kutulas explained the term “temporary fencing” in some
44 places and not others. He also stated with regard to the plan being presented in bits and pieces, the Park
45 District is working on plans for Elder and Centennial Beaches following the Commission’s consideration of
46 the prior plan in 2025 which is what was intended by the term “temporary.” Mr. Francke also referred to
47 the written comment relating to guidelines with regard to temporary approval which the Park District
48 would not be opposed to. He stated with regard to the dog beach size, if these concerns are shared and
January 28, 2026 Page 7
1 recognizing the shared beach and making it a condition that the Park District explore alternatives including
2 a design which did not require pass through. Mr. Francke stated there are alternatives to address a
3 number of responses made.
4
5 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion and summarized the issue presented to the
6 Commission as to whether the fencing met the standards. Mr. Alt stated he would not be in favor for a
7 number of reasons and referred to the waste of time and money the Park District continued to bring to
8 the Commission and others. He stated while the presentation was strong, he asked the applicant to put
9 together a plan that is safe and would work for the community. Ms. Van Vlack stated the Commission
10 should not decide what the dog beach should be called and although delineation would have been helpful,
11 she identified the tasks the Commission is to consider. She stated based on the presentation, it is not clear
12 that the proposal met that documented necessity and she also had an issue of approving an item
13 categorized as temporary. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would not vote in favor of the request.
14
15 Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made and stated generally, if a fence is needed for use separation
16 but it is only three sided, it did not meet that requirement and no one wants a four sided fence. He stated
17 extending the fence an arbitrary distance into the lake did not solve the issue. Ms. Case agreed with the
18 comments made and stated standards (a) and (b) have not been met. She stated she is concerned with
19 regard to safety in terms of the fence in the water and having to go through four air locks to get to the
20 beach. Ms. Case stated the Commission is being asked to approve something in a vacuum when they do
21 not know what the rest of the proposal would be. Mr. Blum agreed with the comments made and
22 indicated the ZBA may address the issue of increased parking. He then referred to the restrictive covenant
23 issue and asked that they find a path forward to get the beaches open. Mr. Blum concluded most of the
24 standards have not been met and asked the Village Attorney to draft language which outlined the
25 Commission’s opposition.
26
27 Mr. Poor stated he came to the similar conclusion as the rest of the Commission Members and described
28 his use of the dog beach. He stated a 15-foot fence in the lake would present security issues for dogs who
29 love the water. Mr. Poor stated the dog beach existed prior to 2010 and worked well. He described the
30 risks and safety issues a 15-foot fence presented and the request did not satisfy the first two standards
31 and he would vote against the request. Mr. Bradley stated there may be a call for everyone to work
32 towards a temporary condition and viable path which would bide some time in connection with the issues
33 between the prior plan and future plans for Centennial and Elder Beaches. He stated a strict standard
34 interpretation of the standards would put a zero sum solution on the table. Mr. Bradley stated the beaches
35 cannot be left alone and littoral drift among other issues needed to be addressed. He concluded by stating
36 a short term solution needed to be reached while a longer term plan can be achieved. The Commission
37 Members agreed a solution is needed.
38
39 Trustee Orsic informed the Commission dog beach pass owners came to a Village Council meeting and
40 stated they are not in favor of fences or wedded to this location. She stated while there has not been a
41 fence there for a period of time, she referred to the dangers of having children and dogs play in the water
42 with a submerged fence. Trustee Orsic referred to the wood slat temporary fence at Highland Park and
43 agreed a solution needed to be reached for Elder Beach to be opened. Chairperson Danley agreed with
44 Mr. Bradley’s comments and reiterated her statement at the time the entire plan was presented to the
45 Commission is that in making a decision, they all want the beaches to be open. She stated she is concerned
46 with the first two standards and referred to the safety concerns raised with regard to children and dogs.
47 Chairperson Danley stated having a fence in the water would not serve to address the safety concerns.
48 She also referred to the difficulty if they were to impose conditions which would be numerous as well as
January 28, 2026 Page 8
1 the interaction between those beach goers and dog owners with a solution being made that took that
2 into account with the posted sign being insufficient. Chairperson Danley concluded she is not in favor of
3 the request.
4
5 Mr. Francke asked if the Park District could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and
6 provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach at a future Plan Commission meeting. The
7 Commission was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them after all the public comments
8 related to the submitted plan. Chairperson Danley suggested the applicant can present those options to
9 the ZBA. She then asked for a motion.
10
11 Mr. Blum moved to recommend denial of the special use request permit and to direct the Village Attorney
12 and Village staff to prepare written findings and determinations consistent with the Commission’s
13 comments and the record from this public hearing for proposed consideration at the Commission’s next
14 meeting. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
15 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
16 NAYS: None
17 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
18
19 b. Case No. 26-02-SU: 736 Elm Street - Solidcore: An application seeking approval of a Special Use
20 Permit submitted by Solidcore, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 736 Elm
21 Street to allow a personal fitness facility in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The
22 property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this
23 request.
24 Mr. Marx summarized the special use permit requested and identified the property’s location in the One
25 Winnetka development and zoning classification with the proposed space to be occupied in the
26 Commercial Overlay District. He then identified the Overlay District boundaries as well as the proposed
27 use in an illustration for the Commission. Mr. Marx summarized the business operations, number of
28 employees and hours of operation which would be appointment-only classes. He also summarized the
29 proposed parking plan and use occupancy in detail. Mr. Marx summarized the One Winnetka final planned
30 development approval, the partial approval of special use findings for medical and financial service uses
31 and noted cultural recreational and entertainment uses, which includes personal fitness facilities, did not
32 receive partial approval in the One Winnetka planned development with all 12 special use standard being
33 applicable that are provided on pages 101 and 102 of the agenda packet.
34
35 Mr. Marx stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the
36 Commission may decide to either continue the application to a date certain to allow time to address any
37 questions or comments or consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the special use permit
38 with draft language included on pages 101-102. He then asked if there were any questions.
39
40 Chairperson Danley referred to the Commission's prior discussion regarding the allowance for special use
41 permits and asked what information is there available on other building tenants other than the Ballyhoo
42 restaurant. Mr. Mangum referred to the Charles Schwab and the Winnetka Aesthetic Studio approved
43 special uses as well as the Arkadia restaurant which would be a permitted use in the development. He
44 noted there is one additional special use application which was submitted for a medical-related use as
45 well as another restaurant concept which would be a permitted use. Chairperson Danley asked if there
46 were any questions.
47
48 Ms. Van Vlack asked if any of the remaining space available would be a restaurant or special use. Mr.
January 28, 2026 Page 9
1 Mangum confirmed all of the spaces have been leased. He stated they do not have all of the information
2 available yet for the upcoming special use request. Ms. Klaassen confirmed there are limits for medical
3 and financial special uses. Ms. Van Vlack asked how many potential retail spaces remain on Elm Street.
4 Mr. Mangum stated there are no retail spaces remaining. No additional questions were raised at this time.
5
6 Chairperson Danley asked for the applicant’s presentation. She swore in those speaking to this matter.
7 Melanie Nifong, Solidcore Senior Director of Operations and Sean Jackson of DxU Architects introduced
8 themselves to the Commission. Chairperson Danley referred to the proposed hours of operation and the
9 applicant’s other locations around the country. She asked if there has been discussion whether the
10 proposed schedule would generate the same amount of people as in their other locations. Ms. Nifong
11 stated other suburban locations have a fully robust schedule which she described for the Commission.
12 She noted their closest location to the Village is in Buffalo Grove which has over 600 members. Ms. Nifong
13 also described the demographic. Mr. Bradley stated he is concerned with regard to the evening hours and
14 whether the space would compete with other uses such as a restaurant. Mr. Jackson identified the existing
15 parking on Lincoln and Elm as well as the dedicated spaces in the One Winnetka development. He noted
16 their patrons would not all drive to the location which include those using the train. Mr. Jackson also
17 stated a parking analysis was previously done for the entire One Winnetka development. Mr. Bradley also
18 questioned the noise component. Mr. Jackson responded it would be in the 40-50 decibel range, and they
19 have a consultant which provided recommendations for their locations which include the fact that
20 residents are located above the location. Ms. Nifong estimated 50% of their locations are in mixed use
21 buildings.
22
23 Chairperson Danley asked the applicant if they considered any other properties. Mr. Jackson responded
24 the applicant’s real estate team reviewed other properties in the area. Ms. Nifong stated they had to close
25 their Vernon Hills location during Covid. Chairperson Danley asked if there were any questions.
26
27 Ms. Van Vlack questioned the in-person staff makeup which Ms. Nifong described for the Commission.
28 Mr. Jackson confirmed there would be times no music is being played during in the 10 minute gap between
29 classes and stated they were advised by an acoustical engineer in terms of sound. Ms. Nifong described
30 the coaching staff and noted the door would be locked. Mr. Blum stated he is concerned with regard to
31 double counting parking spaces in terms of overlap. Ms. Nifong added no shower amenities would be
32 provided.
33
34 Mr. Poor stated while he appreciated the acoustical mitigation efforts, he referred to the residential units
35 above and asked if they would be able to hear music. Mr. Jackson explained the way in which the space
36 would be defined. He informed the Commission the acoustical report can be provided to the Commission.
37 Ms. Nifong noted sound testing is done prior to opening their locations. Ms. Van Vlack asked what would
38 be done to keep with the building’s aesthetic in terms of signage. Mr. Marx explained that the applicant
39 was asked to provide a general context for the proposed signage for consideration by the DRB and referred
40 to the elevation renderings. He also noted backlit lighting was originally proposed for the sign but it was
41 changed to external illumination. No additional questions were raised at this time.
42
43 Chairperson Danley stated there is no one in the audience to comment and called the matter in for
44 discussion.
45
46 Ms. Case stated this is not the right venue for this use and referred to the amount of issues relating to
47 parking. She stated the Commission was under the impression that the developer would seek retail or
48 restaurant uses as opposed to another special use. Ms. Case identified several special use businesses in
January 28, 2026 Page 10
1 the area and stated given the parking use by the applicant, parking would be full constantly. She concluded
2 this space would not be a good fit for this use. Mr. Blum agreed with Ms. Case’s comments and stated if
3 the Overlay District is worth having, the requirements should be enforced. He stated there should be some
4 semblance of retail in the front and he would not be in favor of the request.
5
6 Mr. Poor stated he appreciated the applicant’s presentation and agreed with the comments made. He
7 stated he would not be in favor of the request. Trustee Orsic stated while there is a demographic which
8 would like the use, she suggested the applicant look for another location. She questioned why the
9 developer did not come to the meeting to further explain the request. Mr. Alt stated while they want the
10 business in the community and there is a demand for it, he referred to the One Winnetka project being
11 an idea for a decade and there has not been a demand for a retailer in this space. He questioned whether
12 this business would be a more modern use for the space and stated this type of business would be
13 attractive to the area and would draw a diverse demographic. The Commission Members discussed similar
14 cases which were denied and the Commission Members summarized their positions.
15
16 Mr. Enck stated his initial concern related to parking and referred to other special uses which generate
17 foot traffic for other businesses. He commented it would be nice if the use was in an area which supported
18 other businesses. Mr. Bradley stated his initial thought was to recommend approval and agreed with Mr.
19 Alt’s comments relating to hanging on to retail uses at the cost of denying other businesses. He questioned
20 why they would deny a use that would be preferred by the younger generation and good for the Village.
21 Mr. Bradley also stated he is concerned with the door being locked and commented the number of people
22 in and out of the use would be beneficial. He agreed parking is an issue and commented they should not
23 recommend denial of a cool and upcoming use.
24
25 Chairperson Danley commented while the proposed use may be a great idea and a good business draw
26 for the Village, she would feel better if it was in a different location. She also stated she is concerned with
27 regard to standard nos. 5 and 7 and referred to the post office site development and the draw on parking.
28 Chairperson Danley stated there would not be a pedestrian draw with only special uses in the area and
29 described the process as unfair to the applicant. She stated if they were to accept the premise that this
30 would only be a special use building, they would kill any type of pedestrian nature for the area.
31 Chairperson Danley concluded it came down to the space they are evaluating and whether the use met
32 the standards and in this instance, it did not and she would not be in favor of the request. The Commission
33 Members discussed whether the application would have been approved at a different point in time.
34
35 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll of the Commission Members and asked for a motion. A motion was
36 made by Mr. Poor to recommend denial of the special use request. The motion was seconded by Mr.
37 Blum. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 3:
38 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Poor
39 NAYS: Alt. Enck, Van Vlack
40 NON-VOTING: Orsic
41
42 New Business.
43 a. February 25, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check.
44 The Commission Members discussed their availability.
45
46 Adjournment:
47 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made and the motion was
48 seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
January 28, 2026 Page 11
1 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
2 NAYS: None
3 NON-VOTING: Orsic
4 The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
5
6 Respectfully submitted,
7
8 Antionette Johnson
9 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Plan Commission Regular Meeting
January 28, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application
seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the
existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 26-02-SU: 736 Elm Street - Solidcore: An application seeking
approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Solidcore, as the prospective
lessee of the commercial space located at 736 Elm Street to allow a personal
fitness facitliy in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay Distirct. The
property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has
final jurisdiction on this request.
6. New Business
a. February 25, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quourm 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).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Plan Commission Regular Meeting
January 28, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Winnetka Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. December 17, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comments
4. Community Development Report
5. New Applications
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application
seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the
existing beach. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 26-02-SU: 736 Elm Street - Solidcore: An application seeking
approval of a Special Use Permit submitted by Solidcore, as the prospective
lessee of the commercial space located at 736 Elm Street to allow a personal
fitness facitliy in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay Distirct. The
property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has
final jurisdiction on this request.
6. New Business
a. February 25, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quourm 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 142
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
2 DECEMBER 17, 2025
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Mamie Case
8 Chris Enck
9 King Poor
10 Cyrus Subawalla
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: Matthew Bradley
14
15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic
16
17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
19 Development
20
21 Call to Order & Roll Call:
22 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Danley at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Klaassen took roll call of the
23 Commission Members present.
24
25 Approval of November 19, 2025, Meeting Minutes:
26 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to approve the November 19, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion
27 was made by Ms. Van Vlack and seconded by Mr. Poor to approve the November 19, 2025, meeting
28 minutes. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
29 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
30 NAYS: None
31 NON-VOTING: Orsic
32
33 Public Comment:
34 No comments were made at this time.
35
36 Community Development Report:
37 Mr. Mangum stated there is nothing new to update. Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the
38 consolidation application for 458 and 464 Sunset, presented to the Commission at the last meeting, has
39 been withdrawn.
40
41 New Applications:
42 a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: Applications seeking approval
43 of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, which
44 requires (i) variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than
45 the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase
46 in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and
47 increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation along the north
48 side buildings walls; and (ii) a finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact for the existing
Page 2 of 142
December 17, 2025 Page 2
1 detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue which observes less than the minimum required rear yard
2 setback from the east property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
3 Ms. Klaassen referred to an illustration of the property and location which she identified for the
4 Commission, as well as its zoning classification, size and existing improvements. She stated the
5 Comprehensive Plan designated the property and surrounding properties as appropriate for single family
6 residential uses and the use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation
7 and R-5 zoning. Ms. Klaassen then identified the site’s photos noting the applicant resides in 883 Foxdale
8 and submitted a demolition application for 829 Foxdale which was approved by the Historic Preservation
9 Commission without delay. She described the proposed consolidated lots’ measurements, the proposed
10 addition and detached garage noting building plans have not yet been submitted. Ms. Klaassen also
11 summarized the variations being requested, the nonconformities being eliminated and created, the
12 setbacks, as well as the sizes of similar neighboring lots. She stated the ZBA is to consider the application
13 at its January 12, 2026, meeting. Ms. Klaassen noted the Village Engineering and Water and Electric
14 Departments are not requiring easements, She also noted that the applicant is working with staff to
15 finalize the necessary signature blocks on the plat. She stated the Commission is to consider whether the
16 proposed consolidation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and complied with the subdivision
17 code. Ms. Klaassen then stated following the applicants’ presentation, public comment and Commission
18 discussion, the Commission may decide to take action one of two options: (i) continue the item to a date
19 certain; or (ii) consider a motion to recommend approval or denial. She noted draft language for a
20 recommendation of approval or denial is included in the packet and that staff did not receive any written
21 comments from the public. Ms. Klaassen then asked if there were any questions.
22
23 Chairperson Danley referred to Figure 4 and asked for clarification with regard to similarly sized lots. Ms.
24 Klaassen clarified the information for the Commission. Mr. Enck asked if R-4 and R-5 zoning is behind the
25 property. Ms. Klaassen identified the properties on Lincoln which are R-4 as well as some lots on Tower
26 Road. Ms. Van Vlack asked if the 15,000 square foot resultant lot would be measured the same as R-3
27 zoned lots. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the proposed lot size would be similar to the minimum required R-3
28 lot area of 16,000 square feet. No additional questions were raised at this time.
29
30 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Chip Hackley of Hackley & Associates
31 Architects summarized the work he has done in the Village and on this property. He stated the proposed
32 plan would maintain the neighborhood continuity and scale with a seamless addition which would
33 improve the property. Mr. Hackley noted the proposed plans have not been finalized and discussed the
34 setback issues resulting from the consolidation. He also stated the removal of one of the garages would
35 be a nice component of the plan and reduce the combined property’s impermeable effect. The applicants’
36 team provided no additional comments and Mr. Hackley then asked if there were any questions.
37
38 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. A Commission Member questioned the
39 existing home’s square footage. Mr. Hackley responded the proposal would be under the maximum
40 allowable FAR. A Commission Member then questioned the home’s square footage with the addition. Mr.
41 Hackley referred to the challenges with regard to drainage and the property’s slope. No additional
42 questions were raised at this time.
43
44 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment. Jason Alcorn, 837 Foxdale, stated the proposal would be
45 an improvement for the neighborhood. He referred to specific language with regard to the northern
46 property owner and stated he wanted to ensure no variations are granted to the setback of the current
47 structure with the proposed addition as well as for articulation.
48
Page 3 of 142
December 17, 2025 Page 3
1 Colin Cross, 821 Foxdale, stated his issue is that combining the two Foxdale lots would change the
2 community nature. He described the neighborhood as an old world community due to the small lot sizes.
3 Mr. Cross stated he is opposed to larger 100 foot lots on Foxdale which has a reputation as one of the
4 most unique neighborhoods in the Village which is affordable for the influx of young families. He then
5 commented on 841 Foxdale and questioned what would happen if the larger lot is sold and a larger home
6 is built. No additional comments were made at this time.
7
8 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion. Trustee Orsic commented that both neighbors are
9 right. She noted that there are already larger lots here, unlike the application considered last month. She
10 stated the decision they made last month was due to it being precedent setting. Trustee Orsic stated in
11 this particular case, she would be in favor of the request due to the fact there are similar lots. Chairperson
12 Danley referred to the prior discussion relating to preserving existing housing stock and referred to the
13 nearby larger homes in the R-4 district. Mr. Blum stated the request is approximately 1,000 feet under the
14 standard or 45%. He also stated it is important to consider the entirety of Foxdale and referred to the
15 items the Commission is to consider and specific standards he identified. He also stated the request would
16 not support the plan in that it would eliminate two smaller more affordable homes.
17
18 Mr. Enck stated he also appreciated both views from the public comments and stated the proposed design
19 in this particular instance would fit in better with the neighborhood. He referred to previous discussions
20 for demolition applications and stated the lower scale and size of the addition would help to maintain the
21 street feel more so than what could otherwise be built there. Ms. Case agreed with the comments made
22 and referred to the fact the property is not large enough to go through the special use permit
23 consolidation process in connection with lot size. She also agreed with the discussion with regard to the
24 Foxdale uniqueness and that she is somewhat concerned what would happen with the next application
25 to combine two Foxdale lots. Ms. Case questioned whether the Trustees would consider that possibility
26 which would result in the loss of the R-5 characteristics. She added while the proposal is nice looking, they
27 should consider future possibilities. Trustee Orsic informed the Commission she could bring up the issue
28 at the next Village Council meeting.
29
30 Mr. Blum stated for this area, the home would remain an R-5 home with an R-3 size and referred to
31 instances for homes which were built pre-code. Mr. Alt stated R-4, R-5 and R-3 lots are there for a reason
32 and agreed the Foxdale area is special due to the small lot size and affordability and commented
33 eliminating such housing stock in the R-5 district did not make sense. He then referred to setting a
34 precedent which would change the neighborhood fabric and he would vote against the request. He also
35 agreed with Mr. Blum’s comment to not create an R-3 sized home in the R-5 district and referred to the
36 Comprehensive Plan’s goals with regard to housing stock.
37
38 Mr. Subawalla agreed with Mr. Alt’s comments with regard to incrementally breaking up the
39 neighborhood fabric and scale diversity. He stated he is on the fence. Ms. Van Vlack stated they are
40 struggling with the fundamental issue that they cannot answer in terms of maintaining housing stock,
41 neighborhood character and affordability. She stated while they do need to keep smaller housing stock,
42 she referred to the issue of teardowns by developers. Ms. Van Vlack then stated in considering 849
43 Foxdale which was built in 2005, the guidelines which were not considerably different at that time and
44 how that property was allowed be consolidated at that time. She also stated going from an R-5 to an R-4
45 is not as big of a jump but they must find a way to fundamentally address the issue as these matters come
46 before them. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request.
47
48 Mr. Poor stated in considering the Sunset matter discussed last month, he referred to the discussion of
Page 4 of 142
December 17, 2025 Page 4
1 not setting precedent but described the situation as similar enough. He agreed Foxdale is a unique area
2 which is the type of area the Comprehensive Plan was designed to promote. Mr. Poor concluded he would
3 vote against the request.
4
5 Chairperson Danley stated she would take a straw poll of the Commission Members and noted her
6 preference is to not combine R-5 lots. She then stated while the property is located next to the R-4 district
7 and one home would be maintained and a special use is not being requested, she did not see within the
8 standards they are reviewing, she would be in favor of the request with the provision that both garages
9 would be removed. Chairperson Danley also referred to the finding being made of no increased material
10 adverse impact being a condition. The Commission Members then identified their positions in detail for
11 the straw poll.
12
13 Chairperson Danley indicated the Commission appeared to be split, 4:4 and asked the Commission
14 Members if they felt any additional information is needed to vote on the matter. Ms. Klaassen noted that
15 the Commission should work towards making a recommendation to the Village Council one way or the
16 other. Trustee Orsic informed the Commission if there is a split vote, that is important for the Trustees to
17 know that there is a bigger issue. Chairperson Danley added the Commission Members’ concerns have
18 been noted for the record.
19
20 Chairperson Danley then suggested they go through the standards to identify those which are not met.
21 Mr. Blum referred to the discussion that the matter is something the Village Council needs to further
22 consider.
23
24 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Poor moved to recommend denial of the application.
25 The motion was seconded by Mr. Blum with the statement that the request is inconsistent with the
26 Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 3:
27 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Poor, Subawalla
28 NAYS: Danley, Enck, Van Vlack
29 NON-VOTING: Trustee Orsic
30
31 New Business.
32 a. January 28, 2026, Meeting – Quorum Check.
33 The Commission Members discussed their availability.
34
35 Adjournment:
36 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Alt and
37 seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 8 to 0:
38 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Subawalla, Van Vlack
39 NAYS: None
40 NON-VOTING: Trustee Orsic
41
42 The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
43
44 Respectfully submitted,
45
46 Antionette Johnson
47 Recording Secretary
Page 5 of 142
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission is scheduled to commence a public hearing on an application
submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225
Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing on the existing
beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing being held by the Plan Commission. The hearing
was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 8, 2026. Additionally, a public notice sign was
posted on the Subject Property informing the public of the Plan Commission meeting. As of the date of
this memo, staff has received five written comments from the public regarding this application which are
included in Attachment B.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Page 1
Page 6 of 142
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
Page 7 of 142
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 3).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Page 8 of 142
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
Page 9 of 142
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject
to approval by the Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial
of, to allow improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025,
the Plan Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope
exceptions. The application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its
recommendation. The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being
considered by the Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising
its previous plans and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be
considered first by the advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 4 and 5 on the following page are current photos of the Subject Property. Figures 6 through 9
were taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 10 of 142
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 11 of 142
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 12 of 142
Figure 8 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 13 of 142
Figure 9 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
Page 14 of 142
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change The test of what change is gradual,
as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has been
made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may protect
his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which is a
corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing installation of two rows of chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set
back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would
be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the
beach into the lake. As described by the Applicant in the attached project narrative included in
Attachment A, the purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Patrons are
required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above. The proposed
fencing would enclose the beach area for dogs to be off-leash. Both the north and south fence would
have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates in its narrative that
they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate
to remain at the top of bluff.
North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the
base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate
10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area
would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and
approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM.
Page 15 of 142
South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall
east towards the water (Figure 12). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM
into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in
width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward
sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing and gates are provided on the following pages. The complete set of plans is provided
in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Steel
North Fence Sheet Pile Wall
and Gate
Figure 10 –Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0)
Page 16 of 142
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Access Gate
Figure 11 – Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line
Between Centennial
Park & Beach and 205
Sheridan Road
Proposed
OHWM
Access Gate
(Front Lot Line)
Figure 12 – Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 17 of 142
As proposed, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice
versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog
beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines
by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin.
Figure 13 – Proposed North Access Gate Figure 14 – Proposed South Access Gate
Figure 15 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 16 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required
front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed
fence complies with the zoning regulations.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Page 18 of 142
The proposed fence also requires review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (Special Use) and the Design
Review Board (Certificate of Appropriateness). Their respective reviews will occur after the Plan
Commission’s review is complete.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for
granting specials use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the
Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets
the standards for granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission.
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the Plan Commission
is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a
Commissioner should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based
upon the following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings
and determinations for the Plan Commission’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent
meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions will not be substantially
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially
diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions will not
impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in
the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of
concern;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the Plan Commission should direct the Village Attorney to
prepare written findings and determinations for the Plan Commission to consider and vote on at a
subsequent meeting.
Page 19 of 142
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Public Correspondence
Page 20 of 142
ATTACHMENT A
Page 21 of 142
Page 22 of 142
Page 23 of 142
Page 24 of 142
Page 25 of 142
Page 26 of 142
Page 27 of 142
Page 28 of 142
Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest)
Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East)
Page 29 of 142
Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East)
Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South)
Page 30 of 142
Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West)
Dog Beach (Looking North)
Page 31 of 142
North Seawall (Looking West)
North Seawall (Looking Northwest)
Page 32 of 142
Dog Beach (Looking South)
Bog Beach (Looking South)
Page 33 of 142
Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West)
Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West)
Page 34 of 142
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest)
Page 35 of 142
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West)
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Page 36 of 142
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West)
Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland
Page 37 of 142
Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East)
Page 38 of 142
Upper Park (Looking South)
Upper Park (Looking East)
Page 39 of 142
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East)
Page 40 of 142
Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Page 41 of 142
Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest)
Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast)
Page 42 of 142
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest)
Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North)
Page 43 of 142
Page 44 of 142
Page 45 of 142
Page 46 of 142
Page 47 of 142
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 48 of 142
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 49 of 142
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 50 of 142
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 51 of 142
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 52 of 142
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 53 of 142
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 54 of 142
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 55 of 142
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 56 of 142
Background: WPD Centennial SUP Testimony to Plan in 2025
Page 57 of 142
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 58 of 142
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 59 of 142
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 60 of 142
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 61 of 142
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 62 of 142
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 63 of 142
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 64 of 142
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 65 of 142
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 66 of 142
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 67 of 142
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 68 of 142
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 69 of 142
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 70 of 142
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 71 of 142
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 72 of 142
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 73 of 142
Page 74 of 142
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 75 of 142
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 76 of 142
Page 77 of 142
Page 78 of 142
Page 79 of 142
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 80 of 142
Page 81 of 142
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 82 of 142
Page 83 of 142
Page 84 of 142
Page 85 of 142
Page 86 of 142
Page 87 of 142
Page 88 of 142
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 89 of 142
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 90 of 142
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 91 of 142
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 92 of 142
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 93 of 142
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 94 of 142
fi
fi
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: PLAN COMMISSION
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2026
SUBJECT: 736 ELM STREET – SOLIDCORE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-02-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider an application
submitted by Solidcore (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of the property located at 736 Elm
Street (the “Subject Property”), to allow a personal fitness studio to occupy the Subject Property. The
property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP.
The Applicant has filed an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit in accordance with Chapter
17.56 [Special Uses] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to permit a personal fitness studio in the C-2
General Retail Commercial Overlay District at the Subject Property. The Applicant would be opening a
Winnetka location of a nationally based fitness studio chain.
A sign has been posted on the Subject Property and a website notice has been posted on the Village
website indicating the time and date of the Plan Commission public hearing. A mailed notice has been
sent to property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property. As of the date of this memo, staff has
not received any written comments from the public regarding this application.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is one of the commercial spaces located in the four-story mixed-use building that is
currently under construction at 720-736 Elm Street and 515-525 Lincoln Avenue (newly assigned
addresses), often referred to as One Winnetka, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Elm
Street and Lincoln Avenue. The approximately 2,363 square foot space at 736 Elm Street is a portion of
the 20,955 square feet of commercial space in the One Winnetka building and is on the western portion
of the building’s north facing commercial space. To date, the other tenants within the development that
have received approvals are the Winnetka Aesthetic Studio medical office and a Charles Schwab financial
services office, although a restaurant is expected to occupy the northwestern space on the first floor near
the street intersection. There will be 59 residential units on the second, third, and fourth floors.
The Subject Property is located within the Village’s Commercial Overlay District, which allows non-retail
uses, such as fitness studios; however, the Zoning Ordinance requires that they be evaluated by the Plan
Commission and Village Council as a special use. Figures 1 through 4 on the following pages identify the
One Winnetka site and the proposed location of the fitness studio.
Page 1
Page 95 of 142
Location of Proposed
Solidcore Fitness Studio
Figure 1 – One Winnetka Site – GIS Map
Location of Proposed
Solidcore Fitness Studio
Figure 2 – Aerial Location Map
Location of Proposed
Fitness Studio Entrance
Figure 3 – One Winnetka – North Facing Elm Street Façade
Page 2
Page 96 of 142
Figure 4 – One Winnetka – Rendering of Proposed Fitness Studio Along Elm Street Façade
COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT BACKGROUND
The Overlay District was established in 1987 out of concern about the viability of the business districts as
a whole if non-retail occupancies were allowed to proliferate and occupy significant areas within retail
shopping districts. At the time of adoption there was a concern about the possible proliferation of real
estate offices and financial institutions.
The Village Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the Overlay District and its restrictions on non-
retail uses as being:
“to encourage retailing of comparison shopping goods and personal services compatible with such
retailing on ground floor in order to encourage a clustering of such uses, to provide for a wide variety of
retail shops and expose such shops to maximum foot traffic, while keeping such traffic in concentrated
(yet well distinguished) channels throughout the district.”
Since its adoption in 1987, the Overlay District has been revised on more than one occasion to alter district
boundaries, or to modify the types of uses which are permitted within each district. The most recent
amendment occurred on April 4, 2019, when the Village Council adopted MC-01-2019, amending the
Zoning Ordinance regarding uses and regulations in the three commercial districts, including amendments
to the Overlay District and the standards used to evaluate a special use.
ELM STREET BUSINESS DISTRICTS OVERLAY BOUNDARIES
A map depicting the zoning classifications of the Elm Street Business Districts is included on the following page
as Figure 5. The One Winnetka site is highlighted yellow.
Page 3
Page 97 of 142
Gray areas indicate the underlying C-2 General Retail Commercial zoning, which permits by right a relatively
broad array of uses, including various retail uses, along with a number of non-retail uses such as professional
offices, financial service firms, medical offices and the like.
Red crosshatch areas represent those areas subject to the restrictions of the Commercial Overlay District. The
boundaries of the Overlay District are established along certain public streets and extend for a depth of 50 feet
from the front property line.
Subject
Property
Figure 5 – Elm Street Business Districts
PREVIOUS APPROVALS
On January 21, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-01-2025, an Ordinance Granting Final
Approval of a Planned Development, Zoning Exceptions, a Special Use for Ground Floor Parking, and
Special Use Findings for Medical and Financial Services Uses at 511-515 Lincoln Avenue and 714-740 Elm
Street - One Winnetka (previous addresses). The ordinance granted partial approval of certain special use
findings for medical and financial services.
On September 16, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-12-2025, an Ordinance Granting a
Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Financial Counseling Office Within the C-2 Commercial Overlay
District, which approved the special use permit of the Charles Schwab financial services office for 720 Elm
Street in the same building. Then on December 2, 2025, the Village Council adopted Ordinance M-18-
2025, an Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Medical Office Within the C-2
Commercial Overlay District, which approved the special use permit of Winnetka Aesthetic Studio for 730
Elm Street, Suite 130, also located in the same building.
Page 4
Page 98 of 142
Cultural, recreational, and entertainment uses, which includes personal fitness facilities, did not receive
any partial approval in Ordinance M-01-2025 approving the One Winnetka Planned Development.
Therefore, all 12 special use standards set forth in Sections 17.56.120(A) and 17.44.020(B)(2)(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance apply to the current application being considered by the Commission.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST
The Applicant is proposing to open a Winnetka location of a nationally based franchise of fitness studios
called Solidcore, which offers appointment-based group exercise classes featuring specialized workout
options with methods and equipment that are distinctive to the company. The proposed fitness studio
would occupy approximately 2,363 square feet of commercial space with the main entrance located along
Elm Street. The space would consist of a reception area that leads to a locker area and the main exercise
room. The bathrooms would be located next to the front reception area while a utility and storage room
would be located towards the rear of the space. The Applicant states that retail offerings would be limited
to water and energy drinks for sale at the front desk for class attendees. The Applicant’s written
description of the proposed use is included in the application materials which are provided as Attachment
A.
The anticipated hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm on Monday through Friday and 7:00 am to
6:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. Classes would be by appointment-only, with no walk-ins. The daily
schedule would contain varying class time lengths with ten-minute gaps between classes to minimize
overlaps. On a typical day, the Applicant expects there would be 2 or 3 employees in the fitness studio
with 16 clients, for a maximum of 19 people on the premises at any given time.
For parking, the Applicant is proposing that its approximately 14 employees (two full-time and 12 part-
time) secure the necessary parking permit and park in public parking lots in the district, including the
Village-owned parking lot adjacent to One Winnetka, which does contain “A” permit parking spaces for
employees. The Applicant indicates that clients will utilize on-street parking or the parking in the ground
level of the commercial parking within the One Winnetka building. The off-street parking provided on the
One Winnetka site for commercial uses consists of 39 spaces in the ground level of the building, which is
the same number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. For reference, the Zoning
Ordinance requirement for commercial uses is two spaces for every 1,000 square feet of tenant space.
Ten of the ground level spaces are reserved for the Charles Schwab financial services office that was
approved in a previous special use permit case.
Figure 6 on the following page highlights the commercial space the Applicant is proposing to occupy in
the north section of the One Winnetka building. Figure 7 shows the proposed floor plan and layout for
the fitness studio.
Page 5
Page 99 of 142
Location of
Proposed Solidcore
Fitness Studio
Figure 6 – One Winnetka Ground Level Plan
Figure 7 – Excerpt of Proposed Floor Plan
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW
The Applicant has indicated that it has no plans to alter the exterior of the building that is currently under
construction, except for potential commercial signs or exterior lighting that will be applied for at a later
date. Any proposed signage or exterior alterations, including lighting, will require submission of a Sign
Permit application or Certificate of Appropriateness application that must be reviewed and approved by
the Village’s Design Review Board.
Page 6
Page 100 of 142
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW / FINDINGS
The “Purpose” section of Chapter 17.56 Special Uses, states the following regarding special uses:
It is recognized that there are special types of uses which because of their specific characteristics
in relationship to uses permitted by right in a particular district, or the services which they provide,
cannot be properly permitted by right in a particular district without consideration, in each case,
of the impact of such uses upon neighboring land, or of the public need for such uses at a particular
location.
A land use classified as a special use is an allowed land use as long as the Applicant can demonstrate that
the proposed use in its proposed specific location meets the applicable standards for granting special use
approval.
Section 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance provides a series of twelve (12) standards for the evaluation of
Special Use applications within the Commercial Overlay District, which provides a framework for
evaluation by the Plan Commission. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a
narrative addressing how this proposal complies with the twelve (12) standards. (See Attachment A)
Following conclusion of public comment and Commission discussion, a Commission member may
choose to make the following motion:
I make a motion that:
The Plan Commission recommends approval [denial] of the requested special use to allow the
Applicant, Solidcore, to operate a personal fitness studio at 736 Elm Street within the C-2
Commercial Overlay District, based on the following findings of fact:
“The personal fitness studio (the “Special Use”) is [is not] consistent with the Standards for
granting of Special Use Permits in the Commercial Overlay District, which are as follows:
1. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Special Use will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare;
2. The Special Use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor
substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
3. The establishment of Special Use will not impede the normal and orderly development or
improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district
or districts of concern;
4. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which
minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways;
5. Adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the
operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided;
6. The Special Use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other
village ordinances and codes;
7. The proposed special use at the proposed location will encourage, facilitate and enhance the
continuity, concentration, and pedestrian nature of the area in a manner similar to that of retail
uses;
Page 7
Page 101 of 142
8. The location of the proposed special use along a block frontage shall provide for a minimum
interruption in the existing and potential continuity and concentration of the retail uses along the
block’s frontage;
9. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for display windows, provided that
the street facing windows remain open and transparent as viewed from the sidewalk into the tenant
space. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for facades, signage and
lighting similar in nature and compatible with that provided by retail uses;
10. If the proposed special use provides multi-use areas, such as retail merchandise areas, restaurant
dining areas, general office space, private offices, reception areas, or employee work areas, any
proposed retail merchandise area or restaurant dining area shall be concentrated and located
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and clearly visible from the street in such a fashion as to invite
customers to browse or dine;
11. If a proposed new building contemplates a mix of retail, office and service type uses, the minimum
frontage for each retail use adjacent to the sidewalk shall be 20 feet with a minimum gross floor
area of 400 square feet. In addition, such retail space shall be devoted to active retail
merchandising which maintain typical and customary hours of operation; and
12. The proposed location and operation of the proposed special use shall not significantly
diminish the availability of parking for district clientele wishing to patronize existing retail
businesses.”
The Commission’s recommendation is subject to no conditions [the following conditions]:
1. [Insert conditions…]
As noted above, the Commission may also wish to consider if there are any additional conditions it may
want to place on the facility’s operation.
This request is subject to final approval by the Village Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Page 8
Page 102 of 142
ATTACHMENT A
Page 103 of 142
Re: Special Use Permit Narrative
Property Address: 736 Elm Street, Winnetka, Illinois
Proposed Use: [solidcore] Fitness Studio
To whom it may concern:
Please see a summary of the proposed project below, and please refer to the following,
additional pages and attachments for a complete description on how it will address each of
the twelve Special Use Permit Standards.
The applicant proposes to operate a [solidcore] boutique fitness studio at 736 Elm Street. The
use consists of small-group, instructor-led fitness classes conducted entirely indoors and by
reservation only.
The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Village’s commercial zoning
district, as it provides a neighborhood-serving personal service use that supports the vitality of
the Elm Street corridor. The operation is compatible with surrounding commercial uses and will
not create excessive noise, traffic, or activity outside normal business hours.
The facility will comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes and will operate in a manner
that protects public health, safety, and welfare. No site modification is proposed. Existing
utilities, access, and parking infrastructure are sufficient to support the use.
The use will not negatively impact adjacent properties or property values and is expected to
enhance the area by introducing an amenity that serves local residents. The applicant is willing
to comply with any reasonable conditions imposed by the Village related to hours of operation,
occupancy, parking, or signage.
For these reasons, we believe that the proposed use satisfies the Village’s standards for
granting a Special Use Permit.
Page 104 of 142
January 12, 2026
Solidcore Chicago, LLC
Keira Fitzgerald
1735 N Lynn St
#650
Arlington, VA 22209
To whom it may concern:
This leIer addresses in detail how the proposed tenant fit out of a new Solidcore locaMon at 736 Elm
Street, Winnetka, IL 60093 is in compliance with the following Special Use Permit Standards as laid out
by the Village of Winnetka, Department of Community Development -- SecMon 17.46.010 [Table of Uses]
to be located on the ground floor in the C-2 Commercial Overlay District.
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 establishment, maintenance, and operation of Solidcore will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare, or have a negative
environmental impact on the neighborhood or Village. The project will not create conditions
materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or
compatible with other properties in the vicinity as this project is designed to promote
health/awareness to community within a safe and professional business establishment. This
project is an interior build out and is to comply with the latest applicable codes. The fitness studio
classes are to be conducted entirely indoors in properly ventilated, sanitary, ADA compliant, noise-
controlled environment that will not be detrimental to the public health.
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;
• Solidcore will not unreasonably impede the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district, nor unreasonably diminish or
impair property values in the immediate vicinity. Solidcore will add to the overall use and
enjoyment of the vibrant community planned by the One Winnetka Development. There is no
indication that property values within the vicinity would be diminished nor impaired.
Page 105 of 142
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 establishment of the special use of the Solidcore space will not unreasonably impede
the normal and orderly development of improvement of other property in the immediate
vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of concern. The proposed use is
to operate within the bounds of the LOD that is dedicated to this space of this site and will
not encroach or infringe on the publics ROW nor any of the adjacencies.
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;
• Adequate measures to the site have been taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner
which will minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways. The
vehicle entrance is located on Lincoln Avenue and the existing properties Architect (OKW
Architects, LLC) and Development Group (Murphy Development Group) have previously
provided on 7/12/23 and thorough breakdown and traffic analysis that eliminates any
concerns of congestion. The Solidcore space has a maximum quantity of 16 client vehicles
on site per hour with 2-3 full-time employee vehicles on site per day (a quantity is roughly
50% less than the parking the property provides within the site boundaries) and the existing
property has 39 spaces of parking dedicated to the commercial uses on the ground level.
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;
• This location will employ 2 full-time employees & 12 part-time employees. A maximum of (2)
employees will staff the location at any given time: (1) instructor and (1) front desk attendant.
Class size is limited by the number of reformers in a given studio. Up to 16 attendees sign-up
for a spot using the Solidcore mobile app ahead of the class time. No walk-in services are
provided. There is only one instructor present for each class. Solidcore anticipates having 2-
3 full time employee vehicles on-site per day at any given time and a maximum of 16 client
vehicles on-site per hour. All drainage and other facilities to be utilized within the space have
been designed in accordance with the landlord provided utility supplies and have been
approved by the property/landlord.
6. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and
other village ordinances and codes;
• The planned development will either conform to all other respects of the applicable
regulations of the village ordinances and codes, or if relief is needed for any other aspect of
the project, it will be pursued pursuant to the procedures set forth in those ordinances and
codes.
Page 106 of 142
7. The proposed special use at the proposed location will encourage, facilitate and enhance
the continuity, concentration, and pedestrian nature of the area in a manner similar to that of retail
uses;
• The Soldicore space will have storefront windows along Elm Street with visible signage and
branding to promote the pedestrian-friendly character of the district and provide
opportunities for window displays and visual interest in a manner that reflects the
community. Photos included for reference on page 19 -20 of our supporting materials
document.
8. The location of the proposed special use along a block frontage shall provide for a minimum
interruption in the existing and potential continuity and concentration of the retail uses along the
block’s frontage;
• The location of the proposed Solidcore will provide minimal to no interruption in any existing
or potential continuity of the surrounding retail uses along the blocks frontage. Solidcore
plans to have an active storefront and visible storefront signage, as outlined in the interior
and exterior signage packages on pages 1 - 18 of our supporting materials document.
9. The proposed special use at the proposed location will provide for active display windows,
facades, signage and lighting similar in nature and compatible with that provided by retail uses;
• Solidcore plans to install signage in the display windows – our standard ‘bracket’ signage that
the brand is well known for. This signage will ensure our window displays will contribute to
the vibrant atmosphere in the community. Additional details for the bracket signage to be
installed on the interior wall facing the right side storefront window can be found on page 7 of
the interior signage package document provided.
• The full exterior and interior signage packages have been included for review on pages 1 - 18
of our supporting materials document.
10. If the proposed special use provides multi-use areas, such as retail merchandise areas,
restaurant dining areas, general office space, private offices, reception areas, or employee work
areas, any proposed retail merchandise area or restaurant dining area shall be concentrated and
located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and clearly visible from the street in such a fashion as
to invite customers to browse or dine;
• Our design intent is to focus our reception desk and lobby area in the front portion of the
space. This ensure that our space will feel welcoming and aesthetically pleasing to
customers and passersby. The workout space and employee work/storage space is
Page 107 of 142
Page 108 of 142
January 12, 2026
RE: [solidcore] - Winnetka, IL
736 Elm Street, Winnetka, IL
To whom it may concern,
Please accept this Comment Response Letter for the above referenced project. This
submittal is in response to the comments provided by the City of Winnetka on
December 12, 2025. The original comments have been included below for reference.
Susan Thomas, AICP, Esq. Economic Development Manager Village of
Winnetka sthomas@winnetka.org 847-716-3528
1: 1. Standards | Staff strongly recommend addressing the special use standards
individually. This will aid the commissioners and staff in their review of your materials
and determination of whether the standards are satisfied.
Response: Document attached to address each of the 12 Special Use
Standards individually, along with supporting materials document.
2: 2. Restrooms | The location of the restrooms in the front the space greatly
diminishes the appearance of an active storefront. The Village strongly encourages a
vibrant storefront and is concerned about the appearance of a wall at the front
windows. Provide details of your plans to have active displays in the windows.
Response: The design intent for this wall is to install Solidcore bracket
signage to ensure the storefront is attractive from the street. An elevation from
an example storefront showing the wall with bracket signage installed has
been added to pdf page 19.
3: 3. Sweat Bag Dispenser | Please provide more details regarding the sweat bag
dispenser. As the proposed location of the dispenser would be visible from the street,
an image and additional details are needed.
Response: The sweat bag dispenser is a clear acrylic, wall mounted fixture
measuring 14” L x 6.5” W x 7” H. It holds a roll of Solidcore branded bags
used by clients after class. Photos attached for reference.
4: 4. Signage | Please provide greater detail regarding the proposed signage.
Internally illuminated signs are not permitted within the Village of Winnetka.
Response: The attached interior and exterior signage plans provide greater
Page 109 of 142
detail regarding the proposed signage. The plans confirm that no internally
illuminated signs are proposed, in compliance with Village of Winnetka
regulations.
5: 5. Window Signage | Any signage located within five (5) feet of a window is
considered a window sign. Proposed signage on the wall requires additional detail.
Response: Additional details for the bracket signage to be installed on the
interior wall facing the right side storefront window have been provided on
interior page 7.
6: 6. Signage Review | All proposed signage requires submission of a sign permit for
review and approval by the Development Review Board (DRB).
Response: The attached interior and exterior signage plans provide greater
detail regarding the proposed signage. A separate sign permit application will
be submitted to the Development Review Board (DRB) for review and approval.
7: 7. Retail | Will there be a retail component? If so, how much of your space will be
dedicated to retail needs? What items would be offered for sale?
Response: Solidcore does not sell clothing items in studios. The only retail
sales are for water and/or Celsius energy drinks, which are sold from a small
fridge stored in the front desk millwork. Photo included for reference.
8: 8. Parking | Provide the estimated size of your largest class and the number of
instructors present.
Response: Class size is limited by the number of reformers in a given studio.
Up to 16 attendees sign-up for a spot using the Solidcore mobile app ahead of
the class time. No walk-in services are provided. There is only one instructor
present for each class.
9: 9. Parking | Will there be any overlap of classes? Do you have a proposed class
schedule to share? Will there be a gap between classes for clients to leave and free
up parking spaces for incoming students? Identify the number of classes per day.
Response: Classes will run continuously during business hours with 10-
minute breaks in between. A sample class schedule has been provided, which
indicates no overlap of classes and a 10-minute gap between classes for
clients to leave and free up parking spaces. The schedule identifies the
number of classes per day.
Page 110 of 142
10: 10. Parking | What is the total number of employees you plan to have at this
location?
Response: This location will employ 2 full-time employees & 12 part-time
employees. A maximum of (2) employees will staff the location at any given
time: (1) instructor and (1) front desk attendant.
11: 11. Parking | Application materials must show compliance with all twelve (12)
standards to demonstrate adequate parking needs are met while not significantly
diminishing the availability of parking for district clientele.
Response: Solidcore anticipates having 2-3 full time employee vehicles on-site
per day at any given time and a maximum of 16 client vehicles on-site per hour.
12: 12. Hours of Operation | Please identify the proposed hours of operation.
Response: Anticipated hours for this location will be Monday-Friday 5am-11pm
and Saturday-Sunday 7am-6pm.
Page 111 of 142
ARBOR VITAE RD
ELM ST
STREET FRONTAGE: +/-253'-4"
VESTIBULE SHARED CORRIDOR
129 SF 399 SF
FRONTAGE: +/-73' - 10" +/-25' - 6" +/-43' - 4" +/-30'-9" FRONTAGE: +/-66' - 1"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0"
PLAZA T
1190 SF TRANSFORMER
(OPEN TO ABOVE)
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL TENANT TENANT TENANT COMMERCIAL
6548 SF 2363 SF 1817 SF 1816 SF 1565 SF 5204 SF
ELEV: 0' - 0" ELEV: 0' - 0" ELEV: -2' - 9" ELEV: -2' - 9" ELEV: -2' - 9" ELEV: -4' - 3"
DN
21' - 10" 33' - 8" 20' - 4"
DN
ELEC UP
229 SF STAIR
LN DN
CO MECH
LIN 115 SF 8 GENERATOR
DN (OPEN TO ABOVE)
AV
E ENCLOSED PARKING
SHARED CIRCULATION MECH 18759 SF 9
1949 SF 386 SF 39 SPACES
ET
RA SHARED TRASH SERVICE CORRIDOR
OM 473 SF 5 5
T 243 SF
3 EXISTING PUBLIC
PARKING LOT
RESIDENTIAL ELEV: 1' - 0"
LOBBY
RAMP 9
DN
GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
N
OKW ARCHITECTS
THIS EXHIBIT IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND IS INTENDED ONLY TO SHOW THE GENERAL
LOCATION OF THE PREMISES AND AN APPROXIMATE DEPICTION OF THE RETAIL/OFFICE
BUILDING AND THE PROJECT AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY EXPECTED TO EXIST AS OF THE
ONE WINNETKA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
SCALE: 1" = 40'
LOD_1
DATE THE PREMISES ARE DELIVERED TO TENANT. THIS EXHIBIT DOES NOT CONTAIN
THE EXACT LEASING LINES OF THE PREMISES NOR DOES IT DEPICT THE EXACT
600 W. Jackson, Suite 250 LOCATION OF ANY OTHER TENANTS OR OCCUPANTS OF THE RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING
OR THE PROJECT. FURTHER, REFERENCES TO STORE NAMES ON THIS EXHIBIT SHALL
515 LINCOLN AVENUE, WINNETKA, IL 60093
Architects Chicago, IL 60661 0 10' 20' 40'
IN NO MANNER CONSTITUTE ANY KIND OF REPRESENTATION AS TO PRESENT OR
FUTURE OCCUPANCY OF SPACES AT THE RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING BY SUCH STORES. June 30, 2025 Project #: 21077
THIS EXHIBIT IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY THAT THE RETAIL/OFFICE
BUILDING OR THE PROJECT WILL REMAIN AS DEPICTED, NOR AS TO ANY FUTURE
PROJECT OCCUPANCY OF SPACES AT THE RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING OR THE PROJECT.
Page 112 of 142
MUNICIPAL APPROVAL STAMP
DRAWING TITLE TAG ABBREVIATIONS
M meter
AB anchor bolt
MAINT maintenance
ABV above
MAS masonry
AD area drain
MAX maximum
AFF above finish floor
MECH mechanical
DRAWING TITLE ALUM aluminum
MTL metal
ANN annunciator
MEZZ mezzanine
1 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"
APROX
ARCH
AUTO
AVE
approximate
architectural
automatic
avenue
MFR
MIN
MISC
manufacturer
minimum
miscellaneous
DRAWING SCALE MM millimeter
AWG American wire gauge
MO masonry opening
MULL mullion
DRAWING NUMBER B/ bottom of
BIT bituminous
N North
BLDG building
N.I.C. not in contract
DETAIL TAGS
CL
CLG
CM
CMU
center line
ceiling
centimeter
concrete masonry unit
NO.
NOM
NTS
OA
number
nominal
not to scale
overall
736 ELM STREET, PROJECT TEAM
WINNETKA, IL 60093
CO cleanout
OC on center
COL column
OD outside diameter
DETAIL NUMBER CONC concrete
OH overhead
CONSTR construction
OPNG opening
CONT continuous
1 COORD coordinate
A-101 PL plate
CNTR center
P-LAM plastic laminate
CU cubic
PLBG plumbing
CW cold water
SHEET NUMBER PLUMB plumbing
PNL panel
DBL double
DEG
DEMO
DEPT
degree
demolish
department
PNT
PT
paint
pressure treated
TENANT AREA (AREA OF WORK) : 2,271 SF
DET detail
QT quarry tile
DIA diameter
DETAIL NUMBER DIAG diagonal
DN
DS
down
downspout
R
RD
riser
roof drain CONTACTS DRAWING INDEX
1 1 REF refrigerator
DWG drawing ARCHITECT: MEP ENGINEER:
A-101 REINF reinforced
A-101
2025/12/02 - ISSUED FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
REQ'D required
E East
REV revision DxU, ARCHITECTS CASE ENG NEERING, INC.
ELEC electrical
RFG roofing 412 S.WELLS ST. 796 MERUS CT.
SHEET NUMBER EM emergency
RM room SECOND FLOOR
EXIST exis ing ST. LOUIS, MO 63026
RMV remove CHICAGO, L 60607 (P) 636.349.1600
EXT exterior
RO rough opening (P) 312.955 0334
F/ face of
S South
FA fire alarm
SAFB sound attenuation fire
FCO floor clean out EM LY L NDSEY LUKE WILD
DETAIL CALLOUT batt insulation
FD floor drain ASSOCIATE PR NC PAL MANAGER OF MECH.
SAN sanitary
FNDN foundation ELINDSEY@DXUARCH.COM ENGINEERING
SECT section
SECTION TAG FF finish floor
SF square foot (feet) (P) 314.570.7920
FLR floor LWILD@CASEENGINEERING.COM
SIM similar CLIENT
FT foot (feet)
SQ square
FTG footing CLIENT:
SS stainless steel
FURR furring
STC sound transmission
class SOLIDCORE
2 GA gauge 1735 N LYNN ST
DETAIL NUMBER GALV galvanized
STD standard
STL steel SUITE 650 NO SHEET NAME
1 GND ground ARL NGTON, VA 22209
3 A-101 1 STRUCT structural 01 - TITLE
A-101 GWB gypsum wall board (P) 202.915 5740
GYP gypsum T1-01 TITLE SHEET ●
T tread LANDLORD:
4 SHEET DESIGNATION T/ top of
T1-02 EXISTING SITE AND PARKING PLAN (FOR REFERENCE ●
HB hose bib LOU BENEDETTO MURPHY DEVELOPMENT ONLY)
T&B top and bottom D RECTOR OF DESIGN GROUP
HDWH hardwood 04 - ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIOR EXTERIOR T&G tongue and groove LOU@SOLIDCORE.CO CHRIS HORNEY PROJECT
HDWR hardware A1-10 GROUND FLOOR EXISTING PLAN ●
TEL telephone CHORNEY@MURPHYRES.COM
ELEVATION TAG ELEVATION TAG HR hour
TEMP tempered A1-21 GROUND FLOOR PLAN ●
HT height 248.721.7927
HW hot water
TOPO
TYP
topography(ic)
typical
KEIRA FITZGERALD A4-10 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● [solidcore]
MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION AND
ID inside diameter
UNO unless noted otherwise
DEVELOPMENT
KEIRA.FITZGERALD@SOLIDCORE.CO
WINNETKA
IN inches
UTIL utility
INCL include(d)(ing)
INSUL insulation
VAC vacuum
INT interior
VTR vent through roof
TAG SYMBOLS ISO isolation
VIF verify in field
KO knockout
KIT kitchen
W
W/
West
with
736 ELM STREET,
LAM laminate(s)
W/O
WC
without
water closet
WINNETKA, IL 60093
LAV lavatory
WH water heater
101A 1i W1 LB(S) pound(s)
WIN window
LL landlord
WWF welded wire fabric
LT light
INTERIOR EQUIPMENT GLAZING TAG
YD yard
DOOR TAG TAG
NO. DATE ISSUE
2025-12-02 ISSUED FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT
ELEVATION
T/ STEEL ITEM
EL. + 96'-6"
? 1 ELEVATION
KEYNOTE
TAG
REVISION
TAG
ELEVATION
TAG
SCOPE OF WORK BUILDING CODES CODE MATRIX
FITNESS STUDIO INTERIOR BU LD OUT N A DEMISED RETAIL SPACE. WORK TO NCLUDE
DEMOLITION, THE NSTALLATION OF CE LINGS, PARTITIONS, DOORS, INTERIOR F NISHES * BUILDING 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS
FLOOR FINISH
MECHANICAL WORK, ELECTRICAL WORK AND PLUMB NG WORK FOR A NEW HEALTH & FITNESS
* EXISTING 2021 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS ZONING CLASSIFICATION: C2, GENERAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
ESTABLISHMENT.
* MECHANICAL 2021 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: B, BUSINESS
1i XX XX
? PROJECT NUMBER: 25-312
* ELECTRICAL 2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS BUILDING HEIGHT: EXISTING TO REMAIN, (1 STORY)
FINISH TAG CASEWORK FLOOR DRAWN BY: SM APPROVED BY: EL
* PLUMBING 2014 ILLINOIS PLUMBING CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS BUILDING AREA: EXISTING TO REMAIN
TAG FINISH TAG SEAL
* FIRE PREVENTION 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS TENANT AREA OF WORK: 2,271 SF
* ENERGY 2021 ILLINOIS ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE SEPARATED USES: EAST ADJACENT: BUSINESS USE, NO SEPARATION REQUIRED (EXISTING TO REMAIN)
ROOM NAME
WEST ADJACENT: BUSINESS USE, NO SEPARATION REQUIRED (EXISTING TO REMAIN)
LOBBY ROOM NUMBER
* GAS 2021 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: -A, FULLY SPRINKLERED
10C 101 * LIFE SAFETY 2024 LIFE SAFETY CODE (NFPA 101) WITH WINNETKA AMENDMENTS
WALL TYPE ROOM TAG * ACCESSIBILITY 2018 ILLINOIS ACCESSIBILITY CODE
TAG
* AS AMENDED WITH ALL STATE AMENDMENTS & CODES
12-02-2025
DRAWING SYMBOLS
ISSUED FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SHEET TITLE & NUMBER
NEW
TITLE SHEET
0 0
© 2025 DXU-STUDIO, LLC. All rights reserved.
EXISTING
BREAK LINE CENTER LINE COLUMN BUBBLE
T1-01
THESE DRAWINGS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL BE IN THE
POSSESSION OF AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS ONLY. THESE DOCUMENTS
ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF DxU ARCHITECTS AND SHALL NOT
BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
Page 113 of 142
Page 114 of 142
Page 115 of 142
Page 116 of 142
Page 117 of 142
Page 118 of 142
Page 119 of 142
Page 120 of 142
Page 121 of 142
Page 122 of 142
Page 123 of 142
Page 124 of 142
Page 125 of 142
Page 126 of 142
Page 127 of 142
Page 128 of 142
Page 129 of 142
Page 130 of 142
Page 131 of 142
Page 132 of 142
Page 133 of 142
Page 134 of 142
Page 135 of 142
Page 136 of 142
Example photos of storefront and lobby visibility
Page 137 of 142
Example photos of storefront and lobby visibility
Page 138 of 142
Retail Fridge
Page 139 of 142
Proposed sweatbag holder
Solidcore installed example
Page 140 of 142
Manufacturer Example
Page 141 of 142
Page 142 of 142