[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED HERE. IT'S 630 RIGHT ON THE NOSE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE JANUARY 27TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE NEW ALBANY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE ROLL? MR. WASN'T PRESENT. MR. SHELL PRESENT. MR. JACOB. PRESENT. MR. SAMUEL. PRESENT. MR. SMITH PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER HERE. ALL VOTING MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.
[III. Action on minutes]
WE HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY. THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON DECEMBER 23RD. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? NONE HERE. MR. CHAIR, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 23RD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING. SECOND.MR. JACOB? YES. MR. SMITH? YES. MISS SAMUELS? YES. MR. SHELL. YES. MR. LAJEUNESSE. YES. ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PASSES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. IS THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT? EITHER STAFF OR BOARD MEMBERS. NONE FROM STAFF. OKAY. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT? YES, WE HAVE TO. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN. SO IF YOU COULD STAND UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. SO TYPEKIT, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IN CASE YOU WANT TO SPEAK, STATE YOUR NAME, SIR.
LYNN. WEIRICH. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO, OKAY. THANK
[VI. Cases]
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING IS. VARIANCE 90 92024. VARIANCE TO HARRISON WEST LGA ZONING TEXT SECTION 4E3H. TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING AT 9360 INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY. COULD YOU HEAR THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG HARRISON ROAD AND INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT, OUTLINED HERE IN RED. AND THEN THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE YELLOW COLOR. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALL COMMERCIAL, AND THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. AND THE ZONING TEXT DOES REQUIRE SCREENING FOR BOTH SIGHT AND SOUND, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO DO NO SCREENING. SO THESE IMAGES SHOW THE CURRENT ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ON THE BUILDING. THE PLATFORM ITSELF IS ABOUT BETWEEN 5 AND 8FT, AND THE TALLEST EQUIPMENT SITTING AROUND 8 TO 10FT. HARRISON WEST LGA ZONING TEXT REQUIRES COMPLETE SCREENING OF ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING, WITH MATERIALS THAT ARE CONSISTENT AND HARMONIOUS WITH THE BUILDING'S CHARACTER. SO, LOOKING AT INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY, THE VARIANCE IS, THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY VISIBILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT FROM THE ROAD, AS WELL AS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE IMAGES. AGAIN, FOR LOOKING AT HARRISON ROAD, SHOWING THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE, AS SEEN IN THE PICTURES, THE EQUIPMENT IS ONLY BRIEFLY, BRIEFLY VISIBLE WHEN TRAVELING ALONG SOUTH ALONG HARRISON ROAD IN THE BACK CORNER. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES. THE ONLY REAL VIEW OF THE EQUIPMENT IS FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, WHERE THERE ARE ONLY ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BACKING UP TO THIS. SO IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DUE TO BEING SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. THERE ARE MANY INDUSTRIAL TYPE DESIGN FEATURES, SUCH AS VENTS OR CATWALKS THAT WOULD NOT BE SCREENED ALREADY, AND WHILE THERE IS ZERO TO MINIMAL VISUAL IMPACTS, THERE IS NO SOUND BUFFERING BEING PROVIDED. CITY STAFF ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE PERMIT WITH THE LACK OF SCREENING ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE CITY WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO CREATE A SCREENING PLAN TO MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS, SHOWING THAT THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OTHER THAN GRANTING A VARIANCE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE 2024 WITH THEM. SO THE VARIANCE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SUBSTANTIAL FROM A SITE PERSPECTIVE, SINCE THERE IS NO VISIBILITY FROM INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY AND LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM HARRISON ROAD OF THE ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER, AND THE LACK OF SOUND BUFFERING[00:05:03]
DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, SINCE THE BUILDING IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND THE CITY STAFF DID ERRONEOUSLY APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN THAT INCLUDED NO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A MISTAKE ON THE CITY'S PART. THE APPLICANT IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING SET OF REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR STAFF? FEW STAFF. FIRST OFF, THANK YOU FOR CHALLENGING MY VOCABULARY WITH ATTENUATION. THAT WAS A NEW ONE FOR ME. SECOND, THOUGH, AS RELATES TO THE MAP, THE VERY FIRST ONE YOU SHOWED, IF YOU COULD PERFECT ON EITHER ON EITHER SIDE, LEFT OR RIGHT, IS THAT EAST AND WEST? CORRECT.OKAY. SO ON EAST OR WEST, ARE THOSE ELIGIBLE? COMMERCIAL SITES OR ARE ANY OF THEM PROTECTED DUE TO GREEN SPACE OR NATURE THAT WE. YEAH. SO THEY'RE ALL COMMERCIALLY ZONED. AND SO THIS ONE IS A VACANT LOTS THAT ALLOWS FOR THE SAME ZONING AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SAME FOR THIS ONE AS WELL. AND ACTUALLY THIS PROPERTY JUST RECENTLY SOLD AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVEN'T STARTED CONSTRUCTION WILL BE USED FOR A DATA CENTER IN THE FUTURE. AND ARE THEY REQUIRED TO BE LOOPED IN YET OR. YES. SO WE BASE IT OFF OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S WEBSITE. SO EVERYBODY WITHIN 200FT OF THIS PROPERTY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE VARIANCE. AND NO COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.
SORRY, HANS, THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION. BUT NO, BUT NO, I JUST HAVE THAT. AND THEN THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION FOR STAFF. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT ON THE APPLICANT? YEAH. LET'S KEEP GOING WITH STAFF. AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WHEN DID STAFF REALIZE THE MISTAKE AND NOTIFY THE OWNER. SO I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TIMELINE. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABOUT A YEAR AGO. SO I THINK STAFF REALIZED IT DURING AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO THERE'S VARIOUS THERE'S BUILDING INSPECTORS AND ALSO ZONING INSPECTORS. SO DURING A BUILDING INSPECTION, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR NOTICED THAT THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WASN'T SCREENED, NOTIFIED THE ZONING STAFF. SO UPON REALIZING THAT IT WAS NOT SCREENED AND WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE LOOK AT THE PLANS, REALIZED THAT WE HAD APPROVED IT MISTAKENLY. WE NOTIFIED THE TENANTS. THE APPLICANT TONIGHT AND WORK TOWARDS A SCREENING PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. WAS THAT PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY? I BELIEVE SO WE HAD A PARTIAL OCCUPANCY. PARTIAL OCCUPANCY? COULD YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. NO WORRIES. YEAH. SO THE OWNER HAD PARTIAL OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING ON THE OFFICE PORTION. AND I THINK PART OF THE MANUFACTURING PORTION AS WELL. IT WAS ABOUT A YEAR INTO CONSTRUCTION. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE BECAUSE I REMEMBER THERE WAS. YEAH. PARTIAL OCCUPANCY, YOU KNOW, TO BE GOOD PARTNERS WITH OUR BUSINESSES, WE STILL HAVE THEM TO OCCUPY THE BUILDING. KNOWING THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE INTERIOR THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE. SO THEY'RE STILL OPEN AND ACTIVE PERMITS. OKAY. QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT WHAT'S THE TYPICAL, I GUESS, PLAYBOOK FOR SCREENING? IS IT THE FENCING UP THERE. IS IT WALLS. IS IT GOING TO THE SIDE. SO IT CAN BE A VARIETY OF THINGS. SO THE CITY CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CERTAIN DECIBELS. SO OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SO LIKE HVAC HAVE TO BE SCREENED ON ALL FOUR SIDES FOR SIGHT AND SOUND. WE DON'T REQUIRE SCREENING FOR THINGS LIKE VENTILATION OR EXHAUST PIPES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IT CAN BE DONE BY A VARIETY OF WAYS. A LOT OF BUILDINGS HAVE PARAPET WALLS. SO THIS IS GETTING BLURRED FROM THIS BRIGHT GREEN. BUT SO FROM THE TOP THERE'S TYPICALLY A PARAPET WALL THAT COMES UP THE SIDE. IF IT'S TALL ENOUGH, THAT CAN SUFFICE.
AND, YOU KNOW, BE USED FOR ALL THE REQUIRED SCREENING FOR SIGHT AND SOUND. OTHERWISE, IF THAT WON'T DO, THEN YOU KNOW MOST BUILDINGS WILL ADD ADDITIONAL SCREEN WALLS TO EITHER, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER IT'S REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S FOUR SIDED SCREENING, EITHER THROUGH ADDITIONAL OR THROUGH ADDITIONAL SCREEN WALLS. AND ALSO PARAPET WALLS. TYPICALLY THESE SCREEN WALLS ARE LOUVERED. THEY'RE TYPICALLY NOT SOLID PANELED JUST BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS EQUIPMENT HAS TO BREATHE. SO IT ALLOWS AIR THROUGH, BUT STILL MANAGES TO REFLECT SOUND UP. AND SO BY NOT REQUIRING A DECIBEL LIKE REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, NO MINIMUM THAT ALLOWS MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PROJECTS TO DESIGN A SCREEN PLAN THAT MATCHES THEIR THEIR SITE AND THEIR BUILDING. I KNOW THE APPLICANT CITED SOME COSTS INVOLVED. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF
[00:10:08]
WHAT A TYPICAL, TYPICAL COST WOULD BE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? WITH THE LOUVERED? I WOULD, I WOULD GUESS I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE. YES. SIR. THANK YOU. YEAH, WE WENT THROUGH SOME MULTIPLE BIDS AND THE COST OF THE STEEL CONSTRUCTION TO INCREASE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE ITSELF, DUE TO THE ADDED WEIGHT THAT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AS THINGS WERE APPROVED AS IS, PLUS THE SCREENING AND THEN THE LABOR TO DO IT. THE CHEAPEST BID CAME IN AT $475,000. HAD THIS BEEN IDENTIFIED BACK IN 2022 WHEN THE PLANS WERE APPROVED, WE PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT ABOUT $250,000 BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE DESIGNED THE STRUCTURAL WORK INTO THE BUILDING AS BEING BUILT BEFORE WE OCCUPIED THE SPACE, SO WE HAVE TO BASICALLY GO IN AND RETROFIT THE INTERIOR STRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WIND LOAD BEARING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE SCREENS. SO I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S NO TYPE OF ALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT YOU CAN'T YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK. AND WITH ALL A TON OF ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING FOR THE WEIGHT. THIS WAS A SPEC WAREHOUSE BUILDING, MEANING IT WAS DESIGNED TO MINIMAL STRUCTURAL STANDARDS. RIGHT. AND THE OWNER OR PG IS LEASING THAT BUILDING. RIGHT. AND SO SHORT ANSWER IS NO. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING IN THERE AND BEEFING THE STRUCTURE UP. AND I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT BEEFING THE STRUCTURE UP. THIS TO ME LOOKS LIKE JUST SOME TYPE OF FENCING OF SOME SORT. IT'S A METAL PANEL, RIGHT. AND IT'S NOT THAT IT WEIGHS A LOT. IT'S THE WIND LOADS ON IT. RIGHT. AND SO IN ORDER TO WITHSTAND THE CODE REQUIRED WIND LOADS, IT MEANS WE HAVE TO GO INTO THE BUILDING, NOT JUST THE STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE ROOF, BUT ACTUALLY THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT'S INSIDE THE BUILDING, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THEY HAVE. OKAY. CAN WE JUST GO BACK FOR A SECOND? SO, SO WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING? I'M SORRY. WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING? COLLIERS, THROUGH TMB PURCHASED IT ORIGINALLY. AND THEN THE BUILDING WAS RECENTLY SOLD TO A COMPANY, MSG, AND THEY TOOK OWNERSHIP EARLY THIS FALL OR LAST YEAR. FALL TIME. OKAY. AND TELL ME WHAT'S ON TOP OF THE BUILDING, WHAT UTILITIES ARE ON TOP OF THE BUILDING, OR WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS ON TOP OF THE BUILDING? ON TOP OF THE BUILDING IS HVAC. SO WE HAVE JUST YOUR GENERAL OFFICE COOLING, MANUFACTURING AND COOLING. SOME HUMIDIFICATION DEHUMIDIFIERS. THE PRODUCT WE MAKE IS A CLEAR FILM, SO WE NEED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL AIR CHANGES TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CLEAN AIR IN THE ENVIRONMENT. TO CLEAN ROOM, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT HUMIDITY PLUS OR MINUS. SO STAG DOESN'T BUILD UP. SO THERE IS A LOT OF EQUIPMENT ON THERE, BUT PRIMARILY IT'S THE DRIVER OF THE MANUFACTURING IN THE AREA. OKAY. SO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE ROOF THERE IS SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS THAT YOU DO. OR WOULD ANY COMPANY HAVE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE NEED ON THE ROOF? IT IS SPECIFIC TO OUR BUILDING. THERE'S SOME GENERAL OFFICE HVAC THAT ANYONE WOULD HAVE, BUT MAJORITY OF THAT IS FOR OUR NEED. SO THERE'S NO LIKE CORE HVAC UNITS THAT NEED TO GO UP THERE. REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF BUSINESS GOING INTO THE BUILDING. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WHAT THE BUSINESS WOULD BE. SO SAY IT'S A WAREHOUSE STORING IT'S A WAREHOUSE. IT'S PROBABLY THERE'S EXHAUST FANS, MAYBE SOME VENTILATION FANS. SO THE OWNER IS SUBJECT TO A CODE SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS BUILDING AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE, ON THE ROOF TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING, REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS IS IN THE BUILDING. CORRECT? YES. OKAY. SO WHAT WHEN WE APPLY, WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIED, WAS THE OWNER THAT APPLIED OR WAS IT THIS BUSINESS APPLYING WHEN WE WHEN WE WERE, WHEN WE WERE FIRST APPLYING FOR THE APPROVALS FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF. YEAH. SO IT WAS PROBABLY TENBY WHICH WAS THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THEY SUBMITTED AND I THINK WERE ISSUED PERMITS FOR WHAT WE WOULD CALL LIKE THE SHELL. SO JUST LIKE THE BUILDING OUTSIDE. AND THEN USUALLY INDIVIDUAL TENANTS SUCH AS PPG COME IN AND DO INTERIOR FINISHES. AND THAT'S PART OF THOSE INTERIORS IS WHEN YOU NEED HVAC EQUIPMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHEN THOSE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT COMES ONLINE. AS FAR AS LIKE WHERE THE HVAC IS GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE. BUT IT IS TYPICAL FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR LARGE WAREHOUSES LIKE THIS TO BE BUILT[00:15:06]
WITH JUST A SHELL. AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL USERS TO SORT OF DESIGN. AND AGAIN, IT CAN I THINK IT CAN VARY LARGELY BASED ON THE TYPE OF USE THAT IT'S FOR. I THINK A LOT OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, JUST PLAIN WAREHOUSES HAVE VERY LITTLE HVAC. I KNOW THIS IS MORE MANUFACTURING SO THAT IT DOES REQUIRE MORE. BUT AND AGAIN, IT CAN BE, YOU KNOW, FEWER, LARGER UNITS. I KNOW FOR WAREHOUSES SOMETIMES IT'S OR IF IT'S LIKE A SMALL OFFICE COMPONENT, IT HAS MORE OF YOUR SORT OF RESIDENTIAL SCALE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF AIR HANDLING OR PURIFICATION THAT'S REQUIRED. SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE ROOF IS SPECIFIC TO THE BUSINESS RENTING THE FACILITY. SO YES, I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS I THINK THERE'S. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. SO AS IT RELATES TO WHAT INITIALLY WOULD BE ASKED TO BE PUT UP, WHETHER IT BE FENCING OR WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY YOU WANT TO USE, AND YOU'RE CHALLENGING MY KNOWLEDGE AS A HVAC BABY THROUGH MY FAMILY. BUT I'M TRYING TO THINK, IS IT PURELY THE SOUND IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT'S PROVIDING. AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS IF, LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, THUMBS UP. IT'S NOT REQUIRED. DOESN'T THAT IS THERE A POTENTIAL THAT THAT FENCING OR THAT WALL OR WHATEVER WORD YOU USE LOOKING FOR COULD HELP THE LONGEVITY OR THE LONG TERM PRODUCTION OR USE OF THOSE UNITS? OR DO THEY REALLY DO NOT PROVIDE ANY TYPE OF PROTECTION FROM THE WEATHER, NOT PROVIDING ANY WEATHER PROTECTION? SO REALLY IT'S JUST A SOUND BARRIER SITUATION. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, THANKS. HAVE WE BEEN OUT THERE DURING THE DAY TO LISTEN TO IT? I KNOW OUR STAFF'S BEEN OUT THERE A COUPLE TIMES, BUT I DON'T. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD, LIKE, ALL OF IT. RIGHT. I'M NOT SURE IF WE'VE BEEN UP THERE SINCE. HAVE YOU GUYS RECEIVED, LIKE, OCCUPANCY TO RUN THE EQUIPMENT? WE ARE RUNNING THE EQUIPMENT. THERE WAS A NOISE STUDY SUBMITTED WHEN THE 2022 SUBMISSION FOR DESIGN AND THE LOUDEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT BY DESIGN, BY THE TIME IT HIT OUR PROPERTY LINE WAS 54DB, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL LEVEL. I BELIEVE RESIDENTIAL LEVEL IS ABOUT 55DB TO 60. SO BASED ON OUR WHATEVER PIECE IS THE LOUDEST, BY THE TIME IT HITS OUR PROPERTY, WE WANTED TO BE AT RESIDENTIAL LEVEL. AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE 2022 DESIGN PACKAGE WITH THE VISUAL SURVEY AS WELL. OKAY, QUESTION FOR YOU. ON TOP OF THAT, JUST OUT OF MY IGNORANCE, IS THE SOUND CUMULATIVE OR IS IT JUST WHICHEVER ONE IS THE LOUDEST? IT WOULD BE AT THAT DECIBEL MAXIMUM, OR WOULD THEY PILE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH THE SOUND? IT'S NOT HUMAN. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE. I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS TO BLOCK VISIBILITY AND ALSO, IN THEORY, MITIGATE AS MUCH SOUND AS POSSIBLE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM DECIBEL LIMIT OR A MAX DECIBEL. I THINK IN THE IMAGES THAT WE SHOWED, THERE'S VISIBILITY FROM TWO PARTICULAR SIDES. CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH TWO SIDES THOSE ARE? SURE. WOULD YOU MIND GOING TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN? SO HISTORICALLY WHEN THE CITY IS REQUIRED SCREENING OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, IT'S BEEN FROM THE PUBLIC STREETS. SO AND WE ALWAYS MEASURE VISIBILITY FROM THE PROPERTY LINES. SO YOU CANNOT VIEW THE EQUIPMENT FROM THE IMMEDIATE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. LONG INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY. AND SAME WITH HARRISON AND THE PICTURES. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE LIMITED VIEW CORRIDORS IF YOU'RE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ALONG HARRISON. THERE'S ALSO LIKE A MOUND AND LANDSCAPING HERE. SO ANY VISIBILITY THAT MAY EXIST TODAY AND IT'S JUST A PARTIAL VIEW AT BEST AS YOU'RE GOING SOUTH, WILL LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE MITIGATED AS THE LANDSCAPING CONTINUES TO GROW AND MATURE. SO IT IS PRIMARILY THE EAST AND NORTH SIDE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME VISIBILITY LEVEL. I THINK IT'S YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PREDOMINANTLY JUST ALONG THE NORTH SIDE HERE, WHICH IS, YEAH, ADJACENT TO A FUTURE DATA CENTER USE. OKAY. AND REMIND ME PLEASE, WHEN STAFF WENT THROUGH THE SCENARIOS OF MITIGATION, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ABOUT A POTENTIAL VISIBILITY BARRIER ON ONE SIDE? SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE DISCUSSED ONE SIDE. I THINK WE WHEN WE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ALL FOUR SIDES. SO WE TRIED TO STUDY AND WE HAD PUT SOME OF THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT HEIGHTS OF THE PARAPET WALL AND, AND THE
[00:20:01]
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OF THE EQUIPMENT. BUT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. THERE ARE CERTAIN BUILDINGS WHERE, AGAIN, A PARAPET WALL MAY BE HIGH ENOUGH WHERE YOU ONLY NEED TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL SCREEN WALL ON ON ONE SIDE TO PROVIDE THE REMAINING SCREENING. THAT'S NECESSARY. AND I RECALL IN THE READING THIS WAS UNIQUE ALSO BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT IS ON A PLATFORM HERE WHERE IT'S NOT ON MANY OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU, JUST IN THE THEORY OF WHAT IF, HAVE YOU PRICED OUT, OR IS THERE A CAPABILITY TO PUT FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, A VISIBILITY SHIELD ON THE ONE SIDE? I'M SORRY. WHAT? ON THE RIGHT SIDE, LIKE A VISIBILITY SHIELD, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT? THE LEVERED WALL OR. YEAH, LIKE A LOUVERED WALL. LIKE A SCREEN WALL. YEAH. JUST ON I ASSUME YOU MEAN ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THERE'S. YEAH, VISIBILITY. YEAH. SO NO, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT WHEN WE DESIGNED THE SCREEN UP THERE. WE WENT TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE. WE WENT, WE WENT ALL THE WAY AROUND. THAT. RIGHT. IS THAT ENGINEERING PROHIBITIVE OR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE WORD WOULD BE. IS IT IS IT A POSSIBLE THING WITH THAT EQUIPMENT? I DON'T KNOW, I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WIND AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT HAS TO BE ALL FOR AROUND FOR YOU OR JUST IN THE WORLD OF EXPLORATION, TRYING TO PARTNER HERE. I MEAN, OF COURSE ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, RIGHT? SO YES, WE COULD DESIGN SCREENING ON ONE SIDE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH. I'M NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. I'M AN ARCHITECT. OKAY. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD CHANGE THE OVERALL COST OF THIS. THE SCREEN MATERIAL ITSELF IS NOT THAT. IT'S NOT A HUGE PART OF THE COST. IT'S SOME STRUCTURE TO MAKE TO HOLD IT UP. SO THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT FROM THE ONE SIDE WOULD THROW THIS FULL STRUCTURE OVER WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE TO REINFORCE THE ROOFING. YES, YES. AND THAT IT'S NOT THE WEIGHT, IT'S JUST THE WIND LOADS. YEAH OKAY OKAY OKAY.YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING IN. SORRY. IT'S THIS IS THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE BEST TO OUR CODES AND FOR YOU AS WELL. AND, AND YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL BUILDING OUT THERE. I WAS OUT THERE AT THE, AT THE RIBBON CUTTING AND EVERYTHING. IT'S A GREAT FACILITY. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM A WIND PERSPECTIVE. I KNOW THIS. WE PUT UP SOME NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS AND WE PUT SOME LIGHT SCREENING, AND WE HAD A WIND COME THROUGH AND BASICALLY BEND OUR POLES OVER. SO I CAN ONLY IMAGINE UP ON TOP OF THAT WITH A SOLID STRUCTURE.
STILL WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO REINFORCE IT. BUT STEPHEN, MY QUESTION HERE IS IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE SITE PERSPECTIVE IS SOMEWHAT NOT SUBSTANTIAL GIVEN OUR LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE, BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE OF A SOUND ISSUE THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE YET. AND I KNOW WHEN WE DID A SOUND STUDY RECENTLY, JUST ON OUR PICKLEBALL COURTS, JUST TO SEE WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE OUT THERE, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT AFFECT THE SOUND. WE I GOT MORE KNOWLEDGE ON THAT NOW THAN I EVER KNEW BEFORE, BUT A BODY OF WATER CAN CARRY THE SOUND EVEN FARTHER. IT AMPLIFIES IT, AND THERE'S JUST SO MANY OTHER THINGS. SO IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE IS, IS IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE VISUAL PART, TOO, BUT IT MIGHT BE THE SOUND THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY QUITE SURE. I KNOW WHAT THE SPECS SAY AND WHAT IT SAYS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT WE REALLY DON'T KNOW NOW THAT IT'S UP THERE. WHAT ALL THAT IS, IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S YEAH, I AGREE I THINK THAT'S A FAIR SUMMARY. AND WE WERE DISCUSSING TODAY THE HISTORY OF THIS SOUND REQUIREMENTS. SO IT ACTUALLY STARTED I THINK BACK IN 2014 WHEN THE BUSINESS PARK HERE IN LINCOLN COUNTY WAS EXPANDING. INITIALLY, THERE ARE BUILDINGS THAT DON'T REQUIRE THIS ROOFTOP SCREENING IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE SMITHSVILLE LOOP ROAD. AND SO WHEN THE BUSINESS PARK WAS FIRST EXPANDING, THERE WAS ALWAYS TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS NEXT DOOR TO THESE COMMERCIAL SPACES. AND SO IT WAS ACTUALLY THOSE RESIDENTS COMING INTO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THEY ACTUALLY DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SITES. THEY ACTUALLY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NOISE BEING GENERATED FROM THOSE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENTS. AND SO THAT'S HOW IT'S SORT OF BECOME A STANDARD BOYLE BOILERPLATE REQUIREMENT IS THROUGH RESIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS, NOT COMMERCIAL COMPLAINTS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE MENTIONED TWO TONIGHT, THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. I THINK THE CLOSEST ONE, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE, IS KIND OF LIKE OFF THE PAGE WOULD BE DOWN HERE, WHICH THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM HERE TO HERE I THINK IS A LITTLE OVER A HALF MILE. AND IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF BLOCKED BY THIS BUILDING AS WELL. SO JUST FOR SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT ABOUT HOW THIS REQUIREMENT CAME INTO BEING, AND SINCE, YOU KNOW,
[00:25:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL REQUIRE THAT SCREENING FOR SOUND, OF COURSE, THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH SITE AS WELL. SO STEVE, WAS THAT WHEN IT WAS ZONED AS A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL AND THIS IS ALL COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? SO YEAH, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE CITY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. BUT THE TOWNSHIP IN THIS AREA BEFORE IT'S ANNEXED WAS PREDOMINANTLY USED FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESIDENTIAL. SO THERE'S NO OTHER, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL OR I'M SORRY, NO OTHER COMMERCIAL TOWNSHIP USED PROPERTIES. SO IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT AS THE BUSINESS PARK, AS IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY, YOU KNOW, AS IT GROWS, IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AND USED TOWNSHIP PROPERTIES. SO HAS THE TOWN LOOKED AT POTENTIALLY CHANGING THIS CODE FOR THE TOWN BECAUSE OF THAT? SO IT'S STILL A STANDARD REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS THE FIRST VARIANCE WE'VE WE'VE GOT. BUT SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL NECESSARILY CHANGE. BUT I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION. SO YOU KNOW SORT OF WHAT THE HISTORY OF THAT REQUIREMENT IS I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR. IS THAT WHICH DIRECTION IS THE LEFT OF THIS PICTURE HERE. THIS IS WEST GOING SO WEST. SO THAT IS NOT THERE YET. WHEN THEY BUILD A BUILDING THERE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, MY BUDDY NEXT DOOR TO ME DIDN'T PUT A SCREENING ON THEIR UTILITIES. WHY DO I HAVE TO DO IT. IT'S JUST SETTING REALLY BAD PRECEDENTS FOR THE TOWN. BUT IF WE'RE THINKING ABOUT CHANGING THE CODE, THEN IT MIGHT NOT BE AN ISSUE. YEAH, AND I GUESS I'LL LET BEN, YOU KNOW, WEIGH IN TO LIKE, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE CITY STAFF DID, YOU KNOW, PERMIT THIS MISTAKENLY? I DO THINK THAT'S A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT'S TRUE JUST FOR THIS SITE.AND, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE IT WON'T BE TRUE FOR OTHER SITES IN THE FUTURE IF THEY COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE. SO JUST JUST TO REAFFIRM THAT, BEN. SO IF SOMEBODY ELSE COMES BACK BEFORE THIS COMMISSION WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT THE CITY DIDN'T, THAT THE CITY PERMITTED CORRECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING, LIKE, CAN WE LEAN ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY MISSED IT ORIGINALLY TO HELP SUPPORT OUR CASE ON WHY WE APPROVED THIS? YEAH. SO YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERYTHING CASE BY CASE BASIS AS IT COMES IN, BASED UPON THE FACTS THAT YOU RECEIVE. AND WHILE GENERALLY SPEAKING, COSTS AREN'T A REASON YOU SHOULD GET A VARIANCE, THEY'RE JUST THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. BUT I DID LOOK TODAY, AND THERE IS AT LEAST ONE CASE OUT THERE IN URBANA WHERE THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE BY THE CITY ABOUT A PERMISSIBLE USE AND THAT THE LANDOWNER RELIED UPON THAT WAS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS WERE. AND THEN IT CREATED A WHOLE HULLABALOO WITH THE VARIANCE. AND THE COURT SAID THAT THE CITY'S RELIANCE UPON THE CITY'S REPRESENTATION WAS A LEGITIMATE REASON TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. SO THAT DOES PROVIDE YOU SOME COVER IN THIS SITUATION TO CONSIDER THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT WAY, IF YOU EVER HAD TO PUSH BACK ON SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE FUTURE, YOU'D HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REPORTS, BUT I JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. SO THESE QUOTES THAT YOU GOT FOR THIS SCREENING, DID YOU HOW MANY DID YOU GET AND WHAT THE $450,000 SEEMS RIDICULOUS TO ME. YEAH. WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF QUOTES. IT'S THE SCREENING ITSELF IS A COST. THE STRUCTURAL STEEL IS A COST, AND IT'S THE LABOR TO DO IT. THEY HAVE TO COME INTO OUR FACILITY, WORK ABOVE PRODUCTION LINES, TEAR THE CEILING OUT. WE HAVE A DROP CEILING THAT HAS TO COME DOWN REMOBILIZE IN AND DO THE WORK. HOT WORK, WELDING, THINGS LIKE THAT INSIDE OF A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. JUST THE LABOR MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND IS THERE ONLY ONE WAY TO DO THIS, OR ARE THERE ALTERNATE WAYS TO DO THIS THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE CHEAPER OR FASTER OR. NO? OUR ENGINEERS LOOKED AT MULTIPLE WAYS AND THIS WAS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION.
AND IT'S NOT JUST THE COST TO THE OWNER, IT'S THE DISRUPTION TO THEIR BUSINESS AS WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE OPERATING NOW. OKAY. SO I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS, BUT YOU KNOW, THEIR DOWNTIME MAY EXCEED THE COST OF THE SCREEN. SO YEAH, THE HARDEST PART FOR US IS BEING A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT.
ONCE YOU BRING IN OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION YOU'RE DOING WELDING. WE COULD PUSH IT TO A NIGHT SHIFT OR A WEEKEND. WE LOOKED AT THAT, BUT THE DUST, DEBRIS, THE CONTAMINANTS THEY BRING IN REQUIRES US TO PROBABLY SPEND A SHIFT JUST CLEANING THE LINES, CLEANING THE WEB. SO WE'D BE LOSING 2 TO 3 SHIFTS EVERY DAY. AND WE'RE STILL RAMPING UP AND GOING. SO THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO US, IS HOW TO NAVIGATE RUNNING WHILE THIS WORK IS GOING ON. HOW LONG IS YOUR LEASE? HOW LONG IS YOUR LEASE? YOUR LEASE? YES. WHEN I SAY TEN YEARS. YEAH OKAY. OKAY,
[00:30:02]
THANKS. I MOVED TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR VARIANCE NINE 9 TO 2024 ONE SECOND. MR. JACOB. YES. MR. NESS? YES. MISS. SAMUELS. YES.MR. SHELL. YES. MR. SMITH YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF ADMITTING THE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS TONIGHT, FOLKS? YES, YES, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 992024 SECOND. SO NO PROVISIONS AT ALL. I'M TORN BECAUSE. I'M STRUGGLING. I THINK THAT WAS THE EXPLORATORY CONVERSATION THAT I WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. AND I GUESS TO MR. SCHELL'S POINT EARLIER, IS THAT THE SOUND, THE VISIBILITY, WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF THE SPIRIT? AND THEN I DO ECHO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE NEW TENANT COMING IN. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATION, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. YOU CAN WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION IF THAT'S IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD ALL YOUR ANSWERS YET. OKAY. I THINK I THINK THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION TO BE HAD. SO I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION. OKAY, SO WHAT IF WE PROPOSE SOME SORT OF SOUND STUDY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WITHIN THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE BUSINESS PARK? AND WHAT IS THAT? I MEAN, WHAT ARE THERE LIKE BOUNDARIES THAT IF IT'S BELOW THIS SOUND DECIBEL, IT'S OKAY? OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO I SO WE AS THE STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE EQUIPMENT. YOU KNOW YOU CAN GET APPS ON YOUR PHONE AND WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. I THINK YOU KNOW OTHER COMMUNITIES DO IT BASED ON NORMAL LIKE TRAFFIC SOUNDS. YOU KNOW THAT'S GENERATED THROUGH NORMAL DAY'S TRAFFIC. OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE LIKE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF SOUND THAT THAT COULD BE GENERATED. SO THE TOWN DOESN'T HAVE LIKE A MAXIMUM DECIBEL. OKAY. WE DO NOT. IT'S JUST PUT THE WALLS UP AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL MUFFLE THE SOUND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND BACK WHEN WE PUT THIS CODE IN PLACE, WE ACTUALLY DID GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PROPOSED A CODE UPDATE TO PUT IN LIKE A MAXIMUM DECIBELS. AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IN SUMMARY, IN SUMMARY, WE EVEN HIRED AN EXPERT, A SOUND ENGINEER TO ADVISE US. AND IT IT WAS VERY SUBJECTIVE. AND SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE DON'T DO THAT CODE UPDATE TO PUT A MAXIMUM DECIBELS. AND THAT'S HOW WE LANDED ON THIS WORDING FOR SOUND BUFFERING OR SOUND ATTENUATION, BECAUSE THEN IT ALLOWED FOR STAFF TO HAVE MORE ABILITY. AND THE APPLICANT AS WELL, AS FAR AS DESIGN GOES, TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS THE RIGHT FIT FOR EACH SPACE. SO PROPOSING A SOUND STUDY WOULD REALLY GETS US NOWHERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONSTRAINTS, THERE'S NO MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS. YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE WE KNOW THE SOUND THAT'S GENERATED FROM THE EQUIPMENT TODAY BASED ON THEIR SOUND SPECS. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE KNOWN DECIBEL THAT THE BOARD COULD, YOU KNOW, USE AND POTENTIALLY CONDITION ON IF THEY. WELL I MEAN YOU COULD SAY 54 I HAVE NO IDEA. I MEAN, WHAT ARE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE IN THE TOWN GIVE OFF? I HAVE NO IDEA. I MEAN, WE DON'T YEAH, WE DON'T KNOW EITHER BECAUSE YEAH, WE DON'T REQUIRE THOSE SOUND STUDIES. SO IT'S NOT PART OF THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. OKAY.
QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT LEVERS DO WE HAVE IN PLACE IF, IF THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST IS ULTIMATELY DEVELOPED AND THEY HAVE ISSUES WITH THE SOUND AT THAT POINT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REVISIT THIS? SO I THINK IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED TONIGHT, THERE WOULD BE NO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SO THIS THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EMIT SOUND OUT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT CITIES THAT THE CITY CODE HAS IS NORMAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS. SO IF THEY WERE TO PRODUCE, I GUESS, WHAT WOULD I FORGET WHAT THE LEGAL TERM IS LIKE OUTSIDE OF NORMAL BUSINESS OR I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT BUSINESS OPERATIONS. IT'S WORK HOURS FROM 7:30 A.M. TO 7 P.M. THEN THAT TYPICALLY IS A POLICE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. BUT OUR CITY CODE DOES ALLOW FOR NORMAL TESTING OF EQUIPMENT DURING ALL HOURS. OR IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF EMERGENCY WHERE THERE'S A POWER OUTAGE. OUR CODE DOES CONTEMPLATE AND ALLOW FOR THE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEMS TO PRODUCE LARGE AMOUNT OF SOUND THAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE
[00:35:02]
TO OTHER PROPERTIES. SAME WITH, YOU KNOW, POWER OUTAGE OR OTHER EMERGENCY NEEDS. SO IF WE DO GET COMPLAINTS AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE ASK THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE ENTIRE CITY, YOU KNOW, IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GENERATE THOSE SOUNDS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL WORK HOURS. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. NO. SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE AS IS IT, IT'S HARD TO CHANGE ANYTHING. I MEAN, AT THAT POINT UNLESS THEY THEY ARE ACTING AND MAKING NOISE CONTRARY TO OTHER CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS.YEAH. QUESTION FOR STAFF. YOU SAID THERE WERE SOME BUSINESSES THAT WERE EXCLUDED FROM THIS.
WHERE ARE THEY IN PROXIMITY. DO WE HAVE A LARGER MAP OF IT. SO I WOULD SAY THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT TOO FAR OVER TO THE TO THE WEST. SO THIS IS HARRISON INNOVATION CAMPUS WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN BRING UP AN AERIAL, BUT SMITH'S MILL LOOP ROAD WOULD BE KIND OF RIGHT OFF THE SIDE HERE.
AND IT'S THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE PART OF THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS PARK IMMEDIATELY EAST OF BEACH. THOSE ARE WHERE THERE'S NO ROOFTOP SCREENING FOR SIGHT OR SOUND. SO IF YOU DRIVE DOWN BEACH DAY, YOU'LL SEE ALL KINDS OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT THERE. THAT'S BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. AND THAT IS THE CODE DEFAULT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS A LIMITATION TEXT. SO THAT MEANS THEY CAN ONLY PUT ADDITIONAL LIMIT. THERE'S THERE ARE ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS BEYOND WHAT NORMAL CODE HAS. AND SO NORMAL CODE IF YOU GO TO THE GE SECTION TODAY DOES NOT HAVE ANY SIGHT AND SOUND REQUIREMENTS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. AND ONE COULD SPECULATE TO THE THAT PLOT OF LAND TO THE WEST OF THE CURRENT OF THE BUILDING. HYPOTHETICALLY, IF A BUSINESS WERE TO EXPLORE WANTING TO MOVE IN THERE, IT'S A GOOD POSSIBILITY THEY'LL PROBABLY ALREADY BE AWARE OF THE SOUND AND IT WOULDN'T BE A GOTCHA. HEY, WE ALREADY BUILT UP AND WE'RE HAVING A RIBBON CUTTING. WHAT'S THAT NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND? LIKE THAT'S LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE. YEAH THAT'S FAIR. YEAH, IT WOULD BE AN EXISTING CONDITION. YEAH.
IT'S THESE PROPERTIES HERE. AND I THINK MAYBE SOME OF THESE ON THE SIDE TOO WHERE I MEAN DEFINITELY THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SUPPLY CHAIN VERTICAL THAT WENT INTO THE LICKING COUNTY PORTION OF THE BUSINESS PARK. SO ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS LOOP DO NOT HAVE ANY ROOFTOP SCREENING FOR THEIR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. AND AGAIN, IN THE SITE WE'RE LOOKING AT IS RIGHT HERE IN THAT PROPERTY TO THE WEST, MOST LIKELY WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
YEAH. THESE ARE ALL SIMILAR INDUSTRIAL. IT'S A MIXTURE, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION USES. I THINK JUST MAYBE JUST LIKE 1 OR 2, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, I THINK THIS IS A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING WITH SOME WAREHOUSING, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY, YEAH, ARE PRODUCING RETAIL GOODS AND PRODUCTS AND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY THAT HAS NOT BROKEN GROUND YET. THEY ARE BEING HELD TO THIS LG CODE OR THE. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THEY HAVE THE SAME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THERE A MOTION TONIGHT. THE ONLY THING I'LL SAY I DON'T LOVE IT, BUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S A COURT PRECEDENT ON A VERY SIMILAR ISSUE WITH IT'S A DIFFERENT COURT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY OUT THERE. SO MY CONCERN. YEAH. SO YOU'RE THINKING THAT PROTECTS US FOR FUTURE CASES. I THINK IT PROTECTS FOR FUTURE CASES. I THINK YEAH, IT CERTAINLY HELPS TO DISTINGUISH WHAT THESE FACTS AND WHATEVER IT IS YOU ALL MAY DO FROM ANYTHING THAT MAY COME TO YOU IN THE FUTURE, ASSUMING WE DON'T APPROVE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULDN'T APPROVE. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT. BECAUSE IF PEOPLE DO COME TO US STAFF, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO SAY WHY THEY APPROVE IT, BUT CERTAINLY THAT HELPS US AS STAFF TO PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR FUTURE, YOU KNOW, TENANTS AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS WELL. AND ON THE FLIP SIDE, IT DOESN'T PUT US IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE WHEN THERE IS A CONCERN OR ISSUE ON THE INITIAL INSPECTION. RIGHT. OR. ON THE INITIAL REVIEW STRUCTURAL REVIEW. SO TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT STAFF WOULD REVIEW THE PLANS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. AND YOU KNOW, THEY WOULDN'T APPROVE IT.
CONSTRUCTION WOULDN'T BEGIN UNTIL ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE ON THE PLAN. SO WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AND WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS IS THAT ALL OF THAT ROOFTOP SCREENING IS ON THE PLANS. YOU KNOW, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE DEVELOPMENT HAS
[00:40:02]
THEY KNOW OF THAT REQUIREMENT AND THEY'VE COMMITTED TO BUILDING THAT. BUT IF WE FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT OF MAKING THIS VARIANCE BASED ON THE ERROR, I'LL JUST CALL IT THAT. IT DOESN'T PUT US IN A SITUATION TO HAVE TO MAKE THE SAME, FOLLOW THE SAME PATH IN THE EVENT OF ANOTHER. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. WELL, I KNOW THAT THAT'S THE ARGUMENT I WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE. AND I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, IS THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES TO YOU IN THE FUTURE AND SAYS, LOOK, I WANT A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST US A HALF $1 MILLION TO ENGINEER THIS AND PUT THIS UP THERE SO IT DOESN'T BLOW AWAY IN THE EVENT OF A WINDSTORM. I DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO DO AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THAT'S A COST. AND YOU CAN DISTINGUISH THAT FROM THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACTS THAT GIVE RISE TO THIS REQUEST, THAT THE FACT THAT SOMEONE FROM THE CITY APPROVED THESE PLANS ERRONEOUSLY, AND THAT BECOMES A DISTINGUISHING FACTOR. SO IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE NOT LOCKED IN TO DO THAT AGAIN. SO MY QUESTION IS IF THERE IS A FUTURE ERROR. SO WE DID HAVE THAT BEFORE. I THINK IT WAS A POOL APPROVAL. AND WE STILL REQUIRED THE FENCING. I THINK THAT'S HOW THAT WENT. BUT I JUST WAS SAYING IF WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE STAFF ERROR THIS TIME, DOES IT PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE FUTURE VARIANCE IF THERE WAS A STAFF ERROR? I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, I THINK YOU STILL TAKE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IN EVERY SITUATION. AND I THINK THAT YOU EVALUATE ALL FACTORS, AND I THINK THAT IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN EVALUATE THAT FACTORS TOO. AND I DON'T THINK IT LOCKS YOU INTO TO APPROVING A VARIANCE IN THE FUTURE. AND MECHANICALLY, IF WE VOTE FOR THIS VARIANCE AS IT'S STATED TONIGHT, THEN WHEN WE GO TO PULL FOR COMMENT AT THE END, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE COMMENT SPECIFIC TO THIS VARIANCE BEING APPROVED. I WOULD MAKE IT AS YOU'RE GIVING YOUR YAY! HERE'S WHY I OKAY, I THINK THAT I WANT TO DO A VARIANCE, WHEREAS IN OTHER INCIDENTS I MAY NOT DO IT, BUT HERE'S WHY. THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HARDSHIPS IN THIS SITUATION THAT THAT I WANT TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD HERE. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE 99 2024 WITH NO CONTINGENCIES. KNOWING THAT WE HAVE SOME LEGS TO STAND ON. IF THIS HAPPENS AGAIN. I WILL SECOND THAT. MR. LOZANO'S. YES. HOWEVER, I WOULD NOT BE VOTING FOR THIS IF THE TOWN HAD NOT MADE AN ERROR IN THIS CASE. SO LET'S LET'S DO A LITTLE A BETTER JOB. MR. SMITH. YES. MR. JACOB.YES. AND ECHO WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID. BUT IN ADDITION, WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME IS THE SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN THIS WOULD PUT ON TO AN EXISTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK THAT IS ALREADY UP AND OPERATING, AND THE SENSITIVITY OF THE PRODUCTS OF WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCING THAT COULD BE IMPACTED IF WE WERE NOT TO PASS THAT DECISION. SO I AM A YES. MISS SAMUELS. YES. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CITE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THAT OF THE JUST PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED STAFF CARE AND APPROVAL, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MAXIMUM DECIBEL LIMITATION RIGHT NOW FOR THE CITY. SO TO MR. LODGE'S POINT EARLIER, A SOUND STUDY WOULD BE NON-BENEFICIAL, I THINK, TO ANY PARTY AND US MAKING A DECISION AS WE TRY TO STAY WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE. YEAH. AND MAYBE I SUGGEST IT'S WORTH NOTING, TOO, THAT THIS IS, I THINK, 56DB JUST FOR THAT RECORD. BUT BUT BUT SO TO WHAT'S TOO MUCH I IT'S LIKE FOREIGN TO ME. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I DON'T THINK IT'S TO GAUGE LIKE HOW MUCH. TOO MUCH. I THINK IT'S JUST ONE MORE PIECE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING TO SAY NO TO A FUTURE ONE AND IT CAME IN AT 100, IT WOULD BE ONE MORE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THIS AND OTHERS. OKAY. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO PROBABLY HELPFUL TO REFERENCE WHAT THAT LEVEL IS. SO IF IN THE FUTURE IT DOUBLES AND WE DO HAVE A NOISE COMPLAINT, WE KNOW WE KNOW WHAT A BASELINE WAS AT THAT POINT. AND SO YES OR NO. SO AND I'LL NOTE THE DECIBEL LEVEL FOR THE LOUDEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ON THAT ROOFTOP WAS 54DB. THAT IS CORRECT. I ACTUALLY HAVE A COPY IF YOU GUYS WANT THAT FOR YOU. CAN YOU PLAY A RECORDING OF IT? I'M KIDDING. WE COULD. IT'S LIKE A JET ENGINE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO FLOURISH. MR. SHELL. YES. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGER VARIANCES WE WE'VE HEARD WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE MONEY
[00:45:03]
INVOLVED AND THE SENSITIVITY OF THE PRODUCT AND SUCH, AND IT'S PROBABLY TYPICALLY ONE WE WOULD LOVE TO APPROVE, BUT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S A PRIOR COURT CASE WITH SOME PRECEDENT SET. I THINK IT WOULD POTENTIALLY OPEN THE CITY UP TO LITIGATION IF WE SHOT THIS ONE DOWN. SO I SAY YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE VARIANCE.CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS, GUYS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.
YOU GUYS ARE FREE TO LEAVE IF YOU'D LIKE. OR YOU COULD STICK AROUND AND LISTEN TO WHAT ELSE WE HAVE TO SAY. APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. OTHER
[VII. Other business]
BUSINESS FOR THIS EVENING. I KNOW I HAVE ONE THING I'LL JUST SEND OUT TO THE COMMITTEE. SO ONE THING THAT THE TIME THAT I HAD SPENT ON BCA, A REALLY GOOD THING TO LOOK AT IS JUST DUNCAN.YOU KNOW, THE DUNCAN FACTORS WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING IT AS WELL, WHICH I KNOW STAFF DID A WONDERFUL JOB. THEY TAKE OUT THE ONES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO EACH CASE AND THEY'LL MAKE MENTION OF IT. BUT WHEN YOU DO GO THROUGH THE DUNCAN AND I KNOW WE GET THOSE IN HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IS IT SUBSTANTIAL, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THE CRITERIA. AND THEN THEY MOVE DOWN TO SOME OF THE OTHER CRITERIA, POTENTIALLY. AND REALLY IN MOST CASES FOR THIS ONE AND BASED ON STAFF REPORT, YOU REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, THE NOISE THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH YOU CAN JUST GOOGLE 56DB. AND I MEAN, I JUST DID IT AND IT'S MODERATE TO MODERATELY SEVERE NOISE LEVEL COMPARABLE TO A CLOTHES DRYER, YOU KNOW. SO I MEAN IT YOU KNOW, THAT'S UP TO INTERPRETATION BY WHAT YOU HAVE OUT THERE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DUNCAN FACTORS REALLY, OTHER THAN WHETHER THE PROBLEM CAN BE SOLVED BY SOME MANNER OTHER THAN GRANTING OF A VARIANCE, WHICH YOU ALL WERE ASKING AND ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. I REALLY THINK YOUR SOLID IN YOUR DECISION THAT YOU CAME UP WITH, ESPECIALLY GIVEN SOME OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS WELL. BUT THAT'S WHAT I ALWAYS DID WHENEVER I WAS ON BCA. I JUST GO BACK TO THE SEVEN DUNCAN FACTORS AND THEN LOOK AT THE OTHER ADDITIONAL FIVE. AND IF I HAD A QUESTION, THEN I WOULD PULL THAT OUT AND THEN I WOULD I WOULD ASK STAFF JUST FOR SOME CLARIFICATION AROUND IT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE DOING. THAT WAS REALLY GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. JACOB BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER POSITIONS ON THE BOARD. IS IT? WHEN DO WE TYPICALLY DO THAT? I THOUGHT IT WAS. OH, SO WE'LL COUNCIL CHANGE THE RULES FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING LAST YEAR FOR THEIR CODE UPDATES. SO I THINK WE HAVE UNTIL MAY TO DO THAT. SO WE'LL THAT'S UPCOMING OKAY. YEAH. WE HAVEN'T MISSED IT BUT IT'S UPCOMING OKAY. AWESOME OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS CONCERNS I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO KIRK FOR NOT LOOPING HIM IN ON OUR OUTFITS FOR THIS EVENING. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE ALL DRESSED ACCORDINGLY. STAND UP. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING FOR TONIGHT? SO MOVED SECOND. MR. SMITH? YES, MISS SAMUELS? YES, MR. LODGE? NESS. YES. MR. SHELL. YES, MR. JACOBS? YES. MOTION PASSES IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT. THANKS, THANKS. THANKS, STAFF. THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.