City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the committee of the whole meeting for Monday, March 9, 2026. And if you would all please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Clerk Tamer, please call the role. Saludo here. Baker here. Nera here. Virgil here. Nardini here. Best here. Herby here. Brennan here. Bellinger

here. Oh, there we go. Sorry. Bimis here. Jenko here. Hill here. Bram here. Jensen here. 14 present, zero absent. 14 present, zero absent. We have a quorum. Item two, announcements. Are there any announcements from the dis? Seeing none, clerk tamer, is anyone signed in for public comment this evening? Nobody's signed in.

All right. And is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment that did not have an opportunity to do so before the meeting? Please raise your hand. Seeing as we'll close public forum, we'll go on to item five, which is the business before the committee. Um, by the way, background, in December of 2019, there was a contract entered into uh between the city of Elmherst and Camios. Uh, was approved by the city council. Please excuse all misprononunciations as we go forward. Uh, Arista Strungus has been the lead consultant uh, working on this project from the start. Uh, she is in attendance this evening. She's going to provide an overview and update. Uh the project was delayed from April 2020 to early 20201 due to the pandemic which you've heard about. Uh the first public draft was released in July 2023. We've had two public open houses uh in September 2023 to gather input from the public. Uh the second draft of the report was released in June of 24. The current draft is the third draft following public feedback and significant review by the DPZ committee and the ZMP commission. The ZNP commission held public hearings on the current draft at four meetings, October 28, 2025, November 4, December 2nd, 25, and then in January 6 of 2026. And a memo dated January 20th summarizes their recommendations. So the next step after tonight, it'll go back to DPZ for the review before coming back to the council. So this will be a very welltraveled report. Um what I'd like to accomplish tonight is to have um Arista present the report. Um we're not here to debate the

findings. Um but I wanted to because this is an important project. uh and instead of uh having her just appear before the committee again and then having uh sort of a a report back from the committee of what she said there is to hear what was done, how it was done so that for any procedural questions we can all anyone can ask those questions. Then DPZ will review it and we will have the usual thorough report back from DPZ at which time we would debate any thing that they do or don't do. So if we're clear on that, Arista, if you would like to present, welcome.

Um, okay. Well, thank you all for having me here tonight. I really appreciate the opportunity to present uh this most recent version of the zoning code. Um, Mr. Mayor, you kind of took a couple of thunder from my first few slides. I just wanted to go over a timeline, but the mayor did a really good job of this. Um, but just to say this is a project that's been going on for a while starting back in November 2019. Um, a lot of public input in that initial part with stakeholder interviews, a lot of analysis of the current code, including GIS analysis of the districts. Um, obviously the pause for COVID. uh we had released a technical report that talked about the directions that we wanted to go in with this draft and that came out in 2021 uh with presentations in January of 2022. Uh we then began drafting the ordinance with a lot of work with staff um really understanding what's going on and trying to get the nuances correct leading to that public release of a draft in 2023 and as the mayor mentioned a series of open houses um for the public to come hear a presentation and to speak one-on-one with staff and the consultant team. Um so obviously there was a commission review of the draft from August to November of 2023 for meetings um leading to the second public draft. So there's been a number of iterations of this document which was released in June of 2024. Uh the commission review of the draft from August 2024 to March 2025, five meetings. Um little bit longer time frame there because Thanksgiving and Christmas kind of pop up in the middle. Um a release of the public hearing draft in September of 2025 and then the public hearings held between October and December with the deliberation in January 2026. So really, you can see there's been a lot of iterations of this code, a lot of public vetting, a lot of meetings. Um staff has attended significantly more meetings to review these with the different commissions. Um so really a lot of input that we've gathered over um these many years. So what I'm going to do is just really kind

of a quick overview of what is in this draft. Obviously, it's a zoning ordinance, so there's a lot of detail. Um I don't want to take you through that. We'd be here for many, many hours. Um I'm happy to do it, but I get to sit if we want to do that. Um so really what you're looking at here is a fully reorganized code. Um this is something very different from the way that the current code is organized. Uh begins with introductory articles. Um article one which is the title, purpose, and intent. Um as well as article two, which is a kind of full um definitions of all the general terms used in the code, as well as how you measure things. So it's always consistent, always in one place. um kind of the heart of the beast is really found in articles 3 through article 9, the various districts as well as the uses that are allowed within them. Um really just making sure we're addressing each of each of those character areas of the districts. Um kind of once we move away from the principal building on the lot and the principal uses, we start seeing um the other things that can happen on a lot. of general development standards, things like a sight triangle that you want to make sure uh safety is preserved, um accessory structures, the whole series of parking, loading, and uh bicycle parking as well as landscape and signs. And then finally, we kind of close out the code uh as a whole with a series of administrative provisions um really that just talk about, you know, who does what, how do you do it, and what happens when I've done it. Um as well as nonconformities and enforcement. So, as I said, this is a complete reorganization of the code. Uh, it looks very different from what your current code is. Uh, and we think is really organized in a way that's much more user friendly. It's compartmentalized. You no longer have a general provision section where you just start throwing random stuff into it and hope everybody finds it when they're putting forth development. So, things are now kind of all in their proper place. um as you see significantly more graphics using a consistent voice and terminology throughout which is what happens when you undertake a rewrite uh definitions

of all the different terms making sure those are comprehensive and again as I mentioned uh making sure the measurement methodologies are consistent they're all in one place um they're just applied consistently when someone's looking to measure building height lot area lot width it's all within that section uh so the first section you know and a lot of what Elmhurst is is the residential district. So, uh we did some simplification here uh really looking at the dimensional standards and simplifying them rather than singling out uses. We look at things such as residential and non-residential. Um even with some standards for specific residential types. Um we clarified lot coverage and lot width calculations. Um you know, one of the things we heard early on were issues with boxouts. How do we address those? This code addresses those. Um, we really looked at refining the different things that make up the residential districts, the heights, the setbacks, the coverage. Um, so you really see that kind of worked out throughout all of the various residential districts. Um, F was removed. Um, we did maintain the stories for single family and two family dwellings. Um, and created separate townhouse and multif family standards including some level of design standards. Um, kind of the good bones of architecture for multif family and townhouse. Uh, so you see here, I won't make you read the whole table, but just to kind of outline how these districts go, you see they start with the largest, the residential estate, the RE at 12,000 square foot lots. These are the biggest lots in the residential districts, and then kind of going down. So things like the R1, um, the R1A, the R2, the R2A is a new district of a smaller lot size. Initially, when we had done some analysis on the map, uh, we saw it was appropriate for this. I know we're not doing any map changes at this stage, but the district is ready to go. Uh when you would like to look at that and perhaps apply that. Uh then finally looking at the various the districts that have much

more of a mix of dwelling types. Um the R3 you can see there single family through townhouse. Uh then in the R4 and the R5, we start to get into allowing for multifamily as well. Uh the R&T district is really just the NT district from the central business district moved over with its friends in the residential district. So really a kind of more appropriate place uh for that district. So renamed the R&T district. Um for commercial we did again a lot of question I've been around for but what is NT neighborhood transition? Neighborhood transition. Oh the zone. All right.

Yeah it was the CBD neighborhood transition. in the the downtown neighborhood transition just move to residential as neighborhood transition. Thank you.

Um so the commercial districts um you see here a lot of intention taken to really kind of form uh the way new commercial development would look. Um so we looked at things like eliminating the F. You won't see that in this section. Um eliminated density controls, increased the heights a little bit in certain districts. Um and then in the ones where you had a 55- ft base height but then allowed for additional height by conditional use at this point in the draft that has been maintained. Um the C5 is a new district um the commercial mixed use to address some of the goals of the sub area plans that you've adopted over the years. So again just having that back pocket district that you can put on the ground uh when you're ready to use it and implement parts of those plans. Um there is some sensitivities understanding kind of you know the stitching here is very tight. Residential is on top of commercial. So some height limitations in the C3 C4C5 if you're within a certain amount of distance from a single family or two family or townhouse. Um there's a height that you have to meet before you can go to the maximum height of the district. And again whole series of design standards in particular for commercial. again trying to just shape the good bones of architecture but not becoming the architecture police.

I miss May I ask a question Nardini. Thanks. Sure. Resay what you just said. I I I lost you. Um about the second last thing that you just said you make sure you pull your microphone down. Um is it about the height or about design? No, I think height. I I said away from the microphone that I missed the second last thing that you said and now I can't remember exactly what it was.

Um so we have a height basically a height transition in the C3, C4, C5 districts. Um basically says maximum building height within 200 ft of a lot currently used as single family, two family or townhouse is limited to 40 ft. So essentially when you're that close to single family, two family townhouse, you're limited to 40 ft before you can hit the full height of the district. So, it's a transition uh in those areas where that happens. Thanks, Alderman Hill. Did you have your hand up?

Yes. Thanks. Um why just very quickly, why was FAR eliminated as a bulk control? Um cuz we really F just kind of in its natural origin is really something done for skyscrapers, really big buildings. And we thought by shaping things through building coverage, through the setbacks, through the design standards, through things like build two zones and build two percentages, we can do a much more predictable better way of of shaping the buildings that we want to see or that we want to allow. Um so that's really where that came in. Thanks. Too, did you have a question?

I was going to ask about the FAR as well. I mean, c in a in a layman's term, can you give an example of how that will affect a builder building something in Elmharst from before when FAR was in place and after when FAR is not in place? Like what can we as non-builder people expect to see a difference from your professional opinion by changing that?

I I think the parameters are much more clear. you know where the building's going to sit on the lot now you know how tall it can be you know kind of how it's going to address things around it in particular if it's got standards that require it to be closer to the street F is just a formula so it's a basically saying I can multiply my lot times x amount and that's how much square footage I can have when really what's important is how big is that building where's that building sitting in the lot and how tall can it be and so that's really what it makes it easier for both those on the other side um when they're designing the building. They don't have to play games with F in particular. You see it in residential. They can play games with ceiling heights and things like that to kind of maximize it. Here you've got it can be this tall. It has to sit on this part of the lot. It has to meet these design standards.

Followup. Sure. Um the other request as you continue to go through this if um it would be helpful for me and I hope other people um anywhere where there is a why for the decision that was made uh if you could just give a little bit of context for that. Um that just similar to the F explanation that would be helpful. Thank you.

Yeah. and and there are some newer alderman and maybe those who haven't served on the committee but F floor area ratio whatever you're going to use an acronym if you just want to mention what it is but thank you anyone else before we go on Alderman Brand I I will not ask another question about F even though I do have one is this presentation currently online either on board docs or on the website or anything it's going to be it'll be on the um on the project website tomorrow when I get home and upload it it will be on the DPZ agenda I believe meeting next. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry.

It'll be on the DPZ. That's an acronym for, you know, um so next uh meeting for them. I was just pointing out to the council. Thank you. Go ahead.

Okay. Um so you can see here the structure of the commercial districts. Um so the 01 office, this is very similar to the current um it's a transitional district from you know commercial to to kind of higher commercial. Um, so it's similar to the current. The lot area was reduced to 5,000 for things to be a little bit more in conformity. So the lots that are there meet the standard. Um, the C1 local commercial. Um, again, this is the height was increased to 40 to allow for some additional stories above. Um, which is really kind of the height to get you to that, you know, three-story building. Um, the C2 community commercial. Um, again, this is one of these where the base height was increased to 55 with 75 a conditional use permit. Again, with that transition that we just talked about when you're near residential. Again, just to kind of give these these structures the ability to get a height that gives them multiple floors and really kind of works um for these types of building designs. Um, you see here the C3 general commercial. Again, same thing with the height exactly as I just explained. uh the C4 commercial industrial mixed use. Uh this includes the C3A district that you currently have. Now we just consolidated these again very similar the base heights at the 55 with 75 by conditional use. And then finally the C5 commercial mixeduse district. Um this is very similar to the C4 but it has some residential allowed. creates that commercial mixeduse environment uh that many of the sub area plans spoke to, but we didn't quite have a district that matched what those wanted to do. So, we created one um for the time when that would be appropriate for them to be put on the map. Um the next up is the central business districts. Um what we did here really was some refinements again bringing in

elements of design for the CBD. Um as we talked about, we eliminated F and stories. we just talk about heights. So you can see them illustrated there. Um in the core the outer core 77 ft. The outer core residential 72 ft. Um again in that core you can go up to 125 by conditional use. This is a current standard. We maintain this understand some of this area may be under study. Um but really to what we're we're doing in this code we're not really bringing that in at this point. Um again that transition for the outer core and the outer core residential that has that height transition when you're a budding single family, two family or townhouse that is also repeated here uh with some limitations on height within that that first 100 ft. Um what we did as was a number of build zones and build two percentages. What these really talk about is where you're required to place your building on the lot. So, it's the idea of building bringing buildings closer to the street to create that pedestrian environment uh that desired street wall. So, that's really kind of shaping how the building sits on the lot in a more prescriptive way. So, we added that in understanding kind of the value of the CBD and having that walkable pedestrian environment. Um continued the zero foot build to lines for interior sides which is current. And then

one second, Alman Tudo. Sorry, just from a practical matter, what you just mentioned about the build to zone um and where they can build the building on the lot. Um, would that eliminate things like we just passed a variation for a building on York Street because they they the way the zoning is written, they were going to have to build it a foot back from the the uh kind of like the wall line of the street and they needed a variance to build it to what we want. Mhm.

Would that this eliminate those types of variances in the future? Um, well, I can't speak specifically to that case. I don't know that case. But really what it does, it provides it's about 0 to 5 foot area to provide a little bit of flexibility to move in that initial thing. But you could align without having to get a variance since you're allowed to go zero to five. Um, so it really should, but then we could result in some that are 5T off of that wall front. I mean, it can, but it's such a kind of the five- foot difference really when you're starting to look at a pedestrian environment. A little bit of that modulation is not necessarily a bad thing. It kind of doesn't make you feel walled in, but it's small enough that it doesn't disturb the pedestrian street wall and it gives flexibility to the

right and you never know where that zero is. That's the problem with zero foot build lines is you're not always sure where that line really lives. Yeah. So, okay. Thank you. Mhm. And Brandon is your uh Yes. So mine was on the prior slide. So if you want to finish this Oh, okay. Well, I I had one comment here on this one was this also has design standards to make sure that buildings look good. Okay, that was all I had on this one.

Yeah. So, so very fascinating. By the way, this is not a space I spend a lot of time in. So, so I see a lot of on the the commercial side of this, uh, a lot of increase to the the the height, you know, for to 55. I don't know what the the prior standard was, but what what drives that decision to go to a higher level? Is it a a more modern standard? Are other communities adopting this code? Is this what what drives an increase versus leaving it alone? Um, typically what drives you and what kind of drove the increase here was to allow for multiplestory buildings. If you put that height too low, you really can't put in, you know, ground floor commercial with residential, two floors or three floors of residential above because you want that higher first floor. You want that, you know, 14t, 15t, 16t ground floor so that you see storefronts and you see the way people kind of move through the the downtown, but then having enough flexibility to create true mixed use, whether it be all residential above or like a layer of office and then residential above that. So, it's just providing a little bit more flexibility to be able to design the building for that.

Awesome. Thank you for that. All right, Alman Nardini, thanks briefly. One, this is super fascinating. Um, when you said you'd never really know where that zero line is, why not? Because of buildings that have been built before.

Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, you probably I mean, you probably do. 90% of cases you probably do, but I've worked in areas where people don't know where that property line, the official property line really sits. And so that little bit of flexibility doesn't get you out of conformance by not sitting exactly on it. And this is something we've seen throughout the country. I do a lot of work throughout the country. Um, just to introduce, I' I've been working in zoning for over 25 years. Um, worked a lot in Illinois. I'm from Chicago. You could tell from the accent. Um, so did a lot of work around here and work a lot nationally. And just the ability to say the building's got to be sitting right on that lot line has been difficult for community after community to really make sure they're getting it.

One quick other thing about uh uh design standards. We removed a bunch of from I think draft one to draft one of the drafts um redlinined out all of our uh material requirements uh the consistency of facades and things like that. When you say we have design standards, reconcile that with the fact that we are not obliging uh consistent facade and wraparound uh materials.

Um so we do have some prohibitions on materials that we don't want to see. So building materials have not been completely stricken. Uh what we're looking at more is providing a little bit more flexibility and creativity uh for people that you can get good buildings that use multiple materials. And if you're abing residential, you're abing a street, you have to use, you know, good materials that that match on those facades. Um issues like required transparency, which is the percentage of windows on the ground floor and on the upper stories for buildings that are not, you know, single family, but um required blank wall limitations. So, you can't just have these big expanses of blank. So, it's really what we've done is we've set the the kind of the standards for let's get good-looking buildings, but let's not get super restrictive that it's got to be this material all the way around because then it just all starts to look the same.

Virgil, so those design standards that you're talking about, is that does that incorporating elements of like a formbbased code?

Uh, sort of. uh formbbased code over time it's got some good things in it that really help to shape the form of a building. Sorry to use the name and the definition. Um so things like when you look at things like a build to zone or a build to percentage or things that talk about kind of the design of buildings or transparency there are techniques that existed before formbbased codes and then some that came in with form-based codes. So really what you've got here is a hybrid that's taking good things from all the different zoning techniques that are out there and then using them to really address your specific situation. Okay. Yeah, that's what it sounded like. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. All right. Go ahead.

Okay. Um so the industrial districts, uh so these are honestly maintained. They're they're very similar to what they are now. Um the industrial districts, we allowed them to go up to 55 ft as a base height standard. This is a height that we're seeing frequently asked for within the industrial districts of a code just based on how people are designing industrial buildings. Um again you see that up to 75 ft by conditional use. Um and then again where you see this abuing single family two family townhouse within that distance here we have 200 ft. It's limited down to 35 ft. So, it's really meant to create that height transition between residential and industrial uses. Um, so they're they have some very basic industrial design standards. They're not like the commercial or the CBD. Just some very basic things. A lot of them with sighting as to where things can locate on the site just to maintain kind of a a good quality industrial area. Um, and then finally, there are the special districts. Uh these are really addressing very specific purposes within Elmherst. So you see the first the conservation recreation. Uh this is really for larger open space areas though I want to be clear that parks are allowed in every district. So it's not like you have to be in the CR. This is really just to protect those areas that are large parks. Uh the CI civic institutional again this is for things like where we are now including you know city center. Uh and then educational and institutional buildings. This is where you have a larger campus type environment for these uses. You want to make sure uh you're really you're addressing what they can do and how they address the perimeters. Same thing for the healthcare campus um to accommodate the community hospitals uh and make sure again we're looking at them from a campus perspective. These are very specific. They're very they are targeted very specifically at these types of uses, open space, civic, institutional,

and healthcare. And I believe they're all current. Yes. And they all exist right now. So this is basically just carrying over the districts that you've got right now. Um the other thing that you'll see within the code uh is really a revised use structure. Uh we really did something very modern here. Um created something that is now all contained within one matrix within one section of the code. Within that article, you'll see a matrix that describes all the uses allowed in each of the districts. Um you'll see that we address both principal and temporary uses. Uh we used what we call a generic use approach. It's really meant to group a number of uses together. Uh so that way you don't have to get super specific. So retail, as you can see in this example, includes things like shoe store, clothing store, record store, hardware store. Uh there are some uses that are unique that are specific that want to be regulated specifically. Those have been pulled out. So once they're pulled out of that category and they're specifically defined within the matrix, you can't think that they're part of another use. It's a fairly typical way to address uses within codes. It's basically just adopting a modern standard here. Um, and some of these do have use standards associated with them. Those are really intended to address any impacts that may happen um because of that use being situated close to something else. So things like a drive-through facility would have standards associated with it to mitigate its impacts on neighboring uses. So when you take a look at the table, uh this is just one page. It's multiple pages um of the current use structure. And you see what makes it very easy to use is that I can get into this table one of two ways. Um the first is if say in this example I want to open an art gallery, I just shoot across the table and I can see every district that allows me to do that. or if I own a piece of property in the hopefully that says C2 um you know I can go down that column and I can see

exactly what permitted and conditional uses are allowed and if it's blank I can't have it in that district. So, it's really two ways to access the uses depending on how you need to use the table. Uh, and really something that is is very very useful um as folks are are jumping into an ordinance. And you'll see every single one of these uses is now defined. Um, so that makes interpretation and administration much easier. Uh, so then, as I said, kind of moving away from the principal uses and the principal buildings on the lot, there's kind of a lot of other stuff that happens within a zoning code. And this is where we start to get into that. Um there's some standards for general development. These really just apply across lots um anywhere within Elmherst. So really looking at things like the number of structures on that are allowed on a lot. Uh prohibition of structures and utility easements. Um the site visibility triangle. You can see that um a graphic illustration of that there. really meant to make sure that you can see around a corner and nobody walking and biking gets hit by a car as you're going around. So, it's a very important provision. Um, and then a cross reference to your current flood provisions. We also created some exterior lighting controls that come into place um including lighting plans for more intensive developments. Everything up from townhouse and multif family to non-residential and mixed use. Um after some back and forth, this is in the draft that you see now where we are with the foot candle permissions. Uh fairly typical way to measure uh light trespass onto adjacent properties. So you can see here residential against residential or non-residential against residential, 0.2 foot candles. So really trying to minimize that spillage. Um non-residential against non-residential, one foot candle. Again, fairly typical especially for non-residential against non-residential. Uh, and then we've looked at the prohibited lighting types and some special exceptions for things like recreational fields. Um, really

just a comprehensive set. It doesn't go as far as kind of the lighting standards that you would get in something like dark skies where you create, you know, lighting zones and things like that. It's kind of a whole different study. Uh, what this really does is gives you the parameter to really help control glare and trespass and spillage of light onto properties and create that compatibility. Alderman Tuludo. Thank you. Uh, do we have any lighting standards currently in our code? I don't know. I can't remember. In the zoning ordinance, we do for parking lots and then the building code does have some lighting requirements as well.

So, this is a significant increase in regulation for lighting throughout the zoning code. Um, I I don't know. We don't have any right now we for example we have no regulations on residential lighting. No we do in the building code. We do in the building code for for sing for like single family home. Yeah we do. Okay. Thank you. Right.

Okay. Um kind of further continuing that we've also got standards for some of the most common things that you see um as they are are built. uh in particular, a lot of these probably hit on the residential side uh more so than commercial. Um so looking at things like fences and walls, where they can locate, how tall they can be, their installation standards, uh materials that are prohibited for use as a fence, fairly typical, just really kind of spelling them out. Um we've worked with staff to incorporate uh recent looks at the window escape well issue. So that's what you really see there. That was closely working with staff. Um reuse and recycling containers. These are dumpsters. This is not your personal home garbage can that you kind of wheel out or or outside. This is for more significant things. So things like screening required for those to kind of make sure that they're hidden from view. Uh and some basic performance standards that are appropriate to a zoning code for things like noise and heat, vibration. These are really just meant to balance out any impacts that may come from uses. Uh you have stronger, bigger nuisance standards within other sections of the code. This is not what zoning is intended uh to accomplish. And then finally, the last part of this is the permitted encroachments. Uh what this is a series of architectural features. Again, that's just an excerpt of the full table that is located in the code. Uh that really just talks about things like an eve and how much it can encroach into a required setback. The intent there is is really to allow for these architectural features so you get good-looking buildings because if they don't have a little bit of leeway, they're going to end up pushing back into the lot and becoming more flat surfaces. So, this allows for some level of kind of just uh interest on the facade. Uh fairly typical to many communities. Um you know, work closely on a couple of the issues that are particular to Elmherst, things like stoops. Um but really this is something that is is very valuable to allow for people to have you know kind of allow them to do good architecture.

Okay. Um off streetet parking what you'll see here is something that's tied back to that use table that you saw. So we have updated ratios for all the different off- streetet park all the different uses. Uh this minimizes interpretation. So basically if the use is sitting in the use table, it's got a corresponding uh parking requirement in this um as well as a minimum number in some cases, not all cases of uh minimum bicycle spaces. Uh we revised the gross floor area measurement and in addition to updating those parking ratios, uh we made it simpler. We just basically said the gross floor area is the building, but then did some adjustments on the ratio. So you no longer have to go through kind of the hassle of trying to figure out what counts, what doesn't count. Let's just make it easy. Let's adjust the ratios to reflect that and kind of move forward from there. Um there's also some additional things that are in here. The multi-tenant developments uh again where you have three or more non-residential tenants, so small retail center. The intent here to create one standard regardless of the uses in there is so that they don't float in and out of non-conformity status. So we just look at the center as a whole when there's three or more grouped together as one building or three tenants in one building and allow us to use that standard. Um as well uh there are parking maximums in the um central business district the core the outer core the outer core residential these are current um we just brought those in and maintained them as they are now. Uh and then again as I pointed out the bicycle parking you see that table there it talks about your parking ratios. It also talks about minimum bike ratios uh in certain cases. Few things that are Oh,

question Virgil. Alman Virgil. Yeah. So, so you mentioned that these um standards are simplified a little bit in terms of the parking um minimums and so forth. Does it result in any material change from what we have now? um kind of depends how you define that. I think the ratios are a little bit more logical based on kind of how uses are used and the measurements of the whole full gross floor area. I don't think the intent was to take anything in a massive states of non-conformity. The intent wasn't to take anything in massive states of non-conformity just to just be clear there.

But do you think the the amount of parking required is similar to what it was before or is it more is it less? I think it's it's relatively similar. There may be some uses where it's a little less. I mean, you didn't have the structure of going used to parking ratio, used to parking ratio. So, there may be some things that are a little bit different. Um, but I I couldn't tell you that just kind of off the top of my head. Thanks.

Um, okay. So, we have some additional still kind of in the parking world. We have some additional flexibilities here. Um, as we know, the the central business district was considered exempt. Um, we also exempted the C1 district, which again kind of the lowest commercial. So, really the intent there is these are things that are um, one is your your downtown area, the other one is your lowest level commercial to not burden them into non-conformity situations um because of um, parking requirements. Uh, you currently have a residential parking zones map that was brought into the code and referenced. So that's the current provisions. We just wanted to make sure that everybody using the code was aware of it. As well as the current provisions for landbanked parking where you can reserve part of a parking lot area uh in green space until such time as it's called in to be used. So that's really what we're looking at there. And again, current provision brought in from the current code. Alderman Tuludo.

Um, regarding parking, is there any change to the code to account for the changes in modern life? Specifically, I'm talking about u delivery trucks and parking for delivery trucks to commercial or multifamily residential buildings as well as um things like Door Dash, you know, food deliveries, Ubers. Um what we have found in some of our newer multifamily like apartment building developments is it has been more successful to to ask the builder to accommodate that within their design but it's not required for them to do it in our code. Can you speak to that um either in our code and or your professional experience on that?

Um the code currently doesn't speak to that. doesn't require building design to allow for pickup drop off areas. Um, you're starting to see it a little bit more, but at this point we haven't just kind of from a professional stance come up with it. It's more a what's the phrase? Um, more a hammer than a scalpel. I think I'm mixing up two things. So to say that every building coming in over a certain size has to have this can create more problems for you and more issues with variances and things like that. So it it really is kind of more case by case basis. Also what we're seeing is that in new developments elsewhere and I'm not speaking for Elmherst but in elsewhere those are kind of being brought into the site design anyway because that's how people are using the GrubHub, Uber, whatever. So that's kind of being brought in in different ways. So we at this point there's no best practice for it. It's something that's desirable, but we just don't have the tools to say every single building should have this.

Thank you.

Um so many of the the other things in parking, uh again, these are fairly typical. Um you currently have some location restrictions for non-residential uses. So when you have a parking lot that's remote in a budding residential, it must be a conditional use. Uh that has been maintained. Very basic design standards on parking facilities and bike spaces. Again, parking lots, parking structures. Um we're not doing it's not architecture design. These are just, you know, please don't hit each other when you're parking your cars type level standards. Um there are some standards for EV parking. If you have, obviously you are free to do them if you would like. Um but what we thought a good starting point at this pl at this point would be if you've got a parking lot or a structure over 35 spaces um that there be some requirement for EV spaces coming in. So 10% of spaces or 10 spaces whichever is less. That's kind of where this draft has ended at to kind of help to build in that um EV infrastructure. Uh there's off- streetet loading uh requirements and designs. Um some updates to the number of spaces. uh no permissions to not have them in front of buildings. Again, this is on the private property. What you're doing on the street is outside the realm of the zoning code. Um so really and then finally kind of closing out this section, commercial vehicles, uh where you can park commercial vehicles and and residential districts. Um basically maintaining passengerized vehicles can park where other passengerized vehicles can park. Um, and then recreational vehicles where those could park things like a a boat, trailer, um, RV. Um, so really just making sure there's standards in place for where those can go on a lot. I

ask a question. So on the off- streetet loading, not allowed in front of building. I I feel like there's a number of buildings in our commercial district where there is no rear to load. Is that something that we thought about? Um really when we're looking this is really not allowing for new loading spaces in the front of a building. So if they're there if they're in the front of the building now that building is non-conforming. It gets to continue. We're not doing anything about it. But as new development these are just loading spaces. You're not saying it doesn't apply to a delivery truck that's bringing you know Starbucks all their coffee at 10 at night.

No this is like an industrial use that is getting shipments. That is that's part of their operations. It's a loading dock. Thank you. loading dock is probably a better way to describe that. Yes, because loading spaces can be on the street and the way that works and that's outside of the purview of of the zoning code. So related to um really where you see landscape kick in quite a bit um is within the the parking. It's it's kind of they're kind of cousins. Um and so really what we wanted to make sure is that we've got a comprehensive set of landscape standards in place. Um, so you can see we talk about these general standards, you know, which types of of plants to select, uh, how to install them, some minimum sizes to make sure that the trees and the shrubs take. Um, allowing for various rain gardens and bio swailes to meet these requirements. Um, and essentially what we want to do is address parking lot landscape or address landscape in really three areas. Uh, first two are related. um the perimeter of a parking lot where it's abudding a street in order to screen the cars along that part of a parking lot as well as the parking lot interior on larger parking lots in order to make sure that there's some greenery and landscape in there. Heat island effect storm water managements and then finally the other one is buffer yards really creating some landscape standards and fencing and screening between incompatible uses. So this would be where say a non-residential use but a residential use you would have a buffer yard requirement in place. So just some quick examples of what these are. These come from the code. You can see here a couple alternatives for parking lot perimeter landscape. So when you're abudding the street uh the parking lot interior landscape again heat island storm water just getting some greenery within that area. Uh and then finally buffer yards. And one of the buffer yards does have a provision for when the lot is very shallow, which is that second image that you see there. The

shallow lot one just really is some shrubs and and basically a fence. Just acknowledging the fact that you've got some very shallow lots that may be abunding things like residential. We want some screening, but we don't want to make things ownorous for anybody involved. And kind of finishing off the development standards, the last part of it is signs. Um, one of the most important things and probably why signs looks kind of different from what you've seen aside from it being completely reorganized, we have to maintain content neutrality. It is very important not to look at the content of the sign. So that was a big change that came throughout the whole code in terms of how we talk about signs, how we define them. Um, these are Supreme Court rulings uh that we have to adhere to. Um, so really when we looked at signs, we wanted to make sure that we addressed all the different categories that are in place. These include prohibited signs. Um, signs that are exempt from permit but still have standards in order to make sure uh that they're, you know, not contributing to sign clutter. Uh, and then signs that do require a permit. And then we went through and really tailored the types of signs that we would allow uh to these to the district form so that the signs are complementing what we're asking the buildings to do. So you'll see some signs are bigger in certain districts, smaller in others. They may not even be allowed in certain other districts. Uh and then finally, we defined and prohibited cabinet box wall signs. There's a definition for that. Um these are just these box signs that have a plastic sheet with some lighting behind it. We found them to be um at the time that the drafting was coming that they didn't really contribute character-wise. Um and that we want to have other types of signs in their place. So, uh, those are one of the new categories of prohibited. Nope. Okay. Um, so then finally, kind of closing out the end. Um, a lot of this is from the state. Um, this is really where you get into how things like conditional uses and variances and

things operate. um there's a little bit of leeway to look at the process, but in general it really is something that the you know the standards are established through court cases and through the states. So we have to be kind of really uh on top of that. So you'll see here we we outlined the duties of all the different administrators. Um we looked at the general process. How do I apply for something? What happens once I apply? What type of notice is required? You can see the table there that talks about that as well. And just some general comments about a public hearing. Um, again, as I just talked about, you know, we did some updates to comply with the state requirements. Uh, we clarified the expiration of a conditional use of variance in a zoning certificate. So, when they when actually the approval expires. Um, for map amendments, we remove the limitation on council to approve a different zoning district than one requested. you know, if you think it's it's more appropriate as a C2 than a C3, you should have the ability to be able to do that. So, we wanted to make sure that that was in there. Um, and then you had a weird requirement about one year for review if no development. Basically, we refined this to say the zoning administrator will take a look at it and recommend review if needed. Uh, the variation process has some flexibilities built in. Um, really looking at administrative, minor, and major. Um, so really there's ways to look at small things that are just fairly typical all the way up through bigger issues that come through. Um, really clarified what happens with site plan review. Just making sure we're we're noting exactly um who's subject to site plan review. It's really putting out the triggers there and then it's reviewed against the ordinance. Uh, and then just a couple new applications. Um, a zoning text interpretation process. This happens almost every day. This is just a formal process. um a temporary use permit for temporary uses that come in so that you can control them and monitor them and make sure they don't become permanent uses. Uh and then we

added a reasonable accommodation provision and this is something new that's coming into codes. Um it's ways to allow for things to be modified uh to accommodate persons with disabilities. It's a very specific thing related to federal and state statutes on ADA. Um, so really just allowing for that to happen and it's something we're seeing uh throughout cities across the country. Right. Alderman Ardini, then Alderman Hill. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, can you use other words for the map amendment? Remove limitations on council approval of a different zoning district than requested. I don't understand.

Uh, basically there was a limitation that said you couldn't. So, it's like the example somebody comes to you for C3 resoning and currently you don't have the ability to say I think a C2 would be better. Can we just do a C2? this got rid of that limitation and you can have the discussion with the applicant and everybody to say hey the C2 is actually better let's work on that one so Alderman Hill thank you mayor with the added flexibility can you tell me a little bit more about the rationale for that or you know not saying I disagree with it I just am curious like what was the thought or what was the experiences that led to this being a a general recommendation

um so really um it's a fairly typical thing that if you can do it, everybody wants to have it. You're you're allowing the zoning administrator to approve incredibly tiny tiny tiny tiny small variances that are typical and not having to go through the full process. You're still looking at it as if it's a hardship, that it's not self-created, all of those things that are in play. But it's really a way to allow people to do things like make improvements to their existing homes without having to go through uh a lengthy process that goes through that. So, this is really saying you need a foot. I can see why you need a foot. You can have it. The zoning administrator can always kick that up back to the zoning board of appeals or whoever and say, "I'm not comfortable making this decision. You have to go there." Um, obviously the decision of the zoning administrator can be appealed. Uh, but really what we're seeing, it provides this this small level of flexibility that benefits you in various different ways. It it just makes the whole variance process less ownorous.

Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Okay, Alderman Irby, sorry.

Yeah, I'd like to tag on to Alderman Hill's question with and Alderman Dardini's map amendment. That first bullet seems problematic to me because if I if someone applies to move from a you know, we just had one come through that moved from a we had two separate districts. Uh it was considered as one project and they moved from an 01 to an R4 on one side of the road. On the other side of the road they moved from a C2 if I remember correctly to an R4. And right now they have to come through council to change the zoning map. You know map amendment is just a fancy word for

Oh yes changing the zoning map. Yeah. Which is a major thing in my book. Yes. It's not to be taken lightly. And why would we and maybe I'm misunderstanding the bullet, but why would I take council's approval away from changing the me the zoning map?

It it's not taking council approval. A map amendment has to be done through the current process you have now. What you have now is a tiny little quirk that says in your in your example or the example I was using that when council when somebody comes before them with an application to change from I'm just going to keep using the same example. They want to reszone their property to a C3. Council doesn't see C3 as being appropriate. They see C2 as something more appropriate and want to have that discussion with the applicant and say, "Hey, we think you might be better off as a C2. Are you okay with that?" And they say, "Okay, I could do the C2. You currently are not allowed to do that as a council. You're not allowed to suggest a different zoning district." That's what this is talking about. It removed that limitation. And there's a weird line in there that that basically says you can't look at other zoning districts. This is all nothing is being taken away from council. Okay. Except for the variation. So the way I understand and then so this goes over to Alderman Hill's question that you answered. Uh and I just want to clarify it for myself. The variation comes up and it's a 5% variance. whatever it is, you know, vanilla, chocolate, ice cream, I don't care. So, it's a it's a small variance. And the way I understand the new update here is we do not have to approve that. It'll be an administrative approval when it's under a certain percentage variance. Soon as that threshold is crossed, then council or ZPZ, DPZ and full council gets involved. Uh can you elaborate on how that's going to work?

Yeah, it's not on the sheet as what percentage that threshold is?

Yeah, the language is within the the draft code. It lays out the thresholds for what would be considered administrative and what would be considered minor. Anything that exceeds administrative and doesn't exceed minor would be minor. Anything that exceeds minor would be major. So there's specific thresholds laid out of how much percentage of a variance in certain situations and it's not just a blanket the whole ordinance 10%. It's laid out in terms of what can be modified by 10%. So that's really kind of your initial threshold on the administrative. So 10% but you can't change building height. You can't change building coverage. That that is always considered a major uh major variance that would be coming through council. Um small reductions to a dimensional standard of design standards. uh reduction of bicycle parking, um minor modifications to the landscape that don't reduce the number of plant materials that are required, um additional sign materials that are not listed as permitted, uh but would be appropriate. So, they're very specifically spelled out. And then there's a whole other set that goes into minor for the zoning board of appeals. Um in any of those cases, they can always just be bumped up. If the zoning administrator or the ZBA doesn't want their hands on it, they can always bump it up to another process. So they're really specifically they're drawn as you look at the language in the code as to when each of these is allowed.

All right. Thank you Tuludo.

I'll just add um from a I' I've served on the DPZ committee um and uh actually former alderman Douter and myself have spoken to Director Fron about this many times. Um I think that this is u not only probably her her professional experience but also experience of the city. there are a lot of very small variances that um are cumbersome to the the the applicant and to city council to go through the full process. Um so I I' I think this added flexibility is uh a great addition um to the code change from a longer term perspective of someone seeing a lot of these cases over 14 or almost 12 years.

And again, we're not here to we don't have to debate it. Yeah, I just want you to understand what's being proposed. DP, we'll go through the usual process then. So, all right, go ahead. Thank you. Okay,

that was very loud. I'm sorry. Um, so then we also spent some time kind of early on in the process, we started looking at the plan development um requirements and this is something that we've kind of built in from those early discussions. I was given videos of meetings to watch and this is kind of where this came in. Um, so a couple of the things to refine your current plan development process. So it's not really taking this um out of uh kind of what you're familiar with, but there's some some quirks here or tweaks here we want to point out. Um, the first is there's no process for modifications once you have a PD approved. So again, very similar to the variance process are these modifications that are allowed by the zoning administrator, uh, the ZPC, the village board in terms of modifications allowed to approve plan development. So, I'm doing something. I have to move a walkway 2 feet because of the site engineering. That could be something that's an administrative modification. Kind of then escalates up to more public processes once you're out of those very little things. So, it's very similar to the variance. Um, we also added in a requirement for enhanced design and public amenities. Um, so this is something really to make sure that a plan development is contributing to a high quality attractive environment. Um, it's very flexible in terms of what that means. Um, so it could be anything from a plaza to community space to just the um type of development as a whole is something that's beneficial such as workforce housing, senior housing. Um, and so really it's something to evaluate this. And then we looked at the thresholds for plan development and kind of when it would be required when you are doing development to kick you into the plan development process. Um, and so these are really what we looked at. You can see here um in many of them it's a twoacre limit. When you look at the office district, you look at the commercial, you look at the industrial that's kicking you to a 5 acre limit. So it's really meant to refine these. And then our final section, a couple of

things in place here. Nonconformities. Uh what's really important here is that we always look at nonconformities by the type they are and that we're very specific regarding what kind of nonconformity we're looking at. So just to make sure that we've got them defined and we talk about how they can continue for each type. We look at uses, we look at structures, we look at non-conforming lots of record, and we look at non-conforming signs. And you'll see everything spelled out for each of those in there. There's two exceptions that we wanted to point out. Um the first was really taking a look at kind of a common thing that has occurred here in Elmherst, and you're not the only ones. This is very common um in many neighborhoods. um existing non-conforming dwellings in residential districts. Uh what we wanted to do, so for example, this would be a legally built um two family that's sitting in a single family district. And what we wanted to do was deem that conforming. So, it's not subject to nonconformity provisions. um as long as it was legal prior to that that date you see here, which uh we did a lot of digging on and I I can't exactly remember where it came from, but it was a lot of digging, so it was relevant. Um and then essentially you can continue to do that without being subject to the nonconformity provisions. Um if you tear it down, if you convert it back to say two family, back to single family, if it's damaged by more than 50%, that permission goes away. Um so basically what we're saying, if you're here, you're legal. room want to let you continue. You're providing a kind of mix of densities that people might not even be aware of um until such time as you don't want to do it anymore. Um we also allowed for the extension of a non-conforming wall for single family and two family. Um and really the best way to imagine this is is that if um I'm a single family house and I'm a little bit too far into my interior side setback, but I want to put a second

story on. So I want to extend the life of my little house. This allows you to do that without having to set back that second story. So to create kind of a weird kind of bumpout, which is expensive and can look very strange. Um, it allows you to do that so long as I comply with everything else. So heights, coverages, other setbacks. Basically, it's only that dimension that we're talking about. So it allows for people to do improvements on their homes without having to get variances. But again, for that one specific element, it does not let you violate anything else that is within the code. Um, and so with that, um, there is the website, uh, which has a number of things on it. Basically everything from when we started way back when in, I guess 2019. Um, I will be putting this PowerPoint up there tomorrow when I'm back at my desk and I can update um the website. Uh, but with that, still happy to take any additional questions.

And and note that is not our city website. It's a separate website. Yeah. Elmherzoning.com. Right. All right, Alderman Virgil. Um, I'm not sure who the who who this question is most appropriate for, but in the in the zoning code, if we have anything that is um maybe not in compliance with state law at some point, and I'm thinking of specifically around like the uh uh the the recently passed transit law where they um uh are prohibiting uh parking minimums within half a mile of uh train station. Do we do anything to update the code in those cases?

There's there's going to be Well, and it's not necessarily on your radar yet radar yet, but I was going to make a couple comments. I'll throw them in now. So, last session there was a uh part of the transit bill provision that said you couldn't require certain parking, you know, like 1.5 or two within a distance like from our train station. So, uh, by way of example, if there's if the ECPA building got built, you couldn't require parking. There's a trailer bill, um, that gained some momentum saying that would apply to municipalities over 2 million, and there's one of those, Chicago. Um but at the same time there's another set of bills that have been introduced which um DMMC is pretty active and we're and was really just announced in the governor's message which said you know um uh like you couldn't have single family districts you couldn't prohibit um

multif family

multi Yeah multifamily um uh you couldn't prohibit ADUs I should say you can't if it passes um you would and it would have a statewide building code and some of these are kind of hard to fathom because one of the cornerstones of local control is zoning but I don't I mean and there's substantial momentum that some things might happen um but uh as I was just saying with city manager like we have to do what we have to do because we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Maybe something will preempt everything. Maybe none of that will come to pass. Um, so those are the kind of things that are happening, but we have to do what's best for Elmharst now.

Yeah. No, I understand that. Um, I guess what I was getting at just maybe more in a general sense, if there is something that's preempted at the state level, do we have to do anything with our code? Well, it's it depends if it applies to these changes that I mentioned that are under consideration would be uh home rule would not be able to go around them. Mhm.

Uh so I don't know where these are going to come out. There were some things under like the our sign ordinance was out of compliance with Supreme Court law about content. So we're we've waited to bring that there. I don't know that I think as part of the review if there was anything that state law would have said you can't do that this anymore or you can't do this in the proposed code that would be

yeah we've been we've been mindful to stay on the right side of of state law and turn to Andy um when we we've needed kind of legal opinion um and you know looked at things like the content neutrality for signs like community residences which comes under kind of fair housing act to make sure we're compliant with that um this is you're obviously clearly not the only ones in this situation. When stuff comes down from the state and they say something like um you have to allow ADUs, you don't have a choice. You're just going to have to amend the code to stick it in there. But we never recommend doing anything until that bill is final and it's got an effective date attached to it. Um

Okay. So, you would you're saying we would need to actually update the code at some point? You would like I mean this the the thing is the state's going to control period whether you update your code or not the state preempts you. So yeah I guess sorry I'm

well that that's exactly it. It's like that's why I say we had our sign ordinance that said you you know the kind of regulated like political signs I think it's the best example. Our current ordinance says you can't put out political signs unless whatever 60 days before the election. Well, that's a regulation of content. So, you can put out your political signs whenever you want. Now, it's good to clean up the code so that people who don't understand what federal law is, didn't read that particular Supreme Court case, would know, and say, "Why do you have it on your books if it's not there?" But, so this is intended to clean that up. If a state law passed, for instance, said, "We say no ADUs." And they say, "You have to allow them." It would automatically preempt our code, but we would clean it up to take it out. I see. Okay.

And I think the one thing you'll see is kind of as you look at the code, and it going back to kind of think my third slide that talked about compartmentalization, you're in a much easier position to amend the code to add things you need to add because things are you're not going to be sticking them in general provisions and hoping people see it. It's going to be tied in a logical section where you want it. So, it should be easier to drop it in if if something happens. But yeah, thanks Alderman Brennan. Yep. So, uh, if I understand the process that there are a few open houses, what what was the the general feedback to these changes from those in attendance?

Um, so in general, I I'm going to say a couple things. So, in general, it was a lot of people just coming to get information and just kind of come to understand what's in the code. At that time we had ADUs as permitted within the code and that was the biggest hot button issue. That is almost pretty much everything that we heard. People were divided on both sides of that issue and as you look back through the drafts you'll see there was ADU language and then the decision was made because it is such a hot button issue for Elmherst to pull it out and deal with it separately. Um so that was really a lot of what we saw within the the open houses. I don't know if you guys remember anything that was Yeah, that was mainly that was the most controversial. So, in order to facilitate this code moving forward and not kind of get it sidetracked, the idea was to remove ADUs and address them separately. Like I said, you can just drop them into accessory structures once you're ready.

Thank you. All right, Alderman Tudo.

Um, yeah. And in general, um, are you in a position to characterize whether you think that this zoning rewrite, uh, adds regulations or removes regulations? It does both. I Yeah, it's really hard. I mean, there are things in the current code that, you know, like the use structure is very specific and difficult. I think something when we did it you had something like 300 uses when we cataloged them. So now you don't have 300 uses but I think the regulation even though it's less regulation than the current approach it is tighter and kind of takes care of common issues. I think the idea here for us really wasn't whether something should be more restrictive or more permissive. It was to look at each of the individual issues that were emerging and address them that way and try to address everything simply so that it's not difficult to understand what you can and can't do. I don't think that answered your question, but that's a that's a really tough one to say, you know.

Yeah. And that's why I I guess I asked if you had because you've probably you and these ladies here sitting um down here are probably the closest to the current and the proposed new. And so I wanted to see if there was a way to have a general overview of that. Um, I guess my my concern like at a very high level is I don't I would I would prefer to reduce regulation because the more regulation that we add, the more expensive it is to build and we're actually trying to make things more affordable to build. Um, and so I want I I you know I can I can follow up with uh Director Fron as well and just talk through that a little bit with her generically offline. Um, but that's the that's the impetus behind my question

and and that's the philosophy that we take when you're doing a code update. That's why it's kind of impossible to compare. It's it's not like you can do a tally on one and the other and do that. We wanted to allow the things that you want to happen to happen. So, we needed to write regulations that allowed them to happen and not get into a whole variety of special approvals or weird interpretations. Um, and then the, you know, for things that, you know, we needed to be a little bit more concerned about, either we could write a regulation or we could tailor an approval process to that. Did you want to say I could see you moving from the side. Sorry. I guess what I would just say is, you know, um, one of the last slides talked about the non-conformities and allowing people to put an addition on a second story addition or to do, you know, um, an addition to the rear of their home that is staying on the same plane. Like I would say there that's an example of we're lessening regulations for people. We're letting people improve their homes without needing to go through a variation. But then there are other areas that we deal with every day that are um may not seem like a a big deal to the general population, but they are a big deal to our building staff and zoning staff and some areas where we needed to actually like be a little more explicit on an interpretation. So I think it's a balance of some areas where there are less restrictions and then there are some areas where there are a little more areas that we felt needed it based on, you know, some of our plans and just some of the day-to-day dealings that we have.

All right, Alderman Irby, then Alderman Bastto. Oh, you want Alman Bashto first? Okay, we'll go alphabetically. So my question is about the process. Um the changes went to DPZ committee and my understanding is they made some changes and it went to the commission. Did they give explanations when they sent it to the commission? Was there an explanation from the committee why they made the changes they did or did they just send an edited version to the commission? I don't know their consultant knows that. I'm ask could be for staff whoever wants to answer.

I'm not. So, it was at um the draft went to both the zoning and planning commission and the DPZ committee and comments were made by both bodies and then passed along to the consultant. Things might be documented in minutes or just in, you know, notes that we took and passed along to the consultant. So, I guess there was probably more discussion on some things than others. if you had a specific area, I could probably get you a better answer on it.

I just know that there was criticism at the commission that some of the changes weren't explained well enough. And I just didn't see in what was sent to them where the committee really had a chance to explain their reasoning. And so that's why I was just curious. I know that there was a lot of testimony at the commission that they have much different process. So that's why I was just curious if the commission was critical that they didn't feel like they got enough explanation. I didn't know maybe where that was allowed, but it sounds like it was just in the notes that you guys took and the discussions that you passed along from the committee, notes, meeting minutes. Mhm. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Herby.

Yeah. Following up on uh Alderman Bastito's great point of the process. So June 13th, the circle back memo started back in DPZ. Uh after they had cleared the ZPZ hoop, far as I knew, there were 129 items, a 198 page PDF. There was another one that was seven pages long. It had 46 items. So there were really two circle backs or maybe it's one but anyway there were two documents floating around that DPZ was going through and they had a total of 14 meetings that I know of going through those circle backs and I never could tap in or get a feel for where that a what happened to them what was the resolution what were the changes so there was a no bad change document that I ever saw from that circle bag memo so It was very difficult for me on counsel or probably the public to know what happened in that process. Maybe it's all there and I just haven't hit it. But that that was my exact point there. Uh secondly, if it's okay, the table 91, shouldn't we be using that as our friend by putting items in there, not to complicate the code, but to add items to the table? Say for instance a truck stop right now we just have gas station. So you know we've had some cases that we've worked on. They're still on the zoning on the dock uh you know lined up where maybe we don't want that hybrid gas station. So, I'm using that as an example, not to harp on on a process, but the more items we can get into that zoning table 9-1, it seems that gives us the ability to either not permit it, permit it, etc. And if it's not in the table or not defined in in the

cross-section over there on the right on the table, then how can we ever stop a data center? How can we ever stop a truck stop, etc. by not getting to that table. So, if you could elaborate a little bit on that table and how we could do that.

Um, so the table lists a whole series of uses. Um, some are more kind of general in nature. So, things like a retail goods establishment without filling out every type of retail that's allowed. And then others do get a little bit more specific. So, you look at something like a drive-through facility specifically spelled out. We had the data center issue. data center is actually in that table now because we had the issues of that coming up. Um, so you'll see that some of them get pulled out and the once it's specifically defined, it can't be part of any other category and it's only allowed in those districts that are indicated. If you have a use come up and it doesn't match any of the kind of use definitions that you have, uh, by the laws of article 9, it's not permitted. So, what you would need to do is you would need to, if you wanted to allow something, you would need to amend the table. If you can't interpret it as part of another use, you need to amend the table to add it in there. Make sure it has a definition that's associated with it. And then if it has any standards you want to add those along with it, too. And it all goes into article 9. So, it's a very easy process to do that. Um, if there are uses coming up that you don't want to allow, you just need to kind of take a look and see if the table would allow them in any kind of way, shape, or form. Does the definition need to be changed? Does additional standards need to be placed to keep things out? um the document can't kind of it can't capture everything all at once immediately. So it is in a certain sense a living document as you're kind of using it. Now don't amend it every week please. Um but you know as you as things come up you're going to have to address we can't anticipate everything and that's really I think where this came from. I think this is a much more it's a more flexible way to allow uses that you do want and you know it's a way to make interpretations that can help you keep uses you don't want. um out as well.

Were you able to get to that circle back menu uh memos and were you a part of that in or was that purely outside of your domain with the circle backs? Sorry, if I may, thank you for bringing up the circle back memos. That was a way that we were documenting the changes through the zoning and planning commission and the DPZ committee. So it started out with a very very long memo and as those items were addressed they were no longer kept on the memo. So you do need to go through those memos to look at them and if one does not appear on the next one it was addressed likely through the answer that was on the previous memo related to that item and we did pass those along to the consultant.

I think I hope

all right any other questions? what we're going to do. Well, first of all, I would be remiss if I didn't thank our planning staff, Eileen Frans and Jessica Gal, and also they're not here, but our zoning and planning commission who put in a lot of hard work. And the work goes on. Uh so from here, it will go uh to our committee and it will go through the regular process of their careful consideration. uh they've already spent a good amount of time on it and they will then formulate a report that they will bring back to council. It's an important project. It's taken a lot of time but it's um um I think particularly the simplification of the code is going to be something that is from my time on DPZ from talking to developers those are some good things to look at modern uses. I see we don't have habeddasheries anymore in there. So, um, that's how long it's been that since some of this has been updated. So, uh, thank you for your time coming out tonight. It was very, uh, informative and I think it sets us up on the path so that we all understand, uh, what's happened and where we're going to go from here.

Thank you very much. All right. So, with that, um, I think I, uh, unless there's an objection, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Alderman Brennan with a motion. Alderman Bast with a second. All in favor say I. Oh, wait. Ho ho. We got We got someone up there. Roll call, please. Toudo. I Baker. Alderman Baker. Hi. Hi. Sorry. Nuda. Hi, Virgil. Hi, Nardini. I Herby. Hi, Brennan. Hi, Mimis. Hi, Bellinger. Hi, Shenko. Hi, Hill. I Bram I Jensen I

14 I's zero nays 14 I's zero nays we arejourned thank you and good with whatever.