►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 10-13-2021
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
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,
who
is
the
determining
body
in
these
matters?
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
So,
with
five
members
president,
we
do
have
a
quorum.
I
will
note
for
the
record
that
chair
linwall
is
absent
because
she
had
to
recuse
herself
on
this
matter,
like
she
did
last
year
when
this
matter
was
initially
heard
also
present
tonight
from
the
staff,
our
neighborhood
and
land
use,
planner
megan
jones
and
our
assistant
city
attorney
alex
ruggy.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
A
A
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,
I
believe
it's
a
thousand
feet
for
tonight's
particular
case
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
written
continuance
of
the
hearing
with
the
intent
to
rebut
testimony
of
the
applicant
public.
A
Then
the
commission
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
No
further
questions
or
testimony
will
be
received
from
the
applicant
or
the
public.
At
that
time
all
testimony
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statements
to
your
personal
knowledge.
A
When
you
address
the
commission,
please
make
sure
to
state
your
name
and
address
and
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
Our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
you're
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
can
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
Any
matter
not
concluded
on
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting
tonight.
We
have
just
one
item
on
the
agenda
and
is
the
applicant
for
1900
sherman
avenue
present.
A
You
don't
have
to
come
up
yet
I'm
just
taking
a
quick
check
to
make
sure
everybody's
here.
So
with
that
we
will
move
into
the
first
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
approval
of
meeting
minutes
for
our
august
11th
2021
meeting.
Has
everyone
had
a
chance
to
review
yeah.
D
C
On
page
four,
this
is
a
very
small
item,
but
on
page
four
I
was
quoted
as
saying
that
in
chicago
that
with
alderman
approval,
no
parking
is
could
be
could
be
required.
It's
actually
4a
tod.
C
B
There
was
a
a
brief
write-up
that
was
included
with
the
documents
that
went
to
planning
and
development
committee.
C
A
A
D
D
A
With
that
5-0
vote,
the
minutes
for
august
11
2021
are
approved.
At
this
time
we
will
move
into
new
business.
The
one
item,
as
I
mentioned
we
have
on
the
agenda
tonight,
is
1900
sherman
avenue.
I'll
read
this
into
the
record.
So
this
is
this.
A
Is
this
is
a
case
21
plnd
0076,
a
major
adjustment
to
a
planned
development
at
1900,
sherman
avenue
the
housing
authority
of
cook
county
submits
for
a
major
adjustment
to
a
planned
development
at
1900
sherman
avenue
previously
approved
by
ordinance
109
0
20
to
construct
a
16-story
residential
building
in
the
c-1a
commercial
mixed-use
zoning
district.
A
The
applicant
proposes
changes
to
the
following
site:
development
allowances
number
one:
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
dwelling
units
from
168
to
152
to
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
below
grade
parking
spaces
from
37
to
25
and
3,
a
decrease
in
zoning
height
from
172
feet,
8
inches
to
168
feet,
4
inches
with
that,
I
will
ask
anybody
who
feels
they
may
be
speaking
on
this
issue
to
please
be
sworn
in
at
this
time.
By
raising
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
our
firm
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings?
A
Thank
you,
and
I
would
invite
the
applicant
at
this
time
for
1900
sherman
avenue
to
please
come
up.
B
B
B
There
were
37
below-grade
parking
spaces
that
were
proposed
to
replace
the
current
22
surface
lot
spaces
on
the
south
side
of
that
building.
There
are
existing
spaces
along
the
alley.
There
were
two
accessible
spaces
that
would
be
added
to
those
spaces
that
was
approved
and
there
are
no
changes
to
that,
and
also
as
part
of
the
approval.
B
B
E
Can
I
ask
one
question
at
this
point
so
back
to
your
staff
recommendation
the
recommendation
regarding
the
condition
for
the
required
number
of
parking
spaces
to
be
leased?
What
is
that
number?
B
That
is
the
initial
proposal,
the
suggestion
again,
that
is
still
up
for
discussion.
If
the
commission
decides
that
there.
E
E
F
Good
evening,
members
of
the
commission
good
to
see
everybody
again,
I'm
richard
menocchio,
I'm
the
director
of
the
housing
authority
at
cook
county.
We
appreciate
your
indulgence
on
these
important
matters.
I
just
want
to
give
my
appreciation
again
for
the
commission's
consideration
of
this
very
important
development
in
the
especially
the
51,
affordable
apartments
that
are
going
to
be
included.
We
think
it's
a
not
just
an
architecturally
significant
structure,
but
also
one
that's
going
to
provide
much
needed,
affordable
housing
in
in
evanston.
F
E
So
these
three
major
adjustments
really
come
about
as
refinements
to
the
design
of
the
project.
Frankly,
they're
very
normal
kinds
of
requests
that
come
from
going
from
a
conceptual
design,
which
is
what
is
typically
approved
as
part
of
a
planned
development
to
a
project
that
you
can
actually
build.
There
are
things
that
are
discovered
regarding
site
conditions
that
aren't
discovered
until
you
get
into
the
design
development
process.
E
There
are
certain
refinements
of
the
design
that
we're
requesting
and
we
will
go
into
that
in
detail,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
that
none
of
the
public
benefits
that
were
approved
in
the
original
project
are
being
compromised
at
all,
and
we
will
go
over
the
specific
nature
of
the
request.
Why
we're
making
the
request
and
why?
We
think
this
commission
should
approve
or
recommend
approval
of
those
requests.
E
So
the
need
for
the
two
amendments
have
come
about
regarding
two
discoveries.
One
was
a
structural
issue
with
the
foundation
of
the
perlman
building
that
limits
the
proximity
of
the
new
building
to
that
existing
building.
If
we
get
too
close
to
that
existing
building,
we
may
undermine
the
structural
stability
of
that
building.
So,
whereas
the
original
approved
building
actually
came
up
to
and
touched
that
existing
perlman
building,
we
need
to
maintain
a
10
to
12
foot
separation
between
the
new
building
and
the
existing
permanent
building.
E
So
that
has
require
resulted
in
a
need
to
change
the
underground
parking
configuration
with
the
loss
of
parking
spaces
and
the
actual
floor
plate
of
the
new
building,
because
we
have
less
area
in
which
to
spread
the
new
building
on.
So
that's
one
thing,
and
then
the
second
issue
is
the
covid
matter.
So,
as
we
all
know,
covet
has
had
changed
our
lives
kind
of
permanently
they've
changed
what
people
want
in
terms
of
their
apartments
in
terms
of
the
rental
apartments
they
favor
larger
units
and
less
common
area
shared
space.
E
E
This
material
has
already
been
covered
by
megan,
so
we're
going
to
go
on
to
our
first
major
adjustment
and
how
we're
going
to
operate.
This
is
that
project
architect.
Greg
kloszowski
will
speak
to
the
the
need
for
the
major
amendment,
and
then
I
will
talk
about
why
it
makes
sense
to
approve
it
greg.
G
Thank
you.
I'm
greg
klusausk,
I'm
a
senior
associate
with
papa
jordan
stage,
partners
the
architect
of
record
for
the
project.
So
this
major
amendment
number
one.
This
one
is
about
the
reduction
in
dwelling
units
and
the
two
diagrams
on
the
right
are
showing
exactly
what
bill
was
talking
about
a
few
moments
ago.
The
plan
on
the
upper
right.
G
What
that
also
is
impacting
is
moderately
lower
rates
of
traffic
and
parking
that
would
be
required
within
the
building.
So
that's
having
impact
on
the
neighborhood
or,
I
should
say,
no
impacts.
Really,
it's
not
increasing
the
parking.
In
fact
the
the
load
and
the
amount
of
people
within
the
building
would
be
less
and
then,
as
bill
was
referring
to
with
covid.
These
slightly
larger
units
are
allowing
us
to
meet
these
updated
market
preferences
that
we're
seeing
relative
to
rental
housing.
E
So
why
does
this
merit
approval?
Well
and
all
of
these
three
requests?
We
think
the
the
consideration
should
be
based
on.
Are
they
reasonable
requests?
Are
they
needed?
Do
they
increase
any
impacts
on
on
the
neighborhood
or
surrounding
properties,
or
do
they
reduce
the
project's
public
benefits?
So,
with
respect
to
this
first
major
amendment,
it
is
a
needed
request.
It's
really
a
normal
part
of
design
development
and
we
discovered
that
issue
with
the
perlman
building
and
the
change
in
market
preferences,
so
that
makes
it
reasonable.
E
This
actually
doesn't
increase.
Any
impacts
actually
reduces
impacts
in
terms
of
a
whole
range
of
things
like
traffic
and
and
frankly,
parking
demand,
mass
of
the
building
and
so
forth,
and
do
they
reduce
public
benefits?
They
do
not
so
we're
maintaining
the
34,
affordable
units
that
are
actually
at
50
percent
ami,
which
is
less,
which
is
a
greater
reduction
in
income
than
the
inclusion
housing
ordinance
requires.
We
also
have
maintain
the
17.
G
This
is
speaking
to
the
reduction
in
the
building
height,
and
this
is
really
about
what
bill
was
speaking
to
earlier
when
we
submitted
the
design
as
a
part
of
the
original
pd.
It
was
still
in
a
fairly
schematic
stage
in
this
case,
as
we
went
through
and
started
to
develop
the
building,
we
were
able
to
tighten
things
up,
understand
better
what
clearances
we
needed
at
different
floors
and
at
the
roof
and
in
turn
we
were
able
to
drop
the
building
height
slightly
from
where
it
was
from
the
172.8
to
the
168
foot
four.
G
E
Great,
it's
somewhat
ironic
that
we
have
to
ask
for
this
change.
Your
evanson
zoning
is
very
strict
in
terms
of
what
is
a
major
change
or
major
adjustment
in
the
plan,
development
versus
a
minor
one
which
can
be
handled
administratively,
so
anything
that's
not
defined
as
a
made
as
a
minor
adjustment
automatically
becomes
a
major
adjustment.
So
this
becomes
a
major
adjustment.
E
It's
a
normal
part
of
the
design,
development
and
refinement
process.
It
reduces
impacts,
it's
a
slightly
lower
building
and
it
won't
reduce
any
of
the
project's
benefits.
So
I
think
that's
really
all
we
need
to
say
about
that.
One
and
major
amendment
number
three
reduced
on-site
parking
and
greg
will
explain
this
in
further
detail.
G
This
one's
a
little
bit
more
technical
than
the
last
one,
what's
really
happening,
what
we're
showing
in
the
diagrams
on
the
right,
the
one
that's
sort
of
in
the
middle
or
the
left
diagram.
What
you're
seeing
on
the
left
hand
side
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
discern
because
of
the
projection
here,
but
the
the
line
that's
down.
The
center
was
where
the
two
buildings
met,
so
the
pearlman
building
is
on
the
left.
G
The
proposed
building
is
on
the
right
and
we
had
an
initial
assumption,
because
the
perlman
building
is
so
tall
that
it
was
built
on
caisson
or
some
sort
of
pure
foundation
system
and
that's
what
you're,
seeing
coming
down
with
the
radiating
pink
triangle
that
that
pink
triangle
is
intended
to
represent
the
area
of
influence.
In
other
words,
the
the
weight
of
the
structure
is
coming
down
through
those
piers
and
then
coming
down
underground
at
a
45
degree
angle
from
each
one
of
those
piers.
G
What
you're,
also
seeing
sort
of
midway
is
grade
you're,
seeing
two
levels
of
parking
below
that.
So
we
had
assumed
that
those
piers,
which
would
be
a
reasonable
assumption,
would
go
down.
60
70
feet,
maybe
even
if
it
was
only
50
feet,
it
would
be
well
below
a
two
level
parking
garage
and
our
parking
design
as
I'll
show
you
in
a
minute
relied
on
that.
G
What
we
actually
discovered
was
that
the
perlman
building
is
actually
on
a
mat
slab
foundation
which,
instead
of
a
series
of
piers,
that
it's
resting
on
it's
a
very,
very
thick
chunk
of
concrete
across
the
entire
base
of
the
building.
And
what
that's
doing
is
that
area
of
influence
that
radiates
out
at
a
45
degree
angle
isn't
happening
40
or
50
or
60
feet
below
the
ground.
It's
happening
almost
immediately
below
the
surface.
G
So,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
right
hand,
side
that
area
of
influence
is
cutting
right
through
where
we
have
our
dual
parking
levels
and
what
that's
really
doing
is
it's
making
it
incredibly
complex
and
expensive
to
the
point
of
not
being
feasible
to
hold
back
the
weight
of
essentially
the
weight
of
that
building
with
the
wall
of
the
garage?
It
becomes
extremely
extremely
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
do
and
then
also
as
bill
was
alluding
to
it
becomes
potentially
problematic
for
the
building
next
door
too.
G
Of
course,
we
wouldn't
do
anything
that
was
unsafe
to
the
point
where
the
building
would
collapse,
of
course,
but
when
you
deal
with
something
like
that,
you
could
start
having
cracks,
you
could
start
having
some
unexpected
settlement.
There
are
lots
of
other
issues
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
anticipate
until
the
construction
happened.
So
in
order
to
avoid
all
of
those
we
were
looking
at
reconfiguring
the
garage
I
will
yeah
there
we
go.
G
What
you're
seeing
in
the
plan
here
is
actually
the
proposed
reconfiguration
of
the
garage
and
if
you
can
see
how
from
the
right
to
the
left,
it's
sort
of
stair
steps
down
and
away
from
the
building
to
the
north,
that's
us
pulling
the
garage
the
lower
level
of
the
garage
away
from
the
existing
perlman
building
the
slightly
peach
colored.
I
guess
portion
that's
in
the
upper
middle.
That's
the
ramp!
That's
coming
down!
So
that's
still
up
a
little
bit
higher
and
then
it
comes
around
and
down
the
previous
design.
G
Actually
came
around
and
down
underneath
that
ramp
and
back
down
again
and
that's
how
we
were
able
to
get
the
number
of
parking
spaces
we
previously
had,
but
because
we
need
to
stay
a
significant
distance
away
from
that
building
to
stay
out
of
that
zone.
We
had
to
pull
everything
back
quite
a
ways
which
only
allowed
us
to
do
25
parking
spaces
in
this
configuration.
E
E
and
when
we
first
approach
the
city.
With
this,
this
project
idea
and
talked
about
parking.
They
said
that
the
other
nearby
developments
that
have
provided
on-site
parking
have
all
experienced
a
sharp
reduction
in
demand
from
what
was
expected
and
that
they
didn't
think
we
needed
to
provide
all
the
parking
that
was
required
by
ordinance
because
of
the
experience
of
these
other
buildings.
For
example,
the
link
building
right
across
the
alley
has
221
units.
They
have
provided
161
on-site
parking
spaces.
E
E
E
E
The
housing
authority
has
made
a
commitment
to
the
existing
residents
of
the
perlman
building
that
every
perlman
resident,
who
has
a
car
and
needs
parking,
will
be
provided
free
parking
either
on
our
site
or
in
the
link
building
across
the
alley.
So
that's
something
that
we
want
you
to
know.
First
and
foremost,
there's
obviously
abundant
existing
parking
in
other
buildings
other
nearby
buildings
within
a
thousand
feet.
E
We
expect
that
every
one
of
the
new
emerson
resident
emerson
building
residents
who
wants
parking
will
be
able
to
find
parking
with
the
assistance
of
the
housing
authority
and
these
other
property
owners.
So
we
really
don't
think
that
there
is
a
parking
issue
here,
even
though
we're
losing
12
spaces
by
virtue
of
the
reconfiguration
of
our
underground
parking
garage.
C
I
actually
actually
have
a
question
for
staff
several
projects
that
have
come
before
us
have
rightly
so,
I
think,
made
the
case
that
earlier
projects
that
were
approved
have
more
parking
than
they
need
and
you're
making
the
same
case
with
the
link
building
and
we've
we've
been
through.
All
this.
I
just
want
not
to
create
more
work
for
the
staff,
but
I
I
think,
as
as
as
more
projects
come
to
us
and
use
that
same
argument,
it
would
be
good
to
keep
track
of
what
these
other.
C
You
know
if
you're,
if
you're,
if
you're
using
if
an
applicant,
is
using
parking
in
another
facility.
How
much
are
they
actually
using
and
then
just
sort
of
keep
track
of
that?
Because
you
know
the
worst
case.
You
know,
10
applicants
come
to
us
and
they
all
say
the
same
thing.
Well,
they're
not
all
going
to
park.
You
know,
use
the
same
parking
spaces,
so
I'm
just
suggesting
that
as
a
staff
task.
B
Now
that
that
is
noted,
because
we
we
do
have
the
tod
study
that
was
done
several
years
ago
and
we've
been
looking
at
the
number
of
plant
developments
that
have
come
through.
So
so
we're
aware-
and
there
are
a
number
of
different
things
that
we
want
to
revisit
and
update.
So,
okay.
H
H
E
H
E
E
E
I
A
I
About
that
is
this
better?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
so
the
link
building
has
has
way
more
parking
than
they
need,
and
the
link
building
is
interested
in
leasing.
Some
of
that
parking
to
hacc.
Should
the
residents
need
additional
parking.
E
That
is
correct.
We,
the
housing
authority,
will
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
link
building
for
a
certain
number
of
spaces.
Obviously
we
don't
want
to
reserve
or
pay
for
more
spaces
than
than
we
need
for
the
new
emerson
building,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
we
have
access
to
all
the
spaces
that
we
need.
I
E
For
parking
they
would
have
to
pay
for
parking,
they
would
they're,
not
existing
residents
who
live
in
the
you
know
on
site
already.
So
if
they
move
to
the
emerson
building,
they
would
move
into
that
situation
with
the
parking
configuration
the
parking
access
as
it
is,
so
that
would
be
a
decision
that
they
would
make.
My
sense
is
that
none
of
the
affordable
units
would
be
occupied
by
people
who
need
to
lease
parking
space,
because
the
parking
spaces
are.
E
And
I
think
that's
one
reason
why
the
demand
for
the
space
is
so
low
is
because
the
cost
of
constructing
those
spaces
in
a
structure
is
high
and
to
cover
the
cost.
The
lease
rates
need
to
be
fairly
high
as
well,
so
I
think
affordable
residents
who
move
into
the
emerson
building
will
be
those
who
don't
need
to
have
a
parking
space.
Yeah.
C
I
I
get
the
fact
that
the
demand
for
parking
is
going
down
and
previously
approved
projects
have
probably
too
many
parking
spaces
and
that's
evident
by
the
link.
But
the
argument
that
we
get
is
that
on
other
projects
from
residents
is
that
if,
if
people
people
don't
want
to
pay
for
parking,
so
if
there's
a
unit
and
the
person
has
a
car,
they
will
park
on
the
street
and
I'm
I'm
not
addressing
your
specific
site.
But
I'm
just
saying
on
all
these
other
projects.
H
Have
you
done
studies
looking
at
other
senior
facilities
to
really
get
some
hard
data
on
truly
how
many
seniors
may
not
want
parking
or
how
many
now
may
want
to
hold
on
to
their
cars?
Any
any
kind
of
industry
data
that
you've
been
able
to
to
look
at.
E
Well,
our
parking
and
traffic
consultant
has
looked
at
that
and
he
provided
a
a
a
recommendation
on
what
he
thought.
The
parking
demand
would
be
for.
J
E
Total
site,
which,
frankly,
I
think
is
overstated.
His
number
was
101
spaces,
which
would
be
a
demand
ratio
much
higher
than
the
link
building
for
152
units
100
spaces.
So
it's
about
three
quarters
of
a
space
per
per
dwelling
unit,
whereas
the
link
building
utilization
rate
is
0.27
spaces
per
per
unit
provided
on
the
site,
and
given
that
we
are
going
to
be
an
elderly
building,
a
senior
building
and
have
a
high
proportion
combined
of
affordable
units
which
would
generate
fewer
cars,
fewer
parking
demand.
E
E
F
A
I
just
have
a
quick
question
for
staff,
so
you
said
that
the
the
report
that
we
had
asked
about
last
time
had
been
produced
and
without
going
into
great
detail,
do
does
the
statement
that
lots
of
these
places
that
are
asking
for
parking
are
ending
up
with
excess
parking.
A
Seeing
none.
I
will
ask
you
if
you'd
like
to
just
take
a
seat
for
a
moment,
we
will
open
it
up
for
public
testimony
reminder
to
everyone
that
we
do
have
a
two-minute
time
limit.
I
would
ask
you
to
confine
your
comments
to
the
specific
subjects
that
we're
talking
about
here,
because
this
is
what
we're
asked
to
address.
A
A
B
Right
this
is
right.
This
would
be
the
time
if
we
can
alert
you
that
if
you
have
a
continuance
that
you
wish
to
submit
a
written
continuance,
this
would
be
when
you
would
be
able
to
do
that.
A
K
Me
there
may
be
more
requests,
but
at
least
I
have
one
I'm
bruce,
I'm
723
emerson
evanston,
I,
along
with
residents
of
719
721,
723,
725
and
729
emerson,
18
owners
residents
in
all
all
easily
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
subject.
Project
have
not
received
a
public
notice
of
a
meeting,
as
is
required
by
those
to
those
living
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
subject
project.
K
Additionally,
now
that
I
have
seen
the
notice
it's
disturbing
that
the
new
structural
issue
related
to
the
mats
matt
slab
foundation
of
the
parliament
building
was
not
even
mentioned.
I
have
concerns
about
the
pros
solution.
Nor
was
there
any
mention
of
what
should
be
contemplated
remediation
of
the
soil,
as
was
required
for
the
sherman
gardens
parking
lot.
Likewise,
also
adjacent
to
the
previous
lakeside
cleaners
and
its
known
toxicity.
K
The
primary
reason
for
the
request
to
change
the
zoning
is
that
the
planned
development
and
residential
district
requires
a
12-foot
separation
between
the
buildings
which
cannot
be
altered
via
site
development
and
now
analysis.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
new
revised
proposal,
the
buildings
are
separated.
Additionally,
there
is
no
commercial
use
in
this
project.
Cna
zone's
designation
is
inappropriate.
K
Accordingly,
this
project
needs
to
revert
to
r6,
be
governed
accordingly
by
that
designation
and
be
resubmitted.
Lastly,
it's
inappropriate
at
this
stage
in
the
pandemic
to
not
allow
for
remote
participation.
Many
folks
are
still
very
uncomfortable
with
attending
meetings
such
as
this
indoors,
the
last
council
meeting
appropriately
provided
for
both
in-person
and
remote
participation.
K
K
A
A
Let
me
take
care
of
this
one
first
and
then
I'll
get
to
everyone
else.
That's
fine!
That's
fine!
So
there's
a
couple
different
questions
that
have
come
up
in
this
that
I
would
like
to
talk
to
staff
and
legal
about
so
I'll,
just
kind
of
run
through
them
in
the
order
that
they
are
presented.
A
So
there
is
a
a
claim
by
residents
at
7,
19,
7,
21,
23,
25,
729
emerson
that
are
within
1
000
feet
of
the
project
that
they
did
not
receive
public
notice
of
a
meeting
were
such
notices
sent
to
those
particular
buildings.
Do
you
know.
B
L
A
Okay,
in
moving
through
some
of
the
other
issues
here,.
A
B
A
There
is
a
mention
of
remediation
of
soil,
which
is
outside
of
the
again
the
four
corners
of
our
document,
I'm
assuming
that
that
was
something
I
don't
know.
I
was
not
on
the
board
at
the
time,
but
should
have
been
raised
last
year
during
the
discussion
of
the
initial
approval
of
this
project
by
city
council,
along
with
the
c1a
zoning
designation
that
was
approved
by
council.
That's
not
something
we
are
being
asked
to
to,
and
we
aren't
being
asked
to
look
at
the
zoning
underlying
zoning
of
the
property.
A
And
the
issue
of
remote
participation
is
something
that
I
suppose
we
can
talk
about,
not
necessarily
as
a
continuance
matter
on
this,
but
as
something
that
the
city
or
the
city
is
determining
when
we
can
meet
in
public
when
we
do
meet
in
public.
When
we
meet
remotely
things
like
that,
so
I
did
not
specifically
request
that
we
meet
in
public.
That
was
a
decision
that
was
made
by
the
city.
A
So
before
we
take
this,
let
should
I
take
the
other
continuance
too,
and
we
can
just
kind
of
handle
all
continuances
together.
So
if
there's
duplicates
of
of
things,
we
can
discuss
that
all
at
once.
So
yes,
there
was
another
person
who
had
risen
for
a
continuance.
A
M
Written
copy
first,
and
yes,
can
I
paraphrase
or
no
read
as
this
you.
M
I
am
requesting
a
continuance
to
rebut
the
claim
that
the
proposed
the
emerson
development
meets
the
requirements
of
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
rebut
the
calculation
of
maximum
allowable
units,
the
maximum
allowable
far
and
the
required
number
of
parking
places
for
the
proposed
development
obtain
the
results
of
soil
tests.
I'm
sorry
did
the
earlier
speaker
talk
about
soil
testing.
A
M
M
Excuse
me:
is
it
okay
to
pull
down
my
mask
before
the
link
could
be
built
upon
the
former
site
of
lake
city
cleaners,
and
the
cost
of
the
cleanup
was
factored
into
the
financial
plans?
Toxic
waste
from
lake
city
cleaners
also
needed
to
be
cleaned
up
prior
to
construction
of
the
sherman
gardens
parking
lot,
which
is
immediately
adjacent.
M
This
cleanup
was
also
a
significant
expenditure.
Whether
or
not
toxic
waste
is
present
on
the
site
of
the
proposed.
The
emerson
development
must
be
determined
in
order
to
adequately
plan
for
the
protection
of
the
health
of
the
immediate
neighbors,
the
pearlman
residents,
and
to
ensure
the
financial
viability
of
the
emerson
project.
A
M
A
Yeah,
thank
you
and
I'll
I'll.
Just
respond
to
that
by
saying
that
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
was
part
of
the
last
proposal,
and
that
was
that
was
part
of
the
calculation
for
the
parking
spaces.
Then
they've
not
changed
their
their
commitment.
Anything
they're
doing
in
terms
of
number
of
allowable
units
that
are
going
to
be
affected
by
the
inclu,
the
iho.
N
A
Okay,
I
mean
I
can.
I
can
see
the
logic
for
it
on
both
sides,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's.
That
is
the
case,
so
it
looks
like
again
going
into.
A
In
in
my
opinion,
and
I'll
take
opinions
from
other
commissioners
also,
in
my
opinion,
a
number
of
the
things
that
are
being
addressed
here
are
things
that
are
not
within
our
purview
for
this
evening's
agenda.
A
They
are
things
that
are
already
approved
by
city
council
or
things
that
we're
not
being
asked
to
look
at.
Obviously,
changing
zoning
back
is
not
something
we're
being
asked
to
look
at.
If
city
council
feels
that's
something
that
should
be
done.
City
council
is
more
than
welcome
to
make
that
referral
back
to
us,
but
it's
not
something
that
we're
taking
undertaking
on
our
own.
It
looks
like
the
the
kind
of
common
thread
throughout
the
three
that
seems
to
be
part
of
the.
A
H
I
will
say
this:
chair
rogers,
when
this
project
came
before
the
planned
commission.
Last
year
we
were
split,
we
did
not
approve
it,
we
did
not
reject
it.
We
were
split
and
even
votes,
so
in
that
sense
it
did
go
to
the
city
council
without
a
recommendation
from
the
plan
commission.
H
H
A
And
that's
my
thinking
on
a
lot
of
these
issues
is
that
this
is
really
something
that's
handled
at
the
city
council
level,
because
they
have
much
more
latitude
into
how
to
address
issues
that
we
do
not
have
as
this
body
here,
we
are
very
kind
of
restricted
into
what
is
presented
before
us
and
making
our
recommendations
based
on
those
documents
and
not
really
going
far
afield
into
other
areas.
C
I
A
So
this
is
where
our
rules
get
a
little
weird
having
come
from
zba
we
granted
continuances,
because
we
wanted
to
grade
it
right
on
continuous.
No
one
necessarily
had
to
request
that
we
felt.
Maybe
we
didn't
have
the
information
we
would
be
able
to
just
continue
a
matter
as
well
as
having
owners
nearby
owners,
request,
continuances
or
the
applicant
request
continuances.
A
The
way
that
our
rules
are
worded
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here,
are
that
continuances
are
granted
by
the
plan
commission
to
rebut
specific
testimony
that
has
been
presented
and
that's
where
it
gets
a
little
tricky,
because
you
continuances
that
are
very
open-ended
just
become
delaying
procedures,
whereas
opposed
to
a
a
specific
continuance
keeps
things
kind
of
focused
in
on.
This
is
what
we're
coming
back
to
talk
about.
A
We
do
have
these
continuances
before
us,
and
this
is
why
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
our
rules
and
change
it,
because
there
are
other
people
here
who
want
to
speak.
Who
may
not
want
to
speak
on
these
particular
issues
of
parking
and
so
granting
a
continuance
specifically
to
address
a
rebuttal
of
parking,
presents
an
issue
for
the
people
who
are
coming
to
speak
on
issues
other
than
parking.
A
L
Well,
that's
a
great
question
chair,
so
I
was
looking
at
the
rules
and
article
13
g
part
g
discusses
continuances,
and
it
gives
the
requirements
for
a
continuance,
which
would
be
that
the
person
state
their
name
and
address
to
the
commission
and
be
presented
in
writing.
And
then
it
says
if
a
request
for
continuance
improper
form
is
received
pursuant
to
the
above
provisions
by
a
person
who
has
disclosed
his
or
her
name
and
address
to
the
commission.
L
So
I
guess
it's
not
abundantly
clear
if
immediately
after
the
continuance
is
requested,
if
the
if
this
today's
hearing
ends
based
on
that
continuance,
but
I
do
believe
the
reading
of
the
meeting
shall
be
continued
to
a
date.
Certain
means
that,
because
the
the
request
was
made,
it
will
be
continued
to
date.
Certainly.
A
We
must
grant
the
continuance
yes,
but
is
it
immediate
action
that
needs
to
be
taken?
And
I
guess
that's
what's
unclear
in
the
records,
because
I
see
some
people
here,
I
know
are
not
here
to
speak
about
parking,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
continue
to
address
the
issue
of
parking
when
we
have
people
who
want
to
speak
to
issues
outside
of
parking.
L
H
B
A
B
So
I'm
I'm
looking
back
through
the
the
rules
that
we
do
have,
and
these
would
have
been
the
ones
that
we
most
recently
updated.
B
It
does
say
that,
in
the
event
that
a
request
for
continuance
has
been
submitted
and
approved,
the
commission
may
permit
comments
or
testimony
from
individuals
who
know
they
will
not
be
in
attendance
at
the
continued
hearing
should
an
individual
comment
at
this
time.
They
will
not
be
permitted
to
provide
comments
at
the
continued
hearing.
A
Okay,
I
think
that
clears
it
up
for
us,
so
I
guess
at
this
time
anybody
who
doesn't
wish
to
speak
to
parking
issues
which
will
be
what
we
will
continue
for
is
able
to
make
public
comment
at
this
at
this
particular
time.
Are
there
individuals
here
who
wish
to
speak
to
things
other
than
the
parking
issue.
A
I
see
a
hand
there,
mr
and
let
me
get
to
your
name
here
and
in
bach.
A
Yeah,
if
you'd
like
to
come
up
the
one
thing
that
I
will
caution,
you
is
that,
based
on
the
rules
that
were
just
read
that
this
is
your
one
time
to
speak.
K
A
A
J
D
K
With
that,
to
quote
mr
monnocchio
menocchio
sorry
messing
up
your.
J
K
No
one
took
quote
mr
monnocular:
no
one
anywhere,
no
public
entity
at
least
is
building
this
kind
of
a
building
unquote.
There
are
very
good
reasons
for
that.
Mr
monokio.
K
There
is
not
one
private
developer
in
the
city
that
would
put
forth
projects
such
as
this,
and
the
simple
reason
is
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
make
any
money
on
it.
They
would
be
unable
to
cover
their
cost
to
such
projects.
This
is
not
an
activity
that
we
have
signed
up
the
county
to
do
for
us.
This
is
not
what
we
pay
the
county
to
do.
K
The
county
performs
numerous
services
for
residences
of
this
county
necessary
and
beneficial
services,
for
which
I
am
very
thankful,
but
developing
speculative
market
rate
residential
real
estate
is
not
one
of
them.
The
county
is
not
an
astute
developer,
they
have
no
business
trying
to
be
it's
not
their
job
and
our
city
should
not
facilitate
it.
I
would
ask
that
we
please
reject
this
project.
K
With
regards
to
structural
structural
standpoint,
we
have
an
existing
building,
the
pearlman
sitting
on
a
slab
foundation,
a
mat
slab
without
the
benefit
of
load-bearing,
piers
or
caissons,
relying
on
the
immediate
ground
for
structural
support.
Now,
I'm
not
a
structural
engineer,
but
the
proposed
mitigation
of
the
pearlman's
pad
land
requirement
by
moving
the
new
building
only
10
or
12
feet
from
the
pearlman
might
appear
to
seem
insufficient.
K
The
only
way
around
this
structural
problem
would
be
to
provide
sufficient
structural
shoring,
read
expensive
to
the
original
perlman
building.
As
an
example,
some
years
ago,
this
of
the
rather
elaborate
and
expensive
shoring
was
required
and
performed
to
the
adjacent
condominium.
Building
to
the
south
of
the
southern
mather
building
said,
condominium
building
would
have
fallen
over
had
the
remediation
story
not
been
performed.
K
A
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak?
Miss
mchugh.
M
M
A
Miss
kelly,
you
are
not
allowed
to
speak
at
this
particular
hearing
under
your
own
counsel
rules,
so
you
can
address
your
issues.
Then.
A
There
are
specific
guidance
as
to
how
a
council
member
is
allowed
to
speak.
They
can
speak
to
map
and
text
amendments.
They
can
speak
if
they
are
an
applicant,
but
they
cannot
speak
at
a
hearing
in
which
they
do
not
meet
those
standards
and
that's
under
city
council
rules.
A
Was
there
anyone
else
who
wanted
to
make
a
statement?
Yes,
sir.
A
Yeah
I
mean
it
can
be
a.
It
can
be
a
comment,
a
request,
a
question
anything
so
if.
O
Oh
yeah,
my
name
is
steve
morrison.
I
live
at
the
1935
sherman
within
a
thousand
feet.
I
just
had
a
couple
questions
from
mr
james.
Just
I'm
sure
you
mentioned
this,
but
as
a
point
of
clarification,
the
number
of
affordable
units
in
the
reconfigured
development
has
not
changed.
Okay,.
O
A
Mr
james,
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
come
up
so
that
you
can
be
picked
up
by
the
microphone
just
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
E
Well,
I'm
going
to
ask
our
architect
to
come
up
and
say
if
the
proportion
of
the
different
units
has
changed
or
just
the
size
greg.
Can
you
answer
that
question.
G
You
know
sorry,
I
would
need
to
double
check,
I
believe,
with
the
reduction
of
the
two
units.
The
two
units
that
we're
going
to
the
north
are
a
little
bit
smaller
and
but
I
don't
recall
if
there
was
a
change
from
a
from
like
a
one
bedroom
to
a
studio.
There
was
one
unit
that
was
eliminated.
I,
but
I
don't
recall
if
it
was
a
one
bedroom
or
a
studio,
so
that
reduction
one
per
floor.
So
that
does
change
the
mix,
but
I
believe
it's
only
the
reduction
of
that
one
unit
that
was
eliminated.
O
I
asked
that
question
because
I
know
that
some
of
the
unit
configurations
are
available
as
affordable
units
and
some
of
the
configurations
are
not
available
as
affordable
units.
Is
that
correct,
okay
and
then
the
fun
question?
Regarding
the
you
mentioned,
the
change
in
market
postcode,
I
was
wondering:
is
there
any
specific
data
you
could
point
to
or
or
share
about
where?
Where
you
got
that
information.
E
I
personally
cannot
speak
to
that.
It
is
information
that
was
brought
to
us
by
the
applicant
and
and
the
applicant's
private
sector
partner,
a
firm
named
related
midwest,
who
does
a
lot
of
development
in
the
multifamily
sector
and
are
frankly
very
in
tune
to
the
latest
trends
in
that,
and
so
their
expertise
was
brought
into
the
the
reconfiguration
of
the
units.
E
D
B
B
B
B
This
seems
to
be
continuing
with
the
emerson
proposed
changes,
and
also
she
mentioned
that
the
traffic
on
emerson
is
untenable,
as
it
already
is,
and
waiting
two
to
three
times
through
a
traffic
light
when
traveling
west,
and
she
believes
that
the
analysis
that
shows
otherwise
is
a
falsehood,
and
she
also
mentions
that
the
rental
rates
are
higher
than
they
should
be
and
are
basically
more
luxury
units
in
this
particular
type
of
building.
When
there
should
be
more
for
affordable
housing.
A
A
C
I
C
K
D
D
A
J
A
So
the
continuance
will
has
been
approved,
which
means
we
will
address
the
issues
regarding
the
parking
and
the
applicants
who
submitted
a
continuous
request
will
be
able
to
rebut
the
test.
Are
the
documentation
and
testimony
of
the
applicant
in
regard
to
parking.
B
A
L
L
H
D
D
I
A
P
Can
you
explain
how
who,
who
is
it
that
decides
what's
in
your
purview
so,
for
example,
the
structural
concerns
I
mean?
Obviously,
these
major
adjustments
without
these
this
building
wouldn't
be
built
at
all.
So
there's
a
lot
involved
with
these,
and
so
you
know
many
items
were
discarded
as
not
being
within
your
purview.
You
said
you
know
we
are
not
being
asked
when
you
say
who
is
not
asking
you
I
just
so.
P
A
B
Yeah,
there
are
certain
things
that
by
code
are
under
the
purview
of
the
plan
commission
and
over
time,
legal
has
directed
us
to.
B
Tell
plant
commission
there
are
certain
things
that
can
or
cannot
be
re
reviewed
or
talked
about,
so
to
speak
by
the
plan.
Commission,
I
think
one
of
those
was
public
benefits
they're
not
to
get
too
far
into
the
weed
on
those
and
items
of
that
nature.
If
there's
something
that
the
commission
feels
would
provide
additional
information
on
things
that
are
listed
under
their
purview,
then
I
believe
that
would
be
fine
and.
L
If
I
can
just
add
the
the
commission
is
restricted
to
the
application
from
the
applicant,
so
staff
isn't
deciding
what
is
in
your
purview,
it's
part
of
the
application,
so
your
your
purview
is
pursuant
to
the
application
being
given.
So
you
can't
go
outside
of
the
application,
because
this
project
has
already
been
approved.
P
Right,
but
if
we're
talking
about
structure
and
we're
talking
about
new
foundations,
certainly
that
would
be
within
your
purview.
I
don't
know
who
told
you
you
couldn't
discuss
that
or,
for
example,
toxicity.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
the
ground
again.
This
is
a
building
that
wouldn't
be
built
without
this
major
adjustment.
So
just
about
everything
is
coming
into,
I
would
think
would
be.
P
C
I
don't
think
either
of
those
issues
would
be
ever
be
in
our
perm
in
our
purview.
I
I
I
we.
We
have
never
discussed
the
structure
of
the
building
and
whether
it's
adequate.
Never,
we
have
never
discussed
the
soil
conditions
ever.
I
think
those
are
building
permit
issues.
They
will
come
up
in
the
building
permit
review
process.
There
are
reviewers
who
review
the
structural
analysis.
C
There
are
people
that
review
the
the
the
souls
reports.
That's
not
what
we
do.
H
We
do
right
so
if
there
is
a
if
there
is
a
zoning
change
which
is
triggered
by
something
now
that
has
changed,
you
could
argue.
That
is
something
that
we
at
least
have
a
right
or
or
have
a
responsibility
to
question
and
if,
if
only
to
question
it
at
least
to
put
it
in
front
of
the
city
council,
this
is
a
strange
situation,
because
this
is
a
project,
that's
already
been
approved
by
the
city.
H
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
our
ability
to
comment
is
somewhat
limited.
We
can
look
at
the
changes
that
the
applicant
has
proposed
and
one
of
those
changes
is
to
separate
the
two
buildings
and
because
that
triggers
an
issue
it
seems
to
me
it
is
our
responsibility
to
at
least
look
at
that
and,
if
I'm
an
error,
please
legal,
let
me
know
and
we'll
proceed
accordingly.
Well,.
E
Okay,
may
I
make
a.
E
In
terms
of
the
comment,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
public
comments
that
have
been
allowed
to
be
brought
into
the
record
are
off
topic.
There
are
only
three
topics,
only
three
matters
to
be
decided
by
this
committee.
One
is:
should
you
allow
the
reduction
of
units
from
168
to
152?
E
Is
that
something
you
want
to
recommend
be
allowed?
Do
you
want
to
recommend
the
reduction
in
building
height
by
about
four
feet
a
little
over
four
feet?
Is
that
something
you
want
to
allow,
or
you
want
to
prohibit
the
applicant
from
making
that
change,
and
the
third
is
whether
you
would
recommend
that
the
applicant
be
allowed
to
reduce
the
number
of
on-site
parking
spaces
by
12
spaces,
given
the
reduction
of
units
by
16
and
other
factors,
so
those
are
the
only
three
matters
under
consideration,
and
yet
we've
heard
comments
talking
about
toxicity.
E
We've
heard
comments
talking
about
changing
the
zoning
from
c1a
to
r6.
That
is
not
under
consideration
here
and
it.
It
is
a
attempt
to
revisit
the
original
approval,
which
really
cannot
be
done,
and
my
question
is:
will
the
public
comment
at
the
next
meeting
be
restricted
to
matters
of
parking
parking
technically.
A
A
K
K
A
Period
all
right,
thank
you
with
that.
Do
we
have
any
other
things
to
discuss
tonight.
A
Okay,
so
that
is
having
conducted
our
business.
We've
continued
the
one
matter.
Is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn.
A
Johnson
moves
alex
seconds.
Will
you
take
a
do?
You
have
to
take
a
roll
call
vote
for
adjournment?
No
okay,
there
is
no,
so
all
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
opposed
with
5-0.
We
stand
adjourned
until
our
meeting
on
october
27th
here
in
city
council
chambers,
which
will
be
a
hybrid
meeting.
Thank
you.