►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 8/10/2016
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
A
Staff
have
asked
that
we
continue
to
September
14th
the
proposed
zoning
text,
amendment
on
parking
requirements
in
transit,
oriented
development
areas
and
that
recommendation
is
going
to
be
presented
to
the
parking
committee
on
the
twenty-fourth
of
this
month
and
then
will
come
to
us.
So
may
have
a
motion
to
continue
that
matter.
So.
A
A
A
A
At
the
time
we
broke
off
at
that
meeting,
we
had
completed
public
testimony
by
all,
but
one
of
the
people
who
had
signed
in
to
speak
that
one
person
was
the
one
who
requested
the
continuance,
and
the
expectation
was
that
we
would
begin
with
her
this
evening.
Let
me
ask
first:
if
you
testified
at
the
last
meeting,
you
cannot
testify
again
at
this
one.
Is
there
anyone
here
who
wishes
to
testify?
Who
was
not
did
not
testify
at
the
first
meeting
comments.
A
A
The
petitioner
may
then
make
a
brief
closing
statement,
including
rebuttal
of
any
points
that
the
public
have
made.
Staff
will
make
brief,
closing
comments
and
then
we'll
close
the
hearing
record
and
proceed
to
deliberation,
I
think
at
the
last
meeting
we
did
not
read
into
the
record
or
note
for
the
record
three
documents
which
we
received
prior
to
the
last
meeting
and
I
will
simply
make
note
of
those.
A
A
Copies
of
that
had
been
provided
to
all
of
the
commissioners
and
to
the
petitioner
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
read
the
whole
thing
into
the
record,
but
I
will
highlight
eight
points
that
she
makes
to
which
the
petitioner
may
wish
to
respond.
To
summarize
she
says
the
building
is
too
tall
and
too
dense
for
the
neighborhood.
The
wood
frame
construction
is
inferior
to
that
of
surrounding
buildings
and
cannot
support
a
green
roof.
The
building
asks
for
significant
site
allowances,
but
lacks
public
benefits.
A
Unit
size
means
the
building
will
be
targeted
to
students
in
a
neighborhood
that
already
suffers
from
overcrowded
student
houses,
absentee
landlords
and
problem
behavior.
The
alley
configuration
is
problematic
for
emergency
vehicle
access
built
lot
line
to
lot
line.
There
is
no
green
space
to
give
relief
from
a
sea
of
concrete.
The
west,
facade
and
building
materials
are
still
in
need
of
improvement,
and
one
elevator
for
people
and
household
belongings
located
at
the
front
of
the
building,
will
create
congestion
on
Noyes
Street,
since
the
petitioner
has
a
copy
of
the
letter.
A
C
C
Well,
I
wasn't
actually
going
to
comment,
but
I
see.
No
one
else
is
here
tonight,
so
I'm
just
going
to
write.
Actually
it's
a
letter,
I
wrote
in
response
to
Barbara,
contacted
me
and
asked
me
about
it.
So
what
I
said
was
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
restaurant
on
the
first
floor
and
apartments
above
that
sort
of
building
is
very
common
in
Chicago,
neighborhood
business
districts
and
works
well
at
the
noise
location.
But
the
proposed
building
is
too
dense
and
parking
is
a
real
issue.
C
Even
the
way
the
city
is
calculated,
number
of
spaces
which
the
developer
can't
meet
is
inadequate,
and
the
planned
150
dollar
per
month
for
outdoor
covered
parking
is
really
high.
Of
course,
beggars
can't
be
choosers
intense
will
have
to
pay,
because
there
will
be
no
alternative,
I
wonder
if
just
a
factor
will
drive
away
some
of
the
potential
market.
It's
the
economics
that
don't
appear
to
work
and
didn't
work
on
Emerson
on
the
building
that
you
we
had
so
much
trouble
with
earlier
this
year.
C
Apparently,
you
can't
build
a
building
with
a
normal
number
of
normal
sized
apartments
with
a
proper
number
of
parking
spaces,
because
you
can't
make
any
money
that
way
and
let's
be
real,
the
developers
are
in
business,
that's
how
they
make
their
living.
They
aren't
going
to
build
of
money
on
money-losing
building,
it's
a
real
problem,
because
development
is
needed
and
I
am
very
conscious
of
the
fact
that
I
have
protested,
the
Emerson
building
and
now
I'm
protesting
the
noise
building.
C
We
can't
just
always
say
no
I,
don't
know
what
the
answer
is,
because
I'm,
not
a
builder
and
developer
I,
do
think
the
developer,
who
has
local,
who
is
local
and
he
has
allegiance
to
evanston,
means
well
and
is
trying
to
build
a
win-win
building,
but
I,
don't
think
he's
there
yet
by
a
long
shot.
Thanks.
A
B
There
was
one
thing
in
the
letter
that
didn't
mention:
there
was
a
question
on
the
tax
situation:
I,
yes,
I
on
the
building,
so
my
purchase
and
sale
contract
calls
for
all
back
taxes
to
be
paid.
I'm
unaware
of
that
cludes.
Any
taxes
that
weren't
paid
as
part
of
the
land
lease
I
did
supply
staff.
Earlier
today,
we
finally
got
our
confirmation
that
the
parcels
will
be
merged
into
one
pin
number,
so
they
originally
there
was
a
land
was
separate
because
it
was
owned
by
northwestern.
It
was
not
taxed.
B
So
part
of
my
agreement
is
that
this
all
of
the
tax
situations,
all
back
taxes,
will
be
paid
at
closing
if
the
project
gets
approved
and
I
execute.
On
my
end
of
the
other,
the
project-
okay,
I,
want
to
thank
you
all
for
taking
the
time
to
review
the
project.
I've
worked.
We've
been
working
with
staff
on
this
since
februari.
This
is
sort
of
a
long
and
arduous
process.
I
am
starting
to
see
hopefully
a
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel
on
this.
B
Unfortunately,
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
brought
up
are
just
beyond
this
projects
ability
to
solve
in
this
projects
situation.
Given
all
the
aspects
of
it,
construction
prices,
rent
prices,
we
have
a
project
right
now
that
I
think
is
very
viable
and
without
additional
costs
added
to
it,
the
green
roof,
as
I
mentioned,
we
are
still
in
disagreement
with
staff
on
the
being
singled
out
as
far
as
the
inability
to
get
on
street
parking
on
that
side.
B
B
That
being
said,
we
are
very
excited
about
the
building
about
how
far
it's
come,
having
working
with
staff,
we
do
think
that
their
involvement
in
their
comments
have
made
it
a
better
building
over
time,
as
well
as
some
of
the
comments
from
the
neighbors
that
we
have
address,
been
able
to
address
and
still
make
the
project
viable.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
D
D
He
stated
that
if
the
building
is
constructed
as
requested
and
I
believe
required,
actually
it
will
have
to
have
automatic,
sprinkler
and
fire
alarm
system
which
they
consider
to
be
a
safe
building.
He
also
mentioned
that
in
the
event
of
a
fire
and
the
preliminary
fire
command
would
set
up
the
battalion
chief
and
ambulance
a
fire
engine
and
fire
ladder
on
Noyes
Street
in
front
of
the
building
and
specific
situations.
D
Also
with
regards
to
the
green
roof.
That
is
a
recommendation
so
that
staff
does
have.
As
I
mentioned
at
the
July
meeting,
we
are
open
to
hearing
other
possible
sustainable
options
for
the
roof
I'm.
So
that's
definitely
a
discussion
that
can
continue,
and
with
regards
to
the
parking,
our
recommendation
to
have
the
residents
of
that
building
not
eligible
for
residential
on
street
parking
permits
still
stands.
D
A
A
E
All
right,
I
have
several
points
I'd
like
to
make.
The
first
is,
unlike
what
staff
would
like
I
think
the
green
roof
is
a
terrible
burden
to
place
on
this
apartment
building,
especially
one
that
has
actually
got
affordable,
housing
units
allotted
which
is
not
seen
every
day.
The
second
is
that
noise
street
is
not
a
permanent
parking
zone.
The
a
zone
and
the
g'zone
run
on
either
side
of
Sherman
and
then
a
maple
and
over
toward
Ridge
I.
E
Don't
I
I,
don't
quite
understand
why
you
want
to
offer
more
parking
on
street
free
parking
when
you're
parking
is
under
50
a
month,
which
means
more
in
your
pockets
and
I
also
don't
understand
the
benefit
of
transit.
Oriented
development
is
if
we
can't
reduce
the
number
of
cars
on
the
streets
in
Evanston.
As
for
students
living
in
the
apartments,
I
would
think
that
an
apartment
building
with
students
is
more
contained
and
has
more
chance
of
the
residents
policing
each
other.
E
If
you're
studying
and
you've
got
a
neighbor
having
a
party,
you
go
down
and
pound
on
his
door,
it's
not
quite
the
same
as
having
it
put
on
your
bathrobe
and
slippers
and
walk
down
the
street
to
the
end
of
the
block
and
they've
already
seen
you
coming,
and
they
fled
the
scene,
leaving
blue
and
red
cups
behind
and
then
finally,
I
am
concerned,
as
Jane
Evans
brought
up
about
the
traffic
going
down
the
alley
to
avoid
the
traffic
light
at
Sherman.
Has
the
city
given
any
thought
to
changing
gaffe-filled
to
one-way
westbound.
F
F
So,
if
you're
coming
out
of
that,
if
you're
coming
out
of
that,
so
people
from
gaffe-filled
to
the
east,
west
Ali
could
go
northbound
or
southbound
and
everything
East
everything
south
north
of
there.
Everything
north
of
there
would
be
forced
to
go
to
noise
and
that
would
alleviate
any
any
additional
traffic
going
southbound
to
gaff
field.
Instead
of
changing
the
street
pattern,
you
just
changed
the
alley
pattern,
just
just
a
thought.
There.
I
had
I'd
made
a
note
of
that
for
our
last
meeting.
F
E
E
F
E
B
H
H
H
With
the
alley,
I
think,
if
you
made
the
alley
one
way,
northbound
and
you're
going
to
force
everybody
to
enter
the
alley
from
gaffe-filled,
so
that's
only
going
to
put
more
in
traffic
on
gas
field,
at
least
this
section
between
sherman
and
the
alley
making
gaffe-filled
one
way.
That's
why
an
issue?
Maybe
the
residents
want
to
weigh
in
on
it,
could
create
more
inconvenience
than
convenes.
It's
a
narrow
street
by
far
with
parking,
both
sides,
but
again
the
volumes
are
pretty
low
on
that
street
and
it's
not
a
continuous
street.
H
H
Yeah,
that's
true
there
there
will
be
some
small
box
trucks
that
need
to
get
into
the
alley
the
rear
of
our
project
to
load.
That's
what
the
loading
facility
is
for
the
restaurant
for
any
tenants
that
move
into
the
building
the
plan
is
that
they'll
come
off
a
noise
hit
south
on
the
alley
and
turn
into
the
east-west
daily.
Any
conversion
of
the
alley
to
one
way
could
also
send
some
box
trucks
down
to
gaffe-filled
from
Sherman
to
enter
the
alley
depending
on
the
direction
you
know
the
alley
is
oriented,
or
vice
versa.
H
A
A
I
Want
to
make
a
quick
comment
on
the
on
the
letter
that
was
sent
to
us
the
the
comment
about
the
44
units
and
the
one
elevator
by
personal
experience
living
in
a
21
unit,
building
which
are
very
close
to
this.
It
makes
no
problem
at
all
and
it's
plenty
for
one
building.
So
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
this
comment
doesn't
really
apply
to
this
building.
Ok,.
F
Have
a
question
for
for
staff
about
the
parking
situation,
I
believe
from
the
the
memorandum
that
was
in
the
packet
that
this
property
isn't
otherwise
eligible
for
for
the
parking
for
the
neighborhood
parking
stickers
and
so
I
guess
I'm
questioning?
Why
why
we're
being
asked
to
include
the
restriction
in
the
PD.
G
G
Additional
cars
to
the
on-street
parking
network
just
would
not
make
sense.
This
is
a
brand-new
development
from
scratch
that
should
meet
its
own
demand,
which
is
exactly
what
the
applicant
is
proposing.
Commercial
portion
of
the
project
does
not
necessarily
meet
the
parking
requirement,
but
that's
what
the
immediate
parking
spaces
of
noise
are.
It's
a
it's
a
pedestrian
business
district
where
the
commercial,
tenants
and
spaces
are
frequented
by
pedestrians
and
whatnot.
G
So,
and
on
top
of
that,
you
know,
the
the
parking
spaces
are
a
separate
fee,
and
so
it's
it
would
certainly
make
sense
for
a
good
portion
of
the
tenants
to
try
not
to
pay
that
and
see
if
they
can
find
parking
in
the
area.
And
then
you
know
if
that
doesn't
work
out
that
they
can.
You
know,
get
the
parking
on
the
site.
Now
there
are
streets,
an
area
that
are
not
permitted
and
that's
I,
believe
noise,
west
of
the
tracks
and
all
along
rich.
The
residential
permit
parking
permits.
G
Are
there
because
there's
an
issue
with
on
street
parking
and
anything
we
can
do
to
not
exuberant.
That
problem
is
that's
what
we're
here
for
so
restriction
and
on-street
parking
is
nothing
new.
We've
done
that
for
the
other
developments
in
central
street,
where
there's
similar
concerns
with
on
street
parking-
and
that's
that's,
the
whole
point
is
to
to
you
know,
eliminate
any
potential
negative
effect
on
the
existing
conditions
there
already
bad.
So
how.
G
The
weights
been
explained
to
me
from
our
parking
division.
So
if
there
is
perceived
problem
with
on
street
parking
residents
in
the
area
have
to
petition
the
city
to
create
a
residential
permit
parking
zone,
then
you
know
that
goes
to
the
vetting
process,
the
parking
and
Transportation
Committee,
ultimately
to
City
Council,
and
then
it's
approved,
there's
a
list
of
properties
that
are
eligible
for
those
on
street
parking
permits,
and
it's
typically,
you
know.
The
residents
who
live
in
those
buildings
on
whatever
blocks
are
decided,
they're
eligible
for
the
for
the
permits.
G
Now
this
area
there's
two
permits
a
and
G.
They
both
allow
I
want
to
say
no,
you
know
maximum
to
our
parking
during
the
daytime,
9
a.m.
to
six
pm,
and
then
you
need
a
permit
for
the
after
hours.
So
then
you
know
typically,
when
you
get
a
permit,
it
allows
you
to
park
there.
You
know
24
hours
or
whatever
so.
F
E
F
A
The
residents
of
the
building
shall
not
be
eligible
to
obtain
residential
on
street
parking
permits
that
a
construction
management
plan
will
be
agreed
to
and
executed
with
the
city,
and
then
any
change
in
use
must
be
approved
as
an
amendment
at
the
plan.
Development,
the
first
third
and
fourth
of
those
are
pretty
much
boilerplate.
A
A
F
A
G
Exactly
right,
so
the
construction
on
green
roof
is
not
required.
What's
required
by
the
green
building.
Ordinance
is
that
this
this
building
is
at
least
LEED
Silver
certified
and
to
achieve
that
certification,
there's
a
number
of
different
elements
that
a
building
can
incorporate
green
roof
is
one
of
those,
but
there's
other
types
of
elements
now
I
just
want
to
clarify
the
green
roof
is
a
recommendation
from
staff.
It's
not
a
one
of
the
four
conditions
that
we
are
recommending.
So
it's
a
recommendation
for
Commission
to
discuss
and
we'll
have
this
discussion
again.
G
I'm
sure
we
understand
that
there's
no
buildings
that
are
taller
than
this
building
that
would
sort
of
have
a
benefit
of
viewing
this,
this
green
roof.
We
also
understand
the
construction
methods
and
the
difficulties
with
that
it
we
still
recommended
it.
Certainly
if
the
Commission
feels
that
it's
not
necessary,
we
fully
understand
not.
A
G
That
would
mean
that
I
really
don't
have
the
scientific
information
to
justify
that.
We
have
not
even
seen
a
proposal
for
the
green
roof
in
terms
of
the
type
of
materials
the
coverage
on
the
roof,
so
I'd
rather
not
comment
on
that.
It
certainly
makes
sense,
but
I
don't
have
the
information
about
okay.
A
A
D
A
D
D
It
will
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
when
its
effect
is
considered,
in
conjunction
with
the
cumulative
effect
of
various
special
uses
of
all
types
on
the
immediate
neighborhood
and
the
effect
of
the
proposed
type
of
special
use
upon
the
city
as
a
whole,
for
it
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
property
in
the
neighborhood
of
five.
It
can
be
adequately
served
by
public
facilities
and
services.
Six,
it
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion.
Seven,
it
preserves
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
D
Eight,
it
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features
and
nine
it
complies
with
all
other
applicable
regulations
of
the
district
in
which
it
is
located
and
other
applicable
ordinances.
Except
to
the
extent
such
regulations
have
been
modified
through
the
planned
development
process
or
through
the
granting
of
a
variation.
A
A
A
I
I-
and
this
is
not
scientific,
but
I
do
feel
an
uneasiness
about
this
one
part
of
the
recommendation.
I
think
that,
as
you
said,
Commissioner
our
Chairman,
the
other
ones,
are
pretty
boilerplate
and
standard.
I
certainly
feel
a
personal
uneasiness
about
the
parking
situation,
but
not
being
able
to
find
all
the
undertones
of
what
has
been
discussed
time.
G
G
A
Sorry,
well
we
at
this
point
as
it
stands
now.
The
motion
that
I
would
look
for
will
be
to
find
that
the
project
meets
the
requirements
of
the
planned
development
for
a
planned
development
and
that
we
recommend
it
to
Council
for
approval,
with
the
four
additional
recommendations
that
staff
has
attached
to
it.
That
would
be
the
motion.
A
H
A
A
If
we
take
it
out,
isn't.
I
F
F
Think
it's
a
it's
a
balance
between
whether
we're
going
to
treat
everyone
the
same
way
or,
if
we're
going
to
say
that,
since
this
project
is
last
to
the
party
that
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
put
in
these
other
requirements
or
other
restrictions,
just
like
the
building
next
door
across
the
alley,
probably
couldn't
be
built
under
the
current
zoning
regime,
because
it
probably
has
very
little
parking
or
it
looks
like
a
belief
used
a
large
portion
of
it.
Some
would
otherwise
would
be
green
area
for
parking.
F
I
And
just
to
we
would
be
if
we
leave
the
recognition,
as
we
would
be
reaffirming
something
that's
already
encoded.
This
building
is
not
supposed
to
be
eligible
for
on-street
parking,
I,
just
I
think
that's
been
said
at
the
beginning,
but
just
want
to
reaffirm
that
so
we'll
be
reaffirming
something
that
already
exists.
Well,.
H
A
F
We
voting
so
that
in
the
future,
if
the
residential
district
does
shall
parton
district
boundaries
were
to
change
such
that
other
properties
on
noise
were
eligible
for
parking.
Those
properties
would
the
residents
of
those
properties
would
obtain
those
parking
permits,
whereas
this
building
would
then
would
have
to
go
through
a
second
step
of
coming
back
to
the
plan
Commissioner
coming
back,
ultimately,
the
City
Council
and
requesting
that
this
restriction
be
removed.
So
it's
just
a
door
at
second
at
second
level,
yeah.
F
So
the
I
guess
one
way
of
looking
at
it
is
is
if
there
was
parking
eligible
if
this
property
was
eligible
for
the
on
street
parking
permits
and
given
the
number
of
units
and
bedrooms
that
will
be
in
this
project.
If
we
were
sitting
here-
and
there
wasn't
this-
you
know
there
wasn't
this
up
in
place
restriction.
What
would
we
be
saying
about
the
parking?
Would
we
be
saying
35
units
and
we're
going
to
have?
You
know,
however
many
students
and
it's
eligible
for
this-
for
these
parking
permits?
F
They
may
start
flooding
the
the
residential
area.
What
would
we,
how
would
we,
you
know
deal
with
that
situation
and
I
think
it
would
make
I
think
it
would
make
this
project
would
have
more
of
an
impact
on
the
surrounding
area?
So
I
think
that's
how
I've
determined
in
my
head
that
leaving
the
staffs
recommendation
in
is
the
is
the
better
way
to
go.
We're.
A
I
I
C
A
B
E
B
B
A
A
On
on
meeting
procedure
and
open
meetings
and
stuff
like
that,
I
think
it'll
be
useful.
My
understanding
is
it's
being
presented
by
Laurie,
Marston
and
Laurie's
really
smart,
so
that
could
be
a
useful
session.
The
other
point
to
be
made.
We
do
now
have
a
vacancy
on
the
commission,
commissioner
steals
term
having
ended.
If-
and
my
understanding
is
that
the
short
list
of
potential
candidates
is
really
short
list.