►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 11/14/2018
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
B
A
A
C
Good
evening,
commissioner
and
everyone
who's
in
attendance,
this
particular
text
amendment
is
brought
to
us
through
an
automatic
referral.
Just
a
quick
background.
Our
residential
care
homes
are
broken
into
two
different
categories.
We
define
a
residential
care
home
category
one
as
a
dwelling
unit
shared
by
four
to
eight
unrelated
persons,
exclusive
of
staff,
require
assistance,
and/or
supervision
and
who
reside
together
in
a
family
type
environment
as
a
single
housekeeping
unit
residential
care
homes.
C
Category
one
shall
not
include
a
home
for
persons
who
are
currently
addicted
to
alcohol
or
narcotic
drugs
or
our
criminal
offenders
serving
on
a
work
release
or
probationary
programs
residential
care
homes.
Category
two
are
essentially
the
same
definition
except
the
number
of
permitted
persons
in
that
particular
residence
would
be
between
nine
and
fifteen
unrelated
persons.
C
C
A
category
two
residential
homes,
on
the
other
hand,
are
permitted
by
rights
in
the
R
4
R,
5,
r,
6
d,
1
mu,
and
it
makes
a
zoning
districts
by
right
and
are
especially
used
in
the
R
1
R
2
R
3
B
1,
B,
2,
B,
3,
C,
1,
a
d2,
d3,
d4
and
mu
e
districts.
Now
all
of
our
residential
care
homes
are
required
to
be
licensed
by
the
state
of
Illinois
Department
of
Human
Services,
as
well
as
by
the
city
through
our
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services.
C
They
also
must
be
a
minimum
of
900
feet
from
any
other
residential
care,
home
child
residential
care,
home
or
transitional
treatment
facility.
So
the
proposed
text
amendments
which
is
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
is
to
make
our
residential
care
homes
a
special
use.
This
would
be
for
both
category
1
and
category
2.
C
So
I
can
put
it
back
up
if
there
any
other
questions
about
that.
So
staff
did
do
some
research.
We
looked
at
comparable
cities
and
found
that
most
municipalities
that
have
a
group
home
use
of
a
similar
size
allow
them
in
their
residential
districts
by
right
and
have
similar
regulations
to
Evanston.
They
also
have
distance
requirements
which
range
from
600
to
1320
feet.
C
From
a
federal
perspective,
we
have
the
fair
housing,
Amendments,
Act
or
FHA
of
1988.
This
requires
communities
to
make
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
give
people
with
disabilities
and
go
right
to
housing
and
prohibits
communities
from
imposing
additional
barriers
to
community
residents
for
people
with
disabilities.
C
This
rule
was
further
adjusted
earlier
this
year
with
the
new
administration,
which
essentially
delayed
compliance
with
the
deadlines
a
little
bit
closer
to
home
in
Springfield
Illinois.
There
was
a
case
which
actually
challenged
that
city's
600
foot
distance
requirement
for
their
family
care,
residential
use,
which
actually
allows
up
to
six
unrelated
residents.
The
court
in
that
case
issued
a
preliminary
injunction
against
bring
field
in
August
of
last
year
and
that
ruling
was
upheld
by
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Seventh
Circuit
in
March
of
this
year.
A
A
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Well,
thank
you,
chair
Luis
and
the
rest
of
the
committee
for
allowing
me
to
come
and
speak
with
you
tonight.
I
just
wanted
to
explain
that
the
reason
why
I'm
here
tonight,
what
what
I
think
we're
struggling
with
is
the
decision
on
the
Valencia
V
Springfield
issue,
which
is
the
question
about
distance
requirement
between
route
palms,
no
one's
trying
to
eliminate
group
homes
and
make
them
harder
or
disparage
them
in
any
way
were
we
welcome
end
them
in
the
community
they're.
D
That
they've
had
some
experience
with
I.
Don't
know
whether
that's
that's
what
happened
here,
but
I
do
know
that
it's
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
get
out
in
front
of
this
issue
and
if
we're
going
to
have
a
distance
requirement
justify
it
so
that
there
is
a
record
of
why
we
have
one
and
how
important
that
is
to
the
community
and
I've
spoken
with
some
other
aldermen.
We
all
have
various
reasons
among
them.
Are
preservation
of
affordable
housing.
D
Integration
into
the
community
I
feel
very
strongly
I'm.
A
big
supporter
of
girls,
whole
boys,
hope
and
I
feel
very
strongly
that
it's
important
to
integrate
group
homes
into
neighborhoods
in
the
community.
The
article
that
what
you
were
presented
with
in
your
packet
was
really
interesting.
I
hope
you
all
had
a
chance
to
read
it
because
there
they
talked
about.
Maybe
future
decisions
are
could
be
based
on
the
idea
of
possibly
grouping
group
homes
around
transportation.
D
I
have
no
opinion
on
that,
but
I
do
think
that
this
is
definitely
time
for
us
to
to
study
this
issue
so
I'm
not
looking
for
you
to
make
a
decision
right
now.
What
I'm
looking
for
is
your
expertise
and
where
we're
at
where
we
want
to
go,
how
we're
going
to
defend
our
positions,
and
so
there
are
two
things
I'm
asking
it
for.
D
So
that's
that's
my
reason
for
turning
to
you,
you
guys
are
the
experts
you'll
recommend
to
City
Council
I
I
I,
encourage
you
to
take
this
on
as
a
as
a
task.
I,
don't
know
whether
the
proper
place
is
your
zoning
subcommittee
or
how
you
want
to
handle
that
that's
entirely
up
to
you.
There
are
people
who
have
an
interest
in
this
who,
unfortunately,
could
not
be
here
tonight
and
I
would
love
them
to
come
in
and
speak
with
you
in
the
future.
D
The
map
for
residential
care
homes
does
not
include
the
ones
in
my
ward,
so
there's
one
operating
now.
There's
another
property.
That's
been
acquired,
there's
a
third
property
same
user
that
has
expressed
an
interest
in
leasing
that
property.
There
are
probably
two
other
users
who
are
coming
in
so
this
is.
This
is
important
to
I
think
get
out
in
front
of,
but
again,
thank
you
for
your
attention
to
this
I
appreciate
it
very
much
again.
As
you
can
see,
the
group
homes
are
pretty
much
in
four
of
our
wards.
D
E
Good
evening,
I'm
sue
Lobeck
I'm
with
connections
for
the
homeless
here
in
Evanston
and
head
up,
a
coalition
of
Human
Services
agencies
and
individuals
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing
and
I
really
appreciate
alderman
Fisk's
explanation
really
of
why
this
question
is
coming
before
you
tonight,
I
I
think
I
can
say
safely
say
that
joining
forces
has
no
issue
with
looking
at
the
distance
requirement.
I
think
that's!
You
know
something
that,
should
you
know
if
that's
of
concern,
you
should
definitely
be
looked
at.
E
One
of
the
things
that
the
affordable
housing
steering
committee
that
was
just
appointed
as
going
to
have
to
be
looking
at
is
our
overall
zoning
and
where
and
how
that
might
be,
either
making
the
creation
of
new,
affordable
housing,
more
expensive,
slower,
more
controversial,
more
difficult,
and
our
concern
with
making
this
a
special
use
is
that
it
would
be
going
in
the
wrong
direction
in
terms
of
really
encouraging
various
types
of
affordable
housing.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
F
G
G
D
City
of
Springfield
apparently
did
not
have
a
justification
why
they
had
their
600
foot
distance
requirement
and
I'm
just
concerned
that,
within
our
ordinance
and
also
our
supporting
documents,
we
really
need
to
say
why
we
have
like
in
the
again
in
the
article
that
was
in
your
packet.
I
thought
it
talked
really
really
well
about
how
we
need
to
sort
of
double
back
and
look
at
these
things
that
were
in
a
slightly
different
position
than
we
were
some
years
ago.
And
so
we
really
need
to
to
demonstrate
that
we've.
A
D
A
H
A
C
We
do
have
the
the
distance
requirement
already
I
mean.
Essentially
today
we
for
staff
was
presenting
the
information
that
exists
currently
in
our
regulations,
as
well
as
for
other
municipalities,
federal
guidelines,
state
issues
and
having
the
Commission
have
a
discussion
regarding
whether
or
not
we
do
need
to
make
changes
to
how
this
use
is
regulated,
I
mean
so
there
could
be
different
suggestions
that
the
Commission
has
regarding
increasing
decreasing
the
distance
requirement
or
adding
regulations.
A
If
I
can
ask
so
the
the
Springfield
decision
basically
said
that
that
the
that
regulating
the
density
or
the
distance
separation
of
these
was
illegal,
and
that
is
what
alderman
Fisk
is
is
saying
that
we
need
to.
If
we
have
900
feet,
we
have
to
have
a
reason
why
900
feet
is
an
is,
it
is
a
number
or
if
there,
if
you
need
a
number,
is
that
essentially.
C
With
the
Springfield
case,
we,
the
main
issue,
was
you've,
got
this
distance
requirement
for
a
particular
number
of
people
under
this
use.
But
if
the
people
that
were
not
in
that
particular
home
did
not
have
those
disabilities
but
were
essentially
the
same
folks
and
unrelated,
they
would
still
be
able
to
operate
in
that
particular
location
with
no
issues.
So
that's
I
think
where
the
Springfield
ended
up
having
problems
with
their
distance
requirement.
A
C
Related
right,
they
ended
up
violating
the
distance
requirement
because
they
were
essentially
across
the
street
from
another
use,
but
as
part
of
their
reasoning,
they
stated
that
you
know.
If
the
residents
within
this
particular
house
did
not
have
the
disabilities,
they
would
be
able
to
operate
with
no
regulations
whatsoever.
So
that's
part
of
what
I
think
tripped
up
Springfield
in
there
and
trying
to
enforce
so.
A
B
F
A
F
I
D
I
know
I
only
mentioned
that
I
had
a
traditional,
a
transitional
treatment
facility
in
my
ward,
with
less
than
four
people
actually
with
three
people,
and
the
reason
why
it's
unregulated
is
that
then
they
defaulted
to
the
three
unrelated
rule.
Now
that
rule
may
change,
I
mean
that's
one
of
the
things
we've
been
talking
about
in
terms
of
formal
housing,
whether
way
you
increase
that
or
not,
but
that
really
shouldn't
be
part
of
the
regulations
for
the
Baum's
understood.
I
A
I
D
Been
there
for
a
while,
the
Rimland
facilities
are
mainly
in
the
fifth
Ward,
okay,
so
alderman
Holmes
and
alderman
druh
Simmons
are
certainly
aware
of
them,
and
but
in
my
ward,
it's
relatively
new
and
and
different.
The
the
the
operator
in
my
ward
is
for-profit
rather
than
not-for-profit,
there's
an
incredible
amount
of
money
to
be
made
by
operating
these
facilities,
million-dollar
houses
are
purchased
for
them.
That's
not
it's
not
even
relevant
to
what
you
know
we're
talking
about,
but
it
does
it
does.
D
It
does
create
the
question
of
how
this
is
how
this
is
operating
and
I
think
it
came
to
a
head
when
a
particular
a
the
operator
had
wanted
to
operate
a
facility
at
a
certain
address
that
was
within
900
feet
of
a
girl's,
hole,
boys,
hope
and
was
turned
down
by
the
city
and
then
came
back
and
said:
okay.
Well,
we're
only
going
to
have
three
people
living
in
so
therefore
were
under
the
three
unrelated.
Well,
that's
that
creates
the
problem
of
supervision
treatment.
D
D
I
I
Some,
but
right
so.
D
I
D
I
I
don't
really
want
to
single
out
any
one.
Particular
user
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
fair
to
everyone
and
we're
hand
and
I
don't
want
it
to
sound
reactive
because
it
isn't
that's
not
the
way.
My
thinking
goes,
but
I
see
this
as
a
as
an
issue
that
affects
us
across
the
board
and
and
I
think
in
all
fairness,
I
mean
who
would
pick
up
on
this
immediately
if
we
were
straying
too
far
afield
but
I
do
think.
The
distance
requirement
is
something
that
we
have
to.
D
I
Thank
you,
I
had
one
more
question
for
for
staff,
and
that
is,
there
is
I,
guess
everyone's
referencing
a
preliminary
injunction
and
a
and
the
Seventh
Circuit
7th
Court
of
Seventh
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
upheld
the
preliminary
injunction.
Do
we
know
whether
the
whether
the
case
has
completed
and
and
they
were
ultimately
like,
the
plaintiff
was
ultimately
victorious?
I
D
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
but
I
live
with
several
of
them
self,
and
the
staff
will
have
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
this,
but
I
believe
that
the
city
of
Springfield
chose
not
to
appeal
because
of
the
cost
and
that
it
that
it
is
going
to
change
the
zoning
ordinance
to
eliminate
distance
requirements.
Okay,
fortunately,.
A
E
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless.
We
have
an
advocacy
program
that
I
head
up
and
one
of
the
things
our
program
has
done
is
started.
A
coalition
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing,
which
includes
about
30,
Human,
Services
agencies,
several
communities
of
faith
and
several
hundred
individuals.
Okay,.
E
A
G
G
I,
just
does
anyone
know
the
origin
or
the
reason
behind
900
feet
as
opposed
to
600
feet?
Is
there.
H
C
A
G
C
G
J
Eddie
I'm,
not
speaking
for
the
organization
I'm
part
of
I'm
part
of
Center
for
independent
futures,
which
provides
support
to
individuals
with
disabilities
that
live
in
Evanston
and
up
the
North
Shore
and
in
Chicago,
but
I'm,
not
speaking
for
that
organization.
What
I
would
tell
you
is
that
there
is
a
rule
around
the
kinds
of
housing
that
you're
talking
about
in
terms
of
how
close
they
can
be
together.
So
when
people
receive
funding,
then-
and
a
licensed
agency
opens
one
of
these-
it
must
be
a
certain
number
of
feet
apart
from
another
licensed
home.
J
So
there
is
a
state
rule
and
I
was
looking
up
to
try
to
find
the
number
of
feet.
So
I
could
tell
you
what
it
is
most
likely.
These
other
municipalities
are
creating
their
rules
around
the
feet
apart.
They
should
be
to
make
sure
they're
meeting
the
regulations
for
the
funding
of
these
homes
as
well.
So.
J
A
A
We
can,
to
you,
know,
modify
it
or
and
recommend
it
be
passed
or
or
we
can
I
believe
we
can
ask,
ask
either
either
refer
it
to
a
sub
subcommittee,
am
I
going
to
too
far
away
to
or
and/or
ask
well,
I
think,
probably
the
subcommittee's.
You
know
the
I
think
the
staff
has
done
as
much
as
they
can
right
now
for
for
it
until
we
get
any
deeper
into
it.
I
K
I
A
We
have
someone
else
who
is
come
all
right,
oh
okay,
so
would
you
like
to?
Would
you
like
to
provide
any
statement?
I
think
we're
gonna
be
fairly
informal
about
this.
You
were
promised
to
maybe
attend
and
maybe
help
us
understand
a
little
bit
about
so
so
so,
if
you
come,
I
I
need
to
do
two
things.
I
need
to
once
where
you
in
okay.
So
do
you
promise
to
tell
the
truth,
okay
and
then
to
ask
you
to
step
to
the
microphone
and
to
state
your
name
and
your
position
and
then
okay.
L
I'm
Carolyn
Kiel
from
Rimland
services
here
in
Evanston,
I'm,
the
executive
director
and
we
support
adults
with
autism.
We
currently
have
almost
13
while
we're
finishing
renovations
on
the
13th
home
here
in
Evanston,
group-home,
single-family
Cilla's
for
adults
with
autism,
and
we've
been
here
since
1971.
L
So
we
just
you
know
recently
found
out
about
the
proposed
plan
and
we
came
to
hear
more
about
it
and
just
get
involved
and
get
a
little
more
input
since
you
know
we're
just
trying
to
make
community
housing
for
adults
with
autism,
so
they
can
be
part
of
the
community
and
also
you
know
it's.
We
worked
with
the
city
for
a
long
time
should
do
so
and
I
think
everything
you
know
we
always
follow
what
we
should
and
it
usually
goes
pretty
smoothly.
A
L
L
L
And
you
know
we
always
of
course
in
Evanston.
You
know
we
try
to
space
them
out.
There's
we
are
governed
by
the
Department
of
Human
Services.
So
there's
a
certain
and
I
know.
Evanston
has
a
certain
zoning
to
where
you
can't
have
too
many
homes
for
people.
You
know
unrelated
people
living
together
close
to
each
other,
so
we
follow
those
ordinances.
L
L
We
all
together
right
now
we
support
a
hundred,
but
that's
so
we
have
13
homes
in
Evanston
and
then
we
have
two
in
DesPlaines
one
in
Maywood,
one
in
Highland
Park,
one
in
Lake,
Zurich
and
one
amount
prospect.
So
we
have
also
our
developmental
training
program
is
here
it's
on
Hart
tree
and
Dempster,
and
a
lot
of
our
leadership
lives
in
the
area.
So
it's
and
since
for
the
individuals
to
come
to
our
day
program
and
since
we
know
a
lot
of
the
Evanston
first
responders.
It's
that's
why
we
choose
Evanston
mm-hmm.
B
L
L
Over
always
100
individuals,
but
the
homes
are
two
individuals
to
eight,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
home
and
be
just
the
nature
of
the
individuals
behavior
and
their
needs.
So
we
have
a
few.
In
Evanston
we
have
two
eight-person
homes,
that's
our
largest,
and
then
we
have
two
two-person
homes
as
our
smallest
and
then
in
between
there.
A
A
A
G
Can
I
make
one
more
comment?
Please
yeah
I'm,
just
yeah
I
mean:
should
it
be
our
goal?
I
mean
I,
don't
like
the
notion
of
just
kind
of
kicking
the
can
and
saying.
Okay,
we're
just
gonna
make
this
all
special
use
and
we'll
we'll
deal
with
it.
When
you
know,
as
these
issues
come
up,
I
do
I.
I
would
like
to
have.
G
G
You
know
these
facilities,
which
are
incredibly
important,
I'm
wondering
if
in
some
way
you
know-
maybe
it
is
a
subcommittee
and
I
think
that's
a
good
idea
because
it
does
need.
You
know
in-depth
analysis,
but
I
I
can
see
how
the
distance
is
a
value
that
we
don't
by
default.
We
don't
want
to
have
clusters
or
you
know,
a
block
of
of
the
homes
that
are
serving
people
with
with
needs,
whether
whatever
those
needs
might
be.
G
It's
not
good
for
those
residents,
and
it's
not
you
know
it
just
may
I,
just
don't
think
it
makes
a
good
it's
it's,
not
good
planning,
but
is
there
a
way
you
know
in
in
this
discussion?
As
you
know,
can
we
ask
that
the
goal
be
you
know?
Maybe
it
is
maybe
they
do
end
up
as
a
special
use?
I
don't
know,
but
can
that
can
the
goal
be
to
have
to
redefine
the
zoning
ordinance
so
that
there's
clarity
to
not
get
hung
up
on
the
Springfield
trap?
G
K
My
right
and
something
about
this,
it's
an
extra
burden
to
apply
for
special
use
for
these
not-for-profits
versus
the
possibility
of
legal
scrutiny
if
we
have
the
900
foot
requirements
and
that
by
moving
the
zoning
just
moving
it
to
special
use
permitting.
We
could
therefore
justify
the
900
feet.
Is
that
you're
trying
to
protect
the
900
feet
right
and
not.
A
K
A
I,
don't
know
if
yeah
so
so
yeah
I,
you
know,
took
my
my
personal
opinion
is:
is
I,
don't
even
know
if
it's
a
problem,
I
I,
you
know
people
with
disabilities,
I
I
happen
to
have
a
stepson
who
is
in
a
home?
Who
is
autistic
and
I?
Don't
think
their?
You
know,
their
exclusion
or
being
even
thought
of
separately
in
the
zoning
ordinance
is
maybe
even
warranted
or
justified.
A
It's
a
it's
an
exclusionary
thing,
so
I
think
there's
a
much
even
much
more
basic
discussion
that
has
to
happen.
In
my
opinion,
three
people
living
together
if
it's
by
right
is
by
right.
It
doesn't
matter
if
they
have
disabilities
or
not
so
so
so
to
change
the
ordinance.
You
know,
I
I
think
it
would
I
would
see
hope
to
see
a
lot
more
discussion
about
about
the
different
facets
of
this
of
this
I'm
also
hesitant
to
do
any
cluster
zoning,
because
I
believe
in
the
market
determining
determining
where
things
happen.
A
Even
when
it
comes
to
people
you
know
it
just
just
did
need
need
is
where
it
is
so
so
anyway,
I
I.
Think
in
my
opinion,
the
the
issue
warrants
a
lot
more
discussion
and,
if
we're
willing
to
take
it
on
I,
think
that's
the
that's.
The
question
and
I
would
hope
if
we
referred
it
to
a
subcommittee
that
we
could
get
some
get
some
participation
and
I
don't
know
how
that
would
happen.
Staff
from
from
various
various
people
of
different
interest,
including
the
aldermen,
including
you,
know,
organizations
that
could
freely
help.
A
A
H
A
A
A
G
A
F
Good
evening,
chair
Lewis
when
commissioners,
this
next
item
was
also
referral
from
the
City
Council.
It's
an
item
spawn
a
couple
of
genders
over
the
last
year
or
so
at
the
planning,
Development
Committee
and
the
City
Council
dealing
with
public
benefits
related
to
plan
developments.
So
the
current
ordinance
zoning
ordinance
lists
nine
public
benefits
that
may
be
included
as
part
of
a
planned
development.
However,
it
does
typically
they're
not
limited
to
those
nine.
F
These
are
kind
of
broad
categories
at
this
point
and
there's
been
some
discussion
of
whether
they're,
applicable
or
relevant,
or
whether
we
should
be
looking
to
change
regulations
to
provide
more
specificity
for
public
benefits.
So
it
was
referred
to
the
plan
commission.
This
was
just
a
couple
weeks
ago,
so
it
was
actually
not
notice
for
action
tonight.
F
Additionally,
there
was
some
broader
discussion
of
kind
of
whether
we
should
have
a
different
system
of
public
benefits
at
this
point,
they're
more
or
less
negotiated
on
a
project-by-project
basis,
specific
to
the
project
and
its
location
and
its
its
impacts.
But
there
are
other
options
out
there
to
do
something
more
prescriptive
where
for
X
amount
of
Hyatt
or
FA
are
or
something
like
that,
there's
Y
amount
of
public
benefit,
so
that
was
presented
as
incentive.
F
Zoning
is
one
type
of
system
to
the
City
Council
and
then
another
type
of
system
that
the
city
Chicago
has
recently
implemented
when
they
moved
away
from
incentive
zoning
and
in
their
downtown
to
do
the
neighborhood
Opportunity
Program
there.
So
that
was
another
another
option.
So
these
were
all
presented
to
the
City
Council.
They
felt
that
it
was
best
to
send
it
to
the
experts
to
deal
with
the
planned
developments
more
thoroughly
in
the
plan
Commission.
So
that
was
the
referral.
F
The
discussion
at
the
City
Council
level
was
more
in
lines
with
looking
at
the
existing
public
benefits
that
have
been
included
in
development
and
trying
to
sort
of
clarify
that
list
and
winnow
down
that
list,
and
they
may
find
public
benefits
that
they
feel
or
most
appropriate.
So
that's,
that's
kind
of
where
the
discussions
been
so
far.
So
I
want
to
catch
up
a
little
bit
on
where
that
is
and
then
get
your
your
thoughts
on
how
we
should
proceed.
A
F
We
do
get
questions
that
come
up
on
developments,
sort
of
what
what
is
an
appropriate
public
benefit,
and
then
you
know
it's
stated.
We
can
point
to
the
ordinance
right
now,
however,
that
that
doesn't
line
up
all
that
closely
with
with
a
lot
of
the
plasticine,
the
types
of
public
benefits
that
applicants
have
been
been
suggesting
and
that
have
been
approved
as
part
of
ordinances.
F
A
So
so,
and
so
when
I
look
at
the
items
a
through
I,
they
seem
fairly
fairly
broad
and
maybe
vague
and
so
and
then
and
then
I
would
look
at
something
like
the
traditional
incentive
zoning
that
the
Chicago
used
to
have
where
it
was
very
codified.
You
provided
this
much
setback.
You've
got
this
much
increase
in
FA
are
or
whatever
is
maybe
the
other
extreme
of
the
of
the
realm,
and
so
so
is
this
really
to
Sica
of
you
know?
Are
we
really
being
asked?
The
question
is:
do
we
want
to.
A
Do
we
want
to
redo
the
make
redo?
The
entire?
Are
we
being
asked
if
tis
in
entire
incentives
for
the
zoning
ordinance
should
be
potentially
redrafted
or
or
simply
taking
the
section
for
the
incentives
and
maybe
adding
a
little
more
clarity
to
what
is
in
the
public
benefit
for
the
for
the
city
of
Evanston?
Is
it
I
think.
F
They're
both
options
more
of
the
discussion
at
the
City
Council
level,
and-
and
it
was
you
know,
a
more
abbreviated
discussion
because
it
was
actually
on
the
last
meeting
where
they
more
were
focused
on
affordable
housing
issues.
So
a
lot
on
their
plates
I
think
they
did
make
that
referral.
But
it
was
more
focused
on
kind
of
which,
in
this
list,
aldermen
felt
were
substantial.
Public
benefits
that
the
city
should
be
requesting
and
in
which
maybe
didn't
seem
to
be
as
great
of
public
benefits.
So.
E
F
Is
something
we
should
be
looking
for
is
a
public
benefit.
Whether
transit
tracking
board
is,
is
a
public
benefit.
We
should
be
seeking
from
developers
more
in
the
specifics
of
what's
provided
and
then
also.
There
was
some
discussion
about
how
geographically
those
public
benefits
could
be
provided,
and
we
did
have
some
legal
counsel
that
they
should
be
specific
to
the
area
where
the
development
is
where
some
aldermen
had
we're
seeking
to
maybe
extend
that
area
to
other
parts
of
the
city
than
where
we
typically
see
development,
but
which.
A
F
Is
and
that's
a
very
different
system,
so
it's
it's
where
it's
set
up,
there's
sort
of
a
maximum
fer
and
in
Chicago
with
plan
development,
see
you
really
can't
seek
a
development
allowance
for
fer.
It's
a
firm
limit
there.
So
this
then
allows
in
certain
areas
for
developers
to
essentially
purchase
additional
fer
and
then
the
funding
for
that
goes
in
that
neighborhood,
Opportunity
Fund
and
it
set
out
how
that's
used
and
where
that
can
be
used
within
the
city,
so
it
that
would
that
option
would
be
creating
sort
of
a
new
system
in
Evanston.
I
I'm
wondering
if
staff
has
reached
out
to
their
counterparts
in
neighboring
municipalities
about
what
incentives
in
practice
there
they've
been
requesting
and
getting,
and
whether
any
anything
that
other
municipalities
are
are
negotiating
with
developers
is
different
than
what
we
have
as
our
list
here
of
what
you
know
we
normally
see
coming
to
the
pipeline.
That's.
F
A
A
It's
a
seems
like
a
very
big,
very
big
topic,
but
just
for
the
record
I
think
staff
has
done
a
done,
a
good
job
of
getting
getting
benefits
out
of
developers
for
the
city
of
Evanston.
So,
although
I
understand
the
issues
of
clarity
for
developments
and
for
developers
and
and
and
for
you
to
enforce
certain
things
is
probably
probably
very
desirable.
I
The
flexibility
that
the
way
it's
currently
written
that
it
gives
staff
while
it
may
may
be
a
burden
at
times,
because
it
requires
you
to
have
I,
guess
more
in-depth
discussions
with
developers
about
what
they're
bringing
to
the
table
with
respect
to
a
planned
development.
The
flexibility
allows
the
language
allows
you
to
be
flexible
as
to
what
you're,
looking
for
and
as
as
the
city
changes
year
by
year.
I
What
you're
looking
for
will
change
here
by
year
and
I
guess
I
would
be
concerned
that
if
we
got
too
granular
that
we
would
find
out
that
you'd
be
back
here,
more
often
or
we'd
be
leaving
potential
public
benefits
on
the
table
and
not
getting
them,
because
we
had
sort
of
boxed
ourselves
in
with
something
that
didn't
really
reflect
all
right
that
wasn't
flexible
enough
to
reflect
what
we
needed
at
the
time
that
development
was
proposed.
Well,.
A
You
know
so
so
I
think.
If
you
read
closely
these
items
a
through
I,
many
of
them
are
are
not
necessarily
what
I
would
consider
benefits
that
align
with
what
we
would
consider
benefits
such
as
eliminated
elimination
of
the
blighted
structures,
it's
in
the
nature
of
doing
a
project
to
do
that
right
to
eliminate
the
blighted
structure,
so
I
know
I
I,
don't
know.
If
that's
you
know
big
deal.
So
why
is
that
a
benefit?
A
A
I,
don't
know
what
planned
developments
yeah,
yeah
yeah
I
some
of
these
I'm,
you
know,
I,
don't
see
many
of
these
as
having
much
to
thin
them
and
so
I'm.
You
know
wondering
if
I
I
think
there's
probably
room
here
to
have
you
know
more
substantial,
more
substantial
benefits
and
what
those
benefits
are
you
know
are:
maybe
not
something
that
that
we
would
know,
that's
more
something
that
that
people
who
have
been
actually
doing
the
on-the-ground
planning
of
the
city
have
you
is
there
been
any
I
mean
you
know
there?
A
There
have
been
planning
studies
that
talk
about
talk
about
the
you
know
the.
What
are
what
are
the
goals
that
that
are
what
what
are
the
main?
What
are
the
main
things?
Do
you
have
suggestions
of
what
our
prime
benefits
that
could
be
could
be
more
targeted
than
some
of
these,
and
I
mean
it
used
to
be
planning
standards,
we're
more
open
space
or
more
continuity
of
street-front
if
you're
by
another
kind
of
planning.
G
A
H
G
A
Yeah
I
guess
I
would
say
instead
of
actually
these
specific
things,
some
of
them
have
to
do
with
enhance
the
nature
of
public
transportation
and
the
limiting
of
you
know
so,
clump
it
into
more,
like
those
kinds
of
groups
of
which
a
divvy
station
of
which
you
know
would
would
fall
into
as
a
specific
solution
to
a
goal.
But
but
I
think
the
goals
that
are
you
know
are
are
here,
maybe
need
a
little
bit
of
revision
and
I.
F
G
A
F
A
So
so,
what
are?
What
are
our
choices?
Can
we
ask
you
to
report
back
to
the
plan
Commission
with?
Can
we
ask
you
to
do
a
study
of
how
what
you
might
be
specific
benefits
that
would
you
know
or
more
general
categories,
look
into
that
and
then
present
it
back
to
us,
or
should
we
go
to
the
committee
or
what
would
be
the
best
way.
H
C
A
So
so,
car
sharing
car
sharing
provisions,
public
bike,
parking,
divvy
station
sponsorship,
all
have
to
do
with
the
reduction
of
traffic
and
I
think
so
so
clumping
those
into
something
like
a
goal
like
reduce
the
impact
of
automobile
congestion
on
the
you
know
downtown
of
something
so
that
kind
of
a
statement
in
different
categories.
That's
an
easy
one
for
me
to
grab
because
you
know,
but
but
there
could
be
other.
You
know,
places
environmental
things
that
reduce
the
impact
of
buildings
on
you
know,
vegetation
and
and
fauna
fur
fauna.
A
K
A
A
Let's
so,
let's
ask
staff
to
come
up
come
together
with
that
kind
of
present
it
back
for
a
little
more
focused,
get
your
planner
hats
on
and
I.
G
Mean
is
the
question
being
asked,
though,
do?
Would
we
would
this
body
want
to
see
more
asbestos
asbestos
ippity,
which
I
think
we
do
right?
Instead
of
keeping
it
open
and
let's
see
what
the
market
offers
us,
but
we,
if
we
put
forward
a
list
of
things
of
herb,
specific
items
and
specific
goals
that
reflect
the
value
of
the
community,
we
want
that
I.
I
A
A
A
Well,
I
think:
that's
the
beauty,
the
beauty
of
the
free
market,
so
so,
if
that
direction
is
clear,
are,
is
there
another
motion
that
we
could
have?
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
I'm.
Sorry,
we
have
one
more
thing.
If
that,
if
that
motion
is
that
closed,
everyone
had
their
say
all
right,
so
we
can
open
this
up
for
public
comment.
Is
there
anything
someone?