►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 7-22-2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
B
Good
evening,
Tina
Peyton
for
Payton
properties,
so
I'm
calling
coming
here
again
to
speak
about
the
emergency
solutions
grant
for
connections
for
the
homeless.
It's
one
year
later
and
I'm
still
asking
for
the
six
thousand
nine
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
that
connections
for
the
homeless
olds
for
the
ESG.
As
you
can
see
from
the
letter
that
I
gave,
you
connections
actually
agreed
to
pay
me.
The
money
and
I've
got
no
cooperation
from
the
city
or
connections
about
this
money.
B
I've
asked
also
Sarah
flax
for
the
memo
from
last
year
from
August
13
2018
meeting
that
I
believe
was
a
deciding
factor
in
your
decision
to
approve
the
money
for
connections
without
giving
me
my
sheriff
the
money
that
was
owed
so
I'm
hoping
tonight
that
you
will
decide
to
release
the
funds.
The
six
thousand
nine
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
to
paid
in
properties
which
we
were
owed
from
last
year
and
I'm,
also
asking
publically
again
for
Sarah
flex.
B
My
family
has
provided
affordable
housing
for
over
50
years
here
in
Evanston,
and
it
would
be
a
very
terrible
shame
that
we
cannot
get
cooperation
one
more
time
from
the
city
of
Evanston
about
fairness
and
equity.
This
is
what
we've
been
talking
about
at
City
council
about
fairness
and
equity
and
I
believe
that
I
will
have
to
come
public
about
the
unfairness
that
the
city
has
treated
us.
B
D
Good
evening
call
a
Sutton
fifth
Ward.
First
I
want
to
agree
with
the
request
for
mrs.
Payton,
that,
before
any
of
the
funds
are
approved
under
p1,
that
consideration
should
be
giving
for
outstanding
debts
and
outstanding
legal
issues
that
have
been
applied
to
landlords
who
are
being
held
accountable
for
tenants
breaking
the
lease
before
the
term
was
up
and
then
holding
the
landlord.
D
Secondly,
I
would
like
to
encourage
the
connections
to
do
a
little
thorough
screening
on
prospective
tenants,
and
mainly
on
maintenance
and
the
importance
of
keeping
the
places
free
of
like
a
big
bugs
and
things
like
that.
Little
simple
things
like
that
and
last.
If
there
any
money
is
available
since
for
people
who
are
moving
in
with
the
high
rents
that
will
be
required,
that
will
be
available
for
applicants
to
apply
for
the
money
for
deposit
securities
to
the
landlords.
Thank.
A
Okay,
so
James
you're,
not
on
p1,
no
okay,
all
right
I
have
so
I
I
value.
The
commitment
to
our
workforce,
housing
of
Payton
properties
and
I,
don't
know.
What's
going
on,
miss
Payton
has
managed
real
estate
for
a
very
long
time,
and
so
has
her
family
and
I
feel
confident
that
she
knows
how
to
reconcile
her
records.
A
So
I
would
need
more
information
on
why
she
hasn't
been
paid
if
she
has
been
paid
and
definitely
some
clarification
on
what
the
miscommunication
is.
It's
very
difficult
to
find
larger,
affordable,
rentals
in
town
and
miss
Payton
is
making
them
available,
especially
in
in
the
in
the
fifth
Ward,
so
I'm,
uncomfortable
and
and
absolutely
I'm
celebrating
the
work
that
connection
is
doing,
but
this
is
something
that
I'm
unwilling
to
just
brush
by
so
I.
A
Don't
know
that
this
is
a
appropriate
setting
to
discuss
it,
but
I
know
that
miss
Payton
was
waiting
for
a
meeting
and
I
would
like
to
see
that
happen
before
we
move
forward.
I
think
that
it's
important
that
we
allow
our
property
owners
that
are
serving
our
workforce
and
providing
housing.
It's
important
that
they
feel
confident
in
the
service
that
they're
getting
so
so.
I
would
just
like
us
to
have
an
understanding
from
both
parties
that
there
is
an
agreement
before
we
continue
moving
forward.
A
So
then,
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
hold
this
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
meeting
with
Hayden
properties
and
connections
for
the
homeless
and
I
would
like,
before
voting
on
this
some
agreement
or
an
agreement
to
disagree,
but
not
a
unanswered
concern
from
a
resident
and
property
owners
and
affordable
housing
leader
in
town.
Is
there
a
second
all
in
favor
of
holding
it
Oh
perfect?
A
Ptoo
ordinance,
74
Oh
19
is
written
for
adoption
of
the
proposed
text,
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
to
allow
office
uses
and
revised
special
conditions
for
office
uses
within
r5
and
r6
residential
districts.
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
denial
of
the
text
amendment.
This
is
for
introduction
and
we
do
have
four
speakers
on
this
may
I
get
motion
in
a
second
okay.
First,
we
have
Harris
Miller
than
Carl
Kline.
E
Good
evening,
Harris
Miller
4th
Ward
who's
opposed
ordinance.
Somebody
409,
teen
I,
understand
that
office
uses
are
already
permitted
in
zones
r5
and
r6.
This
is
another
excuse
by
City
Council
to
resurrect
the
library
parking
lot
project.
The
text
amendment
will
damage
the
neighborhood
character,
especially
the
Willard
properties
in
in
1899
apartment
building
on
Clark
Street.
These
buildings
already
bring
in
in
excellent
at
space
according
to
all
the
residents.
Is
this
a
no?
Is
there
an
alternative
plan?
I?
F
Good
evening
in
the
committee
packet
it
states
per
the
city
zoning
ordinance,
the
r5
general
residential
district
is
intended
to
provide
for
infill
development
of
a
mix
of
multi-family
residential
structures
at
a
medium
density,
including
townhouses
to
family
dwellings,
three-story
walk-up
sand
courtyard
apartment
buildings
that
characterized
the
traditional
multi
multiple
family
housing
development
found
in
this
district.
Yes,
office
use
is
allowed
in
this
zoning
area
and
is
considered
a
special
use.
F
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
must
consider
specific
standards
before
it
votes
on
approval
of
the
special
use
regarding
all
of
this
I
find
this
analysis
from
the
city
staff.
Interesting
quote:
allowing
office
use
in
a
less
restrictive
manner
in
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
denser
downtown
areas
has
the
potential
to
meet
these
goals
and
objectives.
However,
care
must
be
taken
to
ensure
that
the
building
design
and
bulk
does
not
conflict
with
the
character
of
nearby
residential
uses.
Otherwise
this
could
be
seen
as
expanding
the
downtown
into
traditionally
residential
areas.
Unquote.
F
C
G
Joan
Safford
1618
Wesleyan
Evanston,
the
proposed
text
amendment
would
amend
the
Evanston
zoning
ordinance
to
permit
new
office
buildings
to
be
built
as
a
special
use
on
those
Lots
in
r5
and
r6
districts
that
are
adjacent
d2
or
d3.
Under
the
amendment
office.
Buildings
in
those
are
six
areas
could
be
built
to
a
height
of
85
feet,
97
feet.
G
If
a
planned
development
city
staff
have
identified
seven
areas
in
r6
that
are
adjacent
to
d3
and
d2
districts
and
therefore,
subject
to
the
proposed
zoning
text
amendment,
there
are
apparently
none
adjacent
to
r5,
although
it's
included
in
the
amendment,
this
text
amendment
purports
to
have
general
application
to
all
those
properties
adjacent
to
d2
and
d3.
However,
as
a
practical
matter,
this
text
amendment
is
a
special
bill.
It's
the
equivalent
to
spot
zoning.
The
clear
purpose
is
recognized
by
the
plan.
Commission
is
to
apply
it
to
the
my
bread
part
lot.
G
The
other
Lots
are
occupied
by
structures
which
are
well
integrated
into
their
established
neighborhoods,
or
have
plans
already
in
place,
such
as
the
Sojourner
Church
or
a
more
suited
to
residential
development
such
as
the
king
home.
Why
is
this
papote?
What
is
this
a
proposal
except
a
manoeuvre
to
try
again
to
build
the
office
building
on
the
library
parking
lot
or
as
a
means
of
gaming?
The
system-
and
those
are
the
excuse
me
and
those
are
the
words
of
the
Planning
Commission
one
advantage
and
skinning
the
cat.
G
This
way
is
that,
even
though
the
impact
on
shooting
of
the
proposed
zoning
amendment
will
be
profound,
this
text
amendment
could
be
accomplished
with
only
notice
in
the
Evanson
review.
We
all
know
the
Evanston
review
is
not
effective
notice
for
communities
the
community.
Moreover,
by
eliminating
the
need
for
a
zoning
change,
the
developers
would
be
freed
of
the
pests
pesky
requirement
that,
if
more
than
30%
of
the
neighboring
property
owners
object,
they
need
7
council
members
votes
to
approve
the
project
rather
than
5.
G
The
proposal
violates
the
purpose
for
zoning
amendment,
which
is
quote
not
intended
to
confer
special
privileges
or
rights
upon
any
person,
but
only
to
make
adjustments
necessary
in
light
of
changed
circumstances
or
changes
in
public
policy
that,
and
it
fails
to
meet
the
standards
for
zoning
text
amendment
that
quote,
the
proposed
amendment
be
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
fifteen-second
Russell.
The
plan
Development
Committee
should
not
forward
the
ordinance
to
the
council
for
introduction.
Thank.
C
G
C
H
Good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
miss
Leonard
the
plan
Commission's
ruling,
not
to
recommend
this
zoning
text.
Amendment
was
clear
and
unambiguous.
It
was
based
on
their
conclusion
that
this
text
amendment
was
unnecessary
and
aimed
at
correcting
a
problem
that
just
doesn't
exist
if
we've
learned
anything
about
office
development
over
the
past
three
years.
It
is
that
such
development
requires
and
deserves
more
thoughtful
consideration
than
is
demonstrated
by
this
proposed
text.
Amendment
tinkering
with
special
uses
in
our
six
stones
is
a
very
poor
way
to
do
planning
for
the
downtown.
H
If
office
buildings
are
what
the
city
wants,
then
it
should
do
a
proper
study
of
how
to
accomplish
that
goal.
It
should
include
an
assessment
of
short
and
long
term
benefits.
It
should
identify
appropriate
locations
for
such
infill
in
the
downtown,
and
it
should
respect
the
city's
established
urban
plans
and
zoning
I
hope.
You
will
carefully
consider
the
ramifications
of
such
tinkering
and
the
precedent
it
would
set
for
land-use
throughout
the
entire
city
of
Evanston.
H
I
Thank
you
very,
very
much,
madam
chair.
This
is
something
that
I
brought
forward
as
a
referral
to
the
City
Council.
One
of
the
things
that
we
did
learn
throughout
the
entire
discussion
on
the
development
on
the
library
parking
lot
is
that
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
are
interested
in
office
development
in
our
downtown
and.
I
The
last
two
times
I
have
run
I,
have
run
on
on
two
issues.
One
is
to
try
to
increase
the
revenue
to
the
city
of
Evanston,
so
that
we're
not
nickel
and
diming
the
taxpayers
of
Evanston,
but
really
making
significant
significant
efforts
to
increase
our
revenue,
and
the
second
is
to
support
our
businesses
in
the
downtown
by
bringing
new
office
workers
into
the
downtown
to
shop
and
I
mean
over
the
years
when
we
were
worried
about
never
never
having
another
office
building
in
the
downtown
we
opened
it
up
to
residential
development.
I
Residential
development
is
not
taxed
the
same
level
that
commercial
development
is
commercial.
Development
will
not
only
provide
us
with
more
tax
revenue,
but
it
also
increases
the
value
of
the
property
to
the
person,
who's
selling
the
property
and
therefore
has
a
larger
revenue
to
the
city
in
terms
of
transfer
transfer
taxes.
I
The
most
important
thing,
though,
that
I've
tried
to
tell
people
in
my
ward
who
have
come
to
my
board
meetings
and
followed
these
issues
is
that
I
feel
very
strongly
in
appropriate
development
for
the
downtown
the
library
lot,
development
I
felt
was
appropriate
in
terms
of
height
and
scale,
with
our
six
zoning
and
when
you,
when
you
look
at
our
six
owning
and,
for
example,
you
look
at
d3
zoning,
the
the
height
and
the
impact
on
a
neighborhood
is
pretty
much
the
same.
This
text
amendment
is
not
about
the
library
parking
lot.
I
Yes,
the
library
parking
lot
is
affected
by
it,
but
it's
not
about
the
library
parking
lot.
There
are
I,
don't
have
a
map
right
in
front
of
me,
but
there
are
five
or
six
parcels
that
are
dart
that
are
affected
by
this.
All
of
them
are
right.
Next
to
de
zoning
they're
within
a
matter
of
feet
of
our
core
downtown
they're
all
contained
in
the
core
downtown.
I
I
We
have
probably
four
or
five
possibly
six
developers
who
are
interested
in
bringing
office
uses
into
the
downtown,
and
we
have
no
place
to
put
them
as
the
basis
for
my
referral
and
if
you
read
the
the
explanation
of
our
six
zoning,
the
fact
is
that
that
it
is
compatible
with
our
downtown
use.
It
is
compatible
with
a
more
intense
residential
use.
It's
compatible
with
office
use
and
I.
I
Don't
see
any
reason
in
the
whole
world
that
that
this
text
amendment
which
would
not
allow
ground-floor,
retail
or
commercial
use,
so
it
with
visually
it
would
be
very
compatible
with
the
r6
uses
around
it
wouldn't
be
acceptable
to
everyone.
But
for
the
most
part,
these
these
five
or
six
uses
and
I-
don't
remember,
I'm,
sorry
off
the
top
of
my
head.
How
many
that
they
are!
I
They
are
right
next
door
to
or
across
the
street,
from
commercial
uses,
so
visually
we're
not
talking
about
putting
an
office
building
in
the
middle
of
somebody's
neighbor
residential
neighborhood
we're
talking
about
the
downtown.
This
is
all
within
the
central
downtown
core
and
the
fact
is
that
we
need
the
revenue
I,
don't
care
where
the
revenue
is
spent,
but
we
need
the
revenue
and,
in
my
ward
we
really
need
those
shoppers.
We
need
those
office
workers.
I
I
Don't
want
I,
don't
want
to
be
in
the
middle
of
a
budget
hearing
and
saying
to
people
that
we
haven't
tried.
I,
don't
want
to
be
in
the
middle
of
budget
period,
saying
to
people
we're
going
to
raise
your
parking
rates
any
further
or
we're
going
to
raise
your
water
rates
any
or
we're
gonna
do
this
or
that
I
don't
want
to
do
that
anymore,
that's
painful
to
people!
I!
I
So
that's
why
I
brought
it
forward.
You
can
agree
or
disagree,
but
at
least
I've
tried
so
I'm
sure
we'll
talk
about
this
during
during
the
budget
process.
But
I
think
this
is
a
very
a
very
reasonable
position
to
take
office
uses
are
already
permitted
in
our
six.
They
just
happen
to
be
within
a
residential
building.
I
If
you're
going
to
have
an
office
building
in
our
six,
it
needs
to
be
a
previous
residential
building.
I.
Think
no
more
than
two
stories
am
I
correct.
Director,
Leonard
I
think
that's
I,
think
that's
what
it
is.
We
already
have
office
uses
in
our
six
that
are
not
conforming
and
we
talked
about
that
a
little
bit
when
we're
talking
about
the
library
parking
lot.
I
So
it's
a
matter
of
a
matter
of
not
only
bringing
our
zoning
ordinance
into
into
compliance
with
some
of
these
uses,
but
also
a
matter
of.
Can
we
attract
more
development
that
we
need
for
not
only
the
revenue
but
also
the
feet
on
the
street
and
I
think
this
is
a
very
reasonable
position
to
take
so
I
hope.
You'll
support
me
on
this.
J
If
I
also
think
that
by
encouraging
these
office
to
office
buildings
on
the
periphery
of
the
downtown,
we
would
be
expanding
our
downtown.
If
that's
a
desirable
thing
for
us
to
do,
then
we
should
do.
We
should
think
about
it
in
a
more
comprehensive
way.
Rather
than
doing
it
with
this
piecemeal
approach,
I
mean
basically
I,
guess
I,
don't
I,
don't
agree
with
the
rationale
for
this
proposed
amendment
I,
don't
find
it
convincing
and
I'll
be
voting.
No
thank.
K
Well,
I
share
alderman
Ravel's
concerns
about
this.
I
also
think
that
the
plan
Commission
did
a
very
thorough
discussion
of
this
and
denied
it
by
a
vote
of
7
to
1.
They
raised
a
number
of
issues
that
alderman
Revell
just
touched
on
in
terms
of
not
changing
the
zoning
pattern
in
a
piecemeal
way
and
that
if
we
do
need
an
analysis
of
potential
locations
for
office
uses,
it
should
be
done
in
a
more
comprehensive
way
and
I.
Very
much
agree
with
that.
K
You
know
zoning
is
really
like
a
jigsaw
puzzle
and
if
you
move
or
change
the
size
of
one
piece,
you
really
disrupt
the
whole
jigsaw
puzzle,
and
so,
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
then
you
should
look
at
every
piece
and
I
do
want
to
support
our
Planning
Commission.
Their
thoughtfulness
in
all
of
this,
so
I
will
be
voting
now.
Thank.
L
You
not
so
much
in
keeping
with
the
zoning
change,
but
when
you
take
somebody
mention
the
tax
parcels
in
in
the
library
parking
lot
district
when
you,
when
you
examine
those
parcels,
the
square
block
where
the
library
parking
lot
is,
is
over
70%
tax
exempt
the
square
block
when
you,
when
you
look
at
that
part,
when
you
look
at
that
square
block
and
then
in
the
square
block
across
the
street
to
the
alley,
it
is
the
most
perfect
lock
in
the
downtown
area
at
this
time
really
for
for
an
office
building.
It
works
perfectly.
L
It's
across
the
street
from
this
church,
Street
Garage,
it's
the
parcels
are
crying
out
for
a
taxable
property
and
an
office
building
taxable
property.
So
why
we
continue
having
this
discussion
about
not
putting
an
office
building
there
is,
is
just
so
illogical.
I
just
I
just
cannot
believe
why
we
keep
beating
this
dead
horse.
We
should
we
should
we.
L
We
should
bring
it
back
to
life,
give
it
a
transplant
and
put
out
an
RFP
or
an
RFQ
or
go
beg
some
developer
to
come
back
and
build
an
office
building
there.
It
only
makes
sense.
You
look
you
look
at
this.
You
look
at
the
parcels
and
you
say
how
could
we
make
another
mistake
like
this?
How
could
we
do
that?
Any
next
person
who
says
well
we're
gonna
have
601
Davis
I'm,
just
gonna
smack
them,
because
it
just
makes
no
sense
that
we
can't
have
to
I
mean
this
is
crazy.
L
L
I
Fiske,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Well.
I
want
to
take
exception
to
a
couple
of
things
that
were
said.
These
are
six
zones
are
in
the
downtown
core
they've
already
been
defined.
They
were
defined
in
1993.
This
is
downtown
core
we're
not
talking
about
on
the
periphery
of
downtown
we're
talking
about
in
the
downtown
core.
So
the
question
is:
how
does
the
downtown
core
work
for
us?
What
are
we
trying
to
protect
if
anything?
Where
do
we
want
to
develop?
I
We
deal
with
these
issues
all
the
time
6:01
Davis
is
coming
to
us
and
all
that
all
the
folks
who
were
arguing
about
the
oh,
how
dangerous
the
alley
is
next
to
the
library
parking
lot
and
I
want
to
emphasize
that
this
text
amendment
is
not
about
the
library
parking
lot,
but
everyone
who's
talking
about
6:01
Davis.
There
are
300
kids
that
use
the
alley
behind
601
Davis
to
get
to
the
Bright
Horizons
daycare
center
I
mean
we'll
see
who
shows
up
here
and
argues
about
whether
that
alley
is
too
busy
to
warrant
that
development.
I
I
mean
these
are
things
that
we
think
about
up
here
and
the
three
aldermen
Albrecht
aldermen
Braithwaite,
alderman
Wilson
and
myself,
that
have
parts
of
the
downtown.
We
spend
a
lot
of
time,
looking
at
how
the
downtown
works
and
what
we
need
to
bring
into
the
downtown
and
who
is
commenting
to
us
about
what
they
need
in
the
downtown
to
try
to
stay
in
business
and
alderman.
Rainey
is
correct.
That
particular
block
has
existed
for
years.
C
I
Maybe
that's
okay,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
when
we
have
a
stable
of
developers
who
are
looking
to
try
to
find
a
place
to
develop
an
office
building
a
moderately
sized
office
building
in
the
downtown
and
they
want
to
come
to
Evanston,
they
want
to
bring
their
businesses
to
having
stand
and
grow
their
businesses
in
Evanston
and
we
don't
have
a
place
for
them.
It
makes
sense
for
us
to
look
for
that.
That's
not
that's
not
spot.
Zoning
that
it's
not
r6
is
is
intended
to
incorporate
a
lot
of
different
uses
together.
I
A
lot
of
different
downtown
uses
together,
so
I
understand
an
alderman,
Ravel
and
alderman
Winn
I
know
you
want
to
be
defending
the
library
parking
lot.
That's
fine,
I,
don't
care,
but
this
is
not
about
the
library
parking
lot.
This
is
about
answering
those
people
who
want
to
come
here
and
do
business
here
and
increasing
revenue
for
the
city
of
Evanston,
and
that
is
our
responsibility
up
here.
So
I
will
I
will
not
be
voting
in
the
in
the
in
the
budget
process
for
anymore,
nickel
and
diming
of
our
taxpayers.
M
A
H
M
K
P3
ordinance
63
Oh
19
amending
various
portions
of
the
city
of
Evanston
zoning
ordinance
to
update
the
definition
of
Kraft
alcohol
production
facility.
The
Plan
Commission
and
staff
recommend
City
Council
adoption
of
a
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
to
revise
language
in
the
definition
of
Kraft
alcohol
production
facilities,
I
move
introduction.
K
C
L
The
plan
Commission
and
staff
recommend
adoption
of
ordinance
77094
approval
of
a
major
adjustment
to
a
plan
development
at
102,
132,
Chicago
Avenue.
In
order
to
add
to
dwelling
units
for
a
total
of
28
dwelling
units.
When
office
space
was
originally
proposed
in
the
mix
use
building
approved
by
ordinance,
6100
18
and
extended
by
ordinance,
6500
19.
No
changes
will
be
needed
to
the
approved
site
development.
Allowance.
I've
asked
suspension
of
the
rules
for
introduction
in
action
at
the
July
22nd.
L
This
meeting,
so
I
move
approval
of
introduction
and
I'm
asking
for
suspension
of
the
rules,
so
we
can
take
action
tonight.
Madam
chair.
Yes,
one
of
the
interesting
things
when
you
make
changes
like
this
and
it's
hard
to
understand
why
this
is
such
a
major
change,
but
this
actually
reduces
the
required
parking.