►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 11-22-2021
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
A
We
don't
oh
okay.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
the
minutes
of
september
27th,
but
we
actually
already
approved
those
at
our
october
meeting.
Apparently
our
meeting
software
didn't
pick
up
the
october
25
minutes
that
we're
prepared
by
staff
but
we'll
deal
with
those
at
our
next
meeting.
A
A
Okay,
so
it's
been
moved
and
seconded.
We
have
some
discussion:
alderman
council,
member
newsman.
A
I'm
sorry
we
have.
We
have
a
public
comment.
Yeah
we
have
the
application
yeah.
So
would
the
applicant
like
to
make
a
public
comment.
D
Hey
how
you
doing
I'm
danielle
dean,
I'm
just
here,
trying
to
just
see
what
all
you
guys
need
on
my
hand.
A
Do
you
want
to
go?
Do
you
want
to
tell
us
about
your
proposal.
D
Okay,
so
about
my
proposals,
basically,
I'm
trying
to
run
like
a
little
small
neighborhood
convenience
store
somewhere
where
they
can,
just
you
know,
come
get
bread
garbage
bags.
You
know
little
small
household
items,
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
community.
D
D
So
you
know
I've
seen
something
that
I
feel
that
might
fit
that
community
and
guys
told
me
in
my
heart
to
follow
so
I'm
looking
at.
Basically
a
small
convenience
store.
C
Madam
chair,
I'm
concerned
about
a
clause
in
the
ordinance
relating
to
the
sale
of
tobacco
products
in
this
store
and
the
way
the
clause
is
written,
I'll,
just
read
it.
The
sale
of
tobacco
products
must
be
less
than
the
total
sales
revenue,
so
that
is
essentially
meaningless
and
I
don't
think
we
want
this
to
turn
into
a
smoke
shop.
I
don't
think
mr
dean
has
a
smoke
shop
in
mind
when
he's
when
he's
planning.
D
D
Yeah,
I'm
not
not
a
smoke
shop
at
all.
Nowhere
near
a
smoke
shop,
I'm
familiar
with
you
know
basically
the
ordinance
over
there
and
that's
not
just
that's,
not
something
that
I'm
trying
to
promote.
You
know
just
in
all
honesty,
so
give
it
to
you
like
that.
That's
not
nothing
that
I'm
trying
to
promote
just
trying
to
have
something.
Like
I
told
you,
I
grew
up
in
the
neighborhood,
so
it's
like,
I
pretty
much
know
all
the
store
owners.
D
So
it
amazes
me
sometimes
where
it's
like
man,
I'm
kind
of
like
in
that
position.
Now
you
know
that's
all
I'm
trying
to
bring
like
a
little
family
corner
store.
It's
me
my
my
little
cousin
and
my
daughter,
so
I'm
not
a
five
tobacco
shop.
That's
pretty
much
way
out
my.
D
C
Yeah,
I
I
I
understand
you
know
given
the
proximity
of
your
store
to
a
school
and
it's
far
enough
away,
that
it
doesn't
fall
within
the
the
red
zone
of
the
ordinance
but
yeah
I'm
uncomfortable
with
with
the
ordinance
as
written.
So
I
I
think
this
needs
a
little
bit
more
work
before
I'm
ready
to
vote
in
favor
of
it.
D
Okay,
I
don't
like
I
say
I'm
here,
to
find
out
what
I
need
to
do,
I'm
to
be
honest
with
you,
I'm
new
to
this
as
well.
So
as
far
as
the
learning
process,
I'm
enjoying
that
part,
you
know
what
I'm
saying.
So
it's
like
I'm
not
in
disagreement
to
anything
that
you're
saying
I'm
here
to
learn
at
the
same
time.
So
whatever
rules
and
regulations,
that's
what
I
would
that's
what
I
want
to
follow
so
yeah
well,.
A
A
Okay-
and
I
believe
we
have
this-
is
debatable.
I
think
I
got
to
look
at
my
rules.
Are
we
everybody
in
ready
for
a
vote
on
this
council
members
suffered
so.
F
C
Yeah
the
goal
post
is
ideally
no
tobacco,
I'm
not
trying
to
forbid
tobacco
in
this
particular
location.
Although
I
would
not
be
happy,
I
would
not
be
unhappy
for
the
shop
to
not
sell
tobacco,
but
we
don't
want
it
to
turn
into
a
smoke
shop
and
as
written
it
could
so
I
just
want
to
if
we
I
want
to
impose
whatever
limitations
are
reasonable
to
get
make
sure
that
this
does
not
turn
into
a
smoke
shop
right.
D
It's
the
land,
it's
delaying
a
lot
of
things
like
I'm
still
paying
rent
right
now
but,
like
I
say
the
process
is
the
process.
So
that's
just
something
that
I
got
to
go
through,
but
in
all
honesty
I'm
not
understanding
it
when
it's
a
guy
around
the
corner
that
sells
smoke
and
pretty
much
doing
doing
more
than
what
I'm
even
trying
to
do.
Like
I
told
you,
I'm
trying
to
run
more
of
a
convenience
store,
and
all
I
can
really
do
is
give
y'all
my
word.
D
G
A
H
I
want
to
kind
of
second
the
councilman
suffered
this
question.
I
know
the
there's
a
convenience
store
on
church
and
dodge
that,
because
it's
close,
you
know,
closeness
to
this,
to
hhs
right
across
the
street.
You
know
we've
prohibited,
I
believe
the
cell
of
tobacco
there,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
that
we're
applying
the
whatever
our
ordinance
is
fairly
and
evenly
and
not
crediting
kind
of
arbitrary
standards
for
certain
businesses.
H
If
there's
a
certain
distance
away
from
a
school
that
the
cell
of
tobacco
is
prohibited,
then
it
shouldn't
happen,
but
we
get
in.
I
H
One
business
to
do
it,
that's
a
that
is
as
a
that
is
of
a
certain
distance
away
from
a
school
and
not
another
one.
So
I
just
that's
a
little
hairy
for
me
and
I
just
want
to
be
upfront
with
that.
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
applying
the
ordinance
evenly
unless
we're
just
going
to
say
we're
not
allowing
it
at
all
in
evanston
and
that's
a
different
discussion.
Thank
you.
A
Well,
I
kind
of
assume,
maybe
the
council
member
nusma
meant
that
we
would
revise
it
to
say
something
like
less
than
50
percent
of
the
total
revenues
or
something
so
that
we
knew
that
it
wasn't
going
to
be.
C
Given
the
fact
that
there
is
a
smoke
shop
around
the
corner,
we
don't
want
another
one
in
the
neighborhood.
I
don't
think
that's,
mr
dean's
intention,
but
if
he
sells
the
business
you
know
we
want
something
that
we
can
enforce.
So
I
would
be
in
favor
of
limiting
the
sales
of
tobacco
in
some
manner.
That's
legally
acceptable,
whether
that's
percentage
of
sales
or
percentage
of
floor
space
display
space
and
just.
H
Be
clear
about
smoke
shop
you're
talking
about
what
do
you
mean
when
you
say
smoke
shop
and
and
that's
a
different
that
will
require
different
steps
to
be
taken
right.
J
Convenience
store
is
a
special
use,
so
you
may
put
it's
the
council's
prerogative
to
put
whatever
conditions
based
on
the
no
lot.
Two
lots
are
created
the
same
based
staff's
concern
for
both
of
the
dodge.
We
staff
had
concern
for
both
the
dodge
community
store
and
this
one
for
the
backup
of
traffic
that
could
be
created
for
people
running
in
and
out.
This
is
that
those
are
both
tight
spots.
We
have
not.
J
Any
any
issues
on
dodge
or
have
received
any
three
ones.
We
do
receive
complaints
and
concerns
about
the
starbucks.
That
seems
to
have
a
bigger
impact
on
that
intersection,
but
we
haven't
received
any
about
the
dodge.
So.
D
We
expect,
if
you
pay
attention,
excuse
me,
I'm
not
trying
to
cut
you
off
just
why
it's
on
my
mind,
but
even
if
you
pay
a
if
you
pay
attention
to
my
floor
plan,
you'll
see
that
I
only
have
a
small
corner.
I
don't
have
like
a
big
display
right
here,
saying:
hey,
we
got
this
type
of
smoke
product
and
we
got
this.
I
got
a
small
corner
right
there.
So
it's
like
look
at
the
floor
plan.
H
I
guess
I
just
need-
and
I
don't
mind
doing
this
offline-
to
get
a
better
sense
of
what
what
the
current
regulations
are
around
right.
The
distance
between
where
you
know
needed
between
you
know
the
sale
of
tobacco
and
schools
or
any
other
factor.
D
J
H
And
so
that's
that's,
that's
special
new
use
or
no
special
use.
That's
just
what
it
is.
J
J
It's
a
license,
so
it's
like
a
similar
to
a
food
license.
You
might
have
different
ways
that
you'd
sell
the
food
catering
type
one
type,
two
vending
machines-
I
mean
those
all
require
some
kind
of
food
license:
okay,
but.
J
Have
to
look
at
what
the
I
think
there
was
a
restriction
on
the
the
dodge
one.
That's
around
that
that's
around
the
corner.
I
think
there
was
some
it
might
be
similar.
I
don't
know
about
the
wording,
but
somewhere
along
the
lines
of
tobacco
sales
can't
exceed
the
total
sales
of
the
store.
I
think
it's
supposed
to
read
less
the
sale
of
tobacco.
J
H
I
just
want
to
be
clear
to
the
football
residents.
I
am
not
someone.
I
don't
suggest
that
anybody
smoke
tobacco.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
that.
You
know
I've.
I've
have
people
in
my
family
that
have
had
strokes
and
other
illnesses
because
of
it.
So
I
would.
H
To
do
it,
that
being
said,
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
these
questions
is
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
applying
anything
unevenly
and
unfairly
against
this
gentleman
who's,
trying
to
open
up
a
business
now
that
he
has
the
right
to
open
up,
and
I
wish
him
success
in
doing
that.
So
I'll.
C
I'll
hold
my
comments
for
now.
I
know
that
this
is
for
introduction
right.
I
I
wonder
if
it
hypothetically,
I
retracted
my
motion
to
hold.
We
approved
this
for
introduction
and
then
allowed
mr
dean
to
work
with
staff
to
address
this
particular
clause,
and
if
we
come
to
an
agreement
on
some
other
kind
of
meaningful
restriction
on
a
percentage
of
sales
or
floor
space,
I
would
be
comfortable
with
that.
If
my
colleagues
would
be.
C
J
Everything
has
to
be
done
basically
by
mid-week
next
week
to
prepare
for
the
13th
packet,
so
that
doesn't
leave
us
much
time
to
work
through.
I
think
that's
why
we
would
suggest
pushing
I'm
not
sure
you're
going
to.
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
If
that's
what
the
will
of
the
council
is,
but
we
may
come
back
to
you
without
any
resolution,
and
you
maybe
now
then
have
something
for
action
that
didn't
get
the
resolution
you
wanted.
So
that's
just
so
you
know
the
week
this
week.
F
Is
it
possible
to
just
make
an
amendment
tonight
and
say
you
know
whatever
the
50
threshold
is
and
and
put
mr
dean
in
a
position
where
he
can
get
going
on
opening
his
business?
I
think
pushing
it
off
really
seems
like
it's
burdensome
or
he's
got
expenses
and
no
money
coming
in
I
mean,
would
you
be
comfortable
with
say
what
50
or
whatever,
whatever
number
it
is
that
you
have
in
mind.
F
Yeah
or
I
mean
whatever
it
is,
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
I
share
bobby's
concern
about
you
know.
If
we,
if
we
don't
want
tobacco
within
five
thousand
feet
of
a
school,
then
we
should
make
that
the
ordinance
I
mean
it
seems
like
mr
dean's
trying
to
open
a
store
and
sell
legal
products.
We
should
welcome
it
and
encourage
it
rather
have
him
spin
his
wheels
for
until
the
sixth,
what
what
would
be
satisfactory
and
get
this
thing
rolling?
I
mean
I
don't
know
mr
dean,
but
I'm
gonna
assume
yeah.
D
I
was
initially
told
that
as
long
as
it
wasn't
50
of
my
sales,
so
that's
where
I
have
been
comfortable
at
because
I
I'm
not
like
I
say
I
don't
have
no,
no
other
type
of
intentions
on
mine.
You
know
like
as
well.
I
don't
really
want
to
promote
smoking,
but
people
smoke
like
I
said
you
can
look
me
up
at
diesel
league
boot
camp
you'll,
see
downs,
you're,
going
to
see
over
100
or
something
reviews
of
the
type
of
person
that
I
am
and
really
what
I
bring
to
the
table.
Man.
D
So
I
mean
I'm
trying
to
do
business
too,
like
you
know,
not
to
bring
no
nothing
personal
up,
but
I
got
kids
and
grandkids
and,
like
I
say,
I'm
trying
to
do
business.
Man
like
I'll
go
to
the
meetings
with
the
eighth
ward.
So
it's
like
I'm
very
familiar.
This
is
something
new
to
me
and
it's
a
great
learning
experience.
You
know
you
know.
I
thank
you
guys
for
welcoming
me.
You
know
and
just
trying
to
do
good
business
man
bring
something
to
the
neighborhood
right
yeah.
D
I
don't
see
myself
different
than
what
I've
been
seeing
going
on
since
I've
been
a
kid
like,
I
told
you
I
know
babylon.
I
know
every
store
around
there.
So
it's
like
I'm.
You
know
kind
of
shocked
too,
like
you
know,
because
I
don't
don't
see
nothing
different
than
I'm
doing
it.
Then
if
I'm
150
feet
I'm
way
over
that
right
yeah.
I
know,
then
it's
like
being
the
guy
around
the
corner,
not
trying
to
bring
him
in,
but
you
got
the
same
amount
of
distance
yeah
and
he.
H
I'm
just
going
to
say
if
director
knighton
recalls
50,
I
think
that's
fair
and
I
mean
from
as
a
practical
matter.
If
you
get
above
25,
what
do
you
just
stop?
You
just
tell
people
when
they
come
in.
I
can't
I've
reached
my
threshold
for
this
month,
so
I
can't,
I
don't
even
know
practically
how
that
works,
but
that
aside
I
mean,
if
you
recall,
50
percent.
I
think
50
percent
is
fair.
H
A
H
J
I
I
haven't
been
able
to
look
okay,
but
if
you
want
we
could
find
out
between
now
and
city
council.
If
you
wanted
to
move
this
item
along
with
with
an
amendment.
A
So
the
moment
we
have
a
motion
to
table
would
someone
anyone
like
to
withdraw
that
motion
and
make
have
a
different
motion.
I
guess
it
it's
up
to
the
the
mover
of
the
motion
to
what
is.
K
C
C
And
you
know
so
we
don't.
I,
I
truly
believe
mr
dean
is
not
planning
to
convert
his
store
into
a
smoke
shop.
However,
as
the
ordinance
is
written,
it
could
be,
and
that
seems
to
be
not
prudent
from
the
from
the
city's
perspective
to
even
allow
that
possibility.
So
I
would
like
to
close
this
up
and
if
there's
an
alternative
proposal,
you
know
I
I
would.
I
would
entertain
that
it,
unless
whatever
is
the
quickest
way
through
this
process.
C
J
I'm
just
remembering
that
that
his
sale,
the
sale
of
tobacco
must
be
less
than
50
percent,
because
if
it's
more
than
fifty
percent
then
yeah,
then
the
stores
automatically
it
becomes
a
smoke
shop,
a
tobacco
shop.
So
I'm
sorry
that
that
was
a
a
piece
of
this,
so
the
this
that's
a
convenience,
so
he'd
be
out
of
he
wouldn't
be
zoning
compliant,
then.
So
to
answer
your
question
about
what
does
he
do
at
that
point?
J
J
H
C
Point
so
also
with
that
additional
explanation,
you
know
kind
of
to
me.
It
seems
that
this
paragraph
d
in
the
ordinance
is
really
kind
of
irrelevant.
B
That,
well,
I
was
going
to
say
we
could
introduce
it
find
out
the
information
which
actually
ms
knighton
has
just
presented
to
us,
but
I
think
that,
in
order
to
make
it
a
fair
playing
field
with
the
store
around
the
corner,
we
should
I
I
I
think
we
should
include
it-
include
the
prescriptive
language
in
the
the
ordinance,
rather
than
strike
it
right,
so
that
it's
clear
that
fifty
percent
is
the
maximum
amount
of
tobacco
sales
that
you
can
have
and
remain
a
convenience
store.
C
I'll
withdraw
the
motion
to
table
this
until
it
to
a
date
certain
and
if
council
member
win
would
like
to
make
it
a
motion
to
amend.
B
E
C
Couldn't
I
could
make
so
I
will
make
the
motion
to
amend
section
three
condition:
d
to
read:
the
sale
of
tobacco
products
must
be
no
greater
than
half
of
the
total
sales
revenue.
B
B
A
A
And
then
we
can.
We
have
a
vote
on
the
amended
motion,
so
we
would
be
approving.
We
would
improv
approve
for
introduction
the
ordinance
for
the
dempster
snack
shops
special
use
with
this
amendment
that
the
sale
of
tobacco
products
must
be
no
greater
than
50
percent
of
the
total
sales
revenue.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Everybody
very
educational
discussion,
we're
now
ready
for
item
p2
and
that's
I'll
move
just
to
get.
This
introduced
ordinance
123-0-21,
granting
a
major
adjustment
in
the
plan,
development
located
in
1900,
sherman
avenue,
and
this
is
for
introduction
second,
and
I
believe
we
have
some
public
comments.
You
do
all
right.
L
Good
evening,
council
members,
my
name
is
claire
wastel
and
I
live
within
500
feet
of
the
pearlman.
The
proposed
reduction
in
on-site
parking
is
listed
as
non-compliant
in
the
evanston
zoning
analysis.
It
was
never
a
one-to-one
ratio,
so
the
reduction
in
units
does
not
correspond
to
the
loss
of
parking.
The
new
proposal
is
just
25
spaces
for
a
new
152
unit
building.
This
is
three
percent
of
the
city's
requirement
and
the
applicants
claim
that
they
can
provide
the
missing
62
spaces
at
a
nearby
building.
L
Tonight's
packet
includes
documentation
of
the
number
of
spaces
that
exist
at
the
link
and
e2,
but
nothing
about
an
agreement
for
a
long-term
lease.
Commissioner
rogers
shared
that
the
link
submitted
a
zoning
analysis
to
add
a
tower
without
adding
parking,
since
they
can
use
their
currently
available
spaces.
Therefore,
the
links
garage
cannot
be
counted
on
that
leaves
e2,
however,
that
building
does
not
meet
the
distance
requirements
in
last
year's
approval,
ordinance,
which
requires
the
parking
spaces
be
within
1000
feet.
E-2
parking
is
1500
feet
away
and
requires
a
six
to
seven
minute
walk.
L
I
will
email
you
two
maps
to
support
my
numbers.
I
would
also
love
to
meet
at
the
site
with
any
council
members
to
show
you
concerns
with
la
safety
and
with
this
walk.
Accessibility
is
a
major
concern.
The
parking
study
required
71
spaces
and
illinois
requires
three
accessible
spots.
However,
they
plan
for
one.
L
L
These
accessible
spots
do
require
more
space,
so
a
new
configuration
and
a
new
total
number
of
parking
spaces
would
be
required
in
order
to
improve
the
ordinance
before
you
tonight.
I
hope
you
agree
with
me
that
this
is
a
problem
that
his
council
members,
you
can
fix
to
provide
adequate
accessibility.
L
The
developers
have
controlled
the
conversation
so
far
because
their
application
did
not
include
the
cause
for
the
adjustments.
The
cost
was
only
listed
in
the
letter,
with
their
permit
extension
that
was
submitted
to
you.
That
letter
identified
that
a
year
ago,
a
structural
condition
in
the
design
and
the
foundation
of
the
existing
permanent
building
was
discovered.
L
Yet
it
appears.
No
one
at
the
city
has
evaluated
the
new
foundation
plan,
nor
its
potential
impact
on
the
safety
of
the
existing
perlman
building.
At
the
september
dapper
meeting
councilmember
kelly
asked
a
question
and
ms
knight
stated
that
they
only
evaluate
the
completeness
of
the
application.
It
is
up
to
council
to
evaluate
the
project.
L
I
can't
believe
that,
as
busy
council
members
were
able
to
add
structural
analysis
to
your
list
of
things
to
do
so.
Instead,
I
am
asking
each
of
you
to
advocate
for
the
residents
of
the
pearlman.
The
housing
authority
itself
owns
that
building,
so
there
is
no
other
building
owner
to
request
an
independent
analysis
of
the
possible
impact
on
the
pro-men's
foundation.
L
M
I
live
within
500
feet
of
1900
sherman
and
I
have
some
miscellaneous
comments
on
several
areas,
beginning
with
the
zoning
change
issue,
a
zoning
change
was
granted
to
hack
based
upon
claims
a
hack
by
hacc
that
they
could
not
build
their
development
with
a
10
to
12
foot
separation
between
the
building
that
their
previous
zoning
r6
required.
But
the
zoning
they
asked
for
c1a
did
not
require
hex
stated
the
need
for
a
10
to
12
foot
separation
is
the
primary
reason
they
asked
for
a
zoning
change.
M
M
One,
commissioner,
at
the
last
planned
commission
meeting,
expressed
concern
about
the
matter
and
indicated
that
this
should
be
looked
into,
but
I
believe
felt
that,
following
through
on
this,
was
the
purview
of
the
council
members
regarding
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
Additionally,
hacc
is
being
given
huge
allowances:
allowances
for
the
number
of
units
building
height,
far
parking
for
meeting
the
requirements
of
evanston's
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
which
contains
the
basic
requirement
that
evanston
residents
be
given
priority
for
affordable
units.
M
M
M
Going
on
to
parking
and
traffic
issues,
as
commissioner
rogers
stated
at
the
last
planned
commission
meeting
off-site
parking
leased
at
the
length
can't
be
relied
upon.
Considering
a
zoning
analysis
has
been
requested
for
an
expansion
of
the
link.
The
only
other
possible
site
for
off-site
parking
heck
mentioned
is
at
e-2.
The
parking
e-2
does
not
meet
evanston's
requirement
that
off-site
parking
be
within
a
thousand
feet.
M
E2
is
also
problematic
to
get
to
requiring
crossing
a
high
traffic
alley,
an
access
driveway
for
garbage
trucks
and
two
crosswalks
to
streets
to
get
to
the
boundary
of
the
e-2
lot.
All
this
is
especially
dangerous
for
seniors,
especially
in
the
dark
and
fall
weather.
These
seniors
must
then
also
walk
to
their
target
parking
spot
on
the
huge
lot.
The
plan
does
not
provide
the
required
accessible
parking
places.
Off-Site
parking
places
are,
by
definition,
not
accessible.
M
The
updated
parking
study
presented
by
hack,
I'm
nearly
done.
Thank
you,
use
the
parking
parking
utilization
of
the
link
as
a
comparable
as
if
the
parking
utilization
of
a
senior
luxury
develop
development
would
parallel
the
parking
utilization
of
what
is
essentially
a
private
student
dorm.
The
link
two
blocks
from
campus:
please
disregard
the
parking
study
provided
by
hacc
and
either
use
the
city
of
evanston's
determination
that
hacc
should
provide
88
net
new
parking
places
or
commission.
M
Another
parking
study
and
again
these
off-site
parking
places
must
be
leased
somewhere
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
proposed
site,
with
a
long-term
lease
approved
by
the
city,
while
traffic
studies
provided
by
developers
state
their
developments
do
not
cause
undue
traffic,
there
is
bumper-to-bumper
traffic
regularly
along
emerson.
Please,
commission,
an
independent
study
of
traffic
here
before
an
additional
mega
development
is
approved.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
N
Hello,
I'm
sue
lowbach
with
connections
for
the
homeless
and
with
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
Just
very
briefly,
I
would
urge
you
to
support
the
amendments
proposed
for
the
emerson
building
tonight.
This
is
a
really
innovative,
strong
proposal
that
the
council
unanimously
approved
when
it
was
first
proposed.
N
N
I
would
really
urge
you
to
not
let
these
new
objections
to
the
building
create
more
obstacles,
more
hoops
for
the
housing
authority
to
jump
through,
there's
already
going
to
be
just
a
challenge
to
get
this
done,
and
it
is
such
an
important
building
with
a
significant
amount
of
affordable
housing
that
I
hope
that
you
will
not
let
the
small
number
of
people
who
live
near
the
building
and
are
object
to
it.
N
K
Yeah
my
comment
is
consistent
with
the
first
speaker
about
the
parking:
it's
a
ridiculously
low
amount
of
parking
for
a
building
that
size
those
number
of
units.
K
Unless
I
misread
it,
I
think
they
were
only
talking
about
moving
they're
talking
about
having
25
spaces
in
the
building
and
moving
12
spaces
within
a
thousand
feet
to
some
other
leased
arrangement,
so
that
that
would
only
be
a
total
of
37
spaces.
So
I'm
curious,
if
that's
the
right
number
or,
if
they've,
committed
to
other
quantity
of
parking,
but
either
way
it's
a
low
number
structurally
there's
ways
of
building
more
underground
parking,
but
it's
just
more
expensive
and
I'm
sure
that's
why
they
don't
want
to
build
it
versus
making
excuses.
K
K
A
Thank
you
and
I
think
that's
all
the
public
comment
we
have
and
then
I
think
staff
do
we
have
a
presentation
or
well.
J
Actually,
their
representatives
from
the
housing
authority
are
on
and
they've
incorporated
the
information
that
we
would
have
otherwise
put
in
the
slides.
E
O
We
we
are
ready
at
the
housing
authority.
Megan
has
our
presentation.
I
believe
she
was
going
to
share
screen.
O
Don't
forget
if
you
can
see
it,
I
I
it's
a
small
image
on
my
screen,
but
we
can
move
forward
with
them
with
our
presentation.
So
if
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
megan.
J
J
G
O
Agenda
we're
trying
to
make
this
a
very
simple,
straightforward
presentation.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
we've
heard
at
the
planning
commission
then
here
tend
to
complicate
the
matter,
introducing
really
extraneous
considerations
that
aren't
germane
to
the
action
that
we're
requesting.
This
is
our
agenda.
We're
going
to
start
with
opening
comments
by
hack,
executive
director,
rich
monachio.
I
will
then
frame
the
request
that
we're
asking
for
talk
about
the
three
refinements
called
major
adjustments.
P
Yes,
thank
you
bill.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
council
for
having
us
back
I'll,
be
brief,
because
this
has
been
considered
for
such
a
long
time.
P
I
just
thought
I
would
remind
everybody
about
the
fundamentals
of
this
project
and
the
fundamentals
are
that
this
building
is
going
to
provide
more
affordability,
downtown,
I
think,
by
far
than
any
other,
any
other
building
of
its
type
51
apartments,
and
they
are
going
to
be
51,
affordable
units
34
for
very
low
income,
people
who
will
wind
up
paying
30
of
their
income
for
rent,
but
just
as
important
17
apartments
for
people
of
moderate
means
and
those
17
apartments
have
been
committed
to
the
city
of
evanston
and
their
aho
list.
P
It's
been
said
before
that
you
know:
seven
estonians
won't
live
in
the
34
units.
Well,
you
know
what
we're
going
to
have
a
site-based
waiting
list
like
we
do
every
place
and
the
site-based
waiting
list
is
going
to
be
in
evanston.
So
it's
true.
We
can't
guarantee
that
100
of
the
residents
will
be
evanstonians,
but
a
large
percentage
will
be.
P
The
other
thing
that
needs
to
be
talked
about
here
is
it
is
that
this
is
a
groundbreaking
project.
Really,
you
know
I.
I
I've
heard
a
lot
about
this
project
from
a
lot
of
people,
and
the
fact
is
this
is
the
ideal
way
to
build
such
a
building.
P
We
have
land,
that's
valuable
in
a
very
desirable
part
of
town,
so
we're
proposing
a
mixed
income
building,
which
makes
total
sense
and
is
done
every
place
in
the
country.
The
beauty
of
this
is
the
higher
rents
are
going
to
subsidize
the
affordable
units.
Okay,
this
we're
not
asking
for
any
development
subsidy
outside
a
very
small
percentage
from
ida,
but
this
is
basically
going
to
be
built
as
a
development
project
without
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
of
subsidy
there
that
aren't
even
there.
P
So
in
that
respect
it
is
novel
and
it
is
forward-looking
and
it
is
a
great
it's
going
to
be
an
architecturally,
significant
building
and
we
hope
a
model
for
the
rest
of
the
county
and
the
rest
of
the
country.
P
O
O
So,
sir,
if
you
could
go
to
the
the
next
slide
after
this,
which
is
framing
the
request,
so
we
think
it's
very
important
to
to
simplify
the
request
that
we're
asking
of
city
council
here
today.
You
know
this
is
not
an
opportunity
to
revisit
the
original
development
approval
action
which,
which
I
think
members
of
the
public,
would
would
like
to
see
done
here
before
the
council.
O
The
original
request
was
passed
unanimously
in
november
of
2020
housing
authority
have
every
right
in
the
world
to
just
build
it
as
it
was
approved.
But
the
fact
is
that,
as
we
as
the
housing
authority
went
into
design
development
to
create
the
plans
needed
to
construct
the
building,
there
were
some
changes
that
needed
to
be
made,
and
we
are
here
asking
the
city
to
to
pass
these
and
in
many
communities.
O
Two
of
the
three
requests
we're
asking
for
would
not
even
need
approval
from
the
elected
body.
It
would
be
passed
approved
by
by
administratively
by
staff.
The
parking
reduction
would
need
to
be
acted
on
specifically,
so
actually
the
requests
that
we're
asking
for
are
really
minor,
as
you
will
see.
So
the
next
slide
talks
about
these
three
refinements,
so
major
amendment,
one
is
to
get
city
council
approval
to
reduce
the
number
of
dwelling
units
in
the
building
from
152
from
168
to
152.
O
That
is
a
16
unit
reduction.
We
see.
No,
you
know
a
public
impact
on
this.
We
see
no
reason
why
this
wouldn't
be
approved
and
that,
but
that
is
one
of
the
adjustments
that
we
must
ask
approval
for
by
ordinance,
because
your
ordinance
very
narrowly
defines
minor
amendments
to
a
plan,
development
and
anything.
That's
not.
A
minor
amendment
becomes
a
major
amendment.
So,
even
though
we're
asking
for
fewer
units,
this
needs
to
be
specifically
after
the
food
council.
O
Major
amendment
number
two
is
to
approve
the
reduction
in
building
height
from
172
feet,
eight
inches,
which
was
approved
in
the
the
drummond
submitted
with
the
plan
development
to
168
and
four
inches.
So
this
is
merely
just
a
minor
design
refinement
when
plans
developed
for
pd
approval
are
conceptual.
When
we
go
into
design
development,
things
are
just
refined
and
it
turns
out.
O
So
if
we
go
to
that
next,
the
next
slide.
So
this
talks
about
the
need
for
refinement.
There
are
three
things
that
are
really
causing
this
request
for
refinement.
One
is
a
foundation
condition
of
the
permanent
building.
We
anticipated
that
there
would
have
been
pilings
that
support
the
perlman
building
foundation.
That
would
be
typical
of
a
building
its
size,
but
when
hax
engineers
did
due
diligence,
they
found
that
was
not
the
foundation
design.
O
That
was,
that
was
there
and
in
order
to
build
the
new
building
and
the
underground
parking,
we
need
a
separation
of
10
to
12
feet
from
the
permanent
building.
So
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
that
shows
that
we
need
we
needed
to
redesign
the
underground
parking.
We
have
less
space,
12,
less
feet,
impacts
the
design
of
the
underground
parking
and
reduces
the
number
of
spaces
we
could
get
to
25
from
37.
O
So
that
is
why
we
are
asking
for
this.
If,
if
it
were
to
hide-
and
we
had
to
build
those
additional
12
spaces
and
go
on
another
level
down,
it
would
be
an
astronaut
astronomical
cost.
It
would
impact
the
project
severely,
might
make
it
infeasible
and
we
think
the
astronautical
cost
for
12
spaces
is
is
not
worth
it
and
we
can
provide
those
spaces
off-site.
O
So
the
next
slide
then
talks
about
the
adjustment
in
the
number
of
units.
So
since
we're
coming
in
for
a
major
amendment
and
covet
has
struck-
and
references
among
renters
have
shifted,
as
we
know,
the
world
will
never
be
the
same
as
it
was
pre-coveted
and
people
nowadays
are
wanting
larger
units
with
less
common
area
common
amenities
so
that
they
can
feel
safer
and
and
don't
have
to
rely
on
spaces
shared
by
people
in
the
building.
O
So
hack
would
like
to
reconfigure
the
floor
plate
so
that
there
is
one
less
space
per
floor
and
and
we
would
have
16
less
units
in
the
whole
building.
Now
we
are
not
reducing
the
affordable
units
at
all,
either
the
units
for
very
low
income
or
the
missing
middle
units
so
proportionately
we're
increasing
the
affordable
affordability
of
the
building
by
reducing
it
by
16
units,
but
keeping
the
affordable
units
the
same.
O
The
next
slide
just
talks
about
the
the
very
minor
refinement
and
building
height.
You
know
we'll
be
changing.
The
x-ray
facade
very
slightly
reducing
number
of
units
would
make
us
change
the
location
of
balconies
and
other
things
and
window
placement,
so
there'll
be
a
minor
change
in
the
facade
of
the
building.
But
you
see
here
the
approved
elevation
and
the
proposed
elevation.
O
It
will
look
essentially
the
same
and
it's
a
very
minor
reduction
in
building
height,
but
this
kind
of
drives
from
what
we're
asking
for
and
then
the
next
slide
talks
about
on-site
parking.
So
the
original
approval
allowed
us
to
have
a
certain
number
of
outside
parking
spaces
and
have
an
underground
parking
structure
with
37
spaces.
As
I
mentioned
in
one
of
the
previous
slides.
Due
to
the
structural
issue
of
the
perlman
foundation,
we
have
to
create
a
separation
and
that
will
impact
the
number
of
underground
spaces.
We
can
accommodate
reducing
it
by
12
to
25.
O
So
when
we
had
our
original
approval,
the
housing
authority
produced
a
letter
from
the
each
building
saying
that
they
could
commit
to
50
spaces
of
offside
parking
devoted
to
residents
of
the
new
building.
The
emerson
building
and
the
city
accepted
this
as
evidence
that
off
street
parking
was
available
to
to
supplement
the
on-site
spaces
that
would
be
built
as
part
of
the
development.
O
There
was
no
requirement
for
a
hard
and
fast
lease
agreements
or
or
absolute
commitments,
and
and
all
of
that,
so
we
are
very
confident
that
we
can
provide
additional
parking
spaces
at
e2
or
other
off-site
parking
spaces.
Within
the
thousand
foot
limit.
People
have
said
that
the
e-2
is
not
within
a
thousand
feet.
We
did
not.
We
being.
The
housing
authority
did
not
request
a
thousand
foot
limit.
O
That
was
something
that
staff
determined
as
an
appropriate
measurement
for
off-site
parking
within
a
certain
distance
of
the
building
staff
thought
that
the
e-2
building
was
within
a
thousand
feet.
Our
own
consultants
have
measured
it.
You
know
from
a
property
line
to
property
line
and
we
believe
it
is
within
a
thousand
feet,
contrary
to
what's
been
stated,
but
the
thousand
feet
came
from
city
staff
so
and
in
terms
of
the
impact
of
a
reduction
in
12
spaces.
O
O
So
when
we
look
at
the
reduction
of
parking
spaces
by
12,
less
the
eight
spaces
of
reduced
demand
that
we
will
generate,
we
see
that
there's
really
an
additional
need
for
four
spaces
off-site
accepting
the
prior
approval
and
the
reduction
of
16
units
in
our
building.
So
we
think
framing
this
in
terms
of
the
additional
need
for
off-site
spaces.
O
We
think
that
number
is
four.
So
it's
really
a
very
minor
request
that
we're
asking
for
abduction
in
12
on-site
spaces,
coupled
with
the
reduction
of
16
units
of
residential
apartments,
so
that,
in
our
mind,
frames
the
reduction
in
in
on-site
parking
that
we're
asking
for.
So
the
last
slide
talks
about
the
summary
of
the
requests.
O
O
We
think
will
produce
an
additional
demand
of
four
more
off-site
spaces,
which
we
is
negligible
in
terms
of
the
available
supply
of
off-site
parking
spaces
at
a
number
of
locations.
So
for
these
reasons
we
think
this
is
a
very
simple
request.
It's
it's
not
complicated.
We
don't
think
the
sky
is
falling.
We
don't
think
that
this
is
not
about
structural
issues
that
the
city
council
has
to
get
involved
in
and,
for
importantly,
this
is
not
the
end
of
the
city
review
and
regulation
of
this
development.
O
The
housing
authority
has
made
a
number
of
promises
to
the
city
on
a
number
of
topics,
including
hiring
of
of
evanston
workers,
bird-friendly
design,
public
spaces
at
street
level,
public
amenities
and
all
of
these
things
the
city
can
and
will
I'm
sure,
hold
hack,
accountable
for
and
perform
on,
not
not
to
mention
the
normal
process
of
going
through
a
building
permit
and
providing
additional
documentation
to
substantiate
the
promises.
Hack
has
made
with
respect
to
this
this
new
development.
O
So
this
is
not
the
end
of
city
review
at
all,
and
we
think
that
the
requests
we're
asking
for
are
very
modest
and
common
sense,
and
we
ask
for
your
approval
on
these.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
will
support
this
building
again,
as
I
did
in
november
of
2020
for
a
number
of
reasons,
and
these
changes
to
me
well
worth
discussing
as
the
presenters
have
indicated.
Two
of
them
actually
are
making
the
building
smaller.
So
I
don't
really
think
that
that
they
raise
any
questions
with
us.
This,
for
all
of
the
reasons
we
discussed
in
november
2020,
one
of
the
critical
needs
that
we
have
in
this
community
is
for
affordable
housing
for
seniors.
B
B
Ever
as
far
as
I
can
remember,
I
mean
we
add
twos
and
threes
here
and
there,
but
this
allows
51
units,
and
that
is
one-third
of
the
units
in
this
project.
A
third
of
this
building
is
going
to
be
affordable
to
seniors.
B
We,
we
can't
possibly
replicate
that
without
using
this
model,
as
mr
monnocchio
was
saying,
hacc
owns
the
property
by
creating
a
by
financing
it
by
using
market
rate
units
market
rate
rental
units.
They
are
then
able
to
create
the
51
units
that
are
affordable.
B
That
far
outweighs
concerns
about
parking
in
the
area,
and
I
recognize
that
the
community
nearby
might
be
concerned
about
that.
But-
and
I
understand
that-
certainly
the
third
ward
arguably
has
the
worst
parking
in
the
city
of
evanston
and
I'd
like
to
just
point
out
a
couple
of
buildings
in
in
the
third
ward
in
particular
the
most
recent
building
that
was
built
as
at
the
south
east
corner
of
maine
and
chicago
tall
glassy,
building
very
very
attractive.
B
It's
a
rental
building,
approximately
112
units.
They
originally
came
to
us
and
said
that
they
did
not
want
to
have
to
put
all
of
the
parking
that
we
required
in
our
zoning
ordinance
in.
We
were
very
skeptical,
it
is
transit,
oriented
development
and
we
required
them
to
rent
a
lot
within
a
thousand
feet
that
put
them
up
around
seventy
percent
of
what
we
were,
the
numbers
that
we
required.
B
Here
is
an
instance
where
we
have
a
hundred
empty
spaces,
a
wasting
asset
directly
across
the
alley
and
then
175
empty
spaces
within
a
thousand
feet,
a
wasting
asset.
Why
would
we
require
hacc
to
build
these
extra
units,
which
would
become,
as
they've
just
said,
at
an
extraordinary
cost
to
build
them
underground,
when
literally
across
the
alley
are
a
hundred
units
that
they
can
access?
B
So
when
I
balance
this
out
and
see
that
there
is
possible
to
have
this
leasing
agreement
for
additional
parking
spaces
across
the
alley
or
at
the
at
e2,
I
don't
think
that
outweighs.
I
mean
there
is
a
solution
to
this
parking
agreement.
B
That
does
not
outweigh
to
me
the
value
of
51,
affordable
units
for
seniors
in
this
location,
as
I
don't
want
to
go
on
too
long,
but
this
location
means
is
so
walkable
for
seniors
it.
It's
near
our
downtown.
They
will
have
access
to
public
transportation,
that's
exactly
where
seniors
want
to
live.
So
when
I
look
at
this,
I
look
at
the
market
rate.
Portion
of
this
building
is
rental.
B
A
Say
for
you
thank
you,
councilmember
councilmember,
reed.
I
Yeah,
I
appreciate
a
lot
of,
if
not
all,
of
complimentary
ones
comments
there.
I
do
generally
agree
that
the
city
council
shouldn't
necessarily
be
in
the
business
of
mandating
parking
spots
for
private
developers.
I
think,
as
council
member
one
pointed
out,
the
private
market
can
sort
itself
out
in
many
regards
and
folks
who
need
the
parking
will
move
there
and
folks
who
don't
will
choose
somewhere
else.
I
I
I
don't
know
if
that,
if
a
similar
agreement
is
appropriate
here
to
you
know,
have
the
requirement
of
renting
a
certain
number
of
units
and
then
allowing
them
to
come
back
in
a
certain
time
frame,
and
you
know
if
they
determine.
If
they
don't
need
the
units,
then
we
can
release
them
from
that
requirement.
I
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
appropriate,
but
also
I
am
not
a
developer.
Nor
am
I
a
psychologist,
but
I
do
wonder
this
is
another
aspect
of
the
development
which
isn't
necessarily
what
we're
here
before
here
about
now.
But
the
reduction
of
the
public
areas
in
the
unit
is
not
something
I'm
super
happy
about,
but
again
that's
not
again
the
private
you
guys
can
sort
that
out
yourselves.
I
You
know,
I
think,
for
there
are
plenty
of
studies
that
show
as
far
as
longevity
and
health,
that
your
interaction
with
other
human
beings
is
one
of
the
top
factors
for
for
that.
So
so
I'd
love
to
see
public
areas
and
all
buildings
that
come
before
us
with
that.
I
think
I'll
be
supporting
the
changes
here.
It
makes
sense.
Q
Kelly
yeah,
I
don't
think
we
can
compare
maine
and
chicago
with
the
pearlman
building
and
the
needs
of
the
pearlman
residents.
I'm
really
disconcerted.
I
have
to
say
a
little
bit
sickened
by
what
I
sense
of
a
real
lack
of
regard
for
the
residents
of
the
pearlman
building.
Q
I
feel
like
there's
a
serious
disconnection
among
most
of
the
people
supporting
this
development,
a
lack
of
consideration,
a
lack
of
outreach
for
someone
to
say
that
these
two
residents
who
spoke
tonight
are
three
that
that's
the
small
crowd
of
neighbors
that
represent
opposition
is
disingenuous
folks
who
have
supported
this
have
been
to
meetings
where
they've
seen
an
outpouring
of
the
residents
of
the
pearlman
building
very
upset
about
this
and
to
suggest
that,
because
maybe
they
don't
all
have
access
to
the
internet-
or
maybe
they
can't
get
here
in
wheelchairs
and
to
say
that,
oh
that
they
represent
that.
Q
I'm
sorry,
but
that's
just
not
being
honest
and
I
am
very
concerned
they
moved
into
that
building,
knowing
that
they
had
open
space,
a
parking
lot,
trees,
they're,
losing
that
and
no
one's
concerned
about
that,
and
what
about
one
accessible
parking
space?
This
is
not
the
same
as
maine
and
chicago
aldermen
win.
So
absolutely
I
think
we
need
more
accessible
spaces.
Q
The
housing
authority
of
cook
county
is
the
most
eligible
for
li-tech
credits,
and
everybody
knows
that
it
originally
started
out
with
many
more
units
and
then
he
eventually
merged
into
you
know
a
high
rise
with
mostly
market
rate
units,
so
yeah,
I
really
am,
I
feel
very
badly.
There
are
no
amenities,
I
feel
like
this
building.
Q
They're,
a
wasting
acid,
I'm
sorry,
usually
this
is
just
a
wasting
asset.
I
wouldn't
say
that
to
the
residents
who
live
there,
they
have
a
right
to
they
again.
They
chose
to
move
there
for
everything
that
it's
worth,
so
I
don't
think
they
would
consider
it
just
a
wasting
asset.
I
know
we
all
want
more
heads
on
beds
and
I
really
am
disgusted
by
that-
and
I've
heard
a
lot
of
that
sentiment,
not
about
the
people
who
are
actually
living
there,
I'm
really
getting
sickened
by
it.
Q
I
really
am-
and
I
would
like
to
see
I'd
like
to
see
this
held
until
we
can
appropriately
advocate
for
the
residents
of
the
perlman
building,
get
more
accessible
spaces
and
do
an
independent
parking
study
ourselves
to
to
to
ensure
that
we
are
doing
our
best
by
them.
Thank
you.
B
Councilmember
kelly,
I
I
was
not
at
all
referring
to
the
residents
of
pearlman
the
pearlman
building
as
wasting
asset.
I
was.
Q
B
Q
And
this
isn't
for
students
you're
talking
about
like
these
are
senior
citizens
and
you're
acting
like
oh,
they
can
just
walk
seven
blocks
away
and
go
get
a
parking
space.
I
mean
come
on.
These
are
senior
citizens
and
many
who
are
disabled
so
to
just
say
we're
going
to
open
up
spaces.
You
know
over
at
the
link.
I
mean
I'm
just
it's
amazing
to
me.
You
know
the
regard
or
lack
of
regard
for
the
residents
of
the
pearlman.
B
Also,
I'd
like
a
point
of
clarification:
is
there
some
prohibition
for
the
residents
of
the
pearlman
to
use
any
of
the
amenities
in
the
new
building?
He.
P
P
So
if
we're
talking
about
the
building
itself,
the
the
main
amenity
in
the
building
itself
is
going
to
be
a
rooftop
deck
and
that
will
be
available
to
people
who
live
in
the
emerson.
P
But
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
we
are
creating
significant
new
open
space
at
the
pearlman
and
connecting
it,
I
think,
to
the
community
very
well
and
connecting
it
to
the
pearlman
very
well,
so
certainly
pearlman
residents
and
all
residents
of
evanston
are
going
to
be
welcomed
to
the
amenity
spaces
in
the
exterior
which
are
going
to
be
pretty
elaborate,
but
in
terms
of
the
building
itself
and
inside
the
building.
It's
a
totally
separate
building.
You
know
this.
P
It's
just
the
standard
procedure
is
that,
what's
in
with
what's
built
in
the
building
is
generally
made
available
to
residents,
but
in
terms
of
the
parking,
because
it's
been
talked
about,
every
single
resident
of
the
pearlman
is
going
to
have
a
free
parking
space
at
on-site
still
so
that
that's
that's
very
important
to
point
out.
B
P
So
the
there's
going
to
be
a
number
of
exterior
spaces
that
will
be
designated
for
the
residents
of
pearlman.
We
did
a
study
that
shows
that
18
residents
have
vehicles
and
they
need
parking
and
they
will
all
be
accommodated.
P
A
Other
other
yes
councilmember,
reed.
I
I'm
just
curious
is
the
cost
of
the
parking
spots
completely
separated
from
the
cost
of
so
let's
say
I'm
a
55
year
old
renter
in
the
building,
and
I
don't
own
a
car
built
into
your
scheme,
of
how
you
guys
are
financing
the
building
through
rent
is
someone
who
does
not
own
a
car
technically
paying
part
of
the
cost
of
the
parking
garage
and
the
parking
structure,
or
is
that
separated
completely
separated?
A
So
there
was
a
comment
made
during
public
comment
about
the
link
and
its
new
proposal
for
the
property
to
the
north.
I
guess
of
its
existing
building,
and
perhaps
this
is
a
question
for
johanna
do
we
know
and
the
the
ref
the
mention
was
made
that
that
building
was
going
to
be
relying
on
the
parking
and
the
existing
link
building.
Do
you
know
happen
to
know
anything
about
that
proposal,
so.
J
Analysis
for
an
addition,
or
not
envision,
an
entirely
new
building
at
the
north
of
the
existing
link
property.
So
we're
finishing
up
the
review
of
that
and
gave
them
some
feedback
on
it.
So
so
that's
very,
very
very
preliminary.
I
think
it
was
just
last
maybe
last
week
that
it
appeared
on
the
weekly
zoning
report.
J
A
Q
I
mean,
I
think
we
don't
know
what
the
impact
is
going
to
be
regarding
parking
at
the
link
with
this
potential
proposal,
I
ask
that
we
hold
this
until
the
city
can
do
due
diligence
on
the
parking
situation
and
also
in
terms
of
accessible
parking
or
table
or
whatever
it
is.
We
have
to
do,
and
I
guess.
A
I
just
had
one
other
point
to
make
about
parking.
I'm
looking
at
the.
I
guess.
It's
the
ordinance
that
we
passed
in
november
2020
and
it
says
prior
to
issuance
of
the
building
permit.
The
applicant
shall
provide
a
long-term
lease
for
a
minimum
of
50
parking
spaces
within
a
thousand
feet
of
the
subject,
property
and
so
at
some
point
somebody
would
determine
just
how
far
away
the
e-2
building
is
to
make
sure
it's
within
the
thousand
feet
or
have
we
have
we
actually
looked
into
that?
Yes,.
J
J
And
to
clarify
that
is
a
part
of
our
city
code,
the
thousand
feet:
it's
not
some
arbitrary
number.
We
picked
it's
part
of
our
city
code.
E
H
Councilmember
ravel,
can
you
repeat,
you
said
they
have
to
have
that
in
place
by
what,
at
what
time.
H
H
And
then
for
the
iho,
ordinance
and
council,
this
might
be
a
question
for
you.
H
One
affordable
in
our
iho
ordinance
means
it's
spelled
out
in
our
definitions
of
low
income,
middle
income
and
moderate
income.
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly,
which
is
a
pretty
big
range
from,
looks
like
anywhere
from
50
to
maybe
120.
H
And
then,
and
then
sarah
before
you,
the
next
question
is,
I
think
one
of
the
community
members
talked
about
as
because
there's
no
kind
of
local
preference
or
priority
that
that
they'd
be
they'd,
be
they
wouldn't
be
in
compliance
of
our
iho.
But
I
can't
find
that's
something
that
is
truly
important
to
me.
Folks
have
heard
me
talk
about
that,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
a
local
preference
requirement
in
in
the
iho
ordinance.
So
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
clarity
for
the
community
member
that
mentioned
that.
H
It
sounds
like
which
I'm
happy
to
hear
that
that
I
think
rich
monachio
said
that
they're
actually
going
to
go
through
our
iho
list,
which
is
exclusively
evidence
in
residence.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
so
if
that
is
the
case,
at
least
for
those
17
units
that
are
priced
moderately,
that
that's
a
great
thing,
but
so
I
just
want
to
get
a
few
questions
on
that
as
as
well
is
the
iho
list,
evanston
exclusive
evans
and
resident
exclusive.
R
This
property
exceeds
the
requirements
for
affordability
of
the
iho
simply
by
having
20,
affordable
units
that
are
below
the
requirement
of
the
iho,
which
is
60
of
area
median,
so
that
is
by
our
iho,
a
residential
multifamily
building
that
may
have
the
physical
characteristics
of
a
covered
development,
but
has
affordability,
restrictions
that
exceed
it.
So
it
is
not
directly
covered
by
the
iho
and
the
reason
this
is
in
the
iho
is
to
accommodate
things
like
different
financing
structures
that
get
us
greater
levels
of
affordability
than
our
iho.
R
Those
34
units
will
have
project-based
support,
so
that
means,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
they
function
like
public
housing.
The
tenants
have
to
have
incomes
below
50
of
the
area
median,
but
many
of
them
that
are
in
these
sorts
of
units
have
income
significantly
below
and
the
tenant
pays
30
percent
of
their
income
and
the
voucher
picks
up
the
rest.
So
that's
an
operating
subsidy.
It's
not
a
development
subsidy.
R
Recently,
the
housing
authority
opened
the
wait
list
for
the
project-based
unit
in
the
ann
rainey
apartments,
and
we
helped
for
all
the
people
that
we
had
on
our
interested
parties
list.
We
got
information
out
to
them
that
they
needed
to
sign
up
for
that
and
some
of
audrey
thompson
staff
actually
helped
people
literally
sign
up
for
that.
So
when
he
says
that
that's
what
you
do
this
is
what
we
do.
We
get
them
lined
up
and
ready
to
apply.
Can
we
say
that
it's
only
for
evanston
residents?
No,
we
cannot.
R
Now.
The
17
units
are
different.
Those
are
going
to
come
off
of
the
iho
waiting
list
because
the
housing
authority
doesn't
have
that,
isn't
something
controlled
by
their
requirements
for
their
process,
because
those
are
in
essence
not
affordable
units
by
the
by
the
project-based
supports.
So
those
those
residents
or
those
tenants
will
come
off
of
the
wait
list
that
community
partners
for
affordable
housing
maintains
and
evanston
residents
or
former
residents
or
people,
probably
not
as
applicable
for
this,
who
live
outside
of
evanston,
but
work
in
evanston
get
preference
for
that.
R
Q
H
That
live
out
that
live
outside
evanston
currently
but
work
in
evanston,
okay
and
then
they
just
lost
me,
since
you
said,
am
ami
it'll
come
back
to
me.
That's
it.
Okay,.
E
R
A
middle
income
level
that
the
only
time
that
there
has
ever
been
any
development
subsidy
for
anything
at
that
income
level
was
the
neighborhood
stabilization
program,
which
was
to
try
to
keep
neighborhoods
from
completely
failing
by
getting
you
know
a
mixed
income
in
there.
You
know
and
that's
what
we
did
in
our
two
lowest
income
census
tracts.
But
this
is
a.
R
This
is
a
income
level
that
we
very
much
need
in
our
community
two
years
ago,
three
years
ago,
our
age,
friendly,
evanston
task
force
did
a
whole
market
study
that
was
presented
to
council,
and
one
of
the
things
was
middle-income
residents
who
want
to
see
older
residents
who
want
to
be
able
to
downsize
and
move
into
a
building,
can't
afford
the
continuing
care
communities
and
they
really
can't
afford
the
other
new
buildings
that
are
being
built.
So
this
specifically
addresses
that
need
as
well.
H
I
do
remember
my
question
real
quick,
so
the
60
ami
requirement
is
that
fairly
new,
because
I
thought
we
had
inclusionary
housing
units
downtown
that
are
at
eighty
percent.
Am
I
is
this:
is
this.
R
We
have
yeah,
we
have
a
mix,
and
some
of
the
ones
we
have
downtown
were
because
two
of
the
buildings
that
have
inclusionary
units
had
negotiated
agreements,
and
that
is
the
albion
and
the
avador,
because
they
actually
propose
to
pay
the
full
fee
in
lieu
which
no.
Q
R
R
J
Sarah,
at
the
time
the
iho
allowed
developers
to
pay
the
entire
fee
in
lieu
instead
of
providing
on-site.
The
iho
that
we
have
applied
today
is
is
different.
There
are
different
requirements,
so
at
the
time
the
albion
proposed
paying
the
fee
in
lieu.
The
council
found
that
they
wanted
on-site
units,
and
this
was
the
proposal
in
lieu
of
the
entire
fee,
but
the
albion
was
prepared
to
pay
the
entire
fee.
Q
Let's
be
clear,
though,
on
a
planned
development
we
could
have
accepted.
You
know
they
only
gave
us
one
third
of
the
27
units
at
60.
We
could
have
said
we'll
take
one
third
and
you
have
to
pay
lewd.
That
was
our
choice
not
to
make
that
demand
with
a
planned
development.
We
could
ask
for
three
times
our
iho.
If
I
want,
I
think
we
need
to
stop
acting
like
they
have
these
rights,
because
this
was
the
council's
choice
and
with
staff's
recommendation,
which
was
a
horrible
recommendation.
Q
They
gave
him
in
fact
one-third
they
let
them
get
away
with
only
putting
in
one-third
of
the
required
iho
units
at
the
time
with
no
payment
in
lieu
and
all
you
have.
A
A
Q
A
So,
council,
member
burns
of
that
answer,
your
questions
about
the
income
and
everything.
H
A
Thank
you.
Sarah.
Are
there
other
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
council
committee
alder,
council
member?
I.
B
Since
I
have
the
latest
development
that
is
being
developed
in
my
ward
at
1012
chicago
avenue,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
developer
for
that
project
never
ever
asked
us
for
to
reduce
the
percentage
of
affordable
housings
in
the
project
or
to
touch
or
alter
the
requirements
that
we
had.
So
my
experience,
which
is
real
life
experience
discussing
development
with
a
real
life
developer,
who
is
now
going
to
go
into
the
ground
on
chicago
avenue,
is
that
they
were
prepared
to
follow
our
iho.
J
Yes,
they
do
have
parking,
they
will
be
building
parking.
Okay,.
J
I
think
the
number
I
saw
was
there
were
88
when
they
they
came
to
reduce
their
required
parking,
so
they
could
put
88
available
to
the
public.
I
think
that
that
is
not
contemplated
to
pull
from
the
new
development's,
not
contemplate
at
this
point
to
pull
from
that
number.
Okay,.
H
Upfront
with
this-
because
I
don't
want
this
to
come
back
later
and
I
want
to
be
fully
transparent,
so
I
am
100
committed
to
testing
whether
or
not
local
preferences
are
constitutional.
It
is,
it
is
a
risk,
it's
something
that
could
be
denied
in
other.
You
know
it
could
be
denied.
H
This
project
is
a
little
different
because
they're,
not
I
don't
think
they're
going
for
federal
tax
credits
and
it's
it's
it's
gray
area,
it's
something
that
we're
I'm
investigating
now
with
with
some
partners
from
hodc
and
others,
but
it
is
something
that
I'm
going
to
fight
for,
and
so
I
want
to.
I
don't
to
be.
You
know
to
respect
that
point,
councilmember
kelly,
that
you're
making.
I
don't
want
to
come
back
with
another
deal
that
we're
working
on
and
say:
oh
yeah,
it's
important
for
this
development,
but
it
wasn't
important
for
yours.
H
I
think
it
is
important
it
it
it's
a
gray
area
if
rich
and
others
are
saying
look
we
can't
be
done,
there's
nothing
that
I
can
say
right
now
to
say
it
can
be,
because
even
the
folks
that
are
willing
to
take
this
up
with
me
in
our
ward
are
saying
it's
great,
but
we'll
we'll
give
it
a
shot
and
see
what
happens.
H
So
you
know
I
just
want
to
be
fully
transparent
with
that
that
I
am
fully
committed
to
seeing
whether
or
not
there's
some
latitude
on
the
local
preference
particularly-
and
then
here
this
is.
The
difference.
Is
that
in
the
area
that
we're
talking
about
in
our
ward
again,
it's
the
census
tract
that
is
with
30
at
least
close
to
30
percent
are
living
below
the
poverty
line.
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
case
in
this
in
in
the
subject
area,
but
that
is
a
difference.
H
Q
S
I
am
on,
let
me
actually
pull
up
we'll
give.
Q
Like
to
know
what
is
the
requirement
in
terms
of
percentage
of
accessible
parking
spaces
per,
I
think
it's
like
1
to
twenty
correct.
S
It
is
not
that
exact
amount
I'm
pulling
up
the
chart
now
specifically
to
speak
to
that,
but
for
the
first
20
spaces
there
is
one
space
that
is
required,
but
as
you
increase
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
then
there
are
additional
parking
spaces
that
are
then
required
from
that
hold
on
a
second
I'm
pulling
that
up
specifically.
S
S
The
accessible
parking
spaces,
as
I
mentioned
before
for
the
first
20
spaces,
there's
one
space
required.
If
you
get
to
the
next
section
for
between
21
and
50
parking
spaces,
there
are
two
accessible
spaces
that
are
required
and
then
it
steps
up
from
there.
51
75
total
parking
spaces.
You
need
three
accessible
parking
spaces,
so
it's
not
quite
going
by
20,
but
there's
a
chart.
That
specifically
says
for
the
number
of
total
parking
spaces
that
are
provided
on
site.
There's
a
certain
number
of
parking
accessible
parking
spaces.
Excuse
me
that
are
required.
S
Two
there
there
are
two
new
parking
spaces:
they
have
a
shared
accessibility
aisle.
The
existing
parking
spaces
that
are
on
the
site
now
were
proved
to
be
moved
to
the
alley
so
total
there
would
be
four
parking
spaces
for
accessible
parking.
Q
Q
Because
we're
sending
people
away,
then
we
don't
count
those
paces
because
they
have
to
walk
to
another
parking
lot.
I
just
want
to
understand,
like
in
terms
of
accessibility.
Again,
I'm
really
really
importing
my
colleagues
up
here
to
get
the
best
we
can
get,
I'm
not
going
to
oppose
this
building.
It's
going
up.
I
understand
that,
but
I'm
sorry,
but
the
residents
of
the
pearlman
have
lost
their
parking.
Space.
They've
lost
their
outdoor
space
and,
as
we
now
understand
they
don't
they
will
not
have
access
to
the
amenities
of
the
building.
Q
I
just
want
to
ensure
that
they
are
in
fact
getting
what
they
need
and-
and
these
are
people
these
are
not
students
right.
These
are
people
in
wheelchairs.
These
are
people
have
healthcare
workers
that
come
to
visit
them.
The
parking
is
important
what
for
seniors,
so
I
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
It
seems
to
me
that
we
need
another
space
on
site.
B
J
B
Can
the
applicant
tell
us,
I
mean
who's
who's
on
the
on
the
call
right
now.
Can
you
tell
us
how
many
accessible
spaces
are
in
the
new
building
and
how
many
accessible
spaces
will
be
available
to
the
pearlman
residents
after
the
new
building
is
built.
K
O
Well,
so
there
will
be
two
accessible
spaces
off
the
alley
right
next
to
the
pearlman.
Building
and
there'll
be
two
plans
that
have
been
submitted:
two
accessible
spaces
in
the
underground
parking
garage.
E
B
A
And
I
seem
to
I
read
in
the
the
plan
commission
notes
or
minutes
and
things
that
the
applicants
going
to
provide
parking
for
any
pearlman
resident
with
a
car
free
of
charge.
Is
that
something
that
I'm
not
sure
if
that
was
a
verbal
commitment
or
if
that's
in
writing,.
A
Question
mark
and
also
that
the
applicant
will
pay
for
the
caregiver
parking
at
the
link.
O
The
applicant
will
will
provide
for
needed
caregiver
parking
based
on
a
a
assessment
of
need
at
the
time
we
we
cannot.
I
mean
we
cannot
guarantee,
it
will
be
at
the
link.
There
may
be
caregiver
spaces
that
are
carved
out
in
the
underground
parking.
There
may
be
other
places
nearby
that
the
housing
authority
can
secure
spaces
for
caregivers.
O
P
I
I
can
elaborate
a
little
on
that
council
member
thanks
bill
yeah.
I
made
the
commitment
that
we
will
certainly
accommodate
caregivers
now,
if
the
sometimes
the
caregiver
agreements,
you
know
they
have
funds
to
pay
for
parking
and
if
they
do,
we
would
certainly
want
them
to
access
those
funds.
But
if
there's
no,
you
know
if
there's
no
funding
available
for
parking
for
caregivers,
we
will
cover
that.
E
A
Caregivers,
okay,
so
so,
basically
and
you're
committing
to
leasing
up
to
50
up
to
50
spaces
at
e2,
and
then
you
refer
to
70
spaces
that
are
currently
available
at
the
link,
but
is,
could
I
guess
I'd
like
to
see
a
leasing
of
spaces
at
the
link,
given
how
much
closer
and
more
convenient
it
is
for
the
building
for
the
new
building.
O
O
Fluid
the
link
is,
is
not
ready
to
to
commit
to
off-site
parking
for
our
building.
At
this
point
in
time
and
from
year
to
year,
you
know
available
at
various
buildings
will
will
shift.
I
think
we
can
obtain
a
multi-year
commitment
from
the
e-2
given
how
many
spaces
they
have,
and
it's
in
a
housing
authority's
interest
to
accommodate
all
resident
parking
needs
so
that
you
know
they
can
maintain.
You
know
a
full
building
and
and
provide
for
their
residents
needs.
O
So
I
mean
the
thing
is
that
this
is
a
fluid
situation.
We
believe
that
eventually
we
will
get
commitment
from
the
link
building.
I
don't
think
they
want
to
commit
right
now,
because
they
are
looking
at
some
options
for
additional
additional
development,
and
I
think
when
that
plays
out,
they'll
be
in
a
position
to
lease
us.
Whatever
many
spaces,
they
have.
P
If
I
could
just
add
to
that,
I
as
bill
said,
I
mean
it's
in
our
best
interest.
I
think
the
council
members
obviously
get
this
too,
that
we
want
to.
We
want
to
lease
parking
or
provide
parking
as
close
to
our
building,
as
we
can.
It's
just.
P
E
Q
O
O
Are
a
series
of
spaces
currently
on
the
east
side
of
the
alley
between
the
pearlman
building
and
the
edge
of
the
alley
those
exist?
Now
the
the
existing
handicap
or
accessible
spaces
are
in
the
parking
lot,
which
will
have
to
be
relocated,
they'll,
be
relocated
to
the
alley,
and
some
spaces
in
the
albe
will
be
reconfigured
to
make
the
required
width
for
the
accessible
spaces.
Q
Okay,
so
will
that
be
okay?
So
there
will
be
some
accommodations
made
then
from
the
off
the
alley
parking
to
make
that
a
comfortable
access,
because.
A
So
is
the
committee
ready
to
vote
on?
We
have
a
motion
to
introduce
this
item
to
council
this
evening.
Q
So
I
just
I
just
feel
like
there's
still
so
many
questions
with
regard,
and
it's
not
I
mean
with
regard
to
the
link,
the
development
and
not
really
understanding,
what's
going
to
be
available
there,
and
I
I
I
think
the
city
needs
to
do
its
own
independent
research
on
this
on
the
parking
situation.
Q
So
I
would
like
to
see
that
happen
first
and
this
isn't
this
isn't
a
delay
tactic,
it's
about
respecting
the
possible
outcomes
that
we're
not
aware
of
and
and
take
doing
due,
diligence.
B
This
is
for
introduction,
correct
right.
I
think
that
those
those
questions
can
be
answered.
I
think
that
we
should
move
forward
and
move
this
to
the
to
the
council
and
then
get
some
of
those
those
questions
answered.
As
I
said
before,
this
is
51,
affordable
units
in
our
downtown.
The
only
other
place
where
we
have
that
number
is
in
the
building
on
howard
street,
that
was
built
by
the
council
for
jewish
elderly,
which
is
a
miracle
building
too,
but
I
I
mean
this
is
34,
low-income
units
right
there
in
our
downtown.
B
I
I
Going
to
say,
I
think
we
can
understand
council
member
kelly's
concerns,
and
I
think
particularly
the
concern
regarding
providing
enough
on-site
parking
for
disabled
folks
makes
sense,
particularly
if
it's
you
know
we're
using
a
calculation
of
if
they
did
put
in.
You
know
some
standard
of
parking.
You
know
here's
how
many
spots
they'd
have
and
just
are
they
meeting
that.
I
think
that's
that's
big,
but
outside
of
that,
I
think
this
can
move
forward
and
just
point
of
clarification.
I
So
I've
seen
it
happen
both
ways
where
an
item
has
been
for
introduction
at
committee
and
then
it's
gone
directly
to
council
for
introduction
and
then
for
action.
Or
are
we
anticipating
two
readings
at
this
committee.
J
A
Six
one,
okay,
so
thank
you,
everybody
and
I
think
now
we
are.
I
can
call
us
adjourned.
A
H
A
Right
so
now
we
are
adjourned
and
council
will
start
at
10
minutes
past
7.