►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 7-8-2020
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
C
A
All
right
having
four
of
the
five
commissioners
that
are
currently
seated
present,
we
do
have
a
quorum
since
we
are
conducting
this
meeting
the
zoom
electronically
or
by
or
by
phone
we
need
to.
We
need
a
motion
and
approval
by
the
board
to
suspend
the
rules
and
conduct
this
meeting
resume.
Do
I,
hear
a
motion
I.
A
A
E
A
All
right,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
discussion
discussion
with
respect
to
accessory
dwelling
units
and
potential
modifications
to
the
zoning
ordinance
just
to
be
clear.
Tonight's
meeting
with
respect
to
this
item
is
solely
for
discussion
purposes.
We
will
not
be
taking
any
action
tonight
with
respect
to
the
ad
use
in
the.
H
G
H
Coach
houses-
well,
it's
been
present
rezoning
mordents.
There
have
been
recent
changes
within
the
last
two
years.
2018
brings
a
change
to
the
definition
primarily
to
clarify
that
Coach
houses
may
be
rented
out
to
non-family
members
that
earlier
this
year
the
City
Council
approved
additional
changes
to
contest
regulations
formalizing
the
week
before.
H
H
And
then
changed
to
the
parking
regulations
for
Coach
houses,
so
that
parking
is
not
required
within
certain
parts
emanating
1500
feet
of
transit
stop
or
the
coach
house
were
to
be
restricted
to
being
affordable
for
10
years.
It's
kind
of
clearly
where
we've
been.
We
do
have
a
more
recent
referral
from
the
City
Council
to
develop
a
more
comprehensive
set
of
EBE
regulations.
So
there's
a
description
of
all
these
items
within
your
packet.
We
did
just
go
through
and
show
on
this
slide
the
additional
items
for
clarification
so
creating
the
definition.
G
H
Accessory
dwelling
unit,
but
that
accessory
dwelling
unit
may
be
not
only
detached,
as
the
coach
house
has
been
historically
in
Evanston,
but
also
may
be
attached
or
internal,
so,
for
example,
in
a
basement
attic,
so
it
could
create
excessive
cooling
unit
and
several
other
criteria
as
far
as
construction
kind
of
when
it
created
number
units,
one
on
the
lot.
The
items
here
that
are
folded.
Our
items
were
seeking
even.
H
A
A
G
K
Name
is
dick
Koh
I
live
on
the
2400
block
of
Hartree,
hear
that
instant,
as
you
know,
I'm
the
president
of
the
development
cooperative
and
really
we
I
wanted
to
state
that
we
are
very
grateful
for
the
innovative
packaged
or
the
documents
that
are
in
front
of
us.
So
we
want
to
really
commend
city
staff
for
putting
that
together
we're
very
much
in
support
of
the
eternal
and
attach
state
use
and
I
just
wanted
to
reflect
on
the
last
few.
You
know
months
in
the
community,
80
used
do
matter.
K
They
we
hear
from
more
than
a
hundred
homeowners
that
these
accessory
going
units.
You
know
they
really
are
a
creative
way
to
address
the
cost
of
housing,
a
tunston.
They
also
you
know,
take
sustainability
out
of
the
individual
dueling
unit
into
the
community,
as
we
think
about
the
gentle
density
that
all
types
of
media
to
use
offer.
K
So
we
see
eighty
is
really
being
a
critical
piece,
specifically
in
the
discussion
place
today,
we
do
to
state
a
few
things
that
we
think
are
based
on
what
we're
hearing
from
homeowners
and
our
experience
in
Evanston.
The
first
is,
you
know
they
the
maximum
Adu
size.
We
see
that
the
detached
unit
really
being
fairly
well
regulated
by
pers
owning.
K
We
don't
see
a
huge
need
for
a
maximum
size
for
the
detached
ad
you
for
the
internal
ad
you
you
know,
we
would
like
to
propose
something
around
a
thousand
square
feet
that
gives
us
ample
opportunity
to
house
to
have
prevent
housing
for
a
small
small
family
and
what
we
think
is
also
particularly
innovative
in
the
packet
is
not
considering
off
street
parking
space.
That's
open
air
so
outside
of
a
building
to
not
be
counted
towards
the
building
block
coverage.
K
We
see
that
as
a
great
opportunity
to
have
more
88,
accessible
coach
houses
at
80
use
in
the
community,
so
that
200
square
feet
per
parking
space
can
be
used
towards
housing,
and
we
have
seen
dozens
of
homeowners
who
are
interested
in
accessible
units
to
stay
in
the
community
or
to
provide
accessible
housing
for
loved
ones
and,
lastly,
the
ATU
height.
We
see
a
reason
to
be
equitable
to
really
balance
out
to
even
out
I
should
say
between
the
historic
district
and
outside.
We
see
you
know
just
from
the
cost
of
construction
from
dormers
roofs.
K
G
L
Good
evening
two
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
city
staff
and
Evanston
residents,
my
name
is
Robinson
Robbie
Marcus
I
live
near
at
Lincoln,
Elementary,
School
and
I'm.
A
co-founder
and
the
vice
president
in
developing
cooperative
I
want
to
echo.
Do
I
can
thank
city
staff
for
everything
they're
doing
on
this
initiative,
because
you
know
other
municipalities
in
the
Chicagoland
area.
Ask
us
you
know
how
how
was
Evanston
doing
this.
L
This
is
really
interesting,
and
so
I'd
like
to
begin
this
discussion
by
talking
about
the
connection
between
race
and
exclusionary
zoning
in
American
municipal
governments
as
a
way
to
frame
this
policy
as
Richard
Rothstein
writes
in
the
color
of
law,
about
the
city
of
st.
Louis
and
I
quote.
If
a
neighborhood
was
covered
with
single-family
houses
with
deeds
that
prohibited
african-american
occupancy.
L
This
was
taken
into
consideration
of
planned
Commission
meetings
and
made
it
almost
certain
that
the
neighborhood
would
be
zoned
first
residential
prohibiting
future
construction
of
anything
but
single
family
units
and
helping
to
preserve
its
all-white
character.
Now,
given
that
most
of
Evanston
single-family
districts
were
adopted
in
1921,
I
hope,
we
can
see
why
our
discussion
today
to
work
towards
the
zoning
code
that
does
not
discriminate
based
on
race
or
income,
is
critical
for
our
community.
Accessory
dwelling
units
or
ad
use
are
a
small
step
towards
socioeconomic.
L
We
in
racially
diverse
neighborhoods,
more
specifically,
the
Turner
Center
for
housing.
Innovation
at
UC
Berkeley
published
a
study
on
the
relationship
between
local
governments,
ATU
ordinances
and
the
number
of
permits
issued
across
a
series
of
municipalities,
and
they
found
that
municipalities
with
more
flexible
and
less
restrictive
ordinances
were
more
likely
to
see
an
increase
in
any
permits,
particularly,
they
found
a
strong
relationship
between
paving
off
street
parking
requirements
and
Adu
applications,
and
we
agree
with
the
idea
of
considering
whether
are
off
street
parking
requirements
for
ad
use
in
single-family
dwellings
could
be
reduced.
L
L
Data
used
below
a
certain
square
footage
limit
also
tend
to
exempt,
while
raj
conversions
and
larger
attached
data.
You
bump-outs
often
require
a
sprinkler
addition
and
we
think
these
policies
could
apply
well
in
Evanston.
Thank
you
to
city
staff.
For
driving
this
work
forward
with
thought
and
care,
and
thank
you
for
the
plan.
Thank
you
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
taking
the
time
to
consider
this
policy
issue.
B
Okay,
it
looks
like
Traci
Falls.
B
J
The
one
thing
that
I
find
disconcerting
is
the
is
the
parking
question
and
that
there
has
additional
parking
in
order
to
have
those
units,
and
if
you
have
an
elderly
parent,
like
my
mother-in-law,
for
example,
doesn't
Drive
and
so
and
doesn't
have
a
vehicle.
So
there
would
be
no
need
for
her
to
have
a
parking
space
and
so
I'm
not
sure
how
exactly
that
would
be
resolved.
But
I
think
that
that
that
requirement
actually
makes
it
unnecessarily
difficult
and
I'd
like
that
part
to
be
reconsidered,
and
that's
it.
Okay,.
I
Everybody
I'm
soo
low,
back
I
work
at
connections
for
the
homeless
and
head
up
coalition
called
joining
forces
for
affordable
housing.
We
advocate
for
more
affordable
housing
because
the
main
thing
that
everybody
who
comes
to
connections
has
in
common
with
everyone
else
that
comes
to
connections
is
that
they
can't
afford
the
housing
that's
available
to
them.
We
are
very
interested
in
watching
what's
happening
with
a
tea
use
and
the
coach
houses.
I
Our
primary
interest
is
in
how
they
can
become
affordable
and
therefore
we're
very
interested
in
the
zoning
we're
in
the
zoning
beyond
just
a
tea
use
as
well.
There's
been
a
lot
of
people
around
town
talking
about
the
budget
being
a
moral
document.
Well,
we
feel
very
strongly
that
the
zoning
code
is
also
a
moral
document
and
that
there
needs
to
be
a
complete
review
of
the
zoning
code
to
ensure
that
not
only
does
it
preserve
property
values
and
the
character
of
the
community.
G
I
I
However,
you
will
the
way
the
ordinances
are
right
now
they
are
certainly
increasing
the
cost,
and
so
by
changing
these
ordinances,
you're
going
to
be
increasing
the
flexibility
of
how
people
can
use
their
land
and
that's
going
to
be
necessary
in
order
to
come
up
with
affordability
solutions,
so
we're
very
excited
that
you're
doing
this
and
we
hope,
as
Tracy
said,
that
this
is
just
a
first
step
and
that
we'll
be
looking
at
other
types
of
ordinances
in
very
near
future.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
so
Miss
Jones,
that
was
low
boxes.
We
laugh.
A
A
H
It's
a
good
question.
Mr.
Halleck
I
don't
know
that
we
have
anything
comprehensive.
At
times
we
tried
to
use
rules
and
had
some
other
staff
and
interns.
Look
at
that
to
try
to
figure
out
where
accessory
billing
is
our
but
I.
Don't
know
we
have
a
comprehensive
look.
I
would
say
traditionally
there
in
you
know
some
of
our
older
neighborhoods
and
areas
were
where
the
coach
houses
have
been
and
many
that
were
barns
originally
and
then
you
know,
use
it
for
housing,
mm-hmm.
E
H
We
were
sort
of
thinking
of
just
having
the
the
regular
lot
coverage
requirement
for
the
underlying
Dunning
district.
Okay,
it's
a
item.
Ees
is
where
we
we
showed
that
there,
but
we
okay,
sorry
and
the
other
consideration
air,
as
mr.
Coe
brought
up,
was
looking
at
removing
the
requirement
for
open
party
counting
towards
building
lot
coverage.
A
Okay,
so
with
respect
to
the
definition
of
a
dwelling
unit,
the
idea
would
be
adding
a
adding
in
the
internal
ad
you
in
addition
to
what
we've
previously
just
called
a
coach
house.
I
actually
have
a
question
with
respect
to
to
that
and
it's
sort
of
tertiary
to
this
to
this
discussion,
but
Miss
Jones
are
mister
Mangum.
Do
you
know
whether
the
the
inclusion
of
an
AV
you
on
a
on
a
lot
from
and
the
Assessors
perspective?
A
H
It's
a
good
question:
I
can
take
a
look
at
that,
while
we're
talking
and
come
back
and
note
that
recent
communication
from
the
economic
development
cooperative-
and
so
you
know
if
they
have
something
to
add
it
could
be
time
now
as
well.
I
know
the
Cook
County
Assessor
is
looking
into
if
there's
an
Adu
that
would
be
income
restricted
or
would
be
affordable
at
assessing
a
different
rate.
I
believe
they're,
also
looking
at
different
codes,
but
I'm
not
positive.
Whether
a
different
code
already
exists
for
a
single-family
property
that
has
the
idea.
L
A
A
A
Yeah
well,
I
can
just
jump
in
and
say
you
know,
ed
III
think
at
this
time
limiting
a
property
to
180
you,
it's
probably
the
the
more
appropriate
approach
and
you
know
seeing
where
we
are
in
a
few
years,
and
you
know
what
what
the
you
know
how
this
goes
would
inform
our
decision
on
whether
to
allow
you
know
one
internal
and
one
external.
But
that's
obviously
just
my
my
opinion
on
the
matter.
I.
A
Minimum
lot
size
we're
not
touching
that
maximum
Adu
size
any
any
any
thoughts
on
that.
E
Well,
thousand
thousand
square
feet
was
suggested
that
makes
sense
to
me
because
it's
some
M&M,
actually
that's
a
that's
a
fairly
large
unit.
It's
a
it's
some,
it's
not
huge,
it's
not
too
small,
but
what
it
signifies
is
one
unit.
You
know
one
dwelling
unit
if
it
gets
much
larger
than
that
I
think
it
could
be
easily
divided
into
two
units.
So
it
seems
like
the
right
kind
of
a
sweet
spot
number
to
me.
A.
A
And
then,
as
far
as
as
far
as
minimum
size,
I
presume
that
that
we're
just
looking
at
saying
that
you
know
whatever
you
know,
there's
obviously
a
minimum
size
that
you
need
to
fit
everything
you
you
need
to
have
in
order
to
have
a
a
living
unit,
and
that's
probably
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
an
architect
here.
But
I
would
imagine
it's
probably
about
300
350
square
feet,
and
that
would
be
pretty
pretty
small.
But.
A
H
Directly,
obviously,
Building
Code
every
standard
code
would
dictate
some
of
those
items.
The
other
regulation
is
somewhere.
That's
have
is
a
racial
relational
size
of
the
ATU
to
the
principal
unit,
so
some
would
be
most
expanses
would
just
be
to
have
the
media
be
smaller
than
the
square
footage
of
the
principal
unit.
Some
say
a
certain
percentage,
so
60
percent
5
percent
5
percent
of
the
size.
H
A
Let
me
let
me
ask
you
about
the
about
the
maximum
size
here.
I
presume
that
Building
Code
will
require
2,
2
means
of
ingress
and
egress,
and
if
you
have
an
internal
ad
you
later
on
we're
gonna
see
that
they're
they're
basically
needs
to
be
a
separate
entrance,
and
if
it's
external,
it
needs
to
be,
it
can't
be
on
the
front
of
the
of
the
house.
A
A
If,
if
someone
has
a
you
know
a
property
where
they're
you
know
their
their
basement
is:
let's
say
you
know
1,800
square
feet
by
limiting
the
maximum
size
of
the
ad
you
would
we
be
potentially
adding
additional
expense.
You
know,
as
opposed
to
the
the
property
owner
kind
of
you
know,
sectioning
off
their
their
utilities,
and
maybe
a
little
storage
area
in
there
basement,
but
then,
having
to
you
know,
include
more
walls
or
maybe
a
walkway
to
another.
G
H
The
commissioners
jumping,
however,
they
want,
but
I
could
see.
Commission
made
me
thinking
through
whether
this
should
be
different
requirements
for
a
detached
versus
a
pastor
internal,
whereas
if
someone
has,
for
example,
3000
square
foot
house
with
two
levels
above
2,000
foot
levels
above
ground
than
1,000
foot
level
below
ground
and
you
restricted
it
to
600
square
feet,
then
you
know
restricting
the
size
of
that
basement.
You
know
and
chopping
that
up
to
make
sure
that
it's
not
a
thousand
square
feet.
Mr.
H
G
C
I
could
clear
of
it.
I
said
I
just
had
an
additional
question
on
the
the
maximum
edu
size
issue.
I
mean,
obviously
the
cities
that
I
mentioned
there
in
the
background
materials
are
cut
all
over
the
place.
700
800
900
thousand
has
been
floated
as
a
reasonable
Missouri.
What's
the
kind
of
methodology
or
the
science
or
the
logic
behind
choosing
any
do
we
know
what
led
to
lake
park
for
choosing
800
South
ogen
900
and
will
Matt
having
a
25%
of
whatever,
or
is
it
just
the
commissioners
or
the
city
at
that
time?
C
E
Maybe
we
should
maybe
well
taking
back
for
a
second
what
I
said
about
the
a
thousand
square
feet?
Maybe
we
should
talk
about
who
are
these?
Who
are
these
for?
Are
they
for
families?
Are
their
families
with?
You
know
three
kids,
you
know
who
who
are
they
for
or
are
they
or
are
we?
Our
words?
Are
we
saying
they're
mostly
for
single
people
in
couples,
because
that
really
that
really
determines
you
know
what
the
appropriate
units
sizes,
I,
think
I
know
the
I
mean
that's
one
way
of
looking
at
at
least.
C
No
I'm,
saying
and
I
guess
another
way
to
look
at
in
addition
to
that
would
be
in
the
real
estate
market.
At
what
point
does
what
size
point
does
it
no
longer
become
affordable
and
becomes
now
non
affordable?
In
other
words,
what
once
it
reaches
a
certain
size,
you're
really
defeating
the
purpose
of
providing
affordable,
affordable
housing
versus
just
adding
more
non
affordable
stock
into
the
market.
A
E
A
A
Right
now,
we're
looking
at
20
feet
for
a
flat
roof
and
a
28
feet
for
our
up
to
28
feet
for
sloped
roofs,
but
there
needed
to
be
additional
setback.
I
believe
we
I
think
in
here.
It
mentioned
that
a
that
we
had
suggested
that
the
that
the
an
external
a
do
not
be
taller
than
the
in
the
main
house
and
I
believe
that
city
council
kept
that
restriction
out
of
the
out
of
the
ordinance
that
was
passed.
A
So
is
there
any
any
thoughts
on
this
I
know
that
we
were
talking
about
the
increased
height
or
the
potential
for
increased
height,
that
there
I
believe,
there's
like
one
foot
of
increased
height
for
every
additional
foot
of
side
yard
that
we
that
a
an
ad
you
was
going
to
was
going
to
have,
and
my
recollection
is
that
that
wasn't
going
to
make
make
it
very
hard
for
pretty
much
anyone
to
to
really
take
advantage
of
that
increased
height.
Is
that
it
mi
might
summarizing
that
correctly.
Mr.
Mangum.
H
E
Not
I,
my
opinion
is
I'm,
not
sure
that
setback
when
you're
talking
about
you
know
a
building
that
is
10
or
20
feet.
That's
two
storeys
flat
root
of
20
feet.
That's
two
stories:
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
side
yard
setback
has
to
do
with
that
I
mean
that's
such
a
small
building.
E
Maybe
I
don't
understand,
but
to
me
they're
there
they're
not
connected
to
me.
It
shouldn't
be
higher
than
the
than
the
principal
house
and
it
shouldn't
be
higher
than
then
two
stories
and
typically
tense.
10
foot
per
store
floor
is
what
you,
what
you
allow
so
plus
the
sloped
roof.
You
know,
would
add.
I
just
don't
go
in
the
connection
to
the
setbacks.
I
I.
A
Think
the
the
issue
is
getting
that
previously,
an
accessory
an
accessory
structure
was
required
to
be
less
than
or
20
feet
or
less,
and
that
since
we're
talking
about
putting
up
a
you
know
like
since
there's
discussion
of
a
sloped
roof
and
having
two
stories.
If
someone
wanted
a
sloped
roof,
the
idea
was
to
give
them
the
ability
to
have
that,
but
they
needed
to
give
more
set.
A
E
F
From
my
recollection
of
this,
when
we
talked
about
in
January,
it
was
that
the
height
was
useful
that
were
in
increasing
it,
but
it
almost
wasn't
doing
enough
because
it
still
was
hard
to
build
and
with
the
low
aside
setbacks
and
I
think
the
parking
requirement
is
also
really
integral
to
this
and
I
know.
That's
next
one
down,
but
because
most
people
are
now
having
to
have
their
ground
floor
be
parking,
then
they're
only
really
allowing
to
have
livable
on
the
second
floor.
F
F
F
A
A
Without
increasing
the
height
limitation,
the
height
restriction,
you
know
removing
the
additional
setback
but
making
it
clear
that
an
accessory
structure
can't
be
more
than
can't
be
more
than
two
stories,
and
so
you
know
stylistically
you
can
you
can
you
know
constructed
how
you
want,
but
there
shouldn't
be
two
stories
or
you
know
there
shouldn't
be
like
a
mezzanine
within
within
the
structure
and
just
keeping
it
too.
It's
it's
a
two-story
structure.
You
know
that
makes
sense
and
that
that's
you
know
that's
just
an
idea
that
makes
sense
table.
A
So,
what's
I
think
we're
talking
about
not
not
requiring
parking
for
for
ad
use
and
I'm
I'm
wondering.
Should
there
be
a
distinction
between
properties
that
you
know
have
the
parking
that
is
currently
required
under
toning
versus
the
you
know?
Maybe
there
might
be
a
property
that
doesn't
doesn't
provide
parking.
A
F
A
Does
that
does
put
a
restriction
out
there
that
you
know
will
will
make
it
hard.
First,
you
know
some
property
owners
that
whose
who
have
that
situation,
but
III,
don't
know
it's
just
one
one
one
thing
that
I
that
I
thought
of
that
you
know
like
it's
a
at
that
point.
We
have
a
you,
have
a
non-conforming
property
and
you're
you're,
effectively
increasing
the
non-conformance,
but
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
be
a
it,
wouldn't
be
increasing
the
non-conformance.
Unless
you
make
it
clear
in
the
zoning
court.
F
Well,
the
the
the
comment
that
was
brought
up
about
allowing
its
to
be
outside
and
to
waive
the
building
lot
in
places.
That
I
think
is
an
interesting
one.
I
mean
in
concept
I
like
it,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
create
more
impervious
surfaces
outside
which
are
kind
of
like
been
world
starting
to
steamroll.
That
I
would
rather
just
get
rid
of
the
requirement
altogether.
A
F
Saying
there
that
was
suggested
today
about
taking
that
off
from
the
building
lot
coverage,
that
if
you
do
that,
once
you
start
to
waive
that,
then
it
it
would
encourage
more
people
to
use
their
backyards
for
parking
out
side
and
that
in
doing
that,
you're
reducing
the
amount
of
green
space
in
your
back
yard.
So
I
think
that
could
just
lead
to
a
slippery
slope.
Once
we
start
to
agree
to
that.
A
The
next
item
was
design
standards.
I
know
it's
not
highlighted,
but
I
thought
it
was.
It
was
interesting
that
there
would.
The
idea
is
to
have
only
one
pedestrian
entrance
to
the
structure
and-
and
one
thing
I'd
point
out-
is
that
there
are
currently
they're
current
currently
properties.
Let's
say
like
a
to
plan
that
has
two
pedestrian
entrances
on
the
front,
but
you
know
the
owner
could
make
the
basement
an
Adu,
and
so
maybe
the.
A
We
located
on
the
side
or
rear
of
the
principal
building.
The
only
only
only
thing
I'd
point
out
is
that
we
may
need
to
consider
corner
Lots,
and
so,
if
it's
on
the
side
is,
are
we
making
a
second
front
to
the
property?
It's
probably
okay,
but
just
something
for
staff
to
consider
before
they
would
it
bring
the
proposal
to
the
to
the
board
I'm
going
to
skip
alterations
and
ownership
and
occupancy
and
move
on
to
separation
from
principal
structure
detached
ATO.
A
A
E
F
A
H
A
H
A
Rightly
I
I
feel,
like
I
mean
my
limited
knowledge
about
fire.
Sprinklers
is
that
they
they
cost
a
lot
to
to
to
install,
and
you
know
even
with
something-
that's
that's
relatively
small
in
a
small
edu.
You
know
if
we're
talking
about
making
it
making
this
attainable
and
affordable
that
that
flies
in
the
face
of
that
right.
E
A
The
you
know,
obviously
you
can't
you
know
we
shouldn't
be
sacrificing
safety
or
for
that,
but
nevertheless
you
know
I
would
say
it's
probably
95
percent
of
single-family
homes
into
flats
within
city
of
Evanston
right
now
do
not
have
fire
sprinklers,
and
so
you
know
adding
that.
Having
that
being
a
requirement
would
seem
to
be
counterintuitive
what
we're
trying
to
achieve.
But
again,
that's
not
really
within
our
purview.
But
you
know
we
set
our
piece
of
leaf.
D
If
I
can
interject-
and
maybe
we
I
mean
without
having
the
the
fire
department
here
to
fully
confirm
and
know
for
some
of
the
commercial
properties,
we've
had
to
come
before,
dapper,
where
they
may
not
be
able
to
put
an
extinct
lurch
system,
the
fire
department
does
have
a
process
for
an
alternative
plan
for
fire
protection,
so
that
be
something
that
a
homeowner
might
want
to
work
with.
The
fire
department,
specifically
with
to
see
if
they
need
to
have
maybe
fire
extinguishers
or
maybe
smokey
characters,
are
then
materials
with.
D
A
That's
that's
good
to
know
the
the
you
know
the
the
remaining
issue
there
would
be
is
that
is
that
process
costly
or
you
know
getting
that
information
and
getting
the
exemption
from
the
fire
department.
You
know
is
that
with
that
in
itself
be
prohibitive.
I
know
we
talked
about
our
our
you
know.
Plan
development
process
here
in
Evanston
can
be
prohibitive
to
some
some
developers.
H
Up
the
Commission
I
think
he
did
get
some
good
discussion
on
the
parking
requirements
for
the
accessory
dwelling
units.
I
did
want
to
bring
out
that
the
city
of
Chicago
knew
their
draft.
Ordinance
is
actually
looking
the
change
of
parking
requirement
for
single-family
dwellings
from
two
parking
spaces
required
for
single-family
house
to
one
space
for
single-family
house,
and
that
would
be
just
a
citywide
change,
whether
there's
a
do
or
not.
E
A
Iii
think
what
what
mr.
Mangum
is
saying
is
that
there
he's
mentioning
that
the
city
of
Chicago,
not
related
to
ad
use
is
reducing
their
their
parking
requirement.
And
so
you
know
that
would
be
I
guess
a
separate
discussion
for
for
our
zoning
code.
But
in
you
know,
in
the
context
of
what
we're
discussing
yeah
you're
right,
it
would
be
like
I
guess,
a
double
whammy
on
double-dip.
C
E
I
C
Chairman
I
have
questions
so
the
that
the
staff
is
really
just
looking
to
hear
the
discussion
or
I
guess.
Are
you
looking
for
the
consensus
of
the
meeting
you
know
thousand
for
the
for
the
maximum
edu
size
or
just
just
to
hear
what
we
have,
because
the
thoughts
were
kind
of
a
long
all
over
the
board
on
some
of
the
issues,
I'm,
not
sure
how
clear
guidance
we
and
some
of
the
issues
I
think
we're
able
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
clarity
in
terms
of
set
consensus
of
the
group.
It's.
A
G
H
A
Mean
I
I
personally
feel
comfortable
with
what
we've
and
with
the
understanding
that
you
know
this
was
a
this
was
a
discussion
and
that
you
know
even
if
there,
even
if
it
appears
that
we
had
consensus
today
on
an
item.
You
know
the
Commission
could
go
completely
in
a
different
direction.
Once
we're
looking
at
something
concrete,
we
promised
not
to
try
to
do
that
mr.
Bingham,
but
he's
nevertheless.
F
A
It's
Jones
&
Mangum,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
on
this
item
as
well
for
a
rule
we
are.
This
is
the
only
under
discussion,
because
this
has
not
been
presented
to
us
with
enough
time
pursuant
to
our
rules
so
that
we're
gonna
we're
going
to
review
it
today,
we're
going
to
discuss
it
and
it
will
be
something
that
we
can
vote
on
at
our
next
meeting
is
that
an
accurate
summer.
D
D
Okay,
so,
generally
speaking,
we've
got
a
few
key
parts
that
we're
trying
to
get
some
feedback
on
today.
The
first
is
being
really
minor
corrective
edits
to
like
the
language,
correcting
code,
section
numbers
that
we
noticed
aren't
consistent
throughout.
You
also
want
to
make
sure
we
have
some
consistency
throughout
the
document.
With
regards
to
time
allotted
for
comments,
we
have
a
couple
of
sections
that
weren't
matching
up.
We
also
want
clarification
on
the
process
for
requesting
continuances.
D
We
are
also
looking
for
feedback
on
just
some,
some
minor
updates
regarding
submitting
materials
to
staff
into
the
commission
for
presentation
during
some
of
our
public
hearings
and
during
those
meetings,
and
then
just
really
minor
updates
regarding
the
Commissioner
responsibilities
if
they
happen
to
be
absent
for
a
portion
of
a
public
hearing
for
a
particular
agenda
item.
So,
generally
speaking,
those
are
the
five
major
points
that
you've
got
some
Corrections
for
today.
D
A
Why
don't
you
leave
you?
Why
don't
you
leave
the
this
slide
up
and
we
can
just
go?
We
can
just
go
down
the
down
the
line,
so
the
minor
corrected
edited
to
the
language,
Code,
section
number,
etc.
That's
obviously
not
going
to
be
I,
don't
think
any
commissioners
and
the
commissioners
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
don't
think
we're
gonna
have
any
any
issues
with
that.
That's
that's
good
good
work
on
your
part,
the
consistency
with
the
documents.
A
Like
the
time
allotted
for
comments,
it
looks
like
we're,
making
it
clear
that
individual
citizens
shall
have
two
minutes
and
comments
of
a
group
of
citizens.
You
know
someone
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
organization
or
a
group
of
citizens
would
be,
would
not
exceed
ten
minutes.
So
listen
we're
reducing
from
three
to
two
for
individuals
and
from
four
organizations
from
five
to
ten,
and
so.
G
E
D
I
think
it's
kind
of
dependent
on
the
meeting
I
think
there's.
Actually
a
different
section
was
falling
from
now
that
listed
10
minutes
it's
been
fairly
flexible
during
meetings
and
practice.
So
it's
kind
of
a
if
there's
an
abundance
of
information
that
needs
to
be
presented,
and
it's
a
person
or
a
couple
of
people
that
are
representing
a
very
large
group.
D
A
A
So
I
think
this
you
know
this
addresses
a
lot
of
applicants,
concerns
that
when
a
request
is
made
that
the
you
know
they
want
to
know
what
why
what's
the
basis,
and
so
this
would
provide
a
requirement
to
provide
that
basis.
I
I
don't
see
any
issue
with
that
change,
that
it
seems
to
me
that
that
that's
only
appropriate,
especially
when
applicants
have
spent
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
coming
before
the
Planning,
Commission
and-
and
you
know
they
can
as
well
prepare
themselves
for
whatever
counter-argument
is,
is
made
at
the
next.
A
The
next
meeting,
the
the
one,
the
one
issue
that
I
have
is
the
the
written
request
and
I,
don't
think
I
think
continuing
to
make
it
a
written
request
doesn't
address
the
issues
we've
dealt
with
in
our
our
own
residents,
who
are
at
the
meeting.
They
cannot
present
the
written
request
until
the
until
the
applicant
has
made
it
has
made
his
or
her
case
and
now
we're
asking
them
to
have
something
in
writing,
which
you
know
a
lot
of
times.
They
don't
and
they
have
to.
We
get
requests
written.
A
You
know
scribbled
on
a
piece
of
paper
or
a
napkin,
you
know
I'm
wondering
does
it
need
to
be
written
like?
Can
we
just
say
that
you
know
person
needs
to,
you
know,
stand
up
and
you
know
give
his
or
her
name
and
the
reason
for
their
request
and
that
you
know
a
statement
that
they'll
they'll
be
at
the
next
meeting
to
rebut
the
testimony.
E
Along
those
same
lines,
I
was
wondering
and
I
I
understand.
The
purpose
is
to
right
now
it's
to
allow
them
to
to
request
a
continuance
after
the
applicant
has
made
the
presentation,
but
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
reality,
the
reality
is
that
someone
that's
going
to
request
a
continuance.
It's
the
presentation
is
is
irrelevant
that
they
know
they're
gonna
if
they,
if
they
know
that
they
can
do
it,
they
can
do
it
even
before
the
the
applicant
makes
the
presentation.
E
So
I
don't
want
to
go
too
far
against
the
current
rules,
but
it's
it
seems
really
a
an
inconvenience
to
say
the
least
to
have
all
these.
You
know
in
a
in
a
controversial
case.
You
know
all
these
people
show
up
for
a
meeting
and
then
it
gets
continued,
so
they
they
sit
through
the
whole
presentation
and
then
nothing
and
then
they
have
to
come
back
another
time
so
I,
I,
guess
I
I
mean
I'm
this.
This
probably
sounds
too
radical,
but
is
it
possible
to
that?
F
Was
thinking
the
same
thing
like
I
was
thinking?
Maybe
it's
it's
part
of
it
is
like
having
it
be
part
of
the
public
record
once
they've
presented,
then
people
in
the
projects
like
on
the
books,
kind
of
thing
and
if
you
do
it
before
it's
presented,
will
the
public
feel
like
they're
part
of
the
process?
E
C
And
I
guess
what
they.
What
they
wouldn't
know,
is
exactly
what
portion
well,
they
may
know,
but
they
haven't
heard
the
presentation
yet
so
they
still
some
doubt
as
to
what
portion
in
advance
they
have
to
then
would
have
to
then
indicate
what
portion
they
intend
to
rebut,
but
they
haven't.
You
actually
heard
it
yet
they
generally.
C
A
What
what
you,
what
you're
discounting
in
the
the
process
here
is
that
this
is
this
is
after
the
well
I
believe
it's
after
and
if
it
isn't,
it
should
be.
It
should
be
after
the
the
question
and
they
should
be
after
the
question
and
an
answer
section
right,
so
it
should
be.
It
should
be
after
question,
an
answer
and
and
before
public
comment,
because
there's
plenty
of
times
where
we're
you
know,
questions
the
either
the
commission
or
the
public
prior
to
public
comment
have
raised
issues,
and
you
know,
there's
you
know
someone
you
know.
A
A
A
Shouldn't
be
anything
in
there
that
that
that
should
be
rebutted.
It's
very
unlikely.
There
would
be
rebuttable
evidence
in
there,
but
you
know
I
I,
like
the
idea
of
having
a
of
it
being
after
question
and
answer,
because
I
think
I
think
the
question
and
answer
section
from
the
the
public
is
where
they
can
elicit
some
testimonies,
where
they
can
say
well,
I'll
get
something
I'll
get
something
or
someone
in
here
to
rebut
that
to.
G
A
And
you
know
one
one
other
thing:
Miss
Jones
and
mr.
Mangum
that
I
think
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
put
in
this
section
that,
basically
to
put
into
you
know,
put
into
law
what
we
usually
do,
which
is
allow
people
to
allow
people
to
provide
comments
if
they're
there
they
don't
plan
on
coming
and
coming
to
the
next
meeting.
You
know,
if
that's
our
normal,
that's
how
we
normally
operate.
A
Let's
just
make
it
part
of
the
rule
so
that
there's
no
there's
no
question.
I
said
what
we
know,
what
we're
doing
and
that
and
that
you
know
at
the
continuance
there.
You
know
there
will
be
rebuttal
testimony
with
respect
to
the
the
items
that
are
the
items
that
are.
You
know
that,
were
you
know,
noticed
up
by
the
by
the
resident
and
that
after
that,
the
the
applicant
can,
you
know,
you
know,
respond,
and
then
we
just
move
straight
the
public
on
that
you
know,
I
know
it's
probably
making
this
section
a
little
little.
A
F
Under
your
comment,
chair,
I'd,
say
kebab
rate
and
having
it
written,
I
understand
your
point
and
it
does
seem
kind
of
funny
when
everyone's
just
like
scrambling
to
write
something
I
would
think
that
it's
a
legal
process
to
have
it
written
I'm
wondering
if
it
we
usually
or
usually
give
away
like
little
reminding
people
that
they
can
do
a
continuance.
When
the
meeting
starts
I
mean.
F
A
Know
the
the
only
you
know,
functional
issue
is
that
questions
and
comments,
end
and
I
say:
okay,
you
know:
does
anyone
have
a
request
for
a
continuance
and
and
ultimately,
even
if,
even
if
they're
warned
ahead
of
time,
yeah,
that's
when
that's
when
they're
gonna
write
it?
So
if,
if
we're
gonna,
take
a
you
know
a
two
minute
or
a
five
minute
break
after
the
question
and
comment
section,
and
so
so
that
someone
isn't
completely
scrambling
right
like
we
don't
want
our
own,
our
own
neighbors
and
community
members
to
feel.
A
To
feel
unfairly,
you
know
to
feel
that
they're
being
treated
unfairly
and
that
that,
like
this
request
for
a
continuance,
is,
is
not
it's
not
real
right,
it's
real
and
something
they
can
do
and
I
think
that
the
process
should
be
I
mean
it
shouldn't
be
completely
completely
lacks
right.
That's
why
we're
putting
in
the
requirement
the
need
to
state?
Why
why
they
want
a
continuance,
but
it
shouldn't
be
so
onerous
that
it's
it's
not
it's
not
achievable.
E
But
that's
a
this.
Why
they
want
to
continuance.
Very
specifically,
is
why
I
kind
of
like
the
written
part,
because
it
forces
them
to
say
oh
I,
just
you
know,
I,
don't
want
a
continuance,
because
my
my
friends
aren't
here
or
you
know
it
forces
them
and
we
review
their
their
request
and
it
has
to
be.
It
has
to
be
specific,
but.
A
G
F
D
Especially
probably
ahead
of
time
since
we've
got
a
lot
of
information,
that's
presented
within
the
packets,
if
there
is
someone
that
feels
that
there's
some
information-
that's
maybe
within
that
packet-
that
they
don't
feel
is
honest
or
is
incorrect
or
misleading-
that
they
can
very
specifically
pinpoint
that
information
and
it'll
be
easy
to
just
basically
just
fill
any
form
and
fill
in
the
blanks.
That
way,
if.
E
K
A
E
C
A
comment
in
the
second
comment
in
the
chat
about
maybe
having
a
form
pre-printed
form
that
we
have
that
perhaps
you
could
hand
out
depending
the
meetings
I
think
of
thinking
of,
can
be
asking
for
a
continuance.
Here's
the
form
you
got
to
fill
out
and
that
you
know
it
makes
it
a
little
easier.
So
they're
not
scrambling
trying
to
jot
something
down.
H
F
F
H
Actually,
it's
a
good
point
to
issue
out
sorry
Hugo
thanks
for
bringing
that
up.
So
this
is
to
be
consistent
with
his
own
wardens.
The
zoning
ordinance
currently
allows
for
request
for
continuance
by
developers
unique
uses,
but
not
for
amendments.
There's
a
separate
process
in
the
zoning
ordinance
for
map
amendments
where
property
owners
500
feet,
may
submit
a
petition
over
I.
Think
it's
over
30%
submit
that
petition.
It
triggers.
A
D
Will
for
back
for
this
particular
change?
This
is
for.
Let
me
have
a
significant
amount
of
information,
and
someone
knows
that
they
have
some
information
that
they
want
the
Commission
to
look
at
ahead
of
time,
especially
if
they
want
it
to
be
in
the
packet
that
isn't
out
to
you
as
the
commissioners,
but
this
would
pretty
much
just
make
it
so
that
we
aren't
getting
something
at
four
o'clock
on
Friday,
then
just
to
go
up
again.
That
goes
out
at
5:00
p.m.
that
same
day.
D
We
do
sometimes
get
information
after
that
particular
time
frame.
This
isn't
necessarily
a
a
hard
deadline,
but
it's
if
it's
going
to
be
something
that
is
presented
ahead
of
time,
that
we
have
commissioners
have
enough
time
to
look
at
and
review.
Then
you
stick
to
what
we're
proposing
here
when
we
do
get
something
that's
presented
to
us
afterwards,
we
still
end
up,
as
you
notice
before
I'll
put
that
print,
that
out
put
it
on
the
dais
or
send
it
email
and
then
posted
on
the
city's.
L
D
If
there
are
steps
that
we
take
to
make
sure
the
information
is
properly
presented
and
posted
will
be
as
much
as
possible
once
I
have
the
information
ahead
of
time.
So
that
gives
pretty
much
everyone,
commissioners
and
members
of
the
public
to
actually
look
and
pay
attention
and
prove
out
questions
forget
if
they
want
to
request
a
continuance
so
yeah.
That's
where
that
he's.
G
A
D
I
think
the
the
only
other
change
was
the
commissioners
responsibilities
if
you
happen
to
be
abstinent
for
part
of
the
of
the
public
hearing
for
a
particular
agenda
item,
it's
basically
just
stating
that
you
have
watched
the
video
go
for
that
particular
item
and
review
the
minutes.
Okay,
to
that
table
to
to
vote
on
that.
A
That
seems
seems
only
fair,
okay.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
if
any
of
you
commissioners
are
interested
in
being
chair
or
vice
chair
for
the
for
the
next
six
months
before
the
next
election,
you
know
say
something
today
or
plan
on
putting
your
hat
in
the
ring.
Next
at
the
next
meeting
before
you
get
roped
in
unwillingly,.