►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 2/20/2018
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
Good
evening
and
welcome
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
of
the
city
of
Evanston.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
your
applications
for
major
variations,
special
uses
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Administrator,
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
board
will
either
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
City
Council.
Unless
so,
you
call
the
roll
please
Mary.
C
D
A
Five
members
present
we
do
have
a
quorum
tonight
also
present
tonight
our
zoning
planner
Melissa
Klotz
and
Planning
and
Zoning
Administrator
Scott
Mangum.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time
so
that
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
board
regarding
any
matter
on
the
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
A
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
staff
on
the
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellant
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
a
legal
interest
and
property
located
within
500
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
When
all
supporting
and
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
a
closing
statement.
A
Then
the
board
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
All
testimony
will
be
under
oath
well.
Do
though,
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence?
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statements.
Your
personal
knowledge
when
you
address
the
board,
please
state
your
name
and
address
and
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
Our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you
are
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
can
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
A
Any
matter
not
concluded
at
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
There
are
three
items
on
the
agenda:
tonight
is
12:39
Asbury
here,
okay
and
1801
main
you
guys
are
here
and
3233
central
all
right
everybody's
here.
This
is
a
very,
very
busy
meeting.
So
I'm
gonna
ask
everybody
to
try
to
limit
your
comments
and
be
as
brief
as
possible,
while
giving
us
all
the
information
you
feel
as
necessary.
A
We
do
generally
stop
at
10
o'clock,
so
we're
trying
to
get
all
of
this
in
before
then,
so
we
can
certainly
use
your
help
to
that
to
those
ends.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
the
meeting
minutes,
and
has
everybody
had
a
chance
to
read
that
first
set
of
meeting
minutes
from
January
16th?
Yes,.
E
A
A
A
movement
seconded
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
aye
I
will
did
you
say,
aye
sorry
there
we
go.
I
will
note
that
the
Huth
who
weren't
present
did
not
vote
all
right.
So
now
we
were
moving
on
to
the
first
case,
but
before
I
do
that,
if
you
have
any
intention
of
speaking
tonight,
maybe
if
you
think
you
are
or
not
I
do
need
to
swear
you
in
so
go
ahead
and
raise
your
right
hand,
and
you
swear
affirm
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings.
A
B
Finnegan
board
member
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
subdivided
property
to
split
Beth
Emmet,
the
free
synagogue
from
a
single-family
residents
in
the
r1
single-family
residential
district.
The
applicant
requests
32.7%
building
lot
coverage
where
32.3%
currently
exists
and
30%
is
permitted.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
8
to
7
and
65.1%
impervious
surface
coverage
for
63.8%
currently
exists
and
45%
is
permitted.
Zoning
code
section
6
8
to
10
both
for
the
synagogue
property.
The
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
F
Do
I
use
this
I'm
new
to
this
okay,
so,
basically
the
there's
a
residential
property
on
Betemit
lot
and
we've
had
several
discussions
with
many
people
at
the
city,
trying
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
property
Bassem
that
has
no
use
for
it
and
cannot
afford
to
maintain
it.
And
so
the
plan
that
we
came
up
was
talking
with
different
people,
including
people
in
preservation
and
in
zoning
and
building
was
to
subdivide
the
lot
and
put
the
property
on
the
market
for
sale,
because
it
is
a
landmark
status.
F
Building
we're
hoping
to
find
that
we've
actually
found
potential
interest
anyway
and
someone
who
was
a
preservationist
to
buy
the
building
and
Reba.
We
have
it.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
could
get
approval
from
the
city
to
subdivide
a
lot
and
after
many
discussions
and
different
meetings
with
several
dagger
meetings
and
actually
the
right
before
the
last
Zoning
Board
meeting.
Thanks
to
your
help,
we
came
up
with
a
plan
that
I
think
has
the
least
amount
of
major
variations
which
are
also
existing
conditions.
D
So,
just
to
clarify
for
the
record,
when
you
say
major
variations,
which
are
also
existing
conditions.
What
you
really
mean
is
that,
with
respect
to
the
lot,
that
would
be
subdivided
that
is
residential,
that
there
there
are
no
changes
to
the
lot
proposed
and
the
variations
are
required
to
accommodate
the
subdivided
lot
to.
F
C
Appreciate
your
having
gone
to
the
the
trouble
to
work
as
hard
as
you
did
with
the
city
to
come
up
with
a
plan
that
does
not
require
any
additional
curb
cuts
on
Asbury
and
that
essentially
keeps
the
fundamental
structures
as
they
are
I
mean.
Essentially,
everything
remains
the
same
as
I
understand
it.
The
South
property.
The
house
is
actually
in
compliance
currently
and
the
only
reason
that
the
temple
and
the
parking
lot
are
no
longer
in
compliance
is
because
they're
giving
up
that
historic,
landmark
building.
Is
that
correct,
correct?
Thank
you.
F
And
I
also
like
to
quickly
add
that
on
the
south
part
of
the
property
in
the
residential
lot,
there's
a
lot
of
concrete
that
exists
currently
for
the
playground
which
would
be
removed.
If
the
subdivision
were
to
go
through
that,
wouldn't
that
wouldn't
increase
the
permeable
surface
on
the
Beth
Emmett
side,
but
it
would
further
increase
the
permeable
surface
on
that
residential
side
are.
F
F
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
could
get
permission
from
the
city
to
subdivide
the
lot
before
we
put
it
on
the
market,
but
because
the
the
way
the
playground
is
laid
out,
there's
actually
a
jungle-gym
I
think
straddling
that
red
line,
and
so
they
would.
You
know,
we're
operating
on
the
assumption
that
all
that
will
be
coming
out.
Okay,.
A
Okay,
Melissa
I
was
gonna.
Ask
you
a
question
but
you're
walking
away
so
I'm
gonna.
Ask
you
the
question
it
may
be.
You
know
the
answer:
okay,
so
you're,
looking
for
32.7%
building
a
lot
coverage
is
that
including
what
we
approved
a
couple
meetings
ago
as
lot
coverage.
Excessive
lot
coverage
for
the
side,
entry,
the.
F
G
G
G
A
A
F
F
Am
a
board
member
of
both
Emmet
and
I
was
tasked
with
trying
to
find
a
solution
for
that
Asbury
house,
conundrum,
and
so
about.
Two
years
ago
we
started
having
conversations
with
the
city,
and
initially
we
had
to
hope
that
we
could
just
tear
it
down,
doesn't
seem
like
the
simplest
option,
but
there
was
a
landmark
status
building
and
that
was
after
we
had
the
building
department
come
out.
F
I
don't
want
to
talk
too
long,
but
basically,
then
we
went
on
to
preservation
and
preservation
suggested,
and
we
subdivide
a
lot
and
tried
to
market
it
and
funny
because
they
were
under
the
impression
we
could
find
a
buyer
which
we
didn't
think
we
could,
and
so
we
were
very
excited
to
pursue
that
option.
So
that's
I'm
here
now.
E
D
Does
the
firm
ELISA
I
guess
maybe
does
the
landmark
status
of
the
residential
lot?
Would
that
prohibit
any
any
significant
changes
to
that
building
or
the
garage
that
themselves
would
require
variations
at
some
point?
In
other
words,
even
though
the
subdivision
is
compliant
right
now,
are
we
gonna
come
get?
Are
we
gonna
get
an
application
for
variations
from
whoever
buys
that
lot?
There.
B
A
A
I
A
A
D
This
seems
like
a
well
thought
out
at
an
artful
solution
to
to
a
problem
and
and
I
think
the
standards
are
all
met
here,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
least
deviations
necessary.
There
is
no
additional.
There
is
no
additional
building,
that's
a
that
is
causing
the
vet,
the
need
for
the
variations.
It's
really
just
the
subdivision.
So
in
my
view,
we
should,
in
my
view,
I
vote
to
approve
the
project
I.
E
A
Right
so
with
that
we're
gonna
go
through
the
standards
for
major
variation.
There
are
seven
of
them,
and
the
first
is
that
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
In
fact,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
nobody's
going
to
know
what
happened
on
this
lot,
the
lot
line
will
move
in
the
house
will
stay
and
both
emmett
will
stay
and
everything
will
look
like
it's
always
been
so
I.
A
Don't
think
that
there
will
be
any
impact
on
the
neighbor,
so
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
tent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
to
is
to
provide
zoning
that
keeps
buildings
in
in
contacts
with
their
neighborhood
and
keeps
our
setbacks
appropriate
to
the
neighborhood
and
by
having
a
fully
compliant
single-family.
A
A
Agree:
number
three:
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
This
is
a
unique
property
because
we
do
have
a
single-family
in
addition
to
a
a
religious
use
on
the
same
lot
and
being
able
to
separate
those
when
that,
when
that
religious
use
no
longer
has
a
need
for
that,
single-family
is
unique.
So
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
A
If
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
too
carried
out,
I
know
that
the
goal
here
was
to
create
the
single-family
that
had
no
variations,
because
that
is
what's
going
to
cause
us
trouble
in
the
future.
The
religious
institution
isn't
going
to
cause
us
trouble
because
you
guys
are
going
to
keep
changing
that
building
and
so
I
believe
that
by
accommodating
the
extra
percent
fraction
of
a
percent
of
lot
coverage
lets
us
get
to
a
place
where
we
have
a
single
family
that
is
conforming
and
the
religious
isn't
conforming.
A
So
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
traditional
income
from
the
property,
or
there
is
a
public
benefit
now.
I
know
that
there's
obviously
a
financial
benefit
to
you
to
get
rid
to
release
this
property
and
have
it
have
another
use.
A
I
do
think
that
by
again
getting
this
rather
than
condemning
it
or
demolishing
it,
but
being
able
to
subdivide
the
property,
get
it
to
a
single-family
use
in
a
in
a
compliant
with
compliance
setbacks
so
that
anyone
can
come
and
take
care
of
it
in
accordance
with
preservation
standards
and
all
those
sorts
of
things
is
the
public
benefit.
It
is
a
listed
house.
It
is
a
known
architect,
so
I
think
that
those
are
important
things
and
important
benefits
to
the
city
of
Evanston
I
would.
D
Just
add
I
think
that
the
motivation
here,
certainly
while
there
is
well
there,
may
be
a
financial
motivation
that
it
is
not
the
exclusive
motivation
here,
which
is
what
the
standard
acquires
and
that
the
property
owner
has
carried
the
single-family
home
for
quite
some
time
on
this
property
and
just
simply
has
run
out
of
the
ability
to
sustain
it.
And
in
my
view
that
is
the
primary
motivation.
D
A
A
If
you
read
back
through
all
of
the
documentation,
there
were
other
reasons
for
getting
that
piece
of
property
as
additional
parking
and
then
that
never
came
to
pass,
and
so
there
are
there's
a
series
of
events
here
that
are
certainly
outside
of
the
control
of
the
the
current
board
at
Bath,
M
and
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
both
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
peels.
A
This
is
where
I
think
you
really
win
the
case,
which
is
we've
gotten
down
to
just
two
variations,
and
those
variations
are
very
minor
in
the
big
scheme
of
things
and
again,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
nothing
changes
on
those
two
Lots
we're
just
moving
the
imaginary
line,
and
so
you
really
have
minimized.
The
bid
deviation,
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
So
with
that
I
move.
D
E
H
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members.
The
board
members,
the
public
for
this
item,
Brian
foot
architect
for
the
city
of
Evanston,
applies
for
major
release:
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
new
community
center
with
ice,
rinks,
gymnasium,
public
library,
preschool
multi-purpose
rooms
and
exterior
site
work,
including
a
new
parking
lot
and
athletic
fields.
This
is
within
the
OS
open
space.
Zoning
district
variations
are
requested
for
floor
area
ratio
for
the
number
of
parking
spaces
provided
for
the
drive
aisle
width
within
the
parking
lot
and
for
the
number
of
loading
docks
proposed
zero.
G
J
Evening,
Andy
Nucci
principal
at
wood
house,
Nucci,
architects,
brian
joined
by
brian
foot,
here,
obviously
bringing
the
crown
community
center
to
you
this
evening
to
request
these
or
variances
the
floor
area
ratio
from
an
allowable
of
0.15
to
0.18
parking-lot
dimensions.
We
actually
are
requesting
a
slight
reduction
in
the
drive
aisle
with
the
parking
spaces,
as
just
mentioned,
from
required
334
to
229
and
on
the
loading
docks
from
a
required
of
2
to
0
the
existing
site
plan.
J
Here,
the
Robert
Crown
Center
existing
facility
at
Main
and
dodge
obviously
occupying
the
large
park
full
of
play
fields,
the
ice,
the
Crown
Center
with
the
basketball
corridor
gymnasium
and
an
ice
rink
as
well
as
the
tennis
courts
in
the
northwest
corner.
The
aerial
for
those
of
you
I'm
sure,
are
all
familiar.
The
the
site
is
about
700,000
square
feet.
The
existing
play
fields,
roughly
350,000
square
feet,
the
building
55,000
square
feet
one
sheet
of
ice,
one
large
gymnasium,
preschool
most
of
this
programming.
J
Our
proposed
site
plan
is
here
just
a
quick
tour:
the
the
new
facility
in
yellow
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site,
the
more
public
and
traffic
Corney
of
the
site,
moving
it
away
from
the
neighborhood.
The
play
fields
are
then
more
oriented
to
the
north,
three
large
turf
fields.
The
parking
lot
then,
on
the
south
generally
in
the
same
location
as
it
exists,
and
the
tennis
courts
to
remain
to
the
northwest.
J
Site
size
doesn't
change.
Obviously
the
proposed
area
dedicated
to
the
fields
reduces
slightly
the
parking
lot
to
29
cars,
an
increase
from
the
145
that
are
there
currently
in
the
building
90,000
square
foot
footprint
larger
than
the
55,000
60,000
square
foot
existent.
Here's,
the
technical
drawing
that's
in
your
in
your
package,
the
same
drawing.
J
Just
to
get
to
the
specifics
of
the
individual
request:
the
floor
area
ratio,
the
building
here
in
yellow
there's
been
a
very
public
project
over
the
last
year.
Numerous
public
meetings,
where
we
went
through
many
public
programming
sessions
with
stakeholders
to
understand
exactly
what
the
needs
of
the
facility
were
understand
exactly
what
the
facility
should
have
in
it
to
arrive
at
the
two
sheets
of
ice,
the
the
larger
gymnasium,
the
increased
preschool.
J
A
quick
tour
of
the
building
is
really
quite
simple
again.
This
is
oriented
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site,
with
the
two
large
sheets
of
ice
in
gray
to
the
northern
portion
of
the
building.
The
large
yellow
area.
On
the
first
floor,
which
is
on
the
left,
is
the
lobby
space
that
you
enter
into.
That's
the
blue
arrow.
The
library
is
an
orange
to
the
south
side
of
the
site
facing
main
the
preschool
in
purple
on
the
west.
Upstairs
the
big
move
that
we
made
was
to
bring
the
large
gymnasium
to
the
second
floor.
J
We
actually
did
this
to
get
the
footprint
of
the
building
smaller.
We
needed
to
bring
meaningful
square
footage
up
into
the
building
to
reduce
its
footprint
on
the
site.
So
we've
gone
to
great
lengths
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
building
on
the
site
to
make
room
for
the
play
fields
and
the
and
the
necessary
parking
which
brings
us,
of
course,
to
the
parking
here's.
The
area
of
the
parking
lot
itself
that
229
cars
to
arrive
at
the
number
of
required
spaces.
We
went
through
a
similarly
intensive
exercise.
J
We
did
programming
exercises
with
the
Parks
and
Rec
Department
Lauren's
Hemingway
the
city
of
Evanston,
to
understand
exactly
what
the
uses
of
the
fields
would
be
across
seasons
across
days,
weekdays
weekends,
to
understand
exactly
how
much
play
field
was
necessary.
We
then
had
a
traffic
study
done
where
we
looked
at
at
the
end
of
last
summer.
J
The
facility
in
full
use,
anticipating
use
of
the
three
fields,
the
library,
the
Ice
Arena,
is
kind
of
all
in
full
swing.
We
found
out
what
our
I'm
sorry
I,
don't
have
a
pointer,
but
our
our
main
parking
demand
was
the
two
hundred
and
twenty
five
cars,
so
we
vetted
that
at
225
and
obviously
our
proposing
the
229.
So
here's
that
parking
lot,
technical
drawing
that
you
have
to
get
to
the
question
of
dimensions.
This
is
to
speak
to
the
reduced
drive
aisle
requirement.
This
is
a
little
bit
complicated.
J
This
is
specific
to
the
site
itself,
so
we've
provided
you
these
constraints
just
for
illustration.
The
fields
are
to
the
north
and
you
can
see
what
we're
calling
the
north
constraint.
We've
pushed
the
fields
as
far
to
the
north
as
we
can
to
not
impact
the
existing
parkway
trees
on
Lee
being
good
neighbors
to
the
Lee
Street
neighbors
has
been
a
key
objective
of
ours
from
day
one
so
pushing
those
play
fields
as
far
north,
as
was
responsible
to
preserve
the
Parkway
trees.
J
We
end
up
with
that
southern
extent
of
the
play
fields,
and
we
call
that
the
north
constraint
of
the
parking
lot
then
over
to
the
lower
left
of
the
frame
you'll
see
the
little
red
dot.
That's
the
deep
tunnel
vent
so
there's
the
stormwater
deep
tunnel
that
has
a
vent
on
our
site
that
we
have
to
avoid
with
the
parking
lot.
Our
drive
aisle
can't
go
over
the
top
of
that.
So
that
becomes
our
southern
extent
for
the
drive
aisle.
J
Then
we
need
to
maintain
a
median
and
the
responsible
median
width
to
provide
the
necessary
plantings
is
eight
feet.
So
when
you
do
that,
math
from
our
nort
constraint
down
to
our
south
constraint
with
the
required
median
space,
we
end
up
with
a
23
foot
drive
aisle.
Hence
our
request
to
you
of
the
zoning
variance.
If,
if
not
this
23
foot
from
24
foot
variance,
the
variance
would
be
to
request
a
reduction
in
trees
on
the
site.
We
worked
with
Evanston.
J
J
In
addition-
and
this
was
brought
up
at
dapper-
one
of
the
times
that
we
went
to
dapper-
the
maximum
demand
is
actually
the
winter
concert
that
occurs
at
the
Crown
Center.
That's
the
thousand
seat
arena.
That's
the
maximum
parking
seat,
demand
that
the
facility
will
will
see,
and
the
parking
lot
will
not
be
big
enough.
It's
not
big
enough
now
to
handle
that
thousand
foot
a
thousand
seat
event,
and
it
won't
be
large
enough
in
its
new
configuration.
J
So
the
plan
is
to
actually
rent
space,
just
north
of
the
facility
at
the
valley
parking
lot
and
then
shuttle
people
to
the
to
the
facility
as
a
way
of
keeping
the
users
of
the
facility
out
of
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
to
give
them
a
nice
efficient
alternative
to
the
parking
lot
and
then
just
lastly,
to
the
issue
of
the
loading
dock.
This
this
is
a
community
center
building.
The
requirement
is
these:
two
loading
docks.
We
have
a
loading
zone
off
the
north
side
of
the
building,
one
large
loading
zone
off
of
Lee
Street.
J
J
J
J
K
On
our
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Laura
Biggs
and
I'm
the
city
engineer.
So
we
did
look
specifically
at
the
types
of
vehicles
that
are
coming,
but
it's
primarily
just
the
normal
city
facilities
vehicles
that
are
more
like
pickup
trucks
and
thing
minivans,
and
things
like
that
that
are
bringing
stuff
back
and
forth.
They
provide
by
far
the
vast
majority
of
the
servicing
of
all
of
the
equipment
and
any
other
type
of
equipment
is
very
infrequent.
K
The
there
is
some
amount
of
drop-off
of
food
for
like
preschool
and
when
there's
events
a
lot
of
time's,
that's
just
done
through
the
front
of
the
building,
because
the
space,
the
event
space
is
essentially
the
lobby,
and
so
it
isn't
really
expected
to
be
using
this
for
large
trucks.
That
probably
the
largest
would
be
garbage
trucks
which
are
coming
generally
a
couple
times
a
week.
K
They've
not
expressed
that
I
think
they
feel
like
once
it's
stocked,
it's
just
sort
of
change
out
again,
most
likely
just
through
the
front
of
the
building,
because
it's
a
fairly
minimal.
They
do
plan
to
operate
a
pretty
robust
book
reservation
system
where
a
resident
can
reserve
a
book
and
there
are
lockers
where
you
can
just
come
without
even
interfacing
with
library
staff
and
pick
up
your
book
with
a
little
pin
code
that
they
give
you
but
again
I.
That
is,
you
know
a
couple
of
boxes
a
couple
times
a
week.
So.
D
J
Fields
are
anticipated
to
be
turf
fields,
so
there's
there's
really
not
equipment,
they
have
to
be
swept
or
groomed
like
once
or
twice
a
year.
I
would
anticipate
those
are
they're
not
being
stored
here
on-site,
so
they
would
be
stored
off-site
and
brought
to
the
facility
just
those
couple
times
of
year.
What.
K
A
lot
of
the
and
a
lot
of
the
equipment
really
is
permanently
there
and
we're
working
with
the
architect
to
try
to
determine
the
best
way
to
configure
it
so
that
things
don't
have
to
be
disassembled
and
moved
around.
But
there
will
be
some
facilities
provided
and
we're
still
working
out
the
details
because
of
the
smaller
storage.
J
C
J
A
If
you
don't
mind,
can
we
go
back
to
parking
for
a
manager
there's
a
lot
of
documentation
to
read
through
and
I
think
I
picked
up
most
of
it,
but
I
didn't
see
a
rationale
for
why
we're
not
providing
more
parking.
If
we
don't
have
an
impervious
surface
coverage
issue,
why
aren't
we
providing
more
parking?
We.
J
A
I
A
A
We've
got
16
year-olds,
driving
SUVs,
who
are
gonna,
try
and
park
in
this
parking
lot
and,
although
my
concern
is
not
them
passing
each
other,
my
concern
is
the
turning
radius
in
and
when
they
can't
make
that
turning
radius
they're
taking
two
spots,
they're
taking
one
and
a
quarter,
and
so
now
you've
just
reduced
the
parking
and
that's
my
concern
so
help
me
out
with
that.
I.
J
Mean
that's.
We
could
also
ask
the
question:
why
are
we
not
just
making
the
soccer
field
it's
slightly
smaller
right
and
really
it's
just
working
from
north
to
south
on
the
overall
site
plan,
you
pick
up
your
best
guess
for
what's
the
dimension
here
necessary
to
maintain
and
preserve
those
Parkway
trees,
you
then,
but.
J
True
and
I'm
just
saying
that,
as
we
work
north
to
south,
maintaining
this
large
aisle
to
get
people
out
of
the
parkway
and
circulating
towards
the
building
and
maintaining
that
small
swath
of
green
there
to
grow
additional
trees
to
provide
the
safety
from
the
fields
to
the
parking
lot
to
provide
a
maximum
dimension
from
the
fields
to
the
parking
lot
as
a
safety
measure
as
well.
Could
it
could
it
be
taken
there
yeah
I
mean?
Are
there
two
feet
on
the
site,
yeah.
J
A
It
just
seems
like
that's
that
there's
got
to
be
two
feet
somewhere
on
that
site,
whether
it's
that
median
I
know
you'd
like
8
feet.
I
know
that
you
can
also
get
away
with
4
depending
on
the
species
of
tree
right.
So
if
you
just
choose
a
different
tree,
you
can
get
away
with
4,
and
now
we've
got
compliant
drive
aisles
that
kids
in
big
cars
can
make
turning
radiuses
into
smaller
parking
spots
and
then
we're
not
losing
parking.
So
it
sounds
like
there
are
options
here.
I
would.
C
Submit
that
that
the
23
feet
is
an
adequate
dimension
for
the
vast
majority
of
vehicle
manipulation
in
a
parking
lot,
and
if
there
is,
if
there
is
currently
throughout
my
lifetime,
as
a
user
of
robert
chrome
complaint,
it's
that
there
is
so
much
impervious
surface
for
the
times
that
there
is
maximum
usage
of
the
parking
lot.
When
most
of
the
time
the
parking
lot
is
underutilized
and
the
maximizing
green
space
I
think
is
probably
a
greater
priority.
I
I.
A
I'm
looking
big-picture
right,
this
is
something
we
don't
want
to
rebuild
in
20
years
right.
We
want
this
to
be
around
for
a
hundred
years
right,
and
so
let's
not
be
short-sighted
on
what
we
see
as
parking
problems.
I
mean
some
of
that
happened
not
to
segue
to
a
different
topic,
but
with
Ridge
and
the
traffic
lanes
there
and
the
trees
there,
and
now
we've
got
this
big
problem
with
what's
happening
there.
A
E
K
K
Certainly
it's
something
that
we
can
look
at
changing.
I
will
say
it's
something
that
Andy
I
think
just
neglected
to
mention
was
that
part
of
the
distance
between
the
fields
and
the
parking
lot
is
concerned
about
runaway
balls
and
foul
balls
and
things
like
that
getting
to
the
parked
cars,
and
so
that's
why
it
was.
It
was
felt
like
every
foot
you
could
add
to
that
with
was
actually
a
safety
thing
as
well,
which.
A
I
understand
but
I
think
there's
also
a
landscaping
solution
to
that
right.
It
might
not
be
trees,
it
might
be
shrubs
and
then
you
have
an
ability
to
shrink
it
at
just
a
little
bit
and
again,
I
have
no
concerns
about
fire
trucks.
Those
guys
know
how
to
get
where
they
need
to
go.
That's
not
my
concern.
My
concern
our
sixteen
year
olds,
who
can't
turn
so
I,
appreciate
the
efforts
you've
gone
to
I
understand
how
hard
it
is
to
shoehorn.
Everything
in
I
think
this
is
a
this
is
a
fairly.
K
D
K
I
think
one
of
the
goals
of
this
project
is
very
much
a
community
project
and
the
reason
we
stand
here
before
zba
is
because
we
really
want
to
provide
something
that
is
meeting
the
needs
of
the
community
and
I.
Think
that
the
thoughtfulness
you're
providing
is
something
that
we
were
actually
looking
for
that
kind
of
feedback.
So
it's
definitely
something
that
I
think
we
can
look
at
and
and
see
what
we
can
do
were.
A
C
I've
been
following
the
entire
process,
because
I've
been
I've
been
in
the
Robert
crown
neighborhood
for
quite
some
time,
and
there
have
been
I
really
have
to
applaud
the
group
here
for
having
put
so
much
work
into
community
input.
I
think
that
the
project
that
you
have
formulated
is
is
very
thorough.
It
took
a
long
time
to
get
through
the
packet
and
I
appreciate
that,
if
you
know
you
can
speak
to
addressing
these
concerns
on
the
width
of
the
aisle,
that
would
apparently
be
appreciated,
but
on
balance,
I
think
it's
just
a
really
well
done.
D
Yeah
I
echo
those
sentiments
and
with
respect
to
the
items
we're
considering
tonight,
although
the
parking
variation
in
terms
of
the
number
of
spaces
is
a
significant
deviation
from
what's
required,
I
also
would
note
that
it's
merely
or
perhaps
more
than
double
the
amount
of
spaces
on
the
site.
Currently,
it's.
D
D
E
H
A
Yeah,
unfortunately,
public
comments
closed,
oh
yeah,
sorry,
okay,
so
I
generally
agree
with
my
colleagues
as
well
I'm
impressed
with
the
ability
to
get
all
of
that
stuff
in
the
building
with
the
FAA
are
only
being
over
point
zero.
Three.
That
was
a
challenge
I'm
sure
and
I.
Do
think
that,
with
a
little
bit
of
tweaking,
you
guys
can
probably
solve
that
you've
managed
to
solve
everything
else.
So
I
fully
believe
you
have
the
skill
sets
and
the
talent
to
get
that
done.
A
A
We
can
see
that
they're
actually
reorienting
the
site
in
a
way
that
makes
much
more
sense
to
the
neighborhood
by
taking
the
building
and
putting
it
on
the
major
street
corner
and
putting
the
more
desirable
fields
closer
to
residential.
So
I
do
think
that
that
will
that
that
will
increase
the
enjoyment
to
the
adjacent
neighborhoods.
In
addition,
a
brand-new
sparkling
building,
that's
cool.
Looking
is
certainly
going
to
help
the
neighborhood,
so
I
think
that
that
is
that
standard
has
been
met.
I
just.
D
A
Point
number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
here
is
to
be
able
to
allow
us
to
modernize
things
and
and
spaces
for
the
use
of
the
community
and
to
have
those
things
evolve
with
time
as
as
needs
in
the
community
evolve,
and
so
this
certainly
again
based
on
the
huge
community
input
on
the
project,
certainly
reflects
the
needs
of
the
needs
and
desires
of
the
community.
So
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
three,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
There
are
a
couple
things
that
play
here
right.
We
know
that
whole
north
north
constraint,
south
constraint
deep
tunnel
who
knew
deep
tunnel
is
going
to
get
in
the
way
on
this
property
I'm
sure
nobody
thought
it
was
ever
going
to
be
in
the
way.
A
So
there's
certainly
that
and
then
you
you're
trying
to
get
a
major
community
center.
In
addition
to
all
these
outdoor
activities,
all
to
live
on
the
same
site,
and
so
I
think
that
that
is
a
is
unique
and
peculiar
to
this
property.
So
I
think
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty,
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
at
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out.
A
If
we
held
the
applicant
to
the
FA,
are
we'd
be
cutting
out
some
component
of
that
building,
which
again
is
a
little
short-sighted
for
the
life
of
that
building,
and
so
by
getting
all
of
that
stuff
in
there
that
the
community
has
put
had
input
on
I
think
is
important,
so
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
I
also.
D
A
Excellent
point:
number:
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
Clearly,
it's
a
community
center.
There's,
no
point:
there's
no,
there's
no
profit
motive.
Here.
The
the
motive
here
is
to
create
a
great
place
for
the
community,
to
gather
and
for
kids
to
be
able
to
interact
and
have
great
experiences
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff.
So
I
do
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship,
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
this
property.
Yeah
I,
don't
even
know
how
long
that
Robert
Crown's
been
on
that
property,
but
it's
been
that
property
for
forever
and
it's
not
like.
We've
got
new
vacant
land
to
be
building
community
centers
on
so
we're
dealing
with
the
hand
we've
been
dealt
and
so
I
think
that
that
standard
certainly
has
been
met
and
number
seven.
A
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
peaceable
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
I
certainly
think
that
they've
met
that
standard.
With
regards
to
the
FA
our
for
the
project,
I
do
not
think
that
that
has
been
met
with
respect
to
the
with
respect
to
the
parking
lot.
A
We've
discussed
that
there
are
a
couple
of
options
and
a
couple
of
ways
of
looking
at
things
and
perhaps
using
shrubs
instead
of
trees
or
different
trees,
to
be
able
to
bring
some
of
those
medians
down
or
those
those
protective
pathways
down,
so
that
we
can
get
a
full
drive
aisle
in
the
interests
of
safety.
So
the
standard
has
been
met
for
half
of
it,
but
has
not
been
met
for
the
other.
Half
I
would.
C
Suggest
on
that
point
that
they,
there
has
been
extensive
consultation
on
this
with
city
engineers
and
others
involved
in
the
project,
and
it
was
an
either/or
in
terms
of
the
deviations
that
would
be
considered,
and
the
consensus
at
that
time
was
that
the
23
foot
lane
for
the
parking
was
the
preferable.
So
in
that
regard,
I
think
that
this
standard
has
been
met
adequately
to
recommend
approval
to
City
Council,
with
perhaps
request
that
they
consider
alterations
that
would
allow
for
an
expansion
of
that
lot.
Would
you
agree
with
that?
I
agree.
D
With
the
spirit
of
it,
I'd
propose
it
a
little
differently.
I
think
that
there
is
a
more
minimum
change
possible
that
we've
identified
tonight
that
would
accommodate
the
20,
the
24
24
/
23,
and
so
what
I
would
recommend
is
that
both
options
be
represented
to
City
Council
or
be
presented
to
City
Council,
with
the
recommendation
that
the
least
change
necessary
is
the
24,
but
that
if
city
council
decides
that
23
is
more
desirable
from
the
council's
perspective,
that
zoning
would
be
behind
that
approval
as
well.
A
I'm
inclined
to
just
23
fine
I'm
inclined
to
approve
the
the
variance
for
FA,
are
and
or
to
recommend
approval
of
that
and
to
recommend
denial
of
the
other
one
I
think
at
that
point.
City
Council
can
do
whatever
they
want,
but
I
do
feel
strongly
that
sometimes
when
it
gets
to
be
commute
designed
by
committee.
Sometimes
you
forget
about
some
other
things
out
here
and
it's
a
fresh
set
of
eyes.
A
That
perhaps
brings
that
point
up
and
so
I
think
sometimes
that's
what
we
can
be
and
in
this
case
I
think
it
is
because
I
think
that
there's
a
there's
a
there's,
a
valuable
trade-off
here.
That
I
would
like
to
encourage
City
Council
to
certainly
address
so
that's
my
inclination
is
to
recommend
approval
of
the
one
and
recommend
I'll.
Add
the
other
I
agree.
D
C
A
D
A
A
A
Agree
as
well
because
what
they
and
I
apologize,
but
I
didn't
say
this,
but
the
requested
variation
it
actually
increases
decreases
the
degree
of
nonconformity
and
I
think
it's
a
major
decrease
in
the
degree
of
nonconformity
and
so
for
that
reason,
I
think
that
the
number
of
parking
spots
is
okay.
I
also
think
that
the
believe
that
the
loading
dock
again,
because
this
particular
property
has
no
need
for
a
loading
dock,
there's
no
reason
to
hamstring
it
and
the
site
planning
and
all
of
that
stuff
to
hamstring.
The
project
with
that.
A
D
D
D
D
C
Well,
Scott,
why
don't
you
make
the
motion
I
defer.
D
D
C
D
C
C
A
A
We're
gonna
stay
focused,
we're
still
on
the
record
and
focused
the
people
on
Central.
Street
have
been
here
for
an
hour,
which
is
amazing.
It's
only
been
an
hour,
so
alright,
thirty,
two
thirty
three
thirty
to
forty
nine
central
the
floor
is
yours.
Oh
sorry,
Melissa
needs
to
read
it
into
the
record.
I
got
ahead
of
myself.
B
Highlands
on
Central
LLC
property
owner
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
14
unit,
multiple
family
residence
with
a
detached
garage
and
open
parking
in
the
are
four
general
of
residential
district
and
the
OCS
sea
Central
Street
overlay
district.
The
applicant
requests
14
dwelling
units
where
a
maximum
10
dwelling
units
are
allowed.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
8,
5,
4c,
55%,
building,
lock
coverage
where
a
maximum
40%
is
allowed.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
8,
5,
6
and
62.1%
impervious
surface
coverage,
where
a
maximum
55%
is
allowed.
B
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
include
variation
application,
submitted,
December,
27th,
2017
zoning
analysis,
renderings
site
plan,
landscape
plan,
floor
plans,
elevations
plaintiff
survey,
inclusionary
housing,
application,
public
benefits,
summary
letter
of
support,
image
of
property,
aerial
view
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property,
diaper
draught
meeting
minutes,
excerpt
of
February
7th
2018,
as
well
as
a
emailed
packet
of
letters
of
support
and
objection
that
was
emailed
out
shortly
before
the
meeting
and
hard
copies
are
available
here
and
one
more
email
that
followed
up
afterwards.
That
was
handed
out.
O
O
So,
as
we
looked
at
the
property
that
we
have
and
the
structures
that
we
have
on
the
property
and
realize
that
they
had
reached
the
end
of
their
useful
life,
our
first
step
was
to
look
at
what
we
could
do
to
redevelop
the
property
without
any
variance,
basically
by
right,
and
we
determined
that
we
could
build
9
units
three
to
four
bedrooms.
Each
and
reach
a
forced
three
storeys
in
height.
O
This
design
would
use
the
maximum
amount
of
Zoning
allowances
without
any
request
for
variance,
but
we
felt
the
massing
would
be
too
large
for
based
on
what
the
property
is
and-
and
that's
why
we're
here
proposing
what
we're
proposing
today.
The
units
that
we
could
build
by
right
could
easily
be
converted
from
rental
a
condominium
and
give
us
more
options
from
a
business
standpoint.
But
again,
while
this
might
be
the
easiest,
quickest
most
profitable
way
to
go.
O
We
didn't
feel
this
was
the
best
fit
for
the
property
for
the
site,
for
Central
Street
and
for
the
neighborhood.
So
we
set
out
to
review
other
options.
What
we
presented
here
is
a
proposal
for
a
14
unit,
building
two
storeys
7
units
at
grade
and
7
units
on
the
second
floor,
so
single
level
living
the
seven
units
at
grade
would
be
handicapped
adaptable
with
all
the
doorways
hallways,
turning
radiuses,
etc.
That
would
meet
the
a.da
requirements.
O
The
seven
years
on
the
second
floor
would
also
incorporate
all
of
those
same
dimensions
and
be
adaptable
so
that
if
someone
were
to
live
on
the
second
floor
for
example,
and
wanted
to
put
a
chairlift
in
the
stairwell,
we
would
have
fully
adaptable
units
on
the
second
floor
as
well.
But
right
now
there
is
no
elevator
proposed
just
to
make
it
clear.
O
We
are
proposing
a
more
traditional
architectural
look
and
finish
as
an
alternative
to
the
modern,
mid
and
high
rise
properties
that
are
being
built
in
evidence,
and
currently
our
goal
is
to
provide
a
single-family
feel
in
a
small
neighbourhood
apartment
building
that
keeps
you
know
that
neighborhood
feel
alive.
So
we
spent
the
last
18
months,
working
with
the
staff
here
at
the
city,
to
refine
out
refine
our
plans
and
incorporate
their
suggestions
with
regard
to
the
design,
materials
etc.
So
as
to
minimize
the
number
of
variance
is
required.
O
Every
question
I
should
say
we
also
met
with
the
neighbors
last
spring,
showed
them
our
initial
plans
ask
for
their
comments
and
we
were
very
favorably
impressed
with
the
response.
Most
of
the
responses
were
over
only
positive.
The
most
frequent
questions
had
to
do
with
off
street
parking
stormwater
management,
and
so
we
made
sure
that
our
plan
met
the
requirement
for
parking
off
street
with
21
spaces,
16
of
which
will
be
garages
and
five
outside
spaces,
and
our
engineers
have
designed
a
huge
underground
storm
water
management
retention
system.
O
In
addition
to
the
bio
soils
that
are
incorporated
in
the
landscape
plan,
now
we
fully
understand
that
a
14
unit
building
would
require
variances,
as
well
as
providing
public
benefits
for
the
neighborhood
and
we're
happy
to
do
all
that.
We
met
with
the
aldermen
to
come
up
with
some
of
the
things
that
would
be
a
benefit
to
the
community
and
all
them
suffered
and
recommended
that
we
install
a
flashing
light
at
the
crosswalk
at
the
south
end
of
the
I'm.
Sorry,
the
east
end
of
the
property
near
bent
Park
and
we're
happy
to
do
that.
O
We
also
met
with
Public
Works
and
they
suggested
that
we
install
a
concrete
landing
pad
for
people
getting
off
the
bus
while
traveling
west
on
Central
Street,
because
there
is
much
no
such
landing
pad
now
and
we
are
happy
to
include
that
in
the
project
as
well.
In
fact,
a
dapper
there
was
a
recommendation
to
include
a
bus,
shelter
but
there's
actually
a
bus,
shelter
across
the
street
on
Central
Street
for
people
going
east,
which
is
really
more
of
a
loading
point
for
that
route,
whereas
going
west
is
more
of
a
getting
off
spot.
O
So
a
bus
shelter
is
probably
not
as
beneficial
there
as
it
is
across
the
street,
and
that's
probably
why
it's
there
right
now.
We
also
are
very
happy
to
be
able
to
work
with
Lew
Dixon
in
the
Evans
3
building
warehouse
and
their
workforce
training
program.
They
are
in
the
process
of
deconstructing
the
structures
currently,
and
we
will
also
be
hiring
one
of
the
program
trainees
as
a
member
of
our
construction
staff
for
this
project,
I,
don't
know
of
any
other
development.
Evanston
is
making
that
commitment.
O
We
are
happy
to
help
out
and
and
give
us
someone
who's
gotten
the
training
through
the
program,
the
ability
to
work
in
a
construction
project
and
develop
their
skills
and
hone
their
skills
and
then
have
the
market
ability
on
their
resume
for
future
projects.
We
feel
this
project
is
a
good
fit
for
the
site.
It's
in
keeping
with
the
architecture
and
style
of
surrounding
properties.
O
It
provides
an
alternative
to
the
larger
scale,
mid
and
high
res
that
are
being
built
in
other
areas
of
Evanston,
and
it's
an
alternative
to
that
modern
architecture
while
giving
residents
the
conveniences
of
new
construction
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
our
tech
to
let
her
walk
you
through
the
actual
project.
Thank
you.
N
N
The
whole
kind
of
wide
range
that
created
a
in
issue
with
planning
that
you
want
as
many
units
at
grade
when
we
started
to
lay
that
out
in
plan
that
we
were
bumping
up
against
the
impervious
count
and
the
building
coverage
because
of
the
footprints
that
we
were
trying
to
keep
at
grade.
So
we
started
to
work
into
that
system.
How
can
we
get
as
many
of
these
units
and
as
many
of
them
as
adaptable,
just
to
kind
of
bring
you
up
to
speed?
N
Our
property
is
located
in
this
section
of
the
r4
zoning
behind
us
is
r1
and
the
park
across
the
street
that
we
were
discussing
the
sidewalks,
for
this
is
basically
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
quick
update
of
the
characteristics
of
the
neighborhood
property.
A
lot
of
it
is
one
and
two-story
with
brick
and
siding
with
a
lot
of
gabled
roofs.
N
It's
kind
of
a
smaller
scale
that
was
one
of
the
other
pieces
we
wanted
to
do
is
make
sure
that
our
building
felt
like
it
belonged
in
that
smaller
scale
and
not
do
a
larger
kind
of
massive
townhome
feel
where
you're
living
at
all
three
floors.
The
intent
was
try
to
keep
all
the
living
at
grade
and
at
one
floor
on
the
second
level.
This
is
just
a
quick
view
of
the
site
to
orient
you
with
our
project
across
the
street
is
the
park,
and
next
to
us,
is
our
neighbors.
N
There's
a
couple
two
story
and
one
story:
buildings
directly
adjacent,
give
you
another
quick
orientation
to
our
property
and
the
existing
property.
Our
building
is
proposed
in
the
red
line,
as
well
as
the
covered
parking
right
now.
There
are
no
covered
parking
on
this.
It
is
just
all
open,
concrete
and
pavers,
and
we
are
going
to
be
honoring
all
of
the
setbacks.
In
fact,
we
have
farther
away
from
the
property
than
the
existing
building
in
and
actually
not
to,
the
zoning
allowed
requirements.
N
This
is
just
a
quick
view.
These
are
the
parkway
trees
that
already
exist.
Our
property
has
quite
a
large
amount
of
heritage,
trees
that
are
on
the
corners,
which
we
plan
to
keep,
as
well
as
the
parkway
trees
that
informed
us
on
how
we
wanted
to
handle
the
property,
the
situation
of
the
building
and
the
setbacks,
and
also
the
stormwater
requirements.
N
We
knew
that
we
were
going
over
the
impervious
surface
and
part
of
that
calculation
was
due
to
the
off
street
parking.
The
requirement
in
the
zoning
for
Evanston
is
that
you
have
to
take
a
square
footage
per
parking,
regardless
of
whether
using
impervious
or
pervious,
so
we
decided,
since
our
property
was
being
designed
with
a
larger
footprint
at
grade,
that
we
would
do
as
much
as
we
can,
above
and
beyond
what
was
required
to
meet
that
to
counterbalance
the
impervious
surface
we
have
caused
by
roofs
and
as
well
as
the
off
street
parking.
N
When
you
do,
the
calculations
on
the
off
street
parking
is
pervious
pavers.
We
don't
get
to
take
credit
for
that
in
terms
of
the
lot
and
the
pervious
content.
We
do
get
credit
for
it
when
we
do
our
stormwater
calculations,
but
we've
gone
above
and
beyond
what
our
stormwater
calculations
would
require.
N
This
just
shows
you
the
building,
in
essence,
with
the
trees
remove
that
are
existing,
so
you
can
get
a
better
feel
for
the
architecture
and
how
the
the
space
was
laid
out
with
trying
to
create
variation.
We
worked
with
the
city
quite
a
lot
on
materiality
breaking
up
the
massing,
as
well
as
the
front
and
the
back
property
quickly
to
kind
of
go
over
the
site
and
the
impact
on
landscaping
and
building
elements.
N
The
three
trees
that
we
are
going
to
be
removing
our
in
essence
on
Edge's,
the
property
or
on
the
edge
of
the
existing
buildings
themselves.
We
are
keeping
and
maintaining
all
of
the
very
large
trees
up
at
the
front,
and
we
made
sure
that
when
we
were
doing
our
stormwater
management
plan,
that
dan
had
mentioned
that
we
were
making
sure
that
we
were
not
driving
large
pipe
and
storm
up
in
the
front
to
potentially
have
an
adverse
impact
to
those
existing
trees
and
topography.
N
This
is
the
site
plan
and
the
first
floor
plan.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
met
all
of
our
requirements
in
terms
of
you
know:
setbacks
allowances
that
really
just
came
down
to
the
variances
requested
the
for
impervious
and
lot
based
on
trying
to
get
as
many
units
as
we
can
at
grade
and
then
trying
to
limit
the
size
of
the
units
themselves,
so
that
we
could
create
as
many
units
as
possible
for
folks
with
that
limited
accessibility
and
mobility.
N
N
Our
building
is
too
small,
and
we
felt
that
this
was
a
very
important
need
in
the
community,
specifically
for
seniors
people
who
are
moving
in
Evanston
and
need
a
smaller
platform
to
live,
do
not
want
to
necessarily
live
downtown,
do
not
want
to
necessarily
live
in
an
elevator
building
still
want
to
have
that
local
residential
feel.
It
also
is
very
good
housing
for
people
with
limited
mobility
as
well.
N
There's
not
very
many
houses
that
are
built
for
this
type
of
access,
so
we
felt
this
was
a
a
great
way
to
take
care
of
that
to
have
everything
at
grade,
and
this
allows
a
lot
more
people
in
this
area
to
have
housing
at
this
level
without
having
to
live
in
more
of
the
downtown
neighborhoods
em.
So
just
quickly
to
show
you,
we've
got
the
the
turning
radiuses
as
well
as
all
the
clearances
required
at
doors
and
bathroom
accessories.
N
So
this
unit
has
quite
larger
bathrooms
and
setbacks
that
you
would
not
see
in
a
typical
and
of
unit
of
this
size
that
also
increases
the
unit's
themselves,
their
square
footage
to
allow
for
that
to
occur
on
the
property.
The
units
themselves
are
twelve
hundred
and
seventy
four
square
feet,
which
is
still
a
nice
size.
It's
not
looking
for
a
very
large
oversized
unit
type
I,
believe
the
zoning
would
allow
a
2500
square
foot
unit
to
be
constructed
on
this
site.
N
The
exterior
materials,
as
you
can
see,
from
our
perspectives
as
well
as
the
elements
here.
We
have
a
lot
of
variations
between
brick
and
siding
to
break
down
the
balance
of
the
facade
to
bring
the
scale
down
as
well
as
as
it
returns,
the
property,
the
back
side.
We
play
special
attention
to
our
neighbors
from
the
north,
what
they
would
be
seeing
across
their
property
as
they
looked
over
the
parking
garage
you
know,
blocks
your
view
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
neighbors
properties
and
their
own
trees
and
garages.
N
N
Well,
bios,
well,
a
rain
garden.
A
bios
whale
is
more
engineered
focus
and
a
rain
garden
is
not
necessarily
having
the
drain
below
and
I'll
show
you
in
our
engineering
slide
when
I
get
to
it.
So
a
bio
soil
has
a
drainage
system
attached
to
the
pipe
and
a
rain
garden
is
letting
it
naturally
percolate
through
the
soil
so
that
you're
collecting
it
in
a
zone
of
landscape
that
can
handle
the
water
and
slowly
diffuse
it
back
into
the
ground.
We
felt
that
that
was
very
appropriate
for
the
large
trees
that
we
had
up
front.
N
We
did
not
want
to
over
flood
them.
We
did
not
want
to
have
large
drainage
connections
up
at
the
front
that
could
potentially
damage
some
of
these
larger
trees
that
are
off
on
this
side
of
the
property,
but
in
the
back
side
of
the
property,
where
a
lot
of
our
roofs
from
the
garage
and
our
parking
were
coming
from,
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
handle
that
quickly
and
meet
the
requirements
for
MW
Rd,
as
well
as
Evanston
and
part
of
what
we've
done
is
created.
N
Pervious
pavers
in
this
location,
as
well
as
all
of
the
patios
we
discussed
with
the
city
having
some
of
the
sidewalks,
be
also
pervious
pavers.
The
problem
there
was
we're
trying
to
deal
with
people
with
limited
mobility
as
our
goal,
and
one
of
the
things
that's
hard
for
those
folks
is
to
deal
with
uneven
paver
applications
when
you're
walking
in
and
out.
N
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
is
we
knew
that
we
were
over
the
pervious
coverage
that
was
basically
because
of
our
roofs,
as
well
as
the
on-site
parking
counting.
As
a
straight
square
footage
calculation,
so
what
we
did
is
we
decided
we
are
going
to
use
the
pervious
pavers,
even
though
from
a
planning
and
requirement
for
MWR
and
the
city
and
our
calculations,
we
decided
that
we're
asking
for
this
variance
we're
going
to
do
as
much
as
possible,
above
and
beyond,
to
kind
of
counterbalance
that
to
counterbalance
roofs.
N
The
best
way
is
to
have
our
stormwater
management
on
site
and
not
flooding
into
the
system
or
the
neighbors.
As
of
right
now,
the
new
MW
Rd
requirements
that
have
recently
passed
will
require
this
property
to
have
the
storm
water
detention,
but
we're
going
above
and
beyond
by
at
least
22%
besides
their
standards,
as
well
as
the
city's
requirements.
But
it
does
not
count
in
terms
of
the
zoning
calculation
for
pervious
materials,
which
we
understand
so.
A
N
N
So,
in
terms
of
the
landscape
architecture,
in
the
back,
you
have
a
true
BIOS
well
with
the
drain
and
the
ground
cover
what
that
would
be
in
that
area
and
in
the
front
it's
more
of
a
rain
garden.
So
you
get
more
of
a
traditional
looking
grasses,
more
shrubs
and
bushes
that
like
to
have
their
feet
wet
and
that
can
store
the
water,
but
there's
not
the
piping
that
is
connected
to
the
bio
swale.
N
We
wanted
to
try
to
create
it
at
where
there
was
the
least
impact
to
the
natural
vegetation
that
already
occurred,
as
well
as
to
keep
it
away
from
our
neighbors
as
much
as
possible
and
in
the
front
we
are
taking
advantage
of
the
rain
garden
effect,
as
opposed
to
putting
in
more
piping
and
coverage
along
the
back
and
just
to
kind
of
go
into
more
detail
about
some
of
the
public
benefits
just
to
clarify
this
is
where
our
property
sits.
This
is
the
existing
bus
stop
as
it
is
now.
N
There
is
just
a
sign:
there
is
no
loading
zone
or
bus
shelter.
This
is
the
location
that
now
is
a.
It
is
not
a
stop
sign,
it
is
a
crossing
sign,
and
so
these
would
now
have
the
flashing
lights
so
that
you
can
see
it
as
you're,
traversing
back
and
forth
a
lot
of
the
kids
from
school
and
drop-off
cross
here
daily.
So
we
felt
that
was
a
very
important
piece
to
the
property,
and
this
is
where
the
existing
bus
shelter
is
when
you're
going
east.
N
The
end
of
this
bus
run
is
just
right
up
over
this
corner.
So
a
lot
of
folks
who
come
here
are
this:
is
the
drop-off
zone
as
opposed
to
the
pickup
zone.
So
originally,
when
we
met,
we
felt
that
that
was
a
great
idea
to
put
in
the
parking
for
the
future
to
get
a
little
more
detail
about
Evanston,
rebuild
I'm,
not
sure.
If
you're
aware
of
the
process,
it's
above
and
beyond
just
a
standard,
green
deconstruction,
it
takes
quite
a
bit
of
time.
N
I
D
A
Sorry
you'll
have
to
come
up.
Cuz
I
just
want
to
tack
on
to
that
right
because
Fair
Housing,
you
can't
discriminate
right
correct.
So
how
do
you?
How
do
you
make?
How
did
how
did
all
those
first
floor
units
not
go
to
healthy
people
and
we
could
have
had
able-bodied
people
and
we
could
have
had
pavers
and
less
impervious
surface,
but
now
we've
got
concrete.
We're.
O
Definitely
going
to
include
that
aspect
of
the
property
in
our
marketing
efforts
to
encourage
the
opportunity
for
those
folks
who
may
need
or
may
have
limited
mobility
and
desire
a
unit
that
would
have
that
capability,
but
you're
right.
We
can't
say
no
to
someone
else
in
favor
of
that
use,
but
we
certainly
will
encourage
that
as
we
market
the
property,
because
we
think
that's
a
need.
That's
underserved
right
now
that
served
by
large.
E
O
O
C
C
O
C
O
Is
correct,
given
the
size
of
the
project,
with
with
the
few
number
of
units
that
we're
doing
and
with
the
cost
of
the
stormwater
management
and
all
the
other
things
that
we're
doing
on
the
site,
including
the
public
benefits?
There
really
isn't
much
economy
of
scale
to
spread
those
costs
over.
So
the
impact
of
the
rent
on
the
affordable
housing
unit
on
site
would
basically
put
this
project
out
of
financing
capabilities.
O
For
example,
if
the
target
rent
is
$2,500
a
month,
the
affordable
unit
on
site
rent
would
net
out
to
be
about
$800
a
month
when
they
give
you
the
two-bedroom
number
as
jothika
thousand
sixty
six.
And
then
you
subtract
for
the
fact
that
the
tenant
pays
their
own
electric,
their
own
gas,
don't
stove,
they
accommodate
for
the
cost
of
electricity
for
the
refrigerator
and
one
other
thing
I
can't
think
of.
But
when
you
net
all
this,
those
things
out
the
rent
comes
down
to
about
$800
a
month.
O
The
cost
to
build
this
is
is
right
at
the
point
of
Gore
no-go,
and
it's
going
to
take
every
bit
of
income
that
the
units
produce
in
order
to
meet
that
financial
viability
of
the
project,
so
we're
more
than
happy
to
pay
into
the
housing
fund
and
we're
more
than
happy
to
continue
to
work
with
the
Housing
Authority
of
Cook
County
and
all
the
properties
that
we
want
to
manage.
But
for
this
property
it's
just
not
economically
feasible
to
offset
that
reduction
in
the
in
the
rent
for
that
unit.
N
And
just
to
clarify,
after
we
had
heard
after
meeting
we'd
always
been
presenting
that
we
would
be
paying
into
the
inclusionary
housing
cost
and
and
after
it
was
presented
in
dapper,
the
owners
met
with
the
department
to
find
out
exactly
what
would
the
ramifications
be?
What
are
the
financial
requirements?
It
wasn't
taken
as
just
a
grain
of
salt.
They
immediately
made
a
meeting
to
meet
with
we.
O
Met
with
Sarah
flax
and
as
an
anti-climax
I
went
through
the
entire
process
and
actually,
after
meeting
with
them,
we
had
assumed
that
the
ami
requirement,
I
think,
is
60%,
so
average
median
income
for
the
affordable
housing
unit
in
this
location
would
be
a
60%
of
what
a
the
average
monthly
income
would
be.
So
we
interpreted
that
to
mean
that
the
rent
would
then
be
60
percent
of
the
market
rent.
O
It
has
to
do
with
the
guidelines
that
again
I
think
at
this
time
are
set
up
by
HOD
if
I
remember
what
she
said
and
that
the
rent
for
a
two-bedroom
unit
in
Evanston
1066
as
your
starting
points
and
then,
as
I
said,
you
subtract
from
there.
So
after
meeting
with
them,
you
know
we
just
found
to
be
completely
impossible
to
meet
that
requirement
and
still
be
able
to
put
the
project
going
forward.
We'd
like
to
offer
these
units.
We
think
that
this
is
a
underserved
product
for
the
community.
O
We
think
it's
in
keeping
with
the
size
and
scale
of
what's
in
the
neighborhood
and
we'd
like
to
be
a
law
for
the
you
know,
limited
those
who
have
limited
mobility,
the
opportunity
to
have
something
other
than
a
high-rise
to
live
in,
but
unfortunately,
with
only
14
units.
We
don't
have
that
economy
of
scale.
You
know
your
stormwater
management
can't
be
spread
over
a
14
unit
building.
You
know
your
stormwater
management
doesn't
change
the
middle
half
at
all.
You
go,
but
yet
with
only
14
units.
Those
costs
you
know
just
are
what
they
are.
O
O
Trying
to
offer
as
many
units
at
grade
without
the
need
for
steps
and
for
those
who
have
mobility
issues,
and
it
just
seemed
that
to
do
that-
would
make
most
sense
to
make
it
so
that
the
matching
amount
is
on
the
second
floor,
I
mean
the
stairway
could
accommodate
a
chairlift.
If
someone
wanted
to
do
that,
so
we
could
probably
get
to
more
than
seven
units
that
would
have
that
capability.
O
As
I
said,
we
haven't
built
that
into
the
project,
but
certainly
if
someone
came
along-
and
we
happen
to
be
as
fortunate
to
have
all
the
seven
units
on
the
first
floor
being
used
for
those
who
have
mobility
issues.
If
someone
said
hey
kind
of
in
a
second-floor
unit,
it
would
be
easy
to
do
as
long
as
the
city
will
allow
us
to
put
in
a
chairlift.
I
was.
A
N
Correct
when
you
look
at
IVC
code,
so
what
we
have
is.
We
have
two
means
of
egress
from
the
unit
and
we
have
two
stairs.
You
could
work
that
out
as
one
stair
that
is
protected
as
a
rating,
so
the
second
stair
is
not
a
means
of
egress
because
of
the
travel
distances
that
we
are
and
the
height
for
residential
plus.
O
A
I
N
We
have
two
staircases
per
each
landing,
so
there's
two
means
of
egress
from
the
unit,
and
if
that
was
a
fire
rated
access,
then
you
would
still
have
means
to
get
to
two
exits.
On
the
other
floor
with
one
stair
I
know,
it
sounds
a
little
odd
because,
when
you're
designing
multifamily,
but
this
is
very
similar
like
a
residential
unit,
that
would
be
a
row
home,
they
are
required
to
have
a
front
and
a
back
stair
and
they
can
travel
within
as
well.
So
you
can
count
your
bedroom
in
a
single-family
home.
N
You
can
count
your
bedroom
as
the
egress
because
of
your
level
of
floor.
It
does
as
an
architect.
It
does
sound,
really
strange
when
you
start
reading
that
section
of
the
code
it
has
to
do
with
your
construction
and
how
many
units
etc
that
you're
falling
within
I
think
one
of
the
other
things
that
came
about
when
we
tried
to
put
as
many
units
at
grade,
we
were
hitting
the
problem
with
impervious
and
lock
coverage.
N
Always
if
we
took
the
units
off
on
the
second
floor
to
try
to
fit
within
the
ten,
it
seemed,
but
we
were
still
having
the
same
impact.
So
we
felt
for
the
success
of
the
building
we're
already
taking
the
hit
there.
It
would
be
nice
to
have
more
available
units
and
making
them
smaller.
So
you
have
a
two-bedroom
14
unit
as
opposed
to
a
ten
four
bedroom
unit.
That
would
be
larger
in
scale
wit
that
could
still
conform
with
the
zoning
requirements.
N
A
A
A
N
I
think
the
reason
why
we
went
to
the
two-bedroom
it's
a
very
common
request,
a
lot
of
some
of
the
smaller
apartment
buildings
that
you
can
get
our
one-bedroom.
It's
a
rare
thing
to
find
the
2-bedroom
that
acts
exactly
like
this.
A
lot
of
the
people
who
are
looking
for
this,
our
couples
or
older
seniors
who
want
to
stay
in
Evanston,
but
not
relocate,
not
move
downtown,
still
stay
in
a
walkable
location.
N
So
we
felt
that
the
two-bedroom
was
that
perfect
mix
of
what
would
be
the
most
beneficial
all
around
and
again
would
be
the
most
marketable
so
that
this
project
trying
to
combine
these
and
tense
of
having
more
of
these
units
available
versus
what
you
could
do
as
of
right.
So
is
a
balancing
act
of
right.
C
Having
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
the
emphasis
here
on
accessible
units
for
seniors,
I
agree
completely,
that
I
think
the
project
looks
very
nice.
It's
I
agree
that
it
melds
nicely
in
the
neighborhood
and
I
think
that
there
is
definitely
a
demand
for
2-bedroom
2-bath
apartments,
for
both
seniors
and
for
young
starter
families
in
Evanston.
The
problem
that
I'm
having
is
that
the
the
public
benefit?
Is
this
theoretical
appeal
to
seniors
to
stay
in
Evanston
and
that's
not
a
I'm
I.
Just
can't
see
that
as
a
real
benefit,
because
it's
theoretical
I.
C
Absolutely
absolutely,
and
so,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
just
2-bedroom
2-bath
a
14
unit,
2-bedroom
2-bath
development,
and
it
does
have
accommodations
for
that
and
I
applaud
that
that's
that's
wonderful,
but
but
I'm.
The
the
benefit
that
I'm
seeing
is
just
not
in
scale
to
what
your
what
you're
asking
for
and-
and
you
know
the
city
it
seems
to
me
from
the
packet-
gave
you
options
that
would
that
they
felt
would
meet
that
exchange
of
benefit
to
allowances,
and
you
rejected
that.
So
you
know
that's
that's.
C
Why
I'm
having
the
problem
with
with
this,
because
it's
you're
it
seems
to
me
that
you
don't
you
could
have
done
a
property
that
was
within
the
variances.
Well,
that
was
within
code
with
a
mix
of
maybe
two
or
three
bedrooms
and
then
done
smaller
two
bedrooms
that
would
not
have
required
the
variances
that
you're
seeking
here
I
think.
N
One
of
the
the
pieces
when
we
were
looking
at
it
in
terms
of
the
adaptable
and
flexible
is
that
one
of
the
things
that
Fair
Housing
is
requesting
that
this
unit
does
not
have
to
comply
with
is
trying
to
create
more
buildings
in
the
future
for
moving
forward
so
that
you're
building
these
buildings,
so
that
moving
forward
you're,
providing
more
options
as
the
life
of
the
building
progresses.
So
trying
to
balance
and
I
know,
it
sounds
like
a
very
small
public
benefit.
N
That's
why
we
work
with
the
city
on
multiple
issues
to
try
to
create
the
most
public
benefit.
Besides
that
portion,
it's
just
one
of
our
public
benefits,
and
originally
the
inclusionary
housing
piece
was
not
necessarily
something
we
felt
that
on-site
versus
not
would
be
looked.
We
know
we
were
told
that
that
is
considered
public
benefit
when
the
ordinance
just
says
you
can
do
one
or
the
other.
So
for
us
it
was
a
little
confusing
whether
that
would
be
required
until
we
got
in
front
of
dapper
on
that
front.
N
A
Isn't
building
those
those
units
as
ADA
accessible,
which
is
only
marginally
more
expensive
right?
What's
the
difference
between
a
2
8
door
and
a
3
o
door
from
a
cost
perspective,
not
very
much
so,
but
that
benefit
is
really
to
you,
because
it
allows
your
building
to
continue
to
meet
the
needs
of
whatever
the
market
bears
in
the
future.
It's
really
more
as
the
way
I
see
it,
it's
more
of
a
benefit
to
you
than
it
is
to
the
community,
because
it
keeps
your
product
viable
longer
without
having
to
renovate
so.
N
I
think
in
terms
of
our
costs,
when
we
are
looking
at
it,
is
not
just
the
size
of
the
doors
it's
the
size
of
the
required
turning
radius
and
use
for
the
buildings.
So
there's
a
lot
of
square
footage,
that's
in
the
hallways
and
the
doors
and
the
entrances
that
if
we
did
not
need
to
comply
with,
that
would
be
a
lot
smaller.
N
It
was
a
very
small
amount
that
we
were
saying
this
would
be
affected
by
definitely
the
building
could
be
smaller
if
those
requirements
and
clearances
were
not
needed
to
be
met
which
they
aren't
as
of
right
and,
and
there
is
a
benefit
to
them,
that
they're
doing
this
I
think
the
realistic
possibility
here
is
a
lot
of
times.
The
wanting
more
units
is
specifically
because
they
want
more
income,
I
know
as
of
right.
N
Think
that's
where
we
were
coming
at
this
from
is
that
we
felt
this
was
better
for
Evanston
and
that
we
were
doing
our
best
to
try
to
balance
the
variances
that
we
were
requesting
so
that
the
impact
to
the
neighbors
and
the
environment
and
the
storm
water
would
be
mitigated
by
what
we
were
doing
but
you're
right.
We
could
build
a
smaller
unit
in
a
smaller
footprint,
but
at
the
end,
we're
also.
A
Just
double-checking
the
math
and
you
can
just
build
ten
of
these
two-bedroom
units,
which
you're
allowed
to
do,
buy
right
and
you're
under
building
lot
coverage
and
you're
under
impervious
surface.
So
then
we're
not
talking
about
anything
and
you
guys
can
go
on
your
merry
way
and
get
a
permit
tomorrow.
That's.
N
O
N
I
think,
as
of
right,
they
could
do
nine
or
ten
four-bedroom
units
that
would
be
much
larger
in
mass
and
shape
in
the
neighborhood
and
would
provide
more
income
than
what
they're
requesting
in
the
fourteen.
Smaller
bedrooms
that
are
accessible,
I
think
that's
the
balance
that
when
we
came
in
understanding
what
they
could
do
as
a
bright
I've
have
a
harder
time
renting.
A
four
bedroom
I
think
there
are
in
the
neighborhood
just
across
the
street.
There
are
some
of
these
larger
buildings
that
they're
done
there.
N
They
could
also
sell
them
as
condos
and
then
their
walk
away
and
they're
gone
and
and
they're
not
part
of
the
community,
so
I
think
that's
where
they
were
coming
from
in
terms
of
the
14
verses,
the
they
were
trying
to
balance
what
they
could
do
and
what
they
thought
might
be
better
overall
for
the
community
and
that's
where
the
difference
in
the
price.
That's
where
the
difference
is
so
the
14
made
that
a
viable
project
versus
going
and
just
doing
the
standard,
four-bedroom
three-story
parking
underneath
kind
of
standard,
larger
massing.
So.
C
O
Not
for
the
number
of
units
by
right,
unfortunately,
because
to
maximize
the
amount
of
units
for
those
with
mobility
issues.
If
we're
going
to
a
three-story,
you
know,
building
now,
we've
got
a
built
in
elevators
and
the
costs
associated
with
that.
So
in
order
to
continue
to
provide
that,
what
we
see
is
a
underserved
part
of
the
community,
we
would
have
to
incur
significant
innovations
well.
C
And
then
you
have
a
second
floor
and
you
have
a
third
floor
and
half
of
it,
so
you
can
get
your
units
in,
but
you
you
know
only
some
of
them
are
handicap
accessible,
not
all
of
them
because,
as
we
know,
even
with
fourteen
with
the
potential
to
accommodate
handicap
accessible
needs,
probably
fourteen
of
them
will
not
be
leased
to
people
who
have
those
needs.
So
it
seems
as
though
there
could
be
a
combination
of
unit
sizes.
That
would
achieve
your
goal,
but
would
also
allow
the
project
to
be
feasible.
I
N
That
we
studied
early
on
trying
to
work
within
the
nine
ten
inclusionary
trying
to
create
as
many
at
grade
and
then
split
and
have
mother,
sorry,
other
larger
units
adjacent
the
hard
part
was
the
way
the
stairs
and
the
egress
worked
with
someone
having
to
live
up
and
then
having
the
stairs
within
when
we
started
to
lay
the
building
out
even
have
one
section
of
it
be
one-story
and
the
other
be
two
and
then,
like
you
had
mentioned
a
third,
we
started
degrading
more
costs.
As
we
went
up,
then
what
we've?
N
So
we
were
trying
to
balance
the
pros
and
cons
when
we
kind
of
first
met
and
started
talking
with
the
city
staff
about
you
know
is
this
something
that
could
be
that
we
could
do
that.
We
could
viably
get
you
know
approved,
so
we
did
a
lot
of
strategies
in
that
way
and
the
way
the
numbers
and
the
cost
came
down
this
kind
of
what's
a
sweet
spot
and
we
felt
it
was
kind
of
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
what
we
were
doing
in
terms
of
density
of
people
versus
density
of
building.
N
D
You
explain
how
further
the
on
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
why
that's
not
financially
viable
for
you
to
make
one
of
the
units
I
know.
You
said
it
would
decrease
your
rent
from
twenty
five
hundred
to
eight
hundred
for
that
unit,
but
you're,
then
the
the
flipside
is
a
seventy-five
thousand
dollar
payment
right
right.
O
So
the
difference
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
difference
between
the
two
you're
looking
at
about
five
hundred
thousand
dollar
cost
compared
to
75
thousand
dollar
cost.
So
the
effect
of
that
rent
over
the
period
of
time
that
it
would
be
under
that
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
You
would
have
about
a
five
hundred
thousand
dollar
impact
on
the
project.
How.
I
D
O
D
O
D
A
Q
Q
For
everybody's
sake,
so
Asher
Horner
and
company,
under
the
an
identity
of
Highlands
and
central
plans,
to
demolish
nine
existing
single
townhouses
and
proposed
to
replace
it
with
14.
Obviously,
we've
gone
over
that
a
lot.
However,
they
are
seeking
major
zoning
variances
to
construct
these
14
units.
Q
Variations
are
generally
granted
in
cases
of
some
kind
of
hardship
or
unusual
difficulty.
However,
the
developer
and
their
zoning
variance
application
for
major
variants
has
not
identified
any
hardship.
Hardships
at
all,
I
am
I,
am
writing
to
lodge
my
objection
to
the
variations
requested
in
connection
with
this
project
and
request
that
the
variances
be
denied.
The
reason
is
simple:
the
developer
has
not
demonstrated
a
hardship
in
connection
with
this
project
other
than
self-imposed
difficulty
stemming
from
attempting
to
meet
their
own
programmatic
requirements.
Q
Just
a
one
last
comment
and
I,
and
that
is
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
know
that
some
people
might
say
Oh
a
flashing,
stop
sign
at
the
crosswalk
might
be
helpful
or
the
city,
but
my
feeling
is
if
the
city
needed
that
or
if
we
needed
that
the
traffic
engineers
would
have
identified
it
as
being
important
and
maybe
would
have
done
something
about
it.
Maybe
there
is
an
issue:
I
don't
know,
I
live.
Obviously
I
live
right
there,
but
we
have
the
existing
flag
system
and
it's
not
perfect,
but
I
don't
know.
Q
Q
Just
on
a
personal
note,
when
I
looked
at
the
plans
and
I
see
four
air
conditioning
units
that
are
right
next
to
my
backyard,
that
kind
of
hurts
my
soul
when
I
think
about
sitting
in
my
backyard,
so
I
recognize
that
it's
beyond
the
city's
ability
deal
and
to
deal
with
I
appreciate
that
there
are
good
things
about
the
the
development
that
Schermerhorn
is
trying
to
do,
but
I
also
want
to
mention
that
I
did
walk
around.
That
I
found
this
out
very
brief
quickly.
Q
Yes,
on
Sunday
I
found
out
about
this,
so
I
walked
around
on
the
neighborhood
and
talked
to
the
different
people.
Just
on
the
block
that
on
Hartzell,
the
people
face
the
whose
alley
butt
up
against
this
and
all
around
the
block
on
Central
Street,
who
were
impacted
that
by
this
and
I
got
the
signatures
of
about
ten
people,
so
I
would
have
had
more
signatures,
I'm,
confident
if
I
would
have
had
more
time.
R
I'm
at
3232
Herzl
Street
directly
across
the
alley
from
the
project
proposed
project
and
in
fact
my
house
was
one
of
the
ones
in
their
picture.
So
so
there's
a
there's.
A
couple
of
things:
I've
been
trying
to
figure
out,
what's
been
going
on
at
this
location
since
they
cut
down
three
or
four
heritage
trees.
18
months
ago,
I
came
over
to
the
city
I
spent
time
with
the
Zoning
Department
they're
like
we
don't
have
any
permits
nobody's
applied
for
anything.
R
So
there's
all
this
fluff
about
what
they're
doing
for
the
neighborhood,
but
they
prepped
the
they
prepped
the
property
too.
To
let
you
believe
that
they're
doing
this
preservation
work
and
they're
taking
care
of
the
neighbors
and
all
this.
But
you
know
that
was
that
was
after
they
came
in
and
cut
down
gorgeous
heritage
trees.
They
were
already
there
because
they
were
gonna,
be
in
the
way
of
this
parking.
The
parking
garage
that
they
want
to
put
up.
R
Additionally,
I've
been
in
my
house
for
25
years,
I've
been
a
part
of
three
different
positions
to
get
the
alley
paved
and
Evanston
bonded
mortgage
has
been
the
thorn
in
everyone's
side.
So
this
nonsense
about
you
know
being
a
good
neighbor.
They
they've
been
absolutely
refusing
to
participate
in
getting
the
alley
pay
for
those
of
us
who
have
garages
that
back
up
on
the
alley,
because
they
don't
want
the
the
tax
levy.
So,
although
we
can
get
all
the
private
owners
to
sign,
you
know
to
get
the
to
get
the
alley
paved
haven't.
R
Seen
modern
mortgage
just
said:
no,
we
don't
you
know
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
want
to
deal
with
it
and
and
we're
gonna
block
it.
So
I
don't
buy
the
good
neighbor
business,
that's
being
sold
up
here
and
and
that
the
the
parking
garage
that's
being
proposed
actually
is
directly
across
from
how
I
would
back
in
and
out
of
my
my
garage
so
it
you
know,
it
adds
to
the
that's
the
the
challenge
and
inconvenience
of
an
already
narrow
alley.
R
You
know
in
terms
of
yeah
I've
got
people
from
the
from
the
from
the
house.
That's
just
to
the
to
the
east
of
there's
backing
out
of
their
garage
and
in
baton
hitting
my
garage
as
it
is
so
adding
all
adding
the
additional
traffic
adding
the
garage
creating
the
creating
the
the
sight
line,
problems.
Adding
the
density,
that's
not
necessary,
I
mean
the
there's.
Every
hardship
that's
been
listed
is
you
all
have
pointed
out.
Is
a
self
created
one
and
I
see
absolutely
no
reason
to
grant
it.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
M
S
Great,
thank
you.
I'd
right
across
from
vent,
Park
I
have
several
questions
about
this
project.
One
is
I've
lived
across
the
street
from
MIT
for
five
years
and
I've
seen
what
the
scorned
Realty
Company
has
done
to
not
take
care
of
property,
and
the
buildings
are
still
there
and
if
you
want
to
see
how
they
take
care
of
property,
go
look
at
it.
Go
look
at
the
roofs.
Go
look
at
what
people
lived
in
during
during
the
time
that
they
were
there
before
they
vacated
them.
S
Not
all
that
many
months
ago,
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
there
were
leaks
in
the
roof
as
terrible
as
the
roof
looks.
That's
one
thing.
The
other
is
the
people
that
have
been
in
the
buildings
before
now.
Maybe
it'd
be
a
whole
different
category
of
people,
I,
don't
know,
but
they've
averaged
two
cars
per
unit
and
where
those
cars
go
in
a
winter
time
when
they
have
to
get
off,
the
central
street
is
in
front
of
my
house,
so
I
can't
park
on
the
street.
S
I
can't
shovel
on
the
street
and
I
have
a
wife
with
rheumatoid
arthritis
who
needs
to
have
handicapped-accessible.
That
way,
you
know
for
her
health
and
I've
I
do
a
daily
battle
with
that
in
the
wintertime
trying
to
grab
a
time
when
I
can
clean
an
area
that
we
can
park
in
for
other
house
only
to
have
somebody
from
over.
S
No
I
can't
hold
I,
can't
hold
squirming,
ordinate
and
I'm
accountable
for
people
parking
there,
but
I'm,
not
not
all
certain
that
people
are
going
to
not
have
more
than
two
cars
there.
If
there's
two
bedrooms
and
have
a
kid,
they
may
have
three
cars
there
or
they
may
double
up.
People
doubled
up,
sometimes
at
least
they
have
so
people
density,
car
density.
Right
now,
we've
had
nine.
S
So
if
you
have
two
or
three
people
there
right
now
with
nine
you're
somewhere
around
eighteen
with
two
people
with
you
have
fourteen
you're
at
twenty-eight,
minimum
I
would
think
people
they're
going
to
have
cars
and
there's
going
to
be
people.
It
is
a
big
building.
Martin
is
right
about
that.
It's
a
very
wide
building,
I.
S
T
Thank
you
just
a
couple
things
I'd
like
to
say:
I'm
at
32,
25
I
represent
Central
Street
town
house
Association.
We
have
eight
units,
I
contacted
all
my
unit
owners,
we're
all
basically
from
what
I
understand
worried
about
the
water
retention
I'm
quite
impressed
with
their
22%
additional
water
retention
requirements.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
by
code
or
whatever,
but
I
think
it
mitigates
most
of
my
complaints
against
this
project.
I
like
the
project
when
I
first
looked
at
it
over
the
summer
when
they
invited
everybody
along
Hartzell
and
Central
Street
to
come.
T
Looking
at
it.
Anybody
who
didn't
know
about
it,
who's
been
there
25
years,
I,
don't
know
why
I
also
like
to
mention
that
about
10
years
ago,
I
approached
all
the
neighbors
went
door
to
door
and
left
notes.
Saying
I'd
like
to
get
the
alley
paved.
I
got
one
response
from
Hartzell
and
three
from
my
side
of
the
street,
so
I
don't
know
where
people
are
I'd
love
to
get
the
alley
paved.
I've
talked
to
the
city
about
it
a
couple
of
times
the
cost
has
only
gone
up,
but
nobody
responded.
T
I'd
still
like
to
see
the
alley
paved,
I
didn't
have
a
response
from
anybody
from
schermerhorn's
properties
at
all
or
the
bank
people,
but
I
didn't
get
a
response
from
a
lot
of
people
who
lived
there.
So
getting
the
alley
paved
would
be
nice
and
that
would
be
a
definite
community
benefit
that
maybe
you
should
take
into
consideration.
T
A
T
T
D
T
P
U
Prospect,
which
is
one
house,
the
other
side
of
Steve
and
Kathy
and
I
echo
Kathy-
did
a
great
job.
I
just
thought.
I
would
come
up
here
and
say:
I
I've
lived
there
30
years,
and
you
know
when
I
first
heard
about
this
project.
It
was
about
a
year
ago
and
I
wasn't
very
happy
just
because
this
neighborhood
we
have
this
place
is
a
very
special
place.
It's
it's.
You
know
it's
kind
of
it's.
It's
small,
it's
quiet!
It's
it's!
It's
old-fashioned!
I!
U
Guess
you
might
say
a
lot
of
houses
are
from
the
50s
mine's
a
two-bedroom
ranch.
You
know,
houses
that
are
less
than
500
K.
You
know
affordable,
well,
somewhat,
affordable
any
right,
and
you
know
my
feeling
was
that
I,
don't
I,
don't
really
like
the
idea
of
this
big
building
going
in
but
I
said.
Well,
you
know
it's
happening
everywhere
else.
You
see
it.
U
Is
their
building
way
bigger
than
they
were
supposed
to
I
mean
there's
building
codes
out
there
and
there's
only
requirements
for
a
reason
to
try
to
help
us
maintain
what
we've
got
there
and
I'm
just
concerned
that
that
we're
going
to
be
losing
that
with
with
this
really
huge
building
and
stuff-
and
you
know
me
personally-
I-
think
I
would
be
affected
by
the
traffic.
The
parking
the
alley
is
really
bad.
I
mean
really
bad
in
the
winter.
U
I
have
trouble
getting
into
my
garage
because
it's
just
a
slush
pile
and
it
needs
to
be
paved
that
that,
for
sure
is
true
and
I
guess
you
know,
that's
that's
pretty
much
it
I
guess.
It
just
seems
to
me
that
you
know
we
could.
You
know
maybe
think
that
40%
decrease
in
density.
Tempers
are
15%
in
in
loss
of
area.
That's
a
lot
and
I.
Don't
know
I'd
like
to
see
it
stayed
within
the
standards
myself
Thank.
A
V
I,
my
name
is
Lou
Dixon
I'm,
the
director
of
the
workforce,
training
program
for
Evans
to
rebuilding
warehouse,
and
your
address,
please
my
home
address
or
my
work
address
home
address,
27:30
Prairie.
Thank
you.
So
I
was
delighted
into
when
the
skimmer
horns
came
to
me
last
year
and
said
that
they
wanted
to
deconstruct
this,
that
they
wanted
to
be
keep
the
materials
out
of
landfill.
V
Would
you
take
when
you
use
big
machines
that
polarizes
LED
and
sends
it
all
over
this
way,
we're
taking
it
down
by
hand
with
some
help
with
some
machines,
but
the
the
and
it's
a
workforce
training
program,
so
the
it's
teaching
getting
people
that
have
various
barriers
the
to
a
position
where
they
can
ultimately
get
a
living
wage
job
and
the
skin
hardens
have
offered
a
job
to
one
of
our
trainees.
So
it's
been
a
wonderful
project
and
I'm
grateful
to
have
been
there.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
W
Hiya
good
evening,
I'm
Dale
Bradley
I
own,
the
building
at
three
thousand
and
three
thousand
for
Central
Street.
That's
Bradley
investment
center,
inflator,
plumbing
I,
wear
several
hats
in
the
city
of
Evanston
I'm,
only
wearing
mine
as
a
building
owner
and
for
24
years
my
office
was
directly
across
from
screw
Hans
and
I.
W
Remember
when
they
built
up,
they
put
was
it
for
condos
they
built
for
condos
up
above
their
building
right
across
from
my
office
and
they're
beautiful
they
really
added
to
the
streetscape
of
Evanston
and
when
I
saw
this
and
I
and
I
see
that
I
don't
see
that
as
a
particularly
ominous
looking
building
I
think
in
the
very
same
neighborhood
that
you
spoke
of
there
are
we've
watched
them
spring
up
there.
There
are
three
stories
there
they're
huge
condominium
buildings
on
the
very
same
street.
This
to
me
looks
a
lot
nicer.
W
L
Hi
Lin
foster
32
31,
Central
Street
I
first
met
the
Scarborough
is
gushes,
probably
about
10.
Over
10
years
ago,
I
actually
lived
at
29:51
Central
Street,
which
is
a
three
storey
condo
building
and
the
sermons
took
over
the
management
of
that
company
in
the
my
condo
building,
and
they
did
an
excellent
job.
They
were
very
responsive
and
very
responsible
in
their
in
their
management
style.
I
think
that
the
the
property
now
that
I
live
at
32
31,
the
property
just
to
the
west
of
me
when
I
had
some
concerns
about
it.
L
Bill,
responded
right
away
and
said
that
and
shared
the
plans
and
explained
why
they
were
not
invested,
making
further
investment
and
the
property
that
was
reasonable
to
me.
He
also
the
tenants
in
that
area.
There
was
a
garbage
issue
at
one
point:
clutter
I
contacted
the
scarran's
and
they
responded
right
away.
I've
looked
at
the
plans
and
I
think
they
definitely
represent
progress
in
the
neighborhood
and
I'm
supportive
of
it
grab
the
Patrick.
A
L
L
P
Hi
I
live
at
32,
46
Hartzell,
so
my
alley
is
right
behind
them
and
I'm
sure
it's
you
know,
gonna
be
a
nice
project
and
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
they're
doing
what
they
can
to
reuse
and
be
responsible
doing
it.
I
just
feel
like
the
the
zoning
rules
are
there
for
a
reason.
Someone
has
looked
at
the
density.
What
should
be
there,
why
it's,
why
it
is
the
way
it
is
and
I
feel
like
we
should
follow.
P
X
I
live
at
32,
46,
Hartzell,
also
and
I'll.
Be
brief.
I
would
just
echo
most
of
the
sentiments
that
my
neighbors
have
said.
I
I
just
feel
that
the
variance
they're
asking
for
is
quite
large.
In
my
opinion,
a
40%
increase
when
there
are,
as
you
all
mentioned,
viable
options
to
do
things
within
the
current
regulations
that
are
out
there
that
either
they
can't
figure
out
to
make
viable
for
them
so
that
we're
supposed
to
take
on
that
variance.
X
So
and
in
the
end
there
will
be
an
impact
and
the
buildings
are
nice
and
I'm
sure
the
family
is
nice,
but
that
doesn't
really
affect
these
variances
and
I
feel
like
the
give
back
to
the
community.
You
know,
as
far
as
I
know,
yeah
a
new
bus
stop.
That's
up.
We
haven't
had
problems
with
the
old
bus.
Stop
there
is
a
nice
crosswalk.
There
sure
it
can
be
improved,
but
it's
it's
an
okay
cross
right.
They
seem
like
such
petty
little
things
that
don't
necessarily
even
need
improvement
to
ask
for
huge
gains.
X
A
Y
Hello,
everybody
I,
my
name
is
Janet.
I
live
at
32,
44,
Central
Street.
This
is
just
directly
across
I.
Just
thank
you
for
everybody
coming
here
and
just
to
share
ideas
before
a
big
decision
is
made.
I
echo.
A
lot
of
my
neighbor
sentiments
concerns
about
parking
consent
about
the
size
of
the
building
same
as
my
concerns
are
the
same
as
as
my
neighbors
I.
Y
Just
don't
understand
that
40,
the
40%
increase
in
density
seems
unnecessary.
They've
had
chances
to
add,
to
amend
and
to
change
their
plans.
It
seems
like
staying
within
the
10
a
10
unit
and
having
both
floors
accessible
to
disabled
persons
seems
maybe
putting
in
an
elevator
instead
of
having
additional
units
and
having
all
the
units
be
available
for
people
with
mobility
issues,
I
think
seems.
Y
Maybe
it's
not
financially
in
their
favor,
but
it
seems
more
friendly
to
the
community
if
that's
really
what
they're
going
for
I
think
that
would
be
maybe
a
good
option
as
well
I'm
concerned
about
the
construction
time.
Two
years.
My
neighbors
on
Hartzell
are
very
humble.
They
didn't
tell
they.
They
didn't
mention
that
they
work.
I
think
this
is
important.
They
work
overnight
and
they
have
a
very
important
job,
I
think
getting
a
good
night's
rest.
It's
really
important.
Y
They
work
at
they
get
the
rest
during
the
day,
and
that
is
what
the
construction
that's
going
to
happen.
So
if
that
construction
time
is
anywhere,
if
there's
any
wiggle
room
to
make
that
shorter,
I
think
that's
something
important
to
consider
as
well
for
noise
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
Thank
you
and
Daniel.
A
N
Just
very
quickly,
I'll
speak
on
a
few
things
in
terms
of
the
trees.
The
trees
have
always
been
there.
The
survey
we
have
is
from
two
years
ago,
there's
been
no
movement
of
trees.
The
trees
have
not
been
torn
down.
A
demolition
permit
has
been
requested
to
do
the
rebuild,
and
if
there
were
trees
that
were
removed,
that
our
quote
unquote
heritage,
we
would
have
gone
through
the
appropriate
channels
just
to
clarify
that,
in
terms
of
the
construction
time,
I
think
there's
a
confusion.
N
It's
how
long
we're
going
to
have
this
person
on
the
task
force
when
we
say
the
project
that
not
necessarily
when
construction
is
occurring,
a
construction
project
has
a
lot
of
front-end
permits,
drawings
bidding
negotiating,
then
the
actual
building,
then
the
finishing,
closing
punch
list.
So
for
the
neighbors,
a
concern
is
not
24.
Months
of
full-on
bore
construction.
Just
to
clarify
that
part
of
the
of
the
piece
of
the
puzzle.
O
Construction,
you
want
to
know
how
much
the
tangent
the
annoys
impact
is
really
what
the
question
is
and
I
understand,
and
if
you
live
near
a
single-family
home
construction,
it
would
be
similar
to
that
as
you,
as
you
see
the
structure
going
up,
that's
where
you're
going
to
be
the
hammering
and
the
in
the
putting
up
the
roof
in
that
kind
of
a,
but
once
they
get
it
enclosed
now,
they're
working
inside
you're,
not
gonna,
really
have
that
impact
anymore.
So
three,
three
four
months
of
what
you
would
probably
call
noise,
would
be
probably
realistic.
O
O
Is
there
time
to
respond?
The
the
alley
is
something
that
I
neglected
to
to
talk
about
when
we
met
the
folks
invited
them
to
meet
us
at
the
property
to
show
them.
Our
initial
plans
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
paving
of
the
alley,
and
we
said
from
the
very
beginning
and
I'll
save
you're
on
the
record.
We
are
more
than
happy
to
participate
in
the
paving
of
the
alley.
We've
talked
to
the
city
about
it.
Unfortunately,
there's
a
significant
backlog
in
the
paving
allotment,
I'm,
sure,
Scott
and
Melissa
can
confirm
that.
O
But
we'll
say
here,
we've
said
it
to
everybody.
We
talk
to.
You
can
count
us
in
on
our
frontage,
saying
yes
to
pave
in
that
alley.
So
there's
no
misunderstanding:
there
we
agree
a
hundred
percent.
That
alley
is
way
beyond
the
time
that
it
should
have
been
paid,
but
unfortunately,
the
constraints
and
I've
got
about
four
or
five
other
properties
that
are
in
the
same
boat.
The
alleys
are
just
we're
grading
them,
but
they're
grading,
not
much
gravel
anymore.
O
Unfortunately,
I
can't
control
what
they
do,
but
we
do
believe
that
we're
providing
as
much
on-site
parking
as
we
possibly
can
to
minimize
that
impact,
and
that's
why
we've
we've
gone
and
that's
a
requirement
I'm
not
doing
anything.
That's
not
required
I'm,
not.
You
know
altruistic
in
that
regard,
we're
meeting
the
requirement
by
providing
21
spaces
off-site.
As
far
as
the
condition
of
the
property,
we
knew
that
property
was
beyond
its
useful
life.
There
was
no,
it
was
a
conscious
decision.
O
In
fact,
before
we
met
with
anybody
else
more
than
two
years
ago,
we
met
with
the
tenants
and
told
them
exactly
what
was
gonna
happen
and
we
gave
them
the
choice.
They
want
a
month-to-month
leases
from
that
point
forward.
They
could
stay
as
long
as
they
want.
So
we
started
turning
down
and
one
by
one
when
there
was
time
for
them
to
do
it,
they
made
the
choice
to
move,
but
we
didn't
hold
any
about
80
leases.
O
We
gave
them
full
disclosure
of
what
we
were
doing
and
there
was
no
mistaking
the
fact
that
that
property
is
ready
to
come
down
and
has
been
for
a
while
and
it
will
come
down
regardless
of
what
happens
here
tonight.
So
from
that
standpoint
that
isn't
going
to
change
we're
going
to
continue
on
the
process
deconstruction
through
Evanston
rebuilding
warehouse
and
continue
that
process.
O
Our
objective
here
was
not
to
create
a
three-story
massive
building,
try
to
do
something
that
was
more
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
that's
where
we
came
up
with
this
project.
We
managed
a
lot
of
real
estate
in
Evanston
and
we
know
how
little
housing
is
available
to
those
who
have
handicap
issues.
The
gentleman
mentioned
rheumatoid
arthritis.
Unfortunately,
both
my
brother
bill
and
I
both
suffer
from
the
same
thing
and
maybe
we're
thinking
of
the
future
for
ourselves.
O
I'm
not
sure,
but
we
deal
with
that
every
day
and
understand
completely
what
the
concerns
are
and
that's
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
offer
this
alternative
to
high-rise
living
by
creating
as
many
units
at
grade
and
that's
the
whole
objective
of
what
we're
trying
to
do.
You're
right
by
right,
we
can
just
go
build
nine
three
storeys
tall,
the
neighbors,
would
be
more
upset
with
us
for
the
guard
to
the
massing
of
the
project
and
I.
That
was
really
not
our
objective.
O
C
I
would
first
like
to
say
that
there's
an
awful
lot
to
like
about
this
project.
It's
attractive,
I,
think
that
that
keeping
it
to
scale
at
two
storeys
and
using
materials
that
are
reflective
of
you
know.
Evanston
neighborhoods
is
laudable.
I,
think
it's
wonderful
that
you
have
used
the
very
capable
folks
at
rebuilding
warehouse
to
do
your
deconstruction
and
to
provide
opportunities
for
young
Evan
stone
Ian's
to
learn
something
about
those
trades.
C
I
think
that
that
you've
tried
to
reach
out
to
neighbors
and
I
appreciate
that,
unfortunately,
I
think
that
there
is
not
adequate
quid
pro
quo.
If
you
will
to
allow
for
the
variances
that
you
are
requesting,
I
would
love
to
see
maybe
greater
outreach
to
the
neighbors.
Something
is
going
to
be
built
at
that
site
and
there's
going
to
be
construction
for
a
period
of
time
at
that
site.
The
fact
that
you
do
have
a
good
neighbor
and
somebody
who's
been
in
Evanston,
who
is
willing
to
take
this
project
on
now.
C
You
know,
maybe
there
can
be
a
little
more
give
and
take
so
that
they're
now
you
know
that
they
will
cooperate
with
getting
the
alley
paved.
Now
you
know
that
there
are
a
lot
of
inroads
so
that
there
can
be
a
dialogue,
and
maybe
there
can
be
some
greater
accommodation
for
variances
that
allow
you
to
put
on
the
table
an
economically
feasible
project
that
achieves
many
of
your
goals.
C
D
Is
that
keeps
you
from
being
able
to
comply
with
the
letter
of
the
zoning,
ordinance
and
I
I?
Don't
think
there
I
don't
think
there
is
one
and
tear
to
the
point
you've
made
and
that
other
people
in
the
room
have
made
you
could
build
a
compliant
property
that
meets
your
economic
needs
and
it
certainly
it
would
not
make
the
neighbors
happy
and
that
may
end
up
being
the
reality
for
this
property.
D
E
I
also
think
that
this
is
a
good
project.
It
looks
like
a
a
beautiful
building.
However,
I
have
to
side
with
the
neighbors
on
this
I
feel,
like
the
variance
for
the
extra
units.
I
could
not
vote
for
that.
I
feel
like
we
should
go
along
with
what
our
current
code
says
and
I
feel
like
it
can
be
developed
in
a
way
that
would
benefit
both
the
developer
and
the
community
if
it
were
reworked.
So
that's
my
opinion.
I.
H
H
With
the
making
sure
that
you
can
keep
the
water
retain
it
within
the
property
itself,
I,
actually
like
the
look
of
the
two-story
versus
you,
could
at
any
point
in
time,
go
in
and
put
in
a
three
story
with
the
units
and
not
have
to
comply
with
anything
not
have
to
take
into
consideration
any
of
the
neighbors.
Just
do
it
blindly
and
you're
done,
and
your
neighbors
would
be
impacted
one
way
or
another.
They
have
say
so
right
now,
but
they
would
not
have
say-so
if
you
were
to
put
in
a
bigger
building.
A
Just
to
clarify
staff
has
confirmed
that
the
maximum
height
for
this
building
is
two
and
a
half
stories,
not
a
three
story:
building
it's
two
and
a
half
okay
by
right.
Let's
put
it
that
way.
Max
is
two
and
a
half
stories
by
right.
Okay,
so
my
thoughts
on
this
are
very
similar
to
most
of
my
colleagues
who
have
said
it
much
better
than
I
and
I've
spoken
far
too
much
tonight.
A
It
really
comes
out
to
me
that
it's
not
the
minimum
change
necessary
and
I
appreciate
what
you've
tried
to
do.
I,
just
think
that
your
approach,
your
your
single-minded
focus
on
the
one
product
type,
perhaps
led
you
down
a
path
that
you
couldn't
get
out
of.
So,
unfortunately,
I
cannot
support
this
project,
so
we're
gonna
go
down
the
seven
standards
for
a
major
variation
here,
and
the
first
is
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youths,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
mixed
bag,
because
I
think,
quite
honestly,
this
building
would
have
a
an
important
positive
impact
on
the
property
values.
I
think
that
this
is
much
nicer
looking
and
more
marketable,
certainly
than
what
is
there
now.
However,
I
do
think
that
the
the
density
and
the
amount
of
LOC
coverage
will
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
neighbors
used
in
enjoyment
of
their
properties.
So
I
don't
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
to
allow
property
owners
to
redevelop
their
property
as
needs
change,
and
certainly
what
we
were
building
in
the
50s
is
certainly
not
what
people
want
to
live
in
today.
We
all
know
that,
and
we
accept
that,
and
we
know
that
there
has
to
be
change.
We
just
hope
for
a
change.
A
That's
a
little
bit
more
thoughtful
and
less
intrusive
on
neighbor,
so
I
do
not
believe
that
that's
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
three,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
In
this
instance,
we
have
not
heard
of
any
hardship
that
relates
specifically
to
the
property,
we're
not
trying
to
avoid
trees.
We're
not
trying
I
mean
they
are
avoiding
them,
but
that
has
no
impact
really
on
the
size
of
the
building
right.
A
The
building
could
be
smaller
and
you
could
still
leave
those
trees
alone,
so
there
is
nothing
unique
to
the
property
that
causes
the
hardship
for
a
need
for
14
units
or
a
need
for
being
over
lock
coverage
or
impervious
surface.
So
I
do
not
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
four,
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
If
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
too
carried
out,
I
think
this
really
is
a
mere
inconvenience
it
it.
A
It
comes
down
to
as
I
see
it
that
it
is
it's
a
financial
decision
and
the
financial
decision
needs
14
units,
but
the
financial
decision
is
not
something
that
we
get
to
consider
when
we're
taking
into
account
zoning
variances,
so
I
do
not
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
five.
The
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
and
that
there
are
public
benefits.
Now
I
appreciate
the
the
effort
to
go
through
to
approach
some
of
these
public
benefits.
A
I
do
know
in
talking
with
staff
that
there
is
a
request
from
city
staff
to
redo
the
bus,
the
bus,
the
bus
stop
and
the
walkway,
because
they
are
so
far
behind
and
getting
those
up
to
date.
So
there
is
certainly
that
that
that
is
a
benefit
to
the
city
for
sure
and
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
you
got
credit
for
that,
because
I
think
that
was
missing
somewhere
and
they
are
in
the
conversation.
A
However,
some
of
the
other
benefits
that
you
have
proposed-
I,
don't
think,
are
benefits
so
much
to
the
community
as
they
are
to
you.
I
think
that
the
benefit
of
having
these
these
first
floor
units
allows
you
to
have
them
be
accessible
and
by
that
accessibility
you
get
to
say
well,
I
don't
want
to
do
brick
pavers
for
walkways.
I
want
to
do
concrete
and
so
I
don't
believe
that
that
standard
has
actually
been
met.
A
Number
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
that
doesn't
really
apply
here,
because
we
have
identified
any
hardship
to
this
particular
property.
So
I
don't
think
that
that
standard
has
been
met
and
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified.
A
We've
discussed
in
fact,
there's
been
testimony
that
you
could
do
a
compliant
building
that
there's
really
no
reason,
except
for
financial,
that
you
cannot
meet
those
the
impervious
surface
and
the
lock
coverage
and
the
density.
Sorry,
the
number
of
units
truth
be
told,
I'd
be
willing
to
give
you
the
density.
A
If
you
could
get
it
to
work
because
I
think
density
is
important
and
I
think
particularly
for
who
you're
trying
to
serve
a
smaller
house
is
probably
more
appropriate
for
them
anyhow,
and
so
that's
just
you
know
my
two
cents
on
it,
but
I
don't
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met
by
being
the
least
deviation
necessary.
So
with
that
do
I
have
a
motion.