►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 6/13/2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
I
should
ask
the
audience
that
if
you're
going
to
speak
tonight,
I'm
going
to
have
to
ask
you
to
sign
the
form
if
you
have
signed
it
and
when
you
come
to
speak,
can
you
please
come
to
the
podium
and
speak
into
the
microphone
for
recording
purposes
and
I
would
like
to
now
swear
in
anyone
who
is
going
to
speak?
Do
you
promise
to
tell
the
truth
good?
Thank
you
all
right.
So
the
first
order
of
business
is
to
we
have
to
two
minutes
to
to
approve.
A
D
E
A
As
as
they
are
or
as
amended,
okay,
thank
you.
Second.
Okay,
all
in
favor
aye,
well
against.
Okay,
the
minutes
are
approved,
so
I
think
I
can
dispense
with
the
with
the
general
proceedings
other
than
that
say
quickly.
We
are
in
and
an
advisory
commission
that
will
give
any
motions
that
we
have
here
are
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
for
final
approval.
The
general
format
that
we're
going
to
go
through
is
to
have
staff,
make
a
presentation
of
the
of
the
two
text
amendments
that
are
on
on.
A
First,
there
is
an
old
business
text,
amendment
for
front
porches
and
second
will
be
a
new
business
text,
amendment
for
revisions
to
the
presentation,
Commission
review
procedures
after
after
the
we'll
go
one
by
one
through
those
after
the
presentation
will
open
open
the
floor
up
for
questions
will
first
do
the
audience
and
then
I
think
we'll.
Let
commissioners
ask
questions
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
public
for
statements,
and
then
we
can
have
the
commissioners
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
then
have
the
commissioners
do
their
deliberations.
F
F
If
there
items
that
are
being
routinely
approved
as
variations,
we
look
to
look
at
those
rules
and
regulations
and
see
if
some
of
those
should
be
allowed
by
right.
So
that
was
kind
of
the
genesis
for
it.
So
on
this
slide
we
have
the
definition
existing
definition
of
a
porch
which
includes
both
an
open
and
and
an
or
enclosed
area,
on
the
building
between
the
front
of
the
building
and
the
right-of-way
and
then,
as
mentioned,
the
current
ordinance
allows
for
that
10%
setback.
So
in
February
the
staff
presented
a
couple
options
to
the
plan.
F
Commission,
the
Planning
Commission
made
a
recommendation
that
front
porches
should
maintain
a
minimum
10-foot
front
yard
setback
from
the
property
line
and
that
the
allowed
porch
depth
may
be
the
greater
of
6
feet
or
25%
of
the
depth
of
the
required
front
yard.
This
recommendation
was
presented
to
the
Planning
development
committee,
the
City
Council.
There
was
discussion
and
input
from
the
public,
including
from
the
the
current
and
former
chairs
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
F
Regarding
the
proposal
and
and
that
memos
included
in
your
packet
to
some,
there
were
some
concerns
about
the
proposed
recommendation
being
maybe
too
too
lenient
or
to
allowing
front
porches
more
than
could
be
prudent
in
some
people's
opinion.
So
eventually
this
was
referred
back
to
the
Planning
Commission.
F
So
enclosed
porches
would
have
to
follow
the
regular
setbacks
of
a
principal
structure
and
not
be
allowed
to
encroach
into
that
and
that
any
requests
for
approach
depth
beyond
the
25%
encroachment
into
the
required
front
yard
would
require
a
major
variation
for
zoning
relief
rather
than
a
minor
variation
and
the
difference
there.
The
major
variation
is
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
where
a
minor
variation
is
decided
by
the
Zoning
Administrator
with
notice
and
input
on
that
and
then
could
be
appealed
to
the
CBA.
F
That
would
be
more
permissive
as
far
as
the
the
25%
encroachment
that
could
be
allowed
by
right,
and
so
this
adjustment
addresses
some
staff
concerns
about
creating
a
large
number
of
non-conforming,
enclosed
porches.
That
would
have
followed
the
current
regulations
and
previous
regulations
would
be
made
non-conforming.
So
by
creating
these
two
definitions
and
two
sets
of
regulations,
although
maybe
not
simplifying
things
as
much
as
we
originally
intended,
would
establish
that
those
non-conforming,
enclosed
porches
would
would
be
conforming.
F
So
this
table
tries
to
summarize
the
comparison
of
the
options
and
again
we
selected
a
variety
of
setbacks,
with
27
feet
being
the
required
setback
in
most
instances
or
many
instances.
However,
the
average
setback
of
adjacent
properties
endure
on
the
Block
determining
the
required
setback
other
instances.
So
there's
a
range
of
those
you
know
from
50
feet
of
a
required
set
back
down
to
12
and
then
showing
what
would
be
allowed
under
both
scenarios.
F
So
the
the
first
blue
column
there
would
be
the
resulting
required
porch
setback
under
the
plan,
Commission's
recommendation
and
again
seeing
that
ranging
from
37
1/2
feet
down
to
10
feet
and
then
the
last
column
being
the
resulting
required
porch
setback
under
the
CBA
chairs
proposal
and
that
ranging
from
43
feet
down
to
10
feet.
So
you
can
notice
that
some
of
the
areas
where
those
would
differ,
mostly
in
areas
where
you
have
a
smaller
required
setback.
F
F
We
also
developed
one
visual
to
show
just
a
little
bit
of
a
comparison
and
what
a
porch
depth
would
look
like
using
Sketchup
3.75
foot,
a
porch
which
would
be
assuming
a
front
yard
setback,
a
15
feet
with
the
25%
encroachment
that
could
be
allowed
there
under
the
the
CBA
option
and
then
a
6
foot
front.
Porch
that
would
be
allowed
using
the
plan
commission
of
recommendation
there.
So
those
are
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
visualization
of
those.
A
So
at
this
moment,
sorry,
at
this
moment,
I
think
I'd
like
to
open
it
up
to
questions.
Do
you
have
any
questions
of
okay
I?
Do
we
have
questions?
Any
one
of
the
commissioners
have
questions
so
I
guess
I.
Do
the
the
not
the
issue
of
non-conforming
structures,
which
is
primary
concern
to
the
administration
is,
is
that
is
that
emphasized
or
more
prevalent
with
the
planned
Commission's
or
the
zoning
Board's
proposals
for
rezoning
chairs
proposals,
for
which
one
exact
exacerbates
the
issue
more?
The.
F
A
F
Now
we
just
have
one
definition
for
a
porch
and
it
can
be
either
open
or
enclosed,
so
it
probably
is
up
to
some
interpretation,
whether
it's
a
porch,
enclosed,
fully,
enclosed
porch
or
a
building
addition.
The
proposed
language
of
creating
two
different
definitions
would
be
to
differentiate
between
the
two
more
clearly
setting
up
capacity
level
and
that
language
could
be
tweaked
as
well.
To
be
me,
open-air
or
something
of
that
nature
of
a
certain
limit.
F
A
F
Someone
on
the
screen
on
the
the
visual
and
the
PowerPoint
presentation
that
kind
of
two
options
are
presented
of
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
option
back
from
February
and
then
the
zoning
board
chairs
option
so
that
the
third
and
fourth
column
here
are
the
plan,
Commission
recommendation
and
then
the
final
two
columns.
The
fourth
and
fifth
column
are
the
cpa,
chairs
recommendation.
F
A
If
I
can
interject
I
think
I
think
Commissioner
cozy
we
have.
We
have
two
propositions.
What
our
recommendation,
or
the
former
and
current
zoning
board
chairs
recommendation
to
consider.
We
could
do
a
combination
of
either
some
other
permutation
or
we
could
actually
decide
that
the
regulation
and
stands
could
would
would
be
our
recommendation.
So
I
think
there
are
more
than
the
two
columns
to
consider
so.
H
H
H
H
Well,
when
you
open
your
front
door,
your
front
door
swings
out
further
than
your
porch
is
allowed
to
be,
which
seemed
a
little
unusual,
and
we
also
wanted
to
work
at
trying
to
make
it
a
little
easier
for
people
to
be
able
to
go
through
the
process
by
getting
something
by
right.
That
was
a
usable
depth
without
having
to
go
through
the
process
of
filing
for
zba
hearings,
getting
staff
involved
and
taking
things
through
the
whole
process.
H
So,
basically,
what
we
did
was
we
kind
of
look
at
the
options
that
were
available
and
the
one
thing
that
we
sort
of
felt
we
wanted
to
address
is
the
first
page
that
was
handed
out,
which
sort
of
talks
about
slowing
the
encroachment
of
porches
by
tying
it
to
a
25%
number
to
a
percentage
of
the
lot.
Instead
of
a
set
depth
when
we
get
into
smaller
Lots,
we
actually
prevent
the
porch
from
encroaching
more
quickly
towards
that
10
foot.
H
We
agree,
like
I,
said,
with
the
10%
front
yard,
minimum
setback.
We
proposed
a
25%
depth
of
the
required
front
yard
and
we
chose
7
feet
because
we
felt
that
was
a
usable
space.
Again,
anybody
can
request
anything
from
the
Zoning
Board
and
the
Zoning
Board
can
grant
just
about
anything.
The
idea
was
to
make
people
think
about
their
decisions
and
to
make
people
say
we're
giving
you
something.
That's
that's
very
generous,
much
more
generous
than
has
been
granted
by
the
city
in
the
past.
H
I
I
check
something
else
about
the
7
feet,
so
the
other
thing
we
see
all
the
time
is
that
these
porches
got
enclosed,
not
necessarily
by
the
owner
who's
now
here
applying
for
a
variance
but
by
somebody
else,
without
a
permit,
and
so
now
it's
suddenly
magically
interior
space,
and
so
the
7
feet
really
limit
you
too,
what
you
can
turn
that
into
if
you're
gonna
surreptitiously
do
something.
So
that's
sort
of
one
of
the
other
goals
of
that
seven
feet.
I
I
think
we
also
looked
at
some
of
our
neighboring
communities
right,
we'll
Matt,
Skokie,
Kenilworth,
all
those
sorts
of
communities
and
they
will
limit
their
maximum
encroachment
to
seven
feet
as
well.
So
it
seemed
like
we're
keeping
up
with
the
Joneses
and
we're
keeping
it
so
that
it's
not
as
attractive
to
enclose
the
space
without
a
permit.
So
that's
where
the
seven
sort
of
there's
there's
a
bunch
of
reasons.
G
A
H
H
A
H
Little
packet
of
papers,
so
that
was
one
of
the
other
goals
that
we
looked
about,
was
trying
to
prevent
homes
from
again,
not
necessarily
current
homeowner
doing
it.
Someone
gets
a
front
porch
and
enclosed
front
porch
added
on
to
the
front
of
their
house
20
years
down
the
road,
somehow
that
porch
has
magically
been
enclosed
and
then
that
person
who's
bought
that
house,
maybe
two
or
three
owners
later
says:
I,
don't
have
a
front.
H
Porch
I
need
a
front
porch
and
they
come
and
ask
for
a
front
porch
in
front
of
what
used
to
be
a
front
porch
which
just
again
increases
that
encroachment
into
yards
and
on
the
second
page
of
our
documents
that
we
hand
it
out,
you
can
sort
of
see-
and
this
is
this-
is
just
a
purely
made-up
street
I-
put
numbers
on
them.
So
if
anybody
wanted
to
reference
them,
this
is
not
actually
the
2300
block
of
any
particular
street
in
town
and
looking
at
the
top
rows
sort
of
looking
at
the
27
feet
being.
H
H
They
converted
that
their
porch
to
an
enclosed
space
and
are
now
asking
for
the
porch
that
they
are
allowed
by
the
25%,
which
is
another
six,
almost
six
and
a
half
feet
six
and
a
quarter
feet
which,
as
you
see,
projects
it
way
further
into
the
front
yards
than
any
of
the
neighboring
homes.
They
actually
are
at
about
a
forty
two
percent
encroachment
into
that
yard.
So.
A
H
H
H
I
did
Zillow
searches,
so
I
could
find
homes
that
had
pictures
and
floor
plans
with
them
and
sort
of
showed
how
you
can
see
how
some
of
these
spaces
can
be
easily
converted
by
homeowners
over
time
and
how
much
of
a
game
that
is
in
terms
of
their
their
home
size
and
what
that
can
potentially
do
to
bringing
the
houses
forward
on
the
street.
So,
like
I,
said
these
five
homes
have
no
proposals
pending.
That
I'm
aware
of
probably
would
never
ask
for
this,
but
they
were
houses
that
we
could
find.
H
Are
there
any
questions
on
anything
at
that?
At
this
point,
the
other
thing
that
we
wanted
to
do
was
we
wanted
to
make
it
a
major
variation
request
instead
of
a
minor
variation
request
again,
because
the
new
standard
would
be
much
more
generous
and
giving
people
something
buy
right
again,
anybody
can
ask
for
anything.
You
can
ask
for
a
zero
foot
front
law
and
if
you
want
it
will
not
get
passed,
but
you
can
ask
for
it.
You
can
do
that
as
well.
H
So
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
to
make
it
less
attractive
to
people
to
just
randomly
choose
sizes
that
are
larger
than
they
would
be
permitted
without
having
to
go
through
the
process
of
going
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
and
proving
there
is
a
hardship
that
their
property
is
unique.
Some
way
as
opposed
to
we
just
would
like
to
have
a
larger,
a
larger
front.
Porch.
H
H
F
I
Sort
of
stop
at
that,
but
again
so,
rather
than
even
having
to
take
up
staffs
time
with
those
administrative
approvals,
give
people
the
25%
and
then
ask
them.
If
you
really
want
that
extra
10%
come
before
us
and
make
a
case
for
the
seven
standards
right.
Tell
me
what
your
actual
hardship
is.
Tell
me
how
you
can't
make
a
seven
foot,
a
seven
foot,
porch
work
for
you
and
when
you're
confronted
with
that,
having
to
actually
convince
nine
to
seven
people
that
I
really
need
that
extra
foot.
F
I
J
F
It's
probably
tough
dancer.
We
don't
because
we
don't
know
all
the
ones
that
happened
I,
just
in
passing
around
town,
all
that
I
don't
know
that
there's
a
ton
of
it
happening,
but
again
a
snapshot
basis.
It's
kind
of
tough
to
guess
and
again
I've
been
paying
more
attention
to
this
Encino
February
or
so
we
started.
Bringing
it
up.
I
certainly
are
a
lot
of
blocks
and
houses
where
there
are
first
floor
protrusions
that
are
enclosed,
that
at
some
time,
sometimes
on
a
block
you
know
almost
all
of
them
are
closed.
F
I
think
it's
kind
of
clear
that
they
were
all
enclosed
as
part
of
it.
There
are
others
that
probably
have
been
enclosed
over
time.
I've,
not
seen
many
instances,
I
think
only
one
I
can
think
of
where
it's
obviously
an
enclosed,
porch
and
then
a
porch
in
front
of
that
porch.
But
I
did
see
one
the
other
day
on
a
Dodge
I
think
it
was
I.
Think.
I
I
A
So
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
also
had
when
we
were
deliberating
was
more
the
you
know,
not
necessarily
the
community
rights
but
the
individual
rights
that
that
you
should
be
able,
if
you
had
a
need
to
have
a
larger
one
or
we're
on
a
big
setback
or
something
to
have
a
larger
setback.
So
that's
why
we
were
allowing
the
the
larger
amount,
but
I
think
your
point
about
coming
before
the
before
the
Zoning,
Board
and
and
requesting
that
is,
it
doesn't
mean
we're
denying
the
the
individual
rights.
I
H
Other
thing
Aldermen
suffered
and
brought
up
a
similar
plight
at
P
and
D
sort
of
about
concerns
about
everybody
on
the
street
on
having
their
rights.
So
what
I
would
direct
you
to
is
on
the
second
page
of
our
document?
If
you
look
what
happens
to
2305
on
my
fictitious
street,
that
has
a
four
inch
or
a
four
inch,
a
four
foot
open
front
porch
and
if
you
look
at
how
they
have
lost
their
sight
lines
to
the
right
by
the
house
that
has
encroached.
H
A
Know
so
you
know
when,
when
we
get
down
to
some
of
the
narrower
setback
requirements,
the
setback
distances
that
we're
arguing
about
don't
seem
to
be.
All
that
great,
you
know
tend
to
you
know
a
couple
of
feet:
a
foot
and
a
half
when
you
look
at
it
that
way.
But
when
you
look
at
it
from
the
interior,
porch
dimension,
it's
a
much
bigger
percentage
right.
A
You
know,
and
in
a
way
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
that
we're
pushing
you
know
that
the
point
of
the
difference
between
getting
a
usable
differences
on
the
narrower
set
backs
and
I'm,
you
know
I'm
not
sure,
but
is
that
pushing
the
hardship
to
to
come
before
the
Zoning
Board
its
takes
time
and
effort
and
skill
down
to
people
who
maybe
are
in
less
expensive
I?
Don't
know
if
there's
a
correlation
between
front
yard
setback,
but
obviously
the
big
setbacks
there.
People
can
afford
it
right.
H
I
On
the
smaller
Lots
they're
generally,
a
smaller
house
and
so
trying
to
keep
the
porch
proportional
to
the
house
as
well
right,
you
kind
of
don't
want
that
suburban
phenomenon
of
a
garage
wagon,
a
house,
you
kind
of
don't
want
the
the
porch
to
be
wagging
the
house
either,
and
so
for
us,
it
seems
like
that's.
That's
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
get
you
that
front
porch,
while
still
keeping
enough
community
space
by
you.
Having
that
larger
setback.
H
H
A
plane
on
a
page
you
can
see
how
at
27
24
feet
were
really
worth
exactly
the
same.
You
know
it's
when
you
start
to
get
a
little
bit
small
or
the
16
foot
is
where
you
see
the
greatest
difference
between
the
two
and
the
14
foot
is
again
you've
suddenly
close
that
gap
back
in
because
of
that
six
are
because
of
that
10
foot,
front
yard,
we're
a
minimum
set.
I
You
know
in
if
you
look
at
usable
square
footage
from
a
front
porch
perspective
right.
If
you
look
at
any
balconies
or
any
things
like
that
in
the
city
or
even
here
in
Evanston
4
foot
is,
although
not
gracious
and
generous
is
enough
to
be
able
to
get
a
couple
of
chairs
out
there
on
the
table.
It's
a
reasonable
size,
we're
not
suggesting
that
anybody
can't
do
that.
We
want
people
out
of
the
porch.
We
want
eyes
on
the
street,
they
want
engagement.
We
want
you
to
talk
to
your
community.
I
F
A
It
would
be
five
feet,
but
that's
I
guess.
C
A
I
C
I
C
E
A
A
Yeah,
so
so
on
that
subject,
are
there
any
thoughts
on
on
how
to
define
you
know,
because
this
was
actually
something
that
I
had
talked
about
with
with
staff
about
the
definition
between
an
interior
and
and
enclosed
porch
and
an
open
porch,
and
that
it
seemed
that
it
seemed
that
it's
not
a
porch
as
soon
as
you
get
to
a
certain
point,
that
becomes
a
room.
So
so
are
there
any
thoughts
on
on
the
definition?
If
we're
going
to
propose
modifying
you
know
the
language,
the
definition
would.
I
F
C
H
It
doesn't
it
doesn't,
because
the
way
that
they're
currently
treated
is
that,
if
it's
not
livable
space
in
terms
of
heating
openness
into
the
rest
of
the
house,
that
sort
of
stuff
it
is
still
treated
as
a
porch
they've,
come
very
hard
to
tell
when
they
make
that
transition
is
the
problem.
If
they,
oh,
you
know,
the
one
in
the
one
house
on
on
chart
see
that
24:04
grant
again
I'm,
not
picking
on
24:04
grant
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
H
F
H
It
becomes
a
problem
because
in
my
years
on
the
CBA,
we
had
at
least
three
cases
that
I
can
think
of
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
I've
not
done
research
where
we
had
people
either
wanting
to
add
a
second
story.
On
top
of
what
used
to
be
a
porch,
it
was
an
enclosed
porch
that
became
you,
know
livable
space
and
then
their
argument
was.
We
just
want
to
add
a
second
story
about.
G
G
H
I
G
G
Think
we
should
I'm
not
comfortable
and
voting
on
any
of
this
tonight,
because
it
opens
up
a
whole
different
game.
I
think
there
is,
there
is
an
important
I
think
it
is
important
to
define
what
a
porch
is
and
I
think
the
existing
definition
is
pretty
weak
and
vague.
I
think
it
has
to
be
defined
furthers
an
unheated,
open
space
I
think
there
should
be
a
a
definition
or
some
exemption
for
openness.
I
think
that's
a
very
good
rule.
G
H
G
I
That
makes
total
sense.
I
guess,
my
fear,
just
again
is
if
we
only
limit
it
to
if
we
don't
make
a
difference
between
an
enclosed
Forge
and
an
open
port,
we're
going
to
continue
to
see
that
these
open
porches
eventually
get
enclosed,
because
it's
a
way
to
it's
a
way
to
make
your
house
bigger.
It's
a
way
to
make
it
grow
with
you
and
it's
it's
a
way
that
those
things
can
happen
and
I.
A
A
F
Just
to
follow
up
on
that,
the
definition
that
includes
in
the
memo
which
again
will
be
new
definitions
and
something
will
come
on
up
with
and
and
certainly
can
be,
revised
porch
open,
an
open,
unroofed
or
roofed
area
that
features
openings
with
the
maximum
pasady
of
50%
attached
to
building
located
between
exterior
walls
at
building
the
right
away,
as
opposed
to
enclosed
porch
roof.
Dare
that
features?
Walls,
indoor
windows
that
exceed
50%
opacity
attach
the
building
located
between
the
exterior
wall
of
building
the
right
away.
So
that's
the
first
stab
at
it,
but.
C
A
H
G
C
I
A
A
H
G
H
H
C
A
So
again,
to
summarize
I
think
we
could.
We
could
recommend
to
keep
our
previous
recommendation.
We
could
recommend
to
adapt
the
language
that
has
been
proposed
by
the
zba
chairs
as
its
put
forth
here.
I
think,
as
part
of
that
we
could
add
the
stipulation
of
a
definition
of
open
and
enclosed
porches
that
staff
is
recommending
it
could
go
to
either
or
we
could
do
something
else.
G
A
A
C
C
A
I
A
I
J
D
J
So
within
the
zoning
code
there
are,
as
I
mentioned
before,
various
sections
which
reference
that
original
ordinance
as
well
as
requirements
for
full
Preservation
Commission
review.
One
of
the
main
examples
of
this
would
be
in
Section
6,
15,
11
5,
which
is
the
relationship
to
special
uses
and
variations.
J
Basically,
this
particular
section
says
that
there's
an
application
that
is
submitted
for
a
special
use
or
any
type
of
variation
that
affects
a
landmark
or
property
that
should
located
within
a
historic
district.
That
application
has
to
be
referred
to
the
Preservation
Commission
for
them
to
review
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
appropriate
decision-making
body.
So
they
do
their
particular
review,
and
this
happens
regardless
of
whether
or
not
that
application
is
for
minor
work
or
major
work.
J
So
there
was
an
automatic
request
to
revise
the
code,
to
make
sure
or
to
attempt
to
streamline
that
process
and
make
it
a
little
bit
shorter
and
not
have
the
requirements
to
go
to
Preservation
Commission
for
minor
work.
So
that
being
considered
as
staff
is
proposing
the
following
amendments,
we
would
go
through
more
so
and
cleaning
up
the
language
where
we
reference
of
the
original
1975
ordinance
so
change
it
from
ordinance,
23,
0,
75
or
Appendix
C,
which
addresses
some
of
the
items
within
that
ordinance
and
change
that
to
title
2,
chapter
8.
J
That
would
affect
Code
section
6,
15,
11,
1,
6,
15,
11
to
6
15,
11,
6,
&,
6,
18
3.
Also,
we
would
go
to
a
couple
of
additional
sections
that
specifically
reference
the
need
to
have
a
full
Preservation
Commission
review,
the
next
section
being
six
four
six,
seven,
two
special
regulations
applicable
defenses.
This
particular
section
is
actually
pretty
extensive
with
regards
to
zoning
requirements
for
fences,
but
there
is
a
portion-
and
within
that
section
that
relates
specifically
to
historic
princes,
so
we
would
be
updating
that
striking.
J
There
needs
to
have
Preservation
Commission
review.
There
would
still
be
some
review
that
occurs.
It
would
just
be
a
done
administrative
leave
by
staff
or
in
cases
where
it
it
is
a
major
work
or
say
in
addition
or
something
along
those
lines.
There
would
still
be
Preservation.
Commission
review,
so
this
would
simply
just
make
it
not
a
requirement
for
every
single
case
that
pops
up
and
the
other
amendments
that
is
proposed
within
here
would
be
to
section
6,
1511
5,
which
I
briefly
mentioned
earlier.
J
J
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties
and
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services,
and
several
of
these
do
not
actually
apply
a
given
it's
very
broad
and
does
not
deal
with
a
very
specific
property.
So
we
can
revisit
those
during
the
liberation.
J
I
How
do
you
know
or
guarantee
an
usher
guarantees
the
right
word,
but
that
the
administrators
decision
is
generally
what
the
decision
of
the
board
would
be
just?
That
would
be
my
first
concern,
because
my
my
sense
is
that
they
are
not
necessarily
the
same.
The
admin
and
I
don't
know
which
administrator
necessarily
is
the
one
because
you're
not
specifying
who
the
administrator
is,
whether
it's
the
preservation
coordinator
or
its
head
of
community
development
or
at
zoning
and
planning.
So
that's
the
first
question.
I
Homeowners
are
under
the
impression
that
once
they've
gone
through
preservation,
they
are
essentially
guaranteed
their
zoning
variance
when,
in
fact,
the
Preservation
Commission
doesn't
have
to
evaluate
to
the
variance
by
the
seven
standards
and
the
seven
standards
are
rigorous,
and
so
we
like
to
be
rigorous
with
those,
and
so
what
we
would
like
to
see
is
that
you
come
to
Z,
be
a
first,
get
your
zoning
variance
and
then
go
make
it
look.
How
preservation
would
like
you
don't
have
it
look,
because
there
is
a
there
is
a
there.
I
A
A
C
G
F
It's
one
of
the
challenges
that
that
that
we
have
sort
of
three
different
documents
here:
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
preservation
ordinance
and
then
the
rules
of
the
Preservation
Commission.
So
this
text
is
referring
that,
where
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
required
or
allowed
to
be
issued
by
staff
through
the
preservation
ordinance
and
their
rules
and
procedures,
so
still
allowing
that
authority
to
the
Preservation
Commission
to
determine
what
the
level
of
review
is
either
staff
or
or
Commission
review,
but
where
staff
has
allowed
the
review.
F
In
that
case,
the
Preservation
Commission
would
not
need
to
make
a
recommendation
on
the
variance,
because
it's
a
type
of
work,
one
example
would
be
a
patio,
for
example,
that
staff
it
has
the
authority
to
grant
certificate
appropriateness
for
a
patio.
However,
if
increasing
that
patio
size,
you
know
puts
it
at
31
percent.
Instead
30
percent
building,
lock
coverage
or
or
I
guess
it
beat
me
46
instead
of
45
impervious
coverage.
F
You
know
the
current
rules
because
it
would
be
any
type
of
variance,
then
that
would
go
the
Preservation
Commission,
whereas
in
the
the
proposed
amendment,
because
the
preservation
rules
allow
staff
to
make
that
decision
on
the
certificate
appropriateness,
the
variance
would
not
go
to
the
to
their
Commission
and
it
just
is
a
little
more
background
information.
The
Preservation
Commission
met
last
night,
well,
they're,
not
a
recommending
body
to
the
plan
Commission
on
text
amendments.
F
G
F
G
I
A
F
And
so
the
Preservation
Commission
rules
which
are
included
in
your
packet
from
page
87
of
the
packet,
is
probably
the
place
to
start,
has
a
very
substantial
matrix
with
56
59
different
items,
types
of
work
and
then,
whether
that
is
considered
routine
maintenance,
it
doesn't
need
any
review
whether
our
staff
review
or
requires
Commission
review.
So
that
is
what
the
Preservation
Commission
has
an
actually
last
night.
They
adopted
these
revisions
to
their
rules
as
well.
Okay,.
F
F
I
That
can
I
interject
anecdotally
anecdotally.
So
people
want
to
replace
their
windows
on
their
houses.
They
they
want
to
upgrade
them.
They
want
to
get
MIT
put
in
energy-efficient
windows
they
in
historic
districts.
They
are
generally
not
doing
it
because
of
the
high
hurdle
of
going
through
preservation.
So
I
think
this
would
be
a
huge
benefit
to
the
homeowners
in
Evanston
of
bringing
their
houses
up
to
reasonable
energy
standards
by
allowing
them
to
replace
their
windows
in
a
more
timely
manner.
So
that's
anecdotally.
Mm-Hmm.
C
F
54
deal
with
windows
and
door
replacements
of
various
types
and
whether
there's
a
change
in
appearance
or
not,
and
and
so
some
of
those
can
be
approved
by
staff.
However,
where
there's
alteration,
removal
replacement
of
existing
windows
and
doors
or
additions
any
windows
and
doors
when
there's
a
change
of
design
materials,
the
general
appearance,
in
that
case
it
requires
a
commissioned
review,
so.
A
So
in
general,
you're
saying
it's
an
administrative
decision
if
it's
like
for
like
or
similar
in
appearance,
even
if
it's
an
upgraded,
you
know
thermally
efficient,
so
long
as
it's
a
you
know,
two
by
six
pained
matching
to
a
two
by
six
pained
existing
that
would
be
would
be
administrative,
and
if
it's
some
different
aesthetic,
then
you
would
kick
it
to
the
Commission
view.
Is
that
generally
the
procedure
that.
H
Please
I
think
one
of
the
benefits
to
to
approaching
it.
This
way
also
is
allows
preservation
in
the
city
not
necessarily
paint
all
homes
in
a
district
with
the
exact
same
brush,
there
are
many
homes
and
historic
districts
that
are
not
landmark
status,
properties
that
are
not
specifically
significant
in
any
way
shape
or
form
and
to
make
them
subject
to
the
exact
same
rules
as
a
howard
van
doren,
Shaw
home,
or
something
along
those
lines
it
allows.
H
It
allows
Preservation
Commission
to
focus
on
those
places
that
are
of
significance
and
I,
don't
want
to
say
bypass,
but
staff
can
can
deal
administrative
ly
with
the
homes
that
are
of
lesser
significance
or
of
no
significance.
There
are
homes
that
were
built
in
the
1950s
or
60s
that
exist
in
our
historic
districts
and
to
make
them
go
through
the
same
process
as
a
as
a
significant
building
seems
a
little
unfair
to
those
owners.
In
my
opinion,.
A
F
That's
correct,
that's
good
good
point,
sure
Lewis
Oh
them
did
tonight's
action
and
and
the
the
plant
Commission
does
not
have
any
authority
to
make
any
changes
to
the
Preservation
Commission,
either
ordinance
or
or
rules
who
would
not
make
any
of
those
changes.
It's
just
changing
areas
where
there
are
variances
or
special
uses
which
are
under
their
zoning
ordinance
and
there's
some
sort
of
preservation
approval
it
would.
It
would
change
those
for
the
ones
where
the
preservation
approval
can
be
done
by
staff.
F
A
Six
of
the
ordinance
I'm
sorry
yeah
all
right
and
then
can
I
ask
just
no
not
that
it's
defined
there.
But
what
is
the?
What
is
the
standard
process
or
order
order
of
approvals?
If
someone
is
asking
for
a
zoning
variation
or
planning
variation
in
a
district
with
historic
character,
and
where
is
that
defined,
I
would.
F
Be
in
the
this
code
section
in
front
of
us
that
the
Preservation
Commission
shall
make
its
recommendation
to
the
zoning
decision-making
bodies
so
either
to
the
Zoning
Administrator
or
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
so
by
their
recommendation
needing
to
be
made
at
they
they're
first
in
the
process
and
making
that
recommendation.
So.
A
G
F
The
Preservation
Commission
went
through
about
a
year
and
a
half
process
of
reviewing
the
ordinance
itself
and
then
their
rules.
The
ordinance
changes
were
made,
our
new,
authoritative,
City,
Council
and
those
were
adopted
on
May
14th
and
then
just
last
night,
the
Preservation
Commission
adopted
their
their
rules
with
some
modifications
to
their
rules
so
that
the
ones
that
are
presented
as
draft
in
your
packet
as
of
last
night,
are
now
the
rules
in
effect,
I
I.
G
Just
have
one
comment,
and-
and
this
is
having
worked
on
a
landmark
for
the
last
four
years-
it
you
know
I
think
there's
a
big
difference
between
you
know:
structures
in
a
Ennis
and
an
historic
district,
and
there
are
all
kinds
of
reasons
why
a
district
is
historic
as
opposed
to.
If
you
have
a
specific
building
that
is
designated
as
an
Evanston
landmark
I
think
there
should
be
a
different
criteria
for
each
one
of
those,
because
I
do
think
it's
important
for
to
have
an
extra
level
of
scrutiny
and
review
if
we're
gonna.
G
If
we're
gonna
make
the
effort
to
name
a
landmark
I
think
it
is
important
to
review
those
specific
details
on
how
something
is
renovated
or
modified,
or
you
know,
quote-unquote
improved
because
it
you
know,
I
see
this
as
it
might
be
minor
big
deal,
you
replace
the
window.
It
is
an
erosion
of
what
were
there
prettier
than
the
intent
well.
F
A
A
Saying
that
that
staff
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
recognize
that
you
know
so,
there'll
be
some
Authority,
and
you
know
faith
in
the
judgement
of
staff
to
to
to
I
mean
they
they
can
always
take
that
their
authority
and
bump
it
up.
I
think
was
part
of
the
point
is
saying
that
if
you're
proposing
this
I
think
it
has
to
go
before
the
right.
Is
that
the
case?
A
F
In
their
rules
it
is
listed
in
my
air.
Work
is
generally
reviewed
by
the
community
development
staff
and
staff
will
refer
minor
work
projects,
the
Commission
for
review,
if
and
staff
judgment,
the
change
involves
alteration
additions.
Removals
are
substantial
to
not
meet
the
standards
or
precedent-setting
nature.
Yeah.
C
G
I've
had
different
experiences
and
seeing
how
different
pressures
get
applied.
The
different
governing
bodies
and
it's
there,
the
Landmarks
Commission-
is
there
to
protect
the
landmark
and
the
specific
features
that
made
it
a
landmark
and
if
that
is
wrote
it
away
to
any
degree,
I
think
it's
a
step
in
the
wrong
direction,
just
my
opinion.
Okay,
if.
I
I
could
just
comment
I'd
like
to
say
I
generally
agree
with
you.
However.
I
worked
on
a
project
last
year
where
the
house
was
a
landmark.
You
wouldn't
have
known
it
because
it
was
covered
in
vinyl
siding,
so
it
became
as
a
surprise
when
we
submitted
for
permit,
and
it
turns
out
that
the
house
was
short
long
story
short
was
remarkable
for
being
unremarkable.
It
was
a
typical
workers,
cottage
of
the
day
in
the
simplified,
Queen
Anne
style
of
des,
and
that
to
me
is
not
again
in
the
same
vein.
I
G
We
can
debate
about
landmark
status,
I
mean
there's
the
first
thing
about
landmark
status.
Is
they
don't
put
a
value
judgment
on
your
personal
experiences
on
what
you
think
is
appropriate
or
not?
If
there's,
if
a
structure
is
designated
as
a
landmark
for
a
valid
reason
and
it's
voted
on
by
a
Democratic
body,
then
it's
a
landmark
and
nobody,
no,
no
administrator,
gets
to
waive
with
prejudice.
Saying,
hey,
I,
don't
think
that's
really
worth
it
and
that's
the
whole
intent
of
having
that
protection.
So
we
don't
lose
things
that
you
know
are
valuable:
okay,
I'm.
A
Gonna
try
to
get
back
on
track
because
I
think
this
is
not
part
of
our
part
of
our
task
before
us.
So
so
our
task
before
us
is
to
is
to
is
to
address
the
three
issues
brought
up
before
us,
which
I
believe
was
cleaning
up.
The
language
was
was
instead
of
referencing
the
1975
historic
ordinance,
referring
to
title
to
the
current
Historic
Preservation
ordinance.
A
F
A
E
A
That
would
be,
that
would
be
excluding
the
language
that
is
proposed
or
revising
the
language
of
the
revisions
to
615
11
5,
so
which
makes
it
a
little
a
little
difficult.
So
so
I
mean
I,
you
know
I.
We
have
the
ability
to
refer
this
to
the
to
the
committee,
the
zoning
committee
for
discussion
to
have
a
little
more
open
discussion
about
how
the
order
goes
and
good
old,
a
whole
recommendation,
as
opposed
to
I
think
Commissioner
Goddard
was
saying
we
can
knock
off
1
&
2
fairly
clearly.
F
G
A
H
G
H
H
People
who
are
who
are
doing
the
application
so
I
come
I,
come
before
preservation
and
I.
Ask
for
a
variance,
because
variance
is
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
asked
to
address
before
preservation,
because
I'm
being
kicked
to
preservation
through
the
ordinance
as
it's
currently
written
okay.
So
one
of
the
things
they
vote
on
is
a
variance
approval,
but
that
variance
approval
is
separate
from
the
Zoning
Board
approval.
They
aren't.
They
aren't
looking
at
what
are
the
standards
for
granting
additional
impervious
surface.
H
A
F
A
for
a
zoning
matter
that
the
items
that
are
in
our
tax
amendment
a
special
use
or
a
defense
variation,
a
minor
variation,
all
those
items
either
the
Zoning
Administrator
or
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
a
determined
body
or
in
some
cases,
for
certain
variations,
parking
and
height
and
townhouse
orientation
or
City
Council.
So
they're
not
determining
they're,
making
a
recommendation
on
those
variants.
F
A
So
so,
if
the
only
issue
is
really
clarification
of
applicants,
expectations,
I,
don't
know
if
it's.
If
it's
a
issue
worth
worth
modifying
the
authority
of
the
of
the
body,
but.
H
A
G
F
E
H
Entirely
possible,
as
well
so,
but
usually
when
historic
preservation
is
dealing
with
issues
they're
not
dealing
with
the
same
type
of
land-use
issues,
they're
dealing
with
appropriateness
of
whatever
is
being
real
to
add
it
on,
and
so
that
is
a
more
fungible
item
that
is
than
is.
The
zoning
ordinance.
The
zoning
ordinances
is
unique.
In
that
I
mean
preservation
was
able
to
adapt
their
rules.
I
If
I
can
give
a
more
tangible
example,
I
happen
to
be
sitting
at
a
preservation
meeting
and
a
gentleman
was
making
an
application
and
nobody
on
preservation.
They
kind
of
didn't
like
where,
where
his
design
was
going,
and
they
didn't
know
what
zoning
would
approve,
and
so
you
know
off
the
record.
I
said
this
is
what
we
typically
will
allow.
I
We
will
allow
you
to
put
a
second
floor
over
an
existing
first
floor
and
that
changed
everything,
because
now
preservation
could
get
the
look
they
were
going
for
rather
than
trying
to
solve
some
other
issue
the
other
way.
So
if
he
had
come
to
zoning
first
right,
we
would
have
given
him
the
parameters
that
sure
you
can
put
a
second
floor
on
top
of
this,
rather
than
having
to
offset
two
feet
and
then
trying
to
solve
that
from
a
preservation
perspective.
I
C
I
A
A
J
A
There
is,
there
is
some
expertise
in
places
what
I
was
trying
to
get
to
it's,
not
just
you
know
like
I'm,
an
architect
too,
who
happens
to
have
a
brother-in-law.
Who
does
this?
It
does
exactly
historic
preservation,
I
would
say
I'm
totally
unqualified,
I
mean
I,
can
point
out
a
Queen,
Anne
style
house.
I
can
but
I'm
totally
unqualified.
You
know
so
anyway,.