►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 2/10/2016
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
It
is
seven
o'clock,
Wednesday
january,
twenty
seven,
twenty.
Sixteen.
This
is
the
evanston
plan.
Commission
hi,
I'm,
Jim
Ford
we
have
a
quorum,
so
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order.
You
have
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
Are
there
changes
or
additions
to
the
agenda
hearing?
None
the
agenda
will
stand.
You
have
the
minutes
of
January
thirteenth
2016.
Are
there
corrections
or
additions
to
the
minutes?
A
B
A
A
The
first
case
number
15
pln
d,
00
02
zoning
ordinance
text,
amendment
to
city
code,
title
six
to
make
artists
studios
or
permitted
use
on
the
ground
floor
in
the
d2,
d3
and
d4
downtown
districts
to
match
current
regulations
in
the
d1
downtown
district.
This
is
a
public
hearing.
We
have
no
public
present.
This
came
to
us
as
an
automatic
reference,
so
the
staff
are
the
petitioners
and
I
will
ask
mr.
latina.
I
will
welcome
mr.
latina
back
to
the
dais
and
ask
him
to
present
the
case.
Thank
You
chairman.
C
Ford,
so
this
one
is
a
relatively
simple
text
amendment
currently
the
regulations
for
artists
studios
is,
is
it's
gonna
get
on
the
slide,
they're
allowed
on
any
floor
within
a
building,
that's
in
the
d1,
downtown
fringe
district
and
then
in
the
other,
downtown
districts,
d2,
d3
and
d4
they're
artists
studios
are
only
allowed
on
the
floors
above
the
ground
ground
floor.
So
the
proposal
is
to
eliminate
that
provision
that
restricts
our
Studios
only
on
the
upper
floors,
so
that
would
allow
the
artists
studios
on
all
four
levels,
including
the
ground
floor.
C
The
idea
here
is
really
that
we're
looking
to
make
consistent
regulation
across
the
downtown
for
all
for
all
downtown
districts.
We
believe
that
this
was
intentional,
a
stint.
Your
denies
for
the
purpose
of
maintaining
the
ground
floor
for
retail
uses
and
restaurants
and
other
types
of
sales
tax
generating
uses.
But
what,
in
essence,
that
what
we've
seen
is
that
some
of
these
uses
that
are
not
necessarily
retail
focus.
They
also
generate
a
lot
of
traffic
and
bringing
families
to
the
downtown
and
are
also
you
know.
C
The
boundaries
between
the
districts
are
not
so
clear,
so
you
know,
but
potential
uses
are
looking
to
locate
downtown
and
they
find
a
property
that
they
think
is
in
d1
or
something
they
don't
necessarily
realize
it's
in
the
other
district,
so
that
complicates
regulations.
And
so
we
think
that
this
is
a
good
text.
Amendment
to
simplify
the
regulations
and
bring
in
the
diversity
of
use
is
that
a
downtown
that
will
hopefully
increase
the
vitality
and
livability
of
the
downtown
overall.
C
So
when
we
considered,
if
I
remember
correctly,
we
titled
and
personal
service
establishments
and
the
concern
with
those
with
the
proposal
was
to
create
a
buffer
between
them.
If
the
proposal
was
presented
to
the
Planning
Commission,
ultimately,
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
approval,
if
I
believe,
but
then
at
the
City
Council
he
was
not
approved.
The
idea
was
because
we're
seeing
too
many
of
those
uses
concentrated
in
certain
commercial
districts.
C
The
idea
was
to
maybe
create
a
buffer
for
their
own
sake,
so
that
they're
not
competing
too
much
and
then
they
so
sort
of
Wow
for
the
diversity
of
different
uses
within
their
immediate
area,
so
that
you
know
customers
can
visit.
You
know
a
beauty
salon,
maybe
others,
etc.
I
mean
what's
going
on
in
this
wise
I
mean
we
have
really
only
a
handful
of
these
that
have
come.
I
mean
I
can
think
of
only
one
downtown.
C
So
the
frequency
of
these
in
the
downtown
area
anywhere
else
in
the
city
is
much
more
rare.
You
know
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
artists
studios,
so
if
we
had
too
many
of
them
that
you
may
be
appropriate
to
consider
restrictions
on
the
ground
floor
so
that
they're
adequately
dispersed
but
right
now,
there's
not
enough
of
them
at
all.
So
this
proposal
would
invite
this
type
of
use.
That's
more
for
sort
to
invite
families
there's
something
to
do.
Families.
D
Yeah
I
guess
I
have
the
same
kind
of
curiosity
of
premise.
This
with
you
know
we
had
limited
real
estate
firms
and
things
that
you
know
bring
in
some
foot
traffic,
but
didn't
do
enough
and-
and
you
know
frankly,
I
don't
know
if
too
many
of
these
artists
studios
but
I
don't
understand
what
kind
of
foot
traffic
you
can
actually
say
that
they,
you
know
the
kind
of
vitality
that
they
bring
for
I
mean
limited
amount
of
classes.
I
guess
is
the
is
the
is
the
thing
and
we're
not
talking
about
we're.
C
Correct
yeah,
so
so
we've
heard
is
I
mean
this
is
a
general
initiative
that
the
city
has
had
and
the
downtown
Management
Association
is
the
idea
to
bringing
diversity
of
use.
Is
that
specifically
downtown?
This
is
the
downtown
we're
talking
about
so
they've
identified
the
need
for
uses
that
may
bring
in
families
children
to
the
downtown
rather
than
adults
that
are
either
you
know
coming
for
work
or
they're.
You
know
pretty
many
restaurants
or
whatnot,
so
this
was
seen
as
one
of
those
potential
uses
that
could
bring
in
families
and
so
artist
an
artist
studio.
C
Is
you
know
something
that
has
evolved
over
time
where
an
artist
could
create
classes
and
bring
in
you
know,
children
or
something
like
that.
You
know
you're
exactly
right,
Commissioner
Lewis,
it's
not
a
gallery
it
is.
It
is
sort
of
a
use.
That's
evolved
over
time
that
can
you
know,
offer
classes
you
know
provide.
You
know,
sell
some
things
if
you
say
if
it
has
some
retail
component
of
that,
and
so
it
was
just
a
diversified,
uses
downtown
and
try
to
bring
in
some
families.
With
these
things
is.
C
What
we
don't
think
so
we
have
a
definition
for
a
cultural
institution
that
specifically
include
includes
galleries.
So
if
I
use
was
going
to
be
specifically
a
gallery,
that's
where
it
would
fall
under
cultural
institution,
these
are
very
unique
uses
that
there's
I
mean
there's
even
I,
wouldn't
even
say
that
there's
a
specific
definition
of
an
artist
studio,
because
one
artist
studio
could
include
an
actual
dwelling
unit,
that's
sort
of
in
the
back
for
the
artist
it
could
include.
C
You
know
a
space
where
they
would
be
offering
classes
in
the
front,
but
then
they're
doing
their
art
in
the
back.
You
might
include
a
gallery,
I
mean
they
really,
I
would
say
they
different
based
on
the
type
of
art,
they're,
providing
and
they're
kind
of
unique
to
themselves.
So
it's
I
couldn't
think
of
a
sort
of
a
different
type
of
use
that
we
can
get
to
classify
these
depending
on
what
they're
proposing.
F
C
It
I
think
it's
a
very
valid
point.
I
think
you
believe.
Yes,
they
would
be
certainly
helpful
to
be
more
specific
and
then
allow
only
those
types
of
artists,
studios
that
are
open
to
general
public
on
in
some
format
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
would
define
that,
but
yeah
I
think
well,
we
we
didn't
want
to
do.
C
That
was
the
idea
of
keeping
it
simple
and
then,
at
the
same
time,
because
they're
so
unique
where
we
don't
really,
there
isn't
a
proposal
right
now,
like
we
don't
know
what
type
of
artists
to
do
is
we're
going
to
be
encountering,
so
we
done
that
was
the
thought
process
in
terms
of
adding
any
other
restrictions
on
it.
So.
G
C
C
I
think
we
we
generally
don't
go
so
far
into
regulating
how
businesses
on
the
on
the
inside
kind
of
keep
their
places,
tidy
and
whatnot,
but
in
terms
of
the
visibility
program
and
there's
a
downtown
Management
Association,
that's
pretty
active
that
you
know
if
there
is
a
use
that
it
just
doesn't
fit
in
I
mean
I,
think
there's
other
ways
to
to
kind
of
regulate
that
type
of
nuisance.
If
there
is
one.
D
C
C
B
F
I
think
market
forces
will
probably
keep
a
good
number
of
that
those
type
of
uses
away
from
the
downtown
unless
you're
talking
about
a
dance
studio
that
has
classes
for
very
young
children
who
are
not
in
school
and
able
to
have
classes
during
the
day
and
then
after
school.
There's
only
going
to
be
so
many
of
them
in
one
in
one
given
area.
So.
F
B
F
D
You
know
I
this.
The
whole
market
forces
thing.
It
was
always
a
little
double-edged
to
me
because
nail
studios,
obviously
we're
very
successful
at
you,
know,
venturing
into
those
areas,
and
you
know,
is
there
ever
going
to
be
a
point?
You
know
where
I
mean,
then
you
have
to
control
them.
I
mean
we're
not
just
letting
things
go.
You
know
with
market
forces,
so
I.
F
F
A
D
C
No
I
mean
if
the
Commission
feels
that
it's
needed
to
to
add
additional
provision
to
the
definition
of
the
artists.
Ooty
I
mean.
Certainly
we
can.
We
can
process
that
I
would
then
suggest,
maybe
adding
that
same
verbiage
to
the
big
one
type
of
artists
studios
allowed
in
the
d1,
so
that
we
have
the
same
type
of
artist
studios
a
lot
across
the
board.
We
didn't
feel
that
it
was
necessary.
E
C
A
G
I,
there's
got
to
be
a
way
to
not
be
so
restrictive,
not
require
so
much
oversight
but
get
across
that
I.
Don't
care
if
they
make
money
or
not.
If
it's
open
to
the
public
could
be
a
guy
working
away
in
the
back,
but
he's
got
to
display
in
the
front
knees
or
a
woman,
and
it's
happy
to
see
people
come
through,
but
you
couldn't
judge
his.
You
couldn't
use
his
revenue
as
the
basis
for
okaying
that
he's
complying
with
the
code.
So
I.
G
D
G
D
A
B
A
Of
it
you
eat,
we
certainly
want
more
than
an
artist
who
is
simply
setting
up
on
the
first
floor
and
his
doors
are
open
and
if
you'd
like
to
come
in
and
watch
that
would
be
fine.
It
was
the
place
that
sticks
in
my
mind.
That
comes
to
mind
is
the
you
know
the
violin
place
near
village
hall
in
wilm
at.
A
Doing
sales
and
rental
and
doing
instrument
repair
in
the
back,
so
they
are
both
a
sales
place
and
a
studio
and
I.
Don't
know
how
much
foot
traffic
they
attract,
but
it's.
It
is
an
attractive
enough
use
that
just
having
that
on
the
first
floor,
add
something
to
downtown
wilmette
that
you
don't
ordinarily
see
but
maybe
I'm,
just
in
love
with
stringed
instruments.
F
C
Now,
just
to
clarify
we
do
oh
wow,
a
bunt
use.
It's
called
cultural
facility,
which
is
in
essence,
can
be
a
gallery.
That's
open
to
public.
Only
a
couple
hours
a
day,
there's
no
requirement
on
the
hours
of
you
know
that
they're
open
to
public.
So
there
are
other
uses
with
that.
You
know
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
be
open
to
public
there
on
the
ground
floor,
I.
D
Have
to
imagine
there's
very
little
risk
in
the
downtown
becoming
overwhelmed
with
artists
galleries.
You
know
that
that
we're
not
really
risking
all
that
much
by
just
leaving
it
open
ended.
His
staff
recommends.
But
I
think
this
philosophically
were
you
know
going
off
on.
You
know
the
the
intent
right
so
so
I
guess
mom's
I'm
tending
to
lean
toward
just
going
with
what
they
what
they
say
and
and
as
you
say,
we
can
always
later.
If
it
becomes
a
big
issue,
you
know
recommend
that
the
redefinition
right,
I
don't
think,
there's
yeah.
G
And
I
think
I
think
the
language
that
you've
recommended
is
what
brought
us
a
liz
originals
on
sherman,
which
is
a
bead
store,
beads,
jewelry's
and
and
jewelry
and
gifts,
classes
and
I'm.
That
is
kind
of
thin
we're
aiming
for,
and
there
was
no
more
specificity
to
the
language
in
their
zoning.
That
got
us
that
so
I
think
I
would
agree
with
Colby
that
it
could
we'd
be
okay
with
this
language.
D
A
C
You
so
the
text,
the
second
text
of
them
in
tonight,
is
in
regards
to
adding
two
additional
uses
to
the
list
of
permitted
home
occupation
uses.
So
what
is
the
home
occupation?
There's
a
definition
of
the
zoning
ordinances
and
it's
an
accessory
use
of
a
dwelling
unit
that
is
used
for
gainful
activity
involving
the
provision,
assembly,
processing
or
sale
of
goods.
C
And/Or
services
that
is
incidental
and
secondary
to
the
use
of
a
dwelling
unit,
but
excluding
the
provision
of
shelter
and
lodging
and
then
also
that
accessory
use
of
a
dwelling
has
to
be
used
for
gainful
employment.
That
involves
the
provision,
assembly,
processing
or
sale
of
goods,
and/or
services,
and
it's
incidental
and
secondary
to
residential
use
of
the
structure
and
does
not
change
the
essential
residential
character
of
the
dwelling
unit
and
again
also
it
excludes
the
use
of
the
provide
shelter
or
lodging
to
persons
who
are
not
members
of
the
family.
C
So
that's
what
we're
dealing
with
this
is
basically
whole
occupations
are
there
to
allow
homeowners
to
run
businesses
from
their
homes
and
in
the
simplest
fashion.
That's
how
this
whole
started
as
if
an
attorney
or
an
architect
or
or
social
services,
counselor
or
somebody
wants
to
accept
some
clients
at
home
and
do
some
work
from
home.
They
have
a
home
office
or
something
like
that.
This
provision
allows
something
like
that
to
take
place.
So
the
zoning
ordinance
clarifies
a
number
of
restrictions
in
terms
of
the
requirements
that
that
home
occupation
has
to
comply.
C
But
you
know
how
much
of
a
home
had.
You
know
the
maximum
area
of
a
home
that
can
be
used
towards
the
home
occupation?
How
many
clients
can
come
in
and
and
utilize,
and
you
know,
visit
the
facility
if
any
other
members
outside
of
the
members
of
the
family
can
actually
be
employed
there
as
part
of
that
home
occupation
and
then
further
classifies
them
into
into
minor
and
major
based
on
sort
of
the
impact
that
they
can
create,
and
it's
really
based
on.
Then
you
know
male
minor,
home
occupations.
C
You
know
you
can
only
have
six
clients
during
the
during
the
day,
I
think
it's
400
square
feet
maximum
of
a
home
that
can
be
used
for
we're
home
occupation.
You
know
when
it
comes
to
a
major
home
occupation.
It
allows
a
quarter
of
the
home
home
to
be
used.
Then
you
can
have
12
clients
visit.
So
on
the
on
the
slide.
Here
we
have,
the
existing
minor
home
occupations
are
currently
allowed.
That
includes
attorneys
CPAs
architects,
as
I
mentioned.
C
So
what
we
are
proposing
to
do-
and
again
this
is
an
automatic
reference-
would
to
allow
two
other
types
of
home
occupations.
The
first
one
will
be
the
domestic
animal
daycare
service,
but
not
to
exceed
a
total
of
three
animals
over
the
age
of
four
months,
including
property
owners,
pets
and
similarly
the
second
one
will
be
to
allow
dog
sitting
services
not
to
exceed
the
three
animals.
So
the
restriction
on
the
three
animals
comes
in
from
a
Public
Safety
Code
section
of
the
city
city
code.
C
That
essentially
says
that
nobody
can
have
more
than
three
adults,
that's
as
VM
at
home.
So
this
would
really
limit
people
that
may
have
one
pet
of
their
own
or
no
pets
of
their
own
to
accept.
You
know
up
to
three
other
animals
and
sort
of
take
care
of
them
at
their
own
home,
and
so
we
felt
that
that
restriction
is.
It
makes
sense
because
anybody
can
have
three
animals
so
if
they
are
owned
by
the
property
owner
or
if
they're
dropped
off,
occasionally
by
somebody
else,
but
you're
still
within
that
limit
of
three.
C
It
seems
like
it's
in
the
spirit
of
the
home
occupation
and
it's
it's
it's
not.
It
should
not
be
a
nuisance,
and
then
we
have
the
dog
sitting
services.
So
in
essence,
the
dog
sitting
is
were
in
essence,
a
person
who's
running.
That
operation
goes
to
somebody
else's
house,
while
they're
away
and
takes
care
of
their
animals.
C
So
you
can
actually
bring
them
to
your
own
house
if
you
need
to
so
so
that's
the
kind
of
the
difference
between
the
the
two
uses
and
it
also
the
second
provision
allows
people
that
really
have
dog
sitting
services
and
they
want
to
run,
have
an
office
inside
them
in
there
inside
their
home,
to
kind
of
run
that
or
whatever
the
involvement
involves
it
would
allow
for
both
of
those
uses
as
home
occupations,
so
I
I
can
sense.
There's
gonna
be
some
questions
of
that
and
I
mean
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer.
C
I
was
trying
to
read
up
and
learn
on
the
other
sections
of
the
public
safety
code
that
deals
with
the
you
know:
Pat's.
You
know
dogs
and
cats
and
whatnot.
So
hopefully,
I
can
answer
all
the
questions
that
you
have,
but
we
think
that
this
type
of
use
that
was
that
was
brought
up
to
us
as
sort
of
a
complaint
that
hey
somebody
is
taken
on
a
couple
of
dogs
from
their
neighbor
or
somebody
else,
and
that's
not
listed
as
a
home
occupation.
C
We
realized
okay,
there's
these
things
are
happening
out
there
in
the
community
and
there's
a
need
for
that,
and
that
we
feel
that
this
home
occupation
is
by
no
means
any
anymore.
It
should
be
any
more
news
and
then
and
the
other
ones
that
are
listed
on
there.
So
we
do
believe
that
it's
you
know
it's
compatible
with
your
old
character
of
the
residential
areas
where
home
occupations
do
take
place.
So
in
essence,
we
feel
that
the
standards
have
been
met
and
with
that
I
don't
put
to
any
questions.
Commissioner
Lewis,
I.
D
C
D
Well,
I
was,
I
was
going
to
answer
my
own
question
by
saying
that,
probably
in
a
multi-family
multifamily
building
that
there
would
be
their
own
regulations
for
the
condominium
or
something
that
would
that
would
regulate
that.
But
I
just
was
you
know
wondering
if
it
was
still
the
purview
of
this
to
you
know
to
have
some
sort
of
limitation
in
d1
or
any
kind
of
high-density
area
or
something
I
don't
know
what
what
the
thoughts
are
again.
C
Bye
bye,
we
decided
by
limiting
to
three
animals
anybody
living
in
a
condo
or
a
single-family
home
they're
still
allowed
to
have
three
animals.
Now
they
have
to.
If
there
are
condo
association
rules,
they
have
to
comply
with
those.
So
if
they're,
if
they're
allowed
to
have
three
medium
sized
dogs,
if
they
own
them
or
if
their
relative
owns
them
and
they're
taking
care
of
them,
we
felt
that
that
kind
of
addresses
that
so.
D
E
We
thinking
in
a
slightly
different
direction,
so
by
talking
about
right
at
the
first
thought,
so
we
were
supposed
to
take
this
into
the
meaning.
It
was
scheduled
for
Jamie
27th.
We
in
a
quorum
we're
here
now.
One
of
the
changes
that
has
appeared
since
then
is
the
we've
kind
of
seemed
to
be
floating
between
dogs
and
domestic
animals
and
I
would
like
some
clarification
on.
C
So
the
the
idea
between
title
aenean
as
domestic
animal
vs
dog
Baker's
service.
It
was
simply
for
consistency,
because
we,
you
know
commercial
uses
our
classified
as
domestic
animal
daycare
center.
It's
a
commercial
activity
and
also
to
allow
other
people
to
those
they're
necessarily
don't
want
to
daycare
dogs,
but
they
want
to
maybe
take
care
of
cats
or
other
type
of
pets
that
would,
in
essence,
enable
those
two.
So
that
was
the
reason:
why
be
retitled
that
and.
C
E
I'm
and
maybe,
if
I,
making
a
more
serious
matter,
the
the
three
animal
rule,
what
I
do
like?
What
would
the
age
restriction
mostly
for
dogs
I,
think
dogs
tend
to
be
a
little
noisier
than
cats?
Is
that
if
your
own
dog
were
to
have
a
litter
of
puppies
and
doesn't
close
down
your
business?
So
that's
one
thing
to
know:
yeah.
E
We
probably
would
have
to
give
two
dogs
for
that,
but
that's
not
a
question
totally
different
direction
and
later
in
the
the
packet,
it
was
made
clear
that
at
the
number
8,
which
are
other
potential
minor
home
occupations,
one
thing's
that's
taken
into
account
to
make
it
a
minor
home.
Occupation
is
noise
and
I,
don't
really
see
how
any
kind
of
having
even
three
dogs
compares
to
a
CPA
or
an
architect
or
Underminer
home
occupations
and
I.
Wonder
how
that
was
taken
into
account.
So.
C
Nuisance
from
I'm
going
to
say,
barking,
dogs,
or
anything
like
that
is
handled
by
the
Public
Safety
Code
and
there's
a
whole
section
that,
based
on
a
complaint,
the
police
is
sent
out
to
evaluate
if
a
certain
animal
can
be
classified
as
a
nuisance
and
then
there's
restrictions
on
what
happens
to
that.
You
know
how
it
has
to
be
confined
within
a
house
and
registered,
etc.
So
there
are
clear
definitions
on
on
on
how
an
animal
can
be
classified
as
a
nuisance.
C
So,
if
somebody
does
complain
about,
you
know
excessive
barking
or
something
like
that,
we
will
follow
up
in
a
police
would
be
sent
out,
and
there
are,
you
know,
specifications
on
what
they
have
to
investigate
you
know
and
then,
if
it
is
classified,
then
we
would.
You
know
there
are
even
rather
you
confined
within
a
house
or
you
know,
other
things
and.
A
C
C
F
C
F
F
C
F
C
Decided
not
to
do
that.
We
looked
at
that.
You
know
where
somebody
has
to
be
out
there
and
these
animals
are
allowed
to
be
say
in
the
backyard
only
if
person
was
taking
care
of
them
is
present
outside
and
because
we're
limiting
this
to
only
three
animals
that
regard
you
know,
including
homeowners
bets.
We
felt
that
again
it's
it's
no
different
than
a
homeowner
owning
three
pets
and
then
letting
them
go
outside
without
accompanying
those
pets
in
the
backyard
or
whatever.
F
Animals
that
don't
live
with
each
other,
just
let's,
let's
just
calm
dogs
dogs,
they
don't
live
with
each
other,
aren't
necessarily
going
to
get
along
the
same
way
as
as
dogs
that
are
just
kind
of
thrown
in
together
because
they're
being
you
know,
quote
unquote:
dogs
SAT
together.
Now
that
is
potentially
a
you
know,
issue
for
the
home
occupation
operator
to
take
up
and
decide
whether
they
want
to
how
they
want
to
run
their
business.
But
just
from
a
you
know,
potential
noise.
F
C
Know
these
these
types
of
home
occupations
would
be
required
to
be
licensed
because
in
essence,
you're
taking
care
of
dogs
that
are
not
your
own,
so
only
a
homeowner
their
own
pets.
You
know
you
don't
have
to
register
your
own
pets,
but
if
you're
running
this
type
of
home
occupation
you'll
have
to
get
a
licensed
animal
license.
So
then,
if
somebody
files
a
complaint
about
you
know
excessive,
you
know
I'm
gonna,
say
barking
or
any
kind
of
noise.
Then
yes,
that
license
can
be
revoked
and
they
can
so.
F
F
C
F
Definitely
think
it
makes
sense
to
include
a
reference
to
to
the
safety
code.
It's.
C
G
Think,
for
the
most
part,
your
neighbors
or
the
operator
itself
would
take
care
of
a
problem.
The
neighbors
start
barking
about
the
noise,
and
very
often
these
dog
sitting
services
or
day
cares.
They
don't
want
dogs
that
don't
get
along
and
they'll
ask
a
dog
to
leave.
So
I
think
this
is
a
problem
that
will
work
itself
out
without
the
city
having
to
specify
it.
Yes,.
F
An
automatic
look,
let
me
read
the
section
of
the
license
requirement.
I
think
I
think
a
reference
is
probably
not
include
not
required.
So
it's
a
section,
nine
dash
four
dash
three
dash.
One.
No
person
shall
without
first
obtaining
a
license,
therefore,
in
writing
from
the
city
manager
or
his
or
her
designee
own,
keep
harbor
or
have
custody
of
any
animal
over
four
months
of
age
and
then
excludes
birds,
amphibians,
rodents,
non-poisonous
snakes,
so
kept
solely.
F
D
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
counter
argument
for
the
references:
doesn't
it
empower
people
who
are?
You
know
feeling
distressed
that
the
neighbors
yapping
and
not
getting
not
get
it.
You
know
we're
not
getting
any
kind
of
cooperation
to
be
able
to
to
go
a
little
further
than
the
they
know
the
zoning
ordinance
they
go
to
it.
They
know
that
they
can't
do
that.
D
D
A
G
A
A
Actually,
we've
got
three
committees
to
which
we
need
to
make
appointments,
given
the
requirement
and
the
rules
that
everyone
be
on
a
committee
I
believe
now
the
membership
of
the
zoning
committee
comprises
Commissioner
Lewis's
chair
commissioners,
Dubin
Goddard
myself
and
Belle
Isle.
I
am
going
to
withdraw
myself.
I
would
like
to
add
commissioner
isaac
use
if
he's
willing
to
be
added
I.
A
Do
I
hear
any
problems
with
any
of
that,
then,
can
we
have
a
motion
to
appoint
those
committees
Louis
second
Goddard,
all
in
favor
opposed
none.
Thank
you.
Liaisons.
As
of
now,
the
liaisons
are
Commissioner
Dubin
to
economic
development.
Commissioner
Goddard
Housing
and
Community
Development
Commissioner
Lewis
to
planning
and
development
myself
to
parking
and
transportation.
A
B
A
A
We
have
no
evidence
that
the
other
three
continue
to
be
interested
I
would
recommend
that
we
let
those
appts
laps
with
the
exception
of
scott
peters,
and
that
we
elect
him
an
associate
for
2016
any
concerns
that
is
an
election.
So
it
requires
a
motion.
Someone
want
to
move
Louis
second
through
Goddard,
all
in
favor
opposed.
None
points
are
made.
You
have
in
your
packet
the
2015
report
of
the
plan
commission,
which
we
are
required
to
prepare
and
submit
to
City
Council
thanks
to
staff,
for
helping
to
put
that
together.