EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS APRIL 2ND MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOME ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION WELL OTHER ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE US ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS. DURING THOSE ITEMS WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. YOU CAN DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ALSO DO SO FROM HOME BY FOLLOWINGHE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ON YOUR SCREEN ON SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WELL AND OTHER ITEMS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM WITH A TWO TERM LIMIT. WE HAVE SIX COMMISSIONERS PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALL RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ROGER, WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED THIS EVENING WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING ON 86TH STREET. MR. CASSIDY IS HERE WITH A STAFF REPORT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION I'M PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF DYLAN POMUS. LET ME GIVE THE SLIDES UP . OKAY. YEAH, PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, ITEM ONE TONIGHT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A CANNABIS CANNABIS MANUFACTURING USE LOCATED AT 333 WEST 86TH STREET. SO THE SITES JUST LOCATED HERE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 86TH AND HARRIET AVE IT IS A MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR THE USE AND THE SITE IS GUIDED INDUSTRIAL AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN IT'S ZONED IN OUR I3 GENERAL INDUSTRY ZONING DISTRICT. THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SO THE USE WOULD OCCUPY JUST A 650 SQUARE FOOT SPACE WITHIN THE MULTITENANT BUILDING AND THE PRIMARY USE FOR THE WOULD BE A PRODUCTION SPACE FOR THINGS LIKE PRE-ROLL GUMMIES, CHOCOLATE LOLLIPOPS AND THE OPERATOR OWNS AN ADDITIONAL CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESS IN THE CITY JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED IT HAS BEEN INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL THEY HAVE MULTIPLE USERS CANNABIS USES WITHIN THIS BUILDING. SO IF YOU'LL RECALL BACK IN PLANNING CASE 2020 5-205 AND THERE WAS APPROVAL FOR A CANNABIS CULTIVATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THIS SAME BUILDING AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER EXISTING USES IN THE BUILDING AS WELL. IT WAS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THE CITY ITSELF DOESN'T LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CANNABIS USES IN ONE BUILDING OR AT ONE SITE. I THINK THE KEY THING THAT THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT DOES IS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO STACKING OF LICENSES SO THEY DO HAVE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE USERS IN THE SAME BUILDING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE OPERATING SEPARATE AND YOU KNOW THEY HAVE SEPARATE LICENSES AND AND REQUIREMENTS AND ARE KIND OF OPERATING WITHIN THOSE REQUIREMENTS FROM OCM. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS FOR ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE PERMIT RELATED TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO JUST THE NEED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IN THE PARKING LOT THROUGH THIS PROJECT GIVEN THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL PRODUCTION SPACE IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE ORDER WOULD REALLY BE RESTRICTED TO THE ROOM ITSELF. SO THERE'S NOT AN ODOR MITIGATION CONDITION ADDED TO THIS ONE LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN SOME OTHER USES I BELIEVE THE CANNABIS CULTIVATION USE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THIS SITE WILL BE INSTALLING ODOR MITIGATION FOR THEIR SPACE. BUT JUST GIVEN THAT IT'S ALSO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA AND NOT A TON OF RESIDENTIAL IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THERE ISN'T AN ODOR MITIGATION CONDITION ON HERE BUT THE OEM STILL HAS RULES RELATED TO ODOR THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD STILL NEED TO FOLLOW AS WELL. AND THEN THIS WAS A PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT JUST KIND OF SHOWING WHERE THOSE YOU KNOW, KIND OF TABLES SET UP FOR PACKAGING AND PROCESSING FOR FOR THOSE USES AND THEN YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT WASH SINKS AND DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THROUGH DIFFERENT BUILDING CODES AND THINGS TO AND SO HERE AGAIN THE DEFINITION FOR THIS USE MEETS OUR CANNABIS MANUFACTURER USE IN THIS CASE THE KIND OF CANNABIS PLANT OR PRODUCTS BROUGHT TO THE SITE AND THEN THE PRODUCTS ARE THEN MADE ON SITE THAT ARE THEN SHIPPED TO A LICENSED DISPENSARY OR DISTRIBUTOR. SO THERE'S NO RETAIL SALES WITH THIS USER AT THE SITE. SO NO, NO GENERAL PUBLIC ACCESS IN TERMS OF RETAIL SALES THERE THEY'RE MAKING THE PRODUCT AND THEN GIVING IT TO TO A RETAILER OR SOMEONE ELSE WHO'S THEN ACTUALLY SELLING THE PRODUCT. AND SO THE MOTION LANGUAGE HERE IS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN AND WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MR. CASSIDY WE'LL BEGIN WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MR. CASSIDY JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT AND APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE MY IPAD HERE TONIGHT IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADHERING WITH OCM GUIDELINES AND STATE LAW. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF IMPLIED I GUESS. YEAH. CHAIR ACTING COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM WE DO HAVE A CONDITION ON THERE THAT ALL STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO COMMENCING OPERATIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF MEANT TO COVER SOME OF THAT AND THEN OCM TOO BEFORE THEY ISSUE ANY LICENSES HAVE THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND ARE KIND OF HAVE STRICT GUIDELINES AND DOING THE REVIEW AND EVERYTHING TO BEFORE THEY WOULD ISSUE THEIR LICENSE AND THEN YOU KNOW THIS WILL GO THROUGH ADDITIONAL LIKE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND WHATEVER OTHER LICENSING THEY MIGHT NEED TO PERFECT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. CASSIDY IS THIS WITHIN THE LYNDALE AVENUE RETROFIT PLAN BOUNDARIES OR IS THIS OUTSIDE OF THOSE BOUNDARIES ? AND I'M ASKING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC SO I CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION HERE. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE LYNDALE AVENUE RETROFIT PLAN AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE APPLICATION HERE. SO THEY JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD AS WE MOVE INTO DISCUSSION AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER. WAIT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER FROM PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AROUND CANNABIS WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY IF THERE'S GOING TO BE CANNABIS PRODUCTS WITH THC KEPT ON SITE AND PROCESSED ON SITE? I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS LARGELY SURE. YEAH. I CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER WHITE YEAH THERE'S NOT AND THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC CONDITION RELATED TO LIKE SECURITY CAMERAS AND THINGS I COULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S SOME REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE OCM AND SOME OF THAT BUT YEAH WE'RE KIND OF SO THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC I GUESS REQUIREMENT OR CONDITION ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT I THINK A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES ARE AWARE OF THAT AND TRY TO DO THEIR OWN WORK TO DO TO MAKE SURE IT'S SECURE AND EVERYTHING JUST BECAUSE IT CAN BE PRONE TO SOME OF THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I MEAN TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SECURITY PLANS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT YEAH I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE. THANK YOU. YEAH THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO YOUR APPLICATION . YEAH SURE. ABSOLUTELY. IS THIS IS THIS JUST ON? YES, IT IS. HELLO EVERYBODY. WELCOME. I'M TOMMY ANDREA AND I'M OWNER ACTUALLY OF CBD HOUSE JUST RIGHT DOWN THE STREET HERE AND THERE FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS. I'M JUST VERY GRATEFUL TO BE HERE TODAY. THIS IS A CULMINATION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WORKED FOR FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS. I HAVE MY WHOLE LIFE INVESTED INTO THIS. I'VE WORKED WITH OVER 150,000 PEOPLE ACROSS OUR STATE. I'VE HELPED SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS INDUSTRY BASICALLY GET BACK ON THEIR FEET TO BETTER HEALTH AND I'M SO GRATEFUL JUST TO BE HERE JUST TO YOU AND HAVE THIS OFFERED TO ME AND YEAH, THIS IS JUST THE NEXT STEP FOR OUR BUSINESS SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, GRATEFUL AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND YEAH, I'M SUPER EXCITED. SO THAT'S IT. YEAH. THANK YOU. NICE TO MEET YOU. LIKEWISE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SEE NO. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET YOUR SIGN IN SHEET SO WE HAVE YOUR INFO FOR THE RECORD THERE AND THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. YEAH. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. MISS O'DAY, IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY? ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE. OUR STAFF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FINAL CALL FOR ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM. SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. WE'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. AND WE WILL MOVE INTO DISCUSSION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. IT SEEMS LIKE A CUT AND DRY CASE SIMILAR TO OTHER CANNABIS MANUFACTURING BUSINESSES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US. IT FITS WITH THE ZONING FITS WITH THE COMP PLAN. I THINK IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW HAVING TO RETROFIT IS IS A GOOD THING. IT MEANS THAT THERE'S EMPLOYERS CLOSE BY TO WHERE WE WANT TO DRIVE DENSITY. I TRUST THE OCM AND GET THE STATE REGULATIONS TO HANDLE KIND OF THE MORE NON PLANNING RELATED CONCERNS OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BUSINESS AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION ACTUALLY OTHER COMMENTS I DO FIND THIS TO BE A PALATABLE APPLICATION IT'S CODE COMPLIANT AND THE APPLICANT HAS COME FORWARD WITH A A FINE FINE APPLICATION FOR US. I THINK BEING OUTSIDE OF THE LYNDALE AVENUE CORRIDOR THERE IS GOOD I THINK THIS IS A GREAT SPOT FOR IT NOT CLOSE TO REALLY ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SO SHOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUES WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND I TOO WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER ANY THANK YOU CHAIR IN CASE P.L. 2022026-36 HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING IN A MULTITENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 333 WEST 86TH STREET. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. THIS IS A FINAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS AN APPEAL IS RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 7TH AT 4:30 P.M.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH ALSO IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON REGARDING THE ANTENNA CODE AMENDMENT AND MISS O'DAY HAS THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSION. YES. ITEM TWO ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS FOR A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO TOWERS AND THE APPLICANT IS OUR BLOOMINGTON HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. SO THE EXISTING CODE CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR TOWERS AND RESIDENTIALLY ZONE LOCATIONS SUCH AS PARK SITES GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, SCHOOL AND UTILITY AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES AND THEN PLACES OF ASSEMBLY WHEN IT'S FULLY CAMOUFLAGED BY A BELL TOWER STEEPLE OR A SIMILAR STRUCTURE. AND SO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE TOWER TO REMAIN IF A PLACE OF ASSEMBLY SITE IS REDEVELOPED INTO ANOTHER USE THAT'S ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. YES. >> AND SO HERE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. IT'S IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 21.302 .37. THE UNDERLINED SECTION IS THE PART THAT'S BEING ADDED. IT'S ADDING SUBSECTION FOUR WHICH SAYS THAT FORMER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY SITES THAT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED WHEN A TEN ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE IS FULLY CAMOUFLAGED AS A BELL TOWER STEEPLE OR SIMILAR STRUCTURE. SO BASICALLY ALLOWING TOWERS WITHIN THAT SUBSECTION FOR AND SO THIS APPLICATION REALLY IS AIDING THE HRA AND TO REDEVELOPMENT OF ST MARK'S SITE AT 8630 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH A COUPLE MONTHS AGO OR LAST SUMMER YOU ALL REVIEWED AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM QUASI PUBLIC TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT WOULD KIND OF AID REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE AND TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SO BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE EXISTING PLACE OF ASSEMBLY HAS A TOWER THAT'S CAMOUFLAGED AS A BELL TOWER THAT HOSTS TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT. BUT THAT TOWER CAN KIND OF COMP COMPLICATE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. >> AND SO BACKING UP JUST A LITTLE BIT, TOWERS ARE COMMONLY LOCATED AT PLACES OF ASSEMBLY BECAUSE PLACES OF ASSEMBLY HAVE HUGE LOT SITE LOT SIZES AND TYPICALLY HAVE TALL STRUCTURES TO HIDE THESE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND THEIR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, CELL TOWERS TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES REALLY TRY TO LOCATE IN THE KIND OF MOST IMPACTFUL AREA BUT WHEN A PLACE OF ASSEMBLY CEASES OPERATION WHICH IS MORE COMMON NOWADAYS, THE LIMITED IT'S THE USE IS LIMITED FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT BACK IN THE 1950S AND 60S AND SO IT'S HARDER TO KIND OF REUSE THAT BUILDING INTO ANOTHER PLACE OF ASSEMBLY USE. AND SO THIS OPENED UP KIND OF A REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE HRA BECAUSE THERE'S HIGH DEMAND FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS EXISTING SITE IS ALREADY INTEGRATED INTO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALREADY HAS ACCESS TO STREETS AND UTILITIES. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT WIRELESS COMPANY COMPANIES SPECIFICALLY THEY HAVE REALLY LONG TERM LEASES WITH TOWERS LONGER THAN 30 YEARS AND THESE LEASE AGREEMENTS THEY INCLUDE PRETTY STRICT LANGUAGE ABOUT A RIGHT OF A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL ACCESS RIGHTS EASEMENTS AND EVEN INFLUENCE REGARDING THE FUTURE USE OF THE LAND. AND SO WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT FUTURE USE OF THE LAND WOULD BE REALLY CHALLENGING WITHOUT ALLOWING THE TOWERS TO RETAIN LEGAL STATUS. SO THE RESULT IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD IS A LARGE, POORLY MAINTAINED SITE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS JUST USED TO HOUSE A TOWER . AND SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE ANTENNAS ARE REALLY COMMON AT PLACES OF ASSEMBLY AND SO THERE ARE FIVE EXISTING SITES IN BLOOMINGTON THAT ARE PLACES OF ASSEMBLY THAT HAVE THESE TOWERS AND HIDDEN INSIDE THE STEEPLE AND BELL TOWERS. AND SO IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO BE APPROVED OR ADOPTED, THESE SITES COULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPACTED SHOULD THEY CEASE OPERATIONS AS WELL AND LOOK TO REDEVELOPMENT. SO WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. THIS DOES GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING LATER NEXT MONTH AND I DO HAVE BLOOMINGTON EACH A AVAILABLE HERE MICHAEL MORALES HERE IF THERE ARE ANY KIND OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR HIM. THANK YOU MISS OR DO WE WILL START WITH QUESTIONS FOR OUR PLANNING STAFF COMMISSIONER LISA THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY I AM I THINK I SHOULD AIR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND RECUSE MYSELF. I SHOULD HAVE SAID IN THE BEGINNING BUT YEAH, I THINK IT'S GOING TO PAUSE FOR A SECOND THERE COMMISSIONER SO DO WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY ON THAT? >> YES, WE DO HAVE KEVIN TO ASK ONLINE . THAT'S KEVIN TOSCA. >> CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY? YEAH. LET ME START BY VIDEO REAL QUICK. OKAY. YEAH, I'M HERE. >> YEAH. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMISSIONER YOU SAY MAY HAVE OR MAY WANT TO RECUSE HIMSELF IS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BUT THAT'S ALL I HEARD REALLY CORRECT. >> I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE ITEM. DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUES THERE OR SHOULD HE RECUSE HIMSELF AT THIS TIME? >> WELL, I FEEL I FEEL LIKE IF HE CAN'T IF HE FEELS LIKE HE CAN'T BE IMPARTIAL, HE SHOULD JUST RECUSE HIMSELF AND LEAVE THE ROOM I THINK FOR THE REST OF THE CONSIDERATION HERE. >> OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION OF WHAT A CONFLICT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE OVER THE MEETING HERE. SO BUT ANY COMMISSIONER IS ALLOWED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THEY FEEL LIKE THEY CAN'T BE IMPARTIAL. >> SO MAYBE THAT'S THE ROUTE WE SHOULD TAKE. VERY WELL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU MR. TUSKY WE'LL MOVE ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WAIT THANK YOU CHAIR. I'M JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY SO I APOLOGIZE IF THIS WAS IN THE MATERIALS AND I MISSED IT. SO IF A SITE THE PLACE OF ASSEMBLY STOPS OPERATION AND GOES INTO REDEVELOPMENT AND THIS WOULD ALLOW THE TOWER TO REMAIN WHAT HAPPENS THOUGH IF THE BUILDING IS ELIMINATED ADDED IN ORDER TO PUT UP A DIFFERENT BUILDING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE TOWER IS JUST SORT OF THERE PERMITTED TO BE THERE IN PERPETUITY WHETHER IT'S STILL ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING OR NOT? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST IF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE THAT IT'S ATTACHED TO ARE PART OF WHEN THE PLACE OF ASSEMBLY CLOSES DOWN REMAINS AND IS REPURPOSED? YEAH. SO I'LL TRY MY BEST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE ALLOWS FOR THE TOWER TO REMAIN ONLY ON THE FORMER PLACE OF ASSEMBLY SITES THAT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. SO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ANYTHING THAT'S KIND OF ALLOWED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE LIKE FULLY CAMOUFLAGED BY LIKE A BELL TOWER OR STEEPLE UNDER THIS LANGUAGE. SO IN THAT OOPS SO IF YOU JUST THINK OF THIS IMAGE ON THE RIGHT THE BUILDING WOULD BE GONE AND THEN THIS TOWER WOULD REMAIN AND MAYBE THEY WOULD KIND OF CHANGE THE DESIGN OF IT, MAYBE NOT HAVE IT BE KIND OF AS RELIGIOUS ESTHETIC I WOULD SAY. BUT YEAH, IN ESSENCE THE TOWER WOULD REMAIN AND STILL WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE CAMOUFLAGED AS A BELL TOWER STEEPLE OR SIMILAR KIND OF STRUCTURE THAT HIDES THE ANTENNA FALL OUT MR. CHAIR I'M JUST WAITING IS THAT IN PERPETUITY OR JUST UNTIL THE END OF THE CONTRACT THAT'S IN PLACE WHEN THE PLACE OF ASSEMBLY CLOSES DOWN AND IT'S REDEVELOPED? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE IS THIS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEIGHBOR YOU KNOW, A NEIGHBORHOOD OF HOUSES WITH A TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT FOREVER JUST BECAUSE IT USED TO BE A PLACE OF ASSEMBLY OR IS IT JUST TO ALLOW THAT THE EXISTING CONTRACT TO RUN OUT BEFORE THE THE RESTRICTION WOULD KICK IN? I MIGHT DEFER TO KEVIN TO ASK IF HE I KNOW THE LEASE AGREEMENTS TYPICALLY ARE 30 PLUS YEARS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY REMOVE THE TOWERS OVER TIME OR IF YOU KNOW THEY CHANGE HANDS OVER TIME SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS AND ALL. YEAH THANK YOU. >> YEAH SO CHAIR CHAIR COMMISSIONERS PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT A LOT OF THESE TOWERS SITES THERE'S REALLY INTRICATE LEGAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE FORMER OWNER AND THEN THE TOWER OPERATOR OR A KIND OF BROKERAGE COMPANY THAT BROKERS OUT LEASES AND STUFF. >> BUT SOME ARE EASEMENTS, SOME ARE GROUND LEASES. SO SOMETIMES THERE'S ALREADY PERMANENT RIGHTS THERE, SOMETIMES THERE ISN'T. THERE'S A GROUND LEASE THAT LASTS FOR EIGHT OR NOT FOREVER BUT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. >> BUT IN THOSE CASES THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER COULD JUST DECIDE TO NOT RENEW THE LEASE AND THEN THE TOWER COULD BE REMOVED IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT UNDER THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS OR CONTRACTS. >> SO IT COULD ALWAYS GO AWAY BASED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER THEIR RIGHTS UNDER APPLICABLE AGREEMENTS. ON THE FLIP SIDE, IF YOU DON'T ALLOW THEM IF YOU DON'T PERMIT THEM BY CODE THEY BECOME LEGALLY NONCONFORMING AND THAT PROHIBITS EXPANSION OF THE TOWERS BUT ALSO CAN REALLY BE PROBLEMATIC FOR PREEXISTING GROUND LEASES AND EASEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. >> THERE MAY BE RIGHTS THERE TO EXPAND OR ADD EQUIPMENT OR ADDITIONAL RENT THINGS LIKE THAT IF IT BECOMES LEGALLY NONCONFORMING THAT CAN LIMIT OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. SO IT'S REALLY ABOUT PRESERVING FLEXIBILITY AND KIND OF ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT IN THESE TOWERS TO REMAIN SO WE'RE NOT TRAMPLING ON ANYBODY'S CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS COMMISSION OR ANY THANK YOU CHAIR AND THIS IS ACTUALLY BUILDING ON THAT QUESTION AND THERE'S SORT OF THREE PARTS TO THE QUESTION SO I'LL ASK THEM ALL AT ONCE. THE FIRST ONE IS WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PLANNING PARTICULARLY ONCE THE DEVELOPER'S DONE WITH IT? SO IS IT A CARVE OUT OF A PIECE OF LAND THAT IS BETWEEN THE CITY WHERE THE CITY HAS THE RELATIONSHIP THE DEVELOPER RETAINS A RELATIONSHIP? IS IT ON SOMEONE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR EASEMENTS AND ACCESS ISSUES? SO THAT'S QUESTION ONE. QUESTION TWO IS IF THEY CHOOSE TO SORT OF REDESIGN THE COSMETIC APPEARANCE OF THE TOWER, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, COME BEFORE ANYONE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I KNOW LIKE IN SOUTH FLORIDA THEY MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE PALM TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD DO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DESIGN AND IF SO, DOES ANYBODY WEIGH IN ON THAT? >> AND WHAT WAS THE THIRD QUESTION? I THINK ACTUALLY THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER LONNIE I MIGHT HAVE MR. PALERMO SPEAK TO THE FIRST QUESTION ABOUT EASEMENTS AND DEVELOPER OR QUESTIONS AND MAYBE IF HE HAS ANY INSIGHT ABOUT DESIGN OR IF THERE'S ANY TALKS ABOUT WHAT THIS COULD LOOK LIKE. ASSISTANT HRA AUTHORITY SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A DOUBLE A THERE. ASSISTANT HRA ADMINISTRATOR MIKE PALERMO IS HERE. WELCOME WELCOME THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR COMMISSIONER THE NAME SO YEAH WITH YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS RELATED TO I'M LIKE THE PLANT LIKE THE PLANT YEAH HOW IT SO PROPERTIES WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DESIGN YET WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'LL LIKELY DO WHICH WILL LIKELY BE A CARVE OUT PROPERTY OR AN OUT LOT PROPERTY IN THE PLAT I, I WILL SAY WE'RE KIND OF IN BECAUSE OF NEW CODE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN PASSED WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN MAXIMIZE THE SITE AND UTILIZE SOME OF THOSE NEW CODE AMENDMENTS SO THE WE DON'T HAVE FINALIZED DESIGN YET BUT THAT'S OUR INITIAL CONCEPT IS THAT THERE WILL BE AN OUTLINE MAINTAINED OWNERSHIP BY THE HRA BUT THAT NO PROMISES THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY WHERE IT IS AND I'M THINKING YOU KNOW TAKE A STEP OUT FROM HRA THINKING THIS IS A BROAD CITY CODE AMENDMENT RIGHT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE EASEMENTS THAT ARE STRADDLING OR ON ONE SINGLE PROPERTY AND THEY JUST HAVE ACCESS EASEMENTS THEN THAT'S EXISTING PROPERTY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IS THAT YOU JUST CREATE THE ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THIS IS ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THOUGH WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE THAT LOT THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE HRA. AS FOR YOUR SECOND QUESTION RELATED TO DESIGN, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY HAS ANY SORT OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN THAT THEY REVIEW BUT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS WHEN ANTENNAS COME IN OR ALTERATIONS COME IN THAT DOES GO THROUGH A PERMIT REVIEW CORRECT. SO THERE IS SOME LITTLE BIT OF OVERSIGHT BUT AS FAR AS ESTHETICS, THE CITY DOESN'T GET INTO THAT. BUT I WILL SAY FOR THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SITUATION WE FIRST OFF THAT THERE'S A BIG CROSS ON THE PROPERTY. SO IF THE HRA IS OWNING THIS WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T HAVE A BIG CROSS SYMBOL ON THE PROPERTY. SO WE WERE LOOKING AT HOW WE WOULD ALTER THAT AND ALSO MAKE IT A LITTLE LESS STICKING OUT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERN. COMMISSIONER WHITE WHERE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THIS TOWER WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT THIS WILL BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE CAN FIGURE THAT THIS IS MAYBE MORE IN SOMEONE'S BACKYARD RATHER THAN THEIR FRONT YARD? HOW DO WE MAKE IT BLEND IN A LITTLE BIT? WE ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH THAT THE EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW IS IN THE BUILDING SO AS WE DEMOLISHED THE THE CHURCH BUILDING WE'RE HOPING TO MAINTAIN THAT THAT EQUIPMENT IN THE BRICK BUILDING AND POTENTIALLY HAVE A MURAL OR SOME SORT OF LANDSCAPES GREENING TO KIND OF SOFTEN THAT A LITTLE BIT AT THE GROUND LEVEL JUST SO THAT THAT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN SOME OF THE TOWERS YOU SEE WHERE IT HAS WIRES AND ALL SORTS OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT. WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE SEEING THAT WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THAT AND I KNOW THE TOWER DOESN'T WANT THAT EITHER. WE WANT TO KIND OF ENCAPSULATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND MAKE IT KIND OF BLEND IN AS OTHER UTILITIES TEND TO DO. COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS QUESTION IS FOR BUT I WILL JUST ASK YOU KNOW TYPICALLY WITH ANTENNA CONTRACT COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTS WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER? SO IF THE IF THE ORIGINAL ENTITY THAT WAS CONTRACTED WITH IS NO LONGER AROUND, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TOWER IS MAINTAINED AND DOES NOT BECOME AN EYESORE UNSAFE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ? >> KEVIN ARE YOU ABLE TO CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS? THE CITY IS A PARTY TO A LOT OF THESE BECAUSE THERE'S MANY IN PARKS, SOME ON WATER TOWERS AND GENERALLY THE THE THE CELL PHONE CARRIER MIGHT BE VERIZON OR T-MOBILE HAS A LOCAL AGENT THAT THEY WORK WITH THAT KIND OF IS THEIR AGENT AS FAR AS LEASING AND NEGOTIATING THAT PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER SO THE CITY GENERALLY BESIDES THE TERMS OF IF IT'S ON CITY PROPERTY THEN GENERALLY YOU KNOW WE HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT OVER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE TOWER BUT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IT'S GENERALLY JUST A MATTER OF PRIVATE NEGOTIATION. SO IN THE CASE OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS NON HRA OR NON PUBLICLY OWNED A B JUST PURELY A MATTER OF PRIVATE CONTRACTING BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. DE COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE SLIDE PLEASE? AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING MY VERBIAGE RIGHT. SO WE WERE LOOKING AT A FORMER OR SOON TO BE FORMER BELL TOWER AT ST MARK'S CHURCH BUT IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE THE TOWER REFERS TO THE ACTUAL CELLULAR NETWORK DEVICE AND NOT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE CORRECT? CORRECT. SO CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THIS REFERS TO ADJUSTS THE TOWER AND NOT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. OKAY PERFECT. SO TO CLARIFY MR. TUSK'S REMARKS THE CELLULAR CARRIER TYPICALLY IN THIS EACH DEAL CAN BE DIFFERENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEIR EQUIPMENT BUT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WOULD BE UP FOR NEGOTIATION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY. OKAY PERFECT. MR. CUNNINGHAM I'M NOT SURE I'M CLEAR NOW. SO I THINK WHAT MS.. O'DEA SAYS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU JUST SAID APOLOGIZE. SO WHEN WE SAY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CHURCH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSING THAT IS THAT IS HIDING. YES. CELLULAR BETTER EXAMPLE MIGHT BE MR. TUSK IS WATER TOWER SCENARIO OR WHAT? SO THE CITY OWNS THE WATER TOWER. THE TOWER IN THIS CODE LANGUAGE WOULD REFER TO THE ACTUAL BOX THAT SENDS CELLULAR SIGNALS. YES IT WOULD REFER TO THE ACTUAL BOX. >> I THINK WE DO DEFINE TOWERS IN OUR CITY CODE. I DON'T HAVE THAT DEFINITION IN FRONT OF ME BUT AS THIS IS WRITTEN IT'S JUST THE TOWER. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO EXPAND UPON THAT. YEAH I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE THE ORDINANCE IS YEAH IT'S THE LIKE SUPPORT STRUCTURE SO THE EQUIPMENT AND THEN ANY KIND OF SUPPORTING STRUCTURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT SITS ON. SO IN THIS CASE LIKE I THINK JUST TO GO BACK TO THIS EXAMPLE LIKE THE CELL TOWER IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE ACTUAL LIKE EQUIPMENT BUT THEN IT WILL REALLY JUST DEPEND ON THE SITUATION OF WHERE THAT SITE IS IN AND WHAT THE CONTRACT FOR NEGOTIATION IS OF WHO'S LIKE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEN YOU KNOW IN THIS CASE IF IT'S A BELL TOWER OR WHATEVER IS KIND OF WRAPPED AROUND THE ANTENNA AND ALL OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. SO WHEN IT'S LIKE A CITY SITE OR WATER TOWER OR SOMETHING LIKE THE CITY'S MAINTAINING THE WATER TOWER BUT IF IT'S ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, I THINK JUST TO WHAT MR. TUSK WAS TALKING ABOUT, IT'LL KIND OF DEPEND ON THAT PRIVATE CONTRACT AND THOSE TWO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS OR ENTITIES WHO'S ACTUALLY LIKE MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURE KIND OF AROUND IT OR AM I MAKING PEOPLE MORE CONFUSED? SORRY COMMISSIONER WHITE IF I COULD NO I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> I THINK THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT WOULD BE THEN WHAT RECOURSE IS THERE FOR NEIGHBORS WHEN THE TOWER STARTS TO DETERIORATE AND ISN'T BEING PROPERLY TAKEN CARE OF BY WHATEVER ENTITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? IS THAT IN IN A NUISANCE? IS IT A YOU KNOW, AS A RECOURSE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT AT SOME POINT SOMEONE IS EITHER FIXING IT, MAINTAINING IT OR REMOVING IT THE WHOLE STRUCTURE? YEAH, YEAH. CHAIR KICKED IN. COMMISSIONER WHITE SO YES IT GOT TO A STATE OF DISREPAIR THEN YES. OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF WE CLD PULL THINGS FROM KIND OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AROUND THAT. I THINK IT WOULD ALSO DEPEND ON AGAIN KIND OF THAT PRIVATE CONTRACT OF LIKE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT MAINTENANCE AND IF THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING IN THE CASE OF LIKE TWO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IT'S KIND OF WHATEVER'S IN THAT CONTRACT IS THE RECOURSE THAT THEN THE PRIVATE ENTITY KIND OF TAKES ACTION ON OR SOMEONE COULD TAKE ACTION ON. BUT ON THE CITY SIDE WE'D BE ABLE TO USE KIND OF THAT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ON OTHER THINGS TOO AND BE INVOLVED AND THEN YEAH. KEVIN TUSKY I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD SORRY, UNMUTE MYSELF. >> CHAIR COMMISSIONERS NO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING MORE TO ADD. YEAH. THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE IS WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENFORCES SO WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AND KIND OF SEE WHAT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THERE ARE ABOUT YOU KNOW DIFFERENT LIKE ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES IN THERE BUT IT'S PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE SO WE COULD FIND SOMETHING TO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S AN APPEARANCE ISSUE OR A DETERIORATION ISSUE THE CITY COULD, YOU KNOW, USE OUR CIVIL FINE PROCESS ON IT. >> OTHER THAN THAT LIKE YEAH, LIKE DAKOTA SAID THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CONTRACTUAL OR MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION SO THERE MIGHT BE AN ACTION FOR LIKE A BREACH OF CONTRACT OR SOMETHING TO COMPEL THE WHOEVER'S RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN IT BETTER. SO IS THERE A POTENTIAL SITUATION WHERE THIS SO THIS APPLICATION OR THIS FUTURE OR THIS REDEVELOPMENT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS? SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THAT TOWER THAT WHOLE THING CELL TOWER AND THE HOUSING GETS TURNED OVER TO A WELL NOT THE CELL TOWER BUT THE HOUSING GETS TURNED OVER TO A SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SO MR. PALERMO, IF YOU COULD I KNOW YOU SAID YOU'RE NOT TOTALLY SURE BUT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THAT THAT THIS TOWER WE'RE LOOKING AT GETS THERE BECAUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER I CHAIR WE WOULD NOT DO THAT IN THIS SITUATION. I DON'T THINK WHEN WE GET TO THAT REPLANNING PROCESS I THINK THERE'LL BE OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS BUT LIKELY YOU'RE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS HERE IN THIS SCENARIO WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE RECEIVING RENT FOR THIS PROPERTY BUT THERE MIGHT BE A SITUATION WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER IS PURCHASED THIS THEY'LL CONTINUE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE RENT ON THAT GROUND LEASE, RIGHT. SO THEY'LL WANT TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THAT RATHER THAN TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO SOMEONE ELSE TO RECEIVE THAT MONEY IN THIS CASE THEY'VE PURCHASED THEIR EASEMENT OUTRIGHT AT THE BEGINNING SO WE WON'T BE RECEIVING RENT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THAT LAB. WE WON'T PUT THAT ON A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAIN THAT. BUT THAT YOU KNOW THAT GETS IN KIND OF THE PLANNING DISCUSSION WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN THAT REDEVELOPMENT WOULD COME IN BECAUSE YOU LIKELY WOULD HAVE SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS EXAMPLE WE REALLY WANTED TO DO SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE IT'S SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY OR MAYBE TOWNHOMES. AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MESSY MIDDLE HERE. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE WILL LOOK LIKE. BUT OTHERWISE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE A HOA OR SOME SORT OF COMMON ENTITY THAT WOULD HAVE THAT OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE. SO IT CAN GET VERY COMPLICATED REALLY QUICK. SO I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER BUT IN THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION THE HRA WOULD MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THAT LOT AGAIN FOR THOSE MAINTENANCE REASONS THAT IF THE TOWER IS NOT FOLLOWING THEIR OBLIGATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE WHICH BEING A CITY ENTITY CAN EASILY COME IN AND EITHER HAVE THEM DO THAT MAINTENANCE OR TAKE LEGAL ACTION AND FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION FOR THAT. THANK YOU AS PLURAL. MR. CUNNINGHAM, I INTERRUPTED YOU THERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? NO, I HAVE. MY ONLY QUESTION FOR STAFF WAS THE DEFINITION OF A TOWER. JUST THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS EVERYBODY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANY THANK YOU CHAIR AND I THINK THIS KIND OF BUILDS ON WHAT WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT BUT WHAT IS THE LIABILITY DYNAMIC IN THIS ALSO I MEAN RECOGNIZING YOU KNOW IF A TREE FALLS ON SOMEONE'S HOUSE OR FALLS IN SOMEONE'S YARD BUT IT'S NOT IN THEIR YARD, THERE'S NO HOME INSURANCE THAT'S GOING TO CAPTURE THAT LIKE WHO HOLDS THE LIABILITY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO IMAGINE THAT WHILE IT'S THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY AND THE CHURCH HAS MADE THE ARRANGEMENT FOR IT THAT'S BUNDLED IN THERE WHATEVER TYPE OF INSURANCE THEY HAVE BUT IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS FELL OVER ON SOMEONE'S HOUSE, THE POTENTIAL OF STARTING A FIRE AND VERY COMPLICATED LIABILITY ISSUES IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LOOKED AT? AND A SECOND QUESTION IS IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DEALT WITH AND ADDRESSED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT WE KNOW OF OR IS THIS LIKE A NEW IDEA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ? I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT QUESTION IS BEST POSITION TO THOSE TWO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONER SO TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION, THE LIABILITY IS REALLY ON THE CELL PHONE TOWER COMPANY. SO WE HAVE THESE AGREEMENTS SET IN PLACE WITH THE TOWER. THERE ARE SEVERAL LONG PAGE CONTRACTS THAT OUTLINE WHEN THOSE SITUATIONS HAPPEN WHO IS LIABLE AND IT REALLY DOES LIE WITH THE TOWER COMPANY AGAIN THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING THE MAINTENANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO LIABLE FOR IT AND THAT'S FOR THOSE IT'S SPELLED OUT IN THAT AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO MAINTAIN YOUR TOWER AND ASSUME LIABILITY WE'RE PROVIDING THE LAND THAT YOU ARE DOING SO SIMILAR TO A BUSINESS OPERATING IN A LARGER PROBLEM. YEAH. SO THERE'S AGREEMENTS THAT OUTLINE THAT SO WE WOULD NOT BE THE ONE LIABLE FOR THAT. IT WOULD BE THE TOWER. THIS IS I THINK GOING TO BE UNIQUE TO BLOOMINGTON BECAUSE BLOOMINGTON HAS THIS UNIQUE KIND OF TOWER STRUCTURE WHERE WE ALLOW THIS IN INSTITUTIONAL USES BUT WE DON'T ALLOW IT IN RESIDENTIAL USES. OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE AS YOU KNOW EVERY ZONING DISTRICT IS VERY DIFFERENT. OUR ZONING CODES VERY DIFFERENT. SOME COMMUNITIES DO ALLOW THEM IN RESIDENTIAL USES BUT THEY HAVE CONDITIONS ON THEM. SOME JUST OUTRIGHT PROHIBIT IT AND DON'T ALLOW IT IN INSTITUTION TIONAL USES WE TOOK THIS KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND WHERE WE KNOW THAT WE WANT THESE TOWERS THEY HAVE TO BE NEAR RESIDENTIAL USES TO SERVE THOSE RESIDENTS RIGHT? SO WE FOUND THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF ALLOW THEM IN THOSE LARGER INSTITUTIONALIZED THAT AND SO THEY POINTED OUT YOU KNOW IN THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THAT SERVICE BUT BE A LITTLE BIT LESS IMPACTFUL ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAMOUFLAGE IT. SO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THAT CAMOUFLAGE BUT UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THESE ARE GOING TO END UP BEING REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS AND WITHOUT THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY ISN'T AVAILABLE AND THEN IT CONTINUES TO BE A SITE THAT VACANT AND UNDER MAINTAIN MR. CARSON DO ANYTHING THAT YEAH CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER LEDDY I THINK MAYBE JUST TO ADD ON THAT SECOND POINT OF THE QUESTION TO IF OTHER HOW OTHER CITIES DO THIS AND I KNOW MIKE HAD JUST TOUCHED ON THIS SO IT DOES KIND OF VARY FOR CITIES I WOULD SAY LIKE REALLY REALLY THE INTENT OF THIS RIGHT NOW IS THE TOWER THAT'S AT THE ST MARK'S SITE ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE WITH THE CURRENT LEASE LIKE IT'S THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND SO REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO NOT MAKE IT A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY THAT JANE JUST KIND OF FURTHER COMPLICATES ALREADY A COMPLEX KIND OF LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE LEASE. AND SO IT'S JUST KIND OF STATING BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY ALLOW IT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT IF THE PLACE OF ASSEMBLY SITE WANTS TO REDEVELOP WE'RE JUST ALLOWING THAT TOWER TO KIND OF BE THERE AS A PERMITTED USE AND KIND OF KEEP IT MORE FLEXIBLE FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT. AND SO THAT'S REALLY KIND OF I KNOW IT'S KIND OF HARD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE GOOD ANSWERS BECAUSE IT'S SO SITE SPECIFIC AND ON THE INDIVIDUAL KIND OF PRIVATE CONTRACT ON WHAT SOME OF THOSE DETAILS ARE. BUT I WOULD SAY REALLY THE CORE OF THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE MAKING IN WITH THE ORDINANCE IS DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW THOSE TOWERS TO BE A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR WOULD YOU LIKE THEM TO BE KIND OF PERMITTED AND KIND OF MAINTAIN SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THE ZONING SIDE? COMMISSIONER WAIT SORRY. ONE ONE LAST QUESTION AT LEAST FOR ME PROBABLY YEAH. I KNOW THERE'S OVER THE YEARS I'VE HEARD VARIOUS SITES OF STUDIES ABOUT LIVING IN PROXIMITY TO COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND AND POTENTIAL RISK THAT THAT MIGHT POSE AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY THAT SCIENCE MAY BE OUT OF DATE? I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN A VERY LONG TIME. I KNOW SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CHANGE RAPIDLY BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING ANY KIND OF MANDATED BUFFER OR ANYTHING AROUND THE TOWER TO ALLOW FOR THOSE CONCERNS AND I KNOW THAT WILL BE A PLATTING AND YOU KNOW, PLOTTING ISSUE. BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THAT'S PART OF THE CONSIDERATION AT ALL OR IF MY SCIENCE IS REALLY OUT OF DATE. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER WHITE. I INVITE OTHERS TO ADD ON TO THIS BUT I HEARD FROM MR. JOHNSON BEFORE HE LEFT ON VACATION THAT THE FURTHER YOU ARE AWAY FROM A TELECOMMUTING STATION SITE WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY HAS LIKE LONGER SIGNALS AND THAT IS MORE IMPACTFUL THAN JUST BEING LIKE RIGHT RIGHT NEXT TO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT VERY WELL BUT BASICALLY THE FURTHER YOU ARE I THINK IS MORE IMPACT THE CLOSER YOU ARE THERE'S NOT AS MUCH IMPACT AS YOU WOULDN'T MAYBE THINK. YEAH YOU YOU KNOW IT GETS REALLY COMPLICATED BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO LONGER IT CHANGES THE SIGNAL TYPE AND THEN ACTUALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEVICE THAT'S SENDING IT TO THERE SO YOU THE DEVICE ITSELF IS ACTUALLY MORE IMPACTFUL BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT TO YOUR HEAD AND THAT IT'S SO YOU'RE GETTING MORE FROM THE ACTUAL DEVICE THAN YOU ACTUALLY ARE FROM THE TOWER THAT'S SENDING IT BECAUSE THIS ALSO HAS TO BE JUST AS POWERFUL TO SEN THOSE WAVES BACK SO IT YEAH WELL IT YOU SEE THAT TOWER THERE AND YOU THINK CONCENTRATION IS ACTUALLY MORE IMPACTFUL FROM YOUR YOUR PHONE. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN CONSIDERING PURCHASING THE SAVE AND PUTTING RESIDENTIAL WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WELL AND WE DID SOME RESEARCH AS WELL AND BECAUSE THE AMERICAN CANCER INSTITUTE HAD STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT ACTUALLY IT'S NOT IMPACTFUL AND YEAH SO IT'S MR. PALERMO YOU ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS APPLICATION. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO FOR IT? NO, I'LL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT POINTS THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH AS STAFF AS WELL AND REALLY WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE SEE THIS AS OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT THIS COULD POP UP. YOU KNOW WE HIT THIS SITE WHERE IT'S FOUR ACRES. IT'S GREAT SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL. WE WANT TO PUT RESIDENTIAL IN THERE. THERE'S REALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP THIS SITE BECAUSE IT IS IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE ONLY REUSE WOULD BE A CHURCH BUT THEY WERE STRUGGLING TO FIND A CHURCH TO OCCUPY THE SITE. SO GIVEN ITS LOCATION IT'S NOT NEAR HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS THAT CHURCHES TEND TO LOCATE NOWADAYS. IT'S NOT A LARGE SITE THAT CHURCHES LOOK FOR THESE DAYS SO THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF REUSE OPPORTUNITY AND WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO DO THIS CODE AMENDMENT KIND OF HINDERS THIS PROPERTY. BUT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE SIMILAR SITUATION THAT WOULD BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR NEW ZONING CODE AND MISSING MIDDLE OPPORTUNITIES. SO WE SAW THIS AS JUST KIND OF ADDRESSING FUTURE ISSUES AS WELL THAT MIGHT POP UP. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR EXCUSE ME MR. PALERMO I'M SORRY YOU HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK. YES, I WAS. WAS THIS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM BURDEN ON THE PROPERTY SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WEIGHED WHEN YOU WERE SEEING IF I WAS GOING TO ENGAGE IN THIS OR IS THIS KIND OF A LAST MINUTE TITLE? OBJECTION BLINDSIDE NO CHAIR CHAIR, COMMISSIONER THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR QUITE A WHILE. PART OF THE FEW ITERATIONS THAT WE HAD COME UP WITH WAS YEAH LOOKING AT THE NON CONFORMITY FACTOR AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CELL TOWER SAID WE WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY DID THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT SAME LOOK RATE MAYBE WE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES THINGS THEY WANT MAYBE MAKE ALTERATIONS ADD A TENOR THOSE ARE SORT OF THINGS THEY'RE STUCK WITH WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY SO OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T WANT THAT. ANOTHER OPTION WE EXPLORED WAS PUTTING IN THE RIGHT AWAY AND NOW SITUATION WHERE RIGHT NOW THEY CAN JUST ACCESS THE TOWER ,THEY CAN DO MAINTENANCE, THEY CAN DO THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO DO IF YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GET A RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS FROM PUBLIC WORKS. SO IT ACTUALLY ADDS ANOTHER LAYER. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO TRY AND GET TO THIS POINT. SO WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A MORE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THEM SAYING THEY'LL WORK WITH US IN GOOD FAITH EFFORT IF WE WORK TO MAINTAIN THIS TOWER AT WHAT IT IS TODAY. AND SO YEAH, IT'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO THIS CODE AMENDMENT AS KIND OF THE THE COMPROMISE WE CAME WITH. BUT AGAIN LOOKING BROADER WE SEE THIS AS A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY WE HAD WORKING WITH THE CELL PHONE TOWER BUT KNOWING THAT THERE'LL BE OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT WILL RUN INTO THIS ISSUE AS WELL AND WE HAVE TAKEN THIS LONG YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS TO KIND OF COME TO THIS FOR AS OTHER DEVELOPERS THEY'LL WALK AWAY, RIGHT? SO SO THE MORE THAT WE CAN MAKE IT EASIER TO FACILITATE THIS IN THE FUTURE FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THE BETTER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SEEING NONE WE WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS NOBODY LEFT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OTHER THAN STAFF. THERE'S A DAY IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? >> ALL MEMBERS OUR STAFF. VERY WELL. I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED OUR MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO WE WILL MOVE INTO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER ONE THANK YOU. CHAIR WE'LL START OFF BY SAYING I HAVE BEEN EVER SINCE I FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE ST MARK'S PROJECT REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT GREAT REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND I WOULD SAY I JUST ENCOURAGE ALL PARTIES TO KEEP ASKING THESE QUESTIONS AND HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS PROACTIVELY BECAUSE I THINK DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO CONTINUE TO RUN THE TRAPS BEFORE IT BECOMES TEN YEARS FROM NOW AND WE'RE LIKE OH WAIT WHY DID WE GO DOWN THIS PATH? AND I THINK JUST REALLY MAKING SURE RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE THESE OTHER POTENTIAL SITES, MAKING SURE THAT THE CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING AND ENCOURAGE I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS RECOMMENDATION AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF OTHER ISSUES ARISE AND WHATNOT I WOULD LOVE TO BE KEPT INFORMED OF THEM SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IF FURTHER APPLICATIONS COME FORWARD LIKE THIS WE ARE LEARNING FROM THIS SINCE IT IS SUCH A NEW NEW CONCEPT. THANKS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. IT COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. YEAH. GENERALLY SPEAKING I DON'T HAVE ANY BIG OBJECTIONS TO IT. I THINK I JUST FELT FEEL IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THIS CASE IN FRONT OF US THE ORDINANCE IS UNIVERSAL. IT'S FOR IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES, YOU KNOW, ANY CASE THAT THAT COMES OR PROPOSAL THAT COMES FORWARD. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY FOR ME ANYWAY THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE IT WORKS IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW THERE'S THERE'S POTENTIALLY OTHER SITUATIONS AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CODE LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH BROADLY SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO COVER WHAT WE NEED IT TO COVER AND STILL PROTECT THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT. SO I APPRECIATE THE THE ATTENTION AND THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO THIS. I YOU KNOW, I TOO AM EXCITED THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. AND AGAIN, AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER SAID, JUST URGING, YOU KNOW, CAUTION AS THESE OPPORTUNITIES COME UP TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS ARE BEING PROPERLY INFORMED THAT WHAT THIS STORY IS I'M SURE THEY'LL ASK AND THAT YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE SAFETY AND AND UPKEEP CONSIDERATIONS ARE BEING COVERED. SO SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE, I'M I'M SUPPORTIVE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF WITH THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE US ALLOW A NEW TOWER TO BE BUILT OR IS IT ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING TOWER SO THIS CODE AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR KICKED IN THIS IS ONLY FOR EXISTING EXISTING TOWERS TOWERS AT EXISTING PLACES OF ASSEMBLY BECAUSE THE WAY I READ THE MOTION IT SAYS TOWERS AT EXISTING PLACES OF ASSEMBLY WHICH TO ME SUGGESTS A NEW TOWER COULD BE BUILT OR A SECOND ONE I GO YEAH I GUESS A CHAIR COOKED IN. YEAH YOU COULD ALWAYS AMEND THE LANGUAGE WE COULD JUST SAY LIKE EXISTING TOWERS THAT EXISTING TOWERS THAT FORMER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY IN THE OR IN I GUESS RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE THERE BUT HOW I READ THE CODE OF MINUTES SPECIFICALLY FOR EXISTING TOWERS AT PLACES OF ASSEMBLY THAT HAVE BEEN CAMOUFLAGED COULD CONTINUE SO TOWERS THAT ARE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WOULD STILL ONLY BE ALLOWED IN THOSE KIND OF HANDFUL OF CASES. SO AT LIKE PLACES OF ASSEMBLY KIND OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SITES THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO IT THIS WOULD IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND THE CHANGE WOULD STILL NOT ALLOW A TOWER A NEW TOWER TO BE BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THANK YOU MR. GUEST COMMISSION TODAY THANK YOU CHAIR. >> I HAVE ACTUALLY ONE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. I ALSO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT ONE OF MY OVERARCHING CONCERNS IS THAT IF THERE ARE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD AND IT ENDS UP IN SOMETHING THAT LEADS TO LITIGATION AND WHATNOT, I DON'T THINK THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON OR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS WANT TO BE TAKING ON VERIZON, AT&T, T-MOBILE IN COURT. I MEAN THOSE ARE VERY, VERY, VERY DEEP POCKETED LEGAL TEAMS. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AND I'M SURE MR. TASK AND HIS TEAM HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT ALL THIS. BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE IT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT THIS WOULD BE MY MAJOR CONCERN IS THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED DOWN THE ROAD AND AS LONG AS THAT'S BEING FACTORED IN I AM SUPPORTIVE FOR THIS RESOLUTION RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR. I SWEAR I HAD QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE. ASK THEM BEFORE I DID AND I'M IN MY OWN LITTLE ISLAND OVER HERE TONIGHT. I'M IN GENERAL IN FAVOR OF THIS. THE APPLICATION NOTED VERY FEW SITES THAT THIS APPLIES TO WHERE I WOULD CAUTION THE CITY AND THE HRA AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THIS MIGHT IMPACT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. FROM WHAT I RECALL ABOUT THE ST MARK SITE THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO WHERE ARE WE ADDING A LAYER TO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE THAT IS REALLY COMPLEX AND POTENTIALLY FRAUGHT WITH LEGAL JARGON AND REQUIRES A LOT OF EXTRA EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND. SO WHEN I HEAR THAT THAT IS POTENTIALLY NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE ST MARK SITE I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THESE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE APPLYING TO SEVERAL OTHER SITES WITHOUT THINKING DEEP INTO WHAT THOSE MIGHT LOOK LIKE WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WILL LOOK LIKE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW AND WE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE. IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT WHAT IMPACTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BUT I THINK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST A HANDFUL OF THESE TOWERS I FEEL THAT I CAN BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING AND THE CITY HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION FOR SIX MONTHS ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? IF NOT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION BEFORE I PUT THE MOTION AND DO WE WANT TO ADD THE WORD EXISTING AFTER TOWERS? IS THAT IS THAT THE MOTION OR IS THIS GRAPHIC? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CAN, YOU KNOW, DO A LITTLE MOVEMENT FROM THE DAIS HERE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT. I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING EXISTING TOWERS AT FORMER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY SITES AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED THERE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. IS THERE A SECOND? SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWING EXISTING TOWERS AT FORMER PLACE OF ASSEMBLY SITES. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO THIS ITEM WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 4TH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH JUST JUST WE WILL AWAIT THE RETURN OF COMMISSIONER ISA TO THE CHAMBERS AS OPPOSED TO RETURN AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, OUR FINAL ITEM OF THE EVENING THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. CASSIDY ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSION. YEP. THEY'RE FILLING IN FOR NICK HERE TONIGHT SO JUST WILL HIGHLIGHT OUR TWO UPCOMING MEETINGS HERE IN APRIL. SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON APRIL 16TH AND WE'LL HAVE A QUICK INTRODUCTION TO OUR NEW CITY MANAGER ZACK WALKER WILL BE HERE AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO KIND OF RELATED STUDY SESSION ITEMS. SO THE OFF STREET PARKING SUPPLY STUDY WHICH WAS ON 2026 WORK PLAN AND THEN RELATED KIRK ROBERTS FROM OUR ENGINEERING DIVISION WILL BE THERE TO TALK THROUGH THE CITY'S ON STREET PARKING POLICY SO WE CAN KIND OF HAVE THOSE IN TANDEM THERE AND THEN OUR APRIL 23RD MEETING WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ONE FOR A REZONING OF 8030 OLD CEDAR AVE FOR A RETAIL TENANT AND THEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE AT 9545 PENN AVE SOUTH AND THEN THERE'S JUST SOME OTHER UPDATES THERE FROM NICK IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE BOARD AND COMMISSION CONNECT MAYBE JUST TO LET SEND NICK A TEXT AND CAN CAN GET YOU THE ROOM INFORMATION AND THEN WE HAVE OUR STATE CONFERENCE AND FOLLOW. GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. CASSIDY THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ITEMS THEY'D LIKE TO DISCUSS? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM KIND OF A LESS SERIOUS ITEM. I NOTICED WE HAD NEW POWERPOINT TEMPLATES GOING BACK TO THE STATE OF THE CITY. I GUESS ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN IT OR ANYTHING ABOUT BLOOMINGTON INTUNE OH SURE. YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM YEAH. SO IT'S KIND OF NOW THE CITY'S PRACTICE AFTER EACH ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY WHATEVER THAT THEME IS WE KIND OF NOW WE'LL HAVE MORE CONSISTENT I GUESS BRANDING AND SLIDES THAT YOU'LL SEE THERE. BUT YEAH, IT'S AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE. IT COVERS JUST YOU KNOW A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE CITY OVER THE YEARS. SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED I DIDN'T ATTEND MYSELF BUT I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF GOOD GOOD UPDATES SO IF YOU ARE CURIOUS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE CITY AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, FEEL FREE TO WATCH THAT ON YOUTUBE AS WELL. THANK YOU. YEAH PERSONALLY I'M GOING TO MISS THE BEST OF BLOOMINGTON SLIDES. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE NICE IN OUR BEST ANYMORE OF ANY OTHER ITEM THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SEEING NONE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR APRIL SECOND MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. >> GOOD NIGHT