►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 2/21/2018
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
C
E
A
A
A
So
I
believe
we
have
a
quorum,
so
I
would
like
to
like
to
just
say
that
or
beg
everyone's
pardon,
because
this
is
my
first
night
as
being
chair
and
so
I'm
bound
to
make
lots
of
mistakes
and
I
beg
your
pardon
ahead
of
time.
A
So
I
think
at
this
time
we'd
like
to
like
to
ask
that
anyone,
please
silence
your
cellphone's
if
they're,
if
they're
on
that
includes
us
too
and
and
then,
if
you
are,
if
you're
going
to
speak
tonight,
please
sign
in
and
if
you
went
when
you
come
to
speak,
should
I
swear
them
in
now
or
if
there's
anyone
who's
going
to
speak.
Is
anyone
going
to
speak
tonight?
A
G
A
A
A
Commissioner
Goddard
seconds,
all
in
favor
all
right,
all
the
post,
nay,
no,
okay,
that
being
passed
all
right.
So
tonight
we
have
three
items
of
new
business,
so
so
I
think
should
I.
Do
the
explanation
of
the
procedure?
Do
you
think,
or
can
we
just
right,
go
to
it
all
right?
So
so
the
procedure
today
is
staff
will
will
give
a
report
regarding
each
of
the
each
of
the
items
on
the
agenda
we'll
go
through
each
each
one,
each
item
in
its
entirety.
A
A
Then
members
of
the
public
can
give
sworn
testimony.
I,
don't
think
that's
going
to
happen.
Petitioners
will
have
the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
and
after
that
is
completed,
the
the
case
will
be
closed.
However,
members
of
the
Plan
Commission
and
city
staff
may
have
questions
of
members
of
the
public
who
have
spoken.
Let's
see.
A
So
and
then
we'll
follow
with
a
with
emotion.
This
body
is
a
recommending
body.
Nothing
here
is,
is
we
are
recommending
to
the
City
Council?
We
can
either
make
have
three
judgments.
We
can
either
approve
the
motion.
We
can
approve
it
with
with
modifications
or
refinements
or
we
can
recommend
denial.
So
at
that,
are
you
giving
the
presentation
Ms
Jones?
Yes,.
F
F
Currently,
our
regulations
for
parking
requirements
for
college
and
university
institutions
are
based
on
several
different
items:
number
of
employees
and
students,
seating
for
gymnasiums
and
exhibit
halls,
as
well
as
a
number
of
residents
and
employees
that
are
within
the
dormitories,
fraternities
or
sorority
houses
within
those
institutions.
So
essentially,
as
we
lay
out
these
requirements,
this
counts
the
student
population
twice
specifically
for
a
dormitory
and
fraternity
or
sorority
houses
within
the
college
and
university
institutions.
F
F
So
a
few
items
to
note
when
the
regulations
were
in
place.
Actually,
as
well
as
the
comprehensive
plan,
we
had
two
additional
colleges
and
universities
in
Evanston,
Kendall,
College
and
national
Louis
University.
Both
of
those
colleges
closed,
they're,
Evanston
campuses
in
2004
and
in
2006
respectively
soon,
Northwestern
University
is
currently
the
only
remaining
University
in
Evanston
Northwestern
University
currently
has
4111
parking
spaces
on
the
main
campus,
where
it's
actually
required
by
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
to
only
have
four
thousand
and
98-96
parking
spaces.
F
So
all
that
taken
into
consideration,
we
are
proposing
the
following
amendment
into
the
parking
requirements
for
this
particular
portion
of
college
and
university
parking
requirements
specifically
to
our
dormitory
and
fraternity
and
sorority
house
requirements.
So
we
would
be
changing
the
requirements
to
one
parking
space,
each
10
residents,
plus
one
parking
space
for
each
three
full-time
employees
for
both
dormitory
and
fraternity
and
sorority
houses.
F
A
F
Ok,
so
briefly,
the
standards
for
approval
our
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan,
as
adopted
and
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
City
Council.
Whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties,
as
well
as
the
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
services.
A
E
The
the
church
that
were
in
this
report
is
that
those
are
for
all
the
parking
on
campus
or
just
the
sororities
and
the
dormitories
and
the
fraternities.
The.
H
H
E
Okay
and
and
the
friend
the
parking
for
those
three
entities,
that's
restricted,
so
the
public
can't
use
those.
What
I'm
getting
at
is
that
does
this
have
anything?
Does
this
whole
discussion
have
any
effect
on
public
park,
people
that
come
to
the
campus
for
events
and
things
like
that
or
are
they?
Are
they
not
able
to
park
in
dormitory
or
or
sorority
fraternity
parking,
so
that
the
reduction
in
those
areas
is
not
going
to
affect
the
public
when
they
come
to
events?
This.
H
Amendment
would
deal
with
the
the
requirements
as
per
the
city
zoning
ordinance,
so
how
many
the
university
as
a
whole
is
required
to
provide
the
university's
parking
policies.
I
believe
it
depends
on
the
lot,
but
there
the
public
is
available,
are
able
to
park
in
those
without
a
permit,
after
a
certain
time,
depending
on
the
lot
I
think
summer,
4:00
p.m.
maybe
6:00
p.m.
so
as
far
as
we
know,
Northwestern's
not
proposing
in
the
near
term
any
changes
to
those
on
campus
policies.
Okay,.
E
H
The
overall
parking
requirement
does
does
take
into
account
all
those
uses
and
and
on
campus,
the
the
chart.
There
is
just
a
one
day
count
so
one
day
at
December,
2nd
2015
when
a
firm
actually
went
out
and
counted
the
utilization
of
all
those
spaces
and-
and
that
is
I
believe
one
of
the
the
peak
times
that
during
the
winter
is
when
more
people
are
driving
yeah,
so
December,
2nd,
2015,
so
campus
or
school
would
be
in
session
at
at
time
before
winter
break.
Yes,
I.
E
A
H
Mean
I
think,
overall,
we
realized
that
the
the
parking
requirement
was
a
little
bit
off
and
that
double
counting
was
there
there's
one
particular
project
that
that
spurred
it
and
was
kind
of
impetus,
the
city
will
be
reconstructing
the
reservoir
water
reservoir.
That's
on
Northwestern
property
at
the
northeast
corner
of
campus
Lincoln
and
Campus
Drive.
So
as
part
of
that
project,
the
surface
parking
lot
that
exists
above
that
will
be
going
away.
H
That'll
no
longer
be
used
for
parking,
so
that's
gonna,
remove
around
140
spaces
or
so
so
without
any
change
to
the
the
requirements
for
the
University
of
parking
variation
would
be
needed
for
that,
and
then
the
even
after
that
parking
variation.
There
would
be
a
deficit
in
the
requirement
and
so
any
subsequent
project,
no
matter
how
small
would
would
trigger
another
parking
variation
that
we
need
to
through
multiple
approval
steps,
including
the
City
Council
good.
I
Is
the
what
is
the
amount
that
would
be
required
after
these
changes?
Not
all
all
else
being
equal
right
now,
they're
right
about
4,100
required
and
existing,
but
they
require
Department
spaces
in
existing
parking
spaces,
and
if
this
were
to
be
approved,
what
would
be
the
number
of
required
spaces
for
the
proto
zoning
ordinance?
Yes,.
H
I
A
J
I
A
I
There's
a
number
of
buildings
under
construction
on
campus
right
now,
yes
and
I'm.
Looking
at
these
calculations
that
were
done,
looks
like
every
month
or
two
in
2017
for
required
number
of
parking
spaces
and
I'm
wondering
if
it
says
projected
in
here
and
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
those
those
buildings
and
the
faculty
that
will
be
housed
in
those
buildings
were
included
in
these
calculations.
So.
J
A
All
right
so
so
my
my
last
question
is
more
of
a
concern
is,
is
that
one
of
the
comments
was
that
that
that
students
are
being
double
counted
as
residents
and
as
and
as
students
in
the
counting
for
their?
You
know,
residential
and
sorority
portions,
and
so
the
text
amendment
as
its
proposed
is
proposing
just
reducing
the
reducing
the
amount
of
requirement
for
the
residential
students,
but
it
does
not
seem
to
solve
the
problem
of
the
of
the
double
counting.
It's
just
less
double,
counting
in
a
way
correct,
all
right.
A
K
Hi
Erika
storey
assistant
city
manager,
so
Northwestern
at
no
point
came
to
us
and
asked
for
this
reduction.
This
reduction
is
all
based
on
our
need
to
do
the
project
at
the
lakefront
for
the
clear
well
for
the
water
I.
Don't
suspect
that
that
change
in
the
future
that
they
would
come
to
us
and
ask
for
this
reduction
I
mean
obviously
transportation
modes
are
changing.
We
in
the
packet
there
was
information
about
Northwestern
being
the
number
one
drop
off
point
for
uber
and
lyft
rides.
K
It's
incredible
to
me
that
that
many
people
are
taking
uber
and
lyft
to
be
dropped
off
at
campus,
but
it's
true
so
without
our
need
for
this
requirement
to
be
reduced,
that
we
would
not
be
having
this
conversation
and
also
in
the
research
that
we
did
in
advance
of
this.
We
cannot
find
the
logic
that
the
double
counting
is
actually
a
problem,
so
the
previous
iteration
of
this
part
of
the
code,
whatever
the
logic
at
the
time
created
it,
it's
the
way
that
they
wanted
it.
It's
not
a
mistake.
K
So
if
we
want
to
continue
to
have
the
code
written
the
way
that
it's
written
and
just
reduce
it
from
the
from
the
ten
to
five,
we
can
do
that
if
we
want
to
rewrite
the
entire
thing
and
so
just
be
corrected,
we
could
do
that
as
well,
but
all
of
those
options
are
at
our
disposal.
It's
just
that.
For
the
purposes
of
this
exercise,
we
decided
as
staff
that
this
mr.
Steve,
it
made
sense
as
the
easiest
path
to
move
forward
with.
A
A
A
B
A
A
H
H
We
do
as
a
staff
review
the
zoning
ordinance
from
time
to
time
and
try
to
find
some
issues,
particularly
where
there
are
variances
that
are
commonly
being
requested
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
that
are
frequently
being
granted
as
well
and
identify
those
as
possibilities
to
clean
up
the
ordinance
and
make
improvements
to
make
it
easier
for
for
both
residents
who
may
be
seeking
an
improvement
on
their
property
and
also
to
reduce
staff
load
if
their
items
that
are
generally
agreed
upon.
So
this
particular
text
amendment
has
to
do
with
front
porches.
H
The
zoning
ordinance
does
have
a
definition
of
a
front
porch,
opening
or
enclosed
area
attached
to
a
building
and
located
between
exterior
wall.
The
building
the
right-of-way
Porsche
may
be
covered
with
a
roof
which
may
be
attached
to
a
side
wall
or
common
with
the
main
roof
of
the
building.
The
zoning
ordinance
currently
sets
of
a
front
yard
setback
for
a
building,
but
then
does
allow
an
encroachment
of
up
to
10%
into
that
required
setback
for
a
porch.
H
H
With
that
we've
identified
that
there
are
a
number
of
variations
that
we're
seeing
based
on
this
limitation.
Generally,
the
the
common
front
yard
set
required.
Setback
within
the
city
is
27
feet,
so
that
10%
projection
would
only
allow
another
2.7
feet
into
it
for
a
front
porch.
So
if
a
building
is
built
to
where
it
should
be
at
27
feet,
that
obviously
is
not
in
our
determination
to
be
a
usable
space
for
a
porch.
H
So
we
came
up
with
a
couple
of
options
to
present
to
the
Commission
to
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
one
is
to
increase
that
maximum
encroachment
from
10
percent
to
25
percent.
So,
specifically,
the
language
is
in
front
of
you
for
the
opposed
amendment
to
section
6,
4
1
9
yards
within
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
as
you
see
here,
the
underlying
language
is
the
the
new
text.
H
That's
proposed,
so
I
won't
read
the
full
text
there,
but
it
speaks
to
all
the
different
items
where
projections
are
allowed
up
to
10%,
as
mentioned
those
include,
you
know:
canopies,
arbors,
trellises,
eaves,
etc,
and
then
we
are
proposing
as
one
option
to
add
language.
At
the
end
of
that,
at
the
front
you
know
front,
porches
may
extend
into
no
more
than
25%
of
the
depth
of
the
required
front
yard
so
essentially
increasing
that
from
10
to
25.
H
H
So
if
50-foot
setback
was
required,
then
that
25%
they're
they'll
be
allowed
at
twelve
and
a
half
feet
and
then,
as
you'd
see
it's
kind
of
a
sliding
scale
moving
down
with
that
27
25
foot
encroachment,
so
typically
staff
has
seen
porch
requests
of
about
six
feet
and
that's
what
we've
found
determined
to
be
kind
of
usable
space
for
a
porch.
So
if
you
look
at
kind
of
where
that
six-foot
cutoff
would
be
at
the
25%,
that
would
be
at
24
feet.
It'd,
be
you
know
if
you're
right
at
the
24
feet.
H
That's
what
the
part
setback
is
you'd
bill
out
six
feet.
If
you're
closer
than
that,
then
it
would
be
a
reduced
size
that
would
be
allowed
for
an
encroachment
or
the
porch.
So,
for
example,
at
eighteen
feet,
four
and
a
half
an
encroachment
would
be
permitted.
So
that's
one
option
that
we've
suggested
the
second
option
since
six
feet
is
the
number
that
we've
seen
and
kind
of
determined
to
be
a
usable
number
instead
of
set
that
absolute
number
as
far
as
an
encroachment
into
the
setback.
H
So
again
it's
the
same
section
of
the
code
that
the
or
the
amendment
would
be
made
to
and
the
underlying
language
at
the
end
shows
the
new
language.
So
in
this
case
that
front
porches
may
extend
up
to
a
maximum
six
feet
into
the
depth
of
the
required
front
yard.
So
long
as
a
minimum
ten
foot
front,
porch
setback
is
maintained
and
again
there
was
some
concern
that
the
absolute
six
feet
is
it's
workable
for
the
depth
of
the
front
porch.
H
But
if
you
had
someone's
house
who
was
was
already
at
you
know,
eight
foot
setback
that
a
six
foot
front
porch,
you
know
going
up
to
two
feet
from
the
property
line,
might
be
a
little
extreme.
So
that's
where
we
came
up
with
that
ten
foot,
minimum
setback
they'll
be
required
that
this
also
stairs
are
allowed
to
project
into
the
setback
there.
H
So,
depending
you
know,
functionally
depending
on
kind
of
how
high
the
first
floor
level
is
and
how
high
the
porch
is
to
some
extent
will
will
depend
on
how
many
steps
you
have
to
lead
up
to
that
porch
and
then
how
far
those
steps
would
project.
So
we
felt
the
ten
feet
would
be
a
reasonable
number
to
keep
it
back
from
the
front
property
line
without
the
need
for
variants.
H
H
So
again,
this
chart
a
little
more
simply
shows
that
what
the
six-foot
projection
as
an
absolute
number
would
allow.
So
again,
each
of
these,
where
the
required
setback
is
the
subtract
six
feet
from
that,
and
that's
that's
how
close
the
front
porch
required
setback
would
be
up
until
when
you
get
to
16
feet
or
less,
and
then
that
that
10
foot
minimum
required
setback
would
kick
in.
H
So
on
the
last
example
there,
if
you
had
a
existing
12
foot
setback
there,
then
you'd
still
only
be
able
to
come
within
10
feet
of
the
front
port
of
the
front
property
line
without
a
variance
so
those
the
options
presented.
We
did
provide
some
additional
information.
The
memo
I
will
note
that
the
the
hardcopy
memo
you
have
has
a
slight
revision.
H
Basically,
it's
just
on
page
four,
adding
the
the
last
clause
into
that
language
that
was
shown
on
the
screen
just
a
minute
ago,
keeping
that
minimum
10
foot
front
porch
setback,
so
that
was
the
language
that
was
described
in
the
text
of
the
Texan
of
the
staff
memo.
But
then
we
made
sure
that
that
was
put
into
the
actual
recommendation
there.
H
We
have
some
additional
data
in
here
about
other
communities
what
they
allow
as
far
as
projections
and
then
some
examples
of
some
other
actual
properties
of
the
requested
variations,
and
how
these
each
of
these
alternatives
would
would
address
their
requests
there.
So,
with
that
staff
believes
that
both
of
these
proposed
text
amendment
options
meet
the
standards
they
both
would
result
in.
H
Better
results
for
applicants
and
staff
in
general
staff
believes
that
front
porches
are
a
good
thing
and
a
benefit
puts
more
eyes
on
the
street
and
creates
better
sense
of
community
with
with
bringing
people
out
towards
the
street
there
and
often
acts
as
an
aesthetic,
aesthetic
improvement
to
how
to
houses
by
breaking
up
the
the
massing
there.
So
with
that,
we
would
recommend
approval
of
either
of
these
options
and
are
open
to
answer
questions.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
D
C
A
C
M
L
H
M
E
Agree
that
a
six
foot
is
a
reasonable
dimension
for
a
porch.
I
was
just
wondering
and
I
and
I
sort
of
leaned
toward
option
two,
because
of
that
it
seems
like
that
makes
more
more
different
situations
more
reasonable,
but
in
the
case
of
a
large
setback,
a
large
front
yard,
you
know
it's
it's
more
limiting.
So
if
you
had
a
large
front
yard,
you
might
want
to
have
an
8-foot
porch,
because
you
have
the
space
and
and
then
so
all
those
people
who
have
that
would
want
to
come
in
and
again
near.
E
E
C
E
N
M
M
N
H
H
O
There
were
different
size,
Lots
different
sized
houses,
and
yet
you
didn't
get
a
uniform
line
as
you
look
down
the
line
of
the
Front's
of
the
houses
so
I'm
in
that
port,
just
I,
don't
know
why
we
need
to
be
I.
Understand,
I
prefer
the
25%
rather
than
saying
yeah.
You
need
a
six-foot
port
as
six-foot
ports
would,
ironically,
create
a
zigzag
effect
depending
on
the
lot
sizes
on
the
block.
N
L
A
C
O
The
25%
option,
the
paragraph
right
below
it
says,
blocks
a
feature,
a
variety
of
front
yard.
Setbacks
will
appear
more
aligned
as
different
front
porch
depths
make
up
the
difference
and
I.
Don't
you
don't
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
more
aligned,
I
think
zigzags,
fine
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
sentence
belongs
in
there.
A
Can
I
ask
a
quick
clarification,
then
so
so
allowing
six
feet
is
not
compulsory.
It's
it's
allowing
the
maximum
that
people
can
build,
so
they
could
do
a
three-foot
porch
if
they
wanted
to
within
any
one
of
these,
assuming
we
took
option
two
with
a
six
foot
maximum.
Is
that
correct
this
correct,
okay,
Commissioner,
Isaac
I
believe
you
know
probably
way
down
there.
I.
I
Just
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
required
setback
is
a
it's
a
minimum
right.
So
if,
if
your,
if
your
setbacks
25
feet,
you
don't
have
to
put
your
the
edge
of
your
building
at
25
feet.
You
can
always
put
it
30
feet
back
right
like
it.
It
is
within
the
the
property
owners
determination
on
what
they
what
they
can
do,
what
they
want
to
do,
but
there's
just
a
limit
as
to
how
close
you
can
put
that
building
to
the
street
I.
Don't.
O
I
O
I
D
C
A
A
H
H
A
I
C
L
C
A
B
A
C
A
A
F
F
So,
basically,
what's
before
the
Commission
with
regards
to
the
Rossum
procedures,
tonight
is
multiple
changes,
the
first
being
very
minor,
just
basically
grammar
making
capitalizing
certain
things
in
other
being
the
deletion
of
or
a
meeting
of
the
associate
member
from
the
Commission.
This
was
actually
something
that
was
requested
by
our
former
chair
Ford.
F
L
F
F
Year
we
have
the
capital
improvement
plan
that
is
revised,
then
presented.
We
do
have
language
within
our
rules
and
procedures
to
review
that
I
should
be
want
to,
but
I
don't
believe
that
has
been
something
that
has
been
actually
done
and
I'm
not
sure.
If
it's
actually
been
of
too
much
interest
of
the
commissioners,
no
one
who's
actually
brought
it
up.
F
F
We've
had
some.
We
actually
noticed
that
there
is
a
discrepancy
between
our
rules
and
procedures
for
the
Planning
Commission
and
what's
in
the
zoning
code
or
with
regards
to
who
can
actually
submit
a
request
for
a
continuance
in
the
code
required
to
be
the
property
owner
that
is
within
a
certain
radius
of
a
particular
project.
The
rules
and
procedures
actually
say
either
the
property
owner
or
the
leasehold
person.
So
we
would
be
meeting
the
leasehold
and
just
having
it
be.
The
property
owner
of
whatever
property
is
within
that
particular
radius,
so
we
got
that
I.
H
Attendance
was
the
other
item
and
that's
where
we
took
a
look
at
some
of
other
other
boards
and
commissions
within
our
department
staff,
also
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
and
the
Preservation
Commission.
So
this
is
an
item
that
is
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
Currently
has
so.
Essentially,
there
was
already
an
intentions,
attendance
measure
in
the
plan
commission.
This
would
be
modifying
that
attendance
measure
to
leave
it
kind
of
at
the
discretion
of
the
Commission
what
to
send
on
to
the
appointing
authority
being
the
mayor.
H
L
A
So
so
yeah
so
I,
there's
two
ways
to
discuss.
These
is
either
item
by
item
or
just
in
bulk
and
I
would
I
think
entertain.
You
entertain
just
a
general
discussion.
First
of
what
ever
points
people
want
to
want
to
bring
up
and
then
we
maybe
walk
through
them
item
by
item
afterward.
But
this
is
Commissioner
belle-isle.
Were
you
the
first
one
yeah
okay,
I'm.
C
Not
sure
if
this
will
match
what
you
asked,
charlie
whispered,
ask
my
question
to
staff
anyway,
since
we
are
the
public,
meaning
body,
I'm
wondering
if
there's
other
option
other
opportunities
for
the
public
to
be
on
the
front
end
of
the
Capitol
proven
plan
or
if
were
the
only
ones,
and
if
so,
thinking
that
how
it
might
be
a
little
issue.
Even
though
we
haven't
done
it,
and
at
least
my
three
years,
I.
H
Not
aware
of
a
requirement
for
specific
public
input,
obviously
they
have
to
be
noticed
and
on
an
agenda
and
there's
public
comment
available
at
public
meetings.
So
there's
certainly
the
the
ability
for
public
comment
on
it
currently
in
other
venues,
I,
don't
know
of
any
other
specific
requirement
for
that
program,
so.
A
H
It's
a
good
point,
and
maybe
lean
on
some
of
the
commissioners
have
a
longer
tenure
here
to
know
whether
or
anything
like
this
has
come
up
in
the
past
and
that
the
Commission,
as
has
reviewed
it,
that
conference
a
plan
and
general
plan
is
a
great
document.
It's
also
a
very
broad
document
with
a
lot
of
goals,
so
I
could
see
a
lot
of
items
falling
under
this.
If.
I
I
I
think
there
may
be
some
some
things
in
the
works
by
the
city
to
act
on
the
on
the
plan
with
respect
to
parcels
around
the
city,
but
it's
for
the
most
part,
I
think
it's
been
us
looking
at
properties
that
are
where
our
private
owners
coming
and
saying
they
want
to
do
something
with
the
property.
And
so
we
say
how
does
that
we
look
at
how
that
effects
or
how
that
complies
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
I
don't
think
we've
ever
seen
the
city
come.
A
Yeah
yeah,
so
this
is
kind
of
acquiescing
sort
of
the
role
that
maybe
we
see
as
part
of
our
purview
like
I'm,
not
sure
I.
Think
predating
myself.
I
believe
that
there
were
several
commissioners
who
were
at
least
involved
in
the
in
the
downtown
plan
and
some
other
planning
documents
and
that's
kind
of
predating
me.
But
so.
A
I
H
H
You
know
a
number
of
recommendations,
you
know
if
someone
had
never
attended
a
meeting
and
had
no
interest
in
being
on
the
commission,
they
might
make
a
recommendation
that
another
member
be
appointed,
or
you
know
obviously
could
consider
reasons
for
absence
and
take
that
into
consideration.
Whether
making
a
recommendation
to
the
appointing
authority,
which
in
this
case
is
that
the
mayor
yeah.
N
D
G
N
Why
isn't
it
sufficient
for
the
chair?
I
mean
I,
read
this
that
the
chair
has
a
responsibility
to
notify
the
mayor
versus
just
like
I,
don't
feel
like
it.
Unless
there
are
extenuating
circumstances,
so
I
don't
see
I,
don't
understand
why
we
would
vote
every
meeting
about
someone's
lack
of
attendance.
N
I
L
N
N
A
Continuing
along
that
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
how
the
mechanism
this
would
be
a
notification
by
staff
of
the
attendance
record
to
to
the
body
as
it
as
a
whole
and
would
become
an
agenda
item
on
the
on
the
agenda.
So
that
would
happen
after
three
three
and
six
months
so
on
the
fourth.
Fourth,
one
it
would
become
an
agenda
item
for
discussion.
Is
that
yes,.
H
H
Think
it's
just
a
discretion
of
the
Commission
I.
Don't
think
staff
feels
strongly
about
this
one
one
way
or
the
other
it
it
in
some
sense
would
be
great
to
a
line
and
have
similar
rules
among
commissions,
but
that's
not
necessarily
necessary
and-
and
you
all
may
know
what
rules
function
and
and
have
worked
well
to
keep
adequate
attendance
at
your
meetings.
So.
A
A
I
N
A
C
C
A
A
H
This
it's
still
in
the
rules
yeah
article
8b,
as
it
was
another
little
bit
of
a
loosening
of
the
wording
of
the
rule.
There
currently
reads
that
each
voting
member
of
the
Commission
Chao
at
a
minimum
serve
on
one
committee,
so
we
propose
adding
on
to
that
or
act
as
liaison
to
another
board
committee
or
Commission
per.
N
F
It
you
it's
it's
the
de
subcommittees
that
exist
for
the
plan
commission
and
then
adding
the
liaison
portion.
It
would
be
whoever's
the
liaison
for
the
other
boards
committees
or
commissions
so
technically.
Plan
commission
has
the
zoning
committee
conferences,
planning
committee
in
the
rules
committee,
two
of
those
committees
don't
meet
because
there's
usually
no
business
for
it.
Zoning
committee
meets
pretty
sparingly,
but
given
we
tend
to
vote
and
assign
members
at
the
end
of
the
year,
I
don't
think
there's
like
a
punishment
per
se.
F
A
A
H
So
it
just
if
there
are
essentially
more
than
one
vacancy
on
the
Commission
so
where
there
are
nine
commissioners
and
five
are
required
for
a
quorum
under
the
regular
current
rules.
If
at
some
point
in
the
future,
there
we
drop
down
to
seven
commissioners
and
they
were
vacancies.
Only
four
of
the
seven
would
be
needed
to
result
in
a
quorum
instead
of
five
of
the
seven
I.
A
A
N
Would
like
to
remove
the
what
I
call
the
public
shaming
part
of
it?
I'm
fine
modifying
the
attendance
requirements,
but
the
voting
every
meeting
until
that
person
acts
right,
I,
I
personally,
wouldn't
vote
for
that.
I
think
it
should
just
be.
The
chair
then
notified
the
mayor,
but
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
the
the
three
or
more
of
the
last
six
months,
commissioner
eyes
or
meetings
I.
I
A
N
D
F
Usually
not
to
the
the
Commission
on
a
whole,
but
we
definitely
let
the
chair
know
and
again
with
this
particular
provision.
There
is
room
for
if
you
have
to
recuse
yourself
or
if
there's
a
family
emergency
or
something
like
that,
so
that
there
are
instances
where
it's
not
just
going
to
be
counted
as
an
absence
just
because
you're
simply
on
here.
If
you
don't
hear
anything,
then
that
will
probably
start
the
accounting,
but
for
reasons
that
are
deemed
to
be
good
reasons.
I
guess
I
would
say,
then
those
would
not
count.
A
A
L
A
Why
don't
we
just
do
a
voice
vote
Oh
all
in
favor,
aye
aye,
all
against
all
right?
It's
unanimous
all
right!
So
so
I
would
ask
for
a
proposal
for
article
three
item
C,
which
is
to
eliminate
the
phrase
to
study,
review
and
prepare
recommendations
on
the
annual
provision
of
the
capital
development
program
and
on
plans
and
proposals
of
other
departments
of
the
city
government,
which
relate
to
the
implementation
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan.
A
M
A
A
F
A
L
A
A
L
C
C
A
G
H
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
G
I
will
but
I
would
like
to
sadly
have
to
resign
from
the
HCDA
Committee
commission
that
I'm
on
now
I
love
it,
but
it's
I
have
a
conflict
when
it
meets,
so
it's
not
fair
to
the
Commission,
all
right,
I
think
Commissioner
Belial
would
really
enjoy
serving
on
it.
It's
you
serve
with
committee,
City,
Council
members
and
members
of
the
public,
and
once
a
year
when
you
get
the
Community
Development
Block
Grant
money,
you
have
hearings
with
all
these
wonderful
groups
in
town
and
then
you
figure
out
what
Manute
percentage
of
the
amount
they
need.
G
G
A
O
Basically,
a
lot
of
outside
agencies
or
agencies
within
the
city
or
private
people,
petition
for
loans
or
grants
in
certain
categories
and
the
Economic
Development
Committee
debates
that
and
it's
its
members
at
least
one
member
of
the
public
who
right
now
is
Hecky
Powell
and
then
I,
don't
remember
her
name
with
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
or
dapper
I'm.
Terrible
at
this
we
sit
there
and
we
are
all
voting
members
and
it's
city
councilors
and
then
the
city
councilors,
if
there's
time,
give
a
little
summary
of
what
what's
happened
in
their
wards.
Okay,.
A
A
F
Think
it
would
be
something
you'd
have
to
go
to
every
single
committee
meeting
for
I.
Think
if
there
was
something
that
was
specific
to
the
Planning
Commission
that
maybe
was
a
little
bit
more
contentious
or
happen
to
be
a
larger
plan
than
it
would
be
something
that
you
probably
want
to
go
to
or
if
you
were
just
interested
in
a
particular
project.
But
for
this
one
I,
don't
think
you'd
be
expected
to
yeah.
A
L
H
Cdbg
funds
are
to
be
used
to
develop
viable
urban
communities,
including
decent
housing
and
suitable
living
environment
and
expanding
economic
opportunities,
currently
primarily
for
persons
of
low
and
moderate
income.
There
at
least
five
aldermen
and
three
citizens
at
large,
who
must
reside
in
Ward's,
located
within
CDBG,
low,
moderate
income
target
areas,
and
then
at
least
one
member
of
the
HCDA
committee
must
also
be
a
member
of
the
plan.
Commission.
H
H
G
L
A
A
H
So
the
purpose
of
this
committee
is
that
it
shall
study
the
the
intermediate
and
long
term
parking
and
transportation
needs
of
the
city
with
consideration
of
environmental
issues
and
shall
provide
to
the
City
Council
recommendations
to
solve
parking
and
transportation
problems.
The
composition
is
eight
members
appointed
by
the
mayor.
Three
members
shall
be
shall
be
members
of
City
Council,
two
members
shall
be
Evanston
business
owners
or
Evanston
residents.
One
is
evident
resident
with
multimodal
transportation
experience
and
one
shall
be
environment
board
parking
committee
liaison
and
one
shall
be
Planning
commit
Commission
parking
committee
liaison.