►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 2-24-2020
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
It's
been
moved
in
second
at
any
Corrections,
all
in
favor
any
opposed
all
right.
Now
we
are
probably
comment,
and
we
have
some
residents
signed
up
own
I.
Think
we'll
do
the
three
minutes
apiece.
If
that
works
for
everybody.
The
first
up
is
Roberta
Hudson
and
Tina
Peyton
Carla,
Sutton,
Priscilla
Giles.
So
as
Roberta
Hudson
here.
C
A
C
You
Hudson
Allen
1941,
Dewey
Avenue,
our
family
has
been
around
for
over
60
70
years.
We
have.
We
started
the
Foster
Park
neighbors
few
years
back
to
make
improvements
for
the
community.
We
conducted
a
survey
of
over
400
people
around
the
neighborhood
asking
what
they
needed
and
what
they
were
concerned
about
most
in
the
fifth
Ward,
and
they
were
concerned
about
their
children
having
some
after-school
program
where
they
could
learn
some
technology
that
they
could
either
start
their
own
jobs
of
his
own
businesses
are
get
jobs.
C
The
developers
are
continued
to
come
into
our
area
taken
the
last
land,
that's
available
in
our
5th
Ward
that
we
could
do
something
for
the
community
and
they're
putting
up
high-rises
that
are
taking
up
the
space.
If
we
could
do
anything
else.
So
where
you
want
have
families,
we
wanted
families
to
come
in
and
have
children
where
they
can
work
and
play
and
learn.
We
don't
have
that
anymore.
C
The
big
buildings
are
taking
up
the
space
for
any
place
for
kids
to
play,
there's
no
once
they
were
living
in
buildings,
there's
nothing
nowhere
to
come
out
to.
We
have
someone
small
Gilbert
Park
over
there,
and
it
is
our
hope
that
the
City
Council
will
understand
for
once
what
the
community
is
desire
is
and
will
hope
that
you
will
understand
why
we
need
to
keep
our
community
free
of
all
the
high-rises
and
and
in
this
area
we
just
don't
need
them.
C
We
have
enough
in
the
5th
Ward,
and
we
need
more
things
to
put
together
for
our
youth,
there's
nothing
for
them
to
do
here
and
we're
losing
them
we're
losing
families,
we're
losing
elderly
people,
because
there's
no
programs
to
help
them
they're,
not
working
anymore,
and
these
are
hundred-year-old
homes
that
need
updating,
and
rather
than
helping
these
people
who
have
paid
tax
for
years
in
Anniston,
we
ignore
them
and
we
help
the
developers.
It's
really
unfair.
C
D
Good
afternoon
or
evening
sorry
I'm
Tina
Payton
at
11:22,
Emerson
Street.
We
also
own
my
family
owns
the
property
at
1507
Emerson
Street
this
year
be
fifty
years.
We've
had
that
building
and
we've
always
rented
to
affordable
housing.
I'm
here
to
support
the
creation
of
the
r58
along
with
Miss
Hudson.
We
do
not
need
high-rises
at
one
time
there
was
a
plan
for
five-story
building
50
units
and
if
you
do
the
10%
requirement
for
the
affordable
housing,
that's
only
five
units
right
now,
Jackson
and
Emerson
is
the
last
that
you
have
for
affordable
housing.
D
You
have
passed
the
Alby
on
E
to
17:17,
Ridge
and
you've
the
link
and
how
many
units
do
you
have
for
families,
except
for
this
area?
There's
a
lot
of
families
with
children
at
Albion
or
17:17
Ridge,
a
single
mother
with
five
children
is
not
going
to
live
in
those
buildings,
we're
not
doing
enough
for
affordable
housing,
and
if
you
let
the
five
story
allowance
here
to
continue
and
not
do
the
our
five
a
then
you
will
allow
another
high-rise
and
eliminate
affordable
housing.
How
many
units
have
you
acquired
for
families
for
affordable
housing?
A
E
Occasionally
we
come
to
this
committee
asking
for
some
kind
of
relief
to
keep
the
existing
character
of
our
community.
We
are
tired
of
the
double
standard
that
is
applied
to
the
fifth
Ward,
that
developers
and
other
people
can
come
into
our
community
and
get
variances
that
adversely
affect
our
quality
of
life.
I'm,
urging
you
now
to
approve
ordinance,
it's
nine
to
nine,
oh
two
and
three
zero
to
zero
on
the
basis
of
this.
What
about
the
people's
existing
homes
and
property
value
that
will
be
adversely
affected?
E
If
you
do
not
give
us
this
creation,
we
are
taxpayers
in
this
community
and
we
deserve
the
right
to
be
heard
and
to
keep
our
homes
in
the
kind
of
character
that
we
want.
As
a
neighborhood
currently
exists,
please
do
not
impose
upon
us
something
that
we
do
not
want.
Okay,
I
do
not
want
you
to
deny
the
approval
of
ordinance
29
0,
2,
&,
3,
0
20.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
F
My
name
is
Christopher
Koch.
All
I
am
I,
live
at
1910,
Wesley,
Avenue
and
I'm.
Here
to
ask
you
to
please
adopt
the
recommended
r5,
a
rezoning
of
our
neighborhood
in
the
fifth
Ward.
Our
neighborhood
is
predominantly
single-family
homes.
Two
and
three-story
walk
ups
townhomes
and
low
profile
apartment
buildings.
It
would
most
appropriately
be
zoned,
r4
or
r3,
but
we
realize
down
zoning.
Our
three
is
a
lot
to
ask.
F
A
great
compromise
would
be
the
zoning
change
from
r5
to
r5
a
a
small
but
significant
step
towards
protecting
current
residents
from
developments
like
the
monstrosity
proposed
last
year
by
Dumanis
for
the
lots
at
Jackson
and
Emerson
neighbors
that
support
this
down.
Zoning
are
being
portrayed
by
opponents
as
anti
development
in
anti
affordable
housing.
The
truth
is,
we
do
want
development
and
affordable
housing.
F
We
would
love
development
of
reasonable
density,
while
we're
asking
is
that
future
development
reflect
the
current
character
of
our
neighborhood
and
respect
to
reasonable
limits
to
density
help,
keep
it
a
great
place
to
live
and
project
the
investment
that
current
residents,
like
myself,
have
made
in
the
area.
The
Commission's
2005
study
determined
that
rezoning
to
r5
a
would
more
appropriately
reflect
the
character
and
capacity
of
this
area.
That's
why
I
support
the
adoption
of
the
recommended
rezoning
and
urge
you
to
also
thank
you.
Thank.
G
Cath
Ryne,
who
owns
the
seven
parcels
at
or
near
the
intersection
of
emerson
and
jackson,
and
my
brief
comments
really
are
that,
as
the
plan
commission
heard,
miss
catherine
has
spent
twenty
years
and
millions
of
dollars
investing
in
evanston
and
investing
in
these
properties.
It
was
her
and
her
husband's
goal
to
purchase
them
and,
ultimately
to
redevelop
them.
G
Her
husband,
passed
in
2015
and
there
were
still
two
more
parcels
that
they
had
sought
to
obtain
and
at
great
expense,
miss
Catherine
in
the
last
year
or
so
has
completed
that
purchase,
so
she
spent
20
years
compiling
these
properties
and
relying
on
the
existing
r5
classification.
Now,
we've
already
heard
mentioned
tonight
there.
What
miss
Catherine
refers
to
as
a
ghost
developer
or
the
Dumanis
development
when
she
heard
about
those
plans
with
which
she
had
no
involvement
and
she
to
which
she
never
agreed.
She
broke
the
contract
and
Dumanis,
of
course,
and
that
never
happened.
G
Miss
Catherine
testified
and
you'll
hear
again
tonight
briefly
at
the
plan
commission
that
she
would
never
sell
these
properties
for
development
to
anyone
who
has
not
committed
in
writing
by
contract
to
develop
under
the
existing
r5
classification.
So
we're
not
here
asking
for
a
variance
and
if
this
isn't
even
about
a
variance
tonight,
but
that
that
concern
has
been
raised,
and
so
with
that
said,
I
just
wanted
to
comment
briefly,
also
that
mr.
Kissel
is
also
here
right
there
with
the
glasses.
Mr.
Kissel,
who
was
a
zoning
expert,
has
been
recognized
in
Evanston
many
times.
G
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
loss
in
in
the
units,
the
loss
in
revenue
and
the
loss
in
affordable
housing
attendant
to
the
r5
proposed
r5
a
because
it
would
reduce
the
number
of
units.
It
is
a
down
zoning,
therefore,
the
affordability
quotient
so
I'm
going
to
again
to
say
that
it's
unfair
to
Miss
Catharine
to
change
the
rules
in
the
middle
of
the
game.
G
She
has
been
relying
on
a
zoning
classification
that
existed
since
1997
and
before,
but
since
she
purchased
her
first
property,
it's
simply
unfair
and
if
you
take
a
look
at
these
minutes-
and
you
take
a
look
at
the
comments
when
the
discussion
began-
you'll
really
see
that
there
are
concerns
about
relying
on
a
on
a
comment.
Or
you
know
you
know
again,
a
plan
that
was
never
adopted
from
2005
and
the
dangerous
precedent
of
downzoning
without
being
part
of
a
comprehensive
plan
that
perhaps
Evanston
needs
to
revisit
this.
G
A
Mr.
himself,
in
1
to
4,
I
think
you're
gonna
kind
of
layer.
These
mr.
Kissel
I
apologize
for
mispronouncing,
your
name
yeah.
H
You
get
done
in
less
than
that.
My
name
is
George
Kissel
president
Okrent
Kissel
associates
offices
in
Chicago,
I'm,
a
licensed
architect
and
certified
planner
I've
been
before
all
of
you
and
many
other
jurisdictions
in
the
past.
I'm
gonna
be
brief,
because
you
guys
have
the
report
in
front
of
you,
as
well
as
admitted
to
the
Planning
Commission
I'm,
just
gonna
hit
generally.
The
conclusions
first
thing
you
realize
is:
the
r5a
is
indeed
a
down
zoning
the
proposal.
H
It
reduces
a
development
capacity
of
larger
sites
by
as
much
as
33%
the
properties
that
are
affected
by
this
proposed
down.
Zoning
within
walking
distance
to
downtown
Evanston
and
near
transit
resources.
The
2009
update,
Evanston's
downtown
plans
show
the
subject
properties
affected
in
the
area
within
a
quarter
mile
walking
zone
down,
zoning,
a
large
area
of
land
adjacent
to
downtown
Evanston
and
near
transit
runs
counter
to
the
concept
of
transit,
oriented
development,
the
spirit
of
Evanston's,
concrete,
comprehensive
plan
and
more
recent
planning
efforts
propose
downs.
H
Oni
will
have
a
negative
effect
on
a
development
capacity
of
the
affected
properties,
and
that
translates
to
a
loss
in
property
value
and
a
potential
loss
in
real
estate
tax
revenue.
The
proposed
reduction
of
about
33
percent
could
result
in
a
loss
of
potential
tax
revenue
that
approaches
1.4
million
annually.
Finally,
the
proposed
downzoning
will
have
a
negative
effect:
the
ability
to
provide
more
affordable
housing
opportunities,
as
mentioned.
Thank
you,
sir.
My.
I
Hi,
my
name
is
Victoria
Katherine
and
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
seven
properties
in
question
on
the
corner.
Basically,
objects
in
and
Emerson.
Just
give
you
a
brief
history:
I've
my
husband,
Michael
Katherine
and
I.
We
owned
and
operated
apartment
buildings
we
started
buying
there
in
1997,
we
started
in
Jackson
and
continued
to
purchase.
We
knew
what
the
zoning
was.
We
purchased
lean
in
a
linear
way,
so
one
property
not
just
randomly
but
one
property
next
to
another
next
to
another.
In
order
in
the
future
to
develop
them.
He
unexpectedly
passed
away
in
2015.
I
As
my
attorney
noted,
he
we
still
were
missing
two
properties
and
that
was
1421
Emerson
and
1921
Jackson
I
purchased
them
knowing
that
I
myself
would
not
develop
them,
even
though
he
and
I
were
going
to
and
had
actually
preliminary
plans
in
2009
working
with
an
architect
to
develop
them.
So
I
purchased
those
missing
pieces
in
order
to
sell
it
to
a
developer.
We
put
it
on
the
market,
it
was
under
contract.
I
Unbeknownst.
To
me,
the
developer
Dumanis
was
trying
to
buy
purchase
other
properties
on
Emerson
and
develop
all
of
that
into
a
hundred
unit
project,
when
only
fifty
two
are
allowed
by
law.
I
did
not
know
any
of
that.
He
went
to
a
community
meeting
to
present
his
project
and,
of
course
everyone
was
up
in
arms
understandably,
and
he
didn't
want
to.
He
walked
away
and
leaving
me
with
empty
properties
because
I
emptied
them
in
order
for
him
to
start
demolition,
and
so
now
I
am
kind
of
in
limbo.
A
J
Jeff
masters
I
live
at
1918,
Wesley
Avenue,
the
properties
that
we're
talking
about
are
directly
behind
my
house,
as
well
as
up
on
Emerson
and
and
the
original
properties
we're
talking
about
six
storeys
and
then
five,
but
it's
right
on
our
backyard.
If
we
have
buildings
that
go
up
five
and
six
storeys
we're
not
gonna,
see
a
Sun
rise
again
when
I
moved
in
to
Evanston
in
2006
I
knew
about
this
overlay
coming
in
I
was
I
was
felt
comfortable
moving
into
a
neighborhood
where
we
could
have
three
and
a
half
story.
J
We
have
three
flats
that
that
involve
multiple
tenants.
We
have
single-family
housing,
we
have
low-income,
we've
got
medium
income.
We
are
really
pushing
that
as
a
neighborhood
and
that's
really
attracted
us
to
come
here.
I
think
I
I,
don't
one
of
my
problems
has
been
the
property
owners
that
owned
these
properties
is.
They
have
not
maintained
their
properties
that
have
been
helpful
into
our
neighborhood
and
I.
Think
some
of
I
don't
want
to
make
unfounded
accusations,
but
but
they
haven't
been
good.
J
Neighbors
I
I
feel
strongly
that
we
knew
things
were
coming
up
in
our
neighborhood.
I
moved
in
the
neighborhood,
because
the
tenants
and/or
the
landlord,
the
property
owners
in
the
neighborhood
had
input
into
what
the
neighborhoods
were
going
to
be.
We
participated
in
that
2007
plan
talking
about
what
we
wanted.
The
the
west
side
of
evidence
to
look
like
so
I
really
feel
strongly
that
we
need
to
honor
what
has
been
developed
before
in
2005,
to
rezone,
to
the
5a
overlay
and
or
at
minimum
redo.
J
K
An
email
I
live
at
1918,
Wesley,
I'm,
married
to
him
for
40
years.
We
moved
in
here
13
years
ago.
It
was
it
was
a
neighborhood
and
I'm
just
kind
of
responding
to
the
owner
of
those
properties
and
saying
that
she
bought
these
in
order
to
develop,
but
she's
had
them
for
20
years
and
there
hasn't
been
a
inkling
of
upkeep
on
the
properties.
K
A
A
The
first
one
is
in
my
ward,
so
I
move
approval
of
a
vacation
rental
license
for
our
property
that
is
not
owner
occupied
at
27:23
Noyes
Street
staff
recommends
approval
of
a
vacation
rental
licenses,
not
owner
occupied
for
the
single-family
residence
at
27:23,
Noyes
Street,
this
vacation
rental
meets
all
the
standards
and
procedures
for
license
approval.
This
is
for
action.
Is
there
a
second
all
right?
Is
there
Alderman
Fisk.
L
M
Is
my
under
something
that
hasn't
quite
made
it
back
to
committee
development?
Health
is
still
managing
some
of
these
things.
So
last
year
we
obtained
a
software
called
host
compliance,
so
it
cultivates
and
goes
through.
Basically,
what
a
human
being
can't
do
in
a
timely
manner
to
find
the
properties
that
are
on
these
sites
and
that
they're
active
and
then
the
cross-correlate
to
see.
If
we
have
gives
us
a
list,
then
we
can
say
no
there's
not
a
vacation
rental
license
for
this.
M
M
L
M
M
A
A
N
We
first
rented,
we
weren't
unaware
that
we
had
to
seek
approval
from
the
city.
So
as
far
as
as
soon
as
we
were
made
aware,
we
have
made
the
application
and
went
through
the
process,
so
I
apologize
for
not
knowing
when
we
first
looked
at
this.
It
looked
like.
We
didn't
have
to
do
that,
because
we
didn't
think
we
were
a
bed-and-breakfast
okay.
L
Don't
have
any
more
questions
for
you,
but
I
do
have
something
that
I
wanted
to
say,
which
is
you
know
my
my
general
concern
about
this
as
I've
told
the
council
before
told
the
committee
before?
Is
that
I'm
very
reluctant
to
to
approve
these
requests
when
they're,
when
the
units
are
not
owner-occupied,
because
I
think
it
it
pushes
the
edge
of
a
commercial
use
into
a
residential
neighbourhood,
which
is
why
I
asked
about
the?
If
there
had
been
any
comments
from
neighbors
and
I.
A
N
But
if
I
can
the
property
is
a
is
on
the
historic
homes
it
was
built
in
1860
and
it
was
actually
before
we
bought.
It
had
been
vacant
for
several
years,
and
so
we
fell
in
love
with
it
during
an
estate,
sale
and
bought
it
and
and
renovated
it
quite
extensively
to
bring
it
up
to
code
and
for
the
mailings
the
city
sent
us
the
addresses
and
we
mailed
them
out.
N
A
M
N
A
B
B
N
Was
gonna
be
for
them?
Eventually
that
decided
not
to
happen.
They
fell
in
love
with
North
Carolina
a
little
bit
more,
so
we
are
selling
it.
We
actually
are
under
contract,
as
of
yesterday
fingers
crossed
so
that's
sort
of
a
weird
process
that
we're
in
right
now,
so
we
are
in
the
process
of
selling
it,
and
then
they
the
owners
are
going
to
be
owned
and
occupied.
It
won't
be
a
rental
anymore,
but
again,
I
didn't
know
when
we
were
gonna
go
to
contract,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
I
was
yeah.
N
A
N
O
This
resident
has
taken
a
property
that
is
landmark.
Did
you
say
it
was
a
landmark?
Yes,
he's
renovated.
It
he's
brought
it
up
to
code
he's
selling
it
he's
he's
got
a
closing
in
April.
He
he
did
what
he
is
supposed
to
do.
He
followed
the
law
once
he
knew
it
was
a
law.
He's
got
some
tenants
in
there
until
April,
maybe
until
April,
who
knows
maybe
less
couldn't
we
just
give
him
a
pass
and
let
him
be
VRBO
or
legal
whatever.
Until
then.
O
A
A
N
L
N
M
A
B
P2
is
ordnance
29:20
and
30.
Oh
20,
it's
the
creation
of
an
r5,
a
zoning
district
and
Emerson
Street
map
amendment
flank
Commission
is
recommending
denial
of
a
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
to
create
the
new
zoning
district,
which
is
an
r5,
a
general
residential
and
a
map,
amendment
to
rezone
the
properties
north
of
Emerson
Street,
roughly
between
Asbury
Avenue
to
the
east,
Gilbert
Park
and
former.
K
B
A
A
O
Ordinance
31
20
and
entitle
6
cannabis
regulations.
The
Plan,
Commission
and
staff
recommend
approval
of
a
text
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
to
establish
definitions
and
provisions
for
additional
cannabis
uses
such
as
cannabis,
infusers
processing
organizations,
transporters
etc.
Within
the
city's
zoning
districts,
it's
been
written
to
be
expansive
following
the
planning
and
development
committees
discussion,
the
committee
should
review
the
list
of
uses
and
districts
and
consider
whether
they
are
appropriate.
This
is
for
introduction,
I,
move
approval
and
I'd
like
to
speak
to
it
all
right.
O
I
thought
the
staff
did
a
really
excellent
job
with
this,
and
the
additional
zoning
districts
that
are
going
to
that
are
being
recommended
in
the
amendment
are
all
special
uses.
So
I'm
not
concerned
because
they'll
all
come
before
us
and
you
know
the
people
are
opposed
to
them.
We'll
come
out
and
tell
us
that
they're
not
being
opposed.
Nobody
will
show
up
and
we'll
be
able
to
approve
the
locations,
but
one
of
the
interesting
things
I
mean
I.
O
O
A
All
right
that
passes
that
brings
us
to
items
for
discussion,
discussion
of
potential
amendments,
a
zoning
ordinance
to
reduce
the
process
for
variations
and
to
clarify
existing
zoning
regulations.
Staff
seek
feedback
for
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee
on
proposed
text;
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance
prior
to
preparing
materials
for
the
Planning
Commission's
public
hearings
on
the
matters.
This
is
for
discussion
and
it
is
open.
M
M
So,
instead
of
going
and
taking
this
directly
to
Planning
Commission,
we
as
a
staff
initiated
text
moment,
we
wanted
to
come
here
and
just
just
get
a
little
bit
of
feedback.
If
there
are
things
that,
in
this
this
memo
that
we
don't
want
to
include,
we
can
certainly
not
move
forward
that,
but
these
would
all
go
to
the
Planning.
Commission
would
be
noticed.
Discussion
go
through
public
hearings
that
we
just
didn't
want
to
return
to
Planning
and
Development
in
a
few
months
to
have
them
not
not
be
taken
up.