►
From YouTube: Land Use Commission Meeting 7-13-2022
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
the
july
13
2022
public
hearing
of
the
land
use
commission.
The
city
code
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
map
and
text
amendments
special
uses,
including
plan
developments,
zoning
relief
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
zoning
administrator,
as
well
as
to
make
recommendations
regarding
the
city's
long-term
planning
goals
and
objectives
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
commission
will
either
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
city
council.
Ms
jones,
would
you
please
call
the
role.
C
A
Pierre
with
six
members
present,
we
do
have
a
quorum
also
present
tonight
from
city
staff
for
neighborhood
and
land
use,
planner,
megan
jones,
zoning
administrator
melissa,
klotz
assistant
city
attorney,
brian
george
and
we'd
like
to
welcome
planning
manager,
liz
williams,
who's
joining
us
for
the
first
time
this
evening,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
her
to
introduce
herself.
Just
briefly
here
in
the
middle
of
my
little
intro.
D
D
I
chaired
the
county's
planning
commission
and
also
was
involved
in
several
amendments
to
their
comprehensive
plan
and
code
projects
focused
on
helping
to
remove
barriers
to
investment
within
our
urban
areas.
Prior
to
that,
I
worked
in
wisconsin
for
the
city
of
oshkosh.
As
a
senior
planner
most
of
my
work,
there
focused
on
neighborhood,
revitalization
and
all
development
review
activities.
D
I
also
during
that
time
was
involved
with
leading
a
downtown
reinvestment
strategy
update
for
our
central
city
and
did
several
sub-area
plans,
in
addition
to
a
comprehensive
plan.
Update
process
as
well
so
really
excited
to
be
here,
look
forward
to
working
with
you
all
in
the
coming
months
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
share
a
little
bit
about
myself.
So
thank
you.
A
Ms
williams,
I'm
going
to
sort
of
intervene
in
my
normal
little
intro
speech
here,
because
we
do
have
a
case
that
I
have
some.
The
feeling
some
people
are
here
for
which
is
the
2044
wesley
avenue,
22,
pl,
md-0010,
and
that
has
the
applicant
has
requested
a
continuance
on
that
matter.
So
we
will
not
be
hearing
that
this
evening.
So
if
you're
here
to
speak
on
2044
wesley,
we
will
not
be
hearing
that
this
evening.
B
That
date
would
actually
be
in
september,
hold
on
a
second.
It
would
be
the
second
meeting
in.
E
F
Jump
in
there
are
preliminary
plans
posted
on
the
city
website
under
large-scale
development
plans.
That
does
show
what
the
current
proposal
is.
My
understanding
is
that
it
will
be
changing.
That's
why
there
has
been
the
continuance
request.
So
when
we
receive
new
information,
we
will
put
it
up
on
the
website
for
viewing.
A
A
So
with
that,
I
will
continue
on.
This
is
a
formal
hearing
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time,
so
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
A
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
commission
regarding
any
matter
on
tonight's
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
If
there
are
a
large
number
of
persons
signed
up
to
comment,
our
rules
grant
the
chair
the
right
to
limit
the
amount
of
time
for
each
person
to
speak.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
persons
at
any
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
appellate
after
that.
Persons
wishing
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
will
have
a
chance
to
do
so.
Any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
defined
notification
requirements
of
the
subject,
property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
A
A
The
commission
will
make
a
formal
finding
of
fact,
based
on
the
testimony
and
evidence
presented,
guided
by
the
standards,
the
commissioner's
knowledge
of
our
community
and
the
recommendations
of
staff
all
evidence.
All
testimony
is
taken
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
to
the
proposal
as
it
relates
to
the
standards
contained
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
corresponding
staff
memorandum.
A
When
testifying
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
please
sign
in
on
the
public
comment
sheet,
our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you're
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
can
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
later.
Any
matter
not
concluded
at
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
A
We
do
have
three
items
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
The
first
one
is
a
map
amendment
which
is
22
plnd0038,
which
has
been
continued
from
our
june
22nd
meeting.
The
other
item
is
a
text
amendment
regarding
billboards,
22
plnd0042
and
the
final
one
2044
wesley
avenue,
22
plm
d-0010,
as
I
mentioned,
has
been
continued
until
september
28th,
so
we
really
only
will
be
hearing
the
two
tonight,
the
first
of
which
is
the
continuance
from
our
last
meeting.
A
The
first
item
of
business
that
we
do
have,
though,
is
the
approval
of
our
minutes
from
june
22nd.
Has
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
look
through
those
and
are
there
any
edits
or
comments?
I
have
some
commissioner
halleck.
G
I
normally
don't
have
edits,
but
these
are
all
edits
to
statements
that
I
made
and
some
are
very
minor.
So
I
apologize
if
I'm
word
smithing,
but
on
page
four,
the
third
paragraph
from
the
bottom
of
page
four,
starting
with
mr
hallick,
stated
the
formula
used
for
the
initial
tod
dot.
Converse's
requirements
is
likely
irrelevant,
so
additional
consideration,
instead
of,
should
be
done.
G
It
is
appropriate,
I
think,
is
the
better
better
way
to
say
that
and
then
I
have
a
few
here
and
then
on
page
eight,
let's
see,
let
me
go
down
to
page
eight.
G
G
G
I
I
think
what
I
said
was
that
the
subject
has
been
brought
up
before
to
this
commission
several
times
before
to
this
commission,
so
that
might
be
clearer
than
that
and
then
the
last
sentence.
In
that
same
paragraph,
it
says,
staff
has
explained
why
this
change
is
needed
and
the
neighbors
have
explained
why
it
is
not
needed,
and
then
it
says,
with
regards
to
the
continuance
and
there's
nothing
more
than
that.
G
So
I
think,
with
regard
to
the
continuance,
should
be
deleted,
because
it's
not
a
sentence,
I
I
don't
know
where
it
was
going
and
then
on
page
10,
this
is
my
last
one
on
page
10.
G
Excuse
me:
let's
see
second
paragraph
again
my
statement,
it
wasn't
clear
to
me.
It
says
mr
marliss
stated
that
that
with
the
12
13
or
I
think
it
meant
to
say
12
or
13
existing
locations,
I
don't
think
there
were
12
or
13
that
were
mentioned,
but
I
I
think
it's
more
appropriate
to
say
rather
than
1213,
slash
13
say:
let's
see,
where
was
that.
G
A
A
Moved
by
lindwall
is
there
a
second
I'll
second
seconded
by
westerberg?
Is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing
none?
Would
you
call
the
role
please.
A
Yes,
so
that
is
six
votes
in
favor,
none
opposed,
so
the
motions
are
the
minutes
are
approved
with
that
we
will
move
into
the
first
item,
which
is
an
item
of
old
business,
which
is
a
math
amendment
regarding
20,
sorry,
a
map
amendment
22
plnd0038.
A
This
is
a
city-initiated
map
amendment
that
was
continued
at
our
last
hearing.
Miss
lutz
had
asked
for
a
continuance
and
so
I'll
begin
with
her
she's
on
my
sign
up
sheet.
Is
there
anybody
who
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
sign
up
before
I
took
the
sign-up
sheet
away,
not
seeing
anyone
on
this
list?
If
you'd
like
to
come
up
to
the
lectern,
please.
A
Thank
you,
and
so
you
did
not
make
a
statement
last
time,
so
you
are
now
able
to
make
a
statement
for
us.
I
Okay,
thank
you.
Our
home
is
one
property
away
from
three
of
the
parcels
that
are
being
considered.
Excuse
me
for
removal
from
the
central
street
overlay
district.
Thank
you
for
allowing
the
continuance,
so
there
could
be
enough
time
to
make
affected
property
owners
aware
of
their
right
to
formally
protest.
This
change
a
group
of
neighbors
collected
171
signatures
and
the
city
clerk
has
actually
just
as
of
today,
asked
for
more
time
to
certify
the
list
due
to
the
number
of
signatures.
I
The
volume
of
submissions
shows
that
there's
widespread
neighborhood
opposition
to
this
proposal.
Despite
what
was
said
at
the
last
hearing
on
this
proposal,
council
member
suffered
and
does
not
support
this
zoning
change,
he
sent
a
letter
to
staff
on
june
26
requesting
that
they
withdraw
this
proposal,
but
apparently
staff
was
unable
to
do
that.
I
I
didn't
see
the
letter
in
the
packet,
I'm
not
sure
it
was
forward
to
you,
but
I
have
copies.
I
can
give
you
at
the
end.
If
you
need
it.
At
the
last
meeting,
you
heard
from
jeff
smith,
president
of
central
street
neighbors
association.
He
was
involved
in
the
central
street
master
plan
process.
He
testified
that
the
inclusion
of
these
properties
in
the
overlay
district
was
intentional,
and
the
goal
was
to
use
planning
and
zoning
to
make
the
dangerous
intersection
safer
for
cars
and
pedestrians
as
future
changes
or
developments
occur.
I
The
vision
is
to
create
a
welcoming
gateway
to
northwest
evanston,
and
this
is
something
that
all
evanston
residents
should
be
interested
in.
Mr
smith
also
mentioned
that
making
staffs
propose
zoning
change
without
an
impact
or
traffic
study
is
not
a
good
idea
and
deviates
from
standard
map.
Amendment
procedures
you've
also
received
lots
of
comments
about
drive-throughs.
I
This
is
because
we
already
have
one
drive-through
that
causes
traffic
snarls
and
accidents,
and
there
have
been
several
more
attempts
by
businesses
wanting
drive-throughs
over
the
past
12
years.
The
staff
is
now
saying
that
they
would
never
approve
a
drive-through
on
any
of
these
parcels.
However,
they
have
recommended
each
drive-through
proposed
proposal
at
this
intersection.
They
specifically
mentioned
in
the
packet
that
the
knicks
fast
food
drive-through
was
infeasible.
I
I
If
this
change
goes
ahead,
neighbors
lose
that
zoning
map
protection
in
the
packet
staff
characterizes
our
neighborhood
as
not
being
part
of
the
pedestrian
oriented
district
of
central
street.
However,
every
resident
who
lives
on
the
west
side
of
growth
point
must
go
through
this
intersection
to
do
anything
in
evanston,
including
shopping
at
and
supporting
evanston
businesses,
hundreds
of
neighbors
walk
to
lovelace
and
bent
parks
to
local
businesses
to
mass
transit
and
kids
use
that
intersection
to
go
to
and
from
school.
I
Jeff
smith
summed
up
the
history
very
well.
In
the
last
paragraph
of
his
statement,
the
implementation
of
the
overlay
district
with
its
specific
provisions
for
sub-area
six
was
the
result
of
a
comprehensive
process
that
involved
four
separate
community
workshops,
extensive
public
debate
and
discussion,
the
participation
of
community
groups
and
collectively
hundreds
of
person
evenings
well
over
a
thousand
hours
of
citizen
review
and
comment
and
well
covered
discussion
within
the
community
and
on
the
city's
planning
and
legislative
bodies.
I
What
was
implemented
at
the
intersection
can
be
seen
as
the
result
of
nearly
three
years
of
analysis,
planning
and
discussion.
It
was
well
understood
in
2008.
The
process
of
application
for
variation
would
allow
flexibility
in
cases
of
demonstrated
need,
while
protecting
the
rights
and
safety
of
citizens
to
jettison
all
that
by
way
of
a
map
amendment
without
any
significant
change
in
circumstances,
without
any
demonstrated
need
with
no
impact
studies
without
any
comparable
process
and
with
no
evident
driver
other
than
a
restaurant
with
plenty
of
space
wants.
I
More
outdoor
dining
would
be
counter
to
evanston
plans,
fundamental
planning
principles,
the
goals
of
existing
zoning
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Please
choose
to
honor
the
work
and
to
preserve
the
vision
of
what
this
gateway
to
evanston
could
be.
Do
not
recommend
this
proposal
to
planning
and
development
in
the
city
council.
Thank
you.
I
Have
you
received
alderman
sufferdan's
letter,
I've.
A
Had
I
was
gonna
I
was
going
to
mention:
I've
had
discussions
with
staff,
I've
not
actually
received
his
letter,
okay,
and
it
was
our
determination
together
that,
since
we
were
in
the
middle
of
an
open
hearing
that
we
would
move
ahead
with
our
recommendation
and
then,
if
alderman
suffered
and
decides
that
he
wants
to
withdraw
it
or
hold
it
up
in
p
d
or
whatever
he
wants
to
do.
A
That's
his
step,
okay,
but
we
have
our
process
and
so
we're
going
to
see
our
process
through
and
then
we
at
least
can
say,
we've
done
what
we
needed
to
do.
So
that
was
that's
where
that
netted
out,
we
were
aware
of
his
letter,
okay,
great,
which,
if
it
had
arrived
before
we
started
the
hearing
would
have
been
different.
But
since
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
continuance,
it
seemed
like
we
should.
We
should
continue
through
with
the
process.
Okay,
some
other
questions
for
miss
lutz.
I
A
And
then
I
also
have
is
it
alan
borman
foreman
who
signed
up
for
this
or
no,
he
just
put
a
it's,
not
a
he
just
crossed
out
below,
so
he
didn't
list
the
case.
I'm
sorry,
so
it
appears
miss
lutz
is
our
only
comment
for
this
one.
This
evening
with
that
is
there
anything
city
staff
would
like
to
say
in
summation
on
this
case
before
we
close
the
record
and
begin
our
deliberation.
A
Thank
you
so
with
that
we
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberation
again.
This
is
for
a
map
amendment
at
the
intersection
of
gross
point
crawford
and
central
streets
to
remove
the
overlay
district
for
a
subsection
of
that
property
of
those
properties.
Thoughts
from
the
board,
commissioner,
linwald
sure
I'll
I'll.
H
Start
you
know
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
you
know
that
that
is
one
of
the
more
difficult
complicated
intersections
in
in
evanston.
For
sure,
the
only
one
that
I
would
contend
is
probably
worse
is
the
configuration
of
ridge,
green
bay
and
emerson,
which
is
very
challenging,
and
I
use
both
of
them
very
regularly
and
I'd
much
rather
be
at
central
gross
point
and
crawford.
H
I
have
looked
at
that
intersection,
a
lot
and
and
actually
the
area
to
the
north
along
crawford,
and
I
note
there
are
no
sidewalks
on
the
east
side
of
crawford
and
I
also
kind
of
took
a
look
at
kind
of
where
the
property
lines
seem
to
be
with
respect
to
the
roadway
and
something
that
I
think
that
the
neighbors
and
the
council
members
suffered
in
and
maybe
central
street
neighbors
ought
to.
Consider
is
whether
or
not
you
know
there
should
be
a
plan
for
installing
sidewalks.
H
There
appears
to
be
plenty
of
right-of-way,
so
that
you
know
is
irrelevant
to
the
subject
of
this
particular
hearing.
But
I
think
it's
it's
important
to
you
know
mention.
So
that's
on
somebody's
agenda
with
respect
to
the
central
street
plan.
You
know
it
now
is
15
years
old
and
typically
with
plans.
You
know
they
they
should
be
revisited
every
10
to
15
years.
Just
as
a
rule,
we
have
a
comprehensive
plan.
H
That's
22
years
old
and
it's
overdue
for
a
re-examination
is
as
well,
and
the
reason
that
you
want
to
look
at
plans
is
to
see
what
has
changed
and
since
that
plan
was
adopted,
we've
had
a
you
know,
major
financial
crisis
in
you
know
worldwide
financial
crisis
crisis
that
really
impacted
the
kinds
of
development
that's
likely
to
occur.
H
You
know
kind
of
at
that
period.
In
time
there
were
several
plans.
There
was
the
west
evanston
plan,
the
central
street
plan
and
the
downtown
plan,
all
of
which
assumed
that
the
pace
of
development
would
kind
of
continue
that
there
be
demand
for
certain
kinds
of
uses
us
you
know.
Obviously,
the
financial
crisis
changed
that
dynamic
considerably
and
until
pretty
recently
about
the
only
kinds
of
development
that
a
developer
could
finance
were
rental
apartment
buildings,
and
you
know
subsequently
a
couple
of
the
things
that
were
called
for.
H
That
intersection
were,
for
example,
small
office,
buildings
and
kind
of
mixed
kind
of
strip
center
mixed
use
development
and
given
the
rise
of
the
internet
net,
that's
really
not
neither
of
those
uses
are
particularly
viable
at
the
moment.
Who
knows
what
the
future
will
be
will
bring
and
covet
certainly
has
impacted.
H
So
I
think
that
again
the
the
rationale
for
for
removing
this
from
the
over
these
parcels
from
the
overlay
was
in
part
to
see
what
could
be
done
to
make
it
easier
for
existing
businesses
to
make
changes
in
their
operations
to
do
facade
improvements
and
other
things
that
might
be.
You
know,
impacted
by
you
know
by
the
overlay
district,
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
what's
allowed,
for
example,
with
the
overlay,
it
requires
30
foot
setbacks
from
any
major
street,
whereas
the
b1
only
requires
five
feet
now
yeah.
H
I
can
see
that
in
in
setting
those
setbacks.
Originally,
the
you
know,
the
the
effect
was
that
any
development
proposal
would
have
to
go
through
a
process
through
variations
and
other
things,
whereas
with
the
b1
without
the
overlay,
it
may
or
may
not
require
variation.
So
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
before
we,
you
know
just
to
kind
of
conclude
mine
is
comments,
is
to
really
ask
melissa.
You
know
the
zoning
administrator.
H
F
With
the
current
overlay
regulations,
the
process
for
any
of
these
properties,
if
they
were
to
apply,
is
that
they
would
first
start
with
a
zoning
analysis
application,
given
the
very
detailed
and
difficult
regulations
of
the
overlay.
F
At
that
point,
they
would
then
submit
for
major
variations
and
for
commercial
properties,
major
variations,
the
the
cost
is
per
variation
so
anticipating,
if
the
properties
were
not
in
the
overlay,
there
may
be
a
couple
of
variations
that
a
property
that
these
properties
would
need
to
apply
for,
given
their
unique
loss
shape,
but
within
the
overlay
I
would
anticipate
that
it
would
be
between
10
and
15
variations
requested.
So
your
application
fee
at
that
point
is
into
the
thousands
of
dollars.
F
G
Excuse
me
just
I
think
the
question
was
how
you
explain
how
it
is
now
how
it
would
be
now.
How
would
that
change
if
it
was
if
we
took
it
out
of
the
overlay.
F
J
F
Well,
I
think
the
most
significant
issues
are
for
these
properties
because
they
are
on
the
edge
of
the
overlay
with
multiple
busy
roads
surrounding
them.
It's
not
the
same
type
of
commercial
area
that
most
of
the
overlay
is
within,
so
for
most
of
the
properties
in
the
overlay
district
properties
that
are
further
east.
F
J
So
I
guess
that's
the
question
is
it?
Is
it?
Is
it
worse
to
have
everything
within
the
overlay
and
then
have
a
a
very
long
extended
process
for
a
couple
of
properties,
or
is
it
worse
to
pull
them
out
and
then
and
then
sort
of
upset
that
framework?
That
seems
to
work
for
the
most
part,
and
I
I
really
don't
know
I'm
kind
of
curious
as
to
as
to
how
the
staff
feels
about
that.
F
I
agree
that
it's
always
a
good
idea
to
review
plans
once
they
have
hit
that
10
or
15
year
mark
and
the
world
has
changed
substantially.
So
I
I
see
no
harm
in
reviewing
the
current
overlay
regulations
and
seeing
if
anything
else
should
change
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
think
the
overlay
in
general
is
a
good
thing
and
is
functioning
as
it
should.
K
I
dealt
with
urban
planning
for
many
years
and
if
you
look,
let's
say
from
aerial
view
on
this
intersection
and
how
mainly
pedestrian
flow
goes,
I
would
say
that
one
of
the
most
important
topics
that
we
should
take
a
look
at
is
how
people
use
this
intersection
and
how
they
move
to
some
points.
Let's
call
it
of
interest.
If
you
continue
central
and
continuum
crawford,
you
have
some
point
of
interest
on
crawford,
including
the
church,
including
the
pool.
Then,
if
you
continue
on.
K
So
for
me
this
is
one
of
the
topics
that
I
prefer
to
keep
the
overlay
instead
of
removing
it
so
that
we
can
have
really
free
movement
around
this
intersection
of
pedestrians.
The
other
thing
that
bothers
me
with
the
change
is
the
reducing
the
front
setback.
One
typical
example
is
the
west
wall
of
cvs.
K
I
would
prefer
a
better
overlay
or
a
better
complete
solution
for
this
intersection.
This
is
my
point.
G
I
I
agree,
this
intersection
needs
a
lot
of
help
and
and
hopefully
in
the
future,
that'll
happen,
but
I
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
a
lot
submitted
to
us
to
read
and
it's
been
very
educational.
I
I
just
about
the
history
why
decisions
were
made
and
that's
been-
that's
been
helpful.
I
I
bottom
line
for
me.
I
I
do
think
the
setback
is.
G
One
of
the
biggest
issues
for
safety
has
been
stated
by
many
of
the
neighbors,
but
on
this
one
I
I
really
don't
see
a
good
reason
to
change
what
we
have
right
now,
and
I
also
believe
that
the
neighbors
really
know
the
situation
better
than
better
than
we
do.
So
I'm
going
to
agree
with
them
on
this.
A
L
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
particularly
my
last
two
comments.
Last
two
colleagues
comments
and
you
know
I'm
looking
at
the
petition,
I'm
looking
at
the
the
public
comment,
I'm
hearing
about
the
problems
at
this
intersection,
which
I'm
a
user
of
as
well,
not
as
frequently
a
user
than
many
in
this
room,
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
there
is
a
great
impetus
to
recommend
approval
on
this.
A
Thank
you
I'll
just
kind
of
wrap
up
here.
I
am
not
a
fan
of
overlay
districts
by
any
means,
I
think
they
create
more
problems
because,
as
someone
who's
worked
as
a
zoning
administrator
or
not
as
owning
administrator,
but
as
a
zoning
consultant
over
the
years,
you
often
get
people
who
purchase
properties
and
then
find
out
that
there's
three
or
four
layers
of
rules
that
they
must
follow
each
and
every
time.
A
A
I
would
hope
that
we
can
find
better
ways
to
find
solutions
than
creating
overlay
districts,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
I
would
throw
to.
Ms
williams
welcome.
I'm
going
to
throw
that
to
you
as
you
begin
work
on
the
comprehensive
plan,
since
I
believe
that's
going
to
be
part
of
your
field
and
and
commissioner
linwald
you'll
be
working
on
that
as
well.
A
So
so
my
request
would
be
as
we
begin
to
do,
that
sort
of
stuff.
Let's
look
at
how
can
we
get
rid
of
of
overlay
districts
and
create
straightforward
zoning
that
that
everyone
understands
that
you
don't
have
to
dig
four
or
five
layers
deep?
Sometimes
because
if
you
have
an
overlay
district,
you
have
base
zoning,
you
have
a
historic
district
on
top
of
that
and
some
other
little
weird
thing
that's
thrown
in
for
just
for
fun.
A
Is
a
very
unique:
this
is
a
unique
situation.
This
is
a
unique
situation.
Yes,
but
this
is
just.
This
is
the
first
time
we've
had
an
overlay
district
question,
so
this
is
the
first
time
I
get
to
put
that
out
there.
So
so
that
would
be
a
request
that
I
would
make
as
we
move
forward
into
this
process.
A
A
A
H
Okay,
I
think
it's
really
important
to
understand
that,
whatever
decision,
whatever
council
decides
to
do
we're
not
going
to
be
changing
the
what
it
you
know
whether
the
overlay
stays
in
place
or
goes
away,
the
traffic
is
still
going
to
be
there,
and
so
we're
not.
You
know
we,
you
know
the
zoning
is
not
going
to
change
the
traffic
situation.
H
The
the
real
question
before
us
is,
and-
and
you
know
the
existing
uses
are
there
and
some
of
them
are.
You
know
more
popular
than
others,
and,
and
I
think
that
there
is
an
importance
in
in
trying
to
help
the
existing
businesses
survive.
But
the
real
question
is
what
happens
in
some
point
in
the
future
when
somebody
comes
along
and
proposes
a
new
development,
because
that
can
impact
the
you
know
the
the
future.
You
know
the
access
and
the
easements
I
mean
you
have
driveways
that
are
in
a
certain
place.
H
Now
that
people
use-
and
you
know
I've
even
you
know
I've
parked
at
little
island.
I'm
you
know
my
preference
is
to
park
at
cvs
and
walk
across
the
street,
but
you
know
it's
those
traffic
existed.
You
know,
conditions
existed
when
the
plan
was
done
and
whatever
we
do,
they'll
exist
in
the
future.
So
it's
really
a
question
of.
H
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
redwall.
So
miss
jones
is
going
to
bring
up
the
standards,
I'm
happy
to
go
through
them.
If
someone
does
not
feel
comfortable
going
through
them
in
the
way,
I
think
everybody
except
me
is
going
to
vote.
A
Usually,
if
you
hit
like
control
plus
or
something,
if
not,
if
not
what
I
can
do
is
I
can
read
through
these
and
then
I
think
that
might
just
be
easier.
Everyone
just
disagree
with
me.
A
We
have
four
standards
that
must
be
met.
These
are
found
in
sections
six,
three,
four
five
standards
for
amendments,
the
first
one,
which
is
a
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
is
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
city
council.
A
I
feel
the
standard
is
met
because
often
we
are
looking
at
ways
to
allow
existing
businesses
and
develop
properties,
ways
to
improve
themselves,
and
I
feel
that
this
overlay
district
in
this
particular
case
prevents
the
businesses
that
are
there
from
being
able
to
make
even
modest
changes
to
their
properties.
H
And
just
to
kind
of
piggyback
on
that
a
little
bit
we
have
the
you
know
the
overdue
district
that
was
adopted
by
the
city
council
and
while
you
know,
I
think
that
maybe
change
could
be
considered,
and
I
agree
with
you,
but
the
you
know.
Overlay
districts
are
not
a
good
idea
generally,
if
you
can
avoid
them
that
there
needs
to
be
a
more
thoughtful
planning
process
as
to
how
the
overlay
district
should
change.
A
Thank
you
b
is
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
the
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property
in
this
particular
property.
We
have
what
is
a
transition
between
residential
and
commercial,
and
so
I
do
think
that
we
have
to
look
at.
How
does
that?
Where
does
that?
How
does
that
transition
play,
and
I
think
that
again,
allowing
some
more
of
a
transition
between
the
30-foot
setbacks
to
the
30?
H
No,
I
think,
actually
I
will
agree
with
with
that
that
standard
is
met,
because
the
current
zoning-
really,
I
don't
think
we've
had
evidence
that
any
of
the
existing
uses
couldn't
exist
within
the
b1a
zoning
district.
So
I
think
that
you
know
in
the
you
know
the
setbacks
that
are
currently
there,
probably
more
consistent
with
the
underlying
zoning
than
they
are
with
the
overlay
district.
A
C,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties,
I
believe
this
standard
is
met.
I
do
believe
that,
by
allowing
these
businesses
to
make
necessary
facade
improvements,
extensions
expansions
things
like
that
that
it
actually
would
have
an
increase
on
making
the
neighborhood
nicer
and
therefore
bringing
up
surrounding
property
values.
If
not,
if
not,
for
the
residential
properties
themselves,
I
don't
see
it
as
being
detrimental,
but
I
see
it
as
a
as
an
increase,
at
least
for
the
commercial
properties.
If
nothing
else.
J
J
You
know
whether
it's
a
drive-through
facility
or
a
change,
a
great
change
in
the
facade
or
what
the
business
is
doing
again.
I
think
some
changes
can
be
can
be
accommodated,
but
there
are
others
that
can
have
an
effect
on
traffic
on
the
nature
between
pedestrian
and
car
traffic,
and
I
think
that
presents
a
problem
for
the
adjacent
properties
in
terms
of
what
their
neighborhood
is
really
like.
A
All
right
and
the
last
one
is
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
I
don't
think
that
there's
there's
I
mean.
Obviously
the
properties
that
exist
exist
with
their
public
services
with
their
with
their
utilities.
Things
like
that,
and
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
is
met
as
well.
A
Anyone
disagree
normally.
I
ask
if
everyone's
in
agreement
with
my
standards,
but
I
know
most
people
aren't
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
since
mine
will
be
a
motion
in
the
affirmative,
which
is
what
we
usually
try
to
do
so.
Give
me
a
second
here
so
in
the
matter:
22
pl,
nd,
0038,
a
map,
amendment
rezoning
properties
on
gross
point,
road,
crawford
avenue
and
central
street
in
what
is
known
as
the
sub
subsection
six
of
the
overlay
district
for
central
street
corridor.
A
I
would
move
that
we
recommend
approval
to
city
council
with
the
condition
I'm
just
going
to
throw
this
in,
so
they
become
aware
of
it
that
the
city
began
a
study
looking
at
evaluation
for
increasing
sidewalks
along
that
area
to
improve
pedestrian
travel
through
that
that
particularly
difficult
intersection
as
well
as
that
it
be
in
compliance
with
the
discussion
that
we've
had
this
evening
and
at
our
last
meeting.
A
So
it's
been
moved
by
roger
seconded
by
lindwall.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing
none?
Would
you
take
a
roll
call
blow?
Please
please.
J
K
H
A
Yes,
so
with
a
vote
of
one
two
five,
the
motion
fails.
So
we
will.
It
will
go
forward
with
a
recommendation
for
denial
on
to
city
council,
so
that
will
move
on
to
I'm
trying
to
find
miss
lutz
back
there.
Who
seems
to
be
the
only
one
I
think
kind.
A
This
so
that
will
move
on
to
pnd
planning
and
development
for
city
council
and
then
alderman
suffered
and
will
will
do
whatever
he
decides
to
do
with
it.
At
that
particular
point
all
right.
A
All
right,
thank
you
for
coming
out
and
then
your
petition,
you
have
with
the
city
clerk,
so
you'll
figure
all
of
that
out
as
well
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
F
Text
amendment
for
billboards,
22
plnd
city,
initiated
text,
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
title
vi
of
the
city
code
to
establish
regulations
to
allow
billboards
in
all
zoning
districts.
The
land
use
commission
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council,
the
determining
body
for
this
case
in
accordance
with
section
634
of
the
evanston
zoning
ordinance
in
ordinance,
92021.
A
At
this
point,
I
have
a
statement
to
read:
exercising
the
authority
and
powers
granted
under
article
10
of
the
rules
and
procedures,
procedures
of
the
land
use
commission
for
the
city
of
evanston,
the
chairs
determined
that
this
case
presents
no
new
evidence
or
testimony
that
was
not
available
at
the
time
of
previous
hearings.
The
initial
public
hearing,
determined
the
billboards
anywhere
within
the
city
of
evanston,
would
be
contrary
to
the
character
of
the
city
and
its
adoptive
comprehensive
general
plan.
A
The
planning
and
development
committee
of
city
council
has
not
provided
any
new
issues
for
us
to
discuss.
Therefore,
without
objection,
the
land
use
commission
returns,
22
plnd0042
regarding
billboards
for
a
text
amendment
to
the
planning
and
development
committee
and
its
original
unanimous
recommendation
for
denial
of
billboards
throughout
the
city
of
evanston
stands.
I.
G
I
think
I
disagree
with
one
thing
you
said,
which
was
that
basically,
you
said
that
nothing,
no
new
information
was
added,
but
I
think
I
read
that
it
was
discussed
as
an
option
to
to
put
billboards
only
along
the
railroad
tracks
and
to
face
them
toward
the
railroad
tracks
that
that's
that
was
new.
I.
A
So
basically,
the
rules
allow
the
chair
to
make
a
determination
whether
or
not
there
is
significant
change
from
a
proposal
that
has
come
before
us
before.
A
F
To
clarify
for
the
the
commission,
when
this
was
discussed
in
the
last
public
hearing
there
there
was,
I
did
specifically
bring
up
after
the
very
unanimous.
No
billboards,
I
said,
is
there
an
appetite
for
it
only
in
certain
locations,
perhaps
along
train
lines?
It
was
a
very
quick
discussion,
but
it
was
had
so
if
you
feel
that
we
should
discuss
it
more,
then
please
do,
but
it
was
briefly
talked
about.
G
I
just
want
our
recommendation
to
include
that.
I
assume
we
don't
I
just
to
be
clear
about
what
we
decided
that
day,
that
we
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
line
the.
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
line
the
railroad
tracks
with
with.
H
I
would
too,
but
I
also
would
like
to
say
I
I
actually
watched
the
whole
png
meeting,
so
I
saw
the
discussion
of
the
proposal.
H
You
know
for
a
billboard
not
facing
the
street
not
visible
from
the
street
facing
the
tracks,
but
the
other
thing
that
that
council
member
suffered
and
raised
was
the
possibility
of
having
basically
off-premises
advertising
at
you
know
on
public
buildings,
which
I
don't
know
if
that
constitutes
a
billboard
or
an
off-premises
sign
or
some
other
thing.
I
think
there
seemed
to
be
some
some
different.
You
know
I'm
not
sure
that
what
he
was
talking
about
necessarily
was
a
billboard.
L
J
G
I
do
have
a
question,
though
I
don't
know
if
you
could
answer
this.
Anyone
could
answer
this,
but
is
the
question
that
the
council
will
resolve
whether
whether
or
not
we
have
any
billboards
and
other
words
retroactively
on
the
billboards
that
are
there
or
is
just
any
new
billboards
or
not?
G
Are
the
existing
billboards
part
of
the
question
part
of
the
decision?
No.
F
G
A
I
mean
my
feeling
on
this:
is
city
council
can
decide
whatever
city
council
wants?
We
don't
have
anyone
here,
arguing
one
way
or
the
other
for
this
particular
case,
so
for
us
to
hold
a
whole
new
hearing
on
it
doesn't
make
sense.
A
A
All
right,
as
I
mentioned
before
the
last
case
that
we
were
to
here
tonight,
has
been
continued,
so
we'll
move
on
to
communication.
Do
we.
A
Yes,
we
do.
I'm
sorry.
Is
there
a
motion
to
continue
plnd
22,
plnd,
0010,
2044
wesley
avenue
to
our
september
28th
meeting.
A
Moved
by
linwald
is
there
a
second
well
second
seconded
by
westerberg
any
further
discussion
hearing
none.
Would
you
take
a
roll
call
vote?
Please.
A
With
a
vote
of
six
to
zero,
the
matter
is
continued
till
our
september
28th
meeting,
at
which
time
we
will
hear
it.
A
Public
comment:
we
do
have
a
section
at
the
end
for
public
comment.
If
there's
anybody
here
who
would
like
to
address
this
board
on
any
matter
whether
it
was
on
the
agenda
this
evening
or
not,
they
may
do
so
at
this
time.
C
Clearly
that
has
not
happened
as
we
had
hoped
it
would.
The
reason
for
this
is
because,
in
order
to
submit
the
application,
we
must
have
the
owner
of
the
margarita
inn
signature
on
that
application,
which
he
has
thus
far
declined
to
grant.
In
the
absence
of
a
finalized
letter
of
intent
or
purchase
agreement,
I
can
report
that
we
are
making
good
progress
and
are
close
to
finalizing
an
agreement,
and
once
that
agreement
is
signed,
we
will
submit
our
sup
application
as
quickly
as
we
can,
in
accordance
with
guidance
provided
to
us
by
city
staff.
C
A
Thank
you,
miss
vlog.
Yes,
I've
been
talking
with
staff
and
aldermen
behind
the
scenes,
so
I'm
kind
of
aware
of
what's
going
on,
and
so
we
are
aware
of
the
situation.
I
know
there
are
several
moving
parts
to
this,
both
at
the
city
and
between
you
and
the
owner
of
the
of
the
of
the
property.
So
thank
you,
though,
for
the
update.
We
appreciate
it
any
other
public
comment
this
evening.
H
A
E
A
With
that,
the
body
does
this
body
does
stand
adjourned
until
our
meeting
on
wednesday
july
27th
at
7
pm
in
council
chambers.
Thank
you.
Everyone.