►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 10-27-2021
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
Good
evening
and
welcome
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
plan
commission
of
the
city
of
evanston.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
conduct
public
hearings
for
planned
developments,
map
and
text
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance
and
to
make
recommendations
regarding
long-term
zoning
and
planning
for
the
city.
This
commission
will
make
a
record
and
recommendation
to
send
to
the
city
council
the
determining
body
in
these
matters.
C
C
C
A
B
A
A
A
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
board
regarding
any
matter
on
the
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
at
any
time.
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
staff
on
the
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
a
thousand
feet
to
the
subject,
property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses.
A
Public
testimony
is
limited
to
two
minutes
per
speaker
under
the
commission's
rules.
When
all
supporting
and
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
a
closing
statement.
A
Then
the
commission
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations,
no
further
questions
or
testimony
will
receive
from
the
applicant
or
the
public
once
the
record
is
closed.
All
testimony
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statement
to
your
personal
knowledge
when
you
address
the
commission,
please
state
your
name
and
address
and
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet,
which
we
have
nobody
here
in
person,
so
we'll
keep
a
record
of
that
through
the
zoom
recording.
A
A
A
You
bear
with
me
because
I
I
can
only
see
whoever
is
speaking
up
on
the
screen,
so
I
can
only
see
one
person
at
a
time
with
that
we
will
move
into
our
agenda.
The
first
item
tonight
is
the
approval
of
our
minute
from
october
13
2021.
C
A
Move
by
huco
is
there
a
second
a
second,
a
second
by
westerberg?
Is
there
any
discussion,
anything
that
needs
to
be
edited
or
changed.
C
A
A
We
move
into
our
old
business,
which
again
is
the
continuation
of
21
plnd0076,
a
major
adjustment
to
the
plan
development
at
1900,
sherman
avenue
a
reminder
to
everyone,
basically,
that
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
major
adjustment
to
the
planned
development
in
regards
to
the
site
allowances
which
would
decrease
the
number
of
dwelling
units
from
168
to
152
decrease
in
number
of
below
grade
parking
spaces
from
37
to
25
and
a
decrease
in
zoning
height
from
172
feet,
8
inches
to
168
feet,
4
inches
a
continuance
was
granted
by
this
body
so
that
we
could
allow
for
rebuttal
of
testimony
from
the
applicant
in
regard
to
parking.
A
A
G
Thanks,
I
won't
speed
up
that
fast
son
all
right.
Well,
my
name
is
cecile
mchugh.
I
live
within
a
thousand
feet
of
1900
sherman.
This
parking
plan
for
this
proposed
development
is
not
adequate.
The
proposal
is
for
three
new
parking
places
for
152
new
units
city
staff,
determined
that
88
parking
spaces
were
needed
needed.
The
proposal
is
for
three,
the
city
states
that
this
is
within
a
site
development
allowance,
because
apparently
any
amount
of
parking,
even
no
parking
at
all,
is
within
a
site
development
allowance
and
recommends
long-term
leasing.
G
G
I've
heard
hacc
imply
that
reducing
the
number
of
units
from
the
original
plan,
the
approved
plan
by
16
and
reducing
the
net
new
parking
spaces
from
the
approved
plan
by
12,
is
roughly
comparable
to
the
approved
plan.
But
this
is
not
so.
The
approved
plan
has
a
net
new
parking
space
for
nine
percent
of
the
new
units.
G
G
It's
reasonable
to
expect
that
on-site
parking
will
be
available
for
the
lifetime
of
the
development,
not
the
case
for
least
off-site
parking.
It's
public
information
that
focus
the
developer
of
the
link
has
been
in
discussion
with
sherman
gardens
to
purchase
the
sherman
gardens
parking
lot.
It
seems
likely
that
a
later
new
focus,
development
and
expansion
of
the
link
would
want
the
parking
lease
to
the
emerson.
What
then
e-2
is
too
far
from
emerson,
especially
for
seniors
dangerous
in
the
snow?
G
G
H
Thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners.
I
live
within
500
feet
of
the
pearlman
and
I
rebut
the
applicant's
claim
that
their
parking
is
adequate
and
accessible
on
page
42
of
tonight's
packet.
The
evanston
zoning
analysis
states
that
parking
is
non-compliant
and
specifies
a
net
increase
of
88
spaces
is
required.
H
H
Item
number
10
requires
the
minimum
of
50
parking
spaces,
be
within
1000
feet
and
the
dapper
recommendation
on
page
16
states
the
number
of
parking
spaces
to
be
leased
within
1
000
feet
of
the
property
is
increased.
To
offset
this
loss
in
underground
parking.
E2
is
1500
feet
away,
which
leaves
only
the
link,
their
website
states.
They
are
student
living
and
they
have
parking
for
the
exclusive
use
of
the
link
residents.
They
advertise
a
security
system
that
includes
electronic
key
access
to
all
entrances.
H
Both
seem
to
be
barriers
to
procuring
62
parking
spaces
for
seniors
and
their
guests
coming
from
different
buildings.
The
applicant
study
shows
the
affordable
units
in
the
new
building
will
need
six
spaces.
Yet,
on
october
13,
the
applicant
stated
that
the
affordable
units
would
not
be
able
to
afford
their
parking.
H
Will
the
housing
authority
pay
for
these
six
spaces
and
will
they
include
them
in
the
in-building
parking
on
page
14
city
staff
determined
the
underground
handicap
spaces
do
not
meet
the
size
requirements
of
the
illinois
code.
The
current
configuration
only
allows
enough
space
to
fully
accommodate
one
accessible
spot
for
the
needed,
101
spaces
required.
The
illinois
code
requires
five
accessible
spaces.
H
H
At
the
september,
8th
meeting
held
at
1900
sherman,
several
pearlman
residents
asked
questions
which
weren't
fully
answered.
Please
keep
their
quality
of
life
in
mind
as
you
make
decisions,
pearlman
residents
asked.
Where
will
the
staff
park?
Is
that
going
to
be
three
of
our
14
spaces
on
the
alley
and
how
many
will
be
taken
by
the
staff
at
the
new
building?
H
Caretakers
have
limited
time
won't
parking
further
away,
make
it
even
harder
for
them
to
help
us
families
bring
me
groceries.
Are
they
really
going
to
have
to
carry
them
from
a
different
building?
Will
the
tall
building
blocking
the
corner
and
more
traffic?
Will
it
be
safe
to
walk
from
the
promen's
back
door
across
the
alley
to
the
7-11,
using
my
walker
in
closing
the
applicants
labeled
the
further
reduction
of
on-site
parking
as
a
quote
refinement,
but
it
was
never
a
one-to-one
ratio
and
it
is
now
to
be
25
to
152
without
adequate
accessibility.
A
Thank
you,
miss
waystow
and
our
third
speaker
who
had
filed
a
continuance
from
the
last
meeting
was
bruce
ennenbach.
I
I'm
here,
thank
you.
My
name
is
bruce
einenbach.
I
live
at
723
emerson
within
well
within
a
thousand
feet,
I'm
just
sure
by
the
actions
or
more
precisely
the
inaction
of
this
commission.
So
here's
what
happened?
The
developer
decides,
what
is
to
be
under
consideration,
writes
it
up
and
submits
it
to
staff
staff
in
turns
accepts
what
the
developer
wishes
to
have
under
consideration
without
question
and
passes
the
same
on
to
the
plan
commission
for
its
consideration.
I
The
plan
commission,
then,
will
only
consider
what
staff
puts
forth,
which
really
means
what
the
developer
has
put
forth.
That
is
what
the
developer
wants
to
be
under
consideration,
and
the
complaint
commission
then
considers
nothing
else.
Accordingly.
The
plan
commission
is
acting
subservient
to
the
developer
via
the
subservient
staff
rather
than
appropriately
the
other
way
around,
and
it
closes
its
eyes
on
anything
else
which
might
be
of
significant
import
to
the
project.
Summarily
the
tail
is
wagging
the
dog.
The
dev
developer
is
controlling
the
conversation.
I
The
developer
is
driving
the
bus
rather
than
the
other
way
around.
Consequently,
nothing
of
substance
was
discussed
at
planned
commission
last
time.
The
important
stuff
was
deemed
quote
off
topic
unquote,
because
the
developer
did
not
wish
to
talk
about
it.
I
can
only
consider
that
their
religion
of
duty
by
this
commission,
two
at
least
two
very
important
considerations,
which
should
be
reviewed
by
the
commission,
have
been
ignored.
The
two
important
and
relevant
to
the
responsibilities
of
these
commissions
are
an
inappropriate
c1a.
I
Zoning
c1a
quote
is
a
commercial
mixed-use
district
and
intended
to
provide
locations
for
the
development
of
a
mixed-use
building
consisting
of
retail
oriented
and
office
uses
on
the
ground
level
and
office
uses
and
or
residential
drawings
location
above
unquote,
this
project
is
not
a
mixed
use
project.
It
has
no
retail
component,
it
is
not
c1a.
I
This
is
an
r6
project
and
accordingly
must
be
reconsidered
and
set
then
under
that
zoning.
Additionally,
the
serious
structural
issue,
which
should
be
noted
and
strongly
recommended
to
council,
to
require
a
thorough
and
independent
review
of
a
serious
structural
situation
prior
to
any
approval
by
this
council.
I
These
issues
are
under
the
purview
of
the
plan
commission
and
can
and
should
be
addressed
by
it-
to
do
otherwise
is
to
shirk
your
responsibilities.
To
wit-
and
I
quote,
this
commission
addresses
matters
relation
to
planning
physical
development,
zoning
building
conservation,
preservation,
housing
and
relocation.
I
This
commission
quote
conducts
public
hearings
for
planned
developments,
zoning
ordinance
map
and
tax
amendments
and
unique
use
application,
and
it
goes
on
now.
I
do
really
appreciate
the
offer
very
hard
work
that
this
commission
performs
and
find
it
very
discarding
that
what
it
does
a
lot
is
too
often
reversed
so
blatantly
by
our
counts.
This
commission
can
and
does
do
very
good
and
valuable
work
for
our
city,
and
although
this
is
indeed
an
unusual
situation
with
all
due
respect,
this
commission
has
not
done
it
here.
It
has
failed
our
city.
Please
do
your
job.
A
Thank
you,
mr
annenbach.
I
also
have
kyra
kelly
has
signed
up
to
speak
and
miss
kelly.
You
are
not
at
the
last
meeting.
If
I
am
correct,
so
I
will
ask
you
to
be
sworn
at
this
particular
moment.
A
Fine,
thank
you.
If
you
would
raise
your
right
hand,
which
I
cannot
see
so
I'll
trust
you
on
that,
do
you
swear
or
affirm,
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings.
J
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
would
like
to
address
the
inaccurate
premise
and
the
comps
that
were
used
here
to
get
this
very,
very
low
number
of
estimated
the
parking
needs
and
the
low
number
of
spaces
that
this
proposal
is
offering
for
this
building
of
268
units,
including
152
new,
mostly
market
rate
units
added.
They
estimate
they
only
need
a
total
of
83
spaces
for
residents,
23
for
guests
and
three
for
staff,
for
a
total
of
100
101
units.
J
39
spaces
will
be
on
site
and
they
will
lease
the
rest.
I'd
like
to.
Let's
see
sorry,
oh
sorry,
my
I
had
a
little
computer
problem
here.
Yes,
the
developers
and
parking
consultants
cites
comps
of
similar
buildings
nearby
and
show
their
math
to
draw
such
conclusions,
but
these
are
not
comps
of
similar
buildings
like
another
luxury,
55
plus
senior
living
like
the
avador
built,
a
block
or
two
away,
or
even
a
senior
affordable
housing
building
that
was
just
built
on
howard
nope.
J
They
are
basing
their
very
low
parking
space
estimate
on
two
primarily
northwestern
college
student
occupied
buildings,
the
link
which
is
marketed
as
the
end,
their
splash
page
first
page,
as
quote
luxury
student
living
in
evanston
illinois.
I
live
pretty
close
by
it's.
Basically,
a
private
dorm
for
northwestern
undergrads
and
even
they
use
61
spaces
and
the
other
building
is
e-2
a
building.
That's
predominantly
northwestern
kellogg
students
and
they
use
178
spaces.
You
can
see
this
from
that.
J
I
believe
that
the
planned
commission
should
insist
on
looking
at
the
avador,
which
again
is
is
very
similar.
It
has
139
parking
spaces
for
167
units
and
it
does
have
10,
affordable
housing
units
or
at
least
look
at
the
ratio
of
the
market
rate
units
there,
or
look
at
the
60
unit,
affordable
housing
building
just
built
on
howard,
that
has
55
parking
units
for
60
units,
and
I
like
to
know
if
seniors
in
affordable
housing
buildings
don't
drive,
then
why
were
so
many
spaces
approved
there?
J
Another
point:
the
calculation
of
the
affordable
housing
parking
spaces
for
this
building
may
not
be
accurate
as
they
are
based
on
the
pearlman,
which
I
believe
can
be
less
is
less
than
50
ami.
Yet
the
new,
the
affordable
housing
units
at
this
new
building
will
be
either
50
ami,
but
they'll
also
be
80
to
120
ami.
J
J
I
also
noticed
it
was
interesting
at
the
same
time,
the
developer
in
the
proposal
is
saying
the
residents
of
the
building
well,
their
parking
needs
because
they
are
seniors,
won't
be
you
know
they
think
it'll
be
even
less
yet
they
are
touting
64
bike
spaces
in
public
transport.
So
I'm
you
know
when
we're
talking
about
parking
spaces,
we're
giving
the
assumption
that
the
seniors
won't
be
driving
and
aren't
as
active,
but
these
we're
supposed
to
believe
these
same
seniors
are
going
to
be
riding
bikes
and
taking
the
l.
J
So
it
just
seems
you
know,
there's
a
there's
a
connect,
I
don't
know.
In
conclusion,
I
believe
these
estimates
and
these
estimates
are
inaccurate
and
even
misleading,
and
I
just
wonder
how
this
happened.
How
are
we
using
a
dorm
and
looking
at
and
calling
it
a
trend
and
our
us
residents
will
have
to
live
with
the
consequences
of
this
forever?
J
A
Thank
you,
miss
kelly.
Was
there
anyone
else?
Those
were
the
four
names
that
I
had
on
the
sign
up
sheet.
Is
there
anyone
else
if
they
would
raise
a
hand,
so
miss
jones
can
see
them.
D
A
All
right,
ms
lulaback,
I
also
believe
you
were
here
at
the
last
meeting.
Did
you
speak?
I'm
sorry,
were
you
sworn
at
the
time.
K
I
was
sworn
at
the
time
I
did
not
speak
right
and
your
normal
time,
for
speaking,
is
after
you've
had
time
for
discussion.
I
believe,
if
it's
possible,
I
would
just
assume
speak
at
that
point.
A
A
All
right,
so
is
that
the
only
hand
that
we
had.
A
J
Sorry,
I
can't
find
the
hand
button,
but
are
there
usually
questions
that
can
be
asked.
A
We're
going
to
let
the
developer
respond
to
the
statements
that
have
been
made
right
now,
so
it's
their
chance
to
kind
of
rebut
rebuttal
and
then
we'll
kind
of
see
how
it
goes
from
there.
This
I
mean,
as.
L
A
Said
continuances
are
a
little
bit
different
than
our
normal
operating
procedure,
because
normally
the
applicant
goes
first,
everyone
asks
their
questions,
makes
their
comments
and
then
the
applicant
rebuts,
but
with
the
continuance,
the
the
the
person's
requesting
the
continuance
actually
get
to
go.
First.
A
If
you
have
a
specific
question,
just
raise
your
hand
and
I'll
ask
miss
jones
to
sort
of
keep
an
eye
for
hands
that
get
raised
at
that
time.
A
E
Yes,
I
will
respond
to
comments
made
about
parking,
because
that
is
the
topic
under
consideration.
At
this
continuance,
I
would
like
to
make
a
summary
statement
prior
to
the
planned
commission
vote
on
all
three
requested
major
exceptions.
E
We
have
heard
a
lot
of
comments
here
tonight
regarding
parking
and,
frankly,
some
other
matters
that
are
off
topic
as
well
intentioned,
as
these
comments
may
be
they
are
made
by,
I
will
just
say:
non-experts
people
who
have
no
particular
qualification
in
parking
demand
analysis,
a
parking
utilization
analysis.
We
have
such
an
expert,
the
consultant,
who
prepared
our
traffic
and
parking
study,
which
was
updated
prior
to
the
the
filing
of
our
application.
E
For
these
three
major
adjustments,
dan
brinkman
from
the
engineering
firm
golf
ham
hamilton
associates
is
with
us,
and
I
would
like
him.
We,
we
actually
presented
some
testimony
to
megan
jones
with
respect
to
sources
of
data
for
our
for
walt
hamlin
hamilton's
analysis,
and
that
is
a
part
of
the
record
and
is
available
to
plan
commissioners
for
their
review
and
deliberation.
I
would
like
dan
just
to
summarize
the
methodology
of
his
analysis
and
his
recommendation
for
parking
demand
at
the
proposed
development.
Dan.
Are
you
with
us.
A
Here,
mr
brinkman,
before
you
begin,
I
just
want
to
swear
you
in
so,
if
you
just
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
our
firm
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings?
I
did
thank
you
and
if
you
would
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
L
L
Yeah
I
mean
we
were
provided
two
different
nearby
or
adjacent
in
the
case
of
link
buildings
that
the
housing
authority
had
already
had
preliminary
discussions
with
in
terms
of
sharing
parking
or
leasing
future
spaces
or
making
future
agreements
regarding
spaces.
L
Given
that
those
are
you
know
the
leagues
in
the
vicinity,
we
used
information
talk
to
operators
at
both
of
them
to
determine
the
demand
for
the
new
building
based
on
market
rate
spaces.
L
So
we
came
to
you
know
we
came
to
an
estimated
demand
of
101,
as
stated
by.
I
don't
remember
who,
but
it
is
a
lot
higher
than
the
number
that
the
staff
calculated
at
88..
L
I
don't
think
that
you
know
we
didn't
hide
anything
or
say
anything.
You
know,
in
our
analysis,
the
the
proposal,
the
number
of
spaces
on
site
will
not
meet
the
demand.
It
only
functions
if
off-site
parking
spaces
are
available
to
meet
the
demand
of
the
building.
L
You
know
we
estimate
somewhere
between
whether
it's
0.42
or
0.5
spaces.
You
know
not
everyone
will
have
a
car,
not
everyone
will
have
two
cars.
Some
people
will
not.
We
did
also
include
the
estimate
for
visitor
parking
in
accordance
with
you
know
the
city's
ordinance.
L
So
you
know
I'll
stand
by
our
analysis
and
our
recommendation
that
the
site
itself
is
under
part
and
that
will
rely
on
police
spaces
and
adjacent
or
other
nearby
buildings
to
meet
the
difference
between
what
can
be
provided
on
site
and
in
the
alley
and
what
the
ultimate
demand
for
the
building
is.
E
L
You
know
market
rate
buildings
in
the
neighborhood.
You
know
this
is
a.
Is
a
dorm
building
a
a
perfect
analogy
for
this
building?
Probably
not,
but
I
I'm
sure
that
demand
is
accurate
in
terms
of
what
they're
using
maybe
even
a
benefit
that
the
fact
that
there
are
more
spaces
available
in
the
closer
proximity
at
length
than
e2.
C
L
You
know
that
this
is
what
this
is.
What
we
have
to
work
with,
these
are
similar
demands,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
if
we
are
dealing
with
potentially
leasing
or
or
coming
to
agreements
with
spaces,
you
know
in
other
buildings
that
we
don't
over
tax
those
buildings
as
well.
So
we
have
to
understand
what
their
demand
is
and
how
ours
relates
to
it.
E
Okay,
dan
will
be
available
if
commission
members
wish
to
question
him
directly
on
his
study
and
and
projection
of
demand.
What
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
this
particular
continuation
is
for
the
purpose
of
addressing
the
parking
question.
E
There
was
a
request
to
continue
the
meeting
to
provide
rebuttal
to
our
testimony.
We've
heard
that
I
would
like
to
say
point
out
a
couple
of
a
couple
of
facts,
so
what
is
relevant
to
this
proceeding
is
only
the
deviation
that
we're
requesting
from
the
approved
planned
development
ordinance.
E
Okay,
the
plan
development
ordinance
required
51
parking
spaces
in
consideration
of
everything.
E
That
is
what
we
are
requesting
approval
from
the
city
for,
and
the
consideration
also
of
the
16
additional
the
16
units
we
are
deleting
from
the
program,
so
we
will
have
16
fewer
spaces
and
are
asking
for
12
fewer
parking
spaces.
Given
that
utilization
rate
of
parking
in
nearby
buildings
is
0.5
spaces
or
thereabouts
per
unit,
that
is
one
half
parking
space
per
unit,
our
deletion
of
16
units
would
more
than
compensate
for
the
reduction
of
parking
of
12
spaces.
E
So
there
is
more
than
enough
capacity
in
nearby
buildings,
plus
our
on-site
parking
to
accommodate
the
need.
Here
I
don't
think,
there's
any
question
that
there
is
and
the
fact
that
existing
buildings
were
way
over
park
to
begin
with
was
a
major
factor
in
the
city
and
the
city
council,
approving
our
plan
development
with
the
51
spaces
that
we
had
for
that
approved
plan.
E
So
we
are
asking
merely
for
further
reduction
and
20
space
12
spaces
to
be
compensated
for
by
additional
off-site
parking,
which
is
available
right
across
the
alley.
E
This
is
an
elderly
building.
There's
not
going
to
be
a
direct
comp
to
our
building.
You
know
right
across
the
street.
I'm
not
sure
the
avador
is
is
a
direct
comp.
We
have
30
affordable
in
our
building.
I
don't
know
that
the
avatar
has
30
percent
affordable
in
their
building,
so
there
will
not
be
an
you
know,
an
absolutely
perfect
comp
to
base
things
on.
E
I
think
the
fact
that
there
is
ample
existing
off-site
parking
to
provide
for
more
than
our
need
for
parking
here
on
this
property
is
is
what
is
most
important
and
that
plus
the
the
expert
witness
testimony
a
ban
and
the
and
the
report
that
we
filed
provides
evidence
of
of
what
a
parking
will
be.
E
The
sony
ordinance
demand
would
be
88
spaces
dan
projected
a
maximum
need
of
101..
We
can
provide
for
that
with
our
on-site
spaces
and
lease
off-site
spaces,
and
we've
provided
evidence
of
that.
So
we
see
that
plus
the
reduction
in
16
units
in
our
building
leads
me
to
conclude
that
there
would
be
no
off-site
impacts
related
to
this
reduction
in
12
spaces,
and
there
is
no
really
public
purpose
for
denying
this
major
adjustment.
So
that
would
be
our
rebuttal
to
the
testimony
provided
and
we'd
be
happy
to
answer.
Questions
from
commission.
A
A
M
I've
got
one.
I
have
one
question
for
mr
brickman
just
a
question:
did
you
have
a
chance
to
check
the
ratio
of
parking
spaces
to
residents
at
any
of
the
other
retirement
communities
in
evanston,
such
as
three
crowns
or
presbyterian
homes
or
the
mather
or
the
avador,
or
anything
else
in
chicago
itself?.
L
As
part
of
this,
no,
I
did
not
specifically
contact
any
of
the
other
uses.
I
have
you
know
considerable
experience
and
worked
on
a
number
of
other.
L
You
know
variety
of
different
types
of
senior
living,
but
no,
I
didn't.
I
I
reached
out
to
the
two,
the
the
link
and
e2.
Those
were
the
only
properties
I
contacted
as
part
of
this
study.
C
K
Yes,
I
would
so
I'm
so
lola.
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless
in
evanston
and
head
of
a
coalition
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
We
have
several
people
from
joining
forces
on
the
call
tonight,
but
we
just
have
one
request,
which
is
that
we
asked
the
plan
commission
tonight
to
quickly
support
the
changes
requested
by
the
housing
authority
of
cook
county,
in
addition
to
the
housing
authority's
partners
on
this
project
city.
Community
development
staff
have
already
vetted
these
changes
and
feel
that
they're
well
within
reason.
K
Every
one
of
the
changes
requested
should
make
this
building
equivalently
or
more
acceptable
to
those
who
have
raised
objections
related
to
the
building
size
and
the
parking.
However,
evanston's
code
and
processes
require
an
unusual
number
of
reviews
and
approvals,
and
that
is
why
we
were
here
two
weeks
ago,
had
the
projects
delayed
and
are
here
again
tonight.
K
A
Thank
you,
miss
lullaback,
I
believe,
miss
miss
kelly
and
I'll
clarify
kyra
kelly,
because
I
don't
know
if
the
alderman
is
on
the
call
as
well.
So
I
believe
you
also
said
you
wanted
to
ask
a
question.
J
Yes,
I
did.
Thank
you,
one
question.
I
had
a
couple,
but
it
was
mentioned.
You
know,
foreseeing
a
lot
of
caregivers
for
seniors
living
there
and,
as
also
happens
currently
with
the
pearlman,
and
it
was
mentioned
that
the
developer
was
going
to
pay
for
parking
for
the
caregivers,
and
I
want
I
wondered
if,
if
that
was
going
to
be
in
writing,
because
I
can
imagine
that
that's
you
know
could
be
quite
an
expense
if
somebody
has
a
caregiver
coming,
you
know
once
or
twice
a
day.
J
You
know
how
that
works
with
the
leasing
of
the
spaces
at
link
and
e2,
and
how
long
that
I
mean.
Is
that
in
perpetuity?
Is
there
a
limit
to
that?
So
that's
my
question
on
that
front.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you,
mr
james
or.
E
E
L
We
don't
specifically
have
caregivers,
we
did.
We
did
consider
visitors.
E
So
I
would
ask
if,
if
alicia,
hershaw
or
rich
menachio
have
a
an
estimate
of
how
many
spaces
would
be
needed
for
caregivers,
I
believe
both
of
them
are
on
the
line.
D
My
name
is
richard
menachio,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
housing
authority.
We
don't
have
that
number,
but
I
did
make
the
commitment
that
we
wouldn't
make
the
caregivers
come
out
of
pocket
for
expenses
if
their
parking
was
not
covered
by
the
agency.
So
that
is
a
commitment
we
made
I'm
going
to
honor
that
commitment,
but
in
terms
of
the
numbers
I
don't
know,
but
as
we
just
heard
the
total
number
of
parking
spots,
loaded
visitors,
which
also
includes
caregivers.
D
J
I
had
one
more
question
for
the
parking
consultant
and
I
wondered
if
typically
in
an
undergrad
housing
situation,
if
the
needs
or
if
the
car
ownership
and
parking
needs
are
equivalent
to
a
typical
luxury,
building
or
even
luxury
senior
building.
If
that
is
yeah,
what
what
what
you
see
in
terms
of
rates
of
cars
and
parking
in
a
undergrad,
dorm
type
situation,
and
if
that
is
equivalent.
L
There's
honestly,
not
a
ton
of
published
information
regarding
undergraduate
dorms
and
parking
demand.
Nor
is
there
a
lot
of
detailed,
published
parking
information
for
you
know
you
basically
have
parking
demands
for
apartments
or
assisted
living,
there's
even
very
little
published
information
about
affordable
units,
so
you
kind
of
use.
What's
in
the
area
you
know
buy
and
large
apartments,
regardless
of
size,
even
regardless
of
affordability.
L
When
you
talk
about
a
building,
that's
you
know
over
five
to
six
stories.
Parking
demand
per
unit
is
generally
around
that
half
to
three
quarters
of
a
space
per
unit
based
on
national
standards.
So
I
you
know,
I
don't
have
specifics
about.
You
know
student
dwellings
within
my
own
anecdotal
experience
and
renting
spaces
for
my
daughter
at
college,
but
there's
not
there's
not
a
ton
of
published
information,
so
you
know
that's
why
the
local
data
is
as
good
as
you
can
get
really.
A
Thank
you.
I
see
that
ms
mchugh
has
raised
her
hand
if,
if
that's
correct,.
G
G
We
live
there,
we
see
them,
we
pass
them.
You
can
see
their
faces
on
the
window.
Everybody
knows
in
the
whole
neighborhood
that
that
is
a
student
dorm,
okay
and
there
is
a
very
different
utilization
of
parking
by
students
who
live
two
blocks
from
their
university
than
there
is
in
a
tod
in
general,
all
right.
What's
at
e2
the
utilization
there
matches
the
city's
recommendation
for
.55
or
whatever
it
is
units
per
per
our
parking
places
per
unit,
and
so
that
validates
that
e2
is
is
much
closer.
G
G
In
addition,
I
want
to
say
that
it
was
stated
that
this
analysis,
by
whomever
it
was
mr
brinkman
or
his
company,
was
asking
for
more
units
than
the
city
said
was
required.
That's
absolutely
not
the
case.
The
city
said
that
then
that
was
not
mr
brinkman
who
said
that,
but
I
believe
mr
james,
the
city,
said
that
88
additional
units
were
required
in
addition
to
what's
there
already,
which
is
approximately
I
might
be
off
by
one
or
two
but
22
spots
and
16
additional
ones
on
the
side.
G
So
the
city
was
saying
that
we
needed
88,
plus
38
126
units
and
mr
brinkman
and
companies
analysis
comes
up
with
101
all
right
now.
In
addition,
mr
james
said
that
by
reducing
the
number
of
units
by
16
and
reducing
the
parking
places
by
12
you're
more
than
compensating
in
the
reduction
of
units,
I'm
sorry
your
math
is
wrong
and
I'm
going
to
state
my
credentials
being
a
mathematics
and
computer
science
major.
It's
not
that
I
have
no
credentials
your
math
is
absolutely
wrong.
G
I
stated
that
and
what
I
said,
and
not
only
that,
but
you
threw
around
the
the
fact
that
if
there
were
16
units
reduced
and
if
you're
only
providing
for
one
parking
place
for
every
two
units
that
you've
more
than
compensated
well,
you
did
the
math
incorrectly
and
you
have
less
than
compensated
for
that.
And
let's
see
if
I
can
find
that,
I
think
it's.
Maybe
you
maybe
that
yes,
6.4.
G
If
you
reduce
the
number
of
units
by
16,
and
you
only
plan
that
point
four
of
them
have
a
parking
spot.
You've
reduced.
The
required
number
of
parking
spots
by
6.4
would
be
comparable
to
what
was
proposed.
But
instead,
what
you're
proposing
is
reducing
the
number
of
units
of
parking
places
by
12.,
okay,
so
check.
A
E
Thank
you
so
much
so
again,
the
question
of
parking
demand
parking
utilization
is
going
to
vary
from
building
to
building
the
housing
authority
has
said
that
they
will
help
all
residents
while
personal
they
will.
They
will
make
sure
that
all
residents
of
the
promen
building
who
have
a
car
will
be
provided
a
space
free
of
charge,
either
on-site
or
in
the
link
building.
That's
number
one.
E
The
residents
of
the
new
emerson
building
will
need
to
purchase
parking,
whether
it's
in
the
underground
facility
on
site
or
in
an
adjacent
building,
and
it's
in
the
owner's
interest
to
facilitate
the
location,
securing
those
additional
off-site
spaces
to
accommodate
the
needs
of
its
residents,
and
that
will
be
done,
and
there
is
ample
off-site
parking
in
the
area
to
accommodate
this.
So
the
question
of
whether
there
is
enough
parking
in
the
area
to
handle
off-site
parking
demand
is
really
not
in
question.
E
The
fact
that
this
is
an
elderly
building,
I
believe,
would
further
reduce
utilization.
The
fact
that
this
is
a
tod
area
for
the
reduced
utilization,
but
regardless
of
what
the
actual
utilization
and
demand
is,
there,
is
enough
off-site
parking
in
existing
buildings
to
handle
that
demand,
and
that
was
the
basic
premise
of
the
approval
of
this
project
by
the
city
council
back
in
november
of
2020..
E
So
the
request
for
reduction
of
12
spaces
is
whether
it's
offset,
regardless
of
how
much
is
offset
by
the
reduction
of
16
units
is
really
not
consequential.
What
is
consequential
is
that
there
is
adequate
off-site
parking
facilities
by
buildings
that
have
vastly
overbuilt
parking
and
and
do
not
need
that
parking.
E
Some
of
the
spaces
that
are
leased
in
the
e2
building
are
undoubtedly
at
least
by
people
who
don't
even
live
there,
so
that
utilization
number
is
probably
a
little
street.
We
don't
have
the
actual
information
on
how
many
residents
lease
spaces
versus
non-residents
police
bases,
but
this
all
is
very
difficult
to
precisely
project.
In
any
case,
there
is
adequate
offsite
parking
spaces.
That
was
the
basic
premise
of
the
approval
of
the
project
as
originally
approved,
and
the
reduction
in
12
spaces
with
a
reduction
of
16
units.
A
Is
there
anyone
from
the
commission
who
would
like
to
share
a
statement,
or
I
can
go
first
if
or
less
it
doesn't
matter?
If
somebody
else
has
something
they'd
like
to
say.
K
M
M
The
parking
was
a
difficult
issue
when
this
project
was
first
brought
up
and
it
continues
to
be
that
way
I
mean
when
you
go
online
and
you
try
to
find
what
is
the
right
percentage
of
parking
spaces
to
senior
citizens.
It's
a
little
hard
to
figure
out.
There
is
no
exact
formula,
and
I
can
understand,
trying
to
find
different
ratios
can
be
difficult.
M
I
think
the
applicant
is
trying
to
provide
parking
options.
The
problem
is
when
they're
not
on
site,
I
think
there's
a
natural
fear
among
the
neighbors
that,
basically,
what
will
happen
is
that
if
people
find
out,
they
have
to
go
three
blocks
to
park
somewhere
and
then
walk
back
to
the
building.
M
They'll,
take
the
path
of
least
resistance
and
they'll
park
in
the
neighborhood
and
they'll
take
the
spaces
there
on
the
street.
So
I
think
part
of
the
question
for
me
is
how
solid
are
the
agreements
with
some
of
these
buildings
to
lease
spaces?
M
How
will
the
building
operations
folks
make
sure
that
either
deliveries
or
caregivers
or
families
visiting
people
in
the
building
are
not
using
the
street
to
park
and
that's
that's
kind
of
a
tough
issue,
so
I'm
disappointed
that
at
this
point
those
plans
aren't
a
little
firmer
and
I
will
say
that
I
I
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
seniors
will
want
to
walk
three
blocks
to
e2
for
parking.
I
found
that
hard
to
believe
originally,
and
I
still
find
that
hard
to
believe
now.
M
F
Just
just
a
comment
question
on
that:
what
I
read
is
that
there
were
90
spaces
available
at
the
at
the
link,
which
is
more
than
more
than
enough
to
meet
the
meet
the
requirement.
So
I'm,
if
all
the
spaces,
if
those
spaces
are
taken
at
the
link,
there's
no
need
to
go
to
e2.
F
I
maybe
I
misunderstood,
but
that's
what
I
that's.
What
I
read
so.
M
A
I
will
I
will
share
some
information
that
that
I
received
from
staff
today.
The
link
has
submitted
a
zoning
analysis
for
their
new
project,
and
so
I
think
that
parking
there
will
become
much
more
difficult
based
on
their
plans
for
this.
This
new
area
that
this
new
thing
that
they
are
planning
on
building,
it's
called
a
tower.
I
don't
know
what
it
is:
I've
not
seen
drawings
of
it.
A
I've
just
got
a
text
message
that
says
it
will
be
adding
200
dwelling
units
and
71
additional
parking
spaces,
leading
the
whole
complex
of
the
link
to
have
and
again
this
is
zoning
analysis.
So
these
are
not
final
plans,
so
this
all
can
change.
441
dwelling
units,
721
bedrooms,
231
parking
spaces
total.
So
I
don't
know
that
I
would
rely
on
the
link
to
be
the
source,
but
that
again
is
up
to
the
link
and
what
they
want
to
negotiate.
A
But
I
would
be
very
disappointed
if
they
gave
away
their
parking
spaces
and
then
came
to
us
and
cried
we
don't
have
enough
parking
spaces.
So
that's
my
only
concern
on
that.
Just
in
response
to
what
commissioner
halek
had
to
say.
C
Yeah
I
and
usually
complaints
we
get
about
building
height
they're
too
high.
This
is
lowering
the
height
of
the
building,
so
people
should
be
those
are
concerned
about.
Building
heights
should
be
applauding
that.
Similarly,
for
decreasing
number
units,
people
complain
about
density
and
congestion,
and
this
is
decreasing
the
number
of
units,
so
people
should
be
happy
with
that.
C
It
probably
makes
the
economics
of
the
deal
a
little
more
difficult
because
they're
keeping
the
affordable
unit
numbers
the
same,
which
I
applaud,
but
that's
really,
I
think,
for
the
developer
and
for
the
banks
and
to
figure
out
the
economic
impact
and
we
get
down
to
to
parking,
and
I
think
commissioner
westbrook
raises
some
good
questions,
but
I
think
for
me,
if
the
residents
of
the
emerson
aren't
able
to
get
on
street
parking
permits,
then
I
suspect
that
does
diminish
somewhat
the
concern
that
they'll
be
clogging
up
the
neighborhood
and
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
it's
for
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
leasing
the
apartments
to
figure
out
whether
they
want
to
walk
to
e2
or
link,
and
it's
too
much.
C
A
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
give
my
general
thoughts.
I
don't
think
anybody
here
on
the
commission
is
concerned
about
the
height
change,
which
is
lowering
or
the
unit
change,
which
is
a
lowering,
so
it's
actually
lessening
impact
from
what
city
council
approved
last
november.
So
I
don't
think
that's
an
issue
for
anyone
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
so
what
it
comes
down
to
really
is
the
parking
spaces
in
which
city
council
last
year
approved
37
below
grade
and
we're
now
getting
a
request
for
25,
which
is
a
change
in
12
parking
spaces.
A
My
personal
thoughts
are
that
without
the
the
residents
being
able
to
get
part
per
parking
permits
for
the
neighborhood
that
they
will
not
be,
let
not
be
able
to
park
in
the
neighborhood
or
risk
risk
tickets
for
violating
that,
I
do
believe
that
there
is
a
number
of
parking
spaces
available
in
the
area
to
find
12
spaces,
which
is
what
we
seem
to
be
talking
about
here
from
what
city
council
approved
on
the
below
grade,
so
finding
an
additional
12
spaces
somewhere.
A
So
I
really
don't
have
a
a
major
problem
with
this.
With
this
amendment
to
the
plan,
development.
A
Is
there
a
motion
for
this
and
then
we
will
go
through
our
standards
and
and
discuss.
But
if
there's
a
a
motion
on
this,
I
will
entertain
that
at
this
time.
F
So
moved,
okay
and
I'll
I'll
make
the
motion.
Now
I
move
to
that,
we
approve
the
the
amendment
as
as
stated
with
the,
with
the
condition
that
that
caregivers
parking
will
be
will
be
paid
for
also,
as
stated.
C
A
So
it's
been
moved
by
hal
executed
by
huco
any
any
discussion.
I'm
sorry
any
discussion
about
that
or,
if
not
we'll,
just
go
through
the
standards.
A
This
is
going
to
be
tricky
because
normally
the
standards
go
up
on
screen,
which
is
where
everybody
else
is.
So
I'm
going
to
kind
of.
A
A
Again,
this
was
approved
by
city
council
last
november.
We
have
seen
a
reduction
in
the
height
and
number
of
of
units
involved
which
should
lessen
some
of
the
impact,
the
impact
and,
I
believe,
by
requiring
the
additional
parking
spaces
off-site
to
to
get
those
additional
12
back
that
are
being
lost
by
these
by
this
amendment.
A
It
should
not
have
an
effect,
a
negative
effect
on
the
neighborhood,
at
least
not
with
the
with
the
with
the
parking
permit
situation
in
the
neighborhood
it
should.
It
should
not
be
a
negative
effect
number
four:
it
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
property
in
the
neighborhood.
A
A
We
haven't
really
heard
anything
on
that,
but
again
this
was
approved
by
city
council
last
year
and
we've
not
seen
any
of
the
requested
changes
that
should
have
an
impact
on
public
facilities
and
services.
So
I
believe
that
is
met.
It
will
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion
again
we're
talking
about
parking,
not
with
traffic.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
fine,
because
it's
not
been
changed
from
what
city
council
approved
last
year.
It
preserves
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
A
We've
not
heard
any
testimony
related
to
that.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
fine
number
eight.
It
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features.
There
is
nothing
here
that
is
trying
to
be
preserved,
actually
we're
lessening
the
footprint
or
the
impact
of
the
building
on
the
land.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
met
and
number
nine.
It
complies
with
all
applicable
regulations
of
the
district
in
which
it
is
located
in
other
applicable
ordinances,
except
to
the
extent
such
regulations
have
been
modified
through
the
plan
development
process
or
the
grant
of
a
variation.
A
Obviously
this
is
a
planned
development
and
we
are
amending
the
planned
development
which
is
totally
within
the
process
so
that
standard
has
been
met.
So
is
everyone
in
agreement
with
my
finding
on
standards,
or
is
there
some
someone
who
would
like
to
voice
an
alternate
opinion
on
one
of
them.
A
Compliance
with
the
standard
shall
govern
the
recommendations
of
the
plan
commissions
applicable
to
the
I'm
sorry
applicable,
applicable
to
a
planned
development
and
the
action
of
the
city
council.
A
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
approved
plan
development
is
in
harmony
with
the
general
purposes
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
planned
commission
shall
not
recommend
approval
of,
nor
shall
the
city
council
approve
a
planned
development
unless
each
shall
determine
based
on
written
findings
of
fact
that
the
planned
development
satisfies
the
specific
standards
established
in
the
zoning
district
in
which
the
planned
development
is
located
again,
that's
very
long,
but
the
fact
that
we
are
actually
seeing
a
reduction
in
two
of
the
of
the
requests
which
were
the
height
and
the
number
of
units
creates.
A
I
don't
know
those
actually
lesson
impact
again
we're
again
talking
about
these
12
park.
These
12
additional
parking
spaces
that
will
be
lost
and
regaining
those
somewhere,
and
I
believe
that
that
can
be
done
through
the
agreements
that
would
be
hopefully
in
place
before
this
goes
to
city
council,
so
that
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met
are
there
more
to
this
and
then
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
plan
developments
in
a
c1a
district
number
one.
A
Each
plan
development
shall
be
compatible
with
surrounding
development
and
shall
not
be
of
nature
in
height,
bulk
or
scale
to
exercise
any
influence,
contrary
to
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
set
forth
in
section
612
purpose
and
intent.
Again,
we
are
seeing
a
lessening
of
bulk
and
size
and
scale
in
this
project,
although
the
height
is
only
reducing
by
four
four
feet.
Roughly,
we
are
seeing
a
change
in
the
number
of
units,
therefore
reducing
its
use,
and
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
A
A
I
don't
know
exactly
where
we
are
in
the
process
on
that,
but
I
believe
we're
one
year
in
roughly
based
on
their
approval
being
last
november.
B
Yes,
they
are
in
for
a
for
an
extension.
Okay.
A
Right
so
this
this
is
met
at
this
time.
No
special
use
permit
for
a
planned
development
shall
be
valid
for
a
period
longer
than
one
year.
Unless
a
building
permit
is
issued
again,
the
standard
will
be
met
if
they,
if
they
get
their
applications
in
if
they
get
their
extensions.
As
requested
all
landscape
treatment
within
the
plan,
development
shall
be
provided
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
set
forth
in
chapter
17,
landscaping
and
screening,
and
shown
on
the
required
landscape
plan
that
shall
be
submitted
as
part
of
the
planned
development
application.
A
Again
all
of
that
was
recorded
last
year
and
we
are
asked
there
are
no
change
being
requested
for
this
year,
so
that
standard
is
met
and
one
last
hopefully,
standards
and
guidelines
for
planned
developments
in
the
c1
district
under
site
controls
and
standards
for
all
boundaries
of
the
planned
development
of
budding
or
residential
property.
There
shall
be
provided
a
transition
landscape
barrier,
our
landscape
strip
of
at
least
10
feet,
consisting
of
vegetative,
state
screening,
fencing
and
decorative
walls
in
accordance
with
the
manual
of
design
guidelines.
A
Again,
we've
not
we're
not
here
to
discuss
the
landscaping.
That
was
something
that
was
addressed
last
year,
so
that
standard
is
met
walkways
developed
for
a
planned
development
shall
form
a
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
again.
This
is
one
that
has
been
addressed
in
last
year
and
we're
not
being
addressed
or
we're
not
being
asked
to
look
at
that
this
year.
A
The
location,
construction
and
operation
of
parking
loading
areas
and
service
areas
shall
be
designed
to
avoid
adverse
effects
on
residential
uses
within
or
adjoining
the
development
and,
where
possible,
provide
additional
parking
beyond
that
required
for
the
planned
development
to
service
the
business
district
in
which
it
is
located
again,
parking
seems
to
be
the
thing
that
we
are
talking
about
most
here.
City
council
last
year
did
approve
this
with
a
requirement
of
only
37
underground
parking
spaces.
A
We're
being
asked
to
look
at
25
and
I
believe
with
us,
making
a
condition
that
12
additional
parking
spaces
be
found
that
that
standard
will
be
met.
Number
four
principal
vehicular
access
point
shall
be
designed
to
permit
smooth
traffic
flow,
with
controlled
turning
movements
and
minimum
hazards
to
vehicular
or
pedestrian
traffic.
I
don't
believe
that
there
has
been
any
change
to
any
of
the
access
points
for
the
traffic.
Are
I'm
sorry
for
the
parking
and
traffic
flow,
so
that
standard
is
met.
A
The
plan
development
shall
provide,
if
possible,
for
underground
installation
of
utilities,
including
electricity
and
telephone,
both
in
public
ways
and
private
extensions
thereof.
Again.
This
was
addressed
in
the
ordinance
that
was
created
last
year
and
it's
not
something
we're
being
asked
to
amend
so
that
standard
is
met
for
every
planned
development.
There
shall
be
provided
a
market
feasibility
statement.
A
The
plan
development
last
year,
I'm
assuming
did
have
a
market
feasibility,
a
statement
made
and
nothing
is
being
asked
to
be
changed
on
that
really.
So
I
believe
that
that
standard
is
met
for
every
planned
development.
There
should
be
provided
a
traffic
circulation
impact
study
again
the
traffic
flow
patterns.
The
traffic
circulation,
are
not
something
that
we're
being
asked
to
address
this
year.
A
A
Go
back
to
my
seat
were
there
any
other
standards
that
I
went
through?
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
stop
and
ask
if,
if
commissioners
had
any
issue
with
any
of
those
other
standards
before
we
look
to
move
and
take
a
vote.
A
A
If
not,
then
I
will
call
the
vote
that
we
are
being
asked
to
it's
been.
A
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
that
we
approve
the
following
site:
development
allowances;
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
dwelling
units
from
168
to
152,
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
below
grade
parking
spaces
from
37
to
25
and
a
decrease
in
zoning
height
from
172
feet,
8
inches
to
168
4
inches
with
the
additional
conditions
that
12
additional
parking
spaces
be
located
to
offset
the
12
that
are
being
lost
in
the
underground
facility
and
that
caregivers
there
be
a
I'm
sorry,
mr
haleck,
I
don't
remember
exactly
how
you
worded
it
that
caregivers
could
be.
F
That
parking
for
the
carat
rivers
will
be
paid
for,
if
requested
by
the
by
the
operator
by.
B
G
C
D
D
A
With
a
vote
of
four
to
one,
the
project
will
move
forward
to
city
council
with
a
recommendation
for
approval.
A
A
All
second
moved
by
hal
executed
by
westerberg
and
I
don't
believe
we
need
a
rule
called
vote
on
that.
So
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
aye.
We
stand
adjourned.
Thank
you.