►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 11-13-2019
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).
B
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
just
to
reiterate
what
I've
said
before.
If
you
wish
to
speak
tonight,
you
should
have
signed
in
on
the
sign-in
sheet.
I
think
the
petitioner
is
fine.
Anyone
who
is
going
to
speak
tonight
I
will
ask
them
at
this
time
to
raise
their
right
hand
and
promise
to
tell
the
truth.
You
promised
to
tell
the
truth
all
right,
very
good.
Thank
you
all
right,
just
a
little
bit
about
the
purpose
of
this
meeting.
A
We,
the
plan
Commission,
is,
is
a
public
hearing
to
gather
facts
and
information
regarding
a
petition
and
to
provide
information
with
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
or
approval
with
the
refinements
or
denial
to
the
City
Council,
where
the
final
action
will
occur.
We
are
a
recommending
body
and
therefore
nothing
we
do
tonight
is
a
final
action.
So
the
first
order
of
business
is
approval
of
the
minutes
of
October
30th
2019
do
I
have
any
comments,
Corrections
revisions,
I'm
sorry,
it
is
actually
the
these
are
the
minutes
of
the
zoning
committee
correct.
B
A
C
D
A
B
Good
evening,
commissioners
and
members
of
the
public
megan
jones
neighborhood
a
land
use
planner.
This
particular
text
amendment
we
saw
a
few
months
ago,
so
I'm
going
to
backtrack
a
bit
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
or
refresher
of
sorts.
B
Our
existing
regulations
within
section
six,
seven,
four
of
our
ordinance
that
allows
the
establishment
of
government's
whole
or
proprietary
uses
owned
and
operated
by
city
by
the
city,
regardless
of
whatever
zoning
district.
It
happens
to
be
located
in
the
municipal
use
exemption
within
the
ordinance
allow
some
flexibility
of
locations
with
for
those
municipal
facilities
as
it
exists
right
now.
The
municipal
use
exemption
is
essentially
just
a
paragraph.
It
states
that
any
municipal
use
is
considered
a
permitted
use
in
any
district.
B
The
City
Council
can
approve
these
uses
are
buildings
within
any
of
these
zoning
districts
and
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
meet
all
the
requirements
of
the
underlying
zoning
district.
Now,
if
that
is
the
case,
what
happens?
Is
we
have
the
design
and
project
review
committee
or
dapper,
review
the
proposed
project
and
proposed
ways
to
mitigate
any
potential
impacts
to
surrounding
properties
or
the
community
that
is
nearby?
B
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
was
first
retrieved
by
the
Commission
back
in
August.
So
several
months
ago,
that
discussion
began
and
basically
some
of
the
discussions
poll
discussion
points
centered
on
a
clarification
of
the
language
between
a
municipal
use
and
new
construction
of
a
building.
Also
having
these
municipal
uses
follow
the
same
approval
procedures
as
non
municipal
uses
and
then
a
general
request
for
some
additional
information
on
what
other
municipalities
do.
B
Ultimately,
the
Commission
voted
to
send
this
item
to
the
zoning
committee
in
that
meeting,
which
was
held
on
October
16th,
continue
that
discussion
and
for
the
most
part
Ken
is
centered
around
requiring
additional
review
for
larger
developments.
That
would
be
similar
to
non
municipal
projects,
as
well
as
providing
additional
notice
to
the
public.
B
So,
given
the
discussion
that
occurred
at
the
Planning
Commission
and
zoning
committee
meetings,
the
staff
went
back
and
revised
the
proposed
amendment
and
since
the
packet
that
was
posted
on
Friday,
we
actually
did
a
little
bit
more
discussion
back
and
forth,
and
the
chair
of
the
zoning
committee
meeting
commissioner
Issac
provided
some
additional
information.
I
mean
his
edits
are
actually
provided
in
red
and
what's
proposed.
B
So
the
following
changes
are
what
we
are
now
considering
so
for
Section,
a
any
governmental
or
proprietary
function,
owned
or
operated
by
the
city
should
be
a
permitted
use
in
any
district,
except
where
the
proposed
use
would
otherwise
require
planned
development
approval
and
in
such
event,
the
city
shall
comply
with
subsection
D
of
this
section.
So
essentially,
that's
saying,
if
there's
a
proposed
project
that
would
meet
the
thresholds
for
a
planned
development
review,
it
would
go
through
that
planned
development
review.
B
So
in
Section
B,
where
the
construction
of
buildings
and
structures
owned
or
operated
by
the
city
do
not
comply
with
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
underlying
zoning
district.
The
City
Council
approval
of
the
project
is
required,
and
the
City
Council
may
authorize
that
construction
if
the
non-compliance
is
necessary
or
beneficial
for
the
city
to
perform
the
desired
services
and
the
city
takes
respond.
Reasonable
steps
to
minimize
adverse
impacts
on
surrounding
properties
resulting
from
that
non-compliance.
B
These
would
essentially
be
the
sections
that
provide
additional
notice,
which
was
a
sticking
point
and
a
lot
of
the
discussion
so
for
this
would
be
if
the
City
Council
approval
is
required,
whether
pursuant
to
subsections,
a
B
or
D
of
this
section
set
project
shell
and
nevertheless
be
exempt
from
the
variation
review
process.
At
fourth
and
section
six,
three
eight.
B
So
the
subsection
one
for
this
section
stays
is
prior
to
City
Council
approval
of
the
project.
The
city
will
provide
notice
of
the
design,
a
project
review
committee
meeting
through
the
use
of
a
third-party
service
by
first-class
mail,
so
all
owners
of
property
within
five
you
sent
a
500-foot
radius
over
the
property
lines
of
the
subject:
subject:
property,
inclusive
of
public
roads,
streets
and
alleys
and
other
public
ways
from
the
area
proposed
for
the
development
whose
addresses
appear
on
the
current
tax
assessment
list.
B
B
A
Right
so
the
process
we'll
go
through
is
I'll
open
it
up
for
questions
from
commissioners
than
questions
from
the
audience
and
then
then
we'll
open
it
up
to
public
comment
and
then
deliberation
from
the
commissioners.
So
first
commissioners,
do
you
have
any
questions
on
the
information
provided
comes.
D
In
in
subsection
1,
it
says
prior
to
City
Council
approval
of
project,
the
city
will
provide
notice
of
the
design
and
project
review
committee
meeting
and
then
that
same
phrase
is
in
number
2
and
I
guess.
My
question
is:
is
there
usually
a
design
and
project
review
committee
meeting
before
approval
and
before
construction.
B
Typically,
and
especially
for
our
larger
present
projects,
there
will
be
two
separate
reviews
so
to
speak
by
staff
or
the
Napper
committee,
so
it
would
be
prior
to
a
full
approval
of
the
project,
so
it
may
be
a
concept
review
or
something
along
those
lines
where
staff
is
giving
their
preliminary
opinions
and
suggestions
and
requirements,
and
then
once
a
project
actually
submits
for
building
permits
prior
to
a
building
permit
being
issued.
Then
our
project
comes
back
to
the
dabber
committee
and
we
do
define
who's
there.
So.
D
Would
it
make
sense
to
you
know,
include
in
number
two
something
to
the
extent
of
like,
where
applicable
or,
if
applicable,
because
if
you
know
if
it's
a
if
the
meeting
wouldn't
otherwise,
if
the
second
meeting
of
the
design
and
project
review
committee
wouldn't
otherwise
be
necessary,
it
would
appear
that
this
language
would
make
it
necessary.
Unless
we
said
you
know
where
that
meeting
is
applicable.
E
B
A
Other
questions
so
I
also
on
the
same
section,
I'm
kind
of
missing
that
it
says
prior
to
the
City
Council
approval
of
the
project.
The
city
will
provide
notice
of
the
design
and
project
review
committee.
So
how
how
much
before
a
City
Council
meeting
through
these
DEP
or
meetings
occur?
I
mean
it's
not
saying
it
to
me.
It
should
say
clearly
it
will
give
notice
prior
to
the
dapper
meeting,
not
prior
to
the
city
council
meeting
right
so
I
mean
you
could
give
notice
prior
to
the
meeting
post
dapper
meeting.
A
To
well
well,
it's
more
for
the
for
the
design
review
and
project
committee
meeting
prior
to
the
city.
You
know:
she'll
she'll,
give
written
notice
prior
to
the
design
and
project
to
review
committee
meeting
that
is
prior
to
the
city
council
approval,
because
it's
strictly
saying
it's
saying
you
have
to
give
a
notice
prior
to
the
City
Council
meeting,
but
not
prior
to
the
dapper
meeting.
A
I
would
I
would
say
that
yes,
I
only
I,
only
know
in
history,
these
kind
of
notice
things
have
been
abused
by
various
organizations
by
giving
notice
the
afternoon
of
the
meeting,
or
you
know
seriously
I
mean
it's
it's,
and
if
we're
writing
something
that's
supposed
to
be,
you
know,
rigorous
I
would
hope
that
we
would
give.
You
know
something
that
gives
gives
protections.
I
mean
something.
A
F
One
of
the
other
timeframes
in
the
in
the
city
code
pertains
to
newspaper
notice
for
projects
where
that's
required.
That's
between
15
and
30
days,
part
of
the
meeting
I,
don't
believe.
Other
sections
have
a
strict
time
period
for
the
mailed
notice
to
some
extent,
because
we
have
less
control
over
the
the
mail
and
then
how
quickly
it
goes
out
and
is
received.
F
G
F
With
other
projects,
there's
there's
typically
one
mailed
notice
so,
for
example,
project
this
coming
to
the
Plan
Commission.
There
would
be
mail
notice
of
that.
The
timing
of
when
it
goes
to
City
Council
on
their
committees
can
can
be
variable.
A
number
of
matters
so
I
think
the
idea
is
that
someone
has
received
notice.
This
application
saying
it's
being
reviewed.
F
A
H
Your
own
Safford
16:18,
Wesley
Avenue.
My
question
actually
relates
to
the
same
issue,
which
is
that
one
of
the
notice
issues
that
has
come
up
is
whether,
whenever
the
city
is
planning
to
do
something
is
whether
the
public
learns
that,
before
the
die
is
so
cast
that
there
really
is
no
possibility
of
having
significant
input
about
the
underlying
decision
or
there's
an
equitable
argument
later
that
well,
the
city
wanted
it.
So
we
did
it,
and
so
why
are
you
giving
us
a
problem?
So
my
question
really
is:
is
this
notice
to
the
public?
H
H
For
instance,
I
mean
that's
sort
of
the
stage
you'd
be
at
which
is
pretty
early
in
the
process,
but
allows
neighbors
to
speak,
and
then
the
question
is
when's
the
dapper
meeting
in
relation
to
that,
if
it's
just
a
concept
and
I
I
mean
this
is
a
different,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
you're
doing
all
this.
This
is
you're
thinking
of
different
procedures
than
you
would
have
if
this
were
a
regular
planned
development
or
regular
special
use.
A
F
Would
typically
approve
a
project
where
there's
there's
some
plans
for
the
project,
so
a
site
plan,
building,
elevations
landscape
plan
items
like
that,
so
I
think
it
is
a
good
question
of
which
will
again
be
variable
depending
what
the
project
is,
whether
it's
something
that's
maybe
a
has
some
staff
Genesis
as
far
as
the
project
or
whether
it's
a
project
where
the
City
Council
would
be
allocating
funding
or
going
through
an
RFP
RFQ
process
for
a
project.
F
A
But
do
all
projects
that
the
municipality
proposes
under
this
ordinance
have
to
be
reviewed
by
dapper.
Is
there
so
we're
struggling
over
the
language
of
this?
Because
we're
saying
you
have
to
give
notice
of
the
review
committee
hearing
prior
to
City
Council
meeting?
But
if
that,
if
that's
not
always
going
to
be
the
case,
then
there
needs
to
be
a
next
step
of
then
you'll.
Give
notice
prior
to
the
City
Council
meeting
no
I
think.
F
The
idea
for
this
in
subsection
B
is
it's
basically
when
there's
something
that's
being
constructed
at
that
point.
These
type
of
projects
that
are
they're
exempt
would
go
through
this
review
by
dapper,
so
there's
nothing
being
constructed.
It
wouldn't
wouldn't
go
to
dapper
if
it
was
useless,
fulfilling
filling
an
existing
building.
You
know
the
one
I
thought
of
the
most
is
like
a
police
outpost
in
a
commercial
district,
for
example.
F
F
A
F
A
D
H
If
that,
if
we're
not
yet
talking
about
construction
itself,
with
a
plan
that
could
be
reviewed
by
dapper,
then
we're
talking
about
the
City
Council
agreeing
to
a
plan
to
put
something
that
is
not
conforming,
something
we
don't
know
what
it
looks
like,
but
put
something
that
is
non-conforming
in
a
district
where
it
would
otherwise
not
be
permitted.
And
so
then
the
question
comes
up
as
to
whether
and
I
don't
really
answer
this
question.
Whether
this
section
should
therefore
require
the
city
to
give
notice
when
a.
H
Plan
has
been
proposed
by
staff,
no,
no
building.
Yet
no,
we
don't
have
his
Bricker
high
roofs
or
low
roofs,
but
what
a
play
when
a
plan
has
been
proposed
by
staff
which,
by
its
nature
will
conflict
with
the
underlining
zoning
restrictions
particularly
would,
in
its
concept,
be
a
planned
development
such
as
this
building,
for
instance,
under
those
circumstances
and
I'm
going
to
use
the
library
parking
lot,
not
because
I
don't
understand
that
the
plan
is
to
make
it
private,
but
take
that
lot
as
a
example.
H
If
a
decision
is
made
to
use
that
lot
for
some
instant,
some
city
use
and
we
don't
yet
have
a
building
concept,
but
we
know
it's
gonna
be
there
and
it's
gonna
be
on
that
big
lot.
I
mean
on
that
central
law.
Should
the
city
be
required
to
give
notice,
as
it
would
for
a
planned
development
at
that
early
request
for
proposal
stage,
so
that
you
do
not,
as
I
say,
get
into
an
equitable
argument
later
that?
H
E
A
A
A
H
Absent
for
your
earlier
meetings,
Jones
Safford,
16:18,
Wesley
Avenue,
once
again,
I
submitted
to
each
of
you
a
draft
and
of
or
a
proposed
draft
making
changes,
many
many
of
which
are
better
written
in
the
version
that
is
now
coming
from
the
city.
My
concerns
were
a
combination
of
grammar
which
have
all
been
solved
and
of
the
confusion
of
the
first
paragraph,
a
which
has
been
solved
now
by
making
reference
to
ice,
puts
that
subject
to
special
procedures
to
set
forth
in
this
section.
H
H
It
is
meets
in
the
afternoon.
It
doesn't
really
have
a
place
for
public
testimony
and
therefore
does
not
have
the
same
opportunities
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
for
receiving
public
comment
and
which
brings
me
to
the
third
point,
which
is,
if
they're
going
to
be
two
hearings,
the
first
of
which
is
before
dapper
and
I.
Think
we've
touched
on
whether
that's
what's
needed,
but
the
first
one,
which
is
before
dapper.
H
Or,
and
the
second
of
which
is
before
dapper
and
you're,
changing
over
to
following
the
procedures
for
a
planned
development,
it
seems
to
me
that
you
still
need
that
first
hearing
before
whatever
body
you
decide,
it
would
be
or-
and
the
second
hearing
would
be
before
if
it
were
plant,
if
it
were
the
equivalent
of
a
planned
development.
The
second
hearing
would
be
before
the
planned
before
the
plan
commission,
rather
than
having
it
before
dapper
on
both
occasions
and
third,
which
sort
of
incorporates
D
and
C
and
and.
J
H
Oh
and
that
I
think
the
word
notice
should
be
insulted
in
any
case
where,
where
you
just
have
the
that
the
that
it
will
provide
the
process
for
review
of
planned
developments,
I
think
it
should
read,
expressly
provide
the
process
for
notice
and
review,
because
the
notice
provisions
of
the
planned
development
are
1,000
feet,
so
I
think
that's
would
be
an
important
additional
change.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
F
This
is
in
question.
Mr.
Shah
I
think
that
the
intent
is
that
it
would
follow
all
the
procedures
of
636,
so
that
would
include
the
thousands
of
notice,
the
notice
of
the
newspaper
dapper
recommendation
to
the
planning
commission,
Planning
Commission
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
Okay,
the
intent
is
it
be
the
full
plan
development
process
so.
A
You
just
saved
me
from
asking
you
that
question
to
clarify
that
issue,
so
so
notice
is,
is
redundant
because
notice
is
part
of
that
inherent
process
of
a
PUD
of
a
planned
development
PD,
but
a
thousand
feet.
So
so
by
saying
it's
just
part
of
the
shell
follow
six
three:
what
is
it
the
planned
development
process
that
requires
public
notice
and
to
a
larger
radius?
So
so
that's
it's
inclusive.
H
A
A
D
A
A
B
A
A
J
A
I
would
I
mean
it
is
part
of
the
operations
of
the
city
any
counter
arguing?
No
okay.
So
let's
say
that
that's
satisfied
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immunity
of
the
subject
property,
so
I
would
propose
that
the
wording
that
says
that
there
are
protections
in
place
in
the
wording
that
says
the
city
takes
reasonable
steps
to
minimize
adverse
effects
on
surrounding
properties
resulting
from
such
non-compliances.
A
The
adverse
can't
be
adverse
from
that
lands.
Yes,
okay,
I
think.
That's
satisfied
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
was
what
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services,
and
that
would
be
determined
on
a
case-by-case
basis
by
staff.
So
so
we'll
say
that
that
is
satisfied.
A
J
D
D
D
A
E
D
K
A
B
K
A
F
L
Thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners
and
Scott
Meighan.
My
name
is
dick
Coe
I'm,
the
president
of
the
ovens
and
development
cooperative
resident
of
the
7th
Ward.
So
the
Evanston
development
cooperative
is
a
multi
stakeholder
cooperative.
We
are
in
worker,
employee,
owned
cooperative.
Our
vision
is
to
engage
evanston
residents,
a
meaningful
intergenerational
in
a
collaborative
societal
progress.
Our
mission
is
to
construct
high-performing,
practical,
ad
use
and
sensible
housing
using
a
locally
trained
workforce,
and
our
values
are
sensible:
housing,
job
creation,
community
wealth,
racial
equity
sustainability
and
democratic
ownership.
L
After
I
left
Northwestern
as
a
faculty
member
I
co-founded
this
with
Robbie
Marcus
EDC,
as
we
call
it
and
we've
been,
you
may
have
seen
a
read
a
book
read
about
us.
You
know
we
are
really
focused
and
we
focus
our
efforts
around
coach
houses,
accessory
dwelling
units
and
backyard
homes
and
Yad
use.
There
are
many
reasons
for
its.
L
We
wanted
to
highlight
two
national
efforts
that
one
on
the
left,
New
York
Times
talking
about
in
California,
using
that
to
answer
the
housing
shortage
and
The
Washington
Post
on
the
right
talking
about
Portland
Oregon
as
another
city
that
has
really
adopted.
Accessory
dwelling
units
and
both
of
these
address
why
Edie
use,
can
help
address
the
housing
shortage
and
also
provide
homeowners
with
more
flexible
housing
options
and
we've
been
in
existence
since
early
2019.
We
incorporated
it
in
December
of
2018
as
it
it
cooperative
here
in
Illinois.
That's
throughout
the
year
we
have
been
engaged.
L
L
So
through
that
community
engagement,
you
know
we
also
have
partnered
with
the
city
as
one
of
this
awardees
of
the
cities
of
opportunity,
selection
with
the
National
League
of
Cities,
the
Robie
and
remember
Simmons,
and
director
Ike
I'll
go
and
Sarah
flax
rat
last
week
in
Washington
DC
focused
on
accessory
dwelling
units
so
just
to
highlight
what
we've
been
a
week.
The
way
we
understand
it,
you
know
current
on
Evanston
Adu
zoning
today
is
allowable
in
all
residential
zoning
districts.
It's
all.
Currently
it's
only
allowed
behind
single-family
residences
and
homes.
L
It
needs
to
have
vehicle
access
weathers
through
the
alley
or
a
driveway
and
the
building
heights,
if
you
are
not
in
the
historic
district,
is
20
feet
for
a
slanted,
roof
and
14
and
a
half
for
a
flat
or
mansard
roof,
and
if
you're
interested
in
the
historic
district
is
28
feet
or
three-quarters
of
the
main
house
and
also
an
additional
off
street
parking
space
is
required
when
you
construct
the
additional
dwelling
unit.
As
we
engage
Evans
the
members,
we
are
hearing
why
this
can
be
challenging.
L
L
We've
also
heard
from
residences
that
it's
hard
to
construct
a
all
ground-level
accessory
dwelling
unit
when
the
additional
parking
spot
off
street
parking
space
is
required,
forces
the
owner
to
build
a
two-story,
especially
going
unit
with
stairs
and
I'd
limit
the
opportunity
to
age
in
place,
and
we've
also
heard
feedback
from
the
community
that,
by
limiting
it
to
20,
feet
and
Dormer
eating
it
out,
were
increasing
the
construction
cost
and
oftentimes
also
avoiding
the
manufacturers
warranty
on
the
roofing
material
because
of
the
of
the
pitch.
But
we
see
it.
L
We
see
people
do
that
all
the
time.
So
I
just
want
to
highlight
two
emails:
we've
gone
from
community
members,
one
is
from
a
fifth
Ward
residence
and
I'll.
Just
read.
What's
highlighted
and
bolded
is
I
own
a
to
fight
in
Evanston
and
we
have
a
portion
of
land
on
our
property
that
might
be
just
right
for
a
small
coach
house
or
a
single
person
to
reside.
L
There's
a
next
paragraph,
there's
a
shed
on
that
line
right
now,
but
we
don't
use
it
and
we
don't
need
it
and
hope.
Looking
forward
to
your
reply,
the
people
are
thinking.
What
can
they
do
more
with
their
land
to
provide
public
benefits,
and
this
to
fly
owner
currently
would
not
be
able
to
construct
an
Adu,
and
this
note
is
from
a
First,
Ward
resident
saying
you
know.
L
The
rationale
for
this
project
would
be
so
that
my
wife
and
I
can
have
a
smaller
residence
and
edelson
I
downsizing
as
seniors
and
stay
here
beyond
the
36
years.
So
far,
this
project
stopped
because
they
started
looking
at
the
zoning
and
realizing
that
they
would
have
to
build
their
dwelling.
You
know
on
the
second
floor
and
they
said
that's
just
not
really
our
aging-in-place
option.
L
I
L
What
complies
to
zoning
today
by
right?
So
these
are
where
the
current
two
flats
are.
Some
of
the
arguments
we've
heard
is
that
allowing
to
file
owners
to
build
Coach
houses
and
ad
use
would
be
more
equitable,
that
most
of
the
Coach
houses
are.
Of
course
sorry.
The
two
flats
are,
of
course,
in
our
three
zoning,
so
we
want
to
be
able
to
open
that
opportunity
and
expand,
affordable
housing
options
too,
to
all
those
residents
as
well
and
that's
the
end
of
our
presentation
are
happy
to
answer
questions
now
or
later.
L
D
F
A
F
This
good
evening,
chair,
Louis
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
remembers
the
public,
so
I'm
building
off
of
mr.
Coates
presentation,
I'll
go
through
some
of
the
solutions
or
proposed
changes
to
the
code
to
address
some
of
the
hardships
that
have
been
identified
in
developing
a
to
use.
A
little
bit
of
background,
where
this
particular
request
came
from
at
this,
the
planning
Development
Committee
meeting
on
September
23rd.
F
F
It
had
been
interpreted
that
that
building
type
being
accessory
to
the
principal
structure,
the
the
house
on
the
lot-
could
only
have
either
family
members
of
that
house
or
some
sort
of
connection
between
the
two.
If
there
was
a
nanny,
for
example,
living
in
there,
so
that
was
fairly
restrictive.
That
owners
could
not
rent
those
out
to
the
general
public,
so
that
was
something
that
we
saw
is
being
impediment
to
develop
a
minimum
new
coach
houses
or
accessory
dwelling
units.
F
That
change
was
made
last
year
now
we're
looking
at
some
additional
tweaks
to
the
ordinance,
so
the
first,
which
is
that
definition
of
coach-house
you'll,
see
the
the
proposed
new
language
underlined
and
then
the
proposed
old
language
to
be
removed
with
a
strikethrough
there.
So
it
would
read
that
a
single
detached,
secondary
or
accessory
dwelling
unit
located
on
the
same
zoning
lot
as
a
principal
residential
structure,
including
a
garage
tenants
of
coach
houses.
F
In
our
section,
six
four
six
two,
which
are
general
provisions
for
accessory
uses
and
structures,
just
adding
a
language
for
the
section
that
currently
deals
with
special
regulations
for
garages.
Two
for
that
section
to
deal
with
garages
and
coach
houses
and
we'll
get
to
that
section,
there's
table
within
six
four
six:
three
they're
currently
states
gonna,
wear
a
variety
of
accessory
uses
or
accessory
buildings
can
be
located
on
Lots,
which
yards
those
can
be
located
in
so
the
side
or
the
rear
yard
in
both
residential
non-resident
districts
or
where
accessory
dwelling
units
currently
are
allowed.
F
And
right
now
it's
stated
accessory
dwelling
units
to
single-family
detached
homes.
So
again,
the
proposed
language
is
to
remove
that
single-family
detached
homes
and
add
to
the
principal
residential
structure.
So
then
it
would
apply
for
a
two
flat
or
three
flat
that
could
have
a
coach
house
as
well,
and
then
the
red
language
in
here
is
language
been
added
since
the
the
packet
went
out,
so
we
had
some
additional
minor
refinements
again,
because
the
the
definition
is
in
the
zoning
code
is
for
a
coach
house.
We
thought
that
coach
house
language
should
be
within
this.
F
This
section
here
to
clarify
that
within
six
four
six
four,
these
are
special
regulations.
Right
now,
clickable
two
garages,
we
would
add
coach
houses
as
well,
so
the
language
you
see
on
here
is
just
adding
ad
coach
houses
at
the
end
of
those.
They
are
differentiated
right
now
into
areas
where
they're
Evanston,
landmarks
and
historic
districts.
So
currently,
within
those
districts.
All
these
regulations
are
there,
so
you
can
build
with
a
increased
height
in
those
residential,
historic
districts.
F
This
matches
some
of
the
existing
pattern
out
there.
A
lot
of
the
homes
in
these
districts
are
larger
homes,
so
there's
some
proportional
relational
additional
height,
that's
allowed
with
the
coach
houses,
so
no
taller
than
3/4
the
height
of
the
principal
structure,
measures
the
roof,
but
not
to
exceed
28
feet.
So
none
of
those
regulations
are
proposed
to
be
changed.
It's
just
adding
the
the
new
section
title
and
coach
houses.
F
Now
the
new
section
that
would
be
added
is
to
allow
for
additional
height
for
properties
that
are
that
are
not
in
Evanston,
landmark
or
located
within
historic
districts.
So,
if
you're
not
within
those,
currently
there's
no
ability
to
have
additional
height,
so
this
section
is
proposed
that
if
you
have
increased,
setbacks,
essentially
you'd
be
given
the
ability
to
increase
the
height
up
to
the
the
20
feet.
F
So
in
this
case
since
from
sorry,
20
feet
for
a
mansard,
roof
or
flat
roof,
and
then
up
to
28
feet
at
peak
for
a
sloped
roof.
And
then
the
language
is
clarified
here
is
to
setback
from
every
property
line
that
directly
abuts
another
property.
So,
for
example,
if
you
had
an
interior
property
in
a
block
and
so
you've
got
a
neighbor
on
either
side
of
you
and
let's
say
an
alley
behind
you,
you
would
not
need
any
additional
setback
from
the
alley
because
it
abuts
a
right-of-way.
However,
from
each
property
owner
on
either
side.
F
And
then,
finally,
some
amendments
are
proposed
to
the
the
parking
requirements
would
be
table
16
b
of
the
zoning
ordinance
so
right
now,
one
parking
space
is
required
for
each
dwelling
unit
within
the
coach-house.
The
proposal
is
to
create
some
some
caveats
or
some
areas
where
that
parking
would
not
be
required.
So
if
the
coach-house
it
meets
the
affordability
criteria,
which
is
below
or
translated
criteria,
no
parking
space
is
required
and
the
transit-oriented
criteria
is
met.
F
If
coach
houses
within
a
designated
Tod
area
or
within
1,000
feet
of
metro
pays
CTA
bus
or
train
station
and
then
secondly,
parking
space
would
not
be
required
if
the
affordability
credit
criteria
is
met,
that
at
the
time
of
the
construction
through
the
household
income
of
the
owner,
that
builds
coach
house
is
at
or
below
80%
of
area
median
income
or
if
it's
the
principal
structural
coach
house,
is
rented
at
or
below
80%
ami
for
a
period
of
10
years,
and
then
we
do.
You
have
some
supplemental
information,
the
Tod
maps.
F
F
E
A
K
I
very
much
support
this.
These
these
changes,
but
just
has
a
technical
question
on
table.
16
be
this
the
last
the
third
paragraph
says:
affordability
criteria
is
met
if
at
any
time,
at
the
time
of
Coach
house
struction
the
household
income
of
the
owner
of
the
bills
of
coach
houses
at
or
below
80%
of
the
ami.
K
Just
a
technical
question:
if
construction
begins
in
September
of
nineteen
terminates
in
April
of
20
and
the
income
has
changed,
they
met
ami
at
the
start
of
construction,
but
then
got
a
big
bonus
the
second
year
and
didn't.
What's
the
what's
the
period
at
which
one
looks
at
the
owners,
income
is
at
the
point
of
construction.
Beginning
of
construction
is
when
you
completed
construction
got
in
the
all
the
various
permits.
Time
of
you,
first
rent
it
as
you
can
theory
could
construct
it
and
not.
K
F
A
good
good
question,
commissioner
I
think
the
most
practical
way
to
do
it
would
be
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance.
So
that
would
be
something
to
be
reviewed
if
they're
requesting
to
construct
this
without
parking,
we
would
request
that
income
documentation
at
that
time
and
review
that
before
the
building
permit
would
be
issued
because.
K
I'll
offer
that
as
an
amendment,
perhaps
once
we
know
Shinzon
the
floor
and
and
the
second
is,
the
affordability
criteria
is
met
if
the
unit
is
rented
at
or
below
80%
of
ami
for
a
period
of
10
years,
so
you
build
the
unit
you're,
don't
have
parking
space
and
there's
no
way
to
have
parking
space
physically.
Let's
assume
you
rent
it
out
for
8
years
at
80%
and
the
ninth
and
tenth
year
or
the
ninth
year,
it's
at
85%
at
that
point,
you've
got
your
thing:
it's
built!
There's
no
parking
can
be
built.
K
F
Good
good
question
consideration
for
some
other
projects,
where
affordability
has
been
a
requirement,
for
example,
some
zoning
variation
cases.
A
covenant
is
required
to
be
recorded,
that
that
would
be
the
documentation
mechanism
to
require
it.
Now,
as
far
as
the
you
know,
what
you
do,
if
someone
is
not
and
I,
think
that
probably
in
violation
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
I
probably
revert
to
the
penalties
and
the
zoning
ordinance.
A
F
It's
a
good
question:
I,
don't
know
that
I
know
all
the
mechanics
of
it.
They
do
work
with
our
housing
grant
staff.
As
far
as
recording
the
information
and
I
know,
there
is
a
third
party,
the
city
contracts
with
that
verifies
income
for
projects,
I,
don't
know
if
there
they
would
be
required
to
use
that
necessarily
so
I
think
it
is
a
good
question.
We
can
look
into
more
of
the
compliance
side
of
that.
A
A
A
D
D
D
Well,
let
me
let
me
just
pose
that
question
would
I
be
able
to
turn
my
garage
into
a
coach
house
even
though
that
accessory
structure
isn't
you
know,
10
feet
away
from
another
principal
principal
structure
in
6-4
6-2,
it's
you
know.
Let's
say
it's
not
3
feet.
Let's
say
it's
2.5
feet
away
off
a
lot
line,
and
so
it's
violating
those
those
requirements
right
under
the
accessory
building
section,
but
it's
existing.
So
it's
it's
a
legal
non-conforming
structure.
D
My
neighbor
is
you
know,
okay
with
it,
because
it's
a
it's
currently
a
garage,
but
let's
just
say
it's
no
longer
a
garage
and
now
it's
a
coach
house
and
there's
people
living
two-and-a-half
feet
away
from
their
house.
So
it
would
seem
to
me
that
like
I
could
do
that
and
there's
nothing.
The
neighbor
could
say,
am
I
missing
something
I.
F
D
F
D
A
Okay,
so
kind
of
hinging
on
the
parking
aspect.
What
is
the
requirement
of
a
single
family
or
then
we'll
get
into
the
questions
for
duplex
properties
for
the
base
for
the
base?
So
a
property?
That's
a
single-family
residence
with
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
the
back.
If
there
are
no
exceptions
for
parking,
would
be
required
to
have
how
many
spaces
ie?
What
is
the
base
amount
of
spaces
for
the
dwelling
unit
and
then
the
accessory
unit
is
one
plus
right,
correct.
A
Current
good
have
to
have
three:
if
there
was
no
modification,
correct,
okay
and
then
and
then
can
I
ask
since
Commissioner
Isaac
brought
up
the
idea
of
duplexes.
Are
they
always
one
zoning
lot
with
two
residential
units
or
are
they
you
know
the
or
they
sometimes
to
separate
zoning
Lots?
With
a
common
wall,
I
mean
there
are
usually
two
separate
property
index
numbers.
Are
they
not
they're,
not
a
coop
by
any
nature,
so
are
they?
Are
they
actually
two
separate
Lots
and
treated
individually?
A
F
If
they're
on
this,
a
zoning
lot
can
be
different
than
then
applied
a
lot
or
a
lot
of
record,
so
there
could
be
two
pins
but
they're
developed
at
the
same
time
as
one
zoning
lot.
Even
if
they're
two
pins
would
be
considered
one
selling
lot.
So
in
that
case
there
would
be
one
coach
house
that
could
be
allowed.
A
A
A
A
Case
could
be
moved
to
a
date
certain
in
the
future.
So
is
there
anyone
requesting
a
continuance
all
right?
Thank
you.
So
now
I
will
open
it
up
before
questions
from
the
public.
We
have
one
person
signed
up
mr.
Shapiro.
This
is
for
questions.
Not
statements.
Do
you
have
any
questions?
Well,
you
can
do
both
yeah,
not
at
the
same
time.
Well,
okay,
no.
E
M
Start
Ben
Shapiro
1127
Dewey
Avenue,
which
is
ar3
zoned
to
flat,
built
in
1960,
which
I
have
purchased
two
years
ago
and
have
been
remodeling
ever
since
it
is
my
primary
source
of
revenue.
I
am
retired,
I
do
receive
Social
Security.
Thank
you
FDR
and
before
I
go
any
further.
I
do
want
to
commend
you
on
your
struggles
with
Robert's
Rules
of
Order.
As
a
member
of
the
library
board,
we
have
the
same
issues
all
the
time,
so
I
feel
for
you
guys.
M
M
So
one
thing
I
would
urge
you
to
consider
is
taking
the
historic
district
level
of
height
restrictions,
20
feet
or
three-quarters
of
the
existing
building
and
applying
those
across-the-board
in
the
ordinances
of
two
different
height
restrictions.
Four
and
a
half
14
and
a
half
feet
with
a
garage
underneath,
probably
means
that
I
would
continue
to
have
to
shrink
at
an
accelerated
rate
to
be
able
to
have
enough
room
to
move
around
inside
my
apartment
and
given
our
increasing
long,
winters
I
will
be
spending
more
and
more
time
inside
I
do
intend
to
age
in
place.
M
M
The
distance
to
I
am
currently
1536
feet.
According
to
google
maps
from
the
closest
metro
pace,
CTA
bus
stop
well
on
the
other
side
of
Dodge.
For
me
is
the
main
Dempster
Plaza.
It
would
seem
reasonable
in
the
cases
where
there
is
a
large
commercial
development
on
the
other
side
of
a
main
route,
with
a
bus.
Stop
that
expanding
the
distance
to
the
bus.
M
Stop
that
this
would
fit
in,
even
though
I'm
going
to
build
a
three
growth
three-car
garage
so
that
it
would
fit
under
that
compliance
piece
for
set
of
a
thousand
feet
say
1,500
or
2,000
feet
would
expand
more
into
the
Evanston
West
End
area.
What
there
are
a
number
of
small
flats,
but
with
large
backyards,
where
being
able
to
do
this
for
affordable
housing
would
make
a
great
deal
sense
and
improve
I.
M
Think
the
economic
opportunities
for
many
of
my
fellow
residents
in
that
part
of
town
so
I'm
well
outside
of
the
tio
tio
D
areas,
but
not
too
far
from
Dodge,
but
just
far
enough,
not
to
benefit
from
the
1,000
foot
radius.
I
didn't
get
a
close
enough
look
at
the
map
when
you
showed
it
so
I.
Think
I
missed
by
about
yeah
I,
said
something
good
I
missed
by
about
a
block
so
being
andouille.
Grandmother
Park
is
on
the
south
to
give
you
a
location
on
my
north
side
of
grandmothers
Park.
M
So
those
are
my
two
points.
If
we
could
expand
the
roof
height
to
28
feet
max
or
three
quarters,
whichever
is
less
if
that
works
for
you
and
the
distance
for
the
exclusion
for
the
one
car,
the
one
parking
space
addition
to
2,000
feet
from
a
bus.
Stop,
though,
I
do
intend
fully
to
build
a
a
three-car
Garage
underneath
because
that's
what
my
35
33
foot
wide
lot,
but
allow
me
to
do.
A
A
C
Would
suggest
that
we
also
expand
the
area
that
you
can
that
you
don't
have
to
provide
an
off
street
parking
space
for
a
thousand
feet?
Isn't
that
much
many
people,
you
know
walk
four
miles
to
school,
each
way,
barefoot
in
the
snow,
so
I,
don't
think
I,
think
you
you
shouldn't
I,
don't
think
I
think
it's
a
hardship
if
you're
trying
to
provide
affordable
housing
to
then
have
to
provide
the
parking
space.
Although
I
know
some
people
will
still
have
cars,
I
think
we
should
be
a
little
more
expansive.
A
A
Don't
not
necessarily
going
to
use
the
public
transportation,
even
if
they
do
they
may
own
a
car,
and
so
especially
if
you're
on
a
busy
street
like
Dodge,
where
many
parts
parking
is
limited,
that
you
would
then
park
on
the
neighborhood
street
and
then
the
neighborhood
streets
are
also
you
know,
having
increased
parking
capacity.
So
how
do
you
it's.
C
An
answer:
it's
a
big
and
there
I
mean
remember
this:
the
apartments
on
the
corner
of
Chicago
and
main
southeast
corner.
There
was
no
parking
in
that
neighborhood
due
to
the
number
of
older
multi-story
buildings,
and
when
those
buildings
went
in
and
the
new
buildings
went
in
on
those
two
corners,
they
were
given
the
variance
that
they
didn't
have
to
provide
as
much
parking
as
zoning
would
require
it's
a
problem
everywhere
and
I.
C
A
A
M
A
M
Yeah
I
did
a
little
research
into
recommended
sizes
for
car
stalls,
and
it's
it's
about
nine
feet
for
I,
wouldn't
be
putting
a
truck
in
there.
It
would
be,
and
the
way
my
floor
plan
that
I've
worked
out
looks
is
that
it
would
actually
be
two-and-a-half
cars
but
deep
enough
so
that
the
DeLorean
and
my
son
is
restoring
to
my
garage
could
be
at
the
front
end
of
one
stall.
You
know
and
when
necessary
my
car
could
behind
it,
and
then
there
would
be
a
third
space
then
available
for
or
my
render
you.
M
C
A
And
so
so,
I've
been
told
that
the
typical
lot
or
many
of
the
Lots
in
this
area
west
of
Asbury
in
the
are
three
and
area,
is
about
35
feet
as
a
minimum
lot.
So
so
that
in
essence,
is
two
feet
difference
than
what
you're
getting
so,
even
if
they
would
do
that
there,
a
16
foot.
You
know
it's,
it's
not
really
practical,
even
even
Dormer,
by
the
way,
where
is
the
height
of
a
sloped
roof,
measured
to
the
apex
of
the
the
apex
of
the
dormer.
A
M
A
M
A
You
know,
and
you
can't
ramp,
to
get
in
no
can't
ramp
to
get
into
it
and
in
a
snowy
climate
like
this,
it's
ridiculous.
E
D
Limitations
for
accessory
structures-
it
wouldn't
just
be
for
for
coach-house,
it
would
be
for
garages
as
well
and
I
mean
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
saying
one
way
or
the
other,
because
in
the
past,
I've
wanted
to
build
a
large,
a
larger
garage
and
haven't
haven't
to
date.
But
I
do
know
that
it's
you
know
it's
20
feet.
You
know
across
across
the
city,
except
for
in.
D
Landmark
districts,
so
if
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
if
we're
considering
modifying
that
modifying
that
section,
we
need
to
think
about
the
the
unintended
consequences
of
that
issue
right
like
if
there
is
a
house
in
the
neighborhood
that
has
mainly
a
single-family
home
I'm,
sorry
ranch
homes.
There
aren't
many
in
in
in
Evanston,
but
but
they're
there
and
then
to
have
a
you
know.
D
Then
the
neighbor
puts
in
a
28
foot
accessory
structure
in
the
back,
which
is
ultimately
bigger
than
the
principal
structure,
and
so
you
know
if
we're,
if
we're
looking
to
toy
with
the
the
height
limitations,
I
think
I
think
we
would
take
further
discussion
and
more
thought
before.
We
were
to
consider
something
like
that.
Yeah.
A
I
I
would
say
that
there
are
quite
a
few
areas
such
as
Oakton
west
of
Dodge
north
north
of
Oak.
Then
that's
almost
all
single-story
ranch
area
and
again
you
could
have
two-story
buildings
popping
up
in
the
back
of
of
there.
Don't
know
if
that's
bad
or
not,
but
it's
it's
the
case
that
you
could
have
that.
A
What
else
is
anyone
concerned
about
with
the
language
here
so
I
I
have
a
general
question.
The
way
the
ordinance
is
crafted
it
talks
about
and
I
think.
Mr.
mr.
Coe,
you
mentioned
that
that
aging-in-place
should
is
a
ground-level
activity.
Right
I
mean
I,
agree,
so
you're
you're,
optimistic
mr.
Shapiro
to
you
know,
be
able
to
climb
stairs
until
you're
95.
You
know,
god
bless
you.
You
know
that
that
that
nothing
in
this
allows
for
creating
ground-level
ground-level
accessory
dwelling
units,
because
there
is
still
that
basic
requirement
for
parking
within
the
property.
A
Unless
you
build
a
garage
and
then
the
dwelling
unit
behind
it
and
then
have
no
backyard
or
essentially
you
know
that
kind
of
an
arrangement.
So
just
wondering
is
anyone
thought
about
this
in
your
in
your
studies
of
California
or
Seattle?
Has
anyone
solved
this
kind
of
relation
of
parking
to
to
ground
level
occupancy.
I
I
All
so
much
for
taking
the
time
to
discuss
this
issue.
My
name
is
Ravi
Marcus
I'm
a
co-founder
and
the
vice
president
of
the
Evanston
development
cooperative.
To
my
knowledge,
the
state
of
California
in
2016
or
2017
passed
statewide
legislation
on
accessory
dwelling
units
and
the
primary
stipulation
relating
to
parking
was
that
the
parking
was
waived.
This
was
sorry.
This
was
the
city
of
Los
Angeles.
The
parking
was
waived
if
you
are
within
a
half
mile
of
public
transit.
I
I
have
not,
in
my
research
of
municipalities,
that
build
accessory
dwelling
units
and
have
passed
zoning
policy
relating
to
a
to
use,
such
as
Austin
Los,
Angeles,
Portland,
Seattle
Boston,
seen
any
specific
zoning
policy
relating
to
parking
for
the
purpose
of
helping
aging
residents
age
in
place.
If
the
plan
Commission
is
interested,
my
first
guess
would
be
research
on
Santa
Cruz
California.
I
A
I
guess
I
guess
my
question
was
again.
This
is
probably
not
fair
to
be
asking
you,
but
that
that
that
we
have
a
requirement
for
two
parking
spaces
just
for
the
primary
primary
dwelling
unit.
So
even
if
you
rescind
the
requirement
for
the
accessory
use,
we
still
have
to
get
two
units
on
two
parking
spaces
and
that's
taking
over
half
the
width
of
the
typical
35
foot
space,
so
so
we're
getting
very
thin.
Little.
A
I
I
mean
my
thought
would
be
based
on
the
Evanston
development
cooperatives.
Research
around
a
third
of
Evanston's
properties
would,
under
current
building
law
coverage
requirements,
be
able
to
build
a
ground-level
accessory
dwelling
unit
with
the
current
parking
requirements
for
homeowners
to
age
in
place
and
I'd
appreciate
hearing
dicks
thoughts
on
it
too.
My
assumption
would
be
that
if
you
waved
one
additional
parking
spot
and
we're
able
to
build
a
two-car
garage,
my
thought
would
be
that.
I
A
I
G
Have
a
question
back
on
going
on
these
hypotheticals,
so
if
you're
in
an
existing
building
that
was
not
built
with
a
garage,
and
you
put
one
in
later
and
now
you've
decided
you're
gonna
convert
it
to
a
coach
house.
You
know
we
didn't.
There
was
a
parking
spots
initially
that
so
does
that
make
anything
different
or
you
basically
always
need
to
have
two
sparking
spots.
Once
you
build
that
garage.
G
E
A
So
a
the
r-1
zone,
especially
east
east,
toward
the
lake,
seems
to
have
larger
Lots,
but
as
soon
as
you
get
west
into
a
lot
of
these
areas
that
were
targeted
on
your
map,
they're
they're,
smaller
narrower
Lots
and
get
into
this
same
issue.
So
so
that
was
my
concern.
I
mean
it's
obviously
not
such
such
a
problem
on
wide
lots
that
you
get
plenty.
You
can
have
plenty
of
setback,
but.
A
L
Again
took
her
from
it's
a
development
cooperative,
so
we
looked
at
single
family
lots
at
Evanston
about
10,000
of
them.
We
integrated
the
principle
structure
looking
at
the
building
law
coverage
and
match
that
to
the
zoning
district
and
we're
currently
1600
square
feet
will
give
us
the
600
square
feet
for
the
three
off
street
parking
spots
in
an
additional
thousand
square
feet
to
build
a
ground
level
units.
L
D
D
Like
450
is,
is
the
top
number
and
it's
likely
much
smaller
than
that
right,
because
there's
some
places
some
lots,
you
just
won't
be
able
to
fit
it
in.
Even
though
there's
there's
a
lot
to
be,
there's
there's
land
to
be
covered,
but
it's
not
in
the
right
place,
they're
free
to
fit
everything
in
the
way
you'd
want.
Yes,
so.
L
We
did
not
specifically
look
at
rear
yard
and
how
many
of
that
would
not
exceed
the
40%
limit,
but
just
anecdotally
we've
met
with
probably
60
homeowners
individually.
Looking
at
it
all
just
I
would
say
98
most
of
them
don't
do
not
exceed
the
rear
yard.
40%
most
do
fall
under
it's
the,
but
building
law
coverage
or
impervious
service.
If
there
is
a
driveway,
that's
required,
but
rarely
is
a
rear
yard.
A
D
Was
gonna
say
that
you
know
overall
what
the
what
the
change
is?
You
know
the
changes
that
are
set
forth
in
the
in
the
packet
I
think
are
an
improvement
to
what's.
What's
already,
there
I
think
we've
identified
problems
with
you
know
with
putting
this
into
practice.
I,
don't
know
that
I'm
prepared
to
you
know
address
those
problems
in
this
in
this
meeting
today,
but
if
we
were
inclined
to,
you
know,
recommend
approval
to
the
City
Council
of
the
of
the
changes
set
forth
in
in
this
packet.
D
D
F
Would
also
was
not
changing
it,
essentially,
where
its
historic
district
already,
where
they
are
allowed,
the
additional
height
based
on
the
height
of
the
principal
structure.
However,
it
would
allow
for
additional
height
in
areas
where
it's
not
a
landmark
or
not
a
historic
district,
and
that's
on
the
does
the
slide
here.
So
if
there's
additional
setback
provided
from
abutting
properties,
additionally,.
A
I
A
That
much
setback
that
can
be
granted.
If
you
need,
you
know
six
feet
of
setback
in
order
to
make
that
make
that
reasonable
understood
so
I
was
just
asking:
if
is
this
equation
correct
or
is
there
a
more?
Is
there
an
equation
that
can
help?
You
know
make
this
happen
a
little
more
reasonably
so
I
guess.
K
Really
the
issue
is
how
much
we
want
to
incentivize
these
coach
houses
and
if
we
run
in
front
of
eyes
the
more
then
we
deal
with
the
issue
you've
raised
mr.
chairman,
if
we're
comfortable
with
what
we
have
today
and
that's
good
enough
and
at
the
incentive,
that's
being
provided
it's
good
enough,
then
I'd
certainly
be
prepared
to
move
forward.
K
I'd
like
to
offer
an
amendment
wants
the
motions
on
the
floor
on
in
terms
of
the
timing
of
the
income
piece,
but
I
guess
that
would
be
the
question
I
think
the
Commission
used
to
look
at
is.
Is
it
we
being
aggressive
enough
here
with
this
thing,
if
we're
really
interested
in
promoting
affordable
housing
and
I
for.
A
So
so
you
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
impetus
for
this
and
the
interest
that
there
is
interest
to
have
affordable
housing.
I,
don't
know
how
much
it
is
I
mean.
Maybe
this
is
fine
and
fine
to
get
it
going.
You
know
it
helps
help
some
ways.
So
it's
kind
of
sliding
scale
from
where
you
were
measuring
so
I.
A
Think
there
is
a
general
interest
in
promoting
it,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
like
we
got
to
have
it
at
any
cost
right.
It's
not
an
emergency
measure
measure
so
so
so
can.
Procedurally,
we
have
to
have
a
motion
before
we.
So
so,
what's
being
proposed,
are
do
I
have
to
have
a
motion
before
I
really
go
and
look
at
the
standards
for
or
can
we
look
at
the
standards
based
on
the
proposed
text?
Amendment
I.
A
A
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
within
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject-
property
in
most
cases
we're
thinking
that
it
would
but
Commissioner
Isaac
brought
up
the
question
about
two-story
coach
houses
and
a
one-story
neighborhood,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
language
or
something
could
be
added
to
possibly
you
know
there
could
be
restrictions
placed
placed
for
the
overall
character
of
I'm,
not
sure
how
it
is.
There
are
setback
or
demand
ordinances.
That
say
the
setback
shall
be
the
line
of
the
adjacent
properties
except.
A
So
in
general
I
would
say
it
is,
but
there
are
exceptions
where
it's
not
so
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.
That's
not
the
property.
That's
being
again,
commissioner
isaac
talked
about
his
neighbor,
whether
they
would
have
concern
or
whether
that
would
increase
or
lessen
I
would
tend
to
think
that
it
would
have
little
impact
because,
because
the
the
it's
in
most
cases
in
most
cases
we
were
not
putting
someone
adjacent
to
an
existing
house.
It's
a
rear
lot
or
it
has
some
distance
separation.
So.
A
Would
not
create
a
nuisance
so
and
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services,
so
so
that
includes
mass
transit
that
includes
public
access
to
these
units.
So
so
are
we
going
to
get
people
parking
on
the
side
of
alleys
and
blocking
alleys?
Are
we
going
to
get
I
mean
that
might
not
be
being
served
and
I'm
not.
E
A
In
teo,
DS
plus
within
within
a
thousand
feet
of
any
pace,
bus
stop
all
right
which
greatly
expanded
the
the
area,
all
right,
so
so,
I'm
just
I'm,
just
I'm
sure,
there's
enough
electricity
and
they're
gonna
have
enough
sewers
and
everything,
but
but
alley
access,
I'm,
not
sure
about
I
mean
I'm.
Just
can
see
it
being
abused
because
I
would
be
one
of
those
people
who
often
pulls
their
car
up
and
double
parks
and
front
in
back
of
the
garage-
and
is
probably
you
know
getting
sworn
at
by
the
people
across
from
me.
A
E
A
A
K
A
A
B
A
A
A
E
A
D
J
A
D
Correct
this
is
the
this
is
the
section
where,
where
the
the
bonuses
for
height
are
bonuses
for
height,
based
on
providing
additional
setback
are
located,
my
concern
is
that
we
do
not
want
you
know.
I
do
not
believe
that
it
would
be
proper
to
have
an
accessory
structure
taller
than
the
principal
structure,
and
so
I
believe
there
should
be
a
limitation
put
on
in
that
section,
on
a
on
any
attempt
to
build
an
accessory
structure
taller
than
a
principal
structure.
A
K
I
guess
this
is
the
deal
with
the
ranch
home
issue,
correct,
so
I
guess
the
question.
Perhaps
the
co-operative
has
that
with
this
negatively
impact
in
a
macro
level,
the
ability
to
achieve
this
low-cost
housing
objective
that
this
is
purported
to
achieve
what
does
have
a
negative
impact
on
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
I
hate
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bathwater
to
protect
a
few
ranch
homers
we're
going
to
torpedo
the
whole
thing.
Yeah.
L
I
think
the
question
is,
you
know
you
know
what
data
can
we
get
to
show?
Is
this
an
equitable
choice?
And
you
know
if
you
have
a
ranch
house
why'd,
you
are
you
locked
out
of
a
coach
house,
because
you
can't
go
to
the
second
floor
even
with
the
two
parking
spots
and
you
say,
have
700
a
buildable
accessory
footprint.
You
can't
really
do
anything
with
it,
because
your
two
parking
spots
would
take
a
400
over
the
700
and
you
can't
go
to
the
second
floor.
So
I
think
that
could
be
I.
L
Don't
know
how
many
ranch-style
houses
are
there
and
but
I
do
think
it'd
be
hard
to
tell
a
homeowner
that
they
just
don't
have
this
option
so
I
think
that
would
limit
the
number
of
for
the
more
affordable
units
for
residents
who
could
have
been
here
for
30
35
years
and
not
being
able
to
keep
their
house
I.
Do
worry
about
that
and
I
also
do
see
the
challenge
of
having
a
set
of
high
limits
for
the
historic
district
and
different
outside
I.
Think
mr.
L
A
A
I
would
counter
argue
that
we're
not
just
looking
out
for
the
rights
of
the
individual
homeowner,
but
to
provide
the
provide
and
maintain
the
contextual
character
of
neighborhoods.
Is
there
as
they
are
have
have
become
over
over
time,
and
we
cite
this
quite
often
in
the
Central
Street
District
or
wherever,
for
whatever
reason
and
to
address
the
28
feet.
I'm
sure.
The
only
reason
that
was
is
is
that
that
many
of
the
structures
would
be
non-conforming
if
they
were
brought
down
to
a
more
reasonable
level.
So
we
would
bring
everything
up.
You
know.
A
A
D
Chair
Lewis
I'd
like
to
point
out
that,
with
respect
to
the
landmark
districts,
there
is
already
a
a
limitation
with
respect
to
the
principle
structure
and
the
accessory
structure
is
not
allowed
to
be
more
than
3/4
of
the
principle
structure.
My
motion
does
not
limit
it
to
3/4,
but
is
the
full
height
of
the
principle
structure.
A
G
I
agree,
I
think
that's
a
good
I
think.
That's
a
good
point
to
raise
that
scale
wise.
It
is
important
that
the
rear
accessory
building
feels
like
a
rear
accessory
building
and
unfortunately
you
would
have
this
scenario
with
ranch
houses
but
I,
agree.
I,
think
it
should
be
less
than
the
primary
structure
or.
G
H
The
thing
which
is
concerning
me
is
that
this
is
a
permitted
use
the
way
the
ordinance
is
written,
it's
it's
simply
a
permitted
use.
That
means
that
whatever
you
incorporate
into
this
is
part
of
that
permitted
use
without
any
opportunity
for
the
neighbors
to
be
heard
and
in
the
kind
of
neighborhood
that
Commissioner
Isaac
was
talking
about
and
in
some
of
the
other
neighborhoods,
which
already
feel
and
impacted
from
parking.
A
So
so
I
think
that
actually
is
a
is
a
relevant
point
and
I
think
Commissioner
Isaac's
point
about
making
it
no
larger
than
the
primary
structure
gives
little
reason
for
neighbors
to
object.
If
this
is
a
permitted
use,
I
I
think
it
would
be
detrimental
to
make
everything
a
have
to
go
through
review
special
review,
because
it's
a
long
and
cumbersome
and
expensive
process
and
nothing
will
will
happen.
A
You
know-
or
very
few
things
will
happen,
and
so
that's
why
I
agree
that
the
ordinance
should
be
crafted
in
such
a
way
as
to
make
it
you
know
as
minimally
invasive
on
neighbors
as
possible
and
I
would
say
that
keeping
it
limited
to
the
height
of
the
primary.
You
know,
structure
limits
the
amount
of
shade
impact
that
it
would
have
on
neighbors
or
other
kinds
of
things
like
that
that
weren't
already
inherent
in
that
zoning
area,
so
so
I
think
that
kind
of
helps
helps
that.