►
From YouTube: Planning & Development Committee Meeting 10/8/2018
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
Okay,
we
were
expecting
another
member,
but
we
do
have
a
quorum
present,
so
I'm
going
to
call
the
meeting
to
order
a
good
evening.
Welcome
to
the
Planning
and
Development
Committee
meeting
for
Monday
October,
8th
2018.
We
have
a
quorum
present
and
the
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
regular
meeting
minutes
from
September
17th
2018
move.
C
A
The
first
item
for
consideration
tonight
is
P
1,
a
vacation
rental
license
for
it.
1918
Jackson,
Avenue
city
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
a
vacation
rental
license
for
the
property
located
at
1918.
Jackson
Avenue,
the
vacation
rental,
meets
all
of
the
standards
and
procedures
for
license
approval.
According
to
the
staff
report,
this
is
for
action.
I'd.
A
Okay,
so
there's
so
the
so
the
applicant
understands
there
was
a
motion
and
a
second
told
the
matter,
so
you
can
step
forward,
and
so
what
that
means
is
it's
going
to
be
held
until
the
next
regularly
regularly
scheduled
meeting?
That's
a
procedural
rule
that
is
permitted,
so
we're
not
gonna
motion
was
made
before
the
discussion,
so
the
matter
will
be
held
until
the
next
regularly
scheduled
planned
development
meeting,
which
is
the
what's
the
date
on
that
twenty-second.
So
I'll
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
the
aldermen
and
just
kind
of
discuss.
You.
A
A
The
next
item
is
another
vacation
rental
license
application
for
1614
Main
Street
unit.
A
the
city
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
a
keishon
rental
license
for
the
property
located
at
1614
Main
Street
unit,
a
the
vacation
rental
application
meets
the
standards
for
meets
the
standards
and
procedures
for
license
approval
as
their
emotion.
It's
for
action.
Is
there
a
second
I'll?
Second
okay
item
p2
Ottomans
was
your
light
off.
A
G
Actually,
I'm
the
property
manager,
the
owner,
lives
out
of
the
country,
and
she
will
be
back
in
February
for
two
weeks
and
then
be
back
and
may
admit
me
for
the
summer.
Okay,.
A
G
B
A
It's
all
I
think
it's
alderman
Fleming's,
it's
it's
across
the
street
from
me,
I'm
at
1425,
and
the
other
side
of
the
street
is
the
Ninth
Ward.
A
A
You
hi
mp3
is
another
vacation
rental
license
for
1033
Cleveland
Street
unit,
one.
The
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
a
vacation
rental
license
for
the
property
located
at
10:33
Cleveland
Street
unit
1
education,
rental
meets
the
standards
and
procedures
for
license
approval.
According
to
the
staff
report,
and
this
is
for
action
tonight-
is
there
a
motion?
Is
there
a
second?
A
D
A
1033
Alderman
Fleming's
word
also:
okay,
okay,
all
in
favor
hi.
Any
opposed.
Okay,
it'll
be
advanced
to
the
council
after
this
meeting.
Thank
you
all
right,
rolling
right
along
ordinance,
107
OH,
18
amending
title
5
chapter
7,
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
the
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance,
subcommittee
and
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
ordinance
amending
title
5
chapter
7
of
the
city
code
regarding
inclusionary
housing.
This
will
be
for
introduction
at
the
council
tonight.
Is
there
a
motion
to
introduce?
A
B
A
little
history
on
the
subcommittee
was
appointed
after
the
meeting
last
October
about
affordable
housing
council
agreed
to
form
a
subcommittee
to
more
effectively
generate
inclusionary
unit,
to
amend
the
ordinance
to
more
effectively
generate
inclusionary
units
on
site,
to
provide
greater
certainty
and
reduced
risk
to
developers
and
to
maintain
flexibility
to
address
unique
circumstances
of
some
project.
So
the
broad
goals
of
the
committee,
the
members
that
were
appointed
by
the
mayor,
we
had
four
aldermen
alderman
Wilson
was
chair.
B
In
addition,
we
had
Kent
Swanson,
Rob,
Anthony,
Jolene,
Saul
and
Stacy
Young,
who
are
all
development
professionals,
both
nonprofit
and
for-profit,
and
also
experts
in
financing
housing.
We
also
included
Lynn
Robinson
Robinson
rentals,
so
we
had
a
property
manager
because
some
of
our
ordinance
covers
existing
properties.
The
committee
met
four
times
and
also
had
a
panel
discussion
about
housing
finance,
because
that
seemed
to
be
something
that
would
be
helpful
to
everyone
in
the
community.
As
the
subcommittee
was
meeting
to
understand,
some
of
the
challenges
about
financing.
B
So
I'm
gonna
go
through
some
of
the
changes,
not
all
of
them
I'm
going
to
detail,
but
some
of
them
are
rather
small,
but
the
main
ones
in
the
definition
section
of
the
ordinance
are
to
change
the
definition
of
covered
development
to
include
five
units
or
more
in
any
area
of
the
city.
The
existing
ordinance
differentiates
between
Tod
and
non
Tod
with
five
units
in
Tod
and
ten
in
non
Tod.
B
This
ordinance
adds
a
description
of
a
contracted
agency
to
manage
the
wait
list
and
also
to
manage
the
income
certifications.
This
is
a
benefit
to
developers,
most
of
whom
do
not
want
to
deal
with
trying
to
follow
HUD
part5
income,
certifications,
which
we
also
identified
in
the
ordinance
now
as
the
method
of
income
certification.
B
We
also
added
to
covered
developments,
in
other
words,
developments
that
have
to
comply
with
this
ordinance
to
include
residential
buildings
existing
buildings,
where
the
number
of
bedrooms
in
the
units
are
changed,
because
there
are
sometimes
modifications
being
made
that
aren't
changing
the
number
of
units
aren't
converting
from
condo
to
rental,
or
vice
versa.
That
would
now
be
covered.
B
It
also
defines
a
primarily
affordable
development.
In
other
words,
there
are
some
properties,
some
developments
that
are
not
subject
to
this,
because
they
are
providing
more
affordable
units
or
at
higher
level,
lower
levels
of
affordability,
or
something
like
that
more
than
is
required
by
the
ordinance,
but
it
does
give
those
primarily
affordable
developments,
the
same
bonuses
and
parking
as
the
market
rate
developments
at
the
depth
that
are
providing
ten
percent
of
inclusionary
units.
So
we
wouldn't
want
to
give
the
primarily
affordable
projects.
B
B
A
fan
Lu
can
be
paid
only
under
two
circumstances.
One
is
if
the
development
is
by
right.
There
is
no
zoning
change
variants
allowances,
anything
being
requested
or
in
the
case
of
condos,
in
the
case
of
condos,
that
is
offered
as
an
option,
because
maintaining
condos
as
affordable
can
be
very
difficult
if
they
are
luxury
condos,
especially,
and
will
address
a
difference
between
the
fee
and
a
little
later.
B
It
requires,
at
least
if
a
development
has
any
variances.
It
requires
that
at
least
5%
of
the
units
be
affordable
on-site.
This
wasn't
in
the
exist,
isn't
in
the
existing
ordinance
and
it
definitely
says
we're
interested
in
getting
affordable
units
on
site,
and
if
you
put
5%
on-site
affordable,
then
you
still
have
to
pay
the
fee
and
Lou
on
the
ones
the
remaining
to
get
to
your
10%.
B
There
are
bonuses
when
a
developer
puts
5%
of
the
units
on
site
as
affordable,
but
the
bonuses
are
increased
if
they
go
up
to
the
10%,
so
we're
really
trying
to
incentivize
incentivize
on-site
units,
the
affordability
period
for
rental
is
extended
to
30
years.
There
was
a
great
deal
of
discussion
at
the
committee
about,
could
it
be
in
perpetuity?
B
No,
that's
a
very
challenging
thing,
and
even
things
like
staggering,
the
affordability
period
say:
half
of
them
are
at
30
years
and
some
are
at
45
or
40
years
and
in
discussions
with
developers
they
all
just
cringed
at
that,
because
it
really
affects
their
ability
to
get
financing
and
things
like
that
later.
If
you
have
an
uneven
burn
off
and
they
can't
predict,
you
know
it
makes
it
much
more
challenging.
B
Okay.We,
it
shouldn't
say,
reduced
I'm,
sorry,
it
should
be
say
we
remove
the
requirements
for
financial
infeasibility.
There
was
an
option
where
people
could,
you
know
proposes,
say
they
couldn't
do
it
because
of
financial
and
feasibility.
But
we
maintain
the
alternate
proposal
option
because
there
may
be
cases
where
a
development
just
doesn't
fit
a
mold
or
a
developer
has
some
creative
idea
that
could
get
us
equivalent
or
more
affordability.
That
would
be
a
benefit.
B
Changes
to
the
fees
in
lieu
of
what
we're
calling
ID
use
inclusionary
dwelling
units-
we
are
increasing
the
fee
in
lieu
to
one
hundred
and
seventy-five
thousand
per
unit
in
the
downtown
area,
so
we're
not
using
the
Tod
and
90
OD.
We
are
using
downtown
and
non
downtown,
actually
downtown
and
research
park
and
non
downtown,
and
to
one
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
in
all
other
parts.
Those
fees
currently
are
at
a
hundred
thousand
and
seventy
five
thousand.
B
There
is
a
full
buyout
of
the
fee
in
low
for
condos
only
that
is
at
one
and
a
half
times
the
base
fee
in
lieu.
So
if
it
were
in
the
downtown
district,
the
fee
in
low
buyout
would
be
two
hundred
and
sixty
two
thousand
five
hundred
per
unit,
and
if
it
were
outside
of
that,
it
would
be
two
hundred
and
twenty
five
thousand
per
unit.
B
The
reason
for
the
the
potential
buyout
of
condos
is-
and
this
is
really
targeting
luxury
condos
is-
it
is
very
difficult
to
keep
them
affordable
long
term
because
of
the
homeownership
association
fees
and
things
like
that
that
just
make
it
incredibly
challenging
Chicago
has
a
comparable
buyout.
It's
patterned
after
that.
B
B
Changes
to
income
restrictions.
We
had
a
lot
of
debate
about
this,
because
one
of
the
challenges
is
when
you
had
multiple
income
levels
and
they
were
different
by
Tod
versus
non
Tod
s.
It
started
to
make
everybody's
eyes
glaze
over
and
it
made
it
more
challenging
for
people
for
developers
to
comply.
So
the
income
eligibility
are
the
same
in
Tod,
non
Tod
downtown
non
downtown
at
rental.
It's
all
the
inclusionary
dwelling
units
are
to
be
at
sixty
percent
of
area
median
income.
The
committee
did
want
the
council
to
discuss
ownership.
B
We
had
two
options
that
were
being
considered.
One
was
all
of
the
inclusion
of
dwelling
units
at
a
hundred
percent
of
area
median
or
empty
area
median
or
fifty
fifty
percent
at
eighty
percent
of
the
area
median
and
fifty
percent
a
hundred
percent.
So
one
of
the
challenges
can
be
it's
changed
a
bit,
but
when
we
were
doing
our
Neighborhood
Stabilization
program,
it
was
very
difficult
for
people
at
or
below
eighty
percent
of
area
median
to
get
mortgages
and
sometimes
the
way
we
were
able
to
do.
That
was
by
giving
them
very
deep.
Additional
subsidies.
B
I
Good
evening,
chairman
wilson
and
committee
members,
melissa,
cloths
zoning
planner,
so
first
we
looked
at
the
existing
bonus
structure
and
to
see
the
flaws
in
it
and
then
try
to
do
something
completely
different.
So
our
attempt
was
to
keep
it
simple
so
that
everyone
can
understand
it
and
that
developers
could
have
a
greater
understanding
when
they're
coming
in
an
expectation
of
what
it
is
that
we
want
and
what
we're
looking
for.
I
So
we
broke
it
down
and
start
it
out
with
bonuses,
for
if
you
do,
5%
conclusionary
dwelling
units
on
site
and
it
everything
is
split
up
between
the
downtown
and
the
non
downtown
so
for
non
downtown.
We
are
recommending
an
FA,
our
bonus
or
floor
area
ratio
of
an
additional
1.0
and
then
in
the
downtown,
where
height,
bulk
density.
All
of
that
is
encouraged.
We're
looking
at
2.0
for
residentially
zoned
properties.
They
do
not
use
at
they
are.
Instead
they
use
building
rock
coverage
and
impervious
surface
coverage.
So
we
created
a
regulation
for
that.
I
The
old
system
did
not
have
those
covered
at
all.
So
if
you
lucked
out
and
had
residential
zoning,
you
didn't
get
any
bonuses.
So,
with
this
proposal
we
are
suggesting
a
15%
bump
to
those
numbers
for
height
that
is
only
recommended
for
residential
districts
and
it's
an
additional
one
story
and
it
does
not
apply
to
single-family
districts
that
is
not
appropriate
to
grant
an
additional
story
of
height
to
single-family
homes,
also
for
residential
districts.
I
If
a
developer
chooses
to
go
the
plan
development
route
and
wants
the
planned
development
height
bonus,
they
cannot
double
dip
and
also
get
the
inclusionary
bonus
they're
for
density.
We
are
suggesting
that
for
every
inclusionary
dwelling
unit
that
you
have
on-site,
you
get
one
additional
market
rate
unit
and
that
can
help
offset
the
cost
to
developers
and
then
in
the
downtown,
where
density
is
encouraged,
that's
doubled
to
be
two
additional
market
rate
units
per
inclusionary
unit.
I
The
last
bonus
would
be
parking
and
that
is
for
affordable
units.
There
is
no
parking
requirement
just
for
those
inclusionary
units
parking
is
very
expensive
to
developers
and,
typically
speaking,
inclusionary
units
will
demand
less
parking.
So
it's
a
win
for
everyone,
then,
looking
at
if
10
percent
inclusionary
dwelling
units
are
put
on
site,
it's
the
same
bonus
structure
with
two
exceptions:
the
density
is
doubled
for
all
of
it.
I
So
your
density
bonus,
you
get
two
additional
market
rate
units
for
every
inclusionary
unit
or
if
you're
in
the
downtown,
you
would
get
four
additional
market
rate
units.
The
other
is
that
currently
for
planned
developments,
there
are
maximum
site
development
allowances
that
can
be
requested
and
a
developer
can
request
to
further
exceed
that
with
a
supermajority
vote.
It's
rare,
but
it
does
happen.
I
This
bonus
would
bring
that
supermajority
vote
back
to
a
regular
majority
vote,
so
council
still
has
its
own
discretion,
but
from
a
developer's
perspective,
that's
one
less
vote
that
they
need
to
secure
to
put
it
in
real
terms.
If
we
first
look
at
8:24
828
Noyes
Street,
that
was
an
approved
plan,
development
that
I
believe
construction
recently
completed,
and
without
the
bonuses
there
were,
there
were
three
site
development
allowances
that
were
needed
and
with
if
the
developer
went
with
the
10%
on-site
inclusionary
dwelling
units.
I
This
is
a
perfect
example
of
how
it
would
work
out
where
the
first
site
development
allowance,
which
is
for
the
number
of
units
on
site,
that
one
drops
from
needing
a
supermajority
vote
to
a
regular
majority
vote
and
then
the
other
two
issues
that
RFA
are
and
parking
those
work
out
perfectly
so
that
no
zoning
relief,
no
site
development
allowances
are
needed
at
all.
So
in
essence,
it
would
be
the
exact
same
project
as
what
was
approved,
but
from
the
starting
point.
The
developer
would
have
a
better
understanding
of
what
they
could
potentially
get.
I
Another
good
example
is
32
33
to
39
central
street,
which
was
not
a
planned
development.
It
was
slightly
smaller,
so
that
project
went
the
zoning
board
route
with
variations.
So
without
any
inclusionary
bonuses
they
they
requested
variations
for
the
number
of
dwelling
units
and
for
building
lot
coverage.
In
the
end,
all
of
those
were
granted,
but
with
the
bonuses
for
10%
inclusionary
units,
it
would
have
wiped
out
those
variations.
So
in
this
example
same
thing
we
would
have
ended
up
with
the
same
thing
that
the
same
project
overall
other
than
the
city
would
have
gotten.
I
One
inclusionary
unit
out
of
it
and
the
developer
would
have
saved
about
two
years
of
back
and
forth
with
staff
and
committees
and
redrawing
things
with
larger
projects,
specifically
like
with
planned
developments
that
are
in
the
downtown.
The
end
result
is
going
to
be
the
same
thing.
It
doesn't
automatically
get
them
another
hundred
feet
of
building
anything
like
that.
The
project
will
end
up
being
essentially
the
same.
It's
just
that
the
developers
know
from
the
beginning.
I
B
Slide,
okay,
because
this
is
something
that
subcommittee
was
tasked
with,
but
is
moving
back
to
the
housing
and
homelessness,
Commission
and
other
further
investigations,
and
that
was
how
to
generate
additional
funding
for
the
affordable
housing
fund.
Housing
and
homelessness.
Commission,
actually,
at
its
last
meeting,
has
already
taken
up
the
looking
at
how
to
adjust
the
fee
and
low
how
to
raise
fee
and
low
how
to
adjust
the
demolition
tax.
Excuse
me,
which
is
currently
ten
thousand
dollars
per
unit.
B
B
We
are
also
still
looking
at
fees
on
non
covered
developments,
in
other
words,
commercial,
industrial,
all
sorts
of
things
that
aren't
covered
single-family
that
isn't
covered
by
this
at
all.
There
are
challenges
to
anything
that
could
be
or
difficulties
with
things
that
could
be
considered
impact
fees.
B
So
we
have
to
make
sure
that
that
we're
not
trying
to
do
something
that
wouldn't
really
have
much
cent
chance
of
success
and
then
other
discussions
that
have
not
been
pursued
but
will
still
be
looked
at,
are
things
like
the
hotel-motel
tax
or
Airbnb
taxes
which
some
other
communities
are
using
for,
affordable
housing.
That's
our
presentation,
any
questions
all.
A
Right,
thank
you
very
much.
It
was
very
thorough
and
detailed
and
I
appreciate
the
work
of
the
committee
and
coming
up
with
all
of
these
suggestions.
It
took
obviously
those
meetings
and
a
lot
of
staff
time
and
research
in
between
and
I
think
we
came
up
with
some
pretty
good
results.
We
do
have
four
speakers
signed
up.
C
A
J
Evening
I
live
down
the
street
here
on
Simpson
and
my
family
moved
to
Evanston
in
1924.
We've
always
been
here
and
in
Wilmette
I
was
gone
in
the
70s
and
I
came
back
to
Evanston.
Er
I
ended
up
coming
back
to
the
North
Shore
I
wanted
to
live
in
Evanston
and
I.
Could
not?
This
is
40
years
ago.
I
could
not
find
an
apartment,
I
could
live,
I
could
afford.
J
The
best
I
found
was
$550
on
rich
Avenue
at
the
time
and
I
found
a
sublease
and
Wilmette
and
I
was
so
disappointed
because
I
wanted
to
live
here
and
I
just
want
you
to
think
there's
an
awful
lot
of
people
that
would
like
to
live
here
and
rents
have
gotten
very
high.
So
thank
you.
Do
a
lot
dude
something
thank.
K
E
I'll
be
very
brief:
I'm
solo
back
with
connections
for
the
homeless
and
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing,
I
sent
a
letter
to
this
committee
and
the
council
about
joining
forces
thoughts
on
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
In
that
letter
we
talked
about
how
much
of
the
ordens
we
are
actually
very
happy
with.
We
think
these
are
really
good
creative,
solid
changes.
E
There
are
a
couple
of
areas
where
we
would
like
to
see.
You
perhaps
go
a
little
bit
further.
One
actually
is
a
choice.
I
think
that's
been
presented.
We
would
like
to
see
the
affordable
units
in
the
for
sale.
Developments
be
priced
for
people
at
80%
in
50%
of
the
AMI,
as
opposed
to
the
option
of
having
them
priced
at
100%.
E
We
would
like
to
see
you
go
to
the
lower
ami
we'd
like
to
see
the
fees
in
lieu
be
a
little
bit
higher
than
what's
in
the
proposal,
make
them
closer
to
what
the
actual
development
cost
is
of
the
effluents
we'd
like
to
see
some
staggered
periods
of
affordability.
What
we're
seeing
right
now
in
developments,
affordable
developments
that
were
done
30
25
30
years
ago,
is
they
are
all
going
offline
at
the
same
time.
So
we
think
it
might
be
a
smart
thing
to
try
and
stagger
them,
so
I
have
some
of
them.
A
Okay-
and
this
is
for
introductions,
so
we'll
be
passing
that,
along
to
counsel
when
it
comes
to
counsel
I,
think
we
have
on
our
calendar
discussion
of
affordable
housing
on
October
30th.
So
when
we
do
entertain
that
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
continue
it
until
that
date,
as
opposed
to
the
next
regularly
scheduled
date
attorney.
A
D
I'm
wondering
if
Sarah
could
go
back
to
the
podium
and
explain:
let's
say
a
building
is
built
and
the
rents
in
the
building
are.
Let's
say
there
are
twenty-five
hundred
dollars
for
a
two-bedroom
brand-new
building.
It's
got
two
bathrooms
two
bedrooms
and
there
I
don't
know
but
two
affordable
units
in
the
building
and
there's
a
60%
of
ami
family
mm-hmm.
What
good
is
their
rent?
How
is
their
Ben
calculate
now
off.
B
People
who
are
being
put
in
the
units
have
to
be
have
they'll,
be
their
income
will
be
evaluated
to
be
the
appropriate.
They
can't
be
over
a
certain
amount,
but
they
also
are
going
to
be
looked
at
to
make
sure
that
they
have
income.
In
other
words,
this
is
not
like
public
housing
where
they
pay
only
30%
of
their
income.
B
They
have
to
be
able
to
pay
the
rent
and
the
utilities,
and
they
will
be
income
qualified
by
community
partners
for
affordable
housing,
but
the
actual
building
management
still
gets
to
select
tenants
that
meet
their
selection
plan,
and
that
can
include
looking
at
you
know.
Other
things
like
it
can
include
clip
can
include
credit
scores.
It
can
include
other
ways
that
they
look
at
it
as.
D
B
B
D
D
B
B
B
It
is
there's
going
to
be
some
great
area.
It's
unlikely
that
somebody
at
forty
percent
would
actually
be
able
to
afford
that.
But
you
know
it's.
There
are
people
who
it's
not.
They
don't
have
to
be
absolutely
at
that
income.
They
just
have
to
be
able
to
show
enough
cash
flow
to
be
able
to
afford
that
rent,
but.
D
B
Discriminative
income
yeah:
what
happens
there
is
the
housing
authority
actually
negotiates
the
rent
with
C
with
the
landlord?
That's
how
that's
always
handled,
because
they
use
small
area
rents
and
it's
a
whole
nother,
okay,
okay,
which
would
generally
be
higher.
Actually,
then
what
they
would
receive
for
somebody
at
a
straight.
Sixty.
B
A
M
Sir,
can
you
tell
me
or
anyone
who
participated
in
it?
How
did
how
did
you
arrive
at
the
figure
of
the
one
hundred
fifty
thousand
for
the
payment
in
lieu
and
then
the
other
amount
as
well
instead
of
though
I
mean
I
know
that
we
wanted
to
increase
it,
but
then
how
did
you
determine
what
the
amount
to
increase
it
should
be?
Well.
B
I
mean
we,
we
looked
Highland
Park
has
gone
up
to
125
thousand
per
for
its
fee,
and
lo
Chicago
has
a
range
of
different
fees
in
lieu,
depending
on
different
areas.
Their
highest
is
225
thousand.
They
have
in
the
area
that
is
kind
of
closest
to
our
downtown.
It
is
a
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand,
so
we
were
trying
to
build
off
of
fees
in
lieu
that
are
things
that
people
are
already
developers
are
dealing.
M
B
I
haven't
seen
a
great
deal
of
pushback.
Now
there
is
an
area
that
they're
testing
in
Chicago
along
the
606
trail,
where
they
are
putting
a
20%
affordability
requirement
and
higher
fees
and
Lo,
and
things
like
that
and
what
I
have
heard.
I
haven't
looked
at
it
just
in
the
last
like
month
or
so,
but
there's
a
lot
of
just
sort
of
development
sitting
to
see
what
happens,
because
it's
a
much
higher
demand
than
what
we're
talking
about
here.
Okay
and.
M
B
B
Well,
we
didn't
actually
see
that
yeah.
Well,
we
did
see
yeah
I
mean
when
you
were.
One
of
the
things
is
when
you
have
a
lower
fee
and
Lou
right
now.
The
only
things
that
have
been
proposed
that
are
subject
to
the
iho
are
also
may
not
be
immediately
in
a
train
station
area
but
they're
along
pretty
good
transit,
and
if
you
can
pay
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
instead
of
putting
an
affordable
unit
on
site,
a
developer
is
going
to
try
to
choose
that
and
that
doesn't
accomplish
our
goal
of
getting
on-site
units.
B
The
screamer
home
development
on
Central
does
not
have
any
inclusionary
units,
and
so
by
raising
the
fee
low
and
having
a
consistent,
then
it
you
know
higher
than
it
was.
It
motivates
more
consideration
of
putting
units
on
site,
especially
when
there
are
other
bonuses
that
they
get
as
well.
So
it's
really
a
combination.
It's
you
give
more
carrots
and
you
make
the
stick
a
little
bigger
to
is
so
you
know
that's
the
balancing
act.
A
M
A
A
Yeah
we
do
the
comments:
okay,
so
I'm,
just
checking
okay,
1
1
300
18,
granting
major
variations
at
340,
a
Custer
in
the
r5
general
residential
zoning
district
zoning
board,
appeals,
Zoning,
Board
of
Appeals
and
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
ordinance
authorizing
major
variations
for
a
lot
area
of
3993
square
feet,
existing
a
lot
width
of
33
feet
and
to
provide
3
off-street
parking
spaces
in
order
to
convert
an
existing
2
flat,
2
a
3
dwelling
unit,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
multi-family
dwelling.
Obviously
this
is
for
introduction.
Is
there
a
motion?
A
A
Okay,
I
see
no
lights,
all
those
in
favor
of
introduction
any
opposed.
So
this
will
be
at
the
council
for
introduction
later.
Thank
you.
P6
ordinance,
111
Oh
18,
granting
major
variations
at
24,
15
Wade
Street
in
the
r2
single-family
residential
zoning
district,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
and
staff
recommend
approval
of
the
ordinance
authorizing
major
variations
for
building
lock
coverage
of
44.3%.
A
A
19-point,
8
foot,
front
yard
setback,
any
zero
foot,
west
interior
side,
yard
setback
with
a
2.9
foot,
east
interior
side
yard
setback
and
also
to
provide
one
off
street
parking
space
in
order
to
construct
additions
to
the
existing
single-family
residence,
and
this
is
also
for
introduction.
Is
there
a
motion?
Is
there
a
second?
Okay?
Is
the
applicant
here?
Won't
you
just
come
up
in
case,
there's
any
questions
and
tell
us
who
you
are
all
of
in
Simmons.
Did
you
have
your
light
on?
Oh
okay,
very
well.
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant?
A
Right,
thank
you
for
being
here.
Ok,
I,
see
no
lights.
All
those
in
favor
of
introduction
aye
any
opposed.
Okay.
This
will
be
I'm.
Sorry,
alderman,
semitism,
staining
from
the
vote
and
item
P
7
is
an
ordinance
one,
one:
nine,
oh
eight
een,
granting
landmark
status
to
the
building
and
lot
of
record
at
2010
Dewey
Avenue,
the
Preservation,
Commission
and
C
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
ordinance
designating
2010
Dewey
Avenue
the
building
and
lot
as
an
Evanston
landmark,
and
this
is
for
introduction.
Is
there
a
motion.
C
A
H
So
this
tells
the
story,
the
good
and
the
bad
about
Evanston,
but
at
the
end
the
Commission
concluded
that
the
building,
despite
that
it
was
burned
down,
and
then
there
were
some
additions
to
the
building
and
also
change
in
ownership.
It
retained
its
integrity
that
is
associated
with
the
events
that
took
place
in
the
building,
so
the
Commission
unanimously
is
recommending
the
adoption
of
the
audience
when
1900
18
or
the
destination
of
the
landmark.
Thank
you.
We.
N
L
All
in
it,
I'm
here
of
course
to
ask
that
your
support
for
the
landmark
status
of
the
old
foster
school
king
lab
and
now
family-focused
White's
board
homes
community
center.
This,
as
mr.
Lee
said
this
is
very
important
to
the
african-american
community
in
terms
of
our
culture,
in
terms
of
it
being
the
only
the
only
physical
structure
left
in
the
fifth
Ward
that
tells
of
the
rich
community.
L
K
Evening,
Council
members,
I'm
Stephanie
Saunders
resident
former
school
student
at
foster
school.
My
mother
went
to
foster
scum,
so
it's
really
a
historical
place
of
just
cultural
growth
in
the
fifth
Ward
it
is
the
linchpin,
and
it's
really
the
last
bastion
that
we
have
in
the
fifth
Ward
I
mean,
except
for
our
churches.
It's
a
place
where
people
continue
to
gather
and
our
children
are
still.
K
C
You
I
will
echo
the
comments
of
Ottoman
homes
and
miss
Saunders
and
add
that
the
community
group
that
has
been
working
on
this
and
very
much
in
support
of
this
project
as
long
as
many
members
of
the
community
beyond
the
fifth
Ward
have
agreed
to
the
language
change
from
the
owner
to
allow
for
exterior
improvements.
So
it
is
a
win
for
everyone.
I
can't
say
enough
about
the
building.
C
I
recommend
that
anyone
that
is
not
informed,
read
the
nomination
package
that
do
you
know
from
shorefront
put
together,
it's
very
thorough,
but
we
all
have
our
family
focus
stories.
My
mother,
too,
went
to
school.
There
I
went
to
programming
there.
My
grandson
is
currently
there
as
well
and
I'm,
not
at
all
unique.
C
There
are
many
residents
in
the
fifth
Ward
that
have
similar
stories
where
the
building
and
the
programming
has
had
impact
in
their
lives,
and
we
have
countless
residents
that
have
come
out
of
family
focus
or
the
school
and
had
tremendous
impact
in
our
complete
in
our
community
and
beyond
our
community,
so
I'm,
hoping
that
we
can
support
this
and
I
certainly
do.
Thank.