Village Council REGULAR MEETING Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road February 20, 2018 7:00 p.m. AGENDA . 1) Call to Order 2) Pledge of …

Winnetka Village Council REGULAR MEETING

Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road

February 20, 2018 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA 1) Call to Order

2) Pledge of Allegiance

3) Quorum

a) March 6, 2018 Regular Meeting

b) March 13, 2018 Study Session

c) March 20, 2018 Regular Meeting

4) Public Comment

5) Reports

6) Approval of Agenda

7) Consent Agenda

a) Approval of Village Council Minutes

i) February 6, 2018 Regular Meeting ..................................................................................3

b) Approval of Warrant List dated February 2 - 15, 2018 .........................................................9

c) Resolution No. R-12-2018: Approving One-Year Renewal of the Contract with Asplundh Tree Expert Company for Utility Line Clearance (Adoption) ...............................................10

d) Resolution No. R-13-2018: Eighth Extension of Landscape Waste Hauling Contract (Adoption) ..............................................................................................................................14

e) Resolution No. R-14-2018: Purchase of Fleet Vehicle for Engineering Division (Adoption) ..............................................................................................................................22

f) Resolution No. R-16-2018: Approving In-Lieu Opt-Out Payments as Reportable Earnings Under the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) Pension (Adoption) ........................41

8) Ordinances and Resolutions

a) Ordinance No. M-4-2018: 67 Brier Street- Preliminary Plat Approval Gilchrist Subdivision and Variations (Introduction).............................................................................44

b) Ordinance No. M-5-2018: 860 Lamson Drive- Preliminary Plat Approval Sandra K. Crown Subdivision and Variations (Introduction) .................................................................138

Emails regarding any agenda item are welcomed. Please email [email protected], and your email will be relayed to the Council members. Emails for the Tuesday Council meeting must be received by Monday at 4 p.m. Any email may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Agenda Packet P. 1

NOTICE

All agenda materials are available at villageofwinnetka.org (Government > Council Information > Agenda Packets & Minutes); the Reference Desk at the Winnetka Library; or in the Manager’s Office at Village Hall (2nd floor). Webcasts of the meeting may be viewed on the Internet via a link on the Village’s web site: http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/government/village-videos/.

The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all persons with disabilities who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the Village ADA Coordinator – Megan Pierce, at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, 847-716-3543; T.D.D. 847-501-6041.

c) Resolution R-15-2018: Boal Parkway Pump Station Project Engineering Change Order No. 1 (Adoption) ....................................................................................................................237

9) Old Business: None.

10) New Business: None.

11) Appointments

12) Closed Session

13) Adjournment

Agenda Packet P. 2

http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/

http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/government/village-videos/

MINUTES WINNETKA VILLAGE COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING February 6, 2018

(Approved: xx)

A record of a legally convened regular meeting of the Council of the Village of Winnetka, which was held in the Village Hall Council Chambers on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.

1) Call to Order. President Rintz called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Trustees Andrew Cripe, Robert Dearborn, Penfield Lanphier, Scott Myers, and Kristin Ziv. Absent: Trustee John Swierk. Also present: Village Manager Robert Bahan, Assistant Village Manager Megan Pierce, Village Attorney Peter M. Friedman, Community Development Director David Schoon, and approximately 20 persons in the audience.

2) Pledge of Allegiance. Trustee Lanphier led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3) Quorum.

a) February 13, 2018 Study Session. All of the Council members present said they expect to attend.

b) February 20, 2018 Regular Meeting. All of the Council members present, except Trustee Dearborn, said they expect to attend.

c) Marcy 6, 2018 Regular Meeting. All of the Council members present, except Trustee Myers, said they expect to attend.

4) Public Comment.

Ted Wynnychenko, Winnetka resident. Mr. Wynnychenko expressed his disappointment with the way the potential Tax Increment Financing (TIF) issue is being presented. He posited that nothing in the TIF Statute applies to Winnetka; creating a TIF district will shift the tax burden to other taxing bodies; and it appears the interests of residents are being subordinated to assist businesses. Next, he urged the Council to consider developing a community solar program, and suggested the Landfill as an ideal location for a solar array.

Liz Kunkle, 1303 Holly Lane. Ms. Kunkle encouraged incorporating best practices throughout the Village, and echoed Mr. Wynnychenko’s call for a solar array on the Landfill.

5) Reports:

a) Trustees.

i) Trustee Cripe reported on recent stormwater meetings held with the Park District and School District 36.

b) Attorney. None.

c) Manager. None.

i) Village President. President Rintz reported on recent meetings with School Districts 203 and 36 to discuss TIF. Next, he explained that background work is being done on the Stormwater Vision projects, in order to ensure that the community will have an informed and robust discussion on the merits of the proposed program.

Agenda Packet P. 3

Winnetka Village Council Regular Meeting February 6, 2018

2

6) Approval of the Agenda. Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Ziv, moved to approve the Agenda. By voice vote, the motion carried.

7) Consent Agenda

a) Village Council Minutes.

i) January 16, 2018 Regular Meeting.

b) Approval of Warrant List dated January 12 – February 1, 2018 in the amount of $1,469,389.00.

c) Resolution No. R-8-2018: Approving a Contract with Orbis Construction for the Renovation of the Fire Department Reception Area (Adoption).

d) Resolution No. R-10-2018: A Resolution Approving the Purchase of a Water & Electric Vehicle (Adoption).

e) Resolution R-11-2018: Approving an MOU for a Joint Application to FEMA's Firefighters Grant Program (Adoption).

Trustee Dearborn, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to approve the foregoing items on the Consent Agenda by omnibus vote. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Cripe, Dearborn, Lanphier, Myers, and Ziv. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Swierk.

8) Ordinances and Resolutions.

a) Resolution No. R-9-2018: Authorizing Village Sponsorship of the Winnetka Music Festival (Adoption). Trustee Myers noted that the 2017 Winnetka Music Festival was a great success, and he reviewed some changes to the 2018 Festival, including more food trucks, another main stage, and more corporate sponsorships. Responding to a question about local businesses, he added that participation of local merchants will be expanded.

After Trustee Myers answered a few more questions, President Rintz noted that Trustee Myers puts a lot of his time and effort into the Festival, and he thanked Trustee Myers for his donation of time and energy to make the event possible. Next, he called for public comment.

Theresa Lucas, Good Grapes. Ms. Lucas said she heard from some of her customers that last year the food trucks were too expensive; there were not enough activities for children; and not enough local residents staffing the various booths. She added that in her opinion, the West Elm business district was left out of the action, and she urged the Council to make sure foot traffic is moved throughout all of the Elm Street business district this year.

Trustee Cripe, seconded by Trustee Ziv, moved to adopt Resolution No. R-9-2018 authorizing Village sponsorship of the Winnetka Music Festival. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Cripe, Dearborn, Lanphier, Myers, and Ziv. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Swierk.

9) Old Business. None.

10) New Business.

Agenda Packet P. 4


3

a) Downtown Master Plan Task Force - Streetscape & Signage Update (Policy Direction). Mr. Schoon explained that the Task Force has been working since last fall to develop preliminary streetscape design concepts. At this time, Council feedback is needed so the group can begin work on a phasing plan and preliminary cost estimates. Those items will then be presented to the Council for more feedback, and ultimately a final plan will be presented for Council consideration. He said the Council would be hearing from Jon Talty, Task Force Chair; Trustee Scott Myers, Task Force member; and Jodi Mariano of Teska Associates.

Mr. Talty briefly reviewed the process leading up to the current Streetscape & Signage Plan, and presented a list of the Task Force members. He noted that the project schedule outlines a final plan to be presented for Council consideration in April. He explained that the Task Force’s Implementation Principles call for living within a desired budget; prioritizing shopping and dining streets; coordinating public and private improvements; and phasing projects so that minimal disruption to businesses occurs.

Trustee Myers reviewed the project area, which encompasses the Elm Street business district; and he noted that the same streetscape and signage elements will be used in future projects in the Hubbard Woods and Indian Hill business districts. He explained that the Task Force has identified activity “hot spots,” which are crucial intersections that impact the health of the entire project area. He said the Task Force is sensitive to environmental issues, and also wants to build from previous streetscape work that has been completed. The goal is to create gathering spaces for shopping and socializing with neighbors.

Trustee Myers noted that the interests of businesses and residents are not only compatible, but synergistic; therefore, the interests of the homeowner community are not being subjugated to accommodate business interests.

Ms. Mariano noted that Winnetka’s downtown has great walkability, architecture, and businesses. She advised the Council to be strategic about streetscape implementation. She explained that clustering streetscape elements like festoon lighting, bollards, benches, and directory kiosks where people already congregate makes sense and keeps the rest of the downtown area clean and approachable. She reviewed lighting and signage elements, which include: (i) separating the trees from festive lighting and attaching light strands to poles for use year-round; (ii) updated signs for gateway and wayfinding; and (iii) ensuring the Green Bay Trail and bicycle routes are more clearly marked.

Ms. Mariano explained that the streets in the project area have been broken into categories as follows: shopping/dining; transitional; thoroughfare; and bridge crossing. Each area would have its own template for curb/gutter, lighting, plantings, paving and street furnishings. She noted that Green Bay Road presents a challenge, as the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has jurisdiction over anything that happens in its right-of-way. Teska and staff will be meeting with IDOT to share Winnetka’s vision of bump-outs and wider sidewalks; however, this is a time-intensive process, and the focus will stay on local streets and the bridges over the railroad while the IDOT discussions are taking place.

Agenda Packet P. 5


4

The Trustees contributed comments and suggestions; asked questions; and discussed Moffat Mall. A suggestion was made to identify an amount to budget for streetscape improvement, and to investigate other funding alternatives to TIF. Trustee Myers explained that the Task Force is using the amount of $10-12 million as a cost guide, since this is the amount that has been considered in the TIF discussions.

President Rintz called for public comment.

Theresa Lucas, Good Grapes. Ms. Lucas commented that Moffat Mall gets a fair amount of use in the warm weather months, and she expressed concern about changing it until more is known about what will become of the Post Office site.

Lorraine Hughes, Fuelfed. Ms. Hughes noted that the Elm Street bridge is a popular parking spot during the Fuelfed events in the summer, and she expressed concern about losing any spaces there.

Mitra Ryndak, owner of Café Aroma. Ms. Ryndak asked that a garbage receptacle and bike racks in front of her restaurant be moved; and she said the wayfinding sign on Sheridan Road needs improvement.

The Council agreed that the Task Force is going in a positive direction, and they should continue their work with the development of the phasing and cost estimates.

b) 860 Lamson Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval Sandra K. Crown Subdivision and Variations (Policy Direction). Mr. Schoon reviewed this request for a subdivision and zoning variations for the Subject Property, explaining that prior to 1975, the property had consisted of two buildable lots, which were consolidated to allow construction of an existing tennis court on the then-west lot. Granting this request would return the Subject Property to its original configuration.

After Mr. Schoon reviewed several zoning charts, he noted that the Plan Commission had recommended approval of the proposed plat of subdivision and related variations. The Zoning Board of Appeals, which has different standards for approval, had recommended denial of the zoning variations.

Chris Canning, attorney for the applicant. Mr. Canning explained that the applicant, Sandra Crown, was ill and could not attend the meeting. He described the request as unique, and noted that the existing home on proposed Lot 1 would be preserved. He posited that if the subdivision is not granted, a buyer for the lot could demolish the existing home, which is in keeping with the character of the surrounding locality, and construct a much larger home. He urged the Council to grant approval, despite the competing recommendations from the advisory boards.

Trustee Cripe was in favor of granting the request, as it would reduce the tax burden on the one large lot and most likely save the home on proposed Lot 1. He thought the Plan Commission’s recommendation was in the best interests of the Village. Trustees Ziv and Dearborn agreed with Trustee Cripe.

Trustee Myers said he did not much like the proposal but would approve it.

Trustee Lanphier said she could not approve the request in light of the irregularities that would be created with the proposed subdivision, and she disagreed that granting the subdivision would be a tool to save the existing home.

Agenda Packet P. 6


5

Trustee Cripe, seconded by Trustee Ziv, moved to direct the Village Attorney to draft an approval Ordinance for the 860 Lamson subdivision and variations request. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Cripe, Dearborn, Myers, and Ziv. Nays: Trustee Lanphier. Absent: Trustee Swierk.

c) 67 Brier Street - Preliminary Plat Approval Gilchrist Subdivision and Variations (Policy Direction). Mr. Schoon reviewed this request for a subdivision and zoning variations, and added that the Village Forester has asked that several mature parkway trees be preserved if the request is granted. Once again, the Plan Commission has recommended approval of the request and the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to recommend denial.

Russel Gilchrist and Rosemary Latter, the applicants, explained that their home is a 1955 ranch that has structural problems, which makes remodeling cost prohibitive. They noted that the Subject Property was previously two buildable lots, and that approval of the subdivision will permit construction of a modest home on each proposed lot. Ms. Latter said they have five letters of support from their neighbors, and have not received any objections.

There were no Council questions, and the Trustees were all in favor of keeping more reasonably sized and affordable homes in Winnetka.

Trustee Ziv, seconded by Trustee Cripe, moved to direct the Village Attorney to draft an approval Ordinance for the 67 Brier Street subdivision and variations. By roll call vote, the motion carried. Ayes: Trustees Cripe, Dearborn, Lanphier, Myers, and Ziv. Nays: None. Absent: Trustee Swierk.

11) Appointments:

a) Trustee Dearborn, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to re-appoint Ed Woodbury to the Board of Fire & Police Commissioners for another full term. By voice vote, the motion carried.

b) Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Dearborn, moved to appoint Chris Foley as the Environmental & Forestry Commission’s liaison to the Plan Commission. By voice vote, the motion carried.

c) Trustee Dearborn, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to appoint Layla Danley to the Plan Commission to replace Jeanne Morette, whose term has expired. By voice vote, the motion carried.

d) Trustee Dearborn, seconded by Trustee Myers, moved to re-appoint Chris Enck to the Landmark Preservation Commission for another full term. By voice vote, the motion carried.

e) Trustee Myers, seconded by Trustee Ziv, moved to appoint Maggie Meiners to the Design Review Board for a full term, effective immediately. By voice vote, the motion carried.

12) Closed Session. None.

13) Adjournment. Trustee Dearborn, seconded by Trustee Ziv, moved to adjourn the meeting. By voice vote, the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.

Agenda Packet P. 7


6

______________________________ Deputy Clerk

Agenda Packet P. 8

Agenda Item Executive SummaryTitle:

Presenter:

Agenda Date: OrdinanceResolutionBid Authorization/Award

Consent: YES NO Policy DirectionInformational Only

Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Warrant ListRobert M. Bahan, Village Manager

02/20/2018

✔✔

None.

The Warrant List dated February 2 - 15, 2018 was emailed to each Village Council member.

Consider approving the Warrant List dated February 2 - 15, 2018.

None.

Agenda Packet P. 9


Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Resolution No. R-12-2018: Approving One-Year Renewal of the Contract with AsplundhTree Expert Company for Utility Line Clearance (Adoption)

Brian Keys, Director of Water & Electric

02/20/2018

✔

✔

The Water & Electric Department performs line clearance (tree trimming) work on an annual basis. The Villageof Winnetka issued Bid #016-028 for Utility Line Clearance. The bid document required contractors to providerates for each classification of worker and equipment used on an hourly basis for normal work hours and duringafter hour situations. Rates were also requested for two additional years with annual renewals at the Village’soption. On February 7, 2017, the Village Council awarded the contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company

The contract with Asplundh Tree Expert Company for utility line clearance contains three years of unitpricing. The first year of pricing will expire on March 31, 2018. Based on the terms and conditions ofthe original contract document, renewal of the agreement for a second year of line clearance work is atthe Village's discretion. All work performed during the period of April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019would be performed at the second year of pricing submitted by Asplundh Tree Expert Company.Attachment #1 contains unit pricing submitted by Asplundh Tree Expert Company. It should be notedthat Asplundh Tree Expert Company has orally indicated that the company may not honor the contract.The option to extend the agreement to a second and/or third year, resides at the discretion of the Village.

Staff is recommending acceptance of the Year 2 pricing submitted by Asplundh Tree Expert Company.Asplundh Tree Expert Co. has performed line clearance for the Water & Electric Department in asatisfactory manner during the last seven years. No safety incidents occurred during this period. Inaddition, the contractor continued to identify additional vegetation hazards such as diseased trees and/ordead limbs outside the trimming area for further review by staff.

The FY 2018 budget (account #500.42.30-567) contains $170,000 for line clearance work.

Consider adoption of Resolution No. R-12-2018, approving a one-year renewal of the contract withAsplundh Tree Expert Company for utility line clearance.

Resolution R-12-2018, A Resolution Approving One-Year Renewal Of The Contract With AsplundhTree Expert Company For Utility Line Clearance (Adopt)

Attachment 1: Unit Pricing

Agenda Packet P. 10

February 20, 2018 R-12-2018

RESOLUTION NO. R-12-2018

A RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE-YEAR RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT WITH ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY FOR UTILITY LINE CLEARANCE

WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the

Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on February 7, 2017, the Village Council approved a contract (“Contract”) with Asplundh Tree Expert Company (“Contractor”) for utility line clearance services (“Services”); and

WHEREAS, the Contract provide that the Village may renew the Contract for two additional one-year terms (“Renewal Terms”); and

WHEREAS, the Village remains satisfied with the pricing under the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Village Council desires to renew the Contract (“Renewal”) for the

Renewal Term; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the Village and its residents to enter into the Renewal with Contractor;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka, Cook County, Illinois, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as

its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF RENEWAL. The Village Council hereby approves the

Renewal of the Contract with Contractor for the Renewal Term. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION OF RENEWAL. The Village Council hereby

authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, any and all documentation to effectuate the Renewal approved in Section 2 of this Resolution.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect

from and after its passage and approval according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Agenda Packet P. 11

February 20, 2018 R-12-2018

ADOPTED this __ day of _______, 2018, pursuant to the following roll call vote:

AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk

Agenda Packet P. 12

Attachment 1 – Unit Prices

Normal Work Day (Hourly Rates)

Position 4/1/17 to 3/31/18 4/1/18 to 3/31/19 4/1/19 to 3/31/20 Crew Leader $55.98 $57.38 $58.31 Trimmer $51.27 $52.55 $53.86 Apprentice Trimmer $45.13 $46.26 $47.42 Groundman $35.42 $36.31 $37.22 General Foreman $56.12 $57.52 $58.96

After Normal Work Hours (Hourly Rates)

Position 4/1/17 to 3/31/18 4/1/18 to 3/31/19 4/1/19 to 3/31/20 Crew Leader $74.29 $76.15 $78.05 Trimmer $67.59 $69.28 $71.01 Apprentice Trimmer $54.51 $55.87 $57.27 Groundman $44.93 $46.05 $47.20 General Foreman $77.74 $79.68 $81.67

Equipment Item 4/1/17 to 3/31/18 4/1/18 to 3/31/19 4/1/19 to 3/31/20 Pick-up Truck $10.80 $10.80 $10.80 Trimming Truck with 2 power saws $11.55 $11.55 $11.55

Chipper $5.56 $5.56 $5.56 Aerial Device with hydraulic tools and 1 gas power saw

$22.63 $22.63 $22.63

Extra power saw No Charge No Charge No Charge

Agenda Packet P. 13


Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Resolution No. R-13-2018: Eighth Extension of Landscape Waste Hauling Contract (Adoption)

Steven M. Saunders, Director of Public Works/Village Engineer

02/20/2018

✔

✔

✔

2018 Budget Item

The Village has a contract with Thelen Sand & Gravel of Antioch, IL to provide transport and disposalservices for yard waste collected from our refuse collection operations. Under State of Illinois law, yardwaste may no longer be disposed of in landfills, but must be composted. The Village of Winnetkamaintains a landscape waste transfer station at the Village’s closed landfill at 1390 Willow Road.Operationally, the Village collects the landscape waste and deposits it at the transfer site on the landfill.Thelen then hauls the material offsite within 72 hours of deposit, and composts the material at theircompost site in Antioch.

The current contract was initiated for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007, at a contractprice of $6.94 per cubic yard. The contract allows for up to five (5), one-year extensions with a rateadjustment based on the percent change in the Chicago CPI. The contract price was adjusted to $7.00 in2007, and Thelen has agreed to hold their price ever since. The operation has gone extremely smoothlyover the life of the contract. Last year Thelen requested to extend the contract with all original terms,conditions and to hold pricing. Thelen again wishes to extend the contract for an additional year. Staffhas been very pleased with the operation and also wishes to extend the contract. Thelen has agreed tohold their prices at the contract rate of $7.00 per cubic yard.

Consider adopting Resolution No. R-13-2018, waiving bidding requirements and authorizing aneighth one-year extension of the current landscape waste hauling contract with Thelen Sand & Gravelof Antioch, IL for $7.00 per cubic yard.

- Resolution No. R-13-2018- Extension agreement- Price extension letter

Agenda Packet P. 14

February 20, 2018 R-8-2018


A RESOLUTION WAIVING BIDDING AND APPROVING AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT

WITH THELEN SAND AND GRAVEL, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE WASTE REMOVAL WORK

WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the

Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2006, the Village entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with Thelen Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“Contractor”), for the performance of work necessary to remove and haul landscape waste (“Work”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the initial term of the Agreement expired on

March 31, 2007 and the Agreement was renewed annually through March 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Village and the Contractor have amended and extended the Agreement

for seven additional one-year extension terms, and the seventh extension term will expire on March 31, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council desires to enter into an eighth amendment to the

Agreement (“Eighth Amendment”) to extend and renew the Agreement for an eighth extension term that will expire on March 31, 2019 (“Extension Term”); and

WHEREAS, the Village has appropriated sufficient funds for the procurement of the

Work pursuant to the Eighth Amendment during the Extension Term; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 4.12 of the Village Code and the Village’s purchasing

manual, the Village Council desires to waive competitive bidding and enter into the Eigth Amendment with Contractor for the performance of the Work during the Extension Term; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the

Village and its residents to waive competitive bidding and enter into the Eighth Amendment with Contractor;



its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING. Pursuant to Section

4.12.010.C of the Village Code, Section IV.3.D of the Village’s Purchasing Manual, and the Village’s home rule authority, the Village Council waives the requirement of competitive bidding for the procurement of the Work for the Extension Term.

Agenda Packet P. 15

February 20, 2018 R-8-2018

SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT. The Village Council

approves the Eighth Amendment in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the Village Attorney.

SECTION 4: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. The

Village Council authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, the final Eighth Amendment after receipt by the Village Manager of two executed copies of the final Eighth Amendment from Contractor; provided, however, that if the Village Manager does not receive two executed copies of the final Eighth Amendment from Contractor within 60 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution, then this authority to execute and seal the Eighth Amendment will, at the option of the Village Council, be null and void.


from and after its passage and approval according to law by two-thirds of the Trustees.

ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2018, pursuant to the following roll call vote: AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________ Signed ____________________________________ Village President Countersigned: _______________________________________ Village Clerk

Agenda Packet P. 16

EXHIBIT A

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Agenda Packet P. 17

EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA AND

THELEN SAND AND GRAVEL, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE WASTE REMOVAL WORK

THIS IS AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT (“Eighth Amendment”), dated as of

_________________, 2017, to that certain Agreement dated as of March 7, 2006 (“Agreement”), between the VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation (“Village”), and THELEN SAND AND GRAVEL, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Contractor”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2006, the Village and the Contractor entered into the Agreement for the Contractor to remove and haul landscape waste from a landscape waste transfer site owned by the Village (“Work”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section V.A of the Agreement, the initial term of the Agreement expired on March 31, 2007 and the Agreement was renewed annually through March 31, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Village and the Contractor have amended and extended the Agreement for seven additional one-year extension terms, and the seventh extension term will expire on March 31, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Village and the Contractor desire to: (i) extend and renew the Agreement until March 31, 2019 (“Extension Term”); and (ii) set forth the fees the Village will pay Contractor for the performance of the Work during the Extension Term, all in accordance with the provisions of this Eighth Amendment;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Eighth Amendment, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Village and the Contractor agree as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS.

The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into, and made a part of, this Eighth Amendment as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS; RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

A. Definitions. All initial-capitalized words and phrases used throughout this Eighth Amendment have the meanings set forth in the various provisions of this Eighth Amendment. If a word or phrase is not specifically defined in this Eighth Amendment, it has the same meaning as in the Agreement.

B. Rules of Construction. Except as specifically provided in this Eighth Amendment, all terms, provisions and requirements contained in the Agreement remain

Agenda Packet P. 18

2

unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the text of the Agreement and the text of this Eighth Amendment, the text of this Eighth Amendment controls.

SECTION 3. EXTENSION AND RENEWAL.

The Village and the Contractor hereby extend and renew the Agreement for the Extension Term, which will expire on March 31, 2019.

SECTION 4. FEES.

Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Agreement or of any previous amendment and extension of the Agreement, during the Extension Term the Village will pay the Contractor for the Work at the rate of $7.00 per cubic yard of landscape waste removed and hauled from the landscape waste transfer site by the Contractor. All references in the Agreement to compensation for the Work will hereafter be deemed to refer to the compensation set forth in this Section 4.

SECTION 5. REPRESENTATIONS.

A. By Village. The Village hereby represents and warrants that: (1) the persons executing this Eighth Amendment on its behalf have been properly authorized to do so by the Village Council of the Village of Winnetka; (2) it has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Eighth Amendment and to perform all of its obligations imposed pursuant to this Eighth Amendment; and (3) this Eighth Amendment constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Village enforceable in accordance with its terms.

B. By Contractor. The Contractor hereby represents and warrants that: (1) the persons executing this Eighth Amendment on its behalf have full authority to bind the Contractor to the obligations set forth in this Eighth Amendment and to so act on behalf of the Contractor; (2) it has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Eighth Amendment and to perform all of its obligations imposed pursuant to this Eighth Amendment; and (3) this Eighth Amendment constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms.

SECTION 6. COUNTERPART EXECUTION.

This Eighth Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which, when executed, will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Agenda Packet P. 19

3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Eighth Amendment to

the Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

VILLAGE: VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, an Illinois

home rule municipal corporation ATTEST: By: By: Robert M. Bahan Christopher Rintz Village Clerk Village President CONTRACTOR:

THELEN SAND AND GRAVEL, INC. a Delaware corporation

ATTEST: By: By:

Its: Its: #39348471_v1

Agenda Packet P. 20

Agenda Packet P. 21


Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Resolution No. R-14-2018: Purchase of Fleet Vehicle for Engineering Division (Adoption)

James J. Bernahl, Asst. Director of Public Works/Engineering

02/20/2018

✔

✔

✔

2018 - Budgeted Item

As part of the 2018 Fiscal Year budget, the Village allocated $30,000 for the replacement of Public Works vehicle PW2. PW2 is a 2006Ford Escape Hybrid used exclusively by the Engineering Division to perform engineering inspections, field investigation, gather data, andfor construction oversight for various Village Capital Projects such as the Annual Street Rehabilitation Program.

This vehicle has been used by the engineering department for the past 12 years. During that time the car has acquired 106,000 miles and isstarting to show its age and wear, including rust and is having mechanical issues which are becoming more expensive to repair. The hybridbatteries are also a cause for concern as the life expectancy of the batteries is quickly approaching.

The Village is seeking to purchase a Ford Explorer to add to its majority Ford fleet simplifying maintenance and reducing cost for inventoryparts; the Water Department currently has the same vehicle in its inventory. The new vehicle is suitable for the Engineering Division tocarry an extensive amount of equipment and the assigned personnel; it also allows flexibility to traverse rougher terrain during construction.

To ensure the most fiscally prudent purchase price, the Public Works Department proposes to leverage pricing received as part of theSuburban Purchasing Cooperative which is a joint purchasing program sponsored by the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC),DuPage Mayors & Managers Conference (DMMC), South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA), and Will CountyGovernmental League (WCGL). Together the SPC represents 145 municipalities and townships in northeastern Illinois. Economies of scalein terms of pricing and staff resources are the prime objectives of the SPC Joint Purchasing Program. The currently offered vehicle troughthe NWMC is offered at a greatly reduced price compared to other vehicles that would offer equivalent safety, capacity, and performance.

Consider adopting Resolution No. R-14-2018, awarding a purchase order to Roesch Ford CommercialTruck Center, of Bensenville, IL in the amount of $29,350 for the purchase of a new 2018 FordExplorer.

- Resolution No. R-14-2017- Proposal: Roesch Ford Commercial Truck Center- Copy of 2018 Ford Explorer Contract

Agenda Packet P. 22

February 20, 2018 R- 14 -2018


A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASEOF A FLEET VEHICLE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) is a member of the Northwest Municipal Conference ("NWMC"), a corporate organization representing municipalities and townships located within the State of Illinois and Counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and McHenry; and

WHEREAS, the Village participates in the NWMC Suburban Purchasing Cooperative ("SPC"), which permits local governments to purchase commodities and services according to contracts negotiated by the NWMC, resulting in significant savings for the Village; and

WHEREAS, the Village Public Works Department (“Department”) has identified the need to replace an existing vehicle with a 2018 Ford Explorer (“New Vehicle”); and

WHEREAS, the SPC sought bids for the award of a contract for the purchase of the New Vehicle ("Purchase Contract"); and

WHEREAS, the SPC identified Roesch Ford Commercial Truck Center, of Bensenville, Illinois ("Roesch"), as the low responsible bidder for the Purchase Contract with a purchase price of $29,350; and

WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees have determined that it will serve and be in the best interest of the Village to purchase a New Vehicle from Roesch, in the amount of $29,350, in accordance with the SPC and the Purchase Contract;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka,Cook County, Illinois, as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The Village Council adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings, as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE. The Village Council hereby approves the purchase by the Village of the New Vehicle from Roesch, in the total amount of $29,350, in accordance with the SPC and the Purchase Contract.

SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE. The Village Council authorizes and directs the Village President, the Village Manager, and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, all documents approved by the Village Attorney and necessary to purchase the New Vehicle from Roesch, in an amount not to exceed $29,350.

Agenda Packet P. 23

February 20, 2018 R- 14 -2018

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by law.

ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2018, pursuant to the following roll call vote:AYES: ____________________________________________________________ NAYS: ____________________________________________________________ ABSENT: ____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________

Signed

____________________________________ Village President

Countersigned:

_______________________________________Village Clerk

Agenda Packet P. 24

2018 Ford Explorer Base

4-Door FWD Contract #160

ROESCH FORD COMMERCIAL TRUCK CENTER Brian Kilduff

[email protected]

630-279-6000 X2245

www.roeschford.com

Agenda Packet P. 25

SUBURBAN PURCHASING COOPERATIVE (SPC) RFP #160

2018 Ford Explorer 4 Door FWD

Plus Option Packages and Other Options

2018 Ford Explorer 4 Door FWD

STANDARD EQUIPMENT Dealer Agrees to Furnish Price/Total Bid as Specified

with All Standard Equipment Below with No Deletions

$ 24,649.00

MECHANICAL

● Engine – 3.5L Ti-VCT V6

● Four-Wheel Disc Brakes with Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS)

● Transmission – 6-Speed Automatic with SelectShift® Capability

EXTERIOR

● 18.6 Gallon Fuel Tank

● Black – Molded-in-Color

— Door Handles

— Lower Bodyside Cladding (Black-Painted Insert)

— Wheellip Molding

● Body-Color

— Bumpers, Front and Rear (Body-Color Upper, Black Lower)

— Spoiler

● Chrome Li gate Appliqué

● Configurable Day me Running Lamps (DRL) (Activates LED Low Beam Headlamps with Courtesy Delay)

● Easy Fuel® Capless Fuel Filler

● Front Air Curtain

● Grille – Dark Foundry Gray Mesh Insert with Chrome Bars

● Laminate Glass – Front-Row Side Windows

● LED Taillamps

● Privacy Glass – Second Row, Third Row and Liftgate

Rear Bumper Step Pad – Molded-In-Color Black

● Roof-Mounted Antenna

● Roof-Rack Side Rails – Black

● Tires

— P245/60R18 All-Season (A/S) BSW

— Mini Spare

● Wheels – 18" Five-Spoke Sparkle Silver-Painted Aluminum

● Wipers

— Windshield – Variable Intermittent/Continuous

— Rear Window – Single-Speed Intermittent/Continous

INTERIOR/COMFORT

● Black Metallic Center Stack

● Center Floor Console – Front

— Armrest

Agenda Packet P. 26

— Storage Bin with Lid

● Climate Control

— Cabin Particulate Air Filter

— Manual Single Zone

— Rear Auxiliary Controls

● Cruise Control

● Cupholders – 10

● Dark Galvano Instrument Panel and Appliqués, Door/Interior Trim and Appliqués

● Door-Sill Scuff Plates, Front and Rear – Black Molded-in-Color (MIC), embossed with “EXPLORER”

● Driver and Front Passenger Seat Back Map Pockets

● Driver’s Side Footrest

● Floor Mats – Color-Keyed Carpet, Front and Rear

● Grab Handles – Front-Passenger; Second Row – two (2), includes Coat Hooks

● Illuminated Visor Vanity Mirrors (Driver and Front Passenger)

● Instrument Panel Cluster

— 4.2" Productivity Screen

— Message Center

— Outside Temperature Display

— Trip Computer

● Leather Gear Shi Knob

● Ligh ng

— Front Overhead Console Mounted Map Lights

— Illuminated Entry System with Courtesy Lamp Delay

— Rear Cargo Area Light

— Second and Third Row Dome Lights

● Locking Glove Box

● Overhead Console with Sunglasses Storage

● Powerpoints (12V) – four (4)

— Front row; one (1) in Media Hub, one (1) in front center console

— Second row; one (1) in rear section of center console

— Rear Cargo Area; one (1)

INTERIOR/COMFORT (continued)

● Seats

— Cloth

— Front Row Buckets

— 8-way Power Driver’s Seat (includes Power Lumbar and Manual Recline)

— 4-way Manual Front Passenger (includes Manual Recline)

— Second Row – 60/40 Split-Fold-Flat and Reclining Bench (Manual fore/aft adjustable seat on “40” section only)

— Third Row – 50/50 Split-Fold-Flat

● Steering Column – Manual Tilt/Telescoping

● Steering Wheel Mounted Features

— 5-Way Controls

— Audio Controls

— Cruise Controls

● Windows, Power – Front One-Touch-Up/Down Feature (door mounted controls)

SAFETY/SECURITY

● AdvanceTrac® with RSC® (Roll Stability Control™)

● Airbags

— First Row: Driver and Passenger Dual-Stage Front, Front-seat Side and Passenger Knee

— All Rows: Safety Canopy® Side-Curtain with Rollover Sensor

Note: The Inflatable Rear Safety Belts (Second Row Outboard Seating Positions) feature is available on all series.

● Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL)

● Curve Control

Agenda Packet P. 27

● Day/Night Rearview Mirror – Manually Adjustable

● Door Locks, Power

— Autolock/Autounlock

— Child-Safety Rear

● Head Restraints

— Four-Way Manually Adjustable Driver and Front-Passenger (Two-way up/down when Dual-Headrest DVD Entertainment System (50S) is ordered)

— Two-Way Manually Adjustable Second and Third Row (Left and Right; Second Row Center Head Restraint is fixed position)

● Headlamps

— LED Low Beams with Courtesy Delay

— Halogen Reflector High Beams

— Wiper-Activated

● Hooks

— Cargo Net – Four (4)

— Load Floor Tie-Down – Four (4)

● Individual Tire Pressure Monitoring System (ITPMS)

● LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tether Anchors for Children) on Second Row Outboard and Third Row Passenger Side Seating Positions

Mirrors, Sideview – Power/Heated Glass, Manual-Folding with Integrated Blind Spot Mirrors and Black Molded-in-Color Caps

● MyKey®

● Personal Safety System™1

● Rear View Camera with Backup Assist Grid Lines and Washer

● Rear-Window Defroster and Washer

● Safety Belts

— Front Row – Belt-Minder® (Front Safety Belt Reminder)

— Front Row – Adjustable Height

— Second Row – Outboard and Center Seat Shoulder

— Third Row – Outboard

● SecuriLock® Passive An -Theft System (PATS) (Explorer Base Series Only)

● SOS Post-Crash Alert System™

● Trailer Sway Control

DRIVER ASSIST TECHNOLOGY

● Headlamps – Autolamp (Automatic On/Off)

● Hill Start Assist

● SYNC®

— Enhanced Voice Recognition Communications and Entertainment System

— 911 Assist®

— 4.2” LCD Screen in Center Stack

— AppLink®

— Smart-Charging Multimedia USB Port in Media Hub – One (1)

FUNCTIONAL

● 3.39 Non-Limited-Slip Rear Axle (FWD)

● 58 AH Ba ery (72AH with 2.3L I-4 EcoBoost® Engine)

● Audio

— AM/FM Stereo

— MP3 Capable

— Six (6) Speakers

— Speed-Compensated Volume

● Ba ery Saver

● Compass

● Electric Power-Assisted Steering (EPAS)

● Front and Rear Stabilizer Bars

● Independent Front and Rear Suspension

● Intelligent Oil-Life Monitor®

● Keyless-Entry Integrated Key Transmitter Remotes – Two (2)

Agenda Packet P. 28

4WD MODELS INCLUDE:

● Front Recovery Hooks

● Intelligent 4WD

● Terrain Management System™

Destination & Delivery Charges Included

Year 36,000 Mile Limited Bumper to Bumper Warranty

5 Year 60,000 Powertrain Warranty

Delivery Within 50 Miles of Dealership

Agenda Packet P. 29

2018 EXPLORER XLT

STANDARD EQUIPMENT Includes all Base standard equipment, plus:

MECHANICAL

● Heavy-Duty Front Brake Calipers (Rear are Standard Duty)

EXTERIOR

● Door Handles – Body-Color

● Grille – Foundry Gray-Painted Mesh Insert with Chrome Bars

● LED Signature Ligh ng

● Lower Bodyside Cladding – Black with Chrome Accent

● Roof-Rack Side Rails – Silver

● Skid Plate Elements, Front and Rear — Silver-Painted

● Wheels

— 18" Five-Spoke Sparkle Silver-Painted Aluminum (FWD only)

— 18" Five-Split-Spoke Sparkle Silver-Painted Aluminum (4WD only)

INTERIOR/COMFORT

● Galvano Instrument Panel and Appliqués, Door/Interior Trim and Appliqués

● Seats

— Unique Cloth

— 10-way Power Driver’s (includes Power Lumbar and Recline)

— 6-way Power Passenger (includes Manual Recline)

— Second Row Armrest

● Steering Wheel – Leather-Wrapped

SAFETY/SECURITY

● Perimeter Alarm

DRIVER ASSIST TECHNOLOGY

● Hill Descent Control™ (4WD Only)

● Reverse Sensing System

FUNCTIONAL

● 72 AH Ba ery

● Audio – SiriusXM® Radio

Note: Includes a six (6)-month prepaid subscription. Service is not available in Alaska

and Hawaii.

Note: SiriusXM audio and data services each require a subscription sold separately, or as a

package, by Sirius XM Radio Inc. If you decide to continue service after your trial, the

subscription plan you choose will automatically renew thereafter and you will be charged

according to your chosen payment method at then-current rates. Fees and taxes apply. To cancel you must call SiriusXM at 1-866-635-2349. See SiriusXM Customer Agreement for

complete terms at www.siriusxm.com. All fees and programming subject to change. Sirius, XM and all related marks and logos are trademarks

of Sirius XM Radio Inc.

● Intelligent Access with Push-Button Start

● SecuriCode™ Keyless-Entry Keypad

4WD MODELS INCLUDE:

● Hill Descent Control™

Agenda Packet P. 30

2018 EXPLORER LIMITED

STANDARD EQUIPMENT Includes all XLT 202A content, plus:

MECHANICAL

● Engine – 2.3L I-4 EcoBoost®

● Heavy-Duty Rear Brake Calipers

EXTERIOR

● Chrome

— Door Handles

— Roof-Rack Side Rails

● Grille – Bright Silver Painted Mesh Insert with Chrome Bars

● Hands-Free, Foot-Activated Liftgate

Rear Bumper Step Pad – Molded-In-Color Black with Bright Chrome Surround

● Tires – P255/50R20 All-Season (A/S) BSW

Wheels – 20" Premium Luster Nickel-Painted Aluminum

INTERIOR/COMFORT

● Ambient Ligh ng

● Door-Sill Scuff Plates with Bright Inserts, Front and Rear

● Multi-Piece Satin Chrome with Rose Wood Film Accent Appliqués

Remote Control Front Windows (vents Moonroof, when equipped)

● Seats

— Perforated Leather Seating Surfaces

— Front Heated and Cooled

— Memory Driver’s Seat

— Second Row Armrest and Dual Cupholders

— Second Row Heated

— Third Row PowerFold® (folds flat)

● Steering Column – Power Tilt/Telescoping

SAFETY/SECURITY

● Mirrors, Sideview – Power-Folding with Autofold, Power and Heated Glass, LED Turn Signal Indicators, Security Approach Lamps, Driver/Passenger Side Memory, Integrated

Blind Spot Mirrors and Body-Color Caps (Integrated Blind Spot Mirrors not included

when equipped with BLIS®. All other features/functions remain the same when

equipped with BLIS®.)

FUNCTIONAL

● 72 AH Ba ery

● 110V/150W AC Power Outlet (replaces the Powerpoint Port on the rear side of the Center

Floor Console)

● Audio

— 12-Speaker, 390-Watt Audio System from Sony®

— HD Radio™

— CD Player

● Dual Second Row Smart-Charging USB Ports

● Front 180-Degree Camera with Split View and Washer

● Universal Garage Door Opener (UGDO)

● Voice-Activated Touchscreen Navigation System with Pinch-to-Zoom Capability, SiriusXM

Traffic and Travel Link®

Note: SiriusXM Traffic and Travel Link® includes a five (5)-year prepaid subscription. SiriusXM

Traffic and Travel Link® service is not available in Alaska or Hawaii.

Agenda Packet P. 31

Note: SiriusXM audio and data services each require a subscription sold separately, or as a

package, by Sirius XM Radio Inc. If you decide to continue service after your trial, the

subscription plan you choose will automatically renew thereafter and you will be charged

according to your chosen payment method at

then-current rates. Fees and taxes apply. To cancel you must call SiriusXM at 1-866-635-2349. See SiriusXM Customer Agreement for

complete terms at www.siriusxm.com. All fees and programming subject to change. Sirius, XM and all related marks and logos are trademarks

of Sirius XM Radio Inc.

Agenda Packet P. 32

SUBURBAN PURCHASING COOPERATIVE

CONTRACT # 160

2018 FORD EXPLORER 4-DOOR 4X4

PRICING WORKSHEET

DEALER AGREES TO FURNISH PRICE/TOTAL BID AS SPECIFIED WITH ALL STANDARD EQUIPMENT

2018 MY EXPLORER 4-DOOR FWD - BASE VEHICLE (100A) $24,649.00

K8B EXPLORER 4-DOOR 4X4 BASE (100A) $27,578.00

K7D EXPLORER XLT FWD NON-EMERGENCY VEHICLE (200A) $28,517.00

K8D EXPLORER XLT 4WD NON-EMERGENCY VEHICLE (200A) $30,729.00

EXPLORER XLT (201A) $2,400.00

EXPLORER XLT (202A) $4,086.00

K7F EXPLORER LIMITED FWD NON-EMERGENCY VEHICLE (300A) $35,713.00

K8F EXPLORER LIMITED 4WD NON-EMERGENCY VEHICLE (300A) $37,853.00

EXPLORER LIMITED (301A) $2,400.00

EQUIPMENT GROUP OPTIONS XLT PACKAGE

201A DRIVER CONNECT PKG $2,400.00

~ SYNC 3

- SYNC WITH MY FORD ENHANCED VOICE RECOGNITION COMMUNICATION

AND ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM

- 8" LCD CAPACTIVE TOUCHSCREEN IN CENTER STACK WITH SWIPE CAPABILITY

✔

Agenda Packet P. 33

- PINCH-TO-ZOOM CAPABILITY INCLUDED WHEN EQUIPPED WITH AVAILABLE

VOICE-ACTIVATED TOUCHSCREEN NAVIGATION SYSTEM

- APPLINK

- 911 ASSIST

- SMART CHARGING MULTIMEDIA USB PORTS - TWO (2) (ONE (1) SMART-

CHARGING

MULTIMEDIA USB PORT REPLACES THE FRONT CENTER CONSOLE POWEPOINT

PORT)

- TWO (2) DRIVER CONFIGURABLE 4.2" COLOR LCD DISPLAYS IN

SNSTRUMENT CLUSTER

- AUTO-DIMING REARVIEW MIRROR

~ PREMIUM AUDIO SYSTEM WITH 9 SPEAKERS

~ REMOTE START SYSTEM

~ DUAL-ZONE ELECTONIC AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE CONTROL

(DEATC)

~ 10-WAY POWER PASSENGER SEAT (INCLUDES POWER LUMBAR AND RECLINE)

~ HANDS-FREE, FOOT ACTIVATED LIFTGATE

202A ~ FORWARD SENSING SYSTEM $4,086.00

~ HEATED STERING WHEEL

~ COMFORT PKG

- LEATER SEATING SURFACES

- HEATED FRONT SEATS

EQUIPMENT GROUP OPTIONS LIMITED PACKAGE

301A ~ BLIS PLUS INFLATABLE REAR SAFETY BELTS PKG $2,400.00

- BLIS (BLIND SPOT INFORMATION SYSTEM) WITH CROSS-TRAFFIC

ALERT

- INFLATABLE REAR SAFETY BELTS, 2ND ROW OUTBOARD SEATING POSITIONS

- AUTO-DIMING DRIVER'S SIDEVIEW MIRRO

~ ENHANCED ACRIVE PARK ASSIST SYSTEM WITH PARALLEL PARKING, PARK OUR

ASSIST,

REVERSE PERPENDICULAR PARKING, AND FORWARD AND SIDE SENSING

SYSTEMS

~ LANE-KEEPING SYSTEM

~ RAIN-SENSING WIPERS (FRONT ONLY)

Agenda Packet P. 34

~ AUTO HIGH BEAM HEADLAMPS

~ MULTICONTOUR SEATS WITH ACRIVE MOTION (FRONT ONLY)

OPTIONS - POWERTRAIN

ENGINE 3.5L V6 STANDARD STD

99H/446 2.3L I-4 ECOBOOST 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC W/OD STD LIMITED STD

TRAILER TOW OPTIONS

52R CLASS II TRAILER TOW PACKAGE $489.00

NOTE: NOT AVAILABLE W/ FWD (K7B);

4WB (K8B) REQUIRES 2.3L ECOBOOST (99H)

52T CLASS III TRAILER TOW PACKAGE $542.00

NOTE: NOT AVAILABLE W/ FWD (K7B);

4WB (K8B) REQUIRES 3.5L V6 (998)

FREE STANDING OPTIONS

90R INFLATABLE REAR SAFETY BELTS, 2ND ROW OUTBOARD SEATING $185.00

582 SIRIUS XM RADIO $185.00

NOTE: INCLUDES 6-MONTH PRE-PAID SUBSCRIPTION

16N DEEP TRAY STYLE ALL WEATHER FLOOR MATS $114.00

153 FRONT LICENSE PLATE BRACKET N/C

76R REVERSE SENSING SYSTEM $261.00

942 DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS $42.00

41H ENGINE BLOCK HEATER $86.00

96R RUNNING BOARDS $565.00

85W REAR CARGO MAT $95.00

60T INTERIOR CARGO COVER $123.00

60V REAR BUMPER PROTECTOR $71.00

✔

✔

✔

✔

Agenda Packet P. 35

50N ROOF RAIL CROSS BARS $132.00

50M SPLASH GUARDS $195.00

65W COLD WEATHER PKG XLT (REQ 201A) $619.00

AVAIABLE DEALER INSTALLED OPTIONS

RUST PROOFING $285.00

SECURE IDLE $250.00

4 CORNER STROBES $895.00

2018 SERVICE MANUAL ON CD FOR WINDOWS $275.00

UNDERCOATING $285.00

LICENSE AND TITLE "M" PLATES (NEW) $103.00

OPTIONS - WARRANTY

3 YEAR 100,000 MILE POWERTRAIN $1,455.00

6 YEAR 75,000 MILE PREMIUM CARE $1,850.00

7 YEAR 75,000 MILE PREMIUMCARE $2,270.00

7 YEAR 100,000 MILE PREMIUMCARE $2,445.00

5 YEAR 60,000 MILE MAINTENANCE $945.00

DELIVERY

WITHIN 50 MILES OF DEALERSHIP $0.00

GREATER THAN 50 MILES OF DEALERSHIP $100.00

EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS

G1 SHADOW BLACK $0.00

EC CINNAMON GLAZE $0.00

GN PLATINUM DUNE METALLIC (TRI-COAT) $565.00

J7 MAGNETIC $0.00

✔

✔

✔

Agenda Packet P. 36

R3 BURGANDY VELVET METALLIC $375.00

FT BLUE $0.00

UG WHITE PLATIUM METALLIC $565.00

RR RUBY RED METALLIC TINTED CLEAR COAT $375.00

UX INGOT SILVER $0.00

YZ OXFORD WHITE $0.00

* NEW FOR THIS YEAR

INTERIOR SEAT COLOR OPTIONS

7L MEDIUM LIGHT CAMEL (100A PACKAGE ONLY) $0.00

8L UNIQUE CLOTH MEDIUM LIGHT CAMEL (200-201A PACKAGE ONLY) $0.00

8W UNIQUE CLOTH MEDIUM EBONY BLACK (200-201A PACKAGE ONLY)

$0.00

BL LEATHER SEATING MEDIUM LIGHT CAMEL (202A ONLY) $0.00

BW LEATHER SEATING EBONY BLACK (202A ONLY) $0.00

CL PERFORATED LEATHER SEATING MEDIUM LIGHT CAMEL (LIMITED ONLY)

$0.00

CW PERFORATED LEATHER SEATING EBONY BLACK (LIMITED ONLY) $0.00

VEHICLE TOTAL PRICE $__________________________

QUANITY ______________

ORDER TOTAL $__________________________

✔

✔

29,350.00

1

✔

Agenda Packet P. 37

Please enter the following:

Agency Name & Address _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Contact Name _____________________________________________

Phone Number _____________________________________________

Purchase Order Number _____________________________________________

Total Dollar Amount _____________________________________________

Total Number of Units _____________________________________________

Tax Exempt Number _____________________________________________

Delivery Address _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Please Submit P.O. & Tax Exempt Letter with Vehicle Order:

Roesch Ford Commercial Truck Center 333 W. Grand Ave. Bensenville, IL 60106 Phone: (630)279-6000 Fax: (630)451-3509

Contact: Brian Kilduff [email protected]

Fred Seng [email protected] Patti Ferrarini [email protected]

If We Have Missed An Option, Please Contact Our Office.

Village of Winnetka510 Greenbay Rd.Winnetka, IL 60093Jon Olson847-716-3267

29,3500.001

1390 Willow RdWinnetka, IL 60093

Agenda Packet P. 38

Agenda Packet P. 39

Agenda Packet P. 40


Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Resolution No. R-16-2018: Approving In-Lieu Opt-Out Payments as Reportable EarningsUnder the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) Pension (Adoption)

Megan E. Pierce, Assistant Village Manager

02/20/2018

✔

✔

None.

In 2016, the Village began offering a “Health Insurance Opt-Out Benefit.” This provides employeeswho have another potential source for health insurance coverage, such as a spouse or parent, to takethat coverage instead of the Village’s plan. Employees must waive our coverage and provide proof ofother coverage during open enrollment to be eligible. By waiving, the employee then receives apercentage of the total premium paid to them as a cash benefit; 50% for waiver of single coverage,25% for waiver of single+1 coverage, and 25% for waiver of family coverage. This program lowersthe cost the Village pays in insurance premium and reduces the number of lives the Village insures.

In December 2017, IMRF passed a Board resolution that will require a small change for the Village tocontinue this program. The Village has previously reported the payouts as pensionable (reportable)earnings for IMRF employees. In order to continue that practice, IMRF now requires that we adopt aresolution stating that our cash payments made in lieu of healthcare benefits are reportable. TheVillage Attorney has drafted Resolution No. R-16-2018 to comply and make this effective for our ouropt-out payments that are regularly made in February of each calendar year.

In order to comply with the new IMRF rule and continue the Village's current program, Staffrecommends adoption of Resolution No. R-16-2018.

- Resolution No. R-16-2018

Agenda Packet P. 41

February 20, 2018 R-16-2018


A RESOLUTION REGARDING REPORTABLE EARNINGS UNDER THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND PENSION

WHEREAS, in order to better control costs related to the payment of employee health

insurance coverage premium contributions (“Employer Contributions”) and to reduce the number of beneficiaries under health insurance coverages (“Health Insurance”), Illinois municipalities regularly establish Health Insurance opt-out programs; and

WHEREAS, an opt-out program grants municipal employees the option to obtain Health Insurance through another source and to opt out of the municipality’s Health Insurance; and

WHEREAS, in exchange for an employee’s opt-out, the municipality agrees to pay in

cash to the employee a percentage of the Employer Contributions that the municipality otherwise would have to pay had the employee not exercised the opt out; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, the Village established its own opt-out program, the “Heath Insurance Opt-Out Benefit” program (“Village Opt-Out Program”); and

WHEREAS, under the Village Opt-Out Program, Village employees must exercise their

opt out via submission of a waiver of Village Health Insurance and valid proof of other Health Insurance to the Village (“Opt Out Documentation”); and

WHEREAS, in exchange for the Opt Out Documentation, the Village issues Employer

In-Lieu Payments to those employees equal to: (i) 50 percent of the amount of the Employer Contribution in the case of an opt out for only the employee; and (ii) 25 percent of the amount of the Employer Contribution in the case of an opt out for the employee and the employee’s additional beneficiary or for the employee and the employee’s family (“Village In-Lieu Payments”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., the Illinois

Municipal Retirement Fund ("IMRF") has the authority to determine which forms of compensation may qualify as pensionable earnings for IMRF pension calculation purposes (“Pensionable Earnings”); and

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2017, the Board of Trustees of IMRF adopted a Resolution granting individual municipal employers authority to adopt resolutions establishing whether their employer in-lieu payments will qualify as Pensionable Earnings; and

WHEREAS, the Village desires that the Village In-Lieu Payments qualify as

Pensionable Earnings; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the Village and its residents to adopt this Resolution;

Agenda Packet P. 42

February 20, 2018 R-16-2018

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Village of Winnetka,

Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The Village Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as

its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: DECLARATION. The Village Council hereby declares that all Village

In-Lieu Payments made under the Village Opt-Out Program on or after January 1, 2018 shall be considered Pensionable Earnings for IMRF pension calculation purposes.


from and after its passage and approval according to law.


Agenda Packet P. 43


Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Ordinance No. M-4-2018: 67 Brier Street - Preliminary Plat Approval Gilchrist Subdivisionand Variations (Introduction)

David Schoon, Director of Community Development

02/20/2018 ✔

✔

February 6, 2018 - The Village Council reviewed the application, heard from the Applicants, anddirected Staff to prepare an ordinance approving the preliminary plat of subdivision and relatedvariations.

Rosemary Latter and Russell Gilchrist, the Applicants, as the owners of the property commonly known as 67 Brier Street,(the "Subject Property") are requesting approval of a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The existingparcel consists of one buildable lot measuring 13,345 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would divide theexisting lot into two lots, measuring 6,473 square feet (north lot) and 6,872 square feet (south lot). The proposedsubdivision requires four variations from the Zoning Ordinance and one variation from the Subdivision Ordinance.

The application has been reviewed by the Plan Commission (PC) and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The PCrecommended, by a vote of 8-0, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision and related variations subject to the finalplat incorporating restrictive covenants requested by the Village Forester to protect mature parkway trees. The ZBArecommended, by a vote of 4-2, denial of the requested zoning variations.

Attached is a copy of the materials presented to the Council at the February 6, 2018, Council meeting, which includes theagenda staff report and other materials containing more details regarding the requested relief and the advisory bodies'discussion of the request. In addition, attached is material submitted by the Applicant at the last meeting.

During the Village Council's consideration of the proposed subdivision for policy direction on February 6, the VillageCouncil heard from the Applicants. After which, the Village Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance approvingthe preliminary plat of subdivision and related variations from the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.

Consider introduction of Ordinance No. M-4-2018, which would approve a preliminary plat ofsubdivision and variations to allow a two-lot subdivision of the property commonly known as 67 BrierStreet.

Attachment A: Ordinance No. M-4-2018Attachment B: February 6, 2018, Village Council Agenda ReportAttachment C: Applicant's Supplemental Information dated January 30, 2018Attachment D: Setback Exhibit Prepared by StaffAttachment E: PC Staff ReportAttachment F: ZBA Staff ReportAttachment G: Application MaterialsAttachment H: Public Correspondence Submitted at the February 6, 2018 Council meetingAttachment I: Excerpt of December 13, 2017 PC meeting minutesAttachment J: Excerpt of January 8, 2018 ZBA meeting minutes

Agenda Packet P. 44

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

ORDINANCE NO. M-4-2018

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM THE WINNETKA ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE

WINNETKA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (67 Brier Street)

WHEREAS, Russel Gilchrist ("Owner") is the record title owner of the parcel of real property commonly known as 67 Brier Street in Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance (“Subject Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the R-5 Single Family Residential District of the Village ("R-5 District"); and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a single lot of record depicted in the plat of survey in Exhibit B attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently improved with a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, Owner and Rosemary Latter (collectively, “Applicants”) desire to divide the Subject Property into two buildable lots of record (“Proposed Subdivision”); and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2017, the Applicants submitted an application to the Village for zoning variations on the Subject Property (“Zoning Application”) WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Applicants submitted an application (“Subdivision Application”) to the Village for an approval of a preliminary plat of subdivision for the Subject Property (“Preliminary Plat”), which is attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit C; and

WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat proposes to divide the Subject Property, creating two proposed adjoining lots of record: (i) a lot consisting of approximately 6,473 square feet on the north side of the Subject Property and depicted as “Lot 1” on the Preliminary Plat (“Proposed North Lot”); and (ii) a lot consisting of approximately 6,872 square feet on the south side of the Subject Property and depicted as “Lot 2” on the Preliminary Plat (“Proposed South Lot” and collectively with the Proposed North Lot, the “Subdivided Lots”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Winnetka Subdivision Ordinance

(“Subdivision Ordinance”), the Subdivided Lots must have side lot lines that are approximately perpendicular to front street lines; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.010 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning

Ordinance"), the Subdivided Lots must each have: (i) a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet; (ii) a minimum rectangular buildable area of 5,445 square feet; and (iii) a minimum length of rectangular building area of 55 feet; and

ATTACHMENT A

Agenda Packet P. 45

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivided Lots must each have: (i) a minimum average lot width of 60 feet; and (ii) a minimum actual lot width 45 feet from the front street line of 60 feet; and

WHEREAS, the Applicants desires to divide the Subject Property into the Subdivided Lots such that: (i) the Subdivided Lots would have side lot lines not approximately perpendicular to the front street lines, in violation of Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance; (ii) the Proposed North Lot would have a minimum lot area of only 6,473 square feet and the Proposed South Lot would have a minimum lot area of only 6,872 square feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance; (iii) the Proposed North Lot and Proposed South Lot would have less than minimum rectangular buildable areas of 5,445 square feet and less than minimum lengths of rectangular building area of 55 feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance; (iv) the Proposed North Lot would have a minimum average lot width of only 44.33 feet and the Proposed South Lot would have a minimum average lot width of 54.54 feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance; (v) the Proposed North Lot and the Proposed South Lot both would have a minimum actual lot width 45 feet from the front street line of 45.82 feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicants’ Subdivision Application also requested subdivision variations from Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the Subdivided Lots to have side lot lines that are not approximately perpendicular to front street lines (collectively, “Subdivision Variations”); and WHEREAS, the Applicants’ Zoning Application requested zoning variations from: (i) Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with the Proposed North Lot having a minimum lot area of only 6,473 square feet, a minimum rectangular buildable area less than 5,445 square feet, and a minimum length of rectangular building area of less than 55 feet and with the Proposed South Lot having a minimum lot area of only 6,872 square feet, a minimum rectangular buildable area less than 5,445 square feet, and a minimum length of rectangular building area of less than 55 feet; and (ii) Section 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with the Proposed North Lot having a minimum average lot width of only 44.33 feet and a minimum actual lot width 45 feet from the front street line of 45.82 feet and the Proposed South Lot having a minimum average lot width of only 54.54 feet and a minimum actual lot width 45 feet from the front street line of 45.82 feet (collectively, “Zoning Variations” and the Subdivision Variations together with the Zoning Variations are collectively, “Variations”); and

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, after due notice thereof, the Winnetka Plan Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat and Variations, and voted, by a unanimous vote of eight to zero, to recommend that the Village Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Variations, subject to certain conditions; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, after due notice thereof, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Variations and, by a vote of four to two, the members then present recommended that the Council of the Village of Winnetka (“Village Council”) deny the Zoning Variations; and

Agenda Packet P. 46

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Village Council

has determined that: (i) the Zoning Variations are within the final jurisdiction of the Village Council; (ii) the Zoning Variations are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and are in accordance with general or specific rules set forth in Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions or regulations of the Zoning Ordinance from which the Zoning Variations have been sought; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that approval of the Preliminary Plat, Subdivision Variations, and Zoning Variations (collectively, “Approvals”) to permit the Proposed Subdivision on the Subject Property within the R-5 District is in the best interest of the Village and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do ordain as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this section as the findings of the Village Council, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. The Preliminary Plat for the Subject Property shall be, and it is hereby, approved pursuant to Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code. SECTION 3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION VARIATIONS. The President and Village Council hereby acknowledge that the Applicant has requested, and that the proposed Preliminary Plat of Subdivision contemplates, the Subdivision Variations from Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the Subdivided Lots to have side lot lines that are not approximately perpendicular to front street lines. At the time of consideration of a final plat of subdivision, the Village Council shall consider the requested modifications in accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code. SECTION 4: EFFECT OF APPROVALS. Pursuant to Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code, the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Subject Property, as set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance, shall not be deemed or interpreted as authorizing or entitling the Applicant to approval of a final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property or to any other approval, or to the issuance of any permit, until after all of the standards and procedures for such other approvals or permits have been satisfied. Nothing herein shall be deemed or interpreted as obligating or requiring the Village Council to approve a final plat of subdivision or other approval or permit. SECTION 5: APPROVAL OF ZONING VARIATIONS. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance, the Zoning Variations from Sections 17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision on the Subject Property are hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village.

Agenda Packet P. 47

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

SECTION 6: CONDITIONS. The Approvals granted by Sections 2 and 5 of this Ordinance are subject to, and contingent upon, compliance by the Applicants with the following conditions:

A. Submission of Final Plat of Subdivision. Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 16.08.010.D of the Village Code, the adoption of this Ordinance authorizes the Applicant to submit a final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property to the Village Council. The final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property (“Final Plat”) shall be submitted by the Applicant for review and approval by the Village no later than the date that is 12 months after the effective date of this Ordinance.

B. Compliance with Regulations. Except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Ordinance, the development, use, and maintenance of the Proposed Subdivision and the Subject Property must comply at all times with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time.

C. Reimbursement of Village Costs. In addition to any other costs, payments, fees, charges, contributions, or dedications required under applicable Village codes, ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations, the Applicant must pay to the Village, promptly upon presentation of a written demand or demands therefor, of all fees, costs, and expenses incurred or accrued in connection with the review, negotiation, preparation, consideration, and review of this Ordinance. Payment of all such fees, costs, and expenses for which demand has been made shall be made by a certified or cashier's check. Further, the Applicant must pay upon demand all costs incurred by the Village for publications and recordings required in connection with the aforesaid matters.

D. Restrictive Covenant. The Applicant must cause restrictive covenants approved

by the Village Attorney to be set forth on the Final Plat, which restrict the use and development of the Subdivided Lots as follows:

1. The existing driveway on the Subject Property must be preserved, maintained, and used on the Proposed South Lot. No other space on the Proposed South Lot may be used for a driveway onto Brier Street.

2. The existing trees in the City-owned parkway in front of the front lot line of the Proposed North Lot (“Parkway Trees”) must be preserved and maintained, and any driveway constructed on the Proposed North Lot must have at least a three-foot clearance on either side from these existing trees.

SECTION 7: RECORDATION OF ORDINANCE; BINDING EFFECT. A copy of this Ordinance will be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. This Ordinance and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein inure solely to the benefit of, and are binding upon, the Applicants and each of its heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns.

Agenda Packet P. 48

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

SECTION 8: FAILURE TO COMPLY. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicants to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Ordinance, in addition to all other remedies available to the Village, the approvals granted in Section 2 and 5 of this Ordinance will, at the sole discretion of the Village Council, by ordinance duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Village Council may not so revoke the approvals granted in Sections 2 and 5 of this Ordinance unless it first provides the Applicants with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Village Council. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the regulations of the applicable zoning district and the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as the same may, from time to time, be amended. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 9: AMENDMENTS. Any amendment to this Ordinance may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Zoning Ordinance for amending or granting variations. SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be interpreted, applied, and enforced so as to achieve, as near as may be, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Ordinance will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: 1. Passage by the Village Council in the manner required by law; and

2. Publication in pamphlet form in the manner required by law;

B. The Variations set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance will be effective only upon: (i) the filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent in the form of Exhibit D attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Ordinance and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Ordinance; and (ii) the approval and recording of the Final Plat.

C. In the event that the Applicants do not file with the Village Clerk a fully executed copy of the unconditional agreement and consent described in Section 11.B of this Ordinance within 60 days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by the Village Council, the Village Council shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare the Variations granted in this Ordinance null and void and of no force or effect.

Agenda Packet P. 49

February 20, 2018 M-4-2018

PASSED this_____day of _________, 2018, pursuant to the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED this ____ day of _________, 2018.

Signed:

Village President

Countersigned: Village Clerk

Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2018.

Introduced: February 20, 2018

Passed and Approved: ______________, 2018

Agenda Packet P. 50

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

LOT 2 AND LOT 3 (EXCEPT THE SOUTH 9.8 FEET THEREOF) IN BLOCK 1 IN MANUS INDIAN HILL A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Commonly known as 67 Brier Street, Winnetka, Illinois.

Agenda Packet P. 51

EXHIBIT B

CURRENT PLAT OF SURVEY

(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B)

Agenda Packet P. 52

EXHIBIT B

Agenda Packet P. 53

EXHIBIT C

PRELIMINARY PLAT

(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C)

Agenda Packet P. 54

1(Manus Indian Hill)

Center Lineof 50

Ft. Public

R.O

.W.

( Previously

Dedicated

)

BR

IER

STREET

Lot

2AREA = 6,473

3Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

1Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

(Manus Indian Hill)

Lot

4

AREA = 6,872 2

Line Between Lots 2 and 3 (Existing)

South Line of Lot 3 (Existing)

127.30

35

.19

12.66

54.54

150.00

54.55

54.55

17.59

49.61

9.8

9

9.8

9

49.61

59.50

150.00

f

f

122°50'40"

122°52'0"

57°8'0"

89°53'34"

Existing30

Ft. Building

Line

30.0

25.0

25.0

PU

BLIC

( Previously

Dedicated

)

ALLEY

16.0

proposedGILCHRIST RESUBDIVISION

...IN...The West half of the Northeast quarter of Section 28 Township 42 North,

Range 13, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.

North Shore Survey, Ltd.778 Frontage Road #110 - Northfield, Illinois 60093

(847) 446-6510 [email protected] Design Firm No. 184.006982

File No.

42402-R

PARCEL INDEX NUMBERS

05-28-103-128-0000

OWNERRussell Gilchrist and Rose Latter, husband and wife, owners of the property shown and described hereon, hereby adopts this plat of

subdivision; establishes the minimum building restriction lines, dedicates the roads, streets, alleys, walks, and other areas indicated thereon tothe public use; and establishes any other easements shown thereon.

______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF ILLINOIS )) SS

COUNTY OF ______ )I, ____________________________, a Notary Public in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Russell Gilchristand Rose Latter, personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before methis day in person and acknowledged that they signed and delivered said instrument as their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposestherein set forth.

Given under my hand and official seal this ______ day of ___________________, 2016.

____________

My Commission Expires:______________________________

SURVEYORI, Arthur R. Olson, hereby certify that I have prepared the plat shown hereon and the property described as Lot 2 and

Lot 3 (except the South 9.8 feet thereof) in Block 1 in MANUS INDIAN HILL, a subdivision of the Northwest quarter of theWest half of the Northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 42 North, Range 13, East of the Third Principal Meridian, inCook County, Illinois; in accordance with the Winnetka Subdivision and Development Code; that the property is within thecorporate limits of the Village of Winnetka which has adopted an official comprehensive plan; that the property is not withina Special Flood Hazard Area, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on the most recent FloodInsurance Rate Map Panel 253 of 832, Community Panel No. 17031 C 0235 F, effective August 19, 2008.

___________


COUNTY OF COOK )I, ____________________________, a Notary Public in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify

that _____________________________, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to theforegoing instrument, appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he signed and delivered said instrumentas his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth.

Given under my hand and official seal this ______ day of ___________________, 20___.

____________My Commission Expires:

________________________

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND OWNERTo the best of our knowledge and belief, the drainage of surface waters will not be changed by the construction of this subdivision or

any part thereof, or, if such surface water drainage will be changed, reasonable provision has been made for collection and diversion of suchsurface waters into public areas, or drains which the owner has a right to use, and that such surface waters will be planned for in accordancewith generally accepted engineering practices so as to reduce the likelihood of damage to the adjoining property because of the constructionof this subdivision.OWNER REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

_____________________________ ______________________________

Name: __________________ Name: ___________________Date: ___________________ Firm: ____________________

Date: ____________________(SEAL)

VILLAGE PRESIDENTApproved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinoison this _______ day of ____________, 20__.

____________

ATTEST:

_________________

PLAN COMMISSIONRecommended by the Plan Commission of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois on this_____ day of ________________, 20__.

___________

Proposed Plat Prepared By:

Dated: August 15, 2017

VILLAGE TREASURER/COLLECTORI certify that there are no delinquent or current unpaid special assessments on the property shown on this plat.

Date: ___________________

___________

VILLAGE ENGINEER

Approved by the Village Engineer of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois on this _____ day of _________________, 20__.

___________

Notary Public

Notary Public

Surveyor

Village Engineer

Village TreasurerVillage President

Village Clerk

Chairman

S

N

35

W E

SCALE: 1" = 16'

0

PLAT SUBMITTAL AND RETURN TO ADDRESS:

This plat submitted for recording by, and return to:

Name: ________________________________

Address: _______________________________

City: __________________________________

State: _______________ Zip: ______________

North Line of Lot 2 (Existing)

45

.82

45

.82

126.0

EXHIBIT C

Agenda Packet P. 55

EXHIBIT D

UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT

TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois ("Village"): WHEREAS, Russel Gilchrist ("Owner") is the record title owner of the property commonly known as 67 Brier Street in the Village (“Subject Property”) WHEREAS, Russel Gilchrist and Rosemary Latter (collectively, “Applicant”) desire to divide the Subject Property into two new buildable lots of record (“Proposed Subdivision”); and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. M-4-2018, adopted by the Village Council on ______________, 2018 ("Ordinance"), approves a preliminary plat of subdivision for the Proposed Subdivision and grants variations from the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to the Applicant to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with subdivided lots not in conformity with: (i) the Village’s perpendicular side lot lines requirements for all lots in the Village set forth in Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Winnetka Subdivision Ordinance; and (ii) the Village’s minimum lot area, minimum rectangular buildable area, minimum average lot width, and minimum actual lot width 45 feet from the front street line requirements for the R-5 District set forth in Sections 17.30.010 and 17.30.020 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Ordinance provides, among other things, that the Ordinance will be of no force or effect unless and until the Applicants have filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicants do hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Applicants do hereby unconditionally agree to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Ordinance. 2. The Applicants acknowledge that public notices and hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Ordinance, have considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Ordinance, and agree not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Applicants acknowledge and agree that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village's grant of the variations for the Subject Property or its adoption of the Ordinance, and that the Village's approvals do not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Applicants against damage or injury of any kind and at any time. 4. The Applicants do hereby agree to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village's corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against

Agenda Packet P. 56

any of such parties in connection with the Village's adoption of the Ordinance granting the variations for the Subject Property. 5. The Applicants hereby agree to pay all expenses incurred by the Village in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims mentioned in this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. These expenses will include all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorneys' and experts' fees, and will also include the reasonable value of any services rendered by any employees of the Village. Dated: , 2018 ATTEST: RUSSEL GILCHRIST By: By: Its: Its: ATTEST: ROSEMARY LATTER By: By: Its: Its:

Agenda Packet P. 57

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA

TO: VILLAGE COUNCIL

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ANN KLAASSEN, PLANNING ASSISTANT

DATE: JANUARY 26, 2018

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR POLICY DIRECTION: 67 BRIER STREET – PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROVAL – GILCHRIST SUBDIVISION

INTRODUCTION On February 6, 2018, the Village Council is scheduled to consider the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommendations regarding an application for a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to permit the existing single parcel at 67 Brier Street to be divided into two (2) new buildable lots of record. Approval of any preliminary plat of subdivision lies with the Village Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Plan Commission. However, with this particular matter, the Applicants have also requested relief under the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, requesting variations from four (4) zoning standards. As a result, this application has also been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED RELIEF Zoning Ordinance variations

1. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet to 6,473 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 22.94% variation, and to 6,872 square feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 18.90% variation;

2. A variation to reduce the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet to 44.33 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 26.12% variation, and to 54.54 feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.10% variation;

3. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot width (measured 45 feet from the front street line) of 60 feet to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation, and to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation; and

4. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet.

Subdivision Ordinance variation 1. A variation from the Subdivision Code requirement that side lot lines be approximately

perpendicular to front street lines. It should be noted that if the Village Council approves the preliminary plat of subdivision, the Applicants will have to return before the Plan Commission and Village Council for consideration of approval of the final plat of subdivision.

ATTACHMENT B

Agenda Packet P. 58

2

ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission (PC) considered the application at a special meeting on December 13, 2017 (Attachment B contains the staff report and Attachment F contains the minutes from that meeting). After hearing from the Applicants, the PC recommended, by a vote of 8-0, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision request and related variations subject to the final plat incorporating restrictive covenants requested by the Village Forester to protect mature parkway trees. Specifically, the Village Forester has requested that a restrictive covenant be placed on the plat of subdivision requiring: (1)The re-use of the existing driveway for the proposed south lot; and (2) A 3-foot clearance be maintained between public parkway trees and any new driveway apron serving the north lot. In recommending approval, the Plan Commission found the proposed subdivision to be generally in keeping with the size and configuration of neighboring residential lots. While there were no members of the public who spoke at the meeting regarding this matter, the Applicants supplied the PC with favorable written comments from five (5) neighboring property owners (Attachment E). The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered the application at its meeting on January 8, 2018 (Attachment C contains the staff report and Attachment G contains draft minutes from that meeting). After hearing from the Applicants, the ZBA recommended, by a vote of 4-2, denial of the requested zoning variations. Board members opposed to the request thought there were alternatives to the proposed subdivision that would provide the Applicants a reasonable return. Additionally, there was concern that creating two nonconforming buildable lots would create zoning issues for future development of the lots and create a greater intensity of use and bulk rather than one single-family residence on the existing lot. The two members in support of the request found the proposed subdivision to be appropriate for the neighborhood of primarily smaller homes. No public comments were made at the meeting, however, the same favorable comments considered by the PC were provided to the ZBA. Given the complexities of this application, the following overview of the request is provided, which is similar to what was provided to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 13,345 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-5 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Agenda Packet P. 59

3

Figure 1 – Existing Lot (map view)

Figure 2 – Existing Lot (aerial view)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION - The application for resubdivision is filed by the Applicants, who reside at the 67 Brier Street residence. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the

Agenda Packet P. 60

4

existing single lot measuring 13,345 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 6,473 square feet (north lot) and 6,872 square feet (south lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow construction of two new single family residences.

The proposed configuration of lots is depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Figure 3 – Proposed subdivision (map view)

The Subject Property is located on the east side of Brier Street and abuts the Indian Hill Business District to the east. The Subject Property is separated from the abutting C-1 Commercial Zoning District by a Village-owned public alley measuring 16 feet in width.

Agenda Packet P. 61

5

Figure 4 – Proposed Subdivision (plat excerpt)

The area was first platted in 1922 as part of the Manus Indian Hill Subdivision (“Manus”). The Subject Property is highlighted on Figure 5, shown on an excerpt of the original Manus Plat. The original Manus plat shown in Figure 5 established seven (7) lots on the east side of Brier Street (numbered #1-7). The Applicant’s written narrative points to the fact that the Subject Property was originally part of two (2) lots in the Manus Subdivision, and the Applicant describes a series of lot size adjustments which occurred following the 1922 Manus Subdivision. The adjustments made following the original 1922 Manus Subdivision were completed prior to construction of new residences on the east side of Brier Street, and they occurred prior to 1946 when the homes at 35, 45 and 55 Brier were constructed. The adjustments to lot sizes were directed at increasing lot sizes along the east side of Brier Street, with the resulting increased lot sizes depicted in yellow in Figure 6.

The existing residence on the Subject Property was constructed in 1955 on a parcel described as “Lot 2 and Lot 3 in Manus Indian Hill Subdivision, except the southerly 9.8 feet of Lot 3”, with the southerly 9.8 feet having been assigned to the parcel to the south at 55 Brier Street.

Agenda Packet P. 62

6

Figure 5 – 1922 Manus Indian Hill Subdivision plat excerpt

Figure 6 – Lot size adjustments following 1922 plat

Agenda Packet P. 63

7

The Applicant explains in their application the historical size of Subject Property, noting that the southerly 9.8 feet of Lot 3) was transferred and became part of the parcel at 55 Brier Street.

The original 1922 Manus’ Indian Hill Subdivision established lots which complied with the then-minimum lot width of 50 feet (current requirement is 60 feet). The current proposal would establish two new lots with an absolute width of 45.82 feet (highlighted in Figure 7 below).

Figure 7 – proposed lots – absolute width 45.82 feet

As shown in Figure 8, the existing 67 Brier Street parcel is accessed from Brier Street.

Figure 8 – 67 Brier Street

Agenda Packet P. 64

8

Figure 9 – 67 Brier (viewed from alley)

DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring residential lots in the vicinity are similarly zoned, while lots to the east are zoned for commercial use, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map on the following page (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy - A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-5 zoning district provides for the most compact form of development with smaller lot sizes and smaller setbacks compared to other Residential zoning districts.

Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)

R-2 (“small estate”

character)

R-3 (“moderately

intense suburban character)

R-4 (“relatively intense

suburban character”)

R-5 (“relatively intense suburban character”)

Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.

Minimum Front setback

50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.

Minimum Rear setback

50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.

Agenda Packet P. 65

9

Figure 10 – Area Zoning Map

Agenda Packet P. 66

10

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum average lot width, and (d) minimum lot width measured 45 feet from the front property line. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. R-5 Zoning Standards

Proposed North Lot (Lot 1)

Proposed South Lot (Lot 2)

Minimum Interior Lot Area

8,400 square feet

6,473 square feet NONCOMPLIANT (22.94% variation)


Minimum Average Lot Width

60 feet

44.33 feet

NONCOMPLIANT (26.12% variation)

54.54 feet


Minimum Width Measured 45 feet from Front Street Line

60 feet 45.82 feet


45.82 feet NONCOMPLIANT (23.63% variation)

Minimum Width at Front Street Line

20 feet 47.85 feet COMPLIES

54.54 feet COMPLIES

Minimum Lot Depth

120 ft. 146 feet

COMPLIES

126 feet COMPLIES

Minimum Rectangular Area within Lot Boundaries

DOES

NOT COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY

Further description of rectangular area requirement

Zoning standards which govern a property owner’s ability to subdivide include “basic” standards addressing minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes a closely-related standard requiring a “minimum rectangular area”, in order to effectively control the overall shape and size of irregularly shaped lots.

In the R-5 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 8,400 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area

Agenda Packet P. 67

11

of at least 5,445 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 55 feet. With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.

Figure 11 Rectangular area requirements

The Subdivision Ordinance states that “All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.” However, the Code goes on to state in Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Plan Commission considered this standard when it considered the requests from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum average lot width, and (d) minimum lot width measured 45 feet from the front property line. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the eight variation standards when it considered these requested variations.

Agenda Packet P. 68

12

Table 3 – Zoning Summary Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing single lot

Maximum Roofed Lot Coverage (25% of lot area) 1,618 square feet 1,718 square feet 3,336 square feet

Maximum Impermeable Lot Coverage (50% of lot area) 3,236 square feet 3,436 square feet 6,672 square feet

Maximum Gross Floor Area 2,459 square feet 2,611 square feet 4,484 square feet

Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet

Minimum Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet

Remaining Side Yard 8 feet 8 feet 8.2 feet

Minimum Rear Yard 21.9 feet 18.9 feet 20.7 feet

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS The proposed subdivision complies with all requirements of Section 16.12.010(D)(6)[Minimum Land Subdivision Standards – Lots] of the Village Subdivision Code, except for the following: “all side lines of lots shall be approximately perpendicular to street lines or radial to curved street lines unless, in the opinion of the Plan Commission, a variation of the requirement would enhance public safety or convenience.”

The proposed subdivision incorporates a side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 which is not perpendicular to Brier Street. Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” FORESTRY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Subdivision Plats are subject to staff review to evaluate the potential impact on protected trees on private property (those greater than 8” in diameter) as well as for impact on public trees in the public right of way.

Figure 12 below highlights the location of mature street trees in the public right-of-way. Four (4) trees located along the front lot line, on public property, range from 21” diameter to 13”, 13”, and 10” inches. The Village Forester has requested that a restrictive covenant be placed on the plat of subdivision requiring (1) re-use of the existing driveway for the proposed south lot, and (2) 3’ clearance be maintained between public parkway trees and any new driveway apron serving north lot.

Agenda Packet P. 69

13

Figure 12 – Street tree locations

STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and to subdivide one existing lot with a house into two new lots of record. Given that a structure cannot cross a property line, the existing building must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat creating the two new lots. Because the existing house must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat, each lot would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). Each lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. Neither lot would receive credit for the existing impervious surface on the existing lot. In addition to meeting the storm water volume detention requirements, when developed both Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. SUMMARY At this time the Applicant has requested Preliminary Plat approval only, due to the fact that the proposed subdivision requires four (4) zoning variations, for (a) proposed lot area, (b) proposed average lot width, (c) proposed lot width measured 45 feet from the front street line, and (d) minimum rectangular area requirements. The Village Subdivision Code stipulates that final plat approval may not be granted until final disposition of zoning variation requests by the Village Council. As previously stated, if preliminary plat approval and zoning variations are granted by the Village Council, the Applicant would return to the Plan Commission for review and a recommendation regarding the final plat. The final plat would incorporate restrictive covenants, if any, as required by the Village Council.

Agenda Packet P. 70

14

REQUESTED RECOMMENDATION Village staff requests policy direction from the Village Council regarding the requested relief. Does the Council find it appropriate to approve the proposed two-lot Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance relief and the following conditions:

(1) Subdivision Variation

a. A variation of the Subdivision requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines to allow the proposed configuration of the side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2, which is not perpendicular to the front street line (Brier Street).

(2) Zoning Ordinance Variations

a) A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet to 6,473 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 22.94% variation, and to 6,872 square feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 18.90% variation;

b) A variation to reduce the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet to 44.33 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 26.12% variation, and to 54.54 feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.10% variation;

c) A variation to reduce the minimum required lot width (measured 45 feet from the front street line) of 60 feet to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation, and to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation; and

d) A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet.

Conditions a) A restrictive covenant be placed on the final plat of subdivision requiring: (1) The re-use of

the existing driveway for the proposed south lot (Lot 2); and (2) A 3-foot clearance be maintained between public parkway trees and any new driveway apron serving the north lot (Lot 1).

Agenda Packet P. 71

ATTACHMENT C

Agenda Packet P. 72

Agenda Packet P. 73


Center Lineof 50

Ft. Public

R.O

.W.

( Previously

Dedicated

)

BR

IER

STREET

Lot

2AREA = 6,473

3Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

1Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

(Manus Indian Hill)

Lot

4

AREA = 6,872 2



127.30

35

.19

12.66

54.54

150.00

54.55

54.55

17.59

49.61

9.8

9

9.8

9

49.61

59.50

150.00

f

f

122°50'40"

122°52'0"

57°8'0"

89°53'34"

Existing30

Ft. Building

Line

30.0

25.0

25.0

PU

BLIC

( Previously

Dedicated

)

ALLEY

16.0






File No.

42402-R


05-28-103-128-0000



______________________________________________________________________




____________




___________






________________________



_____________________________ ______________________________


Date: ____________________(SEAL)


____________

ATTEST:

_________________


___________




Date: ___________________

___________

VILLAGE ENGINEER


___________

Notary Public

Notary Public

Surveyor

Village Engineer


Village Clerk

Chairman

S

N

35

W E

SCALE: 1" = 16'

0



Name: ________________________________

Address: _______________________________

City: __________________________________

State: _______________ Zip: ______________


45

.82

45

.82

126.0

67 Brier - Building Lot Area

ATTACHMENT D

Agenda Packet P. 74

BNorkus

Polygon

BNorkus

Polygon

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

21.9' (Rear Yard)

BNorkus

Text Box

18.9' (Rear Yard)

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

8' (Side Yard)

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

8' (Side Yard)

BNorkus

Text Box

6' (Side Yard)

BNorkus

Text Box

6' (Side Yard)

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

30' (FrontYard)

BNorkus

Text Box

30' (FrontYard)


Page 1


TO: PLAN COMMISSION

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2017

SUBJECT: CASE #17-29-SD: 67 BRIER STREET – PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL – GILCHRIST SUBDIVISON

INTRODUCTION On November 15, 2017, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public meeting on an application submitted by Rosemary Latter and Russell Gilchrist (the “Applicants”), as the owners of the property located at 67 Brier Street (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The Applicant has filed an application seeking Preliminary Plat approval to create two new Lots of Record, together with the following relief:

1. A variation to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

2. A variation from the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

3. A variation to provide less than the required minimum average lot width of 60 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

4. A variation to provide less than the required minimum lot width of 60 feet measured 45 feet from the front street line for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

5. A variation from the Subdivision Code requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines; and

6. Any other subdivision and zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. [Note: The Village Attorney recommends inclusion of this language in a legal notice. It is included in the event that during the review process the Commission asks for revisions to the application that would result in a revised form of relief that was not originally noticed. This language may allow the Commission to proceed without requiring re-noticing of the application].

The Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding all of the above requested relief. In addition, the application is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the four (4) zoning variations (items #1 through #4, above). The ZBA meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 11, 2017. A mailed notice of the Plan Commission meeting has been sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 13,345 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1

ATTACHMENT E

Agenda Packet P. 75

Page 2

and Figure 2 below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-5 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.



Agenda Packet P. 76

Page 3

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION - The application for resubdivision is filed by the Applicants, who reside at the 67 Brier Street residence. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the existing single lot measuring 13,345 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 6,473 square feet (north lot) and 6,872 square feet (south lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow construction of two new single family residences.



The Subject Property is located on the east side of Brier Street and abuts the Indian Hill Business District to the east. The Subject Property is separated from the abutting C-1 Commercial Zoning District by a Village-owned public alley measuring 16 feet in width.

Agenda Packet P. 77

Page 4


The area was first platted in 1922 as part of the Manus Indian Hill Subdivision (“Manus”). The Subject Property is highlighted on Figure 5, shown on an excerpt of the original Manus Plat. The original Manus plat shown in Figure 5 established seven (7) lots on the east side of Brier Street (numbered #1-7). The Applicant’s written narrative points to the fact that the Subject Property was originally part of two (2) lots in the Manus Subdivision, and the Applicant describes a series of lot size adjustments which occurred following the 1922 Manus Subdivision. The adjustments made following the original 1922 Manus Subdivision were completed prior to construction of new residences on the east side of Brier Street, and occurred prior to 1946 when the homes at 35, 45 and 55 Brier were constructed. The adjustments to lot sizes were directed at increasing lot sizes along the east side of Brier Street, with the resulting increased lot sizes depicted in yellow in Figure 6.


Agenda Packet P. 78

Page 5


Agenda Packet P. 79

Page 6


The Applicant explains in their application the historical size of Subject Property, noting that the southerly 9.8 feet of Lot 3) was transferred and became part of the parcel at 55 Brier Street.


Figure 7 – proposed lots – absolute width 45.82 feet

Agenda Packet P. 80

7

As shown in Figure 8, the existing 67 Brier Street parcel is accessed from Brier Street.


Figure 9 – 67 Brier (viewed from alley)

Agenda Packet P. 81

8

DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring residential lots in the vicinity are similarly zoned, while lots to the east are zoned for commercial use, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map on the following page (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy - A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-5 zoning district provides for the most compact form of development with smaller lot sizes and smaller setbacks compared to other Residential zoning districts. Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)


character)

R-3 (“moderately





Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.


50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.


50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.

Agenda Packet P. 82

9


Agenda Packet P. 83

10

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum average lot width, and (d) minimum lot width measured 45 feet from the front property line. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 below.





8,400 square feet




60 feet

44.33 feet


54.54 feet



60 feet 45.82 feet





54.54 feet COMPLIES

Minimum Lot Depth

120 ft. 146 feet

COMPLIES

126 feet COMPLIES


DOES NOT

COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY



In the R-5 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 8,400 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 5,445 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 55 feet.

Agenda Packet P. 84

11

With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.

Figure 11 Rectangular area requirements

The Subdivision Ordinance states that “All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.” However, the Code goes on to state in Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Commission will want to consider this standard as it considers the requests from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum average lot width, and (d) minimum lot width measured 45 feet from the front property line.

Agenda Packet P. 85

12

Table 3 – Zoning Summary Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing single lot Maximum Roofed Lot Coverage (25% of lot area) 1,618 square feet 1,718 square feet 3,336 square feet Maximum Impermeable Lot Coverage (50% of lot area) 3,236 square feet 3,436 square feet 6,672 square feet







The proposed subdivision incorporates a side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 which is not perpendicular to Brier Street. Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” FORESTRY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Subdivision Plats are subject to staff review to evaluate the potential impact on protected trees on private property (those greater than 8” in diameter) as well as for impact on public trees in the public right of way.

Figure 12 below highlights the location of mature street trees in the public right-of-way. Four (4) trees located along the front lot line, on public property, range from 21” diameter to 13”, 13”, and 10” inches. The Village Forester has requested that a restrictive covenant be placed on the plat of subdivision requiring (1) re-use of the existing driveway for the proposed south lot, and (2) 3’ clearance be maintained between public parkway trees and any new driveway apron serving north lot.

Agenda Packet P. 86

13

Figure 12 – Street tree locations

STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and to subdivide one existing lot with a house into two new lots of record. Given that a structure cannot cross a property line, the existing building must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat creating the two new lots. Because the existing house must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat, each lot would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). Each lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. Neither lot would receive credit for the existing impervious surface on the existing lot. In addition to meeting the storm water volume detention requirements, when developed both Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. SUMMARY At this time the Applicant has requested Preliminary Plat approval only, due to the fact that the proposed subdivision requires four (4) zoning variations, for (a) proposed lot area, (b) proposed average lot width, (c) proposed lot width measured 45 feet from the front street line, and (d) minimum rectangular area requirements. The Village Subdivision Code stipulates that final plat approval may not be granted until final disposition of zoning variation requests by the Village Council. If preliminary plat approval and zoning variations are granted by the Village Council, the Applicant would return to the Plan Commission for review and a recommendation regarding the final plat. The final plat would incorporate restrictive covenants, if any, as required by the Plan Commission and Village Council.

Agenda Packet P. 87

14

REQUESTED RECOMMENDATION The Applicant requests that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed two-lot Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance relief:

(1) That the Plan Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following

item of Subdivision Code relief:

a. A variation of the requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines to allow the proposed configuration of the side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2, which is not perpendicular to the front street line (Brier Street), but that its configuration as proposed would enhance public safety or convenience.


items of relief from the Zoning Code based upon the finding that “…the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section [of the Subdivision Code] would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected”:

a. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet to 6,473 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 22.94% variation, and to 6,872 square feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 18.90% variation;

b. A variation to reduce the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet to 44.33 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 26.12% variation, and to 54.54 feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.10% variation;

c. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot width (measured 45 feet from the front street line) of 60 feet to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation, and to 45.82 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 16.69% variation ;

d. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet;

ATTACHMENTS (not included in Village Council Agenda Packet) Attachment A – Aerial Photo of surrounding neighborhood Attachment B - Application form and narrative description Attachment C – Proposed Plat of Subdivision Attachment D – Plat of Survey existing improvements

Agenda Packet P. 88

Page 15

Attachment A - NeighborhoodAerial Photo

Agenda Packet P. 89


Page 1


TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANN KLAASSEN, PLANNING ASSISTANT

DATE: JANURARY 3, 2018

SUBJECT: CASE NO. 17-24-V2: 67 BRIER STREET –VARIATIONS

INTRODUCTION On January 8, 2018, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will conduct a public hearing on an application filed by Rosemary Latter and Russell Gilchrist (the “Applicants”), as the owners of the property located at 67 Brier Street (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The Applicants have filed an application seeking the following zoning variations as part of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision:

1. A variation to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.010 – Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];

2. A variation from the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.010 – Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];

3. A variation to provide less than the required minimum average lot width of 60 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.020 Lot Width and Street Frontage];

4. A variation to provide less than the required minimum lot width of 60 feet measured 45 feet from the front street line for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.020 Lot Width and Street Frontage]; and

5. Any other zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. [Note: The Village Attorney recommends inclusion of this language in a legal notice. It is included in the event that during the review process the Board asks for revisions to the application that would result in a revised form of relief that was not originally noticed. This language may allow the Board to proceed without requiring re-noticing of the application]

Additionally, the application is subject to review by the Plan Commission for a variation from the Subdivision Code requirement that side lot lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines, as well as for the four zoning variations (items #1 through #4, above). A mailed notice has been sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the December 21, 2017 Winnetka Current. As of the date of this memo, staff has received five written comments from the public regarding this application (Attachment D).

ZBA Agenda Packet p. 1

ATTACHMENT F

Agenda Packet P. 90

Page 2

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 13,345 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Brier Street and abuts the Indian Hill Business District to the east. The Subject Property is separated from the abutting C-1 Commercial Zoning District by a Village-owned public alley measuring 16 feet in width. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-5 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no previous zoning cases for the Subject Property.

Figure 1 - Existing Lot (map view)


Agenda Packet P. 91

Page 3

Figure 2 – Existing Lot (aerial view) GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION The application for resubdivision was filed by the Applicants, who reside at the 67 Brier Street residence. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the existing single lot measuring 13,345 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 6,473 square feet (north lot) and 6,872 square feet (south lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow construction of two new single family residences.


Figure 3 – Proposed Subdivision (map view)


Agenda Packet P. 92

Page 4

Figure 4 – Proposed Subdivision (plat excerpt) The area was first platted in 1922 as part of the Manus Indian Hill Subdivision (“Manus”). The Subject Property is highlighted in Figure 5 on the following page, shown on an excerpt of the original Manus Plat. The original Manus plat shown in Figure 5 established seven (7) lots on the east side of Brier Street (numbered #1-7). The Applicant’s written narrative points to the fact that the Subject Property was originally part of two (2) lots in the Manus Subdivision, and the Applicant describes a series of lot size adjustments which occurred following the 1922 Manus Subdivision. The adjustments made following the original 1922 Manus Subdivision were completed prior to construction of new residences on the east side of Brier Street and occurred prior to 1946 when the homes at 35, 45 and 55 Brier were constructed. The adjustments to lot sizes were directed at increasing lot sizes along the east side of Brier Street, with the resulting increased lot sizes depicted in yellow in Figure 6.



Agenda Packet P. 93

Page 5




Agenda Packet P. 94

Page 6

The Applicants explain in their application the historical size of the Subject Property, noting that the southerly 9.8 feet of Lot 3) was transferred and became part of the parcel at 55 Brier Street.


Figure 7 – Proposed lots – absolute width 45.82 feet As shown in Figure 8 on the following page, the existing 67 Brier Street parcel is accessed from Brier Street.


Agenda Packet P. 95

Page 7


Figure 9 – 67 Brier Street (viewed from alley)


Agenda Packet P. 96

Page 8

DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-5 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring residential lots in the vicinity are similarly zoned, while lots to the east are zoned for commercial use, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map below (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy - A comparison of the Village’s five (5) different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-5 zoning district provides for the most compact form of development with smaller lot sizes and smaller setbacks compared to other Residential zoning districts. Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)


character)

R-3 (“moderately





Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.


50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.


50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.



Agenda Packet P. 97

Page 9

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum average lot width, and (d) minimum lot width measured 45 feet from the front property line. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 below.





8,400 square feet




60 feet

44.33 feet


54.54 feet



60 feet 45.82 feet





54.54 feet COMPLIES

Minimum Lot Depth

120 ft. 146 feet

COMPLIES

126 feet COMPLIES


DOES NOT

COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY

Further description of rectangular area requirement Zoning standards which govern a property owner’s ability to subdivide include “basic” standards addressing minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes a closely-related standard requiring a “minimum rectangular area”, in order to effectively control the overall shape and size of irregularly shaped lots.

In the R-5 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 8,400 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 5,445


Agenda Packet P. 98

Page 10

square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 55 feet. With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.

Figure 11 – Rectangular Area Requirements


Agenda Packet P. 99

Page 11

Table 3 below, provides a zoning summary of the two proposed lots compared to the existing lot.

Table 3 – Zoning Summary Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Existing single lot Maximum Roofed Lot Coverage (25% of lot area) 1,618 square feet 1,718 square feet 3,336 square feet Maximum Impermeable Lot Coverage (50% of lot area) 3,236 square feet 3,436 square feet 6,672 square feet






FORESTRY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Subdivision Plats are subject to staff review to evaluate the potential impact on protected trees on private property (those greater than 8” in diameter) as well as for impact on public trees in the public right of way.

Figure 12 below highlights the location of mature street trees in the public right-of-way. Four (4) trees located along the front lot line, on public property, that are 10, 13, 13, and 21 inches in diameter. The Village Forester has requested that a restrictive covenant be placed on the plat of subdivision requiring: (1)The re-use of the existing driveway for the proposed south lot; and (2) A 3-foot clearance be maintained between public parkway trees and any new driveway apron serving the north lot.

Figure 12 – Street Tree Locations


Agenda Packet P. 100

Page 12

STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The Applicants propose to demolish the existing residence and to subdivide one existing lot with a house into two new lots of record. Given that a structure cannot cross a property line, the existing building must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat creating the two new lots. Because the existing house must be demolished prior to recording the subdivision plat, each lot would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). Each lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. Neither lot would receive credit for the existing impervious surface on the existing lot. In addition to meeting the storm water volume detention requirements, when developed both Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. PLAN COMMISSION On December 13, 2017 the Plan Commission (PC) held a special meeting and considered the Applicants’ request. After hearing from the Applicants, the PC recommended, by a vote of 8-0, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision request and related variations subject to the final plat incorporating restrictive covenants requested by the Village Forester to protect mature parkway trees. It should be noted in reviewing the zoning variations necessary to create the two lots, the Subdivision Code states the Plan Commission must make the following finding to grant the variations “…the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section [of the Subdivision Code] would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” While there were no members of the public who spoke at the meeting regarding this matter, the Applicants supplied the PC with favorable written comments from five (5) neighboring property owners (Attachment D). REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF As represented in Table 2 on page 9, the Applicants are requesting approval of variations for the following four (4) standards of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the subdivision of the Subject Property into two new lots of record:

1. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 8,400 square feet to 6,473 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 22.94% variation, and to 6,872 square feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 18.90% variation;

2. A variation to reduce the minimum required average lot width of 60 feet to 44.33 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 26.12% variation, and to 54.54 feet for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.10% variation;

3. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot width (measured 45 feet from the front street line) of 60 feet to 45.82 feet for both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2, a 16.69% variation;

4. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet.

The ZBA is charged with evaluating the requested zoning relief with the eight standards for granting zoning variations. The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:

1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.



Page 13

2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants.

3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.

5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.

6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.

7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.

8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise be impaired.

FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicants, the Applicants have provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the requested relief. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested variations? ATTACHMENTS (Not included in Village Council Agenda Packet) Attachment A: Aerial photo of surrounding neighborhood Attachment B: Stormwater matrix Attachment C: Application materials Attachment D: Public Correspondence


Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites

In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc.

Storm Water Detention Volume Requirements

Applicable Requirement

A. New Home Construction - Previously Developed Lot

The amount of additional required storm water detention volume is based upon the difference between maximum impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning Code, and existing lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm event for both.

B. New Home Construction - Previously Undeveloped Site

The amount of required storm water detention volume is based upon the maximum impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100-year storm event.

Applies to Proposed Lot 2

C. Redevelopment of Site for Different Use (e.g. single family to multi-family, or commercial)


D. Improvements to Existing Home and/or Lot, causing an increase in impermeable lot coverage greater or equal to 25%.

The amount of additional required storm water detention volume is based upon the difference between the proposed and existing impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100 year storm event. (Note: If the increase in impermeable lot coverage is less than 25%, additional storm water detention volume is not required.)

Applies to Proposed Lot 1 if any improvements are proposed in future that

increase the impermeable lot coverage an additional 25%.


ATTACHMENT G

















Center Lineof 50

Ft. Public

R.O

.W.

( Previously

Dedicated

)

BR

IER

STREET

Lot

2AREA = 6,473

3Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

1Lot

(Manus Indian Hill)

(Manus Indian Hill)

Lot

4

AREA = 6,872 2



127.30

35

.19

12.66

54.54

150.00

54.55

54.55

17.59

49.61

9.8

9

9.8

9

49.61

59.50

150.00

f

f

122°50'40"

122°52'0"

57°8'0"

89°53'34"

Existing30

Ft. Building

Line

30.0

25.0

25.0

PU

BLIC

( Previously

Dedicated

)

ALLEY

16.0






File No.

42402-R


05-28-103-128-0000



______________________________________________________________________




____________




___________






________________________



_____________________________ ______________________________


Date: ____________________(SEAL)


____________

ATTEST:

_________________


___________




Date: ___________________

___________

VILLAGE ENGINEER


___________

Notary Public

Notary Public

Surveyor

Village Engineer


Village Clerk

Chairman

S

N

35

W E

SCALE: 1" = 16'

0



Name: ________________________________

Address: _______________________________

City: __________________________________

State: _______________ Zip: ______________


45

.82

45

.82

126.0



ATTACHMENT H






December 13, 2017 Plan Commission meeting Page 13

Comprehensive Plan, and (c) is consistent with the standards for the granting of special use 1 permits as identified in Paragraph 2 on page 5 of the staff report. 2 3 A motion was made by Mr. Golan and seconded by Mr. Thomas to adopt findings of fact as 4 outlined by Chairperson Dalman and to recommend approval of the requested Special Use 5 Permit. On a voice vote the motion was unanimously passed, 7 to 0 with one abstention. 6 7 AYES: Case, Coladarci, Dalman, Golan, Hulsizer, McCarthy, Thomas (7) 8 NAYS: None (0) 9 ABSTENTION: Holland (1) 10 11 Case No. 17‐29‐SD: Consideration of (a) Subdivision Code Variations and 12 (b) Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval of 67 Brier Street (Gilchrist Subdivision) 13 Mr. Norkus stated this item is similar to the first agenda item and is a subdivision request for 67 14 Brier for preliminary plat approval. He stated the request is to approve a two‐lot subdivision of 15 the single lot at 67 Brier located in the R5 single family zoning district which consists of a single 16 lot measuring 13,345 square feet. Mr. Norkus stated the configuration of 67 Brier is shown on 17 Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the agenda report and in red in the illustration. He stated the proposed 18 subdivision into two lots would result in Lot 1 measuring 6,473 square feet and 6,872 square 19 feet for the south lot and would also result in the demolition of the residence and the 20 construction of two new residences with the proposed configuration shown on the illustration 21 and in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the report. 22 23 Mr. Norkus informed the Commission the materials detail the history behind the platting of the 24 property with the neighborhood first being platted in 1922 as part of a Manus Indian Hill 25 subdivision as part of two 50 foot wide lots. He then stated that after a series of subsequent lot 26 adjustments, the property was developed as a single oversized lot as it is today. Mr. Norkus 27 stated the request incorporated five items of relief for consideration by the Commission with 28 the items listed on page 1 of the report. 29 30 Mr. Norkus stated that Item Nos. 1‐4 request relief from the zoning standards with Item No. 5 31 being a request for relief from the subdivision code. He stated Item No. 1 noted the subdivision 32 is proposing two lots which measure less than the 8,400 square foot minimum for the R5 zoning 33 district with Lots 1 and 2 measuring 6,473 square feet and 6,872 square feet which is 34 nonconforming with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Norkus stated Item No. 2 noted that Lots 1 and 35 2 would be nonconforming with regard to the rectangular area requirements. He stated as the 36 Commission saw in the previous application, there is the same standard of a minimum 37 rectangular area requirement which also exists in the R5 zoning district although there 38 are different dimensions of a smaller rectangle. Mr. Norkus informed the Commission that Lots 39 1 and 2 are shown in an illustration with a rectangular area not contained wholly within each of 40 the lots and is highlighted in red to the extent the rectangle did not fit in each lot. 41 42 Mr. Norkus stated Item No. 3 noted relief from the minimum average lot width requirement of 43 60 feet with Lot 1 having an average lot width of 44.33 feet and Lot 2 having an average lot 44

ATTACHMENT I



width of 54.54 feet. He stated both lots would require relief from the lot width requirement 1 with it being measured from the front street line. Mr. Norkus stated the standard has two 2 different ways of measuring lot width and the lots would be nonconforming with both of those 3 measurements, one relating to the average width and the second relating to the absolute 4 width. 5 6 Mr. Norkus stated Item No. 5 noted relief from the subdivision code similar to that in the 7 previous application in that the division between Lots 1 and 2 as shown in the illustration would 8 not be perpendicular to the Brier Street property line. He noted the subdivision required 9 consideration of relief from the subdivision code requirement that side lines be perpendicular 10 to the front lot line. 11 12 Mr. Norkus then noted the last item of note is that the Forestry Department and Public 13 Works reviewed the subdivision request to evaluate the possible impact on protected trees, 14 specifically those trees which have a diameter 8 inches or greater. He referred the Commission 15 to Figure 12 in the report which showed in green highlighting the location of mature street 16 trees in the public right‐of‐way and four trees ranging from 21 to 10 inches in diameter. Mr. 17 Norkus stated the Village Forester requested there be a restrictive covenant placed on the 18 subdivision requiring the reuse of the existing driveway for the south lot and a restrictive 19 covenant requiring a three foot clearance from the parkway trees in front of the northerly lot. 20 He also stated because zoning relief is being requested, the preliminary relief requested review 21 by the ZBA on January 8, 2018 with notice mailed to 57 property owners within 250 feet of the 22 subject property. Mr. Norkus added that in a subsequent email, five comments were received 23 with favorable comments toward the application. Mr. Norkus asked the Commission if they had 24 any questions. 25 26 Ms. Case asked would the garages go in the back of the two lots and be detached. Mr. Norkus 27 responded the development plan included by the applicant is conceptual. Ms. Case asked if 28 there are detached garages, would they have included the square footage they would get for 29 the home. 30 31 Mr. Thomas stated they are talking about homes which are not built yet. Mr. Norkus responded 32 generally, if there is a detached garage in a location in the rear 25% of the lot depth, it would 33 exclude 400 square feet of the detached garage from the GFA calculations. 34 35 Ms. McCarthy asked if they want to keep trees and restrictive covenants, would they 36 incorporate it into the vote. 37 38 Chairperson Dalman asked if that is preliminary or final plat review. Mr. Norkus informed the 39 Commission if they were to make a positive recommendation to the Village Council, 40 the recommendation would be done with a condition that there be a restrictive 41 covenant included with the language presented at the time of final plat consideration. 42 43 Mr. Hulsizer asked how often are there are requests for non‐perpendicular lot lines when they 44 have a road not which is not straight. Mr. Norkus indicated they have come up twice on one 45



agenda and there have been at least two other requests where they have seen that issue come 1 up. He stated to help them understand the nature of the request, he referred the Commission 2 to an illustration of the context of the neighborhood with regard to the remaining lots on Brier 3 which are all side lot lines which are relatively parallel and not perpendicular to Brier. 4 5 Chairperson Dalman asked if it had always been in the code. Mr. Norkus confirmed that has 6 been a requirement for a very long time. Ms. Holland confirmed it was there in the 1980’s. 7 8 Ms. McCarthy asked if there is any consideration regarding the alley. Mr. Norkus responded 9 there are standards in the zoning ordinance in other locations within the Village that if 10 a property is served by an alley, such as some locations like Elm and Oak to the west and some 11 residentially zoned lots with alleys at the rear, those instances required access to the property 12 from the alley. He stated that for this particular block, they are not required to use the alley for 13 access because the street did not have on‐street parking. 14 15 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were 16 raised from the Commission at this time. She then asked for the applicant’s presentation. 17 18 Russell Gilchrist introduced himself as the owner of 67 Brier and agreed the request is similar to 19 the first application although there is a different size and scale of this lot versus the other 20 application. He stated that for the questions raised given the scale of the size of the lot, the 21 original two lot plot is similar to the previous application and part of the reason they are 22 seeking a variation is that they were 50 feet and now are over 92 feet wide. Mr. Gilchrist 23 confirmed an 8 foot strip immediately to the south of the redlined boundaries was previously 24 sold and referred to the property to the north and garage off the alley and to the south as well. 25 26 Mr. Gilchrist stated that resulted in difficulty in terms of having two 50 foot lots and they 27 discussed with Mr. Norkus the best way to handle it. He referred to a series of layouts of the 28 lots and there is less room to move around. Mr. Gilchrist then stated that since the lots did not 29 comply in terms of the requirements, it was compliant with zoning at first and then things 30 changed. He referred to the current requirements of 8,000 square feet when it was previously 31 6,000 square feet and 7,000 square feet when it was two lots. Mr. Gilchrist then stated that 32 with regard to the adjacent sites, there are five or six properties with less frontage than they 33 asking for approval and six or seven properties which are smaller than the subdivided lots 34 they asking for. He added that the size and scale would not be out of context. 35 36 Mr. Gilchrist informed the Commission the home is 60 years old and is a ranch home and there 37 are not many ranch homes in the area. He referred to the rhythm of the other properties on a 38 diagonal and that Brier has a series of stepping with the building line requirement. Mr. Gilchrist 39 stated that they did the massing to reintroduce the ideal of the public street realm which 40 meant they need variances. He also stated that as a function of the site shape, they cannot fit a 41 triangle or perpendicular shape there by its nature. 42 43 Mr. Gilchrist described it as a compelling case and there could be a 4,500 square feet home on 44 the lot which is not something which would do the neighborhood any favors. He also stated 45



that from a commercial point of view, it did not make any sense in that to the rear is the alley 1 and Michael’s Restaurant and the auto dealership, which would not make the lot a particularly 2 attractive site for a 4,500 square foot home. He stated that the directly adjacent business 3 district would suggest two smaller homes would be more compatible. Mr. Gilchrist then asked 4 the Commission if they had any questions. 5 6 Chairperson Dalman also asked if there were any questions. 7 8 Ms. Holland stated the aerial photo on page 15 showing the context of the surrounding 9 neighborhood says it all, and that it made great case to allow the subdivision of the property. 10 11 Ms. Case asked Mr. Gilchrist if they would be selling the property. Mr. Gilchrist responded they 12 would like to stay and it is his current home. 13 14 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any comments from the audience. No comments were 15 made by the audience at this time. She then asked the Commission members for their 16 comments. 17 18 Ms. McCarthy stated she would like to include the restrictive covenants to keep the trees. 19 20 Chairperson Dalman agreed with Ms. Holland’s comments and the standards for the variation 21 include the unique nature of the lot and the neighborhood and described the angled frontage 22 and alley as unique. She also stated it is important to note in addition to the correspondence 23 reviewed by the Village in the packet of materials, an additional letter in support was received 24 from the neighbor at 44 Brier, Kathleen Alexander, and there is no neighbor opposition. 25 26 Mr. Golan asked Mr. Norkus if he knew how it was allowed to sell the 8 foot strip of land which 27 eliminated the side yard requirement for the home. 28 29 Mr. Norkus stated prior to 1959, minor adjustments to lots could be approved without a 30 resubdivision request and there were standards that needed to be complied with and the 31 process for making those adjustments was more informal. He added there are limited records 32 as to who made those changes since there had been very little in the way of formal process 33 prior to 1959. 34 35 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other comments. No additional comments were 36 made at this time. She then asked for the recommendation of approval to the Village Council 37 for approval of the proposed two‐lot preliminary plat subdivision for Case No. 17‐29‐SD for the 38 property at 67 Brier with the following zoning and subdivision ordinance relief as set forth on 39 page 14 of the application and relating to first variation for the relief from the perpendicular 40 two front street line requirement, (1)(a) which is relief from the zoning code that the land to be 41 subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual 42 conditions that the strict application of this section of the subdivision code would result in real 43 difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Commission may vary or modify such 44 requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner, 45



provided that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected. She then 1 identified the variations as follows: (1) a variation to reduce the minimum required lot area to 2 6,473 square feet for the proposed Lot 1 and 6,872 square feet for the proposed Lot 2; (2) a 3 variation to reduce the minimum required average lot width to 44.33 feet for the proposed Lot 4 1 and 54.54 feet for the proposed Lot 2; (3) a variation to reduce the minimum required lot 5 width measured 45 feet from the front street line of 60 feet to 45.82 feet for the proposed Lot 6 1 and to 45.82 feet for the proposed Lot 2 and (4) a variation to allow both proposed Lots 1 and 7 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 5,445 square feet and the 8 required minimum rectangular dimension of 55 feet. 9 10 Chairperson Dalman then noted that the recommendation is being conditioned on the 11 development by Village staff for the recordation on final plat approval of two restrictive 12 covenants, the first of which is the use of the existing driveway for Lot 2 and second, to 13 maintain the parkway trees for the new driveway on Lot 1 to have a three foot clearance. 14 15 A motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Ms. McCarthy. A vote was taken and the 16 motion was unanimously passed. 17 18 AYES: Case, Coladarci, Dalman, Golan, Holland, Hulsizer, McCarthy, Thomas (8) 19 NAYS: None (0) 20

21 Case No. 17‐30‐SU: Consideration of Special Use Permit Request by Figueroa 22 Orthodontics LLC to Permit an Orthodontics Office on the Ground Floor within 23 the C2 (Retail) Overlay District at 1075 Gage Street 24 Mr. Norkus stated that the application is a request for a special use permit to locate an 25 orthodontic practice on the ground floor of 1075 Gage. He stated the property is currently 26 vacant and was previously occupied by JC Licht/Benjamin Moore Paint. Mr. Norkus then 27 referred the Commission to the staff report which incorporates a map and photo clarifying the 28 location of the subject property, indicating that it is the storefront immediately west of 29 Graeter’s Ice Cream. Mr. Norkus noted the property lies within the C2 Commercial Overlay 30 district, which has limits on nonretail uses and such uses are classified as a special use requiring 31 evaluation by the Commission and Village Council. 32 33 Mr. Norkus referred the Commission to the agenda report for a map clarifying the location and 34 extent of the C2 Overlay District, and stated that, in general, the overlay district is located along 35 commercial street frontages and extends for a depth of 50 feet from the front of such buildings. 36 37 Mr. Norkus informed the Commission that the applicant currently operates offices in two 38 locations in Chicago and Naperville. He noted they are purchasing the existing practice of Dr. 39 Joseph Scott in Winnetka and planned to relocate the practice from its current location to the 40 subject property. Mr. Norkus stated the petitioner provided a parking study done by Gewalt‐41 Hamilton to assess the impact of the proposed special use on the availability of parking in the 42 Hubbard Woods business district. He stated the Gewalt evaluated the proposed layout of the 43 space which would include four exam rooms, private rooms and consultation rooms. Mr. 44 Norkus noted the application states that there would be no more than five staff on site and the 45


Minutes adopted 02.12.2018

WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1

JANUARY 8, 2018 2 EXCERPT OF MINUTES 3

4 Zoning Board Members Present: Joni Johnson, Chairperson 5

Sarah Balassa 6 Matthew Bradley 7 E. Gene Greable 8 Thomas Kehoe 9 Carl Lane 10

11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Mark Naumann 12 13 Village Staff: David Schoon, Director of Community Development 14

Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant 15 16 Agenda Items: 17 18

*** 19 20 Case No. 17-26-V2: 860 Lamson Drive 21

Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust 22 Variations by Ordinance 23 1. Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions and 24 2. Maximum Building Size 25

26 Case No. 17-26-V2: 860 Lamson Drive; Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust; Variations by Ordinance: (1) Lot Area, 27 Shape and Dimensions and (2) Maximum Building Size 28 Ms. Klaassen stated that Case No. 17-26-V2 is an application filed by Chicago Title Land Trust, Sandra K. Crown as 29 Trustee of the property located at 860 Lamson Drive to allow a two-lot subdivision. The applicant has filed an 30 application seeking the following approvals as part of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision: (1) a variation to provide 31 less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2; (2) a variation from the required 32 minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet for 33 Lot 1 and Lot 2; (3) a variation from the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for Lot 1; (4) a variation to permit 34 the existing residence to exceed the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area for Proposed Lot 1; and (5) any other 35 zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. 36 37 Chairperson Johnson swore in those that would be speaking to this matter. 38 39 Chairperson Johnson disclosed that she lives at 888 Tower Road which is within 250 feet of the property and is not 40 required to recuse herself. She then stated she has a memo she would share with the Board Members circulated 41 by Michael D'Onofrio which sets for the basis where recusal is required. Chairperson Johnson read the memo as 42 follows: "Vicinity or proximity is not specifically defined; however, in the past, ZBA Members have raised the 43 proximity issue, in one case where he/she lived across the street another was when the member received a 44 hearing notice because he/she lived within 250 feet of the property. According to the Village Attorney, proximity 45 to property which is the subject of zoning relief does not create a conflict and therefore does not require the 46 member recusal. Rather the standard for recusal is that there has to be a 'direct financial impact' which is 47 abundantly clear in order for a member recusal." Chairperson Johnson noted she does not have a direct financial 48 impact on how the case turns out. 49 50

ATTACHMENT J


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 2 Chris Canning, 1000 Skokie, Wilmette stated he is representing the applicant. He noted that Sandra 1 Crown apologized for not being present. Mr. Canning identified Ms. Crown as the beneficiary of the land trust and 2 the applicant who has been living at the home since 1959 when her family bought it. He noted there was a setback 3 variation granted to the main home in 1963. 4 5 Mr. Canning stated that with regard to all of the variations being requested, he described it as a simple request 6 and that the applicant is trying to undo what was done back in 1975 when the lots were consolidated which 7 was mandated by the Village and the zoning code at the time. He noted the code was a lot shorter back then and it 8 is important to note that every variation being requested now did not exist when the case came before the Plan 9 Commission (PC) in 1975. 10 11 Mr. Canning stated in 1975, the Crowns lived in the building. He stated to the west of the tennis court was the 12 home for the Ickes Estate gardener to the northwest of where the home is. Mr. Canning informed the Board the 13 Crowns bought the home, tore it down and built the tennis court which meant they had to consolidate the two 14 lots. He stated that Lot 2 in the proposal had the existing home on it and had and address on Tower Road and a 15 curb cut. Mr. Canning then stated the new Lot 2 home would have the Tower Road address and if access is 16 permitted, a curb cut on Tower Road. 17 18 Mr. Canning stated the request is to put back the two lots to their pre-1975 condition. He referred to the 19 code changes over the last 42 years and noted the request received a positive recommendation from the PC. Mr. 20 Canning then stated in submitted letters, he noted they worked with the Village staff and it was determined they 21 needed a supplemental letter since there are more requirements to be addressed and that has been included in 22 the materials. 23 24 Mr. Canning then stated in focusing on the lot area, back in 1975 when the lot consolidation was done, zoning for 25 that area was called half-acre zoning and that they no longer have half-acre zoning and now it is 24,000 square 26 feet. He then stated that with the prior line, they would end up with two lots of similar size but below 24,000 27 square feet and there is a better way to go about it in terms of lot separation. Mr. Canning noted they did the 28 calculations for the PC and determined it was not the right way to go and to eliminate one variation with regard to 29 the rectangular line, it would make Lot 1 27,267 square feet or .63 acres. Mr. Canning stated that would have 30 reduced Lot 2 to 16,618 square feet or .38 acre and that for the neighborhood that would not be the right way to 31 go. 32 33 Mr. Canning stated in 1963 when the addition was done to the south, there was no such thing as GFA and if they 34 built a home on the new Lot 2, it would be the same size as the Lot 1 home. He also stated if the variation is not 35 granted and one lot is maintained, if the new owner tore down and built a new home, the new home could 36 measure 11,908 square feet and that size did not make sense with regard to the other homes in the neighborhood. 37 Mr. Canning then referred to the Lamson Drive and other homes abutting Tower Road. 38 39 Mr. Canning also stated there is not an obvious structure which could be recommended to the applicant to remove 40 such as a porch or staircase in order to get under 207 square feet which is why they are asking for a variation of 41 207 square feet if the subdivision is approved and the home remains on Lot 1 putting it over the GFA permitted. 42 43 Chairperson Johnson asked if anyone is living in the home. Mr. Canning responded the applicant lives down the 44 street. He also stated that with regard to the nature of the building, there is nothing obviously easy to remove to 45 bring under GFA. Mr. Canning referred to the playhouse example of the first case or an accessory structure being 46 counted as floor area which is not part of the main structure that can be taken out. 47 48


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 3 Chairperson Johnson stated if the property is sold and the home is torn down, the GFA variation would be 1 irrelevant. Mr. Canning stated if the variation is granted and the home is torn down and rebuilt, they would know 2 what can be built there as far as setbacks and GFA which is not the issue here. 3 4 Mr. Lane suggested making Lot 1 slightly bigger and they are not talking about a straight line issue. Mr. Canning 5 responded that would eliminate one variation but would make the variations for Lot 2 larger. He stated it would be 6 simpler to go back to the way it was prior to the consolidation and that it is a balance issue. Mr. Canning noted 7 they addressed all of the standards in the letter which he can elaborate. 8 9 Chairperson Johnson asked what the lot size of the Ickes property is. Mr. Canning deferred to the Village staff for 10 that information. Ms. Klaassen stated she did not have that information available. Chairperson Johnson asked what 11 the lot sizes of the homes on the east side of Sheridan are. Mr. Canning responded he did not know. 12 13 Mr. Lane referred to the property west of the subject property and asked if there is also a tennis court there at 895 14 Lamson. Mr. Schoon stated the aerial photo showed a tennis court on page 4. Mr. Canning referred the Board to 15 the rendering and stated the tennis court is in a conforming location. 16 17 Chairperson Johnson stated the applicant wanted a tennis court which required the consolidation. She also 18 referred to the curb cut on Tower Road and questioned their contention that the condition on Tower Road and the 19 neighborhood in 1975 is the same as it is today. Chairperson Johnson then asked what the square footage of 20 the gardener's home was on the Icke’s property. Mr. Canning responded he did not know. Chairperson Johnson 21 referred to the former driveway on Tower Road which is now near a fire hydrant. Mr. Canning identified a picture 22 of where the driveway was which is approximately where the fire hydrant is. 23 24 Chairperson Johnson then asked what the width is of the proposed Lot 2 on Tower Road. Ms. Klaassen stated it is 25 133.5 feet. Chairperson Johnson asked if the curb cut it would require the approval of Public Works. Mr. Canning 26 confirmed that is correct. 27 28 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. 29 30 Mr. Lane stated they should focus on the first two standards on page 20. He asked why they cannot obtain a 31 reasonable return with the property remaining as one single lot. Mr. Canning responded they could receive a 32 return but there would be reasonable return if they were to sell two parcels as opposed to one and that it 33 represented the highest and best use to subdivide to maximize the return. Mr. Lane stated maximum return is not 34 the same as reasonable return. Mr. Canning then stated there have been no offers on the property now and 35 referred to it being overpriced and having no amenities a family would want for this neighborhood. He also stated 36 if they cannot do anything with the parcel, it would drag on in value and they would not receive reasonable return 37 and there could be a negative return. 38 39 Mr. Lane referred to the second standard and asked why it is unique. He noted changes in the code are not unique 40 circumstances and many people have homes where nonconformities arose when the standards changed. Mr. 41 Canning responded that for the standards applied here, every change before the Board was something which 42 arose since the time of the consolidation and it is unique as applied to this particular home. 43 44 Mr. Lane stated it was the owners' decision to consolidate the lot. 45 46 Mr. Canning stated they could make Lot 1 bigger but that would not be the right way to go. He then stated if 47 the Board says the only way to grant the request is to move Lot 1 and make it larger to eliminate one variation, it 48 would increase a different variation. Mr. Canning reiterated the decision was made that the best balance is to go 49 back to what it was. 50 51


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 4 Mr. Lane asked if the tennis court is not desirable for a purchaser, could it be removed and replaced with a 1 pool. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct. Mr. Lane then stated there are other homes with pools in the 2 neighborhood. Mr. Canning stated Lot 2 would have to meet storm water requirements. 3 4 Chairperson Johnson referred to keeping it as one lot and moving the home to the center and building a pool and 5 there are advantages of having a larger lot. She also stated having a new home on a single lot further west would 6 not look imbalanced. Mr. Canning stated that is why they asked Mr. Norkus if they did the calculation to keep the 7 lot as it is and tore down the home and built a new home of 11,980 square feet that would not be in keeping with 8 the neighborhood. 9 10 Chairperson Johnson stated there are 11,000 square foot homes in the vicinity. Mr. Canning noted not in the 11 Lamson subdivision. 12 13 Chairperson Johnson then stated that for a prior case, Mr. Norkus provided a list of neighboring homes and their 14 square footage for the PC. She stated since the applicant is making the same argument that a single lot is oversized 15 compared to neighboring homes, that information would be helpful here. Mr. Canning stated the applicant's focus 16 is looking at the Lamson homes. 17 18 Chairperson Johnson noted there is no letter from the 865 Lamson neighbor facing the proposed subdivision and 19 asked for the Board Members' comments about that. She described the argument they are doing it for the benefit 20 of the neighborhood as disingenuous. Mr. Canning stated that in thinking about lot sizes, they should focus on the 21 Lamson homes. Chairperson Johnson then described the home size ranges in the R-2 district and on Lamson and 22 Tower Road and the lack of uniformity and consistency of lot sizes in the Village. 23 24 Mr. Lane referred to the statement made earlier of having the square footage of homes as useful information 25 because of Tower Road and Sheridan Road being a unique area. He then stated how big they can build a home is 26 not relevant and they can build what is appropriate for the lot which is less 11,000 square feet. Mr. Canning asked 27 the Board if it would be useful to get the square footage of areas and continue the request to the next meeting, 28 they would be willing to do that and they can have the Village staff present the Board with that information. 29 30 Ms. Klaassen noted the tax records did not contain square footage records that are equivalent to how we calculate 31 GFA. 32 33 Ms. Balassa questioned whether it would impact their decision. 34 35 Mr. Kehoe asked if the Lot 2 minimum depth would be 166 feet. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct. Mr. Kehoe 36 commented on the proposed subdivision in Indian Hill that was denied because it didn’t meet the minimum lot 37 depth. 38 39 Ms. Klaassen stated the existing lot is 85,000 square feet, they proposed a subdivision that would result in 2 lots, 40 one of which would need a variation for a lot depth of 156 feet. She noted the Board recommended denial and the 41 PC and Village Council denied the request in September 2016. 42 43 Mr. Canning stated he would like to look at those documents. He stated the packet did not include precedents for 44 granting denial and the Board is to look at the unique circumstances here. Mr. Kehoe stated he has not heard 45 anything unique here, only to revert the lot to its 1975 condition. 46 47 Chairperson Johnson stated there have been few subdivision requests and the PC sees some that the Board would 48 not see unless there are associated variations. She then referred to one other subdivision which was filed by the 49 Marens on Sunset. Mr. Canning then stated if they move the line to the west, they cannot get around the issue. 50 51


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 5 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. No additional comments were made at this time. 1 She then called the matter in for discussion and asked the Board if they would like to vote or continue the case 2 until they get more information. 3 4 Ms. Balassa stated she did not need additional information to make a decision. Mr. Lane stated while information 5 on the size of lots and the square footage of homes in the neighborhood would be helpful, he can make a decision 6 without it and would base his decision on the facts and testimony. 7 8 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any Board Members on the fence. Mr. Bradley stated he would be in 9 favor of granting the variations and stated the request is modest and for reasonable return, it would be in their 10 best interest. Mr. Kehoe stated he is on the fence. Ms. Balassa stated in applying the standards uniformly, she 11 understood the persuasive argument and there are many situations in Winnetka like that where if they went back 12 to what existed before, it would no longer be in compliance. Ms. Balassa also stated in looking at Lamson Drive and 13 the aerial photo, there are concerns about the way it would affect Lamson versus keeping the neighborhood 14 character and the request would radically change that. She concluded that standard no. 1 has not been met. 15 16 Mr. Lane stated he is more in favor when variations are generally small and he understood the balance concept 17 which they deal with frequently. He also stated he did not think that space for a tennis court or pool are unique 18 and there are other lots in the area which have space for such leisure structures. Mr. Lane then stated they can get 19 reasonable return for the property. He also asked what is unique here in terms of the shape of the property, there 20 are a lot of properties which have a slightly different shape. Mr. Lane reiterated changes in the code are not 21 unique and he would not vote in favor of the request. 22 23 Mr. Kehoe stated he is troubled by the plight being unique. He also stated every decision made was done with full 24 knowledge and consent of the owner. Mr. Kehoe stated unfortunately, the code changed to their detriment and he 25 would be opposed to the request. 26 27 Mr. Greable stated Mr. Canning presented a solution to a problem created many years ago and there has been no 28 change in ownership. He then stated to ask for additional information, the bottom line is fairness to the owner and 29 the one person affected did not drive the final decision. Mr. Greable stated it would be the same property as it was 30 and he would be in favor of the request. 31 32 Chairperson Johnson stated it cannot go back to the way it was and conditions on Tower Road changed since she 33 moved into her home. She then stated restoring it to the way it was prior to 1975, when it had a coach home, is 34 disingenuous, inaccurate and not possible. Chairperson Johnson stated her concerns are if they go to permitting 35 approval, they would be adding a curb on Tower Road where there is substantially more intensive traffic now than 36 in the past. She also pointed out they heard a case for 811 Tower Road years ago where the applicant wanted to 37 do a detached garage and a factor which came into consideration for denial was adding a curb cut on Tower 38 Road. Chairperson Johnson then referred to the Gill case which recently came before the Board and the PC where 39 the applicant tried to maximize return because they could not sell the home. They had charts from Mr. Norkus 40 which showed they had larger lots similar to the Gills' property and the Board, the PC and the Village Council 41 denied the request. She concluded she is not in favor and noted the Village Council has final jurisdiction. 42 43 Mr. Greable asked Mr. Canning if the Crowns no longer live in the home. Mr. Canning responded they live a couple 44 doors down the street at 895 Lamson. Mr. Greable then asked how long had the home been on the market. Mr. 45 Canning responded since last summer. Mr. Kehoe asked if they would be selling the beneficial interest in the land 46 trust. Mr. Canning responded the home and the land would be conveyed and if the request is denied, the home 47 and lot would remain as is. 48 49 Chairperson Johnson then asked for a motion. 50


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Lane moved to recommend denial based on the following. He stated that the applicant can realize reasonable 1 return and referred to the testimony the property and tennis court and space for a pool are valuable to get return 2 from selling the home. He stated that with regard to the plight being due to unique circumstances, that standard 3 was not satisfied and the fact that zoning changed from the time the lots were consolidated is not unique and 4 referred to the lot being large and a different shape. He stated the request could change the character of 5 the locality with a curb cut on Tower Road and a backyard facing someone's front yard. Mr. Lane stated that light 6 and air to surrounding properties would not be affected and that there would be no hazard from fire. Mr. Lane 7 stated that with regard to congestion, a curb cut on Tower Road may be an issue. Mr. Lane concluded the public 8 health, comfort, morals, safety and welfare would not be affected. 9 10 Mr. Kehoe seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was passed, 4 to 2. 11 12 AYES: Balassa, Johnson, Kehoe, Lane 13 NAYS: Bradley, Greable 14 15 FINDINGS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 1. The requested variations are within the final jurisdiction of the Village Council. 17 18 2. The requested variations are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning 19

Ordinance. The proposal is not compatible, in general, with the character of existing development within 20 the immediate neighborhood with respect to architectural scale and other site improvements. 21

22 3. There are not practical difficulties or a particular hardship which prevents strict application of Sections 23

17.30.010, 17.30.020, and 17.30.040 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance which are related to the use or 24 the construction or alteration of buildings or structures. 25

26 The evidence in the judgment of the Zoning Board of Appeals has established: 27 28 1. The property in question can yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions 29

allowed by regulations in that zone. The property, with a tennis court and space for a pool are valuable 30 and can yield a reasonable return. 31

32 2. The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with 33

the characteristics of the property in question, rather being related to the occupants. The fact the zoning 34 regulations changed since the property was consolidated in 1975 is not a unique circumstance. 35

36 3. The variations, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. A new curb cut on Tower Road 37

would alter the essential character of the locality, as well as having a backyard face the front yard of a 38 neighbor. 39

40 4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. No evidence was 41

provided to the contrary. 42 43 5. The hazard from fire or other damages to the property will not be increased. Any proposed 44

improvements would be built according to the required building codes. 45 46 6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. No evidence was 47

provided to the contrary. 48 49


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 7 7. The congestion in the public street may increase. It is possible that a new curb cut on Tower Road would 1

increase congestion on Tower road. 2 3 8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise 4

be impaired. No evidence was provided to the contrary. 5 6

*** 7



Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Ordinance No. M-5-2018: 860 Lamson Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval Sandra K.Crown Subdivision and Variations (Introduction)

David Schoon, Director of Community Development

02/20/2018 ✔

✔

February 6, 2018 - The Village Council reviewed the application, heard from the Applicant, anddirected Staff to prepare an ordinance approving the preliminary plat of subdivision and relatedvariations.

Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under trust agreement dated May 1, 1959 and known as Trust #22825 and Sandra K. Crown asTrustee of the Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust dated January 3, 2000 (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 860 LamsonDrive, (the "Subject Property") is requesting approval of a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The existing parcel consists ofone buildable lot measuring 43,885 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would divide the existing lot into two lots, measuring 21,697square feet (west lot) and 22,188 square feet (east lot). The proposed subdivision requires four variations from the Zoning Ordinance and twovariations from the Subdivision Ordinance. It should be noted that the configuration of the existing lot is the result of an approved consolidationin 1975, which was required to allow construction of the existing tennis court. The proposed subdivision would return the property to itstwo-lot configuration in significantly the same form as that which existed prior to the 1975 consolidation.

The application has been reviewed by the Plan Commission (PC) and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The PC recommended, by a vote of6-1, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision and related variations. The ZBA recommended, by a vote of 4-2, denial of the requestedzoning variations.

For the February 6 meeting, the Applicant requested the opportunity to submit additional information subsequent to the advisory bodies'considerations. The additional information is included as Attachment C.

Attached is a copy of the materials presented at the February 6, 2018, Council meeting, which includes the agenda staff report and othermaterials containing more details regarding the requested relief and the advisory bodies' discussion of the request.

During the Village Council's consideration of the proposed subdivision for policy direction on February 6, the Village Council heard from theApplicant. After which, the Village Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance approving the preliminary plat of subdivision and relatedvariations from the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.

Consider introduction of Ordinance No. M-5-2018, which would approve a preliminary plat ofsubdivision and variations to allow a two-lot subdivision of the property commonly known as 860Lamson Drive.

Attachment A: Ordinance M-5-2018Attachment B: February 6, 2018 Village Council Agenda ReportAttachment C: Applicant's supplemental information dated January 29, 2018Attachment D: Setback Exhibit prepared by staffAttachment E: PC Staff ReportAttachment F: ZBA Staff ReportAttachment G: Application MaterialsAttachment H: Excerpt of December 13, 2017 PC meeting minutesAttachment I: Excerpt of January 8, 2018 ZBA meeting minutes


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

ORDINANCE NO. M-5-2018

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM THE WINNETKA ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE

WINNETKA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (860 Lamson Drive)

WHEREAS, Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under trust agreement dated May 1, 1959 and known as Trust #22825; Sandra K. Crown as Trustee of the Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust dated January 3, 2000 ("Applicant") is the record title owner of the parcel of real property commonly known as 860 Lamson Drive in Winnetka, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance (“Subject Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential District of the Village ("R-2 District"); and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a single lot of record depicted in the plat of survey in Exhibit B attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently improved with a single-family residence (“Existing Residence”) and an asphalt tennis court; and WHEREAS, Applicant desires to divide the Subject Property into two buildable lots of record (“Proposed Subdivision”); and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017, the Applicant submitted an application to the Village for zoning variations on the Subject Property (“Zoning Application”); and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2017, the Applicant submitted an amended application (“Subdivision Application”) to the Village for an approval of a preliminary plat of subdivision for the Subject Property (“Preliminary Plat”), which is attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance as Exhibit C; and

WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat proposes to divide the Subject Property, creating two proposed adjoining lots of record: (i) a lot consisting of approximately 22,188 square feet on the north side of the Subject Property and depicted as “Lot 1” on the Preliminary Plat (“Proposed East Lot”); and (ii) a lot consisting of approximately 21,697 square feet on the south side of the Subject Property and depicted as “Lot 2” on the Preliminary Plat (“Proposed West Lot” and collectively with the Proposed East Lot, the “Subdivided Lots”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Winnetka Subdivision Ordinance (“Subdivision Ordinance”), the Subdivided Lots must have side lot lines that are approximately perpendicular to front street lines; and

ATTACHMENT A


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.12(D)(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance, if nonconformities or variations exist on the Subject Property such that the nonconformity or previously granted variation, in the context of the Proposed Subdivision or Subdivided Lots, would result in a material increased adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare, then the Plan Commission, in its review, may deny the Proposed Subdivision or preliminary plat approval; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.010 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance"), the Subdivided Lots must each have: (i) a minimum lot area of 24,000 square feet; (ii) a minimum rectangular buildable area of 16,335 square feet; (iii) a minimum length of rectangular building area of 90 feet; and (iv) a minimum lot depth of 200 feet; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed East

Lot must have a maximum gross floor area no greater than 6,918.24 square feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed East

Lot must have a front yard setback: (i) of at least 50 feet from the north property line; and (ii) of at least 50 feet from the south property line; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Proposed East

Lot must have a side yard setback of at least 12 feet; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property has two existing zoning nonconformities with respect

to the existing residence, resulting in deviation from the following standards of the Zoning Ordinance: (i) a variation from Section 17.30.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the Existing Residence observing a front yard setback of 26.23 feet from the north property line and a front yard setback of 42.40 feet from the south property line; and (ii) a variation from Section 17.30.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the Existing Residence observing a side yard setback of 11.25 feet from the east property line (collectively, “Existing Variations and Nonconformities”); and

WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to divide the Subject Property into the Subdivided Lots such that: (i) the Subdivided Lots would have side lot lines not approximately perpendicular to the front street lines, in violation of Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance; (ii) the Existing Variations and Nonconformities are preserved, potentially in violation of Section 16.12(D)(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance; (iii) the Proposed East Lot would have a minimum lot area of only 22,188 square feet and the Proposed West Lot would have a minimum lot area of only 21,697 square feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance; (iv) the Proposed East Lot and Proposed West Lot would have less than minimum rectangular buildable areas of 16,335 square feet and less than minimum lengths of rectangular building area of 90 feet, both in violation of Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance; (v) the Proposed East Lot would have a minimum lot depth of 159.79 feet, in violation of Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (vi) the Proposed East Lot could have a maximum gross floor area of 7,125.26, in violation of Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s Subdivision Application requested the following subdivision variations from: (i) Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the Subdivided Lots to have side lot lines that are not approximately perpendicular to front street lines; and (ii) Section


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

16.12(D)(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the Existing Variations and Nonconformities to remain on the Subject Property, specifically the Proposed East Lot (collectively, “Subdivision Variations”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s Zoning Application requested zoning variations from: (i) Section 17.30.010 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with the Proposed East Lot having a minimum lot area of only 21,188 square feet, a minimum rectangular buildable area less than 16,335 square feet, a minimum length of rectangular building area of less than 90 feet, and a minimum lot depth of 159.79 feet, and with the Proposed West Lot having a minimum lot area of only 21,697 square feet, a minimum rectangular buildable area less than 16,335 square feet, and a minimum length of rectangular building area of less than 90 feet; and (ii) Section 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with the Proposed East Lot having a maximum gross floor area of 7,125.26 (collectively, “Zoning Variations” and the Subdivision Variations together with the Zoning Variations are collectively, “Variations”); and

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, after due notice thereof, the Winnetka Plan Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat Subdivision and Variations, and voted, by a vote of six to one, to recommend that the Village Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Variations,, and existing variations and conformities subject to certain conditions; and

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, after due notice thereof, the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) conducted a public hearing on the Zoning Variations and, by a vote of four to two, the members then present recommended that the Council of the Village of Winnetka (“Village Council”) deny the Zoning Variations; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Village Council

has determined that: (i) the Zoning Variations are within the final jurisdiction of the Village Council; (ii) the Zoning Variations are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and are in accordance with general or specific rules set forth in Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (ii) there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions or regulations of the Zoning Ordinance from which the Zoning Variations have been sought; and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that approval of the Preliminary Plat, Subdivision Variations, and Zoning Variations (collectively, “Approvals”) to permit the Proposed Subdivision on the Subject Property within the R-2 District is in the best interest of the Village and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Village of Winnetka do ordain as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this section as the findings of the Village Council, as if fully set forth herein.


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. The Preliminary Plat for the Subject Property shall be, and it is hereby, approved pursuant to Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code. SECTION 3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION VARIATIONS. The President and Village Council hereby acknowledge that the Applicant has requested, and that the proposed Preliminary Plat of Subdivision contemplates, the Subdivision Variations from Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the Subdivided Lots to have side lot lines that are not approximately perpendicular to front street lines and from Section 16.12(D)(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit the Proposed East Lot to continue to the use and enjoyment the Existing Variations and Nonconformities. At the time of consideration of a final plat of subdivision, the Village Council shall consider the requested modifications in accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code. SECTION 4: EFFECT OF APPROVALS. Pursuant to Section 16.08.010 of the Village Code, the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Subject Property, as set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance, shall not be deemed or interpreted as authorizing or entitling the Applicant to approval of a final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property or to any other approval, or to the issuance of any permit, until after all of the standards and procedures for such other approvals or permits have been satisfied. Nothing herein shall be deemed or interpreted as obligating or requiring the Village Council to approve a final plat of subdivision or other approval or permit. SECTION 5: APPROVAL OF ZONING VARIATIONS. Subject to, and contingent upon, the terms, conditions, restrictions, and provisions set forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance, the Zoning Variations from Sections 17.30.010 and 17.30.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property are hereby granted, in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 17.60 of the Zoning Ordinance and the home rule powers of the Village. SECTION 6: CONDITIONS. The Approvals granted by Sections 2 and 5 of this Ordinance are subject to, and contingent upon, compliance by the Applicant with the following conditions:

A. Submission of Final Plat of Subdivision. Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 16.08.010(D) of the Village Code, the adoption of this Ordinance authorizes the Applicant to submit a final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property to the Village Council. The final plat of subdivision for the Subject Property (“Final Plat”) shall be submitted by the Applicant for review and approval by the Village no later than the date that is 12 months after the effective date of this Ordinance.

B. Compliance with Regulations. Except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Ordinance, the development, use, and maintenance of the Proposed Subdivision and the Subject Property must comply at all times with all applicable Village codes and ordinances, as they have been or may be amended over time.


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

C. Reimbursement of Village Costs. In addition to any other costs, payments, fees, charges, contributions, or dedications required under applicable Village codes, ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations, the Applicant must pay to the Village, promptly upon presentation of a written demand or demands therefor, of all fees, costs, and expenses incurred or accrued in connection with the review, negotiation, preparation, consideration, and review of this Ordinance. Payment of all such fees, costs, and expenses for which demand has been made shall be made by a certified or cashier's check. Further, the Applicant must pay upon demand all costs incurred by the Village for publications and recordings required in connection with the aforesaid matters.

SECTION 7: RECORDATION OF ORDINANCE; BINDING EFFECT. A copy

of this Ordinance will be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. This Ordinance and the privileges, obligations, and provisions contained herein inure solely to the benefit of, and are binding upon, the Applicant and each of its heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. SECTION 8: FAILURE TO COMPLY. Upon the failure or refusal of the Applicant to comply with any or all of the conditions, restrictions, or provisions of this Ordinance, in addition to all other remedies available to the Village, the approvals granted in Section 2 and 5 of this Ordinance will, at the sole discretion of the Village Council, by ordinance duly adopted, be revoked and become null and void; provided, however, that the Village Council may not so revoke the approvals granted in Section 2 and 5 of this Ordinance unless it first provides the Applicant with two months advance written notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to be heard at a regular meeting of the Village Council. In the event of revocation, the development and use of the Subject Property will be governed solely by the regulations of the applicable zoning district and the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as the same may, from time to time, be amended. Further, in the event of such revocation, the Village Manager and Village Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to bring such zoning enforcement action as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 9: AMENDMENTS. Any amendment to this Ordinance may be granted only pursuant to the procedures, and subject to the standards and limitations, provided in the Zoning Ordinance for amending or granting variations. SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or part thereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be interpreted, applied, and enforced so as to achieve, as near as may be, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE. A. This Ordinance will be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events: 1. Passage by the Village Council in the manner required by law; and


February 20, 2018 M-5-2018

2. Publication in pamphlet form in the manner required by law;

B. The Variations set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance will be effective only upon: (i) the filing by the Applicant with the Village Clerk of an Unconditional Agreement and Consent in the form of Exhibit D attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in this Ordinance and to indemnify the Village for any claims that may arise in connection with the approval of this Ordinance; and (ii) the approval and recording of the Final Plat.

C. In the event that the Applicant does not file with the Village Clerk a fully executed copy of the unconditional agreement and consent described in Section 11.B of this Ordinance within 60 days after the date of passage of this Ordinance by the Village Council, the Village Council shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to declare the Variations granted in this Ordinance null and void and of no force or effect.

PASSED this_____day of _________, 2018, pursuant to the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED this ____ day of _________, 2018.

Signed:

Village President

Countersigned: Village Clerk

Published by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Winnetka, Illinois, this ___ day of _______, 2018.

Introduced: February 20, 2018

Passed and Approved: ______________, 2018


EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

PARCEL "A" AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1976 AS DOCUMENT NO. 23364327 AND MORE PARTICURALY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS IN LAMSON MANOR BEING A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 14 IN HUBBARD ESTATE SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ALSO THAT PART OF LOT 1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1 (BEING THE NORTH LINE OF TOWER ROAD) 286.16 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT l; THENCE NORTH 2 DEGREES, 49 MINUTES WEST ALONG A LINE MAKINO AN ANGLE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1 OF 87 DEGREES, 11 MINUTES AS MEASURED FROM WEST TO NORTH A DISTANCE OF 209.0 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY 57.20 FEET ALONG A LINE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89 DEGREES, 10 MINUTES, 10 SECONDS EAST TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT I, TO THE SOUTHEASR CORNER OF LOT 1, THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1, 133.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL IN THE SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 13 IN HUBBARD ESTATE SUBDIVISION (EXCEPT PART SOLD TO JOHN C. MATHIS) IN THE NORTHEAST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL "A'' AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1976 AS DOCUMENT NO. 23364327 AND MORE PARTICURALY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 5 IN LAMSON MANOR BEING A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK. 14 IN HUBBARD ESTATE SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Commonly known as 860 Lamson Drive, Winnetka, Illinois.


EXHIBIT B

CURRENT PLAT OF SURVEY

(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B)


EXHIBIT B



EXHIBIT C

PRELIMINARY PLAT

(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C)


EXHIBIT C


EXHIBIT D

UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT AND CONSENT

TO: The Village of Winnetka, Illinois ("Village"): WHEREAS, Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under trust agreement dated May 1, 1959 and known as Trust #22825; Sandra K. Crown as Trustee of the Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust dated January 3, 2000 ("Applicant") is the record title owner of the property commonly known as 860 Lamson Drive in the Village (“Subject Property”) WHEREAS, Applicant desires to divide the Subject Property into two new buildable lots of record (“Proposed Subdivision”); and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. M-5-2018, adopted by the Village Council on ______________, 2018 ("Ordinance"), approves a preliminary plat of subdivision for the Proposed Subdivision and grants variations from the provisions of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to the Applicant to permit the Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property with subdivided lots not in conformity with: (i) the Village’s perpendicular side lot lines requirements for all lots in the Village set forth in Section 16.12(D)(2) of the Winnetka Subdivision Ordinance; (ii) the Village’s existing variations and nonconformity requirements for all lots being subdivided in the Village set forth in Section 16.12(D)(4) of the Winnetka Subdivision Ordinance; and (iii) minimum lot area, minimum rectangular buildable area, minimum length of rectangular building area, minimum lot depth, and minimum gross floor area requirements for the R-2 District set forth in Sections 17.30.010 and 17.30.040 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Ordinance provides, among other things, that the Ordinance will be of no force or effect unless and until the Applicant have filed, within 60 days following the passage of the Ordinance, its unconditional agreement and consent to accept and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicant do hereby agree and covenant as follows: 1. The Applicant does hereby unconditionally agree to accept, consent to, and abide by each and all of the terms, conditions, limitations, restrictions, and provisions of the Ordinance. 2. The Applicant acknowledges that public notices and hearings have been properly given and held with respect to the adoption of the Ordinance, has considered the possibility of the revocation provided for in the Ordinance, and agrees not to challenge any such revocation on the grounds of any procedural infirmity or a denial of any procedural right. 3. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the Village is not and will not be, in any way, liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of the Village's grant of the variations for the Subject Property or its adoption of the Ordinance, and that the Village's approvals do not, and will not, in any way, be deemed to insure the Applicant against damage or injury of any kind and at any time.


4. The Applicant does hereby agree to hold harmless and indemnify the Village, the Village's corporate authorities, and all Village elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, from any and all claims that may, at any time, be asserted against any of such parties in connection with the Village's adoption of the Ordinance granting the variations for the Subject Property. 5. The Applicant hereby agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the Village in defending itself with regard to any and all of the claims mentioned in this Unconditional Agreement and Consent. These expenses will include all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorneys' and experts' fees, and will also include the reasonable value of any services rendered by any employees of the Village. Dated: , 2018 ATTEST: CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY

AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED MAY 1, 1959 AND KNOWN AS TRUST #22825; SANDRA K. CROWN AS TRUSTEE OF THE SANDRA K. CROWN REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 3, 2000

By: By: Its: Its:



Page 1


TO: VILLAGE COUNCIL

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ANN KLAASSEN, PLANNING ASSISTANT


SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR POLICY DIRECTION: 860 LAMSON DRIVE – PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - SANDRA K. CROWN SUBDIVISON

INTRODUCTION On February 6, 2018, the Village Council is scheduled to consider the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommendations regarding an application for a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision to permit the existing single parcel at 860 Lamson Drive to be divided into two (2) new buildable lots of record. Approval of any preliminary plat of subdivision lies with the Village Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Plan Commission. However, in the particular matter, the Applicant has also requested relief under the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, requesting variations from four (4) zoning standards. As a result, this application has also been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED RELIEF Zoning Ordinance variations

1. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet to 22,188 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 7.55% variation, and to 21,697 square feet, for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.60% variation;

2. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet to 159.79 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 20.50% variation;

3. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet; and

4. A variation to increase the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area of 6,918.24 square feet to 7,125.26 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 2.99% variation.

Subdivision Ordinance variations

1. A variation from the Subdivision Code requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines;

2. Variations for the following existing zoning nonconformities for the existing residence on Proposed Lot 1;

a. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the north property line of 26.23 feet, versus the required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet;

b. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the south property line of 42.40 feet, versus the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet;

ATTACHMENT B


Page 2

c. The existing residence observes a side yard setback from the east property line of 11.25 feet, versus the minimum required side yard setback of 12 feet.

It should be noted that if the Village Council approves the preliminary plat of subdivision, the Applicant will have to return before the Plan Commission and Village Council for consideration of approval of the final plat of subdivision. It should also be noted that the Applicant has provided additional information since the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals reviews of the requested relief (see Attachment B). The Applicant’s letter includes information regarding the size of lots in the area bound by Tower Road on the south, Sheridan Road on the east, Private Road on the north, and the western boundary of the R-2 District. All of this area is zoned R-2, which the subject property is zoned. ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission (PC) considered the application at a special meeting on December 13, 2017 (Attachment C contains the staff report and Attachment F contains the minutes from that meeting). After hearing from the Applicant, the PC recommended, by a vote of 6-1, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision request and related variations. In recommending approval, the Plan Commission found the proposed subdivision to be generally in keeping with the size and configuration of neighboring residential lots. In addition, the Plan Commission was persuaded by the fact that the proposed subdivision would return the property to its prior configuration, before construction of a tennis court prompted consolidation of the two lots in 1975. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered the application at its meeting on January 8, 2018 (Attachment D contains the staff report and Attachment G contains draft minutes from that meeting). After hearing from the Applicant, the ZBA recommended, by a vote of 4-2, denial of the requested zoning variations. Board members opposed to the request did not find that changes to the Zoning Ordinance since the existing lot was consolidated in 1975 were reasons to grant approval to allow the lot to be converted to its previous two-lot configuration. They also thought there were alternatives to the proposed subdivision that would provide the Applicant a reasonable return. Additionally, there was concern about the impact on the neighborhood of an additional curb-cut on Tower Road. The two members in support of the request found the proposed subdivision to be in character with the surrounding neighborhood. No public comments were received in writing or made verbally at either the PC or ZBA meetings. Given the complexities of this application, the following overview of the request is provided, which is similar to what was provided to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 43,885 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-2 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.


Page 3



GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION - The application for resubdivision is filed by the Applicant, who currently has the property listed for sale. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the existing single lot measuring 43,885 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 21,697 square feet (west lot) and 22,188 square feet (east lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow an additional single family residence to be built on Lot 2 to the west, which would be accessed from Tower Road.


Page 4




The Subject Property is located at the south-western terminus of Lamson Drive. Lamson Drive and the eight lots fronting it were established with the 1941 Lamson Subdivision. The residence on the subject property was constructed in 1947. Current improvements (2015 imagery) are depicted in Figure 5.


Page 5

Figure 5 – Existing Lot - close up aerial view

Village subdivision records indicate that the Subject Property previously consisted of two (2) buildable lots. A Consolidation Plat (Figure 6, following page) was filed by the property owner and approved by the Village Council in 1975, for the purpose of allowing construction of a tennis court on the then-westerly lot. Accessory structures such as tennis courts may only be constructed on a lot when they are accessory to the primary permitted use (i.e., a single family dwelling). Consolidation of the two lots in 1975 allowed the still-present tennis court to be constructed.

The proposed Subdivision (Figure 4) would return the property to its two-lot configuration in significantly the same form as that which existed prior to the 1975 Consolidation (Figure 6).


Page 6

Figure 6– 1975 Plat of Consolidation (860 Lamson Drive)


7

As shown in Figure 7, the existing 860 Lamson parcel is accessed from Lamson Drive on the north. Because the parcel also abuts Tower Road, it is classified as a “through lot” under the zoning ordinance, with a front yard setback required to be observed from both Lamson Drive and Tower Road.

Figure 7 - 860 Lamson (viewed from North)

Figure 8 – 860 Lamson (viewed from South)


8


DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring lots north of Tower Road are similarly zoned, while lots to the south of Tower Road are zoned for smaller lot sizes, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map on the following page (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy - A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-2 zoning district provides for larger, wider lots compared to other Residential zoning districts. Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)


character)

R-3 (“moderately





Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.


50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.


50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.


9



10

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot depth, and (c) minimum rectangular area requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 below.


Proposed East Lot (Lot 1)

Proposed West Lot (Lot 2)


24,000 square feet





103.52 feet COMPLIES




Minimum Lot Depth

200 ft. 159.70 feet NONCOMPLIANT (20.50% variation)



DOES NOT

COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY



In the R-2 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 24,000 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 16,335 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 90 feet. With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.


11

Figure 11 Rectangular area requirements The Subdivision Ordinance states that “All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.” However, the Code goes on to state in Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Plan Commission considered this standard when it considered the requests from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum lot depth, and (d) maximum permitted Gross Floor Area. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the eight variation standards when it considered these requested variations. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The size and location of improvements on a residential lot are dictated by the zoning ordinance, and vary widely based on each lot’s size and dimensions. Because the proposed subdivision would change lot size from 43,885 square feet to less than 24,000 square feet for each lot, existing improvements must be evaluated by staff to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformity will be created by the proposed subdivision, and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain.

(a) Newly created zoning nonconformities (zoning variation required) - The proposed subdivision anticipates that the existing 860 Lamson residence will remain in place on Lot 1. Accordingly, the size and location of the 860 Lamson residence has been evaluated to determine the existence or creation of zoning nonconformities. Setback requirements and allowable building size for proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are summarized in Table 3 on the following page. Table 3 highlights (yellow) the one item requiring a zoning variation, and that is for the total gross floor area of the existing residence (7,125 square feet) which exceeds the maximum permitted gross floor area of 6,918 square feet for the new Proposed Lot 1.


12

As a result of the proposed subdivision, the existing residence would exceed the maximum permitted GFA by 207 square feet or 2.99%.

(b) Pre-existing zoning nonconformities (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – Table 3 also highlights (olive) three existing zoning nonconformities which will remain on Lot 1. The existing residence has a non-conforming north front setback, a non-conforming south front setback, and a non-conforming east side yard. Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code in the instance of such nonconformities, the Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”

Table 3 – Zoning Setback and building size requirements

Proposed Lot 1 (existing 860 Lamson residence)

Proposed Lot 2 (proposed new vacant lot)

Maximum Roofed Lot

Coverage (25% of lot area)

5,547 (Lot 1) 3912.18 COMPLIES --

5,424.50 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new

construction verified at time of permit application

Maximum Impermeable Lot Coverage (50% of lot area)

11,094 (Lot 1) 5451.69 COMPLIES --



Maximum Gross Floor

Area

6918.24 (Lot 1) 7125.26 ZONING

NONCONFORMITY CREATED

2.99% VARIATION

6772.43 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new


Minimum Front Yard Setback 50' 26.23 EXISTING ZONING

NONCONFORMITY 47.54% No residence on lot currently - new


Minimum 2nd Front Yard

Setback 50' 42.4 EXISTING ZONING

NONCONFORMITY 15.20%

Minimum Side Yard 12' 11.25 EXISTING ZONING



Remaining Side Yard 28.09' (Lot 1) 31.32 yes --

19.05' (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new



13


The proposed subdivision incorporates a side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 which is not perpendicular to Tower Road. Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The proposed subdivision consists of subdividing one existing lot with a house and tennis court into two new lots of record. The Applicant proposes to retain the existing house on proposed Lot 1. Proposed Lot 2, on which the existing tennis court is located, is proposed to be redeveloped with a new home. To comply with zoning requirements, a lot must first have a principal use (e.g. single family structure) in order to have an accessory use (e.g. a recreational facility). The tennis court, an accessory use, must be removed from the Proposed Lot 2 prior to recording the new subdivision plat. The proposed Lot 1 containing the existing house would not need to provide any additional storm water volume. (Unless an additional 25% or greater of impervious surface is added.) Because the tennis court must be demolished as a condition of recording the subdivision, the proposed Lot 2 containing the tennis court would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). This lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. It would receive no credit for the existing impervious (i.e. tennis court, etc.). In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, when developed the proposed Lot 2 would be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. SUMMARY At this time the Applicant has requested Preliminary Plat approval only, due to the fact that the proposed subdivision requires four (4) zoning variations for (a) proposed lot area, (b) proposed lot depth, (c) minimum rectangular area requirements, and (d) maximum permitted Gross Floor Area requirements. The Village Subdivision Code stipulates that final plat approval may not be granted until final disposition of zoning variation requests by the Village Council. As previously stated, if preliminary plat approval and zoning variations are granted by the Village Council, the Applicant would return to the Plan Commission for review and a recommendation regarding the final plat.


14

REQUESTED RECOMMENDATION Village staff requests policy direction from the Village Council regarding the requested relief. Does the Council find it appropriate to approve the proposed two-lot Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance relief:

1. Subdivision Variations

a. A variation of the Subdivision requirement that side lot lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines to allow the proposed configuration of the side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2, which is not perpendicular to the front street line (Tower Road); and

b. Variations for the following existing zoning nonconformities for the existing residence on Proposed Lot 1;

i. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the north property line of 26.23 feet, versus the required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet;

ii. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the south property line of 42.40 feet, versus the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet;

iii. The existing residence observes a side yard setback from the east property line of 11.25 feet, versus the minimum required side yard setback of 12 feet.

2. Zoning Ordinance Variations

a. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet to 22,188 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 7.55% variation, and to 21,697 square feet, for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.60% variation;

b. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet to 159.70 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 20.50% variation;

c. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet; and

d. A variation to increase the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area of 6918.24 square feet to 7125.26 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 2.99% variation.


ATTACHMENT C





860 Lamson - Buildable Lot AreaATTACHMENT D


BNorkus

Polygon

BNorkus

Polygon

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

12' Min. Side Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

12' Min. Side Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

50' Front Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

50' Front Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

50' Front Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

50' Front Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

50' Front Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

28' Side Yard

BNorkus

Text Box

19' Side Yard

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

28' Side Yard

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Line

BNorkus

Text Box

25' Rear Yard


Page 1


TO: PLAN COMMISSION

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2017

SUBJECT: CASE #17-27-SD: 860 LAMSON DRIVE – PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - SANDRA K. CROWN SUBDIVISON

INTRODUCTION On November 15, 2017, the Plan Commission is scheduled to hold a public meeting on an application submitted by Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under trust agreement dated May 1, 1959 and known as Trust #22825; Sandra K. Crown as Trustee of the Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust dated January 3, 2000 (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 860 Lamson Drive (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The Applicant has filed an application seeking Preliminary Plat approval to create two new Lots of Record, together with the following relief:

1. A variation to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

2. A variation from the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2;

3. A variation from the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for Lot 1;

4. A variation to permit the existing residence to exceed the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area for Proposed Lot 1;

5. A variation from the Subdivision Code requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines;

6. A finding of “No Material Increase Adverse Impact” for the existing residence on Proposed Lot 1, which observes a non-conforming north front setback, a non-conforming south front setback, and a non-conforming east side yard;

7. Any other subdivision and zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. [Note: The Village Attorney recommends inclusion of this language in a legal notice. It is included in the event that during the review process the Commission asks for revisions to the application that would result in a revised form of relief that was not originally noticed. This language may allow the Commission to proceed without requiring re-noticing of the application].

The Plan Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding all of the above requested relief. In addition, the application is subject to review by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the four (4) zoning variations (items #1 through #4, above). The ZBA meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 11, 2017.

ATTACHMENT E


Page 2

A mailed notice of the Plan Commission meeting has been sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 43,885 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-2 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.



Page 3


GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION - The application for resubdivision is filed by the Applicant, who currently has the property listed for sale. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the existing single lot measuring 43,885 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 21,697 square feet (west lot) and 22,188 square feet (east lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow an additional single family residence to be built on Lot 2 to the west, which would be accessed from Tower Road.




Page 4


The Subject Property is located at the south-western terminus of Lamson Drive. Lamson Drive and the eight lots fronting it were established with the 1941 Lamson Subdivision. The residence on the subject property was constructed in 1947. Current improvements (2015 imagery) are depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Existing Lot - close up aerial view


Page 5

Village subdivision records indicate that the Subject Property previously consisted of two (2) buildable lots. A Consolidation Plat (Figure 6, following page) was filed by the property owner and approved by the Village Council in 1975, for the purpose of allowing construction of a tennis court on the then-westerly lot. Accessory structures such as tennis courts may only be constructed on a lot when they are accessory to the primary permitted use (i.e., a single family dwelling). Consolidation of the two lots in 1975 allowed the still-present tennis court to be constructed.



Page 6

Figure 6– 1975 Plat of Consolidation (860 Lamson Drive)


7

As shown in Figure 7, the existing 860 Lamson parcel is accessed from Lamson Drive on the north. Because the parcel also abuts Tower Road, it is classified as a “through lot” under the zoning ordinance, with a front yard setback required to be observed from both Lamson Drive and Tower Road.

Figure 7 - 860 Lamson (viewed from North)



8


DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring lots north of Tower Road are similarly zoned, while lots to the south of Tower Road are zoned for smaller lot sizes, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map on the following page (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy - A comparison of the Village’s five different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, below) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-2 zoning district provides for larger, wider lots compared to other Residential zoning districts. Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)


character)

R-3 (“moderately





Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.


50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.


50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.


9



10

COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot depth, and (c) minimum rectangular area requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 below.





24,000 square feet









Minimum Lot Depth




DOES NOT

COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY



In the R-2 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 24,000 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 16,335 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 90 feet. With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.


11

Figure 11 Rectangular area requirements The Subdivision Ordinance states that “All lots created by any plan for land subdivision shall comply with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in this chapter.” However, the Code goes on to state in Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” The Commission will want to consider this standard as it considers the requests from the following requirements: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum rectangular area, (c) minimum lot depth, and (d) maximum permitted Gross Floor Area. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS - REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The size and location of improvements on a residential lot are dictated by the zoning ordinance, and vary widely based on each lot’s size and dimensions. Because the proposed subdivision would change lot size from 43,885 square feet to less than 24,000 square feet for each lot, existing improvements must be evaluated by staff to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformity will be created by the proposed subdivision, and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain.

(a) Newly created zoning nonconformities (zoning variation required) - The proposed subdivision anticipates that the existing 860 Lamson residence will remain in place on Lot 1. Accordingly, the size and location of the 860 Lamson residence has been evaluated to determine the existence or creation of zoning nonconformities. Setback requirements and allowable building size for proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are summarized in Table 3 on the following page. Table 3 highlights (yellow) the one item requiring a zoning variation, and that is for the total gross floor area of the existing residence (7,125 square feet) which exceeds the maximum permitted gross floor area of 6,918 square feet for the new Proposed Lot 1.


12

As a result of the proposed subdivision, the existing residence would exceed the maximum permitted GFA by 207 square feet or 2.99%.

(b) Pre-existing zoning nonconformities (finding of No Material Increased Adverse Impact required) – Table 3 also highlights (olive) three existing zoning nonconformities which will remain on Lot 1. The existing residence has a non-conforming north front setback, a non-conforming south front setback, and a non-conforming east side yard. Pursuant to Section 16.12.010(D) of the Subdivision Code in the instance of such nonconformities, the Plan Commission must consider the existence of such nonconformities, and “shall determine whether such nonconformity, in the context of the proposed subdivision, would result in a material increased adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare.”


13




Maximum Roofed Lot Coverage (25% of lot area)

5,547 (Lot 1) 3912.18 COMPLIES --

5,424.50 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new construction

verified at time of permit application


11,094 (Lot 1) 5451.69 COMPLIES --

10,848.50 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new construction


Maximum Gross Floor Area

6918.24 (Lot 1) 7125.26 ZONING


2.99% VARIATION

6772.43 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new construction


Minimum Front Yard Setback 50' 26.23 EXISTING ZONING NONCONFORMITY 47.54% No residence on lot currently - new construction


Minimum 2nd Front Yard Setback 50' 42.4 EXISTING ZONING


Minimum Side Yard 12' 11.25 EXISTING ZONING NONCONFORMITY 0.06% No residence on lot currently - new construction



19.05' (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new construction



14


The proposed subdivision incorporates a side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 which is not perpendicular to Tower Road. Section 16.12.010 (F) [Minimum Land Subdivision Standards - Variations and Exceptions] of the Subdivision Code states that “Whenever the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The proposed subdivision consists of subdividing one existing lot with a house and tennis court into two new lots of record. The Applicant proposes to retain the existing house on proposed Lot 1. Proposed Lot 2, on which the existing tennis court is located, is proposed to be redeveloped with a new home. To comply with zoning requirements, a lot must first have a principal use (e.g. single family structure) in order to have an accessory use (e.g. a recreational facility). The tennis court, an accessory use, must be removed from the Proposed Lot 2 prior to recording the new subdivision plat. The proposed Lot 2 containing the existing house needs not provide any additional storm water volume. (Unless an additional 25% or greater of impervious surface is added.) Because the tennis court must be demolished as a condition of recording the subdivision, the proposed Lot 2 containing the tennis court would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). This lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. It would receive no credit for the existing impervious (i.e. tennis court, etc.). In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, when developed the proposed Lot 2 would be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc.

SUMMARY At this time the Applicant has requested Preliminary Plat approval only, due to the fact that the proposed subdivision requires four (4) zoning variations for (a) proposed lot area, (b) proposed lot depth, (c) minimum rectangular area requirements, and (d) maximum permitted Gross Floor Area requirements. The Village Subdivision Code stipulates that final plat approval may not be granted until final disposition of zoning variation requests by the Village Council. If preliminary plat approval and zoning variations are granted by the Village Council, the Applicant would return to the Plan Commission for review and a recommendation regarding the final plat.


15

REQUESTED RECOMMENDATION The Applicant requests that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed two-lot Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance relief:


item of Subdivision Code relief:

a. A variation of the requirement that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines to allow the proposed configuration of the side lot line between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2, which is not perpendicular to the front street line (Tower Road), but that its configuration as proposed would enhance public safety or convenience.


items of relief from the Zoning Code based upon the finding that “…the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section [of the Subdivision Code] would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected”:

a. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet to 22,188 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 7.55% variation, and to 21,697 square feet, for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.60% variation;

b. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet to 159.70 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 20.50% variation;

c. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet;

d. A variation to increase the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area of 6918.24 square feet to 7125.26 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 2.99% variation ;

(3) That the Plan Commission issue a “Finding of No Material Increase Adverse Impact upon the public health, safety or welfare” with respect to following existing zoning nonconformities for the existing residence on Proposed Lot 1;

a. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the north property line of 26.23 feet, versus the required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet;

b. The existing residence observes a front yard setback from the south property line of 42.40 feet, versus the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet;

c. The existing residence observes a side yard setback from the east property line of 11.25 feet, versus the minimum required side yard setback of 12 feet.

ATTACHMENTS (not included in Village Council Agenda Packet) Attachment A – Application form and narrative description dated 8-28-17 Attachment B – Application materials to ZBA dated 9-6-17 (courtesy copy) Attachment C - Applicant’s supplemental materials dated 11-8-17 Attachment D - Proposed Plat of Subdivision Attachment E - Plat of Survey existing improvements



Page 1


TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

FROM: BRIAN NORKUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANN KLAASSEN, PLANNING ASSISTANT


SUBJECT: CASE NO. 17-26-V2: 860 LAMSON DRIVE – VARIATIONS

INTRODUCTION On January 8, 2018 the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will conduct a public hearing on an application filed by Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under trust agreement dated May 1, 1959 and known as Trust #22825; Sandra K. Crown as Trustee of the Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust dated January 3, 2000 (the “Applicant”), as the owner of the property located at 860 Lamson Drive (the “Subject Property”), to allow a two-lot subdivision of the existing Subject Property. The Applicant has filed an application seeking the following zoning variations as part of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision:

1. A variation to provide less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.010 – Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];

2. A variation from the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2 [Section 17.30.010 – Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];

3. A variation from the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for Lot 1 [Section 17.30.010 – Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions];

4. A variation to permit the existing residence to exceed the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area for Proposed Lot 1 [Section 17.30.040 – Maximum Building Size]; and

5. Any other zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. [Note: The Village Attorney recommends inclusion of this language in a legal notice. It is included in the event that during the review process the Board asks for revisions to the application that would result in a revised form of relief that was not originally noticed. This language may allow the Board to proceed without requiring re-noticing of the application].

Additionally, this application is subject to review by the Plan Commission for a variation from the Subdivision Code requirements that side lines be approximately perpendicular to front street lines, and a finding of “No Material Increase Adverse Impact” for the existing residence on Proposed Lot 1, which observes a nonconforming north front setback, a nonconforming south front setback and a nonconforming east side yard, as well as for the four variations (items #1 through #4 above). A mailed notice has been sent to property owners within 250 feet in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was properly noticed in the December 21, 2017 Winnetka Current. As of the date of this memo, staff has not received any written comments from the public regarding this application.

ATTACHMENT F


Page 2

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Subject Property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District and currently consists of one (1) single buildable lot measuring 43,885 square feet in area. The existing parcel is shown in Figure 1 below and Figure 2 on the following page. The Subject Property is located at the south-western terminus of Lamson Drive. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as appropriate for single family residential development. The current R-2 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are two previous zoning cases for the Subject Property: 1) Case No. 905 was approved by the ZBA on June 10, 1963 to allow an addition on the south side of the existing residence (on Proposed Lot 1) to encroach the required 50-foot front setback from Tower Road; and 2) Ordinance M-46 was approved by the Village Council on November 4, 1975 allowing the erection of a 10-foot tennis court fence. The variation was granted under the condition the final plat of consolidation of 860 Lamson Drive and 901 Tower Road was approved. The consolidation was ultimately approved and is the Subject Property’s current configuration.



Page 3

Figure 2 – Existing Lot (aerial view) GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION The application for resubdivision was filed by the Applicant, who currently has the property listed for sale. If approved, the proposed subdivision would divide the existing single lot measuring 43,885 square feet into two (2) lots, measuring 21,697 square feet (west lot) and 22,188 square feet (east lot). If approved, the proposed subdivision would allow an additional single family residence to be built on Lot 2 to the west, which would be accessed from Tower Road. The proposed configuration of lots is depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Figure 3 – Proposed Subdivision (map view)


Page 4


Lamson Drive and the eight lots fronting it were established with the 1941 Lamson Subdivision. The residence on the Subject Property was constructed in 1947. Current improvements (2015 imagery) are depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Existing Lot (close-up aerial view)


Page 5

Village subdivision records indicate that the Subject Property previously consisted of two (2) buildable lots. A Consolidation Plat (Figure 6, below) was filed by the property owner and approved by the Village Council in 1975, for the purpose of allowing construction of a tennis court on the then-westerly lot. Accessory structures such as tennis courts may only be constructed on a lot when they are accessory to the primary permitted use (i.e., a single family dwelling). Consolidation of the two lots in 1975 allowed the still-present tennis court to be constructed.


Figure 6 – 1975 Plat of Consolidation (860 Lamson Drive) As shown in Figure 7 on the following page, the existing 860 Lamson Drive parcel is accessed from Lamson Drive on the north. Because the parcel also abuts Tower Road, it is classified as a “through lot” under the Zoning Ordinance, with a front yard setback required to be observed from both Lamson Drive and Tower Road.


Page 6

Figure 7 – 860 Lamson Drive (viewed from North)

Figure 8 – 860 Lamson Drive (viewed from South)


Page 7

Figure 9 – 860 Lamson Drive (viewed from South) DESCRIPTION OF ZONING STANDARDS The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential zoning district, which is one of five (5) different single family residential zoning classifications in the Village. Neighboring lots north of Tower Road are similarly zoned, while lots to the south of Tower Road are zoned for smaller lot sizes, as depicted in the Area Zoning Map on the following page (Figure 10). Residential zoning hierarchy – A comparison of the Village’s five (5) different residential zoning classifications (Table 1, on the following page) shows the hierarchy of zoning standards throughout the Village’s residential neighborhoods. The R-2 zoning district provides for larger, wider lots compared to other Residential zoning districts.


Page 8

Table 1. Residential zoning hierarchy

R-1 (“estate”

character)


character)

R-3 (“moderately





Minimum Lot area

48,000 s.f. 24,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. 8,400 s.f.

Minimum Lot width

150 ft. 100 ft. 75 f.t 60 ft. 60 ft.


50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.


50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.

Figure 10 – Area Zoning Map COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS All subdivisions are evaluated by staff at the time of application to assure compliance with basic minimum quantitative measures including minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. As noted on Page 1 of this report, the proposed subdivision request incorporates requests for relief from (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot depth, and (c) minimum rectangular area requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The extent to which the proposed lots comply with minimum zoning standards is summarized in Table 2 on the following page.


Page 9





24,000 square feet









Minimum Lot Depth




DOES NOT

COMPLY

DOES NOT

COMPLY

Further description of rectangular area requirement Zoning standards which govern a property owner’s ability to subdivide include “basic” standards addressing minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance includes a closely-related standard requiring a “minimum rectangular area”, in order to effectively control the overall shape and size of irregularly shaped lots.

In the R-2 zoning district in which the Subject Property is located, zoning requirements include a minimum gross lot area of 24,000 square feet, as well as a requirement that a lot have a rectangular area of at least 16,335 square feet. The rectangular area is further qualified, being described as requiring a minimum dimension for each leg of 90 feet.

With respect to the application at hand, Figure 11 illustrates the extent to which each proposed lot does not comply with minimum rectangular area requirements, with minimum required rectangular area overlaid on top of each lot, and the extent to which each lot does not comply is highlighted in red.


Page 10

Figure 11 – Rectangular Area Requirements COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING STANDARDS – REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUILDING SIZE The size and location of improvements on a residential lot are dictated by the Zoning Ordinance, and vary widely based on each lot’s size and dimensions. Because the proposed subdivision would change lot size from 43,885 square feet to less than 24,000 square feet for each lot, existing improvements must be evaluated by staff to determine (a) whether any new zoning nonconformity will be created by the proposed subdivision, and (b) whether there are any existing zoning nonconformities which will remain.

(a) Newly created zoning nonconformities (zoning variation required) - The proposed subdivision anticipates that the existing 860 Lamson Drive residence will remain in place on Lot 1. Accordingly, the size and location of the 860 Lamson Drive residence has been evaluated to determine the existence or creation of zoning nonconformities. Setback requirements and allowable building size for proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 are summarized in Table 3 on the following page. Table 3 highlights (yellow) the one item requiring a zoning variation, and that is for the total gross floor area of the existing residence (7,125 square feet) which exceeds the maximum permitted gross floor area (GFA) of 6,918 square feet for the new Proposed Lot 1. As a result of the proposed subdivision, the existing residence would exceed the maximum permitted GFA by 207 square feet or 2.99%.

(b) Pre-existing zoning nonconformities – Table 3 also highlights (olive) three existing zoning nonconformities which will remain on Lot 1. The existing residence has a nonconforming north front setback, a nonconforming south front setback, and a nonconforming east side yard.


Page 11




Maximum Roofed Lot

Coverage (25% of lot area)

5,547 (Lot 1) 3912.18 COMPLIES --




11,094 (Lot 1) 5451.69 COMPLIES --



Maximum Gross Floor Area

6918.24 (Lot 1) 7125.26 ZONING


2.99% VARIATION

6772.43 (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new


Minimum Front Yard Setback 50' 26.23 EXISTING ZONING



Minimum 2nd Front Yard

Setback 50' 42.4 EXISTING ZONING


Minimum Side Yard 12' 11.25 EXISTING ZONING




19.05' (Lot 2) No residence on lot currently - new


STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS The proposed subdivision consists of subdividing one existing lot with a house and tennis court into two new lots of record. The Applicant proposes to retain the existing house on proposed Lot 1. Proposed Lot 2, on which the existing tennis court is located, is proposed to be redeveloped with a new home. To comply with zoning requirements, a lot must first have a principal use (e.g. single-family structure) in order to have an accessory use (e.g. a recreational facility). The tennis court, an accessory use, must be removed from the Proposed Lot 2 prior to recording the new subdivision plat. The proposed Lot 1 containing the existing house needs not provide any additional storm water volume. (Unless an additional 25% or greater of impervious surface is added.) Because the tennis court must be demolished as a condition of recording the subdivision, the proposed Lot 2 containing the tennis court would be treated as vacant (“previously undeveloped site”). This lot would need to provide storm water for the total required detention volume. It would receive no credit for the existing impervious (i.e. tennis court, etc.). In addition to meeting the above storm water volume detention requirements, when proposed Lot 2 is developed or the amount of impervious surface is increased on Lot 1, the proposed lots would also be required to meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc. PLAN COMMISSION On December 13, 2017 the Plan Commission (PC) held a special meeting and considered the Applicant’s request. After hearing from the Applicant, and no one from the public, the PC recommended, by a vote of 6-1, approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision request and related variations. It should be noted


Page 12

in reviewing the new zoning variations necessary to create the two lots, the Subdivision Code states the Plan Commission must make the following finding to recommend approval of the variations “…the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this section [of the Subdivision Code] would result in real difficulties and substantial hardships or injustices, the Plan Commission may vary or modify such requirements so that the owner is allowed to develop the land in a reasonable manner; provided that, public health, safety, welfare and convenience are protected.” Regarding the existing zoning nonconformities that require a variation, the PC had to issue a “finding of no material increase adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare” in order to recommend approval. REQUESTED ZONING RELIEF As represented in Table 2 on page 9 and Table 3 on page 11, the Applicant is requesting approval of variations for the following four (4) standards of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the subdivision of the Subject Property into two new lots of record:

1. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet to 22,188 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 7.55% variation, and to 21,697 square feet, for Proposed Lot 2, a 9.60% variation;

2. A variation to reduce the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet to 159.70 feet for Proposed Lot 1, a 20.50% variation;

3. A variation to allow both Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2 to provide less than the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet;

4. A variation to increase the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area of 6,918.24 square feet to 7,125.26 square feet for Proposed Lot 1, 2.99% variation.

The ZBA is charged with evaluating the requested zoning relief with the eight standards for granting zoning variations. The eight standards to consider when granting a variation are as follows:

1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone.

2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants.

3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired.

5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased.

6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish.

7. The congestion in the public street will not increase.

8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise be impaired.

FINDINGS In the attached application materials submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant has provided a statement of justification regarding how the requested variations meet the standards for granting the


Page 13

requested relief. Does the ZBA find that the requested variations meet the standards for granting such variations; and if so, is the ZBA prepared to make a recommendation to the Village Council regarding the requested variations? ATTACHMENTS (not included in Village Council Agenda Packet) Attachment A: Stormwater matrix Attachment B: Application form and narrative description Attachment C: Applicant’s supplemental materials dated 11.8.17 Attachment D: Proposed Plat of Subdivision Attachment E: Plat of Survey of existing improvements


Stormwater Volume Requirements for Development Sites

In addition to meeting the following storm water volume detention requirements, development sites must meet all other Village storm water management requirements such as drainage and grading, storm water release rates, storage system design requirements, etc.

Storm Water Detention Volume Requirements

Applicable Requirement

A. New Home Construction - Previously Developed Lot

The amount of additional required storm water detention volume is based upon the difference between maximum impermeable lot coverage, per Zoning Code, and existing lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for a 100-year storm event for both.

B. New Home Construction - Previously Undeveloped Site


Applies to Proposed Lot 2

C. Redevelopment of Site for Different Use (e.g. single family to multi-family, or commercial)


D. Improvements to Existing Home and/or Lot, causing an increase in impermeable lot coverage greater or equal to 25%.

The amount of additional required storm water detention volume is based upon the difference between the proposed and existing impermeable lot coverage, using the run-off coefficient for 100 year storm event. (Note: If the increase in impermeable lot coverage is less than 25%, additional storm water detention volume is not required.)

Applies to Proposed Lot 1 if any improvements are proposed in future that

increase the impermeable lot coverage an additional 25%.


ATTACHMENT G
























that he is always available to answer questions and that while the Commission has heard a one‐1 sided approach, he believed it is a good way to move forward. He stated that for a TIF, from a 2 Village prospective is to not raise taxes to fund his particular objective. He concluded that he 3 wanted to make the Commission aware this is coming down the pipe and that it will be good for 4 them as a Village servant and to understand the issue. 5

6 Case No. 17‐27‐SD: Consideration of (a) Subdivision Code Variations and (b) 7 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval for 860 Lamson Drive (Sandra K. Crown Subdivision) 8 Chairperson Dalman asked if any communications were received regarding this application. Mr. 9 Norkus responded there were no written communications received. Chairperson Dalman then 10 stated that people are here and the petitioner is represented by counsel and she would 11 swear in those speaking to this matter. She stated in general, there is a three to five minute 12 limit on public testimony and the applicant is given longer for their presentation. Chairperson 13 Dalman asked Mr. Norkus to give an introduction for this application. 14 15 Mr. Norkus stated that the application with regard to 860 Lamson is a request for preliminary 16 plat approval of a two lot subdivision. He noted the property is located in the R‐2 single family 17 residence zoning district which consists of single buildable lots measuring 44,000 square feet. 18 He referred the Commission to Figure 1 in the agenda materials and that Figure 2 is shown in 19 the illustration. Mr. Norkus stated that the aerial photo is of the same lot as it exists today. 20 21 Mr. Norkus stated that the applicant is proposing a subdivision of a single parcel into two lots 22 with the west lot measuring 21,697 square feet and the east lot measuring 22,188 square feet. 23 He stated that if approved, the subdivision would allow the construction of an additional 24 residence on Lot 2 to the west of the existing residence and referred to the proposed 25 configuration of Figures 3 and 4 in the packet of materials as well as an illustration. 26 27 Mr. Norkus informed the Commission that Village records indicate that the project previously 28 consisted of two buildable lots in a 1941 subdivision entitled the "Lamson Subdivision" which 29 created Lamson Drive. He stated that a subsequent consolidated plat was filed by the owner in 30 1975 to allow a tennis court to be constructed on the west lot and noted there is some 31 additional information from the 1975 consolidation and image in the materials. Mr. Norkus 32 stated the proposed subdivision would return the property to a two lot configuration in 33 the same form as it existed prior to 1975. He noted despite the fact that the application would 34 return the property to pre‐1975 conditions, the request incorporated six items of relief to be 35 considered by the Commission listed as Item Nos. 1‐6 on page 1 of the agenda report. 36 37 Mr. Norkus stated that Item Nos. 1‐4 contain a list of the four items of relief from the standards 38 of the zoning ordinance, the first of which relate to minimum lot area and minimum lot 39 dimensions. He stated that a variation is being requested from the minimum lot area of 24,000 40 square feet and the two lots measure 22,188 square feet and 21,697 square feet which meant 41 both the proposed lots would be noncompliant with the minimum lot area requirement. Mr. 42 Norkus stated that the second item is a variation from the minimum rectangular area 43 requirements for both lots where the image would be helpful. He noted the zoning code 44

ATTACHMENT H



requirement is that each lot be able to contain within its boundary a rectangle of a certain 1 prescribed area and dimension. Mr. Norkus stated the illustration depicts that minimum 2 rectangular area superimposed on the subdivision with the yellow area being the rectangle that 3 fits and the dark brown color identifying to the extent each lot is not able to contain that 4 minimum rectangle. He noted both lots would be nonconforming with that requirement. 5 6 Mr. Norkus stated the third variation is for the minimum lot depth requirement of 200 feet 7 with Lot 1 to the east having a depth of 159.7 square feet or just over 40 feet short of the 8 minimum lot depth. He then stated the last variation is to exceed the maximum permitted GFA 9 for the proposed Lot 1. Mr. Norkus noted the existing home at 860 Lamson complied with 10 the zoning ordinance limitations on GFA but reducing the lot size to half of what it is today 11 would result in the home exceeding the maximum GFA for its new configured lot by 207 square 12 feet or 2.99%. 13 14 Mr. Norkus stated for each of the four variations described, the Commission may recommend 15 granting relief if it finds the land to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is 16 surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of this 17 section of the code would result in real difficulties, substantial hardship or injustices and the 18 Commission may be able to vary or modify such requirements to develop the land in a 19 reasonable manner provided that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience are 20 protected. 21 22 Mr. Norkus then stated Item No. 5 is a request relief under the subdivision code and that there 23 is a separate section of the code which provides additional standards that are unique to the 24 subdivision of land, some of which are not easily quantified by numerical standards but govern 25 the appropriate division of land. He noted it includes the standard governing the 26 appropriate width of streets, length and shape of lots and other general lot configuration 27 requirements. Mr. Norkus stated the application proposed the configuration in the illustration 28 for a lot line between the two lots which is an arc shape and which does not comply with the 29 subdivision code requirement that side lot lines be perpendicular to the front street line of 30 Tower Road. 31 32 Mr. Norkus informed the Commission that Item No. 6 is a slightly different evaluation by the 33 Commission, whereas Item Nos. 1‐5 refer to noncompliance items newly created by the 34 subdivision. He stated Item No. 6 relates to items of existing zoning noncompliance. Mr. Norkus 35 noted the subdivision code contemplates instances where a property subdivision would have 36 one or more items of noncompliance of the buildings and structures on a property and it is a 37 case where for the subdivision of a property like that is proposed, the Commission is to 38 evaluate those items of existing noncompliance and determine in each instance whether there 39 would be a material increased adverse impact. He then referred the Commission to Table 3 on 40 page 13 as well as the illustration where the brown color highlighted items of nonconformance 41 with regard to the proposed subdivision relating to the location of the existing residence. Mr. 42 Norkus added that the home is currently nonconforming to the north property line setback and 43 to the east side yard property line. 44



1 Mr. Norkus pointed out that for applications like this which go through the Village process, 2 because the subdivision incorporated multiple requests for relief, the code imposes a twostep 3 review process. He noted this is the preliminary plat approval process to be followed by a 4 second final plat approval phase. Mr. Norkus stated that subdivision plans requesting zoning 5 relief may only be submitted for preliminary approval until zoning relief is granted by the 6 Village Council and if approved by the Commission, the ZBA and the Village Council, the plan 7 would return to the Commission and the Village Council for final plat approval which included a 8 more ministerial review of details such as utility easements, etc. He stated they have been 9 drafted for the Commission’s review. Mr. Norkus noted the application is scheduled to appear 10 before the ZBA for the four zoning relief items on January 8, 2018 and that notice was made 11 to the 29 owners of property within 250 feet of the subject property and no written 12 correspondence has been received. He then asked if there were any questions or if they would 13 like for the applicant to make its presentation. 14 15 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any questions for Mr. Norkus. 16 17 Ms. Case asked Mr. Norkus has the Commission, the ZBA or Village Council approved any 18 residential subdivision requests in the past six years which involved variations. Mr. Norkus 19 stated that it would be difficult to provide a detailed answer on the extent of requests 20 incorporating some form of relief, but noted that there has been a combination of subdivisions 21 which requested relief and were denied and subdivisions requesting relief which were 22 approved. He stated the Commission may wish to request that staff provide additional data on 23 the history of subdivision requests, noting that there have been previous occasions where the 24 Commission has requested such data in light of a specific concern. Mr. Norkus added that there 25 are a lot of different types of relief which the Commission has considered over time, adding 26 that the number requests that included relief may not be as helpful as a more detailed review 27 of the types of requests. 28 29 Ms. Case asked if the square footage of the neighboring properties is the same general size of 30 the current noncompliant property. Mr. Norkus responded that the staff analysis did not review 31 the size of neighboring lots, but noted that the R‐2 Zoning District requires a minimum lot area 32 of 24,000 square feet. He stated prior to that, approximately 10 to 15 years ago, the minimum 33 lot area had been a half‐acre or 21,780 square feet. Mr. Norkus stated that given the time 34 period that the Lamson Subdivision was platted it would be reasonable to assume that the 35 neighborhood on Lamson Drive is likely within the 21,000 to 22,000 square foot range. 36 37 Ms. Holland informed the Commission when Lamson Drive was original platted in 1941, Lot 2 38 was part of that original plat. She asked did it have access to the street and that Lot 2 is 39 accessed off of Tower today and asked if that was the case in 1941. Mr. Norkus responded the 40 subdivision created Lot 1 and the applicant’s counsel can address that. 41 42 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions. She then asked if they had other 43 examples where lots consolidated were driven by a change in the use of a lot and have gone 44



back to prior consolidated lots. Chairperson Dalman indicated that there are longstanding 1 members of the community who may know and the Village codes have changed since then. 2 3 Ms. McCarthy referred to a large Private Road property which took a pie shape piece off that 4 and made a subdivision. 5 6 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Golan referred to the tennis 7 courts along Tower Road, and questioned whether the lot to the west of 895 Tower was 8 consolidated to in order to build the tennis court. Mr. Norkus stated based on the location and 9 the way the map is drawn, it appeared as though it was consolidated with 900 Private Road. 10 Ms. McCarthy stated it is part of the Ickes property at 900 Private Road. Mr. Norkus stated that 11 he recalled subdivision activity at the 900 Private address, and could research and come back 12 with more information on that if the Commission desired. 13 14 Chairperson Dalman asked whether the tennis court on the subject parcel encroaches on the 15 neighboring property to the west, as represented by one of the Figures in the agenda material. 16 Mr. Norkus responded that while it appears on one image to encroach, he stated that reflects 17 an inaccuracy in the map, and that the tennis court in question is located on the Crown parcel. 18 19 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were 20 raised at this time. 21 22 Chris Canning, 1000 Skokie, Wilmette, represented the applicant, Sandy Crown, the owner of 23 860 Lamson. He stated that in terms of full disclosure, he informed the Commission that he was 24 a long term Village President of Wilmette and appointed Chairperson Dalman to the ZBA and 25 she left Wilmette. Mr. Canning noted they worked together in a different capacity and neither 26 was compensated for their service to the Village. 27 28 Mr. Canning stated Mr. Norkus provided a good summary of the request and noted they have 29 worked for some time with Village staff to complete the application. He then stated despite 30 the requests for variations, the application is rather straightforward. He then stated at the time 31 the consolidation took place, a lot has changed. Mr. Canning stated the applicant moved in the 32 property in 1969 and that consolidation took place and the zoning was a half‐acre while all of 33 the other variances did not exist. He then stated that in 1975, Lot 2 that was the gardener’s 34 home for the Ickes estate and not part of the Lamson subdivision. Mr. Canning also stated the 35 driveway was near where the fire hydrant is today. He informed the Commission if the 36 subdivision is approved and a new home built on the site, it would have access from Tower and 37 not Lamson drive. Mr. Canning stated in 1975, the home was there and the Crowns purchased 38 the adjoining lot to place the tennis court there. He stated it was the opinion of the Village 39 Council then that the two lots had to be consolidated and they were conforming lots back then. 40 41 Mr. Canning stated that as they saw from the other calculations done, in general, there is no 42 way the two lots could ever meet the zoning requirements under the ordinance and platting. 43 He stated in his opinion, it takes into account what you would do if you had vacant land on the 44



outskirts of the Village which is not the best way to deal with infill development. Mr. Canning 1 stated the key issue for the Commission to consider is when the parcels were originally platted 2 with half area zoning which had 21,000 and 22,000 square foot parcels. He stated at the time, 3 they were conforming and then a change in the zoning ordinance changed the minimum lot size 4 to 24,000 square feet. 5 6 Mr. Canning stated the issue for the Commission to consider is if they grant the two lot 7 subdivision and a new home is built on Lot 2, it would be a 6,700 square foot home and if 8 they deny the request and the home is put up for sale and a new home is built, the new home 9 on the existing lot as it is could be 11,900 square feet which would be a much larger home than 10 it is now and in the neighborhood. Mr. Canning stated the request to undo the consolidation 11 of 1975 would be more in keeping with the lots in the neighborhood and if they built on Lot 2, 12 that home would be consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. 13 14 Mr. Canning then stated to meet one of the requirements, if they want to make a perpendicular 15 line to have one less variation, they could do that. He noted that would mean that Lot 1 would 16 measure .68 acres and Lot 1 would measure .38 acres which would not be in the best interest 17 of the Village or the neighborhood. Mr. Canning also stated that the smaller lot would be so 18 much smaller than the neighboring lots. He stated despite the many variations which arise from 19 changes in the code, it would be in the best interest of the Village to grant the subdivision 20 taking the property back to its pre‐1975 size with two lots of almost equal size in keeping with 21 the neighborhood. Mr. Canning asked the Commission if they had any questions. 22 23 Ms. Case asked how long the home was on the market. Mr. Canning responded at the same 24 time they filed the application in August 2017. He ensured they did it in an orderly fashion to 25 come to the Commission first, then the ZBA and then the Village Council. Mr. Canning informed 26 the Commission that it is the owner’s intent to move into the smaller home. 27 28 Mr. Golan asked how many square feet did the home measure, Mr. Canning responded 7,100 29 square feet. Mr. Norkus noted one of the requests for relief is because Lot 1 is slightly smaller 30 than what it would be required to be to support a home of this size. He added the 31 maximum allowed for the lot would be 6,918 square feet compared to the existing home which 32 measured 7,125 square feet. 33 34 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions. She stated to be clear, the 35 proposed lot line would be in the exact location it was. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct 36 and reiterated that if there is one larger lot and one smaller lot, it would be out of character 37 with the neighborhood north of Tower. He also stated they would end up with a larger variation 38 for Lot 2. 39 40 Chairperson Dalman then asked if the subdivision occurred and the home on Lot 1 is 41 demolished, the home which could be rebuilt would be smaller. Mr. Canning confirmed that is 42 also correct and stated it would be 200 square feet smaller than the existing home. Chairperson 43 Dalman asked if the denial of the subdivision would result in a potential of a 12,000 square foot 44



home and Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct. 1 2 Ms. Case asked if the subdivision for the Lot 2 curb cut would be for the driveway on Tower 3 across from Prospect. Mr. Norkus confirmed the westerly lot would be accessed by a driveway 4 from Tower Road. 5 6 Sandy Crown informed the Commission the Village required that the driveway access be 7 removed. 8 9 Mr. Norkus referred the Commission to an image which showed the alignment of the proposed 10 Lot 2 to the west and identified the lot line between the two lots as roughly at the center line of 11 Prospect to the south. Ms. Crown confirmed the address of the gardener’s house as 901 12 Tower. 13 14 Ms. Holland stated for homes with driveways which are circular where they did not back out 15 onto Tower, it would not be an issue from a safety perspective. Mr. Canning noted there are 16 several homes west of the property which have a turnout facing Tower. He stated that if 17 a home is built on Lot 2, citing the curb cut would be in conjunction with the Village Engineer 18 and would have to meet the impervious surface storm water management requirements. Mr. 19 Canning stated that returning the two lots back to their pre‐1975 condition would have no 20 impact on those issues and if a new home is built, it would have to meet the requirements for 21 light and air. 22 23 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other questions from the Commission or audience. 24 No additional questions were raised at this time. She confirmed they would keep the public 25 hearing aspect open and asked the Commission Members for their concerns or thoughts. 26 27 Ms. McCarthy described the request as clear cut and that it is near her home. She then referred 28 to an issue with the side yard to neighbor to the west and if new construction is maxed out on 29 the lot. Chairperson Dalman confirmed a new application would have to satisfy the setback 30 requirements. Ms. McCarthy asked if that is 12 feet. Mr. Norkus confirmed that is correct in the 31 R2 zoning district. Chairperson Dalman noted that home on the plat shows that it is offset by 20 32 feet from the property line resulting in it being a total of 32 feet. 33 34 Chairperson Dalman asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Holland stated she had no 35 problem and that it would be wise to return the property to a situation which worked for a 36 number of years and would not crowd the neighborhood. Mr. Golan stated that another 37 positive is that it would have a huge amount of impermeable surface on the property. 38 39 Chairperson Dalman stated it is important to note on the storm water with the removal of the 40 tennis court, they would not credit for that and for any new building, it would be evaluated as it 41 is going in as a green field and cannot max out the full potential of the lot as well as be required 42 to contain water on the site. She referred the Commission to the requested recommendation 43 on page 15 which she read as follows: With regard to Case No. 17‐27‐SD regarding the 44



subdivision and preliminary plat of subdivision for the property located at 860 Lamson Drive, 1 the Commission recommended the approval of the proposed two‐lot preliminary plat approval 2 of subdivision with the following zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance relief: that the 3 Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of subdivision with the following 4 item of subdivision code relief: a variation of the requirement that side lines be approximately 5 perpendicular to front street lines to allow the proposed configuration of the side lot line 6 between proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2, which is not perpendicular to the front street line 7 (Tower Road), but that its configuration as proposed would enhance public safety or 8 convenience. 9 10 Chairperson Dalman then summarized the four variances as follows: (1) a variation to reduce 11 the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet to 22,188 square feet for proposed Lot 1, 12 a 7.55% variation and to 21,697 square feet for proposed Lot 2, a 9.6% variation; (2) a variation 13 to reduce the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet to 159.70 feet for proposed Lot 1, a 14 20.5% variation; (3) a variation to allow both proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2 to provide less 15 than the required minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum 16 rectangular dimension of 90 feet; and (4) a variation to increase the minimum permitted gross 17 floor area of 6,918.24 square feet to 7,125.26 square feet for proposed Lot 1, a 2.99% variation. 18 19 Chairperson Dalman stated that the third component is that the Commission issue a finding of 20 no material increase adverse impact upon the public health, safety or welfare with respect to 21 the following existing zoning nonconformities for the existing residence on proposed Lot 1: (1) 22 the existing residence observes a front yard setback from the north property line 26.23 feet, 23 versus the required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, (2) the existing residence observes 24 a front yard setback from the south property line of 42.40 feet versus the minimum required 25 front yard setback of 50 feet; and (3) the existing residence observes a side yard setback from 26 the east property line of 11.25 feet versus the minimum required side yard setback of 12 feet. 27 28 Chairperson Dalman then asked for a motion seeking approval of the requested 29 recommendation. 30 31 A motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Ms. Holland. A vote was taken and the 32 motion passed, 6 to 1. 33 34 AYES: Coladarci, Dalman, Golan, Holland, McCarthy, Thomas (6) 35 NAYS: Case (1) 36 37 Mr. Thomas asked with regard to Mr. Rintz’ presentation on TIF, has anyone requested one 38 before the Commission on the other side of the sword. Chairperson Dalman asked if anyone in 39 the audience would like to speak on the TIF issue. No comments were made at this time. 40 41 Mr. Golan stated that Mr. Rintz asked for the Commission to deduce and express their opinions 42 and indicated there were several Village Council members who are not in favor. 43 44


Minutes adopted 02.12.2018

WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1

JANUARY 8, 2018 2 EXCERPT OF MINUTES 3

4 Zoning Board Members Present: Joni Johnson, Chairperson 5

Sarah Balassa 6 Matthew Bradley 7 E. Gene Greable 8 Thomas Kehoe 9 Carl Lane 10

11 Zoning Board Members Absent: Mark Naumann 12 13 Village Staff: David Schoon, Director of Community Development 14

Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant 15 16 Agenda Items: 17 18

*** 19 20 Case No. 17-26-V2: 860 Lamson Drive 21

Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust 22 Variations by Ordinance 23 1. Lot Area, Shape and Dimensions and 24 2. Maximum Building Size 25

26 Case No. 17-26-V2: 860 Lamson Drive; Sandra K. Crown Revocable Trust; Variations by Ordinance: (1) Lot Area, 27 Shape and Dimensions and (2) Maximum Building Size 28 Ms. Klaassen stated that Case No. 17-26-V2 is an application filed by Chicago Title Land Trust, Sandra K. Crown as 29 Trustee of the property located at 860 Lamson Drive to allow a two-lot subdivision. The applicant has filed an 30 application seeking the following approvals as part of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision: (1) a variation to provide 31 less than the minimum required lot area of 24,000 square feet for Lot 1 and Lot 2; (2) a variation from the required 32 minimum rectangular area of 16,335 square feet and the required minimum rectangular dimension of 90 feet for 33 Lot 1 and Lot 2; (3) a variation from the minimum required lot depth of 200 feet for Lot 1; (4) a variation to permit 34 the existing residence to exceed the maximum permitted Gross Floor Area for Proposed Lot 1; and (5) any other 35 zoning relief necessary for the Preliminary Plat Approval. 36 37 Chairperson Johnson swore in those that would be speaking to this matter. 38 39 Chairperson Johnson disclosed that she lives at 888 Tower Road which is within 250 feet of the property and is not 40 required to recuse herself. She then stated she has a memo she would share with the Board Members circulated 41 by Michael D'Onofrio which sets for the basis where recusal is required. Chairperson Johnson read the memo as 42 follows: "Vicinity or proximity is not specifically defined; however, in the past, ZBA Members have raised the 43 proximity issue, in one case where he/she lived across the street another was when the member received a 44 hearing notice because he/she lived within 250 feet of the property. According to the Village Attorney, proximity 45 to property which is the subject of zoning relief does not create a conflict and therefore does not require the 46 member recusal. Rather the standard for recusal is that there has to be a 'direct financial impact' which is 47 abundantly clear in order for a member recusal." Chairperson Johnson noted she does not have a direct financial 48 impact on how the case turns out. 49 50

ATTACHMENT I


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 2 Chris Canning, 1000 Skokie, Wilmette stated he is representing the applicant. He noted that Sandra 1 Crown apologized for not being present. Mr. Canning identified Ms. Crown as the beneficiary of the land trust and 2 the applicant who has been living at the home since 1959 when her family bought it. He noted there was a setback 3 variation granted to the main home in 1963. 4 5 Mr. Canning stated that with regard to all of the variations being requested, he described it as a simple request 6 and that the applicant is trying to undo what was done back in 1975 when the lots were consolidated which 7 was mandated by the Village and the zoning code at the time. He noted the code was a lot shorter back then and it 8 is important to note that every variation being requested now did not exist when the case came before the Plan 9 Commission (PC) in 1975. 10 11 Mr. Canning stated in 1975, the Crowns lived in the building. He stated to the west of the tennis court was the 12 home for the Ickes Estate gardener to the northwest of where the home is. Mr. Canning informed the Board the 13 Crowns bought the home, tore it down and built the tennis court which meant they had to consolidate the two 14 lots. He stated that Lot 2 in the proposal had the existing home on it and had and address on Tower Road and a 15 curb cut. Mr. Canning then stated the new Lot 2 home would have the Tower Road address and if access is 16 permitted, a curb cut on Tower Road. 17 18 Mr. Canning stated the request is to put back the two lots to their pre-1975 condition. He referred to the 19 code changes over the last 42 years and noted the request received a positive recommendation from the PC. Mr. 20 Canning then stated in submitted letters, he noted they worked with the Village staff and it was determined they 21 needed a supplemental letter since there are more requirements to be addressed and that has been included in 22 the materials. 23 24 Mr. Canning then stated in focusing on the lot area, back in 1975 when the lot consolidation was done, zoning for 25 that area was called half-acre zoning and that they no longer have half-acre zoning and now it is 24,000 square 26 feet. He then stated that with the prior line, they would end up with two lots of similar size but below 24,000 27 square feet and there is a better way to go about it in terms of lot separation. Mr. Canning noted they did the 28 calculations for the PC and determined it was not the right way to go and to eliminate one variation with regard to 29 the rectangular line, it would make Lot 1 27,267 square feet or .63 acres. Mr. Canning stated that would have 30 reduced Lot 2 to 16,618 square feet or .38 acre and that for the neighborhood that would not be the right way to 31 go. 32 33 Mr. Canning stated in 1963 when the addition was done to the south, there was no such thing as GFA and if they 34 built a home on the new Lot 2, it would be the same size as the Lot 1 home. He also stated if the variation is not 35 granted and one lot is maintained, if the new owner tore down and built a new home, the new home could 36 measure 11,908 square feet and that size did not make sense with regard to the other homes in the neighborhood. 37 Mr. Canning then referred to the Lamson Drive and other homes abutting Tower Road. 38 39 Mr. Canning also stated there is not an obvious structure which could be recommended to the applicant to remove 40 such as a porch or staircase in order to get under 207 square feet which is why they are asking for a variation of 41 207 square feet if the subdivision is approved and the home remains on Lot 1 putting it over the GFA permitted. 42 43 Chairperson Johnson asked if anyone is living in the home. Mr. Canning responded the applicant lives down the 44 street. He also stated that with regard to the nature of the building, there is nothing obviously easy to remove to 45 bring under GFA. Mr. Canning referred to the playhouse example of the first case or an accessory structure being 46 counted as floor area which is not part of the main structure that can be taken out. 47 48


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 3 Chairperson Johnson stated if the property is sold and the home is torn down, the GFA variation would be 1 irrelevant. Mr. Canning stated if the variation is granted and the home is torn down and rebuilt, they would know 2 what can be built there as far as setbacks and GFA which is not the issue here. 3 4 Mr. Lane suggested making Lot 1 slightly bigger and they are not talking about a straight line issue. Mr. Canning 5 responded that would eliminate one variation but would make the variations for Lot 2 larger. He stated it would be 6 simpler to go back to the way it was prior to the consolidation and that it is a balance issue. Mr. Canning noted 7 they addressed all of the standards in the letter which he can elaborate. 8 9 Chairperson Johnson asked what the lot size of the Ickes property is. Mr. Canning deferred to the Village staff for 10 that information. Ms. Klaassen stated she did not have that information available. Chairperson Johnson asked what 11 the lot sizes of the homes on the east side of Sheridan are. Mr. Canning responded he did not know. 12 13 Mr. Lane referred to the property west of the subject property and asked if there is also a tennis court there at 895 14 Lamson. Mr. Schoon stated the aerial photo showed a tennis court on page 4. Mr. Canning referred the Board to 15 the rendering and stated the tennis court is in a conforming location. 16 17 Chairperson Johnson stated the applicant wanted a tennis court which required the consolidation. She also 18 referred to the curb cut on Tower Road and questioned their contention that the condition on Tower Road and the 19 neighborhood in 1975 is the same as it is today. Chairperson Johnson then asked what the square footage of 20 the gardener's home was on the Icke’s property. Mr. Canning responded he did not know. Chairperson Johnson 21 referred to the former driveway on Tower Road which is now near a fire hydrant. Mr. Canning identified a picture 22 of where the driveway was which is approximately where the fire hydrant is. 23 24 Chairperson Johnson then asked what the width is of the proposed Lot 2 on Tower Road. Ms. Klaassen stated it is 25 133.5 feet. Chairperson Johnson asked if the curb cut it would require the approval of Public Works. Mr. Canning 26 confirmed that is correct. 27 28 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. 29 30 Mr. Lane stated they should focus on the first two standards on page 20. He asked why they cannot obtain a 31 reasonable return with the property remaining as one single lot. Mr. Canning responded they could receive a 32 return but there would be reasonable return if they were to sell two parcels as opposed to one and that it 33 represented the highest and best use to subdivide to maximize the return. Mr. Lane stated maximum return is not 34 the same as reasonable return. Mr. Canning then stated there have been no offers on the property now and 35 referred to it being overpriced and having no amenities a family would want for this neighborhood. He also stated 36 if they cannot do anything with the parcel, it would drag on in value and they would not receive reasonable return 37 and there could be a negative return. 38 39 Mr. Lane referred to the second standard and asked why it is unique. He noted changes in the code are not unique 40 circumstances and many people have homes where nonconformities arose when the standards changed. Mr. 41 Canning responded that for the standards applied here, every change before the Board was something which 42 arose since the time of the consolidation and it is unique as applied to this particular home. 43 44 Mr. Lane stated it was the owners' decision to consolidate the lot. 45 46 Mr. Canning stated they could make Lot 1 bigger but that would not be the right way to go. He then stated if 47 the Board says the only way to grant the request is to move Lot 1 and make it larger to eliminate one variation, it 48 would increase a different variation. Mr. Canning reiterated the decision was made that the best balance is to go 49 back to what it was. 50 51


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 4 Mr. Lane asked if the tennis court is not desirable for a purchaser, could it be removed and replaced with a 1 pool. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct. Mr. Lane then stated there are other homes with pools in the 2 neighborhood. Mr. Canning stated Lot 2 would have to meet storm water requirements. 3 4 Chairperson Johnson referred to keeping it as one lot and moving the home to the center and building a pool and 5 there are advantages of having a larger lot. She also stated having a new home on a single lot further west would 6 not look imbalanced. Mr. Canning stated that is why they asked Mr. Norkus if they did the calculation to keep the 7 lot as it is and tore down the home and built a new home of 11,980 square feet that would not be in keeping with 8 the neighborhood. 9 10 Chairperson Johnson stated there are 11,000 square foot homes in the vicinity. Mr. Canning noted not in the 11 Lamson subdivision. 12 13 Chairperson Johnson then stated that for a prior case, Mr. Norkus provided a list of neighboring homes and their 14 square footage for the PC. She stated since the applicant is making the same argument that a single lot is oversized 15 compared to neighboring homes, that information would be helpful here. Mr. Canning stated the applicant's focus 16 is looking at the Lamson homes. 17 18 Chairperson Johnson noted there is no letter from the 865 Lamson neighbor facing the proposed subdivision and 19 asked for the Board Members' comments about that. She described the argument they are doing it for the benefit 20 of the neighborhood as disingenuous. Mr. Canning stated that in thinking about lot sizes, they should focus on the 21 Lamson homes. Chairperson Johnson then described the home size ranges in the R-2 district and on Lamson and 22 Tower Road and the lack of uniformity and consistency of lot sizes in the Village. 23 24 Mr. Lane referred to the statement made earlier of having the square footage of homes as useful information 25 because of Tower Road and Sheridan Road being a unique area. He then stated how big they can build a home is 26 not relevant and they can build what is appropriate for the lot which is less 11,000 square feet. Mr. Canning asked 27 the Board if it would be useful to get the square footage of areas and continue the request to the next meeting, 28 they would be willing to do that and they can have the Village staff present the Board with that information. 29 30 Ms. Klaassen noted the tax records did not contain square footage records that are equivalent to how we calculate 31 GFA. 32 33 Ms. Balassa questioned whether it would impact their decision. 34 35 Mr. Kehoe asked if the Lot 2 minimum depth would be 166 feet. Mr. Canning confirmed that is correct. Mr. Kehoe 36 commented on the proposed subdivision in Indian Hill that was denied because it didn’t meet the minimum lot 37 depth. 38 39 Ms. Klaassen stated the existing lot is 85,000 square feet, they proposed a subdivision that would result in 2 lots, 40 one of which would need a variation for a lot depth of 156 feet. She noted the Board recommended denial and the 41 PC and Village Council denied the request in September 2016. 42 43 Mr. Canning stated he would like to look at those documents. He stated the packet did not include precedents for 44 granting denial and the Board is to look at the unique circumstances here. Mr. Kehoe stated he has not heard 45 anything unique here, only to revert the lot to its 1975 condition. 46 47 Chairperson Johnson stated there have been few subdivision requests and the PC sees some that the Board would 48 not see unless there are associated variations. She then referred to one other subdivision which was filed by the 49 Marens on Sunset. Mr. Canning then stated if they move the line to the west, they cannot get around the issue. 50 51


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 5 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. No additional comments were made at this time. 1 She then called the matter in for discussion and asked the Board if they would like to vote or continue the case 2 until they get more information. 3 4 Ms. Balassa stated she did not need additional information to make a decision. Mr. Lane stated while information 5 on the size of lots and the square footage of homes in the neighborhood would be helpful, he can make a decision 6 without it and would base his decision on the facts and testimony. 7 8 Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any Board Members on the fence. Mr. Bradley stated he would be in 9 favor of granting the variations and stated the request is modest and for reasonable return, it would be in their 10 best interest. Mr. Kehoe stated he is on the fence. Ms. Balassa stated in applying the standards uniformly, she 11 understood the persuasive argument and there are many situations in Winnetka like that where if they went back 12 to what existed before, it would no longer be in compliance. Ms. Balassa also stated in looking at Lamson Drive and 13 the aerial photo, there are concerns about the way it would affect Lamson versus keeping the neighborhood 14 character and the request would radically change that. She concluded that standard no. 1 has not been met. 15 16 Mr. Lane stated he is more in favor when variations are generally small and he understood the balance concept 17 which they deal with frequently. He also stated he did not think that space for a tennis court or pool are unique 18 and there are other lots in the area which have space for such leisure structures. Mr. Lane then stated they can get 19 reasonable return for the property. He also asked what is unique here in terms of the shape of the property, there 20 are a lot of properties which have a slightly different shape. Mr. Lane reiterated changes in the code are not 21 unique and he would not vote in favor of the request. 22 23 Mr. Kehoe stated he is troubled by the plight being unique. He also stated every decision made was done with full 24 knowledge and consent of the owner. Mr. Kehoe stated unfortunately, the code changed to their detriment and he 25 would be opposed to the request. 26 27 Mr. Greable stated Mr. Canning presented a solution to a problem created many years ago and there has been no 28 change in ownership. He then stated to ask for additional information, the bottom line is fairness to the owner and 29 the one person affected did not drive the final decision. Mr. Greable stated it would be the same property as it was 30 and he would be in favor of the request. 31 32 Chairperson Johnson stated it cannot go back to the way it was and conditions on Tower Road changed since she 33 moved into her home. She then stated restoring it to the way it was prior to 1975, when it had a coach home, is 34 disingenuous, inaccurate and not possible. Chairperson Johnson stated her concerns are if they go to permitting 35 approval, they would be adding a curb on Tower Road where there is substantially more intensive traffic now than 36 in the past. She also pointed out they heard a case for 811 Tower Road years ago where the applicant wanted to 37 do a detached garage and a factor which came into consideration for denial was adding a curb cut on Tower 38 Road. Chairperson Johnson then referred to the Gill case which recently came before the Board and the PC where 39 the applicant tried to maximize return because they could not sell the home. They had charts from Mr. Norkus 40 which showed they had larger lots similar to the Gills' property and the Board, the PC and the Village Council 41 denied the request. She concluded she is not in favor and noted the Village Council has final jurisdiction. 42 43 Mr. Greable asked Mr. Canning if the Crowns no longer live in the home. Mr. Canning responded they live a couple 44 doors down the street at 895 Lamson. Mr. Greable then asked how long had the home been on the market. Mr. 45 Canning responded since last summer. Mr. Kehoe asked if they would be selling the beneficial interest in the land 46 trust. Mr. Canning responded the home and the land would be conveyed and if the request is denied, the home 47 and lot would remain as is. 48 49 Chairperson Johnson then asked for a motion. 50


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Lane moved to recommend denial based on the following. He stated that the applicant can realize reasonable 1 return and referred to the testimony the property and tennis court and space for a pool are valuable to get return 2 from selling the home. He stated that with regard to the plight being due to unique circumstances, that standard 3 was not satisfied and the fact that zoning changed from the time the lots were consolidated is not unique and 4 referred to the lot being large and a different shape. He stated the request could change the character of 5 the locality with a curb cut on Tower Road and a backyard facing someone's front yard. Mr. Lane stated that light 6 and air to surrounding properties would not be affected and that there would be no hazard from fire. Mr. Lane 7 stated that with regard to congestion, a curb cut on Tower Road may be an issue. Mr. Lane concluded the public 8 health, comfort, morals, safety and welfare would not be affected. 9 10 Mr. Kehoe seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was passed, 4 to 2. 11 12 AYES: Balassa, Johnson, Kehoe, Lane 13 NAYS: Bradley, Greable 14 15 FINDINGS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 1. The requested variations are within the final jurisdiction of the Village Council. 17 18 2. The requested variations are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka Zoning 19

Ordinance. The proposal is not compatible, in general, with the character of existing development within 20 the immediate neighborhood with respect to architectural scale and other site improvements. 21

22 3. There are not practical difficulties or a particular hardship which prevents strict application of Sections 23

17.30.010, 17.30.020, and 17.30.040 of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance which are related to the use or 24 the construction or alteration of buildings or structures. 25

26 The evidence in the judgment of the Zoning Board of Appeals has established: 27 28 1. The property in question can yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions 29

allowed by regulations in that zone. The property, with a tennis court and space for a pool are valuable 30 and can yield a reasonable return. 31

32 2. The plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be associated with 33

the characteristics of the property in question, rather being related to the occupants. The fact the zoning 34 regulations changed since the property was consolidated in 1975 is not a unique circumstance. 35

36 3. The variations, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. A new curb cut on Tower Road 37

would alter the essential character of the locality, as well as having a backyard face the front yard of a 38 neighbor. 39

40 4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. No evidence was 41

provided to the contrary. 42 43 5. The hazard from fire or other damages to the property will not be increased. Any proposed 44

improvements would be built according to the required building codes. 45 46 6. The taxable value of the land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. No evidence was 47

provided to the contrary. 48 49


Final Minutes January 8, 2018 Page 7 7. The congestion in the public street may increase. It is possible that a new curb cut on Tower Road would 1

increase congestion on Tower road. 2 3 8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not otherwise 4

be impaired. No evidence was provided to the contrary. 5 6

*** 7



Presenter:



Item History:

Executive Summary:

Resolution No. R-15-2018: Boal Parkway Pump Station Project Engineering Change Order No. 1 (Adoption)

James J. Bernahl, Asst. Director of Public Works/Engineering

02/20/18

✔

✔

✔

Amendment to an existing contract with HR Green for additional costs associated with the design and permitting for the proposed Boal Parkway Stormwater Improvement Project.

On March 1, 2016, the Village Council awarded a contract to the engineering firm HR Green for the design and construction of a new Storm Water Pump Station to service Boal Parkway for a price not to exceed $48,768. This agreement required HR Green to also provide project leadership in all areas such as, but not limited to: grants research and application assistance, preliminary design, final design completion phase, pre-construction services, bidding and proposal process, construction observation, and post construction closeout. Since the award of this contract, the Village has been working closely with representatives from HR Green to advance a final design for the location of the new pump station. On April 6, 2017, the Assistant Director of Public Works and Ajay Jain from HR Green presented a conceptual design to the Park District Board, to coordinate the proposed placement of the Stormwater Pump station on a portion of the golf course property, while utilizing the existing storm sewer. The initial design was met with some apprehension from the Park District Board members with various concerns on the proposed location, interruption of seasonal play, and construction schedule. In an effort to address all of the concerns raised, Staff collaborated with members of the HR Green team to modify the proposed design to reduce any disturbance to the Park District property. Staff believes that the new proposed design will meet the overall goal of the stormwater project and address any concerns that the Park District may have.


Executive Summary (continued):

Recommendation:

Attachments:

Because of the extensive amount of time and coordination that was required for these modifications, as well as the modification in the design, the engineering firm is seeking additional fees to cover these expenses. The proposed Change Order No. 1 will account for these additional costs which include: 1. Additional hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. 2. Additional feasibility analysis for neighboring property. 3. Preparation of easement documents at 824 Boal Parkway, 1555 Hickory Lane, and 1548 Tower Road. 4. Additional coordination meetings. HR Green has not exceeded the original agreement amount of $48,768, however, cost incurred to-date are close to this original amount. Staff has reviewed this request for additional fees and believes that they are reasonable considering the modifications to the original scope of the contract and the additional time required to complete the design. Staff is recommending approving this change order for an amount not to exceed $33,115. The additional fees will be paid for out of the approved 2018 budget dollars for the Boal Parkway Pump Station Project.

Consider adopting Resolution No. R-15-2018, approving Change Order No. 1 for the contract with H.R. Green Associates to complete design engineering services for design of a new stormwater pump station to serve the area in the vicinity of Boal Parkway, in an amount not to exceed $33,115.

- Resolution No. R-15-2018 - Copy of HR Green Amendment No. 1 from HR Green


February 20, 2018 R-15-2018


A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH H.R. GREEN, INC. FOR THE

BOAL PARKWAY PUMP STATION PROJECT ENGINEERING

WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the Village of Winnetka (“Village”) to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2016, the Village Council approved R-6-2016 authorizing the Village to enter into an agreement with H.R. Green, Inc. (“Consultant”) for engineering services in connection with the design and construction of a new stormwater pump station to serve the area in the vicinity of Boal Parkway within the Village (“Services”) in an amount not to exceed $48,768 (“Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the design of the pump station was presented to the Winnetka Park District

Board, which requested some modifications to the design; and WHEREAS, the Village desires the Consultant to make the design modifications

(“Additional Services”); and WHEREAS, the Consultant has performed in a satisfactory manner; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has offered to perform the Additional Services for a price

not to exceed $33,115; and WHEREAS, Village Council desires to enter into Change Order Number 1 under the

Agreement to authorize Consultant to perform the Additional Services in the not-to-exceed amount of $33,115 ("Change Order No. 1"); and

WHEREAS, the Village Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the

Village to enter into Change Order No. 1 with the Consultant;



its findings, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1. The Village Council

hereby approves Change Order No. 1 in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the Village Attorney.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1. The

Village Council hereby authorizes and directs the Village President and the Village Clerk to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the Village, the final Change Order No. 1 after


February 20, 2018 R-15-2018

receipt by the Village Manager of two executed copies of the final Change Order No. 1 from Consultant; provided, however, that if the Village Manager does not receive two executed copies of the final Change Order No. 1 from Consultant within 60 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution, then this authority to execute and seal the final Change Order No. 1 will, at the option of the Village Council, be null and void.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.



EXHIBIT A

CHANGE ORDER NO. 1


(Rev. 3-3-2011)

HR GREEN, INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1

THIS AMENDMENT, made this 1st day of December, 2017 by and between, the Village of Winnetka the CLIENT, and HR Green Development, LLC. (hereafter "COMPANY"), for professional services concerning:

Boal Parkway Pump Station Project hereby amends the original Professional Services Agreement dated February 24, 2016 as follows: The CLIENT and COMPANY agree to amend the Scope of Services of the original Professional Services Agreement and previous amendments as follows:

Add additional Hydrologic and Hydraulics analysis

Add additional feasibility analysis for Footlik property

Add preparation of easement documents at 824 Boal Parkway, 1555 Hickory Lane, and 1548 Tower Road

Add additional coordination meetings For additional information regarding these items please see attached Exhibit A. CLIENT Project Number: Purchase Order No. 2016-00000142 COMPANY Project Number: 91160037 The CLIENT and COMPANY agree to amend other provisions of the original Professional Services Agreement and previous amendments as follows:

N/A In consideration for these services, the CLIENT AGREES to adjust the payment for services performed by COMPANY on the following basis:

Per current rate schedule with a maximum fee to be increased by Thirty-three Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($ 33,115)

The total authorized compensation after this Amendment, including the original Professional Services Agreement and all previous Amendments, is Eighty-one Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-three Dollars ($ 81,883) THIS AMENDMENT is subject to all provisions of the original Professional Services Agreement. THIS AMENDMENT, together with the original Professional Services Agreement and all previous amendments represents the entire and integrated AGREEMENT between the CLIENT and COMPANY. THIS AMENDMENT executed the day and year written above.

Village of Winnetka HR GREEN, INC

By: Chris Rintz, Village President By Ajay Jain, Vice President, Practice Leader \\HRGMHNAS\Data\91160037\Design\Contract\Contract Administration\Amendment\111317\amend-112817-BoalParkwayAmendmentNo1.docx


EXHIBIT A HR Green, Inc. (COMPANY) was retained by the Village of Winnetka (CLIENT) to provide professional services to complete Phase I (preliminary engineering), and Phase II (final design) for the Boal Parkway Pump Station Project. During the course of the project, the below additional scope of work was completed to accommodate the Village’s request for additional analysis and coordination meetings that ultimately led to the relocation of the proposed pump station. The additional scope of work requiring a contract amendment is further detailed below:

The CLIENT agrees to employ COMPANY to perform the following additional services:

PHASE I – PRELIMINARY DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS PROJECT KICKOFF MEETING

No additional scope of work was required for this task and hence no amendment is being requested for this task.

DATA GATHERING


SURVEYING SERVICES The CLIENT requested temporary and permanent easement documents for 824 Boal Parkway, 1548 Tower Road, and 1555 Hickory Lane. The following additional scope of services was or will be performed:

Preparation of two (2) temporary easement documents including legal descriptions (824 Boal Parkway and 1548 Tower Road)

Preparation of three (3) permanent easement documents including legal descriptions (824 Boal Parkway, 1548 Tower Road, and 1555 Hickory Lane)

Amount of amendment requested: $3,191

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES No additional scope of work was required for this task and hence no amendment is being requested for this task. WETLAND DELINEATION No additional scope of work was required for this task and hence no amendment is being requested for this task.

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

The following additional scope of services was performed:

Additional existing and proposed conditions hydraulic modeling and investigations (original design alignment)

Additional analysis with XPSWMM model to determine feasibility of relocating pump station


Village of Winnetka

Agreement for Professional Services-Amendment #1

Boal Parkway Pump Station Project

HR Green Job Number 91160037

December 1, 2017

Page 2 of 2

from south end of Boal Parkway to easement near Tower Road.

Prepare exhibits including alterations of pump station siting near Tower Road.

Conduct feasibility analysis, prepare concept engineering plans and revised EOPCs for Tower Road pump location.


PHASE II – FINAL DESIGN No additional scope of work was required for this task and hence no amendment is being requested for this task.

MEETINGS In addition to the meetings originally anticipated the following additional scope of services was performed:

Attend one (1) public meeting and prepare presentation/exhibits.

Attend one (1) coordination meeting with the Winnetka Park District. Prepare renderings, exhibits, and presentation.

Attend two (2) additional project design coordination meetings.


PROJECT ADMINISTRATION


PAYMENT The CLIENT agrees to pay COMPANY on the following basis for the additional services:

ITEM & DESCRIPTION Amendment Amount

PHASE I – PRELIMINARY DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS - SURVEYING SERVICES $ 3,191

PHASE I – PRELIMINARY DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS - ENGINEERING ANALYSIS $ 15,190

MEETINGS $ 14,734

AMENDMENT TOTAL: $ 33,115


Documents

Village Council REGULAR MEETING Village Hall 510 Green Bay Road February 20, 2018 7:00 p.m. AGENDA . 1) Call to Order 2) Pledge of …