►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 10-26-2020
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
Motion
passes
okay,
so
the
motion
passes
first,
I'd
like
to
take
item
m1
approval
of
the
minutes
of
the
regular
meeting
of
october
12
2020..
Second,.
A
Alderman
johanna
do
we
need
to
call.
D
Yes
I'll
call
the
roll
alderman
fisk;
yes,
alderman
win;
yes,
alderman
wilson,
hi
honorary
simmons,
aye,
alderman,
sufferden,
alderman
revell
I
and
alderman
rainey
hi.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
everyone.
I
know
we
have
a
number
of
people
signed
up
with
comment,
and
I
think
we'll
get
to
that
in
just
a
moment
with
the
committee's
agreement,
I'd
like
to
rearrange
the
items
that
we
have
for
consideration
tonight
and
I'd
like
to
have
p3
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
take
p3
first,
which
is
a
special
use
for
the
planned
development
and
then
then
move
on
to
p1
and
p2.
A
I
think
that
it's
important
for
us
to
approve
or
take
under
consideration
and
determine
what
we're
doing
with
the
development
before
we
move
forward
with
the
plan
of
subdivision,
and
so
I
I'd
like
to
to
move
p1
off
the
top
of
the
list,
and
it
might
be
that
we
should
do
p2
or
p3
first,
whichever
anyone
would
like
to
take.
A
So
with
that
I'd
like
let's
go
to
public
comment.
Ms
knighton.
A
All
right,
first,
before
you
start,
can
you
tell
us
how
many
people
are
signed
up.
D
F
A
So
we
have
16
people
signed
up
and
then
I'd
like
to
let
everyone
know
that
we're
going
to
have
two
10-minute
presentations,
one
from
a
representative
of
the
developer
and
one
from
as
a
representative
of
the
community,
so
we'll
do
those
after
we
do
public
comment.
So
why
don't
we
start
with
our
first
person
who
signed
up
for
public
comment?
Let's
give
everybody
two
minutes.
A
If
everyone
can
keep
their
comments
to
two
minutes,
then
we'll
be
able
to
get
through
everyone
and
the
committee
will
be
able
to
deliberate
in
an
appropriate
amount
of
time,
all
right,
who's.
First.
F
Hi,
this
is
john
moore,
thanks
joanna
just
speaking
about
the
1621
chicago
avenue,
planned
development.
F
Maybe
it
was
friday,
the
mayor's
very
compelling
message
to
the
community
on
our
response
to
the
pandemic,
and
one
of
the
things
he
said
in
the
communication
was
that
small
businesses
are
a
major
part
of
the
essence
of
evanston,
and
it
got
me
thinking
about
what
the
essence
of
evanston
is,
and
at
least
for
me,
this
project
is
the
antithesis
of
the
essence
of
evanston,
and
so
I'd
encourage
you
to
think
of
it
in
that
light.
F
And,
finally,
you
know
on
the
reparations
point
I
see
the
developer
has
proposed
to
offer
up
a
payment
to
the
reparations
fund
in
exchange
for
approving
the
project.
Please
don't
let
the
developer
get
away
with
this.
Basically
pay-to-play
payment.
Here
you
know,
reparations
fees
should
be
applied
fairly
and
across
the
board
to
all
upcoming
projects
and
done
so
in
an
equitable
manner
they
shouldn't
be
dangled
by
by
developers
and
inducement
to
get
approval
for
otherwise
unsatisfactory
projects
that
are
unacceptable
to
the
community.
So
thanks
very
much.
That's
it
all
right.
Thank
you.
G
Yes,
can
you
turn
on
my
video.
D
G
Those
turned
it
off,
so
it's
now
on
my
name's
bob
prichard,
I'm
a
resident
of
evanston
I've
been
following
this
project
for
years
now
I
am
a
pro-development
citizen.
I
am
adamantly
opposed
to
this
development.
G
It
fails
on
virtually
every
basis,
you're
going
to
hear
more
from
bill
brown
dennis
harder
and
others
of
our
group
who
are
adamantly
opposed
to
this
development.
Hopefully
you
read
the
powerpoint.
I
sent
you,
but
to
summarize,
this
development
has
no
support
from
any
of
the
key
citizen
or
city
of
evanston
review
bodies.
G
G
F
G
Others
will
go
into
those
in
more
detail.
I
did
want
to
mention
briefly.
I
do
agree
with
john
moore's
comment
of
concern
about
the
behavior
of
the
developer.
On
friday,
there
is
a
prescribed
process
and
protocol
for
getting
development
projects
approved.
I
am
a
fan
of
the
reparations
committee
and
fund.
I
am
a
contributor
to
the
fund,
but
that
that
is
not
the
way.
G
Having
these
conversations
outside
of
the
process
that
is
prescribed
is
not
the
way
to
get
this
development
approved.
They
should
develop
a
six
to
nine
story.
Development
consistent
with
the
guidelines
of
the
community
consistent
with
the
zoning
by
the
way
just
to
wrap
up
this
particular
developer,
is
already
in
the
community,
is
the
owner
of
the
marion
is
benefiting
and
profiting
from
the
community.
G
Nothing
prevents
them
from
writing
a
nice
big
check
to
that
reparations
fund,
and
I
would
love
to
see
them
do
nothing
other
than
that.
Everyone
here
should
do
the
right
thing.
The
planning
and
development
committee
should
reject
this.
The
city
council
should
reject
this
development,
and
this
developer
should
generate
a
nice
big
check
for
the
reparations
fund.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
crochet.
I
I
appreciate
that
as
a
courtesy
would
everyone
who
is
not
on
the
committee,
would
you
all
mind
turning
off
your
video,
it's
easier
for
us
to
siege,
see
who's
having
the
discussion
and,
and
I
think
it
might
be
easier
for
all
of
you
to
to
concentrate
as
well.
I
really
appreciate
that.
Okay,
ms
knighton
who's
next.
D
Next
is
jennifer
fisher,
then
reverend
grace
e
matthew
and
then
william
brown.
Okay,
thank
you.
H
My
name
is
jennifer
fisher,
and
I,
too
am
concerned
about
the
blatant
violations
of
the
zoning
and
building
code,
I'm
concerned
about
the
increase
of
traffic.
If
this
building
would
be
built,
I'm
concerned
that,
during
the
time
of
a
massive
public
health
crisis,
we
would
even
be
thinking
of
adding
to
the
very
obvious
vacancies
in
evanston.
H
E
E
Not
only
is
first
church
the
first
church
built
in
evanston
with
members
such
as
john
evans,
mr
arlington,
miss
arlington,
lunt
and
john
beveridge,
to
name
a
few,
but
one
of
the
earliest
members
willard
francis
wrote
when
I
reach
heaven,
I
want
to
register
as
from
evanston,
and
so
we
love
evanston,
unlike
a
tree
that
can
be
trimmed
in
due
time.
A
building
is
here
to
stay
and
100
years
from
today.
That
building
will
be
here
and,
furthermore,
the
decision
cannot
be
influenced
by
one
fifth
of
my
congregation's
annual
budget.
Thank
you.
I
Here
we
go
good
evening,
I'm
william
brown,
a
resident
of
evanston
for
43
years,
a
member
of
first
united
methodist
church
for
35
years,
and
the
current
chair
of
the
board
of
trustees
of
the
church,
I'm
hoping
to
speak
for
a
few
extra
minutes
as
a
representative
of
the
entire
church.
I'm
talking
tonight
on
behalf
of
the
congregation
of
the
church,
some
650
people,
the
church,
sits
on
the
edge
of
the
lakeshore
historic
district.
I
I
Frankly,
it's
disturbing
that
such
a
tall
project
would
be
considered
for
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue,
where
the
buildings
stepped
down
as
they
moved
towards
the
lake.
Further,
the
new
building
would
be
directly
across
the
street
from
the
existing
building
of
20-some
floors,
a
canyon
effect
in
making
on
chicago
avenue.
I
In
the
previous
meeting,
it
was
asked
to
the
developer:
why
build
building
needed
to
be
so
tall?
The
answer
from
horizon
was
because
construction
costs
are
so
expensive.
Okay,
so
that
suggests
that
some
economy
of
scale
is
provided
by
a
bigger
building,
but
the
reality
is
that
a
taller
building
costs
more
to
build
the
taller
they
get.
I
I
Besides,
the
height
of
the
building
is
impacting
the
alley.
Traffic
is
major
concern
for
the
church.
This
15
spaces
parking
lot
just
off
the
alley
on
the
south
side
of
the
church
and
directly
behind
this
proposed
building
at
present,
the
alley
is
so
busy
that
waiting
to
leave
the
church
lot
often
leads
to
delays
of
20
minutes
or
more,
not
to
mention
frequent
lack
of
access
to
the
lot.
On
one
occasion,
our
senior
pastor,
grace
and
matthew
was
significantly
delayed
in
getting
to
a
hospital
on
an
emergency
call
response,
not
a
good
situation.
I
The
proposed
building
will
make
a
bad
situation
worse
with
increased
alley
traffic
generated
by
the
activity
of
this
building.
Tenant
deliveries,
moves
in
and
out
trash,
pickups
operational
deliveries.
The
addition
of
food
service
in
the
retail
space
would
only
make
matters
worse.
There
are
other
concerns,
but
in
conclusion,
the
project
as
planned
would
have
a
number
of
negative
impacts
on
its
closest
neighbors,
including
first
united
methodist
church.
As
a
congregation,
we
urge
the
planning
and
development
committee
to
vote
no
for
the
project,
as
currently
planned
horizon
can
do
better.
D
Next
I
have
dennis
harder,
but
I
understand
that
he's
going
to
speak
at
the
end
when
the
for
the
10
minutes
is
that
correct,
okay?
Okay,
then,
let's
see
sarah
lewis
is
speaking
to
p4
with
the
whole
p4s
mike
fasilco
for
p3.
J
Okay,
so
there
it
is,
I'm
also
speaking
to
oppose
the
1621
1631
chicago
avenue
development.
J
It
amazes
me
that
it
even
got
to
the
council,
but
what's
striking,
is
that
the
developer
is
asking
for
a
height
of
185
feet,
whereas
105
feet
is
permitted
an
far
of
asking
for
an
far
of
twice,
what's
permitted,
10.38
versus
5.4,
asking
for
215
dwelling
units
versus
the
54
that
are
permitted
and
is
generously
offering
85
parking
spaces,
whereas
162
are
required.
J
So
it's
pretty
typical
these
days,
where
the
staff
kind
of
bends
over
backwards
to,
even
though
staff
is,
is
recommending
denying
this
particular
development.
But
in
the
past
there
have
been
many
developments
where
they
bend
the
rules
backwards
and
sideways
to
accommodate
the
pocket
developer.
Who
wants
everything
for
nothing,
so
I
strongly
recommend
denying
this
development.
Thank
you
very
much.
K
Good
evening,
I
want
to
first
agree
with
with
all
the
previous
opponents
and
secondly,
I
want
to
add
my
concern
about
this
building.
It
should
not
be
granted
such
a
large
variance.
It
does
not
meet
the
needs
of
affordable
qualified
housing
in
this
community
and
their
previous
experience
with
minority
members
in
their
building
has
been
one
of
discrimination,
and
I
hate
to
think
that
they
would
be
allowed
to
implement
any
more
further
practices
when
they
evicted
purposely
when
they
converted
from
the
hotel
the
north
shore
to
their
particular
unit.
K
Severally
elderly
black
people
were
evicted
and
never
had
a
chance
to
return.
So
I
looking
at
variances
I'm
agreeing
with
the
previous
members,
and
I
also
don't
like
the
idea
that,
rather
than
offering
us
units
and
something
to
help
our
health
housing
crisis
that
we
have
reparations
being
considered,
I
think
that
is
about
as
low
as
you
can
go,
and
I
do
not
think
that
we
should
be
even
considering
an
a
developer
who
wants
to
participate
in
bait
and
switch.
K
He
has
changed
his
proposal
on
many
terms
and
it
still
does
not
meet
the
needs
of
the
existing
zoning
and
the
existing
requirements
for
that
particular
plot
and
I'm
like
others,
I
don't
even
know
how
it
got
this
far,
but
it
is
your
responsibility
and
reaction
to
your
citizens
to
defeat
this
proposal
for
once
and
for
all.
Thank
you.
Thank.
L
Okay
hope
everyone
is
well
like
the
previous
people
that
spoke
before
me.
I
am
opposed
to
the
1605
through
1631
chicago
avenue,
building.
I
think
it
was
not
appropriate
that
they
were
at
the
reparations
meeting
on
friday,
offering
the
one
hundred
thousand
dollars.
If
they
want
to
give
reparations
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
they
should
give
it
free
clear
of
reefs,
despite
if
you
approve
the
project
or
not,
it
just
sounded
like
a
shady
deal
to
me
and
they
should
never
have
been
presented
at
the
reparations
meeting.
L
All
the
developers
that
you
approve
are
only
approving
studios
and
one
bedrooms
and
a
couple
of
two
bedrooms:
no
buildings
for
families.
How
many
buildings
have
you
approved
in
the
last
five
years
that
are
four
families?
How
many
units
have
you
lost
and
from
the
last
time
that
I
counted
was
about
7
000,
affordable
units?
L
Where
do
the
low
income
and
families
go
to
now,
if
we're
in
a
pandemic
in
crisis
and
you're,
pushing
them
out
of
evanston
evanston
is
relieving
receiving
a
lot
of
grant
money
for
affordable
units
for
people
not
to
be
homeless,
and
where
will
they
go
not
in
these
luxury
buildings
that
you're
approving?
Please
deny
this
building
as
well
as
other
future
buildings
of
this
magnitude.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
M
I
can't
say
anything
more:
I
think
the
previous
speakers
have
listed
all
the
things
that
would
have
been
on
my
list
only.
I
couldn't
have
said
them
all
this.
This
is
a
project
to
reject
and
I
urge
the
council
to
turn
it
down.
A
N
I
am
asking
for
your
vote
against
horizon
realty
17-story
luxury
high-rise.
It
will
re
which
will
replace
one
of
the
a
few
still
successful
stretches
in
downtown
evanston
during
this
typical
time,
displace
or
shutter,
one
of
the
most
well-known
restaurants
in
town,
which
is
found
eliminates
six
storefronts
that
are
available
to
independent
businesses
and
a
pleasant
outdoor
dining
area,
which
has
become
more
and
more
important.
N
In
my
opinion,
the
last
thing
we
need
to
do
is
take
away
one
draw
for
people
to
come
to
struggling
downtown
and
replace
it
place
it
with
a
a
needed
half
block
long
luxury
high
rise.
Please
consider
the
development
is
particularly
unacceptable
to
the
point
that
the
plan
commission
and
dapper
recommend
that
you
deny
approval
of
it.
The
plan
commission
even
gave
the
developers
a
second
chance
to
come
back
with
a
modified
proposal
at
answering
to
their
concerns,
and
they
did
not
sufficiently
do
so
more.
N
The
developers
proposed
submitted
their
proposal
days
before
the
new
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
went
into
effect,
thus
circumventing
a
higher
contribution
to
evanston's,
affordable
housing
fund.
I
asked
them
publicly
if
they
would
consider
following
the
new
iho,
as
that
is
certainly
a
priority
in
our
town
and
they
declined,
and
this
is
permitted
we
know,
but
I
believe
we
can
do
better.
The
developments
26
foot
curb
cut
into
our
13
million
award-winning
protected
bike
lane
will
diminish
it
and
cause
safety
issues
with
cars,
bikes
and
pedestrians
at
a
busy
and
confusing
spot.
N
Please
also
consider
that
up
zoning
and
luxury
rentals
are
contributing
to
making
evanston
less
affordable,
driving
up
rents,
helping
to
fuel
gentrification
and
pricing.
Long-Time
residents
out
of
town
as
we
are
witnessing
research
studies
and
papers
have
found
this
to
be
the
case
that
I
would
be
happy
to
borrow
you.
N
This
would
be
the
fourth
luxury
rental
high-rise
approved
by
council
in
the
last
few
years,
and
we
are
over
saturated
the
city
funded
april
2020
report
by
jones
lang
and
lasalle
found
quote
multi-family
residential
buildings
in
the
competitive,
which
is
the
luxury
set,
have
seen
increases
in
asking
rents
in
ms.
N
Your
units
in
evanston.
Finally,
I
realized
there's
a
budget
crunch
and
property
taxes
are
on
the
docket,
but
I
am
with
alderman
suffered
and
I
would
rather
do
without
some
services,
especially
during
kobit,
there's
a
lot
less
happening
and
I
think
we
can
make
do
in
other
ways
like
I,
I
will
okay.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
hope
that
you
vote
against
this
project.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
Is
sue
lowbach
and
then
and
then
don't
forget,
dennis
harder
is
going
to
speak
right.
O
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless
and
lead
a
coalition
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
We
are
opposed
to
the
chicago
avenue
development
by
horizon,
specifically
because
of
the
lack
of
affordable
housing
in
it.
O
At
the
same
time,
according
to
the
asset
analysis
performed
for
the
city
by
jones,
lane
lasalle
and
presented
in
april
of
2020,
more
than
500
market
rate
units
have
entered
the
market
since
the
beginning
of
2019.,
the
two
newest
of
which
sit
at
40
percent
vacancy,
indicating
that
the
market
has
been
slow
to
absorb
market
rate
units.
Well,
this
means
that
there
are
probably
market
rate
units
available
for
senior
citizens
who
can
afford
them.
There
is
nothing
available
for
senior
citizens
who
cannot
afford
them,
since
the
marion
first
initiated
its
proposal
around
three
years
ago.
O
New
information
has
become
available
through
the
sawgrass
partners
study
and
the
jones
lane
lasalle
report,
and,
in
addition
to
this
new
information,
the
world
has
changed
since
then,
with
the
advent
of
the
pandemic,
according
to
the
city
of
evanston's
economic
development
department,
the
need
now
must
be
to
preserve
people's
well-being.
We
agree,
therefore,
joining
forces
requests
that
the
planning
and
development
committee
denied
the
current
proposal
from
the
mary
from
the
horizon
and
if
they
do
approve
it,
that
you
insist
that
affordable
units
be
included
in
the
development
as
a
way
to
provide
public
benefit.
A
Do
we
have
go
ahead?
Missy
we're
fine,
okay,.
P
Oh
here
I
will
try
to
make
myself
visible
here.
Start
video,
oh
unable
to
start
video.
The
host
has
stopped
it.
Okay,
well
I'll
just
read
it:
my
name
is
candy
heaphy
and
I
live
at
1616,
hinman
avenue.
Look
I
look
out
at
the
side
of
the
church
and
I'm
right
behind
our
building
backs
up
to
the
second
marian
building.
P
As
we
all
know,
the
proposed
luxury
condo
building
is
related
to
the
marion
that
occupies
a
good
portion
of
chicago
avenue,
although
it's
twice
the
height
and
doesn't
really
seem
like
it's
built
to
be
part
of
it.
I
have
two
big
problems
with
it:
it's
very
out
of
scale
and
visually
jarring,
and
it
is
17
stories,
as
many
people
have
said
where
the
tallest
buildings
are
eight
to
nine
stories.
P
P
P
A
Okay,
so
now,
mr
harder,
are
you
going
to
be
making
your
10-minute
presentation
for
us.
A
Yes,
the
developer
is
going
to
be
making
a
10-minute
presentation
as
well,
so
what
we
could
do
is
the
committee
can
move,
we
could
move
the
ordinance
and
then
have
you
speak
and
then
have
the
developer
speak.
A
I
think
if
we
could
do
that,
that
would
be
preferable
to
my
mind.
So
it's
then
you're
teed
up
directly
with
with
the
developers.
So
would
someone
like
to
move
either
p2
or
p3.
A
Yes,
but
I'm
I'm
going
to
have
you
miss
washburn,
be
the
last
person
because
we
this
isn't.
We
do
really
want
to
get
to
the
discussion.
So
if
you
could
just
take
two
minutes,
I
that
would
be
great.
R
I
can
make
it
very
quick.
Thank
you
so
much
for
coming
to.
Let
me
speak.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
attention
to
the
petition
that
we
have
in
response
to
this
vote.
We
urge
the
planning
and
development
committee
to
vote
no
on
this
plan
development.
R
We
have
625
supporters
as
of
this
moment,
and
this
is
also
in
regards
to
storied
history
of
this
developer's
issue
with
customer
service,
whether
that's
being
suing
a
customer
because
of
a
tweet
that
they
did
not
like
where
a
customer
had
tweeted
a
tenant
had
to
enroll
in
their
building,
and
then
they
went
ahead
and
sued
them
for
fifty
thousand
dollars.
They
also
had
a
lawsuit
brought
against
them
in
their
uptown
location.
R
R
Discrimination
against
immigrant
senior
citizens.
We
want
to
bring
this
to
the
committee's
attention
and
make
sure
that
this
is
voted,
no,
so
that
our
residents
don't
have
to
deal
with
the
same
type
of
thing.
I
know
that
they're
already
in
evanston,
which
is
something
that
we
have
to
deal
with,
but
we
don't
want
to
extend
this
any
further.
Thank
you.
R
A
Okay,
so
now
committee
would
want
yes
aldrin
fisk.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Well,
I'm
I'm
going
to
this
is
in
my
board.
I
just
want
everyone
to
understand
that
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
take
p3
first
and
I
am
going
to
recommend
and
make
a
motion
to
deny.
T
A
Okay,
all
right
now,
mr
harder,
why
don't
we
have
your
10-minute
presentation
and
then
we'll
have
a
10-minute
presentation
from
the
representative
from
horizon.
Q
Thank
you.
My
name
is
dennis
harder,
I'm
a
resident
and
president
of
the
condominium
association
at
522
church
street,
which
building
is
within
the
same
black
as
the
proposed
plan
development.
I'm
pleased
to
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
committee
this
evening.
Although
the
detailed
opinions
and
perspectives
below
are
mine,
they
are,
to
an
overwhelming
extent
consistent
with
those
of
my
fellow
owners
at
522
church,
as
well
as
groups
and
individuals
with
whom
I
have
communicated
about
the
proposed
project,
many
of
whom
have
spoken
today.
Q
Q
proposal
for
a
260
foot,
215
unit,
building
with
an
above-grade
parking
structure,
generated
substantial
negative
feedback
from
city
staff,
neighborhood
residents
and
community
interest
groups.
That
feedback
was
perhaps
the
main
reason.
The
developer
issued
a
new
proposal
for
the
site
in
may
2018
city
staff
analyzed
the
may
2018
proposal
within
the
context
of
the
city's
planning
and
zoning
frameworks
and
the
plan
development
process,
identifying
numerous
issues
and
concerns,
including
the
site,
the
organization
of
spaces
and
circulation
patterns
at
the
ground
level.
Q
The
project
generated
potential
conflicts
and
undesirable
conditions,
particularly,
but
not
exclusively,
with
pedestrian
bicycle
and
vehicular
interaction
on
chicago
avenue,
side
of
the
site
and
vehicular
operations
in
the
alley
to
the
east
of
the
site
and
size.
The
proposed
unit
count
building
height
and
floor
area
ratio
were
all
noted
to
be
significantly
greater
than
the
base
planning
and
zoning
frameworks
for
the
cipher
allowance
community
benefits
the
relationship
between
the
amount
of
benefit
the
community
would
receive
from
the
project
versus
the
types
and
amounts
of
relief
from
zoning
requirements.
Q
The
following
is
my
understanding
of
what
happened
subsequently,
as
the
proposed.
The
project
moved
through
both
formal
review
with
the
design
and
project
review
committee
and
the
plan
commission
and
informal
discussion
with
interested
parties.
First,
local
residents
and
community
interests
had
strong
reactions
to
the
first
proposal
because
of
its
bulk
and
insensitivity
to
the
locale.
Q
They
saw
that,
as
revised
proposals
appeared
and
public
hearing
schedule
emerged,
the
developer
was
determined
to
redevelop
the
site.
Accordingly,
they
began
to
share
information
and
perspectives
and
to
participate
in
informal,
even
developer,
initiated
discussions
as
well
as
the
formal
public
hearings
as
part
of
the
development
review
process.
My
remarks
today
have
been
significantly
improved
by
concepts
and
perspectives
provided
by
other
community
individuals
in
interest.
Q
Q
These
changes
raise
questions
about
how
big
a
project
should
be
allowed
to
get
in
the
transition
district
embracing
the
site
and
about
how
big
the
asks
for
relief
from
the
base.
Planting
and
zoning
framework
standards
should
be
allowed
to
get.
And
third,
the
character
and
amount
of
the
public
benefit
items
were
insufficient
to
justify
their
requested
relief.
Q
Q
The
plan
commission
conducted
a
hearing
in
september
2020
on
this
revised
proposal,
and
then
it
voted
to
recommend
to
the
city
council
that
the
proposal
be
denied
at
the
core
of
the
plan.
Commission
denial
was
the
concept
that,
beyond
still
obvious
problems
inherent
to
the
proposed
site
plan,
the
proposed
plan
development
did
not
respect
the
city's
planning
framework
and
zoning
harness
provisions
applicable
to
the
development
site,
which
is
in
a
transition
zone
between
the
higher
downtown
density
to
the
west
and
the
lower
neighborhood
scale
density
to
the
east.
Q
Essentially,
I
believe
the
changes
that
followed
the
may
2018
proposal
were
insufficiently
responsible,
responsive
to
the
site,
plan
concerns
and
grossly
insensitive
and
very
aggressive
in
relation
to
the
established
planning
and
zoning
frameworks
for
the
site.
It
can
be
argued
that,
because
of
extraordinary
differences
between
what
the
developer
wants
to
build
and
what
the
city's
existing
planning
and
zoning
frameworks
allow,
the
developer
is
asking
the
city
to
use
the
plan
development
process
in
a
manner
for
which
it
was
not
intended
to
permit
a
project
of
this
magnitude
in
this
location.
Q
A
change
in
the
zoning
for
the
district,
not
just
for
the
lot,
should
be
first
considered.
Another
way
to
say
this.
The
plan
development
process
should
not
be
used
to
bring
extraordinary
zoning
decisions
in
through
the
back
door
and
the
recommendations
of
the
city,
development
project
review
committee
and
the
plan
commission
substantiate
this
further.
I
suggest
that
the
recent
proposal
by
the
developer
concerning
the
definition
of
community
is
applied
to
who
would
receive
certain
benefits
generated
by
an
approved
development
plan.
Q
Q
This
means
that
the
developer's
proposed
community
best
benefit
package
remains
inadequate
in
its
relation
to
the
asks
for
relief
from
planning
and
zoning
parameters
applicable
to
the
project
site,
a
finding
substantiated
the
recommendations
of
dapper
and
the
plan
commission
by
attempting
to
use
the
plan
development
process
to
affect
major
zoning
changes
for
that
site
and
by
attempting
to
revise
the
definition
of
community
that
would
receive
benefit
from
that
plan.
Development
project,
the
developer
of
the
1621
chicago
site,
is
asking
the
city
to
change
the
rules
for
the
game
during
the
game
itself.
Q
A
D
U
This
is
tim
kent
and
we're
going
to
have
a
variety
of
speakers,
starting
with
jeff
michael.
If
you
can
start
our
screen
and
then
we
can
share
our
screen.
To
give
a
presentation.
Is
that
correct.
V
W
W
Everyone,
my
name,
is
jeff,
michael
and
I'd
like
to
thank
the
members
of
the
planning
development
committee
for
your
time
this
evening,
an
opportunity
to
present
to
you.
I
have
a
prepared
remarks
that
I
want
to
make
by
remiss
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
first
address
the
comments
that
were
made
by
mr
sutton.
He
made
some
what
I
thought
were
pretty
inflammatory
and
unfounded
and
uncalled
for
discriminatory
allegations
against
us.
My
company,
and
I
don't
take
that
lightly.
W
G
Is
appropriate
behavior
for
this
call.
W
I
have
the
floor
now.
I
have
a
floor.
W
Absolutely
so,
along
with
danny
michael,
we
are
the
principals
of
horizon
realty
group
and
the
developers
and
the
proud
owners
of
the
marion
independent
living
community
and
the
applicants
of
the
proposed
legacy
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
going
to
allow
my
team
to
introduce
themselves
as
they
present
later
this
evening.
My
message
to
you
is
a
very
simple
one:
seize
on
the
opportunity
presented
to
you
this
evening,
as
you
will
see
from
the
presentation
my
team
has
spent
countless
hours
and
over
three
years,
putting
together
this
wonderful
project
in
evanston.
W
I
urge
you
to
recognize
the
overwhelming
financial
and
trickle-down
benefits
that
will
accrue
to
the
residents
of
evanston.
Our
fiscal
impact
analysis
yields
a
net
present
value
of
over
9
million
dollars
in
future
streams
of
tax
and
revenues
to
this
community.
The
alternative
to
the
proposed
project
is
to
attempt
to
lease
the
existing,
outdated
and
highly
unremarkable
retail
center
to
the
next
smoke
shop,
dry,
cleaners,
cell
company
or
nail
salon,
that's
willing
to
take
a
chance
on
that
location,
most
likely
not
to
occur
for
another
24
to
36
months
from
now,
if
we're
lucky.
W
So
please
do
not
get
lost
in
the
weeds
of
the
objections
presented
at
the
cost
of
an
overwhelmingly
benefit
overwhelming
benefit
to
a
very
weak
block
of
chicago
avenue.
For
those
that
are
not
familiar
with
me
or
my
company.
I
want
to
provide
you
with
some
background
about
who
we
are
and
why
we're
doing
this.
W
Excuse
me
I'll
just
use
the
earlier
okay
horizon
realty
group
is
a
family
owned
and
operated
real
estate
company
over
the
course
of
the
last
35
years,
we've
acquired
and
renovated
over
2
000
apartments
throughout
chicago's
neighborhoods.
Our
focus
is
on
purchasing
neglected
properties
in
need
of
renovation
and
improving
them.
We've
been
fortunate
enough
to
file
this
model
for
many
years,
which
eventually
led
us
to
here
in
evanston
and
more
specifically,
to
the
marion
where
in
fact
my
parents
were
actually
married
in
1969.,
we
purchased
the
marion
a
sorely
neglected.
W
Sorry
in
advance.
We
purchased
the
marion,
a
sorely
neglected
retirement
community
in
2012.,
while
may
not
have
shown
from
the
exterior
the
interior
and
the
living
conditions
that
it
provided
for.
Our
local
seniors
was
an
absolute
atrocity.
When
we
toured
the
site
we
knew
we
had
to
restore
to
its
original
glory.
What
transpired
thereafter
was
an
infusion
of
40
million
dollars
of
our
own
money,
with
the
focus
of
building
and
providing
luxury
senior
living
accommodation
for
the
local
seniors.
W
In
2015,
we
opened
a
new
tower,
which
was
a
ground-up
development
of
65
additional
units
connected
to
the
marion's
pole
tower.
Today
the
marian
speaks
for
itself
and
like
with
all
of
our
projects,
it's
been
the
labor
of
love,
the
miriam.
The
marion
is
currently
home
to
about
130
seniors,
which
will
eventually
be
over
200
seniors.
It
plays
host
to
local
brides
and
grooms
mitzvahs
parties.
It
serves
the
most
amazing
meals,
provides
unmatched
services
and
will
remain
a
perma
permanent
fixture,
not
only
in
evanston
community
but
in
the
michael
family.
W
Because
we
had
a
vision
for
this
block
of
chicago
avenue
and
it
didn't
end
with
the
marion,
but
it
only
began
with
it
in
addition
to
the
marion
we
own,
the
commercial
retail
property
to
the
north,
that
retail
center
is
tired,
it's
mostly
vacant
and
has
been
seen
its
best
years
already.
In
our
view,
it
represents
a
missing
tooth
in
an
otherwise
beautiful
block
of
chicago
avenue.
Our
vision
is
to
build
a
beautifully
designed
and
luxurious
residential
building
aimed
at
active
senior
living.
W
We
want
to
build
upon
what
has
already
been
started
by
us:
the
mather,
the
levy
center
ali
institute,
northwestern
university
and
the
city
at
large.
It
will
change
the
appearance
of
this
block
for
the
better
and
provide
a
level
of
living
experience
and
services
for
seniors
that
simply
doesn't
exist
in
evanston.
The
objective
of
this
project
is
to
provide
a
much
desired
luxury
living
option
to
empty
nesters
and
those
residents
are
seeking
a
higher
end
living
experience.
W
That's
not
offered
right
now
in
evanston,
as
you
may
have
known,
we've
gone
through
several
iterations
of
this
building
design.
Each
time
we've
learned
a
lot
from
the
constructive
criticism.
We
received
as
well
as
the
adoration
that
we've
also
received.
We
have
responded
in
kind
by
significantly
reducing
the
size
of
the
original
proposal,
fortifying
our
public
benefits
offerings
and
addressing
design
concerns
from
various
stakeholders.
You're
going
to
hear
objections,
you
already
heard
some
of
them
and
they
could
be
summarized
in
four
basic
categories
number
one.
W
The
ask
of
the
building
is
egregious
that's
an
argument
that
ignores
the
detailed
zoning
code
and
development
allowances
that
are
available,
and
my
architect
will
address
that
more
fully.
In
his
remarks
number
two:
the
project
is
a
contravention
of
the
transition
zone
in
which
it
lies.
Unfortunately,
the
intended
transition
zone
is
in
name
only
it's
a
legal
fiction
which
we
did
not
create.
In
reality,
there
are
other
buildings
east
of
our
building,
which
destroy
any
sense
of
a
real
transition
zone
in
this
area.
So
the
first
two
objections
are
mere
form
over
substance
arguments.
W
Third,
the
public
benefits
are
insufficient.
Our
public
benefits
package
includes
the
largest
cash
contribution
to
the
city's
coffers
than
any
other
proposed
development
in
evanston
ever
three
hundred
thousand
dollars.
The
second
largest
contribution
to
the
affordable
housing
fund
over
two
two
million
dollars,
2.15
to
be
exact
and
the
first
ever
direct
contribution
to
the
newly
created
reparations
fund.
Number
four.
We
don't
want
to
curb
cut
at
this
location.
W
X
Thank
you,
jeff,
and
thank
you
to
members
of
the
planning
and
development
committee.
I'm
jonathan
perman.
I
represent
a
horizon
realty
group.
We're
going
to
take
you
through
some
photos
very
quickly.
Here
is
what
the
chicago
1600
block
of
chicago
avenue
looks
like
now.
X
This
is
an
aerial
view
which
shows
from
the
north,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
point
out
besides
the
proposed
building
here
is
that
our
vision
is
that
the
addition
of
this
building
completes
what
in
effect
will
be
a
four-building
senior
campus
with
the
already
marion
at
davis
and
chicago
avenue,
the
mather
one
block
to
the
east
and
the
georgian
also
a
block
to
the
east
and
put
together.
X
It
represents
a
significant
senior
living
option
for
evanstonians,
as
though,
as
well
as
those
that
want
to
come
to
evanston
here's
a
view
of
what
the
final
product
would
look
like
from
the
ground
floor,
you
can
see
that
we
would
be
adding
back
a
major
retail
or
restaurant.
In
fact,
there
will
be
no
diminution
of
any
retail
in
terms
of
square
footage
compared
to
what
is
there
now.
Also
looking
over
to
the
north.
Is
the
proposed
port
who
share
entryway
and
exit
to
the
garage
which
we
will
talk
about
later?
X
This
is
a
look
at
from
the
west
looking
east,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
this
notion
of
a
transition,
as
jeff
mentioned,
is
really
not
the
case
in
terms
of
physical
reality.
The
500
davis
building,
for
example,
is
at
twice
the
height
of
what
the
permitted
maximum
with
the
development
allowances
in
a
d1.
X
The
mather
in
an
r6
is
about
45
percent
higher
in
of
for
maximum
higher
than
the
maximum
development
allowance
for
an
r6,
whereas
we
are
proposing
a
26
increase
above
the
145
foot
max
with
development
allowances
and
we'll
show
you
some
of
the
comparisons
later.
This
is
looking
to
the
north
with
marion
already
established
on
your
right.
X
This
we
want
to
move
is
intended
to
show
you
that
one
of
the
criticisms
that
we
often
hear
when
any
development
major
development
project
is
brought
to
evanston
is
that
evanston
is
too
crowded.
There's
too
many
people
there's
too
much
traffic,
but
the
fact
is
that
evanston
in
the
last
38
years
has
only
grown
by
a
half
of
one
percent
and
the
338
people
that
we
would
be
bringing
to
evanston
essentially
replaces
the
loss
that
excuse
me
replaces
the
loss
that
evanston
experienced
since
2000.
X
the
development
challenges.
As
we
looked
at
this
parcel
are
four-fold.
Given
the
strong
demand
for
senior
housing,
could
we
create
a
critical
mass
of
units
to
justify
our
risk
of
investment
design,
a
aesthetically
pleasing
building
with
the
land?
That's
available,
number
three
engineer,
a
transportation
management
program
that
balances
and
meets
the
expectations
and
the
needs
of
auto
traffic
parking,
pedestrians
and
bicycles
and
finally,
how
to
deal
with
a
congested,
narrow,
commercial
alley.
X
It
is
certainly
not
acceptable
for
seniors
and
makes
entry
and
egress
to
a
garage
in
that
from
that
point
really
impossible.
We're
looking
for
four
development
allowances,
as
you
know,
in
terms
of
height
density
far
and
the
parking
of
85
underground
spaces
we'll
be
doing
all
underground.
Something
rather
unusual
for
for
developments,
and
if
there
is
greater
demand
for
parking,
we
would
operate
or
we
would
lease
spaces
in
the
city's
church
street
garage
which
operates
at
about
50
capacity.
U
Thanks
jonathan,
this
will
be
very
brief.
A
lot
has
been
said
about
the
proposed
height
of
the
project
in
this
zoning
district
in
the
d4
district.
As
you
know,
105
feet
is
allowed
maximum.
However,
there
are
development
allowances
that
allow
the
project
to
be
extended
to
145
feet.
There's
also
a
stipulation
that,
if
parking
is
provided
above
grade
that
the
first.
U
We're
gonna
go
okay,
we'll
go
as
fast
as
we
can
here
with
a
185
feet
is
actually
something
that
the
crafters
of
the
zoning
ordinance
could
have
foreseen
on
this
block
and
the
proposed
building
our
proposed
building
is
185
feet
tall
as
well
so
they're
exactly
the
same.
The
difference
is
that
we
are
put
putting
our
parking
below
grade
at
great
expense
to
avoid
having
the
unsightly
parking
put
upgrade.
But
it's
exactly
the
same
height
185
feet
is
proposed
and
185
feet
is
allowed
with
development
allowances
in
this
zoning
district.
U
U
I'm
going
to
skip
this
slide
and
talk
quickly
about
the
ground
floor.
We
have
retail,
that's
coming
back,
it
could
be
a
restaurant.
There
will
be.
If
there
is
a
restaurant,
there
will
be
outward
dining
there.
U
We've
worked
carefully
with
the
neighbors
to
ensure
that
the
alley
is
taken
care
of
in
terms
of
loading,
and
then
we
also
have
a
port
cochair,
as
has
been
mentioned,
where
uber
and
lyft
and
taxis
can
be
brought
inside
and
not
double
park
on
chicago
avenue.
We
think
this
is
the
appropriate
solution
for
this
project.
This
also
serves
as
the
egress
and
ingress
for
the
parking
that
has
been
located.
A
A
Mr
ken,
your
your
time
has
is
officially
up,
but
I
will
let
you
wrap
it
up.
U
Okay,
we've
just
got
a
couple
more
things
here,
so
this
is
the
condition
of
the
alley
which
we
feel
is
not
appropriate
to
be
used,
as
was
insistent
on
by
city
staff
that
this
is
not
appropriate
to
be
used
as
the
front
door.
The
main
vehicular
entry
to
the
project,
as
you
can
see
here,
it's
frequently
blocked
and
it's
just
not
conducive
to
serve
as
a
front
door,
especially
for
seniors,
and
I
won't
read
these
points.
U
But
we
also
think
that
if
we
were
to
bring
people
around
to
the
alley
and
not
have
the
entry
from
chicago
avenue
that
there
would
be
an
environmental
cost,
because
it
would
force
drivers
to
go
around
the
block
in
order
to
exit
and
enter
the
project,
and
that
would
over
time
be
significant.
X
All
elder
women,
if
we
could
just
make
two
more
points
and
we
will
wrap
it
up
with
respect
to
curb
cuts,
which
has
been
the
subject
of
a
lot
of
discussion
at
different
planning
parts
of
the
planning
process.
We
want
to
point
out
that
there
are
in
fact
20
existing
curb
cuts
along
the
cycle
track
from
downtown
evanston
all
the
way
up
to
almost
the
moment
border,
most
of
which
do
not
have
very
strong
warnings
or
signage,
even
at
lighthouse
beach
with
their
children.
X
I
want
to
make
one
final
point
about
our
idea
to
contribute
to
the
reparations
fund
number
one,
as
we
saw
we're
building
housing
here
in
evanston,
new
housing
for
seniors
the
reparations
fund
over
the
last
few
months.
Committee
has
talked
about
utilizing
their
dollars
that
they
get
contributed
and
from
the
cannabis
tax
to
housing,
and
so
we
saw
a
real
nexus
there
between
what
we're
doing
and
what
the
reparations
fund
is
intended.
For.
The
other
point
that
I.
A
X
Okay,
so
originally
we
had
proposed
to
do
a
300
000
cash
contribution.
What
we've?
What
we
realize
is
that,
for
the
most
part,
cash
contributions
that
have
been
put
in
with
development
projects
generally
go
to
projects
that
go
to
activities
and
are
used
for
the
assistance
in
the
immediate
block
or
the
neighborhood
of
that
project.
Our
belief
is
that
benefits
should
public
benefits
should
go
to
the
entire
city,
and,
given
that
we
thought
what
a
better
way
to
do
that
than
to
offer
it
to
the
reparations
fund.
All
right.
Thank
you
for
the
day.
A
Can
we
have
our
have
the
stream
screen
back
up,
so
I
can
see
the
committee.
A
Okay
committee
we've
heard
public
comment
and
we've
heard
the
two
presentations
I'm
looking
for
hands
for
to
start
the
discussion.
If
we're
going
to
have
one.
B
Thank
you.
I
I
certainly
appreciate
the
work
that
was
done
on
the
existing
building.
It's
beautifully
performed
it's
a
great
improvement,
but
you
know
this
extension
of
the
of
the
development
it.
You
know
I
could
go
through
a
long
list
of
reasons,
but
I
think
they've
already
been
probably
over
st
discussed
it
it's
just
it's
not
working
for
me.
It
doesn't
seem
to
really
be
working
for
the
community.
B
Our
staff
doesn't
feel
comfortable
with
it.
You
know
this
kind
of
deviation
from
the
standards
to
me.
It
would
be
of
interest
if
there
was
some
sort
of
game
changing
you
know,
evolution
or
really
remarkable
benefit
to
the
community,
and
while
we
certainly
you
know,
housing
is
important
and
we
need
that
this
just
doesn't
really
fit,
and
you
know
that's
my
my
short
version
on
that.
So
thank
you.
S
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Well.
First
of
all
I
want
to
thank
the
community
because
you
know
once
again,
they've
done
their
homework.
They
understand
the
problems
inherent
in
this
development.
S
We've
had
three
years
of
looking
at
the
various
iterations
of
this
development
and
none
there's
just
nothing
here
that,
to
my
mind,
meets
the
standards
in
our
zoning
ordinance
that
we
should
apply.
I
believe
that's
what
the
plan
commission
said.
I
watched
the
entire
plant
commission
meeting
and
absolutely
agree
with
their
their
determination.
S
I
want
to
say
one
thing
about
transitional
zones.
I
mean
our
downtown
is,
is
very
compact
and
small.
The
transition
zone
on
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue
has
historically
played
a
very
important
role
in
this
and,
and
it's
been
respected
over
the
years,
even
with
the
zoning
that's
in
place
and
for
as
an
example,
I'll
cite
the
hyatt
hotel
that
is
surrounded
by
condo
and
co-op
buildings,
and
that
was
built
as
of
right
under
our
existing
zoning.
S
It's
a
ten
stories,
ten
stories
and,
and
it
fits
in
with
the
community,
I'm
very
proud
that
we
stood
by
and
the
developer
there
and
got
that
building
built
because
it's
it's.
It's
really
important
that
we
support
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue
and
even
though
there
are
buildings,
the
mather
for
example,
and
other
some
other
buildings
that
may
push
that
a
little
bit
the
neighborhood
to
the
east
is
has
been
respected
all
along.
S
And
I
think
that,
when
we're
in
transition
zones,
we
need
to
do
one
other
thing,
and
that
is
we
need
to
walk
around
the
building.
I
mean
when
the
developers
first
came
and
they
had
the
idea
of
doing
the
building.
I
asked
them
to
go
and
stand
on
hindman
avenue
and
look
at
the
east
side
of
chicago
avenue
through
the
back
door.
S
If
you
will
and
understand
the
landmark
first
methodist
church
and
understand
the
impact
that
a
large
building
on
that
site
would
have
on
the
community
to
the
east-
and
I
have
not
seen
any
pictures
in
the
presentation
that
show
that
that
that
they've,
given
that
any
more
thought
in
this
in
this
latest
again
in
this
latest
iteration,
it
does
not
meet
the
standards,
it
far
exceeds
any
sort
of
justification
for
it.
I
do
not
support
it.
S
I
thank
neighbors
and
I
hope
that
members
also
will
see
that
this
is
not
the
right
building
for
this
location.
S
I
think
I
think
that
that's
certainly
possible.
I
mean
we
can't
say
that
there's
no
development
on
a
developable
developable
site,
but
this
is
very
problematic.
I
mean
my
my
own
personal
opinion
is
that
when
the
property
was
acquired,
it
would
have
made
sense
to
look
at
the
entire
the
entire
length
of
the
property
as
a
whole
and
figure
out
what
development
for
the
entire
site
would
have
been
appropriate.
S
I
think
that
this
is
sort
of
like
painting
yourself
into
a
corner
and
it's
unfortunate,
but
I'm
sure
that
a
that
taking
another
look
at
it
will
and
the
neighbors
certainly
have
said
that
if
it's
appropriate-
and
that
was
mentioned
in
comments
tonight-
if
an
appropriate
development
can
be
found
for
the
site,
then
they
would
support
that.
C
S
The
the
north
shore
hotel
was
built.
There
was
always
been
a
hotel
on
on
that
site
in
the
avenue
house
was
much
much
smaller.
The
north
shore
hotel
was
the
first
large
development
in
downtown
evanston
so
that
a
few
years
later
along
came
the
orington
and
it
was
it
was
when
evanston
downtown
evanston
really
was
evolving
and
again.
I
think
that
I'm
sure
that
the
talented
architects
involved
with
the
people
who
own
the
marion
can
come
up
with
something
wonderful
that
fits
in
with
zoning
and
respects
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
But
this
this.
C
Does
not
I
I
want
to
say
one
more
thing:
aldermen
win.
Yes,
go
ahead,
the
the
residents
who
made
comments,
alluding
to
the
fact
that
the
developers
were
paying
to
play
on
the
reparations
when,
when
I
first
heard
about
the
reparations
commitment
from
the
developers,
I
I
never.
I
never
put
those
two
items
together.
C
I
think
the
reparations
committee
was
thrilled
to
hear
that
somebody
wanted
to
make
a
commitment,
a
financial
commitment
to
the
reparations
project
we
are,
you
know
we
are
way
beyond
being
paid
to
play
and
it
really
was
quite
insulting
and
I
don't
believe,
having
known
jonathan
perman
for
way
over
20
years,
that
he
was,
he
was
bribing
us
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
C
So,
having
said
that,
I
just
like
I
I'm
sure
the
members
of
the
council
know
that
we
were
not
being
taken
for
a
ride
on
that
one,
but
that
that
that
that
sort
of
hurts
to
hear
our
our
constituents
say
that,
because
it
was
very
far
from
the
truth.
Y
S
Ultimate
rainy,
thank
you
for
your
comments.
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
the
reparations
committee
did
not
invite
the
the
marion
owners
to
come
and
present
at
reparations.
I
think
we
did
no.
We
did
we
did
well.
I
think
we
all
need
to
understand
the
optics
of
that
look
very
bad.
I
mean
outside
outside
of
this
development.
S
I
think
anyone
would
welcome
donations
to
the
reparations
committee,
but
paired
with
this
development.
It
does
look
to
the
community
and
remember,
there's
a
community
out
here,
who's
observing
everything
that
we
do
and
it
just
looks
bad
and
I
and
I
I
absolutely
have
had
a
nice
relationship
with
jonathan
fuhrman,
but
he's
been
around
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
that
he
understands
that.
S
Maybe
this
was
not
the
the
right
approach
to
take
and
I
I'm
sorry
that,
for
whatever
reason
they
decided
to
do
that,
but
I
think
the
optics
of
it
are
terrible.
It
puts
the
council
in
a
very
difficult
place
of
looking
like
it's,
that
there
are
different
standards.
S
L
S
Be
just
beside
themselves
to
think
that
that
was
the
kind
of
thing
that
that
we
would
even
entertain.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that.
Y
Thank
you.
So
I
only
just
met
mr
perman,
just
in
this
recommendation
or
introduction,
as
using
public
benefit
to
fund
reparation,
and
I
really
appreciated
the
call-
and
I
absolutely
appreciated
his
presentation
to
the
committee.
I
think
we
all
did.
One
thing
we
do
know
is
that,
although
we
have
an
incredible
commitment
of
a
10
million
dollars,
10
million
dollars
is
not
enough
to
bridge
the
disparities
and
deal
with
the
housing
disparities
and
racial
wealth
divide,
and
so
on
that
we
have
here
in
this
city.
Y
So
thank
you
to
mr
kerbin
for
showing
up
I'm
absolutely
heartbroken
that
there
is
a
consensus
in
the
community
that
we
would
make
a
decision
on
such
a
a
zoning
decision
or
a
development
decision
based
on
a
offer
of
support
for
anything.
And
so
that's
that's
unfortunate.
Y
I
think
that
the
argument
against
it
or
the
argument
of
opposition
is
strong
enough
without
needing
to
insult
myself
and
my
colleagues
on
the
committee
suggesting
that
there
was
in
any
way
an
appropriate
presentation
made
whether
he
was
invited,
or
he
invited
himself-
he
showed
up.
It
was
the
appropriate
place
for
him
to
make
a
recommendation
on
ways
that
we
might
further
fund
reparations.
Y
So
with
that
said,
thank
you,
mr
perman,
and
thank
you
to
the
developers
and
the
owners
for
thinking
about
the
things
that
we
value
here
in
evanston
now
I
am
absolutely
professional
and
mature
enough
to
separate
that
conversation
from
the
viability
of
this
development.
It
is
clear
that
it
has
not
passed
commission.
Our
staff
has
denied
it.
There
is
no
community
support,
I'm
surprised
we
haven't
even
heard
from
the
business
community.
Y
I
thought
the
argument
would
have
been
that
the
300
or
so
new
residents
would
help
stimulate
economic
activity
in
a
very
down
economy,
but
I've
heard
nothing
from
the
business
community.
I've
also
just
asked
staff.
I
haven't
heard
anything
from
the
business
community
if
there's
anything
that
I've
overlooked
in
terms
of
advocacy
for
support,
can
staff
or
ottoman
fists
or
ottoman
rainy.
Anyone
that's
tuned
into
this,
maybe
more
so
than
me.
Let
me
know,
but
then
I
want
to
say
that
we
have
a
staff
that
is
very
well
educated
and
trained.
Y
Y
So
again,
I'm
absolutely
insulted
at
the
recommendation
that
it
was
inappropriate
for
them
to
talk
about
reparations,
but
I'm
having
a
hard
time
finding
any
place
to
support
this
development.
So
I'm
asking
right
now:
if
staff
can,
let
me
know
if
I
have
missed
out
on
any
correspondence
communication
from
the
chamber
of
commerce
any
of
the
business
districts
downtown
any
other
engagement
from
residents
or
constituents
or
other
stakeholders
in
the
community
that
may
have
been
in
support
of
this
project.
Y
Y
C
Y
I
received
that
one
too
yeah
so
with
that.
I
would
like
to
just
touch
on
this
and
this
probably
isn't
the
place.
But
since
we
had
all
these
public
statements
that
are
going
to
be
on
record
forever,
suggesting
that
reparation
discussion
was
inappropriate.
Ottoman
rainey
and
myself
some
time
ago
recommended
that
we
look
at
public
benefit
beyond
the
direct
vicinity
of
the
planned
development,
and
I
don't
know
where
that
referral
went
if
it's
just
dormant.
Y
That
only
impacts
the
most
direct
neighborhood
to
the
planned
development
and
the
need
for
public
benefit
is
outside
of
the
areas
in
the
city
that
are
more
likely
to
have
these
types
of
plan
developments
that
will
have
the
benefit.
So
I'm
making
a
referral
again
that
we
look
at
advancing
that,
and
I
see
ottoman
fists,
I'm
making
a
referral
again,
director
leonard
I'm
hoping
that
you're
getting
this
and
you
could
take
it
to
the
right
place
for
discussion
so
that
we
can.
Y
A
Alderman
russ
simmons.
To
that
point
we
have
attorney
nick
cummings
here
to
speak
to
this
and
at
first
I'm
gonna
have
miss
nineteen
speak
to
this,
but
I
we
also
have
the
corporation
counsel's
office
here
to
talk
about
this.
This
specific
issue.
I
believe
we
all
re,
received
a
memo
that
was
written
by
our
corporation
counsel's
office
several
years
ago
about
this
point
that
there
is
case
law
directly
on
point.
A
So,
ms
niden,
can
you
speak
first
and
then,
if
nick
cummings,
I
I
don't
see
him,
but
I
know
he's
on
this
call
if
he
can
then
address
this
point
about
the
required
nexus
between
a
public
benefit
and
a
particular
development
sure.
D
Nick
we'll
speak
to
some
of
the
case
law
here,
but
what
I
think
it
was
about
two
years
ago,
when
maybe
maybe
a
little,
maybe
three
years
ago
now
when
the
albion
development
was
was
under
proposal,
and
there
were
a
lot
of
public
proposed
public
benefits
that
needed
to
be
specific
to
the
site
development
allowances
requested
for
that
particular
development,
and
they
had
to
show
that
they
were.
D
The
public
benefits
were
mitigating
those
those
development
allowances
and
michelle
mason
cup
and
mario
tretto
prepared
a
memo
that
addressed
specifically
those
those
questions,
and
I
circulated
it.
I
think
it
was
in
december
2018
but,
and
I've
shared
that
memo
again
with
our
our
current
legal
counsel,
and
I
think
they're
prepared
to
speak
to
this
as
a
question.
Z
Z
There
there's
a
large
list,
but
there
does
need
to
be
a
nexus
between
the
public
benefit
and
the
developers
projected
impact
and
so
dedications
of
streets,
sidewalks
and
public
ways,
impact
fees,
payments
into
a
public
fund,
public
art,
which
I
know
that
has
has
actually
come
up
since
I've
actually
been
in
evanston
landscaping.
Open
space
infrastructure
improvements,
electric
vehicle
charging.
Z
All
these
things
have
with
the
challenges
in
terms
of
public
benefits,
and
they
don't
seem
to
be
necessarily
restricted
to
the
to
the
surrounding
location
of
the
development,
especially
when
you
start
talking
about
infrastructure
improvements
or
transit
passes
for
employees
and
renters.
That
sort
of
thing
those
actually
can
expand
beyond
a
little
bit
beyond
the
site
of
the
development.
Z
But
there
does
need
to
be
as
alderman
when
indicated,
a
necessary
nexus
between
the
public
benefit
and
the
impact
of
the
development.
A
Mr
cummings,
can
you
explain
that
a
little
bit
more,
I've
reread
the
memo
and
I'm
familiar
with
the
case
law.
I
think
it
we
need.
You
could,
if
you
could
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
the
court
meant
by
a
nexus
and
and
and
how
that
applies
in,
in
this
case,
for
instance,
or
in
in
another
case,.
Z
I
certainly
understand
that
the
contribution
to
the
public
fund
was
one
of
the
ones
that
I
I
raised,
but
there
there
has
to
be
so
my
understanding,
at
least
with
the
work
that
I've
been
doing
with
the
reparation
subcommittee
as
the
the
law
department's
liaison
to
the
subcommittee,
is
that
a
fund
is
directly
it's
directed
at
specific
residents
in
the
city
of
evanston
and
it's
a
race-based
program.
Z
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
that
nexus
based
upon
the
case
law
that
we
that
that
we're
referencing
in
this
particular
memo
that
that
public
benefit
is
generally
benefiting
or
generally
and
more
broadly,
the
public.
With
respect
to
the
the
cases
that
are
cited
in
the
memo.
So
there
has
to
be
a
proportionality
between
developers
projected
impact
in
what
we
are
giving
back
and
it
can't
be
rough.
Z
It
actually
has
to
be
a
little
more
exact,
so
it
would
really
depend
upon
the
the
impact
that
this
particular
development
had
on
the
evanston
community
and
listening
to
some
of
the
comments
and
some
of
the
discussion
and
the
presentation
that's
been
on
been
on
tonight,
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
relationship,
and
I
can't
necessarily
speak
to
the
fact
that
there
is
a
a
sufficient
personality
between
the
mission
of
the
reparations
fund
and
the
impact
that
this
development
would
have
on
the
city.
Y
Thank
you.
So
I
would
argue
that
the
direct-
and
I
don't
remember
what
term
you
just
used
but
relationship
to
the
impact
on
our
city
of
that
development
and
the
relevance
to
the
particular
public
fund
that
they
were
recommending
contributing
to
is
that
it's
100
market
rate
and
we
have
affordable
housing
deficit
and
that's
largely
the
goals
of
reparation.
Y
We
have
a
declining
black
population
and
we
have
a
entire
city,
that's
devastated
by
covet
financially.
So
it
seems
to
be
a
direct
impact
on
the
city
that
it's
going
to
be
providing
more
market
rate
unaffordable,
housing
in
a
city
that
says
it
values,
affordable,
housing.
So
then,
additionally,
one
other-
and
I
don't
know
where
this
project
is
going
to
go.
But
I
would
I
do
have
some
concerns
that
the
inclusionary
housing
compliance
is
dated
with
a
outdated.
Z
Almond
simmons,
I
I
can't
say
that
I
disagree
with
your
analysis.
I
just
cannot
say
at
this
time,
because
I
would
need
to
do
additional
research
in
addition
to
what
miss
mason
cup
has
done.
I
would
need
to
do
additional
research
to
see
if
it
actually
fits
within
the
rubric
of
what
we've
already
researched
for
reparations,
which
means
that,
in
order
to
have
this
race-based
program,
it
has
to
be
narrowly
tailored
in
order
for
to
to
withstand
any
sort
of
challenge.
Z
The
other
thing
I
will
say
in
relation
to
the
memorandum
is
public
benefits
are
usually
suggested
or
requested,
or
required
by
the
city
and
not
necessarily
offered
by
the
developer,
and
so
it'd
be
a
little
different
if
the
city
made
it
sort
of
like
a
requirement
such
as,
like
your
inclusionary
housing
requirement
in
the
in
the
code,
but
that's
not
what
my
understanding
is
what's
been
going
on
here,
at
least
based
on
the
comments
and
also
being
present
at
the
subcommittee
meeting
on
last
friday.
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you.
Seeing
no
other
hands
anyone
else
on
the
committee
before
we
take
a
vote.
I
I'd
like
to
just
offer
my
comments
as
chair.
I
also
am
planning
to
I
share
in
the
opposition
to
this
project.
I
think
that
it's
its
size
is
not
proportional.
Its
massing
is
not
proportional
to
to
the
site.
A
Its
unit
count
is
significantly
above
what
is
permitted
in
the
standards
its
floor
area
ratio
is
almost
twice
what
is
permitted
in
the
in
in
this
district,
and
I
I
do
think
when
you
look
at
what
some
of
these
newer
buildings
as
alderman
fisk
referenced
the
newer
building
that
the
marion
built
not
too
long
ago
and
the
hotel
further
south
on
chicago
avenue,
both
of
those
fit
in
seamlessly
into
the
into
the
architectural
context
and
and
the
transition
zone.
A
When
I
look
at
this
site
the
massing
of
this
building,
it
looks
enormous,
and
I
and
you
can
see
it
achieved
that
goal
by
it's.
It's
floor
area
ratio
and
increasing
its
unit
count.
One
of
my
favorite
parts
of
this
entire
area
is
that
the
I
believe
it's
the
522
church
building,
I'm
not
sure
when
it
was
built.
If
you
look
at
the
architecture
of
the
522
building,
it
absolutely
echoes
the
methodist
church.
A
If
you
drive
down
church
street
you'll
see
that
the
architect
of
522
shaped
that
building
to
match
the
the
the
methodist
church,
you
know
that's
good
architecture
that
building
blends
in
perfectly.
A
I
do
think
that
this
site
could
be
developed
in
in
so
many
better
ways
than
it
is
they're
trying
to
put
too
much
on
too
little,
and
this
east
side
of
chicago
avenue
is
supposed
to
be
a
transition
zone.
So
perhaps
you
could
be
this
tall,
but
you
can't
be
this
big.
A
You
can't
be
this
this
large
from
a
massing
standpoint
and
if
we
don't
respect
the
barriers
and
the
boundaries
that
we
have,
we
can't
live
next
to
them.
I
mean
I'm.
I
am
someone
who
lives
on
the
west
side
of
hinman
avenue.
I
have
only
an
alley
that
separates
my
home
single-family
home
from
intense
commercial,
but
that
commercial
is
something
that
we've
all
learned
to
live
with,
and
but
I
also
know
that
boundary
won't
change.
A
I
mean
there
won't
be
something
built
there
that
I
don't
expect,
and
so
that's
why
it's
possible
here
in
evanston
that
we
are
able
to
have
the
community
that
we
have
that
we
respect
these
boundaries.
We
respect
what
can
be
built
in
in
these
areas
and
then
we
count
on
that
and
that's
how
we
all
continue
to
live
and
and
work
together.
So
I
also
would
like
to
speak
to
the
benefits.
I
don't
think
they're
sufficient
to
match
the
density
of
this
building.
A
I
don't
think
this
building
is
so
sensational
that
that
we
are
that
the
the
small
amount
of
benefits
and
I'm
speaking
of
the
benefits
that
they
were
talking
about
in
the
proposal,
I'm
not
speaking
about
the
reparations,
because
I
don't
believe
that
can
be
called
a
public
benefit.
A
I
don't
think
when
we
see
what
we've
received
from
other
buildings
in
terms
of
benefits.
I
don't
think
that
this
building
has
presented
sufficient
to
make
up
for
the
fact
that
we
are
doubling
the
florida
ratio.
I
don't
even
know
what
the
multiplier
is
for
the
unit
count
and-
and
I
think
the
potential
problems
with
the
alley
and
the
street
are
so
significant.
They
can't
be
overcome.
So
I
I
join
in
the
other
members
of
the
council
and
dapper
and
the
plant
commission
and
saying
in
my
opposition
to
this
alderman.
T
I
do
want
to
just
basically
agree
with
you
chairwin
and
my
colleagues
just
three
quick
points:
the
the
height
and
density,
I
think,
of
the
proposed
building
are
really
out
of
scale
with
a
site
that
does
need
to
be
a
transition
to
the
adjacent
residential
neighborhood,
and
particularly
the
fact
that
we've
got
those
historic
buildings
right
out
to
the
east.
T
It's
troublesome
to
have
another
cut
on
chicago
avenue
that
would
create
additional
conflict
points
for
vehicles
and
pedestrians
and
cyclists,
and
really
disrupt
the
pedestrian
experience
along
chicago
avenue
and
and
then
thirdly,
yeah.
The
proposed
public
benefits
just
really
don't
match
the
significant
site
allowances
that
are
being
requested.
So
I
I
too
am
going
to
be
voting
now.
A
All
right,
so
I
I
think
I
see
no
more
hands
so
now
with
this
is
p2,
can
you
find
it?
No,
it's
b3.
Excuse
me
p3,
you're,
right,
alderman,
fisk,
so
I'll
just
can
you
restate
it
alderman
fisk,
then
so
that
we
make
sure
we
are.
We
are
voting
correctly.
A
Yes,
I
understand
your
motion
was
to
recommend.
Yes,
okay,.
S
Y
Before
we
have
a
motion,
did
we
determine
that
reparation
understand?
This
is
separate,
but
did
we
determine
that
the
public
benefit
offer
to
contribute
to
the
reparation
fund
is
not
appropriate
because
it
is
a
racially
restricted
fund?
Is
that
my
understanding.
Z
My
stuff,
sorry,
my
statement
was
that
I
would
need
to
research
to
make
sure
that
it
would
qualify
as
a
public
benefit,
because
the
fund
is
something
that
right
now
is
is
structured
for
a
specific
set
of
residents
based
on
race
and
not
on
other
criteria.
I
don't
know
if
that,
if
it's
sufficient
to
serve
as
a
public
benefit,
and
I
would
need
to
research
that.
A
So
alderman
murray
simmons,
my
comment
was
that
I
want
to
make
I
if
it's,
if
we're
going
to
call
it
a
public
benefit,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
legal
department
has
has
properly
researched
it
and
determined
that
we
can
call
it
that
so,
and
I
made
my
determination
about
this
before
friday's
reparations
meeting.
So
I
I
think
that
I'm
I
would
like
us
to
discuss.
A
How
is
it
that
we
could?
Perhaps
I
know
I'm
moving
away
from
this
for
a
second,
but
how
is
it
that
we
can
make
new
developments?
Perhaps
we
need
to
codify
it
to
say
all
new
developments
will
contribute
x,
follow
a
formula
to
our
reparations
fund,
and
then
by
codifying
it,
then
then
we
won't
get
this
question
and
we
also
won't
put
it
up
to
the
highest
bidder
and
and
cause
this
consternation
in
the
community
right
alderman.
C
Rainey,
I
I
disapprove
of
that.
I
don't
think
we
should
force
anybody
to
make
the
contribution.
However,
I
do
think
we
should
consider
the
reparations
fund,
a
public
fund
and
to
say
it's
not
a
public
fund
is
is
is
wrong
because
we
are
putting
public
dollars
into
that
fund.
I
think
it's
a
public
fund.
A
Alderman
rainey,
I
I
think
that
this
is
clearly
a
topic
that
we
need
to
have
more
information
and
have
a
discussion
on
when
that
right
now,
yeah
separate
from
this
issue.
Okay,
I
agree.
So
we
have
a
motion.
That's
been
seconded
and
alderman's
motion
was
to
recommend
denial,
so
miss
knighton.
Would
you
call
the
role
please
for
p3,
so.
A
S
A
A
A
T
A
All
right,
okay,
thank
you
committee.
I
think
that
we
clearly
we
we
have
a
big
topic.
We
want
to
talk
about
after
this,
not
in
this
meeting,
though
all
right,
so
I
want
to
return
to
p1
and.
S
A
Thank
you,
alderman
fisk,
so,
with
that
vote
of
seven
to
zero,
this
project
has
failed
in
committee
and
so
will
not
be
moving
on
to
the
city
council
for
any
action
at
all.
S
We
could
we
combine
p1
and
p2.
A
S
I'm
sorry
so
if
we
go
to
my
motion
is
not
to
approve
the
platform
subdivision
to
deny
the
plateaus
of
free
flat
or
something
every
subdivision.
C
A
Would
you
do
that?
Okay
is
there
a
second.
B
So
I
guess
my
threshold
question
would
be
if
the
property
owner
once
still
wants
to
pursue
the
subdivision,
because
if
they
don't,
then
there's
no
point
in
doing
it.
On
the
other
hand,
if
they
want
to
do
the
subdivision
for
perhaps
the
ability
to
to
convey
the
property
to
another
purchaser,
who
might
do
something
different
something
like
that,
then
it
would
make
sense
to
deal
with
these
two.
But
I
guess
I'm
interested
to
know
what
the
applicants
have
to
say,
because
you
know
if
they
want
to
do
this.
B
If
three
was
approved,
then
there's
no
point
in
doing
the
first
two.
B
U
V
We
go
yes
hi.
My
name
is
david
meek,
I'm
the
attorney
for
the
developer.
We
would
like
you
to
consider
the
proposed
plat
of
subdivision.
There
is
utility
to
us
in
being
able
to
subdivide
that
parcel
out
it's
held
as
a
separate
tax
parcel.
V
They
saw
the
utility
of
it
and-
and
we
would
ask
that
you
consider
that
favorably
as
well
as
then,
the
appropriate
modifications
to
the
plan
development
that
are
applicable
to
the
balance
of
the
marion.
So
it
separates
those
out
as
two
distinct
project
areas,
and
we
understand,
obviously
that,
should
we
come
back
with
a
different
proposal
for
the
single
story
component
of
chicago
avenue.
V
That
would
be
a
new
application
on.
You
know
some
type
of
project
that
may
or
may
not
come
in
before
you
anytime
soon,
but
it
would
give
us
the
ability
to
pursue
that,
and
any
future
project
would
need
this
subdivision
and
modification
to
the
existing
marion
anyway.
So
we
might
as
well.
In
our
view,
take
care
of
that
now.
V
A
Thank
you,
okay,
wilson
did
you
want
to
continue?
Yes,.
B
So,
just
to
complete
that
thought
my
thought:
that's
that
was
my
assumption
and
then
presumably,
if
we're
gonna
do
p1,
we
would,
you
know,
obviously
have
to
go
along
with
p2
because
they
can't
you
know,
tear
down
those
building.
So
you
know
based
on
the
explanation
and
in
furtherance
of
the
idea
of
actually
getting
something,
that's
workable
and
you
know
makes
sense
for
the
property.
I
would
be
interested
in
going
ahead
and
getting
the.
A
Subdivision
done,
okay
hold
on
we
do
have.
I
think
we
already
have
a
motion
on
the
floor.
So,
let's
see
who
is
next
alderman
fisk?
Did
you
have
your
hand
raised?
Yes,
yeah.
S
I
I
I
guess
I
don't
see
that
there
would
be
if
they
come
back
and
and
want
to
do
another
project
or
decide
they
want
to
sell
the
property
that
that's
the
proper
time
for
a
motion
for
to
resubdivision
to
to
occur.
I
would
like
to
tie
that
in
with
whatever
they
decide,
they're
going
to
do
next,
rather
than
deciding
that
tonight.
A
I
moved,
I
moved.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
okay,
that's
right!
You
did
yes,
okay,
all
right,
seeing
no
more
hands!
Ms
niden,
would
you
call
the
roll
so
and
let's
make
sure
we
understand
a
yes,
is
a
denial
and
a
no
is
do
we
have
to
have
a
vote
in
the
affirmative
then,
on
this.
A
Right
so
a
yes
is
agreeing
with
the
denial
and
a
no
is
not
agreeing
with
the
denial
okay.
B
B
T
Y
A
Okay,
let's,
let's
all
if
we
could
just
maintain
our
order
here,
then
we'll
we
can
get
through
this.
Thank
you,
okay!
So,
ms
knight,
ms
alderman
ravel,
do
you
have
the
information
you
need?
I
think.
S
D
Oh
sorry,
alderman
kids,
so
I
said
I
I
thank
you.
Alderman
wayne,
no
alderman
wilson,
alderman
simmons,
no
alderman
suffered.
D
Sorry
is
that
an
eye
alderman
ravel.
A
A
Okay,
so
now
it's.
D
A
E
A
Okay,
so
the
resolution
87
r20
passes
on
a
vote
of
five
to
two
okay.
So
then,
now
we
move
on
to
our
item
p2,
so.
B
Yeah,
I
move
that
we
approve
the
adjustment.
If
we're
subverting
the
property,
then
it
has
to
be
adjusted
so
the
numbers
exactly.
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
this
is,
or
an
ordinance
98020
approving
a
major
adjustment
to
a
planned
development
at
1605
to
1631
chicago
avenue.
Okay,
so
is
there
any
discussion
on
this?
This
is
for
introduction,
too,
by
the
way.
D
Well,
you
just
agreed
to
subdivide
the
property
and
recommend
to
city
council
accepted
by
the
property.
So
now
the
existing
development
is
not
in
conformance
the
numbers
changed
so
far.
The
lot
coverage
those
things
need
to
now
require
a
major
adjustment.
So
that's
what
your
account
the
committee
is
under
is
reviewing
and
agreeing
to
do.
A
P
T
T
A
Okay,
the
motion
passes,
the
ordinance
will
be
introduced.
That
concludes
our
agenda
for
this
evening
for
planning
and
development.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
adjourn?
A
Second,
all
right
and
the
council
will
shall
we
say
we'll
start
at
in
10
minutes
so
right
now,
it's
well.
Let's
call
it
6
50..
So
let's
say
the
council
will
start
promptly
at
7..