►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 11-11-2020
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
All
right
and
I'm
presuming
there
are
no
minutes
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
A
Right
so
the
agenda
item
for
the
zoning
committee
is
really
consideration
of
the
micro
dwelling
unit.
D
Like
to
make
that
motion,
I
will
move
that
the
electronic
rules
be
suspended
for
this
meeting.
D
D
A
All
right,
scott
or
megan,
would
you
like
to
provide
just
a
brief
overview
of
kind
of
where
we
are
to
kind
of
frame
the
discussion
for
our
audience.
B
B
He
submitted
this
text
amendment
application
with
the
intent
to
establish
some
guidelines
for
being
able
to
construct
this
type
of
dwelling
unit
throughout
the
city
I
mean
he
does
have
a
particular
lot
that
he
does
own
that
he
was
looking
to
put
a
tiny
home
on
as
well
now
during
the
august
meeting,
you
did
begin
discussion
and
I
listed
some
of
the
main
discussion
points
here.
B
One
was
creating
an
alternative
name
for
the
structures,
so
not
tiny
homes
or
actually
micro
dwelling
units.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
kind
of
get
the
point
across
that
these
are
not
meant
to
be
mobile
structures
or
recreational
vehicles
or
anything
of
that
nature.
They
are
meant
to
be
affixed
to
a
permanent
foundation.
B
B
So
these
are
the
originally
proposed
changes
that
were
presented
at
that
meeting
provide
the
definition,
a
proposed
definition
with
that
would
have
the
micro
dwelling
unit
having
a
ground
floor
area
of
500
square
feet
or
less,
and
that
would
be
now.
There
would
only
be
one
dwelling
unit
surrounded
by
open
space
on
a
particular
zoning
lot.
B
B
B
So
this
was
a
pretty
short
list
of
some
vacant
properties
that
were
more
so
railroader
city-owned
properties.
Another
was
an
idea
of
seeing
if
there
were
additional
vacant
lots
throughout
the
city
that
were
privately
owned,
and
that
is
something
that
we
could
look
into
as
we
further
the
discussion
this
evening.
A
Okay,
so
would
it
be
appropriate
first
to
have
now
public?
Any
public
comment
with
respect
to
this
issue
is
that
the.
B
Next,
if
andrew
he's
on
this
call-
yes
he's
on
the
call,
I
don't
know
if
andrew
you
wanted
to
speak
to
this
in
further
detail.
E
Sure
you
know
I'll
just
say
that
I
was
on
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
previously,
and
that
time
we
saw
a
lot
of
applicants
come
and
they
just
wanted
to
make
minor
changes
to
their
homes,
just
that
it
would
allow
them
to
stay
in
their
house
in
evanston
and
just
let
the
house
continue
to
meet
the
needs
of
growing
families
and
it
wasn't
always
easy
or
even
possible
to
get
somewhat
something
as
simple
as
that
approved,
and
I
just
saw
a
real
need
for
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
E
Around
the
same
time,
I
kind
of
became
interested
in
starter
homes
as
a
way
to
meet
those
kind
of
needs.
Obviously
we're
talking
about
homes
on
a
permanent
foundation.
I
know
that
was
a
concern
last
time
that
we
were
talking
about
mobile
homes
and
obviously
that's
not
what
were
intended
just
something
that
could
be
an
affordable
structure,
pretty
maintenance-free
and
energy
efficient,
just
through
the
shear
nature
of
its
size
and
then
in
addition
to
the
the
new
construction
aspect
of
it.
Something
is
it's
something
that's
really
personal
to
me.
E
I
live
in
a
multi-generational
household.
I
do
have
a
older
brother
with
special
needs,
he's
high
functioning
and
very
independent,
but
also
needs
his
own
space,
so
kind
of
looking
into
this
more.
I
realized
that
a
tiny
home
would
be
the
ideal
solution
for
my
family.
E
But
what
I
like
about
this
is
that
there's
these
lots
were
scattered
across
the
city,
so
for
him
it
would
give
him
the
opportunity
to
have
a
small
home
with
the
yard
he
wouldn't
be
confined
to
an
apartment
type
setting.
He
could
be
closer
to
amenities
like
schools,
public
transportation.
He
doesn't
drive
shopping
districts.
You
know
you
wouldn't
be
segregated
into
a
certain
area
of
the
city
where
those
things
don't
exist
and
then
you
know
something
small.
E
The
second
bedroom
would
be
ideal,
for
them
words
for
a
guest,
a
potential
caregiver
in
the
future
or
even
a
roommate,
to
help
them
be
more
financially
independent.
As
megan
said,
I
purchased.
A
small
lot
of
noise
street
came
to
find
out
real
quickly
that
just
the
the
uniqueness
and
the
narrowness
of
the
lot
presented
a
lot
of
challenge.
E
E
So,
rather
than
pursuing
a
minor
variant
for
myself,
we
decided
to
actually
ask
for
this
tax
amendment
again.
It
would
only
apply
to
structures
with
the
ground
floor
area
of
less
than
500
square
feet.
I
know
in
the
last
meeting
there's
a
lot
of
concern
that
people
might
split
off
part
of
their
latch
or
further
subdivide
existing
lots
to
allow
for
something
like
this,
and
obviously
the
zoning
code
doesn't
allow
you
to
subdivide
and
create
substandard
lots
so
that
that
isn't
an
issue.
But
I
want
to
clarify
that.
E
I
know
that
was
something
of
concern.
Last
time
and
like
megan
said
we're
really
just
proposing
smaller
side
setbacks
of
three
feet
for
interior
side
setbacks
versus
five
on
a
street
side.
Lots
such
as
a
corner
lot,
10
foot
versus
15
staff
thought
maybe
even
a
five
foot
side
setback
might
be
appropriate
in
some
situations.
E
Initially
we
asked
for
no
parking
requirement
if,
within
1500
feet
of
a
transportation,
stop
coach
houses
have
actually
been
granted
no
parking
requirements.
So
that's
something
we
thought
might
be
reasonable
to
update
in
the
request
and
then
again,
a
700
minimum
square
foot
in
any
district
which
would
allow
for
a
500
square
foot,
hot
or
just
under
500
square
foot
house
with
a
parking
pad
or
a
shed
or
whatever
you
might
need
to
add
anything
more
than
that,
as
megan
said,
would
require
a
special
use.
So
someone
wanted
to
come
and
build.
E
You
know
multiple
houses
of
this
site
of
the
size.
They
would
need
a
special
use.
It
wouldn't
be
something
that
would
be
granted
and
again.
This
is
only
like,
I
said,
only
applicable.
The
lots
of
record
someone
can't
just
further
subdivide
their
lot
to
create
something
like
this.
This
is
just
some
lots
that
are
scattered
throughout
the
city
that
they
exist,
but
they're
they're,
not
everywhere,
and
they
people
wouldn't
be
able
to
just
further
subdivide
lots.
E
That's
the
basics
of
my
proposal,
I'm
open
to
any
questions,
and
I
know
there's
other
people
here
to
give
public
comments
that
could
probably
speak
better
to
some
of
the
equity
and
public
benefits
that
something
like
this
might
provide
to
the
city.
So
I
just
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
A
A
Otherwise,
I
think
thank
you,
anybody
else.
No,
I
think
then
we
can
move
to.
A
F
As
well,
that's
right
hi
there
and
I
think
sue
is
also
sue.
Lobach
with
joining
forces
is
also
on
the
call,
so
I
imagine
she
might
be
here
to
give
public
comment
yeah
good
evening
to
members
of
the
zoning
committee
city
staff
residents
in
attendance.
My
name
is
robin
center
robbie
marcus,
I'm
a
fourth
ward
resident,
also
an
employee
owner
with
the
evanston
development
cooperative,
and
I
am
here
today
to
encourage
you
to
support
this
micro
dwelling
unit
ordinance
to
really
think
about
the
really
the
the
housing
costs
in
the
evanston
community.
F
These
days.
As
of
the
city's
2020
consolidated
plan,
40.1
percent
of
all
households,
that's
renter
or
owner,
are
cost
burdened
or
severely
cost
burdened.
So
that
means
that
at
least
30
of
their
income
is
going
towards
housing,
and
this
burden
also
falls
disproportionately
on
people
of
color.
F
The
other
thing
I
specifically
want
to
talk
about
tonight
is
really
the
connection
between
low
density
zoning
regulations
and
how
they've
served
as
a
policy
mechanism
to
historically
segregate
neighborhoods
by
by
class
and
by
race,
as
the
researchers
douglas
massey
and
jonathan
roswell,
find
in
a
2014
study.
Analyzing
49
cities
across
the
united
states,
and
I
quote:
anti-density
zoning
increases
black
residential
segregation
in
u.s
metropolitan
areas
by
reducing
the
quantity
of
affordable
housing
in
white
jurisdictions.
F
It
would
really
allow
us
to
activate
sort
of
under
utilized
irregular
lots
that
don't
meet
those
minimum
lot
size
requirements
which
likely
are
currently
sitting
vacant
right
now,
given
the
size
of
these
principal
structures,
I
think
there's
an
argument
to
be
made
that
they
could
perhaps
be
more
naturally
occurring,
affordable
housing
in
relation
to
nearby
housing
structures
and
then
also
given
the
number
of
city
owned
lots
that
could
benefit
from
this
ordinance.
I'm
also
optimistic
about
the
opportunity
there
for
affordable
housing,
specifically
on
parking.
F
I
do
want
to
add
to
mr
gallimore's
note
that
you
know,
with
the
eight
new
ordinance,
the
playing
commission
and
city
council
set
the
precedent
to
waive
an
additional
off-street
parking
requirement,
so
perhaps
that
could
also
be
a
consideration
with
the
ordinance
before
us
today.
So
thank
you
for
listening
and
appreciate
your
time.
A
All
right
and
then
I
think,
sue,
and
I
also
would
like
to
make
a
note
that
we
need
to
end
this
meeting
at
about
6
50,
because
we
have
to
plan
commission.
The
full
plan
commission
happening
right
after
that.
So
yes.
G
G
Some
of
the
people
who
need
affordable
housing
are
homeless,
but
most
of
them
are
not
instead
they're
burdened
by
the
costs
of
their
housing,
the
less
money,
a
household
makes
the
greater
their
housing
cost
burden
and
because
income
is
disproportionately
lower
among
people
of
color,
as
described
in
the
city's
consolidated
plan.
We
know
that
people
of
color
disproportionately
suffer
from
the
deepest
level
of
housing
cost
burden
which
is
devastating
to
a
household's
ability
to
achieve
well-being
and
its.
G
G
This
is
something
we
can
do
as
a
big
project
through
a
new
comprehensive
plan
or
a
zoning
review,
but
we
can
also
do
it
right
now
and
we
can
do
it
ordinance
by
ordinance.
The
goals
would
include
allowing
use
of
land
in
flexible
and
creative
ways
to
create
affordable
housing,
removing
restrictions
that
support
segregation
and
high-end
housing,
while
creating
barriers
to
affordability
and
streamlining
processes
and
approvals
to
reduce
costs
and
eliminate
barriers.
G
G
We
are
asking
that
the
city
without
fail
choose
affordability
too
many
people's
futures
are
at
risk
due
to
housing,
cost
burden,
and
the
urgency
is
growing
due
to
the
pandemic,
which
we
expect
to
increase
housing
cost
burden
significantly
over
the
coming
year.
So
we
hope
that
the
city
will
successfully
move
this
text
amendment
through
the
review
and
approval
process
quickly.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
anyone
else.
A
Not
then,
I
would
suggest
we
close
public
comment
and
move
on
to
our
committee
discussion.
A
C
I
don't
believe,
there's
anything
specifically
within
the
zoning
ordinance.
You
would
still
need
to
make
meet
property
maintenance
codes
and
building
codes
for
precise
yeah.
D
Thoughts,
a
couple
of
questions
I
know
we
had
talked
about
it,
the
issue
of
making
sure
that
lots
couldn't
be
subdivided
to
allow
for
construction
of
tiny
homes
so
that
what
we're
really
talking
about
is,
as
I
understand
it,
an
un
currently
unused
lot
or
a
single
lot,
as
defined
being
used
to
construct
a
tiny
home.
Is
that
correct?
C
Yes,
any
actually
any
new
lot
to
be
created
would
need
to
go
through.
The
subdivision
process
would
generally
need
to
meet
the
the
lot
size
requirements
a
lot
with
requirements
or
receive
a
variation
in
order
to
be
so
divided
below
those
minimum
requirements.
D
And,
and
is
the
intent
you
know
with
this
with
tiny
homes?
I
understand
the
concern
for
affordable
housing,
but
with
the
size
limitations
that
this
imposes
you're
not
really
talking
about
housing.
Families
on
this
correct
is
the
intent
simply
to
provide
a
more
flexible
form
of
housing
for
folks
of
different
types,
but
not
necessarily
addressed
to
families.
E
I
think
it
could
lend
itself
to
you
know
single
person,
households,
someone
with
you,
know
a
single
parent
with
a
child,
a
couple.
It
would
be
a
smaller
household,
someone
with
you
know,
maybe
a
two
parents
and
a
child.
It
wouldn't
be
a
large
family
per
se.
E
C
D
I
will
say
I
think,
even
with
the
fact
that
we
want
these
to
be
foundation
homes
as
opposed
to
a
tiny
house
on
wheels
or
anything
mobile
like
that.
I
don't
know
that
they
will
be
all
that
cheap
to
build.
I
think
it's
great
if
they
can
be
affordable,
but
tiny
homes
can
run
the
gamut
from
twenty
thousand
to
two
hundred
thousand
these
days.
So
I
just
think
that's
something
city
needs
to
keep
in
mind.
E
A
Okay,
chris
any
other
comments
at
this
point.
D
You
know
I'm
just
inclined
to
keep
the
parking
space
required
for
a
micro
dwelling
unit.
If
they
are
located
within
the
1500
feet
from
transportation,
then
I
think
that
should
be
waived,
but
again
just
inclined
to
pay
attention
to
the
neighborhood
and
not
put
any
more
parking
burdens
with
these.
A
I
could
go
either
way
on
the
parking,
but
I
have
a
number
of
other.
You
know
kind
of
concerns
or
suggestions,
because
you
know
at
the
last
meeting
in
the
plan
commission
discussion,
we
really
were
kind
of
going
blind
on
how
many
lots
there
are
that
might
meet
these
these
requirements,
and
there
are,
you
know
the
way:
the
county
assessor
assesses
property,
they
assign
a
tax
classification
to
each
kind
of
property,
and
so
it's
a
relatively
easy
research
effort,
particularly
if
they,
if
the
city
has
access
to
the
geographic
information.
A
You
know
database
from
the
county
to
identify
all
of
the
vacant,
lots
in
evanston
that
are
privately
owned.
It
doesn't
really
help
for
anything,
that's
publicly
owned
and
to
do
an
overlay
of
where
they
you
know
which
residential
zoning
districts
they
apply
to.
So
I
think
that
that's
something
that
before
we
we
move
a
lot
further
on.
We
ought
to
get
that
evaluation
done.
Similarly,
there's
another
code
that
identifies
a
property
that
are
essentially
side
lots.
A
You
know
they're
they're,
parcel
vacant
parcels
in
common
ownership
with
an
adjacent
parcel,
and
I
I
just
looked
you
know,
did
a
quick
run
and
there
are
like
300
of
those
within
the
city,
not
all
of
which
and
and
those
strictly
apply
to
residential
property,
and
I
don't
know
the
extent
to
which
those
are
needed
to
create
a
you
know
a
viable
building
zoning
lot
at
this
point
or
whether
or
not
they
would
have
the
ability
to
be
subdivided
to
accommodate
a
tiny
home
and
then
finally,
I
think
we
we
really
kind
of
need.
A
You
know
we.
I
had
mentioned
this
at
the
last
meeting.
There
are
essentially
some
transition
rules
that
talk
about
general
lot
and
ball
controls
with
respect
to
parcels
that
it
had
at
any
time
been
in
common
ownership
since
december
2nd
of
1960,
and
I
think
that
as
we're
working
our
way
through
this,
we
need
to
look
at
those
transition
rules
to
see
how
they
might
need
to
be
adjusted
to
accommodate.
A
A
A
The
lot
in
question
is
really
kind
of
you
know
is
very
small
and
that,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
lots
that
are
vacant
land
in
the
area
that
are
in
the
you
know,
3
000
square
foot
range,
and
so
I
guess
the
question
becomes
what
size
you
know
a
dwelling
unit.
Would
you
accommodate
on
on
that?
I
presume
in
part
it
would
be
driven
by
the
current
setback
requirements.
E
A
On
your
lot
for
first
for
sure,
but
on
a
37
hundred
square
foot
lot,
you
probably
could
build
something,
although
you
know
maybe
not
as
much
as
a
you
know,
you
couldn't
build
a
really
large
house
and
and
still
fall
within
the
setback
requirements,
but
but
I
think
the
other
thing
we
need
to
look
at
is
right.
A
Now,
there's
a
35
foot,
lot
width
requirement
and-
and
there
are
going
to
be
some
lots-
you
know
yours
in
pert
in
in
for
one
and-
and
I
noticed
you
know
when
I
was
looking
around
for
similar
properties.
There
are
a
couple
of
others
in
the
neighborhood
that
also
have
lot
lists.
That
would
not,
you
know,
be
conforming
with
the
zoning
requirements
and
I
think
that
that
would
need
to
be.
A
You
know
addressed
as
well.
Just
by
I.
A
I'm
not
I.
I
really.
I
think
that
I
agree
with
the
speakers
that
say
that
we
should
work
to
accommodate
these,
where
they're
appropriate
on
on
the
available
land,
because
I
do
think
it
it
lends
itself
to
affordable
housing.
But
I
also
think
we
probably
in
moving
forward
and
and
presenting
a
record,
you
know
recommendation.
A
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
little
bit
more
research
done
so
that
we
so
that
the
full
plan
commission
understands
what's
kind
of
what
the
universe
is
out
there
and-
and
you
know
how
so
we
can
think
through
the
implications
from
melange's
policy
perspective.
E
A
E
It
is
my
understanding
that
you,
even
though
35
is
the
minimum
lot
with
requirement.
If
you
have
a
lot
of
direct
you
can't
you
can't
subdivide
below
that,
but
we're
so
we're
talking
slowly
about
existing
lots
of
record.
Nothing.
That's
newly
created
things
that
have
been
existence.
You
know
50
100
years.
B
And
to
your
point
about
where
the
available
lots
are,
that
is
something
that
we
can
take
a
look
at,
but
it
just
would
need
to
be
with
an
understanding
that
that
wouldn't
be
information,
because
I
mean
you
may
have
a
vacant
lot.
That
is
maybe
not
common
ownership.
In
that
it's
the
exact
same
name,
it
may
be
under
some
other
type
of
land
entitlement
there.
There
are
a
lot
of
situations
where
we
have
to
go
lot
by
lot
and
take
a
look
at
what
the
particular
limitations
or
circumstances
are
for
that
particular
lot.
B
A
Property,
I
I
think
that
that
piece
of
information
would
be
kind
of
would
be
helpful
for
the
discussion
you
know
at
the
you
know
the
with
the
full
commission
chris.
What
are
your
thoughts.
D
No,
I
think
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
I
mean
you
know.
One
of
the
issues
is
some
communities.
Obviously,
as
staff
have
pointed
out,
have
built
almost
pocket
neighborhoods
four
tiny
homes-
I
know
vancouver-
has
laneway
houses
which
they
allow
to
be
built
and
basically
in
alleys
throughout
the
city.
But
I
don't
think
that
that
many
communities
that
have
just
said
well,
we'll
start
letting
tiny
homes
be
built
on
different
lots
and
what
that
really
means
in
terms
of
how
the
lots
are
used
and
how
many
lots
and
what
they're
adjacent
to.
A
Well,
I
think
that
my
question
for
staff
would
be
of
how
you
know
difficult
or
I
I
think
that,
having
information
and
having
it
come
back
to
the
the
full
commission
for
consideration
would
be
appropriate.
I'm
not
sure
that
I
don't
have
chris.
A
You
have
significant
issues
with
the
draft
language
that
other
than
additional
more
research,
and
so
we
understand
the
the
discussion
or
the
the
options
a
little
better
and
then
I
would
also
suggest
that
we
look
at
the
you
know
that
that
you
know
the
bulk
standards,
because
I
think
that
we
may
need
to
modify
those
to
facilitate
tiny
houses
in
addition
to
having
regulations
as
to
where
they'd
be
allowed.
E
I
think
you're
going
to
find
that
a
lot
of
these
smaller
lots
that
are
in
private
hands
are
going
to
be
common
ownership,
lots
adjacent
to
residences
and
are
just
used
as
larger
yards
for
the
homeowners.
I
think
that
the
the
nice
thing,
though,
about
not
about
having
them
in
different
neighborhoods,
not
just
one
neighborhood.
D
No-
and
I
can
understand
that
and
you're
right,
I
mean
it's,
it's
it's
preferable
to
have
things
spread
throughout
the
city
and
to
be
able
to
accommodate
people.
That
way,
it's
just
helpful
to
know
what
types
of
lots
we're
talking
about
and
and
what
type
of
impact
this
has,
especially
with
as
jane
as
gene
has
pointed
out,
just
the
regulations,
the
bulk
regulations.
E
Sorry,
I'm
sorry,
I
have
a
dog
barking,
so
I
keep
muting.
Is
there
a
specific
bulk
regulation
or
certain
ones
that
you
know.
A
A
These
are
the
controls
I'm
looking
at
are
carryovers
from
when
the
zoning
ordinance
was
adopted
in
1993,
which
frankly
seemed
to
be
outdated
and
hard
to
administer,
especially
if
the
goal
here
is
to
create
options
for
you
know,
making
it
easier
for
people
to
identify
and
build
on
those
lots,
because
right
now,
there's
there's
a
provision
that
if
the
lot
in
question
you
know
that
you're
looking
at
has
ever
been
in
common
ownership
with
an
adjacent
parcel
going
back
to
1960,
then
you
can't
have
you
know,
then
the
subject.
E
I'm
gonna
ask
melissa
for
clarification
here,
but
I
believe
previously
on
the
zoning
board
we
talked
about.
If
there
were
two
vacant
unimproved
lots
that
in
common
ownership
that
they
could
not
be
built
on,
but
if
they
are
two
common
ownership,
lots
and
one
had
been
improved,
the
unimproved
lot
could
still
be
improved.
Is
that
still
correct
mostly
or
has
that
been
changed
since
I
was
on
the
zoning
board.
H
E
A
Yeah,
I'm
just
trying
to
kind
of
clean
it
up
to
make.
You
know
if
we're
going
to
go
this
route
and,
as
I
said,
I'm
supportive
of
using
available
vacant
land
for
you
know,
and
I
and
I'm
happy
with
it
being
all
over
the
city
as
well,
but
yeah.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
rules
really
reflect
policy
and
that
we
understand
the
policy
that's
being
created,
which
means,
I
think
you
ought
to
know
where
the
lots
are
and
what
kinds
of
situations
might
rise.
A
A
E
A
H
E
A
Yeah
and-
and
you
know,
with
the
excel
accessory
dwelling
unit
options
now
I
mean
that
again
kind
of
complicates
the
discussion
a
little
bit
because
right,
you
can
do
that
anyway
right,
but
on
the
the
lots
of
of
you
know,
the
smaller
you've
got
kind
of
a
couple
of
categories.
You've
got
the
substandard
lot
that
are
scattered
all
over
evanston
and
then
you've
got
some
that
that
are
larger.
A
Okay,
chris
anything
else
to
add,
and
I
guess
we
need
to
figure
out
what
to
which
direction.
We
want
to
go.
A
B
B
There's
one
point
just
brief:
I'm
trying
to
remember
some
of
the
the
final
points
in
the
previous
discussion.
I
think
there
was
at
least
one
comment
regarding
design.
B
B
I
mean
that
would
be
including
having
entries
in
a
certain
location
and
things
of
that
nature.
Another
comment
I
do
recall
was
regarding
some
of
the
setbacks.
I
think
there
was
at
least
one
commissioner
that
had
a
concern
about
the
setback
being
three
feet
being
fairly
close
to
other
properties,
and
if
that
is
something
that
you
are
generally
okay
with,
we
can
keep
that
and
just
have
a
bigger
discussion
at
plan
commission.
So
I
just
want
to
try
to
address
some
of
the
other
questions
and
concerns
before
bringing
it
back.
D
E
People
would
want
to
do
a
like,
for
instance,
my
mom
had
a
1950s
built
ranch
if
they
wanted
to
do
a
second
story
addition,
they
had
to
come
before
the
zoning
board
to
get
a
variance
because
they're
building
over
the
existing
foundation,
but
they're
within
three
feet
of
the
current
setback
and
my
lot
in
particular
they're
all
bungalows.
Every
house
is
two
and
a
half
to
three
feet
apart.
So
it's
not
it's
not
unusual
that
three
feet.
I
think
that's
the
norm.
More
than
the
standard.
D
E
A
A
B
Yeah,
we
would
need
a
motion
to
bring
it
back
to
the
full
commission
and
maybe
with
some
possible
condition
of
adding
additional
language
or
additional
researcher
or
something
along
those
lines.
Okay,.
A
Well,
I've
got
notes,
I'm
sure
it's
probably
not
the
best
for
the
the
chairman
to
make
the
motion,
but
since
there
are
only
two
of
us,
I
would
like
to
move
the
this
that
the
staff
conduct
additional
research
on
the
location
of
the
vacant
tax
parcels
that
are
coded
as
vacant
land,
the
location
of
parcels
that
are
owned
by
an
adjacent
owner
within
each
residential
district,
an
analysis
or
an
evaluation
of
the
lots
that
do
not.
A
A
You
know
to
the
adjacent
property
you
know
certainly
not
designed,
but
just
kind
of
getting
a
general
discussion
of
of
so
a
couple
of
examples
of
what
that
might
look
like,
and
particularly
on
lots
that
are,
that
might
be
big
enough
to
do
multiple
micro
dwelling
units
on
the
lot
and
and
then
finally,
I
would
like
to
have
staff
look
at
the
general
lot
and
ball
control
standards
and
see
if
adjustments
need
to
be
made
into
the
language
of
that
section
of
the
zoning
code.
A
In
order
to
facilitate
the
development
of
micro
dwelling
units.
A
D
A
B
Right
because
at
the
next
planned
commission
meeting
is
the
ninth
I'm
not
sure
that
this
would
be
done
by
then.