City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Elmer City Council for Monday, June 15, 2026, and ask that you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance 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 roll burby here brennan here marimas here bellinger here shanko here hill president Graham?

Here.

Jensen?

Here.

Toledo? Here. Baker?

Here.

Udara absent. Virgil?

Here.

Nardini?

Here.

Vestito? Here. 13 present, 1 absent.

13 present, 1 absent. We have a quorum. We're getting started a few minutes late because we were in executive session, so I'm sorry for the slight delay, but we'll proceed through. Item three on the agenda is the receipt of written communications. I think we had one posted. Is that correct, Clerk Tamer? I don't have any posted. None. All right. Is there anyone that has a written communication that he or she would like to deliver to the council? So please raise your hand. I always turn my phone in. Well, you can do that. Yeah. That's fine. Thank you. So we'll move on to public forum. Clerk Tamer, has anyone signed in for public forum?

Yes, Mayor. Rhonda Diab.

All right, so if you'll step to the back microphone, you have, please state your name. Address is optional. It just helps us get back to you if we need to. You have three minutes to speak on any topic you like. I also advise that sometimes people pose questions to us. This is our opportunity to hear what you have to say to us, to the council. We don't engage in a discourse over what you say, but we are all patiently and Listening, so with that, state your name and proceed.

Hello, my name is Rhonda Dieb. I live at 420 West Avery. I'm here tonight on two issues. The first one is about, and it's not on the agenda, but Airbnbs. I believe you have heard me before. I currently have an Airbnb that is next to me that right now has eight teenagers in there. They are soliciting on Segways. They have a pit bull that got loose and went into somebody's garage, ran around the neighborhood, and went after my cat. anyway today and every day there is an issue with that property this particular people that have just moved in right now they say they are sponsored from a company but they all have different license plates from different states And they say that they're selling windows, pest control, and other services. I have not heard their spiel because I will not open my door to them. they have annoyed all of my neighbors and currently go there at 8 30 at night and wake up children also so on that issue every day there's something garbage loud party dog that was out there from 10 this morning until 6 45 when i left they left that dog unattended in their backyard with food and water but nobody has been there all day long so that's the first issue and i am not on board also about the warehouses so i just am here to say those few things and um just let you know how i feel about that thank you very much

um daniette or danielle reynolds hi i'm not really good at public speaking but i wrote down what i wanted to say all right just start with your name for the record and address if you want so my name is danette reynolds i'm a i'm in ward 2 resident and i live in i've been living in elmhurst for about eight years i'm a single mom raising three kids and this community has been home to us my kids go to school here play sports here and we all built our lives here i'm here tonight because of the overnight parking situation I know I'm not the only resident dealing with it. Recently, my oldest son got his driver's license, yay. Like a lot of parents, I worked hard to buy him a reliable used car so he can get to school, sports, work, and other activities. I thought I was doing something positive by helping him become more independent and responsible. The problem is that our apartment building only provides one parking space per unit. So now we're trying to figure out where a second vehicle can legally be parked overnight. I've looked for solutions. I've talked to neighbors. I've looked into renting private spaces. Some aren't available. Some are expensive. Some are simply too far away to be practical. I understand there are municipal lots and legal parking options, but for residents like me, those locations can be several blocks from home. While technically they may be solutions, in real life they don't always work. Now, I want everyone to imagine this for a moment. Imagine it's January, snowing, it's dark, and it's freezing outside. My son is carrying a backpack, basketball gear, and everything else he needs for the day. And he's walking several blocks to get to his car before school. Then he has to do it all over again before he gets home. Or imagine coming home after a long day at work and having to park blocks away from where you live every single night. For many residents, that's not convenient and it's not practical. I'm not asking for special treatment. I understand a city has rules for a reason. I understand concerns about street maintenance, snow removal, abandoned vehicles, and keeping neighborhoods looking nice. What I'm asking for is for the city to take another look at whether there are better options for residents who live in apartments or multifamily buildings where parking is limited and a second vehicle is a necessity rather than a luxury. Because right now it feels like residents who are trying to follow the rules are left without realistic options close to where they actually live. My question is simple. What is a practical solution for residents who legally own a second vehicle but don't have access to additional off the street parking? I understand the city has to balance a lot of different concerns and I'm not suggesting that overnight parking should be allowed everywhere to everyone. WHAT I LIKE THE CITY TO CONSIDER IS SOME TYPE OF PERMIT OR EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WHERE PARKING IS LIMITED. FOR EXAMPLE, A RESIDENT COULD APPLY, SHOW THAT THEY HAVE ONE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACE AND RECEIVE PERMISSION FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I MEAN, THOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS COULD BE A VEHICLE SIZE. YOU DON'T WANT A SERVICE VAN PARKED OUT ON THE STREET DAILY. I GET THAT. NUMBER OF PERMITS PER HOUSEHOLD OR RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE CERTAIN VEHICLES CAN BE PARKED OR ALLOWED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE FOR YOU LISTENING TO CONCERNS FOR RESIDENTS LIKE ME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LANCE NELSON.

ALL RIGHT. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE TATTOO IDEA ABOUT POSSIBLY OPENING UP IN DOWNTOWN ELMERS.

I'M SORRY.

FIRST TIME DOING THIS. I'M TERRIFIED. MY NAME IS LANCE NEILSON. I'VE BEEN A 12-YEAR RESIDENT OF ELMERS.

FEEL FREE TO RAISE THE MICROPHONE. NOW START OVER. RELAX. ALL RIGHT.

My name is Lance Nielsen. I'm a 12-year resident of Elmhurst. I live in the Pick subdivision and sort of neighbors with Jennifer over there. She's awesome. And I'm... imploring the committee to look more into the tattoo licensing I'm been part of the APT which is the Alliance of professional tattooers for many years now they've been around since 1992 to advocate safe and responsible tattooing and I've never been to a meeting before and I really really am passionate about tattooing and want to make sure that elmhurst does a responsible job of vetting i hate to use that word but vetting tattoo artists and placement of it um Yeah, the anxiety is real high right now, I'm sorry. So I'm the manager of Smarting Tattoo in Bentonville. I've been tattooing for about seven years, but I've been involved in the industry for about 15 years. Been traveling across the country. I'm licensed in multiple states. Technically award-winning, but I hate that feeling. And also I brought a copy of the body art model code. which is something that tattoo artists should be following because it's been put together between the FDA and professional tattooers from all across the country to make sure that tattooing is done responsibly and safely. Some of the ideas that I saw about regarding tattoo licensing here, where they have to be part of like a spa or something or a salon and limited to 150 square feet, I believe is extremely irresponsible and possibly dangerous. which may be hyperbole, but that's what I believe. And I don't know what else to say right now, but I just want to be a part of this because I just heard about this yesterday. So I want to make sure that I'm in this, listening to what's going on, and possibly providing information and resources for you guys to make a responsible decision. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

I'm going to go sweat over there now. Roz Long.

Good evening, I'm Kathy Kelly, but Roz couldn't be here, so I'm gonna be Roz and myself tonight. So I'm going for Roz first. My name is Roz Long. I'm the founder of Art in Wilder Park, Wilder Mansion Holiday Art Market, and the Public Arts Commission. I'm sorry I can't be here in person to address this council. However, I've written this letter to express my support for local artists. I've worked with thousands of artists over my 35-year career. Every one of them works with different mediums, paint, clay, stone, metal, ink, Tattoo artists are just artists. Their canvas is their body. It's not something to be feared, but should be celebrated, just like we do all our local artists. Tattooing is not an art form that should be pushed into the industrial corners of our town. It should be practiced in safe, private settings right in the heart of our city. Do not fear art. It is what gives our community its flavor. Thank you for your time. Roz Long. And now I'm myself. good evening and thank you very much for letting me be a part of this all right state your name then since you're yourself okay my name is kathleen kelly and i live at 155 north willow for 50 years i'm sure many of you have walked by my house i'll wave the next time My friend Jackie Jonas and I had two art studios in Elmhurst, Art and Soul on First and Soul in a Bowl on Addison. And over my whole life, I've been creating art with people, and I'm also an RN that worked at Elmhurst for many years. In fact, I've talked here for Elmhurst a few times. So healing and art, I feel, go together, and it's one of the reasons that I'm passionate about art. This town, over the 50 years that I've been here, has really grown, and we have so many artists. And I think that that's just a wonderful thing, and we should just be so fortunate for that, because it is healing, and everyone in our town flourishes if we're surrounded by art. Artists do need a creative private space to do their work. And I think that in a small business area like what Emily would like to do versus an industrial zone would be much more welcoming and much safer for herself and also for her clients. please back the majority report let's celebrate art and artists in our beautiful town it's a privilege and also our responsibility to welcome and encourage art and artists always so thank you for listening to me thank you both lori boswell

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS LAURIE AND I'M IN THE FIFTH WARD. I'VE SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOLLOWING THE ZONING REWRITE PROCESS BOTH THIS YEAR AND LAST. YET I CONTINUE TO FIND PARTS OF IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHICH REFLECTS BOTH ITS COMPLEXITY AND ITS LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCIL IS RECEIVING BOTH A MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORT. For a document that will influence future development throughout Elmhurst, I believe understanding the reasoning behind decisions is just as important as understanding the decisions themselves. I'm still trying to understand some of the broader policy choices reflected in the rewrite. One of the most significant is the shift towards additional administrative authority and expanded opportunities for development to proceed by right. Those changes may streamline processes, but they also reduce the number of decisions that receive public review and discussion. Public hearings and notification requirements are often how residents first learn that a proposal is being considered. They are not just procedural. They are part of how the community stays informed and participates in decisions that shape our city. Tonight, attached to the finance committee agenda was a report about how residents receive information and stay engaged and how that information informed the communication strategic plan. The data showed the residents receive information from multiple city sources. For many, public meetings and hearing processes remain important. They provide an opportunity not only to receive information but also to ask questions and to be heard. Meetings and hearings also create a shared understanding of what is happening in the community and what might be happening next. Public review allows residents, commissioners, and elected officials to see proposals in context and understand how individual decisions fit into the broader patterns of change. Without these opportunities, awareness can become dependent on summaries, updates, and individual communication rather than information being considered open and collectively. For that reason, I encourage the city to be cautious about any changes that reduce transparency, reduce notice, or reduce opportunities for public participation. Once those opportunities are gone, they will be difficult to restore. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anita Kimbler.

Hello, my name is Anita Kimbler. I'm a resident of Elmhurst for 25 years. We moved away for a year, so I always forget to count. I have had a small business, I've been a small business owner in the Elmhurst C2 District since 2014, and recently a nonprofit organization, started a nonprofit organization as well. My small business is in the same building as Emily Quinn, where she's currently trying to get a tattoo studio, and I'm also one of her cosmetic customers and a huge fan. This area is a small, private, beautiful community of many, if not all, small women-owned businesses, salons, boutiques, therapists, acupuncture, and myself. As a part of this community, I welcome any up-and-coming artist into the building and in C2 zones if possible. I already have a wait list of clients that I am eager to send her way, some cancer survivors, others are military, people who have had trauma and survived, some who have accomplished the impossible, people on a personal spiritual journey, and others just enthusiasts looking to express themselves creatively. Emily will touch lives in many wonderful ways. I hope this zoning rewrite, I'm sorry, I know this zoning rewrite has involved a lot of hard work, debate, time, and real compromise. the majority report reflects that process working as it should and i believe that some something i believe it's something that our community can embrace thank you to everyone who has invested their energy in moving forward for emily and others like her thank you very much in closing my small business on this c2 zoning map is that of a psychic and a medium I have quietly and respectfully served thousands in this community by looking into their past, present, and future. My mediumship allows me to communicate with the dead, which I have also done for 12 years there, bringing healing, closure, and relief to those who grieve their loved ones. Surely, if a mysterious mystic like myself, who may have been banished from society in days past, can prove to work as a respectful professional in this community, in the C2 zone, we can expect nothing less of a skilled tattoo artist with a passion for an outside of the box canvas. EMILY WILL BE A GREAT ASSET AND HEALER IN THIS COMMUNITY. PLEASE VOTE YES AND SIDE WITH THE MAJORITY REPORT AND ALLOW ARTISTS TO EXPAND THEIR SERVICES, INCLUDING TATTOO STUDIOS AND THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT. THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU.

EMILY QUINN.

hello my name is emily quinn elmhurst has been my home since i was four years old my husband and i raised our three children a few blocks away from the c2 district where i currently have my permanent makeup studio i'm a graduate of york high school where i took art classes and received my degree from the art institute of chicago I'm a muralist, an oil painter, and a tattoo artist. This zoning rewrite is not being written for me, but I am an example of a local artist that this could benefit. Being able to expand my services at my studio would help me as a local small business owner trying to make a living. The current codes allow me to put ink into the skin on someone's face for beauty purposes. The rewrite would allow me to put ink into someone's skin anywhere on the body. I could provide remembrance tattoos for a loved one who has passed. I would be able to help women who have gone through breast cancer and would like areola restoration. I would be able to help burn victims, cover their scars with flowers, or simply add some beautiful art someone wants to have with them forever. There is nothing scary about me or the services this majority report would allow. Please have faith in the work Alderman Jensen and Alderman Vermeeres have done in the committee and vote with the majority. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

all right that's the end of the list of those who have signed up no i'm sorry robert bobby quinn sorry i jumped ahead of my other notes all right the other quinn you want to raise the microphone please what's up there you can hear me yeah all right uh good evening my name is bobby quinn my wife is emily and i'm a lifelong resident of elmhurst I have attended every DPZ committee meeting over the past two years where they have discussed body modification studios and quite a few where they haven't. In a recent committee meeting, Alderman Jenton stated that not a single resident has spoken to him with concerns for allowing tattooing in town. In 2023, the first zoning rewrite draft included body modification studios in industrial one and C2 zones with conditional use, before my wife opened up a permanent makeup studio and long before I started attending these meetings. Since the first draft, the language has become more restrictive. Chairman Rose and the entire Z&P commission did not find a basis to restrict body modification establishments to only the industrial one and c2 districts they unanimously recommended it be allowed in all commercial districts with conditional use committee chairman jensen and vice chair varamis have listened to all the recommendations and have come up with a proposal that i feel does not go far enough but is a step in the right direction i appreciate their efforts to make a compromise The minority report that is being presented represents a personal and biased opinion. It does not reflect the views of the community, the ZMP commission, or the majority of the DPZ committee. It proposes to push tattoo artists into an industrial zone full of warehouses, factories, and large commercial businesses. It is clearly meant to technically allow it in town without realistically allowing artists to operate. I personally believe it is also an act of grandstanding and an insult to all the hard work and time that has been thoughtfully put into the majority report. I hope everyone here tonight sees it for what it is. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. That is the end of the list. All right, now is there anyone who would like to make public, you can bring it forward. Is there anyone who would like to make public comment but did not have the opportunity to sign in in advance of the meeting? Thank you. If so, please raise your hand. All right, seeing none, we will close the public forum and go to item five on the agenda, announcements. Are there any announcements from the dais? All right, on to the consent agenda. Clerk Tamer, please read the consent agenda.

6.1, minutes of the regular meeting of the Elmer City Council on June 1, 2026. 6.2, accounts payable June 15, 2026, $2,862,692.90. 6.3, report municipal community solar. 6.4, report. Municipal Electric Aggregation, 6.5 report, 2026 through 2029, Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, see item 9.1, 6.6 report, 2026, Elmhurst Craft Beer Festival, 6.7 report, amendment to Elmhurst Municipal Code, 4.10, Veterans Memorial Commission, 6.8 report, referral proposed amendments to B1, and B2 licenses allowing limited chilled single serve alcohol sales. 6.9 report McMaster car ground lease. 6.10 report 2026 storm sewer rehabilitation. 6.11 an ordinance amending section 22.226 entitled one restricted industrial district of chapter 22 entitled zoning of the Elmer's municipal code and rezoning map amendment certain property to the I won restricted industrial district and granting a conditional use permit to exceed building height requirement and granting a conditional use permit to for an amended plan unit development with site development allowances for the construction of a parking garage and associated improvements upon the property commonly known as 590 North County Line Road, 600 North County Line Road, and 501 East Lake Street, Elmhurst, Illinois, McMaster Car Supply Company. 6.12, an ordinance waiving bid and authorizing the execution of a contract for the purchase and installation of a security system for the temporary police station at 180 West Park Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois. 6.13, an ordinance waiving bid and authorizing the issuance of an open purchase order for the purchase of asphalt materials. 6.14, a resolution authorizing the issuance of a notice of award and authorizing the execution of a contract for the installation of an automatic transfer switch at 180 West Park Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois, project 26-21. 6.15, a resolution authorizing the issuance of a notice of award and authorizing the execution of a contract for the 2026 pavement striping program 6.16 a resolution authorizing the execution of a change order number one for the 2026 water main cipp lining improvements project and 6.17 a resolution authorizing the purchase of rock salt for use within the city of elmhurst thank you clerk is there any item on the consent agenda that any alderman would like to remove either for further discussion or to vote against woman baker i just wanted to pull 6.6 to vote present on that

All right, anyone else? We have a motion to approve the consent agenda minus item 6.6. Alderman Toledo with the motion, Alderman Virgil with the second. Clerk Tamer, please call the roll on the consent agenda.

Irby?

Aye.

Brennan?

Aye.

Berrimas? Aye. Bellinger?

Aye.

Shenko? Aye. Hill?

Aye. Aye.

Jensen.

Aye.

Toledo. Aye. Baker.

Aye.

Newdara absent. Virgil.

Aye.

Nardini.

Aye.

Bastido. Aye. 13 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent.

All right. I say that's 13 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent. And the consent agenda minus 6.6 is adopted. Let's go to 6.6. Clerk Tammer, please read the report.

It is therefore the recommendation of the Public Affairs and Safety Committee that the city of Elmhurst approve the issuance of a temporary use permit and a Class D liquor license for the Elmhurst Craft Beer Fest on September 19, 2026. Signed, Alderman Michael Brennan, Chair, Alderman Karen Schenko, Vice Chair, and Alderman Brian Bellinger.

We have a motion to approve 6.6. Alderman Brennan with the motion, Alderman Schenko with the second. Any discussion? Call the roll, please.

Irby?

Aye.

Brennan?

Aye.

Vareemus? Aye. Bellinger?

Aye.

Shanko? Aye. Hill?

Aye.

Graham?

Aye.

Jensen?

Aye.

Toledo? Aye. Baker?

Aye. Did you mean present? Present. Come on now.

Come on.

All right.

At New Dara, absent. Virgil?

Aye.

Nardini? Aye. Bastido? Aye. 12 ayes, 0 nays, 1 present, and 1 absent.

12 ayes, 0 nays, 1 present, 1 absent. 6.6 passes. On to committee reports. Clerk and member, please read the majority report, item 7-1.

Therefore, the Development, Planning, and Zoning Committee recommends that the City Council approve the comprehensive text amendments to update Chapter 22 entitled Zoning of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Elmhurst upon receipt of the final draft as described above. The City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare the necessary documents for City Council approval. Signed, Alderman Chris Jensen, Chair, and Alderman Jennifer Vareemus, Vice Chair. Unsigned, Alderman Guido Nardini.

I think you may have a motion to approve the majority report. Alderman Jensen with a motion. Alder Varamus with a second. Varamus. Alderman Jensen.

Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Levin, members of the council, what's before you tonight is the first comprehensive rewrite of Elmhurst zoning ordinance since 1992. In the 30 plus years since, there have been more than 50 separate text amendments, each one a patch for a specific problem. Patches keep a code running. They don't make it coherent. This is a long overdue modernization and update. I want to start with how we got here. The work began in 2019. It paused for COVID, then picked back up. Since then, a technical report analyzing the existing code, three full public drafts, each one released and revisited, public open houses, an open comment portal on the project website, multiple public hearings across the bodies of the commission and the committee. This draft was reviewed at least 14 meetings over six years. At the end of all that, the Zoning and Planning Commission approved it 8-0. A word on how our committee handled it. Chair Rose said it well when the Commission was considering the draft. We are not policy makers, the Zoning Commission, our job is to gather information and to analyze that information so the decision makers, the policy makers, can make the best decision they possibly can. We are the policy makers and the policy judgment lies with this council. Our committee took up the Commission's report, adopted the bulk of its recommendations, and refined a handful in response to public testimony, staff input, and the City Attorney's advice. What we're forwarding tonight is a vetted package that we're asking the Council to approve so that consultants can produce the final clean draft incorporating these recommendations with the City Attorney preparing the documents. What you're considering is a modern, usable document. The current code is dense and hard to navigate. This one defines every term, speaks in one consistent voice, and uses graphics and a single use matrix in place of old scattered structure. It's cleaner for the residents who live under it, the developers who build to it, and the staff who administer it. That clarity is itself a public good. it's worth separating what's genuine genuinely new from what's housekeeping because most of most much of this package is just that there are substantive changes a new c5 mixed-use district with the parcels it applies to left to a future map amendment replacing floor area ratio with form-based controls, height setback coverage, build two lines and design standards, a modernized use structure, and updated standards for performance, landscape, and lighting. There are a few more that I'll get to. The bulk of the document is definitional cleanup and consistency fixes that make the code work the way it was always intended to. And one principle runs through all of it. Where commercial or industrial meets a residential neighborhood, the code adds flexibility and protection at once. Heights step down near homes. Anything above the base height needs a conditional use. And design, buffer, landscaping, and lighting limits apply at the edge. A few items through more discussion than the rest. The first is a homeowner item, soups and window wells. This topic was discussed at length at our committee and our decision was made with the advice of and supported by engineering and the fire department The draft now codifies requirements to that to this point have been left to staff discretion and Permits the outside edge of the window well or stoop to sit as close to as close as two and a half feet from an interior side lot line it also lets owners of older homes repair replace an existing soup in its current footprint and and lets them add a window well to create a safe egress at a bedroom or flood-proof basement. When a family is deciding between renovating or selling to a builder and moving, allowing this flexibility will help move that choice away from the teardown of an otherwise livable older home and help maintain a diverse housing stock in town. The practical effect is fewer families having to come before the zoning board for routine, sensible improvements to older homes on narrow lots. The city engineer keeps the final say where drainage requires more room and a diagram is going into the code on the window walls. The second is body modification, for example, tattooing. The draft permits it as an accessory use in our C2 commercial district, alongside salons, spas, and medical offices, and as a conditional use in the I-1 district. The limits that the majority report set go to scale and intensity. It's a lawful use, kept modest, and is an accessory to an existing personal services business. Again, there was a lot of discussion on this topic. I'm sure there will be more. And with this compromise, I think we have landed in a reasonable place. The third is environmental performance standards. The committee strengthened them, adding a requirement to protect surface water and groundwater from contamination during material storage, and a standard barring detectable air pollution beyond a property line to be in compliance with the Illinois EPA regulations. We benchmarked these against peer communities. They apply citywide, but they matter most where industry sits closest to where people live. I could obviously list everything. Exhaustively, this changed. But the combination of the draft from last year, the ZPC report, staff memo, and finally our report clearly lay out our intent in drafting the new ordinance. I understand that some of you may think that this process has moved too quickly in the last six and a half years. The funny thing about zoning is that if you try to handle everything, every possibility, codify every item, conflict, et cetera, that may arise in the future, the code would be millions of lines long and still not be complete. We understand that as it goes into effect, things will come up. As noted in the report, we plan to review anything like that in six months. And as I told a few of you today, if something can't wait that long, it will be on the agenda of the DPZ committee at the following meeting. In closing, this is, as the old zoning code was, a living document. It's born of much analysis, debate, consideration, and compromise. As with any compromise, I guarantee that there will be something you don't agree with, as there are things I don't agree with. That said, a good compromise is when all parties are left somewhat dissatisfied. I ask for your support in approving the majority report. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Jensen.

Alderman Ardini. Thank you. I move to make an amendment to put the minority report in replace for the majority report.

A motion to substitute the minority report for the majority report and the minority report is on your agenda. Item 7.2. Is there a second? Alderman Bastido with the second.

called Minardini. Thank you much. On the floor tonight, first of all, a couple of things. In my discussion of the minority report, forgive me if I repeat some of the things that Chair Jensen already said. If I can edit them out, I will. On the floor tonight is a majority report and a minority report that differ really only by one small line. The audience here is the council I'm trying to convince for my minority report and the Amherst public to explain the rewrite in general. First, a discussion of the things that both reports have in common because there are tons of them. This rewrite is an exercise in modernizing our code, making sure that it reflects the best practices of today's planning and is in sync with our downtown plan and our comprehensive plan. Both minority and majority reports, as Chair Jensen said, are by no means a perfect zoning document. There is no perfect zoning document. If there were, there would be no zoning boards of appeals, there would be no litigation for land use. What there is is an overlaid lens of zoning ordinances and building codes and what's permitted by right and what's permitted by some sort of review. What we strive for is a predictable code that current homeowners, prospective homeowners, and businesses can all count on. In a lot of ways, we can think the governing principle of how zoning should work is the current standard that exists in our code at 22.26, that a use in question will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of Elm It's designed, the rewrite, to preserve the good and provide important changes to the status quo where warranted. We can see this document sort of as form and substance. It's important to understand that there were some zoning substance issues that were removed from scope like ADUs or granny flats or rewriting individual districts. Those were determined to have enough policy weight that they should be addressed as their own animals and outside of the general rewrite. The format of the document, different from the substance, the format of the document has been dramatically improved. For years, what use was permitted, whether by right or by conditional or accessory or use, and at which district was buried in a paragraph form through pages and pages of cross references. Now, districts and land uses are indexed very immediately. That change alone will allow homeowners contemplating a remodel or new home buyers a convenience that the current ordinance doesn't have. This rewrite has been reviewed not just by the consultant whose job it is to compare peer community zoning codes and best practices, but then the Zoning and Planning Commission, a group of Elmhurst experts who volunteer their time, and then Chair Jensen's committee on which I sit. And now, finally, full council. It was slowed, as Chair Jensen said, by committee, and slowed again by the change of the makeup of the committee. Pardon me, it was slowed by COVID, if I misspoke. And there was a first draft, and then again a second draft, and then a third draft. Through this process, it's worth mentioning, I sort of object to the term staff. Individual names, Eileen Franz and Assistant City Planner Jessica Gall, who very well may be a mom today. So healthy baby, healthy baby, healthy baby. They have worked all angles helping this along, interacting with Fire Chief Dick Dufort for public safety, also Assistant City Manager Kent Johnson, City Engineer Ted Sianis, and Building Commissioner Chris Kranzberger certainly were very helpful to me. Chair Susan Rose and in particular Kevin Burns and Michael Scarcella on the commission were also very deliberate as they went through the 213-page document before it came to us. It also went through a gauntlet of conscientious public comments. Anybody who lives in this town who didn't run for office and chose to read a 213-page PDF and provide in public comment their opinions on the matter, I see it as my duty to consider those opinions and to make sure that city staff or the consultant has also considered those opinions. To that regard, in more than one case, this rewrite would have been a worse document, but for some patient Elmhurst neighbors. Although there were a couple more, I would like to specifically thank Therese Altergott and Jim Henry. Where the majority and minority report differ involves a specific land use of body modifications. Our current zoning has no district that allows body modifications or tattoo work. I'm not convinced that we need to change that status quo, but having no district at all is a legal liability. Using the analogy of gun shops, municipalities that forbid them invite an NRA lawsuit. I think that's a mistake. In both rewrite, the minority and the majority report allow for body modification establishments. The minority report allows them as a conditional use in industrial one, and both the majority and minority allow them in industrial one and also in an accessory use in commercial two. The reason for my minority report is two reasons. I didn't want to vote no for a document that we have spent months on that 98% of I am in full agreement of, and we have gone back and forth, and I am relieved that Chair Jensen brought up the performance standards, environmental considerations, and window wells, and also that there is a six-month review. This was not done flippantly. There's been a lot of work that's put into it. That's reason one. Reason two is more a procedural nerdy one. It seems the rewrite is trying to shoehorn one business into being and changing the whole zoning code to do so. That's spot zoning. That's a mistake. Emily Jonas Quinn is an artist and an advocate for restorative body art. She and her husband have come together. regularly and have shared with me, in particular Emily has, some remarkable stories and videos about work that she'd like to bring to Elmhurst for breast cancer survivors. In short, through tattoo art, Emily Jonas Quinn has a business model that could turn a scar into beauty. Where someone could see cancer, she could make beauty and she could restore identity. If we were voting on whether or not to have Emily Jonas Quinn's cancer restorative body modification studio, I think it would be 14 to 0. I know I'd be a yes vote. But that spot zoning, we are not voting just for one responsible Elmhurst artist. We're voting for changing the Elmhurst code, not for one practitioner, but for any business who wants to try their hand in Elmhurst. I think this rewrite is cleaning up precisely that kind of inconsistency that spot zoning here would be advocating for. Thank you for your audience. I ask for your vote.

right before we go on I just want to make sure so we have the majority report and the minority report and Armin Ardini I think what you've done is you've taken the majority reports tax related to body modification establishments and you've stricken the body modification section D down to just

INDUSTRIAL.

I WON. THAT'S CORRECT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. WE ARE NOW DEBATING THE MINORITY REPORT.

CAN WE CROSS OVER?

PARDON ME?

CAN WE CROSS? YOU GET NERVOUS?

YEAH, I MEAN, IF IT CROSSES, I THINK, TO THE EXTENT, IF YOU'RE DEBATING ON THIS PROVISION BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY, YES, OF COURSE. But if you're going into something else in the majority report, let's hold it until we get to it. Alderman Brennan.

uh thank you uh mayor so so first off love the process um you know change takes time and a lift of this magnitude takes a lot of hard work so you know i applaud uh everybody that's touched this this modernization and kudos to you i i believe that there are topics that come before us that you know, we aren't going to agree upon. I believe in respecting each other's opinion, and I respect that of the minority report. That said, I do think, you know, accessory use for C2 is not a single source. I think there are probably more in our community that could do something similar to Ms. Quinn, and therefore, I'm not going to support the minority report. I will be supporting the majority report. Thank you. Alderman Bram.

Thank you. And this question actually goes to both for the minority and majority. But it seems like when there's conversation of topics that might be not as straightforward as most, In this case, I don't even want to say the word body modifications. We're not even considering here tonight for some reason, and I'd like if someone from the committee is willing to respond on why we're not talking tattoo parlors as well as body modifications. Because as one of the residents spoke, I think tattoo parlors are not as taboo as they used to be. I thought that coming into this rewrite that we would dive deeper i don't know if the committee is looking to dive into that down the line and take that outside the rewrite but i will now address what is before us in regards to the proposed modification or the proposed changes for the rewrite so this the proposal on both the minority majority one is c2 and one is c2 and i1 um it seems like when again i'll touch on topics that are not as straightforward it seems those are the two districts that always seem to come up when we're talking about um some challenges C2 I1 point of order you just reversed them one is only I1 the other is I1 and C2 what did I say uh one is only C2 Oh, got it. For what it's worth. Thanks for clarifying myself. You want to vote present? That was a good one. But my point is I'd like to have a better understanding on A couple of things. One, why we aren't considering what the ZPC recommended, because this is obviously pared down from that. Two, why did the minority report decide on what districts instead of just all districts, all C districts, and I'm not going to rattle off all of them because I might miss one and then there would be another point of order. Just kidding. And then why the other report just do the C2 and I1.

so let's hold your response we'll get I think we'll do the response on the minority report but we'll get some other input so you remember to answer that anyone else Alderman Irby I thank you mayor just as a point of clarity between the majority and the minority so when you read the minority it's an I one only

And when you read the majority, it's got the two zones, correct? Alderman Nardini, so I don't, yes. Alderman Nardini. Correct. So just to be clear on the minority report, There's no floor area. I'm going to list off three questions and I'll let the mayor decide when these get answered and you guys can answer them. I'm hoping to get an answer at the right time. So question number one on the minority report in the I-1 district, there are no floor area restrictions. Question one. Question number two, no single chair or artist restrictions. That was question number two. Question number three, any restriction of the artist in them having full artistic license of the media, ink, technique, anything that would make a tattoo artist a tattoo artist versus a body modification classification distinction between those two?

all right and that's my three questions thank you i think we're gonna have to go deep so let's start with alderman jensen can i just clarify something uh tattooing is by modification the subset it's it's a sub it's a something under the category biomodification so if you want to think about just tattooing like you said that is included in bif modification it's not there it's a larger uh broader category than just tattooing so tattooing is allowed as by modification

think that clarifies one of your questions therefore very first thing you said and what you just were talking about right you're you're wondering you i think you said something about why aren't we allowing tattooing we're supposed to go through the chair i was waiting for the chair to defer to me alderman bram thank you so i'm not claire so yours to me tattooing is the broader topic body modifications is a subset of that so you're saying the opposite correct

All right, so since we're answering some questions, Alderman Nardini, did you want to respond on the question of whether you're going into other standards such as 100 square footage?

Thank you. So Alderman Bram's question was why did we, at least I can speak for the minority report, why did the minority report disagree with the commission? I would argue that I didn't. Susan Rose is... One of the reasons I ran for office in the first place is listening to Susan Rose. She is an academic and I love the way that she breaks stuff down. The commission's job is to determine land use. It is not to determine policy decisions. I am of the opinion that this is a policy decision, not a land use decision. It is appropriate for it to be determined for that policy discussion to be had here, not on the commission.

All right. Do you want to respond, Alderman Ardini, to Alderman Irby's question?

Yes, but I would be forced to clarify what those questions are. As I understand them, there were three. The first was, is there no area restriction in I-1? That's correct. There is none. Is it only a single chair? That's correct. It is not only a single chair. And then the third, please restate. I didn't understand your third question.

Thank you Mayor and thank you for the question Alderman Nardini and thank you Alderman Jensen Chair for clarifying the the hierarchy of tattooing meaning just to clarify again to make sure I got this right that body modification is a larger subset and tattooing is a subset within body modification and just as a follow-up question that to divert is IS THAT DEFINED AS SUCH IN THE ZONI REWRITE? SO THAT CLARIFICATION IS KNOWN. I'LL PUT THAT ON THE TABLE IN A SECOND. BACK TO ASKING WHAT WAS THAT QUESTION NUMBER THREE. SO THE WAY I WROTE THAT WAS, ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS OF THE ARTIST IN YOUR I-1 ESTABLISHMENT DOING TATTOOING SINCE IT'S No, I got that wrong. You're doing body modification since it's a larger subset, which includes tattooing. Are there any restrictions for them to what they can do? What is their artwork they can do and what part of the body? Do they have full artistic license as either one of those artist types, body modification or tattooing? Do they have full reign to do whatever they want in their establishment with respect to those in a professional, safe manner?

Alderman Nardini. Thank you. We're talking about a zoning document. This would be whatever is allowed as body modification would be permitted actually both in the majority reports, accessory use commercial two, or both of them industrial one. I don't know if that's answering your question, but in no time has there been a distinction about shoulder tattooing is okay, but thigh tattooing isn't. But I don't know if I'm hitting your question on the head.

THINK I THINK THE CLARIFICATION OF THE SUBSET AND THE SUPER SET BEING BODY MODIFICATION IS THE HIERARCHY AT THE TOP KIND OF MAKES THAT QUESTION A MUTE POINT SOME LEVEL YES SO I'M GOING TO SAY I'M GOOD THANK YOU ALDERMAN NARDINI THANK YOU CHAIR JENSEN CHAIR JENSEN JUST TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE UH ON PAGE THAT OR IN SECTION WAS THIS 9-18

Our page 9-18 in the draft, the zoning report. Biomodification establishment is defined as an establishment that offers tattooing services, body piercing, and or non-medical biomodification. Biomodification establishment does not include an establishment that only offers an ear piercing or microblading service as an ancillary use to the operation of the main principal use. Those are more broadly allowed.

If we make it any clearer, it'll be transparent. All right.

The word tattooing appears under bimodification establishment, so hopefully that clarifies it for everyone. In terms of the art thing that you mentioned, I believe that the Supreme Court has held that artistic expression is protected speech, so there you go.

All right, so anyone who hasn't spoken on the minority report? Alderman Toledo?

Yeah, I guess, since it's irrelevant right now, I guess um my question would be related to the broadness of body modification i was unaware of how broad of a term that is could the committee share either majority or minority opinion like the intent of the of including such a broad category because it does include human anatomy changes which i can't imagine like was your intent I guess like other than the specific tattooing and piercing like it could include some other kind of pretty radical things was it did that ever come up within your discussion thank you chair Jensen it didn't come up but I would say that the term in there and or non-medical biomodification kind of precludes anything that says maybe what you're referring to is extreme or whatever so So it would be included?

No, no. It says, I'll read it again. Establishment that offers tattooing services, body piercing, and or non-medical bio-modification. So non-medical bio-modification is allowed. Medical bio-modification, not allowed. Great. Does that help?

Yes, but it's still very broad. Because, I mean, yeah, OK. Thank you.

All right, anyone else? Alderman Vareemus.

I'll just say that was the recommendation from the consultant on the verbiage that they use. And when we looked at some other peer communities, that was the referred to body modification.

All right. So I think we're ready to vote. So we're voting on the minority report. And the essence of it is we will be substituting the language that would allow, restrict it to, if you vote for the minority report, we will be restricting body modifications to I-1, as opposed to the majority report, which would have I-1 and accessory use in C-2.

Point of order, aren't we voting to just the substitute, not actually voting on the minority report?

Well, I'm saying what the effect is. Okay. Yeah, but you're correct. So we're voting, that is what will happen if you vote to substitute the minority report for the majority report. Alderman Irby.

Just another point of clarity from the public comment. I heard that it was unsafe One of the the tests the person who came up did public comments said it would be unsafe to do What we're talking about with the body movement body modification and superset concept in this hundred and fifty square foot single chair did what was did I hear that correctly and then to ISN'T THAT WHAT THE MAJORITY REPORT IS RECOMMENDING IN BOTH ZONES IS THE THOSE TWO RESTRICTIONS OR DID I MISS THAT AS WELL WELL YOU HEARD THE SPEAKER SAY THAT IN HIS OPINION IT WAS UNSAFE HE WASN'T NECESSARILY SAYING IT WAS A SCIENTIFIC HE JUST

So I don't think, I'm not trying to misquote, and then Alderman Jensen, did you want to?

That restriction is for C2. Industrial is conditional use. So there is no restriction there, other than whatever conditions that may be set through part of the process of getting approved.

All right, so Alderman Vremus.

just want to address the safety concerns i believe would be subject to a permit through the public health department i'm going by some other colleagues of mine that do a similar scenario in other communities and they did have to get a permit from the public health department in order to be able to do tattooing okay

Alderman Brann. I was gonna wait until this motion passes or moves one way or the other, but I haven't heard the response in regards to why either this district or both of those districts in regards to the minority or the majority. Why did the minority just pick I-1? Why did the majority pick I-1 and C-2 versus all of the commercial districts on either one?

Alderman Jensen.

Because it's a compromise. Some members of the committee would be fine with it being more expansive, some less expansive, and we have a minority report that we're considering, but I'll defer to Alderman Vareemus.

thank you so when you look at the report before you the c2 district when I spoke with staff about this on multiple occasions c2 has the majority of these types of businesses meaning beauty salons spa permanent makeup establishments nail salons many spas medical offices so it seemed to be the district that had the bulk of those types of uses putting it other than being in a downtown area or Spring Road which isn't one of those districts it's not a c3 it's not a c2 so that wasn't even on the table

all right anyone else all right so we're going to vote now the motion is to substitute the minority report for the majority report any questions on what we're doing not on what the policy is okay tamer

POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR. ARE WE VOTING WITH A YES OR NO? CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE GUIDANCE SINCE I'M THE FIRST ONE AND I NEED TO KNOW WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING? NOT WHERE I WANT IT TO GO, BUT WHEN I SAY YES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WHEN I SAY NO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

VERY GOOD. YES MEANS THAT YOU WANT THE MINORITY REPORT. YOU'RE VOTING FOR THE MINORITY REPORT WHICH WOULD BE THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING, JUST I-1. So you're saying I don't want I-1 and C-2, I just want I-1. That's the minority part. So if that's what you want, that's what you vote for.

And that would be a yes if I wanted that, to be more restrictive only in the I-1 that's in the minority report. Correct, yes. All right. All right, you ready? Let me take a breath.

Go ahead, I'll take a drink while you do that. You want me to start over?

Can I go last?

We're going to start with you if you're ready.

I actually think we have to go with you because we rotate around.

Irby?

No.

Brennan?

No.

Perrimas? No. Ellinger?

No.

Schenko? No. Dole?

No.

Bram?

No.

Jensen?

No.

Toledo? Aye. Baker?

No.

Udara absent, Virgil?

No.

Nardini?

Aye.

Bastido? Aye. Three ayes, 10 nays, one absent.

Three ayes, 10 nays, one absent. The minority report, the motion to substitute the minority report fails. We are on to the majority report. So now we are open to discussion, and this is not just body modifications, but anything on the report at all. Alderman Vareemus.

I'd just like to say that the report, the majority report, specifically about the body modifications, represents a balanced approach. It allows tattoo services in Elmhurst as an accessory use within an existing personal service and related business. It is modeled after Naperville's approach, and it reflects what staff and committee has worked on. So tattoo services would be available in Elmhurst. I have tattoos myself, so this is not about personal views regarding body art. My goal has been to find reasonable middle ground that allows these services in Elmhurst while maintaining the character and business mix of our commercial districts. Limiting body modification establishments to an accessory use in the C2 district does not prevent anyone from obtaining a tattoo in Elmhurst. In fact, may increase the likelihood that these services become available by allowing them to operate within an existing business reducing startup and overhead costs and again the c2 district was identified because of the establishments that we identified to be an in an accessory use several of them are in the c2 district so the recommendation before council is not to prohibit them. It is a compromise that allows tattoo services in Elmhurst while balancing different viewpoints and long-term planning goals for our commercial districts.

Thank you. Anyone else on the majority report? Alderman Bram.

Yeah, back to the allowing body modifications throughout the other commercial districts. According to the ZPC recommendation or their report and their recommendation within, It states, and I quote, the commission recommends that the DPZ committee consider allowing body modification establishments as an accessory use in all commercial districts and allowing them as a principal use only with a conditional use permit in all commercial districts. I understand compromise and I get that within the committee, but now we're before the full city council. I don't agree, I respectfully disagree that it's because C2 is where it's warranted because those are where the other similar types of businesses are at today. I could say that there's similar businesses in our downtown area or in the other commercial districts as well and even if that was or wasn't the case you may agree or disagree with that but why would we discourage it in other parts of town it doesn't make sense to me to say well that's where they are now so we should limit it to to that area and that area alone um i i agree with alderman jensen's comments earlier in regards to i'm not 100 on any of on all of the rewrite so i think overall this is a compromise across all different topics at least for myself um i think it i i think that we should allow body modifications all throughout the city of elmhurst and not only in these two districts Thank you.

Alderman Hill. Thank you, Mayor. And if it hasn't been said already, I'll say it again. Thanks to DPZ for all the work. I am so glad I'm not on that committee. I can only imagine how long and drawn out these conversations have been. So with that being said, though, I thought about this a lot. And I thought about... you know the the compromise that had been reached on the majority report and i i didn't really understand the compromises that relates to the character of elmhurst um because i see us as um dealing with some antiquated notions of what the character of Elmhurst is, like how we look at body modification when really 46% of people age 29 to 45 have tattoos, which I think is kind of reaching the child-rearing family age in Elmhurst. And we're supposed to be representative of our constituency, and increasingly that is our constituency. so i mean when we talk about the character of elmhurst i think the character of elmhurst may be changing while we're looking the other way a little bit and i want to bring some points as to why i think we should amend this current um element of the zoning draft i got four things i'll be quick about i already said the first one representative our representative our constituents i also like to say that body modification as far as i can tell and like other things we heavily regulate such as firearm sales and um adult stores. You know, there's not a lot of issues I can see with the propagation of a store like that offers a parlor that would offer a body modification, right? So I dislike that it's been associated with like other things, for instance, an I-1 that would require conditional use would be some of those things. So they seem to be lumped together again in an antiquated notion. Things that we do allow in commercial districts that we might associate with tattoo boutiques are the biker getting a tattoo, right? Well, we permit motorcycle sales in commercial districts. So that's something that we allow as a primary use. So I think we've kind of moved on that in other ways in our head of what we associate with tattoo parlors. In fact, maybe, Maybe if you encourage bikers to get tattoos, you'd have an attorney there, and an alderman, and a professor, all of us being motorcycle riders. Not that I'm suggesting you get one, Mayor. Number three. Tattooing, and it's increasing popularity. I work on a college campus. I'm seeing our students get it. Students, by the way, that come to Elmhurst, and we have a population here who would be very likely to get tattoos. This is not getting a $50 tattoo anymore. I hope we all realize, as far as I understand with tattoos, it's an expensive endeavor, right? Taking multiple sessions. These people are coming to Elmhurst. I found out they're coming with their friends. They're making a day of it. they're coming here they're getting coffee they're having fun together they're eating here they're dying you know dining here they're doing stuff here there is an economic dimension to this and i don't understand why we would cut ourselves off i know we're saying we're gonna allow tattooing in elmhurst but i mean That gets to my fourth point, I guess, that you don't look for photographers in a framing store, right? You look for photographers that run their own studio. You don't look for physical therapists in the gym. So I don't understand why this has to be an accessory use in any case these are artists that you know it's the principal library livelihood it's a studio i don't know why it has to be hidden away speaking of first amendment um you know freedom of artistic expression here so what i am proposing is that i would like to make a motion to amend the majority report to say that in addition to conditional use in I-1, I believe that tattooing should be, excuse me, body modification should be permitted as a principal conditional use in C-2. And that is the motion I would like to make.

All right, so let me catch up for a second here. so you're modifying the report on page nine where it says in the c2 district a body modification establishes is permitted and you would take out as an accessory use to all those things you just say would be permitted i'm actually passing over a draft oh thank you guys we're going to ask why you didn't write it out

I apologize for all the grammatical errors and misspellings.

It's the Korean writing that I can't... I'll read this and then maybe we can make copies so that everyone can see it. So the motion is to amend the DPZ majority report to strike the accessory use 150 square foot and single chair restrictions on body modification establishments in the C2 district and to instead list body modification established as a principal use within the C2 district. So in other words, the amendment is saying Not an accessory use, no limitations on size or chair. It would be a permitted use in C2.

Correct, Mayor. And it would be the same as also in the draft report, also in I-1, it is a principal, non-accessory principal conditional use. Yeah. All right.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND BEFORE WE GO ON? ALTERNATE VIRGIL? WITH A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? Okay, so if you're looking at your report on page eight, instead of body modifications being a accessory use that would be limited by a space of 150 feet and a single chair, it would be a permitted use in situ without any restrictions on the size of the space or the number of chairs. Alderman Bellinger.

I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES AND NO I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES AND NO RESTRICTIONS. RESTRICTIONS. ALDERMAN HILL SAID CONDITIONAL ALDERMAN HILL SAID CONDITIONAL USE A COUPLE OF TIMES. USE A COUPLE OF TIMES. IS THAT IN THE LANGUAGE OR IS IS THAT IN THE LANGUAGE OR IS THAT NOT IN THE LANGUAGE?

THAT NOT IN THE LANGUAGE? IT WOULD STILL BE IT WOULD STILL BE CONDITIONAL.

CONDITIONAL.

YES, IT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL. YES, IT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL. BUT IT IS PERMITTED TODAY AND I BUT IT IS PERMITTED TODAY AND I WANTED TO ALIGN IT WITH A WANTED TO ALIGN IT WITH A I THINK I'M CONFUSING MYSELF ON THAT ONE. NONCONDITIONAL, PERMITTED. SORRY.

WHAT? IT'S A PERMITTED, THE MOTION, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE IT A PERMITTED USE, NOT CONDITIONAL. IF YOU WANT TO OPEN A BODY MODIFICATION IN C2, YOU MAY DO SO AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. and you will not be restricted by the 150 square feet limitation or a single chair.

But what about I-1? I-1. Is I-1 still going to remain conditional use under this motion?

And that would also be permitted use, which is, in other words, non-conditional use. So permitted use for I-1 and C-2. Right.

That's the simple way of saying it.

I think I said it the worst possible way that would take the longest to figure out. All right. Alderman Bastido.

Thank you. So I will be voting against the amendment. I support the majority report the way it is now. I will not be supporting this report if it includes this amendment. So I do have to say I am slightly offended about the language that says People who are against expanding tattoo establishments in Elmhurst are doing it because they are afraid or just not cool enough or don't understand how common tattoos are. Tattoos may be, if we believe the stats of Alderman Hill, 46% of Americans may have tattoos, but I don't hear 46% of Elmhurst residents saying we need to allow tattoos in Elmhurst. We have the lowest vacancy rate, one of the lowest, if not the lowest vacancy rate in DuPage County. We will get no revenue sales tax from tattoo establishments. So people keep saying, why not allow them? I am asking, why allow them? We currently don't. They were put into a version a couple years ago of the draft by the consultants. And I'm just not hearing, and I've tried to ask a lot of people, I'm not hearing people say, gee, I really can't get tattoos because they're not right down the street. I have to go all the way to Villa Park for them. I don't hear the demand. Therefore, my question is, why would we change it? I'm willing to vote with the compromise that's in the majority report. I understand it. It's not what I would have picked, but I'm willing to go with that. But I'm not going to be going with... the amendment. And the ZPC, I don't agree with their statements at all. First of all, they don't set the policy we do. Second of all, their argument was that they didn't see a reason. Well, they weren't seeing the full discussion at the council, at the committee, or else they would have seen the reasoning. So for them to say, oh, there's just some vague precedence, no prejudice No one ever told me why. Well, that was really unfair because all they got was a quick summary from staff. They didn't hear the actual discussion in the committee, which I think they explained themselves very well over multiple meetings. And I think that's it.

Thank you. Alderman Vareemus.

Thank you. Just wanted to make a couple of points. So that is correct. Service-based businesses are not subject to sales tax. So we would not be collecting any revenue from this. If we're looking at an economic development standpoint, I think that was brought up by Alderman Hill. Like I said, I myself have a couple of tattoos. generally I would say is a referral based business people aren't like let me go to downtown Elmer's get a cup of coffee and maybe I'll pop in and get a tattoo I mean usually putting some thought into something that you're it's going to be permanent on your body for the rest of your life I know when I got mine it was based on a referral and so are several of my friends This proposal and the majority report, no one is going to be at a loss for getting a tattoo in Elmhurst. See two districts expand our whole community from the north side to the south side. Putting it as an accessory use is not hiding it. In fact, you know my background is from the service-based salon industry, and this is a very common practice, and it is very, very successful. The cost of doing business nowadays is astronomical. So if anything, this would be helping a startup company. I don't see any downside in it at all. I also just want to comment that I use a lot of businesses in town. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to be in every single zoning district that we have.

Is there anyone that hasn't spoken yet, particularly on the proposed amendment? Alderman Irby.

Thank you, Mayor. I think we've raised some great points here, and I appreciate the dialogue. I believe what Alderman Hill brought up with respect to people coming here, they might come by themselves. Some might come with their husband or wife or significant other. That's their freedom to do that. Their liberty would be a better word. And so when they do that, there may not be any sales tax from that revenue of that person establishment that's that's giving the tattoo or the body modification if you will but there will be other i do believe alderman hill's point that there will be some that arrive in groups and they will have an economic spending pattern i do believe that the state law could change AND THAT MECHANICS, I'M SURE NOBODY WANTS TO GET TAXED, BUT THERE'S A LARGE APPETITE FOR STARTING TO TAX SERVICES. AND I BELIEVE THIS COULD BE A POTENTIAL FOR THE FUTURE. AND I THINK THE THIRD ITEM THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS IF WE GO TO A C2 ONLY. I MAY BE WRONG PLEASE CORRECT ME IF ANYBODY HAS SOME SOME DATA THAT SHOWS IT OR SOME ANADOTAL WHATEVER IT TAKES THAT THAT MIGHT BE MORE C2 MIGHT BE MORE FOR THE NORTHERN END OF TOWN AND WE MIGHT BE DOING ZONING to where there's less C2 or we need to pick up another C category so that it's balanced. So we're not forcing people onto one side of the town versus the other. I don't know if that's true, but I worry about having a C2 that may have a bias to the north and not to the south. So those are my three points. Thank you.

JUST FOR A POINT OF INFORMATION, C2 IS NOT ONLY ON THE NORTH SIDE. THERE'S A LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

I MEANT BIAS, IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYOR, MEANING THERE COULD BE 50 C2s UP THERE, PARCELS, AND MAYBE THERE'S ONLY 20 ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S PERFECTLY BALANCED.

WELL, WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD. IT MIGHT BE 54, 46, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE... IT'S NOT BIASED. On the amendment, let's start with Alderman Jensen and Alderman Virgil.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to put a little color on this colorful map that I'm looking at here, I would say that it is actually pretty evenly distributed north to south in town. And I would say east to west, but there's not really much commercial on the east side of town. So because you have a little stuff on the western border, there's some over there too. But it's very evenly distributed throughout town, C2 that is.

On the north, it is.

All right, Alderman Virgil.

No, northeast. Just a question. Alderman Remus mentioned the benefit of having it as an accessory use. Is that still possible under the amendment? That's my question.

Well, the amendment, well, someone could open their business in a hair salon, but they wouldn't be required to.

It wouldn't be required to, but they could still do it as an accessory use in another establishment. Yes. Okay. The other thing I wanted to point out, I mean, we have a lot of service-based businesses in town that don't provide sales tax, as has been mentioned earlier. I don't think we're looking at trying to restrict any of those on that basis. The other thing I wanted to say on this is I think some of the concern is maybe the history of tattooing or some of the kind of culture around it. But I think what gives people concerns about things like that are really sort of the nuisances that they could provide. In this case, I don't think there's any particular nuisances that are involved, and we're not necessarily creating a significant increase in traffic, in noise, in pollution, in all those types of things. So I don't necessarily have a problem with it. As has been mentioned, it's becoming much more mainstream and popular. So I don't necessarily have concerns with allowing it in a little bit broader context.

I'm going to raise my own point of order. I've been saying that your amendment is to allow it in C2 as a permitted use. CORRECT. YOU WROTE CONDITIONAL ON THIS.

IT WAS A NO TO MYSELF. I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPY ON IT.

ALDERMAN NARDINI. THANK YOU. SORT OF THE ACADEMIC OR NERD TAKE ON THIS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MAYOR SPOKE CORRECTLY. WHEN ALDERMAN VIRGIL ASKED, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR city manager or the mayor or city attorney, whoever can answer it, is it the case that a business could exist as an accessory use if it's not specifically listed within land uses in a certain district? In other words, if Alderman Hill's amendment is the law of the land and there is permitted use for body modification in C2, Could a business come and enter C2 as an accessory use of another business without that being specified in the code?

Well, it's not an accessory use. It's just use. Think of the beer establishment. Was it beer on the wall? They gave half their space to the Italian sandwich. And so they're... What is it? Pronto. Advertising. Pronto. So... It's not an accessory use, they're just giving part of their space for that use. Now there may be landlord restrictions, but it's not a zoning restriction. Understood. All right, anyone who hasn't spoken before we go to those who have spoken? Alderman Varenas.

Some of the concerns that we had heard about was signage, hours. So even as an accessory use, you could still have signage. it may minimize that because you're renting in somebody else's business. But case in point, the Pronto Sandwich rents inside Beer on the Wall and they still have a sign. So if you're thinking somebody's coming here and they're not gonna be able to find a tattoo parlor, they may still have a sign. I'm sure someone will still be able to find it.

All right, Alderman Hill.

thanks i'll try to be brief and offer no more comments after this because brevity is a soul wit but i will say that um you know offering tattoo boutiques as a primary use is not we're not we wouldn't be trailblazers here right there are plenty of affluent communities that do that already, Downers Grove, Lombard, Arlington Heights, Naperville, Evanston, Schaumburg, and so on. And we're not really taking a risk here in what our town's character might change into. And I understand Alderman Bastido's point about You know, we're not hearing people necessarily say, we can't get a tattoo here, I think, if you were saying, you know, even though we don't have a tattoo shop. But I'm also not hearing anybody, I mean, I have not heard in public comment, I've not heard from my own personal experience, anybody upset with the idea of having a tattoo establishment or arguing against it. And that's fairly indicative to me when I think about what my constituents want. And just a... the last thing i'll say and the thing that seems to be missing i understand when you work on things like this there's a lot of compliments in this draft i mean uh uh compromises in this draft what i'm what i'm not understanding i guess when we talk about is is why is this it's an accessory use why that is the route we have to take like what what is the concern here with the primary use i mean i are we saying we have design standards in our zoning code that kind of control facades and other things related to the design of the establishment you know i hear a little bit about ours but i'm not really understanding the concern that we would have with a body modification establishment as a primary use and when i thought about it that's why i suggested this amendment as uh based on all the points I've made and others as a reasonable amendment to make to what is otherwise I consider a great majority zoning report. And one that's going to be looked at in six months, you know, in terms of, you know, staff review of the work we passed today. So thank you.

All right. Any other discussion? Are we ready to, Alderman Schenkel?

I just want to say that I do support the amendment. I just wanted to say that I do support the amendment because otherwise it creates an unnecessary restriction without a clear public benefit. And these businesses are licensed and regulated and they operate under public health. So I don't understand why they would need to be specifically set as an accessory use.

Thank you. All right. I think we all have articulated position. I could tell you how you're going to vote already. So unless there's more discussion, we'll call the vote. Anyone else? All right. So we're voting on the amendment. And the amendment is to make body modification a permitted use in C2. And I won, without restriction as to size, square footage limitation, or number of chairs. Have I correctly stated that? All right, any questions on what we're voting on? All right, all in favor of that amendment, Clerk Tamerill will call the roll.

Irby?

Yes. Aye.

Brennan?

No.

Jaramus? No. Bellinger?

No.

Chenco? Aye. Hill?

Aye.

Brim?

Yes.

Jensen?

No.

Chiluto?

No.

Baker?

No.

Udara absent. Virgil?

Yes.

Nardini?

No.

Bastido? No. Five ayes, eight nays, one absent.

Five ayes, eight nays, one absent. The amendment fails. Back to the majority report. Anything else on the zoning ordinance as proposed? Alderman Toledo.

I would just like to thank the commission, the committee, staff, and members of the public who participated in this six-year process. I think that this is a significant achievement and improvement for all of those groups. So thank you very much for all the time and effort put into this.

Alderman Bremus.

Well, I stopped to say tonight, thank you. So as the vice chair, I've had the opportunity to see firsthand the amount of work that has gone into this effort, and I would like to thank Chair Jensen for his leadership and thoughtfulness through this process. He stepped into this role following Alderman Deuter, now Representative Deuter's departure of council, and he didn't miss a beat, along with our city staff, Eileen, Jessica, Alderman Guido, the zoning and planning commissioners, And regardless of where we may have agreed or disagreed along the way, everyone involved worked hard to move this important project forward for the city of Elmhurst. So thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Alderman Irby. Thank you, Mayor. I do appreciate the amount of time that both chairs of DPZ, Alderman Deuter, now our state rep, and Alderman Jensen, Vareemus, and Nardini, as well as DPZ, spending their time. And that has a lot of value to the process. SO I'M GOING TO READ OFF MY SCRIPT HERE. THE CLEAN PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ON THE ZONI REWRITE, THE DRAFT POSTED, CIRCULATED, DISCUSSED, RELIED UPON AND DEBATED FOR MONTHS, OMITS THE ENTIRE ENFORCEMENT ARTICLE 20. NOT A COMMA, NOT A TYPO, AN ENTIRE ARTICLE. YOU CAN GO TO THE AGENDA ITEM DETAILS ON BOARD DOCS AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN QUOTES PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE.PDF CLOSE QUOTES RIGHT NOW AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. ARTICLE 20 APPEARS IN THE RED LINE. IT WAS RECENTLY POSTED I BELIEVE TODAY. IF I'M WRONG SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME ON THAT. THE OMISSION IS LIKELY A POSTING OR DOCUMENT CONTROL MISTAKE. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

I THINK IT'S IN THE RED LINE VERSION. CORRECT. I JUST SAID THAT.

I'LL READ THAT BACK AGAIN. ARTICLE 20 APPEARS IN THE RED LINE. I'M STATING THAT AS A FACT. AND IT'S ALSO ON BOARD DOCS. IT WAS ADDED TODAY. IT WASN'T IN THE BOARD DOCS AS OF YESTERDAY OR OVER THE WEEKEND OR ON FRIDAY. ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE, I'M SURE IT WAS IN THE CASE FILE. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. BUT WE ARE VOTING ABOUT, AGAIN, THE ZONING REWRITE, THE CLEAN PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT. WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE RED LINE. tonight, in my opinion. This report asked me to approve a comprehensive replacement of Chapter 22, quote, upon receipt of a final draft that none of us have seen. It asked me to trust that all listed changes will be made correctly, all minor edits will be harmless, all omitted items will be caught, and the final draft will be ready for approval the moment it arrives. The absence of Article 20 from the public hearing draft tells me that is not good enough. I hope it tells you the same. I must vote no on the report to ask me to approve a final draft that does not even exist yet.

Alderman Jensen. Just to clarify, the red line is side-by-side with the clean version on ElmhurstZoning.com and has been since August.

All right, so is it the intent of the committee that the red line version I mean, is there any difference between, and I don't really know the answer, between the red line version in terms of what it reflects for the final draft and the clean draft other than the omission of Article 20?

The clean draft, my guess as to what happened, is the last page was omitted when the PDF was generated.

All right, so would you like to move to amend the, for clarification, to amend the clean draft to include the red line Article 20? Sure, I'll make that motion. Is there a second on that? Alderman Vareemus, any questions on that? So that'll take care of your, so we make sure it's clean. Okay, so discussion on the amendment to add Article 20 from the red line to the clean draft.

So I would like to know, does that have a violation of the public notice of OMA since it wasn't there until today? No, because it was there in the red line. I mean, does the public have notice that it was there? It was posted, yes. IN TIME UNDER THE OMA REQUIREMENTS AS IT ARRIVED TODAY AFTER THIS AFTERNOON.

I WILL SUPPLEMENT MY OPINION WITH YES. OF COURSE. THANK YOU. OKAY.

the amendment yeah regarding the amendment in I think it's a valid point and I have spoken to city planner Franz about this it's important to understand that what we are voting on is going to be a document a draft document for the ordinance so we are going to find more small typos before it goes to our muni code before it goes back uh just that absent uh article 20 in the final public as opposed to the red line these are um the the report that we are voting on is 11 or so issues that are going to be inserted into a document that is then going to become an ordinance. What I mean to say is we are seeing the 11 issues on the report that are at issue. The final document that is the ordinance before it gets reviewed in six months will come and we will vote on that as an ordinance. So you are not missing a window of review. would be how I would answer what seems to be your question. I can think of one other issue that seems to be a typo where there's a discussion of bike parking spaces and I wanna say they have inverted one for every 10 classrooms as opposed to 10 for every one classroom. But those issues will be reconciled at the moment of ordinance.

All right, so I think the concern that he was raising wasn't typos, but Open Meeting Act, did people know what we're voting on? And I will say, I will supplement, I know Alderman Virgil went through and spent a lot of time, and there's a couple points of what he's got that need to go in. There have been members of the public, so there will be as it's cleaned up, but it's not changing the substance of what we're voting on. All right, we're on the amendments still. All right. So the amendment is to include in the clean version for clarity article 20 from the red line version into the clean version. Clerk Tamer.

Irby.

No.

Brennan.

Wasn't there. Aye.

Remus. Aye. Hellinger.

Aye.

Shanko. Aye. Hill.

Aye.

Graham?

Aye.

Johnson?

Aye.

Toledo? Aye. Baker?

Aye.

Udara, absent. Virgil?

Aye.

Nardini?

Aye.

Bastido? Yes. 12 ayes, one nay, one absent.

12 ayes, one nay, one absent. The amendment passes, so Article 20 is now in both the red line and in the original. We're back to the original report. Additional discussion on the report. Alderman Virgil.

Thank you, Mayor. I also want to thank the committee. I spent a lot of time going through this document over the weekend, asked a number of questions, as the Mayor had mentioned, and I also want to thank staff for indulging my questions and providing responses. They were very helpful. So I think this code rewrite is a significant improvement. One of the specific improvements that Chair Jensen mentioned about the form-based aspects of this I think are a great improvement. I'm very pleased that those made it into that rewrite. Now, as several other people have mentioned, it's not perfect. It doesn't have everything in it that I would like. I think there are some things in there that hopefully do get corrected, as Alderman Nardini mentioned with the bicycle parking. There are some artifacts that got carried over from the old code, which I'm not sure makes sense. I'm hoping there's an opportunity to take a look at those again. An example of that, there's some specific properties in the unincorporated area that are listed in there, and I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. I'm hoping that gets taken a look at again. There's also some present and future concerns that I think still need to be addressed as they fall into sort of the scope of zoning. We had our Homes for a Changing Region study that came out earlier this year that found a number of challenges for a variety of different groups in finding housing within Elmhurst, and I'm hoping we're able to take a look at some of the you know, the recommendations that came out of their ADUs as Alderman Nardini mentioned earlier, I hope in those that, you know, do get a hearing here at some point in the near future for those. So even though it's not perfect, I think it's a big improvement and I do support the rewrite. Thanks.

All right. So I think we've got where we want to be. And I'm not going to go into detail because there have been a lot of profuse thanks, which are well-deserved, and particularly Alderman Jensen has navigated this through a long process. The public has been very engaged, and all in all, it makes for a better product. With that, I think we'll call Alderman Jensen.

just wanted to thank city staff i was remiss and not thanking them in my opening comments i felt i should do it now that the the committee and all the council and especially the public who did provide a lot of feedback that did make it into this and have pointed out countless things that have been forwarded to the consultant that will be represented in the final text and i thank everyone for their support all right

Clerk Tamer, call the roll. We're on the majority report. This is the zoning ordinance.

Irby?

No.

Brennan?

Aye.

Berrimas? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Chenko? Aye. Hill?

Aye.

Graham?

Aye.

Jensen?

Aye.

Toledo? Aye. Baker?

Aye.

Newdara? Absent. Virgil? Aye. Cardini? Aye. Bastido? Aye. 12 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent.

No, there was 1 nay.

Excuse me. 12 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.

12 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent. The report passes. Thank you. We're on to reports and recommendations of appointed elected officials. Mayor Levin, I have three items. June Jazz is this weekend at Elmhurst University, Saturday, 6.30 to 9.30. Two, the private tree planting with city cost-sharing program is up and running and there are details at elmhurst.org. I want to thank the organizers of the Elmhurst Cycling Classic. It was... WELL PRESENTED AGAIN THIS YEAR. AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A FIFTH MONDAY AND BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A HOLIDAY DAY OFF ON JULY 6TH, OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, NOT COMMITTEE, BUT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE JULY 20TH. JULY 20TH. CITY MANAGER.

Thank you, Mayor. Three items. We will be holding a blood drive at City Hall on Wednesday, June 24th. There's always a greater need for blood donations in the summer, so please come and donate if you can and spread the word. And this week's neighborhood roll calls on Tuesday will be held at Saylor and Adams and Thursday at Euclid and Adams. Information on the police section of the website or on their Facebook page. Thank you.

All right, any other reports? Alderman Nardini. Thank you. Briefly, I want to – this might be other business. If it's inappropriate, I'll wait until other business. But I want to thank the Elmhurst Police Department. Facebook has an outsized value of community discussion. And as I have been trying to bang the drum about e-bikes, e-bikes are fantastic. And the fewer cars on the streets, the better. But I would love to be able to – have elmhurst parents uh have a pretty sober understanding of what is for sale and what might not be appropriate for a six-year-old for a ten-year-old um there was a video that the police department had the uh responsibility to secure of a car and uh a Adelaide a child collide of car and e-bike and I would say every public meeting that Parents should be very aware that just because it is for sale does not mean a seven-year-old should be riding it All right anyone else Okay, we're gonna go on to ordinances clerk tamer please read the ordinance I

An ordinance waiving bid and authorizing the execution of an enterprise agreement with Microsoft Corporation for Microsoft 365 software license. See item 6.5.

I have a motion to approve the ordinance 9.1. Alderman Toledo with the motion. Alden Hill with the second. Alderman Toledo.

Yes, thank you. This report was approved up on item 6.5 with the delay or the next council meeting not coming in for a month. We were asking and approved to suspend the rules in order to approve this new license agreement with Microsoft. for our software licensing for our employees here. If it lapses, we would have significantly worse pricing terms. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Any discussion on the ordinance? Clerk Tamer, call the roll.

Irby?

I'm sorry, Mayor, can you? This is on the Microsoft, the ordinance to 9.1 to purchase the Microsoft licenses to renew them.

Thank you for that indulgence. Yes.

All right, aye.

Irby, yes. Brennan?

Aye.

Verimas? Aye. Bellinger? Aye. Shenko? Aye. Hill? Aye. Graham?

Aye.

Jensen? Aye. Toledo? Aye. Baker? Aye. Udara absent. Virgil? Aye. Nardini? Aye. Bastido? Aye. 13 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent.

13 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent. The ordinance passes. Thank you. Item 10, other business. Is there any other business to be brought before the council this evening? Seeing none, may I ask for a motion to adjourn? Motion Alderman Brennan, second Alderman Baker. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay. We are adjourned. Thank you all for your time. Enjoy your break.