►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 8-12-2020
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
C
A
Thank
you
first
next
order
of
business
is,
do
I
have
a
motion
for
a
suspension
of
the
rules,
so
we
can
conduct
this
meeting
electronically
through
through
zoom.
F
A
Lindwall
second,
okay,
so
just
a
reminder,
commissioners,
on
voting
on
anything,
we
do
when
we're
doing
it
electronically
we're
going
to
go
we're
gonna.
Have
ms
jones
call
the
roll?
So
ms
jones,
please.
G
I
C
A
Okay,
next
item
is
the
approval
of
the
meeting
minutes
of
our
meeting
on
july.
8Th
2020.:
are
there
any?
Are
there
any
comments
or
revisions
from
any
of
the
commissioners.
E
F
E
A
Very
good
catch.
Thank
you,
commissioner
linwall
any
other,
any
other
comments
or
revisions.
A
All
right
hearing
none
do
I
do.
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
as
corrected
by
commissioner
lynn.
Walton.
J
E
A
Okay,
commissioner
draper
all
right
and
then
miss
jones.
Please
read
the
rule,
I
believe
on
this
item.
Only
the
commissioners
that
were
present
at
the
at
the
meeting
should
be
voting.
E
A
I
mean
the
I'm
not
sure
if
the
commissioners
that
weren't
on
the
on
the
board
at
the
time
should
be
should
be
voting.
A
L
L
D
And
that
please
chair
isaac.
E
A
A
20
plnd
zeros
a
text
amendment
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
mr
mangum
or
ms
jones
who's
going
to
be
presenting
the.
J
J
J
All
right
yes,
so
this
is
the
continuation
of
the
discussion
item
that
we
had
last
month
about
accessory
dwelling
units
and
now
it's
being
brought
forth
as
a
as
a
text
amendment
to
his
own
ordinance.
J
So,
a
little
bit
of
background
in
april
2018,
the
coach
house
definition
was
revised.
This
is
the
first
step
in
revising
our
accessory
dwelling
unit
ordinance
as
we've
been
working
on
this.
That
was
done
to
clarify
the
tenants
of
a
coach
house
may
be
unrelated
to
the
owners
of
the
principal
residential
structure.
J
Last
month,
if
you
recall
for
those
who
are
here,
we
had
a
discussion
on
more
comprehensive
accessory
billing
unit
regulations.
Those
are
brought
forth
as
a
referral
from
ultimate
braithwaite.
So
the
number
of
items
we
wanted
to
look
at
where
principally.
J
We
just
looked
at
the
definition
and
tried
to
to
deal
with
the
definition
with
regulations
now
we're
going
to
add
a
full
section
to
deal
with
these
items
so
the
full
list.
Here
we
went
over
in
last
month's
memo
and
are
included
in
this
month's
memo.
The
items
that
are
bolded
are
the
items
that
the
commission
had
discussion
on
and
provided
direction
to
staff
and
then
some
updates
on
what
that
direction
was,
and
then
I'll
walk
through
the
actual
text
of
the
amendment
next
so
maximum
size.
J
The
dwelling
unit
there
was
discussion,
1000
square
feet
was
the
size
that
was
provided
direction
for
and
then
additionally,
the
circumstance
came
up
where,
if
there
were
a
level
of
building
say
a
basement
that
was
1500
square
feet
or
1200
square
feet
that
that
may
be
difficult
to
limit
that
size
of
the
adu
within
that
basement
to
1
000
square
feet.
It
may
be
difficult,
depending
on
the
building
type,
to
divide
up
that
space.
So
the
the
revisions
were
made
to
be
a
thousand
square
feet.
J
However,
when
there's
a
conversion,
then
it
could
be
up
to
one
level
of
the
the
structure
so
basement
attic
floor
level,
et
cetera,
also
maximum
lot
coverage.
We
talked
about
building
lot
coverage,
not
counting
for
open
parking,
there's
no
structure
or
building.
M
J
So
that
changes
is
made
and
will
be
shown,
limiting
the
maximum
height
to
two
stories,
to
not
require
off-street
parking,
however,
not
to
allow
reduction
of
existing
parking
for
the
the
principal
building.
That's
already
on
on
the
site
before
the
addition
of
the
adu
and
then
the
commission
believe
that
there
should
not
be
a
change.
J
The
existing
code
requirement
of
a
10
foot
separation
between
a
principal
structure
and
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
for
detached
view
so
beginning
of
the
details,
the
items
that
are
stricken
through
would
be
removed
and
the
underlined
would
be
added
text.
So
here
is
cleaning
up
the
code.
Existing
coach
house
definition
taking
out
some
of
those
regulations
and
requirements.
J
They're
gonna
be
put
into
the
code,
the
new
section
and
they're,
creating
a
new
all-encompassing
definition
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
of
which
a
coach
house
would
be
one
type
when
it's
detached
associated
with
the
garage.
J
To
mention
parking
there'd
be
no
parking
required
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
then
here's
the
building
lot
coverage
text
which
shows
up
within
each
of
the
residential
zoning
districts.
So
this
would
be
in
the
r1
through
r6.
This
is
basically
the
same
language.
J
The
maximum
lock
coverage
the
200
square
feet
for
each
required
parking
space
that
would
be
removed,
so
there
would
be
no
200
square
foot
building
coverage
if
there's
not
a
building,
that's
actually
covering
the
parking
space
and
for
the
height
our
existing
code,
looked
at
height
for
flat
roofs
differently
than
slope
roofs.
So
we
kept
that
same
structure,
so
the
height
not
to
exceed
20
feet
for
essentially
flat
or
mansion.
N
J
G
J
J
Then
6-4-6-10
is
the
new
code
section
dealing
with
all
these
regulations
so
states
the
ways
that
ada
may
be
created,
so
new
construction
alteration,
existing
structure,
addition
to
an
existing
structure
or
conversion
of
existing
structure
to
an
adu
while
constructing
a
new
principle
structure
on
the
site,
a
limitation
there's
one
adu
permitted
per
lot:
there's
no
minimum
lot
size.
It
could
be
created
on
any
lot
again
the
maximum
size
that
all
adus
should
be
smaller
than
the
largest
primary
dwelling
unit
on
the
lot.
J
However,
that
exception
that,
if
it's
being
created,
internal
or
attached
edu,
is
being
created
through
the
altering
of
existing
structure,
it
may
exceed
a
thousand
square
feet
of
floor
era,
but
the
floor
area
should
be
limited
to
more
than
one
level
of
the
existing
structure.
Again,
that's
dealing
with,
for
example,
a
basement,
a
story
or
a
half
story.
J
And
fars
there's
nothing
different
for
an
adu
and
then
the
yard
requirements
that
are
the
same
for
all
accessory
structures
refer
to
that
section
of
the
code
again
for
the
maximum
height,
keeping
that
height
the
same
for
an
adu
as
a
detachable.
You
use
for
a
coach
house
or
garage
that
28
feet
for
a
slope:
roof
not
more
than
two
stories
and
20
feet,
not
more
than
two
stories
for
a
flat
roof.
That's
working,
no
parking
is
required,
however,
existing
parking
for
the
prime
resolution
structure
so
to
be
maintained
or
replaced
these
design
standards.
J
We
talked
about
last
time
as
well
through.
C
O
J
We
don't
do
design
review
and
I've
instead
on
a
single
family
or
two
family
structures
that
there's
one
pedestrian
entrances
structure
located
on
the
front
facade
and
any
exterior
stairs
should
be
on
the
interior
side
or
rear
of
the
principal
building,
as
I
believe
it
also
came
up
last
time
that
the
street
side
stairs
would
be
problematic,
so
it's
specified
here
this
interior
side
yard
and
then
alteration
physics,
structures
and
the
no
requirement
for
ownership
or
occupancy.
J
H
Scott,
I
have
a
question,
so
I
have
a
question:
is
there
a
definition,
for
I
mean
it
says
that
the
under
ownership
and
occupancy
there
is
no
requirement.
The
property
owner
resigned
on
the
property,
but
is
there
a
definition
of
whether
this
the
occupants
have
to
be
a
a
single
person
or
two
unrelated
people
or
a
family
or
two
families
or
is
there?
Is
it
defined
that
way
anywhere.
J
So
we
still
need
to
meet
the
definition
of
family,
and
so
there
are
several
classes
of
family,
but
generally
not
more
than
three
unrelated
persons
may
reside
in
a
family,
so
it'd
be
per
dwelling
unit,
not
per
site.
So
there
could
be
one
family
meeting
our
definition
of
family
within
both
the
principal
structure
and
then
could
be
another
family
within
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
L
F
I
have
a
similar
kind
of
concern
or
question
in
the
definition
of
the
exci,
the
adu.
It
talks
about
being
on
the
same
lot
as
a
principal
residential
structure
and
there's
no
definition
of
what
a
principal
residential
structure
is
that
I
could
find
in
the
zoning
code
in
looking
at
most
of
you
know
the
literature
in
the
background
material.
It
appears
that
in
most
communities,
adus
are
limited
to
detached
single-family
zoning
lots
and-
and
so
I'm
trying
to
see
what
the
intent
was
in
this
case.
J
Sure
so
the
intent
there
and
that
came
up
in
the
last
definition
change
to
coach
house
was
that
it's
not
accessory
only
to
a
single
family
house,
but
they
would
be
accessory
to
whatever
the
principal
residential
structure
is
so
the.
If
the
principal
structure
is
a
two
flat
or
three
flat
or
apartment
building,
an
adu
still
could
be
added
to
that
lot.
It
would
not
be
restricted
to
a
lot
with
the
single
family
dwelling.
F
That
raises
another
potential
conflict
right
now:
there's
a
an
r4a
zoning
district
that
essentially
says
that
any
additional
dwelling
units
added
to
anything
other
than
a
single
family
detached
single-family
dwelling
needs
to
go
through
a
special
use
process
so
that
you
know
there
seems
to
be.
You
know
there.
There
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
conflict
if
the
adus
were
allowed
or
restricted
to
detached
single-family
houses.
F
But
I
think
there
is
given
you
know,
given
this
kind
of
current
definition.
F
And
you
know-
and
I
think
you
know
it
kind
of
goes
to
if
you
look
at
where
the
far
4-1
the
r4a
zoning
districts
are
mapped.
It's
you
know
really
kind
of
the
area
between
ridge,
sherman,
noyes
and
emerson,
that
has
a
great
deal
of
of
investor-owned
housing,
that's
rented
to
students,
and
there
was
really
a
lot
of
concern
about
the
you
know
the
impact
of
the
density
in
in
that
particular
area.
So
I
think,
there's.
H
And-
and
this
is
related
to
my
comment,
because
that's
what
I
was
thinking
about
when
I
asked
the
the
other
question-
you
know
what
is
a
family?
What
is
it
you
know.
F
I
I
would
be,
I
would
be
comfortable
with
restricting,
rather
than
talking
about
the
general
term
principal
residential
structure,
which
you
know
frankly,
is
not
defined
right
now.
My
my
preference
would
be
to
at
this
point,
restrict
it
to
detach
single-family
dwellings.
You
know
again
kind
of
along
the
lines
of
revisiting
whether
additional
adus
could
be.
You
know
whether
you
could
have
an
internal
and
external
adu
at
some
point
in
the
future
and
reconsidering.
J
That,
okay,
that
that
would
be
a
policy
decision
you
know
previously
there.
The
advocates
spoke
about
there
being
a
lot
of
interest
in
creating
new
adus,
even
on
lots
where
there's
a
duplex
currently.
So
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
previous
change
was
made
to
remove
single
accessories
single
family
dwelling
and
make
it
accessory
to
a
principal
residential
structure.
But
again
that
is
a
policy
decision.
D
And
I
guess
to
that
point
with
regards
to
the
language:
would
we
do
have
a
definition
for
principal
building?
Would
it
make
the
commission
more
comfortable
to
insert
that
into
the
definition,
since
we
do
have
a
definition
for
principle
building
instead
of
having
principle
residential
structure.
A
I
mean
to
the
extent
you
already
have
defined
words
in
the
in
the
code.
I
think
it's
always
best
to
to
use
them
at
this
point.
You
know
your
your
language
is.
Language
is
indicative
of
allowing
any
principle
structure
residential
structure
to
have
a
to
allow
an
adu.
A
I
take
commissioner
lindwell's
point
about
about
potentially
restricting
it
and
we
can.
You
know
we
can
discuss
and
vote
on
that
when
the
when
the
time
comes,
but
yes
the
extent
that
you
we
have
definitions,
I
would
say:
let's,
let's
use
them,
it
makes
it
makes.
Reading
the
code
much
easier.
J
Okay,
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
the
concerns
just
be
that
that
it's
accessory
to
some
sort
of
residential
use
and
it's
not
a
factory
that
adds
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
or
a
shopping
center
or
some
other
sort
of
you
know
commercial
primary
structure.
Sure.
A
C
Western
on
parking,
which
I
realize
you've
discussed
prior
in
prior
weeks
and
months,
but
has
there
been
any
evidence
or
anything
to
suggest
of
a
negative
impact
on
neighborhoods
if
there
is
no
parking
for
adus?
C
I'm
thinking
of
cities
like
portland
and
seattle
that
have
a
larger
number
of
adus
and
vancouver,
which
has
laneway
houses,
vancouver,
tries
to
include
parking.
It
may
not
be
necessary.
I'm
just
curious
whether
there
is
any
evidence
to
suggest
there's
any
impact
on
the
community
as
a
whole.
J
Haven't
read
anything
specifically
about
that?
I
mean
parking.
Is
a
policy
concern,
certainly
comes
up
and,
and
that
can
be
a
restriction
in
order
or
you
know,
can
inhibit
the
ability
to
create
adus,
so
there
communities
remove
the
parking
requirement.
For
that
reason,
I
haven't
seen
anything
comprehensive
looking
at
the
parking
studies
relating
to
areas
that
have
more
adus.
J
Some
of
that
is
that
adus
are
kind
of
built
in
a
scatter
shot
way
that
you
know.
I
don't
know
if
we've
seen
in
other
places,
heavy
concentrations
within
a
single
block
or
two
single
blocks
of
adus.
J
J
Any
any
impacts,
any
writing
about
heavy
impacts
of
parking
as
a.
A
Whole
okay,
commissioner
johnson,
you
have
a
question.
I
Yeah
I
had
a
question
for
our
mr
mangum.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I,
my
understanding
of
the
section
about
lot
coverage
was
correct,
so
the
proposed
text
amendment
does
not
permit
an
increase
in
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
impervious
surfaces
should
they
they
have
an
adu
on
that
parcel.
I
I
Okay,
so
there's
there's
no
kind
of
like
pervious
surface
coverage,
bonus
whatsoever.
J
A
Mr
mangum,
I
have
I
have
one
question:
has
the
staff
have
a
position
as
to
the
potential
for
separating
of
ownership
of
a
adu
and
a
principal
residence
or
the
principal
residence,
so
a
single
family
home
that
the
owner
then
records
a
condominium
declaration
and
create
and
turns
the
you
know
legally
existing
adu
into
a
separately
owned
unit
or
a
two
flat
that
now
becomes
a
condominium
that
has
you
know
three
units
with
two
two
existing
in
the
main
building
and
one
existing
in
the
in
the
coach
house,
or
even
you
know,
a
garden
unit
adu.
A
What's
what's
staff's
position
on
that.
J
I
don't
know
that
we've
looked
at
that
extensively.
That
is
a
good
point.
I
would
say
that
small
condominium
associations
can
create
issues,
we're
not
able
to
kind
of
spread
some
of
those
costs
among
a
greater
number
of
participants,
so
that
that
could
lead
to
some
issues
in
the
future.
I
could
see.
A
So
but
as
far
as
a
policy
standpoint
do
we
is
it
staff's
preference
that
adus
be
owned
by
the
owner
of
the
principal
structure,
or
are
you
not
taking
a
position
as
to
you
know
the
potential
for
separating
separation
of
ownership?
Amongst
those,
you
know
two
portions
of
a
lot.
J
P
J
When
you
have
one
lot,
that
has
common
ownership
and
enforce
property
standards
and
some
of
those
issues.
A
Okay,
with
that,
let's
see,
I'm
gonna
try
to
pull
up
the.
A
Here
we
go,
I
believe,
a
mr
robinson,
marcus
is
the.
Is
the
only
person
signed
up
to
to
make
a
comment
at
this
point?
We're
gonna
have
questions.
So
if
you
have
any,
if
you
have
any
questions
for
staff,
respect
to
their
presentation,
are
you.
Q
Wait,
I
I
think
my
only
question
to
city
staff,
specifically
on
the
topic
of
how
sort
of
this
principle
structure
issue
behind
which
lots
accessory
dwelling
units
were
allowed
prior
to
the
january
2020
or
february
2020
ordinance.
And
after
that.
How
did
that?
How
was
that
issue
discussed
then,
and
also
what
was
the
result
of
that
unanimous
vote
from
city
council.
J
Sure
so,
historically
been
limited
to
accessory
to
single-family
dwelling.
It
was,
I
think,
and
again
the
intent
of
adding
that
language
or
primary
residential
structure
was
to
to
broaden
the
types
of
properties
that
could
have
an
adu
attached
to
it,
and
that
was
approved
by
the
city
council.
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
from
anyone
on
the
on
the
call
respect
to
this
item
all
right
hearing,
none.
A
Q
Amendment
I
do
have
public
comment
to
make.
Thank
you
for
asking
yeah.
I
think,
with
this
ordinance.
Evanston
can
further
bolster
its
role
as
an
innovative
regional
leader
on
issues
of
housing,
affordability
and
racial
equity
per
the
2020
consolidated
plan
by
city
council.
In
april
of
this
year,
40.1
of
all
evanston
households,
that's
owners
and
renters
are
cost
burdened
or
severely
cost
burdened.
Q
A
hospital
household
is
one
that
spends
at
least
30
percent
of
its
monthly
income
on
housing,
while
a
severely
cost
per
household
is
one
that
spends
at
least
50
percent
of
its
monthly
income
on
housing
and
further
connecting
this
with
a
very
different
issue
of
the
advent
of
climate
catastrophe
before
us
in
decades
ahead,
I
think
it's
evident
how
we
need
to
transform
our
use
of
natural
resources
in
order
to
live
together
and
land
is
really
the
item
and
issue
before
us,
which
connects
all
of
these
problems
and
municipalities
have
the
power
to
determine
land
use
through
zoning.
Q
As
richard
kallenberg,
dr
richard
kallenberg,
writes
for
the
century
foundation
about
exclusionary
zoning.
It
not
only
segregates
people
by
race
and
class,
but
it
also
artificially
increases
housing
prices
and
hurts
the
environment
and
as
a
way
to
address
exclusionary
zoning
in
our
own
community.
I
myself
robbie,
marcus
worker
owner
and
co-founder
of
the
evanston
development
cooperative,
fully
support
all
of
the
tax
amendments
put
forward
by
and
city
staff
to
expand,
adu
opportunities
and
speaking
specifically
to
this
issue
of
whether
or
not
to
allow
accessory
dwelling
units
behind
all
principal
residential
structures.
Q
And
so
we
did
find
that
by
allowing
accessory
dwelling
units
behind
all
residential
structures,
we
were
working
towards
a
zoning
code
that
didn't
discriminate
based
on
race,
and
the
city
council
unanimously
approved
that
zoning
code
that
did
allow
accessory
dwelling
units
behind
all
residential
structures.
Q
I
encourage
you
all
to
vote
yes
on
this
ordinance
to
allow
all
people
to
live
in
all
of
evanston's
neighborhoods
to
access
our
public
schools,
access,
our
public
transit
infrastructure,
our
parks
and
everything
our
community
offers.
This
ordinance
will
not
single-handedly
solve
housing,
affordability
in
evanston,
but
it
is
a
real,
tangible
step
forward.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
E
Anyone
attending.
A
All
right
hearing,
none,
mr
mangum,
is
this
a.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
this
since
we're
we're
looking
at
a
an
amendment.
This
is
one
of
those
items
that
could
be.
Someone
could
ask
for
a
continuance
on
if
they
were,
if
they
so
chose.
J
J
A
So
is
there,
is
there
anyone
that
well,
it
would
really
be
anyone
that
lives
within
the
city
of
evanston.
That
would
ask
for
a
continuance
of
this
of
this
meeting
to
a
date.
Certain.
A
All
right
hearing,
none,
we
will
we
will
no
no
continuance
and
we
will
move
on
with
deliberation.
A
F
Yes,
actually
I'd
like
to
ask
mr
magnum
hang
on.
I've
got
a
phone
ringing
in
the
background,
but
hopefully
it
won't
be
bad
with
respect
to
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
within
the
far
4-1
r4a
district.
How
would
that
work?
F
Would
it
since
there
is
a
prohibition
against
expanding
the
number
of
residential
units
without
a
special
use.
J
It's
a
good
question,
probably
need
to
take
a
little
closer
look
at
how
that's
worded
in
the
code.
I
think
the
intent
here
is
this
would
be
accessory,
so
the
accessory
to
anything
that's
existing
is
a
primary
use.
So
the
idea
would
be
that
all
accessory
dwelling
units
would
be
by
right
and
not
require
special
use.
F
But
but
the
the
way
that
that
particular
org
district
is
is
structured.
Any
increase
in
the
number
of
residential
units
on
the
anything
other
than
a
single
family
dwelling
does
trigger
a
special
use
requirement.
So
I
can't
imagine
that
there's
much
difference
between
adding
a
basement
unit
in
a
to
a
two
flat
versus
an
accessory
structure,
you're
calling
it
accessory
use.
So
I
find
that
kind
of
problematic,
which
is
why
I
suggested
limiting
the
excess,
the
adus
to
something
with
a
single
family
detached
single
family.
F
I
mean,
I
think
there
are
also
a
lot
of
potential
issues
with
respect
to
ownership
structures
of
even
two
flats,
be
they
rental
or
a
condominium
situation.
A
So
I
I
pulled
up
the
special
uses
under.
A
Under,
let's
see
six
eight,
I
was
just
there
and
now
everything's
gone.
A
All
right,
it's
6,
8,
6,
8,
6,
3
and
a
special
use
under
4a
is,
is
dwellings
and
then
an
open
parens,
any
increase
in
the
number
of
dwellings
on
a
single
zoning
lot
above
the
number
legally
existing
on
the
effective
date
here
of
or
any
dwelling
other
than
a
single
family
dwelling
on
a
zoning
lot
created
after
the
effective
date.
Here
of
now,
I'm
not
corporation
counsel,
but
I
you
know.
A
I
read
that
to
say
that
even
with
this
amendment
that
if
you
wanted
to
construct
an
adu
in
in
a
r4a
zoning
lot,
you
would
still
need
to
get
a
special
use
permit.
That's
that
that's
the
way!
That's
the
way
I
read
it.
I
Yeah,
chair
isaac.
Yes,
please,
I
actually
had
a
question
for
you,
okay
sure.
Your
comment
earlier
about
the
the
potential
for
condominium
situation.
Did
you
want
to
propose
some
language
that
would
address
that
concern?
I.
A
Was
I
I
was
planning
on
doing
that
yeah
when
the
time
came?
It's
my
it's
my
belief,
especially
when
we're
when
we're
expanding
this,
you
know
adus
and
coach
houses,
we're
expanding
them
significantly
across
the
board
in
the
in
the
city
of
evanston.
I
guess,
except
with
respect
to
our
foray
zoning
lines,
that
we
take
a
somewhat
incremental
approach
and
the
idea
of
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
becoming
a
you
know,
separately,
owned
dwelling.
A
I
Yeah,
I
thank
you
for
raising
that
concern.
I
I
share
that
concern
I'll
I'll
wait
to
hear
your
proposed
language.
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
other,
any
other
comments
or
questions
from
from
the
commission
all
right
hearing.
None!
Can
we,
mr
mangan,
are
we
gonna,
look
at
the
standards
first
or
are
we
going
to
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
then
look
at
the
standards.
A
Can
you
can
you
pull
them
up
on?
Oh
there
we
go
some
reason,
I'm
having
some
technical
difficulties,
and
I
can't
oh
there
we
go
okay,
all
right,
so
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
comprehensive
general
plan,
as
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
city.
A
A
In
fact,
this
the
whole
thrust
of
this
amendment
is
the
purpose
is
to
make
it
more
affordable
for
people
to
live
in
evanston
and
for
people
who
currently
live
in
evanston
to
you
know
maintain
their
their
existing
households.
A
A
My
position
is
that
you
know
we've.
I
think
we've
been
very
thoughtful
about
trying
to
allow
adus,
but
you
know
sort
of
limit
them
so
that
they
don't
change
the
overall
character
of
of
any
zoning
district
that
they
may
be
located
in.
A
So
I
think
that
you
know
if,
if
we
were
to
approve
this
amendment,
that
it
would
be
that
it
would
be
compatible
with
with
developments
in
any
of
the
zoning
districts
were
were
affecting
any
any
comments
from
commissioners
feel
free
to
speak
up.
I'm
not
going
to
keep
on
asking
whether
the
proposed.
H
Amendment
isaac
is
excited,
I
was
always
muted.
What
does
character
mean.
A
The
overall
character
of
existing
development.
Well,
you
know,
I
think
it
would
be.
A
You
could
look
at
it
a
few
different
ways,
at
least
as
far
as
you
know,
I'm
I
I
didn't
write
this
language,
so
I
can't
say
what
the
person
meant
when
they,
when
they
did
it,
but
you
know
I'd
say
that
you
know
allowing
a
10-story
building
next
to
single-family
homes
or
between
single-family
homes
would
potentially
change
the
change
the
character
you
know
in
in
this
case
we're
we're
not
allowing
you
know
additional
of
additional
entrances
to
the
front
of
a
to
the
front
of
a
you
know:
internal
adu
we're
not
allowing
them
outside
of
the
setbacks,
we're
not
changing
the
like
the
bulk,
the
lock
coverage
requirements.
A
So
from
a
you
know,
from
a
from
an
external.
You
know:
if
you're
walking
down
the
street,
you
wouldn't
necessarily
know
that
there's
an
adu
behind
a
behind
a
house
or
within
within
a
house
or
a
two
flat,
and
so
from
you
know,
the
the
neighborhood
isn't
necessarily
going
to
the
character
of
it
isn't
going
to
change,
but
you
know
we're
allowing
more
families
and
we're
allowing
you
know.
Evanston
to
be
more
populated
and
more
affordable,
and
you
know.
A
I
think
you
could
add
architectural
character
in
there
as
well,
especially
if
we
were
looking
at
a
planned
development
that
had
you
know
that
was
going
to
be
concrete
construction
next
to
victorian
homes.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
you'd
be
able
to
do
that,
but
that's
more
academic
for
this.
H
I
just
wonder
if
there
should
be
something
in
this
amendment
that
talks
about
gosh,
similar
architectural
character
as
the
main
building.
A
I
you
know,
I'm
I'm
not
sure,
like
I'm,
not
an
architect.
I
know
that
when,
when
I've,
when
I've
considered
putting
additions
onto
onto
my
house
or
putting
in
a
you
know
a
garage
or
something
you
know,
I've
asked
architects
and
they've
said
well,
you
know
your
normal
normal
inclination
is
to
make
it
look
exactly
like
you
know
to
like
to
make
it
match,
but
a
lot
of
times
you
can't
make
it
match,
and
so
you
know
one
thing
to
do
is
to
just
say
it's.
A
And
that,
ultimately,
is
you
know
ultimately
will
will
look
better
instead
of
trying
to
make
it
match
and
failing
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
appropriate
place
to
you
know,
make
those
make
those
decisions.
H
It
might
not
be
the
appropriately
appropriate
place,
but
what
what?
What
I
thought
about
was
if
it's
a
victorian
house
and
someone
puts
up
a
two-story,
concrete
block,
flat,
roof
accessory
dwelling
and
it
doesn't
go
through
any
reviews,
and
this
gets
repeated
because
it's
cheap,
that
that
would
not
be
good.
So.
A
If
it's
in
a
historic
district,
either
way
either
way
they
they'd
have
to
they'd
still
have
to,
I
think
get
get
approval
because
they're
they're
constructing
something
new
within
our
historic
district
yeah.
But
but
if
it
wasn't
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
person
just
wanted
to
put
storage
up
there
and
they
wanted
to
or
they
wanted
to
build
a
two-story
garage
and
and
have
a
have
parking
lifts
in
their
inside
their
garage.
They
could
put
four
cars
inside
of
a
would
otherwise
be
a
two-car
garage.
A
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
stopping
them
and
they
could
make
it
as
horrendous
looking
as
they
wanted
and
it
it
wouldn't.
You
know.
No
one
could
say
anything
about
it.
F
And
I
I'd
like
to
yeah,
I
think
that
this
development
character
really
is
kind
of
it
talks
towards
setback
requirements
and
and
the
overall
character
of
development-
and
you
know
now,
if
somebody
you
know
wanted
to
you,
know,
tear
down
a
house
that
was
not
in
a
historic
district
and
build
a
concrete
block
replacement.
M
O
F
So
I
think
that
you
know
you
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
that
are
have
very
mixed,
architectural
styles
and
and
actually
building
types.
I
was
just
thinking
you
know.
One
of
the
other
things
that
we've
got
is:
we've
got
a
lot
of
two
family
and
small
apartment
buildings
that
are
in
the
middle
of
single
family
zones,
now
quite
a
very
character.
H
A
Raised
it
not
at
all
more
more
is
more
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.
A
Well,
since
this
affects
all
residential
properties,
I
suppose
you
you
could
say
that
that
the
only
potential
would
be
for
commercial
properties
to
have
a
adverse
effect,
and
I
I
can't
really
think
of
any
any
adverse
effect
on
commercial
property
by
this
by
this
amendment.
A
The
last
is
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
There's
been
no
evidence
that
the
public
service
public
facility
services
are
would
not
be
sufficient
to
to
allow
for
these
adus.
Is
there
another
slide,
mr
mangum?
Those
are
all
the
standards.
A
Okay
with
that,
is
there
any
further
discussion
on
the
commission
hearing.
None
do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
the.
A
What
we
need
to
do
is
we'll
have
a
motion
motion
to
approve
and
then
we'll
open
the
floor
for
any
amendments.
Okay,.
A
So
do
we
have
a
motion
to
approve,
as
as
a
motion
to
approve
the
amendment,
the
text
amendment.
A
Let's
see
was
it
huco,
I
think
I
heard
yes,
okay,
all
right.
Second
huco,
all
right
are
there
any?
Are
there
any
amendments
to
the
to
the
proposal.
C
I
think
commissioner
halek
had
raised
the
question
about
whether
you
restrict
the
adu
to
being
a
one-family
dwelling.
Is
there
language
that
should
be
added
or
should
be
tweaked
to
to
address
that.
C
Good
question:
I
don't
know
the
language,
but
yes,
I
can
I'll
make
a
motion
to
amend
the
language
so
that
the
adu
is
a
one
family
dwelling.
A
A
Limit
residency
of
an
adu
could
be
a
a
single
family
or
you
know
not.
I
think
the
language
used
in
the
zoning
code
already
is
not
more
than
it's
either.
Two
or
three
unrelated
individuals.
C
A
Okay,
that's
the
motion
on
on
the
table.
Is
there
a
second
nice?
Second,
okay,
commissioner,
alex
seconds
any
discussion
on
this
on
this
amendment.
A
I
I
will
say
that
I,
I
think,
we've
I
think
the
the
city
is
a
as
a
whole
has
been
moving
away
from
from
enforcing
this
enforcing
that
you
know
that
rule
that's
on
the
books
that
basically
prevents
a
lot
of
the
student
housing
in
the
in
the
city
of
evanston
and
that
since
we're
limiting
this
to
a
thousand
square
feet,
the
the
idea
that
this
that
these
are
going
to
be,
like
you
know,
sororities
or
party
houses.
A
I
I
don't.
I
don't
really
see
that
happening,
but
that
that's
just
my
my
thought
on
it
all
right,
any
other.
Any
other
comments.
F
Yeah,
I
I
think
I
would
agree
that
the
one
adu
I
mean,
if
I
kind
of
by
definition,
it
needs
to
be
occupied
by
a
family.
How?
However,
you
know,
whichever
of
the
versions
of
family
exist.
I
think
that
you
know
that
when
we
at
some
point
get
to
that
discussion,
the
definition
of
family
is
important
to
have
in
our
zoning
code,
and-
and
so
you
know,
I
will
certainly
support
the
the
proposed
amendment,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
really
necessary
to
include
the
amendment
language.
F
I
think
it
it's
it's
kind
of
in
parent,
in
in
the
one
adu
per
for
zoning
or
per
property.
F
A
Point:
okay:
let's
let's
then
move
to
vote
on
this,
this
amendment
to
the
proposal.
Ms
jones,
can
you
call
roll
for
the
vote?
I'm
sorry.
A
Well,
I
did
not
write
it
down.
I
was
hoping
that
that,
oh
I
mean
the
the
I'll
I'll
summarize,
because
this
is
all
being
recorded,
so
they'll
be
able
to
be
able
to
go
back
and
and
clean
it
up,
but
but
effectively.
A
You
know,
there's
there's,
there's
already
a
rule
somewhere
in
in
the
evanston
code
about
more
than
two
or
three
unrelated
people
living
together.
Like
I
said,
it's
not
really
not
really
enforced,
but
it's
that's.
That's
sort
of
the
definition
of
of
family
right.
The
idea
to
not
have
not
have
like
group
homes
or
something
like
that,
and
so
the
amendment
would
restrict
adus
to
effectively
a
single-family
unit
so
that
it
wouldn't
it
couldn't.
A
There
couldn't
be
more
than
two
or
three
unrelated
individuals
living
within
an
adu.
E
O
A
All
right,
the
amendment
passes
are
there
any
other
any
other
amendments
in.
A
All
right,
I
I
have
an
amendment
that
I
would
propose,
and
I
move
that
the
that
the
that
we
include
a
requirement
or
prohibition
from
adus
being,
let's
say,
a
requirement
that
an
adu.
A
Be
under
common
ownership
as
the
principal
building
or
principal
res
residential
structure,
however,
whatever
we
whatever
we
use,
ended
up
using
in
the
definition
of
dwelling
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
it
remain
under
common
ownership.
A
Wait
a
second
okay,
any
any
comments
or
discussion
with
respect
to
the.
A
Amendment
all
right
hearing,
none
miss
jones.
B
I
C
E
A
All
right
amendment
passes
any
any
other
amendments.
I
don't
believe
so.
So,
let's
move
to
vote
on
the
on
the
proposed
text,
amendment
by
staff,
as
as
amended
by
the
two,
the
two
amendments
that
just
recently
passed
so
ms
jones,
please
take
the
vote.
I
I
A
All
right
the
text
amendment
passes.
It
will
now
be
sent
to
the
city
council
for
for
approval
as
a
reminder
to
everyone
listening.
The
evanston
plan
commission
is
is
not
the
final
decision
maker.
We
make
recommendations
to
this
evanston
city
council
and
it
is
ultimately
city
council's
decision
whether
to
accept
or
reject
our
our
proposals
with
respect
to
any
of
any
of
these
items.
A
This
was
submitted
by
mr
andrew
gallimore
and
are
we
gonna?
Have
we're
gonna,
have
staff
make
a
presentation,
and
then
mr
galimar
will
make
his
presentation
and
we'll
we'll
move
on
to
questions
and
comments
from
at
that
point,
all
right,
miss
jones!
Are
you
gonna
be
presenting
this
one.
D
Yes,
scott,
I
don't
know
if
you
wanna
scroll
through
or
okay,
we'll
do
it
that
way.
All
right
as
chair
isaac
mentioned
the
applicant
for
this
particular
text.
Amendment
is
andrew
gallimore.
This
was
an
amendment
to
create
a
definition
and
establish
regulations
for
the
construction
of
tiny
homes.
D
D
Setback
so
with
regards
to
what
is
proposed,
we
will
be
proposing
a
new
definition
for
micro
dwelling
as
principal
use,
create
a
new
section
that
details
the
bulk
standards
and
parking
regulations
and
establish,
especially
for
variations
or
multiple
structures
for
micro
dwelling
units
for
development,
specifically
we'd
be
creating
a
new
definition
for
micro
dwelling
unit,
which
would
be
a
small
residential
building
with
a
ground
floor
area
of
500
square
feet
or
less
containing
not
more
than
one
dwelling
unit,
entirely
surrounded
by
open
space
on
the
same
lot.
D
With
regards
to
this
definition,
specifically
for
the
the
name,
micro
dwelling
unit
or
tiny
homes,
you
have
had
a
pretty
good
amount
of
discussion
regarding
that
name.
Tiny
homes
does
a
lot
of
times
bring
about
thoughts
of
a
more
mobile
structure.
That's
not
the
intention,
especially
not
that
staff
would
want
for
this
particular
item.
We
want
something:
that's
on
a
permanent
foundation.
D
D
D
If
there
are
any
proposals
for
multiple
dwelling
units
on
a
particular
lot,
that
would
be
a
special
use
also
with
regards
to
the
bulk
regulations
that
will
be
reviewed
shortly
if
there
are
any
further
variations
or
deviations
from
that.
That
would
then
create
a
special
use.
D
So
at
that
point
that
particular
proposal
would
have
to
go
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals,
and
then
city
council,
for
approval
and,
as
is
mentioned
here,
that
does
actually
detail
that
a
little
bit
more
with
regards
to
what
that
special
use
would
be
the
next
slide,
and
these
are
the
proposed
bulk
regulations
and
setbacks.
D
Since
this
would
be
the
principal
structure,
we
would
be
keeping
the
same
setback,
the
front
yard
setback
for
this
particular
item,
the
side
yard.
If
it's
on
a
street
would
be
10
feet
with
no
parking
permitted
in
that
area
and
these
side
yard
setbacks
would
be
three
feet
so
similar
to
something
that
would
be
the
size
of
an
accessory
structure.
These
are
the
similar
setbacks
for
that
maximum
building
height
would
be
proposing
that
it
not
exceed
28
feet,
measured
from
grade
to
the
highest
point
of
their
structure
or
two
stories.
D
I
mean
just
as
kind
of
a
housekeeping
item
for
section
6416
that
specifies
the
number
of
buildings
that
can
be
on
a
zoning
lot.
We'd
be
again
stating
that
it'd
be
only
one
dwelling
per
minute
per
zoning
lot,
regardless
of
the
size,
with
shape
of
that
particular
structure
or
the
zoning
lot
in
all
residential
zoning
districts.
D
D
So
these
are
some
of
the
lies
that
we
took
a
look
at
the
city
owned
or
they
are
owned
by
union's
pacific
railroad.
D
A
I
I
have
a
question
please.
Mr
johnson,
thanks
chair
isaac,
miss
jones.
You
mentioned
at
the
start
of
your
presentation
about
mobile
homes.
Is
there
any
language
under
consideration
that
would
that
would
expressly
prohibit
micro
dwelling
units
from
functioning
as
a
mobile
home.
D
For
this
particular
text
movement,
we
don't
have,
I
believe,
anything,
that's
specific
that
specifically
and
explicitly
states
that
that
could
be
added.
We
do
separate
recreational
vehicles
and
items
of
that
sort
from
this
particular
type
of
use,
but
if
it's
something
that
is
important,
we
can
add
something
that
specifically
states.
That's
non-mobile
in
nature.
I
A
What's
preventing
someone
today
from
putting
a
putting
a
mobile
home
on
a
an
otherwise
compliant
zoning
lot.
D
E
A
So
I
mean
if
that,
that
type
of
know,
structure
or
that
you
know
dwelling
is
already
not
already
not
allowed
for
our
zoning
code.
It
seemed
to
me
that
it
also
wouldn't
be
required.
It
wouldn't
be
allowed
here,
even
though
we're
allowing
for
small
units
right
if
a
mobile
home
is
not
allowed
on
a
evanston
zoning
lot.
E
A
A
Yes,
can
you
can
you
turn
on
your
your
video.
E
B
L
R
Okay,
oh
here
we
go
so
I
think
miss
jones
pretty
much
covered
most
of
what
I
wanted
to
say.
I
guess
I'll
tell
you
my
reason
for
wanting
to
venture
on
about
something
like
this.
Was
the
city
get
really
progressive
with
expanding,
affordable
housing
options,
expanding
equity
in
terms
of
housing,
videos
and
coach
houses
got
interested
in
you
know
I
do
rehabs.
I
got
interested
in
what's
possible
with
smaller
structures.
R
I
started
looking
around
at
smaller
lots.
There
were
seem
to
be
quite
a
few
in
evanston.
If
you
look
for
them
that
are
just
consensual,
we
found
a
small
lot,
my
wife
and
I
and
we
thought
we'd-
be
able
to
do
something
with
it.
Zoning,
no
matter
what
what
challenges
we
were
able
to
overcome.
There
was
always
something
so
in
this
case
it
was
the
side,
lock,
side
setbacks.
R
Otherwise
we
were
able
to
hear
something
that
would
work
on
a
lot
and
every
other
lot.
We
looked
at
had
something
similar
if
it
wasn't
that
it
was
working
or
there
was
always
some
issue.
So
what
melissa
suggested
was,
instead
of
just
variants,
for
my
particular
lot,
that
the
most
equitable
thing
to
do
would
just
be
to
get
something
more
comprehensive
for
other
lots.
It
might
be
in
the
same
situation,
so
we
first
decided
well
what?
R
What
will
we
define
as
like
a
starter
house
or
a
micro
house,
and
the
700
square
feet
was
what
was
talked
about
and
I
think
we
settled
on
500,
and
then
we
looked
at
the
coach
house
regulations
and
said:
well,
you
know
anything
that
we
could
apply
to.
That
is
probably
similar
to
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
so
we
looked
at
having
similar
heights,
similar
setbacks
and
things
of
that
nature
in
terms
of
the
requirements
as
coach
houses.
R
A
lot
of
my
reasoning
for
getting
involved
in
this
was
because
I
do
have
older
brother
with
special
needs,
and
I
know
it
always
kind
of
weighs
in
my
parents
is
that
you
know
his
living
situation
in
the
future.
He's
high
functioning,
and
rather
independent
so
ideal
for
us
would
be
to
have
his
own
space
located
in
area
and
obviously,
affordability
is
an
issue
and
small
enough
for
him
to
maintain
and
was
also
an
issue
finding
something
where
it
could
be
a
small,
affordable
yard
and
not
just
a
studio
apartment
somewhere.
R
It
seems
like
a
lot
of
affordable
housing,
the
city's
just
kind
of
located
or
clustered
into
the
wards,
whereas
these
tiny
lots
seem
to
be
scattered
about
throughout
the
city,
so
the
nice
thing
about
that
is
if
these
were
buildable,
that
it
would
open
up.
I
think
more
opportunities
for
people
that
have
access
to
facilities
and
and
the
things
that
everyone
has
to
offer
wouldn't
necessarily
be
available
to
them.
I'm
gonna
probably
bend
a
lot
of
my
drive
for
that,
so
we
did
buy
this
lot.
R
We
did
talk
to
zoning
and
we're
trying
to
figure
out
some
way
to
make.
You
know
equitable
housing,
affordable
for
people
in
situations
similar
to
mine,
or
you
know,
I
guess
other
everyone
their
own
reason
for
doing
something
like
this.
I
think
I
think
megan
miss
jones
covered
most
of
the
technical
aspects
of
it,
but
I'm
open
to
any
kind
of
questions
you
might
have
about.
A
E
E
A
E
False
false
apologies,
are
you
here
and
there
oh.
S
A
There
we
go,
I
got
you
all
right
great,
do
you
have
any
questions
at
this
point
for,
for
mr
gallimore
you'll
have
or
for
staff
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
make
comments
in
a
few
minutes,
but
if
you
have
any
questions,
now
would
be
the
time
to
to
ask
them.
S
I
did
have
one
general
question
about
how
the
lots
would
be
zoned
so,
for
example,
could
a
larger
lot
be
zoned
for
multiple
tiny
houses?
For
example,
there
are
a
number
of
lots
like
on
dodge.
There
are
a
couple
on
simpson
that
appear
to
be
too
small
or
maybe
not
too
small,
but
might
be
suited
for
two
tiny
homes
if
they
were
side
by
side.
Would
this
allow
for
that?
A
It's
it's
a
good
question
right
now.
Every
residential
zoning
lot
is
required
to
be
at
least
35
feet
in
in
width
and
so
anything
smaller
than
that
is
not
buildable.
But
ms
jones
do
you
have
I
think
that
the
question
is:
can
can
someone
take
a
a
lot,
that
is,
let's
say,
35
feet
or
larger
split
it
up
into
two
three
four
five
separate
you
know
separate
pins
and
then
and
build.
You
know
two
three,
four,
five
micro
dwelling
on
that
lot.
Thank.
D
You
all
right
so,
as
this
is
proposed,
it
is
not
changing
the
zoning
or
the
underlying
zoning
or
any
of
the
sizes
of
the
underlying
zoning
spots.
The
lots
would
essentially
stay
the
same
as
with
the
zoning.
So
if
there's
any
kind
of
division
of
that
lot,
that's
proposed.
That
would
be
a
different
process
and
we'd
be
looking
at
the
minimum
size
for
that
particular
zoning
district.
D
If
there
are
existing
lots
that
someone
would
like
to
build
more
than
one
particular
tiny
home
on,
then
that
would,
as
was
stated
in
the
proposed
code
that
would
be
considered
a
special
use,
it
would
be
possible
that
it
would
have
to
go
through
the
special
use
process,
as
the
proposed
amendment
is
written.
A
A
Assessor,
get
it
split
into
three
separate
pins
and
then
apply
for
apply
for
a
permit
for
a
a
building
permit
for
a
micro
home
on
each
of
the
separate
three
lots,
and
so
now
we're
not
putting
you're
not
putting
you're
not
putting
more
than
one
on
one
lot.
You've
now
made
three
three
lots
out
of
one
and
you're
putting
one
micro
home
on
each
of
them.
D
Right
so
what
you
are
handing
at
for
this
particular
text
amendment
we
aren't
proposing
any
change
to
the
zoning
lot
size.
So
if
someone
were
to
propose
dividing
up
a
lot
and
a
lot
ends
up
smaller
than
what
the
minimum
is
for,
that
particular
zoning
district,
we
would
advise
against
that.
If
someone
is
going
to
subdivide
a
lot,
we
like
to
keep
it
that
minimum
glass
size
that
is
stated
for
that
particular
zoning
district.
D
Specifically,
I
think
it's
on
the
screen
now
6416
begins
to
explain
that
it
would
be
a
social
use
process
for
that
earlier
sections
in
6,
8
114,
the
new
section
that
would
be
established
would
also
state
that
it
would
just
be
one
tiny
home
per
lot
unless
the
special
use
process
is
gone
through
to
permit
multiple.
D
E
A
Is
there?
Is
there
a
prohibition
on
on
splitting
an
existing
zoning
lot
into
into
a
you
know,
a
let's
say
a
48-foot
lot
into
two
24-foot
lines.
I
mean
you
can
do
that
at
the
assessor.
Without
talking,
you
know
the
the
the
tax
for
tax
purposes,
for
you
know,
property
tax
purposes.
The
assessor
will
split
a
property
any
which
way
you
want
as
long
as
you
provide
them
with
the
fee
and
the
appropriate
surveys
and
and
approval
from
ownership.
A
So
so
someone
can
take
a
40
48
lot
and
split
it
into
two
24
foot:
lots:
okay
and
right
now
the
zoning
code
says
that
I
think
it's
I
think,
across
the
board,
for
all
our
districts.
You
need
35
feet.
A
You
need
35
feet
of
lot
width,
but
with
this
text
amendment
it
says
if
you
want
to
put
a
micro
home-
and
you
know-
obviously
it's
a
very
you-
know-
you're
you're,
limiting
the
number
you're
limiting
the
size
of
the
home
that
can
be
on
that
lot,
but
nevertheless
you're
doing
away
with
a
35
foot
requirement
and
there's
nothing
in
here.
That
says
that
this
is
only
applicable
to
a
you
know
to
a
lot
existing
as
of
today.
A
That
is,
you
know
that
doesn't
meet
the
lot
with
requirements,
because,
ultimately,
I
think
that's
what
we're
really
looking
at
here
that
there's
a
number
of
lots
in
the
in
the
city
of
evanston
that
aren't
35
feet
that
that
aren't
under
common
ownership
or
weren't
under
common
ownership
and
so
they're.
You
know
they're
the
zoning
for
that
lot
isn't
being
even
though
ownership
has
been
split
up.
A
The
zoning
for
that
lot
has
not
is
not
tied
to
someone
else's
property,
and
so
you
know
the
idea
is
to
make
these
lots
usable
put
them,
put
them
to
work
or
for
people
in
the
in
the
city,
but
there's
there's
nothing
that
limits
that
right.
A
So
what
what
tracy
was
getting
at
was
that
you
can
take
a
50-foot
lot
or
a
hundred
foot
lot
and
split
it
up
a
whole
bunch
of
ways
and
put
a
bunch
of
micro
homes,
and
each
plot
would
be
considered
a
separate
zoning
line
in
that,
in
that
circumstance
now
you
limit
it
to
a
you
know
what
500
foot
square
foot
home,
but
I
don't
see
any
language
in
here
that
that
stops
that
stops,
that,
if,
if
you
wanted
to
stop
it,
I
I
don't
know
if
you
know
if
that
was
contemplated
by
staff,
that
you
know
that
you
know
doing.
J
Sure
I
think
one
of
the
answers
to
that
would
be
under
the
zoning
lot
definition.
Even
if
you
receive
separate
tax
pins
from
the
assessor,
I
would
still
be
under
common
ownership.
So
it'd
still
be
one
zoning
lock.
It
would
not
be
creating
multiple.
Q
J
Lots
in
that
scenario,
however,
the
points
taken
that
the
standards
is
currently
written
applied
to
any
lot
in
the
city,
any
residential
lot,
not
necessarily
lots
of
certain
size.
So
another
way
to
look
at
it
would
be
to
look
at
lots
of
certain.
A
So
so
what
what
you're?
What
you're
saying
is?
Is
that
a
a
lot
that's
existing
today?
That
is,
let's
say,
that's
otherwise,
let's
say
30,
it's
35
feet.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
lot!
It's
a
zoning
lot
right
now.
That
is
on
which
something
can
be
built
that
in
that
circumstance
you
could
one
could
not
split
that
into
two.
A
J
It'd
still
be
considered
one
zoning
lot.
So
under
the
text
amendment
by
right,
you
can
construct
one
500
square,
foot
or
500
square
foot
footprints
up
to
1500
square
foot
house
on
that
one
zoning
lot
and
then
there's
a
provision
for
special
use
that
if
you
wanted
to
construct
more.
E
J
A
F
A
question
I
looked
at
the
same
provisioner
was
concerned
about
the
same
thing
and
looked
at
the
zoning
ordinance
and
I
believe
that
you
cannot.
You
know
I.
I
wondered
if
you
had,
for
example,
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
if
you
could
subdivide
it.
So
you
have
a
this.
F
Your
7200
square
foot
lot
in
the
single
family
zoning
district
and
you
then
would
create
a
2400
or
2800
square
foot
lot
and
put
a
micro
dwelling
unit
on,
and
it
appears
that
the
zoning
ordinance
would
not
allow
to
create
substandard
zoning
lots
through
that
subdivision
process.
But
the
other
thing
that
I
noticed
when
I
was
looking
at
non-conforming
lots,
there's
language
that
basically
says
that
if
a
non-conforming
lot
was
if
it
existed
before
december,
2nd
1960,
so
we're
going
back
60
years,
then
it
essentially
is
a
buildable
lot.
F
A
Yeah,
that
would
be
up
to
the
the
zoning
administrator
right
when
they,
when
someone
submits
a
permit,
it
goes
through
zoning
and
they
they
determine
whether
that's
you
know
that
that
that
property
has
the
zoning
for,
what's
being
what's
being
proposed
by
the
by
the
building.
A
Are
there
any
other
members
of
the
of
the
public?
That
would
like
to
ask
any
questions
at
this
point,
like
I
said,
there'll
be
a
time
for
comment
in
a
few
minutes.
A
All
right
hearing
hearing
none
we'll
move
to
public
comment
and
miss
ms
folsey.
S
Sure
you
make
my
last
name
sound
much
much
fancier
than
it
is
so
I
appreciate
that
little
elevation
at
the
end.
I
actually
really
love
the
idea
of
tiny
homes
being
allowed
on
lots
that
were
excuse
me
previously
unbuildable,
and
I
actually
like
the
idea
of
being
able
to
subdivide
lots
into
smaller
lots
for
more
affordable
housing
for
small
families.
S
I
think
that
would
be
good
for
the
evanston
community
that
people
could
perhaps
stay
in
evanston
that
otherwise
wouldn't
be
able
to
afford
it
and
have
pride
of
home
ownership,
which,
if
there
is
a
difference,
I
think,
between
renting
property
versus
being
able
to
own
your
own
home,
be
it
small
or
not.
So
I
fully
support
this
and
I
hope
that
the
commissioners
vote
in
favor.
A
Okay,
thank
you
any
any
other
comments
from
the
public.
A
All
right
hearing-
none,
let's
see
where
is
this.
E
A
All
right
once
again,
I
need
to
inform
everyone
that,
if
you
again
this
is
this
affects
the
this
will
affect
the
entire
city.
So
if
anyone
has
a
would
like
to
request
a
continuance
to
you
know,
I
don't
like
to
request
a
continuance
of
this
matter.
Now
would
be
the
time
to
to
speak
up.
A
Hearing
none,
we
will
close
the
well
we'll
get
past
that
part,
but
I
I
do
have
a
question
for
for
staff.
I
was
reading
through
the
the
amendments,
I'm
sorry
the
the
ordinances
that
were
attached
to
this
item.
I
believe
one's
in
ones
from
california,
and
I
forget,
where
the
or
the
other
one
there's
st
joseph
and
a
oh.
A
I
forget
the
other
one,
it
doesn't
matter,
but
one
of
them
had
a
requirement
that
the
that
the
lot
be
30
feet
wide
and
the
other
one
was
18
feet
wide.
And
so
I'm
I'm
wondering
you
know.
What's.
A
What's
staff's
position
as
to
not
including
any
any
width
requirement,
or
otherwise,
I
guess
even
even
really
a
depth
requirement,
except
as
as
required
by
the
by
the
setbacks.
J
So
I
think,
as
commissioner
linwall
alluded
to,
there's
not
really
an
unbuildable
lot.
If
a
lot
was
created
legally,
you
know
and
not
in
common
ownership
prior
to
1960.
So
this
wouldn't
affect
that.
Anyone
who
has
a.
P
J
Now
could
attempt
to
build
on
it.
You
know
either
with
variations
or
if
this
men
were
passed
with
a
tiny
home.
J
Some
of
the
municipalities
looked
at
this
as
kind
of
creating
tiny
home
communities,
so
I
think
the
standards
go
more
to
if
there
was
a
subdivision
process
as
part
of
creating
that
community
similar
to
how
some
places
have
you
know,
rv
parks
or
mobile
home
parks,
where
there's
common
area
there's
you
know,
small
lot
sizes
it'd
be
individually
owned
and
then
common
area
or
courtyard
area
or
amenity,
space
or
amenity
areas
would
be
under
common
ownership.
J
So
I
I
don't
think
you
know
what
we've
looked
at
so
far,
although
there
are
a
variety
of
different
models
out
there
looked
at
creating
these
kind
of
communities
with
the
design
standards
to
be
built
into
some
of
those
communities.
I
think
that's
where
maybe
some
of
the
the
subdivision
of
smaller
lot
sizes
might
come
into
play
so.
E
A
You
know
the
the
zoning
lots
that
existed.
So
if
I'm
understanding
this,
if
there's
a,
if
there's
a
zoning
lot
that
existed
prior
to
1960
or
december
2nd
1960-
and
it's
never
been
in
common
ownership
with
an
adjacent
parcel,
then
it
is
a
buildable
lot
right.
That's
that's
what
the
that's!
What
the
code
says.
J
Correct
now
functionally
it
may
be
difficult
to
build
a
structure
that
meets
the
setback,
requirements
of
the
the
district
lot
coverage
requirements
of
the
district
etc.
But
someone
can
apply
for
variation
to
build
on
those
and
through
the
variation
process
you
know,
can
claim,
there's
a
hardship
and
something
unique
about
that
lot.
To
argue
for
the
variations
that
we
okay.
A
And
so
and
anything
any
new
lot,
which
there
probably
shouldn't
be
any
that
is
after
night.
That's
because
that's
made
after
1960
it
can't
it
can't
be.
You
know
it
can't
have
less
than
the
requirement
right
unless
the
requirements
have
gotten
more
stringent
over
time.
Let's
say
it
was
created
in
1960,
and
you
know
you
needed
you
needed
only
30
feet
of
width.
Then,
and
now
you
need
35
right.
A
There
really
shouldn't
be
any
there
shouldn't
be
any
new,
well
new,
60
years
old,
non-conforming
zoning
lines
right
all
of
the
ones
we're
talking
about,
need
to
have
existed
prior
to
december,
2nd
1960
and
have
never
been
under
common
ownership,
with
the
with
an
adjacent
adjacent
property.
Is
that
is
that
a
fair.
J
Of
a
variation
we're
granted
to
create
a
subdivision,
a
lot
with
a
smaller
lot
size
or
smaller,
a
lot
width
or
you
know
frankly
records
you
know-
are
you
know
60
years
is
getting
a
little
old.
So
it
is
a
little
more
of
a
challenge
to
identify
records
when
you
get
back
to
that
that
time
period.
A
Especially
with
the
recorder's
office
being
closed
to
the
to
the
public.
At
this
point,.
F
Yeah,
I
think
that
was
kind
of
my
concern
that
you
know
if,
if
somebody
owned
a
you
know
a
house
and
then
they
had
an
adjacent
side
lot
that
they
owned
and
then
at
some
point,
they'd
stopped
paying
taxes
on
it
and
it
went
to
a
tax
sale.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
60
years
it's
getting
hard
to
tell
you
know
whether
or
not
it
was
ever.
F
You
know
between
1960
and
now,
whether
or
not
there
was
ever
a
point
where
it
was
in
common
ownership
with
an
adjacent
owner,
and
you
know
so
so
that
that's
kind
of
a
technicality
that
I
am
concerned
that
would
preclude
some
of
these
small
lots
from
being
built
on,
and
I
also
like
the
idea
that
you
know
allowing
a
tiny.
You
know
the
micro
dwelling
units
on
some
of
the
smaller
parcels.
G
A
Why
this
question
for
staff?
Why
why
an
amendment?
If,
if
someone
can
just
go
through
a
variance
process,.
J
Correct
number
of
parcels
there
you
know
there
are
standards
for
variation
and
if
it's
unique
and
it's
a
hardship,
it's
not
special
privilege
being
granted
to
that
homeowner
those
can
be
granted.
There
is
a
process
to
go
through
so
for
a
minor
variation.
There'd,
be
notification
of
neighbors
within
250
feet
of
their
property
would
go
to
the
zoning
administrator
for
determination
that
could
be
appealed
to
zba
or
for
major
variation.
There
would
be
a
process.
J
Notification
go
to
the
zba
for
determination,
so
an
amendment
would
obviously
reduce
the
need
or
eliminate
the
need
for
that
process.
J
J
A
What
we
recommend
to
the
city
to
the
city
council
here
anyone
that
owns
a
otherwise
eligible
zoning
lot
that
doesn't
you
know
that
doesn't
meet
the
the
minimum
requirements
can
still
have.
They
do
still
have
redress
with
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
That's.
J
Correct
and
and
frankly,
for
the
vast
majority
of
lots
within
the
city,
it'd
be
pretty
easy
to
build
a
you
know,
a
building
with
500
square
foot
footprint
that
meets
the
lot
coverage
and
setback
requirements
within
the
city,
whereas
you
know
some
of
these
real
small
lots,
it
is,
you
know,
certainly
would
be
a
difficulty
otherwise,
but
on
you
know
typical
size,
lots
that
that's
not
something.
We
see
a
problem
with.
D
I
think
over
time
we
have
looked
at
what
the
extent
of
a
particular
variation
is
if
it
differs
greatly
from
what
is
required,
then
proving
that
hardship
can
be
a
little
bit
more
difficult,
even
if
it
is
a
smaller
lot
and
then
also
with
somewhat
increased
popularity
of
this
particular
type
of
a
home
wanted
to
take
a
different
look
at
this
particular
use
and
do
something
that
is
a
little
bit
more
widespread
and
that
would
still
produce
some
kind
of
process,
and
especially
if
there's
since
there
is
a
proposed
book
requirements
that
are
reduced
from
what
we
typically
see
in
some
of
the
residential
districts.
D
If
there's
a
further
deviation
from
that,
it
requires
even
more
of
a
review
process
like
it
would
go
all
the
way
to
city
council.
Essentially,
so
it
wouldn't
necessarily
just
stop
at
the
zoning
administrator
or
be
appealed
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
It
would
go
all
the
way
to
city
council.
I
mean
at
that
point:
that's.
There
are
different
levels
where
we
could
take
a
closer
look
at
the
design
of
that
particular
structure
as
well,
and
not
just
be
looking
at
the
outlining
bulk
of
that
particular
structure.
A
If,
if
we,
if
we
were
to
pay,
I
mean
that
this
would
streamline
it
and
we're
talking
about
very
small
homes,
and
you
know
going
to
going
to
the
zva
or
you
know,
other
processes
for
for
getting
variances
can
be
timely
and
and
costly.
A
But
if
we
were
to
approve
this,
the
someone
that
owns
one
of
these
lots
could
then
still
go
to
the
zoning
go
to
the
zoning
administrator
and
ask
for
a
minor
variance
right
of
like
up
to
35
of
a
of
a
setback
right.
So
three
could
become
two
right
with
and
that
could
be
approved
by
the
by
the
zoning
administrator.
D
Well,
if
it's
a
new
construction,
then
it
would
be
considered
a
special
use
if
a
particular
tiny
home
is
already
constructed.
This
would
be,
of
course,
down
the
line
if
there
was
a
smaller
addition
that
was
proposed,
or
maybe
a
rear
patio
that
might
affect
the
impervious
surface,
then
that
would
be
a
minor
or
major
variation,
but
to
start
with
the
new
construction.
E
A
So
so
you
need
to
go
to
the
special
standards
for
for
new
construction
and
right
effectively.
All
of
these
are
are
all
of
these
are
going
to
be
new
construction,
at
least
today.
A
Okay,
any
other
any
questions
from
from
the
commissioners
for
the
applicant
or
for
staff.
H
Have
you
got
a
question
is:
is
there
such
a
thing
in
the
zoning
zoning
code?
That
requires
a
special
use,
but
there
are
guidelines
for
that
special
use
so
that
it
isn't.
I'm
just
concerned
that
if
we
pass
this
amendment,
there's
there's
there's
variations
that
I
I
like
the
idea
that
was
originally
presented.
H
I
you
know
small
lot,
you
know
here
and
there
they're
existing
lots,
but
I
just
don't
know
if
we've
covered
all
the
different
conditions
on
how
this
could
multiply
into
you
know
a
whole
block
of
tiny
homes
or
or
whatever
I
I
and
or
maybe
tiny
homes
in
the
wrong
block.
You
know
that
that
it's
it's
just
not
appropriate,
it's
not
the
appropriate
scale
so
anyway.
So
I'm
on
the
side
of
special
use.
I
guess,
but
I
was
wondering
if
there
could
be
guidelines
for
that,
so
that
it
wouldn't
be.
H
Or
well
design
setbacks,
I
mean
all
kinds,
you
know
whatever
you're
suggesting
here,
but
but
make
it
guidelines
within
the
special
use
so
that
you
know
everybody
knows,
including
the
zoning
people
that
hey.
If
they
comply
with
these
things,
then
it's
likely
to
be
okay,
and
the
only
variable
would
be
where
this,
where
this,
where
this
particular
site
is
and
how
it
relates
to
the
other
buildings
surroundings.
H
D
I
mean
it,
it
could
be
possible
to
add
some
additional
language
to
some
of
your
concerns.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
that
you
would
propose,
we
could
take
a
look
and
see
if
that
would
make
sense
to
include
and
maybe
bring
back
or.
H
No,
I
think
the
I
think
the
requirements
that
you've
listed
here
are
are
good,
but
not
have
it
be
a
blanket
approval
from
for
any
site.
That
is,
you
know
that
meets
meets
these
size
restrictions.
H
I
just
I
don't
know
just
so
that's
what
I'm
saying
it
takes
take,
what
you've
written,
but
and
make
it
recommendations
within
a
within
a
special
use
category.
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
that
is
appropriate.
J
For
some
of
the
communities,
these
have
been
kind
of
one-off.
J
Often
for
a
supportive
housing
for
the
unhoused,
I
think
madison
wisconsin,
outside
of
austin
texas
in
washington,
so
it's
depending
on
the
process,
would
be
kind
of
like
a
planning
unit
development
process.
For
that
and
again
they
deserve
a
different
scale,
so
larger
developments
that
have
many
different
homes
there
and
some
supportive
services
for
people
in
those
homes
versus
sort
of
infill
development
throughout
a
community.
But
that's
that's
a
different.
K
D
Well,
the
last
that
we
looked
at,
we
didn't
actually
break
it
down
by
zoning
district
or
haven't
done
a
full,
comprehensive
look
at
every
single
lot.
That
is
something
that
might
take
some
time
to
do,
but
sure.
K
D
A
So
I
I
I
have
a
few
more
questions
that
just
came
came
to
mind.
You
know
if,
if
there's
a
lot
out
there,
that's
you
know
30
feet
wide
or
you
know
34
feet
wide,
we're
still
limiting
the
the
size
of
the
house
to
be
what
500
square
feet
right,
or
at
least
the
lot
coverage
to
be
500
square
feet
and
the
impervious
surface
to
be
seven.
A
You
know
that
I
guess
I'm.
I
just
answered
my
own
question.
I'm
gonna
stop
right
there,
but
the
there's
nothing
in
here
about
you
say
that
there's
only
one
parking
space
required
for
a
micro
dwelling
unit,
but
I
believe
the
zoning
code
has
that
you
know
200
square
feet
of
your
allowable
impervious
lot.
Coverage
is
for
is
dedicated
to
parking
right
and
so.
A
They
someone
couldn't
put
up
a
you,
can't
build
a
garage
right,
a
a,
I
think,
a
single
one
car
garage
is,
you
know
I
think
14
feet
wide
me
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
put
up
a
a
garage
in
mr
gallimore's
lot
right,
like
you,
couldn't
put
a
garage.
So
the
way
this
is
written,
you
can't
build
a
garage
and
200
of
the
of
the
building
of
the
building
coverage
fee
are
going
to
be
dedicated
towards
parking.
A
D
Right,
so
I'm
actually
glad
you
mentioned
that
I'm
trying
to
remember
exactly
how
we
mentioned
this
in
the
the
memo,
but
with
the
accessory
dwelling
units.
This
is
kind
of
tying
into
that,
with
the
cutting
out
of
that
particular
requirement.
That's
that
has
the
200
square
feet
counting
towards
the
building
lot
coverage
is
actually
taken
out,
then
that
would
essentially
help
this
particular
text
amendment
as
well,
but
that
can
be
something
that's
further
discussed
as
well.
A
Wait
so
you're
saying
this:
this
e
building
lot
coverage
the
maximum
building
like
coverage
shall
comply
with
the
maximum
level
online.
This
is
what
should
be
limited
to.
D
No
we've
got
this
particular
section,
but
with
the
accessory
dwelling
units
that
we
just
discussed,
there
was
a
proposal
to
eliminate
the
one
section
with
building
light
coverage
that
includes
that
200
square
feet
of
a
particular
parking
pad
or
something
similar.
That
would
also
count
towards
the
building
like
coverage.
So
if,
if
that
particular
technique
goes
through
and
that
particular
proposal
is
approved,
then
that
gets
taken
out
and
that
would
actually
help
the
cause
for
this
particular
use
as
well.
A
I
think
I
may
have
been
reading
this
wrong
previously,
this
an
in
e
on
this
slide.
The
the
last
phrase.
A
J
Lot,
you
know
normally
only
let's
say
30
percent
of
that
would
be
the
building
coverage
and
40.
You
know
450
feet,
but
this
is
saying
that
even
if
a
lot
that
small
at
minimum
you're
granted
at
least
700
square
feet.
A
Okay,
understood
okay,
yeah,
that
makes
sense
and
then
the
other
question
is
abuse.
Can
you
build
an
adu
on
a
on
a
lot
that
has
a
a
micro
dwelling
unit?
You
can't
put
two
more
two
micro
dwelling
units
on
there,
but
can
you
put
an
adu
on
there.
J
It's
written,
you
probably
would
it'd
still
have
to
be
smaller
than
the
primary.
J
A
A
Okay,
I
mean:
is
that
the
staff,
do
you
guys
have
any
any
thoughts
on
that
or
any
you
know.
I
mean
if,
if
we're
passing
both
of
these
today,
that
that's
a
possibility
and
is
that
is
that
unintended
consequence
is
that
you
know
you
take
no
position
on
it.
What's
what
are
your
thoughts.
J
Yeah-
and
I
think
one
one
considering
would
be-
these
requirements
apply
to
all
lots,
no
matter
how
large
they
are
or
how
small
they
are.
I
mean
generally,
if
there's
a
larger
lot,
there's
not
gonna
be
incentive
to
build
a
smaller
house,
but
you
know
another
way
of
looking
at
would
be
to
tailor
this
to
smaller
lots
where
it
is
difficult
to
build,
whereas
there
could
be
a
conforming.
J
Lot
that
someone
could,
you
know,
build
a
micro
three
feet
from
their
property
line,
whereas
you
know
they
may
have
room
to
otherwise
comply
with
the
setbacks.
E
A
A
A
Like
that
would
be
something
like
750
square
feet
of
building
lot
coverage.
200
of
that
is
gonna
be
for
for
park
as
as
of
right
now,.
A
Okay,
all
right,
I
I
have
no
questions.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
I'm
dragging
this
out,
but
I
needed
to
sort
of
talk
talk
this
through
with
you
guys
all
right,
any
other
questions
or
comments
from
commissioners.
C
J
I
think
some
of
that
will
be
determined
by
property
standards
and
building
code,
the
minimum
square
feet
for
a
bedroom
depending
on
the
occupancy.
A
So
there's
always
only
so
small
you
can
get
while
still
making
it
a
a
legal
dwelling
unit,
yeah
correct.
K
We've
got
one
other
comment.
Just
I'd
say
that
I've
it's
been
it's
been
raised
as
well,
but
I
like
the
idea
of
having
easing
the
process
for
these
micro
dwelling
units.
You
know
evanston
really
wants
to
build
more
affordable
housing,
so
I
I
want
to
encourage
that
process,
but
I
think
this
might
just
need
a
little
bit
more
review
on
some.
I
think
what
we're
kind
of
concerned
about
is
what
happens
with
neighbors
and
dividing
lots.
K
I
like
the
idea
of
using
non-conforming
lots.
Maybe
that
can
be
part
of
the
language
or
you
know
I
always
get
nervous
about
changing
setbacks
and
it
seems
like
we
could
change
stuff.
It's
saying
we're
changing
setbacks
on
all
sides.
Maybe
it
can
only
be
on
one
side
or
I
don't
know
some
sort
of
language
where
it's
like
restricted
in
some
way
that
it's
it
can't.
It
doesn't
really
make
sense
in
a
normal
lot
and
only
makes
sense
to
non-conforming
a
lot.
So
I
think
that
would
be
my
thoughts
on
it.
H
I
I
would
concur
with
with
that.
I
think
this
needs
more
more
study,
more
specifics,
added
to
it.
I
I
don't
think
that
can
be
even
handled
in
amendments.
I
just
think
there's
there's
many
issues
here
that
have
come
up
that
need
to
be
to
be
addressed.
A
Well,
I
will
just
remind
every
all
the
commissioners
that
we
do
have
a
a
zoning
committee
of
the
of
a
plan
commission,
and
if
someone
wanted
to
suggest
that
this
item
be
sent
there,
then
that
would
be
the
that
would
be
one
option
to
you
know
further
explore
this.
This
item.
A
In
a
you
know,
in
a
more
in
a
more
comprehensive
way,.
L
A
Alex
seconds
any
discussion
or
comments
with
respect
to
the
the
motion
on
the
table,
hearing
none
miss
jones.
Can
you
can
you
call
the
role.
K
B
F
D
A
Next
item
is
a
map
amendment
to
1910
through
46
orrington
avenue
and
17
714
through
16
foster
street
from
an
r4a
general
residential
to
r1
single
family
residential.
It's
item
number
20
plnd-0048
staff,
who
is
going
to
be.
D
I
think
I
can
present
this
one
all
right,
okay,
so
the
proposed
map
amendment
actually
came
about
from
an
aldermanic
referral
that
happened
last
month
to
look
at
rezoning,
the
area
that
you
see
on
the
screen,
that's
outlined
in
red
and
has
the
crosshatch
from
r4a
general
residential
to
r1
single
family
residential.
D
As
you
can
see,
this
particular
area
is
surrounded
by
a
number
of
different
zoning
districts
r1
to
the
north,
our
five
to
the
immediate
west
and
south,
our
six
a
little
bit
further
west
and
then
to
the
east
is
a
number
of
the
university
zoning
districts.
So
there
was
some
university
housing
districts
and
some
of
the
administrative
zoning
tricks
as
well.
D
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
was
brought
to
us
through
an
automatic
referral
for
the
r4a
district.
The
purpose
of
that
particular
district
is
it's
intended
to
protect
the
residential
character
by
providing
a
mix
of
residential
types
at
a
medium
density
in
terms
of
the
number
of
dwelling
dwellings
and
massive
structures
compatible
with
the
single
and
two
family
detached
structures
that
predominate
that
particular
district.
D
This
particular
chart
shows
the
differences
in
the
bulk
standards
for
each
of
the
districts.
As
you
can
see,
the
minimum
lot
size
is
larger
for
the
r1
district
than
it
is
for
the
r4a.
D
The
lot
width
it
generally
is
the
same.
If
you
have
a
lower
density
residence
once
you
start
getting
into
the
denser
residential
types,
then
we
need
a
wider
width.
D
D
The
building
height
actually
remains
the
same,
as
does
the
front
yard
set
back
and
the
street
side
yard
setback
for
the
interior
side
yard
for
non-residential
structures.
There
would
be
an
increase
in
the
setback
for
that
particular
type
of
structure
and
for
the
rear
yard.
There
is
an
increase
of
five
feet
for
that
particular
setback.
D
You
are
permitted
to
have
a
25
increase
in
dwelling
units,
whereas
in
the
r1
you
are
not
permitted
additional
site
development
allowance
for
the
building
lot
coverage
you
you
can
go
up
to
55,
whereas
with
the
r1
district
you
can
just
increase
to
40
percent
with
the
building
height.
That
would
be
the
same.
Regardless
of
the
zoning
districts.
You
get
an
additional
site
development
site
development
allowance.
Excuse
me
that
would
allow
up
to
47
feet
for
the
setbacks.
D
D
D
We
do
have
a
rooming
house
and
family
building,
actually
that
one
faced
as
foster
a
very
preliminary
look
at
possible
non-conformities.
That
would
be
created
essentially
just
looking
at
the
use
and
the
lot
size
and
found
that
if
the
zoning
is
reduced
to
the
r1,
that
would
create
some
non-conformities,
specifically
with
the
the
rooming
house
and
several
other
lots
that
are
smaller
than
the
minimum.
D
7
200
square
foot
lot
size
for
the
r1
and
then,
of
course,
the
multi-family
building.
That's
existing
would
be
non-conforming
as
well.
D
A
Does
anyone
have
questions
for
or
any
commissioners
have
any
questions
for
staff?
At
this
point.
L
I
have
a
question
looking
at
the
comments
that
we
got
the
written
comments,
it
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
focus
on
one
particular
unit:
that's
housing,
northwestern
students,
etc,
etc.
Is
that's
what's
driving,
it
is
this.
Is
this
one
particular
problem
home
or
any
sort
of?
What's
what's
what's
driving
this.
A
You
know
why:
why
don't
we?
Why
don't
we
ask
alderwoman
fisk,
I
believe
you're
on
the
you're
on
the
oh,
and
I
believe
you
made
the
referral.
Would
you
like
to
you
know,
make
any
any
comments,
or
you
know
just
sort
of
give
us
understanding
of
what
it's
originated
from.
N
N
This
is
those
of
you
who
are
familiar
with
the
area
around
the
university
and
just
west
of
the
university
that
zoned
r4a
are
probably
aware
that
over
the
years
there
has
been,
there
have
been
efforts,
be
even
beginning
with
a
zoning
ordinance
in
1993
to
reduce
the
impact
of
university
uses
on
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood.
N
At
that
time,
the
concern
was
not
so
much
about
absentee
landlords,
buying
up
houses
and
using
them
for
student
dwellings,
but
that
has
emerged
as
as
a
significant
impact
upon
the
residential
neighborhood,
and
I
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
the
block
of
sherman
avenue,
that's
just
south
of
of
noyes
street
running
all
the
way
down
to
basically
foster
a
little
bit
beyond
the
couple
houses
beyond
there
as
well.
N
So
there's
been
a
significant
impact,
as
I
said,
on
residential
neighborhoods
from
from
these
houses
that
are
not
owner
occupied
that
are
investor
owned
and
which,
which
house
students
they
changing
the
character
of
the
blocks.
And
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
folks
who
are
signed
up
to
speak.
Who
can
speak
to
that
better
than
than
I
can
the
the
block
that
we're
talking
about
the
1900
block,
beginning
with
1910
and
going
to
1946
and
then
around
the
corner?
That's
included
in
the
northeast
evanston,
historic,
district
and
visually.
N
It
is
mostly
compatible
with
the
other,
the
the
other
properties
on
orrington
avenue
that
are
already
zoned
r1,
and
it
has
been
interesting
to
me
to
look
at
the
history
of
zoning
on
this
block,
because
you
see
the
history
says:
it's
gone
from
r6
to
r5,
to
r4,
to
r4a
and
now
we're
asking
for
r1,
and
this
is
all
in
recognition
of
the
incredible
outside
forces
that
are
changing
the
character
of
the
block
in
talking
to
the
residents
of
the
block.
N
They
obviously
are
concerned
about
this
and,
as
as
a
result,
I
made
the
recommendation
of
the
referral
and
council
to
for
you
to
consider
a
zoning
change.
N
I
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there's
precedent
for
this
in
the
larger
neighborhood
a
little
bit
further
to
the
north
on
the
former
kendall
college
site,
that
site
had
been
zoned.
I
believe
you
won.
Some
of
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
I
can't
remember
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I.
P
N
It
was
on
you
one
and
when
kendall
college
left
that
site
it
was
sold
to
a
developer
who
wanted
to
build
townhouses
on
the
on
the
side,
I
believe
130,
some
townhouses
on
the
site
and
the
neighborhood.
The
neighborhood
spoke
up
very
strongly
in
favor
of
r1,
and
ultimately
it
was
what
I
would
call
a
down
zoning
to
r1.
So
there's
been
a
long
history
of
concern
about
keeping.
N
More
residential
than
investor
owned,
so
that's
the
the
last
thing
I
I
will
mention
is
that
I
was
not
on
the
council
at
the
time
when
the
council
voted
to
amend
the
national
register,
historic
district
for
northeast
evanston
and
create
the
local
district.
N
But
when
council
did
that
they
drew
the
line
for
the
district,
they
shortened
the
district
through
the
line
for
the
district
at
lincoln
street
and
identified
the
area
south
of
lincoln
between
emerson,
as
lincoln
as
an
area
of
concern
that
that
was
an
area
that
needed
protection,
and
I
think
this
request
for
zoning
goes
right
along
with
that.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
history
a
little
bit
of
the
reason
why
I
made
the
referral
at
council
and,
as
I
said,
we
unanimously
sent
it
off
to
you
and.
H
I
have
a
question:
does:
does
down
zoning
to
r1?
Would
that
eliminate
the
non
owner
occupied
buildings.
N
I
I
I
can
only
tell
you
what
I've
seen
and
I've
lived
on
sherman
avenue,
just
north
of
noyes
street
for
decades,
a
long
time
now.
I
can't
remember
what
date
we
moved
in,
but
what
I
have
seen
is
that
we
have
group
homes,
of
course,
that
are
allowed
in
a
new
zoning
district
in
evanston,
but
investors
are
not
so
inclined
to
buy
houses
in
a
single-family
residential
area
and
you
you
would
have
to
ask
them
why.
But
that's
that's
the
evidence
that
that
we.
H
N
No-
and
I
and
I
think-
and
this
would
be
a
question
for
staff-
I
think
that
a
someone
could
purchase
a
house
and
rent
the
house
out
as
a
single
family
house
in
an
r1
zoning
district.
Am
I
correct,
megan
or
scott?
Is
that
correct?
T
N
Does
it
so?
There
are
two
houses
on
the
block
that
are
single
family
houses
that
you
know
have
not
been
that
are
single
family
houses
and-
and
I
believe
the
intention
was
to
rent
them
out
of
single
family
houses.
So
there's
not
a
and
the
rooming
house
has
been,
that
is
miss
curling's,
rooming
house
and
that's
been
a
roaming
house.
I
think,
since
the
house
was
built,
it's
owner-occupied.
N
There
has
never
been
one
tiny
complaint
there
and
it's
been
wonderful
and
you
know
we
certainly
would
want
to
reassure
her,
and
I
believe
our
zoning
administrator
has
assured
her
that
that
use
would
be
grandfathered
in,
should
the
property
be
or
should
the
block
be
down
zone
to
r1
and
that
she
could
transfer
that
use
to
as
long
as
she
didn't
discontinue
the
use,
she
could
transfer
it
to
a
subsequent
owner,
and
so
I
I
don't
see
that
this
is
calling
for
a
big
change
in
that
block.
N
I
think
the
purpose
was
to
be
out
in
front
of
the
the
rolling
ball
here.
If
that
was
what
was
going
to
happen
and
your
neighbors
have
made
a
sizable
commitment
to
the
houses
in
this
block,
most
of
whom
most
most
of
the
houses
predate
even
the
dates
of
building
permits,
so
they're,
some
of
the
oldest
structures
in
the
historic
district
and
over
the
years
folks
have
moved
in
and
really
taken,
good
care
of
them
and
and
they're
concerned
they're.
N
And
I
I
have
to
agree
with
them
that
just
observing,
what's
going
on
in
the
block
of
sherman
avenue
south
of
noyes
street,
I
I
would
certainly
share
that
concern
and
I
think,
from
my
point
of
view,
it's
in
the
city's
best
interest
interest
to
try
to
preserve
the
the
home
ownership
of
these
dwellings.
G
H
N
I
think
there
are,
there
are
maybe
three
and
again
three
non-conforming
size
lots,
but
yet
we
have
r1
zones
in
northwest
evanston
that
may
have
actually
come
before
you
that
are
not
compliant
with
r1
zoning
they're,
actually
more
closely
representative
of
our
r2
zoning
for
lot
size.
So
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
see
that
as
a
problem.
This
is
a
block
that
that
the
last
three
houses
on
closest
to
foster
were
subdivided
at
some
point
and
created
smaller
lots.
But
I
don't
see
that
I
think
this
is
an
important
thing
to
do.
N
I
wouldn't
bring
it
or
bother
you
or
with
with
this,
if
I
didn't
think
it
was
something
that
really
answered
the
question:
what
happens
if
what
happens
to
single-family
homeowners
that
are
left
in
houses
after
a
number
of
surrounding
properties
have
turned
into
student
rentals?
Is
that
the
responsibility
for
calling
the
police
or
enforcement,
or
even
property
standards,
falls
on
them
and
we've
seen
that
all
up
and
down
sherman
avenue?
N
In
my
ward
and
in
many
ways,
I
think
that's
not
fair
to
do
that
to
homeowners
to
make
them
basically
place
their
block,
and
if
we
can
help
arrest
that
by
through
the
use
of
zoning
that
is
appropriate
for
the
site.
I
think
we
should
do
that
and
that's
again
why
I
made
the
reference.
A
A
You
don't
believe.
The
special
use
process
is
sufficient
to
protect
the
the
character
of
the.
N
Right,
no,
that's
right!
I
I
agree
with
that.
That's
it's
not
sufficient
and
again
over
many
many
many
many
years
of
both
being
on
the
council
and
observing
the
council.
It's
again,
it
places
a
large
responsibility
on
neighbors
to
have
to
stand
up
against
other
neighbors
and
they're
very
reluctant.
N
To
do
that,
I
mean
usually
what
neighbors
will
do
if
something
changes
is,
they
will
pick
up
and
leave
and
that's
that's
a
very
sad
thing
that
happens,
but
I
have
over
over
time,
always
wondered
why
neighbors
didn't
show
up
when
something
egregious
was
being.
You
know
built
next
to
them,
but
I
think
that
that
does
place
an
unfair
burden
on
the
neighbors.
When
there's
a
when
there's
an
approach
that
we
could
use,
that
is,
I
think,
eliminates
that
and
I'm
sorry
I've
got
a
dog
with
a
squeaky
toy.
L
Old
robin,
I
just
have
an
additional
question:
how
would
you
react
to
the
there's
several
comments
from
owners
because
their
properties
are
going
to
be
devalued
because
of
this?
It's
not
we're
going
backwards
in
terms
of
providing
affordable
housing.
What
would
be
your
your
react?
What
would
be
your
answer
to.
N
Okay
and
I'm
sorry,
you
said
what
there
are
several
homeowners.
L
We're
going
if
I
could
finish
they're,
going
back
we're
going
backwards
in
terms
of
providing
affordable
housing
in
evanston.
N
Oh
my
gosh.
Well,
if
any
of
you
have
looked
at
affordable
housing
for
student
rentals,
I
I
can't
even
those
words
don't
even
go
together.
I
mean
this
is
some
of
the
most
expensive
housing
in
evanston.
It
is
a
kid
by
no
way
of
is
it
affordable.
N
For
example,
a
house
that
was
recently
sold
had
a
sign
in
front
of
it
with,
I
believe
and
again
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
fifty
nine
hundred
dollars
to
rent
the
house,
the
whole
house
and
fifty
nine
hundred
dollars
in
one
and
that's
that's
not
affordable.
We're
not
talking
we're
the
the
marketplace
for
the
kinds
of
houses
that
surround
the
university
are
not
by
in
any
stretch
of
the
imagination,
considered
affordable.
N
I
I
again
if
I
can
just
go
on
what
I've
observed
as
alderman.
What
I
have
seen-
and
I
think
other
folks
will
probably
speak
to
this-
is
that
as
houses
change
to
student
rental,
it
limits
the
it
limits
the
market
for
a
single
family
house.
It
may
increase
the
value
of
that
house
as
a
rental
for
student
rental,
but
you're
looking
at
them
just
selling
the
other
houses
as
student.
N
Rentals,
so
I
would,
I
do
not
think
it
would
benefit
anyone
at
all
financially
to
it
would
only
minimize
the
the
market
for
for
the
house,
and
I
you
know
I
I
think
we
could
probably
well.
I
don't
know
I
I
I
don't
know
who's
speaking
to
this
tonight,
but
I'm
sure
someone
will
be
who
has
a
better
first-hand
knowledge
than
I
do
of
it.
N
I
can
only
tell
you
what
I've
observed
from
not
only
living
on
the
street
for
so
many
years,
but
also
in
my
almost
12
years
as
alderman.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
the
woman
fisk
do
any
commissioners
have
any
questions
for
for
staff.
At
this
point,
we'll
move
on
to
questions
from.
A
From
the
public,
all
right,
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
the
list,
looks
like
there's,
seven
people
that
signed
up.
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
people
on
the
call.
There
may
be
some
more
that
I'll
I'll
ask
for
other
people
would
like
to
speak
once
I
go
through
the
go
through
the
list,
just
as
a
reminder
we're
going
to
go
through
we're,
going
to
go
through
questions
and
then
we're
going
to
go
through,
go
through
comments,
and
so
at
the
during
the
question
phase.
A
Please
limit
your
your
questions
to
to
actual
questions
that
would
get
affirmative
answers
as
opposed
to
questions
that
are
argumentative
or
rhetorical
in
nature.
First,
on
the
list
is
a
dan
shapiro.
V
A
All
right
next
on
my
list
is
a
mr
shawn
jones.
O
Good
evening,
chair
isaac,
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
If
I
may,
it
appears
that
this
down
zoning
would
fly
in
the
face
of
recent
city
policy.
Isn't
it
true
that
the
city
is
moving
away
from
r1
to
allow
things
such
as
accessory
dwelling
units
which
are
not
permitted
in.
O
J
I
think
those
are
two
different
concepts,
although
somewhat
related
success,
rewarding
units,
as
we
discussed
earlier
on
this
meeting,
would
be
accessory
to
any
primary
residential
building,
no
matter
what
zoning
district
they're
in
and
the
current
request
has
to
do
with
changing
the
zoning
of
this
particular
block.
O
I
believe
I
saw
on
your
materials
that
they're
not
permitted
in
r1
the
accessory
dwelling
units.
That
may
be
inaccurate,
but
is
it?
Is
it
also
true
that
you're
moving
away
from
r1
in
general.
O
E
A
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
am
here
to
comment
and
not
ask
questions
so
I'll
defer
until
then,
all.
A
Right.
Thank
you,
sir
art.
G
Newman,
yes,
I
do
have
a
question
and
it
goes
to
a
comment
that
the
chair
made.
I
am
looking
at
the
staff
memo
and
after
the
recommendation
they
have
a
chart
on
which
they
compare
the
r4a
uses
to
the
r1
zone
and
the
chair.
You,
you
made
a
statement
that
multi-family
would
require
a
special
use
in
the
r4a,
whereas
on
this
chart,
which
is
part
of
the
memo,
it
says,
dwellings
multi-family
are
foray
permitted
so
which
one
is
it
they.
They.
A
They
are
permitted
and
I'll.
Let
staff
back
me
up
on
this,
but
I
my
understanding
is
that
they
are
permitted,
but
any
increase
in
any
in
any
in
the
number
of
dwelling
units
in
any
on
any
zoning
lot
in
the
r4a
district
requires
a
especially.
A
In
the
code,
this
is
something
we
were
actually
talking
about
just
a
little
a
little
earlier
today,
and
I
will
direct
you
to
it
because
I
have
it
up
here:
let's
see
r4a,
okay,
so
under
6-8-6-3
that's
special
uses
in
the
r4a
district.
I'll
read
it
again.
G
Yeah,
I
I
it
said:
why
did
it
say,
dwellings
multi-family?
Why
did
it
say
increase
special
because
that
would
have
been
sort
of
it
implies
that
multi-family
is
permitted.
So
if
you
buy
an
r4
or
a
property
that
you
can
then
put
in
a
if
it's
single
family,
you
can
convert
it
to
multi-family
you're,
saying
that
that
would
require
a
a
special
use
in.
A
In
increase
require
special
use,
and-
and
you
know
I
I
will
point
out
that
under
6-8-6-2
under
permitted
uses,
it
says,
dwelling
multiple
family
dwelling,
single-family
attacks,
dwelling
single-family,
detached
dwelling
two-family,
all
of
those
are
are
listed
as
permitted
uses,
but
there
are,
there
is
a
pre.
There
is
a
in
in
parentheses
when
said,
use
was
legally
established
on
the
effective
date.
Here
of
so
it's
under
both,
and
so
you
know,
I
would
say
that
you
know
I.
A
I
agree
that
it's
probably
a
little
confusing
the
the
chart
is,
but
you
know
I
I
I
can.
I
can
probably
just
guess
that
you
know
in
in
a
chart.
It's
it's
hard
to
put
everything
all
the
information
that's
ultimately
needed
in
there
and
obviously,
if
someone's
going
to
be
buying
a
piece
of
property
with
the
intention
of
of.
G
Well,
I
happen
to
think
that
you're
right,
because
I
I
was
on
the
council
when
we
created
our
foray-
and
I
do
remember
that
an
increase
in
the
in
the
in
the
units
would
require
a
special
use.
That
was
the
whole
point
of
our
change
tower
4a.
So.
M
A
All
right,
thank
you,
sir
peter
mitchell.
M
Mr
mitchell,
yeah
sorry
I
was
on
mute.
I
don't
have
any
questions,
but
I
do
have
comments
later.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
see
ken.
A
I'm
sorry
was
that
was
that
mr
jones
again.
A
And
then
that
is
the
extent
of
my
predetermined
list.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
call
that
has
questions
at
this
time.
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
we
will
go
back
through
the
list
and
then
I'll
ask
other
members
of
the
public
that
would
like
to
speak
and
comment
to
well
I'll.
Ask
them
if
they'd
like
to
and
you
can
answer
yes,
if
you'd
like
all
right
dan
shapiro,
you
have
a
a
presentation
that
I
believe
you're
providing
on
behalf
of
a
number
of
property
owners
in
the
in
the
area.
Yes,.
V
I'm
wondering
scott:
do
you
have
that
up,
or
did
you
want
me
to
get
that
we
we
submitted
it
to
staff?
Do
you
if.
A
Now,
scott,
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
to
give
him
like
the
ability
to
share
screen
since
you're
the.
J
It
should
be
the
ability
to
share
the
screen,
depending
on
your
platform
down
at
the
bottom.
There
should
be
like
a
green
button
for
share
screen.
A
V
So,
oh
okay,
here
we
go
there.
We
go
yep!
Okay!
I
just
took
me
a
couple
minutes
longer
than
I
thought
all
right.
So
I
know
my
time
is
limited,
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
get
through
this
as
quickly
as
possible
if
there
are
particular
slides
that
you
want
me
to
stop
and
fill
any
questions,
please
let
me
know
so,
just
by
way
of
contrast,
you'll
see
right
here
is
the
area
that
we're
talking
about
these
homes.
Here.
V
Basically,
in
this
you
know
in
the
same
area
and
that's
important
for
reasons
I'll
explain,
you'll
see
that
the
homes
that
were
just
on
the
aerial
are
now
depicted
right
here.
V
So
r4a
immediately
to
north
is
a
large
r1.
One
of
the
things
that
I'm
going
to
talk
to
you
about
is
the
characteristics
of
the
r1
being
similar
to
the
r4
area,
specifically
the
1900
block
of
orington,
just
beneath
and
south
to
it.
The
homes
on
orrington
are
worth
noting
you'll
see
that
most
of
them
were
built,
1890
1895
in
that
year,
late
1800s
early
1900s.
V
V
So
when
we're
talking
about
an
area,
it
is
very
unique
for
reasons
including
the
fact
that
these
are
homes
that
are
over
100
years
old,
and
this
is
kind
of
a
historic
view
of
of
orington
and
now
the
current
view
just
looking
down
the
street
there's
a
lot
of
history,
as
you
can
tell
in
this
plaque,
it
is
unique
and
is,
is
gorgeous
these
homes,
which,
as
such
as
you'll,
see
here
in
1910.
V
V
V
So
now
I'm
going
to
show
you
some
properties,
north
of
foster
on
orrington.
You
will
see
that
they're
very,
very
similar.
Not
all
of
them.
I
mean
they're.
Not.
I
didn't
take
all
the
pictures,
obviously,
but
there
are
a
number
of
properties
that
are
remarkably
characteristic
north
of
foster
versus
the
1900
block,
so
this
is
2018
warrington,
r1
zoning,
2024
orrington
r1
zoning,
2102
orrington
r1
zoning.
Now,
let's
look
at
a
side
by
side.
V
V
Another
example
very
similar
architecture,
apparently
age
maintenance,
our
r4a
are
one,
so
it
is
with
that
context
and
and
characteristics
or
similar
characteristics
that
these
neighbors
feel
that
this
property
should
be
similarly
zoned
as
our
as
the
r1
immediately
north.
Now,
let's
look
at
some
r4a
properties
in
the
area.
V
V
Hamlin
foster
these
properties,
and
this
is
just
right
around
the
corner
in
sherman,
it's
an
r5.
So
the
the
point
is
that
the
one
of
the
one
of
the
factors
on
the
rezoning
is
characteristics
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
surrounding
area,
and
when
you
go
north,
those
surroundings
are
very
similar
to
where
we
have
on
1900.
If
you
go
to
the
r4as
around
the
neighborhood,
what
you
have
and
those
r4a
structures
is
dissimilar
to
what's
on
1900,
so
emerson,
comprehensive
plan,
you
are
all
very
familiar
with
it
part
of
it.
V
A
lot
of
it
deals
with
historic
preservation
and
and
a
lot
of
it
rightfully
so,
talks
about
encouraging
and
maintaining
historic
preservation,
recognition
of
the
architecture,
maintaining
the
neighborhoods,
etc.
Again,
this
area
is
designated
both
locally
and
federally
and
the,
I
guess,
lack
of
better
word,
the
the
application
for
the
historic
preservation,
national
historic
preservation
offered,
some
really
strong
quotes
and
and
information
which
I
pulled
out
for
your
information
here.
V
This
area
contributes
to
the
historical
and
architectural
significance
of
evanston
which,
as
a
city,
has
always
been
important
to
it.
It's
always
been
of
critical
importance
to
maintain
the
history,
the
wonderful
architectural
history
and
the
preservation
of
historical
structures
and
neighborhoods
of
the
city.
V
The
application
further
says,
and
by
the
way
this
application
was
granted
in
1999,
I
believe
for
the
national
registry
assured
that
the
northeast
evanston
historical
district,
which
is
located,
would
remain
primarily
single-family
residents.
V
Again,
more
information
indicating
the
historical
significance
of
this
area.
V
So
then
we
get
to
the
standard
for
amendments
which
I
know
that
you
guys
have
looked
at
and
considered
earlier
in
this
in
your
meeting
tonight.
But
let's
look
at
this
if
we
could
just
for
a
couple
minutes
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives,
etc,
with
the
comprehensive
plan
as
adopted.
Well,
we
just
we
just
looked
at
the
comprehensive
plan
as
it
pertains
to
historical
preservation.
V
Specifically
this
area
to
preserve
this
area
as
a
is,
is
the
type
of
area
that
it
is
now
there's
indications
all
over
the
comp
plan
through
the
sections
of
the
complaint
dealing
with
historical
preservation,
which
states
that
as
a
clear
objective
and
goal
where
the
amen,
the
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
character
on
development
of
the
area
in
the
immediate
vicinity,
we
looked
at
the
area
just
north
foster
on
orrington.
It
is
very
compatible
with
overall
character.
I
would
submit
that
it
just
it.
V
I
know
it
wasn't
an
oversight,
but
it
almost
seems
like
this
little
patch
of
r4a
was
an
orphan
from
the
r1
to
the
north.
So
bringing
it
down
south
would
be
a
logical
extension.
Will
it
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
json
properties?
This
was
discussion
just
a
couple
minutes
ago.
Before
this
presentation,
I
would
suggest
that
the
types
of
uses
which
would
be
allowed
under
the
r4a
will
have
adverse
effects
on
those
single
family
homes,
given
the
deleterious
effects,
uses
noise,
garbage,
etc.
V
That's
occurring
both
on
the
south
side
of
the
street
around
the
corner
and
sherman
as
I
as
I
showed
you
and
I
think,
there's
some
history
about,
especially
with
with
like
fraternities
or
or
housing
student
housing
on
sherman
that
really
affected
that
neighborhood.
V
So,
if
we're
looking
at
some
historical
precedent,
as
alderman
indicated,
there's
some
historical
precedent
for
down
zoning
when
we're
talking
about
kendall
and
some
historical
precedent
about
what
might
the
adverse
effects
of
our
4a
uses,
not
all
but
many
uses
in
the
immediate
surroundings
and
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
Clearly
those
are
adequate
now.
A
But
I'm
gonna
need
you
to.
V
Thank
you.
Our
one
purpose
you've
been
familiar.
You
you
were
introduced
to
before
to
preserve
the
character
of
the
area
and
then
special
uses
in
the
r4a
which
could
occur
if
this
were
not
rezoned
have
many
types
of
uses
that
are
of
concern
to
the
neighborhood,
including
the
ones
that
we've
talked
about.
So
thank
you
for
giving
me
about
30
or
40
seconds
overtime.
I
appreciate
it.
I
appreciate
your
attention
I'm
available
for
questions.
As
as,
as
we
talk
more
about
this
request,.
A
O
Good
evening,
my
name
is
commissioners,
ms
jones,
mr
mangum,
thank
you
for
serving
our
city
this.
This
is.
This
is
a
difficult
one,
because
I
mean
you
would
you
would
think
that
no
protections
exist
on
this
block
as
it
is.
This
is
already
a
historic
district.
All
of
the
preservation
ordinances
already
apply.
That's
not
changing.
A
Mr
jones,
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you,
but
mr
shapiro
yeah
can
you
just
did
sorry
just
figured
it
out
yeah.
You
have
to
press
the
button
to
stop
sharing
your
screen
too.
Okay
I'll
I'll
manage
that
I'll
figure
that
out
go
ahead.
Mr
jones.
O
Historic
preservation,
it
doesn't
change
when
going
from
r
for
a
to
r1
the
pr.
The
protections
already
exist:
nuisance,
property
owners,
new
supremacists.
O
Those
protections
already
exist,
using
a
zoning
change
as
an
enforcement
tool
against
some
of
your
neighbors
seems
wildly
inappropriate,
and
this
is
a
pretty
radical
drop
from
r4a
all
the
way
down
to
r1.
It
seems
patently
obvious
that
r1
is
not
appropriate
for
this
block,
given
that
half
of
the
properties
would
be
non-conforming.
O
When
you
look
at
the
definition
of
r1,
it's
the
lowest
density
within
the
city,
it
is
the
lowest.
This
is
clearly
a
block,
that's
not
designed
for
the
lowest
density.
This
is
our
4a.
This
is
medium
density.
You
already
have
rooming
houses,
in
fact,
as
a
poster
child
example
of
r4a,
mr
shapiro
and
clyde
included
a
slide
of
my
client
714
716
foster,
which
he
now
wants
to
rezone
to
r1.
O
There
is
an
existing
roommate
house,
existing
multifamily
and
several
single
families
that
don't
have
lots
large
enough
to
be
r1
it.
It
just
doesn't
make
much
sense
to
drop
this
down
to
r1.
I
I
haven't
having
a
hard
time
further
on
the
agenda.
Tonight
we
have
discussion
of
the
city
policy
to
increase,
affordable
housing,
to
allow
more
dwelling
units
to
allow
more
people
and
more
family
units
to
live
within
the
city.
O
O
O
I
don't
think
there's
any
getting
away
with
that.
This
particular
stretch
is
surrounded
on
two
sides
by
r5.
In
fact,
it
makes
probably
more
sense
to
shift
this
to
r5,
that's
not
before
us
tonight
and
we're
not
going
to
propose
that,
but
to
down
zone
it
all
the
way
to
r1
just
doesn't
seem
to
make
any
sense.
I
would
hope
that
this
type
of
proposal
would
not
even
get
a
second
from
you
guys
tonight.
O
There
is
significant
opposition.
We're
gathering
signatures
from
people
within
the
500
feet,
we're
getting
started
on
that
process.
I
don't
know
how
many
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
it
just
the
protections
that
we're
they
are
seeking
already
exist
if
they
are
upset
that
one
of
these
houses
house
loud
parties,
there
are
enforcement
provisions
in
place.
O
O
It
is
one
thing
to
say
that
you
can
grandfather
in
that's
not
helpful
when
you
go
to
get
your
insurance
coverage,
because
you
can't
rebuild
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
O
I
I
just
think
that
one
other
thing,
I
don't
think
it's
really
fair,
anywhere
close
to
use
kendall
college
as
a
precedent.
Kendall
college
was
an
empty
lot
at
the
time
the
zoning
was
changed.
If
you
guys
have
any
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them,
but
this
just
seems
wildly
inappropriate.
Thank
you
all
right.
A
All
right,
let's
see
dave
schoenfeld.
T
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
to
the
commissioners
for
your
patience
and
your
service.
A
Before
you
get
started,
let
me
just
let
me
just
say
now
that
we've
gone
past
the
the
two
two
people
that
are
representing
more
than
more
than
one
interested
party
here,
we're
gonna,
be
limiting
the
time
to
I'm
gonna
say
about
it's
supposed
to
be
three
minutes,
but
I'm
gonna
limit
to
about
three
minutes.
You
can
go
over
a
little
bit,
but
in
the
interest
of
keeping
this
fair
and
and
moving
this
along.
That's
what
we're
that's,
what
we're
going
to
do?
Okay,.
T
Thank
you
and
I
should
be
able
to
comply
with
that
easily.
My
name
is
dave
schoenfeld.
As
you
mentioned,
I
live
in
2039
orrington
about
a
block
north
of
the
black
in
question.
Here.
I've
been
a
member
of
the
northwestern
neighbors
association
for
25
years,
served
on
the
board
and
most
recently
as
the
president
of
that
board,
and
we
have
been
engaged
throughout
that
entire
time
and
and
long
before
then,
in
attempting
to
protect
our
neighborhood
from
incessant
development
pressures.
T
That
fisk
alluded
to
these
recently
earlier,
but
this
is
something
we've
been
working
on
for
literally
four
decades.
This
district
is
constantly
facing.
This
neighborhood
is
constantly
facing
development
pressures
from
a
variety
of
sources,
and
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
we've
been
working
with
also
just
for
your
information,
I'm
also
the
community
representative
on
the
city
northwestern
committee,
which
was
established
under
federal
consent
decree
to
address
land
use
issues
between
northwestern
and
our
community.
T
So
we
have
had
a
lot
of
these
issues.
We've
been
working
very
hard
to
protect
the
indus,
the
neighborhood,
and
I
have
to
tell
you
that
the
prospect
of
a
wave
of
absentee
ownership
and
student
rental
houses
on
the
1900
block
of
orrington
is
as
great
a
threat
to
the
residential
character
of
our
neighborhood
up
and
down
orington,
as
we
have
faced
in
at
least
the
past
quarter
century.
T
When
I've
been
involved
in
these
issues,
allowing
that
block
to
turn
over
to
absentee
student
ownership
rentals,
as
we've
already
seen
nearby
on
sherman
avenue,
as
almond
fists
described,
we
a
situation
in
which-
and
it
was
interesting.
You
know
mr
jones
almost
went
here
a
moment
ago.
This
would
create
a
situation
in
which
the
students
treat
that
block
as
a
part
of
the
northwestern
campus,
and
yet
the
university
would
have
no
responsibility
for
overseeing
their
conduct.
It
would
be
the
worst
of
both
worlds.
T
This
development,
in
that
that
circumstance,
would
result
in
severe
disruptions
to
the
lives
of
the
families
living
there
in
what
is
meant
to
be
a
residential
and
not
a
university
setting,
and
this
in
turn
would
lead
to
further
decline
of
the
block
as
a
family
neighborhood,
and
that
would
have
an
impact
all
up
and
down
orington.
T
T
Now
there
are
legitimate
concerns
that
we've
talked
about
earlier
today
with
exclusionary
zoning
and
nimbyism.
I
don't
think
those
apply
in
any
respect
to
this
issue.
What
is
happening
here
is
that
investors
are
purchasing
property
right
across
the
street,
from
northwestern
not
to
provide
of
affordable
housing
to
working
families
or
anything
of
that
nature.
They
are
buying
that
property
to
rent
at
premium
to
wealthy
northwestern
students.
This
is
not
an
affordable
housing
issue.
This
is
not
an
exclusionary
zoning
issue.
T
A
Mr
schoenfeld
again,
what's
do
you
own
a
property
in
the
in
the
district?
Yes,.
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Let's
see
next
on
my
list
is
art
newman.
G
Thanks
my
name's
art
newman,
I
was
the
alderman
of
this
award
from
1991
to
2005..
I
am
very
familiar
with
the
neighborhood.
G
I
could
tell
you
that
at
the
1900
block
of
orrington,
the
houses
are
less
valuable
in
the
r4a
than
if
you
go
north
to
the
r1.
The
houses
in
the
r1
are
typically
three
two
to
three
or
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
more
primarily
because
this
block
happens
to
be
across
the
street.
From
a
from
the
foster
walker
complex.
G
I
can
tell
you
when
I
was
on
the
council
that
I
regularly
got
calls
from
out
of
town
investors
who
wanted
to
buy
our
properties
because
they
saw
it
as
a
way
to
be
able
to
take.
You
could
probably
get
on
some
of
these
properties,
especially
the
multi-family,
sometimes
six,
seven,
eight
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
rent
where
you
couldn't
possibly
rent
it
for
a
single
family
home.
I
saw
on
my
block
when
I
lived
on
sherman.
There
was
a
2147
sherman.
It
was
an
immaculately
maintained
three
flat
in
our
4a.
G
It,
the
owner,
used
to
take
the
most
had
the
most
wonderful
landscaping.
You
can
imagine
he
got
old.
It
was
bought
by
a
person
in
northbrook
less
than
six
months
after
he
sold
that
property
to
a
northbrook
owner.
It
had
eight
inch
weeds,
it
had
the
front
window
boarded
up
and
it
all
and
and
all
the
landscaping
was,
was
gone
and
the
property
began
to
deteriorate,
and
that's
because
somebody
from
northbrook
bought
it
because
they
wanted
to
pile
as
many
students
as
they
can
get
in
as
possible.
G
G
But
if
you
have
the
swim
club
occupy
a
house
across
the
street,
they
can
have
as
much
alcohol
as
they
want
and
that's
what
happens
on
some
of
these
blocks
on
my
old
block
on
sherman
avenue,
the
swim
team
came
in,
you
can
have
200
people
literally
200
people
on
the
property
from
all
over
northwestern's
campus
going
to
a
party.
And
oh
yes,
it's
a
nuisance.
Well,
when
you
own
a
property-
and
you
invest
your
life
savings,
you
don't
want
to
be
calling
the
police
every
third
night
about
what
an
absentee
landlord
is
doing.
G
So
to
me
this
is
not
going
to
solve
your.
This
block
will
never
solve
the
affordable
housing
problem
in
evanston.
All
it
will
do
at
some
point.
Is
investors
will
always
look
for
opportunities
to
make
as
much
money
on
the
property
as
possible,
so
I
support
them.
I
have
I
had
a
lot
of
experience.
I
used
to
have
a
woman
on
sherman
avenue.
There
was
a
rape
right
next
to
her
at
one
of
the
parties.
M
Hey.
Thank
you
very
much
for
doing
this.
You
guys
it's
august.
It's
late.
I've
been
listening
to
a
really
dense
set
of
topics.
Tonight.
Let
me
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
why
I'm
here,
my
wife
and
I
bought
a
couple
of
years
ago.
I
live
in
1942
orrington
in
the
block,
and
you
know
we
questioned
living
here,
but
after
talking
to
many
of
the
neighbors
before
we
put
in
our
bid
on
this
place,
we
were
told
this
block
is
amazing.
M
It
is
full
of
single-family
people,
many
who,
whom
have
lived
here,
20
30
40
even
over
50
years,
and
I
think
that
we
can
back
that
up
easily
and
therefore
it's
a
pretty
safe
neighborhood
to
move
in.
There
is
one
house
next
door
that
does
have
some
overflow
much
like
art
had
talked.
You
know
greek
sorority
girls
that
live
there
and
at
times
they
are
delightful
and
at
times
it's
holy
hell
and
being
woken
up
four
times
a
night
is
not
unusual.
M
That
issue
has
caused
major
strife
between
my
wife
and
I,
who
wants
to
be
friendly
and
I
who
can't
deal
with
it
any
longer
haven't
called
the
police,
but
I'm
going
to
the
next
time
it
happens.
So
there
won't
be
a
record
of
this
with
the
police,
at
least
from
our
house.
M
I
hear
you
guys
talk
about
non-conforming
and
to
me
the
issue
of
non-conforming
is
not
terribly
relevant.
That's
all
about
lot
size
and
lot
issues,
and
you
know
the
reason
this
is
not
as
conforming
is
because
three
of
the
houses
at
the
north
end
of
the
block
mine
included,
are
so
small.
They
don't
even
fit
the
the
the
standard,
and
yet
we
look
at
this
as
a
quality
of
life
issue.
That's
important
for
the
neighborhood
and
that's
important
for
for
maintaining
what
we
see
is
here
and
just
one
more
point
about
affordable.
M
I
know
staff
wrote
something
that
said:
evanson
supports
affordable,
I
support
affordable,
but
we
just
want
to
be
really
clear.
When
a
developer
gets
a
hold
of
property,
there
is
not
a
chance
that
they're
going
to
rent
it
room
by
room
at
an
affordable
ratio
to
other
people
in
town.
So
those
are
the
only
points
I
want
to
make.
I
want
to
thank
you
guys
for
making
the
effort
and
we
hope
you
vote
in
our
favor
okay.
A
Thank
you,
ken
chua.
A
Sorry
and
then
that's
the
same
for
mr
dooley
as
well
right,
mr
jones.
A
Okay,
great
all
right,
so
that
is
the
extent
of
my
list
of
people
who
have
I've
signed
up
ahead
of
time
to
to
discuss
this
matter.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
call
that
would
like
to
make
any.
A
Hearing
none
we
will
we'll
move
on.
Oh,
this
is
the
this
is
the
part
where
I
inform
everyone
that,
if
oh,
where
is
it
second
here,
if
you
live
within
500
feet
of
this,
this
rfid
district
and
you
wish
to
you,
wish
to
object
to
for
the
purpose
of
presenting
evidence
to
rebut
testimony.
That's
been
that
was
given
today
by
the
applicant,
which
is
staff.
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
we
will
move
on
to
deliberation
by
the
by
the
commission.
Commissioners,
do
you
have
any?
You
know,
comments
items
of
discussion,
any
questions
for
any
of
the
any
of
the
people
that
that
spoke
this
evening.
H
I
have
a
question,
and
maybe
it's
for
staff,
for
legal
counsel,
but
is
is
there
if
we,
if
this
is
rezoned
r1?
Does
that
legally
eliminate
the
the
possibility
of
of
absentee
ownership?
Who
who
could
rent
to
students.
H
That's
a
yes
or
no
answer.
I'd.
J
Say
no,
there's
still
the
ability
to
rent
out
your
house,
no
matter
the
zoning
district,
there's
no
requirement
to
live
on
site.
H
A
It
would,
it
would
seem
to
me-
and
I'm
I'm
I'm
with
you
on
that,
commissioner
halleck.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
the
the
biggest
the
biggest
change
that
this
would
make
is
especially
given
that
these
properties
are
all
within
a
historic
district.
A
So
there's
you
know
significant
restrictions
on
what
they
can
do
to
the
outside
of
their
properties,
that
someone
can't
buy
up
one
of
these
houses
and
turn
it
into
a
two
three
or
four
flat.
You
know
by
making
modifications
to
the
interior
of
the
house
and
thereby
having
you
know,
allowing
more
people
to
live
in
there.
I
don't
know
how
big
these
houses
are.
I
presume
you
can
get.
A
You
know
three
units
in
there
and
ultimately
fit
more
more
people
than
would
fit
in
a
single
family
house,
and
so
it
would
reduce
the
you
know
the
density
of
of
the
number
of
people
living
in
in
in
the
area
or
you
know
in
the
on
that
block.
But
you
know
I
I
agree.
I
don't
think
I
see
much
much
of
any
other,
any
other
effect
by
reducing
the
zoning.
H
I
also
have
a
question
for
art
newman,
mr
newman,
did
you
see?
Did
you
say
that
you
were
on
the
council
when
the
zoning,
the
the
r4
zoning,
our
fourier
zoning
was,
was
made
correct
and
did
you
object
or
are
we?
What
was
I.
G
Support
I
supported
the
r4a
at
the
time
because
I
wanted.
I
did
not
want
the.
I
did
not
want
the
single
family
houses
to
be
able
to
be
converted
to
three
or
four
flats
without
a
special
use,
and
that's
why
I
asked
the
question
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
meeting
that
at
the
time
the
r4a
was
used
not
so
much
for
this
block,
but
for
going
over
to
sherman
and
into
across
sherman
and
there,
where
you're.
G
In
the
middle
of
the
the
middle
of
the
student
absentee
landlord
area,
it
was
important
to
take
away
their
ability
to
be
able
to
go
because
if
you
have
a
single
family-
and
you
could
put-
as
you
say,
three
students
in
and
if
they
change
the
unrelated
four.
But
if
you
have
the
ability
to
go
from
a
single
family
to
four
units,
then
you
could
have
12
or
13
people.
You
have
all
the
cars
that
go
along
with
that
and
it's
a
real
serious
situation.
So
I
did
support
our
4a.
G
But
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
this
would
do.
If
you
went
to
r1
is
that
there
would
be
no
possibility
of
multi-family,
you
know
any
of
these
units
be
able
to
convert
the
multi-family,
whereas
now
they
could
be.
If
there
was
a
special
use
process,
they
could.
A
Really
really
quick
because
we're
all
new
to
this
whole
zoom
meeting
it
looks
like
there's
two
people
that
have
their
hand
up
to
speak
and
I'm
wondering
if
they
had
it
up
before.
I
before
I
closed
discussion
or
closed
comments
from
the
public,
so
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
call
them
in
the
order
that
I
see
them
and
we'll
let
them
have
their
three
minutes
to
make
their
comments
and
then
we're
gonna
close
out
close
out
the
public
record.
A
So
there's
two
people
there's
a
julie,
johnson
and
a
susan
biermann
or
bearman.
I'm
gonna
call
on
julie,
johnson,
first,
okay,.
W
Hello,
everybody.
I
just
want
to
take
issue
with
a
couple
things,
but
before
I
say
that
we
circulated
petitions
across
our
neighborhood
and
we
received
32
signatures
on
on
that
petition,
not
just
about
our
block
but
all
around
us,
so
our
neighbors
all
around
us
are
supportive
of
our
r1
rezoning
request.
W
I
also
want
to
say
that
I
I
believe
it's
not
true
that
the
historical
preservation
statute
that
allows
people
to
convert
units
inside
their
house.
I
think
we
could
ask
staff
about
that.
You
can't
you
have
to
get
approval
for
something
you
change
on
the
outside
of
your
house,
but
I
believe
you
could
actually
turn
a
house
on
our
block
into
a
two
or
three
flat.
Is
that
not
correct.
W
And
I
think
the
key
point
is
on
a
lot
of
this.
Is
these
are
absentee
landlords,
and
so
they
can
buy
this
house,
they
can
convert
it
to
a
two
or
three
flat
and
they
would
be
absentee
and
that's
where
we
see
a
lot
of
the
problems
that
art
newman
talked
about
and
that
dan
shapiro
and
dave
schoenfeld
talked
about,
and
you
can
also
write
you
you
could.
W
Theoretically,
you
could
rent
out
the
entire
house,
but
again
because
of
the
restriction
of
three
unrelated
more
than
300
related
people
are
not
allowed
to
be
tenants.
That
would
that,
would
you
know
prevent
that
from
happening?
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
then
susan
behrman.
U
Yes,
I
just
had
a
question:
is
that
rule
about
only
three
unrelated
and
potentially
four
unrelated
people
being
allowed
to
rent
a
property
enforced
at
this
time
or
does
it?
Is
it
incumbent
upon
neighbors
to
submit
a
complaint
to
see
that
it's
enforced.
A
Well,
we
don't
have.
We
don't
have
a
member
of
corporation
council
here
with
us
today.
A
I
would
say
that
you,
in
order
for
the
in
order
for
anyone
in
the
city
to
know
whether
it's
whether
it's
it's
happening,
they'd
have
to
be
they'd,
have
to
be
informed
of
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
about
the
actual
enforceability
of
of
that
rule,
but
it
is
still
a
rule
on
the
books,
I'm
not
sure
if
ms
jones
or
mr
mangum,
you
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
J
I
would
concur
that
generally
staff
would
not
be
aware
of
who's
living
within
a
house
without
some
sort
of
information
or
a
complaint.
That's
filed
on
that
and
then,
when
those
are
received,
they
are
they're
challenging
to
address.
Sometimes.
D
If
it's
a
registered
rental
in
the
the
only
way
that
we
would
really
see
is
during
that
inspection,
to
make
sure
that
you
know
any
life
safety
issues
are
handled.
I
mean
at
that
point
we
might
be
able
to
see
if
there's
possibly
more
than
the
maximum
allowed
that
are
currently
living
there,
but
it
it
is
heavily
dependent
on
neighbors
or
any
complaints.
U
A
What
what
what
the
effect
would
be
is
that,
instead
of
a
single
family
home
well
like
right
now,
under
our
4a,
a
single
family
home
could
be
internal
in
in
this
district
could
be
internally
converted
into
a
two
flat,
and
so,
if
you
used
to
be
able
to
have
three
or
four
people
living
in
a
single
family
home
now
you
can
have
six
to
eight
people
living
in
a
two
flat
in
the
same
building.
That's
that's
the
that's!
The
effect
of
the
change.
A
Exactly
yes,
you'd
have
to
go
to
a
special
use
process
and
not
violate
any
of
the
historical
district
requirements.
I
see
a
mr
kaplan
holding
his
hand
up
a
manual
hand,
sure.
X
I
can
be
real,
quick,
please.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
this
street
is
a
real
showcase
street
for
evanston,
a
lot
of
the
people
that
visit
evanston
if
they're
visiting
the
school,
their
interaction
with
evanston
is
walking
down
this
street
and
when
they
return
to
wherever
or
when
they
talk
to
other
people
about
evanston,
their
impressions
is
characterized
by
what
they
saw
kind
of
walking
down
this
street
and
right
now
they
see
a
beautiful
street
with
wonderful
houses,
and
it
would
be
a
shame
I
think,
for
evanston
to
lose
that.
P
I
just
want
to
say
a
quick
thing
about
about
the
the
absentee
landlord
and
the
number
of
people.
The
number
of
people
that
can
fit
into
the
house
is
obviously
a
problem
from
a
nuisance
perspective,
but
it
also
creates
additional
development
pressures,
because
developers
can
make
so
much
more
off
of
that
house
if
they
convert
it
into
a
multi-family.
A
All
right
so
with
that
we're
going
to
close
public
comment
for
good
now
and
now
it's
commissioners,
if
you
have
questions
again,
discussions
amongst
ourselves.
L
I
have
two
questions,
one
is
perhaps
to
staff
and
one
of
the
comments
we
received.
There
was
a
statement
made
and
I
was
wondering
if
that's
true
or
not,
that
the
ri
zoning
will
decrease
the
tax
base
and
our
foray
zoning
will
bring
in
more
property
tax
revenue.
Is
that
a
inaccurate
or
accurate
statement?
Or
is
it
difficult
to
say
and.
J
I
don't
know
that
we
have
an
answer
for
that.
I
think
it
depends
on
what
the
property
values
you
know
obviously
would
would
fluctuate
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
the
assessor
would
assess
it.
I
imagine
it'd
be
assessed
mainly
on
the
number
of
units
that
were
there
and
the
development.
That's
there
rather
than
the
development
potential,
but
I'm
not
you
know
with
100
certainty,
say
how
the
assessor
would
view
it.
The
same
building
whether
the
zone
was
r1
of
the
same
building
was
r4a.
L
Okay,
and
if
this
were
to
be
down,
go
to
r1,
there's
six
or
five
whatever
that
would
still
be
non-conforming,
is
my
understanding
correct
that
they
would
then
be
grandfathered
in
to
be
able
to
continue
to
use
those
properties
as
they've
been
using
it
under
r4a
or
or
not,
and
specifically,
with
respect.
I
think
one
of
mr
mitchell,
I
believe,
talked
about
the
sorority
next
door.
L
Would
that
sort
of
be
shut
down
if
it
goes
to
r1
or
with
the
sorority,
be
able
to
continue
as
long
as
the
ownership
was
the
same
and
they
continued
operating
as
they
had
been
under
the
r4a
through
some
kind
of
grandfathering?
What
would
practically
happen
to
those
non-conforming
for
lack
of
nuisance
properties
that
they
were
being
complained
about
if
this
were
to
pass.
M
I
know,
but
I
wanted
to
jump
on
this
because
it's
an
off-campus
house
that
has
huge
parties
and
it
fills
the
backyard
at
times
and
in
the
land
of
covet
and
northwestern
throwing
students
off
campus.
It's
just
going
to
be
worse.
A
Mr
mitchell,
I'm
going
to
remind
everyone
right
now.
If
you're,
not
one
of
the
commissioners,
please
please
put
your
mic
at
mute.
This
is
the
time
for
for
commissioners
to
deliberate.
J
So,
just
in
short,
I
think,
to
try
to
answer
mr
hugo's
question.
Legal
non-conforming
uses,
if
it
were
to
be
down
zone,
would
be
able
to
continue
as
they
are,
but
then,
if
they
were
discontinued
or
abandoned,
they
would
not
be
able
to
come
back.
A
And
the
period
of
this
continuance
is,
I
believe,
18
months.
So
if
the,
if
the
rooming
house
or
the
multi-family
can
cease
to
be
used
in
that
way
for
for
18
months,
then
they
would
lose
it
or
if
a
single-family
home
burnt
down
to
the
ground,
that's
in
a
lot
size,
that's
smaller
than
would
be
otherwise
allowable
under
r1.
A
They
couldn't
rebuild
if
they
didn't,
you
know,
apply
within
18
months.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of
flexibility
with
with
legal
non-conforming.
L
But
again,
to
go
back
to
commissioner
halek's
point,
at
least
in
the
short
and
medium
term.
It's
largely
symbolic,
because
the
use
can
continue.
Things
will
continue
as
they
are
today
unless
one
of
these
issues,
one
of
these
exceptions
or
triggers
that
you
just
mentioned,
were
to
kick
in
correct,
correct.
A
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
really.
This
is
really
trying
to
keep
the.
I
guess,
keep
the
status
quo
of
the
block.
I
don't
think
that
I
mean
I
I
think
I
sort
of
agree.
A
I
don't,
I
think
I
don't
know
if
it
was
commissioner
huko
who
said
this
is
somewhat
symbolic,
but
it's
it's
really
not
going
to
prevent
the
the
issues
that
people
are
having
with
existing
properties
in
and
around
this
district,
but
it
would
prevent
the
those
issues
from
multiplying
and
that's
what
seems
to
be
the
the
thrust
of
this
change,
at
least
in,
in
my
opinion,.
H
Wouldn't
would
it
really
do
that
or
if
someone
wanted
to
take
another
home-
and
you
know
do
the
same
thing-
it
ran
it
to
students,
it
would
have
to
go
through
the
special
use
process.
H
Absolutely
it
come
before
us,
so
it
it
in
effect
there
is,
there
are
already
controls
for
future.
You
know
future
student
housing.
I
mean
it's,
that's
what
it
seems
like
to
me
that
that
we
do
have
these
things
in
place.
I
think
the
other
thing
is
that
I
you
know
we
have.
H
We
have
had
other
cases
of
down
zoning
come
before
us
and
I
think
the
the
argument
has
always
been
that
people
own
these
properties
or
bought
these
properties
with
an
assumption
and
the
zoning
is
that
assumption
and
whatever
that
zoning
means
and
to
take
that
away
from
them.
I
personally
think
unless
there's
a
very
good
reason
and-
and
I
don't
think,
there's
a
very
good
reason
in
this
case,
because
essentially
everything
will
remain
the
same.
A
So
a
few
things
I
I
just
counted
the
number
of
people
that
were
that
had
signed
that
petition
to
down
zone,
there's
12
properties
on
the
on
the
in
this
area,
or
you
know
in
this
in
the
subject
zone
that
we're
talking
about
and
seven
out
of
the
twelve
owners
signed
those
those
petitions
it
sounded,
like
mr
jones
represented
at
least
two
of
the
at
least
two
of
the
people
that
that
have
properties
in
this
in
this
area
I
looked
at
the
zoning
map
and
the
the
large
majority
of
the
like
the
historic
district
in
this
area
is
all
r1,
and
this
is
one
of
two
small
areas
that
are
that
are
r4
or
r4a,
sorry
within
within
the
district,
and
so
that
sort
of
that
sort
of
you
know,
at
least
in
my
mind,
says
well,
you
know,
maybe
maybe
these
should
be
r1
instead
of
r4a,
but
I
agree.
A
It's
a
very
it's
a
very,
very
tight
decision
to
make
here
because.
A
There's
already
controls
in
place
these
this
being
in
a
historic
district
and
are
for
a
requiring
special
use.
The
only
other
comment
I'd
make
having
having
dealt
with
this
personally
in
the
past,
is
that
unless
you
have
literally
created
construction
plans
and
have
submitted
them
for
permit
with
a
municipality
illinois,
does
not
look
very
favorably
at
having
a
vested
right
in
zoning.
So
even
if
you
own
the
property
for
30
years-
and
you
were
planning
on-
you
know
changing
it
to
something
else.
A
If
you
haven't
taken
the
time
to
actually
do
it
and
putting
the
money
in
and
and
applied
for
it,
and
even
then
it's
not
guaranteed.
You
may
not,
like
a
court,
may
not
say
that
you
have
a
vested
right
in
that
in
that
zoning.
So
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
that
we've
heard
from
anyone
today.
That
said,
you
know,
I
just
bought
this
property
and
I
you
know
I
paid
extra
for
it,
because
I'm
gonna
change
it
into
a
tooth
flat
or
a
three
flat.
A
Anyone
that's
that's
using
their
proper,
using
this
property,
like
the
the
person
who
has
a
six
unit,
multi-family
they're
gonna
be
able
to
continue
using
that
you
know
for
it,
for
for
the
for
the
rest
of
time
as
long
as
they
keep
on
using
it
as
a
multi-family,
you
know
the
the
people
that
that
this
would
hurt
would
be
the
people
that
were
planning
on
selling
their
house
to
a
developer
and
I'm
not
sure
that
we've
we've
heard
from
anyone
that
that
was
going
to
do
that,
or
is
that
you
know
that's
going
to
be
hurt
in
that
way.
A
But
you
know
I
I
still
go
back
to
well.
Is
this
even
necessary-
and
you
know
the
idea
of
not
doing
something
if
you
don't
have
to
so
anna?
Would
any
other
commissioners
have
any
thoughts
on
this.
F
Yeah,
I
do
it
normally,
I
would
kind
of
be
on
the
side.
That's
saying
you
know
why
create
more
non-conformities,
if
you
don't
have
to
which
the
change
from
r41a
r4a
to
r1
would.
However,
I
think
that
that
the
value
you
know
of
the
existing
single
family,
maintaining
that
property
value,
because
I
would
agree
with
some
of
the
comments
that
the
you
know-
conversion
of
property
to
the
two
and
three
flats
that
has
happened
further
to
the
west,
really
kind
of
has
at
least
from
an
a
property
tax
perspective.
F
I
think
it
has
depreciated
those
properties,
I'm
sure
that
the
investors
are
making
lots
of
money
in
the
on
the
rental
income,
but
it
creates
lots
of
property
standards
issues
and
the.
F
Really
taking
away
the
the
ability
to
create
additional
uses
or
additional
units
on
that
block
through
the
special
use
process
is
probably
a
good
thing,
and
you
know
and
again
it's
it's
kind
of
a
mixed
bag,
because
you
also
have
a
situation
where,
with
the
the
adus
that
we've
just
permitted,
while
on
the
one
hand,
with
the
r4,
a
you'd
have
to
get
a
special
use
permit
to
add
them
under
r1
zoning.
F
Any
of
the
single
family
owners
could
add
an
extra
unit
so
and-
and
I
don't
know
where
the
neighbors
would
stand
on
on
that-
you
know
depending
on
what
happens
with
the
adus.
So
so
it
is
difficult.
F
But
I
I
think
I'm
persuaded
that
that
recommending
the
changed
r1
zoning
actually
does
make
sense,
really
in
terms
of
maintaining
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
and
I
think
it
will
probably
maintain
property
values
and
not
decrease
them,
and
I
think
you
know,
and
and
you
know
so-
I
think
that
it
really
kind
of
speaks
to
the
standards
for
for
the
proposed
amendment.
F
So
I've
I've
been
persuaded
by
the
neighbors
and
I
didn't
start
out
thinking
that
that's
the
way
I
was
gonna
go.
F
A
Okay
standards
for
amendments,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
as
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
city.
Council.
A
A
Well,
but
but
but
the
the
the
reason
why
I'm
I'm
conflicted
on
this
one
is
because
the
the
history,
just
because
it's
r4a,
if
you
change
the
internal,
if
you
change
the
you
know
the
the
inside
of
the
house,
to
two
units,
you
haven't
affected
the
outer
character
of
the
of
the
zoning
district
right.
You
haven't,
you
haven't
affected
the
historic
nature
of
the
property.
F
A
F
Not
necessarily
no
well
I'll
defer
to
staff,
but
no.
I
don't
think
that
that
you'd
have
to
comply
with
their
standards.
There
is
a
an
ability
to
yeah.
I
don't
know
exactly
where
the
ordinance
stands
on
demolition.
I
think
that's,
probably
something
that
can
be
overridden
by
at
least
the
city
council.
You
know
again,
I
will
defer
to
scott
and
megan.
A
Okay,
well,
I
think
we
can
say
this
is
either
satisfied
or
not
or
not
applicable
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject,
property.
A
Well,
there's
there's
r1
to
the
north
and
there's
r5
to
the
west.
The
amendment
isn't
really
going
to
going
to
change
anything.
That's
that's!
Currently
there
it's
just
preventing
further
changes.
I
would
probably
say
that
this
is
satisfied.
A
Obviously,
commissioners,
if
you
disagree
or
if
you
have
a
comment,
please
just
speak
up
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.
A
I
I
don't
think
it
will
have
an
adverse
on
adjacent
properties.
I
I
suppose
that
you
know
someone
that
isn't
maintaining
their
property
within
this
district
as
a
single
family
home
who
lets
it,
you
know,
lets
it
decrease
in
value
low
enough
where
a
developer
would
want
to
buy
it
and
turn
it
into
something
would
would
see
their
value
go
down
because
now
they
can't
sell
it
to
a
developer.
A
But
I
I
don't
see,
I
don't
see.
Maintaining
you
know
having
further
controls
on
the
status
quo
is
going
to
have
an
adverse
effect
on
adjacent
properties
and
then
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services-
that's
that's
not
applicable
here,
so
any
other
comments
or
questions.
Or
is
there
a
motion
that
a
commissioner
would
like
to.
A
E
F
Well,
I
think,
for
the
purposes
of
a
vote,
I
will
move
that
we
recommend
rezoning
of
the
subject
property
to
our
one
single
family.
A
Okay,
there's
a
motion
to
approve
staff's
recommendation
r4a
to
r1.
Is
there
a
second.
K
A
All
right
any
any
any
amendments
to
this
one
hearing,
none
any
discussion
on
the
on
the
motion.
A
Hearing
none
miss
jones.
Let's
take
a
roll
call
vote.
B
Commissioner
draper
no
commissioner
halek.
No
commissioner
hugo.
L
C
A
A
That
puts
an
end
to
that
item.
A
E
A
Not
least,
we
have.
E
The
plan
commission's
rules
and
proceeds,
ms
jones,
are
you
presenting
this
one.
D
I
can
yes
great
all
right
well,
this
is
essentially
a
continuation
of
discussion
that
occurred
at
the
july
meeting.
We
haven't
made
too
many
changes,
but
we
just
made
some
minor
adjustments
based
off
of
that
conversation
and
then
added
a
bit
of
clarification
on
the
actual
public
hearing
process
and
the
changes
that
are
proposed
are
listed
on.
The
screen
now
include
the
minor
corrective
edits
to
the
language
code,
section
numbers
etc
edits
to
make
sure
that
we
are
consistent
throughout
the
document.
D
With
regards
to
time,
that's
allotted
for
comments,
clarification
of
the
public
hearing
process,
as
I
mentioned,
clarification
on
the
process
of
for
requesting
continuances,
some
minor
updates
regarding
submitting
materials
and
the
time
frame
for
that,
and
then
also
some
minor
updates
that
address
the
commission
responsibilities
if
they
happen
to
be
absent
for
a
particular
agenda
item
public
hearing.
M
A
I
think
we,
I
think,
we've
beat
this
up
pretty
well
last
time.
Last
time
was
before
us
any
any
comments
or.
A
Public
with
respect
to
this
item,
okay,
hearing,
none,
commissioners:
do
you
have
any
any
comments
anything
or
should
we
just
move
to
move
to
approve
the
changes.
A
In
a
bureau
of
that,
if
you're
that
mind,
please
provide
a
motion.
H
I
moved
to
approve
the
revisions
to
the
plant
commission
rules
and
procedures,
as
proposed
here.
E
C
B
F
D
A
Okay,
great,
I
don't
think
this
is
on
the
agenda,
but
just
a
reminder
that
I
think
at
our
next
meeting,
we're
gonna
be
we're
gonna,
be
having
elections
for
a
chair
and
a
vice
chair
for
the
balance
of
the
calendar
year
and
then
also
we're
going
to
need
to
have
appointments
to
the
various
committees
of
the
of
the
commission.
A
We
just
sent
something
to
the
zoning
committee
and
I'm
not
sure
that
we
even
have
more
than
one
or
two
people
on
on
that
committee
right
now,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
that
out
at
the
next
meeting
and
then
and
then
schedule
a
meeting
of
the
of
the
zoning
committee.
H
I
have
a
question
and
on
that
chair
isaac,
are
you
able
to
be
the
chair
for
another
term.
A
Well,
I'm
I'm
actually
just
the
acting
chair.
I've
never
been
never
been
voted.
We
haven't
had
an
election
since
the
last
the
last
chair,
his
term
ran
out,
and
I
believe
my
second
term
ends
in
april.
So
my
my
time
running,
these
meetings
will
be
short.
A
Correct
and
so
can
any
of
you
as
well.
A
Let's
not
forget
that
if
I'm
missing
an
action,
someone
else
needs
to
take
the
reins
all
right
so
with
that
is
there?
Is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn.
H
I
just
have
one
more
thing,
I
I
you
know
at
least
I
think
I've
been
to
the
the
all
the
recent
meetings
and
we
have
a
couple
new
commissioners
which
you
know.
I
think
we
should
welcome
them
and
glad
glad
to
have
you.
U
K
A
All
right,
it's
been
a
long
day.
Everyone!
A
Thank
you
all,
commissioner
halek.
Do
you
have
a
motion
to
adjourn?
Yes,
all
right,
alec,
let's
see
westerberg
second,.