►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, November 14, 2022
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
Let
me
start
by
just
giving
a
brief
overview
of
the
agenda
tonight.
We
will
have
some
minutes
to
be
approved
some
reports
and
Communications
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping.
We
have
two
petitions
that
have
been
continued
to
the
December
12th
meeting.
Those
are
pudd
DP,
2421,
petitioner,
Robert,
V,
Shaw
of
the
property
at
North,
prow
Road,
3,
500,
block
of
North
Hackberry,
Street
and
SP.
A
2422
petitioner
is
Cutters
kirkwood123
LLC,
that
is
the
property
115
East
Kirkwood
Avenue.
So
those
two
petitions
have
been
continued
to
our
December
meeting
and
will
not
be
heard
tonight.
There
are
four
petitions
that
will
be
heard
tonight.
Those
are
Zeo
4022,
petitioner
Monroe
County
government.
This
is
the
property
at
the
northeast
corner
of
I-69
in
Fullerton
Pike.
We
will
then
hear
z045-22.
A
The
petitioner
is
Saint
real
estate
LLC.
These
are
the
properties
at
300,
302
and
314
West,
1st
Street.
We
will
then
have
Zeo
5122.
This
is
a
text
Amendment
to
the
Udo
brought
by
the
city
of
Bloomington
and
then
finally,
Zeo
5222,
also
petitioner
city
of
Bloomington,
and
this
is
a
very
long
property
description
that
we'll
get
to
when
we
get
there.
A
So
that's
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
tonight.
We
will
start,
though,
first
by
calling
the
roll
to
be
sure
we
have
a
quorum
here
and
I
think
we
do
have
a
few
members
that
are
joining
us
at
least
one
member
joining
us
remotely
tonight,
just
one
okay,
so
yeah
Darla.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
B
E
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Let's
proceed.
We
have
minutes
to
be
approved
from
our
October
10th
2022
meeting.
Are
there
any
questions
or
corrections
to
those
minutes.
A
Is
there
a
second
okay?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
let's
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll
on
everything
tonight,
since
we
have
a
remote
participant.
But
let's
you
know,
let's
call
the
roll
on
the
motion
to
approve
the
October
10th
meeting
minutes.
G
H
C
A
K
Thank
you,
Jackie
Scanlon
development
services
manager.
We
just
wanted
to
briefly
report
that
our
office
manager,
Carmen
Lillard.
She
celebrated
her
33rd
anniversary
with
the
Department
yesterday
and
she
is
retiring
next
week.
So
for
those
of
you
who
have
had
the
pleasure
of
working
with
her,
this
will
be
kind
of
our
last
opportunity
to
let
you
know
publicly
that
she's
leaving.
K
So
we
wanted
to
make
that
announcement
and,
of
course
thank
her
for
all
that
she's
done
for
us
and
continues
to
do
and
looking
forward
to
her
next
adventure
for
her
and
trying
to
fill
those
shoes
for
us
as
when
she
leaves
so.
We
just
wanted
to
thank
her
and
let
everyone
here
know
so
she'll
be
with
us
with
the
Department
through
next
Wednesday.
If
you
wanted
to
reach
out
to
her
she'll
be
here.
Thank
you.
L
I'd
like
to
bring
to
staff's
attention
and
previously
sent
them
an
email
about
an
issue
that
we've
been
seeing
quite
a
bit
on
the
bza
I'm
part
of
the
bza
and
which
is
the
percentage
of
the
commercial
floor
space
that
needs
to
be
designated
on
first
floor
on
multi-use
buildings
on
downtown
in
a
downtown
area.
L
We've
had
several
petitions
of
people
requesting
to
reduce
the
percentage
of
commercial
space,
so
it
can
be
used
for
parking
or
any
other
purpose,
and
given
a
the
current
situation
on
the
market,
trends
of
less
retail
and
different
things,
I
think
we
should
consider
maybe
making
the
well
looking
into
it
for
sure
I,
don't
know
what
the
answer
is
specifically
but
making
it
more
lenient
for
petitioners
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
requirement
for
commercial
space.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
Makes
sense
to
me
and
I
appreciate
you
bringing
that
to
our
attention.
I've
had
a
couple
of
similar
conversations
and
I
recall
that
when
we,
when
we
first
adopted
that
standard
we,
we
had
some
discussion
about
revisiting
it.
A
There
was
not
really
I
think
a
magic
number
50
was
something
we
put
in
there
and
I
think
we
at
the
time
even
talked
about,
maybe
revisiting
it
once
we
saw
how
the
market
reacted
to
that,
so
I
would
just
yeah
good
second,
that
the
idea
that
we
revisit
that
and
maybe
just
ask
staff
in
our
next
round
of
of
Udo
amendments
to
to
make
that
a
an
agenda
item
that
we
can
that
we
can
revisit
not
to
put
you
on
the
spot
Jackie
or
Scott.
A
But
if
would
you
care
to
comment
on
on
what
you've
seen
in
petitions
or
or
if
you
recall,
kind
of
what
the
initial
reasoning
behind
putting
a
that
requirement
in
place
was.
K
Sure,
director
Robinson
can
probably
speak
to
you
to
how
that
came
about
initially
I
think
that's
been
in
place
as
long
as
I've
been
here,
but
we
have
seen.
We
did
do
a
reduction
when
we
did
the
large
Udo
update
of
where
commercial
is
required
and
identified
specific
areas
on
downtown
streets,
because
we
did
were
finding
that
commercial
in
some
areas
wasn't
being
filled,
so
I
do
think
there
is.
K
We
do
understand
that
it's
possible
that
that
needs
to
happen
again,
that
another
adjustment
needs
to
be
made
because,
as
Miss
Burrell
said,
we
have
seen
a
number
of
formally
at
bza
and
also
just
in
our
informal
discussions
with
potential
developers
or
property
owners
that
they
are
finding
that
they
in
some
areas
the
commercial
size
may
be
larger
than
they're
able
to
support
I.
Don't
know
if
you
know
a
little
bit
more
about
the
history
than
I.
Do
there
Scott,
but
yeah.
K
We
are
open
to
looking
at
it
and
have
discussed
that
with
commissioner
Burrell
and
commissioner
Ballard
previously.
M
Scott
Robinson,
director
of
planning
and
Transportation
thanks
Commissioners,
for
bringing
this
to
our
attention
and
I
will
say
that
we
will
look
into
it
every
year.
We're
bringing
amendments
to
the
Udo,
and
this
is
one
that
we
can
continue
to
look
at
as
Miss
game
Scanlon
described
over
the
years.
M
That
standard
has
gone
from
what
I
believe
to
be
a
hundred
percent
to
a
mapped
area
within
the
downtown,
and
then
we've
lessened
that
area
all
in
recognition
of
the
challenges
with
both
the
changing
marketplace,
with
non-residential
uses
on
the
first
floor
and
trying
to
balance
that
with
the
active
Lively
streetscape
that
we
desire
in
our
downtown
community
so
certainly
happy
to
look
at
those
standards
and
how
we
can
achieve
what
those
will
be
working
with
us
on
those
amendments
moving
forward.
M
That's
something
that
we'll
look
at
continue
to
look
at
some
examples
that
we've
looked
at
elsewhere
is
maybe
not
so
much
a
percentage
of
the
first
floor.
But
how
far
back
off
the
street,
we
would
achieve
that
same
desirable,
look
and
feel
for
that
building.
Forward
Design
we'll
see
a
similar
concept
that
we're
looking
at
in
the
overlay.
District
tonight,
so
that
could
be
something
that
we'll
look
at
too
but
happy
to
take
that
into
consideration
for
a
future
udl
Amendment.
Thank
you
awesome.
Thank
you.
A
G
Discussions
on
this
and
I
think
you've
seen
the
painstaking
ways
that
some
developers
have
gone
through
the
the
process
and
then
been
held
up,
I
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
you
know,
there's
some
time
and
money
cost
to
that
that
we
can
address
and
prevent
from
happening
in
the
future
in
a
pretty
simple,
straightforward
way
and
again,
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
help
in
that
engagement.
So
that's
it.
N
Mr
Burrell
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
Obviously,
I
work
in
this
area.
N
I
just
returned
this
morning
from
the
National
Association
of
Realtors
and
met
with
many
brokers
in
the
around
the
country
and
and
this
requirements
in
several
of
the
planning
and
and
it's
and
we're,
seeing
because
of
the
change
of
Market
we're
seeing
that
the
need
flexibility
in
that
and
so
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
I
mean
I,
obviously
understand
the
the
reasoning
when
the
time
was
you
know
the
walkability
I
mean
I
think
it
was
an
important
thing
for
downtowns,
but
as
our
Market
changes
and
the
areas
changes,
I
think
it's
a
time.
H
D
Thanks
I,
don't
have
a
comment
about
this
topic
that
we're
talking
about,
but
I
do
have
another
report
from
the
work
that
I
get
to
do
with
the
Bloomington
Monroe
County
Metropolitan
planning
organization.
If
it's,
if
you're
ready
for
a
new
new
line
of
conversation
here,
yes.
D
Great
so
as
I
get
to
represent
the
planned
Commission
on
the
Bloomington
Monroe
County
Metropolitan
planning
organization,
and
I
too,
wanted
to
bring
an
issue
that
was
raised
in
the
context
of
that
meeting
to
both
staff
and
our
commission's
attention.
That
I
think
is
really
relevant,
and
it's
about
some
Federal
Highway,
electric
vehicle
infrastructure
plans
and
what
I
found
most
interesting
about
this.
D
These
planning
documents
that
were
being
discussed
at
that
mpo
meeting
is
the
requirements
for
vehicle
charging
stations
and,
as
we
continue
to
incorporate
vehicle
charging
stations
in
a
variety
of
different
building
plans.
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
know
what
type
and
level
of
electric
vehicle
charging
those
units
have,
because
it
makes
a
difference
and
there's
some
Federal
Highway
plans
around
that
and
I.
D
Just
think
that
at
some
point
it
would
be
a
really
important
issue
for
the
maybe
the
staff
to
share
and
expand
our
information
on
it
in
terms
of
helping
us
keep
track
of
both
those
the
types
of
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
we
have
required
as
part
of
building
and
parking
garages
and
other
places
in
town
and
then
to
also
be
a
little
bit
more
Forward
Thinking
about
assuring
that
we're
sufficiently
equipping
those
areas
with
the
right
levels
of
charging
stations.
D
M
M
We've
had
the
private
sector,
respond
to
private
vehicle
charging
stations,
I've
had
a
couple
companies
work
with
staff
and
trying
to
implement
those,
not
so
much
on
the
level
or
type,
but
just
trying
to
respond
to
market
conditions.
So
that
is
something
again
we're
looking
at
I
will
say
in
one
particular
instance.
M
This
vendor
third
party
vendor
is
really
interested
in
to
implement
charging
stations,
but
one
of
the
things
that
that
runs
there
program
is
through
advertising
and
essentially
signage.
That
is
one
thing
that
we're
having
to
look
at.
So
that's
a
challenge
of
balancing
that
kind
of
demand
in
public
versus
private.
Their
model
really
drives
a
very
large
digital
TV
screen
in
front
of
each
charging
station.
That's
something
our
code
doesn't
allow,
but
that's
something
that
other
communities
have
used
to
kind
of
Leverage.
M
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
additional
reports
or
Communications
from
commissioners
or
staff
all
right?
Seeing
now
we
will
move
on
to
our
petitions.
Then
our
first
petition
this
evening
is
zo40-22
again
the
petitioners
Monroe
County
government-
and
this
is
a
request
for
map
Amendment,
rezone
and
I.
Believe
Jackie
Scanlon
is
going
to
present
the
case
for
us
tonight
or
maybe.
M
M
I
don't
want
the
community
to
feel
like
that,
we're
being
unfair
to
the
county
and
their
request.
This
is
certainly
a
very
challenging
request
on
the
county
is
moving
forward.
This
is
a
situation
that
I
know.
The
petitioners
demonstrated
the
need
of
the
current
site
of
the
jail
and
the
need
to
to
address
that.
However,
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
staff
is
using
the
planning
documents
that
we
have
to
make
our
recommendation.
M
That
should
not
be
a
reflection
upon
the
County's
desire
to
address
Community,
Corrections
and
moving
forward
in
that
Progressive
nature.
There
are
a
number
of
questions
that
remain
unanswered
and
I.
Don't
think
this
is
a
position
for
the
planned
commission
to
try
to
decide
those
decisions
tonight.
This
is
something
a
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had,
perhaps
at
a
larger
level
at
city
council.
It's
something
that
again
that
the
administration
and
the
staff
seeks
to
work
with
the
county
to
find
an
appropriate
location.
M
The
desire
to
keep
it
within
the
downtown
or
within
the
community
and
I
think
that's
part
of
the
reason
the
county
has
has
chosen.
The
site
is
to
try
to
find
it
within
the
city,
but
again
I
just
want
to
stress
that
when
staff
reviewed
this
request,
we're
looking
at
our
comprehensive
plan
and
the
guidance
that
we
have
doesn't
really
address
how
to
address
what
the
petitioner
is
seeking
tonight.
M
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Ms
Scanlon
for
the
staff
report,
but
I
do
encourage
planned
Commissioners
to
make
a
decision
tonight
to
forward
on
to
city
council
so
that
that
can
be
considered
because
I
understand
the
county
is
under
some
kind
of
time
constraints
for
the
decision
on
the
property
options.
So
with
that
in
a
scan
one
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
Thank
you
great.
B
M
K
K
Okay,
so
we
are
looking
again
this
evening.
We
saw
this
last
month
at
the
property
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Fullerton
and
Interstate
69
State
Road
37.,
the
property
is
87.12
Acres.
It's
currently
zoned
mixed
use,
employment
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
Designation
is
employment,
center
and
I-69
interchange.
K
The
request
before
you
is
a
map
Amendment
otherwise
known
as
a
rezone
for
mixed-use
employment
me
to
mixed-use
institutional
MI.
The
history
of
this
site
is,
as
I
said,
it's
currently
undeveloped.
It
was
used
as
a
borrow
site
for
I-69
construction,
so
plan
commission,
a
previous
iteration
of
the
plan
commission,
actually
saw
the
petition
when
it
was
zoned
plan
unit
development
and
allowed
the
site
to
be
the
topsoil
on
the
site
to
be
used
for
I-69.
K
So
the
comprehensive
plan
designation,
as
I
mentioned,
is
employment
center.
Also
part
of
one
of
our
I-69
and
interchange
focused
areas,
the
comprehensive
plan
and
Visions
employment
centers
that
will
allow
Bloomington
to
keep
Pace
with
the
changing
economy,
which
is
the
main
purpose
of
the
district
as
part
of
the
purpose
statement
for
this
area.
K
So
some
concerns
that
we
discussed
last
time
and
then
two
additional
concerns
that
have
been
added
to
the
staff
report.
Environmental
considerations,
this
site
does
have
a
number
of
environmentally
restricted
areas
based
on
the
unified
development
ordinance
so
including
closed
canopy
areas
as
well
as
slope
and
some
potential
karst
features.
K
So
those
were
identified
again
with
the
previous
petition
that
I
mentioned
related
to
I-69
and
have
and
have
been
I
believe
recorded
as
areas
that
will
be
set
aside
so
making
sure
that
those
areas
stay
safe,
as
well
as
the
effects
of
development
near
those
areas
on
the
surrounding
areas
that
they
drain
to
access.
We
discussed,
we
talked
about.
Obviously
there
will
be
vehicular
access
here,
whether
or
not
there
could
be
future
Transit
access
is
a
question
and
there
isn't
currently
Bloomington
Transit
access
here
here.
Rural
Transit
was
mentioned
at
the
last
hearing.
K
There
are
limits
to
what
rural
Transit
can
do
inside
of
City
Limits,
so
I
believe
the
petitioner
indicated
that
they
felt
that
their
conversations
with
Bloomington
Transit
were
positive,
that
something
could
be
done
here
if
a
facility
were
to
be
built.
So
that's
something
that
we
do
have
some
concern
about
and
feel
that
the
area
would
need
to
be
served
by
transit,
especially
because
it
isn't
in
a
very
walkable
accessible
by
walking
area
site
design.
K
We
talked
about
last
time.
You
do
not
have
to
have
a
site
design
for
a
map
amendment.
That
is
something
we
often
see
a
general
site
design,
So
the
plan,
commission
and
then
Council
can
have
a
general
idea
of
what
would
be
done
here,
especially
in
this
type
of
request,
where
it's
a
very
purpose-driven
map,
Amendment
request,
where
they're
obviously
requesting
the
map
Amendment
for
a
particular
use.
K
So
they
we
have
not
been
able
to
see
that
and
then
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
I
mentioned
before
and
I'll
speak
briefly
about
these
again
in
a
moment,
two
assumptions
that
were
raised
at
the
last
hearing-
and
we
explored
a
little
bit
more
in
the
report.
This
time
the
first
being
site-size
assumptions,
so
we
have
received
various
letters
or
correspondence
from
the
petitioner
with
different
indicating
that
they
need
different
numbers
of
acreage
in
order
to
be
able
to
develop
the
type
of
facility
that
they
would
like
to
at
this
location.
K
So
that
has
ranged
from
anywhere
from
20
to
over
40
acres,
as
well
as
the
development
being
described
as
the
jail
first
with
potential
supportive
ancillary
uses
later
in
the
future.
And
so
those
things
are
kind
of
up
in
the
air
which
is
fine,
except
they're,
being
used
as
a
basis
for
saying
that
there
are
not
very
many
places
in
the
community
where
this
particular
use
could
go
because
of
the
size
constraints.
K
So
it's
kind
of
that's
been
a
little
confusing
for
staff
to
be
able
to
address
the
size
constraint
issue
because
it's
unclear
how
much
space
is
actually
needed.
So
that's
something
that
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
in
the
staff
report.
For
example,
the
Thompson
PUD,
which
was
mentioned
last
time,
was
amended
by
Council
in
2002,
at
the
request
of
the
county,
to
allow
jails
at
that
location
as
a
conditional
use.
So
that
location
is
also
an
85
acre
track
still
owned
by
the
county
and
still
zoned
for
jail
as
an
option
there.
K
And
then
you
know
we
were
able
to
look
up
a
number
of
other
counties
in
the
last
I
would
say
three.
Maybe
four
years
have
either
built
facilities
or
planned
to
build
them,
often
because
the
at
the
institution
of
the
state,
which
is
what
Monroe
county
is
doing
and
a
number
of
them
have
been
able
to
build
adequate
facilities
at
a
smaller
acreage
than
what
is
being
requested
here.
So
not
having
a
lot
of
detail
about
exactly
what
is
needed.
K
Kind
of
makes
it
hard
to
for
us
to
be
able
to
discuss
whether
or
not
there
really
is
limited
space
in
the
community.
For
this
type
of
use-
and
the
second
assumption
I
would
say
that
came
up
mentioned
by
the
petitioner
at
the
October
hearing-
is
that
the
facility
needs
to
be
located
within
the
corporate
boundaries
in
order
to
satisfy
the
city.
K
I,
do
think
that,
obviously
the
current
location
of
the
jail
facility
and
its
Supportive
Services,
they
are
located
in
the
heart
of
downtown
right
now
and
discussing
moving
those
is
it's
only
responsible
to
discuss
what
kind
of
impact
that
will
have
on
the
downtown,
that's
something
that
was
done
when
the
Thompson
PUD
petition
came
through
in
2002
that
was
discussed
at
that
time.
Those
facilities
were
to
move
to
South
Rogers.
What
would
that
mean?
K
So
that
is
something
that
I
do
think
we
think
needs
to
be
probably
explored
more,
but
we
haven't
been
really
involved
in
any
discussions.
This
is
the
first
that
we,
as
the
city
really
have
seen
about
discussions
for
location
of
a
new
facility
so
again
making
that
kind
of
difficult
to
analyze.
When
we're
making
a
recommendation
to
this
body.
K
So
briefly,
again,
here's
a
map
of
the
environmental
constraints,
the
area
of
12
percent
or
less
slope
is
roughly
30
Acres
at
this
site.
The
petitioner
has
indicated
that
they
might
need
more
than
40
acres,
so
not
not
sure
which
uses
or
supportive
facilities
wouldn't
make
it
onto
the
site
if
they
were
to
have
this
site
and
not
be
able
to
develop
as
much
as
they
said
or
if
they
can
actually
develop
it
at
a
smaller
size,
in
which
case
are
there
other
locations
available?
K
Some
questions
were
raised
there
again
with
access
of
course,
Fullerton
going
through
now
and
obviously
being
immediately
next
to
the
highway.
Vehicular
access
will
be
fine,
it's
more
thinking
about
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access,
as
well
as
Transit
access.
What
does
that
actually
look
like
for
the
future,
especially
if
there
are
going
to
be
supportive
services
out
here
for
people
of
all
walks
of
life
in
our
community?
Can
they
all
actually
access
this
location
in
the
way
that
downtown
is
accessible
now
via
Bloomington
Transit,
something
that
we
talked
about
briefly
as
well?
K
There
are
roadway
connections
required
in
the
transportation
plan.
That
is
not
something
that
is
typically
compelled,
or
that
is
not
something
that
is
compelled
initially
through
a
map
amendment
process
to
Plat
and
build
that
road,
but
were
there
to
be
a
subdivision
in
the
future
that
would
need
to
happen
and
how
it's
hard
to
assess
whether
or
not
that
will
still
be
possible
because
we
haven't
been
able
to
see
any
sort
of
site
plan.
K
So
again,
I
went
over
the
comprehensive
plan
issues
briefly
earlier.
This
is
the
site
located
here
at
the
southern
end
of
the
city,
at
the
southern
end
of
an
employment
center
designation
and
basically
employment
center
background
and
intent.
What
you
would
think
of
as
an
employment
center,
hoping
for
a
mixed
use
of
office,
light
and
high-tech
manufacturing
quality
job
creation.
K
These
are
the
types
of
this
is
the
intent
of
this
District
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
our
land
use,
guiding
document
so
concerned
that
this
specific
map
Amendment
request
away
from
employment,
which
is
the
current
designation
mixed
use,
employment
to
institutional
will
actually
limit
what
uses
can
go
here
and
that
even
the
particular
if
this
does
end
up
being
used
for
a
jail,
is
that
particular
use
meeting
these
meeting
these
goals
from
the
comprehensive
plan
and
again
some
some
information
from
the
background
and
intent
for
the
interchanges
section.
K
You
know
wanting.
Excuse
me
wanting
these
areas
to
have
significant
employment
and
Commercial.
They
wanting
them
to
be
again
Premier
entry
points
into
Bloomington.
Will
this
rezone
help
meet
these
goals?
So
the
Mi
District
as
says
in
the
report,
does
actually
have
less
commercial
opportunity
than
the
existing
me.
So
we
are
a
little
concerned
about
that
as
well.
Commercial,
employment
and
multi-family
uses
along
the
corridor,
offer
opportunities
to
reimagine
and
redevelop
with
the
goal
of
attracting
and
retaining
employers,
employees
and
residents.
K
K
The
request
is
compliant
with
the
Udo,
because
the
request
is
just
asking
to
change
the
map.
So
it's
not
something
that
we
look
at
technical
requirements
of
the
Udo
like
we
would
with
a
site
plan
so
that
that's
not
the
issue.
The
main
issue
here
is
whether
or
not
this
request
is
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
for
some
of
the
reasons
that
I've
listed,
we
are
finding
it
hard
we're
finding
it
difficult
to
say
that
it
is
in
line
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
K
We
of
course
recognize
that
the
community-
you
know
that
the
county
has
expressed
that
the
community
has
a
need
for
such
a
facility
in
that
and
that
there
are
certain
things
that
it
needs
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
a
certain
size
and
potentially
located
within
the
city,
but
we're
not
sure
there
hasn't
been
a
lot
of
background
information
supplied
about
those
things.
K
As
the
BET
as
the
kind
of
base
for
making
this
decision,
that
clearly
doesn't
seem
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
our
guiding
document
for
this
type
of
petition.
K
So
kind
of
you
know
as
director
as
director
Robinson
said,
we
of
course
understand
that
there
are
practical
and
necessary
needs
for
changes
to
the
criminal
justice
system
here
and
and
all
across
the
country,
and
that
the
county
is
trying
to
work
toward
addressing
those
issues
and
that
one
of
the
ways
they're
trying
to
do
that
is
a
new
and
updated
jail
facility
and
then
potentially
having
area
for
wraparound
Services
as
well,
which
is
great.
K
However,
the
department
is
concerned
that
we
haven't
been
presented
with
enough
information
to
be
able
to
justify
a
map
Amendment
request
of
this
nature.
Again,
that's
zoned,
mixed-use
employment.
The
comprehensive
plan
designation
is
employment,
employment
services
and
they
are
already
quite
in
line
so
to
change
this
to
institutional
as
a
purpose-driven.
Rezone
is
not
something
that
we're
comfortable
recommending
approval
on,
because
we
don't
think
that
the
comprehensive
plan
supports
that
and,
as
we've
talked
about
before,
a
rezone
isn't
just
for
one
use.
K
So
if,
if
the,
if
you
recommend
approval
and
the
council
decides
to
rezone
this
property,
it
will
be
rezoned
whether
or
not
they
build
a
jail
here
or
not.
So
all
of
the
things,
the
comprehensive
plan
for
Saul
for
this
location,
many
of
those
become
more
difficult
under
the
district
that
they're
requesting
I
will
say.
I
will
add
in
the
report.
It
indicated
that
they
said
that
phase
one
and
a
phase
two
had
been
done.
Environmental
Studies,
also
geotechnical
report
and
I
believe
one
other
I
did
get
emails
from.
K
K
K
So
again,
the
petitioner
has
demonstrated
that
they
feel
that
there's
a
need
for
a
new
facility,
but
there
remain
significant
concerns
about
the
assumptions
that
are
made
for
this
petition
and
the
lack
of
a
community-wide
conversation
about
the
impact
of
this
particular
map
Amendment.
We
do
also
again
have
basic
technical
concerns
about
whether
or
not
this
map
amendment
is
in
line
with
a
comprehensive
plan
and
as
well
as
what
the
implications
are
for
the
desired
use
and
lack
its
lack
of
Transit
access
at
this
location.
J
Hey
good
evening,
I'm
Julie,
Thomas,
Monroe,
County,
Board
of
Commissioners
and
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
to
the
staff,
and
thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
hearing
this
tonight.
I'll
be
brief
and
Mr
Cockrell
has
some
additional
information
to
offer
you,
so
we
don't
have
an
option
and
we
must
build
a
facility.
That's
an
important
statement.
I
need
to
make
it
the
outset.
Our
focus
is
on
community
Justice.
Reform
treatment
over
incarceration
is
key
for
us.
Of
course.
J
One
of
the
things
I
do
want
to
point
out
is
because
Fullerton
Pike
has
not
been
developed.
Yet
the
road
is
not
there
yet
that
it
might
be
difficult
to
imagine
what
that
area
is
going
to
look
like
when
that
roadway
connects,
because
that
will
connect
South
Walnut
to
I-69
and
I
also
do
want
to
point
out
the
fact
that
we,
our
next
options,
are
going
to
be
with
you
know,
within
the
county,
but
outside
the
city
limits,
so
I
wanted
to
make
those
points
and
hand
it
over
to
Mr
Cockrell.
O
Jeff
Cockrell
I'm,
the
county
attorney
I,
believe
planning
staff
has
my
email
and
telephone
already,
so
I
will
neglect
to
put
that
in
there.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
guys
for
for
being
here
tonight
and
I
also
want
to
thank
you
for
the
the
conversation
we
had
last
month.
I
thought
it
was
a
really
good
conversation
and
so
I
I
think
I
want
to
start
with
things
which
I
left
the
meeting
thought
thinking
we
all
agreed
with
and
then
get
into
some
of
the
other
points.
O
I
thought
we
all
agreed
that
the
county
does
indeed
need
to
replace
the
current
facility
and
in
in
order
to
if
we
don't
we're
going
to
have
trouble
with
the
the
federal
courts
and
in
the
long
run
so
I
think
that's
something
that
we
agreed
to
I
thought.
We
agreed
that
maybe
this
is
where
I
was
wrong.
O
Is
that
currently,
there
are
no
sites
within
the
city
of
Bloomington
that
is
zoned
jail
as
a
conditional
that
was
zoned
for
a
jail
as
a
conditional
site
and
that
meets
the
county
size
requirements
now
I
I
I
understand
that
the
Thompson
site
is
something
that
has
a
PUD
associated
with
it,
where
this
could
be
built.
We
had
some
conversation
last
month
about
how
that
had
been
requested
by
a
catalent
for
for
your
employment,
growth
and
I.
Think
employment's,
important
and
I'm
glad
that's
being
mentioned
here.
O
In
addition,
if
that
didn't
go
through
I
think
that,
though,
we
had
had
conversations
about
that
using
that
for
some
kind
of
housing
projects,
affordable
housing,
Workforce
housing,
and
that
was
a
better
spot,
because
that
the
area
had
grown
to
include
a
much
more
dense
housing
and
much
more
neighborhood
around
it,
and
that
was
one
of
the
things
the
county
wanted
to
avoid.
As
we
moved
forward.
O
I
think
we
all
agree
that
transportation
to
and
from
this
side
is
going
to
be
really
important.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
the
the
county
commissioner
had
indicated
that
it's
critical
for
our
use
and
that
if
we
had
conversations
with
Bloomington
Transit
for
for
looking
at
this
site-
and
they
indicated
a
willingness
to
work
with
us,
but
if,
for
whatever
reason
that
didn't
fall
through
that,
that
was
a
burden
that
the
county
was
going
to
have
to
take
on
it
and
make
sure
occurs.
O
So
I
I
agree
that
Transportation
as
far
as
blooming
transit
to
the
site
and
I'd
also
agree
with
what
commissioner
Thomas
just
said.
It's
hard
to
Envision
it.
But
once
the
Fullerton
Pike
project
is
completed,
it'll
have
a
bicycle
Lanes
all
the
way
from
Walnut
and
essentially
hitting
with
some
of
the
trail
systems
of
beeline
and
those
Trails.
O
So
all
the
way
downtown
it
would
be
accessible
by
bike
and
I
think
we
all
agreed
that
we
didn't
want
the
new
facility
to
affect
neighborhoods
and
so
the
the
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
looked
at
this
site
and
came.
The
conclusion.
O
I
did
also
hear
some
comments
and
concerns
at
the
last
meeting
and
some
through
the
staff
recommendations
that
we
saw
in
the
report.
I
think
the
the
biggest
one
is
the
employment
aspect
right.
This
has
been
in
zone
an
employment
Zone
and
we're
changing
to
a
different
Zone,
I
guess
my
first
statement
as
I
as
I
spoke
with
the
the
person
selling
us.
The
property
and
they've
they've
had
this
property
for
38
years
and
have
been
marketing
it
for
38
years
and
it's
still
vacant
so
I.
O
Think
that
says
something
to
the
attractiveness
of
the
site.
We
we
find
it
attractive,
probably
for
reasons
that
some
people
wouldn't
I
would
also
say
that
if
we
did
the
the
current
facility,
you
know
just
the
the
correction
facility
with
the
sheriff's
department.
O
We
would
have
that
under
our
current
budget,
we
would
have
128
employees
with
a
payroll
of
annual
salaries
over
seven
million
dollars
if
we
included
some
of
the
other
build
other
people
on
the
block
of
the
current
Justice
building,
which
would
include
courts,
probation,
public
defender
prosecutor
and
I'm,
not
saying
this
is
going
to
happen,
I
think
it's.
O
It's
kind
of
one
of
those
things
that
we're
still
having
really
intense
conversations
about
at
the
county
level
and
there's
a
financial
component
to
that
that
would
make
it
difficult
to
move
those
all
out
at
once
as
well
then
you're.
Looking
at
a
270
positions,
approximately
with
a
proximate
annual
salary
is
17
million
dollars,
so
you
know
I
I.
We
understand
that
you
guys
want
this
for
an
employment
Zone.
O
We
think
that
we're
going
to
provide
employment,
I,
I
and
I
would
also
just
note
that
that
doesn't
include
any
of
these
other
things
that
we're
talking
about.
You
know,
I,
think
that
our
Community
Justice
Reform
committee
is
going
is
looking
at
a
detox
facility.
It's
looking
at
mental
health
facilities,
it's
looking
at
support
of
a
housing
facilities
and
those
would
also
have
jobs
and
other
things
associated
with
it.
O
We
also
think
that
the
employment
Zone
should
help
Foster
a
business
community,
and
we
think
that
these
kind
of
programs
would
go
a
long
way
towards
helping
local
businesses
as
well
and
then
I
think
I
think
the
biggest
question
that
I
heard
I
I
think
transit's
the
biggest
question
right,
but
other
than
that
there
was
a
comment
about
the
the
sizing
of
the
property.
O
O
We
want
this
I
want
this
Legacy
of
this
purchase
to
not
require
the
person
who
comes
after
me
to
have
to
go
through
the
same
struggle
of
looking
for
property,
so
I
think
that's
a
part
of
it,
and
so
the
engineers
who
who
are
who
design
jails
and
who
designed
jails
across
the
state
told
us
25
acres
was
the
recommended
requirement.
That's
not
to
say
we
couldn't
build
it
on
a
smaller
size,
but
that
is
their
recommendation.
O
I
guess
my
feeling
is
that
when
we're
looking
at
the
current
facility
with
the
ability
with
the
ability
not
to
have
to
look
for
property
in
30
40
years,
along
with
all
these
other
items,
I
think
that's
meant
where
this
this
acreage
makes
sense.
I
had
25
as
a
as
a
recommended
recommended
site
is
a
recommendation.
O
You
know,
but
if
you
say
look
at
all
these
other
things
that
we
are
going
to
want
to
accomplish
having
more
and
that's
where
the
the
20
to
40
acre
come
into
because
we're
going
through
the
process
of
trying
to
prioritize
what
can
we
do?
What
can
we
afford
to
do?
What
is
what
would
have
the
most
bang
for
the
buck
for
the
community
as
far
as
these
Supportive
Services-
and
we
haven't
come
to
that
conclusion
yet
and
so
that
conclusion
has
to
be
reached.
O
My
guess
is
that
we
could
probably
fill
40
acres
with
what
we
would
be
things
on
the
priorities
list,
but
we're
going
to
have
to
prioritize
differently
and
and
some
of
the
some
of
the
things
we're
talking
about
maybe
doesn't
belong
on
the
same
footprint
as
this
facility,
the
the
initial
facility.
So
you
know
those
are
all
things
that
are
being
discussed
and
as
we
move
forward,
I
would
say,
and
I
would
say
when
we
did
the
search.
This
was
again
this
I.
O
O
O
The
area
should
be
attractive,
inviting
to
Residents
visitors
and
serve
as
a
gateway
to
the
city
of
Bloomington
I.
Think
we
are
putting
that
task
on
ourselves.
We're
putting
that
task
on
our
designers
that
that's
one
of
our
goals
of
this
project
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
criteria
that
we
are
looking
at.
O
It
also
includes
that
we're
going
to
master
plan
the
entire
property
we
we
haven't
done
a
site
design
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
One
is
we're
not
there
in
our
process.
O
We're
supposed
to
make
sure
it's
okay
to
utilize
this
property
in
this
way,
and
then
once
we
find
that
out,
then
we
go
through
the
process
of
you
know.
How
do
we
make
this
site
work
with
the
with
the
other
requirements?
You
know
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
do
all
that
other
work
prior
to
that
when,
in
this
case,
because
we
realize
and
I
think
everybody's
alluded
to
it.
O
This
is
kind
of
a
big
question
is
whether
this
this
site
is
is
appropriate
and
you
know
I
I'm
gonna
be
available
for
you
guys
to
ask
questions.
I
think
we
had
a
really
good
conversation
last
month,
so
I
don't
really
see
a
whole
lot
other
than
the
close
with
you
know,
we
did
walk
the
site
with
the
property
owners
to
the
north,
Mr
Campbell
and
Mr
cutchel.
O
So
we
we
we
got
to
see
firsthand
and-
and
they
have
some
drainage
concerns
that
we're
we
don't
have
a
designer.
Yet
again,
the
rfqs
are
due
actually
tomorrow.
So
when
we
get
that
in
place,
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
they
are
aware
of
those
concerns
and
we
we
do
what
we
can
to
mitigate
it
and
I
think
that's
what
the
site
design
process
is
is
for,
but
also
I,
I.
A
E
Thank
you,
I
know
one
of
the
will.
You
address
Ms
scandalin's
concerns
about
the
different
sizes.
The
site
size,
I,
know
that
that
seemed
to
be
something
that
you
know
it
bothered
her
in
her
department.
So.
O
O
So
you
know
if,
if
we
have
a
engineering
recommend,
25
acres,
I,
think
that
sets
our
minimum
requirements,
but
then
we
also
have
other
things
that
are
acknowledged
in
our
criminal
justice
studies
such
as
a
detox
center
such
as
Supportive
Housing,
such
as
mental
health
and
I
I,
don't
think
even
the
mental
health
needed
to
be
in
any
report
for
us
to
realize
that
as
as
a
society,
you
know.
That's
it's
not
just
here
that
the
mental
health
is
a
problem
and
how
we
react
to
it
is
is
currently
inadequate.
O
So
I
think
you
know
those
are
the
kind
of
things
we
really
want
to
explore.
We
want
to
be
able
to
have
space
for
whether
that's
out
here,
I
think,
there's
also
some
comments
on
how
we
could
redevelop
our
property
downtown
and
I
and
I
guess
in
my
mind,
that's
kind
of
premature,
seeing
how
we
don't
know
what
what
pieces
are
going
to
fall
out
there
are
we
going
to
move
any
of
the
other
uses
in
the
Justice
components
of
the
county
out
there
or
not,
I
mean
those
are
still
open
questions
right.
O
Those
are
those
are
part
of
this
bigger
Community
conversation
that
you
know
are
Community
Justice
Reform
committee
is
working
on
and
trying
to
get
answers
to
so
I
mean
part
of
the
part
of
the
the
confusion.
If
there
is,
if
you
will
is
that
you
know,
we
found
a
property
that
we
think
is
really
situated
well
for
the
initial
facility
right,
we
think
we,
we
know
it
has
more
land
than
is
necessary
for
that
facility.
O
A
Other
questions,
commissioner
Cochran.
N
So
Mr
Cockrell,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
land
south
of
Catalan
I?
Realize
that
you
guys
have
you
have
a
potential
of
doing
employment
growth
there,
which
is
real
I
mean
we've
got
an
employer.
That's
expanding
understand
that
if,
for
some
reason
that
were
to
become
available,
I
mean,
is
there
any
other
reasons
that
that
site
would
not
be
suitable
for
a
jail.
O
Well,
I
guess,
in
my
opinion:
yes,
there
are,
there
are
kind
of
quite
a
few
one
is
the
city
has
just
made
a
tremendous
investment
in
the
switchyard
park.
There
are
other
couple
City
Park
facilities.
Next
to
that
that
area
has
developed
immensely
with,
since
it
was
purchased
in
2002.
There's
a
lot
more
housing
out
there.
I
know
that
the
Habitat
for
Humanity
is
building
their
Osage
place
there.
These
aren't
necessarily
things
when
we
explore
properties
that
we
necessarily
want
to
be
neighbors
to
to
this
type
of
facility.
O
You
know
I
I,
think
your
planning
code
kind
of
indicates
that
when
it
it
makes
a
conditional
use
for
this
type
of
facility
in
in
two
zoning
areas
that
are
are
kind
of
hard
to
find
right.
I
think
that
is
intentional
and
I
and
I
again,
I
think
I
said
last
month:
I,
don't
fault
anybody
for
it,
because,
even
though
I'm,
not
necessarily
in
agreement
that
this
type
of
facility
is
a
bad
neighbor,
I
I
can't
fault
anybody
for
having
that
initial
reaction
right.
So
I
I,
don't
fault
that.
O
O
It
was
a
big
and
it
still
is
a
big
deal.
I
mean
it
was
a
huge
investment
in
our
community.
It's
a
lot
of
promised
job
growth.
The
the
county
had
committed
to
not
do
anything
with
that
property,
essentially
to
give
them
a
two-year
window
to
kind
of
come
through
and
say,
hey.
Yes,
we
want
it
it's
because
we
want
to.
When
we
started
the
conversation
it
was.
O
I
know
I've
had
conversations
with
some
City
staff
about
the
potential
of
a
residential
Tiff
in
that
area
and
those
kind
of
uses.
I
I
think
that
that
is
a
better
utilization
of
that
property,
and
it
you
guys,
are
the
city
playing
commission,
so
I
I'm,
just
telling
you
what
I
think
it's
it's
kind
of
in
your
bailiwick
to
make
those
kind
of
decisions
and
determinations,
and
you
could
tell
me
I'm
crazy,
but
those
are
those
are
kind
of
the
thoughts
that
I
have
on
and.
F
Very
much
it's
really
interesting
to
hear
what
you
have
to
share
so
I
wanted
to
ask
about
the
Supportive
Services
that
you
one
of
you
talked
about
having
there
on
site.
Hopefully
so
are
those
Supportive
Services
that
would
just
be
used
in
your
Anticipation
by
people
who
are
incarcerated
in
the
jail
or
would
they
be
services
that
non-incarcerated
people
would
go
to
I.
O
Think
the
goal
of
everything
we're
doing
is
to
keep
people
out
of
the
system
so
I'm
not
on
the
the
committee.
That's
looking
at
this
and
I,
don't
know
if,
if
either
of
you
but
I,
think
the
goal
is
to
keep
people
out
of
the
system
and
to
support
them
once
they
get
out
of
the
facility
right.
So
I
would
anticipate
that
the
vast
majority
of
those
Services
would
be
for
people
not
in
the
facility
itself.
O
I
think
it's
much
more
of
transitioning
out
and
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
keep
them
from
ever
going
in
because
we
rely
one
the
better
job
we
do
with
those
two
aspects
lets
us
lower
the
amount
of
space
we
need
lower.
Our
costs
have
more
people
working,
have
a
you
know,
a
much
more
cohesive
and
and
working
Society.
So
those
are
the
goals
and
I
I.
Don't
want
to
be
critical
of
anybody
in
the
past,
but
I
think
those
goals
have
really
changed
a
lot
in
probably
the
last
five
to
ten
years.
O
I'm,
not
I,
wasn't
here
15
years
or
I
was
with
the
county,
but
I
wasn't
working
on
these
kind
of
issues
that
long
ago,
but
I.
It
really
feels
like,
particularly
when
in
18
17
18.
It
really
started
to
build
momentum
that
needing
to
do
a
lot
more
of
these
types
of
things.
I
know
our
probation
staff
and
our
Community
Corrections
staff
have
been
on
board
with
that
for
probably
three
decades.
It's
just
I
think
it's
more.
O
F
I
agree
that
obviously
keeping
people
out-
hopefully
they
don't
ever
have
to
go
in
I-
was
really
more
asking
about
the
practicality
of
having
them
located
there
for
the
whole
Community.
F
When
transportation
is
an
issue,
so
you
take
something
that's
located
downtown
now
that
one
would
consider
a
Supportive
Service
that
is
used
both
by
the
jail
and
by
people
in
the
community
and
then
move
the
whole
thing
out
there,
so
that
it
is
available
for
people
who
are
who
are
either
coming
out
of
incarceration
or
are
not
going
in
at
all
or
and
then
it's
hard
to
get
to
or
they're
split
into
two,
which
also
doesn't
seem
like
a
really
great
idea.
F
So
I'm
just
wondering
about
the
practicality
of
that
and
then
that
all
ties
back
of
course,
then
to
the
space
question.
Well,.
O
And
I
I
I'm
going
to
answer
briefly
then
I'll.
Let
commissioner
Jones
answer
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
have
value
when
they're
not
near
the
jail.
I.
Think
there's
some
programming
and
things
like
that
and,
like
I
said
one
of
the
things
I
read
in
the
report
was
that
we
are
going
to
redevelop
our
assets
downtown
as
we
do
this
move.
That's
all
part
of
that
conversation
of
what
what
should
go
out
there,
what
shouldn't
what
types
of
uses
should
go
out
there
and
what
shouldn't
so
I.
O
You
know:
I
I,
understand
that
I
I
would
also
say
that
you
know
if
we
could
have
if
we,
if
we
found
a
spot
downtown
I,
think
we'd
be
talking
about
it.
Right
I
mean
that's.
Yes,
it's
that's!
That's
a
great
thing
to
have
and
I
think
we
would
all
have
preferred
it,
but
it
just
doesn't
it's
just
not
there.
P
One
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
into
seriously
that
the
state
is
actually
heavily
supporting
and
has
even
indicated
interest
in
us
working
on
it
is
creating
a
Regional,
Mental,
Health
hospital
or
facility
there.
That
would
be
probably
both
inpatient
and
outpatient.
So
that
would
be
something-
and
this
is
by
no
means
a
definitive
plan.
Yet
this
is
just
one
of
the
many
things
we're
discussing.
P
We
do
believe
that
there
is
a
very
strong
need
for
a
Regional
Community
Mental
Health
System,
and
should
we
be
able
to
pursue
that
this
would
be
a
good
location
for
it.
We
don't
yet
know
what
could
happen
with
it,
but
that
is
one
of
the
uses
that
we're
thinking
of
we've
also
talked
about
transitional
housing,
and
that's
something
that
it's
not
clear
that
it
would
be
appropriate
for
that
to
occur
to
take
place
on
that
site.
P
R
O
Well,
I
think
that
the
ultimate
answer
to
that
is
in
2008.
We
entered
into
an
agreed
order
with
the
Indiana
civil
liberties
Union
because
of
the
status
of
our
jail
and
the
overcrowding
in
our
facility.
We
were
we're
still
under
an
agreed
order
in
2000
I
think
it
was
18.,
but
potential
I
think
it
was
2018..
O
The
the
iclu
said
you
know
we
think
you're
using
this
agreed
order
as
a
crutch
not
to
take
action,
and
so
we'll
we'll
continue
it,
but
only
if
you
guys
do
a
study
of
your
system
to
determine
whether
or
not
what
you're
doing
meets
standards
meets
constitutional
standards.
So
we
went
through
and
we
went
through
a
process.
We
actually
had
two
different
Consultants,
which
was
which
I
thought
is
at
the
time
and
I
still
think
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
O
One
looked
at
our
current
Criminal
Justice
System
internal
of
the
county,
which
included
the
facility.
One
looked
at
the
community
gaps
that
we
have
as
a
community,
for
you
know
for
criminal
justice
kind
of
ideas,
and
they
the
just
the
facility.
One
basically
said
you
cannot
meet.
You
routinely
can't
meet
your
constitutional
level
of
care,
which
is
not
a
good
thing,
and
that's
once
we
got
that
report.
We
started
looking
for
property
and
we
looked
around
and
we
came
up
with
I
think
three
finalists
one.
O
This
one
was
the
only
one
in
the
city
city
limits.
We
prioritize
this
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
I
think
I
know
some.
At
least
one
of
you
had
toured
the
site
with
us
and
we,
you
know
you
could
see
the
wooded
area.
You
know
they
talked
about
the
environmental
concerns.
You
know
a
lot
of
those
things
were
the
reasons
we
picked
this
site.
We
wanted
the
the
buffer
of
the
trees.
We
wanted
the
canopy
there.
O
We
think
that
that
sense
of
nature
is
important,
but
that's
kind
of
how
we
got
here
right.
We
got
here
because
our
facility
is
failing
and
it's
failing
in
a
way
the
arm
that
potentially
harms
people
right,
and
we
want
to
correct
that.
Failing
and
get
a
facility
in
place
that
affords
I
would
say
a
constitutional
level
of
care
is
a
fairly
low
bar
I
think
we
want
to
be
a
little
higher
than
that,
but
we
at
least
want
to
meet
that
constitutional
level
of
care.
D
I
think
it
goes
to
staff
and
I.
Think
I
want
to
characterize
first
Our
obligation
here
and
what
we're
responsible
for
and
for
me
this
is.
This
is
a
question
about
assuring
that
we
are
following
the
comp
plan
and
that
this
meets
the
aligns
with
the
Udo,
or
is
it
aligned
with
the
comp
plan
and
I
I'm
concerned
about
how
concert
Cockrell,
just
kind
of
essentially
boiled
this
down
to
the
issue
of
if
we
believe
the
jail
should
be
in
the
city
and
I,
don't
think
it's
quite
as
simple
as
that?
D
Well,
I
think
that's
an
attractive
proposition,
just
to
imagine
that
this
is
about
whether
the
jail
should
be
in
the
city
or
not.
That's
really
not
our
purview,
and
so
I
want
to
clarify
that
with
staff's
help
and
I
also
want
to
think
about
what
the
impact
of
this
map
amendment
is
a
little
bit
more
deeply,
and
my
question
is:
if
we
forward
this
with
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
and
the
city
council
agrees,
and
it
gets
changed
to
am
I
what
happens
if
the
jail
goes
south
and
that's
not
a
use
it.
D
I
D
Play
that
outright
and
what's
the
impact
and
and
is
that
the
only
impact
that
it
stays
Mi
forever.
Now,
because
that's
what
we
would
have
approved.
K
Sure,
thank
you.
So
yes
to
your
first
question.
Yes,
so
Mr
Cockrell
ended
his
initial
testimony
by
saying
you
know
it's
up
to
the
plan
commission
about
whether
or
not
the
jail
belongs
in
city
limits
that
that
is
not
the
purview
of
the
plan.
Commission.
The
purview
of
the
plan
commission
is
whether
or
not
any
petition
is
in
line
with
the
documents
that
our
Community
supported,
including
the
unified
development,
ordinance,
Transportation
plan
and,
ultimately,
the
comprehensive
plan
in
a
map.
K
Amendment
we're
looking
at
the
comprehensive
plan,
mostly
so
that
that
is
what
your
role
is.
We
do
understand
it's
a
complicated
process.
Obviously
you
know
this.
This
commission
is
appointed
by
various
parts
of
government,
it's
political
in
some
ways,
but
ultimately
our
preference
as
staff
as
a
department,
is
that
the
recommendation
we
make
to
you-
and
hopefully
the
recommendation
you
make
to
the
council-
is
based
on
the
comprehensive
plan,
because
that's
how
we
treat
all
map
amendments
we
want
to
treat
them
all
the
same.
K
We
don't
want
to
set
precedent
that
we're
changing
the
way
we
analyze
map
Amendment
requests
for
very
you
know,
XYZ,
whatever
those
reasons
may
be.
So
they're
asking
to
have
a
map
Amendment,
we
look
at
the
findings
for
map
Amendment.
A
number
of
the
findings
are
waited
for
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
don't
think
it's
meeting
the
comprehensive
plan
to
make
this
amendment
we're
recommending
denial.
Will
those
think
it
is
complicated
as
a
wider
issue?
So
will
those
things
be
addressed
by
Council
differently,
it's
possible
and
we
don't
have
purview.
You
know
over
that.
K
D
K
Kind
of
the
longer
yeah
impact
of
the
map
Amendment
sure
so,
yes,
a
map
Amendment,
will
not
go
away.
So
if
we,
if
we
as
a
community,
if
the
council
decides
to
amend
the
map
and
change
this
to
Mi,
then
it
is
am
I
whether
or
not
a
jail
is
built
here
or
not
yeah.
So
that
would
change.
If
someone
wanted
to
do
another
map
Amendment
and
change
it
to
another
District,
they
could
do
that
afterward.
But
if
this
were
changed
to
Mi
jail
is
a
conditional
use
in
mi.
K
So
in
order
to
have
that
use,
then
the
county
will
have
to
would
have
to
go
to
the
Border
zoning
appeals
and
meet
the
conditional
use
requirements
for
that
use.
If
something
happened
along
the
way
you
know
it
sounds
like
there's
still
kind
of
a
lot
up
in
the
air
based
on
Mr
cockrell's
testimony
and
they
decide
not
to
use
this
site
now
we
will
have
rezoned,
it
am
I,
and
so
a
large
portion
of
what
we
currently
have
as
employment
in
the
comprehensive
plan
will
now
not
really
be
zoned.
D
And
you
sort
of
answered
my
next
question
at
the
end
there,
because
I
was
going
to
ask
just
to
make
sure
we're
all
clear
on
the
fact
that
the
Mi
option.
D
D
B
K
Sure
so
the
EM
districts
still
exists
in
the
text
that
was
in
the
old
map,
and
they
could
also
have
requested
to
have
rezoned
to
that
District
as
well,
so
jails
are
allowed
in
both
districts
and
then
in
any
plan
unit.
Developments
like
the
Thompson,
where
they
have
already
been
written
in
which
I
believe
that's
the
only
one.
But
yes
just
those
three
districts.
D
Okay
and
then
my
last,
the
last
part
of
that
same
question
is
then
the
conditional
use.
If
so,
let's
say
it's,
it
goes
to
the
council,
it
gets
it
becomes
agreed
upon
then
to
it,
then
it
would
go
to
bza
for
approval
of
the
conditional
use
of
jail
because
it
still
is
a
conditional
use.
It's
not
a
permitted
use.
Even
in
mi,
it's
not
permitted.
K
If
the,
if
it,
if
yes,
if
they
don't
can't
meet
the
requirements
for
conditional
use
approval,
then
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
would
not
be
able
to
approve
it.
That's
correct,
I,
don't
know
we
haven't
done
an
analysis
of
whether
or
not
we
think
that
that
would
be.
You
know
easy
or
hard,
or
we
haven't
looked
at
that.
D
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
that
it
still
is
a
conditional
use,
even
in
that,
even
if
the
map
Amendment
goes
through,
it's
not
permitted.
K
A
Thank
you
just
to
follow
up
on
that
line
of
questioning,
assuming
that
this
went
through
and
was
rezoned
to
Mi,
and
then
the
county
fails
to
move
forward.
Fails
to
close
on
the
property,
fails
to
begin
construction
fails
to
whatever
you
know,
whatever.
Whatever
reason
fails
to
move
forward
with
the
plan
to
construct
a
jail,
is
there
any
reason
that
we
couldn't,
at
that
point,
initiate
action
right
with
this
body
to
rezone
it
back
to
me?
Would
we
would
need.
K
I'll
say
that
technically
no
but
Mike
can
correct
me.
Mr
Rooker
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
I'll
make
this
comment,
which
is
that
you
should.
We
would
hope
that
the
findings
for
a
map
Amendment
are
related
to
The
District,
not
the
use,
so
if
we
think
am
I
as
appropriate
here
it
shouldn't
matter
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
build
the
jail.
If
we
think
that
it
is
in
line
with
Comprehensive
plan,
then
that
won't
change,
even
if
the
plans
for
what
they're
developing
here
change.
K
That's
why
it's
complicated,
because
we
know
what
the
future
thing
is
going
to
be,
but
really
for
a
math
Amendment.
It
should
just
be
oh.
This
District
makes
sense.
You
know
just
as
much
or
more
than
the
district,
that's
already
there.
I
could
see
why
they
want
to
change
it.
Yes,
we're
recommending
approval.
A
And
we
could
initiate
that
ourselves
that
that
wouldn't
need
to
be
brought
by
petitioner,
the
property
owner
Etc.
Q
A
You,
okay,
additional
questions
from
Commissioners.
Commissioner
Smith
go
ahead.
E
You
know,
we've
heard
some
people
before
saying
you
know
they
were
against
it.
None
of
us
like
jails.
E
So
you
know
this
gives
us
an
opportunity,
in
my
mind,
for
a
progressive
approach
to
this
to
the
to
this
need
in
our
community.
You
know
and
I'm
and
I'm
sorry
that
we.
B
E
You
know
the
it
comprehensive
plan
in
Miss
Scanlon.
You
can
correct
me,
it's
it's
guidelines,
it's
not
a
legal
requirement.
K
E
So
you
know:
I
I
I
had
some
discussions
with
other
staff
members
and
going
to
change
it
to
an
MI
it
does
allow.
E
If
this
is
the
site
in
the
the
body
that
I'm
sitting
on
now,
you
know
approves
it
or
or
not
whatever
it's,
but
if
it
does
allow
the
project
to
begin
moving
forward
and
I
think
that
this
is
an
issue
that,
as
Mr
Cockrell
said,
we've
been
under
a
consent,
decree
from
2008.
A
We
yeah,
sometimes
you
have
to
set
up
the
question
with
a
comment,
but
let's
try
to
keep
it
to
questions.
Commissioner
Burrell,
please.
L
Sympathetic
with
the
with
the
project,
Monroe
County
project
for
the
new
jail
I
I
do
have
a
question,
though,
and
the
question
is:
why
are
we
looking
at
rezoning
this
piece
of
property
right
now?
L
Are
you
in
a
process
of
purchasing
the
place,
and
you
have
to
make
sure
that
it
you
can
get
the
rezone
and
I'm
just
trying
to
it
feels
like
we
are
the
conversation.
We
are
three
steps
ahead
of
what
the
conversation
should
be
at
this
point
with
the
people
of
Bloomington
and
Monroe,
County
and
and
I
understand,
because
you
are
in
the
project
and
you
see
the
project
and
we
are
not
seeing
the
whole
picture
so
and
that's
why
I'm
asking?
Why
are
we
doing
this
rezoning
right
away?
O
And
I
guess:
yes,
I
mean
we,
we
do
have
a
purchase
agreement
out
there.
It
is
contingent
upon
having
this
at
a
in
a
zone.
That
is
that
would
allow
the
construction
of
this
type
of
facility.
I
mean
I,
find
it
a
little
ironic
that,
with
three
steps
behind
in
a
conversation
when
you
know,
as
as
the
county
I,
can
tell
you
that
you
know,
we've
had
been
having
we've.
O
This
is
probably
that
study
we
did
in
19
was
probably
the
second
or
third
study
of
a
new
facility
since
I
got
to
the
county
and
know
a
lot
of
them
were
focused
on
the
Thompson
site.
So
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
that
it's
a
it's
a
new
new
conversation
I
can
tell
you
that
on
the
the
county
side
it
it's
a
really
old
conversation
that
has
finally
gained
traction.
O
So
I
I
think
what
made
it
gain.
That
kind
of
traction
is
kind
of
and
I
agree
with
Mr
Smith,
knowing
nobody
likes
building
a
jail.
Nobody
likes
building
this
this
type
of
facility,
but
why
we're
gaining
some
traction
is
one
we've
seen
what
happens
in
Vigo
County?
If,
if
the
federal
courts
get
involved,
two
we
think
we
can
and
we're
working
on
a
plan.
O
That's
more
than
just
a
new
Correctional,
Facility
I
think
we're
we're
trying
to
as
the
county
and
when
I
say
we
I'm
talking
the
county
and
the
County
elected
officials
are
trying
to
con
revamp
the
system
to
allow
for
the
the
correction
and
the
correction
of
people
as
found
in
the
state
constitution
actually
means
something
in
this
community
I
think
there
were
some
conversations
about
the
the
comp
plan
and
I
think
you
look
at
the
look
at
the
visions
of
that
comp
plan.
O
You
can
see
four
or
five
things
within
that
Vision
that
really
strike
and
are
directly
related
to
this
project.
I
mean
I,
think
that
was
in
last
month's
materials.
You
know,
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
ways
that
this
is.
But
yes,
this
is
caused
by
us
having
a
purchase
agreement
that
is
kind
of
the
reason
for
the
Russians
to
you
know
it.
It
expires
at
the
end
of
the
year,
so
we
really
need
to
to
get
moving,
I.
Think
and
honestly,
the
the
other
thing.
O
L
A
Right
look
I'm
going
to
ask
one
more
before
we
go
while
we
got
you
at
the
oh,
you
have
another
question.
T
Commissioner,
and
regarding
the
conclusion
in
in
the
the
first
question
regarding
it's
in
our
hands
to
recommend
this
to
the
to
the
council
and
and
and
if
it's
in
our
hands
to
keep
the
the
jail
in
the
in
the
city
limits
or
not,
but
I
I
can
read
lack
of
communication
and
conversation
with
several
stakeholders
that
are
very
important.
T
You
mentioned
last
time
in
this
time
that
you
have
had
a
conversation
with
the
Bloomington
Transit,
but
the
the
conclusion
from
from
the
Department
regarding
lack
of
communication
or
or
information
with
the
downtown
organizations
about
the
Redevelopment,
also
with
the
city
and
also
with
the
community,
that
my
my
cities
as
an
impact
I,
just
wondering
why
this
conversation
hasn't
been
done.
If
this
has
taken
a
long
time
of
assessment,
a
long
time
of
of
decisions,
and
why,
in
this
moment,
I
can
read
this
about
that.
A
lack
of
information
and
lack
of
a
conversation.
O
Okay,
particularly
they're
talking
about
Redevelopment
space
I,
don't
think
that
will
happen
absent
some
Financial
windfall
that
I'm
unaware
of
for
a
period
of
time
I
mean
these
projects
in
these
facilities
take
time
and
and
resources
and
I.
Think
at
this
point
we
we
don't
have
the
resources,
even
if
we,
if
we
had
made
the
decision,
that
we
were
going
to
locate
everybody
out
at
that
property.
We
we
don't
have
the
bonding
capability,
in
my
opinion,
now
that
might
change
when
we
get
a
designer
in
place.
O
Who
does
better
estimates
but
I
I,
just
don't
see
how
that
happens
anytime
in
the
next
five
years.
So
I
I
understand
that
at
some
point,
if
we
move
all
our
or
empty
any
single
building
of
employees
and
move
them
to
this
new
facility
that
we
need
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
community
in
the
city
on
what
do
we
do
here
unless
we
have
a
internal
use
of
the
county
for
that
space?
If
we
don't,
then
I
think
that
opens
up
that
conversation,
it's
just
I,
don't
know
how
you
have
that
conversation
now.
H
B
H
Month
on
this
topic,
you
mentioned
that
I
I
100,
agree
we're
in
that
again
today,
but
just
I
guess
to
help
we're
in
a
tough
spot,
where
we're
being
asked
to
vote
on
something
before
the
public.
Engagement
has
really
happened,
at
least
as
I
understand
it
and
and
basically
being
asked
to
vote
on
something
and
being
told
if
I
don't
vote
for
it.
It
means
it
won't
happen
in
the
city
and
it
feels
like
an
ultimatum
and
there's
just
so
many
unknowns.
We
don't
know
when
things
will
move
here.
What
may
move
here?
H
What
may
happen
with
so
there's
just
a
lot
of
unknowns
and
but
talk
about
communication
and
dialogue
and
appreciating
that,
but
just
when,
when
will
that
happen
and
and
I
know
even
last
month,
I
think
we
were.
We
had
some
dialogue
and
I
think
I
was
told
there
would
be
some
additional
information
presented.
That
I,
don't
think,
has
been
shared,
at
least
to
the
level
I
was
expecting
so
I,
just
in
a
tough
spot
and
so
wanting
to
understand
the
process
and
when
those
opportunities
will
be
well.
O
O
Yeah
last
October,
the
the
the
the
the
county
had
a
started:
a
a
group
that
had
County
Council
and
County
Commissioners
that
met
publicly
notice
meetings,
met
Zoom
options
to
me
met
to
start
talking
about
these
I
think
this
Summer.
That
group
was
expanded
to
include
members
of
the
board
of
Judges,
the
sheriff
the
prosecutor,
the
public
defender
jail
commander
in
our
health
department.
Again
they
meet
twice
a
month
on
Monday,
well,
I,
think
Monday
at
4,
30.
and
they're
available
by
Zoom
go
to
the
www.co.monroe.in.us.
O
Look
at
our
calendar,
given
the
holiday
season,
I'm,
guessing
that
some
of
the
meetings
may
be
on
a
little
different
days,
but
it
should
all
be
right
there
on
the
calendar
and
it's
the
community
Justice
Reform
committee
I
have
to
think
about
that
because
the
when
it
was
only
the
County
Commissioners
and
the
County
Council,
they
had
a
different
name.
O
So
at
this
point,
I
mean
they've
been
meeting
and
having
this
conversation
for
over
a
year,
I
I
think
this
is
and
one
of
the
great
question
so
that
I
can
say:
hey
everybody,
everybody
on
the
plan.
Commission
everybody
listening
everybody
in
the
community
make
sure
you
attend
those
meetings,
because
that's
where
this
this
conversation
is
happening.
H
I
I
guess
truly
appreciate
that
answer
and
I
guess
just
to
follow
up
on
it,
as
if
has
anybody
from
the
city
or
city,
council
or
planning
staff
has
been
involved
or
a
part
of,
or
invited
to
those
conversations
previously.
I.
O
I
can
tell
you
I,
don't
go
to
all
those
meetings,
but
the
last
one
I
was
at
I.
Think
the
deputy
mayor
was
there
a
member
of
the
city
council
was
there
I
I
think
that's
right.
I
know:
I
was
at
one
I
that
were
they
were
both
there
again
I
I
I
I
I
don't
go
to
I'm,
not
a
regular
attendee
to
those
meetings,
but
I
know
that
there
have
been
cities,
elected
officials
who
have
or
appointed
officials
who
have
been
at
those
meetings.
Okay,.
H
Cool
thank
and
then,
and
maybe
trying
to
focus
again
on
because
it's
hard,
but
to
focus
on
the
what
we're
looking
at
today
and
what
is
in
the
purview
so
I
know
I.
Think
at
the
last
meeting.
I
think
commissioner
or
Brad
had
asked
the
question
about
just
the
employment
Zone
from
the
comprehensive
plan
and
what
other
areas
if
this
was
was
changed
in
zoning.
H
Just
what
other
places
in
the
city
that
could
see
a
major
new
development
happen
if
it
was
just
a
really
thought-provoking
question
and
and
so
just
wanting
to
come
back
to
that
and
real
hearing
more
that
you
know
we're
talking
about
if
this
was
rezoned
and
became
the
jail
about
120
employees.
H
H
How
does
that
mesh
with
that
vision
and
what
other
uses
we're
seeing
in
the
city
that
have
a
similar
designation?
Okay,.
K
I'll
say
yeah,
so
talking
about
the
number
of
employees,
I
mean
those
are
existing
jobs
that
we
have
right
downtown
and
then
they
would
be
moved
so
I
think
the
comprehensive
plan
is
envisioning
new
employment.
It
talks
about
high-tech
employment,
small
scale
I
think
manufacturing
hold
on.
Let
me
just
pull
it
up
briefly.
K
Yeah
so
mix
of
office
light
high-tech
manufacturing
uses
to
provide
quality,
employment
opportunities,
quality,
job
creation,
I
think
the
idea
would
be
that
it
would
be
new
development
here
that
would
be
creating
new
opportunity
for
employment,
not
necessarily
just
transplanted
from
existing
location
in
the
community.
Did
that
answer
your
question?
It
did.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
N
So
this
is
for
the
planning
staff.
You
know,
Mr
Robinson
was
Scanlon.
This
piece
of
property
has
been
there
for
38
years
and
obviously
I
remember
years
ago,
when
you
know
I-69
was
coming
in.
You
know
this
was
designated
the
market
for
industrial
I
mean
it's
across
the
country.
It's
been
huge
because
of
covid,
you
know,
is
there
anything
in
the
planning
or
in
the
code
that
you
think
has
hindered
the
development
of
this
property.
K
I
can
briefly
answer
and
Mr
Robinson
can
add
if
I'm
missing
a
point,
I
think
we
run
in
we've
probably
heard
me
say
this
before
we
run
into
this,
where
we
don't
all,
we
don't
always
feel
comfortable,
saying
we
don't
know
why
property
sits
fallow,
we
don't
know
necessarily
how
much,
for
example,
the
property
owner
has
been
asking
is
that
are
they
willing
to
sit
on
that
property
until
the
right
buyer
comes
along
so
that
they
can
make
as
much
as
possible?
You
know
if
it's
no
skin
off
their
back
to
keep
it.
K
Obviously
he
used
it
during
the
made
money
off
of
it
during
the
building
of
I-69
sold
a
lot
of
topsoil
to
the
state
had
to
do
minimal
remediation
to
the
property.
In
order
to
do
that,
you
know
so
it
was
an
income
generating
property.
During
that
time
we
have
seen
developments,
proposals
for
this
site
and
then
the
property
owner
doesn't
build
them
or
you
know
whoever
they
have
they
have
contracted
with.
So
it's
not
that
we
haven't
seen
things
proposed
and
approved
for
this
location
over
time.
We
just
haven't
seen
that
built.
K
It
is
that
related
to
the
connection
of
Fullerton,
possibly
you
know
waiting
for
I-69
to
come
through.
We
have
heard
that
from
some
developers
you
know
with
properties
along
the
highway,
knowing
that
that
would
maybe
be
potentially
more
more
impactful
in
the
future.
So
you
know
we
can't
all.
We
can't
really
say
why
things
haven't
developed
in
the
past,
but
I
do
think.
In
this
case.
K
We
have
seen
proposals
be
approved
here
and
we
have
seen
it
be
used
for
income
generation,
obviously
not
the
same
as
fully
developing
87
Acres,
but
yeah
I.
Don't
think
and
Mr
Robinson
correct
me
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
we've
seen
any
indication
that
there
is
some
sort
of
legislation,
some
sort
of
legislative
reason
that
it's
not
being
developed,
there's
not
some
sort
of
rule
that
has
hindered
the
development
here.
M
Environmental
preservation
staff
pointed
out,
you
know,
there's
environmental
constraints
on
this
site,
land
use
decisions
going
back
to
the
hospital
and
and
discussions
on
where
future
Hospital
site
was
going.
This
was
one
of
the
locations
that
was
being
discussed,
but
again
policy
directed
that's
not
the
appropriate
location.
So
we
do
have
a
history
of
this
site
in
in
holding
to
that
Community
Vision.
What
the
comprehensive
plan,
desires
and
I.
M
Don't
necessarily
think
that
that's
a
reflection
of
the
the
property's
market
value
I
do
know
that
in
conversations
with
bedc
and
when
we
talked
about
the
rezoning
of
the
the
the
the
Udo
update
and
rezoning
and
and
what
was
once
the
old
employment
District
I
can't
remember
the
name,
it
had
a
vision
of
the
old
employment
Business
Park,
which
we
retired,
that
zone
in
those
standards
and
created
two
new
zoning
districts.
M
And
since
then,
we
even
pulled
back
that
to
include
this
to
the
mixed-used
employment
rather
than
the
employment
Zone
again
to
respond
to
some
of
the
market
conditions
for
this
site
and
others
that
were
within
that
same
Zone,
again
being
responsive
to
bedc
and
trying
to
retain
land.
That's
marketable
for
growth
of
unemployment,
I,
don't
fault
the
county,
for
you
know
identifying
this
property
again.
It's
been
a
prime
location
for
a
number
of
different
uses
over
the
year.
I
think
it's
just
a
challenging
site
to
meet
those
expectations
of
the
community.
A
Like
to
ask
a
similar
question,
maybe
for
the
petitioner,
you
know
when,
when
we
look
at
this
particular
property
and
as
we're
drawing
the
maps,
the
proximity
to
the
highway
is
a
major
consideration
there
right
in
that's
a
major
factor
for
a
potential
large-scale
employer,
particularly
a
manufacturer
right
being
close
to
the
highway,
is
a
major
advantage
if
you
have
to
move
Goods
in
and
out
of
a
manufacturing
facility
or
distribution
facility,
and
it
makes
it
easier
to
get
commuting.
Employees
in
and
out
and
I
think
that's.
A
You
know
one
of
the
major
reasons
that
you'll
see
all
of
that
Highway
adjacent
property,
zoned
me,
and
so
my
question
would
be
you
know.
You've
mentioned
some
characteristics
of
the
property
that
make
it
attractive
as
a
for
a
jail
like
the
tree
buffer
for,
for
example,
but
is
there
anything
about
the
location
in
particular
and
and
maybe
specifically
the
proximity
of
the
highway?
That
makes
it
particularly
appropriate
as
a
location
for
for
a
Criminal,
Justice
Facility.
O
Well,
I
think
there
is
I,
think
I
think.
The
easiest
way
to
answer
is
that
when
I,
when
I
initially
initially
started
this
search,
we
we
talked
to
the
sheriff
about
you
know
what
he
felt
was
important
and
being
along
the
the
interstate
Corridor
was
extremely
important
to
him.
I
think
he
or
I
know
we
do
a
lot
or
the
county
does
a
lot
of
transports
of
people
who
you
are
going
to
other
counties.
O
I
think
there's
visitations
that
where
people
are
coming
in
to
see
people
in
the
facility,
so
you
know
I,
think
that
being
in
that
Corridor
is
extremely
important.
I
think
it
gets
more
important
if
you
start
talking
about
some
of
the
other
Supportive
Services.
That
probably
will
require
transportation
to
other
communities.
O
You
know
you,
you
go
into
a
a
Supportive
Housing
and
you
so
you
know
then
you're,
anticipating
that
whoever
is
there
transitional
housing,
you're,
anticipating
somebody
who
is
going
to
get
a
good
employment
and
so
being
in
long
and
major
access
and
a
corridor
for
finding
employment
is
important.
I,
I
guess
I
would
just
think
that
you
know
there's
a
reason.
This
property's
been
vacant
for
38
years,
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
and
I'm,
not
a
real
estate
expert,
but
I
do
think
that
that
was
one
of
the
factors.
O
When
we
looked
at
it
wasn't
number
one
factor,
I
think
number
one
factor
was
trying
to
maintain
neighborhoods
and
not
putting
this
facility
and
dissecting
a
neighborhood
I
think
that
was
probably
the
number
one
factor
and
the
number
two
Factor
was
was
trying
to
figure
out
a
place
with
good
Transportation
access
and
we
think
with
Fulton
Pike
being
complete.
That
would
that
would
be
make
this
make
this
property
a
lot
different
and
I
think
everybody
would
see
this
property
a
lot
different
once
that
Corridor
is
done
and
again
that's
going
to
bid
lighting
next
year.
E
I
have
two
questions,
kind
of
one
that
are
that
are
related
president
Whistler,
so
is
the
objection
for
my
planning
and
transportation
friends
out
there
is
the
really
the
is,
is
the
objection
that
it
doesn't
meet.
The
comp
plan
is
that
real?
Is
that
the
thing
in
in
for
planning
and
transportation?
That
is
the
most
important
thing
in
in
the
negative
recommendation:
Mr
Robinson
or
I.
M
Councilman
councilmember
Smith
Smith,
thanks
for
your
question,
yes,
I
mean
I.
We
put
these
plans
and
documents
together
to
provide
that
guidance.
M
You
know
we
certainly
are
open
to
revising
them
and
amending
them,
but
I
think
if
we
take
this
step
to
any
request
that
becomes
forward
and
we
don't
give
any
consideration
to
those
documents,
what's
the
purpose
of
doing
them
in
the
first
place,
it's
the
Udo
Michigan
outlined
the
legal
requirements
that
that's
the
findings,
that
staff
must
make
and
that's
a
recommendation.
We
hope
this
commission.
This
body
follows
now
that
doesn't
mean
that
the
common
Council
has
to
follow
those
same
recommendations,
but
I
do
believe
that
that's
what
planning
is
about.
M
We
try
to
plan
for
anticipate
for
these
changes.
We
worked.
You
know
with
many
of
you
and
in
other
elected
officials
and
adopting
and
approving
the
comprehensive
plan.
Did
we
miss?
Did
we
miss
something?
Maybe
we
did
that's
why
we
might
go
back
and
amend
the
comprehensive
plan
to
to
address
that,
but
I
think
again.
This
feels
not
in
this
instance,
but
we
have
other
petitions
where
it's
hey.
You
know
we
don't
agree
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
need
to
give
us
consideration.
That's
why
we
need
to
be
consistent
in
those
recommendations.
M
Is
we
can't
take
in
consideration
other
factors
of
of
what
we
others
might
would
like
us
to
do?
In
that
instance,
sure.
E
And
I
really
appreciate
your
expert
advice
and
expertise
on
this.
I
do
so
so
now
I
have
the
the
next
question
I
have
is
if
it
was
jail,
detention
was
a
conditional
use
for
mixed
employment.
Would
that
solve?
Would
that
allay
all
your
objections.
E
M
Would
be
consistent
with
and
again
I
think
miss
scanlon's
talking
to
me
and
I'm
going
to
let
her
answer
that
question
but
go
ahead.
K
No,
it's
like
you,
said
it's
a
different
process
right,
so
our
concerns
the
main
concern
for
this
petition
is
that
they're
requesting
a
map
in
the
minute
and
doesn't
it's
not
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
we've
listed
other
concerns,
including
Transportation
access,
and
so
those
things
would
still
be
the
same
and
those
things
would
what
would
be
discussed
if
they,
we
would
still
be
discussing
all
of
the
other
things
that
were
in
the
packet.
K
M
Again,
I
think
just
to
to
follow
up
and
to
complete.
The
answer
is:
let's
say
that
was
the
case
and
it's
a
conditional
use.
Then
this
would
be
before
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
and
we'd
be
having
the
same
conversations
on.
How
is
it
going
to
impact
with
those
requirements?
The
use
specific
requirements?
M
E
A
Questions
sure
great
questions
and
I
and
I
would
I
would
add
to
that.
If
we
were
to
take
that
approach,
there
would
be
an
additional
question
that
we
would
have
to
address,
which
is,
is
jail,
an
appropriate
use
in
every
other
parcel
in
the
city.
That
zoned
me
right,
which
is
a
whole
set
of
questions
that
were
not
even
that
aren't
before
us
right
now.
With
this
with
the
map,
Amendment
right.
O
We've
done
a
phase
one
and
in
phase
two
environmental
study,
we've
done
a
jurisdictional
and
territorial
water
study.
Today
we
got
a
final
version
of
our
hydrogeology
is
the
the
company
name?
They
did
a
study.
Basically
for
for
cars
features,
we
have
done
a
geotechnical
study
which
I
I
don't
think
I
afford
it
to
planning
staff,
but
we've
done
all
those
studies,
I
guess
the
biggest.
O
We
knew
from
the
from
the
Conservancy
easements
that
there
were
cars
features
in
the
wooded
area
and
there
are
course
features
in
the
wooded
area.
We
also
knew
from
from
that
that
there
were.
There
was
a
harsh
feature
along
I-69
when
we
initially
viewed
the
site.
We
could
see
that
there
was
a
wetland
type
area
along
that
Corridor
as
well
turns
out
that
there's
also
sinkholes
in
that
area,
which
you
know
I
guess
we
didn't
maybe
know,
but
we
kind
of
suspected
had
suspicion
that
it
would
be
the
only
I
guess.
O
The
only
difference,
I
think
is
that
a
couple
of
the
karst
areas
along
the
I-69
Corridor
a
little
bit
larger
than
we
would
have
thought.
Then
we
thought
when
we
looked
at
it
I,
don't
don't
think
that
materially
impacts
the
the
property
I
would
say
that
without
without
doing
any
kind
of
you
know,
Road
design
or
anything
like
that.
We
think
I
think
there
would
be
enough
room
that
if
we,
if
that
roadway
to
the
property
to
the
north,
was
required
it
would
there
would
be
the
ability
to
do
that.
O
I
think
I
said
at
the
last
meeting
and
I
I
had
to
reiterate
it.
It
was
you
know,
I,
think,
building
that
road
across
this
property
is
probably
not
that
big
a
deal.
I
just
don't
know
how
you
connected
the
tap
with
without
a
serious
expense,
and
so
I
also
don't
know
a
question
whether
it
makes
sense
to
have
that
be
a
city
road
where
the
city
has
to
plow
snows
on
a
county
driveway.
O
Yeah
I'm
going
to
say
from
from
one
perspective:
yes
right
from
another
perspective:
yes,
we
are,
but
we
we
realize
that
we've
got
to
take
all
these
into
account
when
we
do
our
Master
planning
and
our
site
design,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
we
we
didn't
want
to
start
that
process.
Yet
one
one
reason
is
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
city
is
comfortable
with
this.
This
going
on
that
site,
the
other
one.
A
All
right,
I
think
we
are
ready
for
public
comment
before
we
open
up
public
comment.
Let
me
just
remind
everyone
that,
while
obviously
there's
a
much
broader
conversation
about
criminal
justice
in
the
county
and
whether
or
not
and
when
a
jail
should
be
built,
that's
not
really.
The
purview
of
this
body
is
much
more
limited
than
that.
The
only
question
before
this
body
tonight
is:
is
this
particular
parcel
of
land
an
appropriate
place
for
for
a
jail,
and
should
we
rezone
it
to
to
make
that
possible?
A
But
if
you
do
like
to
make
a
comment
on
that,
please,
if
you're
in
the
chambers
feel
free
to
step
up
to
the
the
podium
state,
your
name
for
the
record
you'll
have
five
minutes
to
make
comment
if
you're
joining
us
remotely,
if
you're
online,
just
click
on
the
reactions
button
at
the
bottom
of
your
your
Zoom
window
and
then
click
on
the
raise
hand
button.
And
we
will
attempt
to
recognize
you
in
the
order
in
which
you
raise
your
hand
and
again,
you'll
you'll
have
five
minutes
to
to
make
comment.
K
Okay,
I
have
a
few
here
online
that
have
already
messaged
or
raised
hands.
So
the
first
person
we
have
here
is
Sydney
Foreman.
I
Okay,
great
so
hi,
my
name
is
Sydney.
Foreman
I
wanted
to
speak
against
this
rezone
proposal
today.
I
think
the
findings
presented
by
the
department
bring
up
legitimate
concerns
regarding
Transportation
surrounding
the
site,
which
is
an
exorbitant
issue
with
the
intended
use
to
be
to
build
a
new
jail
in
the
land
relocating
the
county.
Jail
from
downtown
removes
accessibility
for
many
families
of
inmates
increases
barriers
to
defendants
from
getting
to
the
jail
where
failure
to
appear
is
already
a
huge
reason
reason
for
revocations.
I
So
if
the
jail
is
located
way
out
there
on
Fullerton
Pike,
how
is
that
going
to
impact
those
numbers?
There
is
the
cost
to
fund
buses
or
other
transportation
services
who
would
be
paying
for
this
Transportation?
Where
would
that
come
from
and
moving
the
jail
away
from
downtown
is
like
pushing
the
lives
of
incarcerated
people
out
of
sight
and
out
of
mind,
which
kind
of
sits
uncomfortable
with
me.
I
also
have
concern
for
the
land
use
being
appropriate
for
the
natural
environment
of
the
Land.
I
There
are
multiple
Wetlands
on
this
piece
of
land
and
thinking
that
building
a
huge
jail
facility
on
the
land
will
impacts.
The
health
of
these
Wetlands
is,
in
my
opinion,
just
plain
disregard
for
bloomington's
environmental
health.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
reports
that
in
years
up
to
1980,
80
Indiana
had
already
lost
90
percent
of
its
natural
Wetlands
acreage.
So
moving
these
three
Wetlands
around
may
not
seem
like
a
big
deal
in
the
vacuum
of
one
Community,
but
we
have
to
look
at
the
whole
picture
we
need
to.
I
We
need
these
protected
areas
to
be
Wetlands
or
Wetlands
to
be
protected
areas
and
I.
Think
this
request
also
disregards
the
comprehensive
plan
of
placing
new
employment
opportunities
on
this
land
and
not
just
relocating
employment
that
already
exists
within
the
city
limits
so
again,
I.
Please
just
ask
you
to
not
support
this
rezone
request
today.
Thank
you.
U
Hello,
my
name
is
donielle
bird
I
am
a
Monroe
County
resident
and
also
a
social
worker
of
over
25
years,
and
I
am
associated
with
new
Leaf
New
Life,
which
provides
services
to
people
who
are
formerly
and
currently
incarcerated.
However,
my
comments
don't
reflect
the
the
views
of
all
folks,
I'm
sure
I'm,
not
representing
the
organization
I
want
to
say
so.
U
Thank
you
so
much
to
the
planning
staff
and
planned
commission
for
their
consideration
and
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
would
like
this
rezone
to
be
denied
I
agree
with
staff
and
I
Echo
many
of
their
concerns.
I,
don't
believe
that
a
jail
is
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan.
I,
don't
believe
this
is
a
wonderful
gateway
to
our
community.
U
So
this
is
not
a
new
employment
opportunity
at
all,
and
also
if
we
want
to
consider
the
individuals
who
are
incarcerated,
jail,
greatly
impedes
and
disrupts
their
employment
opportunities.
Not
only
you
know
during
incarceration,
but
for
their
future,
so
there
is
a
lot
of
talk
and
I
appreciate
all
the
efforts
going
into
keeping
people
out
of
jail.
So
I
think
those
are
more
important
for
our
community
to
invest
in
than
cages.
We
do.
If
those
of
you
would
please
read
the
consultant
reports,
our
County
hired
Consultants.
U
We
are
rest
above
the
national
average
for
mentally
ill
and
folks
with
substance
use
disorders,
so
we
have
a
long
way
to
go,
but
I'm
going
to
keep
it
to
some
of
the
land
use
issues.
Also,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
location.
This
is
incredibly
problematic,
even
if
there's
even
a
shuttle
from
transit
provided
because
folks
are
released
from
incarceration,
often
they're
wearing
exactly
what
they
were
wearing
when
they
were
arrested.
U
We've
had
people
come
to
New,
Leaf,
new
life
and
flip-flops
and
shorts
in
the
winter
time,
I
I
can't
imagine
somebody
sitting
and
waiting
on
a
bus,
even
if
that
were
available
to
get
to
services.
This
location
is
extremely
far
from
all
the
Supportive
Services
that
people
need.
This
includes
Beacon
the
Community
Kitchen
New
Leaf,
new
life
and
Center
Stone,
so
families
can't
get
on
site
to
attend
court
hearings.
They're
talking
about
co-locating,
maybe
be
one
or
two
courts.
U
So
you
know
family
members
can't
be
there
to
attend
so
service
providers
who
actually
do
provide
services
in
the
jail.
This
is
very
far
for
them
to
travel,
to
get
out
there
and
and
provide
these
services
in
the
jail.
Also.
My
next
point
is
the
county
has
not
done
due
diligence
to
evaluate
the
cost
and
feasibility
to
renovate
the
current
jail.
It
is
not
overcrowded
anymore.
I
keep
hearing
a
lot
of
statements
that
are
being
made
that
are
not
accurate.
U
If
you
look
at
average
numbers,
we
are
not
over
the
we're,
not
overcrowded
our
jail
numbers
have
gone
down,
so
please
be
sure
to
think
about
the
fact
that
we
already
have
a
jail.
It's
located
and
co-located
with
the
prosecutor's
office,
the
public
defender's
office,
all
of
those
services.
And
yes,
there
are
problems
with
that
facility,
but
it's
30
some
years
old,
not
even
40
years
old
and
so
I
believe
that
we
need
need
to
do
our
due
diligence
to
look
at.
What
are
the
costs
to
renovate?
U
That
facility
are
Consultants
recommended
that
as
well
to
look
into
that
so,
and
services
provided
in
cages
is
not
evidence-based
and
it's
not
Progressive.
We
need
to
support
community
services
that
we
already
have
and
there's
nobody
that's
going
to
travel
to
jail
to
want
to
get
services.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
C
Hi
plan
commission,
my
name
is
Molly
Turner
King.
Can
you
hear
me.
C
Okay,
my
name
is
Molly
Turner,
King
and
I'm,
currently
a
County
employee,
but
I'm,
not
speaking
today.
In
my
capacity
of
my
current
position,
but
I
just
wanted
to
offer
some
insight
from
my
experience
as
both
the
prosecutor
and
a
public
defender
in
light
of
this
Transportation
concern,
I
will
say
as
a
part
as
a
public
defender
and
a
prosecutor.
A
few
years
ago
there
was
a
local
rule
made
where
defendants
do
not
have
to
come
to
every
court
hearing
for
pre-trial
conferences.
C
As
long
as
the
defendant
remains
in
contact
with
their
attorney.
They
do
not
have
to
physically
appear
in
a
courtroom
and
the
prosecutors
and
the
public
defender's
office,
along
with
the
court,
are
really
good
at
working
with
defendants
on
accommodating
when
they
can
and
cannot
appear
for
hearings
and
I
thought.
Sorry,
there's
a
baby
in
the
background.
C
K
Submitted
via
writing
for
someone
who
isn't
able
to
speak
and
I
confirmed,
I
can
go
ahead
and
read
that
this
is
from
Sam
Dove.
He
says
homeless
need
Transportation
on
Sunday
places,
take
a
long
time
to
walk
and
I
think
people
need
buses
on
Sunday
I.
Don't
know
why
there
are
no
city
buses
on
Sunday.
It
needs
to
be
one.
A
Okay,
we
are
back
to
the
commission
then,
and
we
are
now
ready
for
any
final
comments
or
or
for
a
motion,
but
before
we
before
we
jump
into
that,
I
just
want
to
take
a
moment
to
clarify
what
our
options
are
here
and
the
staff
has
recommended
that
we
forward
this
to
the
council
with
a
negative
recommendation.
A
A
V
V
You're
a
positive
recommendation
or
no
recommendation
at
all
functionally.
There
is
no
difference
in
terms
legal
tax,
no
recommendation
or
negative
recommendations,
effectively
the
difference
between
a
negative
application
or
no
recommendations
and
positive
recommendation.
If
the
city
council
were
unable
investor
five
votes
within
the
90-day
assessment
here,
they
have
to
ask
after
certification.
A
So
our
recommendation
is
only
relevant
in
the
event
that
the
council
fails
to
approve
once
we've
forwarded
onto.
A
T
So,
in
that
case
tonight
sport
will
remain
or
are
we
going
to
have
if
that
happens
as
a
probability
after
the
90
days?
If
that
happens,
there
will
be
one
more
meeting
regarding
this
or
is
tonight's
votes.
If
the
council
doesn't
decide
the
final.
V
A
So,
if,
if
you
want
there
to
be
any
more
discussion
at
this
body
of
this
issue,
we
would
have
to
affirm
a
continuance
is
the
only
way
that
we
would
have
an
additional
conversation
at
this
body
is
if
we,
if
we
voted
to
continue
it
to
our
next
meeting,
so
any
yeah.
Any
any
motion
to
forward
to
the
council,
regardless
of
the
recommendation,
will
be
the
last
action
that
that
we
take
on
this
petition.
A
Okay,
we're
all
clear
on
that.
Does
anyone
like
to
make
a
final
comment
or
to
offer
a
motion.
A
While
you're
contemplating
that
I
will
just
remind
you
all
of
the
staff
recommendation,
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
we.
R
I
was
searching
our
network.
My
C
drive
on
my
laptop
for
the
comprehensive
plan
that
was
passed
in
2018
I
would
have
swore
it
was
going
to
be
a
digital
format,
but
no
that's
when
I
was
still
printing
out
the
document.
My
last
comment
is
comprehensive.
Plans
are
a
guiding
document
that
are
fluent
I.
Think
when
I
did
a
search,
I
searched
the
document
for
jail,
it
didn't
show
up
once
so
I
think
that's
significant.
R
We
don't
have
a
guiding
document
for
this
issue
that
we
find
ourselves
in
today,
but
also,
what's
in
this
comprehensive
plan,
is
local
government
partnership.
It
talks
about
working
interlocally
with
the
county,
the
town,
the
university.
What
I'm
seeing
here
is
a
lack
of
Solutions
in
a
compound
problem.
R
We
need
to
address
this
if
we
move
it
with
any
recommendation
here.
It'll
move
to
the
common
Council
and
they'll
have
to
address
it
there
as
well,
but
I
think
our
comprehensive
plan
needs
to
be
looked
at,
so
we
don't
find
ourselves
in
this
situation
again.
D
Thank
you,
I'm,
going
to
start
with
a
comment
and
then
perhaps
move
to
a
a
proposal
here.
It
seems
pretty
clear
to
me
that,
based
on
the
planned
Commission
purview
that
including
our
considerations
for
compliance
with
Comprehensive
plan
and
making
sure
the
land
is
being
used
for
its
most
desirable
use
and
what
the
an
MI
should
be
regarding
transportation
and
concerns
about
that
that
we
should
not
support
this
proposed
map
amendment.
That
seems
pretty
straightforward
to
me.
D
All
of
those
things
to
me
and
the
the
most
important
one
is
not
rezoning
for
a
very
specific
use
or
a
single
use
in
this
case
that
all
of
those
things
seem
like,
as
a
commission
responsible
for
land
use
that
we
should
not
support
this
map
Amendment
and
that
we
should
forward
it
with
a
negative
recommendation.
The
issues
that
are
giving
me
some
pause
are
I
really
appreciate.
Commissioner
enright's
comment
about
the
importance
of
coordinated
responses
to
Complex
Community
challenges
like
this.
D
I
I'd
like
to
hear
from
a
few
other
folks,
if
there
are
comments
from
our
colleagues
on
the
plan
commission
before
I,
really
make
a
make
a
proposal
here
for
consideration,
but
that's
where
I
am
right
now.
Thank
you.
N
Yeah
I,
look
at
this
site
and
I
think
of
the
highest
and
best
use
and
I'm
in
this
world
with
the
commercial
real
estate.
So
I
look
at
this
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
ask
the
question:
is
there
something
in
code
or
something
that's
preventing
it
because
the
market
in
general,
now
it
has
slowed
down
with
the
interest
rates
a
little
bit,
but
the
market
in
general?
N
Has
you
know
the
need
for
having
oh
industrial
type,
space
or
employment
space,
the
demand's
high
right
now
across
the
country,
I,
look
at
this
site
and
I
see
I
like
the
characteristics
of
it.
I
looked
at
the
sites
that
were
on
the
chart
and
I
saw
that
they
were
surrounded
by
highways
and
I
mean
exactly
very
similar
to
this
site
and
the
fact
that
it
has
the
borders
now
and
I
I,
like
that
part
of
it
too
I'm
concerned
of
obviously
removing
this
employment
opportunity,
but
then
I
think
to
myself.
N
Are
there
other
opportunities
within
Bloomington
that
might
have
a
higher
and
better
use?
It's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
asked
the
question
there
by
Catalan
I
mean,
and
that
has
a
real
potential
use.
There
that's
going
to
bring
some
great
jobs,
and
maybe
maybe
it
might
not
happen-
I
understand
that,
but
the
potential
there
it
just
seems
like
a
more
achievable
of
something,
that's
more
achievable
to
put
jobs
in
our
community
than
this
site.
Right
now,
I
do
not
like
that.
It
doesn't
align
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
was
2018.
N
You
know
a
lot
has
changed
since
then
and
again
it's
a
doc.
It's
a
guiding
document.
So
is
it?
Is
it
the
well?
Obviously
we
look
at
that,
but
I
guess
my
biggest
thing
is
I
I.
Could
when
there's
Limited
Emmy
zoning
in
in
the
city
and
then
removing
it?
N
That's
that's
a
big
deal,
but
again
you
know
I'm
really
torn
because
I
I
would
like
to
to
move
this
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation,
because
I
know
the
needs
and
then
working
with
the
county
on
this
to
solve
a
huge
issue
in
our
community
and
again
so
I'm
a
little
bit
torn
I
mean
I
could
see
standing
commissioner
Kinser
I
I
completely
I
I
completely
understand
your
your
reasoning
and
I
support
that
as
well,
so
I
just
I'm
not
sure
what
direction
I'm
going
to
go
right
now,
but
when
I
came
in
here,
I
thought.
N
You
know
that
I
would
move
this
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation.
So
I'm
not
going
to
make
a
motion
right
now,
but
but
I'd
like
to
hear
again
from
other
Commissioners.
Thank
you.
A
Bob
would
just
say:
I
I,
think
I
agree
with
largely
what
commissioner
Kinsey
has
said.
This
is
obviously
a
very
complex
issue
and
it's
really
really
difficult
as
a
plan.
Commissioner
to
you
know
not
let
all
the
other
aspects
of
this
issue
creep
into
our
decision
making
tonight
right,
because,
obviously
it's
a
it's
an
important
issue
and
one
that
is.
Q
A
Know
is,
is
emotional
and
and
and
and
heavy
and
and
clearly
something
needs
to
be
done
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
hard
work,
that's
being
done
on
it
and
it
so
it's
hard
to
to
to
see
all
that
and
and
and
and
and
then
say
no
but
I,
think
the
reality
is.
If
we,
you
know,
if
we
really
do
concentrate
on
what
our
Authority
here
is,
I
think
the
you.
A
A
I
I
can't
see
how
it
makes
sense
to
to
give
up
one
of
the
few
Parcels
in
in
in
town
that
is
suitable
for
a
large-scale
employment.
If
we're
ever
going
to
attract
another
large-scale
employer,
you
know
I
think
where
is
it?
Where
is
it
going
to
go?
A
I
mean
this
is
this
is
one
of
very
very
few
places
now,
thankfully,
almost
no
matter
what
we
do
tonight,
this
is
going
to
move
on
to
the
city,
council
and
the
city
council
has
a
purview
that
is
much
much
broader
than
ours.
A
Think
you
know
it's
appropriate
that
the
city
council
have
that
conversation
which
can
be
I.
Think
much
like
I
said
much
broader
than
what
is
out.
What
is
you
know
our
authority
to
to
consider
tonight
so
I'm
eager
to
hear
a
emotion
and
and
get
this
moving
regardless
of
of
what
the
the
recommendation
is.
I
think
the
the
city
council
has
a
tough
job
ahead
of
them
and
I
don't
envy
you,
but
but
Amigo
to
see
this
move
along
through
the
process.
F
Comment
or
may
I
I
don't
know
if
I
have
a
motion.
I
do
just
wanted
to.
Thank
you
because
clearly,
you've
done
a
great
job
outlining
the
need.
I
think
it's
quite
clear
to
everyone
here
that
we
do
have
a
big
problem
in
our
community
with
how
we
take
care
of
people
who
are
facing
incarceration
and
the
services
around
that.
F
So
thank
you
for
even
shedding
more
light
on
that.
It's
a
really
important
discussion,
but
it's
complicated
because
we're
we're
just
the
playing
commission.
So
it's
a
big
question
to
put
in
front
of
us:
it's
not
kind
of
the
normal
sort
of
heavy,
weighty
thing.
We
do
not
that
what
we
do
up
here
isn't
important.
It's
just
that's
a
whole
different
question
and
similarly,
it's
complicated
because
we
rely
on
the
Professionals
of
the
planning
department.
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
of
them,
respect
for
them
as
I
do
know.
F
F
That's
an
odd
thing,
in
my
opinion,
for
us
to
hear
from
them
and
it
sort
of
feels
like
we
don't
have
enough
information
and-
and
maybe
the
petitioner
has
it,
but
somehow
the
communication
hasn't
happened
at
a
level
that
maybe
we're
normally
used
to
and
I'm,
not
sure
why
that
is,
but
it
feels
and
and
seems
that
way
from
here
and
and
not
saying
anyone
isn't
communicating,
but
somehow
something's
not
happening
there
so
that
we
can
make
a
full
decision.
F
So,
given
that
those
two
things
make
this
really
complicated
the
fact
that
there
are
some
heavy
things
here,
the
transportation,
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
doesn't
agree
with
that
I
understand
it's
a
guideline,
I
get
it,
but
it's
also
a
guideline.
It's
not
the
absence
of
anything.
It
is
something
in
front
of
us
that
at
some
point,
2018
is
does
seem
like
a
long
time
ago,
but
it's
not
1900
either.
It
was
just
four
years
ago.
F
So
I
get
a
lot
of
changed,
but
that
is
a
guideline
we
have
in
front
of
us
and
I
I
choose
not
to
wholly
ignore
it,
because
it's
not
a
law
so
and
the
space
need
I'm.
Just
I
I
love
all
the
ideas
of
what
you
can
do
with
a
wraparound
Services,
although
I'm
really
struggled
to
see
how
located
in
there
without
transportation
is
helpful.
F
Community,
Mental,
Health
Center,
like
sounds
wonderful,
but
that's
a
completely
new
information
again,
and
so
it's
a
you
know
yes
super
complicated
moment
and
and
tough
to
to
decide
what
to
do.
Thank
you.
E
Sure
I,
it's
honestly,
it's
doubly
hard
for
me,
I'm,
looking
at
things
from
two
perspectives,
I'm
on
the
planned
commission
and
I'm
on
city
council
that
can
consider
in
a
broader
way.
So
so
it's
really
it's
my
I'm
just
having
a
hard
time
with,
even
considering
how
the
think
about
it,
except
I,
do
think
about
it.
Broadly
and
and
I
do
think
that
I'm
really
good
with
thinking
about
things
and
guidelines.
E
Unless
it
explicitly
says
it's
a
law,
so
me
I
would
vote
to.
E
Support
this
change
to
Mi
and
I.
Guess:
that's!
That's!
Probably
where
I'm
at
I
just
I
know
we
get
paid
the
big
bucks
to
make
these
hard
decisions
and
I
think
you
know
that's
kind
of
where
I
would
go.
So
thanks.
G
I'll
just
briefly
I
know
this
is
a
prolonged
discussion
that
we're
having
I'm
kind
of
going
off
with
commissioner
Cochran
said
to
me
walking
into
this
meeting.
I
thought
this
could
be
about
a
two-minute
decision,
but
I
also
told
my
wife
when
I
was
leaving
the
house
we're
going
to
probably
talk
about
things
for
a
couple
hours,
because
it's
complex
there's
a
lot
of
factors.
G
I
definitely
want
to
recognize
the
work
the
County's
done.
It
sounds
like
a
very,
very
much
needed
Endeavor,
and
so
appreciating
what
you
guys
have
come
up
with
so
far,
but
I
think
there's
to
me,
there's
still
a
ways
to
go.
Two
things
with
that.
One
is
the
employment
aspect
I'm
with
commissioner
Cochran.
That's
a
big
question
mark.
If
we
could
put
something
in
there,
that's
going
to
employ
x
amount
of
people,
even
though
nobody's
done
it
yet
he's
exactly
right.
G
The
shifting
of
the
economies
are
proving
that
something
could
be
done
there.
So
I
think
that's
a
big
risk
we
could
take
with
the
employment
and
I
also
want
to
go
off.
Commissioner,
St
John's
comment
about
what
the
planning
department
comes
up
with
and
that's
asking
for
more
information.
G
I'm
new
to
this
commission
I've
only
been
on
here
a
year,
but
they're
very,
very
astute
in
what
they
do
and
how
they
dissect
things,
and
so
for
them
to
come
to
us
and
say
we
need
more
I.
Listen
to
that
and
I
hear
that
and
that
ultimately
I
think
those
two
factors
is
going
to
sway
me
to
agree
with
what
they're
telling
us.
So
thank
you.
A
Or
emotion,
commissioner
Kinsey.
A
A
W
N
I
T
C
A
So
I
believe
that
motion
carries
six
three
okay,
so
thank
you.
We,
we
are
done
with
our
consideration
of.
A
Of
z040-22,
thank
you
all
for
your
patience.
I
know
that
was
a
quite
a
length
of
discussion.
If
there's
no
objection,
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
take
a
quick
five-minute
recess
before
we
move
on
to
the
the
next
petition.
A
But
before
we
do
that
I
know
we
have
a
couple
of
Commissioners
who
are
want
to
make
a
statement
before
we
get
on
to
z045-22.
So,
commissioner,
St
John,
would
you
like
to
make
a
statement.
A
Okay,
so
when
we
come
back
we'll
we'll
we
will
consider
z04522
just
as
a
reminder,
we
will
have
only
seven
of
nine
Commissioners
participating
in
that
discussion.
We'll
still
need
five
out
of
seven
instead
of
five
out
of
nine
to
to
take
any
official
action
on
that
petition,
so
it
is
753
by
my
account,
so
we
will
reconvene
here
in
at
7
58..
B
A
Now
we
will
continue
our
agenda
with
petition
zo45-22.
This
is
Saint
real
estate.
Llc
is
the
petitioner
here
and
we
have
Karina
pazos
to
present.
Take
it
away,
Karina
recording.
W
W
The
two
Eastern
Parcels
are
currently
developed
with
one
office
building
that
contains
St
John
Associates
and
the
third
parcel
to
the
West
is
currently
vacant.
The
properties
to
the
north
and
west
are
part
of
the
Hopewell
Redevelopment
project
and
the
alley
to
the
West
was
recently
vacated.
So
the
new
Western
Property
Line
is
now
to
the
center
of
the
alley,
and
the
petitioner
is
requesting
a
zoning
map.
Amendment
of
the
three
Parcels
from
mixed-use
neighborhood
scale
to
mixed-use
medium
scale
and
a
request
for
a
waiver
from
the
second
hearing.
W
So
the
unified
development
ordinance
identifies
the
petitioner's
land
use
as
office,
which
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
current
MN
District.
The
difference
between
MN
and
mm
is
that
the
proposed
zoning
District
mm
does
not
allow
for
dwelling
Cottage
development
uses,
whereas
the
current
zoning
does
allow
it
as
a
conditional
use,
but
the
proposed
zoning
District
also
does
allow
for
12
non-residential
uses
that
would
require
conditional
use
approval
under
the
current
zoning
and
26
non-residential,
permitted
or
conditional
uses
that
would
not
be
allowed
at
all.
Under
the
current
zoning.
W
W
And
there
are
a
couple
differences
between
the
dimensional
standards
of
both
zoning
districts,
so
MN
has
a
maximum
area
of
any
individual
commercial
tenant,
whereas
the
proposed
mm
does
not
and
it
allows
for
four
stories
of
maximum
height
and
then
here
are
a
couple
of
the
sections
from
the
allowed
use
table
in
the
Udo
that
show
a
comparison
of
which
uses
go
from
conditional
or
permitted
to
sorry
go
from
conditional
or
not
permitted
at
all
to
being
permitted
or
conditional.
W
Under
the
proposed
mm
District,
the
comprehensive
plan
designates
the
site
as
mixed
Urban
residential,
the
mixed
Urban
residential
district
is
identified
as
having
complete
access
to
utilities,
fire
police
streets,
sidewalks
and
other
facilities
that
provide
Mobility
at
a
20-minute
neighborhood
level
of
service.
A
main
objective
of
this
area
is
making
Necessary
upgrades
in
capital
Investments.
This
District
generally
has
a
mix
of
uses
and
a
mix
of
densities,
ranging
from
single-family
residences
to
larger
two
to
four
story:
apartment
buildings.
W
T
W
So
the
proposed
finding
for
the
general
compliance
criteria
is
that
the
proposed
rezoning
is
in
compliance
and
will
meet
all
applicable
standards
in
the
Udo.
If
right-of-way
dedication
consistent
with
the
transportation
plan
is
submitted
within
180
days
of
approval
by
Common
Council
and
the
proposed
finding
for
additional
criteria
that
is
applicable
to
a
zoning
map
amendment
is
that
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
intergovernmental
agreements.
The
proposed
right-of-way
dedication
along
Morton
Street
will
be
consistent
with
the
Hopewell
development
right-of-way
dedication.
W
The
proposed
rezoning
is
not
expected
to
have
any
adverse
impacts.
The
city
will
be
making
Street
and
sidewalk
facility
upgrades
along
West
First
Street
The
Proposal
provides
adequate
public
services
and
Facilities
with
the
proposed
right-of-way
dedication,
and
there
is
no
Redevelopment
or
phasing
plan
proposed
at
this
time.
W
The
proposed
signing
for
specific
approval
criteria
is
that
the
comprehensive
plan
designates
the
site
as
mixed
Urban
residential
and
identifies
this
area
is
appropriate
for
lower
high
density
uses,
noting
that
these
areas
are
well
served
by
existing
infrastructure.
A
diversity
of
land
uses
in
this
district
is
also
encouraged.
W
The
site
has
currently
been
developed
with
a
building
owned
by
the
petitioner
that
provides
an
office
use
the
dedication
of
right-of-way
along
Morton
Street,
as
well
as
near
future
improvements
to
First
Street,
further
increases
or
upgrades
the
multimodal
transportation
options
for
users
at
this
location.
Approval
of
this
request
would
allow
for
expanded
use
offerings
for
members
of
the
community.
W
The
comprehensive
plan-
sorry,
this
is
Con
the
continued
for
the
last
proposed
finding,
so
the
comprehensive
plan
states
that
a
wide
range
of
land
uses
is
appropriate
within
this
District.
The
rezoning
of
the
site
to
mm
would
also
match
adjacent
land
to
the
north.
That
is
zoned
to
the
same.
There
are
no
known
sensitive
environmental
features
on
the
site.
The
proposed
rezoning
is
not
expected
to
have
any
negative
impacts
on
adjacent
property
values.
W
So
the
department
believes
that
the
rezoning
of
the
site
would
match
the
comprehensive
plan
designation
of
the
site
as
mixed
Urban
residential.
The
site's
current
use
is
permitted
in
both
the
current
MN
and
the
desired
mm
zoning
districts
and
a
rezone
would
expand
on
the
possible
uses
that
could
go
in
here
and
match
the
uses
of
the
majority
of
properties
in
this
area.
A
A
N
N
The
timing
of
of
the
opportunities
that's
in
that
area
and
the
Redevelopment
of
the
hospital
land
and
the
Hopewell
site
is
is
I
mean
it's
a
once
in
a
lifetime
opportunity
to
really
do
something
great
in
Bloomington,
and
this
site
connects
right
to
right
along
Morton,
Street
right
there
and
it's
it's
just
it
in
all
of
the
land
right
around.
There
is
Zone
mm,
so
it
just
when
you
look
at
it
just
makes
sense
for
this
one
to
be
zoned
the
same.
N
So
by
changing
it,
we
feel
that
it's
just
going
to
help
the
overall
development
of
the
Hopewell
site
and
also
attract
a
developer
to
come
in
there
and
take
away
the
hurdles
if
they
wanted
to
come
in
and
purchase
this
site
to
have
to
take
it
through
the
zoning
process
or
or
to
do
any
changes.
Because,
anytime
you
create
that
timing.
N
It
just
slows
the
process
down,
so
it's
going
to
be
more
attractive
to
a
developer,
to
come
in
there
and
do
something
really
special
along
there
and,
as
stated
by
the
planning
staff
mm
matches
the
comprehensive
plan
it
matches.
The
majority
of
the
properties
that
are
in
the
area
planning
staff
mentioned
that
it
won't
affect
negatively
affect
any
of
the
adjacent
businesses
which,
as
a
commercial
real
estate
broker
I,
would
completely
agree.
N
It
brings
the
property
in
line
with
the
zoning
of
the
other
properties
in
the
area,
and
it
also
will
add
more
uses
for
it,
which
the
comprehensive
plan
also
mentions
that
that
this
area
should
be
able
to
attract
several
different
business
uses
to
serve
Bloomington
planning
staff
also
said
it
would
not
negatively
impact
the
adjacent
Property
Owners,
which
I
as
as
in
my
profession,
I,
would
also
agree
and
again
it
reaches
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
it
gives
the
opportunity
for
additional
resources
in
the
area
and,
as
stated,
it
would
add
value
to
the
Hopewell
side.
N
N
N
And
again,
with
the
goals
of
rezoning
this
property,
it
would
be
a
viable
option
in
the
Redevelopment
process
and
again
it's
all
about
the
timing
of
it.
So
the
reason
we're
making
this
request
is
because
of
the
opportunities
in
the
area
and
the
timing
to
actually
to
make
something
happen
in
this
area.
I
will
mention
the
property
is
for
sale.
We
are
looking
to
sell
it.
N
We
did
offer
it
to
the
city
immediately,
at
the
time
the
city
wasn't
able
to
to
move
on
the
property,
so
we
do
have
it
on
the
market
and
so
I
just
we
think
it
would
make
the
property
even
more
marketable,
but
also
it's
going
to.
Hopefully,
a
developer
will
be
attracted
to
it
to
to
again
develop.
The
whole
area
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I
just
ask
that
you
move
this
forward
with
a
with
a
positive
recommendation.
A
H
Just
kind
of
following
up
on
our
previous
item,
but
one
of
the
con.
The
condition
that
is
included
with
the
recommendation
is
the
dedication
of
right
away
and
I
guess
just
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
If
that
causes
any
concerns,
I
don't
know
how
significant
of
it
is,
but
just
does
that
the
condition
to
match
the
transportation
plan
create
any.
N
E
So
if,
if
anyone
can
say
what
perhaps
planning.
T
E
W
W
D
W
I
think
Jackie
might
have
a
better
answer,
but
yeah
I
think
it
would
allow
for
I
can't
remember
if
in
the
transportation
plan
it
there.
This
is
the
sorry
Morton
Street
calls
for
a
bike
lane,
maybe
not.
K
Sure
sorry,
Jackie
Scanlon
development
services
manager
in
this
case
and
in
most
cases
like
what
Karina
says
it
allows
for
our
future
roadway
land
use
plans.
Our
future
right-of-way
land
use
plans
for
right-of-way
for
plans
for
vehicles
and
pedestrians
to
be
met
more
easily
because
it
creates
that
opportunity
of
real
right-of-way
for
those
facilities
to
be
installed.
In
this
particular
case,
it
will
allow
for
alignment
with
the
right-of-way
dedication.
K
That's
happening
at
the
larger
phase,
one
e
site,
so
a
dedication
that
obviously
this
property
was
not
involved
in
that
subdivision
that
you
all
have
seen.
So
this
will
align
the
right-of-way
with
the
right
of
ways
that
came
through
on
the
surrounding
properties,
so
that
will
allow
for
again
pedestrian
facilities
to
be
able
to
be
lined
up
in
the
future
in
a
more
consistent
way
on
both
sides
of
this
property
right.
D
So
I'm
going
to
summarize
that
to
make
sure
I've
got
it
right
this.
This
is
a
benefit
then,
as
we
continue
to
develop
all
of
the
other
Parcels
nearby,
because
it
could
allow
us
to
to
well,
it
will
allow
the
alignment
of
these
of
ped
friendly
and
bike
friendly
passageways,
so
it's
not
fragmented,
so
it
allows
a
more
comprehensive
right
of
ways
in
Transportation.
Planning
in
this
case,
is
that
correct.
K
Yeah,
so
it
allows
consistency
of
design
in
the
future.
So
when
this
property
goes
to
redevelop,
then
we
will
look
at
what
is
there?
You
know
we
are
doing
a
city-led,
First
Street
project,
currently
that
that
is
in
the
works,
but
also
on
the
north
south
on
Madison.
K
We
would
look
to
see
where
are
there,
improvements
that
need
to
be
made
when
this
property
goes
to
redevelop,
to
bring
to
improve
those
public
areas
and-
and
in
this
way,
we'll
have
the
right-of-way
as
opposed
to
on
a
city
project
where
we
have
to
purchase
right-of-way
and
sometimes
especially,
and
it
happened
in
this
case.
There
are
constraints
on
the
site
that
make
that
difficult,
and
so
this
way
it'll
just
be
available
when
this
property
redevelops.
D
Okay,
so
that
is
a
benefit
good,
that
and
so
I
have
a
related
question
then
too,
about
the
bike
and
fed
access
and
and
the
plan
packet
said
that
the
city
was
making
upgrades
on
First,
Street
and
I.
Wonder
if,
if
Karina
or
you
can
say
a
little
bit
more
about
those
improvements
and
again
what
this
rezone
would
allow.
W
Yeah
so
I
know
that
discussing
with
the
engineering
department
there
are
supposed
to
be
upgrades
to
the
sidewalk
along
West,
First
Street,
as
well
as
the
street
is
being
completely
repaved
and
then
so
the
sidewalk
is
going
to
be
brought
up
to
ADA
compliance
was
my
understanding,
so
those
were
the
improvements
along
West's,
first
street
and
I.
Don't
know
if
I
was
there
another
question
that
I
asked.
D
K
Yeah
I
think
we
would
I'm.
So
sorry,
ask
commissioner
seabor
if
he
could
confirm
that
I'm
not
sure
what
the
bike
facility
is
here
again,
because
there
was
some
constrained
right-of-way
I'm,
not
sure
what
exactly
is
going
on.
First.
H
A
little
bit
to
the
city's
first
street
project,
so
we
will
be
reconstructing
First,
Street,
essentially
from
college
to
appoint
west
of
Fairview
in
the
coming
years.
That's
getting
close
to
be
going
out
to
bid
later
in
early
in
2023.
A
big
part
of
that
project
is
sidewalk
infrastructure.
It's
a
sidewalk
where
it
doesn't
currently
exist
along.
H
This
Corridor
will
be
installed
in
many
places
where
it
exists
today
it
will
be
replaced
and
where
we
physically
can
fit
in
a
separation
from
the
road
and
the
sidewalk
by
providing
landscape
tree
Lawns
and
such
that
that
will
be
part
of
the
project
as
well,
and
a
lot
of
utility
underground
infrastructure
is
going
to
be
replaced.
So
it's
going
to
be
a
full
reconstruction
of
the
road,
a
major
change
at
the
Fairview
intersection
that
currently
has
a
significant
Hill
and
limits
visibility,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
improvements
there.
H
But
this
project
and
the
right-of-way
dedication
associated
with
the
rezone
I
think
works
in
line
with
that
and
most
of
the
dedication
of
righto
I
believe
is
along
the
Morton
Street
Frontage,
so
that
more
enables
a
future
project
either
through
Redevelopment
or
a
future
city
project
to
their
sidewalk
there,
but
either
to
reconstruct
it
or
to
put
that
tree
lawn
in
other
facilities
and
we'll
give
that
space
to
do
so.
A
K
Sure
so
my
recollection,
when
we
did
the
map
was,
you
can
see
that
also
the
parcels
to
the
West
that
are
operated
by
Centerstone
also
remain
MN
and
then
I
think
to
the
South.
So
when
we
were
looking
at
this
map
and
looking
forward
to
phase
one
East
I
think
there
was
just
some
discussion
about
existing
uses
at
the
site
and
if
those
could
be
maintained
with
a
lower
with
the
lower
mixed-use
classification
of
MN
Mr.
Robling
might
remember.
K
K
Tried
to
not
change
very
many
people's
districts
unless
there
was
a
compelling
reason,
basically,.
A
Any
other
questions
all
right.
Any
public
comments,
if
you're
here
in
the
chambers-
and
you
would
like
to
make
comment
just
step
up
to
the
podium
if
you're
online
and
would
like
to
comment
just
click
on
the
reactions
button
at
the
bottom
of
your
Zoom
window
and
then
click
on
raise
hand,
and
we
will
recognize
you
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak.
K
S
A
All
right,
we
are
back
to
the
commission,
then
for
any
final
discussion
or
a
motion.
As
a
reminder,
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
we
approve
the
waiver
for
a
second
hearing
and
forward
this
petition
to
the
council
with
a
favorable
recommendation
and
the
one
condition
that
the
right-of-way
dedication
consistent
with
the
transportation
plan,
is
required
within
180
days
of
approval
by.
L
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
that
Mass
matches
the
staff
recommendation
in
the
packet.
Do
we
have
a
second
for
that
motion?
S
D
T
H
A
And
this
is
a
text
Amendment
to
the
Udo
and
we
are
going
to
have
Jackie
Scanlon
again
to
present.
K
K
A
X
This
was
this
zoning
text.
Amendment
was
brought
to
you
by
a
resolution
2217
by
the
city,
Bloomington
common
Council.
It
required,
or
it
asked
plan
commission
to
propose
a
an
amendment
to
the
unified
development
ordinance
to
establish
an
overlay
District
related
to
the
development
of
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
X
So,
first
things
first,
what
is
an
overlay?
An
overlay
is
a
district
that
is
a
zoning
District
placed
on
top
of
or
an
existing
zoning
District
or
over
part
of
his
district
or
multiple
districts.
The
boundaries
of
the
overlay
are
often
selected
in
order
to
protect
environmental
features,
preserve
historic
buildings
or
promote
economic
and
residential
development
within
an
area.
X
The
regulations
and
boundaries
of
the
overlay.
Zoning
District
are
allowed
focused
regulation
to
be
tailored
to
areas
within
the
city
which
share
unique
characteristics.
The
regulations
within
the
overlay
may
be
more
or
less
restrictive
than
the
underlying
base.
Zoning
districts
and
those
overlay
District
standards
were
always
supersede.
The
regulation
of
the
base
zoning
district
for
all
specific
regulations
identified
within
the
overlay
District
ordinance,
so
the
city
actually
has
a
an
overlay
right.
Now,
it's
the
downtown
character,
overlay,
I'm,
sure
you're
all
familiar
within
that
there
are
six
characters:
character
districts.
X
You
can
see:
Courthouse
Square,
Downtown
core
Etc,
the
dco,
as
it's
abbreviated,
has
regulations
regarding
building
setbacks,
imperving
surface
coverages
architecture
and
allowed
uses.
So
much
like
the
existing
dco.
The
tro
transfer
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
as
it's
named.
Has
these
guidelines
from
Revolution,
20
or
1722?
X
There
are
eight
in
total
and
I'll
go
through
them
one
by
one
here.
The
first
is
subdivision
standard
should
require
alleys
in
this
area.
That
is
being
done
by
the
subdivision
development
standards.
Seen
here,
the
proposed
overlay
will
require
that
all
subdivisions
go
through
What's
called
the
infill
subdivision
development
standard
so
that
in
it's
modified
within
the
overlay
to
say
that
100
of
all
lots
are
served
by
alleys
that
meet
the
transportation
plan.
Requirements
second,
is
that
all
Drive
access
is
required
from
alleys
rather
than
streets.
X
So
that's
being
done
through
this
alley.
Access
requirement
a
driveway
accessing
the
street
shall
be
prohibited
from
side
or
rear
when
side
or
rear
alleys
are
adjacent
to
the
property.
A
platted
alley
excuse
me,
so
the
combination
of
changes
will
ensure
that
newly
created
lots
and
any
and
newly
created
lots
and
any
Lots
adjacent
to
an
existing
alley
will
be
required
to
have
Drive
access
from
that
alley.
This
will
severely
reduce
the
number
and
hopefully
eliminate
the
number
of
Drive
Cuts
within
the
overlay.
X
The
resolution
identified
four
specific
dimensional
standards
that
are
proposed
to
be
modified.
The
first
include
adjustments
to
the
impervious
surface,
maximum
and
minimum
landscape
area,
so
within
the
mixed
use
and
non-residential
zoned
properties.
The
within
the
overlay,
the
allowed
increase
to
the
impervious
surface
maximum
will
be
25
percentage
points
above
the
underlying
base.
X
Zoning
District
within
residential
Zone
properties
that
will
be
15
percentage
points,
so
that
increase
in
is
in
addition
to
the
standards
of
the
underlying
base,
zoning
District
so,
for
example,
property
within
the
mixed
use,
medium
scale
mm
zoning
District
would
be
allowed
in
85
percent
maximum.
It's
a
impervious
surface
coverage
rather
than
the
base
of
60
the
landscape.
Minimum
has
been
modified
to
match
that
increase
in
previous
in
the
impervious
surfaces.
X
All
right,
okay,
so
the
resolution
guidance
also
called
for
a
reduced
side
and
rear
setbacks.
Side
setbacks
are
proposed
to
be
reduced
to
zero
feet
and
then
in
rear
setbacks
for
mixed
use
and
non-residential.
Zoning
districts
will
be
zero
feet
and
then
for
the
residential
zoning
districts.
Those
the
rear
setback
will
now
be
10
feet.
X
So
a
reduction
in
minimum
lot
size
is
also
called
for.
That
will
be
done
through
in
the
mixed
use
and
non-residential
Zoning
districts.
There
will
be
no
minimum
lot
size
and
in
the
residential
zoning
districts
it
will
now
be
1500
square
feet
and
then
the
minimum
lot
width
in
the
district
will
now
be
35
square
or
35
feet
along
right.
It's
away
for
single-family,
duplex,
triflex
and
fourplex
uses.
They
will
util
utilize
the
R4
zoning
District.
X
This
is
similar
to
the
RH
residential,
high
density
and
RM
residential
medium
density,
and
then
there
was
a
call
for
a
reduction
of
the
elimination
of
parking
minimums.
We've
done
that
just
by
writing
that
down,
and
then
this
one
is
the
The
Pedestrian
scale.
Development
standards
for
four
first
floor
residential
uses.
So
this
is
achieved
in
a
number
of
different
ways.
X
Sorry,
this
standard
will
will
prevent
dwelling
units
from
being
located
directly
adjacent
to
the
most
well-traveled
streets
in
the
overlay,
and
that
will
apply
in
this
District
to
properties
along
2nd
and
Rogers.
Specifically.
X
Dwelling
units
which
have
front
building
walls
that
face
the
street
are
required
to
be
raised
two
to
five
feet
above
sidewalk
level.
This
will
raise
windows
and
some
private
entrances
above
sidewalk
level
increasing
privacy
from
the
street,
while
allowing
for
Windows
in
along
the
building,
facade,
activated
front,
setbacks
will
be
required
front.
Setbacks
will
not
be
allowed
to
generate
dead
space
and
will
be
required
to
provide
landscaping
or
as
an
alternative
outdoor
commercial
uses.
This
will
promote
walkability
primary
buildings
are
required
to
include
a
courtyard
equal
to
five
percent
of
the
building's
total
footprint.
X
The
courtyard
will
have
to
be
visible
from
the
sidewalk
and
will
provide
a
visual
break
from
the
building
facades,
as
well
as
activating
the
space
ground.
Four
residential
facades
are
required
to
provide
at
least
20
percent
grass
glass
or
framed
facades.
This
will
reduce
the
amount
of
blank
and
uninterrupted
walls
while
still
providing
offering
privacy
from
dwelling
units
on
the
ground
floor,
and
then
the
maximum
building
Fuller
Philly
within
the
overlay
is
limited
to
5
000
square
feet
without
achieving
affordable
housing
incentives
or
affordable
or
excuse
me
sustainable
incentives.
X
This
will
reduce
the
length
of
building
and
breakup
facades.
More
often,
so
here
are
the
resolution
1722
guidelines,
so
we
we
believe,
we've
addressed
all
of
those
we've
also
all
also
authored
additional
proposed
regulations.
The
first
is
modifying
the
loud
use
table
within
the
overlay.
X
The
allow
we're
expanding
the
permitted
uses
to
allow
for
almost
all
of
the
dwelling
uses,
specifically
all
the
Plex
uses
and
the
multi-family
uses,
so
that
they
will
be
permitted
with
use
specific
standards
throughout
the
district,
and
then
we
are
decreasing
the
number
of
uses
that
are
allowed
by
excluding
a
couple
of
uses
that
are
generally
seen
as
in
conflict
with
higher
density,
residential
developments,
things
like
crematories
or
Kennels,
and
then
due
to
the
increase
in
allowed
per
impervious
surface
coverage
on
properties
within
the
overlay,
a
standard
to
require
all
entrances
and
drives,
as
well
as
surface
level,
parking
lots
to
be
constructed
solely
of
permeable.
X
The
list
of
primary
and
secondary
exterior
finish
materials
has
been
expanded
to
give
greater
flexibility
and
Design,
and
then
oh
it.
Developments
within
the
overlay
will
be
required
to
have
Street
lighting
new
regulation
on
exterior
facades
to
present
prevent
blank
walls
will
be
proposed.
X
These
include
minimum
window
percentage
along
the
ground
floor,
as
I
mentioned
before
a
required
canopy,
Awning
or
other
roof-like
cover
to
protect
from
the
weather
and
requirement
that
each
multi-family
unit
have
direct
access
to
a
covered,
balcony
patio
or
porch
and
modification
in
the
Landscaping
standard
standards
to
promote
healthy
vegetation
growth
within
the
area
that
has
allowed
greater
impervious
surface
coverage.
This
actually
matches
what
is
allowed
in
the
downtown
right
now.
X
Okay,
so
the
as
I
mentioned
before
the
maximum
floor
plate
is
5000
square
feet.
Unless
you
achieve
incentives,
incentives,
the
incentives
have
been
modified
slightly
in
the
overlay
to
allow
for
10
000
square
feet
if
either
the
affordable,
housing
or
sustainable
development
incentives
are
achieved.
If
both
are
achieved,
the
maximum
floor
plate
can
then
be
twenty
thousand
square
feet.
X
Then
the
maximum
Building
height
is
the
same
as
the
base
underlying
zoning
District.
So
for
the
mm
zoning
District.
That
would
be
four
stories.
However,
if
tier
one
project,
affordable,
housing
projects
are
achieved,
two
additional
floors
can
be
achieved.
Tier
two
two
additional
floors
can
be
achieved,
projects
that
achieve
both
tier
one
and
two
can
combine
those
to
be
four
additional
stories
and
then
projects
that
obtain
affordable,
housing
and
sustainability
incentives
are
allowed.
X
X
It's
similar
to
other
flexibility
and
relief
procedures,
including
modern
minor
modifications
which
you're
familiar
with
or
variances
so
departures
are
intended
to
allow
for
based
adjustments
to
the
requirements
of
the
Udo.
The
departure
must
meet
the
goals
of
the
specific
standard
while
providing
exceptional
architectural
design,
which
would
otherwise
not
be
allowed
within
the
overlay.
X
So
a
request
for
the
departure
is
required
to
receive
approval
from
the
director
of
planning
or
Transportation
prior
to
being
reviewed
by
playing
commission.
The
director
must
find
that
the
site
and
building
design
offer
a
unique
and
beneficial
design
and
then
all
site
plans
which
will
require
departure,
will
be
reviewed
under
major
modification
site
plan
or
excuse
me
major
site
plan
approval
through
the
plant
Commission.
X
X
Provide
adequate
public
services
will
not
create
a
hardship,
hardship
on
adjacent
properties
unless
adequately
mitigated
and
that
all
departures
are
of
a
technical
nature
and
are
required
to
provide
for
an
exceptional
architectural
design,
which
will
enhance
the
visual
appeal
of
the
building,
significantly
enhance
the
perceived
quality
of
the
building
facade
visible
from
the
street
and
strengthen
the
public
private
interaction
at
street
level.
X
So
oops
there's
a
question.
You're,
probably
all
wondering
is:
why
is
this
Transportation
or
excuse
me,
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
rather
than
Hopewell
overlay,
District
or
some
other
name?
It's,
because
the
standards
were
intentionally
designed
so
that
they
could
allow
for
future
expansion
either
within
the
Hopewell
neighborhood
area
or
throughout
the
city.
The
these
are
standards
that
the
staff
believes
are
adequate
for
providing
public
private
Partnerships
throughout
the
city,
and
there
are
Focus
areas
similar
to
the
hospital
Redevelopment
site
throughout
the
city.
X
You
can
see
them
kind
of
in
the
green
boxes
here
there
are
a
bunch
of
them
throughout
the
town
and
they
may
be
suitable.
You
this
this
commission
or
County
Council,
May
or
city
council
excuse
me,
may
find
that
this
overlay
would
work
there
and
we
don't
want
to
limit
that
to
you
know
we
want
to
allow
the
the
toolbox
to
expand
here
so
with
that
the
planning
and
transportation
recommends
that
plan
commission
approved
the
requested
waiver
of
a
second
hearing
and
forward
zo
5122
to
the
common
council.
R
I
brought
this
up
during
our
luncheon
and
I
was
curious.
What
the
impacts
of
having
this
overlay
over
a
existing
Tiff-
it's
not
contiguous
with
it
kind
of
starts
kind
of
splicing
it
up
here
and
there
on
the
atoms,
Crossing
Tiff
it
it's
a
portion
of
that
so
I'm
kind
of
curious.
What
your
thoughts
were
about,
having
overlay
over
a
tiff
that
doesn't
completely
contain
that
Tiff.
K
Jacket
scan
the
development
services
manager
I.
Think,
like
we
said
at
the
lunch,
the
they're,
just
not
they're,
not
related
I
mean
they're
related
in
that
they're.
Both
tools
that
can
be
used
for
redevelopment,
but
whether
or
not
zoning,
District
or
overlay
is
in
line
exactly
with
the
boundaries
of
the
Tiff.
I,
don't
think
is
something
that
we
need
to
something.
R
That
we
considered
my
question
is
related
we're
looking
at
creating
an
overlay
that
has
different
setback
parameters
and
we're
looking
at
a
tiff
where,
like
some
of
the
Redevelopment
funds,
can
go
to
support
some
improvements
within
that
that
have
different
standards
and
we're
looking
at
creating
a
new
overlay.
So
the
question
is:
was
it
considered
to
look
at
the
Tiff,
as
we
were
looking
at
this
overlay.
K
So
it's
not
a
map,
so
I'm
kind
of
answering
a
question
for
the
next
petition,
which
is
fine,
I,
upped,
Mr,
Whistler,
of
course,
but
basically
as
I
said
no,
because
this
overlay
area
is
dictated
by
the
hospital
Redevelopment
Site
Area,
and
that
is
what
it
was:
the
base
of
the
area,
physical
area
that
we
started
with
when
we
were
looking
at
the
boundaries
for
where
the
overlay
would
go
unrelated
to
where
the
Tiff
is
so
I
mean
the
overlay
is
just
another
zoning
District
right
so
like
all
of
the
zoning
districts,
they
don't
align
with
Tiff
boundaries.
K
So
no,
we
did
not
take
that
into
consideration.
That
I
know
of
that
may
have
happened
when
the
initial
Hospital
outline
area
was
was
determined
and
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
else
has
more
information
on
that
than
I.
Do.
Thank.
F
Question-
and
this
is
either
for
planning
staff
or
Mr
Rooker,
but
we're
looking
at
0-51-22,
which
is
a
transformation
Redevelopment
overlay
which
I
understand
is
the
text
Amendment,
but
it
in
the
packet
is
listed
as
the
Hopewell,
neighborhood,
overlay
and
I
know.
I
have
a
conflict
with
any
conversation
we're
going
to
have
about
the
Hopewell
area,
which
is
why
I'm
stepping
off
and
I
believe,
commissioner
Cochran
is
too
for
the
second,
which
is
0-522
so
I
feel
like
some
of
us
are
getting
those
put
together
and
and
I'm,
like
probably
shouldn't,
be
up
here.
A
Well,
just
to
be
clear
what
we're
considering.
H
A
Now
is
just
the
text
Amendment,
which
sets
the
you
know
the
the
specifications
and
the
rules
for
the
district.
It
says
nothing
about
where
that
district
will
be,
and-
and
as
was
mentioned,
this,
the
text
of
this
was
written
specifically,
so
that
it
is
anticipated
that
it
will
be
applied
in
places
other
than
just
the
the
Hopewell
area,
so
I'd
be
happy
to
let
Mr
Rooker
chime
in,
but
there's
nothing
about
what
is
currently
on
the
table.
That
is
specific
to
any
area
on
the
map.
Yeah.
F
B
F
V
P
F
N
Q
A
Right
so
we
will
pause
for
a
moment.
While
we
allow
our
colleagues
to
exit
the
Deus
here
and
we'll
pick
up
on
a
procedure
in
just
a
moment.
A
All
right
so
just
for
anyone
in
the
public
who
might
be
wondering
what
what
this
is
all
about.
Just
a
quick
note
that
we
are.
We
have
two
pieces
to
updating
the
Udo
that
we're
considering
here.
The
first
is
to
establish
a
new
overlay,
a
new
set
of
rules
and
restrictions
that
can
be
used
essentially
anywhere
in
the
city.
A
The
second
would
apply
those
rules
specifically
to
an
area
where
a
couple
of
our
colleagues
have
owned
property
or
represent
property
owners,
and
so
just
to
to
be
absolutely
certain
that
we're
avoiding
any
potential
appearance
of
conflict.
They've
decided
to
recuse
themselves
from
both
pieces
of
the
discussion
tonight
again,
the
first
one
that
we're
just
discussing
right
now,
z051-22
is
simply
the
text
Amendment.
So
we'll
pick
up
our
conversation
where
we
left
off,
which
is
I
believe
with
questions
for
staff
from
Commissioners.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
commissioners?
H
Two
maybe
technical
questions.
One
is
on
one
of
the
changes
about
requiring
any
multi-family
dwelling
unit
that
has
a
front
building
wall
facing
a
street
to
be
raised
two
to
five
feet
above
the
sidewalk
level
I'm.
Just
in
my
head,
my
initial
gut
is
I,
don't
quite
understand
what's
going
on
there
and
if
you
could
just
explain
it
for
me
just
to
understand
what
that's
getting
at.
X
Sure
so
yeah
it's
two
to
five
feet
above
the
sidewalk
level.
The
idea
here
is
to
raise
windows
and
some
entrances
like
I
mentioned,
and
that
will
provide
greater
privacy.
X
It's
it's
seen
as
a
privacy
method
for
keeping
Windows
along
the
right-of-way
or
along
the
sidewalk
in
this
case,
but
making
it
harder
to
see
through.
If
you
know
the
near
west
side
of
many
of
those
windows
are
raised
a
similar
height
just
by
the
happenstance
of
the
typology
of
the
area,
but
it's
a
similar
methodology
and
aim
for
for
the
raising
of
the
windows.
They're,
often
very
close
to
the
sidewalk
but
hard
to
see
through
the
window,
but
still
provide
the
eyes
on
the
street
feel
of
safety
and
protection.
So
well.
H
Thank
you
for
that.
That
helps
me
understand
it
and
I
guess
the
only
maybe
reaction
or
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
concern,
but
just
thinking
about
like
an
apartment
building,
if
it's
free,
if
the
front
door
I'm
more
concerned
about
like
an
ADA
issue
adjacent
to
a
sidewalk
and
how
somebody
in
a
wheelchair
could
excessively
get
up
to
that
entrance.
Yeah.
X
That's
a
great
question:
the
primary
entrances
are
required
to
be
at
sidewalk
grade.
This
will
only
be
the
units
that
are
adjacent
to
the
sidewalk,
so
the
rest
of
the
building
can
be
the
two
feet
to
five
feet
below.
If
that's
how
they
want
to
design
it,
they
can
do
an
interior
ramp,
it's
up
to
them,
but.
H
H
As
you
pull
out
of
a
parking
garage,
it
can
be
hard
to
see
and
I
just
wanting
to
be
mindful
of
I.
Think
that's
a
minimum
setback.
So
there's
some
flexibility
of
like
a
small
little
triangle
or
doing
things
there
to
help
make
sure
people
can
see
pedestrians
on
the
Jason
I.
Just
wanting
to
think
that
through
a
little
bit,
not
that
I
see
concerns,
but
just
any
that
is
a
minimum,
I
guess
and
that
we
would
be
able
to
have
some
tools
there.
Yes,.
X
H
X
D
Hi
yeah
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
is
just
some
clarification
on
the
Point
made
about
the
new
text.
Around
request
for
departures
and
I
wanted
some
clarification
on
what
exceptional
architecture
design,
what
would
qualify?
What
what's
behind
that.
X
That's
a
great
question,
so
we
did
attempt
to
get
at
defining
it,
but
we
wanted
to
leave
it
open
to
your
interpretation.
The
final
say
lies
in
this
body's
approval.
So
if,
if
we,
if
you
don't
agree,
then
yeah
it's
up
to
you,
but
specifically
we're
looking
for
things
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
by
code
but
do
meet
the
standards.
X
The
expectation
of
the
standards
as
written,
so
you
know,
Building
height,
might
be
something
that
you
can
play
with
to
add
an
architecturally
interesting
feature
that
would
not
be
allowed
otherwise,
and
you
may
want
to
you
this
body
made
C
is
fit
for
you
know:
approval.
D
D
Question
then,
this
is
a
more
technical
question
about
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
and
the
idea
that
this
could
be
then
adopted
for
other
Parcels
or
other
areas,
and
I
wondered
what's
the
process.
For
that,
then
would
that
have
to
go
to
to
become
a
city
council,
a
new
overlay
suggestion
for
a
new
area,
or
would
that
just
be
something
that
a
petitioner
would
request?
Yeah
I
guess
I'm
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
that
option
affords
us
and
then
how
it
would
happen.
X
Sure
yeah,
they
would
be
exactly
like
every
other
zoning
District
as
it
stands
right
now,
you
could
request
any
petitioner
could
request
to
be
redeveloped
or
to
be
within
the
downtown
character
overlay,
even
if
they're
not
in
the
downtown.
So
this
same
rules
would
apply
if
you
can
request
a
zoning
map
Amendment
because
you're
in
the
city,
you
could
request
a
zoning
map
amendment
to
this
overlay,
then
this
body
would
weigh
in
and
common
Council
would
have
final
say
similar
to
every
other
reason.
D
Okay,
so
it
would
come
from
the
petitioner,
presumably
okay,
but
but
that
could
be
yeah,
I,
guess,
I'm
thinking
we're
not
going
to
have
a
whole
lot
of
Hospital
Redevelopment
things,
but
should
we
have
something
that
that
large
or
that
City
involved
there
could
be
an
adoption
of
that
same
transform,
Redevelopment
overlay,
okay
and
then
the
okay
one
one?
D
This
could
be
an
embarrassing
question
to
ask
in
public,
but
the
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
all
the
text-
that's
new
to
me
in
our
packet
that
looks
like
the
Udo-
is
all
in
fact
brand
new
text.
It's
not
a
document
that
is
mod.
It's
not
modifying
it's
creating
a
whole
new
specification,
correct.
X
Yes,
that's
correct,
similar
again
to
the
downtown
character
overlay,
it's
a
section
of
2002
and
this
will
be
200202
I
believe
is
the
number
to
hold
me
to
that.
But
yeah
it'll
be
a
section
right
after
the
downtown
character
overlay
and
it
just
happens
to
look
like
the
Udo,
because
it's
going
to
go
in
there.
Hopefully
yeah
yeah.
D
D
What's
what's
the
rationale
for
that?
Is
it
just
that
we
will
be
so
convinced
that
we
don't
need
to
have
a
second
hearing,
or
is
there
some
desire
to
be
expeditious
in
our
proceedings
or
what
is
what's
behind
that
waiver
foreign.
M
Thanks
for
the
question,
Scott
Robinson,
director
of
planning
and
Transportation,
the
really
the
request
comes
on
the
basis
that
this
was
originated
from
common
Council
through
their
resolution
and
not
per
se
a
staff
driven
Amendment.
If
it
were
a
staff
driven
Amendment,
we
would
certainly
not
request
that,
but
given
the
fact
that
we've
had
plenty
of
deliberations
with
our
elected
officials
about
the
intent
behind
this,
we
felt
that
it
warranted
the
request
for
one
hearing
process
before
this
body.
But
with
that
said,
it's
at
your
discretion.
So
that's
the
nature
of
the
request.
D
M
D
For
clarifying
that
I
think
that
is
an
important
thing
to
to
to
note
and
to
have
a
public
accounting
for
I
I,
just
I
want
to
avoid
the
appearance
that
somehow
we're
pushing
things
through
that
you
know
for
for
any
reason,
we
don't
want
to
push
anything
through.
We
want
to
be
deliberative
and
we
want
to
consider
them
and
ensure
ensure
there's
ample
time
for
public
comments
and
public
knowledge
of
this
process,
so
I
I
just
want
to
just
thank
you
for
confirming
that
I
think.
D
R
A
A
Requirements
or
standards,
there's
there's
one
that
talks
about
the
building
setback
being
further
back
in
in
Courtyards
being
visible
from
from
the
from
the
sidewalk.
Does
this
create
a
case
where
you
could
have
the
the
as
you're
walking
down
a
block,
there's
a
different
setback
between
commercial
buildings
and
and
residential
buildings,
and
is
that
intentional.
X
So
yeah,
as
setback,
it's
a
bill
to
range
like
I
said,
and
so
within
that
you're
allowed
to
to
ebb
and
flow
as
the
developer
would
like
to
and
then
yes,
the
idea
is
that
Courtyards
and
other
bump
outs
would
be
intentional
in
creating
a
more
walkable
Active
Space,
rather
than
being
right
up
against
a
brick
wall.
A
A
A
If
you'd
like
to
make
comment
on
z051-22,
if
you're
here
in
the
chambers,
please
step
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
for
the
record,
you
will
have
five
minutes
to
comment
if
you
are
joining
us
remotely
click
that
reactions
button
at
the
bottom
of
your
Zoom
window.
Click
on
the
raise
hand
button,
and
we
will
do
our
best
to
recognize
you
in
the
order
that
you
raised
your
hand.
A
Unanimous
of
the
entire
commission
or
unanimous
of
the
members
in
attendance-
okay,
thank
you.
Well,
then,
I
think
we
can
continue
with
public
comment
and
we'll
get
to
the
next
issue.
When
we,
when
we
get
there.
Y
A
Y
Should
I
should
I
repeat
everything?
I've
said:
okay,
my
name
is
Chris
Huntington
I'm,
one
of
the
property
owners.
That's
involved
in
the
next
petition,
not
that
I'm
initiating
it,
but
as
we've
discussed
things
are
so
intertwined,
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
make
some
comments
now
to
make
sure
they
didn't
get
lost
and
I
think.
My
first
request
would
be
that
the
commission
do
not
approve
the
waiver.
I.
Y
Think
we've
seen
there's
enough
new
stuff
going
on
here
and
enough
questions
that
it's
worthwhile
for
additional
comment,
as
well
as
consideration
by
the
commission
Etc
and
as
well
as
a
chance
to
see
some
evidence
that
I'll
be
discussing
in
a
moment.
One
of
the
reasons
I'm
here
is,
in
my
opinion
and
I,
was
not
involved
with
everything
that's
going
along
here.
Clearly,
this
overlay
was
designed
with
the
Hopewell
project
in
mind.
Y
It's
obviously
been
modified
to
be
capable
of
being
applied
elsewhere,
but,
more
importantly
from
my
standpoint
and
some
other
property
owners,
it's
also
now
being
applied
to
properties
that
really
aren't
necessarily
directly
connected
with
Hopewell
and
has
essentially
been
swept
up
and
I.
Don't
think
the
ramifications
for
those
properties
and
how
these
rules
can
apply
to
those
properties
or
not,
and
the
hardships
they
will
cause
have
been
considered
specifically.
Y
What
I'm
talking
about
the
alley,
access
rule
to
the
extent
that
I'm
creating
brand
new
plots
or
plotting
a
new
thing,
I'm
putting
in
new
alleys
everything's
great
I
can
design
the
alleys
no
problem,
doing
rear
access.
I
challenge
every
member
here
to
drive
down
the
alley
between
Howe
Street
and
2nd
and
consider
the
existing
properties
existing
buildings.
That
would
then,
if
there
were
any
new
development,
have
to
access
off
that
alleyway.
Y
There's
a
pretty
substantial
grade.
There,
we've
got
at
least
two
buildings
there
that
have
parking
directly
off
that
alley
and
are
essentially
about
the
second
story
of
the
building,
because
that's
how
steep
the
grade
is
now
imagine
trying
to
build
your
driveway
access
to
this
property
off
of
that
alley.
Oh,
and
by
the
way,
it's
all
supposed
to
be
covered
with
permeable
pavers.
Y
How
can
I
drop
20
30
feet
15
feet
to
access
a
parking
lot
and
still
have
it
covered
with
a
permeable
paver,
throw
in
the
setbacks
and
a
bunch
of
other
problems,
and
the
bottom
line
is
I
think
it
could
create
a
definite
hardship
for
a
lot
of
these
properties
in
terms
of
its
goal
to
reduce
cutouts
and
driveways
on
Second
Street,
there's
only
about
a
half
a
dozen
of
them
that
are
involved
here,
and
this
is
running
all
the
way
from
the
B-Line
Trail
to
past
the
oil
to
the
eye
center
Walker
Street
and
a
few
of
these
by
the
way
would
still
remain
because
they
actually
are
on
existing
alleys.
Y
The
other
problem
here
is
when
you're
talking
about
new
alleys,
as
I
said
you
can
plant
them
any
way
you
want.
We
have
existing
alleys,
which
in
some
cases
you
don't
even
know
they
exist.
For
example,
the
eye
center
would
redeveloped.
It
currently
has
a
entryway
on
second
and
an
entryway
on
Walker
Street
guess
what
neither
one
of
those
will
be
used,
because
there
was
a
platted
alley.
That's
about
I,
don't
know
how
long
it's
not
in
use.
Y
Y
Z
Z
The
zoning
in
the
comp
plan
reads
specifically
that
in
a
lifetime
the
purpose
of
a
lifetime
community
is
to
leverage
opportunities
for
City
and
private
planning
and
investment
to
achieve
a
lifetime
community
defined
as
a
place
that
promotes
social,
physical,
mental
and
emotional
well-being,
for
persons
of
all
abilities
across
the
entire
life
span.
Z
There
was
a
charette
process,
as
you
know,
associated
with
the
Hopewell
neighborhood
and
in
the
master
plan
for
the
Hopewell
neighborhood.
It
says
the
plan
should
leverage
development
and
investment
opportunities
to
achieve
a
lifetime
community
defined
as
a
place
that
promotes
social,
physical,
mental
and
emotional
well-being
for
persons
of
all
abilities
across
the
entire
lifetime.
Z
Hence
I
was
appreciative
of
the
commissioner's
question
about
the
accessibility
of
multi-family
developments
residences
from
the
sidewalk,
and
was
satisfied
to
hear
the
answer
to
that
question.
I
was
a
little
curious
about
the
preclusion
of
retail
in
the
neighborhood,
because
I
think
retail
has
the
potential
for
filling
or
fulfilling
the
the
idea
or
the
concept
of
a
lifetime
community
I'm
not
sure
how
retail
is
defined
in
this
context,
but
retail
might
be
an
important
element
in
a
lifetime
community.
There
are
some
amenities
in
that
neighborhood.
Z
Z
I'm,
not
I,
don't
have
a
lot
of
facility
with
the
jargon
of
zoning
and
this
various
the
standards
and
so
forth,
but
I
would
call
attention
to
the
Commissioners
to
the
testimony
that
the
Commission
on
Aging
provided
in
2018
15-page
document
that
talks
about
creating
a
livable
Community
a
lifetime
community
in
that
neighborhood.
That
obviously
goes
beyond
certain
aspects
of
zoning
purely
defined,
but
also
talks
about
programming
and
the
possibility
for
leveraging
funding
in
that
neighborhood
that
can
that
can
help
create
a
lifetime
community
in
that
neighborhood.
Z
So
I
hope
you
don't
lose
touch
in
this
transform
opportunity
lose
touch
with
the
concept
of
a
lifetime
community
and
the
potential
that
holds
for
this
neighborhood
I
understand
that
the
Obscure
phrase
transform
development
overlay
does
not
have
a
lot
of
meaning
for
people
unless
they're
familiar
with
the
concept,
the
definition
of
transform
from
the
comprehensive
plan
relative
to
other
development
themes
such
as
maintaining
and
enhancing
neighborhoods
and
transforming
neighborhoods.
Z
So
this
is
a
transform,
transformative
opportunity
if
you
will,
but
please
don't
lose
touch
with
the
concept
of
a
lifetime
community
and
what
that
might
mean
in
the
development
of
zoning
standards.
That
would
lead
to
the
creation
of
that
that
kind
of
a
community
and
that
neighborhood
not
only
in
Hopewell
but
also
perhaps
in
the
switch
yard
area.
Thank.
A
A
All
right,
seeing
no
additional
public
comment,
we
will
come
back
to
the
commission
for
any
additional
questions
or
comments
or
motion.
A
Well,
I
have
a
question:
I
guess:
I'll
just
ask
staff
if
they
would
care
to
respond
to
any
of
the
public
comment.
In
particular,
I
would
really
like
to
hear
why
the
exclusion
of
of
any
retail
I
mean
specifically.
A
Restaurant
is
a
permitted
use,
but
why?
What
what
about
restaurant
is
different
from
other
retail
forms
and
why
were
others
excluded.
X
So
the
excluded
uses
hopefully
aren't
retail
or
common
commercial.
It's
like
I
said
it's
like
Mortuary
and
other
slightly
more
extreme
uses.
The
rest
of
the
use
is
allowed
in
each
base.
Underlying
zoning
District
are
fully
allowed
and
the
reason
restaurant
is
different
is
because
it
was
limited
in
the
RM
zoning
District
to
2500
square
feet,
and
we
wanted
to
double
that
to
5
000
square
feet.
So
we
had
to
write
a
new
use,
specific
standard
and
permit
them.
S
A
Can
can
we
amend
that
perhaps
to
be
retail
sales
Dash
big
box,
so
that
we
can
make
that
clear
that?
That's
that?
That's
a
that!
That's
a
an
individual
item.
X
It
matches
the
the
definition
the
use
as
defined
it
will
be
updated
to
be
more
clear.
We
have
an
amendment
that
will
appear
in
front
of
council
to
fix
some
typos,
including
those
commas.
Those
are
supposed
to
be
semicolons
got
it
all.
X
A
Great,
would
you
care
to
comment
on
some
of
the
other
issues
that
were
brought
up,
particularly
the
the
question
of
alley,
access
and
grade
and
pavers,
and
if
that's
something
that
you
had
considered.
X
Sure
well
so
aliexis
we
kind
of
had
our
hands
tied
there
in
that
Council
had
that
requirement.
So
we
just
adopted
it.
That
was
what
their
Envision
their
vision
for.
The
overlay
was,
we
agree
with
it.
Cutting
Drive
Cuts,
especially
along
things.
Roads
like
second,
would
be
great,
so,
yes,
the
there
potentially
maybe
obstacles
which
a
variance
would
be
required,
but
you
know
that
would
be
up
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
You
could
certainly
request
a
variance
from
almost
anything
in
the
overlay,
but
yeah.
A
All
right,
thank
you
any
other
questions
from
commissioners
or
comments.
Commissioner
Smith.
E
The
only
one
I
was
when
I
saw
that
it
was
85
impervious
service
allowed.
Do
we
have
any
concerns
about
that
with
flooding.
X
So
no,
the
overlay
has
a
master
plan
as
you're
familiar
with,
which
will
specifically
be
designed
to
mitigate
flooding
potential.
That's
why
the
impervious
surface
increase
was
seen
as
acceptable,
so
no
I,
don't
believe,
there's
any
issue
and
engineering
and
the
developer
will
hopefully
take
care
of
any
concerns
when
those
come
up.
Thank
you.
A
Any
other
questions,
commissioner
Kinsey.
D
I
think
my
my
only
hesitation
is
about
some
of
the
aspects
that
the
commenter
raised:
Chris
Huntington,
raised
about
other
property
owners,
input
and
thinking
through
what
Ali
access
would
mean
in
some
of
these
properties
and
I
realized
that
that
gets
really
specific
very
quickly.
And
you
know
this
is
intended
as
an
overlay
and
even
within
that
there
I
believe
believe
there
can
be
exceptions,
and
somebody
should
correct
me
if
there
aren't
or
would
there
would
not
be
variances
allowed
within
that.
That
would
be
important
to
know
but
I.
D
My
probably
my
and
then
coming
off.
That
concern
is
I'm,
I'm,
just
wondering
about
the
hour
and
it
being
whatever
9
17
now
and
whether
we
should
not
waive
the
second
hearing
and
allow
this
to
continue
of
to
the
next
meeting.
D
You
know
I
I,
don't
want
to
belabor
something
that
seems
like
it's
gone
through
good
deliberation.
So
please
don't
think
that
that's
what
I'm
suggesting
but
I
I,
also
don't
want
to
rush
things
if
they
deserve
a
little
bit
more
attention
to
some
of
these
details,
so
I
I'd,
like
some,
you
know
it's
a
mix
of
a
comment
and
a
slight
question
about
what
how
do
we
allow
for
some
of
those
exceptions.
K
I'll
I'll
say
related
specifically
to
the
Alie
access
like
Mr
Roebling
said.
That
was
one
of
the
eight
criteria
that
came
from
Council,
so
we
won't
take
that
out.
We
don't
suggest
that
that
gets
taken
out
because
that's
what
they
dictated
to
us
to
and
prepare
very
specifically.
So
that
seems
so
they
would
add
that
back
in
and
then
it
would
come
back
to
us
after
that
was
reamended.
K
So
if
you
have
and
Mr
Robinson
can
correct
me,
but
if
you
have
issues
with
some
of
the
extra
things
that
are
in
that
don't
come
from
the
resolution
that
may
be
a
different
issue,
but
those
items
from
the
resolution
we
are,
you
know
they
have
directed
us
to
prepare
those
and
so
that
that's
what
we've
had
to
do
in
this
situation.
M
Scott
Robinson
director
of
planning,
Transportation
thanks,
commissioner
Kinsey
on
the
question.
I
will
say
just
a
couple
things
to
keep
in
mind
and
certainly
again,
it's
your
discussion
as
a
commission
to
continue
this
to
another
hearing.
But
with
that
said,
Phase
One
East,
which
is
the
property
currently
demolished
engineerings
in
their
or
the
site,
has
been
cleared
and
Engineering
is
working
on
coordinating
utility
development,
that's
property
that
is
under
City
ownership,
and
the
remainder
of
the
hospital
site
will
soon
be
under
City
ownership.
M
Redevelopment
commission,
so
we
are
in,
we
being
the
city,
are
working
with
developers
to
redevelop
the
site,
and
so
the
sooner
that
we
start
figuring
out
what
standards
we're
talking
about
the
better.
With
that
said,
we
can
always
amend
the
rules,
we're
going
to
already
bring
forward
to
the
beginning
of
the
night,
I
already
committed
to
mending
the
downtown
first
floor
requirement.
M
If
there's
a
standard
in
these
specifications
that
we
don't
quite
get
right
and
we
start
hearing
from
the
development
Community
we'll
bring
them
back
to
Spring
the
risk
that
we
might
have
by
having
another
meeting
we're
in
this
challenging
time
of
year
with
the
holidays
coming
up
when
Council
can
get
it
on
their
legislative
calendar
that
we
might
actually
end
up
timing.
This
amendment
very
close
to
our
our
kind
of
Udo
amendments
in
the
spring.
So
with
that
said,
I
think
I
would
certainly
request
the
commission
to
move
forward
with
that
tonight.
M
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
One
very
specific
question,
then
that
helps
me
understand
what
we're
working
with
here.
What
happens
then,
if
a
current
property
owner
who
is
in
the
overlay,
you
know
as
as
Chris
Huntington
the
commenter
mentioned,
the
property
changes,
the
eye
center
was
the
example.
What
what
allowances
do
they
have,
then
you
know:
should
we
not
make
some
change
to
the
specific
text
around
Ally?
D
You
know,
let's
presume
it
goes
through
as
it
is.
What
would
been
a
property
owner?
What
recourse
would
they
have?
Would
it
be
a
standard
request
through
the
vza
or
or
what?
How
would
that
occur?.
X
Yeah,
so
as
it
as
it
stands,
right
now,
petitioner
could
request
a
variance
from
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
If
there
were
an
issue
with
that
and
then
not
every
development
would
trigger
this
requirement.
X
So
there
are
limited
compliance
issue
or
standards
within
the
Udo,
so
you
could
expand
I,
don't
remember
them
all
off
the
top
of
my
head
I'm.
So
sorry,
but
there
are
some
that
would
not
trigger
full
compliance
on
the
site
which
would
include
these
alley
requirements,
so
that
would
be
like
a
change
of
use
or
something
to
that
effect.
A
So
does
just
to
clarify
that
so
an
existing
single
family
home
as
long
as
it's
staying
a
single
family
home
and
not
you
know,
having
a
change
of
use
or
some
sort
of
massive
change
to
the
to
the
site
plan
would
not
be
forced
into
compliance
with
the
new
standards.
X
D
T
E
Like
the
motion
that
we,
we
take
a
vote
on
this
as
it's
as
it's
to
add,
the
overlay.
A
All
right,
let
me
let
me
just
read
the.
Q
A
Yes,
any
motion
right
now
would
would
would
need
to
apply
only
to
z051-22
the
text
Amendment
and
there
it
is
on
the
screen.
The
staff
recommendation
is
that
the
plan
commissioner
approved
the
requested
waiver
of
a
second
hearing
and
forward
051-22
to
the
common
council
with
a
positive
recommendation.
A
Mr
Kinsey
has
seconded
okay
any
final
discussion
before
we
call
the
roll
on
the
motion
to
forego
the
second
hearing
and
forward
this
to
the
common
council
with
a
positive
recommendation.
A
All
right
and
just
as
a
reminder,
this
will
require
five
votes.
Just
like
anything
else,
even
though
there
are
fewer
of
us
here
so
Darla,
would
you
please
call
the
roll.
U
C
S
A
That
motion
carries-
and
we
have
one
petition
remaining-
it's
not
quite
9
30,
but
I
think
we
still
need
to
suspend
the
rules
since
we're
past
nine.
In
order
to
introduce
this
yes,.
V
V
Things
first,
they
say
you
can't
consider
any
petition
any
new
petition
after
9
pm.
This
would
be
a
new
petition.
Your
rules
also
say
that
you
adjourn
at
9
30
PM,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
you're
in
the
middle
of
a
petition.
So
if
you
wanted
to
continue
with
the
meeting,
I
might
suggest
a
motion
to
suspend
both
the
nine
o'clock
Rule
and
the
9
30
rules.
Yes,.
A
We
could
handle
both
of
those
in
one
motion
if
someone
would
like
to
make
that
I
would.
I
would
also
just
encourage
you
if
you
do
have
substantial
questions
about
the
boundaries
or
the
changes
to
the
map,
let
that
be
known
now
before
we
decide
to
continue
this
discussion,
I'm
happy
to
support
suspending
the
rules.
A
If
this
is
going
to
be,
you
know
pretty
quick,
but
if,
if
you
think
we
need
more
discussion
about
the
lines
on
the
map,
let
it
be
known
before
we
take
the
vote
on
suspending
the
rules
here.
Is
there
a
motion
on
suspension
of
the
rules.
H
I'll
move
that
we
suspend
the
rules
to
start
a
new
petition
after
nine
o'clock
and
continue
the
meeting
after
9
30.
and
just
the
quick
rationale
is.
These
next
item
feels
very
related
to
the
previous
one
and
I
believe,
there's
time
constraints
for
Council
to
consider
these,
and
it
just
seems
to
be
nice
to
keep
them
together
and
on
the
same
track.
If
possible.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
any
comment
before
we
call
the
roll
on
that
motion
all
right.
The
motion
is
to
suspend
the
rules
and
introduce
this
additional
petition
and
continue
our
deliberation
as
long
as
it
takes
past
9,
30.,
I.
V
I
do
want
to
mention
just
as
one
point
of
order
before
the
vote.
Your
rules
do
also
say
one
thing
I
neglected
to
mention
before,
and
that's
that,
if
you
don't
hear
a
petition,
that's
on
your
schedule.
The
plan
commission
is
supposed
to
schedule
a
special
meeting
within
one
week
of
the
original
meeting.
To
then
take
up
the
item.
That
was
not
heard.
I
apologize
for
neglecting.
A
That
thank
you
so
what
you're
saying
in
light,
if
we
don't
suspend
the
rules,
we're
coming
back
for
another
special
meeting.
A
S
E
A
All
right
so
I
believe
that
needed
to
be
a
unanimous,
and
since
that
was
not
unanimous,
that
motion
fails.
That
means
we've
got.
We've
got
to
schedule
another
meeting.
Do
we
need
to
do
that
tonight
before
we
adjourn.
R
I
might
kick
it
over
there
do.
We
have
to
actually
set
the
actual
date
or
do
we
just
have
to
meet
within
the
week?
So
then
we
could
well.
A
A
A
Well,
I
do
think
my
preference
would
be
that
we
get
something
scheduled
tonight
just
for
the
sake
of
the
public,
knowing
when
it's
going
to
take
place,
anybody
who
might
be
watching
now
who
might
want
to
continue
to
follow
this
deliberation
would
benefit
from
knowing
when
it's
going
to
be.
There.
X
Is
no
notice
requirement,
however,
we'll
need
48
hours
notice
to
post
the
agenda,
so
this
counts
as
the
notice,
because
they've
already
noticed
the
the
petition
we've
already.
Q
A
A
I
would
like
to
move
that
we
schedule
a
special
session
to
continue
this
deliberation.
Monday
the
21st
at
5
30
p.m.
In
this
room.
A
Q
A
Second,
that
motion
sorry,
do
we
have
a
second,
yes,
okay,
any
objections,
and
he
can
questions
or
comments.
K
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
want
to
have
discussion.
Obviously
at
least
five
of
you
have
to
be
able
to
attend
for
that.