►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 9-30-2020
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
Today
is
wednesday
september
30th
2020..
This
is
the
city
of
evanston,
planned
commission
meeting.
First
order
of
business
is
the
determination
of
a
quorum,
ms
jones.
If
you
can
call
the
roll.
C
A
Thank
you
miss
jones,
and
then
commissioners,
we
need
a
motion
to
suspend
the
rules
and
conduct
our
meeting
through
through
zoom.
Do
I
have
such
a
motion.
E
To
suspend
the
rules
and
connect
the
meeting
through
zoom.
A
All
right,
commissioner
halleck,
I
believe,
was
it
a
second
from
westerberg.
F
A
All
right
miss
jones.
If
you
can
call
the
roll
for
a
vote
on
the
motion.
A
G
F
A
Okay,
our
next
order
of
business
is
the
approval
of
meeting
minutes
from
september
9
2020.
Do
any
commissioners
have
any
any
comments?
Questions
suggested
revisions
to
the
proposed
minutes.
A
A
Westerberg
seconds,
ms
jones,
if
you
can
call
the
roll
for
the
vote.
D
D
H
A
Yes,
all
right.
The
minutes
of
the
september
9th
2020
meeting
are
approved
all
right
item.
Four
is
old
business.
There
is
an
a
and
a
b.
Both
of
those
matters
relate
to
the
it's
ultimately,
the
same
same
development,
a
is
a
subdivision,
a
major
adjustment
to
plan
development,
that's
19
plnd0059
and
a
planned
development
at
1621,
chicago
avenue,
which
is
18.
A
This
item
has
come
before
us
twice
before
once
quite
substantively
in
february,
and
then
I
think
it
was
either
earlier
than
the
spring
or
early
summer
came
before
us
again
and
we
we
moved
it,
hoping
that
we
would
be
having
meetings
in
in
person
sometime
in
the
near
future.
That
obviously,
is
not
occurred,
and
so
we're
we're
moving
forward
with
discussion
on
this
on
this
item,
miss
jones
or
mr
mangum,
will
one
of
you
be
presenting.
I
Yes,
I
apologize
yep,
I'm
on
mute,
but
I
do
have
my
screen
set
up
now
now
and
I
will
be
making
a
brief
presentation
as
sure
isaac
noted.
This
item
was
before
the
plan
commission.
In
february
there
was
a
full
presentation
from
staff
from
the
applicant
questions
to
the
public
comments
from
the
public,
so
this
presentation
has
been
given,
so
I
will
go
over
this
quickly
and
get
to
the
the
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
application,
since
this
was
last
before
the
planned
commission
for
that
public
hearing
in
february.
I
So
there
are
two
items
here:
they
are
related.
The
first
is
a
subdivision,
a
major
adjustment
there's
a
plan
development
for
the
extension,
the
marion
that
included
the
full
zoning
lot.
This
is
the
hash
area
you
see
on
your
screen
here.
I
The
applicant
now
is
proposing
to
develop
the
northern
portion
so
as
part
of
this
adjustment,
they
would
remove
that
area
from
the
existing
plant
development
as
a
result
of
that
that
increases
the
the
floor
area
ratio
by
a
way
of
reducing
the
lot
size
of
that
existing
development.
However,
there
is
no
physical
change
proposed
to
the
existing
development.
I
The
number
of
units
that
were
actually
constructed
were
less
than
what
was
approved,
so
that
would
true
up
the
the
unit
count
to
186
where
205
were
approved,
and
then
the
number
of
at
least
parking
spaces
would
be
increasing
from
32
to
38.
However,
all
would
be
leased
because
the
on-site
spaces
would
be
part
of
the
proposed
development
parcel
as
the
plan
development.
I
I
It's
approximately
a
half
acre
site.
This
is
what
the
plant
commission
saw
in
february
this
february
2020
plan
commission.
That
was
a
19-story
building
at
that
point,
with
85
parking
spaces.
I
I
K
L
D
I
I
Okay,
so
the
difference
in
what
was
being
shown
in
february
in
the
current
proposed
development-
that's
shown
here-
is
an
far
of
10.38
with
215
units
and
17
stories,
and
the
the
differences
are
summed
up
in
the
slide
here.
I
So
mainly
the
building
height
was
reduced,
number
of
units
reduced
and,
consequently
the
floor.
Air
ratio
was
reduced.
The
number
of
loading
docks
were
increased
from
one
to
two
and
the
parking
remains
the
same.
However,
the
the
number
of
required
spaces
have
been
reduced
due
to
the
reduced
unit.
Count.
I
There's
also
been
some
modifications
to
the
first
floor
plan
the
applicant
may
describe
in
more
detail,
but
the
addition
of
a
second
loading
dock
reconfiguration
of
some
of
the
retail
space
that
reduces
that
space
slightly
and
a
reconfiguration
of
the
proposed
port
cochair
to
expand
it
to
allow
for
truck.
Turning
in
that
area.
I
So
with
that,
these
are
the
proposed.
The
currently
proposed
site
development
allowances.
105
feet
is
allowed
as
a
maximum
within
the
d4
district,
plus
a
site
development
allowance
of
40
feet.
That
may
be
requested
where
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
exceed
that
maximum
site
development
allowance.
With
a
height
of
185,
feet,
floor
area,
ratio
of
5.4
is
allowed
with
another
0.6
as
a
site.
I
The
applicant
is
in
compliance
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
that
was
available
at
the
time.
The
application
was
submitted
in
december
of
2018
prior
to
the
current
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
taking
effect
january
1st
of
2019.
I
The
applicant
is
proposing
the
following
public
benefits
that
they
consider
public
benefits,
contribution
for
improvements
of
300
000,
promoting
local
arts,
cleaning
up
environmental
on
the
site.
With
the
former
dry
cleaners
was
located,
electric
vehicle
charging
station
and
providing
composting
and
recycling
of
waste.
I
We
went
over
the
planned
development
standards
for
development
in
the
previous
meeting
and
those
are
available
on
these
slides
for
review
again,
if
needed
later
on.
In
the
meeting.
This
item
was
before
dapper.
The
design
and
project
review
committee
dapper
had
a
positive
recommendation
on
the
first
half
of
the
request.
That
is,
the
subdivision
and
major
adjustment
for
the
previous
marian
development
and
staff
and
dapper
is
recommending
denial
of
the
proposed
plan
development.
I
If
the
the
plant
commission
wishes
to
recommend
approval,
the
following
conditions
are
proposed:
the
building
design
that
staff
and
adapter
would
continue
to
work
with
the
applicant
on
adoption
construction
management
plan.
Additional
parking
spaces
shall
be
leased
from
the
city
in
the
church.
Street
garage
residents
would
not
be
eligible
for
on-street
parking
permits
that
if
that
access
was
allowed
from
chicago
avenue,
then
that
should
be
restricted
to
write
out
and
that
the
adjacent
alley
be
reconstructed,
support
additional
traffic.
E
This
is
my
question
might
be
a
little
premature,
but
it's
a
question
for
staff
in
the
materials
that
we
got.
There
are
some
diagrams
about
allowable
building
height
and
it
it
says
one
of
the
diagrams
says
if,
if
they
had
parking
above
grade,
it
wouldn't
count
in
the
building
height.
So
therefore
they
could
they
could
essentially
build
the
the
height
that
they
want
by
zoning
if
they
had
parking
above
grade.
So
it's
in
in
their
minds.
The
height
issue
is
equivalent
to
that
could.
I
So
correct,
and
in
d4
district
there
is
the
the
ability
to
subtract
out
the
height
of
above
great
parking
for
levels
that
are
primarily
parking.
More
than
75
percent
of
the
gross
floor
area
is
parking
and
that
may
be
subtracted
up
to
four
stories
or
40
feet,
so
in
this
case
the
proposing
two
levels
of
parking.
So
if
those
two
levels
of
parking
were
proposed
above
ground,
the
the
height
of
those
two
levels
could
be
subtracted.
I
They
are
proposing
40
feet
in
excess
of
the
site
development
allowance,
so
those
two
levels
of
parking
you
know
would
likely
not
equate
to
the
40
feet.
That's
being
proposed.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
staff
at
this
time.
Commissioners,
please,
commissioner,
johnson.
I
On
that
that
block
face
there
on
that
eastern
side
of
chicago
avenue,
I
believe
it's
just
one
circular
drive
that
exists
for
the
the
marion
itself.
So
there's
an
inbound
and
outbound
to
be
two
cuts
for
that.
One
circular
drive.
M
And
then
this
proposal
is
for
a.
I
guess
that
would
be
a
third
cut
for
the
for
their
additional
driveway
entrance.
I
That's
correct
to
be
a
two-way
proposed,
curb
cut
there
for
the
the
poco
share
and
entrance
to
the
subterranean
parking.
A
I'm
all
right
with
that.
Let's,
let's
hear
from
the
the.
A
Can
you
turn
on
your
your
video.
N
Good
evening,
chairman
isaac
and
members
of
the
commission,
I'm
jonathan
perman,
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me
and
some
some
of
you
do.
I
grew
up
in
evanston,
went
to
evanston
high
school
and
served
as
the
head
of
the
evanston
chamber
of
commerce
for
from
1992
to
2010
and
so
have
appeared
before
this
esteemed
body
on
many
occasions.
So
it's
good
to
be
back.
We
are
not
going
to.
N
But
I
think
that
our
our
main
message
that
we
want
to
impart
to
you
tonight
is
that
we
have
listened
not
only
to
the
commission
and
to
the
staff,
but
we've
also
done
a
fair
amount
of
outreach
to
neighbors
to,
in
particular,
the
first
united
methodist
church
and
other
stakeholders
in
order
to
get
their
feedback
and
to
try
to
find
areas
of
common
ground,
and
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
on
in
a
number
of
instances,
we
have
found
that
that
common
ground
and
our
we
would
aim
to.
N
If
the
commission,
and
eventually
the
city
council,
approve
this
project
to
continue
to
see
the
neighborhood
and
the
church
and
others
as
stakeholders
and
as
real
partners
with
us
as
we
go
forward
to
try
to
complete
the
design
and
eventually
the
actual
construction
of
this
project
I
wanted
to.
As
you
all
know,
this
is
from
our
standpoint.
N
This
project
is
the
completion
of
a
vision
that
horizon
realty
group
has
had
since
night
2012
when
they
bought
almost
the
entire
block,
starting
with
the
old
north
shore,
hotel
at
davis
and
chicago
avenue,
and
going
all
the
way
up
to
where
the
pnc
bank
is
and
the
prairie
moon
building
is
those
two
properties
we
do
not
own,
but
everything
else,
and
so,
as
as
you
know,
it
was
always
our
intent
once
the
miriam
revitalization
was
completed
and
the
annex
was
built
to
in
fact
build
out
the
rest
of
the
block,
and
so
this
this
project
and
what
you
see
here
is
really
the
entire
vision
of
that
block
coming
to
fruition,
at
least
for
for
us.
N
I
wanted
to
read
something
if
you
permit
me
that
I
thought
captures
a
lot
of
what
you
on
the
plan
commission
and
what
evanston
is
going
to
be
wrestling
with
not
only
now,
but
over
the
next
several
years
in
in
may
in
may,
of
2019
benjamin
schneider
wrote
a
piece
in
the
nation
magazine
a
progressive
journal.
It's
actually
the
oldest
continuously
published
weekly
magazine
in
the
us,
making
the
case
for
increasing
density
in
america's
cities
as
a
crucial
part
of
progressive
city
planning.
N
In
the
article
he
suggested
that
policies
that
support
reduced
fossil
fuel
consumption,
increased
economic
mobility
and
creating
more
affordable
housing
would
be
strategies
a
place
like
evanston
would
tend
to
support,
but
that
if
those
policies
included
zoning
or
rezoning
apartment
buildings
near
expensive
and
large
single-family
homes,
many
would
balk
about
the
parking
about
the
traffic,
about
blocked
views
and
other
urban
ills.
And,
quite
frankly,
we've
gotten
a
little
bit
of
that
that
push
back.
N
In
our
society's
challenges,
so
we
would
agree
with
schneider
who
says
the
quote:
most
effective
thing
that
any
city
can
do
to
combat
climate
change,
not
to
mention
improving
safety
and
public
health.
Something
that's
high
on
our
minds.
Right
now
is
to
get
more
people
to
walk
to
bike
and
to
take
public
transportation,
and
that
means
more
people
need
to
live
in
places
where
those
options
are
available.
Unquote
like
downtown
evanston.
N
The
other.
Another
thing
that
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
we
are
a
completely
self-financed
project.
We
are
not
dependent
on
the
vagaries
of
the
banking
system
to
finance
and
to
get
the
flow
of
capital
going
in
order
to
make
this
project
happen,
and
I
would
suggest
that
in
that
respect,
we're
a
rare
developer,
particularly
in
these
times,
in
that
we
are
willing
to
put
our
money
where
our
mouth
is
and
really
go
forward.
Despite
the
economic
conditions
of
the
united
states
and
the
world
and
build
this.
N
N
As
I
said,
we
listened
and
we
made
changes
based
on
those
constructive
criticisms
that
we
received
both
at
the
plan
commission
back
in
may
and
throughout
the
summer,
as
we
met
with
various
stakeholders,
and
so
I'd
like
to
point
out
a
couple
notes
and
then
turn
it
over
to
tim
kent
from
papa
george
haynes.
Who
will
talk
in
a
little
more
detail
about
some
of
the
physical
changes
that
that
we
have
made,
and,
quite
frankly,
some
of
the
ongoing
discussions
that
we
continue
to
have
with
with
stakeholders.
N
N
Yes,
there
are
a
number
of
infrastructure
improvements
that
both
we
and
others
have
have
made,
but
those
don't
appear
to
be
quantifiable
at
least
they're,
not
there's
no
public
record
for
them
that
we
could
find,
but
in
terms
of
actual
cash
going
to
prod
projects
that
has
been
identified
we
submit
are
significantly
above.
N
You
know
whether
it's
the
albion,
whether
it's
the
link,
whether
it's
a
number
of
other
the
two
senior
projects,
senior
citizen
projects
that
are
being
done
in
the
northwest
corner
of
downtown
evanston
300
000,
that
we're
proposing
or
one
half
of
one
percent
of
the
construction
cost
is
very
significant.
N
The
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
it
to
tim
kent.
Who
will
talk
about
some
specifics
in
terms
of
changes
that
we
have
made.
N
Can
scott,
can
you
give
us
the
shared
screen.
A
And
mr
mr
kent
and
anyone
else
that's
going
to
be
speaking
tonight
if
you're
available
to
turn
on
your.
J
I
Yet
yeah
you
should
be
able
to
just
select
share
screen,
probably
at
the
bottom
of
the.
I
O
O
O
I
apologize
I'm
going
to
have
to
it's
telling
me
I
have
to
quit
the
zoom
app
and
relaunch
it
in
order
to
share
my
screen
so
bear
with
me.
It'll
just
take
a
few
seconds.
O
A
Scott
you're
checking
to
to
let
him
in
if
he,
when
he
asks.
I
O
O
O
We
see
the
bike
lane
traversing
the
block
on
the
east
side
of
the
street
and
chicago
avenue,
and
the
entrance
to
the
port
cochair
and
the
below
grade
parking
is
mid-block
there
as
well,
and
there
will
be
a
continuation
of
the
retail
facade
all
the
way
across
that
hasn't
changed.
None
of
this
has
really
changed.
O
This
is
a
view
looking
over
the
skyline
of
downtown
evanston,
and
we
see
chicago
in
the
far
background,
and
here
in
the
center
left
is
the
way
the
building
would
appear
if
the
building
were
built.
So
it's
a
very
slight
addition
to
that
area
and
we'll
have
multiple
views
that
we
go
through.
You
can
see
also
the
effect
of
it.
Having
been
made
a
couple
of
stories
shorter,
and
here
it
is
again
architecturally.
There
really
are
no
changes.
O
It's
the
same
style,
the
same
detailing
the
same
character,
the
same
vocabulary,
but
it
is
two
stories
shorter,
as
was
mentioned,
and
the
biggest
change
architecturally
is
that
we've
changed
the
color
from
a
reddish,
brick
color
to
something
that's
stone-like,
and
that
was
something
that
we
had
been
considering
for
a
long
time.
It
was
also
mentioned
by
commissioner
halleck
during
the
planned
commission
hearing
back
in
february.
It
was
a
suggestion.
O
It
was
one
that
we
liked
and
took
to
heart,
and
it
does.
We
believe
that
it
reduces
the
apparent
mass
of
the
building
on
the
street
wall,
but
we
had
done
several
studies
of
this
over
the
previous
months
before
that.
O
O
I
want
to
talk
just
very
briefly
about
the
first
floor
plan.
The
changes
are
are
quite
minimal
to
what
we
proposed
before
one
change
is
at
the
alley.
We've
added
a
loading
berth
shown
here,
so
that
we
now
have
two
and
we've
also
made
it
possible
for
delivery
vehicles
such
as
fedex
or
ups,
to
enter
the
port
cochair
and
get
out
of
the
street
and
not
have
to
double
park
in
the
street
about
providing
some
turnaround
space
for
those
vehicles.
O
And
I
did
want
to
touch
on
the
question
that
was
raised
earlier
about
the
zoning
envelope
for
the
project.
This
is
the
site.
This
is
the
base
as
of
right
allowable
a
height
of
105
feet,
and
that's
how
this
would
appear
as
a
mass
with
a
development
allowance.
It
could
go
up
to
145
feet
but,
as
was
discussed
with
above
ground
parking,
that
up
to
four
stories
of
that
would
not
be
counted
towards
the
height.
O
So
the
height
of
the
building
that
we're
asking
for
is
identical
to
that
185
feet.
The
difference
is
that
we're
not
if
I
go
back
one
slide,
we're
not
putting
any
of
the
parking
on
the
facade
of
the
building,
which
would
be
architecturally.
We
think
a
negative
would
create
a
blank
space
within
the
facade.
It
would
be
a
deactivated
zone,
but
with
sorry.
Let
me
go
forward.
O
But
within
that
same
185
feet
that
we
could
be
allowed
we're
by
not
putting
the
parking
above
ground,
but
by
putting
it
below
ground,
we
can
create
a
fully
activated
facade.
That's
all
all
residential.
O
Where
we're
only
putting
two
levels
of
parking
below
grade,
because
it's
expensive
to
put
the
parking
below
grade
and
we're
limiting
to
two
levels
here.
So
if
we
were
forced
to
put
all
the
parking
above
grade,
we
probably
would
have
more
parking.
O
But
we
wanted
to
make
that
point
that
we're
really
not
asking
for
an
extraordinary
amount
of
height
here
under
what
would
normally
be
allowed.
If
we
had
parking
above
grade.
O
A
Okay,
commissioners,
do
you
have
any
any
questions
for
the
for
the
applicant
before
we
open
it
up
to
questions
from
the
public.
H
Yes,
I
have
a
number
first,
I
guess
for
the
architect.
I
notice
that
there's
a
12
inch
overhang
that
for
the
residential
windows
that
will
require
an
easement.
Can
you
explain
why
that's
necessary
and
then
I
guess,
a
follow-up.
What
happens
in
the
winter
is
that
going
to
be
an
issue
with
falling
ice
for
pedestrians.
O
Thanks
for
the
question,
let
me
get
back
to
a
slide
that
would
show
that.
O
O
This
is
an
articulation
of
the
facade
that
we
think
it's
is
an
enhancement,
it's
architecturally
very
similar
to
what's
going
on
with
the
building,
that's
just
to
the
north
on
chicago
avenue
and
it's
an
enhancement
to
the
interior
space
and
we
think
it
enlivens
the
facade
and
and
gives
it
some
strength.
It
creates
a
vertical
line
on
the
facade
and
we're
trying
to
emphasize
those
vertical
lines.
O
So,
architecturally
speaking,
we
think
it's
an
enhancement
to
the
to
the
overall
design
of
of
the
front
elevation
and
there's
a
similar
detail
on
the
back
of
the
building.
But
without
the
projected
the
projected
portion,
we
don't
see
this
as
being
something
that
will
create
an
ice
problem.
O
H
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
I
guess
this
is
probably
for
the
the
the
owner
I'd
like
a
little
more
explanation
about
how
the
valet
parking
system
would
work.
Is
this
something
that's
available
to
residents
24
7?
Will
residents
be
able
to
park
their
own
car
vehicles?
H
O
The
valet
will
be
available
18
hours
a
day,
I'm
being
told,
and
residents
would
also
be
able
to
self-park-
is
that
correct
and
residents
would
also
be
able
to
self-park
in
the
garage.
H
Okay
and
then
it
kind
of
as
a
follow-up
one
of
the
benefits
you're
proposing
is
the
electric
charging
station
would
that
be
limited
to,
and
it
says
that
it's
for
the
public
would?
How
would
the
public
acc,
where
would
the
charging
station
be
located
and
how
would
the
public
access
it.
O
H
Garage,
okay.
Moving
along
to
my
questions,
I
apologize
to
everyone,
but
I
was
not
on
the
commission
in
february,
or
I
would
have
asked
the
questions
then,
with
respect
to.
I
guess
this
is
kind
of
traffic
related.
I.
H
There
are
conflict.
What
are
what
kinds
of
conflicts?
Can
we
anticipate
with
respect
to
the
whole
foods
turning
left
turns
in
and
out
of
the
whole
food
slot
with
the
access
to
the
marian
legacy
immediately
opposite,
you
know,
I
can
kind
of
see
conflicting
left,
turn
issues
and
kind
of
how
will
that
be
addressed,
and
then
I
guess
kind
of
as
a
follow-up
for
the
traffic.
H
I
know
your
study
was
done.
You
know
looking
at
a.m
and
p.m.
Peaks,
which
is
you
know
typical,
but
with
respect
to
a
grocery
store
versus
the
the
residential
projects
that's
targeted
to
to
seniors
or
those
turns
in
and
out
going
to
be
concentrated
during
the
peak
hour.
Are
they
going
to
be
spread
out
more
during
the
day?
I
hope
I'm
asking
this
question
that
it
makes
sense.
O
P
Good
evening
my
name
is
michael
worthman,
with
kloa
principal
with
the
firm
we
conducted
the
traffic
study
for
the
proposed
development,
excellent
question.
Commissioner,
it
should
be
noted
right
now
that
there
is
no
left
turns
from
the
whole
foods
parking
lot.
It's
a
right
turn
only
left
turns
out
of
there
are
prohibited.
P
Our
traffic
counts
showed
that
majority
of
the
people
are
following
that
prohibition
in
similar
talking
with
evanston
staff
and
so
forth.
We
would
restrict
our
access
drive
to
right
turnout
only
two,
so
we
would
minimize
those
left
turn
conflicts
that
you
were
talking
about.
P
P
H
H
N
So
if
you
were
coming
from
the
north,
for
example,
a
left
turn
into
the
porcus
share
would
be
prohibited
only
a
right
turn.
So
if
the
city
staff
wants
us
to
do
that,
we're
fine,
it's
not.
That
hasn't
been
specifically
part
of
our
plan,
but
if
it
is
the
if
it's,
if
it's
the
preference
of
the
city
staff
to
not
allow
either
entry
or
exit
with
a
left
turn
in
and
out
of
the
pro
porque
share,
we'll
certainly
accept.
N
H
Sorry
and
then
I
think
my
final
question
has
to
do
with
how
construction
would
be
handled,
given
the
presence
of
the
the
protected
bike
lane
and
or
the
barrier
separated
bike
lane
and
the
the
alley
that's
pretty
busy.
You
know
how.
How
can
how
are
you
going
to
build
this.
O
This
is
in
a
preliminary
state
right
now
in
terms
of
the.
O
H
Okay-
and
I
think
I'm
sorry-
I
have
one
one
last
question
and
then
I'll
be
quiet
and,
and
that
really
is
with
the
proposed
drive
and
the
port
co-share
that
you
know
is
going
to
involve
the
loss
of
three
city.
Public
parking
spaces
is,
you
know,
are
you
planning
on
compensating
the
city
for
lost
revenue
with
respect
to
those
parking
spaces.
O
K
E
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions.
One
of
them
is
on
the
entry
to
the
po
poor
entry
and
exit
from
the
vote
for
corsair.
Are
you
providing
any
additional
safety
features
or
special,
paving
or
all
you
know,
sound
alarms
or
anything
anything
like
that
for
additional
safety.
O
Yes,
we
are,
and
we
have
a
preliminary
plan
of
of
that.
Let
me
just
find
that
drawing.
O
So
we
would
be
providing
first
of
all,
there's
there's
a
site
clearance
triangle
that
would
ensure
that
there's
good
visibility
all
around
the
the
intersection.
O
We
would
be
raising
the
bike
lane
slightly
to
ensure
that
bicyclists
know
to
slow
down
at
that
point,
and
also
for
vehicles
coming
in
and
out,
there
would
be
additional
signage.
There
would
be
lights.
There
are
multiple
things
that
we've
considered
for
this,
and
we
want
this
to
really
be
the
safest,
intersection
bicycle
intersection
along
this
entire
bike
route.
A
N
So
fisher
linwall,
you
haven't
had
the
benefit
of
seeing
this,
but
we
did
a
complete
tour.
Last
summer,
summer
of
19
of
the
entire
cycle
track
from
davis
street
all
the
way
up
to
the
wilmette
border.
There
are
more
than
20
curb
cuts
along
that
cycle
track,
including
six
on
the
northwestern
campus
two
downtown,
I'm
at
the
marion
and
12
north
of
the
northwestern
campus.
N
I
realized
that
this
is
an
award-winning
cycle
track,
but
I
got
to
tell
you
and
we
were
all
almost
shocked
at
the
lack
of
safety
warning
signage
as
particularly
as
you
go
north
from
downtown
at
each
of
those
curb
cuts,
and
so
the
bar
is
pretty
low
and
it
is
our
intention,
as
tim
said,
to
make
this
much
different
in
terms
of
safety
and
warning
enhancements
and
what
people
see
typically
on
this
cycle
track,
because
it's
it's.
It's
really,
in
our
view,
not
does
not
really
offer
the
warning
systems
that
it
should.
E
I
have
I
have
another
question
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
typically
done
in
reverence
in
businesses,
but
a
lot
of
the
community
comments
resident
comments
were
about.
You
know
we're
getting
rid
of
these
businesses
that
are
that
are
on
that
block
and,
and
some
of
them
are
pretty
popular,
are
do
you?
Are
you
going
to
help
these
businesses
relocate
or
is
there
any
anything
financially
or
programmatically
to
to
assist
them
in
moving
somewhere
else?
E
Q
You
guys
this
is
jeff,
michael
speaking,
can
you
hear
me
I'm
with
horizon
realty
group
so
to
address
that
question
that
was
raised
regarding
the
current
tenants
there?
Currently,
there
is
only
one
tenants
found
restaurant
or
two
actually
bc,
cleaners
that
are
really
viable.
Q
The
others,
due
to
a
myriad
of
reasons,
including
mostly
you
know,
covet
situation,
are
pretty
much
on
life
support
that's
been
given
by
us,
and
I
you
know,
I'm
not
hopeful
that
they're
even
going
to
last
through
the
coba
situation,
so
we're
talking
about
two
tenants
there
at
most
once
the
restaurant
found,
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
particulars
of
her
financial
situation,
but
I
would
say
I
don't
think
they're
very
strong,
given
discussions
that
we've
had
and
we've
entertained
talks
with
her
about
locating
into
the
new
space
that
that's
still
on
the
table
and
we'd
like
to
keep
her
around
that's
possible.
Q
We
just
don't
know
the
viability
of
her
business
absent,
what's
going
on
with
this
development,
so,
unfortunately,
you
know
there's
not
much
to
salvage
in
the
existing
commercial
strip
center.
That's
there
right
now.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
michael
commissioner.
Halek.
You
have
another
question,
no
okay,
any
other
questions
from
from
commissioners.
F
A
Commissioner
westerberg,
I
would
suggest
that
we
ask
mr
mangum
to
to
weigh
in
on
that
all
right.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
That's
a
good
question.
Essentially,
that's
correct
that
the
additional
or
the
the
height
for
the
floors
that
counted
towards
parking
would
be
subtracted
from
the
zoning
height
of
the
building.
A
Okay,
any.
E
E
Is
this
excuse
me,
I
I
just
have
a
follow-up
on
on
this
issue.
Is
this
type
of
thing
the
the
fact
that
we
don't
count
parking
in
height
is
that
particular
to
this
zoning,
or
you
know
all
of
the
downtown
zonings.
E
So
so,
if
a
person,
if
a
building
wanted
to
provide,
I
mean
I'm,
maybe
I'm
being
absurd,
but
eight
stories
of
parking
plus
the
allowable
space
above
that
would
be
okay
and
it
would
just
raise
the
raise
the
allowable
height
of
the
building.
By
that
many
stories.
I
It's
actually
limited
to
a
maximum
of
four
stories
or
40
feet.
Whichever
is
less
okay,.
A
Well,
I
I
have
a
question
to
to
follow
up
on
this
and
mr
kent,
if
you
can
move
on
to,
I
believe
it's
slide,
40
in
your
in
your
list.
A
Okay,
so
as
of
right
105
stories
and
what
your
and
then
I'm
sorry
with
allowance
is
145,
and
then
you
can
get
up
to
185
with
the
parking
above
grade
and
what
you're
proposing
is
185..
A
So
my
my
question
to
you
is:
if
you
were
to
do
option
three,
how
would
that
change
the
number
of
residential
floors
and
the
unit
count?
And
you
know
roughly
the
far.
A
All
right
any
other
questions
from
from
the
commissioners,
otherwise
we'll
open
it
up
to
to
come
to
questions
from
the
from
the
public
all
right.
So
I
have
a.
I
have
a
list
of
people
that
have
signed
up
beforehand
and
then
I
will
open
it
up
to
people
that
have
not
signed
up
previously,
and
what
I
will
say
right
now
is
that
this
is
the
time
to
ask
questions
of
staff
or
or
the
applicant.
A
They
should
not
be
rhetorical
or
compat
competitive
in
nature.
You
should
be
merely
looking
to
elicit
elicit
facts
and
information
from
the
from
the
applicant
and
or
staff.
So
with
that,
the
first
person
on
my
list
is
a
matt
feldman.
Mr
feldman.
A
Yes,
please
yeah,
there's
gonna
be
a
section
for
comments
and
I
will
go
down
through
the
same
list
that
I'm
going
through
now,
so
you'll
be
you'll,
be
the
first
to
first
on
the
list
for
comments.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
see
just
lost
my
list,
linda
del
bosque,.
S
Hi
good
evening
first,
my
question
is
for
the
city
so
scott:
what
is
the
need
for
senior
living
last
like
year
and
a
half
we
have
more
senior
living
in
evanston?
Is
there
a
need
for
that
for
the
marion
to
extend
to
the
legacy
to
the
marion
legacy,
and
then
we
have
others
is?
Is
there
a
need
that
I'm
not
seeing
scott?
I
mean
what
is
the
city?
That
was
my
first
question
and
then
my
second
question
is
for
the
marian
legacy.
S
A
Right
so
so
scott
is
that
a.
S
A
Scott
is
that
a
question
that
you
have
you
have
the
the
ability
to
answer.
I'm
not
sure
that.
S
Yeah
we're
just
seeing
a
continued.
The
next
couple
of
meetings
with
plan
meeting
is
all
wrapped
around
senior
living.
So
I
just
have
a
question
that
can
be
answered
outside
of
this
meeting.
That's
fine,
but
as
far
as
the
developers
or
the
married
legacy
is
there
gonna
be
any
type
of
level
of
care
or
is
it
all
gonna
be
active
senior
living.
S
N
N
Evanston
is
given
and
will
continue
to
see
for
many
years
out
a
significant
demand
for
senior.
S
Mr
permanent,
can
I
speak
please
thank
you.
Coming
from
texas,
I'm
very
much
familiar
working
in
the
case
management,
transitional
care
and
physician
hospitalist.
I
understand
singer
living
in
the
back
of
my
hand.
So
what
I'm
wanting
to
see
is
the
scene.
If
we're
finalizing
the
senior
tsunami
ending
at
20,
27
20,
20
57,
we
still
need
a
level
of
care.
So
if
to
see
the
merriam
legacy
to
extend,
would
you
would
you
actually
go
into
a
ccrc?
S
Would
you
look
into
that
versus
going
into
active
senior
living,
because,
if
we're
having
an
active
senior
living,
don't
you
think
that
too
many
active
singer
living
within
a
one
mile
radius
is
too
much
between
the
avador,
the
condominiums
that
are
being
built?
We
have
the
mather
and
then
possibly
the
cook
authority
housing.
So,
even
though
the
economically
they're
sustainably
different,
there's,
no
so
ccrc
for
evanston
residents
to
grow,
olden
or
age
in
place
and
assisted
living
can
only
provide
a
level
of
care.
S
But
if
you
push
into
the
ccrc,
then
you're
able
to
cohesively
go
into
memory
care
rehabilitated
care
as
well,
which
we
don't
have,
except
for
the
apron.
So
I
would
like
to
see
to
be
modified
if
you're
looking
into
going
into
it,
bringing
in
the
parking
and
whatnot
for
our
community.
I
would
like
to
see
this
modified
into
more
of
a
ccrc
versus
just
adult
senior
living
well.
N
S
We
have
a
lot
of
adult
children
here
and
we
also
have
a
lot
of
you
know
that
would
like
to
keep
their
senior
parents
here
and
age
in
place
if
you're
looking
to
book
within
the
city,
because
we
know
that
seniors
have
a
fixed
budget.
So
if
we
look
at
a
college
city
which
we
are
and
we're
having
all
these
senior
people
living
here,
that
doesn't
mean
they
have
a
robust
retirement
fund.
S
N
S
S
A
You,
mr
mosque,
all
right,
william
brown
from
the
first
united
methodist
church.
T
U
There
we
go
all
right
turn
on
my
video
right
now
so
just
hold
on
there.
We
go
I'll
have
a
comment
later,
but
just
two
quick
questions
for
either
timber.
John
one
is
whether
you
guys
considered
a
change
in
zoning
for
this
development.
It
was
clear
in
the
february
26th
session
that
the
commissioners,
I
won't
say
as
a
group,
but
at
least
a
couple
or
three
felt,
that
a
building
of
this
variance
in
both
height
and
bar
really
should
be
a
zoning
change.
A
N
Okay,
so
mr
performance,
I'll
answer
the
second
question
first
and
then
I'm
going
to
have
our
council
answer
the
first
question
with
respect
to,
did
we
the
question
of
whether
we
read
the
public
comments?
Not
only
did
we
read
and
analyze
and
think
very
a
lot
about
those
comments,
but
we
tried
we
arranged
meetings
with
a
number
of
those
com,
people
who
made
the
comments
so
that
we
could
further
engage
them
in
conversation.
N
I
know
mr
frederick,
you
weren't
available
for
the
date
that
we
we
had
said
and
I'm
sorry
about
that,
but
we
did
have,
I
think,
some
productive
discussions
with
a
number
of
other
residents.
So
yes,
indeed,
we
we
thought
about
them
and
we
take
them
very
seriously.
J
Hi,
this
is
david
meek
counsel,
to
the
applicant.
J
With
respect
to
the
question
of
the
zoning
change,
I
do
recall
that
we
did
take
that
under
serious
consideration
and
we
felt
that
a
change
to
say
the
the
only
I
think,
potential
change
that
would
have
allowed
for
this
height
as
a
right
or
through
a
different
structure,
was
the
the
d3
district
which
is
across
the
street,
but
then
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
doing
a
zoning
change
for
the
site
felt
like
a
spot
zoning,
and
we
felt
also
that,
with
the
height
reduction
that
we
were
arguably
within
the
scope
of
allowances,
especially
in
consideration
of
the
height
discussion
that
we've
had
here
about
a
structure
that
should
have
provided
four
levels
of
parking
would
have
within
the
typical
site,
development
or
within
the
scope
of
site.
J
Development
allowances
achieved
185
feet,
and
I
do
want
to
remind
those
who
are
on
the
commission
in
particular
those
who
are
new
to
this,
that,
as
I'm
sure
you
know,
the
council
is
capable
of
making
a
decision
to
exceed
the
allowances.
It's
on
us
to
justify
it.
C
Klein,
yes
hi.
I
have
a
question:
has
the
development
team
for
the
proposed
plan
development
been
in
consultation
with
the
city
of
evanston
historic
preservation
staff,
because
the
proposed
planned
development
is
well
within
500
feet
of
an
evanston
landmark
and
the
evanston
lake
shore
historic
district
and
were
was
the
planned
development?
Taking?
Did
you
take
into
account
the
view
shed
and
visual
character
of
the
historic
district
that
this
would
be
towering
over
a
historic
district.
J
J
I
believe
it's
the
church,
that's
within
that
historic
district,
improper
that
that,
in
terms
of
its
the
pri,
the
boundaries
of
the
historic
district
being
adjacent
to
the
property
or
potentially
within
500
feet,
maybe
there's
some
others.
J
Excuse
me,
I
think,
probably
are
some
others
that
are
within
500
feet
because
of
hinman,
and
we
have
been
engaged
with,
certainly
with
the
church
about
this,
but
the
in
particular
the
view
sheds
impacts
on
the
character
of
the
historic
district
is
not
something
we've
been
asked
to
address,
and
we,
as
you
can
see
from
our
record,
we
haven't
addressed
that
in
our
record.
Our
submittals.
C
Well,
just
one
more
question
that
a
planned
development
is,
I.
C
All
right
to
follow
up
planned
development
is
supposed
to
conform
with
the
general
comprehensive.
J
Yes,
we
did
read
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
submitted
statements
that
we
think
addressed
how
this
project
complies
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
I
I
don't
recall
whether
those
statements
specifically
address
the
component
of
historic
preservation
in
in
particular,
because
the
building
itself
isn't
within
the
historic
preservation
district,
but
in
terms
of
consistency
with
the
plan
and
the
arguments
we've
set
forth,
that's
in
the
record
from
our
application.
A
Okay,
let's
see
next
next
on
my
list,
I
just
lost
it
again.
Bear
with
me
please.
A
All
right,
leslie
shad
from
bird
friendly
evanston.
F
Yes,
I
I
already
discussed,
exchanged
emails
with.
H
Applicants,
so
I'm
I'm
holding
comments
thanks.
F
A
A
Thank
you,
sue
lowbach,.
L
Yes,
I
do
have
a
quick
question
for
staff.
I
believe
this
project
was
originally
proposed,
maybe
in
2017
before
the
most
recent
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
was
passed
and
I
was
wondering
how
long
will
the
old
inclusionary
ordinance
be
the
one
that
this
project
is
tied
to?
Is
that
indefinite
or
is
there
some
time
limit
under
which
they
would
need
to
switch
to
the
new
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance.
I
I
Correct
it
was
submitted
just
prior
to
the
inaction
of
the
current
iho.
I
don't
know
if
I
can
answer
an
exact
date
if
the
once
the
application
is
concluded,
if
there's
a
decision
from
city
council
at
that
point,
certainly
then
any
new
subsequent
application
will
be
subject
to
the
the
new
iho.
I
L
A
All
right
and
then
last
on
my
list
is
kira
kelly.
W
Yes,
hi
sorry
about
that,
hi!
Yes,
I
had
a
couple
questions.
I
was
maybe
I
I
missed
this.
Is
this
an
age
restricted,
facil
senior,
building
luxury
building,
or
is
it
not.
O
W
W
Why
are
you
marking
it
towards
to
seniors,
but
not
designating
it
as
such.
Q
Q
As
tim
indicated,
so
this
project
is
to
be
age
targeted
or
each
market
market,
as
opposed
to
age
restricted
my
understanding.
There
are
some
legal
implications
that
come
with
having
a
project
being
age
restricted,
which
is
something
that
we
did
not
want
to
bind
ourselves
to
or
get
involved
with.
Q
Just
like
the
marion
next
door,
it's
age
marketed
just
by
by
way
of
and
vis-a-vis
the
amenities
that
are
offered
there.
We
feel
that
just
being
age
targeting
a
certain
age
will
achieve
the
objective
and
the
profile
that
we're
hoping
to
get
for
this
building.
So
we
didn't
see
the
reason
to
have
to
restrict
it.
Q
W
Q
Yeah
it's
gonna
be
designed
with
you
know
a
senior
population
in
mind
in
terms
of,
for
instance,
you
know
the
valet
parking
to
make
you
know
handling
of
their
vehicles,
we're
going
to
have
dining
facilities
there
and
they're
going
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
dining
facilities
of
the
mary
next
door.
You
know
the
two
buildings
be
physically
connected.
There's
going
to
be
social
programs
that
are
targeted
for
seniors.
You
know
from
educational
to
social
gatherings,
card
rooms,
the
overall,
just
interior
design.
Q
Atmosphere
of
the
legacy
will
also
be
aiming
towards
a
more
senior
population.
So
it's
going
to
have
a
lot
of
the
programmatic
amenities
that
we
currently
have
at
the
marion
next
door
will
also
be
in
legacy.
W
Okay,
I
just
find
that
interesting
just
because
we
have
some
new
dedicated
senior
buildings
that
did
go
through
the
legalities,
because
otherwise
we
just
have
a
I
mean,
not
even
otherwise.
W
In
any
case,
we
have
just
an
overabundance
of
luxury
rental
high
rises
with
fairly
high
vacancies,
so
I
just
it
seems
like
this
could
easily
turn
into
just
yet
another
luxury
high-rise
rental.
Q
On
the
process
of
having
what
would
deem
to
be
a
stabilized,
you
know
acid,
for
senior
living,
so
we're
pretty
confident
and
then
that's.
Why
we're
paying
special
attention
to
the
unit
mix?
Also
that
we've
learned
just
from
experience
what
people
want
to
marry
and
we
feel
like
there's
that
demand
there.
W
Okay,
I
missed
the
beginning
of
what
you
said.
I
think
you
were
muted,
but
that's
okay
and
then
yeah.
I
wondered
I
found
a
you
know,
just
a
quick
google
search
on
senior
housing
and
have
them
kind
of
it's.
You
know
sort
of
a
lot
of
articles
talking
about
in
you
know
the
context
of
covet
in
the
future.
W
W
You
know
they,
it
looks
they're
the
industry
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
questions
about
these
type
of
huge,
dense
high-rise
situations
for
seniors
in
light
of
in
light
of
cobit,
and
hopefully
there'll
be
a
vaccine
going
forward,
but
just
industry-wide.
It
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
concern
and
different
ways
of
looking
at
senior
living
going
forward.
Have
you
seen
these
and
are
you
you
know?
Are
you
concerned
these?
Are?
These
are
major
articles
and
major.
Q
You
know
with
all
the
respect,
I'm
sure
what
you're
reading
is.
You
know
I
haven't
seen
those
specific
articles,
but
I
could
probably
find
articles
like
that,
probably
permeating
every
single
industry
that
there
is
out
there
and
the
death
knell
of
those
industries
just
due
to
covet.
You
know
we're
optimistic
at
some
point:
we're
going
to
come
out
of
this
and
and
the
world
eventually
will
go
back
to
normal,
we're
not
putting
our
shovels
in
the
ground
tomorrow.
Q
Thankfully,
on
this
thing,
but
we're
optimistic
overall
and
what
the
demands
are
just
for
senior
living,
I've
gone
to
several
conferences
throughout
the
country
on
this,
and
just
you
know,
seeing
the
same
statistics
that
others
have
seen
on
just
an
asian
population
that
we
have
here
in
the
u.s
specifically
here
in
evanston,
and
we
are
confident
that
the
demand
is
there.
Q
No,
I
mean,
but
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
try
to
implement
some.
You
know
new
designs
that
will
address,
obviously
what
we're
going
through
with
colvin
and
have
as
many
touchless
points
as
you
can
and
and-
and
you
know,
we're
not
quite
there
yet,
but
we're
going
to
consult
with
tim
interior
designers
to
make
sure
that
we
could
address
some
of
the
heightened
sensitivities
that
people
now
have
that
are
legitimate
in
going
forward
and
designing
the
new
building.
W
Q
Some
of
that
stuff
in
the
marion
2,
which
you
know,
sanitization
stations
everywhere
chain,
you
know
modifying
your
elevators
to
touchless
elevators
and
things
like
that,
so
there's
gonna
be
a
whole.
You
know
whole
new
cottage
industry,
of
these
sort
of
amenities
to
put
into
these
buildings.
W
Mm-Hmm,
okay
and
then
I
understand
that.
W
As
far
as
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
I
think
your
proposal
was
turned
in
literally
the
day
before
the
new,
the
new
iho
guidelines.
Would
you
ever
consider
being
you
know,
upping.
V
W
If,
if
you
would,
your
company
would
consider
matching,
you
know
going
with
the
new
iho
requirements?
Oh.
Q
The
short
answer
is
no,
as
it
stands
right
now,
I
think
it's
maybe
the
second
largest
contribution
to
that
fund
that
evanston
has
had,
and
that's
not
even
counting
the
public
benefit
the
half
a
percent
of
our
construction
budget
that
we
are
offering
in
public
benefits.
So
we
think,
as
you
know,
my
team
has
addressed
previously
here.
We
think
it's
pretty
sizable
in
terms
of
overall
package
that
we're
offering,
in
relation
to
our
variance
asks
here
so
we're
comfortable
with
where
we're
at
in
terms
of
the
contribution.
W
Okay
and
then
sorry,
my
final
question:
I
haven't
gone
by
there
lately
or
paid
attention,
but
is
the
ground
floor
of
your
new.
Your
near
new
edition
is:
is
there
a
tenant
on
the
first
floor?
Currently.
Q
Q
Oh
yeah
in
the
16
19
building,
yeah
yeah,
there's
commercial
tenant.
There
european
wax
recently
moved
in
then
we
have,
I
think,
1600
square
feet
of
retail
currently
available.
Okay,.
A
Sure,
thank
you.
That
concludes
my
list
of
individuals
prior
to
the
meeting
who
provide
questions.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
call
right
now
that
is,
has
any
questions
for
staff.
A
Okay
hearing
none,
we
can
close
the
question
portion
of
the
the
public
question
portion
of
the
of
this
hearing
at
this
time.
Where
am
I.
A
Okay,
so
persons
or
groups
with
an
ownership
of
interest
in
property
within
a
thousand
feet
of
this
property,
may
request
to
a
continuance
for
the
purpose
of
presenting
evidence
to
rebut
testimony
they
have
heard
given
today
by
the
applicant.
A
If
anyone
in
this
meeting
wants
to
make
that
request,
they
will
need
to
state
what
portions
of
the
applicant's
test
testimony
they
want
to
rebut
and
what
you
know.
Basically
what
what
issues
they
want
to
rebut
at
the
continued
meeting.
So
is
there
a?
Is
there
such
a
request
from
the
public.
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
we
can
move
on
to
public
comment
and
I'm
going
to
go
down
through
the
same
list
and
again
when
I
get
to
the
end
of
my
list,
I
will,
I
will
ask
if
there
are
any
other
people
who
fail
to
sign
up.
That
would
like
to
make
a
public
comment.
Mr
mangum,
I
believe
we
are
at
there's
a
two
minute
time
limit
for
for
individuals,
and
then
people
speaking
on
behalf
of
a
group
can
have
five
minutes
is
that
is
that
accurate?
A
That
is
correct?
Okay,
I
will
be.
I
will
be
keeping
the
time
and
the
first
person
on
my
list
is
matt.
Feldman.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
my
wife,
ellen
and
I
own
and
reside
in
a
condominium
at
522
church
street,
which
is
in
the
required
zone,
which
is
in
the
same
block
as
the
proposed
development
at
1621
chicago
for
the
record.
My
wife
and
I
also
sent
a
letter
of
opposition
to
this
project
to
megan
jones
on
september
27th,
which
has
not
yet
been
loaded
to
the
public
comments
available
on
the
commission
website.
R
Given
that
we
are
three
quarters
of
the
way
through
2020,
I
will
ask
what
came
up
earlier,
which
is
at
what
point?
Should
this
project
be
held
to
the
standard
established
in
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
that
took
pla
effect
on
january
1st
2019
payment
of
cash
into
a
fund
will
not
have
a
direct
impact
in
taking
advantage
of
development
such
as
this
to
begin
to
address
the
severe
shortage
in
affordable
housing.
R
Rather
than
repeat
that
which
has
been
noted
earlier
regarding
substantial
variances
in
site
development
allowances,
the
developer
is
requesting,
with
respect
to
building
height,
far
number
of
units
and
parking
spaces.
I
would
like
to
quote
from
the
memorandum
regarding
this
proposal
drafted
by
staff
and
directed
to
the
chair
and
members
of
this
commission
and
then
pose
a
simple
question.
R
Given
this
conclusion
by
staff,
an
important
question
before
this
commission
should
be
why
such
a
proposal
should
be
recommended
when
it
provides
such
nominal
public
benefits
and
those
at
substantial
degradation
to
the
character
of
the
immediate
community
and
the
safety
of
pedestrians
and
bicycle
riders
along
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue.
I
respectfully
request
that
the
commission
seriously
consider
this
question
and
commit
to
answering
it.
Should
a
decision
be
made
to
recommend
this
proposal
onward
and
thank
you
for
your
consideration
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr.
A
Feldman
next
on,
my
list
is
dennis
and
jacqueline
harder.
K
K
I
myself
have
spent
45
years
in
city
planning
and
real
estate
and
understand
the
developers
perspective
to
maximize
potential
at
this
site.
We
submitted
also
written
comments
to
the
commission.
What
follows
is
a
summary
of
the
reasons
I
urge
the
plan
commission
to
deny
approval
this
plan
development
first
on
may
7th.
The
may
7
staff
report
to
the
plant
commission
recommends
denial,
and
I
think
most
of
those
points
are
still
valid.
K
The
developer
requested
allowances
for
additional
height
floor
area
units
etc
are
excessive
and
extraordinary,
extraordinarily
out
of
sync,
with
the
underlying
planning
framework
and
zoning
parameters
for
the
site,
and
rather
than
proposing
a
set
of
comparable
extraordinary
community
benefits
to
justify
those
allowances.
The
developer
proposed
benefits
that
are
modest
to
the
extent
of
being
grossly
inadequate.
K
Approval
of
this
plan
development
proposal
would
allow
development
with
little
regard
to
the
existing
planning
framework
and
zoning
parameters
for
the
site.
In
essence,
the
developer
is
trying
to
push
a
square
peg
into
a
round
hole
instead
of
considering
allowing
such
dramatic
change
to
occur
by
a
back
door
through
the
planned
development
process.
K
K
S
Bosque
hi.
Thank
you
again.
You
know,
as
I'm
running,
for
alderman
in
this
award,
I
have
to
think
of
my
constituents
first
and
foremost,
then
I
think
about
our
community
members
when
they
are
traveling
through
the
corridor
of
chicago
avenue
and
how
congested
and
how
unsafe
it's
going
to
be.
S
Then
I
think
about
the
hype
and
it's
just
changing
our
landscape.
It's
becoming
a
domino
effect.
Then
I'm
thinking
about
the
senses.
If
we
actually
need
more
senior
living
here
in
evanston
or
do
we
really
need
to
think
about
the
continuum
of
care
in
evanston
if
we
have
adult
children
who
have
aging
parents?
S
So
if
we
really
look
at
aging
in
place,
we
really
need
to
look
more
into.
I
say
we,
the
city,
has
responsibility
to
look
into
organizations
who
are
going
to
provide
a
more
full
spectrum
of
aging
plays,
with
some
type
of
ccrc
put
in
place
like
presby,
located
off
of
what
is
it
emerson
towards
west.
So
I
personally
appreciate
the
marian
the
marion
legacy
and
and
wanting
to
provide
a
more
luxury
building.
S
I
just
don't
see
a
need
for
evanston,
and
so
my
comment
would
be
you
know
between
the
numbers,
the
height,
the
life.
We
just
don't
need
another
senior
living
a
luxury
scene
or
living
age,
restricted
or
unage
restricted.
It's
still
age
restricted
because
of
the
program
services
offered
to
the
residents.
I
can't
live
in
there.
I
don't
want
to
go
to
a
to
a
senior
choir
practice,
so
it
is
age
restricted,
it's
just
easier
for
them
to
put
that
to
label
it.
S
A
T
Sir,
thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners
and
chairman
isaac.
My
name
is
william
brown.
I've
been
an
amazon
resident
for
43
years.
I
reside
at
1200
mulford
street
in
evanston.
T
I've
been
a
member
of
the
first
united
methodist
church
for
35
years
and
currently
serve
as
its
chair
of
the
board
of
trustees,
and
the
reason
that
I'm
speaking
to
you
this
evening
is
that
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
a
congregation
of
the
church,
some
650
people
first,
before
my
comments,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
horizon
realty
group
for
their
willing
to
share
their
plans
with
us.
T
We
had
a
meeting
in
the
summer
with
the
trustees
of
the
church
that
was
most
informative
and
just
yesterday
I
had
a
meeting
with
the
architects
and
representative
for
the
project
and
the
traffic
engineer
that
spoke
earlier
on
the
alley
function
and
their
loading
dock.
So
all
that
information
is
much
appreciated
in
helping
helping
us
understand.
What's
what's
proposed
so
now
my
comments,
the
church
sits
on
the
edge
of
the
lakeshore
historic
district,
as
has
been
noted
and
has
provided
an
anchoring
presence
for
this
area
of
evanston
since
1870.,
as
designed
at
17
stories.
T
T
It's
also
disturbing
that
such
a
tall
project
would
be
considered
for
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue,
where
the
buildings
stepped
down
on
their
way
to
the
lakefront.
Further,
the
new
building
would
be
directly
across
the
street
from
an
existing
building
of
more
than
20
stories.
I
would
worry
about
a
canyon
effect
getting
started
on
chicago
avenue.
With
this
circumstance
I
recall
in
a
previous
meeting.
It
may
have
been
our
trustees
meeting.
It
was
asked.
Why
does
the
building
need
to
be
so
tall?
L
T
T
T
T
If
boot
service
is
considered
for
the
retail
space
and
also
elsewhere
in
the
building
for
the
tenants,
there
would
be
even
more
traffic
congesting
the
alley
even
more
30
seconds
here,
making
use
of
the
lot
even
more
difficult
for
us.
So
in
conclusion,
I
would
ask
the
planned
commission
to
vote
no
for
this
project,
for
the
reasons
that
I
have
described,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
attention,
your
time
and
your
consideration
of
these
concerns.
A
You,
sir
next
I
have
bob
froscher.
U
Thanks,
I'm
one
of
thousands
of
editors
and
residents
who
have
changed
the
complexion
of
edmond
been
downtown
over
the
last
20
years.
By
choosing
to
live
there,
we've
bought
real
estate,
we
paid
millions
of
dollars
in
taxes
annually,
we've
made
downtown
alive
again
and
we
rely
on
the
city's
zoning
ordinances
to
protect
our
health
safety
and
real
estate
investments.
U
U
U
C
All
right
good
evening,
the
proposed
client
developed
and
it's
1621
threatens
to
impede
on
the
first
united
methodist
property
and
have
an
impact
on
the
mission
and
ministry
of
the
staff
and
congregation
tonight.
When
you
consider
approval
or
disapproval
of
this
proposed
plan
development,
please
take
into
account
the
public
comment
and
apply
them
to
the
standards
for
a
special
use.
C
Point
b
of
the
standards
for
a
special
use
clearly
states
that
a
planned
development
must
comply
with
the
purposes
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan.
The
2000
city
of
evanston,
comprehensive
general
plan
was
cited
and
relied
on
by
the
illinois
appellate
court
in
2015
as
a
codified
plan.
The
plane,
the
plan
states
quote
historic
preservation,
continues
to
be
a
source
of
civic
pride
for
evanston,
with
a
vital
preservation
community
and
with
a
rich
architectural
heritage.
C
Evanston
remains
at
the
forefront
of
the
movement
to
preserve
individual
buildings
and
historic
districts
that
show
outstanding
architectural,
historical
and
cultural
merit.
It
goes
on
to
stay.
Evanston
should
seek
to
preserve
the
structures
and
environments
which
have
given
the
community
much
of
its
physical
appeal
and
special
visual
character,
an
intangible,
but
equally
important
value
is
the
sense
of
history
given
to
those
who
live
here.
The
shared
history
of
landmark
homes
and
buildings
give
continuity
to
the
entire
community.
C
The
public
benefits
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood
in
the
city
as
a
whole
that
are
intended
to
be
derived
from
the
approval
of
planned
developments
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
a
whole
list,
and
then
point
c
preservation
and
enhancement
of
historic
and
natural
resources
that
significantly
contribute
to
the
character
of
the
city.
C
First
united
methodist
church,
the
oldest
congregation
in
avenston,
is
a
local
landmark
located
within
the
lakeshore
historic
district.
The
present
church
was
designed
by
native
evanstonian
and
church
member
thomas
thomas.
He
began
his
career
working
as
a
draftsman
for
fellow
evanstonian,
daniel
burnham,
mr.
C
I'm
going
to
be
finishing
up
this
one
in
the
national
register
nomination
form
it
states
that
the
national,
the
lake
shore
historic
district,
is
uniquely
significant
as
the
product
of
evans's
municipal
zoning
ordinance
in
1921,
the
first
in
illinois
and
one
of
the
first
in
the
nation.
An
argument
can
be
made.
The
presently
discussed
developer
is
not
on
honoring
the
city's
lakeshore
historic
district.
This
is
because
the
developer's
proposal
violates
the
zoning
worth
it
does
so
because
it
does
not
honor
a
contributing
factor
to
the
historic
district
in
which
the.
C
That
his
church
is
located
one
more
sentence:
preserving
preserving
visual
character.
In
view
sheds
is
important
for
the
community.
It
is
important
because
it
costs
civic
pride
in
the
beauty
and
noble
accomplishments
of
the
past.
Preservation
of
visual
character
protects
and
enhance
the
city's
attract
attractions
to
tourists
and
visitors,
preservation
of
visual
character,
supports
and
stimulates
business
and
industry.
C
One
more
sentence:
the
penn
central
case
is
also
interesting
because
the
united
states
supreme
court
acknowledges
that,
at
its
very
core,
historic
preservation
and
the
maintenance
of
architectural
integrity
and
visual
character
have
a
definite
financial
value
for
the
property
owners
and,
ultimately,
for
the
community
as
a
whole.
I
am
concerned.
A
Thank
you,
sir
leslie
shad.
I
believe
you
said
you
did
not.
You
weren't
going
to
be
making
comments,
but
if
you're
still
on-
and
you
would
like
to
make.
A
One,
I
guess
michelle's
no
longer
with
us
bonnie
wilson,.
V
V
V
V
In
order
to
address
the
need
documented
in
the
sawgrass
partners
analysis,
we
think
the
marion
should
be
asked
to
include
at
least
21,
affordable
units
or
10
in
its
proposal
to
conform
with
the
current
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance
at
a
minimum.
The
amount
of
money
it
is
paying
into
the
affordable
housing
fund
should
be
increased
to
meet
the
current
ordinance
requirements.
V
Although
the
marion
first
proposed
this
new
building
before
the
latest
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
was
passed
which
was
discussed
today
this
evening.
We
believe
that
the
new
information
provided
by
the
saw
grass
report,
along
with
changing
times,
make
this
a
timely
request
and
one
that
should
be
considered.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Ma'am
sue,
lowbach.
L
Yes,
so
I'm
sue
lolbach,
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless
and
head
up
our
program
and
community
coalition
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
To
reiterate
what
ms
wilson
just
said:
there's
a
projected
gap
of
300
3
235,
affordable
residential
units
for
seniors
in
evanston
by
2024..
L
L
L
Additionally,
since
the
marion
first
initiated
its
proposal,
new
information
has
become
available
through
the
sawgrass
partners
study,
which
was
mentioned,
which
really
focuses
on
the
need
for
affordable
units
for
seniors
not
for
market
rate
units
for
seniors.
And
finally,
the
world
has
changed
with
the
advent
of
advent
of
the
pandemic.
L
A
Okay,
thank
you,
ms
lobach,
ms
kelly,
kira.
A
W
Hi,
just
looking
over
the
may
7th
memo
to
you,
the
plan
commission
city
staff,
the
dapper
dapper
committee,
carefully
reviewed
all
aspects
of
this
proposal
and
concluded,
and
I
quote,
staff
recommends
denial
of
this
planned
development
for
the
proposed
building.
The
committee
unanimously
recommended
denial
they
found,
while
the
revised
proposal
slightly
reduces
the
far
building
height.
W
The
proposed
site
development
are
so
significant,
72
percent
greater
than
the
maximum
site
development
allowances
to
the
point
that
it
would
trigger
a
two-thirds
council
majority,
and
we
citizens
implore
you
the
plan
commission
not
to
leave
it
to
to
city
council.
To
be
honest
without
your
denial
from
our
experience,
council
does
not
necessarily
carefully
review.
The
project
are
not
as
familiar
with
the
zoning
districts
and
may
not
have
a
chance
to
review
all
the
details,
but
we
are
counting
on
you,
your
last
meeting
in
february.
W
The
commission
seemed
clearly
poised
to
deny
approval
of
this
building
and,
looking
through
your
comments
in
the
packet,
it
appears
the
same
issues
remain.
Even
with
these
slight
revisions.
Comments
like
it's
too
large
of
variance
requests
for
the
zoning.
That's
in
place.
The
d4
zoning
has
a
purpose
of
transition.
It's
not
the
same
as
d3,
even
though
it's
across
the
street
and
asking
for
these
huge
allowances
and
little
in
return
for
the
in
form
of
public
benefits
is
an
issue
and
staff's
memo.
W
So
it
sounds
like
that
needed
to
happen
for
its
use,
its
own
use
anyway,
this
again
the
staffs
review,
every
single
standard
of
approval,
standard,
special
use,
standard
for
plan
development
in
the
d4
districts,
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
downtown
plan,
compliance
with
the
design
guidelines
every
single
category.
They
found
significant
issues
that
do
not
seem
to
meet
the
threshold
of
approval,
even
the
intent.
W
The
planned
commission
approving
this
is
essentially
extending,
and
I
don't
even
know
if
this
is
legal,
extending
the
d3
district
so
anyway,
the
bike
path,
I'm
someone
with
four
kids,
four
little
kids
and
we
use
that
bike
path,
a
huge
carpet
already,
it's
a
very
dicey
situation
right
there
with
the
streets
and
all
the
other
curb
cuts.
Okay
anyway,
it's
it's.
W
It's
a
13
million
dollar
bike
path,
and
I
I
I
think
that
this
this
development
is
not
worth
the
you
know
the
damage
and
the
safety
issues
with
that
area
and
then,
finally,
since
we're
not
following
any
existing
downtown
plan,
even
though
we
have
one
we're
letting
developers
guide
the
guide,
our
the
downtown
development
with
endless
luxury
development
cobit
has
really
exposed
the
vulnerabilities
of
this.
As
we
see
an
almost
deserted
downtown
evanston
pretty
much
void
with
residents
from
residents.
W
I
know
it's
geared
toward
northwestern
students
and
people
in
the
downtown
buildings,
but
we
can't
lose
this
one
str.
The
stretch
of
chicago
avenue
that
has
the
most
popular
restaurant
in
town,
I
would
argue,
has
a
great
outdoor
area
that
actually
does
draw
people.
I
know
it's
coved,
but
I
just
went
to
old
orchard
and
downtown
wilmette
and
it's
starting
to
get
very
hopping
with
people
dying
to
have
a
destination
to
go
to
busy.
Yes,
anyway,
I
am.
W
I
urge
you
to
vote
against
this
and
not
take
away
a
whole
stretch
of
affordable
spaces
to
independent
businesses.
Yeah.
We
really
do
not
sue
lombach
mentioned
the
jones
lang
and
lasalle
report,
and
the
vacancy
rates
of
these
luxury
developments
are
very
high
right
now.
This
is
kind.
W
G
W
G
W
A
Thank
you
miss
kelly,
all
right,
so
is
there
any
other
member
of
the
public
that
has
a
they
would
like
to
make
a
comment
with
respect
to
this
item.
A
Okay
hearing
none
we're
going
to
close
the
public
record
on
on
this,
but
in
fact,
actually
does
the
does
the
applicant
have
any
any
final
statements
they'd
like
to
make
before
the
before
the
commission
deliberates.
O
No,
we
don't
okay!
Thank
you,
sir.
A
All
right,
so,
commissioners,
it
is
time
for
our
deliberate
deliberation.
I
actually
have
a
question
for
for
staff.
Two
questions
for
staff
number,
one,
the
the
payment
to
the
the
payment
pursuant
to
the
iho
is
that
is
that
a
is
that
a
public
benefit
is
that
in
in
our
you
know,
in
in
our
rules
in
our
ordinance.
Is
that
actually
a
public
benefit?
Given
that
the
you
know,
compliance
with
the
iho
is
is
required.
I
Staff
would
not
consider
that
to
be
a
public
benefit.
Basically,
it's
meeting
a
code
requirement,
okay
or
other
codes.
Okay,.
A
And
then
my
my
other,
my
other
question
just
to
just
to
be
clear
here.
The
the
the
fact
that
the
applicant
is
is
relying
on
the
old
iteration
of
the
iho
versus
the
new
iteration
of
the
iho
it.
It
would
appear
to
me
that
that
is
not
a
germain
factor
for
us
to
be
considering
when,
when
you
know
looking
at
this
project
is
that
am
I
correct
in
that,
in
that
assumption,.
I
I
would
say
yes,
I
chose
is
out
of
the
purview
of
the
planned
commission
is
meeting
the
requirements,
the
ordinance
if
they
were
to
be
exceeding
the
the
requirements
of
the
ordinance,
and
that
could
be
something
to
be
considered
a
plan,
a
public
benefit.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
All
right,
so,
commissioners,
what
what
do
you
think
we
have?
We
have
just
as
a
reminder.
We
have
two
two
issues
before
us.
A
We
have
the
the
subdivision
of
the
of
the
the
one
story
portion
of
this
existing
plan
development
which,
if
we
allow
this
area
to
be
removed
from
the
pd
and
take
it
back
to
its
underlying
zoning
of
a
d4,
would
increase
the
far
and
increase
the
the
you
know:
variance
of
parking
for
the
remaining
portion
of
the
parcel,
the
the
the
marion
and
the
marion
legacy,
I
believe,
is
what
we're
calling
those
two
buildings,
and
so
there's
there's
that
portion
and
then
there's
the
there's
the
planned
development
for
the
portion
that
would
then
be
removed.
A
So
we're
we're
it's
a
it's
a
two-step
process,
and
so
you
know
you
like
staff
has
staff's
recommendation,
is
a
approved
one
and
don't
approve
the
other
or
you
know,
recommend
one
and
don't
recommend
the
other.
You
may
you
know
you
may
think
differently
about
recommend
recommend,
not
recommend
not
not
recommend,
but
I
think
those
are
really
are.
I
think
there's
really
only
three
iterations
of
that,
but
just
as
a
reminder,
there's
going
to
be
two
things:
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
and
looking
at
here
so.
E
I
assume
I
can
ask
it,
I'm
I'm
kind
of
focused
on
hyphen
and
far,
and
it
it
really.
Maybe
if
we
can
flip
to
that
slide
that
we
just
had
up
slide
40.
My
question
is
what
a
lot,
what
development
allowance?
What
are
development?
What
are
the
development
allowances
that
allow
the
height
to
go
from
105
feet
to
145
feet.
I
Essentially
that
that
extra
40
feet
is
the
site
development
allowance
that
can
be
requested
and
then,
if,
if
the
development
were
to
exceed
that,
then
it's
it's
exceeding
the
maximum
development
allowance
and
the
consequence
of
that
is,
it
would
require
a
two-thirds
majority
vote
at
city
council.
I
Correct
there's
not
a
fixed
criteria;
it's
not
an
incentive
based
on
providing
something.
Okay,.
H
A
H
Yes,
I
also
have
a
question
first
for
staff.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
the
night
2009
comp.
A
downtown
plan
was
adopted
by
the
city
council.
Is
that
correct?
I
know
the
zoning
wasn't,
but
was
the
plan
adopted.
I
A
Okay,
so
you
know,
let's,
let's
sort
of
get
into
the
into
the
weeds
a
little
bit
here
with
respect
to
the
the
subdivision.
A
What
do
commissioners
think
about
the
applicant's
request
to
to
remove
the
you
know
the
one-story
portion
from
the
from
the
plan
development?
They
obviously
you
know
the
applicant
obviously
previously
used
that
area
in
order
to
build
up
the
marian
legacy
and
now
wants
to
take
it
out
and-
and
you
know,
make
it
and
you
know
add
to
it-
I
I
personally
don't
I
personally
don't
see
an
issue
with
it.
You
know
I.
A
If
this
was
their
plan
all
along,
I
would
have
rather
had
them
not
include
the
one
story
when
they
were
asking
for
their
planned
development
to
begin
with,
but
I
I
don't
see
the
the
increase
in
the
far
to
be
to
be
that
controversial
and
in
in
general.
I
I
think,
the
I
think
the
you
know,
development
of
the
of
the
one-story
portion
makes
makes
sense
for
that
area.
A
That's
that's
just
my
thought,
but
you
know
wondering
what
other
commissioners
think,
commissioner
johnson,
you
have
your
hand
up
and
you
are
on
mute
there.
You
go.
M
A
I
think,
unless,
unless
someone
wants
to
talk
about
the
subdivision
portion
and
staff,
let
me
let
me
just
ask
you
really
quick.
Do
you
want
us
to?
A
I
I
I
I
think
it'd
be
up
to
the
commission
whether
you
want
to
resolve
and
dispose
of
one
issue
before
moving
on
to
the
next
or
complete
your
discussion.
Deliberations
go
through
the
standards
and
then
have
the
two
motions
at
the
conclusion.
A
Okay,
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
doing
it
all
together,
unless
other
commissioners
feel
otherwise,
I
think
we'll
just
we'll
move
forward
in
that
way.
A
Okay,
so
as
to
the
as
the
planned
development.
What
what
do
you
guys.
E
Think
well
I'll
go,
I
guess
I'll
go
first.
So,
regarding
the
the
poor
corsair
and
the
the
curb
cut,
I
I
am,
I
don't
have
strong
feelings
either
way.
I
suppose
about
that.
E
What
I
continue
to
focus
on
is
the
height
in
the
far,
and
you
know
we
spoke
about
this
at
the
last
time
this
was
presented
and-
and
we
said
that
you
know
this
was
a
big
ask
and
I
still
think
it's
a
big
ask
the
the
spirit
if,
if
not
the
letter
and
I'll
talk
about
that
of
the
transition
zone
of
the
d4,
is
that
the
the
height
of
the
building
significantly
steps
down
to
get
to
the
residential
district
to
the
east,
and
this
is
clearly
not
an.
E
I
don't
believe
enough
of
enough
of
a
step.
But
what
bothers
me
is
the
diagram
that's
shown
on
this
slide,
and
I
it
just
astounds
me
that
apparently,
with
the
zoning
with
under
the
zoning
that
you
can,
you
can
have
a
building
that
is
185
feet
just
as
shown
in
in
in
illustration
number
three,
and
so
you
know
if,
if
we
were
to
talk
about
what
the
zoning
allows,
apparently
the
zoning
allows
185
foot
building
if
it's,
if
it's
stacked
the
way.
The
way
illustration
three
is
stacked.
E
I
don't
believe
that
that
follows
the
it
may
follow
the
rule,
but
it
does
not
follow
the
spirit
of
of
this
zoning.
So
I
I
think,
that's
that's.
That's
that's
an
issue,
at
least
for
me.
A
Well,
remember
that
you
know
mr
mangum
confirmed
that
the
the
site
development
allowance
of
40
feet
is
completely
discretionary,
and
so
really
as
of
right,
they
can
go
145,
but
40
feet
of
that
would
have
to
be
parking.
A
So
that
isn't
one
of
the
four
items
pictured
here,
but
as
of
right,
that's
what
they'd
have
but
you're
right,
because
on
an
far
basis,
if
they
were
going
to
keep
it
as
of
right,
that
would
be
a
skinnier
building
and
it
probably
wouldn't
be
as
imposing
upon
the
residential
to
the
to
the
east
right.
They'd,
probably
have
it
thinner
either.
You
know
east-west
or
north-south,
but
you
know
you're
right,
though
it
would
still
be
145
feet
and
145
feet,
as
you
can
see
from
the
from
number
two
diagram.
A
A
You
it's
still
it's
still
down
to
a
it's
a
site,
development
allowance.
So
it's
discretionary!
It's
not
it's!
105
is
the
zoning
and
they
they
can
ask
for
an
extra
40
feet
with
it
through
a
site
development
allowance.
And
then
then
they
absolutely
get
40
feet
if
they
have
a
above
ground
parking.
Okay.
But
when
you,
when
they
put
in
the
above
ground
parking,
then
they're,
you
know
they're
they're,
changing
what
what
it
looks
like
from
the
I
understand.
H
Me
I
offer
a
little
historical
perspective
to
on
this.
I
I
worked
with
the
planning
commission
to
develop
the
1989
downtown
plan,
which
you
know
kind
of
then,
along
with
the
1986
comprehensive
plan
that
that
then
ended
up
leading
to
the
rewrite
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
H
And
while
I
was
not
involved
in
the
rewrite
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
I
was,
I
did
follow
it
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
one
of
the
one
of
the
reasons
for
the
d4
district
was
that
there
were
a
number
of
potential
development
sites,
this
this
particular
site,
being
one
a
block
to
the
south,
where
the
hyatt
is
that
was
another
potential
development
site
and
so
in,
and
that
in
enacting
the
d4
zoning
district.
One
of
the
reasons
that
it
has
such
generous
development
allowances.
H
That
is
really
that
the
city
council
was
trying
to
encourage
redevelopment
of
some
of
the
underutilized
properties
that
are
mapped
within
the
the
d4
district
kind
of
you
know
throughout
the
the
periphery
of
the
downtown,
and
I
think
you
know
at
the
time
there
were
a
lot
of
residents
who
were
kind
of
concerned
with
the
the
height
and
the
debt
development
allowances
that
were
included
in
that
district,
but
that
was
a
conscious
policy
decision
on
the
part
of
the
the
city
council.
H
H
You
know
the
185
feet
or
even
145
feet,
which
would
be
normally
allowed.
So
that's
kind
of
my
initial
thoughts.
F
F
Sorry,
the
other
question
I
would
have
is
when
you
get
into
these
transitional
districts,
if
you
do
allow
so
many
allowances,
with
both
height
and
mass
and
far,
when
do
you
ever
really
have
a
transition?
That's
not
abrupt
as
you
go
down
to
the
residential
or
or
less
commercial
districts,
and
it's
tough
because
I
think,
as
as
commissioner
linwall
said,
many
of
those
areas
can
be
redeveloped,
which
makes
sense,
but
the
devil
is
in
the
details,
and
this
just
seems
to
me
larger.
More
massive
than
the
public
benefits
would
really
would
really
justify.
G
Mr
chairman,
if
I
could
just
ask
a
question
again
on
the
40-foot
development
allowance,
it's
you,
the
developer
requests
it.
Mr
magnum
indicated.
There's
no
criteria,
that's
used!
What's
the
process,
somebody
wants
it
who
approves
it
and
what's
the
basis
on
which
that
would
be
approved
or
denied.
I
Essentially,
the
the
section
6365
deals
with
site
development
allowances
and
it
states,
subject
to
the
specific
standards
limitations
established
for
plan
developments
in
each
district.
The
plan
commission,
we
recommend
approval
of
and
the
city
council
may
grant
site
development
allowances
for
plan
development
relative
to
the
following
affecting
bolton
density,
and
it
goes
through.
The
items
that
can
be
plant
development
allowances
and
height
and
far
are
two
of
those,
but
there
are
no
particular
criteria
specifically
for
the
site
development
allowance
itself.
E
Okay,
let
me
make
one
more
comment
that
I-
and
this
is
really
a
positive
response
to
the
architecture.
I
I
really
think
the
architects
given
the
the
far-
and
you
know
that
they
had
to
had
to
work
with
the
square
footage.
Rather
they
did
a
pretty
nice
job.
I'd,
say
incredible,
job
of
of
arranging
the
mass
and
detailing
it
so
that
it
it
it
looks
as
the
least
like
the
least
like
a
like
the
the
large
mass
that
it
it
could
have
looked
like
I.
E
A
You
know
I
would
say
that
if
this
was
a,
you
know
a
a
ten-story
building
with
one
level
of
underground
parking
it,
I
think,
I'd.
I
think
much
differently
about
it,
because
I
agree
like
I,
I,
like
the
port
co-share.
A
I
understand
the
concerns
about
the
about
the
bike
lane,
but
you
know,
if
we're
talking
about
redevelopment,
they
you
need
to
have
you
need
to
have
parking
and
it's
I
I
think
it's
it's
better,
given
what
we've
heard
about
with
the
use
the
current
use
of
the
alley
that
you
minimize
it
and
they
they
they
did
that.
So
I
you
know
I
there.
There
are
good
things
about
this
proposal.
I
just
for
me.
I
don't
know
that
there
there
are
enough
good
things
to
to
approve
it.
A
The
way
they've
they've
asked
for
it
and
honestly,
I'm
I'm
a
little.
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
in
in
the
time
that
they
time
they
took
from
the
last
meeting
in
february
that
they
decided
that
two
two
floors
was
going
to
be.
Removing
two
floors
was
going
to
be
sufficient
to
address
our
concerns.
I
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it's
it's
addressed
my
concerns
all
right
with
that.
Shall
we
move
on
to
the
standards
or
is
there
any
other
comments
or
or
questions.
M
At
this
time,
chair
isaac,
yes,
please
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
in
a
general
sense,
I
am
inclined
to
support
the
this
project
for
a
couple
reasons.
M
You
know
it's
while
it's
not
strictly
within
a
higher
density
district,
it
is
directly
across
the
street
from
a
building
of
similar
height.
M
I
do
appreciate
the
developer
spending
the
money
to
to
to
bury
the
parking
and
retain
more
of
the
above
ground
space
for
active
uses,
this
increasing
vitality
in
downtown
in
a
very
transit,
an
alternative
transportation
portion
of
our
city
in
a
general
sense.
This
is
a
an
appropriate
site
for
a
project
of
of
this
character.
M
You
know
we
you
know,
unfortunately,
especially
now.
There
is
a
very
apparent
need
downtown
for
additional
customers
for
ground
level,
retail
and
dining
that
we
so
cherish
in
our
city,
and
this
would
put
more
residents
downtown.
This
would
put
more
pedestrians
on
the
street
and
would
would
activate
our
sidewalks.
M
That
is.
That
is
certainly
something
that's
needing
us.
You
know
within
these
pandemic
times
and
not-
and
you
know
that
this
is
the
the
subject
property
is,
is,
quite
frankly,
it's
an
underutilized
property.
It's
it's
one
story,
it's
it's!
I
don't
think
anybody
on
this
on
this
commission
or
anybody
in
this
meeting
could
successfully
argue
that
it's
currently
at
its
highest
and
best
use.
M
So
in
a
general
sense,
I
am
inclined
to
support
this.
You
know
I
I,
like
others
would
appreciate
greater
public
accommodations,
but
but
but
but
as
is
you
know,
I
I
I
do
appreciate
the
modifications
that
have
been
made
since
the
last
time.
We
heard
this
this
particular
project.
A
What
do
you
think
about
the
argument
about
the
you
know?
Approving
this
building
would
would
be
a
lack
of
transition
from
from
the
you
know,
from
the
downtown
district
on
the
west
side
of
the
block
to
the
residential
district
on
the
east
side
of
the
block.
M
It's
I
mean
the
unfortunate
reality
is
those
those
those
transitional
areas
have
to
be
somewhere.
You
know
there
has
to
be
a
property
on
on
one
side
of
a
block:
that's
commercial,
the
other
side
of
a
block,
that's
resident
or
one
side
of
an
alley.
That's
commercially
other
side
of
an
alley.
That's
that's
that's
residential!
It's
those
lines
have
to
be
have
to
be
somewhere
and
in
this
particular
spot.
M
M
I
would
venture
to
think
that
perhaps
some
of
the
residents
that
that
live
in
that
are
sex
are
six
or
live
in
that
that
are
one
live
there
precisely
because
they
can
walk
to
the
bank
and
they
can
walk
to
the
whole
foods
and
they
live
there.
Precisely
because
they're
close
to
that
that
boundary
line
between
a
commercial
and
residential
neighborhood.
A
And
then
those
you
don't
see
a
benefit
in.
I
know
we're
saying:
there's
a
20-story
building
on
the
west
side
of
chicago.
You
don't
see
a
benefit
of
having
a
a
step
down
from
the
the
20,
because
I
I
don't.
I
don't
get
the
sense
that
that
this
commission
is
going
to
say
no
to
the
subdivision.
I
think
everyone
I
I
get
a
sense
that
most
of
the
commissioners
are
going
to
be
in
favor
of
making
the
making
the
one
story
parcel
like.
A
I
think
we
recognize
that
it's
underutilized
and
that
we're
we're
gonna
move
forward
with
allowing
them
to
to
utilize
it
to
its
to
its
to
its
potential.
But
you
know
there
being
a
step
down
from
the
20.
You
know
20
to
8
to
10,
maybe
11
and
then
down
to
like.
I
don't
know
if
it's
four
to
six
stories,
that's
on
the
east
side
of
the
of
that
block.
But
so
you
don't
you
don't
you
don't
believe
that
that
there's
a
there's
a
benefit
to
maintaining
that
step
down.
M
No,
no!
No!
No!
Mr
chair.
I
think
that
would
be
better
okay,
that
that
that
would
be
better.
But
the
question
if
the
question
posed
to
me
for
my
vote
is,
is
what
is
proposed
permissible
or
not
as
far
as
an
all
or
nothing
today,
since
we've
kicked
this
around
a
couple
of
times,
I'm
I
am
inclined
to
say
that
what
is
what
is
being
proposed
today
is
is
is
is
is
better
than
it.
M
You
know,
even
with
the
the
the
perhaps
disadvantage
of
not
having
a
step
down
in
a
perfect
world
that
that
would
be
great,
but
that's
not
what
what's
on
the
table
tonight.
A
My
my
opinion
is
that
the
the
fact
that
we're
being
asked
to
vote
on
two
separate
things
which
is
allowing
for
the
subdivision,
means
that
and
then
the
plan
development
is
a
separate
item,
means
that
it's
not
an
all
or
nothing
and
that
we
can.
We
can
say
yes,
please.
A
You
know
utilize
this
parcel
more
by
agreeing
to
the
subdivision,
recommending
approval
of
the
subdivision
subdivision
and
then
also
saying
you
know
no
you're,
not
getting
the
the
the
full
ask
that
you
that
you've
been
you
know
been
milling
around
with,
for
is
it
close
to
two
years
now,
probably
more
that
you
know
our
expectation
is
that
there
be
a
step
down,
but
you
know
this
is
not
all
for
naught.
A
You're
you're,
getting
part
of
your
ask
and
you
or
maybe
another
developer
will
come
back
with
something
that's
more
appropriate
for
for
the
site.
You
know
so
I
I
wouldn't
say
that
it's
all
or
nothing.
I
think
I
think
there
is
a
middle
ground
and
I
think
I
you
know
what
what
I
think
is
the
middle
ground.
I
just.
A
But
that
being
said,
let's
go
to
I'm
sorry,
commissioner.
Linwell.
H
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
we
ought
to
be
looking
you
know,
rather
than
looking
at
the
transition
from
the
d3
to
the
d4.
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
look
at
what
else
is
on
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue.
You've
got
the
marion.
You've
got
the
addition.
You've
got
the
what
522
church,
so
we've
already
got
kind
of
an
established
height
along
that
block,
and
I
think
you
know
which
kind
of
fits
within
the
105
foot
envelope
that
the
zoning
allows.
H
So
I
think
that
we
really
kind
of
ought
to
be
looking
at
the
character
of
the
existing
development.
You
know,
I
agree
that
the
the
single
story
you
know
is,
you
know,
it's
been
a
develop
redevelopment
candidate
for
decades
and
you
know.
I
think
that
at
some
point
something
will
happen.
I
just
don't
think
that
this
particular
development
proposal
is
the
answer.
H
A
Mr
mr
mangum,
so
the
special
use
standards
that
these,
but
that's
this
slide
is
really
only
for
4b.
Is
that
correct.
I
Actually,
mr
chair,
the
special
use
applied
to
the
plan
development
and
technically
the
portion
of
4a
that
the
commission
is
considering,
is
the
adjustment
to
the
plan
development,
the
previous
plan
development,
okay,
procedurally,
the
subdivision.
The
plan
commission
does
not
expressly
have
a
role
in
making
a
recommendation
on
a
subdivision.
I
The
city
council
has
is
the
reviewing
body
and
an
approval
body
on
a
subdivision.
The
adjustment
involves
the
subdivision
of
the
land.
A
Okay,
so
in
looking
at
the
special
use
standards
on
4a,
what
we're
looking
at
is
the
is
basically
the
the
effect
of
the
subdivision
to
the
to
the
existing
pd.
I
Correct
yeah
changing
the
the
boundary
that
the
planned
development
and
the
effect
on
the
far
essentially.
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
my
I,
I
think
I
think
now
that
we've
gotten
to
this
point,
we
should
probably
go
through.
You
know
one
through
nine
for
4a
and
then
for
4b.
I
think
it'll
just
help
us.
You
know
focus
on
the
on
the
standards
a
little
a
little
easier
to
make
make
the
conversation
go
a
little
easier.
So,
let's
see
first
one
is.
It
is
one
of
the
special
uses
specifically
listed
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
we're
not
really
affecting
the
uses.
A
I
would
say
that
this
is
not
applicable
and
again
commissioners,
you
don't
need
to
raise
your
hand
if
you
have
something
to
say.
Please,
please
jump
in
and
we're
talking
about,
4a
right
now.
So
this
is
the
the
change
to
the
existing
pd
to
remove
a
port
by
removing
a
portion
of
the
of
the
parcel
from
the
pd.
A
It
is
in
keeping
with
the
purposes
and
policies
of
the
adopted,
comprehensive
general
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance
as
amended
from
time
to
time
I
would
say:
that's
that's
satisfied,
we're
not
really
changing
changing
anything
here.
It
will
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
when
its
effect
is
considered.
A
In
conjunction
with
the
communal
cumulative
effect
of
various
special
uses
of
all
types
on
the
immediate
neighborhood
and
the
effect
of
the
proposed
type
of
special
use
on
the
city
as
a
whole,
I
believe
in
our
february
meeting
we
talked
about
the
you
know.
The
fact
that
this
would
remove
parking
from
the
from
use
by
the
marion
and
marion
legacy,
and
my
recollection
is
that
there
wasn't
a
it
didn't
appear
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
significant
effect
on
the
use
of
the
parking.
A
In
fact,
I'm
not
sure
that
the
outdoor
parking
on
the
removal
removed
portion
of
the
site.
I
believe
there
was
a
testimony
that
said
that
it
wasn't
really
being
used
by
by
the
marion
or
didn't
need
to
be
used.
It
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
value
of
property
in
the
neighborhood.
A
Again,
I
I
believe,
that's
that's
satisfied.
It
can
be
adequately
served
by
public
facilities
and
services.
The
removal-
wouldn't
I
don't
think
it
would
affect
that-
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion.
A
Again,
I
I
would
say
that
that's
satisfied
preserve
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources
that
would
appear
to
me
to
be
not
applicable.
A
Preserve
significant
natural
and
environmental
features
not
applicable,
it
complies
with
all
other
applicable
regulations
of
the
district
and
which
is
located
in
other
applicable
ordinances
except
the
extent
such
regulations
have
been
modified
through
the
plan,
development
process
or
the
grant
of
variation.
A
So
really
what
we're
talking
about
is
increase
of
far
from
3.15
to
4.2
and.
A
Decrease
in
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
and
so
I
I
would
seem
to
me
that
this-
that
the
removal
portion
that
the
remaining
pd
would
still
comply
with
all
other
applicable
regulations
except
to
the
extent
we're
agreeing
to
the
to
the
variation.
A
Are
there?
Are
there
any
other
standards
that
we
have
to
look
at
for
for
4a,
scott.
I
A
So,
let's
see
each
each
plan,
development
shall
be
compatible
with
surrounding
development
and
not
be
of
such
a
nature
and
height
bulk
or
scale
as
to
exercise
any
influence.
Contrary
to
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
I
would
say
this
is
either
satisfied
or
not
applicable,
given
what
we're
looking
at
for
this
for
this
portion
for
4a
each.
A
A
So
I'd
say
that
that's
satisfied
each
planned
development
shall
be
compatible
with
and
implement
the
adopted,
comprehensive
general
plan
as
amended
the
plan
for
downtown
evanston,
any
adapted
land
use
or
urban
design
plan
specific
to
the
area.
This
zoning
ordinance
and
any
other
pertinent
city
planning
and
development
policies.
A
Again,
the
removal
of
the
of
the
one
story
would
not
would
not
affect
that,
and
the
the
remaining
portion
would
still
be
compatible.
Each
plan
development
shall
be
completed
within
two
years.
This
is
not
applicable
all
landscaping,
landscaping,
treatment
within
the
plant
development.
We're
not
changing.
This
modification
wouldn't
be
changing
the
the
landscaping.
A
Considering
that
the
one
story
portion
doesn't
have
any
any
landscaping
to
speak
of
all
right,
so
walk,
site
controls
and
standards
walkways
developer
for
planned
development
shall
form
a
logical,
safe
and
convenient
system
for
pedestrian
access
to
all
project
facilities
and
off-site
destinations
likely
to
to
attract
substantial
pedestrian
traffic.
A
Pedestrian
ways
shall
not
be
used
by
other
automotive
traffic.
That
is
satisfied,
location,
construction,
operation
of
parking
loading
areas
and
service
areas
shall
be
designed
to
avoid
adverse
effects
on
residential
uses.
This
does
not.
This
is
not
applicable
principal
vehicular
access
points
shall
be
designed
the
the
vehicular
access
points
to
this.
The
portion
we're
removing,
does
not
affect
the
area.
That's
still
going
to
be
in
the
plan
to
be
within
the
plan.
Development
number
four.
The
plan
development
shall
provide,
if
possible,
for
underground
installation
of
utilities.
A
This
is
not
applicable
for
every
planned
development.
There
should
be
provided
a
market
feasibility
statement
again.
This
is
not
not
applicable
for
what
we're
talking
about
in
4a
for
every
plant
development,
there
shall
be
a
provided
traffic
circulation
impact
study
again,
not
not
applicable
here.
Zoning
administrator
may,
at
his
discretion,
require
of
the
applicant
additional
studies
or
impact
analysis,
not
not
applicable.
A
At
this
point,
I
think
we
should
we
should
consider
a
motion
and
a
vote
on
4a
and
then
we
can
move
on
to
to
4b.
A
So
do
I
do
I
hear?
Do
I
have
a
motion
on
item
4a
19plnd-0059,
which
is
the
subdivision,
slash
major
adjustment
to
a
planned
development
for
1619
chicago
avenue.
E
I
move
that
we
approve
item
4a.
A
Okay,
there's
a
motion
to
approve
4a.
Is
there
a
second.
A
Westerberg
seconds
any
any
amendments
to
the
the
foray
okay
hearing:
none
is
there
any
discussion
or
deliberation
that
anyone
wants
to
engage
in
with
respect
to
item
4a?
G
M
R
A
Yes,
okay
item
4a
passes
and
it
will
be
sent
to
the
city
council's
council
with
our
recommendation
of
approval
moving
on
to
item
4b.
A
This
is
the
now
planned
development
for
for
1621
chicago
avenue,
the
seven
17-story
apartment
building
with
215
units,
all
right
so
going
through
the
special
use
standards
under
six
three
ten.
It
is
one
of
the
special
uses
specifically
listed
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
A
It
absolutely
is
mixed
use,
and
that
item
is
satisfied.
A
H
I
would
kind
of
beg
to
differ
just
in
terms
of
the
height
in
comparison
to
what's
in
the
the
was
proposed
in
the
2009
comprehensive
downtown
plan
and
then
really
kind
of
the
development
parameters
contained
within
the
d4
district
ordinance.
The
development
allowances
that
were
contemplated
to
encourage
development
up
to
a
certain
percent,
and
I
think
that
what's
being
proposed,
exceeds
that.
A
Okay,
so
you're
saying
the
the
the
policies,
this
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
policies.
Okay,
all
right,
I
I
agree
with
that.
A
H
Oh,
thank
you.
I
I
again.
I
think
that
the
use
is
fine,
so
I
don't
think
that
that,
in
terms
of
the
the
use
is
problematic,
but
again,
I
think
that
the
the
height
and
the
the
extent
of
the
development
allowances
being
requested
would
have
a
negative
cumulative
effect,
particularly
on
that
on
that
block
base.
E
This
is
relevant,
but
is
setting
a
precedent
relevant
to
this
number
three.
E
Well,
just
that
you
know
if,
when
when
we
look
at
these
projects-
and
in
fact
we
talked
about
this-
what
are
the
what
is
the
height
and
far
of
the
other
buildings
in
this
in
the
zoning
area?
So
that's
a
you
know.
We
look
at
precedent
and
I
think
that
you
know
you
have
to
be
careful,
because
applicants
also
rely
on
precedence
and
if
there
is
a
building
right
next
to
a
site,
that's
being
developed,
you
know
they're
going
to
say
well.
A
They
previously
came
in
and
asked
for
far
3.15
and
we
just
approved
an
increase
to
that
to
4.2
and
on
this
application
on
4b
they're
asking
for
over
10.,
and
so
you
know,
maybe
maybe
yes,
we're
we're.
Setting
a
precedent
of
saying
you
know
an
far
of
of
10
is
not
acceptable
in
in
on
this
block
in
this
d4
district.
H
And
and
an
applicant
can
come
in
and
propose
something
different.
I
think
that
the
you
know
as
you,
as
you
said,
we
just
approved
increasing
the
far
for
the
the
existing
marian,
and
you
know
that
kind
of
in
part
sort
of
sets
an
appropriate
development
of
density.
So
to
then
approve
something
at
ten
point.
H
Whatever
it
is
seems
to
be,
you
know,
has
the
potential
of
creating
a
negative
cumulative
effect,
not
necessarily
on
the
marion,
but
if
you
look
further
to
the
north
to
the
condo
building
on
the
corner,
you
know
so
I
I
would
say
it's
not
satisfied,
but
others
can
weigh
in
as
well.
A
Well,
we
did,
I
mean
the
we
we've
definitely
heard
from
from
neighbors
to
the
north
and
to
the
east
that
were
were
concerned
about
the
value
of
the
property
or
because
it
would
interfere,
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value.
A
A
I
I
don't
know
if
this
is
this
is
appropriate
for
for
for
he.
I
don't
know
if
this
comments
appropriate
for
this
item
here,
but
the
you
know
putting
a
17-story
building.
You
know
right
on
top
of
a
historic
landmark
church.
Just
doesn't
it.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
that
would
that
would
have
a
a
negative
effect
on
that
property.
Like
I
said,
I
don't
know,
if
that's
a
that's
an
appropriate
comment
for
for
this
item,
but
that
definitely
in
informed
my
informs
my
thinking
on
this
item.
A
I
I
don't
think,
there's
there's
any
evidence
that
that
it
wouldn't.
I
would
say
that
this
this
item
was
satisfied.
H
A
I
mean
I
wouldn't
necessarily
put
that
completely
on
the
on
the
applicant
right
if
they,
if,
if
the
city
wants
to
do
a
special
assessment
and
charge
all
the
property
owners
their
share
of
that,
because
they
believe
that
the
alley
is
not
appropriate
or
if,
if
the
you
know,
if
the
neighbors
in
that
use
the
alley
want
want
to
approve
that
special
assessment
that
that
can
be
done,
you
know
so
like
I,
I
I
don't
really
see
that
as
a
as
an
issue.
A
You
know
if
the
alley
needs
to
be
redone,
then
you
know
the
the
neighbors
in
around
the
alley
need
need
to
get
it
done.
It
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion.
I.
A
I
know
there
was
concern
about
the
use
of
the
of
the
alley,
but
you
know
I
thought
that
we're
really
taking
we're
really
removing
the
num
reducing
the
number
of
of
commercial
uses
and
therefore
the
number
of
you
know
commercial
trucks
that
would
be
using
the
that
alleyway
and-
and
I
I
don't
think,
the
number
of
parking
spaces
would
cause
too
much
traffic
congestion
in
the
front.
Now
I
guess
there
could
be
an
argument
that
it
would
cause
more
cars
to
be
coming
back
and
forth
and
using
the
poor
cochair.
A
But
overall
I
didn't
think
that
this.
I
didn't
think
that
the
proposal
would
cause
undo
traffic
congestion.
I
agree.
A
I
I
I
don't
think
there
was
anything
that
they
were
asking
for
that
wasn't
you
know
they
were
they
didn't
like
bring
to
light
in
their
applications,
so
I
would
say
that
this
is.
This
is
satisfied,
let's
see,
okay,
so
we
have
to
the
plane.
A
Now
each
plan
development
shall
be
compatible
with
surrounding
sorry,
I'm
blocked
development
and
not
be
of
such
a
nature
in
height,
bulk
or
scale
as
to
exercise
and
the
influence
contrary
to
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
as
set
forth
in
section
01-6-1-2.
A
I
think
this
is
really
what
we've
been.
This
is
the
kind
of
goes
to
the
heart
of
what
we've
been
talking
about
here,
and
you
know
whether
the
height
bulk
or
scale
of
this
development
is
compatible
with
the
with
the
block.
With
the
you
know,
with
the
I'm
sorry,
you
know
with
the
chicago
avenue
portion
of
the
block
with
the
portion
to
the
east,
and
I
know
there's
some
some
disagreement
on
that.
I
would
say
that
it's
not
satisfied.
A
All
right
number
two:
each
plan
development
shall
enhance
the
identity
and
character
of
the
downtown
by
preserving,
where
possible,
character,
giving
buildings
enhancing
existing
streetscape
amenities,
maintaining
retail
continuity
in
areas
where
it
is
prominent,
strengthening
pedestrian
orientation
and
scale
and
contributing
to
the
mixed-use
vitality
of
the
area.
Satisfied.
A
The
only
only
thing
I
would
say
is
that,
with
with
the
retail,
you
know-
and
I
know
that
retail
is
having
a
you
know-
significant
is
going
to
be
having
significant
issues
over
the
next,
probably
a
few
years
because
of
covet,
but
I
I
do
get
concerned
with
you
know:
we'd
be
removing
four
to
five
retail
spaces
and
probably
only
having
you
know,
one
to
two
left
and
every
time
we
every
time
we
approve
a
development.
A
That's
that's
what
we're
doing
we're
removing
you
know
five
retail
and
ending
up
with
one
or
two
so
yeah
yeah.
I
I
agree
that
it's
satisfied.
I
just
I
needed
to
say
that
out
loud
each
plan
development
shall
be
compatible
with
and
implement.
The
adopted
general
implement
the
adopted,
comprehensive
general
plan
as
amended
a
plan
for
downtown
evanston.
Any
adopted
land
use
or
urban
design
plan
specific
to
the
area,
this
zoning
ordinance
and
any
other
pertinent
city
planning
and
development
policies.
A
Yeah,
this
plan
exceeds
what
the
plan
for
downtown
evanston
has
has
suggested.
A
A
The
that
is,
I
I
don't
know
how
I
don't
know
how
we'd
ever
say
that
that
isn't
isn't
satisfied,
because
it's
just
not
applicable,
because
it's
not
that's
more
of
a
condition
for
moving
forward.
All
landscaping.
Treatment
within
the
planned
development
should
be
provided
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
set
forth
in
chapter
17
and
shown
on
the
required
landscape
plan
that
shall
be
submitted
as
part
of
the
planned
development
application.
A
I'm
not
sure
that
we
we
you
saw
anything.
But
again
I
don't
I
don't.
I
wouldn't
say
that
it's
not
satisfied,
I
just
don't.
I
don't
recall,
I
don't
recall
the
landscaping
walkways
developed
for
planned
development
shall
form
logical,
safe
and
convenient
system
for
pedestrian
access
to
all
project
facilities
and
off-site
destinations
likely
to
attract
substantial
pedestrian
traffic.
Pedestrian
ways
shall
not
be
used
by
other
automotive
traffic.
I
would
say
that
this
is
satisfied.
A
Location,
construction
and
operation
of
parking
loading
areas
and
service
areas
shall
be
designed
to
avoid
adverse
effects
on
residential
uses
within
the
within
or
joining
the
development
and,
where
possible,
provide
additional
parking
beyond
that
required
for
the
planned
development
service,
the
downtown
district
and
which
is
located
so
I'd
say
that
this
is
a
mixed
bag,
because
the
I
think
they
did
a
very
good
job
about
about
location,
operation
of
parking
loading
areas.
A
As
far
as
providing
additional
parking
beyond
that
required,
I
would
say
that
the
the
standard
is
probably
a
little
bit
outdated
because
you
know
we
have
been.
We
have
been
moving
towards
approving
less
parking
than
what
is
required
for
required
in
in
downtown
districts.
A
Principal
vehicular
access
point
shall
be
designed
to
permit
smooth
traffic
flow
with
control,
with
controlled
turning
movements
and
minimum
hazards
to
vehicular
or
pedestrian
traffic.
If
a
plan
development
employs
local
streets
within
the
development
said,
streets
shall
not
be
connected
to
connected
streets
outside
the
development
in
such
a
way
as
to
encourage
their
use
by
through
traffic.
I
I
think
this
is
satisfied.
I
think
they're,
like
I
said
I
think
their
their
parking
and
vehicular
plan
was
was
good.
A
The
plan
development
shall
provide,
if
possible,
for
underground
installation
of
utilities,
both
in
public
ways
and
private
extensions
thereof.
I
believe
on
this
project
there
was
underground
installation
of
utilities.
I
don't
believe
this
was
the
one
where
the
city
did.
The
staff
did
not
ask
for
that.
For
every
plan
development
there
should
be
provided
a
market
feasibility
statement.
We
have
that
for
every
plan,
development
that
should
be
provided
traffic
circulation
impact
study.
A
A
Okay
with
that,
I
believe
we've
gone
through
all
the
standards.
Is
there
a
a
motion
that
someone
wants
to
make
with
respect
to
18
plnd-0112
plan
development
for
1621,
chicago
avenue,.
H
Sure
I'll
recommend
that
the
that
we
recommend
denial
of
the
proposed
plan
development
because
it
is
not
consistent
with
the
underlying
zoning
requirements
and
it's
not
consistent
with
the
policies,
can
and
recommend
density
recommendations
of
the
2009
plan
for
downtown
evanston.
A
Okay,
so
the
the
motion
is
to
recommend
denial.
Is
there
a
second
to
that
sure,
mr?
If
I
could
just.
G
A
I
I
I
see
your
point:
let's,
let's
have
a
motion
to
to
approve
and
then
we'll
have
we'll
have
motions
to
amend
and
then
we'll
we'll
vote
on
the
on
the
motion
to
approve
and
a
failure
of
the
motion
to
approve
shall
be
a
denial.
A
A
I
will
second,
commissioner
johnson,
you
can
have
a
chair
isaac.
No,
that's
all
you!
Thank
you
all
right.
It's
been
there's
motion,
that's
been
seconded.
Are
there
any
amendments
to
the
to
the
motion.
G
Mr
chairman,
I'd
like
to
offer
an
amendment
and
ask
that
the
nine
conditions
specified
in
the
in
the
background
material
and
the
recommendation
be
be
added
as
a
condition
to
moving
forward
and
I'd
like
to
also
add
a
tenth
condition.
Dealing
with
affordable
housing
and
I'll
need.
Your
guidance
here
on
whether
that
should
be
framed
as
requiring
them
to
comply
with
the
january
2,
2019
iho,
or
whether
we
just
put
in
a
specific
number
of
affordable
housing
units
that
would
have
to
be
included
in
the
development.
A
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that,
and
this
is
why
I
asked
the
question
at
the
at
the
beginning
of
our
deliberations:
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
necessarily
within
our
within
our
purview
to
to
be
making
that
a
making
that
a
condition
I
I
I
don't
know
that
we
can
really
get
get
into
it.
Do
we
have
scott?
Do
we
have
a
corporation
council
on
the
on
the
call
with
us.
I
I
believe
mr
george
is
is
on
the
call
and,
and
then
just
just
add
in
while
he's
getting
ready
in
previous
developments,
that,
yes,
the
the
recommendation
from
the
law
department's
been
that
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
is
not
within
the
purview
of
the
plan.
Commission,
it's
not
with
you.
I
Of
the
zoning
ordinance,
certainly,
you
can
have
discussions
about
adequacy
of
public
benefits
and
that
can
inform
your
recommendation
on
the
proposal,
but
conditions
regarding
the
inclusion,
housing
ordinance
would
be
under
the
purview
of
the
city
council
as
they
have
that
under
their
jurisdiction.
G
X
I
think
that's
I
I
I
don't
have
a
definitive
answer
really
at
this
time.
That's
something
I
would
have
to
look
into,
but
I
would
lean
my
my
instinct
would
be
no.
A
Okay,
well
I
mean
commission
hucka,
there's
there's
no,
since
we
don't
have
a
definitive
answer.
If
you'd
like
to
make
your
emotion
to
amendment
go
ahead
and
make
it
and
we'll
you
know,
if
someone
will
second,
it
we'll
we'll
have
a
vote
on
it.
I'd.
A
All
right
well
hold
on:
let's,
let's,
let's:
let's
have
a
vote
on
commission
huco's
motion
and
then
you
can
have.
You
can
have
one
as
well
all
right.
So
the
the
motion
is
to
add
the
nine
recommendations
set
forth
by
by
staff
in
the
in
the
packet.
Is
there
discussion
on
the
motion?
A
A
G
G
T
F
A
All
right
the
motion
passes,
commissioner
lindwell,
do
you
have
a.
H
I'd
like
to
add
a
point
10
to
the
list
of
I
guess:
what
is
it
conditions
or
recommendations,
and
that
would
be
for
the
applicant
to
work
with
the
city
staff
to
resolve
any
potential
issues
related
to
left
turns
into
the
the
development
and
con.
You
know:
potential
conflicts
with
the
whole
food
drive.
A
Okay,
the
commissioner
end
wall
has
made
a
motion.
Is
there
a
second?
Second?
Second
all
right,
commissioner.
Hugo
gets
a
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
All
right,
then,
ms
johnson
call
rule.
E
G
M
R
A
All
right,
the
motion
passes
any
other
any
other
amendments
to
the
motion
at
hand.
A
Okay.
Well,
then,
we'll
any
deliberation
on
the
on
the
motion.
A
All
right
hearing,
none
we'll
move
to
vote
just
as
a
reminder
we're
voting
to
approve
the
plan
development
with
the
with
the
nine
staff
recommendations
and
then
the
and
then
commissioner
linwall's
recommendation
with
respect
to
left
turns
so
a
vote
for
yes
will
be
to
approve
the
plan
development.
A
vote
no
will
be
to
deny
the
the
planned
development.
Mrs
jones,
can
you
call
roll
please.
E
T
H
V
L
A
Okay,
so
the
the
the
zoning
the
plan
commission
is
going
to
send
a
recommended
recommendation
of
denial
to
the
city
council
for
18
plnd
plnd-0112.
That
concludes
our
old
business.
Is
there
any
public
comment.
A
A
I
will
second
we're
going
to
do
this
by
voice
vote.
All
in
favor.