►
From YouTube: Planning & Development Committee Meeting 2/12/2018
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
A
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
regular
meeting
minutes
of
January
22nd.
So,
second,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed.
Omit
are
approved
all
right.
Now
we're
moving
on
to
item
P,
1
resolution,
10
r18,
grannie
municipal
use,
exemption
for
public
utility
at
25,
25,
Church
Street,
and
we
have
more
people
signed
up
for
this.
Oh
excuse
me,
I'm.
Sorry,
we
don't
have
anyone
signed
up
for
pp,
1.
Okay,
excuse
me
miss
Esther.
You
have
signed
up
for
P
1.
Yes,
we
have
a
new
sign-up
sheet.
B
B
B
The
community
would
like
to
know
because
we're
getting
it
in
bits
and
pieces
in
reading
this,
and
then
I
said
Oh
daddy,
you
should
have
read
that
first,
and
maybe
you
were
to
understand,
it
should
have
been,
would
have
been
helpful
if
it
had
have
been
in
all
one
package
and
all
together.
So
what
we
was
told
and
what
was
that
the
diaper
meeting
and
at
the
other
meeting
and
now
before
you,
that
is
for
action?
A
lot
of
things
wasn't
left
out
for
the
community
to
know
about.
B
So
it
would
be
helpful
if
we
could
get
a
detail
laid
out
plan
as
to
what
is
going
to
be
happening
over
there
in
that
neighborhood.
We
know
that
a
lot
of
facility
is
there.
They
explain
that
that's
safe.
We
don't
have
no
problem
with
that,
but
now
we
have
a
whole
lot
of
other
stuff
that
is
connected
to
the
water
part.
But
it's
also
connected
to
this
building.
A
C
Of
Andrew
Simmons
right,
thank
you,
miss
Esther
for
the
concerns
about
the
park
over
there,
so
there
will
not
be
any
showers,
and
that
was
never
part
of
the
proposal.
I
think
director,
stone
back,
maybe
mention
what
might
be
required
based
on
the
capacity
of
the
splash
park,
which
is
a
tea
and
shower,
is
not
required,
so
it
will
be
bathrooms
that
will
comply
with
the
amount
of
the
usage
for
the
park
and
the
park
is
a
goal.
C
So
at
this
time
we
only
have
money
funded
or
budgeted
for
the
demolition
which
we
will
reimburse
the
Water
Commission
for
the
demolition
and
then
we'll
have
to
look
at
ways
to
fund
the
improvements
of
the
splash
park,
and
before
we
move
forward
once
funding
is
identified,
we
will
have
community
meetings,
as
we
did
for
the
pumping
station
will
have
staff
reports
at
our
work
meetings.
We
will
welcome
and
encourage
community
input
from
the
immediate
neighbors
and
even
the
broader
community.
C
A
Right,
so
this
is
for
action
tonight
with
someone
like
to
make
a
motion.
Second,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
all
right,
P
1
will
be
moving
on
to
the
council.
Next
is
ordinance,
P,
2,
ordinance,
21:08,
een,
special
use
permit
for
a
special
educational
institution
public
in
the
i2
general
industrial
zone.
District
move
approval,
any
discussion.
That's.
C
D
Good
evening,
Darlene
cannon
become,
as
a
representative
1300
block,
pitting
her
1,300
pitner
black
Club.
We
are
opposed
to
the
off-campus
school
which
we
placed
in
our
neighborhood
also
I
understand
that
many
feel
there
is
a
good
thing,
because
it's
gonna
save
money
and
and
that
it
will
be
neighborhood
students,
which
means
that
would
be
predominantly
black
students
in
a
predominantly
black
neighborhood,
with
this
school
be
more
appropriately
placed
in
a
white
or
mixed
neighborhood.
D
Are
you
concerned
about
the
demographics
and
the
possibility
of
deepening
lines
of
segregation
and
Avastin,
as
I've
said
numerous
times
before
the
neighbors
feel
excluded
and
misled
about
this
about
this
process
by
the
city?
This
is
one
more
example
of
how
Evans
how
black
neighborhoods
are
not
afforded
the
same
consideration,
respect
as
white
neighborhoods
in
the
city.
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
A
A
B
B
Then
there
was
all
of
this
discussion
about
removing
the
blocks
that
the
blocks
should
not
be
there
and
everything,
and
one
thing
that
was
puzzling
to
me
I,
could
not
find
a
city
ordinance
that
says
black
wonders
of
not
wonders
could
not
be
in
a
commercial
site.
I
did
not
find
that
anywhere
in
the
city
code.
So
how
are
we
demanding
something
that
you
don't
have
a
code
for
then
it's
this
arbitrary
and
capricious
you
just
make
a
decision
and
you
tear
it
out.
B
That
doesn't
seem
right,
and
then
that
was
this
long
discussion
about
the
bathroom
I
did
go
in
the
facility
did
look.
There
is
a
various
two
bathrooms
in
there
and
wonnum
is
a
handicapped
bathroom
that
was
put
in
when
the
restaurant
was
first
put
in
and,
from
all
intents
and
purposes
and
look,
it
still
meets
all
those
requirements
set
by
the
state
of
Illinois
and
in,
according
with
the
Illinois,
with
the
International
Building
Code
of
2012.
B
So
what
is
wrong
with
that
bathroom
that
a
different
aba
bathroom
has
to
be
made
put
in
when
you're
still
going
to
use
the
same
code
so
that
I
need
to
have
and
I
think
a
lot
of
people?
It's
confused.
If
you
got
one
code
that
says
the
bathroom
has
to
be
this.
The
bathroom
was
put
in
under
that
coat,
so
welcome
that
code
in
that
bathroom
do
not
carry
forth
as
being
a
handicap
accessible
bathroom
and,
if
he's
having
less
than
50
people
in
there,
you
can
have
one
bathroom.
B
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
F
A
A
Build
or
or
operate
a
type
of
use
that
we
don't
consider
normal
or
permitted
in
a
particular
district,
and
we
have
fairly
high
standards
for
a
special
use.
It's
it's
a
privilege
that
someone
earns
it's
not
a
right
and
I
have
to
say
that,
given
mr.
cratons
current
pending
legal
proceedings,
I
do
not
believe
that
he
has
earned
the
right
to
have
a
special
use
to
operate
a
type
2
restaurant
on
Simpson
Street,
so
I
cannot
support
a
special
use
for
this
application.
A
A
Introducing,
if
our
for
granting
the
introduction
of
this
special
use,
please
say
aye
all
those
opposed.
No,
no
all
right.
The
motion
fails
introduction
and
it
will
not
be
moved
on
to
the
city
councillor
all
right.
Moving
on
to
our
next
item,
which
is
our
discussion
of
the
lakefront
policy
for
private
land,
we
have
a
number
of
people
signed
up
to
speak
on
this
issue
and
why
don't
I
call
call
them
at
this
point?
So
first
is
Mike
vasilich
Oh.
Mr.
Basilico,
did
you
want
to
speak
on
this.
G
Thank
you,
Mike
for
soul
code,
27,
28,
Reece,
Avenue,
I'm
interested
in
hearing
the
discussion
that
takes
place
because
I'm
confused
a
little
bit
now
as
to
what
the
city's
motive
is
in
beginning
this
discussion.
Originally
it
was
a
floodplain
ordinance
issue
related
to
residents
who
have
property
along
a
lake
that
want
to
do
some
improvements
to
protect
their
property,
and
there
was
a
question
about
the
property
line
in
particular,
but
the
way
this
memo
that
was
issued
with
the
packet
States,
it's
now
lakefront
policy
for
private
land.
G
So
that's
much
different
in
my
mind
than
floodplain
ordinance
for
residential
property,
so
primarily
I'm
interested
in
how
its
segwayed
from
one
to
the
other.
It's
also
a
little
misleading.
You
know
the
livability
benefits
in
the
memo
says:
protect
the
preserve
natural
characteristics
of
Lake
Michigan
lake
shore.
The
reality
is,
there
is
no
natural
Lakeshore
left,
with
the
exception
of
in
Illinois,
at
least
with
the
exception
of
a
small
piece
in
Highland
Park.
G
So
that's
a
little
overstated,
I
thought
and
also
on
the
second
page
of
the
memorandum,
where
it
says,
prohibit
conversion
of
public
water
of
Lake
Michigan
to
private
Lake,
Shore
property
via
Phil.
That
really
is
counter
to
what
a
lot
of
the
residents
who
I
heard
speak
at
the
last
meeting,
say
that
you
know
some
of
them
own
property
in
the
lake,
because
the
water
level
goes
back
and
up
and
down
back
and
forth.
G
So
it
really
should
that
sentence
should
really
go
on
to
say
unless
the
water
in
question
is
in
fact
private,
because
again,
some
of
the
residents
and
other
property
owners
do
in
fact
own
lake
bottom
property
according
to
the
Cook
County
property
records.
So
you
should
just
be
careful
about
how
that
language
is
proposed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
H
Evening,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
and
I'd
like
to
applaud
the
city
for
really
taking
a
serious
look
at
this
issue,
and
it's
not
a
simple
issue
and
I
wasn't
really
sure.
I
was
kind
of
signed
up
to
talk
in
case
I
wanted
to
say
something
in
rebuttal,
but
I
do
want
to
comment
on
the
previous
speakers
comments.
H
No
one
to
my
knowledge,
I
own,
a
riparian
lot
on
its
mere
Court
943
Edgemere.
That
is
my
understanding.
I
know
that
I
have
sand
in
my
backyard
and
that
sand
moves
from
time
to
time
almost
daily,
perhaps
even
hourly,
and
it
moves
as
the
water
goes
up
and
down
and
it
moves
as
sand
shifts
up
and
down
the
lakefront,
and
it
shifts
quite
a
bit
depending
upon
winds
and
depending
upon
other
other
factors
affecting
the
drift,
so
that
Lake
line
is
moving
constantly
and
I
can
tell
you.
I
do
not
own
any.
H
Seabed
under
the
water,
my
not
line
is
defined,
as
is
everyone's
as
a
riparian
line.
Is
the
water
line
wherever
it
may
be
from
time
to
time,
and
therefore
I
have
urged
the
the
city
to
consider
using
a
line
and
to
treat
this
just
like
any
zoning
issue
and
to
draw
a
line
and
the
state
or
whoever
drew
the
floodplain
has
already
drawn
a
line
for
us.
H
They've
established
a
floodplain
and
I
looked
at
that
line,
and
it
looks
to
me
like
it
was
you
know
it's
a
intelligently
placed
line
and
I
think
the
city
should
treat.
That
line
has
basically
the
line
from
which
they
will
regulate,
just
as
they
would
regulate.
Any
zoning
situation
setbacks
what
you
build,
how
how
much
coverage
I
mean?
H
You
know
we
have
that
deals
very
specifically
with
what
people
can
put
on
their
property
and
a
revetment
or
a
wall,
or
something
like
that
is
simply
no
different
and
I
believe
that
that
would
be
the
approach
and
I
think
that
is
the
approach
that
is
being
suggested
and
I.
Think
it's
a
very
good
approach,
so
I
applaud
that.
Thank
you.
Thank.
I
I,
like
the
first
person,
wasn't
expecting
to
speak,
but
there's
some
things.
They
have
come
up
in
terms
of
confirming
why
I'm
confused
and
so
with
regard
to
the
floodplain
ordinance
that
is
impactful
to
me,
even
though
I'm
not
riparian
and
I've
observed
people
near
me,
who
have
been
wonderful,
I,
actually
have
riparian
lots,
who
have
done
everything,
everything
and
more
to
comply
and
make
a
contribution
in
terms
of
her
property
and
those
around
her
she's
to
be
commended.
I
So
the
question
the
other
fellow
brought
up
in
terms
of
we
have
zoning
orient
ordinances.
We
have
something
called
judgment
and
I
think
when
you
open
discussions,
like
you
have
been
in
terms
of
city
council
or
seeing
the
city
council
grow
in
terms
of
being
more
open.
The
transparency
part
makes
these
discussions
much
better
and
I
think.
I
Maybe
the
Zoning
Board
should
consider
that
they
should
open
themselves
up
and
be
transparent
with
regard
to
how
people
can
be
affected,
that
they
could
never
anticipate
because
they
haven't
lived
in
the
house
or
they
haven't
seen
the
actual
things.
To
the
extent
that
my
house
ended
up
having
a
retainer
draw
that
was
near
the
property
line.
I
You
don't
build
houses
like
that
under
zoning
ordinances,
unless
you
have
approval
to
do
it
that
way,
she's
proceeded
to
now
block
that
entrance
lead
it
going
right
very
close
within
30
inches
of
my
my
divider,
so
I
can't
get
through
into
my
property.
Now
I
would
think
common
sense
would
say:
that's
not
very
neighborly,
and
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
about
being
more
neighborly
rather
than
some
so-called
law
for
law
to
say
so.
I
People
who
have
riparian
lots,
beautiful,
repairing
Lots
I,
really
really
enjoy
being
in
near
enough
to
share
some
of
that
and
what
you
do
to
your
property.
So
as
a
neighbor
I
have
appreciate,
above
all,
the
people
who
share
their
beauty
with
the
rest
of
us.
There
are
people
who
want
to
wall
things
off
and
that's
a
completely
different
feeling
and
when
you
feel
that
it
kind
of
sends
up
that,
maybe
there's
something
not
right
about
this,
and
maybe
zoning
and
the
community
needs
to
address
those
aspects.
I
So
when
you
feel
like,
if
it's
friendly
and
inviting
and
someone's
living
with
nature,
that's
one
thing,
but
when
they
want
to
wall
it
off,
like
a
little
net,
has
its
northern
suction
by
Gilson
Park
that
it
looks
like
it
looks
like
a
battle
zone
where
people
have
had
walled
off
areas
with
giant
walls
and
whatever
they
can,
it
was
awful.
I
was
crying.
My
dog
was
dying
of
cancer.
We
took
that
walk
as
a
memory,
and
my
heart
was
crying
because
it
was
all
this
imposing
stuff
that
this
is
mine.
This
is
mine.
I
I
So
my
ask
is
that
the
floodplain
be
considered
to
include
the
rest
of
us
neighbors
and
that,
even
though
you're
talking
about
riparian,
please
have
have
the
discussions
general
enough,
as
this
is
indicating
to
include
the
people
who
are
affected
when
people
adversely
impact
them
with
things
that
don't
grant
them
access
to
the
property
or
right
to
view
in
a
sense
of
beautiful
sharing
of
you,
not
necessarily
you.
You
have
to
peek
around
their
shoulders,
but
just
you
know
something
beautiful
and
consistent
with
the
land
and
the
property
that
everyone
loves
and
wants
to
share.
I
A
J
Jerr
alderman
Gary
Curtis
manager
of
the
building
and
inspection
Services
Division.
So
what
we
have
for
you
tonight
item
for
discussion
is
on
lakefront
policy
and
potential
code
amendments
to
the
city's
flood
plain
ordinance.
So
just
a
little
background.
We
initially
discussed
this
at
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee
back
in
November,
we
held
a
public
meeting
with
lakefront
property
owners
in
January
and
we're
back
again
tonight
as
a
discussion
item.
J
So
you've
seen
this
before
so
I
will
try
to
be
brief.
We
have
42
residential
lakefront
properties
within
the
city.
These
properties
are
located
within
FEMA
designated
flood
plain
recent
high
lake
levels.
Heavy
wave
action
have
degraded
some
of
these
properties
in
it
has
resulted
in
an
increase
in
shoreline
protection
projects.
The
East
property
line
is
subject
to
some
of
these
protection
projects.
Some
of
the
projects
that
we
have
seen
have
resulted
in
earth
work
or
that
meant
that
has
gone
beyond
the
East
property
line.
J
I
do
have
a
detail
of
what
a
revetment
is
a
little
bit
later,
so
we'll
show
that
a
little
bit
clearer,
so
the
permit
process
for
the
shoreline
protection
projects.
It's
a
joint,
a
joint
application
to
the
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
through
our
flood
floodplain
ordinance.
The
city
also
requires
local
review
and
permit
one
of
the
problems
that
we're
seeing
is
that
the
city
is
getting
notification
of
these
projects.
J
After
the
review
and
the
approval
by
the
joint
agencies,
the
city,
the
city
is
looking.
If
we
have
a
comment,
if
we
have
a
concern
on
a
project,
we
want
to
be
those
those
comments
and
concerns
to
be
vetted
during
the
design
stage
and
not
after
the
approval
by
the
joint
agencies.
The
homeowner
the
resident
has
a
significant
time
time
and
expense
into
the
project
and
snapped
the
time
for
the
city
to
ask
for
some
type
of
redesign.
J
So,
as
I
stated
before,
this
is
a
detail
on
a
revetment.
As
you
can
see
over
on
the
left,
you
have
a
proposed
seawall.
Typically,
this
is
your
Eastern
property
line
on
most
of
our
properties,
some
type
of
C,
while
some
type
of
sheet
piling,
would
be
your
East
property
line.
As
you
can
see
in
this
detail,
there's
a
six
foot
projection
of
the
revetment
into
the
lake
at
the
top
and
at
the
bottom,
your
18
feet
into
the
lake.
J
Some
of
our
what
our
recommendations
would
be
is
to
add
some
language
to
strengthen
our
floodplain
ordinance,
which
would
require
concurrent
review
of
projects
with
the
joint
agencies.
City
staff
has
also
already
reached
out
to
some
of
these
agencies
to
ask
for
that
concurrent
review.
We've
also
contacted
some
of
the
designers
that
we're
seeing
submit
projects
and
letting
them
notifying
them
that
we
we
want
to
see
concurrent
review
so
again
that
we're
not
seeing
these
projects.
J
After
that
joint
agency
approval,
we
want
to
see
a
notice
requirement
at
the
time
of
application
to
adjacent
property
owners
that,
for
the
protection,
may
impact
jacent
property
property
owners
here.
So
here
we're
saying:
10
properties,
up
water,
temp
properties,
down
water
and
less
interviewed
by
the
city
or
Northwestern
University
I
think
that
for
the
most
part
that
would
encompass
any
any
protection
project
within
a
certain
range
I
think
the
city
property
is
pretty
much
intervene,
most
of
those
properties.
J
So
typically,
we
have
a
group
of
10
or
group
of
seven
properties,
and
then
we
have
some
type
of
intervention.
We
would
prohibit
conversion
of
public
waters
of
Lake
Michigan
to
private
lake
shore
property
via
Phil
I.
Think.
The
couple
points
on
this
is
that
we
are
not
stating
here
that
a
protection
cannot
go
beyond
the
East
property
line.
What
we
are
stating
is
that
the
protection
does
not
create
private
property.
J
We
the
we
understand
that
each
properties
you
it
has
to
be
reviewed
not
only
for
the
protection
being
proposed,
but
also
we
have
to
look
at
adjacent
properties
also,
what
type
of
protections
that
they
have.
So
we
you
know,
we
would
like
to
limit
any
type
of
encroachment
into
Lake
Michigan,
but
we're
not
stating
here
that
that
we
cannot
that
protection
cannot
go
east
of
the
historic
East
property
line
and
then
we
would
require
apply
to
survey
after
construction
to
detail
the
as-built
conditions
and
verify
that
property
line
is
consistent
was
what
was
proposed.
E
Yeah
I
think
you
know:
we've
got
a
big
revetment
in
Evanston,
just
through
the
rocks
or
our
you
know
sure
long,
but
that's
allowed
in
a
lot
of
places
the
sand
to
build
up,
and
when
you
have
this
on
a
private
property
or
just
a
limited
space.
What
would
can
happen
or
what
typically
happens
or
is
there
a
typical
result?
It
could
kind
of
be
anything
right
as
far
as
San
building
up
the.
J
Background
the
name-
probably
some
of
the
property
owners-
can
speak
to
that,
but
everything
I
can,
to
be
honest.
I
think
our
concern
here
is
just
that
that
creeping
of
that
property
line,
we
don't
want
to
see
that
private
property
is
created,
so
I
think
that
for
the
most
part
most
of
these
when
we've
talked
to
designers
prior
to
coming
to
the
committee-
and
you
know
they
are
looking
at
they're-
not
looking
at
just
that
project
like
I,
said
they're
looking
at
everything
that's
surrounding
that
project
and
what
any?
E
A
A
J
Not
looking
to
prevent
measure
a
property
owner
to
prevent
you
know
them
from
restoring
and
protecting
their
shoreline
property.
That's
not
the
intent
here
again.
I
think
the
one
of
the
biggest
items
of
concern
is
that
the
you
know
is
that
that
joint
and
review
was
occurring
before
the
city
was
even
notified.
You
know
if
we
do
have
a
concern.
We
again
we
want
it
to
be
vetted
at
that
designed
stage.
We
don't
want
it
to
be
that
you
know
vetted
and
asked
for
a
redesign
later
on
so
yeah.
A
So
this
is
really
to
everyone's
benefit,
to
the
community's
benefit,
to
someone
who
wants
to
make
a
repair
so
that
they,
they
are
not
surprised
by
the
city
being
surprised
later
on,
I
mean
this
really
should.
This
is
sure
should
be
how
it
is
how
it
operates
all
along
that
these
agencies
should
let
us
know
so,
this
way
we
are
really
putting
it
into
our
ordinance
that
that
we
are
there
at
the
table
from
the
very
beginning,
right.
K
Well,
it's
not
only
that
we
lakefront
property
owners
need
to
be
able
to
repair
their
sea
walls.
There
are
the
revetment,
but
speaking
as
someone
in
the
northern
part
of
the
city,
most
of
us
have
seawalls
that
only
very
recently
needed
to
have
a
revetment,
so
some
of
us
are
putting
in
a
revetment
for
the
first
time,
so
it's
I
think
we
need
to
be
really
clear.
I
agree,
a
hundred
percent
that
we
don't
want
private
property
owners
to
suddenly
be
having
their
plan
of
survey.
K
J
I
think
for
our
review
purposes,
we
did
look
into
it
and
I
think
that
35
of
the
42
properties
have
some
sort
of
seawall
or
sheet
piling,
and
then
you
know
it's
a
combination
of
many
different
things,
but
35
of
the
42
have
something
there
so
for
our
review
purposes
and
I
think
for
ID
and
ours
review
purposes.
They
typically,
you
know
state
that
that
seawall
is
the
eastern
property
line
for
property
for
properties.
J
You
know
that
do
not
have
that
we
would
have
to
be
looking
to
plots
of
survey,
so
whatever
the
historical
records
that
we
have,
we
would
look
to
that
to
establish
what
that
that
property
line
would
be.
So
you
know-
and
most
of
these
we
do
have
historical
records
on
most
of
these
properties.
We'd
be
looking
at
at
those
for,
even
if
they
have
to
see
whether
or
not
you
know
we're
going
to
be
looking
for
those
plots
of
survey
to
establish
what
that
you
know.
Historically,
these
property
line
is.
A
J
I
was
just
going
to
say,
I
think
of
what
we're
just
strengthening
the
ordinance.
You
know
the
review.
The
permitting
is
already
requirement
that
the
city
has.
You
know
we
are
not
looking
to
codify
or
define
what
public
and
private
is
here.
I.
Think
that
that's
an
issue
for
courts
to
decide
we
are
looking
for.
You
know
you
have
a
basis
for
for
review.
Make
sure
that
those
notifications
are
there,
make
sure
that
we
are.
H
And
I
have
one
of
the
properties,
so
everyone
understands
that
does
have
have
beachfront
and
we've
lived
in
the
house
for
25
years
and
my
neighbors
have
moved
there
for
another
25
or
50
years
and
I'm
telling
you
that
each
front
is
constant.
It
moves
daily,
it
moves
out
early,
but
at
a
macro
level
it
is
constant
and
I
know
the
the
consultants
and
the
people
selling
these
revetment
projects.
H
You
know
come
up
with
statements
and
talking
about
the
lakefront
being
sin,
starved
and
being
you
know,
from
blue
erosion
and
yes,
existing
Shore
protections
do
need
to
be
periodically
updated.
You
need
to
paint
your
house
every
5
or
10
years.
I
mean
you
have
to
redo
your
driveway
every
once
a
while.
Yes,
you
have
to
do
maintenance,
but
maintenance
is
quite
different
than
taking
18
feet
of
seabed
and
in
particular,
in
this
particular
project.
H
The
person
has
the
ability
to
pull
that
top
back
18
feet
into
their
yard.
I
mean
you
can
do
stuff
with
your
own
land.
You
don't
have
to
maintain
your
tabletop
land
and
then
slam
something
18
feet
out
into
the
audience
of
the
public
waters.
Just
simply,
if
you
want
that
18
feet
of
slant,
bring
your
property
back
18
feet,
use
your
own
land
for
that
revetment.
You
don't
need
public
land,
so
I'm
very
concerned
about
this
concept.
Of
that
we
have
to
protect
people's
private
property.
We
don't
really
know
where
people's
private
property
is.
H
H
Surveys
of
my
property
that
was
done
five
years
ago,
I
have
an
extra
hundred
feet
of
property.
You
know,
I
mean
it's
like
when
you
do
the
survey.
You
know
the
land.
The
water
line
moves
so
I'm,
urging
the
city
to
define
the
shoreline
and
to
define
the
shoreline
that
it
will
regulate
and
not
let
people
move
out
beyond
the
SAR
line,
as
the
city
defines
it,
and
obviously
the
definition
is
already
in
the
floodplain
ordinance.
There
is
a
definition
you
can
look
at
the
maps
and
there's
a
very
distinct
shoreline.
H
That's
defining
in
the
floodplain
ordinance
I
suggest
to
use
that
or
review
it
use
something
else
if
you
want
to,
but
to
find
the
shoreline
as
opposed
to
this
concept
of
the
riparian
owners
property,
because
it's
moving
constantly
it's
not
something
you
can
define
and
you
can't
just
rely
on
somebody
putting
in
their
shoreline
protection
the
day
the
water
is
low
and
going
out
further.
You
have
to
you
have
to
understand
that
the
shoreline
that
you're
protecting
is
a
shoreline.
It's
not
the
riparian
owners
climb
and.
H
A
K
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that,
even
though
Evanston
shoreline
is
relatively
limited,
it's
very
different
at
the
north
end
of
Evanston
than
it
is
at
the
south
end
of
Evanston
and
so
I
think.
The
challenge
is
to
write
language
that
accommodates
both
the
situation
at
the
north
end
of
Evanston.
K
Where
really
we
truly
are
our
see,
our
property
line
doesn't
move
and
go
up
and
down,
because
we
have
a
sea
wall
and
we're
above
above
the
lake
and
it's
very
different
from
a
part
of
Evanston
in
the
south,
where
they
have
more
of
a
beach
in
a
sandy
area.
So
I
think
we
want
to
try
to
craft
language.
That
says
you
know
perhaps
something
about
the
the
more
restrictive
of
either
the
existing
seawall
or
the
you
know.
A
Oh
all,
right,
I,
don't
see
any
more
lights,
all
right
staff,
mr.
Curtis,
you
have
our
direction
okay,
and
we
will
hear
back
from
you
and
arch.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you
all
right
with
that.
Our
our
discussion
item
is
concluded
and
we
are
at
adjournment
seconds
all
right.
We
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
All.