►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 10/10/2018
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
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
quorum.
So
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
what
we
have
two
sets
of
minutes:
I
guess
we'll
go
through
them
one
at
a
time.
The
first
is
the
meeting
of
August
8
2018
of
the
joint
plan,
Commission
and
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
meeting.
Are
there
any
revisions?
Questions
comments,
amendments
to
the
minutes.
A
A
Commissioner
Goddard
all
in
favor,
aye
all
against
all
right,
so
the
second
is
the
minutes
of
where,
where
are
they?
The
minutes
of
the
June
13th
meeting
of
the
2018
meeting
of
the
planned
Commission
only
are
there
any
comments?
Revisions,
questions,
clarifications,
I,
actually
think
I
think
I
had
one
also.
A
A
A
So
a
little
bit
of
comment
about
the
proceedings
today,
we
will
run
through
first
a
presentation
by
staff
of
of
what
the
petition
is
and
then
we
will
ask
the
petitioner
to
present
their
case
and
then
at
that
point
we
will
open
it
up
to
members
of
the
public
to
ask
questions
either
of
staff
or
of
the
petitioners.
Now
that's
questions
not
not
statements
at
that
point.
At
that
point
we
will
let
the
either
respond
and
let's
see,
and
then
we
will
give
a
chance
for
the
petitioner
if
they
have
any
any
any
questions
back.
A
C
C
1571
maple
that
planned
development
was
actually
approved
in
April
of
2015.
It
has
been
constructed.
I
received
a
final
certificate
of
occupancy
in
April
of
this
year,
but
it's
temporary
certificate
of
occupancy
was
received
in
July
of
2017,
which
enabled
residents
to
begin
to
move
into
that
building.
There
are
101
total
dwelling
units
and
there
are
a
total
of
113
parking
spaces.
C
So
the
formal
request
of
from
the
applicant
is
a
major
adjustment
to
this
planned
development
to
modify
the
existing
parking
lease
from
101
parking
spaces
in
the
Maple
Avenue
garage
250
parking
spaces
within
either
the
Maple
Avenue
or
the
Sherman
Avenue
garages.
As
those
spaces
are
available,
they
are
also
requesting
reduction
in
the
on-site,
affordable
units
from
two
units
at
100
percent
of
area
median
income
or
am
I
to
one
unit
at
fifty
percent
of
area
median
income.
C
This
has
actually
been
modified
from
the
initial
application,
which
initially
said
60
percent
of
AMI
and
also
do
want
to
note
that
a
per
our
legal
department,
this
particular
item-
is
not
under
the
planned
Commission's
review
jurisdiction.
So
the
information
I
was
in
the
packet
is
essentially
for
your
information.
So
we'll
focus
the
discussion
this
evening
on
the
parking
aspect
and
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there
are
no
physical
changes
to
the
constructed
building.
C
So
this
chart
outlines
what's
existing,
what's
required
what's
requested
and
what
is
recommended.
I
saw
go
through
this
a
little
bit
slowly.
We
can
go
back
to
it
if
it's
a
little
bit
more
confusing,
as
I
mentioned
before.
There
are
113
parking
spaces
existing,
which
includes
the
12
on-site
parking
spaces
and
the
101
leased
parking
spaces
in
the
Maple
Avenue
garage.
The
total
required
parking
per
our
current
zoning
ordinance
is
83
parking
spaces.
C
So
the
standards
for
adjustments
to
planned
developments.
This
particular
proposal
adjustment
would
have
to
maintain
the
planned
development
satisfaction
of
the
standards
listed
here
which
have
been
addressed
in
the
staff
report.
These
are
section
6,
3,
5
10,
our
standards
for
special
uses,
section
6,
3,
6,
9
standards
for
plan
developments
and
section
6,
11,
110
and
standards
and
guidelines
for
planned
developments
in
the
D
3
downtown
core
development
district.
C
C
I
will
do
that.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that,
since
this
building
has
already
been
constructed,
a
good
number
of
these
particular
standards
are
not
applicable
for
this
particular
application
because
they
deal
with
the
actual
structure
themselves.
But
we
will
adjust
that
more.
We
go
into
deliberation.
A
F
F
Staff
in
this
plan
condition,
although
many
of
you
weren't
there
three
years
ago
and
City
Council
for
very
successful
development.
This
was
the
first
project
in
city
of
Evanston.
There
was
a
lot
of
consternation
at
that
time
to
do
your
so-called
Tod
project.
The
city
and
staff
wanted
very
much
to
do
something
which
was
progressive,
leaning
in
terms
of
eliminating
or
reducing
a
number
of
cars
in
a
project.
This
seemed
to
be
the
correct
project
to
do
so.
F
And
so
we
look
back
in
history
now
and
as
far
as
I
know
and
talking
with
the
aldermen,
there
hasn't
been
a
single
complaint
about
any
of
our
residents
parking
on
the
streets
that
you
still.
We
agreed
to
a
provision
that
and
that
we
could
not
park
on
the
streets
and
I
think
that
the
city
has
a
requirement
that
someone
does
Park.
They
have
to
have
a
special
certificate
or
card,
and
our
residents
aren't
allowed
to
even
have
one
of
those,
and
so
what's
happened
is
that
the
project
was
very
successful.
F
We
lease
it
up
very
quickly,
even
though
I
think
there
were
some
people
at
the
time
we're
concerned.
How
will
you
be
able
to
lease
it
up?
If
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
on-site
parking
anybody
who's
gonna
be
paying.
These
kind
of
rents
is
going
to
require
it,
but
the
end
result
is
that
wasn't
the
case.
It's
a
very
successful
project.
We
gave
a
number
which
were
required
to
report
and
certify
to
the
city
annually,
and
that
was
on
May
of
this
year.
F
I
should
say
by
some
people
now
the
data
that
we
had
showed
that
that
wasn't
going
ever
going
to
be
a
concern,
but
now
we
have
the
proof
and
we
have
the
data
to
prove
it
up,
and
one
of
the
reasons
is
that
we
designed
this
project
again
along
with
staff
and
in
this
dis,
commission
and
the
city,
so
that
would
be
very
progressive
in
terms
of
its
of
its
of
its
use
of
transportation,
oriented
development
standards.
For
example,
we
have
a
an
electric
car
station
on
site,
we've
got.
F
We
allow
parking
for
area,
you
know
businesses
and
residents.
During
the
day
we
have
shared
parking
cars
on
site
that
get
utilized.
You
know
quite
a
bit
matter
of
fact:
I
was
there
tonight
and
both
of
them
were
out
and
we
are
adjacent
to
the
major
transportation
hub
of
the
city,
which
was
for
both
CTA
as
well
as
the
as
Metra,
and
only
the
the
the
bus
lines.
When
we
put
a
divvy
street,
a
divvy
bikes
right
outside,
and
so
we
did
a
lot
of
things
and
again
in
conjunction
with
staff.
F
That
said,
let's
promote
this.
Let's
be
proud
of
the
fact
that
we're
gonna
be
a
try
to
reduce
cars,
but
at
the
same
time
the
city
was
concerned
and
said:
listen,
we
have
a
lot
of
residents
which
are
complaining
that
their
parking
space
is
going
to
be
taken
away.
We're
gonna,
at
least
when
we
pass
us
an
ordinance,
we're
going
to
still
require
you
to
have
these
extraordinary
number
of
parking
spaces
off
side,
which
was
a
hundred
parking
spaces,
and
then
we
had
12
on
site.
F
We
then
presented
a
a
paper
which
was
one
of
the
parking
experts.
We've
considered
an
authority
and
transportation
oriented
developments,
it's
called
CNT
and
they
applied
at
the
same
time
that
their
experience
was
similar
to
ours.
Our
experience
again,
having
developed
eight
of
these
in
in
and
around
Chicago
area,
that
the
number
would
probably
be
based
upon
the
data
that
we
had
again
small
units,
a
lot
of
single
residents
in
our
parking.
You
know
adjacent
to
transportation,
you
know,
but
no
that
we
would
be.
F
We
would
have
a
demand
of
about
25
to
50%
of
you
of
units
and
that's
exactly
where
we
are
the
C
and
T
report
again.
These
are
the
experts
and
we
presented
that
and
our
findings
at
the
time
I'd
like
to
read
you
just
a
couple
of
their
findings,
which
have
also
proven
out
to
be
absolutely
correct
one.
They
said
that
fewer
than
half
the
downtown
residents
of
Evanston
drive
to
work
very
interesting
stat.
You
know
you
won't
see
that
on
a
lot
of
suburbs,
but
that's
a
very
interesting
stat.
F
They
said
that
our
project,
1571
Maple
Street,
is
aimed
at
the
market
segment
that
would
live
in
downtown
Evanston
without
cars.
Again,
if
someone
needed
a
car
every
day
for
work,
most
likely
they're
not
going
to
rent
at
our
project,
there's
a
lot
of
other
projects
to
rent
at
because
if
they
had
to
walk
you
know
it's
only
takes
five
minutes
to
walk
to
the
parking
lot.
But
if
you
had
to
do
that
every
day
and
inclement
weather,
you
probably
would
say,
jeez
there's
other
parking.
F
There
are
other
projects
I
want
I
want
to
live
that,
so
it's
a
bit
self-selected
is
what
their
point
was,
and
we
need
that
same
point.
It's
self-selected
why
you
live
here
that
the
maple
project,
our
project,
is
served
by
both
metro,
CTA
lines:
eight
CTA
in
puss,
bait
and
paste
buses,
there's,
there's
a
train,
arriving
every
fourteen
minutes,
etc,
etc.
So
transportation
here
is
exceptional
and
is
better
than
any
other
place
in
the
city.
F
They
also
had
another
finding
which
I
thought
was
very
important,
and
that
is
the
data
census
data
that
they
had
on
this
particular
area
that
four
out
of
ten
rental
households
near
Davis
Street
already
live
without
a
car
and
again
it
was
its
rental,
not
owner
owners,
but
we
were
a
rental
project
so
from
ownership
than
unto
rental.
The
number
even
drops
down
further
okay,
and
then
they
went
on
to
say
that,
as
you
have
smaller
units-
and
we
were
targeting
and
remember,
tour
a
smaller
unit
population-
we
have
a
lot
of
one
bedrooms.
F
F
The
data
is
that
we've
been
there
for
a
year
that
our
project
was
fully
leased,
that
we
only
needed
47
units.
This
was
as
of
June
as
of
today.
That
number
is
under
40
parking
spaces
and
we
had
our
first
rollover
in
Tennessee.
In
other
words,
a
lot
of
our
projects.
People
were
there
for
a
year
and
we
have
tenants
moving
out.
We
now
are
under
40,
that's
as
of
as
of
the
number
last
month,
so
we
see
that
not
only
did
we
did.
F
The
data
is
there,
it's
not
as
if
we
have
to
guess
anymore,
we
don't
have
to
be
fearful,
we've
not
had
any
concerns.
There
hasn't
been
any
reports
that
we've
heard
of
of
any
complaints
that
there's
not
parking
for
residents
on
the
street,
and
it's
worked
out
very
well
and
that's
why
again,
it's
a
success,
which
is
something
which
we
should
all
be
very
proud
of.
F
We
had
now
I
know
that
the
request
was
for
50
spaces.
The
fact
of
matter
is
we
provided
a
cushion,
and
maybe
we'll
even
be
back
here
next
year
to
year
after,
if
the
data
continues
to
migrate
in
the
direction
that
it's
going,
we
provided
a
cushion
when
we
said
we
were
originally
talking
with
staff
and
said,
would
you
what
we
think
we
need,
and
we
said
a
cushion-
would
be
50
spaces
again
50
on-site,
as
you
said,
you
noted
the
other
12,
that's
62
spaces.
Right
now
we
have
less
than
40.
F
You
know
in
of
cars
at
our
project
101
unit
project,
we
already
have
a
50%
cushion,
so
the
question
is:
what's
a
decent
cushion,
I
think
that's
more
than
enough,
and
it's
also
a
burden
on
us.
You
know
to
have
to
pay
for
vacant
spaces
that
are
over
in.
You
know
the
city
lot,
and
this
was
never
meant
to
be.
You
know
an
end-around
where
the
city
was
going
to
get
extra
revenue.
You
know
as
a
secret
tax
matter,
fected
the
the
former
administrators
had.
It
said
that
this
is
not
the
issue.
F
A
G
A
H
A
B
B
As
I
do
have
three
questions,
that
I
would
ask
the
applicant
to
answer
and
for
the
board
to
consider.
Why
aren't
the
requested
major
modifications
to
the
approved
plan
constitute
an
abandoned
of
the
original
plan,
and
if
they
are
an
abandonment
of
the
original
plan,
then
I
would
suggest
that
this
has
to
be
reconsidered
as
a
fresh
plan.
B
Second
question:
to
what
extent
is
there
evidence
that
the
requested
change
represents
a
reasonably
unforce
evil
change
of
circumstance?
It
sounds
to
me,
like
all
this
was
considered
in
the
original
plan
and
the
bargain
between
the
applicant
and
the
city
with
regard
to
the
PUD
established,
the
number
of
parking
units
that
were
originally
required,
I
think
a
hundred
and
one
and
then
fine
and
then,
with
regard
to
that,
has
the
staff
investigated
the
history
of
the
applicant
in
terms
of
requesting
for
a
plan
and
the
requesting
subsequently
requesting
major
modifications
of
that
plan.
B
A
C
Think
that
would
probably
be
more
to
staff
than
the
applicant,
and
these
owning
code
does
allow
for
minor
adjustments
and
major
adjustments
to
the
plan
development
and
as
a
point
of
comparison,
even
if
we
were
to
completely
restart
the
plan
development
process,
it
would
essentially
be
the
same
as
what
we're
doing
now.
There
would
be
a
designer
project
review
committee
review,
which
has
happened,
plan
commission
review
we
treat
which
we
are
in
the
midst
of
and
then
it
would
go
on
to
Council
for
their
review.
So
if
the
review
process,
these
are
essentially
the
same.
B
C
This
is
considered
the
public
hearing
for
this
major
adjustment
which,
during
which
we
take
testimony
and
answer
questions
from
the
public
for
this
particular
project.
The
Deaf
er
committee
meetings
are
also
open
to
the
public,
as
are
the
City
Council
meetings,
which
you
would
be
able
to
attend,
as
well
as
those
are
open
meetings.
So
it's
still
the
same
amount
of
opportunity
for
a
couple
for
comments
from
the
public.
C
A
I
Good
evening,
thank
you
for
having
us.
My
name
is
Michael
mcclain
I'm,
also
one
of
the
partners
in
this
project
I
actually
handled
most
of
the
entitlement
process
on
a
day
to
day
basis
during
the
initial
entitlement,
I'm
also
a
resident
of
Evanston,
the
in
fact
I
would
actually
say
to
that
question.
It
was
reasonably
predicted
that
we
wouldn't
need
these
spots.
I
It
was
actually
quite
some
evidence
was
actually
submitted
that
we
wouldn't
need
these
parking
spots,
and
it
was
a
solution
to
the
fears
of
the
neighborhood
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
fallback
in
case
we
were
wrong
and
people
are
wrong.
You
know
some
decent
amount
of
time
with
major
decisions
that
take
many
years
to
come
to
fruition.
I
So
through
this
process,
we
were
able
to
avoid
building
infrastructure
and
impact
to
the
streets
and
the
neighborhood
by
avoiding
a
giant
bunker
of
a
parking
garage,
just
like
the
one
Evanston
building
which
is
next
to
us,
which
killed
the
maple
avenue
retail
street
when
they
did
that
and
also
the
the
president's
on
Emerson.
We
reduce
the
scale
of
this
building.
We
were,
it
will
reduce
that
infrastructure
and
provide
housing
for
people
who
did
not
want
to
own
cars
and
live
in
downtown
Evanston,
and
we
forced
saw
that
we
would
not
need
this.
I
F
C
We
don't
agree
with
profits,
but
it
would
be
a
case
where
spaces
are
actually
being
used
if
we
have
spaces
within
the
garage
that
are
leased
and
are
being
essentially
held
for
a
particular
building
are
used
and
if
they
aren't
actually
being
used
and
that's
taking
up
spaces
for
other
visitors
or
other
residents
that
may
need
to
come
in
and
use
those
spaces.
So
it's
it's
more.
An
issue
of
available
use
so.
A
My
understanding
is
actually
reducing
the
amount
of
required
spaces,
since
this
is
being
leased
by
the,
since
they
are
leasing.
Space
from
the
city
is
the
city
will
lose
revenue
by
granting
this
request
is
that
correct,
because
there
will
not
be
as
many
spaces
least
in
their
parking
space,
so
it's
negative
impetus
for
them
to
do
it
so
I
think.
That's
basically
is
that
is
that
correct,
I.
F
Don't
know
if
they
could,
alternatively,
listen
to
someone
else,
so
it's
only
correct
in
the
absence
of
additional
information,
but
I
would
like
to
if
you're
done
on
that
point.
I
would
like
to
I'd
like
to
make
another
point.
I
made
a
little
bit
earlier,
but
like
that
re-emphasize,
it
is
that
the
intention
here
was
never
this
to
be
another
quote-unquote
source
of
revenue
for
the
city.
The
whole
point
of
it
was
to
satisfy
certain
neighbors
and
it
was
a
political
consideration.
F
We
were
asked
to
just
accept
it,
we'll
talk
about
in
a
year
from
now.
It's
not
you
know.
This
is
once
we
have
the
data,
but
right
now
we
don't
have
the
data
and
we're
not
gonna
be
able
to
pass
it,
but
I
would
like
to
make
one
further
point
just
so
you
understand
the
burden
that
is
upon
a
developer.
By
imposing
this,
it
doesn't
sound
like
much,
but
it
is
as
we
go
now.
F
Less!
That
I
can
either
sell
my
project
for
or
get
a
loan
for,
some
percentage
of
that,
and
if
it's
30
spaces,
that's
$900,000,
so
it
doesn't
sound
like
much
I
think,
but
it's
an
credible
burden
upon
us
as
we
now
look
to
at
some
point
in
time
over
the
next
two
or
three
years
of
exiting
this
project.
Thank
you
all.
A
G
Williams
and
I
live
in
the
1500
block
of
Elmwood.
I
do
have
a
question
before
I
make
my
comments.
The
chart
showed
that
there
were
12
spaces
if
I
recall,
when
I
current
the
spaces
out
that
count
11
are
there
11
or
12
spaces
13,
including
the
two
rental
spaces
which
are
reserved
for
the
rental
car,
otherwise
they're
11
spaces
available
for
the
public?
Is
that
correct?
G
A
Okay,
thank.
J
You
for
hosting
the
meeting,
I
guess
I
have
a
couple
questions.
I
know
that
we
had
some
wonderful
data
that
was
presented
and
I'm
kind
of
a
data
junkie,
but
I
guess
I'm
wondering
do
we
have
information
about
where
people
are
parking
other
than
those
spots.
I
live
right
next
door
at
1570
Elmwood
and
we
have
owner
renters,
putting
up
fliers
in
our
building
to
rent
in
our
building
and
I'm
just
curious.
If
we're
comparing
apples
to
apples
with
the
number
of
cars.
J
Obviously
you
track,
who
are
in
those
spots
but
again
apples
to
apples,
do
people
of
cars
and
I
guess.
My
second
question
would
be:
are
there
spots
available
for
monthly
parking
at
Chervenak
Sherman
Avenue?
A
year
ago
we
actually
redid
our
garage
and
we
needed
to
park
100
cars
in
the
shervin
Sherman
Avenue
and
there
were
no
spots
available.
We
all
walked
to
the
parking
garage
where
these
particular
spots
in
question
iron.
It
is
a
little
more
than
a
five-minute
walk.
So
those
are
my
two
questions.
A
All
right,
I
am
not
sure
who
would
answer
the
apples
to
apples,
apples
to
apples
Flyers
in
the
neighboring
one,
but
the
Sherman
Avenue
is
Sherman
Avenue
a
Sherman
Plaza
is
that
is,
is,
is
that
have
available
spaces
to
rent
and
and
are
there
enough
to
still
keep
it
a
public?
You
know
I
think
to
add
to
that
a
public
parking
garage
available
for
the
businesses
downtown.
If,
if
there
were
rented
spaces
yeah.
C
I
would
have
to
double
check
on
the
exact
numbers
with
our
parking
revenue
manager,
but
I
dunno.
Initially,
that
was
a
concern
when
the
project
was
approved
was
the
availability
of
parking
spaces,
and
that
typically,
is
one
of
the
garages
that
has
a
lot
of
traffic
in
it,
which
is
also
why
the
recommendation
speaks
to
having
both
of
those
garages
and
basically
Maple,
Avenue
or
Sherman
garages.
Spaces
are
available
because
you
know
Sherman
Avenue,
that
that
particular
garage
is
used
pretty
heavily
I,
don't
know
the
exact
number
yeah.
K
At
the
damper
medium,
my
name
is
Bernard.
Citroen
represent
all
these
guys
at
the
damper
meeting.
That
question
was
asked
to
the
parking,
if
I'm
correct
in
my
memory,
that
question
was
asked
to
the
parking
revenue
coordinator
or
what
I
apologize
for,
not
knowing
her
and
what
she
said
was
very
clearly
at
the
time
this
project
additionally
came
through
Sherman
was
felt.
There
was
too
much
use
of
it.
They
raised
the
price
on
Sherman
and
market
changed
and
that
there
were
spaces
available
now.
Maybe
all
50
can't
go
to
Sherman
that
she
wasn't.
K
I
That's
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
point
as
well.
Is
that
right
now
we
are
banned
from
parking
in
German
the
the
PD
says
you
must
only
park
in
maple.
What
we're
asking
is
for
the
opportunity
to
be
considered
the
park
in
Sherman
and
again,
the
parking
revenue
coordinator,
who
gives
out
those
monthly
passes,
can
say
sorry
we're
full.
We
can't
take
any,
but
if
there
is
a
big
exit
for
whatever
reason
you
know
or
our
spaces
come
up,
that
we
are
considering
with
anybody
else
on
that
an
uneven
basis.
J
Guess
I
know
that
you
cited
some
numbers
with
people
who
have
cars
and
our
utilizing
the
parking
space.
Do
you
have
any
information
on
people
who
have
chosen
because
they
don't
want
to
go
to
the
maple
parking
lot
and
have
cars?
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
know
if
the
47
spots
that
I
think
it
was
47.
You
mentioned
we
were
comparing
just
your
own
data
of
Parker's
versus
total
number
of
cars
in
the
building.
F
Yeah,
the
total
number
of
cars
in
the
building
is
47.
That
was
as
up
that
made
8
and
the
total
number
of
cars
that,
as
of
that
date,
were
parking
in
a
garage
for
47
our
leases,
and
this
is
another
requirement
that
the
city
had
just
so
everybody's
clear
on.
It
requires
in
the
lease
that
someone
designate
oh,
if
they
have
a
car
and
if
they
have
a
car,
they
have
to
rent
a
spot
at
Sherman
and
we
charge
them
for
it.
J
So
then,
if
someone
could
potentially
be
parking
in
our
building,
they
might
be
paying
double
they're
already
charged
to
park
in
Sherman
and
would
then
pay
privately.
Above
and
beyond
that
for
a
spot.
I
know
for
a
fact.
We
have
at
least
one
person
who's
parking
in
the
building,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
compare
apples,
samples.
C
And
to
add
to
that,
and
thinking
back
to
the
Tod
parking
study,
we
do
have
the
ability
to
get
information
from
the
Secretary
of
State.
That
is
not
always
100%
accurate,
but
that
gives
more
information
on
who
owns
vehicles
and
in
what
that
address
is
so
that
could
give
more
general
information
about
who's
Li
who
owns
cars
and
where
they
actually
are.
C
That
could
give
it
a
broader
amount
of
information
than
self
reporting,
because
that's
information
that
we
have
to
have
in
order
to
do
the
wheel
tax
and
make
sure
we
get
that
information
in
with
this
development
being
a
little
bit.
Nowhere
I'm
not
positive
that
that
would
have
been
on
the
most
recent
report,
but
that's
that's
more
information
that
we
can
have
once
it's
been
in
place,
we're
a
little
bit
longer.
F
I'm
gonna
step
out
on
a
limb
in
it
and
tell
you
what
was
was
said.
This
goes
back
three
years
ago.
The
fact
that
matter
is
what
you
don't
want
and
there's
really
one
issue,
and
we
shouldn't
get
mixed
up
on
all
this
red
herring.
Is
there
one
issue?
Was
the
residents
in
the
city
didn't
want
a
lot
of
our
people
are
hundred
unit
building
B
parking
all
over
the
streets
at
night.
That
is
not
happening.
F
F
What
we
should
do,
quite
frankly,
is
eliminate
the
parking
requirement
totally
and
let
people
park
where
they
want
meaning
they're
not
going
to
park
on
the
streets
as
long
as
you
don't
Park
on
the
street,
so
you
can't
get
a
permit,
but
if
you
want
to
park
nextdoor
under
some
resident
who
has
an
empty
parking
spots
that
he
wants
to
make
120
bucks
a
month,
God
love
him.
Let
him
do
that
if
the
city
wants
him
to
park
in
Sherman,
Avenue
of
Sherman
Avenue
has
high
demand.
F
What
they
should
do
was
what
they
did
do,
which
was
reported
to
say
they
raised
the
prices
on
Sherman
to
125
and
Davis.
It
was
115
and
it
shifted
now
there's
a
vacant
spaces
on
Sherman.
If
someone
wants
to
cut
a
deal
with
the
YMCA
and
park
there
at
night,
because
a
lot
is
vacant,
let
them
do
it
as
laws
are
not
parking
on
the
street.
F
F
A
A
C
If
someone
owns
a
vehicle
just
in
general,
they
would
need
to
get
the
wheel
tax.
So
that's
why
we
get
the
secretary
of
state
information
with
regards
to
the
on
street
parking
permits
that
have
to
check
to
see
what's
nearby
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
can't
think
of
what
zones
would
be
very
close
to
this
particular
project,
though
okay.
A
So
I
also
have
a
question
how
many
of
the
on-site,
either
11
or
12
11
spaces,
are
actually
least
least
to
residents
and
how
many
are
available.
I
think
if
I
remember,
because
I
was
old
enough
to
go
back
to
this.
Some
of
these
were
on
for
people
to
drop
off
their
groceries
and
things
like
that.
They
were
open,
open
spaces.
How
many
are
actually
leased
on
the
property,
zero,
okay,.
I
C
A
little
bit
more
but
for
this
particular
ordinance
that
would
it
essentially
have
to
be
kind
of
tied
together
and
I.
Think
discussions
probably
started
a
little
bit
higher
up
before
they
got
down
to
staff
to
work
on
the
details
of
this
particular
report,
but
that
would
to
be
part
of
the
full
process.
C
M
I
They're
technically
there's
thirteen
on-site.
However,
two
are
reserved
for
Haven
CarShare,
which
is
a
zero
zero
fee,
a
zero
membership
fee
to
our
residents
CarShare.
So
it's
actually
used
very,
very
often
and
then
eleven
spaces
that
are
that
are
open
to
the
public
and
then
101
least
spaces
of
which
40
39,
40
40
are
currently
leased
and
the
rest
are
vacant.
Okay,.
I
N
I
There,
so
it's
not
that
that
they're,
taking
advantage
of
it
if
they
want
to
live
in
the
building
and
want
a
car
in
Evanston.
They
must
lease
that
space
and
it's
past
the
road
it's
a
direct
pass
through
and
the
cost.
Actually,
when
we,
when
we
made
this
agreement,
it
was
$85
a
month
and
it's
now
I
think
115
dollars
a
month.
We
have
no
control
over
that
escalation
and
we
don't
profit
off
of
the
off
of
the
so.
H
F
It
could
happen,
you
know
and
listen
it's
like
anything
else
in
life.
You
know
some
people
can
lie
and
some
people
could
get
away
with
it,
but
we're
not
aware
of
it
and
I.
Think
our
bar
management
I've
even
asked
that
question
anticipating
some
like
this
I
said.
Are
you
aware
of
anybody
and
the
managers
not
that
they
know
everything?
They
said
they
weren't
aware
of
it
either
so,
but
it
could
happen,
of
course,
I'm.
A
I
We
could
also
be
active
citizens
and,
not
least
our
own
vacant
car
spaces,
two
other
attendants
of
our
attendants.
If
they
don't
want
them
parking
in
that
adjacent
area,
I
mean
if,
if
a
condominium
is
experiencing
low
parking
rates,
because
people
are
giving
up
their
cars
and
trying
to
make
money
off
of
Park
X
or
spot
hero,
or
just
somebody
in
the
neighborhood,
they
could
say.
No,
we
won't
do
this.
You
must
go
Park
and
Maple
Avenue
and
actually
walk
into
the
management
office
and
say:
hey
so-and-so
says
they.
I
A
All
right
is
your
light
still
on.
Okay,
very
good,
so
is
that
is
that
all
the
questions
yeah
all
right?
So
why
don't
we?
Why
don't
we
open
this
back
up
to
the
public
to
give
a
statement,
so
statements
are
I'd
like
to
keep
them
brief
if
we
can,
in
theory,
they're
two
minutes,
but
that's
fairly
fairly
small
group.
So,
mr.
Gretsch,
could
you
please
approach
the
podium
well.
B
B
So
we
don't
have
a
change
of
circumstance
and
further
that
we're
talking
about
a
capitalized
benefit
to
the
developer
of
$900,000
and
I
would
repeat
my
question:
what
are
the
concrete,
what
are
the
concrete
benefits
to
the
city
to
award
to
the
developer
a
windfall,
or
at
least
the
capitalized
sum
of
$900,000?
Thank
you.
G
Three
years
ago,
I
made
comments
to
up
its
dis
board
or
one
of
the
many
hearings
that
were
held
on
Justice,
Project
and
and
I
I
did
speak
about
the
developers
request
to
go
from
143
spaces
to
101
spaces
and
now
250
spaces,
but
we've.
You
know
this
has
been
covered,
so
I
won't
go
into.
All
I
was
going
to
say
about
that.
G
But
I
was
quite
convinced
at
that
time
that
it
would
be
not
unreasonable
to
think
that
someone
would
wanna
Park
three
blocks
away
load,
your
baby
load,
your
groceries,
unload,
whatnot,
walk
down
and
then
walk
back,
but
if
they
say
it's
happening,
you
know
who
am
I
to
say.
I
do
know
that
I
tried
to
rent
a
space
earlier
this
year
in
Sherman
I
don't
have
47
cars,
I
have
one
I
couldn't
get
in.
We
need
we're
redoing
our
garage,
so
that
may
be
something
you
might
want
to
look
at.
G
I
think
that
if
you
approve
the
request
to
go
down
from
the
101
spaces,
it
might
be
something
to
think
about
to
charge
something
for
those
spaces
that
they're
giving
up,
because
I
presume
that
the
garage
or
the
city
built
in
that
revenue
into
their
budget,
because
there
was
a
commitment
made
to
pay
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
those
faces,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
shortfall
in
someone's
budget
and
who
picks
up
shortfalls
in
our
city.
I
think
I.
G
Think
the
taxpayers
do
if
there's
some
kind
of
decrease
decrease
in
revenue
from
something
that
was
anticipated
and
to
the
other
requests
which
you're
not
considering
this
evening
and
that's
to
go
from
to
affordable
units.
To
and
all
we
read
about,
I
mean
we
read
a
lot
about
in
the
city
of
Evanston.
There's
noble
efforts
to
try
to
increase
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
so
to
take
it
from
two
to
one
I
think
it's
unconscionable
and
they
say
they
can't
rent
them.
G
Well,
maybe
there
are
organizations
that
could
help
them
rent
because
I'm
sure
there's
a
market
out
there
for
affordable
units.
Finally,
to
I
I
worked
for
a
bank
for
40
years,
I
worked
with
developers,
so
I
know
developers
have
tactics
that
they
can
employ
to
get
their
projects
done
and
I'm
not
casting
aspersions.
G
But
last
April
I
sent
a
letter
to
the
mayor
and
to
the
traffic
guy
and
the
round
table,
because
the
developer
had
requested
the
city
to
close
our
street
to
traffic
until
December
31,
and
they
were
going
to
close
it
to
vehicular
and
to
pedestrian
traffic
and
for
about
six
months.
So
we
would
have
to
walk
around
two
and
a
half
blocks
to
get
anyway.
You've
got
to
think
they
closed
it.
G
So
that's
an
additional
five
months
and
they
say
due
to
a
miscalculation
now
I
find
it
hard
to
understand
how
a
major
developer
with
computers
and
engineers
and
whatnot
could
make
a
miscalculation
of
five
months.
Five
days,
five
weeks,
maybe
but
not
five
months,
so
we
were
inconvenienced
and
in
if
you
go
to
the
city,
to
ask,
can
I
close
the
street
down
for
a
year,
they
probably
say
no,
but
if
you
ask,
can
I
close
it
down
for
six
months?
Okay
and
then
you
can
come
back
and
plead
your
case.
G
We
made
a
mistake
and
we
get
six
more
months
and
that
happened.
So
that's
just
part
of
what
you
do
I
think
to
to
get
projects
done,
whether
it's
an
Evans
story
and
what
else
but
promises
are,
are
very
easy
to
make,
and
sometimes
they're
they're
easy
to
break
so
we're
just
to
see
if
they
keep
their
promises
and
it
is
not
I
think
the
city
is
concern
as
to
whether
or
not
a
developer
can
flip
this
profit,
his
building
for
a
profit.
They
talked
about.
G
A
J
I
know
that
I
was
at
a
lot
of
the
meetings
being
on
the
board
of
the
building
next
door
and
I.
Don't
know
that
it
seemed
that
the
parking
was
as
fuzzy
as
it
seemed
like.
It
is
tonight
with
a
number
of
spots
that
we
over
cushion
due
to
the
neighborhood,
but
obviously
we
weren't
party
to
probably
a
lot
of
the
conversations
that
happened
outside
of
meetings
or
planning,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
you
know
wish
that
you
know
people
would
take
that
into
consideration
and
and
I
certainly
understand
your
concerns
about.
J
We
can
say
no
as
an
owner
and
I
think
that
that
is,
you
know
an
option
for
an
owner.
It
that's
an
individual
conscience
that
an
individual
has
and
I
appreciate
you.
Your
comment
and
I'm
not
sure
that
everyone
in
the
building
would
be
in
the
same
conscience
that
we
want
others
from
outside
in
our
building.
J
We
don't
have
control
over
those
individual
thoughts,
but
really
was
just
an
example
again
to
know
that
the
city
is
looking
at
an
apples-to-apples
with
numbers:
do
we
really
have
Parkers
and
yes,
people
can
lie
I
think
we
all
know
that,
but
just
to
you
know
bring
that
to
the
attention
that
you
know
there
may
we're
looking
at
numbers
that
are
based
on
an
internal
mechanism,
and
it
sounds
like
you.
You
guys,
as
commissioners
have
asked
those
questions
also.
So
thank
you
all.
A
A
L
A
question
for
staff
I
think
I
joined
this
commission
shortly
after
this
was
this
project
was
initially
approved
and
I.
Don't
think
I've
seen
a
project,
or
at
least
in
that
we're
calling
a
project
that
had
so
little
parking
and
like
built
into
it
and
was
relying
on
city
Lots.
I
know
there
have
been
some
projects
that
have
sort
of
subsidized
there
parking
requirements
by
using
city
Lots,
but
I,
don't
think
I've
seen
one
that
does
it
to
this
extent,
is
there
more?
Are
there
more
projects
like
this
in
the
city.
C
C
I
do
have
a
chart
of
different
planned
developments
and
the
parking
that
was
approved
that
doesn't
address
who
has
actually
these
spaces
from
the
city
versus
who
has
or
spaces
on-site
there's
just
an
overview
of
the
amount
of
parking,
so
not
sure
if
that
would
help
your
point
at
all,
but
but
this
one
definitely
was
one
that
was
kind
of
outside
the
box.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Anyone
else
know
all
right
give
an
opportunity
for
the
petitioner
to
make
any
closing
statements
before
our
deliberation.
F
F
You
know
we
don't
need
101
parking
spaces,
we
don't
need
80,
we
don't
need
270,
you
know
we
don't
really
even
need
50,
but
we
provided
a
cushion,
and
you
know-
and-
and
you
know
right
now,
as
I
said,
we
provided
data
to
the
city
that
we
needed
47
some
time
ago,
we're
now
under
40
and
those
are
facts
anyway.
Thank
you
all
right.
E
F
A
A
All
right,
so
so,
commissioners,
what
are
what
are
your
thoughts
you.
A
H
I
think
this
I
think
the
Tod
concept
is
a
great
thing
and
I
think
over
the
years
we've
definitely
seen
parking
requirements
in
cities
that
have
public
transportation.
Like
Evanston,
you
know
the
requirement
for
parking
is
has
been,
has
been
reduced
and
I.
Think
we'll
see
that
I
think
that's
a
trend.
That's
going
to
continue
and
I.
Think
you
see
it,
you
see
it
nationally.
So
it's
not
just
Evanston.
That's
that
we're
talking
about
here,
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
very
unfortunate.
H
When
cities
require
developers
to
build
additional
parking
additional
parking
garages,
not
so
great
looking
parking
garages
that
take,
you
know,
take
other
other
space
away
from
from
from
what
what
could
be
instead
you're
building
a
parking
garage
that
that,
in
a
lot
of
cases,
very
many
cases
are
becoming
more
and
more
unused,
so
I
believe
the
I
believe
the
trend
I
think
that
the
developers
very
lucky
in
this
case
that
that
they
didn't
have
to
build
build
this
build
additional
parking
spaces.
So
we
have
this
opportunity
to
to
allow
them
to
reduce
their
actually.
H
We
just
reflect
their
their
current
use.
As
far
as
the
cost
of
the
city
goes,
I
mean
we're
we're
returning
the
parking
to
this
to
the
city
for
the
city's
use,
so
the
city,
if
there
is
such
a
demand
for
parking,
the
city,
will
will
benefit
from
that
demand.
So
I
just
think
it's
the
right
move
to
make.
O
Yes,
when
this
project
first
came
to
us
three
years
ago
there,
this
room
was
filled
with
people
complaining
and
predicting.
This
was
going
to
be
a
complete
disaster
in
their
neighborhood,
and
my
understanding
was
that
we
made
it
so
that
anyone
living
this
building
was
not
able
to
get
a
permit
to
park
on
the
street.
So
the
fact
that
there
is
no
one
here
complaining
about
people
parking
on
the
street
is
a
pretty
good
indication
to
me
that
it's
not
a
problem.
O
I
would
like
to
have
more
more
numbers
on
Sherman's
space
utilization,
I'm
a
little
reluctant
to
offer
a
space
and
Sherman
and
maple.
Without
that
and
also
I,
know,
you've
done
this
in
many
places.
But
is
you
say
you've
been
you
have
a
year's
history,
but
you
really
only
have
six
months
because
people
signed
up
a
year
ago,
but
they've
only
been
living
in
this
building
for
six
months.
So
is
that
enough
time
to
figure
out
how
many
cars
you're
gonna
need
it's
a
rhetorical
question.
E
F
The
building,
although
we
started
releasing
taking
a
concealed
in
June
of
2017,
there
was
a
huge
pent-up
demand
for
this
project,
and
so
we
were
50
percent
leased.
You
know
really
well
before
probably
sixty
percent
lose
before
the
end
of
the
summer,
almost
70
percent
leased,
so
people
have
been
leaving
here,
at
least
over
70
percent
of
the
building
was
living
here.
That
long
and
we
had
a
huge
turnover
in
in
this
past
summer,
and
so
those
are
all
new
residents.
F
That's
why
I
think
that
data
is
showing
that
it's
actually
decreasing
in
terms
of
our
our
util.
Our
parking
needs
from
the
first
tenancy
to
where
we
are
today
and
my
prediction
is:
it
will
decrease
even
further,
because
one
of
the
stats
I
didn't
tell
you
before
was
that
these
national
trends
you're
absolutely
100%
correct
and
we
can't
ignore
them,
but
also
in
our
building
the
we
were
projecting
only
20
to
25
percent
of
grad
students.
We
were
really
targeting
grad
students
by
the
size
of
units
and
the
type
of
amenities
we
have,
etc.
F
We
have
seventy
percent
graduate
students
from
North.
It's
a
blow
away.
Number
I
couldn't
I've
even
asked,
who,
through
tenth,
is
that
true
is
it
could
be
possibly
true,
and
the
answer
is
yes,
and
so
again
our
demographic.
We,
it's
almost
you
know
self
selecting
the
type
of
building
we
are.
If
you
really
need
a
car
every
day.
You're,
probably
not
gonna
live
here.
The
kind
of
people
who
live
here
we
found
out
by
people
who
knew
their
car
like
once
a
week,
you
don't
mind
walking.
F
O
D
I
think
it's
a
good
idea:
I
think
the
transit-oriented
development
I
I
think
nationally.
There
is
a
trend
to
have
fewer
cars.
People
are
not
owning
cars
and
young
people
are
not
necessarily
learning
cars.
I'm
I'm
happy
with
the
thought
of
reducing
the
amount
of
parking
and
again,
as
commissioner
Roderick
said,
I
don't
think
it's
our
place
to
help
raise
revenue
for
the
city.
Nor
present
you
with
a
windfall
but
I
also
think
Stanford
have
to
look
at
the
vacancy
rates
in
the
Sherman
Plaza
garage
due
to
the
target
being
there
now
and
see.
A
A
Well,
is
it
is
it
so
so
one
if
we
were
to
reduce
this
to
say
the
the
fifty
parking
spaces
we've
got
the
two
issues
right:
the
number
of
parking
spaces.
Is
there
a
vehicle
that
the
is
there
a
way
to
either,
and
this
is
for
the
commissioners
either
to
raise
it
or
in
the
future,
without
petition
or
write
it
in
a
conditional
way
or
or
write
an
amendment
that
could
graduate
the
amount
of
of
spaces
spaces
used.
A
I
guess
that's,
that's
one,
and
then
I
was
actually
a
little
intrigued
by
by
why
we
are
limiting
the
location
of
where
these,
where
these
spaces
are
are
our
least
to
municipal
spaces.
I
mean
if
there's
space
available
and
in
the
adjacent
condominium
building
I'm
just
curious.
Why
we're
not
sharing
everywhere
we're
not
allowing
the
parking
to
fill
its
fill
itself
to
the
to
the
proper
level
wherever
wherever
the
demand
asks
for
it,
but
that
that
said,
I
think
I
think
I'd
like
to
like
to
see.
C
Okay,
as
I
mentioned
before,
there
are
several
different
sections
that
we
need
to
look
at
for
standards
for
this
particular
adjustment,
since
this
is
an
adjustment
and
not
a
new
development
itself,
many
of
these
will
not
be
applicable
as
we
aren't
making
any
physical
changes
to
a
site
or
to
the
building
itself.
So
to
start,
we've
got
the
standards
for
special
uses
and
I
can?
A
C
A
Will
it
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
on
the
various
special
uses
of
types
of
in
the
immediate
neighbourhood
or
on
the
city
as
a
whole?
Any
any
sighting
of
this
I
think
Commissioner
Halleck,
you
said
you
said
one.
It
reduces
the
the
bulk
created
by
unnecessary
parking
was
one
of
the
things
so
I
I
think
that
this
is
yeah.
H
A
All
right,
so
do
you
have
any
anything
that
we
can
cite.
That
would
say
that
this
is
not
going
to
affect.
I
mean
the
parking
if
everyone
did
this
is
that
is,
is
the
parking
adequate
within
the
area?
I
guess
is
the
question
right
and
it
seems
to
be
right
that
there
are
available
spaces
all
right.
Does
it
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
property
value
in
the
neighborhood
I
think
that
is
clear.
A
It
can
be
adequately
served
by
public
facilities,
not
at
and
not
applicable.
It
does
not
cause
an
undue
traffic
congestion.
In
fact,
it
benefits
the
traffic
congestion.
It
preserves
significant
historical,
architectural
resources
is
not
applicable,
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features,
not
applicable.
It
complies
with
all
the
applicable
regulations
of
the
district
in
which
it
is
located
and
other
applicable
ordinances,
except
to
the
extent
that
such
regulations
have
been
modified
through
the
planned
development
process
or
grants
of
a
variation
and
I
think
that
would
be
met
yeah.
So
so,
what's
next.
C
C
If
it
meets
certain
guidelines,
zoning
code
I'm,
the
one,
the
first
one
that
I
think
actually
would
apply
for
this
particular
one
is
number
three
and
that's
whether
or
not
it
is
compatible
with
the
goals
and
objectives
that
are
within
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
downtown
plan
and
other
plans
that
relate
to
land
use
within
the
city
and
different
structures.
A
A
C
C
L
A
L
K
N
N
A
A
H
A
Right
any
seconds,
okay,
so
I
have
to
ask
a
procedural
question
it
if
we
should
offer
this
for
other
nominations,
right
yeah,
if
there's
other
nominations
all
right
and
then
it
would
become
a
popular
vote
or
or
not
an
up
and
down
vote
I
mean
I'm,
serious
Thanks,
yeah
yeah.
Is
it
an
open
up
or
down
vote,
or
do
we
do
each
one
up
or
down?
Are
there
any
other
nominations
for
well
I
know:
yeah
yeah.
Are
there
any
other
nominations?