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.