[I. Call to order] [00:00:08] TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. EISEN HERE, MISS MOORE. HERE. MR. MALITZ HERE, MR. BROWN HERE. MR. DAVEY, MR. HINSON, COUNCIL MEMBER. BRISK HERE. WE HAVE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE QUORUM. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE [III. Action on minutes: June 9, 2025 ] AGENDA IS, IS ACTUALLY A MORE COMPLICATED ITEM THAN NORMAL. AND IT IS AN ACTION ON THE MINUTES. BUT I THINK THE STAFF HAS A PRESENTATION AS TO THE THINKING BEHIND THE REVISED FORM OF MINUTES. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT THAT. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. AS YOU NOTICED, THE JUNE MEETING MINUTE FORMAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN NORMAL. AND WE'RE SEEKING FEEDBACK ON THE ON THE FORMAT AS CIRCULATED. THIS COMES AS A RESULT OF STAFF TIME USE PRIORITIES AND THE CONTINUED ADVANCEMENT OF MEETING TECHNOLOGY. WE'RE INVESTIGATING ALTERNATIVES TO THE WAY THE MEETING MINUTES ARE PREPARED HERE IN NEW ALBANY. ALTHOUGH THE TIME SPENT PREPARING MEETING MINUTES VARIES BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS AND CITY COUNCIL. THE AVERAGE TIME SEEMS TO HOVER AROUND FOUR HOURS OF PRESENTATION OF PREPARATION TIME FOR EVERY MEETING. OUR. GO AHEAD. MEETING MINUTES ARE THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PUBLIC BODIES, THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND NEW ALBANY'S ORDINANCES REQUIRE THE PROMPT PREPARATION, THE FILING, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINUTES OF A PUBLIC MEETING SUCH THAT THEY ARE OPEN FOR INSPECTION. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE LAW AND NEW ALBANY'S CHARTER AND ORDINANCES REQUIRE THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THE VOTE, AND ENOUGH FACTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE SUPPORTING THE VOTE. BUT JUST NOTE HERE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MINUTES ARE THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE ACTION OF THE BODY, THEY'RE NOT THE COMPLETE PUBLIC RECORD. THE MEETING MINUTES CAN BE IN VARIOUS FORMATS. SORRY ABOUT THE TYPOS. NEITHER THE OHIO REVISED CODE OR NEW ALBANY'S ORDINANCES REQUIRE A SPECIFIC FORMAT FOR THE MINUTES. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE LAW PROVIDES THAT AUDIO OR VISUAL RECORDINGS, WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPTS, OR ABSTRACTS OF DISCUSSIONS INDICATING THE IDENTITY OF THE SPEAKERS AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR COMMENTS, ARE LEGITIMATE MEANS OF SATISFYING THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF PREPARATION OF MINUTES. MEETING MINUTES MUST BE RETAINED PERMANENTLY. THIS IS A LOCAL POLICY IN NEW ALBANY. NEW ALBANYS RECORD RETENTION SCHEDULE, AS APPROVED BY THE NEW ALBANY RECORD COMMISSION, REQUIRES THE PERMANENT RETENTION OF MEETING MINUTES. THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY THE OHIO MUNICIPAL RECORDS MANUAL, WHICH IS PUBLISHED BY THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROGRAM. I'LL JUST NOTE HERE THAT MOST JURISDICTIONS RETAIN RETAINED MEETING MINUTES PERMANENTLY, WRITTEN MINUTES PERMANENTLY, AND I NOTE THAT WE RETAIN THE MEETING RECORDING FOR TWO YEARS. THE AND FURTHER, THAT THE LONG TERM VIABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MEETING REPORT OF RECORDING MAKE IT INFERIOR TO WRITTEN MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A VCR? NO, I DON'T EITHER. OKAY. AND FINALLY. STAFF IS SEEKING FEEDBACK ON THE JUNE MEETING. MINUTE FORMAT. THE JUNE FORMAT IS AN AGENDA WITH ALL OF THE MOTIONS AND VOTES AND A LIGHTLY EDITED, CLOSED CAPTIONED TRANSCRIPT GENERATED BY OUR ONLINE STREAMING SERVICE PROVIDER. I'LL JUST NOTE HERE THAT THE CLOSED CAPTIONED TRANSCRIPT IS GREATLY IMPROVED FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE, BUT AS YOU HAVE NOTED, IT'S NOT A NARRATIVE. IT PUTS A GREATER BURDEN ON THE READER, BUT IN MANY RESPECTS IT IS MORE ACCURATE THAN THE NARRATIVE FORMAT. THE MINUTES THAT IS PRODUCED BY YOURS TRULY. MY EDITING INCLUDED PUTTING THE TRANSCRIPT INTO A WORD DOCUMENT, IDENTIFICATION OF SPEAKERS AND MINOR FORMAT ADJUSTMENTS. AND FINALLY, I'LL NOTE THAT NO FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH SENIOR STAFF HAVE TAKEN PLACE. YOUR FEEDBACK IS GOING TO INFORM THOSE DISCUSSIONS, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY FEEDBACK YOU'D LIKE. SO WHAT A. PRELIMINARY QUESTION PROBABLY. PROBABLY THE QUESTION THAT COULD I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER BASED UPON YOUR PRESENTATION. I TAKE IT THAT COUNCIL HAS MADE NO CHANGE TO ITS FOUR MINUTES. THESE ARE ALL PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. OUR DISCUSSIONS INFORM LATER DISCUSSIONS. OKAY. AND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MEMBER STANDPOINT IS COUNCIL CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES TO ITS [00:05:05] MINUTES. TO BE HONEST, THIS WAS THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, BUT I KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE OFTEN GET THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF AFTER THEY'VE RUN THESE THINGS FOR A WHILE AND EXPERIMENTED TO SEE HOW ACCURATE THEY ARE AND HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT IT. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE PROCESS, CHRISTINA, THAT'S GOING ON HERE. NOW, I DO KNOW THAT OUR STAFF IS CONSTANTLY AT THEIR AT THE TOP OF THEIR SCHEDULE TRYING TO KEEP UP. AND I THINK THAT AT SOME POINT, TECHNOLOGY MAKES SENSE TO KEEP US FROM HAVING THEM HAVE TO DO A LOT OF EXTRA WORK. AND AS I'M READING THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND IT SAYS, WE COULD JUST BASICALLY HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING WITH NO EDITS, I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, US STARTING TO TAKE THAT AS A SERIOUS OPTION. SO OBVIOUSLY OUR INPUT AS FAR AS HOW WE FEEL IN TERMS OF COMFORT WITH THE ACCURACY WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE. IS IT TOO SOON? DO WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, FIND BETTER WAYS? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK WE SHOULD BE ENTERTAINING IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO LET ME JUST OFFER A FEW VIEWS. AND I THINK I SHARED THIS WITH WITH STAFF. I'M GLAD. I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT AGAIN. THE LAW HASN'T CHANGED IN THE 11 YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN DOING BETTER THINGS IN PRACTICING LAW. AND SO I HAD, I GUESS, THREE CONCERNS. ONE IS, IT SEEMED TO ME, AND PERHAPS MAYBE THIS WAS MISPLACED, BUT IT SEEMED TO ME WE SHOULD FOLLOW COUNCIL'S LEAD RATHER THAN GO OUT ON OUR OWN BECAUSE COUNCIL PRESUMABLY WHAT CERTAINLY WAS CLEAR TO ME FROM 11 YEARS AGO WAS THE MINUTES OF ALL PUBLIC BODIES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY BE PUBLIC BODY AS A COUNCIL OR A BOARD OR A COMMISSION OR ANYTHING ELSE. THEY'RE ALL HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD. FROM MY STANDPOINT, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, AND IT GOES BACK AGAIN TO THE, THE, THE UNDERLYING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT CASE IN WHITE VERSUS CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, WHICH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MINUTES, WAS TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COULD UNDERSTAND THE REASONS WHY A BOARD ACTED, A BOARD OR A PUBLIC BODY ACTED AS IT DID. AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT BY READING 12 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT. BUT IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IN TERMS OF THIS BOARD AND OTHERS WHO LOOK AT THIS, IF YOU HAVE A 12 PAGE TRANSCRIPT, IT ENDS UP IT BECOMES A LABOR TO KIND OF SEE WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS. AND SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY OF THE MINUTES, I PREFER WHAT WE'VE DONE UP UNTIL NOW, WHICH THEN SUMMARIZED THE, YOU KNOW, THE COGENT POINTS MADE BY THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE VOTE. AND SO I VIEW THIS AS A STEP DOWN. THE SECOND CONCERN THAT I HAD WENT TO. THE LABOR NOW SHIFTED FROM STAFF TO UNPAID BOARD MEMBERS TO READ 12 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT RATHER THAN TO READ FOUR PAGES OF MINUTES. AND I DON'T KNOW, AND I WON'T ASK EVERYBODY HERE WHAT THEY DID, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL 12 PAGES. AND SO I THINK THAT BEGINS AT LEAST TO POTENTIALLY ALLOW ERRORS TO CREEP IN. AND, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT I'M NOT EAGER TO READ 12 PAGES OR 14 PAGES OR HOWEVER MANY, HOW MANY, HOWEVER, HOWEVER MANY PAGES THERE ARE, I THINK THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS AUTOMATION, USING AI OR OTHER MEANS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD STAY, THAT WOULD SAVE STAFF TIME, I DON'T THINK. I MEAN, AGAIN, FAR BE IT FROM ME TO BE THE LAST WORD ON AI BECAUSE I JUST READ ABOUT IT, I DON'T USE IT, AND I'VE MADE NO EFFORT TO USE IT OTHER THAN OCCASIONALLY TO ASK IT A QUESTION. BUT I'M THINKING THAT I MAY BE ABLE TO GET US TO A POINT THAT THEN COULD CUT DOWN STAFF TIME, AND THEN A REVIEW BE MADE SO THAT WE CAN GET THE MINUTES THAT ARE MORE USEFUL. SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, I VIEW THIS AS SUBOPTIMAL, BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN OTHER BOARD MEMBERS VIEWS. I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THE IDEA OF USING BECAUSE WE AT LEAST THE WORK WE USE AI TO SUMMARIZE, AND BASICALLY IT TAKES EVERYTHING EVERYONE SAID AND IT SPITS OUT BASICALLY THE SUMMARIZED VERSION. AND I THINK THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY SAVE STAFF TIME TO JUST CLEAN THAT PIECE UP AND MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS SAID AT THE MEETING WITH THE POINTS MADE WERE VERSUS THE FULL. YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE MEETINGS GO ON FOR [00:10:02] A COUPLE HOURS. IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, 50 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. WE DO THE SAME THING. SORRY. WE DO THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF USING THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US. I MEAN, YOU MORE THAN LIKELY COULD TAKE THIS TRANSCRIPT AND PUT IT INTO ONE OF MANY TOOLS AND GET A SUMMARIZED ACCOUNTING OF THE DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY IF THE CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS ARE IDENTIFIED, WHICH DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S TOO BIG OF A OF AN ASK. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IF WE'RE GOING TO LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY, LET'S LET'S LEVERAGE IT TO THE BEST AND HIGHEST OUTCOME POSSIBLE. THE TRANSCRIPT IS BURDENSOME, BUT I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF GREAT TOOLS THAT COULD COMPLEMENT THAT EFFORT AND REDUCE THE OVERALL TIME BURDEN. I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. I AGREE, BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE THE VIDEO THAT'S RECORDED, YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT TO REFERENCE SOMETHING IF YOU NEEDED FURTHER EXPLANATION. YEAH, I THINK THAT THEY WERE DEFINITELY MORE BURDENSOME TO READ AND GO THROUGH AND TRY TO FOLLOW. BUT I AGREE WITH MY COHORTS ON THE USE OF LOOKING FOR MORE EFFICIENCIES THROUGH TECHNOLOGY. ANY THOUGHTS, MR. LEVY? I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU GUYS SAID AS FAR AS PROVIDING SUMMARY. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR THIS BOARD IS DO WE PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE TO STAFF AND ASK THEM TO REDO THESE MINUTES? DO WE DECIDE FOR THIS TIME WE'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES GOING FORWARD. WE'LL SAY NEXT TIME, PLEASE GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD BEFORE. I'M NOT SURE I FEEL STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THAT. AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T READ ALL 12 PAGES. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THEM, BUT IF OTHERS DID AND FEEL COMFORTABLE, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, OR IF WE'D LIKE TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO STAFF TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH A REVISED VERSION, THEN WE CAN DO THAT. I WASN'T THERE, BUT I READ THEM ALL. I DID HAVE ONE UPDATE. THERE WAS THERE WAS ONE ERROR ON PAGE FOUR I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND, BUT OTHERWISE I THINK IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE JUST TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT I'LL GO WITH WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT LIKE, I THINK COMMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME WERE NOT MINE. I THINK THEY'RE MR. ITEMS. SO THERE'S. IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE. I THINK PART OF IT WAS MINE. AND THEN IT SWITCHED TO HIM. AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO CORRECT THAT. IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT. I MEAN, IT'S HARD TO READ SOME OF THESE. IT'S LIKE IT'S HARD TO FIGURE, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE IT'S A CONVERSATION TAKING PLACE AND IT'S NOT BROKEN UP. IT'S. YEAH. SO I, I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THEY BE REDONE AND RESUBMITTED NEXT MONTH WOULD BE MY, MY BELIEF. BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO GET THESE CLEANED UP IN A WAY. AND I THINK THAT FROM MY STANDPOINT, I'D BE I'D PREFER TO TABLE THE MINUTES AND LOOK FOR THEM NEXT MONTH AGAIN. OKAY, SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ONE, MY SUGGESTED CHANGE OR MY CORRECTION WAS ON PAGE FOUR AT THE VERY TOP. FIRST PARAGRAPH THEY WERE SAYS THE WAIVER WAS WAS THE REQUEST WAS FOR A GARAGE THAT WAS 12,000FTâ– . THAT WAS CLEARLY 1200. MIKE, MY CORRECTION, JUST TO CLARIFY, WAS ON PAGE SEVEN. THE. SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT'S ATTRIBUTED TO ME, THAT HALFWAY THROUGH IT SAYS THAT'S THE OKAY, LET'S LET'S DO THIS. I KNEW THAT'S MR. ITEM SPEAKING AT THAT POINT. I'M GOING TO MOVE THE TABLE. THE MINUTES, THE ACTION ON THE MINUTES. UNTIL NEXT MONTH, LET'S GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REDONE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. MR. ITEM? YES, MR. BROWN? YES, MISS MOORE? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES. MR. STRAHLER YES. MR. YES. THE MOTION TO TABLE PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU AGAIN. I APPRECIATE STAFF'S EFFORTS HERE, AND I ENDORSE AND FULLY AND ON BOARD WITH WITH ANY WAY TO CUT DOWN THE TIME. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN COMPROMISE BETWEEN STAFF TIME AND BOARD TIME AND SAVE EVERYBODY TIME. [00:15:05] LET'S MOVE ON THEN. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTE TO THE AGENDA? NO. DO WE HAVE ANY VISITORS HERE WHO WANT TO TALK TO US ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA? IF SO, SPEAK UP. IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE ON AND WE'LL THEN, I GUESS, GO ON TO ANYBODY WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON ON THE MATTER BEFORE US. CAN YOU STAND UP AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, YES. THANK YOU. IN WHICH CASE, LET'S CALL CASE F [VI.Cases] D 57 2025 FOR NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. CAN WE GET THE STAFF REPORT? YEAH. SO THIS IS A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A PEDIATRIC MEDICAL CENTER, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF STATE ROUTE 161, NORTH OF EAST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD AND EAST OF JOHNSTOWN ROAD, US 62 AND WEST OF KITZMILLER. AS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS IS ZONED COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND AS IT'S IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, IT REQUIRES ARB REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS ANTICIPATED TO BE HEARD NEXT MONDAY, AUGUST 18TH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND ALSO SINCE IT IS A CPWD, THE DEVELOPMENT TAX, THE GENERAL GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT CITY CODES ARE APPLICABLE RATHER THAN THE URBAN CENTER CODE. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND INCLUDES TWO PARCELS SHOWN IN RED. THE SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES AND VACANT LAND. THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED BY A NEW ROAD WHICH WILL BE GANTON PARKWAY. HERE IS THE PLAT SHOWING THAT STREET AND THE PROPOSED SITE WILL BE NORTH OF THIS. JUST A FAMILIAR. FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF. SO THIS IS US 62. THIS IS TYSON, WHICH WILL TURN INTO GANTON. AND THEN THE PROJECT IS RIGHT HERE. THE ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDES THREE SUB AREAS IN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPRISES SUBAREA ONE. IT INCLUDES A PROPOSED FOUR STORY OUTPATIENT PEDIATRIC FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPED AMENITY SPACES. ADDITIONALLY, A CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE FACILITY AND AS MENTIONED, THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM TWO CURB CUTS ALONG THE FUTURE GANTON PARKWAY. PROPOSED MATERIALS INCLUDE BRICK, CAST STONE, AND PAINTED ALUMINUM. ALL FOUR FACADES HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT AND A HIGH WALL TO WINDOW RATIO, AS REFERENCED IN THE DG. THE DESIGN INCLUDES A VARIETY OF DIFFERING BUILDING HEIGHTS, OFFSETS, AND RECESSES. THE APPLICANT INCLUDED DESIGN ELEMENTS SUCH AS CANOPIES, COMMUNITY SPACE, AND OVERHANGS THAT HELP SOFTEN THE ESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING. THE ENTRANCE ALONG THE PROPOSED PARKWAY IS HIGHLY VISIBLE AND WILL SERVE AS A KEY LANDMARK FOR WAYFINDING. THE CITY ARCHITECT REVIEWED THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE AND COMMENDED THE THOUGHTFUL AND HIGH QUALITY DESIGN, AND HAD NO FURTHER COMMENTS. IT IS RARE FOR THE CITY ARCHITECT TO HAVE NO COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY AND THOUGHTFUL EXECUTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE DESIGN MEETS REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING A MAXIMUM OF 74FT AND HEIGHT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT ALLOWS UP TO 75FT. ADDITIONALLY, ALL GROUND MOUNTED AND ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED. HERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE TOP. THAT WILL BE WHAT IS FACING THE FUTURE GANTON PARKWAY. BELOW IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH IS FACING 161 AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS AREA WITH THE BRICKED IN WINDOWS. THIS IS THE CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT. AND HERE IS JUST THE SIDE ELEVATION. SO HERE IS THE EAST ELEVATION AND THE WEST ELEVATION. IN TERMS OF PARKING, PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE DO NOT APPLY TO THE SUB AREA. INSTEAD, THE ZONING TEXT CALLS FOR THE ARB AND THE PC TO REVIEW CONSIDERING FACTORS LIKE EXPECTED PARKING DEMAND, EMPLOYEES AND PATIENTS. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A PARKING RATIONALE BASED ON PROJECTED PATIENT STAFF VOLUMES AND TYPICAL MEDICAL OFFICE STANDARDS, RESULTING IN A TOTAL OF 496 SPACES. THE TABLE SHOWS A BREAKDOWN OF THE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING 43 SPACES FOR THE LOWER LEVEL, 447 FOR LEVELS 1 TO 3, THEN THE CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT, SIX SPACES FOR SIX MAINTENANCE STAFF. FOR LANDSCAPING. THE PRESERVATION ZONE IS OUTLINED IN RED, WHICH IS THAT ADDITIONAL PARCEL. THE SITE INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 8.94 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. THE ZONING TEXT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 38 ACRES FOR THE ENTIRE ZONING DISTRICT, SO THERE IS STILL 29.06 ACRES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE REMAINING SUB AREAS. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING THE FOUR RAIL HORSE FENCE, AND THE CITY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REST OF THE STREETSCAPE. AMENITIES ALONG THE [00:20:05] FUTURE GANTON PARKWAY. THE SITE FEATURES AN IMPRESSIVE TOTAL OF 486 TREES, WHICH IS NEARLY TEN TIMES THE REQUIRED 50 TREES, CREATING A HEAVILY LANDSCAPED ENVIRONMENT THAT GREATLY EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND ENHANCES THE SITE'S OVERALL CHARACTER. THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND HAD MINOR COMMENTS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF DOES WANT TO NOTE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THE FIRST CONDITION REGARDING THE PARCEL REFERENCE ON THE SLIDE. THE REVISED CONDITION WOULD STATE THAT THE OWNER PERMITS THE CITY TO INSTALL PARK AMENITIES ON PARCEL ID 22200532, PROVIDED IT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN LIEU OF THEM DEDICATING THAT PARCEL TO US, YOU'LL HAVE THAT UP THERE WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR MOTIONS SO WE CAN READ THAT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE SLIDE. YEAH. THIS SITE ALSO INCLUDES A LARGE CENTRAL GREEN THAT FRONTS GANTON PARKWAY. THE GREENSPACE INCLUDES WALKING PATHS, A VIEWING GARDEN, SEAT WALL AND BENCH SEATING, THE GANTON FOCUS AREA IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDS INCORPORATING PROMINENT GREEN SPACES IN WHICH THIS LARGE GREEN CENTRAL GREEN ACHIEVES. SINCE THIS SITE IS UNIQUE, THE ZONING TEXT ALLOWS FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF SIGNAGE FOR THE SUB AREA. THE ZONING TEXT REQUIRES A MASTER SIGN PLAN, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE. THERE ARE NINE UNIQUE SIGN TYPES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE LOGO, DONOR SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGN, DIRECTIONAL AND EMERGENCY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. HERE'S JUST A FEW OF THOSE PROPOSED SIGNS BASED ON OTHER DEVELOPMENT STAFF. FEELS THAT THE SIGNAGE TYPES, PLACEMENT AND QUALITY QUANTITY QUALITY, QUANTITY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED USE. THE SIZE OF THE WALL SIGNS ARE WELL PROPORTIONED WITH THE BUILDING'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT VISIBILITY TO IDENTIFY THE BUILDING FROM OFF SITE, AND THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT FACING CANTON PARKWAY. OVERALL, THE HOSPITAL USE ALIGNS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ENGAGE NEW ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN. IT MEETS THE FOCUS AREA RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ALONG 161 AND FRONTING A PROMINENT GREEN SPACE ALONG THE FUTURE CANTON PARKWAY. THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IS HIGH QUALITY, AND THE SITE STRATEGY, MASSING AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLEND WITH THE EXISTING AREAS. AND I AM HERE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WHY DON'T WE LET THE IF THE APPLICANT GIVE A PRESENTATION OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? I WAS JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. YOU CAN COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF QUICKLY. YEAH I'M BRYCE SHIRLEY ARCHITECT WITH DLR GROUP. GREAT. TERRIFIC. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WHY DON'T I TURN IT OVER. LET ME ASK A FEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. AND SO DOES THE SIGN CODE APPLY TO THIS? IT DOES NOT APPLY TO OKAY. SO WHEN AND ARE WE APPROVING BY BY RECOMMENDING BY RECOMMENDING THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ARE WE APPROVING THE SIGNS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. YES. CORRECT. AND IF ANY FUTURE SIGN IF THE APPLICANT DOES DECIDE TO, YOU KNOW, BRING ANY OTHER FUTURE SIGNS, THEY WOULD NEED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY THE ARB. OKAY. AND SO IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE I HAVEN'T COUNTED COLORS. YEAH. WHETHER WE'RE BEYOND THE COLOR NUMBERS BECAUSE THE SIGN CODE DOESN'T. CORRECT. YEAH. WE DIDN'T EVALUATE THIS UNDER THE SIGN OKAY. THAT'S FINE. YEP. OKAY I'LL LEAVE. OPEN IT TO THE BOARD. QUESTIONS. COMMENTS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE I DON'T RECALL HOW LONG AGO IT WAS THAT TOM RUBY FROM NEW ALBANY COMPANY WAS HERE TO PRESENT THE OVERALL SITE UTILIZATION PLAN FOR ALL THE SUB AREAS. HAVE THOSE BEEN DEVELOPED? I MEAN, IN TERMS OF MAYBE MORE SPECIFIC WITH MY QUESTION, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO REVIEW TONIGHT, I SEE ON PAGE ONE OF ONE ON THE PLANS THAT THE NEW PARKWAY TERMINATES IT, WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CUL DE SAC. HOW DO HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SEQUENCED IN TERMS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL? CAN YOU RESTATE THAT ONE MORE TIME? I'M TRYING TO WELL, THERE'S PLANS TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE PARCEL, ALL THREE SUB AREAS. BUT WE'VE ONLY SEEN TONIGHT SUB AREA A PRESENTED. SO CONTEXTUALLY IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE OTHER SUB AREAS. BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE HERE TO REVIEW THE INITIAL PROPOSED PLAN AGAIN, PARKWAY WAS A LINE ON THE PAGE IT DIDN'T HAVE IT WASN'T DEVELOPED EVEN TO THE EXTENT IN TERMS OF THE WIDTH AND SHAPE OF THE PARKWAY. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, HAS THAT BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED AT THIS POINT? I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE CHRIS CAN CHIME IN TO THE ZONING, BUT THIS IS THE ONLY THING SUBMITTED IN THAT PARCEL. SO WHAT EXISTS NOW IS, IS ALL YOU HAVE. YEAH. [00:25:06] SO HOW ARE WE TO JUDGE THE TERMINATION OF PARKWAY AND WHAT WILL ABUT THE SITE? AND TO BE CLEAR, I MEAN, IT'S A GREAT PRESENTATION. THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT HERE TO LIKE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO FIT TOGETHER. I KNOW THE REST OF THE PLAT FOR PARKWAY IS, I THINK, BEING FINALIZED AND IS OUT FOR SIGNATURES. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE IN THAT PROCESS. THE FINAL SIGNATURE, IF THERE'S ANY REVIEW, IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING FINAL SIGNATURES, AND THAT ROADWAY WILL EXTEND ALL THE WAY FROM US 62 ALL THE WAY OUT TO LINCOLN COUNTY EVENTUALLY. OKAY, SO THE ROADWAY ALIGNMENTS AND ROADWAY PLANS FOR, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN US 62 AND KITZMILLER HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. SO THIS ROAD, THE FIRST PHASE OF PARKWAY IS WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE PLAT HERE TONIGHT. BUT THAT ROADWAY NETWORK HAS ALREADY BEEN FULLY PLANNED ALL THE WAY OUT TO LINCOLN COUNTY. IS IT OKAY? FAIR ENOUGH. IS IT CUSTOMARY OR WITHIN THE CITY'S PURVIEW TO BUILD A PARTIAL PARKWAY? YES. OKAY. YEAH. GANTON PARKWAY IN LINCOLN COUNTY ACTUALLY IS A CURRENTLY A STUBBED PARKWAY. OKAY. OUT THERE. BUT, YEAH, IT WILL BE EXTENDED. WE'RE JUST DOING IT IN PHASES. AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT I'M SURE THIS IS A MULTI-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. SO IS THE EXPECTATION BY THE TIME THIS BUILDING IS COMPLETE, THAT THE PARKWAY WILL BE COMPLETE BEYOND WHAT WE SEE HERE ON PAGE ONE OF ONE IN EXHIBIT SEVEN? OR IS THAT INDETERMINATE AT THIS POINT I WOULD GO OUT. YES, IT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED THIS WOULD NEED TO BE A FULLY FUNCTIONING ROAD. YES. OKAY. POSSIBLE EVENTS. IF THERE'S ANY INFORMATION ON HOW THE PARKWAY IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO FLOW THROUGH THE OVERALL PROPERTY. YEAH, IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD TO SEE THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR ME PERSONALLY NOT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP. WE'RE INEVITABLY LOOKING AT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE OTHER SUB AREAS, AND IT'S JUST I LIKE TO SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE. YEAH, WE CAN SELL THEM TO YOU OFFLINE. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO TO PAGE? D1? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE THERE'S A PARTIAL A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. YEAH. BUT IT'S STILL CUT OFF LIKE THIS. IS THIS. I'M LOOKING YEAH I'M LOOKING AT I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT ULTIMATELY WILL GO ON HERE AND HERE. SO CAN YOU POINT OUT WHAT'S THE PARCEL. THAT YOU WANT TO DEDICATE TO OR, OR ALLOW THE CITY TO PUT IN. YEAH. AMENITY. CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE THAT'S. YEAH. SO ON THIS MAP IT IS THIS PARCEL. SO THIS KIND OF ODD SHAPED PARCEL. OKAY. FOLLOWING THE CREEK. I'M SORRY. FOLLOWING THE CREEK. ESSENTIALLY, YES. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT AND THAT D1, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD IS GOING TO CURVE INTO POTENTIALLY A ROUNDABOUT. IS THAT IS THAT THE IS THAT THE ACTUAL LAYOUT. YES. THERE. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN COORDINATED WITH BOTH THE NEW ALBANY COMPANY AND NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOR PROBABLY OVER A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS AT THIS POINT. SO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE LOOP. SO QUESTION I NOTED AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDENTIFICATION OF WHAT THE ACTUAL TREE TYPES ARE. AT LEAST NOTHING THAT I COULD FIND IS THAT NOT KNOWN YET, OTHER THAN THE FACT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TREE TYPE ONE HERE AND TREE TYPE TWO THERE. I ALSO HAVE OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HERE AS WELL. COULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF WITH REALM? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. SO THAT'S PART OF THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT ONCE WE GET THERE THAT WE SUBMIT THAT SPECIFICS. AND HOW DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT WORK HERE? IS THAT SOMETHING SOMETHING STAFF WILL APPROVE. YEAH. YEAH. WE WOULD SEND THAT TO OUR CITY ARCHITECT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO LOOK AT. OKAY, GOOD. LET'S SEE. CAN I GO BACK CAN I GO BACK TO THE. SO ON A MEMO DATED JULY 11TH, 2025 FROM EMAIL EMH AND T, IT STATES THAT THAT THIS IS A TWO PHASE FACILITIES PLAN. PHASE ONE BECAUSE IT'S 150,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND PHASE TWO IS 250,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. SO AND THIS SAYS THIS IS A 170,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. SO WHICH, WHICH BUILDING IS THIS OR WHERE WOULD THE SECOND BUILDING GO? SO THE FACILITY IS BEING THE SITE WE SHOULD SAY, IS BEING PLANNED FOR SOME UNKNOWN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, JUST SO THAT UTILITIES AND THINGS COULD BE SIZED FOR THIS TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE THAT MEMO WAS A MOMENT IN TIME THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT MIGHT BE FOR SEWER CALCULATIONS, ETC. RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO PLANS. WHAT THAT WOULD BE. THE SITE IS JUST LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE FUTURE. AT THAT TIME WE COME. MY I'LL ECHO WHAT MR. MILLETT SAID. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A VERY, VERY [00:30:11] WELL DONE ARCHITECTURE, VERY WELL DONE LAYOUT. AND SO I OTHER THAN A FEW QUESTIONS, LET'S SEE IF I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS LOOKS GOOD. THIS LOOKS VERY NICE TO ME. IT'S I GUESS I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS. ONE, IS THERE A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE PARKWAY ITSELF, OR IS THAT UNDER SOMEBODY ELSE'S AUTHORITY? YEAH. SO THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING THE HORSE FENCE IN. AND THEN THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STREET TREES IN THE LEISURE PATH AND ALL OF THAT. SO THAT IS ON US TO DO. OKAY. IS THAT GOING TO BE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT WE SEE ON, SAY, PHOTO ROAD OR. YEAH, MISCELLANEOUS TYPICAL PLANTINGS AND GREEN LAWN. CORRECT. OKAY. MY QUESTION ARCHITECTURALLY IS BUT ONE AND I'M IT'S A CURIOSITY MORE THAN ANYTHING ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. YOU'VE MAINTAINED A COMMON HEIGHT FOR THE JACK ARCHES. I GUESS I WOULD CALL THEM JACK ARCHES. MORE LIKE A SOLDIER COURSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, BUT THE WINDOW HEIGHT IS LOWER THAN THE JACK ARCH, AND THE INFILL IN BETWEEN APPEARS TO JUST BE A RECESSED BRICK PANEL. MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY I CAN USE MY POINTER. WELL, I CAN TRY TO USE MY POINTER. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS A REAL CHALLENGE FOR ME, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST RIGHT HERE. SO THANK YOU. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. CLEARLY THERE'S A THERE'S A CEILING HEIGHT ISSUE THERE, PLENUM ETC. SO YOU HAD TO LOWER THE CEILING HEIGHT. AND THE DECISION MUST HAVE BEEN MADE TO, TO KEEP THE JACK ARCH HEIGHT, TO MAINTAIN THE KIND OF RHYTHM THAT YOU SEE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I'M SURMISING. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO DOING SPANDREL GLASS THERE? WE HAD NOT LOOKED AT DOING SPANDREL GLASS THERE. SOME OF THIS WAS ALSO FOR INSULATION, JUST OVERALL BUILDING PERFORMANCE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. WE DID NOT CONSIDER OKAY. IT'S NOT LIKE I SAID IT'S MORE OF A CURIOSITY TO ME. I MEAN IT'S A IT'S A REALLY ELEGANT STRUCTURE CONSIDERING THE SCALE AND THE BALANCE OF FENESTRATION TO MASSING. I MEAN, IT WORKS REALLY WELL. IT JUST BOY, THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE. SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE. WAS THERE I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN WOULD, WOULD HAVE BEEN IF YOU HAD LOWERED THE SOLDIER COURSE OR JACK ARCHES THAT ARE SHOWN HERE. DARK DID THAT JUST DID THAT LOOK OFF OR WHAT WAS THE WHAT WAS THE FINAL DECISION TO DO IT THE WAY YOU DID ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO DO IT OR THE RATIONALE? RATHER, IT DID FEEL LIKE A NEW KIND OF INSTANCE THAT WE'D BE INTRODUCING IN THE BUILDING ON A NON PROMINENT FACADE OR NOT AS PROMINENT FACADE. SO WE'VE MADE THE DECISION TO STAY WITH THAT SIMILAR SYSTEM OF THE, THE BRICK ARTICULATION THAT YOU SEE ABOVE THE WINDOWS THROUGHOUT. AND THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE SPANDREL AS WELL. WE DIDN'T WANT TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER MATERIAL THIS SIMPLE AND HAVE THE SYSTEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPLIED BE USED. BUT IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT DROPPING DOWN TO THE WINDOW HEAD, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD WORK PERSONALLY, BUT I, I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A HILL WORTH DYING ON EXCEPT FOR MAYBE JUST ASKING OR RECOMMENDING THAT THAT PANEL ABOVE THE WINDOW HEAD, BUT BELOW THE JACK ARCH BE DEPRESSED TO AT LEAST CREATE A SHADOW LINE THERE THAT WOULD REALLY ACCENTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE JACK ARCH BEING WHAT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT FOUR FOOT ABOVE THE WINDOW HEAD. I'M JUST WORRIED IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE A MISTAKE IF NOT EXPRESSED THAT WAY, BUT OTHERWISE I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. JUST THAT AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE TRUE ON THE NORTH, ON THE. THE EAST AS WELL AS THE WEST ELEVATION, CORRECT? YEAH, ALL THOSE INSTANCES. BUT IT'S NOT ON THE SOUTH, IT'S JUST ON THE ON THE OTHER. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR IS THAT I DON'T I MEAN, ARE YOU ALREADY PLANNING ON IT? I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DETAILS. IF THEY WERE I DIDN'T SEE DETAILS. INCLUDED IS ARE THOSE PANELS RECESSED ABOVE THE WINDOW HEAD? VERY LITTLE. BUT YES. OKAY. IT'S A DIFFERENT PLAN. OKAY. AS LONG AS THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT PLANE, I THINK I'D BE SATISFIED WITH THAT. YEAH. IT'S JUST A IT'S BEEN AN UNUSUAL. CAN WE GO TO A 204? I CAN GO TO IT I DON'T DID I HAVE IT IN THE PRESENTATION I DON'T KNOW. YOU HAVE IT HERE. SO IT ACTUALLY GOES IT GOES TO THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND ON A 204 ON THE CAST STONE, I'M SEEING BASICALLY TWO OPTIONS. BUT HERE I SEE YOU BROUGHT ONE. DOES THAT REFLECT A DESIGN CHOICE. SO THE CAST STONE WOULD BE A CUSTOM CAST STONE. THAT IS A CONTROL SAMPLE. OKAY. WE WOULD THAT IS A GOOD COMMENT TO MAKE WITH A COUPLE OF THESE OTHER MATERIALS [00:35:01] THAT WE BROUGHT TODAY AS WELL. WE PLAN ON A BLEND OF BRICK AS WELL. WE INTEND TO BUILD A MOCK UP PANEL ON SITE FOR FINAL SELECTION AND REVIEW. SO THERE'LL BE A COUPLE OF MATERIALS LIKE THE RED KIND OF THE REDDISH HUED METAL THERE AS WELL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY INSTALL WITH THE FINAL BRICK SO THAT WE CAN DECIDE ON SITE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR BLENDING WITH THAT. SO YOU'RE NOT ANY FURTHER ALONG THAN THIS ESSENTIALLY EVEN THOUGH YOU BROUGHT ONE. YES. THAT WILL BE THE CONTROL SAMPLE WE WILL USE TO EVALUATE THE ACTUAL CAST STONE. OKAY. IS THE AS LONG AS WE'RE ON PAGE EIGHT, 204 IS THE OR AT LEAST I WAS. IS THAT WHERE YOU WERE. YEAH. IS THE IS THE ALUMINUM IS IT ACTUALLY CHINA OR IS IT ANODIZED. IT'S KIND OF IT IS OKAY. SORRY. JUST USING A TRADE NAME BUT YEAH. OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE SITE PLAN. COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE SERVICE YARD AND THE LOWER LEVEL ACCESS IT? I GUESS JUST LIKE A LITTLE INFORMATION LIKE IS THAT TYPICAL TO HAVE THAT GO BELOW GRADE IS THERE IS THAT PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE LOCATION FOR THE DELIVERY AND THINGS LIKE THAT? A LOT OF IT IS DRIVEN BY THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE EXISTING SITE. SO THE SLIGHT THE SITE CURRENTLY SLOPES ABOUT 20FT FROM THE NORTHEAST TO THE SOUTHWEST. SO TO KEEP THAT OUT OF VIEW AND TO SCREEN IT, WE DECIDED IT WAS ADVANTAGEOUS TO ACTUALLY USE THAT AND PUSH THAT SERVICE YARD DOWN. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A WHAT IS A RETAINING WALL AROUND IT THAT GOES FROM ABOUT 2 OR 3FT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE BUILDING, WHICH IS ABOUT 18FT FROM THE BOTTOM THERE AS WELL. SO IT IS THAT DEPRESSED SERVICE YARD. WE THOUGHT THAT WAS ADVANTAGEOUS FROM AN ESTHETIC STANDPOINT TO KEEP ALL OF THAT DOWN AND CLEAN. IT'S ALSO HELPFUL FOR SERVICES THAT ARRIVE AT THE HOSPITAL. THAT SPACE IS NOT NEEDED. I SHOULD SAY HOSPITAL, THE OUTPATIENT FACILITY, THOSE ARE NOT NEEDED TO TAKE UP PATIENT SPACE ON THE UPPER FLOOR SO ALL MATERIALS CAN MOVE ALONG A LOWER LEVEL AND NOT INTERRUPT ANY PATIENT SPACES. THAT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE RENDERED, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A DIFFICULT CONDITION, BUT IT MAKES SENSE AND SEEMS THOUGHT OUT. I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TIED INTO THAT UTILITY YARD ON THE RIGHT SIDE, BUT WITHOUT KNOWING A LOT OF WHAT GOES INTO THE PLANNING FOR THIS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK, SO I APPRECIATE IT. IS THE ARE THE TURNING RADIUS AND THINGS THERE SUFFICIENT FOR THAT LOWER LEVEL? THEY ARE. YEAH. THAT AREA HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR THE WHOLE SITE TO MAKE A TURN INTO THAT DOCK AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU. ON L 900 WHICH IS KIND OF THE PICTURES OF THE OF THE OPEN SPACE HERE IN SPECIFICALLY, IT SHOWS A LOW WALL THAT KIND OF GOES THERE'S TWO LOW WALLS, ONE HERE AND ONE THERE. WHAT WHAT MATERIALS ARE YOU CONSIDERING FOR THOSE LOW WALLS THAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE PRECAST CONCRETE. PRECAST PRECAST. RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S A CONDITION ON THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT I REFERENCED PAGE C 303. OKAY. AND THAT WALL IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE WALL. YEAH. BUT I GUESS IT'S GIVING YOU THE OPTION. SO I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE A QUESTION RELATED TO WALLS THAT WERE SHOWN ALONG THE PARKWAY THAT WERE REMOVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL. OKAY. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ONES THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ARE INTENDED TO BE PRECAST CONCRETE. OKAY, OKAY. SO THE WALLS ON C 303 HAVE BEEN REMOVED OKAY. SO PRESUMABLY ON THAT CONDITION WE CAN GET RID OF TO THE EXTENT IT'S IN WHAT WE HAVE HERE I ASSUME. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE. SINCE I'M CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. SOMEBODY ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION. READ ALL THIS, SO I'LL. I'LL SOLICIT A MOTION IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION. WELL DONE. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. ALL RIGHT. I WILL PROPOSE A MOTION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 57 DASH 2025 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. AND HERE'S WE NEED TO GET TO GET THE NEW LANGUAGE. THAT'S LANGUAGE FOR CONDITION NUMBER ONE. YEAH. SO CONDITION NUMBER ONE REVISE CONDITION THAT THE OWNER PERMITS THE CITY TO INSTALL PARK AMENITIES ON PARTIAL ID 220 2-005 32 PROVIDED IT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. [00:40:04] CONDITION. TWO ALL COMMENTS FROM THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ARE MET. DO I NEED TO READ ALL OF HIS CONDITIONS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY CLEAR. THREE THAT THAT THE APPLICANT MEETS ALL THE LIGHTING STANDARDS FOUND IN THE ZONING TEXT. SECTION 3-G4 THAT ALL COMMENTS FROM THE CITY'S ENGINEER ARE MET, INCLUDING HIS NOTED BULLET POINTS. AND FIVE ALL FUTURE EXTERIOR, SITE AND BUILDING MODIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FUTURE REVIEW, AND AS PART OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION APPLICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING TEXT. ANYTHING ELSE? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MR. BROWN. YES. MISS MOORE? YES, MR. STRASSLER YES. MR. ITEM? YES. MR. DAVEY. YES. MR. MULLINS YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR WITH THE REVISED CONDITION NUMBER ONE AND REVISED CONDITION NUMBER TWO AND THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT. GOOD LUCK WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. YES. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TONIGHT? NO. OTHER BUSINESS, NO OTHER. THAT'S IT. NO. NO NEW ONE BOARD SONG PROPOSAL OR IF YOU'D LIKE. ALRIGHT. I GUESS WE DON'T GET TO DO THAT. I WILL PULL THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR COMMENT AND COMMENTS FROM THIS ESTEEMED BOARD. NOT FOR ME. THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT MR. HENSON, BUT I WANT TO DO THAT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND MISS MOORE. YES, MR. STROLLER? YES. MR. EICHMANN? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MR. MALICE? YES. MOTION PASSES. W * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.