Village Council

Village of Winnetka Village Council Regular Meeting April 21, 2026 at 7:00 PM Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Quorum a. May 5, 2026 Regular Meeting b. May 12, 2026 Special Study Session c. May 19, 2026 Regular Meeting 4. Presentations a. Winnetka-Northfield Public Library Presentation b. Arbor Day Proclamation c. Environmental, Forestry, & Sustainability Commission Green Awards d. National Wildlife Federation - Mayors' Monarch Pledge (Proclamation) 5. Public Comments 6. Reports 7. Establishment of Consent Agenda 8. Approval of Consent Agenda a. Approval of Village Council Minutes i. March 19, 2026 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Warrant List Dated April 3, 2026 - April 16, 2026 c. Approval of Annual Outdoor Seating Area Permits d. Resolution No. R-41-2026: Waiving Bidding and Approving a Purchase of Software Licenses from Liftoff, LLC (Adoption) 9. Ordinances and Resolutions a. Resolution No. R-43-2026: Awarding a Contract for Village Hall HVAC Replacement Design and Miscellaneous Architectural and Engineering Items (Adoption) 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 213  b. Resolution No. R-44-2026: Regarding Permits Granted by the State of Illinois Department of Transportation for the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Street Improvements on State Highways Maintained by the Village (Adoption) 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. 730 Elm Street - DUET Special Use - Policy Direction b. 829 and 833 Foxdale - Lot Consolidation and Zoning Variations - Policy Consideration 12. Appointments 13. Closed Session 14. Adjournment Village of Winnetka Page 2 of 213 Village Council - April 21, 2026  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Arbor Day Proclamation PRESENTER: Andrew Lueck AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Presentation ITEM HISTORY: The Village of Winnetka has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the Arbor Day Foundation for 32 consecutive years. The Village has issued an Arbor Day proclamation each of those years as a requirement for recognition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Village of Winnetka has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the Arbor Day Foundation for 32 consecutive years and has received a Tree City USA Growth Award for the last 8 years. Tree City USA is a program that recognizes a municipality's dedication to its urban forest. The program has four requirements: 1. Annual Arbor Day proclamation and observance 2. Tree care ordinance 3. Annual tree care budget of at least $2 per capita 4. Tree board By passing and reciting an official Arbor Day proclamation, Village officials demonstrate their support for the community tree program and help complete the requirements for becoming a Tree City USA. RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026 Arbor Day Proclamation Page 3 of 213  PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than one million trees in Nebraska, and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife, and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products, and WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do hereby proclaim Friday April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the Village of Winnetka, and we urge all citizens to support efforts to protect our trees and woodland and to support our Village's urban forestry program. Dated this ______________day of__________________, 2026. _______________________ Village President Page 4 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Environmental, Forestry, & Sustainability Commission Green Awards PRESENTER: Elyse Steiner AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Presentation ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of the Village's sustainability initiatives, the Environmental, Forestry, and Sustainability Commission (EFSC) has administered the annual Green Awards program to recognize individuals and institutions within the community that demonstrate exceptional commitment to sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices. This year, the EFSC is recognizing three deserving Green Award winners. 2026 Green Award Winners • The Winnetka Park District completed LED lighting retrofits for 5 outdoor tennis courts at the A.C. Nielsen Tennis Center. This investment in energy efficiency will save over 24,000 kWh and avoid 21 metric tons of carbon emissions. • Resident Stacy Lucier is an Illinois Master Gardener and her garden received the Conservation@Home designation for demonstrating environmentally sound landscape practices. She has also helped neighbors with their gardens to increase native plants that benefit local wildlife. • North Shore Country Day School renovated the Mac McCarty athletic Center following Adaptive Reuse principles. They restored the original maple wood flooring, added a green roof to reduce “heat island” effects, and installed efficient HVAC, lighting, and plumbing fixtures. RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge the 2026 Green Award winners. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 5 of 213 Page 6 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: National Wildlife Federation - Mayors' Monarch Pledge (Proclamation) PRESENTER: Elyse Steiner AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Presentation ITEM HISTORY: The Village adopted the National Wildlife Federation ("NWF") Mayors' Monarch Pledge in November 2020 and has approved proclamations honoring Monarch Remembrance Day in the Village of Winnetka in April of each subsequent year. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Each year, the National Wildlife Federation asks local governments to participate in the Mayors' Monarch Pledge, a conservation program aimed at safeguarding the dwindling populations of monarch butterflies in North America. The Pledge asks participants to not only promote conservation efforts, including the planting of native milkweed, but also complete at least three action items from a list of 25 in support of the butterflies. The adoption of an annual educational proclamation is one such item, and for this reason, staff recommends adopting the annual Monarch Butterfly proclamation. In addition to this proclamation, the Village's other action items will be to continue to maintain native landscaping on its properties, support Friends of the Green Bay Trail’s plan to replace invasive plants with natives along a section of the Trail, and work to promote further habitat development through the implementation of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of the 2026 National Wildlife Federation's Mayors' Monarch Butterfly Proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026 Monarch Pledge Page 7 of 213  MONARCH BUTTERFLY PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the monarch butterfly is an iconic North American species whose multigenerational migration and metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly has captured the imagination of millions of Americans; and WHEREAS, individual monarchs will fly up to 3,000 miles from their summer homes in America’s backyards and grasslands to wintering grounds in Mexico’s forests; and WHEREAS, 20 years ago, more than one billion Eastern monarch butterflies migrated to Mexico, each year, but experienced population declines of up to 90% in recent years; and WHEREAS, habitat loss, increased use of pesticides, climate change and lack of proper food sources contribute to this decline; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the Monarch as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, every citizen of Winnetka can make a difference for the monarch by planting pollinator-attracting native plants to provide habitat for the monarchs and other pollinators in locations where people live, work, learn, play and worship; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the residents of the Village who are already and planning on creating healthy habitat for these magnificent butterflies, the Village Council is honored to lead the way by signing the National Wildlife Federation’s Mayors’ Monarch Pledge; and we encourage other officials across the Unites States to take a stand with us so that the monarch butterfly will once again flourish across the continent. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do hereby proclaim that April 21, 2026, shall be Monarch Butterfly Remembrance Day in the Village of Winnetka. ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2026. Signed: ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _________________________________ Village Clerk Page 8 of 213  MINUTES WINNETKA VILLAGE COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING March 19, 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, March 19, 2026, at 7:00 PM. 1) Call to Order. President Dearborn called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. Village Manager Kristin Kazenas called the roll. Present: Trustees Kirk Albinson, Rob Apatoff, 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, Police Chief Brian O’Connell, Sustainability Manager Elyse Steiner, Water & Electric Director Nick Narhi, and approximately 15 people in the audience. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. Trustee Myers led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Quorum. a) April 7, 2026 Regular Meeting All of the Council members present said they expect to attend. b) April 14, 2026 Special Study Session All of the Council members present said they expect to attend. c) April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting All of the Council members present said they expect to attend. 4) Public Comment: i. Terry Dason, President of the Winnetka-Northfield-Glencoe Chamber of Commerce, addresses concerns related to ongoing challenges facing retail businesses along Lincoln Avenue and Elm Street in the East Elm Business District. ii. Deb McMahon, manager of J. McLaughlin, requests that the Village address parking concerns in the East Elm Business District. iii. Anette Pakora, the 60’s Beauty Lash, addresses concerns related to Spynergy in the East Elm Business District. 5) Reports: a) Trustees. No report. b) Attorney. No report. c) Village Manager. No report. d) Village President. i. President Dearborn advises members of the public that Police Chief Brian O’Connell will provide a brief report regarding the March 8th home invasion on Rosewood Avenue in Winnetka. Police Chief Brian O’Connell addresses matters regarding the Page 9 of 213 Village Council Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 Police Departments transparency related to the investigation, response time, commitment to safety and professionalism on scene, and the Village’s communication updates regarding the incident. Chief O’Connell extends appreciation to all those that submitted emails and notifications related to the home invasion, helping the investigation immensely. Chief O’Connell emphasizes the importance of community members reporting suspicious activity or vehicles by calling 911 and not engaging with offenders, if possible. Additionally, Chief O’Connell addresses Village resources such as automated license plate readers and partnership with Glenview Public Safety Dispatch, P4 Security Solutions, as well as the involvement of surrounding communities. 6) Presentations a) Environmental, Forestry, & Sustainability Commission Presentation – 2025 Accomplishments + 2026 Goals EFSC Chair Peter Eck addresses Council regarding EFSC accomplishments in 2025 and proposed projects in 2026 ensuring that they align with Village priorities. Mr. Eck addresses agenda updates, personnel transitions, project updates, and various initiatives. Sustainability Manager Elyse Steiner advises Council of the commission’s partnership with EcoShip and the Park District to collect packaging materials for reuse as well as partnership and participation in the Switch Together program aiming to make renewable energy more affordable. 7) Establishment of the Consent Agenda Trustee Myers seconded by Trustee Apatoff moved to approve the Establishment of the Consent Agenda. By voice vote, the motion carried. 8) Approval of the 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 in the amount of $1,396,365.42 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 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) 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. Page 10 of 213 Village Council Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 9) Ordinances and Resolutions. 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) (Adoption) Village Council considered the special use permit for Solidcore at the March 3rd regular meeting and provided policy direction requesting that the Village Attorney and staff prepare an ordinance approving the special use subject to certain conditions of approval. Council requests that a minimum of 15-minutes between classes between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays and that the applicant encourage clients to utilize the on- site parking within the One Winnetka building. Public Comment Christina Codo expresses support for Solidcore citing their qualifications and suitability for the space. Council requests that a one-year check in be scheduled to ensure that parking matters are addressed. Trustee Orsic moves to amend paragraph F of Ordinance No. M-03-2026 as follows; the applicant will meet with Village staff on or about the one-year anniversary of the applicant’s commencing operations to analyze and review any ongoing parking issues related to the use of on street parking by clients of the applicant. Based on this analysis and review, the applicant will continue to work with the Village to undertake additional necessary steps to further encourage clients to utilize the commercial parking facilities located within the One Winnetka development. Trustee Orsic, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to waive introduction of Ordinance No. M-03-2026. Trustee Orsic, seconded by Trustee Albinson, moved to adopt Ordinance No. M-03-2026 with the amendment to paragraph F; the applicant will meet with Village staff on or about the one-year anniversary of the applicant’s commencing operations to analyze and review any ongoing parking issues related to the use of on street parking by clients of the applicant. Based on this analysis and review, the applicant will continue to work with the Village to undertake additional necessary steps to further encourage clients to utilize the commercial parking facilities located within the One Winnetka development. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Handler. Abstain: None. 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) Community Development Director Scott Mangum advises Council of a request for approval of a zoning variation to allow construction of a new single-family residence. The applicant intends to demolish the existing single-family residence and detached garage to accommodate construction of a new single-family residence with an attached garage. Council is informed of the zoning and location maps, zoning lot, and plat of survey and site plan. Eamon Murphy, architect representing the homeowners, addresses Council regarding the Page 11 of 213 Village Council Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 architectural planning process, zoning compliance, matters regarding an easement, and overall complexity of the project scope. Trustee Dalman, seconded by Trustee Albinson, moved to waive introduction of Ordinance No. M-04-2026. Trustee Apatoff, seconded by Trustee Orsic, moved to adopt Ordinance No. M-04-2026. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers, and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Handler. Abstain: None. c. Ordinance No. M-05-2026: Approving a Final Plat of Subdivision and Granting Variations from the Winnetka Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances (Introduction/Adoption) Community Development Director Scott Mangum advises Council regarding a request to approve a final subdivision plat to create two new lots of record. Council is advised of zoning variations, subdivision code variations, proposed amended subdivision, zoning standards, zoning nonconformities, and amended subdivision. Christopher Canning, attorney of the property owners, addresses Council regarding the intention of the subdivision and lots of record and advisory board recommendations and approval process. Council discusses matters related to construction on a floodplain, engineering design standards, stormwater, and review process of proposed construction projects. Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Dalman, moved to waive introduction of Ordinance No. M-05-2026. Trustee Albinson, seconded by Trustee Dalman, moved to adopt Ordinance No. M-05- 2026. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers, and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Handler. Abstain: None. 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 (Introduction/Adoption) The zoning text amendment comes before Council because of a recent judicial ruling in the Circuit Court of Cook County as a result of a property owners’ opposition with the Village’s interpretation that their property, located on a corner with three street frontages, had two front lot lines and one corner lot line. The court had ruled in favor of the homeowners. The Village Attorney recommended initiating the zoning text amendment and scheduling a public hearing before Council to consider and adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding lot line designations. Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Dalman, moved to adopt Resolution No. R-35-2026. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers, and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Handler. Abstain: None. 10) Old Business. None. 11) New Business. a) Tower Road Pier Rehabilitation Discussion Water & Electric Director Nick Narhi provides information regarding the pier history, Page 12 of 213 Village Council Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 constructed in 1893 to support power generation, support potable water intake, and provide public parking, operations and conditions, high lake events, recent repair history, and adjacent facilities and structures. Rodi Batisa, Marine Engineer with Baird & Associates, provides information regarding root cause assessments and repair alternative analysis report. Baird & Associates engineers conducted site inspections of the pier, and observed the overall conditions of the pier including sheet piling and concrete pier deck conditions. Council is informed that the root cause assessment is a result of the pier exceeding its service life deeming it unfit for public access or parking, observed deficiencies, and advises Council regarding short term recommendations and options regarding replacement of the structures. Water & Electric Director Nick Narhi provides staff recommendation regarding near-term lower cost solution and long-term pier reimagination. Council discusses green space conversation, public pier access, parking matters, pier erosion, underwater inspections, partnership with regulatory agencies, and costs and budgeting. Public Comment Tim Ring encourages Council to consider constructing a natural swimming pool as part of the pier repair. Elise Gibson addresses Council regarding concerns of ongoing debris from the pier. Christina Codo addresses matters related to sand retention and protective elements of pier repair. Council provides policy direction for staff to proceed with reconfiguration option as recommended by Baird with an estimated cost between $500,000 to $1,000,000. Staff will return before Council to present conceptual ideas. 12) Appointments: None. 12) Closed Session for the Purpose of Discussing Probable and Pending Litigation Pursuant to Section 2(c)(11) of the Open Meetings Act. Trustee Dalman, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to adjourn to Closed Session for the purpose of discussing probable and pending litigation pursuant to section 2(c)(11) of the Open Meetings Act and to adjourn the Open Meeting automatically and immediately upon the conclusion of the special meeting without the conduct of any further business or comments. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Albinson, Apatoff, Dalman, Myers, and Orsic. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Dalman. 13) Adjournment. The Closed Session meeting ended at 9:42 p.m. _______________________________ Recording Secretary Page 13 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Approval of Warrant List Dated April 3, 2026 - April 16, 2026 PRESENTER: Kristin Kazenas AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Warrant List Dated April 3, 2026 - April 16, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Consider Approving the Warrant List Dated April 3, 2026 - April 16, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 14 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Approval of Annual Outdoor Seating Area Permits PRESENTER: Dan Gardner AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: Annual outdoor seating area permit approval, as required for commercial use of Village sidewalks (Village Code Section 12.04.070). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Village Code requires Village Council permission for businesses to operate on public sidewalks. One additional Winnetka business has applied for an outdoor seating permit. The applicant submitted a proposed layout sketch and certificate of insurance showing at least $1,000,000/ occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate liability, naming the Village as an additional insured. The Village's insurance broker is in the process of reviewing and approving the insurance certificate, and Public Works Assistant Director Erik Jensen will inspect the requested table layout. Staff will work with the applicant to assure appropriate passage of pedestrians. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of the 2026 Outdoor Seating Area Permit application, pending final insurance certificate and table layout approval by the Village. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicants for Outdoor Seating Permit 2026 Page 15 of 213 Licensee Business Address License Number Avli 566 Chestnut Street Suite 1 24 Page 16 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-41-2026: Waiving Bidding and Approving a Purchase of Software Licenses from Liftoff, LLC (Adoption) PRESENTER: Tim Sloth AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: Yes ITEM TYPE: Consent Agenda ITEM HISTORY: In 2020, the Village implemented Microsoft Office 365, a subscription-based service that provides users with Microsoft productivity applications including Outlook (email), Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, and other cloud-based services. These applications are hosted in Microsoft’s Government Community Cloud (GCC), providing enhanced cybersecurity, compliance, and data protection. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Village has secured a quote through Prescient Solutions to provide Microsoft Office 365 and related licensing for a 12-month term. The licensing includes a mix of G1, G3, and G5 plans, along with additional services such as Microsoft Entra ID (P1 and P2), Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Power BI Pro, Visio, and Microsoft 365 Copilot. Microsoft establishes standardized pricing for these licenses regardless of reseller and is sole source, therefore, competitive bidding is not required. Prescient Solutions, the Village’s contracted IT consultant, has recommended procuring these licenses through their firm, as they will serve as the designated Cloud Solutions Provider (CSP) with Microsoft and can interact directly with Microsoft support, rather than through a third party, should a licensing issue arise. The FY2026 budget includes funding within the Information Technology budget for these services. Resolution No. R-41-2026 authorizes the Village President and Village Clerk to waive formal bidding and execute an agreement with Prescient Solutions for a 12-month term in an amount not to exceed $68,592.00. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution No. R-41-2026, which approves waiving formal bidding and authorizes an agreement with Prescient Solutions for Microsoft Office 365 and related licensing services for a 12-month term in an amount not to exceed $68,592.00. Page 17 of 213 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-41-2026: Waiving Bidding and Approving a Purchase of Software Licenses from Liftoff, LLC Page 18 of 213  RESOLUTION NO. R-41-2026 A RESOLUTION WAIVING BIDDING AND APPROVING A PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE LICENSES FROM LIFTOFF LLC 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, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Village currently operates Microsoft Office 365 and other ancillary software pursuant to software licenses that will be expiring; and WHEREAS, the Village has determined that in order continue to efficiently operate, the Village needs to purchase Microsoft 365 and ancillary software licenses (collectively, “Software Licenses”) for the next twelve months; and WHEREAS, there is little deviation on the cost for Software Licenses from various vendors because the price for the Software Licenses is largely determined by Microsoft; and WHEREAS, the Village received a proposal from Prescient Solutions (“Contractor”) of Schaumburg, Illinois to provide the Software Licenses for the amount of $68,592.00; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 4.12.010.A and 4.12.010.C of the Village Code and in accordance with Section IV.3.D of the Village’s Purchasing Manual, the bidding requirements may be waived for contracts for supplies and services available from a single source, and which by their nature are not adaptable to competitive bidding; and WHEREAS, the Village desires to enter into a purchase order with Contractor to provide the Software Licenses (“Purchase Order”) in an amount not to exceed $68,592.00; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.12.010.C of the Village Code, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the Village to waive competitive bidding and enter into the Purchase Order with 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: WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING. Pursuant to Sections 4.12.010.A and 4.12.010.C of the Village Code, Section IV.3.D of the Village’s Purchasing April 21, 2026 R-41-2026 Page 19 of 213 Manual, and the Village’s home rule authority, the Village Council waives the requirement of competitive bidding for the procurement of the Software Licenses. SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER. The Village Council approves the Purchase Order in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the Village Manager. SECTION 4: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE PURCHASE ORDER. The Village Council hereby authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, the final Purchase Order after receipt by the Village Manager of two executed copies of the final Purchase Order from Contractor; provided, however, that if the Village Manager does not receive two executed copies of the final Purchase Order from Contractor within 60 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution, then this authority to execute and seal the Purchase Order will, at the option of the Village Council, be null and void. SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval by the vote of two-thirds of the Trustees. ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk April 21, 2026 R-41-2026 Page 20 of 213 EXHIBIT A Quote Page 21 of 213 Work Order: As of 04/02/2026 Bill to: Reseller (Remit To): Village of Winnetka Tim Sloth, Finance Director Prescient Solutions 510 Green Bay Road Attn: Phil Greco Winnetka, Illinois 60093 1834 Walden Office Square Schaumburg, IL 60173 Payment Options: ACH Payment (preferred) or check Product Name All Mandatory Description Price Qty. Disc. Amount Annually Recurring Office 365 G1 (Governmental $120.00 47 $0.00 $5,640.00 Community Cloud Pricing) (NCE Each GCC ANN) Annually Recurring Office 365 G3 (Governmental $276.00 147 $0.00 $40,572.00 Community Cloud Pricing) (NCE Each GCC ANN) Annually Recurring Office 365 G5 (Government $456.00 5 $0.00 $2,280.00 Community Cloud Pricing) (NCE Each GCC ANN) © Prescient Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 22 of 213  Annually Recurring Microsoft Entra ID P1 for $72.00 198 $0.00 $14,256.00 Government (NCE GCC ANN) Each Annually Recurring Microsoft Entra ID P2 for $108.00 1 $0.00 $108.00 Government (NCE GCC ANN) Each Annually Recurring Microsoft Defender for Office 365 $24.00 198 $0.00 $4,752.00 (Plan 1) (Governmental Each Community Cloud Pricing) (NCE GCC ANN) Annually Recurring Power BI Pro GCC (NCE COM $132.00 2 $0.00 $264.00 ANN) Each Annually Recurring Microsoft 365 Copilot GCC for $360.00 1 $0.00 $360.00 GCC (NCE GCC ANN) Each Annually Recurring Visio Plan 2 GCC (NCE COM ANN) $180.00 2 $0.00 $360.00 Each Annually $68,592.00 Total $68,592.00 Terms of Service: Billing for licensing will continue until a client notifies Prescient in writing they wish to discontinue or remove portion(s) of their existing Microsoft Licensing Purchasing Microsoft Licensing through Prescient Solutions will set Prescient as the CSP (Cloud Solutions Provider) on record with Microsoft. Prescient Solutions is not responsible for Microsoft licensing agreements. Microsoft may change or modify their product offerings. Licensing charges will be applied to your current billing cycle and reflect the monthly or annual reoccurring (MRC/ANN) licensing fees as stated above. Any increase or decrease including changes to license types will be reflected in the next billing cycle. If, after thirty (30) days, the number of licenses is discovered to be inaccurate, Prescient reserves the right to correct and bill for the correct number of licenses. © Prescient Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 23 of 213  Licenses are nontransferable. This includes Organizational or Microsoft Tenant changes. The client is responsible for notifying other CSPs of licensing changes and terminations when that licensing is purchased from those CSPs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first set forth above. Village of Winnetka Prescient Development, LLC a/an Illinois Municipality a Delaware limited liability company [[s| 0 ]] [[s| 0 ]] Name: Tim Sloth Name: Phil Greco Title: Finance Director Title: CFO © Prescient Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 24 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-43-2026: Awarding a Contract for Village Hall HVAC Replacement Design and Miscellaneous Architectural and Engineering Items (Adoption) PRESENTER: Tom Powers AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: As part of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget, $270,000.00 was included for the design of mechanical and miscellaneous improvements to the Village Hall based on items identified during the 2024 facilities study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing duties, the Public Works Department works with the Village's other Departments to oversee maintenance and capital planning for the Village's facilities. In 2024, as part of a larger initiative, the Village initiated a facilities study to overview each of the Village's buildings and identify the long-term capital needs for each building. The first study covered the Village Hall and Public Safety Building. The Village Hall facilities study identified a few larger items for improvement, including replacement of the building's out-of-support variable refrigerant flow (VFR) HVAC system and the increasingly obsolete fire alarm system. The HVAC system is no longer supported by the vendor due to acquisition, parts are hard to find and technical support is unavailable. The refrigerant system is no longer in production due to EPA regulations and the building automation system is an obsolete software on a non-networked computer without backup. Needed improvements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act were also identified. Finally, a number of individual improvements, including refinishing of some historic elements and mitigation of older hazards, were included. Due to the specialized nature of working in a historic building and the potential need for competency for a high-efficiency, energy efficient geothermal HVAC system, a request for Architect and Engineering (AE) qualifications was utilized rather than a request for proposals. Staff prepared a Request for Qualifications document #026-001 for architectural and mechanical engineering services that was advertised on January 14th, 2026. The Village received eight responsive submittals. An Page 25 of 213 interdepartmental team including Public Works and Community Development interviewed three firms and selected the Studio GC team as the most qualified. Staff entered into negotiations with Studio GC and came to an agreement on a contract to perform design services in an amount not to exceed $244,185. This project was budgeted in the amount of $270,000 (account # 410.15.01-615). Next steps would be return to council in the near future for a study session on the HVAC system and to confirm the basis of design. When the project moves forward to construction, staff will return to the council for an AE Construction Administration service contract as well. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council consider awarding a contract for Village Hall HVAC Replacement Design and Miscellaneous Architectural and Engineering items. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-43-2026: Awarding a Contract to Studio GC, Inc. for Services Related to Village Hall HVAC Replacement and Miscellaneous AE Items Page 26 of 213  RESOLUTION NO. R-43-2026 A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO STUDIO GC, INC. FOR SERVICS RELATED TO VILLAGE HALL HVAC REPLACEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS AE ITEMS 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 14th, 2026, the Village issued Request for Qualification #26-001 (“RFQ”) for professional architectural and engineering services related to the Village Hall HVAC replacement (“Services”); and WHEREAS, the Village received 8 qualification package 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 Studio GC, Inc. (“Contractor”) is the most qualified to provide the Services; and WHEREAS, the Village Council desires to enter into a contract with Contractor for Contractor to perform the Services in an amount not to exceed $244,185.00 (“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, 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. April 21, 2026 R-43-2026 Page 27 of 213  ADOPTED this 21st day of April 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk April 21, 2026 R-43-2026 Page 28 of 213  EXHIBIT A CONTRACT April 21, 2026 R-43-2026 Page 29 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement VILLAGE OF WINNETKA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR Village Hall HVAC Replacement Design and Miscellaneous Architectural and Engineering items THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated as of the _21st __ day of April, 2026 (“Effective Date”) and is by and between the VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation (“Village”), and Studio GC, an Illinois corporation (“the Consultant”) (collectively, the “Parties”). IN CONSIDERATION OF the agreements set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are mutually acknowledged, and pursuant to the Village’s statutory and home rule powers, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. SCOPE AND PROVISION OF SERVICES. A. Engagement of the Consultant. The Village hereby engages the Consultant to provide all necessary services and to perform the work in connection with the project described as follows: Design and Construction Document Preparation for a Variety of building improvements for the Village Hall facility per attached proposal and qualifications (collectively, the “Services”). B. Services. The Consultant has submitted to the Village a description of the Services to be provided by the Consultant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement (“Scope of Services”). The Consultant must provide the Services pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as described more fully in the Scope of Services. C. Commencement; Time of Performance. The Consultant will commence the Services immediately upon receipt of written notice from the Village that this Agreement has been fully executed by the Parties (“Commencement Date”). The Consultant will diligently and continuously prosecute the Services until the completion of the Services or the termination of this Agreement but in no event later than December 31, 2027. The consultant shall comply with the schedule indicated in the RFP dated February 3, 2026, more specifically to complete the construction documents for bidding by the end of September 2026. D. Reporting. The Consultant will regularly report to the Village regarding the progress of the Services during the term of this Agreement. E. Relationship of the Parties. The Consultant will act as an independent contractor in providing and performing the Services. Nothing in, nor done pursuant to, this Agreement will be construed to: (i) create the relationship of principal and agent, employer and employee, partners, or joint venturers between the Village and the Consultant; or (ii) create any relationship between the Village and any subcontractor of the Consultant. F. Information Releases. The Consultant will not issue any news releases or other public statements regarding the Services without prior approval from the Village. G. Mutual Cooperation. The Village will cooperate with the Consultant in the performance of the Services, including meeting with the Consultant and providing the Consultant with any non-confidential information that the Village may have that may be relevant and helpful to the Consultant’s performance of the Services. The Consultant agrees to cooperate with the Page 30 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement Village in the performance of the Services to complete the Work and with any other the Consultants engaged by the Village. H. Compliance with Laws and Grants. 1. The Consultant will give all notices, pay all fees, and take all other actions that may be necessary to ensure that the Services are provided, performed, and completed in accordance with all required governmental permits, licenses, or other approvals and authorizations that may be required or necessary in connection with providing, performing, and completing the Services, and with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations, including without limitation the Fair Labor Standards Act; any statutes regarding qualification to do business; any statutes prohibiting discrimination because of, or requiring affirmative action based on, race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, or other prohibited classification, including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. The Consultant will also comply with all conditions of any federal, state, or local grant received by Village or the Consultant with respect to this Agreement or the Services. 2. The Consultant will be solely liable for any fines or civil penalties that are imposed by any governmental or quasi-governmental agency or body that may arise, or be alleged to have arisen, out of or in connection with the Consultant’s, or its subcontractors’, performance of, or failure to perform, the Services or any part of the Services. 3. Every provision of law required by law to be inserted into this Agreement will be deemed to be inserted herein. SECTION 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. A. Compensation. The total amount billed by the Consultant for the Services under this Agreement will not exceed $244,185.00 (“Compensation”), as outlined in the Scope of Services, “plus reimbursable expenses” as identified in the Scope of Services, without the prior express written authorization of the Village. B. Invoices and Payment. The Consultant will be paid as provided in the Scope of Services. The Consultant will submit invoices to the Village in an approved format for those portions of the Services performed and completed by the Consultant. The Village will pay to the Consultant the amount billed in accordance with the Illinois Prompt Payment Act, 50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. C. Records. The Consultant will maintain records showing actual time devoted and costs incurred, and will permit the authorized representative of the Village to inspect and audit all data and records of the Consultant for work done under this Agreement. The records required to be made available to the Village under this Section 2.C will be made available at reasonable times during the term of this Agreement, and for five years after the termination of this Agreement. D. Claim in Addition to Compensation. If the Consultant claims a right to additional compensation as a result of action taken by the Village, the Consultant must provide written notice to the Village of the claim within seven days after occurrence of the action, and no claim for additional compensation will be valid unless made in accordance with this Section 2.D. Any changes in the Compensation will be valid only upon written amendment pursuant to Section 10.A of this Agreement. Regardless of the decision of the Village relative to a claim submitted by the 2 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 31 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement Consultant, the Consultant will proceed with all of the Services required to complete the Services under this Agreement as determined by the Village without interruption. E. Taxes, Benefits, Royalties. The Compensation includes all applicable federal, state, and local taxes of every kind and nature applicable to the Services, including, without limitation, all taxes, contributions, and premiums for unemployment insurance, old age or retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, or similar benefits and all costs, royalties and fees arising from the use on, or the incorporation into, the Services, of patented or copyrighted equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions. The Consultant waives and releases any claim or right to claim additional compensation by reason of the payment of any tax, contribution, premium, costs, royalties, or fees. F. Completion and Acceptance of Services. The Services, and any phase of the Services, will be considered complete on the date of final written acceptance by the Village of the Services or each phase of the Services, as the case may be. G. Additional Services. The Village will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Consultant in connection with any services provided by the Consultant that are outside the scope of this Agreement (“Additional Services”), regardless of whether the Additional Services are requested or directed by the Village, except upon the prior written consent of the Village Manager after approval in accordance with applicable procedures. H. No Additional Obligation. The Village is under no obligation under this Agreement or otherwise to negotiate or enter into any other or additional contracts or agreements with the Consultant, or with any vendor solicited or recommended by the Consultant. SECTION 3. PERSONNEL; SUBCONTRACTORS. A. Key Project Personnel. The employees, officials, and personnel of the Consultant described in the Scope of Services (“Key Project Personnel”), if any, will be primarily responsible for carrying out the Services on behalf of the Consultant. The Key Project Personnel may not be changed without the Village’s prior written approval. The Consultant will notify the Village as soon as practicable prior to terminating the employment of, reassigning, or receiving notice of the resignation of, any Key Project Personnel. The Consultant will have no claim for damages and may not bill the Village for additional time and materials charges as the result of any portion of the Services that must be duplicated or redone due to termination or for any delay or extension of the Time of Performance as a result of any termination, reassigning, or resignation. B. Availability of Personnel. The Consultant will provide all personnel necessary to complete the Services including, without limitation, any Key Project Personnel identified in this Agreement or in the Scope of Services. C. Approval and Use of Subcontractors. The Consultant will perform the Services with its own personnel and under the management, supervision, and control of its own organization, unless otherwise approved by the Village in writing. All subcontractors and subcontracts used by the Consultant will be acceptable to, and approved in advance by, the Village. The Village’s approval of any subcontractor or subcontract will not relieve the Consultant of full responsibility and liability for the provision, performance, and completion of the Services as required by this Agreement. All Services performed under any subcontract will be subject to all of the provisions of this Agreement in the same manner as if performed by employees of the Consultant. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Consultant” will be deemed also to refer to all 3 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 32 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement subcontractors of the Consultant, and every subcontract will include a provision binding the subcontractor to all provisions of this Agreement. D. Removal of Personnel and Subcontractors. If any personnel or subcontractor fails to perform the Services in a manner satisfactory to the Village, then, immediately upon notice from the Village, the Consultant will remove and replace the personnel or subcontractor. The Consultant will have no claim for damages, for compensation in excess of the amount contained in this Agreement or for a delay or extension of the Time of Performance as a result of any removal or replacement. SECTION 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT. A. Term. The term of this Agreement, unless terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, will expire on the date the Village determines that all of the Services under this Agreement, including warranty services, are completed, which determination shall not be unreasonably withheld. A determination of completion will not constitute a waiver of any rights or claims that the Village has, before or after completion, with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the Consultant or any right of indemnification of the Village by the Consultant. B. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the Village may terminate this Agreement, at any time and for any reason, upon seven days prior written notice to the Consultant. In the event that this Agreement is so terminated, the Consultant will be paid for Services actually performed and reimbursable expenses actually incurred, if any, prior to termination, not exceeding the value of the Services completed as determined as provided in the Scope of Services. SECTION 5. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT AND DOCUMENTS. A. Confidential Information. In the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant may have access to or receive certain information in the possession of the Village that is not generally known to members of the public (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information includes, without limitation, proprietary information, copyrighted material, personal or private data of every kin, financial information, health records and information, maps, and all other information of a personal nature. The Consultant must not use or disclose any Confidential Information without the prior written consent of the Village. If the Consultant has any doubt about the confidentiality of any information, then the Consultant must seek a determination from the Village regarding the confidentiality of the information. The Consultant and all of its personnel and subcontractors must make and apply all safeguards necessary to prevent the improper use or disclosure of any Confidential Information. At the expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Consultant must promptly cease using, and must return or destroy (and certify in writing destruction of), all Confidential Information, including all copies, whether physical or in any other form, in its possession. The Consultant may not transfer to, store in, or otherwise allow work product containing Confidential Information to be located in any location, whether physical or digital, not under the control of the Consultant. If the Consultant is required, by any government authority or court of competent jurisdiction, to disclose any Confidential information, the Consultant must immediately give notice to the Village with the understanding that the Village will have the opportunity to contest the process by any means available to it prior to submission of any documents to a court or other third party. The Consultant must cause all of its personnel and subcontractors to undertake and abide by the same obligations regarding Confidential Information as the Consultant. 4 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 33 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement B. Ownership. The Consultant agrees that all work product, in any form, prepared, collected, or received by the Consultant in connection with any or all of the Services to be performed under this Agreement will be and remain the exclusive property of the Village. At the Village’s request, or upon termination of this Agreement, the Consultant will cause the work product to be promptly delivered to the Village. Any outstanding payment obligations may not be used as a basis to withhold work product. The Consultant agrees that, to the extent permitted by law, any and all work product will exclusively be deemed “works for hire” within the meaning and purview of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq subject to the terms of this Agreement. To the extent any work product does not qualify as a “work for hire,” the Consultant irrevocably grants, assigns, and transfers to the Village all right, title, and interest in and to the work product in all media throughout the world in perpetuity and all intellectual property rights therein, free and clear of any liens, claims, or other encumbrances, to the fullest extent permitted by law. All intellectual property, Confidential Information, and work product will at all times be and remain the property of the Village. The Consultant will execute all documents and perform all acts that the Village may request in order to assist the Village in perfecting or protecting its rights in and to the work product and all intellectual property rights relating to the work product. All of the foregoing items will be delivered to the Village upon demand at any time and in any event, will be promptly delivered to the Village upon expiration or termination of this Agreement within three days after a demand. In addition, the Consultant will return the Village’s data in the format requested by the Village. If any of the above items are lost or damaged while in the Consultant’s possession, those items will be restored or replaced at the Consultant’s expense. C. Freedom of Information Act and Local Records Act. The Consultant acknowledges that this Agreement, all documents submitted to the Village related to this Agreement, and records in the possession of the Consultant related to this Agreement or the Services may be a matter of public record and may be subject to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., and any other comparable state or federal laws now existing or adopted later (collectively, the “Disclosure Laws”). In the event that the Village requests records from the Consultant, the Consultant shall promptly cooperate with the Village to enable the Village to meet all of its obligations under the applicable Disclosure Law. The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the determination as to whether information in the records is exempt from disclosure or should be released to the public will be made by the Village in its sole and absolute discretion. D. Injunctive Relief. In the event of a breach or threatened breach of this Section 5, the Village may suffer irreparable injury not compensable by money damages and would not have an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the Consultant agrees that the Village will be entitled to seek immediate injunctive relief to prevent or curtail any breach, threatened or actual. The rights provided under this Section 5.D are in addition and without prejudice to any rights that the Village may have in equity, by law or statute. The Consultant will fully cooperate with the Village in identifying the scope of any improper use or dissemination of data protected by this Section 5 and will assist the Village in any notification efforts required by law. SECTION 6. WARRANTY. The Consultant warrants that the Services will be performed in accordance with the highest standards of professional practice, care, skill, and diligence practiced by recognized consulting firms or licensed and accredited professionals in performing services of a similar nature. This warranty is in addition to any other warranties expressed in this Agreement, or expressed or implied by law, which are reserved unto the Village. Any of the Services required by 5 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 34 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement law or by this Agreement to be performed by licensed professionals will be performed by professionals licensed by the State of Illinois to practice in the applicable professional discipline. SECTION 7. CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIONS. A. Ability to Perform. represents that it is financially solvent, has the necessary financial resources, has sufficient experience and competence, and has the necessary capital, facilities, organization, and staff necessary to provide, perform, and complete the Services in accordance with this Agreement and in a manner consistent with the standards of professional practice by recognized consulting firms providing services of a similar nature. B. Authorization. The execution, delivery and performance by the Consultant of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action, and does not and will not violate its organizational documents, as amended and supplemented, any of the applicable requirements of law, or constitute a breach of or default under, or require any consent under, any agreement, instrument, or document to which the Consultant is now a party or by which the Consultant is now or may become bound. C. Company Background. The information disclosed by the Consultant regarding its corporate structure, financial condition, expertise, and experience is true and correct. The Consultant will promptly notify Village in writing of any material change to or about the Consultant, including without limitation to change in ownership or control, and any change will be subject to Village approval which will not be unreasonably withheld. D. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant represents and certifies that, to the best of its knowledge: (1) no Village employee, official, or agent has an interest in the business of the Consultant or this Agreement; (2) as of the date of this Agreement, neither the Consultant nor any person employed or associated with the Consultant has any interest that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the obligations under this Agreement; and (3) neither the Consultant nor any person employed by or associated with the Consultant will at any time during the term of this Agreement obtain or acquire any interest that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the obligations under this Agreement. E. No Collusion. The Consultant represents and certifies that the Consultant is not barred from contracting with a unit of state or local government as a result of (i) a delinquency in the payment of any tax administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue unless the Consultant is contesting, in accordance with the procedures established by the appropriate revenue act, its liability for the tax or the amount of the tax, as set forth in Section 11-42.1-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/11-42.1-1 et seq.; or (ii) a violation of either Section 33E-3 or Section 33E-4 of Article 33E of the Criminal Code of 2012, 720 ILCS 5/33E-1 et seq. The Consultant represents that the only persons, firms, or corporations interested in this Agreement as principals are those disclosed to the Village prior to the execution of this Agreement, and that this Agreement is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation. If at any time it is found that the Consultant has, in procuring this Agreement, colluded with any other person, firm, or corporation, then the Consultant will be liable to the Village for all loss or damage that the Village may suffer, and this Agreement will, at the Village’s option, be null and void. F. Sexual Harassment Policy. The Consultant certifies that it has a written sexual harassment policy in full compliance with Section 2-105(A)(4) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-105(A)(4). 6 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 35 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement G. No Default. The Consultant is not in arrears to the Village under any debt or contract and is not in default as surety, contractor, or otherwise to any person, unless as disclosed the Village in writing. H. No Legal Actions Preventing Performance. As of the Effective Date, the Consultant has no knowledge of any action, suit, proceeding, claim or investigation pending or to its knowledge threatened against the Consultant in any court, or by or before any federal, state, municipal, or governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency, or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, or before any arbitrator of any kind, that, if adversely determined, would materially affect the Consultant’s ability to perform its obligation under this Agreement. I. Patriot Act Compliance. The Consultant represents and warrants to the Village that neither the Consultant nor any of its principals, shareholders, or other employees or officials (collectively “Personnel”) is a person or entity named as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person (as defined in Presidential Executive Order 13224) and that it is not acting, directly or indirectly, for or on behalf of a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person. The Consultant further represents and warrants that the Consultant and its Personnel are not directly or indirectly engaged in or facilitating transactions related to this Agreement on behalf of any person or entity named as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person. The Consultant must, and will, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Village and its officials, officers, authorities, and all Village elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys from and against every claim, damage, loss, risk, liability, and expense (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from or related to any breach of the representations and warranties in this Section 7.I. SECTION 8. INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE; NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. A. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to, and does hereby, hold harmless and indemnify the Village and all Village elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, engineers, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may be asserted at any time against any of those parties in connection with this Agreement or the Consultant’s performance, or failure to perform, all or any part of the Services defined by this Agreement; provided, however, that this indemnity does not, and will not, apply to willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the Village. B. Insurance. Contemporaneous with the Consultant’s execution of this Agreement, the Consultant will provide certificates of insurance, all with coverages and limits acceptable to the Village, and the Consultant must provide certificates of insurance, endorsements, and insurance policies acceptable to the Village and including at least the minimum insurance coverage and limits set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement. For good cause shown by the Consultant, the Village may extend the time for submission of the required certificates, endorsements, and policies and may impose deadlines or other terms to assure compliance with this Section 8.B. Each certificate and endorsement must be in a form acceptable to the Village and from a company with a general rating of A minus, and a financial size category of Class X or better, in Best’s Insurance Guide. Each insurance policy must provide that no change, modification, or cancellation of any insurance will become effective until the expiration of 30 days after written notice of the change, modification in, or cancellation will have been given by the insurance company to the Village (10 days’ written notice in the event of cancelation due to the Consultant’s non-payment of premium). The Consultant must maintain and keep in force, at all times during the term of this Agreement and at the Consultant’s expense, the insurance coverage provided in 7 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 36 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement this Section 8.B and Exhibit B, including without limitation at all times while correcting any failure to meet the warranty requirements of Section 6 of this Agreement. C. No Personal Liability. No elected or appointed official, or employee of the Village will be personally liable, in law or in contract, to the Consultant as the result of the execution and performance of this Agreement. SECTION 9. DEFAULT. A. Default. If the Village determines that the Consultant has failed or refused to properly undertake the Services with diligence, or has delayed in the undertaking of, the Services with diligence at a rate that assures completion of the Services in full compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, or has otherwise failed, refused, or delayed to perform or satisfy the Services or any other requirement of this Agreement (“Event of Default”), and fails to cure any the Event of Default within ten days after the Consultant’s receipt of written notice of the Event of Default from the Village, then the Village will have the right, notwithstanding the availability of other remedies provided by law or equity, to pursue any one or more of the remedies provided for under Section 9.B of this Agreement. B. Remedies. In case of any Event of Default, the Village may pursue the following remedies: 1. Cure by the Consultant. The Village may require the Consultant, within a reasonable time, to complete or correct all or any part of the Services that are the subject of the Event of Default; and to take any or all other action necessary to bring the Consultant and the Services into compliance with this Agreement; 2. Termination of Agreement. The Village may terminate this Agreement and, notwithstanding anything in Section 3.C. of this Agreement, the Village will not have any liability for further payment of amounts due or to become due under this Agreement; 3. Withholding of Payment. The Village may withhold from any payment, whether or not previously approved, or may recover from the Consultant, any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, incurred by the Village as the result of any Event of Default by the Consultant or as a result of actions taken by the Village in response to any Event of Default by the Consultant. SECTION 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement will be effective unless and until the amendment is in writing, properly approved in accordance with applicable procedures, and executed. B. Assignment. Neither Party may assign their rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. C. Village Actions, Consents, and Approvals. Any action, consent, or approval needed to be taken or given under this Agreement by the Village may only be performed by the Village Manager or their designee, to the extent provided for by law. 8 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 37 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement D. Binding Effect. The terms of this Agreement bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their agents, successors, and assigns. E. Notice. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement must be in writing and must be delivered (i) personally, (ii) by a reputable overnight courier, (iii) by certified mail, return receipt requested, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, or (iv) by E-mail. E-mail notices will be deemed valid and received by the addressee only upon explicit or implicit acknowledgment of receipt by the addressee. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, notices will be deemed received upon the earlier of (a) actual receipt; (b) one business day after deposit with an overnight courier as evidenced by a receipt of deposit; or (c) three business days following deposit in the U.S. mail, as evidenced by a return receipt. By notice complying with the requirements of this Section 10.E, each party will have the right to change the address or the addressee, or both, for all future notices to the other party, but no notice of a change of addressee or address will be effective until actually received. Notices to the Village will be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Attention: Thomas Powers E-mail: _____tpowers@winnetka.org_____________________ With a copy to: Elrod Friedman LLP 350 N. Clark Street, Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60650 Attention: Peter M. Friedman E-mail: peter.friedman@elrodfriedman.com Notices to the Consultant will be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: Studio GC 223 West Jackson, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606 Attention: Patrick Callahan Email: __P.callahan@studiogc.com_________________ F. Third Party Beneficiary. The provisions of this Agreement are and will be for the benefit of the Consultant and Village only and are not for the benefit of any third party, and accordingly, no third party shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The Village will not be liable to any vendor or other third party for any agreements made by the Consultant, purportedly on behalf of the Village, without the knowledge and approval of the Corporate Authorities. G. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the Village will have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to determine if (i) the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect and will in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated, or (ii) the entire agreement shall be invalid, void, and unenforceable. 9 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 38 of 213  Professional/Consultant Services Agreement H. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. I. Governing Laws. This Agreement will be interpreted according to the internal laws, but not the conflict of laws rules, of the State of Illinois. J. Venue. Exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the any actions or proceedings arising from, relating to, or in connection with this Agreement will be in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois or, where applicable, in the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Parties waive their respective right to transfer or change the venue of any litigation filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. K. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all previous or contemporaneous oral or written agreements and negotiations between the Village and the Consultant with respect to the Scope of Services and the Services. L. Non-Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be deemed to or constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement (whether or not similar) nor will any waiver be deemed to or constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. M. Exhibits. Exhibits A and B attached to this Agreement are, incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between any Exhibit and the text of this Agreement, the text of this Agreement will control. N. Rights Cumulative. Unless expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, each and every one of the rights, remedies, and benefits provided by this Agreement will be cumulative and will not be exclusive of any other rights, remedies, and benefits allowed by law. O. Consents. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, whenever the consent, permission, authorization, approval, acknowledgement, or similar indication of assent of any party to this Agreement, or of any duly authorized officer, employee, agent, or representative of any party to this Agreement, is required in this Agreement, the consent, permission, authorization, approval, acknowledgement, or similar indication of assent must be in writing. P. Interpretation. This Agreement will be construed without regard to the identity of the Party which drafted the various provisions of this Agreement. Every provision of this Agreement will be construed as though all Parties to this Agreement participated equally in the drafting of this Agreement. Any rule or construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party will not be applicable to this Agreement. Q. Survival. The provisions of Sections 6, 7, and will survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. R. Calendar Days; Calculation of Time Periods. Unless otherwise specific in this Agreement, any reference to days in this Agreement will be construed to be calendar days. Unless otherwise specified, in computing any period of time described in this Agreement, the day of the act or event on which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included and the last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday under the laws of the State in which the Property is located, in which event the period 10 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 39 of 213 Page 40 of 213  EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL AND QUALIFICATIONS Qualifications Dated February 3rd, 2026 Proposal Dated April 1, 2026 {00121149.2} A-1 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 41 of 213  223 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 253-3400 Architectural Services Proposal - Revised DATE: April 14, 2026 TO: Tom Powers Director of Public Works Village of Winnetka 510 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL 60093 FROM: Patrick J Callahan, AIA - Principal RE: Village Hall HVAC Replacement and Miscellaneous Architectural Scope of Architectural Services: Studio GC shall provide the following project-specific scope of services for the Village of Winnetka: • Design and Engineering for a new HVAC system • Evaluation and presentation to the Village Board of HVAC options. • Bidding of the selected HVAC system and Architectural services listed below. • Architectural Services for the following elements: o Concealing of HVAC infrastructure o New ADA-compliant ramp at the east entrance of the building. o Replaced concrete on the east sidewalk o Replacement casework o RPZ installation o Painting with Lead mitigation o Terrazzo Floor Refinishing on 1st floor o Basement Women’s restroom reconfiguration • Other Items as described in the RFQ: o New Fire Alarm System o Back-flow preventor • Coordination with a Village tax credit vendor for Federal rebates/credits. • Other Work Assigned: See the design services allowance for other items at the discretion of the Village. • Deliverables: o Concept Documentation to verify scope and preferred manufacturers o 50% Construction Documentation review set o 100% Construction Documentation review set o Bid documentation O:\Corporate\Clients\Village of Winnetka\GeoProposal\Prop - Winn Geothermal_Arch v2.docx Page 42 of 213  223 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 253-3400 o Permit Documentation ITEMS PROVIDED BY OTHERS/CLARIFICATIONS: • Construction Administration Phase is not included in this scope of work Compensation Compensation will be a lump sum fee as follows. Base Fee: Inclusive of the amount listed below: ...................................... Lump Sum $219,185.00 • Historical Preservationist + SGC Coordination……………………………..$73,600.00 Design Services Allowance: ........................................................................................... $25,000.00 Total Fee: ................................................................................................................. $244,185.00 Compensation: Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced at one and one-tenth (1.10) of the cost billed to the Architect and shall be limited to plotting and printing costs. Schedule We can proceed with these assignments as soon as we are authorized. Please sign below if these terms are generally acceptable, and we will prepare the contracts. If you wish to discuss the scope of services in more detail, we can do so at your convenience. If acceptable, please sign both originals and forward one fully executed original of this document to our office. Retain the other copy for your contract file. OWNER: ACCOUNT MANAGER: PRINT NAME: PRINT NAME: Patrick J Callahan, AIA DATE: DATE: 4/1/2026 cc: Vicki Luczynski, Studio GC O:\Corporate\Clients\Village of Winnetka\GeoProposal\Prop - Winn Geothermal_Arch v2.docx Page 43 of 213  CLIENT: Village of Winnetka: Geothermal + Misc Arch DATE: 4/1/2026 Phase: MEP:Princ MEP:PM MEP: SrEng MEP:Designer CADD Historic:Princ Historic: PM Historic: Design Arch: Princ Arch:PM ArchIII Struct TOTAL HOURS Cost by Phase Schematic Design / Pre-Design 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 40 24 68 100 2 264 $ 39,961.91 Design Devleopment 20 21 10 40 15 8 40 60 16 40 120 390 $ 59,034.63 Construction Documents 20 18 44 90 113 8 40 100 24 80 164 20 721 $ 109,138.39 Bidding Phase 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 39 20 73 $ 11,050.07 Construction Administration NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC SUB TOTAL DESIGN 40 39 64 130 128 26.00 100.00 200.00 68 227 404 22 1448 $ 219,185.00 NIC: Not In Contract \\sgc-fs1\Office\Corporate\Clients\Village of Winnetka\GeoProposal\WinnGeo - Hours and Fees.xlsWinnGeo - Hours and Fees.xls Page 44 of 213 Page 45 of 213 Page 46 of 213 Page 47 of 213 Page 48 of 213 F I RM DE S C RIP T ION CON T. P RO FE S S I O N A L A FFI L I AT I O NS American Institute of Architects Association for Learning Environments BASIC Coalition Illinois Association of Park Districts Illinois Association of School Business Officials International WELL Building Institute U.S. Green Building Council G E O G R A P H I C A L A RE A O F O P E R AT I O NS Illinois, California, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin M A RK E T S EC T O RS Municipal, Public Safety & High Security, Parks & Recreation, PK-14 Education, Libraries, Financial Institutions, Higher Education, Commercial & Retail, Healthcare, Laboratory/Industrial S E RV I C E S P ROV I DE D Health & Life Safety Amendments - Surveys & Assessments, ADA Compliance, Facility Audits, Long-Range Facility Plans, Pre-Design/Programming, Full Service A/E Design, Educational Planning, Facility Master Planning, Space Utilization, Cost Estimation, Building Information Modeling, Interior Design/FF&E Procurement, Campaign/Fundraising Assistance, Construction Documents/Construction Administration, Construction Observation V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 5 Page 49 of 213 Page 50 of 213 Page 51 of 213 Page 52 of 213 West Aurora Geothermal & Solar Panels W E S T AUROR A S CHOOL DIS T RIC T 1 2 9 , AUROR A , I L L I NO IS Studio GC collaborated with SD 129 and other strategic partners to install solar photovoltaic arrays at six of the districts schools at minimal cost to the district utilizing state program funding. This is in addition to these schools undergoing a conversion of their HVAC system to geothermal heating and cooling. The work resulted in reduced energy costs for the district nearing net-zero consumption. A D DRE S S 1 8 7 7 W. D O W NER P L A CE , A U ROR A , IL 60506 S I Z E 11 S CH OOL S, 1.1 MILLION SQ. F T ( G EO T H ERM A L) 6 S CHOOL S, 2 . 4 M EG A -WAT T S A CRO S S DIS T RIC T (S OL AR ) COS T M ULT IP L E P RO JEC T C O S T S - ILLINOIS S OL A R FOR ALL GR ANTS CO M P LE T IO N MULT IP LE P RO JEC T S RE F E RENCE D R . A NG IE SMI T H, A S S OCI AT E SU P E RIN T E NDE N T OF OP E R AT IONS E : AK D SMI T H @SD 1 29.ORG S C AN T H IS Q R CO DE T O V IE W A V IDEO OF T HE GE O T H ERM AL P ROCE SS AT SMI T H ELEMEN TARY. V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 9 Page 53 of 213 Page 54 of 213 Team Historic Project Experience Highland Park Public Library Studio GC is working with Highland Park Library on an addition and renovation project whilte reserving the community’s heritage. The design will thoughtfully blend modern additions with the building’s existing character, preserving its charm while offering enhanced functionality and safety. Riverside Public Library Studio GC designed an updated interior scheme for the Riverside Public Library that preserves the historic charm of this historic landmark in downtown Riverside while allowing library services to evolve with the times. Our design works with the period charm of the library, new furnishings will maintain the cozy feeling of the wood interior while providing flexibility and access to 21st century library technology. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign BRUSH was retained as the historic architect on retainer soon after the launch of the firm. Mary was the primary liason with the UIUC during her leadership at Holabird & Root. BRUSH has completed 16 existing building restorations ranging from roofs to full exterior and/or interior restorations to smaller scope projects of the exterior door restorations and integration of new mechanical systems into historic spaces. Watertown Public Library Studio GC’s addition to the Watertown Wisconsin Carnegie Library will double its size while preserving what the community loves about its historic library The library addition preserves all of the significant historic aspects of the existing Carnegie library while providing 21st century interior spaces with inspiring spaces and a technological infrastructure suitable for contemporary library uses. Waveland Clock Tower This project is relevant because it was designed by Edwin Clarke in the same year as Winnetka Village Hall. BRUSH was brought on by the golf tenant First Tee for window replacement and became the Architect of Record for the phased restoration of the facility. The window replacement for the golf facility grew into the window replacement for the whole building with door restoration as well as interior and mechanical and electrical. V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 11 Page 55 of 213 Page 56 of 213 Page 57 of 213 funding. By refining the design and collaborating closely with a contractor partner, we identified a solution that met the budget for the planned addition. This collaborative effort gave Coal City the confidence to advance the addition and begin pricing discussions for Phase 2 sooner than expected. Forest Preserves of Cook County River Forest, Illinois | Multiple Projects | 536 N. Harlem Ave., River Forest, IL 60305 Reference: Tim Weber | Architect/Project Manager | T: 708.771.1352 In 2012, Studio GC became one of the pool architects for the Forest Preserves of Cook County. We have worked with them on a roof replacement at a small storage shed, a vestibule to their police courtroom, and a new headquarters for their Salt Creek Division. Morris Fire Protection and Ambulance District - New Fire Station Morris, Illinois | 12,000 sq. ft. new construction | 200 Armstrong St., Morris, IL 60450 Reference: Tracey Steffes | Fire Chief | E: tsteffes@morrisfd.org | T: 815.942.0103, ext. 8 Studio GC worked on the design and construction of the new fire station. The space houses a steamer engine, 1954 ladder truck, and two 1800s hose reels. It also provides a storm shelter for all occupants without the need to access a secure area in case responders are out on a call. Village of Carol Stream - Public Works Site and Building Analysis Carol Stream, Illinois | 12,066 sq. ft. | 124 Gerzevske Ln., Carol Stream, IL 60188 Reference: Brad Fink | Public Works Director | E: bfink@carolstream.org | T: 630.871.6260 Studio GC performed a full facility audit and site evaluation for the public works facility. The process included a comprehensive physical assessment of the existing conditions, code analysis, operational analysis, and cost estimates. This is a stakeholder-guided process to make sure that all of our recommendations align with their operational goals and financial models. Village of Glenview - New Fire Station Glenview, Illinois | 10,000 sq. ft. | 1815 Glenview Rd., Glenview, IL Reference: Worked for Previous Administration | T: 847.724.2141 Glenview Fire Station 7 was the first municipal project to go through the standard municipal review process and became a standard for all future buildings. Directions from the Village included that the facility must increase response time, have sustainable features, and fit in with the residential neighborhood better than the station it was replacing. Studio GC and the Village Fire Department succeeded on all accounts. Village of Hoffman Estates - Village Hall Space Needs Study and Renovation Hoffman Estates, Illinois | 66,000 sq. ft. | 1900 Hassell Rd., Hoffman Estates, IL 60169 Reference: Worked for Previous Administration The existing two-story, more than 20-year old, renovated insurance building was no longer effectively serving the nine departments and community. BIM technology allowed us to inform the leadership team to make adjustments that improved the overall project prior to construction. The final design created more usable space and updated the look of this 1980s-era building. Project work incorporated a number of sustainable strategies, including replacing outdated lighting fixtures with high-efficiency units, low-consumption toilet fixtures, recycled content carpeting and tile, and renewable bamboo coverings for a cost of $4.5 million. V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 14 Page 58 of 213 Page 59 of 213 Wilmington Fire Protection District - New Fire Station Wilmington, Illinois | 21,595 sq. ft. new build | 201 N. Kankakee St., Wilmington, IL 60481 Reference: Tim Zlomie | Fire Chief | E: tzlomie@wilmingtonfire.org | T: 815.746.6675 Studio GC used a diligent process of goal determination, project needs assessment, and cost-effective design to meet the client’s goals, and the project was completed in spring 2025. This occurred after Wilmington worked unsuccessfully with their previous partners to find designs that met the budget goals of the project. V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 16 Page 60 of 213 Page 61 of 213 Oak Lawn Public Works + Dispatch V I L L AGE O F OAK L AW N , OAK L AW N , ILLIN OIS The Village Oak Lawn has been a longtime partner with Studio GC. Our work began with a master planning assessment of their municipal center, helping to align space needs with space constraints. That led to the design and near-bidding, of a new 911 Consolidated Dispatch center for Oak Lawn and the surrounding communities. That effort developed into a masterplan for the redesign of their current public works facility/ campus. This is a drastic re-envisioning of their facilities, operations, circulation, and administration. This project has been co-joined with the 911 center to leverage economies of scale and provide the best value for the dollars expended. A D DRE S S 5 5 3 2 W. 98T H S T. O AK L AW N, IL 60453 S I Z E 68, 462 SQ. F T. NE W BU ILD COS T $ 2 1 M ES T IM AT E D CO M P LE T IO N J ULY 2026 ES T IM AT E D RE F E RENCE B I L L ME YER | D IREC T OR OF P U BLIC W ORK S T: 7 08-4 9 9 -7748 V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 18 Page 62 of 213 Page 63 of 213 Geneva Public Library District G E NEVA P UB LIC LIBRA RY DISTRICT, GE NE VA , I L L I NO IS Studio GC conducted a building assessment of the 1920s Carnegie library in Geneva, Illinois, to determine how it could continue to serve the community into the 21st century. Although the original library was loved by many, our analysis of its operational statistics made it apparent that its limitations would prevent the library from providing the level of service that the community required. Studio GC worked with the Library District to create a new 54,000 square foot library with flexible social spaces, interior and exterior events venues and a fireplace reading room. The exterior expression and scale of the library was carefully designed to harmonize with the library’s location between Geneva’s historic downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. The prominent arched opening on the entry façade frames the fireplace reading room and provides an open air deck for the enjoyment of library patrons. A D DRE S S 2 2 7 S 7T H S T REE T GE NE VA , IL 60134 S I Z E 54, 000 SQ. F T. NE W C ONS T RU C T ION COS T $ 1 6 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 CO M P LE T IO N M AY 2020 RE FERENC E CH RIS T INE L A Z A RIS, DIREC T OR E : C L A Z A RIS@G P L D.ORG V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 20 Page 64 of 213 Page 65 of 213 Hill Elementary School W E S T AUROR A S CHOOL DIS T RIC T 1 2 9 , AUROR A , I L L I NO IS The new Hill Elementary School was designed to replace the existing 129 year old school building. The new elementary school is located on the same site as the previous school building and was designed and constructed in a way to maintain the full-time occupancy of the existing building through the entire school year. Over 30 community planning and design sessions were held, with a focus on preserving historical elements and neighborhood character in the new building. The school features flexible learning environments, including project-based collaborative rooms on each floor and a learning commons that supports and provides space for STEAM and active learning modules. It also features a full geothermal heating and cooling system, reducing energy costs and improving building efficiencies and indoor air quality. The new Hill Elementary School, serving PK-5 grade, welcomed its first students for the 2017-2018 school year. A D DRE S S 1 8 7 7 W. D O W NER P L. A U ROR A , IL 60506 S I Z E 72, 295 SQ. F T. NE W C ONS T RU C T ION COS T $ 1 4 , 0 2 3 , 4 5 2 CO M P LE T IO N A UG US T 2017 RE F E RENCE D R . A NG IE SMI T H, A S S OCI AT E SU P E RIN T E NDE N T OF OP E R AT IONS E : AK D SMI T H @SD 1 29.ORG V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 22 Page 66 of 213 Page 67 of 213 Cory Boaz, LEED-AP, ALEP P RI NC I PA L P RO JEC T M A N A GE R L E A D A RCHI T EC T B I OG R AP H Y R EL EVA N T PR OJ ECT EXPER I EN CE P RO FE S S I O N A L A FFI L I AT I O NS US GRE E N B U I L DI NG C O U NC I L As a Principal at Studio GC, Cory brings over 20 years Maywood School District 89 of architectural experience and a wealth of knowledge L E E D A C C RE DI T E D P RO F ES S I O N A L to our team. While he specializes in Pre K-12 buildings, Converted 7 schools to geothermal heating and he extends his expertise to all projects, no matter their cooling systems, reducing building operating costs I A S B O S E R V I C E A S S O C I AT E scope. and providing air conditioning in buildings that did not A C C RE DI T E D L E A RN I NG E N V I RO N M E N T S P L A N N E R have it Cory values constant communication in his daily work. E D U C AT I O N He focuses on establishing strong relationships with Niles Township High School District 219 M A S T E R O F A RCHI T EC T U RE , U N I V E RS I T Y O F I L L I NO I S his clients by actively listening and comprehending Led the new 43,000 sf building at Niles Central that AT U RB A N A - CH A M PA I GN, 2 0 0 3 their needs. He proposes solutions that effectively includes a full geothermal heating and cooling system B A CH E L O R O F S C I E NC E I N A RCHI T EC T U R A L S T U DI ES , address any problem while updating clients on the status, expectations, needed decisions, or market West Aurora School District 129 U N I V E RS I T Y O F I L L I NO I S AT U RB A N A - CH A M PA I GN, 2001 conditions. Update the facility audits and 10 year health life safety Cory’s commitment to his clients doesn’t end with the surveys at 18 schools throughout the district. Resulting P E RI O D O F S E RV I C E W I T H T H E FI RM completion of a project. He ensures that conversations in a new elementary school, additions at 6 schools and 2 0 0 5 – P RES E N T remain ongoing throughout each stage of geothermal at 10 schools over the course of 15 months. development and even after the project’s conclusion. A D D I T I O N A L P RO J EC T E X P E RI E N CE By spending time with end-users in their space, he gauges the project’s success and determines ways to Atwood Heights School District 125 - Geothermal improve for the future. Merrionette Park, IL Chicago Ridge School District 127.5 - Geothermal Chicago Ridge, IL Milan Village Hall and Police Facility Milan, IL Morris City Hall and Police Facility Morris, IL Lemont Park District Lemont, IL Village of Antioch Antioch, IL Village of Northbrook Northbrook, IL V I L L A G E OF W INNE T K A 24 Page 68 of 213 Page 69 of 213 Page 70 of 213 Page 71 of 213 Page 72 of 213 Page 73 of 213 S T U D IO GC 2 2 3 W J A CK S ON B LVD SUI T E 1 2 0 0 CHI C A G O, IL 6 0 6 0 6 3 1 2 . 2 53. 3400 Page 74 of 213  EXHIBIT B INSURANCE COVERAGES A. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability with limits not less than: (1) Worker’s Compensation: Statutory; (2) Employer’s Liability: $500,000 injury-per occurrence $500,000 disease-per employee $500,000 disease-policy limit Insurance will evidence that coverage applies in the State of Illinois. B. Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Liability with a combined single limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for vehicles owned, non-owned, or rented. All employees will be included as insureds. C. Comprehensive General Liability with coverage written on an “occurrence” basis and with limits no less than: $2,000,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined Single Limit Coverage is to be written on an “occurrence” basis. Coverages will include: - Broad Form Property Damage Endorsement - Blanket Contractual Liability (must expressly cover the indemnity provisions of this Agreement) D. Professional Liability Insurance. With a limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate and covering the Consultant against all sums that the Consultant may be obligated to pay on account of any liability arising out of this Agreement. E. Umbrella Policy. The required coverages may be in any combination of primary, excess, and umbrella policies. Any excess or umbrella policy must provide excess coverage over underlying insurance on a following-form basis so that when any loss covered by the primary policy exceeds the limits under the primary policy, the excess or umbrella policy becomes effective to cover the loss. F. Owner as Additional Insured. Village will be named as an Additional Insured on all policies except for: {00121149.2} 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 75 of 213  Worker’s Compensation Professional Liability Each additional Insured endorsement will identify Village as follows: Village of Winnetka, including its Board members and elected and appointed officials, its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, the Consultants, and representatives. G. Other Parties as Additional Insureds. In addition to Village, the following parties will be named as additional insured on the following policies: Additional Insured Policy or Policies {00121149.2} 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 76 of 213  GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY RIDER The Village has developed digital map information through Geographic Information Systems Technology (“GIS Data”) concerning the real property located within the Village. If requested to do so by the Consultant, the Village agrees to supply the Consultant with a digital copy of the GIS Data, subject to the following conditions: 1. Limited Access to GIS Data. The GIS Data provided by the Village will be limited to the scope of the Work that the Consultant is to provide for the Village; 2. Purpose of GIS Data. The Consultant will limit its use of the GIS Data to its intended purpose of furtherance of the Work; and 3. Agreement with Respect to GIS Data. a. Trade Secrets of the Village. The GIS Data constitutes proprietary materials and trade secrets of the Village and is the property of the Village; b. Consent of Village Required. The Consultant may not provide or make available the GIS Data in any form to anyone without the prior written consent of the Village. c. Supply to Village. At the request of the Village, the Consultant will provide the Village with all information that has been developed by the Consultant based on the GIS Data; d. No Guarantee of Accuracy. The Village makes no guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the GIS Data in regard to the Consultant’s intended use of the GIS Data; and e. Discontinuation of Use. At the time as the Services have been completed to the satisfaction of the Village, the Consultant will cease its use of the GIS Data for any purpose whatsoever; and, upon request, an authorized representative of the Village will be afforded sufficient access to the Consultant’s premises and data processing equipment to verify that all use of the GIS Data has been discontinued. {00121149.2} 4859-4385-1705, v. 1 Page 77 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: Resolution No. R-44-2026: Regarding Permits Granted by the State of Illinois Department of Transportation for the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Street Improvements on State Highways Maintained by the Village (Adoption) PRESENTER: Tom Powers AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: Ordinances and Resolutions ITEM HISTORY: The Village previously approved Resolution No. R-33-2021, providing for performance security in the form of a resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: From time to time, the Village has a need to undertake or permit for repairs on or under roadways under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation. Permits for such work typically require performance security, however IDOT allows municipalities to provide said performance security in the form of a resolution, rather than a bond. The attached Resolution No. R-44-2026 represents IDOT’s standard form, and would provide performance security for a two-year period. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution No. R-44-2026 providing the State of Illinois performance security as required for Highway Permits, for calendar year 2026 and 2027. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. R-44-2026: Permits Granted by IDOT for Construction, Operation, and Maintenance on State Highways Maintained by the Village 2. Notice of Resolution Expiration Page 78 of 213  ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. R-44-2026 A RESOLUTION REGARDING PERMITS GRANTED BY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON STATE HIGHWAYS MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10, of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations, in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka, hereinafter referred to as “Municipality,” located in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, desires to undertake, in the calendar years 2026 and 2027, the location, construction, operation and maintenance of driveways and street returns, watermains, sanitary and storm sewers, street light, traffic signals, sidewalk, landscaping, etc., on State highways, within said Municipality, which by law and/or agreement come under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois, hereinafter referred to as “Department;” and WHEREAS, an individual working permit must be obtained from the Department prior to any of the aforesaid installations being constructed either by the Municipality or by a private person or firm under contract and supervision of the Municipality; 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: COMPLIANCE WITH IDOT PERMITS. The Municipality hereby pledges its good faith and guarantees that all work shall be performed in accordance with conditions of the permit to be granted by the Department, and to hold the State of Illinois harmless during the prosecution of such work, and assume all liability for damages to persons or property due to accidents or otherwise by reason of the work which is to be performed under the provisions of said permit. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE PERMITS. All authorized officials of the Municipality are hereby instructed and authorized to sign said working permit on behalf of the Municipality. 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] April 21, 2026 R-44-2026 Page 79 of 213 ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ___________________________________________________________ NAYS: ___________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ___________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk April 21, 2026 R-44-2026 Page 80 of 213 Page 81 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: 730 Elm Street - DUET Special Use - Policy Direction PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: New Business ITEM HISTORY: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 21, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider the Plan Commission (“PC”) recommendation regarding an application submitted by DUET Audiology Clinic (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of the property located at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 (the “Subject Property”), seeking approval of a special use permit to operate a medical office in the Commercial Overlay District on the Subject Property. If approved, the Applicant would establish a Winnetka location of an existing audiology clinic and wellness center that currently operates out of Lake Forest and Northfield, with the Northfield office relocating to the Subject Property. The decision of whether or not to grant a special use permit lies with the Village Council after receiving a recommendation from the PC. ADVISORY BOARD/PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the request at its March 25, 2026, meeting. After hearing from the Applicant and receiving four written comments from the public, the PC discussed the request. The PC commented favorably on the business itself, however, some members expressed concern that the business in the proposed location does not meet the standards for granting a special use. Commission members asked about the potential volume of clients and length of appointment time, along with inquiring about the specifics of non-retail offerings and services. The Commission members also asked the property owner representative whether the approved off-street parking allotment for the building would be sufficient for the proposed use and the other previously approved uses. The Commission members discussed how much of the proposed business activity would be typical audiology clinic services versus the innovative “experiential retail” that the Applicant described. Commission members also expressed concern about the agglomeration of special uses and non-retail businesses within the One Winnetka building. Commission members were ultimately concerned about the proposed audiology clinic’s ability to contribute to the district’s retail environment and generate foot traffic for the surrounding area. Page 82 of 213 After concluding its discussion, by a vote of 6-0, the PC recommended denial of the request based on the Commission’s findings of fact below that the proposed medical office in the Commercial Overlay District at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 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. 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; 5. Adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided; 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. 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 March 25 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 March 25 PC meeting, which are included as Attachment 1. Additional public comments that were received in advance of the March 25 meeting, but after the publication of the agenda packet, are included as Attachment 2. Given the PC recommended of denial of the request, this item is before the Village Council for policy direction. RECOMMENDATION: Village staff requests policy direction from the Village Council regarding the requested special use permit. Based on the direction provided, staff will prepare the necessary documents for either approval or denial of the requested special use at an upcoming meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: March 25, 2026, PC Memo & Minutes Excerpt 2. Attachment 2: Public Comments Received After Publication of March 25, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Agenda Packet 3. Attachment 3: Murphy Development Group, LLC PowerPoint Presentation Page 83 of 213  ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: MARCH 18, 2026 SUBJECT: 730 ELM STREET, SUITE 120 – DUET AUDIOLOGY CLINIC SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 26-05-SU) INTRODUCTION On March 25, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider an application submitted by DUET Audiology Clinic (the “Applicant”), as the prospective lessee of the property located at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 (the “Subject Property”), to allow a medical office 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 medical office in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District at the Subject Property. The Applicant currently operates similar audiology clinics in Lake Forest and Northfield and is looking to relocate the Northfield clinic to the Subject Property. This item was originally scheduled for the February 25, 2026, PC meeting; however, as explained below, the PC continued the item to the March 25, 2026, PC meeting. A sign was posted on the Subject Property and a website notice was posted on the Village website indicating the time and date of the original PC public hearing. A mail notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property informing them of the original public hearing date. As of the date of this memo, staff has received one written comment from the public regarding this application which is included as Attachment C. FEBRUARY 25, 2026, PLAN COMMISSION MEETING On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission continued the item, without objection or discussion, to its March 25, 2026, meeting to allow an updated staff report to further explain standards used to evaluate the application. A copy of the draft February 25 Plan Commission meeting minutes is included in the March 25 agenda packet for the Plan Commission’s consideration. As stated by the Chair at the February 25 meeting, this request is important as it relates to the One Winnetka Development and particularly the uses allowed on the first floor of the One Winnetka Building. As the Plan Commission’s discussion and vote on the SolidCore proposal, and as shown in the Village Council’s deliberations on that request, there are significant issues and concerns regarding non-retail uses on the first floor and the special use standards that must be met for these requests. The Village Council will ultimately resolve those issues when the request is reviewed for a final decision. At this point, however, the Applicant has supplied as part of its application materials a narrative addressing how this proposal complies with all Page 1 Page 84 of 213 twelve (12) standards. The Village Staff and Village Attorney recommend that the Plan Commission evaluate the proposed use utilizing those twelve (12) standards. 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 1,565 square-foot space at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 is a portion of the 20,955 square feet of commercial space in the One Winnetka building and is on the eastern 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. The Solidcore fitness studio special use permit application was before the Village Council on February 17, 2026, for policy direction and is anticipated to return to the Village Council at a future date with additional information about parking demand and class schedules. A full-service restaurant is expected to occupy the northwestern space on the first floor near the street intersection with a quick-casual format restaurant occupying the remaining tenant space. There will also 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 medical offices; however, the Zoning Ordinance requires that they be evaluated by the Plan Commission and Village Council as a special use. Figures 1 through 3 below and on the following page identify the One Winnetka site and the proposed location of the medical office. Proposed Location of DUET Audiology Clinic Figure 1 – One Winnetka Site – GIS Map Page 2 Page 85 of 213  Proposed Location of DUET Audiology Clinic Figure 2 – One Winnetka Site - Aerial Location Map Proposed Location of DUET Audiology Clinic Entrance into Shared Vestibule Figure 3 – One Winnetka – North Facing 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.” Page 3 Page 86 of 213 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 4. The One Winnetka site is highlighted yellow. 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 4 – 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 (511-515 Lincoln Avenue and 714-740 Elm Street - One Winnetka). An excerpt of Ordinance M-01-2025 is provided in Attachment B. According to Ordinance M-01-2025, the location and amount of space occupied by medical uses and Page 4 Page 87 of 213 financial service uses in the One Winnetka building are limited as follows: a. No such uses shall occupy the northwesternmost corner of the commercial space of the ground floor commercial space; b. No such uses shall occupy an aggregate space greater than 50% of the gross commercial square footage, or 9,750 square feet of the building; c. No individual financial service use shall occupy more than 1/3 of the gross commercial square footage, or 6,500 square feet of the building; d. No individual medical use shall occupy more than 3,250 square feet of the gross commercial square footage of the building; e. Approval of the “appropriateness” of such uses is limited to 10 years from the approval of Ordinance M-01-2025. There have been three other special use permit applications submitted for the One Winnetka building, two of which have been approved by the Village Council and one that is pending: 1. Charles Schwab. 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 for Charles Schwab financial services to occupy office space at 720 Elm Street. 2. Winnetka Aesthetic Studio. 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 for Winnetka Aesthetic Studio to occupy commercial space at 730 Elm Street, Suite 130. 3. Solidcore. On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission considered a special use permit application submitted by Solidcore fitness studio and by a vote of 5-3 recommended denial of the request. The application was before the Village Council initially on February 17 and again on March 3, 2026, at which time the Council voted to direct the Village Staff and Village Attorney to prepare an ordinance granting the requested special use subject to certain conditions. The Council is scheduled to consider the approval ordinance at its meeting on March 19, 2026. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is proposing to open a medical office in the One Winnetka building for an audiology practice that would specialize in hearing-related medical treatment using a wide range of technologies, therapies, and techniques that the Applicant describes as holistic and preventative care. The proposed audiology clinic would occupy approximately 1,565 square feet towards the eastern center of the One Winnetka building with approximately 28 feet of street frontage along Elm Street. Access into the tenant space would be through a shared entrance vestibule that would also be used by Winnetka Aesthetic Studio and a quick-casual format restaurant. The front of the clinic would be an open greeting area with a concierge desk and seating area, with offices, workstations, and exam rooms located down the hallway towards the back of the space. The proposed medical office use, and the other previously approved uses, would comply with the location and size limitations outlined earlier in this report. No individual medical use would be greater than 3,250 square feet in size and in aggregate the proposed medical and financial services uses would total 8,585 square feet, which is less than the maximum of 9,750 square feet allowed. The Applicant’s written description of the proposed use is included in the application materials which are provided as Attachment A. Page 5 Page 88 of 213 The audiology clinic would have business hours between 8:30am and 4:30pm from Monday through Friday with occasional appointments on one or two Saturdays each month. The audiology clinic would have a maximum of 8 occupants between employees and patients in any given hour, with 3 to 5 employees and 2 to 3 patients, and an average of 8 to 10 appointments per day with occasional walk-in visits, in a clinical environment that the Applicant describes as low volume. Some of the services that would be offered include diagnostic hearing evaluations, hearing aid consultations, hearing-related massage therapy, a proprietary ear-to-brain fitness system for music training, and related audiology care. The audiology clinic would provide retail offerings towards the front of the office with products related to its practice including hearing protection earmuffs, headphones, hearing aids, therapeutic goggles, small musical instruments and musical accessories. For parking, the Applicant is proposing that its employees 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 patients will utilize parking spaces 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 to be reserved for the Charles Schwab office that was approved in a previous special use permit case. The Applicant indicates that some employees and patients will also take advantage of the Winnetka stop on the Union Pacific North Metra line that is immediately adjacent to the One Winnetka Building. Figure 5 on the following page highlights the commercial space the Applicant is proposing to occupy in the north section of the One Winnetka building. Figure 6 shows the proposed floor plan and layout for the audiology clinic. Proposed Location Proposed “Fare” Quick Casual Restaurant Charles Schwab of Solidcore Proposed “Arcadia” Full Service Restaurant Winnetka Aesthetic Studio Proposed Location of DUET Audiology Clinic Figure 5 – One Winnetka Ground Level Plan Page 6 Page 89 of 213  Figure 6 – 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 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. 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. Although the previous approval granted by Ordinance M-01-2025 refers to certain standards in the context of a proposed medical office use, such as the Applicant’s proposed use, the Applicant has supplied as part of its application materials a narrative addressing how this proposal complies with all twelve (12) standards. Accordingly, Village Staff and the Village Attorney recommend that the Plan Commission review and consider the Applicant’s proposed use in light of all twelve standards listed below: Page 7 Page 90 of 213 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, DUET Audiology Clinic, to operate a medical office at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 within the C-2 Commercial Overlay District, based on the following findings of fact: “The medical office (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; 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 Page 8 Page 91 of 213  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 Attachment B: Excerpt of Ordinance M-01-2025, adopted on January 21, 2025 Attachment C: Public Correspondence Page 9 Page 92 of 213 ATTACHMENT A 26-05-SU Page 93 of 213 Healthy Hearing – Healthy Brain DUET: Bringing Innovative Ear to Brain Wellness to the Village of Winnetka Dear Members of the Village of Winnetka, I am proud to introduce DUET, an innovative Ear to Brain wellness concept designed to strengthen cognitive health, enhance communication, and promote lifelong hearing vitality for residents of all ages. DUET is not a traditional audiology clinic. Our model is rooted in neuroscience research from the Brainvolts Laboratory at Northwestern University, translating leading-edge research on auditory brain health into accessible, community-based care. After successfully piloting our concept in Lake Forest, we are excited to bring this one-of-a- kind Ear to Brain care experience to Winnetka, a community known for its commitment to education, wellness, and innovation. The DUET experience itself was thoughtfully designed in collaboration with our designers in Switzerland, blending science, aesthetics, and sensory engagement. Why DUET Aligns with Winnetka’s Values Winnetka has long prioritized: • Lifelong learning • Public health and wellness • Strong intergenerational community ties • Support for families and aging residents DUET directly supports these priorities by focusing on functional hearing, cognitive resilience, and social connection — three pillars that significantly influence quality of life and healthy aging. Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline. By addressing auditory health proactively, we help residents remain engaged, independent, and socially connected. Page 94 of 213 What DUET Offers the Community Preventive Ear to Brain Care Comprehensive evaluations that go beyond hearing thresholds to assess auditory processing and cognitive listening demands. Brain-Strengthening Programs Evidence-informed auditory training is designed to improve speech clarity in noise, attention, and neural timing. Stress-Reducing Music Therapies Programs that support overall wellness and cortisol regulation. Precision Hearing Technology Prescriptive fittings and hearing longevity consultations to ensure safe, optimized listening across the lifespan. Community Educational Programs Monthly educational campaigns offered to community groups, libraries, schools and online based on new research investigating how things going on in our body can affect our hearing brain. A Community with Global Impact DUET also invites Winnetka residents to participate in our “Hearing the Call” initiative, which refurbishes donated hearing aids and provides them to children in underserved communities around the world. This creates a meaningful opportunity for Winnetka to extend its impact beyond its borders while reinforcing values of service and compassion. In Tanzania, we have supported children with albinism who require hearing and safety support. Albino children face severe social vulnerability; they are hunted by witch doctor who believe their bones have magic powers so the chop off their limbs and grind up their bones to create positions. These kids are placed in protected orphanages until 8th grade. If they do not pass the high school exam they are put on the street. Hearing keeps them safe. They can’t learn if they can’t hear. Hearing also alerts them to danger. Several of the children we fitted with hearing aids were able to improve their learning outcomes and continue into protected secondary education programs. Page 95 of 213 Economic & Community Contribution DUET contributes to Winnetka by: • Expanding innovative healthcare offerings within the village • Supporting local partnerships and programming • Attracting families seeking advanced wellness services • Strengthening Winnetka’s identity as a forward-thinking, health-conscious community Retail tax: hearing aids, headphones, Therbody devices, nutraceuticals The DUET Goal Not simply louder hearing — but: • Stronger auditory processing • Sharper speech clarity • Greater cognitive resilience • Lifelong functional hearing wellness Operations Overview Hours of Operation Monday–Friday: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Saturday (limited hours by appointment) Closed Sundays Staffing • 1–3 practitioners on-site at a time (some take the train) • 1 administrative coordinator Patient Volume • Walk ins welcome all day to learn and shop, popular in Lake Forest • Estimated 6–10 clients per day • Staggered scheduling to prevent waiting room congestion Traffic & Parking Impact DUET is a low-traffic professional service model: Page 96 of 213  • No high-turnover retail traffic • No delivery trucks beyond standard small parcel carriers • Minimal peak-hour congestion • Clients typically arrive individually rather than in groups Parking demand is very light. Our Lake Forest model utilizes street parking with no distribution. Noise & Environmental Impact Despite being hearing-focused, DUET produces no external noise impact: • All sound therapies occur within acoustically treated interior rooms • No amplified exterior sound • No outdoor programming • No vibration or mechanical impact to adjacent tenants The studio design emphasizes quiet, controlled acoustic environments. Retail Component Retail offerings include: • Prescriptive hearing aids • Hearing protection and headphones • Nutraceuticals • Wellness and recovery products Retail sales are accessory to professional services and do not constitute primary storefront retail traffic. DUET aligns with Winnetka’s commitment to: • Preventive health • Lifelong learning • Aging-in-place support • Family-centered wellness Hearing health is increasingly recognized as a modifiable factor in cognitive decline and social isolation. By providing proactive Ear to Brain wellness services, DUET supports both younger students (attention and auditory processing) and older residents seeking cognitive resilience. Page 97 of 213 Additionally, our global hearing aid refurbishment initiative invites local participation in humanitarian outreach, reinforcing Winnetka’s culture of service. We respectfully request approval to operate DUET within the appropriate zoning classification and look forward to becoming a positive, contributing member of the Winnetka community and partnering in its continued leadership in education, health, and civic vitality. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lori Halvorson, AuD, FAAA, CH-TH Doctor of Audiology Founder of DUET Page 98 of 213 Page 99 of 213 Page 100 of 213 Page 101 of 213 Page 102 of 213 Page 103 of 213 Healthy Hearing – Healthy Brain DUET Proposed Business Operation The proposed use for DUET is a private audiology practice employing an innovative paradigm shift in hearing care, based on scientific biologic evidence. DUET leads with preventive care and wholistic hearing treatment, to engage neuroplasticity in the brain employing auditory biohacking methods such as music for Ear to Brain Fitness, Prescription Fit Hearing Aids to deliver precise sound detail. MTP Massage to increase circulation, Sound Bath to calm the nervous system. Services will include diagnostic hearing evaluations, hearing aid consultations and fittings, trademarked Ear to Brain Fitness with music training, massage therapy and related audiology care. The practice will be staffed by four employees, including board certified doctors of audiology, master degreed musician, certified massage therapist and administrative support staff. The practice is designed to serve a low-volume patient population, with approximately two to three patients on site at any given time. Operations are conducted in a quiet, clinical setting with no manufacturing, hazardous materials, or retail sales beyond audiology- related medical devices. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with one to two Saturday per month for scheduled appointments and Sound Bath experiences. The business use is consistent with a professional medical office and is not expected to generate excessive noise, traffic, or disruption to surrounding properties. Page 104 of 213 Healthy Hearing – Healthy Brain SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS C-2 COMMERCIAL OVERLAY 1. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare The proposed audiology clinic and medical retail operation will enhance public health by providing diagnostic hearing services and access to hearing health products that improve quality of life. All clinical operations will comply with applicable state healthcare regulations, ADA accessibility standards, and village building and fire codes, ensuring that the establishment, maintenance, and operation are safe, sanitary, and non- disruptive to the public welfare. 2. Compatibility and Property Values The clinic’s professional medical use and attractive retail frontage are consistent with surrounding commercial uses. Exterior design, signage, and operation will be in keeping with nearby retail establishments, ensuring that the use will not diminish property values or interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Instead, the clinic is expected to increase foot traffic and contribute to the economic vitality of the block. 3. Orderly Development The proposed use is compatible with the village’s comprehensive plan and surrounding land uses. It will not impede the normal development of nearby parcels; rather, it supports the village’s goal of attracting health-related and service-oriented businesses that complement traditional retail. 4. Ingress, Egress, and Traffic Adequate and safe ingress and egress will be provided from [insert street name(s)]. Parking and site access will comply with village standards, and the use is expected to generate low traffic volumes comparable to other medical offices. The layout is designed to minimize pedestrian and vehicular congestion while ensuring ADA accessibility 5. Parking, Utilities, and Facilities Page 105 of 213 The property has access to existing municipal utilities, drainage, and roadways. Adequate on-site or shared parking is available in accordance with zoning requirements. No significant improvements to infrastructure are required beyond normal tenant build-out and signage installation. 6. Ordinance Compliance The clinic and retail operation will comply fully with all village building, signage, health, fire safety, and zoning codes. All applicable business licenses and healthcare professional certifications will be obtained prior to operation. 7. Continuity and Pedestrian Orientation The proposed use will enhance pedestrian activity by offering a welcoming storefront, consistent with nearby retail establishments. Retail educational and product displays (e.g., hearing aids, ear care products) will be visible from the sidewalk, inviting walk-in traffic and fostering street-level vibrancy. 8. Minimal Interruption of Retail Continuity The clinic’s retail frontage will be designed to maintain the visual and functional continuity of retail uses along the block. The clinic’s signage, window displays, and regular hours of operation will contribute to the active rhythm of the streetscape rather than interrupt it. 9. Active Display Windows and Compatible Design The storefront will include transparent, well-lit display windows showcasing retail hearing products and educational materials about hearing health. Signage, lighting, and façade materials will be compatible with adjacent retail stores, maintaining a cohesive aesthetic consistent with village design guidelines. 10. Location of Retail Areas The retail merchandising area will be located adjacent to the sidewalk, clearly visible from the street, and designed to invite browsing. Clinical rooms will be situated behind the retail area to ensure privacy while maintaining an active public frontage. 11. Retail Frontage and Active Use The proposed design provides a minimum of 20 feet of retail frontage and over 400 square feet of dedicated retail space. The retail area will be devoted to active merchandising of hearing-related products and will maintain typical retail hours consistent with nearby businesses Page 106 of 213 12. Parking Availability The proposed use will not significantly diminish the availability of parking for other retail patrons. Traffic generation is limited, as appointments are scheduled to manage patient flow. Available shared or on- site parking will adequately accommodate both clients and staff without affecting surrounding businesses. Page 107 of 213 From: To: Christopher Marx Subject: Re: DUET One Winnetka Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:26:26 PM Attachments: image002.png image003.png image004.png Outlook-A person w Outlook-Title_ Lin.png Outlook-Title_ Twi.png Outlook-Title_ goo.png IMG_3346 Frank sign color change.MOV One Winnetka DUET location.docx 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. Chris, It is a pleasure to meet you! Please see the information you requested in red. What is the sign policy for the village of Winnetka? I have attached a video of the sign we use in my Lake Forest clinic. DUET takes a science driven approach to hearing and brain health based on research from Brain Volts lab at Northwestern. We are leading the field with a paradiagm shift from "wait until it is bad enough" to preventive care now, similar to the dental model to avoid the damage hearing loss can have on the brain. I invite you or any village member to experience this new model live at our Lake Forest DUET location.   I am excited to move my Northfield clinic to One Winnetka to deliver the same preventive care model to every ear of every age in your community. We also lead a very active role in our Hearing the Call charity, refurbishing hearing aids donated by the community and fitting them on children in need around the world, refugee camps in Jordon, orphanages in Tanzania, communities in need around Chicago. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. I look forward to serving your community. All Ears! Preserving Hearing & Brain Health, Page 108 of 213  Lori A Halvorson, AuD, FAAA Preservation Audiologist Founder DUET Hearing Preservation Lake Forest Hearing Professionals Sounhaus Phone: 847-295-1185 Fax: 847-295-1165 Email: lakeforesthearing.com 267 Westminster Lake Forest, IL 60045 www.lakeforesthearing.com From: Christopher Marx <CMarx@winnetka.org> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 12:03 PM To: Dr. Lori Halvorson, Au.D. Subject: RE: DUET One Winnetka You don't often get email from cmarx@winnetka.org. Learn why this is important WARNING: This is an external email. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender. Dr. Halvorson, Good morning. Thanks for providing the application materials for the special use permit application. We will need some more information to prepare the application for the February 25th meeting agenda. The Plan Commission typically expresses interest in knowing the full context of a proposed use, so Commercial Space Size Do you know the approximate square footage of the overall commercial space that would be leased? 1696 sq feet Commercial Signage and Exterior Alterations – As you might or might not be aware, signs and Page 109 of 213 any exterior alterations (on the street frontage) must seek approval through separate permits with the Design Review Board. While Plan Commission does not do a thorough review of proposed signs and sign code, they do like to know what the intended signage is for purposes of context. What does the business intend to install for signage and identification on the exterior of the storefront street façade? Please provide specifics about what signage appearance and form would entail, if possible. If that hasn’t been determined as of yet, try to be as specific as possible. If it’s, say, just a window graphic and a wall sign, then specify that. If there’s an intended logo or wordmark, that should be provided as well. If you have renderings from a sign rep, that’s even better, but provide the best that can be made available. See attached Does the business intend any other exterior alterations (new windows, exterior lighting, new doorway, etc.) besides signage? No this is a new building Employee-Client Volume and Traffic Flow How many employees would be on the premise at any one time? 3-5 How many client visits or appointments would occur on an average daily basis? Is it appointment only or are walk-ups accepted? About 8-10, Primarily appointments, occasional walk-ins Based on the typical number of employees on site at any given hour and the typical number of clients at any given hour, what would you expect the parking demand to be for any given hour? 2-4, some employees will be taking the train Retail – The Plan Commission is usually very interested in what retail component is being provided in the business, even if it serves a very secondary purpose. What sorts of retail offerings will the establishment be providing? The standards response states that the offerings will be located towards the front, but can you specify some of the items that would be sold? Hearing Protection: ear muffs for kids and adults, Head Phones for kids and adults, Therapeutic Googles, Hearing Aids and accessories, Musical Instruments: small key boards, small steel drums, metronomes. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. -Chris Christopher Marx, AICP Associate Planner Village of Winnetka – Department of Community Development Page 110 of 213 I have attached: Winnetka Commercial Overlay Application Special Use Permit Standards These documents were emailed to aklaassen@winnetka.org and sent by mail together with our check for $1200.00. Please let me know if you need anything else. Preserving Hearing & Brain Health, Lori A Halvorson, AuD, FAAA Preservation Audiologist Founder DUET Hearing Preservation Lake Forest Hearing Professionals Sounhaus Phone: 847-295-1185 Fax: 847-295-1165 Email: lakeforesthearing.com 267 Westminster Lake Forest, IL 60045 www.lakeforesthearing.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, and any documents attached to it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee. Access to this information by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, discrimination, duplication, or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office, and immediately delete this message and all its attachments, if any. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, and any documents attached to it, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee. Access to this information by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, discrimination, duplication, or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you Page 111 of 213 DUET Preservation Audiology – Dr. Lori Halvorson, AUD, FAA founded DUET’s hearing preservation clinic, which uses a groundbreaking, scientifically proven holistic approach that considers your entire hearing system, going beyond hearing aids to preserve your hearing and brain health. Page 112 of 213  1.2 1 500 North Dearborn Street Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312.260.7300 VESTIBULE SMART WALL DUET - WINNETKA 4 3.8 3.4 3.1 3 2.1 2 ELEC. PANELS COAT HOOKS CONCIERGE COUNTER DISPLAY DISPLAY DISPLAY PRINTER G XFR 3'-0" IT CLOSET BEVERAGES 1'-4 3/4" MOBILE CARTS 4'-11" 3'-0" 7'-6" Project Address 4'-2 1/2" 5'-6" 723 Elm St SMART WALL CLR 4'-0" Winnetka, IL 60093 3'-0" 1'-1" 3'-0" Project Number 3'-0" 3'-1" STORAGE 25079.00 LOCKERS 9'-0" 13'-6" 7'-0" 7'-0" 23 SF CLEANING Date 1'-8" 5'-4" 8'-11 3/4" 9'-1 1/2" STATION STAFF AREA 3'-0" 10'-2" 1/15/2026 11'-3" 11'-3" 92 SF ADA CLINICAL DOCTOR MANGO ROOM Sheet Name 7'-6" RESTROOM EAR CANAL LAB & SPA AREA & SOUND BOOTH WORKSTATIONS SELF-TESTING 56 SF 8'-3 1/2" 102 SF 153 SF 79 SF 76 SF REVISED FLOOR PLAN 7'-6" SOUND BOOTH SMART WALL W/D REF Sheet Number ASK-04 © 2026 Valerio Dewalt Train Associates P.C. Page 113 of 213 ATTACHMENT B Page 114 of 213 Page 115 of 213 Page 116 of 213 Page 117 of 213 Page 118 of 213 Page 119 of 213 Page 120 of 213 Page 121 of 213 Page 122 of 213 Page 123 of 213 Page 124 of 213 Page 125 of 213 Page 126 of 213 Page 127 of 213 Page 128 of 213 Page 129 of 213 Page 130 of 213 Page 131 of 213 Page 132 of 213 Page 133 of 213 Page 134 of 213 Page 135 of 213 Page 136 of 213  ATTACHMENT C From: Kristin Kazenas To: Ann Klaassen; Scott Mangum Subject: FW: Duet Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:31:14 AM Hi Scott and Ann, Please see below a comment regarding the Duet application. Thank you, Kristin -----Original Message----- From: Robert Dearborn <RDearborn@winnetka.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:29 AM To: Maggie Meiners Art >; Kirk Albinson <KAlbinson@Winnetka.org> Cc: Kristin Kazenas <KKazenas@winnetka.org> Subject: RE: Duet Thanks Maggie. I have copied Kristin, so she is aware of your thoughts and can share with Community Development. Bob Robert H. Dearborn President – Village of Winnetka -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Meiners Art < > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:41 AM To: Kirk Albinson <KAlbinson@Winnetka.org>; Robert Dearborn <RDearborn@winnetka.org> Subject: Duet CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Bob and Kirk- I hope you are well. I just wanted to put a quick plug in for Duet, which is up for possible approval for a space in the One Winnetka building. I highly recommend them to occupy a space in this building for a couple of reasons: 1) it aligns with the population of Winnetka— health conscious, progressive, and cutting edge technology— hearing specialists, neuroscience and biohacking 2) there are not other ear to brain music therapy opportunities that have community gathering potential 3) they provide supplements that one would otherwise have to drive to Northbrook or Evanston Whole Foods for. 4) We do not have a service like this in the Village and yet, approval of Charles Schwab (with Chase AND BMO Page 137 of 213 just across the bridge) AND a plastic surgeon seems counter to “retail” space more so than Duet. 5) Duet provides educational opportunities as well Thanks for your time and service and I am sure the Council will take these into consideration when making a decision. I look forward to seeing you both soon. Maggie Page 138 of 213  1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION 2 MEETING MINUTES 3 MARCH 25, 2026 4 5 Members Present: Mamie Case, Acting Chairperson 6 Jonathan Alt 7 Christopher Blum 8 Matthew Bradley 9 King Poor 10 Kate Van Vlack 11 12 Members Absent: Layla Danley 13 Chris Enck 14 Cyrus Subawalla 15 16 17 Non-Voting Members Absent: Bridget Orsic 18 19 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner 21 22 *** 23 24 Continued Applications: 25 a. Case No. 26-05-SU: 730 Elm Street, Suite 120 - DUET Audiology Clinic: An application seeking approval of 26 a Special Use Permit submitted by DUET Audiology Clinic, as the prospective lessee of the commercial space 27 located at 730 Elm Street, Suite 120, to allow a medical office in the C-2 General Retail Commercial Overlay District. 28 The property is currently owned by MDG Winnetka One, LP. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this 29 request. This item was continued from the February 25, 2026 Plan Commission meeting. 30 Mr. Mangum provided background with regard to the continued application in connection with the ground floor 31 retail use and the Commission’s evaluation of the application on the 12 special use standards. Mr. Marx identified 32 the applicant and summarized the applicant’s request to relocate their Northfield clinic to the subject property. He 33 then identified the property’s location, zoning classification as well as the retail overlay district area in an illustration 34 and the proposed space to be occupied. Mr. Marx identified the entrance, how the interior space would be laid out, 35 hours of operation and number of employees and patients as well as the services to be provided. He then 36 summarized the parking plans for employees and patients. 37 38 Mr. Marx referred to the three previously approved special use permits for the site as well as two proposed 39 restaurant uses in the building. He then identified the specific limitations for medical and financial uses under the 40 Planned Development as well as the proposed space to be occupied by the applicant in an illustration. Mr. Marx 41 stated the applicant provided their responses as to how the proposed use complied with the 12 standards the 42 Commission is to consider and the recommendation by the village staff and Village Attorney that the Commission 43 review and consider the proposed use in connection with all 12 standards included on page nos. 17 and 18 in the 44 agenda packet. 45 46 Mr. Marx stated the Commission is to consider whether the proposed use is consistent with the standards and 47 following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission discussion, the Commission may decide to 48 either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or make a motion to 49 recommend approval or denial of the special use permit. He then asked if there were any questions. 50 51 Mr. Bradley asked for clarification in terms of the square footage to be occupied. Mr. Marx confirmed the square 52 footage proposed by the applicant would be compliant. Ms. Van Vlack questioned the length of the lease agreement. 53 Mr. Marx responded it would be a 10 year lease. Mr. Poor referred to the close vote in February 2026 on the Page 139 of 213  March 25, 2026 Page 2 1 Solidcore application and the fact that there would be guidance from the Village Council in terms of having no retail 2 in the One Winnetka development. Mr. Marx responded the applicant can identify plans for the last space to be 3 occupied. Mr. Mangum informed the Commission the applicant has the ability to request a special use permit at the 4 proposed location with the plans to be evaluated by the Commission and Village Council to determine whether to 5 approve it or not. He added there was no specific requirement that there has to be a retail use. Mr. Bradley provided 6 additional information with regard to the Solidcore approval. A Commission Member questioned how the hallways 7 and shared corridor would be positioned. Mr. Marx stated that area may not be counted toward the leased space 8 and the applicant can respond. No additional questions were raised at this time. 9 10 Chairperson Case swore in those speaking to this matter. Dr. Lori Halvorson, founder of DUET, clarified the difference 11 by DUET and a medical audiology clinic and described several products in detail which generate a significant retail 12 tax base. She also described the office layout and programming services offered. Dr. Halvorson stated the use would 13 not be an old fashioned audiology clinic but would be utilizing a system to keep the area between the ear and the 14 brain healthy with the use of curated retail experiences and products. She stated the business would be a good fit 15 for the neighborhood and generate revenue. 16 17 Chairperson Case noted there is no one in the audience to comment and asked the Commission Members if they 18 had any questions. Mr. Bradley described the business as wonderful and asked if it would be predominately retail. 19 Dr. Halvorson responded it was previously retail until they redesigned the physical structure and is now walk-ins 20 which generate appointments. She also described the current location in Northfield as well as the length of 21 appointments which she described in detail. Dr. Halvorson confirmed they had more walk-ins than appointments. 22 Ms. Van Vlack asked for additional information with regard to marketing to younger generation which Dr. Halvorson 23 provided to the Commission. Dr. Halvorson also described their typical patients and the services provided to them. 24 Ms. Van Vlack questioned why the applicant chose this location since there would not be a lot of foot traffic. Dr. 25 Halvorson referred to their current patient clientele who are from Winnetka and added their retail products and 26 services are not covered by insurance. 27 28 Mr. Alt described the presentation as phenomenal and questioned the cost range for walk-in appointments. Dr. 29 Halvorson responded it varied from $199-$800 and provided the cost of various other products and their features 30 in detail. She described the business as a brain hearing wellness retail studio. Mr. Bradley asked if they have repeat 31 customers. Dr. Halvorson responded they have yearly exam customers as well as new customers with the modeling 32 numbers based on the Lake Forest appointments. The second presenter, Kristin Halvorson, stated the median 33 customer age is low 50’s. 34 35 A Commission Member described the presentation as well thought out and described the Commission’s charge in 36 connection with the overlay district. He asked what percentage of their annual revenue is products vs. services. Dr. 37 Halvorson responded it is a hybrid business with ¾ of their revenue is taxed on products. A Commission Member 38 referred to parking. Deirdre Clein, representative for the property owner, described the available parking spaces on 39 site. Dr. Halvorson explained how the business name was created. Ms. Van Vlack referred to the developer’s 40 agreement in that there would not be special use requests for this location with the preference for the space being 41 retail. 42 43 Chairperson Case asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this time. Noting 44 that there were no members of the public present, she then called the matter in for discussion. 45 46 Mr. Bradley commented the presentation was great and it appeared to be a great business but it did not belong in 47 this location in Winnetka. He stated he voted against the Solidcore special use request and referred to the issues 48 that were raised in connection with that application. Mr. Bradley stated he hoped the applicant can find another 49 location in the village. He stated he would not recommend approval and added parking would be an issue in the 50 downtown area with that standard not being satisfied. Mr. Bradley concluded they should try to preserve having a 51 retail overlay district tenant in this space and added standard nos. 2, 3, 5 and 12 have not been met. 52 53 Ms. Van Vlack described the situation as a bait and switch in terms of what they were presented with overall to Page 140 of 213  March 25, 2026 Page 3 1 expect with the developer knowing there would be mostly special uses being requested. She stated there would 2 need to be at least two retail uses in order to provide foot traffic with their being no churn in connection with traffic. 3 Ms. Van Vlack commented she loved the business model and described the situation that the Commission is being 4 presented with special use requests in bits and pieces with them having to recommend denial of a business they 5 would otherwise support. She commented she hoped One Winnetka to have been more retail overall and described 6 the situation as disappointing. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would recommend against the request at this location. 7 8 Mr. Alt agreed with the comments made and that it would not be the right location. He stated the Commission is 9 concerned with regard to the foot traffic with their being only one pure retail use across the street. He asked for the 10 applicant to consider other Winnetka locations which had stronger foot traffic and concluded he would not be in 11 favor of the request. 12 13 Mr. Poor agreed with the comments made and stated the Commission is the steward of the overlay district and the 14 preference for no retail uses on the first floor of businesses. He stated this hybrid use is not the type of retail use 15 envisioned for the overlay district along with concerns with regard to parking. Mr. Poor stated while the business 16 would be a great business for the village, he referred to the caucus survey that people want to see expanded 17 shopping. He concluded he would not recommend approval. 18 19 Mr. Blum stated while the proposal is close to a retail use and if it were not located in One Winnetka, the Commission 20 would likely recommend approval. He agreed with the parking concerns and suggested they get creative in terms of 21 creating time limits for parking. Mr. Blum compared the proposed use to that of specialty optical retail with an 22 optician. He stated they want people to park, browse and shop and if they want foot traffic, they have to have 23 vehicles. Mr. Blum then stated he is torn and referred to the ordinance they have to adhere to. 24 25 Chairperson Case applauded the applicant’s enthusiasm and agreed it would be a good business but not the right 26 business for this location along with the parking issues raised. She stated standard nos. 2, 3, 5 and 12 are not met 27 and that she hoped the developer would consider tenants which would be more walker friendly. Chairperson Case 28 stated there is still time to consider a retail use for this space and would like to see the applicant find another space 29 in the village. 30 31 Ms. Clein stated she spoke at the Village Council on a number of items and stated an updated traffic and parking 32 analysis was done in conjunction with the restaurant space which concluded they were in compliance from a code 33 perspective and that there is sufficient parking to support the use. She stated with regard to the three different 34 zones considered, she referred to the sidewalk grade changes and confirmed there would still be the same number 35 of spaces. She stated she also presented to the Village Council the list of retailers and specialty retailers they pursued. 36 She stated the retail market has changed and traditional retail required a critical mass of a mall which would generate 37 foot traffic with downtown areas not being able to support higher end retailers the community preferred. She 38 concluded by stating they attempted to fulfill the community’s desires. 39 40 Chairperson Case referred to the agreements made with the developer at the planning level. Ms. Van Vlack 41 questioned what can be done at 1/10th of the way through a 10 year lease with regard to issues regarding traffic, 42 etc. being raised and questioned what can be done to make things better at that point. She stated the alternative is 43 not actionable and referred to the Solidcore approval. Mr. Bradley stated the Village Council’s consideration in terms 44 of look backs is to confirm that employees are parking they are supposed to, etc. and referred to Schwab’s and Solid 45 Core’s affirmation to require customers to use off-street parking. He stated village residents are well aware that 46 there is a parking problem in the village. 47 48 Chairperson Case asked for a motion. Mr. Bradley moved to recommend denial of the special use request as 49 indicated on page 17 in that standard nos. 2, 3, 5 and 12 have not been met. Ms. Van Vlack seconded the motion. A 50 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 51 AYES: Alt, Blum, Bradley, Case, Poor, Van Vlack 52 NAYS: None 53 Page 141 of 213  March 25, 2026 Page 4 1 *** 2 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 Antionette Johnson 6 Recording Secretary Page 142 of 213 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 143 of 213 Parking constraints remain a significant concern for both residents and existing businesses. In the East Elm area, parking demand during peak hours was already strained prior to the One Winnetka development. With the completion of the development, these pressures will only intensify as consumer parking spaces are occupied by service staff and clients within the complex. At its March 17, 2026, Village Council Meeting, longtime East Elm retail owners voiced concerns that the growth of service uses in core retail spaces and constrained parking are directly, negatively, impacting their businesses. For these reasons, I urge you to preserve ground-floor space for retail use, and deny the DUET Audiology Clinic SUP. Thank you for your service, Jessica Tucker Winnetka Page 144 of 213 From: To: Christopher Marx Cc: Subject: RE: Proposed DUET Winnetka store Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 2:16:56 PM Attachments: DUET_Winnetka Community Development_23 March 2026.pdf You don't often get email from djennerjahn@buildordie.com. 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. Mr. Marx: Please see the attached letter supporting Dr. Lori Halvorson and the proposed Duet retail tenant space at the One Winnetka Building. --David Jennerjahn. David Jennerjahn AIA | buildordie.com D Chicago | San Francisco | Denver | Page 145 of 213 ​23 March 2026​ _​ ​Mr. Christopher Marx​ ​Community Development​ ​Village of Winnetka​ ​cmarx@winnetka.org​ ​RE: DUET Winnetka​ ​720 Elm Street​ ​Dear Mr. Marx:​ ​Regarding the proposed DUET Winnetka retail medical space at 720 Elm Street in the One​ ​Winnetka Building, we, as architects of this project, would like to bring to your attention to​ ​the street engagement between the building exterior and the designed interior of the DUET​ ​store. Like DUET’s prominent downtown Lake Forest establishment, this proposed store will​ ​promote foot traffic and streetscape engagement via retail displays visible at the store​ ​windows, vibrant interior lighting and graphics and open-to-view activities of the store’s​ ​operations. From the sidewalk, pedestrians will see customer retail areas, product​ ​experience displays, “sound bar”, customer concierge desk and lounge. Glassy interior​ ​partitions allow visual access into customer labs, the “audio gym” room, hearing spa, and​ ​the clinical doctors area.​ ​Patients and residents of Lake Forest often comment on how open and welcoming that DUET​ ​store is. We feel that the DUET Winnetka design will similarly evoke the same sentiments and​ ​will positively drive pedestrian activity that contributes to a vibrant street experience.​ ​If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to​ ​contact us.​ ​With Regards,​ ​David Jennerjahn AIA​ ​Charles Riesterer​ ​Valerio Dewalt Train Associates, P.C.​ ​CPR Consulting Architects​ Page 146 of 213 Page 147 of 213 Sincerely, Michael Forman Page 148 of 213  ATTACHMENT 3 ONE WINNETKA PRESENTATION FOLLOWING PAGE Page 149 of 213 DUET Hearing Wellness Special Use Application Village Council – April 21, 2026 Page 150 of 213  One Winnetka: A Completed Vision Fully Leased Tenant Mix Ballyhoo Hospitality By Right Full-Service Restaurant Solidcore SUP Approved Fitness Studio FARE By Right Casual Restaurant Winnetka Aesthetic Studio SUP Approved Medical Office DUET Hearing Audiology SUP Pending Retail Wellness Charles Schwab SUP Approved Financial Office DUET is the final commercial tenant at One Winnetka. All commercial space is now fully leased with a curated mix of dining, fitness, wellness, and financial services. No additional special use applications are anticipated. 2 Page 151 of 213  What We Heard The Village Council raised thoughtful concerns during prior discussions. We have listened carefully and want to address each one directly. "Too Many Special Uses" "Not Enough Retail" "Parking Impact" CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN Approving additional special uses erodes the One Winnetka was expected to include goods- Each additional tenant adds parking pressure C2 retail overlay and sets a precedent for based retail, and every tenant is a service use. to the Elm Street district. future development. OUR RESPONSE OUR RESPONSE OUR RESPONSE DUET is the final tenant. This closes the book DUET generates retail product sales and DUET’s demand is 2–3 spaces per hour — a on One Winnetka. No further special use associated sales tax revenue through fraction of any other tenant in One Winnetka. requests will follow. The Village’s own Futures headphones, hearing protection devices, No conditions required. After the Council 2040 Plan calls to evaluate the C2 overlay wellness accessories, and gift items. worked through parking conditions for district. Customers can browse and purchase without Solidcore (15-minute class gaps), DUET is an appointment. DUET generates more sales effectively a non-event. tax than Schwab or any other service-only tenant in the building. 3 Page 152 of 213  DUET: A Retail Wellness Concept More like Warby Parker than an ENT office. DUET is a boutique ear-to-brain wellness concept that combines specialty retail with personalized hearing and cognitive health services. The storefront experience: • Open retail floor with product displays • Headphones, hearing protection, and wellness devices for browsing and purchase • Walk-in engagement encouraged • Window displays are refreshed regularly to maintain visibility and engagement from the street • Concierge desk and beverage station • Music therapy and experiential programming • Gift items and accessories Unlike a traditional medical office, DUET operates as an interactive storefront that encourages product discovery, walk-in traffic, and ongoing customer relationships. 4 Page 153 of 213  DUET Layout & Retail Zone Retail-Forward by Design Front-of-house (customer-facing): • Three dedicated display areas • Concierge reception desk • Beverage station • Self-testing room (Mango Room) • Smart walls with product interaction Back-of-house (clinical): • Sound booth & doctor area • Ear canal lab • Workstations The front of the space reads as a boutique retail environment from the street. Displays, product interaction, and walk-in engagement are the first experience — not a waiting room. 5 Page 154 of 213  DUET Retail Activity Retail Sales Profile Customer Behavior • Product sales represent approximately 60% of total revenue • Walk-ins are common and often originate from nearby businesses • Retail offerings: headphones, hearing protection, wellness devices, accessories, gift items • Trip-chaining behavior supports surrounding retailers • Customers can browse and purchase without an appointment • Retail model supported by repeat purchases and seasonal gifting • Estimated annual sales tax generation: $38,000 • Retail interaction occurs at the front of the space • Generates ongoing local sales tax revenue to the Village • Existing Lake Forest location generates meaningful foot traffic from passersby Sales Tax Revenue Relative to Alternative Uses Use Type Sales Tax? Walk-In Traffic? Storefront Activation? DUET Hearing Wellness Yes – product sales Yes Yes – retail displays Financial Office No Limited Limited Traditional Service-Only Use No No No 6 Page 155 of 213  Applying a Consistent Standard DUET satisfies the same criteria the Village has applied to prior Special Uses — with strong retail characteristics and minimal impact. The Village has consistently evaluated Special DUET aligns with each of these criteria: Use applications based on: • Active, visible storefront with walk-in retail engagement • Activation of the storefront • Generates sales tax revenue through product sales • Compatibility with surrounding uses • Minimal parking demand (2–3 spaces per hour, no peak stacking) • Parking and operational impact • Customers are primarily drawn from existing Winnetka foot • Contribution to district vitality traffic, not new destination demand • Low operational intensity relative to many permitted uses Approval of DUET is not about precedent — it is about applying a consistent, objective standard to a low-impact, retail-oriented use. 7 Page 156 of 213  Wellness Complements Fitness During the Solidcore discussion, the Council expressed interest in a tenant that “dovetails” with the fitness use. DUET is that complement. Shared Demographic Solidcore’s core customer — affluent, health-conscious, predominantly female — maps directly to DUET’s. Same demographic, complementary need. Hearing Protection for Active Lifestyles DUET offers custom hearing protection products used during fitness, concerts, and travel. A natural retail cross-sell for the active wellness consumer. Cognitive Health & Brain Wellness DUET’s preservation audiology model focuses on brain health through hearing — a growing priority for the health-conscious demographic already investing in physical fitness. Experiential Programming Music therapy sessions, listening demonstrations, and educational events create community engagement and foot traffic beyond clinical visits. 8 Page 157 of 213  Special Use Approvals in the C2 District No Pattern of Widespread Conversion Recent Special Use Activity 2023 Special use approvals are not widespread across the Village. They are approved • Compass Real Estate Office – Approved selectively where they activate storefronts, serve the community, and fit within the surrounding context. • North Shore Events (Event Planning) – Approved • Chase Bank (Temporary) – Approved Why One Winnetka Is Different 2024 One Winnetka is the only new mixed-use building in the district. It was designed • Toned Yoga (Fitness Studio) – Approved (not pursued) to accommodate modern retail formats, service-integrated uses, and structured parking. These users naturally locate in new construction environments. 2025 • Charles Schwab – Approved (One Winnetka) Market Reality • Winnetka Aesthetic Studio – Approved (One Winnetka) Low vacancy and limited turnover exist in the Village. Few, if any, alternative • Solidcore – Approved (One Winnetka) spaces exist for these users. These uses are not displacing traditional retail — • Sit Still Kids Salon – Approved (not pursued) they are filling available space in the only building designed for them. 2026 • DUET Hearing Wellness – Pending (One Winnetka) C2 Overlay Under Review The Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan calls for evaluating the C2 overlay. The Village will likely be reviewing and revising the zoning ordinance in 18–24 months. Denying a creditworthy long-term tenant while the overlay itself is under review creates the vacancy the overlay was designed to prevent. This reflects a measured, case-by-case approach — not a pattern of widespread conversion. 9 Page 158 of 213  Parking Demand & Capacity 39 93 332 2–3 On-Site Spaces Adjacent Spaces Vacant Spaces at DUET spaces (meets zoning) upon completion observed peak (4 PM) per hour Staggered Tenant Demand DUET Parking Impact Fitness (Solidcore): Early morning / evening • 2–3 customers at a time • Approximately 6-10 clients per day Office (Schwab/Winnetka Aesthetic Studio): Daytime • No peak stacking or group arrivals Restaurant (Ballyhoo/Fare): Midday / evening • Estimated demand: 2–3 spaces per hour DUET: Daytime, low-volume • No special conditions required For context: The Council negotiated 15-minute class gaps for Solidcore’s No single peak is driven by all tenants simultaneously. Parking 15-car surges. DUET’s 2–3 spaces/hour is a fraction of that and needs no demand is distributed throughout the day. conditions. 10 Page 159 of 213  One Winnetka Business Hours 11 Page 160 of 213  Agenda Item Executive Summary TITLE: 829 and 833 Foxdale - Lot Consolidation and Zoning Variations - Policy Consideration PRESENTER: Scott Mangum AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2026 CONSENT: No ITEM TYPE: New Business ITEM HISTORY: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: INTRODUCTION On April 21, 2026, the Village Council is scheduled to consider the Plan Commission (“PC”) and Zoning Board of Appeals’ (“ZBA”) recommendations regarding an application submitted by Deanna and Stephen Nied (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the properties located at 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue (collectively, the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is seeking approval of the following relief as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record: 1. Zoning Variations to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: a. observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; b. not provide the required building line articulation along the north side building walls; and 2. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue, which does not provide the minimum required rear yard setback from the easterly property line. The Applicant resides at 833 Foxdale Avenue, which they acquired in 2005. Subsequently, the Applicant acquired the adjacent property at 829 Foxdale Avenue in 2024. If approved, the Applicant will demolish the existing residence at 829 Foxdale Avenue and consolidate the two parcels into a single buildable lot. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue would remain. The Applicant intends to construct an addition on the south side of the existing residence on the 833 Foxdale Avenue parcel, and replace the existing detached garages with a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the proposed lot. Page 161 of 213 The demolition permit for 829 Foxdale Avenue has been issued along with a permit to restore the parcel to a vacant lot. However, during construction of the proposed addition the Applicant would like to maintain both of the existing detached garages. The 833 Foxdale garage for vehicle storage and the 829 Foxdale garage for temporary storage of salvaged building materials removed from the 829 Foxdale Avenue residence. Plans for the proposed addition and new detached garage have not been submitted, the Applicant is simply explaining what their intent for the proposed consolidated lot is at this time. Compliance with Zoning Standards – The proposed consolidation complies with the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements. Both of the existing lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum required lot area and average lot width. Therefore, the proposed consolidation would eliminate two nonconforming lots and create one conforming lot. However, the proposed consolidation does not comply with two zoning standards related to setbacks. The consolidation has the effect of increasing the average lot width, resulting in an increase in the minimum required side yard setback. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders the existing 833 Foxdale Avenue residence nonconforming with respect to the new minimum side yard requirement. The existing improvements are deficient with the new requirement by 4.45 feet or 37.08%. Additionally, a variation from the building line articulation requirement is also necessary as a result of the proposed consolidation. The northerly building walls of the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue do not provide the required building line articulation. The Zoning Ordinance requires the side building walls that face the smaller side yard, on a residence constructed prior to April 1999, be articulated by at least 18 inches when the residence is more than 40 feet long. Currently, the smaller side yard is along the southerly property line and the existing residence complies with the building line articulation requirement. However, as a result of the proposed subdivision the smaller side yard is now along the northerly property line and the existing north side building walls do not comply with the building line articulation requirement. The existing north side building walls are deficient with the articulation requirement by 5.34 feet or 13.35%. 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. Additionally, when there are pre-existing zoning nonconformities, the Plan Commission is to consider the existence of such nonconformities and “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.” There is one pre-existing nonconformity that will remain on the proposed consolidated lot. The existing detached garage on 829 Foxdale Avenue provides a nonconforming rear yard setback from the easterly property line. According to the Applicant, they do intend to remove the garage upon completion of an addition to the existing residence that is to remain. ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the request at its December 17, 2025, meeting. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s architect, and two members of the public, the PC discussed the request and the impact the consolidation would have on the unique character of Foxdale Avenue and the availability of housing in the denser R-5 zoning district in the Village. Some members commented that the addition proposed by the Applicant would maintain the character of the neighborhood more than new homes on each lot would. With eight (8) voting members on a request that also required ZBA consideration, the PC was initially split. In order to forward a recommendation to the Council, the PC continued its discussion, which focused on the consistency of the proposed consolidation with the Winnetka Futures Page 162 of 213 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ultimately, by a vote of 5-3, the PC recommended denial of the request. Details of the request can be found in the attached staff report to the PC. A similar report was also provided to the ZBA. For additional details please reference this report as well as the minutes of the December 17 PC meeting, which are included as Attachment 1. Subsequent to the PC meeting and prior to the ZBA’s consideration of the request, the Applicant’s architect provided a letter to the ZBA and Village Council to further explain the reason for the Applicant’s request to consolidate the two existing lots. This letter is provided in Attachment 3. The Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) considered the zoning variations required for the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue, as a result of the proposed consolidation, on March 16, 2026. After hearing from staff, the Applicant’s architect, as well as the Applicant, the ZBA heard from four members of the public, who all expressed support for the request. On the day of the meeting, the ZBA also received several written comments from the public regarding this request. These comments are provided in Attachment 4. The ZBA discussed the challenge of applying the standards for granting a variation to a request that is created as a result of a proposed consolidation. The ZBA also discussed the impact on the character of the neighborhood the proposed consolidation would have compared to construction of one or two new homes. In the end, by a vote of 5-0, the ZBA recommended approval of the zoning variations. The meeting minutes of the ZBA meeting are provided in Attachment 2. Although the ZBA recommended approval of the request, given the PC recommended denial, this item is before the Village Council for policy direction. RECOMMENDATION: Village staff requests policy direction from the Village Council regarding the requested consolidation and the associated relief. Based on the direction provided, staff will prepare the necessary documents for either approval or denial of the requested consolidation at an upcoming meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: December 17, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Staff Report and Meeting Minutes 2. Attachment 2: March 16, 2026, ZBA Meeting Minutes 3. Attachment 3: March 11, 2026, Letter from Applicant's Architect to ZBA and Village Council 4. Attachment 4: Public Correspondence Page 163 of 213  ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: PLAN COMMISSION FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2025 SUBJECT: 829 & 833 FOXDALE AVENUE – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 829/833 FOXDALE AVE. CONSOLIDATION (CASE NO. 25-29-SD) INTRODUCTION On December 17, 2025, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on applications submitted by Deanna and Stephen Nied (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owners of the properties located at 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue (collectively, the “Subject Property”). The Applicant has filed applications seeking the following approvals as part of a Final Subdivision Plat approval to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, together with the following relief: 1. Variations to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: a. observe less than the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and increase in average lot width; b. not provide the required building line articulation along the north side building walls; and 2. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue, which does not provide the minimum required rear yard setback from the easterly property line. This application is limited to the consolidation 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 consolidation, including the requested zoning relief described above. Because the proposed subdivision incorporates a request for zoning relief, the application is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the variations. The ZBA is scheduled to consider the request on January 12, 2026. The Applicant has also submitted a demolition application to demolish the existing residence 829 Foxdale Avenue. The Historic Preservation Commission considered the demolition application on May 5, 2025, and by a vote of 5-0 approved the demolition without delay. A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the public hearing being held by the Plan Commission. The hearing was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on November 27, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Page 1 Page 164 of 213 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road, is zoned R-5 Single Family Residential and currently consists of two buildable lots. The area of each existing lot is as follows: 1. 829 Foxdale Avenue: 7,498 square feet 2. 833 Foxdale Avenue: 7,499 square feet Both of the existing lots are legally nonconforming with respect to the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet for an interior lot in the R-5 District. Also, each of the existing lots has an average lot width of 50 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for an interior lot in the R-5 District is 60 feet. Each of the existing lots contains an existing two-story residence and a detached garage. The existing parcels and improvements are depicted below and on the following page in Figures 1 and 2. Lincoln Foxdale Avenue Avenue 833 Foxdale Eldorado 829 Foxdale Street Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots Page 2 Page 165 of 213  833 Foxdale 829 Foxdale Figure 2 – Subject Property The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses (Figure 3). The Subject Property is located in a residential area with single-family residences. The Land Use Plan Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” uses. Subject Property Figure 3 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan Page 3 Page 166 of 213 The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following vision statement and goal relevant to the proposed application: Pillar 1: Quality Liveable Neighborhoods Vision Statement: A community of connected neighborhoods with safe, pedestrian-oriented streets, tree-lined parkways, and a variety of well- maintained housing offerings to meet the needs of all of its residents and create a unique and powerful sense of place. Goal 1.1: The Village will encourage renovation of existing homes and construction of new homes to be contextually consistent with existing single-family housing in its neighborhood. Initiative 1.1.6: Strengthen and maintain the rich and diverse character of the Village’s neighborhoods and sense of identity by highlighting each neighborhood’s unique elements that contribute positively to the Village. The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property for a single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-5 zoning district. PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS There are no previous zoning cases on file for either of the lots that make up the Subject Property. The building permit history for each lot is provided below. 829 Foxdale Avenue. The existing residence at 829 Foxdale was constructed in 1921. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1922 to construct a detached garage; and 2. 1979 to replace the detached garage. In October of this year, the Applicant submitted a site restoration permit to remove the existing residence and detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue. The permit has been approved and is ready to be issued. 833 Foxdale Avenue. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue was also constructed in 1921. The following subsequent building permits were issued in: 1. 1959 to construct a one-story enclosed porch and powder room; 2. 2003 to construct a two-story addition and detached garage; and 3. 2018 to construct a one-story addition on the rear elevation. Other minor permits have been issued for both properties over the last several years. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION / RESUBDIVISION The Applicant resides at 833 Foxdale Avenue, which they acquired in 2005. Subsequently, the Applicant acquired the adjacent property at 829 Foxdale Avenue in 2024. If approved, the Applicant will demolish the existing residence and consolidate the two parcels into a single buildable lot measuring 14,997 square feet. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue would remain. As described in the attached application materials (Attachment A), the Applicant intends to construct an addition on the south side of the existing residence on the 833 Foxdale Avenue parcel, and replace the existing detached garages with a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the proposed lot. During construction of the proposed addition, both of the existing detached garages would remain. The 833 Foxdale garage for Page 4 Page 167 of 213 vehicle storage and the 829 Foxdale garage for temporary storage of salvaged building materials removed from the 829 Foxdale Avenue residence. As noted earlier in this report, preliminary plans for the proposed improvements have not been provided, the Applicant is simply explaining what their intent for the proposed consolidated lot is at this time. The proposed subdivision is represented in Figure 4 below and an excerpt of the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation plat is provided in Figure 5 on the following page. Figure 4 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view) Page 5 Page 168 of 213  Figure 5 – Excerpt of Proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation Plat DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS As noted earlier in this report, the Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. The R-5 zoning district provides for the densest form of single-family development compared to most other residential zoning districts, with the R-5 zoning district’s purpose statement describing the district as demonstrating a “relatively intense suburban” character. Residential Zoning Hierarchy A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1 on the following page) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods, ranging from larger “estate” character lots in portions of the Village, to smaller, more intensive developed areas. Surrounding Zoning Neighboring lots to the north, south, and west are similarly zoned for smaller lot sizes called for in the R- 5 zoning district (minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet for interior lots). Neighboring lots to the east are zoned for slightly larger lot sizes called for in the R-4 zoning district (minimum lot area of 12,600 square Page 6 Page 169 of 213 feet for interior lots), as depicted below in Figure 6. There are currently 13 lots on the east side of Foxdale Avenue (between Eldorado Street and Tower Road), 7 of which measure 50 feet by 150 feet (7,500 square feet). There is one lot that has the same lot dimensions and area as the proposed lot, 100 feet by 150 feet (15,000 square feet). There are two other lots that are more than 11,000 square feet, there are also two lots that are smaller than the existing parcels that make up the Subject Property. In summary, the average lot size of the existing lots on the east side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road, is 8,837 square feet. The majority of the lots on the west side of Foxdale Avenue are 6,000 square feet due to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The average lot size for lots on the west side of Foxdale Avenue, between Eldorado Street and Tower Road is 6,917 square feet. Table 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 Residential Zoning (“estate” (“small estate” (“moderately intense” (“relatively intense” (“relatively intense” Hierarchy character) character) suburban character) suburban character) suburban character) Minimum Lot 48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f. Area - interior lots Minimum Lot Width – interior 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. lots Minimum Required Front 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Setback 15% of lot 15% of lot depth, depth, but not 15% of lot depth, but 15% of lot depth, but Required Rear but not less than 10 50 ft. less than 10 ft. not less than 10 ft. nor not less than 10 ft. Setback ft. nor more than 25 nor more than more than 25 ft.. nor more than 25 ft. ft. 25 ft. Table 1 – Residential Zoning Hierarchy Subject Property Figure 6 – Area Zoning Map Page 7 Page 170 of 213  COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to ensure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including, but not limited to (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width, and (c) minimum lot depth. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation fully complies with minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements as summarized in Table 2 below. Both of the existing lots are nonconforming in two respects: (i) the minimum required lot area of 8,4000 square feet, with each lot measuring approximately 7,500 square feet; and (ii) the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet, with existing average lot widths of 50 feet. The proposed consolidation would eliminate two nonconforming lots and create one conforming lot. Table 2 Existing Lot Existing Lot Proposed Lot R-5 Zoning Standards 829 Foxdale Avenue 833 Foxdale Avenue Minimum Lot 14,997 sq. ft. 7,498 sq. ft. 7,499 sq. ft. Area 8,400 sq. ft. COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DOES NOT COMPLY (Interior lot) Minimum Lot 100 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet 60 feet Width (average) COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DOES NOT COMPLY Minimum Lot 100 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet Width (at front 20 feet COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES street line) Minimum Lot 150 feet 150 feet 150 feet 120 ft. Depth COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES Table 2 – R-5 Zoning Standards COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The allowable size of buildings on a residential lot and the required amount of open space around the buildings is dictated by the Village Zoning Ordinance. As a general rule, the allowable size of buildings and the setback requirements for those buildings change with any modifications to lot dimensions. As a result, staff conducts analyses of proposed lots and the improvements on those lots to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformities would be created by the resubdivision and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain. In the event of a zoning nonconformity arising out of a proposed subdivision, relief must be reviewed by both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, with the Village Council having final jurisdiction. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation does not comply with two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks: (i) minimum required side yard setback; and (ii) building line articulation. Staff evaluation of the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 later in this report, indicating the extent to which the proposed consolidated lot complies with (or falls short of) zoning standards. The item highlighted (in yellow) in Table 3 indicates the creation of a zoning nonconformity. The items highlighted (in green) in Table 3 indicate an existing zoning nonconformity. Description of minimum side yard setback requirements – Side yard setback requirements are calculated based on a lot’s width: • Lots with an average lot width that is 100 feet or more: The minimum required side yard setback Page 8 Page 171 of 213  is 12 feet. • Lots with an average lot width that is more than 60 feet, but less than 100 feet: The minimum required side yard setback is 10% of the average lot width. • Lots with an average lot width of 60 feet or less: The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet on one side and 8 feet on the other side. Newly created zoning nonconformities (zoning variations required) – The proposed consolidation has the effect of increasing the average lot width to 100 feet, resulting in an increase in the required minimum side yard setback to 12 feet. As a result, the proposed larger lot renders the existing 833 Foxdale Avenue residence (which is set back 7.55 feet from the northerly property line), nonconforming with the new minimum side yard requirement of 12 feet. The existing improvements providing a minimum side yard of 7.55 feet, are deficient with the new requirement by 4.45 feet or 37.08%. In addition to the variation required for the side yard setback, a variation from the building line articulation requirement is also necessary as a result of the proposed consolidation. The northerly building walls of the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue do not provide the required building line articulation, with unarticulated northerly building walls totaling 45.34 feet in length. The Zoning Ordinance requires the side building walls that face the smaller side yard, on a residence constructed prior to April 1999, be articulated by at least 18 inches when the residence is more than 40 feet long. Currently, the smaller side yard is along the southerly property line and the existing residence complies with the building line articulation requirement. However, as a result of the proposed subdivision the smaller side yard is now along the northerly property line and the existing north side building walls do not comply with the building line articulation requirement. The existing north side building walls measuring 45.34 feet in length are deficient with the articulation requirement by 5.34 feet or 13.35%. Page 9 Page 172 of 213 Table 3 Existing Lot Existing Lot Proposed Consolidated Lot Zoning Setback Requirements 829 Foxdale 833 Foxdale Minimum Required Front Yard 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Front yard provided existing 35.84 feet 35.88 feet 35.84 feet structures Minimum Required Side Yard 12 feet 6 feet 6 feet SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 7.55 feet (north) Side yard provided by VARIATION of 4.45 FT 8.57 feet (south) 6 feet (south) existing structures (37.08%) Minimum Required Remaining 18 feet 8 feet 8 feet Side Yard 7.55 feet (north) Side yard provided by 9.85 feet 63.55 feet (south) EXISTING existing structures (north) NONCONFORMING Minimum Required Rear Yard 22.5 feet 22.5 feet 22.5 feet Rear yard provided by 57.56 feet 79.49 feet 57.56 feet existing structures Minimum Required Rear & Side Yard Setbacks for 2 feet 2 feet 2 feet Accessory Structures in Rear Quarter Rear yard provided by 1.71 feet 1.71 feet EXISTING 3.4 feet existing garages 3.4 feet NONCONFORMING Table 3 – Zoning Setback Requirements Page 10 Page 173 of 213 Table 4 below, highlights (green) one existing zoning nonconformity that would be eliminated with the proposed subdivision. The existing improvements on the 833 Foxdale Avenue parcel currently exceed the maximum permitted impermeable lot coverage by 605.96 square feet or 16.16%.. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation would eliminate the impermeable lot coverage nonconformity. Table 4 – Zoning Existing Lot Building Size Proposed 829 Foxdale Avenue Existing Lot Requirements Consolidated Lot (house to be torn down, 833 Foxdale Avenue garage to remain) Maximum Allowed Gross 4,814.4 sq. ft. 2,999.2 sq. ft. 2,999.6 sq. ft. Floor Area (GFA) GFA provided by existing 3,349.67 sq. ft. 1,864.58 sq. ft. 2,952.16 sq. ft. structures ALLOWABLE BUILDING SIZE Maximum Allowed Roofed Lot Coverage 4,049.19 sq. ft. 2,024.46 sq. ft. 2,024.73 sq. ft. (RLC) RLC provided by existing 2,193.88 sq. ft. 1,129.8 sq. ft. 1,796.37 sq. ft. structures Maximum Allowed Impermeable Lot 7,498.5 sq. ft. 3,749 sq. ft. 3,749.5 sq. ft. Coverage (ILC) (50% of lot area) ILC provided by 4,355.46 sq. ft. existing 4,440.97 sq. ft. 2,723.8 sq. ft. EXISTING structures NONCONFORMING Table 4 – Zoning Building Size Requirements COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS All changes to the configuration of parcels of land are classified as Land Subdivisions under the Village Code and are subject to review by the Plan Commission and approval by the Village Council. As part of that review process, resubdivisions are subject to review for compliance with both the Village Subdivision Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance. According to Section 16.12.010 Minimum land subdivision standards of the Subdivision Code, subdivisions shall conform with the Comprehensive Plan and with the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.12.010, such as the street system, street and alley widths, lot size, etc. The proposed subdivision complies with all requirements of Section 16.12.010. Additionally, the proposed subdivision conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as the Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential development, which is the proposed use of the newly created lot. Pre-existing zoning nonconformity (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – One existing nonconformity will remain on the proposed consolidated lot. The existing detached garage on 829 Foxdale Avenue parcel provides a nonconforming rear yard setback of 1.71 feet from the easterly Page 11 Page 174 of 213 property line, whereas a minimum setback of 2 feet is required (deficient by 0.29 feet or 14.5%). According to the Applicant, they do intend to remove the existing nonconforming detached garage upon completion of an addition to the existing residence that is to remain. Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code, in the instance of such nonconformities, the Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.” Location of Existing Nonconforming Rear Yard Setback that will remain Figure 7 – 829 & 833 Foxdale Avenue Plat of Survey Excerpt STORMWATER The proposed subdivision consists of consolidating two lots into a single larger lot. As previously mentioned, the Applicant intends to demolish the existing residence at 829 Foxdale Avenue, construct an addition to the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue, and eventually demolish both of the existing detached garages on the Subject Property. The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed consolidation and has noted that upon submittal of the necessary permits to construction any proposed improvements, the Engineering Department will evaluate grading and stormwater detention as part of final engineering approval to verify stormwater is being managed on-site and complies with Village stormwater regulations. Additionally, the stormwater utility fee will be reviewed and adjusted based on final impermeable lot coverage calculations. Page 12 Page 175 of 213 For reference, Figure 8 below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain. Subject Property Figure 8 – GIS Floodplain Map COMMISSION CONSIDERATION The Village Code does not require an applicant to obtain preliminary plat approval as a precondition of final plat approval. In this case, the Applicant has chosen to directly proceed with final plat review. In addition to evaluating prescriptive standards of the zoning and subdivision code, consideration of Final Subdivision Plat approval also needs to consider the details of the final plat such as utility easements, final plat formatting and related matters. The Village Water & Electric and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposed consolidation and are not requiring any utility easements. With respect to plat formatting, the Applicant is working with staff to finalize all of the necessary signature blocks on the plat of subdivision. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission is to consider whether the proposed consolidation complies with the Subdivision Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Consolidation. 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: A. The proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation Final Plat consolidating the two existing lots commonly known as 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue into a single Lot of Page 13 Page 176 of 213  Record, as the Final Plat of Consolidation, which consolidation requires: a. A variation to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to observe a north side yard setback of 7.55 feet, whereas a minimum of 12 feet is required [Section 17.30.060 Side Yard Setback]; b. A variation to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to have unarticulated north side building walls 45.34 feet in length, whereas building line articulation of at least 18 inches is required when the residence is more than 40 feet in length [Section 17.30.090 Building Line Articulation]; c. A finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing detached garage at 829 Foxdale, which does not provide the required rear yard setback of 2 feet from the east property line; and d. A finding that the lot consolidation is [is not] consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map designation of the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential” development. Based upon these findings, the Plan Commission recommends [does not recommend] that the proposed 829/833 Foxdale Ave. Plat of Consolidation be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Final review and approval of the plat by the Village Attorney prior to recordation of the plat. [If the Commission chooses to place additional conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will want to include the conditions here.] ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Consolidation (829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation) Page 14 Page 177 of 213  25-29-SD Page 178 of 213 The proposed consolidation of 833 Foxdale Avenue and 829 Foxdale Avenue will create a unified parcel totaling approximately 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres). Each existing residential lot measures 50 feet in width and 150 feet in depth, allowing for a seamless merger into a single, rectangular parcel that aligns with the contextual pattern of neighboring properties. The new parcel complies with the R-5 zoning district requirements, which mandate a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet and minimum width of 60 feet. All proposed structures will conform to current setback ordinances and will be designed to respect the scale, massing, and architectural rhythm of the surrounding neighborhood. The primary goals of this consolidation are: • Expand the living space of 833 Foxdale in a manner consistent with neighborhood character. • Relocate and consolidate detached garages into the southeast corner of the new parcel. • Enhance privacy and increase green space by removing the existing structure at 829 Foxdale. • Reduce overall building bulk and improve pervious landscaping. This proposal is not intended to maximize buildable floor area. Instead, it aims to preserve and elevate cottage-style architectural elements that define Foxdale Avenue, while improving air flow, natural light, privacy, and visual openness for both the property and its neighbors. Chip Hackley - Principal Hackley & Associates Architects, Inc. Architect for Owners of 833/829 Foxdale Ave Page 179 of 213  25-29-SD Page 180 of 213 1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that district. This variation request stems from a change in lot width due to the proposed lot consolidation. The increased width alters the side yard setbacks, resulting in the existing house becoming non-conforming. However, the proposed addition does not affect the portion of the home that is rendered non-conforming, so no further relief is required. 2) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. This variation request is unique due to the proposed consolidation with the neighboring property to the south. The increased lot width will result in greater side yard setback requirements, causing the existing home to become non- conforming on the north side. These setback regulations are part of the Village’s zoning code and were not established by the homeowners. 3) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue will remain, with a proposed addition to the south. The property will continue to function as a single-family home, consistent in scale, materials, and character with other homes along Foxdale Avenue. The new addition will fully comply with all current zoning and setback requirements. 4) An adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property will not be impaired. The increased setbacks resulting from the lot consolidation will enhance the supply of light and air, and the proposed addition will not negatively impact neighboring properties. The larger lot will help reduce congestion, and the design will improve privacy for the adjacent homes. Page 181 of 213 5) The hazard from fire and other damage to the property will not be increased. The encroaching portion of the residence at 833 Foxdale will remain unchanged. The proposed addition will increase separation between adjacent properties, thereby reducing potential risks associated with close proximity. 6) The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. The proposed addition and overall property improvements are expected to enhance the taxable value of the home. 7) The congestion in the public street will not increase. Public street congestion will be reduced as the consolidation results in one single- family residence instead of two. This change will decrease the number of vehicles and equipment typically associated with multiple households. 8) The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not be otherwise impaired. The proposed enhancement will benefit the Foxdale Avenue community by increasing greenspace, improving treescapes, enhancing sun exposure, and reducing automobile presence. Page 182 of 213 Page 183 of 213 Page 184 of 213 Page 185 of 213 Page 186 of 213 Page 187 of 213 ATTACHMENT B Page 188 of 213  Minutes adopted 01.28.2026 1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 DECEMBER 17, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson 5 Jonathan Alt 6 Christopher Blum 7 Mamie Case 8 Chris Enck 9 King Poor 10 Cyrus Subawalla 11 Kate Van Vlack 12 13 Members Absent: Matthew Bradley 14 15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic 16 17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director 18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 19 Development 20 21 *** 22 23 New Applications: 24 a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: Applications seeking approval 25 of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, which 26 requires (i) variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than 27 the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase 28 in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and 29 increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation along the north 30 side buildings walls; and (ii) a finding of "No Material Increased Adverse Impact for the existing 31 detached garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue which observes less than the minimum required rear yard 32 setback from the east property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 33 Ms. Klaassen referred to an illustration of the property and location which she identified for the 34 Commission, as well as its zoning classification, size and existing improvements. She stated the 35 Comprehensive Plan designated the property and surrounding properties as appropriate for single family 36 residential uses and the use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation 37 and R-5 zoning. Ms. Klaassen then identified the site’s photos noting the applicant resides in 883 Foxdale 38 and submitted a demolition application for 829 Foxdale which was approved by the Historic Preservation 39 Commission without delay. She described the proposed consolidated lots’ measurements, the proposed 40 addition and detached garage noting building plans have not yet been submitted. Ms. Klaassen also 41 summarized the variations being requested, the nonconformities being eliminated and created, the 42 setbacks, as well as the sizes of similar neighboring lots. She stated the ZBA is to consider the application 43 at its January 12, 2026, meeting. Ms. Klaassen noted the Village Engineering and Water and Electric 44 Departments are not requiring easements, She also noted that the applicant is working with staff to 45 finalize the necessary signature blocks on the plat. She stated the Commission is to consider whether the 46 proposed consolidation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and complied with the subdivision 47 code. Ms. Klaassen then stated following the applicants’ presentation, public comment and Commission 48 discussion, the Commission may decide to take action one of two options: (i) continue the item to a date Page 189 of 213  December 17, 2025 Page 2 1 certain; or (ii) consider a motion to recommend approval or denial. She noted draft language for a 2 recommendation of approval or denial is included in the packet and that staff did not receive any written 3 comments from the public. Ms. Klaassen then asked if there were any questions. 4 5 Chairperson Danley referred to Figure 4 and asked for clarification with regard to similarly sized lots. Ms. 6 Klaassen clarified the information for the Commission. Mr. Enck asked if R-4 and R-5 zoning is behind the 7 property. Ms. Klaassen identified the properties on Lincoln which are R-4 as well as some lots on Tower 8 Road. Ms. Van Vlack asked if the 15,000 square foot resultant lot would be measured the same as R-3 9 zoned lots. Ms. Klaassen confirmed the proposed lot size would be similar to the minimum required R-3 10 lot area of 16,000 square feet. No additional questions were raised at this time. 11 12 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Chip Hackley of Hackley & Associates 13 Architects summarized the work he has done in the Village and on this property. He stated the proposed 14 plan would maintain the neighborhood continuity and scale with a seamless addition which would 15 improve the property. Mr. Hackley noted the proposed plans have not been finalized and discussed the 16 setback issues resulting from the consolidation. He also stated the removal of one of the garages would 17 be a nice component of the plan and reduce the combined property’s impermeable effect. The applicants’ 18 team provided no additional comments and Mr. Hackley then asked if there were any questions. 19 20 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. A Commission Member questioned the 21 existing home’s square footage. Mr. Hackley responded the proposal would be under the maximum 22 allowable FAR. A Commission Member then questioned the home’s square footage with the addition. Mr. 23 Hackley referred to the challenges with regard to drainage and the property’s slope. No additional 24 questions were raised at this time. 25 26 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment. Jason Alcorn, 837 Foxdale, stated the proposal would be 27 an improvement for the neighborhood. He referred to specific language with regard to the northern 28 property owner and stated he wanted to ensure no variations are granted to the setback of the current 29 structure with the proposed addition as well as for articulation. 30 31 Colin Cross, 821 Foxdale, stated his issue is that combining the two Foxdale lots would change the 32 community nature. He described the neighborhood as an old world community due to the small lot sizes. 33 Mr. Cross stated he is opposed to larger 100 foot lots on Foxdale which has a reputation as one of the 34 most unique neighborhoods in the Village which is affordable for the influx of young families. He then 35 commented on 841 Foxdale and questioned what would happen if the larger lot is sold and a larger home 36 is built. No additional comments were made at this time. 37 38 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion. Trustee Orsic commented that both neighbors are 39 right. She noted that there are already larger lots here, unlike the application considered last month. She 40 stated the decision they made last month was due to it being precedent setting. Trustee Orsic stated in 41 this particular case, she would be in favor of the request due to the fact there are similar lots. Chairperson 42 Danley referred to the prior discussion relating to preserving existing housing stock and referred to the 43 nearby larger homes in the R-4 district. Mr. Blum stated the request is approximately 1,000 feet under the 44 standard or 45%. He also stated it is important to consider the entirety of Foxdale and referred to the 45 items the Commission is to consider and specific standards he identified. He also stated the request would 46 not support the plan in that it would eliminate two smaller more affordable homes. 47 48 Mr. Enck stated he also appreciated both views from the public comments and stated the proposed design Page 190 of 213  December 17, 2025 Page 3 1 in this particular instance would fit in better with the neighborhood. He referred to previous discussions 2 for demolition applications and stated the lower scale and size of the addition would help to maintain the 3 street feel more so than what could otherwise be built there. Ms. Case agreed with the comments made 4 and referred to the fact the property is not large enough to go through the special use permit 5 consolidation process in connection with lot size. She also agreed with the discussion with regard to the 6 Foxdale uniqueness and that she is somewhat concerned what would happen with the next application 7 to combine two Foxdale lots. Ms. Case questioned whether the Trustees would consider that possibility 8 which would result in the loss of the R-5 characteristics. She added while the proposal is nice looking, they 9 should consider future possibilities. Trustee Orsic informed the Commission she could bring up the issue 10 at the next Village Council meeting. 11 12 Mr. Blum stated for this area, the home would remain an R-5 home with an R-3 size and referred to 13 instances for homes which were built pre-code. Mr. Alt stated R-4, R-5 and R-3 lots are there for a reason 14 and agreed the Foxdale area is special due to the small lot size and affordability and commented 15 eliminating such housing stock in the R-5 district did not make sense. He then referred to setting a 16 precedent which would change the neighborhood fabric and he would vote against the request. He also 17 agreed with Mr. Blum’s comment to not create an R-3 sized home in the R-5 district and referred to the 18 Comprehensive Plan’s goals with regard to housing stock. 19 20 Mr. Subawalla agreed with Mr. Alt’s comments with regard to incrementally breaking up the 21 neighborhood fabric and scale diversity. He stated he is on the fence. Ms. Van Vlack stated they are 22 struggling with the fundamental issue that they cannot answer in terms of maintaining housing stock, 23 neighborhood character and affordability. She stated while they do need to keep smaller housing stock, 24 she referred to the issue of teardowns by developers. Ms. Van Vlack then stated in considering 849 25 Foxdale which was built in 2005, the guidelines which were not considerably different at that time and 26 how that property was allowed be consolidated at that time. She also stated going from an R-5 to an R-4 27 is not as big of a jump but they must find a way to fundamentally address the issue as these matters come 28 before them. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would be in support of the request. 29 30 Mr. Poor stated in considering the Sunset matter discussed last month, he referred to the discussion of 31 not setting precedent but described the situation as similar enough. He agreed Foxdale is a unique area 32 which is the type of area the Comprehensive Plan was designed to promote. Mr. Poor concluded he would 33 vote against the request. 34 35 Chairperson Danley stated she would take a straw poll of the Commission Members and noted her 36 preference is to not combine R-5 lots. She then stated while the property is located next to the R-4 district 37 and one home would be maintained and a special use is not being requested, she did not see within the 38 standards they are reviewing, she would be in favor of the request with the provision that both garages 39 would be removed. Chairperson Danley also referred to the finding being made of no increased material 40 adverse impact being a condition. The Commission Members then identified their positions in detail for 41 the straw poll. 42 43 Chairperson Danley indicated the Commission appeared to be split, 4:4 and asked the Commission 44 Members if they felt any additional information is needed to vote on the matter. Ms. Klaassen noted that 45 the Commission should work towards making a recommendation to the Village Council one way or the 46 other. Trustee Orsic informed the Commission if there is a split vote, that is important for the Trustees to 47 know that there is a bigger issue. Chairperson Danley added the Commission Members’ concerns have 48 been noted for the record. Page 191 of 213  December 17, 2025 Page 4 1 Chairperson Danley then suggested they go through the standards to identify those which are not met. 2 Mr. Blum referred to the discussion that the matter is something the Village Council needs to further 3 consider. 4 5 Chairperson Danley then asked for a motion. Mr. Poor moved to recommend denial of the application. 6 The motion was seconded by Mr. Blum with the statement that the request is inconsistent with the 7 Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 3: 8 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Poor, Subawalla 9 NAYS: Danley, Enck, Van Vlack 10 NON-VOTING: Trustee Orsic 11 12 *** 13 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 16 Antionette Johnson 17 Recording Secretary Page 192 of 213  ATTACHMENT 2 Minutes adopted 04.13.2026 1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT 2 MARCH 16, 2026 3 4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman 5 Mark Haller 6 Kathryn Leister 7 Mike Nielsen 8 Michael Ritter 9 10 Zoning Board Members Absent: Lynn Hanley 11 Todd Vender 12 13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development 14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 15 Development 16 17 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman 18 19 *** 20 21 New Cases: 22 a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An application seeking 23 approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record, 24 which requires variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less than 25 the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an increase 26 in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and 27 increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation along the north 28 side building walls. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 29 Ms. Klaassen summarized the application to request the consolidation of two existing lots into a single lot 30 of record and identified the property’s location, zoning classification and lot size of both lots as well as the 31 existing improvements. She referred to photos of both lots noting the applicant resided at 833 Foxdale 32 which they acquired in 2005 with the adjacent parcel purchased in 2024. Ms. Klaassen noted a demolition 33 permit was approved by the HPC for 829 Foxdale. 34 35 Ms. Klaassen stated the consolidation would create a single buildable lot measuring nearly 15,000 square 36 feet and the applicant planned to build an addition on the south side of the existing residence at 833 37 Foxdale and a detached garage. She identified plans to maintain both garages during construction for 38 storage. She noted the consolidation complied with zoning lot size standards, which she identified for the 39 Board and noted it would create one conforming lot. Ms. Klaassen also noted if a consolidation resulted 40 in a lot measuring more than two times the minimum lot size or more than two times the minimum 41 required average lot width, a special use permit would be required and confirmed the application did not 42 require a special use permit. 43 44 Ms. Klaassen described the two necessary zoning variations in detail as a result of the consolidation and 45 the nonconformity which would be eliminated. She summarized the Plan Commission’s (PC) consideration 46 of the request and its recommendation of denial and noted the Board is to review the request with regard 47 to eight zoning standards. Ms. Klaassen referred to emails received in connection with the request and 48 stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the Board may Page 193 of 213  March 16, 2026 Page 2 1 decide to either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to address questions or comments or 2 make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the requested variations with draft language included 3 on page no. 187. She then asked if there were any questions. 4 5 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. He referred to the 2x the minimum lot area and 6 average lot width provision requiring approval of a special use permit. No questions were raised at this 7 time. 8 9 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Chip Hackley of Hackley & Associates Architects 10 stated he represented Stephen and Deanna Nied and described the request as a technicality in terms of 11 the application of zoning and lot consolidation. He stated the existing home is currently nonconforming 12 and once the lots are consolidated, larger side yard setbacks are required. Mr. Hackley summarized the 13 plan to maintain the existing home at 833 Foxdale, remove the 829 Foxdale home and expand the 833 14 Foxdale home which would also eliminate a narrow shared driveway. He stated their intent is to maintain 15 the continuity on Foxdale and a new home could result in a very large home and affect the block 16 contextually. Mr. Hackley referred to the home’s front elevation illustration and preliminary plans and 17 described the renovation to be done to the home. 18 19 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Nielsen asked if the consolidation assumed any 20 further variations. Mr. Hackley responded there would be none and described the relief obtained on the 21 south side of the property once the home is taken down. Mr. Haller referred to the existing north side 22 elevation and home design and asked if their intent is to mimic the character in terms of the home’s design 23 elements. Mr. Hackley confirmed that is correct as well as improve some of the home’s details. He also 24 described the distance between the home and the lot line. 25 26 Chairman Bradley referred to the first standard with regard to whether 833 Foxdale would be able to 27 obtain a reasonable return as well as sizes of neighboring homes which are existing nonconforming. He 28 asked why the home could not otherwise yield a reasonable return without consolidation. Mr. Hackley 29 responded the most important consideration in connection with reasonable return related to how the lot 30 is used and referred to the shared driveway removal which represented a dangerous and uncomfortable 31 situation. He also stated it is not possible to have two driveways on both lots. Chairman Bradley stated 32 the driveway situation was not sufficiently addressed at the PC meeting. He also referred to the third 33 standard and precedent setting on Foxdale. Mr. Hackley responded it would not set a precedent and is 34 dependent on how it would be handled. Chairman Bradley stated their attempt is to preserve 833 Foxdale 35 with consolidation as opposed to removing the home at 829 Foxdale and a new home being built. Mr. 36 Hackley confirmed that is correct. 37 38 Deanna Nied stated they have lived at 833 Foxdale for over 20 years, which she described as historic. She 39 stated they have lived with the shared driveway situation for quite some time and were fortunate to be 40 able to purchase the home next door which was not in good shape. Mrs. Nied stated the request would 41 allow them to resolve the driveway situation and asked if there were any questions. No questions were 42 raised at this time. 43 44 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Andy Cripe read 45 his comments into the record. He noted he owned the home from 2005-2015 and summarized his position 46 to recommend approval of the request. Mr. Cripe also described the structural issues in the home and 47 stated the uniqueness of the situation related to more than the narrow shared driveway situation which 48 he explained as the homes’ proximity and driveway slope impeded views. He then stated renovating the Page 194 of 213  March 16, 2026 Page 3 1 home to make it viable would not be practical and asked for the consolidation request be granted to allow 2 the applicants’ home to remain. Mr. Cripe then asked if there were any questions. 3 4 Jason Alcorn stated he lived to the north of the applicants’ home and agreed the homes on Foxdale are 5 tight and nonconforming. He stated as long as nothing else on the property changed, he had no problem 6 with the home. Mr. Alcorn agreed with Mr. Cripe’s analysis of the home and with regard to meeting the 7 standards, otherwise allowing a new home to be built on 829 Foxdale would create an encumbrance with 8 regard to the homes’ proximity as opposed to allowing it to remain a vacant lot. 9 10 Evan Meister, 825 Foxdale, stated he is a commercial builder in Chicago and with regard to preservation 11 and neighborhood character, he described the applicants as neighborhood stewards. He referred to the 12 street’s character and described it as an eclectic street. Mr. Meister stated if the request is not approved, 13 the lot would end up in the hands of a spec developer which would not contribute to neighborhood 14 character. He stated the request would improve the neighborhood. 15 16 Christina Cripe, former 829 Foxdale resident, stated she agreed with the comments made and the request 17 would contribute to the town’s overall aura and asked for the consolidation to be approved. No additional 18 comments were made at this time. 19 20 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion and referred to the standards the Board is to 21 consider. Mr. Haller stated after having reviewed the standards, he referred to the first two standards in 22 particular and referred to the 829 Foxdale home which is in disrepair and requires substantial expense to 23 repair. He stated if it is removed and a new home built, there would be a challenge in terms of the shared 24 driveway. Mr. Haller stated there are unique circumstances with regard to both properties and the 25 consolidation would not otherwise physically change anything on the street. He stated the alternative to 26 tear down both homes and build a new home would result in a risk to the neighborhood character and he 27 would lean toward recommending approval. 28 29 Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Haller’s comments and added the home would be attractive with the addition 30 of green space. He stated given the alternative and while the first two standards were not clearly met, he 31 would be in favor of recommending approval. Ms. Leister stated her initial thought was not to recommend 32 approval in connection with the second standard and that the addition would change the character of the 33 locality. She stated after hearing the testimony, the 8-foot driveway is tighter than is more typically seen 34 and with the plan to maintain the existing home’s character and the neighbors’ comments, she would be 35 in favor of the request. 36 37 Mr. Nielsen referred to three particular standards and the written comment received and determined 38 there are three options including tearing down both homes which would result in one large home out of 39 character for the neighborhood, tear down one home to allow 833 Foxdale to have a larger lot or the 40 proposed plan. He stated the proposed plans for the home made a big difference for him and while the 41 home would be larger, hearing the public comment with regard to the shared driveway and safety issues, 42 he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Nielsen concluded the proposal is by far the best option. Chairman 43 Bradley stated with regard to the zoning relief requested, he would be in support of the request although 44 the reasonable return standard is difficult to meet and referred to the amount of homes which do not 45 have driveways. 46 Page 195 of 213  March 16, 2026 Page 4 1 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as noted on page 12. A motion as 2 stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and 3 the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter 5 NAYS: None 6 7 *** 8 9 Respectfully submitted, 10 Antionette Johnson 11 Recording Secretary Page 196 of 213  ATTACHMENT 3 March 11, 2026 To the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Council: I am writing on behalf of my clients, Deanna and Stephen Nied, regarding their lot consolidation request for 829 and 833 Foxdale Avenue, presented to the Plan Commission on December 17, 2025. During the Commission’s discussion and vote, I was unable to provide key information that is directly relevant to the case and may have influenced the outcome (5–4 denial). Only after the meeting was adjourned was I able to offer additional context. Given this, I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Council consider the information in this letter as part of the record as it evaluates the Nieds’ request and its broader impact on the Foxdale Avenue community. Purpose for the Nieds’ Consolidation Request The two lots at 829 and 833 Foxdale share a single, narrow, eight-foot-wide driveway that straddles the property line. While this arrangement may have been workable in the 1920s, it presents significant safety concerns today. Modern vehicles and limited sightlines create ongoing hazards—issues the Nieds have experienced firsthand during their 20 years at 833 Foxdale. Resolving this long-standing safety problem was a primary reason the Nieds purchased the adjacent property and engaged us to design a solution that both aligns with Foxdale’s character and eliminates the risks inherent in the current shared driveway. In addition, shared driveways are well-documented sources of conflict, and while the Nieds have enjoyed positive neighbor relationships, they have understandable concerns about how future owners might handle the shared-access arrangement. Page 197 of 213 Issues with Keeping the Current Lot Arrangement If the lots remain separate, the community is left with a small set of options—all of them suboptimal: 1. Two new homes, each with its own driveway—without a design review board, the resulting homes could be incompatible with Foxdale’s character and diminish the desirability of the block. 2. Add a new driveway to 829 and build a narrow home, a re-subdivision would be required to shift the shared drive entirely to 833. This would make 829 narrower, nonconforming, and produce a home inconsistent with neighborhood character. 3. Keep 829 vacant for the foreseeable future. By contrast, consolidation and the Nieds’ planned addition offer a significantly improved outcome for both the neighborhood and the Village. Page 198 of 213 Benefits of Approving the Consolidation 1. Preservation of Existing Structures • Maintains the original 833 Foxdale house & character. • Although 829 and 833 share similar exteriors, their interiors are nearly mirror images; the addition preserves almost the entire 833 floor plan. • Salvaged materials from 829 will be repurposed into the addition. Materials not repurposed on site will be sold, donated, or recycled. 2. Protection of Neighborhood Character • Prevents construction of two new homes that may diverge from Foxdale’s architectural identity. • Ensures continuity of style and scale consistent with the streetscape. 3. Prevention of Long-Term Vacancy • Avoids the risk of 829 remaining an empty lot for years while the Nieds remain at 833. Working with my firm, the Nieds plan to create a single-family home fully compliant with the R-5 zoning district and aligned with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Design & Community Alignment The consolidated home—designed in the Dutch Colonial style and scaled to the surrounding block—will: • Fit seamlessly within the cottage-style character of Foxdale. • Preserve and incorporate the original 833 house, a mirror image of 829. • Reuse, repurpose, and/or recycle salvaged materials from 829. The resulting home will provide: • Modern amenities expected in contemporary homes • Accessibility features supporting aging in place • Space for extended family • Long-term housing flexibility for future generations Page 199 of 213 Advancement of Village Goals The proposed consolidation supports core Village objectives: • Renovation of existing homes in a manner that maintains contextual consistency with the neighborhood • Reduced energy consumption • Increased permeable surface coverage • Improved stormwater management • Expanded housing options for young families, empty nesters, and seniors Beyond resolving the shared driveway in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the project enhances neighborhood character. A planned large front porch will further strengthen the social fabric of this highly walkable street. Addressing Concerns About Establishing a Precedent Some Plan Commission members expressed concern that approving this request might encourage widespread consolidation of small lots on Foxdale. In practice, such a trend is highly unlikely: • The Nieds—long-time Foxdale residents—spent over 20 years before the opportunity arose to acquire the adjacent lot. • No other consolidations have occurred on Foxdale during that period. • The 829/833 driveway is the only shared, narrow (8-foot) driveway on the street. • Other homeowners lack both the motivation and the unique site conditions that exist between these two properties. Thus, the character of Foxdale — particularly lot size — remains secure, and the Nieds’ situation is uniquely limited to their property alone. Page 200 of 213 The Nieds deeply value the Foxdale streetscape and have no desire to diminish it; rather, their proposal allows them to continue living in their home for many years while addressing the long-standing safety and shared-driveway issues that will not subside over time if left unresolved. Plan Commission Meeting Record Clarification In reference to the Village’s Plan Commission meeting minutes, I would like to provide additional clarification regarding the variation request. During the public comment period at the December 17, 2025, meeting, Jason Alcorn, the neighbor to the north, attended to confirm that no variation was being requested for a new structure within the north side-yard setback. At that time, it was clarified that the variation relates only to the revised side-yard dimensions resulting from the lot-consolidation request and does not involve any new construction. For the record, the variation is required because the adjusted, reduced setback causes the existing structure to fall within the newly established side-yard requirement. This request addresses the zoning compliance of an existing condition. Page 201 of 213 Closing I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Council consider the previously omitted shared-driveway facts and the analysis provided in this letter. If reopening deliberations is not possible, I ask that this letter be included in the record so that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Council have the benefit of this additional information as it makes its final decision—particularly given that the Plan Commission did not have an opportunity to fully discuss this key issue. Regards, Chip Hackley cc: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals cc: Winnetka Village Council cc: Village of Winnetka Community Development Page 202 of 213 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 203 of 213 From: To: Planning Subject: Case 25-29-SD, Lot Consolidation on Foxdale Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:15:56 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Zoning Board Members: I am a long time resident of Foxdale Avenue and recently sold my home at 821 Foxdale Avenue to my daughter and her husband. They have two children, ages 5 and 3. They could afford this home because it is much less expensive than many other homes in Winnetka. I currently reside at 828 Bell Lane, Winnetka, but had owned my home on Foxdale from 1989-2025. Foxdale is a close knit community, largely due to the smaller, 50-foot-wide lots. I am opposed to the proposed combination of two 50’ lots into one 100’ lot for the following three reasons: 1. It reduces the stock of affordable homes in Winnetka; 2. It changes the unique nature of the “Foxdale Community”, arguably one of the best and most welcoming neighborhood in Winnetka; and, 3. It is the thin end of the wedge and will lead to more lot consolidations on Foxdale and other R5-zoned streets, resulting in fewer affordable homes. Please vote No on the proposed lot consolidation. Sincerely, Colin Cross Page 204 of 213 Page 205 of 213 Page 206 of 213 From: To: Planning Subject: Case 25-29 SD Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 2:25:42 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I oppose the petition to combine these 2 Foxdale properties. There is little we can do to address the housing crisis in this country, but maintaining a relatively affordable presence in Winnetka should be a priority. Also, as a 5 decade resident of Foxdale, I would like to preserve the unique family culture of our street. Respectfully, Mark Stefanik Page 207 of 213 Page 208 of 213 Page 209 of 213 I am someone who currently lives next to a corner lot that was “developed” by a builder who removed the prior home and replaced it with new construction that sought, and received, numerous variances so that it could be built to a specification that would attract a different buyer than the other homes in the immediate area. While the design was tasteful and consistent with the area, the home has already turned over three times in twenty years. It also doesn’t meet the village’s FAR or permeable land requirements creating drainage problems for all of the adjacent homes including ours. Once the first combination of lots occurs, it is likely to happen again in an area where a large number of the families live in older, yet renovated, homes. The family orientation and the neighborhood feel will forever be changed as will the curb appeal of these older homes when compared to larger, newer construction on larger lots. It could very well have the effect of decreasing the value of these existing homes to a level consistent with “tear downs” as opposed to a valuation afforded a single-family home. More importantly, it will change the family orientation of the neighborhood as one that welcomes small children and creates a safe environment for them to grow and socialize. Precedent – This lot combination, if approved, will set a bad precedent for a neighborhood that still resembles the Foxdale neighborhood we moved into more than 30 years ago. The neighborhood has maintained its charm and family-first environment with limited new construction and consistent, ongoing renovation of existing structures. The petitioner in this case has ample inventory of other homes in Winnetka that could meet their expectations for square footage, amenities and other creature comforts without the need to “overhaul” the neighborhood with a home that is simply out of place. It’s not like the current residents won’t have to vacate while the new construction occurs so any thought that moving to another home in the village would be an inconvenience is unfounded. However, as with other neighborhoods in the village, once there is a precedent for this type of “conversion,” others will follow and additional requests will begin flowing in that will forever change this area of the village. I appreciate your consideration of this email as I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting. For the reasons cited, I do believe that granting this variance and combining these lots will ultimately lead to a seismic change in the area that will eventually force existing homeowners to leave and will forever diminish the village’s declining availability of entry level family homes. Sincerely, Samuel S. Weiser Foxdale Management LLC Page 210 of 213  Andrew Cripe Comments in Support of 829/833 Foxdale Lot Consolidation  My family lived in 829 Foxdale for 10 years (from 2005 to 2015).  829 is a charming home but it has substantial plumbing, electrical, structural, mechanical challenges (e.g., crumbling stucco, no insulation, only 1 full living space bathroom, fun-house like settling, compromised timbers in substandard addition, out of date plumbing and electric lines, etc.).  833 is a mirror image twin to 829 but substantial investments have been made to address the challenges at 829. 833 has a chance at longevity if the shared challenges on the two currently non- conforming lots can be cured by creating one conforming lot.  We recognized in 2015 that we could not get a reasonable return on the investment needed to make 829 viable for the long term due to shared challenges on the two lots: o Lots are too small and narrow even by R-5 standards (7500 sq feet v 8400; 50 foot width v. 60) o Narrow, sloping, shared driveway presents typical shared driveway challenges but is also dangerous. It is only 8 feet wide:  In the event of a garage, kitchen or other fire at the back of either house, you could not get an emergency vehicle through (lacks needed 10-12 feet minimum access).  The narrow sloping drive is extremely hazardous for visibility; creates non-occupant accident hazard – especially for small children.  The situation cannot be remedied with lots “as is” because they are so narrow --- the homes were built right up to the driveway and there is no room on the south side of 829 or north side of 833 to create an alternative.  For more than 10 years, first as a ZBA member and then as a Village Trustee, I heard or reviewed the facts of every zoning variance application in the village. This one is a no brainer, even if the Plan Commission did not have the benefit of all the relevant facts when it made its decision (i.e., it was not informed of the shared, narrow, sloping driveway, home condition, or substandard R-5 lot size).  Traditionally, the Village has essentially recognized a prima facie showing of unique circumstances for requests that would alleviate shared driveway or flag lot conditions. Even in the best of circumstances, shared driveways can be a cause for constant tension and safety concerns. This one is intolerable for all but the most tolerant of neighbors (which the Nieds were to us).  The Neids have taken on a plan that will save one of these two twin houses, preserving the essential character of the street, and create a lot that is in keeping with similar lots on the same block. This will create one conforming lot from two non-conforming lots. They will eliminate serious health, safety and welfare concerns.  The plan is 100% in keeping with the Winnetka 2040 plan, which recognizes the need to update, adapt and preserve older homes for the long term needs of residents, allowing them to stay in their homes: o Initiative 1.12, p. 76: “Encourage renovation of existing homes to reduce environmental impacts of new construction and to maintain housing diversity for such segments of the community as young families and empty nesters.” o Goal 4.3, p. 138: “‘The greenest building is the one already built.’” Initiatives in Pillar 1 recommend policies that support efforts to encourage the renovation of existing homes in lieu of demolishing houses and building new. Additionally, initiatives recommend ongoing review of regulations to remove potential obstacles that renovation and restoration projects may encounter.” Page 211 of 213 Page 212 of 213 ending list of needed repairs makes this an impossible proposition. Deanna and Steve have demonstrated their commitment to our community. While they split their time between Winnetka and Austin, Winnetka remains home to them. They want to build a home for generations to come to enjoy this community and all it has to offer. Further, they have hired Hackley & Associates Architects out of Kenilworth to draw up architectural plans to include their existing residence. Chip Hackley is known throughout the North Shore for his experience and talent in building the new that pays homage to the past history of Winnetka. Deanna and Steve understand the importance of keeping the quaintness of Foxdale and that is reflected in Chip's design. Please approve the joining of these two lots. Shannon Van Tassel On Monday, March 16, 2026 at 04:53:20 PM CDT, Christina Cripe < > wrote: Sent from my iPhone Page 213 of 213