- All right, it's 530 to go ahead and take your seats. I'd like to call to order the Monroe County Planning
- Commission for June 16th, 2026. Please call the roll call. All right. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements?
- Here. Ron Enright-Randolph? Scott Ferris? Here. Ruperty Fields? Here. David Henry?
- here. Jeff Morris here. Julie Thomas here. And Joe Van Deventer and our city of Bloomington rep Stephen
- Bishop here. We have not count that very well. I think seven in per six in person and a seven person
- quorum. So we're ready to go.
- All right, let's go ahead and proceed with the introduction of evidence, please. I'd like to introduce
- the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended.
- The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission rules
- of procedure as adopted and amended and the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing
- on tonight's agenda.
- I'd like to move approval. Second. All right, there's been a motion and a second to approve the items
- of evidence. Margaret Clements. Yes, approve. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes.
- Jeffrey Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. And David Bush. Yes. All right, motion carries seven to zero.
- That moves us to the agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda this evening? No changes to the agenda.
- You see two items that we're going to be discussing. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second.
- All right. Motion and a second to approve the agenda. Scott Barus. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry.
- Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. And Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion carries
- seven to zero.
- brings up the minutes from May 7th, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All right,
- motion and a second to approve the minutes from May 7th, 2026, which is normally an administrative meeting,
- but we bumped it up to a regular meeting that session. All right, go ahead and call the roll. Rudy Fields?
- Yes. David Henry?
- Jeffer Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. And David Bush? Yes.
- 7-0. Motion carries. I see there is no administrative business and there's no unfinished business, so
- we'll move directly to new business. First up is PUD 26-3, which is the Earth Health Inc. Secondary
- Review Plan Amendment 1. And I believe that's you, Drew. Thank you.
- This is located at 3050 North Lentil Drive. It is part of the North Park PUD and we're in Richland Township
- and Bloomington Township. That's section 24 of Richland Township and sections 19 and 30 of Bloomington
- Township. The subject property is listed as lot number five of the North Park Office State
- Road 46 subdivision final plat, which is part of the development tract B-2 parcel 2A of the North Park PUD area.
- This is a secondary review plan amendment, also known as a development plan amendment. Typically, we
- do not see these come to the plan commission, but as part of the North Park PUD ordinance, development
- plans or also known as secondary review plans must come to the plan commission for final approval. This
- petition site contains the Bloomington Regional Rehabilitation Hospital and is located in Richland Township,
- section 24, Bloomington Township, section 19 and 30, as I stated.
- The petition site contains a total of 6.69 acres, and again, is part of the North Park Planned Unit
- Development, or P&G. The petition site is owned by GLC Bloomington Health LLC, and it's represented
- by Daniel Butler of Bynum-Fanio and Associates. The request is for a secondary review plan amendment,
- and that purpose is the construction of a 12-bedroom addition to the Bloomington Regional Rehabilitation
- Hospital. The expansion
- It will total 5,021 square feet and involve a disturbance of approximately 0.51 acres. Proposed project
- will involve the relocation of stormwater infrastructure, sidewalks, river rock, mo strips, and other
- associated landscaping. The project does not propose any changes to the existing parking lot on the
- petition site. As I stated before, this is before you because the North Park PUD district ordinance
- which was amended on May 29th, 2025 by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners requires that development
- plans receive plan commission approval. Bit of background here. The original development plan was approved
- by the planning department on November 6th, 2020 for a 45,965 square foot rehabilitation hospital, parking,
- landscaping, and bioretention areas. An improvement location permit was issued by the planning department
- on November 9th, 2020.
- and a final land use certificate was issued on May 23rd, 2022. The North Park PUD district ordinance,
- also known as an outline plan, was amended on May 29th, 2025, as I stated previously. That was under
- Ordinance 2025-13. There's more history about the North Park PUD ordinance in the packet. I will not
- belabor you all with its long history of over 22 years ago when it was first originally created.
- But we do have parts of the PUD chapter in the ordinance, the County Development Ordinance that requires
- secondary review requirements, and the petitioner has followed along with those requirements, and they
- are before you this evening with this request.
- According to section two of the North Park PUD's ordinance, all development plans shall be reviewed
- and approved by the Monroe County Planning Commission, unless otherwise stated by motion of the Planning
- Commission. That's why we're here. This petition site is located in the regional services sub-district
- designation of the PUD district, which is defined as a campus-style medical office, commercial office,
- regionally-scaled retail centers, out-lot, and convenience uses. There are figures in the staff report
- that I'll get to in a minute that will show these areas as well.
- After planning staff's review of the site and the petition, the minimum site standards for the regional
- services sub-district found in design criteria of the North Park PUD ordinance, and staff found the
- petition site is currently in compliance with the minimum site standards that includes minimum lot width,
- setbacks, maximum height, and maximum impervious cover. Again, the proposed 5,021 square foot addition
- will not cause any compliance issues with meeting the site standards.
- Here we have the location map. You can see the delineation of Richland Township and Bloomington Township
- here, as well as the multiple different sections that this property is located in. On the right, we
- have the site conditions map showing the layout of the existing structure, parking lot, and hardscape.
- You'll note that the red areas are supposed to be slopes greater than 25%, and I believe that it is
- showing red. It's still here as a remnant of the original topography of the site.
- hospital surely does not right down the middle drop a 25% grade. Next on the screen, we have the figure
- from the North Park ordinance that details the different sub-districts. Again, the petition site delineated
- by a yellow star here is located in the regional services sub-district. On the right, we have design
- criteria. This is the minimum site standards that I referenced earlier that staff reviewed.
- with respect to the petition and was able to confirm that all of them are being met with respect to
- the request. Now on the screen, we have a highlighted section of the actual development plan itself.
- What you see before you is the landscaping page, and it is showing a highlight of areas that are receiving
- new plantings or changes. And you'll see in this section here on the left where my cursor is,
- There is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight trees that are proposed to be planted here in
- between the new addition and the existing structure. And then on the right, we have a few of
- those highlighted in green. That highlight was made by the stormwater program manager after review of
- the site, indicating that she wishes or requests that these trees highlighted in green be removed from
- this area due to the existing
- established or proposed stormwater infrastructure there as part of the addition or the existing. So
- having too many trees in this area is a concern for the stormwater program given the presence
- of infrastructure there. Now on the screen we have the existing site showing the layout of the regional
- hospital as well as all the parking and other hardscape and easements as well.
- And then now on the screen we see the grayed out version of the addition, the 12 bedroom, 5,021 square
- foot addition here. This picture is just a bit more zoomed in of that same page from the development
- plan. And here we have some construction schematics detailing the layout of the bedrooms and the addition
- for the hospital.
- Then finally, we have some renderings of what it will look like when it's completed. This is all included
- in the packet and is part of the development plan submittals. All right, that brings me to
- staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approving this secondary review plan amendment, also known
- as a development plan amendment, subject to the highway department and stormwater reports with the following
- conditions.
- One, relocate the four trees identified in figure five by the stormwater program to another suitable
- location on the petition site. I will now take any questions. Before we do that, please take note that
- Mr. Enright Randolph has joined. Yes, got that. Thank you. Sorry about my talk. So we can open up questions
- from the plant commission on my left.
- Let's go ahead and move to the petitioner, petitioner's rep. And I assume that's you, Mr. Butler. Yes.
- So state your name. Yes, sir. Daniel Butler, Bynum Family and Associates, registered professional engineer
- here in the state of Indiana. Online with me tonight, Abigail.
- that's representing ownership, and then also Tyler, who's representing the architectural team. So if
- you have any questions about any of those items, I'll try to answer everything myself, but if there's
- anything, they'll be able to answer tonight too. I won't add too much more to the presentation. I was
- the original engineer on this project, and they're doing a great job, a lot of useful
- need for this this type of use in this area and People coming from from all over in need of this facility
- I got to hurt myself the other day. They're doing a great job great team and They need to expand so
- 12 more beds to fulfill fill their need. We're not asking for more parking and
- We're not going outside the construction limits of the original zone. There's a new geotechnical report
- that is part of this petition to just make sure that we're checking the site for, this was an original
- fill site, if everyone remembers. So making sure that everything's settling correctly, the building
- is in good shape before the new addition goes on. There's also a new environmental assessment phase
- one that has been done with this new addition as well.
- I don't know if there's anything else that I'll add at this time, but we'll be ready for questions.
- Hey, questions on my right. Questions on my left. Thank you. Public comment. Anybody for either online
- or in the room? Comment. Anybody against online or in the room? All right, so that brings it back to
- us. One thing I want to remind folks is that this is for our body to approve. They're also requesting
- a waiver for the final hearing. So we're ready for a motion if somebody wants to. I'm fine with doing
- a motion. I'm, it doesn't recommend but I move to approve the secondary review plan amendment
- aka development plan amendment subject to the highway department stormwater reports with the fall. Relocate
- the four trees identified in figure five by the stormwater program to another suitable location on the
- petition site and the waiver of the second hearing. All right, there's been a motion and a second to approve
- PUD-26-3, which is an addition to an existing structure. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Oh, and that
- also include a waiver of final hearing. Yeah. All right. David Bush? Yes. Sorry. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- And Julie Thomas. Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. All right, so that brings us up to our second item,
- which is our easy 26 one, which is the 3695 West State Road 45 reason from a limited business to general
- business. Good evening. We want you to go ahead and introduce this.
- Good evening. Um, introduce myself or introduce the application. I guess I haven't introduced myself
- yet. My name is Ray Tobiah. I'm from Louisville. Um, and this is my first planning commission meeting.
- Um, happy to be here. Um, I'm just going to go get right into it. So as was previously stated, this
- is for the location 3695 West state road 45. It's a 0.78 parcel, um, in section 12 of Van Buren Township at
- the location which was stated before, 3695 West State Road 45, and it is currently zoned limited business.
- Okay, the request to rezone the site from limited business to general business to allow for the development
- of a fast casual restaurant with the necessary drive-through use. So the petitioner is pursuing a use
- that is not permitted in the current zoning district. Thus, that is why he is, or the petitioner is
- having it,
- requesting to have it rezoned to general business, which permits that use. The property was previously
- used for retail purposes. The name of the business was mobile home hardware, but this business is currently
- being relocated. If approved for the rezone, the petitioner still will have to apply for a conditional
- use for the drive-through as a necessary component, then apply for a site plan, which will have to be
- certified by license surveyor and or engineer and any,
- other necessary applicable variances, grading permits, et cetera. Rezoning from limited business to
- general business will increase the total number of permitted uses from 60 to 85. That was included in
- the packet, the total number of uses that are permitted either by right or with a conditional use. And
- the petitioner has indicated that the existing building will be demolished.
- So zoning for the adjoining properties to the east, north and south, and you'll see in the next slide,
- our general business and directly to the west. The zoning is mixed use medium scale zone, but that is
- under the purview of the city of Bloomington. Land uses in the surrounding area are commercial, residential
- or vacant. And West State Road 45 is an Indiana Department of Transportation maintained roadway. The
- applicant has
- the petitioner has indicated that the rezoning will have to be approved prior to NDOT proceeding with
- review of the commercial driveway. There are two bus stops that I noted during my site visit located
- to the northeast and southwest of the lot and the properties serviced by public utilities including
- water, sewer, gas, and electric. Stormwater program has indicated that all stormwater quality and quantity
- requirements per chapter 761 have to be met as well as some more stringent
- release rate requirements as that site is located in a critical watershed area. That's the Sinking Creek
- watershed. And the site is adjacent to the Walmart Supercenter that many of you have probably been to
- before. So these are the definitions of limited business, general business, and restaurant fast casual
- per the Monroe County Development Ordinance. And this is the definition of drive-throughs and accessory
- use per the
- development ordinance as well. This was included in the packet. As stated in the last paragraph there,
- the use is permitted as a condition of use in the limited business and general business owning district,
- but must comply with chapter 841, which outlines requirements for an improvement location permit and
- subsection 814, which outlines drive-through development standards. So see here, this is the use table.
- You can see on the top table that the restaurant fast, casual,
- use is not permitted in the limited business zoning district. In the bottom table, you can see that
- the drive-through as a necessary use is permitted in both of these zoning districts with a conditional
- use. So here's a location map. As you can see, that is West State Road 45 to the left. That's outlining
- the township of the petition site to the right. You can see the darker red reflects the
- general business zoning district. As you can see, almost completely surrounding the petition site, it
- is zoned general business and directly to the east. You can see that it's a zoned limited business there.
- Here are the site conditions photos or photo. And here is aerial imagery per Beacon GIS showing the
- This was included in the packet as well.
- you go view the imagery of pictures of the site. So at the planned commission administrative meeting
- on June 2nd, planned commission members inquired by connectivity and extension of the existing sidewalks
- and approval from NDOT for the driveway. They deliberated about conditionally approving the rezone contingent
- on NDOT approvals. Staff believe that wasn't necessary as that would be addressed at a later stage when the if
- the addition or if the rezone were to be approved at the site plan phase. And also they inquired about
- bus stops in the vicinity. So here's a picture of the bus stops in the vicinity. This one to the left
- is to the southwest of the lot and the one on to the right is just to the northeast. And that is indicated
- by the arrows in this photograph.
- So here are the conceptual site plans submitted by the petitioner showing several options that they
- may pursue for this development. These were included in the packet. And here is the summary of dimensional
- standards for the limited business as well as the general business zoning district. Significant changes
- would really be the increase in the
- Maximum pervious cover for the lot size from limited business to general business from 50% of lot size
- to 55% of the lot size as well as the max height of the primary structure from 35 feet to 45 feet. So
- that's a 10 foot increase, but the max height of the assessor structure will decrease by 10 feet from
- 30 feet to 20 feet.
- And the recommendation staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation to the board of commissioners
- for the reason request setting its compatibility with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and subject
- to stormwater program reports. And now I will field questions. I do want to mention that this particular
- petition will have to go to the county commissioners. And from what I understand from the package, they're
- also requesting a waiver for a final hearing. So after saying that, are there any comments
- from the Planning Commission before we proceed to petitioner left. Mr. Enright, Randall. Yes, it was
- discussed about ingress egress at the admin, also the bus stops. Sidewalks were a focal point and from
- the conceptual plan, I don't see any like proposed sidewalks, also
- The question of the sidewalks was, is this going to fall into NDOT's jurisdiction or right away? Do
- you have anything on their ability to put some sidewalks on the frontage of that? Well, I believe as
- far as the conceptual site plan, I think that's just pertaining to the building itself. I don't think
- that's really pertaining to all of the improvements that they'll have to make per our development ordinance.
- Now, as far as in dots purview. I mean, it's their jurisdiction. And if they think that a design sidewalk
- works, it works. And if it doesn't, it doesn't. We still have a set a standard to the site plan. And
- if it can't meet the standard, then they would have to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for variants
- to sidewalks.
- potentially the sidewalks could be put in outside of the end up right away. If a waiver or if the variance
- is approved. Yeah, because I think the standard normally is that it has to be in the right of way. But
- it's there's a lot to the design that we haven't even seen yet at this point. And one other question
- and we discussed this by just wanted to inform the board as well or the commission that
- based on the site's restraints, some of these more high-intensity uses probably couldn't be achieved
- without the tear down and rebuild of the facility. So, is that correct? I guess it would just kind of
- depend on the use. Let me rephrase that. You weren't concerned of any of those
- uses. Sorry, not. Yeah, yeah, like a little like a more intense, like larger use would probably not
- be possible in the existing structure. Thank you. I have a general comment about the sidewalks, but
- I can wait or just mainly everything I have to finish. All right. So I'm personally the way I
- can support this is getting some type of commitment of them installing the sidewalk outside of NDOTs
- right away or if NDOT approves it. I just think that it's needed in this area. I did just a little bit
- of GIS mapping and we do have a gap from kind of where you see the sidewalk coming in front of that
- big red liquor.
- to the west and all the way to the other road is about 1528 feet plus or minus depending on how the
- sidewalks built, which is kind of significant, but I think this is a part of the county that
- and unfortunately the city where we are going to have to start piece milling some connectivity, contiguous
- connectivity for pedestrian safety.
- And I think it's really important whenever we talk about rezoning where there could be a higher use
- but things that don't really lead to concern or that tear down rebuild where we do see a lot more traffic
- volume, which I think pedestrian safety is key. That also will bring us up to Liberty Drive where we
- made solid investments of making a multi-mobile trail there and it will create great connectivity.
- Without seeing something more solid with knowing that a sidewalk could be put in here, I don't think
- I could support the rezone. And I know that this could be done at different phases, but I think this
- is the opportunity to get it done. And even if it increases just a small fraction of people coming and
- going from this facility, that increases the need for safety for pedestrians.
- That's where I'm at. Thank you for letting me continue. Anybody else on the right? Julie, Commissioner
- Thomas, go ahead. Yes, thank you. I do want to say that I don't think it's a ripe issue right now. And
- I am concerned as well to ensure that the sidewalks are done, but they're going to have to do it. And
- they're going to have to do it one way or another. And I don't think anything we do here
- should be contingent on sidewalks since it's a requirement. So I'm okay with moving forward as is. Is
- there any requirement for the interconnectivity of the parking lots, especially with Walmart and Big
- Red Liquors? No, not at this instance. North Park was a PUD that did require it as a part of that zoning.
- Thank you.
- Okay, petitioner, petitioner's rep, you got 15 minutes. Go ahead and sign in and state your name if
- you would, please. Hello, my name is Michael Harding with Domino's Pizza.
- Oh, I guess. You have 15 minutes. 15 minutes to speak on my mind, I guess. I thought you were going
- to ask me questions. I'm sorry. No, I think this would be a fantastic location for us. And I do hear
- what you're saying about keeping pedestrians safe. And we are definitely, we strive for safety within
- our own drivers. We want to make sure we're safe on the road. You might see them zipping around a little
- bit here and there, but I mean, we are very stringent on driver safety.
- And, you know, I don't see this being too much of an issue with whatever the needs are for that bus
- stop there. Actually, I'm actually kind of excited to have that bus stop there because they might come
- and order a pizza and take a bus home. So just another way for someone to order a pizza and come into
- our location, and I think that it's an opportunity for us. So that's all I have to say. Questions from my right.
- Dr. Randolph. I appreciate you addressing my comments. I believe this is a great location. I truly want
- to 100% get behind it. I think you're going to get the support you need. Move it forward and we can
- address the sidewalks at a different area. I just wanted to explain there's certain times that we can
- make these exchanges where the commitments are in place and, you know, that's just where I'm at. So
- I believe in
- the rezone, I believe in your mission of creating this a viable, you know, dominoes location, I think
- it's going to be very successful. But just wanted to state that to you. Yeah, I totally understand.
- I'm a local Bloomington residents, so I totally get it. I want to be a part of the community and make
- sure that we thrive in the right direction. So. All right, thank you. Thank you.
- All right, we now move into the public hearing portion. Do we have anybody online or in the room that
- would like to comment in favor of this petition? Seeing none, we'll go ahead to anybody in the room
- or online who are opposed to this petition. Seeing none, okay. So back to the planning commission for
- comments. Anybody on my left?
- Motion, please. For case REZ-26-1, I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the Board of
- Commissioners for the rezone request, citing its compatibility with the Monroe County Comprehensive
- Plan and subject to stormwater program reports, and this includes a waiver of the final hearing. Second.
- All right, there's been a motion and a second to
- forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for rezone case are easy-26-1 and that
- does include a waiver of final hearing Julie Thomas Yes Jeff Morris. Yes, David Henry. Yes, Rudy fields.
- Yes, Scott Ferris Tron and right Randolph
- I'm going to abstain due to the lack of uncertainty with the right of way in being within in
- dots jurisdiction. So abstention. Margaret Clements. Yes. And David Bush. Yes. Motion carries seven
- to zero to one. All right. That moves us into anything other than new business, which is anything else
- on the agenda that people want to bring up. And there's three minutes for those individuals who want
- Do we have anybody in the room or online who want to bring up additional items at this point? Okay.
- Seeing none. Any reports from the Planning Department? No reports. And also from the County Attorney?
- No report. Do I have a motion to adjourn? May we thank Ray for his first time at the
- Thank you. Ray did a fantastic job at your first Planning Commission meeting and I just wanted to recognize
- that. Thank you. I appreciate it, John. Motion to adjourn. So moved.