Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingWinnetka, IL · March 16, 2026
Minutes
Minutes adopted 04.13.2026
1 WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
2 MARCH 16, 2026
3
4 Zoning Board Members Present: Matt Bradley, Chairman
5 Mark Haller
6 Kathryn Leister
7 Mike Nielsen
8 Michael Ritter
9
10 Zoning Board Members Absent: Lynn Hanley
11 Todd Vender
12
13 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development
14 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
15 Development
16
17 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
18
19 Call to Order & Roll Call:
20 Chairman Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members
21 present.
22
23 Community Development Report.
24 Mr. Mangum informed the Board there were no actions taken on items by the Village Council since the
25 last Board meeting. He provided an update on 1086 Fisher and 936 Sunset as well as for Village Council
26 consideration regarding a zoning text amendment for corner lots with three frontages.
27
28 Public Comment:
29 No comments were made at this time.
30
31 Recommendations and Determinations:
32 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of approval of
33 findings and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the Special Use Permit application to
34 allow installation of fencing on the existing beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
35 Chairman Bradley confirmed there would be no staff presentation and asked for clarification that the
36 Board Members reviewed the Findings and Recommendations included in the agenda packet and asked
37 if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. He then asked for a motion to
38 approve.
39
40 A motion to approve the Findings of Fact was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote
41 was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
42 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
43 NAYS: None
44
45 New Cases:
46 a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An application seeking
47 approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the two existing lots into a single lot of record,
48 which requires variations to allow the existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue to: (a) observe less
March 16, 2026 Page 2
1 than the minimum required side yard setback from the northerly property line, which is due to an
2 increase in the minimum required side yard setback as a result of the proposed increase in total lot
3 area and increase in average lot width; and (b) not provide the required building line articulation
4 along the north side building walls. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
5 Ms. Klaassen summarized the application to request the consolidation of two existing lots into a single
6 lot of record and identified the property’s location, zoning classification and lot size of both lots as well
7 as the existing improvements. She referred to photos of both lots noting the applicant resided at 833
8 Foxdale which they acquired in 2005 with the adjacent parcel purchased in 2024. Ms. Klaassen noted a
9 demolition permit was approved by the HPC for 829 Foxdale.
10
11 Ms. Klaassen stated the consolidation would create a single buildable lot measuring nearly 15,000
12 square feet and the applicant planned to build an addition on the south side of the existing residence at
13 833 Foxdale and a detached garage. She identified plans to maintain both garages during construction
14 for storage. She noted the consolidation complied with zoning lot size standards, which she identified
15 for the Board and noted it would create one conforming lot. Ms. Klaassen also noted if a consolidation
16 resulted in a lot measuring more than two times the minimum lot size or more than two times the
17 minimum required average lot width, a special use permit would be required and confirmed the
18 application did not require a special use permit.
19
20 Ms. Klaassen described the two necessary zoning variations in detail as a result of the consolidation and
21 the nonconformity which would be eliminated. She summarized the Plan Commission’s (PC)
22 consideration of the request and its recommendation of denial and noted the Board is to review the
23 request with regard to eight zoning standards. Ms. Klaassen referred to emails received in connection
24 with the request and stated following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board
25 discussion, the Board may decide to either continue the matter to a date certain to allow time to
26 address questions or comments or make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the requested
27 variations with draft language included on page no. 187. She then asked if there were any questions.
28
29 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. He referred to the 2x the minimum lot area
30 and average lot width provision requiring approval of a special use permit. No questions were raised at
31 this time.
32
33 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Chip Hackley of Hackley & Associates
34 Architects stated he represented Stephen and Deanna Nied and described the request as a technicality
35 in terms of the application of zoning and lot consolidation. He stated the existing home is currently
36 nonconforming and once the lots are consolidated, larger side yard setbacks are required. Mr. Hackley
37 summarized the plan to maintain the existing home at 833 Foxdale, remove the 829 Foxdale home and
38 expand the 833 Foxdale home which would also eliminate a narrow shared driveway. He stated their
39 intent is to maintain the continuity on Foxdale and a new home could result in a very large home and
40 affect the block contextually. Mr. Hackley referred to the home’s front elevation illustration and
41 preliminary plans and described the renovation to be done to the home.
42
43 Chairman Bradley asked if there were any questions. Mr. Nielsen asked if the consolidation assumed any
44 further variations. Mr. Hackley responded there would be none and described the relief obtained on the
45 south side of the property once the home is taken down. Mr. Haller referred to the existing north side
46 elevation and home design and asked if their intent is to mimic the character in terms of the home’s
47 design elements. Mr. Hackley confirmed that is correct as well as improve some of the home’s details.
48 He also described the distance between the home and the lot line.
March 16, 2026 Page 3
1 Chairman Bradley referred to the first standard with regard to whether 833 Foxdale would be able to
2 obtain a reasonable return as well as sizes of neighboring homes which are existing nonconforming. He
3 asked why the home could not otherwise yield a reasonable return without consolidation. Mr. Hackley
4 responded the most important consideration in connection with reasonable return related to how the
5 lot is used and referred to the shared driveway removal which represented a dangerous and
6 uncomfortable situation. He also stated it is not possible to have two driveways on both lots. Chairman
7 Bradley stated the driveway situation was not sufficiently addressed at the PC meeting. He also referred
8 to the third standard and precedent setting on Foxdale. Mr. Hackley responded it would not set a
9 precedent and is dependent on how it would be handled. Chairman Bradley stated their attempt is to
10 preserve 833 Foxdale with consolidation as opposed to removing the home at 829 Foxdale and a new
11 home being built. Mr. Hackley confirmed that is correct.
12
13 Deanna Nied stated they have lived at 833 Foxdale for over 20 years, which she described as historic.
14 She stated they have lived with the shared driveway situation for quite some time and were fortunate to
15 be able to purchase the home next door which was not in good shape. Mrs. Nied stated the request
16 would allow them to resolve the driveway situation and asked if there were any questions. No questions
17 were raised at this time.
18
19 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Andy Cripe
20 read his comments into the record. He noted he owned the home from 2005-2015 and summarized his
21 position to recommend approval of the request. Mr. Cripe also described the structural issues in the
22 home and stated the uniqueness of the situation related to more than the narrow shared driveway
23 situation which he explained as the homes’ proximity and driveway slope impeded views. He then
24 stated renovating the home to make it viable would not be practical and asked for the consolidation
25 request be granted to allow the applicants’ home to remain. Mr. Cripe then asked if there were any
26 questions.
27
28 Jason Alcorn stated he lived to the north of the applicants’ home and agreed the homes on Foxdale are
29 tight and nonconforming. He stated as long as nothing else on the property changed, he had no problem
30 with the home. Mr. Alcorn agreed with Mr. Cripe’s analysis of the home and with regard to meeting the
31 standards, otherwise allowing a new home to be built on 829 Foxdale would create an encumbrance
32 with regard to the homes’ proximity as opposed to allowing it to remain a vacant lot.
33
34 Evan Meister, 825 Foxdale, stated he is a commercial builder in Chicago and with regard to preservation
35 and neighborhood character, he described the applicants as neighborhood stewards. He referred to the
36 street’s character and described it as an eclectic street. Mr. Meister stated if the request is not
37 approved, the lot would end up in the hands of a spec developer which would not contribute to
38 neighborhood character. He stated the request would improve the neighborhood.
39
40 Christina Cripe, former 829 Foxdale resident, stated she agreed with the comments made and the
41 request would contribute to the town’s overall aura and asked for the consolidation to be approved. No
42 additional comments were made at this time.
43
44 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion and referred to the standards the Board is to
45 consider. Mr. Haller stated after having reviewed the standards, he referred to the first two standards in
46 particular and referred to the 829 Foxdale home which is in disrepair and requires substantial expense
47 to repair. He stated if it is removed and a new home built, there would be a challenge in terms of the
48 shared driveway. Mr. Haller stated there are unique circumstances with regard to both properties and
March 16, 2026 Page 4
1 the consolidation would not otherwise physically change anything on the street. He stated the
2 alternative to tear down both homes and build a new home would result in a risk to the neighborhood
3 character and he would lean toward recommending approval.
4
5 Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Haller’s comments and added the home would be attractive with the
6 addition of green space. He stated given the alternative and while the first two standards were not
7 clearly met, he would be in favor of recommending approval. Ms. Leister stated her initial thought was
8 not to recommend approval in connection with the second standard and that the addition would change
9 the character of the locality. She stated after hearing the testimony, the 8-foot driveway is tighter than
10 is more typically seen and with the plan to maintain the existing home’s character and the neighbors’
11 comments, she would be in favor of the request.
12
13 Mr. Nielsen referred to three particular standards and the written comment received and determined
14 there are three options including tearing down both homes which would result in one large home out of
15 character for the neighborhood, tear down one home to allow 833 Foxdale to have a larger lot or the
16 proposed plan. He stated the proposed plans for the home made a big difference for him and while the
17 home would be larger, hearing the public comment with regard to the shared driveway and safety
18 issues, he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Nielsen concluded the proposal is by far the best option.
19 Chairman Bradley stated with regard to the zoning relief requested, he would be in support of the
20 request although the reasonable return standard is difficult to meet and referred to the amount of
21 homes which do not have driveways.
22
23 Chairman Bradley then asked for a motion to recommend approval as noted on page 12. A motion as
24 stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken
25 and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
26 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
27 NAYS: None
28
29 b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An application seeking
30 approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center to operate in the existing church. The
31 Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
32 Ms. Klaassen stated the request is for an amendment to a special use permit to lease space in the
33 existing church to Jumpstart Early Learning Services to operate a childcare center. She noted the existing
34 special use permit was granted in 1998 which she described to the Board. Ms. Klaassen identified the
35 property’s location, zoning classification and existing improvements as well as a limited range of
36 additional uses. She then referred to existing site photos and employees and students which would
37 occupy the space. Ms. Klaassen noted the proposed plan did not include any building or parking lot
38 expansion or playground with an amendment needed to the special use if a playground is proposed in
39 the future. She stated the applicant received preliminary DCFS approval and DCFS required final
40 approval by the Village and minor facility modifications. Ms. Klaassen identified staff parking and noted
41 a traffic impact study was prepared by Gewalt Hamilton and provided in the application materials. She
42 then read the recommendations provided by the Village Engineer.
43
44 Ms. Klaassen summarized the PC’s consideration of the request with a recommendation of approval and
45 conditions. She also identified the six special use standards the Board is to consider and stated following
46 the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Board discussion, the Board may decide to continue
47 the matter to a date certain or provide a recommendation with draft language included on page nos.
48 216 and 217. Ms. Klaassen then asked if there were any questions.
March 16, 2026 Page 5
1 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time.
2
3 Chairman Bradley swore in those speaking to this matter. Amy Falkowski presented the request on
4 behalf of the applicant and clarified the special use application request is for a day care and not a pre-
5 school. She summarized the church’s history and how they have participated in the community. Ms.
6 Falkowski stated they discussed the proposed plan with the neighbors and had a traffic study
7 performed. She added they are prepared in terms of traffic with regard to the proposed use. She then
8 stated the request is in response to the community’s needs and is in response to the Comprehensive
9 Plan.
10
11 Ms. Falkowski stated in response to the questions raised, she explained the capacity in terms of children,
12 teachers and size of the space. She referred to an illustration and described the entrance, security
13 systems and traffic flow pattern. Ms. Falkowski also explained their hours of operation and noted a
14 playground is not a DCFS requirement. She also explained the parking spaces which would be occupied
15 by the minimal number of employees. Ms. Falkowski added the drop-off and pickup process is efficient
16 and has been successfully implemented in their other locations. She outlined the minor interior changes
17 to be done to accommodate the use. Ms. Falkowski stated the proposed use would bring neighborhood
18 vitality, jobs and increased business patronage. She also informed the Board that DCFS reviewed the
19 building and indicated once the minor modifications have been approved, they would provide their final
20 approval.
21
22 Ms. Falkowski explained the traffic study conducted in the neighborhood which determined there would
23 be no significant impact during heavy traffic hours. She outlined how the circular driveway would be
24 used and that signage would be installed to direct traffic with directions also provided to parents. Ms.
25 Falkowski referred to the findings that there would be very little change in terms of traffic and provided
26 additional information in terms of staging and preparation in terms of pickup and drop-off. She stated
27 there would be no issues in terms of utility usage and confirmed there would be no changes outside.
28 Ms. Falkowski reiterated the need for daycare in the Village and asked if there were any questions.
29
30 Chairman Bradley also asked if there were any questions. Mr. Haller asked if they anticipated if at
31 capacity whether they would be able to transition vehicles without a queue. Ms. Falkowski confirmed
32 that is correct and explained how the queue would operate as well as the anticipated traffic pattern. Mr.
33 Nielsen questioned the increase in the number of children from 8 to 64. Ms. Falkowski confirmed the 64
34 figure represented DCFS capacity. She also explained their response to Lincoln Avenue which was not
35 addressed in the traffic study as well as the traffic flow from Green Bay Road. Ms. Falkowski confirmed
36 they would address any issues that arise and confirmed there have been no complaints in terms of
37 Sunday traffic.
38
39 Victor Cuebas explained the admission and application process to the Board and noted the application
40 included preferred drop-off and pickup times. Chairman Bradley referred to the first standard and
41 questioned the applicant’s background and verification process which Mr. Cuebas explained in detail to
42 the Board. Mr. Haller questioned the involvement of those higher in the organization than the applicant.
43 Mr. Cuebas explained they have a corporate office to which they report. No additional questions were
44 raised at this time.
45
46 Chairman Bradley asked for public comment and swore in those speaking to this matter. Dave
47 Robertson stated he is a church member and is familiar with the parking lot, the lots which were built
March 16, 2026 Page 6
1 and their usage. He stated double parking may be the only issue with the main issue related to the
2 existing parking lot off Prospect.
3
4 Colleen Root stated she is also a church member and described her route to the church used several
5 times daily. She stated the traffic patterns can be managed and commented on her pleasure in terms of
6 how the special use application was handled. No additional comments were made at this time.
7
8 Chairman Bradley called the matter in for discussion. Mr. Ritter stated the primary impediment to him
9 with regard to the standards related to the traffic and parking issue and referred to the applicant’s
10 attempts to address the issues. He stated he had no problem with the request. Ms. Leister agreed with
11 Mr. Ritter’s comments and stated her only concern related to traffic and parking. She stated the correct
12 analysis had been done and the situation would not be made worse than it is currently. Mr. Nielsen
13 referred to the standards related to parking, access roads and properties in the immediate vicinity and
14 the access off Prospect and Lincoln that he is fine with. He stated with regard to standard (d) relating to
15 parking and congestion, he referred to the Community House and nursery school and the number of
16 children and drop-off. Mr. Nielsen also referred to the existing amount of traffic from Pine off of Green
17 Bay Road and questioned the impact of both schools doing drop-offs at the same time.
18
19 Mr. Haller stated he is also familiar with the church and its activities. He referred to difficulties with the
20 circular driveway and the ability of users to navigate the circumstances. Mr. Haller stated he is minimally
21 concerned with the amount of traffic from Pine to Green Bay Road and the ability of the church to deal
22 with issues as they come up. He stated the use would definitely benefit the community and concluded
23 he would be in favor of the request. Chairman Bradley informed the Board of the PC’s discussion with
24 regard to the need for additional daycare solutions and collaboration. He stated he is also concerned
25 with regard to the traffic chokepoint and referred to traffic flow requirements being addressed prior to
26 Village Council approval in terms of how traffic flow and communication with parents would be
27 navigated. Chairman Bradley concluded that otherwise the standards have been met and asked for a
28 motion to recommend approval of the special use request as indicated on page 216.
29
30 A motion as stated by Chairman Bradley was made by Mr. Haller and seconded by Mr. Nielsen. A vote
31 was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
32 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
33 NAYS: None
34
35 New Business:
36 a. April 13, 2026, Meeting - Quorum Check
37 The Board Members discussed their availability.
38
39 Adjournment:
40 Chairman Bradley asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Ritter and
41 seconded by Ms. Leister. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0:
42 AYES: Bradley, Haller, Leister, Nielsen, Ritter
43 NAYS: None
44 The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
45
46 Respectfully submitted,
47 Antionette Johnson
48 Recording Secretary
Agenda
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting
March 16, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Community Development Report
3. Recommendations and Determinations
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of
approval of findings and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the
Special Use Permit application to allow installation of fencing on the existing
beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
4. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An
application seeking approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the
two existing lots into a single lot of record, which requires variations to allow 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. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request.
5. New Business
a. April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
6. Public Comments
7. Adjournment
NOTICE
Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments
prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or
by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All
agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter.
The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with
disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have
questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay
Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).
Packet
Village of Winnetka
Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting
March 16, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Village Hall Council Chambers
510 Green Bay Road
AGENDA
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Community Development Report
3. Recommendations and Determinations
a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: Consideration of
approval of findings and recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the
Special Use Permit application to allow installation of fencing on the existing
beach at 225 Sheridan Road.
4. New Cases
a. Case No. 25-29-SD: 829 Foxdale Avenue and 833 Foxdale Avenue: An
application seeking approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the
two existing lots into a single lot of record, which requires variations to allow 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. The
Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request.
b. Case No. 25-24-SU: Winnetka Congregational Church - 725 Pine Street: An
application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a childcare center
to operate in the existing church. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on
this request.
5. New Business
a. April 13, 2026, Regular Meeting - Quorum Check
6. Public Comments
7. Adjournment
Page 1 of 316
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 316
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 12, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNITAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to consider the attached findings
and recommendation of the ZBA in response to an amended application submitted by the Winnetka Park
District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject
Property”) and considered by the ZBA on March 9, 2026, (Attachment A2). The Applicant is proposing
installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the
following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
As of the date of this memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this
request. Written comments that were not included in the March 9 ZBA agenda packet but were
distributed to the ZBA in time for that meeting, as well as written comments received since the March 9
meeting are included in Attachment C2.
MARCH 9, 2026, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
On March 9, 2026, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on the Applicant’s amended zoning relief
application for proposed improvements to the existing beach located on the Subject Property. The staff
report for the March 9 meeting can be found in Attachment B2.
After a presentation by staff and a presentation by the Applicant, the ZBA heard from 15 members of the
public. 14 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The ZBA then discussed the request.
Members expressed concerns regarding, among other things, the possible hazards that are created by the
proposed fencing, the need for the proposed fencing, the size of the proposed fencing, the location of the
proposed fencing, as well as the size of the proposed off-leash dog beach and the impact of the proposed
fencing on neighboring public property. Additionally, it was noted that the proposed fencing under the
amended application for the off-leash dog beach was piecemeal because the amended application was
only for a small portion of the Village’s beachfront and that approving the proposed fencing for the off-
leash dog beach without an application for the full lakefront project as a whole was not reasonable. Board
members also expressed concern that the amended application still creates parking issues, inconsistent
Page 1
Page 3 of 316
uses at the north and south ends of the same beach with conflicts between dogs and individuals using the
property facilities, and trespass issues on the south with the admission by the Applicant that no
discussions have been had with the owner of the property to the south regarding this issue.
Ultimately, the ZBA found that the proposed special use does not meet the standards for granting a special
use permit and by a vote of 7-0 the ZBA directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation
of denial with written findings and determinations based on the ZBA’s discussion for consideration at the
next ZBA meeting on March 16, 2026.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
On February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the Plan Commission approved written findings and its
recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit, based on the original plan submitted by the Applicant.
The proposed fence also requires approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design of the
proposed fencing. The Design Review Board is scheduled to consider the Certificate of Appropriateness
on March 26, 2026.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
As noted in the March 9 staff report, the ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with
the six standards for granting specials use permits. Attachment A2 contains the findings and
recommendation with regard to the Applicant’s amended special use permit application that were
prepared at the ZBA’s direction during the March 9 meeting. At the March 16, 2026, meeting, the ZBA is
scheduled to consider the findings and recommendation and take a final vote on the request.
If the ZBA is prepared to make a final decision regarding the Special Use Permit request, a member must
make a motion approving the written findings and recommendation to deny the Special Use as requested
by the Applicant in its application to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the Subject
Property.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A2: Findings and Recommendation of ZBA on Special Use Permit application for Case No.
25- 28-SU Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
Attachment B2: March 9, 2026, ZBA Meeting Staff Report
Attachment C2: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of March 9, 2026, ZBA Agenda Packet
Page 2
Page 4 of 316
ATTACHMENT A2
Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
1 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CASE NO. 25-28-SU
SPECIAL USE
APPLICATION BACKGROUND
1. The Winnetka Park District (“Applicant”) is the owner of property commonly known as
Centennial Beach, located at 225 Sheridan Road (“Subject Property”).
2. The Applicant filed an initial application on October 21, 2025 (“Application”), seeking
approval of a special use permit (“Special Use”) to install two chain link fences (“Proposed
Fencing”) to provide an enclosed area on the Subject Property for an off-leash dog beach.
3. The Subject Property is located in the Village’s R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District
and the Lakefront Preservation Overlay District pursuant to the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance,
as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”).
4. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.3 acres and is located on the east side of
Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane.
5. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards (i) the street
frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
6. The Plan Commission held a public hearing on the Application and on February 25, 2026,
voted unanimously to approve written findings and its recommendation that the Village
Council deny the requested special use.
7. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted a revised application (“Amended Application”) for
consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Key elements of the revised plan are that (i)
the proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately
265 feet of the beach front for dogs to be off-leash, (ii) a new fence would be included and
located 12 feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach
without entering the off-leash dog area (this fence would be four feet in height above grade);
(iii) the remaining portion of Centennial Beach consisting of approximately 260 feet of lake
frontage would be used as a passive beach without swimming; (iv) the extent to which the
proposed north fence extends beyond the ordinary high water mark is reduced by
approximately 20 feet; (v) with respect to the south fence, the distance between the property
line and the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan stone groin would be approximately 10 feet
and at this location the fence would be north of the property line by approximately 1’ x 11’’;
and (vi) the two lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular so that these
4923-1944-9743, v. 2
Page 5 of 316
Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
2 of 4
sections could be removed during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
REQUESTED SPECIAL USE
The Applicant requests a Special Use for the construction and use of the Proposed Fencing under
the Amended Application. The Zoning Ordinance generally allows park and recreational uses in
any zoning district within the Village but only by special use permit. Therefore, any new park and
recreational facilities or major changes proposed to existing park and recreational facilities, such
as the Proposed Fencing under the Amended Application, requires approval of a special use.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. A public hearing was properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 22, 2026, mail
notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, and a sign
was posted on the Subject Property indicating the time and date of the public hearing.
2. The Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals commenced the public hearing on February 9,
2026, and continued and concluded the public hearing on March 9, 2026.
3. During the public hearing, the Applicant presented testimony and exhibits for the
Amended Application. The Applicant and its team discussed the proposed architectural
design and materials and operational features of the Proposed Fencing for the off-leash
dog beach and the location of the various elements of the fencing and the interplay with
public access to and from north and south of the Property under the Amended
Application. The Applicant testified that in its opinion, the project maintains public
access, improves safety and maintains shoreline connectivity.
4. Approximately 14 members of the public expressed significant concerns about safety,
public access, parking, private property encroachments, and beach obstructions.
5. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals further expressed concerns regarding, among
other things, the possible hazards that are created by the Proposed Fencing, the need
for the Proposed Fencing, the size of the Proposed Fencing, the location of the Proposed
Fencing, as well as the size of the proposed off-leash dog beach and the impact of the
Proposed Fencing on neighboring public property.
6. Additionally, it was noted that the Proposed Fencing under the Amended Application
for the off-leash dog beach was piecemeal because the Amended Application was only
for a small portion of the Village’s beachfront and that approving the Proposed Fencing
for the off-leash dog beach without an application for the full lakefront project as a
whole was not reasonable. Board members also expressed concern that the Amended
4923-1944-9743, v. 2
Page 6 of 316
Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
3 of 4
Application still creates parking issues, inconsistent uses at the north and south ends of
the same beach with conflicts between dogs and individuals using the property
facilities, and trespass issues on the south with the admission by the Park District that
no discussions have been had with the owner of the property to the south regarding this
issue.
FINDINGS REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE
Section 17.56.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides certain special types of uses, which because
of their specific characteristics in relationship to uses permitted by right in a particular district, or
the services which they provide, cannot be properly permitted by right in a particular district
without consideration, in each case, of the impact of such uses upon neighboring land, or of the
public need for such uses at a particular location. A special use is a type of property use permitted
within a zoning district so long as the use meets certain criteria or conditions. The purpose of
special uses is to provide for those uses that are either necessary or generally appropriate for a
community but that may require special regulation because of unique or unusual impacts
associated with them. Pursuant to Section 17.56.120, a special use permit will not be granted unless
it satisfies, in the Village Council’s legislative discretion, the following six standards:
1. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general
welfare;
2. That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the district or
districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the
immediate vicinity;
3. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly
development or improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses
permitted by right in the district or districts of concern;
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a
manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public
ways;
5. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities necessary
to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
6. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this
and other Village ordinances and codes.
4923-1944-9743, v. 2
Page 7 of 316
Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Findings and Recommendation – Case No. 25-28-SU
Special Use
Centennial Beach 225 Sheridan Road
4 of 4
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that, notwithstanding the Applicant’s representations,
regarding compliance with the standards for special uses under the Zoning Ordinance, that the
Proposed Fencing under the Amended Application does not satisfy the required standards under
Section 17.56.120 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the President and Trustees denial of the Special Use
as requested in the Amended Application for the Proposed Fencing.
This report is adopted by a __ to __ vote of the Zoning Board of Appeals, this 16th day of March,
2026.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Respectfully Submitted,
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
4923-1944-9743, v. 2
Page 8 of 316
ATTACHMENT B2
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 4, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On March 9, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a continued public hearing
on an amended application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of
the property located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing
installation of fencing on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the
following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
A mail notice was sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property for the commencement
of the public hearing on February 9, 2026, in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was also
properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on January 22, 2026, and a public notice sign was posted on the
Subject Property indicating the time and date of the February 9 ZBA public hearing. As of the date of this
memo, staff has received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Written
comments that were not included in the February 9 ZBA agenda packet but distributed to the ZBA in time
for that meeting, as well as written comments that have been received since the February 9 meeting are
included in Attachment C1. The public correspondence included in the February 9 agenda packet was
divided into two attachments and are available on the Village website:
1. Public Correspondence Previously Included in PC Agenda Packet:
https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1199/files/attachment/4624
2. Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of January 28, 2026, PC Agenda Packet:
https://winnetkail.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1199/files/attachment/4625
PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW
On January 28, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the Applicant’s initial request for approval
of a special use permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. After a presentation by staff
and a presentation by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. 15 of the speakers
spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request. Members expressed
concerns regarding, among other things, safety of the fencing in the water and people having to walk
Page 1
Page 9 of 316
through an area designated for dogs to be off-leash in order to traverse the beach. Hence, the
Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the standards for granting a special use permit.
After all public comment and after hearing the comments of the PC, the Applicant immediately prior to
the vote asked if it could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and provided for a by-
pass for public access around the dog beach at a future PC meeting. The PC was not receptive to an
amended plan being presented to them after all of the public comments related to the submitted plan.
Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the PC directed the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of
denial with written findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion for consideration at the
next Plan Commission meeting on February 25, 2026.
On, February 25, 2026, by a vote of 6-0, the PC approved the written findings and recommendation to
deny the Special Use Permit.
FEBRUARY 9, 2026, ZBA MEETING
On February 9, 2026, the ZBA commenced a public hearing on the Applicant’s special use permit for
proposed fencing on the beach located on the Subject Property. However, since the Winnetka Park
District Board authorized an amended plan at its February 5 meeting and the amended plan had not been
submitted to the Village for review in advance of the February 9 ZBA meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the ZBA
voted to continue the item to the March 9 ZBA meeting. Although the Applicant has amended its plan
since the staff report for the February 9 meeting was prepared, it can be found in Attachment B1 for the
ZBA’s reference and for details on the original plan that received a negative recommendation from the
PC. A copy of the draft February 9 ZBA meeting minutes is included in the March 9 agenda packet for the
ZBA’s consideration.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
Page 10 of 316
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 2).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
Page 11 of 316
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
Page 12 of 316
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the ZBA for
zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject to approval by the
Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial of, to allow
improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025, the Plan
Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope exceptions. The
application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its recommendation.
The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being considered by the
Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising its previous plans
and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be considered first by the
advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 3 and 4 on the following page are photos of the Subject Property taken in January. Figures 5
through 8 are photos taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 13 of 316
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026)
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin
at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026)
Page 14 of 316
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 15 of 316
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 16 of 316
Figure 8 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
Page 17 of 316
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change. The test of what change is
gradual, as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has
been made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may
protect his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which
is a corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN
In response to the comments the Applicant heard at the January 28 PC meeting, it has submitted the
amended plan and narrative included in Attachment A1. The original plan consisted of two rows of 4-
foot high chain-link fencing extending perpendicular from the existing sea wall at the toe of the bluff into
the lake, set back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach (Figure 9). This
plan required those walking along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property,
or vice versa, to walk through the dog beach. Details regarding the original plan can be found in
Attachment B1.
The purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow dogs off-leash on the beach year-round.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Currently,
patrons are required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above and
dogs are required to be leashed. In the proposed plan, the existing gate at the top of the bluff would
remain but access would be controlled with a programed timed locking system that would operate from
Page 18 of 316
6:00am to 10:00pm, this allows for public access to the beach. While entry into the fenced off-leash dog
beach area would be restricted with the key fob system currently in place at the top of the bluff. There
would be a double-entry gate system to allow for unleashing and leashing of dogs. There would also be a
10-foot wide maintenance access gate that would remain locked and used by Park District staff. The Fire
Department has requested access to the maintenance gate for emergency responses and the Applicant
has agreed to coordinate with the Fire Department to provide access.
The proposed fencing would be attached to the existing steel groins and enclose approximately 265 feet
of the beach frontage for dogs to be off-leash (Figure 10). This represents a reduction of approximately
50% from the original plan presented to the PC in terms of the linear frontage of the dog beach area.
Another major difference in the amended plan is the addition of a west fence that would be located 12
feet east (lakeward) of the existing sea wall to allow the public to traverse the beach without entering the
off-leash dog area. This fence would be 4 feet in height above grade (sand level).
Use of Remaining Beach Area. Included in Attachment A1, is a narrative provided by the Applicant
explaining the use of the remainder of Centennial Beach given the amended plan now limits the dog beach
area to roughly half of Centennial Beach. The remaining portion of the beach consists of approximately
260 feet of lake frontage and would be used as a passive beach without swimming. The Applicant
indicates in the attached narrative that staffing for the passive beach would generally be late May through
early September and that access to the beach would require a beach pass. The beach will remain
accessible from 6:00am until 10:00pm outside the typical beach season, but it will not be staffed.
Parking on site currently consists of 11 parking spaces, one of which is an accessible space. Use of the
parking is currently restricted to dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents. The Applicant intends
for this parking policy to remain. However, in the attached narrative the Applicant outlines further
restrictions that could be put in place if necessary, which include but are not limited to, instituting a 2-
hour time limit and restricting access to dog pass holders only.
North Fence. The north portion of the fence would be 46’-6” feet in length with approximately 20 feet of
the fence extending from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) lakeward (Figure 11). The 4-wide
access gate would be located where the west and north fence meet. Patrons would enter through this
gate into an unleashing and leashing area measuring 10 feet by 10 feet. The extent to which the proposed
fence would extend beyond the OHWM is reduced by approximately 20 feet in the amended plan.
South Fence. The south fence would be 49’-3” in length, and also extend approximately 20 feet from the
OHWM towards the lake (Figure 12). There would not be an access gate in this portion of the fencing. At
the west end, the fence would be set back 5 feet from the south property line. Due to the angle of the
existing steel groin, upon which the proposed fencing would be installed, in relation to the south property
line, the distance between the proposed fence and the south property line would narrow from 5 feet at
the west end until it meets the south property line and ends. Given the proximity of the proposed fence
to the south property line, it is important to note the distance between the property line and the stairs
that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin is approximately 10 feet and at this location the fence
would be north of the property line by at least 1’-11”.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the two
lakeward sections of fencing (the east 20 feet) would be modular, so that these sections could be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing are provided on the following pages. The complete set of amended plans are
Page 19 of 316
included in Attachment A1.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Sea Wall
North Fence
and Gate
Figure 9 –Original Site Fencing Plan (January Plan Commission Meeting)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
OHWM
Proposed (Front Lot Line)
Fence
Existing Stairs to Beach
Proposed
(time restricted access)
Access Gate
Figure 10 – Amended Site Fencing Plan (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 20 of 316
Proposed Proposed
Unleashing/Leashing Area Fence
(key fob access)
Proposed
Maintenance
Existing Sea Wall Access Gate
Figure 11 – North and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 205 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Fence
Figure 12 – South and West Portion of Proposed Fencing (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 21 of 316
Figure 13 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 14 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence would be located within the
required front yard and it would be installed on top of the existing steel groins, at a maximum aggregate
height of 5.92 feet at the east end of the proposed fence, it complies with the maximum permitted height.
Therefore, the proposed fence complies with the zoning regulations.
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
As explained earlier in this report, the Plan Commission has completed its review of the Applicant’s
request for approval of a special use permit and made its recommendation to the Village Council.
The Design Review Board is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
fencing on March 26, 2026.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for granting specials
use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided
a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets the standards for
granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA.
Page 22 of 316
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the ZBA is prepared
to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member
should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and
determinations for the ZBA’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions will not be substantially
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially
diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions will not
impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in
the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of
concern;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the ZBA should direct the Village Attorney to prepare
written findings and determinations for the ZBA to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A1: Applicant’s Amended Request and Plans
Attachment B1: February 9, 2026, ZBA Meeting Staff Report
Attachment C1: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of February ZBA Agenda Packet
Page 23 of 316
ATTACHMENT A1
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
1380 Willow Road
Winnetka Illinois 60093
March 4, 2026
Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
Winnetka Illinois 60093
Re: Park Board Operational Direction – February 26, 2026
Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU
Centennial Beach – Off-Leash Dog Beach (Alternate 1)
Dear Ann,
This letter is intended to formally document the operational direction provided by the Winnetka
Park Board at its February 26, 2026 meeting regarding Centennial Beach and the proposed
fenced off-leash dog beach (Alternate 1), in connection with Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-
SU.
Following approval of Alternate 1 on February 5, 2026, the Park Board reviewed operational
components necessary to refine the Special Use Permit application and to ensure that the
proposed use satisfies applicable standards relating to public health, safety, welfare,
compatibility, and site management. The actions summarized herein were approved contingent
upon issuance of the necessary permits.
With respect to access control and site management, the Board directed staff to maintain the
existing access-controlled gate at the top of the bluff and to install a new access-controlled gate
at the beach level, as reflected in Alternate 1. This dual-gate configuration provides layered
access control and operational flexibility. The upper gate will operate pursuant to Park District
Ordinance #504 and standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. through a programed
timed locking system. The lower beach-level gate will operate during the same hours but will
require a key fob for entry into the fenced off-leash dog beach area. The key-fob system allows
the Park District to regulate access, suspend operations during hazardous lake or weather
1
Page 24 of 316
conditions, and enforce compliance with dog beach eligibility requirements. We will also
maintain the existing exit button which allows beach walkers to leave the site if there is an
instance where someone might be exiting the beach outside of permitted hours or closures due to
storm events. Collectively, these measures enhance public safety, improve enforceability, and
ensure controlled access consistent with Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control
regulations and Village leash law requirements.
The Board further designated the approximately 260-foot section of Centennial Beach located
immediately north of the fenced off-leash dog beach as a staffed passive beach with no
swimming permitted. This designation was selected to maintain public shoreline access while
avoiding the establishment of an additional programmed swimming beach and limiting the
operational intensity of the site. Staffing for the passive beach will align with the typical
swimming beach season, generally late May through early September. During that period, staff
presence will provide oversight and management only, again no swimming will be permitted at
the northern beach area. During this time the northern passive beach area will require a beach
pass to utilize the beach area. This is the same review as practiced last Fall at Elder Lane Beach.
This will help limit the potential influx of beach users if it was a “free beach” which could cause
issues with parking on site and the adjacent streets. Outside of the traditional beach season, the
passive beach will remain accessible during standard park hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. but
will not be staffed. This measured approach maintains access to the shoreline, limits potential
conflicts between uses, and supports compatibility with adjacent properties and lakefront
activities.
The Board confirmed that the fenced off-leash dog beach will operate year-round, consistent
with its longstanding historical operation at Centennial Beach. Daily operating hours for both the
fenced off-leash dog beach and the northern passive beach were established at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. These hours align with standard park hours, provide predictability for neighboring
properties, support enforceability through the timed gate system, and limit late-night activity that
could affect neighborhood compatibility. The continuation of year-round dog beach operations,
combined with defined daily hours and controlled access, reflects a continuation of an existing
community amenity under strengthened regulatory and operational controls.
Recognizing that parking and traffic considerations remain part of the Special Use Permit
review, the Board established a prioritized parking management framework to guide
implementation and allow flexibility for potential conditions of approval. The Board directed
that permit-required parking access for dog beach pass holders and Winnetka residents remain
2
Page 25 of 316
the primary strategy. If necessary, a two-hour parking restriction may be implemented to
promote turnover. As a further measure, parking access could be reduced to dog beach pass
holders only. The Board also authorized staff to evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service and to
explore potential land-banking opportunities at Centennial Park. This structured hierarchy
provides the Village and reviewing bodies with clear operational parameters while preserving the
ability to implement additional mitigation measures should they be deemed necessary. Based on
prior parking analysis and the shared use of the Elder Lane Park parking lot, the Park District
believes that existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate projected demand; however, the
District remains willing to evaluate additional measures as part of the review process.
The project remains subject to review and approval by the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control, and the Village of Winnetka. Revised
plans reflecting the Board’s operational direction will be submitted to the appropriate agencies
for evaluation. The timing of those reviews will depend upon each agency’s independent review
process.
The Park Board’s February 26, 2026 actions were intended to strengthen access control, clarify
operational parameters, maintain shoreline access, limit intensity of use in the northern beach
area, provide enforceable daily hours, establish a structured parking management hierarchy, and
enhance overall site safety and compatibility. The Park District respectfully submits this
operational clarification for inclusion in the Special Use Permit record and consideration by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Please advise if additional information would assist the Village in preparation for the March 9,
2026, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Sincerely,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director of the Winnetka Park District
Scott Mangum, Director of Community Development Village of Winnetka
3
Page 26 of 316
1 East Wacker Drive
TW 581.70 Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
p 312.467.5445
f 312.467.5484
thelakotagroup.com
TW 582.40
TW 582.20
TW 582.80
PREPARED FOR
TW 583.00
PROJECT SITE LOCATION:
42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 583.20 Winnetka Park
District
TW 588.80 TW 591.60 540 Hibbard Rd
Winnetka, IL 60093
TW 584.00
CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 588.80
Dog Beach
Fencing
Alternate Plan 1
261 SHERIDAN RD 205 SHERIDAN RD
225 Sheridan Rd
Winnteka, IL 60093
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
Call
Before
You Dig
Call before
you dig.
ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 30'
0' 15' 30' 90'
NORTH SHEET NUMBER
C
L1.0
2026 The Lakota Group
Page 27 of 316
1 East Wacker Drive
Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
p 312.467.5445
f 312.467.5484
thelakotagroup.com
TW 581.70
SOUTH FENCE
PREPARED FOR
SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 2, SHEET L3.0
Winnetka Park
District
TW 582.40 540 Hibbard Rd
WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY Winnetka, IL 60093
ELEV. 581.5 (HIGH WATER LINE) ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE)
TW 582.20
CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 582.80 1'-11"
NORTH FENCE
Dog Beach
49'-3"
SEE ELEVATION, DETAIL 1, SHEET L3.0
TW 582.50
10'-0" Fencing
265'-0" 33'-2"
WATER LEVEL PER 10/21/24 SURVEY
ELEV. 578.6 (NORMAL WATER LINE)
Alternate Plan 1
TW 583.20
TW 583.00
5'-0"
PROJECT SITE LOCATION:
225 Sheridan Rd
46'-6"
42.09821N, -87.71452W TW 588.80
12'-0" Winnteka, IL 60093
10'-0"
TW 591.60
10'-0"
12'-0"
10'-0"
TW 584.00 EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRS
4'-0" LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 10 FT
TW 588.80
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE
RESIDENT ACCESS GATE MAINTENANCE ACCESS GATE WEST FENCE AT DOG BEACH
WITH RELOCATED KEY SEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET CHAIN LINK FABRIC TO BE EXTEND
CENTENNIAL BEACH
FOB ACCESS 1'-0" BELOW SAND ELEVATION
ACCESS GATE,
SEE DETAIL 2, THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 3, THIS SHEET
TIMER CONTROLLED
205 SHERIDAN RD
It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
261 SHERIDAN RD
Call
Before
You Dig
Call before
you dig.
ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
CL 5' o.c., 4' o.c.,
typ. typ.
Double gate latch for
maintenance access Steel frame, attached to hinges Key Card Access for Gate hinges,
Residents mounted to gate
(2) Gate hinges,
mounted to gate
Fence Post (behind)
Steel frame, attached
to hinges
SITE FENCING
4' from sand elevation
Chain Link Fabric, typ.
Notes: PLAN
1. Posts to be driven into the sand and
underlying clay until refusal. Post will
then be cut 48" above the sand line
SCALE IN FEET
1' Chain Link Fabric
with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be 1" = 20'
buried below grade for fence panels.
Gate panels shall not have buried
buried into sand
Post Footing driven to 0' 10' 20' 60'
refusal, typ. chain link fabric condition.
See Note NORTH SHEET NUMBER
1
Maintenance Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2
Resident Access Gate at Dog Beach - Elevation
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3
West Fence at Dog Beach - Cross Section
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"
C
L2.0
2026 The Lakota Group
Page 28 of 316
12'-0" 583 10'-0" 582 581 580 36'-6" 579 578 577
58
4 4'-0" High Water Line Chain Link Fencing Normal Water Line
ELEV 581.5 mounted to groin ELEV 578.6
Relocated Key 1 East Wacker Drive
10'-0"
Fob Access
Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Resident Access Gate p 312.467.5445
See Detail 2, Sheet L2.0 f 312.467.5484
4'-0" thelakotagroup.com
577
Embedded Fence
Posts, typ. 583 582 581 580 578
See notes 579
Plan
2" Line post mounted to groin, typ. PREPARED FOR
TW 588.80
evenly spaced, 10'-0" o.c. max. Chain link fencing, typ.
9'-1" eq.
1 83" dia. top rail
Winnetka Park
10'-0"
Sand Elevation
Fence ties, 12" o.c.
Modular fencing to be removed seasonally Existing Steel Groin
District
540 Hibbard Rd
4'-0" 4'-4"
Winnetka, IL 60093
3'-8" 3'-11" 3'-2"
2'-11"
High Water Line
3'-5" 2'-8"
2'-2"
584.00 TW 584.00
2'-5"
ELEV 581.5 CENTENNIAL DOG BEACH
TW 583.00
583.00
TW 582.50
582.00
Dog Beach
4'-10" from sand
5'-0" height
581.00
5'-0" height 5'-0" height
from sand
from sand from sand
580.00
579.00
Normal Water Line
ELEV 578.6 Fencing
elevation, typ.
elevation, typ
elevation, typ elevation 578.00
577.00
Alternate Plan 1
Notes:
1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 225 Sheridan Rd
2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention.
3. Posts shown over steel groin to be surface-mounted onto the steel groin.
Winnteka, IL 60093
4. At-grade fence posts to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will then be cut
48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade.
Elevation - North Dog Beach Fence
1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
H:\Lakota_files\Projects\2025\25030 - Elder Lane-Centennial Park Revised\07 Graphics\01 SD\02 CAD\20260303 Centennial Dog Beach Fencing Application.dwg
586 585 584 583 580 579 578 577
582 581
High Water Line
575
12'-0" ELEV 581.5
576
49'-3"
Normal Water Line
ELEV 578.6
5'-0" to It's smart. It's free. It's the law.
Call
Call before
Property Line
Before
You Dig
you dig.
1'-11" to
Chain Link Fencing ILLINOIS
ONE-CALL SYSTEM 811
Property Line
mounted to groin
Approximate location of stone steps is 10FT
south of WPD property line for public access
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
Plan March 3, 2026
REVISIONS
No Date Issue
2" Line post 2" Line post mounted Chain link fencing, typ. Approximate location of stone steps is 10 FT
driven into sand to groin, typ. 1 83" dia. top rail south of the WPD property line for public access
Sand Elevation See Notes. 9'-10" eq. evenly spaced, 10'-0"
588.80
o.c. max. Fence ties, 12" o.c.
Modular fencing to be removed seasonally
Existing Steel Groin
4'-0"
586.00
4'-11"
4'-0" 4'-2"
585.00
4'-0" 4'-2"
584.00 3'-9"
TW 583.00 TW 582.80 2'-4" 2'-6" High Water Line
Fence post
footing depth
583.00 582.00
TW 582.40 ELEV 581.5
FENCE
4'-8" height
TBD in Field, 581.00
5'-0" height from
ELEVATIONS
5'-0" height from
580.00 Normal Water Line
see Notes from sand
579.00 ELEV 578.6
elevation
sand elevation
sand elevation 578.00
SCALE IN FEET
1/4" = 1'-0"
Notes:
1. Steel top rail to run continuously over multiple posts where shown. 0' 2' 4' 12'
2. The eastern 20'-0" of fencing shall be removable fencing panels for seasonal damage prevention. NORTH SHEET NUMBER
3. Westernmost post identified in elevation to be driven into the sand and underlying clay until refusal. Post will
L3.0
then be cut 48" above the sand line with 1'-0" of chain link fabric to be buried below grade.
Elevation - South Dog Beach Fence
2 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
C 2026 The Lakota Group
Page 29 of 316
Winnetka Park District
540 Hibbard Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
February 13, 2026
Scott Mangum
Director of Community Development
Village of Winnetka
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
RE: Centennial Beach Dog Fencing – Alternate Plan 1 Revision Narrative
Special Use Permit Case No. 25-28-SU – 225 Sheridan Road
Dear Scott,
On February 6, 2026, the Winnetka Park District Board of Commissioners reviewed the dog
fencing proposal for Centennial Beach in consideration of the January 28, 2026 Plan
Commission comments, public input, and Village staff review comments from the initial Special
Use Permit review. Following that discussion, the Board directed staff to proceed with Alternate
Plan 1 (attached), which represents a material redesign in response to that feedback.
The original submittal proposed a contained enclosure defined by perpendicular fencing
extending toward Lake Michigan at both the north and south ends of the beach. During the
review process, concerns were raised regarding public safety, shoreline access, visual impact,
and the interaction between fencing and lake conditions. The revised plan shifts the project away
from installing new fencing across the beach to create an enclosed dog park. Instead, it uses the
existing shoreline infrastructure and beach geometry to define the dog beach limits while
maintaining continuous public access along the lakefront with a 12’ bypass to the west of the dog
beach area.
Page 30 of 316
Most notably, the revised design eliminates the previously proposed four-foot chain-link fence
runs at the north and south ends of the beach, thereby minimizing fencing located within active
wave zones. Rather than projecting fencing across the beach and into the lake to form an
enclosed area, Alternate Plan 1 attaches boundary fencing to the existing steel groins and
relocates the controlled entry point directly to beach level. This change significantly reduces the
perceived enclosure of the beach and removes physical barriers previously identified as potential
safety concerns. The relocated fencing runs will be modular, allowing seasonal removal of the
easternmost sections in areas subject to ice damming and winter lake conditions.
A dedicated pedestrian bypass corridor has also been incorporated into the revised design. This
feature allows residents and visitors to walk the shoreline without entering the dog beach area
and directly addresses concerns that general beach users would otherwise be required to pass
through an active off-leash area. By separating circulation paths, the revised layout improves
user clarity and reduces potential interaction conflicts between dog owners and non-dog users.
The bypass itself is shown on the attached Alternate Plan 1. It is created by installing a fence line
approximately twelve feet lakeward of the steel seawall at the toe of the bluff and extending
between the existing southern steel jetties. This run is approximately 265 feet in length and
reduces the overall dog beach frontage by approximately fifty percent. Integrated into this fence
line is the electronic key-fob entry gate, along with a secondary ten-foot maintenance access gate
that will remain locked and secured for staff use. The fence is proposed at an overall height of
five feet, with four feet exposed above grade and one foot buried below grade to accommodate
fluctuating sand levels and reduce the possibility of dogs digging beneath the fencing.
Operational control is further improved through relocation of the key-fob entry to beach level
and the use of a defined double-gate leash-up area. This eliminates the need for interior fencing
corridors while maintaining controlled access for permitted users. The double-entry gate system
is also a requirement of the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control. In addition,
the revised plan substantially reduces the amount of fencing interacting with lake forces by
utilizing existing structural elements and shortening fence exposure in areas subject to wave and
ice movement. The existing steel shoreline structures are designed to withstand year-round lake
conditions, allowing the Park District to reduce the overall length of installed fencing.
For ease of review, the primary differences between the previously submitted plan and Alternate
Plan 1 are summarized below.
Page 31 of 316
Plan Comparison Summary
Previous Temporary Alternate Plan 1
Design Element Resulting Impact
Fencing Plan (Approved 2-6-26)
Enclosed containment Shoreline-defined
Reduces enclosed park
Overall Layout area formed by boundary using existing
appearance
perpendicular fencing groins
Approximately 15 ft Fencing attached to
Fencing Into Minimizes wave/ice
lakeward fence runs at existing structures with
Lake interaction risk
both ends reduced lake exposure
Public Shoreline Users pass through an 12-ft pedestrian bypass Maintains continuous
Access active off-leash dog area outside dog beach public access
Clearer entry and safer
Beach-level controlled circulation while
Access Control Inland gated corridor
entry vestibule improving access for non-
dog users
Double corridor Removes internal
Interior Fencing Eliminated
containment system obstacles
Safety Potential cross-traffic Separated circulation
Improves user safety
Considerations conflicts paths
Reduced fencing
Visible enclosure across Less intrusive shoreline
Visual Impact footprint at north and
beach presence
south boundaries
In summary, Alternate Plan 1 reduces the installation of new freestanding fence infrastructure at
the north and south boundaries by utilizing existing steel groins, improves shoreline access
through the addition of a defined pedestrian bypass, separates user groups to enhance safety, and
minimizes fencing interaction within active lake areas while still providing a controlled off-leash
area consistent with regulatory requirements. These revisions were intentionally developed in
direct response to Plan Commission discussion, public input, and Village staff feedback, and
intends to fully satisfy the applicable Special Use Permit standards. The design preserves the
open character of Centennial Beach while incorporating operational controls necessary to
manage off-leash use in a safe and regulated manner.
Page 32 of 316
Staff is also planning to discuss additional items with the Park Board at the February 26, 2026
meeting to obtain direction regarding the north beach area of Centennial Beach and how to
proceed. Staff will follow up after that meeting to inform the Village of any items related to SUP
Case No. 25-28-SU.
We appreciate the continued coordination with Village staff and look forward to the next steps in
the review process. Please let me know if any additional clarification would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Costa Kutulas
Director of Parks and Maintenance
Winnetka Park District
CC: Shannon Nazzal, Executive Director
Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community Development
Page 33 of 316
ATTACHMENT B1
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGEOF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: SCOTT MANGUM, DIRECTOR
ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2026
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL BEACH FENCE – 225 SHERIDAN ROAD
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-28-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On February 9, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to commence a public hearing on
an application submitted by the Winnetka Park District (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property
located at 225 Sheridan Road (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing installation of fencing
on the existing beach located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following relief:
1. Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach on the
Subject Property, which is located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the
Lakefront Preservation Overlay District.
The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the special use permit at its January 28, 2026, meeting. By a vote
of 7-0, the PC asked the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation of denial with written
findings and determinations based on the PC’s discussion for consideration at the February 25, 2026, PC
meeting. Details regarding the PC’s consideration are provided later in this report.
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 January 22, 2026. Additionally, a public notice sign was posted
on the Subject Property informing the public of the ZBA meeting. As of the date of this memo, staff has
received several written comments from the public regarding this application. Most of these comments
were received by the Village for consideration by the PC. Others have been received since the
Commission’s consideration of the Applicant’s request. Comments previously included in the PC agenda
packet are provided in Attachment B. Comments received since the posting of the January 28, 2026, PC
agenda packet are provided in Attachment C.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this application, as the Council has sole authority to grant a
Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 5.3 acres (230,911.56 square feet) in size, is located on the
east side of Sheridan Road generally between Fuller Lane and Elder Lane and contains Centennial Beach
Page 1
Page 34 of 316
and Park (see Figure 1). Under the Village Zoning Ordinance, the Subject Property has two front yards: (i)
the street frontage along Sheridan Road to the west; and (ii) lake frontage along Lake Michigan to the
east.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Open Space” land uses,
which includes public parks & recreation facilities, pocket parks/plazas, and Cook County Forest Preserve
Land. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following related goals:
Goal 1.7: The Village will continue to ensure that open space uses, such as Park District parks,
beaches, and facilities, are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are
located.
Initiative 1.7.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for open space
uses, or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 6.1: The Village will continue to promote and encourage partnerships with other units of
government and agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance natural features and ecosystems, to
ensure accessibility to natural areas, parks, and other open or public spaces, and to support
recreational facilities and programs that support the health of residents of all ages and abilities.
Initiative 6.1.1. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, local school districts, Forest
Preserves of Cook County, and others to create opportunities that enhance accessibility
to the open spaces of Winnetka. (refer to initiative 8.3.5)
Initiative 6.1.2. Continue to collaborate with the Park District, School District, Library
District, Community House of Winnetka, and other community institutions to offer
programs that maintain active and thriving Village recreation programs, offering a
variety of sports, exercise, arts and crafts, cultural, life skills, educational, social, and
leisure programs for residents of all ages and abilities.
Goal 6.4: The Village will support health and wellness through innovative and diversified
recreational, learning, and cultural opportunities in its public parks, plazas, trails, and open
spaces.
Initiative 6.4.4. Support the efforts of the Park District and other community
organizations to expand and/or modify Winnetka’s recreational programming to fill gaps
in services.
Goal 6.5: The Village will support policies that preserve and protect the unique natural resources
of and the recreational opportunities provided by the Lake Michigan shoreline and bluffs.
Initiative 6.5.1. Continue to study and consider establishing development regulations
addressing construction of shoreline stabilization projects and specific recreational
projects in and adjacent to Lake Michigan and its shoreline that will not cause
environmental damage to or interfere with the greater recreational opportunities
provided by the Lake and adjacent areas. [Ordinance MC-05-2023 was adopted by the
Village Council on March 21, 2023, which created a new chapter of Village Code –
Chapter 15.78 Lakefront Construction.]
Page 35 of 316
Initiative 6.5.2. Study and consider establishing development regulations that requires
construction on and adjacent to the bluffs along the Lake Michigan shoreline that
protects, restores, and manages the stability of the bluffs and natural shoreline and that
are contextually sensitive to the natural features of the bluffs. [Ordinance MC-01-2024
was adopted by the Village Council on February 6, 2024, amending the Zoning Ordinance
concerning establishing bluff regulations for development in the steep slope area along
Lake Michigan.]
The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is in the Lakefront Preservation Overlay
District, and it is bordered by R-2 Single Family Residential to the north and south, and R-4 Single Family
Residential to the west (see Figure 2).
In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses by
Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance allows park and recreational uses in any zoning district within the Village by special use permit
approval.
The Applicant’s current use of the Subject Property as a park and recreational facility is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district. The Applicant
recently used the Subject Property as an off-leash dog area as well.
Subject
Property
Figure 1 – GIS Aerial Map
Page 36 of 316
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Zoning Map
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
Based upon documents provided by the Applicant, it appears that the Applicant has owned the Subject
Property since 1969. There are six (6) previous zoning cases on file for the Subject Property, five of which
occurred prior to the Applicant acquiring the Subject Property:
1. In 1923, ZBA Case No. 43 was approved to allow an addition to a nonconforming use for the North
Shore Health Resort;
2. In 1945, ZBA Case No. 702 was approved to allow the alteration of a nonconforming use and
building for the North Shore Health Resort;
3. In 1949, ZBA Case No. 751 was not approved to allow a building addition to the North Shore
Health Resort;
4. In 1951, ZBA Case No. 776 was not approved to allow enclosure of the front entrance of the North
Shore Health Resort;
5. In 1964, ZBA Case No. 935 was approved to allow the extension of a nonconforming use (North
Shore Health Resort) with the construction of an accessory building; and
6. In December 2024, Case No. 24-08-SU received a recommendation of approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for zoning variations and exceptions from the steep slope regulations, subject
to approval by the Village Council of a special use permit, for which the ZBA recommended denial
of, to allow improvements to the existing park and beach on the Subject Property. In May 2025,
the Plan Commission (PC) recommended denial of the special use permit and steep slope
exceptions. The application has been on hold at the Applicant’s request, since the PC made its
recommendation. The application still requires review by the Design Review Board before being
considered by the Village Council. It is the Village’s understanding that the Applicant is revising
its previous plans and upon a revised submittal it is anticipated that the application will be
considered first by the advisory bodies before it is considered by the Village Council.
Figures 3 and 4 on the following page are current photos of the Subject Property. Figures 5 through 8
were taken in the summer of 2024.
Page 37 of 316
Figure 3 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (January 2026)
Figure 4 – Subject Property – Looking South at Existing Steel Groin on Centennial Beach & Stone Groin
at 205 Sheridan Road Property (January 2026)
Page 38 of 316
Figure 5 – Subject Property – Looking North at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Figure 6 – Subject Property – Looking South at Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
Page 39 of 316
Figure 7 – Subject Property – Looking North from Centennial Beach (Summer 2024)
LAKEFRONT CONSTRUCTION AND STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCES
Given the Subject Property is located along Lake Michigan it is subject to the lakefront construction
ordinance, Chapter 15.78 of the Village Code, and the steep slope regulations, Chapter 17.82 of the Village
Code. However, it is important to note that the proposed fence is not located within the steep slope zone;
it is located lakeward of the toe of the bluff.
The requirements of both chapters are administratively reviewed and approved by staff (in this case after
zoning approval). However, an applicant may appeal the decision of staff regarding the application of the
lakefront construction ordinance to the Village Council or may request exceptions from the steep slope
requirements.
The lakefront construction regulations govern construction along, adjacent to, and within Lake Michigan.
A permit pursuant to the lakefront construction ordinance is required for any construction activity within
Lake Michigan regulated areas that requires a permit from any of the following governmental agencies
(“Permitting Agencies”): the United States Army Corp of Engineers, the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, or the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively, "Covered Construction"). Typical construction activity relates to beach
preservation, which consists of steel or stone groins, revetments/bulkheads/seawalls, or other means of
lakefront stabilization and preservation. The Village’s formal review and approval of such a permit occurs
after the applicable zoning approvals and the regulatory agencies review and approve their respective
permits. The Village’s review and approval is conducted administratively by the Village Director of
Engineering in consultation with the applicant and the Village’s coastal engineering consultant. This
review is based upon a set of criteria identified in the regulations.
Page 40 of 316
Figure 8 - Existing Sea Wall on Subject Property (Summer 2024)
The technical review and approval of proposed plans set forth in the lakefront construction regulations
and the steep slope regulations occurs during the building permit process, which occurs after the zoning
entitlement process (e.g. special use, variations, etc.). That said, during Village staff’s review of a zoning
entitlement application, Village staff and consultants will conduct a preliminary review of the project for
code requirements to determine if the development should be able to, in general terms, comply with
administrative code requirements. Detailed construction plans are not required at this time, but the
applicant is required to provide sufficient information so staff can determine whether the proposed site
layout can be achieved and still comply with other Village regulations as noted above. If after the Village
Council approves a special use permit and during the building permit process an applicant changes the
design of the project to such an extent that it would be considered a major change, the applicant would
be required to go through the full special use permit process again before staff issues a building permit.
Regarding the Centennial Beach zoning relief application, the Applicant has submitted plans for the
proposed fence that have been reviewed by the Village Director of Engineering and Village’s coastal
engineer. The Engineering Department has provided comments to the Applicant. The Village Director of
Engineering has determined that the responses provided by the Applicant address the review comments.
The Applicant is aware that all of the approved permits from the Permitting Agencies will need to be
provided, and a special use permit granted before the Engineering Department can issue final approval.
Each advisory board and commission will review the application based upon the applicable standards for
that advisory body. Their review is based upon these broad standards and not based upon a review of
the technical code requirements for such items as the Village’s stormwater requirements, building code
requirements, lakefront construction approval criteria, or steep slope regulation development standards.
Those technical items are reviewed in detail administratively by qualified engineering staff during the
building permit process.
Page 41 of 316
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
Given the proposed improvements are located along the lakefront, it is important to review the nature
and extent of the “public trust doctrine”. Generally, the “public trust doctrine” is a concept based upon
an 1892 United States Supreme Court decision that held that lands under the navigable waters of Lake
Michigan are held by the state in trust for the people of the state. This doctrine has since been codified
by Illinois statue. Illinois courts have held that the boundary between private land and land owned by the
state in public trust is “the line where the water usually [stands] when unaffected by storms or other
disturbing causes.” This line is variously referred to as the “water’s edge,” “still water shoreline,” “calm
waterline,” “unaffected waterline,” or the “normal waterline.” Accordingly, in Illinois the boundary
between private land and public land is the point at which the water normally stands (the "Normal
Waterline").
A rule of thumb that generally applies in Illinois and other jurisdictions that rely on the Normal Waterline
for the public-private property demarcation is that if your feet are wet, you are on public property, and if
your feet are dry then you are on private property. Based on these principles, the demarcation line in
Illinois between public and private land is the same demarcation line that identifies where land held in
trust begins and ends – both lines are the Normal Waterline.
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine for Lake Michigan extends “to
recreational uses, including bathing, swimming and other shore activities.”
The Normal Waterline may change over time as a result of various processes, including accretion, reliction,
and erosion. Gradual changes to the Normal Waterline over time resulting in either increases or decreases
in the amount of dry land are an “inherent and essential attribute of the original property,” and the
property line changes with the Normal Waterline. However, if the addition or loss of property is sudden
(i.e., caused by a violent storm), then the property line does not change The test of what change is gradual,
as opposed to sudden, is “that though the witnesses may see from time to time that progress has been
made, they could not perceive it while the process was going on”. Although a riparian owner may protect
his property from erosion, he has no right to affect an increase of his own land, the result of which is a
corresponding loss of land owned by the state in trust for the public.
Under these principles, the owner of real estate fronting on Lake Michigan generally owns the property
to the Normal Waterline, and the land east of the Normal Waterline is owned by the state in trust for the
public.
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing installation of two rows of chain-link fencing, measuring 4 feet in height, set
back 20 feet from both the north and south boundaries of Centennial Beach. The proposed fencing would
be located at the base of the existing steel sheet pile wall and extend perpendicularly eastward across the
beach into the lake. As described by the Applicant in the attached project narrative included in
Attachment A, the purpose of the fencing is to provide an enclosure to allow off-leash dogs on the beach.
The existing beach has been utilized as a dog beach since 1995, according to the Applicant. Patrons are
required to have a key fob to access the existing beach from the top of the bluff above. The proposed
fencing would enclose the beach area for dogs to be off-leash. Both the north and south fence would
have access gates to allow the public to traverse the beach. The Applicant indicates in its narrative that
they are planning for the access gates to remain unlocked, with the current key fob controlled access gate
to remain at the top of bluff.
Page 42 of 316
North Fence. The north fence would extend a total of 91 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall at the
base of the bluff east towards the water (Figure 10). Approximately 40 feet of the fence would extend
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (581.5) into the lake. There would be a double access gate
10 feet in width to allow unleashing and leashing of dogs. The depth of the leashing and unleashing area
would be 6 feet. The proposed access gate would be 24 feet east of the existing steel sheet pile wall, and
approximately 17 feet west of the OHWM.
South Fence. The south fence would extend approximately 78 feet from the existing steel sheet pile wall
east towards the water (Figure 11). Approximately 36 feet of the fence would extend from the OHWM
into the lake. The double access gate would be located 16 feet east of the steel sheet pile and be 3’-3” in
width. Similar to the north access, the depth of the leashing and unleashing area would be 6 feet.
In response to staff review comments, including the Village’s coastal engineering consultant, the lakeward
sections of fencing (east four or five sections) would be removable, so that these sections can be removed
during late fall and winter and reinstalled in the spring.
The proposed site plan and up-close excerpts of both the north and south fences, as well as elevations of
the proposed fencing and gates are provided below and on the following pages. The complete set of plans
is provided in the application materials, which are included in Attachment A.
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Proposed
Existing Stairs to Beach South Fence
(key fob access) and Gate
Proposed Existing Steel
North Fence Sheet Pile Wall
and Gate
Figure 9 –Site Fencing Plan (Sheet L2.0)
Page 43 of 316
OHWM
(Front Lot Line)
Property Line Between
Centennial Park & Beach
and 261 Sheridan Road
Proposed
Access Gate
Figure 10 – Proposed North Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Property Line
Between Centennial
Park & Beach and 205
Sheridan Road
Proposed
OHWM
Access Gate
(Front Lot Line)
Figure 11 – Proposed South Fence (Excerpt of Sheet L2.0)
Page 44 of 316
As proposed, to walk along the beach from the north end to the south end of the Subject Property, or vice
versa, a member of the public would need to use the proposed access gates and walk through the dog
beach. As noted earlier, both rows of fencing would be off-set from the north and south property lines
by 20 feet, allowing for a pathway to access the stairs that go over the 205 Sheridan Road stone groin.
Figure 12 – Proposed North Access Gate Figure 13 – Proposed South Access Gate
Figure 14 – Elevation of North Fence
Figure 15 – Elevation of South Fence
Fence and wall height within required setbacks. With the adoption of the steep slope regulations, the
Village also amended the Zoning Ordinance to redefine the front line along the lake as well as the front
yard setback along the lake. The front lot line is now the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and is defined
as the line on the shore of Lake Michigan consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ administrative
benchmark, which is currently set at 581.5’. The front yard setback along the lake is now defined as the
toe of the bluff or 50 feet from the OHWM, whichever results in the line farthest from the OHWM.
The Zoning Ordinance allows fences, walls, or a combination of a fence and wall within a required yard
that is no taller than 6.5 feet from natural grade. While the proposed fence is located within the required
front yard, at a height of 4 feet, it complies with the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the proposed
fence complies with the zoning regulations.
Page 45 of 316
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered the special use permit on January 28, 2026. After hearing
presentations by Village staff and by the Applicant, the PC heard from 16 members of the public. At least
15 of the speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. The PC then discussed the request.
Members expressed concerns regarding safety of the fencing in the water and people having to walk
through an area designated for dogs to be off-leash in order to traverse the beach. Hence, the
Commission found that the proposed use does not meet the standards for granting a special use permit.
After hearing the comments of the PC, the Applicant asked if a plan was submitted that eliminated the
fencing in the water and provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach would the PC
reconsider its position. The PC was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them at a future
meeting. Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the PC asked the Village Attorney to prepare a draft
recommendation of denial with written findings and determinations based on the Commission’s
discussion for consideration at the next PC meeting on February 25, 2026. Draft minutes of the January
PC meeting are included as Attachment D.
The Design Review Board is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed
fencing on February 19, 2026.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistency with the six standards for granting specials
use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided
a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets the standards for
granting the requested Special Use Permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA will have the following options:
1) Continue the public hearing to a specific date to provide the Applicant and/or staff with
additional time to address questions and comments from the ZBA.
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the ZBA is prepared
to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a ZBA member
should make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following standards and direct staff and the Village Attorney to prepare written findings and
determinations for the ZBA’s consideration and final vote at a subsequent meeting:
1. The proposed improvement is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the
granting of Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use and
associated exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals or general welfare;
b. That the special use and the associated exceptions will not be substantially
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially
diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use and associated exceptions will not
impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of other property in
the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or districts of
concern;
Page 46 of 316
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use and associated exceptions in all other respects conforms to
the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
As noted above, any motion on a decision by the ZBA should direct the Village Attorney to prepare
written findings and determinations for the ZBA to consider and vote on at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Public Correspondence Previously Included in PC Agenda Packet
Attachment C: Public Correspondence Received Since Posting of January 28, 2026, PC Agenda Packet
Attachment D: January 28, 2026, PC Meeting Draft Minutes Excerpt
Page 47 of 316
ATTACHMENT A
Page 48 of 316
Page 49 of 316
Page 50 of 316
Page 51 of 316
Page 52 of 316
Page 53 of 316
Page 54 of 316
Page 55 of 316
Dog Shower Amenities (Looking Northwest)
Dog Beach Access Gate (Looking East)
Page 56 of 316
Dog Beach Access Stairs (Looking East)
Dog Beach Access Stairs Beach Level (Looking South)
Page 57 of 316
Dog Beach Stairs Beach View (Looking West)
Dog Beach (Looking North)
Page 58 of 316
North Seawall (Looking West)
North Seawall (Looking Northwest)
Page 59 of 316
Dog Beach (Looking South)
Bog Beach (Looking South)
Page 60 of 316
Dog Beach South Property Line (Looking West)
Dog Beach Seawall (Looking West)
Page 61 of 316
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking Southwest)
Page 62 of 316
Mid-level Bluff Paver and Bench Area (Looking West)
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk (Looking South)
Page 63 of 316
Mid-level Bluff Sidewalk to Park Area (Looking West)
Upper Bench Southeast Section of Upper Parkland
Page 64 of 316
Upper Park Sidewalk Southwest Corner of the Park (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk South End (Looking East)
Page 65 of 316
Upper Park (Looking South)
Upper Park (Looking East)
Page 66 of 316
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Upper Park Center East Side (Looking East)
Page 67 of 316
Upper Park Center Overlooking Dog Entry Gate (Looking East)
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking North)
Page 68 of 316
Upper Park Area (Looking Southwest)
Upper Park Area (Looking Northeast)
Page 69 of 316
Upper Park Sidewalk (Looking Southwest)
Sheridan Road Sidewalk South side of Park (Looking North)
Page 70 of 316
Page 71 of 316
Page 72 of 316
Page 73 of 316
Page 74 of 316
ATTACHMENT D
Minutes adopted 2-25-2026
1 WINNETKA PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT
2 JANUARY 28, 2026
3
4 Members Present: Layla Danley, Chairperson
5 Jonathan Alt
6 Christopher Blum
7 Matthew Bradley
8 Mamie Case
9 Chris Enck
10 King Poor
11 Kate Van Vlack
12
13 Members Absent: Cyrus Subawalla
14
15 Non-Voting Members Present: Bridget Orsic
16
17 Village Staff: Scott Mangum, Community Development Director
18 Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community
19 Development
20 Christopher Marx, Associate Planner
21
22 Village Attorney: Peter Friedman
23 Courtney Trefil
24
25 ***
26
27 New Applications:
28 a. Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road - Centennial Beach: An application seeking approval of a
29 Special Use Permit to allow installation of fencing on the existing beach. The Village Council has final
30 jurisdiction on this request.
31 Peter Friedman outlined the public hearing requirements and procedures to be followed in connection
32 with the Centennial Beach agenda item.
33 Ms. Klaassen summarized the Park District’s proposal to install two chain link fences to provide an
34 enclosed area for off leashed dogs for review by the Commission with the applicant seeking a
35 recommendation of approval for a special use permit. She identified the Commission’s role in the review
36 and summarized the administrative and public review processes and referred to a table for the
37 Commission’s review. Ms. Klaassen noted the proposed fences’ appearance is not within the
38 Commission’s purview and would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (“DRB”).
39
40 Ms. Klaassen stated since the property is located on Lake Michigan, it would be subject to lakefront
41 construction and steep slope regulations and noted the proposed fencing is not located within the steep
42 slope zone. She then summarized the lakefront construction regulations and the review and permit
43 approval procedures as well as the public trust doctrine. Ms. Klaassen then identified the property’s
44 location and zoning classification which is located in the lakefront preservation overlay district. She stated
45 public parks and recreational facilities are allowed as a special use in the R-2 district and summarized the
46 appropriate Comprehensive Plan and land use designations.
47
48 Ms. Klaassen referred to beach images in an illustration and identified the existing improvements with the
Page 75 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 2
1 applicant to provide additional detail relating to the proposed two rows of chain link fencing which she
2 described in detail to the Commission as well as the existing dog beach use and its access. She also
3 summarized the Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the refinement of the front lot line along the
4 lake. Ms. Klaassen noted that at 4 feet in height the proposed fences comply with the maximum permitted
5 height of 6.5 feet. She then informed the Commission the ZBA is scheduled to consider the special use
6 permit at its February 9, 2026, meeting and the DRB is scheduled to consider a Certificate of
7 Appropriateness for the design of the proposed fencing on February 19, 2026, with the Village Council
8 having final jurisdiction.
9
10 Ms. Klaassen stated the Commission is to consider the six special use standards included on page 19 of
11 the agenda packet and following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and Commission
12 discussion, the Commission may decide to: (i) act on the application with a recommendation, (ii) direct
13 Village staff and the Village Attorney to prepare a draft recommendation with or without conditions and
14 written findings and determinations for consideration at a subsequent meeting, (iii) direct the applicant
15 or Village staff to provide new or additional information in connection with the application or (iv) take
16 such other action as may be permitted by law. She then asked if there were any questions.
17
18 Chairperson Danley also asked if there were any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if dogs have ever been
19 allowed off leash on the property before there was a fence. Ms. Klaassen responded there has not been
20 a special use permit approved for that and there are leash laws. She then stated she could not answer as
21 to whether Cook County considered it a dog park or a dog friendly area. Mr. Blum referred to recreation
22 as a permitted use and asked if the request had to be approved or meet those qualifications. Ms. Klaassen
23 confirmed the request for the proposed improvements had to meet the six special use standards. No
24 additional questions were raised at this time.
25
26 Chairperson Danley swore in those speaking to this matter. Hal Francke of Meltzer Purtill and Stelle
27 introduced himself as the Park District’s attorney and provided an overview of their presentation to the
28 Commission. He noted they attempted to address in their presentation the public comment already
29 received with the expectation of more public comment to be made. Mr. Francke then described the dog
30 beach as a community amenity and that the request would allow the Park District to continue to operate
31 the dog beach in accordance with law and the legal regulations as well as allow users of the dog beach in
32 compliance with the law. He stated the proposed fencing would further public safety and maintain
33 shoreline access and connectivity along the lakefront and would not require any zoning variation requests.
34
35 Mr. Francke then provided an overview of the Winnetka leash law as well as a detailed summary of the
36 Cook County regulations. He also referred to Illinois state law and language in the Illinois Animal Control
37 Act. Mr. Francke stated Costa Kutulas, Director of Parks and Maintenance for the Park District, would now
38 provide the Commission with a history of the Centennial dog beach.
39
40 Costa Kutulas stated he would provide a history of the dog beach which was established in 1995. He noted
41 the Park District installed temporary chain link fencing from 2009-2015 similar in design to the proposal
42 which did not require permits. Mr. Kutulas stated the Winnetka Master Plan for the lakefront was then
43 undertaken from 2014-2016 with the decision to remove the deteriorating fence. He outlined the creation
44 of the dog beach committee to review other beach locations to relocate the Centennial dog beach and its
45 findings. Mr. Kutulas stated in 2023, their staff was directed by the Executive Director to install the
46 temporary fencing which was pulled due to improper permitting. He noted the Park District board adopted
47 the ordinance requiring leashes at the beach. Submittals to the IDNR and the Army Corp of Engineers
48 (“ACOE”) for the permit request were made in April 2025. Mr. Kutulas stated following the fence and
Page 76 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 3
1 debris cleanup, he referred to approvals received from the IDNR and other agencies for their permit
2 process with the ACOE and Cook County approvals to follow shortly.
3
4 Mr. Kutulas then described the project overview which included delineation between a temporary
5 Centennial dog beach versus Centennial dog beach fencing. He also described the proposed fencing in
6 detail which would have a 4 foot height and extend approximately 15 feet into the lake. Mr. Kutulas then
7 referred to illustrations of the prior fencing from 2010 as well as illustrations of the proposed fencing
8 which he described in detail. Mr. Kutulas then outlined the existing parking conditions with no change in
9 use being proposed and described the dog season timeline and timeline of average use. He also described
10 neighboring dog beaches and their uses in detail. He then summarized the project’s regulatory review
11 process as well as their responses to the first round of review comments. Mr. Kutulas stated Mr. Francke
12 would now address the public trust doctrine and additional finer project points.
13
14 Mr. Francke stated in response to the public concerns raised, he referred to the public trust doctrine
15 summary and provided additional information in that regard. He noted it stated that the state cannot sell
16 submerged land to a private party, but it can permit its improvement with structures such as wharfs, docks
17 and piers that improve the use of the lake for public purposes without impairment of the public’s interests.
18 He stated based on its provisions, the IDNR issued the permit previously referenced and reviewed the
19 Park District’s application and concluded that allowing the proposed fencing would not obstruct or
20 interfere with navigation, is an acceptable encroachment per the Park District code, it would not impair
21 the rights, interests or uses of the public and is not likely to cause bank or shoreline instability or other
22 littoral properties. Mr. Francke further described additional provisions from the doctrine and summarized
23 in detail the applicant’s response that the special use standards have been satisfied. He asked for the
24 Commission to recommend approval of the fencing and for the entire application to be concluded quickly
25 so that the fencing can be installed. Mr. Francke then asked if there were any questions.
26
27 Chairperson Danley asked the Commission Members if they had any questions. Ms. Van Vlack asked if
28 there is any record of unintended interactions between dogs and humans in the event additional security
29 measures are needed. Mr. Francke responded there have been no concerns at the Park District level
30 although there may have been testimony in the public comments received. Ms. Van Vlack asked what the
31 depth of the water is where the 15 feet of fence is in the water. Mr. Kutulas stated there have been no
32 documented records of interactions with dogs or citations although there were concerns which led to the
33 fence being installed in 2009 at Elder Lane Park, which has been closed for the last five years. He added
34 the water depth at the end of the 15 feet would range from 1 to 1.5 feet.
35
36 Ms. Van Vlack noted dog park regulations require four enclosed walls and water is not a barrier. She stated
37 to call the area a dog park would not then be accurate in terms of Cook County regulations. Mr. Francke
38 stated the word “enclosed” is used in the Cook County regulations but is not defined and the question
39 related to the lake being considered as part of the enclosure. He then identified several similar examples
40 of other dog beaches having the fourth side barrier being the lake. Ms. Van Vlack questioned whether it
41 would need to be redefined as a dog friendly park. Mr. Francke stated the term “dog friendly park” is not
42 clearly defined and having the fence extend across the length of the shoreline to serve as the fourth barrier
43 is not desirable. Ms. Van Vlack stated they have to determine which rules need to be defined and applied.
44
45 Trustee Orsic referred to the 2010 photo and fence and asked if the new fence would be in the same exact
46 location. Mr. Kutulas explained that the fence in the photo is approximately 20-30 feet south of the
47 proposed fence location. He noted to enlarge it and keep it more close to what it is or what it was
48 originally to go further to the north. Mr. Kutulas stated by design that it is very similar. He noted it would
Page 77 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 4
1 be smaller than the previous dog park by approximately 40 feet.
2
3 Mr. Blum asked if the proposal is for a dog park or for a dog friendly area. Mr. Francke explained the
4 differences in the language between the Cook County ordinance for a dog park and the Village ordinance
5 which did not distinguish between the two terms of off leash dogs or a dog friendly area. He confirmed
6 the Park District wanted to be in compliance with the law. Mr. Blum then referred to the second and fifth
7 standards and whether the lake is considered as a second property. Mr. Francke responded the
8 application of special uses standards for adjoining properties are those that are used, occupied and
9 enjoyed by neighbors. He confirmed there is fencing in the Lake Bluff example which is not a chain link
10 fence with the remaining examples to have at least one chain link portion. Mr. Kutulas explained how the
11 dog beach operated seasonally. He also summarized in detail the survey response for the dog beach
12 location.
13
14 Ms. Case asked if other municipalities have gates in terms of traversing the beach. Mr. Kutulas referred to
15 Lake Bluff and identified a gate on the southbound side and described security procedures in other
16 locations. Mr. Bradley asked when the Cook County regulation was passed. Mr. Kutulas responded the
17 Park District was made aware in 2021 or 2022 that they were out of compliance with the county. Mr.
18 Bradley asked why the Park District put their ordinance into effect to disregard it, and for over 30 years
19 there has been negligence by multiple entities in terms of being aware of Cook County regulations that
20 required dog beaches to operate. Mr. Kutulas explained how they sought to become compliant in 2009
21 when the fence was put in place to have a north safety boundary and to ensure they are following the
22 proper permitting and procedures. Mr. Francke added the dog beach had already been operating after
23 the ordinance went into effect in 2010 and could be perceived as being grandfathered in. Mr. Bradley
24 asked why two gates are needed. Mr. Kutulas explained the reasoning for the off-leashing and on-leashing
25 area in a secured area. He also explained the rationale for the distance of the 15 feet of fencing into the
26 water and the rationale for having 240 linear feet of shoreline as opposed to the 170 feet decided on the
27 Park District Master Plan. He then explained how the request complied with the first two standards
28 although residents are required to pass through two gates to gain access to the beach through the dog
29 beach with compliance including the installation of signage. He referred to the number of obstructions
30 which prevent people from walking along the shoreline. Mr. Francke also stated the Commission has the
31 ability to recommend conditions relating to this concern.
32
33 Mr. Poor referred to other chain link fences at other dog beaches and to a letter submitted which stated
34 that none of them protrude 15 feet into the water. Mr. Francke confirmed they all have fencing at some
35 level and the Gillson Beach photo was taken at a time of year when the fence was not in the water. No
36 additional questions were raised at this time.
37
38 Chairperson Danley asked for public comment and for the comments to focus on issues which have not
39 been raised. She then swore in those speaking to this matter.
40
41 John Root referred to Section 6.8.20 of the Village ordinance prohibiting dogs from running at large. He
42 stated an exception to the ordinance would be approved to have this fence and referred to a photo of
43 Gillson Beach which showed a fence at the water line. Mr. Root also referred to photos of other beaches
44 where the fences do not extend into the lake.
45
46 Joanna Karatzas from Winnetka described the plans for the off leash dog beach as vague and misleading
47 and she read her statement into the record. She asked for the special use permit to be denied.
48
Page 78 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 5
1 Laurie Peterson read Mary Garrison’s letter into the record who asked for the special use permit request
2 to be denied.
3
4 Mark Hecht from Winnetka described the proposed plan as an ill-conceived use of Village and Park District
5 property with there being better ways to handle the issue. He suggested entirely prohibiting dogs from all
6 lakefront property during regular swimming hours and allow everyone to freely use the entire lakefront.
7 Mr. Hecht also suggested the use of stone jetties with the suggestion that these alternatives be used for
8 a couple of years to determine if they are effective.
9
10 Jude Overly, a 33 year Fuller Lane resident, stated she has never seen any aggressive behaviors over her
11 years of using the beach and there is no need to have a fence to protect dogs and residents. She described
12 incidents of dogs having issues with fences. Ms. Overly referred to one particular non-Winnetka resident
13 who hoped for the fence and asked for the application to be denied and for the dog beach to be left open
14 for all residents and their dogs.
15
16 Susie Schreiber, past Park District commissioner and a past member of this Commission, read a statement
17 into the record which referred to the numerous amount of accidents and deaths in Illinois beach state
18 parks and along the shorelines as well as the lack of Illinois shoreline safety regulations. She concluded by
19 asking for the terminology of shoals not to be used in reference to Centennial beach.
20
21 Irene Smith, a 40 year Winnetka resident, referred the Commission to a photo of Centennial Beach and
22 described the Park District’s convoluted proposal to have a fence in the lake. She stated creating a cage
23 for the limited number of Winnetka pass holders did not make sense. Ms. Smith stated the waters are
24 navigable and did not contain shoals and asked for the special use permit be denied.
25
26 Angie Dahl, a 40 year Winnetka resident, stated she has served as a Park District President and on several
27 Village advisory boards. She described the unsafe and impassable condition of the beach which has
28 occurred over the years. Ms. Dahl stated when the public went to the IDNR to ask for clarification with
29 regard to several lakefront matters, the response was that the Village could have denied all of the
30 approvals since the Village has final jurisdiction over the lakefront. She then referred to the amount of
31 complaints with regard to the proposal and asked the Commission to deny the request.
32
33 Alexandra Nichols, 900 Mt. Pleasant, stated there are serious safety concerns with fences at the dog beach
34 and there has been a violation of the doctrine of public use. She then read her statement into the record
35 and asked for the special use permit be denied.
36
37 Peggy Martay, a 50 year Winnetka resident, read her statement into the record and asked for the special
38 use permit to be denied.
39
40 Steve Juliusson, a 20 year Winnetka resident, read his statement into the record and asked for the special
41 use permit to be denied.
42
43 Susan Curry, 375 Hawthorn, stated the dog beach and park are important to the community and the
44 described discussions relating to moving some of those facilities to other parts of the area as off. She
45 described the dog beach as a family beach and stated they can all come together find a way for everyone
46 to enjoy the beach. Ms. Curry also stated she had not heard of any issues regarding safety or security with
47 there being diversity across the waterfront and concluded nothing needed to be changed.
48
Page 79 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 6
1 Katie Stevens referred to the restrictive covenant signed between Orchard 2020 and the Park District
2 which did not include a fence permit at that time and would freeze Centennial Beach’s use for 50 years.
3 She stated the fencing may become permanent and may end up on private land with a land swap. Ms.
4 Stevens also referred to access limitations with fencing becoming a nuisance and referred to specific code
5 requirements.
6
7 David Stevens, Winnetka resident, referred to the referenced water depth which would be well over 3
8 feet and would present a restriction in terms of those who want to use the beach.
9
10 Ted Wynnychenko asked for the special use permit to not be approved and referred to the half-truths
11 being presented at this meeting. He also referred to fences and restrictions at other beaches, the lack of
12 shoals, etc. Mr. Wynnychenko questioned the Park District’s right to put a fence across the high water
13 mark area and referred to the binding exchange agreement in place with regard to the overlay district
14 requirements which would result in private land ownership.
15
16 Melissa Meizel, a 30 year Winnetka resident, referred to the 460 linear foot proposal and contemplated
17 use by dog owners which she described as an excessive allocation of resources. She also referred to
18 whether it would be a dog beach, dog park and that “temporary” would result in “until further notice.”
19 Ms. Meizel stated there has been no investigation in connection with fences at other beaches other than
20 the one which supported the applicant’s position. She concluded they are being treated with ambiguity,
21 obfuscation, distortion, etc. and asked for the special use permit to be denied. No additional comments
22 were made at this time.
23
24 Chairperson Danley closed public comment and asked the applicant if they would like to respond at this
25 time.
26
27 Mr. Francke clarified the reason as to why Mr. Kutulas explained the term “temporary fencing” in some
28 places and not others. He also stated with regard to the plan being presented in bits and pieces, the Park
29 District is working on plans for Elder and Centennial Beaches following the Commission’s consideration of
30 the prior plan in 2025 which is what was intended by the term “temporary.” Mr. Francke also referred to
31 the written comment relating to guidelines with regard to temporary approval which the Park District
32 would not be opposed to. He stated with regard to the dog beach size, if these concerns are shared and
33 recognizing the shared beach and making it a condition that the Park District explore alternatives including
34 a design which did not require pass through. Mr. Francke stated there are alternatives to address a
35 number of responses made.
36
37 Chairperson Danley called the matter in for discussion and summarized the issue presented to the
38 Commission as to whether the fencing met the standards. Mr. Alt stated he would not be in favor for a
39 number of reasons and referred to the waste of time and money the Park District continued to bring to
40 the Commission and others. He stated while the presentation was strong, he asked the applicant to put
41 together a plan that is safe and would work for the community. Ms. Van Vlack stated the Commission
42 should not decide what the dog beach should be called and although delineation would have been helpful,
43 she identified the tasks the Commission is to consider. She stated based on the presentation, it is not clear
44 that the proposal met that documented necessity and she also had an issue of approving an item
45 categorized as temporary. Ms. Van Vlack concluded she would not vote in favor of the request.
46
47 Mr. Enck agreed with the comments made and stated generally, if a fence is needed for use separation
48 but it is only three sided, it did not meet that requirement and no one wants a four sided fence. He stated
Page 80 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 7
1 extending the fence an arbitrary distance into the lake did not solve the issue. Ms. Case agreed with the
2 comments made and stated standards (a) and (b) have not been met. She stated she is concerned with
3 regard to safety in terms of the fence in the water and having to go through four air locks to get to the
4 beach. Ms. Case stated the Commission is being asked to approve something in a vacuum when they do
5 not know what the rest of the proposal would be. Mr. Blum agreed with the comments made and
6 indicated the ZBA may address the issue of increased parking. He then referred to the restrictive covenant
7 issue and asked that they find a path forward to get the beaches open. Mr. Blum concluded most of the
8 standards have not been met and asked the Village Attorney to draft language which outlined the
9 Commission’s opposition.
10
11 Mr. Poor stated he came to the similar conclusion as the rest of the Commission Members and described
12 his use of the dog beach. He stated a 15-foot fence in the lake would present security issues for dogs who
13 love the water. Mr. Poor stated the dog beach existed prior to 2010 and worked well. He described the
14 risks and safety issues a 15-foot fence presented and the request did not satisfy the first two standards
15 and he would vote against the request. Mr. Bradley stated there may be a call for everyone to work
16 towards a temporary condition and viable path which would bide some time in connection with the issues
17 between the prior plan and future plans for Centennial and Elder Beaches. He stated a strict standard
18 interpretation of the standards would put a zero sum solution on the table. Mr. Bradley stated the beaches
19 cannot be left alone and littoral drift among other issues needed to be addressed. He concluded by stating
20 a short term solution needed to be reached while a longer term plan can be achieved. The Commission
21 Members agreed a solution is needed.
22
23 Trustee Orsic informed the Commission dog beach pass owners came to a Village Council meeting and
24 stated they are not in favor of fences or wedded to this location. She stated while there has not been a
25 fence there for a period of time, she referred to the dangers of having children and dogs play in the water
26 with a submerged fence. Trustee Orsic referred to the wood slat temporary fence at Highland Park and
27 agreed a solution needed to be reached for Elder Beach to be opened. Chairperson Danley agreed with
28 Mr. Bradley’s comments and reiterated her statement at the time the entire plan was presented to the
29 Commission is that in making a decision, they all want the beaches to be open. She stated she is concerned
30 with the first two standards and referred to the safety concerns raised with regard to children and dogs.
31 Chairperson Danley stated having a fence in the water would not serve to address the safety concerns.
32 She also referred to the difficulty if they were to impose conditions which would be numerous as well as
33 the interaction between those beach goers and dog owners with a solution being made that took that
34 into account with the posted sign being insufficient. Chairperson Danley concluded she is not in favor of
35 the request.
36
37 Mr. Francke asked if the Park District could present a plan that eliminated the fencing in the water and
38 provided for a by-pass for public access around the dog beach at a future Plan Commission meeting. The
39 Commission was not receptive to an amended plan being presented to them after all the public comments
40 related to the submitted plan. Chairperson Danley suggested the applicant can present those options to
41 the ZBA. She then asked for a motion.
42
43 Mr. Blum moved to recommend denial of the special use request permit and to direct the Village Attorney
44 and Village staff to prepare written findings and determinations consistent with the Commission’s
45 comments and the record from this public hearing for proposed consideration at the Commission’s next
46 meeting. Ms. Case seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 7 to 0:
47 AYES: Alt, Blum, Case, Danley, Enck, Poor, Van Vlack
48 NAYS: None
Page 81 of 316
January 28, 2026 Page 8
1 NON-VOTING: Bradley, Orsic
2
3 ***
4
5 Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Antionette Johnson
8 Recording Secretary
Page 82 of 316
ATTACHMENT C1
Page 83 of 316
Page 84 of 316
Page 85 of 316
Page 86 of 316
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Cc:
Subject: WPD Fencing SUP Application—Comments for ZBA
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:54:52 AM
Attachments: 79D77E9B-AC52-4CC5-AC9C-CBC0E793E569.png
72EF620F-8882-4826-AD60-142297EB47FF.png
6596EEA3-476F-4B03-BB96-772A53BF06ED.png
4BC6BF5B-798F-455D-A353-CE0AB1157213.png
57171C5D-38A9-4395-853A-65804F652783.png
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 Ann:
Would you please share this with ZBA ahead of its February 9, 2026 meeting?
On February 5, 2026 the Winnetka Park District adopted a motion approving new permanent
fencing designs for Centennial Beach. I did not see the new plans in ZBA’s publicly available
February 9, 2026 meeting packet. The new permanent fencing project differs in design, scope
and description from what WPD presented to ZBA for Monday’s meeting, which I believe
requires it to make new permit submissions to the Village.
WPD’s new permanent fencing designs
“The public beach has to end.”
Page 87 of 316
WPD continues to misrepresent the reasons for a fencing project that Cook County’s Deputy
Administrator categorizes as falling outside the scope of its ordinance. Further
misrepresentations and confusion related to WPD’s new dog beach fencing designs are as
follows.
1. Despite WPD’s awareness of the Village’s commitment to protecting the public’s health,
Page 88 of 316
safety and welfare, it adopted new designs that are at least as detrimental as the designs Plan
voted 7-0 not to recommend. This fencing would induce people to step onto the steel sheet
piling and use it to travel east as far as WPD’s proposed fencing extends, from where they
could jump off—potentially hitting 205 Sheridan’s armored stone breakwater. People will be
hard to see in the water/on the rocks/below the fencing, and difficult to rescue.
Two men climbed onto the steel groin and sidestepped along it by using the fencing. Note that
WPD’s designs would permanently induce future beachwalkers to do the same while
traversing Lake Michigan’s actual shoreline.
2. I understood WPD’s Costa Kutulas to say sand levels on either side of the new designs’
steel groin-mounted fencing would differ by approximately 4’, creating a hazardous drop off.
He also made an assumption that people would choose the safest route to reach 205 Sheridan’s
northern breakwater steps. I do not think it is reasonable to make this assumption, and I hope
ZBA asks him about it.
3. At the February 5, 2026 meeting, WPD’s board majority was coy about its intentions for
2024’s WPD-IFF Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. The board majority said
they want to get all the permits for the groin-mounted fencing plan, and then revisit the
Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant. It does not take much to suspect an eventual
plan to encumber the park, freeze its use, build dangerous structures and impede access to
Centennial’s southern shoreline, all to the detriment of the public’s general welfare for over
half a century.
Page 89 of 316
4. WPD’s new permanent fencing designs would cost $50,000-$100,000–adding to over $2.3
million spent to date, plus a foregone genuine $3 million donation offer that would have
advanced more funds to cover litigation threats WPD is using as an excuse. The effect is
detrimental to the public’s general welfare.
Page 90 of 316
5. WPD’s new designs would involve relocating electrical wiring all the way down the bluffs
and onto the sandy beach 12 feet east of the toe of the bluffs. The OHWM on Centennial’s
southern end—closest to 205 Sheridan—is only a short distance east of the fencing and
electric fob.
Page 91 of 316
As water levels change, the electrical wiring, key fob, gate and even the “watertight” dog
waste receptacle will be fully or partly underwater. This will be unsafe, unsanitary and
difficult to maintain. I therefore request that ZBA ask WPD why in the surveys of dog beaches
throughout Lake and Cook Counties, nothing has surfaced depicting other dog beaches with
locked electric gates only feet away from the OHWM. It is obviously much safer and more
usable for the key fob operated gate to remain at the top of the bluffs with no risk of it being
submerged in Lake Michigan.
Page 92 of 316
Page 93 of 316
Metal cover over Centennial’s current electric fob operated gate’s emergency exit button was
broken off and not fixed over multiple summers.
6. I think it may be difficult for an electric gate that is sitting in sand or water to swing open. If
it does open, it may take more than a reasonable amount of time. Once inside the 10’ square
Page 94 of 316
enclosure leading to the main area for dogs, there would be another gate people would have to
unlatch and physically pull open (or closed) manually to enter or leave the 10’ square
enclosure. It is unclear if the designs include an emergency exit button inside the 10’ square
enclosure.
7. On February 5, 2026 Mr. Kutulas said the new designs’ black chainlink fencing would be
HARDER TO SEE. This will cause more accidents involving swimmers, paddle boarders,
kayakers, jet skiers and other watergoers along with dogs, getting tangled up with the fencing
and hurt, and/or possibly drowning.
8. WPD is loath to respect the Ordinary High Water Mark as the easternmost boundary of its
lot line for zoning purposes. Approving fencing that extends into a public street—Lake
Michigan—would set a terrible and dangerous precedent. You may not be aware of this, but a
threatening sign was placed off of the Cherry Street Beach sometime after 2023. In the fall of
2025 the sign was still on public beach below the OHWM. I believe it would create even more
dangers for the public if ZBA votes to recommend fencing below the OHWM. Others will use
this as precedent in their determined efforts to block off Lake Michigan.
Page 95 of 316
Sign south of Cherry Street Beach in 2025
9. WPD has not formed a plan for the isolated northern half of Centennial beach that its
designs would create. ZBA does not have enough information to assess whether an
immediately adjacent swimming beach would be safe for people and dogs traveling up and
down the stairs to the same watershed, whether it would be legal under the Illinois Swimming
Page 96 of 316
Facilities Act, whether WPD would comply with the law and build bathrooms within 300 feet
of the shoreline, or other potential issues. I am confounded by WPD’s consideration of designs
that could put human swimmers strictly on the north side of Centennial’s center steel groin
where they will face what WPD describes as northeasterly rip currents. It would be safer to put
people on the southern side of the steel groin . . . obviously not WPD’s choice since it would
foil efforts to fence Centennial’s southern boundary.
10. On February 5, 2026 WPD mentioned its allocation of funding to police Centennial beach
with “wardens.” WPD’s Centennial beach vision appears to be putting people and their dogs
in a cage, with roaming police issuing tickets and/or warning people away. This is out of line
with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it is repugnant.
11. WPD seems confused about Wilmette’s Gillson Dog Beach. Dogs have to remain leashed
until they get to Gillson’s sandy dog beach, but not when they are on the sand.
12. It is unclear if Centennial’s 11 parking spots would be sufficient if Winnetka’s only dog
beach is next to a passive use or swimming beach. I think a dual-use beach will draw a lot of
people, like Lloyd Beach does. The lack of adequate parking will spill onto tabletop parkland,
into the neighborhood across Sheridan Road and around the area. This in itself is sufficient
reason to deny approving WPD’s SUP application.
13. Pounding fencing onto the steel groin that crosses over Centennial’s lot line with 205
Sheridan could be destabilizing and potentially give rise to damages. WPD should be asked
about this.
14. WPD makes no commitment to get a professional assessment of whether its designs—
particularly the gates—meet ADA requirements for Winnetka’s only dog beach, which is a
public accommodation.
WPD’s February 5, 2026 Special Meeting just appeared on its calendar on Monday, February
2, 2026. Its meeting agenda with two small images of the new permanent fencing designs
appeared on Tuesday, February 4, 2026. The public had 48 hours to evaluate the designs, if
they happened to read WPD’s agenda ahead of Thursday’s meeting. This is the same and also
inadequate timeframe that the public and non-majority board members had to try to evaluate
designs attached to WPD-IFF’s Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant when they
appeared in WPD’s October 19, 2023 meeting agenda—48 hours. Furthermore, the new
designs are not included in ZBA’s meeting packet. The Village Engineer, Police Chief and
Fire Chief have not had an opportunity to assess the designs’ narrow bypass width, the gates,
placing electrical on the beach, the 4’ drop-off, and other questions. WPD’s efforts to force
down cumbersome designs that impede access to public lands and threaten the public’s
general welfare—physically, financially and legally, are concerning. Please uphold the
public’s interest and decline to recommend approving them.
Thank you.
Kristine Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
Page 97 of 316
The Zoning Board of Appeals shouldn’t do anything to advance the current plans
of the Winnetka Park District for a dog area at Centennial Beach, because setting
aside any lakefront property of the Village of Winnetka is simply an ill-conceived
use of Village and Park District lakefront.
There are better ways to handle this issue.
What the Village and the WPD should do in regard to canine access to the
lakefront is to [i] entirely prohibit dogs from all lakefront property during regular
swimming hours, but [ii] allow dog-owners and their dogs and the public to freely
use the lakefront – just the beach, not any park areas – in the evenings, after
regular hours for permitted swimming and for the public in general.
I have personally seen this regulatory scheme in action at beaches on the Atlantic
Ocean in New Jersey, and it has worked well for years.
And according to remarks by Zoning Board Chair Matthew Bradley at the January
28th Plan Commission meeting, the usage regime suggested above appears to be
how ‘the dog beach” has, in fact historically operated in Winnetka anyway.
Fully realizing this proposal and beach accessibility to Winnetka residents would,
of course, mean opening up all the lakefront that is now effectively barricaded by
the kind of massive rock jetties that have recently been erected at either end of
the Ishbia property, but even if it isn’t possible to address that particular aspect
right now, the regulatory scheme suggested above will still work well.
The proposed regulatory scheme will, obviously cost a great deal less than the
current Park District proposal, and it won’t involve further environmental
degradation -- assuming that dog-owners pick up after the pets.
It’s at least worth a try, isn’t it? So why not turn off the seemingly endless
governmental process for now, and give it a try for a year or two?
Marc Hecht
Page 98 of 316
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: February 9, 2026
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 5:46:38 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.
Ann,
Please forward my letter below to the Zoning Board and the Design Review Board.
Thank You,
Joanna Karatzas
February 9, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit for Dog Fence at Centennial Beach
Zoning Board:
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
It’s hard writing about a moving target. Since the Park Board altered schematics for the dog
beach on February 5, 2026, the letter I previously wrote regarding the scheme presented to the
Planning Commission on January 28, 2026 is irrelevant. However, I don’t know if procedure
allows for a switch at this point without first going back to the Planning Commission.
Therefore, I’m retaining my response to that first scheme in this letter.
See Below.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the public on February 5, 2026.
As I stated previously regarding the scheme presented to the Planning Commission on January
28, 2026, tonight’s plans are again vague, and therefore misleading. Because the drawing
doesn’t include the breakwater at 205 Sheridan, it may give the viewer an overly optimistic
perception of its true feasibility. It’s important to convey the entire existing condition on the
south boundary of Centennial. It’s a point of contention and I’ll never understand why the
drawing is incomplete.
In looking at the plan, it looks like pedestrians would have to walk on property belonging to
205 Sheridan when transversing southward along the lake. Also, the width of the passage in
front of the stairs over the breakwater seems especially narrow and is endanger of being
swamped should the lake rise to the high water mark.
A park commissioner at last week’s meeting mentioned the need for a staked survey at this
edge. It seems like a good idea and should have happened before this plan was presented.
More importantly, it’s worth asking ourselves what’s driving a fenced dog beach there at all?
The answer lies in a donation held out to the Park District by the Ishbia Family Foundation
(IFF), also known as the owner of 205 Sheridan. The donation isn’t a pure act of kindness, it
has strings attached. It mandates a fenced dog beach located at the south end of Centennial;
ADA access; and a very over-scaled pier placed near where the north dog beach fence is
Page 99 of 316
proposed. I wish someone would tell me what IFF’s motivations are, particularly regarding the
pier.
The entanglement between IFF and the WPD has resulted in some very weird proposals and
solutions over the last four years. I have been critical of the proposed designs, but I know the
designers aren’t at fault. The root of the problems lie with decisions and agreements the
Winnetka Park Board has made. Cutting the cord between IFF and WPD would allow for a
rational solution at Elder/Centennial.
Response to the Dog Beach plan presented
by Winnetka Park District to the Planning Commission on January 28, 2026.
The plans for the off-leash dog beach, submitted as part of tonight’s agenda packet are vague
and therefore misleading. The drawings fail to inform the Zoning Board and the public of the
breakwater now existing at the north boundary of 205 Sheridan, also known as the south
boundary of Centennial, nor do they highlight the existing sheet pile at the same location.
Furthermore, the fence elevations are not presented in context— therefore the observer can’t
see what lurks behind proposed south fence. Had the sheet pile and the breakwater been boldly
drawn in plan, the benign looking 20 ft.-gap between the thin line representing the south fence
of the proposed dog beach and the property line of 205 Sheridan Rd. would seem hazardous
and redundant.
The proposed fence is 93 ft. 3in. long from the toe of the bluff to its eastern terminus in Lake
Michigan. It runs into the lake at a proposed distance of 15 ft. from the ordinary water line, but
that stretch would increase to 40 plus ft. should the lake rise to the high water mark. Should
the lake level stay at the ordinary water mark, the water depth at the east terminus of the fence
would be 1.5-2 ft. That makes me wonder, would that depth be if we experience a high tide?
At best, the proposed 20 ft. gap will be an unsightly debris collector and at worst it would be a
trap endangering the lives of people and dogs that might get stuck and battered between
jagged rocks, a corroded sheet pile, and an ungiving fence. Yes, the lake can get choppy and
produce strong currents.
The need to provide a fence where there is already a pile of rocks is questionable. Dogs aren’t
likely to pick their way over wet, slimy rocks in favor of running and playing on a wide open
beach.
Finally, drawings are a powerful tool of communication. They should be comprehensive and
describe adjacency conditions. In this case they fail to do so, therefore, please deny this
Special Use Permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Page 100 of 316
John William Root
326 Woodland Avenue
Winnetka, IL 60093
Telephone:
Email:
Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org
Mr. Scott Mangum February 8, 2026
Village of Winnetka
Director of Community Development
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU
225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach
Comments for 10/14/24 Hearing
Dear Mr. Mangum:
As you may be aware, the Winnetka Park Board (WPD) met on February 5, 2026, and approved
a new design for the dog fence for its Special Use Permit (SUP) for Case No. 25-28-SU. The
design can be seen below in figure 1.
Figure 1. Revised Dog Fence Design
Page 101 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 2 of 3
The February 5 redesign appears to be a material change from the fence configuration presented
in the pending SUP application and circulated to the public. Among other things, the redesign
relocates the fence elements and reconfigures Centennial Beach by dividing it into an off-leash
dog area and a separate “passive” beach area for the general public, which materially alters the
character and impacts of the proposed special use.
Section 17.56.130 (Amendments to Special Use Permits) recognizes that when a SUP holder
seeks a material change to the approved special use, the change must be processed as an
amendment with the required administrative review and public process. The Park District is not
merely refining details; it has approved a substantively different configuration. At minimum, the
Village should require the Park District to proceed through the appropriate administrative
procedure under the Zoning Ordinance for a material modification—i.e., staff review, a complete
and current plan set, and legally adequate public notice—before the matter is heard on the merits.
This is also a basic procedural due process issue. The public hearing process only works if
residents and affected property owners have meaningful notice of what is being proposed and a
fair opportunity to review and comment on the operative design. A last-minute substitution of a
materially different fence plan on the eve of a hearing undermines the integrity of the
administrative record and deprives interested persons of a fair opportunity to be heard on the
actual proposal.
As of the date of this letter: (1) no notice of postponement of the February 9, 2026, ZBA hearing
appears to have been posted; and (2) the February 5 revised fence design does not appear to be
posted on the Village’s ZBA webpage. It therefore appears likely that the Park District may
present the superseded fence design at the February 9 hearing, despite having approved a
materially different plan on February 5. That would be inefficient for the ZBA and unfair to the
public, and it risks a recommendation based on a plan the applicant itself has abandoned.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Village require the Park District to submit a complete
amended plan set reflecting the new February 5 design and then restart or continue the SUP
process as required for material changes, including staff review and proper notice to surrounding
property owners and the public. If the Park District nonetheless intends to proceed on February
9 using the older design, then the ZBA should limit the presentation time (e.g., 15 minutes for
staff and 15 minutes for the applicant) and avoid devoting substantial hearing time to an
outmoded plan that is no longer the applicant’s approved design.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
/ s/
John W. Root
Page 102 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
February 8, 2026
Page 3 of 3
cc: Members of the Village of Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
Ms. Kristin Kazenas, Village Manager
By Email: KKazenas@winnetka.org
Ms. Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director
By Email: AKlaassen@winnetka.org
Page 103 of 316
To: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Angie Dahl
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU: 225 Sheridan Road-Centennial Beach
Date: February 9 2026
Members of the ZBA:
You are being asked tonight to consider and approve an application from the Winnetka Park
District to allow installation of fencing on the existing Centennial beach in order to create a
dog beach. On January 28 2026, this application was unanimously rejected by the Plan
Commission.
Tonight, Park District staff and legal counsel may also present an alternative plan, differing in
size, scope and accessibility, which was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Park Board held
on February 5, 2026 at 4:30 in the afternoon.
The plan rejected by the Plan Commission, which is before you this evening, and the newly
designed plan adopted by the Winnetka Park Board on February 5 have one purpose in
common: the creation of a dog beach with substantial fencing.
Several years ago the Winnetka Park District solicited input from dog owners and dog beach
users on an ad hoc advisory board whose purpose was to evaluate options within the
community for an off leash dog area. The recommendation from that group was to move the
dog beach from Centennial and relocate it at an area near the power plant at Tower Road.
The timing of this ad hoc committee and its subsequent recommendation overlapped with
new, private and ongoing discussions between several members of the Winnetka Park District
Board of Commissioners, and an individual property owner purchasing land adjacent to
Centennial Park. During this same period, concerned residents attempted but failed to locate
or review any meeting minutes or video recordings of meetings where the Centennial/Elder
project was discussed. This resulted in an inquiry to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and
a subsequent finding that the Winnetka Park District was in violation of the requirements in
the Open Meetings Act of timely posting meeting minutes and videos for public review.
Interestingly, the missing information being sought directly related to the negotiations taking
place in private with a specific home owner. The findings of the ad hoc dog beach advisory
committee were put aside.
I bring this to your attention tonight because of the repetitive nature of the SUP applications
from the Park District.
I am a dog owner, a user of the dog beach, and was a Park District Commissioner at the time
the Centennial Dog Beach was conceived and implemented. My husband was a member of
Page 104 of 316
the ad hoc Dog Beach Committee which addressed a possible change in location. I believe
there is a simple solution to this ongoing merry-go-round of hearings regarding this issue.
Remove the dog beach from Centennial. If that happens, there will be no need for a SUP and
no need for the fencing that is opposed by so many.
I don’t know if it is within your purview to make this decision. If so, please consider this
option and please deny the Winnetka Park District’s application for a SUP.
Angie Dahl
1277 Forest Glen Dr N
Page 105 of 316
MEM0
February 9, 2026
TO: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Laurie Morse
RE: Centennial Fence Designs 1-3. Which will the ZB review today?
Zoning Board reviewed and rejected fence design 1. at meetings in 2024. This fence blocks
public access stairs to the new 205 beach, which is now complete and open for public use.
1. Fence plan from WPD/IFF restrictive Covenant Agreement dated January 19, 2024:
access stairs to 205 Sheridan beach 1
Page 106 of 316
2. WPD Fence Plan chosen at WPD Board Meeting February 5, 2026
The Feb. 5 WPD Board Meeting was theater. This “new” fence design conforms nicely to
Ishbia Family Covenant agreement requirements. Walkways and other features can be
added later. This plan includes locked gates at beach level but is not materially di erent
from 1. above already rejected by ZB. Access stairs to new public 205 beach blocked.
The “temporary fence” 3. Below, scheduled for ZB review today doesn’t conform to the
Ishbia Covenant agreement fence plan. “Temporary” language in IDNR permit application
was meant for Ishbia Family team. “Temporary fence” was e ective test of IDNR permit
review. WPD no longer plans to build this design and will seek new permits from all
regulators.
3. IDNR permitted this fence design on December 24, 2025. Permit LM20250015.
Page 107 of 316
From: Ann Klaassen
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:55:14 AM
From: Irene Smith >
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 10:52 AM
To: Ann Klaassen <AKlaassen@winnetka.org>
Subject: Could you distribute to ZBA?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, Ann. Is it too late to add something to the ZBA packets? This is a poster I’m bringing tonight, but I’m afraid
the printing is too small. It would be better understood if the Commissioners could read it in their packets.
Many thanks.
Irene
Page 108 of 316
*****************************
Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly
Page 109 of 316
believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more
excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.
When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid
down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression, and war. So I say to
you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.
John Lewis, from the essay he wrote shortly before his death on July 17, 2020.
Page 110 of 316
Page 111 of 316
Page 112 of 316
From:
To: Robert Dearborn; Kristin Kazenas
Cc: Ann Klaassen; Brian O"Connell
Subject: Can we resolve question re beach below 205 Sheridan prior to March ZBA meeting?
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:16:32 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.
Dear President Dearborn and Manager Kazenas,
Winnetka's Zoning Board of Appeals will review yet another Park District
fencing design for Centennial Beach at its March meeting. The south end
of new proposal fences off the stone steps the IDNR and the Village
required for public access over the rock breakwater to the new public
engineered beach below 205 Sheridan Sheridan Road. Am drafting comments
on the fences for the ZBA and realize it is essential the Village
establish for ZBA Commissioners the public nature of the new beach below
205 Sheridan. That the new beach is a public asset in Winnetka.
I could write a long spiel for the ZBA, but it takes the Village to
settle for its own commissioners any question of the public's rights to
use the new beach. The terms of the State permit allowing the 205 beach
construction are clear: All the fill is public and open for use to all.
The permit award letter to the 205 owner from the IDNR specifies the
rock steps from Centennial over the 205 rock breakwater need to be far
enough up the beach to provide safe access for all. The Village in its
own permits also required stairs over the 205 structure's rocks so the
public can safely cross to the new beach. Further, the IDNR underscored
the public nature of the beach by requiring stairs down south side of
new 205 groin so the public can proceed south if they wish. All of
these documents are in your files.
In November, 2025, after the 205 beach construction fence was removed, a
friend and I enjoyed our first visit to the new beach, using the rock
stairs from Centennial for access. Due to a misunderstanding by the
upland owner, the police were called. Your public safety team resolved
the misunderstanding and recognized the rights of my friend and I to
stay and enjoy the new beach as long as we liked. I and others have
subsequently visited the beach below 205 frequently and look forward to
further visits during warm weather.
This E-mail is only a request that the Village confirm for Zoning Board
members the public nature of the new beach on Centennial's southern
border. I am not asking for a public declaration or announcement. Only
that members of the ZBA are fully informed prior to their hearing on
Park District fencing. They deserve clarity before considering the WPD
application for permission to fence off public access to the new public
beach below 205.
Am copying Ann Klaassen with a request to share this note with Chairman
Bradley of ZBA. Am copying Chief O'Connell for information only.
Best regards,
Page 113 of 316
Laurie Morse
Page 114 of 316
Page 115 of 316
Wildlife-friendly Fencing and the
Problem With Link Chain Fencing
May 9, 2024 - By tara
In recent years, the conversation around sustainable living and
environmental conservation has highlighted the importance of wildlife-
friendly fencing. Traditional barriers, particularly chain link fences, often
pose significant hazards to local wildlife, obstructing natural movements
and causing injuries. This article explores some wildlife-friendly fence
options, the challenges of chain links, and inexpensive ways to cover a
chain link fence to enhance its safety for wildlife.
What Makes a Fence Wildlife-Friendly?
Visibility
Wildlife-friendly fencing is designed to be highly visible to animals to
prevent collisions and entanglement. By using larger, more reflective
materials or adding colorful flagging tape to wires, the fence stands out
better in natural environments. This visibility helps animals like deer, elk,
and even birds recognize the barrier from a distance, allowing them to
navigate safely around it. Enhanced visibility is especially crucial in areas
where animal movement is high, ensuring that the fence serves as a gentle
deterrent rather than a lethal obstacle.
Permeability
The concept of permeability in fencing is crucial for maintaining natural
wildlife migration and movement patterns. Wildlife-friendly fences are
constructed with gaps or are flexible enough to allow animals to pass
through safely when necessary. For instance, drop-down sections or large
spaces between the lower wires enable smaller animals to crawl under,
while taller species might jump over without harm. This approach helps in
Page 116 of 316
preserving the ecological balance and allows animals to continue their
natural behaviors such as foraging and migration without severe
disruption.
Height and Spacing
Adjusting the height and spacing of the wires in a fence can significantly
enhance its wildlife-friendliness. The design considerations include
ensuring that fences are not too high that they trap animals or too low that
they pose a tripping hazard. Ideally, a fence should be high enough to deter
or contain livestock yet low enough or properly spaced so that wildlife like
deer can jump over safely. Moreover, sufficient ground clearance is
provided to allow smaller creatures, such as turtles and rodents, to pass
underneath, facilitating free movement across their habitat.
Material
The choice of material in wildlife-friendly fencing is vital to minimize
potential injuries to wildlife. Using smoother and more flexible materials
can reduce the chances of animals getting caught or injured by the fence.
Smooth wire is often preferred over barbed wire, as it is less likely to cause
harm if an animal attempts to cross through or over the fence. This
consideration not only protects wildlife but also maintains the integrity and
purpose of the fence over time.
Gate Placement and Design
Integrating strategically placed gates or removable sections in wildlife-
friendly fencing can significantly improve accessibility for wildlife. These
gates are often designed to accommodate seasonal migration patterns,
allowing animals to pass through key areas during specific times of the
year. This design strategy helps to ensure that fencing does not
permanently fragment habitats or obstruct essential migratory routes, thus
supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity.
Page 117 of 316
Page 118 of 316
Chain link fencing is not typically recommended for wildlife-friendly fencing
due to several potential issues it can pose for animals:
Limited Permeability: Chain link fences offer little to no flexibility for
animals to pass through or over, effectively creating barriers that can
restrict wildlife movement and fragment habitats.
Injury Risks: The mesh design of chain link fences can pose risks for smaller
wildlife, which might attempt to pass through the openings and become
stuck or injured.
Obstacle to Larger Animals: Larger wildlife, like deer or elk, cannot jump
over high chain link fences without risking injury. Likewise, they can’t pass
through it, which can disrupt natural migration and foraging paths.
Cheap Ways to Cover a Chain Link Fence
If you already have a chain link fence and want to make it more wildlife-
friendly, there are a few modifications you can consider to reduce its impact
on local fauna:
There are some affordable ways to cover a chain link fence to create
a wildlife-friendly space in your garden.
Adding visual markers such as colorful ribbons or reflective materials
increases visibility to animals, helping to prevent collisions.
Implementing affordable covers like finer mesh or burlap can protect
smaller creatures from getting trapped while also concealing the
industrial look of the fence.
Strategically creating gaps or installing wildlife-friendly gates facilitates
natural animal movement.
Planting vegetation, such as climbing vines near the fence, provides a
green cover, seamlessly integrating the fence with its natural
surroundings.
Page 119 of 316
These cost-effective modifications not only ensure the safety of local wildlife
but also improve the overall appearance of the fence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Irene Smith
1087 Elm St.
Page 120 of 316
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: A photo for the ZBA packet.
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:47:29 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.
Hi, Ann. Would you please copy the following for the ZBA packets? Thanks so
much.
Irene
Page 121 of 316
To the ZBA members-
This is a photo of the beach at Old Lyme, CT. I cannot imagine 2 such cages on
Centennial Beach, one for people with dogs and one for people without dogs.
Executive Director of Parks, Shannon Nazzal, says the fences they are proposing will
be permanent. Again, you are getting a piecemeal proposal. How can you approve
such a thing without seeing the plans for Elder / Centennial?
Please deny the request by the Park District for an SUP.
Thank you for your consideration.
Irene Smith
1087 Elm Street
Page 122 of 316
From:
To: ; Ann Klaassen
Subject: March 9 ZBA Meeting
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 11:23:39 AM
Attachments: F1C79686-0224-415B-9367-EA360D628FF9.png
399185DD-6164-4D62-9319-383230965428.png
A6D6EBD7-8147-47BD-950C-09E86B4131C4.png
DFC6549F-CF1B-47F2-9247-A78EBF9C1927.png
CentennialFlyoverVideo.MP4
Alex Ross Email Redacted.pdf
IL OSHA Employee SanitaryFacilities.pdf
WPD AECOM FailedSteelGroin Breakwater 2025.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ann:
Would you please share my comments on WPD's revised Centennial fencing designs with
ZBA, along with the attachments?
Thank you.
Kris Schriesheim
Winnetka taxpayer
WPD’s description of Centennial as Winnetka’s largest and highest quality beach weighs
against recommending a dangerous fencing scheme that is detrimental to and would threaten
the public’s general welfare permanently.
DESIGNS BLOCK PASSAGE AND PRIVATIZE BEACH
Page 123 of 316
WPD’s seeks to obtain a permit for designs that would block passage along and privatize the
beach. This breaches multiple Village Code sections; threatens the public's health, safety and
welfare; threatens the essential character of Winnetka's Sheridan Road neighborhoods;
diminishes property values with fencing that does not exist elsewhere in the neighborhood;
creates congestion in the street; uses non-minimal designs; and creates parking issues. Most of
these SUP issues were raised during ZBA's 2024 review, yet WPD appears to have made no
effort to resolve them during the ensuing 14 months.
Driving WPD's fencing efforts are inflexible, unsafe, unaffordable, unpopular, twice-rejected
breakwater-heavy designs. WPD's current SUP application mirrors almost exactly WPD's
fencing designs from its 2024 Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant for which it
unsuccessfully sought ZBA's approval.
I. WPD's fencing designs Violate SUP Condition 1, which requires: "That the establishment,
maintenance and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare."
Page 124 of 316
The impetus for WPD's beach designs was purportedly to address periodic high lake levels
and (undocumented) erosion. This appears to have fallen by the wayside.
At WPD's February 5, 2026 board meeting, staff said that although current lake levels are
low, the electric gate and fencing's placement on the sandy beach would eventually be in or
under the waters of Lake Michigan. WPD's rush to permitting for dangerous fencing that
would threaten the public's general welfare permanently, while disregarding the potential
impact of Lake Michigan's high water levels, is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline
recommending WPD's SUP application.
Page 125 of 316
In the very recent past WPD also said ADA concerns were a reason for "developing"
Centennial Park and Beach. It appears to have forgotten all about this with permanent fencing
designs that neither contemplate nor incorporate any ADA elements. A complete absence of
ADA-compliance efforts is sufficient reason for ZBA to decline recommending WPD's SUP
application for permanent fencing.
According to staff, WPD's southern fencing's placement would only provide a 4 foot wide
passage area—effectively privatizing the southern neighbor's beach, while making it
extremely difficult for WPD maintenance crews to reach debris, dead animals/fish, and other
things that may be trapped against the fencing.
Attaching chain-link fencing to two mid-century steel groins extending over 100 feet into
Lake Michigan is neither advisable nor safe. Last year AECOM did inform WPD of
Page 126 of 316
Centennial's southern steel groin’s lack of maintenance. Despite possessing this information,
WPD failed to inform Plan in May 2025 that it was proposing to build permanent fencing on
an unsafe groin. Today's plans would see the fencing's partial removal and then re-pounding it
into both steel groins twice a year. This is concerning.
AECOM's 2025 letter says Lake Michigan wave action damaged 205 Sheridan's northern
breakwater before construction was even complete. WPD's half-century obligation to maintain
the Donation Agreement with Restrictive Covenant's Project Elements, groin-mounted fencing
included, could result in extremely expensive, ongoing repairs to its own and neighboring
properties. Centennial's proposed structures may sustain wave damage constantly, which
would inflict major costs with resultant harm to the public.
The search for online information on open water chain-link fencing was challenging. A
professional engineering forum discussed the perils of gated fencing in dynamic water
conditions; considerations include entrapment; fencing designed to float away when water
levels reach 3 inches so people are not trapped within the enclosure; that once released, the
fencing could incidentally damage other property; and other potential legal issues.
Page 127 of 316
Leaving a chain-link fence on steel groins in Lake Michigan year-round would create similar
safety and liability issues, injure wildlife, alter habitat, and create damaging ice pressure
points.
Page 128 of 316
One other point to consider is that fencing in or near water--including pools—typically has
gates that are designed to open away from the water, which minimizes the risks of children
pushing them open from the outside to get in. WPD's gates appear to be designed to open
towards the water. WPD's apparent lack of attention to safety protocols is sufficient reason to
deny recommending WPD's SUP application.
II. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 2, which requires: "That the special use not
be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
which are permitted by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or
impair property values in the immediate vicinity."
As discussed above, permanently attaching chain-link fencing to old steel groins may result in
damage to neighboring properties. Using electric beach-mounted gates and fencing that could
detach and damage neighboring areas violates SUP Condition 2. Neighbors have the right to
expect WPD to comply with Village design standards that are meant to protect property
values. There are no fenced park district beaches in Winnetka.
Page 129 of 316
III. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Conditions 4 and 5, which require: "That adequate
measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in a manner which
minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways" and "That adequate
parking . . . and other facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be
provided."
Because WPD merely replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs, it has
not addressed concerns about ingress and egress along Sheridan Road. This alone is sufficient
to decline recommending WPD's SUP application.
WPD still suggesting cars park on Centennial’s tabletop, like Lloyd.
Page 130 of 316
WPD essentially replicated its non-recommended 2024 Centennial SUP designs converting
Centennial into a dual use beach, without defining resultant parking needs first or
neighborhood impact. This alone is sufficient to decline recommending WPD's SUP
application.
IV. WPD's replication of 2024's Centennial SUP designs lacking sanitary facilities that are
necessary to Centennial's operation violates SUP Condition 5. WPD plans to hire Centennial
staff who would have to reach Elder Beach to find bathroom facilities. Failing to provide
necessary facilities violates Village Code Section 15.08.080--International Property
Maintenance Code--#39, 503.3, which obligates Winnetka employers to provide access to
toilet facilities from within the employees' working area. The required toilet facilities must be
located so that the path of travel to such facilities does not exceed a distance of 300 feet from
the employees' regular working area. This alone is sufficient to deny recommending WPD's
SUP application.
V. WPD's fencing designs violate SUP Condition 6, which requires; "That the special use in
all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of this and other Village ordinances
and codes." With respect to the Public Trust Doctrine, the Village Attorney has already stated
WPD needs to address the fencing's placement by obtaining an access easement, moving the
fencing, or in some other lawful manner. Village Code Section 17.60.035 prevents placement
of WPD's fencing across the southern neighbor's lot line.
FURTHER CODE VIOLATIONS THAT PREVENT GRANTING A SUP
Village Code Section 9 forbids the creation of a public nuisance, which WPD’s chain-link
fencing would do.
Page 131 of 316
Then-Trustee Andy Cripe prepared a January 2023 memorandum for the Council’s lakefront
study session.The memorandum lays out how shoreline obstructions would create a public
nuisance. It is available on the Village website.
Village Code Section 12.04.040 forbids encroachment onto public streets, including Lake
Michigan. WPD's fencing would unlawfully encroach onto the public street.
This is my analysis of certain applicable Village Code sections that were entirely new to me.
Village Code Section 15.08.070--Amendment to National Electric Code 2020 Edition--states
that the Village's Water and Electrical Department must install all new and modified
underground electrical services. At WPD's February 26, 2026 meeting WPD staff gave the
impression that it would install the underground electrical services itself. Query whether
running electrical lines down to the lakefront would require steep slope and/or slope transition
zone work.
Village Code Section 15.08.130--Amendment to MWRD-WMO Section 602.9--This
Page 132 of 316
incorporated section says new structures that are substantial improvements 'shall (D) Elevate
electrical and other service facilities to the FPE or higher and (E) Provide a back-up power
source that will activate without human intervention if electricity is required.' Development
includes changes in land use and practices. ZBA should consider whether WPD is aware of or
intends to comply with this Code requirement given the complete absence of floodway
permitting consideration in the SUP application, the designs' placement of electrical below
FPE, and the lack of a backup power source.
Village Code Section 15.32.030--New structures in Flood Hazard Areas (which includes
Centennial's lakefront) cannot get a building permit until the applicant complies with Section
15.68 (Floodplain Construction provisions) and the Watershed Management Ordinance. I do
not believe WPD has made an effort to do so.
Village Code Section 15.32.080--Criteria for Permit Approval (C]-Zoning conformity. Any
property upon which the construction of any primary structure is to occur, shall be a single lot
of record, and (D)-No work may affect the Public Way and Property, and no permit shall be
issued unless the applicant first complies with Village Code Section 12 (this is violated by
encroaching upon a public street, see above). Assuming that the gate and fencing constitute
primary structures, WPD's permit designs fail to meet these Code requirements.
Village Code Section 15.68.060-Occupation and Use of Identified Floodways. All floodway
modifications shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of the project.
WPD's fencing is far from the minimum necessary for a Cook County project.
Village Code Section 15.68.060: Consider whether WPD plans violate Subsections (1)—
Underground utilities are only permitted if they do not require the placement of above ground
structures in the floodway and (3)--Centennial beach is in a coastal high hazard area (Zone
VE), and no fences are allowed under a regional permit. This section also provides that WPD
would need to retain a professional engineer for its fencing project. Before the Village can
issue a permit, the IDNR/OWR first has to issue a permit or written documentation for a
Floodplain Development permit. Further, subsection (D) states that no development is allowed
in a floodway if it will be a threat to public health and safety. Building an electric gate that
will at times be in the water, as will chain-link fencing mounted to old, unstable, possibly
eroded steel groins above and in Lake Michigan's waters, with dog waste stored upon and
within a high coastal hazard zone, would pose multiple threats to the public's health and
safety.
Village Code Section 15.68.025 states that a Floodplain Development Permit Application
must use a specific form, which to the best to of my knowledge WPD has not complied with.
Village Code Section 15.68.080 contains permitting requirements applicable to all floodplain
areas, in addition to those contained in Sections 15.68.050. 15.68.060 and 15.68.070. Its (A)
public health standards state that no developments shall include locating animals' waste below
the FPE unless such materials are stored in a floodproofed and anchored storage tank and
certified by a professional engineer; (D) public utilities such as electric must be located and
constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages (WPD's designs create/maximize the risk
of flood damages by adding an electric gate to the beach/waterfront instead of leaving it at the
top of the bluffs); and (E) all other developments, such as fences, shall be designed so as not to
. . . increase potential flood damage. Sheared off metal fencing would increase potential flood-
related damage, as would possible electric shocks from exposed wires if the gate breaks.
Page 133 of 316
Installation of electric and fencing that at times will be submerged maximizes, rather than
reduces, the dangers of flood damage. WPD plans to install “waterproof” containers for dog
waste on the beach itself, instead of leaving receptacles on the tabletop, seems unlikely to
meet Section 15.68.080’s requirements.
Village Code Section 15.68.100 - Variances- Former Trustee Andy Cripe's memorandum
discusses this section, which prohibits variances from being granted to any development
located in a regulatory floodway. WPD would have to apply to MWRD to obtain permission
for its unsafe project, which does not meet the section's requirements.
Village Code Section 15.78.010-Lakefront Construction
Section 15.78.080(C] says the construction must comply with all other applicable Village
Code provisions (WPD's project does not), (D) the project scope must be only what is
minimally necessary to achieve the intended and PROPER purpose (emphasis added) of the
project (extending fencing beyond a single lot, across a public street, violating the Public Trust
Doctrine and creating a private beach are not proper purposes); (E) fencing must not interfere
with Public Safety Operations (WPD's structures would block and unreasonably interfere with
the ability of public safety personnel to conduct search and rescue or other safety operations;
and (G) existing sightlines may not be altered more than minimally necessary (WPD's designs
would unreasonably alter sightlines by building permanent black chain link fencing on
Winnetka’s beautiful beaches, and also would violate WPD Policy Manual's presumptive
preference to avoid fencing and leave open spaces intact).
Village Code Section 17.04.020- Objectives-Every single one of the Village's Zoning Code
precepts is or would be violated by WPD's electric gate and chain-link fencing.
Village Code Section 17.04.030 (8) prohibits WPD's fencing from impermissibly and
Page 134 of 316
unlawfully extending across the OHWM/Street Line, into the open waters of Lake Michigan.
Village Code Section 17.04.030 (3) states that a zoning lot on Lake Michigan does not lie
beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Village Code does not permit issuance for
fencing beyond a single lot. See also Section 17.60.035, discussed above.
Thank you for reading these comments, which I prepared after spending some time studying
the Village Code. Based upon my review, I respectfully request that ZBA decline to
recommend approving WPD's SUP application.
Page 135 of 316
Page 136 of 316
Page 137 of 316
Page 139 of 316
2024 Winnetka Caucus Council (WCC) -
Proposed Platforms
1
Page 140 of 316
Winnetka Park District Board Platform
Plank #1: Intergovernmental Cooperation - Elder Beach
The Winnetka Park District and Village of Winnetka continue to work through the application
process for the Centennial-Elder project. In the meantime, there is a clear desire for a temporary
solution that will enable the Elder beach to be opened. As can be seen below, more than 60% of
respondents are in favor of the temporary solution.
Yes 61.30% 955
No 19.58% 305
No Opinion 19.13% 298
Total 100% 1558
Skipped 65
While the issues surrounding the Centennial and Elder parks / beaches are complex, the
Village and the Parks Department should work together to prioritize a solution for beach
access and swimming at Elder Park in the near-term.
—-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The questions below are based on percentage information provided directly from the
survey software, which did not account for people who skipped answering the question. Of
those who skipped the questions we identified that there were 264 respondents who did not
answer any of the questions, so we do not consider these respondents valid for the questions.
3
Page 141 of 316
Plank #2: Donation Agreement
The Park District entered into a Donation Agreement with restrictive covenants with a private
party. The survey question asked if this should be renegotiated or go forward, with the results
below:
Continue with the donation, as negotiated. 29.33% 366
Renegotiate to eliminate restrictive covenants with the 49.20% 614
possibility that the WPD will have to seek alternative
funding (reserves, debt, etc.) if negotiations fail.
No Opinion 21.47% 268
Total 100% 1,248
Skipped 375
The results of the survey show that nearly 50% of all responders agree that the Park
District should reconsider the Donation Agreement. In addition, when excluding those
who responded with “No Opinion,” 63% of responders indicated that the Donation
Agreement should be renegotiated. The Park District should renegotiate the terms of the
Agreement to eliminate the restrictive covenants, or pursue alternative funding if
Necessary.
Plank #3: Organic Parks
In 2018 the Park District staff conducted a pilot program using an organic herbicide in one park.
More than 68% of survey respondents have expressed a desire for the Park District to launch
another pilot program.
Yes 68.26% 899
No 11.24% 148
No Opinion 20.50% 270
Total 100% 1317
Skipped 306
With a view toward examining the viability of making more parks organic, the Park
District should undertake a new pilot program utilizing any updated organic management
techniques and exploring the use of a consultant.
4
Page 142 of 316
Plank #4: WPD Top Areas of Interest (Q16)
The top three areas of interest WPD constituents would like to see addressed are a) an outdoor
pool, b) an improved Green Bay Trail (requiring coordination with the Village) and c) an indoor
pool. As can be seen in the results below, two other options were close to the top three:
Outdoor Pool 30.49% 397
Green Bay Trail 27.73% 361
Indoor Pool 22.50% 293
Non-Beach Off-Leash Dog Park 22.12% 288
Multi-Use Center (general use) 20.35% 265
Total 1302
Skipped 321
Taken together, interest in a pool option remains a top priority for constituents. Taking
direction from the unimplemented Plank #4 in 2022, the WPD should commission a
comprehensive study on the feasibility and economics of various pool options, including
partnerships with other towns and New Trier High School. This should be presented to
the community, including location preferences, cost to build, cost to maintain, and
revenue generation potential, and options to meet any potential shortfall.
5
Page 143 of 316
ChatGPT Log in Sign up for free
does the state of illinois require employers to provide its
employees with workplace restroom facilities
Yes — under Illinois law, employers (and building owners/operators) generally must provide
workplace restroom facilities for employees, but the requirements come mainly from state
administrative plumbing codes rather than a simple statute saying “provide a bathroom.”
Legal Inform…
Workplace Restroom Facilities Requirement (Illinois Administrative Code)
Under the Illinois Plumbing Code (Title 77, Part 890), there are specific requirements for employee
restroom facilities in places of employment:
Restroom facilities and drinking fountains must be provided for all employees at each place
of employment. Legal Information …
The minimum number of plumbing fixtures (toilets, lavatories, etc.) is determined based on the
maximum number of male and female employees working at any one time. Legal Information …
If more than five employees are present at any one time, separate restrooms for men and
women are required. If five or fewer, one restroom may serve all employees. Legal Information …
Access to these restrooms must meet certain location and access standards (e.g., on the same
floor or within a specified distance in some buildings). Illinoi…
This is a state-level standard that applies to employers and property owners in Illinois and is
typically enforced through building inspections and code enforcement agencies. It is not limited to
construction sites but applies broadly to places of employment covered by the plumbing code.
Legal Information …
Construction Sites (Specific Law)
There is also a Construction Site Temporary Restroom Facility Act in Illinois that specifically
requires adequate restroom facilities on construction sites for workers while the building is under
construction. Justia Law
Federal Requirements Also Apply
In addition to state plumbing codes, employers in Illinois are subject to federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) sanitation standards, which require employers to ensure
employees have access to sanitary restroom facilities and reasonable breaks to use them. OSHA’s
rules apply nationwide, including Illinois. While OSHA doesn’t set state-specific requirements, its
sanitation standards are enforceable in all states. (Federal OSHA rules are often adopted or enforced
through state OSHA programs; Illinois participates in OSHA enforcement.) Reddit
In short: Yes — Illinois regulations require employers to provide restroom facilities for their
employees according to minimum plumbing standards, and this is supported by state administrative
plumbing codes. Enforcement typically comes through building/plumbing inspections and compliance
with safety and health regulations. State law also complements federal OSHA requirements for
sanitary restroom access. Legal Information …
Sources
Page 144 of 316
:
can an employer legally require beach employees to swim across
the waters of lake michigan to reach bathroom facilities at a
different beach?
Short answer: No — that would almost certainly be illegal and a serious safety violation.
Requiring beach employees to swim across Lake Michigan to access restroom facilities would likely
violate multiple laws and safety standards.
OSHA Sanitation & Safety Rules
Under federal OSHA standards (enforced in Illinois), employers must:
Provide readily accessible toilet facilities
Ensure facilities are sanitary and safe to access
Not impose unreasonable restrictions on restroom use
Requiring employees to swim across open water to use a restroom would almost certainly violate
OSHA’s sanitation standards and general duty clause, which requires employers to provide a
workplace free from recognized hazards. Enforcement would fall under the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Swimming across Lake Michigan presents obvious hazards:
Drowning risk
Strong currents and rip tides
Cold water exposure
Boat traffic
Severe weather changes
That would not be considered “reasonable access.”
Illinois Workplace Requirements
Illinois plumbing and workplace regulations require employers to provide adequate restroom facilities
for employees at places of employment. Forcing workers to travel off-site — especially by swimming
— would likely fail the requirement that facilities be accessible and adequate.
The Illinois Department of Labor could also treat this as an unsafe working condition.
Liability Exposure
Beyond regulatory violations, this would expose the employer to major liability:
Workers’ compensation claims
Personal injury lawsuits
Potential wrongful death liability
OSHA fines and penalties
If an employee were injured or drowned, the legal exposure would be severe.
Page 145 of 316
:
If an employee were injured or drowned, the legal exposure would be severe.
Bottom Line
An employer cannot legally require employees to swim across Lake Michigan to use a restroom.
Restroom facilities must be reasonably accessible and safe. This scenario would almost certainly
violate OSHA standards and create extreme legal liability.
If this is happening in real life, it’s something that should be reported immediately.
Page 146 of 316
:
AECOM 847-323-2171 tel
303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60601-5276
www.aecom.com
April 17, 2025
Mr. James P. Casey
Mr. Steve Altman
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Lake Michigan Section
160 N LaSalle Street, Suite 703
Chicago, IL 60601
Subject: Shoreline Protection Project in Lake Michigan (Permit LM 2023004)
205 Sheridan Road, Winnetka, Ill.
North Stone Groin Design Adjustment
Dear Jim and Steve,
This letter is with reference to a shoreline project that was approved by IDNR on May 2, 2023.
Winter storms have caused erosion at the east end of the North Stone Groin. The Winnetka Park District
steel groin, which is located immediately north of the stone groin, has experienced failure. The steel cap
on top of the steel groin has been dislodged by wave attack this past winter. Also, the steel sheet piles at
the eastern portion of this groin are loose due to the damaged cap. Winter wave conditions have caused
significant erosion at the end of the Orchard stone groin. Wave attack at the east end of the damaged
groin causes water jets through the steel sheet joints and uneven overtopping flow and turbulence on
the Orchard side of the steel groin.
This situation has caused a deep scour hole formation on both sides of the groin. On the Orchard beach
side of the scour, the scour hole is 7’ or deeper with a scour hole width that is 50 to 60 feet wide. The
deepest area is immediately south of the steel groin and east of the Orchard stone groin. The scour
extends to the Orchard stone groin toe of slope. We propose to add toe stones to buttress the existing
stone groin toe stones to address the scour impacts. The proposed line of toe stones will front the
existing toe of the stone groin and will be buried to the clay layer elevation. The added toe stones will
rest on clay. And the toe stones will be recessed below the existing lakebed as shown on the attached
drawings. We have met with the Park District to discuss this issue.
We have met with the Winnetka Park District to make them aware of this matter. Please let us know if
you approve this request. Please issue a letter of determination regarding this proposed plan adjustment.
If you have any questions, please call me on the following number (847 - 323 -2171).
Best Regards,
William J. Weaver, P.E., BC.WRE
Vice President – Sr. Principal Engineer
1|1
Page 147 of 316
SCOUR HOLE BOTTOM (7' DEEP)
OUR RE UEST FOR TOE STONES TO
ADDRESS THE EROSION CAUSED BY THE
WINNETKA PARK DISTRICT GROIN NO
LONGER INCLUDES REPAIR TO THAT
GROIN. THIS GROIN IS A WINNETKA PARK
DISTRICT STRUCTURE. WE HAVE NOTIFIED
THE PARK DISTRICT AND MET WITH THEM
TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER
A
PROPOSED 4.25 TON TOE STONES ON CLAY
B
7'
30
20
1.5:1
1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1
577 x586
x587
578
1.5:1 1.5:1
577
579 578
1.5:1 579
0
58 580
1.5:1
581
581
582
2 x586
58 1.5:1
N 583
583
584
584
585
585
Page 148 of 316
Page 149 of 316
Page 150 of 316
Page 151 of 316
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: Letter to ZBA for March 9 meeting packet
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:34:22 PM
Attachments: ZBA Comments for Packet 3-4-26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Anne -
Hope this finds you well. Would you please include my letter and the attached photos to the ZBA in
the March 9, 2026 meeting packet? Thank you very much for your assistance.
Vicki
Page 152 of 316
Vicki Garrison Apatoff
Page 153 of 316
Dear Zoning Board of Appeal Commissioners:
Less than 30 years ago, residents and visitors could walk, swim, kayak, and paddleboard
unimpeded along Winnetka’s shoreline from Glencoe to Kenilworth. It was a beautiful, peaceful
stretch of beach that functioned as nature intended — water levels rose and fell, sand came
and went, and people walked past the dog beach without fear or fences.
Due to the lack of oversight by the IDNR and Army Corps of Engineers, that same shoreline
has been transformed into a dangerous and, in some areas, impassable section of Lake
Michigan that is no longer freely accessible to the public.
By turning a blind eye to the destruction of lakefront bluffs and the installation of massive rock
walls that block safe passage, the IDNR has allowed unchecked and irreversible damage to the
entire ecosystem of Winnetka's lakefront.
When concerned residents contacted the IDNR Director, Jim Casey, he stated that Winnetka
held ultimate authority over what could occur along the beach and a half-mile into the lake —
and that complaints should be directed to the Village, not the IDNR.
Residents were stunned to learn that so much destruction had occurred without Village
oversight. The Village ultimately asserted its authority through lakefront ordinance protections,
which is what has brought this special use permit request before you tonight.
It is time to stop further degradation of our beaches.
Please consider the stated purpose of the Winnetka Lakefront Preservation Overlay District: “to
preserve and maintain the character” of the lakefront and “to conserve and encourage the use
of land adjacent to Lake Michigan for open space preservation… to protect natural resources
and save scenic vistas.”
Now consider the Winnetka Park District’s own mission statement: “To provide a balance of
quality recreation and leisure opportunities while protecting assets, natural resources, and
open space to benefit present and future generations.”
The Village and the WPD share the same goals. That makes it all the more alarming that the
WPD’s current request runs directly counter to them — particularly given that the proposed
fenced dog beach was never requested by residents or dog beach pass holders - but only
emerged as a concession during negotiations with the neighbor to the south of Centennial
Park.
We ask the WPD and this Board to consider the following:
∙ How does a massive chain-link enclosure on one of Winnetka’s most beautiful
beaches conserve the character of our natural resources, preserve open space, or protect
scenic vistas?
∙ When metal fence cages and electrified fob posts are installed along the beach,
how does that benefit present or future generations? For over 30 years, people and dogs have
enjoyed this beach in its natural state — not confined in a cage.
∙ What liability do present or future generations of Winnetka taxpayers assume
when an untested system falls into disrepair, or someone is seriously injured when trapped
between metal structures and boulders by an artificial wall in the water? Have the Winnetka
police and fire departments reviewed this fence proposal to comment on any impact it may
have on the ability of first responders to do their job in an emergency?
Page 154 of 316
∙ How does locking Winnetka taxpayers into a 50-year moratorium — requiring
written approval from a neighboring private party before anything can be done in that area —
serve the public interest?
∙ Has a signed easement been provided by the same neighbor to allow the public
to traverse the shoreline if expected changes in shoreline conditions require passage along
private property due to the addition of a fence?
∙ The ZBA asked the WPD to come back with a global picture of the Elder/
Centennial beach plan in its entirety so that permit decisions could be made in context with its
surrounding areas. Is it possible to determine the viability or prudence of an unusual and
unprecedented request for a fence on the beach when the rest of the surrounding project has
not yet been finalized?
The residents of Winnetka deserve better — and they are counting on the ZBA to reach the
same conclusion as the Plan Commission, which voted unanimously to deny a special use
permit for any fence on the beach. The future of our precious and fragile lakefront depends on
it.
Please remember what the word Winnetka means: A beautiful place. Our beachfront is called
Winnetka's greatest natural asset for a reason. Please honor that designation. There are no
conditions that would make this SUP request for a fence/cage acceptable. Please deny the
request for a Special Use Permit.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Vicki Apatoff
730 Ardsley Road
Winnetka
Page 155 of 316
Page 156 of 316
Page 157 of 316
Engineers Comment 11 from 5 Aug version of WPD application for SUP
11. Proposed fence around dog park, specifically along the southern end of the dog area, will
need to be placed far enough away from the existing steel groin and new stone groin on
neighboring property to allow for ample safe passage between the properties.
a. PD Response: The proposed dog beach fence is to be located on the existing steel
groin to the south, offset 6’ min. width from the newly installed stone groin at the
south neighbor property, as shown on sheet C138.
b. Engineering Response: Recommend a larger space between the two elements be
provided, as a wider pathway opening would be preferred to allow for easier passage
and for access of emergency equipment to the adjoining property.
winpark.org | (847) 501-2040 | 540 Hibbard Road, Winnetka, IL 60093
c. WPD Response: The dimension verified in the field is a minimum of 6’ between two
currently fixed structures, the new stone breakwater built on 205 Sheridan Road
Property and the current southernmost steel groin, which has been in place for over
70+ years. The 6’ dimension is from the newly built passage steps across the 205
Sheridan Road Breakwater and widens from there as you move west to over 10’ plus
as you approach the existing steel groin. The area between the western off-leash dog
fencing and existing steel sheet piling is greater than 12’, which leaves ample room
for access. The fencing plan is detailed on sheet C147 of the Bid and Construc
Page 158 of 316
ATTACHMENT C2
John William Root
326 Woodland Avenue
Winnetka, IL 60093
Telephone:
Email:
Sent by electronic mail: smangum@winnetka.org
AKlaassen@winnetka.org
Mr. Scott Mangum March 8, 2026
Village of Winnetka
Director of Community Development
Ms. Ann Klaassen
Assistant Director
510 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
Re: Case No. 25-28-SU
225 Sheridan Road – Centennial Park & Beach
Comments for 3/9/2026 Hearing
Dear Ms. Klaassen and Mr. Mangum:
I have reviewed the Winnetka Park District’s (Park’s) revised Special Use Permit Application
25-28-SU for Centennial Park. My following comments summarize my concerns about the
proposed Centennial dog fence and access to the beach by a shared staircase and how these
designs are unsafe, prevent access to public beaches, and conflict with Village ordinances,
particularly the Village zoning ordinances. I would appreciate your assistance in sharing my
comments as part of the official packet to be delivered to the members of the Village of
Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals for the hearing scheduled for Monday, March 9th.
Permit History
The Park’s first permit, 24-08-SU, was reviewed February 26, 2025, at the ZBA and on May 28,
2025, at the Plan Commission. This design for Centennial park included a dog fence,
boardwalk, access ramp, and pier and can be seen in Figure 1 below.
Page 159 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 2 of 8
Figure 1: Centennial Beach Design Permit 24-08-SU
Both Commissions unanimously recommended against the special use, 24-08-SU, because the
design violated Village standards. The Commissions found that the pier’s rubble stone boulders
presented a safety risk for swimmers. Many Commissioners have commented that the access
ramp design was dangerous for pedestrians who had to share the ramp with dogs to access the
beach. The Commissions have also previously commented that the southern dog fence
obstructed public access to the adjoining property. The Park “suspended” permit 24-08-SU in
June of 2025.
While permit 24-08-SU was still pending, in March of 2025, the Park filed a new permit 25-28-
SU with the IDNR and USACE as seen in Figure 2.
Page 160 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 3 of 8
Figure 2: Centennial Beach Design Permit 25-28-SU
Permit 25-28-SU had two fences that extended approximately 15’ into the Lake and pedestrians
walking the beach would have to pass through gates attached to the fences to cross the dog
beach. Permit 25-28-SU was presented to the Plan Commission on January 28, 2026, and Plan
recommended against approval of the design. Plan found that forcing pedestrians to walk with
unleashed dogs to traverse the dog beach and was unsafe. Plan also found that the gates were
burdensome to pedestrians and obstructed their free transit across the off-leash dog beach.
During the February 5, 2026, Park Special Board Meeting and during the February 26, 2026 Park
Regular Board Meeting, the Park Board voted to make material changes to Permit 25-28-SU
which brings us to the pending ZBA meeting scheduled for Monday, March 9, 2026.
ZBA Meeting Scheduled March 9, 2026
I urge the ZBA to recommend against the Park’s revised Permit 25-28-SU because the design
restricts pedestrians from transiting the public beach. Revised Permit 25-28-SU involves
installation of three fence segments that create a dog pen on the south half of Centennial beach
(Figure 3 below).
Page 161 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 4 of 8
Figure 3: Centennial Beach Design Revised Permit 25-28-SU
The revised Permit 25-28-SU design for the dog fence is very similar to Permit 24-08-SU with
the fence mounted on the southern steel groin. The southern segment of the dog beach fence will
be installed on top of an existing sheet pile groin near the southern boundary of Centennial. The
only difference of the current proposed southern fence design from the earlier Permit 24-08-SU
is that the fence will not extend out as far into the Lake. As currently proposed, the northern
fence of the dog beach will also be located on an existing steel groin. The western fence of the
dog beach will be 20’ from the toe of the bluff and will connect to the northern and southern
fence segments forming the dog pen (Figure 3).
The western boundary fence and the bluff create a bypass corridor for pedestrians on a strip of
beach that terminates at the southern boundary of Centennial (figure 3). To walk the beach onto
the adjacent property of 205 Sheridan, a person would have to cross the sheet pile groin and walk
east between the southern dog beach fence and the stone breakwater on 205 Sheridan until the
individual reaches the stone steps through the breakwater on 205 Sherridan (Figure 4).
Page 162 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 5 of 8
Figure 4: South Centennial Dog Fence
This path will take the pedestrian onto 205 Sheridan’s private property located above the
ordinary high-water mark forcing the pedestrian onto 205 Sheridan’s front yard to reach the
stairs in the breakwater. Winnetka ordinance establishes the front lot line on property bordering
Lake Michigan at the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). The Park’s northern dog fence
blocks pedestrians walking along the OHWM and pedestrians must bypass around the dog pen to
continue south to reach the public beach in front of 205 Sheridan. However, the Park’s bypass
fails to deliver a pedestrian back to the OHWM where the pedestrian could continue their
journey without trespassing on private property. Park Commissioner David Seaman at the Park
meeting of February 26th claimed that pedestrians can complete their journey to the stairs in the
breakwater at 205 Sheerridan without trespassing asserting that property above the OWHM on
205 Sheridan is accreted beach and the public should be able to cross accreted beach pursuant to
the Public Trust Doctrine. Attorney Adam Simon, Park counsel, further asserted that the public
has the right to access the stairs on the breakwater by the most direct route. However, the No
Trespassing sign as shown in Figure 5 is posted by the Park on Park property and contradicts
Page 163 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Seaman and Mr. Simon’s assertions that the public can access the stairs on 205 Sheridan
without trespassing.
Figure 5: No Trespass Sign Posted Near Boundary of Centennial Park and 205 Sheridan
Figure 5 shows a sign posted by the Park on Centennial park beach property approximately 10’
north of the property line of 205 Sherridan and 10’ from the bluff. The sign has the Winnetka
Park logo with the following text: “Private Property Beyond This Point, No trespassing. No
sitting or standing for a long period of time. Walking along the water’s edge only. Walker’s
must follow riparian rights.” The Park is discouraging pedestrians from crossing onto 205
Sheridan and reaching public beach on 205 Sheridan. If the Park is allowed to install the dog-
fence this sign will be in the middle of the pedestrian bypass path (Figure 4). The message from
the Park’s sign is clear, the end of the bypass is a dead end and persons continuing are
trespassing unless they sprout wings and fly to the water’s edge.
The ZBA and Plan Commissions voiced objections to the southern fence when first presented a
year ago in permit 24-08-SU (Figure 1) and suggested that the Park should seek an easement to
allow the public to transit 205 Sheridan’s private property. The Park has failed to obtain that
easement. In summary the Park’s dog fence will block direct access from Centennial to the
stairs in the breakwater on 205 Sheridan and will prevent pedestrians from walking along the
ordinary highwater mark in violation of Village Ordinance Section 15.78.080 (E) obstructing or
otherwise interfering with ingress or egress to adjacent public beaches or private property. As a
result, the Park’s permit should be denied.
Page 164 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 7 of 8
Beach Access
The only access to Centennial beach is by a metal staircase that is 4’ wide (Figure 3). This
staircase has functioned adequately for as long as Centennial Beach has functioned exclusively
as a dog beach. The Park is now proposing to have the north half of Centennial designated as a
non-swimming passive beach and the staircase will not be safe for this dual use. Costa Kutulas,
Director of Parks and Maintenance, explained some of the issues of proposed dual use of
Centennial beach with shared access to the stairway during the February 26, 2026, Park Board
meeting:
(Time stamp 1:47:10 - 1:47:45 of the video of the Park 2/26/26 February Board Meeting)
Costa Kutulas: “Considerations, as you think about swimming, non-swimming, as it's
usage (for north half of Centennial beach), of course, is the proximity to the Fenced Dog
Beach and the single path of usage. As we heard through the previous design for special
use, there was a lot of concern. And one of the things that kind of put the project back on
its heels was the mixed usage of that single ADA access way for both dogs, strollers and
dog walkers, kids, everybody else competing for the same access point, when we know a
lot of people have a tendency to let their dogs off leash from the parking lot into the
park.”
(Time stamp 1:47:46 - 1:48:02 of the video of the Park 2/26/26 February Board Meeting)
Costa Kutulas: “Well, by having the attendant or with the park patrol, we can help curb
some of those issues with people not following the rules and regulations. But that is
something to consider. The other thing to consider is the operational control for the
Illinois Department of Public Health criteria in regard to restrooms.”
Mr. Kutulas further elaborates that two park attendants, one stationed at the top of the stairs, and
one stationed on the beach, will enforce the requirement that dogs be leashed until they reach the
fenced dog pen. These attendants will be on duty from 6:00 am – 10 pm during beach swimming
season. While enforcing dog leash regulations, the attendants will also check for beach passes and
enforce no swimming requirements on the passive beach portion of the proposed segmented
Centennial Beach.
The plan Mr. Kutulas is proposing is impractical and unsafe for passive beachgoers. The
staircase to the beach provides a 48” wide narrow corridor to the beach. Dogs with their owners
will pass by passive beach goers who are climbing up and down this staircase simultaneously.
The only exit points from the staircase are at the top or base of the stairs and a pedestrian has no
way to avoid a dog once on the stairs. I have often witnessed owners with dogs on leashes who
have lost control of their dogs while descending the stairs. This situation creates a danger to
pedestrians on the staircase.
The staircase runs east from the table land and then turns north and lands on the beach (Figure
3). Due to its configuration a person entering at the table land will not be able to see the exit at
the beach where a dog may be entering (Figure 5).
Page 165 of 316
Letter to Mr. Scott Mangum
March 8, 2026
Page 8 of 8
Figure 6: View From Top of Staircase Centennial Beach
A passive beach goer will be unable to avoid a dog they cannot see. The beach attendants Mr.
Kutulas describes are assigned the duty to see that dogs are leashed, not to act as traffic cops for
the staircase. If this traffic control were assigned, you would need three beach attendants to
cover all the sight lines, and they would need flags to signal when the staircase is available for
dogs or for passive beach goers. The gate will be open during the day all year round, but the
Park only plans to hire beach attendants for swim season. Therefore, there will be no supervision
of the stairs for three quarters of the year.
The Commissions had concerns for safety of the shared pedestrian and dog access ramp
contained in 24-08-SU and recommended against granting that permit. The current permit, 25-
28-SU, using the existing staircase for beach access by passive beach goers and dogs is even
more dangerous than the ramp the Commissions recommended against last year. The ZBA
should recommend against 25-28-SU because shared access of the staircase by dogs and passive
beach goers is detrimental to the public health and safety of the public.
Sincerely,
John W. Root
cc: Members of the Village Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 166 of 316
Page 167 of 316
Page 168 of 316
Page 169 of 316
From:
To: Ann Klaassen
Subject: ZBA Meeting 9 March 2026
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:23:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ann,
Please pass letter below on to the Zoning Board of Appeals for tonight’s meeting. I can’t attend tonight.
Thank you very much.
Joanna Karatzas
9 March 2026
Zoning Board of Appeals
Regarding: Fence proposed by the Winnetka Park District on Centennial Beach.
Commissioners;
The Winnetka Park District presented plans during the Winnetka Park Board meeting on February 26, 2026 for
extensive fencing at Centennial Beach. Again the plans do not include visuals of adjacency conditions such as the
breakwater at the south boundary of Centennial. Furthermore, actual critical dimensions are missing from the
drawings. What is the width of the passage between the proposed fence and the steps over the breakwater? Where
exactly is the property line between Centennial and 205 Sheridan? Before any decisions can be made the WPD
should bother to provide this board and the public with a staked survey and accurate dimensions. The fence, the
property line and the breakwater all angle toward each other converging near the steps of the breakwater. Whose
property is the public going to be walking on when exercising their Public Trust Doctrine rights? How tight is the
space between the steps and the stairs? WPD never seems to get to that level of detail yet asks for a special permit.
Shouldn’t this board see a staked survey and accurate dimensions before reviewing the feasibility or necessity of the
fence? Please deny this special use permit.
Joanna Karatzas
Winnetka
Sent from my iPhone
Page 170 of 316
Page 171 of 316
Page 172 of 316
Page 173 of 316
Page 174 of 316
Page 175 of 316
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 11, 2026
SUBJECT: 829 & 833 FOXDALE AVENUE – FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
829/833 FOXDALE AVE. CONSOLIDATION (CASE NO. 25-29-SD)
INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 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 item was previously scheduled for the January 12, 2026, ZBA meeting, but was removed from the
agenda at the request of the Applicant. It was then scheduled for the March 9, 2026, ZBA meeting,
however, due to the ZBA’s consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, the
item was continued to the March 16 special ZBA meeting. 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 on March 16. The public hearing that was scheduled for March 9
was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on February 19, 2026.
No proposed improvements to the Subject Property are included in this request, the application is limited
to the consolidation request and the existing improvements. 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.
Page 1
Page 176 of 316
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.
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 177 of 316
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;
2. 1979 to replace the detached garage; and
3. March 2026 to remove the existing residence and detached garage, and restore the site to a
vacant lot.
833 Foxdale Avenue. The existing residence at 833 Foxdale Avenue was also constructed in 1921. The
following subsequent building permits were issued in:
1. 1959 to construct a one-story enclosed porch and powder room;
2. 2003 to construct a two-story addition and detached garage; and
3. 2018 to construct a one-story addition on the rear elevation.
Other minor permits have been issued for both properties over the last several years.
Page 3
Page 178 of 316
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 179 of 316
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 180 of 316
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 181 of 316
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 182 of 316
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 183 of 316
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 184 of 316
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 185 of 316
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 186 of 316
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 187 of 316
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Proposed Plat of Consolidation (829/833 Foxdale Ave. Consolidation)
Page 13
Page 188 of 316
ATTACHMENT A
March 11, 2026
To the Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals and Village Council:
I am writing on behalf of my clients, Deanna and Stephen Nied, regarding their lot
consolidation request for 829 and 833 Foxdale Avenue, presented to the Plan
Commission on December 17, 2025.
During the Commission’s discussion and vote, I was unable to provide key
information that is directly relevant to the case and may have influenced the
outcome (5–4 denial). Only after the meeting was adjourned was I able to offer
additional context. Given this, I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of
Appeals and the Village Council consider the information in this letter as part of the
record as it evaluates the Nieds’ request and its broader impact on the Foxdale
Avenue community.
Purpose for the Nieds’ Consolidation Request
The two lots at 829 and 833 Foxdale share a single, narrow, eight-foot-wide
driveway that straddles the property line. While this arrangement may have been
workable in the 1920s, it presents significant safety concerns today. Modern
vehicles and limited sightlines create ongoing hazards—issues the Nieds have
experienced firsthand during their 20 years at 833 Foxdale.
Resolving this long-standing safety problem was a primary reason the Nieds
purchased the adjacent property and engaged us to design a solution that both
aligns with Foxdale’s character and eliminates the risks inherent in the current
shared driveway.
In addition, shared driveways are well-documented sources of conflict, and while
the Nieds have enjoyed positive neighbor relationships, they have understandable
concerns about how future owners might handle the shared-access arrangement.
Page 189 of 316
Issues with Keeping the Current Lot Arrangement
If the lots remain separate, the community is left with a small set of options—all of
them suboptimal:
1. Two new homes, each with its own driveway—without a design review
board, the resulting homes could be incompatible with Foxdale’s character
and diminish the desirability of the block.
2. Add a new driveway to 829 and build a narrow home, a re-subdivision
would be required to shift the shared drive entirely to 833. This would make
829 narrower, nonconforming, and produce a home inconsistent with
neighborhood character.
3. Keep 829 vacant for the foreseeable future.
By contrast, consolidation and the Nieds’ planned addition offer a significantly
improved outcome for both the neighborhood and the Village.
Page 190 of 316
Benefits of Approving the Consolidation
1. Preservation of Existing Structures
• Maintains the original 833 Foxdale house & character.
• Although 829 and 833 share similar exteriors, their interiors are nearly
mirror images; the addition preserves almost the entire 833 floor plan.
• Salvaged materials from 829 will be repurposed into the addition.
Materials not repurposed on site will be sold, donated, or recycled.
2. Protection of Neighborhood Character
• Prevents construction of two new homes that may diverge from Foxdale’s
architectural identity.
• Ensures continuity of style and scale consistent with the streetscape.
3. Prevention of Long-Term Vacancy
• Avoids the risk of 829 remaining an empty lot for years while the Nieds
remain at 833.
Working with my firm, the Nieds plan to create a single-family home fully compliant
with the R-5 zoning district and aligned with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.
Design & Community Alignment
The consolidated home—designed in the Dutch Colonial style and scaled to the
surrounding block—will:
• Fit seamlessly within the cottage-style character of Foxdale.
• Preserve and incorporate the original 833 house, a mirror image of 829.
• Reuse, repurpose, and/or recycle salvaged materials from 829.
The resulting home will provide:
• Modern amenities expected in contemporary homes
• Accessibility features supporting aging in place
• Space for extended family
• Long-term housing flexibility for future generations
Page 191 of 316
Advancement of Village Goals
The proposed consolidation supports core Village objectives:
• Renovation of existing homes in a manner that maintains contextual
consistency with the neighborhood
• Reduced energy consumption
• Increased permeable surface coverage
• Improved stormwater management
• Expanded housing options for young families, empty nesters, and seniors
Beyond resolving the shared driveway in a manner consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the project enhances neighborhood character. A planned
large front porch will further strengthen the social fabric of this highly walkable
street.
Addressing Concerns About Establishing a Precedent
Some Plan Commission members expressed concern that approving this request
might encourage widespread consolidation of small lots on Foxdale.
In practice, such a trend is highly unlikely:
• The Nieds—long-time Foxdale residents—spent over 20 years before the
opportunity arose to acquire the adjacent lot.
• No other consolidations have occurred on Foxdale during that period.
• The 829/833 driveway is the only shared, narrow (8-foot) driveway on the
street.
• Other homeowners lack both the motivation and the unique site conditions
that exist between these two properties.
Thus, the character of Foxdale — particularly lot size — remains secure, and the
Nieds’ situation is uniquely limited to their property alone.
Page 192 of 316
The Nieds deeply value the Foxdale streetscape and have no desire to diminish it;
rather, their proposal allows them to continue living in their home for many years
while addressing the long-standing safety and shared-driveway issues that will not
subside over time if left unresolved.
Plan Commission Meeting Record Clarification
In reference to the Village’s Plan Commission meeting minutes, I would like to
provide additional clarification regarding the variation request.
During the public comment period at the December 17, 2025, meeting, Jason
Alcorn, the neighbor to the north, attended to confirm that no variation was being
requested for a new structure within the north side-yard setback. At that time, it
was clarified that the variation relates only to the revised side-yard dimensions
resulting from the lot-consolidation request and does not involve any new
construction.
For the record, the variation is required because the adjusted, reduced setback
causes the existing structure to fall within the newly established side-yard
requirement. This request addresses the zoning compliance of an existing
condition.
Page 193 of 316
Closing
I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Council
consider the previously omitted shared-driveway facts and the analysis provided in
this letter. If reopening deliberations is not possible, I ask that this letter be included
in the record so that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Council have the
benefit of this additional information as it makes its final decision—particularly
given that the Plan Commission did not have an opportunity to fully discuss this key
issue.
Regards,
Chip Hackley
cc: Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: Winnetka Village Council
cc: Village of Winnetka Community Development
Page 194 of 316
25-29-SD
Page 195 of 316
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 196 of 316
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 197 of 316
25-29-SD
Page 198 of 316
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 199 of 316
Page 200 of 316
Page 201 of 316
Page 202 of 316
Page 203 of 316
Page 204 of 316
ATTACHMENT B
Page 205 of 316
MEMORANDUM
VILLAGE OF WINNETKA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ANN KLAASSEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 11, 2026
SUBJECT: WINNETKA CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH – 725 PINE STREET
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 25-24-SU)
INTRODUCTION
On March 16, 2026, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an
application submitted by Winnetka Congregational Church (the “Applicant”), as owner of the property
located at 725 Pine Street (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant is proposing operation of a childcare
center within the existing church located on the Subject Property and requests approval of the following:
1. An amendment to an existing Special Use Permit that allowed expansion of the existing church
building on the Subject Property in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The
requested amendment would allow a childcare center as an accessory use to the existing church
on the Subject Property.
This item was originally scheduled for the March 9, 2026, ZBA meeting; however, due to the ZBA’s
consideration of Case No. 25-28-SU, 225 Sheridan Road, Centennial Beach, the item was continued to a
special ZBA meeting on March 16. 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 on
March 16. The original hearing date was also properly noticed in the Winnetka Talk on February 19, 2026.
Additionally, a public notice sign was posted on the Subject Property informing the public of the March
16 ZBA meeting. As of the date of this memo, staff has received two written comments from the public
regarding this application. The comments are provided in Attachment D.
The Plan Commission (“PC”) considered this application at its February 25, 2026, meeting. By a vote of
6-0, the Commission recommended approval with a condition that a traffic flow plan is prepared by the
Applicant and approved by the Village Engineer and Police Department that will be included in the
presentation of this request to the Village Council. Details regarding the PC’s consideration are provided
later in this report.
The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request as only the Council has the authority to grant or
amend a Special Use Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property, which is approximately 2.36 acres (102,920.6 square feet) in size, is located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Street and Prospect Avenue and contains the Winnetka
Congregational Church and a parking lot (Figure 1).
Page 1
Page 206 of 316
Prospect Avenue
Subject Property
Community House
Pine Street
Lincoln Avenue Arbor Vitae
Road
Figure 1 – Location Map
The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as appropriate for “Institutional (Religious
Institution, School, Governmental & Other Facilities” uses (Figure 2). The Subject Property is located in
a residential area with single-family residences surrounding the site, and the Community House in close
proximity. The Land Use Plan Map designates the surrounding properties as appropriate for “Single
Family Residential” uses.
The Comprehensive Plan also contains the following goals relevant to the proposed application:
Goal 1.4: The Village will continue to ensure institutional uses, such a schools, religious institutions,
and the Public Library are compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are located.
Initiative 1.4.1: Study and consider establishing a specific zoning district for institutional
uses or specific zoning standards for such uses within existing residential districts. This
would allow more appropriate zoning standards for these uses.
Goal 5.1: Recognizing that educational excellence is one of the primary reasons residents choose
Winnetka, the Village will support the community’s public school districts, private schools, and
other educational organizations by fostering a culture of student engagement and lifelong
learning, as well as supporting the health and safety of students.
Initiative 5.1.1: Consider amendments to the zoning ordinance to provide additional clarity
regarding pre-kindergarten and daycare institutions to better support the establishment and
operation of early childhood education in the Village. This could include changing special uses to
permitted uses.
Page 2
Page 207 of 316
Subject
Property
Figure 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Winnetka Futures 2040 Plan
The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and it is bordered by the same to the north and east,
R-5 and R-4 Single Family Residential to the south, and R-3 Single Family Residential to the west (Figure
3). In addition to single-family residential uses, the R-2 District allows a limited range of additional uses
by Special Use Permit. Allowed Special Uses in the R-2 District include (a) church or temple; (b) public
school, elementary and high, or private school having a curriculum equivalent to a public elementary
school, public high school or public institution of higher learning; and (c) library.
The Applicant’s use of the Subject Property as a church is generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation and the R-2 zoning district.
Subject
Property
Figure 3 – Zoning Map
Page 3
Page 208 of 316
PROPERTY HISTORY AND PREVIOUS ZONING APPLICATIONS
According to Village records, construction of the church began in 1935. Subsequent building permits were
issued in:
1. 1976 to construct a vestibule addition, enclose a portico, and remodel the church; and
2. 1996 to construct an addition to the church.
Other minor permits have also been issued over the last several years. There are four previous zoning
cases on file for the Subject Property:
1. In 1955, the Village Council granted a variation to allow the church to use the easterly 125 feet
of the church property as a church yard permitting interment of ashes;
2. In 1975, the ZBA reversed the decision of the Village Superintendent of Public Works to issue a
permit to construct a driveway and parking lot on an adjoining lot owned by the church.
Subsequently, in 1976 the two adjoining lots owned by the Applicant (725 Pine Street and 651
Prospect Avenue) were consolidated into a single Lot of Record and construction of the parking
lot was allowed to proceed;
3. In 1996, Ordinance M-450-96 was adopted by the Village Council granting variations and a special
use permit to allow expansion of the church building and parking lot. The approved variations
were for gross floor area for the building addition and the front yard setback from Prospect
Avenue for expansion of the parking lot. The expansion of the church was to the north and
provided new fellowship space and classrooms. A copy of Ordinance M-450-96 is provided in
Attachment C; and
4. In 2000, an application was submitted by the Winnetka Park District requesting approval of an
amendment to the church’s special use permit to allow use of the church’s north addition by the
Park District for limited recreational facilities. After receiving recommendations of approval from
both the ZBA and the PC, the Park District withdrew the application prior to the Village Council
considering introduction of an ordinance approving the request.
Figures 4 through 7 on the following pages are current photos of the Subject Property.
Page 4
Page 209 of 316
Figure 4 – Subject Property – West Elevation (Pine Street)
Figure 5 – Subject Property West Elevation of Parking Lot (Prospect Avenue)
Page 5
Page 210 of 316
Figure 6 – Subject Property – South Elevation (Pine Street)
Figure 7 – Subject Property – East Elevation (Pine Street)
Page 6
Page 211 of 316
PROPOSED PLAN
The Applicant is proposing leasing space within the existing church building to Jumpstart Early Learning
Services (“Jumpstart”) to operate a childcare center. As described by the Applicant in the attached
narrative included in Attachment A, the center would have 11 teachers, one director, and up to 64
students. The center would operate Monday through Friday, 7:00am until 6:00pm for children ages 6
weeks to 6 years old.
The proposed plan does not include any expansion of the existing church building or parking lot, nor is a
playground currently proposed on the Subject Property. The Applicant indicates that the existing
multipurpose room in the church provides opportunity for physical activity, exercise, and play. If this
request should ultimately be approved by the Village and the Applicant proposes a playground in the
future, the Applicant would need to receive approval of an amendment to the special use permit to allow
a playground.
Childcare centers are licensed and regulated by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
(“DCFS”). The Applicant has indicated that they have received preliminary approval from DCFS for the use
of the north wing of the church as a daycare facility. Therefore, the Applicant is moving forward with the
formal application process with DCFS. Final DCFS approval is contingent upon completion of minor facility
modifications, full build-out of the space, and receipt of Village approval.
Parking and Traffic. The Applicant indicates that staff for the center will park in the existing on-site parking
lot located on the Subject Property. There are currently three marked parking spaces in the circle
driveway and 22 spaces in the lot itself, four of those are accessible spaces and one is occupied by the
church’s rummage sale truck. In addition to responding to the standards used for evaluation of special
uses, the Applicant has provided a traffic impact study prepared by Gewalt Hamilson Associates, Inc.
(Attachment A). The analysis concluded:
“The capacity analysis results indicated that the increase in project site-generated traffic has little
to no effect upon Peak Hour operations or the area roadway network with the recommendations
contained herein:
• The location of the only full movement church access will be located approximately 125
feet northeast of the Prospect Avenue and Pine Street intersection.
• Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within this study.
• To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking
on Prospect Avenue between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.
• The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up operations to help
ensure orderly traffic flow on-site.”
Director of Engineering/Village Engineer James Bernahl has reviewed the analysis and has the following
recommendation based on the information provided by the Applicant:
• The proposed Childcare Center can operate at this location with minimal overall impacts to the
area. However, it may be necessary to perform ongoing evaluation and possible modifications
based on drop-off and pick-up conditions.
• Appropriate staffing will be critical in reducing the potential for on-street queuing of vehicles
entering the site which would cause safety concerns at this curve on Prospect Avenue.
• Parking for staff members on-site should be required to reduce any additional impacts to available
Page 7
Page 212 of 316
on-street parking near the site.
• Consideration should be given to overlapping of any other existing or future programs that are
offered during the day. Previously attendants of church groups during the day would utilize the
current on-site parking spaces for these activities. With the increase in additional staff members
this could cause additional on-street parking issues.
• The Church will need to consider its other current and future programming impacts as it relates
to parking needs.
Mr. Bernahl has prepared a memo with his conclusions and recommendation, which is included in
Attachment B.
Figure 8 – October 2,2025 - Plat of Survey of Subject Property
Page 8
Page 213 of 316
General Location
of Classrooms Figure 9 – Main Level Floor Plan
Figure 10 – Upper Level Floor Plan
Page 9
Page 214 of 316
Driveway Access to
Existing On-Site Parking
Pine Street
Figure 11 – Aerial of Subject Property
Figure 12 – Subject Property – Driveway Access to Parking and Entrance
Page 10
Page 215 of 316
CONSIDERATION BY OTHER ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION
On February 25, 2026, the Plan Commission (“PC”), held a public hearing on this request. After hearing
from staff, the Applicant and three members of the public, as well as receiving written correspondence
from two neighbors (one in support and one in opposition) (Attachment D), the PC discussed the request.
The Commission recognized the need for childcare options for local families. Concerns expressed by
members were centered around traffic generated by the drop-off/pick-up of students and the impact of
the additional traffic to the immediate neighborhood. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-0, the Commission
recommended approval with a condition that a traffic flow plan is prepared by the Applicant and approved
by the Village Engineer and Police Department that will be included in the presentation of this request to
the Village Council. The Applicant is currently working on preparing a traffic flow plan for review by the
Village Engineer and the Police Department.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
The ZBA is charged with evaluating Special Uses for consistence with the six standards for granting special
use permits. In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided
a statement of justification regarding how the requested Special Use Permit meets the standards for
granting the requested Special Use permit.
After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the ZBA may decide to take action on one or 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 the public; or
2) Consider a motion recommending approval or denial of the Special Use. If the ZBA is prepared
to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested relief, a member may
wish to make a motion recommending approval or recommending denial based upon the
following:
Move to recommend approval [denial] a Special Use Permit to allow an amendment to the existing
special use granted by Ordinance M-450-96 to allow a childcare center to operate within the existing
church building on the Subject Property, based on evidence in the record, or a public document,
and upon the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use is consistent [is not consistent] with the Standards for the granting of
Special Use Permits, as follows:
a. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the special use will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general
welfare;
b. That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted by right in the
district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or impair property values
in the immediate vicinity;
c. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly
development or improvement of other property in the immediate vicinity for uses
permitted by right in the district or districts of concern;
d. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
in a manner which minimizes pedestrian and vehicular traffic congestion in the
public ways;
Page 11
Page 216 of 316
e. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the special use exist or are to be provided; and
f. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations
of this and other Village ordinances and codes.
[If the ZBA chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation of approval, it will
want to include the conditions here.]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Application Materials
Attachment B: Director of Engineering/Village Engineer Bernahl February 11, 2026, Memo
Attachment C: Ordinance M-450-96, adopted by the Village Council on March 19, 1996
Attachment D: Public Correspondence
Page 12
Page 217 of 316
ATTACHMENT A
Page 218 of 316
Page 219 of 316
Community Benefits Statement
Winnetka Congregational Church (WCC) – Proposed Childcare
Center
For nearly 150 years, Winnetka Congregational Church (WCC) has partnered with the
Village of Winnetka to create and sustain community institutions and traditions. From
helping to establish the public library and the Community House, to hosting the annual
Fourth of July celebration, to raising millions of dollars for social service agencies through
our Rummage Sale, WCC has continually worked to serve beyond its walls.
Our proposal to lease space for a licensed childcare center, Jumpstart Early Learning
Service to operate Monday-Friday 7:00am-6:00pm for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years
old. Jumpstart will operate with 11 Teachers, 1 Director, and up to 64 children at full
capacity.
Why This Matters for Winnetka
• Supports working families
Convenient weekday care in the Village center strengthens Winnetka’s ability to attract
and retain young families who want to live and work here. Research shows many other
local childcare centers have waiting lists of up 30 children. Jumpstart’s reputation and this
need have already started a quiet list of families hoping to enroll.
• Activates the pedestrian environment
Parents walking children to and from the center add daily vitality to the Village’s
business district, consistent with the Winnetka Futures 2040 vision for a walkable, family-
friendly community.
• Protects neighborhood character
The use adapts existing space within WCC’s historic building. No retail storefronts are lost;
no new building is proposed.
• Shares resources responsibly
WCC’s parking lot, largely unused during weekdays, will meet the center’s needs without
reducing parking available for nearby shops and restaurants.
• Continues a tradition of service
Just as WCC helped launch community institutions in the past, this project invests in
today’s needs—supporting children, parents, and neighbors.
Our Commitment
• To operate in compliance with all Village codes and safety standards.
• To collaborate with Village staff and neighbors on traffic, parking, and design details.
Page 220 of 316
• To create a welcoming, high-quality environment that reflects Winnetka’s values.
DCF Details for Teacher/Student Ratios:
Based on DCFS guidelines the infant room must have a 1:4 ratio (1 teacher for every 4
children). We are anticipating approval for 16 infants. That would be 16 children and 4
teachers for our infant program. Toddler rooms are a 1:5. We are anticipating 15 children
so that would be 3 teachers and 15 students in our toddler program. Two-year-old classes
are 1:8. We are anticipating approval for 16 children so that would be 2 teachers and 16
children. Preschoolers are 1:10. We are anticipating an approval of 17 children. That would
be 2 teachers and 17 children. 64 children and 11 teacher’s and 1 Director total.
In short: This childcare center is not just about adapting space within WCC—it’s about
continuing a 150-year partnership with the Village of Winnetka to ensure our community
remains vibrant, family-friendly, and supportive of all who call it home.
Page 221 of 316
V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ILLINOIS
SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS
1. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the
special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare;
Jumpstart Early Learning Services (Jumpstart) will be fully licensed and regulated under
the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) standards, ensuring
compliance with all state-mandated health, safety, and operational requirements. These
standards govern everything from staff qualifications and background checks to
classroom ratios, emergency procedures, sanitation, and food service, guaranteeing
that the center maintains the highest level of care and accountability. Based on DCFS
staffing guidelines, Jumpstart’s program is structured to ensure appropriate supervision
and high-quality care across all age groups. The infant room operates at a 1:4 ratio; with
anticipated approval for 16 infants, the program will be staffed by four teachers. Toddler
classrooms follow a 1:5 ratio, supporting 15 children with three teachers. Two-year-old
classes maintain a 1:8 ratio, accommodating 16 children with two teachers. Preschool
classrooms operate at a 1:10 ratio, with planned enrollment of 17 children supported by
two teachers. In total, the program is designed to serve 64 children with a dedicated
team of 11 teachers, and one Director, fully aligned with DCFS requirements.
All classroom doors will be equipped with keyed entry and interior latch locks. All main
entrance doors will feature secure keypad buzzer entry systems. The existing room
numbering system will be retained to minimize confusion and ensure clear
communication among WCC staff, Jumpstart staff, and emergency responders,
including police and fire personnel. The Jumpstart staff will undergo all necessary
training to ensure all processes and procedures are followed in case of emergency. (As
a bonus the Executive Director of Operations at WCC was the Associate Dean of
Budget and Administration at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago for many years
and worked with CPD and CFD on shelter-in-place drills, and actual campus
emergencies and threats. We have a solid team of experience on both sides of the
building).
An administrative office will be located at the building’s main entrance, along with a
secure keypad-access door separating the church space from the childcare facility on
the main floor. We expect the office will always be staffed when the center is open. A
similar keypad-access entry will be installed on the second floor. WCC currently
maintains lockdown doors as part of its Vanderbilt security system, and Jumpstart will
explore implementing a system with comparable features and/or in-classroom panic
Page 222 of 316
buttons. While the primary focus is education, creativity, motor skill development, and
overall childhood growth, maintaining a safe and secure environment remains one of
the highest priorities as well.
In addition to meeting rigorous state standards, Jumpstart will serve as a
valuable community asset by supporting the growing demand for quality early childhood
care in the area. By providing a safe, nurturing, and educational environment, Jumpstart
will allow parents and guardians to work or study with peace of mind, knowing their
children are in capable hands. This service directly enhances the general welfare of the
community by strengthening family stability, supporting local employment, and
contributing to the family-friendly neighborhood fabric.
2. That the special use will not be substantially injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity which are permitted
by right in the district or districts of concern, nor substantially diminish or
impair property values in the immediate
vicinity;
The proposed childcare center will not be substantially injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity, nor will it diminish or impair
property values. Operations will be limited to weekday daytime hours, aligning with
typical neighborhood activity patterns and minimizing any potential disruption to
adjacent properties. Outdoor playtime is not a requirement of DCFS and does not
require a waiver; however, opportunities for fresh air and outdoor activity are always
beneficial for children. The gymnasium within the building provides a substantial and
well-equipped space to support fine and gross motor skill development,
offering children ample opportunities for physical activity, exercise and play. While a
dedicated playground would be ideal; it is not essential at this stage and may be
considered in future phases subject to additional special use permits and a certificate of
appropriateness.
Jumpstart currently has two staff members who assist with pick-up and drop-off at their
existing locations, and this arrangement has proven effective. They are prepared to
adapt and adjust should backup or traffic flow issues or complications arise. Because
the traffic study no longer requires a one-way entrance and exit, we do not anticipate
significant queuing or overflow onto Prospect. Their team follows efficient, well-
organized procedures to assist children and families safely and promptly when entering
and exiting their vehicles.
High-quality childcare centers such as Jumpstart are widely recognized as
neighborhood assets that contribute to a community’s vitality and desirability. By
offering a trusted, licensed service that meets the needs of local families, the proposed
use will likely have a neutral to positive effect on nearby property values and enhance
the overall appeal of the area as a family-oriented, well-supported neighborhood.
Page 223 of 316
3. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the
normal and orderly development or improvement of other property
in the immediate vicinity for uses permitted by right in the district or
districts of concern;
The proposed use will occupy existing building space, requiring only modest interior
improvements and site adjustments that will not alter the physical character or
development potential of surrounding parcels. Because the project does not introduce
new large-scale structures, traffic-intensive operations, or environmental impacts, it will
maintain compatibility with the existing mix of nearby residential, commercial, and
institutional uses. Adjacent properties will retain full opportunity for continued
improvement and redevelopment consistent with zoning allowances.
Furthermore, by activating an existing space with a stable, community-serving tenant,
the childcare center may encourage continued investment in the surrounding area. The
presence of families and staff during weekday hours can increase neighborhood vitality,
pedestrian activity, and local patronage of nearby businesses—all of which contribute
positively to the district’s normal and orderly development.
Recent research indicates a growing demand among families for high-quality childcare
options such as Jumpstart Early Learning Services. Well-run childcare centers promote
socialization, healthy development, consistency, and a strong sense of security for
young children while providing dependable support for working families. Nearby
childcare providers currently maintain waitlists exceeding 30 children, leaving many
families feeling overwhelmed by the limited availability of care close to home. At the
same time, our facility has remained largely vacant Monday through Friday for several
years. Again, with only minor interior modifications, this underutilized space presents a
valuable opportunity to deliver a much-needed service and meaningful resource to the
surrounding community.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide
ingress and egress in a manner which minimize pedestrian and
vehicular traffic congestion in the public ways.
A traffic management plan has been developed and submitted as part of this
application, outlining clear procedures for drop-off and pick-up operations during peak
times. The site’s design includes a single circular drive entry and exit point, allowing
vehicles to move in a continuous flow without the need for backing or extended idling.
Childcare center staff will be present during arrival and departure periods to assist with
the safe loading and unloading of children, ensuring that vehicles move promptly and
that pedestrians remain protected. Signage may be installed to ensure proper safety
routes are followed.
Page 224 of 316
The plan prioritizes safety and efficiency by separating vehicular circulation from
pedestrian pathways, providing designated crosswalks, and maintaining clear sightlines
for drivers. These coordinated measures will effectively minimize congestion in the
public right-of-way, reduce potential traffic conflicts, and promote an orderly flow of
vehicles throughout the day.
5. That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other
facilities necessary to the operation of the special use exists or are
to be provided;
Twelve Jumpstart staff members will be on site during normal operations. Staff will park
in the Winnetka Congregational Church parking lot, which has ample capacity and
remains largely underutilized during weekday business hours. The WCC parking lot has
4 handicap spaces and 20 other parking spaces, including parking along Pine Street,
which is sufficient for WCC staff, Jumpstart staff, visitors and vendors. Staff may also
arrive by public transportation. In the event WCC needs use of the parking lot for
concurrent programming, staff may be directed to park in nearby Village public parking
lots, consistent with existing shared-parking practices in the East Elm district. Current
occupancy levels, observed by the Village, indicated adequate capacity during daytime
hours. Jumpstart catering deliveries will occur at 7:30am-11:30am by catering van.
All essential utilities—including water, sewer, electricity, and internet—are already
established and sufficient to meet the operational demands of the childcare facility. The
building’s existing systems comply with current codes and will be reviewed as part of
the DCFS licensing process to ensure continued safety and reliability.
The site’s access roads and drainage infrastructure are also in place and in good
condition. No new impervious surface or major site alteration is proposed, and
stormwater will continue to be managed through the existing system without impact to
surrounding properties. Collectively, these existing and planned measures ensure that
all necessary operational facilities are adequate to support the proposed special use.
6. That the special use in all other respects conforms to the
applicable regulations of this and other village ordinances and
codes.
The project will meet or exceed all requirements related to building, zoning, life safety,
and accessibility, and will be reviewed by Village departments as part of the permitting
process to ensure full compliance.
Jumpstart Early Learning Services will also adhere to all Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) licensing standards, which govern health, safety, staffing,
and facility operations.
Page 225 of 316
By meeting every relevant local and state requirement, the project ensures that the
special use will operate safely, responsibly, and in full harmony with surrounding uses
and the broader goals of the Village’s zoning and development ordinances.
Page 226 of 316
Page 227 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part I. Introduction and Project Context
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. (GHA) has conducted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed daycare
program to be operated from the existing Winnetka Congregational Church building at 725 Pine Street. The Winnetka
Congregational Church is seeking a Special Use Permit from the Village of Winnetka. No changes to the site
development are proposed as part of the requested Special Use. Existing, there is one full movement access to the
church site on Prospect Avenue.
The following summarizes our findings and provides various recommendations for your consideration. Appendices
referenced are in the Technical Addendum at the end of this document.
Part II. Background Information
Site Location Map and Roadway Inventory
Exhibit 1 provides a site location map. The existing traffic operations in the site area are illustrated on Exhibit 2.
Appendix A provides a photo inventory of operations along the site frontage. Pertinent comments to the adjacent
roadways include:
Lincoln Avenue
Lincoln Avenue is a north-south local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of Winnetka.
Lincoln Ave provides one travel lane in each direction and terminates at Humboldt Ave to the north and Oak
St to the south of the site.
Lincoln Ave is one-way southbound between Humboldt Ave and Pine St.
Lincoln Avenue is under stop-sign control at its “T” intersection with Prospect Avenue.
No speed limit is posted on Lincoln Avenue and no historical AADT volume is available.
Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue is a curved east-west and north-south local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of
Winnetka.
Prospect Ave provides one travel lane in each direction and terminates at Tower Road to the north and
Lincoln Ave at the south end.
Prospect Ave is under stop-sign control at its “T” intersection with Pine Street.
Parking is prohibited by signage on the church side of the street. On the opposite side of the street, on-street
parking is limited to 4 hours between 7AM and 5PM on weekdays.
No speed limit is posted on Prospect Avenue and no historical AADT volume is available.
Pine Street
Pine Street is an east-west local route under the jurisdiction of the Village of Winnetka.
On-street parking is permitted on the church side of the street along Pine Street and prohibited by signage
on the opposite side of the street.
No speed limit is posted on Pine Street and no historical AADT volume is available.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalk is provided on both sides of Lincoln Avenue, Prospect Avenue, and Pine Street within the site
vicinity.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
1
Page 228 of 316
Page 229 of 316
Page 230 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Existing Traffic
Exhibit 3 summarizes the existing weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes. Peak period traffic
turning movement counts were conducted by GHA on Thursday December 4, 2025, from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM
and from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the intersections of Lincoln Avenue and Prospect Ave and Prospect Avenue and
Pine Street. The observed weekday morning and evening peak hours generally occurred from 8:00 to 9:00 AM,
3:30 to 4:30 PM, respectively.
No unusual activities (e.g., roadway construction, or inclement weather) were observed during our counts that
would be expected to impact traffic volumes or travel patterns in the vicinity. Summaries of the 2025 existing
traffic counts and can be found in Appendix B.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
4
Page 231 of 316
Page 232 of 316
Page 233 of 316
Page 234 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part III. Traffic Evaluation
Future Site Characteristics
Proposed Program Plan
Winnetka Congregational Church is seeking to operate a daycare program in the existing church building at 725
Pine Street. No changes to the site development are proposed. There is an existing church full movement access
along Prospect Avenue approximately 125 feet northeast of the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Pine Street.
The daycare is expected to have operating hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and hold a maximum of 64 attendants.
This dimension is also illustrated on Exhibit 5.
Trip Generation
Table 2 summarizes the traffic generation calculations for the proposed development. Trip generation rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the 12 th Edition of the Manual Trip Generation were
used to determine the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development. As can be seen in Table 2 the
proposed daycare program is expected to generate approximately 51 trips (combined inbound and outbound)
during each of the Peak Hours and approximately 244 trips (again inbound and outbound total) in a 24-hour
period.
Daycare facilities tend to have more spread out arrival and departure times than typical schools experience with
drop-off and pick-up occurring generally within a two-hour window. By combining the anticipated trips with the
observed Peak Hours, we have considered the maximum impacts of the proposed daycare program.
See Appendix E for excerpts of the ITE manual.
Table 2: Trip Generation Calculations
Weekday Peak Hours
Morning Evening
Land Use ITE 8:00-9:00 AM 3:30-4:30 PM Daily
Size Code In Out Sum In Out Sum In Out Sum
Day Care Center 64 Attendants 565 27 24 51 24 27 51 122 122 244
New Trips 27 24 51 24 27 51 122 122 244
Sources:ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition - See Appendix E
Trip Distribution
Table 3 provides the anticipated distribution of site traffic. This was based on existing site travel patterns,
proposed access, and the operational characteristics of the adjacent street system. The majority of daycare traffic
is expected to be destined to and from the west along Lincoln Avenue and ultimately Green Bay Road further
west.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
8
Page 235 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 3: Trip Distribution
Percent Route
Route & Direction
To/From Site
Lincoln Avenue
North of Propsect Avenue 35%
South of Propsect Avenue 35%
Prospect Avenue
East of Pine Street 10%
Pine Street
South of Propsect Avenue 20%
Totals = 100%
Traffic usage of the area roadway network is also illustrated on Exhibit 5
Site and Total Traffic Assignments
Exhibit 5 illustrates the site traffic assignments for the development’s trips, which is based on the traffic
characteristics summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (traffic generation and trip distribution) and assigned to the area
roadways. As previously noted, the proposed daycare program is anticipated to open in 2026. Therefore, we
have considered the total impacts of the complete development for the year 2031, or buildout plus five years.
The site traffic (Exhibit 5) and 2031 No-Build traffic (Exhibit 4) were combined to produce the 2031 Total traffic,
which is illustrated on Exhibit 6.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
9
Page 236 of 316
Page 237 of 316
Page 238 of 316
Page 239 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1. Lincoln Ave & Prospect Ave AWSC - NB/SB/WB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.7 - - - 7.6 - - 8.4 -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 10.2 - - 17.9 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.7) A (7.6) A (8.4)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
AM • Delay - - - 7.7 - - - 7.6 - - 8.4 -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 10.2 - - 20.5 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.7) A (7.6) A (8.4)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.9 - - - 7.7 - - 8.6 -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.7 - - - 12.7 - - 20.5 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.9) A (7.7) A (8.6)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.4 - - - 7.8 - - 8.3 -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 5.0 - - - 15.1 - - 17.6 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.4) A (7.8) A (8.3)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
PM • Delay - - - 7.4 - - - 7.8 - - 8.3 -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 5.0 - - - 15.1 - - 17.6 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.4) A (7.8) A (8.3)
• LOS - - - A - < - A < > A -
• Delay - - - 7.6 - - - 7.9 - - 8.5 -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 7.6 - - - 15.1 - - 20.2 -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (7.6) A (7.9) A (8.5)
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
13
Page 240 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary (cont.)
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
2. Prospect Ave & Pine St TWSC - NB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.5) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
AM • Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.5) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.1 - 9.6 - - - - -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 7.5 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.6) A (9.6) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. Existing Traffic (See Exhibit 3)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.3) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
PM • Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
B. 2031 No-Build Traffic (See Exhibit 4)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.3) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
• Delay - - - 7.5 0.1 - 9.6 - - - - -
C. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
• 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 5.1 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (1.6) A (9.6) -
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
14
Page 241 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Table 5: Level-of-Service Summary (cont.)
Movement Group By Approach
Intersection / Timeframe Roadway Conditions > = Shared Lane - = Non Critical or Not Allowed Movement
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
3. Prospect Ave & Church Full Access TWSC - NB Stop LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
AM • Delay - - - 7.5 0.0 - 9.3 - - - - -
A. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 2.6 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (0.8) A (9.3) -
• LOS - - - A A - A - < - - -
PM • Delay - - - 7.4 0.0 - 9.2 - - - - -
A. 2031 Total Traffic (See Exhibit 6)
Peak • 95th Queue Length (ft) - - - 0 0 - 2.6 - - - - -
• Approach LOS (Delay) - A (0.8) A (9.2) -
Capacity analysis summary printouts are provided in Appendix F.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
15
Page 242 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Access Spacing
The only existing church full access is located approximately 125 feet northeast of Prospect Avenue & Pine
Street.
Recall, this dimension is illustrated on Exhibit 5.
The following summarizes the findings of the Capacity Analyses.
Lincoln Avenue & Prospect Avenue
Currently, all movements operate at LOS A or better and are expected to remain at LOS A or better through
buildout.
Prospect Avenue & Pine Street
Currently, all movements operate at LOS A or better and are expected to remain at LOS A or better through
buildout.
Prospect Avenue & Church Full Access
After the daycare program is instituted the Church Full Access is expected to operate at LOS A or better for all
movements.
Parking Analysis
Table 6 illustrates the required and projected parking based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6 th Edition
(See Appendix G). The Village of Winnetka Ordinance does not provide specific guidelines for off-street parking
for a Daycare Center facility.
Table 6: Parking Generation Calculations
Parking Spaces
ITE
ITE Parking Muncipal Code Projected
Use Code Size Unit Manual Code Required Demand Provided
0.25 Space
Day Care Center 565 64 Attendants N/A N/A 16 25
per Attendant
Total: N/A 16 25
Sources: ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition - See Appendix G
As shown in Table 6, the ITE projected demand for a Day Care Center of similar 64 attendants are 16 spaces.
The site currently provides more than adequate parking spaces of 25. On street parking along Pine Street is also
available for the daycare. It is estimated that the daycare program will have 10-15 full-time staff.
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
16
Page 243 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
Part IV. Recommendations and Conclusions
Analyses have been conducted under existing and future conditions to determine the impact from the proposed
daycare program on the study area intersections. The capacity analysis results indicate that the increase in project
site-generated traffic has little to no effect upon the Peak Hour operations of the area roadway network with the
recommendations contained herein:
The location of the only full movement church access will be located approximately 125 feet northeast of
the Prospect Avenue & Pine Street intersection.
Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within this study.
To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking on Prospect
between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.
The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up operations to help ensure orderly
traffic flow on-site.
Part V. Technical Addendum
The following Appendices were previously referenced. They provide technical support for our observations, findings
and recommendations discussed in the text.
Appendices
A. Photo Inventory
B. 2025 Traffic Count Summaries
C. Crash Summary Map
D. CMAP Traffic Projections
E. ITE Trip Generation Manual Excerpts
F. Capacity Analysis Worksheets
G. ITE Parking Generation Manual Excerpts
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic TIS 011226.docx
Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.
17
Page 244 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
Page 245 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDICES
A. PHOTO INVENTORY
B. 2025 TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARIES
C. CRASH SUMMARY MAP
D. CMAP 2050 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
E. ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL EXCERPTS
F. CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
G. ITE PARKING GENERATION MANUAL EXCERPTS
Page 246 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX A
Photo Inventory
Page 247 of 316
Looking North along Lincoln Avenue approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South along Lincoln Avenue approaching Prospect Avenue
Looking East across Lincoln Avenue at Prospect Avenue Looking West along Prospect Avenue approaching Lincoln Avenue
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 1
Page 248 of 316
Looking North along Pine Street approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South across Prospect Avenue at Pine Street
Looking East along Prospect Avenue approaching Pine Street Looking West along Prospect Avenue approaching Pine Street
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 2
Page 249 of 316
Looking North along Church Full Access approaching Prospect Avenue Looking South across Prospect Avenue at Church Full Access
Looking East along Prospect Avenue approaching Church Full Access On Street Parking along Pine Street
Appendix A Photo Inventory Page | 3
Page 250 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX B
2025 Traffic Count Summaries
Page 251 of 316
Appendix B
Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc.
Lincoln Ave at Prospect Ave 625 Forest Edge Drive Count Name: Lincoln Ave at Prospect Ave
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic Site Code:
6 AM - 9 AM, 3 PM - 6 PM Vernon Hills, Illinois, United States 60061 Start Date: 12/04/2025
GHA Mio (847) 478-9700 poster@gha-engineers.com Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Prospect Ave Lincoln Ave Pine St
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
U-Turn Left Thru Peds App. Total U-Turn Left Right Peds App. Total U-Turn Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 3 5
6:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 4 8
6:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 6 0 7 12
6:45 AM 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 2 0 6 10
Hourly Total 0 1 2 1 3 0 8 4 1 12 0 8 12 2 20 35
7:00 AM 0 1 4 0 5 0 2 2 0 4 0 6 6 1 12 21
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 4 0 9 0 7 4 1 11 21
7:30 AM 0 6 4 0 10 0 4 3 0 7 0 5 7 1 12 29
7:45 AM 0 7 10 1 17 0 6 5 0 11 0 9 8 0 17 45
Hourly Total 0 14 19 1 33 0 17 14 0 31 0 27 25 3 52 116
8:00 AM 0 10 5 1 15 1 10 11 4 22 0 17 15 0 32 69
8:15 AM 0 4 17 1 21 0 10 7 0 17 0 12 17 1 29 67
8:30 AM 0 8 6 0 14 0 15 8 0 23 0 24 24 0 48 85
8:45 AM 0 4 6 0 10 0 26 13 0 39 0 22 27 0 49 98
Hourly Total 0 26 34 2 60 1 61 39 4 101 0 75 83 1 158 319
*** BREAK *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3:00 PM 0 4 7 0 11 0 14 7 2 21 0 15 15 2 30 62
3:15 PM 0 3 10 0 13 1 10 8 0 19 0 12 11 0 23 55
3:30 PM 0 2 10 0 12 0 15 9 4 24 0 20 13 1 33 69
3:45 PM 0 3 11 3 14 0 32 7 2 39 0 18 28 1 46 99
Hourly Total 0 12 38 3 50 1 71 31 8 103 0 65 67 4 132 285
4:00 PM 0 2 12 2 14 0 31 17 0 48 0 24 21 0 45 107
4:15 PM 0 4 11 0 15 0 14 10 0 24 0 14 15 0 29 68
4:30 PM 0 2 7 1 9 0 20 7 0 27 0 11 12 5 23 59
4:45 PM 0 3 11 0 14 0 21 7 3 28 0 12 22 2 34 76
Hourly Total 0 11 41 3 52 0 86 41 3 127 0 61 70 7 131 310
5:00 PM 0 4 6 2 10 1 48 14 0 63 0 17 23 0 40 113
5:15 PM 0 1 8 0 9 0 26 9 0 35 0 15 15 0 30 74
5:30 PM 0 3 11 0 14 0 20 5 0 25 0 8 20 0 28 67
5:45 PM 0 4 8 0 12 0 7 7 0 14 0 8 9 0 17 43
Hourly Total 0 12 33 2 45 1 101 35 0 137 0 48 67 0 115 297
Grand Total 0 76 167 12 243 3 344 164 16 511 0 284 324 17 608 1362
Approach % 0.0 31.3 68.7 - - 0.6 67.3 32.1 - - 0.0 46.7 53.3 - - -
Total % 0.0 5.6 12.3 - 17.8 0.2 25.3 12.0 - 37.5 0.0 20.9 23.8 - 44.6 -
Lights 0 75 166 - 241 3 342 163 - 508 0 280 322 - 602 1351
% Lights - 98.7 99.4 - 99.2 100.0 99.4 99.4 - 99.4 - 98.6 99.4 - 99.0 99.2
Mediums 0 1 1 - 2 0 2 1 - 3 0 4 2 - 6 11
% Mediums - 1.3 0.6 - 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 - 0.6 - 1.4 0.6 - 1.0 0.8
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
1
Page 252 of 316
Appendix B
% Articulated Trucks - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
% Bicycles on Road - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Pedestrians - - - 12 - - - - 16 - - - - 17 - -
% Pedestrians - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - -
2
Page 253 of 316
Appendix B
Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc.
Pine St at Prospect Ave 625 Forest Edge Drive Count Name: Pine St at Prospect Ave
6213.900 WCC Day Care Traffic Site Code:
6 AM - 9 AM, 3 PM - 6 PM Vernon Hills, Illinois, United States 60061 Start Date: 12/04/2025
GHA Mio (847) 478-9700 poster@gha-engineers.com Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Prospect Ave Pine St Prospect Ave
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
U-Turn Left Thru Peds App. Total U-Turn Left Right Peds App. Total U-Turn Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2
6:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 4 6
6:45 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 4 6
Hourly Total 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 0 6 5 0 11 16
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 4 0 6 2 0 8 14
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 7 4 0 11 14
7:30 AM 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 6 0 6 3 0 9 20
7:45 AM 0 0 6 0 6 0 7 1 0 8 0 3 8 0 11 25
Hourly Total 0 0 13 0 13 0 16 5 1 21 0 22 17 0 39 73
8:00 AM 0 4 9 0 13 0 10 4 1 14 0 9 17 0 26 53
8:15 AM 0 0 3 0 3 0 17 9 0 26 0 11 10 0 21 50
8:30 AM 0 1 4 0 5 0 10 3 1 13 0 22 12 0 34 52
8:45 AM 0 0 4 1 4 0 8 4 0 12 0 19 11 0 30 46
Hourly Total 0 5 20 1 25 0 45 20 2 65 0 61 50 0 111 201
*** BREAK *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3:00 PM 0 0 7 0 7 0 3 3 0 6 0 10 16 1 26 39
3:15 PM 1 1 8 0 10 0 6 5 0 11 0 8 10 0 18 39
3:30 PM 0 1 3 0 4 0 6 9 0 15 0 11 18 0 29 48
3:45 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 4 0 14 0 14 12 0 26 45
Hourly Total 1 2 23 0 26 0 25 21 0 46 0 43 56 1 99 171
4:00 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 9 1 1 10 1 24 16 0 41 55
4:15 PM 0 0 3 1 3 0 13 1 0 14 0 13 12 0 25 42
4:30 PM 0 1 2 2 3 0 7 0 5 7 0 11 9 0 20 30
4:45 PM 0 1 4 0 5 0 10 2 0 12 0 8 8 0 16 33
Hourly Total 0 4 11 3 15 0 39 4 6 43 1 56 45 0 102 160
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 5 1 11 22 0 34 41
5:15 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 7 4 0 11 0 12 10 0 22 35
5:30 PM 0 1 7 0 8 0 9 0 0 9 0 7 7 0 14 31
5:45 PM 0 1 3 0 4 0 10 2 0 12 0 8 8 0 16 32
Hourly Total 0 3 13 0 16 0 31 6 0 37 1 38 47 0 86 139
Grand Total 1 16 81 4 98 0 158 56 11 214 2 226 220 1 448 760
Approach % 1.0 16.3 82.7 - - 0.0 73.8 26.2 - - 0.4 50.4 49.1 - - -
Total % 0.1 2.1 10.7 - 12.9 0.0 20.8 7.4 - 28.2 0.3 29.7 28.9 - 58.9 -
Lights 1 16 81 - 98 0 157 54 - 211 2 224 215 - 441 750
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - 99.4 96.4 - 98.6 100.0 99.1 97.7 - 98.4 98.7
Mediums 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 2 - 3 0 2 4 - 6 9
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.6 3.6 - 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.8 - 1.3 1.2
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
3
Page 254 of 316
Appendix B
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - 1 1
% Bicycles on Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 - 0.2 0.1
Pedestrians - - - 4 - - - - 11 - - - - 1 - -
% Pedestrians - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - - - - 100.0 - -
4
Page 255 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX C
Crash Summary Map
Page 256 of 316
Page 257 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX D
CMAP 2050 Projections
Page 258 of 316
Page 259 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX E
ITE Trip Generation Manual Excerpts
Page 260 of 316
Appendix E
Land Use: 565
Day Care Center
Description
A day care center is a facility where care for preschool children is provided, normally during daytime hours.
A day care facility generally includes classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds. A center may also
provide after-school care for school-age children.
Additional Data
The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in California, Florida,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, and Wisconsin.
Source Numbers
335, 336, 337, 355, 418, 536, 550, 562, 583, 633, 734, 866, 869, 877, 878, 954, 959, 981, 1236
General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400–799) 481
Page 261 of 316
1
Page 262 of 316
Page 263 of 316
Page 264 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX F
Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Page 265 of 316
Page 266 of 316
Page 267 of 316
Page 268 of 316
Page 269 of 316
Page 270 of 316
Page 271 of 316
Page 272 of 316
Page 273 of 316
Page 274 of 316
Page 275 of 316
Page 276 of 316
Page 277 of 316
Page 278 of 316
Page 279 of 316
Winnetka Congregational Church
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, Illinois
APPENDIX G
ITE Parking Generation Manual Excerpts
Page 280 of 316
Page 281 of 316
Appendix G
Land Use: 565 Day Care Center
Description
A day care center is a facility where care for pre-school age children is provided, normally during
daytime hours. A day care facility generally includes classrooms, offices, eating areas, and
playgrounds. A day care center may also provide after-school care for school-age children.
Time-of-Day Distribution for Parking Demand
The following table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand on a weekday at 17 study
sites in a general urban/suburban setting.
Hour Beginning Percent of Weekday Peak Parking Demand
12:00–4:00 a.m. —
5:00 a.m. —
6:00 a.m. 11
7:00 a.m. 45
8:00 a.m. 89
9:00 a.m. 93
10:00 a.m. 100
11:00 a.m. 100
12:00 p.m. 97
1:00 p.m. 93
2:00 p.m. 88
3:00 p.m. 82
4:00 p.m. 88
5:00 p.m. 96
6:00 p.m. 61
7:00 p.m. —
8:00 p.m. —
9:00 p.m. —
10:00 p.m. —
11:00 p.m. —
356 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition 2
Page 282 of 316
Appendix G
Additional Data
For this land use, any child enrolled at a day care center is considered a student. The number of
students refers to the total number of enrolled children, not just those present at the time the study
is conducted.
The average parking supply ratio for the 36 study sites with parking supply information and located
in a general urban/suburban setting is 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. The average peak
parking occupancy at these 36 sites is 63 percent. For the single study site in a dense multiuse
urban setting, the parking supply ratio is 1.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA and its peak parking
occupancy is 86 percent.
The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in California, Kansas,
Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Source Numbers
221, 223, 289, 291, 433, 555, 556, 557, 563, 603, 618, 622, 632, 633
3 Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 357
Page 283 of 316
Page 284 of 316
Page 285 of 316
Page 286 of 316
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
Phone: 312-814-8960 Fax: 312-814-3459 Email: SFM.Techservices@illinois.gov
January 8, 2026 OSFM #25148
Victor Cuebas
Jumpstart Early Learning Academy II
5644 West Diversey Avenue
Chicago, IL 60639
Re: Jumpstart Early Learning Academy Day Care Center
725 Pine Street
Winnetka, IL 60093
COOK COUNTY
Dear Victor,
Plans submitted for the above referenced day care center occupancy were reviewed on
this date under the requirements of the 2015 edition of the NFPA 101-Life Safety Code
and applicable references as adopted in Title 41 Illinois Administrative Code Parts 100,
109, and 251. This review pertains to:
A NEW DAY CARE CENTER IN AN EXISTING TYPE III (211), PER
NFPA 220, TWO-STORY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT AND NO
OCCUPIED ATTIC. IT WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED BY FIRE
ALARM AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THERE WILL BE NO
COMMERCIAL COOKING OPERATIONS.
Please note that OSFM’s plan reviews are strictly advisory in nature and that the local
authority having jurisdiction retains the ultimate responsibility for compliance
determinations. This advisory plan review is conducted based only on the information OSFM
was provided. There may be information, details, or variables in existence but unknown to
OSFM that would alter its technical analysis were those items made known to OSFM at the
time of its advisory review.
The drawings appear to conform with the applicable requirements with the following
noted exceptions:
1. In accordance with Section 16.1.3.1, multiple occupancies shall be in accordance
with 6.1.14.
555 W. Monroe Street 1035 Stevenson Drive 2309 W. Main
Suite 1300-N Marion, IL 62959
Chicago, IL 60661
Springfield, IL 62703 (618) 993-7085
(312) 814-2693 (217) 785-0969
www.sfm.illinois.gov
Page 287 of 316
Victor Cuebas 2 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
2. In accordance with Section 16.1.6.1, day-care occupancies, other than day-care
homes, shall be limited to the locations, construction types, and sprinkler protection
features specified in Table 16.1.6.1. based on the number of stories in height as
defined in 4.6.3. (See 8.2.1.)
3. In accordance with Section 16.1.6.2, where day-care occupancies, other than day-
care homes, with clients who are 24 months or less in age or who are incapable of
self-preservation are located one or more stories above the level of exit discharge, or
where day-care occupancies are located two or more stories above the level of exit
discharge, smoke partitions shall be provided to divide such stories into not less than
two compartments. The smoke barriers shall be constructed in accordance with
Section 8.4 but shall not be required to have a fire resistance rating.
4. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.2, any door in a required means of egress from
an area having an occupant load of 100 or more persons shall be permitted to be
provided with a latch or lock only if the latch or lock is panic hardware or fire exit
hardware complying with 7.2.1.7.
5. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.4, every door latch to closets, storage areas,
kitchens, and other similar areas shall be such that clients can open the door from
inside the space or area.
6. In accordance with Section 16.2.2.2.5, every bathroom door lock shall be designed to
allow opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening
device shall be readily accessible to the staff.
7. In accordance with Section 16.2.4, the number of means of egress shall be in
accordance with Section 7.4. Not less than two separate exits shall be in accordance
with both of the following criteria:
(1) They shall be provided on every story.
(2) They shall be accessible from every part of every story and mezzanine, however,
exit access travel shall be permitted to be common for the distance permitted as
common path of travel by 16.2.5.3.
8. In accordance with Section 16.2.5.2, no dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 ft, other
than in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic
sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, in which case dead-end corridors
shall not exceed 50 ft.
9. In accordance with Section 16.2.5.3.1, common path of travel shall not exceed 100 ft
in a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Page 288 of 316
Victor Cuebas 3 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
10. In accordance with 16.2.5.3.2 common path of travel shall not exceed 75 ft. in a
building not protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 9.7
11. In accordance with Section 16.2.6.2, travel distance shall meet the following criteria,
unless otherwise permitted by 16.2.6.3:
(1) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit access and an
exit shall not exceed 100 ft.
(2) The travel distance between any point in a room and an exit shall not exceed 150
ft.
(3) The travel distance between any point in a sleeping room and an exit access door
in that room shall not exceed 50 ft.
12. In accordance with 16.2.6.3, the travel distance in 16.2.6.2(1) and (2) shall be
permitted to be increased by 50 ft in buildings protected throughout by an approved,
supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
13. In accordance with Section 16.2.8, means of egress shall be illuminated in
accordance with Section 7.8.
14. In accordance with Section 16.2.9, emergency lighting shall be provided in
accordance with Section 7.9 in the following areas:
(1) Interior stairs and corridors
(2) Assembly use spaces
(3) Flexible and open plan buildings
(4) Interior or windowless portions of buildings
(5) Shops and laboratories
15. In accordance with Section 16.2.10, means of egress shall have signs in accordance
with Section 7.10.
16. In accordance with Section 16.2.11.1, every room or space normally subject to client
occupancy, other than bathrooms, shall have not less than one outside window for
emergency rescue that complies with the following:
(1) Such windows shall be openable from the inside without the use of tools and
shall provide a clear opening of not less than 20 in. in width, 24 in. in height,
and 5.7 ft2 in area.
(2) The bottom of the opening shall be not more than 44 in. above the floor.
(3) The clear opening shall allow a rectangular solid, with a width and height that
provides not less than the required 5.7-ft2 opening and a depth of not less than
20 in., to pass fully through the opening.
Page 289 of 316
Victor Cuebas 4 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply to buildings protected throughout
by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply where the room or space has a
door leading directly to the outside of the building.
17. In accordance with Section 16.3.1, any vertical opening, other than unprotected
vertical openings in accordance with 8.6.9.1, shall be enclosed or protected in
accordance with 8.6.
18. In accordance with Section 16.3.2.1, rooms or spaces for the storage, processing, or
use of materials specified in 16.3.2.1(1) through (3) shall be protected in accordance
with the following:
(1) Separation from the remainder of the building by fire barriers having a fire
resistance rating of not less than 1 hour or protection of such rooms by
automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 8.7 in the following
areas:
a. Boiler and furnace rooms, unless such rooms enclose only air handling
equipment
b. Rooms or spaces used for the storage of combustible supplies in quantities
deemed hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction
c. Rooms or spaces used for the storage of hazardous materials or flammable
or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by recognized
standards
d. Janitor closets
(2) Separation from the remainder of the building by fire barriers having a fire
resistance rating of not less than 1 hour and protection of such rooms by
automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 8.7 in the following
areas:
a. Laundries (Note: It is not the intent to classify a room with a domestic-type
clothes washer and a domestic-type clothes dryer as a laundry).
b. Maintenance shops, including woodworking and painting areas
c. Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of combustible supplies deemed
hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction
d. Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of hazardous materials or
flammable or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by
recognized standards
(3) Where automatic extinguishing is used to meet the requirements of 16.3.2.1 (1)
and (2), protection as permitted in accordance with 9.7.1.2
19. In accordance with Section 16.3.2.4, food preparation facilities protected in
accordance with 9.2.3 shall not be required to have openings protected between food
preparation areas and dining areas. (See OSFM policy for domestic cooking
equipment that is used for food warming or limited cooking).
Page 290 of 316
Victor Cuebas 5 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
20. In accordance with Section 16.3.3.2, interior wall and ceiling finish materials in
accordance with 10.2. shall be Class A in stairways, corridors, and lobbies; in all
other occupied areas, interior wall and ceiling finish shall be Class A or Class B.
21. In accordance with Section 16.3.3.3, interior floor finish materials in accordance
with 10.2. shall be not less than Class II within corridors and exits if not separated by
walls complying with 14.3.6.
22. In accordance with Section 16.3.4.1, day-care occupancies, other than day-care
occupancies housed in one room, shall be provided with a fire alarm system in
accordance with Section 9.6. The fire alarm system shall comply with the following:
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.2, initiation of the required fire alarm system
shall be by manual means and by operation of any required smoke detectors and
required sprinkler systems. (See 16.3.4.5.)
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.3.1, occupant notification shall be in
accordance with 9.6.3.
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.4, fire department notification shall be
accomplished in accordance with 9.6.4.
➢ In accordance with Section 16.3.4.5, a smoke detection system in accordance
with Section 9.6 shall be installed in day-care occupancies, other than those
housed in one room. Detectors shall be installed on each story in front of the
doors to the stairways and in the corridors of all floors occupied by the day-care
occupancy. Detectors also shall be installed in lounges, recreation areas, and
sleeping rooms in the day-care occupancy.
➢ In accordance with NFPA 72-National Fire Alarm Code, the acceptability of the
location of the fire alarm control panel shall be confirmed by the local fire
department having response jurisdiction to the occupancy.
➢ The installation of fire alarm systems is required to be performed by a licensed
electrical and/or fire alarm installation company. Contact the Illinois
Department of Professional Regulation for further information.
23. In accordance with Section 16.3.6, every interior corridor shall be constructed of
walls having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with 8.2.3.
Exception No. 1: Corridor protection shall not be required where all spaces
normally subject to client occupancy have not less than one door opening directly to
the outside or to an exterior exit access balcony or corridor in accordance with
7.5.3.
Exception No. 2: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, corridor walls shall not
be required to be rated, provided that such walls form smoke partitions in
accordance with 8.2.4.
Page 291 of 316
Victor Cuebas 6 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Exception No. 3: Where the corridor ceiling is an assembly having a 1-hour fire
resistance rating where tested as a wall, the corridor walls shall be permitted to
terminate at the corridor ceiling.
Exception No. 4: Lavatories shall not be required to be separated from corridors,
provided that they are separated from all other spaces by walls having not less than
a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with 8.2.3.
24. In accordance with Sections 16.5.1.1 and 16.5.2.1, utilities and HVAC equipment
shall comply with the provisions of Sections 9.1 and 9.2 which require compliance
with the following referenced codes and standards:
NFPA 54 National Fuel Gas Code
NFPA 70 National Electrical Code
NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems
NFPA 111 Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power
Systems
NFPA 90A Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating
Systems,
NFPA 90B Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning
Systems
Additionally, in accordance with State statute (431 ILCS 75) every boiler and each
pressure vessel over the minimum capacity must have a current inspection certificate
issued by the Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal posted in the boiler room.
Heating boilers (both steam and water), hot water supply boilers (hot water heaters)
and other types of boilers are exempt from inspection and registration if the BTU
output does not exceed 200,000. Contact the OSFM Division of Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Safety for further information pertaining to boiler and pressure vessel
registration.
25. In accordance with Section 16.5.1.2, special protective covers for all electrical
receptacles shall be installed in all areas occupied by clients.
26. In accordance with Section 16.5.2.2, unvented fuel-fired room heaters, other than gas
space heaters in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, shall not be
permitted.
27. In accordance with Section 16.5.2.3, any heating equipment in spaces occupied by
clients shall be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients
from hot surfaces and open flames. If solid partitions are used to provide such
protection, provisions shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and
ventilation for the heating equipment.
Page 292 of 316
Victor Cuebas 7 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
Concealed Spaces
28. In accordance with Section 8.2.7.1, in new Type III, Type IV, or Type V
construction, any concealed space in which materials having a flame spread rating
greater than Class A (as defined in Section 10.2) are exposed shall be effectively
firestopped or draftstopped as follows:
(1) Every exterior and interior wall and partition shall be fire-stopped at each floor
level, at the top story ceiling level, and at the level of support for roofs.
(2) Every unoccupied attic space shall be subdivided by draftstops into areas not to
exceed 3000 ft2.
(3) Any concealed space between the ceiling and the floor or roof above shall be
draftstopped for the full depth of the space along the line of support for the floor
or roof structural members and, if necessary, at other locations to form areas not
to exceed 1000 ft2 for any space between the ceiling and floor and 3000 ft2 for
any space between the ceiling and roof.
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply where the space is protected
throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply to concealed spaces serving as
plenums. (See NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and
Ventilating Systems.)
Furnishings and Similar
29. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.1, draperies, curtains, and other similar
furnishings and decorations in day-care occupancies shall be in accordance with the
provisions of 10.3.1.
OPERATING FEATURES
(The following requirements should be shared with the facility administrator):
30. In accordance with Section 16.7.1, the facility shall have a comprehensive written
fire emergency response plan. Copies of the plan shall be made available to all
employees. All employees shall be periodically instructed and kept informed with
respect to the duties of their position under the plan.
31. In accordance with Section 16.7.2.2, emergency egress and relocation drills shall be
conducted as follows:
(1) Not less than one emergency egress and relocation drill shall be conducted every
month the facility is in session.
Exception: In climates where the weather is severe, the monthly emergency
egress and relocation drills shall be permitted to be deferred, provided that the
Page 293 of 316
Victor Cuebas 8 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
required number of emergency egress and relocation drills is achieved and not
less than four are conducted before the drills are deferred.
(2) All occupants of the building shall participate in the drill.
(3) One additional emergency egress and relocation drill, other than for day-care
occupancies that are open on a year-round basis, shall be required within the
first 30 days of operation.
32. In accordance with Section 16.7.3.1, fire prevention inspections shall be conducted
monthly by a trained senior member of the staff. A copy of the latest inspection
report shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the day-care facility.
33. In accordance with Section 16.7.3.2, it shall be the duty of site administrators and
staff members to inspect all exit facilities daily to ensure that all stairways, doors,
and other exits are in proper condition.
34. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.2, clothing and personal effects shall not be stored
in corridors.
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply to corridors protected by an
automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply to corridor areas protected by a
smoke detection system in accordance with Section 9.6.
Exception No. 3: This requirement shall not apply to storage in metal lockers,
provided that the required egress width is maintained.
35. In accordance with Section 16.7.4.3, artwork and teaching materials shall be
permitted to be attached directly to the walls and shall not exceed 20 percent of the
wall area.
36. In accordance with Section 16.7.5, adequate adult staff shall be on duty, alert,
awake, and in the facility at all times where clients are present.
This review credited the presence of a complete automatic sprinkler system throughout
the occupancy. The review did not however, consider specific information concerning the
system water supply, pipe sizing, head placement, or hydraulic feasibility
Compliance with these noted exceptions is mandatory.
No guarantee is rendered as to the completeness of the plan review, and the responsibility
for full compliance with both state and locally adopted codes, standards and regulations
rests with the owner or his authorized agent or subcontractor. Subsequent discovery of
errors or omissions shall not be construed as authority to violate, cancel or set aside any
provision of any applicable codes.
Page 294 of 316
Victor Cuebas 9 Jumpstart Early Learning Academy
Jumpstart Early Learning Services Winnetka, Illinois
January 8, 2026 OSFM Plan Review #25148
The rules of the Office of the State Fire Marshal are concurrently applicable with those of
local authorities having jurisdiction. The Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
recommends contact with the local fire and/or building department to ensure compliance
with local regulations in the event that they may have requirements that are more
stringent.
Day care center occupancies are licensed by the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services, therefore, the OSFM will not conduct a final inspection of this
occupancy until formally requested to so by DCFS. Please DO NOT NOTIFY the OSFM
when this work has been completed, but rather contact the applicable DCFS licensing
representative who will request an OSFM inspection. The returned plans shall be retained
on-site and made available to the assigned Fire Prevention Inspector of the Office of the
Illinois State Fire Marshal for use in conducting an on-site inspection.
Respectfully,
Bernie Arends
OSFM Technical Services
c: OSFM Fire Prevention Portal
OSFM Technical Services Plan Review File
Fire Chief, Winnetka Fire Department
Page 295 of 316
OSFM Plan Review #
(To be completed by OSFM)
OSFM PLAN SUBMITTAL FORM
PROJECT INFORMATION
Name of Project: Jumpstart Winnetka
Address of Project: 725 Pine St.
City: Winnetka 60093
ZIP Code ___________ County: Cook
SUBMITTER INFORMATION
Submitter’s Name: Victor Cuebas
Jumpstart Early Learning Services
Company Name: __________________________________
7559 W. Addison St
Address: _______________________________________ Chicago
City: ____________________________
60634
Zip: _____________ Telephone: 312.860.4205 jumpstartels@gmail.com
Email: _____________________________
The plans are for:
New construction
An addition to an existing building
Remodeling of an existing building:
To serve the same occupancy classification as the most recent occupancy
Changing the occupancy classification from that of the most recent occupancy.
What was the previous occupancy classification? _______________________
Occupancy Classification as defined in NFPA 101 (2015)
____ Ambulatory Health Care ____ Detention & Correctional ____ Residential Board & Care
____ Assembly ____ Hotel ____ Storage
____ Apartment Building ____ Dormitory ____
____ Business ____ Industrial
____ Day Care Center ____ Lodging or Rooming
____ Day Care Home ____ Mercantile
Mixed Occupancy Classifications:
Number of Stories
One Two Three Four > Four “High rise” (> 75 ft)
Is there a Basement or one or more levels below the level of exit discharge?:
Yes No
Page 296 of 316
Construction Classification per NFPA 220
_____ Type I(442) ____ Type II(222) _X_ Type III(211) ____ Type V(111)
_____ Type I(332) ____ Type II(111) ____ Type III(200) ____ Type V(000)
____ Type II(000) ____ Type IV(2HH)
Or provide construction classification per the International Building Code or BOCA Code: __IIIA_see
email dated 12/16/25
Will the building be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system?:
_____ No
_____ Only partially in some areas or rooms. Please specify sprinklered areas:
If yes, the standard to which the sprinkler system will be designed:
NFPA 13 NFPA 13R NFPA 13D
Will the building be protected by an automatic fire alarm system?:
No
Only partially in some areas or rooms:
Please Specify:
Yes
Will kitchen cooking fire suppression systems be included in the building?:
No Yes
If yes, will the systems comply with NFPA 96?
Yes No
If food services are provided for occupants, is the cooking onsite or will food be catered?
_______________________________________________________________________
Catered
Are there any exceptions to the 2015 Life Safety Code included in this project?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
2
Page 297 of 316
Provide a description of the project to help us understand what you are proposing:
______________________________________________________________________
We are proposing a 2 story childcare center in existing classrooms.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Plans are permitted to be submitted in PDF format via email (more than one email
depending upon the size of the attachments) to SFM.Techservices@illinois.gov. OSFM
is not permitted to use links to view stored plans in clouds or other similar types of
storage. If hard copy submittal is preferred, please send an email to the address above
to obtain an address for shipping.
Victor Cuebas 12/12/25
Signature of Submitter Printed Name Date
3
Page 298 of 316
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum
To: Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission
CC: Ann Klaassen
From: James J. Bernahl, Director of Engineering/Village Engineer
Date: February 11, 2026
Re: Special Use Permit Application – 725 Pine Street (Winnetka Congregational
Church) – Childcare Center
The Engineering Department has reviewed the Special Use permit application to allow
for the implementation of a Childcare Center at the Winnetka Congregational Church,
located at 725 Pine Street. The proposed location is located east of the intersection of
Prospect Avenue and Pine Street. Based on responses provided from the applicant the
Engineering Department is submitting this revised memo.
The Engineering Department reviewed the information provided as part of this request
which included a cover letter from the applicant, a copy of the Village of Winnetka
Special Use Permit application, and a Traffic Impact Study; prepared by the
Engineering firm Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. Among the conditions for being
satisfied for a Special Use to be granted is the following:
“That adequate parking, utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities
necessary to the operation of the Special Use exists or are to be provided;”
To demonstrate compliance with the above, the applicant affirmed that no proposed
exterior modifications to the current structure, or exterior grading are proposed. Based
on this statement the Engineering Department does not have concerns about any
impact on the existing utility infrastructure or drainage concerns.
Traffic Impact Study Overview
The largest potential impact to the surrounding area is the inclusion of additional
vehicles and pedestrian movements related specifically to the proposed Childcare
Center. As noted above, the applicant has provided a Traffic Impact Study, the
professional consultants’ conclusion are as follows:
Page 299 of 316
February 11, 2026
“Analyses have been conducted under existing and future conditions to determine the
impact from the proposed daycare program on the study area intersections. The
capacity analysis results indicate that the increase in project site-generated traffic has
little to no effect upon the Peak Hour operations of the area roadway network with the
recommendations contained herein:
• The location of the only full movement church access will be located
approximately 125 feet northeast of the Prospect Avenue & Pine Street
intersection.
• Traffic operations will remain the same as existing for the intersections within
this study.
• To facilitate vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider
restricting parking on Prospect between the church driveway and Lincoln
Avenue.
• The church should plan for staff to assist with the drop-off and pick-up
operations to help ensure orderly traffic flow on-site.”
The Engineering Department has reviewed the technical information provided in the
Traffic Study and offered comments to the consultant. Some of the information
requested for additional clarification was as follows:
• There was a discrepancy between the actual number of students being
proposed and the number of students considered in the traffic study; 60 versus
64. Engineering is seeking a final clarification on the number of students to
ensure the traffic study correctly reflects the impacts on traffic and pedestrian
traffic.
o This item has been addressed with a clarification that there will be 64
students.
• The consultant indicated that, “The report references the “Village of Winnetka
Traffic Count Map (Q1 2025).” The Engineering Department requested
clarification on where this residential map comes from as it is not familiar with
this document.
o This item has been addressed and clarified.
• Engineering stated that consideration should be given to the location of the
existing church driveway entrance to this intersection. Parents wanting to head
west will have site line issues for any queuing that would take place on
Prospect. The narrow roadway, proximity to Lincoln, and the curve on
Prospect would make it very difficult for vehicles to have a clear site line to
the west.
o The applicant has provided a response that the traffic study
demonstrates that vehicles will be permitted to enter and leave the site
from the north or south on Prospect without any impact. The
2
Page 300 of 316
February 11, 2026
Engineering Department believes that this will need to be evaluated on
an ongoing basis based on actual traffic patterns for users entering
and exiting the site. Should traffic issues arise from this additional
coordination to address this issue will need to occur between the
applicant, Engineering, and Police.
• Engineering asked how many staff members are proposed to assist with
vehicle drop off and pick up. This will be a big factor considering that it will
drive any queuing efforts onto Prospect.
o The applicant has provided a response that 2 staff members will be
present. This will need to be evaluated on a long-term basis based on
actual drop-off and pick-up operations. Additional personnel may be
required based on the actual needs.
• As noted above the Traffic Consultant recommended that, “To facilitate
vehicles entering and exiting the church driveway, consider restricting parking
on Prospect between the church driveway and Lincoln Avenue.” The
Engineering Department has concerns about this recommendation as the
removal of these temporary parking spaces where requested would reduce
parking near the entrance, but it would push on street parking further north on
Prospect Avenue. In the past the residents of Prospect have requested that this
not be permitted as it reduced available parking in front of their homes. In
addition, the bend of Prospect creates reduced visibility due to the bend.
Engineering Department Recommendation:
Based on the information provided by the applicant the Engineering Department
believes that the proposed Childcare Center can operate at this location with minimal
overall impacts to the area. However, as noted above it may be necessary to perform
ongoing evaluation and possible modifications based on drop-off and pick-up
conditions. Engineering believes that appropriate staffing will be critical in reducing
the potential for on-street queuing of vehicles entering the site which could cause
safety concerns at this curve on Prospect Avenue. In addition, parking for staff
members on site should be required to reduce any additional impacts to available on
Street parking near the site.
Consideration should be given to any overlapping of any other existing or future
programs that are offered during the day. Previously attendants of church groups
during the day would utilize the current onsite parking spaces for these activities.
With the increase in additional staff members this could cause additional on-street
parking issues. The Church will need to consider its other current and future
programming impacts as it relates to parking needs.
3
Page 301 of 316
ATTACHMENT C
Page 302 of 316
Page 303 of 316
Page 304 of 316
Page 305 of 316
Page 306 of 316
Page 307 of 316
Page 308 of 316
Page 309 of 316
Page 310 of 316
Page 311 of 316
Page 312 of 316
ATTACHMENT D
From:
To: Planning
Subject: Winnetka Congregational Childcare Center
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2026 4:53:42 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.
Dear Winnetka Plan Commission,
We enthusiastically support making whatever Village zoning changes are necessary so a child
care center can be operated at Winnetka Congregational Church.
We have reviewed the plans and possible impact to the neighborhood. We feel the slight
inconveniences are inconsequential trade-offs to have greatly needed additional childcare
space here.
We’ve been homeowners at Lincoln & Pine for over 40 years. We’re used to traffic ebbs &
flows especially from both the Community House & Home Alone house tourists. Added
traffic during childcare drop off & pickups won’t be an issue.
Thanks,
Nancy & Bill Yurek
647 Lincoln Ave
Page 313 of 316
February 20, 2026
Via Electronic Mail planning@winnetka.org
RE: Case No. 25-24-SU
Dear Winnetka Plan Commission:
The 542-619 Block of Lincoln Avenue, and the immediately surrounding blocks of Lincoln,
Prospect and Pine, will be negatively impacted by the addition of a day care enterprise at the
Winnetka Congregational Church (“WCC”) that will bring with it a twice-a-day, 80 to 100-car, drop-
off and pick-up line and add an additional volume of street traffic and noise in this already busy
residential area. We are raising two children here in Winnetka, and while we are sympathetic to
the desire for additional childcare resources in the Village, we ask that the Village reject
the request to modify WCC’s existing Special Use Permit to allow this use.
While the WCC location in question is referenced as part of a “commercial overlay district” it is
smack dab in the middle of a residential area – as shown in Winnetka’s zoning map – and must
be evaluated through that lens. The purple dot reflects location of WCC surrounded by areas
zoned as residential:
The WCC suggests that the operation of a new childcare enterprise (the “Center”) on its property
will not impact traffic in the area, but that suggestion is based on flawed data and unrealistic
expectations.
At the end of October 2025, in a letter sent to nearby neighbors announcing its proposal to lease
space on its property for the Center, WCC provided neighbors with a copy of a Traffic and Parking
Study (“Traffic Study”) that was prepared using “existing traffic data” along with “accepted…trip-
generation methodologies” and “locally appropriate operating assumptions” (Traffic Study, p.1).
However, a closer look reveals that none of these sources of data or assumptions likely reflect
the true state of traffic volume and congestion in the area now or in the near future, and the plan
would have additional negative effects for the area.
Page 314 of 316
1. The Traffic Study Ignores Lincoln Avenue. The Traffic Study conveniently fails to
consider traffic volumes on Lincoln Avenue, which along with Pine will obviously be a main route
to the WCC for those accessing the proposed Center. The “Traffic Count Map” cited on page 2 of
the Traffic Study references Q1 2025 traffic volumes on Prospect, Pine, and East Elm – but
provides no data regarding Lincoln Avenue, an increasingly busy street that feeds traffic directly
to Pine and Prospect from both north and south. The residents of the 580-619 end of the 542-619
Block of Lincoln Avenue already experience significant traffic from the East Elm and Lincoln retail
and medical/dental businesses, as well as from the Winnetka Community House (“Community
House”). The recent relocation of the Village’s post office branch to 586 Lincoln Avenue also
means more cars and people coming to the area, and traffic from postal vehicles coming and
going from the site. On this block of Lincoln, driving is already challenging, navigating from the
East Elm side, bounded by the always-busy Hometown, through to the Community House and
the end of the block. Parking is similarly a challenge, indicating the volume of cars that are coming
to the area on a regular basis.
By not including Lincoln Avenue, the Traffic Study also fails to consider the heavy traffic volumes
in the 639-687 block of Lincoln Avenue – largely attributable to the “Home Alone” house at 671
Lincoln – which also affects surrounding blocks. The volume of traffic regularly seen in that
immediate area is noteworthy throughout the year and is seemingly increasing each year. During
the extended holiday season (roughly Halloween through January) the number of cars and people
visiting and traversing Lincoln Avenue on weekdays and weekends increases even more. During
that time, the Winnetka police must regularly direct traffic at the intersection of Lincoln and Pine
at the turn onto Prospect, due to the massive influx of cars and people traveling to see the Home
Alone house. In fact, this most recent holiday season, the Village temporarily converted the 639-
687 block of Lincoln Avenue to a southbound, one-way street in order to help manage the
excessive traffic. Notably, when it operates as a one-way street, all of that block’s traffic must exit
Lincoln going southbound, directly into the staggered intersection of Pine and Lincoln near the
turn onto Prospect. Visitors also drive around Pine and Prospect as they circle and attempt to
park to visit the Home Alone House. Adding 80-100 cars driving to, dropping off, and picking up
children at the WCC around the corner from this area will make this intersection more difficult to
navigate year-round.
2. Increased Traffic Volume Will Compromise Safety at an Already Busy Intersection.
Adding additional traffic to and from the WCC will risk an increase in accidents and other safety
events in this highly traveled area. The Community House hosts myriad events for children and
families, including during weekdays and evenings, and children often travel across Pine and
Lincoln to access the Community House. There are activities at the Children’s Chapel during the
week, including a large rummage sale multiple times per year, that further impact traffic and
parking around the staggered intersection of Pine, Lincoln, and Prospect.
Of note, the proposed ingress and egress plan for the Center’s drop-off and pick-up, as described
in the Traffic Study, relies on the travel of cars exclusively through that same staggered
intersection.
Further to that point, the Traffic Study’s assertion that cars dropping off and picking up at the
Center will not regularly back up “queuing” onto Prospect or Pine is unrealistic. One needs only
walk the immediate area surrounding the WCC to identify this – there will simply be nowhere else
for this volume of cars (80-100 of them) to go during drop-off and pickup times. Those neighbors
who live immediately next to and directly across from the WCC will be most acutely affected by
this plan, but all residents in the surrounding area will be subject to the effects as this volume of
cars attempts to navigate the area.
Page 315 of 316
3. And What About One Winnetka? The Traffic Study relies on Q1 2025 data, and has not
factored in the additional traffic that will be generated on East Elm, Lincoln, Prospect, Pine and
Arbor Vitae in the very near future, once an additional 59 units of housing and additional retail
and other businesses are in place at the One Winnetka site roughly one block away at the corner
of Elm Street and Lincoln Avenue. Recent local news reports have expressed concerns about
parking (which follows from increased traffic) in relation to the One Winnetka development.
4. The Plan Creates Other Significant Impacts. Beyond the impacts of additional vehicle
traffic, congestion, and safety, all residences located within earshot of the WCC will experience
additional daily noise disturbance from 80-100 cars, doors and trunks slamming, people coming
and going, and of 80-100 children playing outside with all the typical noise that brings (however
joyous in nature). This will significantly impinge on those residents’ reasonable use and enjoyment
of their property. The residential area near the WCC already bears a significant burden of noise
and disruption from frequent, loud, and poorly volume-regulated events at the Community House
garden, weekday noise from the existing facilities for the Harkness House childcare and Winnetka
Community Nursery School (i.e., facilities already provide child care one block away from the
proposed Center), sound intrusion from WCC’s outdoor services, and the annual multi-day
disruption that is the Winnetka Music Festival.
It is already almost too much to bear in a small area, and WCC’s proposed modification to its
Special Use permit to accommodate the Center will make the situation worse.
For these reasons, we request that the Village reject the modification to WCC’s Special Use
Permit.
Respectfully,
Sandra DiVarco and Derrick Kaleta
611 Lincoln Avenue
Page 316 of 316