We're leaving and welcome to this April 2nd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, 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. While other items that come before us are public hearings. During those uh 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 following the instructions that are on your screen. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority, while in 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. 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. Cassand is here with a staff report. All right. Uh, good evening planning commission. I'm kind of uh presenting on behalf of Dylan Palmer. So, let me get the slides up. Okay, perfect. All right. So, yeah, item one tonight is a conditional use permit application for a can cannabis manufacturing use located at 333 West 86th Street. So, the site's just located here um near the intersection of 86th and Harriet A. that is a multi-tenant um industrial building for the use. Um the site is guided industrial in our comprehensive plan and then it's zoned in our I3 general um industry zoning district. This was the site plan provided by the applicant. So the um use would occupy u just a 650 square foot um space within the multi-tenant building. Um trying to find the primary use for the um would be a production space for things like pre-roll, gummies, chocolate, lollipops. Um and the operator owns an additional cannabis related business in the city. Um just a little bit further in the floor plan that was provided um it has been indicated that there was a proposal to have multiple users uh cannabis uses within this building. So if you'll recall um back in planning case 2025-205 um there was approval for a cannabis cultivation conditional use permit um in the same building. Um and then there's a couple of other existing uses in the building as well. Um it was noted in the staff report um the city itself doesn't limit um the number of cannabis uses in one building or at one site. Um 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 um to make sure that they are um operating separate and and you know they have separate licenses and and requirements and are kind of operating within um those requirements from OCM. Um one of the other things um for one of the conditions on the um permit related to uh landscaping requirements um that were highlighted in the staff report. So, um just the need for some additional lighting and landscaping um in the parking lot through this project. Um given that it's uh a relatively small production space, um it was indicated that the odor would really be restricted to the room itself. So, there's um not an odor mitigation um 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 um will be installing odor mitigation for their space. Um but just given um that it's also an industrial area and not a ton of residential in the immediate vicinity um there isn't an odor mitigation um condition on here, but the OCM still has rules um 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 um where those um you know kind of tables set up for packaging and and processing for um for those uses and then you know different wash sinks and different requirements um through different building codes and things too. And so um here again the definition for this use meets our cannabis manufacturer use. um in this case the kind of cannabis plant or products brought to the site and then the products are then made on site um that are then shipped to a licensed dispensary or distributor. So there's no retail sales um with this use or at the site. Um so no no general public like access in terms of retail sales. They're they're making the 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. Cassand. We'll begin with questions for staff. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. Um um Mr. Cassand just wanted to clarify it. I apologize I don't have my iPad here tonight. Uh, is one of the conditions of the conditional use permit adhering with OCM guidelines and state law? >> Um, yeah. >> Is that kind of implied, I guess? >> Yeah, Chair Cooking, Commissioner Cunningham, we do have a condition on there that all Yeah. 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 um issue any licenses have their requirements and are um kind of have strict guidelines and doing the review and everything too before they would issue their license and then um you know this will go through additional like building permit review and um whatever other licensing they might need too. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff. Uh Mr. Cassand is this within the Lindel 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 own question here. Um this is outside of the boundaries for the Lindell Avenue uh retrofit plan and I think that's an important piece of the application here. So did just want to have that uh on the record as we move into discussion in just a little bit. Um, other questions for staff. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm trying to remember from previous conversations about conditional use permits around cannabis. Um, were there any additional requirements for security if there's going to be cannabis products uh with THC on on kept on site and processed on site? Um 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 um for the benefit of the business largely. >> Sure. Yeah. Uh Chair Cookton, Commissioner White. Um yeah, there's not on this conditional use permit, there's not a specific condition related to um like security cameras and things. Um I I could defer to the applicant if there's some requirements around the OCM on some of that. Um but yeah, it would kind of so there's not a specific I guess requirement or condition um on this conditional use permit, but um I think a lot of the businesses are aware of that and try to do their own work too to to make sure it's secure and everything um just because it can be prone to some of that. >> Thank you. And I mean to be clear, I don't want to have detailed information about security plans in the public comment, but I just wanted to make sure we were considering the issue. Thank you. >> Yep. Thanks. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, um 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. Uh I'm Tommy Andre. I'm owner actually of CBD House just right down the street here. Been there for almost two years. Um I'm just very grateful to be here today. This is a culmination of everything I've ever worked for for over seven years. Um, 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 even have this offered to me. Um, and uh, yeah, this is just the next step for our business. So, I'm just uh 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 everybody. >> Likewise. Any questions for the applicant? >> Seeing none, I think we're going to get you a signin sheet so we have your uh info for the record there. And thank you for coming forward. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> 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. Seeing no one coming forward, Miss OD, is there anybody online who wishes to testify? >> Uh, all participants online are staff. >> Thank you very much. Final call for anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify to this item. Seeing no one coming forward, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. opposed. That motion passes 6 and we will move into discussion. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you. Appreciate you. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, it seems like a cut and dry case similar to other cannabis manufacturing uh businesses that have come before us. Uh, it fits with the zoning, fits with the comp plan. Um, I think it's the fact that it's outside of the Lindel Avenue retrofit is is a good thing. It means that there's employers close by to where we want to drive density. Um, I trust the OCM and kind of state regulations to handle uh kind of the more uh non-planning related concerns of a controlled substance business. And I'm in favor of this motion. >> Excellent. Other comments? >> I too find this to be a palatable application. uh it's code compliant and the applicant um has come forward with a a fine fine application for us. I think uh being outside the Lindel Avenue uh corridor there is 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 uh the surrounding properties and I too will be supporting this application. If there's no further comments, I would look for a motion. Commissioner Len. Um, thank you, chair. In case PL2026-36, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit request for cannabis manufacturing in a multi-tenant 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. >> I. Opposed. That motion passes. 6. 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 Ms. OD has the staff report. >> Thank you, chair and commission. Uh yes, item two on the agenda this evening is for a privately initiated uh city code amendment related to uh towers and the applicant is our Bloomington Housing and Redevelopment Authority. So the existing code currently allows for towers in residentially zone uh locations um such as park sites, government facilities, school and utility and institutional facilities and then places of assembly um when it's fully camouflaged by a bell tower steeple or a similar structure. And so this proposed amendment would allow for um the tower to remain if a place of assembly site is redeveloped into another use that's allowed by the underlying underlying zoning uh district. And so here is the proposed amendment language. Um it's in city code chapter 21.302.37. Uh the underlined section is the part that's being added. It's adding subsection 4 which says that former places of assembly sites that have been redeveloped when the atten antenna support structure is fully camouflaged as a bell tower steeple or similar structure. So basically um allowing towers within that subsection uh four and so uh this application really is um aiding the HR um into uh redevelopment of St. Mark's site at 8630 Xerxes Avenue South. Uh a couple months ago or last summer, uh you all reviewed and city council approved a comp plan amendment change from quasi public to low density residential that would um kind of aid uh redevelopment of that site into single family residential. Um, and so, uh, basically what I'm trying to say is, uh, the existing place of assembly has a tower, um, that's camouflaged, um, as a bell tower that hosts telecommunication, um, equipment, but that tower can kind of compl complicate, uh, future redevelopment of the site. Um, and so backing up just a little bit, uh, towers are commonly located at places of assembly because, uh, places of assembly have huge, uh, lot lot sizes and typically have tall structures to, um, hide these telecommunication facilities and they're, um, close proximity to residential areas. So towers uh telecommunication um companies really uh try to locate in the um kind of most impactful area. Um but when a place of assembly uh ceases operation which is um more common nowadays uh the limited it's the reuse is limited um for the existing building because uh the buildings were built back in the 1950s and60s and so it's harder to um kind of reuse that building into um another place of assembly use. And so this opened up um kind of a redevelopment opportunity uh for the HRA um because there's high demand for residential uses. Um this existing site is um already integrated into single family neighborhood and already has um access uh to streets and utilities. Um, so a little bit of background about uh wireless company companies specifically, they have uh really long-term leases with um towers uh longer than 30 years. And these uh lease agreements um they include pretty strict language about uh right of right of first refusal, access rights, easements, and even um influence regarding the future use of the land. And so without this proposed amendment, uh future reuse of the land would be really uh challenging um without allowing the towers to retain legal status. So the result um if this amendment were not to move forward is a large uh poorly maintained site and a residential neighborhood that is just used to house a tower. Um and so um as I mentioned before um antennas are really um common at places of assembly. And so there are five existing sites in Bloomington that um are places of assembly that have uh these towers and hidden inside the uh steeple and um bell towers. Um and so if this amendment were to be approved um or adopted, uh these sites could potentially be um impacted um should they uh cease operations as well um and look to redevelopment. Um so with that, uh staff is recommending approval of the um amendment. This does go on to city council as a public hearing uh later next month. Um, and I do have Bloomington HA uh available here. Mike Palmer is here. Uh, if there are any kind of specific questions for him. >> Thank you, Miss OD. We will start with questions for our planning staff. Commissioner Isa. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say I'm I think I should air on the side of caution and recuse myself. I should have said it in the beginning, but uh >> yeah. >> Uh, I'm gonna pause for a second there. Commissioner, do we have our attorney online? >> Uh, yes, we do have um Kevin Tosski online. Kevin Tosski, can you hear us? >> Okay. And yeah, let me start my video real quick. Okay. Yeah, I'm here. Yeah. So, understand that Commissioner Eay might have a or may want to recuse himself is what he was saying, but that's all I heard really. >> Correct. I just wanted to confirm we've already started the item. Do we have any uh 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 really want to get into a discussion of what a conflict might or might not be over the meeting here. So, um, 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, Commissioner. And thank you, Mr. Tosski. Uh, we'll move into other questions for staff. Commissioner White. Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Um, so apologies if this was in the materials and I missed it. So, if a site uh the place of assembly stops operation and goes into redevelopment, this would allow the tower to remain. Um what happens though if the building is eliminated 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 or part of um when the place of assembly closes down um remains and is repurposed? >> Yeah. So, I'll try my best to um answer that question. So, the ordinance language allows for the tower to remain only on former place of assembly sites that have been redeveloped into something else. So, uh single family lots um anything that's kind of allowed um in our residential zoning districts. Um but it still has to be like fully camouflaged by like a bell tower or steeple under this language. So um in that oops so if you just think of um this image on the right the building would be gone and then this um tower would remain and maybe they would kind of change the design of it to maybe not have um it be kind of as religious aesthetic I would say. Um uh 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. Followup, Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering, is that in perpetuity or just until the end of the contract that's in place when the place of uh assembly closes down and is 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 the the existing contract to run out before the the restriction would kick in? >> I might defer to Kevin Tosski 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 to know. Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. So chair chair commissioners um part of the reason for this is that a lot of these tower sites there's really intricate legal agreements between the former owner and then the tower operator or um 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 forever 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 contract. So it could always go away based on the property owner uh 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 non-conforming and that prohibits expansion of the towers. Um but also can really be problematic for pre-existing ground leases and easements and things like that. um there may be rights there to expand or add equipment or um additional rent, things like that. And if it becomes legally non-conforming, that can limit options for the future. So, it's really about preserving flexibility and um kind of allowing redevelopment in these towers to remain so we're not trampling on anybody's contractual rights. >> Commissioner Len. >> Uh 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. Um the first one is uh what does this mean for the platting particularly once the developer is done with it? So is it a carve out of a piece of land that is like between the city where the city has the relationship the developer retains a relationship? uh 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? Um 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? Um and if so, does anybody weigh in on that? And what was the third question? Uh I think actually those are the only two questions. Thank you. Uh Chair and Commissioner Len, I might have Mr. Polalmo speak to the first question about easements and developer um questions um and maybe if he has any insight about design or if there's any talks about what this could look like. Uh, assistant HA authority. So, I guess that would be a double A there. Assistant H administrator Mike Polarmo is here. Welcome, Mike. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, or chair commissioner the name. Um, so yeah, with the your first question was related to I'm already blanking >> like the plat like Yeah. How it >> so properties. >> We don't have a specific design yet. we have a idea of what we'll likely do which will likely be a carveout property or an outlot property in the plat. Um I I will say we're kind of in because of new code amendments that have recently been passed. Um we are looking at how we can maximize the site and utilize some of those new code amendments. So the we don't have a finalized design yet, but that's our initial concept is that there'll be an outlaw maintained ownership by the HR. Um but that I no promises there could be a potential opportunity where it is and I'm thinking you know take step out from HA 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 that 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. Um, in this case though, we are planning to have that outlot that's maintained by the HA. Um, as for your second question related to design, I don't believe the city has any sort of specific requirements on design that they review, but there are requirements when antennas come in or alterations come in that does go through a permit review. Correct. Um, so there is some little bit of oversight, but as far as aesthetics, um, the city does not get into that, but I will say for this site specifically in this situation, we first off there's a big cross on the the property. So if the H is owning this, we obviously can't have a big cross uh uh symbol on the the property. So, we were looking at how we would alter that and also make it a little less uh sticking out in a neighborhood. 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 configure that this 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 a building. So, as we demolish the the church building, we're hoping to maintain that um that uh equipment in the brick building and potentially have a mural or some sort of landscape screening to kind of soften that a little bit at the ground level. Um just so that um 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 it 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 contracts, communications contracts, who's responsible for maintaining the tower? So if the t 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 isore unsafe for the neighborhood? >> Kevin, are you able to answer? >> Yeah, I guess chair and commissioners list. The city is a party to a lot of these because there's a many in parks. Um, some on water towers and generally the the the cell phone carrier like it 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 nonh or non-publicly owned um it would be just purely a matter of private contracting between private property owners. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you chair. Uh, Miss OD, could you go back to the uh code amendment language slide, please? And I just want to make sure I'm getting my um verbiage right. So, we were looking at a former or soon to be former bell tower at St. Mark's Church. Um, 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 just the tower and not the principal building. >> Okay, perfect. So, to clarify Mr. Tusky's remarks, the cellular carrier typically, and as 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. Um, and >> Mr. Cunningham, I'm not sure. I'm clear now. So I think what Miss OD said is different than what you just said. >> Apologies. >> So when we say principal structure, you're not talking about the church. You're talking about the housing that is that is hiding cellular. >> A better example might be Mr. Tusky's water tower scenario or 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 uh towers in our city code. Um 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 what we're talking about in the the ordinance is yeah, it's the um like support structure. So the equipment and then any kind of supporting structure that the equipment sits on. So in this case um 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 it will really just depend on the situation of where that site is in and what the contract or 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 you know or water tower something like the city's maintaining the water tower. Uh but if it's on the private site I think just to what um Mr. Tasks was talking about um 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 if 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 um neighbors when the tower starts to deteriorate and isn't being properly taken care of by whatever entity is responsible for it. Is that an 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. uh uh Chair Cookin, Commissioner White. Uh so yeah, if it got to a state of like disrepair, then yes, our environmental health staff, we could pull things from kind of the property maintenance code um around that. Um 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 as the recourse that then the private entity kind of takes action on or someone could take action on. Uh but on the city side, we'd be able to use kind of that property maintenance code on on things too and be involved. And then um yeah, Kevin Tusky, I don't know if there was something you wanted to add. >> Sorry, I had to unmute myself. Uh chair commissioners, no, I don't think there's anything more to add. the 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 um you know use our civil fine process on it. Other than that, like yeah, like Dakota said, the there might be a contractual 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. Polarmo 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 uh the becomes the responsibility of a a single family homeowner? uh chair uh we would not do that in this situation. Um I don't think when we get to that replatting process, I think there'll be opportunity to figure out what that is, but likely you're looking at a couple scenarios here. In this scenario, we are not going to be receiving rent for this property. Um but there might be a situation where a property owner has 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. Um, in this case, they've purchased their easement outright at the beginning, so we won't be receiving rent. Um, so we'll continue to maintain ownership of that outlot. We won't put that on a single family property owner to maintain that. Um, but that, you know, that gets into kind of the platting discussion when that would happen, when that redevelopment would come in. Um, because you likely would have single family in this example, we really want to do single family because it's surrounded by single family or sort maybe town homes. Again, we're looking at the missing middle here. Uh, so that's where I'm trying to figure out exactly what that ownership structure will look like. Um, but otherwise you're looking at a situation where you might have a HOA or some sort of common entity that would have that ownership uh structure. So, it can get very complicated really quick. So, I don't have a specific answer, but in this specific situation, the HA would maintain ownership of that lot. Again, for those maintenance reasons that if the tower is not following their obligations for maintenance, we being a Cindy 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, Mr. Play. Mr. Cunningham, I interrupted you there. Do you have any further comments? >> No, my only question for staff was the definition of a tower. Apologies. Thank you for the answers, everybody. >> Thank you, Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, 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? cuz 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 their whatever type of insurance they have. Um, but if a, 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? um or is this like a new idea that we're looking at? I don't know who that question is best positioned to those two questions. Thank you. >> Uh chair commissioner. Uh so to answer the first question, the liability is really on the cell phone tower company. So the we have these agreements set in place with the tower. Um 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 where 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 larger, you know, so there there's agreements that outline that. So, we would not be the one liable for that. It would be the tower. Um, this is, I think, going to be unique to Bloomington because Bloomington has this unique kind of tower structure where we allow this um in institutional uses, but we don't allow it in residential uses. Other communities, every, as you know, every zoning district's very different or zoning code's very different. Some communities do allow them in residential uses, but might have conditions on them. Some just outright prohibit it and don't allow it in institutional 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? Um so we found the opportunity to kind of allow them in those larger institutional lots that Miss OD pointed out. Um knowing that they can provide that service but be a little bit less impactful, especially when you camouflage it. Um, 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 undermine. >> Mr. Cassand, anything to add? >> Yeah. Uh, Chair Cookton, um, Commissioner Le. Yeah, I think maybe just to add on to that second point of the question to if other how other cities do this, and I know, um, 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 the tower that's at the St. Mark 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 Jen 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 uh the uh place of assembly site wants to redevelop um we're just allowing that tower to kind of be there as a permitted use and kind of keep it more flexible um for future redevelopment. Um, and so that that's really kind of I know it's kind of hard because we don't have good answers because it's so sight 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 and with the the ordinance is do you want to allow those towers to be a legal non-conformity or would you like them to be kind of permitted and and kind of maintain some flexibility on the zoning side? Commissioner White, >> sorry, one one last question. Uh, at least for me probably. Um, you I know there's uh over the years I've heard various um sites of uh studies about living in proximity to communication towers and and um potential risk that that might pose. Um, 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 and technology change rapidly. Um but I'm just wondering if there's any concerns about um having any kind of mandated buffer or anything around the tower to allow for those concerns. Um and I know that'll be a platting and you know plotting issue, but um just curious if that's part of the consideration at all or if my science is really out of date. >> Uh thank you chair and commissioner White. Um, I invite others to um add on to this, but uh um I heard from Mr. Johnson before he left on vacation that the further you are away from a telecommunication site, uh what am I trying to say? Um 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 would maybe think. >> Yeah, I don't. >> 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 send those waves back. So it yeah well if 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 site and putting residential. So we wanted to make sure that as well and we did some research as well and I think it was the American Cancer Institute had studies that show that actually it's not impactful and yeah so >> Mr. Polarmo 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 all about all the different points that we have gone through as staff as well. Um, 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 hightraic 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. Polarmo. I'm sorry you have to keep coming back up. You're fine. Um, >> was was this uh, for lack of a better term, burden on the property something that you guys weighed when you were seeing if the H was going to engage in this or was this kind of a last minute title objection blind side? >> No. Uh, chair, uh, commissioner, this has actually been something we've been working on for quite a while. Um part of uh a few iterations that we had come up with was yeah looking at the nonconformity factor and that was something that the cell tower said we we don't want to do that for a couple of reasons. one they have to maintain that same look right maybe we technology changes things they want maybe make alterations add antenna those all 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 rightway another 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 ofway you actually have to get right-of-way permits from public works so it actually adds another layer So we had been working with them for about six months to try and get to this point. So we have gone to a point where we have an MO 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. Um 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'll run into this issue as well and we have taken this long you know six months to kind of come to this whereas other developers they'll walk away right so that 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. Miss OD, is there anybody online? >> All members uh are 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. That motion passes. 50. We will move into discussion. Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair. Um well, I'll start off by saying I have been ever since I first learned about the St. Mark's um project, really supportive of it, and I think it's a great you great reuse um and redevelopment of land. And um I would say I just encourage uh all parties to keep asking these questions and having these conversations proactively because I think doing whatever we can to continue um to run the traps before it becomes 10 years from now and we're like, "Oh, wait. Why did we go down this path?" Um and I think just really making sure recognizing that there are these other potential sites. um making sure that the conversations are happening um and encourage I I'm fully supportive of this uh recommendation and just make want to make sure that um if other issues arise and whatnot um would love to be kept informed of them so that we can make sure that if further applications come forward like this um we are learning from this since it is such a new new concept. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, generally speaking, I 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 um you know, any case that that comes uh or proposal that comes forward. So I think that's why for me anyway that's why I wanted to ask a lot of questions because um 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 needed to cover and still protect um the things that we need to protect. So um I appreciate the the attention and the thoughtfulness that's been put into this. Um I you know I too am excited that there's opportunities to um explore different kinds of housing and redevelopment in the city. Um and again um as my fellow commissioner said just urging you know caution as these opportunities come up to make sure that um you know neighbors are being properly informed that this what this tower is. I'm sure they'll ask uh and that uh you know all of the safety and and upkeep considerations are being covered. So, um, since that seems to be the case, I'm I'm supportive. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. I have a question for staff. Miss O'Day, would this, uh, ordinance before us allow a new tower to be built, or is it only the existence of an existing tower? So, um this code amendment, Commissioner or Chair, um Cookton, uh this is only for um 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. >> A second one. >> Yeah, I guess I should chair Cooked. Um, yeah, you could always amend the language. We could just say like existing towers at >> Oh. >> Um, existing towers at former places of assembly um in the or in the I guess recommendation language there. But yeah, how I read the code amendment, it's specifically for um 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 um at like places of assembly, kind of government schools sites, those kinds of things. So it this wouldn't 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. Cast. >> Commissioner Lite. >> Thank you, Chair. I have actually one other point I wanted to make. Um, I also just want to make sure that it's 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, um, 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 deeped uh, 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 um uh Mr. Task and his team have thought about all this. Um but I do think it's important to have it in the public record that this would be my major concern is that um something like that happen down the road and as long as that's being factored in I am supportive for um this res uh resolution. Correct. >> Thank you Commissioner. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I swear I had questions, but other people asked them before I did, and I'm on my own little island over here tonight. Um, I'm in general in favor of this. The application noted very few sites that this applies to. Um, where I would caution the city and the HI and planning department is in situations where this might impact a single family home. From what I recall about the St. Mark's site, there was a lot of conversation about affordable housing. So, um, where are we adding a layer to an affordable housing site that is really complex and potentially fraught with, um, legal jargon and, um, requires a lot of extra effort to understand. Um, so when I hear that that is potentially not an issue for the St. Mark site, I am um, glad to hear that. But I also think that these applications that are applying to several other states without sinking deep into what those might look like, which we don't know what those will look like, um because that's not in front of us right now and we can't predict the future. Um it can be a little bit challenging to think about what that um what impacts that might have. But I think when we're looking at um just a handful of these towers, I feel that I can be in support of this with um the understanding that the HA and 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 in. Uh, do we want to add the word existing after towers? >> That is at the motioner's discretion. >> I just wanted to make sure I could, you know, do a little movement from the deis here. >> You're welcome to do that. >> I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance allowing existing towers at former places of assembly sites in residential zoning districts that have been redeveloped, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Is there a second? >> Second. We 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. >> I. Opposed. That motion passes 50. This item will go before the city council is a public hearing on May 4th. Thank you very much. We uh will await the return of Commissioner Issa to the chambers. And then we'll move on to item number four. Uh our final item of the evening, the planning commission polic policy and issues update. Mr. Cassand. >> Great. Uh thank you, chair and commission. Yep. Uh filling in for Nick here tonight. Um so just we'll highlight um our two upcoming meetings here in April. So our next meeting is on April 16th. Um we'll have a quick um introduction to our new city manager. Uh Zack Walker will be here. Um and then we'll um have two kind of related study session items. So the off- streetet parking supply study which is was on our 2026 work plan um and then related um Kirk Roberts from our engineering division um will be there to talk through the city's on street parking policy so we can kind of have those um in tandem um there. And then our April 23rd meeting, um we have two public hearings, one for a reasonzoning of 8030 Old Cedar A, um for a retail tenant and then a conditional use permit for heavy equipment sales and service um at 9545 Penn A South. And then um there's just some other updates there from Nick. If you're interested in the board and commission connect, maybe just uh let send Nick a text and he can get you the room information. And then we have our state conference in follow. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Cassand. 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 uh serious item. I noticed we had new PowerPoint templates uh going back to the state of the city. Uh, I guess any public benefit for those that might not have seen it or anything about Bloomington in tune? >> Oh, sure. Yeah. Um, Chair Cooked, Commissioner Cunningham. Yeah. So, it's kind of now the city's practice after each annual state of the city. Um, whatever that theme is, we kind of now will have more consistent, I guess, branding and and slides that you'll see there. Um, but yeah, it's available on YouTube. Um it covers just you know a number of things that have happened in the city over the years. So if you are interested um I didn't attend myself. Um 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. Um 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 not this isn't our best anymore. Any other items people would like to discuss? Seeing none, that concludes our April 2nd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.