WEBVTT 00:00:01.058 --> 00:00:11.770 - Okay, it is 530, so let's call the Planning Commission Admin Meeting to order. And Ms. Behrman, would 00:00:11.770 --> 00:00:22.483 - you please take the role? David Bush? Here. Margaret Plimmons? Here. Tron Enright-Randolph? Not here. 00:00:22.483 --> 00:00:28.574 - Scott Harris? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. David Henry? Here. 00:00:32.578 --> 00:00:45.074 - Julie Thomas. I'm here. Inventor, not present. And Stephen Bishop. We have one, two, seven members. 00:00:45.074 --> 00:00:58.320 - And five of them are in person, so they have a quorum. Excellent. OK. Are there any changes to the agenda 00:00:58.320 --> 00:01:01.694 - before we get started? No. 00:01:01.858 --> 00:01:10.932 - Motion to approve the agenda as written. Second. I don't think we vote on that in the admin session 00:01:10.932 --> 00:01:20.369 - so much. I withdraw the vote. We could have voted on it though. We could have. We can start a new trend 00:01:20.369 --> 00:01:30.622 - now, can't we? For the record, Charm and Wright-Randolph is here. I think when it's continued with our identity, 00:01:32.898 --> 00:02:02.718 - 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. 00:02:02.850 --> 00:02:10.626 - 441 Southwest Gate Drive, Montgomery Township, Section 2. So this is a PUD that was approved, pulled 00:02:10.626 --> 00:02:18.634 - all the permits, making a lot of progress on the development. There were public improvements associated 00:02:18.634 --> 00:02:26.333 - with this position. And for them to be able to pull the permits, they bonded for many of the public 00:02:26.333 --> 00:02:29.182 - improvements. They actually have two 00:02:29.762 --> 00:02:36.676 - funds on file separate financial guarantees on file. This specifically is one that deals mostly with 00:02:36.676 --> 00:02:43.659 - road improvements with the other one which is for a very similar amount and it is more geared towards 00:02:43.659 --> 00:02:50.642 - stormwater. They're not quite ready for to release that one yet and has not been fully inspected with 00:02:50.642 --> 00:02:57.214 - as bills. So we're focusing on this one today. It's for $285,436.20. They're wanting to further 00:02:57.570 --> 00:03:06.299 - The room pay plan permission to release that full amount so they can get that back. They do have a current 00:03:06.299 --> 00:03:14.783 - letter cut on file. It's just was renewed on papers for another year. And the completion date that they 00:03:14.783 --> 00:03:22.206 - put on was July 26th, so they're actually under that deadline of their performance period. 00:03:26.114 --> 00:03:33.752 - I went over this the GPD stands for a guarantee of performance or planned unit development. It's very 00:03:33.752 --> 00:03:40.790 - similar to a subdivision improvement agreement that we usually also get letter of credits for 00:03:40.790 --> 00:03:48.577 - for subdivisions. This wasn't a subdivision, it's still a single lot of record. So public improvements. 00:03:48.577 --> 00:03:51.198 - Stationers requesting a release of 00:03:51.458 --> 00:03:58.870 - the exterior right-of-way will make complete work under GPD-22-2. Both West 3rd Street and South Park 00:03:58.870 --> 00:04:06.282 - Square Drive are already accepted into the roadways in the county inventory, and this release request 00:04:06.282 --> 00:04:13.767 - approves the improvements made within the existing right-of-way. The maintenance bond will be required 00:04:13.767 --> 00:04:20.670 - since these roadways are already accepted. And we do have what some of those are into the 30s. 00:04:21.634 --> 00:04:29.759 - So in our County Development Ordinance, Chapter 833-8, we have a procedure for releasing or reducing 00:04:29.759 --> 00:04:38.044 - a performance bond. And by means of URT, this is a release. And so we just want to confirm, staff went 00:04:38.044 --> 00:04:46.411 - through and made sure that at each point that we are reading these, they provided their request letter, 00:04:46.411 --> 00:04:49.950 - number one. Number two, are the ASGLE plans 00:04:50.690 --> 00:05:00.203 - And those have been signed off on by the Highway Department. And so there is a small bit of stormwater 00:05:00.203 --> 00:05:09.809 - infrastructure here with removing inlet covers. The requirement for number three was met. They provided 00:05:09.809 --> 00:05:19.230 - a letter with written assurances that they don't have any waivers of the meeting for any contractors. 00:05:19.650 --> 00:05:26.004 - there won't be any use against them. Number four is not applicable in the sense with the release. And 00:05:26.004 --> 00:05:32.545 - then finally, the number five deals with the reduction. And I might just read this one. So the developer 00:05:32.545 --> 00:05:39.211 - will not be required to put the maintenance bond under the planning ordinance. 62 roadways in the question 00:05:39.211 --> 00:05:45.815 - are already accepted roadways. One of the latest version of chapter 761, that's the stormwater ordinance. 00:05:45.815 --> 00:05:49.054 - The requirement for a maintenance bond was certain. 00:05:49.762 --> 00:05:57.276 - This year I worked with primarily the Highway Department and my stormwater division. We are relying 00:05:57.276 --> 00:06:05.091 - on the highly engineered release of the improvements. The highway project manager has requested further 00:06:05.091 --> 00:06:12.680 - asphalt information to show that the developers defined a crossroad maximum requirements, sidewalks, 00:06:12.680 --> 00:06:17.790 - straddle, etc. to the Exit 4 and the improved asphalt in May 26. So 00:06:19.010 --> 00:06:25.463 - Just last week, they were able to pull this all together on the day the packet went out. So the Highway 00:06:25.463 --> 00:06:31.978 - Department was able to complete a review of the ASVILPs. These were their final comments. Most important 00:06:31.978 --> 00:06:38.307 - is that other than one little correction that they needed on the ASVILPs for documentation, they were 00:06:38.307 --> 00:06:44.698 - good with the release. So the Highway Department is good with this release. These were their comments. 00:06:44.698 --> 00:06:47.614 - I think number two that they needed to kind of 00:06:48.002 --> 00:06:55.576 - Resubmit their assets. Yeah, so those are an exhibit for. And then we have some documentation in here 00:06:55.576 --> 00:07:03.224 - from July 30th, 2025, just certain things that they were completing along the way. We're kind of doing 00:07:03.224 --> 00:07:10.723 - these status check ins with them all along, but obviously we're wanting to make sure they were doing 00:07:10.723 --> 00:07:17.406 - things correctly all along. So we were checking in and making sure things were completed. 00:07:17.666 --> 00:07:25.534 - as we went through. One of the things that they did not complete, because it was kind of an optional 00:07:25.534 --> 00:07:33.558 - comment from a highway engineer, he did not recognize that the passports matched the plan through fire 00:07:33.558 --> 00:07:41.504 - specifications. So that handrail apparently along one of the sidewalks, they did not complete it, but 00:07:41.504 --> 00:07:46.334 - offered to install their links if the county shared the cost. 00:07:47.010 --> 00:07:54.336 - purchasing the railings. Upon discussing with the highway department, we decided to keep the comment 00:07:54.336 --> 00:08:02.170 - as optional since it does not reflect the approved development plan by the planning and highway department. 00:08:02.170 --> 00:08:09.423 - So just we're noting that in here. These are photos from all of those sidewalks along the two roads 00:08:09.423 --> 00:08:16.894 - that you'll see. And they do meet ADA compliance according to the highway engineer who reviewed these. 00:08:18.434 --> 00:08:26.983 - You can see that they're pretty extensive on this area here. I believe this is 3rd Street. So this was 00:08:26.983 --> 00:08:35.365 - Exhibit 1, which is the request for a release of the money. We have Exhibit 2, which is stating that 00:08:35.365 --> 00:08:44.495 - they, it's a written assurance that there's no affidavits, releases of waivers and payments from contractors, 00:08:44.495 --> 00:08:46.238 - subcontractors, etc. 00:08:47.618 --> 00:08:55.257 - This is the original estimate that we were working with that they have a current letter of credit on 00:08:55.257 --> 00:09:03.501 - file with us for that $285,406.20. And with, I will point out that under PUDs at the time this was approved, 00:09:03.501 --> 00:09:11.443 - we had 25% contingency added to the estimate, which is different than what you would see, what you would 00:09:11.443 --> 00:09:15.678 - have seen for subdivision back under the old ordinance. 00:09:15.906 --> 00:09:23.632 - 25% was a pretty good amount to add to it. And then finally, we have these ASVILTs that were corrected. 00:09:23.632 --> 00:09:31.283 - And if you were able to see this little, I blew it out, you would see that these were approved May 26, 00:09:31.283 --> 00:09:39.380 - 2026. So they corrected them right away just to make sure that we had these in the packet for documentation. 00:09:39.380 --> 00:09:43.614 - And so with that, we have a pretty simple recommendation 00:09:44.098 --> 00:09:54.179 - Staff recommends releasing a full performance guarantee amount, a limited $85,436.25, based on the stormwater 00:09:54.179 --> 00:10:03.618 - program report, highway engineer inspection findings, and findings in the report. Does anyone have any 00:10:03.618 --> 00:10:09.758 - questions? We will be voting on this evening. I have no questions. 00:10:10.114 --> 00:10:20.336 - I mean, there is one overriding question and it has to do with our past experience with not having adequate 00:10:20.336 --> 00:10:29.990 - money left over at the end of the entire project. Do we have to release money along the way or can we 00:10:29.990 --> 00:10:39.550 - hold it until all the other things including drainage are done? Right, so the drainage in the report 00:10:39.682 --> 00:10:47.096 - We have a separate GPUD-23-1 bond, primarily for stormwater improvements in the interior of the site. 00:10:47.096 --> 00:10:54.583 - And that is almost a similar amount. It might be $265,000 that they have on that with that extra added 00:10:54.583 --> 00:11:02.070 - 25% contingency wrapped into it. And so, I mean, the highway department is really comfortable with all 00:11:02.070 --> 00:11:09.630 - of this infrastructure that's gone in in the right of way, and they are supporting the release of this. 00:11:09.730 --> 00:11:18.415 - There's no more work that needs to be done associated with this, with this financial guarantee. I mean, 00:11:18.415 --> 00:11:26.934 - I think Tom has a question. Yeah, I'm just going to go to him if you're finished. I'm finished. Yeah, 00:11:26.934 --> 00:11:35.870 - 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 00:11:36.514 --> 00:11:44.715 - are those only for improvements kind of within what we're looking at the right of way highway? And I 00:11:44.715 --> 00:11:52.835 - guess what I'm really trying to ask is, could those go to stormwater improvement? So this, okay, so 00:11:52.835 --> 00:12:01.198 - like that second GDUD is for stormwater. So, okay. I was just kind of curious. Is what everything that 00:12:01.198 --> 00:12:04.446 - we have. That's what my assumption was. 00:12:04.610 --> 00:12:13.049 - So like if we held this, it wouldn't actually get stormwater improvements done. But it might be somewhat 00:12:13.049 --> 00:12:20.844 - of a carrot for them to achieve the stormwater improvements. They already have 265,000 expanded. 00:12:20.844 --> 00:12:29.122 - I understand. I'm just kind of trying to see, based off of Mrs. Clement's comment, like we want to see 00:12:29.122 --> 00:12:31.774 - all these improvements in there. 00:12:32.066 --> 00:12:38.770 - kind of rules are at our disposal. And this could be a financial tool to propel them to do the other 00:12:38.770 --> 00:12:45.474 - completements. But I don't want to hold it up. I just wanted to understand the differences there. So 00:12:45.474 --> 00:12:52.310 - thank you. And Mr. Bishop, if you didn't have this, I'll take you back on these. If the petitioner has 00:12:52.310 --> 00:12:58.948 - a supposed to absolve legal obligation and those requirements, is there anything that we could hold 00:12:58.948 --> 00:12:59.678 - it up for? 00:13:02.786 --> 00:13:09.316 - requirements of having this letter of credit, and they're asking for it to be released. Is there anything 00:13:09.316 --> 00:13:15.661 - that we have that can legally hold onto it, or that we require to release at a certain period of time? 00:13:15.661 --> 00:13:21.883 - Well, we're required to reduce the bond amount each year to correspond to what's left to be done. So 00:13:21.883 --> 00:13:28.228 - if they've done everything, there's no reason not to release the bond. If we go back and find out that 00:13:28.228 --> 00:13:31.678 - they really haven't done anything, then we'll just have 00:13:32.290 --> 00:13:43.984 - Pursue it a different way. Is there a legal recourse if we don't release it and finally mannered up? 00:13:43.984 --> 00:13:56.141 - I don't know, but I can't keep the recommendations. Yeah, just but just a final comment. My my questions 00:13:56.141 --> 00:14:02.046 - were more for me to fully understand some of this, 00:14:02.178 --> 00:14:09.277 - being more and more frequent. So I appreciate the. Couple of questions and then the follow up with kind 00:14:09.277 --> 00:14:16.308 - of illegal reports because it's. There to know. How this all works and you know, have any assumptions. 00:14:16.308 --> 00:14:23.408 - So that's really what it is. I'm in complete favor of this. As I mentioned to planning a long time ago, 00:14:23.408 --> 00:14:31.326 - I'm going to grade based on my opinions, offer recommendations. For my positions so. I have two questions actually. 00:14:31.554 --> 00:14:46.833 - First, is there, and I'm obviously not familiar with the storm water requirements or what the storm 00:14:46.833 --> 00:14:55.390 - water, pardon, as required, is that 285,000-ish number, 00:14:56.770 --> 00:15:05.560 - to be adequate to make the completions they need for the release of that bond ultimately. For the one 00:15:05.560 --> 00:15:14.351 - that's associated with G T U D dash one. Yes, I can go back to my desk and grab my spreadsheet of the 00:15:14.351 --> 00:15:23.486 - exact amount. It's very similar to this amount and but it looks like they're on track to. Yeah, they are. 00:15:23.714 --> 00:15:32.146 - I think they're still landscaping and a little bit of construction underlaying out there, so they can't 00:15:32.146 --> 00:15:40.578 - fully complete that yet, but they may hit that July 18th deadline. Okay, my next question is, go ahead. 00:15:40.578 --> 00:15:48.524 - My next question is regarding the optional comment by the highway engineer regarding the railing. 00:15:48.524 --> 00:15:53.470 - Is that, and I haven't been to the site, so I can't speak to 00:15:54.402 --> 00:16:00.774 - how severe of a drop that might be. Is that something that we need to address before we put this to 00:16:00.774 --> 00:16:07.146 - a vote? The department was OK with it. And I don't I honestly am not sure where that handrail would 00:16:07.146 --> 00:16:13.581 - have gone. I'm not sure if it was supposed to go here. I have not been on this site before. This was 00:16:13.581 --> 00:16:20.080 - Jackie's and we thought this was going to be done two months ago. So it just happens to be falling on 00:16:20.080 --> 00:16:24.222 - my self to present and make sure everything else was fine. Sure. 00:16:25.058 --> 00:16:36.757 - Well, then my last comment would be, given that the as-builts match the plan as approved and that they're 00:16:36.757 --> 00:16:47.795 - willing to split the cost of a reeling if it's deemed to be a safety hazard, I would be in favor of 00:16:47.795 --> 00:16:53.534 - approving the reduction. OK. So you had a question. 00:16:56.482 --> 00:17:03.120 - I mean, I support this. I think it's an example of the type of work that we would like folks to do, 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:09.958 - developers, et cetera, and it looks like they're doing everything they're supposed to do. My education 00:17:09.958 --> 00:17:16.928 - question for me is the developer. Really, for the folks at this table who's not familiar with the group, 00:17:16.928 --> 00:17:23.102 - Busgate on third, have we had any problems or issues from a compliance standpoint with that? 00:17:23.266 --> 00:17:29.658 - I mean, there were things that were done incorrectly. They were about things and put it down the right 00:17:29.658 --> 00:17:36.049 - way. But they fixed it. Correct. Yes. Yeah, they were trying to make sure they're as though they would 00:17:36.049 --> 00:17:42.379 - rebuild. Well, that's the purpose of that's the purpose of inspection. So to go in and see if they've 00:17:42.379 --> 00:17:48.585 - done what they're supposed to do. So OK, anyway, I support this. Mr. Bishop, one last comment about 00:17:48.585 --> 00:17:49.950 - the railing question. 00:17:50.050 --> 00:17:56.587 - Because it's already been moved into the county inventories, the county in charge of putting up that 00:17:56.587 --> 00:18:03.058 - railing now for a safety and suns issue because it's they've already taken it so they can't push it 00:18:03.058 --> 00:18:09.724 - back. So Ben Ayers with the Highway Department is not available this week. You would be able to answer 00:18:09.724 --> 00:18:16.261 - that question. I don't think. I don't have a good line. It was Paul. Paul. Paul Sanders retired like 00:18:16.261 --> 00:18:18.526 - that. He was the highway engineer. 00:18:19.298 --> 00:18:27.561 - I inspected this a couple of times before like really anything went up and they put in a lot of the 00:18:27.561 --> 00:18:36.155 - stormwater like infrastructure like upfront which helped quite significant significantly mitigate water 00:18:36.155 --> 00:18:41.278 - from adjoining park parcels. So I just you know kudos to them 00:18:41.378 --> 00:18:49.223 - you know, putting in that infrastructure kind of upfront to a certain extent. It just needs to get approved 00:18:49.223 --> 00:18:56.850 - and things of that nature. So I just wanted to make note of that. It was actually a fun site to explore. 00:18:56.850 --> 00:19:04.114 - We actually walked it before it got approved too. Okay. Any further comments or discussion? If not, 00:19:04.114 --> 00:19:09.054 - is anybody willing to put forth a motion? I'll make the motion that 00:19:09.186 --> 00:19:20.326 - We approve the recommendations releasing the full performance guaranteed amount of $285,436.20 based 00:19:20.326 --> 00:19:31.356 - on the farm water program report, the highway engineer inspection findings and the findings and the 00:19:31.356 --> 00:19:38.526 - report. Second. All right, there's been a motion and a second to 00:19:38.690 --> 00:19:50.104 - Release the full amount of $285,436.20. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronan 00:19:50.104 --> 00:20:00.640 - Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. 00:20:00.640 --> 00:20:07.774 - Jeff Morris? Yes. And David Bush? Yes. The motion passes 8 to 0. 00:20:17.026 --> 00:20:28.078 - on the agenda looks like new business PUD 26 stage 3 and I believe that's yours yes all right so this 00:20:28.078 --> 00:20:39.671 - is a secondary review plan amendment within the North Park PUD this is for the earnest health incorporated 00:20:39.671 --> 00:20:44.222 - property it is at 3050 North Lentil Drive 00:20:44.354 --> 00:20:52.668 - Secondary Review Plan Amendment is also known as a Development Plan Amendment. We updated the terminology 00:20:52.668 --> 00:21:00.747 - with the CDO adoption to follow along with statewide guidance on the terminology. So you might be more 00:21:00.747 --> 00:21:08.983 - familiar with the Development Plan Amendment phrasing, but it is also the exact same as Secondary Review 00:21:08.983 --> 00:21:10.238 - Plan Amendment. 00:21:10.434 --> 00:21:16.439 - So starting with the drainage board, that went on May 19th. Since the planning commission administrative 00:21:16.439 --> 00:21:22.501 - meeting, they did request a waiver of final hearing for the upcoming planning commission regular session, 00:21:22.501 --> 00:21:28.791 - which will be June 16th. But of course, there's still the opportunity for July 7th, the second administrative 00:21:28.791 --> 00:21:34.110 - meeting, as well as a second final hearing on July 21st of the American Planning Commission. 00:21:35.522 --> 00:21:42.086 - The property contains the Wilmington Regional Rehabilitation Hospital located in Virginia Township as 00:21:42.086 --> 00:21:48.522 - well as the Wilmington Township in multiple sections. The position site totals 6.69 acres, which is 00:21:48.522 --> 00:21:55.409 - the zone for Northern Park TV. The position site is known by GLC Wilmington Health LLC. Its representative 00:21:55.409 --> 00:22:01.909 - is Dana Butler by Daniel. This is a development plan review amendment. It includes a 12-bed addition 00:22:01.909 --> 00:22:03.582 - to the existing facility. 00:22:03.874 --> 00:22:10.429 - totaling 5,021 square feet, which will create a disturbance of approximately 0.51 acres. The proposed 00:22:10.429 --> 00:22:17.113 - project will also involve the relocation of some stormwater infrastructure, sidewalks, river rock, moat 00:22:17.113 --> 00:22:23.989 - strips, and other associated landscaping that exists on the site. The project does not propose any changes 00:22:23.989 --> 00:22:30.416 - to existing parking lots. A little bit of background, the planning department approved the original 00:22:30.416 --> 00:22:33.758 - development plan for this site in November of 2020. 00:22:34.210 --> 00:22:41.682 - for the 45,965 square foot rehabilitation hospital. It's parking, landscaping, and biorepension areas. 00:22:41.682 --> 00:22:49.227 - They got an approval location permit and a land use certificate following that approval. The North Park 00:22:49.227 --> 00:22:56.554 - PV ordinance, also known as an outline plan, was amended May 29th, 2025 by the New York County Board 00:22:56.554 --> 00:23:03.518 - of Commissioners. And that update really solidified and streamlined the North Park PV ordinance 00:23:03.682 --> 00:23:12.389 - between much more readable formats and administrative formats. Excuse me. So we do have a chapter in 00:23:12.389 --> 00:23:21.268 - the ordinance that talks about secondary review requirements, as well as a section in this report that 00:23:21.268 --> 00:23:30.751 - talks about the district ordinance. That ordinance update redefines some of the districts into sub-districts. 00:23:30.751 --> 00:23:32.734 - The property question, 00:23:32.962 --> 00:23:39.883 - noted with this yellow star is in the regional services sub-district. And there's design criteria as 00:23:39.883 --> 00:23:47.079 - well as building design standards and sub-district parking lot requirements that are all outlined within 00:23:47.079 --> 00:23:54.137 - that section of the ordinance. Staff did a review of these sections of the North Park PD Ordinance and 00:23:54.137 --> 00:24:01.470 - identified any violations of these criteria or standards with respect to the new developments of the site. 00:24:02.018 --> 00:24:10.487 - That is the expansion of the property with what was it, 12 bedrooms. So here's a bit of an analysis 00:24:10.487 --> 00:24:19.125 - of total square footage of existing conditions, bed count of existing conditions, employees, parking, 00:24:19.125 --> 00:24:28.356 - all of that. So they don't need to add any additional parking. They're not changing the use of the property. 00:24:28.356 --> 00:24:30.558 - They are adding new beds. 00:24:31.586 --> 00:24:38.219 - I believe that there will be within a few additional employees if I remember correctly. On the screen 00:24:38.219 --> 00:24:45.113 - now is a little bit of an analysis to the sub-district landscape requirements. So the number of plantings 00:24:45.113 --> 00:24:52.136 - that they have to remove and the number of plantings versus the number of plantings that they are replacing 00:24:52.136 --> 00:24:58.835 - or relocating, that latter number is more. So they started with fewer and now there's going to be more 00:24:58.835 --> 00:24:59.550 - plantings. 00:24:59.810 --> 00:25:06.446 - So there's not going to be a reduction overall. They're just relocating some, putting them back where 00:25:06.446 --> 00:25:13.278 - they either were or close to where they were, especially considering the perimeter parking area. They're 00:25:13.278 --> 00:25:19.914 - also proposing additional trees as well. Now to another comment regarding those. So everything on the 00:25:19.914 --> 00:25:27.006 - screen that's highlighted in yellow are landscaping items that are detailed in the secondary plan amendment. 00:25:30.338 --> 00:25:36.679 - So included the plan inventory schedule as well. Stormwater program during their review, they noted 00:25:36.679 --> 00:25:43.020 - that there are, in their interpretation, there are too many trees in this particular area. The gray 00:25:43.020 --> 00:25:49.615 - area you see here is the 12 bed addition. So in this little courtyard area, there's a lot of stormwater 00:25:49.615 --> 00:25:56.020 - infrastructure and the stormwater program manager is requesting that at least four of those trees be 00:25:56.020 --> 00:25:58.366 - relocated elsewhere on the property. 00:25:58.690 --> 00:26:06.494 - to alleviate some pressure on that stormwater infrastructure in that area, likely due to possibility 00:26:06.494 --> 00:26:14.299 - of roofs damaging that infrastructure. So here are the comments from the stormwater program manager. 00:26:14.299 --> 00:26:22.026 - They stated that no additional detention is required at this time based on the expansion. See, they 00:26:22.026 --> 00:26:26.430 - offered a few other comments regarding the silt fencing. 00:26:26.850 --> 00:26:35.833 - and other things here. All that were also addressed, I believe, during the drainage board review period. 00:26:35.833 --> 00:26:44.646 - No comments from the highway department. City believes the utilities left a comment related to looking 00:26:44.646 --> 00:26:53.886 - at the updated plans and saying that basically the existing infrastructure is satisfactory for the addition 00:26:55.266 --> 00:27:03.470 - Here we have a location map. As you can see, we're still in Wilton Townships, corner of several different 00:27:03.470 --> 00:27:11.364 - township sections here. Site conditions map. These contour lines, as you see, I believe, are outdated 00:27:11.364 --> 00:27:19.335 - based on how the site was developed over time. But you can see all the parking area they have, as well 00:27:19.335 --> 00:27:24.830 - as the existing footprint of the hospital here. I've also included the 00:27:25.986 --> 00:27:34.798 - The site plan itself that shows the existing conditions as well as the proposed addition. And it also 00:27:34.798 --> 00:27:43.609 - includes the grading plan and the changes made to the landscaping features as well. Again, no changes 00:27:43.609 --> 00:27:52.334 - to parking. They aren't violating their maximum pervious cover and they're not violating the maximum 00:27:52.334 --> 00:27:53.630 - height either. 00:27:56.418 --> 00:28:04.409 - I'll conclude the construction plans, detailing here more information about the addition made to the 00:28:04.409 --> 00:28:12.954 - hospital itself, showing those additional bedrooms here and footprint details, as well as exterior details, 00:28:12.954 --> 00:28:21.182 - including side materials, height, and some conceptual images as well. Just keep scrolling through here. 00:28:22.914 --> 00:28:31.609 - I also got the letter from South Central Regional Sewer District stating that they have a capacity for 00:28:31.609 --> 00:28:40.304 - the additional expansion here. I also included the original subdivision flat that details the property 00:28:40.304 --> 00:28:48.830 - as lot number five of the North Park Office State Road 46 subdivision tract B2 parcel 283 and three. 00:28:50.178 --> 00:28:57.584 - So all right, that brings me back to the beginning here. Pardon me, let's quit scrolling. All right, 00:28:57.584 --> 00:29:05.137 - so staff's recommendation is to approve the secondary review plan amendments, aka the development plan 00:29:05.137 --> 00:29:12.836 - amendments, subject to the highway department stormwater reports with the following conditions. Relocate 00:29:12.836 --> 00:29:17.822 - the four trees identified in figure five by the stormwater program. 00:29:18.050 --> 00:29:25.732 - And number two, the petitioner address any additional staff comments that might arise during the final 00:29:25.732 --> 00:29:33.488 - portions of this new period. Overall, I'll say you often don't see development plan review or secondary 00:29:33.488 --> 00:29:40.126 - review amendments by this board. It's usually done administratively by staff. North Park 00:29:40.226 --> 00:29:47.847 - ordinance itself actually requires that if there is an amendment to a development plan or a secondary 00:29:47.847 --> 00:29:55.617 - review plan that had come before the plan commission for review and approval. So that's why we're here. 00:29:55.617 --> 00:30:03.462 - I'll take any questions. On your recommendation item two where it says petitioner address any additional 00:30:03.462 --> 00:30:07.646 - staff comments. I think that's really kind of nebulous. 00:30:08.866 --> 00:30:14.573 - I think you need to be a little more specific. If we are going to make a recommendation to the commissioners, 00:30:14.573 --> 00:30:19.761 - I think we need to have a little more granularity. I mean, I don't know what you would say. I mean, 00:30:19.761 --> 00:30:25.001 - this goes with the South saying for almost everything we do, there are additional comments that need 00:30:25.001 --> 00:30:30.345 - to be addressed, and they have to be addressed. So I would just like to see a little more granularity. 00:30:30.345 --> 00:30:35.533 - If we're going to make that motion, I think we need to have a little more granularity. I agree with 00:30:35.533 --> 00:30:36.830 - that. I agree with that. 00:30:38.466 --> 00:30:50.394 - That's just my comment. I don't know if it was on this particular request or on another one up at Norfolk 00:30:50.394 --> 00:30:58.046 - Park, another one of the medical facilities, maybe an eye and belt. 00:30:58.818 --> 00:31:06.524 - location right around that same location but I do remember that they were having trouble with our plant 00:31:06.524 --> 00:31:14.008 - inventory both in terms of purchasing and in terms of installing and they had different plants and I 00:31:14.008 --> 00:31:21.492 - personally don't want to see this project held up because of an inability to get a certain plant you 00:31:21.492 --> 00:31:28.606 - know but I do see the plant inventory it looks like it's pretty reasonable but at the same time 00:31:28.770 --> 00:31:37.305 - You know, I'm concerned in general about the strictness of our landscaping requirements, you know, that 00:31:37.305 --> 00:31:45.512 - it can be difficult for people to find exactly at the time that they need to purchase it and put it 00:31:45.512 --> 00:31:47.646 - in the exact species that 00:31:47.842 --> 00:31:56.200 - they're required to find. But that facility is a good facility. It provides great care to people. It's 00:31:56.200 --> 00:32:04.396 - a wonderful service provider. I've known people in that facility. And the design is good as well. It 00:32:04.396 --> 00:32:12.510 - looks solid to me, but I'm not an engineer. But I agree with the comments that Colonel Farris made. 00:32:17.634 --> 00:32:32.030 - Any other comments? I guess we move on then since there won't be emotions on this. 00:32:42.274 --> 00:32:52.243 - I'm just going to do a brief introduction for the one. You'll see this in a couple of weeks. Rated by 00:32:52.243 --> 00:33:02.114 - it has a rezone REV-26-1. It's a rezone request to go from limited business to general business. And 00:33:02.114 --> 00:33:10.910 - it's located at 36.95 west state of 45. For the shares would be making this determination 00:33:11.842 --> 00:33:17.985 - I'm just going to kind of skip around a little bit. So this is this parcel here is going to be next 00:33:17.985 --> 00:33:24.250 - to Walmart on this side. And then the dark green here represents not our jurisdiction. So the city of 00:33:24.250 --> 00:33:30.516 - Burlington right here where that I think the big red liquor stores right there. The current zoning in 00:33:30.516 --> 00:33:36.842 - this area, the Walmart is also general business. So anything red, general business, which is what they 00:33:36.842 --> 00:33:40.958 - are requesting to be. And then the light pink is limited business. 00:33:41.090 --> 00:33:51.843 - quite industrial up in here. These are the site plans of the area. It does have some drainage that would 00:33:51.843 --> 00:34:01.469 - go kind of south and east. It is part of a terminal sinkhole, one of our critical watersheds, 00:34:01.469 --> 00:34:08.126 - and ends up, and I think it's Sinking Creek, terminal sinkholes. 00:34:08.802 --> 00:34:18.993 - their proposing is they would like ultimately to have a restaurant fast casual use on this site, which 00:34:18.993 --> 00:34:29.084 - is permitted in general business, but not in limited business. And with that, they would also like to 00:34:29.084 --> 00:34:35.614 - have a drive-through as an accessory use, which is permitted both 00:34:35.746 --> 00:34:43.582 - zones, but ultimately it's the last casual restaurant that they're kind of needing that extra rezone 00:34:43.582 --> 00:34:51.495 - or that rezone approval for to be able to do that. And they do have some conceptual designs included. 00:34:51.495 --> 00:34:59.486 - And something I want to point out also while we're here. Their access is through NDOT, not the Highway 00:34:59.486 --> 00:35:05.150 - Department. And so it's pretty difficult to get NDOT comments. I believe 00:35:05.794 --> 00:35:12.974 - There was something that was really they need a permit to be submitted in order to determine what's 00:35:12.974 --> 00:35:20.227 - going on there. But I will say that if you see this turn lane here, they have kind of an access that 00:35:20.227 --> 00:35:27.407 - comes through this way and then another access here. This building will be completely demolished if 00:35:27.407 --> 00:35:30.782 - this gets approved with a site plan permitted. 00:35:31.234 --> 00:35:38.826 - I think this is an easement that I think Ray researched this one and it had found the easement that 00:35:38.826 --> 00:35:46.493 - goes through here. And this is what it looked like in 2005. They just had a driveway permit right up 00:35:46.493 --> 00:35:54.768 - in this end out road. As Walmart was developing, part of the approvals was to include this like deceleration 00:35:54.768 --> 00:35:56.894 - lane to be able to turn in. 00:35:57.154 --> 00:36:03.593 - It has been looked at as early as I think it was 2006 or something like that. That's a 2005 photo. This 00:36:03.593 --> 00:36:09.785 - is current. And then the comprehensive plan, we looked at that. There's a lot of comprehensive plan 00:36:09.785 --> 00:36:16.101 - similarities, and that's something you'll want to delve into when you're reviewing this one is making 00:36:16.101 --> 00:36:22.416 - sure that this rezone request to general business matches the comprehensive plan. It is findings that 00:36:22.416 --> 00:36:23.902 - we would be looking at. 00:36:25.218 --> 00:36:32.399 - And then I was going to just skip to some of their schematics here. We have photos first. I'm not doing 00:36:32.399 --> 00:36:39.442 - a full presentation because you're going to get that in two weeks. This is just like an introduction, 00:36:39.442 --> 00:36:46.415 - right? So that's that driveway there. And the other one's over there. And send letter. But these are 00:36:46.415 --> 00:36:51.870 - a few of their, they provided three of them. This one looks like it's in this, 00:36:51.970 --> 00:36:57.798 - front setback and again the full building is going to go away and this is the footprint what they're 00:36:57.798 --> 00:37:03.569 - proposing. This one would meet setback and they're showing an orange kind of a wrap around and then 00:37:03.569 --> 00:37:09.570 - here's another concept here that would meet setbacks and come back and they haven't included like where 00:37:09.570 --> 00:37:15.398 - their employee parking or anything like you know walk-in dining where they would be parking but they 00:37:15.398 --> 00:37:18.110 - would have to meet all the design standards or 00:37:18.594 --> 00:37:29.577 - Come back for design. So does anyone have? We've included the limited business uses and design standards. 00:37:29.577 --> 00:37:39.939 - For both sounds that you can compare in your pocket. Does anyone have any question? Yeah, there you 00:37:39.939 --> 00:37:47.710 - go. No, it's going to be a tear tear down in a rebuild. This goes through. 00:37:48.162 --> 00:37:56.592 - we could address this at the site plan phase, but creating some connectivity of that missing gap of 00:37:56.592 --> 00:38:05.191 - the sidewalk. Yeah, sidewalks would be great. They would. And I guess my real question is that that's 00:38:05.191 --> 00:38:13.621 - kind of an internal, that's not something we have to work with NDOT. I mean, their plans, I'm sure, 00:38:13.621 --> 00:38:17.246 - are going to be submitted to NDOT. So, OK. 00:38:17.378 --> 00:38:25.601 - that'll be behind the scenes. Yeah, if it says no, then they need to come to a variance for that. Yeah, 00:38:25.601 --> 00:38:33.982 - if they say no, maybe we can get more creative, but it'd be great to see some connectivity with sidewalks 00:38:33.982 --> 00:38:41.889 - there. I'm a little indifferent. Staff is what? Recommending? Positive? Yeah. Yeah, the one thing I 00:38:41.889 --> 00:38:44.894 - think I have mentioned was, you know, 00:38:46.018 --> 00:38:53.913 - It is subject to stormwater program, highway department. Well, and not necessarily highway department. 00:38:53.913 --> 00:39:01.732 - They have not supplied a traffic study. No one would be needed. The business that's being proposed is 00:39:01.732 --> 00:39:09.398 - not Chick-fil-A. Yes. It's Domino's pizza, which doesn't generally get as much. So another thing is 00:39:09.398 --> 00:39:11.774 - Domino's with a drive-through. 00:39:12.034 --> 00:39:21.954 - I guess I have one additional question. Is there any particular permitted or permitted with standards 00:39:21.954 --> 00:39:31.873 - or even conditional use that staff does have any concerns about? That's a great question. And I mean, 00:39:31.873 --> 00:39:34.110 - I feel like, you know, 00:39:36.258 --> 00:39:43.978 - We have a site plan review, and they have to meet the design standards, and that's what this is. I personally 00:39:43.978 --> 00:39:51.277 - did not screen through any of the general business uses to see if we should be restricting. I feel like 00:39:51.277 --> 00:39:58.506 - you kind of almost step into planned unit development mode at that point, and it gets harder for staff 00:39:58.506 --> 00:40:02.366 - to administer if we have to remember elephant's brain. 00:40:02.914 --> 00:40:10.316 - like what uses are not permitted here. Do you blanket permit uses this zone? That's a lot of here. 00:40:10.316 --> 00:40:18.092 - So be it. I know we have had reasons that help restrict and certainly certain uses and some of us based 00:40:18.092 --> 00:40:25.569 - upon neighbors or. So at least things have been included. So I guess that's up to you all to decide 00:40:25.569 --> 00:40:31.102 - a concern about something that would be in general. That's nice. I guess. 00:40:32.290 --> 00:40:43.063 - Highway or stormwater and the other two that I'd be interested if they have to give you particular use, 00:40:43.063 --> 00:40:53.835 - we should be mindful of the outside of that. Out is the nine standards. Under GB when going to. There's 00:40:53.835 --> 00:41:01.086 - the maximum in the courthouse for critical watershed. 55% of the lot. 00:41:01.986 --> 00:41:13.673 - the maximum impervious. And then under limited business, their maximum impervious is 50%. So you can 00:41:13.673 --> 00:41:25.245 - take that extra. Mr. Ferris. So I do sit on the MPO and I do deal with that. I've had some dealings 00:41:25.245 --> 00:41:29.758 - with that over the last several years. 00:41:29.954 --> 00:41:36.646 - I've had some dealings with that dot over the last several years. Are we? This is a question more than 00:41:36.646 --> 00:41:43.274 - anything else. Are we getting in the car before the horse here? A long hold attempt. Could be end out 00:41:43.274 --> 00:41:49.966 - approval. And that may not be timely. I'm sorry, I'm having a couple of hearings that I'm sorry. Don't 00:41:49.966 --> 00:41:56.593 - try not to shout. To me, it appears this is just a comment that we may be getting the card before the 00:41:56.593 --> 00:41:59.582 - force and I'm talking about end out approval. 00:41:59.682 --> 00:42:07.383 - My dealings with NDOT is that the approval process is not something that's truncated. It's not compressed. 00:42:07.383 --> 00:42:14.724 - It's usually spread out. And getting something approved in a timely manner is kind of hard to do. And 00:42:14.724 --> 00:42:21.921 - so my question is, what is our role, if any, and I don't think there is any, with dealing with NDOT 00:42:21.921 --> 00:42:28.542 - to get an approval for this prior to it going to a plan commission? That's a good question. 00:42:29.602 --> 00:42:37.846 - Because that's the one thing I've kind of had on this petition all along, because it is hard. We had 00:42:37.846 --> 00:42:46.579 - the petitioner reach out to INDOT, and I think that the response we got, we included in the staff reports, 00:42:46.579 --> 00:42:54.986 - it wasn't a lot. Fisher indicated that INDOT stated that a rezoning will possibly be first before they 00:42:54.986 --> 00:42:59.230 - can proceed with reviewing the commercial driveway. 00:42:59.746 --> 00:43:07.077 - That's the response we got. So the reason we speak approved first, then they will look at the use, probably 00:43:07.077 --> 00:43:13.932 - the intensity and their plans. And it's up to them, I think. I think it's up to them if they want to 00:43:13.932 --> 00:43:20.855 - require a traffic study. Although I know we have kind of on county roads requested. I would make that 00:43:20.855 --> 00:43:26.014 - I would. But I don't quite know if we can tell the developer on that roads. 00:43:26.146 --> 00:43:31.644 - I would make the compelling argument that we could say the same thing, that before we take and do a 00:43:31.644 --> 00:43:37.307 - reasonable, we need to commit from end to end on whether or not they're going to allow this to happen. 00:43:37.307 --> 00:43:42.860 - I mean, it heats up everybody's time. Right. You can also refer to legal, that you did kind of bring 00:43:42.860 --> 00:43:48.468 - it to them briefly, and was, you know, did we have to have a driveway approval or some sort of input? 00:43:48.468 --> 00:43:54.185 - You know, we're just generically approving a use, and it would be pretty intensive, like Walmart, where 00:43:54.185 --> 00:43:55.230 - they made them do, 00:43:55.554 --> 00:44:03.112 - deceleration lanes and reconfigure the roads there to accommodate that use. This doesn't involve the 00:44:03.112 --> 00:44:11.043 - county at all. The county transportation or traffic commission is not involved with this at all, correct? 00:44:11.043 --> 00:44:18.526 - Because this is an end-op road, correct? And then they are branch of the highway department. So I'm 00:44:18.526 --> 00:44:23.390 - just making, I'm just stating for the record, I have a hard time 00:44:23.650 --> 00:44:30.234 - moving forward with a recommendation when we really have no commitment whatsoever from NDOT on what 00:44:30.234 --> 00:44:37.015 - they're planning to do. I have a problem with that. And I understand what you just said, that this has 00:44:37.015 --> 00:44:43.927 - to happen first, the rezone, before they will take a commit. Ed, do you have some insight on that? Could 00:44:43.927 --> 00:44:50.972 - we conditionally approve the rezoning dedicated on NDOT allowing it to happen? So if they okay everything, 00:44:50.972 --> 00:44:53.342 - we've already okayed our something. 00:44:53.634 --> 00:45:00.097 - But it allows us to back out if for whatever reason says no, you can't. That's why I think we should 00:45:00.097 --> 00:45:06.816 - do well. The development plan would not move forward without in docking. Approving the development plan, 00:45:06.816 --> 00:45:13.343 - but I mean, I don't think it's almost redundant to put. A condition like that in here well, but if we 00:45:13.343 --> 00:45:19.742 - rezone it prior to that, then the reasonings happen. This allows the rezoning to get walked back if 00:45:19.742 --> 00:45:22.174 - the end of people doesn't go forward. 00:45:22.754 --> 00:45:28.987 - So it ties the two together. True. Otherwise we're approving a change that doesn't necessarily got the 00:45:28.987 --> 00:45:35.039 - purpose. Which I mean it might be 10 years before they develop it and it may not be a drive-through 00:45:35.039 --> 00:45:41.272 - pizza place. It could be anything on that GV list. That's right. And it would be 10, 20 years from it. 00:45:41.272 --> 00:45:46.718 - That's right. So again, we have all sorts of dreams. That's right. You have any thoughts? 00:45:46.850 --> 00:45:54.349 - I have a question, but surely Thomas has her hand raised. Okay, you had your hand raised earlier, so 00:45:54.349 --> 00:46:01.997 - I was going to go to you first. I just have just a word of consideration. I believe that this property 00:46:01.997 --> 00:46:09.793 - has a bus stop on it, so just I'd like that to be factored in to everyone's thoughts. Good point. That's 00:46:09.793 --> 00:46:14.174 - a good point. Commissioner Thomas. Yes, thank you so much. 00:46:14.658 --> 00:46:25.207 - Back to the INDOT approval, we have had this happen before, so we typically require that as a condition 00:46:25.207 --> 00:46:35.654 - of approval that the development will have INDOT's support for a driveway. It seems like they may have 00:46:35.654 --> 00:46:44.478 - other avenues to enter the property with Walmart, so I don't know that that's going to 00:46:45.058 --> 00:46:53.977 - what the impact of that's going to be. But my question is, doesn't INDOT also have to approve an extension 00:46:53.977 --> 00:47:02.480 - of the sidewalk? Yeah, I think that would probably happen at the site plan phase. And like I said, if 00:47:02.480 --> 00:47:11.315 - they denied that and didn't want it there, I think we would still take it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:47:11.315 --> 00:47:13.566 - OK, so we're not requiring 00:47:14.178 --> 00:47:22.817 - that approval along with the driveway access from INDOT? This has to go through a site plan approval 00:47:22.817 --> 00:47:31.457 - and we have our standards that we require and so you know the sidewalk is a requirement the driveway 00:47:31.457 --> 00:47:40.096 - is a requirement we wouldn't approve and give issue any permits without those things and so we think 00:47:40.096 --> 00:47:43.774 - it's a matter of a developer taking a risk 00:47:44.834 --> 00:47:52.796 - You know, they may rezone it, but the use they want to do, it's a risk that maybe INDOT doesn't approve 00:47:52.796 --> 00:48:00.452 - of, you know, that type of intense use on that site. Or there is a lot of chicken and the egg here. 00:48:00.452 --> 00:48:08.415 - Right. So it's hard for me to respond, I guess. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to figure out who does 00:48:08.415 --> 00:48:12.702 - the sidewalk approval if it's INDOT who has to do that. 00:48:15.074 --> 00:48:25.731 - Right, is it in that or is it city of Bloomington jurisdiction right there? I mean, can we annex it? 00:48:25.731 --> 00:48:36.810 - It's annexation was right there. So it seems to me that a condition of approval, a condition of approval 00:48:36.810 --> 00:48:39.870 - could be a sidewalk approval 00:48:40.258 --> 00:48:47.830 - and we could just get that out of the way, but not to clearly delineate, oh, it has to come from NDOT 00:48:47.830 --> 00:48:55.476 - or it has to come from Bloomington City. But we could, since we know that that's going to be an issue, 00:48:55.476 --> 00:49:02.900 - maybe we could put that out there as a condition of approval, even though it's not required yet, it 00:49:02.900 --> 00:49:08.542 - will be required. I don't know, just a thought. I would just like to signal 00:49:08.738 --> 00:49:15.782 - maybe to the developer, that the project has our support, that we understand there's some bureaucratic 00:49:15.782 --> 00:49:22.142 - hurdles that we don't want to be in the way, but these are the things we're concerned about. 00:49:22.142 --> 00:49:29.186 - The bus stop, the sidewalk, in-dot approval, and that in general, we as the plan commission would like 00:49:29.186 --> 00:49:35.614 - to welcome them into the county and to support their business, you know, something like that. 00:49:36.770 --> 00:49:44.797 - I agree with that. There's a level of uncertainty and risk that the petitioners can have to take on, 00:49:44.797 --> 00:49:52.983 - but I definitely think my support would be contingent on the driveway permit approval and the sidewalk 00:49:52.983 --> 00:50:01.328 - approval for this. And obviously the bus stop, but that might, depending on Bloomington Transit in their 00:50:01.328 --> 00:50:06.494 - feedback, but yeah, but also address that as well. So generally, 00:50:06.690 --> 00:50:14.591 - It seems like a good location for a good project. The zoning fits with the other zoning around it, and 00:50:14.591 --> 00:50:22.338 - we'd like them to be successful in whatever we can do to help. It's my attitude. It seems to me that 00:50:22.338 --> 00:50:30.162 - this developer, I get a sense that he's kind of just feeling around looking for fatal errors. I think 00:50:30.162 --> 00:50:36.222 - he knows we've got a bunch of if-thens, and he's trying right now to decide if 00:50:36.674 --> 00:50:45.818 - if I can get in doubt on board, if I can do this, is the planning commission going to back me on a rezone 00:50:45.818 --> 00:50:54.703 - at that point? So I think he's looking for fatal errors before he goes much deeper. Maybe Mr. Shirley? 00:50:54.703 --> 00:51:03.070 - Just one thing to think about, when you condition your rezoning on the approval of another body, 00:51:03.362 --> 00:51:11.545 - you're essentially giving them veto power over your resume. So if you wanna give the state or the city 00:51:11.545 --> 00:51:19.729 - or whoever it has the veto power over that. I guess my suggestion would be to just focus on the zoning 00:51:19.729 --> 00:51:28.230 - aspects of it because I think as Tammy points out for a site plan, you're gonna have to have that sidewalk 00:51:28.230 --> 00:51:31.646 - in place or you won't get a permit anyway. 00:51:31.842 --> 00:51:41.178 - I don't know that in this particular case, that kind of condition is necessary, but you know, it would 00:51:41.178 --> 00:51:50.423 - be certainly good to express that on the record and perhaps get the developer to not as head to that, 00:51:50.423 --> 00:51:59.940 - 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 00:51:59.940 --> 00:52:01.662 - think anybody here 00:52:01.858 --> 00:52:08.846 - The issues are those three elements that we've been talking about. How do we take and codify or communicate 00:52:08.846 --> 00:52:15.381 - to the developer that those are concerns that need to be addressed? I mean, in fact, all we're doing 00:52:15.381 --> 00:52:22.110 - with this recommendation is approving or recommending approving of a reason. That's it. We're not doing 00:52:22.110 --> 00:52:28.710 - any of this other stuff. That's not part of the review. How do we codify those comments? I mean, from 00:52:28.710 --> 00:52:30.910 - a planning department standpoint, 00:52:31.170 --> 00:52:38.515 - How do we codify that to make sure that the developer is aware of those fatal errors, potential fatal 00:52:38.515 --> 00:52:45.932 - errors? Right, we do a pre-design with them. We did a pre-design with the outline plan portion of what 00:52:45.932 --> 00:52:53.277 - it is to go through the rezone process. And then we have, I think I had included a pre-design number. 00:52:53.277 --> 00:52:58.174 - I can dig a little deeper in here, but I'm pretty sure that in that 00:52:58.434 --> 00:53:05.115 - We said they would have to do a commercial site plan that undergoes the construction of sidewalks, 00:53:05.115 --> 00:53:11.998 - landscaping, lighting, parking, and stormwater ordinance. And then in the report, they obviously know 00:53:11.998 --> 00:53:19.017 - they need to talk to NDOT about their driveway, but also sidewalks. So at the site plan approval stage, 00:53:19.017 --> 00:53:25.630 - you have to just trust staff. We always have to trust utilities. Utilities are their own separate 00:53:25.954 --> 00:53:32.043 - the sewer, the electric, the water. We don't have a safe zone. We just kind of, we can approve our site 00:53:32.043 --> 00:53:38.073 - plan. Some of those things approved and then it gets locked up and hung in the mat room sometimes till 00:53:38.073 --> 00:53:43.927 - they're ready to go. For items such as this, it's common for staff to include in the results letter 00:53:43.927 --> 00:53:50.191 - to the applicant petitioner that these are your next steps. These are the next things that we're expecting 00:53:50.191 --> 00:53:55.870 - from you in order to proceed. So that gets communicated to them at the end of the rezone per se. 00:53:56.066 --> 00:54:01.638 - and then when it comes to the commercial site plan stage, we look for those items. You got an audit 00:54:01.638 --> 00:54:07.265 - trail of what were our concerns and how they were addressed and they were informed, by the way, what 00:54:07.265 --> 00:54:12.893 - did they do about it. How long is our checklist when we reveal the site plan? It's a long checklist. 00:54:12.893 --> 00:54:14.174 - It's a long checklist. 00:54:14.882 --> 00:54:24.320 - As a planning commission, can we initiate an action independent of this request to rezone that property 00:54:24.320 --> 00:54:33.486 - to general business? Because I look at it and everything around it is red. Why in the CDO did we not 00:54:33.486 --> 00:54:42.833 - change it from LB to GB? Can we, independent of this petition, initiate a rezone? Yes. I kind of think 00:54:42.833 --> 00:54:44.830 - that's a good signal. 00:54:44.994 --> 00:54:52.481 - 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 00:54:52.481 --> 00:55:00.335 - that argument are, but it's a process that I think would just indicate our willingness to attract business 00:55:00.335 --> 00:55:07.748 - to that corner because, you know, that's been a good business corner and everything that's around it 00:55:07.748 --> 00:55:11.198 - is GP, the liquor store included, and Walmart. 00:55:11.650 --> 00:55:19.455 - Oh, you know, that doesn't need to be all by itself. Lonely is an LB, you know. You just want one stop, 00:55:19.455 --> 00:55:27.335 - liquor and beer. That's a dagger, yeah. We've done rezone correction, so we're in the organs. So I think 00:55:27.335 --> 00:55:35.516 - that would sail to the developer something and kind of get it away from all this machination of bureaucracy, 00:55:35.516 --> 00:55:40.094 - you know. It might be the most elegant solution that's like, 00:55:41.858 --> 00:55:49.100 - I don't disagree, I guess. If we pursue a rezone, obviously it's going to go to the Board of Commissioners. 00:55:49.100 --> 00:55:55.806 - I don't want to do too many hypotheticals. Let's say they adopt that and they don't plan on tearing 00:55:55.806 --> 00:56:02.914 - down the site, then we just rezone it where they have all these uses. But we may not have the opportunity 00:56:02.914 --> 00:56:09.150 - to address the driveway cut because if they keep the same brick and mortar and we rezone it, 00:56:09.666 --> 00:56:15.920 - then they have those other uses that could intensify the traffic and things, but they still have the 00:56:15.920 --> 00:56:22.298 - same access that they have currently. And that wouldn't necessarily, if I'm incorrect, that's what I'm 00:56:22.298 --> 00:56:28.800 - trying to figure out, need approval from NDOT. It's really when they kind of scrape the site and rebuild 00:56:28.800 --> 00:56:34.992 - that we're gonna have to address that. So like- Or an addition. Right, so like a little of, I think 00:56:34.992 --> 00:56:38.398 - why we wouldn't want to initiate the rezone is because 00:56:38.754 --> 00:56:45.617 - we might rezone it in it as is, and then that could create some intensity with traffic that isn't gonna 00:56:45.617 --> 00:56:52.217 - be addressed because they're not gonna tear it down and then have to go through the end-off process 00:56:52.217 --> 00:56:58.883 - to improve it. That's the only thing I would say counter Mr. Schilling's comment, making a condition 00:56:58.883 --> 00:57:06.142 - at least to the driveway permit would be important because if we don't and we just look at the rezone itself, 00:57:06.594 --> 00:57:14.330 - then we're going to reason on it and it's going to have all those additional uses. And if we feel comfortable 00:57:14.330 --> 00:57:21.854 - that as is all those additional uses don't bother us too much, doesn't increase the intensity that creates 00:57:21.854 --> 00:57:29.027 - traffic congestion or anything like that, that's fine. But I just, I want to kind of make that point. 00:57:29.027 --> 00:57:33.950 - And if anything I said is incorrect to point that out, but right now, 00:57:35.266 --> 00:57:42.035 - One of my talk about two things though. Rebuilding the site that triggering the end up driveway and 00:57:42.035 --> 00:57:48.803 - maybe even the sidewalk or just rezoning the site as it is and giving those additional uses that do 00:57:48.803 --> 00:57:56.113 - have a higher intensity. So I kind of would be more comfortable making a contingent to the end up driveway. 00:57:56.113 --> 00:58:03.017 - At least the sidewalks a little bit different, so it doesn't go through a rezone process. Unless they 00:58:03.017 --> 00:58:04.574 - can get that approval, 00:58:05.634 --> 00:58:11.876 - You know that increased intensity doesn't have a negative impact in that area. So that's that's it. 00:58:11.876 --> 00:58:18.181 - That's my only thoughts on that matter. Yeah, it's simply it's like almost like a trade off where if 00:58:18.181 --> 00:58:24.611 - you attach a condition of approval that gives some authority to end up to make a decision about there. 00:58:24.611 --> 00:58:28.606 - You want to give a driveway or not then at the same time you're 00:58:30.690 --> 00:58:37.692 - on the other hand you know you're giving them some authority but then on the other hand you are yeah 00:58:37.692 --> 00:58:44.624 - ensuring that they're going to give a driveway permit based off of the reason and if they don't and 00:58:44.624 --> 00:58:51.695 - it doesn't get reasoned and then those intense abuses aren't allowed right in that as it is situation 00:58:51.695 --> 00:58:58.627 - 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 00:58:58.627 --> 00:58:59.806 - heard you say um 00:59:00.386 --> 00:59:10.985 - at least part of what you said. If we went ahead with a rezone, independent of the developer's request, 00:59:10.985 --> 00:59:21.890 - and then for whatever reason, NDOT decided they didn't want to grant them different access to the highway, 00:59:21.890 --> 00:59:29.534 - if it's permitted as GB, then someone could say, I'm going to use the same 00:59:30.914 --> 00:59:37.826 - structure and make it something else, a bait and tack or whatever. And so then you're automatically 00:59:37.826 --> 00:59:44.945 - opening the door to an approved use that might not be best for the footprint. Yeah, the only thing is, 00:59:44.945 --> 00:59:52.134 - it's the petitioner that gets to decide if they want to tear down the building and rebuild. The rebuild 00:59:52.134 --> 00:59:58.078 - is what triggers the new driveway permit, which then needs that approval from the end 00:59:58.626 --> 01:00:06.311 - So I guess maybe what I'm trying to say is a potential pitfall of an independent rezone is that someone 01:00:06.311 --> 01:00:13.699 - else could come in and put something in there that is conforming to the general business, but might 01:00:13.699 --> 01:00:21.162 - not be the most desirable thing for that. Might have an increased use or intensity. Exactly. I think 01:00:21.162 --> 01:00:25.374 - I understand it better. Thank you. Any further comments? 01:00:31.010 --> 01:00:40.541 - comments from our online folks. OK, no, I think it's all answered at this point. Dave, I'm good, thanks. 01:00:40.541 --> 01:00:50.345 - Thank you. We got anything else. Yes, I do work with legal to provide us a couple different recommendations 01:00:50.345 --> 01:00:58.878 - on this one here. I think the big stress are folks here so. I just have a reminder that next. 01:00:59.042 --> 01:01:08.467 - Well, wait a second, wait a second. Is there an action that you want legal to take? No, I think they 01:01:08.467 --> 01:01:17.893 - work well without making actionable requests, just maybe run it fine so we get a good recommendation 01:01:17.893 --> 01:01:28.158 - out there to achieve our goal. He does that. Okay. Okay, so I just wanted to remind everyone that I had asked 01:01:29.410 --> 01:01:34.557 - Jackie, I spoke to you all about Monroe County Apartment Association. And since she is not in the office 01:01:34.557 --> 01:01:39.606 - at the moment, I will be speaking there next week from the 11th as registration is open until the 8th. 01:01:39.606 --> 01:01:44.704 - If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, 01:01:44.704 --> 01:01:49.655 - I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. 01:01:49.655 --> 01:01:54.753 - If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. If you're interested, 01:01:54.753 --> 01:01:57.694 - I can forward you. If you're interested, I can forward you. 01:01:58.114 --> 01:02:07.048 - Do you have one question that I might just take offline? That's I'm going to show you first time. Planning 01:02:07.048 --> 01:02:15.397 - staff set on. I have one last question before we adjourn. Does anybody have a timeline for when the 01:02:15.397 --> 01:02:23.747 - parking lot will be completed? Oh, I have the same person. We have the same person, but I just sent 01:02:23.747 --> 01:02:27.838 - out the ORC packet without. The parking aid app. 01:02:28.194 --> 01:02:35.451 - So be forewarned if you're on the ORC meeting, you might not be able to park here next week. You can 01:02:35.451 --> 01:02:42.707 - park in the city's parking lot after five, so hopefully your car is or she's late. Oh, it's 50 cents 01:02:42.707 --> 01:02:50.251 - an hour over in this garage here. It looks like the main entrance might not be open, but I feel we start 01:02:50.251 --> 01:02:52.766 - parking here, that would be great. 01:02:52.962 --> 01:03:03.173 - anything else for the good of the cause before we adjourn adjournment okay second all right thank you 01:03:03.173 --> 01:03:04.574 - all thank you