[I. Call to order]
[00:00:09]
REVIEW BOARD FOR MONDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2026. COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. HINSON HERE, MR. EATON. YES, MR. BROWN HERE, MR. DAVEY, MR. MALITZ HERE. MISS MOORE HERE, MR. STROLLER HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER BRISK HERE. THERE ARE SIX VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
[III. Action on minutes: February 09, 2026 ]
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANY ACTION ON THE MEETING? ON MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9TH, 2026 MEETING? I REVIEWED THE MINUTES AND AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT, FOUND THEM TO BE IN ORDER. AND IF I HEAR NOBODY ELSE MOVING HERE. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, THEN I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THEM AS PRESENTED. I WILL SECOND THAT MR. ITEM. YES, MISS MOORE. YES, MR. HINSON? YES, MR. STROLLER. ABSTAIN. MR. MALLETT. ABSTAIN. I WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE. MR. BROWN. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU.STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA? THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ADMINISTER THE OATH TO ALL WITNESSES AND APPLICANTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE FIRST CASE. OKAY. PREVIOUSLY DONE. NOTED. THERE ANY VISITORS HERE FOR ITEMS? NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE FIRST CASE, WHICH IS FDP. 88 2025
[VI. Cases]
HEALTHY NEW ALBANY FOOD PANTRY FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW HEALTHY NEW ALBANY FOOD PANTRY AT 5220 JONESTOWN ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS TODD PARKER. CAN WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YEAH. AND BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF ASKED THAT I PROVIDE AN UPDATE AFTER THE LAST MEETING, WHICH I THINK MANY OF YOU PROBABLY SAW, OR HOPEFULLY ALL OF YOU SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THE UPDATE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO I JUST WANT TO GO OVER A FEW THINGS BEFORE WE DIVE BACK INTO THIS MATTER TONIGHT, TO MAKE SURE WE STAY FOCUSED ON THE TASK AT HAND. AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN REMIND WHAT IS THE ARB'S RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S IT'S TO EVALUATE THE PLAN SUBMITTED AS IT RELATES TO SITE DESIGN, BUILDING LOCATIONS, BUILDING FORM AND MASSING, INFORMATION AND PALETTE DESIGN ELEMENTS, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY AND THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES. WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT USE, BUT WE'RE TALKING TO TALK ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN COMPONENTS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY FOCUSED ON THAT. WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE PENDING APPLICATION. SO I KNOW SOME PAST ISSUES AND PAST MATTERS CAME UP. BUT AGAIN, TO TO FOR THE PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD AGAIN, I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO EVALUATE WHAT IS PENDING BEFORE US AND PENDING APPLICATION. SO HOPEFULLY OUR DISCUSSION CAN STAY LIMITED IN THAT AREA TONIGHT. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, DON'T HESITATE TO ASK. THANK YOU BEN. SO THIS WAS TABLED ON JANUARY 12TH BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD TO ALLOW TIME TO CLARIFY THE EXTENT OF THE ARB'S EVALUATION AND FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROPOSE LANDSCAPING ON JAMES RIVER PARK TO IMPROVE SCREENING FROM RESIDENCES. THE FOOD PANTRY IS PROPOSED ON A PORTION OF THIS LOT THAT'S OUTLINED IN A DARKER RED HERE. THIS ENTIRE LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE SPLIT. THE NEW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN SECTION. AS THE PRIMARY USE. THIS IS THE UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH THE 8460 SQUARE FOOT FOOD PANTRY, WITH PARKING TO THE REAR WITH NO LIGHTS IN THE PARKING LOT. THE SITE IS ENCUMBERED BY A 120 FOOT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT.THERE ARE SPECIFICATIONS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW HERE FROM AEP AND THE ZONING TEXT ITSELF FOR THIS LOT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT EASTMAN AND DOES NOT REQUIRE LANDSCAPING SCREENING IN THAT EASEMENT. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IS SHOWN ALONG THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN SIDES OF THE PARKING LOT, AND AROUND THE LOADING SPACE, PROVIDE PLENTIFUL SCREENING, AND THE RETENTION POND HAS BEEN SHIFTED A BIT TO THE EAST SO THAT NO TREES ARE BEING REMOVED AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THE LAST MEETING, CONCERNS WERE RAISED REGARDING PARKING LOT SCREENING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THESE ARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AND JAMES RIVER PARK TO THE WEST. THANKS, LAUREN. I'LL JUMP IN ON THIS ONE. THE APPLICANT HAS
[00:05:05]
BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE CITY, AS WELL AS SOME NEIGHBORS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, TO GET A LANDSCAPE PLAN PUT TOGETHER. THIS IS THE PLAN THAT IS IN YOUR PACKETS TONIGHT.TONIGHT'S MEETING. SO DO YOU WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORS FOR ENGAGING IN ACTIVE DISCUSSIONS TOGETHER TO GET SOME OF THE CONCERNS ADDRESSED THAT WERE RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING. SO WHAT IS SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN? AND I'LL TRY TO MAYBE JUST DO IT ON THIS ONE, BUT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR ME. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ALONG THIS FENCE LINE HERE. AND THEN WITHIN THE THE LEISURE TRAIL LOOP. THIS IS ALL IN JAMES RIVER PARK AND THEN OUTSIDE OF THE TRAIL LOOP HERE AS WELL. THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INSTALLING ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALONG THIS FENCE LINE, BUT IN GENERAL, ALL PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN. THE CITY DOES RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL THE EVERGREEN SCREENING FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AS SHOWN IN THIS DRAWING. WE DO HAVE THAT CONDITION. WE DO HAVE AN UPDATED CONDITIONS LIST LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION THAT LAUREN WILL GO OVER. BUT AGAIN, THIS THIS WAS ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND TONIGHT. GIVE IT BACK TO LAUREN TO FINISH THIS OUT. THANK YOU CHRIS. THESE ARE THE RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSAL. THEY'RE LARGELY THE SAME AS LAST TIME.
ONE CHANGE IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL WINDOW IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION HERE THAT'S CIRCLED. THE CITY ARCHITECT REVIEWED THIS AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT IS WELL DESIGNED AND HAD NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WHICH IS RARE AND DOES INDICATE STRONG ARCHITECTURE. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE THREE SIGNS BEING PROPOSED. TWO ARE ON THE WEST ELEVATION FACING THE PARKING LOT AND ONE IS ON THE FRONT AREA. THAT DUAL SIGN IS GOING TO BE NEAR THE ENTRANCE. THE APPLICANT DID AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH REFLECTING THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF PART OF THE EXISTING CHURCH, AND THIS MEETS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS AND REFLECTS REFLECTS GEORGIAN ARCHITECTURE. THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM LAST TIME. AND THAT CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT CHRIS MENTIONED IS ON THERE AS WELL. AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THIS AT ITS MEETING ON MARCH 16TH. YES.
MARCH 16TH. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE IN THE APPLICANT IS HERE. SO TWO QUESTIONS. ONE, GIVEN THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE SIGNS APPEAR TO BE PRETTY IN FINAL CONDITION, CAN WE NOT CAN WE NOT JUST APPROVE THIS AS IS AND THOSE SIGNS AND NOT HAVE THE CONDITION ON MUST BE. WHY CAN'T WE JUST WHY DO WE NEED THE CONDITION ON SIGNAGE AT THE END? BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW SPECIFICATIONS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED, LIKE THE SIGN RELIEF.
AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT OKAY, THAT'S FINE. JUST COVERING THAT. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I HAD IS AND THIS KIND OF FOLLOWS UP ON SOMETHING YOU TALKED ABOUT JUST BEFORE THE MEETING. IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING TEXT, THE ZONING TEXT, THE STATEMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT SAID THE ZONING TEXT ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRESENCE OF THE ELECTRICAL EASEMENT AND EXEMPTS THE DEVELOPMENT FROM LANDSCAPE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS. NOW, YOU SAID THE EASEMENT FROM LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS, BUT I ASSUME THAT THE STAFF REPORT IS WHAT IS EXEMPTED. WHAT YOU SAID IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS CORRECT, I BELIEVE SO, YES. OKAY. SO BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT IS IS A BROADER STATEMENT THAN THE EASEMENT ALONE, THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M POSTING THAT. SO I'M GOING TO OPERATE ON THAT ASSUMPTION ABSENT SOMEBODY CORRECTING ME OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK. SURE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. MY NAME IS TODD PARKER WITH F5 DESIGN. I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THE FOOD PANTRY. I JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE THINGS. IN ADDITION TO THE STAFF REPORT. PART OF PART OF THE TWEAKS WE MADE WERE MINOR COMMENTS FROM THE NEW ALBANY COMPANIES DESIGN REVIEW. MOST OF THAT WAS SIGNAGE, AND SO WE JUST HAVE TO SUBMIT THEM A FINAL PLAN FOR THEIR FINAL APPROVAL. BUT WE DID GET THAT APPROVAL AFTER THE LAST HEARING. AND AGAIN, LIKE STAFF MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE ADDED THE THE PLANTINGS UP ON THE NORTH AND THE WEST SIDE WHERE WE CAN OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT RIGHT THERE. AND THAT WAS PRESCRIPTIVE FROM THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. AND THEN THE PLANS FOR THE JAMES RIVER PARK WERE ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GAVE. AND WE HAD A PLAN, A QUICK PLAN DEVELOPED BY A LOCAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? WELL. OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE SOME.
[00:10:05]
I THINK FRANCIS WANTS TO SPEAK, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. THAT'S RIGHT. THEN I CAN HAVE COMMENTS.FRANCIS, 4186 JAMES RIVER ROAD. SO AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, I SPOKE EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THIS BACK IN JANUARY AT THE MEETING, AND I WANT TO THANK THE FOOD PANTRY AND RACHEL HOUCK FOR WORKING WITH ME AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS TO COME TO THIS SOLUTION HERE. WHILE THIS ISN'T MAYBE THE FINAL ONE WE'RE GOING TO, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONDITION. THE FOURTH CONDITION ADDED TONIGHT, AND I ALSO THANK CHRIS FOR ALL HIS HARD WORK AND OTHER STAFF I KNOW IS INVOLVED IN IN GETTING THIS TO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT TO BE. ME AND THE OTHER NEIGHBOR, WHO ALSO SPOKE LAST MONTH, ARE BOTH SUPPORTIVE OF OF THIS WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE FINAL LOCATION OF THESE EVERGREEN PLANTINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS.
I'M I'M WELL PLEASED WITH THIS AND I'M READY TO APPROVE IT. OKAY? OKAY. PLEASE, PLEASE.
RICHARD WOLFORD I STAY AT ON EXCUSE ME, ASHCOMBE, WHICH IS A STREET BEHIND IT. AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE CHRIS HAS MENTIONED THAT HE HAS THE NEIGHBORS, HAS APPROVED IT BECAUSE NO ONE ON ASHCOMBE HAS APPROVED. THEY'RE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO IT. SO I'M THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN THIS WEEK. A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE OUT OF TOWN, AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE THE MEETING, AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE I MADE THE MEETING. BUT THERE IS NO I CAN'T FIND ANYONE ON ASHCOMBE WHICH IT WOULD BE BUFFERED UP AGAINST. THAT IS IN FAVOR OF IT. NO ONE WANTS IT THERE. THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IT. WHY NOT BUILD IT ON 62 ACROSS FROM THE. PLANTING SHOP OVER THERE? BUT THE MAIN, SOME OF THE MAIN CONCERNS IS IT'S INACCESSIBLE FOR FOOD PANTRY. YOU NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO PEOPLE THAT UTILIZE THE FOOD PANTRY HAS TO HAVE ACCESS. AND IF YOU NEED FOOD PANTRY, THERE'S NO DRIVING WAY THERE. THERE'S NO BUS ROUTE THERE. SOMEONE WOULD. YOU WOULD HAVE TO EITHER DRIVE OR YOU GET PEOPLE FROM OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU DON'T WANT THE NOISE. ALL THE HOMES IN THAT AREA ARE OVER $1 MILLION. IT'S JUST A BAD LOCATION. THEY'RE PLANNING TO COME TO THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN, SO THEY WANT TO SPEAK. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE APPROVED? NO, THEY HAVE NOT. YEAH. AND I CAN CLARIFY. I WASN'T CLEAR WHEN I MADE THAT STATEMENT, BUT THE COMMENT THAT I MADE WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. IN JANUARY, A FEW NEIGHBORS CAME OUT TO THE MEETING TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT SCREENING, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH SOME NEIGHBORS BETWEEN THAT MEETING AND TONIGHT TO GET WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, THIS LANDSCAPING PLAN APPROVED. OKAY. BUT THE WAY YOU PRESENT IT SEEMS LIKE, SURE, PEOPLE HAVE APPROVED AND THEY HAVE NOT, I'M SURE, OPPOSED TO HAVING IT ON THAT STREET. THEY DON'T WANT THE EXTRA NOISE YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD BE ALL KINDS OF NIGHTS. I MEAN, HEY, WHY NOT PUT IT AT THE GOLF COURSE, YOU KNOW, DO THAT. BUT ANYWAY, THEY WANTED ME TO COME AND SPEAK TODAY TO, TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. AND THEY PLAN TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN. AND I THINK AS AS LEGAL COUNSEL CAN, CAN INTERJECT, THIS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US. SO, YEAH. WHAT IT COULD BE A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THERE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED. AS LONG AS IT'S A GOOD LOOKING ONE, THEN WE'RE DONE. SO THE NEXT BOARD IS THE ONE THAT I THINK HAS SOMETHING HAS THINGS TO SAY ABOUT USE, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE YOU DON'T YOU DON'T WANT THIS USE HERE. BUT YOU AND I'M HEARING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. NO. YEAH. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE PLANNING FOLKS GET TO HAVE YOUR EXCITEMENT AS OPPOSED TO US BECAUSE ALL WE, ALL WE DO IS IF IT'S A NUCLEAR IF STAFF SAYS A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COULD BE HERE, WE SAY, OKAY, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT LOOKS GREAT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND AND THE PLANNING FOLKS AND STAFF CAN TELL YOU WHEN THE PLANNING FOLKS MEET, THEY DEAL WITH USE. THANK YOU JONATHAN. THAT EXPLAINS A LOT. I MEAN, YOU'RE PANICKING THERE. YEAH. YEAH. JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THAT IT'S NOT THE HEADLINE, THIS IS NOT A POWER PLANT OR IN THE IN THE NEWSPAPER. THERE'S NOT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GOING ANYWHERE, ANYWHERE NEAR AS GOOD LOOKING AS IT WOULD BE. YEAH.
SO YES. THANKS. SO AND I GUESS THE FOLLOW UP IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. USE TRAFFIC. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD. BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE SPOT TO START RAISING THOSE ISSUES. AND I BELIEVE THEY MEET NEXT MONDAY.
SO JUST GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ON THAT ONE, OKAY. THEY THEY YOU KNOW, OH THAT'S FAIR. SOMEBODY
[00:15:06]
KNOW COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. SO WE JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS. THANK YOU. YEP.YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. YES PLEASE. PLEASE.
GOOD EVENING, CHARLES SCHUMACHER I LIVE ON BIDDICK COURT WHICH BACKS UP OUR LOT, BACKS UP TO 62 AND HARLEM ROAD. A COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE I'M NOT MISTAKEN, PART OF YOUR PURVIEW IS LOCATION. AND I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS IN FRONT OF THIS WAS HAPPENING, FIRST OFF, HATS OFF TO ROSE RUN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH FOR STEPPING UP AND COMING UP AND WORKING WITH THE FOOD PANTRY AND FINDING A SOLUTION, HOPEFULLY LONG TERM FOR THAT SITING. THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT WE HAVE THIS HUGE PARKING LOT SET UP TO THIS CHURCH THAT'S USED FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS ONCE A WEEK. SO I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH WHY WE COULDN'T HAVE FIGURED OUT A SOLUTION, WHICH SITED THIS PANTRY CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT PARKING LOT AS A DUAL USE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT USED ANYTIME ON SUNDAY FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE FOOD PANTRY. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO BE USING LIKE SOME SHARED AREAS, IT SEEMS LIKE GETTING ALL THAT TOGETHER SNUG IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WOULD BE THE BEST IDEA.
PLUS IT ALLOWS FOR INGRESS FROM 62, WHICH THIS PLAN DOES NOT. IT PUTS ALL THE TRAFFIC SQUARELY ONTO HARLEM ROAD. THAT'S MY MAJOR CONCERN. ONE OF THE QUICK THINGS, JUST IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN OF THE SITE ITSELF, IS THAT IT'S FANTASTIC THAT WE'RE FROM THIS CURRENT PLAN, EXTENDING THE TRAIL OUT SO THAT THERE'S PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, ANY OF THE OF THE PLANS, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING PROVIDED FOR BICYCLE PARKING. AND FRANKLY, OTHER THAN RECREATIONAL WALKING, BECAUSE NOT ALL PEOPLE THAT COMMUTE WALK ALL THE WAY OVER TO THAT AREA. IT SEEMS LIKE BICYCLE ACCESS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE MORE OFTEN. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ACCOMMODATED IN THAT FACILITY, AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE HAVING BICYCLE AGAINST THE WALL OR BRINGING INSIDE. AND THEN LASTLY, THIS IS PROBABLY JUST FOR YOU, CHRIS, IS THAT I DIDN'T COME TO THE JANUARY MEETING BECAUSE I WAS TOLD AS A NEIGHBOR THAT IT WAS CANCELED. OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE JUMPED IN ON THE PLANTING THERE ON JAMES RIVER PARK. SOME OF THAT SCREENING ENCROACHES ON PLANS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED FOR POCKET PRAIRIES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S TOGETHER AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S IN PLACE ALREADY. YEP. SO WE'LL FIELD LOCATE THAT WITH GM-CSF AND THE CITY FORESTER TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T COMPROMISE EITHER THE FOOTPRINTS OF THAT POCKET OR ALSO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SHADE OF THOSE THOSE TREES DON'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT AS WELL. SO I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD AT THIS POINT, BUT I'M SURE PEOPLE WOULD BE HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT JUST THERE'S A SIGN.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE. YEAH. THANKS. WE'RE USING THE CITY'S MONEY PROBLEMS. YEP. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AM I CORRECT THAT? WHAT? WHAT'S BEFORE US IS REALLY THE WHOLE LOT SPLIT. SO ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHERE IT GOES WITHIN THIS SPLIT VERSUS THE THE WHOLE LOT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THAT'S KIND OF I THINK WHERE WE'RE, WHERE WE'RE CONSTRAINED. NO I UNDERSTAND I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS. A LOT OF THINGS SPLIT TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. IT'S NOT. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW. DEMARCATION IS CLOSE TO. RIGHT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? WHAT ABOUT THE BOARD? I GUESS FROM MY STANDPOINT, I.
FROM MY STANDPOINT, BASED UPON THE HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THIS WHILE WHILE EVEN IF WE COULD MOVE IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS WITHIN THIS IS WITHIN REASON THAT I THINK WE I'M NOT I'M NOT PREPARED TO HAVE THEM TO TRY TO REOPEN THIS AT THIS POINT. SO I GUESS FROM MY STANDPOINT, I'M READY TO APPROVE THE WHOLE THING, THESE GUIDELINES. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES ARE WORKING TOGETHER ON THE LANDSCAPING ISSUE THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF A, AN ISSUE FOR THE, THE NEIGHBORS. PREPARED TO APPROVE AS WELL. SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION THEN? JUST A QUICK, QUICK, QUICK QUESTION TO STAFF. SO THERE WASN'T I'M SO USED TO SEEING BICYCLE STUFF THERE. THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT BICYCLES IN THIS ONE. THERE WAS NOT OKAY. GOOD CATCH. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN ACTION TO MOVE, TO RECOMMEND
[00:20:01]
APPROVAL OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPLICATION EIGHT EIGHT 2025 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE. THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS COMMENTS WILL BE MET, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. TWO THE EXTERNAL SIGN LIGHTS WILL BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN 5000 KELVIN. THREE THE SIGNS WILL MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, FOR THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS SHALL BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. FIVE BICYCLE PARKING TO BE ADDED. WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND SIX THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL EVERGREEN SCREENING FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN JAMES RIVER PARK. CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN INCLUDED IN THE MARCH 9TH MEETING PACKET. CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING? SORRY, THE 5000. CALVIN IS VERY BLUE, SO I FEEL LIKE WHAT THAT SHOULD HAVE READ IS I KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE LESS THAN 5000, BUT 2700 TO 3000 IS MORE TYPICAL. IF IT'S BLUE, I THINK ALL THE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO. IT'S VERY WHITE. YEAH, SEE, THAT'S MUCH WARMER. YEAH. CAN I ADD SOMETHING ON THAT REAL QUICK? WE DO HAVE 2700 KELVIN CALLED OUT. IT'S HARD TO READ, BUT ON ON THE SHEETS A2O3 WHERE WE HAVE THE LIGHTING CUTS. IT'S CHECKED ON THERE. SO WE SAY LESS THAN 3000.YEAH. REDUCED TO LESS THAN 3000. NUMBER TWO, THE EXTERNAL SIGN LIGHTS WILL BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN 3000 KELVIN. GOOD CATCH. I'LL SECOND THAT. MR. HENSON. YES, MR. ITEM. YES, MISS MOORE.
YES. MR. BROWN? YES. MR. MALIK. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH FIVE. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE VOTES TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT THE MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NUMBER TWO, THAT THE EXTERNAL SIGN LIGHTS WILL BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN 3000 KELVIN AND CONDITION FIVE, AS IS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THE SCREEN, IS ACTUALLY CONDITION SIX AND CONDITION FIVE IS WITH THE ADDITION OF BIKE BICYCLE PARKING ADDED, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. FAIR. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT. LET'S SEE.
THE NEXT CASE IS ARB 1026 OR 10 2026 OKAY. FOR TREVOR FIRBY SIGNAGE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE APPLICANT IS TREVOR FIRBY. YES. CARE OF KAYLI CARTER. HENRY, CAN WE HAVE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE CENTER ALONG SOUTH HIGH STREET AND BACKS ON TO LOCUST AVENUE AND IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THERE ARE NO SIGNS CURRENTLY ON THE BUILDING, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD JUST ONE WALL SIGN. LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT. THE SIGN WILL BE ON THE FRONTAGE ALONG SOUTH HIGH STREET. THERE IS NO EXISTING SIGNS AS SAID BEFORE ON THE BUILDING, AND THEY WILL BE THE ONLY TENANT IN THE SPACE AND TO BE THE SIGN IS TO BE MADE ON A SAND BLASTED WOOD SIGN PANEL WITH RAISED WOOD LETTERING AND BORDER. THE PROPOSED SIGN IS 120IN BY 23.78IN, MAKING IT 19.8FTā !S WITH A NAVY BACKGROUND IN WHITE LETTERING SLASH BORDER.
THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WISH TO ADD ANY LIGHTING TO THE SIGN, AND THE SIGN DOES MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS. IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED SIGN APPEARS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPACE, SINCE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING AND MEETS ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN USES A DARK BACKGROUND WITH WHITE LETTERING TO MATCH THE ESTHETIC OF SIMILAR SIGNS WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER. AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD WAS MR. AITKEN JUST WAS IT? THE ELEVATION IS A LITTLE.
WE'RE APPROVING A TEN FOOT BY TWO FOOT SIGN ROUGHLY, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE SCALE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO SIGN SMALLER IN REAL LIFE. BUT YEAH, SO THAT THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST CONFIRMING BECAUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S LIKE A FOUR FOOT SIGN. YEAH, OKAY. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE TWO FOOT BY TEN. YEAH. OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT I'M I'M HAPPY WITH IT. I JUST HAVE ONE. YEAH. EXCUSE ME ONE QUESTION. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID THEY DID NOT WANT TO LIGHT THE SIGN, BUT IS THERE LIKE A LAMPPOST OR SOME LIGHT NEARBY JUST FOR SOME VISIBILITY? YOU CAN. YEAH. PLEASE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. I'M KAYLEE
[00:25:03]
HENRY. I'M THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR TREVOR. WE DID TALK ABOUT LIGHTING IN THE LIKE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVE OUR GRAND OPENING ON THURSDAY. SO WITH THAT KIND OF JUST WANTING TO GET THIS SIGN UP BEFORE THURSDAY, WE DECIDED TO HOLD OFF ON THE LIGHTING FOR NOW. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING YOU WOULD PROPOSE OR NOT NECESSARILY. WE HAVEN'T HAD LIKE ANY FINAL DECISIONS, BUT PROBABLY MORE OF LIKE A SPOTLIGHT ON EITHER SIDE OR JUST ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THE ADDITION OF ANY LIGHTING, HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD OR IS THAT SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL? I WOULD PROBABLY CLARIFY THAT IS LIKELY GRAY IN OUR CODE. WE COULD BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS, OR WE COULD JUST OPERATE WITH WHAT CODE ALLOWS US TO APPROVE. SO IF WE DO NOTHING, CAN YOU APPROVE IT? MOST LIKELY YES.OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED THAT THE E EXHIBIT THT WAS PROVIDED IS NOT TO SCALE. I THINK THAT BUILDING FROM WHAT I'M CHECKING IS ABOUT 21FT WIDE.
IF THIS IF IT'S IF IT'S 120 INCH SIGN BY 24, I THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE. BUT AS A MATTER OF A RECORD, CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO AT LEAST PROVIDE A CORRECTED ELEVATION FOR THE RECORD? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT OUR APPROVAL TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS APPROVING WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET AS A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE SIGNAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BECAUSE IF IT WERE TO LOOK LIKE THAT, I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL. SO THIS IS JUST A, I GUESS, A QUESTION FOR YOU, CHRIS. YEAH, WE WE ALSO KYLIE ALSO BROUGHT THIS, IDENTIFIED THIS ISSUE AND BROUGHT IT UP WITH THE APPLICANT. AND THEY RESTATED THAT IT WAS DRAWN TO SCALE. IT DOES LOOK OFF. WHAT WHAT I THINK WE COULD DO IS WE COULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT THEY NOT INCLUDE THE RENDERING, THIS RENDER IN THEIR SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION. THEY JUST RELY ON THE SIGN SHOP DRAWINGS IS WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO. KYLIE. IT'D BE MORE LIKE THIS ONE.
YEAH, JUST JUST USE THAT. THAT'S FINE. IT JUST PUTS US IN A DUBIOUS POSITION. YEAH, WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE TO SPECIFY. IT HAS TO BE STANDARD IN THE SPACE LOCATION.
THAT WILL BECOME AN ISSUE. WHAT'S APPROVED? YEAH. THERE ARE. THERE. WELL, THERE'S THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIGN, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXIST ON THE ELEVATION. RIGHT. PLACEMENT WOULD BE CENTERED ON THE BUILDING AND CENTERED BETWEEN THE WINDOWS AND THE TOP OF THE PORCH. RIGHT. YEAH. I CAN MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. JOHN, DO YOU WANT TO THE LIGHTS DO WE ARE WE JUST. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE SILENT ON THE LIGHTS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SEE THE LIGHTS.
DO WE WANT TO SAY JUST SUBJECT TO APPROVAL? I THINK WE CAN JUST BE SILENT ON LIGHTS. AND STAFF CAN APPROVE LIGHTS ON THEIR OWN. IT'S CURRENTLY IT'S NOT WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
THEY'LL BE BACK HERE ANYWAY. SO TRUE. YEAH, BUT IT'S ALL RIGHT. SO, COUNCIL MEMBER TO HELP THE APPLICANT, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. LET'S SEE.
WHERE ARE WE. TEN. YEAH. 1010 DASH 2026. WITH THE PROVISO THAT ANY ANY LIGHTING IS SUBJECT TO STAFFMBER ONE. AND N, THAT THE THE APPROVAL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RENDER, THE THE RENDERING, THE PICTURE AS SHOWN SINCE IT'S OUT OF SCALE, BUT THAT THE SIGN ITSELF SHOULD BE SHOULD BE PLACED SUCH THAT IT IS CENTERED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND LEFT SIDE, AND IT IS CENTERED BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOWS AND THE TOP OF THE PORCH SPACE. SECOND. MR. ITEM YES. MR. BROWN? YES. MR. MALITZ YES. MR. YES. MR. YES. YEAH.
MISS MOORE YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH SIX VOTES TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WITH THE PROVISO THAT ANY LIGHTING IS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND THAT THE APPROVAL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RENDERING, BUT RATHER THAT IT IS CENTERED LEFT TO RIGHT AND TOP TO BOTTOM. THANK YOU. OUR THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK. YEAH. THE NEXT CASE IS A OR B 11 DASH 2026. AND IT'S FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS FOR A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL, PRIVATE PATIO AND DETACHED GARAGE WITH WAIVERS FOR THE PATIO SETBACK AND POOL EQUIPMENT SETBACK. THE APPLICANT IS TOD PARKER. COULD
[00:30:05]
WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YEAH. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AT 11 AND NINE SOUTH HIGH. THE SITE IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED WITH FRONTAGE ON SOUTH HIGH STREET AND REAR ACCESS THROUGH LOCUST ALLEY. THE SITE IS ZONED URBAN CENTER DISTRICT. AND HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM OVERHEAD. SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONVERT THE SPACE TO A LIVE WORK. AND THAT THE THE BUILDING AND SITE IS DEFINED UNDER THE TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPOLOGY. SO THE ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS SITE INCLUDES THIS POOL IN THE CENTER OF THE LOT, A 336 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, A FIVE FOOT BRICK PRIVACY PRIVACY WALL ALONG THE SOUTH AND WEST LOT, POOL DECK, AND THEN POOL EQUIPMENT AT THE SOUTH EAST SITE SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE. SORRY, A FIVE FOOT TALL IRON FENCE WHICH IS LOCATED HERE, SOUTH OF THE GARAGE AND THEN ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THREE PARKING THREE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IN THE REAR. SO HERE'S THE STREET VIEW IMAGE OF THE SITE FROM THE REAR FOR MORE CONTEXT. AND HERE ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDING MODIFICATIONS. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A STANDING CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WHICH IS HERE, AND CONVERTING THE SECOND FLOOR WINDOW INTO A DOOR AND BALCONY, ALONG WITH A FIRST FLOOR DOOR CONVERTING INTO A WINDOW. THE WINDOW WILL MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. HERE'S THE DETACHED GARAGE ELEVATIONS, SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT SAME CHARCOAL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO MATCH THE PROPOSAL ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. CONVERTING. SORRY, THE GARAGE IS 14FT IN HEIGHT AND THE GARAGE INCLUDES A JAMES HARDIE VERTICAL SIDING, A SINGLE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, A SLIDING DOOR ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, AND A CARRIAGE STYLE GARAGE DOOR WHICH WOULD BE PAINTED BLACK. SO HERE ARE SOME RENDERINGS OF THE SITE. THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT INCLUDED THE GARAGE COLOR AND THE WINDOW STYLES ON THE GARAGE AND EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO THIS GARAGE COLOR IS NOW AMHERST GRAY. AND THE APPLICANT MADE THOSE CHANGES. AND SO THE CITY ARCHITECT WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE OVERALL DESIGN. SO HERE'S THE URBAN CENTER CODE COMPLIANCE. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE REVIEWED UNDER TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL. AND IT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. SO TO GET INTO THE WAIVERS WAIVER A, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM THE 15 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR POOL FOR SWIMMING POOL PAVED AREAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS THE URBAN CENTER CODE DEFAULTS TO THOSE REGULATIONS FOR SWIMMING POOLS, THE ACTUAL SWIMMING POOL EDGE MEETS THE 15 FOOT REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED PATIO ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS SEVEN FEET AND SIX INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR THE WAIVER. THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE VISUAL AND PHYSICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN RECREATIONAL USES AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.ADDITIONALLY, THE SWIMMING POOL SETBACK REGULATION IS WRITTEN FOR MORE TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN SIZE LOTS TYPICALLY FOUND IN NEW ALBANY OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. THE VILLAGE CENTER IS DESIGNED AS A COMPACT, WALKABLE, AND MIX OF USE ENVIRONMENT WITH REDUCED SETBACKS, AND SMALLER LOTS ARE COMMON. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SOLID FIVE FOOT BRICK WALL WHICH WILL FURTHER BLOCK THE SIGHT OF THE POOL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE GARAGE, THE PROPOSAL MEETS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON THREE OF FOUR SIDES SIDES OF THE YARD AND REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE VILLAGE CENTER'S DESIGN GOALS AND PLANNED DENSITY. THE CONSIDERING THE SETBACK STANDARD IS PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR LARGER LOTS OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER, AND GIVEN THE SMALLER SIZE OF THIS LOT. WITH THE PROPOSED ENHANCED SCREENING, STAFF BELIEVES THE REQUESTED WAIVER IS REASONABLE AND
[00:35:01]
APPROPRIATE. SO WAIVER. WAIVER BE SORRY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO LOCATE POOL EQUIPMENT THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE INSTEAD OF 15, INSTEAD OF THE 15 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES. THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS NEAR EXISTING HVAC UNITS, WHICH WOULD CENTRALIZE UTILITIES AND SIMPLIFY THE SITE LAYOUT. HOWEVER, STAFF.BELIEVES THAT THE EQUIPMENT COULD BE RELOCATED SOMEWHERE ELSE ON SITE TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND I'M HERE. I GUESS I CAN POINT THOSE OUT. SO HERE IS THAT DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO HERE'S SEVEN FEET AND SEVEN INCHES SHOWN. AND THEN HERE'S THAT POOL EQUIPMENT HERE. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND SO THE APPLICANT CAN YOU HELP ME HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. SO WE COULD HAVE HAD YOU BACK TO BACK. CAN YOU HELP ME FOR A SECOND? WHAT WHAT WHAT IS YOUR READ IN TERMS OF THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK? I MEAN, I GUESS AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL, THAT'S THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT COMES FROM THE SAME ORDINANCE THAT THE SETBACK FOR THE POOL COMES FROM. RIGHT? CORRECT. IT'S ALL ONE PLACE. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT THAT ENOUGH. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'M TODD PARKER AGAIN REPRESENTING THE OWNERS AT 911 SOUTH HIGH STREET. AND THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE USE BEING A LIVE WORK SPACE.
IT IS THE BUILDING OWNERS. THEY'RE NOT RENTING IT. THEY'RE PLANNING ON SELLING THEIR HOME HERE AND MOVING INTO THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A AN OUT OF TOWN RESIDENCE AS WELL AND SPEND MORE TIME THERE. SO THAT'S THE BACKGROUND TO HOPEFULLY SOLVE THE MYSTERY OF WHY IS THIS ODD THING IN FRONT OF YOU? THE POOL IS MORE OF AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE HAVING POOL PARTIES AND WHATNOT IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, BUT IT COULD BE WRONG. AND THEN OUR, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURALLY, IT'S THE SIMPLE MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO DOORS WITHIN FOUR FEET OF EACH OTHER THAT SERVE, YOU KNOW, MULTI-TENANT USE. BEFORE THAT, YOU FELT WE COULD GET RID OF ONE. AND THEN THE METAL ROOF THERE ON THAT SHED PIECE. THE ROOF ITSELF IS REALLY WAVY AND KIND OF NEEDS SOME HELP. SO WE THOUGHT WE'D REPAIR THAT. WE COULD COVER THAT UP WITH THE METAL ROOF TO MATCH THE GARAGE. AND AS JAY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED WITH THE STAFF ON THE CORRECTING THE COLOR. WE HAD A LITTLE DARKER COLOR ON THE GARAGE BEFORE, AND IT'S NOW A WARM GRAY OUT OF THE HISTORICAL COLOR PALETTE. YOU KNOW, THE IDEA WITH THE WALL AROUND THE PROPERTY IS FOR PRIVACY AND SCREENING. AND WE FELT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE POOL EQUIPMENT NEXT TO THE EXISTING HVAC MADE THE MOST SENSE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE THE PATIO AROUND THE POOL DECK, YOU KNOW, THE PATIO WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE THERE IF THE POOL WASN'T THERE. SO HENCE THE WAIVER. BUT WE GET INTO THIS BATTLE WITH RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AS WELL THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF YOUR PURVIEW. SO I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? NO. IT'S LIKE GERMAN VILLAGE IN NEW ALBANY. YEAH. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE AN AIRBNB. OH NO, I WISH I WISH THERE WERE MORE PROPERTIES IN IN THE VILLAGE CENTER THAT WERE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS. MAYBE AFTER YOUR ARCHITECTURAL PROWESS, THERE WOULD BE A TREND. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ONE QUICK ONE. THE THE BUILDING ITSELF ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS EFFECTIVELY A ZERO SETBACK. YES. BRICK WALL IS IS BASICALLY IN LINE WITH THAT. YEAH. MATCHING THAT. YEAH. AND I THINK THEY MANIPULATED PROPERTY LINES TO GET THE BUILDING ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY AT SOME POINT. AND THIS PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ARE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER CURRENTLY. SO IF THAT MATTERS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. AS MR. PARKER POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN OFTEN RAISED ISSUE OF SETBACKS, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO THE POOL DECK. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE ARE TO EVALUATE THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY THAT NECESSITATE THIS OUTCOME, I BELIEVE, IS THE IS THE THE WAY WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE WAIVER. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE
[00:40:06]
ARCHITECTURE JUST TO PUT THAT OUT ON THE TABLE FOR MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THIS FEELS LIKE A MOMENT OF PRECEDENT SETTING EXERCISE WHERE IF THERE'S NOT EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GO BEYOND PREFERENCE, HOW ARE WE TO EVALUATE THAT WAIVER? AND DOES THAT OPEN US UP TO FUTURE WAIVER CONSIDERATIONS ON OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE VERY SAME REQUEST? OKAY. SO.I'M GOING TO SHOCK PEOPLE BECAUSE I'M NORMALLY MR. CAREFUL. LOOK AT WAIVERS. I WANTED TO HEAR THE STAFF'S OH, GO AHEAD. YEAH. GO AHEAD. YEAH, YEAH, THE QUESTION IS A GOOD ONE. AND WE THEY DON'T THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS DON'T OFTEN COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. BUT SIMILAR REQUESTS ARE OFTEN MADE THAT ARE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, WHERE WE WHERE WE CRITICALLY EVALUATE, AS WE'VE DONE WITH THIS CASE, THOSE ARE THE CASES OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER IN CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT ON THOSE OTHER CASES. AGAIN, OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE CENTER, WE DID APPLY THOSE STRICT STANDARDS HERE IN THIS CASE TO REALLY HELP US EVALUATE WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER BEEN REQUESTED IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. SO THERE'S YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT TO LEAN ON. CERTAINLY, AS I MENTIONED, OUTSIDE OF CHINA, THERE'S PLENTY OF PRECEDENT TO LEAN ON, BUT GIVEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS AND I'LL LET J AND C ARE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT WE'RE REALLY THE FACT THAT THIS IS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, IT IS A VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL LOT. THIS TYPE OF SIZE OF LOT DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER. SO APPLYING THOSE MORE RIGID SUBURBAN CODE STANDARDS FOR POOLS AND PATIOS DIDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO US IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THOSE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE BELIEVE, AGAIN, ZOOMING BACK OUT OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE CENTER, WHAT COULD BE APPROVED HERE TONIGHT BASED ON THESE UNIQUE CONDITIONS WOULD NOT SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER CASES THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. BASED ON WHAT, THOUGH, WHY WOULD IT NOT BE PRECEDENT SETTING? I GUESS I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS THIS IS ONE OF THE SMALLEST LOTS. IF IT IS ONE OF THE SMALLEST LOTS IN THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN THE VILLAGE CENTER, THESE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE THESE TYPES OF LOT. WE ACTUALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM. HIGH COMPACT DENSE UNITS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, COMMERCIAL UNITS, LIVE WORK UNITS. AND WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO FOR FOLKS TO HAVE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES ON THEM. AND OUR CODE UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT HAVE STANDARDS FOR POOLS IN THIS TYPE OF URBAN MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT. DID I GET EVERYTHING THAT WAS THAT YOU GUYS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT? YES, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. SO SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, AGAIN, I'M NORMALLY I DON'T THINK ONE OF THESE IS MET. I WAS CONVINCED BY STAFF THAT ONE WE ARE WE ARE WE DID MEET A WE'RE PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATE DESIGN AND PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PARTICULAR STANDARD. I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK I, I DO BUY INTO THE WE WANT A VISUAL SEPARATION WE WANT AND, AND ALL OF THOSE RULES DON'T APPLY WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE IN A LOT OF THIS SIZE AND AND THE PRESENCE FOR ME, IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE BRICK WALL IS IS CRITICAL. IF THERE WASN'T A BRICK WALL, I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. BUT WITH THE BRICK WALL, I'M I'M SATISFIED AS TO NOT ONLY THE THE WAIVER THAT STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH, WHICH IS THE ONE ABOUT THE WHOLE POOL OF THE DECK, ETC. BUT I'M ALSO COMFORTABLE WITH THE EQUIPMENT. I GUESS MY VIEW IS, YEAH, THEY COULD PUT IT ELSEWHERE, BUT IN TERMS OF OF IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO PUT IT THERE. AND I THINK GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND GIVEN THE, THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD WITH THE WALL THERE, AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR, THE SEPARATION THAT YOU WANT THAT, THAT IS THAT THE WALL IS, IS SUBSTITUTING FOR THE 15FT, IN MY VIEW, BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT THAT GETS THAT THAT IN MY VIEW, WE'RE SATISFIED. WE SATISFIED THAT. AND I THINK WE'VE SUBSTANTIALLY MET THE INTENT. AND I AND I DON'T THINK IT DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE. SO AGAIN, I'M USUALLY THE ONE WHO IS MOST SKEPTICAL OF WAIVERS. BUT TONIGHT I'M NOT. BUT I'M OPEN TO BEING PERSUADED BY MR. MULLETT'S PERSUASION. WELL, I'M I'M NOT LOOKING TO PERSUADE. THANK YOU. MR. I'M NOT LOOKING TO PERSUADE, BUT IN IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, THIS IS A REQUEST THAT COMES TO
[00:45:03]
ME VERY, VERY OFTEN, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN MET WITH THE SAME CONSIDERATION. AND SO I AM HAVING A BIT OF AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS HERE ON HOW TO, HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS, BECAUSE IT PUTS ME IN A BIT OF A DUBIOUS POSITION TO I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE TREATMENT IS REASONABLE, BUT I, I DON'T SEE A COMPELLING CASE TO NOT FOLLOW THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A SMALL SITE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS, BUT THIS IS A REQUEST. IT'S A WANT. IT'S NOT A NEED. I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE HERE THAT MAYBE I HAVE. IT'S MAYBE IT'S MY ISSUE, NOT THE ISSUE OF THE BOARD. AM I PERMITTED TO ABSTAIN FROM SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS ON THAT. NOW.WHAT'S THAT? NOT NOW. ONCE YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS, YOU PARTICIPATE. OH THAT'S FINE, I JUST I DON'T I'M JUST. SINCE WE HAVE LEGAL HERE, I WANTED TO ASK. I MEAN, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT'S A SMALL SITE. AND WOULDN'T IT BE NICE TO HAVE A POOL? SO IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BASE OUR, OUR VOTE ON, THEN WE'LL, I GUESS PROCEED AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. BUT I DO FEEL THAT THIS IS INCONSISTENT AND THAT CONCERNS ME. SO ARE THERE A TON OF REJECTIONS THEN THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH A 15 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE POOL DECKS? IS THAT OUTSIDE OF THE VILLAGE CENTER? YES. YEAH. WHERE THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR FOLKS TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE STANDARDS, USUALLY IS WHAT THE REASONING IS. ISN'T THE PART OF WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS NOT TO HAVE THIS ENCROACHING ON A NEIGHBOR. AND SO THE LOT BEING SMALLER, IN MY OPINION, SORT OF MAKES IT EVEN WORSE. YEAH. YOU COULD HAVE A FIVE FOOT WALL, RIGHT. AND AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN BATHING SUITS THAT ARE SIX FEET TALL AND THE, THE BUILDINGS ARE RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. THE NEIGHBOR APPROVE THIS. DID THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE ADJACENT LOT? IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM TODD, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT IS THE SAME NEIGHBOR AS THIS PROPERTY. OH, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WAY THEY OWN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. OH, THE WHITE ONE THAT'S SHOWN IN THE RENDERING. OKAY, OKAY. I'M I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE WAIVERS AND. AND. AND AND THE CLA. YES.
WELL LET ME ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. THEN I'M GOING TO START THE PROCESS BY MOVING TO APPROVE ARB 11 DASH 2026. I GUESS THE QUESTION, I SUPPOSE, IS ARE WE ARE WE MOVING? I GUESS WE I GUESS WE WOULD MOVE. LET'S MOVE TO APPROVE 1120, 26 AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE WAIVERS SEPARATELY. SO WE'LL HAVE THREE MOTIONS. YES. SO FIRST I MOVE TO APPROVE A ARB 11 2026. SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MR. HENSON YES, MR. STROLLER, YES. MR. MALLETS. YES. MISS MOORE YES, MR. BROWN YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH SIX VOTES TO GRANT THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. SO THEN I WOULD MOVE TO TO GRANT THE WAIVER TO CODIFIED ORDINANCE 1170 3-02. C TO ALLOW THE PAVED AREAS TO BE SEVEN FEET AND SIX INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHERE THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 15FT.
SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. HENSON? YES, MR. STROLLER, YES, MR. MALLET? NO. MISS MOORE YES, MR. BROWN YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH FIVE VOTES TO GRANT THE MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER A MR.
[00:50:01]
MALLETS. I THINK YOU NEED TO EXPRESS. HE SHOULD EXPLAIN FOR HIS. NO, I DON'T SEE A I DON'T SEE ANY CONSTRAINTS OF NEED THAT REQUIRE THIS TO BE APPROVED. AND THEN FINALLY IT'S I'M THE I'M TONIGHT'S MOVING WAIVER TO CODIFIED ORDINANCE 1173 .02 C TO ALLOW THE POOL EQUIPMENT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHERE THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 15FT.SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MR. HENSON? YES, MR. STROLLER? YES. MR. MALLETS. NO. MISS MOORE YES.
MR. BROWN YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH SIX VOTES TO APPROVE WAIVER. MR. MALLETS. WE COULD STATE YOUR REASONS FOR THE RECORD. SAME AS THE PRIOR. SORRY. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER.
[VII. Other business ]
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD? DO WE HAVE THE FULL COMPLIMENT OF THE PLANNING STAFF HERE TONIGHT? NO, WE DO NOT. WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER THAT'S JOINED OUR TEAM AT THE END OF THE YEAR, CHELSEA NICHOLS. ALRIGHT. SHE'S AN ADMIN, BUT THIS IS MOST OF US.CAN I, CAN I COMMENT HOW DELIGHTFUL IT IS TO SEE ALL OF YOU? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY HARD WORK AND AND UNDER UNDER MR. UNDER MR. CHRISTIAN'S GREAT LEADERSHIP.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. AND COUNSELOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEGAL ADVICE. MINUTES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? SEEING NONE I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. MR. HENSON YES, MR. STROLLER? YES, MR. EATON YES. MR. BROWN. YES. MR. MALIK YES, YES. MORE. YES.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.