[I. Call to order ] [00:00:12] COMMISSIONER? YES. ELECTRICAL. CALL TO ORDER. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MONDAY, THE 7TH OF APRIL. COULD WE HAVE THE ROLL, PLEASE? PRESENT. MR. WALLACE. MR. SHELL PRESENT. MISS BRIGGS HERE. MR. LARSON. COUNCIL MEMBER WILTROUT HERE. THERE ARE THREE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE [III. Action on minutes: March 3, 2025 ] HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. THANKS. ITEM THREE. ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 3RD. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES DOWN HERE? NONE FOR ME. SORRY TO HEAR A MOTION ON THE MARCH 3RD MINUTES. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 3RD, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. I'LL SECOND THAT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ON THE MINUTES? COULD [IV. Additions or corrections to the agenda ] YOU HEAR THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. SHELL? YES. MR. KIRBY? YES. MISS BRIGGS. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA? I DO HAVE 1 OR 2. JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE YOU GUYS TO OUR NEW PLANNERS THAT JUST GOT BROUGHT ON TO CITY STAFF. I DON'T KNOW, UNLESS. AND, JAY, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELVES REAL QUICK. HI, I'M ANNELIESE BENNETT. I JUST STARTED AS A PLANNER. WAS THE FIFTH WEEK, I THINK OF US OF JAY AND I. BEING PLANNERS HERE. SO HAPPY TO BE HERE. I CAME FROM A STATE AGENCY PRIOR TO HERE, THE OHIO. SO THESE CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION WHERE I DID SOME MASTER FACILITIES PLANNING THERE AND WORKED IN COMMUNICATIONS AND THEN I CAME HERE. SO I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE. VERY GOOD. YEAH. AND I'M JAVON HENDERSON. I GO BY JAY WAS FORMERLY AN EMPLOYEE AT THE CITY OF DUBLIN, SO I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE AND REPRESENT THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY. THANKS. WELCOME. THANK YOU. WHAT? EVERYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. PLEASE RISE. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. AND NOW IS A GOOD TIME FOR US TO TURN OFF OUR CELL PHONES. AT THIS TIME. YESTERDAY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD TIME TO TRY [VI. Cases] SOMETHING ELSE. ARE THERE ANY VISITORS TONIGHT WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA? HEARING AND SEEING NONE. THAT TAKES US TO OUR FIRST CASE. ZONING CHANGE TEN 2025 CLOVER VALLEY ROAD. CAN WE HEAR FROM STAFF, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. SO OUR SITE IS OVERALL CONSISTS OF A COUPLE PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN LICKING COUNTY. THE ZONING DISTRICT IS GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF DRUG STREET AND THE WEST OF CLOVER VALLEY ROAD. THE NEIGHBORING USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS INCLUDE LG AND TMD SITES, AND THE SITE IS DEVELOPED CURRENTLY AS THE KENNEL CLUB USA SITE. SO IT IS GOING FROM AN IPOD TO AN LG THAT WILL MATCH WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE MINK STREET WEST ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD. SO LOOKING AT SOME OF THE SETBACKS THAT THE ZONING TEXT HAS SPELLED OUT, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A 50 FOOT PAVEMENT SETBACK AND A 100 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ON BOTH JUG STREET AND CLOVER VALLEY, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LGS. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO ADD THE WORDING. SCREENING AND OR STRUCTURES MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING. SETBACKS TO THE SETBACK LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT, AND THE STAFF JUST RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. AND OVERALL, THE PERMITTED USES ARE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES OUTLINED IN THE GENERAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT. AGAIN, AS THE ONES ACROSS THE ROAD ARE AS WELL. AND THEN HAS A COUPLE THAT ARE PROHIBITED AGAIN LIKE THE OTHER ONES IN THE DISTRICTS. OVERALL, THE ZONING DISTRICT FACILITATES THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT GENERATING ACTIVITIES THAT MATCH THAT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CONTAINS THE SAME LIST OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES OF OTHER SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS, SUCH AS THE MAIN STREET WEST ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS LOCATED GENERALLY TO THE EAST OF THE SITE AND THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED TEXT, IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE TYPE OF GENERAL EMPLOYMENT. YOU SAID IT'S ENVISIONED IN THE 2020 ENGAGING STRATEGIC PLAN, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WE NEED TO GET TO BUILDINGS AND THE BUILDING SETBACK, BUT LET ME HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST. OR IS THERE ANY ENGINEERING? THERE ARE A FEW ENGINEERING COMMENTS. WE WANT TO REVISE SECTION F2 TO REFERENCE [00:05:01] 1183. AND WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STAMPS THE ALL THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RECOMMEND THAT PRIVATE STREETS CONSTRUCTED TO BE BUILT TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS AND PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT ALL EPA AND ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. THANK YOU. CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? I'M HERE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OH, MY NAME IS JACK REYNOLDS. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH SMITH AND HALE, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO. PROVIDE YOU ALL AND CITY WITH A TEXT THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. AS STAFF STATED, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED I'D FOR THE KENNEL CLUB. IT WAS THREE PARCELS, THREE SECTIONS. THE ONE OF THE SECTIONS THAT IS ACROSS CLOVER VALLEY IS NOW OWNED BY THE CITY, AND SO IT WASN'T INCLUDED AS A PART OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. THE PARCEL THAT INCLUDED THE KENNEL WAS ZONED FOR THE KENNEL USE. THERE WAS ALSO A PARCEL C. THE PARCEL C HAD THE CHARACTER. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE LGB DISTRICT. BUT IN ORDER TO KEEP CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, BOTH FOR THE KENNEL AS WELL AS WHAT IS ALREADY ZONED SOUTH OF US, WE INCLUDED SUBSECTION OR SUBSECTION C WITH THIS LGB REZONING. SO WE'RE DOING THE FULL 15.4 ACRE, FOUR ACRES SO THAT IT'S ALL ZONED LGB AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ARE WE AGREE WITH THOSE. WE WILL ADD THOSE WITH THE TEXT AS IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. SO NOW WE'RE DOWN TO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE STRUCTURES THAT WE REQUESTED. AND AGAIN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT'S INTERESTING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS AEP RIGHT NOW IS A HAS INADEQUATE ELECTRICITY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO SERVE A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SITE. SO THIS DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN UPON ITSELF IS THAT IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE ITS OWN. POWER. AND SO IT WILL BE USING GAS IN ORDER TO POWER ITS ITS DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. AND SO THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SOME GAS METERS. AND THOSE GAS METERS WILL BE, WILL BE. THEY WILL HAVE GAS PIPING THAT COME ABOVE GROUND. AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A GAS METER AREA OF ABOUT 75 BY 75, AT ABOUT THE 50 FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE JUG STREET FRONTAGE. AND WITHIN THAT 75 BY 75 AREA WILL BE THE METERS AND THE PIPING THAT WILL SERVE THOSE METERS. NOW WHAT WE WILL BE DOING, WE WERE IN WE MET WITH THE DRC THIS MORNING. THE FOLKS FROM EDGECONNECT THAT THAT METERING WILL BE ENCLOSED COMPLETELY BY AN 8 TO 10 FOOT TALL WALL WITH A YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE A GATE TO THE REAR OF IT TO, TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT AREA. SO WE WEREN'T SURE HOW, YOU KNOW, IS THAT A STRUCTURE OR IS IT A GAS UTILITY, SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVERED OURSELVES WHEN WE ASKED FOR THAT ABILITY TO INFRINGE ON THE 100 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANY CLOSER THAN THE PAVEMENT SETBACK, BUT THEY DO NEED THE ABILITY TO PUT SOME OF THEIR PIPING AND GAS METERING IN THAT 100 FOOT SETBACK. SO AT THE 50 FOOT SETBACK LINE, RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A BUILDING PER SE, BUT IT IS A STRUCTURE. SO YOU KNOW THAT [00:10:02] THAT'S OUR PROBLEM. WE CAN CERTAINLY DELINEATE KIND OF THE AREA IN WHICH WE'D LIKE TO LOCATE THE, THE METERING AND THE PIPING THAT SERVES IT. YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE IN TERMS OF WE NEED THAT, THAT METERING AREA. WE CAN SHOW YOU WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. WE CAN TELL YOU THAT WE NEED IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, 8 TO 10FT IN HEIGHT. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME, SOME ASSURANCE THAT A IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OUT OF CHARACTER, THAT THE WALLS WILL BE AGAIN, THEY WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE D DRC. BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT FARTHER FORWARD THAN THE 100 FOOT BOOM SITE DOES IT IS THAT ADEQUATE FOR STAFF, OR DO WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE? I THINK THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT IS HELPFUL. SO IT'S PRETTY COMMON FOR UTILITIES AND UTILITY RELATED SCREENING TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACK. AS MR. REYNOLDS DESCRIBED, WHAT STAFF WAS QUESTIONING WAS THE NEED TO ALLOW FOR BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED IN THAT SETBACK. BASED ON YOUR DESCRIPTION OF IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S MAY HAVE FOUR WALLS, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE A ROOF, SO IT WOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A BUILDING IN OUR CODE. YEAH. SO I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE TEXT AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION. AND MAYBE WE CAN LOOK UP THE IF WE JUST WOULD NOT WANT ANY BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PAVEMENT OF THE, THE BUILDING SETBACK AREA. CHRIS, WOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING? IF WE COULD. YEAH, DEPENDING ON WHAT IT'S FOR. AND THAT MIGHT COME OUT OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS ANYWAY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. RIGHT. BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE ON JUG AND CLOVER VALLEY, BUT THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL. I THINK PROBABLY MOSTLY ON JUG STREET. BUT AGAIN, IF AS LONG AS THE TEXT DOESN'T SAY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED TO BE LOCATED, IT JUST SAYS STRUCTURES OR UTILITY RELATED SCREENING, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK IT UP RIGHT HERE. FOR YOU. YEAH. YEAH. WE DID SAY STRUCTURES AND NOT. COULD YOU MAYBE USE THE POINTER AND HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT MIGHT BE LOCATED? IT WOULD BE FIRST POINT. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY. HAVE YOU GOT. OH, YEAH. SORRY. WHAT? THEY'RE. RIGHT. IT WOULD BE RIGHT. IT WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE KIND OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK. FROM THE ADP DEVELOPMENT HERE. AND THEN 50FT RIGHT IN THAT AREA. SO IT WOULD BE AWAY FROM CLOVER GROVE. IT WOULD BE OVER TOWARDS THE. E T SUBSTATION. AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN CONJUNCTION, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT TYPE OF USE, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE ANY OF OUR EQUIPMENT. IT WILL BE HIDDEN BEHIND A SOLID WALL. AGAIN, THAT WILL BE APPROVED BY THE DRC. SO, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER AGAIN, WE WANTED TO KEEP IT LOOKS. THERE WE GO. YEAH. AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU SEE. THERE IT IS. KIND OF LIKE. RIGHT, RIGHT THERE IS WHERE IT WOULD BE. YES. I THINK BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION, WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MODIFYING THE TEXT. EVERYTHING THAT MR. REYNOLDS JUST DESCRIBED IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE HANDLE OTHER COMMERCIAL SITES IN THE BUSINESS PARK. IF WE COULD MODIFY THE TEXT TO SAY THAT ALL UTILITIES AND UTILITY RELATED SCREENING AND OR STRUCTURES MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SORRY STRUCTURES. THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE CLASSIFIED AS BUILDINGS AND OUR ZONING CODE, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURES IN OUR CODE INCLUDES BUILDINGS. SO WE WOULD NOT WANT THAT. WE WOULD WANT TO CLEARLY SEPARATE BUILDINGS OUT FROM STRUCTURES. YEAH. I HAVE AS MY SECOND CONDITION, NO BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK AREA WHERE STRUCTURES WOULD BE PERMITTED. WELL, YOU GOT TO WE GOT TO SEPARATE, ALLOW STRUCTURES BUT [00:15:04] NOT ALLOW BUILDINGS. RIGHT. SO THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK AREA WHERE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. YEP. OKAY. THAT'S IT. OKAY. AND I HAVE AS A THIRD CONDITION THAT THE STRUCTURES IN THE SETBACK AREA WOULD BE OR THE STRUCTURES IN THE SETBACK WOULD BE IN AN AREA APPROVED BY STAFF IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE LOT. DOES THAT MEET WITH. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT WE'VE GOT THE LOCATION PARTLY NAILED DOWN THERE AND APPROVED BY STAFF. THAT WOULD BE FINE. THAT'S GENERALLY WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. YES. SO THIS IS THE MODERN TAKE ON. WHAT WE USED TO SEE IS THE WHAT LOOKED LIKE A ONE BEDROOM BEDROOM BUILDING THAT COLUMBIA GAS USED TO PUT OCCASIONALLY HERE AND THERE. YEAH. THIS WOULDN'T HAVE A ROOF ON IT. IT WOULD JUST BE A AND I WOULD IMAGINE IT'D BE LANDSCAPED AS WELL. YEAH. JUST LIKE A SCREENING WALL. WE HAVE LOTS OF THOSE IN THE CITY. OKAY. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION. JUST KEEP ME HONEST. THIS INTERSECTION, I BELIEVE, NOW HAS A NEWER ROUNDABOUT. IS THAT RIGHT? IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ROUNDABOUT. NOW, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE WEST. OKAY. BUT IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY IMPROVED THIS ENTIRE INTERSECTION. OKAY. HAS IT BEEN WIDENED OR. JOSH, DO YOU KNOW THE I MEAN, THE SECTION OF CLOVER VALLEY IS COMPLETELY NEW. CLOVER VALLEY HAS BEEN WIDENED, BUT THAT INTERSECTION I THINK IS CURRENTLY A STOP CONDITION IN CLOVER VALLEY HAS BEEN WIDENED TO THE NORTH. IS IT ALSO WIDENED IN THIS ON THE SOUTH AS WELL? YEAH, IT'S THE SAME WIDTH. OKAY. ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH. AND THEN TO THE APPLICANT YOU REFERENCED THE I THINK IT WAS DRC A COUPLE OF TIMES. WHAT IS THAT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. WHO'S DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S TOM. IT'S TOM. I GOT YOU. IT'S. IT WILL LOOK NICE. WHEN? WHEN THEY LOOKS NICE. IS THE BUSINESS PARK'S EQUIVALENT TO NATO ARC AND THE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE. WORDING ON THE STRUCTURES IN THE SETBACK. ALL RIGHT. DID WE GET INTO THE RECORD THE VERBIAGE THAT WAS USED BY STAFF. IF YOU COULD GO OVER IT ONE MORE TIME THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, BUT IF YOU SAY THE CONDITION, YOU SAID WE WILL REVIEW THE MINUTES AND MODIFY THE TEXT AS APPROPRIATE AND WE'LL COORDINATE. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WILL POINT OUT IS THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE TEXT SAYS, ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND. WE MIGHT WANT TO WORK ON THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS PORTION OF THE YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BECAUSE YOU WANT ALL OF THE OVERHEAD WIRES TO BE UNDERGROUND. SO I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE GAS LINES, METERS THAT ARE ABOVE GROUND. YEAH. WITHOUT GOING DOWN A HUGE TANGENT, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TO ANYBODY. BUT THE PORTIONS OF THE SITE, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PURVIEW OF THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD ARE SEPARATE THAN THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. SO IF THEY'RE IF THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THEY CAN BE ABOVE GROUND. YEAH. WITH CAVEATS THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW. OKAY. THEN THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE. WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT. NO. BECAUSE THEN THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY USED TO DO ABOVE GROUND. OKAY. YEAH. AND. OKAY. AND IT'S REASONABLY CLEAR I WOULD THINK AS A, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE THAT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THAT STAY UNDERGROUND AREN'T USEFUL FOR MOST OF THEM. LIKE ELECTRIC HAS TO COME UP TO A METER SOMEWHERE. CORRECT. OKAY. AND. CORRECT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS CLEAR THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO, LIKE, ELECTRIC WIRES AND PHONE AND CABLE OR WHATEVER. WELL, I WOULD PRESUME IT ALSO MEANS THAT A TRANSMISSION LINE WOULD NOT BE ABOVE GROUND. A GAS TRANSMISSION LINE WOULD NOT BE ABOVE GROUND, BUT IT WOULD BE SURFACE HERE FOR THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE ABOVE. IT WOULD ONLY BE ABOVE GROUND WHERE THE METER IS AND NOT ANY OTHER PLACE, AND THAT WOULD BE ENCLOSED IN THAT WALLED AREA. SO I'M JUST. CLARIFYING MY CONCEPT IS THE TRANSMISSION. THE TRANSMISSION. YEAH. YOU KNOW, IF IT CARRIES IT FROM POINT A TO [00:20:04] POINT B, IT PROBABLY WON'T BE UNDERGROUND. ONCE IT LEAVES THIS SMALL LITTLE AREA, IT'S ALL UNDERGROUND. GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? EITHER FROM STAFF AND OR FROM THE AUDIENCE. SEEING NONE, I MOVE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR ZONING CHANGE. TEN 2025. DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS? MOTION. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. KIRBY? YES, MISS. BRIGGS? YES. MR. SHELL. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. I MOVE APPROVAL, ZONING CHANGE, TEN, 20, 25, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE. COMPLY WITH THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS IN THE STAFF. REPORT TO NO BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK AREA WHERE STRUCTURES WOULD BE PERMITTED. THREE STRUCTURES IN THAT SETBACK AREA ARE IN AN AREA THAT IS APPROVED BY STAFF AND LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE LOT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THAT LAST ONE. SO THERE PROBABLY WILL BE UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT ONLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE LOT, THAT COULD BE LOCATED ON OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURES REFERRING TO STRUCTURES. THERE COULD BE SOME OF THOSE, TOO, THAT ARE NOT JUST LOCATED IN THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF THE LOT, IS THAT HANG ON, JACK. I'M TRYING TO THINK THERE ARE. OKAY. YEAH. JOHN, WITH THE BUILDING WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE GENERATION. YES. BUT ISN'T IT ENCLOSED? NOT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. OKAY. I WOULD JUST JUST MAYBE JUST LEAVE IT. THE LOCATION IS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT VERSUS CALLING IT A SPECIFIC AREA. ARE WE GOOD WITH IT BEING WE HAD IT RESTRICTED TO AN AREA TO KEEP IT FROM PROPAGATING. SO THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WHERE IT'S NEEDED, BUT IT'S NOT IN THIS SUB AREA. THIS. SO, SO THE SO THIS THIS SITE IS BEING REZONED TO ALLOW TO ACCOMMODATE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO ALSO BE LOCATED DOWN HERE. YES. SO WITHOUT THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN BEEN SUBMITTED FULLY. BUT THERE THE BUILDING, THERE'S PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WILL BE LOCATED IN BETWEEN THE ZONING DISTRICTS. SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT A REQUIREMENT ON THIS ONE THAT'S GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT BY SAYING THEY ALL HAVE TO BE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE SITE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT. THIS IS THE COMMENT THREE WAS REFERRING TO STRUCTURES IN A SETBACK WHERE THEY WOULD NORMALLY NOT BE APPROVED. SO WITHIN THE SETBACK ON JUG STREET, MAYBE. IS THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO? YEAH. YES. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT AN INHERENT PROBLEM WITH THEM SURFACING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT. SO, SO YOUR YOUR COMMENT IS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT ARE IN THE SETBACK, THE EXCEPTION. WE HAVE AN EXCEPTION. AND I'M PUTTING LIMITS ON THE EXCEPTION. OKAY. YEAH THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE SETBACK THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE ALLOWED IN THE SETBACK ARE 100FT BACK. CORRECT. YEAH. SORRY. I WAS I WAS INTERPRETING IT AS A MORE BROAD. EVERYTHING ELSE 100FT BACK. I GOT I GOTCHA. YEAH. NO, THIS IS THIS IS PUTTING A BOX AROUND THE EXCEPTION. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO, SO. YEAH. SO COMMENT THREE CAN REFER TO IN A SETBACK WHERE THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED OR HANG ON BECAUSE WE'VE GOT. I DON'T HAVE MY STRUCTURES IN. WELL THE OTHER STRUCTURES WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT ARE NOT IN A SETBACK. RIGHT. OKAY. THE, THE WAY THAT THE TEXT WRITTEN IS WRITTEN WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE IN THE SETBACK AREA ON JUG AND ON CLOVER VALLEY. OKAY. DO YOU NEED THEM ON CLOVER VALLEY? I'M SITTING HERE. I FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THE PROPOSED. WATER UTILITY STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK ALONG CLOVER. [00:25:01] CLOVER VALLEY. OKAY. I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. WHY DON'T WE. HANG ON A SECOND? THE ONLY AREA THAT I SAW, I WENT TO THE COMMISSION THAT IF WE. AS LONG AS WE CLARIFY FOR BOTH OF THEM THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ACTUAL BUILDINGS AS DEFINED BY CITY CODE, ALLOWING STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT BUILDINGS IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE BUSINESS PARK. OKAY. SO OUR INTENT IS CLEAR THAT WE EXPECT MOST OF THIS TO WIND UP IN THE NORTHWEST. AND WHAT I WILL LEAVE THEN IS THAT THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THE SETBACK, WHERE BUILDINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE LOCATIONS APPROVED BY STAFF. OKAY. THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. YEAH. WE'LL LEAVE THAT AS THE ENFORCEABLE CONDITION. AND THE INTENT IS THAT THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. OKAY. ARE THE CONDITIONS CLEAR? NUMBER ONE, COMPLY WITH THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS. NUMBER TWO, NO BUILDINGS IN THE SETBACK AREA. AND NUMBER THREE, THE STRUCTURES IN THE SETBACK AREA MUST BE APPROVED BY STAFF. AND THE COMMISSION'S INTENT THAT THAT IS THAT THEY WILL BE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE, MR. KIRBY? YES. MISS BRIGGS? YES, [VII. Other business ] MR. SHELL. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TAKES US TO OTHER BUSINESS CITY CODE 1154. SOMEBODY WANTS A TENT. SO WE ARE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS. IF YOU RECALL, JEN, APOLOGIZE THAT SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT SHE WAS HERE THE LAST TIME TO GO OVER SOME CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED TO OUR TMD CODE SECTION. I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND THIS GROUP, BUT JUST ON THE OUTSET THAT THE STAGE HERE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE TMD CODE SECTION OR SECTION OF CODE WAS DEVELOPED VERY, VERY QUICKLY AND IT SPANNED ABOUT THREE MONTHS. IN ORDER TO GET THE ZONING FOR INTEL IN PLACE TO HELP WIN THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. WE KNEW AT THE TIME, AND JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ZONING CODE, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE TWEAKS THAT NEED TO BE MADE AS TIME GOES ON, AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW THE AREA IS DEVELOPING AND WHATNOT. SO WE ARE HERE. THE DRAFT CODE SECTION WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS, BUT THERE'S REALLY TWO KIND OF OVERARCHING GOALS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER. SO THE FIRST IS RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS FOR PRIMARY PROJECTS. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ADVANCED FABRIC STRUCTURES. SO THIS THE FIRST ONE OR THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS FOR PRIMARY PROJECTS. THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU LAST TIME. AND WE TABLED THE DISCUSSION. WE KNEW THAT WE HAD THIS OTHER CHANGE COMING, AND WE WANTED TO BRING BACK KIND OF A ONE PACKAGE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSUS HAVING TO COME BACK WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OF EACH OTHER. SO FOR THIS, THIS CODE REQUIREMENT FOR FLAGSHIP PROJECTS, WHAT THIS CODE CHANGE WOULD DO IS ALLOW FLAGSHIP PROJECTS TO HAVE A SETBACK WHEN THEY'RE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OF 100FT, NO MATTER WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS. OR IF IT EXCEEDS. RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THAT THE CODE READS IS FOR FLAGSHIP PROJECT. IF YOU'RE BUILDING EXCEEDS 65FT IN HEIGHT, YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO A 300 FOOT SETBACK FOR YOUR BUILDING. SO ONE WAY THAT THIS TO KIND OF HELP VISUALIZE THE PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE CODE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS FLAGSHIP PROJECTS OR SORRY, PRIMARY PROJECTS ARE VERY TYPICALLY VERY SMALL LOTS THAT CAN BE VERY, VERY SMALL ACREAGES. AND SO BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE A 300 FOOT SETBACK ALONG A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE IS REALLY NOT FEASIBLE FOR A LOT OF THESE PARCELS. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE APPROVED BUILDING HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 65FT AND OTHER LARGE NON ZONED PARTS OF THE BUSINESS PARK, WHERE THIS ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS NOT DOES NOT EXIST. SO THIS IS A STANDARD THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS ONE [00:30:05] PART OF THE CODE CHANGES. AND I CAN STOP HERE REALLY QUICK UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. I CAN KEEP GOING. BUT UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, THE ONE THING THAT JEN DID WANT ME TO NOTE, JUST TO KIND OF PUT ON YOUR GUYS'S RADAR, IS THE ONLY AREA IN THE TMD ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THIS WOULD REALLY APPLY TO IS ALONG THE BERMUDA SUBDIVISION. JEN HAS BEEN MADE AWARE. I THINK THE NEW ALBANY COMPANY MIGHT BE INVOLVED AS WELL THAT THAT THE BERMUDA SUBDIVISION FOLKS HAVE KIND OF GOT TOGETHER TO SELL THEIR PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL USES. SO WE DO SEE THIS NOT EVEN BEING AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THE SETBACK REDUCTION IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW, REALLY ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR ON A ON A PRIMARY PROJECT SITE. OKAY, CHRIS, CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW MANY PLOTS THERE ARE IN BERMUDA? OH, GOSH. 27. LESS THAN 30. YEAH. LESS THAN 30. LESS THAN 30. 20 TO 30, I THINK. AND ARE THEY ALSO REMIND ME. ARE THOSE ABOUT AN ACRE EACH OR HOW BIG ARE THEY. THEY'RE A DECENT SIZE. WE CAN HAVE TO BE DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE BIGGER THAN THAT. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK SOME OF THEM GO UP TO FIVE ACRES. OKAY. YEAH. THE PERCOLATION IN THAT PERCOLATION IN THIS PART OF FRANKLIN COUNTY IS BAD. AND THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE WATERS OF THE BLACK LICK IS GOING THROUGH. GOES THROUGH THERE. YEAH. SO I'M BETTING THAT YOU COULDN'T GET THROUGH LICKING COUNTY. SANITARY STANDARDS WITHOUT OVER AN ACRE. YEAH. SO ONE OF THE BIGGER ONES IS AROUND 2 TO 3 ACRES IN SIZE. SO THEY'RE BIGGER LOTS. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. GREAT. SO THEN THE OTHER CHANGE THAT WE HAVE IS TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WHAT IS CALLED IN OUR CODE AS ADVANCED FABRIC STRUCTURES. SO WE DID WORK WITH A THE KEGLER BROWN LAW FIRM TO ANALYZE. YOU KNOW, OR PROVIDE SOME STANDARDS FOR WHAT THE CITY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WITH THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES. SO JUST JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, AN ADVANCED FABRIC STRUCTURE IS SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS. THESE ARE CURRENTLY BUILT AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY INCLUDING THE TMD AREA. SO THIS, THIS THIS CODE CHANGE WOULD PROVIDE CLEAR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THEM. SO WE'RE NOT THINKING DENVER AIRPORT. NO, BUT I GET THAT. I CAN SEE THAT. I CAN SEE WHERE YOU WENT WITH THAT. I COULD YEAH I WOW, CREEPY AIRPORT BY THE WAY. ANYWAY, SO THESE ARE THE TYPE OF STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE SEEN START TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE TMD AREA AND DEFINITELY IN OTHER LG ZONED AREAS. OUR CODE AND TALKING WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL, OUR CODE, THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THESE TO BE BUILT. SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO JUST PROVIDE VERY CLEAR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THEM WHEN THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY. SO TO HELP, YOU KNOW, ADVANCED FABRIC STRUCTURES PROBABLY DOESN'T REALLY GIVE YOU A CLEAR PICTURE. SO WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU THESE. SO THIS IS WHAT ONE LOOKS LIKE WITH THE DATA CENTER IN IT. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THEM. SO AGAIN SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEING CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY. BUT WE JUST PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. THE FIRST ONE BEING THAT IF THEY'RE DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT THESE TO SEE THESE. POP UP EVERYWHERE, ALL OVER THE COMMUNITY. SO WE DO HAVE A MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT OF 100 ACRES IN ORDER TO BUILD ONE OF THESE. SO THAT KIND OF HELPS PREVENT, YOU KNOW, THESE ONE OFF NOT TO CALL JACK'S PROPERTY OUT, BUT THE ONE LIKE THE ONE WE JUST DEALT WITH PREVENTS THOSE, THOSE TYPES OF FOLKS FROM BEING ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME OTHER. STANDARDS IN HERE ABOUT JUST GETTING AT THE, THE, THE USEFULNESS OF THEM, THE DURABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SAFE, THAT THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, JUST THESE AREN'T JUST LIKE TENTS OR CHICKEN COOPS THAT COME UP OUT OF THE AIR AND FLY AWAY HOME. BUT THERE'S SOME DURABILITY TO THEM, AND THEY'RE STILL A QUALITY TO THEM THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND SOME OF THE BASE REQUIREMENTS FOR TMD STRUCTURES. SO THAT'S THIS ONE IN A NUTSHELL, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. JUST ONLY QUESTION THE YOU MENTIONED BERMUDA AND THAT THEY MIGHT BAND TOGETHER AND SELL IT. BUT WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE IN CODE LIKE THIS DO THEY HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED? NO. SO THEY REALLY DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE A SAY OKAY. AND LIKE I SAID THESE ARE [00:35:03] THESE ARE IF YOU LOOK AT AERIAL YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE THE INTEL SITE, EVEN SOME OTHER OTHER COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IN THE AREA, THESE ARE ALREADY BEING BUILT IN THE CITY. IT'S JUST NOW ARE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. THERE'S SOME INTEREST IN MAKING SOME OF THESE MORE PERMANENT VERSUS JUST TIED DIRECTLY TO CONSTRUCTION, JUST DUE TO SPEED TO MARKET ISSUES, PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD BUILDINGS FAST ENOUGH OR AT A COST THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM. THEY CAN USE THESE TYPES OF STRUCTURES TO HOUSE DATA CENTER FACILITIES. I MEANT MORE THE FIRST ONE REGARDING THE SETBACK ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT. OH, I'M SO SORRY. CORRECT. THEY ARE NOT THEY ARE NOT NOTIFIED? NO. THE SETBACK, THE BASE SETBACK, THE 100 FOOT SETBACK FOR THESE FLAGSHIP OR FOR PRIMARY PROJECTS. APOLOGIES IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS PARK. OKAY. IF NOT IN ACCESS IN SOME AREAS. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC AND COUNCIL IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION? YES. DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR THE CHANGES TO 1154? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE TO CITY COUNCIL THE CITY CODE AMENDMENT CO 1154. TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING DISTRICT. YOUR SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE, MISS BRIGGS. YES, MR. SHELL? YES, MR. KIRBY? YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO FAVORABLY RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE TMD CODE SECTION. THANKS. MR. FOR MEMBERS FOR COMMENT. SARAH. NOTHING FOR ME, NOTHING HERE, NOTHING HERE. AND * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.