Village Council

Village of Winnetka Village Council Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 at 7:00 PM Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Quorum a. April 7, 2026 Regular Meeting b. April 14, 2026 Special Study Session c. April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments 5. Reports 6. Presentation a. Environmental, Forestry, & Sustainability Commission Presentation — 2025 Accomplishments + 2026 Goals 7. Establishment of Consent Agenda 8. Approval of Consent Agenda a. Approval of Village Council Minutes i. February 17, 2026 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Warrant List Dated February 26, 2026 - March 12, 2026 c. Resolution No. R-24-2026: Awarding a Contract to Quality Mechanical, Inc. for Services Related to Phase 3 of the Village's HVAC Modernization Project (Adoption) d. Resolution No. R-32-2026: Approving and Establishing Changes in the Compensation of the Village Manager (Adoption) e. Resolution No. R-33-2026: Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Participating Municipalities for a Training Program with the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management (Adoption) f. Resolution No. R-34-2026: Approving the Purchase of a Dump Truck from Transchicago Truck Group Through Sourcewell (Adoption) 9. Ordinances and Resolutions NOTICE Village Council meetings are video recorded. All agenda materials are available at villageofwinnetka.org (Governance > Agendas & Minutes); the Reference Desk at the Winnetka Library; or in the Manager’s Office at Village Hall (2nd floor). The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all 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, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, 847-716- 3543; T.D.D. 847-501-6041. Page 1 of 444  a. Ordinance No. M-03-2026: Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Personal Fitness Studio Within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District of the Village (736 Elm Street) (Introduction/Adoption) b. Ordinance No. M-04-2026: Granting a Variation from the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to Allow the Construction of a Single-Family Residence Within the R- 2 Single Family Residential District (1086 Fisher Crescent Lane) (Introduction/Adoption) c. Ordinance No. M-05-2026: Approving a Final Plat of Subdivision and Granting Variations from the Winnetka Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances (Introduction/Adoption) d. Resolution No. R-35-2026: Directing the Director of Community Development to Immediately Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment and to Schedule a Public Hearing Before the Village Council to Consider and Adopt Amendments to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance Regarding Lot Line Designations on Corner Lots and Lots with Three Street Frontages (Adoption) 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Tower Road Pier Rehabilitation Discussion 12. Appointments 13. Closed Session 14. Adjournment Village of Winnetka Page 2 of 444 Village Council - March 19, 2026  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Environmental, Forestry, & Sustainability Commission Presentation — 2025 Accomplishments + 2026 Goals PRESENTER: Elyse Steiner AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Presentation ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Environmental, Forestry, and Sustainability Commission will brief the Village Council on its accomplishments in 2025 and its proposed projects and areas of interest for 2026 to ensure they align with Village priorities. In the past year, the Commission has undergone some personnel changes, a name change, and participated in several community events. It has even more ambitious plans for 2026 to take action on climate change, promote healthy ecosystems, reduce waste, and more. The presentation agenda will cover: • 2025 changes across the Environment, Forestry, and Sustainability Commission • 2025 accomplishments and impact areas • Spotlight community engagement tied to Climate Action Plan • Ground-mounted solar status • Sustainability staff-led projects for 2026 • EFSC focus areas for 2026 RECOMMENDATION: Presentation only. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026 update for Council Page 3 of 444  Village of Winnetka EFSC 2026 BRIEFING March 19, 2026 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 4 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  EFSC UPDATE AGENDA 2 • Recap of 2025 changes across the Environment, Forestry, and Sustainability Commission • Recap of 2025 accomplishments and impact areas • Spotlight on community engagement tied to Climate Action Plan • Update on Ground-Mounted Solar following the Q4 ordinance change • Update on Sustainability staff-led projects for 2026 • Update on current & potential EFSC focus areas for 2026 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 5 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  2025 TRANSITIONS 3 Peter Eck replaced Patrick Hanley as Chair Trustee Handler replaced President Dearborn as Liaison King Poor (a founding member of the EFC!) (re) joined Louisa Hernandez joined as our 2nd student rep Scarlett Harper returned after studying abroad VC approved adding "Sustainability" to name & mission 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 6 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  2025 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 Supported residental solar ordinance update Leveled up to Sol Smart Silver Presented Green Awards Friends of GB Trail + Chi River Days Expanded comms on recycling Engaged at Farmers’ Markets Improved file sharing, comms, project mgmt 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 7 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN CLIMATE / SUST. ACTION 5 12/10/2025 Climate Action Plan feedback and brainstorming session 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 8 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  GROUND-MOUNT SOLAR UPDATE 6 • The solar ordinance adopted in November allows building-mounted systems as a permitted accessory use in all districts and puts in place guidelines to ensure consistent and safe residential solar installations. • The ordinance update showcased that the Village embraces clean energy options for our residents and remains compliant with new state energy laws. • ...however, the ordinance did not address how ground-mounted solar might work and the VC asked the EFSC to circle back with additional info for consideration. • A closer review of how neighboring communities treat ground-mounted solar revealed a wide range of policies and options, and it is unclear what, if anything, may work best for Winnetka given safety considerations, optics, screening requirements, etc. • While we don’t know of any Winnetka resident that has pursued a ground-mounted solar installation, doing so would require a Zoning Text Amendment application to either allow ground-mounted solar by right or as a special use. • The EFSC recommends a "wait and see" approach to understand how residential solar interest evolves under the new ordinance and take appropriate action once we have more information. 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 9 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  2026 SUSTAINABILITY STAFF INITIATIVES 7 EV Readiness requirements for Bronze level designation • Update EV charging permits and inspection forms • Add definitions and zoning ordinance for EV charging • Time sensitive: Complete requirements by early summer Administer new energy efficiency rebate program • Nearly $5,000 distributed YTD Support Green Team of Village employees on sustainable initiatives • Zero-waste staff events • Composting and Hefty Renew recycling at Fire Department Climate Action Plan implementation/ GHG reduction measures • REC strategy (for the Yards solar project) • Potential opportunities to act on MDR provisions Municipal fleet EV transition planning Monitor IMEA sustainability plans, progress, and changes 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 10 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  2026 EFSC CURRENT & POTENTIAL FOCUS AREAS 8 In Progress Potential for 2026 Longer-Term Efforts • Completing Climate Action Plan • Host a solar awareness • Provide input on sustainable campaign/event and develop design plans for the Post • Finalizing Green Events guide state & local partnerships Office site and working to distribute & track across Village events • Improve reporting & tracking • Host EFSC-sponsored field of Winnetka's residential solar trips / learning events across • Partnering on Wilmette-led footprint and benefits the Village throughout the year Leaf-blower study • Work with Forestry on • Expand cycling infrastructure • Expanding EFSC comms buckthorn education and in Winnetka, including locking around programs & impact (e.g. removal/replacement stations, access to paths, etc. Winnetka Report content) incentives • Engaging on the Tree removal • Support residents with home ordinance study and align with energy use benchmarking new residential solar ordinance and/or audits • Increasing community outreach • Expand home + bus. + gov and engagement (via the composting programs Farmers’ Market, Friends of the Green Bay Trail and Chicago River, etc.) 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 11 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  THANK YOU! 9 Discussion / Questions Sustainability@Winnetka.org 510 Green Bay Road | Winnetka, IL 60093 | 847-501-6000 Page 12 of 444 | villageofwinnetka.org  MINUTES WINNETKA VILLAGE COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING February 17, 2026 (Approved: xx) A record of a legally convened meeting of the Council of the Village of Winnetka, which was held at Council Chambers on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 7:00 PM. 1) Call to Order. President Dearborn called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Village Manager Kristin Kazenas called the roll. Present: Trustees Rob Apatoff, Kirk Albinson, Tina Dalman, Scott Myers and Bridget Orsic. Absent: Trustee Kim Handler. Also present: Deputy Village Manager Hannah Lipman, Deputy Village Clerk Berina Gradjan, Village Attorney Peter Friedman, Community Development Director Scott Mangum, Public Works Director Tom Powers, Interim Economic Development Manager Dan Gardner and no persons in the audience. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. Trustee Dalman led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Quorum. a) March 3, 2026 Regular Meeting All of the Council members present said they expect to attend with the exception of Trustee Apatoff due to work obligations. b) Thursday, March 19, 2026 Regular Meeting All of the Council members present said they expect to attend. 4) Public Comment: a) Ted Wynnychenko addresses matters related to Prairie State coal power plant energy contract. 5) Reports: a) Trustees. No report. b) Attorney. No report. c) Manager. a. Village Manager Kristin Kazenas encourages members of the community to complete the Winnetka Post Office Site Community Survey, confirming the Village received just over 800 responses. d) Village President. a. President Dearborn, Village Manager Kazenas, and Trustee Myers attended an open house hosted by New Trier Township providing information related to residential services. A joint quarterly meeting was held with President Dearborn, Village of Wilmette President Plunkett, Village of Kenilworth President Kaz, Village of Northfield President Mendrek, and Village of Glencoe President Roin regarding various Village business. Additionally, President Dearborn and Village Manager Kazenas attended a meeting hosted by the Northwest Municipal Conference. Page 13 of 444 Village Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2026 6) Establishment of the Consent Agenda Trustee Orsic seconded by Trustee Dalman moved to approve the Establishment of the Consent Agenda. By voice vote, the motion carried. 7) Approval of the Consent Agenda a) Approval of Village Council Minutes i. January 20, 2026 Special Meeting ii. January 20, 2026 Regular Meeting b) Approval of Warrant List Dated January 30, 2026 – February 12, 2026 in the amount of $1,655,035.83. c) Resolution No. R-02-2026: Approving a Contract with City Escape Garden & Design Center, LLC for Landscape Maintenance Services (Adoption) d) Resolution No. R-03-2026: Waiving Competitive Bidding and Approving the Purchase of a Derrick Truck from Altec Industries, Inc. (Adoption) e) Resolution No. R-04-2026: Approving a Contract with Swallow Construction Corporation for Construction Services for the Ravines Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Rehabilitation (Adoption) f) Resolution No. R-18-2026: Approving the Purchase of One Police Vehicle From Currie Motors Commercial Center (Adoption) g) Resolution No. R-19-2026: Approving a Contract with House of Doors Inc. for Overhead Door Replacement Services Phase II (Adoption) Trustee Apatoff seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to approve the foregoing items on the Consent Agenda by omnibus vote. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Handler. 8) Ordinances and Resolutions. None. 9) Old Business. a. Hubbard Woods Parking Structure – Signage Aesthetics Plan Preliminary Review At the January 6th Village Council meeting, planned repairs to the Hubbard Woods Parking Deck were reviewed and staff was directed to follow up with further details regarding aesthetic enhancements and entry signage. Public Works Director Tom Powers advises Council that staff will utilize Parvin-Clauss for signage design and installation. With Council direction, the design scope would then be submitted to the Design Review Board. Additionally, regarding the remaining exterior landscape aesthetic process, staff will need to complete the garage repair bid process, contingent upon the budgeted amount for landscaping, then present concept plans to Council with Teska Associates in order to contract independently with a landscape company. Council discusses lighting, budgeting, and additional signage display. Council provides policy direction to proceed with the proposed signage utilizing the streetscape aesthetic and goose-neck lighting. Page 14 of 444 Village Council Regular Meeting February 17, 2026 10) New Business. a. 736 Elm Street – Solidcore – Special Use Permit – Policy Direction Community Development Director Scott Mangum addresses Council regarding a request for a special use permit for Solidcore in the Commercial Overlay District. Pending approval, the applicant would open in the One Winnetka building. Council is advised of the zoning and proposed site location, review of the initial and revised floor plan since the January 22nd Plan Commission public hearing regarding the special use permit, parking spaces, business operations, and note both concerns and support by the Plan Commission. Lou Benedetto, Senior Director of Development at Solidcore, addresses Council regarding class formats, business operations, demographic, class scheduling, staffing, and client visits. Dan Gardner addresses Council regarding considerable uses for the space and commercial market demands. Deirdre Clein, Director at Murphy Real Estate, addresses Council regarding One Winnetka leased commercial spaces, consideration of various uses to contribute to a vibrant East Elm Business District, and One Winnetka’s selection process regarding credible tenants. Council discussed client base and demographic, number of client visits, class schedule, and the sale of retail items. Additionally, Council discussed parking availability and capacity, staffing levels, business operations, proposed class schedule, overall use of the space, and stipulations related to One Winnetka’s special uses. Additionally, Council discusses concerns related to the lack of retail businesses, overall vibrancy of the business district, matters related to financial stability, and note their interest in attracting businesses that would contribute to increased foot traffic in the area and support neighboring businesses. Council seeks further clarification regarding the request for a special use. Therefore, the item is deferred to the March 3rd Council meeting. 11) Appointments: None. 12) Closed Session: None. 13) Adjournment. Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Dalman moved to adjourn the meeting. By voice vote, the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. _______________________________ Recording Secretary Page 15 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Approval of Warrant List Dated February 26, 2026 - March 12, 2026 PRESENTER: Kristin Kazenas AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Warrant List Dated February 26, 2026 - March 12, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Consider Approving the Warrant List Dated February 26, 2026 - March 12, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 16 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-24-2026: Awarding a Contract to Quality Mechanical, Inc. for Services Related to Phase 3 of the Village's HVAC Modernization Project (Adoption) PRESENTER: Tom Powers AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: As part of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, $135,000 was budgeted for the third phase of the Yards HVAC Modernization project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing responsibilities, the Public Works Department maintains the Village Yards facility (1390 Willow Road). While some work is completed by staff, most capital improvements are outsourced to contractors due to the scope and complexity of the work. The Yards facility uses various HVAC systems throughout the facility for different purposes. Office areas are typically serviced by rooftop units (“RTUs”) which can provide heating and cooling while garage areas are only heated with overhead units (“heaters”). Most of the units currently installed at the Yards that have not been otherwise replaced are original to the 2003 remodel and are rapidly approaching the end of their useful life. Emergency repairs for these units have become more common as they continue to age and fail. In summer 2023, staff requested a quote from the Village’s HVAC maintenance contractor to complete replacements of the existing units with equivalent modern units so that the existing duct systems can continue to be used. Using this quote, staff established a budget and scope of work for replacements. A plan was established to complete replacements in phases which would allow for the costs to be spread over multiple fiscal years as well as ensure that all the units would not become due for replacement at the same time in the future. The worst performing units were selected for replacement in Phase 1 with the other units scheduled for Phases 2 through 4. Phase 3 includes the final rooftop unit for the office area in Building A as well as numerous overhead heaters in Fleet and Buildings C and D. Optional scopes were also created for the replacement of miscellaneous other components including a split-system in Fleet, the Wash Bay heat-only RTU and two small combined heating/cooling systems used in the garage of Building A. Page 17 of 444 On Tuesday, January 27th, a bid notice (RFB #026-007) was advertised in the Winnetka Talk and DemandStar. This bid notice included the base scope of work plus the three optional scopes noted above. A mandatory pre-bid meeting were held on Friday, February 13th with no attendees. A second and third pre-bid meetings were held on Friday, February 20th and Thursday, February 25th. Ultimately, three firms attended one of those sessions. Three addendums were issued largely to announce the subsequent meetings and modify the bid submission date. On Wednesday, March 4th, the Village received three bids. A summary of bids can be found below: Company Base Scope Optional Scope 1 Optional Scope 2 Optional Scope 3 (Split System) (Wash Bay RTU) (Combined Small Furnaces/Condensing Units) Quality $75,000.00 $95,000.00 $28,000.00 $14,000.00 Mechanical, Inc. Aaimas Comfort $135,000.00 $50,000.00 $65,000.00 $37,500.00 Ogni, Inc. $113,339.00 $101,678.00 $47,372.00 $47,176.00 All bidders were required to provide a bid bond (or check) and the successful bidder will be required to provide a performance bond. Quality Mechanical, Inc. of Harvey, Illinois ("Quality") submitted the lowest, most responsive bid for the total scope. While the Village has not previously worked with Quality, its references were positive, and staff is confident that Quality will able to successfully complete the work as specified. Staff recommends award of Optional Scopes 2 and 3 based on the bids received for a total cost of $117,000. This will allow work that was originally contemplated for Phase 4 to be completed in advance and replace systems which have required more repair in recent years. The Fiscal Year 2026 Budget contains $135,000 in General Fund Account No. 410.15.01-615 (Buildings and Structures) for this project. With the award of the optional scopes, this project will be $18,000 under budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends awarding an agreement for the third phase of the HVAC modernization project to Quality Mechanical, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $117,000.00. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-24-2026: Awarding a Contract for Phase 3 of the Village's HVAC Modernization Project Page 18 of 444  RESOLUTION NO. R-24-2026 A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO QUALITY MECHANICAL, INC. FOR SERVICS RELATED TO PHASE 3 OF THE VILLAGE’S HVAC MODERNIZATION PROJECT WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Village issued Bid #026-007 (“Request for Bids”) for professional services related to Phase 3 of the Village’s HVAC Modernization Project (“Services”); and WHEREAS, the Village received three bids to provide the Services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 4.12 of the Village Code and the Village’s purchasing manual, the Village Council has determined that Quality Mechanical, Inc. (“Contractor”) is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to provide the Services; and WHEREAS, Contractor’s bid for the Services includes a base scope of work in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00 (“Base Scope of Work”), plus three optional additional scopes of work that the Village can add to the Services at its discretion: (i) Optional Scope of Work 1 in an amount not to exceed $95,000.00; (ii) Optional Scope of Work 2 in an amount not to exceed $28,000.00; and (iii) Optional Scope of Work 3 in an amount not to exceed $14,000.00; and WHEREAS, the Village Council desires to enter into a contract with Contractor for the Base Scope of Work and Optional Scopes of Work 2 and 3, for Contractor to perform the Services in an amount not to exceed $117,000.00 (collectively, the “Contract”); and WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the Village and its residents to award the Contract to Contractor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT. The Village Council hereby approves the Contract in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and in a final form approved by the Village Attorney. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT. The Village Council hereby authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, March 19, 2026 R-24-2026 Page 19 of 444 respectively, on behalf of the Village, the final Contract after receipt by the Village Manager of two executed copies of the final Contract from Contractor; provided, however, that if the Village Manager does not receive two executed copies of the final Contract from Contractor within 60 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution, then this authority to execute and seal the final Contract will, at the option of the Village Council, be null and void. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk March 19, 2026 R-24-2026 Page 20 of 444  EXHIBIT A CONTRACT March 19, 2026 R-24-2026 Page 21 of 444 Page 22 of 444 Page 23 of 444 Page 24 of 444 Page 25 of 444 Page 26 of 444 Page 27 of 444 Page 28 of 444 Page 29 of 444 Page 30 of 444 Page 31 of 444 Page 32 of 444 Page 33 of 444 Page 34 of 444 Page 35 of 444 Page 36 of 444 Page 37 of 444 Page 38 of 444 Page 39 of 444 Page 40 of 444 Page 41 of 444 Page 42 of 444 Page 43 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-32-2026: Approving and Establishing Changes in the Compensation of the Village Manager (Adoption) PRESENTER: Kristin Kazenas, Tim Sloth AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consistent with the Village Manager's employment contract, which was approved by Village Council via resolution R-62-2025 on July 15, 2025, this item is before Council following completion of the Initial Review Period. As stated in the employment contract, the Employer and the Employee will meet in the first quarter of 2026 to review the Employee's performance during the Initial Review Period. As a result, the proposed resolution provides for compensation considerations related to the review period, although the base salary will remain the same for 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution No. R-32-2026, Approving and Establishing Changes in the Compensation of the Village Manager. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-32-2026 Approving and Establishing Changes in the Compensation of the Village Manager Page 44 of 444  RESOLUTION NO. R-32-2026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CHANGES IN THE COMPENSATION OF THE VILLAGE MANAGER WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) is a home rule municipality in accordance with Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.12.040 of the Winnetka Village Code (“Village Code”), the compensation of the Village Manager shall be determined by the Council of the Village of Winnetka (“Village Council”); and WHEREAS, the Village entered into a July 15, 2025 Employment Agreement with the Village Manager (“Employment Agreement”), pursuant to which the Village Council agreed to periodically review the Village Manager’s compensation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority, the Village Council has determined that it is the best interests of the Village to set the compensation for the Village Manager as set forth in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF BASE SALARY. In accordance with Section 2.12.040 of the Village Code and Section 5 of the Employment Agreement, the Village Council hereby approves and establishes the annual base salary of the Village Manager as follows: Annual Salary Effective January 1, 2026 Kristin Kazenas $ 260,000.00 SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. In addition to the base salary established in Section 1 of this Resolution, the benefits and payments established in the Employment Agreement, and all other benefits available generally to Village employees, Village Manager Kristin Kazenas shall be paid a one-time bonus of $12,500.00. Additionally, Village Manager Kazenas shall be entitled to an annual payment of $10,000.00, paid in equal monthly installments, into a qualified Section 457, 401 or comparable deferred compensation plan. SECTION 4: EFFECT OF RESOLUTION. Except for the salary and payment adjustments made pursuant to this Resolution, all provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect, without change. March 19, 2026 R-32-2026 Page 45 of 444  SECTION 5: REPEALER. Resolution R-32-2025 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. ADOPTED this 19th day of March 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Signed: Village President Countersigned: Village Clerk March 19, 2026 R-32-2026 Page 46 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-33-2026: Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Participating Municipalities for a Training Program with the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management (Adoption) PRESENTER: Kristin Kazenas AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Seven neighboring communities are collaborating to establish a regional leadership development program in partnership with the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management. The program is designed specifically for municipal government operations and includes two learning tracks focused on leadership development and organizational change management. Participating communities include Buffalo Grove, Glencoe, Lake Forest, Northbrook, Wheeling, Willowbrook, and Winnetka. Each community will select up to eight employees—such as frontline supervisors, emerging leaders, or key operational staff—to participate in the inaugural cohort, which is expected to begin this spring. This collaborative initiative supports the Village’s broader commitment to workforce development, succession planning, and strengthening operational leadership capacity across departments to support effective service delivery. The program also provides an opportunity for participants to build professional networks with peer municipalities addressing similar operational and leadership challenges. Each participating municipality will contribute a cost share of $6,300, with the total program contract value of $44,100 shared among the seven participating communities. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution No. R-33-2026: Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement for Leadership Development Training (Adoption) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: Resolution No. R-33-2026: Approving an IGA for Leadership Training Program with the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management 2. Attachment 2: Shared Leadership Training Program Intergovernmental Agreement Page 47 of 444 3. Attachment 3: Leadership Academy 2026 4. Attachment 4: Change Management Academy 2026 Page 48 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. R-33-2026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES FOR A TRAINING PROGRAM WITH THE LAKE FOREST GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1, et seq., authorize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation; and WHEREAS, the Village, along with six other municipalities (collectively, the “Participating Municipalities”), desires to create a training program through Lake Forest College for leadership training of municipal employees; and WHEREAS, the Participating Municipalities are all units of local governments and Illinois municipal corporations established and operating under the authority of the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Participating Municipalities have determined that it would be in their best interests to cooperate in the planning, administration, and shared funding of a training program for their employees in order to promote effective governance, professional development, and the efficient delivery of public services; and WHEREAS, the Village President and Village Council desire to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) with the Participating Municipalities to set forth the details, roles and responsibilities relating to the training program; and WHEREAS, the Village President and Village Council have determined that entering into the Agreement will serve and be in the best interest of the Village; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. The Village Council hereby approves the Agreement by and between the Village and the Participating Municipalities in substantially the same form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the Village Attorney. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. The Village Council hereby authorizes and directs the Village Manager and the Village Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the Village, the final Agreement. March 19, 2026 R-33-2026 Page 49 of 444  SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] March 19, 2026 R-33-2026 Page 50 of 444  ADOPTED this 19 day of March, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk March 19, 2026 R-33-2026 Page 51 of 444  EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT March 19, 2026 R-33-2026 Page 52 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 SEE FOLLOWING PAGE Page 53 of 444  AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF WHEELING, THE VILLAGE OF GLENCOE, THE VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK, THE VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, AND THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND COORDINATION OF MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP TRAINING THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 11th day of March 2026, (“Effective Date”) by and between the Village of Wheeling, the Village of Glencoe, the Village of Northbrook, the Village of Willowbrook, the Village of Buffalo Grove, the Village of Winnetka, and the City of Lake Forest (collectively, the “Participating Municipalities”). WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10, of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois and the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS Section 220/1 et seq. authorizes and encourages sharing services and cooperation between units of local governments; and WHEREAS, The Participating Municipalities are all units of local governments and Illinois municipal corporations established and operating under the authority of the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq; and WHEREAS, The Participating Municipalities have determined it would be in their best interests to cooperate in the planning, administration, and shared funding of a training program for their employees in order to promote effective governance, professional development, and the efficient delivery of public services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants herein contained, the Participating Municipalities agree as follows: ARTICLE I: INCORPORATION, PURPOSE, AND TRAINING PROGRAM SESSIONS Section 1.1 Incorporation The forgoing recitals are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a framework whereby the Participating Municipalities shall jointly contract with the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management d/b/a Lake Forest Center for Leadership, located at 100 S. Saunders Road, Suite 150, Lake Forest, IL 60045, (the “Center”) to provide leadership development and change management training programs that focus on municipal government operations (collectively, the "Training Programs") for employees and officials of the Participating Municipalities during calendar year 2026. Page 1 of 8 2077426_1 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 Page 54 of 444 Additional information on the Training Programs is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Section 1.3 Training Program Sessions The Training Programs shall consist of seven (7) individual in-person training sessions (each, a “Training Session”) as follows: a) Leadership Academy: Four (4) Training Sessions with capacity for up to sixty (60) total participants across all Participating Municipalities. b) Change Management Academy: Three (3) Training Sessions with capacity for up to sixty (60) total participants across all Participating Municipalities. ARTICLE II: HOST MUNICIPALITY RESPONSIBILITIES Section 2.1 Session Hosting Rotation Each Participating Municipality shall host no less than one (1) Training Session during calendar year 2026, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The hosting rotation schedule shall be established by unanimous consent of the municipal representatives (as defined in section 5.2 of this Agreement) of all Participating Municipalities, within thirty (30) days of the date the last Participating Municipality executes this Agreement. Section 2.2 Host Municipality Obligations The Participating Municipality hosting each Training Session (the "Host Municipality") shall be responsible for: a) Venue: Providing or securing an appropriate facility that meets the minimum standards set forth in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. b) Session Cost: Paying the fee of Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($6,300.00) directly to the Center for any Training Session that the Participating Municipality Hosts. c) Logistics Coordination: Coordinating with the Center regarding facility setup requirements, audio-visual needs, participant registration, refreshments (if provided), parking and facility access. Section 2.3 Venue Standards Training Sessions shall only be held at facilities meeting the following minimum standards: a) Capacity to accommodate no less than sixty (60) participants in addition to the Center’s instructors and staff; b) Audio-visual capabilities including projector/screen and sound system in accordance with the specifications of the Center; c) Accessible parking for all participants; d) Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act’s accessibility requirements; Page 2 of 8 2077426_1 Page 55 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1  e) A climate-controlled environment; and f) On-site restroom facilities ARTICLE III: COST ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT Section 3.1 Total Program Cost The total cost for the Training Programs shall be Forty-Four Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($44,100.00) for calendar year 2026, calculated as follows: Leadership Academy: 4 sessions × $6,300/session = $25,200 Change Management Academy: 3 sessions × $6,300/session = $18,900 Section 3.2 Training Program Cost Distribution Each Participating Municipality shall be responsible for the costs of the one (1) Training Session it hosts. Payment of Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($6,300.00) and shall be made by the Host Municipality directly to the Center in accordance with the payment schedule established in the Master Service Agreement, as defined in Section 6.1 of this Agreement, with the Center. If there are less than seven Participating Municipalities, then the Participating Municipalities will split the cost of the remaining Training Sessions. Section 3.3 Additional Host Expenses In addition to the Training Session fee set forth in Section 3.2 of this Agreement, each Host Municipality shall be solely responsible for any costs incurred to reserve the venue and satisfy the logistics requirements of Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 of this Agreement. Section 3.4 Individual Municipality Expenses Each Participating Municipality shall be solely responsible for any travel, lodging, and per diem expenses of its own employees participating in a Training Session. ARTICLE IV: PARTICIPANT ALLOCATION Each Training Session will accommodate no less than sixty (60) total participants from Participating Municipalities. Participant slots shall be allocated as equally as possible among all Participating Municipalities. Any remaining or unclaimed participant slots shall be allocated to the Host Municipality. Each Participating Municipality retains sole discretion to select its own participants based on its internal criteria. Each Participating Municipality shall submit participant names and such participants’ contact information to the Lead Municipality, as described in Section 5.1 of this Agreement, at least three (3) weeks prior to each Training Session and notify the Lead Municipality of any participant changes at least ten (10) business days prior to each Training Session. Page 3 of 8 2077426_1 Page 56 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 ARTICLE V: ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION Section 5.1 Lead Municipality The Village of Wheeling is designated as the Lead Municipality. The Lead Municipality shall serve as the primary liaison between the Center and the Participating Municipalities. The Lead Municipality shall coordinate the Training Session hosting rotation schedule, maintain participant registration lists, and facilitate communication among Participating Municipalities. Section 5.2 Municipal Representatives Each Participating Municipality shall designate one representative to serve as the primary contact for that municipality with regard to the Training Program. Such primary contact shall coordinate scheduling, registration, and communication requirements with the Lead Municipality’s representative. When a municipality serves as the Host Municipality, such representative shall focus on venue-specific logistics and on-site coordination in conjunction with the Center. Section 5.3 Decision-Making Authority All parties agree to give each Participating Municipality equal opportunity in the decision-making processes related to effectuating this Agreement. All decisions related to the administration of this Agreement among the Participating Municipalities must be unanimous. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if decisions regarding topics and areas of focus for the Training Program and Training Sessions cannot be made unanimously, a majority vote among the Participating Municipalities’ representatives shall prevail. Any such vote shall be held as soon as practicable. ARTICLE VI: RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CENTER Section 6.1 Master Services Agreement The Lead Municipality is authorized to execute a Master Services Agreement with the Center on behalf of the Participating Municipalities. The Master Services Agreement shall govern the services and expectations of the Center to the Participating Municipalities and shall establish curriculum and content of the Training Program, Training Session scheduling, provide the necessary materials, resources, and evaluation methods. The Master Services Agreement shall also require the Center to maintain professional liability, general liability, and workers’ compensation insurance in coverage amounts acceptable to the Participating Municipalities. The Participating Municipalities must have a reasonable opportunity to review and provide feedback on the Master Services Agreement before the Lead Municipality executes it. Section 6.2 Municipal Input Page 4 of 8 2077426_1 Page 57 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 All Participating Municipalities shall have the opportunity to provide input regarding session topics and focus areas, scheduling preferences, and evaluation criteria for the Training Program. The decision-making procedures set forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement shall govern such input. Section 6.3 Program Modifications Any modifications to the Training Program must be communicated by a Participating Municipality to the Lead Municipality, approved by the Center, and communicated to all Participating Municipalities. ARTICLE VII: TERM AND TERMINATION Section 7.1 Term This Agreement shall commence upon its execution by all Participating Municipalities and shall remain in effect through December 31, 2026, unless earlier termination occurs as provided herein. Section 7.2 Withdrawal Any Participating Municipality may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice to all other Participating Municipalities at least sixty (60) days prior to the first scheduled training session. After that date, a Participating Municipality may only withdraw by paying its full financial obligation of Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($6,300.00) as outlined in Section 3.2 of this Agreement. Section 7.3 Program Cancellation If the Center cancels or materially fails to perform the services required under the Master Services Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate automatically. Each Host Municipality shall seek refunds for any payments made by it for undelivered Training Sessions. No municipality shall have further obligations to other Participating Municipalities under this Agreement. Section 7.4 Entire Program Termination This Agreement may be terminated by unanimous written consent of all Participating Municipalities at any time. If the Participating Municipalities notify the Center to cancel this project fewer than 30 days but more than 14 days before its scheduled start date, then the Participating Municipalities agree to pay the Center a cancellation fee equal to 50% of the Total Fee described in Section 3.2. If the Participating Municipalities notify the Center to cancel this project fewer than 14 days before its scheduled start date, then Client agrees to pay the Center the Total Fee described in Section 3.2. Page 5 of 8 2077426_1 Page 58 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 ARTICLE VIII: INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Section 8.1 Mutual Indemnification To the fullest extent permitted by law, each Participating Municipality (the “Indemnitor”) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Participating Municipalities and their respective officers, officials, employees, and agents (as “Indemnitees”) from and against all liability, losses, claims, demands, suits, or actions, including attorneys’ fees and costs, which arise from any act of negligence on the part of the Indemnitor, its officers, employees, agents or servants. Section 8.2 Indemnification Procedures The Indemnitee shall provide written notice to an Indemnitor within fourteen (14) days of any claim. An Indemnitee shall have the right to select its own legal counsel and control its own defense, provided the selection of counsel and associated payments to such counsel are subject to the Indemnitor’s reasonable approval. An Indemnitee shall take all reasonable steps to mitigate losses, including seeking coverage from its own insurance providers or, if viable, the Center’s insurance provider, as the primary source of recovery before seeking indemnification from any Participating Municipality. An Indemnitee may not settle or compromise any claim without prior written consent of the Indemnitors, and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any Participating Municipality's rights, immunities, and defenses under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq.) or any other applicable law. Section 8.3 Insurance Each Participating Municipality must maintain general liability insurance coverage with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, and workers' compensation insurance as required by Illinois law covering all participating employees. Page 6 of 8 2077426_1 Page 59 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 EXECUTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Participating Municipalities have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above. VILLAGE OF WHEELING By: ______________________________ Name: Jon A. Sfondilis Title: Village Manager Date: __________________________ VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK By: ______________________________ Name: Cara Pavlicek Title: Village Manager Date: __________________________ VILLAGE OF GLENCOE By: ______________________________ Name: Phil Kiraly Title: Village Manager Date: __________________________ VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE By: ______________________________ Name: Dane Bragg Title: Village Manager Date: __________________________ VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK By: ______________________________ Name: Sean Halloran Title: Village Administrator Date: __________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________ [Gretchen Boerwinkle, Municipal Clerk] Page 7 of 8 2077426_1 Page 60 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA By: ______________________________ Name: Kristin Kazenas Title: Village Manager Date: __________________________ CITY OF LAKE FOREST By: ______________________________ Name: Jason Wicha Title: City Manager Date: __________________________ Page 8 of 8 2077426_1 Page 61 of 444 4903-7070-7858, v. 1  ATTACHMENT 3 Program Overview Emotional Intelligence This session focuses on developing Emotional Intelligence (EI) as a core leadership skill, particularly in the context of resolving workplace conflict. It equips managers with the knowledge and tools to recognize and manage their own emotions, understand and influence the emotions of others, and apply these insights to strengthen communication and team dynamics. Critical Thinking As leaders, we are presented with daily challenges that require us to apply our critical thinking and decision-making skills. Making informed, intentional decisions with available information is crucial for the success of the team and the organization. In this session, participants will learn how the most effective leaders collect and consider data, what biases get in the way, and frameworks for making critical decisions that lead to successful outcomes. Leadership Presence Leadership presence can be defined with a variety of characteristics and is often seen as the culmination of confidence, communication, and inspiration. In this interactive workshop, individuals will explore desired leadership behaviors, the factors that impact executive presence, and how to build authentic connections. Leading Challenging Conversations Some conversations, particularly when individuals disagree, can be uncomfortable or challenging to manage. By preparing well for these necessary conversations and facilitating them in proactive and positive ways, leaders can strengthen trust and deliver better team outcomes. Dates/Locations Session 1: Village of Northbrook – April 22nd Session 2: Village of Glencoe – June 24th Session 3: Village of Buffalo Grove – August 12th Session 4: City of Lake Forest – October 14th 1 Page 62 of 444 Copyright Lake Forest Graduate School of Management  ATTACHMENT 4 Program Overview Personal Side of Change In today’s ever-faster world, the only constant is change. Everyone responds differently to change, and managing one’s ability to work through—and eventually thrive through—change can be a major differentiator for success in every role. Participants learn tips and tools to thrive as they realize and analyze how they process change. Leading Others Through Change In today’s fast-paced business environment, the ability to guide others through change is essential for maintaining team cohesion and success. This training session equips leaders with the tools to effectively navigate change by recognizing the stages of acceptance, exploring strategies to mitigate resistance, and identifying ways to support individuals through each phase. Through interactive exercises and discussions, attendees will gain valuable insights to foster smoother transitions and build resilience within their teams. Innovative Mindset A curious mindset includes a desire to understand how and why things exist the way they do. By asking in-depth questions, rethinking assumptions, devising alternatives, and experimenting to learn and adapt quickly, leaders inspire others to think more creatively and broadly—with better results. Learn how to spark innovative thinking, build a growth mindset culture, and drive organization-wide growth. Dates/Locations Session 1: Village of Winnetka – May 20th Session 2: Village of Willowbrook – July 14th Session 3: Village of Wheeling – September 17th 1 Page 63 of 444 Copyright Lake Forest Graduate School of Management  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-34-2026: Approving the Purchase of a Dump Truck from Transchicago Truck Group Through Sourcewell (Adoption) PRESENTER: Nicholas Narhi AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: Council approved a similar contract for an identical truck last year (Resolution No. R-65-2025.) This is the second of two large dump trucks needed in the W&E fleet. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Water & Electric Department's five year capital plans propose the replacement of one large 2000 Freightliner FL80 dump truck. This vehicle exceeds the Departments' replacement plan based on age, physical condition and/or operational hours of the equipment. The proposed replacement vehicle is a 2027 Freightliner 108SD Plus truck with similar equipment consistent with existing trucks of the Water & Electric Department. Manufacturing lead time for this vehicle extends beyond 2026. Staff is proposing to utilize pricing available through the State of Illinois contract (CMS JPMC Dump Trucks ID# 24-416CMS-BOSS4-P-75584) for the procurement of single axle, tandem axle, and super tandem axle dump trucks along with necessary accessories. It is designed to facilitate governmental units and qualified not-for-profit agencies in acquiring these vehicles as needed during the contract period. Transchicago Truck Group submitted a quote for the supply of one 2027 Freightliner FL108SD Plus truck, upfitted with a dump body, hydraulic tool circuit, and warning lights at a price of $174,744 under the State of Illinois contract JPMC Dump Trucks (Viking Cives 062222-VCM). Staff confirmed that the equipment proposal meets the requirements of the Village's operational needs and will be equipped with the necessary accessories to support operational needs. Due to the extended manufacturing lead time, the truck will not arrive until 2027. Payment terms are Net 30. Staff anticipates securing approval to dispose of the existing vehicle through a separate Council action at a later date. This vehicle will remain in service until the replacement vehicle is received and placed into service. Page 64 of 444 RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting Resolution No. R-34-2026, awarding a purchase of one 2027 Freightliner 108SD Plus Truck under the State of Illinois contract JPMC Dump Trucks Patson – 24-416CMS-BOSS4-P- 75584) from Transchicago Truck Group in an amount not to exceed $174,744. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-34-2026: Approving the Purchase of a Dump Truck from Transchicago Truck Group Through Sourcewell Page 65 of 444  RESOLUTION NO. R-34-2026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A DUMP TRUCK FROM TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP THROUGH SOURCEWELL WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) is a home rule municipality in accordance with Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, the Village is a member of Sourcewell ("Sourcewell"), a municipal national contracting agency for units of local government, and educational and non-profit organizations; and WHEREAS, Sourcewell permits units of local governments to purchase commodities and services according to nationally leveraged and competitively solicited purchasing contracts, resulting in significant savings for the Village; and WHEREAS, the Village Water & Electric Department has identified the need to replace one 2000 Freightliner FL80 dump truck with one 2027 Freightliner FL108SD Plus dump truck upfitted with a dump body, hydraulic took circuit, and warning lights (“Truck”); and WHEREAS, Sourcewell sought bids for the award of a contract for the purchase of the Truck ("Purchase Contract"); and WHEREAS, Sourcewell identified TransChicago Truck Group of Elmhurst, Illinois ("TransChicago"), as the lowest responsible bidder for the Purchase Contract with a purchase price of $174,744.00; and WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees have determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village to purchase the Truck from TransChicago, in the amount of $174,744.00, in accordance with the Purchase Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The Village Council adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE. The Village Council hereby approves the purchase by the Village of the Truck from TransChicago, in the total amount of $174,744.00, in accordance with the Purchase Contract. SECTION 3. EXECUTION OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION. The Village Council authorizes and directs the Village President, the Village Manager, and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, all documents approved by the Village Attorney and necessary to purchase the Truck from TransChicago in an amount not to exceed $174,744.00. March 19, 2026 R-34-2026 Page 66 of 444 1  SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by law. ADOPTED this 19 day of March, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk March 19, 2026 Page 67 of 444 R-34-2026  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com A proposal for WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Using State of Illinois Contract - CMS JPMC Dump Trucks Patson – 24-416CMS-BOSS4-P-75584 CY2026 MY2027 – expires 3-24-26 Customer Draft #2 Prepared by TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP Duane Schaefer March 2, 2026 Freightliner 108SD Plus Components shown may not reflect all spec'd options and are not to scale Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 1 of 31 26FEB Page 68 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com S P E C I F I C A T I O N P R O P O S A L Weight Weight Description Front Rear Price Level SD PRL-30D (EFF:MY27 ORDERS) Data Version SPECPRO21 DATA RELEASE VER 024 Vehicle Configuration 108SD PLUS CONVENTIONAL CHASSIS 6,829 3,748 2027 MODEL YEAR SPECIFIED SET BACK AXLE - TRUCK TOWING PROVISION AT END OF FRAME WITH 15 15 SAE J560, WITHOUT END OF FRAME AIR CONNECTIONS LH PRIMARY STEERING LOCATION General Service TRUCK/TRAILER CONFIGURATION DOMICILED, USA (EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA AND CARB OPT-IN STATES) EPA CLEAN IDLE LABEL - (INCLUDES 6X4 INCH LABEL ON LOWER FORWARD OF DRIVER DOOR) UTILITY/REPAIR/MAINTENANCE SERVICE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SEGMENT DIRT/SAND/ROCK COMMODITY TERRAIN/DUTY: 100% (ALL) OF THE TIME, IN TRANSIT, IS SPENT ON PAVED ROADS MAXIMUM 8% EXPECTED GRADE SMOOTH CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVEMENT - MOST SEVERE IN-TRANSIT (BETWEEN SITES) ROAD SURFACE FREIGHTLINER SD VOCATIONAL WARRANTY EXPECTED FRONT AXLE(S) LOAD : 18000.0 lbs Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 2 of 31 26FEB Page 69 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear EXPECTED REAR DRIVE AXLE(S) LOAD : 23000.0 lbs EXPECTED GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT CAPACITY : 41000.0 lbs EXPECTED GROSS COMBINATION WEIGHT : 45000.0 lbs Truck Service FRONT PLOW/END DUMP BODY EXPECTED TRUCK BODY LENGTH : 10.0 ft MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT Engine CUM L9 300 HP @ 2200 RPM; 2200 GOV RPM, 860 LB-FT @ 1200 RPM Electronic Parameters 65 MPH ROAD SPEED LIMIT CRUISE CONTROL SPEED LIMIT SAME AS ROAD SPEED LIMIT N PTO RPM CONTROL WITH STEERING WHEEL SWITCHES N PTO RPM WITH CRUISE RESUME SWITCH - 1100 RPM PTO GOVERNOR RAMP RATE - 25 RPM PER SECOND FUEL DOSING OF AFTERTREATMENT ENABLED IN PTO MODE-CLEANS HYDROCARBONS AT HIGH TEMPERATURES ONLY CRUISE CONTROL BUTTON PTO CONTROL N PTO SPEED 1 SETTING - 900 RPM N PTO MINIMUM RPM - 900 REGEN INHIBIT SPEED THRESHOLD - 5 MPH PTO 1, DASH SWITCH, ENGAGE WHILE DRIVING Engine Equipment EPA 2010/GHG 2024 CONFIGURATION STANDARD OIL PAN OIL FILL AND DIPSTICK LOCATED FOR ENHANCED SERVICEABILITY SIDE OF HOOD AIR INTAKE WITH FIREWALL 10 MOUNTED DONALDSON AIR CLEANER WITH SAFETY ELEMENT AND INSIDE/OUTSIDE AIR WITH SNOW DOOR Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 3 of 31 26FEB Page 70 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear DR 12V 160 AMP 28-SI QUADRAMOUNT PAD ALTERNATOR WITH REMOTE BATTERY VOLT SENSE (2) DTNA GENUINE, FLOODED STARTING, MIN 2000CCA, 370RC, THREADED STUD BATTERIES BATTERY BOX FRAME MOUNTED STANDARD BATTERY JUMPERS SINGLE BATTERY BOX FRAME MOUNTED LH SIDE UNDER CAB WIRE GROUND RETURN FOR BATTERY CABLES WITH ADDITIONAL FRAME GROUND RETURN NON-POLISHED BATTERY BOX COVER NON-ESSENTIAL POSITIVE LOAD DISCONNECT, 2 IN CAB CONTROL SWITCH MOUNTED OUTBOARD OF DRIVER SEAT POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POSTS FOR 2 JUMPSTART LOCATED ON FRAME NEXT TO STARTER PROGRESSIVE LOW VOLTAGE DISCONNECT AT 2 12.3 VOLTS FOR DESIGNATED CIRCUITS CUMMINS TURBOCHARGED 18.7 CFM AIR COMPRESSOR WITH INTERNAL SAFETY VALVE ELECTRONIC ENGINE INTEGRAL WARNING AND DERATE PROTECTION SYSTEM NO RETARDER/ENGINE BRAKE RH OUTBOARD UNDER STEP MOUNTED HORIZONTAL AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEM ASSEMBLY WITH RH HORIZONTAL TAILPIPE ENGINE AFTERTREATMENT DEVICE, AUTOMATIC OVER THE ROAD ACTIVE REGENERATION AND VIRTUAL REGENERATION REQUEST SWITCH IN CLUSTER AND DASH MOUNTED INHIBIT SWITCH STANDARD EXHAUST SYSTEM LENGTH RH STANDARD HORIZONTAL TAILPIPE 6 GALLON DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID TANK -35 -10 100 PERCENT DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID FILL DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID PUMP MOUNTED AFT OF DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID TANK LH MEDIUM DUTY STANDARD DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID TANK LOCATION STANDARD DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID TANK CAP NO MUFFLER/TAILPIPE SHIELD -10 Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 4 of 31 26FEB Page 71 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear AIR POWERED ON/OFF ENGINE FAN CLUTCH AUTOMATIC FAN CONTROL WITHOUT DASH SWITCH, NON ENGINE MOUNTED CUMMINS SPIN ON FUEL FILTER COMBINATION FULL FLOW/BYPASS OIL FILTER FLEETGUARD PLAIN COOLANT FILTER 1115 SQUARE INCH ALUMINUM RADIATOR ANTIFREEZE TO -60F, OAT (NITRITE AND SILCATE FREE) EXTENDED LIFE COOLANT GATES BLUE STRIPE COOLANT HOSES OR EQUIVALENT CONSTANT TENSION HOSE CLAMPS FOR COOLANT HOSES RADIATOR DRAIN VALVE ELECTRIC GRID AIR INTAKE WARMER DELCO 12V 38MT HD STARTER WITH INTEGRATED MAGNETIC SWITCH Transmission ALLISON 3000 RDS AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION WITH PTO PROVISION Transmission Equipment ALLISON VOCATIONAL PACKAGE 223 - AVAILABLE ON 3000/4000 PRODUCT FAMILIES WITH VOCATIONAL MODELS RDS, HS, MH AND TRV ALLISON VOCATIONAL RATING FOR ON/OFF HIGHWAY APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE WITH ALL PRODUCT FAMILIES PRIMARY MODE GEARS, LOWEST GEAR 1, START GEAR 1, HIGHEST GEAR 6, AVAILABLE FOR 3000/4000 PRODUCT FAMILIES ONLY SECONDARY MODE GEARS, LOWEST GEAR 1, START GEAR 1, HIGHEST GEAR 6, AVAILABLE FOR 3000/4000 PRODUCT FAMILIES ONLY S5 PERFORMANCE LIMITING PRIMARY SHIFT SCHEDULE, AVAILABLE FOR 3000/4000 PRODUCT FAMILIES ONLY S5 PERFORMANCE LIMITING SECONDARY SHIFT SCHEDULE, AVAILABLE FOR 3000/4000 PRODUCT FAMILIES ONLY 2100 RPM PRIMARY MODE SHIFT SPEED 2100 RPM SECONDARY MODE SHIFT SPEED Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 5 of 31 26FEB Page 72 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear ENGINE BRAKE RANGE PRESELECT RECOMMENDED BY DTNA AND ALLISON, THIS DEFINED BY ENGINE AND VOCATIONAL USAGE 2ND GEAR ENGINE BRAKE ALTERNATE PRESELECT WITH MODERATE DOWNSHIFT STRATEGY FUEL SENSE 2.0 DISABLED - PERFORMANCE - TABLE BASED DRIVER SWITCH INPUT - DEFAULT - NO SWITCHES DIRECTION CHANGE ENABLED WITH MULTIPLEXED SERVICE BRAKES - ALLISON 5TH GEN TRANSMISSIONS MAXIMUM ENGINE SPEED FOR PTO OPERATION 2700 RPM MAXIMUM OUTPUT SPEED FOR PTO ENGAGEMENT 250 RPM MAXIMUM OUTPUT SPEED FOR PTO OPERATION 4000 RPM - ALLISON 5TH GEN TRANSMISSIONS QUICKFIT BODY LIGHTING CONNECTOR UNDER CAB, WITH CAP ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION WIRING TO CUSTOMER INTERFACE CONNECTOR CUSTOMER INSTALLED CHELSEA 871 SERIES PTO PTO MOUNTING, LH SIDE OF MAIN TRANSMISSION ALLISON MAGNETIC PLUGS, ENGINE DRAIN, TRANSMISSION DRAIN, AXLE(S) FILL AND DRAIN PUSH BUTTON ELECTRONIC SHIFT CONTROL, DASH MOUNTED TRANSMISSION PROGNOSTICS - ENABLED 2013 WATER TO OIL TRANSMISSION COOLER, IN 15 RADIATOR END TANK TRANSMISSION OIL CHECK AND FILL WITH CROSSOVER TO CLEAR LH PTO AND DIRECT MOUNT PUMP ATF-SYNTHETIC AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION FLUID Front Axle and Equipment DETROIT DA-F-18.0-5 18,000# FL1 71.0 KPI/3.74 210 DROP SINGLE FRONT AXLE Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 6 of 31 26FEB Page 73 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear MERITOR 16.5X6 Q+ CAST SPIDER CAM FRONT 10 BRAKES, DOUBLE ANCHOR, FABRICATED SHOES NON-ASBESTOS FRONT BRAKE LINING CAST IRON OUTBOARD FRONT BRAKE DRUMS FRONT BRAKE DUST SHIELDS 5 FRONT OIL SEALS VENTED FRONT HUB CAPS WITH WINDOW, CENTER AND SIDE PLUGS - OIL STANDARD SPINDLE NUTS FOR ALL AXLES HALDEX AUTOMATIC FRONT SLACK ADJUSTERS STANDARD KING PIN BUSHINGS TRW TAS-85 POWER STEERING 40 POWER STEERING PUMP 4 QUART POWER STEERING RESERVOIR 5 OIL/AIR POWER STEERING COOLER 5 CURRENT AVAILABLE SYNTHETIC 75W-90 FRONT AXLE LUBE Front Suspension 18,000# FLAT LEAF FRONT SUSPENSION 290 GRAPHITE BRONZE BUSHINGS WITH SEALS - FRONT SUSPENSION FRONT SUSPENSION WITH LEFT HAND OFFSET 4 SHACKLE BRACKET FRONT SHOCK ABSORBERS Rear Axle and Equipment MERITOR RS-23-160 23,000# R-SERIES SINGLE 180 REAR AXLE 5.63 REAR AXLE RATIO IRON REAR AXLE CARRIER WITH STANDARD AXLE HOUSING SPL170 XL DANA SPICER MAIN DRIVELINE WITH 5 5 HALF ROUND YOKES DRIVER CONTROLLED TRACTION 20 DIFFERENTIAL - SINGLE REAR AXLE (1) DRIVER CONTROLLED DIFFERENTIAL LOCK REAR VALVE FOR SINGLE DRIVE AXLE Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 7 of 31 26FEB Page 74 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear INDICATOR LIGHT AND BUZZER FOR EACH DIFFERENTIAL LOCKOUT SWITCH, ENGAGE AT SPEEDS 5 MPH PR LESS, DISENGAGE W/IGN OFF OR SPEEDS EXCEEDING 25 MPH MERITOR 16.5X7 Q+ CAST SPIDER CAM REAR BRAKES, DOUBLE ANCHOR, FABRICATED SHOES NON-ASBESTOS REAR BRAKE LINING BRAKE CAMS AND CHAMBERS ON FORWARD SIDE OF DRIVE AXLE(S) WITH AUXILIARY SUPPORT BRACKETS CAST IRON OUTBOARD REAR BRAKE DRUMS -10 REAR BRAKE DUST SHIELDS 5 REAR OIL SEALS BENDIX EVERSURE LONGSTROKE 1-DRIVE AXLE SPRING PARKING CHAMBERS HALDEX AUTOMATIC REAR SLACK ADJUSTERS CURRENT AVAILABLE SYNTHETIC 75W-90 REAR AXLE LUBE STANDARD REAR AXLE BREATHER(S) Rear Suspension AIRLINER 23,000# REAR SUSPENSION WITH 110 CHAIN CLEARANCE AIRLINER HIGH POSITION RIDE HEIGHT STANDARD AXLE SEATS IN AXLE CLAMP GROUP IGNITION CONTROLLED ELECTRIC DUMP SWITCH FOR AIR SUSPENSION WITH STATE RETENTION REAR AIR SUSPENSION DUMP VALVE AUTOFILL >5 MPH WITH INDICATOR LIGHT DUAL AIR REAR SUSPENSION LEVELING VALVES TRANSVERSE CONTROL RODS REAR SHOCK ABSORBERS - ONE AXLE (AIR RIDE SUSPENSION) Pusher / Tag Equipment NO PUSHER/TAG BRAKE DUST SHIELDS Brake System WABCO 4S/4M ABS WITH TRACTION CONTROL Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 8 of 31 26FEB Page 75 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear REINFORCED NYLON, FABRIC BRAID AND WIRE BRAID CHASSIS AIR LINES STANDARD AIR MANAGEMENT UNIT FIBER BRAID PARKING BRAKE HOSE STANDARD BRAKE SYSTEM VALVES STANDARD AIR SYSTEM PRESSURE PROTECTION SYSTEM STD U.S. FRONT BRAKE VALVE RELAY VALVE WITH 5-8 PSI CRACK PRESSURE, NO REAR PROPORTIONING VALVE WABCO SYSTEM SAVER HP WITH INTEGRAL AIR GOVERNOR AND HEATER AIR DRYER MOUNTED INBOARD ON RH RAIL STEEL AIR TANKS MOUNTED AFT INSIDE AND/OR BELOW FRAME JUST FORWARD OF REAR SUSPENSION, NO TRIPLE OR TORPEDO TANKS BW DV-2 AUTO DRAIN VALVE WITH HEATER TO WET TANK; DRAIN VALVE CABLES ON ALL OTHER TANKS Trailer Connections NO AIR HOSE HANGER (2) QUICKFIT PROGRAMMABLE SOLENOIDS W/STATE RETENTION PLUMBED TO BACK OF CAB PRIMARY CONNECTOR/RECEPTACLE WIRED FOR COMBINATION STOP/TURN, CENTER PIN POWERED THROUGH IGNITION WITH STOP SIGNAL PREWIRE PACKAGE PDI INSTALLED ELECTRIC BRAKE CONTROLLER SAE J560 7-WAY PRIMARY TRAILER CABLE RECEPTACLE MOUNTED END OF FRAME NO TRAILER RECEPTACLE BRACKET Wheelbase & Frame 3800MM (150 INCH) WHEELBASE 7/16X3-9/16X11-1/8 INCH STEEL FRAME 10 180 (11.11MMX282.6MM/0.437X11.13 INCH) 120KSI TEM TO EVALUATE AND INSTALL FRAME RAIL REINFORCEMENT AS NEEDED FOR FRONT FRAME MOUNTED EQUIPMENT 2275MM (90 INCH) REAR FRAME OVERHANG Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 9 of 31 26FEB Page 76 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear FRAME OVERHANG RANGE: 81 INCH TO 90 -40 160 INCH CALC'D BACK OF CAB TO REAR SUSP C/L (CA) : 84.06 in CALCULATED EFFECTIVE BACK OF CAB TO REAR SUSPENSION C/L (CA) : 81.06 in CALC'D FRAME LENGTH - OVERALL : 278.58 in CALCULATED FRAME SPACE LH SIDE : 41.8 in CALCULATED FRAME SPACE RH SIDE : 52.44 in CALC'D SPACE AVAILABLE FOR DECKPLATE : 0.0 in SQUARE END OF FRAME FRONT CLOSING CROSSMEMBER LIGHTWEIGHT HEAVY DUTY ALUMINUM ENGINE -12 CROSSMEMBER STANDARD MIDSHIP #1 CROSSMEMBER(S) STANDARD REARMOST CROSSMEMBER HEAVY DUTY SUSPENSION CROSSMEMBER 30 Chassis Equipment 14 INCH PAINTED STEEL BUMPER BUMPER MOUNTING FOR SINGLE LICENSE PLATE NO MUDFLAP BRACKETS NO REAR MUDFLAPS HUCK-SPIN ROUND COLLAR CHASSIS FASTENERS EXTERIOR HARNESSES WRAPPED IN ABRASION TAPE D15-16004-000 CENTER PUNCH TO MARK CENTERLINE OF REAR SUSPENSION ON FRAME WEB CLEAR FRAME RAILS FROM BACK OF CAB TO FRONT REAR SUSPENSION BRACKET, BOTH RAILS OUTBOARD Fifth Wheel NO FIFTH WHEEL Fuel Tanks 60 GALLON/227 LITER ALUMINUM FUEL TANK - LH 25 INCH DIAMETER FUEL TANK(S) Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 10 of 31 26FEB Page 77 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear PLAIN ALUMINUM/PAINTED STEEL FUEL/HYDRAULIC TANK(S) WITH POLISHED STAINLESS STEEL BANDS FUEL TANK(S) FORWARD POLISHED STEP FINISH * FUEL TANK CAP(S) DETROIT FUEL/WATER SEPARATOR WITH -5 WATER IN FUEL SENSOR, HAND PRIMER AND 12 VOLT PREHEATER" EQUIFLO INBOARD FUEL SYSTEM HIGH TEMPERATURE REINFORCED NYLON FUEL LINE Tires CONTINENTAL HAU 3 WT 315/80R22.5 20 PLY 100 RADIAL FRONT TIRES CONTINENTAL HDR2+ 11R22.5 14 PLY RADIAL 92 REAR TIRES Hubs CONMET PRESET PLUS PREMIUM IRON FRONT HUBS CONMET PRESET PLUS PREMIUM IRON REAR HUBS Wheels MAXION WHEELS 10041 22.5X9.00 10-HUB PILOT 66 5.25 INSET 5-HAND STEEL DISC FRONT WHEELS MAXION WHEELS 90260 22.5X8.25 10-HUB PILOT 80 2-HAND HD STEEL DISC REAR WHEELS FRONT WHEEL MOUNTING NUTS REAR WHEEL MOUNTING NUTS WHEEL STUDS FOR CUSTOMER INSTALLED HUB PILOTED DUALED ALUMINUM WHEELS, ALL Cab Exterior 108 INCH BBC FLAT ROOF ALUMINUM CONVENTIONAL CAB AIR CAB MOUNTING CAB ROOF REINFORCEMENTS FOR ROOF 2 MOUNTED COMPONENTS NONREMOVABLE BUGSCREEN MOUNTED BEHIND GRILLE Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 11 of 31 26FEB Page 78 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear SHORT FENDER WITH MUDFLAP BOLT-ON MOLDED FLEXIBLE FENDER 10 EXTENSIONS SAFETY YELLOW LH AND RH INTERIOR GRAB HANDLES AND LH AND RH EXTERIOR GRAB HANDLES WITH SINGLE RUBBER INSERT STATIONARY BLACK GRILLE BLACK HOOD MOUNTED AIR INTAKE GRILLE FIBERGLASS HOOD WITH ACCESS HATCHES 10 FREIGHTLINER NAME PLATES CAB FLOOR, TOE BOARD AND FIREWALL HEAT 5 SHIELD SINGLE 14 INCH ROUND HADLEY AIR HORN UNDER LH DECK SINGLE ELECTRIC HORN REAR LICENSE PLATE MOUNT END OF FRAME HALOGEN COMPOSITE HEADLAMPS WITH BLACK BEZELS LED AERODYNAMIC MARKER LIGHTS DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS INTEGRAL STOP/TAIL/BACKUP LIGHTS STANDARD FRONT TURN SIGNAL LAMPS DUAL WEST COAST MOLDED-IN COLOR HEATED MIRRORS WITH LH AND RH REMOTE DOOR MOUNTED MIRRORS 102 INCH EQUIPMENT WIDTH LH AND RH 8 INCH MOLDED-IN COLOR CONVEX MIRRORS M0UNTED UNDER PRIMARY MIRRORS RH AND LH 8 INCH HEATED STAINLESS STEEL 12 FENDER MOUNTED CONVEX MIRRORS WITH TRIPOD BRACKETS STANDARD SIDE/REAR REFLECTORS RH AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEM CAB ACCESS WITH POLISHED DIAMOND PLATE COVER 63X14 INCH TINTED REAR WINDOW TINTED DOOR GLASS LH AND RH WITH TINTED OPERATING WING WINDOWS RH AND LH ELECTRIC POWERED WINDOWS 1-PIECE SOLAR GREEN GLASS WINDSHELD Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 12 of 31 26FEB Page 79 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear 8 LITER (2 GAL) WINDSHIELD WASHER RESERVOIR, CAB MOUNTED, WITH FLUID LEVEL INDICATOR Cab Interior RUGGED TRIM PACKAGE GRAY & CARBON VINYL INTERIOR "RUGGED" CARBON WITH PREMIUM GUNMETAL ACCENT (RUGGED) MOLDED DOOR PANEL MOLDED PLASTIC DOOR PANEL BLACK MATS WITH SINGLE INSULATION (1)DASH MOUNTED 12V POWER OUTLET, (1)DASH MOUNTED DUAL USB-C OUTLET FORWARD ROOF MOUNTED CONSOLE CENTER STORAGE CONSOLE MOUNTED ON 20 BACKWALL LH AND RH KICKPLATES DIGITAL ALARM CLOCK IN DRIVER DISPLAY (2) CUP HOLDERS LH AND RH DASH M2/SD DASH HEATER, DEFROSTER AND AIR CONDITIONER STANDARD HVAC DUCTING WITH SNOW SHIELD FOR FRESH AIR INTAKE MAIN HVAC CONTROLS WITH RECIRCULATION SWITCH STANDARD HEATER PLUMBING WITH BALL SHUTOFF VALVES AT SUPPLY LINES ONLY VALEO HEAVY DUTY A/C REFRIGERANT COMPRESSOR BINARY CONTROL, R-134A PREMIUM INSULATION SOLID-STATE CIRCUIT PROTECTION AND FUSES 12V NEGATIVE GROUND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PREMIUM LED CAB LIGHTING NO SECURITY DEVICE DOOR LOCKS AND IGNITION SWITCH KEYED THE SAME KEY QUANTITY OF 4 Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 13 of 31 26FEB Page 80 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear LH AND RH ELECTRIC DOOR LOCKS WITH AUTO UNLOCK FEATURE WHEN DOOR IS SET FROM OPEN TO CLOSED POSITION NO MATTRESS -20 -15 BASIC ISRINGHAUSEN HIGH BACK AIR 30 SUSPENSION DRIVERS SEAT WTIH MECHANICAL LUMBAR AND INTEGRATED CUSHION EXTENSION BASIC ISRINGHAUSEN HIGH BACK AIR 25 10 SUSPENSION PASSENGER SEAT WTIH MECHANICAL LUMBAR AND INTEGRATED CUSHION EXTENSION DUAL DRIVER AND PASSENGER SEAT 8 ARMRESTS LH AND RH INTEGRAL DOOR PANEL ARMRESTS BLACK CORDURA PLUS CLOTH DRIVER SEAT COVER BLACK CORDURA PLUS CLOTH PASSENGER SEAT COVER HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE SEAT BELTS ADJUSTABLE TILT AND TELESCOPING STEERING COLUMN 4-SPOKE 18 INCH (450MM) BLACK STEERING WHEEL WITH SWITCHES DRIVER AND PASSENGER INTERIOR SUN VISORS Instruments & Controls ELECTRONIC ACCELERATOR CONTROL NO INSTRUMENT PANEL-DRIVER FULLY CONFIGURABLE CENTER INSTRUMENT PANELS ENGINE PTO SPEED CONTROL WITHOUT INTERLOCKS BRIGHT ARGENT FINISH GAUGE BEZELS LOW AIR PRESSURE INDICATOR LIGHT AND AUDIBLE ALARM DUAL NEEDLE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AIR PRESSURE GAUGE NO AIR CLEANER RESTRICTION GAUGE 97 DB BACKUP ALARM MOUNTED INBOARD OF 3 RAIL ELECTRONIC CRUISE CONTROL WITH CONTROLS ON STEERING WHEEL SPOKES Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 14 of 31 26FEB Page 81 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear KEY OPERATED IGNITION SWITCH AND INTEGRAL START POSITION; 4 POSITION OFF/RUN/START/ACCESSORY PREMIUM INSTRUMENT CLUSTER WITH 5.0 INCH TFT COLOR DISPLAY DIGITAL PANEL LAMP DIMMER SWITCH IN DRIVER DISPLAY HEAVY DUTY ONBOARD DIAGNOSTICS INTERFACE CONNECTOR LOCATED BELOW LH DASH 2 INCH ELECTRIC FUEL GAUGE N ENGINE REMOTE INTERFACE FOR REMOTE THROTTLE QUICKFIT POWERTRAIN INTERFACE CONNECTOR UNDER CAB WITH CAPS * 8 EXTRA PROGRAMMABLE SWITCHES/INDICATORS $C1A0207ZZ,C1B0206ZZ,C1C0159ZZ,C1D0161ZZ,C1E0160ZZ,C1F0000ZZ,C2A0000ZZ,C4U0000ZZ QUICKFIT PROGRAMMABLE INTERFACE CONNECTOR 1 UNDER CAB, CONNECTOR 2 BETWEEN SEATS, BOTH W/CAPS ENGINE REMOTE INTERFACE CONNECTOR AT POWERTRAIN INTERFACE CONNECTOR ELECTRICAL ENGINE COOLANT TEMPERATURE GAUGE ELECTRIC ENGINE OIL PRESSURE GAUGE DIGITAL TRANSMISSION OIL TEMPERATURE IN DRIVER DISPLAY ELECTRONIC OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE SENSOR DISPLAY IN DRIVER MESSAGE CENTER ENGINE AND TRIP HOUR METERS INTEGRAL WITHIN DRIVER DISPLAY PTO CONTROLS FOR ENHANCED VEHICLE ELECTRIC/ELECTRONIC ARCHITECTURE NO OBSTACLE DETECTION SYSTEM NO DR ASSIST SYSTEM ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL,4X2 W/SAFETY MIN BODY WEIGHT EXCEEDS 4,000LBS REQ NO LANE DEPARTURE WARNING SYSTEM NO OVERHEAD INSTRUMENT PANEL 1 QUIKFIT PROGRAMABLE MODULE (QPMXMC) W/ (8) 20AMP FUSED RELAYS Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 15 of 31 26FEB Page 82 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear GENERIC TELEMATICS PREWIRE (CONSTANT BATTERY POWER/IGNITION/GROUND/J1939); RP1226 TYPE CONNECTOR AT PASSENGER SIDE OF DASH END TOP OF DASH RAM MOUNT WITHOUT POWER OR GROUND, FOR CUSTOMER FURNISHED DEVICE 7" B-PANEL INTERACTIVE TOUCHSCREEN DISPLAY RADIO W/ USB-C, APPLE CARPLAY, ANDROID AUTO, BLUETOOTH/AM/FM/SXM/WB, WITH MICROPHONE DASH MOUNTED RADIO (2) RADIO SPEAKERS IN CAB NO AM/FM RADIO ANTENNA NO CB RADIO MOUNTING PROVISION SHARKFIN MULTI-BAND ANTENNA, CENTRAL ROOF MOUNTING LOCATION: AM/FM/WEATHERBAND, WIFI/BLUETOOTH, SDAR/SIRIUSXM, GNSS/GPS INTEROPERABLE SDAR ANTENNA ELECTRONIC MPH SPEEDOMETER WITH SECONDARY KPH SCALE, WITHOUT ODOMETER STANDARD VEHICLE SPEED SENSOR ELECTRONIC 3000 RPM TACHOMETER DETROIT CONNECT PLATFORM HARDWARE 3 YEARS DAIMLER CONNECTIVITY BASE PACKAGE ON (FEATURES VARY BY MODEL) POWERED BY DETROIT CONNECT ON CUMMINS ENGINES TMC RP1226 ACCESSORY CONNECTOR LOCATED BEHIND PASSENGER SIDE REMOVEABLE DASH PANEL IGNITION SWITCH CONTROLLED ENGINE STOP 8 SWITCH SLOTS, DRIVER OVERHEAD CONSOLE PRE-TRIP INSPECTION FEATURE FOR EXTERIOR LAMPS AND SERVICE BRAKES (1) OVERHEAD MOUNTED LANYARD CONTROL FOR DRIVER AIR HORN NO TRAILER HAND CONTROL BRAKE VALVE DIGITAL TURBO AIR PRESSURE IN DRIVER DISPLAY Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 16 of 31 26FEB Page 83 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Weight Description Front Rear DIGITAL VOLTAGE DISPLAY INTEGRAL WITH DRIVER DISPLAY SINGLE ELECTRIC WINDSHIELD WIPER MOTOR WITH DELAY WHEN PARK BRAKE SET, TRANSITION TO SLOWEST SPEED ROTARY HEADLAMP SWITCH, MARKER LIGHTS/HEADLIGHTS SWITCH WITH PULL OUT FOR OPTIONAL FOG/ROAD LAMPS ONE VALVE PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM WITH WARNING INDICATOR SELF CANCELING TURN SIGNAL SWITCH WITH DIMMER, HEADLAMP FLASH, WASH/WIPE/INTERMITTENT INTEGRAL ELECTRONIC TURN SIGNAL FLASHER WITH 40 AMP (20 AMP PER SIDE) TRAILER LAMP CAPACITY NO WRG/SW-OPTL #2,CHAS,AIR Design * PAINT: ONE SOLID COLOR Color * CAB COLOR A: L0933EY YELLOW ELITE EY BLACK, HIGH SOLIDS POLYURETHANE CHASSIS PAINT POWDER WHITE (N0006EA) FRONT WHEELS/RIMS (PKWHT21, TKWHT21, W, TW) POWDER WHITE (N0006EA) REAR WHEELS/RIMS (PKWHT21, TKWHT21, W, TW) STANDARD BLACK BUMPER PAINT STANDARD E COAT/UNDERCOATING Certification / Compliance U.S. FMVSS CERTIFICATION, EXCEPT SALES CABS AND GLIDER KITS Secondary Factory Options CORPORATE PDI CENTER OPTION INSTALLATION/MODIFICATION ONLY T O T A L V E H I C L E S U M M A R Y Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 17 of 31 26FEB Page 84 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Weight Summary Weight Weight Total Front Rear Weight Factory Weight+ 7625 lbs 4603 lbs 12228 lbs Total Weight+ 7625 lbs 4603 lbs 12228 lbs Extended Warranty CUM 2017 L9: HD1 MD DTY 6 YEARS / 150,000 MILES / 241,500 KM EXTENDED WARRANTY FEX APPLIES CUM 2017 L9: AT3 MD DTY 6 YEARS / 150,000 MILES / 241,500 KM AFTERTREATMENT. FEX APPLIES ALLISON 3000 RDS SERIES TRANSMISSION EXTEND WARRANTY, 5 YEARS/UNLIMITED MILES FEX TOWING: 6 MONTHS/UNLIMITED MILES/KM EXTENDED TOWING COVERAGE $750 CAP FEX APPLIES (+) Weights shown are estimates only. If weight is critical, contact Customer Application Engineering. (***) All cost increases for major components (Engines, Transmissions, Axles, Front and Rear Tires) and government mandated requirements, tariffs, and raw material surcharges will be passed through and added to factory invoices. Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 18 of 31 26FEB Page 85 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com D I M E N S I O N S VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY - DIMENSIONS Wheelbase (545) ..........................................................................................................................3800MM (150 INCH) WHEELBASE Rear Frame Overhang (552) .................................................................................... 2275MM (90 INCH) REAR FRAME OVERHANG Fifth Wheel (578) ................................................................................................................................................... NO FIFTH WHEEL Mounting Location (577) ............................................................................................................... NO FIFTH WHEEL LOCATION Maximum Forward Position (in).................................................................................................................................................... 0 Maximum Rearward Position (in) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 Amount of Slide Travel (in)........................................................................................................................................................... 0 Slide Increment (in)...................................................................................................................................................................... 0 Desired Slide Position (in) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 Cab Size (829)................................................................................ 108 INCH BBC FLAT ROOF ALUMINUM CONVENTIONAL CAB Sleeper (682) ................................................................................................................................NO SLEEPER BOX/SLEEPERCAB Exhaust System (016) ........ RH OUTBOARD UNDER STEP MOUNTED HORIZONTAL AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEM ASSEMBLY WITH RH HORIZONTAL TAILPIPE Cab to Body Clearance (in)............................................................................................................................................................. 3.0 Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 19 of 31 26FEB Page 86 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com TABLE SUMMARY - DIMENSIONS Performance calculations are estimates only. If performance calculations are critical, please contact Customer Application Engineering. Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 20 of 31 26FEB Page 87 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com G V W R VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY - GVWR Cab Size (829)................................................................................ 108 INCH BBC FLAT ROOF ALUMINUM CONVENTIONAL CAB Expected Front Axle(s) Load (lbs) ........................................................................................................................................... 18000.0 Expected Pusher Axle(s) Load (lbs) ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0 Expected Rear Axle(s) Load (lbs) ........................................................................................................................................... 23000.0 Expected Tag Axle(s) Load (lbs) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 Expected GVW (lbs) .................................................................................................................................................................. 41000 Expected GCW (lbs) ............................................................................................................................................................... 45000.0 Front Axle (400) .................................................... DETROIT DA-F-18.0-5 18,000# FL1 71.0 KPI/3.74 DROP SINGLE FRONT AXLE Front Suspension (620) .................................................................................................. 18,000# FLAT LEAF FRONT SUSPENSION Front Hubs (418) ..................................................................................... CONMET PRESET PLUS PREMIUM IRON FRONT HUBS Front Disc Wheels (502) MAXION WHEELS 10041 22.5X9.00 10-HUB PILOT 5.25 INSET 5-HAND STEEL DISC FRONT WHEELS Front Tires (093) ................................................................ CONTINENTAL HAU 3 WT 315/80R22.5 20 PLY RADIAL FRONT TIRES Front Brakes (402) ......... MERITOR 16.5X6 Q+ CAST SPIDER CAM FRONT BRAKES, DOUBLE ANCHOR, FABRICATED SHOES Steering Gear (536) ....................................................................................................................... TRW TAS-85 POWER STEERING Rear Axle (420) ............................................................................... MERITOR RS-23-160 23,000# R-SERIES SINGLE REAR AXLE Rear Suspension (622) ........................................................... AIRLINER 23,000# REAR SUSPENSION WITH CHAIN CLEARANCE Rear Hubs (450) ......................................................................................... CONMET PRESET PLUS PREMIUM IRON REAR HUBS Rear Disc Wheels (505) ................. MAXION WHEELS 90260 22.5X8.25 10-HUB PILOT 2-HAND HD STEEL DISC REAR WHEELS Rear Tires (094) .............................................................................. CONTINENTAL HDR2+ 11R22.5 14 PLY RADIAL REAR TIRES Rear Brakes (423) ............ MERITOR 16.5X7 Q+ CAST SPIDER CAM REAR BRAKES, DOUBLE ANCHOR, FABRICATED SHOES Pusher / Tag Axle (443) ......................................................................................................................... NO PUSHER OR TAG AXLE Pusher / Tag Suspension (626) ............................................................................................... NO PUSHER OR TAG SUSPENSION Pusher / Tag Hubs (449)........................................................................................................................ NO PUSHER OR TAG HUBS Dead/Pusher/Tag Disc Wheels (509) .............................................................................................NO PUSHER/TAG DISC WHEELS Pusher / Tag Tires (095) ............................................................................................................................. NO PUSHER/TAG TIRES Pusher / Tag Brakes (456) ...................................................................................................................... NO PUSHER/TAG BRAKES Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 21 of 31 26FEB Page 88 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com TABLE SUMMARY - GVWR Performance calculations are estimates only. If performance calculations are critical, please contact Customer Application Engineering. Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 22 of 31 26FEB Page 89 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com F R A M E R B M VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY - FRAME RBM Wheelbase (545) ..........................................................................................................................3800MM (150 INCH) WHEELBASE Frame Rails (546) ....................... 7/16X3-9/16X11-1/8 INCH STEEL FRAME (11.11MMX282.6MM/0.437X11.13 INCH) 120KSI(546) Yield Strength (psi) ............................................................................................................................................................ 120000 Section Modulus (per rail) (cu in) ............................................................................................................................................ 21.6 RBM (per rail) (lbf-in) ....................................................................................................................................................... 2592000 Inner Frame Reinforcement (547) .......................................................................................... NO INNER FRAME REINFORCEMENT Outer Frame Reinforcement (548) ........... TEM TO EVALUATE AND INSTALL FRAME RAIL REINFORCEMENT AS NEEDED FOR FRONT FRAME MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TABLE SUMMARY - FRAME RBM Performance calculations are estimates only. If performance calculations are critical, please contact Customer Application Engineering. Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 23 of 31 26FEB Page 90 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com T U R N I N G R A D I U S VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY - TURNING RADIUS Cab Size (829)................................................................................ 108 INCH BBC FLAT ROOF ALUMINUM CONVENTIONAL CAB Wheelbase (545) ..........................................................................................................................3800MM (150 INCH) WHEELBASE Front Tires (093) ................................................................ CONTINENTAL HAU 3 WT 315/80R22.5 20 PLY RADIAL FRONT TIRES Width (in) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12.4 Front Axle (400) .................................................... DETROIT DA-F-18.0-5 18,000# FL1 71.0 KPI/3.74 DROP SINGLE FRONT AXLE Kingpin Intersection (in) ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 Bumper (556) ............................................................................................................................ 14 INCH PAINTED STEEL BUMPER Width (in) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 97.6 Bumper Miter to Front Axle (in) ........................................................................................................................................... 23.458 Primary Steering Location (003) .............................................................................................. LH PRIMARY STEERING LOCATION Steering Gear (536) ....................................................................................................................... TRW TAS-85 POWER STEERING Dual Steering Gear ..............................................................................................................................................................NONE Ram .....................................................................................................................................................................................NONE Rear Axle (420) ............................................................................... MERITOR RS-23-160 23,000# R-SERIES SINGLE REAR AXLE Axle Spacing (624) .............................................................................................................................................. NO AXLE SPACING Performance calculations are estimates only. If performance calculations are critical, please contact Customer Application Engineering. Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 24 of 31 26FEB Page 91 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com S W I T C H S E L E C T O R - 4 C H - D A S H P A N E L Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 25 of 31 26FEB Page 92 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com S W I T C H S E L E C T O R - 4 C x - H A R D W I R E D S W I T C H E S Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 26 of 31 26FEB Page 93 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com S W I T C H S E L E C T O R - 4 C G - A U X I L I A R Y P A N E L Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 27 of 31 26FEB Page 94 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com Q U O T A T I O N 108SD PLUS CONVENTIONAL CHASSIS SET BACK AXLE - TRUCK 108 INCH BBC FLAT ROOF ALUMINUM CONVENTIONAL CUM L9 300 HP @ 2200 RPM; 2200 GOV RPM, 860 LB-FT CAB @ 1200 RPM 3800MM (150 INCH) WHEELBASE ALLISON 3000 RDS AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION WITH NO FIFTH WHEEL PTO PROVISION 7/16X3-9/16X11-1/8 INCH STEEL FRAME MERITOR RS-23-160 23,000# R-SERIES SINGLE REAR (11.11MMX282.6MM/0.437X11.13 INCH) 120KSI AXLE 2275MM (90 INCH) REAR FRAME OVERHANG AIRLINER 23,000# REAR SUSPENSION WITH CHAIN TEM TO EVALUATE AND INSTALL FRAME RAIL CLEARANCE REINFORCEMENT AS NEEDED FOR FRONT DETROIT DA-F-18.0-5 18,000# FL1 71.0 KPI/3.74 DROP FRAME MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SINGLE FRONT AXLE 18,000# FLAT LEAF FRONT SUSPENSION BALANCE DUE – Bare Chassis Only $ 115,776 $ 115,776 Quote expires 3-24-26. Need chassis payment by 1-30-27. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. As used in this Sales Order the terms (a) “Dealer” shall mean the authorized Dealer to whom this Sales Order is addressed and who shall become a party hereto by its acceptance hereof, (b) “Purchaser” shall mean the party executing this Sales Order as such on the face hereof, and (c) “Manufacturer” shall mean the Corporation that manufactured the vehicle or chassis, it being understood by Purchaser and Dealer that Dealer is not the agent of Manufacturer, that Dealer and Purchaser are the sole parties to this Sales Order and that reference to Manufacturer herein is for the purpose of explaining generally certain contractual relationships existing between Dealer and Manufacturer with respect to new motor vehicles. 2. Manufacturer has reserved the right to change the price the Dealer charges for new motor vehicles without notice. In the event the price to Dealer of a new motor vehicle of the series and body type ordered hereunder is changed by Manufacturer prior to delivery of the new motor vehicle ordered hereunder to Purchaser, Dealer reserves the right to change the cash delivered price of such motor vehicle to Purchaser accordingly. 3. Notwithstanding any terms and conditions contained in Purchaser’s Purchase Order, Purchaser agrees that Dealer’s terms and conditions set forth in this Sales Order shall be the only terms and conditions regarding any purchase by Purchaser from Dealer. Purchaser expressly waives the provisions of Purchaser’s terms and conditions and agrees to be bound exclusively by Dealer’s terms and conditions as set forth herein. If Purchaser is an entity, the undersigned represents and warrants to Dealer that the undersigned has authority to bind Purchaser to the terms and conditions outlined herein, and the terms and conditions as outlined herein are enforceable against Purchaser in accordance with their terms. 4. All used motor vehicles which are to be traded in as part of the consideration for the motor vehicle ordered hereunder are subject to Dealer’s Trade Terms and Conditions which are incorporated herein by reference. Although Dealer may provide Purchaser with an initial appraisal(s) of the value of and allowance for any used motor vehicle, such initial appraisal and allowance are not binding. Each used motor vehicle shall be reappraised at that time of actual delivery to Dealer for acquisition, and such reappraisal value shall determine the actual allowance made for such motor vehicle. If such reappraised value is lower than the original appraised value and allowance therefor shown on the front of this Sales Order, Purchaser may, if dissatisfied herewith, cancel this Sales Order, Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 28 of 31 26FEB Page 95 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com provided, however, that such right to cancel must be exercised prior to the delivery of the motor vehicle ordered hereunder to the Purchaser. 5. Purchaser agrees to deliver to Dealer satisfactory evidence of title to any used motor vehicle traded in as part of the consideration for the motor vehicle ordered hereunder at the time of delivery of such used motor vehicle to Dealer. Purchaser warrants any such used motor vehicle to be his or its property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise noted within. 6. Dealer shall have the right, upon failure or refusal of Purchaser to accept delivery of the motor vehicle ordered hereunder or to comply with any of the other terms of this Sales Order, to retain any cash deposit made by Purchaser without the waiver of any other right or remedy available to Dealer. 7. Manufacturer has reserved the right to change the design of any new motor vehicle, chassis, accessories or parts thereof at any time without notice and without obligation to make the same or any similar change upon any motor vehicle, chassis, accessories or parts thereof previously purchased by or shipped to Dealer or being manufactured or sold in accordance with Dealer’s orders. Correspondingly, in the event of any such change by Manufacturer, Dealer shall have no obligation to Purchaser to make the same or any similar change in any motor vehicle, chassis, accessories or parts thereof covered by this Sales Order either before or subsequent to delivery thereof to Purchaser. 8. Dealer shall not be liable for failure to deliver or delay in delivering the motor vehicle covered by this Sales Order where such failure or delay is due, in whole or in part, to any cause beyond the control or without the fault or negligence of Dealer. 9. The price for the motor vehicle specified on the face of this Sales Order includes reimbursement for Federal Excise taxes, but does not include sales taxes, use taxes or occupational taxes based on sales volume, (Federal, State or Local) unless expressly so stated. Purchaser assumes and agrees to pay, unless prohibited by law, any such sales, use or occupational taxes imposed on or applicable to the transaction covered by this Sales Order, regardless of which party may have primary tax liability therefor. 10. There are no warranties, whether expressed or implied, made by the Dealer herein, or the Manufacturer, on the vehicle or chassis described on the face hereof except in the case of a new vehicle or chassis for which the warranty shall be limited to such warranty as provided for in writing on the face of this Sales Order or in a separate writing furnished to and signed by Purchaser and Dealer. The printed new vehicle warranty delivered to Purchaser with such vehicle or chassis is made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein, and it is the only warranty applicable to such new vehicle or chassis and is expressly in lieu of all other warranties, whether expressed or implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 11. Any used motor vehicle sold to Purchaser by Dealer under this Sales Order is sold at the time of delivery by Dealer without any guarantee or warranty, whether expressed or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, as to its condition or the condition of any part thereof except as may be otherwise specifically provided in writing on the face of this Sales Order or in a separate writing furnished to and signed by Purchaser by Dealer. 12. The Purchaser, before or at the time of delivery of the motor vehicle covered by this Sales Order will execute such forms of agreement or documents as may be required by the terms and conditions of payment indicated on the front of this Sales Order. 13. In the event Purchaser desires to modify or otherwise change the equipment content of a vehicle specifically ordered for him from the Manufacturer, the change will be made only if the Manufacturer has sufficient time to accommodate the request. Moreover, any service charge or fee made by the Manufacturer as a result of such request will be borne by the purchaser. 14. The parties agree that they will comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, including those governing and/or restricting export of products or any technical data relating thereto outside of the United States. In carrying on Purchaser’s business, each of Purchaser, its officers, directors, employees or agents (collectively and individually in this clause “Purchaser”) must comply with its obligations under the law including without limitation, the following: (a) not violate any anti-bribery or anti-corruption law of any jurisdiction Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 29 of 31 26FEB Page 96 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com applicable to this Order, including those of the United States of America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), and any similar anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws and regulations applicable to the Purchaser or related to this Order: (b) not pay, offer or promise to pay, or authorize the payment of, any monies or anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any government official or employee, any official or employee of a state-run or state-owned or controlled enterprise or entity, any official or employee of a public international organization, any candidate for political or public office, any official or employee of any political party, or any family member or relative of such persons or any political party for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of any such official, employee, candidate, political party, enterprise or entity, public organization, or government to obtain or retain business, or direct business to any person or entity, or for any other improper advantage or purpose; (c) warrants that as at the date of this Order, none of its owners, officers, directors, employees or agents or any immediate family member of such persons, is presently (or has been recently) an official or employee of any government, state-run or state-owned or controlled enterprise or entity, or political party, or a candidate for political or public office. Purchaser must provide written notification to Dealer within ten (10) days of any of the above persons becoming such official, employee or candidate; (d) comply with all applicable export and import laws and regulations, including associated embargo and sanction regulations; and (e) certifies that no vehicle or chassis subject to this Order, nor any direct products thereof, will be made available or re-exported, directly or indirectly, by Purchaser (or by any employee or contractor of Purchaser) to any prohibited person, entity or country (including to nationals of any prohibited country, wherever they may be located) unless such prior written authorization as may be required is obtained by Purchaser from the appropriate U.S. government agency(ies), including, as applicable, the U.S. Office of Export Licensing of the U.S. Department of Commerce, in accordance with the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR, Parts 779 et seq. or any similar regulation) issued by the Department of Commerce of the United States in the administration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended from time to time, or any subsequently issued similar rule, law or regulation. Purchaser will designate an officer to be responsible for compliance with all such legislation and upon the request of Dealer will certify compliance with such legislation. In the event Purchaser breaches its obligations under this paragraph, or Dealer learns of or has a reasonable suspicion that Purchaser has breached this paragraph, notwithstanding any other provision hereunder to the contrary, Dealer may immediately terminate this Order and Purchaser hereby waives any and all claims against Dealer for any loss, cost or expense, including, but not limited to, loss or profits, incidental or consequential damages, that Purchaser may incur by virtue of such termination. 15. Purchaser shall, from the execution of this Order and for a period of one (1) year after the completion of this Order maintain all records, together with such supporting or underlying documents and materials, related to the motor vehicle ordered hereunder, including but not limited to all records related to the use, the location(s) of such use, the repair and the sale, lease or other transfer of such motor vehicle or any interest therein, as well as Purchaser’s compliance with the FCPA and any other applicable anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws or regulations. Purchaser shall at any time requested by Dealer whether during or after completion of this Order, with five (5) days’ notice and at Purchaser’s own expense make such records available for inspection and audit (including copies and extracts of records as required) by Dealer. Such records shall be made available to Dealer during normal business hours at a time and location that is convenient for Dealer. 16. Documentary Fee. Documentary fee is not an official fee. A documentary fee is not required by law, but may be charged to buyers for handling documents and performing services related to closing of a sale. The base documentary fee beginning 1/1/20 was $300. The maximum amount that may be charged for a documentary fee is the base documentary fee of $300, which shall be subject to an annual rate adjustment equal to the percentage of change in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. This notice is required by law. 17. Purchaser shall pay on demand all of Dealer’s cost and expenses, including its attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the terms of this Sales Order, including but not limited to defending any claims by Purchaser, collecting any payments due hereunder or repossessing the vehicle. 18. The remedies herein reserved shall be cumulative and in addition to any further remedies provided to Dealer whether at law or in equity. No delay or failure by the Dealer to exercise or enforce at any time, any right or provision in this Sales Order, will be considered a waiver thereof or of Dealer’s right thereafter to exercise or enforce Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 30 of 31 26FEB Page 97 of 444  EXHIBIT A Prepared for: Prepared by: WINNETKA VILLAGE OF Duane Schaefer 510 GREEN BAY RD TRANSCHICAGO TRUCK GROUP WINNETKA, IL 60093 776 N. YORK STREET Phone: 847-501-6000 ELMHURST, IL 60126 Phone: 815-509-9079 E-Mail: duaneschaefer@transchicago.com each and every right and provision of this Sales Order. To be valid, any waiver shall be in writing, but need not be supported by consideration. No single waiver shall constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver. 19. This Sales Order has been negotiated, executed and delivered in Illinois, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, without reference to the choice of law or conflicts of law principles of any other state. 20. Purchaser hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of any state or federal court located in DuPage County, Illinois regarding any disputes regarding this matter. Purchaser waives any trial by jury and waives any objection based on improper venue or forum non conveniens in any action or proceeding to which Purchaser and Dealer may be parties arising out of, or in connection with, or in any way pertaining to this Sales Order. It is agreed and understood by Purchaser that this waiver constitutes a waiver of trial by jury of all claims by Purchaser against the Dealer. This waiver is knowingly, willingly and voluntarily made by Purchaser and Purchaser hereby represents that no representations of fact or opinion have been made by any individual to induce this waiver of trial by jury or to, in any way, modify or nullify its effect. Purchaser further represents and warrants that it either has been represented in the signing of this Sales Order and the making of this Sales Order by the attorney of its choosing , or it has had time to seek independent counsel selected of Purchaser’s own free will, and to discuss the terms and conditions of this Sales Order with such counsel. 21. In the event that any provision of this Sales Order shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of the operation of any law or by reason of the interpretation placed on this Sales Order by any court, this Sales Order shall be construed as not containing such provision to the extent of the invalidity and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of any and all provisions hereby which are otherwise lawful and valid, and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 22. All notices and other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and delivered by personal delivery, overnight delivery service, or certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Any such notice shall be deemed to have been given on the date it is received during regular office hours at the address listed on the applicable order or at such other address as the affected party may have previously designated for notices. 23. To the full extent permitted by laws, Purchaser waives all rights against Dealer for any damage to its property or that of third parties, or for injury to any person, however caused. In no event shall Dealer’s total liability exceed Dealer’s anticipated net profit on the specified purchase price of the vehicles covered by this Sales Order. 24. This Sales Order constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written and all contemporaneously oral negotiations, commitments and understandings of the parties, except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Sales Order. This Sales Order may not be changed or amended except by writing and executed by both Purchaser and Dealer. 25. Customer must hold title for a minimum of 12 months from retail sale date. Selling trucks earlier will result in volume reduction and a $ 15,000 per unit penalty. Initial Here__________ 26. unit need to be funded by 1-30-2027. Initial Here__________ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Purchaser has executed these terms and conditions as of the date herein written below. _____________________________________ _________________ ________________ Purchaser Title Date V2020.1 Application Version 12.0.703 02/18/2026 7:45 PM Data Version PRL-30D.024 Winnetka CMS MY27 108SD L9 SA Page 31 of 31 26FEB Page 98 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 1 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description SOURCEWELL CONTRACT: CONTRACT HOLDER: Viking-Cives CONTRACT NUMBER: 062222-VCM CONTRACT MATURITY DATE: 08/15/2026 CONTRACT NUMBERS: SW-TK0500, SW-TK0554 _________________________________ SOURCEWELL MEMBER: MEMBER NUMBER: 30947 MEMBER: Village of Winnetka CONTACT: Andy Malkowski PHONE: 847-417-2468 E-MAIL: AMalkowski@winnetka.org _________________________________ TERMS OF QUOTE: * All quotes are only valid for thirty (30) days from date of quote. _________________________________ EQUIPMENT PAYMENT TERMS: * Net 30 days payment after completion of chassis with all equipment. * Will be subject to all price increases up until time of completion. _________________________________ ESTIMATED DELIVERY TIME FRAME: * Allow approximately 200 days for all equipment to be in stock at Lindco after receiving your purchase order. * Allow approximately 12-14 months to complete units, once all equipment and chassis are in stock at Lindco. ***Based on supply chain issues all of the above estimated time frames are subject to Subtotal Continued Sales Tax Continued 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL Continued Page 99 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 2 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description change.*** _________________________________ BELOW ARE THE REQUIRED ITEMS NEEDED FURNISHED BY CHASSIS MFG./DEALER: 1.) Chassis must have approximately 84" effective cab to axle. 2.) Chassis must have approximately 72" of after frame. 3.) Chassis must have a minimum of 20" integral front frame extension. 4.) Chassis must have a stationary grill. 5.) Chassis must have curbside mounted transmission dip stick. 6.) Chassis must have PTO opening on driver side of transmission. 7.) Chassis must have individual driver and passenger seats in cab. 8.) Chassis must have dash or column mounted shifter for the transmission. 9.) Chassis must have front tow hooks. 10.) Chassis must have outside frame clearance of 40" on driver side. 11.) Chassis must have a active ground speed hook up. 12.) Chassis must have a curbside horizontal muffler with vertical stack, 13.) Chassis must have a minimum of 22" ground clearance under truck if customer is asking for a underbody scraper. 14.) Chassis must be delivered to Lindco with a full tank of fuel and full dep tank. _________________________________ ********************************* Equipment per below items mounted and fully operational. ********************************* _________________________________ DUMP BODY: 1.00 102838 Viking VGL- 10' Stainless Steel Dump Body per below specs Subtotal Continued Sales Tax Continued 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL Continued Page 100 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 3 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description * 84" ID, 96" OD * 7ga 201 2B Stainless Steel * 1/4" Floor AR450 * Stainless longmembers * (3) Oval rear corner posts * 28" sides * (14) Oval Light Hole Cab Shield Weld't SS * (14) Amber Strobes in Cab Shield * 38" SS Manual Tailgate with center coal door * Pull out ladder with grip strut body steps * Hoist/Hinge Kit VGL 9-11 Telescopic * (2) Spring Shovel Holders * 11" Asphalt Apron for 96" wide body * 2" Red/White reflective tape * Universal body junction box * Body guides * Hoist installed and plumbed * (4) Strobe, (2) S/T/T/Rev/St Corner Post Lighting Kit 1.00 Lindco to install Oak Sideboards _________________________________ FENDERS AND MUD FLAPS: 1.00 MIN2260B Minimizer Single Axle Fender Set, Black Poly, 22.5" Dual Wheels 1.00 B100BTPA Minimizer Black Plastic Bolt-On Bracket Kit 1.00 322418R DuraGuard 3/8" HD 24" x 18" Poly Guard Mud Flap - Black - with Lindco Equipment Sales, Inc. Logo & Merrillville, IN molded blue/white into flap (price per pair) _________________________________ Subtotal Continued Sales Tax Continued 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL Continued Page 101 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 4 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: JUNCTION BOXES: 1.00 PH-310 Phoenix 10-Pole Junction Box MASTER CIRCUIT BREAKER: 1.00 175-S0-080-2 Chief 80 amp high amp circuit breaker. BACK UP ALARM: 1.00 510 Ecco back-up alarm, 97 dB, 12 VDC. BODY UP SWITCH & LIGHT: 1.00 B95W Buyers Dump Body Up Indicator 1.00 0800850 Imperial LED indicator light - red 6.00 MWL-19 Maxxima LED clear work light * (2) Installed under dump bed on left * (2) Installed under dump bed on right * (2) Installed under dump bed in back * Wired to (3) separate switches to operate each side. Switches are Freightliner provided Acc Switches NOTE: * Lindco cannot program inputs or outputs on chassis switches these will need to come fully programmed from Freightliner _________________________________ HYDRAULICS: 1.00 CPTO 281GMFJP-B5RK Certified 281 PTO/MFJ/RK Pump Flange Pressure Lube/5 Arrangement 1.00 CODP 308-9310-416T Certified Power pump. 1.00 BUPR BPUGDM-CW Certified Power G102CW hook up kit. 1.00 BUPR BSSPU52 Certified Power Shifter-Single Control-Hoist 1.00 BUPR BTS Certified Power Tower for Single Lever Shifter Subtotal Continued Sales Tax Continued 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL Continued Page 102 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 5 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description 1.00 RESE MTRA2303000005 Certified Power 30 gallon reservoir kit CP-RES30S-LS-SG 1.00 FPCF 50044A-510N/P77 Certified Power filter kit, with condition gauge STAINLESS STEEL TUBES FOR HOIST: 2.00 8-049 304W/FJX-108" Mid-State 1/2"x9' 304 S/S Line with fittings 6.00 A2-12.7-A PCI HD Series Clamps for 1/2" tubing 40.00 Hydraulic Oil Hydraulic Oil 1.00 Hydraulic adatpers, fittings, & hoses _________________________________ PINTLE HITCH: 1.00 Lindco 5/8" pintle plate 2.00 B38W Buyers 1/2" drop forged D-ring w/weld on bracket 3-1/2" x 3-3/8" O.D. 1.00 BH82516 Buyers 2-5/16" Ball Combo Pintle Hitch * Mounted 20" from ground with additional holes to move pintle hook up and down 1.00 12-907 Pollak 9-Pin Socket (Truck Side) 1.00 M63319R Maxxima Surface Mount ID Bar/Center High Mount Stop Light (CHMSL) 9 LEDS, Red 1.00 LPC-B-WW2 LED License Plate Light, Warm White _________________________________ PAINT: 1.00 PAINT HOIST & SUBFRA Prime Where needed and Paint Hoist & Subframe to black 1.00 PAINT PINTLE HITCH Paint Pintle Hitch 1.00 Under Coat Under coat dump body 1.00 PAINT-MISCEL Paint Miscel _________________________________ MISCELLANEOUS, FREIGHT, INSTALLATION: 200.00 Misc. Fuel Charge 1,390.00 Misc. Miscellaneous Material - includes any or all of the following: wiring, electrical Subtotal Continued Sales Tax Continued 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL Continued Page 103 of 444  EXHIBIT A QUOTATION Quote Number: 260277I-SWL Quote Date: Mar 10, 2026 Page: 6 2168 East 88th Drive Merrillville, Indiana 46410 Voice: (219)795-1448 Viking-Cives #062222-VCM Fax: (219)736-0892 Quoted To: TERMS & CONDITIONS OF QUOTE Winnetka, Village of > Quotes are only valid for 30 days from date of quote. 510 Green Bay Rd. > Quotes past 30 days must be requoted. Winnetka, IL 60093 > 25% restocking fee on all cancelled and returned orders. USA Customer ID Good Thru Payment Terms Sales Rep Winnetka-01 4/9/26 Net 30 Days 51622 Quantity Item Description connectors, tie downs, clamps, nut, bolts, washers, steel, oil, grease, etc. 1,753.00 FREIGHT FREIGHT 84.00 INSTALLATION Lindco-Cives Installation Labor Hours Subtotal 58,968.00 Sales Tax 25% Restock Fee on All Cancelled and Returned Orders TOTAL 58,968.00 Page 104 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Ordinance No. M-03-2026: Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Personal Fitness Studio Within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District of the Village (736 Elm Street) (Introduction/Adoption) PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: On February 17, 2026, the Village Council initially considered the Plan Commission (“PC”) recommendation regarding an application submitted by Solidcore (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of the property located at 736 Elm Street (the “Subject Property”), seeking approval of a special use permit to operate a personal fitness studio in the Commercial Overlay District on the Subject Property. Based on discussion and questions at the Village Council meeting, the property owner presented at the March 3, 2026, Village Council meeting regarding retail leasing efforts, market context, and customer journey and parking analysis. Following discussion, the Village Council provided policy direction requesting that the Village Attorney and staff prepare an ordinance to approve the special use permit, subject to conditions of approval. Specifically, conditions requiring a minimum of a 15-minute separation between classes between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and that the Applicant shall strongly encourage clients to utilize the on-site parking within the building instead of on-street parking. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On March 19, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider Ordinance No. M-03-2026, An Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for the Operation of a Personal Fitness Studio within the C- 2 Commercial Overlay District at 736 Elm Street (Attachment 1). If approved, the Applicant would open a Winnetka location of a national personal fitness studio within the One Winnetka building. The proposed fitness studio would occupy an approximately 2,363 square foot tenant space along the building’s Elm Street frontage. ADVISORY BOARD/PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the request at its January 28, 2026, meeting. After hearing from the Applicant and receiving no verbal or written comments from the public, the PC discussed the request. The PC commented favorably on the business itself, however, some members expressed Page 105 of 444 concern that the business in the proposed location does not meet the standards for granting a special use. Commission members asked about other tenants in the One Winnetka development and wanted to understand how many other special uses have been approved or are expected to be proposed for the building. Some members expressed concern about the proposed fitness studio clashing with neighboring tenants, with issues such as parking and noise trespass from fitness studio activities. Additionally, some members indicated a preference of seeing a representative from the building ownership present at the meeting for this type of request. Members also discussed whether the proposed fitness studio would contribute to the retail environment of the district; some members commented that the business would bring a large number of people to the business district, for which other businesses could benefit from. The PC also discussed the extent to which the retail environment has changed since the inception of the Overlay District. PC members did acknowledge that the fitness classes offered by the proposed studio would be appealing to a segment of Village residents. Initially, the members were split 4-4. However, after further discussion, by a vote of 5-3, the PC recommended denial of the request based on the Commission’s findings of fact below that the proposed personal fitness studio in the Commercial Overlay District at 736 Elm Street is NOT CONSISTENT with the following standards for granting of Special Use Permits in the commercial Overlay District: 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. Adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. 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. It should be noted, the standards listed above are by the number from the "Standards for Review/Findings" section of the staff report for the January 28 PC meeting. Details of the request can be found in the attached staff report to the PC. For additional details please reference this report as well as the draft minutes of the January 28 PC meeting, which are included as Attachment 3. Following the PC meeting, the Applicant submitted an amended floor plan, which is included as Exhibit B of the attached ordinance. The amended floor plan represents a reconfiguration of the front of the commercial space, which results in one less studio machine thereby reducing class sizes from 16 to 15 clients. RECOMMENDATION: Given the Village Council provided policy direction at its March 3, 2026 meeting, the Council may wish to (a) consider waiving introduction of Ordinance No. M-03-2026 and consider adoption of the Ordinance, OR (b) consider only introduction of Ordinance No. M-03-2026. Page 106 of 444 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. M-03-2026: Granting a SUP for the Operation of a Personal Fitness Studio Within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District 2. Attachment 2 - PowerPoint Presentation, prepared by Murphy Development Group, LLC 3. Attachment 3 - January 28, 2026, Plan Commission Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt Page 107 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. M-03-2026 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A PERSONAL FITNESS STUDIO WITHIN THE C-2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE VILLAGE (736 Elm Street) WHEREAS, Solidcore Chicago, LLC (“Applicant”) is the prospective lessee of the property commonly known as 736 Elm Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, MDG Winnetka One, LP is the record title owner of the Subject Property (“Owner”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the C-2 General Retail Commercial District and the C-2 Commercial Overlay District of the Village (collectively, “Overlay District”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to operate a personal fitness studio (“Fitness Studio”) at the Subject Property, which, pursuant to Section 17.44.020 and the table of uses set forth in Section 17.46.010 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), is not permitted in the Overlay District without a special use permit; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2025, the Applicant filed an application for a special use permit to operate a Fitness Studio at the Subject Property (“Special Use Permit”); and WHEREAS, Owner of the Subject Property has consented to the application for the Special Use Permit filed by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2026, after due notice, the Plan Commission conducted a public hearing and, by a vote of five to three, recommended denial of the request (“Denial”) based on findings that the use was inconsistent with certain standards regarding parking, noise, and the retail nature of the Overlay District; and WHEREAS, following the Denial, on February 6, 2026, the Applicant submitted an amended floor plan which reduced the maximum class size from 16 to 15 clients to address concerns; and WHEREAS, the Village Council considered the Denial and additional information provided by the Applicant and Owner at its meetings on February 17 and March 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that approval of the proposed Special Use Permit for the operation of a Fitness Studio at the Subject Property satisfies the standards for the approval of special use permits within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District set forth in Chapter 17.56 and Section 17.44.020.B of the Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the Village and its residents, subject to the terms and conditions of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka does ordain as follows: March 19, 2026 M-03-2026 Page 108 of 444  SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this Section 1 as the findings of the Council of the Village of Winnetka, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: SPECIAL USE PERMIT. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms and conditions set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance, the Special Use Permit is hereby granted, pursuant to Chapter 17.56 and Section 17.44.020.B of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, to the Applicant to allow the operation of the Fitness Studio by the Applicant at the Subject Property within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District. SECTION 3: CONDITIONS. The Special Use Permit granted by Section 2 of this Ordinance is subject to, and contingent upon, compliance by the Applicant with the following conditions: A. Compliance with Regulations. The development, use, and maintenance of the Subject Property must comply at all times with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time. B. Reimbursement of Village Costs. In addition to any other costs, payments, fees, charges, contributions, or dedications required under applicable Village codes, ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations, the Applicant must pay to the Village, promptly upon presentation of a written demand or demands therefor, of all fees, costs, and expenses incurred or accrued in connection with the review, negotiation, preparation, consideration, and review of this Ordinance. Payment of all such fees, costs, and expenses for which demand has been made shall be made by a certified or cashier's check. Further, the Applicant must pay upon demand all costs incurred by the Village for publications and recordings required in connection with the aforesaid matters. C. Compliance with Plans. The development, use, and maintenance of the Fitness Studio at the Subject Property must be in strict accordance with the Floor Plans submitted by the Applicant, consisting of one sheet, a copy of which is attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit B, except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Engineering (within their respective permitting authority) in accordance with all applicable Village codes, ordinances, and standards. D. Commencement of Construction. The Applicant must commence the construction of the proposed improvements for the Fitness Studio no later than 15 months after the effective date of this Ordinance. E. Class Scheduling. Between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, all classes at the Fitness Studio must be scheduled with a separation of no fewer than 15 minutes between the conclusion of one class and the start of the next class. F. On-Site Parking. The Applicant shall strongly encourage, and use its good faith and best efforts to direct, its clients to utilize the commercial parking facilities located March 19, 2026 M-03-2026 Page 109 of 444  within the One Winnetka Development rather than on-street parking. These efforts and encouragement shall, at a minimum, include signage and other communications to clients regarding the availability of the commercial parking facilities located within the One Winnetka Development and the desire of the Applicant that clients utilize these facilities. SECTION 4: RECORDATION; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Ordinance will be recorded with the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Ordinance and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein inure solely to the benefit of, and are binding upon, the Applicant, Owner, and each of their heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. SECTION 5: FAILURE TO COMPLY. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant or Owner to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Ordinance, in addition to all other remedies available to the Village, the Special Use Permit granted in Section 2 of this Ordinance will, at the sole discretion of the Village Council, by ordinance duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Village Council may not so revoke the Special Use Permit granted in Section 2 of this Ordinance unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Village Council. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the regulations of the applicable zoning district and the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as the same may be amended from time to time. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6: AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT. Any amendments to the Special Use Permit granted in Section 2 of this Ordinance that may be requested by the Applicant after the effective date of this Ordinance may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7: NON-TRANSFERABILITY. Nothing in this Ordinance will be deemed to allow this Ordinance or the Special Use Permit to be transferred to any person or entity other than the Applicant without a new application for approval. SECTION 8: EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Ordinance will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: 1. Passage by the Village Council in the manner required by law; 2. Publication in pamphlet form in the manner required by law; and 3. The filing by the Applicant and Owner with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this March 19, 2026 M-03-2026 Page 110 of 444  Ordinance and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Ordinance. B. In the event that the Applicant and Owner do not file with the Village Clerk a fully executed copy of the unconditional agreement and consent described in Section 8.A.3 of this Ordinance within 60 days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by the Village Council, the Village Council shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Ordinance null and void and of no force or effect. PASSED this 19th day of March, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED this ___ day of _____________, 2026. Signed: Village President Countersigned: Village Clerk Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2026. Introduced: __________, 2026 Passed and Approved: ____________, 2026 March 19, 2026 M-03-2026 Page 111 of 444  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL 1: THE EAST 106 FEET OF THE WEST 109 FEET OF THE NORTH 251 FEET OF BLOCK 24 OF WINNETKA, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20 AND THE NORTH HALF OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, (EXCEPT HEREFROM THE NORTH 40 FEET TAKEN FOR ELM STREET) ALSO (EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106 FEET AT A DISTANCE OF 85 FEET SOUTH OF SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET 10 FEET THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106 FEET A DISTANCE OF 45.84 FEET TO THE NORTH WALL OF A ONE STORY BRICK BUILDING; THENCE WEST ALONG NORTH WALL OF SAID BRICK BUILDING 10 FEET TO WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106 FEET; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106 FEET A DISTANCE OF 46 FEET TO PLACE OF BEGINNING) ALSO (EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH ALONG WEST LINE THEREOF 46.35 FEET TO INTERSECTION WITH A CURVED LINE OF 1163 FOOT RADIUS CONVEX NORTHEASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVED LINE OF 1163 FOOT RADIUS, 25.88 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVED LINE OF 1087 FEET RADIUS CONVEX SOUTHWESTERLY 25.69 FEET MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD TO A POINT IN SOUTH LINE OF AFORESAID EAST 106 FEET OF WEST 109 FEET OF THE NORTH 251 FEET OF BLOCK 24 WINNETKA, 22.26 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF AND THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 22.26 FEET TO PLACE OF BEGINNING) ALSO, THE EAST 54 FEET OF THE WEST 163 FEET OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF THAT PART OF BLOCK 24 OF CHARLES E. PECK'S SUBDIVISION LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET IN WINNETKA IN FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; PARCEL 2: THAT PART OF LOT 1 IN PROUTY HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF BLOCKS 24 AND 25, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILROAD, EXCEPT THE NORTH 211.00 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 24, ALSO THE WEST 3.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 211.00 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 24, ALL IN WINNETKA, A SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES E. PECK OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 20, AND THE FRACTIONAL NORTH 1/2 OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 197.85 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 10.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO A POINT 46.35 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 211.00 FEET OF BLOCK 24 AFORESAID; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVED LINE CONVEX TO THE NORTHEAST, WITH A RADIUS OF 1163.00 FEET, 105.94 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CURVED LINE, WITH A LINE DRAWN 72.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT AT A POINT 51.15 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 41.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, IN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, IN COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS; Page 112 of 444 PARCEL 3: THAT PART OF THE EAST 106.00 FEET OF THE WEST 109.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 251.00 FEET (EXCEPT THE NORTH 40.00 FEET TAKEN FOR ELM STREET) OF BLOCK 24 IN WINNETKA, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 20 AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106.00 FEET AT A DISTANCE OF 85.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 45.84 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 106.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 46.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; PARCEL 4: THE EAST 55.4 FEET OF THE WEST 218.4 FEET OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF THAT PART OF BLOCK 24 LYING SOUTH OF ELM STREET IN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA IN SECTION 20 AND SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; PARCEL 5: THAT PART OF LOT 1 IN PROUTY HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF BLOCKS 24 AND 25 LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILROAD (EXCEPT THE NORTH 211 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 24) ALSO THE WEST 3 FEET OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF SAID LOT 24, ALL IN WINNETKA, A SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES E. PECK OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 20, AND THE FRACTIONAL NORTH 1/2 OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 153.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 44.3 FEET, THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 72 FEET, THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 41.15 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF A CURVED LINE CONVEX NORTHEASTERLY WITH A RADIUS OF 1,163 FEET, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVED LINE 6.12 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT FROM A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 153.5 FEET EAST OF NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; PARCEL 6: LOT 1 IN PROUTY HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF BLOCKS 24 AND 25, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CHICAGO AND MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILROAD, EXCEPT THE NORTH 211 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 24 ALSO THE WEST 3 FEET OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 24, ALL IN WINNETKA, A SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES E. PECK OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 20, AND THE FRACTIONAL NORTH 1/2 OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 21, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 42 N, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 153.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 44.35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 72 FEET, THENCE WEST PARALLEL, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 44.35 FEET, THENCE NORTH 72 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 1 LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET, 110.79 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 AND Page 113 of 444 RUNNING THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH AND 93 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 62.41 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVED LINE CONVEX NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1163 FEET, 17.1 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE TO A POINT IN A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 FROM A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 153.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 5.20 FEET TO A POINT 72 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 3.20 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE PROLONGATION OF A CURVED LINE OF 1163 FEET RADIUS HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVED LINE 105.94 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 46.35 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF BLOCK 24; AND ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART OF LOT 1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 197.85 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 10 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 TO A POINT 46.35 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 211 FEET OF BLOCK 24 AFORESAID; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVED LINE CONVEX TO THE NORTHEAST WITH A RADIUS OF 1163 FEET, 105.94 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CURVED LINE WITH A LINE DRAWN 72 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AT A POINT 51.15 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 41.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Commonly known as 736 Elm Street, Winnetka, Illinois. PINs: 05-20-213-004-0000 05-20-213-005-0000 05-20-213-006-0000 05-21-109-003-0000 05-21-109-012-0000 05-21-109-017-0000 Page 114 of 444  EXHIBIT B FLOOR PLANS Page 115 of 444  LEGEND EXISTING PARTITION NEW PARTITION NOT IN CONTRACT (NIC) SQ. FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS +/-2,271 RSF 38'-212" SWEAT BAG WOMEN'S ADA DISPENSER RESTROOM COACH BIOS LOCKERS DRY VANITY WATERFALL COUNTER 3'-112" CABLE SIDE EDGE AT VANITY 1'-8" (GREY STRAP) 1'-8" TYP 87 98 10 9 11 10 12 11 13 12 14 13 15 14 16 15 SOFT SEATING 3'-0" B1 B2 STORAGE ABOVE DRINKING FOUNTAIN LOGO UP SIGN CHALLENGE BRIVO SECURITY PAD 30'-83 4" BOARD EXIT 3'-2" STUDIO 15 MACHINES +0" +0" UP SOUND 2 1 32 4 3 5 4 65 7 6 4'-712" DOOR LEAF TO RACK BECOME INACTIVE ELECTRICAL WELCOME DESK W/ PANEL 1'-2" 4'-112" BEVERAGE FRIDGE BRACKET 3'-0" LAUNDRY SIGNAGE LOGO SIGN ON WD1A SEAL DOOR EXISTING -12" TUB 1'-4" FEATURE WALL SHUT PROPOSED +0" 6'-11" -12" DESK SPRING SIDE 1'-8" 1'-8" (BLACK STRAP) TYP 2'-8" TYP COAT RACKS 10'-0" UTILITY/ STORAGE ROOM W/ STORAGE WD1A WALL COACH ABOVE BUILD UP THIS AREA STATION MEN'S ADA TO BE ON GRADE RESTROOM (DEMOLISH EXIST. RAMP) +/-6'-1" PLOTTED BY: SEAN JACKSON 01 FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" PLOT DATE: 2/6/2026 5:55 PM CLIENT DATE 02-06-2025 [solidcore] ONE WINNETKA - WINNETKA, IL © DxU 2020 SHEET NO. FLOOR PLAN (ALTERNATIVE OPTION) Page 116 of 444 412 S. Wells Street 2nd Floor Chicago IL 60607 P: 3 1 2 9 5 5 0 3 3 4 d x u a r c h . c o m TF2  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois ("Village"): WHEREAS, Solidcore Chicago, LLC ("Applicant"), is the prospective lessee of the property commonly known as 736 Elm Street, Winnetka, Illinois (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, MDG Winnetka One, LP, is the record title owner of the Subject Property (“Owner”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the C-2 General Retail Commercial District and the C-2 Commercial Overlay District of the Village (collectively, "Overlay District"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to operate a personal fitness studio (“Fitness Studio”) at the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. M-03-2026, adopted by the Village Council on ____________, 2026 ("Ordinance"), grants a special use permit to the Applicant for the operation of a Fitness Studio at the Subject Property within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District of the Village; and WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Ordinance provides, among other things, that the Ordinance will be of no force or effect unless and until the Applicant and Owner have filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance, their unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicant and Owner do hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Applicant and Owner do hereby unconditionally agree to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Ordinance. 2. The Applicant and Owner acknowledge that public notices and hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Ordinance, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Ordinance, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Applicant and Owner acknowledge and agree that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village's grant of a special use permit for the Subject Property or its adoption of the Ordinance, and that the Village's approvals do not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Applicant or Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. Page 117 of 444  4. The Applicant and Owner do hereby agree to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village's corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village's adoption of the Ordinance granting the special use permit for the Subject Property. 5. The Applicant and Owner hereby agree to pay all expenses incurred by the Village in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims mentioned in this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. These expenses will include all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorneys' and experts' fees, and will also include the reasonable value of any services rendered by any employees of the Village. Dated: , 2026 ATTEST: SOLIDCORE CHICAGO, LLC By: By: Its: Its: ATTEST: MDG WINNETKA ONE, LP By: By: Its: Its: Page 118 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Retail Leasing Efforts Market Context Customer Journey & Parking Analysis Village Council – March 3, 2026 1 Page 119 of 444 Executive Overview History: Traditional apparel and specialty retail was actively pursued. Current overall retail demand nationally mirrors closely the demand we saw at One Winnetka. Feedback: Winnetka's proximity to major shopping destinations (Old Orchard & Plaza Del Lago) means traditional goods retailers already have nearby options which are more preferable due to their density of competitors (which draws consumers) — which makes service/experiential uses even more valuable as the differentiator that draws people to downtown Winnetka specifically. One Winnetka: New construction economics differ from legacy storefronts. Parking: Measured supply materially exceeds projected peak demand. Tenant Mix: Curated tenant mix produces staggered peak usage. Deliveries: One Winnetka commercial tenants do not receive as many deliveries of product…Solidcore receives virtually no deliveries…the same for the medical and financial uses. 2 Page 120 of 444 Traditional Retail Outreach We actively contacted and pursued traditional retail users. In Results: addition to direct outreach to retailers, we engaged local Luxury retailers are pursuing scale and co-tenancy — brokerage firms that specialize in representing luxury and typically clustering near other established luxury brands, apparel tenants in the North Shore market. A sample of the such as the environment offered at Old Orchard and Plaza users with whom we had conversations and/or negotiations: Del Lago. That level of brand adjacency and density is not currently available within our building or immediate vicinity. Luxury & Apparel Home & Specialty Alice & Wonder Framebridge More broadly, apparel retail continues to contract. Retailers Blowdry Boutique Restoration Hardware expanding today are highly selective, prioritizing dense Brandy Melville Stark Carpet pedestrian corridors or established luxury clusters, and Brunello Cucinelli Two Local Home Retailers many are unable or unwilling to support new construction Faherty Williams Sonoma cost structures. Jenni Kayne Johnnie-O We did not default to service tenants — we exhausted the Jones Road traditional retail pipeline first. La Ligne LVMH Saint Bernard Space 519 Vuori 3 Page 121 of 444 A Historic Shift in Retail Real Estate The Winnetka C2 Overlay District was enacted in 2016  Service-related uses were present but still emerging and their value as activity generators was not a factor or fully understood until more recently. •Service-based tenants now lease more retail space than goods-based tenants. JLL calls this "a historic shift in the retail property sector" that has been underway for a decade but is now accelerating due to continued internet shopping growth. •The service categories leading this shift per JLL: quick-service/fast-casual restaurants, fitness studios, and healthcare/financial services — which maps directly to One Winnetka's tenant mix (Arkadia, Fare, Solidcore, Winnetka Aesthetic Studio, Charles Schwab). •Nearly 70% of retail leases signed in 2025 were for spaces of 2,500 SF or less (aligning with Solidcore's ~2,300 SF footprint) — smaller, service-oriented formats are the dominant growth category. Sources: JLL "United States Retail Market Dynamics" Q4 2024 and Q4 2025 reports; Retail Dive (Feb 2025); Chain Store Age (Feb 2026); NAIOP. 4 Page 122 of 444 New Construction Economics Rental Rate Context Lease Stability Requirements • One Winnetka retail rents significantly exceed To protect the building and its tax base contribution: legacy Winnetka storefront rents (~50% higher) • 10-year minimum lease terms • This differential reflects cost structure, not • Corporate or balance sheet-backed guarantees premium positioning • Creditworthy tenancy New mixed-use buildings cannot responsibly lease to speculative or undercapitalized retailers without materially Why New Construction Differs increasing financial risk. • Structured parking integration • Modern HVAC and life safety systems Tenant stability is a benefit to the community. • ADA compliance • Reduces the risk of vacant space in the Elm St. District; • 16’+ ceiling heights • Provides fair certainty of a stabilized presence to • Significant tenant improvement allowances others seeking to invest in the area including knowing • New construction cost basis (construction the type of co locating use they can expect to see. inflation is up 42% from 2020) 5 Page 123 of 444 Solidcore Visit Duration 6 Page 124 of 444 Solidcore Customer Journey Trip-Chaining Drives Secondary Spending % OF ORIGINS GENERAL PRIOR TO RESTAURANTS ATTENDING CLASS RESIDENTIAL % OF DESTINATIONS WORK GROCERIES POST CLASS BREAKFAST, COMMUNITY COFFEE, SHOPPING BAKERIES & CENTERS DESSERT SHOPS OTHER RETAIL OR HOME 59% | 44% [SOLIDCORE] 30% | 21% OTHER DESTINATION Visitor Journey by Chain 7 Page 125 of 444 Solidcore Customer Demographically Aligned with Winnetka • The Solidcore consumer base has a higher educational background with 64.3% with a bachelor's degree or higher as compared to the US average of 35% with this level of education. • The Solidcore consumer base primarily draws from smaller households with 35.4% from one-person households • The Solidcore consumer base is from affluent households: 37.6% HHI > $150k 8 Page 126 of 444 Solidcore Overview • Fitness Is The New Anchor: Unlike a clothing customer that might visit once a month, Solidcore members visit 3-4 times per week. This guarantees consistent foot traffic that traditional retail currently cannot provide. • Halo Effect: These users rarely just "work out and leave." They create a "trip chain": Workout…coffee… shop. • Parking: Solidcore represents a 'low-impact, high-value' use for downtown Winnetka. It activates the streetscape during off-peak hours (early morning/evening), brings a high-frequency demographic that fuels nearby merchants, and imposes a capped, predictable parking load that does not conflict with midday retail shoppers. 9 Page 127 of 444 Business Hours Overall  Solidcore and FARE are the only tenants open from 5 AM to 8 AM Weekends  Significant drop-off in retailer activity. Solidcore is 1 of 2 businesses primarily operating on Sunday 10 Page 128 of 444 Revised Parking Study Findings • Zoning: The commercial spaces at One Winnetka meet the current zoning code requirement of 39 spaces by providing 39 spaces. No variance is requested. The spaces ARE publicly accessible, and the parking study shows surplus capacity. The building's tenants using some of the spaces during staggered hours is how mixed-use parking is designed to work. • New/Return of Parking: Upon completion of the One Winnetka project, and additional 93 parking spaces would be available, including 39 spaces on-site. During construction, between Elm Street, Lincoln Avenue, and the East Hadley lot, there are as many as 54 spaces that are currently offline. • Uses: One Winnetka’s ground level commercial spaces will contain a mixture of fitness, restaurant, medical office, and financial office uses, with staggered hours of parking demand. • Parking Study: A parking survey was conducted on Friday February 6th, 2026 in the evening to quantify the amount of parking available near the site. It identified the number of parked vehicles, parking spaces available , and the spaces temporarily lost due to construction activity. • Peak: The highest observed parking utilization occurred at 4:00 PM, just before the restaurant would open, with 165 parked vehicles and 332 vacant spaces in the immediate vicinity. • Even during projected peak evening conditions, the combined restaurant and fitness demand of 119 vehicles, together with seasonally adjusted existing demand of 190 vehicles, would still leave a minimum of 137 available parking spaces in the surrounding area. • Additionally, the restaurant is pursuing a valet license, which would further consolidate and manage the majority of its parking demand. 11 Page 129 of 444 Solidcore Parking Fitness studios utilize parking more efficiently than restaurants or traditional retail  A. Contra-Cyclical Peak Hours The Argument: Retail peak hours are typically 11:00 AM – 4:00 PM. Solidcore’s peak hours are 5:00 AM – 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 8:00 PM. The Win: Utilizing parking spots that would otherwise sit empty during early mornings and evenings. You are maximizing the utility of public parking assets, not straining them during the midday shopping rush. B. Predictable Turnover (The "50-Minute Hard Stop") The Argument: A restaurant table might turn over in 90–120 minutes, and timing is unpredictable. The Win: Solidcore classes are strictly 50 minutes. This creates a more predictable "pulse" of parking usage. C. Parking Is Capped (15 Reformers) The Win: Unlike a generic "open gym" where 100 people might show up at 5:00 PM, Solidcore is class-based with a fixed number of machines. 12 Page 130 of 444 Why Solidcore belongs in Winnetka • The Market Has Moved. Service-based tenants now lease more retail space nationally than goods-based tenants — a shift JLL calls “historic.” One Winnetka’s tenant mix of dining, fitness, medical, and financial services is not an anomaly. It is the national standard for new mixed-use development. The Village’s own ongoing review of the C2 overlay reflects this same recognition. • Solidcore Delivers What Winnetka Wants. 200+ visits per week from affluent consumers. 12–16x more monthly foot traffic per customer than traditional apparel retail. Capped, predictable parking with contra-cyclical peak hours. And a proven halo effect that drives spending at neighboring businesses. This is vibrancy — measured in foot traffic and frequency. • Approval Sets the Right Precedent. A nationally recognized, corporate-guaranteed, 10-year tenant in a brand-new building is the strongest possible signal that Winnetka welcomes quality investment. The C2 overlay was written in 2016 for a retail landscape that no longer exists. Approving Solidcore aligns the Village’s regulatory framework with today’s economic reality. 13 Page 131 of 444  ATTACHMENT 3 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 132 of 444  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 133 of 444  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 134 of 444 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 135 of 444 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 136 of 444  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 137 of 444 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 138 of 444  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 139 of 444 ATTACHMENT A Page 140 of 444 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 141 of 444 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 142 of 444 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 143 of 444 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 144 of 444 Page 145 of 444 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 146 of 444 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 147 of 444 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 148 of 444  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 149 of 444  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 150 of 444 Page 151 of 444 Page 152 of 444 Page 153 of 444 Page 154 of 444 Page 155 of 444 Page 156 of 444 Page 157 of 444 Page 158 of 444 Page 159 of 444 Page 160 of 444 Page 161 of 444 Page 162 of 444 Page 163 of 444 Page 164 of 444 Page 165 of 444 Page 166 of 444 Page 167 of 444 Page 168 of 444 Page 169 of 444 Page 170 of 444 Page 171 of 444 Page 172 of 444 Page 173 of 444 Example photos of storefront and lobby visibility Page 174 of 444 Example photos of storefront and lobby visibility Page 175 of 444 Retail Fridge Page 176 of 444 Proposed sweatbag holder Solidcore installed example Page 177 of 444 Manufacturer Example Page 178 of 444 Page 179 of 444  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 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 *** 26 27 a. Case No. 26-02-SU: 736 Elm Street - Solidcore: An application seeking approval of a Special Use 28 Permit submitted by Solidcore, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space located at 736 Elm 29 Street to allow a personal fitness facility in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. The 30 property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this 31 request. 32 Mr. Marx summarized the special use permit requested and identified the property’s location in the One 33 Winnetka development and zoning classification with the proposed space to be occupied in the 34 Commercial Overlay District. He then identified the Overlay District boundaries as well as the proposed 35 use in an illustration for the Commission. Mr. Marx summarized the business operations, number of 36 employees and hours of operation which would be appointment-only classes. He also summarized the 37 proposed parking plan and use occupancy in detail. Mr. Marx summarized the One Winnetka final planned 38 development approval, the partial approval of special use findings for medical and financial service uses 39 and noted cultural recreational and entertainment uses, which includes personal fitness facilities, did not 40 receive partial approval in the One Winnetka planned development with all 12 special use standard being 41 applicable that are provided on pages 101 and 102 of the agenda packet. 42 43 Mr. Marx stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the 44 Commission may decide to either continue the application to a date certain to allow time to address any 45 questions or comments or consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the special use permit 46 with draft language included on pages 101-102. He then asked if there were any questions. 47 48 Chairperson Danley referred to the Commission's prior discussion regarding the allowance for special use Page 180 of 444  January 28, 2026 Page 2 1 permits and asked what information is there available on other building tenants other than the Ballyhoo 2 restaurant. Mr. Mangum referred to the Charles Schwab and the Winnetka Aesthetic Studio approved 3 special uses as well as the Arkadia restaurant which would be a permitted use in the development. He 4 noted there is one additional special use application which was submitted for a medical-related use as 5 well as another restaurant concept which would be a permitted use. Chairperson Danley asked if there 6 were any questions. 7 8 Ms. Van Vlack asked if any of the remaining space available would be a restaurant or special use. Mr. 9 Mangum confirmed all of the spaces have been leased. He stated they do not have all of the information 10 available yet for the upcoming special use request. Ms. Klaassen confirmed there are limits for medical 11 and financial special uses. Ms. Van Vlack asked how many potential retail spaces remain on Elm Street. 12 Mr. Mangum stated there are no retail spaces remaining. No additional questions were raised at this time. 13 14 Chairperson Danley asked for the applicant’s presentation. She swore in those speaking to this matter. 15 Melanie Nifong, Solidcore Senior Director of Operations and Sean Jackson of DxU Architects introduced 16 themselves to the Commission. Chairperson Danley referred to the proposed hours of operation and the 17 applicant’s other locations around the country. She asked if there has been discussion whether the 18 proposed schedule would generate the same amount of people as in their other locations. Ms. Nifong 19 stated other suburban locations have a fully robust schedule which she described for the Commission. 20 She noted their closest location to the Village is in Buffalo Grove which has over 600 members. Ms. Nifong 21 also described the demographic. Mr. Bradley stated he is concerned with regard to the evening hours and 22 whether the space would compete with other uses such as a restaurant. Mr. Jackson identified the existing 23 parking on Lincoln and Elm as well as the dedicated spaces in the One Winnetka development. He noted 24 their patrons would not all drive to the location which include those using the train. Mr. Jackson also 25 stated a parking analysis was previously done for the entire One Winnetka development. Mr. Bradley also 26 questioned the noise component. Mr. Jackson responded it would be in the 40-50 decibel range, and they 27 have a consultant which provided recommendations for their locations which include the fact that 28 residents are located above the location. Ms. Nifong estimated 50% of their locations are in mixed use 29 buildings. 30 31 Chairperson Danley asked the applicant if they considered any other properties. Mr. Jackson responded 32 the applicant’s real estate team reviewed other properties in the area. Ms. Nifong stated they had to close 33 their Vernon Hills location during Covid. Chairperson Danley asked if there were any questions. 34 35 Ms. Van Vlack questioned the in-person staff makeup which Ms. Nifong described for the Commission. 36 Mr. Jackson confirmed there would be times no music is being played during in the 10 minute gap between 37 classes and stated they were advised by an acoustical engineer in terms of sound. Ms. Nifong described 38 the coaching staff and noted the door would be locked. Mr. Blum stated he is concerned with regard to 39 double counting parking spaces in terms of overlap. Ms. Nifong added no shower amenities would be 40 provided. 41 42 Mr. Poor stated while he appreciated the acoustical mitigation efforts, he referred to the residential units 43 above and asked if they would be able to hear music. Mr. Jackson explained the way in which the space 44 would be defined. He informed the Commission the acoustical report can be provided to the Commission. 45 Ms. Nifong noted sound testing is done prior to opening their locations. Ms. Van Vlack asked what would 46 be done to keep with the building’s aesthetic in terms of signage. Mr. Marx explained that the applicant 47 was asked to provide a general context for the proposed signage for consideration by the DRB and referred 48 to the elevation renderings. He also noted backlit lighting was originally proposed for the sign but it was Page 181 of 444  January 28, 2026 Page 3 1 changed to external illumination. No additional questions were raised at this time. 2 3 Chairperson Danley stated there is no one in the audience to comment and called the matter in for 4 discussion. 5 6 Ms. Case stated this is not the right venue for this use and referred to the amount of issues relating to 7 parking. She stated the Commission was under the impression that the developer would seek retail or 8 restaurant uses as opposed to another special use. Ms. Case identified several special use businesses in 9 the area and stated given the parking use by the applicant, parking would be full constantly. She concluded 10 this space would not be a good fit for this use. Mr. Blum agreed with Ms. Case’s comments and stated if 11 the Overlay District is worth having, the requirements should be enforced. He stated there should be some 12 semblance of retail in the front and he would not be in favor of the request. 13 14 Mr. Poor stated he appreciated the applicant’s presentation and agreed with the comments made. He 15 stated he would not be in favor of the request. Trustee Orsic stated while there is a demographic which 16 would like the use, she suggested the applicant look for another location. She questioned why the 17 developer did not come to the meeting to further explain the request. Mr. Alt stated while they want the 18 business in the community and there is a demand for it, he referred to the One Winnetka project being 19 an idea for a decade and there has not been a demand for a retailer in this space. He questioned whether 20 this business would be a more modern use for the space and stated this type of business would be 21 attractive to the area and would draw a diverse demographic. The Commission Members discussed similar 22 cases which were denied and the Commission Members summarized their positions. 23 24 Mr. Enck stated his initial concern related to parking and referred to other special uses which generate 25 foot traffic for other businesses. He commented it would be nice if the use was in an area which supported 26 other businesses. Mr. Bradley stated his initial thought was to recommend approval and agreed with Mr. 27 Alt’s comments relating to hanging on to retail uses at the cost of denying other businesses. He questioned 28 why they would deny a use that would be preferred by the younger generation and good for the Village. 29 Mr. Bradley also stated he is concerned with the door being locked and commented the number of people 30 in and out of the use would be beneficial. He agreed parking is an issue and commented they should not 31 recommend denial of a cool and upcoming use. 32 33 Chairperson Danley commented while the proposed use may be a great idea and a good business draw 34 for the Village, she would feel better if it was in a different location. She also stated she is concerned with 35 regard to standard nos. 5 and 7 and referred to the post office site development and the draw on parking. 36 Chairperson Danley stated there would not be a pedestrian draw with only special uses in the area and 37 described the process as unfair to the applicant. She stated if they were to accept the premise that this 38 would only be a special use building, they would kill any type of pedestrian nature for the area. 39 Chairperson Danley concluded it came down to the space they are evaluating and whether the use met 40 the standards and in this instance, it did not and she would not be in favor of the request. The Commission 41 Members discussed whether the application would have been approved at a different point in time. 42 43 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll of the Commission Members and asked for a motion. A motion was 44 made by Mr. Poor to recommend denial of the special use request. The motion was seconded by Mr. 45 Blum. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 3: 46 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Case, Danley, Poor 47 NAYS: Alt. Enck, Van Vlack 48 NON-VOTING: Orsic Page 182 of 444  January 28, 2026 Page 4 1 *** 2 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 Antionette Johnson 6 Recording Secretary Page 183 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Ordinance No. M-04-2026: Granting a Variation from the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to Allow the Construction of a Single-Family Residence Within the R-2 Single Family Residential District (1086 Fisher Crescent Lane) (Introduction/Adoption) PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: INTRODUCTION On March 19, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider Ordinance No. M-04-2026 in response to an application submitted by ROG29 Gift Trust (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane (the “Subject Property”). (Attachment 1) The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation to allow construction of a new single-family residence on the Subject Property: 1. Corner Yard Setback of 24.67 feet from Fisher Crescent Lane, whereas a minimum of 32.92 feet is required, a variation of 8.25 feet (25.06%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]. The variation is being requested in order to construct a new single-family residence on the Subject Property. The Applicant intends to demolish the existing single-family residence and detached garage to accommodate construction of a new home with an attached garage that would encroach into the minimum required corner yard setback from Fisher Crescent Lane. The wedge-shaped property has a front lot line along a westerly private road easement, a curvilinear corner lot line along the eastern and north portions of the property, a side yard along the south property line, and no rear yard. The property is considered a corner lot due to the existence of a private road easement, as recorded in 1906, along the west property line. While a roadway was never built within the easement, the recorded easement is still in effect and the easement area is excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes. The Zoning Ordinance defines the shortest street line of a corner lot as the “front lot line” which would be the outermost limits of the private unimproved street along the western side of the lot. Therefore, the front Page 184 of 444 lot line is along the west private road easement and the corner lot line is along Fisher Crescent Lane. The existing residence and detached garage are legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the private road easement along the west side of the Subject Property. The existing detached garage is also legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the south property line. With the exception of the corner yard setback, the proposed improvements would comply with all other zoning regulations. ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW On September 15, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a demolition permit without delay for the existing residence by a vote of 4-0. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered the request on February 9, 2026. Attachment 2 includes the staff report and meeting minutes which summarize the request. Subsequent to the posting of the ZBA agenda packet, staff received one additional written comment from the public regarding the application which is included as Attachment 3. After hearing from staff and the Applicant’s architect and receiving two written comments from the public (one in opposition and one in support), the ZBA discussed the request. Members discussed the feasibility of constructing a new residence that fully complied with setback requirements. Some members found the request to be minimal and the extent to which the lot area is restricted by private roadway easements to be a hardship. The ZBA also discussed how the new residence and the intended tree preservation would contribute to the neighborhood character standard. Other members thought adjustments could be made to the size and location, since the request is for a new residence. Ultimately, by a vote of 5-2, the ZBA recommended approval of the request. The Applicant’s architect has provided the attached letter requesting the Council waive introduction and adopt the ordinance approving the zoning variation (Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION: The ZBA recommends approval (5-2), the Council may wish to (a) consider waiving introduction of Ordinance No. M-04-2026 and consider adoption of the Ordinance, OR (b) consider only introduction of Ordinance No. M-04-2026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. M-04-2026: Granting a Variation from the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to Allow the Construction of a Single-Family Residence 2. Attachment 2 - February 9, 2026, ZBA Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt 3. Attachment 3 - Additional Public Correspondence Received After Posting of February ZBA Agenda Packet 4. Attachment 4 - Letter Requesting Introduction of Ordinance is Waived and Ordinance is Adopted Page 185 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. M-04-2026 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FROM THE WINNETKA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN THE R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1086 Fisher Crescent Lane) WHEREAS, Brian T. O’Gara and Michael Eskew, as Trustees of the ROG29 Gift Trust (collectively, “Applicant”) are the record title owners of the parcel of real property commonly known as 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane in Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is approximately 0.45 acres in area and located within the R-2 Single Family Residential District of the Village (“R-2 District”) and is improved with a single-family residence and detached garage (“Structures”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to demolish the Structures and construct a new single- family residence on the Subject Property (“Proposed Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a legally nonconforming corner lot that (i) is 19,652 square feet in net lot area, while the minimum required lot area for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 25,200 square feet; (ii) is 175 feet in depth, while the minimum required lot depth for a lot in the R-2 District is 200 feet; and (iii) has an average lot width of 112.29 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 115 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the minimum required corner yard setback for the Subject Property is 32.92 feet; and WHEREAS, to construct the Proposed Improvements on the Subject Property, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.050 to allow a corner yard setback of 24.67 feet from the eastern private road easement along Fisher Crescent Lane (“Variation”); and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2026, after due notice thereof, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) conducted a public hearing on the Variation and, by a vote of 5 members in favor and 2 opposed, recommended that the Council of the Village of Winnetka (“Village Council”) approve the Variation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Village Council has determined that: (i) the Variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is in accordance with general or specific rules set forth in Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provision or regulation of the Zoning Ordinance from which the Variation has been sought; and Page 186 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that approval of the Variation for the Subject Property within the R-2 District is in the best interest of the Village and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do ordain as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this section as the findings of the Village Council, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF VARIATION. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance, the Variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of the Proposed Improvements on the Subject Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 3: CONDITIONS. The Variation granted by Section 2 of this Ordinance is subject to, and contingent upon, compliance by the Applicant with the following conditions: A. Commencement of Construction. The Applicant must commence the construction of the Proposed Improvements no later than 12 months after the effective date of this Ordinance. B. Compliance with Regulations. Except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Ordinance, the development, use, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvements and Subject Property must comply at all times with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time. C. Reimbursement of Village Costs. In addition to any other costs, payments, fees, charges, contributions, or dedications required under applicable Village codes, ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations, the Applicant must pay to the Village, promptly upon presentation of a written demand or demands therefor, of all fees, costs, and expenses incurred or accrued in connection with the review, negotiation, preparation, consideration, and review of this Ordinance. Payment of all such fees, costs, and expenses for which demand has been made shall be made by a certified or cashier's check. Further, the Applicant must pay upon demand all costs incurred by the Village for publications and recordings required in connection with the aforesaid matters. D. Compliance with Plans. The development, use, and maintenance of the Proposed Improvements on the Subject Property must be in strict accordance with the plans prepared by WMA Studio P.L.L.C., consisting of seven sheets, with a latest revision date of December 5, 2025, copies of which are attached to, and by this reference, made part of this Ordinance as Exhibit B (“Plans”), except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community Development or the Director of Engineering (within their respective permitting authority) in accordance with all applicable Village codes, ordinances, and standards. Page 187 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 4: RECORDATION; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Ordinance will be recorded with the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Ordinance and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein inure solely to the benefit of, and are binding upon, the Applicant and each of its heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. SECTION 5: FAILURE TO COMPLY. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Ordinance, in addition to all other remedies available to the Village, the approval granted in Section 2 of this Ordinance will, at the sole discretion of the Village Council, by ordinance duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Village Council may not so revoke the approval granted in Section 2 of this Ordinance unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Village Council. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the regulations of the applicable zoning district and the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as the same may, from time to time, be amended. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 6: AMENDMENTS. Any amendment to this Ordinance may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Zoning Ordinance for amending or granting variations. SECTION 7: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be interpreted, applied, and enforced so as to achieve, as near as may be, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 8: EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Ordinance will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: 1. Passage by the Village Council in the manner required by law; 2. Publication in pamphlet form in the manner required by law; and 3. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Ordinance and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Ordinance. B. In the event that the Applicant does not file with the Village Clerk a fully executed copy of the unconditional agreement and consent described in Section 8.A.3 of this Ordinance Page 188 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 within 60 days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by the Village Council, the Village Council shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this Ordinance null and void and of no force or effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 189 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 PASSED this ____ day of _____, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED this day of _____, 2026. Signed: Village President Countersigned: Village Clerk Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2026. Introduced: ______________, 2026 Passed and Approved: ______________, 2026 Page 190 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT PART OF LOT 2 IN SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN HUBBARD ESTATE SUBDIVISION IN THE NORTHEAST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 100 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, 101.9 FEET AS MEASURED IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM A POINT IN SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 WHICH IS 48.1 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Commonly known as 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane, Winnetka, Illinois 60093. PIN: 05-17-200-027-0000 Page 191 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT B PLANS ( SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 192 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION A New Construction 1 13 2025 ARIATION RE . 1 for a Private Residence 1086 Crescent Ln Winnetka, IL CR ES CE NT 32 "Ø DRAWING CONTENTS : Plat of Survey Prepared by: Professionals Associated - MM Survey Co ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. Contact Info: pa@professionalsassociated.com P. L. L. C. License #:184-003023 Architectural Drawings: 24 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL "Ø O'Gara Residence Prepared by: WMA Studio P.L.L.C. Contact info: William E. Murphy CONTRACTOR NOTES: P: SITE NOTES: S T U D I O License #: 001.024932 S1. The Contractor shall immediatley remove surplus excavated soil from the site upon excavation. Any and all 18 "Ø "Ø 14 soil needed to be retained for back fill shall be temporarily stored in stockpile areas as indicated on the plans. A 0.0 Cover Page & Site Plan S2. Contractor shall provide temporary tree protection fence as shown on plans and/or as required to control limits of construction. A 1.0 Basement Plan S3. The Contractor shall provide a 6'-0" high chain link fence with locking gates as per the International A 1.1 First Floor Plan Residential Code. The fence shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the site prior to the start of demolition work and remain in place until finished grading and landscaping begins. The gate shall be closed A 1.2 Second Floor Plan and locked when construction personnel are not on site. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 A 1.3 Roof Plan GENERAL NOTES: BIDDERS A 2.0 Elevations A. The Bidders shall thoroughly examine all drawings and specifications as required to have an understanding A 2.1 Elevations of the proposed project's scope of work. "Ø B. The Bidders shall visit and examine the project site and make all necessary investigations required to 18 inform themselves fully as to all conditions and difficulties that may be encountered in the complete execution W M A of all work in accordance with the contract documents (drawings and specifications). C. The General Contractor shall layout the proposed work and be responsible for all lines, elevations and measurements. The General Contractor shall exercise proper precations to verify property lines and setback lines when the proposed work abuts property lines and minimum yard setbacks. D. The General Contractor shall field verify all dimensions before and during construction and notify the Architect of all discrepancies. Ø 6" E. The General Contractor shall be responsible for locating any/all underground utilities prior to the start of SITE DATA: excavation and make good all items damaged during construction. 1X1X 4"7"Ø Ø F. The Contractor shall provide temporary tree protection fences as required to control the limits of 1086 Crescent Ln, Winnetka, IL construction. 1X1X Zoning District: R-2 5" 7" ØØ Certified Lot Area: 19,652 S.F. Ø Ø 8" Allowable BUILDING CODES: 2X 6" Building R.L.C.: 4,913 S.F. 2021 International Residential Code for One and 14 Ø " Total Proposed R.L.C. 3,200.33 S.F. Two-Family Dwellings w/ Winnetka Amendments 2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) w/ Allowable Winnetka Amendments "Ø 16 Building G.F.A: 6,105.75 S.F. 2021 International Building Codes w/ Winnetka Total Proposed G.F.A. 5,342.7 S.F. Amendments 2015 International Property Maintenance Code Allowable 2021 International Energy Conservation Codes w/ Impervious Surface: 9,826 S.F. Illinois Amendments NORTH 2020 National Electric Code, NFPA 70 Site Plan Total Proposed Impervious Surface: 6,886.33 S.F. 2014 State of Illinois Plumbing Code 2021 International Mechanical Codes Radon Resistant Construction Act 420 ILCS 52 NOTE: Refer to sheet Z1.0-Z1.3 for detailed 2021 International Fire Codes STUDIO Gross Floor Area (G.F.A.), Roofed Lot 2024 NFPA Life Safety Codes Coverage (R.L.C.), diagrams and tabulations, 2022 NFPA Publications 13, 13R, 13D, 14, 72, 855 SHEET and Impermeable Lot Coverage calculations. Village of Winnetka Building Codes - September 3, 2024 A0.0 O N O. 2506 Page 193 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Unexcavated ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. Golf Clubs Storage O'Gara Residence1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Future Golf Room S T U D I O , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Storage/ Mechanical Bar Area W M A Basement Bath Future Rec Room Unexcavated Future Basement Bedroom Unexcavated STUDIO SHEET A1.0 O N O. 2506 Page 194 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Side Entry/ Gar. Apt. Stair ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Mudroom Side Entry/ Gar. Apt. Stair O'Gara Residence Pantry S T U D I O Coat Closet , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Patio Coats P.R. W M A Front Porch Kitchen/ Breakfast Stair Hall Screen Porch Basement Stair Dining Room D.R. Closet STUDIO SHEET A1.1 O N O. 2506 Page 195 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Garage Suite Bedroom Closet Coffee Bar Riley's Cl. Garage ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. Suite Bath WC O'Gara Residence1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Primary Bath S T U D I O Closet , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Primary Bedroom Closet W M A Bedroom 4 Linens Stair Hall Addie's Cl. Closet Laundry Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Shared Bath 3 Bath 2 STUDIO SHEET A1.2 O N O. 2506 Page 196 of 444 Page 197 of 444 ATTACHMENT 1 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE A1.3 SHEET 2506 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL  5'-0" Page 198 of 444 ATTACHMENT 1 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE SHEET 2506 A2.0 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Page 199 of 444 ATTACHMENT 1 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE A2.1 SHEET 2506 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL  ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois ("Village"): WHEREAS, Brian T. O’Gara and Michael Eskew, as Trustees of the ROG29 Gift Trust (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the record title owners of the parcel of real property commonly known as 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane in Winnetka, Illinois (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is approximately 0.45 acres in area and located within the R-2 Single Family Residential District of the Village (“R-2 District”) and is improved with a single-family residence and detached garage (“Structures”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to demolish the Structures and construct a new single- family residence on the Subject Property (“Proposed Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a legally nonconforming corner lot that (i) is 19,652 square feet in net lot area, while the minimum required lot area for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 25,200 square feet; (ii) is 175 feet in depth, while the minimum required lot depth for a lot in the R-2 District is 200 feet; and (iii) has an average lot width of 112.29 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 115 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), the minimum required corner yard setback for the Subject Property is 32.92 feet; and WHEREAS, to construct the Proposed Improvements on the Subject Property, the Applicant filed an application for a variation from Section 17.30.050 to allow a corner yard setback of 24.67 feet from the eastern private road easement along Fisher Crescent Lane (“Variation”); and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. M-04-2026, adopted by the Village Council on _________, 2026 (“Ordinance”), grants the Variation; and WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Ordinance provides, among other things, that the Ordinance will be of no force or effect unless and until the Applicant has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicant does hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Applicant hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Ordinance. 2. The Applicant acknowledges that public notices and hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Ordinance, has considered the possibility of the Page 200 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 revocation provided for in the Ordinance, and agrees not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s grant of the Variation for the Subject Property or its adoption of the Ordinance, and that the Village’s approvals do not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Applicant against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Applicant hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Ordinance granting the Variation for the Subject Property. 5. The Applicant hereby agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the Village in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims mentioned in this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. These expenses will include all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and will also include the reasonable value of any services rendered by any employees of the Village. Dated: , 2026 ATTEST: BRIAN T. O’GARA, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROG29 GIFT TRUST By: By: Its: Its: ATTEST: MICHAEL ESKEW, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROG29 GIFT TRUST By: By: Its: Its: Page 201 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2026 SUBJECT: 1086 FISHER CRESCENT LANE – VARIATION (CASE NO. 26-04-V2) INTRODUCTION On February 9, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by ROG29 Gift Trust (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation to allow construction of a new single-family residence on the Subject Property: 1. Corner Yard Setback of 24.67 feet from Fisher Crescent Lane, whereas a minimum of 32.92 feet is required, a variation of 8.25 feet (25.06%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]. The Applicant has also submitted a demolition application for the existing residence on the Subject Property, which was considered by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on September 15, 2025. By a vote of 4-0, the HPC approved the demolition without delay. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 22, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has received one written comment from the public regarding this application, which is included as Attachment D. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request, as only the Council has the authority to grant any variation for any new principal building. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.45 acres in size, is generally located on the west side of Fisher Crescent Lane between Fisher Lane and Scott Avenue and contains an existing two-story residence and a detached garage (see Figure 1). The property is wedge shaped with a front lot line along a westerly private road easement, a curvilinear corner lot line along the eastern and north portions of the property, a side yard along the south property line, and no rear yard. The property is considered a corner lot due to the existence of a private road easement, as recorded in 1906 on the Plat of Subdivision of Lots 7 and 8 in Hubbard Estate Subdivision, along the west property line. Even though a roadway has never been improved within the easement, the recorded easement is still in effect and as such the area of the easement is excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes. The Zoning Ordinance defines the shortest street line of a corner lot as the “front lot line.” In this instance, the shortest street line is the outermost limits of the private unimproved street along the western portion of the lot. Therefore, the front lot line is along the west private road easement and the corner lot line is along Fisher Crescent Lane. Page 202 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development. The zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing lot is a legally nonconforming corner lot that is 19,652 square feet in net lot area, while the minimum required lot area for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 25,200 square feet. Also, the lot is 175 feet in depth, while the minimum required lot depth for a lot in the R-2 District is 200 feet. Lastly, the lot has an average lot width of 112.29 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for a corner lot in the R-2 District is 115 feet. Subject Property Sheridan Road Fisher Lane Fisher Crescent Lane Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map Page 203 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Subject Property Fisher Sheridan Lane Road Fisher Crescent Lane Figure 2 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The existing residence was constructed in approximately 1910. Subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1931 - Alter residence; 2. 1950 - Remodel and repair residence 3. 1951 - Construct one-and-a-half story accessory building; and 4. 1966 - Addition to residence. Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. In 1962, ZBA Case No. 892 was referred by the Village Council to the ZBA for a side yard variation for the west property line that was ultimately withdrawn. The Applicant acquired the property in 2024. Figures 3 through 5, below and on the following page, are current photos of the Subject Property. Please keep in mind the existing residence seen in the photos will be removed. The photos are intended to give the ZBA an understanding of the site itself, not the existing residence that is planned for demolition. Figure 3 – Subject Property – East and South Building Elevations (Fisher Crescent Lane Looking West) Page 204 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Figure 4 – Subject Property – North Building Elevation (Fisher Crescent Lane Looking South) Figure 5 – Subject Property – North Building Elevation (Fisher Crescent Lane Looking Southeast) PROPOSED PLAN The variation is being requested in order to construct a new single-family residence on the Subject Property. The Applicant intends to demolish the existing single-family residence and detached garage to accommodate construction of a new single-family residence that would encroach into the minimum required corner yard setback from Fisher Crescent Lane. Two corners of the residence would encroach the required setback. As represented in Figure 6 on the following page, the existing residence and detached garage are legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the private road easement along the west side of the Subject Property. The existing detached garage is Page 205 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 also legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the south property line. With the exception of the corner yard setback, the proposed improvements would comply with all other zoning regulations. Excerpts of a current plat-of-survey, the proposed site plan, and proposed building elevations are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 6 through 11. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment C). Private Road Easement (Fisher Crescent Lane) Private Road Easement (unimproved) Red Line Represents Buildable Area (required setbacks) Figure 6 – Subject Property – 2025 Plat of Survey Excerpt Showing Existing Conditions Page 206 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Areas of Encroachment into Corner Yard Setback Red Line Represents Buildable Area (required setbacks) Figure 7 – Proposed Site Plan Figure 8 – Proposed East Building Elevation (Fisher Crescent Lane) Page 207 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Figure 9 – Proposed North Building Elevation (Fisher Crescent Lane) Figure 10 – Proposed West Building Elevation Figure 11 – Proposed South Elevation Page 208 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Given the ZBA often receives questions regarding the stormwater regulations applicable to a specific request being considered by the ZBA, attached is a Stormwater Matrix (Attachment B). Based on the proposed plan, and the Subject Property currently being developed, the site would likely be required to provide additional stormwater detention volume. However, a final determination will be made by Village Engineering staff upon submittal of the permits necessary for the proposed improvements, which are required to comply with Village stormwater regulations. Figure 12 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain. Subject Property Figure 12 - GIS Floodplain Map REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with the R-2 zoning district (Attachment A). One variation is being requested to allow the proposed residence to provide a corner yard setback from the eastern private road easement (Fisher Crescent Lane) of 24.67 feet, whereas a minimum setback of 32.92 feet is required. As noted earlier in this report, the property contains an unimproved 10-foot private road easement, the outermost limits of which is defined as the front lot line. As a result, the Subject Property is a corner lot. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the ZBA must find a variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative addressing how this proposal meets these standards. After hearing from the Applicant, and the public, the ZBA may decide to act on one of two options: 1. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA; or 2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variation. If the ZBA is prepared to Page 209 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variation granting: A. Corner Yard Setback of 24.67 feet, whereas a minimum of 32.92 feet is required, a variation of 8.25 feet (25.06%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]. The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the variation requested is in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…] The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. 5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased. 6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. 7. The congestion in the public street will not increase. 8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise be impaired. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix Attachment C: Application Materials Attachment D: Public Correspondence Page 210 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 ZONING MATRIX ADDRESS: 1086 Fisher Crescent CASE NO: 26-04-V2 ZONING: R-2 MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (3) Min. Lot Size 25,200 SF 19, 652 SF (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Min. Average Lot Width 115 FT 112.29 FT N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Min. Lot Depth 200 FT 175 FT N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 4,913 SF (1) N/A 3,200.33 SF N/A OK Max. Gross Floor Area 6,104.25 SF (1) N/A 5,342.7 SF N/A OK Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 9,826 SF (1) N/A 6,886.33 SF N/A OK Min. Front Yard (West) (2) 50 FT (2) N/A 50.17 FT (2) N/A OK Min. Corner Yard (East) 32.92 FT N/A 24.68 FT N/A 8.25 FT (25.06%) VARIATION Min. Side Yard (South) 12 FT N/A 12.27 FT N/A OK NOTES (1) Based on net lot area of 19,652 square feet. Gross Lot Area is 26,775 sq.ft., cumulative private road easement area of 7,123 sq.ft. is excluded for zoning lot purposes. (2) Setback to proposed residence from unused 10-foot private road easement on west side of property that serves as Front Yard. (3) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement. Page 211 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. An exception is for lots along the lakefront that directly discharge into Lake Michigan; those lots are not required to provide stormwater volume detention on- site. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements. Storm Water Detention Volume Applicable Requirement Requirements A. New Home Construction - The amount of additional required storm Applies to 1086 Fisher Previously Developed Lot water detention volume is based upon the Crescent. The site is difference between maximum impermeable currently developed. Based lot coverage, per Zoning Code, and existing lot upon preliminary review of coverage, using the run-off coefficient for a information to date, the site 100-year stormevent for both. would likely be required to provide additional storm water detention volume. However, a final determination will not occur until engineering plans are submitted with a building permit application. B. New Home Construction - The amount of required storm water Previously Undeveloped detention volume is based upon the maximum Site impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event. C. Redevelopment of Site for The amount of required storm water Different Use (e.g. single detention volume is based upon the maximum family to multi-family, or impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off commercial) coefficient for 100-year storm event. D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm Home and/or Lot, causing water detention volume is based upon the an increase in difference between the proposed and existing impermeable lot coverage impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off greater or equal to 25%. coefficient for 100 year storm event. (Note: If increase in impermeable lot coverage is less than 25%, additional storm water detention volume is not required.) E. Improvements to existing The amount of additional required storm lots, who currently water detention volume is based upon: exceed maximum a) The amount of the impermeable lot impermeable lot coverage coverage (ILC) currently in excess of the (e.g., School sites, single maximum permitted amount of ILC allowed family and multi-family by zoning that will be removed and sites) replaced, and/or b) The amount of ILC in addition to what currently exists on the lot. The amount of required detention volume is then determined using the run- off coefficient for 100-year storm event. Page 212 of 444 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 213 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Revised 1/13/2025 Village of Winnetka Community Development 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Variation Application, 1086 Crescent Lane The applicant seeks a variation to allow a modest encroachment into the 32.8-foot setback along the private road easement that curves along the north and east sides of the property. The unusual lot geometry and easements around nearly the entire perimeter result in a significantly limited buildable area, far more restrictive than a typical lot of this size. Granting this relief will allow a reasonably scaled home to be centrally located on the site while maintaining as many existing heritage trees as possible, replacing the current structure that encroaches into the easement and sits less than 4 feet from the lot line. The outcome will provide greater light, air, and separation for neighboring properties. Supporting analysis demonstrating compliance with all required standards for a zoning variation is provided below. 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation in that zone. 1086 Crescent Lane is a uniquely shaped parcel bounded by two private road easements. The Crescent Lane easement runs along the north and east property lines, while an undeveloped private drive easement runs along the west. Although the western easement was originally intended to serve multiple lots, no driveway was ever constructed and the area has long functioned as open yard space. Notably, the existing residence on the property—already approved for demolition—currently encroaches more than halfway into this western easement. When the required 50-foot front yard setback is applied from both easement edges, less than 3,000 square feet of the lot remains buildable, representing approximately 15% of the total lot area after deducting easements. Even after extensive coordination with the zoning department, designating the western boundary as the front yard, and applying a combined side/corner yard setback based on average lot width, only 24.6% of the lot remains buildable. These conditions create an atypically restrictive buildable envelope for a lot of this size. We have made every effort to design a fully compliant residence within the permitted buildable area; however, the cumulative constraints have proven too limiting, even for a modestly sized home. We are therefore requesting relief to allow the northeast corner of the front porch and the northeast corner of the proposed garage to encroach into the corner yard setback. 2. The plight of the Owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question rather than being related to the occupants. The hardship is directly attributable to the unique geometry of the lot and the private road easements that define nearly its entire perimeter. As noted, the western private road easement was never constructed and functions solely as yard area. The existing residence currently extends into this easement, further underscoring its nonfunctional and historically disregarded nature. Page 214 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 We are requesting approximately 8 feet, 2 inches of relief along the eastern boundary, which fronts the Crescent Lane private road easement, to allow limited projections of the front entry porch and the garage. This request represents an approximately 24.8% reduction from the required 32.8-foot corner yard setback and constitutes a reasonable and measured accommodation in light of the site’s unusual, easement-driven constraints. The requested relief also enables preservation of the existing White Oak trees adjacent to the current detached garage, which are significant, healthy trees and an important natural feature of the property. 3.​ The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If granted, the requested variation will allow the new residence to be positioned more appropriately on the site. The existing structure is located deep in the western corner of the lot and encroaches into the undeveloped private road easement. Granting this relief will enable construction of a suitably scaled home that is more naturally centered on the parcel, resulting in greater separation from neighboring properties than exists today. In addition, significant effort has been made to design and site the residence to preserve as many existing heritage trees as possible, further minimizing site disturbance and maintaining the established character of the property. 4.​ An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. As noted, granting the requested variation will improve the supply of light and air to neighboring properties. The existing home is situated less than 4 feet from the western lot line, while the proposed residence will be positioned significantly farther from adjoining parcels. This relocation meaningfully increases openness, light, and visual relief for surrounding properties compared to existing conditions. 5.​ The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will only be decreased, because we will be able to site the new house much further from the lot line. 6.​ The taxable value of the land and building throughout the Village will not diminish. The variation will not affect the taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village. 7.​ The congestion to the public street will not increase. The congestion to the public street will not increase in any way, because the use is not changing. It will continue to function as a single-family residence. 8.​ The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise be impaired. None of these factors will be affected by the proposed variation. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or require any additional information to review the requested variation. Page 215 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 Eamon Murphy Principal, Owner WMA Studio P.L.L.C. Page 216 of 444 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 217 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION A New Construction 1 13 2025 ARIATION RE . 1 for a Private Residence 1086 Crescent Ln Winnetka, IL CR ES CE NT 32 "Ø DRAWING CONTENTS : Plat of Survey Prepared by: Professionals Associated - MM Survey Co ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. Contact Info: pa@professionalsassociated.com P. L. L. C. License #:184-003023 Architectural Drawings: 24 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL "Ø O'Gara Residence Prepared by: WMA Studio P.L.L.C. Contact info: William E. Murphy CONTRACTOR NOTES: P: SITE NOTES: S T U D I O License #: 001.024932 S1. The Contractor shall immediatley remove surplus excavated soil from the site upon excavation. Any and all 18 "Ø "Ø 14 soil needed to be retained for back fill shall be temporarily stored in stockpile areas as indicated on the plans. A 0.0 Cover Page & Site Plan S2. Contractor shall provide temporary tree protection fence as shown on plans and/or as required to control limits of construction. A 1.0 Basement Plan S3. The Contractor shall provide a 6'-0" high chain link fence with locking gates as per the International A 1.1 First Floor Plan Residential Code. The fence shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the site prior to the start of demolition work and remain in place until finished grading and landscaping begins. The gate shall be closed A 1.2 Second Floor Plan and locked when construction personnel are not on site. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 A 1.3 Roof Plan GENERAL NOTES: BIDDERS A 2.0 Elevations A. The Bidders shall thoroughly examine all drawings and specifications as required to have an understanding A 2.1 Elevations of the proposed project's scope of work. "Ø B. The Bidders shall visit and examine the project site and make all necessary investigations required to 18 inform themselves fully as to all conditions and difficulties that may be encountered in the complete execution W M A of all work in accordance with the contract documents (drawings and specifications). C. The General Contractor shall layout the proposed work and be responsible for all lines, elevations and measurements. The General Contractor shall exercise proper precations to verify property lines and setback lines when the proposed work abuts property lines and minimum yard setbacks. D. The General Contractor shall field verify all dimensions before and during construction and notify the Architect of all discrepancies. Ø 6" E. The General Contractor shall be responsible for locating any/all underground utilities prior to the start of SITE DATA: excavation and make good all items damaged during construction. 1X1X 4"7"Ø Ø F. The Contractor shall provide temporary tree protection fences as required to control the limits of 1086 Crescent Ln, Winnetka, IL construction. 1X1X Zoning District: R-2 5" 7" ØØ Certified Lot Area: 19,652 S.F. Ø Ø 8" Allowable BUILDING CODES: 2X 6" Building R.L.C.: 4,913 S.F. 2021 International Residential Code for One and 14 Ø " Total Proposed R.L.C. 3,200.33 S.F. Two-Family Dwellings w/ Winnetka Amendments 2021 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) w/ Allowable Winnetka Amendments "Ø 16 Building G.F.A: 6,105.75 S.F. 2021 International Building Codes w/ Winnetka Total Proposed G.F.A. 5,342.7 S.F. Amendments 2015 International Property Maintenance Code Allowable 2021 International Energy Conservation Codes w/ Impervious Surface: 9,826 S.F. Illinois Amendments NORTH 2020 National Electric Code, NFPA 70 Site Plan Total Proposed Impervious Surface: 6,886.33 S.F. 2014 State of Illinois Plumbing Code 2021 International Mechanical Codes Radon Resistant Construction Act 420 ILCS 52 NOTE: Refer to sheet Z1.0-Z1.3 for detailed 2021 International Fire Codes STUDIO Gross Floor Area (G.F.A.), Roofed Lot 2024 NFPA Life Safety Codes Coverage (R.L.C.), diagrams and tabulations, 2022 NFPA Publications 13, 13R, 13D, 14, 72, 855 SHEET and Impermeable Lot Coverage calculations. Village of Winnetka Building Codes - September 3, 2024 A0.0 O N O. 2506 Page 218 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Unexcavated ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. Golf Clubs Storage O'Gara Residence1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Future Golf Room S T U D I O , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Storage/ Mechanical Bar Area W M A Basement Bath Future Rec Room Unexcavated Future Basement Bedroom Unexcavated STUDIO SHEET A1.0 O N O. 2506 Page 219 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Side Entry/ Gar. Apt. Stair ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Mudroom Side Entry/ Gar. Apt. Stair O'Gara Residence Pantry S T U D I O Coat Closet , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Patio Coats P.R. W M A Front Porch Kitchen/ Breakfast Stair Hall Screen Porch Basement Stair Dining Room D.R. Closet STUDIO SHEET A1.1 O N O. 2506 Page 220 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 DATE 12 5 2025 ARIATION A LI ATION Garage Suite Bedroom Closet Coffee Bar Riley's Cl. Garage ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. P. L. L. C. Suite Bath WC O'Gara Residence1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Primary Bath S T U D I O Closet , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 Primary Bedroom Closet W M A Bedroom 4 Linens Stair Hall Addie's Cl. Closet Laundry Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Shared Bath 3 Bath 2 STUDIO SHEET A1.2 O N O. 2506 Page 221 of 444 Page 222 of 444 ATTACHMENT 2 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE A1.3 SHEET 2506 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL  5'-0" Page 223 of 444 ATTACHMENT 2 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE SHEET 2506 A2.0 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL Page 224 of 444 ATTACHMENT 2 W M A S T U D I O P. L. L. C. 12 5 2025 O N O. , KENILWORTH, IL, 60043 ● (847) 420-1535 ● ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. ARIATION DATE A2.1 SHEET 2506 STUDIO O'Gara Residence A LI ATION 1086 Crescent Lane, Winnetka, IL  ATTACHMENT 2 Z1.2 12/5/2025 1/13/2025 - REV. 1 1086 CRESCENT LANE WINNETKA, IL 32 "Ø 60093 Z1.2 IMPERMEABLE LOT COVERAGE CALCS SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" "Ø 24 1 18 "Ø "Ø 14 2 "Ø 18 4 3 6" Ø 7" Ø Ø 1X 4" 1X 1X1X 5" 7" ØØ 6 8" 2X 6" Ø 5 Ø 14 "Ø Ø 16 " IMPERMEABLE SURFACE CALCULATIONS TOTAL BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 3,200.33 FINAL PROPOSED IMPERMEABLE LOT COVERAGE: 6,886.33 ALLOWABLE IMPERMEABLE LOT COVERAGE = 9,828.38 Page 225 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 From: To: Planning Subject: comment on 1086 Crescent Lane new home construction (case #26-04-V2) Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 3:21:13 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 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 Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals, Although I believe I am, and intend to continue to be a very good neighbor, I am nevertheless writing to express my strong opposition to the “variation to provide less than the minimum required corner yard setback.... along Crescent Lane” and “any other zoning relief necessary for approval of the proposed residence” for the 1086 Crescent Lane new home construction, for reasons stemming from my deep love for the beautiful esthetic of this lovely Fisher-Crescent community and my hope that no one will ever be given permission to tarnish that beauty. I have enjoyed residency on Fisher-Crescent Lane for 29 years. My favorite walk is around the “crescent” many times on pleasant days, and each time I marvel at the special beauty of this little section of the world, made so particularly because the homes are SET BACK from the roadway sufficiently to maintain an amazing overall feeling of openness, stillness and peacefulness that is quite unique among communities of private homes, many of which feel crowded with houses inching toward the street so they are “in your face.” Guests of mine often comment that the ambiance on my street is almost pastoral, always calming, settled, with lots of sunlight on wide front lawns. The setback regulation is critical for creating this very wonderful effect. New homes must help preserve the special character of this community, not diminish it. This special character is a big part of what keeps our property values what they are in addition to contributing to the peace and quiet my neighbors and I have chosen by living here. There is plenty of space on the lot in question to contain the home within the existing required setback. I have built homes myself and I know very well that this can be accomplished if one has the willingness to do so...adjustments can always be made to fit the zoning requirements. Furthermore, giving variances to one home builder sets a clear precedent for all builders to follow; it would be a tragedy to have to give subsequent architects permission to disregard the regulations that have kept the character of Fisher-Crescent Lane absolutely special and beautiful for many years because a precedent had been set. Please do not grant the requested variances and zoning relief for the 1086 Crescent Lane home construction as it is proposed. I will look forward to welcoming new neighbors warmly if they come into this community wanting to maintain its Page 226 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 specialness, but I will not feel kindly if they choose to immediately disregard one of its most desireable qualities...its beautiful esthetic. Sincerely, Lenore Blum Lenore S. Blum, Ph.D. Clinical Associate Professor Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Program Director Emerita Masters Program in Counseling Psychology The Family Institute at Northwestern University Page 227 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 FEBRUARY 9, 2026 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 Todd Vender 11 12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None 13 14 Village Staff: Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 17 18 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 19 20 *** 21 22 a. Case No. 26-04-V2: 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane: An application seeking approval of a zoning 23 variation to allow construction of a new single-family residence at 1086 Fisher Crescent Lane. The 24 requested variation would permit the proposed residence to provide less than the minimum required 25 corner yard setback from Fisher Crescent Lane. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 26 Mr. Marx summarized the requested variation and identified the property’s location, size and zoning 27 classification as well as the zoning lot’s conditions and easements in detail. He stated the demolition 28 application was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission without delay and referred to site 29 photos, the plat of survey excerpt with the approximate buildable area and proposed site plan for the 30 home. Mr. Marx also referred to proposed building elevations as well as the zoning standards the Board 31 is to consider. He stated two written comments were received from neighbors. Mr. Marx then stated 32 following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to 33 either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a 34 motion to recommend approval or denial of the requested variation with draft language included on page 35 no. 375. He asked if there were any questions. 36 37 Chairman Bradley referred to an illustration and questioned the minimum front yard, minimum side yard 38 and minimum corner yard setbacks. Mr. Marx responded the setbacks would be the same for the existing 39 and proposed home with the exception being for front yard setback when the block average setback is 40 taken into account. Mr. Marx and Ms. Klaassen provided additional detailed information with regard to 41 the setbacks of the existing residence. Mr. Haller referred to the Crescent easement. Mr. Marx clarified 42 the easement areas for the Board. No additional questions were raised at this time. 43 44 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Eamon Murphy, the architect for the project, 45 described the challenges with the property and the applicant’s ownership and history of the building and 46 site. He stated besides the property being 70% legally nonconforming, it was built in numerous stages and 47 the home is noncompliant in several areas. Mr. Murphy stated they would like to create a home which 48 would fit their family. He noted the buildable lot area is 25% and referred to the buildable square footage Page 228 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 1 area. Mr. Murphy described how the new home’s design would require the minimum number of 2 variations. He then referred to two large trees in the southwest corner of the site which limited the 3 buildable area which he described in detail. 4 5 Mr. Murphy stated they understand the difficulties in requesting variations for new construction and 6 described the 25% buildable area limitation as a hardship and they would try to appropriately scale a new 7 home to be appropriate for the neighborhood. He noted they are not requesting relief for RLC, FAR or 8 impermeable lot coverage and they are dealing with extremely restrictive setbacks. Mr. Murphy identified 9 the proposed setback for the new L-shaped home which would create a courtyard and provide visual 10 interest opportunities along the road. 11 12 Chairman Bradley asked what alternatives were explored with regard to the trees and how close the trees 13 are to the house. Mr. Murphy responded it is 17 feet clear to the tightest portion of the home. He stated 14 they never tried to re-site the home in its current position and referred to development on the easement 15 which never took place. Mr. Murphy also described difficulties with regard to the existing home’s 16 condition which limited options for the new home’s siting. He stated they never planned to fit as much 17 possible square footage into the buildable area as they can. No additional questions were raised at this 18 time. 19 20 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. He then called the 21 matter in for discussion. 22 23 Ms. Hanley stated she would recommend approval and described the request as small in terms of the 24 encroachment. She stated the aesthetic would not alter the character of the street and the hardship 25 related to the lot’s shape due to the private easements which resulted in a small buildable area. Mr. Leister 26 agreed the lot is difficult and commented the variation requested is reasonable. She stated she would also 27 recommend approval. Mr. Ritter agreed with the comments made and referred to the amount of time the 28 applicant spent to minimize the encroachment. Mr. Vender stated he was initially concerned with regard 29 to precedent and referred to the context of the lot’s limitations and the applicant deciding not to maximize 30 the buildable lot area. Mr. Nielsen stated a smaller home would still result in reasonable return and 31 referred to the unique lot and geometry. He stated with all things considered; the applicant is not trying 32 to maximize every inch. He stated reducing the screen porch size would make it more conforming and he 33 is undecided at this time. Mr. Haller stated he would lean toward recommending approval and agreed 34 with the comments made. He stated he respected the attempt to keep the large trees which would result 35 in retaining some elements which are part of the neighborhood character. Mr. Haller also stated there is 36 an easement for an established roadway and the observed setback from the road is greater. He concluded 37 he would be in favor of the request. Chairman Bradley commented he did not feel good asking for 38 variations for new construction. He referred to the reasonable return standard and agreed while the 39 property is unusual, easements or irregular or existing nonconforming lots are not uncommon. Chairman 40 Bradley stated while the amount is de minimus, he questioned whether any amount is justified in 41 connection with the first standard and the applicant knew of the lot’s limitations at the time the property 42 was acquired. He then stated the new home can be modified and that the first standard has not been 43 met. 44 45 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to recommend approval as indicated on page 9. A motion as stated 46 by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken and the 47 motion passed, 5 to 2: 48 AYES: Haller, Hanley, Leister, Ritter, Vender Page 229 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 1 NAYS: Bradley, Nielsen 2 3 *** 4 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 7 Antionette Johnson 8 Recording Secretary Page 230 of 444 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 231 of 444 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 232 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Ordinance No. M-05-2026: Approving a Final Plat of Subdivision and Granting Variations from the Winnetka Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances (Introduction/Adoption) PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: INTRODUCTION On March 19, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider Ordinance No. M-05-2026 in response to an application submitted by Robert and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) (Attachment 1). The Applicant is seeking approval of a Final Subdivision Plat to create two new Lots of Record, together with the following relief: 1. A Zoning Variation to allow Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to provide a lot depth of 172.64 feet, whereas a minimum of 200 feet is required, a variation of 27.36 feet (13.68%); 2. Subdivision Code Variations to allow: a. The side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); b. The creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line (Proposed Lot 2); and 3. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing improvements at 936 Sunset Road (Proposed Lot 1), which: a. Observe less the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet from Sunset Road; b. Observe less than the minimum required corner yard setback of 50 feet from Higginson Lane; and c. Exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors. The Applicant currently resides on the Subject Property and is seeking approval to subdivide the existing single lot into two lots. The existing tennis court and the existing playhouse located in the Page 233 of 444 westerly portion of the Subject Property would be removed, or relocated in compliance with the zoning regulations for Proposed Lot 1, to accommodate the proposed lots. This application is limited to the subdivision request, the associated relief, and the existing improvements, no proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. Compliance with Zoning Standards - The proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement. Specifically, Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) would have a lot depth of 172.64 feet, whereas the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet, a variation of 27.36 feet (13.68%). Proposed Lot 2 (lot fronting on Higginson Lane) would fully comply with the zoning standards. Compliance with Subdivision Code Standards – The Subdivision Code requires subdivisions to conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimum standards such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. The proposed subdivision requires two variations from the Subdivision Code to allow (i) the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); and (ii) creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line (Proposed Lot 2). Additionally, there are three existing nonconformities that will remain on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1). The existing residence on the Subject Property provides a nonconforming front yard setback from the north property line along Sunset Road of 49.91 feet and a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from the east property line along Higginson Lane, whereas setbacks of 50 feet are required. There is also an existing playhouse that provides a nonconforming corner yard setback of 5.52 feet. In accordance with Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, the Plan Commission (“PC”) found that the existence of the nonconformities specific to the existing residence will have “No Material Increased Adverse Impact.” However, the PC’s recommendation of approval included a condition that the playhouse currently located within the required corner yard setback must be removed or relocated in conformance with the zoning regulations for Proposed Lot 1. ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW The Plan Commission (“PC”) first considered the request on September 24, 2025. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, and receiving letters from five neighbors in opposition to the request, the Commission discussed the application. The written correspondence from the neighbors expressed concerns with development in the floodplain, drainage, and noncompliance with the zoning lot standards. Some members of the PC noted that the zoning relief requested was minimal and that increasing the lot area of Proposed Lot 2 to comply with the minimum required lot area would require Proposed Lot 1 to seek relief from the lot depth requirement. Some members also noted that the proposed subdivision would revert the Subject Property back to its original two-lot configuration prior to the consolidation in 1976 that created the lot as it exists today. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-1, the PC recommended approval of the request with a condition that the existing nonconforming playhouse be removed or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations. On February 25, 2026, due to changes made to the proposed subdivision during the Zoning Board of Appeals’ review of the Applicant’s request, which required different zoning and subdivision code relief, the PC considered an amended plat of subdivision. Attachment 2 contains the staff report and draft minutes from the February PC meeting, which summarize the request (a similar report was provided to the ZBA). After hearing from staff, the applicant’s legal counsel, and receiving no public comments, the Commission discussed the amended request. Most members found the amended request to be an improvement on the initial request which the Commission recommended approval of. One member expressed concern with approving a subdivision that will allow construction of a new residence in the floodplain. By a vote of 4-1, the Commission recommended approval of the amended request. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) first considered the zoning relief for the Applicant’s initial Page 234 of 444 application on October 13, 2025. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, the ZBA heard from two members of the public who are neighbors of the Subject Property. The ZBA then discussed the request. A significant amount of the ZBA’s discussion was focused on the relief requested and how that would impact the ability to develop the lot in a reasonable manner that would be appropriate in the neighborhood. The six members in attendance were split on the application. The Applicant heard the concerns expressed by the members of the ZBA leaning towards recommending denial of the relief and requested that the item be continued to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to allow them time to explore amending the proposed plat of subdivision so that Proposed Lot 2 would comply with the lot area and rectangular lot area requirements. At the Applicant’s request, the ZBA continued the item to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to provide the Applicant with time to respond to the ZBA’s comments. On December 8, 2025, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on the Applicant’s initial request. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, and receiving no additional written or verbal public comment on the application, the ZBA discussed the request and asked questions of the Applicant. The questions focused on the buildability of Proposed Lot 1 in “Option 1” presented to the ZBA as an alternative to the originally proposed subdivision, which required two zoning variations for Proposed Lot 2 while Proposed Lot 1 did not require zoning variations. Following a recess to allow the Applicant time to discuss with their legal counsel and civil engineer, the Applicant requested the application be continued to the January 12, 2026, ZBA meeting to allow them time to evaluate whether to amend the application to move the proposed lot line between the two lots to the north. By a vote of 6-0, the ZBA granted the Applicant’s request and continued the item to the January 12 ZBA meeting. Prior to the January 12 ZBA meeting, the Applicant informed staff that they were amending the proposed subdivision. Because the amended subdivision requires different zoning relief, public notice of the amended relief was required. Therefore, the ZBA did not take any action on this item on January 12. Rather, new public notice was provided for the ZBA’s consideration of the amended request at the February 9, 2026, ZBA meeting. On February 9, 2026, the ZBA held a public hearing on the Applicant’s amended request. Again, after hearing from staff and the applicant’s legal counsel, and receiving no additional written or verbal public comments, the ZBA discussed the amended request. The ZBA found the amended request met the standards for granting a variation, and by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of the request. The meeting minutes of all three meetings the ZBA considered the request are provided in Attachment 3. RECOMMENDATION: The Plan Commission recommends approval (4-1) and the ZBA recommends approval (7-0), the Council may wish to (a) consider waiving introduction of Ordinance No. M-05-2026 and consider adoption of the Ordinance, OR (b) consider only introduction of Ordinance No. M-05-2026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance No.M-05-2026: Approving Final Plat of Subdivision and Granting Variations from the Winnetka Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances 2. Attachment 2 - February 25, 2026, PC Meeting Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes 3. Attachment 3 - October 13, 2025, December 8, 2025, and February 9, 2026, ZBA Meeting Minutes Page 235 of 444  ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. M-05-2026 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM THE WINNETKA ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES (936 Sunset Road) WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka is a home rule municipality in accordance with Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, Robert Marren and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the record title owners of the property located at 936 Sunset Road in Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential District of the Village (“R-2 District”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property was previously comprised of two separate lots of record that were consolidated into a single lot in 1976; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to subdivide the Subject Property (“Proposed Subdivision”) to create a new lot located at 936 Sunset Road comprised of approximately 28,485 square feet (“Lot 1”) and a new lot located south of Lot 1 fronting on Higginson Lane comprised of approximately 27,686 square feet (“Lot 2”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires for the existing residence located on Lot 1 (“Existing Residence”) to remain after the Proposed Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Existing Residence has a front yard setback of 49.91 feet, a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet, a front-facing garage door which exceeds the maximum permitted width, and the Subject Property also has an existing playhouse with a corner yard setback of 5.52 feet (“Legal Nonconformities”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.010(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, Lot 1 must have a minimum required lot depth of 200 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, all side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, no subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of a lot having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application with the Village, as amended by the Applicant during the review process as noted below, for: (i) approval of a final plat of subdivision for the Proposed Subdivision (“Final Plat”); (ii) a zoning variation from Section 17.30.010(F) of the Zoning March 19, 2026 1 M-05-2026 Page 236 of 444 Ordinance to allow a lot depth of 172.64 feet, where the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet for Lot 1 (“Zoning Ordinance Variation”); and (iii) variations from Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a side lot line of Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Lot 1 and to allow the creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line on Lot 2 (“Subdivision Ordinance Variations”) (collectively, the Zoning Ordinance Variation and Subdivision Ordinance Variations are the “Variations”) (collectively, the Final Plat and Variations are the “Requested Relief”); and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2025, after due notice thereof, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Final Plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, the Plan Commission determined that the Legal Nonconformities, in the context of the proposed Final Plat, would not result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety, or welfare, on the condition that the playhouse that is located within the required corner yard along Higginson Lane be removed or relocated to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission, by a vote of six members in favor and one opposed, recommended that the Council of the Village of Winnetka (“Village Council”) approve the Final Plat; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2026, after due notice thereof and following several continuances to allow for an amended application, the Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Variation and, by a vote of seven members in favor and none opposed, recommended that the Village Council approve the Variation; and WHEREAS, following the Zoning Board of Appeals review and recommendation on the amended application, on February 25, 2026, after due notice thereof, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the amended application which included the proposed Requested Relief, and, by a vote of four members in favor and one opposed, recommended that the Village Council approve the Requested Relief; and WHEREAS, while the Existing Residence on Lot 1 will remain nonconforming to the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, such nonconformities in the context of the Requested Relief, will not result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Village to approve the Requested Relief, subject to and in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do ordain as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated as the findings of the Village Council, as if fully set forth herein. March 19, 2026 2 M-05-2026 Page 237 of 444  SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, and pursuant to Sections 16.04.030 and 16.08.010 of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Village’s home rule authority, the Village Council hereby approves the Final Plat, prepared by B.H. Suhr & Company, Inc., and consisting of one sheet, with a latest revision date of January 26, 2026, attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit B. SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE VARIATION. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, a variation from Section 17.30.010(F) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a lot depth of 172.64 feet, where the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet, for Lot 1, is hereby granted with respect to the Subject Property, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 4: APPROVAL OF SUBDVISION ORDINANCE VARIATIONS. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, the following variations are hereby granted with respect to the Subject Property, in accordance with and pursuant to Section 16.12.010(F) of the Subdivision Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village: A. Abutting Side Lot Line: A variation from Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the side lot line of Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Lot 1. B. Perpendicular Side Lot Line: A variation from Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line on Lot 2. SECTION 5: CONDITIONS. The approvals granted by Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Ordinance are subject to, and contingent upon, compliance by the Applicant with the following conditions: A. Compliance with Subdivision Ordinance. Except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Ordinance, the approvals granted in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Ordinance are subject to and conditioned upon compliance with, and the inclusion of all of the information on the Final Plat required by Chapter 16.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance. B. Compliance with Regulations. Except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Ordinance, the development, use, and maintenance of the Proposed Subdivision and the Subject Property must comply at all times with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time. C. Playhouse. The playhouse that is located within the required corner yard along Higginson Lane must be removed from the Subject Property or relocated within the Subject Property to a location that complies with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time. March 19, 2026 3 M-05-2026 Page 238 of 444  D. Reimbursement of Village Costs. In addition to any other costs, payments, fees, charges, contributions, or dedications required under applicable Village codes, ordinances, Ordinances, rules, or regulations, the Applicant must pay to the Village, promptly upon presentation of a written demand or demands therefor, of all fees, costs, and expenses incurred or accrued in connection with the review, negotiation, preparation, consideration, and review of this Ordinance. Payment of all such fees, costs, and expenses for which demand has been made shall be made by a certified or cashier's check. Further, the Applicant must pay upon demand all costs incurred by the Village for publications and recordings required in connection with the aforesaid matters. SECTION 6: EXECUTION OF FINAL PLAT. The Village Council hereby authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk, upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, to execute and attest, on behalf of the Village, the Final Plat. SECTION 7: RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT. Upon execution of the Final Plat by the Village President and the Village Clerk, as provided in Section 6 of this Ordinance, the Village Clerk is hereby directed to cause the Final Plat to be recorded with the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. SECTION 8: RECORDATION OF ORDINANCE; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Ordinance will be recorded with the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Ordinance and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein inure solely to the benefit of, and are binding upon, the Applicant and each of their heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. SECTION 9: FAILURE TO COMPLY. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Ordinance, in addition to all other remedies available to the Village, the approvals granted in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Ordinance will, at the sole discretion of the Village Council, by ordinance duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Village Council may not so revoke the approvals granted in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Ordinance unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Village Council. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the regulations of the applicable zoning district and the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as the same may, from time to time, be amended. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 10: AMENDMENTS. Any amendment to this Ordinance may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Zoning Ordinance for amending or granting variations. SECTION 11: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be interpreted, applied, and enforced so as to achieve, as March 19, 2026 4 M-05-2026 Page 239 of 444 near as may be, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 12: EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Ordinance will only be in full force and effect upon the occurrence of all of the following events: (i) passage and approval of this Ordinance as provided by law; (ii) the removal of the existing tennis court located on the Subject Property; and (iii) the removal of the playhouse currently located in the westerly portion of the Subject Property or relocation of that playhouse within the Subject Property to a location that complies with all applicable provisions of the Village Code. B. The approvals set forth in Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this Ordinance will be effective only upon: (i) the filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Ordinance and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Ordinance; and (ii) the approval and recording of the Final Plat. C. In the event that the Applicant does not file with the Village Clerk a fully executed copy of the unconditional agreement and consent described in Section 12.B of this Ordinance within 60 days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by the Village Council, the Village Council shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare the Approvals granted in this Ordinance null and void and of no force or effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] March 19, 2026 5 M-05-2026 Page 240 of 444  PASSED this ____ 19 day of March _____, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: APPROVED this ____ day of _________, 2026. Signed: Village President Countersigned: Village Clerk Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2026. Introduced: _____________, 2026 Passed and Approved: ______________, 2026 6 M-05-2026 Page 241 of 444  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 936 SUNSET ROAD LOT 1 IN SEABURY'S CONSOLIDATION OF LOT I IN MEADOWREACH, TOGETHER WITH PART OF LOT 1 IN ALLES' FIRST ADDITION TO WINNETKA, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTH EAST 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1976 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 23697377, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. P.I.N.: 05-20-407-071-0000 Commonly known as 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093. Page 242 of 444  EXHIBIT B FINAL PLAT (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) Page 243 of 444  EXHIBIT B Page 244 of 444  EXHIBIT C UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois ("Village"): WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka is a home rule municipality in accordance with Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, Robert Marren and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the record title owners of the property located at 936 Sunset Road in Winnetka, Illinois (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential District of the Village (“R-2 District”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to subdivide the Subject Property (“Proposed Subdivision”) to create a new lot located at 936 Sunset Road comprised of approximately 28,485 square feet (“Lot 1”) and a new lot located south of the Lot 1 fronting on Higginson Lane comprised of approximately 27,686 square feet (“Lot 2”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application with the Village for: (i) approval of a final plat of subdivision for the Proposed Subdivision (“Final Plat”); (ii) a zoning variation from Section 17.30.010(F) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a lot depth of 172.64 feet, where the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet for Lot 1 (“Zoning Ordinance Variation”); and (iii) variations from Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a side lot line of Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Lot 1 and to allow the creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line on Lot 2 (“Subdivision Ordinance Variations”) (collectively, the Zoning Ordinance Variation and Subdivision Ordinance Variations are the “Variations”) (collectively, the Final Plat and Variations are the “Requested Relief”); and WHEREAS, Ordinance M-XX-2026, adopted by the Village Council on ____________ __, 2026 (“Ordinance”), approved the Requested Relief; and WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Ordinance provides, among other things, that the Ordinance will be of no force or effect unless and until the Applicant has filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance, their unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicant hereby agrees and covenant as follows: 1. The Applicant hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Ordinance. 2. The Applicant acknowledges that public notices and hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Ordinance, has considered the possibility of the Page 245 of 444 revocation provided for in the Ordinance, and agrees not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s approval of the Final Plat, the Variations, or its adoption of the Ordinance, and that the Village’s approvals do not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Applicant against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Applicant hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Ordinance approving the Final Plat and Variations. 5. The Applicant hereby agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the Village in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims mentioned in this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. These expenses will include all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and will also include the reasonable value of any services rendered by any employees of the Village. 6. The Applicant agrees to be jointly and severally liable for all obligations and liabilities under this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. Dated: , 2026 ATTEST: ROBERT MARREN By:_________________________ ___________________________ SUSAN MARREN By: __________________________ Page 246 of 444  ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2026 SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-16-SD) INTRODUCTION On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an amended application submitted by Robert and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the Subject Property. The Applicant has filed amended applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to create two new Lots of Record: 1. Zoning Variation to allow Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to provide a lot depth of 172.64 feet, whereas a minimum of 200 feet is required, a variation of 27.36 feet (13.68%) [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions]; 2. Subdivision Code Variations from Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards to allow: a. The side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); b. The creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line (Proposed Lot 2); and 3. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing improvements at 936 Sunset Road (Proposed Lot 1), which: a. Observe less the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet from Sunset Road; b. Observe less than the minimum required corner yard setback of 50 feet from Higginson Lane; and a. Exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors. This application is limited to the subdivision request and the existing improvements, no proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in the request. The PC is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the subdivision, including the requested relief described above. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) considered the Applicant’s initial request for zoning relief associated with a Final Subdivision Plat to create two new lots of record at its October 13 and December 8, 2025, meetings. Following the December ZBA meeting, the Applicant amended its request in response to concerns raised by some members of the ZBA. Subsequently, the ZBA considered the amended request on February 9, 2026, and by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval. Details regarding the ZBA’s consideration are provided later in this report. Given the amended request requires Page 1 Page 247 of 444 different zoning and subdivision code relief, the PC needs to consider the amended Final Plat of Subdivision and the requested relief associated with the amended request. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Village Code, informing them of the public hearing before the PC. The hearing was also properly noticed in Winnetka Talk on February 5, 2026. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments on the amended application. Written comments that were not included in the September 24, 2025, PC agenda packet but distributed to the PC in time for that meeting, when it considered the Applicant’s initial request, as well as the written comment received since the September 24 meeting are included in Attachment C2. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. SEPTEMBER 24, 2025, PLAN COMMISSION MEETING The PC considered the previous version of the Applicant’s proposed two-lot subdivision at its September 24, 2025, meeting. The staff report for the September 24 meeting, as well as the meeting minutes can be found in Attachment B2. At the September meeting, the PC heard from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, and received letters from five neighbors in opposition to the request. The written correspondence from the neighbors expressed concerns with development in the floodplain, drainage, and noncompliance with the zoning lot standards. Some members of the PC noted that the zoning relief requested was minimal and that increasing the lot area of Proposed Lot 2 to comply with the minimum required lot area would require Proposed Lot 1 to seek relief from the lot depth requirement. Some members also noted that the proposed subdivision would revert the Subject Property back to its original two-lot configuration prior to the consolidation in 1976. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-1, the Commission recommended approval of the request with a condition that the existing nonconforming playhouse be removed or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW On October 13, 2025, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s request for approval of zoning variations to allow the proposed two-lot subdivision. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, the ZBA heard from two members of the public who are neighbors of the Subject Property. The ZBA then discussed the request. A significant amount of the ZBA’s discussion was focused on the relief requested and how that would impact the ability to develop the lot in a reasonable manner that would be appropriate in the neighborhood. The six members in attendance were split on the application. The Applicant heard the concerns expressed by the members of the ZBA leaning towards recommending denial of the relief and requested that the item be continued to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to allow them time to explore amending the proposed plat of subdivision so that proposed Lot 2 would comply with the lot area and rectangular lot area requirements. At the Applicant’s request, the ZBA continued the item to the December 8, 2025, ZBA meeting to provide the Applicant with time to respond to the ZBA’s comments. On December 8, 2025, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on the Applicant’s request. In response to comments heard at the October ZBA meeting, the Applicant provided an exhibit with two options to illustrate the implications of relocating the lot line between the two proposed lots so that Proposed Lot 2 (south lot) complies with lot area and rectangular area requirements. Both of the options represented proposed lots that complied with the minimum required rectangular area requirement; however, the options included a variety of additional zoning variations and Subdivision Code variations. Figure 1 below Page 2 Page 248 of 444 illustrates the two options presented to the ZBA. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and civil engineer, and receiving no additional written or verbal public comment on the application, the ZBA discussed the request and asked questions of the Applicant. The questions focused on the buildability of Proposed Lot 1 in “Option 1” presented to the ZBA as an alternative to the originally proposed subdivision, which required two zoning variations for Proposed Lot 2 while Proposed Lot 1 did not require zoning variations. Following a recess to allow the Applicant time to discuss with their legal counsel and civil engineer, the Applicant requested the application be continued to the January 12, 2026, ZBA meeting to allow them time to evaluate whether to amend the application to move the proposed lot line between the two lots to the north. By a vote of 6-0, the ZBA granted the Applicant’s request and continued the item to the January 12 ZBA meeting. Prior to the January 12 ZBA meeting, the Applicant informed staff that they were amending the proposed subdivision. Because the amended subdivision requires different zoning relief, public notice of the amended relief was required. Therefore, the ZBA did not take any action on this item on January 12. Rather, new public notice was provided for the ZBA’s consideration of the amended request at the February 9, 2026, ZBA meeting. Figure 1 – Subdivision Options Exhibit (December 8, 2025 ZBA Meeting) On February 9, 2026, the ZBA held a public hearing on the Applicant’s amended application, which consists of Option 1 in Figure 1 above. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel, and receiving no additional written or verbal comments, the ZBA discussed the amended request. The ZBA was complimentary of the Applicant addressing the concerns expressed by some members of the ZBA. Ultimately, the ZBA found the amended request met the standards for granting a variation while noting the playhouse that is located within the required corner yard along Higginson Lane needs to be removed or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations. Page 3 Page 249 of 444 AMENDED PROPOESD PLAN In response to comments heard at both the October 13 and December 8 ZBA meetings, the Applicant has provided the attached written explanation describing the amended plat of subdivision (Attachment A2). The change to the proposed plan involves shifting the proposed lot line dividing the two lots 27.36 feet to the north. As a result, the lot area and rectangular buildable area requirements are met for the proposed southerly lot (Lot 2 facing Higginson Lane). However, Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) now requires zoning relief from the minimum lot depth requirement. The lot depth would be reduced from 200 feet (the minimum required lot depth) to 172.64 feet, a difference of 27.36 feet. The images below and on the following pages compare the originally proposed plat of subdivision considered at the September PC meeting with the current amended plat of subdivision. Figure 2 – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat (September Meeting) Page 4 Page 250 of 444  Side Lot Line is not Perpendicular to Street Line Rear Lot Line Abutting Side Lot Line Figure 3 – Excerpt of Amended Marren’s Resubdivision Plat Compliance with Zoning Standards – Lot Size and Dimensions. The amended Marren’s Resubdivision does not comply with one provision of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot area and dimensions (highlighted yellow in Table 2). In comparison, the plat of subdivision originally proposed did not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Previously, the requested relief was limited to Proposed Lot 2 (southerly lot fronting on Higginson Lane); Proposed Lot 1, (lot with existing residence) fully complied with the zoning regulations. Whereas, the amended plat of subdivision shifts the requested zoning relief to Proposed Lot 1, while Proposed Lot 2 would comply. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the extent to which the lots created with the original plat of subdivision complied with, or fell short of, the minimum zoning standards and Table 2 does the same but for the amended subdivision. Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, requires all lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, the proposed subdivision requires approval of one zoning variation for which both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council. Page 5 Page 251 of 444  Table 1 – Marren’s Resubdivision Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset 24,000 s.f. 23,171.89 s. f. 32,998.69 s.f. 56,171 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. VARIATION OF 828.11 SF COMPLIES COMPLIES corner lot) (3.45%) Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 105.33 feet 158.67 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 35.26 feet 165 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES 200 feet 220 feet 206.42 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 1 – R-2 Zoning Standards – Proposed Marren’s Resubdivision (October & December Meetings) Table 2 – Amended Marren’s Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Resubdivision 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset R-2 Zoning Standards 24,000 s.f. 28,485 s.f. 27,686 s.f. 56,171 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES corner lot) 100 feet Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 125.84 feet 158.67 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 62.62 feet 165 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES 172.64 feet VARIATION OF 220 feet 206.42 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 27.36 FT COMPLIES COMPLIES (13.68%) Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards – Amended Marren’s Resubdivision Compliance with Zoning Standards – Required Setbacks and Building Size. No additional zoning variations related to building size and setbacks are created with the amended subdivision. In fact, the required setbacks remain the same with the exception of the total side yard setback requirement for Proposed Lot 2, which is increased from 31.6 feet to 37.75 feet. The existing nonconformities that would remain in the Marren’s Resubdivision would also remain in amended subdivision. Tables 3 and 4 on the following page summarize the allowable building size and setback requirements for the proposed lots in the amended Page 6 Page 252 of 444 subdivision. Those items highlighted green are existing nonconformities that would also remain with the amended subdivision. Existing Lot Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 936 Sunset Requirements (Amended Subdivision) 936 Sunset South Lot Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Front yard provided by 49.91 feet 49.91 feet NA EXISTING existing structures NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Corner Yard 50 feet N/A 50 feet 49.52 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 49.52 feet Corner yard provided by (5.52 feet playhouse) (5.52 feet N/A existing structures EXISTING playhouse) NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Side yard provided by 14.35 feet N/A 14.35 feet existing structures Minimum Required Total Side N/A 37.75 feet N/A Yard Total Side Yard provided N/A N/A N/A by existing structures Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear yard provided by 53.87 feet N/A +160 feet existing structures Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements (Amended Marren’s Resubdivision) Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Requirements (Amended Subdivision) 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset Maximum Allowed Gross Floor 8,366.55 sq. ft. 8,182.78 sq. ft. 14,734.33 sq. ft. Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 5,751.63 sq. ft. N/A 5,751.63 sq. ft. structures ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 7,121.25 sq. ft. 6,921.5 sq. ft. 14,042.75 sq. ft. RLC provided by existing 4,162.76 sq. ft. N/A 4,162.76 sq. ft. structures Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot Coverage (ILC) 14,242.5 sq. ft. 13,843 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft. (50% of lot area) ILC provided by existing 10,667.11 sq. ft. N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft. structures Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements (Amended Marren’s Resubdivision) Page 7 Page 253 of 444 COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS According to Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, subdivisions shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. In addition to the zoning relief requested for the proposed lot depth, and the existing nonconforming improvements that will remain, two variations from Section 16.12.010 of the Subdivision Code are required to allow: (i) the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); and (ii) creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line (Proposed Lot 2) (Figure 3). Section 16.12.010(D.2) states that “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to curved street lines unless, in the opinion on the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience.” Also, Section 16.12.010(D.6) states that “No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.” Pre-existing zoning nonconformities (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – Three existing nonconformities will remain on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1). The existing residence on the Subject Property provides a nonconforming front yard setback from the north property line along Sunset Road of 49.91 feet and a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from the east property line along Higginson Lane, whereas setbacks of 50 feet are required. There is also an existing playhouse that provides a nonconforming corner yard setback of 5.52 feet. These existing nonconformities that will remain are highlighted (in blue) on Table 3 on the previous page. Additionally, the existing residence has a nonconforming front-facing garage door that exceeds the maximum permitted width of 9 feet for an individual door. Page 8 Page 254 of 444  Location of Existing Nonconforming Front Yard Setback that will remain Location of Existing Nonconforming Front-Facing Garage Door that will remain Existing Playhouse & Location of Existing Tennis Court to Nonconforming be Removed to Corner Yard Setbacks Accommodate that will remain Proposed Subdivision Figure 4 - Excerpt of 936 Sunset Road Plat of Survey FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and whether the variations listed on the following page comply with Section 16.12.010.F. “Variations and Exceptions”, which states: “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such Page 9 Page 255 of 444  requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” Requested Variations to allow: a. Proposed Lot 1 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for a lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District; b. A side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 that is not perpendicular to the street line; and c. A side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 that abuts the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1. Lastly, the Commission is to consider the existence of the nonconforming residence and accessory playhouse on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1) that will remain and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two options: 1) Continue further review of the application to a specific date in order to provide the Applicant and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission; or 2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Final Plat of Subdivision. If the Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a Commissioner may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of: The proposed Marren’s Resubdivision Final Plat subdividing the existing lot commonly known as 936 Sunset Road into two new Lots of Record, as the Final Plat of Subdivision, which subdivision requires: A. Variations to allow: a. Proposed Lot 1 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for a lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions]; b. A side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line [Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards]; and c. A side lot line abutting a rear lot line [Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards]; B. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” with respect to the existing zoning nonconformities for the existing improvements on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Proposed Lot 1): a. the existing residence observes a front yard setback of 49.91 feet from Sunset Road, versus the required front yard setback of 50 feet; b. the existing residence observes a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from Higginson Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet; Page 10 Page 256 of 444  c. an existing playhouse observes a corner yard setback of 5.52 feet from Higginson Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet; and d. the existing front-facing garage door exceeds the maximum permitted width of 9 feet for an individual door. C. A finding that the subdivision is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [If the Commission chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A2: Applicant’s Amended Request and Plat of Subdivision Attachment B2: September 24, 2025, PC Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt Attachment C2: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of September 24, 2025, PC Agenda Packet Page 11 Page 257 of 444  ATTACHMENT A2 CANNING & CANNING LLC 1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355 WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091 CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (847) 853-7040 chris@canninglegal.com January 21, 2026 VIA HAND DELIVERY Layla Danley Chair, Plan Commission Village of Winnetka c/o Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Amended Application for Subdivision at 936 Sunset Road. Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission: I am writing on behalf of Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren (“Bob and Susan”) regarding their amended application to subdivide the existing 165’ wide lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 28,485 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot containing 27,686 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). As set forth more fully below, Bob and Susan seek to subdivide the Subject Property to preserve the existing home in which they have lived for the last 19 years and to create a new conforming lot. Bob and Susan originally proposed a subdivision in keeping with the two separate lots that existed in 1976 before they were consolidated. The plan required two zoning variations on the proposed Lot 2, specifically for minimum lot area and for minimum rectangular area. Under the amended plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 becomes shorter, but the proposed Lot 2 becomes larger. As a result, if the subdivision is granted, Lot 1 will not meet the minimum lot depth of 200 feet as required in the R-2 Zoning District but will be approximately 172.64 feet. Lot 2 will comply with the minimum lot area and minimum rectangular area and will not require any variations. Therefore, in a separate application, Bob and Susan seek a zoning variation from that requirement. The proposed subdivision also needs a variation from the Subdivision Code. Section 16.12.010.D.2 states “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street line, or radial to curved street lines, unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience.” The amended plat of subdivision Page 258 of 444 January 21, 2026 Page 2 requires a variation to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and Susan respectfully request that the Plan Commission recommend the granting of the requested Subdivision Code variation. I. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District. The Subject Property is surrounded by single family homes. The Subject Property has approximately 165’ of frontage on Sunset Road and 215’ of frontage on Higginson Road. At its deepest dimension, the current lot has an approximate depth of 385’. It is improved with a single-family residence and a tennis court. Bob and Susan intend to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots. Lot 1 will have a lot area of 28,485 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a lot area of 27.686 square feet. Lot 2, which once was the site of a tennis court, will now be available for green space, a recreational area, or a new home. II. The original subdivision application. Bob and Susan’s original plan of subdivision has two goals. Bob and Susan sought to subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2, Bob and Susan sought to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the 1976 lot consolidation. In 1976, both the lot at 936 Sunset Road and the lot to the south were located within the R-2 Zoning District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater than one half acre, both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Even though the two lots were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the prior owner, Mr. Seabury, to apply for a lot consolidation presumably because the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that accessory uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record. Mr. Seabury told the Plan Commission that he wanted to put a tennis court on the south lot. The Plan Commission unanimously approved the consolidation. In 2025, Bob and Susan filed a plat of subdivision seeking to return the two lots to their pre-1976 configurations. On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission held a public hearing the plat of subdivision. After hearing from the applicant and neighbors, the Commission by a vote of 6-1 recommended approval of the request with a condition that the existing nonconforming playhouse be removed or relocated to comply with the zoning regulations. Under the original proposed plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 was conforming in all material respects, but Lot 2 did not meet the minimum rectangular buildable area requirement and the minimum lot area requirement. Therefore, Bob and Susan sought zoning variations in relation to those requirements. Page 259 of 444 January 21, 2026 Page 3 III. The amended subdivision application. After attending two Zoning Board meetings, receiving feedback from the Commission, the Board and neighbors, Bob and Susan have amended their subdivision application. Under the amended plat of subdivision, the lot line between the two proposed lots is moved 27.36 feet north. As a result, proposed Lot 1 does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of 200 feet. However, both proposed lots comply with the minimum required lot area and minimum rectangular area which they did not under the original proposed subdivision. The amended plat of subdivision does not create any additional zoning variations related to building size and setbacks. The proposed plat of subdivision will require one Subdivision Code variation. Section 16.12.010.D.2 states “All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street line, or radial to curved street lines, unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience.” The amended plat of subdivision requires a variation to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1. IV. Standards of Review. Pursuant to the Village of Winnetka Code and Zoning Ordinance, any application to subdivide a parcel must meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code related to Subdivisions and §17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the yard regulations for the R-2 Residential zoning district. Chapter 16.12.10 D requires subdivided lots to adhere to the following standards: 1. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter. 2. All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience. 3. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All lot area calculations shall exclude all easements for ingress and egress, all public or private streets, all public or private alleys, and the access corridor, or “flagpole,” of any flag lot. 4. Where a lot is already improved with buildings or structures, the plan shall show whether the dimensions and locations of such improvements comply with the use, intensity of use of lot (including impermeable surface requirements), setback, side yard, rear yard and other bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. If a prior legal nonconformity, or a previously granted variation, with respect to any such requirements exists, the Plan Commission shall determine whether such nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare. If such a determination is made, the Plan Commission may deny the plan for land subdivision. No plan for land subdivision which itself creates a departure from such requirements shall be approved by the Plan Commission until such time as a variation for Page 260 of 444 January 21, 2026 Page 4 such departure is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Council, as the case may be, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 5. At intersections with major streets, acute angle intersections and other places where, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, safety or convenience of traffic movement would be enhanced, corners shall be cut back by joining the intersecting street lines through circular arcs having adequate radii. 6. No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines. 7. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the access corridor, or “flagpole,” shall be excluded when measuring the lot depth of a flag lot. 8. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all new flag lots shall meet the minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, both as measured by excluding the access corridor, or “flagpole,” and as measured by including the access corridor or “flagpole.” 9. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet all yard and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any flag lot that has a front street line that is less than fifty (50) feet long and that is at least seventy-five (75) feet wide at its widest point, all yards and setbacks shall be measured based both on using the actual front street line as the front lot line, and on using as the front lot line the lot line from which the Director determines the front setback shall be measured for development purposes. Bob and Susan’s request for a subdivision complies with or seeks to comply through variances as permitted under the Code with these requirements in the following ways: 1. It is Bob and Susan’s belief that the two amended lots meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance except for lot depth on proposed Lot 1. By their application to the Zoning Board, Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement since they did not create the situation. 2. Bob and Susan require a variation from this standard and it will be addressed below. 3. This standard is met. 4. Bob and Susan believe that this standard is met. The existing home on the proposed Lot 1 was a conforming structure when built. Maintaining the home on Lot 1 and subdividing the Subject Property will not result in a material increase or adverse impact upon the public health, safety, or welfare. 5. This standard is inapplicable. 6. Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement. 7. Bob and Susan are seeking a zoning variation to the lot depth requirement. 8. This standard is met. 9. This standard is met. To the extent that the subdivision standards are not met, the Code permits the Plan Commission to recommend the granting of variations under the following circumstances: Variations and Exceptions. Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this Page 261 of 444 Page 262 of 444  CANNING & CANNING LLC 1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355 WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091 CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (847) 853-7040 chris@canninglegal.com January 12, 2026 VIA HAND DELIVERY Matthew Bradley, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Winnetka c/o Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Amended request for Variations related to Application for Subdivision at 936 Sunset Road. Dear Chairperson Bradley and Members of the Zoning Board: I am writing on behalf of Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren (“Bob and Susan”) regarding their amended application to subdivide the existing 165’ wide lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 28,485 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot containing 27,686 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). As set forth more fully below, Bob and Susan seek to subdivide the Subject Property to preserve the existing home in which they have lived for the last 19 years and to create a new conforming lot. Bob and Susan originally proposed a subdivision in keeping with the two separate lots that existed in 1976 before they were consolidated. The plan required two zoning variations on the proposed Lot 2, specifically for minimum lot area and for minimum rectangular area. Under the amended plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 becomes shorter but the proposed Lot 2 becomes larger. As a result, if the subdivision is granted, Lot 1 will not meet the minimum lot depth of 200 feet as required in the R-2 Zoning District but will be approximately 172.64 feet. Lot 2 will comply with the minimum lot area and minimum rectangular area and will not require any variations. Therefore, Bob and Susan seek a variation Page 263 of 444 January 12, 2026 Page 2 from that requirement. The proposed subdivision will need a variation from the Subdivision Code. Bob and Susan have applied to the Plan Commission to grant that variation. The Plan Commission will hear the matter on February 25, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and Susan respectfully request that the Zoning Board recommend the granting of the requested zoning variation. I. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District. The Subject Property is surrounded by single family homes. The Subject Property has approximately 165’ of frontage on Sunset Road and 215’ of frontage on Higginson Road. At its deepest dimension, the current lot has an approximate depth of 385’. It is improved with a single-family residence and a tennis court. Bob and Susan intend to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots. Lot 1 will have a lot area of 28,485 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a lot area of 27.686 square feet. Lot 2, which once was the site of a tennis court, will now be available for green space, a recreational area, or a new home. II. The original subdivision application. Bob and Susan’s original plan of subdivision has two goals. Bob and Susan sought to subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2, Bob and Susan sought to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the 1976 lot consolidation. In 1976, both the lot at 936 Sunset Road and the lot to the south were located within the R-2 Zoning District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater than one half acre, both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Even though the two lots were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the prior owner, Mr. Seabury, to apply for a lot consolidation presumably because the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that accessory uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record. Mr. Seabury told the Plan Commission that he wanted to put a tennis court on the south lot. The Plan Commission unanimously approved the consolidation. Now that Bob and Susan’s children have grown and the tennis court is no longer used, they seek to undo the 1976 consolidation and return the proposed Lot 2 to its prior status as a separate lot. Under the original proposed plat of subdivision, the proposed Lot 1 was conforming in all material respects but Lot 2 did not meet the minimum rectangular buildable area requirement and the minimum lot area requirement. Therefore, Bob and Susan sought variations in relation to those requirements. III. The Amended Subdivision application. After attending two Zoning Board meetings, receiving feedback from the Board and neighbors, Bob and Susan have amended their subdivision application. Under the amended plat Page 264 of 444 January 12, 2026 Page 3 of subdivision, the lot line between the two proposed lots is moved 27.36 feet north. As a result, proposed Lot 1 does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of 200 feet. However, both proposed lots comply with the minimum required lot area and minimum rectangular area which they did not under the original proposed subdivision. The amended plat of subdivision does not create any additional zoning variations related to building size and setbacks. The proposed plat of subdivision will require one Subdivision Code variation and the Plan Commission will consider that variation. IV. Standards of Review for variations. For the Zoning Board to grant the requested variation, the Zoning Board requires evidence on the following issues: 1. that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in that district; 2. that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; 3. that the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; 4. that an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired; 5. that the hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased; 6. that the taxable value of land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish; 7. that the congestion in the public street will not increase; and 8. that the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not be otherwise impaired. Bob and Susan’s request for variation meets each of these standards: Bob and Susan bought their home in 2006 at the height of the housing market. See Rodkin, D. (2019, September 25), Home prices peaked here in 2006. We’re still way behind that. Crain’s Chicago Business. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/home-prices- peaked-here-2006-were-still-way-behind. Since that time, Bob and Susan have made numerous improvements to their home. Despite these improvements and the post-Pandemic housing market, they have received unsolicited offers to purchase the current home and the current lot that do not permit Bob and Susan to make a reasonable return on the investment in their home and improvements. Certainly, the value of their home has not kept up with the rate of inflation or the stock market returns. Bob and Susan believe that the sale of Lot 2 combined with the eventual sale of their home on Lot 1 may yield a reasonable return. Bob and Susan’s situation was not created by them but due to the unusual conditions they face 49 years after the lots were consolidated. As discussed above, the two lots were conforming lots of record when the consolidation occurred. After the 1999 zoning amendment, the original proposed Lot 2 now became non-conforming in Lot Area. That amendment occurred well before Bob and Susan owned the Subject Property. The minimum rectangular area requirement was also created after the 1976 consolidation. By permitting the subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 will now be Page 265 of 444 Page 266 of 444 Page 267 of 444  ATTACHMENT B2 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 SUBJECT: 936 SUNSET ROAD – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL MARREN’S RESUBDIVISION (CASE NO. 25-16-SD) INTRODUCTION On September 24, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by Robert and Susan Marren (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the property located at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the Subject Property. The Applicant has filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to create two new Lots of Record: 1. Zoning Variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to: a. Provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for an interior lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District; and b. Provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District; 2. A variation from the Subdivision Code to allow the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road); 3. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing improvements at 936 Sunset Road (Proposed Lot 1), which: a. Observe less the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet from Sunset Road; b. Observe less than the minimum required corner yard setback of 50 feet from Higginson Lane; and a. Exceed the maximum permitted width for front-facing garage doors. This application is limited to the subdivision request and the existing improvements, no proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request. The Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the subdivision, including the requested relief described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates zoning relief, the application is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the variations. The ZBA is scheduled to consider the request on October 13, 2025. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Village Code. The hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on September 4, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. Page 1 Page 268 of 444 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset Road and Higginson Lane, is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and currently consists of one buildable lot. The Subject Property contains a two-story single-family residence, accessory playhouses, and a tennis court. The existing lot measures 56,171 square feet (1.29 acres); the lot and the existing improvements are illustrated below in Figure 1. Sunset Road Higginson Lane Figure 1 – Existing Lot The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses (Figure 2). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The Land Use Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses. Subject Property Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 2 Page 269 of 444 The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following vision statement and goal relevant to the proposed application: Pillar 1: Quality Liveable Neighborhoods Vision Statement: A community of connected neighborhoods with safe, pedestrian-oriented streets, tree-lined parkways, and a variety of well- maintained housing offerings to meet the needs of all of its residents and create a unique and powerful sense of place. Goal 1.1: The Village will encourage renovation of existing homes and construction of new homes to be contextually consistent with existing single-family housing in its neighborhood. Initiative 1.1.6: Strengthen and maintain the rich and diverse character of the Village’s neighborhoods and sense of identity by highlighting each neighborhood’s unique elements that contribute positively to the Village. The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (Figure 3). The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. Subject Property Figure 3 – Zoning Map PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVOIUS ZONING APPLICATIONS The existing residence on the Subject Property was constructed in 1955. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1963 to remodel the basement, add a dormer over the garage, and a second-floor bathroom; 2. 1976 to enlarge a porch and add a greenhouse; 3. 1992 to construct a dormer on the west elevation; and 4. 2009 to remodel the kitchen, breakfast room, and mudroom. Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in 2006. There are three previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property: Page 3 Page 270 of 444  1. In 1955, ZBA Case No. 871 was denied by the ZBA to allow construction of a new single-family residence within the minimum required corner yard setback from the east property line along Higginson Lane; 2. In July 1976, ZBA Case No. 1171 was approved by the Village Council to allow tennis court fencing 10 feet in height, subject to the property being consolidated into a single Lot of Record; 3. In November 1976, the Seabury Consolidation was approved by the Village Council consolidating two lots into the existing parcel. The Subject Property was originally platted as two lots, in a fashion similar to what is now being requested. The 1976 consolidation was submitted in order to allow construction of a tennis court, which would straddle the lot line between two lots. The tennis court prompting the consolidation of the then-two lots can be seen in current plats of survey and maps included throughout this report; and 4. On January 13, 2014, the ZBA considered Case No. 14-01-V2 to allow a two lot subdivision for which one of the proposed lots required variations from the minimum required lot area and the minimum rectangular buildable area. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Board discussed the request. Members found that the standards for granting a variation were not adequately addressed. At the request of the Applicant, the item was continued to the next ZBA meeting. Then in March 2014, prior to returning to the ZBA, or having the proposed subdivision considered by the Plan Commission, the Applicant withdrew the application. Minutes of the January 2014 ZBA meeting are included in this report as Attachment C. The proposed subdivision and the associated relief currently before the Commission is the same as what was proposed in 2014. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF SUBDIVISION As described in the written narrative provided by the Applicant and included in Attachment A, they reside at 936 Sunset Road and are seeking approval to subdivide the existing single lot into two lots. The existing tennis court on the Subject Property would be removed to accommodate the proposed lots. The proposed subdivision would restore the Subject Property to its original configuration that existed prior to the 1976 Seabury Consolidation. The proposed subdivision would create two new lots that would measure: • 32,998.69 square feet (0.76 acres) – Proposed Lot 1 – 936 Sunset Road (north lot) • 23,171.89 square feet (0.53 acres) – Proposed Lot 2 (south lot, fronting on Higginson Lane) A neighborhood view of the proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 4 on the following page. An excerpt of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision is provided in Figure 5. Page 4 Page 271 of 444  Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) Proposed Lot 2 Figure 4 – Proposed Subdivision (Neighborhood Map View) Figure 5 – Excerpt of Marren’s Resubdivision Plat Page 5 Page 272 of 444 DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-2 zoning district provides for larger, wider lots compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-2 zoning district’s purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “small estate” character. Residential Zoning Hierarchy A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods, ranging from larger “estate” character lots in portions of the Village, to smaller, more intensive developed areas. Surrounding Zoning Neighboring properties of the Subject Property are similarly zoned for larger lot sizes called for in the R-2 zoning district (minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet), as depicted in Figure 3 earlier in this report. Lots in the surrounding neighborhood were first developed under the Village’s R-2 Zoning classification, which at that time required a minimum lot area of 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre). The Village would later increase the minimum lot area in all residential zoning districts in 1999, increasing the minimum lot area for the R- 2 district from 21,780 square feet to 24,000 square feet for interior lots. Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense” (“relatively intense” Hierarchy character) estate” suburban character) suburban character) suburban character) character) 48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f. (50,400 s.f. (25,200 s.f. Area (16,800 s.f. corner lots) (13,300 s.f. corner lots) (8,900 s.f. corner lots) corner lots) corner lots) 100 ft. Minimum Lot 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. 150 ft. 115 ft. Width (85 ft. corner lots) (70 ft. corner lots) (70 ft. corner lots) (corner lots) Minimum Front 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Setback Minimum Rear 50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Setback Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including, but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c) minimum lot depth. The proposed Marren’s Resubdivision does not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to lot area and dimensions. The proposed southerly lot (Lot 2 fronting on Higginson Lane), measuring 23,171.89 square feet, does not comply with (a) the minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet and in a related standard, does not meet (b) the minimum rectangular area. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 on the following page. Page 6 Page 273 of 444 Rectangular Area Requirement. In order to effectively control the overall shape and size of irregularly shaped lots, in the R-2 District, zoning requirements include a minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet for an interior lot, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 16,335 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 90 feet. Figure 6 below, prepared by staff for the Applicant in 2007, depicts in yellow, the extent to which Proposed Lot 2 (south lot, fronting on Higginson Lane) is not able to contain the minimum rectangular area (measuring 90 feet by 181.5 feet) within its boundaries. The minimum rectangular area is thought to have originated due to the existence of areas in the village such as ravine areas where terrain or other natural features make regular, rectangular lots impossible. The minimum rectangular area standard has the intended effect of assuring that irregularly shaped lots, when contemplated, still provide an adequate concentration of lot area on which to build. Figure 6 – Minimum Rectangular Area – Proposed Lot 2 (South Lot) Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, requires all lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Hence, the proposed subdivision requires approval of variations (standards highlighted yellow in Table 2) for which both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals are charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council. Page 7 Page 274 of 444  Table 2 Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot R-2 Zoning Standards 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset 24,000 s.f. 23,171.89 s. f. 32,998.69 s.f. 56,171 s.f. Minimum Lot Area (25,200 s.f. VARIATION OF 828.11 SF COMPLIES COMPLIES corner lot) (3.45%) Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 165 feet 105.33 feet 158.67 feet 115 feet (average) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES (corner lot) Minimum Lot Width 165 feet 35.26 feet 165 feet 20 feet (at front street line) COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES 200 feet 220 feet 206.42 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Minimum 90 feet Rectangular Area x COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY COMPLIES within Lot 181.5 feet Boundaries Table 2 – R-2 Zoning Standards COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result, staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of a proposed subdivision, relief must be granted by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff evaluation of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 on the following pages, indicating the extent to which the proposed lots comply with (or fall short of) zoning standards. Those items highlighted green are existing nonconformities that would remain with the proposed subdivision. Page 8 Page 275 of 444  Existing Lot Table 3 – Zoning Setback Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 936 Sunset Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot Minimum Required Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Front yard provided by 49.91 feet 49.91 feet NA EXISTING existing structures NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Corner Yard 50 feet N/A 50 feet 49.52 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Corner yard provided by 49.52 feet (5.52 feet playhouse) N/A existing structures (5.52 feet playhouse) EXISTING NONCONFORMITY Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Side yard provided by 14.35 feet N/A 14.35 feet existing structures Minimum Required Total Side N/A 31.6 feet N/A Yard Total Side Yard provided N/A N/A N/A by existing structures Minimum Required Rear Yard 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear yard provided by 81.23 feet N/A +160 feet existing structures Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing Lot Requirements 936 Sunset South Lot 936 Sunset Maximum Allowed Gross Floor 9,404.7 sq. ft. 7,144.53 sq. ft. 14,734.33 sq. ft. Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 5,751.63 sq. ft. N/A 5,751.63 sq. ft. structures ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage (RLC) (25% of lot area) 8,249.67 sq. ft. 5,792.97 sq. ft. 14,042.75 sq. ft. RLC provided by existing 4,162.76 sq. ft. N/A 4,162.76 sq. ft. structures Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot Coverage 16,499.34 sq. ft. 11,585.94 sq. ft. 28,085.5 sq. ft. (ILC) (50% of lot area) ILC provided by existing 10,667.11 sq. ft. N/A 17,634.56 sq. ft. structures Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS All changes to the configuration of parcels of land are classified as Land Subdivisions under the Village Code and are subject to review by the Plan Commission and approval by the Village Council. As part of that review process, resubdivisions are subject to review for compliance with both the Village Subdivision Page 9 Page 276 of 444 Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance. According to Section 16.12.010, Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, subdivisions shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. In addition to the zoning relief requested for the proposed lot size and shape, and the existing nonconforming improvements that will remain, Section 16.12.010(D.6) states that “No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines.” The proposed subdivision does result in the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 abutting the side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 (Figure 7). Section 16.12.010(F) [Minimum land subdivision standards – Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Commission will want to consider this standard as it considers the variation requests from the following requirements: (i) minimum lot area; (ii) minimum rectangular area; and (iii) the creation of a lot with a side lot line abutting a rear lot line. Rear Lot Line of Proposed Lot 1 Abutting Side Lot Line of Proposed Lot 2 Figure 7 – Rear Lot Line Pre-existing zoning nonconformities (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – Three existing nonconformities will remain on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1). The existing residence on the Subject Property provides a nonconforming front yard setback from the north property line along Sunset Road of 49.91 feet and a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from the east property line along Higginson Lane, whereas setbacks of 50 feet are required. There is also an existing playhouse that provides a nonconforming corner yard setback of 5.52 feet. These existing nonconformities that will remain are highlighted (in blue) on Table 3 on the previous page. Additionally, the existing residence has a nonconforming front-facing garage door that exceeds the maximum permitted width of 9 feet for an individual door. Page 10 Page 277 of 444  Location of Existing Nonconforming Front Yard Setback that will remain Location of Existing Nonconforming Front-Facing Garage Door that will remain Location of Existing Nonconforming Corner Yard Setbacks that will remain Figure 8 – Excerpt of 936 Sunset Road Plat of Survey Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, in the instance of such nonconformities, the Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” In terms of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed subdivision conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single-family residential uses, which are the proposed uses of the subdivided lots. Page 11 Page 278 of 444 FLOODPLAIN AND STORMWATER The proposed subdivision consists of creating two new lots; one lot would contain the existing residence and the other would be a vacant lot to be developed. As noted earlier, no improvements are currently proposed on either of the lots. As represented in Figure 9 below, the Subject Property lies entirely within the 100-year floodplain. The cyan represents the 100-year flood area and the orange represents the 500- year flood area. As a result, development on both lots is subject to the Village’s Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Water Management Ordinance (WMO). Subject Property Figure 9 – GIS Floodplain Map For construction or site work in the floodplain, compensatory storage is required. Compensatory storage is an excavated area that provides an equivalent volume (1:1 ratio of cut/fill) of storage that balances the loss of natural floodplain storage when artificial fill or structures have been placed within the floodplain, ensuring that there is no net fill within the floodplain. From a site development standpoint, it’s also worth noting that the Village Flood Hazard Protection regulations restrict the depth and location of compensatory storage. In no case shall the depth of excavation for any compensatory storage in the front and side yards of the lot exceed 18 inches, as measured from the previously existing natural grade. Also, compensatory storage may be constructed with retaining walls, provided that the retaining walls are not constructed along the sides of the storage area adjacent to a property line. The Village Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has provided the following comments specific to the development of Proposed Lot 2 (south lot): 1. The elevation of the floodplain at this location is 625.3. To meet Village requirements, the top of the foundation for a new residence would need to be at an elevation of 627.3, which is approximately 4 feet above the elevation of Higginson Lane; 2. Any new residential development would require the installation of stormwater detention and possible compensatory storage for any proposed increases in grading of the lot. Because the proposed lot is currently undeveloped, the Village will require a larger detention volume than what is typical for an existing developed lot; 3. Installation of detention or above ground compensatory storage will be very difficult to achieve due to easements and setbacks. It is recommended that the Applicant provide an exhibit of the Page 12 Page 279 of 444  lot showing all easements, rights-of-way, and setbacks to show maximum building footprint and available space for detention/compensatory storage; 4. Home should be built on a crawl space foundation with openings in the foundation to allow for the pass through of stormwater. This would require all mechanical equipment to be placed at a minimum elevation of 627.3, above the base flood elevation (BFE). The maximum allowable crawl space height shall not exceed 5 feet; 5. Due to grade concerns from the roadway to the proposed structure, any proposed driveway may have a steep slope. To address this grading issue, any proposed garage floor elevation may be below the BFE. The property owner would need to design a garage with openings to allow for the passing of stormwater through the foundation walls. In response to the Village Engineering comments above, the Applicant has provided an engineering exhibit of a possible house on the proposed vacant lot to help address the engineering comments (Figure 10). The exhibit represents a proposed house with the following characteristics: a. No basement. House planned on a flowable crawl space with vented openings to allow floodwater to enter and drain out of the crawl space, which would be less than 5 feet in height; b. First floor elevation of 627.5 and an attached garage elevation of 626.5. The garage and a portion of the driveway would also be built on a flowable crawl space; c. Proposed compensatory storage would be provided as surface storage and be graded to drain to the Skokie Ditch (easement along southwest portion of lot). The stormwater detention would be provided in an underground vault with a pumped discharge to the Skokie Ditch; and d. A building footprint of approximately 2,500 square feet in addition to an attached garage with a footprint of 650 square feet. Detention Vault Surface Compensatory Existing Stormwater Conveyance Storage Easement (“Skokie Ditch”) (southwesterly 33 feet of lot) Figure 10 – Engineering Exhibit Provided by Applicant for Proposed Lot 2 (South Lot) Page 13 Page 280 of 444 The Village Engineering Department has reviewed the exhibit above and has the following general comments: • Compensatory storage within the easement: The Engineering Department reached out to MWRD to confirm that surface compensatory storage would be allowed within the stormwater conveyance easement. MWRD confirmed that compensatory storage in the easement is acceptable provided it will not interfere with storm water conveyance. Fill within the easement is not allowed. • Attached garage: The garage must meet all requirements for unfinished areas below the flood protection elevation. It may only be used for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. It must be designed with flood vent openings to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. Stormwater. For new development within the Village each site must manage its stormwater on-site and not cause additional stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties. New home construction on a previously undeveloped lot, such as Proposed Lot 2, requires stormwater detention. It is important to note that stormwater detention is in addition to any required floodplain compensatory storage. In order to provide detention, the site must be engineered to pick up the runoff from the site (house, impermeable surfaces). This is typically achieved with a combination of grading, storm sewers, storm inlet structures, depressional storage, or underground storage. The site is graded to create low points, where storm inlets are placed to collect the runoff from the site. This runoff is then conveyed, via a storm sewer system into the stormwater detention facility, be it depressional storage, underground pipe or vault storage, or a combination of these methods. As the stormwater is being collected and detained on-site, the release of this stormwater into the public storm system is restricted on its release rate before entering the public system. Any future improvements on either lot will be evaluated by Village Engineering staff for compliance with Village floodplain development regulations and stormwater regulations, upon submittal of permits necessary for site improvements. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The Village Code does not require an applicant to obtain preliminary plat approval as a precondition of final plat approval. In this case, the Applicant has chosen to directly proceed with the final plat review. In addition to evaluating prescriptive standards of the zoning and subdivision code, consideration of Final Subdivision Plat approval also needs to consider the details of the final plat such as utility easements, final plat formatting and related matters. The Village Water & Electric Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and is requesting an easement to cover the existing transformer and high voltage underground wires on the Subject Property. The 5-foot wide easement would be located in the southwesterly corner of Proposed Lot 2. Figure 11 on the following page is an excerpt of the plat of subdivision with the easement outlined in red. With respect to plat formatting, all of the necessary signature blocks are provided on the plat of subdivision. Page 14 Page 281 of 444  Utility Easement Requested by Village Water & Electric Figure 11 – Excerpt of Plat of Subdivision - Utility Easement FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and whether the variations listed below comply with Section 16.12.010.F. “Variations and Exceptions”, which states: “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” Requested Variations to allow: a. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for an interior lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District; b. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and c. The side lot line of Proposed Lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road. Lastly, the Commission is to consider the existence of the nonconforming residence and accessory playhouse on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Lot 1) that will remain and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” Page 15 Page 282 of 444 After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Commission may decide to take action on one or two options: 1) Continue further review of the application to a specific date in order to provide the Applicant and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Commission; or 2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Final Plat of Subdivision. If the Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a Commissioner may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of: The proposed Marren’s Resubdivision Final Plat subdividing the existing lot commonly known as 936 Sunset Road into two new Lots of Record, as the Final Plat of Subdivision, which subdivision requires: A. Variations to allow: a. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for an interior lot in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions]; b. Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District [Section 17.30.010 Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions]; and c. A side lot line abutting a rear lot line [Section 16.12.010 Minimum Land subdivision standards]; B. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” with respect to the existing zoning nonconformities for the existing improvements on the 936 Sunset Road parcel (Proposed Lot 1): a. the existing residence observes a front yard setback of 49.91 feet from Sunset Road, versus the required front yard setback of 50 feet; b. the existing residence observes a corner yard setback of 49.52 feet from Higginson Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet; c. an existing playhouse observes a corner yard setback of 5.52 feet from Higginson Lane, versus the required corner yard setback of 50 feet; and d. the existing front-facing garage door exceeds the maximum permitted width of 9 feet for an individual door. C. A finding that the subdivision is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” development. [If the Commission chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 16 Page 283 of 444 Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Subdivision (Marren’s Resubdivision) Attachment C: January 13, 2014, ZBA Meeting Minutes Excerpt Page 17 Page 284 of 444 ATTACHMENT A Page 285 of 444  CANNING & CANNING LLC 1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355 WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091 CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (847) 853-7040 chris@canninglegal.com July 17, 2025 VIA HAND DELIVERY Layla Danley Chair, Plan Commission Village of Winnetka c/o Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Application for Subdivision at 936 Sunset Road. Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission: I am writing on behalf of Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren (“Bob and Susan”) regarding their application to subdivide the existing lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 32,998 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot containing 23,171.89 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). As set forth more fully below, Bob and Susan seek to subdivide the Subject Property to preserve the existing home in which they have lived for the last 19 years and to create a new lot effectively restoring what was a conforming lot of record prior to a mandated lot consolidation in 1976. For the reasons set forth below, Bob and Susan respectfully request that the Plan Commission of Village of Winnetka recommend the granting of the requested subdivision. I. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Residential Zoning District. The Subject Property is surrounded by single family homes. The Subject Property has approximately 165’ of frontage on Sunset Road and 215’ of frontage on Higginson Road. At its deepest dimension, the Page 286 of 444 July 17, 2025 Page 2 current lot has an approximate depth of 385’. It is improved with a single-family residence and a tennis court. Bob and Susan intend to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots. Lot 1 will have a lot area of 32,998 square feet. The existing home and garage will occupy Lot 1. Lot 2 will have a lot area of 23,171.89 square feet. Lot 2, which once was the site of a tennis court, will now be available for green space, a recreational area, or a new home. II. Bob and Susan’s current lot. Bob and Susan’s plan of subdivision has two goals. First, Bob and Susan seek to subdivide the Subject Property to maintain the location of the existing home on Lot 1. On Lot 2, Bob and Susan simply seek to restore the lot to the status it held prior to the lot consolidation mandated by the Village of Winnetka in 1976. In 1976, both the lot at 936 Sunset Road and the lot to the south were located within the R-2 Zoning District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater than one half acre, both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Even though the two lots were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the prior owner, Mr. Seabury, to apply for a lot consolidation presumably because the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance was that accessory uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record. Mr. Seabury told the Plan Commission that he wanted to install a tennis court on the south lot. The tennis court is an accessory structure under the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan Commission unanimously approved the consolidation. Now that Bob and Susan’s children have grown and the tennis court is no longer used, they seek to undo the consolidation and return the proposed Lot 2 to its prior status as a separate lot of record. The proposed subdivision of t he south lot meets all the minimum Village of Winnetka zoning criteria except for minimum rectangular buildable area (minimum rectangular buildable area in an R-2 district is 16,335 square feet), and the Village of Winnetka's minimum lot area requirement of (24,000 square feet). Therefore, Bob and Susan are asking by a separate application that the Zoning Board grant them two variations to allow the proposed subdivided lot to be under the minimum lot area requirement and minimum rectangular buildable area. In addition to the zoning variations, as addressed below, the proposed south lot needs variations from the subdivision portion of the Zoning Ordinance as well. Both the northern and southern portions of the property are in the designated flood plain. Therefore, it is understood that any new improvements situated on the land must adhere to the strict storm water management engineering requirements established by the Village of Winnetka. Furthermore, storm water detention must be designed and implemented to accommodate such a structure which is standard practice when building in the Village of Winnetka. Civil Engineer Daniel Creaney, who has worked on projects in Winnetka for decades, will submit a separate report addressing the storm water management that would be needed if the lot were to be used for a future single-family home. Page 287 of 444 July 17, 2025 Page 3 III. Standards of Review. Pursuant to the Village of Winnetka Code and Zoning Ordinance, any application to subdivide a parcel must meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code related to Subdivisions and §17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance setting forth the yard regulations for the R-2 Residential zoning district. Chapter 16.12.10 D requires subdivided lots to adhere to the following standards: 1. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter. 2. All side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines, or radial to curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience. 3. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All lot area calculations shall exclude all easements for ingress and egress, all public or private streets, all public or private alleys, and the access corridor, or “flagpole,” of any flag lot. 4. Where a lot is already improved with buildings or structures, the plan shall show whether the dimensions and locations of such improvements comply with the use, intensity of use of lot (including impermeable surface requirements), setback, side yard, rear yard and other bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. If a prior legal nonconformity, or a previously granted variation, with respect to any such requirements exists, the Plan Commission shall determine whether such nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare. If such a determination is made, the Plan Commission may deny the plan for land subdivision. No plan for land subdivision which itself creates a departure from such requirements shall be approved by the Plan Commission until such time as a variation for such departure is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Village Council, as the case may be, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 5. At intersections with major streets, acute angle intersections and other places where, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, safety or convenience of traffic movement would be enhanced, corners shall be cut back by joining the intersecting street lines through circular arcs having adequate radii. 6. No plan for any land subdivision shall be approved if it results in the creation of one or more lots having side lot lines abutting rear lot lines. 7. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the access corridor, or “flagpole,” shall be excluded when measuring the lot depth of a flag lot. 8. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet the lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all new flag lots shall meet the minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, both as measured by excluding the access corridor, or “flagpole,” and as measured by including the access corridor or “flagpole.” Page 288 of 444 July 17, 2025 Page 4 9. All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall meet all yard and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any flag lot that has a front street line that is less than fifty (50) feet long and that is at least seventy-five (75) feet wide at its widest point, all yards and setbacks shall be measured based both on using the actual front street line as the front lot line, and on using as the front lot line the lot line from which the Director determines the front setback shall be measured for development purposes. Bob and Susan’s request for a subdivision complies with or seeks to comply through variances as permitted under the Code with these requirements in the following ways: 1. It is Bob and Susan’s intent that the lots meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. At the time the lots were consolidated in 1976, the lots did meet those standards. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1999, well after the consolidation and well before Bob and Susan bought the lots, and those standards have changed rendering the proposed Lot 2 to be non- conforming. By their application to the Zoning Board, Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement since they did not create the situation. 2. This standard is met. 3. While this standard was met at the time of the lot consolidation in 1976, the proposed lots created by the proposed subdivision do not meet the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot 1 is conforming, but Lot 2 is 97% of the required lot area. Bob and Susan considered making Lot 2 conform to the Lot Area requirement but if that were done, then they would need a variation from the Minimum Lot depth requirement of 200’ for Lot 1. Bob and Susan considered this alternative but because they share the conforming 200’ lot line with their neighbors to the west, Bob and Susan decided that seeking a small variation for lot area was preferred to seeking a variation that would impact their neighbors to the west. Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement. 4. Bob and Susan believe that this standard is met. The existing home on the proposed Lot 1 was a conforming structure when built. Maintaining the home on Lot 1 and subdividing the Subject Property will not result in a material increase or adverse impact upon the public health, safety, or welfare. 5. This standard is inapplicable. 6. Bob and Susan seek a variation from this requirement. When the lots were consolidated, that consolidation created a situation where a side lot abutted a rear lot line of the neighbor to the south. That condition has remained unchanged since 1976. The granting of a variation to this requirement will not change the status quo. 7. This standard is met. 8. This standard is met. 9. This standard is met. To the extent that the subdivision standards are not met, the Code permits the Plan Commission to recommend the granting of variations under the following circumstances: Variations and Exceptions. Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Page 289 of 444 July 17, 2025 Page 5 Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected. Here, variations from the strict application of the Code are appropriate due to the unusual conditions Bob and Susan face 49 years after a prior owner consolidated the lots. As discussed above, the two lots were conforming lots of record when a consolidation was mandated in 1976 so the prior owner could install a tennis court. By permitting the subdivision, the lots will return to their prior sizes; a size more in keeping with the prevailing standard of lot sizes in the zoning district. This request is similar to the subdivision sought and approved at 860 Lamson Drive. In that matter, the applicant acquired the home in 1959. In 1975, the applicant purchased the adjoining home at 901 Tower Road, demolished the home, and built a tennis court for the family. In 1975, both the lot at 860 Lamson Drive and the lot at 901 Tower Road were located within the “A” (One-Half Acre) Residence District. Since the square footage of each of the lots was greater than one half acre, both lots were conforming under the then existing Zoning Ordinance. Despite the fact that the two lots were conforming, the Village of Winnetka required the applicant to apply for a lot consolidation because “this request for approval of a preliminary and final plat of consolidation was prompted by the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that accessory uses to permitted uses must be on the same lot of record.” (Village of Winnetka Plan Commission Minutes, November 12, 1975, pg.2). The Plan Commission unanimously approved the consolidation. In 2018, the applicant applied for a subdivision and variations to restore the two lots to their prior condition. The Village Council approved the requested zoning variations and granted preliminary plat approval (M-2-2018) and granted final plat approval of the subdivision (R-45-2018). The requested variations also arise from the unusual shape of the lot. Here, the proposed lot 2 is 97% of the minimum lot area. As discussed above, Bob and Susan considered moving the proposed north lot line of Lot 2 to make the lot area conforming for Lot 2, but it would lead to the need for a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1 that would impact their neighbors. A lot smaller than the minimum required lot area is not unusual for this neighborhood, For example, 894 Sunset Road (21,867 sq. ft.), 906 Sunset Road (21,867 sq. ft.), 920 Sunset Road (22,041 sq. ft.), 955 Sunset Road (23,579 sq. ft. located in flood plain), 970 Sunset Road (21,344sq. ft. located in flood plain), 901 Higginson Road (21,506 sq. ft.), 905 Higginson Road (22,041 sq. ft.) and 915 Higginson Road (20,386 sq. ft.) are all smaller than the minimum lot area. As for the minimum rectangular area, the staff report explains that “the minimum rectangular area is thought to have originated due to the existence of areas of the village such as ravine areas where terrain or other natural feature make regular, rectangular lots impossible. The minimum rectangular area standard has the intended effect of assuring that irregularly shaped lots, when contemplated, still provide an adequate concentration of lot area on which to build.” (Brian Norkus memo dated December 10, 2013, pg.3). An unusually shaped lot is common in this neighborhood. Several unusually shaped lots in the neighborhood include 884 Higginson Road, 905 Higginson Road, 915 Higginson Road and 970 Sunset Road and to that extent, Lot 2 Page 290 of 444 Page 291 of 444 July 29, 2025 Layla Danley Chair, Plan Commission Village of Winnetka c/o Ann Klaassen Assistant Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 RE: CONSTRUCTION IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN WINNETKA Dear Chair Danley and Members of the Plan Commission: I have been retained by Robert J. Marren and Susan L. Marren regarding their application to subdivide the existing lot at 936 Sunset Road (the “Subject Property”) into two lots: one lot containing 32,998 sq. ft (“Lot 1”) and the other lot containing 23,171.89 sq. ft. (“Lot 2”). There are several areas within Winnetka where the elevation of the lot is below the base flood elevation as determined by FEMA. In Winnetka, development must comply with the Village’s storm water detention requirements and compensatory storage requirements for fill in the flood plain. Daniel Creaney Company has provided engineering services for new houses, house additions, and pools within the floodplain through Winnetka generally and in the area near the Subject Property specifically. All these projects that have needed storm water detention have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Village of Winnetka. The proposed Lot 2 is in the flood plain. I am confident that we can provide engineering services for the proposed house that will meet the Village’s storm water detention requirements and flood plain requirements. I plan to attend the Plan Commission and Zoning Board meetings regarding the proposed subdivision and answer any questions that the members may have. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you may have. Thank you. Daniel A. Creaney, P.E. P.E. 36-33917 J:\DCC\Forms, Letters, Notes\Construction in floodplain in Winnetka .docx Page 292 of 444 Page 293 of 444 Page 294 of 444 Page 295 of 444 Page 296 of 444 Page 297 of 444 Page 298 of 444 Page 299 of 444 Page 300 of 444  REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY Located At: 936 Sunset Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Prepared For: Robert & Susan Marren Prepared By: JCS Real Estate Services, Inc. 1694 1st Street Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Page 301 of 444 Page 302 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Front View Rear View Page ii Page 303 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Address: 936 Sunset Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Location: Southwest Winnetka Property Type/Use: Detached single-unit residence Expanded ranch style 69 years old Two garage spaces Gross Living Area: 5,151 square feet +/- Site Area: 56,171 square feet +/- Occupancy: Owner Highest and Best Use: Continued use – residential Date of Inspection: July 22, 2025 Effective Date of Appraisal: July 22, 2025 Date of Report: August 12, 2025 Extraordinary Assumptions: The gross living area calculations are based on the plat of survey, prior mortgage appraisal and Cook County Assessor records. Purpose: Estimate an opinion of fair market value Intended Use: Planning/Proposed Subdivision Intended User: Robert & Susan Marren and legal counsel Opinion of Market Value – Whole $2,600,000 Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days Opinion of Market Value – Front $2,300,000 Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days Opinion of Market Value – Rear Lot $1,200,000 Marketing/Exposure Times: 90-120 days Page 1 Page 304 of 444 Page 305 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS Extraordinary Assumptions & Hypothetical Conditions The gross living area is based off the plat of survey, prior mortgage appraisal, and Cook County Assessor records. Please note that the use of the extraordinary assumption may have affected the assignment results. General Assumptions Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated and there are no leases encumbering the property at this time. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. This includes the information provided by the property contact, MLS published information, opinions from real estate agents interviewed, and public record data relied upon. Illustrative material in this report is included only to help the reader visualize the property. It is assumed that there are no hidden or concealed conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the appraisal report. General Limiting Conditions Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. Environmental Considerations The value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that would cause a loss in value. Competency of the Appraiser The appraiser has the appropriate knowledge valuing the property type and experience working in the subject market to complete this assignment competently. See attached qualification addenda. Page 3 Page 306 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE APPRAISAL The client has requested opinions of the real property’s market value for planning/proposed subdivision use. The scope of work will include: 1. Agreement on the purpose, methodology, use and users of appraisal and acceptance of the assignment; 2. Preliminary analysis and research of county records on the property and MLS and county records on comparable sale data; 3. Inspecting the subject property. The interior and exterior of the property was inspected July 22, 2025. The effective date of value is July 22, 2025. Our observations during our inspection have been relied upon for this assignment. 4. Analyzing the subject neighborhood, competing neighborhoods and the area market. 5. Analyzing the highest and best use of the property. 6. Investigated and selected the most relevant and reliable improved sales for deriving an opinion of market value for the whole property, as is, by the Sale Comparison Approach to value and deriving an opinion of market value for the front portion of the site improved with the residence excluding the rear 24,000-square-foot buildable lot portion of the site. 7. Investigated and selected the most relevant and reliable vacant land sales (including tear downs) for use in the Sales Comparison Approach and deriving an opinion of market value for the rear buildable lot, 8. Preparing an appraisal report. Data Collection and Verification I contacted local real estate brokers involved in sales or listings to research and confirm factors that affect property values including pricing and location, marketing periods, transaction totals and trends. Comparable sale information has been gathered from the Midwest Real Estate Data Multiple Listing Service, residential brokerage firms, third party data services and the county assessor’s records. Purpose of the Appraisal The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate three opinions of market value of the property commonly known as 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, Illinois Intended Use, Client and Users of the Appraisal The intended use of the appraisal is for planning/proposed subdivision. The client is Robert and Susan Marren that engaged JCS Real Estate Services, Inc. to complete the assignment. Other intended users are legal counsel and parties involved in the subdivision. Property Rights Appraised The subject property has been appraised as a whole, as if owned in fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and special assessments. Fee Simple Estate is defined as "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject only to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation." Definition of Market Value The definition of market value as applied in this report is defined as: “The most widely accepted components of market value are incorporated in the following definition. The most probable price that the specified property interest should sell for in a competitive market after a reasonable exposure time, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under duress.” 1 1 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, The Appraisal Institute 2022 Page 4 Page 307 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY The real property being appraised is an 69-year-old, detached single-unit residential property that has the common address of 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093. The property is identified by the Cook County Assessor as PIN: 05-20-407-071-0000. Legal Description The legal description below is copied from a boundary survey provided by the client. Personal Property No items of personal property are included in the estimated value. Three Year Sales History A search of the county records (via MLS/REDI) reveals no sale of the property in the past three years. The property las sold in April 2006 for $2.50 million. The property has not been listed for sale during the past three years based on search of the MLS and other real estate web-based platforms. Aerial Image Page 5 Page 308 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 NEIGHBORHOOD DATA Introduction/Location The subject property is located in the Village of Winnetka, Illinois and is situated in the southwest portion of the village. Winnetka is a mature suburban community located approximately 20 miles northwest of the Chicago’s central business district. The Village of Winnetka’s boundaries are somewhat irregular and are generally Scott Avenue to the north, Lake Michigan to the east, Hill Road to the south and the Edens Expressway (I-94) to the west. Bordering communities include Glencoe to the north, Northbrook and Northfield to the west, and Wilmette to the south. The village is fully developed and has a balance of land uses and characteristics and amenities common for Chicago’s northern suburbs. Land use is mostly residential with commercial uses developed in the downtown district, along Green Bay Road, and at major intersections of commercial corridors. Access The market area has good linkage to the Chicago business districts with access to the Edens Expressway (I-94) one mile to the west of the subject and Sheridan Road running parallel to Lake Michigan. The Tri-State Tollway (I- 294) is located approximately 10 miles to the west of the subject providing access to O’Hare International Airport and suburban business districts. Willow Road links the area to the Edens Expressway and the Tri-State Tollway. Public train and bus services link Winnetka to the Chicago Loop business district. PACE bus service runs along Green Bay Road through Winnetka. Drivers use the area expressways or primary streets to reach Chicago’s central business district in 30 to 40 minutes. Page 6 Page 309 of 444 Page 310 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 SITE DATA The site is level and irregular shaped with 165 feet of frontage on the south side of Sunset Road, 235.29 feet of frontage along Higginson Lane, 282.30 feet of depth on the west side and 179.13 feet of depth on the east side. It totals 56,171 SF of area and is two combined lots of record due to a consolidation by a prior owner to meet an accessory use requirement. The site size is toward the high end of the range for the community and nearly twice that of adjacent properties. The plat of survey below illustrates the large vacant rear portion of the site. Sunset Road is a two-way, two lane public right of way and Higginson Lane is a two-way, two-lane public right that links Sunset Road with Birch Street. Street improvements including concrete curbs and sidewalks, street gutters and storm/sanitary drain lines, and overhead street lighting. Natural gas, city water and sewer and electricity utilities are all available and connected to the site. The topography is level and soil quality conducive for development. Storm water is managed through the city’s storm water system. Page 8 Page 311 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 ZONING The Village of Winnetka classifies the site as R-2, Single-Family Residential District. The district has a minimum size requirement of 24,000 square feet. There are several other bulk restrictions including a minimum front line of 20 feet and a minimum average width of 100 feet. The ordinance should be reviewed by an attorney familiar with real estate and the existing site analyzed by an architect or civil engineer to render opinions of the viability of achieving the stated goal of subdividing the site into two buildable lots. The site is over twice as large as the minimum site area required for the R2 zoning district. The irregular shape presents some challenges for the rear lot to meet all size requirements such as frontage; however, the shape allows for an ample sized building envelope to construct a moderately sized residence. Subdivision Rendering The below image was prepared as a visual representation of a potential subdivision of the site into front and rear lots that is the property’s highest and best use. Page 9 Page 312 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 IMPROVEMENTS The subject property is an expanded Ranch style residence with finished first and second levels, and finished partial basement level. The building has a frame structure with brick veneer and sided exterior, gable style wood shingle roof with dormers, copper gutters and downspouts, double-pane windows in wood frames and an attached two-car garage with an electric overhead door. The original portion of the residence was constructed in 1956 as a ranch style. It was expanded over the years with the upper floor built out with bedrooms, bathrooms and recreational space. The residence has 5151 square feet of gross living area on floors one and two, plus approximately 1,596 square feet of finished basement area. The first floor has approximately 3,131 square feet of gross living area with entry, living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, den, primary bedroom-bathroom suite, half bathroom and mudroom. The second floor is approximately 2,020 square feet with five bedrooms and three full bathrooms. There is a small storage area off the west end. The partial basement is approximately 2,281 square feet and 1,596 square feet are finished with a large recreation room, exercise room, full bathroom, laundry room, and storage room that also houses mechanical equipment. Interior finishes are good quality including drywall board walls and ceilings, ceiling mounted lights, painted wood trim, and solid wood doors. Flooring is a mix of hardwood, carpet and tile. The kitchen finishes are good quality due to renovation including painted wood cabinets, granite counters and good cost-quality appliances. The bathroom finishes are a mix of stone and ceramic tile floors and shower surround, wood cabinets and stone or composition counters. The building has five zones for forced air heat and cooling. The property has city water/sewer, natural gas and electric meters. Site improvements include asphalt paved circular drive with two curb cuts off Sunset Road, brick entry walk, covered front porch, slate patio, tennis court with covered sitting area and landscaping with mature trees and bushes and flower beds, etc. Overall, the residence is ranked average condition and exterior quality and good interior quality of construction for the neighborhood. Our inspection revealed no immediate major repairs needed. Page 10 Page 313 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Living Room Dining Room Page 11 Page 314 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Kitchen Family Room Page 12 Page 315 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Den Primary Bedroom Page 13 Page 316 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Primary Bathroom Second Floor Hall Bedroom Page 14 Page 317 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Private Bathroom Basement Recreation Room Page 15 Page 318 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Basement Mechanical Room Two-Car Garage Page 16 Page 319 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Tennis Court Rear Yard Page 17 Page 320 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Introduction Highest and best use is defined as: “the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legally permissibility, physically possible, financially feasible and maximally productive”. 2 Highest and Best Use as Vacant Based on the zoning, subject property physical characteristics, and trends in the neighborhood, the highest and best use of the site is to develop the site with two detached single-unit residences. The timing of development is immediate. Highest and Best Use as Improved The subject property is an average to good cost quality detached single-unit residential unit on a 1.29- acre site in the southwest section of Winnetka. The improvements are in average condition and have average modernization. The improvements contribute to value; however, the site is larger than typical and is underutilized with the rear section functioning to support the tennis court accessory use. The south yard area is excess land and should be subdivided from the parcel for development of a single- unit residence. No alternative use results in a higher residual value to the land. Therefore, continued use as improved with the rear buildable lot subdivided out for development is the highest and best use as improved. Timing is immediate. VALUATION PROCESS An opinion of the market value for a single-unit residential property as is (whole) and with only the front lot area (front) has been requested. Also, an opinion of the rear 24,000 square foot buildable lot (rear) has been requested. The opinions of value will be estimated by direct comparison with improved sales and vacant land sales from the neighborhood. The Cost Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach are not applicable due to the design and age of the improvements and as properties in this market are acquired for occupancy and not as investments. Therefore, only the Sales Comparison Approach will be developed. The Sales Comparison Approach is a set of procedures in which a value is derived by comparing the property being appraised to similar properties that have sold recently. Applying appropriate units of comparison and making adjustments to the sale prices of the comparable sales based on the elements of comparison. The sale comparison approach may be used to value improved properties, vacant land or land being considered as though vacant; it is the most common and preferred method of valuation when comparable sales data is available. 3 The reliability of the sales comparison approach is subject to the degree of similarity between the subject property and the comparable properties; however, as no properties are identical, adjustments for differences in financing terms, conditions of the sale, market conditions, location, physical and income characteristics are often necessary. The best indication of value for the subject property is recent sales or available listings from within the immediate market area. Realtor generated data on property listings and sales are available from the MRED, LLC Multiple Listing Service (MLS). Physical data on the sales presented in the MLS such as site area, residence size, and zoning were verified with the county or city records. Real estate agents involved in the sale or listing are interviewed for opinions on the condition, updating and buyer-seller motivation. A search of MRED, the primary MLS serving the area, reveals several closed sales within the immediate neighborhood. The best closed sales are presented and compared to the subject property. 2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, The Appraisal Institute 2022 3 Ibid Page 18 Page 321 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP WHOLE ANALYSIS Page 19 Page 322 of 444  File R21-1101 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 COMPARABLE SALE SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID - WHOLE Property Subject Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5 Address 936 Sunset Road 844 Hibbard Road 70 Woodley Road 1240 Hill Road Rd 58 Woodley Road 62 Woodley Road City Winnetka, IL Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Sale Price - $2,100,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,850,000 Concessions - None None None None None Date of Sale* 7/22/2025 7/30/2024 12/18/2024 7/18/2025 8/30/2024 Active Location SW Winnetka NW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka Site Area - SF 56,171 38,934 44,610 37,984 40,480 66,707 View Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Design Expanded Ranch Colonial Expanded Ranch Georgian Colonial Colonial Exterior Quality Frame/Brick Veneer Brick Frame, Brick Brick Brick Frame, Brick Interior Quality Good Good Good Good Good Good Age - years 69 100 70 87 85 92 Condition Average Average Average Average Average Average HVAC Zoned FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Parking 2 Garage Spaces 2 Garage Space 3 Garage Space 2 Garage Spaces 3 Garage Space 2 Car Garage Project Amenities Patio, Tennis Ct Patio, Pool, Pool House Patio, Porch, Pool Patio, Porch, Pool Patio Patio, Balconies Fireplaces 3 2 3 3 4 5 Basement Area (SF) 2,281 1,329 0 1,017 3,201 2,275 Finished Basement Area (SF) 1596 657 0 627 2,500 0 GLA – SF 5,151 4,885 5,000 4,337 8,754 5,000 Above Grade Rooms 12 11 13 12 12 13 Above Grade Bedrooms 6 5 5 5 7 6 Above Grade Baths 4.1 5.1 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.2 Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5 Sale Price Adjustment Rate $2,100,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,850,000 Market Conditions / Sale-List Ratio $0 $0 $0 $0 ($142,500) Location $105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Site Area $15.00 $258,555 $173,415 $272,805 $235,365 ($158,040) Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 View $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Quality $0 $0 ($59,000) $0 $0 Condition $25.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Car Storage $0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $0 Basement Area/Finish $10/$20 $28,300 $54,730 $32,020 ($27,280) $31,980 Gross Living Area $50.00 $13,300 $7,550 $40,700 ($180,150) $7,550 Kitchen Finish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Numb er of Baths ($10,000) ($25,000) $0 ($25,000) ($5,000) Bath Finishes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amenities ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) $0 $0 Overall Adjustment $370,155 $160,695 $261,525 $2,935 ($266,010) Adjusted Sale Price $2,470,155 $2,510,695 $2,621,525 $2,682,935 $2,583,990 % Net Adjustment 17.6% 6.8% 11.1% 0.1% -9.3% % Gross Adjustments 19.8% 12.2% 17.1% 17.5% 12.1% Low $2,470,155 High $2,682,935 Average $2,573,860 Median $2,583,990 Effective date for appraisal of subject property The sales are all located in the subject’s west Winnetka area and are similar vintage traditional style residences. Due to the large site area of the subject property, sales from the nearby Woodley Road subdivision have been considered. The sales have closing dates between July and December 2024 with one active listing. The sales are adjusted for significant differences and require gross adjustments of 12.1 to 19.8 percent for differences in list to sale price ratio and physical characteristics including location, site area, exterior quality, car storage, basement area and finish, gross living area, condition, number of bathrooms and amenities. Page 20 Page 323 of 444  File R21-1101 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 The adjustments are based on market data, contributory value based on replacement cost and our judgment and experience working in the market area. The sales have an adjusted price range of $2,470,155 to $2,682,935 with a median of $2,583,990 and an average of $2,573,860. Conclusion The subject property is reconciled to a value near the median and average of the adjusted range with equal weight on the Sales. Our opinion of market value as of the effective date is $2,575,000. Opinion of Market Value for the Whole Property as of July 22, 2025: $2,575,000 Page 21 Page 324 of 444 File R21-1101 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP FRONT PORTION ANALYSIS Page 22 Page 325 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 COMPARABLE SALE SUMMARY AND ADJUSTMENT GRID - FRONT Property Subject Sale 6 Sale 7 Sale 8 Sale 9 Sale 10 Address 936 Sunset Road 200 Linden Street 70 Woodley Road 1240 Hill Road Rd 58 Woodley Road 143 Birch Street City Winnetka, IL Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Winnetka Sale Price - $2,057,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,149,900 Concessions - None None None None None Date of Sale* 7/22/2025 9/30/2024 12/18/2024 7/18/2025 8/30/2024 12/6/2024 Location SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka SW Winnetka Site Area - SF 32,171 18,700 44,610 37,984 40,480 18,700 View Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Design Expanded Ranch Colonial Expanded Ranch Georgian Colonial English Exterior Quality Frame/Brick Veneer Brick Frame, Brick Brick Brick Frame Interior Quality Good Good Good Good Good Good Age - years 69 97 66 82 81 98 Condition Average Average Average Average Average Average HVAC Zoned FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Zoned FA/AC Parking 2 Garage Spaces 2 Garage Space 3 Garage Space 2 Garage Spaces 3 Garage Space 1 Car Garage Project Amenities Patio, Tennis Ct Deck Patio, Porch, Pool Patio, Porch, Pool Patio Deck, Porch Fireplaces 3 2 3 3 4 3 Basement Area (SF) 2,281 1,200 0 1,017 3,201 2,053 Finished Basement Area (SF) 1596 700 0 627 2,500 0 GLA – SF 5,151 4,592 5,000 4,337 8,754 4,318 Above Grade Rooms 12 12 13 12 12 10 Above Grade Bedrooms 6 5 5 5 7 4 Above Grade Baths 4.1 3.1 6.2 4.1 6.2 4.2 Sales Comparison Adjustment Grid Sale 6 Sale 7 Sale 8 Sale 9 Sale 10 Sale Price Adjustment Rate $2,057,000 $2,350,000 $2,360,000 $2,680,000 $2,149,900 Market Conditions / Sale-List Ratio $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Location $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Site Area $15.00 $202,065 ($186,585) ($87,195) ($124,635) $202,065 Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 View $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Quality ($41,140) $0 ($47,200) $0 $42,998 Condition $25.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Car Storage $0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $25,000 Basement Area/Finish $10/$20 $28,730 $54,730 $32,020 ($27,280) $34,200 Gross Living Area $50.00 $27,950 $7,550 $40,700 ($180,150) $41,650 Kitchen Finish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Numb er of Baths ($10,000) ($25,000) $0 $0 ($5,000) Bath Finishes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amenities ($25,000) ($25,000) ($25,000) $0 $0 Overall Adjustment $182,605 ($199,305) ($86,675) ($332,065) $340,913 Adjusted Sale Price $2,239,605 $2,150,695 $2,273,325 $2,347,935 $2,490,813 % Net Adjustment 8.9% -8.5% -3.7% -12.4% 15.9% % Gross Adjustments 15.1% 12.7% 8.8% 12.4% 16.3% Low $2,150,695 High $2,490,813 Average $2,300,475 Median $2,273,325 Effective date for appraisal of subject property For this analysis, the reduced site area of 32,171 square feet is used assuming the rear 24,000 square feet are subdivided out for development of a single-unit residence. The sales are all located in the subject’s SW Winnetka area and are similar vintage traditional style residences. The sales have closing dates between August 2024 to July 2025. The sales are adjusted for significant differences and require gross adjustments of 8.8 to 16.3 percent for differences in physical characteristics including site area, Page 23 Page 326 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 exterior quality, car storage, basement area and finish, gross living area, condition, number of bathrooms and amenities. The adjustments are based on market data, contributory value based on replacement cost and our judgment and experience working in the market area. The sales have an adjusted price range of $2,156,695 to $2,490,813 with a median of $2,273,325 and an average of $2,300,475. Conclusion The subject property is reconciled to a value near the median and average of the adjusted range with equal weight on the Sales. Our opinion of market value as of the effective date is $2,300,000. Opinion of Market Value for the Whole Property as of July 22, 2025: $2,300,000 Page 24 Page 327 of 444 File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 LOCATION MAP REAR LOT ANALYSIS Page 25 Page 328 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 The rear lot is assumed to be 24,000 square feet and to generally meet the size requirements of the R2 zoning district. The site is within Zone AE, a flood hazard district and will be subject to development guidelines to provide compensatory storm water storage. Development in a flood hazard district is occurring in Winnetka and has been done successfully on many siters with similar flood plain elevations as the subject property. The image below illustrates a potential building envelope for the south parcel. The scenario includes removal of the tennis court. Page 26 Page 329 of 444  File R25-003 936 Sunset Road, Winnetka, IL 60093 The table below summarizes land sales (many of which are tear downs) in Winnetka considered in the valuation scenario of the rear buildable lot. FLOOD PLAIN TEAR DOWN LAND SALES No Address City, St Flood Zone Sale Date Sale Price Size - SF $PSF 1 265 White Oak Lane Winnetka, IL A 10/21/2020 $1,200,000 29,297 $40.96 2 385 Rosewood Ave Winnetka, IL A 10/15/2018 $405,000 8,850 $45.76 3 1155 Ash Street Winnetka, IL A 3/22/2022 $525,000 10,800 $48.61 4 111 Thorntree Lane Winnetka, IL A/X 2/17/2022 $1,400,000 42,244 $33.14 5 956 Sunset Rd Winnetka, IL A 8/21/2014 $1,200,000 37,510 $31.99 6 884 Higginson Ln Winnetka, IL A 7/1/2013 $1,425,000 27,443 $51.93 7 945 Pine Tree Lane Winnetka, IL X 1/21/2025 $1,175,000 26,563 $44.23 8 875 Private Rd Winnetka, IL X 10/30/2023 $1,570,000 31,078 $50.52 9 338 Linden St Winnetka, IL X 5/15/2025 $1,130,000 12,628 $89.48 10 174 Linden St Winnetka, IL X 1/18/2024 $1,050,000 12,716 $82.57 Low $31.99 High $89.48 Average $51.92 Ten tear down and vacant land sales in Winnetka have a sale price per square foot of $31.99 to $89.48 per square foot plus in most cases, tear down costs. The sales have an average of $51.92 per square foot of land area. Given the subject’s AE flood zone rating and size, the market value of the site, if available for development as a buildable lot subject to the R2 zoning requirements with some needed variances, would be toward the lower end of the midpoint of the range given current market demand and significant price appreciation of residences in Winnetka the past five years. Therefore, based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the value of the south 24,000 square foot lot is $50.00 per square foot or $1.2 million. Page 27 Page 330 of 444  ADDENDUM Comparable Sales Page 331 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 1 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 844 Hibbard Road Contract-Sale Date 7/30/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,100,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 9 Improvement Data Gross Living Area (SF) 4,885 Site Data Year Built 1924 Acres (Gross) 0.89 Condition Average Square Feet (Gross) 38,934 Exterior Quality Brick Acres (Net) 0.89 Interior Quality Good Square Feet (Net) 38,934 Parking 2 Garage Space Shape Rectangle Bedrooms 5 Topography/Elevation Level Bathrooms 5.1 Utilities All available Fireplace(s) 2 Zoning R2 Amenities Patio, Pool, Pool House Prior Sales None in prior 3 Years Analysis Price/Sq Ft $429.89 Source MRED #12058179, Public Records, Listing Broker. Page 332 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 2 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 70 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 12/18/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,350,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 27 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.02 Year Built 1954 Square Feet (Gross) 44,610 Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.02 Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 44,610 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County Fireplace(s) 3 Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool Prior Sales Jul-23 $1,900,000 Analysis Price/Sq Ft $470.00 Source MRED #12204141, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 333 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 3 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 1240 Hill Road Rd Contract Sale Date 7/18/2025 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,360,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 10 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 4,337 Acres (Gross) 0.87 Year Built 1938 Square Feet (Gross) 37,984 Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.87 Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 37,984 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular Parking 2 Garage Spaces Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available Bathrooms 4.1 Zoning R2 Fireplace(s) 3 Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool Prior Sales None is 3 years Analysis Price/Sq Ft $544.15 Source MRED #12349801, Public Records Page 334 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 4 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 58 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 8/30/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,680,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length Marketing Period (days) 15 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 8,754 Acres (Gross) 0.93 Year Built 1939 Square Feet (Gross) 40,480 Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.93 Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 40,480 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 7 Utilities All available Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County Fireplace(s) 4 Amenities Patio Prior Sales Jun-22 $2,625,000 Analysis Price/Sq Ft $306.15 Source MRED #12094231, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 335 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 5 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 62 Woodley Road Sale Date Active City Winnetka Sale Price $2,850,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length Marketing Period (days) 5 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.53 Year Built 1933 Square Feet (Gross) 66,707 Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.53 Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 66,707 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular Parking 2 Car Garage Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 6 Utilities All available Bathrooms 4.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County Fireplace(s) 5 Amenities Patio, Balconies Prior Sales Mar-07 $3,100,000 Feb-24 $2,649,000 Analysis Price/Sq Ft $570.00 Source MRED #12429588, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 336 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 6 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 200 Linden Street Contract-Sale Date 9/30/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,057,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 15 Improvement Data Gross Living Area (SF) 4,592 Site Data Year Built 1923 Acres (Gross) 0.43 Condition Average Square Feet (Gross) 18,700 Exterior Quality Brick Acres (Net) 0.43 Interior Quality Good Square Feet (Net) 18,700 Parking 2 Garage Space Shape Rectangle Bedrooms 5 Topography/Elevation Level Bathrooms 3.1 Utilities All available Fireplace(s) 2 Zoning R3 Amenities Deck Prior Sales None in prior 3 Years Analysis Price/Sq Ft $447.95 Source MRED #12090653, Public Records, Listing Broker. Page 337 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 7 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 70 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 12/18/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,350,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 27 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 5,000 Acres (Gross) 1.02 Year Built 1954 Square Feet (Gross) 44,610 Condition Average Acres (Net) 1.02 Exterior Quality Frame, Brick Square Feet (Net) 44,610 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County Fireplace(s) 3 Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool Prior Sales Jul-23 $1,900,000 Analysis Price/Sq Ft $470.00 Source MRED #12204141, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 338 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 8 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 1240 Hill Road Rd Contract Sale Date 7/18/2025 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,360,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's-Length Marketing Period (days) 10 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 4,337 Acres (Gross) 0.87 Year Built 1938 Square Feet (Gross) 37,984 Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.87 Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 37,984 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular Parking 2 Garage Spaces Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 5 Utilities All available Bathrooms 4.1 Zoning R-2 Fireplace(s) 3 Amenities Patio, Porch, Pool Prior Sales None is 3 years Analysis Price/Sq Ft $544.15 Source MRED #12349801, Public Records Page 339 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 9 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 58 Woodley Road Contract Sale Date 8/30/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,680,000 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length Marketing Period (days) 15 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 8,754 Acres (Gross) 0.93 Year Built 1939 Square Feet (Gross) 40,480 Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.93 Exterior Quality Brick Square Feet (Net) 40,480 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangle Parking 3 Garage Space Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 7 Utilities All available Bathrooms 6.2 Zoning R-3, Cook County Fireplace(s) 4 Amenities Patio Prior Sales Jun-22 $2,625,000 Analysis Price/Sq Ft $306.15 Source MRED #12094231, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 340 of 444  ADDENDUM Improved Comparable Sale # 10 Location Data Transaction Data Street Address 143 Birch Street Sale Date 12/6/2024 City Winnetka Sale Price $2,149,900 State IL Property Rights Fee Simple County Cook Financing Cash to Seller Zip 60093 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length Marketing Period (days) 4 Improvement Data Site Data Gross Living Area (SF) 4,318 Acres (Gross) 0.43 Year Built 1922 Square Feet (Gross) 18,700 Condition Average Acres (Net) 0.43 Exterior Quality Frame Square Feet (Net) 18,700 Interior Quality Good Shape Rectangular Parking 1 Car Garage Topography/Elevation Level Bedrooms 4 Utilities All available Bathrooms 4.2 Zoning R3 Fireplace(s) 3 Amenities Deck, Porch Prior Sales None Analysis Price/Sq Ft $497.89 Source MRED #12164633, Listing Broker, Public Records Page 341 of 444  ADDENDUM State Certification/Qualifications Page 342 of 444  ADDENDUM Page 343 of 444  ADDENDUM Qualifications for John C. Satter, MAI, GAA 1997 - Present JCS Real Estate Services, Inc. President 1992 - 1996 Wayne L. Wnek, MAI & Associates, Inc. Real Estate Appraiser Scope of Experience: Mr. Satter is the President and owner of JCS Real Estate Services, Inc., a real estate appraisal firm that provides one-to-four-unit residential appraisal services. Responsibilities include business development, staff management, and appraisal production and review. Mr. Satter has over 32 years of experience in the valuation of a wide variety of real property types. Mr. Satter has broad experience in the valuation of residential, commercial, industrial and special use real estate throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Satter has experience as an expert witness and has been qualified as an expert in the Circuit Courts of Cook, Lake, DuPage, and Will Counties of Illinois, the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals, Lake and Cook County property tax appeal boards, the Chicago Planning and Zoning Commission, the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, and the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Mr. Satter is a designated Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) and General Accredited Appraiser (GAA) of the National Association of Realtors. He has been engaged in the appraisal of real estate since 1992 with experience rendering opinions of value for private clients, financial institutions, mortgage brokers, attorneys, governmental agencies, accountants, and public corporations. Professional Associations and Affiliations: Appraisal Institute MAI #12452 (Awarded March 2007) National Association of Realtors General Accredited Appraiser #4683 (Awarded January 2005) IL Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois Coalition of Appraisal Professionals (ICAP) Former Member of the Glencoe Zoning Board of Appeals and Liaison to the Plan Commission Formal Education: Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering, University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign Specialized appraisal and real estate education, Appraisal Institute and North Shore Barrington Board of Realtors Page 344 of 444 ATTACHMENT B Page 345 of 444  ATTACHMENT C Minutes adopted 02.10.2014 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT JANUARY 13, 2014 Zoning Board Members Present: Joni Johnson, Chairperson Chris Blum Andrew Cripe Mary Hickey Carl Lane Jim McCoy Scott Myers Zoning Board Members Absent: None Village Staff: Michael D’Onofrio, Director of Community Development *** 936 Sunset Rd., Case No. 14-01-V2, Robert and Susan Marren, Variations by Ordinance: (1) Lot Area and (2) Rectangular Buildable Area Mr. D’Onofrio read the public notice. The purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony and receive public comment regarding a request by Robert and Susan Marren concerning variations by Ordinance from Section 17.30.010 [Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to permit Lot 2 of the proposed Marren’s Subdivision to have a lot area of 23,171.88 s.f., whereas a minimum of 24,000 s.f. is required, a variation of 828.12 s.f. (3.45%) and not provide the minimum rectangular buildable area of 16,335 s.f. Chairperson Johnson stated that before she swore in the witnesses, she would like to read a statement which would be applicable to this case as well as the Birch Street case. She stated that for those of you who were at the last meeting on December 9, 2013 you would recall that one of the questions raised with regard to new construction was whether Cook County had passed the Watershed Management Ordinance (“WMO”). Chairperson Johnson stated that the engineer for the applicant stated that he did not think that the ordinance had been passed. In fact the ordinance was passed on October 3, 2013 and would take effect May 1, 2014. She stated that the storm water master plan which was presented to the Village Council made several recommendations relating to the WMO. Chairperson Johnson stated that in addition, the plan discusses the issue of “deep basements” and the implications of flooding and storm water management. Chairperson Johnson stated that consequently, she briefly discussed with Mr. D'Onofrio that it would helpful to have the Village staff or the Public Works Department present at the meeting at which the Birch Street case is next presented. She stated that Susan Chen of the Public Works Department planned to attend the Plan Commission meeting on January 22, 2014 to address storm water issues relating to new construction and in particular, relating to the subdivision request for Page 346 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 2 936 Sunset. Chairperson Johnson stated that meeting was supposed to take place in December, but that for various technical reasons, the meeting was continued until January 22, 2014. Chairperson Johnson stated that due to the inadequacy of the information presented at the meeting, it is imperative that we obtain the input of Village staff. She stated that if this were a typical adversarial process, they could rely on opposing parties to present expert testimony reporting their respective positions. Chairperson Johnson stated that although they are a quasi-judicial body, they do not typically have an adversarial presentation of evidence and that it is difficult if not impossible for members of the Board to fill in gaps to weigh one side of the evidence, etc. She noted that the WMO is approximately 280 pages and that she did not expect anyone on this Board to be able to digest or understand how it would apply to the Birch Street case or other new construction cases which may come before the Board. Chairperson Johnson stated that she brought the matter up at this meeting since there are flood water implications for this case. She stated that if the applicants wanted to proceed, after the presentation of testimony if the Board members feel that storm water and flooding issues are not adequately addressed, the case could be continued until the next meeting in order to obtain input from the Village staff or in the form of a written report. Chairperson Johnson commented that while the new WMO did not currently apply, it will in 3 months. She also stated that in the agenda report, the architects for the Marrens stated that they did not believe that any new construction will be able to have a basement and that there has not been a final determination in that regard. Chairperson Johnson also stated that the basement issue may not come up at this meeting, but that it is relevant. She then asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised by the Board at this time. Chairperson Johnson swore in those that would be speaking on this case. John Ballack of Timm T. Martin Architects introduced himself to the Board and stated that he would be representing the property owners. He informed the Board that the property owners are seeking to subdivide their property on the corner of Higginson and Sunset and that they are asking for two variations. Mr. Ballack stated that the first variation is to allow for a minimum lot area for the south portion to be under the 24,000 square foot minimum. He stated that since the rectangular building area of the southern lot would be compromised in doing so, they are requesting that the Board allow that to pass as well. Mr. Ballack then stated that with regard to the past history of the lot pre-1976, it was known as the Seabury’s Consolidation and that it used to be two lots which are identical to the proposal. He added that it is documented in the records and that the property was owned by John and Charlene Seabury. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that the reason behind that consolidation was to allow a tennis court to straddle both properties and stated that the subdivision would bring the property back to its historical intent. He noted that the corner lot would be fully compliant with zoning and that the south lot would be complaint except for two issues. Mr. Ballack then stated that it is their hope that the Board passed the request and asked if there were any questions. Ms. Hickey stated that in terms of the ordinance, it states that the rectangular building area is 16,335 square feet. She then asked what is the rectangular building area. Page 347 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Ballack stated that with regard to the old ordinance, it was designed for irregularly shaped lots such as this. He then stated that one side has to be 90 feet and that they would have to fit that shape within the boundaries of the irregularly shaped lot. Mr. Ballack stated that with regard to the agenda report, there is a diagram drawn (on page 3) which showed how the corners fall outside of the south property lines. He indicated that it is close, but that it did not fit. Ms. Hickey referred to the rectangular building area out of the proposed parcel. Mr. Ballack responded that they did not explore the exact number. He then stated that if they were to take 10 feet off of the bottom of the rectangular area, it would fit. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that there are two scenarios shown and that the long rectangle at the top showed the area up and down on the page. Mr. Blum informed the applicants that one thing that the Board considers is whether there are conforming alternatives. He then stated that after looking at the proposal, he asked the applicants if they explored conforming alternatives and that it appeared as though lot 1 is significantly over the minimum lot size. Mr. Blum also asked if they could divide it 10 feet to the north and have two conforming lots. Mr. Ballack responded that they did explore conforming alternatives and that if they were to move the boundary line north, they would not have a compliant lot depth because it is a corner lot. He noted that the established north corner lot is to be legally compliant. Chairperson Johnson asked the applicants if they were to do Mr. Blum’s suggestion, could they seek a variation for the corner lot. Mr. Ballack confirmed that they could, but that it would be best to maintain the corner lot as close as possible and to focus on the south lot. He also stated that unless there is input from the neighbors, they would welcome alternatives and that they are flexible. Mr. Cripe asked if they were to take the other approach and ask for a variation on the corner lot, would that address the rectangular issue. Mr. Ballack agreed that it would work on the north lot and that the minimum rectangular building area would fit if they were to adjust the north boundary. He indicated that it is very close as it is. Mr. Ballack reiterated that they would have two noncompliant lots, but that alternative would satisfy the minimum building area. Mr. Lane asked if it would hang over the lot line of the west property. Mr. Ballack noted that only one side has to be a 90 feet minimum. He indicated that while they could play around with the shape, there is no way of telling that here. Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. D'Onofrio for his input. Mr. D'Onofrio informed the Board that the issue was discussed with the applicants in terms of Page 348 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 4 moving the lot line further north. He stated that at the same time, they would need zoning relief for lot 1 on the corner lot. Mr. D'Onofrio noted that it is important for the Board to understand that this buildable area concept came about in large part because there are so many lots with different topography like ravines where there is a lot area of “X” and 30% of it is table land and 70% of it is on the slope. He stated that therefore, in order to take advantage of the entire lot area, from a practical point of view, it would have to take up the tableland and have the home “cheek to jowl.” Mr. D'Onofrio referred to an adequate space on a similar plane to build a new single family home. He stated that is the reason behind creating buildable area. Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that this situation is a little bit different in that they are not dealing with steep topography. Mr. D'Onofrio then stated that in connection with a large flag lot, a significant portion of the lot area is not usable or buildable. He stated that it is a proportionality issue of how to build a home on a lot which has steep topography that fits on the tableland. Chairperson Johnson referred the Board to Attachment A in the packet of materials and the Village Council and ordinance recitals which go through quite a bit of detail as to why the ordinance was enacted. She stated that you can see the rationale for the change in 1999. Chairperson Johnson noted that there didn’t appear to be many standards governing subdivisions, but that one identified in the Plan Commission agenda packet is that subdivisions should not result in the creation of side lot lines abutting rear lot lines. Mr. Blum stated that it is the ordinance. Mr. D'Onofrio stated that those criteria are for the Plan Commission to consider when looking at subdivision requests. Chairperson Johnson stated that while it is not relevant in that the Board is not ruling on the subdivision request per se, the Board has to have an understanding of the issues raised by subdivision requests. Mr. D'Onofrio referred the Board to Section 16.12.010 of the Village code which is the subdivision regulations. He read the following statement: “that subdivisions shall not result in the creation of one or more lots which have a side lot line which abut rear lot lines.” Mr. D'Onofrio stated that is what would be happening as a result of the subdivision request. He stated that with regard to lots, most of the time, there are side yards abutting side yards, but in that case, they could end up with a rear yard abutting a side yard and that there may not be a positive impact. Mr. Myers stated that he is struggling with regard to how to apply the first criteria to a subdivision which is that the property cannot yield a reasonable return. He stated that in this instance, there is a property that can yield a reasonable return and that if it was divided, there would be a totally different equation in terms of that term. Mr. D'Onofrio responded that it is a little bigger scale in this case and that with regard to reasonable return, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on a decision as to whether this should remain one lot or be re-subdivided into two lots. Chairperson Johnson stated that is why it was discussed with Mr. D’Onofrio earlier as to whether Page 349 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 5 to go forward with the consideration of this case until both the Plan Commission and the Village Council make a decision on the subdivision because if they do not go ahead with the subdivision, then the applicants would obviously not need a variance since the Board is to provide an advisory opinion. She then stated that while she felt uncomfortable with that, it was Mr. D'Onofrio's suggestion that they go ahead. Mr. Lane asked if it was possible to have access off of Sunset and have the front yard off of Sunset for the south lot. Mr. Ballack indicated that he did not believe so. He referred to the current home on the corner and stated that they would have to put an easement across the north lot. Mr. Ballack then stated that in looking at the survey, it showed the existing home and that on the west boundary, for the west property line, there is only 14½ feet which would be very tight to put in an easement to allow access to the south lot. He then referred the Board to page 7 of the materials. Mr. Lane asked the applicants if they considered trying to attach a piece of 916 Higginson to make the lot 24,000 square feet. Mr. Ballack responded that they did not. Chairperson Johnson asked if there was any other possibility to subdivide and sell part of the lot to 916 Higginson. Mr. Ballack stated that they are only working within their property. Chairperson Johnson asked the applicants if they have a rough drawing of what the home would look like with a driveway on Higginson and that she assumed that the garage would be in the front. Mr. Ballack stated that on the east side, a hypothetical home was designed to show realistically how a home could be placed within the lot. He stated that it would have a side loaded driveway and referred the Board to page 18 which showed the existing lot with the existing home and the south lot with a hypothetical home. Mr. Ballack also stated that the driveway would be off of Higginson and that a driveway apron would be created. He then informed the Board that a four car garage is shown and that it could be a three car garage. Mr. Ballack added that the front of the home would face northeast. Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. Ballack if his firm is working on the project across the street as their sign is there. She also asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Lane asked how big the hypothetical home is. He referred to the calculation of the approximate square footage of the first floor being 4,200 square feet. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they submitted a complete zoning study in the packet of materials. He also stated that the total square footage is 7,144 and that half of that would be the first floor. Page 350 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 6 Ms. Hickey asked if they could put restrictions on the square footage of the proposed home. Chairperson Johnson stated that it could be on the deed. Mr. Ballack stated that a home of that size would be sufficient for that lot. Chairperson Johnson asked what is the square footage of the home across the street on a similar lot. Mr. Ballack stated that he did not know. Mr. Cripe indicated that it looked like the front of the home would be staring into a backyard which he commented seemed awkward. Mr. D'Onofrio stated that in connection with that standard on subdivisions, that showed what that issue is. Mr. Cripe asked if there is no way around that issue and referred to the lot having a different shape. Mr. Ballack responded that there is and that the diagram represented a random example case showing a home to be placed there. He noted that his firm was not retained to design that house and that it was done as a courtesy. Chairperson Johnson stated that another issue is that even if the subdivision goes through, with regard to the variations, there is nothing barring a future owner from asking for more variations. She added that 915 Higginson is almost the exact same shaped lot. Bonnie Rickard identified herself as the property owner and informed the Board that the square footage is half that size. Mr. Myers stated that the applicants are making it clear that they are only showing the possibility. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Blum stated that it would be helpful for the applicants to run through the factors applied to variations and their position on the standards. Mr. Cripe also asked for the applicants to state the reason they cannot get reasonable return on the property as it exists. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. Mr. McCoy stated that the presented option is purely graphic and that the ordinance did not allow for the front door of a home to look into someone’s backyard. He stated that if they were to grant the proposal, they would be creating another problem for a future owner of that lot. Mr. McCoy questioned how they do that to avoid violating the ordinance. Page 351 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Ballack stated that he would like to stress that the home is a hypothetical home and that the zoning code would prevent that. Mr. McCoy asked Mr. Ballack to inform the Board where they would put the front door on a home on this lot as a reasonable person where it would not violate the ordinance. Mr. Myers stated that they would end up violating some zoning regulation such as side yard and front yard direction with regard to the way the home is facing. He indicated that you would either have an extremely small home which fit on the lot and met all of the criteria or there would have to be variations on one of those dimensions. Mr. Ballack stated that architecturally speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat and that they can make it work. He stated that the home would be oriented perpendicular to the north setback and that the main mass of the home would be to the north. Mr. Ballack added that the front door would face due east on Higginson. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised by the Board at this time. She then swore in the property owners. Bob Marren introduced himself and his wife to the Board and stated that they have a history in Winnetka with a lot of family in Winnetka. He also stated that they are committed to the community and that they have six children who were raised here. Mr. Marren stated that prior to this home, they lived at 787 Sunset. Mr. Marren informed the Board that when his wife’s parents looked for a home to downsize to, they had a hard time finding a smaller home. He stated that they were looking for a home with a master bedroom on the first floor and that there were not many homes which accommodated that regardless of the price tag and that they finally found a home on Birch which fit their needs. Mr. Marren then stated that the prior owner of their home passed the home to their daughter and that only one family lived in the home. Mr. Marren stated that when they looked at the set of old plans for the property; they discovered that it had been two lots. He confirmed that they have no plans to build a home on the property to sell and that the hypothetical rendering is not what he would recommend. Mr. Marren also stated that in no way was the architect charged with coming up with a home for that lot and that the rendering was only done to show that a home could be built. He added that they have no immediate plans to do anything and that the situation seemed like a nice idea, to revert the property to what it had previously been and to be in conformity with the neighborhood. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any questions. Mr. McCoy stated that the Board is charged with the eight standards to be answered and that they have to see if the request meets the standards. He then referred to the very first standard of reasonable return, as well as unique circumstances. Mr. McCoy described the big one in this case is whether the request would alter the character of the locality. He indicated that while the Page 352 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 8 property owners obviously care about that, they may want to sell the property in the future to someone who may not have the same history as the property owners. Mr. McCoy stated that he would be more swayed if they were able to get past the first three standards in deciding whether or not to approve the request. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions not relating to the standards. She noted that the home and the proposed south lot are in the flood plain and referred to the base flood elevation and that most of the lot is in the flood plain and asked if they had any flood detention on the property. Mrs. Marren responded that they have two sump pumps. She informed the Board that they do get standing water in the back. Mr. Marren informed the Board that there is a creek in the back of the property. Chairperson Johnson stated that they understood that there is a lot of water in that area. She then asked if the subdivision is approved and the variations are approved and a home is built at some point, will that exacerbate the flooding on the Marren’s existing property. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they did look into that and that they have had many conversations with Susan Chen who walked them through the process and the minimum lot grade formula to see whether they can build on a lot in the flood plain. He stated that you take the survey and average of spot elevations on the survey and that if those average lot grade numbers are less than the calculated number in the formula, then you cannot build a basement. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that the calculation for the lot with the subdivision is 622.67 feet at the base elevation. He also stated that the average grade calculation is 622.30 feet which meant that you cannot build a basement, not even on a pad. Mr. Ballack stated that left one option and that the south lot would have to do a floodable crawl space which is what was done at 931 Sunset. Chairperson Johnson stated that if a home is built according to code and that there is a crawl space underneath with no basement, did that mean that the property owners would be in no worse of a position than they are now. Mr. Ballack confirmed that is correct. Mrs. Marren stated that the alternative is that if there is not a subdivision, there could be a huge home on the property and that a basement could be allowed. It was stated that there would be a negative impact on the flood plain issues. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Myers commented that it is unfair to the property owners to ask them to reply to the standards now. He stated that the applicants got a sense that the Board is struggling and that the Board is charged to address the eight standards to say that there is some rationale. Mr. Myers referred to the proposed zoning change which met these standards and that for some of the standards, there is no question in that there would be no hazard from fire or impact on the light and air of adjacent Page 353 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 9 properties. He then stated that it is really the first three standards that the Board is struggling with in regard to how to take a reasonable request and put the standards and rationale together. Chairperson Johnson stated that the property owners signed the standards form. She then stated that if they are not prepared to address the standards, the case could be continued in order for them to do so. Mr. Ballack informed the Board that they would like to decline to address the standards, regroup and discuss the issues in more detail. He then asked for a continuance. Chairperson Johnson asked the Board if they should ask the neighbors to come back or let them speak. She then asked for a vote on letting the neighbors speak. Joseph Szokol of 976 Sunset stated that everyone who is here is busy and that they are ready to speak. Chairperson Johnson stated that she is not sure that the basis to continue the case is adequate. She then stated that the Board would let the neighbors speak and that they also have the opportunity to attend the Plan Commission meeting and if this case is continued, to come back before the Board. Mr. Szokol then stated that in connection with the two variations the applicants are asking for, there may be more in the future for a property which is 100% in the flood plain. He described the land as too stressed and that to allow potentially another home is outrageous. Mr. Szokol referred to the fact that while there are no plans to build a home, there are designs for a home which he described as disingenuous. He stated that when it rained, there is flooding which is the most compelling reason. Mr. Szokol also stated that if there is no compelling reason to make a zoning variation, then it should not be done and that to allow the request is outrageous. Bill Krucks, 920 Sunset, informed the Board that he has been a resident for 35 years and that he lives across the street from the property. He stated that he would like to have the opportunity to help the Board and give insight to the neighborhood. Mr. Krucks described the elephant in the room as storm water. He then distributed information to the Board for their review which contained photographs of a rainstorm in April and June 2013 with flooding in the streets. Mr. Krucks then referred to an emergency incident in the neighborhood and that the water was so severe, that emergency vehicles had a difficult time coming down Sunset. Mr. Krucks then stated that with regard to background, he stated that it is not personal, but that in the neighborhood, they are concerned every time there is new construction which asks for variations. He also referred to the connection between parts of the ordinance, especially as it concerned GFA and the mass of the home, which is the reason why the size and mass of homes are restricted. Mr. Krucks stated that in connection with storm water, the stress on infrastructure on the neighborhood is one of the factors which goes into the ordinance. He then stated that in connection with rain causing severe flooding and property damage, the Village engaged Mr. Christopher Burke to study drainage systems which dated to September 2009 and which was presented to the Village Council. Mr. Krucks informed the Board that Steve Saunders identified Birch, Sunset, DeWindt and White Oak as the areas which have the most severe area for flooding Page 354 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 10 in the Village due to the watershed of the Skokie ditch. He noted that the map of the Skokie ditch in the information dated back to 1864 and that it was referred to as the waterway in the combination of the lots in 1976. Mr. Krucks stated that the entire storm sewer systems fill with 2 inches of rain in the neighborhood and that the water then floated over land. Mr. Krucks stated that the Burke study identified a limiting factor in the area as the area where the Skokie ditch runs open and closed and that it is open all the way to Sunset where it attempted to enter a 24 inch storm sewer but cannot. He also stated that the Burke study found that the waterway was not maintained and that it is filled with debris, fencing material and silt and that as a result, it backed up beginning at Birch and continued through the neighborhood. Mr. Krucks also stated that the Burke study recommended improvements to alleviate the problem and that the construction of a brand new storm sewer system never occurred. Mr. McCoy stated that if they were to grant the variations limiting a future owner of the existing property from building a 14,000 square foot home on that property and also limiting a future home on the property to the south from having a basement, he asked Mr. Krucks if the question he is asking is for the Board to either approve the variations or if it is his testimony that he wanted to keep things the way they are. He indicated that a new owner could tear down the home and build a 14,000 square foot home which would add more problems. Mr. Krucks stated that the request should be rejected because there is nothing worse that can happen now. He stated that a new home would result in the loss of permeable surface. Mr. Krucks informed the Board that the Higginson storm water measured 8 inches and that in the Burke study; it was recommended that no more water be brought to the Skokie ditch since it would otherwise increase flooding downstream to the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Hickey asked with regard to the new storm water solution by the Village, would Ms. Chen be covering the impact of that at the Plan Commission meeting. Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that he did not know, but that they would be dealing with the issue specific to this area and plan. Mamie Case, 901 Higginson, stated that as far as the Willow Road project, it superseded the Burke plan. She stated that if it occurred, it would be their only relief from the current situation. Ms. Case described it as still hypothetical and so far out in the future like 2018. She then stated that as it currently stands, there are no additional pumping stations at the DeWindt corner or relief other than the Willow Road project for the neighborhood and that she did not know when it would be put in. Ms. Case stated that until then, she described the stress on the area as crazy. She also stated that the Skokie ditch is an open waterway and that as you drive off of Sunset, that is an open waterway of the Skokie ditch and part of another reclamation district and that any request would have to be approved through other municipal channels. Mr. D'Onofrio noted that it is controlled by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. Ms. Case then stated that is why you cannot face the home to the spur on Sunset because of the open ditch there. She stated that it is part of the storm sewer system and that the general runoff Page 355 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 11 goes there. Chairperson Johnson asked Mr. D’Onofrio who is responsible for maintaining the Skokie ditch. The audience responded that it is the Village’s responsibility. Ms. Case went on to state that the open land now served as overflow for storm water management for the Skokie ditch. She stated that the applicants are proposing variations to create a buildable lot where the lot elevation is so far below the base flood plain, even FEMA standards did not apply. Ms. Case indicated that you would have to build a raised home and put in storm water management for the general runoff. She questioned how you can put storm water management for an interior nonconforming lot when the runoff to the Skokie ditch is part of storm water management. Chairperson Johnson stated that Ms. Chen would address the issue with the Plan Commission. She noted that the hypothetical home did not show any storm water or compensatory storage which would be required even without a basement. Ms. Case then asked how the Board can rule on variations for something which is not ever going to be built. Chairperson Johnson responded that it might be built and that the Board is to render an advisory opinion. She also stated that based on what the Board has heard from everyone, they realize that there is a water problem and that they see evidence of it. Ms. Case then stated that with regard to the property being sold as a whole and whether a 14,000 square foot home could be built, that is sheer speculation. She stated that she would prefer that the lot stay together and that they would welcome a 14,000 square foot home versus two homes, one of which would be nonconforming on a corner interior lot. Ms. Case noted that the math calculations from the proposal page reveal that if they were to add square footage from the proposed nonconforming home and the current home, they would still have over 14,000 square feet of space built. She concluded by stating that in granting the variation, some of that space would straddle the flood plain and infringe on the surrounding properties and that she did not see the benefit of granting the variations. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. Mike Klein, 955 Sunset, asked if the existing lot would be brought into conformity with regard to detention. Mrs. Marren responded that it would stay the same. Chairperson Johnson stated that if the south lot is developed, it would have to be addressed. Mr. Klein then asked if there was no requirement for the existing home to be brought up to the code if the subdivision is approved. Chairperson Johnson stated that only new construction needed to address compensatory storage Page 356 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 12 and detention. Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that he is not aware of any subdivision where the existing lot and home is required to make storm water changes if there is already an improved lot. Chairperson Johnson indicated that they could make that a condition of approval. She asked if there were any other comments. Linda Krucks, 920 Sunset, informed the Board that she took most of the photographs which were distributed to the Board and that they live to the east of the property owners. She described them as lovely people. Mrs. Krucks stated that the issue is incomprehensible since they have lived there for so long. She then referred to the property owners and the Sholten’s property to the west as Lake Sunset when there is two inches of rain. Mrs. Krucks also stated that with regard to the property line that the property owners and the Sholtens share, all of the neighbors here are in agreement that they are opposed to the variations. She then stated that in connection with the property owners and the Sholtens, the Sholtens have a crawl space which is floodable and that they have no basement. Mrs. Krucks informed the Board that the Sholtens live at 956 Sunset which is directly to the west. Mrs. Sholten informed the Board that the home was built in 1947 without a basement. Chairperson Johnson stated that they would like to hear from the 915 Higginson property owner. She then stated that if the proposal went through, they would have a driveway and a narrow street. Bonnie Rickard stated that there would be no way to turn around and that the 3,300 or 3,400 square foot home was built in 1970. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. Mrs. Marren informed the Board that they get water in their backyard and that they have lived in the home for 7 years. She also stated that they had water once in the basement when there was no electricity. Mrs. Marren then informed the Board that builders have contacted them and that if they sold their property, a home could be built on the lot which would measure 14,000 square feet without any variation. Chairperson Johnson also stated that the applicants may be able to add onto the home without a variation. She asked if there were any other comments. Chairperson Johnson stated that the Board has to decide on the motion to continue the case to the next meeting. Mr. Myers moved to continue the case for 936 Sunset until the next meeting date. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mr. McCoy stated that when the case is continued, the applicants are to have addressed the standards. Mr. Myers stated that the only reason the case is being continued is so that the applicants can Page 357 of 444 Final Minutes January 13, 2014 Page 13 address the standards. Chairperson Johnson stated that the applicants had the opportunity to address the standards, they signed the application and chose not to address them in writing or orally and take no responsibility. She stated that she is in favor of a continuance only because they will have the benefit of the Plan Commission meeting and Village staff input on the issues. Chairperson Johnson then stated that when the applicants address the standards when they come back, they should look at the backyards on Sunset, the two homes to the west, the open backyards to the south with no structure there, the issue about changing the character of the neighborhood if the variations are granted and the home which would be built on the south lot. She also stated that they should address changing the character of the neighborhood by adding a home on the south lot. Mr. Cripe asked Mr. D’Onofrio if the applicants can withdraw their petition and come up with specific plans, without prejudice to the subsequent petition. Mr. D'Onofrio responded as long as no action is taken, the applicants can withdraw and resubmit their application. Mr. Cripe indicated that it may be worth considering. Chairperson Johnson stated that the applicants need to decide before the Plan Commission meeting unless there is a Plan Commission continuance. She then asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised by the Board at this time. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed, 7 to 0. AYES: Blum, Cripe, Hickey, Johnson, Lane, McCoy, Myers NAYS: None *** Respectfully submitted, Antionette Johnson Page 358 of 444  Minutes adopted 11.19.2025 1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Jonathan Alt 6 Christopher Blum 7 Matthew Bradley 8 Chris Enck 9 Liz Kunkle 10 Cyrus Subawalla 11 Kate Van Vlack 12 13 Members Absent: Mamie Case 14 15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic 16 17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 19 Development 20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 21 22 *** 23 24 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 25 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow: (a) proposed 26 Lot 2 to provide less than the minimum required lot area and less than the minimum required 27 rectangular buildable area; (b) a side lot line abutting a rear lot line; and (ii) a finding of "No Material 28 Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a) 29 observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the 30 minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum permitted 31 width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 32 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members for any preliminary comments with regard to the 33 application. No comments were made at this time. Ms. Klaassen described the proposed subdivision of 34 the existing lot into two buildable lots. She noted the request is limited to the subdivision itself and the 35 existing improvements with no proposed improvements included as part of the request. Ms. Klaassen 36 identified the property’s location, zoning classification, existing improvements and measurements. She 37 stated the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property and surrounding properties as 38 appropriate for single family residential uses and the applicant’s use of the site is consistent with the 39 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. 40 41 Ms. Klaassen described Lots 1 and 2 and the existing improvements on Lot 1. She noted the site was 42 originally platted as two lots similar to the current proposal and described the 1976 parcel created to 43 allow construction of the tennis court which would be removed as part of the proposal. Ms. Klaassen 44 noted Lot 1 complied with the zoning standards and summarized Lot 2’s noncompliance and the current 45 requirements in detail. She then identified the subdivision standards that proposed subdivisions are to 46 comply with which she described in detail. Ms. Klaassen referred to irregularly shaped lots in the 47 neighborhood and identified the three existing nonconformities. 48 Page 359 of 444  September 24, 2025 Page 2 1 Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the site is located entirely in the 100 year flood plain with 2 development on either lot being subject to the Village’s flood hazard protection ordinance as well as 3 MWRD requirements. She stated development on Lot 2 would require storm water detention and flood 4 plain compensatory storage. Ms. Klaassen referred the Commission to an image of a conceptual possible 5 home on the proposed vacant lot in response to the Village’s engineering comments on the proposed 6 subdivision which she described in detail along with compensatory storage and storm water detention. 7 Ms. Klaassen stated the Village’s Engineering Department confirmed with MWRD that surface 8 compensatory storage is acceptable provided it did not impact the storm water conveyance easement 9 and noted there are planned improvements to the Skokie Ditch resulting in increased capacity. She 10 reiterated the applicant is not proposing any new improvements on either lot at this time. 11 12 Ms. Klaassen stated the Water and Electric Department requested a 5-foot utility easement on proposed 13 Lot 2. She stated the ZBA would consider the request at its October 13, 2025, meeting and since the 14 agenda packet was posted, two letters were received from neighbors and provided to the Commission. 15 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission deliberation, 16 a draft motion is provided on page 56 for the Commission. She then asked if there were any questions. 17 18 Mr. Blum stated as his initial preliminary comment, he disclosed that he was on a different zoning board 19 for which an application for this property was presented 11 years ago and the application was withdrawn. 20 Mr. Bradley asked for clarification with regard to the lots appearing to be mirror properties and the forced 21 consolidation by the Village at the time. He asked if the application is a request to put the property back 22 to its original condition. Ms. Kunkle stated after the property was divided, it appeared that the Village 23 increased lot sizes with the neighborhood character now being called small estates. Mr. Alt asked if this is 24 the first stop for this application. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that is correct and outlined the application’s 25 presentation before the various boards. She stated there has been no record of a home being on the lot. 26 Ms. Klaassen also stated by shifting the dividing line between the two lots, it would require zoning relief 27 from the minimum lot depth requirement for Lot 1. Ms. Van Vlack expressed concern in the neighborhood 28 with regard to water displacement. She then referred to 901 and 905 Higginson which represented similar 29 situations of lots being subdivided into a nonconforming size in the R-2 district as well as the lot area 30 requirements at the time. Ms. Klaassen informed the Commission the lot area requirement was increased 31 in 1999 and that it is likely a nonconforming lot with respect to at least the lot area requirements. She 32 added she is not sure when those lots were subdivided. 33 34 Mr. Subawalla asked if the southwest corner represented the lowest point in the neighborhood for the 35 adjacent lots and would result in a water catch point from the surrounding lots. He also asked if the 36 surrounding homes have their own storm water detention systems and where did the storm water 37 detention from this lot get released. Ms. Klaassen responded the proposed lot if developed would drain 38 to the Skokie Ditch and stated she could not speak to the elevation of this lot compared to others. She 39 confirmed the newer home to the west had compensatory storage and noted storm water detention 40 compliance is required with water runoff not being allowed to run to other lots. Mr. Blum questioned the 41 forced consolidation which Ms. Klaassen explained to the Commission. No additional questions were 42 raised at this time. 43 44 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., 45 introduced himself, Bob and Susan Marren, the property owners, and the project engineer, Dan Creaney 46 who prepared the exhibit the Commission Members discussed at the request of the Village Engineer 47 following the comments they made. He confirmed the matter did not relate to a hypothetical home but 48 only the lot. Mr. Canning stated to address Mr. Blum’s question, he explained the reason for their first Page 360 of 444  September 24, 2025 Page 3 1 request to the ZBA. He then referred to 860 Lamson which added a tennis court on their property which 2 had to be consolidated which happened to this property in 1976 in connection with the 936 Sunset, and 3 further explained how 860 Lamson went through the same process to subdivide the lot back to its original 4 configuration. 5 6 Mr. Canning stated the current owners purchased the property in 2006 and are asking for the two lots to 7 be restored to the pre-1976 condition. He stated he discussed with Ms. Klaassen moving the lot line 8 between the lots, and the applicants are willing to amend their application. Mr. Canning stated if the 9 property line is moved north, they would be able to achieve the 3% needed to comply with lot area but it 10 would result in a minimum lot depth variation for Lot 1. Mr. Canning stated they decided to go with the 11 pre-1976 condition and are willing to revisit the alternative if required by the ZBA. He stated it would not 12 change the rectangular variation issue, any storm water calculations or detention areas. Mr. Canning also 13 referred to other smaller homes in the area identified in the application materials and with regard to the 14 minimum rectangular area, he referred to the previous discussion which he cited for the Commission. Mr. 15 Canning referred to the standard addressing the minimum rectangular area which has not been met 16 resulting in the variation being sought in which the spirit of requirement existed has been met. 17 18 Mr. Canning also addressed the comment relating to rear lot lines not abutting side lot lines which 19 currently existed as well as in other areas on Higginson. He then addressed the no material increased 20 adverse impact comment and the letter received from the neighbor which only related to the existing 21 home and not the proposed Lot 2. Mr. Canning addressed the north setback issue which did not represent 22 a material adverse impact as well as the garage door measuring 16 feet which has existed for a long time. 23 He reiterated there is no request pertaining to the proposed Lot 2. 24 25 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the concerns raised with regard to the flood plain and storm water 26 section of Ms. Klaassen’s memo, the neighbors’ concerns relating to storm water need to be addressed. 27 He stated Mr. Creaney was brought in to address the concerns relating to storm water management 28 regulations and which was a concern to only one neighbor who raised no further concerns. Mr. Canning 29 summarized their response in the materials to the Village Engineer’s request addressing the easements, 30 rights-of-way, setback, maximum building footprint and available space for detention. He emphasized 31 that Exhibit 10 represented a demonstrative example of what could be done and cited language requiring 32 compliance with Village Engineering requirements. Mr. Canning identified surrounding homes built which 33 complied with the engineering requirements and identified 956 Sunset as an example. He then asked if 34 there were any questions. 35 36 Chairperson Danley asked if the applicants have a buyer for the adjacent lot. Mr. Canning responded there 37 is not. Chairperson Danley asked if thought was given to the lot being kept together which would create 38 a situation for the existing home being torn down and replaced and questioned the cost of building 39 detention on the lot. Mr. Canning responded it has not been priced out and an appraisal was submitted 40 estimating the value of the 936 parcel as consolidated and the two separate lots with there being a higher 41 return on two separate lots. 42 43 Mr. Blum asked for an explanation in terms of raising the home in the flood plain which Mr. Creaney 44 explained to the Commission in detail. Mr. Subawalla stated his concern related to if and when the lot 45 went into potential construction, if it would result in it being a contributory catch area for the other lots. 46 Mr. Creaney confirmed they are aware of it. Mr. Canning also referred to the engineering comments with 47 regard to the flood plain elevation. Mr. Blum asked if the lot line is moved north, what is the process in 48 that regard. Ms. Klaassen indicated it is possible to come back to the Commission at the next meeting. Page 361 of 444  September 24, 2025 Page 4 1 The Commission Members discussed the possible outcomes if the lot line is moved and a new, larger home 2 is built and Ms. Klaassen referred to Table 4 on page 9 of the staff memo. Mr. Canning referred to homes 3 built on Meadow which are similar to this property with regard to the flood plain concerns raised. Mr. 4 Blum asked if the only factors the Commission are to consider is whether the nonconformity resulted in a 5 material increased adverse impact with regard to the front yard setback as well as the play structure. Mr. 6 Canning confirmed the play structure can be removed if necessary. 7 8 Ms. Van Vlack referred to flood water being a reality in the area and asked if any analysis was done of the 9 projected impact in terms of what has already been accomplished in connection with the Village’s flood 10 water project. Mr. Creaney described the project in detail that the Village has been working on it for years. 11 12 Chairperson Danley asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Commission or the 13 public. No additional questions were raised at this time. She then called the matter in for discussion. 14 15 Mr. Blum stated this area has been particularly affected by flooding and described the proposal as well 16 presented the concerns being addressed. He referred to the Commission’s narrow scope in terms of their 17 review and stated the requested variations are minimal and there will be no increased adverse impact 18 along with the property’s history. Mr. Blum indicated he would be inclined to recommend approval not 19 knowing what may happen in the future in terms of development. Mr. Enck agreed with the comments 20 made and stated the lot line moving discussion would create another issue with regard to the variation. 21 He also referred to the fact the property would be reverting back to its original condition as well as there 22 being no precedent for it in this particular location. Mr. Enck stated future engineering issues would be 23 addressed at that point. Mr. Subawalla stated as long as the Village Council is cognizant of what is coming 24 down the pike, legally, it would be fine. Mr. Alt stated he had concerns with regard to the precedent it 25 would set and if the Commission decided a subdivision is fine knowing going forward what is possible 26 which did not adhere to conformity requirements, he would vote against the request. Ms. Van Vlack 27 commented the opinions expressed are valid and with regard to the scope of the Commission’s review, 28 she described it as straightforward. She then stated the concerns expressed with regard to it not 29 conforming to be a 24,000 square foot lot, that would warrant revisiting maintaining those standards 30 although that did not address water concerns and there being an effort to mitigate those issues by the 31 Village. 32 33 Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request with consideration of revisions to comply 34 with lot standards. Mr. Bradley stated he appreciated the flood plain and storm water comments and with 35 regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the request would result in the creation of two legally complying R-2 36 lots with the exception of the 3% minimum lot area and rectangular shape. He stated it would be difficult 37 to say these two lots would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and referred to the problems in 38 connection with building in the flood plain which would be addressed by engineering and compliance 39 requirements. Mr. Bradley stated it would be difficult for this proposal to fail if it were not in the flood 40 plain and he would reserve the rest of his comments for the ZBA meeting. 41 42 Ms. Kunkle agreed with the comments made and stated she did not see a basis to refuse the request 43 based on what is possible down the road noting her concerns were addressed. She agreed the lot would 44 be brought back to its original configuration and she would be in favor of the request. Chairperson Danley 45 stated she also had concerns and referred to the standards changed in neighborhoods to keep homes in 46 a certain configuration. She also referred to the concerns raised with regard to setting precedent which is 47 a concern to her as well as the flooding issues. Chairperson Danley stated if this configuration was not the 48 original lot configuration, she would not consider agreeing to the request but is persuaded by the fact that Page 362 of 444  September 24, 2025 Page 5 1 it would be reverted back to its original configuration. She then asked for the applicant to maintain the 2 lot as is and referred to the significant amount of comments from the neighbors. Chairperson Danley 3 stated based on the Commission’s narrow scope, she is still concerned but that is not a reason to reject 4 the proposal. Trustee Orsic suggested asking the applicant to seek unsolicited offers for the property and 5 although she is not voting, she had concerns which were raised with good reason. Mr. Alt noted the 6 concern of neighborhood in opposition, particularly from five specific neighbors. 7 8 Mr. Bradley stated since the standards the Commission are asked to consider are different than those of 9 the ZBA, he suggested the Commission consider the applicant’s testimony with regard to the possible 10 concession and the play structure removal be included as an approval condition. Mr. Blum agreed with 11 Mr. Bradley’s suggestion and that they do not know what will happen the future. 12 13 Chairperson Danley took a straw poll in terms of making an approval recommendation with a condition 14 related to the play structure removal. Ms. Klaassen agreed the play structure located within the corner 15 yard setback being brought into compliance can be a condition of the motion. 16 17 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Blum moved to recommend approval of the proposed 18 resubdivision final plat as referenced in the materials with the condition that the existing play structure 19 be either removed or moved to a conforming location. Ms. Kunkle seconded. A vote was taken and the 20 motion passed, 7 to 1: 21 AYES: Blum, Bradley, Danley, Enck, Kunkle, Subawalla, Van Vlack 22 NAYS: Alt 23 NON-VOTING: Orsic 24 25 *** 26 27 Respectfully submitted, 28 29 Antionette Johnson 30 Recording Secretary Page 363 of 444  ATTACHMENT C2 Recommendation to deny 936 Sunset Road – Final Plat Approval: Marren’s Resubdivision (Case No. 25-16-SD) Dear Chairs and Members of the Winnetka Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, We are writing to respectfully urge you to recommend denial of Case No. 25-16-SD, the proposed subdivision of 936 Sunset Road - Final Plat Approval Marren's Resubdivision. After careful review of the application, supporting materials and relevant Village ordinances, it is clear that this submission would be detrimental to the neighborhood, inconsistent with Winnetka's subdivision standards and contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare. 1. Floodplain and drainage concerns The subject property lies in the floodplain with many areas below floodplain and in a low-lying drainage area. Construction of an additional residence which needs to be raised up 4+ feet from the base floodplain would increase impervious surface area, reducing storm water absorption and potentially redirecting flood water onto adjacent properties. Any fill placed to elevate a new building pad risks displacing water and the compensatory storage requirement will be in conflict with the open Skokie Ditch as it serves as the neighborhood's stormwater repository and uses this open land as its overflow. 2. Noncompliance with lot standards The subdivision requires significant variations: • Proposed Lot 2 fails to meet the minimum lot area and lacks the required rectangular buildable area -a side lot line would abut a rear lot line, creating an irregular and awkward lot configuration that is inconsistent with the Village's subdivision principles. Additionally, because the house must be raised, it will look out of character since it would be built in the backyards and side yards of the surrounding properties. These conditions directly undermine the intent of Winnetka's zoning and planning standards, which are designed to ensure orderly safe and equitable land use. 3. Material adverse impacts on the neighborhood The required finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact" cannot be reasonably made here. This subdivision would: • increase flood and drainage risks for the surrounding properties • reduce green space which the open Skokie Ditch uses as overflow • introduces a house out of scale with the neighborhood lots • depresses property values of the neighboring lots by creating a precedent for building into the flood plain on an undersized irregular lot • creates a situation where an existing driveway is compromised by the lack of turnaround space due to the narrow street and new driveway being built directly across from it. 4. Precedent and neighborhood integrity Approving this subdivision would set a troubling precedent, inviting future applications for non- conforming, substandard lots in flood prone areas. For these reasons, the proposed 936 Sunset Road-Final Plat Approval Marren's Resubdivision (Case No. 25-16-SD) cannot be found to meet the Village's requirements for subdivision approval. It would create Page 364 of 444 new risks and adverse impacts without any corresponding public benefit. Please also note the attached photos of the flooding we experience at this exact site. We respectfully request that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend denial of this application. Sincerely, Githesh Ramamurthy 916 Higginson Lane James and Cait Langer 956 Sunset Road Nick and Jen Morse 150 Meadow Lane Higgwinn LLC 900 Higginson Lane Greg Case 901 Higginson Lane Page 365 of 444 Page 366 of 444 Page 367 of 444 Page 368 of 444 Page 369 of 444 James & Caitlynde Langer 956 Sunset Road Winnetka, IL 60093 September 23, 2025 To: Chairs and Members of the Winnetka Plan Commission Chairs and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Re: Objection to Marren’s Resubdivision – Case No. 25-16-SD Dear Chairs and Members of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, We write as the immediate next-door neighbors at 956 Sunset Road to respectfully but strongly object to the proposed two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road (Marren’s Resubdivision, Case No. 25-16-SD). While we support the detailed concerns raised by other neighbors, we believe it is critical for the Commission and Board to recognize both the legal deficiencies of this application and the direct personal harms it would cause to our family and property. 1. Failure to Comply with Core Zoning and Subdivision Standards The proposed subdivision requires multiple fundamental variations that undermine Winnetka’s ordinances: • Lot Area & Rectangular Buildable Area (Section 17.30.010): Proposed Lot 2 is 828 square feet smaller than the required 24,000 sq. ft. minimum and fails the rectangular buildable area test of 16,335 sq. ft. with legs of at least 90 feet. • Irregular Lot Configuration (Section 16.12.010): The plan creates a side lot line abutting a rear lot line, which the Subdivision Code expressly prohibits. • Existing Nonconformities: Lot 1 would continue to violate required front and corner setbacks and garage door width standards. The Code requires a finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact”, yet approving a subdivision that perpetuates these nonconformities clearly increases adverse impact. These are not minor deviations. They are core standards designed to preserve the integrity of the R-2 District’s “small estate” character. Page 370 of 444 2. Entire Property Lies in the Floodplain The staff report confirms that 100% of 936 Sunset Road lies within the 100-year floodplain. Any new home on Lot 2 would need to be elevated approximately four feet above grade, displacing water and increasing drainage burdens on neighboring properties, including ours. Our yard already experiences significant flooding during rainstorms. Adding another house and additional impervious surfaces on this site would almost certainly increase that flooding, forcing us to bear major additional upkeep costs to protect and maintain our property. Village engineering staff warned that detention and compensatory storage would be extremely difficult to achieve on the proposed Lot 2 given easements and setbacks. As the immediate abutters, we face the greatest risk of increased runoff, water displacement, and damage to our property. Importantly, a subdivision should also require that the existing residence on Lot 1 be brought into compliance with today’s floodplain requirements. The current application does not address this, leaving an already nonconforming structure in place within a high-risk flood zone. The Plan Commission must take this into account before considering approval. 3. Neighborhood Character, Green Space, and Property Values The R-2 zoning district was created for larger “small estate” lots, with a minimum area of 24,000 sq. ft. Approving this subdivision would: • Introduce an oddly shaped, undersized lot inconsistent with surrounding parcels. • Significantly reduce the open green space that contributes to the character of our neighborhood and to the enjoyment of our own backyard. • Place a raised house awkwardly in our backyard, destroying privacy and diminishing the aesthetic and market value of our home. • Depress surrounding property values. The collective real estate losses to neighbors from reduced lot quality, diminished privacy, and floodplain complications would far exceed any private financial gain to the Applicant. In short, the result would be a net loss in value for the neighborhood as a whole. 4. History of Repeated Denial and Prior ZBA Findings This is not the first time the Marren’s have sought to subdivide this property. In 2014, the Zoning Board of Appeals raised nearly identical concerns and continued the case after concluding the Applicant had failed to meet the required standards. At that time, the Board and neighbors identified: • Severe Flooding: Residents testified about Sunset becoming impassable during the 2013 storms, while expert studies confirmed this area as one of Winnetka’s most flood prone. Page 371 of 444  • Subdivision Code Violation: The Board acknowledged that Section 16.12.010 expressly prohibits creating a lot where a side lot line abuts a rear lot line. • Lack of Hardship: ZBA members questioned whether the property could already yield a reasonable return as a single lot, undermining any claim of true hardship. The Marren’s declined to address the eight required standards for granting variations, despite signing the application that required them. • Neighborhood Character: Members worried about the awkward siting of a new house, which would look directly into neighboring backyards and alter the established character of Sunset Road. Nothing material has changed since 2014. Approving this subdivision now would not only ignore these previously identified concerns but also contradict the Village’s own consistent reasoning. 5. Lack of Public Benefit and Hardship Justification The Village’s subdivision standards require that variations only be granted when a true hardship exists and when public health, safety, and welfare are protected. In this case, the Applicant has not demonstrated the type of proven financial or practical hardship that would justify relief from multiple core zoning standards. Instead, the only clear benefit is a private financial gain to the Applicant. The public cost, however, is real: increased flood risk, loss of neighborhood character, diminished green space, and erosion of zoning integrity. Conclusion For the reasons above, the proposed subdivision fails to meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes, presents real floodplain and drainage dangers, undermines the character and open green space of the R-2 District, and repeats an already rejected scheme. It would also impose collective economic harm on neighboring property owners that far outweighs the Applicant’s private gain, producing a net loss for the community. We respectfully urge the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to recommend denial of this application to the Village Council. Thank you for your careful consideration. We have also attached views of our backyard after rains. Sincerely, James and Caitlynde Langer 956 Sunset Road Winnetka, IL 60093 Page 372 of 444 Page 373 of 444 Page 374 of 444 Page 375 of 444 Page 376 of 444 Page 377 of 444 From: To: Planning Subject: Marren,s proposed lot subdivision in our neighbrhood Caso NO. 25-16-SD 936 Sunset rd Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 6:35:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning My husbund and I own property at 972 Sunset rd across the open Skokie ditch. Every time its raining on subject proprerty is standing water, like a small lake.We can observe this from our second floor bedrooms. This is in addition to overflowing Skokie ditch. House on this lot will add to this problems , no matter how well it will be constructed. We strongly oppose this two lot subdivision., besides it will not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Sincerley Arie and Bozena Zweig Page 378 of 444 Page 379 of 444 Page 380 of 444  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 FEBRUARY 25, 2026 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Matthew Bradley 6 Mamie Case 7 Chris Enck 8 King Poor 9 Cyrus Subawalla 10 Kate Van Vlack 11 12 Members Absent: Jonathan Alt 13 Christopher Blum 14 15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic 16 17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 19 Development 20 21 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 22 23 *** 24 25 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application seeking approval of a Final Plat 26 of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires (i) variations to allow: 27 (a) proposed Lot 1 to provide less than the minimum required lot depth; (b) a side lot line abutting a 28 rear lot line; (c) a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line; and (ii) a finding of "No Material 29 Increased Adverse Impact" for existing improvements on proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) which (a) 30 observe less than the minimum required front yard setback from Sunset Road; (b) observe less than the 31 minimum required corner yard setback from Higginson Lane; and (c) exceeds the maximum permitted 32 width for a front-facing garage door. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 33 Ms. Klaassen summarized the discussion on the application from the September 2025 meeting as well as 34 the ZBA’s consideration of the request. She then identified the amendments made to the subdivision 35 request which included compliance with zoning requirements for the south lot (Lot 2) with the north lot 36 (Lot 1) requiring relief from the minimum lot depth requirement. Ms. Klaassen referred to a table showing 37 the prior and current zoning requirements. She also stated the proposed amended subdivision required 38 two variations from the subdivision code which she identified for the Commission and referred to 39 illustrations for the Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the amended subdivision would not create 40 zoning nonconformities on the proposed Lot 1 and one of the existing playhouses would have to be 41 removed to accommodate the new lot line dividing the two lots. She then identified the existing 42 nonconformities which would remain. 43 44 Ms. Klaassen identified the factors the Commission is to consider with regard to the proposed subdivision 45 and stated following the applicant’s presentation and Commission discussion (she noted there were no 46 members of the public in attendance), the Commission may decide to either continue the matter to a date 47 certain to allow time to address questions or comments or consider a motion to recommend approval or 48 denial of the request with draft language included in the packet. She noted no additional public comments Page 381 of 444  February 25, 2026 Page 2 1 were received regarding the amended plan and asked if there were any questions. 2 3 Mr. Poor referred to a prior 2014 zoning case and asked if the ZBA denied the request for variations for 4 something similar. Ms. Klaassen responded the similar application was withdrawn prior to presentation 5 to the Commission with the concerns related to the flood plain. She confirmed no home was built on Lot 6 2. Chairperson Danley noted Mr. Blum was on the ZBA at that time and described the flood issues and 7 home appearance at that time. She asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were 8 raised at this time. 9 10 Chairperson Danley asked for the applicant’s presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter. 11 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself and Dan Creaney, the civil engineer, 12 and Susan Marren, the property owner, to the Commission. He first disclosed his previous working 13 relationship with Mr. Poor and summarized the September 2025 request and the 2014 ZBA presentation 14 in detail. Mr. Canning also described their attempts to rectify the concerns which resulted in the current 15 presentation of Option 1 and how the lot lines would be configured. Mr. Canning addressed how the 16 subdivision would meet various standards relating to the side lot line and their request for a finding of no 17 material increased adverse impact. He then asked if there were any questions. 18 19 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Mr. Poor referred to the variation for the side 20 lot line which would abut the rear lot line. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and would result in the 21 same condition as it existed in 1976. Mr. Poor also referred to the Lot 2 depth requirement which would 22 become part of Lot 1. Mr. Canning referred to illustrations and explained the issues which related to the 23 configuration. He also explained their response to the concerns the Commission raised and the various 24 items the Commission is to consider. No additional questions were raised at this time. 25 26 Chairperson Danley noted there are no members of the public present to comment and called the matter 27 in for discussion. Mr. Bradley referred to an illustration and summarized the ZBA’s review of the request. 28 Chairperson Danley described the proposal as a better solution and stated she had no problem with the 29 request as presented. Ms. Van Vlack described the proposal as a great solution and she would be in favor 30 of the request. Mr. Enck and Mr. Subawalla agreed with the comments made and stated they would 31 recommend approval. Mr. Poor stated his concern is that there are certain things that cannot be avoided 32 and the driver of the request is building a home in the flood plain and the concerns with regard to flooding. 33 He also referred to the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Poor stated then with regard to restoring the home to 34 the 1976 condition, there are a lot of different factors which were not a concern at that time. He referred 35 to several substantial rain events over the years and the work done by the Village Council in terms of 36 mitigation. Mr. Poor stated if the request was not located in a flood plain, there would be no issue and 37 that any compensatory storage required may not be adequate to alleviate concerns. Chairperson Danley 38 informed Mr. Poor that the Commission discussed these issues significantly in September. Mr. Poor and 39 the Commission Members explained their positions in significant detail. 40 41 Chairperson Danley asked for a motion as indicated on page 272 which included a condition to remove 42 the playhouse. Mr. Enck moved to recommend approval of the proposed Marren’s Resubdivision Final 43 Plat known as 936 Sunset Road into two new lots of record in the final plat of subdivision which subdivision 44 required the variations listed on page 272 with the condition of the removal of the playhouse. Ms. Van 45 Vlack seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4 to 1: 46 AYES: Danley, Enck, Subawalla, Van Vlack 47 NAYS: Poor 48 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic Page 382 of 444  February 25, 2026 Page 3 1 *** 2 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 Antionette Johnson 6 Recording Secretary Page 383 of 444  ATTACHMENT 3 Minutes adopted 11.10.2025 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 OCTOBER 13, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender 12 13 Village Staff: Steve Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 17 *** 18 19 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 20 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to 21 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the 22 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 23 Ms. Klaassen noted the request being presented is limited to the proposed subdivision and existing site 24 improvements with no proposed improvements being presented by the applicant. She then identified the 25 property’s location, existing improvements, zoning classification and size. Ms. Klaassen described the two 26 buildable lots created by the proposed subdivision and how the original lot was platted as well as provided 27 an explanation of the areas of compliance and noncompliance with the lot area and rectangular area 28 requirements in detail. She also summarized the MWRD and Village requirements with regard to flood 29 plain regulations, storm water detention, compensatory storage and requirements in detail. Ms. Klaassen 30 then described the future improvements to the Skokie Ditch and reiterated any future development 31 would be required to comply with flood plain and storm water regulations upon submittal of permits in 32 connection with any site improvements. 33 34 Ms. Klaassen informed the Board the Plan Commission considered the final plat, zoning variations and 35 subdivision code variation to allow a rear lot line to abut a side lot as well as a finding of no material 36 increased adverse impact for the existing nonconforming front yard and corner yard setbacks as well as 37 the front-facing attached garage door width. She advised the Board of the Plan Commission’s 38 consideration of the request and vote to recommend approval with the condition that the existing 39 nonconforming playhouse be relocated to comply with zoning regulations or be removed. Ms. Klaassen 40 stated the Board is to consider whether the two variations are in harmony with the general purpose and 41 intent of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the eight standards for granting the variations have been 42 met. She noted all public correspondence was provided to the Board and asked if there were any 43 questions. 44 45 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then 46 swore in those speaking to this matter. 47 Page 384 of 444  October 13, 2025 Page 2 1 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself, the property owners, Bob and 2 Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer and author of the Exhibit presented to the Board 3 and who is available to answer questions. He provided a summary of the Plan Commission’s discussion 4 including the history of the property and subdivision noting the existing conditions were not created by 5 the applicants and they are attempting to undo the lot consolidation. Mr. Canning stated the request is 6 similar to 860 Lamson that was approved by the Village Council. 7 8 Mr. Canning stated the Plan Commission made a positive recommendation with conditions to be 9 addressed including variations for minimum lot area and referred to the discussion regarding moving the 10 lot lines which would result in two conforming lots but would still require variations. Ms. Klaassen 11 provided additional clarification for the Board following questions from the Board regarding a lot depth 12 variation that would be required for proposed Lot 1 if the lot line between the two lots were to be shifted 13 north. Mr. Canning agreed Lot 2 could be made conforming but they decided it was better to return the 14 lot to its original condition. He referred to eight other lots of similar sizes in the area. Mr. Canning then 15 referred to the Exhibit, which addressed the spirit of meeting the minimum rectangular area requirement 16 and reiterated no new home is being proposed with the Exhibit being done in response to the Village 17 Engineer’s concerns. 18 19 Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the flood plain and storm water concerns raised by the neighbors, 20 he summarized the Plan Commission’s discussion relating to their prior application submitted in 2014 21 which addressed the compensatory story and storm water detention issues. He confirmed any future 22 potential construction would have to meet the Village’s engineering and storm water requirements. Mr. 23 Canning then summarized their response to the eight standards and first referred to John Satter’s 24 appraisal and response in that the parcels were more valuable separately as opposed to the combined 25 parcel in connection with the reasonable return standard. He stated they are available to answer any 26 questions relating to storm water or zoning. 27 28 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Ritter asked if subdivision approval was granted, 29 would the tennis court be removed. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct and referred to the condition 30 of removing the playhouse. Ms. Leister asked what the cost of engineering the potential home would be 31 and its impact to the value of selling this parcel of land. Mr. Canning responded they did not consider that 32 and stated their focus was on the land subdivision. Mr. Haller asked if there would be overall height 33 restrictions for any new potential building due to it being raised to be out of the flood plain. Mr. Canning 34 responded this engineering technique has been used on other homes in the neighborhood. 35 36 Dan Creaney, the civil engineer, stated with regard to the flood plain, he explained the standard flow 37 through crawl space construction which is used and how roof angles could be modified to comply with 38 potential height. Mr. Canning confirmed the height limit is 33 feet. No additional questions were raised at 39 this time. 40 41 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. James Langer, 42 956 Sunset, stated his concerns relate to the view of proposed Lot 2. He stated the request did not meet 43 the standards and failed to specifically comply with Section 16.12.010 since a side lot abutting a rear lot 44 line would be created. He noted they never received notification with regard to the neighborhood meeting 45 held by the Marrens and described the water issues they experience on their property. Mr. Langer stated 46 the proposal would definitely lower their property value with regard to reasonable return with flooding 47 concerns representing their main issue. He then stated with regard to the 2014 findings; the exact same 48 case was presented and rejected as not meeting the standards. Page 385 of 444  October 13, 2025 Page 3 1 Githesh Ramamurphy,916 Higginson, identified his home for the Board and stated he has lived in his home 2 since 2006 and described the substantial flooding issues they experienced. He stated in his line of 3 business; he is very familiar with flooding issues and any potential new home would exacerbate the 4 flooding issues even more and referred to the amount of water they currently experience. Mr. 5 Ramamurphy stated the second issue is that the compliance standards are not being met as well as the 6 amount of water in the Skokie Ditch which is located next to his home. He stated two neighboring homes 7 would also be affected by them having severe property damage. Mr. Ramamurphy stated the only way 8 the applicants would be able to realize reasonable return would be if a home is built on the subdivided 9 lot. No additional comments were made at this time. 10 11 Chairman Bradley asked the applicants if they would like to respond. Mr. Canning identified the square 12 footage of several surrounding lots which he outlined in his letter that are smaller or similarly sized to 13 proposed Lot 2. He confirmed no decision was made on the 2014 application and the matter was 14 continued and ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Canning then stated with regard to the neighbors’ comments, 15 the home’s views are raised since they are located in the flood plain. He stated the Langers’ home 16 immediately to the west submitted photos which included compensatory storage which is being proposed 17 for Lot 2. Mr. Creaney then described the Skokie Ditch improvements in detail and referred to the MWRD 18 and Village engineering requirements. He also stated they have built several homes in the Village which 19 he identified for the Board and which comply with MWRD and Village engineering standards. Chairman 20 Bradley confirmed the Board is not voting on any potential new build for the proposed lot. 21 22 Chairman Bradley closed public comment and called the matter in for discussion. He reminded the Board 23 of the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the zoning variations the Board is to 24 consider. 25 26 Mr. Ritter stated the standards for granting the variance have arguably been met and described the lot 27 area variance as de minimus as well as the fact that the rectangular area variance did not seem significant 28 either. He stated while he understood the neighbors’ concerns with regard to flooding, if there is a 29 residence built on the lot, there are lot of stringent requirements which would need to be met. Mr. Ritter 30 then stated the tennis court removal would result in a significant impervious surface area being removed 31 which would help both lots and concluded by stating he would be in favor of the request. Ms. Leister 32 stated with regard to 1(a), she is fine with regard to where the lot line would be drawn with there being 33 precedent for it. She also stated it would trigger the least amount of variances but she struggled with (b) 34 and that there would be constraints in terms of building a home. Ms. Leister stated she would prefer for 35 it to meet the rectangular requirements. 36 37 Ms. Hanley agreed with Ms. Leister’s comments in that she is not sure it would be an ideal buildable lot 38 as well as standard nos. 2 and 3 which would make Lot 2 more unique. She stated with regard to the 39 essential character of the locality; there would be a ditch that ran through a significant portion of the lot 40 and into the buildable area. Ms. Hanley stated it would ultimately require a variation for a home to be 41 built on Lot 2. Chairman Bradley stated he would be in favor of the request and although he sympathized 42 with the neighbors’ concerns and if this request was not located in the flood plain, it would not have been 43 an issue. He stated there are storm water regulations in place for new development to adhere to and the 44 lots would be returned to their original condition. Chairman Bradley then stated if the applicants’ home 45 is sold, the home could be torn down with a new home conforming to the requirements of the 46 consolidated lot. He stated the Board should not consider what is possible for the lot and also commented 47 in detail the consideration of any new potential construction on the proposed irregularly shaped and Page 386 of 444  October 13, 2025 Page 4 1 undersized lot with new construction being considered a clean slate which would be extremely difficult in 2 terms of obtaining zoning relief. 3 4 Ms. Hanley clarified her comment in that the issue before the Board is that the code stated if a lot is 5 subdivided, it had to result in two, clean lots without variances. She stated they have to apply the current 6 zoning code in that the ditch created a unique circumstance which would alter the essential character of 7 the locality and would create a unique circumstance which should prohibit the subdivision. Mr. Nielsen 8 summarized Chairman Bradley’s and Ms. Hanley’s comments and referred to the 2014 previous review of 9 the Board. He stated with the tennis court removal, the applicants could consider installing compensatory 10 storage where the courts are currently to help mitigate everyone’s concerns. He then stated he would 11 recommend approval. 12 13 Mr. Haller shared Ms. Hanley’s and Ms. Leister’s concerns and stated he is less persuaded by what the lot 14 would have been had it stayed the way it was. He stated they are being asked to create an irregular lot 15 and he had difficulty with the idea of giving the applicants a pass on some elements of the lot. Mr. Nielsen 16 stated he could be persuaded and reiterated he had difficulty with standard nos. 2 and 3 being 17 troublesome to him. The Board Members discussed their positions at length. 18 19 Ms. Hanley suggested the matter be continued to allow the applicants time to resubmit the application 20 with a conforming, buildable Lot 2 being perfected to be a buildable lot with the variation to be requested 21 on Lot 1. Ms. Klaassen informed the Board that Lot 1 measured 165 feet in width and referred to an 22 illustration. The Board Members discussed alternatives with regard to various lot line measurements. 23 24 Chairman Bradley stated in ordered to sway the undecided Board Members, he offered the applicants the 25 opportunity to continue the matter to a date certain to come back before the Board with a nonconforming 26 Lot 1 or proceed with a vote at this time. Ms. Leister and Mr. Haller stated they would like to see the 27 alternative presented to the Board or the applicants can proceed at this time. 28 29 Chairman Bradley then presented the options to the applicants to either continue the request to a future 30 meeting to consider the variances or proceed with a vote on the request with a negative recommendation 31 to the Village Council. Mr. Canning stated it would be up to the Village staff and stated it may be a 32 worthwhile exercise with the December 8, 2025, meeting date being a possibility. While the Board was 33 discussing their availably for December 8, Mr. Mangum noted there is one Board Member absent from 34 this meeting. 35 36 Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued to the December 8, 2025, meeting. A motion was made 37 by Ms. Hanley to continue the request to December 8, 2025, and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken 38 and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 39 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 40 NAYS: None 41 42 *** 43 44 Respectfully submitted, 45 46 Antionette Johnson 47 Recording Secretary Page 387 of 444  Minutes adopted 01.12.2026 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 DECEMBER 8, 2025 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender 12 13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 15 *** 16 17 Continued Cases: 18 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision 19 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to 20 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the 21 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 22 This item was continued from the October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 23 Mr. Mangum confirmed the application being presented to the Board is the exact same application as 24 previously presented and the applicant provided additional analysis in terms of options for dividing the 25 property. He then summarized the application’s prior presentation as well as summarized in detail the 26 alternate options, zoning variations and subdivision code variations necessary for both options to divide 27 the lot lines. Mr. Mangum confirmed the applicant planned to proceed with their original request. He 28 advised the Board of the items they are required to consider and noted no additional public 29 correspondence was received. Mr. Mangum then stated following the applicant’s presentation, public 30 comment and Board discussion, the Board may either continue the hearing to a specific date or consider 31 a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. He then asked if there were any questions. 32 33 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Leister asked if variations were other 34 examples of previously approved with regard to the rectangular lot constraint. Mr. Mangum responded 35 he is not aware of any variations but would need to review. Chairman Bradley questioned the rationale 36 to enforce the rectangular buildable lot requirements for non-rectangular lots. Mr. Mangum stated it is 37 generally to demonstrate that the lot is still buildable even if it is large enough and met other 38 requirements. Mr. Haller asked for clarification as to whether there would be additional nonconformities 39 that would exist with regard to option 1. Mr. Mangum stated those would be the two new issues that 40 would be created along with the variations being requested. No additional questions were raised at this 41 time. 42 43 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Road, 44 Wilmette, introduced himself and Dan Creaney, the project engineer who created options 1 and 2. Mr. 45 Canning referred to their prior presentation and Mr. Creaney’s suggestion of what a possible home could 46 look like on lot 2 as well as the concerns raised with regard to the Skokie Ditch. He also referred to the 47 previous discussion with regard to homes flooding on Meadow. Mr. Canning stated the request is to bring 48 the lots back to the pre-1976 configuration. He referred to the PC’s positive recommendation and Page 388 of 444  December 8, 2025 Page 2 1 summarized that discussion for the Board as well as the previous discussion of the request with this Board. 2 Mr. Canning stated both options being presented are possible but have drawbacks which he described to 3 the Board. He stated while they have shown that both options are possible and for a home to be built on 4 lot 2 with the Village Engineer’s approval, going back to the pre-1976 condition would be the best option 5 and would be best for the neighborhood. 6 7 Dan Creaney, 450 Skokie Blvd., referred the Board to illustrations and identified the home’s positioning 8 on the lot for both options. He stated although both options are viable, they would result in trading 9 variations. He noted they have successfully built several homes and have done renovations in the flood 10 plain which he identified for the Board. 11 12 Chairman Bradley asked why not option 1 which would result in a conforming lot 2 and if it would make 13 more sense to encumber lot 1 in terms of buildability. Mr. Canning responded they do not know if there 14 would be construction on that lot or not. He stated if they went with option 1, it would result in the loss 15 of 4,500 square feet on lot 1. Mr. Canning stated a lot depth variation would have to be granted for lot 2. 16 He then asked for a recess for a discussion with the applicant. 17 18 Chairman Bradley called the meeting back to order. Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued to 19 the January 2026 meeting in order to perform calculations and address the Board’s questions. 20 21 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the request to the January 12, 2026, meeting. A motion 22 to continue the matter to the January 12, 2026, meeting was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. 23 Ritter. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 24 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 25 NAYS: None 26 27 *** 28 29 Respectfully submitted, 30 31 Antionette Johnson 32 Recording Secretary Page 389 of 444  Minutes adopted 03.09.2026 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 FEBRUARY 9, 2026 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Lynn Hanley 7 Kathryn Leister 8 Mike Nielsen 9 Michael Ritter 10 Todd Vender 11 12 Zoning Board Members Absent: None 13 14 Village Staff: Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 17 18 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 19 20 *** 21 22 Continued Cases: 23 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: An amended application seeking approval of a Final Plat 24 of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires a zoning variation to 25 allow Proposed Lot 1 (936 Sunset Road) to provide less than the minimum required lot depth. The 26 Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025, 27 and December 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. 28 Ms. Klaassen provided a detailed summary of the ZBA’s previous consideration of the request. She stated 29 in addition to the zoning variation for lot depth the amended subdivision request also requires two 30 subdivision code variations to allow the side lot line of proposed lot 2 to abut the rear lot line of proposed 31 lot 1 and the creation of a lot with a side lot line that is not perpendicular to the street line for the proposed 32 lot 2. Ms. Klaassen stated the Plan Commission would consider the request at its February 25, 2026, 33 meeting. She noted while the subdivision code variations are not within the Board’s purview, they are 34 being provided to the ZBA to ensure they have information with regard to all of the relief being requested. 35 Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant's presentation, public comment and ZBA discussion, a ZBA 36 Member may make a motion to continue the request to a date certain or consider a motion 37 recommending approval or denial of the request. She noted no additional public correspondence was 38 received and asked if there were any questions. 39 40 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then 41 asked for the applicant’s presentation and swore in those speaking to this matter. 42 43 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, introduced himself along with the property owners, 44 Bob and Susan Marren, and Dan Creaney, the project engineer. He summarized the consideration of their 45 previous proposal and stated they have amended the application to include option 1 for the two lot 46 subdivision where the proposed lot 2 met the minimum lot area and rectangular area requirements with 47 no variation necessary and with a lot depth variation for lot 1. Mr. Canning stated the amended plan will Page 390 of 444  February 9, 2026 Page 2 1 be presented to the Plan Commission and referred to the updated standards included in the packet. He 2 then asked if there were any questions. 3 4 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then 5 asked for public comment. No comments were made at this time. Chairman Bradley called the matter in 6 for discussion. 7 8 Chairman Bradley described the request as straightforward and asked for the Board’s comments. Mr. 9 Haller stated the applicant took the Board’s comments into consideration and described the request as a 10 reasonable compromise which reduced the number of required variations. He stated he would vote in 11 favor. Mr. Nielsen agreed the applicant came back with what the Board considered was the best idea and 12 stated he would vote in favor. Ms. Hanley agreed with the comments made and stated the variation 13 necessary to make the subdivision work is more in line with the standards and would be less likely to alter 14 surrounding properties. 15 16 Chairman Bradley referred to finding 2(a) for the proposed lot 1 relating to the playhouse. Ms. Leister and 17 Mr. Ritter both agreed with the comments made and stated they are in favor. Chairman Bradley stated 18 the Board appreciated the revised proposal and referred to the neighbors’ concerns and the fully 19 compliant lot 2 which would have allowed for a new home to be built. He stated the request met the 20 standards and the condition of the playhouse structure removal would resolve the minimum required 21 corner setback requirement. 22 23 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as included on page 17. A motion as 24 stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and 25 the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0: 26 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter, Vender 27 NAYS: None 28 29 *** 30 31 Respectfully submitted, 32 33 Antionette Johnson 34 Recording Secretary Page 391 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-35-2026: Directing the Director of Community Development to Immediately Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment and to Schedule a Public Hearing Before the Village Council to Consider and Adopt Amendments to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance Regarding Lot Line Designations on Corner Lots and Lots with Three Street Frontages (Adoption) PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On March 19, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider Resolution No. R-35-2026, A Resolution Directing the Director of Community Development to Immediately Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment and to Schedule a Public Hearing before the Village Council to Consider and Adopt Amendments to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance Regarding Lot Line Designations on Corner Lots and Lots with Three Street Frontages (Attachment 1). This resolution is before Council because of a judicial ruling in the Circuit Court of Cook County. A property owner disagreed with the Village’s interpretation, and the Zoning Board of Appeals concurrence, that their property located on a corner with three street frontages had two front lot lines and one corner lot line. The court ruled in favor of the property owner. Because there are other lots with similar yard designations in the Village, staff and the Village Attorney recommend adopting the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: The Council may wish to consider adoption of Resolution No. R-35-2026, Directing the Director of Community Development to Immediately Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment and to Schedule a Public Hearing before the Village Council to Consider and Adopt Amendments to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance Regarding Lot Line Designations on Corner Lots and Lots with Three Street Frontages. ATTACHMENTS: Page 392 of 444 1. Resolution No. R-35-2026: Initiating a Zoning Text Amendment and Scheduling a Public Hearing Regarding Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Page 393 of 444  RESOLUTION NO. R-35-2026 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO IMMEDIATELY INITIATE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE WINNETKA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING LOT LINE DESIGNATIONS ON CORNER LOTS AND LOTS WITH THREE STREET FRONTAGES WHEREAS, the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”), governs how the Village designates and calculates lot lines and yards, including the designation of front lot lines and front and rear yards on corner lots and other irregularly shaped lots (“Lot Line and Yard Designations”); and WHEREAS, the Village has historically applied the Zoning Ordinance to require that the two shorter frontages be designated as “front lot lines” on certain properties with three street frontages; and WHEREAS, in light of a judicial ruling in Case No. 2025 CH 9530 (Circuit Court of Cook County), the Village Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance to more explicitly provide for the treatment of certain corner lots and lots with three street frontages; and WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the Village and its residents to direct the Director of Community Development to immediately initiate a zoning text amendment and schedule and notice the required public hearing before the Village Council so that the Council can consider and adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to explicitly provide, among other things, that shorter street frontages on corner lots with three street frontages shall continue to be designated as front yards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council adopts the recitals in this Resolution as its findings, as if fully set forth in this Section. SECTION 2: INITIATION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS; NOTICE TO PUBLIC. The Director of Community Development is directed to immediately undertake a text amendment process and to notice and schedule a public hearing before the Village Council on the following prospective amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: A. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Lot Line and Yard Designations, specifically including, without limitation, amendments to more explicitly require that the shorter street frontages on corner lots with three street frontages shall continue to be designated as front yards; and March 19, 2026 R-33-2026 Page 394 of 444  B. Amendments to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as may be necessary, important, or beneficial to the Village and its residents. The notice of the public hearing will be given as required by law. By adoption of this Resolution, the public is deemed to have notice that the Village Council intends to adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Lot Line and Yard Designations as of the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk March 19, 2026 R-35-2026 Page 395 of 444  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Tower Road Pier Rehabilitation Discussion PRESENTER: Nicholas Narhi AGENDA DATE: March 19, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: New Business ITEM HISTORY: September 9, 2021 - Awarded a contract for valve repair at the Tower Road Pier (R-77-2021) June 7, 2022 - Awarded a contract for additional valve repairs (R-77-2022) September 6, 2022 - Awarded a contract for sheet piling repairs (R-94-2022) June 2024 - June 2025 - Pursued grant funding for pier repair October 16, 2025 - Executed an agreement with Baird & Associates for pier evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Village of Winnetka's construction into Lake Michigan began in 1893 to feed and protect the water treatment plant (WTP). Multiple iterations of shoreline protection and additions over the years led to the pier and cooling ponds as they exist today (~1950’s.) The purpose of the cooling ponds/pier is as follows: • Support steam power generation for the Village. This has provided $48M in credits (power cost savings) from IMEA since 1991. (Note that Council has provided policy direction to retire steam generation after 2035 which will render the cooling ponds/pier unnecessary. The thermal generation replacement project equipment being considered to replace the generation capacity from retired turbine #4 will not utilize cooling ponds.) • Support multiple potable water intakes for the WTP. The WTP is a critical 24/7/365 operation that provides potable water and fire protection to Winnetka, Northfield and portions of unincorporated Cook County. • Public access/parking. The public are allowed to park and traverse the pier end during non- winter months. In 2020, per Army Corps of Engineers data, lake levels were about 5 feet higher than their current levels, and near record highs. This led to widespread damage all along the shores of Lake Michigan, including erosion and structure damage to Village and Park District facilities. The pier end (portion parallel to shore & two parking stalls) was closed in 2020 due to partial collapse of asphalt decking, Page 396 of 444 likely from erosion due to wave action. The Village performed a dive inspection in late 2020 to assess the damage from the winter storms. That inspection led the Village to spend approximately $288,569 (R-77-2021, R-77-2022 & R-94-2022) over three years to repair the critical operational portions of the pier and cooling ponds that allow the Village to operate the Electric Plant and the WTP. This allowed the Village to continue to receive its full capacity credit rating from IMEA and to run the water plant uninterrupted. Approximately 88% of the parking stalls on the pier remained open until early 2026, when the pier was shut down completely following a recommendation from a Village consultant. In June 2024, the Village elected to engage in a collaborative process with Stantec and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative to pursue grant funding through the Resilient Coastal Projects Initiative (RCPI) with federal funding support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Over the course of 10 months, staff worked with the consultant to develop a project implementation framework (PIF) and apply for the grant funding to address the pier. In August 2025, the Village learned that the project had not been selected for the RCPI grant. Village staff continue to look for opportunities to find funding sources to offset the cost of repairs. The FY2026 Electric Fund budget contains $300,000 in account 500.41.27-615 - Buildings & Structures for the repair of the Tower Road pier. The Village sought the services of W.F. Baird & Associates (Baird) to perform an analysis of the pier and ponds and to provide recommendations for a path forward. Baird is a well known firm with broad coastal engineering experience along Lake Michigan. Preliminary indicators during the report's development pointed to a lack of structural integrity across the pier's footprint, leading to its closure in early 2026. Baird identified "short-term life-safety concerns, noting the potential for sudden loss of support with minimal warning." Therefore, the pier must remain fully closed to vehicle and pedestrian traffic until repairs are completed. Baird provides three primary pathways forward: Options 1 and 2 - Replacement - these long-term solutions, either the full cantilever replacement (costing between $3,200,000 to $5,300,000) or the hybrid anchored/cantilevered system (costing between $2,900,000 to $4,900,000) option would restore the full pier, allowing both vehicular and pedestrian access. Option 3 - Reconfiguration - this short term solution would cost between $500,000 to $1,000,000 and would restore some pedestrian access, but vehicular access would be prohibited. Since parking would be prohibited on the pier, a portion of existing green space would be converted into parking. Because any of the Baird repair recommendations exceed the FY 2026 budget of $300,000, staff is requesting that Council provide policy direction on next steps, as follows: Council Policy Direction Estimated Cost Estimated Schedule A. Complete full structural $200,000 to $250,000 2nd Quarter 2026 - Prepare RFP engineering inspection; pier for structural engineering remains fully closed throughout inspection. 2026 and 2027. 3rd Quarter 2026 - Structural inspection completed; Council policy direction on repair or replacement. Page 397 of 444 B. Proceed with Reconfiguration $500,000 to $1,000,000 2nd Quarter 2026 - Prepare bid option as recommended by for repair; analyze budget Baird. impact/ determine funding source; Council awards bid. 3rd Quarter 2026 - Reconfiguration commences and is completed by the end of 2026. Village Staff recommends pursuing a lower-cost interim solution in the near term - either the completion of a full structural engineering inspection or proceeding with the reconfiguration option recommended by Baird. Either replacement option (full cantilever replacement or hybrid anchored/cantilevered system) significantly exceeds the FY2026 budget allocation; therefore, these options would need to be considered as part of the Village's long-term capital planning. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to Staff on how to move forward with the pier rehabilitation, including work to be performed in FY2026 to restore public access in the most efficient way possible. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Baird - Winnetka W&E Plant Pier Repair Study Page 398 of 444 Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis March 12, 2026 | 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 399 of 444  Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis Prepared for: Prepared by: Village of Winnetka W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 For further information, please contact Caleb Barth at +1 608 273 0592 cbarth@baird.com www.baird.com 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Z:\Shared With Me\QMS\2026\Reports_2026\13918.201.R1.Rev1_Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study.docx Revision Date Status Comments Prepared Reviewed Approved 1 2026-03-11 Final Issued MDJ RMB CDB © 2026 W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. (Baird) All Rights Reserved. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document, including any data sets or outputs that accompany this report, belongs to Baird and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person without the prior written consent of Baird. This document was prepared by W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. for Village of Winnetka. The outputs from this document are designated only for application to the intended purpose, as specified in the document, and should not be used for any other site or project. The material in it reflects the judgment of Baird in light of the information available to them at the time of preparation. Any use that a Third Party makes of this document, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such Third Parties. Baird accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any Third Party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document. 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page i Page 400 of 444 Executive Summary W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. (Baird) completed a preliminary investigation of the Village of Winnetka Electric Plant Pier, located at 725 Sheridan Rd, to assess observed deficiencies, evaluate root causes, and develop repair alternatives. The pier, originally constructed in the early 20th century with incremental improvements through the 1980s, now exhibits widespread deformation, deterioration, and settlement particularly along the northwest and northeast cantilevered sheet piling. Field assessments conducted in October 2025, supplemented by historic drawings, photographs, and 2020 dive videos, indicate that the existing sheet piling system has exceeded its typical service life for unrehabilitated cantilever walls. Significant outward rotation of the steel sheet piling, severe deformation of the wall alignment, and settlement of the concrete deck point to systemic loss of stability rather than localized failure. While a breach documented in 2001 likely accelerated deterioration, observed distress is widespread and consistent with long-term changes in surcharge loading, subsurface conditions, and a reduction in passive toe resistance likely exacerbated by historical dredging activities. Baird identifies short-term life-safety concerns, noting the potential for sudden loss of support with minimal warning. Public and vehicular access adjacent to the bulkhead should remain restricted until repairs are completed, and monitoring of wall movement and deck cracking is recommended. To restore public access and long-term functionality of the pier, two primary repair pathways are provided: 1. Reconfiguration Option – Lower-cost approach that prohibits access to the compromised pier section, converting some portion of the semi-circular green space into parking. This restores partial access but does not maintain the existing pier footprint or full public use. 2. Replacement Options – • Full Cantilever Replacement – A new cantilevered sheet piling wall constructed ~2 ft waterward of the existing alignment, which remains in place. • Hybrid Anchored/Cantilevered System – Cantilevered sheet piling walls in protected areas and anchored sheet piling walls along the Lake Michigan-facing segments, providing increased stiffness where wave loading is greatest. Both replacement options restore the full pier footprint and public access, with the hybrid option offering improved performance under environmental loading. A multiple-criteria comparison table was developed to compare the three repair pathway alternatives. See Table E-1 below. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page ii Page 401 of 444 Table E-1: Multicriteria Comparison of Options Option and Restores Restores Approximate Details Constructability Considerations Public Parking Cost Access • Self-supported steel sheet pile • Lower complexity construction bulkhead wall, • Requires less demolition driven just outside of existing structure of existing • Will likely require construction Cantilever Wall structure with of land-based access or Encapsulation concrete deck possibly marine plant for pile Y Y $ 3.2 to 5.3 M • Cantilever wall driving due to existing utilizes longer, condition of dock Replacement of Structure in Kind thicker sheet piles • Will require state and federal with relatively permits for in-water work deep embedment into lakebed • Anchored steel • Higher complexity sheet pile construction - bulkhead wall, • Requires more driven just outside demolition, more of existing connections and structure with transitions (weak points) concrete deck • Anchors must be founded Hybrid • Anchored wall in compacted fill with Anchored + utilizes shorter, consistent gradation. The Cantilever Wall thinner sheet piles makeup of the existing fill Y Y Encapsulation with shallower beneath the damaged $ 2.9 to 4.9 M embedment deck is unknown • Sheet piles are • Will likely require construction connected with of land-based access or steel bars to possibly marine plant for pile anchors driving due to existing embedded in fill condition of dock beneath the • Will require state and federal concrete deck permits for in-water work • Restrict vehicle • Simplest construction of all Reconfiguration traffic, parking, options and public access • Land-based construction to the pier methods for creation of paved $ 0.5 to 1 M N Y structure parking area • Develop nearby • Will not require state and parking federal permits for in-water alternatives. work Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page iii Page 402 of 444 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Report Assumptions 1 1.2 Report Exclusions 1 2. Facility Description and Historic Data .................................................................................2 2.1 Facility Description 2 2.2 Historical Data 3 2.2.1 Drawings and Photographs 4 2.2.2 Dive Videos 7 3. Facility Assessment Approach .............................................................................................8 3.1 Facility Assessment Methodology 8 3.2 Above-Deck Assessment 9 3.3 Below-Deck Assessment 9 4. Facility Assessment Findings ............................................................................................ 10 4.1 Paved Pier Approach on Tower Road and Concrete Wall 10 4.2 Northwest Outer Pier Concrete Wall 10 4.3 Northwest Pier Steel Sheet Piling 10 4.4 Northeast Pier Steel Sheet Piling 10 4.5 Concrete Pier Deck 10 4.6 Miscellaneous Appurtenances 10 4.7 Southwest Pier Steel Sheet Piling 10 5. Root Cause Assessment .................................................................................................... 11 6. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 13 6.1 Short-Term Recommendations 13 6.2 Pre-Repair Recommendations 13 6.2.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Surveys 13 6.2.2 Geotechnical Investigations 13 6.2.3 Regulatory Agencies and Permitting 14 6.3 Repair Recommendations 14 6.3.1 Reconfiguration 14 6.3.2 Replacement In Kind 15 Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page iv Page 403 of 444  6.3.2.1 Constructability 16 6.3.2.2 Full Cantilever Sheet Piling Wall 17 6.3.2.3 Hybrid Anchored Sheet Piling Wall 18 Appendix A Damage Ratings Appendix B Site Report and Photos Appendix C Dive Video Notes Appendix D AACE Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Appendix E Multicriteria Comparison of Alternatives Tables Table E-1: Multicriteria Comparison of Options .................................................................................................. iii Table 3-1: Facility Condition Assessment Ratings ............................................................................................. 8 Figures Figure 2-1: The Village of Winnetka Electric Plant ............................................................................................. 2 Figure 2-2: Marine Structures (Note: pipes and their systems are not called out here) .................................. 3 Figure 2-3: 1921 Detail of Steel Sheet Piling ...................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-4: 1921 Detail of Timber Sheet Piling ................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-5: 1928 Shoreline Protection Detail ...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-6: 1946 Permit Sketch of Steel Sheet Pile Wall ................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-7: 1946 Plan View of Cooling Pond ...................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5-1: 2001 Breach ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5-2: 2001 Repairs .................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6-1: Reconfiguration Option .................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6-2: Anchored and Cantilever Sheet Piling Illustration ......................................................................... 16 Figure 6-3: Location of Proposed New Sheet Piling ......................................................................................... 17 Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page v Page 404 of 444 1. Introduction The Village of Winnetka (Village) has retained W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd (Baird) to undertake a root-cause and preliminary alternative analysis study for the repairs to the Village’s electric plan pier. Baird is licensed to practice Professional Engineering in Illinois, pursuant to the Illinois Professional Engineering Practice Act (license no. 184.001077-0002). No Structural Engineering services were offered nor practiced in the development of this report—Baird’s conclusions contained herein are based on Professional Engineering judgement and extensive experience with the design and performance of marine structures. This preliminary report provides Baird’s findings of the Winnetka Electric Plant Pier. This report includes findings and photographs from the preliminary site investigation, a root-cause damage assessment, two (2) repair concepts to address the root cause each with its own typical cross section sketch and AACE Class 4 opinion of probable construction cost (concept screening, expected accuracy of -30% to +50%). 1.1 Report Assumptions The report presented herein is based on the following assumptions: • The Village of Winnetka provided all available information on the existing pier. • Repair concepts focus on restoring functionality to the pier. An expansion to the pier footprint is not included. 1.2 Report Exclusions The scope of the services used to develop this report excludes the following: • Comprehensive Level 2 or Level 3 Inspection of the pier • Underwater dive inspection • Survey Data Collection (topographic or bathymetric) • Geotechnical data collection or analysis • Numerical or physical modeling of coastal conditions • Pier structural capacity assessment. A comprehensive assessment of the available capacity or remaining service life of the pier is not included. • Preliminary or final design services for repair of the pier • Service life estimating or modeling Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 1 Page 405 of 444 2. Facility Description and Historic Data 2.1 Facility Description The Village of Winnetka Electric Plant is a municipally owned electric generation facility providing power to support the Village’s electric system. The plant is located along the Lake Michigan shoreline at the eastern terminus of Tower Road in Winnetka, Illinois. The upland portion of the site consists of electric generating equipment and associated electrical and mechanical infrastructure. The cooling system includes a man-made cooling pond located adjacent to the shoreline that provides thermal dissipation for plant operations. See Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 below. Figure 2-1: The Village of Winnetka Electric Plant The marine structures consist of a paved road and concrete abutment, anchored steel sheet piling walls with a concrete cap (the pier), cantilevered steel sheet piling walls, and various intake and outtake pipes and openings. The cooling pond is formed by sheet piling that retains shoreline soils and Lake Michigan while maintaining a protected basin for cooling water circulation. The typical anchored Northeast section consists of two parallel steel sheet pile bulkheads tied back with steel H beams which retain fill and support a two-and-a-half-foot thick concrete cap that provides access for parking and walking. Inside the two walls, a fill of heavy stones with Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 2 Page 406 of 444 voids covers the sand which was covered with gravel. The H beams are welded to steel sheet pilings to provide lateral bracing for the pier and support for the deck. The typical cantilevered sheet piling section consists of one steel sheet pile wall. The sheet piling walls are driven through sand and clay soil layers. This system is in place along the outer northwest and southwest steel sheet piles. There are a few sets of timber wales on the inner portion of steel sheet piling at the northwest section. Historical data is unable to specifically pinpoint what anchored system is in place for the inner northwest steel sheet piling. Figure 2-2: Marine Structures (Note: pipes and their systems are not called out here) 2.2 Historical Data The Village provided Baird with available historical information (drawings, photographs, and videos) related to the pier. Baird’s presentation of the historical data is based on the documents reviewed as part of this report. Given the age of the structure, some historical records may no longer be available. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 3 Page 407 of 444 2.2.1 Drawings and Photographs An expansion of the shore protection system, filtration plant, and utility road was originally constructed around 1921. 310 feet of steel sheet piling with anchor piles was installed oriented northeast in Lake Michigan (see Figure 2-3 below). Figure 2-3: 1921 Detail of Steel Sheet Piling Additional timber sheet piling was installed from the northeast corner to the end of the existing 8-foot-wide timber pier at the time (see Figure 2-4 below). Figure 2-4: 1921 Detail of Timber Sheet Piling A 30” intake was added in 1928 along with first iteration of a timber and steel sheet piling shoreline protection wall that would serve as a breakwater for the plant’s water intake and outfall structures. The shoreline protection connected to the existing timber and steel sheet piling and Tower Road to create the general shape of the cooling basin that is present today (see Figure 2-5 below). Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 4 Page 408 of 444 Figure 2-5: 1928 Shoreline Protection Detail In 1935, a portion of the northeast section of the pond fronting the (new) crib house was dredged to a mudline elevation of approximately -12 foot per the Winnetka Datum in 1397. A test boring was performed at the location of the crib house. Additional repairs and extensions were carried out around 1937 to the shoreline protection system and sheet piling walls. These are the first drawings that officially identify the intake and discharge pond. The parking lot is also identified for the first time here as well. The cooling pond underwent extensive rehabilitation in 1946. The timber sheet pilings were removed and replaced entirely in kind with steel sheet pilings on the east side. At this time, there is little to no timber piling left in use around the cooling pond (see Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 below). Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 5 Page 409 of 444 Figure 2-6: 1946 Permit Sketch of Steel Sheet Pile Wall Figure 2-7: 1946 Plan View of Cooling Pond Geotechnical borings were performed around 1959 and the 60” diameter intake pipe was added around the same time. Borings 1 and 2 were completed behind Boiler Plate #4 and Boring 3 was completed in the crib house. Based on available drawings, no new steel sheet piling was installed at this time. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 6 Page 410 of 444 The last improvements were completed almost 40 years ago in 1987. It is unknown how much of the steel sheet piling was replaced. 2.2.2 Dive Videos An underwater inspection was conducted in June 2020. The diver inspected a portion of the sheet piling inside the cooling pond, a portion of the sheet piling in Lake Michigan, and a portion under the pier. The videos provided supplemental visual data on the condition of inspected sheet piling, the lakebed, and toe support. Additional dive notes and still imagery are included in Appendix C. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 7 Page 411 of 444 3. Facility Assessment Approach Baird performed a routine/tactile assessment of the above-deck and below-deck (where possible) assets at the Village Electric Plant on Thursday, October 22nd, 2025. Two Baird engineers were present on site. Above-deck and below-deck assessments were performed in accordance with the following American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) publication: ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 130. “Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment” (MOP 130) The site visit report is attached as Appendix B. 3.1 Facility Assessment Methodology In accordance with the ASCE publication stated above, the facility assessment of elements included both visual observation and limited hands-on assessment where possible. In accordance with MOP 130, elements were assigned an element-level damage rating with damages defined as minor, moderate, major, or severe. For instances where damages were not observed, elements were classified as “no damage.” These damage ratings are defined in Chapter 2 of MOP 130 and have been standardized to provide a qualitative and consistent description of an element’s level of damage. Abbreviated element level damage ratings from MOP 130 are provided in the table below. Table 3-1: Facility Condition Assessment Ratings Rating Description No visible damage or only minor damage noted. Structural elements may Good show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required. Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed but no Satisfactory overstressing observed. No repairs are required. All primary structural elements are sound but minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed. Localized areas of moderate to advanced Fair deterioration may be present but do not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs are recommended, but the priority of the recommended repairs is low. Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of Poor the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency. Advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected the load-bearing capacity of the primary structural components. Serious Local failures are possible, and loading restrictions may be necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a high-priority basis with urgency. Very advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. Failures that are more Critical widespread are possible or likely to occur, and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a very high-priority basis with strong urgency. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 8 Page 412 of 444 3.2 Above-Deck Assessment The above-deck assessment evaluated the general condition of the parking lot, pier, steel sheet piling, and miscellaneous hardware. The assessment was performed by walking along the deck surface and visually observing the condition of the elements. 3.3 Below-Deck Assessment The below-deck assessment evaluated the general condition of the outer pier wall along the beach. The assessment was performed by walking along the exposed portion of the shoreline. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 9 Page 413 of 444 4. Facility Assessment Findings Facility assessment ratings for the above-deck assets are described in the following sections. Ratings have been assigned based on field observations and element-level damage ratings for individual elements. Refer to Appendix B for site photos. Overall, the inspected elements are in poor to serious condition. 4.1 Paved Pier Approach on Tower Road and Concrete Wall The paved pier approach on Tower Road is in satisfactory condition. Minor alligator cracking is visible in the photos. The concrete wall on the beach side is also in satisfactory condition with only minor spalls and cracks. 4.2 Northwest Outer Pier Concrete Wall The outer pier concrete call is in satisfactory condition. There is minor spalling and hairline cracking. 4.3 Northwest Pier Steel Sheet Piling The northwest outer pier steel sheet piling facing the beach is in serious condition. There is moderate corrosion throughout. There is severe permanent deformation of the sheet piling configuration. The northwest inner pier steel sheet piling facing the cooling pond is in critical condition. There is moderate corrosion throughout. There is severe permanent deformation of the sheet piling configuration. 4.4 Northeast Pier Steel Sheet Piling The northeast pier steel sheet piling facing Lake Michigan is in fair to poor condition. There is severe permanent deformation of the sheet piling configuration closer to the northwest corner. The sheet piling continuing down south appeared to be in fair condition with typical corrosion. 4.5 Concrete Pier Deck The concrete deck along the northwest and northeast sections of pier is in poor condition. There is exposed reinforcement, multiple structural cracks larger than 1/4 inch throughout, permanent settlement of the deck, and large surface spalls throughout the deck. 4.6 Miscellaneous Appurtenances The guard rails are in fair condition. The paint is peeling and there is minor corrosion on the guardrails closer to Lake Michigan. The baseplate connections have minor corrosion closer to Laker Michigan. Bolts and washers are missing on at least one connection. Note there are no guardrails along the blocked portion of the pier. The life rings, signs, and light poles are in good condition. No damage was observed. The ladders are in good condition. No damage was observed. 4.7 Southwest Pier Steel Sheet Piling The two parallel rows of cantilever steel sheet piling were not inspected at this time. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 10 Page 414 of 444 5. Root Cause Assessment After conducting site visits and reviewing available photographs and dive videos, Baird provides the following assessment. This represents Baird’s best interpretation based on professional engineering judgement a top- side inspections and their review of historical information; subsurface and below water conditions were not directly observed. The dive videos were taken in 2020 and provided to Baird to assist with the root cause assessment. Baird was not involved with the dive inspection. The steel sheet pilings exhibit surface corrosion consistent with long-term water exposure. The walls do not show significant section loss, suggesting they are unlikely to be the primary failure mechanism. Observed distress is consistent with long-term system degradation combined with increasing surcharge loads from vehicles and potential changes in subsurface conditions over time. The structure, approximately 60 years old with repairs occurring roughly 40 years ago, exceeds typical service life for a largely unrehabilitated cantilevered sheet pile wall system. For the cantilevered sheet pilings, lateral earth and surcharge loads are resisted primarily through flexural action of the sheet piling and passive resistance at the embedded toe. This configuration is more sensitive to increased surcharge loading and long-term changes in subsurface and groundwater conditions. The observed outward rotation of the wall, with maximum deflection near the top and tapering with depth, and localized undulations along the wall length is consistent with a cantilevered sheet piling experiencing increased lateral demand and nonuniform loss of toe restraint. Baird is aware that dredging activities have occurred near the sheet piling, including a localized breach documented in 2001. Removal of soil in front of the wall would reduce embedded depth and available passive resistance, which is a critical component of stability for a cantilevered sheet piling. Variations in dredging extent along the wall, when combined with sustained vehicle loads above, would be expected to produce differential loss of support and corresponding nonuniform wall rotation. This mechanism is consistent with the observed snaking and undulating alignment at the top of the wall and with localized pavement cracking and permanent settlement. Note that the dive inspection occurred in June of 2020 and no active breach was identified at that time. The dive videos were unable to provide a conclusive cause of the breach. If more information is available in the future, the dive videos may be able to provide some insights. While the documented breach likely accelerated deterioration and contributed to the timing of observed failures, the distress is not limited to a single location. Permanent deformation of the sheet piling is observed to be widespread, indicating that deterioration is systemic rather than localized. Based on the age of the structure, observed deformation patterns, and sensitivity of the cantilevered system to continued surcharge loading and loss of passive resistance, replacement of the sheet pilings should be seriously considered. After reviewing photos, dive videos, and available historic documents, Baird did not see any anchored sheet pile walls in the sections identified for repairs. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 11 Page 415 of 444 Figure 5-1: 2001 Breach Figure 5-2: 2001 Repairs Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 12 Page 416 of 444 6. Recommendations Short-term recommendations and replacement alternatives with preliminary permitting, surveys, scheduling, and estimating are provided below. Baird is aware that the facility intends to run through 2035. However, public access on the pier for leisure, walking, and fishing remains vital to the community. Restoring full public access and parking will require new sheet pilings. 6.1 Short-Term Recommendations Given the cantilevered configuration of the sheet pilings and the documented outward rotation, Baird has significant life-safety concerns. Cantilevered sheet pile walls rely on flexural capacity and passive resistance at the embedded toe to maintain stability. Degradation or loss of these resistance mechanisms can result in progressive rotation and sudden loss of support, potentially occurring with little to no observable warning. Under these conditions, continued public and vehicular use adjacent to the bulkhead presents an unacceptable risk to personnel and property, and immediate precautions are warranted. Parking and vehicle access directly above or adjacent to the bulkhead should be restricted until repairs are completed, and physical barriers or warning signage should be installed to limit public and worker access in the most vulnerable areas. Short-term monitoring of the sheet piling and adjacent deck should be implemented, including frequent visual inspections for changes in wall alignment, deck cracking, or separation between the deck and sheet piles. Where feasible, simple survey points or tilt markers may be installed to track additional movement over time. These measures will help manage safety risks and provide early warning of accelerated deterioration while full repair or replacement design is developed and implemented. 6.2 Pre-Repair Recommendations Regardless of what the Village decides for a repair alternative, Baird recommends the following: • topographic and bathymetric surveys • geotechnical investigations • design development • obtaining necessary permitting. 6.2.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Surveys Topographic and bathymetric surveys will document existing site conditions both above and below the waterline, including ground surface elevations, shoreline geometry, wall alignments, and underwater features. These surveys will provide design engineers with accurate horizontal and vertical control data to help establish wall geometry. 6.2.2 Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical investigations will characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site. This information is required to evaluate soil strength, water levels, and identify potential construction constraints. The geotechnical data will be used by the design engineer to develop earth pressure assumptions, evaluate global and local stability, determined required embedment depths, size structural elements, and assess constructability considerations. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 13 Page 417 of 444 6.2.3 Regulatory Agencies and Permitting Based on a preliminary understanding of the alternative replacement scope, it is anticipated that the construction will require coordination and approval from multiple regulatory agencies. Work associated with surveying, demolition, installation of new sheet piling, and placement of stone will likely trigger local, state, and federal permitting requirements. These may include: • Village of Winnetka Lakefront Construction Permit per Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code • Lake County Watershed Development Permit • Joint Permit Application • Illinois Department of Natural Resources Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Permit (DNR) • US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/10 Federal Permit (USACE) • Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 401 Water Quality Certification (IEPA) To support a timely construction start, the permitting process should begin approximately a year prior with the federal and state joint permit application submitted a minimum of 3-6 months prior to construction. This includes USACE and state (IDNR/OWR/IEPA) permits. Early agency coordination is crucial to confirm applicable permits and minimize schedule delays. 6.3 Repair Recommendations There are two options proposed: one that will restore public access and parking to the Village through the using of new steel sheet piling (whether anchored or cantilevered), and a reconfiguration option that will restore parking to the most practical extent possible while temporarily eliminating public access to the existing pier, while looking to the future where a fully integrated beach may be implemented following the planned 2035 decommissioning of steam generation at the electric plant. An in-depth explanation of each option is discussed below. 6.3.1 Reconfiguration This option will not replace any of the existing sheet piling but rather utilize existing space to restore access to parking. Certain areas within the semi-circular green space could be paved over to allow for parking. Additional field investigations, engineering, and design are necessary to determine the areal limits and configuration of a potential future parking area, as well as to delineate accessible routes to the recreational facilities the parking area would support. The current pier would have permanent physical barriers in place to limit parking and walking access. Additional field investigations, engineering, and design are necessary to determine the areal limits for safe pedestrian access on or near the pier. Development of a monitoring program will likely also be required to assess any future degradation of the pier and its implications to safe pedestrian use. This option does not restore full public access to the pier for leisure but only a portion. However, the reconfiguration option is the most cost-effective solution. Refer to Figure 6-1 below. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 14 Page 418 of 444 Figure 6-1: Reconfiguration Option 6.3.2 Replacement In Kind The replacement recommendations listed below will replace the existing sheet piling outlined in Figure 6-3. This is roughly 490 linear feet of new sheet pile. There is a full cantilevered option or hybrid option with both cantilevered and anchored options. Cantilevered sheet pilings are a type of earth retaining wall with low wall heights, typically 15 feet or less. These walls derive their support solely from the foundation soils. Anchored sheet pilings are another type of earth retaining wall and have greater stability than cantilever sheet pilings. Anchored sheet pilings have an anchorage system installed behind the main piling to provide additional support. Figure 6-2 below shows the difference between these two options. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 15 Page 419 of 444 Figure 6-2: Anchored and Cantilever Sheet Piling Illustration 6.3.2.1 Constructability Constructability of a repair option must be considered during the design phase, despite that the actual means and methods of construction will be determined by the Contractor during their construction planning. Some of the constructability details considered during the development of this report include: • Construction Methodology – Land-based vs. marine-based construction. • Land-based construction methods are generally lower cost, and thus are preferred if they are possible given the site conditions. • For some sites where land-based access is excessively costly or impossible, marine-based equipment can be mobilized, and the work can be performed using barge-based equipment. Marine-based construction limits the pool of potential contractors to those with marine equipment available to be deployed to Lake Michigan. Marine equipment is costlier to mobilize, and work can be subject to more down time during construction for adverse weather and wave conditions than land-based methods. • The degraded condition of the pier precludes its use as a safe working platform for construction equipment used for pile driving. For a land-based construction approach, a temporary causeway could be constructed using stone to the north of the pier. The stone causeway could be used as a safe working platform for pile driving and other construction equipment. The temporary causeway would be removed as part of the Site Restoration in the project contract. • This report’s AACE Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost assumes land-based construction utilizing a temporary stone causeway as described above. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 16 Page 420 of 444 Figure 6-3: Location of Proposed New Sheet Piling 6.3.2.2 Full Cantilever Sheet Piling Wall Under this option, a new cantilevered sheet piling wall would be installed approximately two feet waterward of the existing structure, which would remain in place. This approach minimizes demolition of the existing structure. Construction of the proposed cantilevered sheet pile wall would generally proceed in the following sequence: 1. Mobilization, Demolition, and Site Preparation: 1.1 Construction equipment would be mobilized to the site. Temporary access and staging areas would be established. Temporary access might include construction of a stone causeway to the north of the pier which would be removed following completion of the repairs. Limited surface removals may be required in localized areas to facilitate pile driving operations. 2. Installation of New Sheet Pile Wall 2.1 New sheet pile would be driven. It is anticipated that a portion of the installation would need to occur from a barge, as the existing pier is not capable of supporting crane loading for full pile driving operations. 2.2 Double steel channel wales would likely be installed for additional stiffness near the top of the steel sheet piles. 3. Backfilling Between Walls 3.1 Following installation of the new sheet pile, the space between the existing and proposed walls would be backfilled with suitable material. This step provides structural continuity and stabilizes the retained soils. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 17 Page 421 of 444 4. Surface Restoration 4.1 Granular backfill would be placed and compacted to finished subgrade elevations followed. Concrete and pavement would then be installed to restore the site to existing grades and reestablish public access areas. 5. Demobilization and Final Site Restoration 5.1 Construction equipment would be removed, and disturbed areas would be restored. 6.3.2.3 Hybrid Anchored Sheet Piling Wall Under this option, a combination of cantilevered and anchored sheet piling walls would be constructed to balance constructability, performance, and cost. Cantilevered sheet piling would be installed along the interior and more protected wall segments, while anchored sheet piling would be utilized along the Lake Michigan- facing segments where environmental loading from waves and storm events is greater. Similar to the full cantilever alternative, the existing sheet piling would remain in place. New sheet piling would be driven approximately 2 feet waterward of the existing alignment. The void between the existing and proposed walls would be backfilled and capped with sand, followed by placement of concrete and pavement to restore finished grades. Refer to the previous section for cantilevered construction sequencing. The anchored sheet piling would use a combination of anchoring methodologies, dependent on the existing wall layout. • For the lakeward segment of the pier, where possible (approximately 140 linear feet from the lakeward edge of the pier) the wall would utilize double channel wales and steel tie rods to anchor the facing wall sides to one another. • For the remaining shoreward segment of the inner pool wall (approximately 175 feet in length), tie rods would be installed and connected to a deadman system located landward of the wall. Anchors will likely be concrete or steel sheet piling deadman anchors; for cost purposes a continuous steel sheet piling deadman wall with steel channel wales is assumed. The anchoring system would reduce bending demands in the sheet piling, allowing a thinner section, and provide additional stiffness to better resist wave and hydrostatic loading. Specialty marine equipment may be required depending on access constraints. Surface improvements within anchor installation areas would require removal of the existing material and subsequent restoration. Construction of the proposed anchored sheet piling wall would generally proceed in the following sequence: 1. Mobilization, Demolition, and Site Preparation: 1.1 Construction equipment would be mobilized to the site. Temporary access and staging areas would be established. Temporary access might include construction of a stone causeway to the north of the pier, which would be removed following completion of the repairs. Remove pavement, concrete, and other surface improvements as necessary to access the existing wall alignment and proposed anchor locations. 2. Installation of New Sheet Piling 2.1 Drive the new sheet pile wall approximately 2 feet waterward of the existing wall alignment. Installation may occur from a combination of landside crane access and barge mounted equipment, depending on pier capacity and reach limitations. 3. Anchor Installation Through Existing Sheet Piling Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 18 Page 422 of 444  3.1 Drill or cut through the existing sheet piling at designated anchor elevations to allow installation of tie rods or tiebacks. For a continuous deadman system, excavate to the required depth behind the wall and install the deadman wall at a prescribed elevation. 4. Tie Rod Installation and Tensioning 4.1 For self-tied areas, connect anchors through wales on each wall face. For deadman areas, install tie rods between the new sheet piling and the deadman. Tension anchors to the specified load to engage the anchored system and reduce bending demand in the sheet piling wall. Lock off anchors per design requirements. 5. Backfilling and Surface Restoration 5.1 Backfill the space between the existing and new walls with structural fill. Restore subgrade, place sand cap as required, and reconstruct concrete and pavement to match existing grades. 6. Demobilization and Final Site Restoration 6.1 Perform final grading, site cleanup, and demobilize equipment. Complete any required inspections or load verification testing of anchors. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Page 19 Page 423 of 444 Appendix A Damage Ratings Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix A Page 424 of 444 A.1 Steel Damage Ratings Exclusions [Defects Requiring Damage Rating Existing Damage Elevation to the next Higher Damage Rating(s)] Not Inspected (NI) • Not inspected, inaccessible, or passed by No Defects (ND) • Protective coating or wrap intact • Light surface rust • No apparent loss of material Minor (MN) • Protective coating or wrap damage and Minor damage not appropriate if: loss of thickness up to 15% of nominal at • Changes in straight line any location configuration or local buckling • Less than 50% of perimeter or • Corrosion loss exceeding circumference affected by corrosion at any fabrication tolerances (at any elevation or cross section location) • Loss of thickness up to 15% of nominal at any location Moderate (MD) • Protective coating or wrap damage and Moderate damage not appropriate if: loss of thickness 15% to 30% of nominal at • Changes in straight line any location configuration or local buckling • More than 50% of perimeter or • Loss of thickness exceeding 30% circumference affected by corrosion at any of nominal at any location elevation or cross section • Loss of thickness 15% to 30% of nominal at any location Major (MJ) • Protective coating or wrap damage and Major damage not appropriate if loss of thickness 30% to 50% of nominal at • Change in straight line any location configuration or locally buckling • Partial loss of flange edges or visible • Perforations or loss of wall reduction of wall thickness on pipe piles thickness exceeding 50% of • Loss of nominal thickness 30% to 50% at nominal any location Severe (SV) • Protective coating or wrap damage and loss of thickness 50% of nominal at any location • Structural bends of buckling, breakage, and displacement at supports, loose or lost connections • Loss of wall thickness exceeding 50% of nominal at any location a Any defect listed is sufficient to identify relevant damage grade Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix A Page 425 of 444 A.2 Concrete Damage Ratings Exclusions [Defects Requiring Damage Rating Existing Damage Elevation to the next Higher Damage Rating(s)] Not Inspected (NI) • Not inspected, inaccessible, or passed by No Defects (ND) • Good original hard surface, hard material, sound Minor (MN) • Mechanical abrasions or impact spalls up to 1 MN damage not appropriate if: in. in depth • Structural damage • Occasional corrosion stains or small pop-out • Corrosion cracks corrosion spalls • Chemical deteriorationb • General cracks up to 1/16 in. in width Moderate (MD) • Structural cracks up to 1/16 in. in width MD damage not appropriate if: • Corrosion cracks up to 1/4 in. in width • Structural breakage and/or • Chemical deterioration: Random cracks up to spalls 1/16 in. in width; “Soft” concrete and/or rounding • Exposed reinforcement or corners up to 1 in. deep • Loss of cross section due to • Mechanical abrasions or impact spalls greater chemical deterioration than 1 in. in depth beyond rounding of corner edges Major (MJ) • Structural cracks 1/16 in.to 1/4 in. in width MJ damage not appropriate if • Corrosion cracks wider than 1/4 in. in width and • Loss of cross section open or closed corrosion spalls (excluding pop- exceeding 30% due to any outs) cause • Multiple cracks and disintegration of surface layer due to chemical deterioration • Mechanical abrasion or impact spalls exposing the reinforcing Severe (SV) • Structural cracks wider than 1/4 in. or complete breakage • Complete loss of concrete cover due to corrosion of reinforcing steel with more than 30% diameter loss for any main reinforcing bar • Loss of bearing and displacement at connections • Loss of concrete cover (exposed steel) due to chemical deterioration • Loss of more than 30% of cross section due to any cause b Chemical deterioration: sulfate attack, alkali-silica reaction, alkali-aggregate reaction, alkali-carbonate reaction, or other chemical/concrete deterioration Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix A Page 426 of 444 Appendix B Site Report and Photos Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix B Page 427 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Winnetka Pier Repair Site Visit - Field Observation Report Client: Project No: Village of Winnetka 13918.201 Project Title: Winnetka Pier Repair Contractor: n/a Report By: Rodey Batiza Sub-Contractors: n/a Date: October 22, 2025 Day: Wednesday Report No: 1 Time Arrive 10:00 Time Depart 12:30 PM On Water Construction: N/A Finish N/A WEATHER TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS A.M. P.M. X Acceptable all day Sunny High Temperature: 43 °F More than 50% Partly Cloudy Low Temperature: 46 °F Less than 50% X Cloudy X unacceptable Windy NOTES: Sky: Rain Precipitation: 0 Inches Snow Wind: 18 knots W Fog Water: Water quality/visibility: Clear Visibility Wave height: 0-1 ft. Wave heights from observation wind data obtained from weather.gov Great Lakes Portal Water Height: 578.3 ft IGLD 85 Water level information obtained from Station 9087057 (Milwaukee, WI). Page 1 Page 428 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Site Visit Activities Key Activities 1.0 10:00 AM Rodey Batiza (RMB) and Kelly Jacobsen (KMJ) arrive at dock. 2.0 10:15 - 10:45 AM Meet with Nick Narhi, Brian Curley, and James Olsen. 3.0 10:45 AM to 12:30 PM Inspection of existing dock. Meeting and Inspection Notes The Village wants to understand what it would take to repair the pier such that cars may be parked in the area that is currently damaged and closed. The intent is to restore access to some 1.0 of the closed areas. 2.0 There was a breach under the deck, which led to significant upland damage. 3.0 During repairs, the shore-tied southern wall failed causing extensive damage. 4.0 Severe damage is present along the pier wall. Loading of wall from parked autos on pier deck carries risk of further damage. 5.0 Intake pipe was not exposed during concrete repairs following breach. 6.0 Any repairs to wall may encroach on backup cooling water pond area if necessary. 7.0 Defects to structures will likely require more than local repairs. Page 2 Page 429 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photos Photo 1: Pier deck looking northwest. Photo 2: Closed end of pier looking east. Photo 3: Pier deck looking northeast. Photo 4: Damaged pier wall looking southwest. Page 3 Page 430 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photo 5: Severe wall distortion along northwesternmost inside edge. Photo 6: Severe wall distortion along northwesternmost inside edge. Photo 7: Area in front needs to remain open. Photo 8: Steel inner pool wall. Page 4 Page 431 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photo 9: Severe wall distortion. Plastic deformation, failure of waler, tie rods likely broken. Photo 10: Severe wall distortion. Plastic deformation, failure of waler, tie rods likely broken. Photo 11: Looking northwest at damaged wall section. Photo 12: Looking southwest from closed end of pier. Page 5 Page 432 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photo 13: Eastern corner of pier looking south. Photo 14: Lakeward edge of pier looking southeast. Visible damage to concrete and steel sheet piles is evident. Photo 15: Damaged concrete in closed section. Looking soutwest from end of pier. Photo 16: Repairs to wall at end of pier, looking northwest. Page 6 Page 433 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photo 17: Severe distortion in failed wall section. Photo 18: Wall distortion and cracked concrete at valve, looking east. Photo 19: Valve hardware. Photo 20: Steel sheet pile, railing, and conduit at shore tie-in. Page 7 Page 434 of 444  Print Date: 12/29/2025 Photo 21: Paved pier approach and concrete wall are in satisfactory condition. Photo 22: Interface of Tower Aroad Beach with pier, looking east. Photo 23: Northwest outer wall of pier looking east-northeast. Photo 24: Flat sheet piles along northwest outer wall. Page 8 Page 435 of 444 Appendix C Dive Video Notes Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix C Page 436 of 444 C.1 Dive Notes and Still Imagery The videos were recorded on June 4, 2020. C.1.1 Intake Lakeside Video Notes Looking towards the plant the diver observed: • A section of wall comprised of driven 1-inch plate slats supported by driven H piles. Vertical slats appear to be approximately 6 inches wide with 3-inch openings between them. • The vertical steel slats are in very good condition. There are some marine growth and algae on the steel. • The mudline conditions were noted. In front of the slatted wall, the mudline is free of sand with rounded 1/2-to-2-inch stone. There is no visible sand in front of the openings. Moving laterally along the structure, sand thickness increases. Water depths are recorded as 8 feet in the sandy area and 10 feet in the hole in front of the opening. Figure C.1: Opening in Drive 1 inch Steel Slats on Lake Side C.1.2 Intake Plant Side Video Notes In this video, the diver moved in a clockwise direction around the inner basin. In the southeast corner, the diver observed: • A small penetration cut through the sheet piling. In the southwest corner, the diver observed: • Sheet pilings are beginning to show deflection in the wall. • Sheet pilings are driven with voids observed near the toe. Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix C Page 437 of 444 • A relic sluice gate with its lifting hole approximately 36 inches long above the mudline. In the northwest corner of the inner wall on the plant side, the diver observed: • A location two sheets over from the sluice gate, the sheets are not connected at the base. There is a 10- inch gap and the diver notes that it appears to be a failed repair attempt. At the north wall, the diver observed: • Debris and broken relic driven timber along the sandy bottom. • A large pile of sand in the middle of the basin near the dive ladder, estimating multiple yards of material. Figure C.2: Steel Plate Resting on Inner Basin Bottom C.1.3 Under Pier Video Notes In this video, the diver entered the manhole. Video is taken between the outside pier wall and inner pier wall. Throughout the video, the diver observed: • Original timber pilings remain driven and are cut off at mid-depth • Original sheet pilings are resting on the bottom. • A loss of fill under the sidewalk going to the north. At the plant side looking west, the diver observed: • Interior sheet piling has slotted perforations cut out of pans. The openings are approximately 4 inches on each inner and outer pan. At the southeast corner, the diver observed: • The beams are intact Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix C Page 438 of 444 • The sheet pilings between the west wall and east wall are not driven into anything. They are free on the bottom and holding back large stone material At the lake side wall, the diver observed: • The wall is fabricated from 1 inch steel plates with 3 cutouts per sheet. The cutouts are 4 inches wide and have 79 inches of open height that varies with the floor bottom elevation. • Relic large stone debris are observed in some areas. Figure C.3: Looking Plantward through Perforations in Steel Sheet Pile Pans Figure C.4: Relic thin sheet wall driven behind slotted plate wall Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix C Page 439 of 444 Appendix D AACE Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix D Page 440 of 444  Village of Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Replacement Cantilevered Sheet Pile Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Feburary 13, 2026 Currency: USD-United States - 2nd Quarter 2026 dollar Before Contingency: $ 3,088,800 Grand Total Price: $ 4,256,320 Item GC Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments # Mobilization / Demobilization / General Conditions $ 779,500.00 1 P Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Mob/demob of land-based construction equipment and personnel 2 P Site Preparation 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Allowance 3 P Temporary Access Causeway - Contractor Stone 2300 TON $ 65.00 $ 149,500.00 Assumes 30' wide stone causeway abutting structure's north wall 4 P Temporary Access Causeway - Contractor Armor Stone 1000 TON $ 150.00 $ 150,000.00 5 P Cleanup and Site Restoration 1 LS $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Allowance Site Improvements $ 1,633,600.00 4 P NZ-19 Steel Sheet Pile, Installed 277 TON $ 3,950.00 $ 1,093,900.00 Steel quote Feb 4, 2026 from Jim Giordano, Nucor Skyline, Marine Installation MII Unit Cost 5 P C10x30 (double) Waler, installed 15 TON $ 2,660.00 $ 39,100.00 Steel quote Feb 4, 2026 from Jim Giordano, Nucor Skyline, MII Unit Cost 6 P Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete Deck, Installed 279 CY $ 380.00 $ 106,000.00 MII Unit Price for reinforced slab on grade 7 P Granular Fill, Placed and Compacted 839 TON $ 65.00 $ 54,600.00 Includes concrete base and fill between new wall and existing 8 P Handrails and Appurtenances, Allowance 1 LS $ 140000.00 $ 140,000.00 Handrail to be designed to be removable during winter season. 9 P Pavement approach Allowance 1 LS $ 200000.00 $ 200,000.00 Allowance to modify Tower Road pavement to match new grade. Running Subtotal: $ 2,413,100 Running Subtotal: $2,413,100 Markups MU Factor: $675,700 Subcontractor Markups 0 ls 15% $0 Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 0 ls 10% $0 H/O Overheads, Job Fee & Risk Prime Contractor OH&P on Self-Perform 1 ls 25% $603,300 H/O Overheads, Job Fee & Risk Contractor Insurance Program 1 ls 2% $48,300 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk Contractor Bond 1 ls 1% $24,100 State Sales Taxes 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Escalation 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Running Subtotal: $3,088,800 Total Estimated Constr Costs w/o Estimating & Design contingency Estimating & Design/Scope Contingency Cont Factor: $926,620 Estimating Contingency 1 ls 15% $463,300 Based on subtotal of burdened direct costs Design Contingency 1 ls 15% $463,320 Scope Contingency 1 ls 0% $0 Running Subtotal: $4,015,420 Total Estimated Contractor Bid Price Project Administration & Management $240,900 Site Surveys and Geotechnical Investigations 1 ls 4% $160600 Engineering/Permitting 1 ls 7% $281100 Construction Observation and Administration 1 ls 6% $240900 Misc Owner's Soft Costs (All) 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Market Conditions 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Interest During Construction (Financing) 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded, allowance for changed field conditions Grand Total: $4,256,320 Total Estimated Constr Costs w/Owner's Contingency Cost Range: $2,979,424 $6,384,480 -30% to +50% Per AACE cost estimate guidelines Cost Range: $3,192,240 $5,320,400 -25% to +25% For reporting Total Owner's Contingency: $0 0% Notes: 1) Estimate assumes land based construction methodology, with construction of temporary stone access causeway 2) Pricing basis = 2nd Qtr 2026, escalation to midpoint of construction is notincluded. 3) P=Prime, S=Subcontractor 4) Pricing assumes competitive market conditions at time of tender (+3 bidders/trade). 5) Owner soft costs, market conditions, interest during construction, and project management expenses excluded. 6) No soils investigation has been performed for this estimate 7) Assumes landfill disposal of excavated material; no hazardous material included 8) Permit fees and ROW acquisition excluded 9) Assumes Prime Contractor will self-perform all work OPCC Disclaimer The client hereby acknowledges that Baird has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over time. Client agrees that Baird cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from Baird's good faith Class 5 OPCC AACE International CLASS 4 Cost Estimate – Class 4 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. Typically, engineering is from 1% to 15% complete. They are often prepared for strategic planning purposes, market studies, assessment of viability, project location studies, and long range capital planning. Virtually all Class 5 estimates use stochastic estimating methods such as cost curves, capacity factors, and other parametric techniques. Expected accuracy ranges are from –15% to –30% on the low side and +20% to 50% on the high side, depending on technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances.(AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards). Prepared by RMB. 2/13/2026 Page 1 Page 441 of 444  Village of Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Replacement Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Febuary 13, 2026 Currency: USD-United States - 2nd Quarter 2026 dollar Before Contingency: $ 2,838,900 Grand Total Price: $ 3,911,935 Item GC Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments # Mobilization / Demobilization / General Conditions $ 779,500.00 1 P Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Mob/demob of land-based construction equipment and personnel 2 P Site Preparation 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Allowance 3 P Temporary Access Causeway - Contractor Stone 2300 TON $ 65.00 $ 149,500.00 Assumes 30' wide stone causeway abutting structure's north wall 4 P Temporary Access Causeway - Contractor Armor Stone 1000 TON $ 150.00 $ 150,000.00 5 P Cleanup and Site Restoration 1 LS $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Allowance Site Improvements $ 1,438,300.00 5 Demolition Allowance 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 Allowance 6 P NZ-14 Steel Sheet Pile, Installed 144 TON $ 4,170.00 $ 600,500.00 Steel quote Feb 4, 2026 from Jim Giordano, Nucor Skyline, Marine Install, MII Unit Cost 7 NZ-14 Steel Sheet Pile Anchor Wall, Installed 10 TON $ 3,285.00 $ 34,400.00 Steel quote Feb 4, 2026 from Jim Giordano, Nucor Skyline, MII Unit Cost 8 #11 Bar Tie Rod 3 TON $ 2,100.00 $ 6,800.00 $1.00/lb Material Nucor Skyline Material Quote, MII Unit Cost, incl $87/ton delivery 9 C10x30 (double) Waler, installed 20 TON $ 2,745.00 $ 54,800.00 $1650/ton Nucor Skyline Material Quote, MII Unit Cost, incl $87/ton delivery 10 Anchor Wall Excavation 778 CY $ 45.00 $ 35,000.00 Assumes material is hauled and disposed off site 11 Anchor wall Fill 1250 TONS $ 65.00 $ 81,200.00 Assumes imported granular fill material 12 P Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete Deck, Installed 279 CY $ 380.00 $ 106,000.00 MII Unit Price for reinforced slab on grade 13 P Granular Fill, Placed and Compacted 839 TON $ 65.00 $ 54,600.00 Includes concrete base and fill between new wall and existing. 14 P Handrails and Appurtenances, Allowance 1 LS $ 140000.00 $ 140,000.00 Handrail to be designed to be removable during winter season. 15 P Pavement approach Allowance 1 LS $ 200000.00 $ 200,000.00 Allowance to modify Tower Road pavement to match new grade. Running Subtotal: $ 2,217,800 Running Subtotal: $2,217,800 Markups MU Factor: $621,100 Subcontractor Markups 0 ls 15% $0 Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 0 ls 10% $0 H/O Overheads, Job Fee & Risk Prime Contractor OH&P on Self-Perform 1 ls 25% $554,500 H/O Overheads, Job Fee & Risk Contractor Insurance Program 1 ls 2% $44,400 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk Contractor Bond 1 ls 1% $22,200 State Sales Taxes 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Escalation 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Running Subtotal: $2,838,900 Total Estimated Constr Costs w/o Estimating & Design contingency Estimating & Design/Scope Contingency Cont Factor: $851,635 Estimating Contingency 1 ls 15% $425,800 Based on subtotal of burdened direct costs Design Contingency 1 ls 15% $425,835 Excluded Scope Contingency 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Running Subtotal: $3,690,535 Total Estimated Contractor Bid Price Project Administration & Management $221,400 Site Surveys and Geotechnical Investigations 1 ls 4% $147600 Engineering/Permitting 1 ls 7% $258300 Construction Observation and Administration 1 ls 6% $221400 Misc Owner's Soft Costs (All) 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Market Conditions 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Interest During Construction (Financing) 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 1 ls 0% $0 Excluded, allowance for changed field conditions Grand Total: $3,911,935 Total Estimated Constr Costs w/Owner's Contingency Cost Range: $2,738,355 $5,867,903 -30% to +50% Per AACE cost estimate guidelines Cost Range: $2,933,951 $4,889,919 -25% to +25% For reporting Total Owner's Contingency: $0 0% Notes: 1) Estimate assumes land based construction methodology, with construction of temporary stone access causeway 2) Pricing basis = 2nd Qtr 2026, escalation to midpoint of construction is notincluded. 3) P=Prime, S=Subcontractor 4) Pricing assumes competitive market conditions at time of tender (+3 bidders/trade). 5) Owner soft costs, market conditions, interest during construction, and project management expenses excluded. 6) No soils investigation has been performed for this estimate 7) Assumes landfill disposal of excavated material; no hazardous material included 8) Permit fees and ROW acquisition excluded 9) Assumes Prime Contractor will self-perform all work OPCC Disclaimer The client hereby acknowledges that Baird has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over time. Client agrees that Baird cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from Baird's good faith Class 5 OPCC AACE International CLASS 4 Cost Estimate – Class 4 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. Typically, engineering is from 1% to 15% complete. They are often prepared for strategic planning purposes, market studies, assessment of viability, project location studies, and long range capital planning. Virtually all Class 5 estimates use stochastic estimating methods such as cost curves, capacity factors, and other parametric techniques. Expected accuracy ranges are from –15% to –30% on the low side and +20% to 50% on the high side, depending on technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances.(AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards). Prepared by RMB. 2/13/2026 Page 1 Page 442 of 444 Appendix E Multicriteria Comparison of Alternatives Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix E Page 443 of 444  Option and Restores Restores Approximate Details Constructability Considerations Public Parking Cost Access • Self-supported steel sheet pile • Lower complexity construction bulkhead wall, • Requires less demolition driven just outside of existing structure of existing • Will likely require construction Cantilever Wall structure with of land-based access or Encapsulation concrete deck possibly marine plant for pile Y Y $ 3.2 to 5.3 M • Cantilever wall driving due to existing utilizes longer, condition of dock Replacement of Structure in Kind thicker sheet piles • Will require state and federal with relatively permits for in-water work deep embedment into lakebed • Anchored steel • Higher complexity sheet pile construction - bulkhead wall, • Requires more driven just outside demolition, more of existing connections and structure with transitions (weak points) concrete deck • Anchors must be founded Hybrid • Anchored wall in compacted fill with Anchored + utilizes shorter, consistent gradation. The Cantilever Wall thinner sheet piles makeup of the existing fill Y Y Encapsulation with shallower beneath the damaged $ 2.9 to 4.9 M embedment deck is unknown • Sheet piles are • Will likely require construction connected with of land-based access or steel bars to possibly marine plant for pile anchors driving due to existing embedded in fill condition of dock beneath the • Will require state and federal concrete deck permits for in-water work • Restrict vehicle • Simplest construction of all traffic, parking, Reconfiguration options and public access to the pier • Land-based construction structure methods for creation of paved N Y $ 0.5 to 1 M parking area • Develop nearby parking • Will not require state and alternatives federal permits for in-water work Winnetka Electric Plant Pier Repair Study Root Cause Assessment and Repair Alternative Analysis 13918.201.R1.Rev1 Appendix E Page 444 of 444