►
From YouTube: Planning and Development Committee Meeting 2-13-2022
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
D
A
Okay,
it's
been
moved
in
second
and
all
in
favor,
aye,
okay,
so
moved
we'll
now
move
to
public
comment
and
our
first
person
is
and
how
much
time.
B
Each
person
gets
two
minutes
two
minutes
and
the
first
person
signed
up
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
any
other
paper
sign-ins.
If
somebody
could
check
that,
that
would
be
great.
The
first
person
signed
up
on
line
is
Karen
Stover.
E
Be
brief
because
most
of
you
have
heard
from
me
so,
as
you
guys
saw
you
like
last
week
and
I
want
to
talk
so
I
know
that
you're
debating
not
the
specific
thing
about
Connections,
but
more
generally,
about
making
changes
to
the
zoning
I
do
want
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things
that
I
hope
will
factor
in
your
deliberations.
As
you
speak
about
these
things.
E
First
of
all,
with
the
zoning
ordinance
that
you're
proposing
the
amendments
to
be
had
there,
it
seems
to
me
you
have
the
horse
and
the
cart
in
reverse
order
in
that
as
I
read
it,
you
first
get
a
special
use
granted
to
you,
and
then
you
have
something
like
six
months.
In
order
to
get
the
the
operating
agreement
in
place,
it
seems
to
me
shouldn't
the
land
use
commission
at
all.
E
Have
the
operating
agreement
in
hand
that's
been
agreed
to
by
the
city
before
you
consider
the
special
use,
it
seems
like
that's
a
critical
piece
that
you
left
out
so
I
would
reverse
both
of
those.
Secondly,
and
this
time,
I
am
going
very
specific
to
connections
and
to
the
operating
agreement
that
you
have
here,
and
this
shouldn't
be
any
surprise
to
you,
Jonathan,
because
I
sent
this
to
you
and
and
Luke,
and
some
of
the
others
I
think
there
are
and
I'll
be
very
brief
about
this,
though
I
do
have
a
handout
to
show
it.
E
I
think
there
are
six
or
seven
things
in
the
operating
agreement
that
renders
it
relatively
useless
and
and
one
of
the
biggest
things
is,
there's
no
liability
consideration
in
there.
So
if
indeed,
there
is
a
stabbing
or
some
sort
of
problem
that
happens
at
connections
and
there's
a
lawsuit
which
has
happened
in
a
couple
of
our
major
cities,
Evanston
will
be
reliable
because
they're
going
to
definitely
go
after
Evanston
and
since
Evanston
condoned
it
it's
a
problem.
E
So
you
lay
out
all
of
these
stipulations
about
that
they're
Staffing
that
there's
this
that
and
the
other,
but
there's
no
language
in
the
current
draft
of
the
operating
agreement
that
stipulates
what
happens
if
it's
found
in
violation
and
therefore
the
license
agreement
becomes
worthless
when
it
comes
to
the
city
trying
to
enforce
its
privileges,
there's
nothing
in
there
about
Staffing
other
than
they
have
two
people
on
staff,
one
of
whom
is
trained
in
security,
though
it's
not
spelled
out
what
trained
and
security
means,
and
so
consequently,
with
the
adequate
Staffing.
Why
not?
E
F
A
F
Okay,
I
haven't
had
much
time
to
put
this
together
if
you're
willing
to
give
me
a
little
extra
time,
maybe
Karen's
time,
I've
appreciate
a
bill
go
as
fast
as
I
can
and
given
a
lot
of
time.
I'm
not
super
concise,
but
I'll
go
as
fast
as
I
can
I'm
surprised
by
the
speed
of
which
this
proposed
ordinance
presented
to
the
public
for
the
first
time
last
Friday,
I
believe
and
slated
to
go
on
to
the
full
city
council
meeting
tonight.
F
F
It
plan
aims
to
be
comprehensive
in
addressing
how
physical
aspects
of
the
community
affect
social,
economic
and
environmental
issues.
I'll
just
go
on.
Isn't
this
proposed
ordinance
within
the
luc's
purview
value
sees
discussions
in
the
time
they
give
the
public
to
comment
and
ask
questions
and
receive
answers
is
extremely
important
emphasis
on
receiving
answers.
That's
the
only
place
I've
ever
been
that
I
get
an
answer
to
my
questions.
F
F
Which
is
a
cap?
There's
no
cap
here
on
occupancy
that
I
see
it's
just
as
many
people
as
you
can
cram,
and
you
know
50
by
50
or
100
I
mean
a
hundred
square
feet.
You
know
what
does
that
mean
if
the
Margaret
rated
n
or
no
we're
not
talking
about
it
but
saying
there
were
you
know
there
was
one
residence
per
100
square
feet?
How
many
people
would
that
be?
We
need
a
cap
and
there
is
a
cap
on
transitional
shelters
in
the
code.
F
Now
it
is
30
people
and
so
that's
really
important
line.
Let's
see,
I
think
that
we
need
to
know
line
by
line
why
the
text
was
modified
in
order
to
understand
the
effect
of
the
proposed
changes
and
I
think
we
need
descriptions
of
the
proposed
changes
for
each
type
of
housing
to
understand.
What's
being
proposed,
am
I
out
of
time.
G
I,
thank
you
for
having
me
here
I.
My
name
is
Gail
Schechter
I'm,
actually
speaking
in
my
capacity
as
the
executive
director
of
housing,
opportunities
and
maintenance
for
the
elderly
or
home
in
Chicago,
and
we
actually
operate
co-housing
I'm
hearing
people
talking
about
Connections
and
I,
didn't
know
anything
about
this
I'm
concerned
about
the
the
actual
unintended
consequence
of
this
proposed
shared
provider
license
home.
G
We
we
actually
have
affordable
intergenerational
housing
in
which
seniors
live
together,
eat
together
with
younger
adults
who
are
resident
assistants
and
families
with
children
at
our
Pat
Crowley
house
and
Natalie
Salmon
House.
We
do
not
have
a
license.
This
is
not
a
medical
model.
It's
simply,
if
you
think
of
a
Continuum
of
of
independent
living
with
one
end
being,
you
know
a
single
family
home
that
you
own
and
another
being
you
know,
homes
model
it's
Independent
Living,
so
we
don't
need
a
license.
G
The
only
certification
I
was
thinking
of
what
we
have
is
just
for
our
Cooks.
So
I
think
that
you
have
to
be
careful
in
you
know
having
licensing
for
something,
that's
simply
another,
how
independent
housing
model.
Secondly,
if
you
do
this,
it
may
have
a
fair
housing
impact
and
I'm
wearing
my
hat
now
as
the
former
director
of
open
communities,
where
we
were
looking
at
this
when
the
Village
of
Skokie
some
years
ago
wanted
to
do
a
moratorium
on
group
homes.
G
This
is
obviously
not
that,
but
there's
a
similarity
in
that
the
village
in
that
case
was
looking
to.
They
were
trying
to
impose
a
rule
that
would
have
had
a
disparate
impact
on
people
with
disabilities.
So
considering
that
a
lot
of
people
who
might
live
in
this
housing
are
people
who
are
members
of
protected
classes
that
that
the
city
might
impose
a
rule
that
wouldn't
be
imposed
on
housing
of
people
who
are
not
in
a
protected
class.
G
H
H
I
Thank
you
just
quickly,
I
also
I'm
speaking
on
I
guess,
PNG
item
D1
which
to
me
in
addition
to
sp1
at
the
city
council.
You
know
it's
pretty
clear
that
both
of
these
are
targeted
to
the
margarita,
Inn
and
connections
for
the
homeless.
I
The
effort
to
change
change
Zoning
for
that
particular
project,
so
I'm
confused
because
I
I
read
there
was
a
judge's
ruling
that
these
issues
couldn't
be
discussed
tonight
at
Council
meetings
and
it's
on
the
agenda
twice
here
at
p
d
and
at
sp1
and
the
woman
who
just
spoke,
you
know
made
reference
to
the
margarita
and
and
connections
so
I
mean
I,
guess
I'm
confused.
I
How
is
it
possible
that
you
know
our
community
development
director
can
kind
of
sidestep
a
judge's
order
and,
and
the
city
is
allowing
these
discussions
to
occur
contrary
to
that
order?
So
maybe
the
Law
Department
could
comment
on
this.
Thank
you.
A
Okay.
That
concludes
public
comment.
Would
someone
I
don't
do
we
move
an
item
for
discussion?
Okay,
would
somebody.
C
Like
to
move
I'll
move
ordinance,
4023
amending
portions
of
title
V,
chapter
2,
lodging
establishments
of
the
city
code.
C
A
We're
not
voting
so
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
needed
to.
We
don't
need
to
move
it.
Okay,
all
right
so
council,
member
nuzma.
D
Did
you
just
assure
everybody
that
we
have
the
legal
authority
to
have
this
discussion
tonight
to
address
Mr
basilko's
point
Sorry,
my
mic
wasn't
on
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
ask
Corporation
Council
or
Deputy
Council
to
address
Mr
vasilko's
Question.
J
Thank
you,
councilmember
newsman,
chair
Kelly,
members
of
Planning
and
Development
Committee
Alexander,
ruggie,
Deputy,
City
attorney
pertaining
to
whether
or
not
we
can
discuss
this
item.
The
court
order,
the
restraining
order
that
was
entered
the
temporary
restraining
order
only
pertains
to
connections
for
the
homeless
and
Margarita
Inn's
application
for
a
special
use
permit
under
the
zoning
code.
The
item
before
you
here
tonight
is
amending
portions
of
title
V
chapter
2.
This
is
the
Property
Standards
code.
It's
not
zoning
code
and
to
also
respond
to
another
question
posed.
J
D
B
Certainly,
we
have
actually
been
talking
about
changing
this
particular
part
of
the
code
going
back
to
about
2015
when
we
start
really
started
looking
at
different
ways
to
address
housing,
affordability
and
the
different
ways
people
were
living.
B
If
you
go
back
through
all
those
old
charts
and
slides
of
everything,
it
was
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
as
a
way
of
meeting
new
demands
for
the
way
people
are
living
together
and
we
identified
the
need
to
update
our
very,
very
Antiquated
rooming
house
description,
which
really
sounds
like
something
from
about
the
late
1900s
19th
century,
to
make
it
more
compatible
with
or
give
us
the
options
of
being
able
to
consider
different
types
of
shared
housing
that
would
be
coming
up
and
and
were
coming
up.
B
B
If
you
want
a
brief
summary
of
what
we
think
are
the
benefits,
I'll
ask
Liz
to
come
up
and
and
just
go
over
the
benefits
that
we
see
that
this.
This
provides
from
a
standpoint
of
housing
policy
and
development.
K
K
Good
evening,
thank
you
interim
director,
flax.
So
in
terms
of
the
proposed
updates
in
the
memo
this
evening,
the
they
are
intended
to
clarify
all
forms
of
shared
housing
situations.
So
there
is
a
new
definition
that
aligns
shared
housing,
licensing
with
the
various
zoning
allowed
uses
and
basically
establishes
that
they
must
obtain
a
license
and
be
inspected
annually.
K
In
addition,
it
provides
a
mechanism
to
proactively
address
issues
that
might
arise,
so
there
is
a
proposed
process
in
the
proposed
code,
changes
that
allow
for
the
ability
to
revoke
licenses
for
non-compliance
with
Property
Standards
or
the
operating
agreement
that
is
now
required
by
this
proposal
and
as
Sarah
mentioned,
it
also
establishes
a
framework
for
which
the
City
of
Evanston
can
build
upon.
As
there
are
changes
in
the
way
housing
is
operated
within
our
community.
K
I
want
to
point
out
that
this
proposed
update
does
not
change
the
types
of
land
uses
that
are
currently
allowed
within
all
of
the
various
zoning
districts
across
the
city.
It
does
not
change
occupancy
levels
and
or
definitions
of
family
within
the
zoning
ordinance,
it
does
require
a
process
for
reviewing
proposed
uses
within
each
zoning
District.
K
So
this
is
not
changing
that
land
use
review
when,
when
things
require
an
administrative
use,
special
use
or
are
permitted
outright,
and
it
also
does
not
change
building
code
requirements,
Property
Standards
requirements
or
other
City
policies
or
codes
that
we
currently
have
within
our
our
regulations
so
happy
to
speak
to
any
more
specific
questions.
As
you
all
discussed,
this
I.
D
See
one
of
the
benefits
of
this
if
I
could
say
it
succinctly,
this
new
model
allows
us
to
regulate
a
vast
array
of
different
types
of
housing
which
the
code
considers
under
one
category
correct,
and
rather
than
trying
to
write
one
set
of
rules
for
a
bunch
of
different
types
of
housing.
This
allows
us
a
customized
approach
via
that
operating
agreement
to
write
appropriate
requirements
for
whatever
future
applicant
might
might
want
to
apply
correct.
A
I'm
good
for
now,
oh
okay,
council
member
Reed.
C
Yes,
I
first
wanted
to
say
that
I
appreciate
the
work
that
councilman
Bernie,
Smith
and
staff
put
into
this
ordinance.
I
do
have
a
few
questions.
C
In
part,
just
response
to
public
comment
and
just
some
of
my
own
thoughts
of
how
we
formulate
this,
so
can
you
explain
the
logic
behind
the
square
foot,
footage
requirements
I'm,
looking
at
five,
two
eight,
for
example,
where
folks
mentioned
you
know,
every
room
occupied
for
sleeping
purposes
shall
contain
the
following
floor:
space
70
feet
per
you
know
for
one
person,
50
feet
square
feet
per
occupant
for
more
than
one
person.
So
how
do
we?
K
These
are
current
standards
within
property,
our
Property
Standards
code.
So
there
are
no
deviations
from
what
is
currently
required
of
occupancy
limits
and
I
believe
that
this
is
also
pretty
standard
in
terms
of
property
standard
requirements
for
other
jurisdictions
as
well.
But
my
understanding
is
this
is
the
current
requirement.
There
is
no
changes
being
proposed,
correct.
C
Thank
thank
you
for
that
and
then
I
see
the
definition
of
shared
housing,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
you
know.
Let's
say
that
folks,
were
you
know
a
bunch
of
roommates
were
getting
together
and
they're
going
to
share
a
lease
and
split
the
the
rent
between
each
other.
They
would
not
be
covered
by
this
ordinance.
K
That
is
correct
that
would
be
fall
under
the
rental
registration
requirements
and
the
requirements
in
zoning
in
terms
of
the
number
of
occupants
within
a
specific
dwelling
unit.
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
last
thing
is
I,
I'm
glad
that
we're
moving
this
forward,
I
think
when
it
comes
to
providing
housing
for
folks,
it
is
very
important
to
have
licenses
in
place
for
folks
who
are
you
know,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
providing
the
the
infrastructure
folks
are
doing
right
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
infrastructure
in
place
for
when
we
have
providers
that
aren't
doing
right
by
their
clients
and
by
the
community,
and
we
can
take
away
their
ability
to
operate
in
our
state
and
I.
C
L
So
do
we
currently
license
dormitories?
We.
L
L
That
we
can
get
in
there
and
do
that
like
that
yeah,
and
could
you
comment
on
Gail
schechter's
comment
about
the
co-housing
program
in
Chicago
and
that
that's
really
just
a
way
for
people
to
share
share
their
housing.
I,
don't
know
you
know
that
it
seems
a
little
different
from
these
other
housing.
Examples
in
the
ordinance
and
I
mean
I.
I
am
actually
surprised
that
we
don't
have
co-housing
yet
in
Evanston,
because
I
became
very
familiar
with
it
in
Colorado,
where
my
son
was
trying
to
get
up
a
co-housing
project
going.
B
I'm
somewhat
familiar
with
what
Gail
is
talking
about,
because
we've
actually
I've
gone
and
toured
some
of
their
properties
and
and
yeah.
It's
an
amazing
model.
The
purpose
of
this
isn't
to
crack
down
on
organizations
that
are
doing
things
that
are
very
straightforward
and,
quite
frankly,
the
dormitories
and
things
like
that.
B
Yeah
we're
going
to
license
them
they're,
going
to
have
a
little
thing
of
say
how
they
operate,
but
we
inspect
all
of
our
housing
regularly
as
I
say
it's,
so
it's
for
anybody
who's
just
doing
a
perfectly
reasonable
way
of
housing
people.
This
should
have
no
impact
other
than
I
mean
it's
the
same
stuff.
We
already
do
for
any
any
kind
of
this
sort
of
housing.
We
we
also
inspect
hotels.
We
inspect
all
of
these
things
that
are
under
this
and
so
I,
don't
see
it
as
being
punitive
or
difficult.
K
And
I
and
I
would
say
in
addition
to
that,
that
it
would
depend
on
the
specifics
of
the
operations
in
terms
of
the
number
of
individuals
that
are
living
within
that
facility.
We
do
currently
have,
within
the
zoning
ordinance
limitations
of
the
number
of
unrelated
individuals
living
within
a
dwelling
unit,
so
that
you
know
is
a
current
regulation
that
may
impact
that
particular
model
for
housing.
K
However,
I
don't
see
how
that
fits
into
the
shared
housing
licensing
structure
at
this
point-
and
it
may
be
something
in
the
future,
where
we
need
to
look
at
updating
our
land
use
allowances
within
the
zoning
code
to
further
permit
that
type
of
land
use.
But,
as
was
mentioned,
it
sounds
like
it's.
It's
just
a
a
family
or
a
group
of
individuals
living
within
a
single
family
home
which
would
not
be
required
to
have.
J
A
So
I
also
have
concerns
about
the
disparate
impact
and
I
think
from
what
you
just
said,
that
sort
of
points
to
that.
This
could
in
fact
lead
to
disparate
impact
in
terms
of
Whose
license
and
whose
being
you
know
which
group
homes
are
are
subject
to
licensing.
A
So
like
the
example
that
Mr
Reed
gave,
that
would
not
be
and
others
so
I'm
I
am
concerned
about
that.
I
do
think
licensing,
there's
a
lot
behind
it
and
I
am
concerned
that
this
is
being
rushed
through
without
proper.
You
know
without
sufficient
vetting
so
that
residents
can
meet
with
their
council
members
and
I
can
hear
from
my
constituents
I'm
not
happy
that
this
is
going
through
as
a
special
order
of
business,
but
I
also
have
questions
many
of
the
I.
A
The
the
facilities
listed
under
shared
housing
are,
you
know,
radically
different,
so
these
all
fall
under
the
same
licensing
or
where
would
I
find
so,
for
example,
like
a
transitional
treatment
facility
is
radically
different
from
a
hotel,
but
it's
listed
under
the
same
licensing.
Are
they
set?
Are
there
separate
licensing
because
I
couldn't
find
those.
K
And
I
will
note
that
any
new
license
does
require
city
council
approval
of
that
operating
agreement.
When,
when
that
new
application
is
applied
for.
A
Okay-
and
you
know,
I
was
told
by
staff
that
this
was
being
rushed
through
to
accommodate
connections
timeline,
so
that
concerns
me
that
we're
rushing
through
something
like
Licensing
in
order
to
accommodate
the
timeline
for
and
I
know,
that's
now
changed
so
I
would
like
to
see
us
take
a
little
more
time
to
ensure
that
this
isn't
actually
having
you
know
the
unintended
consequences
of
undermining
fair
housing,
or
you
know,
unintended
consequences
that
would
lead
to
disparate
impact.
A
I
do
ask
that
we
slow
this
down
I,
you
know
I
now
that
it's
been
special,
ordered
I
know,
I
can't
hold
it
with,
and
this
is
only
a
discussion
here
this
evening.
It'll
take
five
votes.
I
am
you
know,
really
discouraged
and
disappointed
that
we
are
forcing
something
through
like
this?
What
about
our
residents?
What
about
our
taxpayers?
They
should
have
the
opportunity
to
really
study
this
and
discuss
this
as
well
as
all
of
us
and
to
meet
with
our
residents
and
award
meetings
and
I'm.
Just
very
sorry
that
we're
not
gonna.
C
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
on
the
agenda
tonight
at
Council
for
Action
in
a
quite
supportive
of
it.
Yes
for
introduction.
C
Can
I
I,
just
I,
guess
I'm
seeking
maybe
a
response
from
staff
on
what
councilmember
Kelly
just
said,
you
know:
is
this
a
rush
process?
Are
we
trying
to
align
with
connections
or
are
we
just
it's
getting
in.
K
A
A
So
I
just
think
at
this
point.
Since
that's
been
slowed
down,
we
should
properly
vet
this
and
have
a
chance
for
and
again
I'm
not
opposed
to
it.
Don't
get
me
wrong.
I
just
think
this
isn't
the
correct
way
to
proceed
with
such
serious
changes
to
our
and
I
understand.
It's.
Not
zoning
I
understand
that
this
wouldn't
go
through
Landings,
but
it
should
go
through
p
d
and
a
proper
through
normal
legislative
process.
That's
that's
what
I
would
ask.
A
D
Regards
to
timing,
I,
don't
feel
that
this
is
rushed.
It
was
actually
intended
to
be
on
our
agenda
at
one
of
the
January
meetings,
but
for
procedural
reasons,
got
got
held
until
now,
so
we've
been
sitting
on
this
for
for
at
least
a
month
and
yeah.
Is
it
what's
the
relations
the
relationship
between
this
license
ordinance
and
the
pending
issue
with
an
applicant
who
shall
be
done
not
be
named
at
this
moment?
D
We
can't
ask
them
to
be
licensed
if
we
don't
have
a
license,
and
that's
all
that
this
does
is,
creates
the
structure
for
a
future
applicant
to
be
licensed
and
allows
us
the
flexibility,
because
this
is
a
very
broad
category
which
includes
transitional
treatment
facilities
and
congregate,
housing
and
Care
Homes
and
apartment
hotels
and
dormitories,
rather
than
writing
a
unique
and
separate
license
for
each
one
of
these
categories,
and
it
allows
us
to
carefully
construct
and
operate
an
agreement
which
is
very
unique
to
an
individual
applicant
itself.
D
Not
just
you
know
a
category
of
applicants.
So
as
a
regulatory
mechanism,
this
structure
really
gives
us.
You
know
more
Authority
and
allows
us
to
very
finely
tune
our
regulatory
requirements
to
an
individual
applicant,
so
I'm
fully
supportive
of
this
moving
forward.
I
know
it's
on
the
council
agenda,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
much
more
discussion
we
need
to
have
now.
A
Know
I
I
think
I've
expressed
my
concerns
again
I'm
concerned
about
the
DraStic
differences
between
these
different
facilities
and
that
they're
all
under
the
same
licensing,
I'm
also
very
concerned
about
unintended
consequences
and
the
undermining
of
the
fair
housing
act.
I
do
think
this
deserves
more
time.
I,
don't
think
the
way
we're
proceeding
is
proper,
especially
now
that
we
have
more
time
so.
Okay.
So
that
being
said,
I
think
we
can
adjourn
this
meeting
unless
there
are
any
other
questions
comments.
A
Okay,
all
right
do
I
need
to
okay,
I
moved
to
the
pnd
meeting,
all
in
favor
aye
aye,
no
opposed,
okay,
meeting
adjourned.
A
City
council
meeting
will
start
at
7
30..
Thank
you.