►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 12/6/2017
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
B
A
A
A
There
are
members
of
the
public
here
who
want
to
testify
on
this.
Yes,
okay,
our
purpose,
then
this
is
a
public
hearing.
Our
purpose
is
to
gather
facts
and
information
regarding
the
proposal
and
to
prepare
a
recommendation
to
City
Council.
That
recommendation
could
be
for
adoption
of
the
text.
Amendment
adoption
of
the
text,
amendment
with
conditions
or
no
action
to
be
taken,
and
the
council
is
the
final
determining
body
we're
a
recommending
body.
In
this
case.
A
A
Those
questions
should
be
relevant
to
the
standards
that
the
proposal
is
required
to
meet,
and
we
will
take
only
questions
at
that
time.
Upon
the
completion
of
questions,
then
members
of
the
public
may
present,
testimony
will
be
under
oath
again.
Testimony
must
be
relevant
to
the
project
and
the
standards.
I
would
encourage
you
not
to
repeat
what
someone
else
has
said.
A
A
A
In
addition,
any
person
or
group
with
an
ownership
or
leasehold
interest
within
500
feet
of
the
zoning
district
in
question
may
be
granted.
One
continuance
for
the
purpose
of
presenting
evidence
to
rebut,
essentially
rebut
testimony
and
the
recommendation
given
by
staff.
That
requests
must
be
in
writing.
It
may
be
made
at
any
time
after
staff
completes
its
presentation
and
before
we
close
the
record,
if
a
continuance
were
granted,
whoever
requested
it
would
be
the
first
testifier
at
the
continued
meeting.
A
If
you
testify
tonight-
and
there
is
a
continuance,
you
will
not
be
allowed
to
testify
at
the
continued
meeting.
Those
are
the
procedures
if
you
intend
to
speak
or
if
you
expect
you
may
be
asked
to
speak,
I'll
ask
you
to
raise
your
right
hand,
since
this
will
be
under
oath.
We
promise
to
tell
the
truth
in
this
proceeding.
Thank
you
all
right.
D
Planning
Commission
received
in
a
automatic
referral
to
review
the
c
1a
zoning
district
and
make
considerations
regarding
either
retiring
it
or
making
adjustments
within
the
zoning
district.
So
quick
background
on
the
c
1a
zoning
district,
it
was
established
in
1993
with
the
overhaul
of
the
zoning
code.
D
There
were
regulations
that
were
revised
in
2000,
which
correlated
with
the
Chicago
Avenue
corridor
recommendations
report
and
that
report,
which
encapsulated
a
broader
area
of
Chicago
Avenue,
included
some
recommendations
that
were
specific
to
the
c
1a
zoning
district
and
those
included
a
reduction
of
the
allowable
height
from
107
feet
to
a
height
within
55
or
67
feet.
This
was
adopted
within
the
zoning
ordinance
with
the
maximum
height
being
67
feet,
elimination
of
the
parking
floor
exemption
rule,
which
was
adopted
within
the
zoning
ordinance.
This
particular
aspects.
D
There
was
an
allowance
kind
of
similar
to
the
downtown
districts
where,
if
there
were
levels
that
were
dedicated
to
parking,
those
were
not
counted
in
the
zoning
height,
so
that
particular
regulation
was
struck
from
the
ordinance.
I
also
recommended
revising
the
parking
space
requirements
to
provide
for
guest
parking
and
require
a
1.25
21.5
spaces
per
unit.
This
was
partially
adopted.
D
It
doesn't
address
the
guest
parking
requirement,
but
generally
the
parking
requirements
are
in
line
with
that
1.25
to
1.5
recommendation
and
that's
where
all
zoning
districts
and
finally
review
the
lack
coverage
and
FAA
regulations
to
be
compatible
with
the
overall
goal
of
reducing
height
and
bulk
of
new
development.
This
was
partially
adopted,
mostly
with
the
increase
of
the
minimum
lot
size
at
that
time,
from
300
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit
to
what
it
is
currently
at
350
square
feet
for
a
dwelling
unit.
D
Now
the
the
general
intention
of
the
c1,
a
zoning
district
is
to
provide
locations
for
the
development
of
mixed-use
buildings
consisting
of
retail
oriented
and
office
uses
on
the
ground,
floor
and
office
uses
and/or
residential
dwellings
located
above
as
well
as
multi-family
residential,
a
higher
F,
AR
and
building
height
will
be
permitted
in
the
c1
a
district
in
order
to
encourage
this
type
of
development.
I
know
some
additional
background
pretty
much
regarding
how
we
got
to
this
point.
D
In
April,
the
City
Council
referred
the
topic
of
the
c1,
a
zoning
district
to
the
Planning
Commission,
with
the
intention
to
possibly
look
into
retiring.
The
zoning
district
in
place
of
new
regulations
and
August
this
went
before
the
Planning
Commission,
very
briefly,
which
refer
the
items
you,
the
zoning
committee.
The
zoning
committee
has
had
two
meetings
of
the
first
in
October,
where
discussions
began
regarding
the
districts
and
concerns
that
were
brought
up
regarding
the
density,
the
Heights
unit
sizes
and
walkability
within
the
districts.
D
Ultimately,
the
committee
wished
for
some
additional
information
about
the
existing
conditions
within
the
c1,
a
zoning
districts
and
also
requested
that
possible
recommendations
for
text.
Amendments
for
the
district
be
brought
back
at
the
November
meeting
staff
returned
to
the
committee
with
their
requested
information
and
recommendations
for
possible
amendments
to
the
c1,
a
zoning
mixed-use
zoning
districts.
D
This
is
the
general
area
that
is
considered
of
being
considered
tonight,
it's
roughly
from
Lee
Street
down
to
South
Boulevard.
This
is
the
main
area
where
we
have
a
scene,
one,
a
zoning
and
also
the
plan.
Commission
may
remember
we
recently
rezone
property
for
831
Emerson.
That
is
now
also
zoned,
c1,
a
which
is
not
shown
on
this
particular
map.
D
So
what
is
being
proposed
this
evening,
based
on
discussions
with
the
zoning
committee
and
research
that
was
done
by
staff?
We
are
proposing
to
have
text
amendments
that
would
address
the
density
and
the
pedestrian
area
within
the
zoning
district.
So
this
would
specifically
include
amendments
to
section
610,
three,
four,
really
to
lot
size
that
would
increase
for
residential
uses,
the
minimum
residential
lot
size
from
a
350
square
feet
to
400
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit,
we'd
be
adding
a
new
section
that
addresses
the
pedestrian
area
and
for
that
within
the
district.
D
The
pedestrian
area
from
the
curb
to
the
building
facade
would
have
to
be
a
minimum
of
12
feet
and
due
to
those
changes,
we
would
have
to
go
back
to
where
we
have
the
setback
requirements
listed
specifically
in
Section
610.
Three,
eight
four
yard
requirements,
we'd
list,
the
required
setbacks
and
add
the
exception
where
required
by
the
new
section.
That's
been
added.
D
And
this
chart
is
a
comparison
of
these
zoning
districts
that
are
adjacent
to
the
c1.
A
zoning
district
there's
a
fairly
broad
range
with
regards
to
FA
our
maximum
number
of
units
as
well
as
height.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
zoning
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
the
c1,
a
are
pretty
different,
some
have
similar
heights
or,
if
they
are
but
may
differ
in
other
aspects,.
D
Now
should
the
Commission
decide
to
move
forward,
we
would
need
to
have
the
following
standards
for
the
text.
Amendment
met
the
first
being
whether
their
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan,
as
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
City
Council.
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character.
D
B
B
B
The
density
seemed
appropriate
unit
sizes.
There's
just
been,
you
know,
I
think
some
of
us
felt
more
more
passionately
about
the
the
amount
of
the
small
nature
of
the
unit
sizes
that
have
been
and
recently
passed,
looking
to
promote
larger,
larger
apartments
and
things
so
so
that
that
was
that
was
discussed
and
thought
to
be
a
problem,
and
then
these
street
level
or
nature
was
actually
had
quite
a
lot
of
discussion
on
what
what
was
the
issue
there.
B
So
so
it
could
be
a
cliff
effect,
but
that
is,
but
that's
not
a
canyon
canyon
effect,
so
it
was
some
of
the
ground
level.
So
so
we
thought
it
was
a
little
bit
of
the
continuity
of
the
ground
level
experience
that
was
maybe
maybe
not
not
as
nice
in
certain
areas
where
it
constricts
in
certain
areas
to
a
very
narrow
sidewalk
was
not
as
nice.
B
How
much
the
setback
happens
so
I
think
the
the
focusing
on
having
a
minimum
width
of
the
sidewalk
was
was
thought
a
better
and
more
applicable
way
to
get
a
more
uniform,
wider,
wider
ground-level
environment,
because
if
you
leave
it
to
incentives,
you
could
have
20-foot,
plazas
and
and
minimum
whatever.
It
is
eight
feet,
I
think
is
the
minimum
walkway
that's
there,
so
so
so
that's
kind
of
where
the
discussion
went,
I
think
and
the
end
in
the
end,
the
the
the
vehicles
that
were
chosen
to
modify
the
increased.
B
Amount
of
lot
area
per
unit,
size
and
and
the
height
restriction,
not
sure
there
was
no
evidence
to
say
that
how
this
would
be
effective
and
I
think
I
think
at
least
I
dissented
on
the
boat,
because
I
I
wasn't
convinced
that
these
were
we're
going
to
fix
the
problem.
If
if
there
really
is
a
problem,
and
so
so
so
that's
that's
my
comments
of
the
discussions.
A
C
Sure
Thank
You
vice
chair
Louis
and
make
it
for
the
presentations
I
just
did
want
to
add
one
other
piece
of
information
for
the
plan
commission.
While
this
text
amendment
that's
proposed
would
affect
all
the
properties
that
are
currently
zoned
c1
a
that
we're
shown
on
the
map
in
the
presentation
with
the
addition
of
a
31
Emerson
Street.
C
More
broadly,
it
could
also
apply
or
would
apply
to
any
properties
that
could
be
rezone
to
c1
a
in
the
future
and
also
letting
the
Commission
know
that
alderman
Rainey
is
making
an
automatic
request
for
the
Planning
Commission
at
some
time
in
the
future,
to
look
at
the
properties
on
some
properties
on
Howard
Street,
west
of
Ridge,
for
a
potential
rezoning
to
c1
a
obviously
that
request
and
those
properties
are
not
on
the
agenda
tonight.
A
map
amendment
request
in
the
future.
D
Well,
generally,
speaking
with
the
text
amendment,
we
were
this
particular
text
amendment
which
try
to
begin
to
address
the
issue
of
density
concerns.
There
may
be
too
many
units
within
a
particular
site,
as
well
as
addressing
the
issue
of
making
sure
that
we
have
a
walkable
stretch
within
our
various
districts,
so
there
are
different
portions
of
Chicago
Avenue
that
get
fairly
narrow,
so
that
was
a
major
concern
that
was
brought
up
as
well.
So
we're
attempting
to
address
those
two
items.
First
here
sure.
C
If
I
could
add,
I
think
that
the
committee
kind
of
looked
at
the
general
and
and,
as
was
mentioned,
kind
of
looked
at
the
intent
of
the
district
and
everything
is
doing
and
how
it
works
and
they
kind
of
narrowed
down
to
some
of
those
issues.
So
the
two
that
are
resulting
in
the
proposed
amendment
have
to
do
with
the
number
of
units
that
could
be
built
there
and
without
changing
the
Floria
ratio,
that's
allowed
by
reducing
the
number
of
units
that
would
be
allowed,
that
that
may
be
a
lever
to
encourage
larger
unit
sizes.
C
So
that
would
be
one
potential
item
that
could
be
addressed
and
then
obviously
the
the
minimum
12
foot
width
setback.
There
would
increase
the
the
width
of
the
sidewalk
and
it
was
more
consistent
with
some
of
the
newer
developments
where
the
committee
felt
such
as
Emily
that
there
was
a
more
pedestrian
friendly
environment,
similar
to
a
31
Emerson
that
property
and
that
that
project
is
already
entitled
and
it's
Razoo,
the
plaintiff
Elvin
ordinance
has
been
approved.
So
this
would
not
affect
that
they
do
have
their
their
rights
there
and.
D
A
D
D
It
does
get
a
little
confusing
because
there's
an
overlay
district
here,
but
it
is
c1
a
it.
A
Do
you
know
offhand
the
building
on
the
north
east
corner
of
that
intersection,
which
I
think
is
the
oldest
of
the
three
new
buildings?
How
wide
is
that
sidewalk.
D
C
A
A
F
C
So
there
sure
thank
you,
sir.
So
there
is
a
base
level
requirement
or
allowance
for
development
standards
right
in
through
the
plan
development
process,
there's
ability
to
request
an
allowance,
so
that
was
one
of
the
items
that
staff
was
looking
at,
changing
that
to
reduce
the
amount
that
could
be
grant
as
an
allowance
that
that
is
not
being
proposed
at
this
point.
Okay,.
F
F
C
F
A
I
Good
evening,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
Commission,
my
name
is
Matt.
Rogers
I
live
at
1:33,
Clyde
Avenue,
there's
a
bunch
of
some
new
faces
up
here,
so
I'll
use
my
old
job
description
as
well.
I
was
chairman
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
for
for
three
years
and
on
the
board
for
ten
years
coming
a
little
late
to
this,
but
I
do
have
some
concerns
with
changing
the
c1.
A
district
I
think
it
would
actually
be
much
been
much
more
beneficial
to
look
at.
What's
trying
to
be
accomplished
in
Chicago
Avenue
and
look
at.
I
The
c1,
a
district,
that's
being
discussed
on
Chicago
Avenue,
seems
to
me
to
be
a
little
bit
of
trying
to
put
the
horses
back
into
the
barn.
There
have
been
some
major
changes
along
that
Street
in
recent
years
and
those
have
been
approved
by
council
and
by
the
aldermen
of
that
Ward
and
I
think
we've,
we've
kind
of
already
let
some
of
the
some
of
the
goods
go,
and
so
in
order
to
be
trying
to
to
impose
new
rules.
I
I
think
would
actually
alter
the
face
and
look
of
that
district
potentially
by
having
setbacks
that
are
further
than
currently
are
there
in
certain
areas
and
creating
very
much
a
stepping
back
and
forth
as
you
head
up
and
down
Chicago
Avenue
and
finally,
I
just
was
consulted
a
little
bit
about
my
feelings
on
the
Howard
Street
project,
and
that's
one
in
particular.
Where
we're
a
c1a
definitely
does
make
sense
to
try
to
go
for
a
map
amendment
instead
of
trying
to
come
through
as
a
planned
development.
I
A
I
I
A
I
F
Hello,
my
name
is
Michael
lo
and
I
own,
a
building
with
a
business
partner,
9:28
Chicago,
it's
the
one
with
the
lamp
store
right
by
doc.
Gables
and
we
I
want
to
make
two
points
about
this
I
just
learned
about
this
recently,
but
one
point
is
going
down
the
Chicago
Avenue
from
Lea
South
a
lot
of
there's
quite
a
number
of
larger
buildings,
but
there's
really
only
about
12,
smaller
buildings,
so
I
do
agree
with
the
other
gentleman's
point
like.
F
C
H
I'm
wondering
how
else,
if
we
don't
touch
this
and
we
decided
to
not
recommend
any
of
this
to
City
Council?
How
else
can
we
try
to
emphasize
a
a
lot
of
consistency
of
sidewalk
sidewalk
with
you
know,
Omni
has
a
fairly
wide
sidewalk
on
Chicago
I
forget
the
address,
but
the
new,
the
new
one
has
a
fairly
wide
sidewalk.
All
of
these
make
that
stretch
fairly
comfortable
to
walk
and
I
walls.
Can
me
control
this
if
it's
not
a
planned
development
and
if
it's
a
planned
development
without
changing
anything
else,
sure.
C
I'm
sure,
as
you
mentioned,
many
of
the
newer
developments
are
several
new
developments
do
have
additional
sidewalk
width.
Those
developments
were
planned
developments
predominantly
through
that
process.
There's
ability
to
essentially
negotiate
or
require
additional
set
back
there
in
that
process.
However,
there
certainly
could
be
developments
that
do
not
meet
the
threshold
for
planned
developments
that
are
less
than
24
units
less
than
the
minimum
square
footage
that
would
trigger
a
planned
development
without
any
requirements
or
changes
to
the
existing
requirements.
Those
properties
could
build
at
that
property
line.
A
A
A
A
E
C
Is
correct:
within
the
city
there
is
an
overlay
district
on
Central
Street,
Central,
Street
overlay
district.
It
does
have
pedestrian
area
requirements
of
a
clear
zone,
area,
pedestrian
street
furniture
zone
area
and
that
that
minimum
area-
that's
measured
from
curb
width.
It's
a
we.
We
have
not
heard
that
concerned
the
concern
from
law.
I,
don't
know,
we've
asked
them
directly
about
any
potential
taking
issues,
but
we
have
not
heard
that
concern
with
the
requirements
has
proposed.
Has.
J
B
C
B
I
think
the
concern
with
people
than
the
second
meeting
was
the
irregularity
of
the
street
front
that
this
would
propose,
and
we
did
not
I
mean
you
know
you
have
no
control
over
providing
a
continuous
walkable
environment
that
way,
because
people
with
an
8
foot
sidewalk
could
choose
not
to
go
higher
and
to
use
that
bad
land.
So
you
could
have
pieces
sticking
out.
B
A
I'm
I'm
not
usually
a
fan
of
slippery
slope
arguments,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
this
one
makes
some
kind
of
sense
that,
if
you
allow
for
that
trade-off,
unless
you
write
it
in
such
a
way
that
there
is
a
limit.
So
you
say
up
to
you
know
that
the
pedestrian
area
cannot
be
any
wider
than
twelve
feet
along
that
area,
and
it
has
to
be
absolute
so
that
you
can't
you,
you
so
much
height
for
so
much
additional
footage,
but
nothing
beyond
twelve
and
absolutely
nothing
beyond
twelve.
E
E
Someone
can
determine
maybe
not
to
take
the
height
allowance
and
build
a
property
up
to
the
line,
or
they
may
decide
not
to
redevelop
their
property
at
all,
whereas
other
properties
do
your
anytime
you're
trying
to
impose
new
regulations
to
a
district
where
it's
already
been
built
up,
you're
going
to
have
you're
going
to
have
the
issue
we're
sort
of
wrestling
with
of
having
an
uneven.
It's
not
an
uneven
enforcement,
but
just
uneven
reality.
What
we're
looking
at,
what
you're
looking
at
with
your
physical
unevenness?
Yes,
thank
you
I.
E
Don't
think
that
that's
necessarily
a
reason
not
to
do
something.
We
know,
there's
a
concern.
We
know
there's
an
issue
we're
trying
to
find
the
best
way
to
alleviate
it
going
forward
because
set
at
some
point
in
the
future,
these
buildings
that
were
built
five
to
ten
years
ago
or
in
the
last
year.
They
may
go
away
as
well
and
we're
looking
to
even
it
out
over
a
long
period
of
time.
K
Maybe
I
didn't
understand
some
of
the
legal
talk
but
I.
My
concern
is
and
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
if
the
city,
if
the
city
sidewalk,
is
8
feet
wide
and
then
the
four
feet
then
becomes
sidewalk,
but
it's
on
the
owners
property.
Isn't
that
a
liability
issue
if
somebody
trips
on
the
owners
side
because
of
this,
the
12th
foot
sidewalk
requirement.
K
K
E
A
I
mean
it's
an
interesting
question,
the
it.
Let
us
assume
that
there's
a
building
there
well,
let's
know
I,
don't
even
want
to
think
about
redeveloping
the
crossroads
buildings.
But
let's
take
one
of
the
buildings
to
the
north.
That's
got
an
eight
and
a
half
or
nine-foot
sidewalk,
and
we
now
require
a
12-foot
pedestrian
area.
Do
we
assume
that
the
public
way
is
still
the
existing
nine
foot
nine
feet
and
the
and
the
additional
three
feet
is
on
the
private
on
the
development
owners,
property.
E
A
I
gather
that
you
think
one
of
the
consequences,
if
you
assume
that
the
unit
mix
and
size
will
unit
mix
on
average,
remains
what
it
has
been
in
that
corridor
up
until
now,
then
the
effect
is
to
lower
the
height
of
the
building.
Yes,
you're
changing
the
essentially
you're
change.
Are
you
changing
the
f,
AR
or
au.
B
A
A
B
Think
the
FA
r
is
what
governs
the
overall
square
footage
that
you
can
build
and
that
the
how
you
divide
it
up
is
simply
what's
being
controlled
by
the
amount
of
minimum
lot
size.
So
so
the
unit
size
would
be
the
thing.
So
so
you,
you
are
correct
that
if
someone
decided
to
build
all
studios,
then
FA
are
probably
wouldn't
be
the
thing
necessarily
governing
or
possibly
could
not
be.
You
know
because
they
would
they
would
get
to
their
400.
B
A
I
guess
what
I
was
kind
of
wondering
was
whether
there
was
some
trade-off
here
between
the
concern
for
the
private
portion
of
the
pedestrian
area
and
the
minimum
square
footage
that
if
you
give
a
little
you
get
a
little,
but
that
assumes
that
there's
some
flexibility
in
the
width
of
the
pedestrian
area
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
I
would
argue
that
that
needs
to
be
fixed.
If
you
say
12
feet,
you
don't
want
14,
you
certainly
don't
want
only
9,
so
there
may
not
be
much
room
to
negotiate
one
for
the
other.
B
But
getting
back
to
your
incentive
issue
is
as
Mazzone
an
ordinance
is
always
is
always
doing
the
trade
for
actual
building
height
for
setback
or
something
like
that.
But
I,
don't
you
know
now
that
you
mention
it
I,
don't
see
why
you
couldn't
allow
you
know
increased
square,
you
know
or
or
less
square
foot
per
unit,
as
an
incentive
also
for
setback
I
know
is
there's
there
could
be
other
vehicles
or
increased
F
AR
or
some
some
other
measure
beside
height.
If.
A
Must
say,
I
would
tend
to
be
an
advocate
for
a
fairly
uniform
Street
wall.
At
the
same
time,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
difference
between
the
eight
foot,
six
in
front
of
crossroads
and
the
twelve
feet
that
might
go
in
in
a
building
to
the
north
of
it
and
no
I
mean
we're
talking
that
much
and
that
then
that's
about
as
close
to
a
uniform
street
wall
as
you're
gonna
get
I
would
think
that
expert.
G
I
share
their
concern
about
the
12-foot
pedestrian
area
and
encroaching
on
private
property
and
how
you
manage
that
it
doesn't
seem
practical
to
me
if,
if
the
city
is
saying
its
goal
is
to
have
12
feet
of
pedestrian
area,
it
seems
like
the
burden
is
on
to
some
degree
on
the
city
to
provide
that
and
not
private
property
owners,
but
also
speaking
to
the
minimum
minimum
residential
lot
size.
G
I've
heard
what
I
heard
in
the
staff
presentation
is
at
least
part
of
the
motivation
for
that
is
to
encourage
larger
bedroom
sizes
in
terms
of
unit
mix
and
I
I.
Don't
see
that
as
the
city's
role.
So
if,
if
and
the
household
size,
the
trend
is
the
household
size
is
getting
smaller,
so
I
don't
see
why
we
would
Institute
a
rule
to
encourage
two
and
three-bedroom
units,
I.
Think
that's
a
market
issue.
H
Probably
not,
but
I
want
to
bring
it
back
to
I.
Think
one
of
their
first
comments
that
came
in
to
the
first
meeting
of
a
zoning
committee
was
and
all
due
respect
to
aldermen.
When
is
there
really
a
huge
issue
to
fix
here
and
I
am
not
sure
at
all.
We
determined
that
the
seeonee
was
as
close
to
as
good
as
it
gets
for
this
area
right
now,
I
can't
speculate
on
what
could
come
in
the
future,
we'll
see,
but
I
feel
like
we're
splitting
hairs
right
now.
That's
my
comment.
It's.
B
It
is
so
I
just
want
to
ask
a
couple
of
questions
about
to
clarify
mr.
Rogers
had
proposed
changing
the
district
to
c1,
which,
from
what
I
could
quickly
see,
is
that
is
significantly
lowering
the
amount
of
density
and
FA
are
that
would
be
allowable
in
this
area
and
and
more
or
less
make
it
a
low-rise
district.
The
FA
are,
as
one
I
believe,
the
height
is
so
so
this
is
so
this
I.
B
Don't
this
would
make
it
a
commercial
district
I
think
if
you
get
an
F
AR
of
one,
you
there's
no
opportunity
to
build
on
top
of
of
of
the
building.
You
know,
maybe
you
might
get
two
storeys
maximum
and
that
kind
of
that
kind
of
arrangement
right
for
that
kind
of
thing,
so
so
I'm
not
sure
whether
I
I
still
think
that
this
area
is
is
perfect
for
higher
density,
higher
density,
housing
and
so
I
would
wouldn't
support
downgrading
the
and
lowering
property
values,
which
I
think
is
one
of
the
concerns
in
the
so.
E
You
know
when
it
gets
fully
developed
I
think
it
could
be
a
problem
if
we
don't
try
to
alleviate
it
in
some
way
and
we
may
be
unsuccessful,
no
matter
what
we
do.
If
we
do
nothing
or
do
something
here,
but
I
think
we
see
the
problem,
we
see
it
coming
and
you
know
I
think
it's
a
worthwhile
endeavor
to
try
and
find
a
solution
whatever
that
solution
may
be.
K
A
A
B
Well,
yeah
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure,
procedurally,
but
I.
Think
in
the
end
we
do
need
to
vote
this
either
up
and
up
or
down.
But
is
there
room
after
that
to
re
motion
to
maybe
motion
to
adopt
the
portion
of
it
or
the
the
divided
divide,
the
two
issues
in
the
separate
pieces
and
recommend
one
or
the
other
I.
A
A
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
I'm,
looking
at
page
four
chairmen
toward
the
amended
report:
oh
the
amended
requirement
for
the
front
yard:
oh,
no!
No!
No
yeah!
There's
a
proposed
amendment
to
6
10,
3,
8
yard
requirements
and
6
10
3
11
special
regulations
for
pedestrian
area.
We
could
divide
the
question
and
vote
on
those
separately.
A
E
A
A
C
A
A
C
B
Would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
adopt
to
modify
the
section
610
311
special
regulations
for
pedestrian
area
to
read
with
NSC
one
district,
that
the
disorient
area
from
curb
to
the
building
facade
must
be
a
minimum
of
12
feet.
Subsequent
to
that,
I
make
a
motion
to
modify
section:
610,
3
8
regarding
side
yards
2
to
add
a
front
yardage
language
that
SEC,
that
that
makes
an
exception,
where
required
by
section
6,
10,
3,
11
and
section
4
side
yard
abutting
a
street
with
similar
language,
referring
to
section
610
311.
E
H
H
E
Would
just
point
out
again
that
I
have
concern
whether
this
is
whether
this
would
be
enforceable.
E
B
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
So,
hopefully
no
one,
no
one
chooses
to
you,
know
to
just
build
to
their
property
line.
They
chose
to
make
more
money
off
of
there
Priti
by
building
more
square
footage
to
raise
more
rent.
You
know
by
by
providing
the
bonus
of
additional
public
space.
The
idea
is
a
more
walkable,
more
pedestrian,
friendly
streetscape.
K
K
H
E
Well,
I,
don't
think
we're
we're
talking
about
acquiring
a
developer
to
deed
property
over
to
the
city,
I
think
I,
don't
know
if
this
overlay
district
on
Central
Street
has
the
you
know
has
a
good
definition
for
this,
but
you
know
if
we're
gonna,
do
it?
If
we're
going
to
suggest
a
trade
off
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
very
good
definition
of
what
the
property
owner
is
actually
providing
to
the
city
in
order
to
get
whatever
bonus
they're
going
to
they're
going
to
receive.
J
C
To
chime
in
there,
the
zoning
ordinance
does
have
a
definition
for
pedestrian
area
that
the
believe
came
in
to
the
ordinance,
along
with
the
overlay
district.
That
definition
is
the
area
between
the
front
facade
of
a
building
and
the
curb.
The
pedestrian
area
consists
of
a
sidewalk,
clear
zone
closest
to
the
building
and
a
parallel
Parkway
slash
street
furniture
zone,
that
is,
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
curb
that
takes.
C
B
C
I
read
the
definition
here
that
the
sidewalk
clear
zone
you
know,
would
be
clear
area
for
for
pedestrian
traffic
closest
to
the
building
and
in
that
parkway
street
furniture
zone.
Typically,
those
those
are
public
amenities.
The
street
benches
parking
meters
street
trees,
items
of
that
nature
there
between
the
the
sidewalk
and
the
curb
you
know.
B
A
E
E
A
K
A
E
E
A
B
So
so
we're
making
this
amendment
for
as
as
of
right
developments
basically
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
staff,
when
they
work
with
a
developer
for
a
PD
or
something,
might
very
well
ask
for
these
kind
of
street-front
improvements
such
as
they
have
that
every
single
development
that
I've
heard
along
this
this
front.
Is
that
really
so?
B
J
C
It's
correct
that
these
issues,
in
the
absence
of
a
requirement
of
minimum
pedestrian
zone
area,
could
be
addressed
or
negotiated
through
the
plan
development
process.
It
probably
helps
where
you're
starting
the
negotiation,
whether
there's
a
requirement
or
not,
if
there's
a
requirement
of
12
feet
and
the
developer
wants
to
ask
for
an
allowance
to
come
closer
than
the
that,
then
that
they're
seeking
something
from
the
city,
whereas
the
other
way
around
we're
requiring
something
above.
What's
what's
in
the
code,
so
it's
kind
of
the
starting
point
for
that
discussion.
Negotiation
I
was.
C
A
H
A
A
H
J
G
And
have
their
I
looked
at
the
minutes.
I
didn't
see
any
public
comment.
No
one
has
come
out
saying,
there's
an
issue
I'm
not
saying
there
isn't,
but
there's
no
public
record
of
support
or
opposition
or
any
articulation
of
an
issue.
That's
a
question
and
I
shouldn't
say:
I
just
didn't
see
it
in
my
packet
I.
G
A
We
certainly
have
that
option
and
we
can
do
that
in
two
ways.
We
can
do
it
deliberately
on
a
motion
to
return
it
to
Planning
and
Development
Committee
without
recommendation,
but
with
the
record
that
we've
made
tonight
or
if
we
don't
agree
on
something
it
will
by
default,
go
back
to
Planning
and
Development
Committee
I.
Think.
H
G
A
C
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
all.
G
H
We
discuss
this
for
a
second
I
want
to
discuss
this.
Yes,
okay,
I,
don't
think
we
should
have
a
meeting
on
February
14th,
there's
a
holiday
there
that
some
of
us
just
can't
avoid
and
I
know.
This
was
in
the
public
record,
but
I
think
we
would
have
quorum
difficulties
that
night
and
I
would
suggest
we
move
it
back
to
for
every
seven.
E
E
A
D
I
would
have
to
double-check
the
city
calendar,
to
see
what
other
my
be
scheduled
before
that
day
or
that
week,
but
I
also
want
everyone
to
keep
in
mind
that
we
do
have
the
option
of
having
the
fourth
Wednesday
of
every
month
as
needed
for
additional
plan
Commission
meetings.
So
that
could
be
a
meeting.
E
A
A
A
A
Dubin
seconded
Isaac,
all
in
favor
of
closing
the
nominations,
then
the
question
is
show
Commissioner
Lewis
be
elected
to
chair
for
the
year
2018,
all
in
favor,
aye
opposed
Commissioner,
Melissa,
I,
assume
you're,
abstaining
I
am
in
saying.
Congratulations.
You
win
anyway,
yeah
for
vice-chairs
through
a
nomination
for
Vice
Chair
for
next
year,
I.
H
A
Isaac
are
there
additional
nominations,
sir
motion,
that
the
nominations
be
closed
Dubin
second
at
belle-isle?
Yes,
all
in
favor
of
closing
the
nominations.
Aye
opposed
none
and
the
question
is
show
Commissioner
Saul,
the
elected
vice
chair
for
2018,
all
in
favor
aye
opposed
none,
Commissioner,
Saul,
abstaining.
Yes,.
A
A
A
A
You
know
the
the
only
public
who
know
what
we're
doing
are
the
public
who
come
in
here
concerned
about
something
and
I,
don't
think
the
rest
of
Evanston
knows
the
time
and
the
thoughtfulness
and
the
attention
that
you
all
give
to
issues
affecting
the
city,
but
we
up
here
know
what
it's
like
and
I'm
close
enough
now
to
being
public.
That
I
think
on
behalf
of
the
city.
I
can
thank
you
all
for
your
service,
which
is
admirable.
A
I
need
to
thank
our
official
public
Jessica
Feldman
has
done
her
best
to
keep
me
honest
for
the
last
three
years
and
I
have
appreciated
it.
Probably
more
than
you
know
from
my
response
staff
I'm,
sorry
Mario
wasn't
here,
I
think
Mario
became
our
attorney
at
the
same
time.
I
became
chair,
so
he
and
I
have
been
to
the
well
together
for
three
years,
and
his
counsel
has
been
invaluable
to
me.
A
He's
also
the
guy
who
challenged
me
to
wear
a
bowtie
and
I
have
appreciated
that
Scott
and
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
work
together
for
very
long,
but
I
have
appreciated
your
professionalism
and
your
diplomacy
when
you
thought
I
was
going
and
maybe
not
quite
the
right
direction.
It's
been
a
pleasure
to
work
with
you.
A
A
She
can
get
a
look
on
her
face,
which
seems
to
say,
I,
think
you're,
crazy,
but
I
know
you're
the
chair,
both
of
which
are
true,
but
I
will
miss
you,
so
go
and
I
do
have
I
have
a
request
and
a
recommendation
to
make
and
with
this
I
will
close
a
couple
of
meetings
ago,
Commissioner
Goddard
asked
if
I
was
interested
in
being
appointed
an
associate
member
of
the
Commission
and
I
said.
Probably
not.
A
It
seems
to
me
that
if
you
do
not
appoint
me
an
associate
that
will
save
you
the
risk
of
hurting
my
feelings
when
you
amend
your
bylaws
to
eliminate
the
position
of
associate
member
which
I
would
recommend
you
do
right
now
we
have
only
one
associate
that
Scott
Peters,
who,
for
good
reasons
of
health
and
he's
doing
well,
has
been
unable
to
to
participate
in
our
work.
But
in
the
six
years
I've
been
on
the
Commission.
A
We've
only
had
one
associate
who
really
made
a
substantive
contribution,
and
that
was
Stu
Updike,
who
had
great
institutional
memory
of
the
downtown
plan,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
the
associate
member
position
does
much
for
us.
So
I
would
recommend
that
you
take
it
out
of
the
bylaws
with
that.
Thank
you.
All.
This
has
been
fun.
I'm
gonna,
miss
this
and
I
may
show
up
at
the
podium
at
some
point.
D
H
Chairman
Ford
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
service.
Obviously,
before
I
came
on
the
Commission,
but
also
since
I've,
been
long
as
I
believe,
the
youngest
member
of
the
Commission
I've
learned
a
lot
from
you
and
things
that
go
way
beyond
City
Planning
and
the
city
of
Evanston,
and
for
that
I
want
to
thank
you
and
we
hope
to
see
you
on
the
other
side
of
that
podium,
because
you
understand
what
we
have
to
go
through.
So
we
hope
that
he'll
be
everything
that
you've
been
on
the
side.
Well,
thank.
B
B
Obviously
an
expert
at
but
you're,
also
of
showing
you
know,
been
exemplary
and
being
diplomatic
and
it
keeping
keeping
the
process
smooth
and
orderly
even
through
times
where
it
was.
You
know,
fairly
controversial
and
getting
starting
to
boil
either
here
or
there,
and
your
your
your
guidance
through
that
has
has
just
been
marvelous
and
you
thank
you
and
your.