►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 7-10-2023
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
B
C
F
A
A
quorum
being
present,
we
will
continue
with
our
agenda.
The
next
item
is
item.
M1
approval
of
the
minutes
from
our
last
meeting.
I
will
note
that
one
correction
has
been
made
on
page
seven
of
seven
of
those
minutes.
Item
D1
passed
on
a
six
to
zero
vote
so
that,
with
that
correction
in
in
place,
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
those
minutes
so
moved?
A
Okay?
It's
it's
been
properly
moved
by
council
member
Reed
seconded
by
council
member
Wynn,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
aye
any
opposed
any
abstentions.
The
eyes
have
it.
The
minutes
are
approved,
which
brings
us
to
public
comments.
We
have
three
people
signed
up
online
and
director.
Flax
is
about
to
tell
us
how
many
people
are
signed
up
are
three.
A
H
Right,
thank
you
good
evening.
I'm
Wendy,
Pollock,
I'm,
chair
of
the
environment
board,
speaking
about
P1,
the
environment
board,
urges
planning
and
development
and
city
council
to
join
us
in
supporting
the
proposed
ordinance
to
protect
trees
on
private
property.
In
doing
so,
the
city
will
address
explicitly
stated
recommendations
of
the
2018
climate
action
and
resilience
plan.
H
H
The
environment
board
has
been
discussing
and
considering
this
updated
ordinance
for
actually
longer
than
I'm
sure,
right
now,
probably
three
years
or
longer.
During
that
time,
community
members
providing
public
comment
at
environment
board
meetings
have
spoken
universally
in
favor
of
preventing
healthy
trees
from
being
cut
down
on
private
property.
The
board
has
worked
back
and
forth
with
City
staff
and
members
of
city
council
to
discuss
the
language
provisions
and
trade-offs
reflected
in
the
current
proposed
ordinance.
H
We
also
have
extensively
discussed
and
considered
the
importance
of
equity
in
both
the
wording
and
implementation
of
this
ordinance.
It
meets
the
goals
of
the
environment
board.
Evanston's
Urban
Forest
provides
benefits
to
everyone
in
the
community.
We
all
share
responsibility
hearing
for
this
resource
and
we
help
the
council
will
support
the
ordinance
as
written.
Thank
you.
I
I
Peer-Reviewed
scientific
literature
has
shown
over
and
over
again
that
trees
provide
a
range
of
services
and
benefits,
especially
in
cities.
The
connections
between
trees
and
climate
change
and
between
trees
and
public
health
may
not
be
obvious
to
everyone,
but
there
are
many
proven
connections
when
we
have
record
summer
heat
trees
help
cool
our
homes,
our
cars,
sidewalks
and
public
spaces.
When
we
have
intense
rainstorms
trees,
keep
soil
from
eroding
and
absorb
storm
water.
When
we
have
smoke
from
Canadian,
wildfires
or
other
pollutants,
our
trees
help
clean
the
air.
I
It
is
easy
to
think
of
trees
on
private
property
as
privately
owned,
but
they
are
a
community
resource
that
benefits
everyone.
Removal
of
large,
mature
trees,
in
particular,
eliminates
benefits
and
services
that
cannot
be
replaced
for
decades
by
planting
new
trees,
70
to
80
percent
of
Evanston
Street
canopy
is
on
private
land.
So
it
is
not
enough
to
maintain
trees
along
only
roads
or
on
private
land
on
public
land.
Excuse
me
here
are
my
two
takeaways,
the
urban
Forest
number
one.
I
The
urban
Forest
is
a
collective
resource
that
we
all
rely
on
for
physical
and
mental
health,
improved
property
values,
air
and
water
quality,
storm
water
reduction,
wildlife,
habitat
and
many
other
services,
and
number
two
removing
just
one
mature
tree
eliminates
benefits
that
cannot
be
replaced
for
decades
by
planting
small
trees.
Thank
you.
A
G
Okay,
thank
you
Mr,
chairman
and
committee.
My
name
is
Jack
Weiss
I
live
at
400
Main
Street,
Third,
Ward
and
I
presented
my
full
full
credentials
at
your
June
26th
meeting,
so
I
won't
repeat
them
tonight.
I'm
speaking
as
a
founding
member
and
past
president
of
design,
Evanston
I
spoke
in
support
of
the
community
design
commission
at
the
June
26
meeting
and
I
have
a
few
more
comments
tonight,
specifically
at
writing.
G
Addressing
the
three
questions
asked
of
you
in
Kate
Sterling's
presentation
on
page
two
should
further
development
of
the
framework
for
this
commission.
Wait
until
after
the
commission,
until
the
after
the
comprehensive
General
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
are
adopted,
and
my
answer
to
that
is,
establishment
of
the
new
comprehensive
plan
is
at
least
two
years
in
the
future
too.
G
Should
the
applicability
be
adjusted
to
be
more
specific
and
limit
or
expand
the
types
of
projects
that
fall
under
the
compulsory
review
process,
and
my
answer
is
this
issue
issue
could
be
clarified
and
resolved
by
the
new,
comprehensive
General
plan
and
on
the
question,
and
so
on.
The
question
is
premature.
G
A
J
Good
evening,
everyone
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
I
am
co-chair
of
environmental
justice
Evanston,
along
with
Jerry
ball
on
behalf
of
environmental
justice
Evanston.
We
strongly
support
the
proposed
tree
preservation
ordinance
as
well
as
evanston's,
affordable
housing
goals.
So
we
were
concerned
to
learn
about
the
staff
memo
included
in
your
packet
that
raises
issues
around
potential
negative
impacts
as
a
lifelong
resident
of
the
Fifth
Ward.
A
real
estate
broker
since
1987
and
I
am
currently
one
licensed
environmental
justice.
I
understand
the
housing
crisis.
J
I
know
it
must
be
addressed
by
thoughtful
planning
that
is
consistent
with
all
of
our
environmental
and
climate
goals,
not
by
creating
a
false
conflict
with
the
goals
of
tree
preservation.
Evanston
trees
form
an
interconnected,
Urban
Forest,
whether
on
public
land
or
private
property
that
provides
valuable,
Environmental
Services,
like
approved
air
quality,
cooling,
shade
and
habitat
for
birds
and
other
wildlife
city
planners
should
look
for
solutions
that
can
satisfy
both
goals.
J
The
environmental
justice
advocates
in
Evanston
have
heard
strong
support
for
an
enhanced
tree
canopy
in
the
Fifth
Ward
and
in
other
underserved
areas
in
Evanston.
These
neighborhoods
suffer
from
higher
temperatures
due
to
the
presence
of
fewer
shade
trees,
thriving
in
an
interconnected,
healthy
Urban
Forest.
A
plan
for
sustainable,
fair
housing
that
enhances
both
public
health
and
climate
resilience
will
include
compliance.
J
A
D
Hello,
Trisha
Conley,
second
ward,
I
am
calling
about
this
tree
ordinance
as
well
and
to
Janet
Alexander
Davis's
point
I
was
a
little
startled
that
the
development
concerns
from
the
city
the
Community
Development
had
to
do
with
affordable
housing
and
to
which
I'm
wondering
at
what
point?
D
So
I
will
say
that
please
support
the
ordinance
and,
in
addition,
in
regard
to
the
design,
Review
Committee
I
am
really
excited
to
see
that
get
pushed
through
and
and
people
getting
to
work
on
that.
But
again,
there
is
a
comment
about
not
having
design
requirements
on
affordable,
housing
and
I.
Think
we
need
to
take
another
look
at
this
and
really
ask
ourselves.
Are
we
about
equity
and
inclusion
when
we
start
pulling
out,
you
know
situations
where
people
with
you
know
less
than
get
less
and
we're
not
doing
anything
different.
K
Hi
there
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
climate
action
Evanston,
which
represents
a
network
of
about
2500
people
in
the
area,
and
we
strongly
support
evanston's,
affordable
housing
goals
and
the
city's
goals
to
maintain
a
healthy
Urban.
Forest
people
have
already
spoken
very
eloquently
with
greater
Authority
about
this
positive
impacts
of
trees
and
urban
canopy
on
public
health.
So
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
that,
but
I
do
want
to
point
out
again.
Some
people
have
housing
and
canopy
are
not
mutually
exclusive
goals
for
Evanston.
K
Evanston
can
and
should
do
both
build
more
affordable
housing
and
create
more
green
space
and
in
fact
they
should
create
more
green
spaces
at
and
around
new
and
existing
affordable
housing.
So
with
that
said,
we
urge
you
to
support
the
proposed
tree
preservation,
ordinance
thanks.
So
much
for
your
time.
L
Yes,
thank
you.
Gail
Schechter
of
the
board
of
Community
Alliance
for
better
government
I
would
Echo
everybody
on
the
tree
ordinance
and
its
compatibility
with
affordable
housing.
Although
I'm
here
to
speak
on
your
discussion
of
a
community
design,
commission
I
think
we
think
it's
a
terrific
idea
to
do,
but
we
are
baffled
by
why
a
single
family
and
two
family
homes,
Landmark
properties
and
affordable
housing
would
be
excluded
from
what
you
describe.
L
As
quote,
ensuring
the
new
zoning
ordinance
facilitates
the
type
of
built
environment
and
design
decisions
that
are
desired,
certainly
affordable,
housing
benefits
from
environmental
sustainability.
Anything
that
has
to
do
with
lowering
energy
costs
would
be
desired.
You
know
lead
certified,
but
also
thinking
about
trauma-informed
design
healing
spaces.
You
know
communal
spaces
in
a
building.
You
know
there
was
something
in
here
about
human-centered
design
and
Street
activation.
Well,
that's
important
to
affordable
housing,
so
absolutely
affordable.
L
Housing
should
be
part
of
the
compulsory
advisory
review,
not
sure
why
you
also
excluded
single
family
and
two
family
homes,
either
from
this,
but
certainly
to
speak,
to
affordable
housing,
so
I
hope
you're
moving
in
the
right
direction
and
include
affordable
housing.
Thank
you.
A
M
Good
evening,
I'm
Tom
hofmeyer
I'm
Evan
Evanston
in
Resident
for
26
years
in
design
Evanston
member
for
the
last
16.
I'm
here
to
ask
you
to
support
the
creation
of
the
community
design
Commission,
the
draft
of
which
we've
had
for
a
couple
of
weeks
in
supporting
the
creation
of
the
community
design.
Commission
I
strongly
suggest
that
everyone
read
carefully
the
statement
of
purpose
and
objectives.
M
F
M
A
A
It's
been
moved
by
council
member
Reed
seconded
by
council
member
Ravel,
so
I
would
like
to
frame
this
discussion
by
asking
staff,
starting
with
Emily
alkalau,
to
give
us
a
brief
explanation
of
what's
in
front
of
us
and
how
we
got
here
and
then
director
flax.
If
you
could
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
that
have
been
raised
and
after
those
after
the
committee
hears
from
the
both
of
you,
then
we
will
have
some
discussion.
N
Good
afternoon,
honorable,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
Emily
okalau
public
services
coordinator
for
the
public
works
agency,
I'll
also
note
that
I'm
a
certified
Arborist
just
because
it
might
be
relevant
tonight,
so
we
are
here
tonight
to
discuss
protecting
trees
on
private
property.
N
As
my
colleagues
in
the
environment
board
noted,
this
has
been
going
around
for
a
few
years.
It
actually
predates
my
time
with
the
city,
but
this
was
this
item.
So
staff
brought
this
item
to
council
a
couple
years
ago
and
asked
for
some
direction,
at
which
point
it
was
given
to
the
environment
board,
to
develop
the
environment
board,
asked
staff
to
participate
in
developing
the
ordinance
the
environment
board
provided
their
goals.
N
They
provided
sort
of
the
general
framework
for
what
it
what
they
wanted
to
see
out
of
this
ordinance
I
actually
looked
those
over
just
before
the
meeting
you
know
to
make
sure,
and
what
was
requested
at
the
time
was
that
trees,
six
inches
and
above
were
protected,
that
protected
trees
were
protected
from
damage
and
that
protected
trees
would
also
require
a
permit
if
they
were
to
be
removed.
N
Staff
took
those
items,
those
goals
and
also
spoke
to
peers
in
neighboring
communities.
There
are
examples
of
tree
preservation,
ordinances
throughout
you
know
the
area
and
throughout
the
North,
Shore
and
staff
reached
out
to
those
peers
to
discuss
how
those
ordinances
work,
how
trees
are
protected
and
one
of
the
sort
of
resounding
comments
that
was
received.
The
feedback
that
was
received
is
that
they
often
impose
heavy
fines.
They
impose
a
lot
of
money,
but
they
don't
necessarily
protect
trees.
N
They
allow
trees
to
be
removed
and
are
become
a
financial
burden,
especially
for
you
know,
property
owners
who
might
be
more
vulnerable,
financially
vulnerable.
So
staff
took
that
information
and
worked
together
with
Community
Development
to
look
at
you
know
what
would
it
actually
look
like
to
protect
trees
and
that's
sort
of
where
we
are
tonight?
N
Staff
recognizes
that
they're
I'm,
just
gonna
put
this
out.
There
recognizes
that
there
are
instances
when
trees
need
to
be
removed
when
trees
are
dead,
when
trees
are
hazardous,
when
they
are
not
appropriate
for
their
site.
There's
a
clear
path
for
that.
It's
an
easy
path,
and
so
just
you
know
to
answer
that
question
ahead
of
time
in
case
that
comes
up,
there
is
a
clear,
easy
path
for
that.
N
Second,
to
that
you
know,
most
often
trees
are
impacted
when
there
is
construction
on
property
right
when
there
is
some
sort
of
excavation
some
sort
of
digging
some
sort
of
addition,
and
so
staff
wanted
to
understand
what
it
would
look
like
to
be
able
to
get
ahead
of
that
process,
so
that
property
owners
are
not
burdened
with
different
processes,
and
so
a
tree
preservation
permit
essentially,
is
something
that
property
owners
or
their
contractors
would
request.
N
A
N
And
so
staff
this
ordinance
is
actually
based
on,
will
meds
recent
tree
ordinance
and
then
Wilmette
when
there
is
no
construction
on
private
property.
N
Trees
that
are
protected
by
the
Ordnance
cannot
be
removed
without
requesting
A
variation,
and
that's
what
staff
has
done
in
this
ordinance
so
in
this
ordinance
property
owners
who
would
like
to
remove
a
tree
just
because
they
don't
like
a
look,
the
look
of
it.
They
have
to
request
A
variation.
There's
no
process
through
the
building
permit
process
to
be
able
to
do
that.
I
will
also
note
actually
coming
back
to
the
building
permit
process.
N
One
of
the
things
that
this
process
allows
is
that
in
cases
where
there
is
going
to
be
construction,
but
not
a
tree
removal,
the
person
on
staff
who
is
going
to
be
a
certified
Arborist,
so
essentially
a
staff
arborist
can
go
out
and
do
a
site
assessment
and
say:
okay,
if
you
do
your
construction
this
way.
This
is
how
you're
going
to
impact
the
trees
on
your
property
and
any
trees
on
neighboring
property
that
are
close
enough
to
your
project
and
there
is
opportunity
to
mitigate
that
impact
right.
N
N
A
E
We,
actually,
you
know:
Community
Development
staff
worked
with
Emily
on
this
ordinance,
but
there
are
just
some
areas
that
we
think
that
need
to
be
clarified
and
perhaps
need
a
little
more
thought
and
work.
One
of
the
things
whenever
you
make
a
change
like
this
and
introduce
something,
especially
when
code
is
in
a
place.
E
People
aren't
used
to
let's
at
least
cross-reference
to
the
zoning
code
or
someplace,
where
people
are
normally
looking
and
hopefully
we
can
do
Outreach
to
help
educate
people,
because
there's
always
whenever
you're
doing
we
have
people
who
want
to
get
their
projects
going
fast
and
when
they
find
out,
they
have
another
step,
and
things
like
that.
We
want
to
try
to
keep
that
from
being
a
oh,
my
God.
What's
the
city
asking
for
me
of
me
now
and
I
think
we
can
do
that?
Will
it
solve
every
problem?
E
No
we'll
never
solve
every
problem
with
people
being
impatient
about
permitting
time
and
things
like
that.
It
will
have
significant
impact,
we're
in
the
process
of
moving
to
our
electronic
permitting,
which
involves
well
over
the
30
permit
and
processes
that
would
be
affected
by
this
ordinance
or
could
be
infected
by
this
ordinance.
E
If
you
read
the
ordinance
literally-
and
it's
saying
you
know
asking
for
it's
as
a
diagram,
but
how
specific
does
the
diagram
have
to
be
when
we
get
things
for
zoning
purposes,
for
example,
everything
has
to
be
actual
distances
and
accurate,
because
that's
part
of
what
we
need
and
it's
especially
in
this
case
the
responsibility-
will
fall
to
the
arborist
on
site
to
really
check
the
distances
and
confirm
the
what
what
trees
are
impacted,
and
this
also
extends
to
the
neighbor's
trees.
E
In
other
words,
you
don't
have
to
have
an
accurate
distance,
you
know
distances
and
size
of
trees
and
even
the
type
of
trees.
The
arborist
will
ultimately
be
responsible
for
that
now,
perhaps
the
language
could
be
less
specific
of
what's
required,
so
people
don't
freak
out
because
it
can
be
a
little
overwhelming
I
mean
a
lot
of
people,
can't
identify
any
types
of
dreams,
but
I
think
we
can
work
that
out
working
working
with
staff.
E
We
just
wanted
to.
There
had
been
an
initial
estimate
that
was
done
some
time
ago.
That
Emily
was
working
with
about
400
to
500
permits
would
be
affected,
and
it
could
be
actually
quite
a
few
more
than
that,
and
we
wanted
to
make
that
clear,
because
it
is
something
that
would
have
impact
on
on
really
a
lot
of
things.
So
that
was
what
the
chart
was
helping
to
show.
We
also
discussed
that
some
permits
could
be
Exempted
based
on
knowledge
of
how
they
work.
E
Interestingly
enough
fences
fence
installers
do
not
want
to
put
a
fence
in
the
middle
of
a
tree,
so
they're
going
to
work
around
it.
What
you
know
there
is
still
I
would
think
some
concern
about
potentially
drilling
post
holes
too
close
to
a
tree
or
something
like
that.
E
But
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
it
was
determined
that
those
fence
permits
could
be
exempt
from
this
review,
and
there
may
be
some
others
that
we
have
to
look
at
some
of
these
and
I
think
that
what
we
can
do
on
that
is
rather
than-
and
this
is
something
Emily
wants
to
do-
and
I
absolutely
agree
with
you-
don't
put
that
in
the
ordinance
you
put.
E
There
are
some
permits
which
are
exempt
and
Seed
the
tree's
preservation
policy
for
specifics,
because
we
may
have
to
change
things
as
we
find
out
just
really
what
impact
different
things
have
on
trees,
just
based
on
our
built
environment.
So
I
think
that
that's
something
that
we
need
to
do
and
make
sure
is
incorporated.
E
I
already
talked
about
people
not
having
to
have
really
accurate
things
about
their
neighbor's
property,
which
is
good.
We
do
sometimes
have
neighbors
not
cooperating
on
each
other's
projects
next
door,
and
we
don't
want
to
inspire
any
more
battles
based
on
where
the
trees
are
realistically
just
based
on
the
distance
that
we're
looking
at
for
potential
impact
of
of
25
feet.
E
That
was
a
concern
based
on
small
lots,
are
automatically
people
in
closer
neighborhoods
are
automatically
going
to
be
more
effective
affected
by
this
again.
I
think
the
mitigation
is
really
that
the
bulk
of
the
determination
of
what
trees
are
really
going
to
be
affected
is
for
the
arborist.
Now
that
makes
me
think
that
we're
going
to
have
a
very
busy,
arborist
and
I
do
think
that
you
know
I
hope
we
can
make
a
two-week
period
during
which
this
can
be
resolved
for
everything,
because
I
mean
it
really.
E
It
really
could
significantly
extend
time
frames
and
believe
me,
I'm,
actually
I'm
a
supporter
of
protecting
trees.
I
pretty
carefully
have
my
swamp,
White,
Oaks,
trimmed
regularly,
and
things
like
that
and
I
was
glad
to
see
that
that
was
Exempted,
because
when
you're
using
a
certified
Arborist,
you
want
to
encourage
that
kind
of
behavior.
E
There
could
be.
You
know
some
impact
on
people
being
reluctant
to
plant
trees.
I
hope
we
can
over
just
because
they
are
worried
about
being
how
it
could
restrict
them.
I
hope
we
can
perhaps
even
have
I
Can
Dream
people
who
would
help
people
think
about.
Oh,
you
want
to
add
an
addition.
An
x
amount
of
time.
Let's
talk
now,
and
how
might
you
do
that
and
start
people
thinking
much
sooner
about
how
anything
they
do
could
affect
trees?
E
Will
some
people
you
know
we
have
some
people
who
don't
want
trees
on
their
Parkway
because
they
don't
want
leaves
I
mean
we
can't
solve
every
problem,
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
do
that.
But
I
think
there
are
ways
to
mitigate
that.
I
think
the
challenge
we
are
going
to
run
into
with
some
things
like
accessory
dwelling
units
detached
accessory
dwelling
units.
Is
they
frequently
are
in
parts
of
lots?
E
That
really
could
you
know
toward
the
back
and
things
like
that
and
frequently
people
have
their
trees
toward
the
back
their
yard,
and
it
could
impact
them
and
accessory
dwelling
units
that
we're
trying
to
encourage
to
develop
smaller
units
in
different
parts
of
town
where
we
don't
have
those
types
of
units
really
is
something
that
has
a
lot
of
things
that
make
it
make
them
difficult.
E
It's
expensive
to
construct
a
relatively
small
dwelling
unit,
for
example,
and
some
of
the
other
you
know
we
have,
for
example,
in
our
building
code,
Exempted
those
small
dwelling
units
from
being
sprinklered,
unless
the
primary
dwelling
is
sprinkler,
specifically
looking
for
ways
to
reduce
the
costs,
because
the
costs
can
get
high
enough,
that
they
become
just
frankly
impractical
and
one
of
the
things
we've
talked
about
with
Emily
is:
are
there?
Are
there
certain
types
of
of
buildings
like
adus
that
we
should
give
some
consideration
to?
E
Because
if
you
do
have
to
take
out
a
big
tree
to
be
able
to
do
this,
and
then
you
have
to
put
in
either
put
in
more
trees
or
pay
a
fee
it?
It
really
could
be
onerous
and
I
think
that
it
would
be
very
helpful
to
have
consideration
from
Council
on
any
types
of
construction
that
we
might
want
to
allow
some,
maybe
lesser
cost
or
something
to.
E
A
So
if,
if
I
could
kind
of
summarize,
my
understanding
of
the
conversation
is
that
we
are
fairly
close
to
getting
where
we
need
to
be
to
be
able
to
pass
an
ordinance
which
has
the
you
know
full
and
robust
support
of
the
Community
Development
Department,
but
there
are
still
some
issues
for
which
guidance
is
being
requested
and
before
we
go
to
committee
discussion.
Let's
just
kind
of
summarize
I'll
ask
you
both
to
summarize
what
kind
of
guidance
are
you
asking
for
here?
E
Would
like
us
to
consider
any
types
of
building
like
adus
or
perhaps
fully
affordable
developments,
and
things
like
that
that
really
the
economics
of
paying
additional
fees
can
really
make
a
difference.
N
Have
feedback
on
sir
I
would
agree
with
that
statement,
I
think
from
a
tree
protection
and
preservation
point
of
view.
I
feel
confident
that
I
I
believe
that
what
we've
presented
actually
does
the
job
of
protecting
trees.
N
I'd
like
to
clarify
one
thing
that
Sarah
said
and
just
sort
of
make
it
very
clear
that
there
is
no
there's
no
situation
in
which
a
property
owner
would
be
required
or
a
staff
member
would
be
required
to
go
on
to
a
neighboring
property.
In
order
to
issue
these
permits,
all
the
work
could
be
done
from
the
subject
property.
There
would
be
absolutely
no
access
to
a
neighboring
property
required.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear,
plain.
A
O
Yeah
I
think
this
ordinance
looks,
looks
wonderful
and
I.
Just
I
had
one
question,
though,
regarding
application
for
variances,
is
there
any
reason
those
can
go
instead
to
the
environmental
board,
for
assessment
or
for
appeals?
It
just
seems
like
there's
experts
there
on
on
the
board
or.
N
So
we
spoke
about
that
internally
extensively
actually
about
where
it
should
go
and
I
believe
it
has
to
do
with.
F
N
Has
to
do
with
the
with
the
sort
of
mandate
of
the
environment
board,
with
the
language
around
it
and
since,
like
I,
don't
believe
that
the
environment
board
can
make
those
types
of
recommendations.
I,
don't
believe
that
that's
part
of
their
sorry
outstanding
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
I
will
say
that,
as
far
as
variations,
the
the
staff
person,
who
would
be
an
arborist,
would
be
able
to
provide.
You
know,
maybe
not
recommendations,
but
would
be
able
to
provide
sufficient
information
about.
N
You
know
those
trees
that
tree
the
neighborhood,
the
canopy,
what
it
looks
like
and
what
the
impact
would
be
to
the
environment
so
that
the
committee
would
not
have
would
not
be
going
into
it
blind
right.
There
would
be.
There
would
be
facts
available
to
the
committee
as
they
as
they
move
forward
with
making
those
recommend
or
that
those
decisions.
N
Did
we
did
talk
about
it?
Yeah
it
was
yeah.
I
know
that
was
something
that
we
considered
heavily,
but
as
Alice
inside
it
has
to
be
a
standing
committee
and
so
yeah,
okay,.
C
A
Just
to
provide
some
context
here,
I
suspect,
where
this
conversation
may
go
and
where
my
personal
opinion
lies
is
that
we
will
end
up
tabling
it
for
this
evening
to
allow
these
details
to
be
worked
out,
and
so
the
discussion
tonight
is
to
provide
input
into
these
questions.
To
facilitate
that
discussion.
C
C
And
I'll
also
just
say
that
I
we
are
the
city
council
of
Evanston.
We
have
the
power
to
amend
any
ordinance
to
you
know
if
we
want
to
amend
the
environment
board's
definition
and
allow
this
particular
permit,
or
this
particular
review
to
go
to
them.
Then
we
have
that
power.
P
Thank
you,
councilmember
Reed,
chair
news,
members
of
the
p
d
committee,
Alex
ruggie,
Deputy,
City
attorney
I
would
agree
if
you
want
to
amend
the
duties
and
powers
of
the
environmental
board.
You
can
add
that
as
a
power
and
Duty
similar
to
the
land
use,
commission
I
would
just
say
because
it's
a
board
and
not
a
commission.
That
would
be
perhaps
the
other
change
that
would
need
to
be
necessitated
to
make
this
transition,
but
that,
as
the
city
council,
is
something
within
your
powers,
so
I
think
from
a
staff
standpoint.
P
Exactly
so,
but
then
would
you
take
it
from
environmental
board
to
Human
Services
to
City
councils.
P
N
Think
I
mean
if
I
might
add.
Also
one
of
the
things
that
we
thought
about
is
that
the
environment
boards
sort
of
their
purview
is
to
look
at
the
environment
and
to
consider
the
environment.
When
we're
talking
about
variations
when
it
comes
to
removing
trees,
it
seems
that
property
owners
would
do
that
in
the
sense
that
they
would
be
saying
you
know,
I,
don't
like
the
look
of
my
tree.
N
I,
don't
like
the
way
it
looks
at
me
in
the
morning
and
that's
very
much
a
personal
decision
about
quality
of
life
about
your
own
home
and
the
Human
Services
committee
considers
the
well-being
of
people
right
and
considers
the
environment
in
that
consideration.
The
environment
board
is
very
much
considered.
You
know
just
it,
it's
just
the
environment
right
and
so
there's
a
Nuance
there
that
having
to
think
about
what
does?
N
How
do
you
represent
the
well-being
of
this
one
property
owner
versus
the
Environmental
Quality
of
the
entire
committee
or
the
entire
Community
right,
and
that
is
that's
sort
of
a
broader
purview
I
would
say
than
what
the
environment
board
may
be.
You
know
is
what
they're
like
what
they
do,
if
that
makes
sense.
Okay,.
N
C
Well,
I,
if
there's
interest
in
this
committee
I
think
there
is
a
value
in
the
environment
board
looking
at
it
and
because
you
know
maybe
it's
worth
having
it
go
to
both
committees.
Maybe
it's
worth
having
it
just
go
to
Human
Services,
I,
I
I.
Don't
think
that
the
Human
Services
committee,
as
a
member
of
it
for
the
last
two
years,
thinks
a
whole
lot
about
the
environment.
It's
just
not
really
our
workload,
so
yeah
I'll
just
leave
that.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you.
The
environment
board
does
report
to
us
on
a
regular
basis.
So
from
time
to
time
we
do
think
about
the
environment.
Some
of
us
frequently
I
well
I,
think
yeah,
I,
I,
guess.
I
support
I
certainly
support
the
whole
idea
of
preserving
protecting
trees
on
private
property.
It's
it's
amazing
to
think
that
almost
80
percent
of
our
trees
in
the
in
the
community
are
on
private
property
and
and
all
the
benefits
they
provide
to
individuals
to
family.
You
know
it's
they're,
really
an
important
resource
for
us.
Q
I
guess
I
was
wondering.
Have
we
started
work
on
the
whatever
we're
calling
that
the
the
three
preservation
policy?
How
what
status?
Is
that
sure.
N
So
that
that
the
document
was
actually
established
about
a
month
ago,
staff
brought
a
smaller
ordinance
related
to
preserving
trees
on
public
property.
There
were
some
changes
that
needed
to
be
made
and
that
policy
was
created
at
that
time,
so
that
policy
actually
exists
Now.
It
only
relates
to
public
trees,
to
trees
on
public
property.
At
this
time.
N
So
there's
there's
some
portions
that
are
going
to
be.
You
know
necessary
for
both
parts
for
both
public
and
private
trees.
At
this
time,
the
portions
that
relate
to
private
trees
are,
you
know,
thoughts
and
ideas,
and
you
know
so
the
beginnings
of
of
how
it
would
be
framed,
but
that's
not
actually
published.
Q
B
Yeah
I'm,
just
trying
to
understand
just
the
cost
to
property
owner
I've
been
looking
for.
The
only
thing
I
see
is
75
for
the
tree
preservation
permit
is
that
all
we're
talking
about,
or
so.
N
That's
for
the
permit,
if
trees
are
not
removed
on
the
property,
then
that
then
that
would
be
the
only
cost.
If
property
owners
are
proposing
to
remove
trees,
then
it
would
trigger
the
mitigation
where
Property
Owners
would
need
to
either
plant
trees
to
replace
the
tree.
That's
been
removed
or
they
would
have
the
opportunity
or
the
option
to
pay
a
fee
in
lieu
of
mitigation
right.
N
They
would
do
that
if
they
were
unable
or
unwilling
to
plant
trees
and
staff
purposely
did
not
put
dollar
amounts
in
the
ordinance,
because
those
are
also
things
that
can
be
more
Dynamic.
So
we
find
that
with
trees
on
public
property,
you
know,
costs
can
I
mean
with
the
inflation
that
we've
had,
those
costs
have
increased,
and
so
removing
the
actual
dollar
amounts
from
the
ordinance
is
helpful
because
it
allows
staff,
of
course
we
would
want
them
published.
We
would
want
them
publicly
known
no
surprises.
N
You
know
these
are
not
arbitrary
costs,
but
they
are
something
that
staff
would
be
able
to.
You
know
change
annually
as
needed.
The
other
idea
behind
keeping
the
actual
costs
in
the
policy
and
not
in
the
ordinance,
is
that
we
recognize
that
there
are
property
owners
that
are
financially
vulnerable
and
so
there's
opportunity
there
as
well
to
establish
you
know,
cost.
N
N
So
and
this
is
sort
of
an
industry
standard,
it
takes
the
size
of
the
current
tree
and
there's
a
coefficient,
because
we
recognize
that
some
trees
that
the
idea
behind
the
cost
is
that
trees
actually
provide
benefits
that
have
a
dollar
amount.
We
can
actually
provide
those
dollar
amounts
on
those
trees
and
so
the
it's
the
size
of
the
tree
and
then
there's
a
coefficient
that
relates
to
the
ecosystem
value
of
the
tree.
N
And
then
it's
the
cost
of
planting
one
replacement
tree
divided
by
the
size
of
the
trees
that
you're
going
to
replace,
and
so
it's
a
little
complicated
but
I,
know
I,
know
it's
complicated,
but
essentially
it
looks
at
the
size
of
the
tree
right
and
then
it
looks
like
what
you're
proposing
to
plant
if
you're,
actually
going
to
plant
trees,
that's
what's
assigned.
If
you're
not
actually
going
to
plant
trees,
then
there's
a
dollar
amount.
O
Thank
you.
So
so,
if
you
comply
and
you
have
trees,
it
cost
you
75
dollars,
no
did
I
get
that.
N
Right,
that's
for
a
tree!
So
that's
for
tree
pres!
It's
for
the
permit
for
tree
preservation,
but
there's
different
parts
of
this.
So
if
you're
doing
construction
on
your
property
and
you're
not
going
to
remove
any
trees,
you're
just
gonna,
you
know
build
around
your
tree
or
excavate
around
your
tree.
Then
the
Arbors
would
come
out
and
would
say:
okay,
you
need
to
put
up
an
orange
fence
around
your
tree.
N
O
N
B
A
O
I'm
prepared
to
support
this
if
it
does
end
up
getting
held
I,
would
just
ask
that
if
we
could
sort
of
review
the
environmental
board,
it
sounds
like
there's
no
real
hard
and
fast
reason
that
precludes
the
environmental
board
from
reviewing
this,
but
otherwise
I
would
hold,
because
I
think
it's
so
I
mean
that
hold
I
would
support
this,
because
I
think
it's
so
important
that
we
do
move
forward
with
a
tree.
Ordinance.
I
think
this
is
well
thought
out
and
I,
so
I'm
prepared
to
support
it
this
evening.
O
Otherwise,
if
it
does
get
held
again,
I'd
like
to
review
more
of
the
possibility
of
having
ignizing
two
council
member
Reed's,
point
I
think
this
Falls
much
more
into
the
purview
of
the
environmental
board,
also
in
terms
of
like
Community
benefit
making
suggestions
on
other
plannings
but
other
than
that
I.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this.
Thank
you.
C
C
A
If
you
wouldn't
mine,
holding
off
for
a
minute
or.
A
To
allow
me
to
kind
of
voice
my
opinions
as
a
Committee
Member
here
with
regards
to
the
appeals
process,
if
we
could
call
it
that
and
which
body
is
the
proper
body,
I
would
be
not
inclined
to
put
that
in
front
of
the
environment
board,
not
that
I'm
asking
for
the
council
or
Council
standing
committee
to
have
more
work
but
I
think
that's
the
appropriate.
That's
the
appropriate
Next
Step
for
the
reasons
that
we've
already
discussed.
A
A
O
A
N
A
Right
so,
based
on
the
discussion
tonight,
I
think
we've,
given
you
feedback
and
I
think
there
can
be
some
additional
feedback
offline
individually
between
now
and
then
and
council.
Member
Reed
was
recognized
if
he
wants
to
yield
to
councilmember.
Burns
I
will
acknowledge
that.
B
I
just
want
to
say,
I
I
want
to
make
sure
in
between
meetings
that
the
the
formula
doesn't
get
lost.
B
I
do
see
a
value
in
that,
because
I
think
as
a
city
we
oftentimes,
we
don't
always
charge
as
much
as
we
should
for
the
issue
that
we're
trying
to
address,
and
then
years
later,
when
we
make
increases,
it
seems
more
of
a
pain
than
it
would
have
been
if
we
just
established
a
good
formula
to
determine
what
is
the
real
cost
of
whatever
it
is
so
I
I
like
where
we're
going
on
this
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
between
meetings.
We
don't
lose
this
somehow.
B
E
Director
Flats
I
think
we
can
do
that
by
saying
what
the
current
Formula
would
be
at
this
time
in
the
draft
tree
protection
policy
and
then
stating
how
the
formula
works
that
it's
tied
to
the
cost
and
things
like
that,
it's
sort
of
like
we
have
the
fee
and
Lou
for
the
inclusionary
housing
units
on
site
is
tied
to
the
Consumer
Price
Index
and
it
has
to
be
checked
every
time.
N
And
so,
and
that's
available
online
right
now
for
public
trees,
so
I've
actually
published
it.
There's
an
example.
You
know
for
this
size
tree.
This
is
what
it
would
cost.
You
know,
and
this
is
what
the
what
the
cost
would
be-
that's
actually
published
publicly
available
online
as
we
speak.
Okay,
yeah.
C
So
someone
only
pays
the
75
fee
which,
based
on
what
councilmember
burns
was
just
expressing,
is
based
on
the
cost
of
actually
going
out
and
doing
the
inspection,
but
they
only
pay
the
permit
fee
if
they
are
granted
the
ability
to
cut
down
the
tree.
N
N
Right
well,
okay,
do
the
expense,
so,
let's
say
you're,
building
a
patio
I
think.
Maybe
an
actual
example
might
be
helpful,
you're
building
a
patio,
but
you
don't
necessarily
want
to
remove
your
tree,
but
you
have
a
tree
close
to
the
construction
site
right
and
so
you
apply-
and
you
say:
okay
I
have
this
tree:
I
don't
want
to
remove
it,
so
staff
will
go
out
and
we'll
say:
okay.
This
is
how
you
build
your
patio
safely
without
impacting
your
tree,
and
that
and
now
you
have
a
permit
to
proceed.
N
N
If
that
project
does
include
a
removal,
then
that
permit
is
the
same
like
that
there
still
will
be
that
permit
there'll
be
another
portion
to
it,
which
is
the
mitigation
fee.
So
every
project
will
have
a
tree
preservation
permit.
Not
every
project
will
include
a
removal
or
the
mitigation
fees
and
there's
also
you
know.
I
will
also
say
that
there's
an
opportunity
there
to
speak
with
a
property
owner
and
say
I,
don't
know
if
you've
considered
moving
your
project
over
five
feet.
N
C
N
Well,
at
75,
it'll
be
significantly
less
than
the
private
companies,
and
also
this
ordinance
is
moving
forward
because
we
recognize
that
you
know
tree
canopy
cover
is
sort
of
a
community
good,
and
so
this
is
a
way,
for
you
know
the
city
to
protect
the
benefits
that
trees
provide
to
the
entire
community.
C
I
think
we
still
need
to
recoup
the
cost
and
so
I
wonder
if
we
can
change
this
to
a
an
inspection
fee
rather
than
just
the
permit
fee.
So
we
can
get
the
revenue
from
all
folks
and
then
also
I,
I
I,
don't
feel
super
enthusiastic
about
the.
There
are
all
kinds
of
things
that
we
do
not
subsidize.
We,
we
don't
subsidize
housing
here
in
Evanston,
very
directly.
C
We
in
in
many
cases,
maybe
arpa
funds
allowed
us
to
do
a
bit
of
that,
but
for
us
to
subsidize
the
cost
of
doing
a
tree
analysis
for
more
than
likely
folks
of
means
who
are
adding
additions
to
their
houses.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
what
we
need
to
be
subsidizing,
and
so
I
would
just
encourage
us
to
think
about
that.
C
You
know:
should
we
fully
recoup
the
cost
of
these
inspections,
or
should
we
leave
it
to
the
private
Market?
Thank
you.
A
C
Fair
I
moved
to
table
this
to
the
meeting
to
be
held
on
the
28th
of
August
and.
A
That
Move
Motion
is
seconded
by
a
count.
That's
been
moved
by
council
member
Reed
seconded
by
council
member
Burns,
all
in
favor
of
tabling
this
item
until
August
28th,
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
any
abstentions.
That
motion
carries.
Thank
you
very
much
more
discussions
to
follow
all.
A
It's
been
moved
by
councilmember
Reed
seconded
by
council
member
Nguyen
before
committee
discussion.
I
there
will
be
a
short
presentation
from
staff
and
I
will
also
acknowledge
that
Matt
Rogers,
chair
of
the
land
use
commission
is
available.
Should
we
desire
to
call
upon
him
so
over
to
staff.
R
Go
so
we
are
here
for
the
yearly
Omnibus
text.
Amendment
package
and
I
am
extremely
hopeful
that
I
never
have
to
do
this
again,
because
next
year
we
will
be
in
the
midst
of
a
new
zoning
ordinance
rewrite
and
then
two
years
from
now
we
will
hopefully
be
adopting
it.
So,
with
this
hopeful
last
Omnibus
text
Amendment
package,
we
are
looking
at
some
clarifications
to
the
zoning
ordinance
and
updates
to
best
practices.
This
year
we
have
a
total
of
11
text.
R
Our
first
two
text
amendments
are
both
related
to
signage.
So
approximately
a
year
ago,
we
moved
the
sign
code
from
the
building
ordinance
into
the
zoning
ordinance
and
when
we
did
so,
we
uncovered
some
issues
that
have
popped
up
throughout
the
year
so
number
one.
We
would
like
to
clarify
the
process
for
unified,
comprehensive
sign
plans.
R
This
is
a
process
that
is
already
in
the
code,
but
it
does
not
specify
who
does
what
who
makes
Final
determinations
on
things
Etc.
So
we
are
looking
to
clarify
that
the
land
use
commission
would
make
final
determinations
for
these,
and
essentially
what
it
does
is.
It
is
like
a
miniature
plan:
development
for
sign
packages
for
small
for
larger
properties,
things
like
strip
malls,
Towers,
large
developments,
thing
properties
that
otherwise
end
up
with
many
signs.
R
Many
variations,
a
lot
of
clutter
so,
overall,
it
can
help
those
properties
have
a
streamlined
process
with
a
better
look
in
the
end
number
two.
We
are
looking
at
clarifying
the
variation
process
and
standards
for
signage,
so
the
current
variation
process
for
signage
is
treated
just
like
any
other
zoning
variation
process,
and
what
we
found
out
was
that
means
many
sign.
Variations
are
triggering
major
variations
that
go
to
the
land,
use
commission
and
then,
when
they
follow
the
typical
zoning
standards
for
approval,
they
are
essentially
non-approvable
in
almost
all
cases.
R
So
at
this
point
we
have
a
backlog
of
businesses
who
would
like
to
request
sign
variations,
but
they
know
with
our
current
regulations.
There
is
almost
no
chance
of
approval
and
a
very
lengthy
process
to
go
through
that.
So
we're
looking
at
changing
this
over
to
be
similar
to
the
minor
variation
process
for
zoning,
except
having
separate
standards
of
approval
that
are
just
for
signs
which,
ironically,
are
these
standards
for
approval
that
used
to
be
in
the
building
code,
but
worked
very
well
moving
on
our
third
text.
R
Amendment
is
to
clarify
Transit
oriented
development
areas
in
2017,
we
established
Tod
areas
and
we
looked
at
any
area
within
1
8
of
a
mile
of
a
rail
station
or
one-fourth
of
a
mile
of
a
rail
station
along
a
commercial
Corridor.
However,
we
then
excluded
a
significant
number
of
properties,
mostly
low
density
properties,
that
at
the
time
we
thought
would
never
want
to
or
need
to
benefit
from
Tod
requirements.
R
Looking
at
it
again
with
today's
current
best
practices,
we
need
to
be
consistent
and
have
that
exact
boundary
follow
everywhere,
which
is
then
easier
for
everyone
to
understand
and
follow,
and
just
more
logical
being
that,
if
you're
a
fourth
or
an
eighth
of
a
mile
from
a
rail
station,
you
are
roughly
a
five
minute
walk
away
and
it
should
be
a
TOD
area.
Also
acknowledging
that
Tod
means
less
parking
requirements
and
less
parking
requirements
means
lowering
our
housing
costs
here
in
Evanston
number
four
clarify
public
hearing
requests.
R
This
is
an
inconsistency
that
exists
between
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
land
use
commission
rules,
and
this
has
existed
this
way
for
at
least
a
decade.
It
is
a
holdover
from
both
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
and
the
plan
Commission.
The
land
use.
Commission
commission
rules
specifically
say
that
the
commission
may
Grant
continuances
to
the
public
when
continuances
are
requested
with
specific
reasoning
for
them
it,
the
zoning
ordinance
says
that
they
shall
Grant
appeals,
meaning
if
anyone
or
I'm
sorry
Grant
continuances,
meaning.
If
someone
requests
a
continuance,
it
must
be
granted
every
time.
R
R
Moving
on
to
number
five,
we
would
like
to
expand
the
ex
and
simplify
the
existing
unique
use
process.
This
is
within
the
zoning
ordinance
already
and,
to
my
knowledge,
has
been
used
one
time
for
the
Redevelopment
of
the
old
District
65
headquarters
site,
which
was
converted
into
condos
as
well
as
single-family
homes.
We
would
like
to
open
this
up
to
all
properties
in
Evanston,
not
just
local
historic
landmarks
and
simplify
it
from
the
full
plan
development
process
down
to
the
special
use
process,
which
still
requires
city
council
approval.
R
Doing
this
will
allow
a
significant
number
of
existing
buildings
in
Evanston
that
are
looking
for
an
Adaptive
reuse
to
have
a
possible
process
to
go
through
and
attain
exciting
adaptive,
reuse.
Things
like
what
1101
Church
Street
is
currently
doing.
Where
that
church
building
is
being
converted
into
condo
units
that
type
of
thing
number
six,
we
would
like
to
clarify
that
curb
cuts
through
Street
side
yards
are
prohibited
when
Ali
access
is
present.
Currently
the
zoning
ordinance
prohibits
that
for
front
yards.
R
However,
there's
a
bit
of
a
loophole
where,
if
you
have
a
street
side
yard,
it
doesn't
specifically
say
that
that
you
cannot
do
that.
We
would
like
to
close
that
loophole
and
make
it
consistent,
so
that
it
is
the
same
for
everyone,
whether
you're
a
corner
lot
or
a
non-corner
lot
and
ultimately,
in
the
end,
it
is
still
an
eligible
major
variation.
So
if
there
is
an
extenuating
circumstance,
someone
can
request
that.
R
Moving
on
to
number
seven
clarify
non-residential
setbacks
for
accessory
structures,
currently
non-residential
setbacks
list
are
listed
for
principal
structures,
but
they
are
not
listed
for
accessory
structures,
and
this
has.
This
has
come
into
play
a
number
of
times
where
a
multi-family
building
that
is
in
a
non-residential
district
would
like
to
add
a
patio
pergola
Etc
and
the
code
is
just
silent
on
it.
R
Why
couldn't
you
have
a
patio
there,
so
this
just
updates
the
code
so
that
the
policy
we
have
been
following
for
some
time
is
within
the
code,
and
everybody
knows
what
to
expect
number
eight
clarify
loading
births
yards
and
setbacks
that
to
follow
parking
yards
and
setbacks
same
thing,
the
code
is,
is
fairly
silent
to
this.
So
when
we
have
proposals
come
in
typically
large
plan
developments
where
they
do
need
loading
births,
we
end
up
in
an
argument
over
what
the
code
says
about
where
your
loading
birth
can
be.
In
reality.
R
If
a
loading
birth
is
open
to
the
sky,
it
really
should
only
be
within
a
rear
yard,
and
anything
else
should
trigger
a
site
development
allowance
and
be
up
to
city
council.
This
is
just
clarifying
that
it
doesn't
change
any
any
actual
policy:
number
nine
clarify
definitions,
yards
and
setbacks
for
patios
and
Terraces.
R
This
one
is
not
an
easy
fix.
This
is
something
that
has
circled
around
with
zoning
staff
and
the
land
use
commission
for
many
years
due
to
existing
poor
definitions
that
just
do
not
make
sense
today,
so
staff
was
requested
to
try
to
clarify
this
in
the
simplest
way
possible,
and
this
is
a
temporary
fix
until
we
have
a
new
code,
but
essentially
we're
looking
at
eliminating
the
definition
of
terrorists
and
simplifying
it
down,
so
that
if
the
structure
is
in
a
front
yard,
it
is
a
front
porch
if
it
is
elsewhere.
R
R
Lots
of
larger
communities
in
bigger
cities
are
already
doing
this.
An
example
in
Chicago
is
Timeout
Market
things
around
Fulton
Square.
These
are
areas
that
in
the
past
may
have
been
industrial
Warehouse
areas
and
the
market
has
changed,
and
now
what
is
happening
is
you
are
getting
a
big
building
full
of
a
bunch
of
different
uses.
Pop-Up
uses
retail
restaurant
mixes.
It's
it's
kind
of
today's
version
of
a
mall,
so
we
have
seen
this
in
Evanston.
However,
the
current
zoning
ordinance
doesn't
know
how
to
handle
it.
R
So
what
we
have
to
do
currently
is
go
through
every
single
use
that
is
within
that
building
and
every
single
use
has
to
comply
with
the
zoning
district
and
that
rarely
works
out,
and
it's
not
necessarily
logical.
So
instead
we
would
like
to
make
a
mixed-use
market
use
where
the
majority
of
uses
within
the
facility
must
be
retail,
restaurant
or
service
oriented.
R
But
then,
as
long
as
the
majority
is
the
rest
of
the
uses
can
be
whatever
they
want
and
ultimately
it's
going
to
self-regulate
because
they're
within
the
same
building
looking
at
how
to
regulate
it.
We
are
trying
to
keep
it
simple
where,
if
it
is
under
7
500
square
feet
in
size
altogether,
which
is
an
established
cut
off
within
the
zoning
ordinance
that
it
is
a
permitted
use
than
if
it's
moderate
sized,
which
is
typically
between
7
500
square
feet
and
20
000
square
feet.
R
It's
an
administrative
review
use
and
then,
if
it
is
larger
than
twenty
thousand
square
feet,
it
would
be
a
special
use.
That
being
said,
noting
that
neighborhood
business
districts
often
have
parking
concerns,
it
is
brought
down
a
level
in
those
areas,
for
instance
the
B
districts,
so
that
special
use
kicks
in
at
7
500
square
feet
rather
than
20
000..
R
Moving
on
to
the
last
proposal,
this
is
an
update
to
our
current
process
for
adjustments
to
previously
approved
planned
developments.
The
current
process
does
not
work
very
well.
Major
adjustments
basically
redo
the
entire
full
plan
development
process.
They
run
through
a
public
hearing
with
the
land
use
commission
and
then
on
to
city
council
for
a
final
determination.
R
However,
we
would
like
to
change
it
so
that
minor
adjustments
are
anything
that
does
not
increase
the
impact
of
a
site
development
allowance
and
that
then
skips
the
public
hearing
process.
The
reason
for
that
is,
we
have
seen
instances
where
a
plan,
development
requests,
changes,
say
building
materials,
and
that
has
to
go
to
a
public
hearing
with
the
land
use
commission
where
they
do
not
have
purview
over
the
thing
that
changed.
R
A
You
very
much
at
this
point.
I
will
acknowledge
chair
Rogers
of
The
Landings.
Commission
Matt.
Is
there
anything
you
want
to
add
you're
here?
If
we
need
you?
Thank
you.
Okay,
so
committee
discussion,
councilmember
Reed,
has
sought
recognition.
Yes,.
C
Thank
you.
I
had
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
staff
earlier
to
run
through
this
as
well,
really
helpful
and
actually
the
since
we
just
finished
up
the
adjustments
to
development
plans,
the
Anne
Rainey
building
and
eighth
Ward.
The
senior
building
is
an
example
of
where
this
process
became
onerous.
C
I
would
like
to
make
an
amendment
to
6
18
3,
which
is
an
Ascent
that
over
to
the
chair
and
to
the
mayor,
my
apologies,
I,
don't
know
if
I
sent
it
to
the
whole
committee.
I
certainly
send
it
to
staff,
but
that
requirement.
F
C
With
the
Tod
areas
would
change
would
instead
of
modifying,
to
include
the
1
4,
1,
8
and
1
4
mile
or
just
say
a
half
mile,
which
is
the
standard
that
is
set
for
how
far
people
are
willing
generally
to
walk
to
a
train
station,
and
so
I
spoke
with
staff
and
staff?
Was
supportive
of
that
earlier?
I
think
that
stance.
R
A
C
Yeah
I
well,
one
I,
certainly
trust
the
opinions
of
our
staff.
But
what
led
me
to
this
in
our
discussions
earlier
is
one.
We
know
that
this
is
the
distance
that
folks
are
willing.
You
know,
on
average,
to
walk
to
a
train
station,
and
we
know
that
this
will
allow
us
to
get
more
affordable
units
in
areas
that
are
within
that
walking
distance,
and
what
that
means
is
that
we
are
potentially
helping
you
know.
C
You
know
it's
typically
in
the
top
three
for
cost
for
folks,
and
so,
if
we
can
reduce
Transportation
costs
substantially
that
that's
that's
a
Golem.
So
that's
why
I
put
this
for
it.
C
So
on
in
the
packet
page,
39
of
120
page.
C
A
A
H
A
Okay,
so
his
has
been
moved
and
second,
and
is
there
any
additional
discussion
on
this
councilmember
Ravel.
Q
Well,
I
guess
I'd
feel
more
comfortable
voting
on
this.
If
I
had
a
map
that
had
the
nice
happy
circles
around
it,
so
I
could
see
what
the
current
one
quarter
mile
is
and
then
what
the
one-half
mile
is.
So
if.
C
If
I
may
ask
the
chair,
okay,
if
I
may
ask
sure
I'm
curious
what
I
I
would
like
that
map
as
well
and
I,
think
we
can
move
this
forward
and
see
that
map,
but
I
am
curious.
What
Insight
the
map
would
provide.
A
O
O
This
so
I
think
deciding
on
the
Fly
making
a
change
already.
This
document
itself
that
we
were
presented
with
to
me
is
difficult
to
really
process
this
there's
so
many
some
things
are
really
almost
almost
insignificant,
but
many
I
think
have
much
broader
ramifications
than
we're
aware
of
this
presentation.
This
isn't
I,
don't
think
in
our
packet
right.
No
so
I
would
like
to
this
is
helps
clarify
things.
I
would
much
rather
I
would
like
to
have
this
before
making
a
decision.
O
A
C
If
I
can
just
one
last
thing
on
that
point,
I
I
understand
the
desire
to
see
the
map
and
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I
I
do
I
would
like
to
at
some
point
understand
the
reasoning
behind,
because
it
feels
a
bit
to
me
and
I'm,
not
accusing
any
of
my
colleagues
of
this
necessarily
but
I
I
can
imagine
a
scenario
or
a
world
where
you
know
someone
looks
at
the
map
and
thinks
well.
This
touches
this
area
and
I'd
be
fine
with
it.
If
it
wasn't,
I
think
the
policy
should
be
based
on.
C
We
know
that
there's
clear
research
on
the
distance
that
folks
are
willing
to
walk
to
transit
station.
We
know
that
we're
encouraging
affordable
housing
near
those
Transit
stations
because
of
the
one-two
punch
of
both
affordable
housing
and
making
Transportation
more
affordable,
so
I
just
don't
quite
understand
the
reason
for
needing
to
see
a
map
of
where
this
impacts,
rather
than
just
having
the
understanding
of
what
this
policy
does.
C
A
All
right
there
being
no
further
discussion
on
the
motion,
I
will
call
for
a
vote
on
council
member
reads:
motion
which
was
seconded
by
council
member
Burns.
All
in
favor
of
this
motion
say
aye
I
and
he
pose
say:
nay,
the
eyes
have
it.
This
motion
carries
and
assuming
the
underlying
motion
on
these
ordinances
moves
forward.
It
will
move
forward
with
that
with
that
Amendment,
so
that
motion
behind
us
is
there
any
additional
discussion
on
the
two
proposed
ordinances,
councilmember
Reed.
C
C
So
when
it
comes
to
the
proposal
around
allowing
garages
and
curb
cuts,
which
one
was
that
number
six
yes.
M
C
Yes,
so
this
would
go
as
a
major
variation
to
land
use
commission,
but
not
to
council.
That
was
my
understanding
for
Maryland.
Can
you
remind
me
of
why
that
is
no,
because
we
saw
it
as
too
small
for
how
many
of
these
requests
do
we
get
a
year
roughly.
R
Curb
Cuts
2
present
I
ballpark,
probably
25..
Oh.
C
R
And
probably
24
of
them
are
through
front
yards,
which
is
why
it
hasn't
come
up
for
for
so
long.
Typically,
there
is
an
alternative
that
can
be
achieved.
You
can.
You
can
still
use
your
alley
access,
but
you
can
do
a
through
garage
where
it
has
a
garage
door
from
the
alley
and
then
also
through
there.
So
you
can
extend
your
driveway
further
up
closer
to
your
house,
something
like
that.
C
I
I
have
a
resident
who,
you
know
is:
is
retired,
obviously
a
senior
citizen,
a
family
and
the
gentleman
and
his
wife
live
in
a
corner
property
and
they
would
requesting
this
side.
Access
is
not
to
have
to
be
forced
to
utilize
the
alley,
access
and
their
Corner
property
in
the
area.
Their
neighbors
have
similar
arrangements
to
what
they
are
seeking,
and
it
seems
as
though
this
has
you
know
gotten
in
the
way.
I
think
this
is
potentially
provide
them,
an
outlet
that
is
not
just
staff.
R
R
So
we
have
a
conflict
between
zoning
and
public
works,
so
we
are
trying
to
fix
that
conflict
so
that
the
city
departments
are
on
the
same
page
and
at
that
point
the
property
owner
could
then
request
a
major
variation
and
go
through
that
process
which,
by
holding
a
public
hearing
on
it
and
bringing
out
the
further
details
and
how
neighbors
may
feel
about
it.
That
can
impact
the
overall
determination
on
it
and
and
the
way
that
Public
Works
is
looking
at
it.
R
C
My
concern
with
that
is
that
one
we
we
have.
There
should
be
very
few
places
where
code
and
internal
policy
conflict,
and
so
I
am
happy
that
we're
we're
making
some
progress
here.
O
Yeah
I
mean
I,
just
any
I
think
we
have
to
just
be
so
careful
about
curb
Cuts,
because
any
unnecessary,
curb
Cuts
create
more
dangerous
sidewalks.
So
I
am
you
know,
concerned
about
if
we
aren't
restrictive
enough
regarding
curb
cuts
that
we're
going
to
end
up
with
sidewalks
that
are
unnecessarily
dangerous.
R
This
ultimately
tightens
up
the
regulation,
while
also
bringing
zoning
and
Public
Works
in
integrating
the
two
into
the
having
the
same
policy.
Belief.
R
A
Okay,
I,
don't
see
any
further
discussion
on
item
P2
as
amended.
Let's
do
a
roll
call
vote.
O
That's
one
last
question:
okay,
really
quick
on
the
variations;
I'm,
sorry
on
the
minor
and
major
variations
for
plan
development.
This
when
I
read
through
it
here
it
just
if
you
could
is
that
number
11
or
12..
O
R
O
Okay,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
those
sort
of
changes
like
again,
if
you
reduce
commercial
space.
F
O
That
are
making
requesting
a
change,
a
a
minor
or
major
change
understood,
but
so,
if
you
approve
them
but
there's
then
they're
requesting
some,
that's
why
I
want
to
make
sure
that's
not
just
height.
There
are
other
kind
of
changes
that
would
be
very
significant,
I'm
concerned
that
those
would
not
have
to
go
back.
So
just
if
you
could
explain.
R
S
Here,
thank
you.
Matt
Rogers,
chair
of
the
land,
use
commission,
council,
member.
The
what
we
discovered
in
doing
this
was
that
there
was
really
a
lot
of
inconsistency,
so
someone
could
actually
physically
move
a
building
on
the
lot
and
that
was
considered
a
minor
variation
or
a
minor
change
that
did
not
have
to
come
back
through
under
current
code.
S
So
what
we
tried
to
do
was
determine
what
would
be
the
most
logical
thing
that
would
require
them
to
come
back
through
the
entire
process
versus
what
would
be
something
that
we
were
just
prolonging
the
inevitable
for
them
in
certain
cases,
and
so
in
particular
things
like
the
change
of
materials
we
had
on
the
Anne
Rainey
Apartments,
we
had
Northlight
Theater
come
to
us
because
their
facade
had
changed.
Lots
of
this
was
due
to
construction
materials
during
covid.
S
These
were
things
that
didn't
necessarily
change
our
view
on
the
land
use
Commission
about
the
impact
it
would
have,
and
the
standards
that
we
use
in
in
approving
something
it
would
be
more
superficial
changes
things
that
come
to
us
where
there's
a
reduction
in
the
impact
of
use.
Our
feeling
was
that
if
we
have
already
I've
recommended
approval
and
Council
has
approved
a
certain
level
of
impact,
lessening
that
should
not
have
to
go
through
the
whole
process
again.
S
So
that's
why
we
kind
of
came
up
with
the
if
it's
something
you
normally
would
come
to
us
for
it's
something
that
we
would
hear
again
in
terms
of
the
site
allowances.
That
would
be
thank.
O
O
S
O
Many
other
instances
that
I'm
not
thinking
of
right
now,
that's
what
I'm
a
little
bit
hesitant
about
this
whole
Doc
and
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
loaded
in
this
that
it's
hard
right
on
the
fly
right
now
to
imagine
all
the
unintended
consequences
that
we
might
not
be
considering
I
do
think
there
are
probably
other
instances
besides.
You
know
that
sort
of
aesthetic
about
where
a
building
hits
another
building,
because
they
drop
in
a
few
floors.
O
A
O
O
So
again,
there's
many
items
in
here
that
I'm,
you
know
this
is
presented
very
clearly
to
us
like
this.
I
would
like
to
hold
this
to
have
time
to
just
also
talk
with
chair
Rogers
about
some
of
these
items
between
now
and
and
I'd
like
to
hold
the
whole
document
over.
C
O
See
right
but
I
think
this
is
the
committee
that
discusses
in
Greater
depth
this
type
of
an
item
so
I
would
like
to
see
it
come
back
to
p
d
for
more.
C
Further
discussion
and
I
will
also
say
that
you're
you're
fighting
to
make
sure
that
the
land
use
commission
is
hearing
this
stuff
because
you
value
the
land
use
commission.
Well,
the
land
use
commission
sent
this
to
us,
and
this
is
what
they're
asking
to
make
their
processes
more
efficient
and
to
make
sure
that
we're
aligning
our
code
with
what
the
mission
is
that
we
gave
land
use
commission.
So
the.
S
Had
one
last
little
thing,
we
are
kind
of
on
a
on
a
timeline
here
we
have
projects
that
are
coming
up,
that
some
of
these
things
will
drastically
affect
I'm
thinking,
in
particular,
Northwestern
Stadium,
the
signage
we
don't
have
guidelines
for
signage,
as
of
yet
so
I
would
encourage
Council
to
do
its
due
diligence
in
this
commission
to
do
their
due
diligence,
but
also
to
recognize
that
there
are
things
working
their
way
through
the
pike
that
we
are
that
we
will
be
needing
some
of
these
tools
for
so.
A
O
Photo
well,
I
did,
but
is,
would
there
be?
Would
it
be
possible
for
the
land
use
to
commission
to
identify
those
that
are
most
urgent
and
for
us
to
to
have
a
hold
and
then
come
back
and
vote
on
the
ones
that
are
most
urgent,
like,
like
you
said
the
signage
and
whatever
you
feel
like
right
now?
You
need
to
have
voted
on
and
passed.
S
I
suppose
I
could
talk
we're
meeting
Wednesday
night
I.
Don't.
R
Know
the
process
I
I
will
clarify
that
I
asked
chair
Rogers
that
myself,
because
this
was
such
a
large
thing
to
pull
together
and
ultimately,
in
our
own
discussion,
we
determined
that
they
are
all
essential.
R
So,
ultimately,
I
would
request
that
if
you
have
concerns
about
any
specific
text
amendments,
if
you
would
like
to
pull
those
off
so
that
the
rest
could
move
forward,
but
they
all
are
essential,
they're
all
on
the
list,
because
issues
have
popped
up
throughout
the
year
and
at
this
point
we
have
things
waiting
on
them.
A
So
they're
being
no
further
discussion
and
no
motions
on
the
table,
I
will
request
a
roll
call
vote
on
this
item.
As
amended.
E
Council
member
read
aye
council
member
Ravel,
aye
council
member
Burns,
aye
council
member
Wynn
council
member
Kelly,
no
council
member
nusma.
A
Aye
so
buy
a
vote
of
one
two.
Three
four
five
to
one
item
P2
passes,
which
brings
us
to
items
for
discussion.
We
are
45
minutes
after
the
designated
start
time
for
city
council.
This
discussion
has
already
been
pushed
back
once
so.
I
do
want
to
hold
this
discussion
this
evening,
but
I
will
just
ask
for
everybody's
collaboration,
not
letting
this
conversation
drag
out.
A
So
if
somebody
could
make
a
motion
on
item,
do
you
want
to
allow
us
to
discuss
this
and
then
we'll
start
with
a
presentation
from
Kate
Sterling.
O
A
Okay,
moved
and
seconded
so
here's
how
things
are
going
to
play
out.
Kate
Sterling
will
make
a
short
presentation
and
he
is
soliciting
input
on
five
particular
questions
and
I,
like
our
conversation
to
be
hopefully
geared
towards
those
five
questions.
T
Wonderful,
thank
you
chair
new
smile
members
of
the
committee
director
flax.
My
name
is
Kate
Sterling
city
planner
and
Community
Development
Department
I'm
in
Luana
of
a
presentation.
I
just
have
some
prepared
marks,
maybe
go
four
minutes
of
your
time
and
then,
if
you're,
more
interested
in
your
discussion,
so
I
was
lucky
enough
to
work
on
this
project.
It's
very
interesting.
A
creation
of
this
commission
was
initiated
by
councilmember
Kelly
as
a
co-sponsored
by
council
members
suffered
in
inherit
cares.
T
This
follows
a
prior
removal
of
this
design
and
project
Review
Committee,
which
came
from
a
prior
referral
by
council
member
suffragan.
T
The
framework
before
it
incorporates
many
common
best
practices.
But
it's
all
it's
also
highly
Innovative.
It
intends
to
position
Evanston
as
a
leader
in
the
use
of
good
design
and
urbanism
to
positively
impact
human
experience
and
to
create
a
more
sustainable,
economically
resilient
and
Vibrant
Community
foremost.
T
T
In
order
to
maximize
volunteer
capital
and
the
ability
to
be
a
working
body,
primarily
that
produces
documents
and
reports
for
consideration
should
non-residents
who
work
in
Evanston
as
well
as
associate
members
be
considered.
Should
the
types
of
applicable
or
excluded
projects
be
adjusted
or
are
they
appropriate
Are?
There
specific
design,
related
issues
in
Evanston
that
members
of
this
committee
feel
are
important
to
address
or
that
require
more
active
management.
T
Are
there
questions
additions
or
concerns
with
the
review
process,
types
of
reviews
offered
or
the
criteria
used
for
review
projects,
and
are
there
additional
powers
and
duties
that
should
be
considered
or
any
which
are
currently
included
that
are
problematic?
Thank
you
very
much.
I
look
forward
to
the
discussion.
A
B
I
mean
just
to
try
to
move
things
forward.
This
is
just
discussion,
so
I
mean
I,
certainly
support
moving
this
for
introduction
and
I'm
not
ready
to.
If
this
was
for
Action
today,
I
wouldn't
be
ready
to
vote
on
it,
but
I'm
certainly
happy
to
move
this
forward's
introduction
to
give
me
some
time
to
to
meet
with
Kate
and
some
of
the
other
staff
members
and
community
members
that
have
been
a
part
of
developing
this.
So
hopefully
we
can
kind
of
get
moving
to
council
and
just
kind
of
move.
This
forward.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
Burns,
council
member
Kelly
and
then
council,
member
Revell.
O
You
yeah
I'll
just
make
a
quick
comment:
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
really
outstanding
work
that
Kate
Sterling
Elizabeth
Williams
did
on
this
and
researching
cities
Across
the
Nation
that
have
these
design
commissions
and
and
their
impacts
on
the
city.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
outstanding
work.
Q
Q
So
that
would
be
a
question
in
my
mind
before
moving
forward
I'm
wondering
if
we
had
had
the
design
Commission
in
place
for
the
Legacy
project
to
go
through,
you
know
what
would
that
ultimate
process
of
look
like,
for
example,
if
the
Legacy
folks
had
gone
to
the
design
commission
said
here,
is
our
proposal
and
design
commission
made
a
lot
of
suggestions
and
Legacy
adopted
all
those
design
suggestions
without
them
tip
the
scale
for
the
land
use
commission
at
all
and
how?
What
kind
of
impact
would
that
have
on
the
council's
decision?
Q
I'm
just
just
a
little
curious
about
you
know
how
that
would
all
come
to
us.
I
mean
I,
do
like
the
idea
of
or
having
beautiful
buildings
and
and
I
guess.
I
would
I
would
feel
at
this
point
anyway,
more
comfortable
having
the
concept
of
the
design
commission
be
something
that
was
considered
by
the
in
the
comprehensive
planning
process
and
that
it
would
be
seen
as
something
to
be
created
as
part
of
adopting
the
comprehensive
plan.
O
Yeah
I
just
say
it
is
advisory,
and
in
the
past,
when
we
adapter
that
was
also
advisory,
and
so
this
gives
up,
you
know,
replaces
I
know
a
lot.
Much
of
the
public
was
very
concerned
about
the
elimination
Dapper
because
they
would
frequently
make
public
comment
there
and
weigh
in
on
this
offers
a
more
a
legisl,
a
legislative
body
making
I'm
giving,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
Mr
Sterling,
but
this
would
be
a
an
advisory
body.
O
Making
recommendations
wouldn't
be
binding,
and
so
just
like
Dapper
was.
But
in
this
this
way
it
is
public
subject
to
om,
a
and
with
resident
experts
who
care
about
our
city
and
who
live
here
and
I.
Also
think
it's
really
important.
If
you
look
at
it,
it
just
brings
focus
and
attention
to
how
much
we
care
about
design
in
Evanston
and
about
creating
a
city
that
is
attractive
and
and
more
and
that
mesh
as
well,
that
we
understand
our
community
and
what's
needed
for
our
community
as
well.
O
Some
cities
have
competitions
every
year
on
the
best
design
and
that's
sponsored
Often
by
these
design
commissions,
so
I
think
it
just
really
lends
itself
to
creating
a
more
overall,
attractive,
City,
so
I
don't
think
in
principle.
The
same
way
Dapper,
however
land
use
commission
may
have
weighed
in
on
that.
This
would
have
maybe
a
little
more
impact
because
it's
residents
and
a
public
body.
Q
A
I'll
land
myself
in
to
the
specific
question
regarding
the
Legacy
Horizon
Project,
would
they
have
taken
input
from
this
body?
In
that
particular
case,
the
developers
did
not
take
input
from
conversations
with
council
members
directly
prior
to
that
application.
So
I
suspect
no,
would
be
the
answer
in
that
case.
A
A
It's
in
our
community's
best
interest
to
have
some
firm
guidelines
in
place
that
allow
developers
a
clear
delineation
of
what's
acceptable
and,
what's
not
some
things
are
easy
to
quantify
like
Building
height
floor
area
ratio
density
when
it
comes
to
Aesthetics,
you
know
kind
of
by
very
definition
that
is
hard
to
quantify
in
difficult,
it's
not
impossible
to
quantify,
and
so,
while
understanding
the
need
to
have
a
beautiful
downtown
who
gets
to
decide
what
that
means.
A
And
how
can
we
Define
what
beautiful
means
going
back
to
my
high
school
English
class,
Howard,
Rorke
and
Peter
Keating
couldn't
agree
and
I?
Don't
think
it
would
be
productive
to
have
a
committee
where
we've
got
one
architect
arguing
if
our
ionic
columns
and
columns
than
the
other
architect
is
arguing
for
Dora
columns
and
really
what
the
city
council
wants
is
Corinthian,
and
that
about
is
the
extent
of
my
architectural
knowledge,
so
I'm
just
concerned
about
creating
a
committee.
A
That's
the
taste,
police
and
and
having
that
not
be
a
productive
value-added
part
of
this
process
well,
fully
acknowledging
the
intent
is
noble
and
good,
so
I'm
hung
I'm
hung
up
on
that,
but
it's
been
specific
response
to
kade's.
First
question:
should
further
development
of
the
framework
for
this
commission
wait
until
after
the
comprehensive
plan
and
zoning
ordinances
are
adopted
I.
A
My
answer
is
yes:
we
are
about
to
engage
on
a
very
in-depth,
long-term
18-month
project
to
look
at
all
all
the
things
that
are
coming
into
play
here,
including
those
quantitative
aspects
of
Building
height,
floor
area
ratio.
Stuff
like
that.
So
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
should
keep
in
mind
during
that
discussion.
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
appropriate
at
this
point
to
form
a
new
commission
I
think
that
would
be
premature.
A
Let's
see
what
happens
out
of
this
comprehensive
design
process,
we're
going
to
learn
a
lot
over
the
next
18
months,
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
public
input
and
then,
let's
see
where
we're
at
something
might
kind
of,
naturally,
the
kind
of
materialize
out
of
that
discussion.
That
will
make
a
lot
more
sense,
and
so
that's
that's,
where
my
mind
is
again
we're
not
voting.
That's
just
that's
my
two
cents
worth
councilmember
Winn.
U
Well,
I've
been
on
the
council
long
enough
for
at
least
two
iterations
of
some
type
of
design
process
and
The
Taste
police
was
a
phrase
used
in
a
number
of
times
over
over
the
history
of
this
I
have
some
additional
questions
about
the
process,
but
I
can
talk
to
you
to
Kate
about
those
separately.
I
think
that
you
raise
an
interesting
point
that
we're
about
to
embark
on
this
very
a
comprehensive
plan,
and
should
we
put
something
that
is
very
different
into
our
process,
just
as
we're
about
to
rewrite
the
process.
A
C
I
I
just
want
to
add
I
I
agree
with
what
council
member
Wynn
just
said
so
I'm
there,
but
I
also
want
to
if
we
in
two
years
or,
however
long
do
move
forward
with
this
process.
One
thing
that
I
want
us
to
be
cautious
of
and
I
hope
it
wasn't
mentioned
already,
but
is
to
make
sure
that
if
we
do
create
a
committee
like
this,
that
there
are
very
clear
guidelines
or
that
it's
a
advisory
body,
because
of
fear
that
a
committee
like
this
could
become
make
the
process
more
political
and
less.
C
You
know,
following
some
kind
of
some
clear
set
of
guidelines
and
make
the
process
muddier
and
murkier
and
make
Evanston
potentially
potentially
a
more
unfriendly
place
for
folks
to
come
in
and
develop.
But
if,
as
long
as
this
is
created
in
a
very
thoughtful
manner
that
uses
this
body
as
Dapper
was
previously
used
to
help
people
get
to
that,
yes,
then
then
I'm
fine
with
them.
So
thank
you.
O
I
think
Mr
Sterling
cut
his
presentation
off
short,
the
Chicago
has
us,
will
Med
Oak,
Park,
Madison
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
a
more
and
I
think
you
will
give
a
broader
presentation
of
this
and
why
this
isn't
so
so
important
and
the
positive
impact
this
has
on
so
many
communities
Nationwide
that
we're
really
actually
just
a
little
behind
and
it
doesn't.
O
It
replaces
Dapper
in
the
sense
that
as
a
meeting
and
a
voting
body,
all
the
information
that
each
department
would
weigh
in
on
would
still
be
presented
to
that
body
in
the
land.
Use
commission,
but
I
would
ask
that
everyone.
You
know,
wait
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
this
other
cities
that
do
have
this.
The
many
many
cities
around
us
that
have
this,
including
Chicago,
and
why
it's
so
important?
This
isn't
we're
not
you
know
starting
proposing
something
unusual
or
new.
B
B
Say
chair
if
I
can
sure
I
knew.
B
A
reason
why
I
held
my
my
comments,
you
perfectly
summed
up
my
number
one
concern,
taste,
police,
100
and
part
of
the
work
that
I
would
want
to
do
in
between
time.
B
No
matter
when
it
comes
back
up
is,
is
some
of
the
work
that
I
started
early
on
in
the
turn
that
haven't
completed
is
just
really
rethinking
how
we
can
get
much
more
broader
participation,
not
just
in
committees
like
these
but
across
our
boards,
committees
and
commissions,
because
my
fear
is
that
we
really
are
on
we're
getting
a
certain
perspective
from
our
bcc's,
but
not
as
much
as
as
we're
not
tapping
into
as
much
of
the
Community
as
we
can
and
so
I
think
there's
some
fundamental
flaws
in
the
way
we
just
in
in
the
way
we
you
know,
assign
people
to
these
responsibilities
and
how
we
recruit
members,
and
we
need
to
do
a
lot
more
work
on
that
before
I
would
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
this,
but
again,
I'm
fine,
either
or
I
see
a
value
in
waiting
until
the
comp
plan
is
is
completed.
B
A
So,
as
usual,
the
feedback
is
as
clear
as
mud,
but
if
I
could
attempt
to
summarize
I
think
the
prevailing,
but
not
unanimous,
opinion
of
this
committee
is
to
hold
off
for
now
and
if
and
when
we
get
to
the
point
of
considering
this
that
then
there
are
some
concerns
about
how
we
would
go
about
doing
that.
O
I
would
not
say
that
I
think
it
should
be
brought
back,
and
we
should
we're
rushing
through
this
tonight,
because
we're
short
on
time
so
I
would
ask
that
we
have
another
opportunity
to
hear
this
to
hear
about
other
cities
to
understand
it.
I
don't
think
we
have
I'm
a
robust,
robust
enough
understanding
of
the
value
of
this
to
make
any
sort
of
a
decision
anyway.
O
This
is
just
for
discussion,
so
I
would
ask
that
we
not
give
direction
to
say
hold
off,
but
rather,
let's
find
time
at
a
either
a
separate
p
d
or
or
just
make
sure
that
we
allow
time
to
understand
this
better.
C
O
Don't
think
we
should
wait
for
the
comprehensive
plan
to
be
completed
to
the
founder
of
design
evanston's.
You
know
point
this
could
be
a
couple
years.
This
is
something
that
I
feel
and
many
people
in
the
city
feel
was
needed
a
long
time
ago.
So
point.
O
Well,
this
would
come
back
for
introduction,
I
believe
for
a
vote
for
Action,
so
I
would
ask
that
it
come
back,
that
it
come
back
for
discussion
and
action
and
we
can
amend
any
part
of
it
that
you
want
then,
but
otherwise
that
would
be
the
normal.
So
I,
don't
know.
Why
can't
we
let
this
come
back
for
introduction
and
at
that
point,
if
somebody
would
like
to
amend
it,
if
you
still
continue
to
feel
that
you'd.
P
So,
if
the,
if
the
suggestion
is
to
staff,
to
draft
the
ordinance
to
bring
it
back
for
introduction
we're
just
looking
for
that
from
the
committee,
if
the
committee's
direction
is
to
wait,
then
we
won't
draft
the
ordinance
so
we're
just
talking
about
staff
time.
So
I
think
we
do
need
some
some
clear
Direction
on
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
begin
drafting
that
ordinance
or
if
we're
going
to
wait
until
the
comprehensive.
A
C
Three
months,
which
would
be
our
first
meeting
in
what
is
that
October
November,
we'll
say:
October
councilman.
O
Read
I
just
I
think
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
believe
the
bulk
of
the
work
is
done,
that
it
would
just
need
to
be
refined
into
an
ordinance
form
and
could
come
back
at
the
end
of
August.
Does
that
seem
reasonable?
If
not.
A
As
a
I'll
recognize
Mr
Sterling
bite
my
tongue
for
now.
T
I
think
to
answer
councilmember
Kelly's
question:
I
think
the
bulk
of
the
work
has
been
done.
What's
not
clear
is
if
the
bulk
of
you
are
comfortable
with,
what's
been
done,
and
if
we
need
to
revise
or
change
that,
maybe
that's
a
series
of
offline
conversations
with
individual
council
members
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
their
concerns
are.
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
anything
else.