►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 4/8/2015
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
Are
we
on
on
hearing
mode
for
the
text,
amendment
mm-hmm,
okay,
Plan
Commission
case
15,
p,
l,
ND
0008
proposed
text
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance
governing
personal
service
establishments.
This
is
a
public
hearing.
I'll
ask
staff
to
make
a
brief
presentation.
This
came
on
all
dramatic
reference,
so
the
staff
are.
The
petitioners
in
this
case
asked
a
mere
to
speak
to
the
proposal.
I
will
then
ask
if
the
public
have
any
comments
to
make.
A
C
Thank
You
mr.
chairman,
so
the
case
tonight
is
a
text
amendment
for
to
establish
definition
and
land
use
regulations
for
personal
service
establishments.
As
you
mentioned,
the
case
was
presented
to
the
zoning
committee
on
March
18th.
At
that
time
the
committee
decided
to
send
the
text
amendment
to
the
full
commission
without
the
positive
or
negative
recommendation
there
were
some
changes
recommend
that
for
the
actual
definition
which
are
incorporated
in
the
packet,
the
definition
is
on
the
slide.
C
They're
allowed
as
a
retail
service,
establishment
and
they're
allowed
by
right
in
the
bit
in
the
B
districts,
the
see
commercial
districts,
downtown
districts,
the
mixed-use
employment
district
and
then
lean
the
research
park
district
and
then
they're
allowed
as
a
special
use
in
the
industrial
districts
and
in
the
office
district.
So
the
proposal
is
that
they
be
allowed
in
the
same
districts,
but
that
a
minimum
this
separation
be
500
feet
between
those
uses
to
be
allowed
by
right.
C
If
these
uses
are
proposed
to
be
less
than
500
feet
from
an
existing
personal
service
establishment,
the
proposal
is
to
have
those
allow.
It
is
especially
use
in
those
same
districts,
vcd
the
mixed
employment
district,
the
research
park
and
then
the
especially
uses
where
the
users
currently
allows,
especially
use
of
the
industrial
and.
D
C
Office
districts,
so
this
was
this
guy
that
the
zoning
committee-
you
know
why
are
we
doing?
This
staff
was
obviously
to
see
the
automatic
reference
to
investigate
this.
There
has
there's
a
need
for
a
specific
regulation
that
would
prevent
further
concentration
and
proliferation
of
such
uses.
This
also
comes
in
from
our
economic
development
staff.
They've
noticed
a
pretty
significant
increase
in
these
uses
in
the
last
several
years
throughout
the
city,
across
all
commercial
and
business
districts
and
concentration
of
these
uses,
and
for
that
matter
any
particular
use.
C
So
they
you
know,
leads
to
struggling
in
marginal
businesses,
which
then
again
is
not
good
for
the
for
the
business
district
or
commercial
area,
and
then
the
final
item
again
was
kind
of
talked
about
at
the
zoning
committee
level.
There's
been
obviously
some
disagreement,
and
but
the
way
staff
feels
about
it,
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
our
economic
development
staff
and
obviously
from
the
automatic
reference.
C
Is
that
too
many
of
these
types
of
personal
service
establishment
in
one
area
they
do
not
generally
promote
retail
experience
and
activity
in
one
area
generally
speaking
again,
as
opposed
in
many
instances,
one
goes
to
these
establishments
on
an
appointment
basis
and
not
necessarily
as
you're
walking
through
visiting
other
business
businesses,
and
then
you
stop
by
to
to
get
it
done.
It
may
happen,
but
it
seems
that
the
appointment
sort
of
when
you
go
there
as
a
destination.
That's
what
happens
a
little
bit
more
than
than
the
other
way
around.
C
That
was
an
inventory
that
was
done
last
summer
and
fall,
so
the
data
in
the
packet
reflects
that
and
this
map
on
the
slide
is
an
updated
data
and
map
that
is
based
on
our
staff
going
out
there
and
really
checking
every
single
one
of
these
to
make
sure
they're
still
there
and
that
led
us
to
this
revised
map
that
includes
80
rather
than
90
businesses
and
then
clearly,
still
in
kate's.
Quite
a
lot
of
these
businesses
are
in
the
city,
so
then
this
is
a
map
that
was
provided
to
the
zoning
committee.
C
When
we
started
researching,
we
wanted
to
first
establish
what
are
the
blocks,
sizes
and
dimensions
across
the
city
and
in
the
downtown
area
we've
seen.
The
block
size
is
really
vary
from
one
area
to
the
other,
but
for
the
most
part
you
can
say
that
the
average
block
size
is
just
over
500
feet
in
the
downtown
area.
C
We
looked
at
the
block
dimensions
and
sizes
and
we
actually
noticed
that
they're
much
smaller
they
pair
in
the
range
of
300
400
feet,
and
this
was
important
because
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
the
city
of
Chicago
has
a
regulation
that
requires
personal
service
establishments
to
be
1,000
feet
from
from
each
other
and
which
is
on
the
south
side
of
Howard.
So
when
we
look
the
back
initially,
we
started
out
with
a
proposal
for
a
thousand
foot
separation
requirement
to
be
consistent
with
the
city
of
Chicago.
C
Once
we
really
looked
at
the
available
data
of
how
many
businesses
are
actually
in
the
city
we
created,
what's
called
a
buffer
to
see,
you
know
around
these
existing
establishments.
Where
can
a
new
business
locate?
And
so
this
map
is
again
updated
with
the
new
data
and
shows
the
blue
line.
This.
The
outer
line
is
the
thousand-foot
1000
foot
buffer
from
the
existing
establishments.
The
the
middle
one
is
the
red
line,
that's
the
500
feet
and
then
the
purple
one
good
small
circles.
Those
are
the
250
foot
radius
from
the
existing
is
publish
mints.
C
So
we
felt
that
a
thousand
foot
separation
is
actually
not
necessary.
We
can
achieve
the
same
effect
but
a
500-foot,
a
separation
requirements,
especially
considering
the
the
various
sizes
of
blocks
across
the
city.
We
felt
that
having
one
consistent
separation
is
the
best
for
the
entire
city
rather
than
different
ones
across
the
city,
and
then
by
looking
at
the
200-foot
250-foot
separation,
we
felt
that
it
still
provides
certain
areas
of
the
city
where
additional
personal
service
establishments
could
locate.
You
know
in
these
areas
and
we
just
felt
that
that
was
not.
That
was
not
appropriate.
C
That's
not
the
intent
of
the
of
the
regulations
and
we
felt
there's
already
quite
a
lot
of
these
establishments
now
and
I.
Guess.
I'll
just
show
a
couple
of
these
maps.
This
one
is
along
Central
Street.
You
know
at
the
zoning
committee,
one
of
the
things
was
that
was
found.
The
discussion
focused
on
the
need
for
this
type
of
regulation
along
Howard
Street.
C
However,
I
think
this
data
indicates
that
there's
quite
a
lot
of
these
types
of
establishments
throughout
the
city
and
perhaps
which
puts
more
significant
in
the
areas
like
central
street,
where
the
business
district
is
really
concentrated.
Close
to
a
certain
intersection
like
on
the
west
end
where
central
park
avenue
and
central
street
across
the
available
commercial
spaces
are
much
smaller
or
there's
a
less
number
of
them.
C
B
C
Not
have
a
confirmation
that
we
have
done
that,
I
believe
the
economy.
Development
division
has
been
working
with
many
different
business
associations
across
the
city,
so
I
I
would
assume
that
they
have
reached
out
to
them
and
made
them
aware
of
that.
But
I
do
not
have
a
confirmation
that
took
place.
E
There
is
a
question
in
here,
but
let
me
just
make
an
observation,
so
the
proposal
is
to
change
the
text
and
define
personal
service
establishment
and
retail
services
establishment.
So
as
it
relates
to
personal
service
establishments,
they
won't
be
able
they
won't
be
able
to
be
located
within
500
feet
of
one
another
unless
the
subsequent
proposed
use
gets
a
special
use.
Permit
correct,
that's
correct,
okay,
so
here's
the
concern
the
concern
number
one
and
I've
seen
this
actually
firsthand
with
clients
in
areas
like
a
long
Howard.
E
E
One
issue
that
you
have
is
that
the
applications
for
special
use
are,
for
the
most
part,
always
approved
which,
to
a
large
extent,
sort
of
dilute
the
whole
purpose
of
the
rule,
which
is
to
require
a
special
use
approval
in
order
to
minimize
the
number
of
those
uses
being
concentrated
in
that
area.
That's
one
thing
that
I've
seen,
obviously
Howard
Street
is
just
a
small
sample
compared
to
the
entire
city
of
Chicago,
so
I'm
not
saying
that
that's
necessarily
going
to
happen,
but
you
may
find
that
you
may
have
that
situation,
the
other
one.
E
The
other
issue
that
concerns
me
I
think
a
little
bit
more.
Is
this
I've
had
clients
who
have
had
barber
shops
or
nail
salons
or
whatever
they
don't
necessarily
they
don't
make
a
lot
of
money
and
the
zoning
process
it
they're
surprised.
You
know
how
much
it
costs
even
just
for
the
standard
when
a
business
that
exists
right
now,
the
nail
salons
and
barbershops
and
other
types
of
uses
that
fall
under
personal
service
that
currently
exist
as
of
today.
E
If
they
fail
to
or
are
delinquent
in
renewing
their
business
license,
at
least
in
the
city
of
Chicago,
they
lose
that
license
and
then
when
they
find
that
they
go
and
try
to
renew
that
license.
They
discover
that
now
they
have
to
go,
get
special
use
approval
because
they're
no
longer
legal
non-conforming.
They
now
require
a
special
use.
E
So
then
they
have
to
go
out
and
spend
money
to
go,
get
a
special
use
approval
now,
I,
don't
know
if
Evanston
requires
a
if
their
business
license
requirements
require
that
the
property,
or
they
use,
be
consistent
with
the
zoning
or
not
but
I.
Think
I
don't
have
a
problem
in
concept
with
this,
because
I
know
that
there
are
ways
you
know
a
perspective.
E
So
that
is
kind
of
my
concern,
because
these
are
not
the
kind
of
businesses
that,
in
my
opinion,
should
be
spending
their
time
and
resources
on
getting
zoning
approval,
especially
I
mean,
if
they're
already
there
new
users
coming
in
I,
think
it's
a
different
story,
which
is
what
I
think
what
this
is
designed
to
do.
So
those
are
my
concerns
that
there's
any
way
that
that
can
be
either
addressed
or
tweaked.
You
know
I
feel
more
comfortable
with
it.
E
I
don't
know
if
you
can
necessarily
do
it
within
the
text
here,
but
if
our
business
license
rules
trigger
that
requirement,
then
I
would
hope
that
maybe
they
can
both
be
addressed
together
and.
A
A
What
we
say
here
is
that
existing
businesses
that
currently
exist
and
are
located
less
than
500
feet
from
other
personal
care
establishments
will
be
granted
legal
non-conforming
status.
Now
the
question
commissioner
sorrow
has
raised
is
whether
they
might
lose
that
in
the
licensing
process
and
had
to
get
have
to
get
it
back.
A
My
question
was
what,
if
we
have
a
business
which
is
currently
existing,
which
is
not
within
500
feet
of
someone
and
a
new
business
comes
in
under
a
special
use,
does
the
old
business
then
become
legally
non-conforming,
because
somebody
else
has
moved
into
its
neighborhood
or
if
you're
grandfathered?
Are
you
grandfathered
forever?
E
E
He
again
through
no
fault
of
his
own
did
not
renew
his
business
license
after
his
business
license
expired,
which
he
didn't
realize
a
nail
salon
moved
in
with
in
the
thousand
feet,
so
the
new
salon.
So
the
answer
your
first
question
chairman,
is
that
the
already
existing
legal
non-conforming
use
that
was
their
first
is
not
affected.
E
They're
only
affected
if
their
business
license
lapses
and
then,
in
the
interim
a
similar
use
moves
in
within
that
distance
requirement.
They
didn't
essentially
go
to
the
back
of
the
line
now
and
I
find
themselves
they
being
the
original
user,
finds
themselves
having
to
go,
get
the
special
use
because
the
other
user
got
the
special
used
to
go
in.
To
begin
with,
didn't
mean
to
interfere
damier
but
I
couldn't
let
that
one
go.
What.
C
C
Couple
things
so
the
city
of
Evanston
does
not
require
a
business
license
from
these
types
of
establishments
because
they
are
required
to
have
a
state
license
so
they're
exempt
from
our
business
license
requirements.
That
is
actually
also
the
problem
that
we
don't
have
a
good
track
record
of
these
establishments.
They
pop
up
really
easy:
there's
not
a
lot
of
capital
needed,
so
they
really
established
really
quickly.
In
regards
to
non-conforming
uses,
we
do
have
a
list
of
currently
existing
personal
service
establishments.
We
can
certainly
refer
to
this.
C
C
The
nature
of
this
business,
you
know
how
they
want
to
be
established
if
they
were
there
before,
if
they
were
somewhere
else,
what's
their
track
record
somewhere
else,
so
all
these
things
would
be
considered,
and
one
of
the
questions
that
you
raised,
Commissioner
sorrow
is
that
these
types
of
special
uses
are
always
approved.
That
remains
to
be
seen.
This
is
something
that
we're
starting
out.
It's
considering
that
this
comes
from
from
as
an
automatic
reference
when
especially
use
is
in
front
of
the
City
Council
for
approval.
This
is
something
they'll
have
to
consider.
C
C
F
E
Say
for
whatever
it's
worth,
I
understand
the
rationale
behind
the
tax
memory
proposal
and
that
is
to
to
generate
a
mix
of
uses
that
will
improve
Howard
Street,
which
I
fully
support
and
I
know
that
staff
has
put
time
in
this.
In
addition
to
this,
I
would
recommend
and
consider
I
think
some
other
mechanisms
that
may
be
more
direct,
for
example,
to
the
extent
that
Howard
is
in
a
tiff
I
think
if
we're
going
to
try
to
get
a
mix
of
businesses
in
there,
this
is
maybe
one
of
the
you
know.
E
D
Building
on
something
Commissioner
Goddard
said
at
the
zone
committee
meeting,
you
know
economic
theory
says
in
a
perfect
world.
The
marketplace
would
take
care
of
this.
But
for
that
to
happen,
you
have
to
have
a
lot
of
players
and
we'd
really
don't
have
that
I.
D
Think
in
terms
of
it
of
anything,
we're
going
to
put
in
some
of
the
characteristics
should
be
that
number
one.
It's
simple:
it's
understood
it
could
be
applied
everywhere.
It's
not
considered
spot
zoning
I
think
in
social
sciences.
They
call
those
elegant
solutions,
I
think
what
we're
really
addressing
and
maybe
we're
not
addressing
it.
The
proper
way
is
we
don't
want
on
the
first
floor
level
of
these
business
districts
too
many
of
any
type
of
business,
so
I
would
go
back
and
make
the
suggestion
again.
B
G
Don't
know
if
this
is
a
help
or
not,
but
also
building
on
something
that
I
saw.
Commissioner
Goddard
said
in
the
zoning
committee
meeting
was
that
she
felt
that
these
salons
etc
do
in
fact
generate
traffic
for
other
retail
establishments
and
I
agree
with
her
on
that.
So
I
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
relegate
these
to
the
second
floor.
A
Yeah
I
was
also
one
of
those
who
questioned
the
the
staffs
assessment
that
these
don't
generate
any
sort
of
secondary
business.
I
suspect
there
is
still
a
fair
number
of
people
who
come
down
to
have
their
hair
cut
and
then
do
some
shopping
while
they're
doing
it
I
being
one
of
them,
partly
because
that's
about
the
only
time
I
get
into
that
neighborhood
is.
When
I
go
to
have
my
hair
cut
story,
I.
C
To
follow
up
on
that
I
think
staff
does
agree
that
some
of
these
uses
do
generate
foot
traffic
and
as
you're
walking
towards
your
you
know
a
point
menu.
You
walk
by
a
bank
where
you
walk
by
a
post
office,
or
you
know
something
like
that.
So
we
do
believe
that
they
they
contribute.
The
idea
is
that,
because
there's
too
many
of
them,
the
ability
of
other
businesses
to
be
in
the
vicinity
of
one
of
those
is
restricted,
and
this
proposal
simply
is
an
attempt
to
allow
for
additional
businesses
to
locate
there.
C
They
just
take
up
valuable
retail
bases
in
some
of
these
commercial
pockets,
and-
and
this
is
an
attempt
to
to
take
a
look
at
them
as
they
come
in
and
see
if
it
is
appropriate
based
on
the
distance
to
to
to
the
other
businesses
having
all
uses
on
the
ground
floor
and
all
these
business
districts,
especially
use,
would
be
extremely
burdensome
and
it
would
be.
It
would
be
hard
to
justify
that
every
type
of
use
has
to
go
to
the
special
use.
B
I
think
staff
is
an
excellent
job
and
addressing
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
we
had
at
the
committee
meeting,
I'm
just
a
little
uncomfortable
without
running
this
past,
the
business
groups
in
town
I
feel
so
much
more
comfortable
if
they
said
yes,
this
is
a
good
idea.
I
mean
they're,
probably
going
to
say
that,
but
I
just
don't
want
to
drop
this
on
and
without
having
some
kind
of
input
and.
A
E
Would
I
would
amendment
eight,
not
just
the
the
business
owners
but
the
owners
of
the
property,
because
actually
it's
they're,
probably
the
business
owners,
are
probably
all
tenants.
So
the
the
owners
have
just
as
much
of
an
interest
as
the
businesses,
because
they're
the
ones
they're
going
to
need
to
market
those
spaces
if
they
become
vacant,
so
the
landlord
should
care
to
an
extent.
C
Just
to
follow
up
on
that
big,
what
we
found
out
I
personally,
have
reached
out
to
dempster
street
Business
Association
representative
Central
Street
Business
Association
representatives
and
Main
Street
Business
Association
representatives
for
the
previous
cases,
when
we
looked
at
the
office
uses
and
I
found
that
actually
the
property
owners
are
the
ones
that
are
majority
on.
You
know
parts
of
these
associations
because
they
have
a
vested
interest
and
you
know
ongoing,
so
they
will
definitely
be
notified.
A
A
C
Can
certainly
provide
us,
a
state
license,
certification
number
yeah
license
number
and
that
license
should
state
when
the
business
or
by
was
issued,
and
it
was
issued
prior
to
the
establishment
of
this
ordinance.
That
would
be
a
good
indicator
that
they've
been
they
were
in
business
prior
and
your.
A
E
B
B
A
A
A
We
can
consider
any
further
revisions
that
any
of
you
want
to
make
I
hope
we
can
do
most
of
those
by
Unanimous
Consent
rather
than
by
voted
amendments,
but
we
will
amend
as
we
go
and
then
vote
the
whole
package
if
we
can
on
a
single
motion
at
the
end.
So
if
you
have
a
copy
in
front
of
you
articles,
1
and
2
name
of
the
commission
and
authorization,
there
were
no
changes,
article
3
powers
and
duties.
A
The
only
significant
change
was
to
add
a
provision
that
we
have
the
authority
to
adopt
rules
procedures
and
that,
in
the
absence
of
adopted
rules
and
procedures,
we
will
be
governed
by
robert's
rules,
something
which
we
could
not
have
done.
As
long
as
Peters
was
chairman,
I'm
going
to
I'm
just
going
to
kind
of
keep
going
and
if
I
see
a
light
go
on
in
front
of
me,
I
will
stop
on
membership.
A
A
No
changes
in
article
5
general
provisions
in
article
6
on
officers.
As
I
said,
we
move
the
associate
member
section
out
of
out
of
that
article.
I
do
have
a
proposal
to
suggest
in
in
what
is
now
section
c
of
article
6.
This
is
on
page
6,
which
says
the
chair
shall
supervise
the
affairs
of
the
Commission
preside.
A
All
Commission
meetings
shall
appoint
subcommittees
as
may
be
necessary
to
care
up
to
carry
out
the
purpose
of
the
Commission
I
believe
we
should
strike
that
sentence
since
the
rules
later
provide
that
the
Commission
will
establish
subcommittees
and
then
I.
That
said,
I
believe
we
should
strike
the
last
sentence.
In
that
paragraph,
the
chair
should
be
an
ex-officio
member
of
all
subcommittees,
so
appointed
questions
on
that
one
unanimous
consent
for
that
change.
A
A
On
page
seven
in
section
e
13,
all
of
this
provides
refers
to
the
secretary.
We
made
some
changes
with
respect
to
maintenance
of
the
website.
A
A
Subsection
I,
we
added
an
explicit
provision
that
if
an
applicant
is
not
here
at
the
time
a
project
is
to
be
looked
at,
that
matter
will
be
laid
over.
We
struck
the
old
subsection
I,
which,
provided
that
associate
members
of
the
Commission,
shall
count
toward
quorum
on
committees
and
subcommittees
of
the
plan.
Commission.
A
A
A
One
change
that
I
suggested
to
staff
in
the
first
paragraph,
what
it
says
now
in
the
in
the
proposed
new
language
ex
parte
communication,
our
communications
with
any
party
which
is
petitioned
the
Commission
for
relief
or
is
opposing
a
petition.
I
would
suggest
that
we
make
clear
that
that
also
covers
someone
who
is
not
the
petitioner
but
is
supporting
the
petition
so
that
we
can't
talk
to
either
side
questions
on
that
unanimous
consent
for
that
change.
Thank
you.
A
Article
13
on
public
hearing
procedures
is
a
fairly
significant
rewrite
of
the
procedures,
as
we
have
them
now,
and
there
is
one
issue
in
here
that
I
didn't
catch.
We've
been
talking
about
these
things
for
months
and
I
didn't
see
it
until
Sunday
afternoon,
I,
think
and
I
think
we
have.
We
have
a
choice
here
to
make
under
the
procedures
as
we
have
been
following
them.
We
have
gone
in
this
order.
The
petitioner
makes
the
presentation
we
and
the
public
may
ask
questions
of
the
petitioner.
A
Then
the
public
may
speak
and
we
may
ask
questions
of
the
public
so
that
its
petitioner
cross-examination
public
comment
cross-examination
the
way
the
new
rules
are
written.
The
order
would
be
petitioners,
presentation,
public
testimony
and
then
cross
examination
and
that
cross-examination
might
go
both
ways
of
the
petitioner
and
of
the
public.
Now
my
question
is:
would
you
rather
given
that
we
want
the
petitioner
to
go
first?
E
My
two
cents
is
I
think
it
would
be
more
of
a
benefit
to
the
Commission
if
the
sequences
and
I
can't
remember
which
order
you
say
but
but
petitioner
goes.
Public
then
asks
questions,
and/or
comments,
petitioner
then
can
respond
and
then
Commission
can
ask
follow-up
questions
or
you
know
whatever,
but
because
of
my
reasoning
is
wait
until
everybody.
A
E
E
Yes,
I
would
and
I
guess.
Maybe
the
reason
why
I
say
that
is
because
that's
what
I'm
accustomed
to
as
a
trial
attorney
a
party
presents
their
evidence.
The
other
party
has
an
opportunity
to
cross
examine
that
evidence.
When
that
evidence
is
presented
and
then
once
that
cross-examination
is
done,
then
the
other
party
has
an
opportunity
to
present
their
evidence
course
and
then
that
party
is
cross-examined
and
then
they
sit
down,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
the
final
word
is
with
the
petitioner.
They
had
the
last
word.
Yes,.
G
Respectfully
would
suggest
that
we
go
the
presentation
presentation
then
questions
because
I
think
too
often
the
public
repeats
itself.
They'll
ask
questions
of
the
petitioner
and
then
they'll
present
those
questions
not
as
questions
so
I
think
this
would
cut
down
on
the
amount
of
time
or
the
number
of
times
we
have
to
say
I'm.
Sorry,
someone
said
that
already
and.
E
I
agree
on
that
point,
which
is
why
I
also
recommend
that
the
Chairman
have
the
authority
and
discretion
to
say
or
first
to
warn
the
public
that
it
will
not
entertain
any
redundant
questions
and
that
the
chairman
has
Authority.
If
someone
starts
to
go
down
that
route
to
cut
the
public
off
and
say,
okay,
we've
heard
that
we've
noted
it
any.
You
have
anything
to
add.
If
you
don't
move
on
to
the
next
person,
that's
my
suggestion
now.
A
H
Step
on
the
board
of
local
improvements-
and
we
don't
really
have
situations
like
that
so
for
the
hearing
tomorrow,
but
for
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
We
do
something
similar
as
20
Lenny
was
saying
where
you
have
the
cross-examination
of
the
petitioner
first
and
then,
if
the
public
wants
to
bring
any
tie,
that
would
happen
afterwards.
Okay,
be
consistent
and
and.
A
D
A
Terry,
can
you
live
with
us,
okay,
in
which
case
boo,
boo,
I,
don't
know
what
the
easiest
way
to
do.
This
I
really
would
like
to
not
carry
this
whole
package
over
again.
A
F
F
A
F
But
over
this
over
the
six
years
that
I
have
been
a
voting
member.
There
have
been
some
committees
that
have
lasted
for
well
over
a
year
and
chorim's
have,
from
time
to
time
been
difficult
to
achieve
the
more
members
you
have
on
a
committee,
the
more
likely
it
is
that
you
will
be
able
to
achieve
a
quorum.
F
A
F
A
F
B
F
That
are
charged
with
a
very
serious
mission
that
may
take
many
many
months
in
the
most
recent
example,
of
course,
is
the
comprehensive
general
plan,
the
changes
that
were
proposed.
There
takes
a
lot
of
work,
a
lot
of
work
and
a
lot
of
time
and
I
think
you
may
run
in
I
may
be
wrong,
but
I
think
you
may
run
into
some
cold
quorum
problems.
F
A
D
A
H
Lucky
that
I
was
actually
a
hep
tab,
page
thinking,
I
was
actually
looking
at
procedure,
an
organization
as
an
aside.
We
would
need
to
revise
the
ordinance
because
it
does
is
to
procedure
an
organization
with
Plan
Commission.
It
does
specified
that
associate
members
shall
have
no
vote,
so
that
would
be
another
consideration
and
conveniently
enough
above
that,
it's
a
point
composition
in
terms
and
it's
two
three
two
three
pull
terms
to
three-year
full
terms
so
be
six
years
total.
F
D
H
E
F
A
B
B
H
E
A
Recognizing
that
we
can
come
back
and
change
it,
and
I
think
we
probably
going
to
want,
I
think
I
said
last
week.
I
think,
when
we
we
may
want
to
come
back
in
six
months
and
look
at
this
and
see
how
it's
working.
I
guess
the
one
last
change
that
I
would
point
to
is
in
article
16
on
amendment
of
the
rules.
A
We
rewrote
that
to
provide
that
there
must
be
either
an
extraordinary.
An
extraordinary
majority
to
amend
the
rules
or
prior
notice
must
be
given
the
way
the
old
rules
were
written.
You
could
bring
in
rules,
change
and,
and
three
of
us
tonight
could
have
passed
it
and
it
might
have
disadvantaged
members
of
the
committee
who
are
the
Commission
who
were
not
here
so
with
the
couple
of
small
changes
to
which
you've
consented
and
with
the
understanding
that
staff
will
bring
us
back
a
revision
to
the
hearing
procedures.
Are
there
any
other
comments
or
questions
just.
C
B
A
Change
the
hearing
procedure
to
go
back
the
way
it
was
I
think
we
should
bring
that
as
soon
as
we
can
do
it
if
it
takes
longer
than
a
meeting
and
if
we
end
up
with
a
public
hearing.
If
we
end
up
with
a
public
hearing
in
may
or
june,
and
we
haven't
yet
adopted
the
rules,
I'm
going
to
cheat
and
do
it
the
old
way.
A
F
As
that,
as
the
chairman
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
discretion,
and
you
can
run
that
hearing
just
about
any
way
you
want,
irrespective
of
what
the
rules
say,
those
are
guidelines,
but
you
have
the
last
word
if
a
problem
arises
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
worried
at
all
as
to
whether
or
not
every
every
I's,
dotted
and
t's
crossed.
Thank.
E
C
A
Okay,
thank
you.
This
has
been
a
long
time
coming.
Is
there
any
public
comment?
Is
the
public
still
silent.
C
Developments
that
we're
in
front
of
us
just
recently,
1571
maple,
is
going
back
to
the
City
Council
on
Monday
the
13th.
Last
time
around
there
was
some
discussion
about
affordable
housing
units
that
should
be
provided
as
a
public
benefit
as
part
of
that
development.
So
staff
was
instructed
to
continue
discussions
with
the
developer
about
additional
contributions,
so
there
should
be
some
updates
that
still
being
finalized
actually,
but
there
should
be
some
updates,
hopefully
on
Monday.
C
The
other
thing
is
the
16-20
central
plan
development,
that's
also
on
the
agenda
on
Monday,
but
for
the
planning
planning,
a
developing
committee
for
the
introduction,
an
update
of
that.
In
light
of
the
discussion
for
affordable
housing,
4
1571
maple,
the
applicant
for
16-20
central,
has
agreed
to
provide
to
affordable
housing
units
on
site,
although
at
one
hundred
percent
am
I
to
one
bedroom
units.
So
that's
an
update
on
that
particular
project
and
public
benefits,
and
that
may
be
everything
that
I
have.
We
do
not
have
a
zoning
committee.
C
A
It
I
would
just
add
to
that
that
the
discussion
in
the
Maple
Avenue
project
and
council
was
very
interesting.
I
had
a
sense
that
the
affordable
housing
I
had
expected
there
to
be
considerable
discussion
of
the
parking,
the
offsite
parking
provision,
and
there
were
one
or
two
aldermen
who
were
not
real
happy
about
it,
but
it
didn't
seem
to
attract
a
lot
of
attention.
A
A
But
it
was,
it
was
a
an
interesting
discussion
and-
and
there
was
some
suggestion
that
you
remember-
that
we
touched
on
affordable
housing
briefly
and
concluded
that
it,
because
it
is
not
required
in
rental
units
we
didn't
have
to
deal
with
it.
There
was
suggestion
and
I,
don't
know.
What's
going
to
be
done
with
this,
but
at
least
one
alderman
said
we
really
ought
to
amend
the
ordinance
to
require
that
rental
units
provide
some
affordable
housing
provision.