[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE WE CAN GET STARTED. THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELCOME
[I. Call to order]
TO OUR MONTHLY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO READ THE ROLL CALLS. CLERK. NEED THE ROLL CALL? MR. JONES. PRESENT. MR. SHELL. PRESENT. MR. JACOBS.PRESENT. MISS SAMUELS. PRESENT. MR. SMITH. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. WILTROUT. HERE. ALL VOTING
[III. Action on minutes ]
MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ACTION AND MINUTES. FOR OUR LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS DATED AUGUST 26TH. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO LAST MONTH'S MINUTES? NONE HERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 26TH BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING. I'LL SECOND THAT. MR. MR. JACOB? YES. MR. SHELL. YES. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MR. SMITH? YES. MR. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS SWEARING.ANY WITNESSES IN WHO PLAN TO SPEAK TONIGHT? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A. DO WE HAVE A CARD IN THIS WOMAN BY ANY CHANCE? THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SPEAKER CARD. YES. OH, I DIDN'T SEE THA.
OKAY. WE HAVE. MA'AM, CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE MIC? I HAVE TO READ YOU YOUR RIGHTS HERE. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. AND STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. MY NAME IS REBECCA GREEN. OKAY. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA FROM STAFF TONIGHT? NONE FROM STAFF.
[VI. Cases]
OKAY, LET'S JUMP INTO THE ONLY CASE WE HAVE TONIGHT. IT'S VARIANCE 74202 FOR VARIANCE TO CODIFY ORDINANCE 1169 16 D RELATING TO THE SIZE OF SIGNAGE AND SIGN RELIEF FOR PHARMAVITE LOCATED AT 13 700. JUDGE STREET. COULD WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES. OKAY, SO THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 13 700 JUDGE STREET AND IT IS ABOUT 41.7 ACRES. THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH FACE OF THE BUILDING TOWARDS JUG STREET AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. THE SIGN CONSISTS OF THE WORD PHARMAVITE AND THE COMPANY'S LOGO, AND WOULD BE FLAT ALUMINUM PLATES AND SILVER METALLIC. IN COLOR AND SET ON A DARK BACKGROUND, AND PHARMAVITE HAS REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES. SO VARIANCE A WOULD ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE 143.6FT■!S, WHERE THE MAXIMUM SIZE PERMITTED IS 75FT■!S. AND FOR VARIANCE B,T WOULD ALLOW THE SIGN RELIEF TO BE HALF AN INCH, WHERE THE MINIMUM IS ONE INCH. SO FOR VARIANCE A, THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 228,000FT■!S, AND THE CODE ALLOWS ONE SQUARE FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT UP TO 75FT■!S I. THIS BUILDING HAS OVER 700 LINEAR FEET. THE SOUTH BUILDING FACE IS APPROXIMATELY 21,600FT■, MAKING THE TOTAL OF THE WALL SIGN JUST 0.66% OF THE BUILDING'S FACADE. SIMILAR TO SIX OTHER VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE BCA, AND DUE TO THE LARGE SCALE BUILDING, HAVING A LARGER SIGN FOR PHARMAVITE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, AND THIS SIGN IS A APPROPRIATELY AND SYMMETRICALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE BUILDING.AND THEN FOR VARIANCE B, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS DUE TO NOT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN MATERIALS AT THE REQUIRED SIZE. STAFF HAS SUGGESTED THE OPTION OF PROJECTING THE SIGN WITH MOUNTS OR BRACKETS, OR CHOOSING A DIFFERENT SIGN MATERIAL, AND THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS SIGN RELIEF IS TO ADD MORE VISUAL INTEREST AND TO HELP MAKE THIS SIGN STAND OUT FROM THE BUILDING. WHILE THE SIGN WOULD NOT MEET THE RELIEF REQUIREMENT. THE PROPOSED SIGN IN SILVER METALLIC ALUMINUM ALONG BEHIND THE BACK. DARK BACKGROUND, WHICH WOULD HELP IT STAND OUT FROM THE BUILDING AND ADD VISUAL INTERES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MISS GREEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP UP AND SPEAK? YES. THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BE PART OF NEW ALBANY'S BUSINESS SCAPE. THIS IS A YET ANOTHER LARGE BUILDING IN A BUSINESS PARK SURROUNDED BY OTHER BUSINESSES OF SIMILAR, SIMILAR LOOK AND STATURE. I DID SUBMIT A
[00:05:04]
LITTLE SUMMARY VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE JUST HEARD. JUST FOR CLARITY, DO YOU WORK FOR PHARMAVITE? I DO NOT. I WORK FOR. I WORK FOR THE COLUMBUS SIGN COMPANY THAT'S BEEN RETAINED TO HELP INSTALL THE SIGN AND HELP DESIGN THE SIGN. OKAY. SO HERE'S MY LITTLE PRESENTATION. YOU CAN JUST FLIP TO PAGE TWO. THERE'S THE BUILDING THERE. THIS BUILDING IS ABOUT 550FT FROM JUG STREET. SO IT'S QUITE A WAYS BACK THERE. AND WE AGAIN, WE JUST ARE ASKING FOR THE TWO VARIANCES TO ON SIZE SIGN AND AS TO INTRODUCE THE SIGN RELIEF. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS A LARGE BUILDING. IT'S GOT IT'S 720FT WIDE 30FT TALL. IT'S A VERY LARGE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND IT'S IN A BUSINESS PARK SIMILAR TO OTHER BUILDINGS. I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS. OKAY. AND AGAIN, SO OUR ARGUMENTS FOR THE SIGN VARIANCE INCLUDE THE FACT IT IS A LARGE BUILDING AND THAT A SIGN OF A SMALLER SIZE WOULD APPEAR TO BE OUT OF SCALE, AND THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SIGN THAT'S LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL BUILDING'S FACADE. AND AGAIN, AS STAFF STATED, THERE WERE SEVERAL PRECEDENTS FOR THE FOR A SIGN THAT'S A LITTLE LARGER IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THERE'S THE SIGN THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AGAIN, THIS PARTICULAR SIGN IS 550FT FROM JUDGE STREET. SO IT DOES INTEGRATE INTO THE BUILDING'S DESIGN. IT'S SCALED FOR A FACADE OF 720FT. GO AHEAD. AND AGAIN IT'S 550FT FROM THE FROM JUDGE STREET. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ONE INCH SIGN RELIEF AND A HALF INCH SIGN RELIEF IS PROBABLY DE MINIMIS FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT SIGN RELIEF IS MORE IF IT'S A WALKABLE AREA. AND THIS IS THAT KIND OF AREA. THESE ARE TWO OTHER SIGNS WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD THAT WERE LARGER THAN 75FT■!S. SO I THINK AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE ARGUMENT FOR SIGN B, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WE DON'T PUT THE SIGN RELIEF OF ONE INCH DIFFERENCE IS PROBABLY NOT VISUALLY DIFFERENT FROM JUDGE STREET. HERE ARE SOME OTHER PROPERTIES THAT YOU CAN SEE.THIS IS THE ACTUAL THIS IS ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. YOU CAN SEE THE PROBABLY NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THESE VARIANCES ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES. AND HERE'S THE OTHER SIDE. AND SO WE'RE ASKING WE'RE WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THESE ARE MINOR VARIANCES.
IN LIGHT OF THE PRECEDENT AND KIND OF BUILDING WE ARE DEALING WITH AND HOW FAR IT IS AWAY FROM FROM THE ROAD. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL. AND IF YOU HAVE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THEM. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GREEN? I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE, IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT'S BEEN ASKED BEFORE. IT'S NOT LIKE GROSSLY BETTER THAN WHAT'S BEEN ASKED FOR BEFORE. CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. AND IN FACT, AFTER THIS APPLICATION, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE OUR WORK SHOPPING FOR THAT CODE UPDATE. AND SO BASED ON THIS BOARD'S COMMENTS FROM AUGUST, THE CODE UPDATE RIGHT NOW WOULD PROPOSE A MAXIMUM SIGN AREA OF 200FT■!S. SO THIS IS WITHIN THAT PROPOSED CODE UPDAT. SO IT'S GOING FROM WHAT TO WHAT. WHAT WHAT WAS THE CODE CURRENTLY ALLOWS UP TO 75 MAXIMUM REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE. AND SO STAFF IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 200FT■!S. AND HAS THERE BEEN REQUEST TO ASK FOR LARGER THAN 200 IN THE PAST? YES. SO WHAT WHAT'S LIKE I'M SORRY DIVERGING HERE. SO WHAT WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN THE LARGEST SIGN THAT HAS BEEN ASKED FOR? AMAZON ASKED FOR A SIGN THAT WAS 297FT■!S. AND THE NEXT LARGEST SIGN WAS 215 FOR AMPLIFYBIO. OKAY. WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. SO OKAY. WITH WITH AMAZON, WHAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED ON THAT 297 WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED. YEAH, I REMEMBER THAT.
YEAH. WHAT ABOUT THE RELIEF? HAVE THERE BEEN PREVIOUS REQUESTS FOR A CHANGE IN THE MATERIALS OR THE RELIEF? SO WE'VE WE CHECKED OUR HISTORICAL RECORDS. WE COULDN'T FIND ANY OTHER SIGNS WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK HERE THAT HAVE RECEIVED VARIANCES FOR SIGN RELIEF. BUT WE AGREE THAT WE DON'T THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL. IN THIS CASE, WE THINK SORT OF THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF HAVING THAT SIGN RELIEF OR THICKNESS IS TO DISCERN IT FROM THE BUILDING YOU
[00:10:01]
KNOW, GIVES IT MORE DIMENSIONAL SHAPE AS WELL, TO CAST A SHADOW. SO HERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIS METALLIC ALUMINUM. SO WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. IF THAT'S STILL PROVIDING THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN SIGN AND BUILDING AND THEREBY MEETING THE SPIRIT AND INTENT. AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH WHY THEY'RE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE MATERIALS AS REQUESTED BY CODE. I'LL LEAVE THE APPLICANT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE MATERIALS ARE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN AND IN THIS SHINING METALLIC KIND OF MATERIAL THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THE SIGN. AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO POSSIBLY REDESIGN THE SIGN TO FIT WITH THE CODE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO USE THE SHINY ALUMINUM MATERIALS FOR THE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LETTER. THERE'S THEY'RE JUST HAVING TROUBLE FINDING MATERIAL THAT IS THAT THICK. THE ONE INCH. BUT IF THEY NEED TO USE A ONE INCH, THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO REDESIGN. AND I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CODE, THE RELIEF CODE. IS IT THE ACTUAL THICKNESS OF THE SIGN MATERIAL, OR DO THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO ATTACH IT THAT JUST PROJECTS IT OUT FROM THE BUILDING? I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN A MIXTURE, SO I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE SIGNS WILL USE A SIGN ITSELF THAT'S ONE INCH THICK.BUT CERTAINLY I KNOW THERE ARE SIGNS OUT THERE WHERE IT WILL BE EITHER A HALF OR EVEN A QUARTER OF AN INCH. THE SIGN ITSELF. AND THEN THERE'LL BE SORT OF ON PEGS, THAT PROJECT ON THAT EXTRA INCH FROM THE BUILDING TO CAUSE THAT SHADOW AND THAT THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MATERIALS AND IS THE PEG SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AN OPTION IN THIS CASE? I'M JUST NOT SURE. I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THAT. OKAY. AND IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IT AND TAKE IT BACK TO THEM. WE'LL COMPLY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, FOLKS? IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE SIGN IS BUILDING IDENTIFICATION. THIS IS NOT FOR TRUCKS TO USE. OR IS IT A COMBINATION OF ALL. WHAT'S WHAT'S THE. THE SIGN WILL BE USED OVER THERE. WILL BE USED OVER THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING. SO IT'S PRIMARY IS TO IDENTIFY THE BUILDING AND WHERE THE FRONT ENTRANCE IS FOR THE BUILDING. QUESTION FOR STAFF. AND STEVE, YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS, BUT WITH THE WORKSHOPPING, DID YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE THICKNESS OF THE SIGNS AT ALL? WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT CODE SECTION RIGHT NOW. SO YOU FEEL THAT'S THE CORRECT WIDTH. SO AS WE MENTIONED, YEAH, WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF VARIANCES. TYPICALLY WHEN WE DO CODE UPDATES IS WHEN WE SEE REPEATED VARIANCES. AND SO THAT'S SORT OF A TRIGGER THAT WE NEED TO RETHINK THIS. AND YOU KNOW PROPOSE A CODE UPDATE.
SINCE WE'VE HAD SO FEW OF THE SIGN THICKNESS VARIANCES WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES CURRENTLY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD. SO MOVED.
SECOND. MISTER SMITH. YES. MISS. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MISTER JACOB. YES. MISTER LAGINAS. YES. MISTER SHELL. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF ADMITTING THE DOCUMENTS. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ACCEPT VARIANCE. NUMBER 174204 FOR BOTH VARIANCE A AND VARIANCE B. I'LL SECOND. I WAS GOING TO SAY I APOLOGIZE. CAN WE DO THEM SEPARATELY. YEAH THAT'S FAIR. OKAY. I'LL START WITH A.
I'LL SECOND THAT. MISTER LAJEUNESSE. YES. MISTER SMITH. YES. MISTER JACOB. YES. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MISTER SHELL. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE VOTES TO APPROVE VARIANCE. A. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON VARIANCE B? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICATION VARIANCE 74 2024 B. I WILL SECOND THAT. MISTER SHELL. YES. MISTER SMITH. YES. MISTER JACOB. NO. MISS SAMUELS. NO. MISTER
[00:15:02]
ROGERS. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES IN FAVOR AND TWO VOTES AGAINST. AND FOR THE RECORD, FOR THOSE VOTING NO, CAN YOU PLEASE SAY WHY? FOR THE RECORD. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'D LOVE TO, ACTUALLY. I JUST HAVE TO FEEL THAT OUR CODE HAS BEEN CREATED WITH A CERTAIN INTENT OF UNIFORMITY AND RATIONALE BEHIND IT, AND I AM HEARING. THE REASON FOR THE RELIEF CODE BEING COST AND LACK OF FEASIBILITY OF MATERIALS. BUT WE CAN'T REALLY GET ANY FURTHER DETAIL ON THAT RIGHT NOW. SO WITHOUT THERE BEING PRECEDENT OF US HEARING A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT AND WITHOUT US HAVING FURTHER DETAIL OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO DELAY US X AMOUNT OF MONTHS OR THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO AS OTHER COMPANIES HAVE DONE TO MEET THE CODE. I DON'T AT THIS TIME FEEL THAT I CAN APPROVE. THANKS FOR TAKING EVERYTHING. NO, HONESTLY, I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF IT. MY VOTE. I STILL STAND BY IT. AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ASKED THE QUESTION I WAS OPPOSED TO. IF THIS HAD BEEN CONTINUOUS, IF THIS HAS BEEN A SITUATION WHERE THE VARIANCES CONTINUED, WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE REEVALUATED. I VERY MUCH VIEW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF FOLKS AND A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE BUSINESS PARK, AND WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNAGE, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE YET WITH WITH A YES VOTE TO OPEN THAT DOOR TO WHAT'S AHEAD TO START THAT PRECEDENT YET AT THIS TIME. HAPPY TO REVISIT IT DOWN THE ROAD. BUT JUST PUT IT OUT THERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, WHY DON'T WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE MEET SEPARATELY AFTER THIS? ABSOLUTELY. TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE HAPPY TO. GOOD IDEA.OKAY. THANK YOU. SO MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY? OKAY. OUR GUESTS ARE FREE TO LEAVE. THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME OTHER BUSINESS TODAY AMONGST THE BOARD, SO THANKS. THANKS, FOLKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. OTHER BUSINESS. CITY CODE AMENDMENT WORKSHOP.
[VII. Other business]
THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. SO YOU FIRST HEARD THIS IN AUGUST. WHEN WE KIND OF LOOKED AT THE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING SUBDISTRICTS, WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF SIGNS, WHICH RIGHT NOW WE ALLOW ONE PER BUILDING FRONTAGE. WE LOOKED AT PERMITTED AREA, WHICH IS ONE SQUARE FOOT PER LINEAR SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING FRONTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 75FT■!S. AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE MAXIMUM LETTERING HEIGHT OF 36IN. WE CONSIDER THAT AGAINST LOGOS THAT WE SEE. SO IN AUGUST THESE WERE THE CHANGES THAT WE PERMITTED. OR THESE WERE THE CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSED WHICH WAS FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS, ONE PER BUILDING ENTRANCE FOR PERMITTED AREA. WE WENT UP TO A SIZE OF. BUILDING OVER 150 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET MAY HAVE A WALL. SIGN UP TO 1% OF THE APPLICABLE BUILDING FACADE AND ADDITIONALLY FOR MEASUREMENTS. WE ADDED THAT IF THE WALL SIGN IS A COMPANY'S LOGO, THEN THE LETTERING HEIGHT DOES NOT APPLY. SO SINCE OUR WORKSHOP IN AUGUST, STAFF HAS REVISED TWO OF THESE. SO FOR A NUMBER OF SIGNS, WE HAVE KEPT THE ONE PER BUILDING ENTRANCE FOR PERMITTED AREA. WE DECIDED TO CAP THAT AT 200. AND JUST BASED ON RESEARCH AND PAST VARIANCE REQUESTS, YOU KNOW THIS WON'T TAKE AWAY EVERY VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT I DO THINK IT WILL MINIMIZE THEM. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, FOR MEASUREMENTS, WE DECIDED TO TAKE OUT THE LOGO INFORMATION BECAUSE WE ALREADY ARE INTERPRETING THIS AS ALLOWING LOGOS TO BE OVER 36IN.SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED TO SPELL THAT OUT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YEAH, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO WHO IS PART OF THIS GROUP THAT GOT TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THIS? IT WAS JUST STAFF OR DID YOU INVITE PEOPLE FROM OTHER BOARDS OR JUST INTERNAL STAFF? INTERNAL STAFF. IT WAS BASED UPON DATA YOU'VE HAD FROM OTHER VARIANCE REQUESTS. YEAH. SO SIERRA WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE PAST LIKE 5 OR 6 YEARS AT ALL THE VARIANCES. SO WE SHE ALSO LOOKED AT THE AVERAGE SIZE OF BUILDINGS. SO WE KIND OF KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE MIDDLE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE INITIALLY BASED IT ON FOR THAT 1%. AND IF YOU RECALL THERE WAS THAT 150,000. IT'S KIND OF WHERE WE LIKE CHANGE THAT THAT TIER. SO TO SPEAK. SO AFTER WORKSHOPPING WITH YOU GUYS, WE FELT IT WAS BETTER. AND I THINK THE FEEDBACK WE THOUGHT WE HEARD WAS TO SIMPLIFY IT. 200FT SOUNDS RIGHT. AGAIN, AS SIERRA MENTIONED, WE KNOW THIS WON'T BE THE FIX FOR EVERYTHING, BUT WE DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS MORE ON PAR FOR WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUT IN THE BUSINESS PARK, ESPECIALLY IN LICKING COUNTY, WHERE WE HAVE YOU HAVE THESE QUARTER TO A HALF A MILLION TO EVEN SOMETIMES 1,000,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS.
[00:20:01]
AND PROBABLY THE TOUGHEST THING, TOO, IS MORE OF THESE ARE MULTI-TENANT. SO RIGHT NOW IT JUST SAYS ONE PER BUILDING FRONTAGE WHERE MORE AND MORE OF THESE ARE HAVING, YOU KNOW, 3 OR 4 USERS AND SO IT'S CREATING THE NEED FOR VARIANCES JUST FROM LIKE A QUANTITY STANDPOINT AS WELL. AND SO IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS GO FOR ONE PER BUILDING ENTRANCE. OUR OUR SIGN CODE ACTUALLY ALLOWS THAT FOR RETAIL. SO LIKE AT MARKET SQUARE HERE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE MARKET SQUARE AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT USERS, THOSE TYPES OF RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES ARE ALLOWED ONE SIGN PER BUSINESS ENTRANCE. AND SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF MATCHING WHAT'S BEEN DONE AND WHAT WE FEEL HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OTHER AREAS. WHAT I DON'T SEE UP HERE IS THE COLOR CODE. WHERE'S THE COLOR CODE? WE HAVE A COLOR CODE, RIGHT? WE DO. SO THERE'S JUST A GENERAL REQUIREMENT SECTION THAT THAT APPLIES TO EVERY SIGN IN THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY. AND SO IT PUTS A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COLORS AT FOUR. AND SO BLACK AND WHITE ARE ALSO CONSIDERED COLORS PER THE CITY SIGN CODE FOUR. OKAY. FOUR. HOW COME THAT'S NOT PART OF THAT? LIKE I WOULD ASSUME THAT THESE ARE ALL THE CODES ASSOCIATED WITH A SIGN UP HERE.SO THIS IS JUST FOR COMMERCIAL AND WAREHOUSING FOR THAT. THAT SUBSET OF CATEGORY THE COLOR CODE APPLIES TO ALL. SO IT'S IN A DIFFERENT SECTION. BUT IT'S THERE. WE'RE JUST YEAH NOT SHOWING IT. GOT IT. APPRECIATE YOU KEEPING UP WITH THE TRENDS. AND I KNOW WE TOOK THE LOGO PART OUT. SO NOW BEFORE WE WERE SAYING THAT LOGO COULD BE LARGER. BUT NOW WITH THE NEW MEASUREMENTS WE'RE SAYING THAT'S INCLUSIVE OF LOGO MAXIMUMS. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW AS THE CODE IS WRITTEN, IT DOESN'T SPEAK ON LOGOS, BUT HOW STAFF HAS INTERPRETED IT. WHEN WE DO GET A SIGN, YOU KNOW, AND IF THEY HAVE A LOGO IN FRONT OF, YOU KNOW, THE NAME OF THEIR COMPANY OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE ALLOW THAT TO BE OVER 36IN BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE THAT AS A LETTERING HEIGHT PER SE. SO WE WERE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT IN THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, LOGOS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COULD SAY IT'S THEIR LOGO. NOT SO WE JUST DECIDED THAT WE WERE JUST GOING TO KEEP IT AS IT IS NOW, SINCE WE'VE BEEN INTERPRETING IT THAT WAY AND WE HAVEN'T RUN INTO ANY ISSUES.
YEAH. AND JUST TO ELABORATE THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO THERE'S OTHER SUBDISTRICTS AND CATEGORIES. I THINK THERE'S 6 OR 7 OTHERS THAT HAVE THAT SAME MAXIMUM LETTERING HEIGHT OF 36IN. SO WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY CAUSE SOME CONFUSION IF WE TREAT THIS SIGN DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS. SO WE THOUGHT MAYBE WE'LL JUST AGAIN TAKE LIKE THE LESS IS MORE APPROACH HERE AND JUST AGAIN GO FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION AND NOT ADD THAT ADDITIONAL, I GUESS DISCLAIMER ONTO THE INTO THE SIGN CODE HERE. AND WITH THIS, IF WE WOULD MOVE TO THIS, THERE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN TWO PROJECTS THAT WE REVIEWED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. THE AMAZON AND OKAY. YEAH THERE WAS YEAH AMAZON WAS 297. AMPLIFYBIO IS 215. AND CROWN LIFT TRUCKS ARE I'M NOT I'M SORRY NOT CROWN LIFT TRUCKS. AXIOM SIX WAS 205. SO THAT'D BE WERE THERE BUILDINGS MASSIVE THOUGH. WERE THEY COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER BUILDINGS. YEAH OKAY. THEY STAYED UNDER THAT 1% OR AT 1%. YES. THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS OVER 1% WAS AMPLIFYBIO. THEY WERE AT 1.35% OF THEIR BUILDING FACADE. THE REST OF THEM WERE UNDER 1%.
SO HOW DO WE MAKE THIS BETTER? OR HOW DO WE MAKE THIS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSISTENCY WITH FUTURE, WHETHER IT'S US, WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD OR WHETHER IT'S NEW PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING IN THIS SEAT, IN TERMS OF THOSE, I'M GOING TO CALL THEM THE MASSIVE BUILDINGS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'VE KIND OF BEEN HOVERING FOR CONSIDERATION AROUND THAT 1%. WE'RE SAYING IF IT'S 1%, UNDER 1%, WE'VE KIND OF USED THAT AS A RATIONALE TO APPROVE HERE FOR THE VARIANCES LATELY. HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT THAT OR HOW COULD WE FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY SUPPORT FUTURE BCA MEMBERS IN KEEPING WITH SOME KIND OF CONSISTENCY FOR THE BUSINESS PARK? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS STAFF CAN PROVIDE TO YOU AS BOARD MEMBERS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO PUT IN OUR STAFF REPORTS. AND IF WE GET ONE, OR I GUESS WHEN WE GET ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR SIZE, WE CAN ADD THAT INFORMATION AND SORT OF LIKE A HISTORY TOO, SO THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN SEE HOW THAT IS COMPARISON WISE TO PAST PRESENTATIONS. SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY IN THERE. SO YOU GUYS HAVE CONTEXT AND A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AS WELL. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRACK INTERNALLY OKAY. CAN YOU BREAK DOWN THE PROCESS FOR ME GOING FORWARD AFTER WE HAVE A DISCUSSION TONIGHT OF NEXT STEPS AND HOW THIS POSSIBLY WILL COME TO BE? YEAH. SO WE'RE WORKSHOPPING IT HERE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES A FORMAL REVIEW AND THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO NEXT WE'LL GO TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION ONCE AND ASSUMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THAT CODE UPDATE, THEN WE GO TO CITY COUNCIL WHERE IT WOULD HAVE TWO READINGS. AND
[00:25:03]
THEN IT WOULD HAVE THAT 30 DAY REFERENDUM PERIOD BEFORE IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE. OKAY. SO I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SIGN RELIEF STUFF JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT. SURE. YOU KNOW, ONE INCH HALF INCH AND WHERE WHERE HAVE WE SEEN A DISPUTE OVER THIS CODE BEFORE AND, AND COULD YOU REALLY EVEN TELL WHETHER THE HALF INCH OR 1IN OR 2 INCH OR ONE AND A THIRD INCH OR THAT'S. YEAH, WE YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHY IS THERE A CODE FOR THAT? SO I THINK THE CODE'S THERE. SO IT DOES IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGN CODE LIKE IT'S, IT'S INTENT IS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN DISCERN THE SIGN FROM THE BUILDING. SO I THINK IT'S TO ADD MORE I ALWAYS USE THE WORD VIBRANCY. BUT I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO ADD A LITTLE DIMENSION. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, VISUAL QUALITY TO THE SIGNS. RIGHT. IF IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROJECTION FROM THE, FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF, THERE'S ACTUALLY A MAXIMUM PROJECTION TOO. SO IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST ONE INCH. BUT NO MORE THAN 18IN. SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, PROJECTING A CRAZY AMOUNT FROM THE BUILDING. SO WE THINK IT'S TO ADD SOME QUALITY BOTH VISUALLY AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF, IN, IN SOME CASES NOT A LOT, BUT SOME CASES JUST STRUCTURALLY AS WELL.RIGHT. BECAUSE WE DO TRY TO ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, SOME UNIQUE AND VIBRANT SIGNAGE ACROSS, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD TOO MANY OF THESE. IN A LOT OF CASES, WE CAN TELL APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, THAT, HEY, YOU JUST GOT TO MAKE THIS SIGN A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, THICKER, A LITTLE BIT MORE RELIEF, AND THEY'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. IN THIS CASE I THINK THEY HAD. YEAH A SOURCING MATERIAL. CANDIDLY WE DON'T GET TOO MANY ALUMINUM SIGNS. SO WE COULDN'T SAY IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT 500 PLUS FEET, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DISCERN A HALF INCH? PROBABLY NOT. I THINK THAT'S WHY IN OUR STAFF REPORTS, WE DIDN'T VIEW IT AS SUBSTANTIAL IN THIS CASE. OKAY. THE ONLY WE DON'T GET TOO MANY OF THESE. THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF IS FOX IN THE SNOW. SO OUR OUR CODE, NOT TOO SURPRISINGLY REQUIRES THAT ONE INCH RELIEF. IT ALSO DOESN'T ALLOW SIGNS TO BE PAINTED DIRECTLY ON BUILDINGS. SO THAT WAS SORT OF LIKE A DOUBLE VARIANCE THERE. I THINK. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST ONE OTHER, I THINK IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, BUT YEAH, I THINK NINE TIMES OR 99 TIMES OUT OF 100, JUST ADDING A LITTLE THICKNESS HASN'T BEEN, YOU KNOW, TOO BIG OF AN ASK FOR APPLICANTS. I THINK IN THIS CASE IT'S JUST DUE TO THAT ALUMINUM FROM THE PIPES IN THE SNOW NEVER HIT OUR OUR BOARD. SO SINCE IT'S IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, THEY WENT TO THE CITY'S ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FOR THE FOR THAT VARIANCE. AND IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, THEY TECHNICALLY CLASSIFY IT AS A WAIVER. SO SAME THING VARIANCE WAIVER. BUT JUST GOES TO A DIFFERENT BOARD. OKAY.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT PAINTING ON. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS HAVING COMPANIES IN THE BUSINESS PARK HAVING SIGNAGE THAT IS JUST PAINTED ONTO THE BUILDING, AND MY CONCERN IS THE SLOPE THAT WE GET ON BECAUSE IF A HALF AN INCH ISN'T A DIFFERENCE FROM 500FT AND THEY GO DOWN TO A HALF AN INCH, THEN WHAT'S THE OTHER HALF INCH TO PUT IT STRAIGHT ONTO THE BUILDING? THAT WAS HONESTLY PART OF MY RATIONALE FOR JUST SAYING NO UNTIL WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION. SO IF WE FEEL THAT THE HALF INCH TO AN INCH IS GOOD, I WOULD I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF US JUST MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT AS OPPOSED TO DOING THE VARIANCE THAT I THINK CAN BE, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE SITTING IN THIS SEAT A YEAR FROM NOW, NEW, I MIGHT SAY, IF A HALF INCH WAS FINE AND YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, THEN WHY NOT JUST LET THEM HAVE FLUSH? YEAH, I THINK IT ALL THE FACTORS. SO THE SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS AT LEAST I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS 500FT AWAY. SO I HEAR THE BOARD TONIGHT MADE SOME RULES. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, THERE'S SOME UNIQUE FEATURES OR SIGNS 500FT AWAY. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY UNIQUE THING. SO I THINK THAT WAS ONE THING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT I HEARD TONIGHT. AND THEN I GUESS THE SOURCING, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE MATERIAL ITSELF. I DO THINK THOSE ARE UNIQUE MERITS. AND IF WE DO SEE ANOTHER SIGN VARIANCE FOR THE FOR THE RELIEF, THEN I THINK THOSE ARE SORT OF RULES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL DEFINITELY GIVE YOU GUYS BACKGROUND ON IT. AND I'M SURE YOU GUYS WOULD LOOK AT IT AS WELL, SINCE EACH SITE IS UNIQUE IN THAT SENSE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TOPIC. OKAY.
SECOND TOPIC IS ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS. RULE UPDATE AMENDMENT TO CO 15.02 D. YES. SO CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY DID AN UPDATE TO CHAPTER 159. SO THIS IS JUST TO THE BOARD AND COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES SECTION. SO RIGHT NOW THE CODE READS WITH WHAT'S IN WHITE. AND SO IT SAYS
[00:30:02]
ESSENTIALLY ATTENDANCE OF ALL CURRENT SERVING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE BOARD IS ENCOURAGED. AND THREE CONSECUTIVE ABSENCES BY ANY MEMBER OR FOR ABSENCES IN ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD SHALL BE CONSIDERED FORFEITURE OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO THE COMMISSION OR BOARD. SO THE WAY THAT THE TEXT READS NOW, IT REALLY SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT EVEN A CHOICE. AND SO THE CODE UPDATE NOW GIVES CITY COUNCIL MORE FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE. SO THE WORDS ARE GROUNDS FOR HAS BEEN ADDED. AND SO THIS IS KIND OF A LOT HERE. BUT IT GIVES CITY COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE BASED ON IF IT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE OR NOT. SO EXCUSED ABSENCES YOU KNOW PER THE CODE NOW CAN BE DUE TO ILLNESS, INJURY OR OTHER EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES. SO LONG STORY SHORT, INSTEAD OF GIVING CITY COUNCIL NO DISCRETION, YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT A BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBER HAS TO LEAVE THE BOARD DUE TO ABSENCES. NOW CITY COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, DUE TO EITHER ILLNESS OR INJURY, IF THAT BOARD MEMBER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY AND SERVE ON THAT BOARD AND THAT'S IT. MAKES SENSE. EXCELLENT. AND NOTIFY OF CLERK OF COUNCIL. THAT IS NOT CHRISTINA IN THIS CASE WOULD NOT BE CHRISTINA, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S THE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE NOTICES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE DO CHECK AND WE DO TRACK ABSENCES. SO CHRISTINA DOES DO THAT FOR US. BUT THEN YEAH SHE WOULD FORWARD THAT ALONG TO JEN MASON WHO'S THE CLERK OF COUNCIL. AND THEN SHE WOULD COMMUNICATE THAT TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR OCTOBER 28TH BCA MEETING? SO MOVED SECOND. MR. SMITH? YES. MR. JACOB. YES. MR. LOGAN. YES, YES. MR. SHELL YES. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR. GOOD NI* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.