►
From YouTube: Preservation Commission Meeting 4/16/2015
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
Tonight's
agenda
item
is
unfinished
business:
a
continuation
of
the
March
4
2015
special
meeting
on
northwestern
university's
proposed
subdivision
of
the
Evanston
campus
east
of
sheridan
road
from
the
Commission's
perspective.
Essentially,
we
are
conducting
an
assessment
of
the
subdivision
application
and
whether
it
meets
the
standards.
A
The
commission
shall
review
the
application
for
subdivision
resub
division
or
consolidation
based
on
the
following
standards.
The
design
of
this
and
part
of
me,
that
is
section
b
1.
The
design
of
the
subdivision,
ree
subdivision
or
consolidation
shall
section
a
preserve,
adaptively
use
or
otherwise
protect
the
landmark
or
area
property
structure,
site
or
object
in
the
disc
and
B
provides
the
location
and
design
of
new
structures
and
objects
that
are
visually
compatible
with
the
landmark
or
areas.
A
Property
structures,
sites,
objects
in
the
district
and
see
not
result
in
blocking
or
otherwise
obstructing,
as
viewed
from
a
public
street
or
public
way.
The
critical
features
of
the
landmark
or
area
property
structures,
site
or
object
in
the
district
and
d
preserve
and
protect
the
critical
features
of
the
streetscape
associated
with
the
landmark
or
area
property
structure,
site
or
object
in
the
district
and
E
not
adversely
affect
traffic
patterns,
municipal
services,
adjacent
property
values
or
the
general
harmony
of
the
district
to
alteration,
construction,
demolition
and
relocation.
A
Shelby's
consistent
with
section
2
dash,
8
9,
Part
C
within
35
days
of
the
request
of
the
report
by
the
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee.
Pursuant
to
subsection
2
dash
age
12,
a
the
commission
shall
prepare
written
findings
and
by
majority
vote
issue
to
the
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee.
A
A
recommendation
on
the
suitability
of
creating
the
proposed
subdivision,
resub
division
or
consolidation
based
on
the
recommendations
received
by
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee
counsel,
shall
consider
whether
the
proposed
subdivision,
rii,
subdivision
or
consolidation
is
consistent
with
the
standards
provided
in
subsection
2
dash,
8
12
B.
If
the
council
finds
that
the
proposed
subdivision,
resub
d,
subdivision
or
consolidation
is
not
consistent
with
the
standards
provided
in
subsection
2
dash
8
12
b,
the
council
may
deny
the
application
for
subdivision
resub
division
or
con
or
consolidation
tonight.
A
The
plan
is:
is
that
will
vote
on
whether
the
current
application
meets
standards,
we'll
review
the
conditions
that
have
been
proposed
by
staff
and
also
talked
about
that
with
the
Commission
itself
in
terms
of
agenda
items
will
have
brief
presentations
by
staff
and
representatives
from
Northwestern,
then
we'll
have
a
discussion
and
Q&A
from
the
commissioners
themselves
will
entertain
any
public
comment.
Subject
following
that
and
then
entertain.
A
motion
obviously
have
final
discussion
when
the
motion
is
on
the
floor
and
vote
and
then
hopefully
adjourn
after
that.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
name
is
Carlos
Ruiz
I'm,
the
preservation
coordinator
for
the
city
of
Evanston
and
I'd,
like
to
briefly
a
state
staff
recommendation
on
the
proposal,
division
or
niversity
University
to
subdivide
into
six
Lots
staff,
recommends
the
Preservation
Commission
provide
a
favorable
recommendation
to
City
Council
for
approval
of
nursing,
University
subdivision
with
the
following
conditions:
number
one:
the
proposed
lat
for
be
revised
further
to
encompass
the
area
south
of
existing
parking
lot
or
potentially
merging
lots.
B
Three
and
four
per
commissions,
request
and
number
two
that
the
area
alone
Sheridan
Road,
be
subject
to
a
requirement
that
northwestern
provide
information
on
future
significant
projects,
including
new
buildings,
demolition
and
major
alterations
to
the
preservation
commission
for
feedback
from
the
Commission.
When
such
projects
are
within
250
feet,
east
of
the
Sheridan
right
away
lie,
but
outside
of
a
la
mirada
record,
the
Commission
comments
will
be
shared
with
northwestern
and
presented
at
a
design
and
plan
review
committee
meeting.
A
C
Thank
you,
commissioners
and
staff
Carlos
for
being
here
again
tonight.
We
have
no
further
information
but
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I
just
point
out
that
the
materials
that
we
have
on
the
screen,
as
well
as
on
the
boards,
is
the
same
material
that
was
presented
at
our
March
fourth
meeting.
So
it's
not
new,
but
it's
a
we
do
have
a
cleaner
copy.
If
anyone
wants
a
copy.
Thank
you.
You.
D
Can
I
ask
a
question
yep.
E
D
We'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
a
Q&A
I
have
a
though
I
have
a
question
from
the
staff
recommendation.
I
just
want
a
clarification
when
the
staff
recommends
that
the
proposed
lat
for
be
revised
further
to
encompass
the
areas
south
of
the
parking
lot.
Is
it
so?
What
three?
Where
would
that
be?
It's
not
because
South
is
no.
F
D
A
F
A
G
F
F
B
Are
two
options?
One?
The
original
option
was
to
have
lat
four
go
to
the
south
line
of
the
parking
lot
going
north.
That
was
the
first
recommendation
and
then
we
are
also
suggesting
that
possibly
merging
lots
three
and
four
together
after
the
e
first
workshop
and
then
after
the
meeting
on
march,
for
that
was
a
suggestion
that
was
also
raised.
D
So
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
idea
to
merge
them.
Both
and
I
know
that
on
Northwestern's
response
it
says
that
if
the
Commission
is
proposing
the
combining
of
what
three
and
lat
four
is
a
final
compromise
necessary
to
recommend
the
subdivision
to
the
City
Council,
the
northwestern
university
will
give
this
recommendation
thoughtful
consideration.
So
how
does
how
does
that
play
out?
If
how
does
that
work
Diane?
If
many
of
us
want
that
to
happen,
I
don't
know.
Do
we
vote
on
something
like
that
or
I.
A
Think
and
I
can
seek
guidance
from
staff
here,
but
my
suggestion
is
that
be
a
recommendation
that
comes
from
the
Commission
I
think
the
way
I
read
the
the
point.
One
in
the
staff
report
was
that
it
was
kind
of
they
were
talking
about
both
options,
I
think
merging
them
and
I.
Think
that's
something
that
we
had
a
lot
of
conversation
about
is
something
that
makes
sense.
E
Oh
go
ahead,
Amy
here
when
it
says
that
drawings
will
come
up
to
a
coordinator
within
or
within
a
minimum
of
four
weeks
prior
to
a
design
and
project
review
committee.
I
was
just
wondering
it.
What,
at
what
stage
is
that
going
to
happen?
Because
for
some
of
these
major
projects,
you
know
the
design
process
is
a
long
one
and
you
can
work
on
a
project
for
three
years
and
if
we
get
it
for
weeks
before
it's
going
up
for
review,
that's
a
lot
of
missed
opportunity.
I.
C
I
think,
as
staff
will
attest,
I
mean
northwestern,
usually
does
bring
projects
before
dapper
for
the
input.
Usually
it
you
know
schematic
design,
design
development
to
get
the
input.
It's
actually
a
two-part
process,
there's
an
initial
the
middle,
and
we
seek
comment
from
the
city
and
then
there's
also
a
final
dapper
review,
which
is
closer
to
the
time
of
the
actual
completion
of
construction
documents.
I
would.
H
H
F
Part
two
of
the
staff
recommendation
deals
with
that
250
feet,
right
away,
setback
that
allows
us
to
give
feedback
based
on
shared
information
from
Northwestern,
no
binding
review,
250
feet
and
I'm
not
satisfied
with
either
the
maps
that
were
being
presented
with.
Can
you
put
up
that
that
one
that
has
the
aerial
view
with
the
various
setback
dimensions
on
it?
Is
there?
Is
there
a
slight
it?
Has
that
yeah
it's
so
it's
so
damn.
E
F
I
can't
even
second,
it
looks.
Okay,
I
can't
even
see
here.
What
am
I
pointing
at
this
okay?
So
the
red
is,
that
is
the
red,
the
250
that
you're
recommending.
Yes,.
H
F
F
G
F
F
B
F
See
what
my,
where
are
my
red
markers,
that's
right
in
front
of
during
library?
That's
400
feet
back
from
sheridan
road
that
is
clearly
visible
from
sheridan
road
and
as
you
as
you
go
down
the
sheridan
road
and
you
look
into
the
campus.
My
feeling
is
that
400
feet
is
the
sort
of
optimum
view
into
the
campus,
not
250
feet
now.
I
understand
that
that
whole
area
there
is
given
over
given
as
a
was
a
lot
for
record
and
proposed.
So
all
that
is
essentially
under
our
a
lot
5.
F
All
that
is
under
our
mandatory
purview.
But
four
feet
is
a
lot
of
the
campus.
If
you
go
down
to
your
then
turn
east
to
shared
and
road,
as
it
goes
east
west
viewing
from
here
to
north,
if
you're
on
sheridan
road
through
here,
you
can
see
back
into
there
for
good
part
of
this
very
space,
and
up
in
here
you
can
see
into
the
campus
from
here.
So
my
feeling
has
been
since
our
last
meeting
and
maybe
even
before
that
that
200,
it
was
I
think
originally
was
200.
F
200
feet
was
proposed
staff,
as
think
250,
I'm
still
saying.
I
I
feel
400.
Feet
is
a
more
reasonable
distance
and
Carlos
I
had
asked
you
an
email
earlier
in
the
week.
What
is
the
average
city
lot
depth
for
our
residential
area
in
the
city
in
a
historic
district?
I
know
it's
probably
less
than
400,
but
do
you
know
I've
hand
with
that?
No.
F
I
A
A
F
B
If
I
may
think,
one
of
the
things
that
the
250
line
does
is
incorporate
fully
the
buildings
that
are
east
of
pattern
gym
and
also
incorporates
fully
the
landmark
on
Sheridan
1845,
the
one
designed
by
Daniel
Burnham.
So
in
the
200
feet
it
was
not
clear
exactly
what,
where
the
line
was,
but
with
the
250
feet,
you
actually
cover
several
buildings
in
front
of
that
line.
I
I
think
the
the
proposal
to
to
combine
lots
three
and
four
in
dough
into
one
lot,
might
might
alleviate
and
mitigate
some
of
these
concerns
at
that
point
along.
That's
that
shared
in
street
wall
between
lots
to
then
now
three
and
four
together,
5e
you're,
really
you're,
really
covering
the
majority
of
what
we're
talking
about
and
much
of
those
Lots
extend
past
400
feet
in
the
case
of
the
Deering
library,
you've,
probably
probably
looking
500
feet,
and
if,
in
that
lot
line,
you
can
extend
that
across.
You
know
four
and
three
you
know
you're.
I
D
Just
wanted
to
add
something
because
I
since
I've
been
new
to
the
Commission
I
think
these
workshops
have
been
really
useful.
I
think
that
the
communication
between
northwestern
and
and
preservation
has
actually
you
know
there.
It
has
gone.
You
know
quite
a
way
in
terms
of
producing
something,
I
think
that
I
personally,
if
we
can
buy
a
lot,
34,
could
totally
live
with
so
and
I
think
we
started
in
in
a
position
which
was
very
different,
so
I
just
wanted
to
commend
this
process.
A
Would
we
like
to
would
someone
like
to
entertain
a
motion?
I
did
ask
staff
to
provide
us
with
some
draft
lake
which
stood
kick
because
simply
because
some
language,
the
appropriate
language
for
a
motion
just
because
I
knew
it
would
be
difficult
for
all
yeah
not
forthcoming,
and
that's
a
good
way.
To
put
it
so.
A
A
A
H
C
A
I
I
I
A
F
F
A
H
The
dapper
process,
which
stands
for
design
and
project
review,
was
a
successor
to
what
was
formerly
cults
Park.
The
the
impetus
behind
it
was
to
provide
more
Design
Review
and
not
just
look
at
site
plans,
but
look
at
building
aesthetics
and
how
it
contextually
fits
in
with
other.
It
is
what
whatever
it
is,
we're
reviewing
as
I
noted
before,
typically
on
larger
projects.
There's
there's
two
points
that
a
project
comes
before
dapper.
H
It
comes
to
for
dapper
at
the
concept
stage,
when
a
larger
development
and
northwestern
development
a
planned
development,
anything
that
would
trigger
a
PD
or
in
their
case
you
know,
a
large
development
would
come
before
us
and
we'd
have
just
general
conversations
about.
Is
this
an
appropriate
land
use
from
a
massing
standpoint
from
a
bulk
standpoint
from
a
neighborhood
standpoint?
Does
this
make
sense
and
then
assuming
approval
there?
Then
they
would
go
through
whatever
approval
process.
They
needed
to
do
typically
ending
up
at
City
Council,
but
it
could
be
zba.
H
It
could
be
planning
commission,
it
could
be
preservation
once
it
moves
through
and
if
it's
approved
by
City
Council,
then
it
comes
back
to
dapper
prior
to
the
building
permit
being
issued,
and
the
idea
behind
that
is
to
make
sure
that
what
was
ever
approved
typically
again
by
City
Council,
is
then
verified
by
dapper
that
there
have
been
no
changes
made.
No
substantial
changes
have
been
made
to
a
project
in
between
approval
and
building.
Permit.
H
Dapper
also
has
review
of
any
exterior
modification
made
to
any
building
outside
of
a
you
district,
so
anybody
who's
making
any
type
of
modification,
even
if
they
don't
need
a
special
use
or
variance
or
a
plan
development,
or
anything
like
that,
even
if
they
buy
right,
can
develop
the
property
and
northwestern
falls
into
this
category
too.
Then,
prior
to
the
building
permit
being
issued.
Dapper
has
final
review.
H
So
if
it
was
an
issue
where
this
was
a
project
outside
of
a
subdivided
parcel
outside
of
your
review,
then
the
dapper
review
would
take
place
typically
again
at
concept
and
then
again,
prior
to
building
permit.
So,
conceptually
speaking,
if
there
were
issues
raised
by
the
Preservation
Commission
that
were
then
submitted
to
dapper
and
dapper
felt
that
those
comments
were
not
satisfied
by
the
University
or
anybody
else,
then
we
could
hold
the
permit
until
we
felt
that
those
comments
were
addressed.
I
B
Idea
is
that
any
project
that
the
university
might
be
in
the
design
stage
would
be
sent
to
the
preservation
coordinator.
The
preservation
coordinator
then
we'll
distribute
that
information
to
all
members
of
the
Commission
separately
and
then
every
member.
We
have
the
opportunity
to
make
comments,
send
us
comments
to
us
and
then
we
will
compile
those
comments
and
then
we
would
present
those
comments
to
dapper
it's
a
public
meeting.
So
any
member
of
the
Commission
is
welcome
to
attend
and
follow
their
own
recommendations
as
comments.
D
D
I
A
It
functions
more
and
mark
or
damier.
You
can
correct
me.
Essentially,
it
functions
more.
An
administrative
review
were
these
different
points
in
the
process.
The
information
or
the
application
will
be
circulated
to
the
Commission,
and
all
commissioners
will
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments
and
input
on
it,
which
is
what
Carlos
would
then
compile
and
put
into
the
process.
That
would
be
evaluated
at
those
three
different
points
that
Mark
had
mentioned.
It.
F
I
H
And
what
we
would
do
is
similar
to
your
packets
and
agendas.
All
dapper
packets
and
agendas
are
posted
prior
to
their
meetings.
So
we
would
include
that
as
part
of
the
public
packet,
so
that
this
was
a
public
process
and
that
all
of
the
committee
members
were
well
aware
of
any
concerns
prior
to
their
hearing,
but
no
the
Commission.
It's
that
the
Preservation
Commission
would
not
meet
on
the
item
as
proposed.
E
F
I
say
binding
review
because
we're
missing
the
subject
here
by
going
to
dapper
northwestern,
is
avoiding
our
binding
review
process.
That's
what
they're
asking
for
they're
asking
for
a
relief
from
binding
review
on
these
areas
that
are
not
in
lots
and
I
feel
that
that's
a
fairly
dangerous
place
to
go,
and
I
think
that
the
least
we
can
do
is
insist
on
binding
review
of
anything.
That's
within
250
feet
of
the
setback
from
from
Sheridan
Road
in
English.
Within
that
view,
should
be
under
our
binding
review
and.
A
A
D
F
Yeah,
if
I
could
just
add
one
additional
comment,
standards
are
review
number
D
letter.
D
is
one
of
the
points
I'm
getting
at
here,
preserve
and
protect
the
critical
features
of
the
streetscape
associated
with
a
landmark
or
area
property
structure,
site
or
object
in
the
district,
and
so
my
feeling
is
those
words
are
applicable
to
anything
that
we
might
see
within
a
200
foot
setback
of
sheridan
road
and
therefore
I
feel
that
we
should
have
binding
review
over
those
things
that
are
stated
by
those
words
in
the
standards.
A
H
F
Well
should
I
say
it
again:
I
move
that
the
Preservation
Commission
recommends
the
City
Council
approval
of
the
proposed
subdivision
with
the
following
conditions:
one
that
lots
three
proposed
lots
three
in
florida
for
be
combined.
I
forget
what
your
what
your
term
was
by
aligning
the
outlines
of
those
two
not.
F
A
C
A
H
The
the
City
Council,
as
of
now
is
scheduled
to
hear
this
matter
on
May
27th,
which
is
the
Tuesday
after
the
Memorial
Day
holiday
staff,
will
Ford
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
It
will
include
the
the
recommendation
that
you
made
and
it
will
also
include
stash
recommendation.
City
Council
is
the
determining
body.