Jan 12, 2026 Architectural Review Board Meeting

[00:00:08]

THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HERE OF JANUARY 12TH. CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. HENSON? MR. EATON? YES, MR. BROWN HERE, MISS MOORE HERE, MR. MALITZ HERE, MR. DAVEY HERE, MR. STROLLER HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BRISK HERE. THERE ARE SIX VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE

[III. Action on minutes: November 10, 2025]

MR. BROWN? YES, MR. DAVEY? YES, MISS MOORE? YES. MR. ITEM? YES. MR. MALIK'S YES, MR. STROLLER.

YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH SIX VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. TURNING TO STAFF, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO OUR AGENDA TONIGHT? NO, STAFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE FIRST CASE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE. AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO ADMINISTER AN OATH TO ANYBODY, ANY WITNESS OR APPLICANTS WHO INTEND TO ADDRESS THE BOARD TONIGHT ON MATTERS THAT ARE BEFORE US. IF YOU INTEND TO ADDRESS US OR YOU THINK YOU'RE LIKELY TO, COULD YOU STAND AND AND FOLLOW ME? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ROBERT. DO WE HAVE ANY VISITORS TONIGHT THAT WANT TO TALK TO US ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA? WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY, HAVE WE? ALL RIGHT. BUT OKAY. SEEING HEARING NONE. LET'S MOVE ON TO

[VI. Cases]

THE NEXT STEP HEARING WOULD BE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT POINT. YES. OKAY. AND SO THEN FINALLY THE LAST COMMENT IS THE ONLY SUBJECTS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO US AND TO OUR DELIBERATIONS RELATE TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS MEETS THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS. CORRECT? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND THE STAFF REPORT IS STAFF TYPICALLY DOES MARCHES YOU THROUGH ALL THOSE CRITERIA TO CONSIDER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION. CAN WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? ABSOLUTELY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS FOR A FOOD PANTRY WHICH WILL BE LOCATED NEXT TO THE ROSE RUN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE A SLIGHT MISCOMMUNICATION IN THE LETTERS. THIS IS A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NOT A REZONING OR ZONING CHANGE. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST STEP. THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WILL

[00:05:03]

THE CITY CODE AND THE DGRS ARE MET. THERE ARE A LOT OF CONDITIONS. JUST BECAUSE I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE SPECIFIC DETAILS ARE MET, BUT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS ARE MAJOR HERE. THE ONES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN GREEN ARE ALL LANDSCAPING RELATED, AND THE ONES OUTLINED IN BLUE ARE SIGN RELATED. AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THIS AS WELL. I'M HERE. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. YEAH. CAN I SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. SO I'M LOOKING AT AT 16 CONDITIONS THAT I THINK YOU'VE GOT. BUT I'M LOOKING AT OUR REPORT AND I HAVE 15 CONDITIONS. SO THE QUESTION IS AM I AM I MISSING ONE. APOLOGIZE. I MIGHT HAVE TAKEN THIS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK I NOTICED THAT THERE IS IT'S MISSING THIS THE LIGHTING IN THE PARKING LOT. I NOTICED THAT WASN'T LISTED. I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WAS CHANGED.

OH THANK YOU. YEAH. NUMBER ONE ONE AWAY I THINK. IS THAT RIGHT. THAT ONE SHOULD BE INCLUDED THEN. RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO WHEN THE TIME COMES. CAN WE HAVE THAT UP SO SOMEBODY CAN READ THAT. MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SORRY JIM. OH THAT'S LISTED AS NUMBER 11 ON OUR IN OUR SHOOT. YEAH I GUESS THAT'S TRUE THERE. NUMBER ONE WAS NUMBER 11 ON OURS. SO I SUPPOSE AS WE GO THROUGH OTHER MATTERS, CAN SOMEBODY FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE'S MISSING AND, AND POINTED OUT TO US BECAUSE AGAIN I LOOKED AT THE 15 HERE AND THAT'S WHAT I SAW. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. I HAD I SUPPOSE I JUST ONE QUESTION FOR

[00:10:03]

OKAY, WELL DO WE WANT TO GRANT A VARIANCE? I'M SORRY. DO WE WANT TO GRANT A VARIANCE. YES I THINK SO BECAUSE I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS A WRITTEN SIGN IS GOING TO BE PUT IN THE GLASS. SO WHY NOT HAVE SOMETHING I MEAN IF IT'S SMALL ENOUGH, BUT IT'S VERY CONFUSING AND I UNDERSTAND DUE TO THE ARCHITECTURE, THAT'S JUST HOW THE THE ENTRY IS PLACED.

RECOGNIZE OF COURSE, THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE SIGN SAYS. SO WE IT MAY BE THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, BUT THEY CAN PUT IN IT WHATEVER THEY WANT, RIGHT. SO I MEAN, IF LET'S, LET'S YES, AS LAUREN SAID, YOU KNOW, WE ORIGINALLY HAD A FEW OTHER WALL PLAQUES NEXT TO THE DOORS FOR WAYFINDING PURPOSES. WE REMOVED THOSE TO ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. SO AS WE COME TO OUR DELIBERATION STATES, YOU COULD ALSO HAVE THERE REMIND ME OF THE STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE SO THAT I CAN SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO, ON OUR OWN INITIATIVE GRANT ONE. BUT I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTEP. SO THE VARIANCE WOULD GENERALLY BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WELL, I MEAN, THIS THIS IS A VERY THIS THIS WOULD BE A VARIANCE FROM, FROM THE SIGN CODE, WHICH WOULD BE US, WOULDN'T IT. BUT WE WOULD RECOMMEND WE WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE NORMALLY DO SIGNS. BECAUSE WE DID, WE DID FOR EXAMPLE IN THE CASE OF, OF THE HAMLET. YEAH.

WE COULD GIVE YOU GUYS A STAMP, THE CRITERIA, IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST,

[00:15:04]

OKAY. MOST LIKELY A TABLING. ALL RIGHT. SO MAYBE MAYBE, MAYBE IF YOU WANT IT COULD WE COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION MAYBE AS JUST A PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT. NO WE DON'T WE DON'T. THIS ISN'T A BINDING VOTE ANYWAY. THIS IS ULTIMATELY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISCRETION. WE CAN I THINK WE JUST HAD A COMMENT ENCOURAGING THE CONSIDERATION OF IT. I THINK THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO TABLE ANYTHING. MR. MALITZ, YOU'RE A GENIUS. AS ALWAYS, IF THERE'S AN EFFICIENCY TO BE GAINED, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT AND ALSO TO PUNT ANY DECISION TO SOMEBODY ELSE. YOU KNOW ME TOO WELL. ALL RIGHT. AND THERE'S ONE MORE THING THAT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT. SUPER MINOR, BUT JUST TO TO PUT INTO YOUR DRAWINGS BUT ON SHEETS, A 200, THERE IS A WINDOW MISSING FROM THE OFFICE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT JUST IF YOU WANTED TO CORRECT IT. OKAY, I'LL CHECK IT OUT. OKAY, YOU ARE CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. I THINK IF, IF, IF THAT'S THE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW FOR THE APPLICANT, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION. SO I WANTED NOW TO OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS FROM, FROM MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANTED TO TALK. CAN I GET A SENSE JUST SO I CAN BEST ALLOCATE THE TIME THAT THE OUR OUR ORDINANCES ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? HOW MANY PEOPLE HOPE TO TALK TONIGHT ON THIS QUESTION? MAYBE TWO. OKAY, SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. AGAIN ENCOURAGING THOSE WHO HAVE THINGS TO SAY TO FOCUS ON THE DESIGN, THE BUILDING LOCATION WITHIN THE SITE FORM AND MASSING, THE DESIGN ELEMENTS, EXTERIOR MATERIALS, WINDOW AND DOOR DESIGN, COLORS AND ORNAMENTATION. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DECIDING. WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMMENTS. MR. STROLLER. GOOD EVENING, FRANCIS STROLLER, 4186 JAMES RIVER ROAD, I BELIEVE. YEAH, THEY'VE THEY'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS. SO WHAT I HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT IS, IS RELATED TO THE ARB AND SPECIFICALLY IS ON PAGE STARTS ON PAGE THREE OF THE STAFF REPORT IN IN REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPING. SO IT IS IN THE PURVIEW OF OF. BEFORE I START, I WANT TO JUST MAKE IT VERY CLEAR I'M NOT OPPOSED AT ALL TO THE FOOD PANTRY BEING LOCATED IN OPERATIONALLY ON THIS SITE.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE THEIR IMPORTANT WORK THEY DO IN THE COMMUNITY. MY PURPOSE IS TO ADDRESS THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, INCLUDING MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR PARK AND PARK REFERRED TO AS JAMES RIVER PARK. SO FOR CONTEXT, HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SITE. HERE.

JAMES RIVER AND WILTON HOUSE. THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET POCKET PARK THAT WE, THE CITY JUST RECENTLY UPGRADED. A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. SO CAN I GET THE NEXT.

SO THIS NEXT ONE IS IS THE SATELLITE I TOOK OFF GOOGLE YESTERDAY BUT AGAIN SHOWS MY MY RESIDENCE HERE, THE PARKING LOT THAT WAS BUILT IN 2012 OR 2013 AFTER THE REZONING AND AT WHICH POINTS DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE BACK OF MY HOUSE HERE ON JAMES RIVER. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT CONTEXT TO TO COMMENTS AND WHAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH. SO THE PAST WEEK I SPENT MANY HOURS REVIEWING STAFF REPORTS, MEETING MINUTES, ZONING DOCUMENTS THAT DATE BACK TO 2011, WHEN THIS SITE WAS ORIGINALLY REZONED. I APPRECIATE MR. CHRISTIAN'S QUICK RESPONSES TO ALL MY DATA REQUESTS AND PROVIDING THESE RECORDS. EVERYTHING I REFERENCED TONIGHT IS IN THE MEETING MINUTES. STAFF REPORTS, ZONING TEXT, AND UNLESS I OTHERWISE NOTE. SO THIS ARB BOARD ORIGINALLY HEARD THIS AND ON MARCH 14TH REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY ON MARCH 14TH, 2011, MR. AITKEN, YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND YOU WERE ACCORDING TO THIS, YOU WERE PRESENT. I WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THAT MEETING AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND DID SPEAK. I'VE LIVED HERE AT THIS HOUSE FOR 19 YEARS. SO BEFORE THE CHURCH WAS

[00:20:03]

ONE OF THEM WAS 1171 05C, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT USES AND. BUT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS 1171 06B, WHICH IS THE PARKING LOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT. IN THE MEETING MINUTES, STAFF REPORTS VARIOUS THINGS. IT'S ALL REFERRED TO AS THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, 1171 06B STATES THAT PARKING LOTS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY A MINIMUM OF 3.5FT EVERGREEN HEDGE OR MASONRY WALL, OR COMBINATION OF WALL AND PLANTINGS. I SPOKE AT THAT MARCH 14TH MEETING TO THE ARB BECAUSE THE REAR OF MY HOME, AS YOU SEE ABOVE, IT FACES THEIR PROPOSED PARKING LOT. AT THE TIME, I ASKED THE BOARD TO NOT WAIVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE LINE OF TREES THAT'S LOCATED HERE IS NOT EVERGREEN, AND IN THE WINTER MONTHS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT. AND I KNEW THAT HEADLIGHTS WOULD BE POINTED TOWARDS THE BACK OF MY HOUSE, PER THE MEETING MINUTES. THE BOARD AGREED. EVEN THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT, THE CHURCH OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE 3.5FT HEADLINE STREET HEADLIGHT SCREENING. THE ARB APPROVED THAT, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATENESS, 6 TO 0. AT THAT MEETING. IMMEDIATELY AS THE MEETING ENDED, I WAS APPROACHED BY THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BUILDING COMMITTEE CHAIR WHO HAD SPOKEN AT THE MEETING, AND HE GAVE ME HIS CONTACT INFORMATION AND EMAIL EXCHANGE THAT STARTED THAT NIGHT WITH HIM. HE ASSURED ME THAT THE CHURCH WAS NOT THE CHURCH'S INTENT TO ESCAPE THE VILLAGE CODE. I WILL PROVIDE YOU COPIES OF THAT EMAIL THIS EVENING. THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE FOLLOWING WEEK CONTAINED A SENTENCE THAT SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE ARB DIRECTED THE APPLICANT TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO HEADLIGHT SCREENING FOR NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 21ST, 2011 WILL SHOW THAT I ALSO SPOKE IN REGARDS TO THE PARKING LOT BUFFER REQUIREMENTS OF HEADLIGHT SCREENING AND OF 1171 06B. THE COMMISSION INCLUDED THAT AS A AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THEY MUST INCLUDE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS OF THAT CODIFIED ORNAMENTS IN ITS APPROVAL. THE SECOND SECTION THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WAS 1171 05I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH WAS THE 25 FOOT BUFFER AT THE MEETING. AND THE MEETING MINUTES WILL SHOW THAT I AGREED THAT THAT WAS NOT NECESSARY, BECAUSE WE DID HAVE THIS LINE OF TREES HERE AT THE TIME. OF COURSE, WE WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SECTION OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT STAFF PROVIDED ME LAST WEEK AFTER THE MARCH MEETINGS, THE ZONING TEXT FOR THE INFILL. THE IPU, IPU PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS WAS BEING REZONED TO AT THE TIME WAS UPDATED. THERE WAS TWO THINGS ADDED IN REFERENCE TO THE SCREENING. BOTH WERE IN SECTION SEVEN OF THE ZONING TEXT. ONE WAS THE HEADLIGHT WAS TITLED HEADLIGHT SCREENING AND IT SAYS, QUOTE, HEADLIGHT SCREENING AND PARKING AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE CODE. ALSO ADDED WAS IN THAT SAME SECTION WAS NUMBER EIGHT THAT WAS DISPLAYED EARLIER BY STAFF. THAT SAID, DO THE PRESENCE OF ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PUD. NO LANDSCAPE BUFFERING SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE SOUTH. I COULD HAVE THE NEXT IMAGE PLEASE. SO AT THE TIME THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PARKING LOT THAT WAS BUILT. IT'S ALREADY BUILT. IT WAS UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT MEETING. AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT PARKING LOT IS ALSO IN THE EASEMENT. HOWEVER, THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AS A RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BOARD AND IT WAS REQUIRED IN THE IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT TEXT OF THE ARB. THAT 1171 06B, WHICH IS THE PARKING LOT BUFFER, MUST BE MET. AS YOU CAN SEE, I WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT PARKING LOT BUFFER THAT WAS REQUIRED IS IN THE EASEMENT. SO THIS THAT WASN'T THE END OF THE STORY. SO THE CHURCH DECIDED TO CHANGE THE PLANS SLIGHTLY. THEY

[00:25:03]

THERE WAS TALK I TALKED WITH STAFF THIS WEEK ABOUT POTENTIALLY WORKING WITH THE CITY. THIS IS CITY PARK, THIS IS CITY. THE CITY ALREADY OWNS THIS PROPERTY ABOUT POTENTIALLY PUTTING SCREENING ON THERE TO HELP WITH THE SCREENING. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE FEASIBLE ANYMORE BECAUSE STAFF INFORMED ME ON FRIDAY VIA EMAIL THAT THE CITY IS NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE SCREENING ON A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSURANCES THAT ANY SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE, NOT VOLUNTARY, NOT OPTIONAL, NOT DEPENDENT ON FUTURE GOODWILL. SO AFTER THE 2011 APPROVALS THEY REQUIRED THE SCREENING THE CHURCH WAS BUILT. THE CHURCH WAS BUILT AND THE HEADLIGHTS, THE HEADLIGHTS.

THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING WAS INSTALLED AS REQUIRED. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE. SO THIS THIS HERE WAS AS YOU'LL SEE, IT ACTUALLY HAS THE ARB APPROVAL ON HERE. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE MAY 9TH MEETING. THIS LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAS ADDED AS A REQUIREMENT TO MEET 1171 771 06B THE CHURCH WAS BUILT THAT WAS INSTALLED. HOWEVER, 95% OF THAT SCREENING EITHER DIED OR WAS REMOVED. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A SATELLITE PICTURE TAKEN. THESE ARE ALL IT'S ALL GONE. THERE'S A FEW LEFT HERE.

AND EVEN SOME OF THESE ARE DEAD. SO THERE'S NO SCREENING. NOW THE CHURCH IS PROPOSING TO LEASE TO A TENANT TO BUILD ANOTHER PARKING LOT, ANGLED DIRECTLY AT MY HOME IN. CLAIMS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY SCREENING IN REVIEWING. AND THEY CITE THE EASEMENT. THEY CITE NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN CITE NUMBER EIGHT WITHOUT INCLUDING NUMBER SIX, BECAUSE NUMBER SIX, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IF THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE MEETING MINUTES, EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE BY THIS BOARD, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT CLEARLY STATED THAT HEADLIGHT SCREENING WAS REQUIRED. JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT NUMBER EIGHT IN DOESN'T, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SAME ARP EASEMENT. AS I DEMONSTRATED ON THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDED THIS EVENING. IN REVIEWING THE ZONING TEXT, I ALSO CAME ACROSS THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE ON ANOTHER ITEM. SO I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I WAS AT THE MEETINGS IN 2011 AND THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION, THE MEETING MINUTES ABOUT THE BIKE PATH. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS BIKE PATH HERE ALONG HARLEM ROAD. THERE'S ALSO ONE ON JOHNSTOWN. AT THE TIME THE CHURCH DID NOT ADHERE TO THAT, DID NOT WANT TO HAVE TO INSTALL THE BIKE PATH ALONG HARLEM ROAD. THE REQUIREMENT FROM CITY CODE IS THAT AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY MUST HAVE THE BIKE PATH AND THEIR PROPERTY GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN. AS WE'VE SHOWN EARLIER DOWN ALONG HARLEM ROAD. THERE WAS LONG DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN BOARD MEMBERS AND ULTIMATELY THE ATTORNEYS AND EVERYONE AGREED, INCLUDING THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, THAT IT WAS OKAY FOR THEM TO BUILD AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE BIKE PATH TO THEIR INTERESTS OFF HARLEM ROAD. BUT THERE WAS A CLAUSE PUT IN THERE, AND THE CHURCH AGREED TO THIS, THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT, THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BUILD THIS PATH. I'M SHOCKED TO SEE THAT TONIGHT WE NOW HAVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO FINISH BUILDING THIS BIKE PATH THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT TEN YEARS AGO. I

[00:30:04]

THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING IS REQUIRED, THE ZONING TEXT IS CLEAR, THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE CLEAR, AND THE IMPACTS OF HOMES ARE REAL. EVERY WINTER I DEAL WITH AND MY NEIGHBORS LONG ROAD HAVE HEADLIGHTS SHINING IN THE BACK OF HER HOUSE. THEY TRIED THIS VERY, VERY, THIS VERY LOCATION IN 2011. THEY TRIED TO MINIMIZE SAYING THAT THEY ONLY HAVE A COUPLE EVENTS OR ONE EVENT IN THE WINTER. IT WON'T BE A BIG DEAL. PEOPLE SIT IN THEIR PARKING LOT WITH THEIR HEADLIGHTS ON AND THEY SHINE IN THE BACK. I ASK EVERYONE IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE IN YOUR BACKYARD AND HAVE HEADLIGHTS SHINING IN YOUR BACK WINDOW.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THIS BOARD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL PUT THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE ZONING TEXT THAT HEADLIGHT SCREENING IS REQUIRED. THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. I DIDN'T COMPLAIN. THE REASON I DIDN'T COMPLAIN. I WAS TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. I DIDN'T WANT TO CAUSE THIS CHURCH ADDITIONAL MONEY TO HAVE TO GO AND PUT THIS SCREENING BACK IN. I WAS TRYING TO BE NICE, TRYING TO BE GOOD. AND NOW I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR A PARKING LOT POINTED AT I'M GOING TO HAVE MORE CARDS. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY THAT ALL WE DON'T WE'RE NOT OPEN AFTER HOURS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT AFTER HOURS. IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE. AND YOU ASKED MR. EYTAN ABOUT TURNING AROUND. I'LL BE SURE TO TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO TURN AROUND, BECAUSE THEY'LL BE POINTING THEIR HEADLIGHTS RIGHT AT MY BACK WINDOW. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE CHURCH TO ASK THEIR TENANT TO WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT. AND I ASK THE CHURCH TO COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING TEXT AND THEIR COMMITMENTS FROM 2011. WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO REDESIGN THIS SO THAT THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING COMMITMENTS THAT ARE IN THE ZONING TEXT CAN BE PERMIT IF THE APPLICANT WILL NOT WILL NOT WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION. ASK THIS BOARD TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS, ZONING TEXT OR THE COMMITMENTS, I WILL PROVIDE YOU COPIES OF WHAT THE SUMMARY OF WHAT I DID, WHAT I JUST PRESENTED. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE SIX, WHICH I HAVE THE ZONING TEXT. WHICH ITEM NUMBER SIX. SO. THANK YOU. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

HELP ME. YOU SAID PAGE SIX. SO I'M NOT THERE'S NOT PAGINATION. SO WHICH WHICH WHICH PAGES I GUESS I CAN COUNT THROUGH THERE UP TO THE BOTTOM 12345. FRONT AND BACK. SO THIS ONE. THIS ONE OKAY. YEAH. SO. MR. STROLLER HAS A STAFF SEEN THIS. ANY PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT YET. HAVE THEY TALKED ABOUT IT I DIDN'T COME ACROSS. I'M SORRY CHRIS AND I TALKED ABOUT IT. I DID NOT COME ACROSS ITEM NUMBER SIX BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT WASN'T UNTIL I WAS REVIEWING THE. THE ACTUAL ZONING TEXT OVER THE WEEKEND THAT I CAME ACROSS ITEM NUMBER SIX AND WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THAT I WAS NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARB. ENOUGH SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION IN IN 2011, IT SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM TO THE ARB WANTED THEM TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A HEADLIGHT SCREENING. I ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, MR.

[00:35:07]

DOES ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT? PLEASE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. SURE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STEVE AYERS. I AM THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR OF FRANCIS, SO I'M THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY. THERE'S A PARK IN MAY, AND I'M JUST HERE TO SAY, I MEAN, HE'S GOING TO SPEAK TO ALL THE DETAILS. I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE HAGGLE OVER SIGNS AND SIX INCHES AND THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD TAKE WHAT IS A PRETTY WELL LAID OUT FACT PATTERN HERE OF THE PAST, TAKE A LOOK, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THE TRUE INTENT OF WHAT THE APPROVAL WAS ORIGINALLY BACK IN WHATEVER IT WAS 2001, AND FOLLOW AND FOLLOW IT THROUGH BECAUSE I WOULD SAY HE WASN'T EXAGGERATING THE IMPACT. I MEAN, I, I SEE I COULD BE HIRED BY THE CHURCH TO DO AFTER HOURS SURVEILLANCE FOR THEM BECAUSE I CAN SEE IF ANYONE PULLS INTO THEIR PARKING LOT, THE HEADLIGHTS COME RIGHT IN. I WOULD SAY JUST. AND WHEN YOU WHEN WHEN YOU PULLED UP THAT SLIDE, THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THE SLIDE OF IT SHOWED. THE EXACT FOOTPRINT OF HOW EVERYTHING IS GOING TO COME IN IN THE EASEMENT. AND I COULD SEE MY, MY LOT. SO JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW IF IT WAS YOUR HOUSE, YOU WOULD BE REALLY BOTHERED BY IT. SO I WANT YOU TO FEEL IT, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE. AND IT'S NOT JUST FRANCIS. THAT PARK IN THE BACK. IT'S ALL CLEAR THERE. I'VE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE SINCE, I DON'T KNOW, 2012 OR 2013. I DIDN'T. YOU FORGET THAT HARLEM ROAD EXISTED, BUT SINCE WE'VE CLEARED THE PROPERTY TO TO IDENTIFY THE LINES OF THE LOT FROM MY KITCHEN TABLE, I CAN TELL YOU EVERY SINGLE CAR THAT GOES BY ON THE ROAD. THERE'S THAT HOUSE.

I MEAN, I COULD SEE IT. IT'S. I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW ROAD LEVEL I WAS UNTIL THEY REMOVED THAT. SO THE THING THAT TERRIFIED ME WHEN YOU PULLED THAT UP WAS THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING TODAY. IN FACT, I DROVE OVER HERE TO TO ATTEND THIS MEETING. IT'S IN PLANTERS GROVE, RIGHT.

AND I STOPPED AND JUST LOOKED AND WATCHED OUT MY KITCHEN WINDOW AND CAR. CAR. NOW, WHAT FRIGHTENED ME WAS WHEN YOU PULLED THAT UP IS THAT'S THE ROAD. AND NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING LOT COMING ALL THE WAY INTO THAT TO THAT LINE. SO IF I CAN SEE DIRECTLY TO HARLEM ROAD AND THAT PARKING LOT IS EVEN THAT FAR, AND WHEN YOU SAID, OH, ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND, WE'RE GOING TO BE WATCHING THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR TV AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, TO THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND HOW IT LOOKS AND THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. FIRST OF ALL, I LOVE THE FOOD PANTRY. AND WHEN YOU PULLED UP, THE DESIGNS, BLOWN AWAY. GREAT USE. I SIT ON THE BOARD OF A CHARITY LONG STANDING. I'M I SUPPORT IT, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK EITHER THE DEVELOPERS OR THE CHURCH OR THIS BOARD, IF IT'S WITHIN YOUR AUTHORITY TO JUST PUT UP SOME SCREEN. SO HE'S NOT EXAGGERATING. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? CHRIS. GO AHEAD PLEASE. YES. SO FRANCIS AND I DID TALK LATE LAST WEEK ABOUT A FEW THINGS. AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY. SO FRANCIS IS CORRECT THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR HEADLIGHT SCREENING AMONGST OTHER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING TEXT. BUT SUBSECTION EIGHT, THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, STATES THAT DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF AN EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PUD, NO LANDSCAPE OFFERING SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG THIS BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. THAT, AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED ON THE PHONE WAS THAT IF THE IF THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREED TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING IN THAT EASEMENT, YOU KNOW THAT NOTHING IN THE TEXT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING SO. BUT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING TEXT. ADDITIONALLY, SINCE 2011, AND CERTAINLY SINCE THE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE, AEP HAS CHANGED THEIR POLICY FOR WHAT'S ALLOWED TO BE INSTALLED IN EASEMENTS. THEY NO LONGER ALLOW ANY WOODY STEM VEGETATION AT ALL TO BE INSTALLED IN EASEMENT AREAS. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN CONTROL OR ANYONE REALLY HAS CONTROL OVER EVERY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE

[00:40:03]

WE WOULD JUST WANT TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SIZE, WHAT THE SIZE OF THOSE SHOULD BE, WHAT THEY SHOULD LOOK LIKE, WHERE THEY SHOULD BE LOCATED, ETC. SO WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF ADDITIONAL SCREENING ON THE JAMES RIVER PARK PROPERTY. WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO DO THAT, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT. SO. LET ME A QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY, AEP DOESN'T OBJECT TO THE PARKING TO TO PAVING PART OF THE EASEMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. DO THEY OBJECT TO DIGGING ON THEIR EASEMENT? THEY DO PUT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LETTER FROM AEP SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. LET MR. PARKER SPEAK TO THOSE DETAILS. LET ME STOP WITH THAT. WHAT ABOUT MOUNDING ON THEIR EASEMENT? THEY DEPENDS. SOME. MOST OF THE TIME. NO, THEY DON'T ALLOW IT. BUT IT'S IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS OKAY. SO I MEAN I'M LOOKING FOR OTHER WAYS. I'M AT LEAST SPEAKING OUT LOUD.

I'M STRUGGLING IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEFORE US IS WHAT'S BEFORE US. AND SO I HAVE A HARD TIME AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES WITH WHAT CAME BEFORE, BUT I DO STRUGGLE WITH CONDITIONING A FURTHER YES ON DOING SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT THAT THAT I, I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THIS HOSTAGE FOR STUFF THAT THEY DIDN'T DO BEFORE. SO AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY DISAGREE ON THAT, BUT SO A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, I DIDN'T MENTION THAT AEP HAS FURTHER CUT SOME OF THIS VEGETATION THAT'S IN THIS THING HERE. BUT SO MY QUESTION SO THIS WAS IN THE EASEMENT IN 2011. IT'S STILL IN THE EASEMENT TODAY. THE SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. AND IT'S CLEAR FROM THE MEETING MINUTES THAT THIS BOARD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WANTED THAT HEADLIGHT SCREENING PUT IN.

AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS PUT IN THE TEXT THAT THAT DOESN'T EXEMPT BECAUSE WHY WOULD THEY WHY WOULD WE PUT THAT IN THERE IN THE ZONING TEXT. WHY WOULD COUNCIL APPROVE IT. WHY WOULD WE WHY WAS IT PUT IN THERE IF IT DIDN'T APPLY? THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MEETING.

LIKE YOU CAN'T TAKE YOU CAN'T TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. IT WAS PUT IN THERE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. IT'S VERY CLEAR. AND SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO GO BACK AND DO THAT. THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. THAT'S A REQUIRED COMPLIANCE TO THIS. SO TALKING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT TODAY THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ZONING TEXT WHICH SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING IN. IT'S IT'S CLEAR. SO THIS BOARD NEEDS TO REJECT THIS APPLICATION ON THAT GROUNDS THAT IT'S NOT. THEY HAVE NO SCREENING FOR OUR PARK.

BUT WHAT PARK DO WE BUILD IN NEW ALBANY? WE HAVE NO SCREENING FROM A PARKING LOT.

LIKE WHAT WAS THERE EVER A FINDING AS FAR AS WHICH REQUIREMENT SUPERSEDED THE OTHER AS FAR AS UTILITY CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS VERSUS OUR OWN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE? COULD YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? I'M SORRY. WHETHER THERE WAS EVER A A CONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS VERSUS OUR OWN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING. SO HAS THERE EVER BEEN A COMMENT FROM AEP? THERE'S ANYONE TO DETERMINE WHICH SUPERSEDES THE OTHER? YEAH, I MEAN I GUESS YEAH. SO WHAT WHAT WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS WE CAN PUT WHATEVER WE WANT IN THESE REQUIREMENTS IF IN FACT IT DOESN'T ALLOW IT, THEN THE QUESTION, I GUESS FOR, FOR COUNCIL FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHERS ARE IF WE PUT THESE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW IT, THEN ARE THEY SIMPLY STRICKEN. AND SO THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED APPROVED WITHOUT THEM. YEAH. THE EASEMENT IS GOING TO RUN WITH THE LAND AND GOVERN WHAT THE RESTRICTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS ARE. SO THE EASEMENT SAYS THOU SHALT NOT PUT ANYTHING WITHIN THAT EASEMENT AREA. AND AEP WANTS TO COME IN AND TAKE IT OUT. THEY WILL BE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S IN HERE. BECAUSE ONCE THE EASEMENT IS CREATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO GO. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE, THOUGH. I MEAN, SURE, AEP CAN GOVERN THEIR EASEMENT, BUT IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN AS SUCH. I THINK THE UNDERLYING QUESTION

[00:45:03]

BUT OH, BY THE WAY, WHEN WE CLEARLY CAN'T PUT IT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S AN EASEMENT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE IT. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK SIX IS THE BROAD AND THEN EIGHT NARROWS IT DOWN FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY I DON'T KNOW, I WASN'T ON COUNCIL OR ANY OF THESE BOARDS IN 2011, SO I WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY OF THIS IN THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING IT ALL TONIGHT. IT SOUNDS ABSOLUTELY HORRIFYING TO ME TO BE IN YOUR POSITION WHERE YOU WERE AT A MEETING WHERE YOU WERE ASSURED THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND NOW YOU'VE HAD ALL THESE HEADLIGHTS IN YOUR WINDOWS. AND I DON'T WANT TO NOT EMPATHIZE WITH THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN OUGHT TO REQUIRE A CHURCH TO GO PUT IN LANDSCAPE.

WE KNOW THERE BY THIS CODE REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO DO. AND MOST LIKELY IT'S GOING TO GET RIPPED RIGHT BACK OUT BY AEP ANYWAY. WE KNOW THAT THAT'S JUST SORT OF GUESSING THAT YOU ARE. WELL, I MEAN, BEN, YOU'RE OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND YOU'RE RIGHT. SO I, I HAVEN'T READ THE EASEMENT WITH AEP, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I CAN READ THE ZONING TEXT THAT WAS ADOPTED AND I AGAIN, I WASN'T THERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME PRETTY CLEAR THAT DUE TO THAT ELECTRICAL EASEMENT, BUFFERING IS NOT REQUIRED THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT LOT. SO THAT AS I READ THAT, THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME. AND THAT'S I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT'S HOW I READ THAT. AND NOW THAT, AGAIN, I'M TRYING. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT THAT SAYS I'M TRYING TO TO JUST HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN A MEETING. BUT YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT SPECIFIC TRUMP'S CHANNEL SO THAT EVEN THOUGH SIX IS THERE THAT EIGHT WOULD EIGHT WOULD OVERALL EIGHT WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE. IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT'S THE INTENTION OF SIX FROM THE MEETING MINUTES. AND SO I THINK THE SOLUTION IS HERE IS THE CHURCH TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND TO WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION AND NOT DO NOT PUT ANY MORE HARM ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, DESPITE THE PROMISES OF AN EMAIL THAT'S IN THAT PACKET FROM YOUR BUILDING CHAIR, COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE, THAT YOU WOULDN'T DO THIS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I ASKED THE CHURCH TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION IMMEDIATELY. I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M LOOKING AT THE SIGN THAT SAYS NEW ALBANY COMMUNITY CONNECTS US. AND I COMPLETELY AGREE. I THINK AS A COMMUNITY, WE ALL HAVE TO COEXIST. AND I THINK WE NEED TO PROTECT THE HOMES, AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND I KNOW THERE WAS A CHURCH THAT WAS JUST BUILT RECENTLY, AND I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY DID TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WERE COMFORTABLE. SO I, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WE NEED, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN. THE SOLUTION THAT MAKES SENSE IS TO REQUIRE THE LANDSCAPE IN IN AN AREA WHERE WE KNOW IT'S VERY POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT RIPPED RIGHT BACK OUT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE SOLUTION. I, I THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT JAMES RIVER PARK IS A VERY, VERY POTENTIAL SOLUTION, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE THE VENUE TO BE DOING THAT HERE EITHER. SO, BEN, YOU NEED I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT ONE, RIGHT? YEAH. IT HAS TO BE A DIFFERENT THING, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MEAN THE CITY CAN'T GET INVOLVED AND FIX THIS. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. CHRISTIAN HAS A POTENTIAL SOLUTION THAT I CAN PROMISE YOU COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT. AT LEAST I CAN'T PROMISE YOU COUNCIL SUPPORT ANYTHING. THEY ALL HAVE TO VOTE.

I CAN PROMISE YOU I WILL SUPPORT AND I WILL GO IN AND FIGHT FOR. BUT I PUT THAT IN THE END. IN THE END, IT'S THE BOARD'S VOTE. BUT AGAIN, THAT THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF

[00:50:05]

SO THIS SHOWS SOME HEAVIER EVERGREEN SCREENING HERE. AND THESE GREEN AREAS. THIS DOWN HERE JUST REPRESENTS THE POCKET PRAIRIE PROJECT THAT THE CITY IS WORKING ON WITH THE CONTRACTOR NOW TO INSTALL JAMES RIVER PARK. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S SHOWN HERE IN THIS, THIS OVAL AREA. THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING WOULD BE, WOULD BE HERE IN THESE AREAS. SO FRANCIS, WOULD THAT MAKE YOU FEEL ANY MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT IT WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL? WOULD THAT HELP? AGAIN, I KNOW IT STILL HAS TO BE. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME INSURANCES THAT THAT THAT IS GOING TO REMAIN THERE LONG TERM, LIKE ANOTHER COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO CUT IT ALL DOWN OR WHATEVER. AND THEN I'M BACK IN THE SAME BOAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTIONS. I GUESS I'M GOING TO LET. AND MR. CHRISTENSEN SENT ME AN EMAIL ON FRIDAY SAID THAT THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE THIS BOARD, CANNOT REQUIRE SCREENING ON A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS PART OF A THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BY AGREEMENT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. I'D WANT THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WE CAN ASK THAT THEY DO THAT. AND I GUESS ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO TONIGHT IS AGAIN, THIS IS THIS WAS I SENT THIS TO YOU TODAY. WE JUST AGREED THAT YOU WOULD WORK WITH US IN THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. I, I HAVE TO PAUSE HERE FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

I THINK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT EXACTLY NOT DOING, WHICH IS RUSHING A SOLUTION. THERE ARE I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS CLEARLY IT'S CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THERE'S AN EFFORT TO TRY TO RESOLVE THIS. AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT ASK BOTH AS A BOARD MEMBER BUT ALSO AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER. WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATION FOR THIS? HOW IS IT BEING BUDGETED? WHO'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THAT ALLOCATION AND APPROVAL? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE PUSHING THROUGH AN APPROVAL HERE WITH THERE'S DEFINITELY I MEAN, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT UNDERLYING ISSUES WHEN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THERE IS A CONFLICT OF ERROR, HOW IS THAT ULTIMATELY RESOLVED? I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE CERTAINLY WE WANT WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE ENDORSE AS A BOARD TO HAVE THE FULL ENDOH OF, OF, OF OUR EMENT.RS A ITND DOESN'T PEAR AAPTHOUGHS THAT W THEAS SE INCA THIS RTICULPAAR STANCEIN. SO IM A CCERNEDON APPRUHAT. A TND IERY MU VCH IATE TECHEFFORT EN O BEHF THEITY TO C STEP I AND,NOU Y OW, TKNEAKOME S RESPOIBILITNS QUESHIFO BUTS. THERES I A ON OFTIUNDING FND OTH A, KNOW, THISNG THEREHAT I T THK AREINROBABL PY BEST HAD NVERSACOONS NOTI INT THISENUE, V IILL W SAY, AND I CAN'TPEAK S THEHE ER IRENT BOARD. I MN,EA THE ARCTECTURHI ANDEESIGN D OFHE FOO TDANTRY P ISERY V GD.OO MAKE AAVINGLE S REMARTOK PROCUT IT, BUT DO I FEEL URALLYEDHAT WE T ARE I NMESONEVEN U WATSERERE IN H THATTRO TAKE A M RECOMNDATIOMEN ISN BINDI'T.NG TT'SHA LY THETE RESPOIBILITNS Y THE POFNNINGLAOMMISS CN.IO I E MOR BE IN FAVOR OSORTF PSINGAS THISN TO OHE T NG CMISSIOOMNATHER R TN,HA U KNOWYO T,INGAK ACTN.IOY M EW IS VIAT THETH'SRE TE N WHEDOES PN NNING LAET?ME EEK. W NEXT NTH?MOEAH, Y, I MI'NCLINE ID, I I, I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE NICE. I STILL STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF THERE'S THERE'S TWO ISSUES I THINK THAT I SEE HERE. ISSUE ONE IS THE ENFORCEMENT OR THE FOLLOWING, THE, THE PRIOR RESTRICTIONS AND WHAT AND THAT'S AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE THAT ISN'T BEFORE US. AND SO I THINK AND SO THAT CAN BE INITIATED AND SOMEBODY NOT ME KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT. I AM VERY RELUCTANT TO CONDITION A SEPARATE APPROVAL ON GETTING THAT RESOLVED WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN OPENED. RIGHT. SO SO ONE, I WANT TO SEPARATE WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION. I ALSO

[00:55:04]

BUT IF YOU DO WANT TO DEAL WITH IT HERE TONIGHT, I'M BETTING IT BECOMES TABLED PENDING MORE DETAIL FOR THAT SORT OF THING. BUT I THINK JOHN'S RECOMMENDATION IS ALSO AN EXCELLENT ONE, WHICH IS THAT WE NEVER RESOLVE IT. I MEAN, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY IS WE AGREE AND WE, WE, WE CONCUR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BECAUSE CLEARLY, TO SOME EXTENT, THE CITY HAS MADE THIS A LITTLE BIT WORSE WITH WITH STUFF THAT IT DID.

BUT NONETHELESS, I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND I WOULD SAY WE AND AND WE I'D RECOMMEND THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN HERE. AND I WOULD SAY TO PLANNING, WE HAVE GRAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT PROCEEDING WITH THIS PLAN. UNLESS YOU DEAL WITH, IN SOME FASHION, THE SCREENING ISSUE FOR THE FOR THIS NEW PARCEL. I SEE YOUR LOGIC. I WOULD ARGUE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COURSE OF ACTION. I THINK ANY APPROVAL THAT WE GRANT TONIGHT SHOULD BE NARROWLY DEFINED TO THE ARCHITECTURE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ACT ON THE CONDITIONS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ACT ON ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE SITE DESIGN. I THINK WE I'M I'M COMFORTABLE AND PREPARED TO COMMENT ON THE ARCHITECTURE BEING APPROPRIATE FOR ITS INTENDED USE AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS BY WHICH IT YOU KNOW, WHICH IT FOLLOWS, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE COMMENTING ON ANYTHING FURTHER THAN THAT. OKAY. SO I THINK IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE TO TABLE IT BECAUSE I THINK EITHER WE EITHER WE SEND THIS TO PLANNING OR WE DON'T. RIGHT? YES. AND SO I THINK I'M HEARING YOU DON'T WANT TO SEND IT TO PLAN. YOU WANT US. I DIDN'T SAY I DON'T WANT TO SEND IT TO PLANNING. I SAID THAT I'M COMFORTABLE COMMENTING ON THE ARCHITECTURE.

THERE IS CLEARLY SOME UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD, THAT I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE COMMENTING ON. RIGHT? AND, I MEAN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT MAYBE THE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THE APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO THIS BOARD, YOU KNOW, EDITED FOR FOR WHAT WE SHOULD BE ACTING ON GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT, I MEAN, I'M JUST NOT PREPARED TO COMMENT ON THESE OTHER SITE RELATED ISSUES BECAUSE THEN WE ARE. BY PROXY NOW COMPLICIT IN THE CONVERSATION. AND I JUST DON'T I FEEL THAT THAT'S THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. SO LET ME LET ME AGAIN COME BACK. OUR OUR CHOICE TONIGHT IS TO EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS OR NOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. CORRECT. AND IF WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. AND MY IDEA WOULD BE TO GIVEN THAT PRINCIPALLY WHAT PLANNING LOOKS, LOOKS TO US TO DO IS ARCHITECTURE, THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD SAY TO PLANNING THAT WE REALLY, REALLY LIKE THIS ARCHITECTURE BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK I BELIEVE YOU DO. UNLESS YOU DON'T, IN WHICH CASE THEN WE NEED TO. I'VE ALREADY COMMENTED ON THE ARCHITECTURE. YOU'RE OKAY WITH

[01:00:02]

WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE TO DISAPPROVE OR IT COULD BE TABLED. I'M NOT LOOKING TO SLOW DOWN PROGRESS HERE, GUYS. I JUST I SEE IT I SEE AN UNDERLYING CONCERN HERE. AND THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO SOLVE IT TO ME. BEN, IF I COULD WAVE. OH YEAH. GO REAL QUICK JUST IN THE EVALUATION PORTION, IT DOES SAY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW CRITERIA. THE BOARD SHOULD EVALUATE ITS SITE DESIGN, BUILDING LOCATIONS RIGHT THERE.

ARCHITECTURE IS NOT JUST WINDOWS, DOORS, MATERIALS. IT'S IF YOU ARE DOING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS, YOU'RE STARTING FROM STEP ONE OF LOCATING THE BUILDING, LOCATING ALL THE SITE ELEMENTS, SO TO SAY. THE ARCHITECTURE IS GOOD, BUT THERE'S AN ISSUE THEN THE ARCHITECTURE IS NOT GOOD BECAUSE THERE'S AN ISSUE. SO HOW CAN WE APPROVE ANYTHING WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ISSUE. RIGHT. SO RIGHT. I AGREE, I THINK THAT IF WE PROCEDURALLY AND THEN AGAIN I'M LOOKING AT YOU HERE, BUT IF NOT WE BECAUSE I DON'T VOTE IF YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY OR CONDITION OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCREENING, I THINK YOU'VE APPROVED THE SCREENING OR THE LACK OF SCREENING, AGREED INADVERTENTLY.

AND I'M IF THAT THE MESSAGE AND MAYBE IT IS AGAIN, I DON'T VOTE ON THIS, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU DO THIS THAT IT'S IN THE APPLICATION. RIGHT. YEAH. YOU YOU HAVE YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU IF YOU SIMPLY SAY YOU APPROVE, I THINK YOU'VE APPROVED THE SCREENING.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS OR LACK OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. RIGHT. WE HAD A CONDITION FOR SCREENING. IT GETS SUPERSEDED IMMEDIATELY BY THE EASEMENT. SO IT'S THE SAME THING HAPPENS AGAIN. AGREED. SO IT JUST GOES INTO THE DUSTBIN. SO TO YOUR POINT, YEAH THE RESOLUTION AT ALL IF THEY'RE SILENT IS THOSE ISSUES. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S IT'S UNCLEAR OR THEY'RE APPROVING IT AS PRESENTED. I THINK IT'S AN APPROVAL PERIOD. YEAH. IT'S IT'S RIGHT IN THERE IN THE PLAN.

AGAIN. ALL WE ALL WE DO IS RECOMMEND HERE THAT WE DON'T APPROVE ANYTHING WE RECOMMEND I UNDERSTAND. SO SO WHAT IS SO LET'S THE QUESTION BECOMES. IS THERE A PATH. SO I GUESS FROM THIS BOARD STANDPOINT JUST TAKING A POLL. CAN I INFORMALLY JUST GET A SENSE OF WHO WANTS TO TABLE IT AND SEE IF SOMEBODY COMES BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WE LIKE BETTER IN THE FUTURE? YES. OR WHO IS WHO IS IS THERE ANYONE, ANYONE INTERESTED IN IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL? BUT WITH WHAT? WITH SOME BUDS? I DON'T THINK THAT GETS US WHERE WE NEED TO BE. RIGHT. WELL, THEN I TABLED IT. A LOT OF THESE CONDITIONS MAY BE ABLE TO BE MET BY THE NEXT APPLICATION, WHERE THERE WILL BE FAR LESS CONDITIONS AND WE HAVE MORE RESOLUTION. SO IS THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDESIGN THIS? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT IN I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. I MEAN, THE BUILDING LOCATION. LIKE WHAT ARE OUR OTHER OPTIONS? I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT WERE PUT ON HERE WITH THE SETBACK AND THE SETBACKS OF 75 FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE GIVE WAIVERS AND VARIANCES TO THAT ALL THE TIME. BUT WE CAN'T WAIVE WE CAN'T WAIVE A UTILITY EASEMENT. NO NO NO NO NO THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY HERE. THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THIS PARKING LOT. THERE'S A WHOLE TREE LINE DOWN HERE THAT'S AWAY

[01:05:02]

AND HELP ME COUNSEL, WE COULD TABLE IT, BUT THAT THEN PUTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ON ICE. CORRECT. BECAUSE WE'VE NOT WE'VE NOT MADE A RECOMMENDATION. CORRECT. YEAH.

WE COULD RECOMMEND WITH CONDITIONS OR WE COULD RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE DISAPPROVE OF. I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS BEFORE US. RIGHT. SO TABLING TABLE RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL TO TO TO TO RECOMMEND THIS APPROVAL TO PLANNING. BUT BUT SAY HERE'S WHAT WE LIKE AND HERE'S WHAT WE DON'T LIKE. YEAH. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME EXPLANATION ON THAT I THINK. OR WE COULD SAY WE APPROVE, BUT WE HAVE THESE WE WE HAVE THESE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. THOSE ARE OUR THREE CHOICES. OR I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT I MEAN CONDITIONS IN THERE AS WELL. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. BUT THAT'S THAT, THAT'S THAT, THAT THOSE ARE THE PARLIAMENTARY STUFF. IF WE, IF WE COULD JUST ADJOURN AND GO HOME. BUT THAT PROBABLY ISN'T PRODUCTIVE IF WE MOVE TO, TO, TO NOT APPROVE, DOES IT STILL GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING. OKAY. I MEAN SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS DO WE WANT TO DO DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO SEE THIS AND HAVE SOMETHING WE RECOMMEND, WE RECOMMEND TO PLANNING ACROSS THE BOARD? OR DO WE WANT TO WASH OUR HANDS OF IT? I I'M NOT YEAH I MEAN I, I GUESS MAYBE FOR ME I'LL JUST REPEAT MYSELF AS I'M PRONE TO DO THERE'S AN UNDERLYING ISSUE HERE. I THINK IT'S SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ISSUE GET RESOLVED. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER ACTION WE TAKE ALLOWS FOR THAT. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT JUST KICKS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD OR SAYS, WELL, IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM ANYMORE. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT IS THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION. WELL THEN YOU WANT TO TABLE IT. I DO WANT TO TABLE IT, BUT IF I'M, YOU KNOW, IF THE REST OF THE BOARD FEELS DIFFERENTLY, I'M ALL EARS. NOW, IF WE TABLE IT, DOES PLANNING. IS IT RIGHT FOR PLANNING? IT WOULD NOT GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO JUST OPEN IT UP FOR THE APPLICANT TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON. YEAH. SO SCHEDULE NOW THAT WE FOR SURE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO THIS. YEAH. I MEAN I GUESS FROM OUR STANDPOINT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEVERAL FACTORS GOING INTO THIS. AND WE DID LOOK AT OTHER SIDE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS HOW WE LAY THE BUILDING OUT ON THE SITE. AND THIS IS THE ABILITY TO MAXIMIZE. AND WE DID HAVE A MUCH LARGER BUILDING THAN WE. SURE, BEFORE IT CAME TO YOU. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THE CHURCH HAS AND HASN'T DONE IN THE PAST. CORRECT? WELL, AND I THINK WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD SCREEN THIS IF WE COULD, BUT IF WE PUT IT IN THE EASEMENT, IT'S GOING TO GET MOWED DOWN. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN, THE THE PLAN THAT CHRIS PRESENTED THAT DID FOR THE PARK, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE COULD PRESENT TO OUR FUNDING PARTNERS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR SCREENING ON THIS PARKING LOT IF IT WEREN'T AN EASEMENT, SO WE COULD WORK WITH THE CITY TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS. YOU KNOW, THE FOOD PANTRY IS CURRENTLY IN THE OLD HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH YOU ALL KNOW. YOU KNOW, THE SPACE IS CONFINED. I THINK THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS ASKED THEM TO FIND A NEW HOME. SO WE'VE GOT TO KEEP THIS THING MOVING. AND, YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IS THE OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE. AND I KNOW MR. STALLER'S CONCERNS ABOUT HEADLIGHTS AND THE FOOD PANTRY IS A LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION COMPONENT.

OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T PREVENT SOMEBODY TO JUST PULL IN THAT PARKING LOT AT NIGHT AND HANG OUT OR WHATEVER FLASHING THEIR LIGHTS. YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, THE LATEST, THE FOOD PANTRIES EVER OPEN AT 7 P.M. YOU KNOW, AND THOSE ARE THREE NIGHTS A WEEK, CORRECT, RACHEL. EVERY OTHER EVERY OTHER WEEK, THREE NIGHTS A WEEK TILL 7 P.M. SO IT'S DARK OTHER THAN THAT. RIGHT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS 65% OF THE TIME.

YOU KNOW, FLIPPING THE BUILDING AND PUTTING THE PARKING LOT ON HARLEM ROAD. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE THE WAY THAT LOOKS. YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE YOU'RE IN

[01:10:04]

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I WILL ADVOCATE FOR US DOING WHAT WE CAN TO RESOLVE THE PRIOR PROBLEM TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT WE CAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE FIX THINGS. THAT, AND I WILL SAY AEP HIRED PEOPLE LAST YEAR AND THEY CAME AND CUT EVERYTHING DOWN, INCLUDING A PRETTY BIG HEDGE THAT WAS SCREENING JAMES RIVER PARK FROM US. AND THEY HAVE A VERY FLIMSY.

I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT A BARBED WIRE FENCE THERE. IT'S IT'S SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SO I'M GOING TO LET'S LET'S MOVE THIS FORWARD. I MOVE TO TABLE A SECOND.

SECOND BY SECOND. THANK YOU. MISTER. YES, MISS MOORE OKAY. WAIT A SECOND. YES. FOR WHAT? SORRY. THE MOTION. WOULD YOU JUST SECOND TO TABLE TO TABLE. YES. YES. MR. BROWN. YES. MR.

[01:15:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL REGAIN THE ADVOCACY AND WISDOM OF MR. STROLLER HERE ON THE BOARD. THE NEXT MATTER BEFORE US IS ARB 99 2025 THE CHURCH OF RESURRECTION PARSONAGE. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW AN ADDITION ONTO THE PARSONAGE LOCATED AT 5575 MORGAN ROAD. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO THE HOUSE IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION SITE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY FROM THIS PICTURE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW ON MORGAN ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER, BUT IT'S PER SECTION EIGHT OF THE CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES. MUST SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. AND SINCE THE PARCEL IS FUNCTIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CHURCH, IT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SAID PLAN. SO THE AREA OUTLINED IN THE ORANGE OR YELLOW IS WHAT YOU WILL BE WILL BE ADDED ONTO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WILL GO INTO THE SOUTH LOT OR SORRY, THE LOT TO THE SOUTH. AND STAFF HAS ADDED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE AND THAT THE LOT COMBINATION WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. SO THEY'LL JUST BE MAKING A LOT LARGER. AND THEY ALREADY OWN THAT SOUTHERN LOT. JUST LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN. SO AFTER TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THERE ARE TWO PRIESTS THAT CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE PARSONAGE AND THEY ARE JUST LOOKING TO ADD ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER LIVING SLASH DINING ROOM ONTO THE HOUSE. SO IF ANY OF THEM HAVE FAMILY OR FRIENDS OVER, THERE'S JUST MORE OF A GATHERING SPACE FOR THEM. THEN JUST LOOKING AT THE ELEVATION, THEY WILL MATCH EVERYTHING THAT IS EXISTING ON THE HOME ALREADY, BOTH MATERIALS AND COLOR. THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND HAS GIVEN KUDOS TO THE DESIGNER FOR THE WINDOW AND DOOR DESIGN TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND THE ONLY COMMENT THAT THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS MADE IS TO CHANGE THE CHIMNEY TO BE BRICK TO MATCH THE EXISTING CHIMNEY INSTEAD OF THE SIDING THAT IS PROPOSED. OVERALL, AS I SAID BEFORE, CONDITION WISE, WE WOULD LIKE THE CHIMNEY TO BE CHANGED TO BRICK AND THAT THE LOT COMBINATION BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. AND THIS IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF MORGAN ROAD. SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT ON THE WEST SIDE AS WELL, THAT THE TEN FOOT PUBLIC ACCESS AND STREETSCAPE EASEMENT BE PROVIDED, EXTENDING FROM THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF MORGAN ROAD, THAT EXTENDS TO THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, AND THAT A 75% OPACITY LANDSCAPE SCREENING WOULD BE PUT ON THE PROPERTY IF THE USE WAS EVER CHANGED. SO SINCE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL USE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE SCREENING TO BE PUT ON. AND I'M I'M HERE AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SO THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. OR TO SUPPLEMENT OR TO REFINE. YES. HELLO. MY NAME IS SCOTT HARPER. HARPER ARCHITECTURAL STUDIO, AS YOU CAN SEE, YES, WE ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE CHURCH. AND IT'S BEEN VERY EXCITING OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. WHAT IS CALLED A PARSONAGE HERE WE ACTUALLY CALL A RECTORY. BUT THIS ADDITION IS GOING TO ENHANCE THE RECTORY AND GIVING THE PRIESTS A LITTLE BIT MORE BREATHING ROOM AND AN ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. AND IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MATCH THE EXISTING RECTORY. WE'LL BE MATCHING THE SIDING. WE'LL BE MATCHING THE TRIM DETAILS. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MORE OF A SUNROOM TYPE LOOK, BUT IT WILL BE MORE GEORGIAN THAN CLASSICAL IN NATURE. AND I'M HERE ALONG WITH SUE LARSON, WHO'S THE BUSINESS MANAGER AT RESURRECTION, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE A QUESTION NOT RELATED TO WHAT BEFORE US, BUT WHAT USED TO BE THE DINING ROOM IN HERE SAYS GUEST ROOM. IS IT ALREADY A GUEST ROOM OR IS THAT PART OF THE INTERIOR PROJECT? IT IS NOT. IT WOULD BE A GUEST ROOM. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAIN SPACE THERE WHERE THAT HAS BEEN DONE, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY NEED THIS, BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY SMALL DINING ROOM. THEY'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THE DINING ROOM. AND OKAY, THAT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THE RECTORY. AND THAT ALSO IS A LOCATION WHERE YOU GET RID OF THE OLD DINING ROOM AND YOU WANT A BIG ONE. YEAH.

THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN MY HOME. WE HAD A BUNCH OF PARISHIONERS THAT CAME TOGETHER AND BUILT THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY AT THE TIME. IT HAS THREE MAIN SUITES IN IT, TWO UPSTAIRS AND ONE DOWNSTAIRS. CURRENTLY WE ARE FULL WITH ALL THREE LIVING IN THERE. AND IF YOU'RE NOT CATHOLIC, THEY'RE NOT MARRIED, THEY'RE NOT FAMILY. SO THINK ABOUT LIVING WITH THREE

[01:20:02]

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE BRICK ON THE CHIMNEY OR THE OTHER CONDITIONS? NO. I THINK WE WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT. YES. AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE ALL FINE ON THAT.

YOU OKAY? YES. WITH ONE CAVEAT. WE STILL WILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE DIOCESE REAL ESTATE OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY TO BISHOP FERNANDEZ FOR APPROVAL OF THE TEN FOOT EASEMENT. CAN WE GO TO PAGE? ACTUALLY JUST REFER TO THE BOARD MEMBERS TO PAGE EIGHT 200 FOR A SECOND OF THIS PAGE HERE. AND MAINLY ASKING THE ARCHITECTS THERE YOU SEE AN EIGHT 200, THE FENESTRATION AND THE LOOK. THOSE DIVIDED LIGHT PROPORTIONS LOOKED OKAY TO ME, BUT I JUST WANTED MR. DAVIS AND MR. MALITZ TO LOOK AT THOSE AT THE NEW DIVIDED LIGHTS COMPARED TO THE OLD ONES, AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT. YOU SEE MY QUESTION? IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MATCH, BUT I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

YEAH. THE INTENT THERE WOULD BE FOR US TO MATCH OR MATCH. OKAY. YEAH. IT APPEARS OKAY WITH THE EXISTING HOME, BUT I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THIS. I'LL DEFER TO MY BOARD MEMBERS. I HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE OF THIS. THIS ISN'T A RESIDENTIAL LOCATION, BUT THEY'VE NOTED THAT THE 70% 75% CAPACITY REQUIREMENT CAN BE WAIVED. I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE SHOULD KIND OF READ RENAL CONDITION FOR A 75% PERCENT OPACITY LANDSCAPING SCREENING TO BE WAIVED FOR THIS APPLICATION, BUT PUT IN IF THE USE OF THE SITE CHANGES. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED TO THE ANOTHER CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT ACTUALLY. SO SINCE THE THE SITE THAT THE HOUSE IS ON IS ACTUALLY A RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREA, BUT SINCE IT'S OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CHURCH, THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO COME IN. SO IT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. BUT WE FIGURED SINCE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT UNDERNEATH THE ARB PURVIEW, THAT CONDITION MIGHT COME UP.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE JUST SAYING, SINCE IT IS THEIR PROPERTY, IF THEY DO CHOOSE TO MAKE IT MORE OF A MEETING HALL VERSUS JUST A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, THAT'S WHEN THAT WOULD NEED TO COME INTO PLAY. BUT IF YOU'RE WANTING TO, WE DON'T NEED TO WAIVE. THAT DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT RIGHT NOW. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL USE PRESENT. CORRECT. I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP DOWN THE LINE OF WHY THAT WASN'T PUT IN AT THE TIME, IT WAS BECAUSE IT'S JUST A RESIDENTIAL USE AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AT LEAST. IS THAT ALL OF THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE ARE ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THEY'RE ALL ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THEY ALL BACK IN THE DAY BEFORE MY TIME HAD TRAILERS ON THEM, AND WHEN THE CHURCH BOUGHT THEM, WE TOOK THE TRAILERS OFF, SMASHED THE WELLS, DID ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS. BUT THAT ENTIRE FROM THE SOUTH THERE ON THE WEST SIDE THAT BACKS TO HAMPSTEAD, THOSE ARE ALL STILL ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

AND IF YOU WOULD PULL UP FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR, IT'S STILL RESIDENTIAL. WE NEVER TOOK IT OVER. EVERYTHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF MORGAN ROAD IS RESIDENTIAL. SO IS THAT I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE DOING EVERYTHING FOR YOU, BECAUSE THE USE WILL NOT BE SPECIFICALLY RESIDENTIAL ANYMORE. RIGHT? IT'S TECHNICALLY IT'S RESIDENTIAL. IT'S STILL RESIDENTIAL UNTIL IT WAS MORE BIGGER MASTER PLANS OR THINGS THAT HAPPEN DOWN THERE RIGHT NOW. I GOT THE 20 MILLION AT MY END. I'M GOOD ON THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHY WE'RE I'M ASSUMING THAT'S RELATED TO 1111 7105. THAT 75%, RIGHT? YEAH. AND NOW, JUST LIKE CODE AFTER THE END OF READING.

OKAY. WE'RE FINE. THAT TRUST ME, I AM FINE WITH THAT. OUR NEIGHBORS TALK TO US ALL THE TIME. SO I GUESS I GUESS IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE THE USAGE OF IT FROM RESIDENTIAL WOULD HAVE TO BE REZONED. RIGHT. AND IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T THAT COME UP AT THAT TIME? YES. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY WE HAVE THAT. I THINK IT WAS KIND OF JUST A, A SAFETY NET, A REMINDER. YEAH. WE GOT IT. OKAY. I MEAN IT HAPPENS. OKAY. I'M GOOD. LEAVE IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK COMMENT. SINCE THE CHIMNEY WAS BROUGHT UP AS A CONDITION IN TERMS OF GOING FROM SIDING TO BRICK, I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THIS. THIS ISN'T A CRITICISM OF THE DESIGN, BUT YOU MAY WANT TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE HEIGHT AGAINST THE PEAK OF THE ROOF. YEAH, YOU MIGHT BE LOW JUST TO CATCH THAT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CHANGE MY OPINION OF THE DESIGN OR THE CHIMNEY ITSELF. SO I DON'T THINK IT IS A, YOU KNOW, A CHANGE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT BACK. BUT JUST I WOULD ARCHITECT TO. ARCHITECT LOOK AT IT. YEAH. WE'LL CHECK THAT.

DEFINITELY. AND WE'RE A CONSTRUCTION OF THIS IS PROBABLY AT LEAST SIX MONTHS

[01:25:01]

YEAH. DO I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STRIPPED OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ARB 99 DASH 2025 WITH THE NOTED CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND. MR. BROWN. YES, MISS MOORE. YES, MR. ITEM? YES, MR. STROLLER. YES, MR. DAVEY. YES, MR. MALINS. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES FOR SIX VOTES TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MOVING ALONG. OUR NEXT LETTER IS A B AND LET'S SEE. WHAT IS IT? GOTTA FIND MY AGENDA AGAIN. SORRY. 102 2021 02102 2025 AND DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YEP. I'M OVER HERE. OH WOW. THEY PUT ME IN THE CORNER. ALRIGHTY.

JUST JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2025. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEVERAL MINOR MODIFICATIONS, WHICH I WILL GO THROUGH BRIEFLY TONIGHT. ALTHOUGH THE CHANGES ARE MINOR, THE NUMBER OF MODIFICATIONS BRINGS THE PROJECT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A REVISED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AS A REMINDER, THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH AND WEST OF EAST MAIN STREET, SHOWN HERE. STAFF AND THE CITY ARCHITECT REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND HAD NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. ALL THE CONDITIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, WHICH WAS ARB 98 2024, WOULD STILL APPLY. I AM BRIEFLY GOING TO GO OVER EACH ELEVATION AND NOTE THE CHANGES, MANY OF WHICH ARE THE SAME MODIFICATION APPLIED TO MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, AND I'M HAPPY TO RETURN TO ANY ELEVATION FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER THE PRESENTATION. SO STARTING WITH BUILDING A, THIS IS A NORTH ELEVATION. THE CHANGES INCLUDED A STAIR RECONFIGURATION TO ACCOMMODATE GRADING AND RIGHT OF WAY WINDOWS REMOVED FOR UNIT INTERIORS, AND THIN BRICK ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF BUILDING A. THE CHANGES INCLUDED OPENINGS REVISED FOR INTERIOR PROGRAM AND WALL, UPDATED WITH TRADITIONAL SYMMETRY TO ALIGN WITH ARB CONDITIONS. WINDOWS REMOVED TO SATISFY TRANSFORMER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. FOR BUILDING B, THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATION. THE CHANGES INCLUDED STAIRS TURN TO ACCOMMODATE GRADING AND RIGHT OF WAY, AND THIS IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED ON THE WEST ELEVATION, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE EAST ELEVATION FOR THE NORTH ELEVATION OF BUILDING B, THE CHANGES INCLUDED STAIRS TURN TO ACCOMMODATE GRADING AND RIGHT OF WAY WINDOWS REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE UNIT INTERIORS, MASSING EXPANDED AND ARCHED BRICKWORK UPDATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE. THE SOUTH ELEVATION ADDITIONAL EXIT DOORS WAS ADDED TO SATISFY EGRESS CODE, WINDOWS RECONFIGURED AND RECESSES RECONFIGURED TO ALIGN WITH DOORS. FOR BUILDING C, THE EAST ELEVATION. THE CHANGES INCLUDE A TERRACE SPACE CONVERTED TO INTERIOR UNIT SPACE, WINDOWS RECONFIGURED, ADDITIONAL DOOR FOR FIRE PUMP ROOM MASSING, EXPANDED TO SERVE INTERIOR PROGRAMING, AND A THIN BRICK ABOVE THE ROOFLINE. THE NORTH ELEVATION. THE CHANGE WAS. WINDOWS WERE RECONFIGURED. THE WEST ELEVATION, THE TERRACE SPACE CONVERTED TO INTERIOR UNIT SPACE, ADDITIONAL THIRD LEVEL BALCONIES, WINDOWS RECONFIGURED, ADDITIONAL OPENINGS FOR GARAGE VENTING, AND THIN BRICK ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. FOR THE SOUTH ELEVATION, THE RAMP WAS REMOVED, DOORS ADDED FOR AT GRADE ENTRY, WINDOWS RECONFIGURED, AND A DOOR TO THE TRASH ROOM WAS ADDED. FOR THE WEST COURTYARD.

ELEVATION FOR BUILDING C, WINDOWS WERE RECONFIGURED AND FOR THE EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION WINDOWS WERE RECONFIGURED AND OPENINGS RECONFIGURED ON THIN BRICK ABOVE ROOFLINE. IN ADDITION TO THE MINOR ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS, THERE WERE SOME LANDSCAPING, SO BACK IN FEBRUARY, THE ARB SUGGESTED CHANGES TO SPECIES AND PLANTING LOCATIONS, AND THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED PLAN. ADDITIONALLY, ADJUSTMENT TO PLANNING LOCATIONS HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO ACCOMMODATE SIERRA RECONFIGURATION, AS WELL AS MASSING AND FENESTRATION UPDATES. FOR MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION, THE APPLICANT IS

[01:30:01]

THANK YOU. I WAS JUST YOU WERE WORKING WITH A PARTICULAR BRAND AND NOW YOU'RE USING A DIFFERENT WHAT BRAND WERE YOU ON? WHAT BRAND ARE YOU ON? YES, IT WAS WINDSOR AND WE WERE WAITING FOR A SAMPLE FROM MI AGAIN. THEY THEY LOOK AND OPERATE VERY SIMILARLY. IT WAS A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AND AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, AS WE CONTINUE TO ENGAGE AND GET CLOSER TO CONSTRUCTION HERE IN A FEW MONTHS, INPUT FROM OUR CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS ON WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AND MADE SENSE. I ONLY ASK THIS JUST BECAUSE WINDOWS ARE A IMPORTANT ITEM HERE IN NEW ALBANY. YOU SAID THE BRAND YOU'RE SELECTING IS WHAT AGAIN AM I, AM I? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. BUT ARE THEY DO THEY MATCH SPEC FOR SPEC I UNDERSTAND LOOK BUT ARE THEY WERE THEY. IF THE WINDSOR PRODUCT YOU WERE USING WAS AN ALUMINUM CLAD SDL OR WAS IT A WAS IT A GLASS, YOU KNOW, GRILLE BETWEEN THE GLASS? AND IS THIS IN FACT EXACTLY THE SAME? I MEAN, LOOKS CAN BE DECEIVING. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. YEAH, GREAT QUESTION. BUT MY DESIGN TEAM, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE BOTH VINYL OPTIONS THAT BOTH HAD THE SAME EXACT EFFECT ON THE DIVIDED LIGHT. WE HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT IN FEBRUARY, BUT I'LL LET JOHN TALK ABOUT. YEAH, JOHN MARSHALL ARCHITECTS THAT'S KIND OF BEEN PART OF THE THE DELAY FROM THE WINDOW MANUFACTURING IS BECAUSE WE ARE SPECIFYING SPECIFIC NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY THAT THEY ARE FABRICATING FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT. SO PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE DELAYING THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE WE WANT THE FULL SIZE MOCKUP FOR YOU GUYS TO TO REVIEW. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, I THINK WHILE I HAVE THE MIC, I REVIEWED THE OTHER CHANGES. I, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND ONE REQUEST, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS I'M TRYING TO OPEN BACK UP TO WHERE WE WERE HERE. THE AS FAR AS THE THE WINDOW SUBSTITUTIONS, WHERE YOU PREVIOUSLY HAD A WINDOW AND NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE BREAKING IT IN. SOME OF THOSE HAPPEN IN THE COURTYARD, SOME HAPPEN ON THE SIDE, SOME HAPPEN ALONG HIGH STREET, OR AT LEAST DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR TO HIGH STREET. WOULD THE APPLICANT BE WILLING TO FOR THOSE WINDOW INFILLS THAT OCCUR EITHER ALONG HIGH STREET OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, AS IN THE IMMEDIATE CORNER SIDES OF THAT MAIN BUILDING, TO CONSTRUCT THOSE WITH A HERRINGBONE INSTEAD OF A RUNNING BOND INFILL. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY ON THE REST, BUT I WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION FIRST. I MEAN, FROM FROM A DETAIL STANDPOINT, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY YES. I AGAIN, AS WE GEAR CLOSER TO CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING WITH WITH MASONS AND CONTRACTS, WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK MY ONLY TREPIDATION WOULD BE IF THAT, YOU KNOW, EXORBITANTLY ADDS TO COST TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF DETAILING. SO I MIGHT WANT TO DEFER BACK TO OUR TEAM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD ONLY BE OCCURRING ON A COUPLE OF WINDOWS. RIGHT? YEAH. I'M LIMITING MY REQUEST TO, AGAIN, STRICTLY THE FACADE OF HIGH STREET, IF AT ALL APPLICABLE, AND THE TWO AND THE TWO ADJACENT SIDES TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, I, I THINK BEYOND THAT, AS YOU MOVE FURTHER EAST, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A RUNNING BOND INFILL. SO I'M JUST ASKING FOR THOSE AREAS. AND IF YOU NEED TO FOLLOW UP, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. I'M NOT AGAIN, TRYING TO STALL PROGRESS, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DETAIL TO BE CONSIDERED GIVEN

[01:35:03]

AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTION, ANDREW, WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE LARGE LARGE ONE AND THAT LARGE ONE, THAT WHERE MAYBE WHERE COST BECOMES A FACTOR. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO, YOU KNOW, JUMP TO A YES IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I DON'T JUST TO BE CLEAR FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, SINCE I'M SPEAKING RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, BROADLY SPEAKING, I WOULD SAY YES, THESE APPEAR TO ALL BE MINOR CHANGES. SEEMS REASONABLE. BUT THAT THAT CAUGHT MY EYE. SO I DID WANT TO BRING THAT UP ALONG WITH THE WINDOWS. THE THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE OUT OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE, THAT YOU'VE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND THEY WERE VERY CLEAR. AND THANK YOU FOR FOR MAKING IT EASY FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THOSE CHANGES. I APPRECIATE THAT WHERE YOU INDICATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SWITCH TO THIN BRICK ABOVE THE ROOFLINE, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA END UP WITH AN UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCE THERE. IN ORDER TO TRANSITION FROM A BRICK VENEER TO A THIN BRICK IN ORDER TO WRAP THOSE CHIMNEYS, I THINK I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A CONTINUOUS FLASHING LINE WHERE THAT TRANSITION TAKES PLACE. SO WHILE I DON'T OBJECT TO THE CHANGE IN MATERIAL THICKNESS, I DO OBJECT TO THE CONSEQUENCE THAT IT WILL LEAD TO, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A CONTINUOUS FLASHING LINE ALONG THE GABLE END. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO REALLY DIMINISH THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE ARCHITECTURE THAT YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND RUN YOUR FULL BRICK UP ALL THE WAY TO THE PEAK OF THE OF THE CHIMNEYS ON THE PARAPET, AND THEN SIMPLY TURN TO THIN BRICK ON THE SIDES AND THE BACK.

YOU'LL END UP WITH A CONTINUOUS JOINT VERTICALLY, 3.5IN IN ON THE SIDES, BUT WITH A GOOD MASON AND A GOOD STRIKE PATTERN, THAT'S GOING TO BE FAR LESS OBVIOUS THAN A CONTINUOUS HORIZONTAL FLASHING DETAIL ACROSS ALL OF THOSE GABLE ENDS. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THAT BE CONSIDERED. AND THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. SO YOU'RE PREPARED TO INCLUDE THAT IN OUR MOTION. IN YOUR MOTION, I'LL LET MR. DAVID DEAL WITH THAT I. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? I LIKE WHAT I SAW. SO THE MAIN AND MR. DAVID, ANYTHING YOU'RE STILL PONDERING? I'M FINE WITH THE CHANGES IN ELEVATION. SOMETIMES IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE'S LARGER IMPACT ONES THAT HAVE A PLAN TO GO WITH IT, TO SEE WHY, THOSE REASONS WHY THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST LOOKING. AND THERE WAS A WINDOW AND NOW THERE'S NOT. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY REQUEST. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ACTUAL CHANGES THAT ARE MADE. SO ON THE FIRST CONDITION THAT YOU ADDED THAT YOU REQUESTED, MR. MALIK, WAS THAT ON BUILDING A, I GUESS ON THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS, THAT THE BLANK WINDOWS HAVE A HERRINGBONE PATTERN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LARGE BLANK SPACE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION WHERE HERRINGBONE IS ENCOURAGED BUT NOT REQUIRED. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. SO I CAME UP WITH ADAM. DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR? YOU NEED TO YOU NEED TO ADDRESS YOUR WORDING FOR THE THIN BRICK POINT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WENT RIGHT OVER. SO. AND HOW DO WE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I FOLLOWED YOUR COMMENT ON THE WINDOWS. WERE YOU PLANNING ON BRINGING SOMETHING BACK TO THE CITY TO LOOK AT WITH THE WINDOWS OR WHAT? I JUST I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE APPROVING BECAUSE WE DON'T. I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU WANT TO DEFER A WINDOW APPROVAL, COULD WE COULD WE DO THAT. COULD WE DEFER A WINDOW. YES. TO CITY STAFF. YEAH WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. YEAH. WE'LL WORK WITH THE CITY ARCHITECT. AND THEN IF YOU CAN CONSULT WITH A MEMBER OF THE ARB WHEN THAT IS RECEIVED, WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. WE WILL CONSULT WITH ANDREW MALIK. YEAH. JUST A MEMBER OR, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEADLIGHTS, MR. STRONG? AND THEN FOR THE QUESTION OF THIN BRICK, WHICH IS NOTED THROUGHOUT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ATTACH IT TO ANY ONE BUILDING. BUT FOR, FOR ALL BUILDINGS WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS TO USE THIN BRICK IN LIEU OF WHAT I'LL CALL FACE BRICK, WE WOULD. HOW DO I WORD

[01:40:04]

AND THEN I THINK YOU CAN GO TO A IT'S THE FACADE. IT'S THE SOUTH FACADE WHICH. YEP RIGHT HERE. RIGHT. AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NORTH I GUESS THIS IS WHERE THAT CONVERSATION COMES IN BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY BEHIND A LOW LOWER ROOF ON THE NORTH SIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE.

LET'S FLIP TO THAT IF WE HAVE IT. RIGHT HERE. YEAH, YEAH, I, I THOUGHT OF THAT, BUT I'M, I'M JUST QUESTIONING THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE. IS IT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU END UP WITH A CONTROL JOINT RIGHT THERE AND IT'S JUST FLASHED INTO THE ROOF, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I'M JUST STRICTLY LOOKING TO AVOID THE OBVIOUS MATERIAL TRANSITION. SO I THINK IF IT'S KIND OF ISOLATED THREE CONDITIONS WE CAN STUDY THAT OKAY. FROM A DETAILING FROM A COST STANDPOINT AND WORKING WITH OUR CONTRACTORS TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST, BEST SOLUTION IS. AND THEN STRUCTURALLY, JOHN, I THINK THAT WAS THE IMPLICATION THAT CAUSED ALL THIS. RIGHT? THAT SOLUTION WOULD BE, OKAY, THERE'S ADDITIONAL STEEL THAT HAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE EXCEEDING THE 40FT VERTICAL HEIGHT OF THE BRICK. YEAH, I KNOW THAT IF YOU SWITCHED TO THIN ON THE BACKSIDE, THAT'LL ALLEVIATE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE, THE LOAD ON THE ROOF TRUSSES. RIGHT. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY INTRODUCE STEEL TO CARRY IT THERE IF YOU ALREADY HAD. SO I, I'M CERTAINLY NOT MAKING THIS REQUEST AS A BURDEN.

IT'S I THINK IT CAN BE RESOLVED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS. BUT AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER IF NEEDED. SO DO YOU WANT TO PROPOSE THAT IN OUR APPROVAL. AND WE CAN BE SPECIFIC. THAT MIGHT BE EASIER IS JUST TO IN THE CONDITIONS TO TO AGAIN STICKING WITH MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT TO THE CONDITION BEING THAT NO MATERIAL TRANSITION OCCURS WITHIN THE SAME VERTICAL PLANE WHERE INDICATED ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS, WHICH WOULD BE BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION. BUILDING B NO. BUILDING C EAST AND WEST OR NORTH AND SOUTH ON THOSE EAST AND WEST, EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS. SO BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION, BUILDING C EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS. DOES THAT GET IT? WHAT? CHRISTINA, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. SURE. YOU WANT TO READ THAT BACK? YES. THIS IS WHY I DON'T WRITE MOTIONS. HERE'S WHAT I FIRST. HERE'S WHAT I FIRST WROTE. ROOFLINE FOR ALL BUILDINGS, WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE USE OF THIN BRICK. THE CONDITION IS THAT NO TRANSITION OCCUR BETWEEN THE USE OF FACE BRICK AND THIN BRICK IN THE ADJACENT VERTICAL PLANE, AND AND THEN MR. MALTZ CONFIRMED THAT THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS ON C AND ONE ON ONE CONDITION ON A. THEN I WROTE THE CONDITION IS NO MATERIAL TRANSITION OCCURS WITHIN THE SAME VERTICAL PLANE ON BUILDING C EAST AND WEST, AND ON BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATIONS,

[01:45:04]

IT'S LESS WORDS. I THINK THE SECOND ONE READS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY. YEAH. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KIND OF TIE IN WITH? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S BY SUBJECT OF STAFF APPROVAL. SO. SO SO ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS. IF NOT CAN I TRY A MOTION. SO I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE REVISIONS TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THE MATERIALS ATTACHED THERETO AS SUBMITTED TONIGHT WITH TWO WITH, WITH THREE CONDITIONS OR. YEAH, CONDITIONS. ONE IS THAT THE THAT STAFF APPROVE THE WINDOW MATERIAL CHANGE. AND I GUESS I'LL, WE'LL SIMPLY LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT STAFF WILL CALL NOW ANDREW THE TWO THAT WHERE YOU HAVE ADDED BLANK WINDOWS IN BUILDING A THAT HERRINGBONE. BRICK HERRINGBONE PATTERN BE USED ON THE INFILL BRICK FOR THE BLANK WINDOWS, EXCEPT FOR THE LARGE SPACE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION WHERE IT'S NOT REQUIRED BUT ENCOURAGED.

AND THREE WHAT CHRISTINA READ WHAT SHE SAID. I'LL SECOND. OKAY, GREAT. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. DAVID. YES. MR. BROWN YES. MISS. MOORE YES, YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. CONDITION ONE THAT STAFF APPROVE THE WINDOW. THE WINDOW MATERIAL CHANGE CONDITION TO ADDED BLANK WINDOWS IN BUILDING A THAT HERRINGBONE BE USED EXCEPT FOR THE LARGE WINDOW WHERE IT IS ENCOURAGED AND CONDITION THREE. NO MATERIAL TRANSITION OCCURS WITHIN THE SAME VERTICAL PLANE ON BUILDING C EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS, AND ON BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE AS WE MADE SAUSAGE TONIGHT. AND HOW'S PROGRESS? THANKS. HOW'S PROGRESS IN TIMING? WE'RE A COUPLE MONTHS OUT. REALLY? I BELIEVE THE CITY'S WRAPPING UP THEIR PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS ANY DAY NOW, AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BEHIND, I THINK SITE WORK AS SOON AS APRIL. OKAY. THAT'S EXCITING. I'M LOOKING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED ON THE NEW STREETS. JUST SAYING. GREAT.

[VII. Other business]

[01:50:05]

THIS RECOMMENDATION ADDRESSES THE WIDE VARIATION IN SIDEWALK SIGNAGE CURRENTLY SEEN IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. HOWEVER, THE CITY IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RUN A PROGRAM LIKE THIS AND WOULD RECOMMEND DEVELOPING STRONGER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THIS SIGN TYPE IN CODE. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE PERMANENT HANGING SIGN PROGRAM. A PERMANENT HANGING SIGN PROGRAM WOULD PROMOTE CONSISTENCY IN SIGN DESIGN AND HARDWARE, WHILE ALLOWING FUTURE TENANTS TO UPDATE SIGN PANELS WITHOUT FULL REPLACEMENT. THIS SUPPORTS DURABILITY AND A MORE COHESIVE STREETSCAPE. HOWEVER, THIS RECOMMENDATION WOULD REQUIRE COORDINATION FROM INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH IS NOT A GUARANTEE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE STANDARD COULD BE ADDED IN THE CODE LOOKBOOK TO ENSURE FUTURE HANGING SIGNS ARE ALL CONSISTENT MOVING FORWARD. SO ESSENTIALLY THE NEXT STEPS. AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, WE'RE REQUESTING THE ARABS REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE FINDINGS. ONCE FINALIZED, THE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE USED TO HELP FACILITATE FUTURE CODE CHANGES AND RELATED PROJECTS. IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES WOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL, ENSURING ALIGNMENT WITH BROADER POLICY GOALS, AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND LONG TERM COMMUNITY PRIORITIES. AND LAST, I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK. THIS HAS BEEN AN EXCITING AND HIGHLY COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, AND STAFF LOOKS FORWARD TO SHARING THE PROPOSED SIGN CODE UPDATES WITH YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO OUR CONSULTANTS, AND I WILL HAVE MY TEAMMATES PULL UP THE PRESENTATION. I HAVE ONE COMMENT. YES, AND THAT IS WHERE WHERE WHERE IS THIS? MAYBE THIS IS IN SOMETHING MORE A FINER LEVEL OF DETAIL. WHERE WILL WE DEAL WITH THE W NAIL BAR PROBLEM. PROBLEM. SO THAT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. YOU KNOW THEY CHANGED THE NAME I KNOW THEY YEAH BUT THEY'RE CHANGING IT BACK. BUT THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY'RE CHANGING IT BACK TO W. YEAH. SO THE W WILL BE BACK I DON'T CARE WHAT IT SAYS I WANT I WANT THAT THE NEXT TIME SOMEBODY COMES TO US WITH A SIGN POSITION WE HAVE RECOURSE. SO CAN WE REMEMBER THAT. YES. AND WE ARE STARTING TO WORK ON SOME CODE UPDATES. WE ARE THINKING OF CREATIVE WAYS TO COMBAT. AND I GAVE LANGUAGE TO CHRIS THAT I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD RUN BY AND BY COUNCIL. WE WE'VE RUN WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF DRAFT CODE EDITS AND THAT'S BEEN IN THERE. YEAH. SO WITH THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS IS MINUTIA GENTLEMAN. NOT NOT AT YOUR GREAT GRAND LEVEL OF OF ACTUALLY OBSESSED WITH THAT OF OF ARCHETYPAL THINGS. BUT YEAH, JUST, JUST JUST SAYING DO WE WORK. YEAH. SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU FOR FOR DIVERTING ME AND ALLOWING ME TO VENT. PLEASE. GOOD. WELL HAPPY NEW YEAR. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. NO TO YOUR POINT THOUGH, WE THAT ONE LOCATION HELPED INFLUENCE SOME OF THE THE CODE REDLINING THAT WE WERE OFFERING AS A TWO SIDED STOREFRONT BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT IN THE REAR OFFERS AS MUCH OF A STOREFRONT PRESENCE AS THE ACTUAL STOREFRONT FACING THE MAIN RIGHT. SO THAT ACTUALLY WAS A GREAT CASE FOR THAT. SO I HAVE GLENN JOINED ME BECAUSE WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MATERIAL, BUT AS SIERRA POINTED OUT, THIS WAS THE FIRST OF NUMBER OF OF LINE ITEMS THAT WAS PART OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THIS FIRST PHASE PROJECT THAT WE WERE WORKING ON, THE TIERED STOREFRONT SIGNAGE REALLY IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THAT. THE GENERIC PANEL THAT WE SEE ON A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS AROUND NEW ALBANY, AND HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO ELEVATE AND ADD DIMENSION TO WHAT COULD JUST BE ANOTHER FLAT AFTERTHOUGHT TO A LOT OF THESE BEAUTIFUL STOREFRONTS? SO OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT GOING TO DO DEATH BY POWERPOINT. READ EVERY LINE HERE. BUT THE IDEA HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REALLY COGNIZANT OF, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTURE AND ACCOMMODATING THE DIFFERENT NEEDS OF EACH TENANT. THESE ARE NOT PRESCRIPTIVE, NOT MANDATORY, BUT A TOOL FOR ALIGNMENT AND DISCUSSION, WHICH I'LL ELABORATE ON AS WE GO. SO IF YOU COULD CLICK NEXT. SO TIER

[01:55:06]

AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS HERE THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO. BUT AGAIN, IN AN EFFORT TO ADD DIMENSION, BUT ALSO BE VERY AWARE OF OF HOW IT'S HOW THE SIGN IS INTERACTING WITH THE ARCHITECTURE ITSELF, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE MAIN FEATURES ARE THE FRENCH CLEATS THAT LIFT THE SIGN OFF THE BUILDING. AT LEAST HALF AN INCH. GLENN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? JONATHAN, YOU MENTIONED LAST TIME HAVING. SO YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE MORE VISUAL DEPTH FOR, AS YOU MENTIONED, AN ISSUE ABOUT URGENCY BUILDING THEIR NESTS THERE SO WE CAN REDUCE THAT SO THAT YES, WE HAVE SOME SHADOW, WE HAVE SOME SPACE, BUT NO. AND ALSO IT ALLOWS WATER TO TO TO TRAVEL THROUGH THERE AND HOPEFULLY HAS LONGEVITY. SO YOU MENTIONED LONGEVITY. AND FOR THOSE CONCERNS AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, IF THAT SIGN IS EVER REMOVED, THERE'S IT REDUCES THE SILHOUETTING EFFECT THAT CAN HAPPEN ON THE BRICK, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. WE DID ON ON THIS TAKING A LOOK AT THE THE THICKNESS OF THE MAIN BOARD TO BE A LITTLE BIT THICKER AND THE, THE BORDER, THE BEVELED EDGE IF YOU WILL, TO BE A LITTLE BIT THICKER TO TO HELP IT FEEL A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANTIAL, FEEL A LITTLE BIT MORE ELEVATED, PREMIUM. AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS REFLECTED IN THIS DESIGN.

THE LETTERING. GLENN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE LETTERING APPROACHES AND WHAT WHAT THOSE COULD INCLUDE. YEAH, WE HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS. YOU CAN ROUND THE BACK IN AND PINK AND GOLD OR THERE'S A LOT OF GOLD IN OUR LIVES THESE DAYS THERE. AND SO THEY CAN ALSO BE ACRYLIC APPLIQUÉ. SO THERE'S LOTS OF DIMENSION THAT CAN BE ADDED OR USED HERE. AND SO WE'RE NOT BEING AS PRESCRIPTIVE SUGGESTIVE. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND WHAT MAY APPEAL TO WHAT STANDARDS HAVE HAS BEEN I GUESS ALSO PUSHING THIS AND SEE I'M SORRY QUESTION HAS THE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS CAME FROM YOU GUYS OR MAYBE FROM FROM STAFF, BUT THE HAS THIS BEEN SHARED WITH SOME OF THE VENDORS THAT TYPICALLY DO INSTALL THE SIGNAGE IN NEW ALBANY FOR ANY FEEDBACK ON EITHER COST IMPLICATIONS? I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, I THINK WHEN WE WERE NEXT DOOR, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S HAPPENED OR NOT, OR SHOULD IT HAPPEN OR SHOULD IT NOT? NOT ON OUR END YET. OKAY. NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

BY ALL MEANS. I'M I'M VERY MUCH FOR IT. OR EVEN JUST PUTTING OUT LIKE A, A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSAL AND SEEING IF THERE'S ANY, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY BRING BACK IN TERMS OF MATERIALITY OR THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, CUT IT IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW, JUST A SUGGESTION. AND OUR INTENT WAS TO PRESENT THE THREE TIERED OPTIONS HERE TO GET REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION. AND THEN BASED ON THAT, THEN GO BACK IN WITH A LIKE PRICING RANGE PER TIER. AND THE IDEA TO GLENN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE ANTI WARPING. BOARDS THAT ARE UP THERE NOW, THEY'RE THINKING. AND SO A WAY TO AVOID THAT IS SIMPLY PROCESS AND ALSO USE IT AS ONE PIECE AND TRY TO ACCOMMODATE JUST THE LACK OF SEATING OF THESE. SO WITH THAT BAKED INTO THE PRICING WOULD BE THE IDEA OF HEY, YOU'RE SPENDING THIS MUCH ON A SIGN, BUT HOW OFTEN ARE YOU REPLACING THEM? VERSUS MAYBE YOU PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE UPFRONT, BUT IT LASTS A LITTLE BIT LONGER. THEY'RE NEVER LIKE PERMANENT. AND I THINK THE GOAL WAS TO HAVE SOME PRICING TIERS IN THIS SO THAT IT WOULDN'T DISQUALIFY SOMEBODY FROM WANTING OR BEING ABLE TO HANG A STOREFRONT, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS. SO AS A BUSINESS OWNER, YEAH, VERY MUCH LOVE THAT. YEAH, YEAH. SO GLENN, MAYBE JUST REAL QUICK, WOULD IT, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO JUST LIKE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS TIER ONE. WHAT IS THIS CLOSE? IS THIS TIER ONE CLOSER TO WHAT'S BEING BUILT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THESE STOREFRONTS NOW, OR IS THAT LESS OF A QUALITY? YOU KNOW, WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW? LESS QUALITY THAN THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD TO PUT THAT IN KIND OF CONTEXT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. YEAH. THE GOAL WOULD BE TO MAKE IT AS CLOSE TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY OUT THERE,

[02:00:04]

SO THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, GIVE TENANTS THE FEELING OF CREATIVE INDEPENDENCE WHILE KEEPING THEM WITHIN NEW ALBANY'S FOCUSED VISUAL ESTHETIC. OKAY, NEXT. NEXT SLIDE. SO THE TIER TWO ADDING AN ADDITIONAL LAYER HERE, INCREASED MATERIAL DEPTH WITH PRECISION EDGE DETAILING. SO THE SECOND LAYER AGAIN WOULD BE THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE FRENCH CLEATED ANOTHER HALF INCH OFF OF THE MAIN BOARD. THE OTHER REASON WHY I THINK THIS COULD ALSO BE AN APPEALING APPROACH IS THAT IF NEW ALBANY WANTED TO HAVE A BASE BOARD AS TIER ONE AS KIND OF A SEMI-PERMANENT FIXTURE ON A ON A VACANT STOREFRONT, AND A TENANT WANTED TO COME IN, BUT LET'S SAY THEY SIGNED A LEASE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT SHORTER, MORE MINIMAL. PERHAPS WE COULD NEGOTIATE THAT THEY ONLY PAY FOR THE SECOND APPLICATION HERE, WHICH IS THAT FRENCH EXTENSION, THAT THEIR BUSINESS GOES ON. IF AND WHEN THEY MOVE THAT IS TAKEN OFF, THE MAIN BOARD STAYS, AND THEN THE NEXT TENANT, YOU KNOW, CAN REPLACE THAT SECOND LAYER AS AN OPTION. BUT IF A TENANT JUST LIKE THIS FROM A DIMENSIONALITY STANDPOINT, I THINK IT'S VERY APPEALING. AND AGAIN, JUST LIKE GLENN MENTIONED ON THAT SECOND LAYER, THERE'S MULTIPLE LETTERING APPLICATIONS. AND THAT, GLENN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT SECOND LAYER, MATERIAL WISE, COULD IT KIND OF BE ANYTHING OR. WELL, I'M A FAN OF THE FIELD DIRECTLY. IT COMES IN MULTIPLE COLORS. IT'S MAINTENANCE FREE AND IT DOESN'T WORK. SO IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPROVEMENT IS A SIGN MATERIAL IN YEARS. AND SO I'M A FAN OF THAT IN THIS TIER TWO, THE LETTER SHOWN IN THIS EXAMPLE ARE SURFACE APPLIED ON TOP OF THE ALUMINUM COMPOSITE.

OR ARE THEY INTEGRAL ON TOP OF. WOULD THAT ALLOW FOR ALSO A CUTOUT OR WOULD THE FRENCH.

WOULD THE FRENCH CLEAT RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO DO OKAY. SO YEAH, IT COULD BE VINYL APPLIQUÉ APPEALING AS WELL. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT CUTOUT? IS IT IN STEP WITH THE ESTHETIC THAT YOU GUYS ARE FRAMING UP? I MEAN, I'M JUST SO SO WHAT IS YOUR NARROW OUR FOCUS A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH I, I WANT TO OPEN UP THIS AS I DRIVE DOWN AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE YOU COME BACK TO US AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. SO I DON'T MIND HAVING A LASER CUT APPROACH TO THIS, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE USING A COLOR PALETTE THAT IS PART OF LOOK. SO I THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE WANT TO RULE IT OUT, BUT I THINK THAT YOU CAN GET EITHER DIMENSION IN THIS WAY OR THAT WAY BY HAVING BOTH THOSE OPTIONS IN THE FRENCH. I WOULD I WOULD ALSO SECOND THAT. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CREATIVE APPROACH. AND THEN I WOULD I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT IN THE LOOKBOOK, WE WOULD LOOK TO PROVIDE EXEMPLARY APPROVED CUT LASER CUTOUTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT VISUAL DIRECTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND THEN THE LAST ONE. AND THE LASER CUTOUT PART 2ND MAY BE BETWEEN TIER TWO AND TIER THREE, BECAUSE A BASIC ADDITION TO TIER THREE IS THAT WE'RE ADDING A FEW ADDITIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT COULD HELP ACCENTUATE THAT SECOND LAYER ON THE TOP ROW, YOU SEE CUSTOM STANDOFFS, LITTLE LIKE RIVETS OR SECTIONS IN THE CORNERS THAT JUST ADD AN ADDITIONAL ELEMENT AND TEXTURE TO IT, DIMENSION TO IT, OR IN THE BELOW, A CUSTOM FRAME AROUND THE EDGE OF THAT

[02:05:02]

WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT. LIKE THE DIFFERENT TIERS, LIKE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE VILLAGE, DIFFERENT SQUARE FOOTAGES OF BUSINESSES. I MEAN WHAT WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF THE, THE DEFINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, FOR THE TIERS FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, I WOULD SAY. BUT, BUT SO IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UP TO THEM OR LIKE WHAT WOULD THE BOARD BE SAYING. LIKE, LIKE IS THIS AREA STRICTLY A TIER, TIER ONE, YOU KNOW, OR IS OR IS IT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS BECAUSE IT'S THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE? I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. SO YOU, YOU'RE SAYING IN A PARTICULAR PART OF THE MARKET. YEAH, IT'S MORE OF A PRIME PRIME REAL ESTATE.

WOULD THERE BE REQUIREMENTS THAT MIGHT BE A DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING THAT WE WOULD HAVE I DON'T I'M NOT ENFORCEABLE. OR IF THAT'S GOING TO BE I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. I'D BE HESITANT TO MAKE A SUGGESTION ON HOW TO DO THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T. I'D HATE TO HAVE, PARDON THE EXPRESSION, LIKE THE LOW RENT DISTRICT AND THE HIGH RENT DISTRICT, I WOULD, I THINK, A SOLUTION THAT WE COULD USE FROM WHAT WE DO WITH NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY, IF THERE IS A SATURATION LEVEL, NO MORE THAN THIS TYPE ON ANY GIVEN FACADE, AND THEN AT THAT POINT YOU HAVE TO SWITCH TO SOMETHING ELSE AND IT HAS TO BE GREATER THAN, NOT LESSER THAN OR SOMETHING. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, BUT I'D HATE TO SEE IT DESIGNATED BY GEOGRAPHY. I'D RATHER HAVE IT BE CO-MINGLED. YEAH, AND WE SHARE THOSE HESITATIONS. I ALSO DON'T THINK FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT, THE CITY CAN FORCE ONE AREA OF THE CITY TO SPEND 25% MORE ON THEIR SIGNAGE THAN ANOTHER AREA. I THINK YOU SAID IT A LITTLE MORE ELOQUENTLY, THOUGH, ANDREW, ABOUT THE RIPPLE EFFECTS OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS ELOQUENT, BUT. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE STAND ON IT.

IT'S A IT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT, THOUGH, AND IT BRINGS UP ANOTHER PARTIAL DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT WHAT WE WHAT SIERRA ALSO MENTIONED IN THE THE LAST LINE ITEM, THE PERMANENT HANGING SIGN IDEA OF OF A MORE SUBSTANTIAL ARCHITECTURALLY SOUND EXTENSION TO THE BUILDINGS ON THE HANGING SIGN, AND NOT JUST THE SINGLE PANEL OF CHEAP PLASTIC OR ACRYLIC HANGING FROM A BEAUTIFUL IRON ARMATURE, BUT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT THICKER AND MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAT HAD SOME GREAT DETAIL. I WOULD LOVE. AT LEAST I NOTICED THIS IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, AND IT WAS SO. IT BROUGHT OUT SO MUCH EXCITEMENT IN THE EXPERIENCE OF OF WALKING AROUND THE STREET, EVERY SHOP. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS MIGHT BE IN THEIR CODE, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FLAT SIGN AND A HANGING SIGN. EVERY SHOP HAD IT. SO DO YOU ENFORCE THAT MAYBE IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE NOT AS HIGH FOOT TRAFFIC? NO. BUT COULD I SEE DOWN THE ROAD, MAYBE THE MAIN MARKET AREA, EVENTUALLY ADOPTING SOMETHING AND GIVING TENANTS A TWO YEAR HEADS UP OR A YEAR HEADS UP OF THIS MAY BE COMING OR WHATEVER? I THAT'S KIND OF IN MY VISION. LIKE IF WE WENT IN THAT DIRECTION THAT THAT WOULD BE TO ME A GREAT ADDITION. WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS LET ME, LET ME JUST BRAINSTORM HERE FOR A SECOND. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR SIGN CODE, BUT PREEXISTING STUFF'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE OKAY.

[02:10:09]

RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. WE WANT WE WANT TO INCENT PEOPLE. YEAH. AND WE WANT AND MAYBE WE, WE, WE HAVE PEOPLE. WE HAVE AN ANONYMOUS PEOPLE WHO WE HAVE TO GO IN AND SAY, WELL, YOUR SIGN DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS THE GUY NEXT DOOR. AND MAYBE THAT WILL GIVE THEM INCENTIVE AS WELL.

ONE AND THEN ONE WAY TO APPROACH THAT WITH THE HANGING IS THE THE MORE OF A PERMANENT SIGN WHERE, SAY, THE TENANT OWNS THE ACTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SIGN, WE CAN PUT YOUR YOUR BUSINESS IDENTITY ON THAT. BUT WHEN YOU LEAVE, JUST YOUR LOGO GOES OFF AND THE NEW TENANTS IDENTITY SYSTEM GOES BACK IN. SO BUT YEAH, ANY ANY THOUGHTS COMMENTS QUESTIONS. IT'S NICE TO SEE IT COME INTO FOCUS. I THINK THE TEARS ARE CORRECT BROADLY. I YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS MOVING WHERE IT SHOULD. I MEAN AGAIN THE I'M SOMEBODY WHO LIKES TO STUDY BEFORE I CAN GIVE ANYTHING. SO MY REACTIONS ARE SIMPLY I LIKE WHAT I SEE. I MEAN AT SOME POINT IT WOULDN'T IT WOULD BE I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING I COULD STUDY, OR I COULD THEN COME BACK AND GIVE MORE MEANINGFUL COMMENTS THAN REACTIONS. BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHAT I REALLY THINK, I THINK I'M 3 OR 4 DAYS LATER, IT'S LIKE ARGUMENTS WITH THE WIFE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THREE DAYS LATER, I REALIZE, OH, YOU KNOW, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT CONVERSATION TO YOUR STEERING WHEEL ON THE WAY HOME. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. OR IN THE SHOWER, I MEAN. YEAH, YEAH.

WELL, I THINK ONE THING THAT IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS IN SIERRA'S MEMO THAT WE KIND OF HOPE THIS LEADS INTO IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU IN OUR EARLIER MEETINGS, BUT MAYBE WE KIND OF TAKE A STAB AT THIS WITH A REVAMP OF VILLAGE HALL SIGNAGE WHERE WE CAN HAVE THIS, WE CAN KIND OF ENGAGE WITH YOU GUYS IN THIS ITERATIVE PROCESS. YOU KNOW WHAT THESE THREE DIFFERENT TIERS COULD LOOK LIKE. AND BUT I'D LOVE, I'D LOVE TO GET I'D LOVE TO GET STUFF IN MATERIALS BEFORE A MEETING OR THEN WITH WITH THEN A CHARGE. ARB. PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AND GIVE YOUR INPUT ON THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS. YEAH. BECAUSE THEN I CAN THINK ABOUT THAT. RIGHT? I THINK TONIGHT WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU GUYS TO DO IS LIKE WHAT GLENN.

AND WHAT WHAT THIS, WHAT THESE FOLKS HAVE ASKED YOU LIKE LOOK AT THE DETAILS AHEAD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IS THIS HOW WE WANT TO MAKE THESE THINGS? IS THIS HOW WE WANT TO DETAIL THESE SIGNS? IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO? I DON'T KNOW, I JUST I'M AT SOME POINT AT SOME POINT, AT SOME POINT AS WE BEGIN TO GET TO GREATER AND GREATER SPECIFICITY AND GREATER AND GREATER FOCUS IN TERMS OF WHAT IT IS, I'D LOVE TO SEE A DELIVERABLE, A FINAL DELIVERABLE THAT I CAN THEN COMMENT ON, BECAUSE THEN I THEN I MAY HAVE COMMENTS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE HERE. AND I HATE, I HATE FEEL BAD THAT I DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF COMMENTS I'D LOVE TO HAVE, BUT I'M. BUT I LIKE WHERE THIS IS GOING. WE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION ACTUALLY. AND CHRIS, YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT TAKING A VACANCY IN THE MARKET SQUARE AND USING THAT AS A WAY TO PUT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE LETTERING, BUT WE COULD PUT A PLACEHOLDER SIGN AS A POTENTIAL FIRST STEP OF BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST GOOSENECK LIGHTS ON BLANK BRICK. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE IDEA. BUT AGAIN, THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT. YEAH. ALL I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT THAT I'D LOVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY, CONSIDER AND AND REFLECT ON SOMETHING RATHER THAN TO REACT. YEAH. AT SOME POINT, MAYBE NOT NOW, BUT I, I, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY WITH WHAT I'M SEEING I AGREE. YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S ENOUGH. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT. OH, YEAH. NO I'M GLAD TO BE HERE. SO PRETTY EXCITING. NO SIGN PEOPLE. I MEAN, I'M TALKING TO ALEXANDRIA. I CAN SEE THE. IT'S LIKE SIGNS. YEAH, IT'S LIKE ME WHEN I SEE A REALLY GOOD, YOU KNOW, LAW COATED. STUFF. WE DREAM ABOUT A LITTLE, A LITTLE LESS NOW THAT I'VE BEEN RETIRED FOR TEN YEARS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO SHOW YOU GUYS AN A-FRAME SIGN THAT I SAW IN MANHATTAN A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. I THOUGHT OF YOU, SO I TOOK A PHOTO OF IT. I WOULD LOVE TO WRITE, BUT I THINK THE THE THE WEIGHT BACK AT THE BOTTOM IS

[02:15:02]

[02:20:05]

YES. MR. MALIK. YES,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.