- Okay, it is 530, so let's call the Planning Commission Admin Meeting to order. And Ms. Behrman, would
- you please take the role? David Bush? Here. Margaret Plimmons? Here. Tron Enright-Randolph? Not here.
- Scott Harris? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. David Henry? Here.
- Julie Thomas. I'm here. Inventor, not present. And Stephen Bishop. We have one, two, seven members.
- And five of them are in person, so they have a quorum. Excellent. OK. Are there any changes to the agenda
- before we get started? No.
- Motion to approve the agenda as written. Second. I don't think we vote on that in the admin session
- so much. I withdraw the vote. We could have voted on it though. We could have. We can start a new trend
- now, can't we? For the record, Charm and Wright-Randolph is here. I think when it's continued with our identity,
- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
- 441 Southwest Gate Drive, Montgomery Township, Section 2. So this is a PUD that was approved, pulled
- all the permits, making a lot of progress on the development. There were public improvements associated
- with this position. And for them to be able to pull the permits, they bonded for many of the public
- improvements. They actually have two
- funds on file separate financial guarantees on file. This specifically is one that deals mostly with
- road improvements with the other one which is for a very similar amount and it is more geared towards
- stormwater. They're not quite ready for to release that one yet and has not been fully inspected with
- as bills. So we're focusing on this one today. It's for $285,436.20. They're wanting to further
- The room pay plan permission to release that full amount so they can get that back. They do have a current
- letter cut on file. It's just was renewed on papers for another year. And the completion date that they
- put on was July 26th, so they're actually under that deadline of their performance period.
- I went over this the GPD stands for a guarantee of performance or planned unit development. It's very
- similar to a subdivision improvement agreement that we usually also get letter of credits for
- for subdivisions. This wasn't a subdivision, it's still a single lot of record. So public improvements.
- Stationers requesting a release of
- the exterior right-of-way will make complete work under GPD-22-2. Both West 3rd Street and South Park
- Square Drive are already accepted into the roadways in the county inventory, and this release request
- approves the improvements made within the existing right-of-way. The maintenance bond will be required
- since these roadways are already accepted. And we do have what some of those are into the 30s.
- So in our County Development Ordinance, Chapter 833-8, we have a procedure for releasing or reducing
- a performance bond. And by means of URT, this is a release. And so we just want to confirm, staff went
- through and made sure that at each point that we are reading these, they provided their request letter,
- number one. Number two, are the ASGLE plans
- And those have been signed off on by the Highway Department. And so there is a small bit of stormwater
- infrastructure here with removing inlet covers. The requirement for number three was met. They provided
- a letter with written assurances that they don't have any waivers of the meeting for any contractors.
- there won't be any use against them. Number four is not applicable in the sense with the release. And
- then finally, the number five deals with the reduction. And I might just read this one. So the developer
- will not be required to put the maintenance bond under the planning ordinance. 62 roadways in the question
- are already accepted roadways. One of the latest version of chapter 761, that's the stormwater ordinance.
- The requirement for a maintenance bond was certain.
- This year I worked with primarily the Highway Department and my stormwater division. We are relying
- on the highly engineered release of the improvements. The highway project manager has requested further
- asphalt information to show that the developers defined a crossroad maximum requirements, sidewalks,
- straddle, etc. to the Exit 4 and the improved asphalt in May 26. So
- Just last week, they were able to pull this all together on the day the packet went out. So the Highway
- Department was able to complete a review of the ASVILPs. These were their final comments. Most important
- is that other than one little correction that they needed on the ASVILPs for documentation, they were
- good with the release. So the Highway Department is good with this release. These were their comments.
- I think number two that they needed to kind of
- Resubmit their assets. Yeah, so those are an exhibit for. And then we have some documentation in here
- from July 30th, 2025, just certain things that they were completing along the way. We're kind of doing
- these status check ins with them all along, but obviously we're wanting to make sure they were doing
- things correctly all along. So we were checking in and making sure things were completed.
- as we went through. One of the things that they did not complete, because it was kind of an optional
- comment from a highway engineer, he did not recognize that the passports matched the plan through fire
- specifications. So that handrail apparently along one of the sidewalks, they did not complete it, but
- offered to install their links if the county shared the cost.
- purchasing the railings. Upon discussing with the highway department, we decided to keep the comment
- as optional since it does not reflect the approved development plan by the planning and highway department.
- So just we're noting that in here. These are photos from all of those sidewalks along the two roads
- that you'll see. And they do meet ADA compliance according to the highway engineer who reviewed these.
- You can see that they're pretty extensive on this area here. I believe this is 3rd Street. So this was
- Exhibit 1, which is the request for a release of the money. We have Exhibit 2, which is stating that
- they, it's a written assurance that there's no affidavits, releases of waivers and payments from contractors,
- subcontractors, etc.
- This is the original estimate that we were working with that they have a current letter of credit on
- file with us for that $285,406.20. And with, I will point out that under PUDs at the time this was approved,
- we had 25% contingency added to the estimate, which is different than what you would see, what you would
- have seen for subdivision back under the old ordinance.
- 25% was a pretty good amount to add to it. And then finally, we have these ASVILTs that were corrected.
- And if you were able to see this little, I blew it out, you would see that these were approved May 26,
- 2026. So they corrected them right away just to make sure that we had these in the packet for documentation.
- And so with that, we have a pretty simple recommendation
- Staff recommends releasing a full performance guarantee amount, a limited $85,436.25, based on the stormwater
- program report, highway engineer inspection findings, and findings in the report. Does anyone have any
- questions? We will be voting on this evening. I have no questions.
- I mean, there is one overriding question and it has to do with our past experience with not having adequate
- money left over at the end of the entire project. Do we have to release money along the way or can we
- hold it until all the other things including drainage are done? Right, so the drainage in the report
- We have a separate GPUD-23-1 bond, primarily for stormwater improvements in the interior of the site.
- And that is almost a similar amount. It might be $265,000 that they have on that with that extra added
- 25% contingency wrapped into it. And so, I mean, the highway department is really comfortable with all
- of this infrastructure that's gone in in the right of way, and they are supporting the release of this.
- There's no more work that needs to be done associated with this, with this financial guarantee. I mean,
- I think Tom has a question. Yeah, I'm just going to go to him if you're finished. I'm finished. Yeah,
- I know. I like your question. I guess I don't want to just throw in just a bit more. So like this GPD-22-2
- are those only for improvements kind of within what we're looking at the right of way highway? And I
- guess what I'm really trying to ask is, could those go to stormwater improvement? So this, okay, so
- like that second GDUD is for stormwater. So, okay. I was just kind of curious. Is what everything that
- we have. That's what my assumption was.
- So like if we held this, it wouldn't actually get stormwater improvements done. But it might be somewhat
- of a carrot for them to achieve the stormwater improvements. They already have 265,000 expanded.
- I understand. I'm just kind of trying to see, based off of Mrs. Clement's comment, like we want to see
- all these improvements in there.
- kind of rules are at our disposal. And this could be a financial tool to propel them to do the other
- completements. But I don't want to hold it up. I just wanted to understand the differences there. So
- thank you. And Mr. Bishop, if you didn't have this, I'll take you back on these. If the petitioner has
- a supposed to absolve legal obligation and those requirements, is there anything that we could hold
- it up for?
- requirements of having this letter of credit, and they're asking for it to be released. Is there anything
- that we have that can legally hold onto it, or that we require to release at a certain period of time?
- Well, we're required to reduce the bond amount each year to correspond to what's left to be done. So
- if they've done everything, there's no reason not to release the bond. If we go back and find out that
- they really haven't done anything, then we'll just have
- Pursue it a different way. Is there a legal recourse if we don't release it and finally mannered up?
- I don't know, but I can't keep the recommendations. Yeah, just but just a final comment. My my questions
- were more for me to fully understand some of this,
- being more and more frequent. So I appreciate the. Couple of questions and then the follow up with kind
- of illegal reports because it's. There to know. How this all works and you know, have any assumptions.
- So that's really what it is. I'm in complete favor of this. As I mentioned to planning a long time ago,
- I'm going to grade based on my opinions, offer recommendations. For my positions so. I have two questions actually.
- First, is there, and I'm obviously not familiar with the storm water requirements or what the storm
- water, pardon, as required, is that 285,000-ish number,
- to be adequate to make the completions they need for the release of that bond ultimately. For the one
- that's associated with G T U D dash one. Yes, I can go back to my desk and grab my spreadsheet of the
- exact amount. It's very similar to this amount and but it looks like they're on track to. Yeah, they are.
- I think they're still landscaping and a little bit of construction underlaying out there, so they can't
- fully complete that yet, but they may hit that July 18th deadline. Okay, my next question is, go ahead.
- My next question is regarding the optional comment by the highway engineer regarding the railing.
- Is that, and I haven't been to the site, so I can't speak to
- how severe of a drop that might be. Is that something that we need to address before we put this to
- a vote? The department was OK with it. And I don't I honestly am not sure where that handrail would
- have gone. I'm not sure if it was supposed to go here. I have not been on this site before. This was
- Jackie's and we thought this was going to be done two months ago. So it just happens to be falling on
- my self to present and make sure everything else was fine. Sure.
- Well, then my last comment would be, given that the as-builts match the plan as approved and that they're
- willing to split the cost of a reeling if it's deemed to be a safety hazard, I would be in favor of
- approving the reduction. OK. So you had a question.
- I mean, I support this. I think it's an example of the type of work that we would like folks to do,
- developers, et cetera, and it looks like they're doing everything they're supposed to do. My education
- question for me is the developer. Really, for the folks at this table who's not familiar with the group,
- Busgate on third, have we had any problems or issues from a compliance standpoint with that?
- I mean, there were things that were done incorrectly. They were about things and put it down the right
- way. But they fixed it. Correct. Yes. Yeah, they were trying to make sure they're as though they would
- rebuild. Well, that's the purpose of that's the purpose of inspection. So to go in and see if they've
- done what they're supposed to do. So OK, anyway, I support this. Mr. Bishop, one last comment about
- the railing question.
- Because it's already been moved into the county inventories, the county in charge of putting up that
- railing now for a safety and suns issue because it's they've already taken it so they can't push it
- back. So Ben Ayers with the Highway Department is not available this week. You would be able to answer
- that question. I don't think. I don't have a good line. It was Paul. Paul. Paul Sanders retired like
- that. He was the highway engineer.
- I inspected this a couple of times before like really anything went up and they put in a lot of the
- stormwater like infrastructure like upfront which helped quite significant significantly mitigate water
- from adjoining park parcels. So I just you know kudos to them
- you know, putting in that infrastructure kind of upfront to a certain extent. It just needs to get approved
- and things of that nature. So I just wanted to make note of that. It was actually a fun site to explore.
- We actually walked it before it got approved too. Okay. Any further comments or discussion? If not,
- is anybody willing to put forth a motion? I'll make the motion that
- We approve the recommendations releasing the full performance guaranteed amount of $285,436.20 based
- on the farm water program report, the highway engineer inspection findings and the findings and the
- report. Second. All right, there's been a motion and a second to
- Release the full amount of $285,436.20. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronan
- Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. And David Bush? Yes. The motion passes 8 to 0.
- on the agenda looks like new business PUD 26 stage 3 and I believe that's yours yes all right so this
- is a secondary review plan amendment within the North Park PUD this is for the earnest health incorporated
- property it is at 3050 North Lentil Drive
- Secondary Review Plan Amendment is also known as a Development Plan Amendment. We updated the terminology
- with the CDO adoption to follow along with statewide guidance on the terminology. So you might be more
- familiar with the Development Plan Amendment phrasing, but it is also the exact same as Secondary Review
- Plan Amendment.
- So starting with the drainage board, that went on May 19th. Since the planning commission administrative
- meeting, they did request a waiver of final hearing for the upcoming planning commission regular session,
- which will be June 16th. But of course, there's still the opportunity for July 7th, the second administrative
- meeting, as well as a second final hearing on July 21st of the American Planning Commission.
- The property contains the Wilmington Regional Rehabilitation Hospital located in Virginia Township as
- well as the Wilmington Township in multiple sections. The position site totals 6.69 acres, which is
- the zone for Northern Park TV. The position site is known by GLC Wilmington Health LLC. Its representative
- is Dana Butler by Daniel. This is a development plan review amendment. It includes a 12-bed addition
- to the existing facility.
- totaling 5,021 square feet, which will create a disturbance of approximately 0.51 acres. The proposed
- project will also involve the relocation of some stormwater infrastructure, sidewalks, river rock, moat
- strips, and other associated landscaping that exists on the site. The project does not propose any changes
- to existing parking lots. A little bit of background, the planning department approved the original
- development plan for this site in November of 2020.
- for the 45,965 square foot rehabilitation hospital. It's parking, landscaping, and biorepension areas.
- They got an approval location permit and a land use certificate following that approval. The North Park
- PV ordinance, also known as an outline plan, was amended May 29th, 2025 by the New York County Board
- of Commissioners. And that update really solidified and streamlined the North Park PV ordinance
- between much more readable formats and administrative formats. Excuse me. So we do have a chapter in
- the ordinance that talks about secondary review requirements, as well as a section in this report that
- talks about the district ordinance. That ordinance update redefines some of the districts into sub-districts.
- The property question,
- noted with this yellow star is in the regional services sub-district. And there's design criteria as
- well as building design standards and sub-district parking lot requirements that are all outlined within
- that section of the ordinance. Staff did a review of these sections of the North Park PD Ordinance and
- identified any violations of these criteria or standards with respect to the new developments of the site.
- That is the expansion of the property with what was it, 12 bedrooms. So here's a bit of an analysis
- of total square footage of existing conditions, bed count of existing conditions, employees, parking,
- all of that. So they don't need to add any additional parking. They're not changing the use of the property.
- They are adding new beds.
- I believe that there will be within a few additional employees if I remember correctly. On the screen
- now is a little bit of an analysis to the sub-district landscape requirements. So the number of plantings
- that they have to remove and the number of plantings versus the number of plantings that they are replacing
- or relocating, that latter number is more. So they started with fewer and now there's going to be more
- plantings.
- So there's not going to be a reduction overall. They're just relocating some, putting them back where
- they either were or close to where they were, especially considering the perimeter parking area. They're
- also proposing additional trees as well. Now to another comment regarding those. So everything on the
- screen that's highlighted in yellow are landscaping items that are detailed in the secondary plan amendment.
- So included the plan inventory schedule as well. Stormwater program during their review, they noted
- that there are, in their interpretation, there are too many trees in this particular area. The gray
- area you see here is the 12 bed addition. So in this little courtyard area, there's a lot of stormwater
- infrastructure and the stormwater program manager is requesting that at least four of those trees be
- relocated elsewhere on the property.
- to alleviate some pressure on that stormwater infrastructure in that area, likely due to possibility
- of roofs damaging that infrastructure. So here are the comments from the stormwater program manager.
- They stated that no additional detention is required at this time based on the expansion. See, they
- offered a few other comments regarding the silt fencing.
- and other things here. All that were also addressed, I believe, during the drainage board review period.
- No comments from the highway department. City believes the utilities left a comment related to looking
- at the updated plans and saying that basically the existing infrastructure is satisfactory for the addition
- Here we have a location map. As you can see, we're still in Wilton Townships, corner of several different
- township sections here. Site conditions map. These contour lines, as you see, I believe, are outdated
- based on how the site was developed over time. But you can see all the parking area they have, as well
- as the existing footprint of the hospital here. I've also included the
- The site plan itself that shows the existing conditions as well as the proposed addition. And it also
- includes the grading plan and the changes made to the landscaping features as well. Again, no changes
- to parking. They aren't violating their maximum pervious cover and they're not violating the maximum
- height either.
- I'll conclude the construction plans, detailing here more information about the addition made to the
- hospital itself, showing those additional bedrooms here and footprint details, as well as exterior details,
- including side materials, height, and some conceptual images as well. Just keep scrolling through here.
- I also got the letter from South Central Regional Sewer District stating that they have a capacity for
- the additional expansion here. I also included the original subdivision flat that details the property
- as lot number five of the North Park Office State Road 46 subdivision tract B2 parcel 283 and three.
- So all right, that brings me back to the beginning here. Pardon me, let's quit scrolling. All right,
- so staff's recommendation is to approve the secondary review plan amendments, aka the development plan
- amendments, subject to the highway department stormwater reports with the following conditions. Relocate
- the four trees identified in figure five by the stormwater program.
- And number two, the petitioner address any additional staff comments that might arise during the final
- portions of this new period. Overall, I'll say you often don't see development plan review or secondary
- review amendments by this board. It's usually done administratively by staff. North Park
- ordinance itself actually requires that if there is an amendment to a development plan or a secondary
- review plan that had come before the plan commission for review and approval. So that's why we're here.
- I'll take any questions. On your recommendation item two where it says petitioner address any additional
- staff comments. I think that's really kind of nebulous.
- I think you need to be a little more specific. If we are going to make a recommendation to the commissioners,
- I think we need to have a little more granularity. I mean, I don't know what you would say. I mean,
- this goes with the South saying for almost everything we do, there are additional comments that need
- to be addressed, and they have to be addressed. So I would just like to see a little more granularity.
- If we're going to make that motion, I think we need to have a little more granularity. I agree with
- that. I agree with that.
- That's just my comment. I don't know if it was on this particular request or on another one up at Norfolk
- Park, another one of the medical facilities, maybe an eye and belt.
- location right around that same location but I do remember that they were having trouble with our plant
- inventory both in terms of purchasing and in terms of installing and they had different plants and I
- personally don't want to see this project held up because of an inability to get a certain plant you
- know but I do see the plant inventory it looks like it's pretty reasonable but at the same time
- You know, I'm concerned in general about the strictness of our landscaping requirements, you know, that
- it can be difficult for people to find exactly at the time that they need to purchase it and put it
- in the exact species that
- they're required to find. But that facility is a good facility. It provides great care to people. It's
- a wonderful service provider. I've known people in that facility. And the design is good as well. It
- looks solid to me, but I'm not an engineer. But I agree with the comments that Colonel Farris made.
- Any other comments? I guess we move on then since there won't be emotions on this.
- I'm just going to do a brief introduction for the one. You'll see this in a couple of weeks. Rated by
- it has a rezone REV-26-1. It's a rezone request to go from limited business to general business. And
- it's located at 36.95 west state of 45. For the shares would be making this determination
- I'm just going to kind of skip around a little bit. So this is this parcel here is going to be next
- to Walmart on this side. And then the dark green here represents not our jurisdiction. So the city of
- Burlington right here where that I think the big red liquor stores right there. The current zoning in
- this area, the Walmart is also general business. So anything red, general business, which is what they
- are requesting to be. And then the light pink is limited business.
- quite industrial up in here. These are the site plans of the area. It does have some drainage that would
- go kind of south and east. It is part of a terminal sinkhole, one of our critical watersheds,
- and ends up, and I think it's Sinking Creek, terminal sinkholes.
- their proposing is they would like ultimately to have a restaurant fast casual use on this site, which
- is permitted in general business, but not in limited business. And with that, they would also like to
- have a drive-through as an accessory use, which is permitted both
- zones, but ultimately it's the last casual restaurant that they're kind of needing that extra rezone
- or that rezone approval for to be able to do that. And they do have some conceptual designs included.
- And something I want to point out also while we're here. Their access is through NDOT, not the Highway
- Department. And so it's pretty difficult to get NDOT comments. I believe
- There was something that was really they need a permit to be submitted in order to determine what's
- going on there. But I will say that if you see this turn lane here, they have kind of an access that
- comes through this way and then another access here. This building will be completely demolished if
- this gets approved with a site plan permitted.
- I think this is an easement that I think Ray researched this one and it had found the easement that
- goes through here. And this is what it looked like in 2005. They just had a driveway permit right up
- in this end out road. As Walmart was developing, part of the approvals was to include this like deceleration
- lane to be able to turn in.
- It has been looked at as early as I think it was 2006 or something like that. That's a 2005 photo. This
- is current. And then the comprehensive plan, we looked at that. There's a lot of comprehensive plan
- similarities, and that's something you'll want to delve into when you're reviewing this one is making
- sure that this rezone request to general business matches the comprehensive plan. It is findings that
- we would be looking at.
- And then I was going to just skip to some of their schematics here. We have photos first. I'm not doing
- a full presentation because you're going to get that in two weeks. This is just like an introduction,
- right? So that's that driveway there. And the other one's over there. And send letter. But these are
- a few of their, they provided three of them. This one looks like it's in this,
- front setback and again the full building is going to go away and this is the footprint what they're
- proposing. This one would meet setback and they're showing an orange kind of a wrap around and then
- here's another concept here that would meet setbacks and come back and they haven't included like where
- their employee parking or anything like you know walk-in dining where they would be parking but they
- would have to meet all the design standards or
- Come back for design. So does anyone have? We've included the limited business uses and design standards.
- For both sounds that you can compare in your pocket. Does anyone have any question? Yeah, there you
- go. No, it's going to be a tear tear down in a rebuild. This goes through.
- we could address this at the site plan phase, but creating some connectivity of that missing gap of
- the sidewalk. Yeah, sidewalks would be great. They would. And I guess my real question is that that's
- kind of an internal, that's not something we have to work with NDOT. I mean, their plans, I'm sure,
- are going to be submitted to NDOT. So, OK.
- that'll be behind the scenes. Yeah, if it says no, then they need to come to a variance for that. Yeah,
- if they say no, maybe we can get more creative, but it'd be great to see some connectivity with sidewalks
- there. I'm a little indifferent. Staff is what? Recommending? Positive? Yeah. Yeah, the one thing I
- think I have mentioned was, you know,
- It is subject to stormwater program, highway department. Well, and not necessarily highway department.
- They have not supplied a traffic study. No one would be needed. The business that's being proposed is
- not Chick-fil-A. Yes. It's Domino's pizza, which doesn't generally get as much. So another thing is
- Domino's with a drive-through.
- I guess I have one additional question. Is there any particular permitted or permitted with standards
- or even conditional use that staff does have any concerns about? That's a great question. And I mean,
- I feel like, you know,
- We have a site plan review, and they have to meet the design standards, and that's what this is. I personally
- did not screen through any of the general business uses to see if we should be restricting. I feel like
- you kind of almost step into planned unit development mode at that point, and it gets harder for staff
- to administer if we have to remember elephant's brain.
- like what uses are not permitted here. Do you blanket permit uses this zone? That's a lot of here.
- So be it. I know we have had reasons that help restrict and certainly certain uses and some of us based
- upon neighbors or. So at least things have been included. So I guess that's up to you all to decide
- a concern about something that would be in general. That's nice. I guess.
- Highway or stormwater and the other two that I'd be interested if they have to give you particular use,
- we should be mindful of the outside of that. Out is the nine standards. Under GB when going to. There's
- the maximum in the courthouse for critical watershed. 55% of the lot.
- the maximum impervious. And then under limited business, their maximum impervious is 50%. So you can
- take that extra. Mr. Ferris. So I do sit on the MPO and I do deal with that. I've had some dealings
- with that over the last several years.
- I've had some dealings with that dot over the last several years. Are we? This is a question more than
- anything else. Are we getting in the car before the horse here? A long hold attempt. Could be end out
- approval. And that may not be timely. I'm sorry, I'm having a couple of hearings that I'm sorry. Don't
- try not to shout. To me, it appears this is just a comment that we may be getting the card before the
- force and I'm talking about end out approval.
- My dealings with NDOT is that the approval process is not something that's truncated. It's not compressed.
- It's usually spread out. And getting something approved in a timely manner is kind of hard to do. And
- so my question is, what is our role, if any, and I don't think there is any, with dealing with NDOT
- to get an approval for this prior to it going to a plan commission? That's a good question.
- Because that's the one thing I've kind of had on this petition all along, because it is hard. We had
- the petitioner reach out to INDOT, and I think that the response we got, we included in the staff reports,
- it wasn't a lot. Fisher indicated that INDOT stated that a rezoning will possibly be first before they
- can proceed with reviewing the commercial driveway.
- That's the response we got. So the reason we speak approved first, then they will look at the use, probably
- the intensity and their plans. And it's up to them, I think. I think it's up to them if they want to
- require a traffic study. Although I know we have kind of on county roads requested. I would make that
- I would. But I don't quite know if we can tell the developer on that roads.
- I would make the compelling argument that we could say the same thing, that before we take and do a
- reasonable, we need to commit from end to end on whether or not they're going to allow this to happen.
- I mean, it heats up everybody's time. Right. You can also refer to legal, that you did kind of bring
- it to them briefly, and was, you know, did we have to have a driveway approval or some sort of input?
- You know, we're just generically approving a use, and it would be pretty intensive, like Walmart, where
- they made them do,
- deceleration lanes and reconfigure the roads there to accommodate that use. This doesn't involve the
- county at all. The county transportation or traffic commission is not involved with this at all, correct?
- Because this is an end-op road, correct? And then they are branch of the highway department. So I'm
- just making, I'm just stating for the record, I have a hard time
- moving forward with a recommendation when we really have no commitment whatsoever from NDOT on what
- they're planning to do. I have a problem with that. And I understand what you just said, that this has
- to happen first, the rezone, before they will take a commit. Ed, do you have some insight on that? Could
- we conditionally approve the rezoning dedicated on NDOT allowing it to happen? So if they okay everything,
- we've already okayed our something.
- But it allows us to back out if for whatever reason says no, you can't. That's why I think we should
- do well. The development plan would not move forward without in docking. Approving the development plan,
- but I mean, I don't think it's almost redundant to put. A condition like that in here well, but if we
- rezone it prior to that, then the reasonings happen. This allows the rezoning to get walked back if
- the end of people doesn't go forward.
- So it ties the two together. True. Otherwise we're approving a change that doesn't necessarily got the
- purpose. Which I mean it might be 10 years before they develop it and it may not be a drive-through
- pizza place. It could be anything on that GV list. That's right. And it would be 10, 20 years from it.
- That's right. So again, we have all sorts of dreams. That's right. You have any thoughts?
- I have a question, but surely Thomas has her hand raised. Okay, you had your hand raised earlier, so
- I was going to go to you first. I just have just a word of consideration. I believe that this property
- has a bus stop on it, so just I'd like that to be factored in to everyone's thoughts. Good point. That's
- a good point. Commissioner Thomas. Yes, thank you so much.
- Back to the INDOT approval, we have had this happen before, so we typically require that as a condition
- of approval that the development will have INDOT's support for a driveway. It seems like they may have
- other avenues to enter the property with Walmart, so I don't know that that's going to
- what the impact of that's going to be. But my question is, doesn't INDOT also have to approve an extension
- of the sidewalk? Yeah, I think that would probably happen at the site plan phase. And like I said, if
- they denied that and didn't want it there, I think we would still take it to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- OK, so we're not requiring
- that approval along with the driveway access from INDOT? This has to go through a site plan approval
- and we have our standards that we require and so you know the sidewalk is a requirement the driveway
- is a requirement we wouldn't approve and give issue any permits without those things and so we think
- it's a matter of a developer taking a risk
- You know, they may rezone it, but the use they want to do, it's a risk that maybe INDOT doesn't approve
- of, you know, that type of intense use on that site. Or there is a lot of chicken and the egg here.
- Right. So it's hard for me to respond, I guess. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to figure out who does
- the sidewalk approval if it's INDOT who has to do that.
- Right, is it in that or is it city of Bloomington jurisdiction right there? I mean, can we annex it?
- It's annexation was right there. So it seems to me that a condition of approval, a condition of approval
- could be a sidewalk approval
- and we could just get that out of the way, but not to clearly delineate, oh, it has to come from NDOT
- or it has to come from Bloomington City. But we could, since we know that that's going to be an issue,
- maybe we could put that out there as a condition of approval, even though it's not required yet, it
- will be required. I don't know, just a thought. I would just like to signal
- maybe to the developer, that the project has our support, that we understand there's some bureaucratic
- hurdles that we don't want to be in the way, but these are the things we're concerned about.
- The bus stop, the sidewalk, in-dot approval, and that in general, we as the plan commission would like
- to welcome them into the county and to support their business, you know, something like that.
- I agree with that. There's a level of uncertainty and risk that the petitioners can have to take on,
- but I definitely think my support would be contingent on the driveway permit approval and the sidewalk
- approval for this. And obviously the bus stop, but that might, depending on Bloomington Transit in their
- feedback, but yeah, but also address that as well. So generally,
- It seems like a good location for a good project. The zoning fits with the other zoning around it, and
- we'd like them to be successful in whatever we can do to help. It's my attitude. It seems to me that
- this developer, I get a sense that he's kind of just feeling around looking for fatal errors. I think
- he knows we've got a bunch of if-thens, and he's trying right now to decide if
- if I can get in doubt on board, if I can do this, is the planning commission going to back me on a rezone
- at that point? So I think he's looking for fatal errors before he goes much deeper. Maybe Mr. Shirley?
- Just one thing to think about, when you condition your rezoning on the approval of another body,
- you're essentially giving them veto power over your resume. So if you wanna give the state or the city
- or whoever it has the veto power over that. I guess my suggestion would be to just focus on the zoning
- aspects of it because I think as Tammy points out for a site plan, you're gonna have to have that sidewalk
- in place or you won't get a permit anyway.
- I don't know that in this particular case, that kind of condition is necessary, but you know, it would
- be certainly good to express that on the record and perhaps get the developer to not as head to that,
- the idea of a sidewalk, but that's up to you. That's a good suggestion, I like that. So, I mean, I don't
- think anybody here
- The issues are those three elements that we've been talking about. How do we take and codify or communicate
- to the developer that those are concerns that need to be addressed? I mean, in fact, all we're doing
- with this recommendation is approving or recommending approving of a reason. That's it. We're not doing
- any of this other stuff. That's not part of the review. How do we codify those comments? I mean, from
- a planning department standpoint,
- How do we codify that to make sure that the developer is aware of those fatal errors, potential fatal
- errors? Right, we do a pre-design with them. We did a pre-design with the outline plan portion of what
- it is to go through the rezone process. And then we have, I think I had included a pre-design number.
- I can dig a little deeper in here, but I'm pretty sure that in that
- We said they would have to do a commercial site plan that undergoes the construction of sidewalks,
- landscaping, lighting, parking, and stormwater ordinance. And then in the report, they obviously know
- they need to talk to NDOT about their driveway, but also sidewalks. So at the site plan approval stage,
- you have to just trust staff. We always have to trust utilities. Utilities are their own separate
- the sewer, the electric, the water. We don't have a safe zone. We just kind of, we can approve our site
- plan. Some of those things approved and then it gets locked up and hung in the mat room sometimes till
- they're ready to go. For items such as this, it's common for staff to include in the results letter
- to the applicant petitioner that these are your next steps. These are the next things that we're expecting
- from you in order to proceed. So that gets communicated to them at the end of the rezone per se.
- and then when it comes to the commercial site plan stage, we look for those items. You got an audit
- trail of what were our concerns and how they were addressed and they were informed, by the way, what
- did they do about it. How long is our checklist when we reveal the site plan? It's a long checklist.
- It's a long checklist.
- As a planning commission, can we initiate an action independent of this request to rezone that property
- to general business? Because I look at it and everything around it is red. Why in the CDO did we not
- change it from LB to GB? Can we, independent of this petition, initiate a rezone? Yes. I kind of think
- that's a good signal.
- Did you say yes? Yes, I think that's, you know, it seems to me to fit. I don't know what the holes in
- that argument are, but it's a process that I think would just indicate our willingness to attract business
- to that corner because, you know, that's been a good business corner and everything that's around it
- is GP, the liquor store included, and Walmart.
- Oh, you know, that doesn't need to be all by itself. Lonely is an LB, you know. You just want one stop,
- liquor and beer. That's a dagger, yeah. We've done rezone correction, so we're in the organs. So I think
- that would sail to the developer something and kind of get it away from all this machination of bureaucracy,
- you know. It might be the most elegant solution that's like,
- I don't disagree, I guess. If we pursue a rezone, obviously it's going to go to the Board of Commissioners.
- I don't want to do too many hypotheticals. Let's say they adopt that and they don't plan on tearing
- down the site, then we just rezone it where they have all these uses. But we may not have the opportunity
- to address the driveway cut because if they keep the same brick and mortar and we rezone it,
- then they have those other uses that could intensify the traffic and things, but they still have the
- same access that they have currently. And that wouldn't necessarily, if I'm incorrect, that's what I'm
- trying to figure out, need approval from NDOT. It's really when they kind of scrape the site and rebuild
- that we're gonna have to address that. So like- Or an addition. Right, so like a little of, I think
- why we wouldn't want to initiate the rezone is because
- we might rezone it in it as is, and then that could create some intensity with traffic that isn't gonna
- be addressed because they're not gonna tear it down and then have to go through the end-off process
- to improve it. That's the only thing I would say counter Mr. Schilling's comment, making a condition
- at least to the driveway permit would be important because if we don't and we just look at the rezone itself,
- then we're going to reason on it and it's going to have all those additional uses. And if we feel comfortable
- that as is all those additional uses don't bother us too much, doesn't increase the intensity that creates
- traffic congestion or anything like that, that's fine. But I just, I want to kind of make that point.
- And if anything I said is incorrect to point that out, but right now,
- One of my talk about two things though. Rebuilding the site that triggering the end up driveway and
- maybe even the sidewalk or just rezoning the site as it is and giving those additional uses that do
- have a higher intensity. So I kind of would be more comfortable making a contingent to the end up driveway.
- At least the sidewalks a little bit different, so it doesn't go through a rezone process. Unless they
- can get that approval,
- You know that increased intensity doesn't have a negative impact in that area. So that's that's it.
- That's my only thoughts on that matter. Yeah, it's simply it's like almost like a trade off where if
- you attach a condition of approval that gives some authority to end up to make a decision about there.
- You want to give a driveway or not then at the same time you're
- on the other hand you know you're giving them some authority but then on the other hand you are yeah
- ensuring that they're going to give a driveway permit based off of the reason and if they don't and
- it doesn't get reasoned and then those intense abuses aren't allowed right in that as it is situation
- so that's it i'm sorry it's a good point you brought up uh i'd like to maybe clarify what i think i
- heard you say um
- at least part of what you said. If we went ahead with a rezone, independent of the developer's request,
- and then for whatever reason, NDOT decided they didn't want to grant them different access to the highway,
- if it's permitted as GB, then someone could say, I'm going to use the same
- structure and make it something else, a bait and tack or whatever. And so then you're automatically
- opening the door to an approved use that might not be best for the footprint. Yeah, the only thing is,
- it's the petitioner that gets to decide if they want to tear down the building and rebuild. The rebuild
- is what triggers the new driveway permit, which then needs that approval from the end
- So I guess maybe what I'm trying to say is a potential pitfall of an independent rezone is that someone
- else could come in and put something in there that is conforming to the general business, but might
- not be the most desirable thing for that. Might have an increased use or intensity. Exactly. I think
- I understand it better. Thank you. Any further comments?
- comments from our online folks. OK, no, I think it's all answered at this point. Dave, I'm good, thanks.
- Thank you. We got anything else. Yes, I do work with legal to provide us a couple different recommendations
- on this one here. I think the big stress are folks here so. I just have a reminder that next.
- Well, wait a second, wait a second. Is there an action that you want legal to take? No, I think they
- work well without making actionable requests, just maybe run it fine so we get a good recommendation
- out there to achieve our goal. He does that. Okay. Okay, so I just wanted to remind everyone that I had asked
- Jackie, I spoke to you all about Monroe County Apartment Association. And since she is not in the office
- at the moment, I will be speaking there next week from the 11th as registration is open until the 8th.
- If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested,
- I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you.
- If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested,
- I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you.
- Do you have one question that I might just take offline? That's I'm going to show you first time. Planning
- staff set on. I have one last question before we adjourn. Does anybody have a timeline for when the
- parking lot will be completed? Oh, I have the same person. We have the same person, but I just sent
- out the ORC packet without. The parking aid app.
- So be forewarned if you're on the ORC meeting, you might not be able to park here next week. You can
- park in the city's parking lot after five, so hopefully your car is or she's late. Oh, it's 50 cents
- an hour over in this garage here. It looks like the main entrance might not be open, but I feel we start
- parking here, that would be great.
- anything else for the good of the cause before we adjourn adjournment okay second all right thank you
- all thank you