►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 11-25-2019
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
All
right
there
we
go,
we
have
a
quorum.
Welcome
everybody.
The
first
item,
please,
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
the
regular
meeting
of
October
20th
2019
do
I
have
a
motion
all
right.
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
all
in
favor
any
opposed.
There
are
no
opponents.
Next
item
is
public
comment.
We
have
eight
people
signed
up
for
public
comment.
First
is
Gail
Weisberg,
followed
by
Mary
Miller
and
then
Gloria
Meza.
A
B
Good
evening
my
name
is
Gail:
Weisberg
I
live
at
27:30,
Hampton,
Parkway
and
I've
come
to
talk
about
the
condo
deconversion
issue.
I
urge
the
Evanston
City
Council
to
pass
an
ordinance
similar
to
Chicago's,
whereby
there
needs
to
be
85%
of
unit
owners
approving
ad
conversion
contract
for
it
to
pass.
I
bought
my
condo
in
2006,
because
I
wanted
to
own
property
in
Evanston.
So
a
couple
years
ago
a
contract
or
a
company
came
by
wanting
to
buy
the
the
building
or
offering
to
buy
the
building.
B
Some
owners
were
wooed
last
year
by
a
selling
price
that
sounded
great
due
to
the
current
economy
and
the
selling
price
of
condos,
but
others
of
us
didn't
want
to
move
and
didn't
want
to
sell,
because
this
is
our
home.
The
first
time
this
came
to
a
vote
was
last
July
and
the
no
sale
one
one
owner
didn't
vote
and
the
attorney
chaos,
and
at
that
time,
told
us
that
if
someone
didn't
vote
it
counted
as
they
know,
so
we
thought
it
was
over.
At
that
time.
B
The
buyers
came
back
a
couple
months
later
with
an
addendum,
which
would
benefit
only
a
few
owners
who
then
voted
yes,
so
we
voted
again
on
October
29th.
At
that
time,
two
owners
didn't
vote,
so
the
75%
threshold
to
approve
the
contract
wasn't
reached,
but
the
attorney
ksn
changed
his
tune
and
then
said
that
everyone
needed
a
chance
to
vote,
because
the
no
vote
didn't
reach
what
he
called
a
25%
threshold
and
the
yes
didn't
reach
the
75%.
B
However,
state
legislation
only
mentions
this
75%,
nothing
about
a
25%,
no
at
all.
If
the
two
non-voting
units
were
counted
as
a
no,
the
do
not
sell
would
have
won
again
and
I'm,
of
course,
on
that
side,
instead,
we
had
to
wait
another
two
weeks,
and
this
gave
North
Park
the
company,
who
is
buying
the
condos
more
time
to
try
to
convince
more
owners
to
vote
yes
by
giving
them
them
an
incentive,
slash
bribe.
B
In
fact,
we
were
told
that
North
Park
offered
$10,000
to
owners
who
would
change
their
vote
to
a
YES
on
the
vote
on
November
12th.
The
final
vote
was:
seventy
five
point:
six,
three
percent.
Yes,
so
one
owner
changed
their
vote
frankly,
I
consider
what
has
happened
and
the
sale
a
hostile
takeover
in
summary,
I
urge
the
Evanston
City
Council
to
pass
an
ordinance
similar
to
Chicago's
so
that
it
takes
85%
of
the
owners
and
approving
a
contract
for
it
to
pass.
Thank
you
thank.
A
C
Hello
and
good
evening,
I'm,
Mary
Miller,
also
a
resident
at
Hampden
Park
condo
association
also
opposed
to
the
D
conversion.
It
has
been
a
very
stressful,
18
months
of
our
lives,
knowing
and
not
knowing
whether
our
building
was
going
to
sell
or
not
sell
I'm,
not
going
to
reiterate
miss
White's
bergs
comments,
but
I
do
feel
that
85%
threshold
is
probably
the
best
the
strongest
recommendation
that
could
be
made.
Also
consideration
of
having
board
members
not
having
language
that
says
that
board
members
cannot
receive
incentives
affecting
their
vote.
C
It's
it's
really
been
a
heart-wrenching
experience
to
see
my
neighbors
go
through
this,
many
of
them
lower
income.
Many
of
them
have
lived
there
since
the
building
was
converted
19
years
ago
and
don't
necessarily
have
the
means.
I
think
that
affordable
housing
and
the
shift
in
the
law
for
affordable
housing
in
Evanston
has
also
impacted
this
sale.
C
The
original
projections
were
on
a
price
that
was
later
reduced
because
the
canta
buyer
submitted
a
contract
with
a
change
to
have
the
buyers,
pay
the
affordable
housing
option
of
one
and
a
half
million
that
was
rejected,
and
then
the
price
was
lowered,
so
our
sale
price
is
one
and
a
half
million
less
than
the
original
conversation
was
another
another
piece.
There
I'm
sure
I'm
close
to
three.
C
I'm,
so
the
last
piece
I
would
say
it's
one
of
the
my
my
biggest
take
away
in
lesson
from
this
entire
experience
is
that
there
are
analytics
that
are
done
in
the
market
that
are
looking
for
buildings
for
investors
to
purchase
with
Chicago
going
to
85%.
Many
of
those
investors
in
Chicago
are
now
looking
to
the
Kahler
communities
like
Evanston
to
find
buildings
to
D
convert
our
building
was
old.
We
had
many
stable
board
members
that
were
there
from
the
beginning,
who
did
not
were
not
proactive
about
maintenance
on
the
building.
C
D
E
Name
is
Gloria
Meza
and
I
am
also
an
owner
at
27:30
Hampton
Parkway
I
am
here
to
also
ask
you
to
consider
changing
the
threshold
from
75%
to
85%,
for
the
D
conversions
I
also
have
a
list
for
you
which
I
will
hand
out
to
you,
but
I'm
gonna
read
similar
comments
that
my
neighbors
have
already
asked
you
to
keep
in
mind.
85
percent
owner
approval
of
the
sale
is
needed.
Please
consider
board.
Members
cannot
receive
incentives
from
the
buyer.
It
conflicts
with
their
judgment
in
regards
to
fiduciary
duty
to
all
owners.
E
Number
three
owners
cannot
receive
incentives
from
the
buyer.
Number.
Four
owners
cannot
be
held
responsible
for
paying
off
their
neighbors
underwater
mortgages.
Number
five,
the
10%,
low-income
resident
needs
to
be
reviewed.
The
rule
did
not
cost
the
buyer.
Anything.
The
buyer
reduced
the
value
of
our
property
by
1.5
million
costing
each
owner
15,000
in
property
value
number
6.
The
due
diligence
faced
by
the
buyer
has
to
take
place
before
the
vote
occurs.
Number
7
each
owners
should
be
told
$1
a
month.
They
will
receive
it
closing
within
$500.
E
Prior
to
the
vote
occurring
number
eight,
the
Association
will
pay
for
an
assessment
of
each
unit
prior
to
the
vote
and
determined
that
every
owner
will
make
a
profit
plus
ten
percent
number
nine.
A
vote
can
only
occur
once
a
year
due
to
due
to
the
stress
it
creates
for
all
owners
and
number
10.
A
board
has
to
fill
out
a
form
provided
by
Evanson
that
their
building
is
for
sale
once
the
building
is
for
sale.
E
F
A
F
The
one
thing
I
would
say
from
the
memo,
I've
read:
it's
very
cautious
surrounding
communities
have
much
lower
measures
for
trees
that
are
covered
on
private
land
like
Winnetka,
for
example,
trees
that
are
only
8
inches,
which
are
pretty
small
on
private
land,
require
permit.
If
there's
going
to
be
construction,
so
I
think
they're,
probably
ways
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
staff
probably
have
about
how
they
would
manage
this,
but
I
hope
that
you'll
give
it
really
positive
consideration
and
think
about
also
greatly
increasing
the
tree
replacement
rate
and
fees.
G
I'm,
my
co-lead
natural
habitat,
Evanston
and
I
already
submitted
comments.
So
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
those,
but
I
am
you
know
hoping
that
you'll
increase
the
the
well
the
protection
for
the
trees
and
make
the
diameter
protection
smaller
and
and
also
raise
the
limits
I
just
want
to
point
out.
The
only
thing
I
wanted
to
add
is
that
I
was
involved
in
protecting
Isabella
woods,
which
is
a
preserved
area
of
old-growth
forest
in
Evanston,
similar
to
latter
buried
them.
G
It
is
leased
from
the
MWR
d
and
I
just
want
to
say
for
the
48
trees
in
isabella
woods,
I'm,
just
making
a
pitch
also
for
public
trees.
These
are
the
city's
trees
and
for
48
trees,
including
11
of
them
above
25
inches,
which
is
what
the
proposal
is
from
staff.
The
city
was
just
asking
a
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars,
so
that's
about
twenty
seven
hundred
dollars
per
tree,
even
though
these
are
150
year
old,
trees
hundred
year
old
trees,
so
I
just
want
to
I
hope,
you'll
protect
public
trees
as
well,
and.
H
Good
evening,
eka
kosnovski
is
my
husband
show,
so
I
will
speak
from
both
of
us.
We
are
both
residents
of
2750,
Hampton,
Parkway
and
actually
I.
Just
would
like
to
agree
with
everything
that
was
just
said
today
by
our
neighbors.
Just
one
thing
that
was
not
covered
is
the.
H
A
I
A
I
J
I
A
J
Need
to
find
that
part
of
the
packet,
it
seemed
to
me
that
the
applicant
mentioned
something
about
helping
any
residents
in
the
building
who
have
mobility
difficulties,
helping
the
those
residents
find
closer
parking
and
also
since
there's
going
to
be
a
quite
a
difference
in
the
cost
of
the
parking.
If
it's
over
the
Maple
Avenue
garage,
compare
it
to
the
current
parking
lot,
some
offer
of
making
up
the
difference
in
that
parking
rate,
but
I
know
we're
not
there's
no
requirement
mentioned
in
what
we're
approving
tonight.
K
J
L
J
D
M
Good
evening
it
was
an
issue
that
was
raised
that
the
CBA
and
one
resident
did
submit
a
written
comment
to
that.
To
that
regard,
we
did
reach
out
to
the
residents
and
we
are
going
to
continue
to
keep
their
parking
space
charge
the
same,
we're
not
quite
sure
for
how
long,
but
at
least
through
the
their
lease,
and
we
will
make
up
the
difference
between
the
cost
of
the
maple
garage
and
and
what
they're
paying.
Currently,
that
was.
J
L
D
N
Parking
for
the
mobility
challenged
that
is
honor
near
the
site
and
that
you
would
either
provide
parking
for
them
or
give
them
a
reduced
parking
fee.
I.
Just
don't
want
this
to
turn
out
that
the
city
is
going
to
be
paying
for
a
reduced
parking
rate,
because
that
affects
everybody
across
the
city
whose
mobility
challenged
and
that
would
that
would
be
I
think
really
difficult
for
us.
No.
N
M
Our
plan
was
to
keep
the
written,
keep
the
existing
price
for
our
residents.
Only
I'd
have
the
60
some
people
that
used
a
lot
only
32
or
our
residents
as
of
this
month
only
32
lived
within
our
buildings.
So
for
those
32
people
we
would
keep
the
price
the
same,
and
that
would
be
our
cost,
that
that
would
not
be
an
obligation
on
the
city.
K
C
A
Opposed
all
right
item
passes
so
we'll
move
on
now
to
items
for
discussion.
Item
p3
is
a
discussion
of
the
automatic,
our
friends
regarding
economy
and
D.
Conversions
staff
seeks
for
the
direction
on
the
reference
from
Albarn
fist
to
review
the
local
ordinance
associated
with
the
condominium
conversions,
although
in
Fiske.
N
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
well,
I
I,
asked
for
this
because
after
hearing
stories
from
folks
in
my
ward
and
the
people
who
spoke
tonight
are
I
believe
7th
Ward
this.
This
is
a
major
concern
and
especially
for
the
elderly
and
the
financially
challenged,
who
may
have
bought
in
a
building
and
suddenly
find
themselves
forced
to
sell
and
not
able
to
rent
or
afford
rental
in
the
neighborhood
in
which
they
owned
a
condominium.
It's
it's
a
real
problem
and
and
I
appreciate.
N
I
thought
amend,
Wilson
can
correct
me
if
I'm,
if
I'm
wrong
on
this
but
I
believe
one
of
the
persons
who
spoke
mentioned
a
dual
agency.
Apparently
that's
going
on
in
the
building.
You
have
to
agree
to
that.
You
have
to
agree
to
a
dual
agency,
so
that's
I,
don't
think
that's
something
that
we
can
get
involved
in.
That
is
a
issue
for
you
to
deal
with
with
your
your
condo
board.
N
Someone
came
in
converted
two
bedroom
units
into
four
bedroom
units.
We
got
them
down
to
three
bedroom
units,
but
they
were
no
longer
affordable
for
the
people,
most
of
whom
were
elderly
who
had
been
living
there.
So
this
is
this
is
this
is
a
serious,
serious
conversation
we
need
to
have
at
committee
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
really
good
start
to
apply
the
85%
to
any
any
condo
deconversion
in
Evanston.
O
Those
buildings
were
once
rentals.
Evanston
declared
a
moratorium
on
all
conversions
while
it
took
its
time
to
develop
conversion
ordinance
and
our
conversion
ordinance
in
our
moratorium
was
noted
in
Senate
hearings
in
the
United
States
Senate
in
Springfield
and
all
over
the
country
and
in
universities,
and
we
were
really
really
proud
of
that.
We
filed
suit
against
some
landlords
and
we
have
a
wonderful,
wonderful,
brilliantly
written
conversion
ordinance.
O
You
can't
just
walk
in
and
announce
you're
going
to
convert
a
building
people
who
are
being
thrown
out
almost
literally
on
the
street
until
we
stepped
in
and
stopped
that.
So
what
I'm
seeing
now
is
something
like
that
and
I
think
we
ought
to
declare
a
moratorium
on
the
conversions
until
we
get
our
act
together.
I
don't
think
we
just
start
to
say:
85%
I
mean
there's
more
to
it
than
that.
There
are
big
buildings.
There
are
little
buildings,
there's
all
sorts
of
things.
O
There
are
people
without
declarations
that
are
any
good,
give
people
time
to
look
at
their
declarations
to
make
their
rules
and
regulations.
It's
really
the
Wild
West
for
D
conversions
in
Evanston
and
I
think
we
ought
to
be
very
careful,
and
the
people
who
spoke
here
tonight
are
proof
positive
of
that.
A
D
D
P
P
So
one
of
my
concerns
is
that
Chicago
is
not
Evanston.
Chicago
has
a
much
grander
scale
for
their
buildings,
so
85%
means
something
very
different
than
it
doesn't
city
of
Evanston.
We
have
much
smaller
condo
buildings
for
the
most
part.
So
if
you
do
the
math
on
buildings
that
are
six
units,
you
need
unanimous
consent.
One
person
can
hold
the
entire
thing
up.
If
you
have
10
units
you
only
one
person,
you
need
nine
votes,
and
so
it
makes
for
some
very
difficult
interactions.
P
D
Thank
you
and
I'd
also
heard
from
away
my
donor
this
building,
and
it's
it's
obviously
very
upsetting.
So
this
is
not
the
way
I
wanted
to
see
things
playing
out.
All
rainy
I
find
your
point
well
taken.
I
think
we
should
come
up
with
something,
but
in
the
meantime,
I
don't
want
more
people
being
harmed
because
we
haven't
put
something
together.
Among
the
points
I
want
to
make
sure
we
wouldn't
address
are
any
any
unique
consideration
before
a
particular
unit
owner.
That's
not
given
to
all
unit
owners.
D
I
do
want
to
go
back
and
I
was
concerned
about
this
aspect
of
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
pretty
much
from
the
word
go
so
I've
always
worried
about
who
pays
and
I
don't
want
to
be
collecting
money
for
our
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance
at
the
expense
of
displaced
owners.
That's
kind
of
the
opposite
impact
that
we
were
intending
so
I
want
to
look
at
that
at
the
same
time,
but
I'm
okay,
with
all
the
Raney's
suggestion,
I
recognize.
We
have
to
put
it
on
a
future
agenda
but
I'm
supportive
of
them.
J
Well,
I'm
glad
we
got
some
information
from
the
corporation
council,
because
that
was
I
had
questions
as
well
as
to
just
what
can
we
do?
I,
certainly
sympathize
greatly
with
residents
of
the
Hampton
Parkway
building
many
people
when
they
buy
their
condominium,
that's
their
home.
It's
not
viewed
as
some
investment
for
the
future.
It's
it's
where
they
plan
to
live
for
the
long
term,
and
you
know
it's
to
have
that
future
suddenly
taken
away
from
them
as
is
really
really
difficult,
so
I
would
certainly
it
sounds
from
what
corporation
counsel
has
said.
Is
that
it?
N
N
F
N
P
O
O
O
A
Q
You,
mr.
chairman,
remember
them
members
of
the
committee
Paul
excuse
me:
Paul
D'agostino,
Environmental
Services
Coordinator,
a
short
presentation
on
our
proposed
changes.
You
got
this
I'm
going
to
start
with,
just
with
a
pamphlet
that
I
got
from
the
Morton
Arboretum,
which
is
one
of
the
preeminent
research
institutions
on
tree
related
material
in
the
whole
country.
They
really
support,
especially
municipalities,
protecting
as
many
trees
as
possible,
especially
the
bigger
trees.
I'm,
just
going
to
highlight
a
couple
things
that
are
up
here:
they
reduce
stormwater
runoff.
Q
Q
Q
25
foot
mark
based
on
the
definition
in
the
current
ordinance,
which
says
the
critical
root
zone
of
a
tree,
is
the
equivalent
of
1
foot
in
diameter
per
1
inch
of
diameter
of
the
trunk.
So
if
you
have
a
25
inch,
diameter
tree
within
25
feet
of
that
tree
is
the
critical
root
cell.
So
that's
where
we
came
up
with
that
and
there's
just
a
list
of
it's
kind
of
hard
to
read.
Obviously
us
group
species
groups,
a
B
and
C
which
are
I,
would
say:
98%
are
the
most
common
private
and
public
trees.
Q
Here
in
the
city
of
Evanston,
there
may
be
a
few
out
there
that
aren't
any
of
these
lists.
We're
gonna
look
at
the
at
these
lists
and
we're
gonna
actually
propose
when
we
come
back
with
the
actual
ordinance
language
to
change
some
of
these
categorizations
on
some
of
these
trees,
because
things
have
changed
since
we
wrote
this
in
2011.
Q
As
was
stated
earlier,
some
of
the
other
local
municipalities
have
a
much
lower
threshold
to
protect
private
trees,
but
they
also
have
committed
our
dedicated
employees
and
on
their
staffs
that
spend
some
of
them
100%,
some
of
them
70
to
80
percent
of
their
time,
just
enforcing
their
tree
preservation
ordinance.
You
can
see.
As
was
stated
earlier,
Winnetka
has
8
inch
go
ahead:
Scott
Lake
Forest
in
Highland
Park.
These
are
kind
of
simplified
of
what
their
ordinances
are,
because
they
have
multiple
categories
of
protected
trees
because
of
their
ravine
situations
and
they're
in
their
lakefront.
Q
They
have
I.
Think
Highland.
Park
has
four
different
kinds
of
protected
trees,
they're
protected
they're,
key
their
heritage
and
their
ravine
trees
and
they're
all
different
levels,
and
that's
why
I
say
two
to
four
trees
for
each
one
tree
on
the
replacement,
value
would
depends
on
which
category
those
fall
in.
So
it's
there's
a
wide
range
of
things
out
there
go
ahead,
then,
on
the
on
the
examples
I
have
in
the
memo
the
development
that
was
proposed
for
26:26
reefs.
This
is
a
photo
of
an
oak
tree.
Q
That's
at
26
24,
immediately
next
door
to
that
property
that
measures
26
inches.
So
this
would
have
been
a
protected
tree
and
they
would
have
had
to
do
something
to
either
protect
the
root
zone
or
would
have
had
to
do
some
kind
of
a
replacement
either
fee
and
Louisville
or
free
replacements
themselves.
Q
Then
there's
the
silver
maple
right
in
the
middle
of
the
picture.
Here,
that's
23
inches.
This
was
on
the
property
of
26:26
Reese.
This
would
not
have
been
a
protected
tree,
so
they
would
not
have
been
required
to
save
it.
The
2390
parcel
the
old
Kendall
College.
These
are
three
Oaks
right
on
the
corner.
These
are
all
well
over
30
inches
and
all
would
have
been
protected
or
should
be
protected.
Q
There's
a
third
development
at
11:18
Elmwood.
These
were
on
the
property,
the
floor
demolition
occurred.
These
all
would
have
been
protected,
so
obviously
the
developer
would
not
have
been
able
to
protect
them
because
they
are
building
almost
the
entire
lot,
so
they
would
have
had
to
either
plan
replacement,
trees
to
the
criteria
of
the
ordinance
or
pay
a
fee
and
lieu
of
replacement
and
I
think
I
calculated.
Q
Those
three
replacements
would
have
been
about
$13,000
in
that
vicinity,
and
then
this
is
a
tree
at
11:20
on
what
immediately
next
door,
which
is
should
be
protected,
but
it's
not
being
protected
because
it
didn't
fall
under
the
ordinance
as
it
currently
exists.
This
is
literally
on
the
property
line
and
they're
building
I
think
within
about
two
feet,
with
a
foundation
at
11:18,
so
I'm
worried
about
that
tree,
the
25
inch
threshold.
We
came
up
with
that,
based
on
multiple
conversations.
Q
Internally,
we
calculated
what
we
thought
the
additional
permits
would
would
come
through
based
on
28,
18
and
19
permits
of
of
actual
building
permits.
Not
you
know,
re-roofing
or
anything
like
that.
Actual
buildings
on
properties
would
probably
double
the
amount
we
get
now
right.
Now
we
get
about
a
hundred
and
they
have
about
450
that
could
qualify
for
this
new
ordinance
language
about
a
third
of
those
only
would
probably
really
qualify
because
of
the
25
inch
threshold.
Q
D
Q
Just
wanted
to
put
this
in
here
it
does
help
to
meet
the
carp
goal.
That's
specific
language
in
there
to
adopt
a
tree
preservation
ordinance
that
requires
obtaining
a
permit
for
tree
removal
on
private
property,
so
we're
in
line
with
that.
As
I
said
earlier,
we're
gonna
look
at
the
current
ordinance
and
not
only
changed
language
about
the
private
trees,
but
we
also
want
to
look
at
the
current
fees
and
penalties,
as
well
as
those
categories
of
the
different
trees
appreciate.
R
Q
Q
R
Q
Q
A
lot
of
those,
probably
three-quarters
to
two-thirds
are
probably
not
going
to
qualify
at
all
because
they're
things
like
they're
just
replacing
their
garage.
Well,
that's
not
really
going
to
affect
anything
else
on
the
property
other
than
an
existing
garage.
So
I
looked
at
them
in
that
manner
of
you
know,
if
they're
building
an
addition,
that's
something
that
could
definitely.
R
Because
I
worried
that
the
26-inch
I
think
we
all
worried
that
the
26
inch
diameter
isn't
going
to
protect
enough
trees
and
and
I
would
rather
air
a
little
bit
on
stretching
the
staff
and
finding
funding
for
more
staff
to
protect
the
trees
than
have
given.
What
has
happened
to
us
with
the
emerald
ash,
borer
mm-hmm
and
we're
holding
our
own
on
the
Dutch
elm
right.
D
R
Who
knows
what's
going
to
come
next
and
seeing
the
instance?
What
just
happened
in
in
my
ward,
where
the
zoning
staff
worked
really
hard
and
came
up
with
two
other
alternatives
for
the
property
owners,
but
they
they
said
no
and
which
was
within
their
right
to
do
right.
It
was
a.
It
was
a
big
Siberian
Elm
that
came
down
so
I
guess
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
whether
if
we're
gonna
really
overwhelm
the
staff,
we
reduce
it
to
20
inches.
It's.
K
R
R
R
R
N
N
We've
got
to
look
at
what
these
trees
really
provide.
Us
and
I'd
be
happy
to
start
with
the
25,
but
I
think
alderman
Wynn
has
convinced
me.
We
need
to
go
lower
than
that.
I
don't
want
to
overburden
our
staff,
so
I'd
be
willing
to
say,
let's
go
a
little
bit
lower
and
then,
if
that
seems
to
be
working,
okay
and
staff
isn't
overburden.
Q
As
you
can
see,
Wilmette
has
a
graduated
rate,
their
Oaks
they're
protected
to
24
inches
Elms
and
30
inches
and
hickories
at
60
inches.
So
that
can
be
done.
It's
not
that
complicated.
It
actually
puts
more
of
a
burden
on
the
developer
of
the
resident
to
figure
out
exactly
what
kind
of
trees
he
has
on
his
property
right,
because
a
lot
of
people
just
don't
know
so.
J
Well,
I,
second,
the
direction
of
the
conversation
with
that
my
colleagues
are
taking
this
so
when,
when
we
talk
about
this
with
the
role
of
the
staff
in
terms
of
being
part
of
approving
or
not
the
tree
coming
down
on
private
property,
so
is
that
something
that
just
staff
just
gets
involved
once
the
building
permit
application
comes
in
it's
it's
not
just.
Oh,
we
need
to
do
some
big
survey
of
the
city
ahead.
J
Yeah,
okay,
well
I,
like
the
eye
of
you,
know
having
some
of
the
truly
really
valuable
older
trees
and
the
oak
trees
in
particular
have
a
smaller
diameter
where
we
protect
them.
I'd
also
like
us
to
and
I
think
Paul.
You
mentioned
that
that
you
were
going
to
be
taking
a
look
at
the
what
we
charge
when
treasonous
need
to
come
down
and
adjusting
that
penalty.
A
Q
Q
Q
R
Q
Q
R
L
I
You
I'm
gonna
speak
to
this
now,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
pull
it
off.
At
the
council
meeting
for
introduction,
we
passed
p1
157
a
19
amending
the
municipal
exemption
in
section
six,
seventy
four
and
that
recommendation
came
from
the
response
and
concerns
from
the
pumping
station,
the
water
pumping
station
and
how
that
was
handled
our
recommending
that
we
use
a
noticing
process
consistent
with
other
processes.
I
The
municipal
exemption
omitted
some
steps
and
director
Leonard,
if
you
don't
mind
just
speaking
to
the
new
steps
in
this
process,
so
we
have
a
few
municipal
exemptions
and
the
recent
past.
We
have
the
water
pumping
station
and
it's
my
understanding.
Some
time
ago
we
had
a
fire
station
and
those
are
examples
of
what
municipal
exemptions
would
be
if,
but,
if
you
could
speak
to
it,
director
run
it
sure.
L
So
the
the
goal
here
was
to
provide
more
public
notice.
That
would
then
direct
people
to
the
design
of
project
review
committee.
So
I
think
Scott,
it's
a
thousand
feet,
500
I'm,
sorry
500
feet,
so
notice
would
be
real
quiet.
We
we
are
able
to
obtain
the
addresses
of
everybody
living
within
a
point.
A
500
feet
addresses
are
curated
notice
would
be
sent
out
and
it's
a
postcard
that
would
provide
information
and
ways
that
people
can
get
more
information
and
also
provide
comment
on
it
and.