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