►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 7/12/2017
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
You
have
the
agenda
in
front
of
you
I'm,
going
to
suggest
a
change
to
the
agenda
since
we
have
some
of
the
consultants
here.
We
have
two
issues
in
front
of
us.
Two
text
amendments
one
on
the
front
yard
question
which
we
dealt
with
it
our
began
to
deal
with
it,
our
last
meeting
and
the
other
the
parking
requirements
for
the
Tod
areas.
A
Since
we
have
consultants
here
on
the
Tod
question,
I
would
suggest
that
we
addressed
that
one
first,
so
that
we
don't
keep
them
any
longer
than
we
have
to,
and
then
we
can
come
back
and
deal
with
the
front
yard
issue.
So
if
there's
no
objection
we'll
change
the
agenda
in
that
way,
are
there
any
other
changes
or
additions
to
the
agenda
hearing
none,
it
will
stand
as
revised.
A
A
A
The
staff
are
the
petitioners
in
this
case,
so
I
will
ask
whoever
is
going
to
do
the
summary
to
present
a
brief
summary
of
the
case.
Then
we're
going
to
invite
the
consultants
to
do
a
presentation,
or
are
you
going
to
do
the
presentation
or
they
simply
going
to
ask
questions
not
simply
but
answer
questions?
How
do
you
are
doing
I.
A
In
which
case,
let's
proceed
just
let
me
make
one
comment,
though:
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
issue
and
I'm
not
of
a
mind
to
rush
through
it.
Staff
and
I
have
talked
and
are
agreed
that
it
is
not
urgent
that
we
finish
it
tonight.
If
we
can
that's
fine,
but
if
we
discover
we
need
more
information,
if
we
need
clarification
on
things,
if
we
want
some
revisions
to
the
proposal,
I
think
we
should
feel
free
to
continue
this
over
to
the
August
meeting.
A
C
We
go
down
to
the
item.
Hang
okay!
Well,
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
on
how
we
got
here
in
2015,
the
city
received
a
grant
from
the
Regional
Transit
Authority
or
RTA
through
their
Community
Planning
program,
in
order
to
examine
our
existing
parking
regulation
and
the
Metra
and
CTA
transit
served
areas.
So
this
initial
consultant
team
consisted
of
Sam
Schwartz
engineering,
Duncan
associates
and
Center
for
neighborhood
technology
or
CNT
as
a
quick
overview.
We
have
about
eight
different
Tod
areas
and
that
consists
of
11
different,
actual
transit
stops.
C
So
some
of
the
major
recommendations
was
in
this
study
consisted
of
short-term
projects
and
a
long-term
project.
The
short-term
projects,
essentially
were
recommendations
rather
were
to
modify
the
parking
requirements
based
on
number
of
bedrooms
in
a
unit
to
0.55
per
bedroom
or
as
an
alternative
to
that
implementing
a
base
parking
requirement.
That
is
one
parking
space
per
unit,
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
unit
or
the
number
of
bedrooms
within
that
unit.
Also,
a
recommendation
was
to
allow
developers
to
propose
for
the
reductions
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
based
to
view
our
variation
process.
C
But
this
we
need
to
be
supported
by
parking
studies,
market,
research
and
transportation
demand
management
strategies
or
programs.
We'd
also
require
a
multimodal
transportation
study
for
all
developments
within
the
Tod.
We
should
require
our
developments
that
are
granted
a
variance
to
provide
vehicle
ownership
data
to
the
city
on
an
annual
basis,
and
this
would
be
perhaps
over
like
a
five
to
seven
year
period.
C
We
would
for
developments
that
are
significantly
larger.
Basically,
our
plan
development
units
that
are
over
a
hundred
units
that
request
the
parking
variance
we
would
need
to
have
that
transit
demand
management
plan,
provided
also.
The
recommendation
was
to
encourage
shared
parking
approaches
to
further
reduce
the
residential
parking
requirements
for
our
mixed-use
developments
and
consider
establishing
and
implementing
an
impact
fee
or
escrow
payments,
or
some
kind
of
C
in
lieu
of
parking
policy
for
incoming
development
reviews
and
proposed
construction
processes
or
projects.
C
A
more
long-term
project
would
be
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
parking
study
over
off
street
facilities,
both
public
and
private,
to
determine
the
future
parking
needs
within
our
T
Tod
areas
and
the
availability
of
the
supply
so
before
I
get
into
the
current
proposal.
I
will
give
a
little
bit
more
background.
We
did
bring
this
study
to
the
transportation
and
parking
committee
back
in
August
of
2016,
so
they
saw
a
lot
of
the
initial
recommendations.
C
They
did
also
bring
up
some
concerns
and
some
requests
for
additional
information,
which
has
actually
been
provided
in
the
current
study
and
what
was
brought
to
the
committee
at
that
time
was
the
one
parking
space
per
dwelling
unit
recommendation
with
the
updates
and
the
additional
information
that
we
were
able
to
gather.
We
have
come
up
with
the
following
proposal
that
would
be
the
0.55
parking
spaces
per
bedroom.
That's
provided
so
four
Studios,
the
one
bedroom
that
would
be
0.55
parking
spaces
per
bedroom.
C
So,
as
you
can
see
to
here,
this
would
not
affect
the
single
family
or
the
two
family
dwelling
units.
Those
would
stay,
as
is
additionally,
we
would
keep
the
existing
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
parking
incentives,
the
same
there'd
be
no
change
to
those.
So
with
that
very
quick
overview,
you
have
any
questions.
Just
one.
A
C
B
A
B
C
D
D
D
A
Guess
is
there
anything
in
there
that
we
haven't
already
been
asking
as
a
matter
of
routine
in
large
projects,
I
mean
granted,
it
hasn't
come
to
us
in
the
form
of
a
TDM,
but
it
seems
to
me
when
I
look
at
the
at
the
public
benefits
the
people
have
been
asked
to
provide.
This
is
exactly
what
we've
been
getting
our
car
share.
Spaces
Givi
spaces
transit
passes.
Is
there?
Is
there
something
more
that
we
would
get
out
of
this?
A
C
Actually
have
in
practice
been
strongly
suggesting
and
requesting
that
we
have
things
like
the
difficult
rebuked
car
share
spaces
and
bike
parking,
and
really
a
lot
of
the
proposed
developments
that
we
see
have
proposes
without
us
requesting
them.
This
would
essentially
have
a
more
concrete
plan
for
the
things
that
they're,
providing
instead
of
just
kind
of
an
ad
hoc
public
benefit.
This
is
kind
of
what
it
is
now.
Okay,.
E
F
Seems
to
me
that
a
big
difference
is
use
of
the
word
incentive
where
usually
the
developer
presents
to
us
we're
going
to
do
this.
We're
going
to
have
divvy
stations,
and
in
this
case
it
sounds
like
we
would
ask
the
developers
to
present
that
as
part
of
their
sales
pitch
for
rental
or
ownership,
and
that
we
would
ask
them
to
do
that.
Is
that
a
fair
distinction.
F
There
wouldn't
really
be
a
way,
though,
to
keep
track
of
whether
they're
actually
doing
doing
that
for
their
renters
I
mean
we
would
that
this
would
be
part
of
the
sales
pitch
that
you
know
we're
close
to
this.
That
and
the
other
that's
why
we
don't
need
to
provide
parking
space,
maybe
I'm
splitting
hairs
here,
but
you
do
come
to
us
and
say
this
is
the
reason
why
we
can
decrease
the
number
of
parking
spaces
for
this
zone.
C
C
G
Good
evening,
mr.
chair
members
of
plan,
commission
I'm
just
to
add
on
that
these
developments,
if
100
units
or
larger,
would
be
planned
developments
so
as
part
of
the
ordinance
approving
the
plan
development,
there's
the
ability
to
put
in
conditions
of
approval
and
that's
something
that
we've
we've
been
doing
so
that
can
require
some
of
these
things.
We've
required
developers
to
provide
proof
of
the
divi
passes
purchases
before
getting
occupancy
for
the
building.
For
example,
I'm.
F
Speaking
more
of
their
what
they
say
about
their
units
that
to
the
prospective
tenants
I
know,
we
always
are
presented
with
their
plans
and
there's
many
divvy
stations
and
that
many
cars
share
up
spaces.
But
that's
again,
that's
if
you
want
to
attract
people
who
don't
want
to
have
a
lot
of
cars
or
I
would
think
that
the
developers
would
have
to
that.
We
would
have
to
make
it
clear
to
the
developers
that
that's
what
we
want.
We
want
you
to
tell
your
prospective
tenants.
F
It
should
be
part
of
your
rental
literature
that
we
have
this
available
and
that
available
I
mean
I.
Instead
of
having
people
move
up
here
with
two
cars
and
then
say:
well,
I'll
just
parked
in
the
neighborhood
I
mean
people
will
do
that
anyway,
but
not
to
the
Planning
Commission,
but
to
the
tenants
you.
A
G
Could,
as
far
as
what
materials
they
give,
the
tenant
that'd
be
a
little
more
difficult
enforce,
but
certainly
requiring
you
know.
One
year
of
car
share
membership
is
something
that
we've
done
requiring
one
year,
Divi
membership,
so
that
those
are
benefits
they're.
Providing
to
those
tenants
that
live
in
the
building,
and
then
that
would
incentivize
them
to
to
not
have
vehicles
can.
A
H
E
H
I
My
I
swim
make
sure
we're
I'm
framing
this
in
my
head
correctly.
So
if
a
developer
comes
in
and
they're
developing
less
than
100
units
in
order
to
get
a
variance
on
the
lower
parking
requirements,
the
Tod
areas
that
were
proposing
today,
they
would
not
have
to
have
a
they
would
not
be
required
to
come
in
with
any
kind
of
parking
study
nor
well,
they
would
have
to
come
with
a
parking
study
for
units
for
developments
over
100
units.
They'd
have
to
come
in
with
a
parking
study.
I
You
know
whatever,
with
this
report
as
a
precondition
to
us,
even
considering
the
the
request
for
a
variance
and
to
the
extent
that
developer
either
in
a
development
of
more
or
less
than
100
units.
If
they're
willing
to
follow.
What's
in
the
ordinance,
they
wouldn't
be
required
to
have
any
kind
of
Givi
stations
or
car
share
or
whatever
right,
like
we're
sort
of
codifying
that
they're
going
to
follow
the
parking
requirements,
these
lower
parking
requirements,
we're
not
going
to
be
asking
for
those
kinds
of
benefits.
Is
that
an
accurate
statement?
Oh.
I
E
A
I
I
think
sir
I
think
that's
sort
of
out
the
window
that
right
I
mean
if
they're,
if
they're
going
to
comply
with
the
parking
requirements,
then,
unless
you
were
able
to
tie
it
to
something
some
other
aspect
of
the
development,
I
think
you're,
saying
you're,
you
know
you're
complying
with
the
parking
requirements.
You
don't
have
to
have
a
divvy
station,
more
bike
parking
inside
your
building
other.
C
I
think
with
the
recommendation,
it's
more
so
dealing
with
having
these
be
a
requirement
versus
a
strong
suggestion
or
something
that
would
be
seen
as
more
favorable
for
the
project
to
be
approved,
I
mean
as
we
review
projects
now.
There
is
usually
some
dialogue
back
and
forth
with
regards
to
public
benefits,
and
that
would
probably
still
occur.
C
E
A
H
C
In
majority
of
the
cases
it's
the
buildings
are
full
of
has
residents
that
don't
have
as
many
vehicles.
There
are
cases
where
a
building
may
not
be
full,
especially
if
it's
a
newer
building,
so
that
kind
of
lends
to
under
utilization
of
the
parking
and
an
example
that
I
used
in
the
actual
of
the
memo
for
the
e
to
development.
They
are
want
to
say
at
the
time
of
their
particular
study.
They
were
94%
occupied,
but
the
maximum
utilization
of
the
parking
that
they
saw
was
under
50%.
A
A
D
Well,
we
actually
related
that
to
number
of
bedrooms,
so
it
would,
it
would
be,
it
would
not
be
reflective
of
necessarily
of.
However,
we
broke
it
down
by
by
the
actual
address,
so
you
can
look
at
individual
buildings
and
determine
if
it's,
if
that
particular
building
is,
is
lower,
occupancy
or
not
and
decide
from
a
building
case-by-case
standpoint
if
that
building
is
occupied,
but
we
didn't
relate
it
to
the
population.
We
related
it
to
the
number
of
units
in
the
number
of
bedrooms.
Wait
a
minute.
A
A
K
Know
I
I
think
this
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
mean
I
might
be
a
minority
point
of
view,
but
I
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
very
modest,
I
I
could
see
it
stretching
a
little
further
in
the
reduction
in
the
transit
oriented
areas.
I
I
think
every
most
of
the
projects
that
we
have
come
before
us
due
to
the
water
table
and
soil
conditions
in
Evanston.
There's
a
natural,
it's
just
not
economically
feasible
to
comply
with
the
literal
letter
of
the
current
parking
requirements,
so
it
I
it.
K
K
We
don't
see
that
many
projects
that
have
a
hundred
units
in
them
and
again
that
the
issue
of
having
of
having
the
this
body
or
the
council,
adding
sidewalk
width,
inches
and
other
entitlements
that
they
may
want
to
negotiate
with,
is
still
there,
because
it's
a
PUD
any
any
project
of
that
size
is
it's
automatically
going
to
be
a
PUD
we're
just
not
set
up
to
accommodate
projects
of
that
magnitude.
Without
that
being
the
case,
so
I
I'm,
supportive
of
it
I,
appreciate
the
hard
work
that
went
into
this.
H
H
Maybe
a
more
relevant
question
here
when
I
look
at
the
graphs
and
the
chart,
that's
on
the
screen:
do
we
have
to
either
take
0.55
per
bedroom
for
any
size
or
can
it
be
it
could
we
say
Studios
is
going
to
be
one
and
then
the
other
one
is
0.55?
Is
it
2.5
across
the
board
or
one
across
the
board
per
unit?
It's.
C
For
the
way
it's
described
here
and
it's
not
clear,
I
apologize,
the
one
parking
space
per
unit
was
what
was
initially
proposed,
so
that
would
be
regardless
of
the
number
of
bedrooms
within
the
unit,
the
0.55
that
deals
with
just
studios
in
one
bedroom.
So
if
it's,
if
you
have
a
building,
that's
all
studios
in
one
bedrooms,
it
would
be
0.55
per
unit.
C
H
A
In
your
presentation
to
the
council
on
page
8
of
the
consultants
report,
we
have
a
list
of
developments
which
we
have
recently
approved
in
each
of
those.
We
have
granted
a
variance
for
parking
spaces,
but
we
have,
in
those
cases
identified
the
number
of
spaces
per
unit,
and
so
the
question
I
can't
answer
based
on
this
information
is:
would
those
units
would
those
projects
have
fallen
within
the
new
rules
if
they
had
been
enforced
by
right
or
would
we
have
had
to
grant
additional
variances
to
get
them
down
to
this?
A
A
A
E
I
H
A
G
G
A
K
I
would
just
say
that
it
it's
still
a
modest
reduction,
I
mean
if
you
really
wanted
to
this,
could
be
pushed
even
further
I.
Don't
it.
It
really
is
a
very
targeted
area
and
it's
justified
by
the
access
to
transportation,
the
immediate
access
to
transportation
or
other
cities.
They
also
count
in
bus
routes
and,
within
you
know,
15-minute
walk
times
to
a
station,
so
it
at
least.
K
K
K
Different
and
that
there's
there's
a
combination
of
sharing
space
and
the
public
garages
they're
all
a
little
bit
different,
so
III,
don't
I,
see
you
know
again
these
things,
our
ordinances
are
living
documents.
They
evolve.
They
you
know,
I,
think
this
is
a
good
reaction.
It's
probably
a
little
late
from
what
I've,
what
I've
seen
the
people
I
talk
to
I
think
the
housing
boom
might
be
slowing
down,
or
at
least
the
new
projects.
Well,
the
cranes
ECR.
I
You
know
our
power
to
say
you
know
it's
too,
dense
or
not,
but
I
think
the
the
reaction
will
be
well.
I
can
build
more
units
below
the
below
height,
because
you
know
we
tend
to
be
focused
on
how
high
is
this
building
going
to
be
and
they'll
just
put
more
units
in
same
number
of
floors,
I
don't
know
that
it
matters
just
wanted
to
know
what
you're
with
what
you
thought
about
that
I.
K
Think
it's
possible
I,
think
I
think
there's
a
there's,
a
saturation
point
in
the
market
or
a
limit
to
how
small
or
how
dense
you
can
make
a
property.
I,
don't
know
what
that
is,
but
there
are
other
rags
that
you
pointed
out
to
that
kind
of
put
caps
on
that
I
think
yeah.
The
immediate
trade-off
is
that
they
would
try
to
get
more
units
in
a
given
parcel
whatever
that
might
be,
as
you
know,
as
opposed
to
giving
that
parking,
they
might
give
it
more
to
landscaped
areas.
K
They
might
provide
wider
sidewalks
streetscapes,
which
seems
that
he's
really
important,
I
didn't
know.
There
was
such
expertise
out
there,
but
that's
that's
good
I
mean.
If
that's
you
know
when
what
what's
important
I
you
know
and
I
also
think
maybe
there's
a
chance.
We,
you
know
I,
think
it
depends
on
the
quality
of
the
of
the
proposed
development.
I
mean
it.
You
know
that's
a
factor
in
there
too.
Who
is
you
know
what
the
reputation
is
of
the
Builder,
the
architecture
and
what
you
know,
what
the
what
the
project
is
actually
proposing.
K
A
H
Maybe
just
a
point
to
remind
everybody
that,
as
interested
in
this
I,
feel
like
the
most
recent
planned
developments
that
we
approved
or
that
have
been
approved
were
in
areas
where
residents
of
those
buildings
we're
not
going
to
be
allowed
to
get
street
parking
so
it,
and
that
seems
to
be
a
trend
there
will
continue
and
therefore
making
changes
to.
This
should
not
have
a
huge
impact
on
on
street
parking
because
they're
already
not
allowed
to
do
it
just
a
point
to
be
on
the
record
about
it.
A
One
of
the
arguments
you're
going
to
run
into
is
that
if
you
reduce
the
number
of
units
without
reducing
the
supply
of
cars,
then
those
cars
are
going
to
bubble
out
into
the
street,
which
is
what
nobody
wants
and
so
I
think
it's
essential
to
begin
with
the
fact
that
car
ownership
is
going
down
that
we
are
not
creating
a
change
in
demand
here,
we
are
responding
to
it
to
an
existing
change
in
demand.
I
think
that's
a
critical
part
of
the
argue
is:
would.
H
C
H
A
I
L
Hi
Jane
Wolverine
with
Sam
shorts
engineering,
so
the
fee
in
lieu
is
an
option
for
developers
who
can
exactly
like
that
you
said
buy
into
instead
of
providing
that
parking
space
pay
for
the
space
for
a
fee,
and
that
would
go
into
the
cities
fund,
which
could
has,
in
other
key
studies
across
the
country,
gone
into
beautification
effort,
streetscape
efforts
and
reduce
the
demand
as
well
as
kind
of
made,
the
area
more
vibrant.
That's
the
reason
you
Hannah.
A
K
I
think
it
could
be
a
good
idea
as
long
as
the
those
funds
are
are
targeted
towards
streetscape
improvements.
I
I
think
it
depends
on
how
it's
used
or
I
mean
if
it's
potentially
just
goes
into
the
big
coffer
and
we
spend
it
on
ice
rink
arena
studies
I
mean
maybe
I'd
feel
differently
about
that,
but
yeah.
A
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
precisely
where
we
get
into
the
problem
that
we
have
run
into
with
the
council
on
a
bunch
of
projects
like
this,
where
the
fear
is
that,
if
we're,
if
we
lower
the
parking
requirement,
we're
just
dumping
cars
out
onto
the
street
and
then
all
the
neighbors
get
upset,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
this
just
this
plays
right
into
that
concern.
I
think
this
one.
A
M
I
hope
that
if
there
was
a
way
to
buy
your
way
out
as
a
parking
requirement,
you
would
still
have
to
prove
that
whatever
you're
asking
for
is
sufficient
for
the
development.
So
someone
wants
to
reduce
it
by
half.
They
would
still
have
to
produce
a
report.
They
can
just
say
I'm
supposed
to
do.
50
I
want
to
do
25.
Here's
my
check,
but
and
here's
also
a
study
that
shows
that
25
is
sufficient
for
this
development.
M
B
C
But
I
do
believe
that
was
a
discussion
that
we
did
have
where
if
we
started
to
receive
a
significant
amount
of
fees
in
lieu
or
some
kind
of
fee
associated
with
reduced
parking,
that
we
could
do
the
long
term
parking
study
or
a
comprehensive
parking
study
or
put
that
towards
improving
the
amount
of
parking
that
we
have
through
the
city.
So
that
wasn't
ideas
was
talked
about
briefly.
C
I,
definitely
understand
the
concern
of
accepting
additional
fees
without
having
a
place
for
them
to
go
yeah,
because
that's
a
kind
of
similar
to
the
concern
that
has
been
brought
up
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
and
how
to
use
those
funds
so
I
do
understand
the
concerns
that
way.
This
was
just
another
option
to
see.
If
there
are
ways
to
see.
A
M
I
will
just
say:
I:
don't
it's
fine
if
it
goes
below
the
line?
I'd
I,
don't
actually
like
the
provision.
It
seems
weird
that
in
a
Tod,
where
part
of
the
point
is
to
reduce
the
dependence
on
cars,
people
have
to
pay
for
doing
just
that,
so
I
I
would
personally
just
take
it
out,
but
I'm,
also,
okay,
with
it
being
a
long-term
on
the
shelf
type
of
thing.
K
One
question
for
that:
I
mean,
as
the
you
know,
since
I'm
not
going
to
be
parking
to
get
batteries
at
RadioShack
anytime,
soon
and
I'm
wondering
did
and
that's
kind
of
a
joke
about.
You
know:
I,
don't
I
see
a
lot
of
vacancies
in
the
retail
stores
in
downtown.
Maybe
targets
going
to
improve
that
I,
don't
know,
but
you
know
just
it
seems
like
the
trend
is
the
the
Golden
Age
of
retail
is
probably
over
and
I.
Don't
know
what
the
future
is
for
some
of
those
stores.
K
D
No,
no
ups
or
downs
in
retail
should
affect
our
data,
but
also
you
know
it
doesn't
play
into
any
other
recommendations
that
we've
made.
Maybe
there's
excess
parking
from
the
retail
perspective
that
can
be,
it
can
be
accommodating
residential.
Also,
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
a
much
more
comprehensive
scope
than
what
we
looked
at.
We
were
only
looking
at
residential
demand.
Okay,.
A
H
E
A
J
J
My
name
is
that
yester
in
listening
to
your
presentation-
and
this
is
for
the
transit
oriented
development
parking
and
looking
at
what
has
been
developed
around
the
train
stations
already.
Is
there
a
limit
out
to
force
a
from
the
El
station?
Is
there
a
distance
up
for
them?
That
is
included
in
that
say,
you
know
like
say
from
dentistry:
what
cuts
off
your
area
for
a
transit
station?
J
You
know
station
because
you
can
go
out
too
far
and
you're
getting
into
the
neighborhood
and
so
most
of
the.
If
you
look
at
the
development
around
the
different
stations,
most
of
that
has
already
have
developments
that
have
occurred
and
anything
that
occurred
after
that
is
kind
of
moving
into
the
neighborhood,
and
the
other
thing
is:
will
this
only
be
for
the
transit
oriented
area,
or
will
it
apply
to
development
that
they
would
be
billing
in
saved?
J
Our
plywood
says
you
can
do
a
five-story
unit,
I
mean
building
and
have
16
or
more
units
in
that
building?
Will
this
fall
into
that
error
when
they're
looking
at
parking,
or
will
we
use
the
parking
for
that
cup?
If
you
do
it
be,
it
is
not
fact
toward
the
transit
area,
then
the
people
in
the
neighborhood
is
fighting
for
parking
and
stuff.
So
if
you
could
put
something
in
there
in
sense,
this
is
strictly
for
this
area
and
not
the
other
part,
but
also
how
far
does
the
transit
development
area
go
out?.
C
It
was
the
the
city
has
adopted
actually,
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
there
were
maps
that
were
created
so
typically,
what
is
considered
a
transit
oriented
development
area
is
within
an
eighth
of
a
mile
or
a
quarter
of
a
mile
from
the
transit
station.
So
that
would
be
the
areas
that
we
are
looking
at.
It
would
not
go
beyond
that
into
the
more
residential
areas,
so
quietly.
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
H
H
M
I
think
the
fractions
also
just
allow
more
weighting.
So
even
if
the
trend
right
now
is
smaller
units,
if,
for
some
reason
it's
shifted
and
there
are
more
twos
and
threes,
it
allows
more
parking.
Where
is
it
if
it's
just
one
per
unit
and
doesn't
really
matter
the
size
of
a
unit?
So
if
there's
three
bedrooms,
they
still
get
one,
but
you
might
need
a
few
more
so
yeah.
A
A
E
A
M
A
A
Principally,
to
be
crafting
the
message,
although
I
did
also
ask
for
a
calculation,
a
recalculation
of
the
buildings
that
we
have
approved
so
that
we
can
show
how
those
line
up
and
I'd
want
to
see
a
table,
it
shows
how
those
line
up
with
the
ordinance
as
it's
being
presented,
I,
mean
I.
Think.
The
argument
that
needs
to
be
made
here
is
this
is
not
ridiculous.
I
Draft
text
amendments
that
will
ultimately
come
back
to
us
for
approval,
but
we're
not
voting
on
text
amendments
today.
Otherwise,
we'd
have
the
actual
sections
of
the
ordinance
that
are
going
to
be
modified.
Have
the
actual
language.
We
don't
have
that
in
front
of
us.
We
have
these
recommendations.
It
seems
to
me
that,
and
maybe
staff
can
chime
in
staff
you're
looking
for
direction
from
us
as
to
how
to
or
what
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
modify
to
address
these
address.
The
report,
that's
included
actually.
G
Ideally,
if
we,
if
you're
comfortable
the
Commission,
is
comfortable
with
it
would
be
a
recommendation
to
to
bring
a
text
amendment
to
the
City
Council
or
the
planning
develop
committee
and
then
the
City
Council,
because
we
feel
that
the
changes
are
essentially
changing
the
numbers
as
opposed
to
large
sections
of
code
or
text
in
there.
So
if
you're
comfortable
with
staff
working
with
a
law
department
and
in
creating
those
text
amendments,
we
would
then
bring
those
forward
to
the
playing
developed
committee
just
to
change
that
the
parking
requirement
I
mean.
I
G
To
clarify
that
the
text
amendment
would
only
do
with
the
parking
requirements,
the
point:
five,
five,
five,
okay
and
then
the
additional
changes
in
the
report.
That's
something
that
we
could
make
as
well
for
the
plaintiff
element.
But
it's
not
proposed
that
those
go
into
an
ordinance
because
oh
I
know.
A
Those
are
essentially
administrative
changes,
something
that
corrects
those
would
be
policies
just
so
that
these
the
other,
the
other
bullet
points,
the
four
that
are
five
that
are
still
there
are
things
that
you
would
do
by
administrative
action
in
order
to
implement
a
change
in
the
numbers
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
G
I
Looking
but
again
like
if
it's
not
in
the
ordinance,
this
is
a
require
multimodal
transportation
study
for
all
developments
it's
set
in
the
ordinance.
Then
it
would
still
be
a
a
recommend.
A
strong
recommendation
by
staff
right
I
mean
we're
not
writing
that
into
the
into
the
ordinance
by
this
vote
or
like
we're
not
asking
the
City
Council
recommend
to
the
City
Council
that
it
be
written
into
the
ordinance
by
this
vote,
or
are
we
I
mean
I?
Just
I
want
to
be
clear
what
what
we're
voting
on
executive
at
the
point?
I
I
Guess
are
those
going
to
be
parts
of
the
text
amendment
provided
to
City,
Council
or
if
it,
as
chairman
Ford,
has
indicated
that
it's
just
going
to
be
part
of
what
you're,
what
you're
going
to
be
doing
internally
a
staff
in
recommending
what
direction
a
developer
takes
when
putting
together
a
proposal?
Do.
A
A
E
G
There's
an
income
out
any
we
release,
no
information
that
would
be
asking
for
an
applicant
when
they're
coming
in
for
planned
development,
and
so
be.
You
know
the
City
Council
has
made
this
and
the
Planning
Commission
has
made
this
recommendation
and
this
policy
that
this
project
you
submitted
a
transportation
demand
management
plan.
G
If
you
wanted
it
in
the
future
to
be
in
the
code
and
in
the
text
of
the
ordinance,
we
could
look
at
that
further,
we're
kind
of
not
that
far
along.
We
do
have
sections
of
the
code.
You
know
just
offhand
to
deal
with
submission
requirement,
so
it
potentially
could
go
in
there,
but
we're
comfortable
with
it
just
being
a
recommendation
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
City
Council.
At
this
point,.
I
I
A
I
I
I
mean
what
I'm
asking
really
is
more
procedural
than
substantive
right,
and
but
it's
really
getting
to
the
heart
of
whether
these
other
bullet
points
are
going
to
be
substantive
changes
to
the
to
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
it
sounds
to
me
like
you're,
saying
no,
the
major
change
you're
making
or
the
only
change
you're
making
for
the
zoning.
The
text
of
the
zoning
ordinance
is
the
reduction
to
the
0.55
ratio.
E
A
A
A
C
C
A
C
Keep
really
so
so
for
the
standards
for
the
text
amendment
we
have
the
same
for
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan,
as
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
City
Council.
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties
and
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
A
C
A
Overview
am
I,
correct,
yeah
I've
got
the
draft
ordinance,
so
the
definition
would
remain
lot
line
front.
A
lot
line
of
Street
lot
line
any
Street
lot
line
of
a
corner
lot
may
be
established
by
the
Zoning.
Administrator
is
front
lot
line,
but
you
are
also
including
in
the
language
of
the
or
those
form
matters
to
which
the
administrator
must
must
consider
in
making
the
determination
exactly.
Okay
am
I.
Correct.
A
H
More
of
a
maybe
recommendation
in
the
packet
of
from
the
examples
and
other
cities,
we
had
a
shion's
I,
think
that
would
help
a
lot
at
presentation
of
City
Council.
Oh
just
a
make,
people
understand
what
really
we're
trying
to
do
because
I
found
that
was
really
helpful.
Looking
through
comparable
cities.
A
I
C
So,
over
the
course
of
that
discussion
and
that
analysis
they
would
have
to
determine
where
the
front
lat
line
is
because
that
determines
front
yard
side
yard
in
ready,
art
setbacks,
and
so
these
considerations
would
have
to
be
brought
up
over
the
course
of
that
particular
analysis
is
a
mess
sure
that
answers
your
question.
This.
I
If
we're
letting
the
Zoning
Administrator
determine
what
the
front
lot
line
is.
Wouldn't
the
Zoning
Administrator
have
to
make
what
they
have
to
opine
as
to
what
it
is
and
say,
I'm
certifying
to
you.
This
is
a
front
lot
line
and
if,
if
that's
the
case,
then
I
presume
that
under
this
you
know
for
a
that,
they'd
subsequently
be
precluded,
at
least
as
it
relates
to
the
current
structure,
to
say
that
it
isn't.
E
I
I
Now,
if
you're
going
to
be
buying
a
commercial
lot,
even
a
residential
lot
and
you're
planning
on
developing
it,
you're
going
to
want
to
know
before
you
close
what,
where
the
front
lot
line
is
and
what
you're
going
to
be
able
to
fit
in
where
and
how
you're
going
to
figure
it
out,
because
a
lot
of
times
people
you
know
developers
aren't
going
to
buy
unless
they
know
what
they
can
build,
at
least
at
a
minimum.
And
if
you
provide
a
certification
saying
that
this
is
where
the
front
lot
line.
M
Or
not,
I
don't,
but
it's
I
think
it's
tight,
because
what
I
recall
I
think
is
at
the
main
meeting
is
whether
this
applied
to
existing
properties
and
owners.
So
if
I,
it's
not
like
you're
grandfathered
in
right,
it
applies
to
all
properties,
regardless
of
one.
That's
what
I
call
recall
from
last
meeting:
it's
not
clear.
So
if
I
think
today,
this
is
my
front
yard
line
you
could.
If
this
is
past,
they
actually
know.
This
is
correct.
G
Would
apply
to
all
properties?
The
first
consideration
is
in
their
a
is
it
specifically
regarding
if
a
building
exists
on
the
lot,
the
consideration
would
be
the
previous
determination
in
the
front
yard,
how
the
essentially,
how
the
Lots
laid
out
conforms
the
existing
required
setback.
So
if
you
have
30
feet
on
one
side
that
can
flies
the
rear
setback,
you
have
15
on
the
street
side
complies
with
the
street
side,
setback
the
existing
principal
building
orientation,
location,
building
entrances
so
that
language
is
in
there
to
relate
to
existing
Lots.
No.
G
Be
it'd
be
based
on
how
it's
set
up.
So
if
you
set
up
your
good
27
feet
on
one
side
and
15
on
the
other
side,
then
it
would
be
judged.
The
27
foot
side
based
on
the
existing
layout
would
be
the
front
yard
and
the
15
side
would
be
the
side
yard
because
those
conform
with
setbacks,
reducing
orientation
the
building,
so
it
would
essentially
stay
status
quo.
Another.
A
No,
it's
okay!
If
I,
let's
say
I
had
a
property
and
the
two
two
Street
sides
were
equal
in
length.
The
house
was
perfectly
symmetrical
as
entrances
on
both
sides
budge
buts,
that
at
one
time
in
the
past,
I
had
installed
an
air
conditioner
on
the
north
side
of
the
house,
which
is
a
side
yard
amenity.
A
M
Another
question
I
asked
last
time:
I
still
don't
understand
what
problems,
what
we're
trying
to
address
and
what
we're
trying
to
solve
by
this
ordinance.
It
seems
like
someone's,
going
to
be
who's
currently
using
out
front
as
a
side
or
whatever
is
going
to
be
affected
by
this.
But
I
still
don't
have
been
the
larger
issue
that
we're
trying
to
address
here,
which
makes
it
hard
for
me
to
vote
either
way.
Sure.
G
I'm,
just
a
little
bit
of
in
one,
it
came
from
all
all
dramatic
reference,
so
I
think
it's
basically
lining
up
with
existing
practices.
As
far
as
how
things
are
determined.
If
there's
a
house
that
faces
front
door
facing
1/3
of
the
27
foot,
setback
set
up
exactly
how
it's
the
front
yard,
they
would
not
be
allowed
to
put
6-foot
fence
on
that
side.
It
would
be
a
lot
of
put
a
six
foot
tents
on
the
side
that
set
up
as
a
side
of
property,
the
house
with
the
15
foot,
setback,
etc.
I
H
G
In
the
intent
was
based
on
the
discussion
last
time
that
that
a
the
building
existed
a
lot
previous
determination
of
front
yard,
so
not
changing
something.
That's
already
been
determined
to
be
a
front
yard.
The
conformance
of
existing
required
setbacks,
where
the
building's
oriented
on
the
site
to
conform
with
the
front
yard
or
street
side
yard
setbacks
the
existing
principal
building
orientation.
So
it's
facing
one
direction
versus
facing
the
other
direction,
how
it's
already
set
up
and
location
of
building
entrances.
So
those
are
those
were
the
the
modifications
made
to
try
to
address
those
composed.
I
How
does
a
developer
get
certainty?
How
to
someone
who's
purchasing
property,
get
certainty
that
this
is
where
the
front
yard
is,
and
this
is
where
the
side
yard
is
it's
a
vacant
lot
I
want
to
purchase
it.
What
are
you
going
to
build?
I,
don't
know,
but
I
want
to
know
where
the
front
yard
it
is
where
the
side
yard
is.
Where
is
it
typically.
G
I
A
I
A
A
It
seems
to
me
that
that
would
move
you
in
the
direction
of
saying
that
his
front
yard
matches
up
with
my
front
yard
the
pattern
of
existing
development,
so
that
the
I
would
guess
that
in
a
lot
of
cases
the
Zoning
Administrator
could
go
ahead.
I
wonder
what
percentage
of
these
decisions
are?
Not
no-brainers,
I!
Guess
it's
what
I'm
wondering
if
you,
if
you
take
vacant
lots,
are
no-brainers
yeah.
K
I
would
think
so
I
think
in
the
most
most
instances
when
you
purchase
a
property,
the
addresses
you're,
usually
as
an
address,
and
that
address
is
associated
with
the
street
and
that's
your
that's
your
front
yard
and
in
I,
don't
want
to
guess
anymore,
because
I
was
way
off
on
the
parking
lot
by
Ryan
field,
but
I'm
addicted
I'm
going
to
guess
in
most
cases
the
majority
of
cases,
it's
pretty
obvious.
What
that
front
yard
is
now
if
you
are
buying
a
vacant
lot,
where
you
have
a
corner
lot
and
you
want
to
do
something.
K
Creative
I,
don't
see
anything
wrong
with
being
able
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
Zoning
Administrator
who
doesn't
want
to
get
in
hot
water
with
is
all
there
in
for
anybody
else
for
that
matter.
Who
is
going
to
look
at
a
at
these
facts?
Considering
all
these
written
a
through
B
and
if
there's
a
strong
case
to
say
you
know
it's
reasonable
to
make
this
the
front
yard
as
opposed
to
something
that
might
have
where
it
was
always
assumed
to
be
I.
K
Don't
have
a
problem
with
that
I
mean
I,
think
I
have
faith
in
the
Zoning
administration
officials
that
they
would
be
able
to
help
a
owner,
make
that
determination
and
not
violate
the
harmony
of
the
surrounding
area.
So
I,
you
know
it
I
think
this
is.
It
just
seems
like
this
is
kind
of
getting
a
lot
more
hypothetical
and
you
know
we're
kind
of
getting
wound
up
about.
You
know
what
could
happen
but
I
in
reality,
I.
K
Maybe
someone
would
present
a
situation
where
it
would
be
awful,
but
I,
just
don't
I,
don't
see
a
lot
of
harm
in
giving
them
that
flexibility
without
forcing
the
guy
to
have
to
go
forcing
someone
I,
think
it's
easier
for
developer
or
potential
owner
having
that
flexibility
without
man,
instead
of
having
conversation
with
the
city
official
now
I
have
to
go
through
a
zoning
ordinance
change
and
that
you
know
that's
even
scarier
anyway.
That's
that's!
How.
I
A
A
Would
agree
with
you
that
once
the
Zoning
Administrator
has
said
this
is
the
front
yard,
that's
the
front
yard.
But
the
question
is
whether
you
have
to
even
ask
that
question
before
you.
The
issue
of
setbacks
becomes
relevant
and
setbacks
become
relevant
only
when
you
determine
what
you're
going
to
put
on
the
property
all
right.
I
They
have
a
vacant
lot.
Let's,
let's
remember
their
purposes
of
this
conversation.
Let's
say
it's
a
big
thing:
they
come
in
with
plans
pick
own
with
architectural
plans
and
add
and
say
we
want
to
zoning
analysis
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
the
administrator
says.
Sorry,
you
put
the
front
yard
in
the
wrong
place.
You
got
to
switch
it
and
they
paid
for
the
architectural
plan.
E
I
C
A
C
C
A
C
Well,
they
actually
did
a
minor
adjustment
to
kind
of
switch
some
of
the
footprint
of
the
building
a
little
bit.
They
have
not
yet
applied
for
a
building
permit
and
they
do
have
a
little
bit
of
time.
They
requested
absolutely
18
months
instead
of
the
typical
12
months
to
obtain
their
building
permit.