►
From YouTube: Preservation Commission Meeting 11-9-2021
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).
B
C
Okay,
yeah
you,
if
you
could
in
the
meantime,
please.
C
E
C
Thank
you
a
raw
call
vote,
commissioner
reinhold
aye,
commissioner
sullivan.
F
G
F
C
And
I'm
an
eye
so
for
those
of
us
who
haven't
appeared
before
the
commission
for
each
matter
that
we
call
the
applicant
will
introduce
themselves
and
proceed
to
present
their
application.
C
You
can
direct
cade
as
to
you
know,
turning
the
pages
and
going
your
way
through
it.
It's
an
opportunity
to
screen
share
if
you
have
additional
materials
after
that,
we'll
have
the
com
an
opportunity
for
the
commissioners
to
ask.
Questions
of
the
applicant
will
then
have
an
opportunity
for
participation
by
the
public.
We'd.
Ask
that
each
member,
the
public,
who
wishes
to
speak
limit
their
presentation
to
two
minutes.
C
As
you
begin,
please
introduce
yourself
even
though
your
name
does
appear
on
zoom.
We
need
to
have
you
know.
C
Name
stated
in
in
you
know
the
recorded
in
the
recording
in
case
people
want
to
listen
to
the
recording
and
we'll
then
have
any
additional
discussion
by
the
commission
on
the
roll
call
voting
matter.
C
I
So
I
have
two
things
to
go
over.
One
is
the
update
to
the
actual
plan,
and
then
I
had
been
asked
to
give
a
short
presentation
on
window
efficiency.
I
So
the
first
item
is
this:
building
at
1233
judson.
We
had
I'm
just
going
to
forward
to
the
new
part,
so
we
were
adding
the
solar
array
on
the
south,
so
that
has
not
changed.
We
have
the
proposed
roof
deck
and
a
slight
low
slope
roof
to
get
access
to
that
roof
deck.
I
We
did
update
the
railing,
which
I'll
show
you
in
a
rendering
in
a
minute
and
and
then
we
have
the
windows
where
we
left
off
last
time
was
that
the
windows
that
are
not
visible
to
the
front
of
the
building
would
be
replaced
with
a
casement
window
that
has
detailing
to
look
like
a
double
hung,
and
then
the
windows
that
are
visible
from
the
front
would
be
upgraded
existing
windows.
I
So
I'm
just
going
to
flip
to
the
pertinent
parts.
This
is
the
roof
deck.
Nothing
here
has
changed,
the
railing
design
did
and
I'm
just
gonna,
I'm
gonna
just
go
all
the
way
to
the
end.
To
show
that
to
you,
so
this
is
a
rendering
I'm
gonna
zoom
in
a
little
bit,
so
this
shows
the
railing
up
at
the
top,
not
very
visible.
We
reduce
the
width
of
the
supports
that
was
requested
last
time
and
that's
the
view
that
you
would
see
from
the
front.
I
So
I
didn't
go
through
all
the
drawings
but
they're,
basically
the
same
as
what
we
had
before
other
than
the
windows
were
modified,
as
I
just
discussed
so
I'd
like
to
have
any
questions
on
this
and
then
I
would
go
into
that
presentation
afterwards.
I
Correct
everything
that
you
can
see
from
the
front,
so
it
would
if
you
could
shift
the
building
and
look
to
the
north
a
little
bit
there's
another
set
of
windows
that
are
identical
to
what
you're
seeing
flanking
and
then
yes,
all
three
sides
of
the
bay
and
then
the
building
goes
back.
You
can
see
this
in
plan.
F
I
Yeah,
I
could
go
to
that
presentation,
let's
see
so.
I
also
have
on
the
line
andrea,
lin,
who's
intern
with
us
who
has
a
environmental
engineering
degree.
So
she
did
a
lot
of
the
research
on
this.
I
So
if
I
mess
up,
she
will
catch
me
and
correct
me,
but
so
I
was
asked
to
look
at
the
environmental
impact
of
existing
with
double
hung
windows
with
storm
windows,
new
double
hungs,
and
then
we
put
in
the
new
casements
there's
two
things:
we're
looking
at
one
is
operational
carbon
and
that's
the
carbon
that
is
used
for
the
energy
to
heat,
heat
and
cool
the
home,
and
then
the
embodied
carbon
is
the
carbon.
That's
used
to
manufacture
the
windows
and
get
them
on
site
and
replace
them.
I
I
So
if,
if
a
window
is
being
replaced,
there'd
be
a
jump
in
this
orange
section,
the
operational
carbon
is
additive
every
year,
assuming
the
weather
basically
stays
the
same.
So
it
takes
on
that
shape
the
embodied
carbon
of
wood
windows.
We're
just
going
to
look
at
the
typical
24
by
36
window
is
about
22
kilograms
of
co2
equivalent
and
then
what
has
to
be
replaced
every
30
years
is
the
flat
glass
the
glass
itself.
It's
not
like
the
window
would
be
replaced.
I
So
it's
about
a
third
a
little
over
a
third
of
the
window
unit
you're
going
to
see
this
is
incredibly
small
number
compared
to
the
operational
carbon.
So
just
remember
that
22
kilograms
and
about
eight
kilograms-
and
then
we
have
the
main
culprit-
is
the
air
infiltration
in
a
double
hung.
So
at
the
sash
meeting
rail
we
get
a
lot
of
air
flow
and
then
around
the
perimeter.
I
So
there's
just
a
lot
more
points
compared
to
a
casement
window.
We
looked
at
that
two
different
ways:
the
leakage
per
linear
foot
of
crack
length
and
the
leakage
per
area
of
window.
So
we
got
slightly
different
results,
but
they're
not
that
much
different,
and
so
the
linear
crack
is,
is
just
literally
every
line
around
here
and
then
the
area
is
just
the
area
of
the
window.
I
I
If
we
add
storm
windows,
we
more
than
double
the
r
value
and
we
cut
down
that
infiltration
rate,
not
quite
in
half
but
close
new
double
hung
windows.
It's
maybe
a
little.
You
know,
probably
more
like
three
and
a
half
to
four
would
be
the
r
value
but
could
be
with
really
high.
Performance
could
be
up
to
four
little
over
four.
The
air
infiltration
is
0.8
and
on
new
casement
windows.
That
infiltration
rate
drops
even
further,
and
this
is
again
is
the
length
leakage
per
linear
crack
foot.
I
So
it's
about
nine
times
better
on
the
infiltration
rate,
then
what
we
did
is
we
modeled
one
of
the
units
at
12
33
with
all
the
windows
in
there
in
the
area
and
we
put
in
those
values
and
what
we
got
out
was
on
an
annual
basis
about
18
500
kilograms
of
co2
being
used,
and
that
was
with
the
existing
double
hung
windows.
I
So
we
ran
this
for
each
of
those
four
options,
and
this
is
what
we
ended
up
with
so
for
the
existing
double
hung
windows,
like
I
said
about
eighteen
thousand,
five
hundred,
when
you
put
in
new
storm
windows,
you
get
about
one
and
a
half
times
better
with
new
double
hungs.
You
get
about
two
and
a
half
times
better,
and
with
that
case
with
new
casement
windows,
you
get
seven
and
a
half
times
better.
I
And
what
that
looks
like
on
a
chart
over
the
100
years
and
and
remember
I
mentioned
that
the
window
replacement
was
like
22
kilograms.
So
that's
absolutely
not
gonna
show
up
on
this
chart.
This
is
in
the
million
and
two
million
kilogram
range
so
that
the
new
casement
windows,
even
if
we
replace
the
window
every
30
years
or
replace
the
glass,
it's
not
really
going
to
make
a
difference.
But
the
new
casement
at
the
bottom
you
see
is
the
seven
and
a
half
times
better
and
the
double
hung.
I
If
it's
new,
two
and
a
half
and
the
restored
is
one
and
a
half.
If
we
did
the
other
method,
we
get
slightly
different,
but
not
crazy.
Different,
but
what's
interesting
is
the
air
infiltration
on
an
existing
double
hung
at
two
cubic
feet
per
square
foot
compared
to
a
new
casement,
which
is
a
hundred
times
better
100
times
tighter,
and
so
that
increased
this.
I
When
you
take
all
that
into
account
one
and
a
half
times
still
for
the
existing
window
with
the
storm
but
five
times
better
with
the
double
hung
and
eight
and
a
half
times
better
with
the
casement
window,
and
that
changes
the
chart
slightly
and
what
that,
when
we
averaged
them,
we
just
took
those
two
results
and
averaged
them.
We
get
again
one
and
a
half
times
better
with
the
storms.
I
Three
times
better
with
the
double
hung
and
eight
times
better
with
the
casement
window,
so
it's
it's
pretty
pretty
interesting
to
see
it
this
way
and
I'm
happy
to
share
this
with
with
the
board.
These
are
the
resources
that
we
that
we
utilized.
J
It's
basically,
your
conclusion
is
that
replacing
old
windows
from
a
energy
point
of
view
is
so
much
better
than
trying
to
restore
them
or
and
or
adding
storm
units.
Is
that
correct.
I
I
Is
the
it's
always
trying
to
tighten
the
building
up,
and
you
know
we
do
a
really
good
job
at
it,
and
I
know
these
guys
at
passivhaus
are
taking
it
to
such
a
wild
level.
It's
almost
like
a
submarine,
of
course,
there's
the
airflow.
You
know
the
bringing
in
fresh
air
and
everything,
but
you
couldn't
possibly
have
a
passive
house
with
anything,
but
something
like
that.
Casement
window.
J
Okay,
nate,
if
I,
if
I
understand
the
proposal
for
the
building,
is
that
you're
restoring
the
front
windows
as
a
kind
of
gesture
of
respect.
I
guess
for
for
for
the
building
its
history,
its
look
and
the
feelings
of
a
lot
of
the
commissioners
and
that
everything
else
will
be
new.
High
efficiency
windows.
I
That's
what
we
had
talked
about
last
time.
I
would
like
to
hear
you
know
I
mean
if
I
had
my
way,
I
would
have
new
case
in
the
windows,
and
I
think
this
is
pretty
clear.
The
the
difference
depending
on
which
one
of
these
you
look
at
it's
easy.
You
know
it's
millions
of
of
kilograms
of
co2
over
its
lifetime.
It's
it's
pretty
amazing.
It
depends
on
which
way
we
model
it.
This
one
isn't
quite
as
impactful,
but
it's
still
very
noticeable.
H
I
Yeah,
you
know
so
a
new
window
is
going
to
be
much
tighter
than
an
old
one.
I
mean
I've
restored
old
windows
and
I
know
when
they
do
it
correctly,
with
all
the
copper
components
and
everything
it's
pretty
good.
It's
it's
actually
quite
good,
but
it's
not
to
the
level
of
like
a
new
double
hung
and
the
reason
the
casement
is
even
better
and
it's
funny
on
this
graph
because,
like
the
five
to
eight
and
a
half,
doesn't
show
up
quite
as
dramatically,
but
it
is
a
big
difference.
I
The
casement
is
shutting
like
a
refrigerator
door.
It's
gasketed,
there's
no
places
for
it
really
to
leak,
and
that's
where
that
kind
of
100
fold
or
100
times
increase
is
in
infiltration.
So
even
even
compared
to
a
new
double
hung.
It's
still
quite
a
difference.
There's
nothing
better
than
well.
A
fixed
window
would
be
the
best,
but
essentially
a
casement
is
homing
in
on
that.
J
Okay,
from
a
septic
point
of
view,
it
should
be
pointed
out
that
casements
and
double
hunges
look
very
different,
because
the
upper
sash
is
in
a
different
plane
than
the
lower
sash
in
a
double
hung.
Even
with
a
you
know,
with
this
with
a
simulated
meeting
rail
on
the
casement,
it
still
is
a
different
look
at
some
point.
As
a
commission,
I
think
we
should
collectively
grapple
with
this.
J
I
think
nate
has
made
a
very
convincing
case,
and
I
think
that
for
building
in
my
in
my
view
for
buildings
which
are
not
landmark
but
merely
contributing
structures,
we
should
be
flexible
about
a
replacement
of
all
windows
with
new
windows.
I
So
this
is
my
old
house
that
we
moved
out
of
a
little
while
ago,
and
so
this
we
had
double
hungs
here
and
they
didn't
meet
egress.
So
we
had
to
put
casements
in
for
egress.
We
went
ahead
and
made
them
look
like
this,
so
yeah.
Absolutely
what
you're
saying
is
correct.
That
they're
out
of
I
mean
they're
in
line
they're
in
plane,
and
you
know
anyone
that
knows
what
they're
looking
at
would
see
that.
But
I
didn't
want
to
just
put
casements
in
here,
so
we
did
that.
C
All
right
is
there
anything
else
you
wanted
to
present
before
we
move
on.
J
Was
there
I,
I
was
just
going
to
say
that,
oh
I'm
sorry,
I
should
have
let
everybody
else
speak.
I
was
going
to
say
that
if
cade
would
put
up
the
the
verbiage,
I'd
make
a
motion
to
accept
this.
C
Yeah,
let's
just
make
sure
that
we're
okay
with
this
was
there
any
member
of
the
public
who
wanted
to
speak
to
this
matter.
E
Yeah
I
I
do
think
this
is
a
tough
case
because,
well
I
respect
the
efforts
to
make
a
house
make
a
structure,
energy
efficient
and
to
take
advantage
of
where
of
how
far
these
opportunities
have
come,
and
that
this
property
is
not
a
landmark
property.
E
E
And
I
like
that,
I
think,
like
a
good
concession
is
to
go
ahead
and
restore
the
ones
on
the
front
and
then
consider
the
ones
on
the
sides
and
the
back.
You
know
the
secondary
elevations
I,
but
then
I
just
go
back
to
the
fact
that
they're
still
in
good,
we
have
original
wood
windows
in
fair
condition,
fair
to
good
condition,
and
I
just
keep
getting
stuck
there,
and
so
I
think
for
myself.
I'll
probably
be
voting
may
just
based
on
those
standards.
One
and
two.
C
C
You
know,
I
think
there'll
be
an
opportunity
moving
forward
to
discuss
this
and
weigh
all
these
factors
that
it,
you
know,
certainly
agree
that
we
don't
have
any
real
precedent
for
there's.
Certainly
some
analogy
to
you
know
a
completed
project,
the
solar
panels,
where
we
had.
C
What
really
is
a
compromise
where
we've,
you
know
strongly
discouraged
the
panels
that
are
strongly
visible
on
the
front
facade,
but
you
know
allowed
you
know
something
that
the
type
of
you
know,
appearance
that
normally
you
wouldn't
have
in
historic
district
unless
visible
besides
and
it
just
you
know,
I
think,
as
steward
said
it's
a
it's
a
conflict,
it's
two
interests
that
do
conflict
with
each
other
and
I'm
not
sure,
there's
any
way
to
reconcile
them,
but
I
agree
that
it's
important
to
think
that
think
it
out
and
you
know,
have
a
plan
going
forward.
I
Can
I
add
something
so
I
serve
on?
I
have
served
on
a
number
of
committees
at
the
aia.
I
was
the
national
co-chair
of
the
2030
commitment.
I
was
on
the
sustainable
leadership
committee
and
now
I'm
on
the
committee
for
climate
action
and
design
excellence,
and
I
mean
the
good
thing
about
being
on
these
committees
is,
I
can
see
what's
coming
for
the
next
five
plus
years,
and
this
is
definitely
an
issue
that
is
moving
forward
quickly.
So
this
building
is
we're
trying
to
decarbonize
the
entire
thing.
I
So
all
the
gas
lines
are
going
to
be
cut.
It's
going
to
be
all
electric
the
solar
battery
backup
ev
charging,
so
I
mean
we're
really
trying
to.
I
think
this
will
be
a
great
case
study
and
I
I'd
be
happy
to
report
back
on
how
it's
doing,
but
and
and
I
think
this
is
interesting-
to
do-
half
the
building
this
way
and
half
the
building
the
other
way
and
see
what
actually
happens
with
that.
F
F
I
I
I
imagine
we're
going
to
contact
evanston
rebuilding
exchange
and
see
if
they'll
take
them.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
they
will,
but
I
you
know.
Certainly
that
would
be
the
first
effort.
I
E
And
I'm
just
curious:
some
of
your
data
was
based
on
or
maybe
it
wasn't
based
on,
but
you
noted
in
your
presentation
for
the
newer
windows.
While
they
get
replaced
every
20
to
30
years
you're
saying
it's
only
really
the
glass
that
needs
to
be.
E
Have
you
seen
any
projects
where
you
have
just
replaced
the
glass,
usually
when
I,
when
I've
seen
the
proposals,
at
least
in
front
of
the
commission,
replacing
replacement
windows,
it's
a
whole
unit?
So
I'm
just
curious
like
how
frequent
have
you
seen
that
in
real
practice?
Well,.
I
J
F
H
I
just
one
question
about
the
trends
or
whatever
in
the
windows.
I
know
that
nate
since
you're
involved
in
other
projects
or
in
the
in
the
industry,
do
you
see
any
companies
potentially
making
these
casement
windows
to
replicate
the
you
know
the
different
planes
that
stewart
was
talking
about?
H
I
mean
we
see.
You
know
we
saw
that
trend
just
in
replacement,
double
hungs
and
the
muttons,
and
you
know
doing
things
to
replicate
the
depth
of
the
muttons.
It
doesn't
seem
like
it
would
be
that
hard
to
create
a
casement
that
at
least
gives
the
appearance
of
of
you
know
using
the
depth
of
the
planes.
Also.
I
I
All
the
screens
we're
staring
at
and
all
the
big
screens
there's
a
lot
of
high
volume,
thin
glass,
that's
really
lightweight,
and
they
keep
saying
it's
coming.
So
I
kind
of
think
it
is,
but
it's
getting
getting
kind
of
old
hearing
it,
but
I
I
do
believe
that
triple
glazing,
because
right
now
it's
about
50
percent,
more,
you
know,
hey
another
pane
of
glass
and
it
weighs
a
lot
more
and
it's
way
thicker
and
I
think
that
that's
going
to
get
thinner
and
lighter
and
cheaper
soon.
But
that's
probably
the
only
thing.
J
I
Just
the
fact
that,
like
the
the
glass
itself
they're
making
it
so
thin
because
of
these
big
screen,
tvs
like
they're
so
lightweight,
you
know
if
you
ever
saw
one
of
the
old
ones.
I
bought
one
of
the
original
ones
that
weighed
like
unbelievable
amount,
and
now
they
barely
weigh
anything
and
that's
partially
because
of
the
glass
thickness
and
because
they're
making
it
at
such
volume.
Now
that
that's
going
to
transfer
to
the
window,
the
window
companies.
J
Yeah
kate,
can
you
can
you
put
the
stuff
up?
Yes,
I
move
that
we
grant
a
certificate
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
1233
judson
avenue,
21
prez0135.
J
A
apartment
building
in
lakeshore
historic
district,
the
certificate
of
the
occupancy
to
reply,
sorry
appropriateness
to
replace
existing
windows.
Add
a
40
panel,
solar
array
to
the
south
roof
face
and
construct
a
roof
deck
over
the
southeast
flat
roof
with
new
stair
rail
access
at
the
south.
Face
of
the
rear
volume
applicable
standards;
alteration
one
through
ten
construction,
one
through
eight
and
ten
through
fourteen.
C
You
know
this
wasn't
really
updated
to
provide
for
a
of
restoration
of
the
windows
yeah.
A
It
should
be.
Your
motion
should
include
that
it's
just
the
project
be
developed
in
substantial
compliance
with
the
documents
on
record,
so
that
would
show
that
the
primary
elevations
would
retain
their
existing
windows.
J
Okay,
can
kate
just
amend
my
my
motion
to
that
effect
sure,
and
it's
all
it's
also
to
to
rebuild
the
all
of
the
front-facing
original
windows.
L
I
C
Our
next
our
first
meet
our
new
business
is
1414
shirt
street
and
just
to
clarify
so
there's
really
two
pieces
to
this
that
we
have
to.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
vote
on
so
the
first
piece
that
we're
all
more
familiar
with
is
we're
asked
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
basically
demolition
of
the
old
garage
and
construction
of
a
new
garage.
C
C
We
do
not
make
the
determination
as
to
the
zoning
issues
what
we
are
given
the
opportunity
to
if
we
wish
to
is
to
make
a
recommendation.
I
think
you
know
from
a
preservation
point
of
view.
If
we
feel
that
you
know
we
wish
to
recommend
for
or
against
the
zoning
change.
But
again
you
know.
I
think
this
is
important
for
everybody
who's
coming
to
speak
on
this
matter
tonight.
C
We
do
not
make
the
zoning
determination.
We
are
simply
allowed
to
have
input
from
a
preservation
point
of
view.
Only
if
we
decide
there
are
preservation
related
issues.
You
know
we're
not,
you
know
either
empowered
or
necessarily
qualified
to
make.
You
know
strictly
zoning
determinations,
and
so
you
know
we
won't
be
making
those
tonight.
C
So
I'd
ask
the
applicant
to
introduce
themselves
and
present
their
application.
Okay,
hi.
M
My
name
is
dan
tornheim,
I'm
the
I'm
the
architect
on
the
project.
Let
me
go
through
the
presentation.
So,
okay,
do
you
have
the
drawing
up
so
folks
can
see
it.
I
guess.
M
Looks
good
if
you,
if
you
could,
can
you
go
to
like
the
the
sheet?
It's
it's
titled
hp,
dash,
1.2.
It
shows
the
two
site
plans
because
I'm
just
gonna,
I
think
it's
the
third
sheet,
yeah
thanks.
Okay,
so
so
the
proposal
for
this
project,
corey
and
patty
king
came
to
me
they're
the
owners
of
the
property
of
the
house,
and
they
came
to
me
with
the
idea
trying
to
add
a
two-car
garage
to
the
property
and
also
improve
the
back
portion
of
the
house.
M
That
has
it's,
got
like
a
little
mud
room,
that's
kind
of
attached.
It's
the
southern
wing
of
the
house,
a
little
mud
room,
that's
attached
to
the
kitchen,
it
kind
of
blocks
a
lot
of
light
and
it
needs
improvement.
So
I
was
trying
to
find
a
way
to
best
put
a
two-car
garage
on
the
property,
but
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
with
this
property
is
that
it's
pretty
small.
It's
a
substandard
lot
size.
M
It's
you
know
it's
a
little
over
4
700
square
feet
and
that
kind
of
just
throws
a
bunch
of
challenges
at
us
in
terms
of
setbacks
and
impervious
surface
and
lot
coverage.
So
we
just
tried
to
do
our
best
and
I
I
thought
about
where
to
put
the
garage
on
the
property
initially,
but
the
you
know
I
don't.
I
didn't
want
to
eat
up
a
lot
of
yard
space.
You
know
the
kids
need
yard.
Space
patty
and
cory
have
a
couple
kids,
so
I
want
to
maintain
some
yard
space
for
families.
M
M
Between
the
house
and
the
property
lines,
like
only
it's
like
under
18
feet-
and
I
I
thought
it'd
be
best
to
try
to
avoid
like
another,
curb
cut
off
a
church
street
or
a
curb
cut
off
a
church
street.
So
it
seemed
like
the
best
opportunity
was
to
locate
the
garage
closer
to
the
alley.
There's
a
there's,
a
gravel,
improved
alley.
There,
that's
on
the
west
side
of
the
property,
and
so
I
just
did.
The
idea
was
to
take
down
the
existing
one
car
garage,
it's
kind
of
dilapidated
it.
M
Doesn't
it's
not
very
big
anyways
if
it'll
fit
a
model
t,
but
it
won't
fit
a
lot
of
other
cars.
So
I
proposed
an
attached
two-car
garage,
I'm
I'm
taking
over
some
of
the
space
of
the
actual
existing
house
is
that
the
mud
room
in
the
back
there
that
I'm
eating
into
in
order
for
the
two-car
garage
to
work,
but
it
does
help
it.
You
know
I
can
get
a
20
by
20,
basically
a
20
by
20
garage,
which
is
about
as.
M
Can
do
I
I
wanted
to
be
attentive
to
you
know:
circulation
around
the
property,
so
I
put
a
three
foot
setback
on
the
southern
end
of
the
the
property
that
I
set
back,
the
garage
three
feet
from
the
property
line,
and
I
I
pushed
the
garage
to
the
alley.
M
As
close
as
I
thought
I
could
do
it
so
that
I
could
reduce
the
amount
of
the
pervious
surface
that
I'm
eating
up,
and
so
that's
where
the
garage
I
thought
would
be
the
best
location
for
it,
and
so
what
I
did
hey
kate.
If
you
want
to
like
look
at
the
or
scroll
up
to
look
at
like
the
yeah.
M
A
good
view,
so
what
I
did
with
the
structure
is
I
I
did
a
gable
structure
trying
to
emulate
the
gable
structures
that
are
already
existing
in
the
house.
M
I
match
the
roof
pitch
that
the
existing
roof
pitch
was,
which
is
a
912
roof
pitch
the
overhangs
of
the
garage
match
or
are
similar
to
the
overhangs
that
are
on
the
front
porch
of
the
existing
house.
There's
a
two
foot
overhang
on
the
front
porch
we
just
matched
that
same
overhang
for
the
garage.
M
The
the
rakeboard
detail
is
like
a
lattice
kind
of
rakeboard,
that's
emulated
and
taken
from
the
existing
house
structure
or
designed
after
that,
so
it
kind
of
matches
and
as
far
as
materials,
I'm
I'm
just
suggesting
that
we
use
cedar
shingles,
just
like
the
existing
house
and
try
to
try
to
work
in
some
of
the
same
details.
In
terms
of
you
know:
windows,
maybe
a
window
style.
So
I
did
a
triple
window
which
is
similar
to
it.
M
You
can't
see
it
in
this
view,
but
there's
a
there's
a
triple
window
on
the
upper
story:
the
gable
on
the
east
side
of
the
house,
similar
to
what
we're
doing
in
the
garage
here.
So
I'm
trying
to
emulate
as
many
possible
details
as
I
can
to
to
try
to
help
kind
of
bring
this
a
new
addition.
You
know
into
the
same
style
of
the
existing
house.
M
So
that's
that's!
Basically
our
proposal,
that's
what
we're
looking
to
do.
J
I
know
I
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
our
deliver
to
liberation,
but
I'm
just
wondering
in
terms
of
the
zoning
are:
are
you
you're
looking
for
relief
from
coverage,
but
do
you
also
need
zoning
relief
for
the
for
the
yard
adjacent
to
the
garage
between
the
garage
and
the
other
house.
M
Yeah
so
stewart
I
need
we
we're
looking
for
relief
on
that
rear
yard
setback,
because
it's
a
30-foot
setback,
and
you
know
it
if
you
it's
kate,
if
you
want
to
scroll
back
down
to
like
the
yeah,
the
plans
or
the
site
plans,
there's
a
dashed
line.
That
kind
of
I
made
a
rectangle
out
of
it.
That
shows
where
the
setbacks
run
through
the
house
and
so.
G
M
M
M
You
know
the
house
is
a
is
a
type
4
constructed
frame
house,
but
I
could
do
the
garage
you
know
in
a
3b
which
makes
it
a
little
bit
more
safe
or
a
3a
construction
type,
which
is
you
know
masonry.
You
know
masonry
exterior.
You
wouldn't
see
the
masonry
it
would
just
be.
It
would
just
be
a
masonry.
You
know
fire
block
essentially,
so
I'm
trying
to
make
it
a
little
bit.
You
know
thinking
about
making
it
safe
and
trying
to
keep
it
from
the
property
line.
M
The
challenge
is
the
more
I
move
away
from
the
property
line,
the
smaller
the
garage
gets
and
we're
trying
to
stick
with
a
two-car
garage.
We're
looking
for
that
because
I
mean
you
know
to
be
honest:
most
everybody
in
the
neighborhood
has
a
two-car
garage,
we're
looking
to
at
least
bring
our
property
up
to
some.
You
know
a
neighborhood
standard
of
some
sort,
but
yeah
stuart
you're
right.
It's
you
know
we're
we're
looking
for
a
major
variation
on
that
in
that
rear
yard
setback.
C
A
J
No,
I
was
aware
of
mark.
I
was
aware
of
that.
I
just
was
curious
for
my.
I
was
wondering
whether
yeah
so
the
the
yeah
that's
a
rear.
The
garage
is
in
the
rear,
yard,
yeah,
and
the
problem
obviously
is
the
minute
it's
attached.
It
can't
be
in
the
rear
yard.
A
F
M
J
From
a
planning
point
of
view,
given
the
expense
of
doing
something
like
this,
the
garage
is
where
you
want
it
to
be
in
relation
to
the
kitchen
and
getting
into
the
house.
So
you
know
you
should
go
for
it.
Do
you
have
in
your
presentation
a
picture
of
the
front
of
the
house
and
the
porch
that
looks
like
it?
Has
a
hip
roof.
M
Gosh,
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
it's
in
this
presentation,
I
suppose
I
could
share
my
screen.
Let
me
find
I
said
you
got
my
picture,
don't
worry
about
it.
Okay,
no
worries.
Sorry
yeah.
I
have
pictures.
N
M
Bunch
of
pictures
of
the
front-
it's
it's
very
like
steward,
it's
very
similar,
like
the
rate
board,
is
very
similar.
It's
almost
exactly
the
same
as
what
you
see
on
the
on
the
presentation.
I
just.
A
C
Why
don't
we
at
this
point
give
members
the
public
wish
to
speak
an
opportunity
and
we
can
come
back
to
anything
commissioners
which
would
say
so?
Was
there
a?
I
know
we
received
some
letters
in
email
which
have
been
distributed.
We
have
read
so
I
don't.
I
don't
think
they
need
to.
You
know
we
don't
need
to
repeat
them,
but
kate
is
there
a
list
of
people
signed
up
who
wish
to
speak.
A
I
think
the
property
owner
amanda
plan
to
I
think,
maybe
address
some
separate
concerns
or
she
might
have
questions,
but
she
didn't
intend
to
speak.
C
B
My
name
is
amanda
zine.
I
live
at
1632
wesley
avenue.
I
live
just
east
of
the
1414
church
street.
We
also
own
the
coach
house
that
this
is
that
the
garage
would
be
a
budding
up
to
and
one
of
the
things
I
just
wanted
to
call
out.
If
kate,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
show
the
picture,
the
3d
image
of
the
coach
house
next
to
the
new
garage,
that's
proposed.
B
And
then
I
just
wanted
to
call
out
the
coach
house
in
this
pic
this
yeah
see
so
the
top
picture
it
just
shows
it
looks
like
it's
a
brick
box,
basically
with
one
door
and
a
stairway,
that's
at
definitely
not
accurate.
It's
misrepresenting,
I
think
the
historical
nature
of
the
coach
house,
and
so
maybe
we
can.
I
did
submit
some
pictures
too.
I
don't
know
kate.
If
you
have
those
of
what
it
looks
like
from
the
back
or
we
do.
If
you
don't
have
it.
A
I
can
pull
them
up
for
you
if
you'd
like,
but
I
also
circulated
those.
So
let
me
pull
them
up
really
quickly.
Thanks.
B
So
the
coach
house
is,
our
house
is
built
in
1867,
one
of
the
oldest
houses.
The
coach
house
also
is
over
100
years
old
in
a
historic
in
its
own
right.
We
also
have
tenants-
and
I
I
did
include
this,
but
it's
worth
mentioning
again.
B
Okay,
yeah,
okay,
great
and
here's,
so
here's
the
picture
of
the
coach
house,
as
you
can
see
it
is
this
is
not
what
it
looks
like
in
the
rendering.
So
I
just
wanted
to
not
it
not
to
get
lost
that
there
are
two
balconies
pretty
much
there.
Two
two
landings
that
the
overhang
there,
the
archways
that's
not
at
all
shown,
and
that
would
be
especially
the
first
one-
would
be
very,
very
much
blocked,
there's
windows
on
that
side.
That
would
be
affected
too.
B
That's
not
represented
in
those
renderings
that
were
submitted
for
this
project
and
it
I
just
wanted
to
call
that
out
and
then
I
a
couple
more
things
I
just
I
wanted
to
call
out
what
kade
wrote
in
his
staff
report,
which
I
thought
was
worth
sort
of
mentioning
too
is
non-conforming.
B
Lots
are
not
atypical
to
evanston,
not
a
typical
to
this
area,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
in
and
of
itself
is
a
hardship,
especially
given
that
the
owners
bought
this
property
and
it
was
with
the
same
lot
size
and
zoning
as
it
was
when
they
purchased
there.
Weren't
changes
made.
So
these
were
all
kind
of
you
know,
challenges
that
would
have
been
they
would
have
been
aware
of.
B
You
know
upon
purchasing
this
property
and
then
lastly,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
the
new
rules
as
far
as
I
understand
them
around
adus,
because
evanston,
as
far
as
I
know,
is
promoting
adus.
We
have.
Obviously
our
kotos
is
a
historic
adu.
That's
already
been
around
for
ever
that
the
principal
structures
in
garages
need,
you
know
they
need
to
be
10
feet
away.
B
B
So
I
am
concerned
about,
like
I
said,
the
distance
and
the
fire
safety.
I
just
think
three
feet
is
very
tight.
N
I
actually
have
one
more
kind
of
this
is
kirk
zim,
amanda's
husband,
the
the
historic
nature
of
the
coach
house.
You
can
see
if
you
could
go
back
to
that,
rendering
really
quick
the
3d
rendering
kate,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
yeah.
Thank
you.
You
can
see
how
much
higher
that
rendering
is
of
the
new
structure
below,
and
it
literally
renders
the
the
north
face
of
that
coach
house
with
the
beautiful
face
of
those
windows
and
door
openings
as
essentially
looking
at
you
know,
looking
at
shingles
and
right
today.
N
B
Yeah
and
just
one
other
item,
the
the
coach
house
can
be
viewed
from
these
some
of
these
other
angles
as
well,
not
just
the
view
that
they
show
from
the
alley
you
can.
If
you
look
at
the
the
plat
like
the
lot,
you
can
see
our
coach
house
very
clearly
from
wesley
avenue.
It's
not
like.
You
can
only
see
it
from
this
back
angle.
That's
just
not
the
case.
You
can
also
see
it
a
bit
from
church
because
we
have
our
driveway
there,
so
some
of
it
can
be
viewed
from
there
as
well.
C
Now,
I'd
like
to
ask
dan:
if,
if
we
could,
okay,
if
we
could
go
on
to,
I
think
it's
the
next
or
two
slides
with
the
the
next
page
with
the
just
a
couple
questions
the
I'm
sorry
going
back.
Yes,
what's
the
you
know,
including
the
eaves
on
the
new
garage?
M
Yeah
the
platys
are
waves,
got
the
plateau
survey
shows
that
the
existing
one
car
garage
is.
I
think
it's
like
0.77
feet
from
the
property
line
and
it's
represented
in
that
site
plan
drawing.
I
have
on
the
left
hand
side
of
this
this
this
sheet.
So
it's
a
it's
like.
M
The
existing
one
car
garage,
and
so
our
proposal
is
to
put
our
new
garage
three
feet
away.
The
overhangs
are
just
that
just
like
I
said
I
matched
them
based
on
what
the
existing
house
has,
which
they're
two
foot
overhangs.
C
Do
you
know
the
proximity
of
the
neighboring
coach
house
to
the
to
the
lot
line.
M
You
know
I
just
eyeballed
it.
I
don't
have
a
plat
a
survey,
so
I
don't
have
anything
you
know
professionally
accurate.
The
stair
looks
like
it's
right
on
the
property
line,
so
it's
tricky.
You
know
I
you
know,
I
I
think
about
life
safety.
A
lot
when
I
do
my
projects
and
that
this
neighboring
property
has
an
exit
stair,
that's
directly
on
the
property
line.
So
I
I
mean
I
I
was
like
you
know
I
need
to
be.
M
M
We
look
at
the
ibc
in
the
city
of
chicago
zoning
codes
and
there's
plenty
of
structures
that
are
three
feet
from
each.
You
know
property
line
or
sometimes
they're
only
three
feet
apart.
I
don't
want
it
to
be
as
close
as
I
I
don't
want
to
try
to
make
it
really
close.
I
wanted
to
try
to
set
it
back
a
little
bit
and
at
least
three
feet
and
try
to
make
the
garage
structure.
M
You
know
like
a
like,
I
said,
like
a
3a
or
3b
structure,
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
fire
safe.
But
the
the
fact
remains
that
the
existing
structure
on
the
neighboring
property
has
an
exit
stair
right
on
our
property
line
from
what
it
looks
like.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
it
in
any
of
the
pictures
or
not,
but
it's
right
on
it.
B
A
Mark,
if
I
can
just
clarify,
I
think
from
the
platter
survey
that
I
could
dig
up,
the
foundation
of
the
coach
house
to
the
south
is
about
a
little
over
two
feet
from
the
lot
line.
But
then
it
has
those
two
kind
of
canted
balconies
which
do
extend
to
the
lot
line.
J
Yeah
I
mean
there
there
is
no
way
to
solve
the
client's
program
for
a
two-car
garage,
so
the
the
only
way
to
believe
the
situation
would
be
if
the
client
was
willing
to
apply
for
and
have
a
garage
that
looked
like
this,
but
was
in
fact
not
a
full
two-car
garage.
Perhaps
a
one-and-a-half
car
garage
and
then
you'd
back
it
away
from
the
adjacent
house.
In
the
lot
line.
J
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
I
mean
I,
I
don't
see
a
good
solution
for
this,
and-
and
I
think
that,
as
in
terms
of
our
charge,
we're
supposed
to
make
a
determination
about
whether
or
not
we
think
the
work
and
the
design
that
we've
been
presented
is
compatible
with
the
existing
structure.
J
Not
you
know
not,
is
it
creating
a
really
horrible
and
difficult
condition
with
the
adjacent
house,
which
is
also
non-conforming.
B
C
We
we
are,
we
are
allowed
to
make
a
recommendation
from
a
preservation
point
of
view
and
we
we've
yet
to
discuss
whether
commissioners
feel
that
there
is
a
preservation
angle
to
that.
We
haven't
gotten
to
that
part
of
the
proceeding.
Yet.
B
B
C
I
mean
that
that's
right,
okay,
all
right!
So
before
we
try
to
parcel
out
how
we
might
vote
and
whether
we
do
two
motions.
Is
there
any
other?
Just
general
discussion
by
commissioners
mark.
L
Can
I
don't
know
and
kade?
I
don't
know
if
this
was
brought
forth,
but
I'd
love
to
see
an
outline
of
the
old
garage
sitting
in
front
of
the
new
proposed
garage
to
really
get
a
great
feel
for
the
the
massing
and
the
before
and
after
I
mean
they're
sitting
there
right
on
top
of
each
other
on
the
sheet.
And
yet
I
still
can't
quite
tell
how
much
more
of
an
intrusion
potentially
the
new
garage
is.
M
L
M
D
While
dan's
doing
that,
I
just
have
a
quick
comment.
I
mean
the
height
of
the
garage
is
only
about
16
and
a
half
feet
16.8
feet,
which
I
don't
think
as
far
as
the
standards
and
everything.
I
don't
think
that
that's
excessive
for
a
garage.
I
guess
my
question
would
be
is,
as
a
commission
do,
the
two-foot
eaves
have
to
exist,
whereas
I
do
appreciate
that
they're
trying
to
mimic
the
historic
features,
I
think
it
does
pose.
D
And
then,
in
my
opinion,
that
that
all
makes
sense,
but
maybe
the
eaves
could
be
a
topic
of
discussion
to
help
minimize
the
encroachment
onto
the
adjacent
property.
D
M
M
I
just
was
going
to
try
to
make
it
as
close
to
the
existing
house
as
I
could
to
as
a
starting
point.
You
know
I
was
thinking
about
you
know
when
we
were
talking
about
this
well,
you
know,
would
we
change
the
eve
dimension
and
how
would
that
affect
things
I
don't
know,
I'd
have
to
you
know,
study
it
and
I'm
I'm
not
super
thrilled
about
the
idea
of
lowering
the
roof
pitch
to.
I.
M
Odd
roof
pitches.
You
know
in
a
house
that
you
could
easily
accommodate
a
standard
roof
pitch,
so
I
mean
it's
possible
to
lower
it,
but
it'll
definitely
deviate
from
deviate
from
what's
existing.
So
anyway,
listen.
I
did
pull
up
my
my
drawing
that
shows
you
can
see
in
red.
This
is
the
old
garage
and
then
the
new
garage,
which
you
know
is
I'm
trying
to
highlight
here
and
this
is
old,
build
garage.
L
M
The
eaves
don't
show
up
on
this
one.
It's
it's
like
a
it's
just.
You
know
like
it's
a
plan
view,
so
it
just
kind
of
cuts
through
the
walls,
but
you
might
be
able
to
see
it
pretty
easily.
If
I
show
you
the
elevation,
because
that'll
show
you
the
dimension,
it
won't
show
you
the
dimension,
but
I'll
show
you
the
profile.
So
let
me
see
if
I
could.
Let
me
scroll
through
this
and
see
what
I
can
show
you
guys.
So
that's
the
west.
G
M
N
M
And
the
garage
is
kind
of
hidden
by
the
new
addition,
but
this
is
a
wall
in
red
of
the
old,
the
old
garage
and
you
know
and
then
the
new
garage.
You
know
the
eaves.
Don't
really
I
mean
they're,
not
that
much
higher
at
all
and
in
fact
the
peak
of
the
garage
isn't
really
that
far
distant
from
the
existing
gable
peak
of
the
of
the
existing
house.
So
wow
they're,
close.
L
They're,
pretty
close
is
there
any
way
you
can
pull
that
old
one
in
front
of
the
new
one?
Let
me
see
what
I
can.
M
N
N
M
Yeah,
I
didn't
I
mean
I
didn't
go
on
the
property
and
measure
the
coach
house.
I
did
my
best
and
it
was
you
know
just
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
put
a
structure
there
and
put
the
stair
there
so
that
we
could
at
least
see
relationship
between
the
two
properties,
so
I
don't
know
did
my
best
there,
but
I'd
have
to
kind
of
measure
all
that
stuff
up
and
get
all
the
details
on
it.
J
M
N
I
could
just
make
one
other
comment
to
the
pitch
of
the
red
roof
there.
That's
connected
to
the
existing
house
is,
is
sort
of
angled
up
this
way.
The
other
one
is
a
wall,
an
entire
wall,
face
of
the
garage
that
faces
the
north
side
of
the
coach
house.
That's
what
I
was
talking
about
for
around
the
lighting
and
just
the
kind
of
feel
of
it
from
from
the
north
face
of
the
of
the
coach
house,
windows
and
doors
with
windows.
M
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
the
I
drew
the
existing
one-car
garage
as
best
I
could
yeah
I
mean
if
you
guys
want
to
see
what
the
windows
I
mean,
I
mean
the
I
didn't
like
I
said
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
measure
the
coach
house
to
the
south
of
us.
M
I
didn't
I
didn't
get
into
that
effort.
I
was
more
looking
at
trying
to
trying
to
get
the
right
details
on
the
on
the
proposed
edition.
So.
E
I
have
a
question
just
about
kind
of
what
what
our
purview
from
preservation
is
versus
what
the
zoning
we'll
be.
Looking
at
one
of
the
things
whenever
I
see
these
big
eaves
is
that
it
just
makes
me
worried
about
the
snow
and
where
the
snow
drops
off.
You
know
I
see
gutters
for
the
rain
so
that
so
that
would
be
helpful,
but
you
know
if
we
get
another
snow
like
we
had
this
last
winter,
then
all
that
snow
is
just
dropping
right
onto
those
stairs.
C
Well,
the
our
preservation
code
doesn't
have
any
elucidation
of
what
we're
supposed
to
look
at.
I
mean,
I
think
you
know
it's
part
of
the
powers
of
furthering
the
powers
of
the
preservation
commission,
and
so
I
I
don't
I
mean
I,
I
think
we
could
separate
the
two,
but
you
know
they're,
not
100,
separable
and
there's
no
exact
rules.
We
have
to
do.
E
M
C
M
Yeah
I
mean
it
could
probably
throw
a
dimension
on
like
if
you've
measured
between,
like
the
existing
one
car
garage
and
the
coach
house.
That
might
give
you
some
idea
of
like
the
distance
between
between
structures.
But
the
reality
is
that
the
stair.
E
M
I
know
it's
not
the
existing
property
isn't
super
accurate,
but
the
stair
is
accurately
showing
like
right
on
the.
It
is
right
on
the
property
line.
So
it's
that
the
you
know
the
existing
one
car
garage
is
closer
than
our
proposed
new
two-car
garage,
the
eve
you're
right.
The
e
does
overhang
a
little
bit
and
I
mean
I
I
I
would
entertain
potentially
like
scaling
down
the
depth
of
the
eave.
Maybe
we
can
go
to
like
a
foot
or
something
like
that.
Maybe
it
wouldn't
really
affect
the
aesthetics
of
the
new
addition.
M
It's
a
deviation
from
what's
existing,
but
it
probably
will
look
still
to
look
just
fine
and
that
will
give
us.
You
know
a
little
bit
of
room
and
you
know
your
question
about.
You
know
what
happens
with
snow
and
it's
it's
it's
even
worse.
Now,
with
the
one
car
garage,
it's
like
you
know
it's
less
than
a
foot
away
from
the
property
line.
So
if
we
do
bring
the
eve
back
a
little
bit,
maybe
about
a
foot,
it
would
still
that
would
be
an
improvement
on
the
distance
between
the
two
structures.
If.
N
M
Yeah
yeah,
I
would
I'd
scale
them
both
back
so
that
so
there's
some
symmetry
and
you
know
the
scales
are
the
same
and
I
think
you
could
still
keep
the
rake
detail
the
same.
It's
just
it
just
scales
it
back
and
it.
M
Change
the
right
detail:
it's
still
the
same,
lattice
work
it
just
just
doesn't
overhang
as
much
yeah
and
maybe.
E
B
A
I'll
I'll
jump
in
here
I
just
I
need
to
remind
members
of
the
public
that
public
comment
is
a
defined
period
of
time
and
we
need
to
allow
the
commissioners
to
be
able
to
deliberate
and
ask
questions
without
interruption.
C
Okay,
yeah
and
I
think
it's
I
think,
we've
had
it.
I
mean
I
think,
we've
had
a
good
discussion
and
actually
appreciate
all
the
suggestions
made.
From
the
commissioner's
point
of
view.
We've
got
a
few
alternatives.
I
guess
you
know
one
alternative
would
be
to
load
first
on
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
then
discuss
the
zoning
issue,
and
if
we
wanted
to,
we
could
include
in
the
motion.
C
You
know
I
mean
rather
we're,
I
think,
trying
not
to
continue
it.
We
could.
If
we
wanted
to
continue,
we
could
include
a
request
that
the
you
know
a
slightly
modified
design
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
brought
back
for
a
kind
of
administrative
review
in
consultation
with
a
couple
commissioners
with
that
appeal
to
the
commissioners.
L
Would
appeal
to
me-
and
I
I
would
then
want
to
get
dan's
opinion
on
whether
or
not
he
would
also
be
willing
to
bring
the
entire
roof
eve
line
down
vertically.
I'm
not
saying
much,
but
if
there's
any
room
to
spare,
could
the
or
would
that
mess
up
the
cross
connection
piece
roof
pitch.
If
the
garage
roof
came
down.
M
Yeah,
that's
that's
well,
I
was
thinking
about
that
like
oh,
maybe
I
could
bring
the
roof
pitch
of
the
or
the
the
whole
gable
down
closer
to
the
ground.
But
the
challenge
is
the
connector.
Has
it's
it's?
You
know
I
don't
have
that
kind
of
ceiling
height
to
work
with
I
kind
of
I'm
going
to
start
cutting.
You
know
corners
into
the
into
the
new
kitchen
and
the
new
structure.
M
That's
part
of
the
interior
of
the
house
like
the
garage
isn't
too
bad
because
it's
stepped
down
by
like
four
feet
or
three
and
a
half
feet
or
something
so,
there's
no
head
height
issues
in
the
garage.
If
you
bring
the
gable
down,
but
you
then
you
know,
I
have
to
bring
the
gable
connector
down,
which
impacts
the
head
height.
I
I
don't
want
to
I'm
matching
like
this
gable
connectors,
the
head
height
just
matches
the
existing
house.
M
D
I
think
we
strive
to
match
the
roof
pitch.
Sorry
stuart,
I
didn't
mean
to
I
think.
Half
the
time
we're
fighting
to
have
applicants
match
roof
pitches
of
contributing
structures.
So,
in
my
opinion
I
actually
appreciate
that
they're
the
same
pitch.
I
don't
think
the
minor
change
is
going
to
really
make
a
huge
impact
on
the
adjacent
structures
in
the
way
that
I
think
everybody
wants
it
to.
So
my
my
two
cents
would
be
that
I
would
leave
the
roof
pitch.
Matching
the
the
home
okay,
yeah.
J
I
would
agree:
hey
kate.
Is
there
any
way
we
can
see
the
architectural
floor
plan
of
the
garage
in
the
adjacent
kitchen
again.
A
Yeah,
I
can
pull
that
up
here.
Let
me
do
I
have
to
stop
my
share.
M
M
Yeah,
I'm
remodeling
the
kitchen
and
I
feel
in
kade
in
your
presentation
that
you
don't
have
the
existing,
but
I
can
show
that
to
you
guys.
I
can
share
that
with
you
and
you
can
see
what
the
existing
looks
like
compared
to
the
new.
J
To
move
the
garage
over,
you
would
have
to
actually
steal
space
from
the
kitchen
right,
that's
that's,
which,
which
would
involve
rebuilding
this
section
of
roof
over
it.
And
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
you're
doing
that
already
or
not.
M
There's
that's
a
good
question
stewart
I
I,
I
think
we're
tying
into
a
portion
of
the
existing
roof,
we're
not
rebuilding
the
entire
thing
and
the
you
know
like
we.
We
were
talking
my
client
and
I
were
talking
about
you
know
what
do
you
do
if
we
try
to
move
this
garage
further
north
and
it
just
impacts
the
kitchen
a
lot,
not
that
it's
the
worst
thing,
but
I'm
it's
tight
like
it.
The
garage
is
already
a
20-foot
exterior.
J
So
I
don't
know,
I
assume
that
you've
got.
It
looks
like
you've
got
four
feet
between
the
island
and
the
counters
on
either
side.
M
C
J
I
think
we
could
see
that
so
yeah.
The
the
dilemma
I
see
is
that
if
we're
asked
to
to
vote
on
whether
or
not
the
thing
is
compatible
with
the
existing
house,
then
I
think
you
know
clearly
dan's
done
a
nice
job
of
doing
that.
J
If
we're
asked
to
recommend
the
zoning
clearly,
if
we
have
a
problem
with
the
positioning
of
the
new
garage
with
respect
to
the
lot
line
and
to
the
existing
coach
house-
and
we
don't
approve
that-
then
you
know-
we've
we've
wasted
everybody's
time,
because
chances
are,
he
won't
get
through
zoning
with
it,
in
which
case
the
whole
project
doesn't
work.
C
All
right:
well,
it
has
to
come
before
us
for
preservation
commission,
before
the
zoning
determination
can
be
made.
So
why
don't
we
try
to
divide
this
into
two
pieces
and
vote
first
on
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
then
decide
what
we
want
to
do
on
the
zoning
issue?
And
then
it
sounds
like
the
commissioners
were.
C
You
know,
was
reading
the
nodding
of
the
heads
correctly
were
willing
to
vote
on
a
motion
to
approve
that
was
subject
to
dan
coming
back
for
a
couple
of
commissioners
to
look
at
administratively,
the
potentially
reducing
the
size
of
the
eaves
to
increase
the
distance
between
the
eaves
and
the
coach
house.
C
If
that's
okay,
if
somebody
could
make
a
motion
on
just
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
D
Yeah,
I
can
do
so.
I
move
to
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
1414
church
street
case
number,
21prez0153.
N
E
C
Commissioner
cohen
aye,
commissioner
jacobs
aye,
commissioner
poten
aye,
mr
dreller
hi,
and
I'm
an
I
all
right
so
on
the
zoning
I
mean
kate,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
you
have
an
opinion
on
this,
but
it
seems
like
we
could.
You
know
either
vote
to
recommend
the
zoning
change,
or
I
mean
I
think.
C
If
we
wish
to,
we
could
decide
it's
not
a
preservation
matter
at
all
and
therefore
simply
state
that,
because
we
don't
who
thinks
the
zoning
matter,
not
a
preservation,
you
know
the
preservation
issues,
aren't
the
main
issues
that
we're
not
making
a
recommendation.
Do
you
think
that
would
be
permitted
to
permitted
choices.
A
I
don't
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
that's
been
done
before.
I
know
that
there
are
committees
that
provide
a
recommendation
of
no
recommendation.
I
can
double
check
the
ordinance.
You
know.
I
think
it
says
that
you
shall
provide
a
recommendation.
I
I
guess
if
I
interpret
that
it
should
probably
be
for
or
against,
but
I
don't
know
if
I
don't
know
if
that's
been
done
before
I
know
carlos
is
on
the
call.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
precedent
for
that.
C
Correct
I
mean
the
problem
is:
if
we
decide
that
there
aren't
that
the
issues
are
not
preservation,
issues
at
all
within
our
purview
but
they're
strictly,
you
know
it's
the
proximity
of
a
structure
to
a
lot
line,
it's
nothing
to
do
with
whether
it's
an
historic
district
or
a
landmark.
C
H
I
mean,
I
agree
with
you,
know,
mark's
statement
of
the
quandary
we're
in
because
whenever
we
make
these
types
of
recommendations
we
you
know,
I
also
think
of
them
as
relative
to
you
know
the
historic
nature
of
the
property
and
our
standards,
and
you
know
us
as
a
preservation.
H
I
I
feel
for
some
of
the
quandaries
that
you
know
and
the
problems
and
questions
that
have
been
brought
up
by
the
neighbors
and
everybody,
but
under
our
our
standards
and
because
of
of
you
know,
walking
walking
the
neighborhood
in
the
alley
and
and
looking
at
all
the
structures
around
there
from
a
preservation
perspective
and
our
standards.
H
I
don't
see
how
I
could
make
him
a
rep
make
a
recommendation
on
zoning,
because
things
are,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
variety
around
there,
and
so
I
don't.
I
don't
see
how
we
could
say
that
and
stay
within
our
standards
and
our
purview.
H
J
It
seems
to
me
we
have
a
similar
case
a
while
back
where
we
were
at
where
there
was
a
garage
structure
that
they
wanted
to
turn
into
an
ada
by
putting
a
second
floor
on
it
and
the
building
immediately.
J
I
think
it
was
to
the
north
was
non-conforming
and
it
was
built
right
to
the
lot
line
and
even
though
the
garage,
a
second
car
garage
edition,
was
confirming,
with
respect
to
the
setback,
it
would
have
been
because
of
the
non-conforming
condition
so
close
that
it
totally
blocked
our
windows
in
in
an
adjacent
dwelling
unit.
And
in
that
case
we
decided
that
you
know
that
that
we
couldn't
do
anything
about
it
wasn't
an
issue.
So
I
would.
J
I
personally
would
go
with
marx
saying
that
we
that
we're
not
making
a
determination,
because
we
don't
think
it's
a
preservation,
related
issue.
A
Mark
I
just
read
the
ordinance
it
says,
to
review
applications
and
make
advisory
recommendations,
so
I
think
that
you're
correct.
I
don't
think
that
I
think
the
intent
largely
is
to
just
give
them
a
preservation
perspective
on
some
of
these
issues,
and
I
think
it
was
well
stated
that
there's
a
lot
of
variety
here.
It's
not
that
the
you
know
the
predominant
condition
on
the
block
is
that
accessory
structures
are
you
know
three
feet
away
from
each
other
or
something?
A
So
I
think
you
would
be
well
within
within
your
powers
to
to
basically
just
say
that
you
don't
have
any
advisory
recommendations
on
it.
C
I
think
we
should
expressly
state
that
we
believe
that
the
the
issues
involved
in
the
zoning
variants
are,
we
feel,
are
zoning
issues,
not
preservation
issues
and
therefore
we
decline
to
advise
so
they
they
understand
why
we.
A
I
agree,
I
think
it
is
kind
of
a
unique
circumstance
compared
to
when
this
has
come
up
before.
J
A
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it
has
to
be.
I
think
if
you
were
saying
that
you
were
going
to
recommend
a
positive
or
negative
recommendation,
there
would
need
to
be
general
support
behind
that
as
the
voice
of
the
commission,
but
if
nobody
has
any
recommendations,
I
I
don't
think
there
needs
to
be
a
formal
motion.
J
D
A
It's
also
just
all
for
dan
I'll.
Just
let
you
know
that
the
proposed
changes
with
the
with
the
eaves
that
won't
impact
the
notice
that
went
out
for
the
zoning
board.
So
you'll
still
make
your
your
meeting
date,
which
I
I
think
is
next
tuesday.
C
All
right,
the
next
matter
is
2121
sheridan
road,
landmark
21,
prez0156.
K
K
Yeah,
you
know
I
apologize
rico
ramos
who's,
our
architect,
rem
architecture,
he's
out
of
the
country
at
the
moment
and
wasn't
able
to
join
this
meeting.
But
hopefully
I
can
narrate
this
and
and
tell
you
where
we're
at
with
this
project.
So
garrett,
I'm
sure
everybody's
familiar
with
garrett.
K
They
are
proposing
to
add
an
ex
a
wheelchair
ramp,
an
accessible
ramp
to
the
front
of
the
main
entrance
of
the
building,
the
main
building.
K
Kate,
if
you
could
go
to
the
next
page
down,
if
you
don't
mind
there,
we
are.
This
is
a
3d
rendering
of
of
the
wheelchair
ramp
that
we're
proposing
the
wheelchair
ramp
will
be
made
of
concrete,
we'll
be
doing
a
new
railing
to
complement
some
of
the
new
railings
that
that
the
college
has
has
put
in
place.
K
The
the
existing
building
itself
is
made
of
limestone
the
existing
stairway.
There
is
concrete,
and
so
are
the
walkways,
so
the
ramp
will
be
made
of
concrete
we're
putting
it
on
the
south
wall
running
along
the
south
wall.
There
hope
you,
our
hope,
was
our
intent
was
to
blend
it
in
as
as
best
we
could.
I
think
I
think
that
that
we've
accomplished
that.
K
Garrett's
intent
on
this
location
was
because
this
is
the
main
entrance
to
the
building,
as
well
as
opposed
to
putting
the
ramp
into
a
different
location
of
the
building.
It
didn't
make
any
sense,
and
there
was
nothing
that
that
would
work
in
their
opinion
for
for
people
that
need
to
come
into
the
to
the
main
entrance
and
and
for
for
school
or
so
on
and
so
forth.
Take
care
of
you
know
any
any
of
the
business
that
the
school
attends
to.
K
I
don't
know.
If
there's
any
questions,
I
could
answer.
E
N
L
K
Right
right,
yes,
good
question.
Let
me
give
me
one
second
here
I'll
see
if.
K
Okay,
kate,
I
think
it's
page
like
four
or
five
down
it's
a
one
dot.
You
know
a
one
one.
K
Oh
there
we
are
yes
there
we
are
kate,
so
it
seems
to
be
what
do
we
have
there's
a
there's,
a
couple
of
feet
in
between
and
there's
an
ex
what
we're
going
to
do
here.
It
hasn't
actually
been
expressed
really
from
the
college.
What's
what
we're
going
to
be
doing?
There's
an
existing
drain
kind
of
oh
right
in
line
with
those
steps,
you
see,
there's
a
circle
and
it
says
new
drain.
H
K
That's
an
existing
drain
there.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
our
proposal
was
to
fill
it
up
and
you
know
fill
it
up
with
with
stone
or
or
even
concrete,
we're
thinking,
not
all
the
way
up
to
the
height
of
the
ramp,
but
to
the
height
of
the
existing
train.
K
What
we're
going
to
do,
then,
is
put
in
a
a
trench
strain
they
call
it,
which
is
oh
eight
inches
wide
by
going,
you
know
how
many
the
desired
length
and
then
what
this
will
do
is
any
of
the
rain
water
coming
off
the
building.
The
downspouts
will
be
tied
into
this
and
run
off
toward
the
grass
area
toward
the
toward
the.
What
would
that
be
the
the
west
or
the
lower
part
of
the
ramp
for
say
we
don't
want
to
drill
any
drain
holes
going
through
the
ramp.
K
That's
something
that
the
school
was
asking
us
to
do,
but
it's
against
my
better
judgment
to
do
that,
because
you
get
rodents
that
collect
in
there.
You
get
leaves
and
debris
and
such
that
it
clogs
up
that.
You
know
that
drain
hole
going
through
the
bottom
of
the
of
the
of
the
ramp.
K
And
I
think
the
trench
drain
would
be
a
much
better
solution.
E
Okay
and
the
main
concern
was
just
you
know
in
those
those
pockets
in
between
each
of
the
and
the
parts
that
just
out
there,
then
just
making
sure
that
water
moisture
wasn't
going
to
start
impacting
the
you
know
the
limestone
building
or
offer
opportunities
for
the
water
to
puddle
up
or
the
snow
to
collect
or
just
what
was
your
water
mitigation
strategy
for
that.
K
K
Right
right,
the
trench
strain
would
or-
or
let
me
say,
one
more
thing.
The
second
proposed
idea
we
have
with
the
school
is
that
the
drain
will
remain
where
it's
at
and
then
we're
going
to
pitch
concrete
in
that
in
that
area
over
to
the
drain,
everything
will
go
into
the
drain
and
then
run
out
we're
going
to
run
it
out
underground
like
to
like
a
landscape
drain
and
come
up
underneath
the
the
ramp
and
it'll
come
out
into
the
lawn
area.
K
So
this
will
take
care
of
you
know.
Water
had
did
carve
the
grand
canyon,
so
we
certainly
don't
want
to
start
carving.
The
limestone
of
the
building
you
know
water
is
is,
is,
can
cause
a
lot
of
damage,
as
we
know
so,
yeah,
where
those
embankments
are
coming
out
of
the
limestone,
as
you
see
in
the
drawing
here,
we're
going
to
have
it
so
as
the
water
is
there,
it
will
run
around
those
embankments
and
then
go
toward
the
pitch
toward
the
drain
or
trench
drain.
K
F
E
And
then
just
one
other
question
was
it
looks
like
you're,
not
changing
anything
having
to
do
with
the
drop
off
the
grassed
area
around
the
circular
drop
off.
You
know
the
circular
drive
and
the
drop
off.
I
was
just
wondering
if
that
might
be
part
of
the
plan
to
make
the
drop
off
area
for
the
person
using
the
ramp
closer
to
the
entrance
to
the
ram.
K
You
know
no
there's
nothing
been
proposed
about
that.
According
to
garrett
evanston,
it's
somewhere
back
and
then
I
don't
know
what,
where
the,
where
it
worked
out
at,
but
according
to
garrett
80,
you
know
70
years
ago
or
somewhere
around
there,
that
that
road
was
owned
by
garrett
and
now
it
is
owned
by
the
city
of
evanston.
E
Oh,
I
just
meant
like
just
you're
like
opening
up
the
grass
area,
and
you
know
just
you.
K
Well,
yeah,
oh
good,
ques
yeah!
That
hasn't
been
talked
about
where,
as
you
see
right,
what
has
been
talked
about.
Is
you
see
the
bottom
of
the
ramp
there?
How
it
kind
of
90
degrees
to
the
right?
That's
the
existing
sidewalk
as
it
is
now
so
a
car
would
pull
up
past
the
grass
area
and.
E
K
They
would
have
to
wheel
over
to
to
to
where
the
grass
area
ends
right.
I
guess
we
could,
you
know,
add
going
cutting
across
the
lawn
straight
across,
so
when
they
make
that
90
at
the
bottom
of
the
ramp,
they
can
go
straight
up
across.
K
Sure-
and
you
know,
garrett
has
been
putting
some
new
plants
and
and
vegetation
in
the
front
of
the
building
there,
and
it
has
not
been
said
what
they
would
like
to
have
along
the
landscape.
Ramp.
Give
me
one
second
kate,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
the
second:
oh
wait,
one
two
page:
three:
it's
a02.
K
There
we
are
so
it
shows
some
vegetation,
so
the
vegetation
to
the
just
to
the
front
of
the
school,
where
you
see
those
two
people
walking
that
that's
pretty
much,
how
it
looks
now
and
that's
that's
some
new
stuff
that
they
have
put
in
the
rut.
If
you
look
at
the
at
the
bottom
of
the
ramp,
you'll
see
some
bushes.
Oh,
that
looks
to
be
about
three
feet:
four
feet
tall:
that's
existing
bushes
right
now,
the
little
bit
of
the
little
the
the
new
bushes
along
the
bottom
of
the
ramp
there.
K
K
A
Sure,
john
john,
can
you
clarify
something
for
me?
I
thought
I
heard
you
say
that
the
existing
steps
and
landings
were
concrete,
but
on
that
proposed
site
plan
they
said
that
they're
limestone.
K
You
know
kate
yeah,
let's
see
here
which
one.
K
K
Oh
okay,
you're
right
we're
both
kind
of
right.
Okay.
The
bottom
section
is
concrete
on
those
stops:
okay,.
K
C
K
If
you
look
at
the
lower
photo
to
the
right
where,
where
this,
where
that
railing
is
kind
of
highlighted
or
darkened,
that
is
what's
going
to
be
removed
there
and
there's
a
planner
to
the
right
of
that
that
will
be
removed
the
rest
of
the
steps
in
this
and
everything
existing
will
remain
the
only
additional
thing.
K
Let
me
say
this
that
we're
going
to
change
the
the
existing
railings,
the
additional
existing
railings
on
these
steps
will
be
removed
and
replaced
with
the
new
railings
to
complement
the
the
ramp
as
well.
You
know
so
everything's
looks
looks
even
and
and
new.
If
you
give
me
one
more
I'd
like
to
say
just
show
you
guys
one
more
thing
here,
if
you
can
bear
with
me
trying
to
find
a
mind.
K
Okay,
if
we
can
go
one
more
up,
d1
the
page,
I
think
it's
before
this
one.
Okay,
there
we
are
so
at
the
top.
If
you
look
at
the
at
the
the
or
the
landing
on
top
you'll
see
where
it
says,
remove
limestone
steps,
we're
just
removing
the
edge
there.
The
existing
steps
are
kind
of
like
angle,
and
that's
where
we're
gonna
kind
of
saw
cut
it
right
there.
So
we're
not
we're
not
kind
of
losing
the
symmetrical
integrity
of
the
existing
staircase.
K
You
know
it's
still
going
to
look
the
same.
We're
not
like
redesigning
the
whole
front
entrance
we're
trying
to
leave
as
much
of
the
existing
as
possible.
You
know.
H
So
the
the
existing
limestone
landing
is
big
enough
to
has
enough
clearance
for
the
top
of
the
ramp.
So
you
don't
have
to
touch
that.
K
J
K
Correct,
I
you
know,
I'm
told
the
building
is
about
1840.
somewhere
around.
There
is
what
I
was
told
by
members
of
garrett,
the
the
the
upper
staff
there,
the
line,
those
limestone
steps,
if
they're,
not
original,
they're,
they're
way
up
there
in
age.
In
my
opinion,
the
lower
steps
at
some
time,
where
I
mean
concrete,
was
added
down
the
line
back
then
you
know.
J
Makes
you
wonder
why
somebody
didn't
try
and
face
all
of
that
with
limestone
veneer,
which
would
be
nice
on
the
ramp,
since
it's
it's
really
seen
against
the
building
behind
it?
You
know
given
how
awkward.
I
think
that
the
curb
and
the
planter
is
in
the
fact
that
you're
taking
away
the
other
planter,
which
was
a
symmetrical
condition.
J
J
K
Yeah
it
was
brought-
I
I
actually
had
brought
up
the
idea
of
asking
them.
While
we
were
designing
this,
if
they
wanted
us
to
rip
out
all
those
concrete
steps
and
put
limestone,
because
we
have
the
capability
of
doing
that,
it
was
told
to
me
that
the
budget,
even
though
I
have
the
capability-
they
don't
have
the
capability
of
doing
that
right
now,
but
that
I
agree
that
would
that
would
be
awesome.
C
K
Myself,
no
sir,
no
more.
E
E
C
A
roll
call
vote,
commissioner
reinhold
aye,
commissioner
sullivan
aye,
mr
coen
aye,
mr
jacobs
aye,
mr
beaudin
aye,
mr
dreweller
hi,
and
I'm
and
I
so
thank
you
very
much.
K
Thank
you
very
much.
Everyone
thanks
for
your
time
and
enjoy
your
your
evening.
C
All
right
so
that
concludes
the
matters
before
us.
I
guess
we
we
we're
going
to
go
into
minutes
and
administrators
if
we
prefer,
if
member
non-members
of
the
commission
or
staff
sign
off.
Please.
A
Two
separate
sets
of
minutes.
I
know
that
stuart.
You
had
some
concerns
about
the
two
meetings
ago,
the
september
meeting
that
video
is
still,
I
don't
know
if
it's
like
corrupted
or
something
I
can't
really
get
anyone
to
give
me
any
input.
I
did
you
know
I
did
add
some
of
your
concerns
into
the
minutes.
A
We
can
hold
it
again
or
we
can.
I
just.
I
can't
get
a
good
answer
if
the
video
is
ever
going
to
be
available.
Is
the
issue.
J
Yeah
but
you
you
sent
the
result
of
the
administrative
review
to
a
schumacher
design.
A
Right,
correct
yeah
and
I'm
waiting
for
a
response.
D
Okay,
I
moved
to
approve
the
meeting
minutes
for
september
14th
and
october
12th
2021.
C
A
second
second,
all
right
roll
call
voted
you
can
you
can
specify
what
you
have
to
abstain
on,
commissioner
reinhold.
C
J
I'll
vote
and
I
for
both
commissioner.
C
L
E
A
Okay
and
then
next
I
think
oh
maybe
is
carlos
still
on
I'm
not
sure
if
he
is
yeah.
J
A
There,
oh,
he
is
okay,
so
next
was
an
update
on
design
guidelines
which
I'll
let
carlos.
G
Thank
you.
So
last
month
we
presented
a
memorandum
to
the
commission
with
the
request
to
have
the
participation
of
the
commission
to
draft
the
design
guidelines,
and
we
have
stuart
cohen
and
jamie
agreed
to
help
with
that.
So
we
had
our
first
meeting
actually
this
afternoon
and
we
went
through
the
outline
of
the
document
and
we
had
some
comments
about
the
content
of
the
guidelines
which
we
will
be
presenting
at
the
next
meeting,
since
we
have
not
actually
put
together
in
the
document
itself.
G
Although
I
receive
jamie's
notes
on
and
and
stewart's
suggestions
with,
some
modifications,
such
as
moving
some
of
the
sections
of
the
outline
towards
the
front,
rather
than
in
the
back,
for
instance,
they
wanted
to
take
in
the
the
guidelines
for
exterior
maintenance
and
alterations
section
that
we
have
and
make
it
into
a
separate
document
that
was
based
on
the
experience
that
jamie
has
drafting
this
type
of
documents.
G
She
felt
that
that
would
be
another
type
of
arduous
work
that
is
not
necessary.
Shouldn't
necessarily
be
part
of
the
design
guidelines
and
also
add
the
purpose.
The
statement
of
purpose
to
to
the
guy
to
the
new
guidelines.
So
we
will
have
a
revised
outline
for
you,
and
also
we
have
agreed
to
meet
again
on
november
30th
to
continue
with
the
process
of
drafting
the
design
guidelines.
J
May
I
may
I
say
something
here
of
course:
yeah.
I
think
the
the
outline
that
we
got.
I
was
totally
unclear
as
to
why
we
need
to
draft
design
guidelines,
and
it
was
certainly
so
extensive
that
the
design
guidelines
would
have
run
an
inordinate
length
and
it
was
unclear
who
the
primary
end
users
of
such
a
document
would
be.
J
My
opinion
is
that
it
would
be
people
seeking
to
come
before
this
commission
and
it
would
be
people
looking
to
buy
a
house
that
was
either
in
a
landmark
district
or
a
landmark
house
and
wanting
to
understand
what
exactly
that
meant.
Having
said
that,
we
have
a
set
of
design
guidelines
already.
J
It
was
the
work
of
of
jack
weiss,
elliott,
dudnick
and
julie
hacker.
They
spent
over
two
years
doing
this
meeting
once
a
week
to
develop
it.
It
went
up
on
the
site
and
was
thrown
away
literally
because
it
had
embedded
in
it
a
series
of
links
to
all
of
the
forms
and
all
of
the
information
that
somebody
would
need
if
they
were
altering
or
requesting
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
from
this
commission
and
those
aren't
there
as
of
now.
J
So
I
need,
as
a
committee
member
to
understand
who
the
users
are,
what
the
purpose
of
doing
this
document
is
and
then,
whether
or
not
we
should
do
it
from
scratch,
which
is
what
the
exte
really
extensive
outline
we
receive
suggests
or
whether
we
would
be
better
served
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
guidelines
that
were
developed
by
the
three
people.
That
did
it,
who
who
say
they
looked
at
guidelines
from
many
municipalities
and
did
research
to
do
this
and
then
decide
whether
or
not
a
we
need
to
alter
them.
G
It's
okay,
stuart.
I
think,
there's
a
reasonable
explanation
to
these.
The
the
this
document
is
not
the
same
as
the
this
design
guidance
that
were
developed
by
the
three
former
commissioners.
In
fact,
I
was
involved
with
that.
So
one
of
the
things
that
happened,
the
the
commission
looked
at
these
guidelines
over
a
period
of
two
years
since
2017,
until
they
were
actually
placed
online
on
december
of
2019
when
they
were
actually
online
and
subsequent
to
that.
G
G
And
if
you
look
at
the
document
that
the
former
commissioner
just
put
together
and
now
is
called
the
procedural
guidelines,
because
those
are
more
procedurals
to
explain
what
it
will
take
to
get
a
certificate
of
appropriateness-
and
that
includes
also
the
standards
for
review
of
alterations,
construction,
location
and
demolition.
So
the
idea
here
is
that
we're
going
to
use
the
guidelines
to
complement
all
of
that
rather
than
just
living
up
in
the
air.
G
What
you
know,
what
guidelines
do
you
use
to
meet
the
standards,
and
so
this
is
the
difference
between
that
document
and
the
one
that
we
are
preparing
for
the
commission
and
you're
right.
We
need
to
be
more
clear
as
far
as
who
are
the
users,
who
is
the
intended
audience
for
this.
It's
not
only
the
commission
members,
but
also
the
public,
the
architects,
the
contractors
and
even
attorneys
that
represent
their
clients.
G
So
this
document,
the
intent,
is
to
make
it
even
clearer
what
the
intention
of
the
ordinance
is
in
and
how
to
achieve
an
approval
from
the
commission,
so
the
guidelines
that
you
refer
to,
if
you
we
have
the
document
and
in
the
current
in
the
current
website,
there
are
sections
of
that
document
that
now
being
in
different
format,
but
that
work
has
not
gone
away
but
say
it's
not
in
the
same
form.
G
But
it's
been
used
to
develop
what
is
now
a
current
page,
which
is
different
from
the
one
I'm
was
familiar
since
I
was
away
for
some
time,
so
this
is
also
something
that
I
needed
to
look
into
once.
The
question
was
asked:
what
happened
with
those
guidelines,
so
maybe
okay,
you
can
maybe
give
us
a
little
more
information
about
the
current
website
and
how
that
evolved,
because.
G
A
Yeah
I
can
I
can
I
mean
I
can
provide
answers.
I
guess
to
some
of
stewart's
comments.
First,
I
mean
I
mean
the
the
main
user
are
residents,
homeowners,
contractors
and
designers.
I
think
the
difference
between
primarily
to
me.
I
would
I
don't.
I
don't
think
the
intent
of
this
document
and
the
intent
of
the
document
that
was
produced
previously.
I
don't
think
that
those
conflict
with
each
other.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
really
provide
more
predictability
in
what
the
preferred
treatment
types
are.
A
That
would
meet
the
standards
and
I
think
what
goes
with
that
that
isn't
included
in
the
other
document
are
providing
grant
graphics
photo
examples
of
what
to
do.
What
not
to
do.
I
think
that
the
idea
of
having
a
visual
document-
I
think,
that's
very
appealing
and
seems
to
be
really
the
standard
that
municipalities
are
are
setting
today,
and
I
think
that
the
work
that
was
done
before
I
don't
I.
A
I
would
completely
disagree
with
you
when
you
say
that
the
intent
is
to
throw
it
away,
because
that's
that's
not
true,
it
can
either
live
independently
or
it
should
really
be
integrated
into
this
document.
It
was
a
really
a
profound
amount
of
work
and
it's
it
was
very
good
work
and
I
don't
think
anyone
intends
to
redo
that
same
work
or
duplicate
efforts
in
any
way
and
then
I'll
speak
to
just
we
were
given
direction,
or
I
guess
I
specifically
was
given
direction
that
that
document
or
the
way
it
was
outlined.
A
A
A
So
the
information
is
there,
but
it's
been
broken
into
separate
links
and
what
I
talked
to
carlos
about
that,
I
think,
may
be
really
valuable-
is
to
reintegrate
that
into
a
complete
document
and
have
that
also
posted
on
there,
because
I
could
see
a
lot
of
value
in
sending
that
to
applicants
as
a
comprehensive
document
and
then
also
have
it
being
separated.
So
if
somebody
wants
to
search
for
something
specific
they
could
they
could
find
that
more
easily.
J
J
A
I
think
I
think
that's
why
you
don't
show,
like
you
know
we're
not
looking
at
like
cds
or
even
really
like
design
development
documents
when
we,
when
we're
doing
these
graphics,
I
think
you
would
you
would
need
to
provide
enough
examples
of
enough
variability
to
show
that
there's
multiple
ways
to
meet
these
these
various
standards
and-
and
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
really
good
examples
in
evanston
both
of
what
to
do
and
what
what
not
to
do-
and
I
I
don't
think
we'll
have
trouble
finding
multiple
examples
of
you
know,
preferred
treatment,
types
that
that
really
meet
the
standards.
A
But
I
agree
with
you.
You
can't
just
show
like
oh
here's
one
example,
because
there's
you
know,
there's
countless
examples
and
there's
you
know
examples
being
thought
of
and
invented
now
to
me
meet
the
same
standards
so
yeah.
I
I
agree
with
you.
A
E
A
Is
pretty
exhaustive,
stuart,
but
it's
also
underneath
each
one
of
those
little
segments.
You
know
under
a
segment
on
like
repointing
or
something
it's
not
a
really
lengthy
testimony
on
each
one
of
these.
It
might
be.
You
know
three
or
four
sentences
of
what
the
preferred
treatment
type
is
and
then
there
might
be.
You
know
multiple
photos
of
of
what
not
to
do
and
what
to
do
so.
A
I
think
the
outline
looks
very
intimidating
and
it
looks
like
oh,
this
is
going
to
be
a
huge
document,
page
yeah,
but
but
that,
but
that's
not
typically
typically
the
case.
C
Do
you
have,
does
that
I
mean,
maybe
your
furniture
look
to
the
subcommittee
members.
Did
you
have
comprehensive
guidelines
from
another
community
that
you
showed
them.
G
I
researched,
and
I
saw
the
ones
in
aurora
illinois
and
the
ones
in
colorado,
I'm
sorry
in
in
texas,
san
antonio
and
they're
very
comprehensive.
I
mean
those
are
very
large
documents.
G
G
What
can
you
do
you
know
and
again
it's
not
like
it's
only
one
answer
for
that
will
fit
the
mold.
There
are
different
ways
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
these
buildings.
Sometimes
you
minimize
the
adverse
effect
by
having
alterations
what
the
the
reason
you
want
to
review.
It
is
because
you
want
to
minimize
the
adverse
effect,
there's
always
an
effect
when
you
alter.
G
A
And
I
can
let
me
just
pull
one
up
on
the
screen,
because
I
do
think
that
san
antonio's,
which
carlos
mentioned,
I
think
that
is
a
really
good
example
and-
and
you
can
see
here,
you
know,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
different
bullet
points
here,
but
they're
not
providing
a
ton
of
very
specific
or
prescriptive
guidelines.
A
Here
you
talk
about
like
and
and
some
of
this
stuart
you're
right
I
mean
some
of
this
has
been
dealt
with
already,
that
we
can
integrate,
but,
like
similar
reform,
you
know
utilize,
a
similar
roof
pitch
form
overhang,
an
orientation
as
a
historic
structure
for
additions,
and
then
they'll
show
examples
of
what
to
do.
What
not
to
do
a
good
example.
A
Bad
example.
Good
example
of
that
example,
and
you
can
show
even
more
photos
than
this,
but
some
graphics
here
on
on
different
massings
for
for
additions.
So
I
think
this
is
generally
what
we're
aiming
for.
It's
not
there's
not
as
much
text
as
I
think
you
would.
You
would
expect.
H
I
know
we
saw
a
lot
of
this.
You
know,
as
we
were
collecting
information
when
julie
and
I
were
doing
the
solar.
You
know
sustainability
guidelines
and
you
know
it's
just
also
people
particularly
people
who
don't
have
our
background
or
whatever
and
are
coming
at
this.
A
And
I
think
some
of
the
intent
in
this
document,
too
is
taking,
because
I
agree
with
you:
there's
like
there's
a
lot
of
resources.
I
it's
it's
good
in
a
way
compared
to
some
of
the
other
commissions,
I
mean
we
do.
We
do
provide
a
lot
of
resources,
but
I
agree
that
part
of
the
intent
of
this
effort
should
be
to
try
to
integrate
a
lot
of
that.
A
I
mean
there's
information
everywhere
and
it
should
really
be
integrated
in
a
better
way,
and
I
think
hopefully
you
would
have
you
know
four
or
five
documents
on
there
that
integrates
that
information
adds
new
information
and
then
the
rest
maybe
goes
away
because
yeah
there's
a
lot
right
now
and
it's
mostly
just
text
which
most
people
don't
connect
with.
I
mean
even
comprehensive
plans.
Large
planning
efforts
now
are
more
and
more
visual
or
even
a
lot
of
municipalities
are
moving
towards
just
like
online
plans.
They
don't
have
paper
plans
anymore.
G
I
think
the
intent
is
to
do
that
and
ken
and
I
get
a
lot
of
phone
calls
from
people
who,
basically
all
you
want
to
do,
is
get
a
permit
and
they
don't
necessarily
are
thinking
you
know,
is
my
design
going
to
meet
the
standards
and
then,
when
we
get
to
that
level,
you
know
they
they
don't
necessarily
always
in
the
best,
open-minded
mode.
So
I
think
the
graphics
will
help
just
to
show
them
that
you
know
we're
not
intending
to
stop
them
from
doing
what
they
want
to
do.
G
It's
just
that
there's
ways
to
maximize
the
best
way
to
integrate
those
alterations
or
additions
or
new
construction
into
the
historic
visual
landmarks.
So
this
this
will
help
to
do
that.
G
G
J
C
Carlos
you
think
it's
worth
responding
to
julie
and
jack
about
you
know
to
reassure
them
that
their
work
product
will
be
used.
G
Yeah
I
I
intend
to
do
that
anyway.
I
I
think
that
kate
had
received
an
email
from
julie
and
I
didn't
see
it
in
my
inbox,
the
office,
but
I
think
it
went
to
my
personal
email.
So
then,
at
that
point
it
was
a
little
bit
too
late
for
me
to
address,
but
I
thought
that
telling
the
commission
and
stuart
particularly
you
know
what
the
intent
was.
G
It
would
be
important
on
the
record
and
I
will
I
will
respond
to
julie
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
other
emails
I
have
not
been
aware
of,
but
whatever
email
coming
from
the
former
commissioners
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
and
remember.
I
was
part
of
that.
So
I
I
was
part
of
the
group,
so
I
also
have
my
professional
interest
in
making
sure
that
you
know
we
will
continue
providing
good
service
to
the
commissioners
as
staff.
C
A
No,
I
don't
think
so.
The
only
other
thing
is
at
the
next
meeting
I'll
bring
a
list
of
prospective
dates
for
approval
for
the
subsequent
year,
and
I
did
ask
I
don't
know
if
it
would
interest
you,
we
can
talk
about
it
then,
but
I
asked
for
approval
and
got
approval
if
you
want
to
not
have
an
august
meeting
next
year
it
just.
I
guess
it's
something
we
used
to
do
and
it
sets
nice
expectations
up
front
for
applicants
just
knowing
that
that's
a
difficult
time
to
get
quorum.
G
Just
we
didn't
in
the
past
where
we
didn't
have
a
meeting
in
august
and
I
think
the
commissioner
was
well
received,
but
then
we
have
a
volume
of
projects
for
the
next
month.
So
that's
some
of
the
consequences
of
that
that
we
we
will
not
necessarily
diminish
the
number
of
projects
that
come
along,
but
on
the
other
hand,
we
have
more
administrator
reviews
that
we
didn't
enjoy
in
the
past,
and
I
think
that
that's
helping
a
lot
to
reduce
the
volume
of
approaches.
That's
going
around
the
commission.
F
H
G
Yeah,
it's
okay,
so
we
don't
intend
to
change
the
date.
We've
been
always
the
tuesdays,
the
only
change
that
happened.
G
I
think
I
can't
remember
how
many
many
years
ago,
but
we
used
to
have
the
first
tuesday
of
the
month
and
then
we
moved
to
the
second
tuesday
of
the
month.
The
other
change
we
made
is
the
the
number
of
days
that
we
are
asking
applicants
to
submit
instead
of
10
days
now.
G
We
ask
them
to
submit
15
business
days
prior
to
the
meeting
so
that
we
have
time
to
address
some
of
the
issues
that
we
see
are
not
conforming
with
the
standards
we
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
them
so
that
it
has
helped
to
improve
the
quality
of
the
projects
for
people
who
want
to
respond
in
a
positive
way.
A
D
F
D
A
C
All
right
hear
a
motion
to
return
move
to
adjourn
second
session,
all
in
a
favor.