►
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
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
A
A
A
F
Again,
sorry
for
the
technical
delays
seems
to
be
working
on
my
intent.
Apologies
for
the
delay.
F
Of
bloomington,
I'm
here
tonight
to
give
an
overview
of
the
ordinance
22-05.
It's
a.
F
Valid
right-of-way
vacation
request:
this
is
as
part
of
the
hopewell
neighborhood.
F
Redevelopment
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
here
and
hopefully
I
can
navigate
that
so.
F
Everybody
is
able
to
see
that
just
give
me
a
second
here
to
be
able
to
do
that.
F
F
What
I
did
on
this
drawing
is
just
to
help
orient
everybody.
You
can
see
some
blue
boxes.
F
Here
on
the
upper
right
and
upper
left
and
lower
right
as
well
as
some
lots
with
some
clouds.
F
Around
those,
I
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
briefly,
just
to
help
orient
everyone
on.
F
F
F
Lots
7a,
7b
and
7c
and
then
the
lower
right
down
here
you
have
a
bunch
of
lots
5a
through
5g.
F
F
Master
plan,
if
you
recall
this
plan
wrapped
up
a
process
in
a
report
back
in
january,
2021.
F
F
F
F
Again,
the
areas
up
and
upper
left
lots.
One
have
a
vision
between
80
and
130
units.
F
Or
south
east
60
to
90
units-
and
you
can
see
the
lock
configurations-
are
different
sizes.
F
F
This
next
slide
is
taking
some
of
the
renderings
overlaying
that
information
over
the
plait.
F
This
is
taken
from
the
master
plan.
It's
showing
some
street
trees
and.
F
Building
footprints
streets
and
what
have
you
I
want
to
point
everyone's
attention
to.
F
The
rectangle
boxes
shaded
in
red,
that's
what's
before
council's
consideration,.
F
F
Asking
to
vacate
these
alleys
after
the
property
is
transferred
to
the
city.
F
There
won't
be
any
buildings
that
these
alleys
would
be
serviced.
The
utilities
will
be
relocated.
F
To
new
locations
and
they'll
be
new
right
away
established
with
the
redevelopment
of
this.
F
As
part
of
the
redevelopment
of
this
site,
and
the
last
side
for
just
for
context,
is
just.
F
F
F
Rendition
here,
but
what
the
highlighted
blue
here,
what
this
does
is,
it
does
create.
F
You
know
one
that's
very
large
distance
between
streets.
These
are
two
new
streets.
F
That
are
connecting
existing
streets
within
the
city,
an
extension
of
university.
F
Again,
the
new
greenway,
it's
just
to
the
north
of
the
new
extension
of.
F
Current
access
to
the
property,
as
you
can
see,
with
the
transfer
of
the
property
as
iu
health.
F
Transfers
that
to
the
city,
those
existing
vacant
ride-aways
really
don't
serve
any
purpose.
F
F
Doesn't
really
have
any
amp
impact
as
far
as
the
ownership
of
the
property
once
the
city.
F
Sells
the
lots
of
vacated,
those
will
be
turned
into
private
property,
where
there
will
be.
F
Access
for
redevelopment
and
turn
that
property
into
taxable
property
taxable
revenues.
F
F
And
lastly,
as
I
kind
of
highlighted
in
the
first
or
the
second
two
slides,
is
this
really.
F
Very
closely
relates
to
the
master
plan
or
the
bloomington
hospital
site.
F
F
A
E
Thanks
for
that,
I
don't
have
anything
to
add
at
this
time.
I
think
mr
robertson's.
E
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
robertson.
F
The
private
ownership,
so
if
council
decides
to
vacate
the
right-of-ways.
F
As
it
stands
now
in
the
near
future,
that
would
turn
over
to
the
city
once
the.
F
Portions
over
the
new
lots
configured
that
would
be
sold
to
somebody,
but
that's
after
the
fact.
F
Aren't
any
current
uses
there
or
in
the
very
near
future
there
won't
be.
This
property
will
be.
F
A
H
Are
we
breaking
some
kind
of
content?
I
believe
the
alley
the
existing
alleys.
F
F
F
Kind
of
a
dead-end
alley
per
se,
so
I
can
take
a
closer
look
on
gis.
But
yes,
these
really
don't.
F
H
F
Guidance,
so
it
comes
with
those
street
widths
and
accommodations
on
those
streets.
E
E
A
bike
lane
it's
anticipated
to
be
a
relatively
low
volume,
local,
like
almost
like
a
neighborhood.
A
I
A
A
A
J
J
J
Eight
lots
per
block
five
lots
per
acre,
those
those
lots
are
eight
thousand
seven
hundred
and.
J
J
J
J
J
J
K
K
L
L
L
F
Thanks,
mr
amber
for
your
question,
I
guess
you
know
if
you
recall
there
was
a
pretty.
F
Big
effort
for
the
redevelopment
of
the
former
hospital
site
that
final
report
was.
F
Connecting
to
those
neighborhoods,
there
are
opportunities
for
different
types
of
ownership,.
F
So
you
know,
I
think,
if
I
could
could
say
that,
is
this
an
opportunity
to
go
back.
F
And
rethink
the
lot
sizes
I
do
want
to
point
out.
It
was
zoned
and
mixed
use
medium,
which
I.
F
F
F
It
will
cause
delay
and
time
to
redevelop
that
area
and
go
back
to
the
plan.
Commission.
F
That
so
I
think
that's
the
the
my
point
here
is
that
nothing's
baked.
As
far
as
what.
F
H
Might
appear
here
in
on
this
site
was:
was
that
considered
in
the
design
process?.
H
F
So,
as
far
as
the
historic
pattern
context,
if
you
don't
have
the
exact
page
of
the
master
plan.
F
But
there's
a
page
that
kind
of
takes
the
historic
footprint
and
emulates
that
over
to
the
area.
F
Again,
it's
consistent
with
what
this
block
is
as
the
the
renderings
that
I.
F
I
was
trying
to
understand
the
connectivity
of
the
alleys.
I
don't
know
if
I
was
looking
at.
F
But
again,
I
think,
as
far
as
the
historic
pattern,
these
blocks
that
are
being
considered
are.
F
You
know
three
to
stories
that
is
consistent
with
what's
in
our
downtown,
so
I
think
you
know.
F
The
vision
of,
perhaps
what
was
being
suggested,
is
consistent
with
what
I
see
is
for
this
block.
F
H
F
M
I
think
my
question
maybe
has
been
answered
by
mr
robinson,
but
let
me
just.
M
Make
sure
so
my
question
is,
can
always
be
put
back
into
this.
F
So
could
I
guess
the
choice
before
you
tonight
or
with
this
ordinance,
is
to
vacate
those
alleys.
F
F
For
those
design
changes
they
have
financial
costs
for
those
hookups,
so
there
are
implications
for.
F
These
kind
of
changes
being
discussed.
You
know
we
learned
today,
one
of
those
challenges
to.
F
F
With
allies
is
the
challenge
of
maintaining
alleys,
it's
it's
complicated,
depending
on
where
we
are.
F
In
the
city
with
that
generally,
these
alleys
weren't,
probably
heavily
maintained.
F
That
answer
your
quick,
your
question.
Yes,
but
it
yes
and
may
I
follow
up
with
one
one
more.
M
I
yeah,
I
just
pulled
up
the
master
plan
and
I
see
at
least
conceptually.
There
is
certainly.
M
F
Know
it
it
meets
the
level
of
the
transportation
plan.
The
standards
on
the
wits,
the
widths
of.
F
The
sidewalks
the
tree
plots
if
you
look
at
the
total
area
that
we're
talking
about
there's.
F
A
pretty
significant
acreage
broken
out
for
each
of
these
streets,
so
the
widths
of
the
streets.
F
Those
those
future
public,
right-of-ways
and
accesses
will
be
pretty
significant
overall
from.
F
Are
desired?
You're
you're,
consuming
more
land,
which
means
there's
less
opportunity
for
housing.
F
Less
opportunity
for
redevelopment-
and
so
I
think
that's
the
challenge
of
trying
to.
M
Yeah,
I
I'm
happy
to
support
the
vacation
of
these
alleys.
I
may
have
been
more
involved.
M
M
To
a
second
hearing,
because
it's
a
pretty
straightforward
item,
so
I
just.
N
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
I
think
I
can
support
this.
The.
N
Historical
precedent
is
important
to
to
think
about
and
to
mirror
it
in
this
site.
I'm.
N
N
And
be
able
to,
you
know,
make
it
more
attractive
for
them
to
develop.
A
A
A
A
A
O
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ferris
house,
the
last
time
I
presented
in
front
of
of
all
of
you,
council
members.
P
And
the
ferris
family
produced
a
lot
of
the
milk
where
iu
stadium
and
all
of
these.
P
P
P
So
yeah,
I
just
also
wanted
to
mention
that
the
smoke
stack
did
employ
up
to
100
people
at
its.
P
P
A
D
I'll
just
mention
michael
cordero
and
christine
bartlett
are
both
here.
I
believe.
D
Representing
the
property
owner
and
both
are
co-hosts
on
zoom
and
should
be.
A
Q
The
founder
and
owner
of
peerless
development,
we
do
have
christine
bartlett
with
us,
who
is.
Q
Our
counsel
on
this
you
know
we're
here
today.
I
guess
I
could
start
by
giving
a
little
history.
Q
Johnson
creamery
and
the
creation
of
this
historic
district,
you
know
we
did
purchase
this.
Q
Property
in
2019
and
part
of
the
draw
was
the
you
know:
iconic
nature
of
the
smoke
stack
and.
Q
The
structure
it's
unique,
it
did,
you
know,
lend
a
a
certain
amount
of
visibility
to
the
site.
Q
We
have
a
structure
that
has
been
deemed
to
be
unsafe.
We've
been
issued
an
order.
Q
The
fact
that
the
hand
department
has
issued
us
an
unsafe
building
order
and
we're
required.
Q
The
smoke
stack
can
remain
and
still
comply
with
current
code
building
code.
Q
So
I
did
want
to
just
mention
that
we
did
spend.
You
know
many
many
hours,
hundreds
of
hours.
Q
And
and
time
and
money
trying
to
get
grants,
state
funded
grants
to
help
repair
and
maintain.
Q
Q
And
another
engineering
report
later
sort
of
landed
us
here
today.
Q
So
the
next
piece
that
I
kind
of
want
to
discuss
as
gloria
said,
was
the
proposed
boundary.
Q
Of
this
map
we
are,
we
are
developers,
we
do
have
a
an
intention
of
developing
a
multi-family.
Q
Planning,
commission
that
we're
working
through
you
know
our
construction
and
building
permits.
Q
Right
now,
but
the
proposed
boundary
map
that
was
drawn
by
staff
goes
basically,
it
goes
over.
You.
Q
Q
The
the
next
thing
that
I
wanted
to
discuss
with
you
all
was
ultimately
the
removal
of
the.
Q
The
designation
of
the
smokestack
under
the
you
know
this
historical
district.
Q
I
did
send
an
email
to
the
council
members
last
week
stating
the
factors
you
know.
Q
Through
issues
with
the
the
hpc,
where
they're
asking
us
to
fund
a
public
art
installation.
Q
Q
To
do
that
work,
so
we
do
hope
that,
as
you
guys
are
considering
this
ordinance.
Q
Or
eliminate
that
structure
from
you
know,
as
as
one
of
the
designated
structures
within
the.
Q
Boundary
map-
and
we
do
hope
that
you
would
consider
the
boundary
map
that
we
proposed.
Q
A
So
I
would
offer
that
suggestion
and
then
let's
come
back
to
counsel
for
council
questions.
L
Q
Sorry
about
that,
when
we
purchased
the
property,
the
intention
was
for
it
to
be.
Q
Sort
of
a
two-phased
investment
phase
one
would
be
to
design
and
build
the
apartment,
building
and.
Q
Smokestack,
obviously,
you
see
the
antennas
we
bought
it
with
a
tenant
in
place
at
t
leases.
Q
Space
there
for
their
cellular
equipment,
we
did
have
an
initial
assessment
done
and
we
assumed.
Q
That
we
would
have
some
maintenance
to
do,
but
I
think
the
the
facts
are
that
the
smoke
stack.
Q
L
L
Q
To
we're
responsible
for
demolishing
it
down
to
a
safe
height
to
to
answer
your
question.
Q
Specifically
in
early
2020,
we
received
a
notice
from
our
property
manager
who
actually
leased.
Q
The
space
in
the
johnson's
criminal
building
that
bricks
were
starting
to
spall
off
of
the.
Q
Etnt
the
tenant
to
figure
out
what
needed
to
be
done
to
repair
it,
a
an
assessment
there.
Q
Slew
of
coordination
that
they
need
to
do
on
their
side,
those
that
equipment,
services.
Q
The
sheriff's
department,
I
believe,
iu
health
and
other
you
know
local
services,
so
these
are.
Q
Important
dedicated
service
lines,
so
they
needed
time
to
figure
out
what
their.
Q
Q
Q
L
H
Grants
may
come
available.
Do
you
have
any
information
related
to
that.
P
N
Thank
you,
mr
cordero.
I
want
to
ask
to
clarify
for
me
you're
proposing
you.
Q
For
simplicity
proposed
a
third
map
that
would
just
remove
the
smoke
stack
from
the
map.
N
That
do
for
you
as
far
as
the
developer
of
the
site,
if
that
is,
the
stack,
is
excluded.
Q
It
allows
us
to
complete
this
demolition
work
to
make
the
the
structure
safe
without
delays
or.
Q
Staff
recommendation
of
forcing
us
or
trying
to
force
us
to
pay
for
a
public
art
installation.
Q
Battle
over
something
that
we
want
to
do,
and
we
have
liability
like
real
liability
on.
Q
A
Mr
zoe
yeah
council
members
that
removal
of
the
smokestack
and
daniel
dixon
from
legal
is
here
as.
R
A
Member
piedmont
smith:
yes,
I'm
a
bit
confused
about
this
public
art
installation
requirement.
R
R
R
F
following
I
should
say
it's
it's
shortening
to
60
feet,
because
we
do
think
that
that
is
in.
R
So
that
is,
that
is
the
current
language
in
the
staff
recommendation
for
the
hpc
to
consider.
R
M
Yes,
may
I
ask
a
follow-up
please?
So
if
the
council,
a
majority
of
council,
decides.
M
That
the
smoke
stack
should
not
be
included
the
requirement,
the
condition
of
the
coa.
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
A
G
To
talk
about
the
safety
of
that
structure,
I
am
going
to
say
this,
though
one
of
the
things
I.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
R
You
know,
I
think
we
would
be
mindful
of
that.
Any
historic
structure
would
need
to.
R
R
R
Q
Yes,
we
can
address
that.
It
certainly
will
need
ongoing
maintenance.
You
know
part
of
our
our
first.
Q
Repair
effort
would
would
be
to
do
you
know
a
lot
of
tuck
pointing
and
try
to
get
it
into.
Q
Q
Q
And
my
guess
is
just
given
the
the
height,
you
know
it's
probably
five
to
ten
thousand
dollar
job.
Q
Every
every
couple
years
once
it
gets
started,
so
it
is
an
ongoing.
It
is
an
ongoing
expense.
Q
And
an
iconic
structure,
but
it
doesn't
house
anybody
it
doesn't.
You
know,
provide
a
place
for.
Q
G
Thank
you.
One
of
the
things
that's
important
to
me
is
usefulness,
as
he
mentioned,
and
I
do
believe.
L
My
question
to
you,
ms
colombrania,
is:
what
is
the
harm
in
us
designating
this?
I
I've
certainly.
L
L
L
P
P
P
A
M
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
move
amendment
two
to
ordinance
2206.
M
Actually
is
it,
is
it
moved
or
just
in
committee?
Let's
just
move
it.
A
M
M
M
So
basically
the
I
just
don't
feel
like
a
smoke
stack.
That
is
first
of
all,
I.
M
I
guess:
okay,
let
me
just
stick
with
the
the
height
issue
and
that
is
it.
M
M
P
A
A
A
D
The
recommendation
from
the
hpc
includes
the
map
that
was
included.
D
With
the
ordinance
originally
that
ms
colembrany
just
referenced.
D
Would
like
to
take
that
up
and
offer
it
as
a
change
and
then
council,
member
piedmont.
D
Smith,
authored
this
amendment
too,
which
the
only
difference
is,
it
excludes
the
smoke
stack
so.
D
Note
this
is
the
map
that
would
be
attached
to
amendment.
One
should
should
that
come
up
you'll.
D
L
D
Additional
amendments
and
then
returning
to
the
ordinance
as
amended.
Okay
good
for
those
of
us.
A
A
A
There
are
two
and
zoom,
let
us
say
five
minutes
and
if
you
would,
when
you
step
up
to
the.
T
Well,
I'm
an
advisory
member
to
the
historic
preservation
commission
and
I've
been
on.
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
V
V
K
Excuse
me,
I
sit
on
the
board
at
bloomington
restoration
incorporated.
K
And
for
people
that
don't
realize
that
bloomington
restoration,
aka
bri
is
responsible.
K
K
K
K
Again,
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
understand
that
the
developer
wants
to
include.
B
B
Hand
raised
and
that
person
is
the
person
with
the
screen
name
natalia
galvin,
who
should.
B
W
Near
west
side
board
of
directors,
I
don't
want
to
take
up
more
of
your
time.
It's
already
8
22.
W
Working
with
ms
sorby
who's
doing
some
great
work
on
this,
mr
duncan,
but
our
neighborhood
is
very.
W
Concerned
about
this-
and
I
just
want
to
echo-
you
know-
miss
duffy's,
great
great
advocacy
as
our.
W
Board,
member
that
many
neighbors
are
concerned
in
watching
today.
This
is
probably
we
were.
W
Counting,
maybe
this
is
our
like
fourth
meeting
on
this,
but
it's
important
to
us
and.
W
We're
paying
attention
to
it.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
hearing
my
comment
tonight.
A
I
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
to
the
the
border
and
sort
of
to
to
mr
campbell's.
Q
Comment
about
building
a
building,
you
know
one
inch
away.
In
fact,
the
property
line.
Q
Is
being
regarded
and
most
pretty
much
three
sides
of
the
the
proposed
boundary.
Q
So
I
don't
think
that
it
is,
it
is
completely
disregarded
or
that.
Q
The
the
historical
character
would
have
no
coverage,
there
are
other,
there
are
other.
Q
Q
Where
the
the
new
approved
building
is
and-
and
you
know
where
the
the
parking
is
for
this.
Q
And
the
walkways
it's
almost
to
that
that
boundary
line
as
it
is.
So
that's
that's.
Q
All
I
wanted
to
say
in
regards
to
the
the
proposed
map,
and
just
reiterate:
I
guess
that.
H
H
A
N
Smokestack's
really
important
that
we
keep
it
as
it's
kind
of
an
icon
of
of
the
site,
so.
N
A
Council
member
sandberg-
yes,
I
too
must
oppose
amendment
number
two
with
respect
to
the
entire.
L
M
Yeah
I
appreciate
the
discussion
tonight.
I
I'm
still
not
convinced
that
we
that
it's
valuable.
M
M
M
So
I
I
just
I
mean
all
my
life.
You
know
I
grew
up
in
bloomington
and
and
driving
up
to.
M
Indianapolis
seeing
the
smokestacks,
you
know
as
you
approach
465,
it's
always
been
very.
M
I'm
a
bloomingtonian,
so
I
I
would
be
more
inclined
to
go
back
and
revise
this
amendment.
M
Or,
or
propose
one
that
accepts
the
boundaries
that
the
hpc
proposed,
which
are
bigger
than
the.
M
Building
footprint,
I
have
been
convinced
of
that
by
the
conversation
this
evening,
but
I
still.
M
Am
not
convinced
about
the
smokestack,
so
I'm
gonna
just
you
know
today,
I'm
gonna
vote
in
favor.
M
M
A
Okay,
if
not
I'll,
take
a
turn,
I'm
gonna
bundle.
Some
of
my
comments
together
here
this
this
was.
A
45
minutes
so
well
done
all
of
you.
The
first
question
for
me
was
whether
or
not
historic.
A
A
A
Comment
as
well,
I
appreciate
comments
from
the
public
too.
That
spoke
about
the
importance.
A
A
Thank
you
all
for
the
discussion
on
this.
I
am
inclined
not
to
support
amendment
2.
A
A
A
A
A
Welcome
and
again,
if
you
would
state
your
full
name,
please
and
then
you'll
have
five
minutes.
T
My
name
is
duncan
campbell.
Am
I
am
I
right
that
you're
now
we're
now
to
address.
T
The
the
proposal
to
designate
the
site
with
the
original
map
with
the
original
map.
T
T
T
T
T
T
L
And
our
history,
it's
not
frivolous.
It's
not
to
be
looked
upon,
as
just
you
know,
not
willing
to
be.
L
L
L
L
L
A
A
A
And
on
zoom,
if
there
are
no
objections,
excuse
me:
oh
pardon
me,
mr
cordero.
I
believe.
B
Has
raised
his
hand
and
is
on
screen,
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
yes
back
to
22
years?
You.
Q
Told
that,
as
a
matter
of
process
that
the
voting
does
not
happen
this
week
and
actually
happens.
Q
Gotcha,
okay,
I
understood,
do
we
have
time
you
know,
hearing
the
comments
from
the
public
about.
Q
Our
proposed
our
proposed
subdivision
line,
I
would
suggest
you
work
with
hand,
staff
on.