►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 7-28-2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
The
this
commission
will
make
a
recommendation
which
will
be
sent
to
the
city
council
on
the
items
before
us.
The
first
order
of
business
is
determined
of
determination
of
a
quorum.
Will
you
call
the
role
ms
jones.
C
A
Here,
okay,
do
you
have
a
quorum?
We
have
a
quorum.
So
the
next
thing
we
need
is
a
a
motion
in
a
second
to
suspend
the
rules
in
order
to
conduct
the
meeting
in
a
hybrid
manner.
C
A
Yes
of
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
are
the
minutes
approval
of
the
minutes
from
july
14
2021.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
corrections?
A
I
have
one
minor
one
on
page
three,
the
fourth
paragraph
mr
spatz
described
the
mxe
district's
uses
and
how
they
apply
to
his
other.
It
should
be
developments
rather
than
developers
and
that's
all
I
have.
A
F
A
Okay,
would
you
call
the
roll.
E
A
Okay,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is,
is
under
old
business.
It's
a
text
amendment
regarding
work
live
lib
work
units,
it's
item;
21,
p,
l,
n
d,
zero,
zero,
four,
nine
andrew
spats
applicant
submits
for
a
text
amendment
to
allow
live
work
units
as
a
permitted
use
in
the
c2
commercial
district,
section
6-4-10-2
of
the
evanston
city
code.
A
The
city
of
evanston
also
proposes
text
amendments
to
title
vi
of
the
evanston
city
code,
to
revise
the
definition
of
live
work
unit,
to
add
special
regulations
for
lib
work
units
and
to
add
live
work
units
as
a
permitted
use
within
all
residential
non-residential
and
non-university
zoning
districts,
and
at
the
last
meeting
we
heard
testimony
and
presentation
and
the
public
testimony
has
was
closed
at
the
last
meeting.
So
I
believe
at
this
point
we're
dealing
with
the
it's
under
commissioned
discussion.
H
G
I
I
had
a
question
and
I
didn't
do
this,
so
I
have
to
ask
you
this.
I
saw
the
three
things
that
you
changed
and
they
reflect
the
conversation
that
we
had,
but
is
there
any?
This
is
what
I
didn't
do.
Is
there
anything
else
that
is
inconsistent
between
mr
spats
proposal
and
this
change?
This
text
amendment.
H
So,
mr
spat's
proposal,
he
may
need
to
adjust
a
doorway
to
face
the
street,
but
the
text
amendment.
We
did
not
conduct
a
plan
review
of
that
specific
development
for
compliance
with
what's
proposed.
G
E
There
was
some
discussion
about
the
number
of
bathrooms.
I
think
with
the
idea
of
perhaps
requiring
one
just
for
the
residential
use.
Is
that
reflected
in
these?
I
couldn't
quite
find
that.
H
I
reviewed
the
the
meeting
minutes
again
to
as
I
was
preparing
the
draft
and
it
seemed
that
the
commission
did
not
really
come
to
a
conclusion
on
if
they
wanted
us
to
address
that
or
not
it
was
something
that
was
discussed,
but
it
was
revisited
a
couple
times
and
then
no
one
there.
There
was
no
decision
to
actually
remove
or
adjust
the
definition
or
the
requirements
it
was
referred
to.
That
was
in
the
staff
report,
but
the
language
wasn't
asked
to
be
changed.
G
I
can
I
can
comment
on
that,
if
it's
appropriate,
I
I've
been
in
a
situation
with
another
municipality
nearby,
where
they,
it
was
an
issue
with
retail
and
and
how
to
accommodate
retail
in
their
city,
which
was
going
down,
and
one
of
the
issues
was
bathrooms
and
because
they're
very
expensive
to
put
in,
and
so
I
would.
G
A
H
So,
in
most
circumstances,
it
likely
would
from
the
design
standards,
but
in
effect
his
use
is
going
to
be
permitted
by
right.
Now
he
just
may
have
issues
with
the
conformance
of
the
minimum
area
and
where
the
door
is
located.
H
However,
the
zoning
code
does
have
pretty
clear,
non-conforming
regulations,
so
he
would
not
be
required
to
go
and
change
his
developments
like
back
in
time
there
the
use
is
permitted,
but
if
you
know
he
were
to
redevelop
and
sell
in
like
30.
However,
whatever
his
future
plans
are
with
redevelopment,
they
would
need
to
comply
with
the
new
regulations,
but
we're
not
going
to
go
back
and
make
him
adjust
his
floor
plans
for
anything,
that's
existing.
H
A
Well,
I
you
know,
I
think,
commissioner
huco
you
know
last
time
was
you
know.
Talking
about
you
know
bathrooms
as
well,
and
I
think
there
was
was
some
discussion
about
the
use
of
you
know
how
these
are
used,
where
you
have
residential
and
you
have.
You
know
that
that's
primarily
residential
and
then
you
have
this
kind
of
essentially
flex
space,
that's
used
for
business
purposes
during
business
hours
and
it
may
end
up
being
used
for
living
purposes
at
other
times.
A
So
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
of,
and
I
and
I've
kind
of
been
going
back
and
forth,
but
I
think
in
the
definition
of
live
work
where
we
get
to
the
the
last
sentence
in
the
definition,
a
live
work
unit
shall
not
consist
solely
of
the
allowed
non-residential
activity
and
a
sleeping
unit
without
a
kitchen,
and
I
believe
commissioner
huco
was
suggesting
also
without
a
full
bathroom
as
well
and
and
I'm
not
sure
and
I
and
I
think
it
should
read
without
a
kitchen
and
a
full
bathroom
for
primary
use
by
the
occupant,
which
kind
of
gets
around
the
issue
of
during
business
hours.
A
An
employee
might
use
the
kitchen
or
the
restroom,
so
I
would
suggest
that
change
and
then
going
down
to
item
e
on
the
dwelling
unit
size
with
in
a
work
lib
or
lib
work
unit.
I
I
guess
first
of
all
I'll
go
back
with
a
question.
Is
there
a
particular
reason
that
bathrooms
are
excluded
in
that
calculation.
H
So
to
speak,
to
the
bathroom
debate
and
whether
or
not
that
should
or
should
not
be
something
cited
in
the
definition
of
live
work
unit
and
then
also
what
commissioner
haleck
had
mentioned.
H
If
it
is
a
smaller
tenant
space,
it's
much
more
like
they
would
be
required
to
have
the
bathroom
in
accordance
with
the
building
code
requirements
and
some
businesses
they
may
or
may
not
be
they
may
or
may
not
have
the
bathroom
as
public
use
it.
They
might
just
say
you
know,
customers
only
or
they're
not
going
to
have
just
a
random
person
come
in,
but
the
reason
we
had
excluded
it
was
for.
H
We
kind
of
were
figuring
that
the
building
code
would
dictate
the
number
of
bathrooms
if
they're
permitted,
if
they're,
only
required
to
have
one
for
that's
gender
neutral
or,
if
they're
required,
to
have
multiple
bathrooms,
one
for
male
and
female
bathrooms,
whatever
the
requirements
are
in
the
building
code
would
regulate
that.
H
A
A
Well,
it's
kind
of
where
I
was
going.
I
suggest,
having
number
one
maximum.
A
To
read
no
more
than
49
percent
of
the
floor
area
of
each
work
live
work
unit
and
I
would
take
out
the
excluding
bathrooms
may
be
used
or
arranged
for
designated
residential
purposes,
which
kind
of
gets
into
the
the
whole
discussion.
We
had
last
time
about
the
flex
space
that
may
or
may
not
be
used
differently.
A
So
those
were
those
were
my
own.
Oh
yes
and
I
have
one
other
suggestion
looking
at
the
the
the
overlay,
the
districts
where
these
are
allowed,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
need
to
include
the
hospital
overlay
district.
I
I
think
that
in
all
the
other
districts
I
can
see
there
being
live
work
units,
but
I
don't
think
either
of
our
hospitals
are
likely
to
so
that
would
be
something
I
would
suggest
we
delete
as
well.
So,
commissioner,
hugo.
I
You
know
I
don't
want
to
be
known
as
the
bathroom
guy
on
this
issue,
but
my
confusion
really
came
from
the
analysis
that
staff
did
in
in
the
sentence.
In
the
second
paragraph
of
the
background
analysis.
First
paragraph,
which
says
we
seem
to
imply
that
if
you
do
not
have
a
private
bathroom,
you're
not
considered
a
work
life,
a
live
work
unit,
the
area
does
not
have
a
heating
element
in
kitchen
sink
or
does
not
have
a
private
bathroom
not
used
by
the
customer
during
business
hours.
I
It
would
be
considered
a
live,
not
be
considered
a
live
work
unit.
So
therefore,
if
you
had
a
bathroom
that
customers
could
use
during
business
hours,
and
that
was
also
going
to
serve
as
the
bathroom
for
the
live
work
unit,
it
would
not
be
considered
a
live
work
unit
so
that
what
was
what
originally
drove
my
comment
about
the
need
for
two
bathrooms.
I
C
F
C
For
me
to
have
to
to
pay
or
try
to
find
a
spot
with
a
second
bathroom
doesn't
necessarily
make
as
much
sense
as
somebody
who
is,
let's
just
say,
a
cpa
who's
having
people
in
from
february
through
april,
literally
back
to
back
to
back
all
the
time.
So
I
think
part
of
that
bathroom
argument
will
be
decided
by
the
people
who
are
actually
looking
to
use
these
spaces
as
opposed
to
us
trying
to
regulate
how
it's
used.
J
E
C
H
I
think
the
confusion
commissioner
huco.
I
apologize
for
this.
I'm
re-reading
that
sentence
you
called
out.
The
intent
when
that
was
being
drafted
was
that
you
effectively,
you
have
to
have
both
a
kitchen
and
a
bathroom
that
can
be
accessed
by
the
by
the
resident,
but
then,
I
think
not
used
by
the
customer
during
business
hours.
That
may
have
been.
H
That
may
have
convoluted
the
intent
of
the
sentence,
so
that
was
a
erroneous
on
my
part.
So
I
think
the
building
code
does
require
the
bathroom,
but
the
number
of
them
is
dictated
by
the
building
code.
So
are
we
as
our
primary
concern,
whether
or
not
there's
a
bathroom
for
just
the
person
living
there,
or
do
we
want
that
person
to
be
able
to
use
that
bathroom
during
off
business
hours
as
well?
H
I
think
again,
the
size
of
the
the
unit
is
going
to
dictate
that
from
the
commercial
building
code
regardless,
but
are
you
wanting
the
the
residential
space
to
have
its
own
or
to
overlap.
A
I'm
fine
with
them
overlapping,
which
I
think
is
kind
of
the
the
discussion
we
had
so
so.
The
question
is:
how
do
we
define
do
the
definition
and
then
you
know
the
maximum,
the
no
more
than
49
which
I'm
good
with,
but
you
know
that
that
makes
sense.
But
my
question
is
whether
or
not
we
need
to
exclude
bathrooms
at
that
point,
because
I
mean
that's
really
kind
of
the
work.
The
work
unit
has
to
have
a
bathroom
and
it
has
to
have
a
kitchen.
A
So
I
don't
know
why
we're
excluding
bathrooms
and
not
kitchens,
so
I
would
just
take
you
know.
I
think
I
would
try
to
simplify
and
just
say
no
more
than
49
of
the
floor
area
of
each
live.
Work
unit
may
be
used
or
arranged.
You
know,
and
again
you
know
I
I
I
don't
you
know
I
kind
of
went
back
and
forth.
Do
we
want
to
say
exclusively
or
primarily
or
designated
for
residential
per.
You
know
something
that
that
makes
it
clear
that
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
is
is
allowed.
C
C
If
I
use
my
dining
room
as
my
bedroom
or
if
I
use
my
kitchen
as
I
guess-
that's
not
a
lot
of
extra
purposes
in
my
kitchen,
but
if
I
use
my
dining
room
for
a
showroom
for
something
I'm
doing
work
wise,
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
go
in
and
police
that,
but
but
at
least
when
it's
set
up
and
the
plans
come
in
it's
identified.
A
H
And
I
think
the
the
excluding
the
bathrooms
was
so
that
for
those
spaces
where
the
there
is
the
one
bathroom
that
they're
allowing
customers
to
use-
incidentally
and
then
they're
also
using
for
their
own
private
use,
it
was
to
not
penalize
them
for
sharing
it.
So
that
was
kind
of
the
reasoning
for
excluding
it
from
that
that
little
formula.
C
The
only
other
thing
that
I
I
still
would
like
us
to
see
the
i1
and
i2
districts
not
a
build
by
right,
either
to
remove
it
or
do
something
with
it.
With
a
special
use.
I
mean,
when
you
have
light
manufacturing
occurring
literally
right
next
door
to
some
place
where
someone
is
living.
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
encourage
that,
so
I
would
still
like
to
see
all
of
our
industrial
districts
removed
from
the
ordinance.
C
I
I
would
be
happy
with
that,
because
at
least
then
there's
there's
some
regulation
over.
What's
going
in
next
to
certain
places
and
sort
of
limiting
that.
K
A
All
right,
I
would
suggest
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
one
big
motion
or
we
should
tackle
the
the
proposed
changes
to
the
text
and
then
deal
with
the
district
separately.
It's
two
separate
motions.
What's
your?
Is
that
all
right,
someone
like
to
make
a
motion,
or
should
I.
C
I'll
I'll
take
an
attempt
at
it
here.
I
think
I've
got
all
the
notes.
So
in
the
matter
let
me
get
back
to
my
number.
D
A
Okay,
and
did
we
want
to
add
in
the
definition
6
18,
3
sleeping
you
without
a
kitchen
and
a
full
bathroom,
or
do
we
want
to
be
silent
on
the
bathrooms?
I.
C
Than
muddy
it
and
put
it
in
twice
so
that
would
be
my
motion
to
move
this
forward
is.
C
C
I
C
L
J
B
A
A
A
Actually,
let
me
I,
I
probably
ought
to
read
the
official
stuff.
The
purpose
of
the
plan
commission
and
the
public
hearing
is
to
gather
facts
and
information
regarding
a
petition
provide
that
information
with
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
approval
with
refinements
or
denial
to
the
city
council,
where
final
action
will
occur.
A
I'd
like
to
summarize
the
prefer
seizures
will
follow
for
tonight's
public
hearing
city
staff
will
present
a
brief
summary
regarding
the
petition
followed
by
the
petitioner
of
applicable
applicable,
after
which
the
plan
commission
may
ask
questions
of
the
staff
and
or
petitioner
next
members
of
the
public
can
ask
questions
of
the
petitioner
and
give
sworn
testimony
when
speaking.
They
should
give
their
name
and
address
and
whether
or
not
they've
been
sworn
in
to
testify.
But
since
we're
doing
this
virtually,
I
think
we'll
just
take
the
comments.
A
However,
any
member
of
the
plan
commission
and
city
staff
may
question
any
member
of
the
public
who
is
spoken
regarding
their
their
testimony.
After
that,
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
closing
by
the
petitioner
and
staff,
and
then
the
planning
commission
will
deliberate.
So
with
that
overview,
we'll
turn
it
over
to
staff.
B
B
Some
of
the
specifics
this
again
would
cause
the
permitting
and
construction
of
non-owner-occupied
internal
and
attached
accessory
dwelling
units
for
six
months
during
that
time.
There'd
be
further
study
of
standards
and
evaluation
of
accessory
dwelling
units
after
this
time,
possibly
lead
to
revising
regulations
relating
to
occupancy
of
these
dwelling
units
and
definitions
for
other
types
of
housing.
B
The
definition
that
was
created
with
that
ordinance
was
a
smaller
secondary,
independent
housekeeping
establishment
located
on
the
same
zoning
lot
as
a
residential
building.
Adus
are
independently
habitable
and
provide
the
basic
requirements
of
shelter,
heating,
cooking
and
sanitation,
and
may
be
internal
attached
or
detached.
B
It
describes
the
parking
requirements
which
would
be
not
required
for
the
adu
itself,
but
parking
that
is
in
place
for
the
principal
structure
would
have
to
be
maintained
or
replaced.
There
were
some
design
standards
mainly
related
to
placement
of
the
entry
and
external
stair
placement.
If
that
was
applicable,
it
also
specified
that
adus
must
be
incumbent
ownership,
but
the
principal
residential
structure
and
occupancy
is
limited
to
one
family
and
it
limited
adus
to
one
per
zoning
lot
to
date.
B
After
going
back
through
some
of
our
permits,
we
only
have
had
one
permit.
That's
issued
specifically
for
the
construction
of
a
new
internal
or
attached
accessory
dwelling
unit.
I
think
there
was
another
one
that
may
have
gone
through
the
whole
process,
but
that
particular
permit
was
not
yet
issued.
B
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
other,
I
think
council
member
rebel?
Are
you
on
the
call
start
with
you?
I
know
you've
signed
up.
Yes,
I
am.
L
Let
me
get
organized
here:
hi
everybody!
So
yes,
I'm
eleanor
robel
and
I'm
the
council
member
for
for
the
seventh
ward
and
just
two
or
three
points.
The
the
memo
goes
into
great
detail.
Talking
about.
L
One
reason
for
considering
this
moratorium
is
because
of
concerns
about
student
behavior
in
the
neighborhoods
near
the
university,
but
I
just
want
to
add
to
make
it
clear
that,
for
my
in
my
mind,
there's
an
additional
concern,
which
is
the
impact
that
outside
investors
have
on
the
supply
of
housing,
for
families
of
of
more
modest
means
and
the
the
main
example
of
that
is:
what's
happened
in
the
maple
avenue
fireman's
park
neighborhood
over
the
last
boy.
L
L
But
since
then
many
of
those
properties
have
been
bought
by
outside
investors
and
really
turned
into
student
housing
and
taking
taking
those
properties,
basically
out
of
out
of
the
system,
for
you
know,
modest
income
families
so
and
now
we're
seeing
that
happening
increasingly
over
on
sherman
avenue
and
now
on
orington
avenue
in
the
first
ward.
L
So
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
as
as
another
concern,
not
it's
not
just
a
student
behavior
issue.
Secondly,
at
our
planning
and
development
committee
meeting,
just
on
monday,
we
we
talked
about
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
create
a
special
subcommittee
to
try
to
look
at
a
lot
of
rental
property
issues
in
a
more
comprehensive
way.
So
it
would
include
things
like
the
owner
occupancy
issue
for
rental
properties
or
for
for
adus
in
particular,.
L
Absentee
landlord
issues,
over-occupancy
rental
licensing,
nuisance,
prep
and
you
know
the
nuisance
premises,
ordinance,
which
I
think
everybody
agrees
could
use
with
use
some
revision,
but
so
anyways.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
moratorium
would
be
really
important
to
have
in
place
for
the
six
roughly
six
months
that
the
subcommittee
is
going
to
be
working
to
really
look
at
all
of
these
rental
property
issues
in
a
more
comprehensive
packed
way.
L
And
thirdly,
let's
see
well,
I
guess
the
the
issue
really
has
come
to
the
fore
because
we've
become
aware
of
one
internal
adu.
L
That's
under,
I
think
under
construction
right
now
in
the
first
ward,
and
it
seems
to
us
that
it's
it's
a
way
to
be
able
to
have
six
six
students
legally
in
the
house
where
currently
only
three
would
be
permitted.
So
we
see
this
as
a
as
really
an
important
issue
for
us
to
be
able
to
look
at
before
it
gets
away
from
us.
So
that's
my
those
my
comments.
A
Thank
you
and
I
believe,
council
member
kelly
also
would
like
to
speak
to
this
issue.
Thank
you.
M
I
also
want
to
state
representative
robin
gable,
also
asked
that
I
state
that
she
is
also
in
support
of
this
understanding.
How
important
it
is
that
we
really
approach
this
in
a
thoughtful
and
measured
way.
So
robin
gable
also
supports
this,
and
I
know
moratorium
sounds
like
a
harsh
word,
so
I
don't
want
us
to
get
thrown
by
that.
It's
just
so
that
we
can
take
pause
so
that
we
do
this
appropriately
and
we're
really
only
talking
about
a
very
tiny
fraction
of
the
adus.
M
Occupied,
that's
the
intention
of
them,
so
the
fact
that
only
one
or
two
have
actually
begun
construction.
Obviously
I
was
concerned
tonight
when
I
heard
that
there's
been
numerous
calls
of
interest,
we're
trying
to
be
very
proactive
with
this
and
not
waiting
until
you
know
this
starts
to
tumble
in
a
way
that
then
we
have
no
recourse.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
we
are
thoughtful
and
measured
in
our
approach
and
again
it's
like
taking
a
scalpel
to
this
one.
M
Just
very
fine
part
of
the
adus,
which
is
the
non-owner
occupied
internal
and
attached,
which
again
most
of
the
audus,
have
nothing
to
do
with
these,
the
ones
that
are
currently
being
constructed
and
have
been
built,
and
you
know
I
think
it's
worth
mentioning
that
towns,
like
many
university
towns
like
minneapolis,
bloomington,
madison,
iowa,
city,
penn,
state
boston,
miami
dallas.
I
could.
M
A
little
pause
on
that
one,
tiny
sliver
of
you
know
the
adus.
It's
like
a
stop
sign.
You
know,
we've
we're
seeing
already
some
fallout,
so
we
want
to
act
right
away.
I'm
not
wait
until
everything's
gone
completely
in
a
way
that
would
really
undermine
the
intention
of
adu.
So
that's
what
we're
asking
for
this
and
as
council
member
rival
pointed
out
with
this
subcommittee,
we
would
come
together
with
a
list
of
recommendations
to
address.
Also
affordability.
M
G
A
question
I'm
in
favor
of
the
moratorium.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
do
this
study.
My
question
is
of
down
the
line.
Is
it
legal
if,
if
it's
decided
that
certain,
if
it's
recommended
that
certain
areas
of
the
city
would
have
a
limitation
on
on
rental
and
other
areas,
wouldn't
is?
Is
that
even
legal
as
an
option?
I'm
just
curious.
M
So
I
don't
think
we're
necessary,
I
mean
obviously
the
committee
we
would
be
convening
also
with
attorneys,
so
we
wouldn't
move
forward
on
anything
that
would
be.
But
I
understand
your
question
is
just
to
know
so
I
mean
the
question
would
be
whether
we'd
have
an
potentially
an
owner
occupancy
requirement
and
you're
asking
whether
we
could
do
that
in
just
one
section
of
our
city
is.
M
E
Had
a
larger
proposal
last
year,
and
then
it's
been
downgraded
this
year
or
not
downgraded
but
limited
slightly,
so
that
they're
going
to
have
a
kind
of
a
test
program
through
2024
and
they
have
a
limit
on
no
more
than
two
properties
in
the
same
block
and
only
all
owner
occupied
properties
are
eligible
for
the
program
to
avoid
a
surge
of
investor
driven
activity.
Did
you
have
a
chance
to
talk
with
anyone
from
chicago
and
that
and
to
understand
their
reasoning
on
it?.
M
Spacing
we
do,
I
think
personally,
I
think
we
do
have
to
have
more.
We
have
to
include
spacing
with
regard
to
some
of
this,
the
same
with
like
rooming
houses
and
student
housing,
so
that
we
don't
have
whole
blocks,
become
essentially
student
housing,
but
also
whole
blocks
and
other
neighborhoods
as
well
becoming
you
know,
community
houses
or
whatever
they
might
become
so
no,
I
haven't,
but
I
do
appreciate
that
chicago
has
been
quite
measured
in
their
approach
to
ad.
M
M
A
O
On
that
I
did
not
sarah
flax
housing
grants
manager.
I
have
not
talked
directly
with
the
chicago
the
housing
people
who
were
proposing
that
it
wasn't
their
recommendation.
It
was
a
compromise
because
they
weren't
going
to
get
anything
approved.
O
I
do
know
there
are
communities
including
boulder
colorado,
which
had
the
limits
to
how
many
could
be
on
what
block
and
things
like
that,
and
they
got
rid
of
it
because
one
of
the
things
that
happened
is
it.
You
know
you,
nobody
could
control
anything,
one
person
had
an
adu
and
then
nobody
else
could
get
it
and
it
really.
O
It
stopped
everything
and
even
though
people
can
say
that
an
owner
occupancy
requirement
of
internal
adus
won't
slow
the
development
of
adus
by
people
who
are
owner
occupants
that
isn't
true
according
to
the
literature,
including
that
from
aarp,
because
one
of
the
things
that
happens
is
how
is
owner
occupancy
established.
And
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
about
that.
O
And
the
other
thing
is
say:
I
have
the
best
intentions,
I'm
an
owner
occupant
and
I
have
my
adu
and
I
rent
it
out,
and
then
I
get
a
job
change
or
something
happens
in
my
life
and
I
want
to
move
or
I
have
to
move.
But
I
don't
want
to
sell
my
home
well,
then
you're
in
a
real
mess,
because
you
can't
continue
to
rent
it
according
to
our
regulations.
O
G
I
think
all
the
things
that
you're
mentioning
are
are
going
to
be
studied.
I
I
I
hate
the
word
moratorium
frankly
too,
but
I
think
further
study
is
really
what
we're
talking
about
and
those
things
are
really
important
and
I
I
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
feel
at
the
end
of
this
study,
based
on
all
the
facts
that
come
out
and
all
the
research
that
comes
out,
but
I
think
it's
all
on
the
table.
O
L
Well,
I
would
just
say
that
I
think
this
subcommittee
of
the
plan
of
planning
and
development
is
going
to
be
looking
at
all
the
tools
we
have
available
and
then
seeing
which
ones
really
which
ones
are
going
to
be
the
most
effective.
And
you
know
it's
quite
possible
that
the
committee
would
agree
that
owner
occupancy
is
not
the
kind
of
requirement
that
we
should
have
and
we'll
rely
on
some
of
these
other
tools
that
we
have.
L
A
All
right,
I
just
like
to
clarify
that
what
is
under
consideration
is
a
moratorium
that
only
affects
the
new
internal
and
attached
non-owner-occupied
accessory
dwellings,
which
means
that
other
applications
for
accessory
dwelling
units
by
owner
occupants
can
proceed
as
normal.
Under
the
current
set
of
regulations.
Is
that
correct.
M
A
A
And
we
have
a
city
attorney
presence,
so
you'd
like
to
comment
on
that,
and
I
guess
I'll
I'll
ask
the
other
question.
I
also
wanted
to
confirm
that
a
an
investor
or
rental
property
owner
who
wants
to
build
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
would
also
currently
be
permitted.
That's
not
addressed
in
the
moratorium.
Those.
A
J
J
What
I
am
concerned
about
is
people
who
have
come
to
this
town
and
maybe
not
just
come
but
have
lived
perhaps
in
another
in
another
one
of
the
districts
and
have
moved
into
an
r1
district,
believing
that
on
either
side
of
them
there
was
a
single
family
dwelling
and
now
may
find
that
instead
of
a
single
family
dwelling,
there's
a
building
that
has
units
for
six
seven,
eight
more
students
than
that
it
really
changes
a
lot.
The
way
you
live,
your
life.
J
J
J
A
Thank
you,
and
I
also
it
was
a
little
remiss
to
remind
people
that
to
try
to
keep
your
comments
to
two
minutes.
That's
kind
of
the
council
rules.
I
think
you
did
mary,
so
thank
you,
ms
jones,
do
you
have
hands
raised
that
would
like
to
speak.
F
Thank
you.
Yes,
I'm
rob
biesenbach
orrington
avenue.
I
support
this
proposal.
I
believe,
is
a
measured
response
and
one
piece
of
an
overall
puzzle
of
measures
designed
to
take
a
more
thoughtful,
comprehensive
approach
to
the
issues
that
ward
one
and
the
city
itself
is
facing,
especially
from
absentee
landlords
and
off-campus
student
housing,
and
while
it
appears
to
be
true
that
there
haven't
been
many
requests
or
implementations
of
these
types
of
adus,
that
also
on
the
flip
side,
speaks
to
the
limited
impact
that
this
temporary
pause
will
have
right
now.
F
P
Mchugh
about
that,
the
unmute
was
off
the
screen.
I'm
sorry
for
the
delay,
I'm
cecile
mchugh.
I
spent
some
hours
researching
regulations
regarding
adus
for
communities
with
large
college
student
populations
and
the
overall
trend
I
found
with,
I
believe
two
exceptions
is
to
require
that
an
owner
occupy
either
the
primary
or
accessory
dwellings.
P
Communities
that
require
an
owner
to
live
on
a
lot
within
adu
include
ann
arbor.
I
confirmed
there
was
some
report
that
they've
changed
that,
but
I
don't
see
that
anywhere
on
their
site.
As
recently
as
february
2021
updates
going
on
including
ann
arbor,
bloomington,
indiana,
madison,
wisconsin,
iowa
city,
penn,
state's
community
minneapolis,
boston,
miami
dallas
and
philadelphia,
ann
arbor,
adu,
documentation
explains.
Why
quote?
Why
is
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
included?
P
An
advantage
of
the
requirement
for
a
property
owner
is
to
have
their
primary
residence
on
the
parcel
is
to
increase
the
likelihood
that
the
property
will
be
well
managed
and
properly
properly
cared,
for
this
requirement
happens
to
say,
will
eliminate
the
possibility
of
converting
the
units
to
short-term
rentals
and
is
expected
to
reduce
the
likelihood
of
loud
activities
that
affect
surrounding
neighbors.
End
quote
chicago.
P
Has
a
pilot
program
for
adus,
currently
limiting
adus
to
five
areas
and
will
require
owner
occupancy
in
three
of
these
five
areas:
bloomington
indiana,
a
community
that
already
required
that
an
owner
live
on
a
lot
with
an
adu
passed
amendments
to
their
adu
ordinance,
limiting
adus
in
very
significant
ways,
not
limited.
Before
quote
in
the
interest
of
providing
further
protections
for
single-family
zoning
districts.
P
End
quote
quote
the
goal
of
limiting
the
number
of
adus
is
to
allow
the
city
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
impact
of
adus
on
a
neighborhood
and
to
determine
any
unintended
consequences.
End
quote
obviously
bloomington
indiana
found
from
experience
that
there
were
were
under
unintended
consequences
that
require
that
they
have
more
stringent
regulations
for
adus.
In
addition
to
requiring
that
an
owner
live
on
a
lot
with
an
adu.
P
I
strongly
encourage
evanston
to
similarly
proceed
more
cautiously
with
adu
approvals,
taking
time
to
consider
the
potential
impact
of
non-owner
occupied
lots
with
adus,
putting
an
immediate
moratorium
on
these
lots.
Perhaps
the
city
of
evanston
should
talk
to
the
city
of
bloomington
indiana
and
to
the
city
of
chicago
regarding
their
thoughts
and
findings.
P
P
Sir
flax,
I
believe
said
that
there
has
not
been
a
tsunami
of
adus
and
I
believe
that
that's
the
case,
because
a
three-person
rule
is
not
currently
enforced.
So
why
would
absentee
landlords
bother
to
create
an
adu
if
they
could
just
pack
the
students
in
the
building?
You
know
without
doing
so,
and
if
we
were,
if
the
three
you
three
person
rule
were
to
stand
and
be
enforced,
I
think
you
would
see
a
tsunami
of
adu.
P
N
Hi
there
can
everyone
hear
me?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
yes,.
N
Your
camera's
a
little
bit
fuzzy
but
good
evening
to
members
of
the
playing
commission
and
city
staff.
My
name
is
robbie
marcus,
I'm
a
fourth
ward
resident
and
a
worker
owner
with
the
evanston
development
cooperative,
I'm
speaking
tonight,
to
encourage
the
planning
commission
to
vote
against
the
moratorium
on
internal
non-owner-occupied
adus
to
advance
our
city's
goals
of
affordability
and
equity
and
housing.
N
Additionally,
if
a
mom-and-pop
landlord
or
an
affordable
housing
provider,
a
non-profit
that
owns
land,
that
is
a
501c3
tax
exempt
organization,
wanted
to
convert
a
portion
of
their
existing
primary
structure
into
an
internal
adu
for
affordable
housing.
They
would
not
be
able
to
do
so
if
this
moratorium
were
to
pass.
I
think
we
certainly
agree
that
the
problems
raised
by
folks
at
the
the
meeting
this
evening
should
be
addressed
and
and
discussed
and
considered
further.
N
As
previously
discussed
at
city
meetings,
we
think
that
more
frequent
property
standards
inspections
may
be
a
better
way
to
ensure
that
bad
landlords
are
acting
in
a
manner
more
closely
aligned
with
the
city's
interests
and,
additionally,
perhaps
northwestern
could
even
play
a
bigger
role
in
keeping
records
of
which
properties
and
landlords
their
own
students
should
stay.
Wary
of
this
could
perhaps
lead
to
bad
landlords
that
don't
care
about
their
tenants
behavior
in
the
community
or
their
tenants
health
for
that
matter,
eventually
losing
their
market
share.
N
So
we
realized
they
used,
won't
single-handedly
address
our
city's
housing
affordability
needs,
but
they
are
a
critical
tool
in
a
broader,
diverse
set
of
policy
solutions
that
can
collectively
advance
the
human
right
to
safe
and
affordable
shelter
in
our
city.
We
respectfully
encourage
the
planning
commission
to
vote
no
on
the
moratorium
this
evening.
Thank
you.
K
I
don't
think
that
those
in
favor
of
the
moratorium
realize
the
impact
that
it
has
on
the
communities
outside
of
their
immediate
neighborhoods.
There
are
families
across
the
city
in
accessory
dwellings
who
are
able
to
raise
their
standard
of
living
without
the
price
tag
due
to
having
more
room
in
these
accessory
dwelling
units.
B
Q
Hi,
this
is
jim
swanson.
I
live
in
the
fifth
ward
and
I've
been
a
lifetime
resident
of
evanston.
I
have
two
questions.
One
question
is
in
terms
of:
how
do
we
define
ownership?
Q
I've
heard
of
of
places
where
tenants
are
are
are
given
some
ownership
privileges
so
that
that
you
know
they
may
have
a
part
ownership
so
that
the
owner
may
be
occupied.
Then.
The
other
question
I
have
is
when
I
was
reading
the
statement
of
the
adu.
What
it
does
is.
It
speaks
to
at
least
the
way
I
read
it.
It
looks
for
something
that
has
a
kitchen
and
a
sleeping
unit
like
a
coach
house
in
it,
and
are
we
talking
about
just
bisecting
a
room
and
creating
bedrooms?
B
B
You
may
have
a
person
who's,
a
property
owner.
There
could
be
some
kind
of
state
or
some
other
kind
of
land
entitlement
that's
associated
with
that,
and
so
I
don't
believe
in
looking
through
our
definitions
now
that
that's
explicitly
defined.
So
that's
that's
that
first
question.
It's
not,
but.
M
O
M
J
A
And
also
in
the
staff
memo
of
the
city
of
evanston
for
other
purposes,
defines
owner
occupancies
parties
listed
on
the
deed,
so
I
believe
for
the
purposes
of
this
moratorium,
that
would
be
the
definition
that
would
be
that
would
be
used
to
determine
whether
or
not
somebody
wants
to
do
an
internal
adult
is
an
owner,
occupant
or
not.
B
D
D
I'm
going
to
give
you
some
examples
of
how
the
moratorium
will
hurt.
Homeowners,
for
example,
the
owner
would
like
to
rent
their
home
to
their
children
and
build
more
space
for
their
growing
family
or
have
room
for
a
nanny.
So
there
the
children
are
renting,
but
it's
not
owned
by
them.
It's
owned
by
their
parents.
D
If
a
professor
at
northwestern
wants
to
leave
for
a
year
to
go
on
sabbatical
and
wants
to
rent
out
some
of
the
rooms
and
build
rooms
in
the
lower
part
of
their
home
as
they
do
not
want
to
rent
out
their
own
bedrooms.
As
everyone
knows,
the
real
estate
taxes
are
high
in
evanston.
This
way
the
owner
can
rent
parts
of
the
home
and
get
some
income
to
pay
his
real
estate
taxes.
D
The
city
of
evanston,
cannot
be
in
a
position
to
dictate
how
owners
can
or
cannot
do
with
the
home
they
own.
There
can
be
unforeseen
circumstances
on
why
an
owner
has
to
leave
their
house
for
a
year
or
more,
but
wants
to
rent
his
home
for
a
year
and
wants
to
build
the
adu
to
rent
parts
of
the
house.
I
know
of
a
situation
where
a
buyer
bought
a
home
that
needed
complete
renovation
and
is
now
renting
the
home
and
put
in
adu
to
have
more
affordable
housing
available
in
evanston.
D
This
owner
is
now
paying
more
in
real
estate
taxes
because
they
had
to
take
out
a
permit
from
the
city
to
renovate
the
house,
and
now
the
assessor
has
increased
their
assessments.
We
face
enough
challenges
in
our
housing
market.
Please
do
not
add
to
it.
Please
vote
no
on
this
proposed
this
proposal
to
oppose
to
oppose
a
moratorium
on
non-owner
occupied
adus.
Thank
you.
A
R
All
right
hi,
my
name's
karen
singh,
I'm
in
the
first
ward-
and
I
just
it
seems
so
responsible
to
me
to
have
a
moratorium,
because,
even
just
in
this
discussion,
a
lot
of
questions
are
coming
up
like
what
are
the
things
we
haven't
figured
out
in
terms
of
the
guidelines
for
the
adu
or
the
rules
for
the
80.
What
are
the
things
we
haven't
come
up
in
with
in
terms
of
the
people
in
the
houses?
So
it
seems
like
let's
give
ourselves
time
to
think
about
those
things
figure
out.
R
Good
answers
talk
about
how
ownership
is
determined,
and
it's
not
that
it
seems
like
everyone
wants
to
be
really
responsible
and
not
saddle
someone
with
a
tax
bill.
They
can't
afford
it's
just
six
months
to
figure
out
the
right
way
to
do
this,
so
that
is
what
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank.
A
You
all
right
with
that.
That
concludes
public
comment,
so
we'll
open
it
up
for
commissioners.
G
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
follow
up
on
that,
because
that
that
is
the
issue
here.
We're
we're
we're
we're
doing
a
more
study,
more
intense
study.
This
is
a
complicated
issue.
I
think
the
longer
we
talk
about
this,
the
more
complicated
we
realize
that
it
is
and
the
reason
I
ask
the
question
about
the
you
know:
can
we
can
we
do
something
in
one
area
and
not
in
another,
because
I
I
agree
with
the
other
women
here
that
talked
about
single
family
homes.
G
You
know
if
you're
buying
in
a
single
I'm
speaking
personally,
you
know
I
have
a
house-
and
I
I
am
very
concerned
about
about
who
lives
next
to
me
and-
and
I
would
not
be
happy
with
you-
know-
six
people
or
or
whatever
living
in
the
house
next
to
me.
So
I
think
I
think
it's
this
is
going
to
be
surgical.
I
think
I
maybe
you
know
it's.
We
allow
adus
in.
G
I
don't
know
if
they're,
if
it's
r2
or
3
whatever,
but
areas
that
already
have
multi-family
housing
and
not
in
our
one
district.
So
I'm
just
saying
that
that's
something
that
probably
should
be
discussed
and
and
as
far
as
the
problems
that
are
I
I
we
haven't
really
talked
about
this
tonight,
but
enforcement
enforcement
and
how
the
city
does
that
is-
is
always
going
to
be
a
big
issue
here.
G
Even
if
we
separate
it
now
and
not,
we
don't
allow
this
in
single
in
single-family
areas,
but
it's
still
wherever
we
allow
it
enforcement's
going
to
be
a
big
issue.
So.
E
I
just
want
to
say
I
do
think
adus
are
a
great
potential
source
of
additional
housing
for
the
city,
and
I
do
think
that
we
can
move
forward,
hopefully
move
forward
with
those.
You
know,
as
you
read
the
literature,
there
are
different
communities
that
handle
it
in
different
ways
and
it
you
know,
one
of
the
arguments
for
the
moratorium
is
just
to
make
sure
evanston
has
time
to
work
on
its
own
definitions
and
its
own
clarifications
that
make
sense
for
the
city.
E
K
Sorry
I
I
just
wanted
to
add
that,
although
I
understand
that
this
is
more
of
whether
or
not
we
should
have
a
six-month
pause
so
that
the
city
can
conduct
a
study,
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
that
is
six
more
months.
Somebody
might
be
on
the
street
or
have
to
double
up
or
remain
in
an
abusive
home
situation
or
something
to
a
similar
effect.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
would
like
to
remind
the
audience
that
the
public
testimony
portion
of
this
hearing
is
closed,
and
this
is
now
time
for
the
planning
commission
to
consider
the
issue
and
make
a
recommendation.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
this,
the
issue
that
I
have
with
this
and
the
reason
I
will
be
voting
against
this
is
because,
in
august
of
last
year,
this
commission
passed
the
adu
ordinance
on
a
7-0
vote
and
subsequently
it
was
approved
by
council
on
a
unanimous
vote.
C
Two
aldermen
were
not
present
at
the
time
and
in
looking
through
the
way
that
we
make
decisions
is
based
on
our
standards,
and
so
my
question
is
which
standards
have
changed
that
require
us
to
take
a
step
back
from
this,
so
that
we
can
focus
in
on
those
those
sorts
of
things.
I
mean
we.
If
city
city
council
is
entirely
within
their
right
to
impose
a
moratorium
that
that's
entirely
their
their
authority
and
we're
recommending
body
anyway.
C
But
I
think
that,
if
we're
going
to
hold
true
to
to
having
to
look
at
things
through
the
the
lens
of
standards,
I
would
like
to
know
what
standards
are
have
changed,
because
I'm
seeing
a
number
of
things
in
the
recitals
for
the
draft
ordinance
that
I
just
don't
know
to
be
true.
And
I
don't
know
if
anyone
knows
these
to
be
true,
that
there's
a
surge
of
construction
activity
and
renovations
to
single-family
homes,
specifically
with
bathrooms
and
bedrooms,
we've
heard
from
staff
that
there
has
been
one
property,
possibly
two
properties
that
have
changed.
C
These
are
being
amplified
in
neighborhoods
around
northwestern
again.
What
documentation
is?
Is
anyone
bringing
to
us
to
show
us
that
this
is
happening
in
the
northwestern's
area
and
that
these
are
being
used
to
create
specifically
student
housing?
There's
a
number
of
recitations
in
here
that
I
just
I
don't
see
any
proof
for,
and
so,
if
you're
asking
me
to
make
a
decision
on
those
sorts
of
things,
I
would
hope
that
there
would
be
some
proof,
because
I'm
not
seeing
anything
presented
by
staff
telling
me
that
there
is
anything
that's
out
of
the
ordinary
here.
G
I
you
know
I
was
here
a
year
ago
and
I
remember
the
discussion
vaguely
and
I
don't
think
I
don't
remember
a
lot
of
these
issues
even
coming
up.
So
in
terms
of
the
standards
standards
are,
in
my
opinion,
very
general,
and
so
I
don't.
I
think
that
there's
just
so
much
information,
that's
been
added
to
the
conversation
recently
that
should
be
taken
into
consideration.
That's
all!
I
don't
think
there's
any
look.
You
know
we
we
sit
here
week
month
after
month
after
month
and
and
sometimes
discuss
the
same
things
over
and
over
again.
G
I
I
am
I'm
going
to
oppose
I'm
going
to
oppose
the
moratorium.
I
think
commissioner
rogers
raised
one
issue,
but
I
I
think
for
me
the
the
underlying,
unlike
one
of
the
philosophical
goals,
we're
trying
to
achieve
with
this.
Commissioner
howard,
when
we
reviewed
this
whatever
a
year
ago
was
was
to
you
know,
allow
people
to
say
retire
in
place
to
build
the
adu
move
to
the
adu
and
then
lease
out
their
home
to
have
a
supplemental
source
of
income.
I
A
big
driver
from
what
I
recall
was
the
providing
more
affordable
housing
to
non-owner
non-owner
occupants.
So
for
me,
eliminating
the
ability
to
run
to
non-owners
it
kind
of
defeats,
the
a
big
big
chunk
of
what
we
wanted
to
achieve
with
a
with
adus,
and
so
I
I
don't
think,
that's
a
good
idea.
We
should
allow
non-owner-occupied
occupancy
of
of
adus
internal
and
external.
However,
I
am
sympathetic
to
the
concerns
that
the
residents
around
northwestern
haven
have
articulated,
and
I
do
but
I
do
think,
there's
a
lot
of
other
mechanisms.
I
We
can
use
to
address
those
issues
that
doesn't
require
prohibiting
non-owner
occupied
adus
and
then
finally,
the
various
issues
that
are
raised
in
the
staff
memo
on
titling
and
deeding
and
who's
an
owner,
occupant
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
It
just
makes
compliance
very,
very
difficult,
so
I
would
I
would
I
would
support
not
support,
not
supporting
the
the
the
moratorium.
A
A
However,
what
the
the
issue
and
and
really
a
lot
in
the
recent
discussions
on
definition
of
family
and
occupancy
of
resident
residential
units
raised
a
whole
series
of
issues
that
I
think
we
can
all
agree,
have
very
little
to
do
with
the
zoning
ordinance
and
application
of
zoning,
but
have
a
great
deal
to
do
with
the
ability
with
how
neighborhoods
function
and
the
you
know
how
people
can
enjoy
neighborhoods.
A
So
it
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
preserving
quality
neighborhoods,
and
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
were
raised,
the
nuisance,
premises,
ordinances,
you
know,
rental,
licensing
or
rental
registration
that
are
not
within
the
purview
of
the
plan
commission,
but
are
very
much
within
the
purview
of
the
city
council
and-
and
I
think,
as
commissioner
hallick
was
saying,
a
lot
of
these
issues
have
come
up
more
recently,
they're
complicated
and
they're
all
interrelated,
and-
and
I
think
that
that
allowing
the
the
six-month
moratorium
to
allow
consideration
of
all
of
these
issues
is
is
appropriate.
A
So
I
will
be
voting
in
favor.
Commissioner
halek
did
you
have
anything
more
to
add?
Would
someone
like
to
make
a.
E
So
as
you
as
you
start
to
go
through
these
things,
more
issues
come
up
or
more
details
come
up,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
such
a
bad
thing
to
be
able
to
fully
study
some
of
the
implications.
But
it
is
a
good
question
that
commissioner
rogers
raised.
Are
we
truly
the
correct
body
to
consider
an
amendment
from
the
city
council?
It
comes
back
to
us.
I.
A
Think
that
well,
if
it
comes
back
to
us
but
the
city,
council
or
city
legal
staff,
I
believe
determined
that
the
planning
commission
was
the
appropriate
body
to
hold
a
hearing
on
the
proposed
moratorium.
So
that's
that's
our
role
at
this
point.
There
may
be,
depending
on
what
the
the
direction
that
emerges
from
the
city
council.
There
may
be
a
proposed
proposal
to
make
adjustments
to
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
until
that
happens
you
know
that
that's
that's
not
on
our
within
our
purview.
At
this
point
is
my
understanding.
G
I'd
like
to
move
to
to
approve
the
moratorium,
as
proposed.
I
I
A
All
right
with
that
is
there
any
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment.
If
there's
any
additional
public
comment,
okay
and
then
I
think
we
need
a
motion
to
adjourn.
G
I
just
wanted
to
say
one
thing
I
hey.
This
is
not
related
to
the
plan.
Commission.
I
got
a
flash
on
my
phone
that
there's
a
high
winds
75
mile
an
hour
winds
coming
through
evanston
later
they
said
11
o'clock,
okay,.