►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 7/08/2015
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
This
is
the
opposite
of
evanston
plan.
Commission
I
am
Jim
Ford
we
have
a
quorum.
I
will
call
a
meeting
to
order.
You
have
the
agenda
in
front
of
you.
Are
there
changes
or
additions
to
the
agenda?
Hearing?
None.
The
agenda
will
stand.
You
have
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
of
jun
10
2015.
Are
there
additions
or
corrections
to
those.
A
A
B
A
The
next
item
of
business
case
number
15,
p,
el
nd0
046,
a
request
for
a
zoning
ordinance
map
amendment
for
the
properties
commonly
known
as
1402
and
1408
Brown
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
Daniel
hofstetter
and
he
is
here.
Let
me
we
are
in
public
hearing
here.
So
let
me
go
through
the
procedures.
Briefly,.
A
A
Come
on
up
when
we're
ready,
okay,
it'll
be
a
few
minutes
all
right,
we
will
begin.
This
is
a
matter
on
which
we
are
making
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
The
council
will
be
the
final
decide
determiner
on
this
matter.
Our
recommendation
maybe
to
approve
to
approve
with
conditions
or
to
disapprove.
If
we
reach
no
conclusion,
the
matter
will
go
to
the
council
without
recommendation.
A
We
will
begin
with
a
brief
summary
of
the
proposal
by
staff,
the
proposal
and
the
standards
that
it
has
to
meet.
We
will
then
invite
the
petitioner
to
present
testimony
and
witnesses
if
he
has
any
in
support
of
the
project
at
the
conclusion
of
the
petitioners.
Presentation,
commissioners
and
members
of
the
public
may
address
questions
to
the
petitioner
at
the
conclusion
of
that
question
period.
A
The
petitioner
will
then
be
invited
to
make
any
brief
closing
statement
that
he
wishes.
Staff
may
make
a
brief
closing
statement.
At
that
point,
we
will
close
the
hearing,
the
public
record
and
the
Commission
will
proceed
to
deliberate.
Let
me
ask
ma'am:
do
you
do
you
wish
to
speak
tonight?
You
wish
to
testify.
D
D
A
A
few
questions
all
right
but
well
you're,
welcome
I
would
still
like
to
swear
both
of
you.
If
you'll
raise
your
right
hands,
you
promise
to
tell
the
truth
in
these
proceedings.
I
do
yes.
C
E
Thank
You,
chairman
Ford,
so
the
petition
in
front
of
you
tonight
is
for
rezoning
with
the
property
of
1402
1408
brown
avenue
from
r2
to
our
4
mm.
Here's
an
area,
zoning
map,
the
property
is
indicated
in
in
black,
the
northwest
corner
of
brown
avenue
in
greenwood
street
thinking
them
in
the
in
the
metal,
at
least
in
one
occasion
it
was
incorrectly
reference
at
the
northeast
corner.
In
fact,
the
property
to
the
northwest
corner
and
the
property
is
currently
zoned.
E
R-2,
single-family,
residential
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
applicant
is
requesting
rezoning
of
the
property
into
are
for
general
residential.
As
the
map
indicates,
the
properties
to
the
north
and
to
the
west
are
zoned.
R-2,
single-family
residential
those
properties
directly
to
north
immediately
adjacent
to
the
north
is
a
two-family.
A
duplex
and
the
property
to
the
west
is
actually
a
single-family
home.
Now
the
properties
to
the
south,
our
zone,
I
to
general
industrial
and
currently
there's
a
self-storage
facility
being
proposed,
and
they
are
about
to
open
up
if
they
have
not
yet
to
the
east.
E
E
Excuse
me,
this
is
a
map
that
was
submitted
by
the
applicant
staff
requested
that
this
map
be
submitted,
indicating
the
current
residential
uses
in
the
area
north
and
west
of
the
subject
property.
The
map
indicates
basically
that
there
is
a
mix
of
uses,
single-family,
duplexes
and
also
several
townhomes-
that
include
multiple
units.
E
This
is
the
survey
of
the
property,
the
property
size,
both
Lots.
It's
fifteen
thousand
three
hundred
sixty
seven
square
feet
individually,
they're
7683
square
feet,
so
approximately
thirty
or
fifty
six
by
136
feet
long,
the
property,
the
north
lot,
the
1408
Brown
Avenue
is
improved
us
with
a
residential
structure
that
includes
three
units
and
then
a
two-car
detached
garage
in
the
back.
The
property.
The
vacant
lot
of
the
South
1402
Brown
is,
is
just
making
there's
nothing
nothing
on
a
lot
so
for
comparison
purposes.
E
The
minimum
lot
size
in
the
r2
district
is
5,000
square
feet.
So
if
there
were
a
single-family
home
on
on
either
lot,
it
will
be
compliant
in
this
case.
There's
a
three
unit
multifamily
and
that's
not
compliant.
It's
a
non-conforming
use.
It's
not
allowed
in
the
r2
district.
In
the
r4
district,
though
the
applicant
is
proposing
the
minimum
lot.
E
Size
is
25,000
or
2,500
square
feet
per
unit
for
duplexes,
townhomes
and
multi-family
residential
uses,
and
all
those
users
are
allowed
in
the
are
for
general
district
and
that's
really
the
main
difference
between
the
r2
and
r4
residential
districts
in
terms
of
uses.
Most
users
are
generally
the
same
they're
allowed,
both
as
permitted
and
special.
E
If
this
really
indicates
that
there's
a
almost
exactly
the
same
setback
requirements,
the
front
yard
in
both
district
would
be
27
feet
on
a
corner
side
that
we
that
will
be
15
feet
in
both
sides.
Parking
is
not
allowed
within
the
front
yards
along
either
street.
The
side
yards
are
five
feet.
The
rear
yard
is
the
only
place
where
there's
a
difference
between
our
two
and
our
four
EVR
to
currently,
the
requirement
is
30
feet.
E
The
proposal
would
not
only
enable
development
of
a
variety
of
different
residential
units
on
this
property,
which
the
comp
plan
calls
for,
but
it
also
would
enable
a
higher
density
use
slightly
higher
density
use
in
the
corner
lot
that
would
buffer
the
single-family,
primarily
single-family
residential
use
to
the
north
and
to
the
west
of
this
site,
and
that
would
protect
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhoods.
So
we
felt
that
that's
the
number
one
was
satisfied
and,
of
course,
this
thinner
number
two.
We
feel
that
that's
also
met.
E
We
feel
that
this
proposal
is
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
existing
land
uses
in
the
area,
as
the
applicant
has
demonstrated.
A
lot
of
the
residential
uses
that
our
north
and
to
the
west
are
of
multifamily
nature.
There's
an
r4
zone
district
to
the
west,
and
it
is
appropriate
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
higher
density
on,
is
a
transitional
use.
They
can
buffer
the
lower
density
residential
uses
from
the
industrial
and
commercial
uses
to
the
south.
E
C
I'd
first
like
to
start
out
by
thanking
mr.
Ford,
the
rest
of
the
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
for
hearing
the
seat
this
evening.
My
name
is
Dan.
Hofstetter
I'm
the
applicant
today
and
I
would
simply
reconfirm
what
was
already
presented
by
drear
and
estimation
of
the
application
for
a
map.
Amendment
from
our
to
darfur,
essentially
there's
three
basic
reasons
why
the
applicant
or
the
owner
wishes
to
seek
the
Mac.
C
The
map
amendment
the
first
being
the
establishment
of
a
residential
buffer
through
the
r4
designation,
which
would
allow
for
the
construction
of
multifamily
residential
units
buffering
the
industrial
section
to
the
south
from
the
neighborhood
to
the
north,
as
well
as
it
would
be
consistent
with
the
art,
the
r4
designation
in
the
townhome
designation
of
the
property
immediately
to
the
east,
which
is
occupied
currently
by
a
construction
company.
So
it
would
serve
as
a
buffer
between
those
commercial
industrial
areas
and
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
that
is
to
the
north
and
west.
C
Secondly,
it
would
offer
alternative
residential
options
for
the
rest
of
the
community
and
that
it
would
would
allow
development
or
construction
of
townhomes
and
other
matters
and
other
forms
of
housing
that
would
be
more
affordable
than
a
the
construction
of
a
single-family
dwelling.
And
thirdly,
the
lot
at
1402
brown
is
currently
vacant
and
has
been
that
way
for,
since
the
1940s
I'm
told
and
then
the
three
flat
to
the
north
of
that
at
1408
was
originally
a
home
that
was
moved
to
that
site
from
another
site.
C
So
it's
in
speaking
with
the
owner,
who
has
done
extensive
research
on
the
history
of
that
home
he's
indicated,
was
moved
there.
It's
always
been
used
in
that
fashion
and
by
changing
the
classification
from
our
to
darfur
would
bring
the
net
structure
at
1408
into
compliance,
as
damier
is
indicated,
with
the
r4
designation
as
a
3
fret
building
and
also
it
would
allow
for
the
development
of
the
vacant
lot.
C
The
owner
is
consulted
with
various
third
parties
about
developing
that
lot
and
there's
no
interest
in
developing
it
as
a
single
family
residence
because
they
do
so
would
require
the
expenditure
of
upwards
of
around
500
thousand
dollars
and
housing
in
that
area
would
not
support
a
potential
buyer
for
a
home
of
that
caliber.
So
thus
they
simply
walk
away
from
anything
for
the
negotiations,
however,
saying
that
if
the
closet,
if
the
zoning
were
changed
to
our,
for
that,
would
be
something
that
they
would
be
interested
in,
considering
developing
into
a
multifamily
use.
C
So
if
the
classification
from
our
two
dollar
forward
were
not
granted,
unfortunately,
that
loud
with
this
probably
remained
vacant
for
many
years
to
come,
with
no
development
for
future
multi-family
housing.
That
could
be
you
know,
and
that
would
serve
a
portion
of
the
community
that
could
afford
such
housing
and
yet
live
in
that
area
of
of
the
neighborhood
and
I
really
have
nothing
further
than
that.
A
A
D
E
You
want
to
answer
that
yeah.
This
is
probably
a
question
for
staff.
Well,
there
is
no
separate
use
classification
for
low-income
housing,
that's
simply
residential
use,
so
that
the
quality
of
a
house
housing
that
is
developed
there.
That
is
up
the
developer,
to
determine
in
regards
to
the
a
group
home
those
uses
are
allowed
in
all
residential
districts.
They
we
have
various
types
of
group
homes
that
generally
are
referred
to.
As
group
homes.
We
have
residential
care
homes,
we
have
sheltered,
shelters
and
etc.
Those
are
allowed
both
an
hour
to
an
hour
for
okay
are.
E
D
Correct
thanks:
well
the
house
at
14,
0
0,
8
I
mean
we
lived
on
Lake
a
long
time
and
that
house
is
really
a
nice
or
before
the
present
owner
took
it,
and
he
and
his
wife
spent
a
lot
of
time
to
get
it
light.
The
way
it
should
be
the
way
it
is
now.
They
took
a
lot
of
time
to
get
contractors
to
do
the
work
right
and
it's
a
beautiful
home
at
the
1408
and
I,
don't
know
anything
else
about
their
plans,
but
you
know
certainly
hope
them.
D
They
will
stay,
but
all
I'm
saying
is
you
know
we
appreciate
all
the
time
and
work
and
effort
and
expense
they
went
to
to
get
it's
just
a
beautiful
home
and
I
would
just
hope
that
whoever
buys
1402
would
blend
in
with
the
rest
of
you
know.
The
neighborhood
and
the
care
of
the
neighbors
have
taken
I
said
I
wanted
to
make
a
speech,
but
anyway,
that
was
my
question.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Miss
Booker.
A
C
F
Thing
there
are
a
few
problems
with
the
with
the
request.
I
would
first
point
out
that
the
council
City
Council
self
it
to
zone
the
entire
area
as
r2,
presumably
with
the
knowledge
that
there
were
properties
that
were
being
used
as
to
unit
buildings
at
the
time
and
town
homes
as
well
and
I
would
point
out
that
the
property
already
has
well
at
least
1408
already
has
three
units
on
it,
as
opposed
to
I
believe
most
of
the
other
multi
families.
Are
you
know
to
unit
buildings.
F
F
F
G
Either
way,
okay,
all
right
so
I
guess
addressing
one
point
is
of
Commissioner
Isaac's.
Is
that
if
it
does
reach
the
zoning
or
the
density
of
three
units
or
six
units
on
the
two
properties,
that
is
consistent
with
what
is
possible
on
the
adjacent
property
and
is
just
an
extension
of
it?
It's
not
it's!
It's
not
what's
potentially
out
of
place
for
the
entire
area
or
the
intent
of
the
entire
area,
it
will
be
consistent
with
it.
G
So,
instead
of
bringing
it
down
in
density
to
an
art
closer
to
an
r2,
you
know
by
making
it
our
three
at
making
it
our
for
just
helps
to
bring
that
whole
corridor.
That's
already
intended
from
the
overlay
district
to
be
denser
and
to
have
that
kind
of
kind
of
housing
which
I
agree
in
evanston
is
is
of
shortage,
which
is
town
housing,
which
is
moderately
in
Christ
housing
that
we
haven't
provided
for
all
that
much
so.
G
I
also
agree,
though,
that
this
is
a
little
ad
hoc
piecemeal
for
me,
and
one
of
the
arguments
was
to
create
a
buffer
between
the
residential
district
and
and
the
industrial
district,
which
makes
me
think
well.
Why
aren't
we
just
making
that
whole
strip?
You
know
the
more
the
more
medium,
the
higher
density
system
you
know
and
and
going
more
intensively
into
it,
but
short
of
that,
since
there's
no
need-
and
it
is
already
viable
housing
stock
in
in
that
area,
I
would
say
that's
the
to
answer.
G
My
question
is
that
you
just
leave
it
well
enough
alone
until
there
is
a
need
to
do
that,
you
know
so
so
I
would
think
that
it
is
consistent
and
and
it's
better
to
get
it
developed
with
what
is
potentially
the
same
density.
That's
going
to
be
there,
get
it
the
tax
rolls
and-
and
you
know,
and
provide
provide
a
benefit
for
people
who
are
going
to
be.
You
know
seeking
to
have
housing
there,
so
in
Evanston,
I.
B
Agree
with
everything
Colby
said,
and
just
one
thing
for
your
are
three
I
am
kind
of
opposed
to
spot
zoning,
which
is
what
this
would
be.
I
think
our
for
would
solve
the
problems
that
would
put
as
Kobe
mentioned
and
vacant
lot
on.
The
tax
rolls
and
provide
affordable
housing
for
more
residents
in
that
community,
possibly.
G
Are
just
one
of
the
issues
that
I
that
I
have
is,
I
think
it's
a
little
as
say
making
this
blank
check
idea
or
just
doing
spot
zoning
for
the
benefit
of
someone's.
You
know,
personal
personal
benefit.
Is
you
know,
personal
income
I
mean
is
a
little
bit
troublesome
to
me
and
I'd
like
to
kind
of
ask.
What's
the
history
of
of
that,
you
know.
Do
you
know
damier?
E
Think
that's
a
valid
point.
That
particular
item
is
addressed
in
standards
of
approval
of
individual
proposals.
So
if
there
was
a
proposal
for
oh
aight
unit
building
rather
than
a
six-unit
building,
then
one
of
the
standards
is,
you
know
why
you're
reaching
certain
public
benefit.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
have
another
proposal
elsewhere,
where
they're
exceeding
the
number
of
units,
and
they
have
to
demonstrate
there's
a
public
benefit
and
they're
not
exceeding
the
number
of
units
for
the
financial
gain.
E
That's
one
of
the
standards
to
get
a
variance
to
to
go
back
to
the
idea
of
allowing
you
know
when
we
allow
rezoning
and
the
idea
of
you
know
that's
just
blank
check
for
somebody
well,
the
idea
is
that
the
property
owner
has
owned
this
lot.
That's
currently
they
can
under
utilize
for
a
very
long
time.
So
the
existing
zoning
is
not
suited
for
this
property
does
not
allow
for
redevelopment
in
a
good
manner.
E
E
No,
we
did
that's
currently
there's
no
proposal,
so
we
could
be
a
single-family
home.
Maybe
somebody
will
want
to
be
a
really
tiny
home,
but
ultimately
the
the
rezoning
request
and
staffs
recommendation
is
in
response
to
the
market
conditions,
the
changing
environment,
the
fact
that
our
complaint
calls
for
a
variety
of
different
dwelling
units
and
dwelling
types-
and
this
seems
to
be
a
logical
spot
for
something
like
that
and
the
idea
to
rezone
the
entire
strip.
E
Yes,
in
perfect
world,
we
would
have
a
strip
of
higher
density
residential
as
sort
of
a
buffer
from
industrial
uses,
but
rezoning,
multiple
properties
at
one
time
requires
approval
from
all
those
property
owners,
and
that's
why
rezoning
does
not
happen
unless
property
owners
are
in
consent
of
that,
so
it
usually
happens
on
a
per
need
basis.
Am.
A
E
Agree
that
more
often
than
not
rezoning
petitions
are
accompanied
with
the
proposal
of
some
sort.
However,
this
seems
to
be
a
unique
property
that
there
was
absolutely
no
viable
interest
under
current
zoning
or
any
other
potential
rezoning,
and
when
one
is
considering
rezoning
a
longer.
The
proposal
for
the
ops
owning
then,
is
it's
even
more
under
a
microscope.
Are
we
rezoning
just
for
that
financial
benefit
to
allow
for
that
particular
development
in
this
case,
we're
it's
actually
more
beneficial
to
look
at
a
property
from
a
simple
land
use
evaluation
of
the
area.
E
Well,
does
this
property
is
it
appropriate
for
our
for
or
is
it
appropriate
for
our
to
regardless
of
what
goes
in
there?
Let's
look
at
the
uses.
Let's
look
at
the
bulk
restrictions,
the
trend
of
development
in
the
area
does
that
make
sense,
and
if
that
leads
to
a
development
of
townhomes,
the
single
family
or
a
multi-family,
you
know
two
three
unit
buildings
or
16
unit,
building
a
row
of
townhomes
along
greenwood
and
along
brown
avenue
to
sort
of
square
it
off.
F
E
Probably
a
question
better
for
the
developer
for
the
for
the
applicant,
but
in
this
case
it
would
make
the
existing
property
conforming
right.
Now
it's
a
non-conforming
lot,
but
a
three
unit
building
where
only
a
single
families
allowed.
If
it
were
to
be
Ruiz
owned,
then
three
units
would
be
allowed
on
the
north
lot.
Three
innocent
South,
LA
and
but
I.
F
Mean
if
I'm,
if
1402,
were
redeveloped
as
a
you
know,
three
unit,
three
unit,
three
townhomes
three
unit,
building
that
property
would
serve
as
the
buffer
and
1408
would
begin.
The
the
residential
uses
that
were
contemplated
by
making
the
entire
area
are
too
so
I,
don't
understand,
I,
don't
like
the
fact
that
both
parcels
are
being
included
as
in
the
application.
A
G
G
C
I
think
when
one
looks
at
the
the
map,
as
opposed
to
just
having
a
small
sliver
designated
as
our
for
by
having
that
corner
squarely
within
the
are
for
classification,
would
make
it
it
would
create
a
greater
incentive
if
the
owner
should
so
choose
to
consider
developing
that
corner
as
something
that
would
be
fully
compliant
with
our.
For.
A
F
G
So
it
appears
that
it
appears
that
we've
got
kind
of.
Is
it
three
possibilities?
One
is
to
approve
the
recommendation
as
it
is,
or
to
deny
it.
I
thought
the
third
was
possibly
extend
it
to
make
it
more,
not
just
a
sliver
but
really
make
it
a
purposeful
are
for
zoning,
and
the
second
one
is
to
divide
the
property
and
only
approve
the
vacant
land.
That
is
the
Unseld
about.
A
E
I
F
Demure
just
one
question:
if,
since
the
since,
multiple
units
are
not
allowed
in
an
r2,
I'm
am
presuming
that
separating
the
two
lots
from
a
zoning
perspective
would
not
increase
the
non-conformities
already
on
the
r2
lot.
Considering
that
there's
an
r2
there's,
not
a
number
of
square
feet
per
required
per
unit,
and
so
by
separating
1402
from
1408,
the
applicant
or
the
property
owner,
would
not
have
a
issue
with
increasing
the
nonconformity
that
be
a
fair
assessment.
G
Think
the
other
way
of
saying
this
is
the
two
properties
are
already
separate:
taxing
bodies
with
separate
regulations
for
each
one.
They
are
just
aggregating
them
by
well
owners,
they're,
just
the
same
ownership
that
could
be
separated
by
an
by
a
building
between
them
and
still
be
the
same
ownership
and
ya.
C
E
Separately
or
together
it,
regardless
of
you,
know
what
they're
zombies
owned
or
not
I
mean
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind.
Is
these
the
required
setback
see
if
there
was
to
be
a
proposal
for
redevelopment
on
the
corner
lot
only
and
as
I
think
I've
indicated
the
setbacks
off
of
this,
the
the
front
yard
setback
is
27
feet
and
then
the
street
side
setbacks
15
feet
and
then
five
feet
from
the
North
property
line.
So
I've
redevelopment
of
a
single
lot
would
probably
need
some
sort
of
variances
to
have
a
decent
development.
E
A
Know
if
all
right,
let
us
assume
that
we
approved
the
rezoning
and
let
us
assume
that
the
property
owner
decided
to
tear
down
the
existing
structure
and
build
two
new
three
flats
just
for
sake
of
argument.
Both
of
those
would
have
set
back
problems.
Would
they
not
they're
separate?
If
this
is
not
one
parcel
I
mean
you
couldn't,
could
you
build?
Could
you
build
a
single
six
flat
building
that
straddled
the
property
line?
Yes,.
E
E
A
Me
ask
a
question:
I
guess
you
have
testified
that
this
lot
has
proved
to
be
unsalable
zoned
as
it
is.
That's
your
government
do
I
assume
that
the
property
owners
effort
has
been
to
sell
the
vacant
lot
and
not
both
Lots
delete.
A
B
A
C
I
guess
in
support
of
both
Lots
being
are,
for,
I
think
that
would
diminish
the
likelihood
of
a
very
small,
isolated
form
of
development
as
to
the
1402
address,
whereas
the
owner,
if
they
had,
they
are
four
which
is
consistent
with
its
current
use.
Anyways,
would
allow
the
owner
to
consider
a
more
comprehensive,
an
official
plan
that
would
be
something
other
than
a
very
minuscule
isolated
type
of
development.
A
Does
somebody
yet
if
somebody
want
to
move
Commissioner
Lewis?
What
do
you
want
to
move
I.
G
B
A
A
A
G
D
A
G
A
E
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
as
of
right
now
we
don't
have
a
application
or
a
case
for
the
August
twelfth
meeting.
So
there's
a
good
chance
that
by
meeting
may
be
cancelled,
deadline
sometime
next
week,
so
we'll
know
definitely
by
the
end
of
next
week,
but
as
right
now,
I
don't
anticipate
anything
coming.
Okay,
good!
If.
A
You
have
been
sent
the
revised
rules
of
procedure
as
they
were
adopted
by
the
Commission,
with
proposed
amendments
to
article
13
dealing
with
public
hearing
procedure.
You'll
recall
that
our
purpose
in
doing
that
amendment,
was
to
bring
the
procedures
back
into
line
with
what
we
have
been
doing.
The
Rules
Committee
draft
having
changed
the
order
of
hearing
and
so
essentially
we're
putting
the
order
back.
A
B
G
B
A
A
B
A
A
H
The
wording
in
the
second
paragraph,
the
Commission's
decision,
shall
be
made
by
whirlpool
vote.
The
decision
shall
be
in
writing.
It
I
think
that
just
needs
a
tweak
so
that
it's,
unless
I'm
being
real
nitpicky,
which
is
first,
it
says,
roll
call.
Then
it
says
in
writing
without
kind
of
indicating
that
the
roll
calls
first
and
then
we.
E
B
A
G
Sure
I
I
think
I
I
applaud
your
efforts
on
this
because
you
went
when
I
joined.
The
comitia
was
well
underway
and
I
was
just
a
little
bit
and
I
think
it
is
a
vast
improvement
to
the
to
the
way
things
were
worded
before
it
had
really
no
correlation
to
what
was
happening
here
within
our
proceedings
and
I
think
it
is
a
vast
improvement.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
efforts.
Thank.
A
I
A
I
A
G
No,
no,
that's
not
that's
absolutely
not
the
case,
I
think
people.
I
think
everyone
everywhere.
You
can
be
anonymous.
I
mean
this.
Is
this
is
free
speech.
This
is
absolutely
free
speech.
Now
you
don't
have
to
be
a
citizen
of
evanston.
You
shouldn't
be
a
citizen,
you
don't
shouldn't
have
to
be.
You
can
just
speak
from
about
what
is
right
and
what
is
what
you
believe
I,
but
you
get
two
minutes
to
do
it
in
that's
the
good
part
right.
Yes,
we
gonna
let
them
they
stand
the
floor
for
two
minutes.