►
From YouTube: Preservation Commission Meeting 3/04/2015
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
I'm
going
to
call
the
meeting
to
order,
it
is
7
11pm,
we
do
have
a
quorum
I'd
like
to
start
tonight's
meeting
with
just
a
couple
of
comments
and
observations
on
my
part
tonight
essentially
continues
the
conditions,
objective
assessment
of
the
revised
application-
that's
been
submitted
by
Northwestern
University
and
received
for
discussion
at
tonight's
meeting,
and
we
did
get
a
couple
of
additional
pieces
of
information
here.
The
Commission's
role
for
those
of
you
that
may
be
unfamiliar
is
preservation
review.
A
We
consider
the
contents
of
each
application
and
any
additional
information
requested
and
provided
the
Commission
then
applies.
The
standards
enumerated
in
evanston's
preservation
ordinance
in
order
to
determine
if
the
application
meets
those
standards.
The
application
of
these
standards
is
really
the
basis
for
all
of
our
approval
and
advisory
decisions.
A
We
need
to
obviously
in
every
process
ensure
that
our
questions
are
answered
and
that
we
have
the
information
that
we
need
is
a
commission,
and
this
in
and
of
itself
ensures
that
we
make
fair,
informed
and
impartial
advisory
or
approval
recommendations
as
appropriate
as
commissioners.
We
really
set
the
tone
for
this
process.
A
Ultimately,
this
process
is
not
about
what
else
is
being
said
or
done
or
implied
or
perceived
outside
of
the
Commission's
actual
deliberations
regarding
this
application
or
any
other
application.
It's
really
about
our
prescribed
role
under
the
ordinance
and
fulfilling
met,
as
was
noted
at
our
februari
10th
workshop
on
the
original
application.
A
The
standards
of
for
review
of
applications
for
subdivision
resub
division
or
consolidation
apply
in
the
circumstances
that
we're
going
to
salmon
tonight.
I'll
read
those
in
a
couple
of
minutes
just
for
review
purposes,
but
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
Lori
Pearson,
who
has
some
staff
recommendations.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Lori,
Pearson,
Planning
and
Zoning
Administrator.
You
may
have
noticed
that
there
is
a
staff
memo
in
your
packet
since
that
packet
was
distributed
on
Friday.
We,
of
course
have
receipts
received
some
correspondence.
Some
of
that
suggested.
Some
other
approaches
might
be
out
there.
Frankly,
we
as
staff
would
like
to
take
some
time
to
look
into
those
other
approaches.
In
addition,
there's
been
some
questions
about
any
sort
of
review
process
along
Sheridan.
Some
more
specifics
might
be
helpful.
B
A
A
Item
at
the
end,
okay,
that's
fine,
we'll
take
it
from
there
just
from
an
from
a
process
standpoint.
Under
the
circumstances.
What
we're
going
to
do
initially
is
here
from
Bonnie
Humphrey
from
Northwestern.
The
commissioners
will
ask
some
questions,
we'll
take
public
comment
which
will
again
be
three
minutes
per
signee
I.
Think
Carlos.
You
have
the
sign-up
sheets
out
there
and
then
again
the
Commission
will
talk
about
I.
Have
some
final
thoughts.
Comments
will
take
care
of
the
agenda
items
and
then
ultimately
will
return.
We'll
adjourn
so
with
that
Bonnie.
D
F
Just
north
western
has
been
a
part
of
the
Evanston
community
for
150
years
and,
as
our
campus
has
continued
to
evolve
to
serve
the
needs
of
the
students
of
today
and
the
future.
The
purpose
of
the
proposed
subdivision
is
to
permit
the
university's
campus
to
continue
to
that
evolution
and
to
protect
those
university
buildings
that
have
been
designated
as
landmark
structures
and
to
minimize
potential
conflicts
over
development
and
to
reduce
the
burden
on
city
resources
involved
with
the
approval
process
for
new
campus
projects.
F
Just
as
background
information
for
the
Commission
and
for
the
audience,
the
subdivision
of
property
is
allowable
under
the
city
code,
title
for
chapter
11
and
our
application
for
subdivision
has
followed
the
procedures
and
requirements
outlined
there
in
state
law
requires
that
city
council
approve
a
plot
of
subdivision
before
it
may
be
recorded
with
the
cook
county
recorders
office
per
the
code.
The
subdivision
survey
platts
do
not
need
to
show
the
property's
improvements,
though
the
plot
of
survey
submitted
to
review
to
determine
zoning
compliance
must
show
any
property
improvements.
F
F
Plots
involving
landmark
properties
and
properties
within
designated
historic
districts
must
obtain
an
advisory
review
of
the
Preservation
Commission,
which
is
why
we
are
before
the
Commission
this
evening.
At
the
previous
workshop
on
February
tenth,
we
presented
our
campus
framework
plan
that
was
developed
in
2009.
This
outlines
potential
campus
growth
strategies
over
the
next
50
years.
We
have
often
been
asked
by
the
Preservation
Commission
in
the
past
about
our
future
plans
for
campus
development.
Our
campus
framework
plan
has
been
adopted
by
the
University
Trustees
and
has
been
available
on
our
websites
since
2009.
F
We
have
previously
shared
with
the
Commission
the
framework
plan
at
special
meetings
similar
to
this
meeting.
The
university
has
been
very
open
and
sharing
the
framework
plan
with
the
community
and
will
continue
to
do
so.
As
a
plan
evolves
as
a
framework
plan,
the
plan
provides
a
framework
or
armature
for
future
buildings
to
ensure
that
we
develop
in
a
responsible
and
sustainable
manner,
preserving
open,
green
space
and
views
of
Lake
Michigan,
encouraging
alternative
transportation
and
minimizing
the
impacts
on
parking.
F
The
university
recognizes
that
our
campus
is
landlocked
and
does
not
plan
to
grow
further
into
the
community
west
of
sheridan
road.
Therefore,
it
is
an
imperative
that
our
future
growth
is
thoughtful
in
our
use
of
available
land
to
ensure
that
we
can
meet
the
emerging
needs
of
the
university
over
the
next
50
years.
I
would
like
to
address
some
of
the
comments
and
observations
that
were
raised
by
the
commission
members
at
our
last
workshop
meeting.
F
So
this
is
our
original
proposal.
This
drawing
is
a
map
of
the
campus.
The
pink
buildings
are
actually
evanston
landmarks.
The
photos
are
of
a
variety
of
buildings
across
the
campus,
but
it
shows
you
where
the
landmarks
are
located,
so
the
existing
Evanston
landmark
buildings
on
our
campus
will
remain
landmarks
and
subject
to
evanston,
Historic,
Preservation,
Commission
review
and
approval
process
for
any
alteration.
F
Nothing
in
the
proposed
subdivision
changes
the
status
of
the
existing
evanston
landmarks
on
campus
zoning,
the
University
property
east
of
sheridan
road
is
classified
as
you
three
under
the
city
of
Evanston
zoning
code.
As
such
all,
development
within
you,
three
area
must
comply
with
the
specified
height
and
setback
restrictions.
The
proposed
subdivision
does
not
alter
the
zoning
of
the
campus
and
the
existing
restrictions
on
the
property
developed
property
for
future
development.
All
new
construction,
regardless
of
lot,
will
comply
with
the
current
zoning.
F
Context
as
noted
previously,
the
northwestern
campus
has
evolved
over
150
years
into
a
diverse
collection
of
architectural
styles.
The
campus
planning
from
the
earliest
foundation
of
the
university
has
reflected
a
continual
evolution.
The
early
buildings
were
of
no
consistent
style
and
reflected
the
architectural
trends
of
the
time
in
which
they
were
built.
F
No
one
architectural
style
has
dominated
the
early
campus
and
the
collection
of
early
buildings
include
a
huge
variety
of
massing
style
materials,
including
high
Victorian
Gothic
university
hall,
Venetian
Gothic
Revival,
Annie,
Mae,
Swift
vaguely
Romanesque
his
call
neoclassical
harris
hall,
Italian
Renaissance
Lunt,
Richard,
Sounion
Romanesque,
durban
observatory
and
Prairie
School
Swift.
All
these
buildings
are
preserved
and
coexist
together,
along
with
newer
buildings
which
reflect
current
styles.
The
setback
and
building
height
restrictions
of
the
current
youth
rezoning
will
ensure
that
all
new
buildings
respect
the
street
wall
referred
to
by
the
Commission.
F
During
the
workshop,
we
have
included
as
these
drawings
here
to
show
you
the
variety
of
buildings
along
Sheridan
world
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
huge
variety
of
massing,
height,
architectural
style
and
materials
all
along
Sheridan
Road
stewardship.
As
a
steward
of
the
university's
campus.
We
have
an
obligation
to
the
northwestern
community
to
balance
the
preservation
of
our
history,
the
enhancement
of
natural
and
built
environment,
sustainability
and
fiscal
responsibility.
F
The
university
is
committed
to
the
preservation
of
significant
historic
buildings
and
has
made
substantial
investments
in
the
renovation
and
restoration
of
both
our
historic,
landmark
and
landmark
buildings.
Our
excellent
stewardship
has
been
recognized
by
the
Evanston
Historic
Preservation
Commission
through
the
numerous
past
awards
presented
by
the
commissioners.
F
So
future
buildings,
as
part
of
the
university's
community
engagement
efforts,
we
are
happy
to
share
plans
in
the
future
for
new
buildings
in
lot.
One
located
along
sheridan
road
for
the
committee
with
the
commission
for
information.
Any
new
building
project
located
in
lot,
one
of
the
proposed
subdivision
and
within
25
200
feet
of
sheridan
road
will
be
shared
with
Preservation
Commission
in
for
information
during
the
project's
design
phase.
So
there
was
some
question
about
200
feet.
F
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion,
our
last
meeting
about
Fairchild
and
Fairchild,
east
and
west,
and
protecting
those
those
of
these
two
buildings
right
here
just
for
reference
from
Sheridan
Road
to
the
back
side
of
their
child's
is
140
feet.
So
200
feet
takes
you
to
the
fire
lane,
but
in
response
to
concerns
to
preserve
those
structures,
that
was
how
we
came
up
with
the
200
feet.
F
Subsequent
to
my
letter
to
the
Commission
on
februari
25
city
staff
have
recommended
that
the
definition
of
projects
in
lot
one
be
expanded
to
include
demolitions
made
in
major
alterations
within
that
200
feet
of
sheridan
road.
We
are
willing
to
submit
to
staffs
recommendation
and
agree
to
this
inclusion
in
the
overall
subdivision
approval.
F
We've
carefully
reviewed
the
standards
for
a
review
of
subdivision
under
2
dash,
8
12,
and
as
outlining
my
previous
letter
and
workshop
presentation,
we
believe
that
the
application
meets
these
standards.
So
in
conclusion,
we've
made
significant
changes
to
the
proposed
subdivision
to
reflect
input
and
advice
of
the
Preservation
Commission
and
have
committed
to
share
with
the
Commission
future
designs
for
new
buildings,
along
with
demolitions
and
major
alterations
within
lot
1
along
sheridan
road
within
200
feet.
F
We
firmly
believe
that
the
proposed
revised
subdivision
satisfies
all
the
standards
for
a
review
of
application
for
subdivisions
and
is
consistent
with
the
development
of
the
campus,
the
existing
relationships
between
landmark
buildings
and
other
buildings.
We
request
that
the
Preservation
Commission
recommend
to
the
City
Council
that
the
proposed
subdivision
be
and
in
light
of
comments
earlier
this
evening.
We
certainly
welcome
the
staffs
recommendation
for
continuance.
A
At
this
point,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
just
for
the
record
read
the
standards
into
the
records
so
that
everyone
hears
them
again
as
Bonnie
referenced.
It
is
section
2
dash
eight
dash,
12
review
of
applications
for
subdivision
resub
division
or
consolidation,
section
a
prior
to
review
of
any
subdivision.
Resub
division
or
consolidation
consolidation
pursuant
to
title
for
chapter
11,
subdivision
sections,
one
through
three,
any
landmark
area,
property
structure
or
site
in
a
district
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee
shall
request
a
report
by
the
Commission
regarding
the
effect
of
the
proposed
subdivision.
A
The
critical
features
of
the
landmark
or
area
property
structure,
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
shall
be
consistent
with
section
2
dash,
eight
dash
nine
parts
see
within
35
days
of
the
request
of
the
report
by
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee.
A
Pursuant
to
subsection
2
dash
a
dash
12a.
The
commission
shall
prepare
written
findings
and
by
majority
vote
issued
to
the
council
or
its
duly
authorized
committee,
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,
resub
division
or
consolidation
is
consistent
with
the
standards
provided
in
subsection,
2
dash,
8
12
b
ii.
A
G
Thanks
so
Bonnie,
thanks
for
sharing
what,
where
the
200
foot
setback
came
from,
I'm
still
wondering
the
200
foot
setback
along
the
eastern
area
of
sheridan
road.
Where
does
how
does
that
relate
to
anything
where
it
cuts
off
I
mean
it
looks
like
it's
just
somewhere?
Is
it
any.
F
G
F
H
F
G
I
had
one
other
question:
do
you
have
anything
in
mind
for
what
a
protocol
might
be
to
include
preservation
in
a
in
a
discussion
of
what
goes
on
in
lot
one?
If
this
subdivision
does
happen,
I
mean,
as
opposed
to
just
sharing
information?
Would
there
be
some
other
protocol?
Would
we
just
it
seems
to
me
a
little
vague
like
what
would
that
really
mean
yeah.
G
H
H
Consider
the
view
north
from
sheridan
road
as
it
turns
West,
and
that
would
be
the
view
of
Fairchild.
Why
should
any
structure
on
the
northwestern
campus
be
exempted?
From
that
view,
we
needed
to
see
a
large
scale
plan.
The
proposed
resub
vated
campus
to
understand
what
is
exactly
the
appropriate
distance
from
sharon
road.
H
F
At
our
previous
workshop,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
by
the
commissioners
about
the
street
wall.
Certainly
the
street
wall
is
within
that
200
foot
zone.
If
you
want
to
look
at
buildings
deep
within
our
campus,
you
could
see
them
obviously
from
Lake
Michigan,
which
you've
interpreted
as
being
a
public
right
away.
I
I
just
wanted
clarification
either
from
staff
are
from
your
body.
The
feedback
that
you
receive
from
the
Commission
is
not
binding.
Correct
within
the
200
feet:
correct,
okay,
we.
I
I
J
H
H
D
I
Can
I
ask
one
more
question
or
clarification
regarding
the
memo
on
page
four
about
in
the
middle
of
the
page?
There's
a
there's,
a
statement.
I'll
just
read
the
whole
sentence
so
and
then
I'll
ask
my
question.
During
the
workshop
commission
members
expressed
concern
the
subdivision
micro
vent.
The
future
desi
prevent
the
future
designation
of
landmark
buildings
on
lat,
one
future
landmark
designations
on
buildings
on
lot
1
/.
D
I
So
I
guess
my
concern
with
that
would
be
if
a
building
on
the
campus
were
to
be
landmarked
in
the
future.
There's
nothing
really
from
a
location
of
adjoining
buildings
and
things
like
that.
There's
really
nothing
providing
protection
of
that
building.
It
would
seem
if
the
if
there
isn't
a
lot
that
is
associated
with
that
am
I.
D
I
Building
itself,
but
I
guess
this
yeah,
it
seems
to
provide
a
gray
area.
In
my
mind,
is
too
you
know
views
of
the
building
from
the
public
way,
for
instance,
and
things
like
that,
could
another
building
be
placed
in
front
of
it
if
we
have
no
right
to
review
the
lot
that
it
sits
on
would
be
my
question:
does
it
make
more
sense
to
require
a
Reese
up,
division
request
at
the
time
when
the
landmark
occurs.
D
J
May
I
ask
a
question
to
that
content.
If
the
lot
is
not
included
in
that
we're
talking
about
in
the
future,
we
don't
actually
have
an
example.
Yet
I
and
I
know
it
would
be
difficult,
but
could
the
building
once
its
landmarked
and
it's
not
associated
with
a
lot.
It
could
actually
be
relocated
that
true
and
it
would
not
lose
its
landmark
status,
but
it
no
longer
would
be
in
the
context
that
it
was.
C
I'm
right,
I
think
you've
had
a
chance
to
review
the
the
correspondence
we've
received
from
cell
c7,
telling
sevenths
and
landmarks
Illinois
Sarah
I.
One
of
the
questions
I'd
like
to
ask
of
you-
and
this
may
be
something
that
you
come
back
to
us
with.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
the
quality
of
some
of
these
buildings.
The
future
value
of
some
of
these
buildings
is
this
something
internally,
that's
been
part
of
the
conversation
about
the
subdivision.
C
C
I
think,
as
we
continue,
this
I
think
that
that's
an
important
question,
because
we
all
struggle
with
it
on
how
it
affects
our
ordinance
and
I
think
we,
as
we
said
last
time
and
Fairchild
I,
think
we
talked
about
that
building,
having
some
value
and
more
in
terms
of
what,
if
it
goes
away,
and
maybe
it's
okay
but
I,
think
there's
a
bigger
question
there.
How
you
guys
would
propose
to
address
something
like
that.
It
would
help
us
in
our
considerations
as
well.
C
I'm
also
to
that
in
the
landmarks
Illinois
letter
that
I
think
we
just
received
a
couple
of
days
ago,
but
it
had
made
a
recommendation
that
a
survey
be
performed
on
the
campus
to
identify
any
potential
landmarks
at
this
time.
Is
that
something
that
there's
that
northwestern
be
willing
to
consider
as
part
of
this
process.
K
Thank
you,
Miss
Humphrey,
your
letter
under
the
section
for
future
new
buildings
and
I'll,
just
I'll
just
read
this.
It
says,
although
we
have
no
plans
for
new
construction
at
this
time,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
elaborate
there.
K
F
F
H
F
Record,
neither
is
the
athletics
facility,
that's
not
on
a
lot
of
record
that
has
historic
buildings,
but
you
know
we
continue
to
look
at
projects
across
campus
and
a
lot
of
more
renovations
and
those
opportunities.
Certainly
anything
that
would
be
on
a
lot
of
record
with
historic
structures
would
be
under
your
purview
and,
as
indicated
in
our
letter,
anything
within
200
feet
of
sheridan
road.
We
would
be
bringing
to
you
as
well
and
in
the
framework
plan,
does
outline
what
we
call
50
years
worth
of
growth.
That
was
when
we
did
the
the
framework
plan.
F
We
looked
historically
at
the
campus
on
how
fast
we
grew
and
from
a
historic
perspective.
We
grow
about
700,000
square
feet
per
decade,
and
so,
when
we
did
the
50-year
plan,
we
assumed
that
would
be
growing
at
that
rate
as
well,
and
so
that's
how
that
was
our
target
was
to
accommodate
that
much
growth
over
50
years.
J
Ask
you
a
question:
Bonnie
yeah
and
maybe
you've
answered
it
and
I
just
didn't
understand
the
answer.
What
is
share
mean?
What
what
does
it
mean
when
you
say
you're
happy
to
share
plans
and
you
use
it
twice
in
the
in
the
new
paragraph
and
by
the
way
they
the
portion
that
you
were
reading
about?
No
future
plans
was
in
the
prior
letter
and
not
in
the
new
letter,
but
twice
you
say
you
know
will
be
shared
with.
J
The
preservation
committee
will
be
happy
to
share
plans
in
the
future
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
the
word
share
means
operationally
is
that
here
are
our
plans
we'd
like
you
to
look
at
them
here?
Are
our
plans
we'd
like
you
to
review
them
not
necessarily
binding
or
non-binding?
What
exactly
do
you
mean
when
you
say
share
well.
F
Certainly
we
do
we
mean
sharing
plans
that
it's
a
non-binding
review,
I
think
as
far
as
the
process,
we
need
to
work
with
city
staff
on
out
lung
and
how
that
process
would
work
and
certainly
given
a
continuance,
I
think
we
could
work
a
little
bit
closer
and
in
discussions
with
city
staff
to
outline
how
that
process
would
actually
work.
Laurie
do.
C
Just
as
a
as
a
small
point
of
clarification
when
you
mention
the
athletic
facility,
as
the
lot
is
currently
subdivided,
there's
a
dog
leg
that
extends
all
the
way
out
to
the
lake
along
lincoln,
which
is
public
way
in
the
conversation
that
surrounded
the
lakefront
and
the
lake
view.
Actually
with
mr.
Naylor,
we
discussed
that
as
well.
That
lakefront
center
would
extend
on
to
the
lot
of
record
and
would
therefore
be
part
of
this
part
of
the
purview
of
this
commission,
and
it's.
C
The
one
that
we
seen
before
so
I
think
that's
part
of
the
the
consideration
that
this
commission
is
looking
at
currently
Lincoln
and
that
particular
site
were
of
interest
to
us
as
that
developments
being
discussed.
So
in
the
broader
scheme
of
things,
we're
thinking
about
that
kind
of
long-term
development,
so
I
think
Tim's
question
was
what's
imminent.
That's
that's
imminent,
as
as
of
today
that,
in
a
way
as
part
of
this
versation
right.
F
L
A
H
Today,
our
decision
has
to
based
on
the
Apple
standards
for
review
those
standards,
apply
to
all
property
owners
in
who
live
in
historic
districts
in
Evanston,
to
quote
from
Gary
our
box
februari
eighth
letter
to
the
to
our
Commission.
Why
does
the
University
believe
that
it
should
live
by
its
own
rules?
Is
there
an
alternative
to
to
what
all
of
us
in
the
preservation
of
historic
districts
are
required
to
do?
H
H
I
It
just
had
one
more
one
of
the
other
recommendations
from
the
staff
member
was
a
lot
for
encompass
the
area
south
of
the
existing
parking
lot.
It's
the
parking
lot
between
lots,
3
and
4
30
divided
there
was
there
was
some
discussion
about
I
believe
ownership
of
that
parking
lot
before.
Can
you
I
wasn't
quite
clear
on
that?
The
last
meeting
was
there.
Is
there
reason
why
lots
three
and
four
aren't
combined.
I
I
I
I
And
it
does
the
only
reason
I
bring
up
the
combination
of
lots.
Three
and
four:
is
that
I'm
not
sure
it's
not
named
on
on
the
plan,
but
the
building
at
the
end
of
Garrett
place
is
a
landmark
building,
which
you
know
the
parking
lot
you
want
to
put
it
below
great.
The
possibility
exists
of
you
of
you
building
on
the
parking
lot
and
it
would
obstruct
that
building
from
the
public
way
being
Sheridan.
I
I
Ryan
that
would
write
directly
in
front,
but
but
you
would
be
obscuring
you
know
if
if
the
parking
lot
is
kept
out
of
the
lot
of
record,
there
would
be
the
possibility
of
scaring
those
buildings
from
the
public
way
if
a
new
building
in
the
future
were
planned
for
that
area
and
with
the
200-foot
not
being
binding.
I
guess
I
in
you
know,
I
make
the
request
or
the
consider
take
the
consideration
of
combining
lots.
Three
and
four
I.
F
A
E
F
I
See
this
isn't
this
portion
of
it
right
here
is
in
Lot
three
understand
that,
but
it's
this
whole
area,
basically
between
this
line
and
this
I'm
concerned
that
views
from
sheridan
road
to
these
buildings
would
be
obstructed
if,
if
property
was
built
here
on
the
parking
lot
here,
Lori.
J
J
J
F
And
just
for
reference,
this
little
bump
out
here,
I'm
Garrett,
yeah.
I
H
J
I
I
Across
there
and
the
possibility
exists
for
obstructing
it,
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
you
want
to
put
the
parking
lot
below
I.
Think
that's
great,
but
my
worry
is
what
you
want
to
put
on
top
of,
and
once
it's
below
grade
so
I
in
a
gander.
Okay,
just
as
we
continue
to
develop
this
just
take
a
look
to
review
that
and
if.
A
I
Enter
campus,
so
that's
an
important
principle
of
so
so
I
guess
I
I
would
point
out.
Then
you
know
combining
those
two
lots
and
including
the
parking
lot
and
you
know
I,
don't
believe,
although
you
would
have
to
come
in
for
review,
you
don't
believe
you
know
there
would
be
many
issues
with
you
keeping.
L
I
H
Bonnie,
just
for
our
reference
again
show
us
I
mean
this
map
is
too
pretty
I
want
to
see
some
actual
dimensional
images
here,
but
show
us
where
200
feet
lies
on
that
particular
piece
of
property.
Ok,.
H
F
H
F
J
A
Go
ahead,
Carlos
I,
don't.
D
D
F
H
L
F
C
Think
I
thank
you
that
the
the
references
to
Fairchild
in
the
location
of
that
I
it
makes
sense
to
me
now
where
that
came
from
I
I.
Think
I
was
one
of
the
ones
who
who
spoke
about
trying
to
combine
those
two
lots,
and
I
think
I'd
like
to
think
you're
you're
making
the
argument
for
me,
but
if
they've
just
put
a
geothermal
system
under
that
parking
lot
and
your
future
plans
are
to
bury
parking
in
that
area.
That's
a
long-range
issue.
I
think
we
can.
C
We
would
certainly
revisit
a
subdivision
if
that
changed.
I
think
this
whole
200-foot
limit
would
go
away
along
sheridan
road,
at
least
the
concern
about
the
depth.
If
you
would
combine
three
and
four
don't
leave
a
gap
between
them
include
the
parking
lot
just
connect
all
of
those
and
the
reason
I
think
I
suggest.
Is
you
also
mentioned
that
by
moving
this
lot
line
around
you
you've
exposed
that
building
one
of
the
points
of
our
discussion
tonight,
one
of
the
standards
it
applies,
whether
or
not
the
view
is
obstructed.
C
The
way
that
that
lot,
still
doglegs
swift
would
be
obstructed
by
a
building
that
this
commission
would
have
no
purview
over
the
standards.
Don't
say
anywhere
that
you
can't
obstruct
of
you.
It
just
says
that
it
has
to
be
done
thoughtfully
and
it
has
to
be
done
within
the
within
the
standard.
So
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
again
at
simply
merging
three
and
four
seamlessly
no
gap
between
the
roadway.
K
One
other
consideration
that
that
might
help
here.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
context
which
you
addressed
and
continue
to
to
help
us
understand
the
architectural
styles
and
in
some
of
your
history,
one
thing
here
with
the
200-foot
provision:
an
idea
might
be
too
and
to
include
a
certain
distance
from
any
landmarked
lot
that
that
would
come
before
commission
any
changes
say
within
50
feet
of
anywhere.
You
know
along
that
along
that
landmark
lot.
That
would
help
us
ensure
that
context
this
protected
and
that
to
gary's
point
that
he
just
made.
K
F
G
K
Well,
that's
good
because
it
you'll
already
be
coming
before
zoning.
You
know
for
that.
So
in
this
case
it
would
just
be
ensuring
that
the
university
wasn't
going
to
put
up
a
you
know
five
feet
from
a
landmark
building,
isn't
going
to
put
up
a
neon,
you
know,
citing
to
a
22
existing
building.
That's
not
landmarked
that
that
makes
sense
that.
K
K
We've
been
talking
a
lot
about
streets,
streetscape,
Street,
View,
Lake
Michigan.
None
of
that
none
of
that
really
applies,
but
but
that
does
fall
under
the
the
Commission.
When
we
talk
about
residential
buildings
that
are
along
Lake
Michigan,
that's
public
way
as
well,
but
that's
I,
don't
think
that's
really
important
here,
but
we
are.
We
are
talking
about
contacts
so
that
might
that
might
really
help
if
you
were
to
include,
say,
50
feet
or
something
within
or
from
any
landmarked
lot
line.
A
H
I
said:
we've
read
the
letter
from
Bonnie
MacDonald
from
landmarks
Illinois.
She
suggest
an
alternative
would
be
to
make
the
dry
campus
area
a
special
district
of
some
type
and
who's
controlling
this
image
up
here.
If
we
could
go
back
to
the
site
plan
which
I
don't
like,
because
it's
not
at
all
specific.
H
The
north
lot
was
a
call,
not
one
lot
to,
or
the
the
gym
is
jet
lot
to
is
is
roughly
and
carlos
said
it's
roughly
200
feet.
It's
actually
about
250
feet.
You
draw
that
line
across
the
north,
the
east
side
of
sharon.
You
draw
the
line
across
the
north
north
south
part
of
sheridan.
That
includes
dorms
200
feet
isn't
a
whole
lot.
I.
H
Suggest
that
a
line
approximately
400
to
500
feet,
set
back
from
the
west
and
north
bound
sharon
road
might
be
appropriate
as
a
special
district
that
would
fall
under
the
Commission's
building
review.
So
that
would
set
aside
all
the
Lots
that
you've
identified
and
a
little
more
and
it
will
go
actually
a
little
north
to
include
Kresge
on
the
south
side
of
the
campus
and
loot
and
all
of
the
other
buildings
that
you
have
included
or
not
included
in
your
proposed
subdivision.
I
think
that
special
district
would
solve
the
whole
problem.
Jack.
A
I
think
that's
one
of
the
things
that
staff
really
wants
to
take
a
look
at
in
terms
of
what
the
viable
alternatives
may
be
there,
because
I
think,
in
addition
to
the
suggestion
that
landmarks
has
in
their
letter,
you
know
there
are
other
models
out
there
that
I'm
sure
they
want
to
take
a
look
at
as
well.
So
that's
part
of
the
whole
continuance
issues,
so
I
think
that's
something
they'll
be
looking
at
and
you.
H
N
J
K
F
J
J
Asking
is
you
know
how
different
is
it
in
terms
of
how
much
does
it
really
affect?
What
you're
proposing
very
writing
whether
it's
Jack's
400
200,
it's
not
going
to
matter,
but
if
I,
if
I
ran
that
line,
whether
that
is
the
line
of
the
existing
or
not,
it
doesn't
seem
to
really
put
that
many
additional
buildings
or
sites
that
aren't
already
being
incorporated
in
this
series
of
yeah.
A
I
think
I'll
cheese
or
whatever
yeah.
I
think
that
I
think
that,
when
it
comes
to
all
of
these
things
that
we've
brought
up
in
terms
of
the
depths
in
terms
of
the
configuration
I
think
that
again
getting
back
to
the
continuation
issue,
that's
just
something
that
we're
going
to
have
to
see
what
happens
in
the
upcoming
conversations
between
staff
and
northwestern,
but
I.
Think
everybody's
provided
some
good
input
in
terms
of
you
know
how
they're
viewing
the
map
and
viewing
the
revisions
that
were
submitted
in
the
last
week
or
so
any
final
questions.
H
Sorry,
when,
with
mother
final
comment
and
the
400
feet,
if
you
look
at
your,
you
have
an
elevation
of
your
campus
look
doing
north
from
sheridan
road.
That
includes
the
the
dorms,
but
directly
behind
the
dorms
is
kresge.
I
am
sorry,
I
don't
remember
the
name
of
a
building.
That's
neatly
in
front
of
kresge,
fair.
H
E
H
The
very
horizontal
band
that
you
see
just
to
the
left
of
center
is
crow
hall,
so
the
view
the
public
view
from
hinman
and
thank
you
for
acknowledging
that
comment.
That
I
mean
because
that
gateway
is
really
important
at
hinman.
You
see
the
dorms
in
the
foreground,
low
low
23
stories
and
you
see
crow
and
directly
behind
the
crow
is
Kresge,
which
I
think
is
a
pretty
important
aspect
of
that
of
that
street
scape.
So
that
would
be
included
in
the
400
foot
setback
otherwise
of
a
sooner
feet.
It
doesn't
make.
D
B
D
A
M
M
The
updated
proposal
in
this
evenings
packet
is
a
considerable
improvement
over
Northwestern's
original
proposal,
but
still
falls
short
of
what
we
believe
to
be
acceptable.
Even
if
city
staff's
current
set
of
conditions
are
incorporated,
we
make
three
observations.
First,
many
of
the
city's
standards
for
review
of
applications
for
subdivisions
reference
protecting
and
preserving
the
landmark
or
area
property
structure,
site
or
object.
M
Third
study
city
staff's
recommendation
regarding
standard
C
discusses
preventing
the
obstruction
of
use
of
landmark
buildings
only
from
the
perspective
of
shirt
and
Road
sheridan
road
is
clearly
important,
but
it's
not
the
only
public
road
on
the
east
campus,
for
example,
lincoln
street
is
the
northern
boundary
of
the
area
under
consideration
and
garrett
places
in
the
middle.
We
believe
that
these
other
public
roads
should
be
give
this
given
the
same
consideration
as
Sheridan
Road.
M
Finally,
we
continue
to
wonder
why
northwestern
feels
it
needs
the
relief
it
proposes
unless
it
has
the
intention
of
doing
construction,
alteration
or
demolition
that
would
not
otherwise
past
the
Preservation
Commission
scrutiny.
Members
of
the
Commission
have
already
stated
that,
from
the
Commission's
perspective,
yep
10
seconds,
the
work
to
review
and
approve
Northwestern's
project
is
not
burdensome.
Thank
you
for
your
service
to
the
city
of
Evanston
and
for
your
good
work.
A
Thank
you
next
is
Barbara
Jane's.
Oh
thank
you.
N
Good
evening
my
name
is
Barbara
Jane's.
I
live
at
80
to
colfax
in
the
Northeast
Evanston
historic
district,
hence
whatever
I
do
to
the
outside
of
my
house.
I
have
to
present
to
you
and
I.
Would
second
mr.
Wieland's
comment
that?
Why
should
and
many
of
yours,
why
should
northwestern
be
exempt
when
it
contains
so
many
historic
buildings,
and
what
do
they
have
and
if
you
give
up
your
right
to
on
review
and
decide
upon
whether
a
project
goes
forward
and
in
what
form?
And
that
could
be
a
precedent.
N
A
L
Name
is
Kathleen
hammerschlag.
I
live
at
311like
lake
street
in
the
lakeshore
historic
district.
This
issue
was
alluded
to
earlier,
but
I'd
like
to
come
back
to
it.
As
miss
Humphrey
stated
in
2012,
the
board
of
trustees
voted
to
build
a
multi-purpose
facility
on
like
Michigan.
That
would
benefit
several
of
the
athletic
teams
in
March
2014.
It
was
reported
in
The
Tribune
that
donations
had
poured
in
and
that
construction
of
the
two
building
complex
would
begin
by
early
2015
and
take
two
years
to
complete.
L
The
rendering
published
a
year
ago
shows
the
indoor
playing
field
bordering
the
beach.
It
is
unclear
where
the
other
one
tall
and
massive
is
supposed
to
be
built.
A
design
competition
was
even
held
and
Perkins
and
well
was
hired
a
year
ago,
I'd
like
to
know
the
status
of
the
project
and
when
these
plans
will
be
shared.
F
Just
to
clarify
they,
actually,
there
was
no
design
competition.
We
did
engage
Perkins
and
well
in
the
planning
and
design
for,
in
addition
to
the
lakefront
athletic
facility,
we're
still
in
the
early
stages
of
that
and
fundraise,
depending
on
fundraising,
the
project
will
not
be
going
forward
until
significant
funds
have
been
raised
in
order
to
proceed
with
a
project,
but
we're
still
in
the
planning
stages.
A
A
Any
final
observations:
I,
you
want
to
make
a
motion
well.
A
Thank
you,
lord,
with.
K
A
D
A
No
putt,
no
nose,
no
abstentions.
Do
we
want
whether
any
final
comments?
Otherwise
we
can
have
a
motion
to
adjourn
or.