Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · January 12, 2026
Minutes
Minutes adopted 02.09.2026
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 JANUARY 12, 2026
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Michael Ritter
8
9 Zoning Board Members Absent: Kathryn Leister
10 Mike Nielsen
11 Todd Vender
12
13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development
14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
15 Development
16 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
17
18 Call to Order & Roll Call:
19 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
20 present.
21
22 Public Comment:
23 No comments were made at this time.
24
25 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
26 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the December 8, 2025. meeting minutes. A motion to
27 approve the December 8, 2025. meeting minutes was made by Mr. Ritter and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A
28 vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
29 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
30 NAYS: None
31
32 Community Development Report.
33 Mr. Mangum noted there has been no action on any items since the last meeting.
34
35 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to take the agenda out of order and move up Case No. 26-03-V for
36 614 Cherry Street. A motion was made to move agenda item 5(c) to 5(a) by Ms. Hanley and seconded by
37 Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
38 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
39 NAYS: None
40
41 Continued Cases:
42 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An amended application seeking approval of zoning
43 variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt
44 Road. The requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum
45 permitted gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the
46 west property line. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this amended request. This
47 item was continued from the August 11, 2025, and October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings.
January 12, 2026 Page 2
1 Mr. Marx summarized the GFA and front yard setback variations requested and the previous discussion
2 for this matter. He noted the front yard setback request remained unchanged and a variation is requested
3 for encroachment into the required front yard setback which he identified in an illustration. Mr. Marx
4 stated in response to comments made, the proposed addition has been reduced in size and the applicant
5 provided more information with regard to the home’s existing condition to reflect a more accurate GFA
6 which changed the variation’s nature from major to standard. He noted the existing residence is
7 nonconforming and summarized the resulting GFA. He referred to the original and revised floor plans
8 which he described for the ZBA. Mr. Marx then referred to written comments received relating to the
9 request and stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the
10 Board may either continue the matter to a date certain to provide time to address any questions or
11 comments or consider a motion to adopt the resolution to approve or deny the variations with draft
12 resolutions included on page nos. 86-107. He then asked if there were any questions.
13
14 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. Chairman
15 Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter.
16
17 Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd., Wilmette, stated he is representing the applicants, Emily and John
18 Thomas, and also introduced Scott Walker, the builder, along with Healy Rice, the architect. He
19 summarized their efforts made to make the numbers right and discussed the revised plan submitted as a
20 result of the comments made noting two variations are being requested for the front yard setback and
21 GFA. Mr. Canning described the square footage reductions contained in the revised plan and explained
22 the reasoning for not wanting to dig down in connection with flooding and storm water concerns.
23
24 Scott Walker explained how certain walls were adjusted and the shallower pitched roof was removed
25 along with the creation of a dormer for architectural character. He stated there would also be a major
26 square footage reduction which eliminated privacy concerns to the south with the request providing the
27 needed storage. Mr. Walker explained how the roof pitch created headroom and additional GFA.
28
29 Ms. Hanley asked what are the current and existing roof heights. Mr. Walker provided the information for
30 the Board. Chairman Bradley questioned the flagpole calculation relating to the variation requested. Mr.
31 Walker explained how the flagpole attributed to the amount of the variation being requested and
32 represented a hardship. Ms. Rice explained the plan to create a taller attic over the garage.
33
34 Chairman Bradley then asked for public comment. Courtney Nelson, 130 Evergreen, stated her home is to
35 the south and would be the most impacted by the request. She explained their position to protect and
36 preserve their family space and quality of life. Ms. Nelson referred to the noise with regard to the amount
37 of construction in the neighborhood. She stated the proposed addition would significantly affect their
38 property and alter the character of the locality and as well as their light and air, etc. Ms. Nelson stated the
39 home is already maxed out and the proposed space would be used as living space as opposed to storage.
40 She asked if the request is approved, for the applicant to wait until next winter to build and plant a row
41 of evergreens along their side of the fence.
42
43 David Nelson, 130 Evergreen, stated the hardship needed to be met in order for the request to be
44 approved and stated the applicants were aware of the property’s restrictions when they bought the home
45 and asked for that to be factored into the Board’s analysis.
46
47 Chairman Bradley asked if the applicant would like to respond. Mr. Walker referred to the amended south
48 elevation with the skylights which would not allow for a view into the rear property. The Board Members
January 12, 2026 Page 3
1 reviewed the aerial view map on Figure 1. Mr. Walker provided further information relating to views to
2 surrounding properties and also identified the area where the pool would be located. Mr. Canning asked
3 for the opportunity to discuss any conditions the Board may impose with the applicant.
4
5 Chairman Bradley noted a unanimous motion would have be made and provided the applicant with their
6 options. He then closed public comment and called the matter in for discussion.
7
8 Ms. Hanley referred to her initial concerns relating to the first two standards due to the enormous scale
9 of the original project. She stated while the property is a flag lot, it is not unique but it did create a GFA
10 calculation challenge. Ms. Hanley stated since the request was significantly scaled down, it made the
11 requested variation more palatable along with the dormer and window removal on the south side in
12 response to neighbors’ comments. She concluded she would lean toward approval. Mr. Ritter agreed with
13 Ms. Hanley’s comments and stated the GFA overage is not a result of increased impermeable area. He
14 stated he is sympathetic to the rear neighbors’ concerns and commented the applicant’s team did a good
15 job in minimizing the proposed addition’s size. He questioned whether the glare concern raised would be
16 an issue. Mr. Walker responded light reflects off glass. Mr. Ritter then stated he would be inclined to
17 approve the request without conditions.
18
19 Mr. Haller stated he appreciated the size reduction and the rear yard character appearance which would
20 be changed. He stated would lean in favor of the request and referred to the comments relating to the
21 room’s use and whether the Board should consider the basis for the room’s use relating to hardship relief.
22 Ms. Hanley and Chairman Bradley stated that the room’s use is not relevant and referred to the home’s
23 lack of a basement. Chairman Bradley also commented on the usability of the flag lot area and the GFA
24 calculations. He then summarized how he considered the standards and his position due to the inability
25 of the request to meet the reasonable return standard. He then stated he would be amenable to
26 conditions with regard to the timing of the pool project and the current project.
27
28 Mr. Haller stated if he would consider conditions it would be landscaping to ameliorate the visual impact,
29 not timing of construction. Ms. Hanley stated she would not be comfortable dictating adding landscaping
30 as a solution. She also referred to the difficulty relating to the lack of a basement and that the proposal
31 has been reduced from the original proposal.
32
33 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the request as indicated on page no. 86. A motion to
34 approve the request was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was taken and the
35 motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
36 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
37 NAYS: None
38
39 New Cases:
40 a. Case No. 26-03-V: 614 Cherry Street: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to
41 allow construction of a covered porch addition and work beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to
42 the existing legally nonconforming residence at 614 Cherry Street. The requested variations would
43 permit the proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback
44 from the west property line; and (ii) perform structural changes necessary to provide a new window
45 opening in the legally nonconforming west side building wall. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final
46 jurisdiction on this request.
47 Mr. Marx summarized the variations being requested and identified the property’s location, zoning
48 classification and views of the property. He then summarized the request to replace the rear stoop, the
January 12, 2026 Page 4
1 home’s legal nonconforming status as well as a new window opening in the nonconforming side building
2 wall. Mr. Marx noted the detached garage is also legally nonconforming in terms of its location but would
3 not change. He identified the location of the proposed porch addition in an illustration for the Board as
4 well as rear and side building elevations. Mr. Marx stated two written comments were received and
5 included as Attachment E in the packet. He then stated the Board may either continue the matter to a
6 date certain in order to address questions or comments or consider a motion to approve or deny the
7 request with resolutions on page nos. 194-207. Mr. Marx asked if there were any questions.
8
9 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then
10 swore in those speaking to this matter.
11
12 Healy Rice, the project architect, introduced herself along with Brian Axline, the property owner. She
13 stated the request is to remove and replace the existing porch in the rear of the property which would be
14 slightly larger. Ms. Rice also stated the existing stairway to the basement would be removed and referred
15 to a window well on the driveway side. She stated the proposed porch would serve as a mudroom and
16 summarized the setback issues. Ms. Rice stated the one story addition would align with the existing home
17 on the second floor. She noted an existing window would be removed with a new window added for the
18 bathroom in the same wall. Ms. Rice also stated they have received neighborhood support and asked if
19 there were any questions. She added there is ample separation between the two properties.
20
21 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions from the Board or the audience. No questions were
22 raised at this time and no public comments were made. He then called the matter in for discussion.
23
24 Ms. Hanley described the request as a simple approval and stated she would be in favor of the request.
25 Mr. Ritter agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comment and stated the changes would be minimal. He stated he
26 would be in favor. Mr. Haller and Chairman Bradley also agreed with the comments made. Chairman
27 Bradley noted the side yard setback would be improved and described the request as straightforward.
28
29 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to approve the request as indicated on page no. 194. A motion
30 to approve the request as presented was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Haller. A vote was
31 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
32 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
33 NAYS: None
34
35 b. Case No. 26-01-V2: 671 Lincoln Avenue: An application seeking approval of a zoning variation
36 to allow construction of a circular driveway in the front yard of 671 Lincoln Avenue. The requested
37 variation would permit the proposed improvement to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot
38 coverage. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
39 Mr. Marx identified the property’s location, zoning classification and site photos of the property and
40 surrounding properties. He summarized the front yard lot coverage variation being requested and
41 identified the driveway, fence and front entry gates. Mr. Marx stated the request is to expand the
42 driveway to a circular driveway with a new curb cut and the increase in impermeable lot coverage and
43 front yard lot coverage. He noted two written comments from neighbors were received and included in
44 the agenda packet. Mr. Marx stated following the applicant’s presentation, the Board may decide to either
45 continue the matter to a date certain to allow for time to address questions or comments or make a
46 motion to recommend approval or denial of the variation with draft language included on page nos. 139-
47 140. He then asked if there were any questions.
48
January 12, 2026 Page 5
1 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then
2 swore in those speaking to this matter.
3
4 Scott Price, the project manager and Sam Everly, the landscape contractor with Midwest Arbor,
5 introduced themselves to the Board. Mr. Price stated they were retained to do interior work and refurbish
6 the home purchased approximately one year ago. He stated they planned to restore the circular driveway
7 which was previously removed primarily due to safety concerns due to the amount of traffic the home
8 generated. Mr. Price described the plans for the proposed driveway and drainage work to ensure water
9 management is sufficient.
10
11 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Ritter asked the applicant if they considered
12 installing a turnaround which would result in a lower amount of impervious surface. Mr. Price responded
13 they did not but can consider it. Ms. Hanley referred to the site plan. Mr. Price confirmed there is a three
14 car garage but the third bay is unusable. Mr. Everly stated due to the radius, it would be difficult to get
15 out. Chairman Bradley stated the home is iconic and referred to the amount of exposure relating to the
16 home. He asked for the specific reasons which motivated the circular driveway. Mr. Price responded the
17 proposed design lined up with what was there before as well as what was in the Home Alone movie. He
18 explained the difficulties for the workers and visitors to the home which is currently unoccupied.
19
20 Chairman Bradley referred to Attachment D from the former owners with regard to the space in the rear
21 to allow for a turnaround. He stated while the request is a balance of safety and restoration, he asked to
22 what extent is the issue of the turnaround not feasibly already there with what the previous owner did to
23 the property. Mr. Price responded the issue related more to the guests as opposed to those backing in
24 and out of the garage. He stated the new ownership chose to remain anonymous who have more children
25 and vehicles than the prior owners.
26
27 Chairman Bradley also asked if efforts were made to solicit help from the Village and police department
28 to attempt to minimize the amount of disruption. Mr. Price noted the ownership family has met with the
29 police chief and other Village members to discuss this issue. He also stated the plan was presented to the
30 Chief of Police and the Fire Chief in order to obtain their input with the knowledge they cannot control
31 the amount of people who gather at the property.
32
33 Ms. Hanley stated while she appreciated there is a safety hazard, she described it as a safety issue of the
34 applicant’s own making which would draw more people to see the home. She stated there are ways to
35 keep the home from being seen and from being an attraction. Chairman Bradley stated the home was
36 existing nonconforming and if the request was for any other home in the Village, it would be a nonstarter
37 in terms of the justification for installing this amount of overage.
38
39 Chairman Bradley referred to the proposed overage for the turnaround the applicant claimed is the
40 minimal amount necessary to allow vehicles to safely exit the property facing forward. Mr. Price stated
41 while it is unusual to go back to a condition that was previously grandfathered in, the plans would allow
42 for a large detention system to account for the driveway. He also stated the driveway could be minimized
43 to 12 feet. No additional questions were raised at this time.
44
45 Chairman Bradley stated the Board would first take a break which would be followed by public comment.
46
47 Kristen and Gavin Cross, 663 Lincoln, stated they moved to the home knowing what they were dealing
48 with and stated they are not here in opposition but want to know the intentions in terms of safety. Mr.
January 12, 2026 Page 6
1 Cross stated it is their understanding that the owners do not live in the home and have done nothing to
2 address security concerns. He described the proposal as a solution for one home but a poor solution for
3 others while they all have similar concerns with regard to their driveways. Mr. Cross stated their question
4 to the Village is how the situation would be managed going forward. Mrs. Cross also stated the fact that
5 it is a neighborhood should be considered and they are concerned with safety with deliveries which can
6 be addressed in numerous ways and which would not make the home look like a movie set. She stated
7 the new owners would not live in the home full time and reminded everyone that it is a neighborhood
8 with safety being everyone’s concern.
9
10 Melissa and Michael Howard, 664 Lincoln, stated they are in the process of building a new home across
11 from the property. She informed the Board they installed a camera due to the amount of people in the
12 neighborhood and has changed their home’s design to address privacy and safety concerns. Mrs. Howard
13 stated their side of the street experienced more traffic and referred to the use of their driveway by visitors
14 for photos. She explained the amount of traffic which made exiting the property very difficult. Mr. Howard
15 referred to the aerial view and asked for the engineers to address the amount of impermeable surface in
16 terms of water drainage. He also referred to aesthetics with regard to landscaping which can mitigate the
17 appearance of a driveway. Mr. Howard then stated the larger issue related to the Village addressing the
18 context concern issues for the unique block with regard to the amount of traffic. He stated while they are
19 not opposed to the circular drive, the Village benefitted from the home but the people on the block pay
20 the larger price and asked for grace to be extended to them in terms of the cost they bear. Mrs. Howard
21 also asked if tour buses can be stopped or funneled in certain ways and asked for a more cohesive plan to
22 be achieved which would benefit everyone.
23
24 Taron Giniat, 682 Lincoln, stated the amount of traffic from 9 to 5 is much quieter and her biggest concern
25 is that this is a security issue of the applicant’s own making and calling the matter a safety concern is
26 disingenuous. She described the amount of traffic in the neighborhood and questioned whether the
27 requested permanent change is worth it for a temporary convenience especially when the owners do not
28 plan to live in the home full time.
29
30 Kathy Howlett, 650 Lincoln, stated she has been working with Mr. Mangum with regard to possible
31 solutions and stated they appreciated the various entities working with them on this matter. She then
32 stated with regard to safety concerns, she referred to the amount of small children in the neighborhood
33 and stated while it is an iconic home, she asked the Board to recommend conditions for the new owners
34 to have security for the property to take the burden off the Police Department who have provided
35 excellent response. No additional comments were made at this time.
36
37 Chairman Bradley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond. Mr. Price
38 thanked the audience for their comments and stated the owners purchased the home for their families’
39 and friends’ enjoyment and they cannot be in the home all the time. He stated it would not be a museum,
40 Airbnb or an attraction. Mr. Price stated with regard to safety, the owners have installed several cameras
41 and have been in discussions with their security team regarding more cameras on the streetscape as well
42 as being open to working with the Village.
43
44 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion and outlined the items the Board is to consider. Ms.
45 Hanley noted if they were to deny the request, it would not set a standard for the denial of any circular
46 driveway on the street. She stated with regard to the standards she had difficulty with the first three
47 standards which she explained to the Board. Ms. Hanley stated she would not vote in favor of the request.
48 Mr. Ritter stated he only had trouble with the first standard. He stated while he understood the safety
January 12, 2026 Page 7
1 concerns, there are a variety of things the owners can do to alleviate some of the problem and offered a
2 solution for vehicles to line up in the driveway. Mr. Ritter stated he also would not vote in favor of the
3 request.
4
5 Mr. Haller stated he had a problem with standard nos. 1, 2 and 7. Chairman Bradley stated the home
6 would continue to grow in terms of its adoration which qualified as a unique circumstance. He stated he
7 disagreed it would be a benefit to the Village and stated ample evidence was provided by the applicant of
8 the intention to return the home to its 1990’s form. Chairman Bradley stated to put back the
9 grandfathered front yard lot coverage would increase the concern and agreed there are safety concerns
10 for the street which need to be abated. He stated there are several standards that have not been met
11 which he described in detail. Chairman Bradley then stated he would not be in favor of the request and
12 asked if there were any other comments. No additional comments were made at this time.
13
14 Chairman Bradley advised the applicant of the Board’s position and offered them the option to revisit the
15 matter based on the Board’s comments or proceed with a vote on a recommendation to the Village
16 Council. Mr. Price agreed to continue the matter to allow discussions with the owners.
17
18 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to continue the matter to the February 9, 2026, meeting. A
19 motion was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken and the motion
20 unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
21 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
22 NAYS: None
23
24 c. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision
25 to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to
26 (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the
27 minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
28 This item was continued from the October 13, 2025, and December 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals
29 meeting. The applicant is amending its request, which requires new public notice of the amended relief
30 requested. The amended application will be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 9,
31 2026. The Zoning Board of Appeals will not be taking any action on this item at its January 12, 2026,
32 meeting.
33 No action was taken by the Board on this agenda item.
34
35 d. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: Applications seeking approval
36 of a Final Plat of Subdivision to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record. As part of
37 the Final Plat approval, the application includes a request of approval of zoning variations to permit the
38 existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to (i) observe less than the minimum required side yard
39 setback from the north property line, which is due to an increase in the minimum required side yard
40 setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot area and average lot width; and (ii) not provide
41 the required building line articulation along the north side building walls. The Village Council has final
42 jurisdiction on this request.
43 At the request of the Applicant, this item was pulled from the agenda. The Board did not discuss this
44 agenda item.
45
46 New Business:
47 a. February 9, 2026, Meeting - Quorum Check.
48 The Board Members discussed their availability.
January 12, 2026 Page 8
1 Public Comment:
2 No comments were made at this time.
3
4 Adjournment:
5 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and the
6 motion was seconded. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0:
7 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Ritter
8 NAYS: None
9 The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
10
11 Respectfully submitted,
12
13 Antionette Johnson
14 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
January 12, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. December 8, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An amended application seeking
approval of zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to
the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The requested variations would
permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted gross
floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback
from the west property line. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction
on this amended request. This item was continued from the August 11, 2025,
and October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a
Final Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road,
which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to (i) provide less than the
minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the
minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final
jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025,
and December 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The applicant is
amending its request, which requires new public notice of the amended relief
requested. The amended application will be considered by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on February 9, 2026. The Zoning Board of Appeals will not be taking
any action on this item at its January 12, 2026, meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale
Avenue: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to
consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record. As part of the Final
Plat approval, the application includes a request of approval of zoning variations
to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to (i) observe less than
the minimum required side yard setback from the north 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 average lot width; and (ii) not provide the
required building line articulation along the north side building walls. The Village
Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 26-01-V2: 671 Lincoln Avenue: An application seeking approval of a
zoning variation to allow construction of a circular driveway in the front yard of
671 Lincoln Avenue. The requested variation would permit the proposed
improvement to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot coverage. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this requsest.
c. Case No. 26-03-V: 614 Cherry Street: An application seeking approval of
zoning variations to allow construction of a covered porch addition and work
beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to the existing legally nonconforming
residence at 614 Cherry Street. The requested variations would permit the
proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard
setback from the west property line; and (ii) perform structural changes
necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally nonconforming west
side building wall. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this
request.
6. New Business
a. February 9, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
8. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
January 12, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
a. December 8, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Community Development Report
4. Continued Cases
a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An amended application seeking
approval of zoning variations to allow construction of a second-floor addition to
the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The requested variations would
permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted gross
floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback
from the west property line. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction
on this amended request. This item was continued from the August 11, 2025,
and October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meetings.
b. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a
Final Plat of Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road,
which requires variations to allow Proposed Lot 2 to (i) provide less than the
minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii) provide less than the
minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final
jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025,
and December 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The applicant is
amending its request, which requires new public notice of the amended relief
requested. The amended application will be considered by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on February 9, 2026. The Zoning Board of Appeals will not be taking
any action on this item at its January 12, 2026, meeting.
5. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale
Avenue: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision to
consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record. As part of the Final
Plat approval, the application includes a request of approval of zoning variations
to permit the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to (i) observe less than
the minimum required side yard setback from the north 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 average lot width; and (ii) not provide the
required building line articulation along the north side building walls. The Village
Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
Page 1 of 209
b. Case No. 26-01-V2: 671 Lincoln Avenue: An application seeking approval of a
zoning variation to allow construction of a circular driveway in the front yard of
671 Lincoln Avenue. The requested variation would permit the proposed
improvement to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot coverage. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this requsest.
c. Case No. 26-03-V: 614 Cherry Street: An application seeking approval of
zoning variations to allow construction of a covered porch addition and work
beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to the existing legally nonconforming
residence at 614 Cherry Street. The requested variations would permit the
proposed improvements to (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard
setback from the west property line; and (ii) perform structural changes
necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally nonconforming west
side building wall. The Zoning Board of Appeals has final jurisdiction on this
request.
6. New Business
a. February 9, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
7. Public Comments
8. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Page 2 of 209
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 DECEMBER 8, 2025
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10
11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender
12
13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development
14
15 Call to Order & Roll Call:
16 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
17 present.
18
19 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
20 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to approve the November 10, 2025, meeting minutes. A motion to
21 approve the November 10, 2025, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded by Mr. Ritter.
22 A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
23 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
24 NAYS: None
25
26 Community Development Report.
27 Mr. Mangum stated the Village Council approved a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow for roof
28 mounted solar panels as well as the variation request for the 20 Fox Lane addition. He also stated the
29 458-454 Sunset Road consolidation application was withdrawn after its presentation to the Plan
30 Commission. No questions were raised at this time.
31
32 Continued Cases:
33 a. Case No. 25-16-SD: 936 Sunset Road: Applications seeking approval of a Final Plat of
34 Subdivision to allow a two-lot subdivision of 936 Sunset Road, which requires variations to allow
35 Proposed Lot 2 to (i) provide less than the minimum required lot area for an interior lot; and (ii)
36 provide less than the minimum required rectangular buildable area. The Village Council has final
37 jurisdiction on this request. This item was continued from the October 13, 2025, Zoning Board of
38 Appeals meeting.
39 Mr. Mangum confirmed the application being presented to the Board is the exact same application as
40 previously presented and the applicant provided additional analysis in terms of options for dividing the
41 property. He then summarized the application’s prior presentation as well as summarized in detail the
42 alternate options, zoning variations and subdivision code variations necessary for both options to divide
43 the lot lines. Mr. Mangum confirmed the applicant planned to proceed with their original request. He
44 advised the Board of the items they are required to consider and noted no additional public
45 correspondence was received. Mr. Mangum then stated following the applicant’s presentation, public
46 comment and Board discussion, the Board may either continue the hearing to a specific date or consider
47 a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. He then asked if there were any questions.
48
Page 3 of 209
December 8, 2025 Page 2
1 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Leister asked if variations were other
2 examples of previously approved with regard to the rectangular lot constraint. Mr. Mangum responded
3 he is not aware of any variations but would need to review. Chairman Bradley questioned the rationale
4 to enforce the rectangular buildable lot requirements for non-rectangular lots. Mr. Mangum stated it is
5 generally to demonstrate that the lot is still buildable even if it is large enough and met other
6 requirements. Mr. Haller asked for clarification as to whether there would be additional
7 nonconformities that would exist with regard to option 1. Mr. Mangum stated those would be the two
8 new issues that would be created along with the variations being requested. No additional questions
9 were raised at this time.
10
11 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Road,
12 Wilmette, introduced himself and Dan Creaney, the project engineer who created options 1 and 2. Mr.
13 Canning referred to their prior presentation and Mr. Creaney’s suggestion of what a possible home
14 could look like on lot 2 as well as the concerns raised with regard to the Skokie Ditch. He also referred to
15 the previous discussion with regard to homes flooding on Meadow. Mr. Canning stated the request is to
16 bring the lots back to the pre-1976 configuration. He referred to the PC’s positive recommendation and
17 summarized that discussion for the Board as well as the previous discussion of the request with this
18 Board. Mr. Canning stated both options being presented are possible but have drawbacks which he
19 described to the Board. He stated while they have shown that both options are possible and for a home
20 to be built on lot 2 with the Village Engineer’s approval, going back to the pre-1976 condition would be
21 the best option and would be best for the neighborhood.
22
23 Dan Creaney, 450 Skokie Blvd., referred the Board to illustrations and identified the home’s positioning
24 on the lot for both options. He stated although both options are viable, they would result in trading
25 variations. He noted they have successfully built several homes and have done renovations in the flood
26 plain which he identified for the Board.
27
28 Chairman Bradley asked why not option 1 which would result in a conforming lot 2 and if it would make
29 more sense to encumber lot 1 in terms of buildability. Mr. Canning responded they do not know if there
30 would be construction on that lot or not. He stated if they went with option 1, it would result in the loss
31 of 4,500 square feet on lot 1. Mr. Canning stated a lot depth variation would have to be granted for lot
32 2. He then asked for a recess for a discussion with the applicant.
33
34 Chairman Bradley called the meeting back to order. Mr. Canning asked for the request to be continued
35 to the January 2026 meeting in order to perform calculations and address the Board’s questions.
36
37 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the request to the January 12, 2026, meeting. A
38 motion to continue the matter to the January 12, 2026, meeting was made by Ms. Hanley and seconded
39 by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
40 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
41 NAYS: None
42
43 New Business:
44 a. January 12, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
45 The Board Members discussed their availability.
46
47 Public Comment:
48 No comments were made at this time.
Page 4 of 209
December 8, 2025 Page 3
1 Adjournment:
2 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Hanley and
3 seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
4 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
5 NAYS: None
6 The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
7
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
10 Antionette Johnson
11 Recording Secretary
Page 5 of 209
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2026
SUBJECT: 175 DEWINDT ROAD – VARIATIONS (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-14-V)
INTRODUCTION
On January 12, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a continued public hearing
on an amended application submitted by Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the
owners of the property located at 175 DeWindt Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests
approval of the following zoning variations to allow a second-floor addition to the existing residence on
the Subject Property:
1. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,240.2, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet is permitted, a
variation of 431.36 square feet (7.43%) [Section 17.30.040 – Maximum Building Size] [Note: The
existing improvements currently consist of 5,810.27 square feet. The proposed addition would
add 429.93 square feet of GFA; and
2. Front Yard Setback of 25.03 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 50 feet is
required, a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]
[Note: The residence currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet].
This application was originally scheduled for the August 11, 2025, ZBA meeting, but was continued to the
October 13, 2025, ZBA meeting at the request of the Applicant. Then, at the request of the Applicant, the
application was continued a second time to the January 12, 2026, ZBA meeting. Mail notices were sent
to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,
informing them of the August and October ZBA meetings. The originally scheduled hearing was properly
noticed in the Winnetka Talk on July 24, 2025.
As of the date of this memo, staff has received three written comments from the public regarding this
application; two of which were included in the October 13 ZBA agenda packet. The written comment that
was not included in the October 13 ZBA agenda packet but distributed to the ZBA in time for that meeting
is included in Attachment E1. Staff has not received any additional written comments from the public
regarding this application since the October meeting.
The ZBA has final jurisdiction on this amended request as the Board has the authority to grant a
variation to (i) allow a zoning lot with a pre-FAR building (constructed before 1989) to exceed the
maximum permitted GFA by up to 10%; and (ii) reduce a front yard setback for a principal building by
no more than 50% of the required setback. With the amended plans, the scope of the variation request
has changed from a major variation to a standard variation, due to a reduction in the GFA.
Page 1
Page 6 of 209
OCTOBER 13, 2025, ZBA MEETING
On October 13, 2025, the ZBA held a public hearing on the Applicant’s request for approval of two zoning
variations to allow a proposed addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property. The staff report
for the October 13 meeting can be found in Attachment C1.
After hearing from Village Staff, the Applicant’s legal counsel and general contractor, the ZBA heard from
two (2) residents who identified themselves as neighbors of the Subject Property. They stated their
opposition to the request and expressed concern about area floodplain implications, privacy concerns
from the addition’s proposed windows, and the existing house not meeting the standard of a hardship.
ZBA members discussed concerns about the request meeting the first three standards of reasonable
return, unique circumstances of the property, and essential character of the locality. The Applicant heard
the concerns expressed by ZBA members and requested that the application be continued to the January
12, 2026, meeting to allow them time to modify the plans in response to the Board’s comments.
AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant has provided more information and amended plans in response to the October 13 meeting.
The proposed second-floor addition has been reduced in size from an area of 797.4 square feet to 429.93
square feet while also removing the proposed south-facing wall and window, and framing the addition
under a pitched roof, instead. The Applicant has also provided more information on the actual
measurements of the current residence which staff used to make a more accurate calculation of existing
GFA. The revised calculations and amended plans have resulted in the requested GFA variation being a
standard variation rather than a major variation, as the deviation from requirements is now under 10%.
The proposed plans do not increase the Impermeable Lot Coverage or Roofed Lot Coverage of the
property, or change the proposed front yard setback.
The images on the following pages compare aspects of the original plan considered at the October 13
meeting with the current amended plan in Figures 3 through 10. Figures 11 and 12 are current photos of
the Subject Property.
Page 2
Page 7 of 209
DeWindt
Road Thorntree
Lane
Subject Property
Evergreen
Lane
Figure 1 – Aerial Map
Red Lines Represents
50’ Front Yard Setback
Proposed Addition
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Page 3
Page 8 of 209
Figure 3 – Previous floor plan of proposed second-floor addition (October Meeting)
Figure 4 – Amended floor plan of proposed second-floor addition
Page 4
Page 9 of 209
Figure 5 – Previous north elevation of proposed second-floor addition (October Meeting)
Figure 6 – Amended north elevation of proposed second-floor addition
Page 5
Page 10 of 209
Figure 7 – Previous south elevation of proposed second-floor addition (October Meeting)
Figure 8 – Amended south elevation of proposed second-floor addition
Page 6
Page 11 of 209
Figure 9 – Previous west elevation of proposed second-floor addition
Figure 10 – Amended west elevation of proposed second-floor addition
Page 7
Page 12 of 209
Figure 11 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (North) Elevations
Figure 12 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (South) Elevations
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The attached amended Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s
compliance with the R-2 zoning district regulations (Attachment B1). It has been amended to reflect the
updated plans and zoning calculations. The Applicant requests two variations: (1) gross floor area; and
(2) front yard setback.
Gross Floor Area (GFA). The site currently contains 5,810.27 square feet of GFA, exceeding the maximum
permitted GFA by 1.43 square feet (0.024%). The increase in GFA with the proposed addition is 429.93
square feet, bringing the total GFA to 6,240.2 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet is
permitted, a variation of 431.36 square feet (7.43%).
The Zoning Ordinance states that for any flag lot that was lawfully in existence on October 7, 1997, the
“flagpole” portion of the lot shall be excluded when calculating the GFA; provided that the resulting
maximum GFA shall not be less than 85% of the maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes
Page 8
Page 13 of 209
both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the lot. In this instance, the permitted GFA is 85% of the
maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the
lot, although excluding the private road easement area. This results in an additional 487.52 square feet
of permitted GFA.
Front Yard Setback (West). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the front yard
setback as it currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet, encroaching into the minimum required
setback of 50 feet by 24.97 feet. The proposed addition would also provide a front yard setback of 25.03
feet, requiring a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%). The proposed front yard setback remains the same as
what was originally proposed.
FINDINGS
In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement
of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the requested
zoning variations. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such
variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variations?
Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the Board’s consideration (Attachment D1). One
resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A Board member may wish to make
a motion to: (i) adopt the resolution to approve the requested variations; (ii) adopt the resolution to deny
the requested variations; or (iii) continue the request to a specific date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A1: Applicant’s Explanation of Revised Design and Revised Plans
Attachment B1: Zoning Matrix (Amended)
Attachment C1: October 13,2025, ZBA Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Attachment D1: Draft Resolutions
Attachment E1: Public Correspondence
Page 9
Page 14 of 209
ATTACHMENT A1
CANNING & CANNING LLC
1000 SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 355
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
CHRISTOPHER S. CANNING
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(847) 853-7040
chris@canninglegal.com
December 12, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Matthew Bradley, Chair
Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Winnetka
c/o Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Amended Request for Variations at 175 DeWindt Road.
Dear Chairman Bradley and Members of the Zoning Board:
I am writing on behalf of Emily and John Thomas (“Emily and John”) the owners of 175
DeWindt Road regarding their amended application for a front yard setback variation and a
Gross Floor Area variation to permit a second-floor addition. 175 DeWindt Road is a legal
nonconforming flag-shaped lot under that Zoning Ordinance. The proposed addition will not
change the existing nonconforming front yard setback. The proposed addition will increase the
Gross Floor Area but will not change the impervious coverage on the lot.
I. The proposed addition – October 13, 2025 Zoning Board meeting.
As discussed at the October 13, 2025 Zoning Board meeting, the current home at 175
DeWindt Road was built in 1960 as a single-story home. Due to its location in the floodplain, the
home was built on a slab without a basement. In 1997, the then owner applied for variations to
construct a second-floor addition. Thereafter, the second-floor addition was built.
Emily and John seek to construct a second-floor addition. located above the existing
attached garage on the west side of existing residence. In October, the addition was proposed to
be 30’x 26.58 (797.40 sq. ft.). The proposed addition maintains the existing setback on the west
and south facades of the home. To put it another way, the proposed addition does not encroach
any further into the front yard (west) setback that the existing west side facade. The proposed
addition did not add any additional impervious lot coverage.
Page 15 of 209
December 12, 2025
Page 2
As described in the October staff report, Emily and John sought two variations to
construct the addition. First, Emily and John seek a Gross Floor Area variation. The current
home contains 6,033.90 square feet of GFA, exceeding the maximum permitted GFA by 224.25
square feet. The net increase in GFA with the proposed addition results in a variation of 1,021.65
sq. ft. The second variation request is for the Front Yard Setback. Despite having a DeWindt
Road address, the front yard of the home is the west side of the home. The existing home
constructed in 1960 has a legally nonconforming front yard setback on the west side of 25.03
feet, encroaching into the minimum required setback of 50 feet by 24.97 feet. The proposed
addition does not encroach any further into the front yard setback.
At the meeting, several neighbors raised concerns about the addition, in particular privacy
concerns related to windows on the south side of the addition. The Zoning Board members also
expressed concerns about the size of the project. Emily and John requested the matter be
continued to the January 12, 2026 meeting in order to determine if they could revise their plans.
II. The amended application for the January 12, 2026 meeting.
Following the October Zoning Board meeting, Emily and John’s representatives have
worked diligently to design a plan that reduces the prior request. In short, the revised new plan is
for an addition located over the existing garage. The new addition replaces the existing garage
roof and replaces it with a steeper pitched roof. The new plan eliminates the walls and windows
on the south side of the home to address the privacy issues raised at the October meeting. The
new plan proposes a structure that is of a much smaller scale and no second-floor walls except
for a dormer on the north side. As a result, the new proposed GFA would be approximately
6,133.5 sq. ft. meaning that the variation is for approximately 404.77 sq. ft., a reduction from the
October request of approximately 616.88 sq. ft. The proposed addition adds approximately 402.5
sq. ft.
The new plan attempts to address the comments heard by John and Emily at the October
meeting. Emily and John ask that the Zoning Board recommend approval of their requested
variations. We look forward to the opportunity to appear at the Public Hearing on the amended
application and answer any questions the Zoning Board may have. Thank you for your
consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
Christopher S. Canning
Page 16 of 209
Page 17 of 209
Page 18 of 209
Page 19 of 209
Page 20 of 209
Page 21 of 209
Page 22 of 209
Page 23 of 209
Page 24 of 209
Page 25 of 209
Page 26 of 209
Page 27 of 209
Page 28 of 209
Page 29 of 209
Page 30 of 209
Page 31 of 209
Page 32 of 209
Page 33 of 209
Page 34 of 209
Page 35 of 209
Page 36 of 209
Page 37 of 209
Page 38 of 209
Page 39 of 209
Page 40 of 209
ATTACHMENT B1
ZONING MATRIX (AMENDED )
ADDRESS: 175 DeWindt Road
CASE NO: 25-14-V2
ZONING: R-2
MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (3)
Min. Lot Size 24,000 SF 17,073.42 SF N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Average Lot Width 100 FT 91 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Lot Depth 200 FT 187.62 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 4,268.36 SF (1) 3,431.52 SF 3,431.52 SF 0 SF OK
Max. Gross Floor Area 5,808.84 SF (2) 5,810.27 SF (4) 6,240.2 SF (4) 429.93 SF (4) 431.36 SF (7.43%) VARIATION
Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 8,536.71 SF (1) 7,478 SF 7,478 SF 0 SF OK
Min. Front Yard (West) 50 FT 25.03 FT 25.03 FT 0 SF 24.97 FEET (49.94%) VARIATION
Min. SIde Yard (South) 9.1 FT 11.9 FT 11.9 FT 0 SF OK
Min. Total Side Yards 22.75 FT 26.12 FT 26.12 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Rear Yard (East) 25 FT 89 FT 89 FT 0 FT OK
NOTES: (1) Based on net lot area of 17,073.42 s.f. Gross lot area is 22,479 s.f. Area of "flagpole" portion of the lot and private road
easement are excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes.
(2) Based on Zoning Ordinance provision that any flag lot in existence before October 7,1997, shall not be allowed less than 85% of
the maximum permited GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the "flagpole" and "flag" portions of the lot.
(3) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement.
(4) Based on amended plans and zoning calculations from December 12, 2025 submission.
Page 41 of 209
ATTACHMENT C1
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, AICP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2025
SUBJECT: 175 DEWINDT ROAD – VARIATIONS (CASE NO. 25-14-V2)
INTRODUCTION
On October 13, 2025, the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application
submitted by Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located
at 175 DeWindt Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning
variations to allow a second-floor addition to the existing residence on the Subject Property:
1. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet is
permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%) [Section 17.30.040 – Maximum Building
Size][Note: The existing improvements currently consist of 6,033.09 square feet. The proposed
addition would add 797.4 square feet of GFA]; and
2. Front Yard Setback of 25.03 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 50 feet is
required, a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%) [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner Yard Setbacks]
[Note: The residence currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet].
This application was previously scheduled for the August 11, 2025, ZBA meeting, but was continued to the
October 13, 2025, ZBA meeting at the request of the Applicant. Mail notices were sent to property owners
within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, informing them of the
August and October ZBA meetings. The originally scheduled hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka
Talk on July 24, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has received two written comments from the
public regarding this application, which are included as Attachment C.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request as only the Council has the authority to grant a
variation to allow a zoning lot with a pre-FAR building (constructed before 1989) to exceed the
maximum permitted GFA by more than 10%. Typically, the ZBA has final jurisdiction to reduce a front
yard setback for a principal building by no more than 50% of the required setback; however, since this
request includes additional relief for which the ZBA does not have jurisdiction, the Village Council also
has final jurisdiction on the request to reduce the front yard setback.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.39 acres in size, is located on the south side of DeWindt
Road between Hill and Sunset Roads and contains an existing two-story residence with an attached garage
(see Figure 1). The Subject Property is a flag lot, which is an irregularly shaped lot consisting of two
sections: the primary mass of the lot (the “flag” portion), which is set back from the street frontage
access and is behind one or more other lots; and a narrow access corridor (the “flagpole” portion).
Page 1
Page 42 of 209
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, and it is surrounded by the same (see Figure
2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential
development. The zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The existing lot is a legally nonconforming interior lot that is 17,073.24 square feet in net lot area, while
the minimum required lot area for an interior lot in the R-2 District is 24,000 square feet. The area of the
“flagpole” portion of the lot (4,805.58 square feet) as well as the area of the private road easement (600
square feet) are excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes. Also, the lot has an average lot width of
91 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for an interior lot in the R-2 District is 100 feet.
The lot also has a lot depth of 187.62 feet, while the minimum required lot depth is 200 feet.
Thorntree
DeWindt Lane
Road
Evergreen
Lane
Subject Property
Figure 1 – Aerial Map
DeWindt
Road
Thorntree
Lane
Subject Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
Page 2
Page 43 of 209
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
The existing residence was constructed in 1960. Subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1997 to construct a second floor and attic addition; and
2. 2024 to remodel the kitchen.
Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in
2021. There is one previous zoning case on file for the Subject Property. In 1997, ZBA Case No. 97-02-V2
was an application requesting zoning relief to allow a second-floor addition that would encroach into the
required front yard setback and south side yard setback. The side yard setback variation was approved;
however, the front yard setback variation was denied by the Village Council. It should be noted that the
existing residence complies with current side yard setback requirements due to an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance that now bases the required side yard setbacks on average lot width rather than the
Zoning District in which a lot is located.
Subsequent to the submittal of the variation application that is currently before the ZBA, the Applicant
submitted a building permit application to allow installation of hardscaping and a pool. This permit has
been reviewed and approved by Village staff. These improvements comply with the zoning regulations
and are not part of the zoning relief being considered by the ZBA.
Figures 3 and 4 below are current photos of the Subject Property.
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (North) Elevations
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Front (West) and Side (South) Elevations
Page 3
Page 44 of 209
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is requesting variations to construct a second-floor addition on the existing residence. The
addition would be above the existing attached garage on the west side of the existing residence and
consist of an open room as well as additional storage space. The addition would measure 30 feet by 26.58
feet (797.4 square feet). The proposed addition is intended to maintain the existing setbacks along the
west and south facades of the residence. Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plan, building
elevations, and a rendering are provided below and on the following pages as Figures 5 through 11. The
complete set of plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment B).
Proposed Addition
Red Lines Represents
50’ Front Yard Setback
Figure 5 – Site Plan
Proposed Addition
Figure 6 – Existing Second Floor Plan
Page 4
Page 45 of 209
Figure 7 – Proposed Second-Floor Addition Floor Plan
Proposed Addition
Figure 8 - Proposed North Elevation
Proposed Addition
Figure 9 - Proposed South Elevation
Page 5
Page 46 of 209
Proposed Addition
Figure 10 - Proposed West Elevation
Proposed Addition
Figure 11 – Rendering of Proposed North and West Elevations
The proposed improvement with this variation request does not include any additional impermeable lot
coverage. However, upon submittal of the building permit for the proposed addition, Village Engineering
staff will review the permit for compliance with the Village stormwater regulations to verify stormwater
is being managed on-site.
Figure 12 on the following page represents the Subject Property’s location in the floodplain; the cyan
represents the 100-year floodplain; the orange represents the 500-year floodplain. The Subject Property
Page 6
Page 47 of 209
is located in the 100-year floodplain. Any improvements within the 100-year floodplain are subject to the
Village’s Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)
Water Management Ordinance (WMO). Compliance with these ordinances will be verified by Village
Engineering staff upon submittal of the necessary permits to construct the proposed improvement.
Subject
Property
Figure 12 - GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with
the R-2 zoning district regulations (Attachment A). The Applicant requests two variations: (1) gross floor
area; and (2) front yard setback.
Gross Floor Area (GFA). The site currently contains 6,033.09 square feet of GFA, exceeding the maximum
permitted GFA by 224.25 square feet (3.86%). The increase in GFA with the proposed addition is 797.4
square feet, bringing the total GFA to 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square feet
is permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%).
The Zoning Ordinance states that for any flag lot that was lawfully in existence on October 7, 1997, the
“flagpole” portion of the lot shall be excluded when calculating the GFA; provided that the resulting
maximum GFA shall not be less than 85% of the maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes
both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the lot. In this instance, the permitted GFA is 85% of the
maximum GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the “flagpole” and “flag” portions of the
lot. This results in an additional 487.52 square feet of permitted GFA.
Front Yard Setback (West). The existing residence is legally nonconforming with respect to the front yard
setback as it currently provides a front yard setback of 25.03 feet, encroaching into the minimum required
setback of 50 feet by 24.97 feet. The proposed addition would also provide a front yard setback of 25.03
feet, requiring a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%).
Page 7
Page 48 of 209
FINDINGS
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a
variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative
addressing how this proposal meets these standards. After hearing from the Applicant, and the public,
the ZBA may decide to act on one of two options:
1. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional
time to address questions and comments from the ZBA; or
2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the request, a ZBA member may wish to
make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variations granting:
1. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 6,830.49 square feet, whereas a maximum of 5,808.84 square
feet is permitted, a variation of 1,021.65 square feet (17.59%) [Section 17.30.040 –
Maximum Building Size]; and
2. Front Yard Setback of 25.03 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 50
feet is required, a variation of 24.97 feet (49.94%). [Section 17.30.050 – Front and Corner
Yard Setbacks].
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variations requested are in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be
associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related
to the occupants.
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Zoning Matrix
Attachment B: Application Materials
Attachment C: Public Correspondence
Page 8
Page 49 of 209
ATTACHMENT A
ZONING MATRIX
ADDRESS: 175 DeWindt Road
CASE NO: 25-14-V2
ZONING: R-2
MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (3)
Min. Lot Size 24,000 SF 17,073.42 SF N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Average Lot Width 100 FT 91 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Lot Depth 200 FT 187.62 FT (1) N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 4,268.36 SF (1) 3,431.52 SF 3,431.52 SF 0 SF OK
Max. Gross Floor Area 5,808.84 SF (2) 6,033.09 SF 6,830.49 SF 797.4 SF 1,021.65 SF (17.59%) VARIATION
Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 8,536.71 SF (1) 7,478 SF 7,478 SF 0 SF OK
Min. Front Yard (West) 50 FT 25.03 FT 25.03 FT 0 SF 24.97 FEET (49.94%) VARIATION
Min. SIde Yard (South) 9.1 FT 11.9 FT 11.9 FT 0 SF OK
Min. Total Side Yards 22.75 FT 26.12 FT 26.12 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Rear Yard (East) 25 FT 89 FT 89 FT 0 FT OK
NOTES: (1) Based on net lot area of 17,073.42 s.f. Gross lot area is 22,479 s.f. Area of "flagpole" portion of the lot and private road
easement are excluded from the lot area for zoning purposes.
(2) Based on Zoning Ordinance provision that any flag lot in existence before October 7,1997, shall not be allowed less than 85% of
the maximum permited GFA computed by using a lot area that includes both the "flagpole" and "flag" portions of the lot.
(3) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement.
Page 50 of 209
ATTACHMENT B
Page 51 of 209
Page 52 of 209
Page 53 of 209
Page 54 of 209
Page 55 of 209
Page 56 of 209
Page 57 of 209
Page 58 of 209
Page 59 of 209
Page 60 of 209
Page 61 of 209
Page 62 of 209
Page 63 of 209
Page 64 of 209
Page 65 of 209
Page 66 of 209
Page 67 of 209
Page 68 of 209
Page 69 of 209
Page 70 of 209
Page 71 of 209
Page 72 of 209
Page 73 of 209
July 30, 2025
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Village of Winnetka—Community Development Department
Building & Zoning Division
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-14-V2 – 175 DeWindt Road (Request for Front-Yard-Setback &
Gross-Floor-Area Variations)
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
I serve as President of the DeWindt Road Association (“DRA”), the homeowners’ organization
responsible for safeguarding the character, safety, and shared infrastructure of our private
street. A number of residents have asked me to convey their concerns regarding the
above-referenced variance petition. Although this letter does not purport to speak for every
member of the DRA, it reflects the position of a significant group of homeowners who will be
most directly affected by the requested relief.
1. Front-Yard-Setback Variation (Request #1)
• Lack of quantifiable detail. The application does not state the precise setback proposed
(only that it will be “less than” the 50-ft minimum). Without an exact dimension,
neighbors cannot meaningfully evaluate visual impact, emergency-vehicle access, or
potential precedent for future encroachments.
• Cumulative precedent. DeWindt Road lots are unusually deep, and the 50-ft setback has
preserved the street’s spacious, park-like setting for decades. Granting an open-ended
reduction will invite similar requests from other properties, incrementally eroding
neighborhood character.
2. Gross-Floor-Area (GFA) Variation (Request #2)
• Incomplete calculations. Neither the application nor its exhibits reconcile the proposed
GFA with the Village’s R-1 zoning formula. Without a clear table of existing vs. proposed
floor area, it is impossible to verify hardship.
• Storm-water implications. This is a major concern. Increased bulk typically triggers
larger roof area and impervious surface, exacerbating runoff onto DeWindt Road, which
Page 74 of 209
lacks public storm-sewer infrastructure. Neighbors already experience ponding during
heavy rain; added mass will worsen this condition unless fully mitigated.
3. Catch-All “Any Other Relief Deemed Necessary” (Request #3)
A blanket request for unspecified relief circumvents the transparency the ZBA and neighbors
require. It would be helpful to have each variance should listed with: (a) the precise numerical
deviation, (b) the ordinance section, and (c) the hardship claimed. Without this, it’s very difficult
for us to comment.
4. Construction-Management Concerns
DeWindt Road is a narrow, private lane with limited to no public turn-around. For safety and
emergency access:
1. On-site parking only. All contractor vehicles must be confined to the 175 DeWindt
driveway or a remote staging lot; no curbside parking or idling.
2. Hours of work. Heavy deliveries limited to 9 a.m.–3 p.m. on weekdays to avoid
school-bus and commuter traffic.
While these items are construction-phase issues rather than zoning standards, they illustrate
the practical difficulties posed by a project of this scale on a constrained site.
5. Requested Action
For the reasons above, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Zoning Board deny the
variance petition unless and until the applicant produces:
1. A fully dimensioned site plan showing the exact front-yard setback requested.
2. A certified GFA worksheet demonstrating the minimum relief necessary.
3. A revised application listing every ordinance section from which relief is sought, with
quantified deviations and hardship statements.
4. A construction-management plan, reviewed by Village staff, guaranteeing safe access
and protection of DeWindt Road infrastructure.
Page 75 of 209
Emily and John Thomas are valued neighbors, and we remain committed to working
collaboratively toward a solution that meets their family’s needs and upholds the standards that
have long protected property values and quality of life on DeWindt Road.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Burke
President, DeWindt Road Association
[contact information]
Page 76 of 209
DAVID & COURTNEY NELSON
130 Evergreen Lane
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
Community Development
Village of Winnetka, IL
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
RE: Contesting Case No. 25-14-V2, 175 Dewindt Road – Residential Addition
Dear Board:
My wife and I occupy the residence at 130 Evergreen Lane. The above referenced residential
address shares the Southern property line with our residence. The Residential Addition, as proposed,
violates a 50’ setback and introduces privacy concerns. Additionally, the current proposal shows windows
on the South facing, second-level façade exacerbating such privacy concerns. This Proposed Addition
would not be allowed under current zoning and as such, we respectively request either: (1) all three of
the proposed variances be denied; or (ii) provide for privacy restrictions on title that would forever restrict
views into or out of the South-Facing, second-level façade of the Proposed Addition.
To provide the Board with visuals, attached is a satellite image of the existing conditions today
(attached as Image 1). The current landscaping shown for 130 Evergreen Lane took 3 years to accomplish
and provided for the mutual privacy for both residences at great consideration and cost. We worked with
the Village of Winnetka Department of Planning and Engineering, the state of Illinois Department of
Engineering, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Chicago District, and the Winnetka Forestry
Departments. The second attached image (Image 2), shows the current plantings and that the large 20-
foot trees were strategically placed to provide privacy to both residences. Such plantings required
sufficient lot line set-back to accommodate such large trees in these exact locations. However, in order
to comply with stringent 200-year flood water retention requirements, the landscaping set-backs had to
be reduced allowing for only smaller evergreens along the entire lot line. As such, we cannot
accommodate larger trees sufficient to block the proposed windows shown on the Residential Addition.
It also does not appear that 175 Dewindt has sufficient lot line relief due to the existing garage to provide
for similar natural plantings to mitigate the loss of privacy should the required 50-foot set-back be waived.
As an overall argument against the proposed Application, we simply ask what is the required
“Hardship” identified in order to provide such variance? We have attached a Google AI report that the
Board members are far better to assess than we are. (See attached, Image 3). In assessing the Hardship,
we merely want to provide the Board with the following facts: The existing home was advertised by
publicly available listing agents and advertised to be in excess of 6,300 square feet. The existing “garage”
as labelled on plans, is actually a finished room and all parking is in the driveway with no access to a
“garage” in its typical use. After a number of years on the market, the home was purchased between
October 28-November 3, 2021 in its existing condition. As such, the Applicant had sufficient time to do
its due-diligence and was aware of all existing conditions and current “legal, non-conforming” zoning
conditions. It is our understanding that no changes have been made to underlying zoning that would
create any new information from what the Applicant knew at the time of purchase. These facts and other
Page 77 of 209
implied reasons for the Applicants request for zoning variance seem to fall into convenience categories or
for financial gain. Without any further knowledge, it seems this cannot be granted based on simply facts.
We appreciate the Board’s time in hearing our perspective and are available for any further
questions and to host a tour if necessary. We will unfortunately not be able to attend the Public Hearing
on Monday, August 11th but hope our absence does not negatively impact our case and request to
respectively Deny the Applicant’s request.
Sincerely,
David B. Nelson
Attachments:
1) Image 1 – Satellite Image of Existing Conditions Along South Lot Line of 175 Dewindt and 130
Evergreen Lane
2) Image 2: Current Image of 20’ Tall Trees/Planting Providing for Mutual Privacy
3) Image 3: Source: Google AI Search
Page 78 of 209
Image 1 – Satellite Image of Existing Conditions Along South Lot Line of 175 Dewindt and 130
Evergreen Lane
Page 79 of 209
Image 2: Current Image of 20’ Tall Trees/Planting Providing for Mutual Privacy
Page 80 of 209
Image 3: Source: Google AI Search:
Winnetka zoning hardship requirements for obtaining a variation:
In Winnetka, Illinois, a property owner seeking a zoning variance based on hardship must demonstrate
that strict adherence to zoning regulations creates a "practical difficulty or particular hardship". This
burden of proof rests with the applicant.
Here are the key aspects to proving hardship for a zoning variation in Winnetka:
1. Defining "hardship"
• Unique to the property: The hardship must be a consequence of the specific characteristics of
the property, not related to the owner's personal circumstances or a general condition shared by
the neighborhood or community.
• Not self-created: The hardship cannot be a result of actions taken by the current or past property
owner.
• Beyond mere inconvenience: The hardship must be more than simply a preference for a
different standard or a general inconvenience.
• Impact on reasonable return: The property in question must be unable to yield a reasonable
return if used only under the conditions allowed by the zoning district's regulations.
2. Examples of what doesn't constitute hardship
Winnetka's regulations specifically state that the following situations do not qualify as a practical
difficulty or particular hardship:
• Improvements to the property's appearance or neighborhood
• Personal convenience or preference
• Making the property more readily saleable or increasing its selling price
• A family member's physical disability or handicap
• Changes in family size or age
• Lack of awareness of a zoning provision
• The existence of practical alternatives to the proposed request
Page 81 of 209
• Neighbor approval of the variance request
• Hardship created by past property development
• Increased costs associated with complying with the Zoning Ordinance
3. Necessary evidence for variation requests
When applying for a variation, the Zoning Board of Appeals will require evidence that the property
cannot yield a reasonable return under existing regulations, that the circumstances are unique, and that the
variation will not negatively impact the locality's character, adjacent properties, fire risk, taxable value,
traffic, or public welfare
Page 82 of 209
Minutes adopted 11.10.2025
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
2 OCTOBER 13, 2025
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Lynn Hanley
7 Kathryn Leister
8 Mike Nielsen
9 Michael Ritter
10
11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Todd Vender
12
13 Village Staff: Steve Mangum, Director of Community Development
14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
15 Development
16
17 ***
18 Continued Cases:
19 a. Case No. 25-14-V2: 175 DeWindt Road: An application seeking approval of zoning variations to
20 allow construction of a second-floor addition to the existing residence at 175 DeWindt Road. The
21 requested variations would permit the proposed improvements to (i) exceed the maximum permitted
22 gross floor area; and (ii) provide less than the minimum required front yard setback from the west
23 property line. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. At the August 11, 2025, Zoning
24 Board of Appeals meeting, at the request of the Applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this
25 item to the October 13, 2025, meeting.
26 Ms. Klaassen noted although the request had been continued, discussion has not been opened until this
27 meeting. She identified the property location, zoning classification and size along with site photos
28 containing the proposed addition. Ms. Klaassen summarized the two variations for front yard setback and
29 GFA requested by the applicant in connection with the proposed addition. She then identified the
30 proposed building elevations and noted public correspondence was received regarding the request and
31 provided to the ZBA. Ms. Klaassen stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and
32 Board discussion, a Board Member may make a motion to either continue the matter to a date specific to
33 address any questions or concerns or consider a motion recommending approval or denial with a draft
34 motion included on page 13 of the agenda packet. She then asked if there were any questions.
35
36 Ms. Hanley stated the packet of materials indicate for the 1997 addition, the applicant was denied the
37 front yard setback and asked if the proposed addition would be in the same location. Ms. Klaassen
38 responded it must have been and identified the 50-foot front yard setback. No additional questions were
39 raised at this time.
40
41 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Christopher Canning, 1000 Skokie Blvd.,
42 Wilmette, introduced himself along with the property owners, Emily and John Thomas, Scott Walker, the
43 builder, and Healy Rice, the architect. He stated the GFA and front yard setback variations are being
44 requested for the flag lot which originally contained a ranch home and described the subsequent additions
45 which conformed to GFA requirements in 1997. Mr. Canning stated the applicants purchased the home in
46 2021 and noticed the garage was being used for storage and a gym. He stated the home had inadequate
47 storage and described the alternatives they discussed with Mr. Walker and Ms. Rice to obtain more
48 storage and which would require variations. Mr. Canning stated the proposed plan represented the best
Page 83 of 209
October 13, 2025 Page 2
1 alternative and would not increase impervious coverage. He referred to the concerns raised by the
2 neighbors and explained that the proposed addition would not be built into the front yard. Mr. Canning
3 then stated with regard to GFA, there was no GFA request made for the 1997 addition with the home now
4 being out of compliance by no action of the applicants. He stated the flag lot penalized them in terms of
5 the amount of GFA available for use and a GFA variation would not have otherwise been necessary.
6
7 Mr. Canning stated in response to the standards, he referred to reasonable return and several price
8 reductions in the price of the home due to the lack of a basement. He then summarized their responses
9 to the remaining standards and asked for the Board to make a positive recommendation to the Village
10 Council. Mr. Canning then asked if there were any questions.
11
12 Chairman Bradley asked if the existing nonconformity with regard to lot size and questioned the math
13 calculations. Mr. Canning referred to the worksheets prepared and explained the method for the lot area
14 calculations. Chairman Bradley then questioned the difference between the existing and proposed GFA
15 when the flagpole area is taken out. The Board Members discussed how the figures were calculated. Ms.
16 Klaassen provided further information with regard to the GFA calculation. Chairman Bradley questioned
17 the amount of storage the applicants need to allow reasonable return.
18
19 Scott Walker, general contractor, explained how the size of the proposed addition was balanced by
20 loading the second floor on the perimeter walls with the second-floor addition to blend in with the
21 remaining home’s architecture. He stated to make it 100 square feet less would make it less architecturally
22 appealing and would be more difficult to build. Chairman Bradley asked if the applicants are justifying the
23 need for the zoning variation as being due to the fact that the property is located in the flood plain which
24 did not allow them to have a basement which would have been used for storage. Mr. Walker responded
25 yes.
26
27 Mr. Haller referred to the plat of survey which referenced a basement. Mr. Walker confirmed there is no
28 basement and there is an error on the plat of survey. Mr. Haller referred to the area to be built over the
29 garage. Mr. Walker responded it would remain as a garage for use by the applicants. No additional
30 questions were raised at this time.
31
32 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment. He then swore in those speaking to this matter. Amy Burke,
33 181 DeWindt, introduced herself as president of the DeWindt Homeowners Association representing the
34 neighbors. She stated after receiving the public notice, she met with the applicants with regard to their
35 plans. Ms. Burke stated they are still concerned with regard to the wording vagueness and future
36 implications for those requesting similar projects with similar setbacks and GFA.
37
38 David Nelson, 130 Evergreen Lane, provided information with regard to the property’s history and stated
39 with regard to the hardship claim, the applicants purchased the home knowing what they were getting.
40 He also referred to the number of price reductions due to the prior owners’ contentious situation and the
41 fact that it is a flag lot. Mr. Nelson stated those reasons are not justifiable to claim hardship and the price
42 of the older, deteriorated home reflected its market value. He also stated the area is in the 100-year flood
43 plain and referred to the applicants’ plan to build a pool in connection with their claim regarding hardship.
44 Mr. Nelson also informed the Board of the landscaping permit approval process they went through as well
45 as a lack of privacy concern relating to his house and pool. He added the home has a third floor and an
46 area above the garage which is currently used for storage. No additional comments were made at this
47 time.
48
Page 84 of 209
October 13, 2025 Page 3
1 Mr. Haller asked if consideration was given to creating a basement area underneath the home. Mr.
2 Canning confirmed they considered it but it would have been cost prohibitive due to engineering
3 concerns. He noted the pool installation is not a part of this application. Mr. Walker also stated there
4 would not have been access to the basement other than through the garage which would have made it a
5 1.5 garage.
6
7 Chairman Bradley asked if there was any other public comment. No additional comments were made at
8 this time. He then called the matter in for discussion and summarized the relief being requested by the
9 applicants and the items the Board is to consider. Ms. Klaassen also provided additional information with
10 regard to a GFA text amendment.
11
12 Ms. Hanley stated she had trouble with the first three standards and is leaning toward voting against the
13 request and explained her reasoning in detail. Ms. Leister agreed with Ms. Hanley’s comments noting a
14 lack of a basement in this area as typical. She agreed that a flag lot is not an unusual condition and referred
15 to the denial of the second-floor addition in 1997 as well as the neighbors’ comments. Ms. Leister
16 concluded she would vote against the request. Mr. Ritter stated while he appreciated the attempt to not
17 change the nonconforming setback and the potential height addition, he agreed with the comments made
18 that the first three standards were not met. He stated he would vote against the request. Mr. Nielsen
19 agreed with the comments made and referred to the reduced purchase price comments. He also agreed
20 with the statements relating to flag lots and how that is addressed with zoning. Mr. Nielsen concluded he
21 would vote against the request. Mr. Haller agreed with the comments made and stated he would lean
22 toward voting against the request and the garage would become two stories which would potentially
23 impinge on the neighborhood character. Chairman Bradley stated the front yard setback is not an issue
24 for him and referred to the sensitivities of homeowners in the flood plain where he stated homes have
25 been adequately priced. He referred to the discussion of properties having pools and creating a basement
26 in the flood plain. Chairman Bradley also referred to the flag lot and the smaller lot size. He then stated
27 he was leaning toward recommending approval and the fact that the situations can be mitigated.
28
29 Chairman Bradley offered the applicant the opportunity to either move forward with the Village Council
30 or modify their plans to evaluate the Board’s comments. The applicants’ team discussed their options and
31 decided to request that the item be continued to the January 12, 2026, meeting.
32 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to continue the application to the January 12, 2026, meeting. A
33 motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Ms. Hanley. A vote was
34 taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0:
35 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Hanley, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
36 NAYS: None
37 ***
Page 85 of 209
ATTACHMENT D1
RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-02-2026
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 25-14-V – 175 DEWINDT ROAD
WHEREAS, Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the
property commonly known as 175 DeWindt Road, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A
attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence that is
nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the west property line
and the maximum permitted building size (gross floor area) (“Building”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a second-floor addition on the legally
nonconforming Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required
front yard setback; and (ii) exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property;
(“Proposed Improvement”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning
Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property is
permitted a maximum gross floor area of 5,808.84 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject
Property with (i) a minimum front yard setback that is less than the required 50 feet, a violation of
Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) a gross floor area that exceeds the maximum
permitted of 5,808.84 square feet, a violation of Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Sections 17.30.050 and
17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with
(i) a front yard setback of 25.03 feet; and (ii) a gross floor area of 6,240.2 square feet; (“Requested
Variations”); and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on July 24, 2025, in
the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of
the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a
meeting held on August 11, 2025, October 13, 2025, and January 12, 2026, for the purpose of
considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of
Appeal’s Regular Meeting on January 12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows:
Page 86 of 209
1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated May
2, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions
to these application materials and attachments; and
2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do
satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best
interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for (i) front yard setback variation; and
(ii) gross floor area variation in accordance with, and subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and
provisions of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka,
Cook County, Illinois, that:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this
Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATIONS. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions,
restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested (i) front yard
setback variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) gross floor area variation
from Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject
Property is hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance
and the home rule powers of the Village.
SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be
applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights
the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly
subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions:
A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the
Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village
standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property,
shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B.
B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and
maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply
with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from
time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution.
SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the
office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and
provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant
and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the
Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the
Page 87 of 209
approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that
the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution
unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for
revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the
event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the
applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, (i) the front
yard setback requirement set forth in Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) the gross
floor area requirements set forth in Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the event
of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to
bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variations granted in Section
Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards
and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events:
B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and
C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and
Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of
this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and
limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that
may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution.
D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional
Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days
after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this
Resolution null and void and of no force or effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Page 88 of 209
ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote:
AYES: ______________________________________________________________________
NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________
ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________
Signed:
____________________________________
Matthew Bradley, Chairperson
Countersigned:
____________________________________
Village Clerk
Page 89 of 209
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT 5 (EXCEPT THAT PART BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO A POINT 91.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT
5; THENCE WEST ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 146.04
FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT 128.0 FEET NORTH OF SAID SOUTH
LINE AND 29.70 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 29.70 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING) IN
DAUGHDAY ACRES SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF) ANO THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE
13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Commonly known at 175 DeWindt Road, Winnetka, Illinois
Parcel Index Number: 05-20-319-024-0000
Page 90 of 209
EXHIBIT B
PLANS
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B)
Page 91 of 209
EXHIBIT B
Page 92 of 209
Page 93 of 209
Page 94 of 209
Page 95 of 209
Page 96 of 209
Page 97 of 209
Page 98 of 209
Page 99 of 209
Page 100 of 209
Page 101 of 209
Page 102 of 209
EXHIBIT C
UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT
TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”):
WHEREAS, Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Owner”) are the owner of record of that
certain real property located at 175 DeWindt Road, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-02-2026, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on
January 12, 2026 (“Resolution”), grants variations to construct a second-floor addition on the existing
legally nonconforming single-family residence on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution
will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage
of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the
terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows:
1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and
all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution.
2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly
given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the
revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the
grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right.
3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way,
liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the
variations, and that the Village’s approval of the variations does not, and will not, in any way, be
deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time.
4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s
corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents,
representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any
of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variations for
the Property.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Page 103 of 209
Dated: _____________________, 2026.
ATTEST OWNER
By: By:
Emily Thomas
Name: _______________________ By:
John Thomas
Page 104 of 209
RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-02-2026
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 25-14-V – 175 DEWINDT ROAD
WHEREAS, Emily and John Thomas (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the
property commonly known as 175 DeWindt Road, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A
attached to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence that is
nonconforming with respect to the minimum required front yard setback from the west property line
and the maximum permitted building size (gross floor area) (“Building”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a second-floor addition on the legally
nonconforming Building on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required
front yard setback; and (ii) exceed the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property;
(“Proposed Improvement”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning
Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance the Subject Property is
permitted a maximum gross floor area of 5,808.84 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject
Property with (i) a minimum front yard setback that is less than the required 50 feet, a violation of
Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) a gross floor area that exceeds the maximum
permitted of 5,808.84 square feet, a violation of Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Sections 17.30.050 and
17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with
(i) a front yard setback of 25.03 feet; and (ii) a gross floor area of 6,240.2 square feet; (“Requested
Variations”); and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on July 24, 2025, in
the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250 feet of
the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a
meeting held on August 11, 2025, October 13, 2025, and January 12, 2026, for the purpose of
considering the Requested Variations with the final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of
Appeal’s Regular Meeting on January 12, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows:
Page 105 of 209
1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated May
2, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions and revisions
to these application materials and attachments; and
2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do not
satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka
Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variations are not in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if
it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-2 Single Family Residential
District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best
interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka,
Cook County, Illinois, that:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this
Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATIONS. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the
Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals
denies the Requested Variations for the Subject Property.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning
Board of Appeals in the manner required by law.
ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Signed:
____________________________________
Matthew Bradley, Chairperson
Countersigned:
_______________________________________
Village Clerk
Page 106 of 209
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT 5 (EXCEPT THAT PART BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO A POINT 91.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT
5; THENCE WEST ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 146.04
FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT 128.0 FEET NORTH OF SAID SOUTH
LINE AND 29.70 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL
WITH AND 29.70 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING) IN
DAUGHDAY ACRES SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF) ANO THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE
13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
Commonly known at 175 DeWindt Road, Winnetka, Illinois
Parcel Index Number: 05-20-319-024-0000
Page 107 of 209
ATTACHMENT E1
Page 108 of 209
Page 109 of 209
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2026
SUBJECT: 829 & 833 FOXDALE AVENUE – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
829/833 FOXDALE AVE. CONSOLIDATION (CASE NO. 25-29-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On January 12, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on 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 has filed an application 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. 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; and
b. not provide the required building line articulation along the north side building walls.
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 ZBA is charged with making a
recommendation to the Village Council regarding the zoning variations. At its December 17, 2025,
meeting, the Plan Commission (PC) considered the Final Plat of Subdivision and the relief listed above, as
well as a finding of “No Material Increased Adverse Impact” for the existing nonconforming detached
garage at 829 Foxdale Avenue. By a vote of 5-3, the PC recommended denial of the request. Details
regarding the PC’s consideration are provided later in this report. 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 ZBA. The hearing was also
properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on December 25, 2025. As of the date of this memo, staff has not
received any written comments from the public regarding this application. Two members of the public
did speak at the December 17, 2025, PC meeting; one spoke in support of the request, the other in
opposition.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
Page 1
Page 110 of 209
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.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Single-Family Residential”
uses. The current R-5 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Lincoln
Foxdale Avenue
Avenue
833 Foxdale
Eldorado
829 Foxdale Street
Figure 1 – Two Existing Lots
Page 2
Page 111 of 209
833 Foxdale
829 Foxdale
Figure 2 – Subject Property
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.
Page 3
Page 112 of 209
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
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 3 below and an excerpt of the proposed 829/833
Foxdale Ave. Consolidation plat is provided in Figure 4 on the following page.
Figure 3 – Proposed subdivision (neighborhood map view)
Page 4
Page 113 of 209
Figure 4 – 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 5
Page 114 of 209
feet for interior lots), as depicted below in Figure 5. 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 5 – Area Zoning Map
Page 6
Page 115 of 209
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.
Page 7
Page 116 of 209
Description of minimum side yard setback requirements – Side yard setback requirements are calculated
based on a lot’s width:
• Lots with an average lot width that is 100 feet or more: The minimum required side yard setback
is 12 feet.
• Lots with an average lot width that is more than 60 feet, but less than 100 feet: The minimum
required side yard setback is 10% of the average lot width.
• Lots with an average lot width of 60 feet or less: The minimum required side yard setback is 6
feet on one side and 8 feet on the other side.
Newly created zoning 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 8
Page 117 of 209
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
Side yard provided by 9.85 feet 7.55 feet (north)
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 9
Page 118 of 209
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
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.
For reference, Figure 6 on the following page represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the
floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year floodplain.
Page 10
Page 119 of 209
Subject
Property
Figure 6 – GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING CONSIDERATION
The Applicant is requesting approval of two variations from the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the
subdivision of the Subject Property, which would consolidate the two existing lots at 829 and 833 Foxdale
Avenue into a single lot of record.
Side Yard Setback (North Property Line). The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue currently provides
a north side yard setback of 7.55 feet. As explained earlier in this report, the proposed subdivision
increases the width of the lot to 100 feet and in turn increases the minimum required side yard setback
to 12 feet, which the existing residence does not comply with. The zoning relief is being requested to
permit the existing residence to provide a side yard setback of 7.55 feet from the northerly property line,
a variation of 4.45 feet (37.08%). Should the consolidation ultimately be approved by the Village Council,
any proposed addition to the existing residence would be required to comply with the new minimum side
yard setback requirement of 12 feet, and all other zoning regulations for the new larger lot.
Building Line Articulation. 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. 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%.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSIONS
Plan Commission (PC). On December 17, 2025, the PC held a public hearing on this request. After hearing
from staff, the Applicant’s architect, and two members of the public, the Commission 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 two
new homes on each lot. With eight (8) voting members on a request that also requires 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 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. Ultimately, by a vote of 5-3, the PC recommended denial of the request.
Page 11
Page 120 of 209
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the ZBA must find a variation
application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative addressing
how this proposal meets these standards.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA may decide to 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 ZBA; or
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variations. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member
may wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variations for the existing residence at
833 Foxdale Avenue granting:
1. Side Yard Setback of 7.55 feet from the north property line, whereas a minimum of 12
feet is required, a variation of 4.45 feet (37.08%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback];
and
2. 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, a variation of 5.34 feet (13.35%) [Section 17.30.090 Building Line Articulation].
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variations requested are in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
b. 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.
c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
d. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
e. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
f. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
g. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
h. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
Page 12
Page 121 of 209
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Consolidation (829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation)
Page 13
Page 122 of 209
ATTACHMENT A
25-29-SD
Page 123 of 209
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 124 of 209
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 125 of 209
25-29-SD
Page 126 of 209
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 127 of 209
Page 128 of 209
Page 129 of 209
Page 130 of 209
Page 131 of 209
Page 132 of 209
ATTACHMENT B
Page 133 of 209
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ACIP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2026
SUBJECT: 671 LINCOLN AVENUE – VARIATION (CASE NO. 26-01-V2)
INTRODUCTION
On January 12, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an
application submitted by Mikallister LLC (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 671
Lincoln Avenue (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variation
to allow construction of a circular driveway in the front yard of the Subject Property:
1. Front Yard Lot Coverage (FYLC) of 1,949 square feet, whereas a maximum of 1,368 square feet
is permitted, a variation of 581 square feet (42.47%) [Section 17.30.030 – Intensity of Use of Lot].
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on December 25, 2025. As of
the date of this memo, staff has received one written comment from the public regarding this application
which is included as Attachment D.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request, as only the Council has the authority to grant a
variation to exceed the maximum permitted front yard lot coverage.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.54 acres in size, is located on the east side of Lincoln
Avenue between Humboldt Avenue and Pine Street and contains an existing two-and-a-half story
residence with an attached garage (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-3 Single Family Residential and
is bordered by R-3 Single Family Residential to the north, east, and south while properties to the west
on the other side of Lincoln Avenue are zoned R-4 Single Family Residential (see Figure 2). The
Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for single family residential
development. The R-3 zoning of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 1
Page 134 of 209
Prospect
Avenue
Subject
Humboldt
Property
Avenue
Street
Lincoln
Avenue
Pine
Street
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Humboldt Prospect
Avenue Avenue
Street
Subject
Property
Lincoln
Avenue
Pine
Street
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
The existing residence was constructed in 1920. Subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1924 – Detached garage;
2. 1955 – Detached garage;
3. 1957 – Screened porch;
4. 1973 – Screened porch addition and interior remodeling; and
5. 2016 – Addition to and remodeling of residence.
Page 2
Page 135 of 209
Other minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in
2025. There are no previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property.
Figures 3 through 6, below and on the following page, are current photos of the Subject Property.
Figure 3 – Subject Property (Front Elevation - Lincoln Avenue)
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Front Yard (Lincoln Avenue)
Page 3
Page 136 of 209
Figure 5 – Subject Property and Property to South
Figure 6 – Subject Property and Property to North
PROPOSED PLAN
The variation is being requested in order to expand an existing driveway and front walkway into a circular
driveway. The existing bluestone front walkway would be removed, and the existing asphalt driveway
would be expanded in an arc across the front of the property to connect to a new curb cut on the east
end of the Subject Property. The overall front yard lot coverage within the first 40 feet of the property
frontage would increase from 872 square feet to 1,949 square feet in area. The Applicant’s proposed plan
also includes a new wrought iron metal fence, measuring up to 5 feet in height, along the front property
line with two separate sliding gates for each driveway entrance, as well as two opposing masonry posts in
the center for a walkway entrance gate. With the exception of the requested variation, the proposed
improvements comply with the zoning regulations.
An excerpt of the proposed site plan is provided on the following page as Figure 8. The complete set of
plans is provided in the application materials (Attachment C).
Page 4
Page 137 of 209
Figure 7 – Subject Property – 2025 Plat of Survey Showing Existing Conditions
Red Line Represents
40-Foot Setback From
Front Property Line
Figure 8 – Proposed Site Plan
Given the ZBA often receives questions regarding the stormwater regulations applicable to a specific
request being considered by the ZBA, attached is a Stormwater Matrix (Attachment B). Based on the
proposed plan it appears additional stormwater detention would not be required. However, a final
determination will be made by Village Engineering staff upon submittal of the permits necessary for the
Page 5
Page 138 of 209
proposed improvements, which are required to comply with the Village stormwater regulations. Figure 9
below represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the cyan represents the 100-year
floodplain.
Subject
Property
Figure 9 - GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with
the R-3 zoning district (Attachment A). One variation is being requested to exceed the maximum
permitted front yard lot coverage (FYLC). The maximum permitted FYLC in the R-3 zoning district is 30%
of the minimum required front yard, which means no more than 30% of the area measured 40 feet from
the front property line may be covered with impermeable surfaces. The intent of this standard is twofold:
(1) to limit the amount of hard surface area located within the required front yard and; (2) to discourage
vehicle parking within the required front yard. The entirety of the proposed driveway expansion would
be located within the required front yard. Hence, the FYLC would total 1,949 square feet, whereas a
maximum of 1,368 square feet is permitted, a variation of 581 square feet (42.47%).
FINDINGS
Section 17.60.040 of the Zoning Ordinance lists eight variation standards that the Board must find a
variation application meets. The Applicant has supplied as part of their application materials a narrative
addressing how this proposal meets these standards.
After hearing from the Applicant, and the public, the Board may decide to act on one of two options:
1. Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with additional
time to address questions and comments from the Board; or
2. Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the variation. If the ZBA is prepared to
make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member may
wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] of the following variation granting:
A. Front Yard Lot Coverage of 1,949 square feet, whereas a maximum of 1,368 square feet
is permitted, a variation of 581 square feet (42.47%) [Section 17.30.030 – Intensity of Use
of Lot].
Page 6
Page 139 of 209
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds, based on evidence in the record or a public document, that the
variation requested is in harmony [not in harmony] with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and that each of the following eight standards on which evidence is required
pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of this Code have been met [have not been met] in connection
with this variation application [subject to the following conditions…]
The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be
associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related
to the occupants.
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.
5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.
6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.
7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.
8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village
will not otherwise be impaired.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Zoning Matrix
Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix
Attachment C: Application Materials
Attachment D: Public Correspondence
Page 7
Page 140 of 209
ATTACHMENT A
ZONING MATRIX
ADDRESS: 671 Lincoln Avenue
CASE NO: 26-01-V2
ZONING: R-3
MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (3)
Min. Lot Size 16,800 SF 23,482 SF N/A N/A OK
Min. Average Lot Width 75 FT 114 FT N/A N/A OK
Min. Lot Depth 150 FT 205.98 FT N/A N/A OK
Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 5,870.5 SF (1) 4,546.22 SF 4,546.22 SF 0 SF OK
Max. Gross Floor Area 7,215.86 SF (1) 6,128.69 SF 6,128.69 SF 0 SF OK
Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 11,741 SF (1) 9,585.72 SF 11,549 SF 1,963.28 SF OK
Max. Front Yard Lot Coverage 1,368 SF (2) 872 SF 1,949 SF 1,077 SF 581 SF (42.47%) VARIATION
Min. Front Yard (Lincoln Avenue) 40 FT 49.6 FT 49.6 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Side Yard (South) 12 FT 15.3 FT 15.3 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Total Side Yards 34.2 35.1 FT 35.1 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Rear Yard (East) 25 FT 57.68 FT 57.68 FT 0 FT OK
NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 23,482 square feet.
(2) Based on lot width of 114 feet and R-3 minimum front yard setback of 40 feet.
(3) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement.
Page 141 of 209
ATTACHMENT B
Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites
In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must
meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water
release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. An exception is for lots along the lakefront that
directly discharge into Lake Michigan; those lots are not required to provide stormwater volume detention on-
site. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements.
Storm Water Detention Volume Applicable Requirement
Requirements
A. New Home Construction - The amount of additional required storm
Previously Developed Lot water detention volume is based upon
the difference between maximum
impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning
Code, and existing lot coverage, using the
run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm
event for both.
B. New Home Construction - The amount of required storm water
Previously Undeveloped Site detention volume is based upon the
maximum impermeable lot coverage,
using the run-off coefficient for 100-year
storm event.
C. Redevelopment of Site for The amount of required storm water
Different Use detention volume is based upon the
(e.g. single family to multi- maximum impermeable lot coverage,
family, or commercial) using the run-off coefficient for 100-year
storm event.
D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm Applies to 671 Lincoln Avenue.
Home and/or Lot, causing an water detention volume is based upon Based upon preliminary review
increase in impermeable lot the difference between the proposed of information to date, it
coverage greater or equal to and existing impermeable lot coverage, appears that 671 Lincoln
25%. using the run-off coefficient for 100 year Avenue would not have to
storm event. (Note: If the increase in provide additional storm water
impermeable lot coverage is less than detention volume. However, a
25%, additional storm water detention final determination will not
volume is not required.) occur until engineering plans
are submitted with a building
permit application.
E. Improvements to existing The amount of additional required storm
lots, who currently exceed water detention volume is based upon:
maximum impermeable lot a) The amount of the impermeable
coverage (e.g., School sites, lot coverage (ILC) currently in
single family and multi- excess of the maximum
family sites) permitted amount of ILC allowed
by zoning that will be removed
and replaced, and/or
b) The amount of ILC in addition to
what currently exists on the lot.
Page 142 of 209
Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites
The amount of required detention
volume is then determined using the run-
off coefficient for 100-year storm event.
Page 143 of 209
ATTACHMENT C
Village of Winnetka
ZONING VARIATION APPLICATION
V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ZONING VARIATION APPLICATION
Case No.__ _ __ __
Property Information
Site Address:__________________________________________________________________________________
Owner Information
Name: _______________________________________ Primary Contact:__________________________
_________ Phone No.
City, State, ZIP:_________________________________
Email: ________________________________________ Date property acquired by owner:____________
Architect Information Attorney Information
Name:_______________________________________ Name:__________________________________
Primary Contact:________________________________ Primary Contact:_________________________
Address:______________________________________ Address:_________________________________
City, State, ZIP:________________________________ City, State, Zip:___________________________
Phone No.____________________________________ Phone No._______________________________
Email:________________________________________ Email:___________________________________
Nature of any restrictions on property:_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Brief explanation of variation(s) requested (attach separate sheet providing additional details):_______________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Property Owner Signat Date:____________________
Page 144 of 209
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VARIATION REQUEST
01-12-2026
671 LINCOLN AVENUE WINNETKA, IL 60093
Page 145 of 209
07 12 17
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PROPOSED RENDERING ZONING CONDITIONS
03 08 13 18
ELEVATION PROPOSED ALTERNATE LAYOUT
SITE LOCATION PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
04 09 14 19
VARIANCE STANDARDS SECURITY FOOTAGE PROPOSED LAYOUT PLANTING PLAN
05 10 15
VARIANCE STANDARDS SECURITY FOOTAGE PROPOSED LAYOUT - UNDERLAY
06 11 16
EXISTING CONDITIONS HISTORY ZONING CONDITIONS
DATE: 01-12-2026 INDEX
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 146 of 209
02
DATE: 01-12-2026 SITE LOCATION
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 147 of 209
03
Existing Vehicular Circulation and Operational Concerns
671 Lincoln Winnetka Project & Property Narrative Responses to Variation Standards
As a result of the 2017–2018 redesign, the property currently relies on a single-lane asphalt
Background and Cultural Context driveway along the north side of the home, serving a rear-entry garage. The driveway is
more than 150 feet long from street to rear of garage. The only asphalt paved turnaround
The single-family home at 671 Lincoln Avenue in Winnetka, famously known as the “ Home
option is located directly in front of the garage: a widening of about 26.5 feet at its 1. Reasonable return if used only within regulations
Alone house,” was the primary exterior filming location for the 1990 holiday classic. The
maximum to an existing raised stone retaining wall near to the property line and a narrower Strict enforcement of the 30% front-yard lot coverage limit would prevent the re-
film, a major box-office hit, remains one of the most successful holiday movies ever,
turn around for service out of the garage doors. In practice: establishment of any functional horseshoe driveway. In most single-family homes, this may
continuing to air and stream not only during the holidays but throughout the year. Beyond
its commercial success, it has become a holiday tradition for generations of families to not • Turning around most vehicles without opening the garage doors is difficult. not materially affect the ability to enjoy the property. However, this particular property is
only watch, but to visit as well. uniquely burdened by regular tourist foot traffic and frequent on-street stopping associated
• Larger vehicles (SUVs, delivery vans, service trucks) generally cannot turn around on with its longstanding identity as the “ Home Alone” house.
The house itself has become a pop-culture landmark, attracting visitors from all around the the paved surface and must back down the entire driveway to the street.
When the only existing option is a single, dead-end, 150-foot driveway with no functional
world more than 35 years after the film’s release. This Georgian-style brick home sits in a
• Along the remainder of the side yard, the driveway is too narrow to support safe on- turnaround, vehicles associated with ordinary residential use—service trucks, delivery
quiet neighborhood but sees hundreds of visitors daily, with thousands during the holiday
site turning movements. vehicles, visiting family, and invited guests—must routinely back out across a congested
season, coming to snap photos and experience the iconic setting. NBC 5 recently reported
on-street environment with pedestrians present, which unreasonably increases collision
estimates of 400–500 daily. According to an LA Homes analysis cited by TheStreet, the • A secondary, impromptu gravel parking area appears to have been created in-
risk, exposes the owners to liability concerns, and constrains the safe use of the home as a
Home Alone house averages roughly 70,000 Google searches per month worldwide, between the main part of the original house and the garage wing of the house by
residence. The property cannot fully realize a safe, typical single-family residential use
making it the most-Googled movie home in their dataset. covering the ground here with a thin layer of gravel. However, during the winter
under these conditions, in light of the unusual traffic and visitor patterns directly tied to the
months due to the driveway configuration, this area becomes a holding area for
site’s unique fame not present at similarly sized homes/lots in it’s zoning district.
History of Site Modifications excess snow, and does not become a practical usable turn around area.
The requested variation enables a circulation pattern that would be considered ordinary
In response to ongoing visitor interest, a prior owner installed a metal picket fence along Even for the owners, who can routinely use the garage and rear turnaround area, the
and reasonable for a prominent larger R-4 estate-style property, (several horseshoe
the front lot line around 2013-2014 to prevent pedestrians from leaving the public sidewalk configuration is challenging and constrained. For visitors, deliveries, service providers, and driveways exist both across the street and on the same block as 671 Lincoln within the
and walking onto private property for photos. This fencing is now a key element in defining property maintenance, the practical option is often to pull in and then back out onto the same zoning district), and which is particularly necessary here due to the extraordinary and
the edge between public and private space at the front of the lot. public street. On-street parking is limited to one side of Lincoln Avenue, and traffic and permanent public attention focused on this specific house.
Between 2017 and 2018, under new ownership at the time, the home underwent parking demand increase at various times of the year, particularly during the holidays,
substantial renovation, largely focused on the rear of the property and interior, while the when tourist activity peaks. Visitors frequently park temporarily in ways that block the
iconic front façade was intentionally preserved to maintain its recognizable appearance. driveway, and both children and adults are often present. At night, limited visibility further 2. Plight of the owner due to unique circumstances of the property
According to village permit records obtained by a FOIA request, the renovation plans increases risk. Many visitors come at all hours of the day and night from around the world,
The hardship arises from unique characteristics of the property itself, not from personal
originally contemplated maintaining the existing horseshoe (half-circle) front driveway with often with English as a second language, and often walk directly in front of vehicles or fail to
circumstances of the current owners:
the central pedestrian walk to the house as shown in the historic photos of the home, move when cars are backing up. Combined with pedestrians stopping to take photos near
however, during permit review, the overall impervious surface limits became a controlling the property, often in groups with children, this creates a heightened potential for vehicle- • The house is a globally recognized filming location for a major motion picture that
pedestrian conflicts. continues to be rebroadcast, streamed, and widely watched each year as a holiday
factor. In Winnetka, when a project increases impervious surface, the net increase cannot
classic, generating ongoing tourist interest and pedestrian activity at the specific
exceed 25% of existing impervious area without triggering a requirement for on-site Proposed improvement and impervious coverage
address.
stormwater detention. To avoid exceeding that 25% threshold, a design decision appears to
The applicants propose to restore a paved half-circle (horseshoe) driveway in the front
have been made based on the records from the FOIA request, during the 2017 review • This level of unsolicited, year-round visitor presence is not typical of other R-4
yard, behind the existing metal fence and gates, similar to the historically condition
process to eliminate the longstanding horseshoe driveway and modify the front walkway residential properties in Winnetka and is inherently tied to the property’s physical
previously removed. This would create:
layout. This change reduced the total overall impervious coverage sufficiently to avoid identity, not to any action by the current owners.
detention construction at that time (right at the limit of 25%), but it also eliminated a • A front-yard arrival and departure loop, allowing vehicles to enter and exit facing • The lot configuration—a long, narrow side driveway with a rear garage and no
grandfathered, legally non-conforming level of front-yard impervious coverage that forward, and practical side-yard turning room—makes internal vehicular circulation unusually
exceeded current code limits. constrained. When combined with the front-yard fence line and shallow front
• A clearly defined, gated vehicular zone that separates vehicles from sidewalk
If that original legal non-conforming condition had been retained, and the necessary pedestrians and helps discourage pedestrians from stopping or gathering in the setback, there are limited geometric options for safe turning movements.
detention storage installed, today’s request would likely involve only a minor modification driveway itself. • The prior existence of a grandfathered horseshoe driveway demonstrated that a
to retain/minorly adjust, an established driveway footprint. Instead, because the non- front-yard loop configuration is functionally suited to the property. The 2017
The proposed new front-yard impervious coverage is 43.3% of the minimum front yard lot
conformity was voluntarily surrendered in 2017–2018 to manage project costs and avoid decision to remove that non-conformity was tied to then-current renovation design
area, where 30% is permitted, representing a 44.4% increase above the numerical limit. A
stormwater requirements, any effort now to re-establish a functional horseshoe driveway and stormwater detention considerations; it did not change the property’s
narrower 12-foot-wide loop could reduce that figure to 37.1% (a 23.5% increase above the
requires a front-yard impervious coverage variation from the current standard for the R-4 underlying condition as a high-profile tourist destination on a constrained lot.
30% limit), but based on the limited width and shallow depth of the front yard, a reduced
zoning district.
width creates a turning geometry that causes full-size vehicles to track off the pavement These conditions—international notoriety, persistent public visitor traffic, and a
onto lawn or planting areas. The applicants have therefore proposed a 14-foot pavement constrained driveway geometry—are all linked to the physical and historical characteristics
width, which reflects the minimum practical width to safely accommodate typical of the property and do not arise from personal convenience, family size, or purely aesthetic
passenger vehicles making continuous forward-only turning movements within the goals.
constrained front yard and behind the existing fence line.
The requested variation is thus driven not by aesthetic preference or resale value, but by
site-specific functional and safety requirements in the context of an internationally
recognized filming location that generates sustained pedestrian activity.
DATE: 01-12-2026 VARIANCE STANDARDS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 148 of 209
04
3. Character of locality will not be altered 5. Hazard from fire or other damage will not increase 7. Congestion in the public street will not increase
The requested variation would restore a front-yard driveway form that is consistent with the The proposed driveway configuration has the potential to improve, rather than diminish, A central objective of the proposed driveway configuration is to reduce congestion and
home’s historical condition and with the established character of many homes in this part emergency access: improve traffic operations on Lincoln Avenue:
of Winnetka:
• A horseshoe driveway with two access points and a continuous loop creates • The current single-lane driveway requires many vehicles to back out into the street,
• The front façade of the home remains unchanged and will continue to appear as a redundant points of entry for fire, police, and medical responders, which is often during periods when tourists are parked or slowing in front of the property to
traditional Georgian residence. preferable to a single narrow driveway ending at a rear garage. take photos.
• A portion of the existing tiered stone retaining walls are proposed to be pushed back • The improved ability for vehicles to circulate and exit facing forward reduces the risk • On-street parking is limited to one side of the street, and visiting vehicles frequently
behind the minimum front yard setback to reduce their contribution to the front yard of backing collisions, which are a common cause of property damage and personal stop near the property edge, contributing to localized congestion and visibility
setback impervious coverage. These walls are proposed to be changed to brick injury in long driveways. issues.
veneer walls to match the style of the home and improve the continuity of the
• No new structures or combustible materials are introduced in proximity to building By providing a looped driveway entirely on private property, with clear entry and exit points
materials. A central axis bluestone walkway, pedestrian gate, brick masonry walls
walls that would increase fire risk. behind a gated fence:
and columns are additionally proposed to align with the orthogonal nature of the
original home’s architecture. A more historically accurate walkway and entrance to With these factors, the proposed variation does not increase fire hazard or other damage 1. Visitor and service vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction without
the home. risk and arguably enhances emergency service access and operational safety on the stopping or backing in the street.
property. The Winnetka police department has offered a letter in support of the proposed
• The driveway loop and central walk are placed behind the existing metal fence and 2. Vehicles associated with the property are removed from on-street parking demand
configuration.
gates, with landscaping used to soften views from the street. The metal fence will for short-term visits.
be modified to meet the requirements of the new entrances while matching the
3. The need for double-parking, mid-block U-turns, or standing in travel lanes is
existing condition.
substantially reduced.
6. Taxable value of land and buildings in the Village
• No changes are proposed that would increase building mass, height, lighting
For these reasons, the requested variation is expected to decrease, not increase,
intensity, or commercial activity. The variation requested addresses driveway configuration and impervious coverage within
congestion in the public street.
the front yard setback, not intensity of use or building expansion. The property remains a
Because the property has long been perceived in the public imagination as including a front single-family residence in the R-4 district.
driveway area where vehicles arrive and depart, re-establishing a looped driveway
reinforces rather than alters that visual character. The project maintains the residential • There is no basis to conclude that improving on-site circulation and safety at this 8. Public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare
streetscape and does not introduce new uses or structures that would be out of scale with high-profile property will reduce its taxable value or that of surrounding homes.
The proposed variation directly advances public safety and welfare in several ways:
the neighborhood. • If anything, the investment in code-compliant site improvements, landscape, and
• It separates vehicular activity from pedestrian activity by creating a defined
circulation is expected to support stable property values in the immediate area by
vehicular zone behind gates and fencing, while maintaining a clear public sidewalk
reducing congestion and conflict in the public right-of-way.
4. Light and air to adjacent properties in front.
Accordingly, the requested variation will not diminish the taxable value of land and
The variation relates solely to paved surface coverage in the front yard and does not involve • It allows vehicles to remain off the public right-of-way when staging for arrival,
buildings throughout the Village.
new buildings, walls, or height increases. The proposed driveway lies at grade, within the loading/unloading, or departure, thereby minimizing conflicts with pedestrians—
existing front yard area. including the many tourists and families who visit the block because of the house’s
popularity.
As a result:
• It improves sightlines and predictability: vehicles follow a clear, looped path instead
• Access to light and air for neighboring homes is unchanged.
of backing across the sidewalk or into the travel lane.
• Existing building setbacks remain the same.
• Dual-point access enhances the ability of police and fire responders to approach
• Vegetation will be replaced with new as shown in our landscape planting plan to and stage equipment on the property, which is beneficial for the wider
provide landscape buffering while preserving views and airflow. neighborhood.
Therefore, the proposed variation will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to Importantly, the request is not based on aesthetic preferences, personal convenience,
adjacent properties. resale value, or other factors expressly excluded as grounds for hardship. Instead, it
responds to an unusual and well-documented pattern of public interaction with this
particular property, and seeks a modest, site-specific modification of the impervious
coverage standard only within the minimum front yard setback area to address ongoing
safety, privacy, and operational concerns in a manner that is consistent with the residential
character of the district.
For these reasons, granting the requested variation will not impair public health, safety,
comfort, morals, or welfare, and is reasonably necessary to protect them in this unique
case.
DATE: 01-12-2026 VARIANCE STANDARDS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 149 of 209
05
DATE: 01-12-2026 EXISTING CONDITIONS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 150 of 209
06
KEY
Heaviest Traffic
Mild/Light Traffic
DATE: 01-12-2026 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 151 of 209
07
DATE: 01-12-2026 PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 152 of 209
08
DATE: 01-12-2026 SECURITY FOOTAGE
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 153 of 209
09
DATE: 01-12-2026 SECURITY FOOTAGE
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 154 of 209
10
2013 APPEARANCE 2015 APPEARANCE
DATE: 01-12-2026 HISTORY
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 155 of 209
11
DATE: 01-12-2026 PROPOSED RENDERING
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 156 of 209
12
DATE: 01-12-2026 ELEVATION
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 157 of 209
13
8 HICKS YEW
18 HICKS YEW
(TYP) 14 VERONICA
WW
3 BOBO HYDRANGEA
205.98' 205.98'
4 TRANSPLANTED
BOXWOOD (TYP)
39 MILLENIUM ALLIUM (TYP) EXISTING BLUESTONE CONCRETE PAD
10 DENSE YEW STOOP AND STEPS
(TYP) RELOCATE GAS
2 7' JUNIPER TOPIARY
(TYP) EDEN CUT DRYWALL RETAINING 7 HICKS YEW
WALLS (TYP)
105 MILLENIUM ALLIUM
E
(TYP)
2 CHANTICLEER PEAR
EX (TYP) 6R
EX
EX
N
EX
EX
EX
S
EX
44 RE
GREEN E
VELVET BOXWOOD (TYP)
W
EX
EX
ANNUALS BY
N HOMEOWNER (TYP)
M
EX 22 LA
FLATS PUR L
PLELEAF W T RC
INTERCREEPER
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX NEW ASPHALT
EX
DRIVEWAY
10 NIGRA ARBORVITAE
EX
PACKAGE DROP OFF
13 FLATS PURPLELEAF
NEW BLUESTONE WALKWAY WINTERCREEPER (TYP)
EX BLUESTONE STEPPER
20 HICKS YEW (TYP)
EX EX EX
GATES TO MATCH EXISTING
NEW ELECTRIC SLIDING GATE
BRICK COLUMNS AND WALLS
EXISTING TO MATCH HOME NEW
CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE
APRON GATE AND MOVE EXISTING APRON
FRONT FENCE WITHIN FRONT
PROPERTY LINE
671 LINCOLN AVE
DATE: 01-12-2026 PROPOSED LAYOUT
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 158 of 209
14
WINTERCREEPER 8 HICKS YEW
18 HICKS YEW
(TYP) 14 VERONICA
WW
3 BOBO HYDRANGEA
205.98' 205.98'
4 TRANSPLANTED
BOXWOOD (TYP)
39 MILLENIUM ALLIUM (TYP) EXISTING BLUESTONE CONCRETE PAD
10 DENSE YEW STOOP AND STEPS
(TYP) RELOCATE GAS
2 7' JUNIPER TOPIARY
(TYP) EDEN CUT DRYWALL RETAINING 7 HICKS YEW
WALLS (TYP)
105 MILLENIUM ALLIUM
(TYP)
2 CHANTICLEER PEAR
EX (TYP) 6R
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
44 GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD (TYP)
EX
EX
ANNUALS BY HOMEOWNER (TYP)
EX 22 FLATS PURPLELEAF WINTERCREEPER
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX NEW ASPHALT
EX
DRIVEWAY
10 NIGRA ARBORVITAE
EX
PACKAGE DROP OFF
13 FLATS PURPLELEAF
NEW BLUESTONE WALKWAY WINTERCREEPER (TYP)
EX BLUESTONE STEPPER
20 HICKS YEW (TYP)
EX EX EX
GATES TO MATCH EXISTING
NEW ELECTRIC SLIDING GATE
BRICK COLUMNS AND WALLS
EXISTING TO MATCH HOME NEW
CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE
APRON GATE AND MOVE EXISTING APRON
FRONT FENCE WITHIN FRONT
PROPERTY LINE
671 LINCOLN AVE
PROPOSED PLAN OVERLAY OF 2025 AERIAL FROM COOK COUNTY RECORDS
DATE: 01-12-2026 PROPOSED LAYOUT - UNDERLAY
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 159 of 209
15
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS
E
19.69' 14.50' 19.69' 14.50'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK N
12'-1"
S
W
40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK 40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK
14'-
0" "
'-0
14
7'-0"
114.00' 15'-0" 114.00' 15'-0"
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE 2025 PROPOSE IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE 2025
DATE: 01-12-2026 ZONING CONDITIONS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 160 of 209
16
ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS
E
19.69' 14.50'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK N
11'-1"
S
W
40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK
'-3"
12
12'- "
0" '-0
12
4'-0"
12'-10" 114.00' 12'-10"
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE 2025
DATE: 01-12-2026 ZONING CONDITIONS
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 161 of 209
17
19.69' 14.50'
SIDE YARD SIDE YARD
SETBACK SETBACK
12'-1"
40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK
14'-
0" "
'-0
14
7'-0"
15'-0" 114.00' 15'-0"
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OVERLAID ON ORIGINAL FRONT YARD LAYOUT PRE-CONSTRUCTION 2016
DATE: 01-12-2026 PROPOSED ALTERNATE LAYOUT
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 162 of 209
18
7
7 10 WW
8
205.98' 205.98'
5
8 6
6
2 2
8 7 E
EX
3 6R
3
EX
EX
8
N
EX
9
EX
EX
S
EX
4
4
W
EX
EX
9
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX 1
9
9
7
EX
7
EX EX EX
671 LINCOLN AVE
DATE: 01-12-2026 PLANTING PLAN
MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION Page 163 of 209
19
MIKALLISTER LLC RESIDENCE
671 LINCOLN AVE.
WINNETKA, IL 60093
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION
CIVIL ENGINEER BONO CONSULTING INC.
ALL PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CODES AND AMENDMENTS
THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA HAS ADOPTED AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE:
-WINNETKA ZONING CODE
-2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE WITH APPENDICES (AA, AB, AC, AF, AJ, AO, AT)
-2021 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE
DOCUMENT KEY: -2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
-2021 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE
-2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE WITH APPENDICES B,C,D,I
-2021 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE
L-0 TITLE PAGE -2021 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE
-2021 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
L-1 PLAT OF SURVEY -2021 ILLINOIS ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
-ILLINOIS PLUMBING CODE (CURRENT ADDITION)
L-1.1 TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY -2018 ILLINOIS ACCESSIBILITY CODE
-2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
L-2 DEMO PLAN -2024 LIFE SAFETY CODE
-2022 NATIONAL FIRE ALARM AND SIGNAL CODE
L-3 SITE PLAN -2023 STANDARD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STATIONARY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS
-METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO WATERSHED -MANAGEMENT
L-4 DETAILS ORDINANCE (CURRENT EDITION)
-WINNETKA VILLAGE CODE, TITLE 15 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
L-5 FENCING PLAN CONSTRUCTION ACCESS NOTES:
L-6 TREE PRESERVATION -
-
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO BE EXCLUSIVELY OVER DRIVEWAY FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
ALL FINISHED LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE RESTRICTED FROM ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION WORK.
L-7 ZONING CALCULATIONS - DRIVEWAY OF RESIDENCE TO BE USED TO STAGE MATERIALS FOR PROJECT. NO DEBRIS TO BE
STOCKPILED ON SITE DURING PROJECT.
DRAINAGE/GRADING NOTES:
- SEE SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
- SEE CIVIL PLANS BY BONO CONSULTING FOR DRAINAGE AND GRADING
- PROTECT EXISTING LAWN AREAS WITH PLYWOOD DURING PROPOSED WORK.
- HAND EXCAVATE IN CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OF TREES GREATER THAN 8" IN DIAMETER IF NECESSARY
- PROPOSED CHANGES SHALL NOT INCREASE STORMWATER DISCHARGE ONTO NEIGHBORING
PROPERTIES. ALL STORMWATER DRAINAGE PATTERNS ON SITE WILL REMAIN AS THEY EXIST
- WINNETKA ZONING DISTRICT: R-4
- TOTAL LOT AREA: 23,481.72 SF - MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE: 11,740.86SF
- TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 9,756SF (SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR DIAGRAM)
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 11,543 SF (SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR DIAGRAM)
- PERCENTAGE INCREASE OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1,787SF (18.3%) INCREASE OVER IN EXISTING
UTILITIES NOTE:
FOR LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND BURIED CABLE CALL J.U.L.I.E. @ 1-800-892-0123
BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT ALL EXISTING
UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
PLOT DATE: 12-1-2025
31305-06
L-0
MIDWEST SPRING
1700 HOLIAN DRIVE
GROVE, IL 60081
ARBOR INFO@MIDWESTARBORCORP.COM
(815) 675-6766
MIKALLISTER LLC RESIDENCE REV1:
REV2:
REV3:
REV4:
12-9-2025
12-17-2025
Midwest Arbor Corp. reserves all rights in these plans. These drawings are, and
shall remain, the exclusive property of Midwest Arbor Corp. Reproduction of
design or concept in any form in whole or part, without the express written
consent of Midwest Arbor Corp. constitutes a direct violation of the federal
copyright law. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in civil action.
SCALE:
671 LINCOLN AVE. WINNETKA, IL 60093
Page 164 of 209
Page 165 of 209
Page 166 of 209
Page 167 of 209
Page 168 of 209
PROPOSED BLUESTONE WALK SOIL/GRAVEL/ETC. (DEPENDENT
31305-06 HAND TAMPED DRIVEWAY EDGES UPON SITE LOCATION)
L-4 3" ASPHALT (BINDER AND SURFACE COURSES) PROPOSED BLUESTONE CLAD CONCRETE 1'-0" 1'-0"
STEPS TYP. TYP.
VARIES (SEE SITE PLAN) SOIL/GRAVEL/ETC. (DEPENDENT
RMC/IMC CONDUIT IN TRENCH UPON SITE LOCATION)
8" COMPACTED GRADE 9 GRAVEL BASE (MIN) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE BURIED MIN 6" 8" RMC/IMC CONDUIT
3" OR 8" TO 1'-6"
PROPOSED BED LINE TYP. NM PVC/HDPE CONDUIT IN 1'-6" PVC/HDPE CONDUIT
MIDWEST SPRING
(1) 4" PVC SLEEVE TYP.
TRENCH BURIED MIN 18" 1" NM SCH40 PVC SLEEVE IN TRENCH
PROPOSED BRICK MASONRY WALLS WITH BURIED MIN. 8" BELOW FINISHED
1700 HOLIAN DRIVE
11 9 CEMENT BLOCK INTERIOR STUCTURE AND NOTE: CONDUIT SHALL GRADE TO FEED LANDSCAPE
4'-7" 2'-2" L-4 L-4 2'-2" 4'-7" PIERS WITH GATE. RECONFIGURE EXISTING TRANSITION BETWEEN PVC/ LIGHTING
COMPACTED 3" FRACTURED STONE TO 8" 4'-6" 2'-0" 7'-0" 2'-0" 4'-6" FRONT FENCING TO ACCOMMODATE HDPE TO RMC/IMC CONDUIT
BELOW FINAL GRADE AS REQUIRED (BASE TO 3'-0"
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE (SEE WHERE CONDUIT IS EXPOSED
BE FREE OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND DETAIL(S) BELOW) AND EXTENDS ABOVE FINISHED
ORGANIC MATERIALS. COMPACT SUB GRADE
GRADE.
GROVE, IL 60081
PRIOR TO 3" STONE PLACEMENT) 1'-2" 1'-0" 2'-2" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-2" 1'-0" 1'-2"
STONE COPING OVER BRICK MASONRY TO
1 TYPICAL ASPHALT DRIVEWAY SECTION OVER NEW DRIVEWAY BASE MATCH RESIDENCE 12 TYPICAL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT IN TRENCH DETAIL 18 TYPICAL PVC SLEEVE FOR LOW VOLTAGE FEED
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 4'-1" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" RECYCLED MULCH
EXISTING METAL PICKET FENCE TO BE NOTE: KEEP PATH AND PUBLIC
RECONFIGURED AREAS CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS
AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
(815) 675-6766
PROPOSED BLUESTONE WALK SOIL/GRAVEL/ETC. (DEPENDENT
ARBOR INFO@MIDWESTARBORCORP.COM
HAND TAMPED DRIVEWAY EDGES (1) 4" PVC SLEEVE TYP.
3" ASPHALT (BINDER AND SURFACE UPON SITE LOCATION) GROUND PROTECTION TYP. 34"
COURSES) EXISTING PUBLIC WALK PLYWOOD OVER FILTER FABRIC
10 COMPACTED BACKFILL SEPARATION LAYER
NEW ASPHALT PAVING (SEE SECTION L-4 MATERIAL
DETAILS FOR ALL HYDRONIC SNOW MELT HAND DRIVEN TEE/ROUND POSTS
3 ALONG EDGES OF CONSTRUCTION
AREAS) 4" PEX WATER LINE WITH #14 1'-0"
TRACER WIRE AND SHUT OFFS TYP. ACCESS PATH
EXISITING GRAVEL BASE (REMOVE ALL
GRAVEL BENEATH REMOVED ASPHALT ON BOTH ENDS (PEX WATER PLASTIC/CHAIN-LINK CONSTRUCTION
AREA LINES TO BE PROTECTED WITHIN FENCE
26" WIDE TRENCH POURED CONCRETE 1'-6"
REPLACE VOID SPACE FROM REMOVED 7 FRONT ENTRANCE COLUMNS AND GATE PLAN VIEW 3" PVC SLEEVE IN AREAS OF HIGH EXISTING SOD/PLANTING BED
FOUNDATION WALL TO BE FORMED AT 11" CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC)
GRAVEL BASE WITH AMENDED TOPSOIL L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" AMENDED/PULVERIZED TOPSOIL FOR
VARIES (SEE SITE PLAN) AT TOP FOR STONE LEDGE WHERE NOTED.
FOR PLANTING BED TRENCH POUR TO BE REINFORCED WITH A NOTE: PEX SHALL TRANSITION LAWN TYP. 3" MIN.
DOUBLE #4 REBAR GRID 16" O.C. E.W. (SEE TO COPPER OR PVC RISERS AND EXISTING SUBGRADE
2" 11" 2" 11"
1'-1"
SECTION DETAILS) VALVES WHERE WATER SUPPLY REPAIR ANY UNDERGROUND
2'-2"
(1) 4" PVC SLEEVE TYP.
PROPOSED BLUESTONE CLAD CONCRETE LINE IS EXPOSED TO UV LIGHT SPRINKLERS/LOW
1'-1" STEPS AND EXTENDS ABOVE FINISHED VOLTAGE/DRAINAGE AS REQUIRED
MIKALLISTER LLC RESIDENCE
PROPOSED BLUESTONE WALK GRADE. TO RESTORED AREA UPON REMOVAL
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE OF ACCESS PATH
2 TYPICAL ASPHALT DRIVEWAY/APRON RECONFIGURATION/REMOVAL PROPOSED BED LINE TYP. 13 TYPICAL WATER LINE TRENCH DETAIL 19 TYPICAL LAWN/PLANTING BED PROTECTION/RESTORATION SECTION
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 4'-6" 2'-0" 7'-0" 2'-0" 4'-6" 12" WIDE TRENCH POURED CONCRETE L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
3'-0" FOUNDATION WALL MIN. 42" BELOW
FINISHED GRADE TO BE FORMED AT 12 "
AT TOP FOR BRICK VENEER WHERE NOTED. SOIL/GRAVEL/ETC. (DEPENDENT
1'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" TRENCH POUR TO BE REINFORCED WITH #4 UPON SITE LOCATION)
3" ASPHALT (BINDER AND SURFACE FINISHED GRADE TO MEET GRADING
COURSES) REBAR GRID 16" O.C. E.W. AND 2 - #4'S TOP PLAN REQUIREMENTS
4'-1" AND BOTTOM OF TRENCH POUR (SEE COMPACTED BACKFILL MATERIAL SOD TYP. 2'X5' ROLLS
CLAY PAVER VERTICAL EDGE RESTRAINT SECTION DETAILS) AMENDED/PULVERIZED TOPSOIL FOR
CURB SET IN REINFORCED HAUNCH 4" LEDGE FOR BRICK VENEER ALONG FACE OF LAWN TYP. 3" MIN.
HDPE GAS LINE WITH #14
671 LINCOLN AVE. WINNETKA, IL 60093
CONCRETE (SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS) 1'-0" SPADE CUT BED LINE EDGE
FINISHED GRADE/PLANTING BED/LAWN (1) 4" PVC SLEEVE TYP.
EXISTING METAL PICKET FENCE TO BE TRACER AND ANODELESS RISERS TYP.
ON BOTH ENDS OF LINE. 2" ORGANIC HARDWOOD
RECONFIGURED MULCH/LEAF MULCH
AMENDED/PULVERIZED TOPSOIL FOR PROPOSED CONCRETE CYLINDER
LAWN/PLANTING BED TYP. (3" MIN. DEPTH) NOTE: HDPE GAS LINES SHALL BE
1'-6" AMENDED/PULVERIZED
FOUNDATION FOR FENCE POST TYP. 42"
PROTECTED WHERE GAS LINE IS TOPSOIL/COMPOST PLANTING
DEPTH
3" 6" COMPACTED GRADE 9 GRAVEL EXPOSED AND EXTENDS ABOVE BLEND TYP. 6" MIN.
EXISTING PUBLIC WALK SCOUR/BREAK UP HARDPAN IF
FINISHED GRADE. EACH END OF
COMPACTED 3" FRACTURED STONE TO 9" INTERNAL I BEAM SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED GAS LINE SHALL HAVE ISOLATION EXISTING IN SUBGRADE
BELOW FINAL GRADE AS REQUIRED PEDESTRIAN GATE SET IN CONCRETE VALVES INSTALLED. ALL BARE REPAIR ANY UNDERGROUND
(BASE TO BE FREE OF CONSTRUCTION FOUNDATION AND GROUTED SOLID BLACK IRON PIPE AND FITTINGS SPRINKLERS/LOW
DEBRIS AND ORGANIC MATERIALS. 8 FRONT ENTRANCE COLUMNS AND GATE FOUNDATION PLAN WITHIN BRICK MASONRY PIER
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" MUST BE COATED WITH VOLTAGE/DRAINAGE/ELECTRIC AS
COMPACT SUB GRADE PRIOR TO 3" STONE PROPOSED BLUESTONE WALK CORROSION RESISTANT PAINT. REQUIRED IN RESTORED AREAS
PLACEMENT)
3 TYPICAL VERTICAL PAVER CURB ALONG DRIVEWAY 14 TYPICAL GAS LINE TRENCH DETAIL 20 TYPICAL LAWN/PLANTING BED RESTORATION SECTION
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 2'-2" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
6" TOP OF MASONRY WALL/COLUMNS TO RECEIVE
FINISHED GRADE/PLANTING BED 2'-0" NEW STONE COPING
NEW PEDESTRIAN GATE AND PANELS TO MATCH
BLUESTONE PAVERS WITH POLYMERIC STYLE OF EXISTING PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT
SAND SWEPT JOINTS PITCHED TO DRAIN
FACE OF BUILDING
4'-0" (M.E.)
PER CIVIL PLANS 4'-6" RECONFIGURE EXISTING FENCE TO RETURN TO NEW
4'-0" 4'-0" BRICK MASONRY WALLS 2" (MIN) AIR GAP
1" SAND LEVELING BED
BRICK VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE 4" OUTLET TO SITE DRAINAGE
VARIES (SEE OVER CMU BLOCK
EDGE RESTRAINT PLAN VIEW
SITE PLAN) 9"X9" NDS BASIN OR SIMILAR
4'-1" MULCHED PLANTING BED
6" COMPACTED GRADE 9 GRAVEL DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION
4'-0"
AMENDED/PULVERIZED TOPSOIL/COMPOST
COMPACTED 3" FRACTURED STONE TO 9" PLANTING BLEND TYP. 12" MIN. (TYP.) 1'-6" TYP. 1'-6" TYP.
BELOW FINAL GRADE AS REQUIRED
(BASE TO BE FREE OF CONSTRUCTION 42" MIN. DEPTH CONCRETE TRENCH FOUNDATION
DEBRIS AND ORGANIC MATERIALS.
3'-6" VERTICAL STONE PAVERS SET ON EITHER SIDE OF
COMPACT SUB GRADE PRIOR TO 3" STONE 4" SDR26 PVC PIPE
4'-6" 2'-0" 7'-4" 2'-0" 4'-6" WALK IN REINFORCED CONCRETE HAUNCH
PLACEMENT) WALKWAY/PATIO/
BLUESTONE PAVERS WITH POLYMERIC SAND SWEPT DRIVEWAY TYP.
JOINTS PITCHED TO DRAIN PER CIVIL PLANS
(STONE, PAVERS, ETC.)
4 TYPICAL BLUESTONE PAVER WALK SECTION 9 FRONT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE WALLS AND GATE NORTHWEST (INSIDE) ELEVATION 15 TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT CATCH BASIN
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 2'-2" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
6" TOP OF MASONRY WALL/COLUMNS TO RECEIVE
2'-0" NEW STONE COPING
NEW PEDESTRIAN GATE AND PANELS TO MATCH GRAVEL/FINISHED
PLOT DATE: 12-1-2025
STYLE OF EXISTING
FINISHED GRADE/PLANTING BED PAVING MATERIAL
POP-UP DRAINAGE
4'-0" (M.E.)
4'-6" RECONFIGURE EXISTING FENCE TO RETURN TO NEW DEPENDING ON
4'-0" 4'-0" EMITTER
REV1: 12-9-2025 BRICK MASONRY WALLS SECTION VIEW LOCATION ON SITE
REMOVE EXISTING PAVERS AND REAPLACE
WITH NEW BLUESTONE PAVERS WITH 1/4 BEND SEWER DRAIN 4" SDR26 PVC PIPE
REV2: 12-17-2025
BRICK VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE
VARIES (SEE POLYMERIC SAND SWEPT JOINTS PITCHED OVER CMU BLOCK ELBOW
TO DRAIN PER CIVIL PLANS CA7 GRAVEL/SAND
SITE PLAN)
REV3: 4'-1" MULCHED PLANTING BED COMPACTED TOPSOIL
1" SAND LEVELING BED DRAIN PIPE
REV4: AMENDED/PULVERIZED TOPSOIL/COMPOST
PLANTING BLEND TYP. 12" MIN. (TYP.)
EDGE RESTRAINT 1/4" LEACH HOLE NOTES:
42" MIN. DEPTH CONCRETE TRENCH FOUNDATION
CRUSHED STONE DRY
Midwest Arbor Corp. reserves all rights in these plans. These drawings are, and
6" RE-COMPACTED EXISTING GRAVEL BASE 1. ALL BACKFILL MATERIALS SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED.
3'-6" BLUESTONE PAVERS WITH POLYMERIC SAND SWEPT WELL
(MIN)(SUPPLEMENT WITH NEW AS FIELD JOINTS PITCHED TO DRAIN PER CIVIL PLANS
2. ALL TRENCH EXCAVATIONS SHALL MEET OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
4'-6" 2'-0" 7'-4" 2'-0" 4'-6"
CONDITIONS DICTATE) 3. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR PVC PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL
COMPLY WITH ASTM D-2321 - STANDARD PRACTICE FOR
UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF THERMOPLASTIC PIPE FOR
shall remain, the exclusive property of Midwest Arbor Corp. Reproduction of
SEWERS AND OTHER GRAVITY-FLOW APPLICATIONS.
5 TYPICAL BLUESTONE PAVER WALK/PATIO SECTION OVER EXISTING GRAVEL BASE 10 FRONT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE WALLS AND GATE SOUTHEAST (OUTSIDE) ELEVATION 16 TYPICAL DRAIN EMITTER POP-UP 21 TYPICAL 4" U.G. SLEEVE BENEATH PAVED SURFACES
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 2'-2" TOP OF MASONRY WALL/COLUMNS TO RECEIVE L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" WITH WITHOUT
NEW STONE COPING TRENCH TRENCH
FINISHED GRADE/PLANTING BED 2'-0" MIRAFI INC. ENVIROFENCE
FILTER FABRIC OR
design or concept in any form in whole or part, without the express written
TOPSOIL FILL TO FINISHED GRADE/SOD NEW PEDESTRIAN GATE AND PANELS TO MATCH TOPSOIL/GRAVEL APPROVED EQUAL
STYLE OF EXISTING DEPENDING ON WOVEN WIRE FENCE (MIN.
6" THICK BROOM FINISHED 4500 PSI WOOD OR STEEL POSTS AT 2'-6" 14 12 " GAUGE) (MAX. 6"
LOCATION ON SITE 6' (MIN.) TO 8' (MAX) SPACING
CONCRETE WITH SAW CUT CONTROL 4'-6" MESH SPACING)
JOINTS 10' O.C. TYP. SPACING (INSTALL 4'-0" RECONFIGURE EXISTING FENCE TO BE WITHIN 4" PVC PIPE SLOPE
FRONT PROPERTY LINES AND CONNECT TO NEW EXTEND FABRIC INTO COMPACTED BACKFILL
EXPANSION JOINTS AGAINST ALL FROST 1'-2"
consent of Midwest Arbor Corp. constitutes a direct violation of the federal
BRICK MASONRY WALLS 4" MINIMUM MINIMUM 4"X4" TRENCH
VARIES (SEE CA7 GRAVEL/SAND TRENCH A MINIMUM OF
71 4"
PROTECTED MASONRY SURFACES) 11"
TOPSOIL
SITE PLAN) 1'-2" PROPOSED BLUESTONE CLAD CONCRETE STEPS 6"VERTICALLY AND 6" 2'-0" SLOPE
6X6-W2.9 x W2.9 W.W.M 71 4" 4" HORIZONTALLY
2 - #4 CONT. TOP LONGITUDINAL COMPACTED BACKFILL
6" COMPACTED CA7 GRAVEL BASE (NO BRICK VENEER TO MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE
NATURAL SOIL MINIMUM 4"X4" TRENCH
FINES) 2" OVER CMU BLOCK 4" 4" 4" NOTES:
copyright law. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in civil action.
#4's 16" O.C. TYP. HORIZ. NOTES: 1. FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE PLACED AT THOSE LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THE PLANS INCLUDING STOCK PILE AREAS AND WHERE INDICATED BY THE
VILLAGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
COMPACTED 3" FRACTURED STONE TO 11" 2. ATTACH FADING TO WIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS, TO WOOD POSTS WITH NAILS, AND TO STEEL POSTS WITH TIE-WIRES AT TOP AND MID-SECTION.
BELOW FINAL GRADE AS REQUIRED 42" MIN. DEPTH CONCRETE TRENCH FOUNDATION 1. ALL BACKFILL MATERIALS SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED. 3. OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC BY 6" AND FOLD AROUND EACH POST ONE FULL TURN WHERE 2 SECTIONS ADJOIN.
(BASE TO BE FREE OF CONSTRUCTION 2. ALL TRENCH EXCAVATIONS SHALL MEET OSHA 4. DRIVE POSTS TIGHTLY TOGETHER AND SECURE TOPS OF POSTS BY TYING OFF EITH CORD OR WIRE TO PREVENT FLOW-THROUGH OF BUILT-UP
3'-6" 3'-6"
SEDIMENT AT JOINT.
DEBRIS AND ORGANIC MATERIALS. BLUESTONE PAVERS WITH POLYMERIC SAND SWEPT
REQUIREMENTS. 5. INSPECTION OF SILT FENCES SHALL BE AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK AND AFTER RAIN EVENTS IN EXCESS OF 12". REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE
3/8" = 1'-0"
COMPACT SUB GRADE PRIOR TO 3" STONE #4 (L) 16" O.C. TYP. VERT.
JOINTS PITCHED TO DRAIN PER CIVIL PLANS 3. BEDDING MATERIAL FOR PVC PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED.
SCALE:
6. SEDIMENT TRAPPED BY THE FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED (AND PROMPTLY DISPOSED OF) WHENEVER SIGNIFICANT ACCUMULATION OCCURS.
PLACEMENT) #4 CONT. BOTTOM LONGITUDINAL COMPLY WITH ASTM D-2321 - STANDARD PRACTICE FOR 7. BARRIERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN PLACE UNTIL COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED, AND SHALL BE
2'-0" 2'-2" UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF THERMOPLASTIC PIPE REMOVED ONLY WHEN DIRECTED BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
WITHOUT TRENCH
FOR SEWERS AND OTHER GRAVITY-FLOW APPLICATIONS. 1. TOE-IN CAN ALSO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LAYING THE FABRIC FLAP ON UNTRENCHED GROUND AND FILING AND TAMPING SOIL OVER THE FLAP AT
THE BASE OF STRUCTURE.
6 BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SECTION 11 FRONT ENTRANCE CROSS SECTION THRU WALKWAY AND STEPS LOOKING SOUTHWEST 17 TYPICAL 4" U.G. DRAINAGE LINE 22 TYPICAL SILT FENCE INSTALLATION SECTION
L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" L-4 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
Page 169 of 209
Page 170 of 209
Page 171 of 209
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS
114.00' 114.00'
25.00' REAR YARD SETBACK 25.00' REAR YARD SETBACK
205.98' 205.98'
205.98' 205.98'
19.69' 14.50' 19.69' 14.50'
SIDE YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD
SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK
40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK 40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK
114.00' 114.00'
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
114.00'
AREAS PROPOSED114.00'
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
FRONT YARD SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK
25.00' REAR YARD SETBACK 25.00' REAR YARD SETBACK
205.98' 205.98'
205.98' 205.98'
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS
E E
19.69' 14.50' 19.69' 14.50'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK N SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK N
10'-5" 12'-1"
S S
W W
40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK 40.00' FRONT YARD SETBACK
14'-
0" "
'-0
14
7'-0"
15'-1" 114.00' 15'-0" 114.00' 15'-0"
PLOT DATE: 12-1-2025
MIKALLISTER LLC RESIDENCE
SCALE:
31305-06 MIDWEST SPRING
1700 HOLIAN DRIVE
GROVE, IL 60081
REV1:
REV2:
12-9-2025 Midwest Arbor Corp. reserves all rights in these plans. These drawings are, and
shall remain, the exclusive property of Midwest Arbor Corp. Reproduction of
design or concept in any form in whole or part, without the express written
L-7 (815) 675-6766 REV3: 1" = 15'-0"
ARBOR INFO@MIDWESTARBORCORP.COM
consent of Midwest Arbor Corp. constitutes a direct violation of the federal
copyright law. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in civil action.
REV4:
671 LINCOLN AVE. WINNETKA, IL 60093
Page 172 of 209
5'-0"+/-
4'-0"
4"
15'-0" +/-
DRIVEWAY SLIDE GATE PROPOSED ENTRANCE
5'-0"+/-
4'-0"
4"
15'-0" +/-
DRIVEWAY SLIDE GATE EXISTING ENTRANCE
MIDWEST 1700 HOLIAN DRIVE
SPRING GROVE, IL 60081
(815) 675-6766
MIKALLISTER LLC MIDWEST ARBOR CORP. RESERVES ALL RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE DRAWINGS ARE, AND
SHALL REMAIN, THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF MIDWEST ARBOR CORP. REPRODUCTION OF
DESIGN OR CONCEPT IN ANY FORM IN WHOLE OR PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN
CONSENT OF MIDWEST ARBOR CORP. CONSTITUTES A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
SCALE:
3/8" = 1'-0"
ARBOR
COPYRIGHT LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN CIVIL
INFO@MIDWESTARBORCORP.COM ACTION.
671 LINCOLN AVE WINNTKA IL
Page 173 of 209
ATTACHMENT D
Page 174 of 209
From: Trisha Johnson
Subject: Re: Hi!
Date: January 6, 2026 at 6:53 PM
To: Kristen Cross
Hi! We miss you too!
When we did our renovation we made a large enough space for cars to back out of the garage and go forward out of the
driveway. There was plenty of room to turn a car around and go out forward even without using the garage. It takes a
little practice but all 3 of my kids learned to turn around in the driveway. I even got good at it in a Navigator! We also
had a parking pad next to the garage that could be used to turn around.
Hope you guys are doing well!
Trisha
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:37 PM Kristen Cross < > wrote:
Hi Trisha!
We miss you guys.
I know you had a family of 5 drivers (including all three kids who all turned 16 and got their drivers licenses living full-
time in your house).
Quick Question:
Did you have any issues not being able to drive out of your driveway forward-facing? I know you removed the
circular drive during your extensive renovation, did you design/create anything that would alleviate a need to back out
of the driveway?
Thanks so much,
KC
Kristen Cross
Page 175 of 209
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MARX, ACIP – ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2026
SUBJECT: 614 CHERRY STREET – VARIATION (CASE NO. 26-03-V)
INTRODUCTION
On January 12, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an
application submitted by Brian Axline (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 614 Cherry
Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant requests approval of the following zoning variations to
allow construction of a covered porch addition and work beyond ordinary repair and maintenance to the
existing legally nonconforming residence on the Subject Property:
1. Side yard setback of 3.04 feet from the west property line, whereas a minimum of 6 feet is
required, a variation of 2.96 feet (49.33%) [Section 17.30.060 – Side Yard Setback] [ Note: The
existing residence currently provides a west side yard setback of 2.96 feet]; and
2. Structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally nonconforming
west side building wall of the existing residence that provides a side yard setback of 2.96 feet,
whereas a minimum of 6 feet is required [Section 17.64.060 – Nonconformities].
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on December 25, 2025. As of
the date of this memo, staff has received two written comments from the public regarding this
application, which are included as Attachment E.
The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has final jurisdiction on this request as the Board has the authority
to grant a variation to reduce side yard setbacks for any principal building by no more than 50%.
Typically, the Zoning Administrator has final jurisdiction on requests to allow structural changes
necessary to provide new window and door openings in a legally nonconforming side building wall;
however, since this request includes additional zoning relief for which the Zoning Administrator does
not have jurisdiction, the ZBA also has final jurisdiction on the request to allow structural changes to
provide a new window opening in the legally nonconforming west side building wall.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 0.2 acres in size, is located on the south side of Cherry Street
between Cedar and Walnut Streets and contains an existing two-story residence with a detached garage
(see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-4 Single Family Residential and is bordered by R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west, south, and east while properties to the north, on the other side of Cherry Street,
are zoned R-5 Single Family Residential (see Figure 2). The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject
Page 1
Page 176 of 209
Property as appropriate for single family residential development. The zoning of the property is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The existing lot is a legally nonconforming interior lot that is 8,776.8 square feet in lot area, while the
minimum required lot area for an interior lot in the R-4 District is 12,600 square feet. Additionally, the
lot has an average lot width of 47 feet, while the minimum required average lot width for an interior lot
is 60 feet in the R-4 District. In addition to the legally nonconforming west side yard setback, the existing
detached garage encroaches into the required east side yard setback of 8 feet from the east property
line with a setback of 2.57 feet.
Cherry Street
Cedar Street Walnut
Street
Subject Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
Page 2
Page 177 of 209
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
The residence was constructed in approximately 1920 with a detached garage constructed in 1921. Other
minor permits have been issued over the last several years. The Applicant acquired the property in 2014.
There are no previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property.
In November 2025, a building permit for the proposed improvements was submitted and reviewed by
staff. On December 5, 2025, a plan review letter was issued informing the Applicant of the zoning
deficiencies of the proposed plan. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted the variation application which
is currently being considered by the ZBA.
Figures 3 through 5 below and on the following pages are photos of the Subject Property.
Figure 3 – Subject Property - Front Elevation (Cherry Street - North)
Page 3
Page 178 of 209
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Front and West Side Elevations
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Partial Rear Elevation (South)
Page 4
Page 179 of 209
PROPOSED PLAN
The variations are being requested in order to construct a one-story covered porch on the rear of the
residence while also installing a new window opening on the second floor as part of an interior remodeling
project. The existing stoop of approximately 54 square feet on the southwest corner of the residence
identified in Figure 5 would be removed and replaced with a larger covered porch measuring 108.75
square feet in area. The porch would be set back an additional 1 inch from the nonconforming west side
building wall, which is 2.96 feet from the property line at its closest point.
The second-floor remodeling project would involve the removal of an existing window and installation of
a new window opening in the west side building wall that would provide light for a new bathroom within
the footprint of the current primary bedroom. With the exception of the two requested variations, the
proposed improvements comply with the zoning regulations.
Excerpts of the proposed site plan, floor plan, and building elevations are provided below and on the
following pages as Figures 6 through 8. The complete set of plans is provided in the application materials
(Attachment C).
General
Location of
Proposed
New Window
Opening
Proposed Rear
Porch Addition
Figure 6 – Excerpt of Proposed Site Plan
Page 5
Page 180 of 209
Proposed
Second-Floor
Window
Opening
Proposed Rear
Porch Addition
Figure 7 – Proposed First-Floor Plan and Second-Floor Plan
Proposed Rear
Proposed Porch Addition
Window
Opening
Proposed Rear
Porch Addition
Figure 8 – Proposed Rear (South) and Side (West) Elevations
Given the ZBA often receives questions regarding the stormwater regulations applicable to a specific
request being considered by the ZBA, attached is a Stormwater Matrix (Attachment B). The Village
Engineering Department approved the building permit application submitted in November for the
proposed improvements, noting that the proposed project does not increase the impermeable lot
coverage and thus does not trigger stormwater detention, however, stormwater must be managed on-
site. Figure 9 on the following page represents the Subject Property’s proximity to the floodplain; the
cyan represents the 100-year floodplain.
Page 6
Page 181 of 209
Subject
Property
Figure 9 - GIS Floodplain Map
REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF
The attached Zoning Matrix highlights the existing lot and the proposed improvement’s compliance with
the R-4 zoning district (Attachment A). Two variations are being requested: (1) side yard setback; and (2)
structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening.
Side Yard Setback (West Property Line). The existing residence is currently legally nonconforming with
respect to the minimum required side yard setback as it currently provides a side yard setback of 2.96
feet from the west property line, encroaching the minimum required setback of 6 feet by 3.04 feet. The
proposed rear porch addition would provide a west side yard setback of 3.04 feet, requiring a variation
of 2.96 feet (49.33%).
Structural Changes for New Window Opening. Zoning relief is necessary to allow the proposed window
opening in the legally nonconforming west side building wall of the existing residence that provides a side
yard setback of 2.96 feet, whereas a minimum of 6 feet is required. Existing doors and windows may be
replaced in the same location and size; however, enlarged or relocated doors and windows in a
nonconforming side building wall require approval of a zoning variation.
FINDINGS
In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement
of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the requested
zoning variations. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such
variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to approve the requested variations?
Staff has prepared the attached draft resolutions for the Board’s consideration (Attachment D). One
resolution approves the request, while the other denies the request. A Board member may wish to make
a motion to: (i) adopt the resolution to approve the requested variations; (ii) adopt the resolution to deny
the requested variations; or (iii) continue the case to a specific date.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment D: Draft Resolutions
Attachment B: Stormwater Matrix Attachment E: Public Correspondence
Attachment C: Application Materials
Page 7
Page 182 of 209
ATTACHMENT A
ZONING MATRIX
ADDRESS: 614 Cherry Street
CASE NO: 26-03-V
ZONING: R-4
MIN/MAX DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITEM REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED & EXISTING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE (2)
Min. Lot Size 12,600 SF 8,776.8 SF N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Average Lot Width 60 FT 47 FT N/A N/A EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Lot Depth 120 FT 186.74 FT N/A N/A OK
Max. Roofed Lot Coverage 2,369.73 SF (1) 1,457.71 SF 1,512.46 SF 54.75 SF OK
Max. Gross Floor Area 3,510.72 SF (1) 2,356.71 SF 2,465.46 SF 108.75 SF OK
Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage 4,388.4 SF (1) 3,117.71 SF 3,117.71 SF 0 FT OK
Min. Front Yard (Cherry Street) 30 FT 31.77 FT 31.77 FT 0 FT OK
Min. Side Yard (West) 6 FT 2.96 FT 3.04 FT (4) 0 FT 2.96 FT (49.33%) VARIATION
Min. Side Yard (East) 8 FT 2.57 FT (3) 2.57 FT (3) 0 FT EXISTING NONCONFORMING
Min. Rear Yard (South) 25 FT 111.55 ft 111.55 ft 0 FT OK
NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 8,776.8 square feet
(2) Variation amount is the difference between proposed and requirement.
(3) Setback to existing detached garage. Residence complies with east side yard setback at distance of 14.95 feet.
(4) Setback to proposed rear porch addition. Existing nonconforming setback of 2.96 feet will remain.
(5) Variation required to allow structutral changes necessary to add new window opening in the legally
nonconforming west building wall that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback.
Page 183 of 209
ATTACHMENT B
Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites
In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must
meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water
release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. An exception is for lots along the lakefront that
directly discharge into Lake Michigan; those lots are not required to provide stormwater volume detention on-
site. They are required to meet all other Village stormwater system design requirements.
Storm Water Detention Volume Applicable Requirement
Requirements
A. New Home Construction - The amount of additional required storm
Previously Developed Lot water detention volume is based upon
the difference between maximum
impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning
Code, and existing lot coverage, using the
run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm
event for both.
B. New Home Construction - The amount of required storm water
Previously Undeveloped Site detention volume is based upon the
maximum impermeable lot coverage,
using the run-off coefficient for 100-year
storm event.
C. Redevelopment of Site for The amount of required storm water
Different Use detention volume is based upon the
(e.g. single family to multi- maximum impermeable lot coverage,
family, or commercial) using the run-off coefficient for 100-year
storm event.
D. Improvements to Existing The amount of additional required storm Applies to 614 Cherry Street.
Home and/or Lot, causing an water detention volume is based upon Based upon preliminary review
increase in impermeable lot the difference between the proposed of information to date, it
coverage greater or equal to and existing impermeable lot coverage, appears that 614 Cherry Street
25%. using the run-off coefficient for 100 year would not have to provide
storm event. (Note: If the increase in additional storm water
impermeable lot coverage is less than detention volume. The
25%, additional storm water detention Engineering Department
volume is not required.) approved the plans that were
submitted in the original
building permit application.
E. Improvements to existing The amount of additional required storm
lots, who currently exceed water detention volume is based upon:
maximum impermeable lot a) The amount of the impermeable lot
coverage (e.g., School sites, coverage (ILC) currently in excess of
single family and multi- the maximum permitted amount of
family sites) ILC allowed by zoning that will be
removed and replaced, and/or
b) The amount of ILC in addition to
what currently exists on the lot.
Page 184 of 209
ATTACHMENT B
Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites
The amount of required detention
volume is then determined using the run-
off coefficient for 100-year storm event.
Page 185 of 209
ATTACHMENT C
Page 186 of 209
Page 187 of 209
Page 188 of 209
614 Cherry – Subject Property Photos
Page 189 of 209
Page 190 of 209
Page 191 of 209
Page 192 of 209
Page 193 of 209
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-01-2026
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-03-V – 614 CHERRY STREET
WHEREAS, Brian and Jill Axline (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property
commonly known as 614 Cherry Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached
to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence that is
nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the west property line
(“Building”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a one-story rear porch addition to the Building
and create a new window opening in the legally nonconforming west side building wall of the Building
on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback; and
(ii) require structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally
nonconforming west side building wall of the existing Building that provides less than the minimum
required side yard setback; (“Proposed Improvement”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning
Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary
to allow enlarged or relocated windows in a nonconforming side building wall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject
Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 6 feet, a violation of Section
17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) construct a new window opening in the legally
nonconforming west side building wall that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback
of 6 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Sections 17.30.060 and
17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with
(i) a side yard setback of 3.04 feet; and (ii) a new window opening in the existing west side building
wall that provides a setback of 2.96 feet; (“Requested Variations”); and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on December 25,
2025, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250
feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a
meeting held on January 12, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the
final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on January 12, 2026;
and
Page 194 of 209
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows:
1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated
November 22, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions
and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and
2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do
satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will serve and be in the best
interest of the Village and its residents to grant the application for (i) side yard setback variation; and
(ii) the structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening variation in accordance with,
and subject to, the conditions, restrictions, and provisions of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka,
Cook County, Illinois, that:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this
Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF VARIATIONS. Subject to and contingent upon the conditions,
restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section Three of this Resolution, the requested (i) side yard
setback variation from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) structural changes to allow
a new window opening in a nonconforming side building wall variation from Section 17.64.060 of the
Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property is hereby granted, in
accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of
the Village.
SECTION 3. CONDITIONS. Notwithstanding any use or development right that may be
applicable or available pursuant to the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance or any other rights
the Applicant may have, the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution is hereby expressly
subject to and contingent upon compliance with each and all of the following conditions:
A. Compliance with Plans. Except for minor changes and site work approved by the
Director of Community Development in accordance with all applicable Village
standards, the development, use, operation, and maintenance of the Subject Property,
shall comply with those certain plans attached hereto as Exhibit B.
B. Compliance with Regulations. The construction, development, use, operation, and
maintenance of the Proposed Improvement and the Subject Property must comply
with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as the same may be amended from
time to time, except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Resolution.
SECTION 4. RECORDING; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Resolution will be recorded in the
office of the Cook County Clerk Recording Division. This Resolution and the privileges, obligations, and
Page 195 of 209
provisions contained herein will inure solely to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Applicant
and its respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
SECTION 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS. Upon the failure or refusal of the
Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Resolution, the
approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution will, at the sole discretion of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, by Resolution duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that
the Zoning Board of Appeals may not so revoke the approval granted in Section Two of this Resolution
unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for
revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the
event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the
applicable regulations of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, (i) side yard
setback from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) structural changes to provide a new
window opening in a nonconforming side building wall requirement set forth in Section 17.64.060 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village
Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be
appropriate under the circumstances.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to the Requested Variations granted in Section
Two of this Resolution may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards
and limitations, provided in the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A. This Resolution will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events:
B. Passage by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the manner required by law; and
C. The filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and
Consent, in the form of Exhibit C attached to and, by this reference, made a part of
this Resolution, to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and
limitations set forth in this Resolution and to indemnify the Village for any claims that
may arise in connection with the approval of this Resolution.
D. In the event that the Applicant does not file fully executed copies of the Unconditional
Agreement and Consent, as required by Section 7.C of this Resolution, within 60 days
after the date of final passage of this Resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
Zoning Board of Appeals will have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare this
Resolution null and void and of no force or effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Page 196 of 209
ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote:
AYES: ______________________________________________________________________
NAYS: ______________________________________________________________________
ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________________________________
Signed:
____________________________________
Matthew Bradley, Chairperson
Countersigned:
____________________________________
Village Clerk
Page 197 of 209
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The West 47 Feet of the East 93 ½ Feet of the Northwest Quarter of Block 47 in the Village of Winnetka,
Being a Subdivision of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20 and the North One-Half of Fractional Section
21, Township 42 North, Range 13 East of the Third Principal Meridian in Cook County, Illinois.
Commonly known as 614 Cherry Street, Winnetka, Illinois.
Parcel Index Number: 05-21-123-002-0000
Page 198 of 209
EXHIBIT B
PLANS
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B)
Page 199 of 209
EXHIBIT B
Page 200 of 209
Page 201 of 209
------'
• ------
ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE
ROOM FLOOR BASE WALLS C.EILJ�G
BASEMENT
PJ,AYROOM LVP WD2 PAINT PAJNT
BATH#3 CT \VD2 PAINT PAINT
I I , STAIRS TO 15T FLOOR
MECH.ANICJ\L
EXTC
EXl'G
EXTG EXTG
EXTG
EXTG
EXlG P.XTG
jf
BEDROOM#4 I,V"'P WD2 PAINT PAINT
O.,OSET LVP WD2 PA1J',"f PAINT
,, J,AUNDRY LVP \VD2 PAINT PANT
FLOOR#!
FOYER EXTG EXfG EXTG EXl'G
CLOSET KXTG EXl'G .EXTG EXTG
S'f.'ArRS TO 2ND Pf DOR EXTG EXTG EXTG EXTG
LIVING ROOM EXTG EXfG EXTG EXTG
DINING ROOM mrrc EXTG EXTG EXl'G
II
FAMILY ROOM REFEX.'fG P_i\TCH PATNT PANT
Kfl'O-IEN EXTCT Pt\TCH PA1:>JT PAINT
PORC:JI CD WD! PAINT VG
\ ' -:-4
/-,..\ !
FLOOR#2
\ PRIIvfARY BEDROOM EXTG El(fG PAll','l' PAINT
J
EXTGCLOSET EXTG EX1G PAlN'f PAI.NT
\ \.,.-)
NEW CLOSET RXTG WD2 PAINT PAINT
! OPPTCI<'. EXl'G
I
WD2 PAINT PAINT
L__ 1 t�;'.�---- •
Ll
PRJ.fvLA.RY BATH ST WD2 PAlNT PAINT
-1
HALLWAY EXTG EXTG EXTG F.XTG
I r BEDROOM#2 EXTG EXTG EXTG EXTG
CLOSET#2 EXTG EX'l'G .EX.'l'G EXTCT
BATH#2 EXTG .EXTG EXTG EXTG
!
' BEDROOM#3 EXfff Ti:XTCi EXTG EXTG
:----:- CLOSET#3 EXTG EXI'G EXTG EXTG
[ t ·J:,IJ':;:;;1¼+1C)kl,
' I E¥r&' WD1 1x 6 FLAT STOCK
/ ' I J;: �l
j_J M"Y,l� tq,\
_1r
'\::J WD2 11ATCH EXISTING
ST STONE TILlo
I
• CW@ CT CERA.MIC OR PORCET,AN TILE
I VG "\"' GROOVE PANELlNG
1-- ----�--- - -
.j.
CD 5/4x 6" COMPOSITE DECKING
PAINT PA1NT OVER DRYWALL
EXTG EX.lS'l'ING TO REMAIN
C DOOR SCHEDULE HARDWARE HAND
1::Jir..+J t?@e:ezc,.t,_j-, J.Jl�
� -1
' 001 2'-4"x 6'-6"x 3/8" SHOW.ER DOOR/SID.ELITE ''D"RmG L
• ijt 1;J1µC\",;>�1 ,!t;u_/ .
002 2'-4" X 6'-8" X 1 3/8" PRIVACY L
003 2'-4" X 6'-8' X 1 3/8" PASS.AGE L
.
004 2'-6" X 6'-8" X 1 3/8" PASSAGE L
i 10'1 2'-8"x 6'-8'x 1 -%" WOOD/GLASS EXTERIOR J,OCKSET/DEADBOLT R
102 :i\.fARVIN ELSPD 6068 XO
p 201 2'-4" x 7'-0''x 3/8" SHOW'ER DOOR/Slnl�LITE
MULTIPOINT LOCK R
I
"D"RING T,
202 2'-,6" X 6'-8'' X 1 3/8" POCKET
'' j 203 2'-4" X 6'-8" X 1 3/8" POCKET
r-"""- ,______ 204 2'-6" X 6'-8" X 1 3/8" PASSAGE L
205 2'-6"x 6'-S"'x 1 3/8" POCKET
tf1,,J1
NEW INTERIOR DOORS TO BE .MATCH EXIS'I1NG 6 PANEL S1YLE 1'DR PATNT FINISH. HINGES TO
BE SATIN BRASS. CASING TO M\TClI EXISTING FLAT STOCK Wnn BACKBA....l\JD FOR PAINT
FINISH INCLUDE AJJ DWANCE OF $125.00/EA FOR NEW INI'ERIOR DOOR HARDWARE, AND
$250.00 FOR EXITIRlOR DOOR#101 HARDWARE. DOOH.#101 TO BE SI\-IPSO:N#75'12, .FIR TUR PAINT
.FINISH W1'1'1I IG, WATER BARRIER AND ULTRABf DCK TEG-INOWGY,. L.'JCLUD.E $4,000.00
i Al.LOWANCE FOR SHOWER DOORS#001.AND 20L HARDWARE TO .:MATCH PLUMBING FTXURE
f,JNISIT.
i 'ft
ELECTRICAL SCHEDlJIR
DUPLEX OUTLET
QU.ADRAPJ ,EX OUTLET
SEP.A, RATE CIRCUIT OU1LET
- GROUND FAULT cmcurr INTERRUPTER
--·.\,� -- �-.,.
.-,; RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE
f-BOX FOR O\'(INEJ.l RJRNISHED LIGHT flIXTUirn
.EXmRlOR SPO'ILIGID'
c.-t [J.,!",;j"'i" LED STRIP LIGHT
-�-.:........_�:J..
c:::1 INPR.ARr--ill HEATER
$ SINGLE TOGGLE SWl'fOI
IBI
$3 3-W _I\Y SWH'CI J
$D ELECTRONIC DTh'L\lER SWITCH
H.AR.D\VTRFD SMOKE DETECTOR
L--··------------------,-,------- -�-- DOOR CHfaffi
EXHAUST FAN - PANASONlC 1'V-20VQ3
BASEMENT PLAN CARBON MO:\JOXIDE DETECTOR
¼":::: 1'-0"
NEW CONSTRUCTION Qllil!!liitl\
2ND FLOOR PLAN
1//' :::::: 1'~O"
NEW CONSTRUCTION &il!!!!!il
.~·--··--- -··"--•·-----·--.. ,... . -,·-""···-,,;::,,",,. ,....,:,., -.c- '" J.
•~·•····"" --�_;_-·-;.;,cc�jl .\.=-=�=--:.:..s ..··~··�···· ·· ·-··v;,. ....,.s.,7�.""-,,C ·, ." ,c,··,;·�,., ',
··----·-· ----·� ·• l '"�.. --------" '"' -�- · -,
>
·-
""""'•-~ " · " " " " -
&"�-----,
?
' '#-1(,,r:?4 � /4.{WlH 1/
' ' ,ft;J./fJ?;J2eo· r:i--tf,,;·t+:";.
I
:L _.._ - ~�--�•
-
;.. .... · " ·�
!--- �-------------------
- ·. , .
i "i: ➔-";-I
-·- ......
I
I/ H l! 'I' ':
{i
ii• -.+7".fcC,,,j..
I' I!' Ji1\
r-L
']-
!
>'i
>
1. :�,j i
I
' ' �-,, 'I·ji r---r
J• I -,
I'
' 01I • •1--- ii I "_./" �--
I ,.._ '
i
1
1 �i - ·.I '1-----L
ri V·l
;, i
J
' j -�-- ......!..,.. - i
AXLINE RESIDENCE
614 CHERRY ST.
I
WINNETKA, IL. 60093
I
HEALY M. RICE, PC
___··.t___ 415 WASHINGTON AVE.
.I.- WILMETTE, IL 60091
847-853-0824
,-+
...L --
healyrice1@gmail.com
_,_
_ _ -� \ DATE 1NOV25
WEST ELEVATION
- --
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION REVISED
1//':::;:: 1'-0 n ¼" = 1'-0" ¼" = 1'-0"
SHEET 3 OF3
Page 202 of 209
EXHIBIT C
UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT
TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois (“Village”):
WHEREAS, Brian and Jill Axline (collectively, the “Owner”) are the owner of record of that
certain real property located at 614 Cherry Street, Winnetka, Illinois (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. ZBA-01-2026, adopted by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals on
January 12, 2026 (“Resolution”), grants variations to construct a one-story porch addition and relocate
a window in the existing legally nonconforming west side building wall of the existing single family
residence on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.A.2 of the Resolution provides, among other things, that the Resolution
will be of no force or effect unless and until the Owner has filed, within 60 days following the passage
of the Resolution, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the
terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby agree and covenant as follows:
1. The Owner hereby unconditionally agrees to accept, consent to, and abide by each and
all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Resolution.
2. The Owner acknowledges that public notices and public hearings have been properly
given and held with respect to the adoption of the Resolution, have considered the possibility of the
revocation provided for in the Resolution, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the
grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right.
3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way,
liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village’s granting of the
variations, and that the Village’s approval of the variations does not, and will not, in any way, be
deemed to insure the Owner against damage or injury of any kind and at any time.
4. The Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village’s
corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents,
representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any
of such parties in connection with the Village’s adoption of the Resolution granting the variations for
the Property.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Page 203 of 209
Dated: _____________________, 2026.
ATTEST OWNER
By: By:
Brian Axline
Name:_______________________ By: _________________________________
Jill Axline
Page 204 of 209
RESOLUTION NO. ZBA-01-2026
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DENIAL OF ZBA CASE NO. 26-03-V – 614 CHERRY STREET
WHEREAS, Brian and Jill Axline (collectively, the “Applicant”) are the owners of the property
commonly known as 614 Cherry Street, Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached
to and, by this reference, made part of this Resolution (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the R-4 Single Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is improved with a single-family residence that is
nonconforming with respect to the minimum required side yard setback from the west property line
(“Building”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct a one-story rear porch addition to the Building
and create a new window opening in the legally nonconforming west side building wall of the Building
on the Subject Property that would (i) provide less than the minimum required side yard setback; and
(ii) require structural changes necessary to provide a new window opening in the legally
nonconforming west side building wall of the existing Building that provides less than the minimum
required side yard setback; (“Proposed Improvement”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning
Ordinance”), the Subject Property is required a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, zoning relief is necessary
to allow enlarged or relocated windows in a nonconforming side building wall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to construct the Proposed Improvement on the Subject
Property with (i) a minimum side yard setback that is less than the required 6 feet, a violation of Section
17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) construct a new window opening in the legally
nonconforming west side building wall that provides less than the minimum required side yard setback
of 6 feet, a violation of Section 17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for variations from Sections 17.30.060 and
17.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Improvement on the Subject Property with
(i) a side yard setback of 3.04 feet; and (ii) a new window opening in the existing west side building
wall that provides a setback of 2.96 feet; (“Requested Variations”); and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the Requested Variations was duly published on December 25,
2025, in the Winnetka Talk and notice was mailed to the owners of record of all properties within 250
feet of the Subject Property as required by the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals during a
meeting held on January 12, 2026, for the purpose of considering the Requested Variations with the
final decision being rendered at the Zoning Board of Appeal’s Regular Meeting on January 12, 2026;
and
Page 205 of 209
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the evidence presented, as follows:
1. Application for the Requested Variations submitted by the Applicant, dated
November 22, 2025, including all attachments as well as all subsequent additions
and revisions to these application materials and attachments; and
2. All written and oral testimony concerning the Requested Variations.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the Requested Variations do not
satisfy the standards for a variation provided in Sections 17.60.040 and 17.60.050 of the Winnetka
Zoning Ordinance because (i) the Requested Variations are not in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; (ii) the Subject Property can yield a reasonable return if
it is permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed for the R-4 Single Family Residential
District; and (iii) the plight of the Applicant is not due to unique circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that it will not serve and be in the best
interest of the Village and its residents to approve the Requested Variations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Winnetka,
Cook County, Illinois, that:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made part of, this
Resolution as the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SECTION 2. DENIAL OF VARIATIONS. In accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the
Winnetka Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village, the Zoning Board of Appeals
denies the Requested Variations for the Subject Property.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be effective upon passage by the Zoning
Board of Appeals in the manner required by law.
ADOPTED this 12th day of January, 2026, pursuant to the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Signed:
____________________________________
Matthew Bradley, Chairperson
Countersigned:
_______________________________________
Village Clerk
Page 206 of 209
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The West 47 Feet of the East 93 ½ Feet of the Northwest Quarter of Block 47 in the Village of Winnetka,
Being a Subdivision of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20 and the North One-Half of Fractional Section
21, Township 42 North, Range 13 East of the Third Principal Meridian in Cook County, Illinois.
Commonly known as 614 Cherry Street, Winnetka, Illinois.
Parcel Index Number: 05-21-123-002-0000
Page 207 of 209
ATTACHMENT E
From:
To:
Subject: 614 Cherry Rear Porch 26-03-V
Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 8:41:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My wife and I reside at 605 Cherry Street across from the 614 Cherry Home since 1985.
I have reviewed the variance request for a covered rear porch at their home.
We have no problem with this reasonable addition to 614 Cherry Street and support allowing this project to proceed.
Sincerely,
Phil and Lucy Hoza
605 Cherry Street
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
Sent from my iPhone
Page 208 of 209
From:
To: Planning
Subject: Case No. 26-03-V
Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 9:22:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from rjburgdorfer@gmail.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.
Hello:
We are writing in support of the rear porch addition project at 614 Cherry St. We know the
homeowner well and believe the plans would fit well within the neighborhood's overall
character and composition.
614 Cherry is a great home. To us, the variance appears reasonable and logical. Our view is
that preserving homes like this to adapt to today's living norms is much better than forcing a
sale where the home might be demolished.
We are happy to talk with the committee if further views are helpful.
Best Regards,
Rex Burgdorfer
Page 209 of 209