►
From YouTube: Land Use Commission Meeting 2-23-2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Are
you
ready,
yes,
all
right
good
evening
and
welcome
this?
Is
the
february
23
2022
public
hearing
of
the
land
use
commission,
the
city
code
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
map
and
text
amendments
especially
uses,
including
planned
developments,
zoning
relief
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
zoning
administrator,
as
well
as
to
make
recommendations
regarding
the
city's
long-term
planning
goals
and
objectives
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
commission
will
either
be
a
final,
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
city
council
with
the
staff.
Please
call
the
roll.
C
D
E
A
F
A
Okay,
so
with
nine
members
present,
we
do
have
a
quorum
also.
It's
present
tonight
from
city
staff,
our
neighborhood
of
land
use
planner,
megan
jones,
planner,
katie
ashbaugh,
our
zoning
administrator,
melissa,
klotz
assistant
city
attorney,
brian
george.
A
I
believe
director
naidan
is
not
with
us
this
evening.
Is
that
correct.
D
A
Is
correct?
Okay,
thank
you.
This
is
a
formal
hearing
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time,
so
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
commission
regarding
any
matter
on
tonight's
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
at
any
time.
A
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
staff
on
the
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellate
after
that.
Persons
wishing
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
will
have
a
chance
to
do
so.
Any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
the
defined
notification
requirements
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
A
When
all
supporting
and
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
closing
statement.
Then
the
commission
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations
to
consider
the
standards.
The
commission
will
make
formal
findings
of
fact,
based
on
the
testimony
and
evidence
presented,
guided
by
the
standards.
The
commissioner's
knowledge
of
our
community
and
the
recommendation
of
staff-
all
testimony
is
taken
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
A
When
testifying,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
the
way
we're
doing
it
on
zoom
tonight
is,
if
you
just
raise
your
hand,
if
you
haven't
signed
up
and
I'll
get
to
you
when
we
get
to
the
public
testimony
portion
of
the
of
the
evening,
our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
you
are.
Your
microphone
is
turned
on
when
you're
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
can
be
properly
recorded.
A
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
Any
matter
not
concluded
at
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
We
do
have
a
full
agenda
this
evening.
We
have
one
item
that
is
old
business
and
we
have
four
items
that
are
new
business.
A
Sure
I
see
you
there
trying
to
unmute
yourself
so
applicant
for
1706
through
10
sherman
avenue.
G
A
Thank
you,
the
applicant
for
2356
colfax,
terrace,.
A
Thank
you
and
then
the
other
issue
is
a
staff
directed
text
amendment.
So
staff
will
be
presenting
that
one.
A
A
All
right
do
you
for
do
you
swear
or
affirm,
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings?
A
Yes,
yes,
thank
you
with
that.
We
will
move
into
our
agenda.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
the
approval
of
our
meeting
minutes
from
february
9th
2022..
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
those.
A
Lindwald
moves
is
there
a
second
I'll
second
westerberg
seconds?
Is
there
any
discussion.
A
Hearing
none
miss
jones.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
F
E
A
All
right,
I
will
note
for
the
record
that
we
have
what
was
your
count
on
the
on
the
total
there.
B
I've
got
four
abstentions.
A
A
Jv0002
an
open
vote
of
two
votes
in
favor
and
five
opposed.
I
note
for
the
record
that
commissioner,
arvalo
and
johnson
were
not
present
at
that
meeting.
So
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
ask
them
if
they
have,
if
they
could
please
certify
for
the
record,
that
they
have
read
the
draft
minutes
and
or
watch
the
video
recording
and
are
aware
of
the
documents
and
testimony
that
was
presented
at
our
last
meeting.
F
A
F
A
All
right
so
at
this
point
miss
jones,
if
you
will
call
the
role
for
those
members
who,
for
those
four
members
who
are
not
present.
Commissioner
cullen
has
her
hand
raised.
Is
there
something
you're
raising
your
hand
for
commissioner.
A
D
J
A
So
the
zoning
relief
sought
is
not
granted,
and
so
the
applicant
can
talk
with
staff
if
they
want
to
come
up
with
a
different
type
of
proposal
for
the
for
the
property
that
they'd
like
to
try
to
bring
back
to
us
at
some
point
in
the
future.
A
And
with
that,
we
will
move
into
new
business
and
I
believe
miss
ashbaugh
is
presenting
for
21zm
jv
0
100
for
1224
washington
street.
Is
that
correct.
L
L
L
L
L
L
All
right,
so
this
is
going
to
be
just
a
brief
presentation
to
cover
the
prior
requests
from
the
applicant
that
the
land
use
commission
considered
on
january
12
2022.
L
L
So
this
evening
the
applicant
is
asking
for
the
these
variations.
There's
a
total
of
five
one
per
lot
for
the
lot
size
and
then
the
other
three
are
for
the
corner
lot
so
to
refamiliarize
anyone
that
was
not
present
on
the
12th
or
anyone
new
to
the
public.
L
L
So
this
is
the
proposal
that
the
land
news
commission
considered
the
applicant
with
some
guidance
from
staff,
originally
requested
two
variations,
one
to
allow
the
interior
lot
or
lot
too
to
be
4226
square
feet
and
then
a
second
variation
for
impervious
surface
lock
coverage
for
the
corner
lot
or
lot.
One
lot.
One
it
was
proposed,
as
compliant
with
the
r3
minimum
width
and
size
standards
after
receiving
the
feedback
from
the
land
use
commission.
On
last
month,
the
applicant
has
worked
with
staff
to
revise
the
variations
requested
to
and
the
intent.
L
L
There
would
be
a
building
lot
coverage
variation,
impervious
surface
lot
coverage
and
then
there's
an
existing
concrete
patio
to
the
east
of
the
existing
building
and
to
he
would
need
to.
We
need
a
variation
to
allow
that
to
be
closer
than
five
feet
to
the
lot
line.
L
So
I'm
following
some
discussion
from
the
design
project
review
committee.
This
proposal
did
receive
a
positive
recommendation
and
the
there
are
some
conditions
of
approval
that
were
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
which
I
can
pull
that
up.
If
we'd
like
to
refer
to
it
and
then
another
item
that
the
languages
commission
wanted
to
see
was
some
possible
building
footprints
of
what
it
would
look
like
if
the
watts
were
more
equal
in
size.
L
So
the
lot
one
it's
important
to
note
that
along
asbury,
the
east
frontage
requires
a
15
foot
street
side
setback.
So
that's
why
it's
shifted
farther
and
it
is
also
kind
of
maintaining
that
existing
front
yard,
because
the
average
of
the
the
average
of
the
existing
front
yards
is
what
the
required
front
yard
is
rather
than
27
so
lot.
Two.
L
L
So
this
is
the
second
possible
outcome,
the
lot
to
the
building
lot.
The
building
footprint
is
much
larger
than
the
maximum
permitted
building
lot
coverage.
That's
just
the
building
envelope,
so
the
house
could
sit
somewhere
within
that
in
compliance
with
the
five
foot
interior
side,
yard
setbacks,
and
then
it
has
a
lesser
front
yard
setback
and
then
note
also.
The
easement
would
then
allow
access
to
that
detached
garage
on
lot
too,
have
the
standards
up
for
reference.
A
Thank
you
yeah,
so
this
was.
This
was
a
case
that
we
heard
at
our
first
meeting
and
we
had
given
some
direction
based
on
that
initial
hearing
about
how
we
would
like
to
to
see
the
lots
more
equally
divided
was
the
wish
of
some
of
the
commissioners
and
other
commissioners
like
miss
asheville,
had
mentioned
and
were
concerned
about
how
to
access
parking
on
the
newly
created
lot.
With
this,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
tullio
and
just
ask
him
if
he
would
like
to
speak
briefly.
A
We
have
kind
of
the
history
of
this
lot.
I
think
most
of
us
were
present
last
time.
So
if
you
just
kind
of
want
to
talk
to
us
just
briefly
about
this
new
proposal
and
then
we
will
take
any
other
testimony
that
needs
to
be
taken
and
deliberate.
The
case.
C
F
L
I
also
just
sent
him
a
quick
email
to
let
him
know
he
was
booted,
so
he
can
get
back
in.
A
You
froze
up
on
us
so
go
ahead
and
tell
us
about
your
project.
We
didn't
get
too
far
into
it.
You'd
met
with
dapper
for.
C
A
C
M
L
First,
I'd
like
to
clarify
the
condition
of
approval
was
that
he
could
then
replace
the
concrete
with
permeable
pavers.
Okay.
L
Does
but
just
with
the
reduced
rate,
brick
pavers
would
be
20
have
a
20
deduction,
so
but
permeable
pavers
in
the
code
have
a
25
deduction.
So
like
100
square
feet
is
counts
as
75
square
feet.
So
that
was
the
actual
condition.
L
I
did
not
do
the
calculation
of
how
much
the
impervious
surface
would
actually
be
reduced,
but
I
can
do
that.
M
A
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
questions
from
commissioners.
So,
mr
trulia,
is
there
anything
you
would
like
to
say
in
summation.
A
You
don't
need
to
repeat
yourself,
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
think
almost
every
commissioner
was
at
that
first
meeting.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
so
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
this
property
I'll
ask.
Then,
if
there
are
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
address
the
board
regarding
1224
washington,
if
you
would
raise
your
hand,
please.
A
A
That's
fine.
What
we'll
do
is
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
record
then.
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
commissioner.
Lindell
has
her
hand
up.
I
Actually,
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
for
staff,
but
that
can
happen
after
you
close
the
record.
I
expect
unless
you'd
rather
have
me,
ask
them
now.
A
We'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
record
if
it
becomes
necessary
to
reopen
the
record.
We
can
always
do
that,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
record
and
begin
our
our
discussion.
That
way.
So
with
that,
I
will
close
the
record
and
ask
commissioners
just
general
thoughts
on
the
proposed
project,
I'm
realizing
that
we
still
have
an
outstanding
question
and
commissioner
lindwall
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you
to
start
with.
So
you
can
begin
questions
for
staff.
I
Okay
thanks,
I'm
kind,
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
cross-access
and
kind
of
how
that
would
work
and
and
creating
a
viable
sellable.
Second
lot.
If
you
prohibit
the
access
off
of
off
of
washington-
and
I
I
guess
my
questions-
you
know
yeah,
I
understand
the
the
you
know
the
desire
to
reduce
the
amount
of
pavement.
You
know
by
having
a
you
know
a
rear
garage
on
the
second
lot.
I
But
if
I
read
correctly,
am
I
correct
in
that
the
cross
access
the
access
to
the
second
lot
would
have
to
be
hard
surface
at
some
point
and
that
you
know,
and
just
looking
at
that
dimension-
that's
50
feet
of
paved
surface
at
you
know
eight
and
a
half
feet
or
eight
point
four
two
feet
which
I
think
is
really
awfully
narrow
for
a
you
know,
trying
to
have
an
access
drive
that
narrow
width
going
to
the
second
lot-
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
did
you
consider
the
possibility
of
a
front-loaded
garage
off
of
washington
for
the
interior
lot,
which
you
know
would
not
require
you
know
anywhere
near
the
you
know
it
wouldn't
need
to
be
paved
the
full
length
of
the
of
the
lot
yeah,
I'm
not
a
huge
fan
of
front-loaded
garages,
but
there
are
lots
of
examples
in
evanston
and
they
can
be
designed
to
kind
of
minimize
the
impact.
I
So
I
you
know,
that's
that's
kind
of
my
my
broad
question
as
to
you
know
how
you
know
whether
or
not
anyone
would
be
really
willing
to
purchase
a
you
know
a
lot
for
a
single
family
home
when,
where
the
only
way
to
access
it
is,
is
with
a
you
know,
less
than
an
eight
and
a
half
foot
wide
driveway
to
get
to
their.
You
know
get
to
their
their
lot.
So
I
guess
that
that's
kind
of
a
question
of
staff
that
I'd
like
to
get
some
response
from
and
other
commissioners
as
well.
L
So
I
do
have
an
answer
to
the
first
question
about
impervious
surface,
so
the
existing
patio
is
around
450
to
460
square
feet,
so
it
would
reduce
the
impervious
surface
of
lot
1
to
about
68.
M
L
Correct
and
the
impervious
surface
calculation
that's
was
noticed
for,
does
and
assume
the
required
hardscape
for
the
driveway
so
that,
if
only
the
patio
is
removed,
that,
with
the
lower
line
parallel
to
the
south
facade
of
the
building,
and
then
everything
north
is
remove
that
concrete.
It
would
be
that's
about
450
to
460
square
feet.
So
again
the
calculation
was
assuming
that
the
driveway
would
in
fact
actually
be
completely
hard
hardscaped
in
compliance
with
zoning
code.
L
So
did
you
have
any
other
follow-up
questions,
commissioner?
Halek?
L
Okay,
commissioner
lindwall,
we
did
not
really
evaluate
the
site
design
with
regard
to
a
front
loaded
garage,
I
think
the
design
project
review
committee
they
there
was
not
any
interest
in
entertaining
a
curb
cut
on
washington
whatsoever.
They
did
not.
L
They
felt
that
with
the
conditions
that
are
recommended
with
this,
should
it
be
approved
if
we're
prohibiting
any
future
variations
from
being
granted,
particularly
as
they
pertain
to
impervious
surface.
Having
that
additional
pavement
in
the
rear
would
be
a
problem,
the
front
loaded
garage,
I'm
sure
that
could
definitely
be
feasible.
L
I
Yeah
no,
my
concern
is
that
you
know
if
you've
got
the
the
impervious
surface
along
lot,
one
to
get
two
lot.
Two
there's
still
going
to
be
need
to
be
additional
impervious
surface.
To
have
access
to
wherever
a
garage
would
be
located
on
the
site.
So
suddenly
you
know
you're
you're,
probably
at
you
know
at
least
at
least
probably
60
feet
of
additional
pavement
and
granted.
I
It
can
only
be
like
eight
and
a
half
feet
wide,
but
you
know
that
would
seem
to
be
kind
of
equivalent
to
having
a
driveway
off
of
washington
to
the
rear
of
the
lot.
Even
I'm
not
sure
you
know,
if
I'm
not
sure
that
you're
gaining
anything
by
by
prohibiting
a
curb
cut
on
washington
and
making
his
condition-
and
I
think
that
you
know
I
I
so
I
I
think
that
it
would
be
difficult.
I
I
I
don't
think
that
the
lot
will
be
as
valuable
if
only
access
is
off
of
this
easement,
which
I
would
presume
that
would
need
to
be
recorded
as
a
condition
of
the
subdivision.
I
mean
you
know,
nobody's
going
to
buy
a
lot
where
the
conditions
say
that
you
can't
have
any
variations
so
that
that's
my
that's
that's
one
of
my
concerns.
L
Understood,
I
guess
if,
if
the
patio
is
in
fact
removed,
though
he's
only
requesting
three
percent
above
the
maximum
permitted
impervious
surface
or
no,
actually
not
three
percent,
eight
percent,
so
he's
still
reducing
it,
and
I
haven't
done
the
math
yet,
but
he
could
also
still
do
permeable
pavers
for
the
driveway
as
well,
which
would
be
somewhat
of
a
reduction
yeah.
Well.
I
No,
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
the
the
impact
or
the
the
amount
of
pavement.
Would
that
would
need
to
happen
on
the
on
lot
too.
You
know
when
it's
developed
and
whether
or
not
this
condition
is
really
you
know
minimizing.
You
know
if
it's
a
significant
reduction,
then
that
what
might
otherwise
happen.
A
E
Just
a
question
for
staff:
are
there
other
front
loaded
garage
dwellings
on
that
block,
or
would
it
be
a
significant
variation
in
the
streetscape
to
have
a
front
loaded
garage
on
that
second
parcel.
L
I
personally
did
not
evaluate
the
block
streetscape,
but
I'm
happy
to
do
so
and
we
can
follow
up.
N
N
On
the
south
side
of
washington
street,
just
three
lots
over
there's
poke
john,
the
13th
school
and
they
have
a
at
least
one
driveway.
Maybe
two
so
it
looks
like
there
are
a
few,
but
not
a
ton.
L
A
A
Are
there
any
other
questions,
comments,
thoughts.
A
Okay,
if
not,
we
do
have
seven
standards
that
we
must
find
are
met
in
order
for
us
to
approve
or
for
us
to
approve.
We
must
find
that
they
are
met
and
I
will
run
through
those
standards
and
ask
commissioners
to
please
weigh
in
if
you
feel
that
I'm
an
error-
or
if
you
have
something
that
you
would
like
to
add
on
to
that-
maybe
as
a
condition
or
something
like
that
to
bring
it
into
compliance
number
one,
and
these
standards
are
in
six
three.
A
Eight
twelve
on
the
standards
for
variations
number
one
is
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met.
We
do
find
a
number
of
smaller
lots
scattered
throughout
the
city
that
are
that
do
not
meet
our
our
existing
code
because
we
applied
code
onto
existing
properties.
A
I
just
did
a
quick
search
of
some
of
the
lots
around
this
area,
and
there
are
many
lots
that
are
even
smaller
than
the
proposed
lots
would
be
here,
and
I
think
that
the
the
greatest
impact
is
going
to
be
on
these
two
properties
and
the
property
that
is
to
the
east
of
them,
and
we've
not
heard
anything
from
the
property
owner
to
the
east,
stating
that
they
feel
that
this
will
somehow
impact
them
substantially.
A
So
I
believe
this
standard
is
met
on
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
would
say
that
this
standard
is
also
met.
Each
each
property
that
we're
developing
that
we're
proposing
here
is
about
an
eight
percent.
Minimum
are
eight
percent
below
what
the
minimum
required
lot
size
would
be
and
would
also
allow
for
another
single
family
home
to
be
built
in
this
neighborhood.
A
A
If
there's
something
that
you
want
in
addition
to
what
staff
has
recommended
feel
free
to
throw
that
out
at
this
point,
it's.
I
Okay
and
then
I
I
also,
I
think
I
just
have
a
problem
with-
I
guess
it's
standard
two.
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
be
not
following
the
minimum
lot
size
requirements
for
subdivisions.
I
think
it
creates
a
president
that
it
is
is
problematic,
so
I
think
for
standard
number
two.
I
would
not.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Standard
number,
three,
the
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
The
problem,
I
I
believe
this
standard
is
met.
A
The
fact
is
that
we
have
a
lot
that
is
larger
than
most
of
the
other
lots,
but
smaller
than
what
can
be
subdivided
to
create
two
compliant
lots,
but
I
think
that
the
the
since
the
current
lot
cannot
be
increased
in
any
way
to
get
us
to
that
ten
thousand,
which
allows
for
a
subdivision
of
two
equal,
five
thousand
lots
and
again
because
of
the
fact
that
we're
so
close,
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
The
property
owner
number,
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
A
I
think
that
this
particular
property,
the
the
building
that
stands
on
the
property
which
is
causing
a
lot
of
the
compliance
issues,
has
has
stood
on
this
property
for
quite
a
while.
It's
not
a
newer
building.
I
think
I
heard
testimony
at
the
last
meeting
that
it
was
actually
one
of
the
older
structures
in
this
particular
part
of
town
and
has
been
added
on
to
over
the
years.
A
It
actually
served
at
one
point,
if
I
remember
correctly,
as
some
sort
of
a
grocery
store
or
some
sort
of
a
market
for
the
neighborhood,
but
I
think
that
by
by
by
trying
to
again
make
best
use
of
this
property,
we
have
we
have
a
lot
that's
sitting
there,
that's
empty,
that's
undeveloped
and
can't
be
developed
currently,
and
so
I
think
that,
with
the
the
the
fact
that
only
accessory
structures
can
be
added
onto
this
I'd,
much
rather
see
it
be
developed
into
a
single
family
home
number
five.
A
This
is
not
based
exclusively
on
the
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
a
public
benefit
to
the
whole
will
be
derived.
I
believe
we
had
some
discussion
on
this.
The
last
meeting,
where
obviously
the
intent
of
the
owner
is
to
sell
this
property
in
order
to
make
money,
we
aren't
necessarily
opposed
to
people
making
money
in
the
city
of
evanston
on
properties.
A
I
think
that
there
is
a
definite
benefit
by
allowing
for
another
single-family
home
to
be
built
in
this
area
and,
as
we've
done
over
the
years,
we
have
tried
to
encourage
building
property
building
homes
on
smaller
lots
with
our
efficiency
home
ordinance
that
recently
passed,
and
so
I
think
that,
although
there
is
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income,
there
is
an
offsetting
public
benefit
by
gaining
a
new,
a
new
single-family
home
in
this
neighborhood
number,
six,
the
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
was
not
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
A
As
I
mentioned
before
this,
this
property
has
sort
of
existed
in
this
condition
for
quite
a
while,
and
so
mr
tullio
himself
has
not
done
anything
to
create
the
situation.
So
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met
and
number
seven.
It
is
limited
to
the
minimum
change
necessary
to
alleviate
the
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
again.
I
think
this
goes
back
to
a
little
bit
of
what
we
talked
about
at
the
last
meeting.
A
I
know
commissioner
phuketel
raised
this
issue
and
I
raised
this
issue
of
trying
to
create
not
one
lot
that
was
properly
sized
and
another
very
substandard
lot,
but
trying
to
balance
the
two
so
that,
although
both
lots
are
now
substandard,
they
are
both
substantially
closer
to
the
required
number
of
square
footage.
That's
required
on
this
property.
A
A
And
I
don't
see
any
hands
so
now
we
will
move
on
to
the
conditions
that
staff
recommended
and
we
also
can
put
in
our
own
conditions
as
well.
So
let
me
find
where
was
that.
A
All
right
well,
while
you're
looking
for
those,
I
can
remember
a
couple
of
them
off
the
top
of
my
head.
So
we'll
start
with
those.
The
first
one
was
the
removal
of
the
patio.
Oh,
these
are
coming
up
so
I'll
take
them
in
order.
A
So
those
are
the
four
conditions
so
we'll
go
through
them,
one
at
a
time
that
the
new
interior
lot
not
be
granted
any
building
or
coverage
or
impervious
surface
lot
coverage
variations
is
everyone.
Anyone
have
any
strong
feelings
opposed
to
to,
including
that
commissioner
haleck,
you
are
unmuted.
I
don't
know
if
that
means
you
want
to
say
something.
A
Okay
number,
two,
the
existing
structure,
if
it
is
ever
removed,
comply
with
current
zoning
code.
The
one
question
I
have
on
this
for
staff
is
because
of
the
fact
that
it
is
a
corner
lot.
It
would
be
required
to
have
a
15
foot
setback
on
that
lot.
Do
we
see
foresee
any
problems
because
of
that
15-foot
setback
on
asbury,
creating
issues
for
a
new
new
structure
being
built
there.
A
I'm
seeing
a
no
shake
hand
shaking
heads
no
number
three,
that
a
curb
cut
not
be
allowed
on
washington
street
for
either
lot.
It
sounds
like
if
we
were
to
make
this
a
condition.
We
are
placing
that
as
a
directive
upon
the
community
development
and
public
works
are
planning
zoning
in
public
works.
A
A
I
would
also
rather
see
traffic
coming
in
off
of
the
side
street,
as
opposed
to
one
of
the
main
arterial
streets
through
town,
but
that's
my
personal
feeling.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
feelings
on
the
curb
cut.
I.
O
And
I
agree
with
with
chair
rogers,
I
I
don't
want
to
box
in
whoever
would
be
purchasing
at
some
point
that
lot
in
the
future.
I
Yeah
and
obviously
I
I
I
think
that
this
should
be
removed.
The
other
concern
I
have
if
this
particular
provision
is
is
left
in
then
the
cross
access
easement,
whatever
it's
with,
and
I
would
note
that
just
looking
at
the
parking
standards
in
our
zoning
ordinance,
even
for
like
a
parallel,
you
know
parallel
parking
situation,
you're.
I
Looking
at
a
at
a
drive,
you
know
a
drive,
aisle
width
of
between
11
and
12
feet,
and
here
we're
talking
just
barely
a
parking
space
with,
and
you
know
with
snow,
and
if
you
know
the
the
owner
of
lot,
one
doesn't
park
quite
right,
then
then
you're
blocking
access
to
the
interior
lot,
which
I
think
is
problematic,
but
you
need
to
have
some
way
of
guaranteeing
that
the
that
you
know
there
is
access
provided
to
the
interior
lot,
and
I
think
that
if,
if
this
remains,
then
we
need
to
add
a
provision
requiring
that
the
cross
access
easement
be
recorded
as
part
of
the
subdivision.
A
I
would
just
add
to
what
commissioner
lindwell
said,
that
I
think
that
that,
when,
when
this
whole
property
development
occurs,
whether
there
is
an
addition
to
ease
to
give
an
easement
to
the
second
property,
and
we
find
out
that
that
is
not
possible.
We
have
sort
of
hemmed
in
the
the
owners
of
lot
2
to
having
to
figure
out
how
to
make
something
work.
That
may
not
work.
So
I
would,
I
would
rather
take
this
out,
but
I
also
I
also
don't
want
this
to
be.
A
The
reason
that
that
this
project
fails
either
is
because
on
this
one
condition,
so
I'm
going
to
kind
of
ask
commissioners
if
they
have
a
strong
feeling
that
they
cannot
support
this,
because
this
would
be
removed
to
sort
of
speak
now.
So
we
kind
of
know
whether
this
is
something
we
need
to
include
or
not.
C
A
L
I
would
note
that,
because
this,
the
neither
property
have
ali
access,
they
are
allowed
to
have
front
yard
driveway
go
through
the
front
yard.
But
again
that
was
just
a
condition
consistent
with,
as
commissioner
cocktail
mentioned,
the
comprehensive
plan,
the
general
city
policy
of
trying
to
discourage
additional
curb
cut
creation.
I
I
L
I'm
sorry
if
I
cause
additional
confusion,
because
those
proper
the
proposed
lots
do
not
have
alley
access.
They
are
allowed
to
act
from
a
zoning
code.
Perspective
are
allowed
to
have
the
front
driveway
off
of
washington,
but
to
commissioner
linwall's
point.
L
If
a
condition
were
added
that
would
then
apply
just
to
this
particular
lots
and
the
access
easement
were
used,
then
I
believe
that
there
would
need
to
be
some
additional
review
by
the
land
use
commission
to
not
need
that
condition
to
not
have
that
condition
apply.
I
G
So
considering
all
of
that,
I'm
in
favor
of
keeping
the
condition
in
here
and
then
allowing
a
future
developer
to
seek
zoning
relief
in
the
future.
If
that's
what
they
want.
A
Who
who
here,
who
quick
show
of
hands
among
commissioners
as
to
if
this
condition
were
taken
out?
Who
would
vote
no
on
this
project?
If
condition
number
three
about
a
curb
cut,
be
removed.
A
I'm
only
seeing
one
hand
go
up,
okay,
so
let's
go
on
to
condition
number
four,
which
is
the
concrete
patio
being
removed
and
replaced
with
permeable,
pavers
or
removed
entirely,
which
was
also
brought
up
as
a
suggestion,
and
I
believe
the
the
property
owner
actually
mentioned
that
that
was
his
understanding
of
things.
Anybody
have
any
thoughts
about
not
removing
the
patio
or
saying
that
it
has
to
be
permeable
or
it
doesn't
have
to
be
permeable
or
anything.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
go
up.
Anybody
raising
any
issues.
So
with
that
we
have
those
four
conditions
are
there
are
those
four
conditions
I'm
moving
to
strike
number
three:
it's
not
an
official
motion
by
the
way
to
strike
number
three,
but
whoever
makes
the
motion.
I
would
like
to
see
number
three
come
out.
Are
there
any
additional
conditions
that
we
feel
should
be
placed
on
this
property
if
the
subdivision
were
allowed
to
move
forward.
I
Is
there
a
possibility
of-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
something
we
could
do
saying-
that
the
subdivision
needs
process
needs
to
be
completed
and
required
and
recorded
within,
say
one
year
of
land
use
commission
approval?
I
I
mean
this.
This
is
you
know,
because
the
the
intent
was
you
know
from
the
last
meeting.
Was
you
know
the
the
the
purpose
of
this
subdivision
was
really
to
provide
the
applicant
with
the
ability
to
you
know,
resolve
a
financial
situation,
and
you
know,
move
with
his
not-for-profit
organization
and
can
continue
the
program,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
you
know
this
is
not
a
subdivision.
A
I
I
don't
have,
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that.
I
mean
we
currently
have
that
if
you
want
to
do
developments,
you
need
to
to
get
permits
within
a
year.
You
know
those
sorts
of
things,
so
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
I'm
assuming
city
council,
if
we
do
approve
this,
would
move
fairly
quickly
on
it.
I
can't
imagine
it
taking
them
more
than
a
couple
months
at
the
absolute
longest
by
the
time
things
get
noticed
and
everything
properly
distributed
through
them.
A
Okay,
any
other
discussion.
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
linwell
no.
I
Okay,
I
would
like
to
move
that
we
remove
condition
three
concerning
the
curb
cut
on
washington,
street
and
and
and
I'd
also
like
to
add
a
condition
saying
that
the
plot
of
subdivision
would
need
to
be
recorded
within
one
year
of
approval
by
the
land
use
commission.
A
Second
katie:
you
are
still
up.
K
A
Just
a
second,
I'm
letting
commission
or
miss
ash
ball
know
that
she
still
hasn't
sharing
her
screen
as
she's
typing
emails.
So
before
she
starts
sending
out
things
that
we
all
shouldn't
see,
so
it
moved
by
lindwall.
A
So,
okay,
so
commissioner,
linvall
has
the
motion.
There
was
a
second,
but
I
didn't
hear
who
it
was.
I
think
it
was
commissioner
cullen
is
that
correct.
A
All
right,
so
it's
been
moved
and
seconded.
Will
you
please
call
the
role.
C
I
P
Q
A
Okay,
so
with
a
seven
to
two
vote,
the
motion
passes
and
the
project
is
approved
from
our
end,
and
so
it
will
now
move
on
to
city
council
for
them
to
look
at
the
the
the
draft
plat
of
subdivision
and
I'm
assuming
staff
will
keep
mr
tullio
informed
as
the
process
moves
forward
from
there.
But
it
has
our
approval
at
this
end.
A
It
thank
you
so
with
that
now
we
will
move
on
to
the
second
case.
We
have
this
evening,
which
is
21
zm
jv
0095
for
1706
through
10
sherman
avenue,
and
is
this
a
miss
jones
project
or
miss
ashbal.
L
So
this
is
a
public
hearing
for
1706
through
1710
sherman
avenue
zoning
case
21
zm
jv,
zero,
zero,
nine
five,
stephen
rogan,
the
varsity
llc
and
chris
dileon
campbell
coyle
request
a
major
variation
from
the
evanston
zoning
ordinance
to
allow
two
on-site
parking
stalls
where
26
are
required.
Section
6-16-3-5
table
16-b
for
the
addition
of
35
upper
floor
apartments
within
the
existing
four-story
building,
formerly
known
as
the
varsity
theater,
and
the
d2
downtown
retail
core
district.
The
co-applicants
also
proposed
to
maintain
approximately
9850
square
feet
of
ground
floor
commercial
space
within
the
existing
building.
L
L
And
before
I
pass
it
off
to
the
applicant,
I
did
want
to
note
that
there
was
a
scrivener's
error
and
the
number
of
required
stalls
is
actually
28,
not
26.
However,
the
applicant
is,
of
course,
still
proposing
two
compliant
stalls
on
the
property.
A
L
It
does
not.
I
did
confirm
that
with
attorney
brian
george
he's
on
the
call,
if
you
would
like
to
see
him.
A
D
A
Thank
you
so
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
rogan
and
mr
dillian.
G
Thank
you
very
much
just
a
quick
background.
I
know
we're
running
long
tonight.
I
just
will
give
you
a
quick
summary:
the
varsity
theater
I
acquired
in
2004
at
the
time
it
had
the
gap
and
a
couple
of
every
mattress
firm,
that's
been
through
the
city
of
chicago.
G
Shortly
after
I
acquired
it,
the
concept
of
activating
the
alley
came
into
play
and
discussions
were
had
about.
A
year
ago
I
was
able
to
acquire
the
north
side
of
the
alley
which
made
the
opportunity
to
do
the
ground
floor,
retail
in
a
creative
manner
and
a
hopefully
very
engaging
and
exciting
concept
for
the
city
started
to
materialize.
G
The
request
for
parking
variation
is
really
driven
on
a
a
couple
of
fronts.
One
were
from
an
environmental
standpoint,
a
community
standpoint,
a
sentimental
standpoint,
we're
really
doing
everything
we
can
within
the
existing
shell
to
preserve
the
structure
and
and
work
within
it
and
still
bring
a
dynamic
project
to
the
city.
G
You
know
I'm
very
pragmatic.
I
try
to
be
in
that.
I
like
to
try
to
solve
for
the
problem
as
opposed
to
a
perceived
problem
and
we're
hoping
that,
by
staying
within
the
existing
shell,
the
community
perceives
and
understands
that
the
value
that
that
is
is
bringing
forward
in
asking
for
the
variance
we're
also
trying
to
show
really
why
it
makes
sense.
From
a
practical
standpoint
and
a
functional
standpoint,
you
know
the
drive
to
reduce
car
use,
live
work.
Play
close
to
home,
has
really
shown
some
dramatic
reduction
in
car
use.
G
G
When
you
look
at
this
site
and
you
look
at
the
proximity
to
whether
it's
a
drugstore
cvs
across
the
street,
probably
the
premier
transportation
hub
in
the
city
of
evanston,
which
is
the
l
metra,
the
bus
terminal,
slash
stops
that
are
done
there,
medical
office,
a
hospital,
all
offices
that
are
all
accessible
either
by
foot
or
hopping
on
public
transportation.
G
G
Is,
is
something
that
you
know
just
kind
of
gets
got
me
thinking
about
wow.
You
know
here
we
are,
you
know
wanting
to
worry
about
parking,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
we're
really
trying
to
encourage
people
to
use
mass
transit,
and
to
that
point
I
hope
our
goal
is
to
create
pro
a
program
that
can
encourage
change
of
behavior,
as
opposed
to
just
worrying
about
x
number
of
parking
spaces
in
a
given
project.
Again,
it
has
to
make
sense.
G
G
So
now
that
I
teed
him
up
in
that
way,
I'll,
let
him
take
it.
R
Thank
you,
stephen
thank
you,
chair
rogers
and
members
of
the
commission,
as
well
as
city
staff.
I
will
run
through
a
really
high
level,
just
a
synopsis
on
the
project
itself.
First,
I
just
want
to
introduce
the
team
stevens
company,
the
the
nami
group,
my
firm
campbell
coyle,
we're
also
teaming
with
dma
development
management
associates
on
the
development
side.
Our
project,
architect
is
grec
and
jll
is
working
on
the
retail
component
of
the
project
with
us
just
a
little
bit
about
the
work
that
we
do.
R
We
like
transit-rich
connected
urban
communities,
and
so
we've
done
work
around
the
chicago
area.
This
is
our
district
house
project
in
oak
park
and,
as
steven
mentioned,
we
also
do
an
extensive
amount
of
adaptive
reeves.
This
is
a
adaptive,
reuse
of
the
synagogue
and
former
boys
and
girls
club
in
the
logan
square,
neighborhood
of
chicago
we're
working
with
grec
on
this
project
from
an
architectural
design
perspective.
This
is
a
project
that
we
did
with
grec
in
the
hyde
park,
neighborhood
of
chicago
a
boutique
hotel
general.
R
What
really
attracted
us
to
grec
is
not
only
their
extensive
work
and
adaptive
reuse,
but
also
their
work
in
hospitality
and
thinking
about
how
hospitality
might
inspire
the
types
of
residences
that
we
envisioned
for
the
varsity
theater
and
so
as
we
think
about
the
varsity
theater
project,
we're
really
sort
of
viewing
this
as
two
projects
within
the
existing
volume
of
the
space.
The
first
is
the
retail
experience
at
grade,
and
the
second
is
the
varsity
theater
volume
above,
where
we're
envisioning,
multi-family
residential,
of
course,
just
in
terms
of
geographical
context.
R
This
is
in
the
heart
of
downtown
evanston.
It's
on
bookman's
alley,
it's
a
beloved
place,
and
we
really
think
there's
the
potential
to
do
something
special
with
this
building
and
we're
thrilled
to
have
the
opportunity
to
do
just
that
in
terms
of
the
site
plan
as
it
exists
today,
as
well
as
some
of
the
enhancements.
You
know
what
we
sought
to
do
here
is
really
a
contextual
development
that
fits
right
in
with
the
fabric
of
of
the
downtown
area
and
really
just
celebrating
the
existing
building.
R
We
are
proposing,
as
katie
mentioned
two
parking
spots
in
the
rear.
We
have
aspirations
of
expanding
that
as
we
sort
out
our
mechanical
needs
which
we'll
get
into
later,
and
then
there
is
an
easement
over
the
bookman's
alley
area
and
you'll
see
in
a
moment
that
we're
looking
to
really
create
or
enhance
that
place
as
it
exists
today.
R
R
R
And
so
you
can
see
our
retail
floor
plan,
you
might
imagine
demising
that
not
only
orients
retail
to
sherman,
but
also
orients
it
to
the
alley
and
there's
a
number
of
precedents.
This
is
a
just
an
example
of
what
this
could
potentially
look
like
incorporating
canopy
lighting,
public
art,
etc.
To
really
enhance
that
pedestrian
space
as
we
shift
to
the
upper
level
levels
of
the
varsity
theater.
R
As
steven
mentioned,
we're
proposing
multi-family
rental
35
urban
apartments,
those
range
from
studios
to
three
beds,
roughly
450
to
300
square
feet.
We
are
proposing
three
on-site,
affordable
units
and
all
of
the
units
tend
to
be
a
little
bit
larger.
That's
largely
driven
by
the
dimensions
of
the
building,
so
we're
looking
at
creative
ways
to
incorporate
work
from
home
functionality.
R
This
is
an
axiom
of
the
the
proposed
project,
and
so
you
can
see
we're
attempting
to
be
very
thoughtful
about
how
we're
adding
windows
really
protecting
the
front
portion
of
the
building
and
preserving
it
and
but
obviously,
as
you
look
at
the
alley,
incorporating
windows
et
cetera,
we'll
go
into
some
precedent
imagery
in
a
moment,
but
here's
a
rendered
view
just
in
terms
of
materiality
we're,
looking
to
really
celebrate
the
existing
structure
as
it
exists
today
and
the
material
palette
also
as
it
exists
and
bring
in
compatible
new
materials,
metal
panel,
storefronts,
etc.
R
R
We
think
that
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
create
something
really
special
in
the
heart
of
downtown
evanston,
we're
thrilled
by
the
opportunity
to
incorporate
things
like
lighting,
public
art
and
enhanced.
You
know
paving
and
then
really
allowing
for
that
interior
retail
to
kind
of
spill
out
into
the
the
alley
area.
R
We're
also
looking
at
sort
of
retro
opportunities
to
kind
of
draw
back
elements
of
the
design
to
what
what
what
the
original
era
of
the
varsity
theater
we're,
also
thinking
about
ways
that
we
can
connect
indoors
with
outdoors,
so
things
like
nanowall
systems,
etc,
especially
on
the
alley
to
really
create
that
flow
between
those
two
spaces
and
then.
Lastly,
as
we
think
about
the
multi-family
component,
our
bike
room
is
prominently
located
immediately
connected
to
the
lobby.
R
R
So
in
terms
of
the
variation
as
katie
had
mentioned,
there
are
28
parking
spaces
required.
We
are
currently
proposing
two
on-site
parking
spaces,
one
of
which
is
an
ada
space.
We
do
have
aspirations
for
expanding
that
number.
Dialogue
with
city
staff
to
date
has
led
to
16
off-site
leased
parking
spaces
as
proposed,
so
that
puts
us
at
roughly
0.5
parking
spaces
per
unit.
G
R
Yeah
so
I
would
say,
16
parking
spaces,
so
we
we
don't
want
to
upset
the
apple
cart,
we're
prepared
to
move
forward
with
the
16,
but
I
think
it's
with
sort
of
a
acknowledgement
that
we
think
that's
more
parking
than
is
necessary.
In
this
context,
we
have
looked
at
several
proximate
multi-family
projects
with
similar
unit
mixes
and
similar
demographics
and,
in
speaking
directly
with
the
ownership
groups
of
those
properties,
they're
trending
around
a
0.1
to
0.3
parking
ratio
per
unit.
R
Our
concern
with
over
delivering
parking
in
this
case
is
that,
ultimately,
we
are
going
to
end
up
with
parking
that
we're
going
to
have
to
that
we're
going
to
be
more
or
less
reducing
rates
or
ultimately
giving
them
away
as
incentives
or
inducements
to
tenants
which
will
in
theory,
I
think,
induce
unnecessary
vehicular
demand
and
traffic
in
the
downtown
area
sort
of
creating
bringing
encouraging
people
to
bring
more
cars
into
the
downtown
area.
R
We're
looking
at
an
all-electric
project
at
a
minimum
for
the
multi-family
component,
and
so
those
are
some
of
the
considerations
on
our
side
in
terms
of
public
impact,
most
importantly,
and
certainly
from
a
sustainability
perspective.
The
most
sustainable
thing
we
can
do
here
is
to
save
an
existing
building,
and
so
the
adaptive
reuse
of
the
varsity
in
and
of
itself
is
a
huge
win.
R
A
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
I
have
a
couple
quick
questions
just
because
I
want
to
get
these
kind
of
entered
into
the
record.
Currently,
the
varsity
theater
is
not
being
used
in
any
way,
shape
or
form.
Is
that
correct
the
the
retail
space
is,
but
the
theater
space
is
not
currently
under
use.
G
Correct
it's
been
abandoned.
Since
1984.,
there
was,
unfortunately,
a
fire
in
the
space
at
some
point
and
it
was
pretty
much
stripped
out
with
regards
to
seating
and
any
kind
of
what
I'll
call
emphasis.
Consumer
infrastructure.
A
And
this
is
a
question
for
staff:
is
there
anything
that
could
be
developed
in
this
site?
That
would
not
require
additional
parking.
A
So
if
this
space,
if
this
big
cubic
box
of
air
as
we're
referring
to
it,
were
to
be
developed,
it
would
always
require
some
sort
of
parking
correct
if
they
were
developing
into
office
space.
If
they
were
to
develop
it
into
housing.
If
they
were
to
develop
into
anything
that
you
can
sort
of
think
of
yeah.
A
L
Right
and
technically
right
now,
it's
just
kind
of
non-conforming
the
stalls
that
fits
to
the
rear
right
now,
they're
technically
there,
but
they're,
not
striped,
so
that
that's
and
although
the
applicant
mentioned
they're
hoping
to
get
an
additional
stall
or
two
in
the
back,
because
the
loading
area
is
required.
I
would
that
might
take
some
finessing,
but
I'm
not
confident
they'll
actually
get
three
stalls
or
more
on
the
back.
A
Okay,
a
couple
other
quick
questions.
This
is
currently
a
functioning
alley
and
so
I've
seen
I've
seen
plans,
and
this
is
for
the
applicant
I've
seen
plans
for
a
pedestrian
outdoor
space.
How
does
that
impact
any
other
buildings
who
may
be
received
deliveries?
A
Because
there
are
buildings
that
abut
the
other
side
of
the
alley
on
the
south
side
of
the
alley?
How
does
that
impact
them
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
G
So
current
that
block
has
a
what
I'll
call
an
upside
down
t
so
off
of
clark
on
the
north,
and
then
it
runs
all
the
way
south
to
what
I
refer
to
the
east-west
alley
in
totality
as
bookman's
alley
and
that
runs
from
sherman
to
benson,
so
by
cutting
off
or
at
least
look
converting
it
to
pedestrian
traffic,
except
as
an
on
as
needed
basis.
Certainly
emergency
vehicles.
G
But
you
know
there
are
utilities
in
the
alley
so
on
an
as
needed
basis,
it
is
accessible
to
to
that
type
of
vehicular
traffic
as
it
relates
to
the
building
to
the
south.
Chris.
Can
you
or
whoever
has
the
screen?
Can
you
go
to
that
diagram
that
maybe
has
the
easement
behind
it.
G
I
personally
don't
believe
that
there'll
be
any
change
to
that.
You
will
still
have
base.
They
use
that
we
use
that
as
a
loading
and
unloading
zone.
It
will
continue
to
be
a
loading
and
unloading
zone.
You
know
we
have
reached
out.
We
had
a
conversation,
I'm
gonna
say
maybe
six
eight
nine
weeks
ago
with
public
works
to
ask
them
hey
just
to
put
this
on
your
radar.
G
You
know,
as
we
get
closer
to
the
to
the
construction
period
and
actually
the
easement
being
implemented.
G
Are
there
thoughts
about
one-way
traffic,
not
one-way
traffic,
on
the
north-south,
and
then
that
what
I'll
call
the
west
half
of
bookman's
alley
for
the
you
know
to
coordinate
the
flow?
Does
it
make
sense
to
turn
the
alley
into
a
one-way?
Does
it
not
and
they
were
gonna
assign
they
were
going
to
talk
to
the
traffic
group
and
and
kind
of
do
some
further
discussions
about
that?
Okay.
Does
that
answer
your
question?
Yeah.
A
G
And
and
real
quick,
I
do
own
the
buildings
to
the
north
or
not
built
we
built
the
property
to
the
north
of
the
alley.
I
had
conversations
with
tenants
in
there
and
you
know
we.
A
Okay
and
then
my
final
question,
actually
I
wanted
to
make
a
statement
earlier
because,
just
in
case
a
conflict
comes
on,
I
noticed
design.
Evanston
has
put
in
some
notes
from
a
meeting
that
they
had
with
you
and
for
the
record
I
am
a
member
of
design
evanston,
but
I
did
not
attend
any
of
those
meetings
and
have
not
discussed
any
of
those
meetings
with
anyone.
So
if
someone
were
to
discover
my
name
is
on
the
design
evans
website.
A
For
some
reason,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
have
had
no
make
sure
to
state
that
I've
had
no
contact
with
anybody
involved
in
this
project.
I
A
So
yes,
just
to
clear
that
up
so
back
to
my
final
question:
does
the
varsity
theater
have
any
historic
protections?
Is
it
is
it
any
sort
of
a
landmark?
Is
it
does
preservation
preservation's
not
involved
in
this
at
all,
I'm
assuming.
G
That
said,
and
chris
can
talk
to
this
as
well,
we
really
have
done
this
and
really
wanted
to
do
it
in
a
manner
that
is
an
adaptive
reuse
that
is
actually
trying
to
pay
homage
and
remain
in
the
character
and
context
of
what
it
is,
which
is
a
building
a
charming
building,
and
I
don't
mean
what
it
is
in
a
discounting
way,
but
to
really
extend
what
it
accent,
what
it
is
and
not
to
change
the
character
of
the
building,
we're
not
looking
to
tear
off
the
facade,
we're
not
looking
to
demo
it
we're
really
trying
to
work
chris
I'll.
R
You
know
that
the
project
I
referenced
earlier
that
we
recently
completed
in
logan
square,
has
won
three
major
national
awards,
every
project
that
we
approach,
we're
looking
at
it
saying:
how
can
we
do
what's
right
by
the
building
and
also
try
to
really
create
something?
That's
special,
and
I
I
think
in
this
case.
We
believe
that
this
is
a
great
solution
for
this
building.
R
You
know,
especially
in
this
part
of
evanston,
where
you
could
easily
justify
a
taller
building
or
something
different,
we're
trying
very
intentionally
to
be
contextual
and
to
do
the
right
thing.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Are
there
other
questions
from
other
commissioners.
E
M
Actually,
my
first
question
is
for
staff,
and
I
I
think
I
asked
this
at
every
one
of
these
where
we're
deferring
parking,
and
I
I
just
hope
that
the
staff
is
keeping
tabs
of
you
know
these
parking
16
parking
spaces
that
are
going
to
be
in
another
another
facility.
Just
so
we
don't
double
count,
and
all
I
need
is
a
yes
on
that.
M
So
that's
my
first
question.
The
other
questions
are
for
the
developer.
I
I'm
really
glad
to
see
see
this
project
go
forward.
I
think
it'd
be
fantastic,
but
just.
D
M
Questions,
one
of
them
is
you,
have
you
have
one
bedrooms,
two
bedrooms
and
three
bedrooms
units,
but
your
affordable
is
only
in
only
it's.
What
is
it
two
ones
and
one
two
any
chance
of
including
a
third
instead
of
two
ones,
one
one
bedroom,
one,
two
bedroom
and
one
three
bedroom
in
the
affordable,
and
I
only
say
that,
because
the
more
I
hear
about
this
affordable
issue,
it's
families
that
need
need
need.
The
affordability
and
families
have
kids,
and
you
know
so
any
chance
of
doing
that.
R
You
know
we
we
had
a
conversation
with
sarah
flex
and-
and
we
did
specifically
discuss
that
and
I
think
we're
always
receptive
to
additional
conversations
as
we
work
to
finalize
this.
Ultimately,
you
know
the
reality
on
these.
This
project,
in
particular,
is
that
there
are
no,
as
far
as
we
can
find,
there
are
no
viable
public
incentives
and
typically
when
you're
dealing
with
an
adaptive
reuse,
especially
for
these
historic
buildings,
many
of
the
other
precedents
specifically
around
the
chicago
area,
but
also
nationally
leverage
a
variety
of
public
incentives.
R
And
so
we
are,
I
would
say,
constrained,
and
so
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
you
know.
Ultimately,
the
three
bed
rental
rate
from
an
affordable
perspective
is
a
very
significant
financial
challenge
to
the
project,
more
so
than
to
the
relative
to
the
one
or
even
the
two
bed,
and
so
ultimately,
that
was
how
we
built
consensus
on
the
affordable
unit
mix.
M
Yeah,
I
I
kind
of
expect
you
to
say
that
that
you'd
thought
about
it
and
it's
it's.
It
is
a
big
deal.
People
don't
understand
how
big
of
a
deal
it
is
to
add
affordable
in
terms
of
your
performance.
I
get
it
my
other
another
question
is
you
showed
a
perspective
of
the
north
elevation,
but
the
the
south
elevation
on
your
plan,
the
space
between
the
fields
building
and
your
building-
is
only
10
feet
right.
What
I
I
thought
the
light
and
vent
requirement
was
12
feet.
Maybe
I'm
wrong.
M
I
could
be
wrong,
but
I
I'm
asking
well
there's
two
issues:
one
of
them
is
light
and
then
that's
a
code
issue
or
the
other
is
raiding.
M
You
know
on
on
the
windows,
if
they're,
if
they're
across
from
other
windows,
which
I'm
not
sure
they
are-
and
the
third
is
just
the
view
from
those
units
with
the
wall
10
feet
away.
R
Yeah,
I
think,
they're.
I
don't
know
that
I
have
the
specific
code
expertise
to
respond
to
that,
but
I'm
we
are
happy
to
look
into
it.
I
think
relative
to
the
10
feet
as
it
exists
today
from
a
marketability
perspective,
we
do
feel
that
those
units
are
still
marketable.
R
We
are
looking
at
other
design
solutions
potentially
pulling
the
windows
in.
We
do
have
some
space
to
give
potentially
if
we
need
to
so
that
we
could
inset
those
windows
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
space
or
even
potentially
put
inboard
balconies
on
that
elevation.
So
there
are
some
solutions
that
that
were
exploring.
We
just
haven't
gotten
to
the
point
where
we've
made
any
sort
of
final
determination.
M
Okay,
my
last
question,
and
this
really
isn't
a
land
use
purview.
Probably,
but
I
noticed
on
your
plan
that
you
only
have
one
elevator
and
if
that
I've
always
thought
that
you've
got
to
have
two
elevators,
because
if
one
breaks
down
you
gotta,
you
know
people
are
moving
in.
People
are
need
to
go
up
to
their
unit.
How
does
that
work
with
one
elevator.
R
Well,
you
know
we
do
the
28
unit
project
called
district
house
in
oak
park
that
I
showed
the
picture
of
sort
of
a
modern
take
on
the
prairie
style
28
units,
one
elevator
we
are
proposing
or
we'll
be
in
for
permit
shortly
on
1101
church
street.
That's
a
30
unit
project
with
one
elevator.
R
It
can
be
done.
The
elevator
will
be
oversized,
so
it
will
be
sized
as
a
freight
elevator
and
I
I
would
say,
we're
probably
at
the
the
towards
the
higher
end
of
the
range
of
what
you
would
want
to
service
with
one
elevator.
We
also
want
to
think
about
ways
that
we
can
enhance
the
connectivity
of
the
first
and
second
floor
and
even
the
third
floor,
so
that
there
are
desirable
alternatives
to
taking
the
elevator,
especially
if
you
live
on
the
second
floor
as
an
example.
R
So
those
are
some
of
the
strategies
that
we'll
incorporate
and
ultimately
and
adding
another
elevator
is
a
you
know
well
into
the
six
figures,
so
it
is
not
an
insignificant
financial
decision
and
the
this
project,
as
I
sort
of
alluded
to
on
the
affordable
side.
You
know
we're
really
trying
to
make
very
smart
decisions
from
a
cost
perspective,
as
we
dig
into
it.
G
G
I
also
saw
a
question
about
sherman
avenue
and
and
how
to
activate
that
in
front
of
the
building.
Mr.
A
Rogan,
I
hate
to
cut
you
off
right
now,
but
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
hold
those
questions
for
public
comment,
because
I
want
to
get
the
commissioners
to
get
their
questions
in
first
and
I
was
trying
to
unmute
myself
while
I
was
desperately
trying
to
interrupt
you,
but
my
mouse
was
not
cooperating.
I
think
commissioner
westerberg
had
her
hand
up
for
some
questions.
E
A
couple
of
questions,
gentlemen:
where
do
you
know
where
you
would
find
the
16
parking
stalls
to
augment
what
you
have
on
site?
Have
you
had
discussions
with
with
any
of
the
other
locations
in
town.
G
We've
had
conversations
with
city
about
public
garages
and
we've
had
some
conversations
with
initial
conversations
with
other
properties
within
the
thousand
foot
range.
A
E
I
mean
parking
is
a
perennial
problem
in
discussions,
as
I'm
sure
you
know,
I
wouldn't
personally
want
to
see
a
lot
of
parking
here
because
of
the
traffic.
I
do
think
that
considering
it
to
be
a
mission
to
help
people
relieve
themselves
of
cars
can
be
difficult
in
evanston.
So
I
would
really
like
to
see
some
truly
organized
explanation
of
where
those
parking
stalls
are
going
to
be.
E
I
think
that's
a
really
important
component
to
your
plan
in
terms
of
moving
forward
on
the
other
other
question
I
had
was:
have
you
seen
other
locations
in
chicago
that
have
used
this
kind
of
interesting
connection
between
alleys
and
existing
buildings
and
streetscapes
and
how
those
work
out?
G
They're
they're
very
well
received
they're,
driven
by
the
tenants
they're
driven
by
the
feel
I've
seen
some
in
toronto.
I've
seen
some.
I
have
not
personally
seen
the
ones
in
denver,
but
I'm
sorry
in
in
detroit,
but
I
have
been
shown
numerous
pictures,
some
of
which
appeared
this
evening.
G
There
is
a
wonderful
block,
an
entire
stretch
in
denver.
That's
been
done.
I
can
tell
you
that
these
are
cropping
up.
There
is
an
alley
in
the
loop
that
I
don't
know
the
name
of
it
there's
another
it's
off
of
lasalle
and
there
is
another
alley.
I've
been
down
that
one
and
they're
it's
well
done
and
there's
another
one.
I've
only
seen
pictures
of
that
has
an
italian
restaurant.
G
E
G
Well,
we'll
be
putting
ballards
up
on
the
east
end
at
sherman
and
if
the,
what
I'll
call
the
west
side
of
bookman's
alley,
not
benson,
but
just
at
that
upside
down
t
there'll
be
ballard
ballads
there
that
are
removable
on
an
as
needed
basis.
G
I
will
tell
you-
and
I
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
anybody
at
city
staff,
but
I
personally
have
always
found
that
having
18
wheeled
trucks
pull
out
of
the
area
onto
sherman
avenue,
which
is
probably
one
of
as
busy
a
pedestrian.
What
sidewalk
as
there
are
in
downtown
evanston,
maybe
not
the
busiest
but
certainly
a
very
busy
stretch.
G
I
personally
don't
feel
comfortable
walking,
north
and
south
on
sherman
when
I
get
there
because
I
fortunately
have
never
seen
an
accident-
and
I
hope
there
never
is,
but
I've
always
been
perplexed
by
why
they
let
18
wheelers.
I
see
benson
it's
not
as
heavily
traveled
clark's,
not
quite
as
heavily
traveled
but
sherman.
So
I
hopefully
it's
the
removal
of
a
potential
hazard.
E
Thanks
one
last
question:
I
know
this
is
not
a
historic
building,
but
are
there
any
architectural
elements
within
the
building
that
you
intend
to
save
or
use
within
the
units
themselves?.
G
Yes,
there
are
some
elements
in
there.
We've
had
conversations
with
the
architect.
We've
challenged
them
to
to
come
up
with
creative
ways
to
do
it.
We
have
haven't
finalized
anything,
but
there
there
are
there's
not
a
lot
in
there
to
be
honest
with
you,
but
we
have
in
design.
Evanston
asked
the
same
question
and
we
got
into
a
little
bit
more
specific
details
of
what
we
feel
is
still
in
there,
but
but
there's
not
a
lot
they're
more
ornamental
things
than
they
are
functional.
Things.
A
G
Yes,
thank
you.
Can
you
talk
to
your
work
in
trying
to
comply
with
the
evanston
green
building,
ordinance.
R
Sure
yeah,
so
you
know
we
we
do
have
familiarity
with
the
green
building
ordinance,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
right
now.
Our
intention
at
a
minimum
is
to
explore
an
all-electric
building
for
at
a
minimum,
the
multi-family
component,
we're
sort
of
navigating
the
challenges
of
trying
to
accomplish
that
with
a
retail
component.
That
might
have
a
kind
of
a
heavy,
f
and
b
sort
of
angle.
R
But
so
we
are,
I
would
say,
interested
in
moving
the
dialogue
forward
on
decarbonization
in
particular,
so
we
would
intend
to
fully
comply
with
the
green
building
ordinance
and
I
think
the
the
the
special
thing
that
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
the
the
focus
on
all
electric
in
terms
of
really
preparing
for
and
future
proofing,
the
building
as
we
focus
on
decarbonization.
A
If
not,
I
will
open
it
up
at
this
point
to
the
public
for
any
questions
they
may
have
for
the
developer
or
any
comments
that
they
may
like
to
make,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
please
just
raise
your
hand,
and
I
will
call
on
you,
as
I
see
hands,
go
up.
A
Yes,
I
I
saw
someone's
hand
go
up,
but
I
all
I
see
is
the
name
of
owner.
So
if
you
would
please
just
identify
yourself
and
ask
your
question.
P
Yeah,
my
name
is
ibrahim
shihadi.
I
I
somehow
couldn't
get
my
name
there.
It's
it's
somewhere
else,
I'm
the
owner
of
the
commercial,
the
galleria
south
side
of
where
steve
building
is.
A
P
Well,
my
my
concern
about
vacating
the
alley
and
what
kind
of
traffic
problem
is
going
to
cause
for
the
delivery
trucks
for
the
five
restaurants
for
the
55
apartments
moving
in
and
out
through
it
in
the
back,
you
know
and
by
shutting
the
alley,
and
it
will
be
very
difficult
for
the
traffic,
the
garbage
trucks
also
to
come
from
the
tla
from
the
north
from
the
south
to
the
north.
P
P
No,
I
mean,
I
see
the
la
looks
nice,
the
way
he's
proposing
to
use
it.
He
could
really
do
the
same
thing
he's
doing
the
alley
by
taking
some
area
from
the
first
floor
in
the
north
side
of
his
building,
where
we
don't
have
to
vacate
the
alley,
because
you
know
we
have
people
who
deliver
constantly
in
the
back
and
that
will
cause
a
big
traffic
jam.
G
Yes,
well,
I
don't
I
mean,
look
I
right
now
the
garbage
trucks
currently
go
north
and
south
and
go
west
so
they're
doing
it
now.
I
think
they
will
continue
to
do
it.
G
G
When
I,
when
the
gap
was
my
tenant
every
year
to
maybe
every
third
year,
I
would
get
a
a
a
notice
from
the
gap
asking
about
you
know:
what
are
your
delivery
hours?
What
type
of
trucks
do
we
or
we
require?
Are
we
required
to
use?
Can
we
use
this
truck?
Can
we
use
that
truck
for
size
and
things
of
that
nature?
G
I
also
worked
for
a
business
years
ago
that
had
other
requirements
of
their
suppliers.
Please
don't
bring
an
18-wheel
truck
for
deliveries.
Please
use
a
box
truck,
so,
yes,
those
are
solutions
that
I
think
are
viable
and
out
there,
and
I
am
more
than
willing
to
work
in
a
way
that
works
for
everybody.
P
I
think
I
think
also
there.
Let
me
I
didn't
finish.
Also.
We
have
a
problem
with
the
fire
department
because
the
gallery
at
the
the
gallery
of
the
15
55
units
don't
have
a
stair
in
the
front
in
the
on
church
street,
the
the
the
key
for
the
stairs
it's
in
the
back,
so
the
fire
department.
If
there
is
a
fire
in
this
in
any
of
those
55
units
or
the
proposed
35
units
or
the
stores,
the
fire
department
has
to
come
through
that
alley,
they
will
not
come
through
the
front.
P
A
All
right,
I'm
going
to
step
in
here
real,
quick
and
kind
of
refocus
us,
we've
kind
of
gotten
some
other
questions
about
this
building,
but
we're
really
looking
at
the
parking
we're
not
talking
about
vacating
the
alley.
That's
not
with
it.
That's
not
what
we're
being
asked
to
do
tonight.
A
The
question
has
just
come
up,
is
sort
of
since
that's
where
the
parking
access
will
come
in
as
to
how
that
would
be
impacted,
but
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
afield
from
where
we
actually
are
talking
about
what
we're
looking
at
at
tonight's
meeting.
Obviously,
if
the
if
the
alley,
if
the
desire
is
to
vacate
the
alley
at
some
point
in
the
future,
public
works
and
city
council
will
have
to
get
involved
and
have
hearings
on
that.
But
that's
not
something
that's
in
our
purview
for
this
evening.
A
Okay,
the
next
hand
I
see
up
is
chris
g.
So
if
you
could,
please
just
tell
us
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
go
ahead
and
ask
your
questions
or
make
your
comments.
S
Yeah
sure
my
name
is
chris
green
and
I
am
the
board
president
at
the
galleria,
that
is,
on
the
south
side
of
the
varsity
theater.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate.
S
I
guess
the
same
concerns
that
ibrahim
just
raised,
and
I
guess,
since
you
have
refocused
the
meeting
away
from
the
use
of
the
alleyway
itself
and
towards
the
parking
in
the
back,
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
impact
that
increased
loading
and
unloading
for
an
additional
35
units
and
what
was
said
earlier
about
initially
having
in
these
easements
or
or
initially
having
just
a
couple
of
parking
spaces,
but
with
desires
to
expand
that
in
the
future.
S
How
that
will
impact
the
easement
that
the
galleria
has
and
the
amount
of
truck
traffic
that
loads
and
unloads
through
that
loading
dock
in
the
back,
for
both
the
52
units
that
are
in
our
building
residential
and
the
retail
space
that
already
exists
in
the
galleria,
including
the
restaurants.
There's
a
lot
of
use
of
that
alleyway
in
the
back,
and
I
think
that
increasing
the
amount
of
volume
of
traffic
in
the
alleyway
is
going
to
cause
more
congestion,
especially
if
half
the
alleyway
is
cut
off.
S
R
You
know
the
retail
as
it
exists
today
that,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
approximately
ten
thousand
square
feet
of
retail
that
exists
today
and
while
I
recognize
there's
been
some
vacancy,
it
certainly
was
relatively
recently
populated
with
tenets,
and
so
there's
really
no
change,
and
in
fact
you
know,
prior
to
that,
when
the
theater
was
in
existence,
you
know
that
was
a
much
more
heavily
vehicular
focused
use.
So
this
building
has
more
or
less
existed
in
this
condition
for
for
multiple
generations,
so
I
think
we're
really.
R
I
guess
talking
about
maybe
the
variance
being
the
multi-family
component
and
what
that
may
mean
from
a
parking
perspective
in
the
rear.
You
know
we
propose
the
two
parking
spaces.
R
There
may
be
the
ability
to
scale
that
up
to
at
most
probably
five
spaces
and
that
more
or
less
is
consistent
with
the
existing
conditions,
while
they're
not
marked
well
in
the
existing
conditions.
Today,
I
really
don't
think
that's
a
significant
deviation
and,
as
stephen
mentioned
from
a
loading
perspective,
we
are
happy
to
work
with
the
city
to
come
up
with
logical
loading
hours.
We
intend
to
operate
this
in
a
first-class
manner.
We
intend
to
populate
this
with
fantastic
tenants,
and
so
that's
the
way
we
operate.
R
Our
properties
and
we'd
encourage
anybody
to
to
look
at
the
way
we
do
operate.
Our
properties,
we're
proud
of
of
operating
things
at
a
high
level
and
at
a
class
a
level
that.
G
Would
be
our
expectation
and
just
as
a
side
note
chris,
I'm
happy
I'll
reach
out
to
you
tomorrow
or
friday,
I'll
track
you
down.
In
the
past,
I've
been
dealing
with
your
predecessor
phil,
so
I'm
happy
to
reach
out
to
you
and
and
have
this
discussion
as
well.
S
I
understood
what
you
said:
yeah
we'll
connect.
Somehow
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
there's
an
equitable
solution
for
everybody
and
congestion
in
the
back
alley,
especially
for
the
reasons
that
ibrahim
noted
is.
You
know,
certainly
a
concern
with
us.
S
You
know-
and
you
know,
not
least,
of
which
the
emergency
services,
but
the
moving
in
and
out
of
both
the
50
tuna
units
that
we
have
here
and
the
additional
35
you're
contin,
proposing
the
retail
space
that
ibrahim
already
owns
and
is
active
currently
in
our
building
on
the
on
the
first
floor
and
the
spaces
that
you're
proposing
so
we'll
we'll
continue
the
conversation,
but
just
wanted
to
have
it
out
there
that
it
is
a
concern
and
I
do
believe
it
would
be
a
an
interruption
to
to
how
our
building
currently
operates
to
further
congest.
G
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Any
other
questions,
comments
from
the
public.
A
With
that,
then
we
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations
again
just
kind
of
we've.
We've
talked
about
a
number
of
issues
and
I've
kind
of
wanted
to
get
some
of
these
in
the
in
the
you
know,
just
sort
of
in
the
record,
so
that
some
of
the
some
of
the
concerns
about
things
that
are
outside
of
what
we're
doing,
but
would
would
be
impactful
in
the
neighborhood,
could
be
addressed
but
kind
of
again.
Refocusing
us.
A
Not
seeing
anyone,
so
we
will
go
through
the
standards,
then
and
again
feel
free
to
add
something
if
I've
missed
something
you
think
or
if
you
don't
agree
with
my
finding.
Please
speak
up
at
that
point
as
well
again,
we
have
seven
standards
that
must
be
met
for
this
again.
They
are
in
six
three,
eight
twelve,
which
are
the
standards
for
a
major
variation,
the
first
one
being
that
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
In
this
particular
case,
the
property
is
being
redeveloped
which
should
help
proper
neighboring
property
values,
but
in
regard
to
specifically
the
two
parking
spaces,
I
don't
believe
that
we're
changing
the
conditions
of
the
property
substantially
there
currently
are
a
few
parking
spaces
back
there.
It
sounds
like,
although
they're
not
necessarily
designated
well,
so
I
don't
believe
that
this
will
have
a
an
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment,
property
values
of
neighboring
properties.
A
We've
heard
of
a
few
concerns,
but
it
sounds
like
everything
is
workable
through
bodies
outside
of
our
body
number
two.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
This
is
an
adaptive
reuse
of
a
building
that
has
sat
vacant
for
many
many
years
in
the
back.
Half
of
the
building
the
retail
use
has
been
has
been
consistently
used.
A
It
sounds
like
maybe
not
always
full,
but
but
at
least
fairly
regular
tenants
there,
and
so
the
zoning
ordinance
does
does
seek
to
to
reuse
existing
structures
where
possible
and
make
them
comp
or
make
them
fit
in
with
with
the
current
lifestyle
of
people
and
what
people
in
evanston
need
and
want.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
met.
A
Number
three,
the
alleged
hardship
of
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property
again.
This
is
a
building
that
I
don't
know
exactly
when
the
varsity
theater
was
built,
but
it's
been
there
for
quite
a
while,
and
the
space
that's
been
allotted
for
parking
has
been
there
since
the
construction
of
that
building
and
the
neighboring
buildings.
A
So
unfortunately,
there
is
no
place
that
28
parking
spaces
could
fit
on
this
property,
and
it's
because
of
the
way
the
property
was
developed.
Many
many
years
ago,
number
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
for
practical,
practical
difficulty.
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience,
a
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out.
This
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
question
of.
If
anything
is
done
with
the
old
theater
space
parking
requirements
are
going
to
kick
in,
there's
nothing
that
could
really
be
developed
here.
A
That
would
not
require
some
level
of
parking
and
with
only
two
to
two
to
five,
I
think,
is
what
what
the
the
number
they
said
they
might
be
able
to
expand
to
upon
digging
into
this
doesn't
come
anywhere
near
the
28
spaces
that
would
be
required.
A
So
basically
that
means
nothing
can
be
developed
here
if,
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
applied,
so
I
believe
that
standard
is
met
number
five.
The
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
the
public
benefit
aspect
which
I'm
not
going
to
read.
A
I
don't
believe
that
these
parking
spaces
are
going
to
drastically
increase
property
values
for
any
development
that
occurs
in
the
site.
It
sounds
like
that,
with
just
the
two
parking
spaces
for
35
units
that
are
being
built
there,
it's
not
something
that's
going
to
drive
income
significantly
for
this
property
or
for
this
developer.
A
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
met
at
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
this
board.
Again,
the
the
fact
that
the
two
parking
spaces
is
kind
of
what
can
be
placed
there.
They
might
be
able
to
stretch
it
to
a
couple
more,
but
it's
we're
never
going
to
fit
the
full
28
in
there
and
the
fact
that
they
are
looking
at
leasing
parking
spaces
from
the
city
to
bring
them
into
greater
compliance.
A
I
believe
that
the
standard
is
met
as
well.
Is
there
anyone
who
disagrees
with
findings
of
my
findings
on
any
of
the
standards.
A
I
Okay,
let
me
see
if
I
can
do
this
properly
I'd
like
to
recommend
with
respect
to
1706-10
sherman
avenue,
21
zm
jv
0095.
I
I
reckon
move
approval
of
to
recommend
approval
of
a
major
variation
to
allow
two
on-site
parking
stalls
where
28
are
required,
with
the
condition
that
the
applicant
leaves
16
additional
parking
stalls
off-site
for
a
total
of
18
stalls
where
28
are
required.
A
J
Q
A
So,
with
a
nine
to
zero
vote,
the
project
moves
forward
to
city
council
with
a
recommendation
for
approval.
A
A
You
thank
you
with
that.
Now
we'll
move
on
to
our
third
case
this
evening,
which
is
22
zm,
jv,
zmjv0005,
2356,
colfax
terrace.
I
think
our
zoning
administrator
is
handling
this
one.
If
I'm
correct
so
miss
kloss.
If
you
would,
please
read
it
into
the
record
for
me.
N
Thank
you,
matt
sarah
and
patrick
hillman
property
owners
submit
for
major
zoning
relief
from
the
evanston
zoning
ordinance
for
additions
to
a
single
family
residence
in
the
r1
single
family
residential
district.
The
applicants
request
zoning
relief
for
32.7
building
lot
coverage
where
a
maximum
30
is
allowed
section,
6827,
54.5,
impervious
surface
coverage,
where
a
maximum
45
is
allowed
section.
N
Six,
eight
two:
ten,
a
one
point:
five
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
five
feet
is
required;
section:
six,
eight:
two:
eight,
a
three
point:
three
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
4.5
feet
is
required
for
a
yard,
obstruction
or
roof
overhang,
section:
6419,
a
17.4
foot,
west
rear
yard
setback
where
30
feet
is
required.
Section
6828,
a
10.5
foot,
west
rear
yard
setback
where
27
feet
is
required
for
a
yard
obstruction.
N
N
With
that
said,
revisions
were
submitted
on
february
11
2022
and
that
did
completely
eliminate
the
request
for
building
lot
coverage
and
for
accessory
structure
height
and
it
reduced
the
impervious
surface
variation
request
down
to
51.4
percent.
I
A
A
Right
I
saw
that
I
just
wanted
to.
I
was
looking
at
my
my
agenda
here
and
was
trying
to
keep
track
of
things
because
I
go
back
and
forth.
Sometimes
I
do
have
one
question
for
staff
before
I
let.
Mr
mr
hillman
begin
here,
we
received
a
unanimous,
neutral
recommendation
from
dapper.
N
A
Is
is
there
any
particular
reason
that
that
occurred
when
I,
when
I
was
reading
through
the
dapper
minutes,
it
appears
that
a
number
of
people
had
reservations
about
this,
but
then
it
was
a
unanimous
decision
and
you
may
not
be
able
to
answer
this
for
me,
but
I
suppose
I
would
like
someone,
perhaps
director
knight
at
some
point.
A
So
that's
not
necessarily
a
question
for
you,
ms
klotz.
It's
kind
of
a
comment,
maybe
I'll,
throw
that
back
to
my
my
regular
staff,
who,
who
is
our
liaison
here
to
maybe
follow
up
with
miss
knight
and
ask
her
if
she
could
just
provide
us
some
insight
as
to
why
a
neutral
recommendation
has
come
forward.
We
don't
do
that
when
we,
when
we
send
things
on
to
city
council,
and
I
would
like
that
not
to
become
regular
habit
for
city
staff
to
present
things
to
us
with
a
non-recommendation
I'd
either.
A
I'd
like
to
see
at
least
a
vote
of
people
are
in
favor,
people
are
split
people
or
whatever.
So
if
you
could
just
follow
up
with
that,
and
maybe
at
our
next
meeting
have
something
for
us
or
put
it
in
an
email
to
us,
I'd
appreciate
that.
A
H
Thank
you
very
much
and
also
I'm
joined
by
joe
lamke,
who
is
my
architect
and
also
my
cousin
in
the
interest
of
transparency
here
and
so
joe
aaron
I'll
pull
up
a
couple
of
slides,
if
you
folks
don't
mind
to
just
walk
through,
and
hopefully
try
and
simplify
some
of
this
because-
and
I
don't
want
to-
I
can't
speak
for
for
dapper,
but
I
can't
say
that
this
is
a
really
unique
sort
of
project
because
of
the
nature
of
the
property
and
we
well.
Let
me
quick
share
the
screen.
H
So
I
know
they
say
you
should
never
discuss
politics
when
you
meet
a
new
group
of
people,
but
this
part
of
evanston
is
my
wife
and
is
favorite
part
of
evanston,
and
everyone
has
their
favorite
part,
and
this
is
ours
and
last
year,
when
we
had
the
opportunity
to
purchase
finally
a
piece
of
property
in
this
area
of
evanston
we
jumped
on
it,
but
there
are
three
specific
characteristics
that
are
extraordinarily
atypical,
perhaps
not
in
a
one-off
scenario.
H
But
when
they're
combined
together,
probably
make
this
a
piece
of
property,
I
would
guess
limited
to
one
or
two
other
piece
of
properties,
if
not
wholly
unique
in
the
area
and
as
a
result,
and
because
this
property
was
developed
over
50
years
ago
and
has
remained
unchanged
since
that
time.
H
It's
currently
not
in
compliance
according
to
code
and
trying
to
sort
of
update
this
home
in
a
way
that's
what's
livable,
but
also
protect
certain
characteristics.
The
neighborhood
really
important
to
us
is
extraordinarily
challenging,
and
what
you're
looking
at
here
on
this
main
slide
is
probably
the
most
important
part
of
the
entire
equation
here
or
one
of
two.
This
is
the
alley
that
runs
down
the
side
of
our
property
and
and
what
you'll
see
at
the
end
of
the
street.
There
is
a
very
wide
alley.
H
It's
I
believe
it's
20
feet,
or
maybe
it's
a
little
bit
wider
than
that
and
that
white
fence
line
there
has
been
there
since
the
property
was
really
developed
and
has
been
unmolested
for
50
years.
H
H
So
I
think,
first
of
all,
for
us
what's
most
important
is
that
these
were
our
project
objectives,
we're
looking
to
rebuild
this
six-year-old
house.
That's
again,
this
very
atypical
home,
or
a
lot
that
can
house
my
family,
my
wife
and
our
kids,
and
it's
been
vacant
for
over
a
decade.
H
We
want
to
block
off
views
and
access
for
our
children
to
these
alley.
This
exposed
alley
and
trash
cans,
which
we
and
I
think
a
number
of
our
neighbors
believe-
would
be
a
quality
of
life
and
safety
update
and
will
be
in
the
interest
of
the
entire
neighborhood
and
then.
Finally,
we
really
want
to
maintain
the
look
and
feel
of
the
mid-century
neighborhood.
It's
a
very
unique
little
like
cul-de-sac
community
in
evanston,
and
we
love
it
and
we
want
to
help
maintain
it.
H
So
with
that
here's,
where
some
of
the
challenges
kind
of
come
in
to
our
north,
we
have
that
really
long
ally
that
runs
the
entire
length
of
our
property.
Again,
there's
no
shortage
of
pieces
of
property
in
evans.
Didn't
have
this
issue
then,
to
our
west.
We
also
have
the
railroad
tracks
and
that
is
noisy,
and
obviously
we
wanted
to
find
a
way
to
build
a
home.
That's
going
to
protect
that
noise
and
block
it
off.
H
Colfax
terrace
is
privately
owned,
but
also
has
a
large
cul-de-sac
at
the
end
of
it,
which
goes
primarily
into
our
property,
which
allows
our
neighbors
to
be
able
to
drive
easily
in
and
out
of
their
own
properties,
which
obviously
is
unique
for
a
number
of
different
cases.
But
it
also
comes
into
play
around
impervious
land
and
everything
else.
So
when
you
take
these
three
characteristics
and
put
them
together,
we
believe
this
is
a
really
atypical
property.
H
And
knowing
that,
though,
you
know
joe
and
my
wife
and
I
have
worked
really
hard
over
the
last
six
months-
to
try
and
figure
out
like
what
is
a
design
that
we
can
do
here.
That's
going
to
really
bring
life
to
this
space,
to
protect
the
characteristics
that
we
love
so
much
about,
and
I
think
our
neighbors
really
like
about
it
as
well
and
also
actually
improve
the
property
around
us
both
to
our
benefit
and
also
to
our
neighbors.
H
So
this
is
essentially
what
the
site
map
looks
like
and
I'll.
Let
joe
talk
a
little
bit
about
a
number
of
these
different
variations
that
we're
asking,
but,
as
you'll
see
at
the
very
top,
there's
a
very
thin
little
dotted
line.
That
is
that
current
existing
white
fence
line
that
has
again
been
there
since
the
home
was
built,
we're
looking
to
build
within
that
fence
line
we're
not
looking
to
go
up
to
it,
we're
not
looking
to
go
beyond
it.
H
The
darker
sort
of
red
line
is
where
the
current
house
sort
of
sits
and
so
we're
looking
to
just
sort
of
change
that
footprint
a
little
bit
while
maintaining
that
sort
of
like
sort
of
structure
without
having
to
encourage
onto
our
neighbors
as
you'll
see
on
the
right.
That's
actually
a
picture
taken
from
my
neighbor's
advantage.
H
They,
like
us,
look
directly
into
the
alley
in
our
neighbors
garbage
cans
and
into
the
the
street
lights
that
are
there
to
to
light
that
alley,
and
so
we've
really
done
everything
we
can
to
figure
out.
Some
creative
ways
to
you
know
develop
this
project
in
a
way
that
is,
you
know
in
the
interest
of
the
community,
that's
in
line
with
what
the
code
is
and
in
a
way
that
allows
us
to
be
as
compliant
as
possible
to
to
to
do
that.
H
Here's
just
one
sort
of
last
few
before
I
turn
it
over
to
joe
to
kind
of
walk
through,
I
think
some
buckets
and
what
we're
looking
for,
but
again
as
you'll
see
it's
just
really
kind
of
a
strange
layout
and
obviously,
when
this
area
was
developed,
it's
it
continues
to
be
privately
owned
by
myself
and
my
neighbors.
It
was
just
a
different
time,
and
so
you
know
many
of
my
neighbors.
H
You
know
to
build
up
this
property,
but
we
don't
want
to
do
anything,
that's
going
to
impugn
on
their
ability
to
access
their
driveways
to
have
better
views
in
the
neighborhood,
and
so
you
know
this
is
another
sort
of
key
aspect
of
this
project
that
we're
working
really
hard
to
sort
of
find
creative
solutions
to
so
joe,
do
you
want
to
talk
through
here
and
take
over
and
and
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
specific
characteristics
here
of
the
project
and
and
why
they're
important
to
us
why
some
of
them
weren't
we've
sort
of
changed?
H
T
So
to
begin,
I
need
to
admit
that
there
was
a
scrivener
bartleby's
scrivener
error
in
one
of
our
drawings.
T
However,
subsequent
to
that,
as
all
kinds
of
changes
were
happening,
subsequent
to
that
submittal
for
a
minor
zoning
variation,
we
fat
fingered
the
number,
the
impervious
surface
coverage
and
thought
the
maximum
was
higher
than
it
is.
So
we
admit
to
this
mistake:
we
re
we
cut.
We
identified
it
just
recently
on
february
17th,
we
notified
melissa
that
that
was
part
of
our
problem,
but
from
the
beginning
we
had
not.
T
T
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
take
that
issue
off
the
table
so
of
the
12
items
that
melissa
read
through,
which
was
helpful.
We
really
have
three
items
in
green.
The
first
one
is
lot
coverage.
The
second
one
is
impervious
surface
coverage
and
the
tenth
item
she
read
was
the
height
of
the
chimney,
which
is
located
on
this
diagram.
You
can
see
the
number
10
where
there's
an
outdoor
fireplace,
so
those
three
items
are
no
longer
on
the
list:
we're
not
requesting
those
variations
from
the
beginning,
as
patrick
described.
T
We
really
are
looking
at
a
setback
off
the
alley.
That's
what
this
has
been
about.
That's
why
we
thought
we
could
apply
for
a
minor
variation.
As
you
can
see,
on
this
diagram.
There's
two
very
nice
elm
trees
towards
the
north
east
portion
of
the
site.
We
want
to
make
sure
we
maintain
them
so
we're
trying
to
navigate
the
house
through
there
and
simultaneously
block
off
the
alley,
but
so
those
two
setbacks
where
number
three
and
number
eight
are.
T
Those
are
rooms
that
are
set
back
off
the
alley,
but
give
us
this
kind
of
undulating
effect
on
the
alley
that
mimics
the
rest
of
the
alley.
Instead
of
we
had
an
earlier
scheme
much
earlier,
where
we
had
one
long
wall
continuous
wall
and
we
wanted
to
push
the
bicycle
room,
which
is
number
eight
there
even
further
to
the
east,
because
it's
really
a
side
yard
and
make
the
front
of
the
house
the
south.
The
effective
front
is
the
south
facade,
but
that
was
an
earlier
scheme.
T
We
tried
to
elongate
it,
and,
but
we
ended
up
here
so
so
we're
here
and
really
three
and
eight
are
both
setbacks
off
the
alley.
So
if
we
get
the
setback
for
three
it,
obviously,
if
we
get
eight
as
well,
they're
they're
the
same,
it's
the
same
issue:
it's
a
setback
off
the
alley,
but
those
those
are
the
two
most
important
things
that
we're
looking
at
and
then
the
blue
items.
The
blue
numbers
there
impact
how
the
yards
these
unusual
yards
on
this
peculiar
site
are
interpreted.
T
So
there's
the
neighbor
to
the
north.
You
could
see
a
diagonal
dashed
line
to
the
left
of
the
site.
That's
the
setback
line
to
the
northern
neighbor,
who
has
no
curb
cut
on
poplar
avenue,
that's
poplar
avenue,
which
is
a
dead
end.
Just
south
of
us,
so
they
have
no
curb
cut
there,
so
we're
similar
to
them
on
the
north
side
of
the
alley,
in
that
it's
a
side
yard,
whereas
our
southern
neighbor,
they
do
have
a
curb
cut,
which
is
shown
in
this
diagram
and
so
to
them
to
our
southern
neighbor.
T
T
T
A
lot
allow
people
to
walk
around
their
car
without
the
old-fashioned,
tight
garage
dimension,
so
that
variance
that
variation
number
five
is
to
expand
the
alley
or
expand
the
garage
toward
the
alley
not
towards
the
street
and
we're
not
going
into
the
five
foot
setback
of
a
of
an
alley
or
three
foot
setback
of
an
alley,
so
that
one
seemed
reasonable
to
us.
But
it
was
triggered
by
the
consideration
of
the
yards
and
then
number
six
is
the
same
issue.
T
T
That
side
entrance
canopy,
that's
number
six
and
then
number
seven
on
the
on
the
right
side
or
the
east
side
of
the
site
was
where
we
were
extending
a
bicycle
room
kind
of
a
utility
garage
off
the
alley
to
to
block
the
view
for
all
of
the
neighbors
on
colfax
terrace,
so
that
they
have
less
view
of
the
alley.
So
we
were
trying
to
push
that
element
as
far
east
as
possible
again.
H
I
would
add,
and
and
to
block
access
for
the
kids
right
there
in
the
play
area.
T
T
But
and
again
the
yards
have
triggered
this
variation
for
number
seven,
even
though
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
is
keep
that
barrier
from
the
alley
and
hide
the
trash
cans
for
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
on
colfax
terrace.
So
that
was
number
seven
and
then
number
12.
The
other
item.
That's
the
seven
foot,
three
fence
height.
We
were
not
calling
that
a
fence
because
it
is
five.
It's
within
the
side,
yard
setback
of
five
feet.
So
it's
beyond.
It's
not
close
to
the
property
line.
Number
one
number
two.
T
We
didn't
want
to
take
away
the
southern
neighbors
privacy.
So
if
we
raise
the
the
fence
to
essentially
seven,
if
it's
two
foot
six,
we
raise
the
fence
up
to
seven
foot
three,
it's
just
enough
that
people
walking
around
on
patrick's
porch
won't
be
looking
down
into
the
neighbor's
windows.
So
we
consider
this
to
be
a
privacy
wall
and
it's
we
don't
think
of
it
as
a
fence
now,
so
that's
that's
why
we
have
12
and
indeed
the
height
of
the
neighbors
to
the
south.
T
T
So
that
brings
us
to
the
gray
items
so
there's
a
number
of
gray
items,
4,
9
and
11.,
and
these
are
really
small
issues
to
us.
They're
they're,
not
they're,
architectural
issues.
Four
and
nine
are
basically
a
roof
eve,
so
it's
the
eve
of
a
roof
which
is
very
common
in
evanston.
T
My
understanding
was
that
that
roof
eve
is
an
allowable
obstruction.
So
that's
why
it
was
on
there.
If
we
needed
to
get
rid
of
it,
we
would
work
with
it
architecturally
so
that
we
didn't
have
it.
We
didn't
think
that
that
roof,
if
the
eve
of
the
roof
was
an
issue,
we
fully
understand
it
needs
to
have
a
one-hour
rating
on
the
underside.
T
But
we
didn't
think
that
that
eve
was
going
to
be
a
problem,
but
it
it
sounds
like
it
is
given
the
yards,
the
unusual
yards
and
then
lastly,
is
we
have
item
number
11
there
in
the
south
portion
and
really
that's
kind
of
a
screen
wall.
There's
a
air
conditioning
unit.
Our
southern
neighbor
has
an
air
conditioning
unit
down
there,
and
so
that's
a
little
screen
wall
to
just
kind
of
separate
the
properties
in
a
gentle
manner.
We've
lowered
it.
So
it
really
is.
T
I
think
it's
three
foot
four
inches
high,
so
it's
kind
of
a
low
height
screen.
We
we
plan
to
do
some
landscaping
up
there
as
well,
there's
a
number
of
trees
on
the
property
line.
So
we
see
that
as
a
again
a
minor
issue.
We
think
it
contributes
to
the
well-being
of
the
community
hiding
a
little
air
conditioner,
and
yet
we
were
sighted
because
it
was
in
the
front
yard
when
we're
we're
trying
to
obscure
a
air
conditioning
unit
which
is
in
the
neighbor's
side
yard.
T
T
We
think
all
seven
of
the
reasons
of
the
standards
are
met.
With
these
items.
We
don't
think
there's
any
adverse
impact
to
what
we're
doing
at
all.
For
any
of
these
items
number
two:
it's
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning.
T
T
The
hardship
as
patrick
mentioned,
is
definitely
peculiar
to
this
property
and
the
strict
so
number
four,
the
strict
regulations
are
what's
what's
pulling
these
things
up,
I
mean
what
we're
doing
is
matching
the
neighborhood,
but
the
strict
interpretation
of
the
regulations
is
citing
all
of
these
problems
when
really
they're
they're
not
really
problems
they're,
adding
to
the
well-being
of
the
community.
T
Of
course,
we're
not
seeking
additional
income
from
this,
and
nobody
created
these
problems.
It's
not
created
by
a
person,
it's
just
the
logical
difficulty
of
zoning
ordinances
which
were
made
for
rear
yards
on
an
alley.
Front
yard
says
front
yards
and
we
have
this
atypical
condition
and
we
think
it's
the
least
deviation
possible
again.
We
we
really
wanted
to
push
that
bicycle
room
at
number,
seven
even
further
to
the
east.
We
brought
it
back
that
previous
minor
variation.
T
We
wanted
the
bicycle
room
up
tight
to
the
alley
where
the
fence
is,
but
we've
pulled
that
back
as
well,
where
number
three
is:
there's
a
little
zen
guard
in
there
and
the
room.
That's
near
three
looks
into
the
zen
garden,
so
that
again,
is
we've
done
it,
as
you
know,
as
minimum
as
possible
to
try
to
make
things
work.
There
is
some.
T
H
So
thank
thank
you.
We
look
forward
to
your
questions.
We
hope
to
get
your
support.
You
know
this.
This
is
again
a
property
that
is
not
livable
by
three
major
insurance
companies
right
now
and
we're
hoping
to
be
able
to
get
this.
You
know
going
as
quickly
as
we
can
because,
just
be
very
frank,
it
is
not
cheap
to
have
a
home
at
evanston
and
be
renting
somewhere.
So
with
that,
thank
you
so
much.
A
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
staff,
so
we've
heard
about
yard
issues,
so
the
determination
by
and
I'm
guessing
this
is
by
the
zoning
administrator-
is
that
the
red
line
on
the
right
hand
side
of
this
cheat
sheet
is
what
is
what
you're
determining
to
be
the
front
yard
and
the
angle
on
poplar
is
the
rear
yard.
Is
that
correct.
N
That
is
correct.
It
is
considered
a
through
lot,
since
it
has
two
street
frontages
and
typically
through
lots,
are
treated
as
having
two
front
yards,
but
there
is
a
section
within
the
zoning
ordinance
that
says
that
if
the
rest
of
the
block
on
that
side
of
the
street
has
treated
one
of
the
yards
as
a
rear
yard.
Historically,
then
that
should
also
continue.
So
in
this
case,
since
the
the
houses
just
to
the
south,
which
are
on
the
same
block,
it's
very
obvious
that
that's
their
rear
yard.
N
A
Okay
and
so
the
building
that
we're
seeing
to
the
south
here,
which
we
just
see
the
little
kind
of
top
hat
thing,
sticking
out
of
the
bottom
of
the
page
there
on
colfax
the
front
the
front
of
that
home,
is
that
typical
of
the
other
homes
along
colfax.
N
Yes,
the
among
colfax
there's,
actually
a
a
building
setback
line,
that's
shown
on
the
platts
of
survey.
It
is
not
the
city
required
setback
line
it,
but
it's
shown
on
the
platform
being
15
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
street
line
and
those
existing
houses
follow
that
15
foot
line.
So
when
you
go
to
average
out
what
the
required
front
yard
setback
is
that's
where
we're
getting
that
that
required
number
from
now.
In
this
case,
our
required
number
is
being
measured
from
the
middle
of
the
cul-de-sac.
N
So
it's
a
little
odd,
but
the
intent
of
the
regulation
is
that
everything's
aligning
roughly
the
same
at
15
feet
from
the
street.
So
the
intent
of
the
regulation
would
have
been
on
this
property
to
follow
the
curve
of
the
cul-de-sac
with
a
15-foot
setback
from
which
would
still
trigger
a
variation,
but
that
would
be
appropriate.
A
N
They
do
but
because
it's
not
a
cul-de-sac
or
not
a
full
cul-de-sac
at
those
parts,
if
you
actually
measure
from
their
front
property
line
to
where
their
house
is
it's,
it
amounts
differently.
If
that
makes
sense.
Okay,
I
believe
we
came
that
to
the
conclusion
that
the
required
front
yard
setback
was
38
feet.
I
believe.
N
Correct
definitely
correct
at
the
southernmost
portion
and
then
theoretically
it
would
follow
the
curvature
of
the
cul-de-sac.
So
then
the
house
could
come
somewhat
closer
to
the
street
as
you
go
further
north.
A
Okay,
I
I
don't
like
following
the
calls,
because
that
makes
it
difficult
to
figure
out
what
the
dimension
is,
because
it's
different
everywhere
around
that
cul-de-sac.
Okay,
so
with
that
I'll
ask
mr
lamke:
did
you
have
a
point
to
make?
I
saw
your
hand
go
up.
T
I
did
it's
just
a
small
point,
but
the
the
matching
of
the
neighbors
yards
to
the
south,
the
southern
neighbors,
do
not
have
an
alley
that
they're
dealing
with
as
well
so
matching
the
neighbors
to
the
north
seems
a
more
appropriate
match
because
they
have
the
same
situation
as
the
alley
et
cetera.
I
mean
that's
why
I
pointed
out.
The
garage
is
off
of
the
alley,
whereas
our
neighbors
to
the
south,
the
garage
is
off
of
poplar
avenue.
T
A
A
A
Are
there
questions
from
commissioners
on
this?
If
you
just
raise
your
hand.
I
Yeah,
I
just
have
a
a
question
about
the
materials
yeah.
I
couldn't
quite
figure
out
the
fence
along
the
alley.
Are
you
proposing
replacing
it.
D
T
Right,
it's
a
good
question.
A
lot
of
this.
It
depends
on
architecturally
what
we
can
do
if
we
can
achieve
these
setbacks
at
three
and
eight
and
where
that
elm
tree
is
one
of
the
things
we're
we're
happy
to
remove
that
fence.
Now,
from
a
maintenance
standpoint,
the
fence
is
kind
of
nice
because
it
keeps
things
out
of
that
space,
but
so
we're
a
little
flexible.
T
D
I
I
T
The
well
the
fence
height,
I
think
the
maximum
is
six
foot
high,
so
we
would
only
go
to
that
height.
I
mean
that's.
I
Okay,
an
issue
right,
so
so
the
the
the
issue
with
respect
to
the
7.3
foot
fan.
You
know
fence
really
relates
to
the
the
wall
along
along
number.
12.
correct.
Is
that
correct?
So
so
there's
not
a
request
either
either
the
the
pencil
on
the
alley
stays
so
there's
not
a
request
to
change
the
fence
necessarily
along
the
alley.
I
T
T
That
this
just
to
be
clear,
we
are
certainly
not
asking
for
a
height
variation
on
the
fence
at
the
alley.
Okay,
on
the
east
portion
of
the
thing
that
would
be
a
normal
fence
condition
in.
N
To
clarify
the
fencing,
specifically
along
the
alley,
the
portion
that
is
all
adjacent
to
the
house
that
is
compliant
and
could
be
replaced
with
a
six
foot
fence
of
pretty
much
any
style.
N
Once
you
are
within
three
feet
of
the
front
facade
of
the
house,
which
we
staff
is
not
calling
the
bicycle
room
the
front
of
the
house.
If
you
look
at
elevations,
we
are
calling
it
detached
so
from
the
actual
front
of
the
the
main
portion
of
the
house
from
there
and
then
further
east.
N
Since
that's
the
front
yard,
fencing
is
not
allowed
above
four
feet
unless
it's
approved
by
variation
in
this
case,
because
the
cul-de-sac
in
front
yard
does
abut
the
alley.
N
N
It
would
either
need
to
stop
roughly
at
that
at
the
thick
red
line,
because
that's
what's
what
zoning
staff
is
considering
the
front
facade
of
the
house,
so
three
feet
back
from
that,
and
then
anything
further
east
would
need
variation
approval.
T
I
D
I
K
A
K
Just
gonna
ask:
what
type
of
fence
are
we
talking
about?
Is
it
going
to
be
a
see-through
one
like
that
white
one,
that's
over
there
or
is
it
the
solid
fence?
I
was
just
wondering.
T
I
think
we
would
prefer
a
solid
fence,
given
the
visual
obstruction
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
similar
to
the
neighbors
to
the
east.
K
I
T
That
is
a
staircase
that
that
goes
from
the
second
level
to
the
basement.
So
it's
our
second
exit
from
the
basement,
so
it
gives
access
for
this
bicycle
utility
room
into
the
basement
as
well.
T
O
A
Is
there
anyone
from
the
public
who
wishes
to
address
us
on
2356
colfax
terrace?
If
you
just
raise
your
hand,
please.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
going
up,
so
I
will
ask
mr
hillman,
if
he'd
like
to
make
a
summation
before
we
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
hillman.
With
that
and
seeing
nobody
from
the
public
who
wishes
to
speak,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
record
so
that
we
can
begin
our
deliberations.
M
I'd
like
to
speak,
commissioner.
A
M
Yeah
when
I
first
looked
at
this
in
the
the
information
we
got,
I
thought
oh,
my
gosh,
you
know
so
many
variations
and
and
why
you
know
so.
I
I
kind
of
really
got
into
this,
and
I
and
I
I
I
don't
think
those
if
you
have
not
gone
to
the
site
and
walked
it
and
kind
of
pictured.
M
All
these
things
you
it's
very
difficult
to
understand,
but
having
done
that,
I
think
this
is
a
really
really
good
solution
and
I
and
I
think
it's-
I
think
the
fact
that
none
of
the
neighbors
have
any
objections
you
know
to
this
is
significant
on,
especially
you
know,
since
that's
one
of
the
critical
things
in
meeting
the
standards,
but
I
actually
I
I
think
this
is
a
really
clever,
clever
scheme
and
I
would
have.
I
would
approve
all
the
all
the
variations
that
are
requested.
K
E
I
think
my
only
question
or
concern
is
just
the
the
taller
fence
at
the
south
end
of
the
property
where
it
is
so
close
to
the
neighbor.
I'm
not
quite
sure.
I
understand
the
necessity
for
that,
for
the
reason
for
that
I
get
the
rest
of
it.
I
I
just
question
that.
M
I,
if
it's,
if
I
can
respond
to
that,
I
I
think
what
they're
trying
to
do.
There
is
no
there's
no
yard
space
on
this
site.
I
mean
that
what
they're
trying
to
do
with
this
configuration,
including
the
south
wall,
is
to
create
some
sort
of
open,
accessible
space,
and
I
think
the
as
was
explained
the
floor
is
slightly,
is
above
grade
a
couple
feet.
So
that's
that's
why
the
fence
is
a
little
higher.
I
think
the
the
fence
does
two
things
it
also.
M
L
E
A
A
I
will
just
say
that
I
I
disagree
with
all
lots
of
the
previous
comments.
I
think
that
that
this
is,
I
think
there
are
different
ways
that
this
lot
could
be
developed.
I
think
that
asking
for
this
many
variations
and
creating
issues
with
with
large
walls
in
the
front
yard
create
a
problem.
For
me.
I
see
that
this
lot
could
easily
be
developed
based
off
using
the
front
of
the
of
the
existing
house
to
the
south
to
create
a
a
front
yard.
There
gives
them
space.
A
I
would
much
rather
see
that
if
this
is
a
new
development,
be
pulled
off
the
alley
towards
the
house
to
the
south
in
order
to
make
better
use
of
that
space,
but
I
just
think
this
is
this
is
way
too
much
for
this
particular
lot.
I
think
it's
it's.
It's
really
pushing
the
boundaries
of
of
what
I
could
find.
I
mean
this
extent.
A
This
goes
beyond
the
boundaries
of
what
I
can
find
acceptable
under
our
zoning
ordinances
and
looking
at
the
fact
that
that
additional
walls
and
fences
are
being
built,
a
bicycle
room
is
being
added
with
this
little
strip.
That
reminds
me
of
o'hare
how
o'hare
is
connected
to
the
city
in
order
to
make
this
an
attached.
A
Part
of
the
house,
as
opposed
to
a
detached
part
of
the
house,
you
know
finding
the
the.
A
All
the
little
cutouts
and
carve
outs
along
the
alley
like
I
said
I
would
rather
see
the
house
pushed
that
way
for
for
development
and
not
encroach
into
the
front
yard
as
much
as
it
does.
A
So
that
is
that's
that's
my
thoughts
on
on
this
particular
project,
but
I
can't
I
can't
vote
to
approve
this,
mr
lampe.
The
record
is
closed.
Currently,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
to
refrain
from
additional
comments.
Commissioner
puktel.
G
I
also
I'm
not
in
favor
I
I
very
much
want
this
site
to
be
redeveloped
and
that's
in
keeping
with
everybody's
goal,
but
in
no
way
can
I
see
that
this
is
limited
to
the
minimum.
You
know
extent
neces
the
minimum
change
necessary
to
to
be
in
compliance.
G
I'm
I
I'm
kind
of
baffled
that
there
aren't
more
diagonal
lines.
I
I'm
concerned
about
energy
efficiency
with
with
a
much
less
compact
floor,
floor,
pan
floor
plan,
I'm
concerned
about
the
bicycle
room
being
out
near
those
two
trees
that
doesn't
seem
realistic,
that
it
would
actually
not
harm
the
root
structure.
G
It
just
seems
like
they're,
pushing
they're,
pushing
the
boundaries
in
almost
every
way
possible
for
for
a
wide
variety
of
of
goals
that
just
seem
unnecessary.
So
I'm
not
going
to.
I
Yes,
I
do
a
couple
of
them.
I
can
see
a
number
of
the
variations
being
acceptable.
I
am
also
troubled
with
three
and
eight.
I
believe
that
that
those
you
know
I'd
rather
see
the
building
conform
to
the
setback
requirements
in
in
those
two
locations
with
respect
to
the
fence
along
11.
I
know
that's
kind
of
iffy,
but
frankly,
I
think
that
if
you
want
to
do
screening,
a
landscape
treatment
would
be
a
much
better
approach.
I
I
am
not
in
favor
of
the
you
know
the
variation
on
the
fence
height.
I
think
that
that's
well.
It
creates
a
room.
I
I
think
that
it
also
creates
a
barrier
and
a-
and
you
know,
while
I
I
don't
think
it's
necessary.
I
A
A
I
think
some
of
them
are
are
pretty
straightforward.
I
think
number
11,
you
know
asking
for
some
sort
of
a
vegetation
screen
instead
of
a
fence.
I
think
that's
something
that's
very
easily
changed
out,
but
I
think
some
of
the
other
issues
like
number,
you
know
the
bike
room
to
the
east
of
the
house.
A
A
We
can
give
insight
on
to
that,
because
if
the
project
is
denied,
there's
always
a
chance
for
the
developer.
Are
the
I'm
sorry
for
the
homeowner
to
come
back
with
a
different
proposal
and
we
should
probably
give
some
guidance
to
that
if
we
feel
comfortable
doing
so,
but
I
don't
want
to
start
nitpicking
and
pulling
out
things
and
saying
well,
we
approve
this
and
we
don't
approve
this
because
it
might
impact
the
overall
design
in
a
way
that
makes
it
so
it's
not
feasible
altogether.
A
J
J
I'm
I'm
generally
with
with
the
nays
on
this
one,
just
in
a
broad
sense
that
there
are
it's
so
so
much
being
asked
you
just
so
many
exceptions.
So
that's
that's
that's
kind
of
my
feeling,
but
I'm
interested
to
hear
from
others.
F
F
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Huco
anything
else
from
any
of
the
other
commissioners.
Before
we
go
through
standards.
O
I'm
also
an
a
on
the
on
the
project.
I
think
they
need
to
think
this
through
a
little
bit
more
and
maybe
come
up
with
a
different,
just
a
different
plan,
a
different
you
know,
try
to
see
if
they
can
minimize
the
amount
of
variations
that
they're
looking
for.
A
Hearing
nothing
again,
the
same
standards
we've
been
going
through
all
evening
are
found
in
section
6
3
8
12,
which
are
the
standards
for
major
variation.
A
There
are
seven
of
them,
the
first
one
being
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met.
The
properties
that
would
be
most
impacted
by
this,
for
the
most
part,
are
going
to
be
the
ones
across
the
alley
and
the
neighbor
to
the
south.
The
neighbor
to
the
south
has
not
raised
any
issues
with
having
a
seven
and
seven
point.
Three
foot
wall
along
as
well
as
a
20-foot
fireplace
chimney
along
their
house.
A
A
The
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
to
identify
front
yards
to
include
the
green
space
along
the
front
yards.
I
think
that
by
imposing
a
bike,
room
very
close
to
the
cul-de-sac,
as
well
as
building
a
wall
and
fireplace
in
the
front
yard,
is
not
inten
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
I
don't
believe
that
standard
is
met.
I
know
some
of
you
will
disagree.
A
So
if
somebody
wants
to
come
wants
to
chime
in
with
a
positive,
I
will
let
them
do
so.
At
this
point.
M
The
only
argument
I
would
make
is
that
this
this
does
not
this.
This
slide
does
not
follow
any
of
the
any
any
of
the
reasons
why
those
rules,
I
think
those
rules
are
in
place.
This
is
a
such
a
unique
lot
and,
like
I
said,
if
you
have
not
been
to
this,
I
I
assure
you,
you
do
not
understand
you
know
what's
going
on
here,
but
I
I
think
that
this
is
so.
I
would.
E
E
The
third
consideration:
you
can't
argue
that
this
is
such
a
massive
change,
that
it
is
not
in
keeping
with
what
the
zoning
ordinance
really
tries
to
do.
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
that
you
can't
recognize
the
hardships
that
you
have
with
that
property,
but
that
this
takes
advantage
of
every
conceivable
loophole
to
make
a
difference,
and
that
may
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
That's.
M
A
Right,
we'll
go
on
to
standard
number
three,
which
is
the
alleged
hardship
of
practical
difficulty,
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
I
will
again
defer
and
say
that
this
standard
is
met.
This
is
a
very
unique
property.
I
also
went
out
to
the
property
and
and
viewed
it.
I
make
it
a
habit
of
trying
to
always
hit
every
property,
and
I
would
encourage
all
commissioners
to
do
so,
because
what
we
see
on
paper
is
not
necessarily
what
you
see
in
the
real
world.
A
A
Standard
number,
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
practica,
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
that
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
I
don't
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
I
am
willing
to
to
sway
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
in
terms
of
where
the
front
yard
begins
things
like
that,
but
I
really
think
that
that
this
is
a
an
over
development
of
this
particular
lot,
and
I
know
others
will
disagree
with
me
and
I
will
ask
since
commissioner
alec
and
I
seem
to
be
the
two
who
are
discussing
the
standards
back
and
forth.
I
will
ask
him
to
give
his
reasoning
if
he
feels
comfortable
as
to
why
this
standard
is
met.
I
A
All
right
standard
number,
five,
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
the
public
benefit
which
I'm
not
going
to
read,
because
it's
very
lengthy.
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met.
A
We
have
heard
nothing
basically
saying
that
they're
trying
to
build
something
to
rent
out
space
in
this
property
or
anything
else,
to
try
to
get
income
they're
trying
to
build
a
home
that
will
meet
the
needs
of
their
family
and
allow
them
to
to
to
build
the
home
the
way
they
want
to,
but
that
that
does
not
relate
to
any
way
for
trying
to
get
additional
income
from
the
property.
So
I
believe
that
standard
has
been
met,
number
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship.
I'm
sorry
is
there.
A
Anybody
who
disagrees
with
me
on
that
one?
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
who's
disagreeing
with
me
when
I
say
yes
on
some
of
these
number,
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
We've
had
testimony
presented
by
the
homeowner
that
this
property
has
been
kind
of
existing
in
this
condition.
For
I
don't
remember,
it
was
50
or
60
years,
but
somewhere
along
those
lines.
Many
decades
and
there's
nothing.
A
A
I
don't
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met
again,
going
back
to
the
fact
that
I
think
that
when
you
were
talking
about
the
minimum
having
to
request
10,
I
think
it's
10
variation
requests
and
I'm
not
always
a
fan
of.
Sometimes
you
need
to
make
requests
in
order
to
make
properties
work,
but
I
have
a
feeling
that
some
of
these
are
are
above
and
beyond
what
we
we
should
be
granting.
A
A
If
not,
I
will
ask
miss
jones.
If
she
would
please
call
the
role.
A
Do
we
have
a
motion?
I'm
sorry!
I'm
sorry,
I'm
sorry!
Yes,
I'm
trying
to
get
ahead
of
myself
here.
I
will
ask
if
there
is
a
motion
made
by
someone
in
the
affirmative,
preferably
to
approve
22zmjv0005
for
2356
colfax,
with
the
how
many
miss
klotz.
How
many
did
we
end
up
with
variations
total
ten.
A
Variations
with
the
ten
variations
that
are
listed
in
the
staff
memo
and
with
the
fact
that
the
construction
would
be,
in
general,
the
construction
be
in
compliance
with
the
testimony
and
documents
submitted
here
in.
Is
there
a
motion,
I'll
move.
M
I
A
Commissioner
lindwall
second,
so
it's
been
moved
by
halleck
seconded
by
huco,
I'm
sorry
seconded
by
lindwall
miss
jones.
Now,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
D
F
Q
O
A
A
I
will
make
note
of
the
time
that
it
is
10
17..
I
don't
remember
what
our
rules
say,
but
I
believe
at
10
o'clock
we
can
decide
not
to
hear
new
cases,
but
the
only
case
we
have
remaining
is
for
a
text
amendment.
I
don't
think
this
is
going
to
be
horribly
controversial.
A
A
And
hearing
none,
I
will
ask
miss
klotz.
I
believe
you
are
also
handling
this
one
to
read:
22
plnd007.
N
Okay!
Sorry
about
that
22plnd0007.
N
A
city
initiated
text
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
title
vi
of
the
city
code
to
modify
parking
requirements
for
medical
office,
uses
in
existing
structures
and
to
change
ground
floor
permitted
office
uses
in
non-residential
and
non-university
districts
to
administrative
review
uses
the
land
use.
Commission
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council,
the
determining
body
for
this
case
per
section
6346
of
the
evanston
zoning
ordinance
and
ordinance
92021.
N
N
Has
parking
requirements
when
a
new
building
is
built
and
then
once
that
building
is
built
whatever
parking
was
required
is
fine
whenever
the
use
changes.
So
if
it
was,
if
the
use
was
a
retail
goods
store,
and
then
it
becomes
a
restaurant,
there's
no
change
in
the
parking
requirements,
since
you
can't
really
add
parking
onto
the
property.
N
However,
there
are
a
few
identified
uses
where
it
does
trigger
an
additional
pardon
requirement.
For
instance,
if
you
are
adding
dwelling
units
that
triggers
an
additional
partner
requirement,
since
you
really
are
increasing
that
parking
demand
so
another
one
that
triggers
the
additional
parking
requirement
is
medical
offices,
that
is
for
medical
offices
in
nearly
all
zoning
districts.
It
basically
doesn't
apply
in
the
downtown,
since
there
are
parking
garages
and
it
doesn't
apply
in
industrial
districts,
since
there
are
large
parking
lots
throughout.
So
in
all
other
places,
anytime,
a
medical
office
wants
to
locate.
N
They
come
to
city
staff,
we
recalculate
what
the
parking
requirement
is,
which
is
a
substantial
burden,
just
to
figure
out
what
that
is.
We
have
to
look
at
historic
documents
and
how
many
additions
were
made
to
the
building
etc,
and
once
we
determine
that
new
parking
requirement,
people
have
to
go
hunting
for
additional
parking.
That's
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
site
a
lot
of
times.
That's
not
that
big
of
a
deal,
but
when
you're
talking
about
coveted
test
sites,
for
instance,
it
becomes
a
problem,
and
so
what
has
happened?
Is
there?
N
Those
coveted
test
sites
are
only
able
to
locate
in
certain
parts
of
the
city.
We
could
get
a
ton
of
them
in
the
downtown
right
now,
because
there
is
no
parking
requirement
there,
but
generally
speaking
anywhere
in
the
the
main
and
chicago
business,
district,
dempster
and
chicago
business,
district
and
central
street
business
district.
N
However,
we
do
recognize
that
there
are
certain
medical
offices
that
should
have
an
increased
parking
demand
and
we
don't
necessarily
just
want
that
to
be
a
free
free-for-all.
So
that
leads
to
part
two
of
the
text.
Amendment
and
part
two
is
to
make
ground
floor
offices
that
would
be
medical
offices
and
non-medical
and
make
those
into
administrative
review
uses.
Currently
they
are
permitted.
N
So
currently,
zoning
staff
has
no
say
in
where
ground
floor
offices
are
locating
other
than
an
existing
regulation
that
we
already
have
so,
for
instance,
in
most
of
the
downtown
right
now
those
could
all
be
scooped
up
by
ground
floor
offices,
and
then
we
are
going
to
have
ground
floor
offices
that
can
change
ownership
and
continue
to
be
offices
for
many
many
more
years.
N
So
that
may
not
be
the
greatest
thing
for
a
business
district
to
do
when
the
administrative
review
uses
were
established.
One
year
ago,
we
did
make
ground
floor
offices
that
at
that
time,
had
a
special
use
requirement.
We
made
that
into
an
administrative
review,
use
requirement
that
was
specifically
in
the
business
district
overlays.
So,
essentially,
those
business
districts
are
already
protected
and
have
had
some
ground
floor
offices
approved
where
it
when
it's
appropriate
and
others
told
that
it's
not
appropriate,
but
that
regulation
is
already
in
place
and
is
working
well
in
those
areas.
N
N
I
Well,
I
I
will
just
make
a
comment.
I'm
you
know
glad
to
hear
that
the
administrative
review
is
working
well.
N
There
have
really
not
been
issues,
it's
working
extremely
well.
We
have
not
formally
denied
any
any
uses,
but
I'm
gonna
say
there's
probably
10
or
so
that
I
that
inquired
with
me-
and
I
said
that
I
would
not
be
comfortable
recommending
approval,
and
so
they
looked
elsewhere
and
found
more
appropriate
locations.
So
I
really
do
think
it's
doing
exactly
what
we
intended
for
it
to
do.
Okay,.
I
Presumably,
if
we're
you
know
winding
down
on
the
pandemic,
you
won't
have
more
covet
testing
sites
that
need
to
have
locations,
but
I
think
that
that
you,
with
the
changes
in
how
you
know
medical
offices
seem
to
be
operating
where
they
really
are
not
you
know
they
don't
want
patients
hanging
around
in
waiting
rooms
these
days.
So
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
make
this
change.
A
I'll
just
say
that
you
know
I
mean
we
hire
staff,
we
we
expect
them
to
do
the
right
thing,
so
I'm
fine
with
giving
a
little
more
discretion
to
to
staff
and
and
these
sorts
of
issues,
and
I
think
that
we
have
the
fail-safe
of
you
know
if
there
are
things
that
are
large
issues
are
particularly
programmatic.
I
think
our
staff
also
is
wise
enough
to
to
direct
those
on
to
us
as
a
special
use
or
in
some
other
way
to
help
them
find.
A
It
sounds
like
we've
already
had
cases
where
people
have
come
and
said.
I
want
this
and
they've
been
told
yeah,
that's
going
to
be
a
special
use
because
of
what
you're
looking
for
and
they
find
a
more
suitable
location.
So
I
think
that
that
is
indicative
of
the
fact
that
this
is
working
any
other
comments
from
commissioners.
A
If
not
I'll,
ask
if
there's
anybody
from
the
public
who
wishes
to
speak
on
this
to
raise
their
hand,
I
only
see
a
few
people
left.
I
don't
see
any
hands
going
up
so
with
that
we
have-
and
I
don't
have
these
standards.
So
if
someone,
if
these
are
the
five
standards,
is
that
correct
that
are
in
the
memo
that
I
have
to
go
through,
I'm
seeing
a
shaking
head?
A
Yes,
so
for
the
standards
and
conditions
here,
the
first
one
is
the
you
shall
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
on
surrounding
properties
or
the
immediate
neighborhood
again
I'll
just
say.
I
think
that
that
having
staff
we,
we
trust
our
staff
to
make
these
decisions
that
if
it
will
be
a
particularly
large
impact
on
a
neighborhood
to
to
send
those
through
the
special
use
process
where
they
can
be
more
thoroughly
vetted.
So
I
believe
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
two:
the
youth
should
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
properties
in
the
area.
Again.
I
think
this
kind
of
helps
streamline
the
process
somewhat
for
some
of
these
and
make
sure
that
we're
taking
into
account
all
the
issues
that
will
impact
the
the
properties
and
their
surrounding
properties.
That
standard
has
been
met.
Number
three:
the
use
shall
not
cause
undue
traffic
or
parking
congestion
or
noise.
A
I
think
this
one's
kind
of
where
we
really
kind
of
are
focused
and
again
I
would
say
that
you
know
being
able
to
to
make
accommodations
in
some
of
our
non-downtown.
A
Neighborhoods
makes
sense
and
again
staff
staff,
knowing
kind
of
where
the
line
is
on
on
when
they
need
to
bring
something
to
a
special
use
versus
being
able
to
make.
The
administrative
decision,
I
think,
is
fine.
This
is
the
standard
has
been
met
as
well
on
the
you
shall
comply
with
the
purposes
and
policies
of
the
adopted,
comprehensive,
general
plan.
A
You
know,
I
think,
that
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
look
at
the
the
parking
requirements
I
mean,
we've
had
several
parking
cases
already.
We
had
one
earlier
this
evening.
A
Parking
is
always
going
to
be
an
issue
here
and
hopefully,
when
we,
when
we
start
moving
through
with
our
new
comprehensive
general
plan,
it
will
also
take
a
look
at
the
how
the
world
has
changed
since
2000,
when
our
last
comprehensive
general
plan
was
written,
and
so
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met
and
the
use
shall
be
appropriate
when
considering
the
surrounding
vacancy
rate,
public
health
concerns,
which
I
believe
is
a
new
line.
A
That's
been
added
in
to
the
standard
here
and
other
nearby
uses,
and
again
I
think
that
that
you
know
when
we're
looking
at
the
medical
buildings
in
particular-
and
I
mean
we're-
I
know
we're
focused
heavily
on
covet
19
but
hopefully
help
in
the
next
few
months
to
year.
A
We
will
not
have
to
have
testing
sites
all
over
the
city,
but
we
still
will
be
looking
at
different
types
of
medical
uses
and,
as
was
raised
earlier,
you
know
the
fact
that
medical
offices
do
not
want
people
just
sitting
around
in
waiting
rooms
for
hours.
They
want
people
basically
to
come
in,
go
right
to
an
exam
room.
Come
right
back
out
would
make
the
need
for
for
parking
a
little
more
interesting
and
responsive
to
these
individual
properties.
So
I
think
that
standard
is
met
as
well.
A
Is
there
anybody
who
has
any
different
findings
for
those.
A
Hearing
none,
I
will
ask
there's
some
guiding
conditions
here,
but
those
are
really
more
for
staff
I
believe
than
for
us
to
be
looking
at.
Is
that
correct?
Ms
klotz.
A
All
right,
thank
you
with
that.
I
will
ask
if
there's
a
motion
again,
noting
that
this
is
a
recommendation
to
city
council,
since
it
is
a
change
to
the
zoning
ordinance
through
the
text.
Amendment
process.
A
I
I'm
gonna
misstate
it
so
chair,
chair
rogers,
I
hope
you'll.
I
move
approval
of
the
proposed
text
amendment
and
recommend
that
it
be
forwarded
on
to
the
city
council.
A
Okay
and
just
for
clarification,
this
is
the
office
of
medical
uses
stated
in
22
plnd007.
A
J
F
H
O
Q
A
So,
with
a
vote
of
nine
to
zero,
the
text
amendment
for
office
and
medical
uses
will
be
forwarded
on
to
the
planning
and
development
committee
of
the
city
council
for
their
consideration.
That
concludes
our
cases.
This
evening
we
have
discussion
item,
there's
one
thing
about
returning
to
in-person
meetings.
I
don't
know
who's
addressing
that.
B
Yeah,
that's
kind
of
an
fyi
and
then
also
trying
to
get
a
little
bit
of
feedback
from
the
commissioners
regarding
your
thoughts
and
feelings
on
returning
to
in-person
meetings,
beginning
in
april
being
that
certain
mandates
are
being
lifted
and
just
the
general
trend
we're
seeing
towards
opening
things
back
up.
B
This
is
a
discussion,
so
nothing,
nothing
at
this
point
I
believe
is-
is
mandatory,
but
should
certain
orders
expire
not
be
extended,
then
that
could
be
a
question
that
arises
or
it
may
not
be
something
for
discussion
anymore.
M
You,
but
not
get
back
together.
Would
this
be
no
masks
or
is
that
a
question
too.
B
I
I
think
that
would
probably
also
be
a
question
being
that
and
in
some
places
like
chicago
come
monday,
the
mandates
are
being
lifted
we'll
have
about
a
month,
because
the
next
couple
of
meetings
will
be
remote.
They've
been
noticed
that
way,
and
that's
what
that's
that's
going
to
be
so
we'll
have
a
month
to
see
what
happens
once
things
are
not
mandatory
and
people
are
a
little
bit
more
able
to
move
about
how
they
want
to.
I
Notice
I
just
got
from
the
city,
I
think
our
mask
and
vaccine.
I
think
the
proof
of
vaccine
in
restaurants
and
stuff
goes
away
monday
as
well.
I
L
There
was
an
email
blast
from
the
mayor's
office
today
regarding
vaccine
and
mass
mandates.
We
can
maybe
send
that
to
everyone.
If
there
are
members
that
aren't
subscribed.
D
A
Mean
I
I
would
like
to
meet
in
person,
it's
very
difficult
to
run
zoom
meetings
with
a
bunch
of
different
people
all
over
the
place
and
looking
for
hands
and
everything
like
that,
and
I
will
say
that
you
know
even
after
the
mass
band
dates
have
expired.
I
will
continue
to
wear
a
mask
in
public
for
quite
a
while
until
I'm
sure
that
we
are
not
going
to
have
a
rebound
here
and
that's
because
you
know
I
mean
I
have.
A
F
A
I
mean
we're
a
month
out
from
from
this,
so
it's
not
like
we're
going
to
be
meeting
again
in
two
weeks
with
the
and
and
going
right
into
it.
So
I
think
I.
A
So
does
that
give
you
some
guidance
miss
jones?
Yes,
it
is
real
quickly,
it's
not
here,
but
I
know
that
we
also
had
talked
about
our
meeting
on
the
23rd
of
next
month,
it
being
spring
break
for
schools.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,.
B
A
And
then
one
last
thing:
that's
not
on
here,
commissioner
halleck
reached
out
to
me
about
us
all
getting
together
on
a
social
basis
at
some
point
when
people
feel
somewhat
comfortable
with
that,
so
we
can
get
to
know
each
other,
since
many
of
us
have
never
met
and
I
think
I've
been
in
well.
I
was
in
a
few
public
meetings
with
the
plan
commission
and
then
we
went
back
to
remote,
so
I
haven't
even
talked
to
all
the
former
plan
commissioners
in
person
really,
so
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind.
A
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
us.
The
only
requirement
is,
of
course
we
cannot
discuss
business,
so
we
can
talk
socially,
but
we
can't
talk
about
cases
or
general
thoughts
or
that
sort
of
thing
which
would
be
nice
probably
anyway.
A
A
Maybe
when
we
go
back
in
person
in
april
is
the
time
to
do
that
and
and
look
at
maybe
getting
together
socially
for
a
drink
or
or
something
like
that
to
just
kind
of
say
hello
to
everybody
in
person
and
get
to
know
each
other
by
more
than
just
a
little
little
screen
on
our
on
our
computers.
A
M
I
was
just
gonna
add
that
if
anybody
knows
of
a
an
appropriate
venue
like
a
bar,
that
has
a
little
private
zone-
or
you
know
that
would
be
that'd
be
ideal,
I
think
so
we're
separated,
but
not
separated,
right,
that'd
be
great.
So
if
you
have
any
suggestions,
suggest.
A
B
A
All
right
any
other
topics
of
our
discussion.
A
I
don't,
I
see
only
one
person
from
the
public
who's
here.
I
don't
know
if
they
would
like
to
make
any
comments
to
us
under
the
public
comment
section,
but
I
don't
see
a
hand
or
them
on
muting
or
anything.
So
I'm
going
to
assume
that's
a
no.
So
I
will
ask
now
if
there
is
a
motion
to
adjourn.
A
So
moved
moved
by
commissioner
foctel.
Is
there
a
second.
A
By
johnson
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye.