►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 7-14-2021
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
Good
evening
this
is
the
july
14
2021
public
hearing
of
the
plan.
Commission.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
map
amendments
text,
amendments
plan
developments
as
well
as
to
make
recommendations
regarding
the
city's
long-term
plans.
This
commission
will
make
a
recommendation
which
will
be
sent
to
the
city
council.
C
A
Okay-
and
I
think,
are
there,
did
you
have
something
to
add
now
or
about
kind
of
housekeeping
things?
This
is
the
first
hybrid
first
hybrid
meeting
that
we've
had
of
this
commission
in
quite
some
time,
so
we're
all
trying
to
feel
our
way.
B
Yes,
so
first,
I
probably
don't
need
to
tell
you
if
you're
here,
please
silence
your
cell
phone
so
that
we
don't
have
those
going
off
for
any
members
of
the
public
that
are
participating
remotely.
If
you
have
no
intention
of
making
a
comment
or
asking
a
question,
we
ask
that
you
watch
the
streaming
on
the
city's
youtube
channel
or
on
channel
16.
A
And
then
it's
the
meeting
is
being
recorded
so
on
the
zoom
channel,
so
any
side
conversations
in
the
room
will
get
picked
up.
So
please
try
to
kind
of
focus.
On
the
conversation
at
hand,
commissioner.
D
Lidwell,
yes
I'll
direct
everyone's
attention
to
this
little
black
microphone
up
there.
That
is
the
microphone
that
is
feeding
into
the
zoom
meeting.
So
it's
not
our
microphones
that
are
feeding
into
a
into
that.
It
is
that
microphone,
so
any
amplification
from
your
mic
from
this
or
from
your
voice,
if
you're
near
that
or
even
far
away
will
be
picked
up
into
the
meeting.
So
so
when,
if
somebody
says
something
like
pass
me,
the
water
that
gets
picked
up,
even
if
it's
not
on
your
microphone.
A
B
A
Okay,
next
on
the
agenda,
we
need
to
have
a
motion
to
review
and
approve
the
minutes
from
the
may
12th
and
june
ninth
meetings.
We
need
to
take
those
one
at
a
time,
so
maybe
so
may
I
have
a
motion
for
the
may
12th
2021
minutes.
B
A
Yes
and
next
for
the
june
9
2021.
G
A
A
B
H
B
A
A
Okay,
we
have
two
public
hearings
that
we'll
consider
this
evening.
If
you
did
not
sign
up
to
speak
before
the
meeting,
there's
a
physical
sign
up
sheet
in
the
council
chambers
and
there
also
be.
A
With
zoom,
you
can
raise
your
hand
in
the
zoom
function
as
well
when
we
get
to
the
item,
so
the
the
public
hearings
will
both
be
handled
in
the
same
way.
So
here's
kind
of
the
basic
format
for
today's
public
hearing.
The
purpose
of
the
plan
commission
and
the
public
hearing
is
to
gather
facts
and
information
regarding
a
petition
provide
that
information
with
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
approval
with
refinements
or
denial
to
the
city
council,
where
final
action
will
occur.
A
I'd
now
like
to
summarize
the
procedures
we'll
follow
for
tonight's
public
hearings.
First
city
staff
will
present
a
brief
summary
regarding
the
petition
followed
by
the
petitioner,
which
we
will
have
in
the
the
first
item
before
us,
after
which
the
plan
commission
may
ask
questions
of
the
staff
or
the
petitioner.
A
A
However,
any
member
of
the
plan
commission
and
city
staff
may
question
any
member
of
the
public
who
has
spoken
regarding
their
testimony
and
finally,
there's
a
summary
closing
by
the
petitioner
and
staff
the
after
that,
the
deliberation
the
plan
commission
will
deliberate
based
on
the
evidence
and
then
there
will
be
clarifying
or
summary
comments
by
each
commissioner
who
chooses
to
do
so
and
then
finally
there'll
be
a
motion
to
recommend
either
approval
approval
with
refinements
or
denial.
A
H
I
J
Good
evening
plan
commission
and
members
of
the
public,
I'm
katie
ashbaugh,
I
am
the
newest
planner
to
the
community
development
department.
Thank
you
for
the
introduction
to
the
case
tonight.
J
So,
as
mentioned,
this
is
a
co-application
with
andrew
spatz
and
steve
evanston,
and
I'm
going
to
break
down
the
differences
between
what
mr
stats
is
proposing
and
then
what
the
city
of
evanston
is
also
proposing
this
evening.
J
So
specifically
mr
spaz
has
requested
to
add
live
work
units
to
the
list
of
permitted
uses
in
the
c2
commercial
district
and
in
conjunction
with
that,
the
city
of
evanston
would
like
to
further
add
live
work
units
as
a
permitted
uses
within
non-residential
and
non-university
districts
within
the
city,
refine
the
definition
of
live
work
unit
in
section
6-18-3
of
the
zoning
code
and
then
finally,
add
additional
regulations
pertaining
to
live
work
units
in
chapter
6-4.
J
So
mr
spas
will
be
doing
his
presentation
following
mine,
but
I'll
just
briefly
highlight
what
he'll
be
discussing.
So
he
initially
proposed
adding
live
work
units
as
permitted
used
to
the
c2
commercial
district.
Only
I've
attempted
to
kind
of
highlight
those
properties
which
are
in
the
c2
district
and
black
outline
on
the
map
on
the
screen,
and
specifically
his
application
was
speaking
to
the
property
located
at
1310
hartree.
J
J
So
the
additional
amendments
that
the
city
specifically
is
proposing
are
changes
to
the
current
definition
of
live
work
unit
this
the
first.
This
is
the
current
definition
of
look
work
unit
and
again
section
6-18-3
definitions,
so
we
do
currently
define
them.
It's
generally
pretty
broad.
It
just
states
that
any
commercial
or
manufacturing
activity
someone
can
live
within
the
space
in
which
they're
also
conducting
that
activity.
J
If
they
have
a
valid
business
license-
and
it
also
must
be
the
actual
business
owner
there
aren't
any
other
regulations
regarding
where,
in
the
structure,
the
living
area
needs
to
be
where
the
entrances
to
that
living
area
need
to
be
or
how
much
of
the
floor
area
the
live
work.
J
The
living
space
can
take
up
within
the
unit
itself,
so
to
attempt
to
take
out
a
little
bit
of
the
regulations
that
are
in
that
specifically
being
who
lives
in
a
live
work
unit
we've
eliminated
that
and
that
will
be
discussed
later
in
my
presentation,
but
the
definition
has
been
changed
to
specify
that
it's
just
a
structure
or
a
tenant
space
where
a
non-residential
activity
occurs
and
that
that
is
non-residential
activity
is
the
principal
use
and
then
the
living
quarters
or
dwelling
unit
is
an
accessory
to
that
non-residential
business
activity
and
specifically
the
living
area,
cannot
just
be
where
someone
sleeps
and
or
they
have
their
own
bathroom.
J
J
That's
not
considered
a
live
work
unit,
so
the
this
is
the
proposed
language
with
the
clean
definition
so
taking
out
some
of
those
qualifying
items
and
those
will
be
discussed
later.
J
J
We
did
receive
a
question
from
a
member
of
the
plan
commission
regarding
whether
or
not
open
space
should
be
one
of
the
districts
it's
added
to.
If
that's
something
that
the
with
the
way
that
we
noticed
it,
we
wanted
to
keep
it
broad
for
the
public
notice,
but
if
the
plan
commission
would
like
to
remove
that
or
suggest
a
modifying
language
to
that,
you
can
certainly
do
that
on
the
floor
this
evening.
J
J
The
last
part
of
the
amendment
that
the
city
is
proposing
would
so
this
is
we're
proposing
to
add
more
specific
regulations
so
again,
currently
the
only
time
that
we're
really
mentioning
live
work
units
is
in
the
definition
section
of
the
zoning
code.
It
just
says
that
the
business
owner
must
live
there.
They
must
have
a
valid
business
license
and
generally,
there
are
many
live
work
units
that
we're
aware
of
that
exist,
anecdotally
in
the
city,
so
they've
been
allowed
as
a
policy
because
the
the
living
portion
has
been
considered
accessory
use.
J
J
So
a
new
section,
6-4
6-4-13
within
the
general
provisions
chapter,
this
will
specifically
regulate
how
large
the
living
area
can
be
within
the
live
workspace,
where
it's
required
to
be
where
entrances
can
be
to
the
living
area
of
the
the
structure
or
tenant
space.
Who
may
live
there
and
then,
lastly
parking
so
again
it
does.
Can
the
regulation
that's
in
the
definition.
Currently,
it
would
still
be
one
liver
unit
per
business
with
a
valid
business
registration.
J
J
We
are
not
requiring
any
additional
parking
for,
what's
already
required
for
the
non-residential
use
at
that
location,
something
that
I
that
was
found
on
the
other
communities
that
we
did
reference
when
we
were
drafting
this.
They
do
specifically
say
that
the
business
activity
must
be
visible
from
the
street,
so
we've
added
that
to
the
proposed
language.
It
needs
to
be
on
the
ground
floor
or
if
it's
a
one
floor
business
it
needs
to
be
at
the
front
of
part
of
the
tenant
space
or
building.
J
We
also
requiring
that,
if
you're
going
to
have
an
entrance
to
that
living
area
at
the
front
of
the
business,
you
need
to
have
the
business
entrance.
There
too.
You
can't
have
the
residential
entrance
like
in
in
lieu
of
the
customer
entrance
and
then.
Finally,
if
the
residential
area
is
larger
than
a
thousand
square
feet,
then
two
dedicated
entrances
at
a
minimum
are
needed
for
the
residential
area
on
its
own,
so
they
would
not
need
to
exit
through
the
commercial
space.
They
would
need
to
be
inventive.
J
J
Did
anyone
have
any
questions
before
I
start
sharing
mr
space's
presentation.
E
I
have,
I
have
just
a
couple,
quick
questions
for
you.
So
what
was
the
discussion
on
the
open
districts?
I
got
a
little
confused
there
as
to
what
that
that
was.
J
So
the
reason
that
was
included
in
the
amendment
was
simply
to
attempt
to
be
broad
from
a
staff
perspective.
But
if
you,
if
the
plan
commission
feels
it's
unnecessary
to
add
it
as
a
permitted
use
in
the
open
space
district,
you
can
amend
the
language
that
was
in
the
packet
to
reflect.
That.
E
Okay,
and
so,
unlike
a
b
district
in
which
residential
is
not
permitted
on
the
first
floor,
this
would
this
would
allow
that
to
happen,
but
it
doesn't
sound
like
we're
making
any
real
restrictions
on
where
it's
situated
in
the
property.
H
J
I'll
go
ahead
and
share
mr
spatz's
presentation.
Just
a.
J
H
K
I'll
just
say
next
slide
how's
that
so
anyhow,
my
name
is
andy
spatz
and
I've
been
an
evanston
resident
for
35
years.
I
live.
It
lived
at
1220,
maine
and
now
I
live
at
1216
maine.
I've
been
developing
real
estate
exclusively
in
evanston,
with
my
company
addis
bass
properties
for
the
past
27
years.
The
mission
of
our
work
is
to
provide
architecturally
sophisticated
value-driven
space
to
the
evanston
marketplace.
K
As
a
small-scale
vertically
integrated
company,
we
handle
all
in-house
services
for
development,
architecture,
contracting
and
marketing
of
our
projects.
We
also
serve
as
our
own
construction
lender
on
a
majority
of
our
projects,
matt
berry,
my
architecture,
partner
and
elaine,
colon
property
and
office
manager
round
out
the
company.
They
are
both
also
long
time
evanston
residents
per
my
previous
discussions
with
johanna
and
melissa,
johanna,
nitum
and
melissa
klotz
and
the
support
of
alderman
brightweight.
K
I
would
like
to
add
live
work
units
as
a
permitted
use
in
the
twos
in
the
c2
zoning
district.
I
believe
adding
flexibility
to
the
evanston
c2
commercial
district
will
increase
the
city's
property
and
sales
tax
income
by
decreasing
vacancies
and
existing
properties.
It
will
also
stimulate
new
developments,
such
as
my
project
at
1310,
heart
tray,
expanding
property
owner
and
end
user
choices
will
accelerate
evanston's
recovery
from
the
covid
economic
recession.
K
My
company
has
27
years
of
successful
project
history,
adding
to
the
demand
for
live
work
units
this
this
need
is
growing
and
justifies
expansion
to
c2
district
and
will
add
evanston's
demand
for
add
to
evanson's
demand
for
affordable
building
stock.
As
evanstonians,
we
have
a
limited
window
of
opportunity
to
inform
the
public
and
potential
investors
that
the
city
of
evanston
is
an
enabler
that
seeks
to
attract
on-prem
entrepreneurs
and
small
business
to
our
city.
K
In
those
two
wards
we
have
several
live
work
properties
located.
One
is
at
the
stamp
factory,
2121
dewey,
930,
pitner
and
940
pitner,
and
we
would
like
to
do
more
of
these
and
we
think
it'll
be
a
lot
easier
if
we
can
get
the
text
amendment
that
we're
so
proposing
so
katie.
This
is
the
this
is
a
site
map
of
the
the
blue
gray
x.
K
Next
to
the
c2
by
dempster
street
is
where
1310
heart
tray
is,
which
is
a
three
unit
project,
they're
sort
of
like
all,
like
townhouse
kind
of
pro
of
spaces
that
are
all
stacked
up,
one
behind
the
other,
as
opposed
to
side
by
side.
Next
slide.
K
K
This
is
the
property
at
1310
and
on
the
left
side
of
the
probe
project
on
the
site,
I
should
say
under
the
blue
mansard
roof
is
the
famous
dempster
street
car
wash
next
slide.
Please.
K
And
this
is
what
the
property
looked
like
last
winter,
there's
a
two
unit
building
directly
to
the
north
and
the
rest
of
the
properties
going
down.
The
street
are
single
families
next
slide,
please.
K
K
K
K
And
there's
the
u-haul
space,
which
was
a
an
adaptive,
reuse
project
and
some
of
their
vehicles
next
slide.
Please.
K
Next
slide,
please:
this
is
a
site
plan
showing
you.
The
three
units
I
described
before
and
the
parking
is
in
the
back.
There's
five
spaces,
one
handicap
and
excuse
me,
four
spaces,
one
handicap
and
three
additional
spaces.
K
The
ac
units,
which
are
the
little
rectangles
on
the
roof,
are
on
the
roof.
Obviously,
and
the
green
space
is
the
green
space
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
Next
slide,
please!
Well,
this
is
never
mind.
This
is
the
second
level
and
the
front.
The
back
units
have
two
enclosed
spaces
that
can
be
used
for
offices
or
a
conference
room
or
whatever
private
spaces.
K
K
So
this
is
the
way
you
enter.
There's
15
feet
in
from
the
lot
line
to
the
project
and
then
another
5
foot
side
yard.
So
the
two
the
two
buildings
are
about.
15
excuse
me
20
feet
apart
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
air
there
and
the
this
space
on
our
property
is.
We
perceive
it
being
used
as
outside
space
for
the
individual
units
and
everything's
well
lit,
as
you
can
see,
by
the
the
lights
on
the
on
the
arms.
K
There's
some
plantings
in
there
also
next
slide,
please.
K
This
is
looking
from
the
parking
area
to
the
rear
unit
and
there's
these
bay
windows
on
the
side
that
you
see
from
the
the
car
wash.
We
actually
paid
a
lot
of
attention
on
what
people
will
see
driving
down
by
on
a
dumpster.
It's
just
not
some
blank,
nothing.
It's
will
be
quite
attractive,
at
least
in
the
model.
K
It
appears
that
way
and
you
can
see
the
difference
between
the
where
the
standing
seam
metal
is
on
the
sloped
roof
section
and
the
open
holes
or
windows
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
Next
slide,
please
interior
space,
some
there'll
be
similar
stairs
in
similar
kitchens.
K
And
the
floor
is
a
food
service
grade
two-part
water-based
epoxy
finish,
and
it's
about
30
mils
thick,
so
it
should
be,
should
last
forever
and
you
maintain
it
like.
You
would
a
hardwood
floor
next
slide.
Please
and
that's
upstairs
looking
down
through
the
stairway
and
using
a
commercial-grade
vinyl
plank
floor
and
those
little
angle,
things
are
that
braces
the
roof
system
they're
like
how
they
serve
the
same
purpose
as
a
collar
tie,
would.
G
G
K
Hear
what
you're
saying
we've
been
doing
this
for
27
years,
and
this
is
the
way
we
do
it,
so
we
precede
what
was
just
presented,
as
does
this
project.
So
let
me
finish
so
so
anyhow.
What
I'm
saying
is
that
we
found
that
this
kind
of
environment,
the
the
staff
of
any
office
user
or
artist
type
they're,
going
to
be
spending
more
time
in
here,
because
it
has
a
a
homey
feel
about
it.
The.
K
Yes,
could
you
could
you
interpret
what
you
saw
there
correctly,
you?
Yes,
you
did,
but
it
can
be
anything.
It's
just
how
you
use
it.
You
know
you
you,
you
know.
I.
K
G
Back
marketplace
your
recommendation,
the
language
and
the
rules,
and
all
that
does
it
allow
for
this
because
it
to
me
when
I
read
it
again,
I
only
read
the
staff
portion
and
I'm
looking
at
this.
It
just
seems
like
a
totally
different
animal,
not
that
it
doesn't
work.
I'm
not
arguing
that
I'm
saying
it
seems
inconsistent
with
the
definition.
K
A
Except
that
I
I
think
that
it
is
important
that
we
are
clear
that
you
know,
for
example,
is
the
living
space
less
than
50
percent
of
the
work
live
unit
in
this
particular
case,
because
that's
the
languages
places
that
is
a
limit
in
the
proposed
staff
language.
K
Here's
my
off
the
cuff
response
during
coven.
Let's
say
you,
you
took
one
of
your
bedrooms
and
you
used
it
for
your
office
so
that
you
could
shut
the
door
and
not
hear
any
noise
going
on
somebody
watching
to
you
whatever.
But
then
you
walk
out
into
the
living
room
and
use
the
living
room
table
for
something.
It's
kinetic.
It
changes.
You
know
we're
not
the
whole.
The
whole
idea
of
what
I
was
proposing
was
we
need
to
give
people
what
their
you
know.
What
they're
asking
for.
K
K
So
I
think
I
I
don't
think
we
should
be
even
considering
dictating
how
people
use
these
space.
The
idea
is
my
personal
idea
is
that
people
come
to
evanston
because
we
have
this
product.
Let
them
do
what
they
want
to
do
and
let
them
pay
spend
their
money
here
and
let
them
keep
spaces
rented.
Let
landlords
make
money,
let
them
fill
up
their
second
floor
vacant
spaces
so
that
you
know
the
city
gets
the
revenue
that
it
needs.
K
K
F
G
K
Like
I
said,
like
I
said
the
way
I
looked
at
the
the
city's
proposal
for
how
they
want
to
amend
the
permitted
uses.
Is
that
it's
a
work
in
progress?
It's
a
draft.
You
know
it
has
to
get
polished.
I
mean
you,
don't
I
don't
know
about
you
all,
but
I
don't
ever
get
anything
right,
the
first
time,
so
you
know
what
I'm
saying.
A
Okay,
all
right,
commissioner
draper.
K
I
don't
you
know
something
I
I
saw
that
stuff
for
the
first
time
yesterday
and
I
don't
I
really
haven't
gotten
into
it.
What
I
do
know
is
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
hard
work
put
into
it
and
I
think
if
the
amount
of
energy
continues
in
that
direction,
it's
going
to
be
one.
You
know
really
good
thing
for
the
city.
I
we've
been
doing
this
for
27
years,
the
fifth,
the
the
second
ward,
the
fifth
ward.
In
particular
you
would
you
wouldn't
have
that
brew
pub
coming
in
there?
K
If
you
know
john
line
webber
and
his
wife,
muffy
and
and
me,
and
this
guy,
that
owns
his
body
shop,
didn't
get
the
drug
dealers
off
those
street
and
put
in
these
units
so
that
people
had
a
reason
to
come
to
come
there.
So
y'all
can
write
whatever
you
want.
All
I'm
saying
is:
is
we
got
a
good
thing
going?
A
I
Sorry
sounds
like
you
have
a
good
working
experience
with
live
work
units.
Do
you
see
any
risks
of
people
just
living
in
these
and
not
working
like
them
just
turning
into
residential?
If
we
don't
had
some
regulations
about
who
works
there
or
those
sorts
of
things.
K
From
my
experience,
it
hasn't
been
a
problem.
I've
been
doing
this,
like
I
said
for
27
years,
so,
okay,.
F
I
think
my
only
question
for
the
city
is
just
if
we,
if
this
project
is
not
yet
approved,
to
go
under
the
new
c2
designation,
you're,
almost
approving
it,
while
it
doesn't
meet
the
new
regulations,
so
I
think
that's
that's
just
the
confusion
and
the
new
regulations
seem
to
be
based
on
a
number
of
good
reference
points
from
other
cities
or
other
communities.
So
I
assume
that
you'd
want
to
keep
those.
B
The
commission
is
looking
at
the
text
amendment
just
the
text
amendment
so
so
this
would
be
a
possible
example
of
what
could
be
done,
but
what
the
commission
is
looking
at
this
evening
is
the
text
amendment.
That's
within
the
staff
report.
K
I
didn't
understand
that
they're
they're
they're,
looking
at
what
I'm
presenting
or
what
is
being
the
city's
presenting.
B
Since
there's
a
particular
property,
that's
associated
with
the
text
amendment,
then
we
can
take
a
look
at
it,
but
what
will
actually
be
voted
on?
Is
the
text
amendment
itself?
The
whole
thing.
K
A
A
K
K
K
This
is
the
mu
mxe
cliff
notes
list
that
you
get
off
the
the
city
website.
So
anyhow,
right
now,
the
only
things
that
I
see
that
have
anything
to
do
with
live
work
is
permitted
and
unders.
On
page
two
permitted
in
special
uses,
you
have
artist
studio,
you
have
dwelling
single-family
attached
or
detached
two-family
multi-family,
that's
also
a
p
in
an
mxe
and
office.
K
So
those
that's
the
kind
of
user
that
I
have
in
my
spaces.
Some
users
are
amazon
kind
of
companies
where
they
they
ship
out
a
lot
of
stuff.
Some
users
are,
are
attorneys.
You
know
you
know
in
in
my
situation,
there's
very
little
of
I
would
say
out
of
the
80.
Some
odd
units
we
have
maybe
10
20
are
doing
double
duty.
The
rest
of
it
is
either
or
the
way
it
is
now.
A
G
I
have
a
question,
yes,
that
site
plan,
as
I
understand
that
the
street
is
on
the
short
side
of
the
building,
no.
K
Am
I
wrong
there?
You
go
yes
on
the
right.
G
G
I
know
that's
not
what
you're
following
I
get.
It
is
that
the
non-non-residential
activity
or
tenant
space
shall
be
visible
from
the
public
right
of
way
to
me,
that's
a
fundamental
concept,
and
this
isn't
so
I
I
I
guess
I
really
don't
understand
what
we're
doing.
K
K
It's
not
binding.
So
you
know
as
a.
K
As
a
design
professional
somebody
telling
me
if
you
could
go,
can
you
go
to
one
of
the
model
slides,
please
katie.
K
Yeah
yeah
just
hold
your
horses
there.
Okay,
so
you're
walking
down
the
sidewalk
you're
not
frozen
in
time
like
the
the
scale
figure,
the
thing
changes,
so
you
know
what's
the
front:
what's
the
back,
what's
the
side,
what
faces
the
street
I
most
certainly
do
not
know,
and
you
know
what
I
what
I,
what
I
know
is
is
that.
K
Sorry,
mr
hallach.
A
E
Is
there
any
concern
that
we
are
creating
something
that
will
be
a
non-conforming
use
fairly
easily
because
I'm
guessing
that
most
of
those
c
districts
would
convert
to
b
districts,
and
so
should
we
be
treating
b
and
c
districts
fairly?
Similarly,
at
this
point,
based
on
the
fact
that
we
know
there
is
a
move
or
has
been
a
move
on
council,
I
can't
speak
to
the
new
council,
but
in
previous
councils,
some
of
those
members
are
still
there
who
have
had
a
distaste
for
the
commercial
districts
being
in.
B
Bit
extra
after,
but
I
am
aware
of
past
possible
referrals
to
consider
doing
away
with,
I
think,
specifically
the
c1a,
and
I
think,
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
staff
tried
to
be
more
broad
with
where
these
would
be
allowed
is
to
have
some
of
that
flexibility.
Should
some
of
these
districts
be
combined
or
taken
away
or
changed
into
something
else,
so,
to
the
extent
possible,
we
would
try
to
make
sure
that
we
wouldn't
be
creating
something.
That's
not
conforming
in
that
way.
J
And
to
add
to
that,
thank
you,
megan.
The
primary
non-residential
activity
that
would
be
in
these
league
of
work
units
would
be
something
already
permitted
by
rights
or
with
a
dually
authorized
special
use
within
that
state
on
that
property,
as
it
is,
so
they
would
not
be
able
to
become
a
live
work
unit
per
se
if
they
did
not
already
have
that
allowed
non-residential
activity
in
that
district.
J
So
I
the
non-conformity
the
potential
for
non-conformity
that
would
coincide
with
to
your
to
megan's
point
the
the
districts
and
how
those
are
combined
or
realigned
in
the
future.
I
don't
know
that
the
live
work
unit
would
add
to
that
or
not
particularly
because
we're
and
the
intent
is
to
add
them
to
all
of
the
non-residential
districts
and
except
and
not
in
the
university
districts
or
the
residential
districts.
That
answer
your
question.
C
J
So
the
idea
that
they
would
not
require
additional
parking
is
that
the
business
owner
is
already
reciting
on
the
property
and
whatever
parking
would
be
required.
The
parking
that
already
would
be
required
for
that
non-residential
activity
that
the
business
owners
parking
would
be
absorbed
into
that.
So
that's
one
less
car,
that's
already
going
to
that
property
because
it's
there
currently,
so
we
don't
need
an
additional
parking
spot
for
that.
F
I
think
my
question
that,
following
up
on
the
parking
is
just
if
you
allow
this
in
the
downtown
districts
and
the
transitional
downtown,
I
think
that
parking
issue
could
become
a
little
difficult,
given
that
parking
can
be
limited,
especially
in
the
transitional
zones,
if
there
is
more
than
if,
if
there's
more
than
someone
just
just
the
business
owner
living
there.
So
I
guess
that
would
be
my
question
as
to
whether
you
feel
that
parking
regulation
may
need
to
be
expanded.
A
bit
for
certain
areas.
A
A
Why
there's
a
provision
for
an
employee
of
the
business
owner
or
one
or
more
employees
of
the
the
business
owner
to
live
in
the
work
live
as
opposed
to
what
I
think
most
of
us
traditionally
think
of
a
work-life
situation
where
the
the
owner
occupant
is,
is
running.
The
is
the
person
living
there
and
working
there
and
not
employees.
L
J
All
right,
I
was
having
trouble
unmuting,
so
the
thought
behind
adding
the
an
employee
of
the
business
in
addition
to
solely
the
business
owner
would
be
if
it
were
a
small
business.
The
idea
is
that
it
would
be
a
non-residential
activity
already
allowed
by
wright
if
that
business
owner
did
have
an
employee,
perhaps
assisting
with
something.
J
Maybe
perhaps
they're
learning
a
trade
apprenticeship
that
if
the
business
owner
does
live
elsewhere,
they
could
possibly
lease
out
that
living
space
to
an
employee
and
again
the
parking
would
still
be
accounted
for
as
the
non-residential
activity
and
as
noted
in
the
staff
report
as
well
by
someone
living
there
and
working
there
that
does
cut
down
on
a
vehicular
trip.
There
may
be
someone
storing
their
car
there,
but
they're,
not
necessarily
a
customer
coming
and
going
it's
a
car,
that's
taken
care
of
and
absorbed
in
the
non-residential
parking
requirement.
J
A
Okay,
because
when
I
read
that
I'm
thinking
I
mean
just
harken
back
to
the
old,
you
know
sweatshop
situation
where
you
have.
You
know
business
and
he's
got
an
employee
dormitory,
and
you
know
if,
if
there's
not
a
cap
on
how
many
employees
could
live
in
a
space,
I
mean
under
our
property
standards.
Are
you
know
the
the
building
codes
in
a
thousand
square
foot
residential
area
as
part
of
a
live
work?
You
could
probably
have
a
number
of
of
potential
employees
which
could
cause
a
problem.
A
You
know.
I
just
think
that
you
know
I
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish,
but
I
think
that
in
going
to
a
live
work,
definition
and
the
standards
were
probably
best
off
at
least
initially
to
limit
it
to
owner
or
the
you
know,
the
business
owner
in
the
space.
So
that
was
kind
of
one
of
my
one
of
my
concerns
and
then
yes,.
D
H
D
A
couple
architects
in
the
room:
what
if
the
owner
of
the
firm,
doesn't
actually
use
the
space
as
much?
Maybe
they
live
out
of
state.
Maybe
they
live
some
house,
but
they
own
the
business,
but
they
have
an
architect
who
is
meeting
clients,
maybe
doing
the
principal
amount
of
work
that
that
is
a
use
that
is
perfectly
appropriate
for
this,
and
maybe
that
person
then
could
live
there,
but
they're,
not
the
owner
of
the
business.
D
So
I
think
we're
trying
to
think
creatively
about
how
a
relationship
of
a
business
and
and
letting
others
manage
managing
you
know.
Senior
managers
or
other
people,
principles
of
of
a
small
firm
might
be
the
people
who
live
there.
I
I
think
that
was
where
we
weren't
trying
to
think
of
like
what
you're
what
you're
describing
it.
We
were
trying
to
think
of
more
of
a
how
do
we,
then
we
hear
that
somebody
who
doesn't
own
the
business?
Well,
they
own
the
business
sort
of
they're
going
to
get
the
business
in
two
years.
D
A
And-
and
I
can
see
you
know,
some
sort
of
you
know
like
artisan
training
sort
of
operation
where
you
have
your
trainees
living
in
a
in
a
space
might
be
a
desirable
use,
but
I
don't
think
the
regulations
as
they're
laid
out
really
provide
any
safeguards
at
all
to
ensure
that
that
sort
of
that
sort
of
thing
doesn't
turn
into
you
know
the
old
stereotype
of
the
you
know,
the
the
you
know
exploited
business
owner
with
his
employees
living
in
the
back,
which
you
know
clearly
is
not
what
you're
suggesting.
J
Correct,
we
absolutely
were
thinking
and
trying
to
prevent
exactly
what
you're
describing
when
we
were
developing
these.
I
completely
understand,
if
there's
some
hesitancy
of
the
commission
members,
but
one
thing
that
we
did
want
to
include,
which
was
why
we
under
the
permitted
residence
portion
we
did
want
to
cite
that.
J
If
the
business
owner
does
end
up
leasing
to
their
employee,
then
they
do
need
to
comply
with
our
landlord
and
tenant
regulations
and
then
also
register
it
as
a
rental
property
and
then
also
the
occupancy
standards
would
be.
Man
like
they
would
be
regulated
how
they
are
elsewhere
in
the
code
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you're
not
having
that
exact
type
of
situation,
and
that's
also
why
we
have
that
minimum.
J
We
added
the
minimum
requirement
for
the
size
of
the
dwelling
unit
to,
as
you
said,
avoid
where
someone's
just
throwing
a
caught
up
and
leasing
it
to
someone
and
saying
you
know
or
pain.
You
know
we
don't
we're
trying
to
avoid
those
situations,
but
that's
exactly
an
excellent
point.
Okay,.
A
And
then
my
other
question
really
is
you
know:
we've
dealt
with
the
open
space
district
question,
which
was
one
of
the
ones
I
had,
because
the
map
open
space
districts
are
all
public
parks,
so
it
seems
a
little
odd
to
be
allowing
a
live
work
in
a
public
park.
The
other
the
other
question
I
have
in
looking
through
the
districts,
the
the
one
that
I
find
a
bit
problematic,
would
be
the
i3
zoning
district,
which
is
allows
heavy
manufacturing,
ready-mix
plants
and
and
things
of
that
nature.
A
So
I
would
think
that
that
we
may
want
to
consider
excluding
that
from
the
list
of
of
areas
that
are
where
users
are
permitted
just
because
of
the
intensity
of
the
otherwise
allowed
uses
within
that
district.
I
I
didn't
see
it
in
the
text,
but
maybe
I'm
missing
it
but
is:
what's?
Has
there
been
discussion
about
having
somewhere
in
this
amendment
about
limiting
it
to
like
one
household,
this
would
kind
of
alleviate
this
thing
of
multiple
employees
staying
there
that
they.
I
know
that
household
question
is
in
our
next
text,
amendment
so
I'll
just
say
household,
but
I
mean
some
of
these
could
potentially
be
big,
where
it's
like
a
whole
top
story.
I
It's
like
a
unit
where
you
could
have
a
family
in
it
is
it
make
sense
to
put
that
language
in
there.
D
I
think
you're
all
raising
very
good
questions
about
this
and
I
think
one
one
observation
I
would
make
about
just
housing
and
use
of
housing
and
how
we
are
living
we're
in
a
very
interesting
moment
in
our
human
history
of
how
are
we
existing
indoors
in
indoor
spaces
and
in
all
realms
and
I
think,
we're
coming
up
with
different
ways
in
which
people
could
be
residing
in
in
residential
spaces,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
staff
knows
all
the
answers
to
to
these
questions.
D
I
mean,
I
think
what
I've
observed
in
a
lot
of
these
discussions.
Not
just
tonight
is
we
all
know
of
a
situation
where
something
went
really
bad
and
we
all
know
the
situation
where
something
went
really
well
when
the
rules
are
are
are
outside
of
what
we're
we're
used
to
having.
So
we
all
know
a
situation
where
live.
Work
works
really
nicely,
but
we
also
can
come
up
with
a
situation
where
live.
Work
could
go
horribly
wrong.
D
You
could
pack
a
bunch
of
people
in
to
a
space
and
they're
doing
something
during
the
day
and
then
they're
sleeping
on
cots
at
night
I
mean
we
can
all
come
up
with
those
situations.
Maybe
we
even
know
them
to
be
true,
but
those
are
things
that
I
think
we
would
look
to
the
commission
to
give
guidance
or
thoughtfulness
on
that.
We
can
then,
as
it
moves
to
planning
and
development
committee.
D
The
city
council
think
about
those
things,
because
we
can
only
consider
the
what
if
what
if
what
if
from
staff's
perspective,
we
would
like
to
define
this
use.
This
is
a
use
that
we
are
seeing
increasing.
We
have
there's
a
plan
development
that
will
be
before
you
next
month,
likely
that
has
live
work
spaces,
so
we
we
would
like
to
see
this
this
defined
in
the
code,
and
we
would
also
like
to
start
inspecting
them.
Currently,
property
maintenance
inspectors
do
not
inspect
these
units.
D
There
are
people
living
in
them,
they're
not
inspected
by
city
staff
as
other
rental
properties.
So
that
is
something
that
needs
to
change,
and
we
would
like
to
change
that
and
having
some
standards
that
are
in
the
zoning
code
that
can
be
enforced,
but
also
how
that
would
then
tie
into
our
property
maintenance
code
is
very
important,
so
we're
trying
to
think
about
all
these
things,
but
also
this
is
a
great
conversation
to
think
about
how
the
bigger
households
are
used.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
more
questions
for
staff,
mr
hugo,
just
what.
C
Follow
up
on
commissioner
linwell's
earlier
comment
about
sweatshop
issue,
you're
right
that
it
is
currently
drafted
if
the
if
the
non-owner
employee
is
leasing
or
renting,
then
you're
you've
got
some
checks
with
the
you
know:
the
subjects
of
the
landlord
tenant
regulations,
etc.
What
if
the
employee
is
just
given
the
space
as
part
of
their
work
package,
not
leasing
it
just
made
available
to
the
employee?
D
I
would
defer
some
of
that,
maybe
to
mr
spatz
to
answer
I
mean
like
if,
in
your
experience,
do
you
find
that
people
lease
the
space
and
then
somebody
else
is
living
there
or
you
know,
I
think,
there's
also
a
checks
and
balances
to
some
extent
with
a
landlord.
They
want
to
know
who's
in
their
in
their
property
and
who's
leasing.
So
so
I
think
that's
andy.
If
you
want
to
maybe
opine.
K
Tommy,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
so
so
anyhow,
I
got
a
question
for
you
guys
if
you,
if
you
had
a
space-
and
let's
say
you
had
a
couple
people
working
with
you,
would
you
want
all
this
all
these
hypotheticals
going
on
and
you
living
there
at
the
same
time?
K
I
know
I
wouldn't.
I
know
I
know
that
being
a
good
landlord
and
knowing
what's
happening
in
my
spaces,
I've
never
seen
anything
like
that.
Most
of
the
time
and
I'll
just
run,
I'm
just
going
to
do
it
in
my
head
through
units
that
I
have
going
on
right
now.
I
have
a
guy
that
has
an
insurance
company.
K
He
has
two
staff
members
come
in.
They
leave
at
five
six
o'clock.
He
lives
there.
He
has
exercise
equipment
set
up,
he
works
out
there,
there's
maybe
at
the
maximum
three
or
four
people
in
a
3200
square
foot
space.
I
know
a
smaller
space,
a
1700
square
foot,
space
guy
has
an
amazon
company
and
he
you
know,
picks
it.
K
He
ships
it
and
he
has
a
assistant
come
in
and
the
assistant
leaves
it's
just
somebody
coming
a
pair
of
helping
hands
coming
in
the
and
the
the
the
units
are
designed,
so
they
can
be
segregated
from
you
know,
upstairs
living
and
sleeping
and
downstairs
your
workspace
and
sometimes
they
co-mingle.
So.
K
People
have
common
sense,
they're,
not
gonna.
You
know
if,
if
they're,
if
they're
spending,
if
they're
spending
a
couple,
two
three
thousand
dollars
a
month,
they're
not
going
to
want
to
spend
the
lion's
share
of
their
life
in
an
uncomfortable
situation.
So
what
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying
is
is
that
you
know
the
whole
when
I,
when
I
put
this
together,
the
whole
idea
is
to
add
some
flexibility
to
the
city's
building
products.
K
That's
all!
That's
all!
That's
all
I'm
trying
it's
all
I'm
trying
to
do
here
so
that
we
don't
have
to
have
conversations
about.
You
know
policing
a
lot
of
things.
That
really
me
personally,
I
don't
think
need
to
be.
You
know
we
don't
need
to
to
deal
with.
I
mean
the
conversation
we're
having
about
parking
to
me.
Is
I
don't.
I
don't
quite
understand
it
because
I
see
all
these
projects
that
have
a
half
a
car
per
unit,
but
then
you're
talking
about
two
cars
on
some
little
bitty,
nothing
project.
K
Live
work
is
a
good
it's
a
positive
product
on
my
space,
my
in
my
own
home
is
set
up
that
way
and
it's
me
living
there
and
me
working
there,
and
you
know
I
have
another
person
that
comes
in
and
helps
me
and
my
wife
comes
downstairs
and
she
helps
me
and
that's
the
extent
of
it.
I
mean
those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
I
see
happening
in
these
spaces
and
and
how
they've
worked
in
every
darn
space.
K
I've
done,
and
I
consider
myself,
I'm
an
expert,
and
I'm
also
probably
the
last
man
standing
as
far
as
a
local
evanston,
developer
who's
been
doing
these
kind
of
things.
The
rest
of
them
are
gone
and
you
know
I
just
think
that
we
have
an
opportunity
here
and
I
know
I'm
going
off
track
because
I'm
upset
that
we
have
an
opportunity
here
and
we
have
to
grab
it
now.
What
what's
happened
to
and
it
people
in
my
business
and
I'm
just
giving
you
an
idea-
and
I
know
I'm
talking
off
point.
K
First,
we
got
hit
with
fritz
cagey
and
his
and
his
commercial
tax
increases.
That
was
a
body
blow.
Then
we
got
coveted,
that
was,
that
was
not
good
for
building
things,
and
that
and
now
we
have
to
now
we're
dealing
with
you
know
a
400
percent
increase
in
building
materials.
K
You
know,
and
so
the
push
should
be
the
other
way.
The
push
should
be
to
help
people
get
stuff
done
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
vacancies
on
second
floors
of
downtown
buildings,
not
producing
tax
revenue
that
we
desperately
need.
You
know
people
are
good
at
spending
money.
What
I
want
to
do
is
bring
more
bring
more
in
because
we're
landlocked-
and
I
know
I
spoke
off
point,
but
I
hope
I
answered.
N
H
G
A
Okay,
all
right
do
we
have,
then
the
next
item
would
be.
Do
we
have
any
public
comments?
I
don't
think
anyone
had
signed
up.
G
N
D
Hi
tina,
I
think
I'm
not
understand,
I'm
not
sure.
I
I
understand
that
okay.
N
So
if
I
remember
correctly,
I'm
going
to
just
save
for
my
business
landlord
that,
if
you
that
say,
there's
very
many
absentee
landlords
and
from
what
I
thought
I
remember
that
you
had
to
have
a
and
an
address
in
illinois
or
evanston
to
you
know,
run
your
business
out
of.
So
that
was
my
question.
So
so,
when
we're
talking
about
live
workspace,
is
this
to
help
be
in
compliance
with
that
rule.
D
I
am,
this
is
johanna,
I'm
not
aware
of
that
rule
and
I,
the
glances
I'm
exchanging
with
my
colleagues
here,
would
indicate
they're
not
aware
of
that
either.
But
how
about
we
look
into
it
a
little
bit
and
maybe
having
a
second
conversation
with
you
and
see
if
we
can
get
an
answer
on
that.
N
Okay,
because
I
know
there
was
a
lot
of
absentee
landlords,
and
that
was.
I
thought
that
at
some
point
city
council
made
that
a
rule
that
the
landlord
had
to
have
an
office
address
in
in
the
town
or
at
least
in
illinois.
N
Okay,
thank
you.
Oh.
I
have
another
question
too
for
the
developer
here
so
with
the
live
work.
So
how
actually
is
for
staff?
How
are
you
proposing
to
make
sure
that
they're
in
compliance
and
do
they
have
to
pay
rental
registration,
like
the
landlords.
J
I
can
speak
to
that
tina.
The
intent
is
that,
if,
if
the
amendments
are
moved
forward,
as
they're
they've
been
presented
this
evening,
the
person
residing
within
the
living
area
of
the
live
work
unit
may
be
an
employee
of
the
business
owner,
and
if
that
is
the
case
for
the
business
owner,
it
that
is
the
business
owner
identified
on
the
business
license
or
registration
that
they're
required
to
get
with
the
city.
J
If
they
are
not
going
to
live
in
the
living
area,
they're
going
to
lease
it
to
an
employee,
then
the
city
will
then
inspect
that
living
area
as
a
rental
unit,
as
it
does,
with
its
other
multi-family
properties
and
other
rental
properties.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
N
I
guess
I
I
just
didn't
know
if
that
had
to
be
established
in
advance,
or
it's
just
happened
so
or
how
is
this
I'm
asking
the
city
too?
How
are
you
enforcing
these
policies.
D
Tina
this
is
johanna
again.
Yes,
we
will
we're
gonna
work
towards
inspecting
those,
just
as
we
do
with
others
properties
if,
if
people
are
residing
there,
that
is
part
of
the
effort
tonight
is
to
create
this
category,
so
we
can
better
monitor
where
they
are
and
inspect.
A
D
This
is
a
text
amendment
tonight
for
the
zoning
code.
The
developer
has
shown
us
the
property
on
hartree,
where
he
is
proposing
to
where
the
live
work.
Lofts
would
be
and
there's
three
units
there.
However,
that's
that
development
is
not
for
approval.
It's
just
the
text
amendment
tonight.
N
Okay,
and
is
this
project
asking
for
any
money
like
grants
or
anything
from
the.
O
Question
I
have
a
question
darlene
cannon
here.
I
wanted
to
know
of
the
three
units
that
you
that
he's
having
are
any
of
them
going
to
be
affordable
at
a
time
where
the
city
says
that
we're
looking
at
everything
through
a
lens
of
equity,
and
there
are
lots
of
business
owners
who
are
low
income
who
provide
services
to
our
community
and
that
they
might
want
to
be
in
one
of
those
lofts.
And
what
is
what?
P
P
But
if
you
look
at
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
that
covers
only
properties
that
have
five
or
more
units
at
the
moment.
O
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak?
Okay.
At
this
point,
I
will
close
the
public
testimony
and
comment
so.
Q
Now
I
think
hello
excuse
me,
I'm
so
sorry
is
this
only
for
the
first
yes
item.
Yes,.
A
A
A
A
I
would
suggest
since,
since
you
know
what
we
are
focusing
on,
is
the
text
amendment
language,
what
might
be
most
efficient
would
be
just
to
kind
of
go
through
section
by
section
and
identify
issues
that
either
language
that
could
be
removed
from
the
proposed
text.
Amendment
modified
so
that
we
kind
of
have
a
clear
direction
and
either
vote
on
the
text.
Amendment
as
we
choose
to
modify
it
or
if
it
is
something
that
needs
to
go
back
to
staff.
We
can.
We
can
do
that,
but
that
would
be
my
suggestion.
A
Okay,
hearing
none
what
about
section
6-4
6-13,
which
are
the
special
regulations
pertaining
to
the
deliberate
work
units?
This
involves
the
purpose
and
intent
construction,
the
number
of
units
which
basically
says
you
know
one
live
work
per
per
business
issues.
Yes,.
C
Can
I
go
back
to
my
earlier
point
in
point:
f,
the
ownership
and
occupancy
it's
drafted.
It
allows
either
the
the
owner
or
somebody
leasing
from
an
owner
or
an
employee,
to
occupy
that
space.
C
A
Yeah
I
let's,
let's
take
that
my
suggestion
for
for
that
particular
section
on
the
permitted
residence
I
would
delete
employee
of
the
business
owner.
I
would
at
this
point
if
that
could
be
something
that
if
it
turns
out
that
that
needs
to
be
amended
at
a
later
date,
you
could
revisit
that
which,
if
we
take
out
the
you
know
the
number
one
under
permitted
residence.
A
A
But
I'd
also
like
to
go
back
to
under
the
special
regulations
under
e
the
dwelling
unit
size
and
within
a
live
work
loan
work
unit.
A
I
would
suggest
we
delete
number
one
altogether
with
the
maximum,
because
that
really
would
address
the
kind
of
evolving
nature
of
of
how
the
the
spaces
are
operating
now,
because
I
think
that
it
appears
likely
that
mr
spats,
you
know
that
the
kind
of
tenants
and
occupants
that
are
in
mr
spatz's
development
may
use
more
than
49
of
the
of
the
space
at
any
particular
given
time.
A
So
I
would
that
would
be
another
thing
that
I
think
that
we
may
be
best
off
to
in
the
interest
of
moving
this
item
forward
to
the
city
council
and
getting
something
on
the
books,
because
I
think
the
definition
and
some
of
the
other
suggestions
are
good
ones,
but
that
that's
my
thought.
Other
commissioners.
E
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
changing
the
the
restriction
on
the
the
occupancy.
E
I
think
I
think
that
by
removing
the
percentage
of
space
that
is
designed
for
residential
purposes
is
important,
so
you
don't
end
up
with
this
tiny
little
storefront
there
used
to
be
a
a
business
on
howard
street
and
this
was
not
a
live
work,
but
this
was
a
sub
business
and
they
set
up
a
little
tiny
corner
where
they
did
your
taxes,
and
that
was
the
business
and
the
rest
of
the
store
was
the
rest
of
the
store,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
us
get
into
a
situation
where
we
have
created
something
where
this
little
ten
percent
twenty
percent
cut
out
in
a
corner
is
approved.
E
I
personally
work
from
home.
I
have
a
live
work
environment,
although
it's
not
designed
that
way.
I
work
out
of
my
second
bedroom
and
sometimes
I
sit
at
the
dining
room
table,
but
it's
designed
as
a
dining
room
to
be
that
type
of
a
space
or
a
living
room.
I
sit
at
my
couch
it's
designed
for
that
purpose,
so
there
is
a
definite
definition
of
space.
It's
how
I
use
it,
that's
different,
so
that's
that's.
I
I
feel
like
some
sort
of
regulation
is
important
if
we're
talking
about
expanding
this
into
a
lot
of
different
zones
that
don't
allow
residential
there
is
this
risk
that
it's
going
to
be
mostly
residential
and
a
little
bit
office.
So
we're
not
office,
hey,
you
know
for
your
you
mixed
use,
so
I
also
still
see
that
it's
useful
to
have
some
sort
of
percentage.
I
F
A
Agree,
but
should
the
percentage
be
49
or
60
percent
or
you
know,
should
your
or
should
you
limit
it
to
the
you
know,
you've
got
to
have
a
bedroom
and
a
kitchen,
and
you
know
the
space
you
have
to
have
the
kitchen.
You
have
to
have
the
bathroom
for
the
residents
and
you
have
to
have
presumably
a
bedroom.
E
E
If
somebody
wanted
to
change
that
and
make
it
a
different
type
of
a
setup
because
we're
talking
by
right
here-
and
so
I
think
we
should
be
somewhat
restrictive
in
our
buy
right
and
allow
people
to
petition
for
the
out
of
the
ordinary,
instead
of
being
very
open
and
potentially
creating
issues
that
we
may
not
anticipate.
A
Okay,
all
right,
let's
see
moving
on,
I
think
we've
covered
them.
Yes,
I'm
sorry.
C
We've
been
just
to
go
back
to
the
opening
paragraph.
Sorry
comment,
I
forgot
to
add
a
bathroom.
A
live
work
unit
shall
not
consist
of
solely
the
allowed
non-residential
activity
in
the
sleeping
unit
without
a
kitchen
and
bathroom.
Is
that
something.
A
C
E
E
Time
I
mean
personally,
I
would
prefer
not
to
have
clients
use
my
bathroom,
that's
my
personal
bathroom,
but
it's,
I
guess
it
sort
of
depends
on
what
the
what
type
of
live
work
environment
it
is.
I
A
On
that
one
all
right,
so
any
other
comments.
I
think
we've
covered
the
ownership
and
occupancy
off
street
parking.
A
F
J
The
residential
occupants,
if
not,
if
the
dwelling
unit
component
of
the
business,
was
not
part
of
their
non-residential
space
and
they
were
just
coming
to
work
that
would
that
would
be
part
of
that
requirement,
as
it
is
so
they're
already
kind
of
it's
absorbed
into
that
requirement.
J
It's
the
same
vehicle,
in
fact
it
could
technically
cut
down
because
they're
not
they're
not
coming
and
going
there
there's
their
car
stays
there,
and
then
they
would
in
theory
their
customers
may
come
and
go
or
they
may
have
an
employee
come
and
go.
But
to
your
point
there
they
the
non-residential
activities
they
do
have
typically
higher
requirements
than
residential.
J
F
J
I
believe
that
most
of
the
parking
requirements
that
are
minimum
requirements
they
are
calculated
and
based
upon
not
only
the
customers
that
hypothetically
would
be
coming,
but
they're
also
intended
to
account
for
employees.
J
For
example,
restaurants
may
require
a
number
of
stalls,
purse
per
seat,
that's
provided
and
then
additional
and
then
there's
another
part
of
the
formula
where
they
require
a
minimum
number
of
stalls
per
square
footage
so
of
the
area
so
and
to
your
point
that
employee,
if,
although
that
may
be
removed
now
the
if
the
employee
is
living
there,
their
parking
stall
is
already
like
calculated
and
the
parking
requirement
for
the
non-residential
activity.
C
I'm
sorry
to
also
belabor
this
point
on
convex's
bathroom
thing
again,
I'm
just
reading
the
the
background
analysis
in
the
memo.
The
last
sentence
in
that
first
paragraph
says
that
if
the
area
does
not
have
a
heating
element
in
the
kitchen
sink
or
does
not
have
a
private
bathroom
not
used
by
the
customer
during
business
hours,
it
would
not
be
considered
a
living
work.
A
live
work
unit
which
seems
to
imply
that
you
need
two
bathrooms
one
for
the
customers
and
another
private
one.
C
C
K
You
know
in
in
her
in
her
manner
that
she
wants
affordable
this
and
affordable,
that.
How
are
you
going
to
give
it
to
people
if
you
keep
if,
if
you're,
if
you're
doing
double
duty
as
far
as
the
parking
goes,
there's
plenty
of
parking
regulations
in
the
zoning
code
right
now
that
takes
care
of
everything
you're
talking
about.
If
you
have
a
medical
space,
you
need
two
cars
per
per
thousand
square
feet
of
space
and
it
goes
down
the
list
on
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
You
don't
need
to
add
anything.
K
It's
all
there
already
you
just
you
could
add.
If
you
wanted
to,
you
could
just
put
in
or
greater
in
the
right
part
of
the
sentence.
You
know
whatever
is
the
whatever
whatever,
which
way
you
want
to
go.
You
either
want
to
reduce
it
or
you
want
to
raise
it.
You
just
put
in
you
know
the
the
the
higher
standard
is.
What
drives
it.
Anyhow,.
A
Okay,
all
right
moving
on
to
design
h
and
I,
which
are
the
design,
standards
and
alterations
any
comments
or
concerns
about
those
sections.
A
Seeing
none
I
would
like
to
entertain
some
discussion
on
section
six,
with
the
section
really
allowing
where,
where
live,
work,
units
should
be
allowed
in
which
districts
so
right
now.
A
G
Does
this
issue
of
shall
be
visible
from
the
public
right.
A
G
I
know
there's
a
perspective
there's
I
don't
think
that
was
the
intent
of
this.
I
think
the
intent
of
this
was
that
it
be
on
the
street
visible.
You
know
like
in
the
front
facade
on
the
street
facade
if
we
want
to
cha.
If
we
don't
think
that's
important,
then
I
think
the
language
should
be
broadened
a
little
bit
now
or
maybe
you
don't
even
say
that
that
the
that
the
business
should
be
visible.
G
J
I
may
interject
chair
the
item.
One
was
added
to
ensure
that
the
that
it
mean
it
maintains
the
appearance
of
being
a
non-residential
business
like
it's
an
act,
business
activity
and
that
it
doesn't
become
to
be
more
residential
in
character.
So
it
is
more
of
a
storefront
or
there's
an
entrance
to
the
business
or
that
the
actual
location
of
the
non-residential
activity
is
occurring
on
the
ground
floor.
J
And
then,
if
it's
a
two-story
building,
they're
the
it's
an
owner-occupied
building,
then
they're
reciting,
above
as
you
do
in
traditional,
more
traditional
parts
buildings
in
the
downtown
areas
and
such
so
that
clarifies
or
maybe
it
could
be
revised
to
state
that
it
shall
be
the
front
portion
closest
to
the
street.
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
with
the
visible
it's,
not
all.
Businesses
necessarily
have
your
commercial
floor-to-ceiling
windows,
but
just
something
that
was
the
intent
of
that
yeah.
A
E
If
I
could
make
a
suggestion,
maybe
rather
than
saying
the
non-residential
shall
be
visible,
say
the
residential
shall
not
be
visible
from
the
street
face
because
that
way
in
a
situation
like
mr
stats's,
where
the
property
sits
lengthwise.
E
K
E
Am
I
first
off
I'd
like
to
ask
the
chair
that
the
the
record
is
closed
at
this
point?
Secondly,
what
I'm
looking
at
is
bringing
this
more
into
compliance
with
what
we
typically
do
in
b.
Districts,
which
are
business
districts
and
our
commercial
and
business
districts
should
not
have
a
residential
character.
On
the
first
floor,
they
should
have
a
business
character,
or
else
we
should
just
change
everything
to
a
residential
district
and
all
bets
are
off,
but
I'm
not
for
that.
A
All
right
moving
on
are
there
any
other
changes
on
the
design.
Standards
is
two
okay.
I
B
A
A
A
E
My
personal
preference
would
remove
the
would
be
to
remove
the
open
space
districts.
That
makes
no
sense
to
me
that,
because
those
should
not
be
developed
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
I
would
I
would.
I
have
no
problem
with
the
downtown
districts.
I
have
a
bit
more
problem
with
all
of
the
industrial
districts.
E
I
one
two
and
three
just
because
of
the
nature
and
the
fact
that
you
have
trucks
coming
through
that
that
can
be
large
and
things
like
that,
and
just
from
a
a
public
safety
issue
between
the
types
of
businesses
that
are
allowed
in
the
industrial
and
the
the
the
weight
of
traffic
that
that
can
move
through
there
and
everything
I
just.
I
think
that
we
can.
We
can
restrict
those
and
not
have
a
large
impact
on
this.
A
Okay,
so
any
other
comments
thoughts
can
we
move
to.
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
make
a
motion
to
either
accept
this
well
leave
a
motion
to
accept
the
staff.
Well,
we
have
a
couple
of
choices
either
we
cannot.
We
can
refer
this
back
to
staff
to
redraft
or
we
can
make
motion
to
approve
the
staff
text
amendments
and
then
go
through
and
make
amendments
to
that
before
it
goes
on
to
the
the
city
council.
So
those
are
choices.
I
believe.
J
J
If
you're
able
to
note
that
in
your
motion,
that
would
be
helpful
as
well.
J
F
A
Okay
staff
have
sufficient
direction.
A
All
right,
so
I
guess,
then
we
will
continue
this
item
until
do
we
need
to
do
a
date
certain
for
this,
and
when
would
I
believe,
our
next.
B
So
if
you
do
it
eight
certain
we
as
it's
already
on
the
calendar,
we've
got
july,
28th
we've
got
august,
11th
and
then
august.
25Th
are
the
next
few
meeting
dates.
A
E
B
E
A
All
right,
thank
you.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
text
amendment
occupancy
of
dwelling
units-
that's
p,
20,
p,
l,
n
d,
zero,
zero,
seven
one,
I
think-
is
there
a
staff
presentation
at
this
point.
B
L
B
Right,
okay,
so
this
is
the
probably
the
I
believe,
the
sixth
meeting
that's
been
before
either
planning
commission
or
subcommittee
of
the
commission.
So
at
the
june
9th
meeting
a
staff
proposed
two
different
alternatives
and
those
are
summarized
here.
B
B
The
second
alternative
was
to
change
the
number
in
the
definition
from
for
single
family
from
three
to
eight
and
then
make
rooming
houses
available
or
permitted
in
all
residential
districts,
and
enforcement
of
that
would
also
require
an
additional
inspector
to
be
hired.
B
Some
of
the
main
discussion
points
from
the
last
commission
meeting
were
generally
the
purpose
and
benefits
of
retaining
a
family
definition
in
occupancy
standards.
Trailingwell
had
proposed
a
possible
third
alternative
that
would
have
kept
the
definition
of
family.
B
B
B
So
we
do
have
some
additional
information
this
evening,
just
I'll
outline
what
we're
trying
to
do.
Just
as
a
reminder.
We
do
have
existing
nuisances,
nuisance
regulations
within
our
city
code.
Those
are
within
title
five
title
eight
and
title
nine,
and
when
there's
some
chapters
that
speak
specifically
to
nuisances
and
define
what
those
nuisances
are
and
as
part
of
the
conversation
we
did
want
to
address
that
there
are
a
number
of
concurrent
matters
that
are
also
being
reviewed
by
staff
and
will
be
before
council
in
a
future
date.
B
The
first
listed
here
is
the
moratorium
on
non-owner
occupied
internal
and
attached
accessory
dwelling
units.
This
would
essentially
create
a
provisional
moratorium.
Really.
The
discussion
was
between
three
and
six
months
for
non-owner
occupied
accessory
drilling
units
that
are
internal
or
attached,
and
this
is
actually,
I
think,
I
believe,
the
item
that
will
be
before
the
commission
at
that.
B
Should
there
be
a
number
of
violations,
you
also
are
looking
at
increasing
fines
and
fees
associated
with
violations
of
occupancy
and
rental
violations,
basically
to
make
it
more
expensive
to
violate
established
codes
within
the
city,
and
then
some
changes
are
proposed
to
the
nuisance
premise,
premises,
ordinance,
and
these
would
include
strengthening
enforcement
on
items
such
as
noise,
public
drunkenness,
excess
garbage
parking
violations
and
things
of
that
nature.
B
B
We
would
also
look
at
additional
definitions,
such
as
boarding
houses,
daycare
homes,
residential
care,
homes,
etc,
and
remove
references
to
the
family
and
update
that
with
language
systems
dwelling
unit,
also
for
section
614-114,
which
specifically
relates
to
occupancy
dwelling
units.
We
would
remove
this
section
and
occupancy
would
be
based
on
the
property
maintenance
regulations
for
638
variations
there.
Actually,
our
number
of
subsections,
which
reference
family
and
the
specifically
looking
at
family
necessity.
B
6312
for
the
zoning
administrator,
we
take
out
references
to
family
necessity,
variation
and
type
d,
family
occupancy,
six,
four,
six,
ten
special
regulations
regarding
accessory
dwelling
units.
I
would
remove
reference
to
occupancy
by
one
family
and
instead
reference
compliance
with
standards
within
title
v,
housing
regulations
and
then
within
the
appendency
appendices.
B
Anything
that's
listed
there
that
follow.
Some
of
the
changes
that
are
made
throughout
the
rest
of
the
code
would
be
would
also
be
made
in
this
section.
B
We
started
to
touch
on
these
at
the
previous
meeting
and
these
speak
to
obtaining
the
floor
plans
with
room
size
requirements
and
applying
that
to
both
rental
and
owner
occupied
units,
updating
the
rental
registration
ordinance
to
require
a
posting
of
the
maximum
occupancy
form,
and
for
this,
if
there
is
not
compliance,
we
would
issue
tickets.
B
The
area
instructor
would
inspect
the
exteriors
of
the
properties
in
the
area
around
northwestern
university.
More
frequently
for
exterior
violations,
neighbors
would
be
asked
to
contact
the
police
department
for
loud
parties,
urinating
in
the
bushes,
outside,
etc,
and
the
police
department
could
issue
tickets
to
students
for
their
behavior
and
break
up
on
ruling
parties
as
necessary.
B
Property
standards
and
the
police
department
would
work
with
northwestern
university,
as
we've
had
some
discussions
already
and
we'd
meet
with
students
who
are
planning
to
reside
off
campus
at
the
start
of
each
term
to
discuss
their
responsibilities
as
neighbors
and
consequences
for
their
actions.
So
this
would
basically
be
a
good
neighbor
effort
before
any
problems
actually
arise.
B
H
A
G
Just
have
a
before
we
get
started.
I
just
have
a
procedural
question
here.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
this
issue
and
we
directed
staff
to
pursue
alternative
one
which
they
did,
and
I
think
frankly,
they've
done
a
tremendous
job
in
analyzing
all
the
different
impacts
of
this.
G
E
I
have
one
quick
question
on
just
something
that
was
mentioned
in
here
and
I
I
can
imagine
I
know
the
answer,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
it
mentioned
the
three
service
calls,
but
it
excluded
domestic
violence,
I'm
guessing.
That
is
because
domestic
violence
is
treated
at
a
higher
standard
or
a
different
standard,
or
why
was
that
excluded.
D
A
Okay,
I
think
that
we're
ready
for
public
comment
and
testimony.
I
know
we
have
at
the
request
of
council
member
kelly.
We
have
a
presentation
by
dan
lauber.
Is
he
on
the
call
at
this
point.
A
All
right
and
again
at
the
request
and
just
for
for
the
the
members
of
the
public,
the
plan
commission
rules
typically
limit
testimony
to
two
minutes.
But
in
the
case
again,
at
the
request
of
council
member
kelly,
mr
lauber,
you
have
10
minutes
to
make
your
presentation.
R
R
I
have
spent
an
entire
career
as
a
planner
and
attorney
devoted
to
achieving
the
goals
of
social
equity
and
justice
before
the
phrases
were
ever
invented,
but
it's
got
to
be
done
thoughtfully,
not
politically
and
not
speculatively
his
way
of
background
real
quickly.
I've
been
a
leader
in
efforts
to
preserve,
affordable
housing.
I've
been
an
expert
witness
before
both
houses
of
congress,
I'm
preserving,
affordable
housing
and,
in
the
analyses
of
impediments
to
fair
housing
choice
that
we've
conducted
have
provided
paths
to
cities
on
how
to
reduce
economic
and
racial
segregation.
R
I've
been
the
author
of
the
model,
zoning
provisions
for
group
homes
for
the
american
bar
association
and
american
planning
association,
a
frequent
witness
for
the
department
of
justice
in
lawsuits
and
have
been
president
of
the
american
planning
association
and
twice
of
the
american
institute
of
certified
planners.
R
It
would
allow
rooming
houses
in
all
residential
districts,
even
though
they
are
not
remotely
not
remotely
similar
to
a
community
residence
or
typical
residences
and
in
the
packet
of
material
that
I
don't
want
to
belabor
this
in
the
packet
of
material
that
I
posted
into
the
chat.
There
is
a
table
that
shows
the
differences
between
community
residences
for
people
with
disabilities,
institutional
hop
uses
like
nursing
homes
and
detox
facilities
and
rooming
and
boarding
houses.
R
R
This
is
a
use
that
needs
to
be
carefully
regulated,
and
if
you
abolish
the
definition
of
family,
the
case
law
is
abundantly
clear.
You
cannot
use
zoning
to
keep
them
from
clustering
together
in
a
neighborhood
on
a
block
or
concentrating
in
a
neighborhood.
You
cannot
use
zoning
to
require
a
license
historically,
and
this
is
consistent.
R
Every
place
we've
looked
when
you
don't
have
regulations
for
zoning
and
requiring
licensing
for
community
residences.
They
will
cluster,
as
they
did
in
the
neighborhood
in
the
lower
cost
housing
in
the
community
and
evanston.
That
means
largely
in
the
second
and
fifth
wards,
and
I've
got
to
tell
you
three
years
ago
I
was
contact.
R
I'm
sorry,
two
summers
ago,
I
was
contacted
by
people
in
the
fifth
ward,
alderman
simmons
arranged
for
me
to
do
a
workshop
in
evanston
for
the
community,
which
we're
going
to
do
until
I
started
losing
my
voice
after
talking
for
five
minutes,
which
may
have
been
a
godsend
for
anyone
listens
to
me,
but
it
made
it
impossible
to
do
the
session
and
then
the
pandemic
arrived
and
that
prevented
going
any
further,
so
it
defeats
the
purpose
of
these
homes
if
they
start
clustering,
and
I
urge
you
to
think
carefully
about
this
unintended
consequence
that
didn't
even
occur
to
staff,
and
I
don't
know
why
it
would
occur
to
staff
of
abolishing
the
definition
of
family
there's
other
concerns.
R
R
I'm
also
very
concerned
there's
been
a
lot
of
speculative
assertions
made
in
support
of
abolishing
this
definition
of
family,
which
I
will
give
you
a
alternative
definition
at
the
end,
and
that's
not
right.
I
would
like
to
see
actual,
and
you
should
want
to
see.
I
hold
hope,
actual
examples
where
abolishing
the
definition
of
family
has
actually
driven
down
housing
costs
and
made
for
affordable
housing
available.
R
Other
speculative
statements
that
have
been
made
is
that,
when
abolishing
the
definition
of
family
will
maintain
the
appealing
character
of
neighborhoods
while
guiding
their
change,
I'm
at
a
loss
on
how
that's
going
to
happen.
It
will
maintain
and
enhance
property
values
and
proper
prospective
perceptions
of
housing
in
evanston.
Again,
where
is
any
evidence
of
that?
I
would
think
it
would
do
the
opposite.
R
R
R
This
will
meet
most
of
the
concerns
about
what
are
not
what
would
be
considered
a
conventional
household
ten
years
ago,
so
unmarried
couples
of
any
gender
living
in
a
domestic
relationship
as
a
single
housekeeping
unit
they're
in
blended
families,
nuclear
families
extended
families,
domestic
partnerships,
but
you
can't-
and
this
is
critical
much
as
you
might
want
to
politically.
R
You
can't
include
communes,
because
the
moment
you
do
that
you
again
lose
the
ability
to
regulate
group
homes.
To
your
zoning,
I
realize,
with
the
existing
zoning
ordinance
definition
of
family,
there
is
a
paragraph
in
there
for
reba
plates.
If
you
were
to
use
this
definition,
reba
place
would
be
grandfathered
in
as
a
legal
non-conforming
use.
R
R
There
are
operators,
as
the
dallas
morning,
news
pointed
out
in
a
three-year
campaign.
They've
been
abusing
exploiting
group
home
residents,
especially
people
with
developmental
disabilities
and
the
frail
elderly,
and
that
requires
requires
licensing
to
stop
and
if
you
don't
have
his
own
ordinance
that
requires
that
they
be
licensed.
R
You
can't
do
anything
about
it
and
it's
all
the
buck
stops
really
at
the
local
level.
So
I
skipped
an
awful
lot.
Please
forgive
me
for
having
to
be
so
quick
with
this
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
see
if
I
can
confuse
and
confound
you
any
further-
and
I
again
thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity
to
address
you.
R
My
I
got
to
admit
my
heart's
still
in
evanston,
I
miss
it
terribly,
but
family
circumstances
forced
us
out
of
there
and
I
I'm
jealous
of
you
all
for
still
being
able
to
live
there.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
H
A
In
the
chat
all
right
do
we
have
people
signed
up
on
the
on
your
or
with
their
hands
raised?
Yes,
I
I
signed
up.
N
A
All
right,
miss
baden.
N
Okay,
so
I
want
to
know
how
is
rental
registration
different
from
the
license
for
the
landlord.
B
D
So
this
will
be
at
a
a
forthcoming
city
council
meeting.
However,
I
believe
angel
schner
is
also
on
the
museum
call.
I
might
be
able
to
answer
some
of
the
questions,
so
the
idea
is
that
this
would
this
would
be
able
to
address
landlords
and
units
that
that
we
could
better
regulate,
removing
the
ability
to
rent
those
units,
if
they're,
in
violation
of
things
that
that
make
the
property
unsafe
they're
in
violation
of
of
city
other
city
ordinances.
It
gives
us
an
ability
to
stop
that
unit
from
being
rented.
D
Still
in
that's
going
to
go
to
planning
and
development
committee
on
july
26
for
discussion
and
we'll
work
from
there.
N
H
H
N
Okay,
so
well,
I
hope
that
you
know
you
discuss
this
with
the
landlords
that
are
really
trying
to
comply.
I've
always
been
in
compliance
with
rental
registration,
but
I
see
there's
lack
of
enforcement
for
rental
registration
on
the
select
people
that
you
want
to
skip
over.
N
So
I
want
to
know
when
you're
making
changes
that
you
need
to
have
some
discussion
with
the
landlords
here
and
also,
I
believe,
once
again,
I'm
going
to
agree
with
the
previous
speaker
here
about
eliminating
family
and
it
is
discriminatory,
which
I
said
in
my
last
comments
at
the
last
meeting
and
we
were
the
only
family
to
to
rent
in
the
connections
for
the
homeless
teeba
program
to
a
family
of
nine.
It
was
a
husband
and
wife
with
seven
children,
so
you're
just
putting
a
blanket
statement
over.
N
You
know
just
rent
to
eight
people
and
put
a
cap
on
it.
Well
that
doesn't
make
sense,
and
when
you
put
language
in
there,
it
just
looks
like
you're
trying
to
eliminate
families
just
what
the
previous
speaker
said,
because
what
you're
doing
is
creating
this
luxury
housing.
N
N
N
Okay,
well,
this
looks
like
you're
just
supporting
northwestern
and
allowing
them
to
rent
to
eight
people
at
a
time
and
not
going
by
the
rules.
What
you
have
in
place,
you're,
not
enforcing
what
the
rules
are
in
place.
So
I
don't
know
what
all
these
changes
are,
and
I
reiterate
my
comments
from
below.
I
mean
from
the
previous
meeting,
okay,
and
so
so
I
have
one
thing
to
say:
so
is
this
a
question
since
this
is
a
hearing?
Aren't
you
supposed
to
be
like
asking
questions
with
the
unlimited?
A
The
plan
commission
recently
changed
its
rules,
so
questions
and
testimony
are
handled
together,
so
you
have
two
minutes
for,
for
you
know
to
basically
to
speak
and
I
just
to
clarify
the
proposed
text.
Amendment
really
is
what
you
know
that
affects
or
relates
to
whether
or
not
the
definition
of
family
in
the
zoning
ordinance
should
be
removed.
The
plan
commission
at
the
last
meeting
opted
for
the
the
alternative
that
removed
that
definition.
A
So
that's
that's
what's
being
considered
at
the
moment.
The
the.
N
Right
and
it,
it
also
appears
that
you're
saying
that
you
can
rent
to
eight
people,
regardless
of
the
situation
and
which
is
just
supporting
over
occupancy
by
landlords
that
you
know,
are
breaking
the
rules
and
you're
not
enforcing
currently,
mostly
by
the
northwestern
campus
in
the
first
and
fifth
ward.
So
I
would
hope
that
you
would
not
exclude
family
and
keep
three
unrelated
and
enforce
three
unrelated
you've,
never
enforced
that.
N
That's
why
you're
having
a
problem
and
then
the
last
time
you
mentioned,
there's
30
000
dwelling
units
and
19
000
have
fewer
than
two
bedrooms,
so
that
is
killing
a
lot
of
families
right
now
and
you
keep
on
talking
about
affordable
housing.
This
looks
like
you're
just
trying
to
push
it
out
all
together,
so
I
agree
with
the
last
speaker
and
I
will
now
be
quiet.
Thank
you.
M
M
M
I
have
several
buyers
now
who
would
like
to
buy
a
home
in
evanston
and
share
a
home
with
four
to
six
unrelated
women.
They
would
not
be
able
to
share
a
home
or
purchase
a
home
now
because
of
the
three
unrelated
ordinance.
This
is
a
sign
of
the
times
when
more
and
more
individuals
want
to
share
their
living
expenses
with
others.
M
I
know
of
a
rental
agency
that
got
an
email
from
a
tenant
that
would
like
to
rent
a
home
with
other
like-minded
women.
I
fully
support
the
city
staff.
The
definitions
for
single-family
two-family,
multiple
family
buildings
will
be
changed
to
single
unit
two
unit,
multiple
multiple
buildings,
also
any
reference
to
families
will
be
updated
to
dwelling
units
and
any
reference
to
families
will
be
removed
from
zoning.
M
M
Q
I
also
signed
up
to
speak.
I
don't
know
what
happened.
I
didn't
get
a
confirmation
via
email,
but
here
I
am
all
right.
Is
this
a
good
time?
Yes
right,
I'm
sorry.
I
wasn't
able
to
submit
a
comment
for
the
last
meeting
personal
difficulties,
so
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
little
too
late,
but
I
would
like
to
say
my
piece
anyway.
If
that
is
okay
and
I'll
go
as
fast
as
I
can.
Q
I
do
want
to
say
to
the
earlier
speaker
that
I
believe
a
rooming
house
would
solve
the
situation
you
were
describing
with
six
unrelated
women
wishing
to
live
together.
Well,
but
I
guess
that's
not
under
consideration
anymore.
Unfortunately,
but
I
will
go
on.
My
name
is
cecile
mchugh.
I've
lived
near
northwestern
for
15
years.
I'm
completely
opposed
to
the
elimination
of
the
three-person
rule
in
the
annu
area
because
of
the
potential
huge,
immediate
and
extremely
difficult
to
reverse
negative
impact.
Q
Absentee
landlords
purchase
family
homes
here
modify
them
charge
exorbitant
rents,
the
going
rate
at
least
a
thousand
dollars
per
bedroom
to
month
per
month
to
as
many
students
as
can
possibly
fit
in
the
buildings
in
select.
But
now
limited
areas
near
nu,
absentee
landlords
not
tina,
far
exceed
the
legal
number
of
unrelated
occupants.
Some
hide
this.
Some
don't
bother
not
having
been
penalized
in
the
past
in
buildings
that
tend
to
be
nuisance
properties.
Q
I
believe
that
absentee
landlords
don't
purchase
properties
on
blocks
where
they
anticipate
pushback
on
the
three-person
rule
from
neighbors.
Eliminating
the
three-person
rule
would
give
absentee
landlords
free
reign
in
the
nu
area.
Absentee
landlords
are
especially
interested
in
the
many
large
homes
here
in
which
they
can
maximize
profit.
Q
Recently
on
one
block
near
anu,
completely
owned
by
absentee
landlords,
I
saw
an
indoor
couch
on
a
front
lawn,
a
massive
dresser
on
a
porch
large
apartment
ad,
showing
pictures
of
the
units
fixed
to
the
front
porches
and
or
the
front
of
the
house
on
a
corner
elsewhere.
There
have
been
two
porches
with
a
large
assortment
of
likely
indoor
furniture
and
a
work
table
in
the
front
yard
for
the
past
couple
of
years.
Q
Most
all
of
the
other
blocks
in
this
area
are
not
at
all
like
this,
but
instead
extremely
appealing
places
to
live
close
to
downtown
into
the
lake.
It
is
in
the
interest
of
everyone,
besides
the
absentee
landlords,
that
the
other
blacks
remain
as
appealing
as
they
now
are.
My
own
block
has
had
noise
disturbances
for
the
first
time
in
the
last
two
years,
but
never
in
the
13
years
preceding.
Q
Q
The
current
comprehensive
plan
singles
out
orrington
avenue
from
emerson
to
central
as
being
in
need
of
protection
from
the
negative
effects
of
being
near
and
eu
an
implication
can
be
drawn
that
a
wider
area
near
nu
is
in
need
of
protection.
An
update
to
the
evanson
comprehensive
plan
recently
improved
must
be
completed
before
moving
this
proposed
change
forward.
I'm
almost
done.
I
appreciated
commissioner
westerberg's
comments
from
an
earlier
meeting
in
which
she
said,
though
it
is
not
a
popular
option.
An
overlay
district
may
be
something
to
consider,
since
areas
near
campus
could
be
greatly
impacted.
Q
A
good
part
of
the
area
near
anu
that
would
be
effective,
is
zoned
r4a,
and
this
zoning
doesn't
seem
to
be
used
anywhere
else
in
the
city.
Have
different
regulations
for
zone
r4a
been
considered.
I
feel
that
the
three-person
rule
should
not
be
eliminated
in
you.
Without
the
measures
listed
in
the
packet,
a
rental
licensing
program
increases
in
fines,
strengthening
the
nuisance,
premises,
ordinance
and
the
capacity
to
enforce
them.
A
comprehensive
parking
and
traffic
study
likely
to
remain
recommend
limits
on
parking
permits
per
building,
and
I
think
I
might
have
said
this
already.
A
And
who
is
next
up.
S
L
Go
ahead,
yes,
I'm
calling
to
inquire
about
the.
What
are
you
going
to
do
about
enforcing
the
rules
for
landlords,
absentee
landlords
that
have
many
properties
in
our
community,
that
are
a
risk,
property
and
a
lot
of
disturbances?
L
And
nothing
has
been
done
about
it,
and
this
has
been
happening
for
over
a
number
of
years
and
the
police
aware
of
the
landlord
that
I'm
talking
about
it
has
disrupted
our
community.
L
H
A
Going
to
do
anything
about
it,
this
I
think
we
can
defer
to
staff.
This
is
a
hearing
solely
on
whether
or
not
to
eliminate
the
definition
of
family
from
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
the
the
nuisance
premises
and
the
inspection
and
the
enforcement
of
those
is
are
being
considered
by
the
city
council
or
will
be
considered
by
the
city
council
at
at.
I
believe
what
planning
and
development
primarily
so
that
is
not
within
the
purview
of
the
planning
commission
to
consider.
D
Not
prepared
to
comment
on
the
status
of
a
particular
property,
but
I've
made
a
note
of
it,
and
if
you
want
to
send
your
contact
information
in
the
chat
on
zoom,
then
I
can
have
a
staff
member
follow
up
with
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
B
Okay,
next
we've
got
rob
bisonbach.
T
Hi,
thank
you.
As
a
member
of
the
community
in
the
area
surrounding
the
university,
I
want
to
address
a
few
points
that
have
been
made
in
this
month's
long
debate
and,
of
course,
agree
with
daniel
lauber
about
the
tremendous
ramifications
of
this
proposal.
Of
all
the
proposals
have
been
under
consideration,
including
the
one
tonight.
T
First,
we
all
support
affordable
housing,
but
we
believe
a
one-size-fits-all
proposal
will
not
create
affordable
housing
in
the
community
adjacent
to
the
university.
In
fact,
the
going
room
rental
rate
for
students
in
this
neighborhood
is
a
thousand
dollars
and
up
per
bedroom
and
more
so
we
seek
some
type
of
reasonable
compromise
overlay.
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
T
T
T
Finally,
as
so
many
of
our
neighbors
here
have
reported
all
the
problems
they've
had
living
next
to
student-filled
houses
run
by
absentee
landlords.
I
believe
their
legitimate
concerns
have
been
met
with
a
lack
of
empathy.
T
In
fact,
last
month,
one
commissioner
put
the
onus
on
us
saying:
if
people
in
the
neighborhood
are
willing
to
sell
to
developers,
they
are
changing
the
neighborhood,
they
are
living
and
he
also
added.
This
is
really
a
situation
where
people
in
the
neighborhood
need
to
have
serious
conversations
with
their
neighbors
about
properties
and
who
they're
willing
to
sell
to
and
how
that
will
impact
their
neighborhood.
T
T
U
Hi
thanks,
I
have
I
have
a
couple
slides.
I
wanted
to
show
real
quick
to
just
illustrate
my
my
points,
so
I
will
do
that
right
now,
so
I
agree.
First
of
all,
with
the
attorney
you
spoke
earlier,
mr
lauber.
I
think
this
is
something
we've
said
a
number
of
times
that
there
have
been
very
there's.
There's
appears
to
be
very
little
actual
evidence
that
this
type
of
of
proposal
will
result
in
in
affordable
housing.
U
I
I've
taken
a
look
at
some
other
planning
documents.
One
of
them
is
from
the
university
of
wisconsin
department
of
urban
and
planning
urban
and
regional
planning.
It's
a
2015
document
where
they
actually
done
a
pretty
extensive
survey
of
areas
around
campus.
U
They
noted
a
couple
of
things:
cities
with
established
single-family
homes
near
college
and
universities
often
face
unique
challenges
with
off-campus
housing,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
homes
that
well
originally
were
owner-occupied.
Single-Family
dwellings
have
been
converted
to
rental
housing.
This
impacts
greatly.
The
livability
of
the
neighborhood
and
dramatically
alters
the
structure
and
character
of
these
areas.
U
If
left
unchecked,
this
market
phenomenon
can
transform
a
city
neighborhood
near
colleges
and
universities
within
only
a
decade
or
two,
and
you
don't
have
to
look
very
far
in
our
neighboring
communities,
with
universities,
with
without
regulations
that,
once
lovely
beautiful
homes
have
been
transformed
into
you,
know,
dilapidated
homes.
U
This
proposed
ordinance
does
not
meet
the
standards
of
approval.
It
will
greatly
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
around
northwestern
the
quality
of
the
neighborhood
will
be
reduced
and
permanent
evidence.
Evanston
residents
will
leave
in
fact
the
possibility,
even
the
possibility
of
this
ordinance
passing
has
already
resulted
in
an
evanston
family,
leaving
the
first
ward
and
frankly,
I've
talked
to
my
neighbors
other
other
families
who
are
considering
it
perception
of
the
housing
in
evanston.
Around
northwestern
campus
will
be
reduced
and
it
will
not
improve
cost
and
affordability
and
will
in
fact
increase
rental
rates.
U
Students
will
always
be
able
to
outspend
permanent
residence
for
rent.
Let's
just
take
an
example
here.
This
is
a
home.
That's
currently
for
sale,
two
blocks
from
the
northwestern
campus,
it's
for
sale
for
over
a
million
dollars.
It's
currently
a
five
bedroom
house.
Its
existing
layout,
however,
will
allow
for
at
least
11
bedrooms.
I
you
know,
did
a
quick.
You
know
drew
a
few
lines
on
this.
U
This
layout
of
this,
this
particular
residence,
and
you
can
fit
11
bedrooms
in
this
home
and
still
have
plenty
of
common
space,
including
a
kitchen,
a
living
room
and
a
downstairs
rec
room.
If
you
had
an
ambitious
landlord,
they
could
add
two
more
bedrooms
and
make
it
a
13
bedroom
house
collecting.
U
So
in
my
example,
I
said:
11
11
bedrooms,
if
you
paid
20
down,
add
25
000
for
home
modifications,
you'll
get
a
monthly
income
of
eleven
thousand
dollars.
You'll
make
a
profit
of
about
forty
seven
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
on
your
investment
rate
of
return
of
of
a
little
under
two
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars.
It's
a
nineteen
percent
return
on
your
investment
in
a
year.
That
is
why
these
landlords
are
going
to
be
snapping
up,
houses
left
and
right
in
this
neighborhood.
M
U
You
know
we've
suggested
in
the
past
alternatives.
I
echo
mr
lauber's
concern
ideas
of
having
an
expanded
definition
of
family
to
be
more,
you
know,
inclusive
with
the
types
of
family
families
that
exist
rather
than
the
nuclear
traditional
family.
As
these
definitions
were
defined
in
the
you
know,
1970s
80s
and
90s,
you
know
add
those
at
those
inclusive,
more
exclusive
definitions.
We
absolutely
would
support
that.
U
S
Hi,
my
name
is
sue
lobock.
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless
and
we
run
a
program
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
and
then
I
do
have
comment.
My
question
has
to
do
with
the
the
report
that
mr
lauber
gave.
I
wanted
to
ask
in
terms
of
residential
care
homes.
S
Is
the
licensure
actually
a
zoning
issue?
I
mean,
if
I
don't
know
if
staff
can
speak
to
this,
but
I
I
did
not
understand
how
this
zoning
change
would
make
it
so
that
we
could
no
longer
license
residential
care
homes.
S
H
A
There
are,
but
that
that
wasn't
exactly
the
the
point
was
that
if
you
don't
have
a
definition
of
family,
the
licensing
that
the
limitations
don't
apply
wouldn't
apply.
S
My
comments
so
at
joining
forces,
we
are
very
impressed
with
the
proposals
that
staff
came
up
with
and
very
much
support
them.
We
have
gone
into
some
detail
in
prior
meetings
about
why
we
support
the
repeal
of
this.
This
you
know
three
unrelated
role
and
the
definition
of
family.
One
thing
I
would
like
to
clarify
is
that
we
have
never
ever
said
that
repeal
of
this
ordinance
would
drive
down
the
cost
of
housing.
We
have
never
said
that
it
would
create
more
affordable
housing.
S
What
we
have
said
is
that
it
would
allow
people
to
spend
less
on
their
housing
by
virtue
of
sharing
that
cost
and
splitting
it
up
and
as
bonnie
wilson
mentioned
earlier,
and
as
we've
mentioned
with
connections
for
the
homeless,
we
do
know
of
situations
where
people
want
and
need
to
do
that
in
order
to
afford
housing.
Here.
S
I'd
also
like
to
just
stress
that
the
the
current
ordinance
appears
not
to
be
working
right
now.
It
feels
to
me,
like
all
the
fears
that
people
who
live
around
northwestern,
have
are
actually
coming
true
with
the
current
ordinance
in
place,
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
the
city
consider
the
proposal
proposals
by
staff
as
being
an
alternative
way
of
trying
to
actually
do
something
about
these
problems.
S
S
But
since
the
current
solution
is
not
working,
we
really
really
support
trying
a
new
solution.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
did
mr
lobber
want
to
respond
to
the
question
if
you're
dan,
if
you're
on
the
call.
R
Sure,
thank
you.
The
way
the
case
law
has
worked
out
one.
It
is
perfectly
legal
and
rational
for
zoning
ordinances
to
require
data,
community
residents
or
group,
home
or
sober
home,
be
licensed
as
part
of
the
police
power
to
protect
the
residents
of
a
home
from
abuse
exploitation,
and
it
is
quite
common
around
the
country
and
the
oj
department,
justice
and
that
have
no
problem
with
it.
For
zoning
ordinances
require
that
community
residents
have
have
a
license
or
certification.
R
The
idea
I
would
encourage
I
post
it
on
the
chat-
I
don't
know
if
it's
accessible
to
everybody
and
if
the
organizers
of
this
meeting
can
make
it
accessible
to
everybody.
The
packet
of
material
that
I
had
submitted
to
the
plan
commission
and
used
in
my
presentation
includes
a
two-page
explanation
of
the
state
of
the
law
regarding
zoning
for
group
homes,
and
it
explains
the
maximum
that
you
can
do.
You
can
overdo
it
and
I
I'll
be
candid
evanston's.
Current
zoning,
I
think,
runs
a
file
to
try
housing
act.
R
It's
sort
of
based
on
zoning
that
I
wrote
back
in
1974,
which
I
would
characterize
as
zoning
for
group
homes,
beta
version
0.5
and
now
we're
on
version
20.
much
more
sophisticated,
much
more
fair
and
more
in
compliance
with
the
fair
housing
act.
So
otherwise
you
can
visit
grouphomes.law
and
you
can
download
the
two-page
summary
of
the
state
of
the
art
on
zoning
law,
and
I
should
add
just
so.
R
You
know
I
lived
at
200
south
boulevard
for
four
or
five
of
the
years
of
my
17
years
in
evanston
and
guided
the
north
shore
association
through
the
zoning
process,
to
build
a
group
home
for
12
adults
with
developmental
disabilities
right
next
door
to
our
condo.
And
it's
it's
been
a
good
neighbor.
R
It
undermines
the
ability
of
the
homes
to
achieve
community
integration
and
use
of
neighbors
as
role
models,
because
people
from
their
homes
will
just
interact
with
each
other
and
not
with
the
neighbors
in
the
neighborhood.
So
it
undermines
the
whole
underlying
purpose
why
the
courts
have
said
group
homes
need
to
be
allowed
in
residential
areas.
I
I'm
a
great
believer
in
following
the
advice
of
vincenie
and
the
princess
bride
when
you're
lost
always
go
back
to
the
beginning,
so
I
always
go
back
to
the
reasons
why
the
courts
have
been
ruling
the
way
they
have.
B
Thank
you
and
to
to
note
the
documents
that
mr
lauber
submitted
for
the
plan.
Commission.
Those
have
been
posted
to
the
plan
commission
page
they're,
under
additional
comments
under
the
packet
for
this
meeting.
A
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
I
will
close
the
public
testimony
and
now
it's
time
for
commission
deliberations.
G
I'd
just
like
to
make
one
comment,
and
this
is
not
meant
to
criticize
any
of
the
citizens
who've
spoken,
but
I
sense-
and
I
could
be
wrong
about
this,
but
I
sense
that
several
of
them
have
not
read
the
report
that
the
staff
put
together,
because
if,
in
my
opinion,
if
they
had
a
lot
of
their
concerns,
would
would
be
alleviated.
G
F
I
want
to
make
just
a
couple
of
comments.
I
also
commend
the
staff,
I
know
all
the
time
and
effort
that
has
gone
into
this,
especially
over
a
several
month
period
and
and
I'm
sure
time
leading
up
to
that.
I
think
my
question
goes
to
continues
to
go
to
how
will
the
city
really
know
that,
once
these
changes
are
made,
that
the
changes
are
effective
in
increasing
housing
options
for
people?
We
understand
this
won't
necessarily
increase
affordable
housing.
F
But
how
will
you
really
be
able
to
evaluate
that?
So
my
concern
is
that
what
I'm
not
seeing
in
the
in
the
memo
and
the
report
is
some
kind
of
evaluative
approach
that
the
city
can
say
to
citizens
here
are
the
improvements.
This
is
why
we
know
it's
working,
and
this
is
why
it
makes
it
has
made
sense
to
do
that.
F
F
F
I
don't
know
much
about
group
homes,
but
I
am
concerned
about
what
I
heard
tonight,
but
I'm
sure
that's
something
that
the
city
can
look
at
and
address
in
terms
of
licensing.
But
there
are
some
issues
here
and
obviously
there
are
two
wards
that
are
going
to
bear
the
brunt
of
this
again.
It
may
not
be
a
problem
for
the
rest
of
the
wards
in
the
city,
but
I
do
think
extra
resources
need
to
be
directed
to
those
two
wards
and
those
would
be
my.
E
I'll
go
ahead
and
speak
next
again.
I
also
want
to
commend
staff.
I
was
not
expecting
to
see
something
back
this
quickly,
so
thank
you
for
responding
as
quickly
as
you
did.
E
I
think
in
terms
of
enforcement.
You
know
we're
not
seeing
enforcement
of
rules
now
and
I
think,
by
by
strengthening
enforcement
and
beginning
the
enforcement
on
some
of
these
nuisances,
which
are
really
the
problems
that
we're
hearing
as
I've
mentioned
before
you
know,
I
can
be
one
person
and
be
quite
a
nuisance
in
my
neighborhood
and
there
can
be
20
people
who
can
be
not
a
nuisance
in
their
neighborhood,
and
so
so.
The
number
of
people
is
not
something
that
concerns
me.
E
It's
the
impact
on
the
neighborhood
that
concerns
me
and
I
have
the
feeling
that,
once
we
begin
cracking
down
on
those
nuisances,
you're
going
to
see
a
number
of
landlords
who
will
come
into
line
with
that
because
of
the
fact
that
once
once
a
couple
of
them
get
taken
to
court
or
or
have
issues
with
licensure
or
rental,
revocation,
or
something
like
that,
revocation
or
something
like
that.
I
think
you're
going
to
see
people
people
beginning
to
say.
E
Oh
the
city
is
starting
to
take
this
seriously
and
that
they
will
begin
to
fall
in
line
with
the
rules
and
like.
H
L
E
The
the
issue
for
me
is
not
the
number
of
people,
it's
the
impact
on
the
neighborhood,
so
I
think
I've
made
my
my
position
made
clear
through
various
other
meetings,
so
I
will
not
belabor
those
points
again.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
anyone
else
wish
to
speak.
A
G
Sure
I
would
like
to
again:
maybe
there
could
be
tweaks
to
the
to
the
report
and
obviously
enforcement
is
key.
Absolutely
and
maybe
there
should
be
more
staff.
But
I
think,
with
those
comments,
I'd
like
to
approve
the
the
text
amendment
as
presented
by
staff
and
send
it
to
city
council.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
it's
been
moved
and
seconded.
Is
there
any
discussion
in
the
motion?
I
think
I
guess
I
didn't
really
speak,
but
I
will
make
my
you
know
my
position
before
we
vote.
A
I
think
that
that
a
I
think
that
eliminating
the
definition
of
family
is
a
bad
idea
first
of
all,
but
I
also
think
it's
premature
to
for
the
council
to
consider
adopting
this
amendment
before
they
make
other
decisions.
For
example,
implementation
of
this
proposed
text
amendment
requires
that
the
city
fund
at
least
one
additional
inspector
just
to
calculate
the
maximum
occupancy
and
before
the
city
council.
If
the
city
council
chooses
not
to
provide
those
resources,
then
there's
no
real
enforcement
mechanism
at
all,
and
I
find
that
problematic.
A
There
also
are
the
kind
of
the
the
related
issues
in
the
nuisance
provinces,
ordinance,
the
landlord
licensing
discussions
and,
and
a
number
of
other
related
issues
that
that,
while
they
don't
specifically
speak
to
the
zoning
ordinance
in
the
text
amendment,
I
think
it
is
premature
to
recommend
approval
of
of
of
this.
But
but
again
the
discussion
needs
to
go
to
the
city
council
so
that
they
can.
I'm.
A
I
can't
support
the
proposed
text
amendment
as
it's
written,
so
I'll
be
voting
no,
for
primarily
that
reason.
So,
but
but
again
I've
made
my
position
and
my
concerns
no.
A
C
I
just
add
that
I
I
do
support
the
text
amendment,
but
I
also
do
very
much
hope
that
the
city
council,
when
it
takes
up
this
text
amendment
in
conjunction
with
that,
will
approve
a
rental
licensing
program
and
the
increase
in
fines
etc.
Because
I
think
that
the
issue
here
is
enforcement.
It
is
beefing
up
the
penalties,
it's
and
so
I
I
very
much
hope
that
all
this
happens
as
a
package.
C
A
A
Well,
I
mean,
I
think,
I'm
I'm
looking
at
you
know
the
preserving
neighborhood
character
and
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
does
that
and
again
we'll
have.
H
A
The
second
one
is
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject:
property.
That's
not
applicable.
This
is
a
text
amendment
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.
A
B
Okay,
it's
been
first
and
seconded
so
recall
the
role
commissioner
draper.
C
E
A
All
right
so
that
concludes
the
new
business.
I'm
presuming
we
don't
have
any
public
comment
at
this
point.
I
don't
believe
so.
All
right
do
you
have
anything
to
enter.
Do
we
just?
Are
we
ready
to
adjourn.
B
I
think,
just
in
general
we
will
be
having
a
meeting
on
the
28th
and
on
august
11th,
and
actually,
I
think,
at
the
end
of
the
packet,
I
could
included
a
little
bit
of
information
on
initiative
to
realign
zoning
disowning
voter
repeals
and
plan
commission
essentially
to
combine
the
two.
So
that
is
in
the
works.
That's
still
pretty
much
the
beginning
stages,
but
that
is
in
the
works.