►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 11/11/2015
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
A
C
Okay
well
good
evening.
Everyone
first
well
before
the
Commission
this
evening
is
what
is
actually
really
the
second
iteration
of
proposed
text,
amendment
dealing
with
impervious
surface
coverage
and
building
a
lot
coverage.
This
was
at
the
zoning
committee
for
two
different
meetings
at
the
sep
tember
16th
and
the
october
twenty
first
meetings
respectively,
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
feedback
on
that
on
how
to
try
to
make
this
a
better
ordinance
for
staff
to
use,
but
backtracking
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
of
background.
C
Stormwater
runoff
and
trying
to
green
up
the
city
of
something
that
staff
has
been
tasked
with,
and
we
have
been
trying
to
take
a
look
at
different
ways
that
we
can
actually
go
about,
making
sure
that
we
aren't
taxing
our
utility
system.
So
staff
took
a
look
at
some
of
the
items
that
we
touch
on
a
daily
basis.
At
least
zoning
staff
touches
on
a
daily
basis.
C
So
we
took
a
look
at
these
zoning
ordinance
as
it
related
to
some
of
our
impervious
surface
coverage
and
building
lot
coverage
to
see
if
there
is
something
that
we
could
change
in
the
language
to
make
things
a
little
bit
clearer
for
both
staff
and
evenson
residents
to
use
and
to
make
it.
So
we
could
have
some
a
little
bit
more
regulation
on
exactly
how
much
lot
coverage
there
is
on
each
particular
lot.
C
So
taking
a
look
at
how
we
could
better
have
some
teeth
in
regulating,
but
as
well
as
make
things
a
little
bit
clearer
to
understand.
We,
like
I,
said
previously
went
through
a
couple
of
different
iterations,
the
first
of
which
I
think
the
zoning
committee
agreed
was
a
little
bit
too
rigid
and
put
a
little
bit
too
much
of
a
burden
on
homeowners
with
regards
to
improving
and
permeability
and
making
things
a
little
bit
too
absolute.
C
So
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
came
up
with
the
proposed
amendments
which
are
in
front
of
you
this
evening.
We're
proposing
to
first
update
the
definitions
of
both
impervious
surface
and
building
lot
coverage
to
the
following
for
impervious
surface,
we'll
be
adding,
including,
but
not
limited
to
any
paved
asphalt
or
concrete
areas,
parking
and
driveway
areas,
graveled
areas
and
sidewalks,
and
for
building
lot
coverage,
we'll
be
adding
language
that
states,
including
covered
or
uncovered
decks
attached
to
the
principle
building
or
free
standing
on
a
lot
and
the
total
area
of
the
lot.
C
We
also
took
a
look
at
each
of
the
impervious
surface
sections
that
is
in
each
of
the
zoning
districts
as
it
is
now,
and
it's
what's
included
in
your
packet.
The
language
is
a
bit
confusing.
It
points
you
back
and
forth
to
the
various
pieces
of
that
particular
section
and
staff
found
that,
ultimately,
we
ended
up
having
the
same
interpretation,
which
was
to
include
all
decks
as
impervious.
C
So
going
through
each
of
the
standards
for
approving
amendments.
We
found
that
it
satisfied
each
of
these
and
one
that
is
not
typically
looked
at
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
We
felt
that,
with
these
updates,
we
do
enable
for
our
public
facilities
to
be
more
readily
able
to
adjust
and
work
in
cases
of
stormwater,
runoff
or
things
as
such,
as
what's
supposed
to
happen
this
evening,
with
whatever
storm
that
may
or
may
not
come
through
and
able
to
handle
extreme
cases
of
weather.
So
that
is
the
general
overview
for
that.
A
C
That
could
be
the
next
step
that
maybe
I
would
think
slightly
out
of
our
role.
House
you'd
probably
have
to
talk
a
lot
more
with
public
works
on
how
to
best
go
about
doing
that.
But
we
do
looking
at
providing
some
kind
of
incentive,
and
some
kind
of
development
bonus
for
using
grain
or
permeable
materials
is
something
that
we
were
definitely
taking
a
look
at
and
something
that
we
would
consider
if
there
any
suggestions.
G
Do
why
are
Dex
being
singled
out
in
this
amendment?
Why
aren't
you
no
stone,
patios
or
pavers,
also
being
also
being
regulated
in
the
same
way
since
it
would
seem
to
me
that
they're,
just
as
impervious,
if
not
more
so
than
than
a
wooden
deck.
C
That
actually
was
something
that
the
zoning
committee
took
a
look
at
the
main
impetus
for
this
one
being
decks.
I
think
there
were
specific
examples
that
a
zoning
staff
was
looking
at
and
seeing
on
a
regular
basis
where
decks
were
coming
in
and
taking
up
a
significant
amount
of
lot
area
as
well
as
there
are
discussions
with
Public
Works
staff
and
how
the
different
surfaces
are
interpreted
as
being
impervious
or
pervious.
So
there
was
some
consistency.
C
They
were
trying
to
work
with
on
that
end,
so
the
concentration
was
specifically
decks,
but
the
conversation
did,
as
your
concern
is
bringing
up
start,
steering
towards
patios
and
thinking
about
paving
blocks
versus
paving
systems
and
taking
a
look
at
how
to
provide
for
some
kind
of
incentive
or
taking
into
account
that
those
surfaces
may
actually
end
up
being
underneath
a
deck
as
well.
So
that
did
come
up
in
conversation.
G
G
If
the
goal
is
to
prevent
people
using
loopholes
to
exceed
their
impervious
surface
threshold
or
the
thresholds
by
building
overly
large
decks,
it
seemed
to
me
that
you
would
just
classify
them
all
the
same
as
opposed
to
as
opposed
to
saying
that
a
wooden
deck
is
would
be
considered
part
of
a
building
part
of
the
structure
and
then
classify
all
other
types
of
materials
differently.
In
effect,
what
you
think
what
the
result
would
be
is
that
you'd
be
encouraging
people
to
have
concrete
or
brick
patios
and
I.
G
C
Am
actually
glad
you
brought
that
up?
There
was
a
point
of
conversation
and
zoning
committee.
One
of
the
first
iterations
of
the
text
amendment
was
to
make
all
decks
impervious
and
after
some
discussion
it
was
agreed
that
that
was
a
bit
too
restrictive
because
not
all
decks
are
created
or
built.
Equally,
there
are
different
width
between
the
slats
they're
different
materials
that
are
underneath
the
decks
it
may
be
dirt.
C
That
could
essentially
be
considered
a
structure
in
itself
being
that
it's
permanently
affixed
to
the
ground
or
to
the
building
itself.
It's
not
quite
the
same
as
a
patio
which
would
probably
fall
more
into
the
impervious
surface
realm,
but
having
it
as
part
of
the
building
like
coverage,
allows
us
to
have
a
little
bit
more
regulation.
With
regards
to
how
large
you
can
get
ok,
I.
G
A
We
have
things
that
are
on
the
ground.
Surface.
Patios
terraces,
is
a
word
that
you
use
here,
and
then
we
have
things
that
are
up
in
the
air
Dex
plot
porches
and
within
each
of
those
categories.
What
we're
saying
is
some
of
those
are
pervious
given
how
they're
built
and
some
of
them
art
and
the
existing
ordinance
already
takes
into
account.
Doesn't
it
where
it
talks
about
non-natural
non
permeable
surfaces
that
that
would
take
into
account
things
like
stone,
terraces
and
patios?
A
H
G
Property
is
forty-five
percent
and
the
impervious
surface
lot
coverage
is
sixty
percent
in
that
in
that
district.
If
you
have
a
situation
where
there
is
a
house
that
covers
thirty
percent
of
the
of
the
building
of
a
lot,
and
then
you
build
a
deck
that
covers
fifteen
percent
of
the
lot
now,
according
to
this
amendment,
you've
you've
exhausted
your
entire
building.
Lot
coverage
you've
reached
the
forty
five
percent
threshold.
G
G
Under
this
new
amendment,
you
will
have
covered
sixty
percent
of
your
lot
with
building
deck
and
impervious
surface,
but
because
there
is
a
exemption
in
impervious
surface
definition
for
four
decks.
You
now
are
only
at
forty
five
percent
of
coverage,
even
though
you
have
actually
covered
sixty
percent
of
your
lot,
which
would
allow
you
to
use
an
additional
fifteen
percent
of
your
lot
for
a
basketball
court,
a
another
stone
patio
another.
You
know
a
larger
drive
away,
whatever
whatever
it
may
be.
G
You've
now
actually
covered
seventy-five
percent
of
your
lot
when,
in
fact,
the
the
intention
was
to
only
allow
sixty
percent
coverage.
So
I
don't
know
that
if
the
stated
goal
is
to
increase
or
to
prevent
increased
stormwater
runoff
into
the
utility
systems
I,
would
it
would
seem
to
me
that
if
we're
going
to
regulate
it,
regulate
decks,
we
need
to
regulate
them
and
not
also
include
an
exemption
that
allows
basically
allows
a
loophole.
C
Whoa,
it
would
almost
seem
to
me
that
the
the
loophole
I
think
is
depending
on
who
you
talk
to
what
makes
it
more
flexible
and
based
on
interpretation,
because,
as
these
projects
are
coming
in
the
whichever
staff
member
is
actually
taking
a
look
at,
it
would
have
to
talk
with
that
particular
property.
A
homeowner
and
that
particular
homeowner
would
have
to
estate
in
here
actually
make
sure
they
can
demonstrate
that
there's
some
level
of
porosity
underneath
that
deck.
C
C
G
Just
counted
once,
but
it's
it's
being
it's
not
I'm,
not
saying
that's
going
to
be
counted
twice
towards
its
pervious
surface,
I'm,
saying
that
it's
being
deleted,
it's
being
your
including
it
in
building
lot
coverage,
but
then,
later
on,
in
that
paragraph,
because
the
pervious
surface
says
anything,
that's
building
Lots
anything
that's
concluded
as
building
lot
coverage
is
included,
impervious
surface
but
then
later
on,
it
says,
but
we're
going
to
accept
out
anything.
That's
a
deck!
A
A
H
A
I
Based
on
mr.
McGonagle
is
common,
it
seems
like
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
same
thing
but
I'll.
Let
him
speak
about
that.
I
think
I
understand
exactly
Commissioner
Isaac's
coming
from,
and
yes,
that
is
exactly
the
intent
of
this
proposal
is
to
include
decks
that
our
pervious
towards
building
lot
coverage,
but
exclude
them,
make
their
pervious
from
impervious
surface
coverage.
As
it
stands
right
now,
all
types
of
decks
are
deemed
impervious.
I
We
should
not
penalize
people
for
building
decks,
that
our
pervious
and
count
that
surface
towards
impervious
and
as
such
we
modify
the
proposal
to
call
decks
that
have
a
permeable
surface
underneath
there,
as
indeed
impervious
because
I'm
sorry,
our
pervious,
because
that
surface
is
permeable
underneath
there,
but
to
avoid
people
or
to
not
allow
people
to
build
huge
decks
on
their
properties.
Because
now
most
of
these
decks
are
going
to
be
deemed
pervious.
I
We've
included
becks
towards
building
live
coverage
to
have
a
limitation
or
how
much
somebody
can
build
on
their
property,
because
building
lot
coverage
is
about
building
structures
on
their
problem
on
land.
You
know,
so
that
was
really
the
intent
of
the
of
the
amendment
is
I
mean
it
all
boils
down
to
two
decks.
You
know.
G
I
Just
want
to
clarify
yes,
there
has
been
discussion
about
that,
as
you
can
see
the
code
or
right
now,
there's
a
20-percent
discount
given
to
paving
blocks
fading
systems.
If
somebody
has
a
paver
patio,
there
was
discussion
about
maybe
granting
a
similar
type
of
a
discount
to
decks
and
just
maybe
beaten
it
soothe
his
twenty
percent
if
it's
fifty
percent.
But
ultimately
it
seems
like
this
in
members
of
the
zoning
committee
can
confirm
or
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
I
Ultimately
it
was,
it
was
deemed
that
that
to
call
a
deck
that
has
openings
between
splats
and
soil,
underneath
there
as
fifty
percent
permeable,
where
in
essence
that
water
will
ultimately
completely
permeate
permeate
to
the
ground
was
not
seemed
appropriate
and
therefore
we
received
the
direction
to
kind
of
modify
that
and
the
proposal
was
to
call
them
on
a
percent
permeable.
If
that
surface
is
permeable,
but
then
include
something
that
really
kind
of
restricts,
how
much
you
could
really
build
any
property.
But
yes,
that
discussion
was
was
held.
F
For
damier,
so
if
the
deck
counts
toward
lot
coverage
does
that
in
effect
take
away
from
the
size
of
the
allowable
building
that
could
be
placed
there.
So
if
you
have
a
thousand
square
foot
lot,
you
can
to
use
your
numbers,
that's
correct.
You
could
build
450
square
feet
of
building
and
no
deck
or
400
square
feet
of
building
and
50
square
feet
of
deck.
That.
I
That's
exactly
right
right
now,
a
deck
or
porch
that
has
that
it's
covered.
You
know
that
has
roof
over.
It
is
counted
towards
lot
coverage,
so
is
two
parking
spaces
on
a
normal
life.
So
there
are
other
measures
that
are
included
in
the
live
coverage
and,
and
yes,
the
proposal
stands
as
it
stands.
Right
now
is
that
if
there's
a
deck,
that's
not
covered
now
that
deck
will
also
be
part
of.
The
lot
coverage
in
essence
means
that
your
footprint
of
the
home
can
be
smaller,
but.
A
J
Is
Andrew
McGonagle
I'm,
a
resident
of
20
25,
26,
princeton
avenue,
evanston
I'm
here
is
an
Evanston
resident
and
not
as
an
employee
at
Northwestern
University,
who
is
my
employer.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
Commission
for
listening
to
me
today.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
the
work
that
they've
done
in
putting
this
modification
to
the
ordinance
in
place.
J
J
The
compromise
was
put
on
the
table
and
then
written
and
modified
to
account
for
that
now,
various
techniques
are
used
on
the
decks
to
make
them
impervious,
and
the
goal
was
to
make
the
homeowner
demonstrate
that
in
fact
that
he
had
a
a
permeable
surface
underneath
the
deck
as
to
your
lock
coverage
and
the
size
of
house
versus
that
the
deck.
That
is
a
compromise
that
the
homeowner
eventually
has
to
make
themselves
and
the
value
of
the
DAC
versus
the
value
of
the
house
has
to
be
weighed.
So
you
get
to
a
balanced.
J
J
There
are
other
areas
that
this
ordinance
doesn't
cover,
which
eventually
I'd
like
the
commission
to
look
at,
which
is
the
retention
of
all
water
generated
from
roofed
or
impermeable
surfaces
being
retained
on
the
property,
and
this
ordinance
was
felt
that
that
was
not
the
place
to
address
that.
I
still
think
that
that's
an
important
area
to
look
at
given
the
constraints
and
restrictions
that
we
have
within
the
city
in
terms
of
how
to
deal
with
that
water,
but
this
particular
vehicle
was
not
felt
to
be
that
one.
G
Don't
I
wanted
to
get
some
more
clarity?
No
con.
You
know
what
the
what
the
purpose
with
a
stated
goal
was
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
I
think
mr.
countable.
Mr.
McConnell's,
you
know
comment
about
a
homeowner
having
to
decide
whether
you
make
that
balance
decision
as
to
far
as
far
as
what
what
portion
of
a
lots
going
to
be
covered
by
actual
house
versus
deck
is
a
is
a
good
one.
G
Building
wide,
but
no
I
don't
have
any
other
any
amendments
to
propose.
Okay,
mr.
F
So,
just
as
a
clarification,
I
think,
if
I
remember
correctly,
that
the
genesis
of
this
was
from
the
was
from
the
Zoning
Board
I,
that
there
was
a
lot
of
confusion
in
how
that
how
the
text
was
written
and
you
can
see
that.
Basically,
this
is
a
scrub
of
lots
of
back
and
forth
kind
of
references
and
just
trying
to
add
a
kind
of
simple
and
clear
directive
that
people
can
understand
as
a
pose
to
you
know,
go
around
back
and
forth
back
and
forth
and
then
ask
for
an
interpretation
on
it.
So.
D
Yeah
I,
just
I'm,
just
curious
I
mean
if
this
language
is
limited
to
r1
and
r2,
and
most
most
impervious
surfaces
on
such
lots
or
she
trained
whether
it's
a
patio
or
sidewalk
and
it
kind
of
drains
the
pop
onto
the
adjacent
impervious
surface.
So
I'm
I'm
curious
as
this
is
this
viewed
as
a
as
a
small
step
towards
trying
to
encourage
the
use
of
impervious
surfaces
for.
D
More
of
a
symbolic
type
of
gesture-
or
is
this
truly
some
small
step
towards
trying
to
get
because
I
I
thought
ultimately
an
impervious
surface?
The
huge
benefit
is
to
reduce
the
impact
on
a
city's
storm
storm
water
management
issue,
pervious,
I'm,
I'm,
sorry,
the
stuff,
the
surface
that
lets
the
water
percolate
through
yeah.
D
There
we
go
so
anyway.
Impervious
sounds
bad
like
neck,
so
pervious
surfaces
have
a
much
smaller
impact
on
on
the
stormwater
system,
so
I
mean
that's
ultimately,
why
they're
attractive
so
I'm
it?
You
know,
I
think
it's
good
to
encourage
people
to
use
these
technologies,
because
but
I
mean
ultimately
to
me
in
a
residential
lot,
your
typical
residential,
odd
that
water
stays
on
the
property
so
I
in
getting
at
you
know,
I.
Think
mr.
McGonagle
touched
on
this
that
you
know
it
would
be
a
better.
D
D
F
E
D
Okay,
I
am
it's:
it's
just
I'm
just
kind
of
puzzled.
Why?
If
we
already,
if,
if
a
resident
is
already
keeping
most
of
that
storm
water
on
their
property,
what
is
the
public
again,
it's
more
of
a
philosophical
question:
what
is
the
public
benefit
to
asking
people
to
increase
their
use
of
impervious
our
pervious
services.
C
Well,
I
think,
ultimately,
even
if
you
are
a
homeowner
property
owner,
if
you
have
this
water
sitting
on
your
property,
it's
eventually
going
to
make
its
way
to
the
public,
sewer
or
water
system.
Okay,
so
I
mean
it
it's
something
that
is
a
benefit
to
the
public
indirectly,
but
also
to
the
residents,
which
is
something
that
we
are
also
concerned
about,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
a
lot
of
residents
having
to
deal
with
seepage,
you're,
flooding
or
anything
of
that
nature.
Okay,.
B
A
C
F
A
E
C
While
there
isn't
a
specific
definition
for
the
use,
each
of
his
pieces
is
addressed
throughout
the
code
and
we
found
that
as
a
list,
that's
included
in
your
packet,
even
though
it's
currently
only
a
permitted
use
and
the
c2
in
the
eye
to
industrial
district.
We
have
a
number
of
these
uses
that
include
rental
use
and
those
are
actually
located
throughout
the
city.
C
Some
of
them
are
also
getting
into
the
car
sales
business,
though
the
ones
that
are
in
evanston,
I
think,
are
primarily
just
rental
so
and
going
through
the
code,
basically
just
to
make
sure
that
we
addressed
every
location
that
it
was
located.
We
are
proposing
the
following
amendments:
the
first
is
which
most
of
them
are
pretty
similar
on
just
adding
the
phrase,
rental
or
and
rental,
and
we
actually
had
some
discussion
since
there
are
many
cases
where
both
sales
and
rental
are
taking
place.
C
We
could
do
and
or
I
can
leave
that
up
for
discussion
on
whether
or
not
to
include
that.
But
we
would
be
amending
the
purpose
statement
for
the
c2
district,
which
addresses
this
use
and
is
trying
to
make
sure
that
it
is
compatible
with
surrounding
uses
and
actually
has
some
regulations
in
that
end
and
also
to
add
rental,
to
both
ec2
and
I
to
permitted
use
listings.
And
then,
even
though
it
is
not
considered
a
part
of
the
open
sales
like
use,
it
is
called
out
and
the
definition
of
open
sales
lot.
C
C
C
So
again,
going
towards
the
standards
for
amendments
and
this
particular
one
we're
not
addressing
any
public
facilities
or
services,
but
for
the
other
uses.
These
standards
are
satisfied
and
in
making
these
changes,
we
are
making
sure
that
I'm
in
the
future,
if
there
is
a
proposed
use
it's
in
a
particular
area
and
that
we
have
some
kind
of
regulation
over
what
goes
where
and
exactly
what
standards
are
applied
to
it.
So
he'll
open
it
up
for
any
questions,
questions.
F
Ok,
so
I
think
you
stated
first
of
all
that
I've
got
kind
of
a
few
actually
questions.
You
stated
that
that
I
think
I
remember.
It
stated
that
that
that
rental
is
essentially
the
same
as
car
dealership
and
its
effect
with
surrounding
you
know.
Impact
on
on
is
that
true
neighborhood,
isn't
there
like
increased
traffic
in
rental
places
or
you
know,
are
they
there
somehow
they
seem
a
little
different
than
car
dealerships.
You
know
hey.
C
They
can
be
in
practice
and
what
I
was
addressing
more
is
we
see
that
the
uses
are
very
often
located
in
the
same
place,
but
with
a
car
rental
place
there
probably
would
be
a
lot
more
traffic,
as
you
have
one
people
coming
in
renting
a
vehicle
for
a
weakened
versus
someone.
That's
in
the
market
to
buy
several
tens
of
thousand
dollar
vehicle.
Okay,.
F
C
E
F
F
C
F
F
C
K
C
F
A
B
Have
one
concern:
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
supposed
to
we
just
recently
approved
a
development
that
was
had
limited
access
for
automobile
parking,
and
it
would
be
a
good
move
for
us
to
provide
facilities
where
people
living
downtown
could
find
a
car
rental
if
they
needed
one,
and
this
would
just
make
it
even
more
difficult.
Wouldn't
him.
C
For
car
sharing
and
things
like
zip
cars,
we've
actually
found
it
in
majority
of
those
cases
they're
located
in
parking
lots
which
we
would
regulate
differently
and
then
more
recently,
I
think.
In
a
lot
of
cases,
those
particular
zip
cars
and
a
car
share
uses
are
and
some
planned
developments,
which
we
have
a
different
level
of
regulation
for
so
they're,
not
completely
disallowed.
But
there
there's
a
little
bit
more
regulation
and
if
they're
just
regulated
differently,
yeah.
F
I
Thank
you,
sir.
Hey
mrs.
chairman,
I
guess.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
just
add
is
that
the
car
share
spaces,
that's
kind
of
evolved
over
time
now,
for
example,
enterprise
that
bought
the
I
go
car
sharing
system.
They
usually
have
one
main
location
where
they
have
a
lot
of
their
cars
and
then,
if
they
come
to
an
agreement
with
a
specific
property
to
have
some
of
their,
you
know
car
shared
spaces
with
on
that
property.
The
city
doesn't
get
involved
in
that.
I
So
when
you
see
a
mobile,
you
see
is
plan
develop
as
we
require
that
these
private
property
owners
provide
car
shared
spaces
for
their
residents,
and
now
that's
not
only
open
to
those
residents,
but
also
to
other
two
other.
You
know
citizens,
but
it's
not
a
specific
use
on
its
own
that
we
would
have
to
regulate.
It's
just
part
of
our
larger
parking
lot
that
a
property
provides.
I
I
They're
currently
allowed
in
situ
and
I
to,
and
that's
really
it
so
so
we're
not
proposing
the
change
words
being
allowed,
where
it's
not
allowed
just
to
kind
of
define
a
little
bit
better
so
that
if
there
is
a
you
know
a
Hertz
lot
somewhere
Enterprise
lot
somewhere
that
now
we
know
exactly
where
it
goes
and
try
to
find
out
a
different
type
of
use
and
all
is
it
retail
service.
Or
is
it
something
else
what
in
essence,
it's
just
punctured
as
it
as
a
you
know,
car
dealership,
lot,
I.
A
L
I
I
You
know
to
answer
your
question:
are
we
going
to
see
some?
You
know
small
office
tenant
spaces
and
and
where
they
would
swear,
they
would
keep
their
vehicles.
You
know,
I'm
not
sure,
but
if
it's
just
an
office
space
where
they're
renting
to
people
and
cars
are
being
shipped
from
somewhere
else
and
then
that
particular
type
of
occupancy
of
that
tenant
space
is
not.
You
know,
car
rental,
it's
just
a
leasing
office,
and
then
we
would.
We
would
address
that.
I
The
offices
look
and
that's
exactly
what
I'm
saying
is
so
if
they
do,
that
type
of
facility
would
have
to
be
then
located
where
we
currently
allow
car
dealers
and
that's
c2
and
I
to
the
one
that
you
reference
at
the
parking
deck
is
a
unique
situation
where
they're
basically
are
just
occupying
a
tenant's
commercial
tenants
based
on
the
ground
floor.
Their
parking
lot
is
between
the
parking
deck
so
I.
We
don't
anticipate
something
like
that
coming
up
and
we
would
find
a
way
to
address
if
there
ever
was
a
similar
use.
I
A
I
G
I
Short
answer:
is
we
don't?
The
long
answer
is
that
if
somebody
approaches
us-
and
let
us
know
that
hey
this
parking
lot
over
here,
that
has
currently
20
parking
spaces
for
this
property.
You
know
the
property
owner
of
that
property
is
coming
to
an
agreement
zipcars
to
allow
them
to
use
two
parking
spaces
of
their
20
parking.
You
know
parking
space
lot
towards
zipcars.
We
wouldn't
get
involved
into
that
generally,
that's
good
practice
because
for
every
one
car
share
space,
15
cars
are
taken
off
the
off
the
roads.
I
If,
if,
however,
somebody
brings
it
up
to
us
and
the
property
does
not
have
adequate
parking
as
it
is,
it's
sort
of
a
legal
non-conforming
because
it
doesn't
have
number
of
parking
through
that
we
need,
then
we
probably
would
get
involved
and
say
well,
you
can
losing
unless
they
somehow
demonstrate
that
their
residents
will
have
you
know,
membership
and
they
can
use
those
parking
spaces
etc.
So
the
short
answer
is
no.
We
don't
get
involved
that,
but
typically
that's
that's,
never
been
an
issue
so
only
to
the.
I
Exactly
but
it
so
and
we
haven't,
we
haven't
been
approached,
it
hasn't
been
an
issue.
We
understand
that
by
allowing
one
car
share,
it
allows
people
to
use
that
and
get
rid
of
their
cars.
So
if
a
property
is
sort
of
non-conforming,
it
doesn't
have
enough
parking
spaces
for
its
residents,
but
maybe
those
residents
that
are
trying
to
find
a
you
know
parking
on
the
street
they're
going
to
get
rid
of
their
car,
because
now
they
have
membership
with
a
zipcar,
that's
currently
in
their
lot.
F
I
G
It
says
really
get
that
specific,
because
it
would
seem
to
me
that
if
you
have
a
if
it
doesn't
get
that
specific,
then
based
on
based
on
what
you're
saying
is
the
what
would
be
the
city's
approach
that
the
owner
would
be
free
to
rent
all
of
his
parking
spaces
to
people
that
don't
live
on
the
property,
to
rent
them
to
front
them.
To.
G
I
The
code
does
have
in
the
in
the
code.
There
is
a
specific
requirement
at
parking
spaces
on
the
property
or
that
I
use
that's
on.
A
specific
property
provides
required
number
of
parking
spaces
on
that
specific
property.
So,
in
generally
those
parking
spaces
are
provided
on.
A
property
are
for
the
uses,
residences.
Whatever
is
on
that
property.
Now
they
have
to
serve
the
use
on
that
property
yep
the
serves
I
use
a
property.
If
we
find
out
that
the
use
of
those
parking
spaces
is
gone
elsewhere,
then
we
would
enforce.
I
You
know
if
somebody
that
lives
close
to
a
commuter
train.
Stop
decides
to
you
know.
I'd
said
you
know,
rental,
building
of
federal
six
units
and
they
have
a
20
part.
20
space
parking
lot
of
me
all
of
a
sudden
bands,
all
the
residents
from
parking
there
and
starts
renting
into
commuters.
That's
not
a
lot,
so
we
would
get
in
I.
A
A
A
Should
you
make
it
easier
for
car
rental
people
to
locate
in
Tod
areas?
It
seems
to
me
that
we're
getting
into
a
hole
hesitate
to
call
it
a
snarl
but
a
fairly
complex
set
of
issues
here
where
the
distinguishing
question,
maybe
are
you
close
to
transit
or
aren't
you
and-
and
this
issue
covers
a
loophole,
but
it
but
I?
Don't
it
doesn't
seem
to
move
us
in
that
direction?
Exactly.
I
Right
they
does
not
it's
just
a
loophole
related
to
these
car
dealers
that
or
u-haul
truck
rentals
that
lease
or
rent
cars
and
trucks.
Yes,
city
is
working
with
the
RTA
and
consultants
to
invent.
You
know,
study
the
city's
parking
requirements,
specifically
in
the
proximity
of
transit,
and
so
we
anticipate
to
receive
the
preliminary
report
and
study,
hopefully
next
week,
actually
and
then
we'll
kind
of
take
a
look
at
that,
and
hopefully
that
will
include
some
some
case
studies.
Some
inventory
of
the
existing
parking,
lots
and
properties
in
the
proximity
of
the
you
know.
I
Transit
will
tell
us.
What's
the
usage
of
these
parking
lots
and-
and
you
know
what
are
the,
what
are
the
behaviors
of
people
who
live
in
those
areas
you
know:
do
they
tend
to
kind
of
leave
their
car,
sell
their
cars
and
enjoy
you
know,
enterprise
or
zip
cars,
or
some
like
that
which
they
can
do
online
I,
don't
necessarily
want
to
go
to
the
office,
they
just
sign
up
online
and
then
you
get
a
coat
awana.
So.
I
A
I
Yeah
we
do.
We
do
have
that
in
the
code
right
now
that
the
zoning
ordinance
does
allow
for
these
mixed
uses
to
share
parking
spaces.
So
if
they
are
sort
of
staggered,
you
know
office
uses
that
somebody's
there
nine
to
five
in
the
after-hours.
Those
parking
spaces
can
be.
You
know,
designated
for
residents,
so
usually
that
stuff
like
that
is
a
previous
part
of
planned
development
like
Chicago
and
main
that
includes
residences
offices
and
commercial
uses.
A
G
Have
a
I
have
a
question
in
that
regard:
okay,
the
permitted
uses
under
610
six
dash
ten
dash
four
dash
two
and
then
dash
three
dash
to
where
we're
going
to
include
the
and
rental
I.
Think
Miss
Jones
mentioned
that
you
know,
maybe
it
should
say
or
I
think
I
would
I
would
agree,
but
more
importantly,
it
seemed
to
me
that
I
don't
know
if
automobile
or
recreational
vehicle
is
defined
term
in
these
zoning
code.
G
C
F
F
Point
is
you're
using
specific
terms
automobile
recreational
vehicle
as
opposed
to
motor
vehicle
general.
So
if
you're
doing
that,
you
should
say
automobile
I'm,
a
truck
common
recreational
vehicle
or.
E
F
F
G
A
A
I
F
A
A
D
K
E
K
F
E
K
A
K
E
K
A
C
E
G
Mean
otherwise,
you
have
the
the
problem
of
it
not
being
regulated
and
you
could
have
an
an
RV
sale
or
you
know
something
that
wouldn't
be
covered
by
automobile
or
recreational
vehicle
in
a
district
that
you
don't
necessarily
want.
A
D
B
A
F
C
A
Is
the
public
have
any
further
comment,
then
December
meeting
under
the
bylaws
in
December?
In
addition
to
whatever
I'm
substantive
agenda
we
have,
we
are
to
elect
officers
chairman
and
vice-chairman
4
2016
elect
associate
members
and
adopt
a
calendar
for
2016
as
of
right
now,
what
are
the
odds
that
we
will
have
agenda
items
for
the
December
meeting
hundred
percent?
Okay,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
setting
a
January
date
in
advance?