4. Pezzullo mentions that the old GPP specifies environmentalism as an objective of its own. In
contrast, the draft of the forward from the new Imagine Bloomington version of the GPP
incorporates environmental concerns into all of the City’s goals. She asks whether it is risky to
not leave environmental issues in the GPP as a prominent topic in its own right.
5. Litwin says another strategy would be to cover something the EC knows BCOS will overlook in
their comments for the GPP vision statement.
6. The EC requests a list of who is on the GPP steering committee.
B. EC brainstorms on what it wants in the GPP
1. Thompson suggests looking at other cities’ GPPs (or equivalent documents).
a. Litwin notes that GPP documents from certain peer cities are on Imagine Bloomington’s
website: South Bend, IN, Fort Collins, CO, and East Lansing, MI.
b. The EC collectively agrees to take ideas from a broader range of progressive cities. Model
cities identified include Portland, OR; Madison, WI; and Ashville, NC.
2. The EC brainstorms on keywords it wants emphasized in the updated GPP.
a. Thompson emphasizes that green infrastructure can differ from traditional landscaping
where beautification is the primary objective.
b. Julian asks the EC to consider the types of industry it wants to Bloomington long-term.
c. Julian and Thompson advocate for, at minimum, mitigation of environmental damage that
does occur in Bloomington.
d. Litwin reminds the EC that the City is looking to shorten the current GPP vision
e. Litwin invites EC members to email him their ideas for the new GPP.
f. Discussion ensues about how the proposed I-69 project may fit in with the EC’s ideas for
the revised GPP for Bloomington.
g. Jung suggests using the City’s Imagine Bloomington survey as a template for submitting
comments to Litwin.
3. The EC’s final list of topics of concern includes the following: Air, Buildings/Facilities, Energy,
Green Infrastructure, Growth, Industry Change, Landscaping, Lighting, Mitigation/Neutralizing,
Public Health, Transportation, Water, and Waste.
VII. Committee Reports & discussions (50 min)
A. Planning Committee & Sr. Environmental Planner (10 min: Chaim, Carrie, Mike, Linda)
1. All comments in this section are from Thompson and concern the ECPC’s upcoming March 5
2. Several sites that were on the ECPC agenda have been continued.
3. 602 N. Walnut: The applicant wishes to leave standing an old garage that they previously decided
to tear down for extra parking, and put in the proposed parking spaces elsewhere. They require a
waiver from the maximum impervious surface coverage requirements because the proposed
modification will put the property 3% above the maximum approved percentage of impervious
surface cover, which is 60%.
4. Various locations have no particular environmental concerns related to them. Therefore the ECPC
will not be writing memos for those locations.
a. 1501 W. Tapp Rd: A former driving range to be converted to a therapist’s office needs
more parking spaces than the UDO would currently allot them.
b. Kroger at Seminary Square is planning to update their façade and interior and blend their
facility visually with the B-Line Trail. They have agreed to put in additional bicycle spots
and install an outdoor plaza area.
c. 807 North Walnut St: A nearly complete building. The petitioners are asking to make
space originally designated as an office suite into an apartment. Their intentions are legal
but need approval since it is a change from the original submitted plan.
d. Marriot Hotel at 501 N. College Ave: Submitted a revised plan because the Plan
Commission did not like that their original plan called for no commercial space.