►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 7-25-2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
I
call
the
meat
in
the
order
we're
going
to
start
off
with
approval
of
the
minutes.
Can
someone
motion
approval
removed.
B
C
Yes,
actually
on
the
thank
you,
the
june
27th
meeting.
A
Those
in
favor
all
right,
any
nays
all
right
and
then
on
the
minutes.
It's
been
moved.
E
A
Any
nays
all
right,
we
have
approved
the
minutes
now
for
public
comment.
We
have
four
online
or
four
in
person.
Starting
with
is
this
megan
lutz.
A
And
megan
and
megan
you're
speaking
to
item
p4
right,
yes,
map
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
to
remove
ocsc
central
street
overlay
district.
All
right!
Yes,.
F
F
This
intersection,
where
these
parcels
are,
is
difficult
and
dangerous
and
has
three
intersecting
roads
with
a
sudden
elevation
change
and
curving
roadway.
This
map
amendment
would
decrease
the
required
setbacks
from
the
road
which
could
reduce
sight
lines
even
more
than
they
already
are.
Three
existing
buildings
already
block
the
visibility
of
cross
traffic
as
vehicles
drive
through
the
intersection
leading
to
many
t-bone
accidents.
F
This
proposal
would
also
remove
the
drive-through
prohibition,
which
is
of
great
concern
because
in
the
past
12
years
there
have
been
several
proposals
for
drive-throughs
at
this
intersection
in
the
packet.
The
staff
says
that
they
would
never
approve
a
drive-through
on
any
of
these
parcels.
However,
they
have
recommended
each
drive-through
proposal.
They
specifically
mentioned
in
the
packet
that
the
next
fast
food
drive-through
was
infeasible.
F
F
Removing
these
parcels
from
the
overlay
would
actually
make
the
zoning
more
lenient
than
it
was
before.
The
central
street
master
plan
was
adopted,
resulting
in
an
up
zoning
without
any
impact
studies
or
public
process
staff
developed
this
proposal,
but
none
of
the
businesses
whose
properties
are
included
have
come
to
meetings
or
submitted
statements
of
support.
F
F
The
neighborhood
protest
petition
collected
171
signatures
with
100
certified
as
property
owners
within
500
feet.
Many
neighbors
familiar
with
this
intersection
wanting
to
retain
the
protections
of
the
overlay,
have
set
comments
and
made
statements
at
the
land
news.
Commission
hearings.
I
hope
that
you
took
the
time
to
read
that
packet.
F
The
land
use
commission,
recommended
denial
of
this
proposal
due
to
citizen
comments
and
concerns
about
pedestrian
and
traffic
safety.
Please
don't
undo
the
work
that
was
done
by
residents,
consultants
and
staff
in
the
development
of
the
central
street
master
plan.
Instead,
please
vote
against
this
ordinance.
Thank
you.
G
Good
evening
andrew
gallimore
2635
crawford
members
of
the
council
on
planning
development.
I
ask
that
you
please
reject
the
proposed
resulting
of
the
central
street
overlay
district.
Many
residents
have
already
spoken
rather
eloquently
regarding
the
increased
traffic
and
pedestrian
safety
concerns.
Also,
the
petition
against
this
resulting
is
a
clear
indication.
The
neighborhood
is
completely
against
this
proposal.
G
G
G
The
city
initiated
proposal
effectively
seeks
to
sidestep
current
zoning
and
denied
the
neighbors
a
choice.
Members
of
the
zba
were
often
required
to
assess
several
standards
to
determine
if
the
criteria
for
variance
had
been
met.
One
of
the
criteria
was
that
the
difficulty
or
supposed
hardship
was
not
self-created
by
the
property
owner
or
previous
property
owners.
G
There's
only
one
business
seeking
to
expand
their
current
use
beyond
what
zoning
allows.
This
business
states
that
the
zoning
creates
a
hardship
because
they
are
required
to
maintain
setbacks
on
both
crawford
avenue
and
gross
point
road.
This
supposed
hardship
was
self-created
when
the
business
purchased
the
jordanian
corner
lot
for
the
sole
purpose
of
expanding
their
use
from
what
was
legally
allowable.
It
would
fail
the
standard
test.
G
G
I
appreciate
the
council
supportive
of
business
owners,
but
the
long-lasting
effects
of
neighborhoods
from
rezoning
should
not
be
taken
lightly.
Businesses
must
provide
a
specific
plan,
just
like
every
homeowner
is
required
to
provide
the
land
commission
took
neighborhood
sentiment
to
heart
and
overwhelmingly
voted
to
deny
this
proposal.
G
H
I
see
that
one
one
of
the
standards
for
a
zoning
change
is
it's
not
supposed
to
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
nearby
property,
but
this
certainly
would
there's
a
16
foot
wide
alley
that
separates
my
property
from
most
of
the
properties
that
the
zoning
changes
proposed
for
that's
2600,
girls,
point
2608,
2620
gross
point
and
2620
crawford
they're
all
16
feet
away
from
us,
and
none
of
those
owners
have
requested
any
zoning
change.
H
As
far
as
I
can
tell
from
reading
this,
but
if
it
goes
through,
even
if,
even
if
there's
no
new
construction
or
anything
just
the
fact
that
they
would
have
that
change
in
zoning,
it
allows
them
to
be
closer
to
the
lot
line
and
taller,
and
so
that
would
certainly
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
my
property.
H
Being
that
close,
another
of
the
standards
is
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services,
I
think,
is
what
it
says,
and
with
that
you
know
the
the
adequacy
of
the
streets
and
the
traffic
lights
and
the
fact
that
there's
never
any
police
around
there
is
is
a
real
problem.
If
you
try
to
stand
on
the
corner
by
the
unity
church,
which
is
where
they
want
to
build
a
daycare,
that's
a
southwest
corner
of
gross
point
and.
I
H
And
you
try
to
cross
if
you
want
to
walk
from
there
just
across
gross
point
and
then
across
crawford
like
to
get
to
the
starbucks,
you
wait,
you
wait
several
minutes
for
a
walk
sign
and
then,
when
you
get
a
walk
sign,
the
right
lane
of
girls,
point
northbound,
it's
like
a
45
degree
angle,
sort
of
and
when
the
light
is
red
at
least
half
the
cars.
Just
don't
even
stop
they
don't
barely
slow
down.
They
just
drive
right
past
that
red
light,
and
they
can't
see
you
because
of
the
angle.
H
If
you're
standing
there
trying
to
cross
the
east,
those
drivers
cannot
see
you
so
it's
really
not
safe
to
cross
and
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
accidents,
mainly
because
those
traffic
lights
are
at
different
heights.
So
I've
seen
several
times.
People
stop
cars,
stop
westbound
on
central
at
crawford,
so
they're
in
front
of
the
cbs,
and
they
can't
see
the
red
light.
H
That's
closest
it's
above
them,
but
they
see
the
traffic
light
at
gross
point
in
central
and
when
that
changes
to
green,
they
go,
but
they
have
a
red
light,
but
they
can't
see
it.
So
you
know,
people
in
this
area
are
not
used
to
any
kind
of
hills,
so
basically
nobody
would
have
designed
that
intersection.
The
way
it
is
it
just
came
to
be
it's
not
safe
and
when
you
add
in
that
daycare
center,
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
traffic,
so
the
public
services
and
facilities
are
are
not
adequate.
H
A
You
nayeen.
A
No
one
mike
basilco.
J
These
would
be
just
additional
eyesores
and
they
have
certainly
nothing
to
do
with
character
of
evanston
and
to
those
who
think
they're.
Some
kind
of
you
know
pot
of
gold
for
revenue
for
evans.
Tonight
you
know
that's
just
not
factual,
I
think
they'd
be
more
destructive
visually
than
they
ever
would
be
with
bring
in
revenue.
So
please
reject
that.
Thank
you.
I
Hi,
I'm
sue
lolbach
with
connections
for
the
homeless
and
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
I
wanted
to
speak
to
p1
regarding
updates
to
portions
of
the
city
code.
One
of
the
recommendations
is
to
use
the
current
standards
for
approval
of
special
uses
for
approval
of
plan
developments
as
well.
I
Joining
forces
would
like
to
point
out
that
these
current
standards,
while
they
have
a
very
strong
emphasis
on
property
values
and
maintaining
the
current
character
of
the
existing
neighborhoods,
they
really
don't
include
anything
about
the
welfare
of
residents
such
as
equity
or
affordability,
and
we
urge
the
city
to
consider
a
review
and
revision
of
these
standards
sooner
rather
than
later.
So
the
decisions
can
be
made.
They
really
take
into
account
the
need
for
change
both
in
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
in
evanston
and
in
its
location.
I
A
Thank
you.
That
concludes
public
comment,
and
so
we
will
move
along.
K
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
p4,
and
I'm
hoping
you
guys
will
listen
to
the
land
use
commission
because
they
actually
denied
it
because
there
it
doesn't
appear.
It
does
not
meet
the
standards
that
they're
looking
for.
Second
of
all,
this
is
a
staff
initiated
amendment
and
without
any
apparent
need
from
the
six
other
properties
other
than
sarpy's,
who
had
requested
some
help
with
their
one
particular
property,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
for
anyone
who
doesn't
remember
the
history
on
this
back
in
2007.
I
think
it
was.
K
We
spent
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
at
that
time.
The
city
did
four
studies
around
the
the
the
city
and
each
one
was
about
two
hundred
thousand
and
worked
with
duncan
associates
the
city,
zoning
administrator,
the
staff,
and
they
came
up
with
this
plan
to
make
that
corner
safe
and
a
gateway
to
evanston,
and
so
I,
this
coming
up
with
all
of
a
sudden
just
randomly
taking
this
out,
doesn't
feel
like
it
has
a
plan
that
would
enhance
the
neighborhood
or
enhance
the
neighbors
over
there.
K
A
L
A
And
for
the
audience
this
is
amending
portions
of
title
iv,
building
regulations
and
title
vi:
zoning
to
update
the
zoning
code.
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
any
any
comments.
Questions.
E
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
comments
all
right,
seeing
on
all
those
in
favor
of
this
item
for
introduction,
say:
aye
aye
any
days
all
right.
This
moves
forward
item,
p2,
ordinance,
53-0-22
amending
city
code,
title
six
to
add
billboards
as
a
special
use.
Is
there
any
motion
for
this.
E
E
A
All
right
so
real
quick,
it's
been
probably
moved
in
second
and
we're
going
to
start
off
the
discussion
with
councilmember
newsman.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
just
to
clarify
we
would
be
voting
to
approve
this
ordinance,
which
would
add
billboards
as
a
special
use
in
all
zoning
districts.
D
This
would
be
over
the
objections
so
to
speak,
of
the
land
use
commission,
which
has
reaffirmed
that
the
proposed
text
does
not
meet
the
standards
for
approval,
so
it
might
correctly.
A
Believe
this
was
councilmember
suffered
in
his
referral
yeah.
So
if
we
could
allow
him
some
time
to
characterize.
O
This
thank
you,
and
so
what
this
would
do
is
create
a
permitted
special
use
process
for
billboards.
It
wouldn't
create
an
absolute
right.
I
respect
the
land
use
commission's
position,
but
I
just
say:
respectfully:
they
don't
share
the
same
responsibility
that
all
of
us
do
to
look
at
being
supportive
of
a
business
generating
revenue
and
balancing
budget.
So
this
doesn't
open
the
door
wide.
It
would
just
create
a
process
where
it's
possible.
O
It
may
be
that
there
aren't
places
in
the
city
where
this
makes
any
economic
sense
anyway,
or
maybe
that
they're
city-owned
property,
where
this
might
be
a
tool
that
we
want
to
look
at,
and
you
know
we're
going
to
talk
later
about
a
44
million
dollar
service
center,
that
abuts
railroad
tracks
where
it
may
be
possible
that
there's
money
there
may
not.
I
don't
know,
but
if
we
don't
allow
it
as
a
special
use,
it's
not
an
option.
So
that's
all.
O
D
A
M
It
would,
I
think,
is
contemplated.
It
would
have
the
land
use
commission
weighing
in
on
this,
and
then
it
would
come
to
pnde
and
then
city
council.
So.
A
Brazil,
presumably
with
with
what
they
said
already,
they
would
just
deny
all
requests
for
billboards.
Councilmember,
reed
you're
up
next.
E
Yeah,
I
I
came
into
this
thinking.
What
the
what
the
hell
is
this
and
I
think
after
hearing
what
I'm
sorry,
I
used
a
bad
word.
I
just
realized.
C
E
After
hearing
the
argument,
I
was
convinced
that
we
could
do
this
in
a
some
form
of
in
a
limited
fashion,
and
I
think
I
was
the
person
who
made
the
motion-
or
I
certainly
supported
it-
to
send
it
back
to
the
land
commission
last
time
and
I
unfortunately
feel
like
the
land
use.
E
Commission
didn't
approach
it
with
fresh
eyes
and
didn't
approach
it
through
the
lens
that,
through
the
lens
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
here,
and
they
simply
just
reaffirmed
that
they
were
not
okay
with
billboards
anywhere
in
the
city
without
giving
any
contemplation
to
how
they
can
get
to
a
yes
on
this
or
what.
What
and-
and
so
with
that.
E
I
I
kind
of
have
to
it's
hard
for
me
to
consider
their
opinion,
because
I
don't
think
they
took
a
fair,
fair
look
at
this,
and
I
do
think
that
we
should
add
some
language
here.
That
would
give
a
bit
of
guidance
because
to
say
that
this
could
be
done
in
any
zoning
district.
Am
I
correct
on
that
yeah
to
say
that
it
could
be
done
in
any
zoning
district?
Yes,
it
would
have
to
get
approved
by
council,
but
I
think
there
should
be
a
clear
process.
E
So
folks,
you
know
someone
living
in
a
residential
neighborhood
doesn't
get
the
idea
that
you
know
that
they
can
put
a
billboard
up
in
their
yard
or
you
know,
on
their
property
with
and
that
there's
even
a
chance
that
that
would
get
approved
by
council.
So
I
do
think
you
know
we
can
tighten
this
up
a
bit
and
say
you
know
certain
certain
zones,
maybe
commercial
zones,
business
districts.
E
I
think
we
can
just
tighten
it
up
a
bit
and
then
I
could
get
to
yes
on
this
and
I
think
that's
how
we
should
be
thinking
about
it.
I
think
also
the
idea
of
limiting
it
along
rail
lines.
If
that's
the
idea
and
it's
not
about
zoning
districts
and
we're
going
to
say
it's
going
to
be
limited,
just
have
some
clear
direction.
So,
folks,
you
know
kind
of
like
our
liquor
process.
E
A
N
Well,
I
have
a
different
opinion.
I
agree
with
the
land
use
commission.
I
think
they
have
looked
at
this
appropriately
as
someone
one
of
the
two
council
members
who
has
billboards
in
there
in
their
ward,
one
of
which
is
directly
across
from
the
homes
of
probably
300
people,
it's
along
the
railroad
line,
but
it
doesn't
face
the
railroad
it
faces
their
homes
and
they've
had
to
put
up
over
the
over
the
years
with
burger
king
burgers.
N
All
kinds
of
other
ads
that
are
literally
across
the
street,
from
their
home
and
over
the
years
alderman
holmes,
and
I
both
worked
on
this
with
our
staff
to
try
and
get
the
cta
and
the
union
pacific
to
take
these
down,
because
the
other
place
that
we
have
billboards
is
in
the
fifth
ward
and
once
again,
none
of
those
billboards
face
face
the
tracks
and
that's
because
union
pacific
has
realized
the.
N
N
N
If
you
look
at
the
communities
that
do
have
billboards,
what
you
do
see
is
a
lot
of
enormous
advertisements
for
all
kinds
of
things,
and
we
would
have
very
little
control
over
what
they
have.
I
mean
we
don't
have
any
control
over
what
goes
up
on
the
along
the
right
away,
the
railroad
right
aways
and
we,
as
I
said,
alderman
holmes,
and
I
worked
really
hard
to
try
and
get
those
taken
down
and
the
railroads
just
shrugged
and
said
sorry.
N
So
I
think
we're
opening
the
door
for
one
fight
after
another
on
this,
and
even
though
we
may
have
areas
that
we
say
are
not
strictly
residential,
the
one
that's
in
the
third
ward
faces
the
densest
block
I
have
in
the
third
ward,
so
I
think
we
should
maintain
our.
N
We
should
go
with
the
land
use
commission's
thoughts
on
this.
I
think
we'll
be
sorry.
O
O
Irresponsible
to
not
have
this
tool
in
our
toolbox
when
the
alternatives
are
reaching
deeper
into
residence,
pockets.
E
M
I
think
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
The
item
is
billboards,
not
what
the
message
would
be
on
the
on
the
billboard,
so
my
understanding
is
the
structure
and
that
our
attorneys
can
made
a
way
in.
I
don't
think
we
would
have
control
over
the
message
that
is
on
said
billboard.
It
would
just
be
the
structure.
M
The
physical
structure,
so
messaging
is
not
something
that
would
be.
We
would
be
able
to
regulate
in
a
special
use
process.
D
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Interim
corporation
council
dirk
price
yeah.
No,
even
if
it's
on
city
property,
we
don't
get
to
control
the
message
we
can
regulate
billboards
off-site
premises.
That
is
advertising
of
a
build,
a
business,
that's
not
on
site
the
supreme
court.
Let
us
do
that,
but
we,
if
you
have
to
look
at
the
read
the
message
for
content,
really
essentially
still
we're
out
of
that
business.
I
think.
P
One
point
of
order
chairman,
so
deputy
city
attorney
was
aruba
and
I
were
looking
to
make
sure
we
were
good
on
how
the
motion
was
supposed
to
be
and
to
the
point
about
it
being
affirmative
the
rule.
The
way
the
ordinance
is
written
is
your
job
is
to
either
accept
or
reject
the
land
use
commission's
finding.
P
So
the
motion,
although
it
was
stated
in
the
positive
it
ought
to
be
a
motion
frankly
to
accept
the
position
of
the
land
use
and
then,
if
you're
going
to
disagree
vote
no,
I
I
didn't
make
that
up.
That's
how
your
ordinance
is
written,
so
I
would
just
for
the
sake
of
following
your
own
ordinances
and
being
clear.
It
should
be
a
motion
to
accept
or
reject
or
modify
the
land
use.
Commission,
that's
what.
E
They
ordered
my
my
just
to
clarify
my
motion
was
to
reject
the
land
use
commission's
recommendation
by
adopting
the
ordinance
so
for
clarity,
sake.
E
E
What
I
heard
there
was
that
I
I
don't
think
we
need
to
completely
close
the
door
on
this.
I
I
hear
councilmember
wynn,
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about
you
know
sign
pollution.
I
certainly
agree
with
you.
I
am
not
supportive
of
you
know
the
proliferation
of
corporate
ads
throughout
our
city.
So
certainly
you
know
supportive
there,
but
I
do
think
to
council
member
sufferden's
point.
E
You
know
again,
even
if
it's
we're
narrowing
this
in
further
and
we're
saying
that
maybe
it's
only
city
property
or
maybe
it's
again
limited
property,
and
it's
only
facing
the
train
line.
I
think
there
is
a
way
to
get
to
yes
and
to
give
us
another
tool
to
raise
revenue.
I
think
the
idea
of.
E
Some
kind
of
commercialization
of
garages
that
would
make
them
both
more
inviting
spaces
and
not
have
to
charge
taxpayers
for
that.
I
think
that
is
something
we
can
leave
open
for
some
kind
of
creative
collaboration.
I
think
you
know
allowing
certain
billboards
I
personally,
when
we
had
the
owners
of
firehouse
come
last
meeting
and
they
expressed
that
this
would
be
a
you
know,
a
billboard
essentially
plastered
on
the
side
of
their
building
or
not,
but
you
know
attached
fixed
to
the
side
of
their
building
facing
the
train
line.
E
E
And
so
I
I
think
we
can
work
on
this.
Maybe
we're
not
gonna
pass
it
today,
but
I
think
we
should.
We
should
take
some
time
to
try
to
narrow
this
in
and
just
leave
options
open
for
us,
council,
member
helicopters.
B
So
I'm
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
billboards
as
a
special
use.
I
don't
personally,
I
don't
like
billboards,
I
think
most
folks
do
not.
I
think
we
have
a
pretty
engaged
public
and
I
think
there
will
be
very
few
opportunities
to
have
billboards
that
if
people
can
agree
upon,
but
I
do
think
it's
we'd
be
short-sighted
to
not
have
it
as
an
option.
M
Billboard
is
a
permanent
advertising
structure
that
provides
a
two-dimensional
sign,
face
or
faces
that
are
sized
to
be
visible
and
well
legible,
from
a
distance
greater
than
other
permitted
sign
types
so
effectively
a
sign
says
what
the
business
is.
What
the
there's
things
that
you
can't
just
say,
you
can't
put
your
menu
on
the
sign.
You
can't
you
save
your
place
of
it's
the
place
of
business,
the
the
use
of
the
building
on
the
outside,
so.
D
D
If
that
exact
same
dimensions,
exact
same
paint,
exact
same
color
said,
you
know,
please
buy
a
macbook.
That
would
be
a
billboard
correct.
D
Looking
forward
are
looking
for
ways
to
to
get
to.
Yes,
I
think
what
councilman
reid
is
is
inferring.
I
would
follow
along
that
path
as
well,
some
more
restrictions
in
place
to
give
some
guidance
to
the
land
use
commission
who
would
have
to
be
part
of
this
process,
so
I'm
not
sure
we're
quite
there
yet,
but
I
think
there
might
be
a
way
for
us
to
get
there
councilmember.
A
N
Well,
I
have
a
couple
questions
so
the
corporation
council,
so
that
someone
applies
for
a
special
use
for
a
billboard
and
and
they're
granted
that,
but
we
don't
have
control
over
whatever
they
put
up
on
the
billboard.
Correct.
N
I
would
I
don't
think
that
anyone
in
evanston
would
want
to
have
a
billboard
up
with
that
on
it.
Let's
see
two
or
three
others
are
for
gentlemen's
clubs
that
are
along
the
way.
N
I
I
don't
even
think,
there's
a
burger
king
or
a
mcdonald's
along
the
way
and
there's
no
question
in
my
mind.
I
mean
that
that
is
pollution,
that
is
visual
pollution.
So
even
if
we
have
a
special
use,
we
don't
have
control
over.
What's
going
to
go
up
in
our
community
and
whether
it's
a
gigantic
whopper
from
burger
king
right
across
the
street,
from
people's
homes
or
a
right
to
life,
billboard,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
go
down
this
path.
N
We
are
hearing
that
a
special
use
doesn't
provide
us
with
the
protections
that
we
want,
and
I
will
say
I
do
trust
the
land
use
commission.
We
have
them
providing
us
advice,
because
that
is
what
they
are
experts
in
that's,
and
this
was
a
very
strong
message
that
they
sent
us
and
the.
My
third
point
is
the
revenue
that
would
come
in
from
this
is
relatively
minor.
I
recognize
we
have
a
lot
of
costs
on
our
plate,
but
this
is
one
that
I'm
not
going
to
say
yes
to.
N
N
E
E
Certainly,
I
think
if
anyone
were
to
put
up
a
right
to
life,
billboard
here,
that
their
business
would
likely
not
exist
very
long
and-
and
I
I
do
think
that
you
know
community
standards
will
take
place.
I
mean
you're
likely
driving
through
an
area
where
that
was
the
norm
and
no.
E
N
Every
year
and
you
should
see
what
they're,
what
they
the
placards
that
they
carry.
E
H
E
I
I
I
I
hear
that
argument.
I
think
it's
you
know
it
sounds
like
an
argument.
I've
heard
before
about
aggressive
pain.
It
doesn't
seem
like
it's
fully
related
to
this.
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
I
I
don't
think
that
that
is
a
likely
outcome.
I
think
that's
kind
of
like
a
slippery
slope,
and
and
so
I'm
going
to
move
to.
E
Table
this
until
you
know,
give
us
a
few
weeks
to
to
work
on
this,
so
until
dates
certain
that
I
don't
know.
It
sounds
like
enough
time
to
to
work
on
this,
but
the
first
meeting
in
september
or.
A
A
second
all
right,
any
discussion.
A
All
right
well.
E
I
guess
the
the
the
discussion
is,
I
think
we
should
give
some
direction
of
staff.
What
might
staff
be
looking
for,
so
we
don't
come
back
with
the
exact
same
thing
and
end
up
with
a
no
do
you
think
you
know
I'm
happy
to
be
a
part
of
conversations
regarding
this.
I
I
suppose
councilmember
suffered
his
referral
maker,
decided
to
be
a
part
of
conversations
about
it.
A
And
then
the
only
thing
I'll
say
is
I
I
was
ready
to
support
the.
I
don't
want
to
say
rejecting
the
land
use
commission,
but
I
I
see
some
samir
to
this.
I
think
the
content
does
concern
me
a
bit
that
was.
I
A
At
the
end
of
the
day,
that
can
happen
on
the
billboards
that
we
have,
but
do
we
want
to
expand
the
opportunity
for
it,
which
is
something
to
consider,
but
but
because
I
came
in
in
in
support
of
of
moving
this
forward.
You
know
I'll
personally
be
happy
to
to
table
this
and
see
if
there's
anything
that
can
be
worked
out.
E
I
just
want
to
remind
us
of
the
city
that
we
live
in,
there's
a
man
who
brought
a
confederate
flag
beach
towel
to
one
of
our
beaches
and
within
minutes,
someone
from
my
ward
drove
from
the
south
end
of
town
to
the
north.
End
of
town
government
has
no
power
to
make
a
law
about
that,
but
our
community
can
enforce
its
own
community
standards
by
making
people
who
put
up
things
that
make
this
community
feel
uncomfortable.
We
can
you
know
in
a
peaceable
way.
E
Let
them
know
that
we
don't
accept
that
and
make
them
feel
uncomfortable
being
here.
So
I
think
you
know
I
have
faith
in
our
community
to
hold
uphold
our
values
and
our
standards
and
ensure
that
businesses
that
operate
these
kinds
of
signs
follow
those
standards
and
if
they
don't
I'm
quite
sure,
there
will
be
heck
to
pay
and.
A
I
guess
the
question
is
council
price.
Can
businesses
do
that?
So
my
understanding,
the
the
portion
of
this,
that
I
support,
is
a
business
that
has
a
one
sec
that
has
a
you
know
a
part
of
their
building.
Let's
say
the
back
of
their
building
that
faces
this
rail
line.
Vehicular
traffic
will
not
be
able
to
see
the
sign.
Only
people
who
are
passing
through
this
rail
line
just
to
use
that
as
a
scenario,
and
so
if
we
approve
this,
then
that
business
owner
would
be
allowed
to
go
through
a
special
use
process.
A
P
Yes,
the
private
business
owner,
if
they're
going
to
maintain
control
of
the
side
of
their
building
and
the
firehouse
example
that
and
they're
going
to
be
the
ones
engaged
in
renting
the
space
for
whatever
the
advertisement
is
they
can
make
that
choice.
In
my
experience,
though,
they
typically
sell
that
to
a
billboard
broker
lamar
for
example,
and
then
lamar
goes
out
and
sells
to
whoever's
willing
to
pay
the
highest
bid
so
because
that
lamar
pays
the
lease
essentially
for
the
billboard
space
and
then
lamar
goes
out
and
finds
people.
A
A
Sure
yeah
councilman.
N
N
One
business
in
particular
would
like
to
have
something
painted
on
that
built
on
their
building.
That
is
an
advertisement
for
their
business.
No,
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that.
Where
you
know
it's
a
local
business,
that's
putting
up
a
sign
on
their
own
property
that
that's
more
like
a
mural
about
their
own
business,
and
you
know,
I
think,
that's
perfectly
acceptable.
What
I
don't
like
is
when
lamar
or
clear
channel
is
the
other
one.
N
Is
the
billboard,
companies
and
you'll
see
if
you
drive
along
the
highway,
it
says
lamar
or
clear
channel
on
them
and
they
control
all
of
that
stuff,
and
you
can
argue
that
if
it's
an
objectionable
sign
that
gee
will
pay
the
price,
but
you
know
it,
it
doesn't
stop
them,
but
if
it's
a
national
corporation
or
if
it's
a
national
political
organization,
it
doesn't
matter
if
evanstonians
don't
particularly
like
it.
A
Real
quick,
we
have
matt
rogers
who's.
The
chair
of
the
land
use
commission
joining
us
online.
I
believe
I
would
like
to
allow
some
time
for
him
to
speak.
Mr
rogers,
are
you
with
us.
Q
I
am
thank
you,
council
member
burns.
I
just
want
to
say
that
you
know
we.
We
were
pretty
adamant.
The
land
use
commission
has
been
pretty
adamant
in
this,
and
if
it
does
become
a
special
use,
I
don't
see
any
way
that
we
can
ever
approve
a
billboard,
because
currently,
our
comprehensive
general
plan
states
that
we
should
eliminate
billboard
advertisements.
Q
One
of
the
standards
that
we
would
have
to
find
on
any
special
use
is
that
it's
in
compliance
with
the
general
comprehensive
plan
and
no
billboard
will
be
because
the
cop
plan
says
eliminate
them
so
making
it
a
special
use,
we'll
always
get
a
denial
from
the
land
use
commission,
and
I
mean
I'm
speaking.
Q
E
Yeah,
thank
you
and
mr
rogers.
This
is
a
great
matt.
Rogers
is
a
great
eighth
water,
so
I
certainly
value
his
opinion,
but
I
do
wonder
one
again:
one
we're
we're
going
through
a
process
pretty
soon
to
look
at
our
comprehensive
plan.
So
I
I
think
you
know
the
new
comprehensive
plan
could
very
well
say
hey.
E
P
E
P
Upholding
yeah
flag
signs
were
involved,
yeah.
The
the
definition
of
billboard
was
that
it's
an
advertising
sign
not
about
the
business
that
it's
located
on
that's
part,
and
so
the
the
issue
was
oh
well.
You
have
to
read
it
to
know
it's
not
about
the
business
that
it's
on
there
for
if
you're
reading
it
it's
content
specific
and
therefore
that's
a
violation
of
the
first
minute
and
the
supreme
court
said
no
that
far
reading
it
to
know
that
it's
not
about
the
business
to
which
it's
attached,
it's
not
a
sign.
P
In
that
sense,
it's
a
billboard
subset
that
can
be
regulated
as
part
of
the
police
powers
going
so
far
as
to
say
you
can't
hand
it
out
to
third
parties,
I
mean,
then
then
it's
just
a
sign.
What
you've
said
to
the
billboard
owner
is,
you
can
only
advertise
your
own
self.
Well,
that's
a
sign
and
we
regulate
that
in
the
sign
code,
so
you're,
actually
taking
it
out
of
the
billboard
subset
a
billboard
is
about
advertising
things
that
are
not
about
the
business
to
which
it's
attached
or
the
sign
is
not
attached
to
it.
A
Q
Matt
rogers
yeah,
if
I
could
just
interject
something
I
would
encourage
council.
I've
worked
in
marketing
and
advertising
for
the
better
part
of
25
years
to
sort
of
educate
and
find
out
about
the
billboard
process,
because
these
aren't
the
windfall
for
a
small
business
owner,
and
you
talk
about
individuals
managing
their
own
billboards.
Q
That
becomes
a
very
onerous
thing
to
do,
and
the
amount
of
time
that's
required
to
put
into
that
in
terms
of
finding
buyers
in
terms
of
production
in
terms
of
installation
things
like
that,
it's
it's
a
very
narrow
margin
for
making
any
type
of
profit.
Also
in
looking
at
if
we're,
creating
a
special,
a
special
thing
that
says
that
they
kind
of
have
to
face
train
tracks,
not
public
ways.
Q
How
many
people
see
it
and
if
you're
only
able
to
sell
it,
you're
only
basically
selling
to
the
purple
line,
ridership
and
maybe
metro,
ridership
and
so
you're
greatly
limiting
how
many
people
see
it
every
day,
because
those
are
those?
That's
a
kind
of
a
finite
number
of
people,
so
I
would,
I
would
say
it's
it's
worth
looking
into.
You
know
exactly
the
mechanics
of
how
billboards
work
as
well.
Q
So
if
we
do
decide
to
go
down
that
path
at
the
council
level
that
there
is,
you
know
a
better
understanding
as
to
what
sorts
of
things
would
be
involved
for
people
to
do
this.
E
E
So
again,
I
appreciate
matt's
insight
here.
I
I
do
think
that
you
know
we
can
figure
this
out.
We
can
have
more
discussion
on
this.
We
can
see
if
there's
limited
application
and
just
leave
the
door
open.
I
I
do
think
the
idea
of
people
have
seen
you
know
beautiful
billboards,
you
ride
the
train,
downtown
chicago,
not
billboards,
and,
let's
maybe
think
it
not
think
about
this
in
the
sense
of
a
billboard
which
we
typically
think
of
as
the
polls
sticking
out
with
the
big
sign.
E
You
know
we're
thinking
about
this
more
broadly
billboard
in
in
in
a
broader
sense,
but
you
know
you
ride
the
train
downtown
chicago
and
you
see
you
know,
like
you
know,
colleges
that
are
advertising,
they've
painted
the
side
of
a
building
and
it's
a
beautiful
piece
of
art,
but
it's
also
an
advertisement,
and
so
I
I
do
think
that
we
can
leave
the
door
open.
We
can,
you
know
we
can
even
create
we,
we
can.
We
can
leave
the
door
open
for
this
and
actually
one
last
question
for
council
price.
E
If
we
didn't
make
it
like
the
billboards,
like
the
the
big
post-
and
it
was
just
a
you
know,
someone
was
doing
something
to
their
face
to
the
side
of
the
not
facade
but
a
brick
wall
of
the
building.
Could
we
create
a
regulation
approve
those
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
P
Well,
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
know
how
you
rewrite
that,
what
that's
a
subset
of
billboards,
which,
if
that
comes
to
you,
you
can
approve
if
you
want,
and
if
it's
one
of
these
stand-alone
big
tube
things
that
you
can
vote
down
and
vote.
No,
that's
this
ordinance
would
allow
you
to
do
whatever
you
want
to
do
with
both
kinds
depending
on
when
they
came
there
to
suggest
that
you're
going
to
limit
billboards
only
to
painting
on
the
side
of
the
building.
P
I
don't
know
how
that
jives
with
your
sign
code,
but
typically
your
sign
code,
has
a
regulation
as
to
how
much
signage
a
building
a
building
owner
can
have
about
their
own
business.
That's
right
there.
You
know
you
don't
want
to
that's
typically
regulated
for
the
the
aesthetic
you're
trying
to
get
for
a
business
district,
for
example.
P
So
could
you
yeah
there's
a
way
to
to
do
it,
but
this
ordinance
would
allow
you
to
vote
up
or
down
based
on
if
you
liked
it
being
on
the
side
of
a
building
as
opposed
to
a
stand-alone
anyway,.
E
P
A
All
right,
let's
do
a
roll
call
vote
on
this
again.
This
is
a
motion
to
table
this
until
the
second
meeting
in
september.
A
All
right
that
passes
unanimously
moving
on
to
item
p3
and
we
have
a
slide
presentation
by
the
applicant
so
moved.
E
D
I
will
make
the
motion
on
item
p3
in
that
case.
R
How
you
doing
man
I
can
start
without
this?
Yes,
hi,
my
name
is
michael
mclean.
I
live
at
642
sheridan
square
unit.
Two
alderman
wins
ward.
I've
been
there
for
16
years.
R
I
am
on
the
mwebe
committee.
I
just
started
my
second
turn.
Second
term,
I'm
a
board
member
of
downtown
evanston.
I
also
just
became
a
board
member
of
art
encounter
who've.
I
don't
I've
done.
Thank
you,
two
murals
with
now
actually
the
very
first
one
that
they
did
in
evanston,
which
is
that
elmwood
across
from
1571
maple
or
centrum
evanston,
which
is
a
project
that
I
built
with
my
partners
about
four
years
ago.
The
second
one
we
just
completed
at
15,
1815,
norwood
or
1815
ridge,
which
is
at
truly
evanston.
R
We
did
another
railroad,
embankment
mural
with
art
encounter
so
super
happy
to
join.
That
team.
E
R
This
so
so
here
tonight,
I
thank
you
for
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
1571,
maple
or
centrum
evanston,
as
it's
known
as
a
it's.
A
101
unit
market
rate
apartment
community
with
two
with
one
affordable
rental
at
sixty
percent
of
ami,
was
developed
around
2016
2017.
R
It
has
been
full
ever
since,
during
the
pandemic,
we
dropped
to
about
80
85
occupancy,
we're
back
up
to
95
plus
occupancy
once
again
and
really
have
become
a
nice
fixture.
I
think
on
the
davis
on
the
on
the
western
davis
street
stretch
that
when
we
first
started,
this
project
had
a
lot
of
vacancy
in
that
stretch,
and
now
has
almost
none
and
it's
all
pandemic
related
during
the
it's
a
transit
oriented
development.
R
It
was
proposed
during
a
time
where
we
did
not
have
a
transit
oriented
ordinance,
so
the
city
actually
did
not
really
address
transit
orientation
at
all.
When
it
came
to
our
developments-
and
this
was
a
planned
development
that
gave
us
the
opportunity
for
a
much
larger
conversation
about
embracing
transit
origin
development-
what
it
means
to
our
community
what
it
means
socially,
what
it
means
environmentally
and
ultimately,
the
project
was
approved
with
zero
on-site
parking
spaces
for
residents.
R
R
R
As
part
of
the
process
and
the
discussion
with
city
council,
it
was
agreed
to
sign
a
lease
for
101
parking
spaces
at
the
maple
avenue
garage,
which
was
that
was
the
dictated
garage
at
the
time
to
us
to
based
on
feedback
from
the
community
that
were
worried
that
we
would
overwhelm
the
streets
with
parking
that
people
wouldn't
pay
to
park.
They
wouldn't
park
in
a
municipal
garage.
They
just
park
all
the
streets
and
flood.
R
The
community,
since
we
opened
we've,
we've
never
had
a
single
parking
related
complaint,
alderman,
former
alderman
wilson,
who
was
there
at
the
time
when
we
built
it
also
confirmed
that
he
has
never
had
a
parking
related
complaint,
councilmember
newsmen,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
or
not,
but
my
understanding
is
that
I
don't
know
of
any
so
we
are
here
in
2018
we
came
back
and
we
requested
that
the
parking
lease
be
reduced.
R
Ultimately,
the
city
reduced
it
to
55
spaces
in
the
maple
avenue
garage
again,
as
a
precautionary
move,
we
only
had
a
maximum
of
around
40
ever
leased,
and
that
was
the
first
year
of
the
building.
R
We
currently
are
expecting
around
four
for
august
and
almost
none
for
september,
so
we
are
paying
for
a
lease
and
we
have
been
paying
for
a
lease
or
parking
spaces
at
market
rate
without
being
able
to
use
them
and
our
residents
just
simply
don't
have
cars
and
if
they
do
have
cars
they're
not
on
the
streets
and
they're,
not
in
the
neighborhoods,
because
all
the
parking
around
us
in
downtown
it's
illegal
to
park
on
the
street
overnight,
which
we're
in
and
just
to
just
to
the
south
and
just
to
the
west,
are
the
residential
neighborhoods,
all
with
which
have
restricted
residential
permit
parking,
which
our
building
was
exclusively
excluded
from
during
the
entitlement
process
at
the
beginning.
R
So
we
can.
Our
residents
can't
even
apply
for
an
on-street
parking
pass.
We're
here
now,
several
more
years
later
and.
R
Thank
you
sure
so
now
it
requires
a
major
adjustment
for
the
planned
development.
That's
just
the
way
our
code
works.
It's
the
way
our
laws
work.
This
was
our
parking
requirement
in
the
pd.
It
was
reduced
officially
by
city
council.
Several
years
ago.
We've
now
made
the
effort
to
to
study
and
track
who's
using
these,
and
we
are
simply
just
cutting
checks
with
with
nobody
using
the.
R
R
R
So
the
recommendation,
I
believe
from
staff-
maybe
I
should
have
steph
stated,
but
was
to
keep
the
lease
in
place,
but
allow
us
to
park
at
sherman
avenue
and
only
pay
for
the
ones
that
our
residents
are
using.
That
is
very
fair.
It's
it's!
It's
a
nice!
You
know
coming
together
we're
reserving
some
spots,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
not
punitive
to
to
the
to
the
development
or
you
know,
or
our
residents,
so
we're
here
requesting
that
that
be
staff's
recommendation
be
supported
by
this.
This
committee.
N
N
One
was
not
not
ending
up
with
a
building
that
was
built
on
four
stories
of
parking,
and
then
you
had
the
building
above
it
because
obviously
this
is
an
area
with
a
lot
of
pedestrian
traffic
and
then
that
just
deadens
the
street,
so
it
allowed
the
building
to
come
all
the
way
down
to
the
street
and
we
don't
have
a
parking
pedestal
like
we
have
in
a
number
of
other
buildings
and
it
put
cars
off
the
street
and
in
our
parking
garage,
and
it
was
viewed
at
the
time
by
the
council
as
a
bit
of
an
experiment
of
transit,
oriented
development,
and
so
if
people
wanted
to
rent
in
or
live
in
in
the
downtown
and
they
had
a
car,
they
weren't
going
to
go
to
your
building
and
they
wanted
something
close
well.
N
N
We
did
this
also
in
the
third
board,
with
the
building
at
the
corner
of
maine
in
chicago,
where
they
we
had
them
lease
an
off-site
location.
They've
come
back
to
us
every
five
years.
We've
actually
released
them
from
part
of
this
at
this
point
because
they
also
don't
have
people
using
those
other
spaces.
Because
more
and
more
we
find
with
transit,
oriented
development.
People
don't
have
cars
and
people
who
do
have
cars
find
places
for
them.
So
we
end
up
with
a
better
streetscape,
a
better
development
pattern.
N
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
glad
to
hear
that
the
experiment
was
a
success,
because
this
is
one
that
I
advocated
for
prior
to
being
on
the
council
as
an
example
of
transit,
oriented
development
as
part
of
our
climate
action.
So
yeah.
D
Yeah,
I
I
do
support
this
as
well
and
as
the
current
alternate
of
the
fourth
ward,
I
have
had
some
some
emails
from
constituents
about
the
prior
proposal,
but
I
have
heard
nothing
about
the
current
proposal
yeah,
which
seems
to
be
you
know,
as
you
mentioned,
it's
a
fairly
fair
compromise,
but
I
do
have
a
question
about
that.
M
A
question
that
would
be
mike
rivera
question,
but
I
think
that
if
I
think
we're
going
to
just
kind
of
wait
and
see,
are
we
my
understanding
is
we
have
available
space
in
the
sherman
avenue
parking
garage
so
but
to
just
hold
it
without
this?
It's
I
don't
want
to
compare
it
to
an
airline,
but
it's
a
little
bit
like
overselling
the
airline,
because
we
we
just
have
to
make
this
a
bit
more
of
an
iterative
process
holding
55
spaces
and
then
not
selling
to
others
who
could
use
them.
M
So
I
think
we're
just
trying
to
work
together
to
figure
out
how
to
make
this
work
the
best,
because
there
are
people
who
want
the
reliability
of
a
city
garage
in
a
secure
space.
They
may
not
be
comfortable
in
finding
a
parking
space
in
another
another
space.
This
has
given
his
tenants
a
lot
of
flexibility
to
find
a
space
right,
so.
A
Got
it
councilman.
A
E
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
echo
my
support
and
echo
many
of
the
points
that
council
member
win
raised.
I
think
this
is
a
great
project
and
fully
in
support
here
and-
and
you
know
just
really
want
to
see
this
as
a
model
for
development
across
the
city,
and
I
I
wish
415
howard
would
have
had
a
similar
development
pattern
because
I
you
know
in
our
ward,
we
we
see
what
happens
when
you
have
those
you
know
ground
for
ground
floor
parking
it.
L
Yeah,
I
guess
I
would
just
like
an
assurance
that
we
aren't
going
to
be
blocking
off
55
spaces
without
getting
revenue
for
those
spaces.
I
mean
I'm
concerned
that
we're
going
to
be
holding
55
spaces.
I
know
they're
going
to
pay
for
the
ones
that
they
end
up
using,
but
I'm
concerned
that
residents,
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
something
precluding
residents
from
using
spaces,
yet
we
aren't
even
collecting.
I
just
want
some
assurance
that
we
will
in
fact
get
revenue
for
all
55
spaces
if
we're
holding
those.
M
I'm
not
going
to
be
a
microvariant
assure
you
of
that,
but
that
is
the
idea
that
we
would,
if
we
run
out,
we
bump
up
into
needing
to
use
those
spaces.
We
would
probably
talk
to
mr
mclean
and
everybody
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
balancing
out
that
they're
not
he's
not
going
to
sign
10
leases
and
everybody's
going
to
want
those
spaces.
I
think
we're
we
have
available
spaces
in
the
in
the
sherman
avenue
garage
we
did
not.
I
think
I
think
he
sort
of
mentioned
this
when
his
development
was
originally
approved.
M
R
We're
definitely
willing
to
work
out
the
final
language
where
nobody's
we're
not
going
to
hold
anybody
hostage.
They're,
not
they're,
not
ours.
You
know,
they're
the
cities
so
whether
it's
if
the
sherman
fills
up
again,
which
is
about
25
30
of
the
that's
still
vacant,
then
we
could
maybe
shift
it
over
to
maple
and
you
know,
but
we're
being
solicited
by
our
neighbors
condo
buildings
to
release
spaces
from
them
because
they
are
not
using
their
own
spaces.
So
there's
there
really
is
a.
I
mean
a
lot
of
excess
parking
in
in
downtown
evanson.
R
Currently
we
can't
tell
the
future,
but
I
think
this
this
project
has
really
tried
to
help
us
see
that
they're
all
there's
I
mean
there's
over
5000
people
in
downtown
evanston
right
now
that
live
here
that
don't
own
cars
and
they're,
not
students
and
that's
a
statistic
from
the
chicago
neighborhood
initiative,
so
yeah.
I
think
I
think
this
city
has
done
a
lot
right.
You
know
to
really
foster
a
more
environmental
and
greener
living
and
community
living
and-
and
I
I
think
it
shows
in
our
streets
and
our
retail
and
our
our
policy.
A
I
just
want
to
quickly
say
it
well
that
having
talked
to
mike
rivera
quite
a
bit,
you
know
our
parking
garages
at
least
currently
are
not
at
full
capacity.
So
we
will.
We
will
be
able
to
find
space
where
needed.
So
I'm
gonna.
A
We
have
over
a
thousand
spaces
available
right
now
in
our
parking
garages
and
just
sherman
alone,
so
we'll
we'll
be
able
to
find
them
when
needed
all
right.
So
we're
gonna
do
a
voice
vote
on
this.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
enough
support
for
this.
All
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
any
days
all
right
guys
have
it
all
right.
Moving
on
to
item
p4,
I
was
told
that
council
member
suffered
and
wanted
to
make
a
comment.
Is
he
online.
A
O
Please,
let's
just
drop
this
thing,
everything
that
was
said
in
public
comment.
I
agree
with.
It
was
a
well-intentioned
solution
to
a
seeking
of
a
solution,
a
problem,
but
this
is
a
little
bit
more
hatchet
than
scalpel
and
let's
come
back
with
something
in
the
future.
So
if,
if
you
all
will
please
listen
to
the
people
who
came
here
to
speak
and
vote
this
down
tonight,
I
would
appreciate
it.
A
All
right,
let's
any
other
discussion,
no
all
those.
N
A
P
We
have
to
go
to
the
maker
of
the
motion
council,
member
kelly,
who
made
the
motion.
When
you
said
move,
you
meant,
move
approval
of
the
denial
of
the
land,
use
commission
you're,
adopting
their
recommendation.
N
Q
A
Any
days,
okay,
the
eyes
have
it
seeing
other
matters
before
us.
The
meeting
is
now
adjourned.