►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 6-21-2019
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
D
A
So,
finding
that
we
have
a
quorum,
yes,
I
call
this
meeting
to
order.
I
would
like
to
start
out
by
saying
a
few
things.
First,
we'll
be
hearing
a
continued
item
from
a
previous
meeting
of
which
I
was
not
present
as
chair,
I
would
like
to
assure
everyone
that
I
that
I
have
reviewed
the
recordings
and
all
the
written
materials
and
feel
myself
up
to
date
on
the
information.
A
In
addition,
any
communications
with
interested
or
even
relatively
disinterested
members
of
the
of
the
community
regarding
something
that
is
before
the
board
are
also
ex
parte
site
communications,
because
the
actions
of
the
Commission
are
administrative
decisions
that
are
supposed
to
be
based
on
the
record
and
ex
parte
communications
may
violate
constitutional,
due
process
requirements,
statutes
governing
zoning
and
administrative
decisions
and
notions
of
fairness.
In
addition,
ex
parte
I'd
Communications
often
lead
to
the
public's
perception
that
commissioners
are
subject
to
the
influence
or
are
acting
unfairly.
A
For
these
reasons,
ex
parte
I'd
communications
between
any
interested
party
and
a
member
of
the
Commission
are
not
permitted.
While
members
of
the
Commission
should
visit
sites
that
are
subject
to
their
hearings,
they
should
not
have
conversations
with
others
about
matters
that
are
before
the
Commission
prior
to
the
Commission's
decision.
This
should
not
be
interpreted
to
prevent
a
member
of
the
Commission
from
attending
a
community
meeting,
however,
because
a
commission
decision
shall
be
based
on
all
evidence
and
comments
during
deliberation.
A
A
So
when
we're
before
we
get
to
approval
of
the
of
the
minutes
and
things
I'll
just
get
all
the
procedural
things
out
of
the
way
if
you're
going
to
be
testifying,
you
should
have
signed
up
outside
on
the
list
and
if,
if
you're
going
to
speak
to
any
matter
today,
also,
if
you're
going
to
speak,
I
would
like
to
ask
you
at
this
time
to
raise
your
right
hand
and
swear
that
you
will
tell
the
truth.
Do
you
swear
to
tell
the
truth
all
right,
very
good?
Thank
you.
A
Let's
see
when
you
come
up
to
the
microphone,
can
you
state
your
name
and
your
address,
so
we
have
that
as
on
the
record
and
when
we
get
to
public
comment,
if
you
are
speaking
as
an
individual
you'll
be
limited
to
two
minutes,
so
please
be
concise
and
brief.
If
you're
reiterating
a
an
opinion
that
has
been
previously
said,
we
would
appreciate
for
brevity
that
you
that
you
just
say,
I
agree
with
the
person
before
I
mean
it's
important
that
you
that
we
get
the
magnitude
of
the
impression.
A
You
know
that
of
what
people
are
saying,
but
we
don't
need
to
hear
the
same
thing
repeated
endlessly.
If
you
are
speaking
on
behalf
of
an
organization,
you
will
be
allotted
more
time.
We
will
take
that
testimony,
but
you
will
have
to
be
specifically
representing
that
organization
in
that
case,
will
allow
ten
minutes
of
public
comment
so.
A
E
F
A
A
Are
there
any
questions.
Comments
Corrections
to
those
I
actually
have.
If
I
can
get
this,
although
I
was
not
there,
I
do
have
a
correction
I
believe
it
states
that
that
the
chairman
Lewis
called
the
meeting
to
order.
It
was
actually
commissioner
Isaac
or
vice-chair
Isaac
called
the
meeting
to
order
and
I
question
whether
Commissioner
Isaac
made
the
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
G
A
Number
19
PLN
DS
dash
zero,
zero
four
one:
a
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
pursuant
to
the
city
code,
title
six,
zoning
and
two
chapter:
eight
residential
districts
of
the
zoning
ordinance
to
allow
office
uses
and
revised
special
conditions
for
office
uses
within
the
residential
districts,
so
I
believe
the
that
continue.
We
we've
made
our
way
through
we've
heard
we've
had
public
questioning
questioning
from
the
commissioners.
We've
gone
through
public
comment
for
those
of
for
those
people
who
were
present
last
week,
but
we
still
have
a
we
still.
A
H
My
name
is
Marsha
Kerr
and
I
am
owner
at
1738,
Chicago
Avenue,
which
is
located
directly
in
one
of
the
areas
identified
in
the
zoning
ordinance
text
amendment
as
subject
to
the
zoning
change.
Thank
you
for
granting
my
earlier
request
for
an
extension
in
order
that
we
could
present
a
rebuttal
to
the
application.
I
would
like
to
introduce
Joan
Stafford,
who
will
outline
our
objections
to
the
proposed
text.
Amendment.
I
Those
Lots
adjacent
to
those
downtown
zones
could
be
used
for
new
construction
of
offices.
Offices
could
be
built
to
a
height
of
50
feet,
62
feet
if
a
planned
development
in
an
r5
district
in
85
feet,
97
feet
of
a
planned
development
in
if
built
in
r6
district.
The
city
staff
has
identified
seven
areas
in
r6
that
are
adjacent
to
d2
and
d3
districts.
That
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
zoning
text.
Amendment
none
have
been
identified,
adjacent
to
r5.
There
may
be
one
but
I
went
through
the
map
myself
and
found
none.
I
The
airshow,
the
library
parking
lot
and
I
think
what
this
says
and
I
will
continue
about.
This
is
that
one
major
problem
with
this
proposed
change
in
the
ordinance
is
that
people
would
not
have
noticed
if
there
was
a
proposal
for
where
they
would
be
required
to
have
noticed
if
they
were
having
a
rezoning
on
its
surface.
This
proposed
amendment
of
the
text
of
the
zoning
ordinance
appears
to
have
general
application
to
all
these
properties
properties
in
the
vicinity
of
downtown.
However,
as
a
practical
matter,
this
is
a
proposed
zoning
code
text.
I
I
Furthermore,
the
cost
of
demolition
and
of
new
construction
on
these
sites
would
probably
make
them
economically
unfeasible
as
sites
for
new
offices.
One
may
therefore
ask
why
anyone
is
proposing
this
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
text,
except
as
a
manoeuvre
to
try
again
to
build
the
office
building
on
the
library
parking
lot,
which
the
public,
the
Plan
Commission
dapper
and
the
City
Council
after
extensive
public
testimony
and
deliberation
have
already
emphatically
defeated
one
advantage
in
skinning
the
cat
in
this
new
manner.
I
Yes,
that,
unlike
the
defeated
proposal
for
an
office
building
which
required
a
zoning
change,
this
text,
amendment
that
can
be
accomplished
without
mailed
notice
to
all
the
affected
property
owners
within
500
feet
of
the
library
parking
lot
for
those
within
500
feet
of
the
other
identified
properties.
It
was
sufficient
to
put
the
item
in
the
on
the
plan
commission
agenda
and
to
publish
it
in
the
Evanston
review.
I
was
unable
and
I
know
that
my
neighbor
was
unable
to
find
a
copy
of
the
Evanston
review.
I
We
know
that
such
publishing,
published
notice
is
ineffective
notice
for
those
most
affected.
Moreover,
if
the
proposed
text
change
passes
a
proposal
for
a
new
office
building
on
the
library
parking
lot
would
require
only
the
granting
of
a
special
use
by
a
margin
of
5
to
4,
rather
than
a
zoning
map
change.
Even
if
more
than
30%
of
the
neighboring
property
owners
objected,
the
dapper
and
the
plan
Commission
recommended
against
the
project
as
they
did
before.
I
Once
the
city
voted
to
sell
the
land
for
the
project,
it
would
require
only
a
simple,
simple
majority
of
5
votes
to
approve
the
project
rather
than
the
supermajority
of
7
votes
for
the
City
Council
to
approve
an
office
project
which
requires
a
map
amendment
opposed
by
the
neighbors.
In
some,
this
proposed
text
amendment
appears
to
be
designed
to
do
an
end
run
around
the
plan
Commission
and
the
public
opposition
to
placing
a
large
office
structure
on
the
library
parking
lot.
I
It
appears
to
violate
the
purpose
for
a
zoning
text,
amendment
which
is
quote
this
is
from
the
zoning
code,
which
is
not
intended
to
confer
special
privileges
or
rights
upon
any
person,
but
only
to
make
adjustments
necessary
in
light
of
changed
conditions
or
changes
in
public
policy.
It
fails
to
meet
the
standards
for
a
zoning
text,
amendment
that
the
quote
proposed
amendment
be
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
subject
property,
the
plan
Commission
should
vote
not
to
recommend
the
amendment.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
miss
Stafford,
so
so
am
I
to
understand
that
this
cur
you're
finished
with
your
with
your
comment.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I've
noticed
that
we
do
have
alderman
Fisk
present,
but
we
do
have
other
people
who
are
signed
up
to
speak
now.
I
would
give
if,
if
it's
allowable
or
if
people
do
not
object,
aldermen
Fisk
could
speak
first
or
or
we
can
go
in
order
depending
upon
how
you
would
like
to.
If
you
would
like
to
relinquish
your
spot
in
line
I
can
we
can
have
Alderman
Fisk
go
next?
G
Good
evening,
commission
members,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
speak.
I
want
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things
at
the
last
Commission
meeting.
I
was
advised
by
our
corporation
counsel,
not
to
be
here
to
speak,
because
there
was
a
pending
project
that
would
be
affected
by
this
text.
Amendment
pending
before
the
City
Council
and
under
the
council
rules-
that's
not
allowed,
so
that
has
expired.
So
there
is
nothing
pending
before
the
council
now
so
I'm
free
to
come
and
share
my
thoughts
with
you
or
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
G
I
want
to
be
very
clear
that
I
am
NOT
here
to
talk
about
an
individual
perceived
project.
That's
not
wouldn't
be
appropriate,
and
but
I
will
tell
you
what
my
thoughts
were
behind
making
this
reference
to
the
plan.
Commission
I'll
also
just
remind
you
that
I'm,
the
council
liaison
to
the
plan
Commission.
So
even
when
I'm,
not
here,
I'm
watching
you
on
TV
and
I'm,
taking
an
interest
in
and
your
deliberations
and
your
hard
work.
G
So
if
I
could
ask
Miss
Jones,
if
could
you
just
pull
up
the
maps
in
the
packet
that
says
properties
affected
by
the
proposed
text?
Amendment
yep
yep
right
there,
symma
sanford,
was
correct
that
there
are
seven
properties
that
our
proposed
proposed
proposed
properties
that
would
be
subject
to
the
text.
Amendment
I
want
to
take
you
back
a
little
bit
to
1921
zoning
ordinance.
A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
a
nomination
on
that
included
an
attempt
to
recognize
the
apartment,
hotels
that
were
built
in
the
1920s
when
downtown
Evanston
really
became.
G
What
we
know
today
is
downtown
Evanston,
that
sort
of
began
in
1919,
with
the
construction
of
the
Warrington
Hotel
and
the
North
Shore
hotel
and
then
downtown
really
developed
after
that.
But
it
was
clear
that
in
1921
there
was
a
understanding
that
these
commercial
buildings
would
exist
on
the
periphery
of
downtown,
partly
because
in
recognition
of
the
fact
that
we,
even
at
that
time,
we're
a
transit,
oriented
development
community
and
it
was
an
effort
actually
to
keep
people
moving
throughout
the
city
without
cars
clogging
up
the
streets.
G
So
this
text
amendment
actually
is
with
a
nod
to
that.
It
also
is
an
effort
to
identify
a
way
that
we
might
be
able
to
encourage
mixed-use
development
or
office
buildings
on
the
edge
of
downtown
that
are
consistent
in
character
with
the
existing
buildings
in
r6.
So
if
you
look
at,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
d3,
for
example,
d3
and
r6
are
very
close
together,
but
ours,
so
it
wouldn't
be
actually
rezoning
to
d3.
G
It
would
just
make
office
use
a
special
use
in
r6
and,
as
you
know,
from
the
zoning
ordinance
r6
doesn't
prohibit
office
use
I
mean
if
you
live
in
a
condo
or
a
co-op
or
an
apartment
building
in
r6.
You
can
run
your
office
out
of
your
building,
but
if
you
do
new
office
now,
you're
you're
it
you
have
to
be
in
a
single
building
that
was
built
as
a
single-family,
home
I.
G
Think
no
more
than
two
stories,
although
I'm
sure
Megan
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
this,
and
that's
that's
not
consistent
with
the
uses
that
we
see
in
the
downtown.
So
there
are
two
things
that
are
going
on
in
the
downtown.
The
first
is
that
we
have
people
who
want
to
come
to
Evanston
and
start
or
grow
their
businesses
and
Evans.
You
know
we
don't
have
room
for
them,
and
so
how
do
we
do
that
and
protect
the
character
of
our
downtown?
G
This
seems
to
me
to
be
a
logical
way
to
do
that,
and,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
made
it
contingent
on
not
allowing
commercial
use
on
the
ground
floor,
so
it
would
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
residential
uses
that
are
there,
the
the
seven
properties
that
oh,
the
other
point
that
I
wanted
to
make.
That
was
the
first
point.
The
second
point
is
that
there
are
some
of
these
properties
have
office
uses
on
them
already
that
are
not
allowed
under
our
six,
but
yet
they're
operating
as
office
uses
under
our
six.
G
So
how
do
we
correct
that
in
Arizona
ordinance,
so
some
one
property
owner,
for
example,
that
has
an
office
building
on
their
lot,
has
I
think
testified
before
the
Commission
that
they're
interested
in
expanding
that
use
away
from
what
was
traditionally
the
use
of
that
building
into
offering
the
space
for
rent
for
unrelated
uses?
That's
not
consistent
with
our
six
owning
unless
you
make
this
next
amendment
change,
so
I'm,
not
I'm.
Really
looking
at
this
is
more
of
a
housekeeping
issue
is
how
do
we
bring
all
of
these
things
into
compliance
and
make
them
work?
G
So
when
you
look
at
the
seven
properties
here,
you
have
two
properties,
three
properties
actually
of
the
seven
that
have
been
actively
discussed
either
at
the
plan
Commission
or
will
be
coming
to
the
plan.
Commission
I
have
been
discussed
in
the
community
as
put
potential
development
sites
and
I
think
you
can
probably
tell
which
ones
those
are
in
the
library
parking
lot,
the
king
home
and
of
the
Sojourner
church
property.
Those
are
the
three
that
have
been
that
have
been
discussed.
G
G
Actually,
if
we
brought
it
into
compliance
once
the
ground-floor
commercial
changed
hands
that
it
would
no
longer
be
grounds
for
commercial
with
this
text
amendment,
and
that
is
something
that,
as
the
ward
alderman
for
that
site,
I
can
tell.
You
has
been
a
continuing
problem
with
restaurants
on
that
particular
block
and
the
problems
that
they
caused
to
the
neighbors.
So
actually,
this
text
amendment
does
bring
the
use
of
the
buildings
again
office,
building
with
no
ground-floor
commercial
retail
food
service,
it
makes
them
more
compatible
with
our
six
zoning
and
residential
zoning.
G
The
other
properties
that
are
on
here
are
occupied
by
apartment
buildings.
Other
situations
there
has
been
and
I
think
staff
would
probably
tell
you
that
from
time
to
time,
we
get
serious
interest
in.
Where
can
I
come
that's
close
to
the
downtown
that
I
can
build
an
office
building.
The
interest
of
the
City
Council,
in
my
view,
is
that
a
commercial
use
is
taxed
at
a
higher
rate
and
yields
more
tax
revenue
to
the
city
of
Evanston,
and
it's
therefore
desirable.
G
So
my
question,
for
you
is:
does
this
make
sense
to
fit
some
of
these
uses
into
a
residential,
our
six
district
that,
according
to
the
zoning
code,
is
intended
to
be
high-intensity
residential?
Does
it
make
sense
to
fit
this
in
in
order
to
keep
the
height
of
the
proposed
office
buildings
at
a
reasonable
height,
so
as
to
preserve
the
character
of
the
areas
of
downtown
that
are
on
the
border
of
downtown?
G
So
I
tell
you
that
a
couple
of
aldermen
and
I
have
been
needing
to
talk
about
downtown
zoning
and
where
we're
going
with
downtown
zoning.
That
will
eventually
come
to
you,
but
it's
a
challenge
and
it's
a
challenge
to
figure
out
how
we
accommodate
what
we
want
our
downtown
to
do
with
the
way
the
downtown
is,
and
so
this
is
a
kind
of
creative,
very
tiny,
small
step
to
take
to
say.
Let's
put
this
forward,
see
where
it
goes,
it's
a
special
use.
G
It's
not
any
kind
of
a
done.
Deal
comes
to,
council
council
have
discusses,
people
come
and
talk
and
tell
us
what
their
views
are
on
the
particular
property,
but
to
have
it
characterized
in
the
way
that
it
has
been
I.
Think
it's
unfair
to
the
discussion
that
we're
trying
to
have
a
council
about
where
we
go
as
a
as
it
downtown,
and
that's
why
this
is
very
specific.
G
So
when
you
look
at
the
downtown
as
a
whole,
we
need
office
space.
We
need
office
workers,
we
we
need
to
keep
our
small
businesses
going.
We
need
to
take
advantage
of
our
transit
oriented
development.
There's
we
need
to
attract
business
in
our
central
business
district
and
what
we've
seen
over
the
past
few
years
is
a
lot
of
residential.
Well
know
we're
seeing
the
office
users
come
back
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
respond
to
them
in
a
way
that's
creative,
but
also
respectful.
So
that's
that's
my
explanation.
G
Up
to
you,
guys
I'm
going
to
leave
you
to
deliberate,
because
this
is
your
show,
it
will
come
to
Council
and
then
I
will
have
another
chance
to
comment
on
it.
But
I
just
wanted
to
explain
why
I
wasn't
here
last
time
and
what
my
thoughts
were
behind
this.
So
again,
if
you
have
any
questions,
let
me
know,
but
otherwise
I'm
going
to
leave
you
to
it.
Okay,.
F
G
F
Yeah
I
understand
understood
yeah.
We
have
a
process
to
go
through
and.
G
Have
that's
in
my
board
too,
so
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
that,
because
the
for
example,
the
library
parking
lot
right
now
it's
a
surface
parking
lot.
That's
not
consistent
with
our
six
is
owning
I'm,
not
asking
you
to
change
the
library
parking
lot
to
something
that
is
consistent
with
our
six
owning,
but
the
the
the
questions
that
were
raised
when
we
were
even
talking
about
the
development
on
the
parking
library
parking
lot.
G
What
we're
very
different
and
and
one
of
the
concerns
I
have-
is
for
the
WCTU
and
their
Administration
Building,
which
is
a
office
building
and
back
of
their
of
the
Willard
house
and
under
and
again
Meghan.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
about
this,
but
I
believe
under
our
zoning
ordinance.
The
WCTU
can
continue
to
use
that
office
building
in
whatever
way
it
wants
and
that's
consistent
with
being
a
membership
organization.
G
So
I
think
that
would
fall
under
the
membership
organization
under
our
six
zoning,
but
once
they
rent
it
out
to
anyone
anyone
else,
then
it's
inconsistent
with
our
six
zoning,
so
this
text
amendment
would
actually
protect
the
WCTU
and
their
ability
to
rent
out
their
office
building.
That's
my
understanding.
A
Okay,
all
right
so
I
have
a
so
if
you've
been
deliberating
in
City
Council
about
how
to
best
form
the
downtown
area.
Do
you
think
this
is
the
best
way
to
allow
or
expanding
office
the
ability
to
build
offices
or
the
air
area,
for
that
or
or
are
there
better
ways
better
ways
to
go?
Go
about
this
because,
because
my
understanding
is
some
of
the
controls
in
the
downtown
area
do
not
apply
if
it's
residential
area
so
well,
let's.
G
Let's
take
the
king
home
for
an
example,
so
the
king
home
would
fall
under
this,
so
it
would
fall
under
this
text
amendment
and
as
I
and
as
we
know,
the
owner
of
that
property,
as
I
believe
already
petitioned
to
have
commercial
ground
floor
space
on
a
building.
He
owns
on
the
same
right
around
the
corner.
G
G
It's
not
one
of
the
council
and
I
really
do
want
to
say
that
while
the
three
council
members
when
I
was
chair
of
planning
and
development,
we
established
the
subcommittee
and
the
council
is
aware
that
we've
been
meeting
to
talk
about
how
we're
using
our
downtown
are
the
trying
to
see
if
the
downtown
boundaries
need
to
be
changed.
But
the
downtown
boundaries
are
large,
I
mean
they.
They
include
all
of
this,
except
for
I,
believe
the
king
home
I
think
the
king
home
is
the
only
one
that
falls
outside.
A
G
G
K
Hi
I'm,
Vicki,
Burke
and
I
live
at
1409
Rosalee
Street
I
am
here
to
officially
represent
the
WCTU.
The
city
Wally
has
a
letter.
Alderman
fist
has
a
letter,
and
the
mayor
has
a
letter
with
my
name
address
and
along
with
Glen
Madea,
that
we
are
officially
her
representatives
with
any
of
the
talk
and
negotiation
and
the
WCT
you
who
owns
the
property
I'm.
K
Also
the
chair
of
the
Center
for
Women's
History
and
leadership,
who
manages
this
Frances
Willard
house
Museum,
and
the
archives
which
is
in
the
administration
building
I,
can
ask
her
I
can
answer
any
questions
you
have
about
what
is
happening
at
that
property
because
I've
been
working
intimately
with
Sarah
Ward
and
the
WCTU
for
the
last
three
years
and
in
a
council
meetings,
Deborah
meetings,
Planning
Commission
beings
about
all
this,
the
WCTU
and
Sarah
Ward
is
not
happy
with
this.
They
did
not
ask
for
this.
They
were
not
contacted
for
this.
K
In
fact,
the
last
the
one,
and
only
to
find
that
we've
had
any
kind
of
meeting
with
our
Alderman
was
August
14
2017
in
the
last
three
years,
so
the
administration
building
currently
is
being
used
exclusively
by
the
WCTU.
They
maintain
one
office
there
with
a
part-time
staff
that
functions
to
get
out
materials,
answering
phones,
the
Frances,
Willard
library
and
museum.
We
have
a
part-time
archivist
in
that
place
and
we
have
an
summer
intern.
K
That's
working
on
processing,
all
the
WCTU
california
unions,
paperwork
that
they
have
shipped
to
us,
as,
as
the
unions
are
closing
all
across
the
country,
because
the
WCTU
is
a
sunsetting
organization
and
we
have
researchers
that
come
from
all
over
the
world
because
we
have
an
archives
in
the
library
that
does
not
exist
with
material
on
suffrage
and
temperance
anyplace
else.
So
that's
the
current
use
of
it
right
now
and
the
museum.
We
are
constantly
progressive,
restoring
we're.
You
know
getting
visitors
and
in
all
kinds
of
things
this
would
would
definitely
affect
us.
K
We
are
I
believe
grandmothered
or
grandfathered
in
because
the
houses
have
been
there
since
1862
1882
of
them
are
used
as
residences
and
always
have,
and
they
are
currently
we
have
students
from
northwestern
living
there
and
we
pay
taxes
on
those
two
properties.
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
we
do
have
a
vision
for
the
future,
with
the
administration
building,
which
does
Wooding
include
some
rental
possibilities
to
like
type
situations:
grassroots
women's
organizations
that
are
trying
to
get
started
with
either
not-for-profit
or
for-profit
in
interest.
K
K
A
L
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Betty
Esther
I
stay
at
1921,
Dewey
Avenue,
which
is
in
the
fifth
Ward
I,
have
a
question
in
for
clarification
in
that
the
residential
zone
in
r5
right
now
for
the
office
in
there.
It
says
it
was
special
use.
Well
changing
this
here,
although
it
says
it's
near
the
downtown
area
and
it's
close
to
you
gets
to
Asbury,
which
put
it
close
to
where
the
residential
in
the
fifth
Ward
and
we
had
the
proposal
for
a
high
building
that
didn't
go
up.
Will
that
fall
over
into
the
fifth
Ward?
L
A
L
A
A
J
A
J
You
your
comment
rate
Freedman,
second
ward,
23:10,
Greenwood,
I've,
been
in
Evanston
about
three
years
and
since
I've
been
here,
I
got
involved
in
politics
which
I've
never
been
in
before,
because
they
built
a
16
unit
or
proposed
to
build
a
16
unit
at
pitner
and
Dempster
the
process.
There
was
several
in
my
area,
several
text,
amendments
that
could
have
been
done
by
by
zoning,
and
we
talked
to
our
aldermen
about
it.
There's
nothing
that
made
sense
in
this
building.
A
A
A
M
Yes,
Kira
Kelly
I'm
at
limit
24,
36
or
inton,
and
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
text
amendment
tonight,
initiated
by
alderman
fist,
occurred
between
the
City
Council's
vote
to
deny
the
library
parking
lot
high
rise
in
March
and
the
pending
vote
for
the
same
council
to
reconsider
this
ordinance
to
review
the
specifics
of
the
situation.
The
City
Council
library
parking
lot
in
March
required
a
supermajority
vote
or
3/4
of
the
vote
from
Council,
which
was
triggered
by
30%
of
the
property
owners
within
500
feet
who
petitioned
for
this?
M
As
you
know,
their
legal
right
per
our
zoning
ordinance,
and
why
was
a
supermajority
required
because
the
library
parking
lot
was
an
office
building
which
was
not
included
in
the
current
zoning.
If
today's
text
minute
passed,
it
would
eliminate
the
supermajority
requirement
for
the
library
parking
lot.
As
you
know,
to
have
been
passed,
possibly
in
this
reconsideration
boat
it
had
been
pending
and
this
could
have
affected
the
next
vote
or
another
or
it
could
another
iteration
of
this
project.
M
Yes,
this
amendment
impacts
some
other
parcels,
but
there's
no
doubt
the
library
parking
lot
was
the
key
one
impacted
and
at
just
two
days
ago,
at
the
city
council,
meeting
alderman
Wynn
made
a
motion
to
hold
the
vote
on
the
extension
of
the
library
parking
lot
high-rise
contract.
That
was
slated
for
a
vote.
The
next
me
this
is
kind
of
complicated,
but
anyway
the
the
the
contract
because
she
held
it.
It
lapsed.
M
The
point
is
to
really
reiterate
the
stated
purpose
is
not
to
relieve
particular
hardships
or
confer
special
privileges
or
rights
to
any
person,
thus
I
believe
the
timeliness
of
this
proposal
in
between
these
two
votes
and
alderman
Fisk's
interest
in
getting
an
office
building
on
this
site
is
conferring
a
special
privilege
to
alderman
Fiske
these
developers
or
future
developers,
and
don't
take
my
word
for
it.
A
recent
Evanston.
Now
sorry,
this
printing
didn't
come
out
very
well.
M
So,
even
if
this
development
is
dead,
a
major
amendment
like
this
should
not
be
instigated
by
one
Alderman's
rushed
attempt
to
change
the
terms
of
a
council
vote
to
get
a
project
through.
It
should
not
have
been
slipped
in
on
the
eve
of
Memorial
Day
weekend,
so
that
as
few
people
of
the
hundreds
or
even
thousands
of
people
who
live
in
that
area
would
likely
not
know
about.
If
this
amendment
is
truly
intended
to
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city,
should
it
not
be
thoroughly
studied
by
all
of
you?
M
Should
it
not
be
vetted,
should
it
not,
should
we
determine
what
kind
of
an
impact
it
might
have
on
this
busy
these
busy
residential
streets,
the
parking,
the
capacity,
the
infrastructure?
Should
it
not
be
initiated
by
you,
the
Plan
Commission,
rather
than
on
the
eve
of
a
huge
vote?
Should
there
not
be
a
true
public
hearing,
or
at
least
discussion
to
involve
the
stakeholders?
The
residents
in
this
area
I
also
want
to
point
out.
M
As
you
know,
an
enormous
office
building
is
coming
at
6:01
Davis,
where
it
is
zoned
for
it
in
the
most
dense
area
of
downtown.
This
should
cover
it
and
in
an
appropriate
zoned
area.
You
are
the
stewards
of
our
zoning
ordinances
and
anyway,
thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
hope
you
vote
against
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
F
I
just
I'm
curious
to
know
if
the
City
stat
Megan,
if
you,
if,
if
there
have
been
instances
where
the
current
zoning
regulations
have
been
impede
meant,
this
specific
text
has
been
an
impede
meant
to
a
developer,
seeking
a
project
in
the
city
of
Evanston
and
has
any
developer
specifically
requested
that
this
be
removed
to
make
it
easier
for
them
to
build
office.
Space.
N
With
me,
being
one
of
the
staff
members
who
talks
with
developers
that
probably
need
to
talk
with
some
of
the
other
staff
members
to
see
exactly
what
projects
may
have
been
proposed,
we
actually
get
a
fair
number
of
questions
and
proposed
projects
that
come
through
the
office
that
may
or
may
not
be
viable
projects.
I
do
believe
there
have
been
questions
about
some
of
the
other
sites
that
actually
may
are
over
thin.
Some
of
these
affected
areas
for
possible
development
I,
don't
they
haven't
specifically
requested
this
use?
N
A
All
right,
well,
I
I,
have
some
kind
of
base
basic
questions,
I
think
I'm
going
to
ask
staff
when,
when
a
zoning,
these
are
just
very
basic
kind
of
drawing
questions
when
a
zoning
district
is,
is
desert
designated,
for
instance
residential.
Can
you
explain
what
the
what
the
purpose
of
that
is
and
what
kind
of
what
kind
of
uses
are
allowed
in
that
and
then
then
follow
that
up
with
when
there
are
special
uses?
A
D
I
can't
get
add
to
that,
particularly
for
this
r5
and
r6
districts.
There's
a
purpose
statement
for
each
district,
its
included
in
the
staff
memo,
but
for
the
r5
it's
as
intended
to
provide
for
infill
development
of
a
mix
of
multi-family
residential
structures
and
a
medium
density,
including
townhouses,
to
family
dwellings.
Three-Story
walk-up,
sand,
courtyard
apartment
buildings
that
characterized
the
traditional
multi-family
housing
development
in
the
district
and
then
the
r6
district
is
intended
to
provide
for
high-density
residential
development
of
primarily
multifamily
dwellings,
particularly
in
and
around
the
downtown
area.
Okay,.
D
Say
again
for
each
district
there
is
a
list
of
permitted
uses
and
special
uses
for
the
r5
and
r6
that
those
lists
were
included
in
in
the
packet
as
well.
So
generally,
the
permitted
uses
are
speaking
more
to
that
purpose.
Statement
of
the
residential
uses-
and
there
are
additional
lists
of
special
uses
that
could
be
applied
for
special
uses
generally
have
the
potential
that
creates
some
sort
of
impacts
that
are
permitted
to
use
may
not
have.
So
that's
why
it
goes
through
that
process,
typically
through
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
A
But
the
permitted
uses
are
are
not
there's
never
in
a
residential
district,
a
permitted
use
of
manufacturing
or
industrial,
there
are
usually
things
that
are
are
beneficial
to
residential
type.
Zoning
such
as
educational
institutions,
churches
things
that
that
have
a
synergy
with
residential
and
and
help
to
make
the
resident
the
stronger
community
within
the
residential
areas.
That
true,
are
not
true.
D
A
Also,
there
was
some
some
talk
about
the
existing
structures
within
within
the
historic
district.
How
would
those
be
categorized?
Are
they
are
they
existing
existing
non-conforming
uses
that
are
allowed
by
zoning
or
what?
What
is?
How
are
they?
How
are
they
handled
because
the
the
aldermen
made
some
statements
about
about
trying
to
bring
uses
that
we're
not
consistent
with
the
existing
area
into
line
into
line?
Is
that
these
these
are
are
permitted
or
not
permitted
in.
D
A
Went-
and
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
at
the
previous
meeting
about
parking,
so
I
know
in
the
downtown
district
parking
is
not
if
the
floor
is
primarily
parking,
it
is
not
counted
toward
toward
the
height
of
the
building
is,
is
it
counted
toward
the
height
of
the
building
within
within
this?
Within
this
you
would
an
office.
You
have
parking
as
part
of
the
counted
height
in
the
yes.
A
So
the
determination
for
the
amount
of
parking
is
not
is
not
relevant
to
where
it
is
it's
designated
by
by
the
use,
so
so
the
use
so
office
use
has
certain
limitations
for
parking.
Are
there
any?
Are
there
any
discounts
or
things
for
being
in
a
in
a
residential
area
or
down
area
for
the
amount
of
parking
transit-oriented
area
or
what?
What
affects
the
amount
of
parking?
If,
if
we
were
to
make
this,
make
this
for
foreign
office
use,
what
determines
it
sure.
D
A
A
Let's
see
so
I
in
in
the
are
five
and
rc6
districts:
I
don't
find
I
I
have
some
misunderstanding
of
how
the
bulk
regulations
are.
The
r5
and
r6
districts
speak
about
the
bulk
of
the
building
or
coverage
of
the
lot
based
on
the
number
of
dwelling
units,
but
there's
no
dwelling
units
are
not
an
applicable
unit
to
an
office
building.
So
how
is
bulk
or
density
which
is
normally
controlled
by
FA
are
controlled
within
if
we
were
to
approve
this
sure.
A
A
A
D
A
So
so
this
is
so.
This
appears
to
me
to
be
allowing
a
totally
different
use
by
a
totally
different
use
for
a
designated
zoning
district
instead
of
one.
That's
not
you
know
in
this
idea
of
being
things
that
are
compatible
with
residential
necessarily.
Are
there
any
do
you
know
of
any
other
any
other
communities
or
zoning
ordinances
that
have
this
kind
of
precedent
for
this,
for
this
kind
of
allowing
allowing
an
office
building
to
be
built
within
a
residential
area?
A
D
A
Is
there
at
what
point
would
would
would
the
process
for
for
a
special
use,
go,
go
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
or
then
go
to
the
plan
Commission
at
what
point
would
it
would
it
change,
or
should
there
be
language
that
you
within
the
proposed
language
that
would
designate
because
of
the
scale
in
an
r5
or
our
six
district
designated
to
go,
go
one
way
or
another?
Is
there
yes,.
D
So
typically,
a
special
use
permit
is
reviewed
by
the
the
Zoning
Board
Appeals,
who
makes
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
in
the
case
of
a
planned
development
and
there's
certain
thresholds
qualifying
a
project
is
a
fine
development.
In
that
case,
it
would
come
to
this
body
to
the
Planning
Commission,
so
that
the
current
language
and
the
code
speaking
to
offices
speak
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
because
that's
within
you
know,
buildings
that
originally
housed
a
single-family
house.
So
they
would
not
qualify
into
that
plan.
Development
threshold.
A
O
D
O
So
you
said
there
are
two:
there
are
two
methods
for
increasing
the
building
lack
coverage.
One
is
through
the
PD
and
the
other
is
by
seeking
a
variance
describe
it.
What
is
the
largest
magnitude
of
variance
that
someone
can
seek
before
it
would
become
a
plan
development
and
therefore
come
to
this
body.
D
The
whether
it's
a
plaintiff
element
I,
is
based
on
minimum
thresholds
for
for
how
much
development
is
occurring
or
being
proposed.
The
over
20,000
square
feet,
for
example,
would
qualify
supplying
development.
So
it's
not
necessarily
the
degree
of
variance
from
the
standard
where
there's
a
plan
development,
not
but
the
pure
volume
of
the
proposed
building
or
blot.
So.
O
D
A
F
F
Don't
I
I
won't
go
there,
but
I
I
don't
understand
what
problem
this
is
trying
to
solve
other
than
the
obvious
issue
that
people
are
saying
that
was
stated.
It
was
not
trying
to
solve
I.
Don't
I,
don't
see
this
as
a
resolution
to
stimulate
more
development,
more
mixed-use
development,
more
office
development
and
they
just
I
I.
Don't
believe
that
and
I've
not
seen
or
heard
of
any
evidence
that
this
is
going
to
help
I
asked.
A
G
A
F
I
mean
that's
all
and
I
I,
just
don't
the
perception
that's
out
there,
if,
if
it
is
in
fact
true,
which
you
know
it's,
it
seemed
to
be
headed
in
that
direction.
In
terms
of
why
we
were
voting
on
this
text,
amendment
that
I
think
is
extraordinarily
bad
governance
and
I
think
it's
it
games
the
system
in
terms
of
what
these
committees
are
supposed
to
do.
F
There
is
a
process
for
approval
for
Planned
Unit
development
for
for
variants,
that
that
is
open
to
anyone
and
everybody
that
wants
to
build
something
that
is
not
compliant
with
the
current
zoning
laws.
So
I
and
these
rules
I
mean
we're
all
here,
because
they
have
a
purpose
and
we're
here
to
try
to
interpret
and
and
as
best
that
we
can,
those
rules
and
regulations
I,
think
the
process
has
already
been
vetted
and
we've
gone
through
it.
F
If
people
certain
people
didn't
like
the
result
and
are
trying
another
way
to
achieve
their
desired
ends,
you
know
that
that's
I
think
it's
an
insult
to
this
committee.
It's
an
you
know
this
is
our
time
is
voluntary.
This
is
the
second
night
in
a
row
that
I've
sat
and
listened
and
considered
this
this
text
amendment,
and
it's
it.
F
A
E
I
just
like
to
say,
if
there
is
a
need
for
more
office
space
in
the
city,
it
seems
to
me
the
least
effect
the
least
appropriate
place
to
put
it
is
in
some
residential
areas.
We
have.
We
have
many
areas
in
downtown
that
are
our
are
zoned
for
office
buildings
20
years
ago,
everyone's
building
condos
downtown
five
years
ago.
We
started
building
apartments
downtown,
so
maybe
now
we'll
get
more
office
of
developers
in
and
they'll
start
putting
up
buildings
that
will
meet
that
need
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
go
out
into
outer
residential
areas.
O
You
know
for
we'll
say,
for
example,
the
library
parking
lot
is
a
twenty
six
thousand
square
foot
site
and
the
developer
was
looking
to
put
up
a
130,000
square
foot.
Building
there
under
this
change,
they'd
only
be
able
to
put
up
a
13,000
square
foot,
have
13,000
square
foot
of
coverage
and
would
basically
get
half
of
that
at
most.
It's
it
I,
don't
see,
I,
don't
see,
building
small,
you
know
slender
and
tall
office
buildings
in
in
residential
districts
a
solving
a
problem.
O
O
Potential
expanding
of
downtown
if
we
want
to
do
that,
how
we're
going
to
address
the
need
for
more
office
space,
but
you
know
to
one
concern
she
had
was
that
you
know
the
downtown
area
may
need
to
be
expanded.
Well,
if
it
does,
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
that
having
an
office
building
that
doesn't
have
first
for
commercial
to
be
appropriate
way
to
expand
the
downtown
area.
O
If
we
as
a
community
say
that
you
know
this
area
that
previously
wasn't
considered
part
of
downtown
should
because
we're
looking
at
not
what's
there
now,
but
what
we
think
should
be
there
in
20
30
50
years.
Then
let's
do
that
appropriately
and
you
know
while
well.
If
you
know,
if
forced
to
vote
I,
would
you
know
vote
against
this
this
proposal?
My
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
send
this
proposal
to
the
zoning
committee
to
discuss
it
there
and
and
get
some
more
information
about
how
we
can
potentially
modify
it
to.
O
P
Life
didn't
work,
so
just
a
couple
things
to
say
one
is
that
this
issue
of
expanding
downtown
I
have
always
believed
that
and
I
think
the
zoning
ordinance
reinforces
this,
that
the
place
for
density.
P
You
know
with
the
transportation,
that's
downtown
public
transportation.
The
place
for
density
is
in
the
downtown
area
and
I.
Don't
I
think
when
you
expand
it,
especially
incrementally,
like
this
I
think
I
I
think
it
just
dilutes
the
whole
idea
and
it's
the
wrong
it's
the
wrong
approach.
So
that's
one.
Secondly,
I
really
don't
see
what
advantage
the
changing
this
as
to
this,
the
the
verbage
in
the
zoning
ordinance
has
I
I,
listen
to
all
the
testimony.
P
I
just
don't
see
it
I
particularly
bothered
by
alderman
Fisk,
when
she,
when
she
mentioned,
when
someone
suggested
that
what
if
the
library
site
was
excluded-
and
she
said
no,
no
can't
do
that
and
I
think
I
think
that's
very
telling,
and
it
makes
me
question
her
motivation.
So
I
will
vote
no
on
this.
Q
If
we
want
to
relook
at
the
whole
downtown
process,
I
think
it
should
go
through
zoning
amendment
and
not
these
seven
properties
and
I.
Think
that's,
that's,
probably
the
major
issue.
As
far
as
the
office,
the
library
parking
lot
me
personally,
I
can
say
that
I
didn't
we
didn't
vote
no,
because
it
was
an
office.
It
was
the
building
itself.
So
this
wouldn't
necessarily
solve
all
those
issues,
but
yeah,
that's
just
going
back
to
yeah.
R
I
I
am
gonna
vote
no
as
well
and
I
I.
Don't
see
the
objection
to
another
level
of
scrutiny
for
this
type
of
development
and
there's
so
many
other
things
that
a
developer
has
to
do
that
are
onerous
and
I
think
we
have
the
right
to
closely
scrutinize
and
several
of
our
Commission's
a
project
that
might
go
into
one
of
these
sites.
A
Okay,
at
this
time,
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
scold
myself
for
my
bad
manners.
First
of
all,
two
housekeeping
things.
One
I
would
like
to
thank
Commissioner
Isaac
for
is
chairing
the
previous
beating
and
such
a
good
and
workman.
Like
way
it
was
very
well
done.
I
wish
I
were
nearly
as
good
as
you
and
then
I
need
to
welcome
and
then
I
need
to
welcome
our
new
Commissioner
Jane
schloss,
who
is
at
the
end
and
I'm,
not
gonna
put
her
on
the
spot
if
she
doesn't
want
to
want
to
comment.
S
I
I
would
just
I
I
would
agree
with
the
the
other
comments
that
it
does
seem
that
this
is
a
discussion
that
merits
further
examination
in
terms
of
the
direction
that
a
downtown
should
go,
but
probably
something
that
should
be
undertaken
in
a
comprehensive
way.
Rather
than
kind
of
a
piecemeal
approach,
which
this
seems
to
be.
A
Yeah
I
yeah,
so
so
I'll
start
with
my
comments.
I
I
would
reiterate
all
of
the
things
about
the
comprehensive
it
just
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
good
zoning
practice
to
to
violate
the
the
the
intent
of
a
zoning
zoning
district
as
residential
or
a
manufacturing
or
whatever
kind
of
district
it
is.
If
there
is
need
for
another
use,
it
should
be
modified
in
some
other
way.
A
I
know
that
the
comprehensive
plan
for
Evanston
was
is
to
be
periodically
updated
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
last
update
was
in
2000.
So
if
we
were
to
look
at
at
the
need
of
of
expanding
the
space
for
for
office
or
if
were
to
look
at
providing
existing
space
that
might
more
facilitate
office,
I
think
it
should
be
part
of
a
larger
study
that
could
have
more
public
input
and
and
process
for
it.
A
If
it's
that
big
of
an
issue
as
the
alderman
was
saying
there
is
also,
the
downtown
plan
has
not
been
updated
for
I
believe
20
year
10
years,
it
was
last
last
done
in
2009
or
might
be
originally
authored,
then
so
so
that
that
said,
I
also
believe
that
it
would
be.
It
would
be
much
better
public
policy
and
process
to
to
make
a
major
change,
which
this
is
not
an
insignificant
change,
as
as
as
the
impact
of
providing
a
a
house
is
a
house
worth
of
office
space
within
a
residential
district.
A
A
A
As
applicable
or
some
language
saying
to
the
applicable
body
for
review
the
body
with
jurisdiction
for
review,
as
opposed
to
specifically
naming
the
zoning
committee,
which
would
be
which
would
be
applicable
if
it
were
residential
than
scale-like,
but
since
this
is
not
now
opening
it
up
to
a
larger
scale,
I
think
that's
not
necessarily
the
one
path
and
be
good.
I
think
good
language
or
we
can
recommend
denial
or
we
can,
as
commissioner
Issac
mentioned,
refer
it
to
the
zoning
committee
of
the
Plan
Commission
for
further
study.
A
N
A
The
first
item
were
is
consistent
with
the
goals.
Policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
is
adopted
from
time
to
time.
What
do
do
any
of
the
commissioners
have
a
venture
on
that
I
I
would
say.
In
my
opinion,
it
is
not
meeting
the
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
in
if
it
well,
it
is
in
the
in
the
overall
sense,
but
not
in
the
specific
character
of
the
zoning
districts
that
are
defined
so
I.
Don't.
A
All
right,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
with
the
within
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.
While
there
is
not
a
subject
property,
but
there
is
a
subject.
Zoning
district
that
has,
and
it's
fairly
limited
in
scope
and
its
comprar,
and
it's
of
a
size
that
we
can
say
whether
an
office
building
within
the
seven
zones
that
are
there
would
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding.
A
O
R
R
O
A
A
Definitively,
what
that's
a
that's
a,
maybe
yes,
and
no,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties
and
I
would
venture
to
say.
There's
no
evidence
that's
been
presented.
That
would
say
would
say
that
that's
the
case.
So
so
it
does
not
have
a
adverse
effect
and
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services
would.
A
A
So
so,
just
to
clarify
a
yes
vote
is
for
denial
and
I
is
for
denial.
You
know
is
for
just
well,
it's
not
actually
recommending,
so
it's
just
so
if
we,
if
we
so
this
is
a
process
question
it's
a
little
confusing
to
me.
If
we
vote,
if
it's
not
passed,
do
we
need
to
make
another
motion?
I
mean
do
in
this
because
it's
not
denied
it's
not
anything
at
that
point.
That
motion
right.
A
T
A
E
O
C
O
A
A
Think
most
of
the
discussion
is
on
it's
on
the
public
record
to
say
that
we're
believing
every
almost
every
other,
every
commissioner
said
that
this
should
be
studied
in
some
other
form
and
not
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
zoning
committee
of
the
Plan
Commission
is
the
is,
is
the
appropriate
body
to
do
it
so
by
saying
denial?
We're
also
we're
also
recommending,
through
the
transcript
of
the
of
the
of
the
notes
that
that
we
believe
that
it
should
be
that
that
there
should
be
more
action
regarding
the.
A
A
A
Well,
I
I
think
there
is
there.
Is
this
idea
that
we're
saying
that
this
is
not
necessarily
great
planning
planning
or
zoning
process?
They
have
this
kind
of
language.
Now,
how
it
gets
changed
is
if
it's
needed
to
be
changed
as
a
whole.
Another
issue,
and
it
can
be,
can
be
proposed
in
other
ways
we're
not
actually
being
charged
with
with
with
solving
the
overall
issue,
we're
just
saying
whether
or
not
this
is
the
way
to
do
it,
in
my
opinion.
A
A
D00
for
one
and
recommendation
either
saying
and
recommending
that
that
what's
the
language,
the
recommending
that
that
the
issue
be
studied
that
the
issue
of
expanding
office
use
in
the
downtown
area
be
studied,
be
studied
in
some
other
needs
further
further
addressed.
Okay,
all
right
all
right,
so.
A
F
I'm
going
to
say
that,
ok,
what
we're
presented
with
is
this
very
limited
text
amendment
and
we've
all.
There
seem
to
be
a
lot
of
agreement
around
the
table
that
this
is
not.
This
is
a
very
piecemeal
way
of
looking
at
a
very
broad
topic
that
needs
a
lot
of
study
and
further
discussion,
as
evidenced
by
the
questions
that
you
asked.
It
was
not
very
well
thought
through
in
terms
of
the
other
ramifications
in
dealing
with
the
other
zoning
aspects
in
those
districts,
so
I
I
to
me,
I
think
it's
just
simple.
F
F
Study
of
rezoning
parts
of
the
downtown
absolutely
I
mean
that's
a
totally
different
discussion,
but,
what's
being
presented
before
us,
is
a
very
limited
piecemeal
text,
amendment
that
had
a
very
specific
targeted
intent.
Okay,
so
in
that
to
me,
I
I,
don't
think
we
should
commingled.
It
I
think
who
should
just
vote
on
this
and
have
another
discussion
about
entertaining
a
much
broader,
comprehensive,
open
process.
Good
governance,
discussion
about
zoning,
okay,.
A
O
A
A
A
A
So
would
that
matter
with
that
vote,
where
the
Plan
Commission
recommends
denial
of
the
to
the
City
Council
of
the
text,
amendment
as
proposed
in
1900
for
one
and
that
portion
of
the
meeting
is,
is,
is
closed.
I
think
it
would
be
good
if
we
took
a
five
minute
break
and
we'll
start
again
with
a
with
the
next
case,
which
is
a
text
amendment
for
residential
care
homes,
18
PLN,
D,
0,
0,
9
4.
So
those
of
you
who
are
not
wanting
to
stick
around
for
all
that
excitement
you
can
feel
free
to
leave.
A
A
N
This
actually
initially
came
before
the
Commission
in
November
of
last
year,
so
about
six
or
seven
months
ago,
and
it
was
recently
at
the
zoning
committee
which
referred
to
the
zoning
committee.
So
since
it's
been
some
time,
I'll
go
back
and
review
some
of
the
information
that
was
presented
before
the
zoning
ordinance
that
we
have
defines
residential
care
homes.
N
As
we
have
two
categories
category
one
is
the
dwelling
units
shared
by
four
to
eight
unrelated
persons,
exclusivo
staff
who
require
assistance,
and/or
supervision
and
who
resides
together
in
a
family
type
environment
as
a
single
housekeeping
unit
residential
care
home
category.
One
should
not
include
a
home
for
persons
who
are
currently
addicted
to
alcohol
or
not
narcotic
drugs
or
our
criminal
offenders
serving
on
work
release
or
probationary
programs.
N
We
also
have
a
category
two
for
this
use,
which
is
essentially
the
same
thing,
but
it
pumps
up
the
number
of
residents
from
four
to
eight
to
nine
to
15
the
category.
One
residential
care
homes
are
permitted
by
write
in
all
of
our
residential
business
and
downtown
zoning
districts,
as
well
as
the
c1,
a
mu,
M,
X,
C
T,
one
and
T.
N
Two
districts:
they
are
a
special
use
only
in
the
mue
district,
the
category
two
residential
care
homes
are
permitted
by
rights
within
the
denser
residential
districts,
r4
r5
and
r6
rd1,
mu
and
MXC
zoning
districts
and
are
especially
used
within
the
r1
r2
r3
b1
b2
b3
c1,
a
d2
d3.
Before
didn't
you
read
districts
I
will
say
that
the
residential
care
homes
are
required
to
be
licensed
by
the
state
of
Illinois
Department
of
Human
Services,
as
well
as
the
city
of
Evanston
through
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services.
N
They
must
also
be
a
minimum
of
nine
hundred
feet
from
another
residential
care,
home
child
residential
care,
home
or
transitional
treatment
facility.
So
the
original
proposed
text
amendment
that
was
reviewed
in
November
of
last
year
was
to
make
all
residential
care
homes,
especially
use,
so
it
would
change
where
I
initially
stated.
The
permitted
uses
were
and
just
make
it
a
special
use
across
the
board,
because
that
would
be
for
both
category
one
and
category
two
during
the
Planning
Commission
meeting.
At
that
time,
we
were
also
asked
to
look
at
strengthening
the
existing
distance
requirement.
N
N
We
discussed
the
existing
distance
requirement,
which
was
seen
as
enabling
integration
of
the
homes
into
the
community,
while
discouraging
a
concentration
of
the
use
in
any
one
area
of
the
city.
There
are
also
concerns
regarding
creating
additional
barriers
to
the
establishment
of
residential
care
homes
and
possibly
violating
fair
housing
regulations,
there's
also
making
all
residential
care
homes,
especially
used,
while
offering
a
way
to
alert
neighbors
to
the
use
in
their
communities.
N
It
would
could
also
be
seen
as
an
impediment
to
the
placement
of
that
particular
use
in
the
neighborhoods
and
may
also,
as
I
mentioned,
before,
violate
fair
housing
regulations.
The
zoning
committee
ultimately
voted
to
recommend
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
a
city
council
that
the
regulations
relating
to
the
use
of
residential
care
homes
remain
the
same
so
where
the
use
is
allowed,
who
remain
the
same
and
that
consideration
of
the
text
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance
relating
to
the
distance
requirement
for
residential
care
homes
not
be
recommended
at
this
time.
N
N
Have
not
seen
any
I've
also
been
paying
attention
to
the
city
of
Springfield,
because
they've
had
text
amendments.
Basically
that
have
been
on
their
agenda
for
many
many
months
and
it
keeps
getting
continued
and
I
think
they
are
still
awaiting
a
decision
on
litigation
that
they
are
going
through.
Just.
O
Yeah
I,
don't
so
it's
been
referenced
in
the
packet
that
the
Valencia
case
you
know,
threw
out
for
lack
of
a
better
term
the
distance
requirements
in
the
city
of
Springfield
case
between
the
zoning
zoning
committees
meeting
and
today,
I
had
a
chance
to
to
read
the
opinion
in
that
case,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
the
the
case
involves
a
reasonable
accommodation
and
doesn't
say
that
the
distance
requirement
in
that
in
the
city
of
Springfield
was
was.
You
know
illegal,
it's
just
that
as
applied
to
the
people
who
were
seeking
a
reasonable
accommodation.
O
O
Springfield
case
I
believe
the
city
of
Springfield
just
said
that
it
violates
the
distance
requirement
and
just
said
no,
where
the
court
and
said
no,
you
were
required
to
consider
a
reasonable
accommodation
and
issued
a
preliminary
injunction,
but
we
understand
that
the
case
is
still
pending.
Okay,.
A
L
L
The
case
in
Springfield
will
be
here
to
do
a
community
meeting,
as
we
asked
for
that,
and
we
asked
our
alderman
Simmons
to
work
with
us
to
have
him
come
since
most
of
those
care
homes
and
things
are
beginning
to
pop
up
in
the
fifth
Ward.
So
the
people
in
the
community
understand
what
is
the
a
care
home?
What
is
the
law
in
everything
so
that
we
know
what
we
are
looking
at?
What
do
we
need
to
fight
for
something?
L
L
J
One
I
have
a
problem
with
text
amendments
because
I
think
it
it
closes
off
the
public
where
the
public
and
I've
heard
it
said
before,
and
I
know
that
there
are
several
text
amendments
that
public
wasn't
involved
in
which
I
think
they
should
be.
As
far
as
this
text
amendment
I'm
totally
confused
care
homes.
What
is
considered
a
special
you
know
a
care
home,
especially
use
for
a
care
home.
J
What
is
as
I
mentioned,
you
don't
want
to
hear
about
the
16
unit,
but
you
know
we
felt
it
should
be
special
use
and
they
said
no,
it's
not
special
use.
Well,
why
not?
You
know
you're
you're,
changing
the
zoning
you're,
changing
the
the
use
of
the
property
from
inclusionary
housing
to
permanent,
supportive
housing.
So
what
is
lit
and
what
I
don't
even
know
like
permanent
supportive
housing
is
listed
you're
talking
about
care
homes.
What
type
of
in
that
particular
building
is
what
type
of
care
are
you
giving
to
those
people?
So
it's
very
confusing.
A
A
J
A
S
A
Okay,
I
do
not
want
to
hear
about
this.
Other
issue.
I
know
that
this
is
simply
about
residential
care
units,
whether
they
should
become
a
whether
whether
they
should
be
changed
from
a
by
right
development
to
a
special
use,
residential
care
units
and
and
whether
there
should
be
a
modifications
to
the
distance
requirements
between
those
units.
Okay,
so.
J
A
P
J
A
J
A
So
I
think
we've
gone
through
so
do
we
have
any
questions
of
that?
We
don't
obviously
have
any
questions
of
the
of
the
people
who
have
publicly
commented,
so
so
at
this
time,
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
to
two.
If
you
have
any
comment
that
you
would
like
to
add
miss
Esther,
would
you
like
to
add
any
any
comment
to
your
or
have
you
done
her
or
did
you
comment?
Was
your
your
questioning
was
accountant
was
a
statement
before
so
it's
I
think
it
was
fairly
clear.
So.
L
Does
this
really
need
to
be
changed
to
address
the
current
laws
and
things
about
fair
housing
and
stuff,
and
also
look
at
the
distance,
and
maybe
we
can
find
a
true
answer
as
to
if
they
are
six
hundred
feet
apart?
Will
there
be
an
impact
and
not
say?
Well,
we
are
not
sure
people
are
looking
for
a
finite
answer.
L
L
So
now
it's
a
chance
and
we
are
having
you're
looking
at
this
here.
We
can
have
this
chance
an
opportunity
to
look
at
this
because,
all
of
a
sudden
back
from
2005,
we
had
quite
a
few
tear
homes
that
came
into
the
neighborhood.
So
we
would
like
to
address
it
and
want
to
be
fair
with
the
people
that
are
buying
these
home
to
care
for
the
people,
but
we
need
to
understand
what
we're
dealing.
L
A
O
Corporation
counsel,
just
for
confirmation
and
clarification,
no
matter
what
our
ordinance
ordinances
say
about
residential
care
homes.
Is
it
true
that,
should
someone
make
an
application
for
a
residential
care
home
that
would
otherwise
be
impermissible
by
ordinance,
no
matter
how
strict
or
how
lacks
our
ordinances
are
that
the
city
would
still
have
to
consider
and
where
appropriate,
make
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
the
applicant
for
a
residential
care
home.
T
P
T
A
Q
Sure
just
wanted
to
raise
that
this
was
brought
up
at
the
committee
meeting
that
I
was
at
and
though
these
people
weren't
are
not
here
tonight.
One
of
the
items
that
was
raised
was
that
there's
currently
a
shortage
of
care
homes
and
that
most
of
them
occur
in
existing
buildings,
and
this
amendment
would
mean
that
it'd
be
really
difficult
for
existing.
You
have
to
in
the
buying
process.
Q
Q
Q
A
Any
other
question
or
comments,
I,
think
I,
think
the
deliberations
I
think
there
should
be
at
least
some
comment.
Verification
for
the
record
here
that
that
the
distance
requirement
is
is
got.
Some
is
not
really
settled,
I
mean,
although
it's
good
good
policy
to
and
agreed
to
by,
both
the
residential
care
people
who
were
testifying
that
it
helps
to
alleviate
the
problem
of
clustering.
These
these
kinds
of
developments
it
it
also
also
there
is
no.
A
So
as
far
as
the
as
far
as
the
special
use,
I
think
the
biggest
the
biggest
concern
and
and
yes,
the
the
residential
care
home
people
who
testified
at
the
committee
meeting
are
not
here.
They
did
express
a
concern
that
their
budgets
are
very
tight
and
that
that
it's
very
hard
to
buy,
to
buy
housing,
to
buy
housing
and
then
wait
for
it
to
become
to
become
a
special
approved
as
a
special
use
and
in
which
case,
if
they
don't
require
it,
don't
get
the
special
use
permit.
A
Then
there
then
they,
then
they
have
property,
that
they
can't
do
anything
with
I
think
there
was
concern
that
some
of
these
that
they
tend
to
tend
to
look.
Look
it
end
up
in
neighborhoods
where
the
housing
is
affordable
and
that
that
that
they
move
into
those
kinds
of
areas
was
was
of
some.
Some
concern
to
people
but
I
think
the
last
issue
that
was
kind
of
brought
up
up
is
that
it's
that
it
was
being
that
the
housing
of
this
type
is
for.
A
You
know
why
are
these
people
any
different
than
anyone
else
from
my
civil
rights
point
of
view,
and
there
was
not
much
ability
to
say
that
that
they're
right
shouldn't
be
the
right
of
any
other
person's
own
property
and
to
have
it
inhabit
property.
So
I
think
the
recommendation
again
was
to
was
to
recommend
not
to
change
the
the.
A
C
A
C
R
To
thank
you,
miss
Esther
for
letting
us
know
about
the
meeting,
you're
holding
and
I
think
it
is
important
where
the
community
feeling
like
it's
being
over
impacted
by
this
kind
of
home
and
I'm
glad
you're
gonna
have
a
discussion
with
the
whole
community
and
all
them
in
sevens
and
again.
If
we
pass
this
proposal
tonight,
it
means
we
will
not
be
making
any
changes
to
what
exists
already.
A
R
T
E
S
A
So
or
the
other
way
to
do
it
is
to
is
to
is,
to
vote
no
on
the
proposed
language
adjustments
to
write
just
so,
we
would,
we
would
say
we
would
say,
I'd
motion
to
to
approve
the
changing
of
the
special
use
in
category
one
for
the
language
to
residential
care
homes,
to
be
special
use
and
category
two
to
be
special.
You
know
as
that
and
and
that,
and
that
the
distance
requirement
become
the
change
to.
N
A
E
A
A
T
A
H
F
A
A
A
N
A
N
A
I
think
we
have
to
go
back
so
so,
let's
go
one
by
one.
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives,
policies
and
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
is
adopted
and
then
from
time
to
time
by
the
City
Council,
so
I'm
not
familiar
with
with
with
the
civil
right.
So
it
says
I
would
say.
C
A
A
A
A
O
C
A
It's
all
this
backward
backward
stuff.
Okay,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.
I
think
there
was
evidence
presented
at
in
this
last
last
article.
That
was
that
there
were
several
studies.
Five
I
forget
multiple
studies.
What
was
at
the
annex.