[I. Call to order] [00:00:07] THIS TIME TO CALL TO ORDER THE NEW ALBANY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING FOR APRIL 13TH, 2026. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. HENSON HERE, MR. ITEM? YES. MR. BROWN HERE, MR. DAVEY. MR. MALITZ HERE, MISS MOORE HERE. MR. STROLLER. HERE. COUNCILMEMBER. BRISK HERE WE HAVE SIX VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. AWESOME. THANK YOU. TERRIFIC. IS THERE [III. Action on minutes: March 09, 2026] THE MARCH 9TH, 2026 MEETING? ITH HAVE NO REVISIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE MINUTES. WELL DONE. THE STAFF AND SEEING NO ONE ELSE HAVING ANY. I WILL MOVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. I'LL SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MR. STROLLER? YES, MISS MOORE? YES. MR. MALIK'S. YES. MR. HENSON YES. MR. BROWN YES. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU. STAFF, IS THERE ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT? NO. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ADMINISTER THE OATH TO ALL WITNESSES AND APPLICANTS WHO PLAN TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. COULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH? NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY VISITORS HERE TONIGHT FOR ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SEEING [VI. Cases] NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST CASE, WHICH IS ARB62026 FOR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WAIVER. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY, CARE OF M AND T. CAN WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT PLEASE? YES. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU ALL, WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT THIS APPLICATION A COMBINED PRESENTATION. I'M SORRY FOR AAB ZERO SIX 2026. AAB 24, 2026 AND AAB 20 2425 2026. EXCUSE ME. THESE WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE VOTES TONIGHT AS WELL, RIGHT? OKAY, SO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE STAFF REPORT FOR ALL THREE OF THEM, THE PRESENTATION FOR ALL THREE, CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO TO BEGIN, THIS IS THE FIRST SITE FOR THE PROPOSED POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. THIS THE PROPOSED POLICE TRAINING FACILITY WILL BE LOCATED GENERALLY IN THIS AREA HERE. THE SECOND SITE IS THE EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY AND THE LOCATION OF THE STORAGE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER HERE. AND THE THIRD SITE IS PART OF BETHLEHEM PARK AND IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESTROOM FACILITY, WHICH WILL BE IN BETWEEN THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND THE BASKETBALL COURTS. SO HERE'S THE OVERALL PROCESS THAT THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE GONE THROUGH. ROCKY FORK, BLACK CREEK ACCORD HEARD THE REZONING AND APPROVED RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. MARCH 19TH, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THE REZONING LAST WEEK ON MONDAY, APRIL 6TH, AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WILL BE REVIEWING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE BUILDING'S. SO HERE'S THE OVERALL SITE PLAN FOR THE AREA. HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ARE THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING EVALUATED TONIGHT. THE COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED, AND THESE STRUCTURES BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT ARE PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ANY FUTURE STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WILL BE HEARD BY THE ARB FOR COA IN THE FUTURE. IN THESE BUILDINGS HIGHLIGHT THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF THE CITY AND THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE TO CONTINUE PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY SERVICES FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE POLICE OR SORRY, HERE'S AN AERIAL CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITE FOR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. SO THE FACILITY IS APPROXIMATELY 9500FT■!S. THERE'S A PROPOSED GATE AND FENCE SURROUNDING THE PARKING LOT IN THE REAR, AND THERE'S PROPOSED 32 PARKING SPACES FOR THIS TRAINING FACILITY, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 6TH, 2026. THE SITE NEEDS THE COMMUNITY FACILITY SETBACKS, AND THERE'S A 10.4% BUILDING AND PAVEMENT COVERAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE FOR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A WAIVER WHICH WILL BE EVALUATED SHORTLY. HERE'S THE SITE. HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE TRAINING FACILITY. THE APPLICANT [00:05:04] PROPOSES TO PRESERVE 26 TREES ON SITE. THERE'S AN EXISTING LEISURE TRAIL ALONG EAST WALNUT STREET, AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A FOUR RAIL HORSE FENCE ALONG THAT PATH. ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A PROPOSED FUTURE BASS BASIN LOCATION INTENDED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. ALL THE CITY LANDSCAPE, WHERE THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN AND HAS NO COMMENTS. SO HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE TRAINING FACILITY. THE PROPOSED MATERIALS INCLUDE VERTICAL METAL SIDING, STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO MATCH THE EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY. A WATERSE OF THE BUIL. OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. HERE, VERTICAL WINDOWS AND DOWNCAST LIGHT FIXTURES. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE OF THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE DDR STATE PRIMARY ENTRANCES SHALL BE ORIENTED TOWARD THE PRIMARY STREETS AND ROADS. SO HERE ARE THE WAIVER STANDARDS ON THE SCREEN. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS. SECTION EIGHT ROMAN NUMERAL 3.3 TO ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING BUILDING'S MAIN ENTRANCE TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE DDR STATES PRIMARY ENTRANCES SHALL BE ORIENTED TOWARD PRIMARY STREETS AND ROADS. THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO HAVE A DOOR THAT FACES EAST WALNUT STREET. HOWEVER, THIS DOOR IS NOT FUNCTIONAL AS AN ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING. THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY IS DESIGNATED AS A NONPUBLIC OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO FUNCTION AS A CIVIC DESTINATION. WITH THE PROMINENT STREET FACING ENTRANCE, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED HAS ALSO PROPOSED FENCING AND GATES SURROUNDING PARKING LOT TO THE FACILITY TO PROVIDE A VISUAL IDENTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS NOT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE BUILDING. THE INTENT OF THE DDR REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE AND ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES FOR CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS, WHILE THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY IS PROPOSED WITHOUT A PRIMARY ENTRANCE. FACING A PRIMARY ROAD, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE MOST REASONABLE DESIGN FOR OPERATIONAL NEEDS AND HAS INCLUDED AND HAS INCLUDED A DOOR TO VISUALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENT, WHILE ALSO MEETING ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF. THE REQUEST IS NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE FACILITY. AGAIN, THE FACILITY IS A GOVERNMENTAL USE INTENDED FOR THE POLICE STAFF ONLY WITH THE PROPOSED PHYSICAL BARRIERS. THIS WILL HELP THE PUBLIC VISUALLY IDENTIFY THE BUILDING AS NON-ACCESSIBLE. IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO ORIENT THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKELY NEED TO PHYSICALLY SECURE THE ENTRANCE BY MEANS OF A FENCE AND GATE ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET, WHICH COULD COMPROMISE THE ARCHITECTURAL, ESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA. SO WITH THAT SAID, HERE IS THE PUBLIC SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY SITE PLAN AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED HERE IN TOP RIGHT CORNER. THE FACILITY WILL PROVIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT WITH NEEDED SPACE FOR STORAGE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. THE FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO HAVE 12 BAYS AND APPROXIMATELY 8280FT■!S, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING 22 DIFFERENT PLANT SPECIES TO THE WEST OR TO THE EAST OF THE BUILDING TO SCREEN THE ADJACENT FIELDS. AND HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS. SO SOME MATERIALS TO MAKE. NOTE THE METAL ROOF, ALUMINUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUMUE BLOCK AND BOARD. AND I'M SORRY, METAL ROOF, METAL WALL PANELS, SHUTTERS AND THREE CUPOLAS ALONG THE ROOF. SO HERE'S THE PARK RESTROOM FACILITY. THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS APPROXIMATELY 456FT■!S. PROPOSED TO HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR RESTROOM STALLS. THE NEW RESTROOM FACILITY IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED IN THE 2026 BUDGET, AND THE FACILITY WILL ACCOMPLISH A GOAL IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR UPGRADING EXISTING PARKS. AND HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THOSE INCLUDING THE METAL ROOF, ALUMINUM DOORS, SPLIT FACE BLOCK AND BOARD, AND BATTEN SIDING. THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED ALL THE ELEVATIONS FOR ALL THREE BUILDINGS AND HAD NO COMMENTS. SO IN SUMMARY, THE ADDITIONS REFLECT THE COMMUNITY'S GROWTH AND WILL HELP THE OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS FOR THE CITY'S DEPARTMENTS AND BILHEIMER PARK. THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE FOR ALL BUILDINGS COMPLEMENTS AND MATCHES THE EXISTING AREA. THE PARK RESTROOM ACCOMPLISHES A GOAL IN THE ENGAGE NEW ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN FOR IMPROVING EXISTING PARKS AND THE PROPOSED POLICE TRAINING FACILITY, PARK, RESTROOM AND PUBLIC SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY FIT WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED AREA OF GOVERNMENTAL AND CIVIC USES. AND HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS ON [00:10:03] THE SCREEN AND CONDITIONS MAY BE ADDED IF NECESSARY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPLICANT. HE MENTIONED HE ARE HERE TO SPEAK. IT'S TIME FOR THAT. ARE WELL. HI EVERYONE. STEVE. MALONEY SO THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT HERE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE OUR WHOLE TEAM. WORKING NOW. SO WE HAVE OUR FULL TEAM HERE. SO WE HAVE WE DO HAVE NICK OVENS FROM MH AND T. SO HE'S DONE ALL THE SITE WORK. WE ALSO HAVE SHARON GEROWITZ HERE. SO SHE'S THE ARCHITECT FOR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. AND WE ALSO HAVE RON GACEK IN THE BACK ROW THERE. SO HE IS THE ARCHITECT FOR THE BATHROOM AND THE STORAGE FACILITY. AND HE WAS ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECT FOR THE ENTIRE SERVICE FACILITY AS WELL. SO YEAH. THANKS, JAY. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, WE ACTUALLY WENT BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THE SERVICE FACILITY WAS ZONED AND BUILT AND APPROVED IN 2006, WHICH IS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS. WE HAD A 20 YEAR PLAN BACK THEN, 15 EMPLOYEES WERE UP TO 50 EMPLOYEES IN THE SERVICE FACILITY. AND WE'VE ESSENTIALLY OUTGROWN OUR SPACE. BUT WE WENT BACK, LOOKED AT OUR ORIGINAL PLANS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE ARE MATCHING THE DESIGN AND THE MATERIALS TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. CERTAINLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SMALL THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED, SUCH AS LIKE LIGHTING FIXTURES, BUT OVERALL, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE LIKE A CAMPUS FEEL THERE, FEEL IN THAT AREA. SO TO KEEP THE SERVICE FACILITY FEELING AS ONE CENTRAL LOCATION, THAT IT'S AN OVERALL SERVICE FACILITY FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDPOINT. SO I GUESS WITH THAT, I'LL JUST, I'M HAPPY TO AND WELCOME TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. YEAH, I THINK, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HANDLE EACH ONE IN ORDER. AND WHETHER YOU STAND UP THERE OR SIT DOWN, WE CAN I CAN DIRECT QUESTIONS THERE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A MIC OVER THERE. THAT'S FINE TOO, BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO IF YOU WANT TO STAY STANDING, GO FOR IT. OKAY, SO LET ME, LET ME MAKE LET'S FIRST GO TO. OH SIX 2026 THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED? SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE REZONING. AND THE REZONING ALSO INCLUDES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THIS FACILITY AND MY DEVELOPMENT PLAN THEY APPROVED WHERE IT STOOD ON THE PROPERTY. IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT'S US, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO IT IS WHERE THE THE PROPERTY OF OF THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. SO THEY WE'RE GOING TO PUT POLICE TRAINING FACILITY ON THIS ON THIS PROPERTY. IT'S A USE THAT'S PERMITTED BASED UPON THE ZONING THAT'S GOING ON. THAT'S WHAT THEY APPROVED. CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE'RE THE ONES NOW TO APPROVE WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS A FRONT ENTRANCE OR NOT, BASED UPON WHETHER WE GRANT A WAIVER. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND OKAY. SO LET ME AND AND WITH STEVE HERE, I THINK THAT WILL BE HELPFUL BECAUSE. I DID HAVE A, A CHALLENGE ON THE WAIVER REQUEST. AND YOU WERE CERTAINLY PRESENT DURING OUR GRAPPLING WITH THE OLD VERSION OF THE WAIVER STATUTE. AND THEN WE I THINK MANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD DON'T KNOW WHETHER EVERYBODY IS ON THE BOARD. WHEN WE WHEN WE REDID THE WAIVER LANGUAGE, WE ENDED UP WITH OBVIOUSLY. AND THE WAIVER LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY THAT WE REDID WAS THE LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION C, B, REASON B NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO UNUSUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. AND THAT THAT CHANGE FROM PRIOR WORDING, WHICH MORE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS. YEAH, HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING. BUT WHERE, WHERE I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT HERE IS ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE EVER HAD AROUND THOSE THREE WORDS, BUILDING STRUCTURE OR SITE SPECIFIC. ALL OF THOSE GO TO THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING, THE NATURE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE NATURE OF THE SITE. NONE OF THEM GO TO THE USE BECAUSE OF COURSE WE DON'T APPROVE USE. SO WHILE THIS IS RIGHT NOW, THE CUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCA POLICE TRAINING FACILITY, RIGHT? THERE'S NO REASON THAT IT HAS TO BE A POLICE TRAINING FACILITY IN THE FUTURE. AND SO WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS, IS WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS COME BEFORE US. AND THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND FOR THE BOARD IS THE IS THE JEWELRY, THE JEWELER WHERE HE WANTED TO NOT HAVE AN ENTRANCE THAT FACED THE FRONT. AND WE SAID, AND BECAUSE HE'S A [00:15:05] JEWELER, HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THAT ENTRANCE THERE. HE WANTED TO BE MORE DISCREET. AND WE SAID NO. AND SO WE WEREN'T PERSUADED IN THAT INSTANCE THAT USE WAS A WAS A REASON. IT REALLY WASN'T HOW THE BUILDING IS USED. IT REALLY WASN'T HOW THE STRUCTURE IT WAS, WASN'T THE SITE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF PAIN. IT. SO THE JUSTIFICATION HERE IS THE USE OF IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW WE'VE INTERPRETED THIS STATUTE. AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE INTERPRETED IN A WAY ADVERSE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. SO I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT HERE USING THAT USE BECAUSE THEN HOW DO I GO BACK TO THE JEWELER AND SAY, WHO THEN COMES AND SAYS TO US WHY THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE? SO I'LL JUMP IN ON THAT ONE. YEAH. SO I THINK ONE OF THE DISTINCTIONS, AND I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE JEWELER, BUT I SENT YOU ALL A MEMO AS IT RELATES TO SOME OF THE THINGS RELATED TO THE SCHOOL AND THE SCHOOL'S REASONABLE EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE SCHOOL. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE CITY AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. SO WE'RE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A JEWELER IN THIS SITUATION THAT THE CITY ONLY HAS TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO COMPLY. SO WE DON'T NEED TO GIVE AWAY THE CITY CAN DO IT ANYWAY. IF I IF I, IF I HAVE, IF I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH INTERPRETING IT THIS WAY, WE CAN DENY THE WAIVER AND THE CITY CAN DO IT SO LONG AS IT MAKES REASONABLE EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. I MEAN THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO GRANT A WAIVER JUST BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TO ASK FOR ONE, BECAUSE THEN I'VE GRANTED A WAIVER THAT I'M GOING TO REGRET LATER ON WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE COMES TO US AND SAYS, WELL, I'M USING THIS FOR X, I'M USING IT FOR Y. SO YOU HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING HERE? IS THERE IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN WE CAN GRAPPLE WITH THAT SAYS THERE'S SOMETHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING? I COULDN'T FIND ONE. THE NATURE OF THE STRUCTURE COULDN'T FIND ONE OR THE SITE. I MEAN, THIS SITE WOULD CERTAINLY PERMIT A FRONT ENTRANCE. YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING AND SEE MY STRUGGLE. DO YOU MIND BRINGING UP THE SITE J. I MEAN, GOING BACK TO A FOR EXAMPLE, BREWDOG THERE. OF COURSE THE READING OF IT WOULD SAID THEIR FRONT ENTRANCE HAD TO BE ON 62 AND THAT MADE NO SENSE BECAUSE OF THE SITE. NOBODY WANTS TO PUT A FRONT ENTRANCE ON THE NARROW FRONT AND WE PUT IT ON THE BROAD FRONT ON OLD 161 LIKE A WHOLESALE FOR ME. SORRY. YEAH, THAT ACTUALLY DO. SO I GUESS WE'RE CONVINCED. YEAH. I THINK WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF AT LIKE AT A BOOK END. SO AGAIN, WE THINK OF THIS AS ONE LARGE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THIS IS THE CITY'S PROPERTY RIGHT HERE OUTLINED IN RED. I THINK IT'S LIKE 10 OR 12 ACRES. OUR GOAL WHEN WE DID THE INITIAL SITE PLANNING WAS TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE SPACE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE FOLLOWING RULES. WE HAVE SET THE LINE IN THE SAND, SO TO SPEAK. SO WE'RE MATCHING THE STRATEGIC PLAN SET BACK FOR THIS DISTANCE. BUT WE'RE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS AN OVERALL COMPLEX ACTING AS ONE SITE, WE'RE REALLY SORT OF LIKE PUTTING THIS OUT ON THE END, WHEREAS YOU WOULD PROBABLY NORMALLY SORT OF WORK YOUR WAY FROM THE MIDDLE AND WORK OUT. SO THE FUTURE CONDITION WILL BE THAT THIS BUILDING WILL BE A PART OF THIS OVERALL COMPLEX. THIS IS THE CAMPUS. THE CAMPUS? YES. SEE, I KNEW YOU'D COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT FITS ME. SO IT MIGHT SEEM A LITTLE BACKWARDS AND A LITTLE ISLAND OFF TODAY. I MEAN, WHO KNOWS HOW LONG IT COULD TAKE? MAYBE IT'LL BE A FEW YEARS, MAYBE 20 YEARS. BUT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THIS GRASS TODAY. BUT EVENTUALLY THIS WILL ALL BE PAVED. IT'LL ACT AS AN EXTENSION OF THE SERVICE FACILITIES YARD. AND I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS IN HERE AS WELL. AND THE FENCE THAT EXISTS TODAY WILL EXTEND AND INCLUDE ALL OF THIS. SO IT'S, IT'S ONE COMPLEX OR CAMPUS. SEE, I KNEW YOU'D COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD I, I HAVE SOMETHING TO CHEW ON. IS IT BECAUSE I'M HAPPY TO. I THINK THE WHOLE CAMPUS EXPLANATION CERTAINLY SATISFIED ME WITH RESPECT TO, TO THE ENTRANCE ON THE, ON THE SERVICE BUILDING. SO I LIKE THE FACT. OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO CHEW ON THAT, BUT THAT I KNEW YOU'D COME UP WITH SOMETHING. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. ALL RIGHT. LET ME LET ME. THAT WAS THAT WAS WHAT I HAD ON THE POLICE TRAINING. I'LL NOW SHUT UP AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. I DON'T RECALL WHETHER THIS WAS PUT ON SCREEN, BUT CAN YOU BRING UP THE PROPOSED SITE FOR ME? IT'S PAGE FOUR OF FOUR. THESE WERE. EXCUSE ME, ANDREW, IS YOUR MIC ON? SORRY. THANKS. YEP. I'LL TRY TO POSE MY QUESTIONS FROM [00:20:05] HERE. I GUESS. MY FIRST ONE, IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER. MY ASSUMPTION IS IS THAT AND PLEASE CLARIFY IS THAT FROM THIS LINE HERE TO THIS LINE HERE, THE MOST PLAUSIBLE WAY TO AFFECT PUTTING THE ENTRANCE FACING WALNUT WOULD BE TO SIMPLY MIRROR THE THE BUILDING. AND IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR, QUESTION FOR STAFF IS THE FENCE AS DRAWN AND PROPOSED PERMITTED ON THE FRONT OF. WHAT WOULD BE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IF THAT CHANGE WERE TO HAVE BEEN MADE? HYPOTHETICALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REQUIRES SOME OTHER KIND OF WAIVER OR ANYTHING. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. IT DOES NOT. IT DOES NOT. OKAY, SO YOU COULD HAVE ELECTED TO FLIP IT, BUT THEN WE WOULD BE. COMMENTING ON THE MERITS OF HAVING THE DOOR FACING THE FRONT, BUT ALSO HAVING A FENCE FACING WALNUT IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. IS AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH. YOU COULD. YEAH, COULD. OKAY. THE GOAL, WHY WE PUT THE PARKING IN THE BACK IS REALLY TWOFOLD. ONE, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TRY TO HIDE PARKING TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. BUT TWO, WE'VE ALREADY SORT OF CONTEMPLATED AND, YOU KNOW, JUST SORT OF ROUGH SKETCHED IN, WE'VE SORT OF DID A FIT TEST ESSENTIALLY TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO ON THAT LAND TO THE NORTH. AND WHAT WE'RE ENVISIONING, AGAIN, WITH THE ONE CAMPUS IS THAT WE WILL, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CONNECT, CONNECT. YEAH, WE'LL PROBABLY LOSE SOME PARKING. WE'LL PROBABLY ADD SOME PARKING, BUT WE, WE WANT THE PARKING LOT ON THIS SIDE SO WE CAN CONNECT IT INTERNALLY WITHIN THE FENCE LINE TO THE REST OF THE SERVICE FACILITY. FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU. MY REMAINING QUESTIONS THEN IN LIGHT OF THAT, ARE I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT 26 TREES ARE BEING PRESERVED. DID I GET THAT NUMBER RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. I NOTICED ON THE DRAWING THAT THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS FUTURE BASIN, PRESUMABLY A DETENTION OR RETENTION BASIN, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT'S ADDED OVER TIME. IF THAT IS AN LIKELIHOOD OR PERHAPS AN INEVITABILITY, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? AND DOES THAT ULTIMATELY CHANGE THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE PRESERVED IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR? SO IT IS INEVITABLE. I MIGHT NEED HELP ON THIS ONE. SO THE STORMWATER BASIN THAT'S JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DRIVE HERE. SO IT'S IT'S MAXED OUT. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. NICK HERE HAS WE'VE MADE HIM SPEND HOURS AND HOURS STUDYING TO SEE IF WE COULD REUSE THAT BASIN, BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING TO ADD ON TO WHAT'S EXISTING. AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S JUST THERE'S JUST NOT A WAY TO DO IT. SO THIS BASIN WILL BE NEEDED AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. ONCE WE DO MORE PAVEMENT AND BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH, WE CAN SORT OF STORE WHAT'S ON SITE OR WHAT'S NEEDED FOR THIS POLICE BUILDING WITH THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND DO SOME UNDERGROUND STORAGE, LIKE IN PIPES THAT WILL EVENTUALLY RUN OVER HERE, BUT THIS WILL BE NEEDED ONCE WE ADD MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE NORTH HERE. SO IT IS INEVITABLE. WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT DATE WILL BE YET. OKAY, OKAY. SO LONG TERM, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, WE SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE AREA IN FRONT WILL LIKELY BE CLEARED AND THIS ELEVATION THAT'S IN QUESTION WILL BE VISIBLE. IT'S NOT SCREENED IN ANY OTHER WAY AT THIS POINT. YEAH. BESIDES FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. YEAH, I KNOW J OR CHRIS, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO CHIME IN, BUT I KNOW OUR CODE ALSO REQUIRES ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING FOR OUR BASIN. SO EVEN THOUGH WE'LL BE REMOVING TREES TO ADD A BASIN, I'M SURE WE'LL ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO THE BASIN AROUND THE PERIMETER. AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK I WOULD ADD REAL QUICK TO ANY FUTURE BUILDINGS THAT ARE DEVELOPING ON THE SITE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. SO IF CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE FRONT EDGE OF THE SITE AS A RESULT OF A BASIN, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE A REVIEW OF THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS ON THE ELEVATION. THAT IS, I'M BELIEVING IT'S THE SOUTH ELEVATION. IT'S LABELED NORTH. BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY JUST SO THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT WHAT WHAT I READ IN THE DRAWING PACKET THAT SAYS NORTH ELEVATION WITH COLOR IS ACTUALLY THE SOUTH ELEVATION. IS THAT CORRECT? I JUST I THINK IT'S CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THERE IS NO. THAT'S THE ONE THAT FACES THE SOUTH ELEVATION. YEAH. THE ONE THAT WOULD BE FACING THE FUTURE POND. I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. NO IT'S OKAY. I'M JUST. SO THIS ELEVATION HAS UNDERSTOOD WHERE MY QUESTION LIES. THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE. IF THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION, THEN THERE'S AN INDICATION ON THE SITE PLAN OF PLANTINGS THAT RUN CONTINUOUS BETWEEN THE TWO CORNERS. AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT ALL GETS [00:25:04] RECONCILED WITH THE DOOR LOCATION AS DRAWN. BUT THEN ON THE. ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. THIS IS WHERE MY CONFUSION IS COMING FROM. ON THE NORTH ELEVATION IT APPEARS TO BE TWO CORNER AWNINGS AND FOUR WINDOWS ACROSS. BUT ON THE SITE PLAN THERE'S A CENTER ENTRY ON THE NORTH. SO COLOR ME CONFUSED. AS THE RESIDENT ARCHITECT IN THE IN THE ROOM. YEAH, SO LET ME I CAN SPEAK ON THAT AND I APOLOGIZE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN OLDER SITE PLAN AND I DID NOT UPDATE THE RIGHT SITE PLAN. SO THAT ENTRANCE THAT YOU SEE HERE IN THE MIDDLE IS ON THE FRONT ON THE SOUTH FACING. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE. WELL, YES AND NO. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I DO SEE THAT THERE IS A CENTERED DOUBLE DOOR ON WHAT IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ON THE NORTH ELEVATION IT'S SHOWING FOUR WINDOWS ACROSS, BUT THE SITE PLANS INDICATING A CENTER ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE THE CURRENT PLAN, BUT WHAT IS THE CURRENT PLAN FOR ENTRY IS WHAT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. IS IT AT THE CORNERS? HI, NICK EVANS, 5500 NEW ALBANY ROAD. AS STEVE MENTIONED, CIVIL ENGINEER WORKED ON THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS. SO TO JAY'S POINT, THIS IMAGE THAT IS ON THE SCREEN IS SLIGHTLY OUT OF DATE. I WILL CAVEAT THAT THERE REALLY WERE JUST TWO DIFFERENCES. AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE CONFUSED ABOUT RIGHT NOW. SO THERE ARE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION WHERE IT CURRENTLY SHOWS THREE DOORS AND THREE STUBS OF SIDEWALK UP TO THE PARKING LOT. THERE ARE ONLY TWO IN THE TWO CORNERS. THERE'S NO DOOR IN THE MIDDLE. THE ELEVATIONS, AS SHARON MENTIONED, THE NORTH ELEVATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CENTRAL DOOR IS CORRECT. THAT CENTRAL DOOR IS SHOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. I'LL LET SHARON AND STEVE ELABORATE ON THE USE OF THAT DOOR, OR LACK THEREOF, BUT THE ELEVATIONS AS YOU HAVE THEM ARE CORRECT. THE SITE PLAN JUST HAS A CENTRAL DOOR ON THE NORTH, WHEREAS THE CURRENT PLAN IS TO HAVE THE CENTRAL DOOR ON THE SOUTH TO MATCH THE ELEVATIONS. SO YOU WILL THE ELEVATION ON SHEET A 201 IS ACCURATE. IT'S FOUR WINDOWS ACROSS WITH TWO AWNING COVERED ROOFS AT THE CORNER. THAT THAT IS CORRECT FOR THE FRONT ENTRANCE ELEVATION AND THEN FOR THE SOUTH ELEVATION. BACK TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION REGARDING THE SITE PLAN. IF THAT IS A DOOR FUNCTIONAL OR NONFUNCTIONAL, THERE'S SCREENING ACROSS IT. SO WHICH IS CORRECT, IS THE SCREENING CORRECT OR IS THE DOOR SCREENING WOULD BE REMOVED AT THAT DOOR LOCATION. SO THERE ARE SMALL PLANTINGS ALONG THE SOUTH ELEVATION. THAT BUILDING OF THE BUILDING, THERE WOULD BE BREAKS AT ALL THREE DOORS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION. SO THE CENTRAL DOOR, THERE'D BE A BREAK IN LANDSCAPE, AND THEN THE TWO CORNER DOORS, THERE'D BE A BREAK IN LANDSCAPE. SO OUTSIDE OF THOSE STOOPS COMING ACROSS, THERE WOULD BE OKAY LANDSCAPING. THANK YOU. EXISTING CONDITION WHERE USING SERVICE FACILITY BETWEEN A LOT OF OUR DOORS AND WINDOWS. WE HAVE EVERGREEN HEDGE THAT IS COMING UP A LITTLE QUITE WELL. WE NEED TO TRIM THAT DOWN YEAH,K WHAT NICK SAID, WE WOULD JUST REMOVE THE CENTER PORTION, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE THAT LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE DOORS. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW THAT WE'VE CLEARED ALL THAT UP, I CAN OFFER MY OPINION, WHICH I HAVE TWO,MINOR. BUT JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, I WOULD SAY THE TWO AWNING ROOFS THAT ARE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, JUST STRICTLY FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, THOSE WOULD USUALLY BE ABOUT HALF THE PITCH OF THE MAIN ROOF. SO THE MAIN ROOFS TEN AND 12, THOSE WOULD BE TYPICALLY MORE LIKE A FIVE AND 12 PITCH TO MATCH THE ESTHETIC OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT COMPOUND, IF YOU WILL. I JUST THINK IT WOULD IMPROVE THE ESTHETIC FOR NO REAL MEANINGFUL IMPACT COST WISE. I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE REST OF THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT IS EVEN A NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT, BUT I DID WANT TO AT LEAST BRING IT UP FOR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER REMARK I HAVE, WHICH GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHERE'S THE FRONT DOOR, I, I UNDERSTAND THE STRATEGIC PLAN, THE MASTER PLAN OF THE SITE, THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY I'M GOING TO STRICTLY MAKE MY COMMENTS BASED ON ESTHETIC AND FUNCTIONAL CONCERNS, RATHER THAN IS THERE A CASE TO BE MADE AS TO WHETHER THE WAIVER SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, AND SAY IT MAKES SENSE FROM A FLOW FUNCTION AND STANDPOINT, THE LAYOUT THAT IS PROPOSED MAKES SENSE TO ME, AND I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM SUPPORTING IT, PARTICULARLY IF MY CHOICE WERE. [00:30:02] I MEAN, CERTAINLY IF THE FENCE WERE FACING SOUTH, I'D RATHER SEE IT THE WAY IT'S IT'S DRAWN HERE. CERTAINLY WE COULD PROBABLY, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THAT COULD BE ARGUED SEPARATELY, BUT I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT, BUT I WOULD. MY LAST COMMENT WOULD BE IS THAT THE. THE DOOR THAT NOW FACES SOUTH, THAT THAT IS, I GUESS, SOMEWHAT SATISFYING. THE ESTHETIC REQUIREMENT OF A DOOR FACING THE STREET TO ME SEEMS UTTERLY EXTRANEOUS AND OPERATIONALLY CONFUSING, SO I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR IT. I'D BE MUCH MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S MORE RESPECTFUL TO THE PROPERTY, THE OVERALL INTENDED USE, THE FLOW AND FUNCTION OF THE SITE. NOW, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT OR NOT, AND DOES IT MATTER TO THE FUNCTION OF THE, YOU KNOW, FLOW OF THE FLOOR PLAN THAT I CAN'T ANSWER? I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A MAIN FLOOR PLAN INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, SO I WOULD BE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE SAYING RUN WINDOWS ACROSS THAT ELEVATION. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY TRYING TO CALL IT OUT AS AN ENTRANCE, WHEN IN FACT IT MIGHT BE MISCONSTRUED AS SUCH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS FOR INDULGING MY QUESTIONS. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE I'M SORRY. PLEASE CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SATELLITE PHOTO OF THE SITE, PLEASE? YEAH. SO ARE THESE SO THESE TREES WE TALKED ABOUT THE 26 TREE OR THE TREES IN THE RETENTION POND. BUT THESE TREES WILL REMAIN. AND THAT ACT AS THE BARRIER TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR HEADLIGHT SCREENING. AND THE IN THE PARKING LOT. YES, THAT IS THE INTENT. AND I THINK WE STILL NEED TO EVALUATE THE BARN. THAT'S RIGHT THERE AS WELL. WE JUST NEED TO SEE HOW CLOSE THAT REALLY GETS FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT. BUT THERE'S A POTENTIAL WE MIGHT JUST LEAVE THE BARN STANDING IN THE MEANTIME, IF WE DON'T NEED TO MOVE IT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL, TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL BUFFER. AND IT WOULD JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WOULDN'T BE PARKING LOT HEADLIGHT SCREENING ALONG THAT ELEVATION BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT IS IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. LIKE, WHERE IS THE, THE PARKING LOT? CAN YOU COME IN HERE AND YOU'RE POINTED HEADLIGHTS PULLING IN? YEAH, I GOT BACK TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. I JUST WALKED HIM THROUGH WHERE THAT PARKING LOT IS IN RELATION TO. YEAH. SO THIS SO WALNUTS ON THE SOUTH, THE BOTTOM PART OF THE SCREEN THERE. THE PARKING LOT IS BEHIND THE BUILDING. YEAH, BUT THERE'S NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST. YEAH. SO THEY'LL, THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO DO ALL THE TYPICAL PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING SCREENING. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT COVERED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AT LEAST I DIDN'T SEE IT. AND THEN I WAS WONDERING IF THESE THREE TREES WERE PART OF THAT. THESE THREE ARE NEW. THIS IS EXISTING. WAS THAT THE INTENT HERE? WELL, I THINK THEY'RE PUTTING A FENCE UP AND THE SCREENING IS NEXT. FENCE. THE FENCE MUST BE A TYPICAL SECURITY SCREENING THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. YEAH. WE CAN ADD ADDITIONAL HEDGE ALONG THAT EAST SID SIDE THERE O SCREEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU PULL UP THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION AGAIN? MY, MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT GIVEN ITS EXPOSURE TO WALNUT STREET AND IT'S FACING WALNUT STREET, IS THERE ANY REASON WE COULDN'T YOU COULDN'T DO A SHED ROOF OVER THIS. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SIDEWALK UP TO THIS, BUT YOU COULD YOU YOU'RE PUTTING A DOOR. IT SHOULD IT SHOULD HAVE THE LOOK LIKE WELCOMING FROM PEOPLE WALKING PAST SOME HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, PEOPLE DRIVING PAST. I THINK YOU COULD ADD SOME DIMENSION TO THIS TO THIS DOOR HERE, A SHED ROOF, BY THE WAY, REQUEST THAT RIGHT. YEAH, WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE. AND AGAIN, I KNOW MR. MALIK WAS HAPPY TO GET RIDOF OF IT ALTOGETHER. AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT, MY COMMENT IS, I GUESS I GO BACK TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. I FORGET WHAT IT'S CALLED, BUT THE ONE ON 62, THERE'S ONE THAT HAS WHICH WE JUST WHICH WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT, BUT THAT HAS A FAIRLY PROMINENT DOOR THAT THAT FACES 62. I DON'T THINK IT'S USED. IT PROBABLY OPERATES, BUT I THINK 99.9% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH GO IN FROM THE PARKING LOT. AND WHETHER THAT DOOR IS EVEN UNLOCKED IS PROBABLY A QUESTION. IT'S BEHIND THE ALTAR. OKAY, SO IN WHICH CASE, BUT BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DOOR, I WOULDN'T. I THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE THAT IF IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE THERE FOR APPEARANCE. I AGREE WITH MR. HENSON THAT MAYBE A. AND AGAIN, THE THE SAME THING MR. MALIK'S COMMENTED A SHED ROOF WITH THE PITCH THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR. FOR THIS STRUCTURE, I GUESS WHEN IT [00:35:02] COMES DOWN TO IT, I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE THE. I'D RATHER HAVE THE ENTRANCE WITH A FIVE FOLD. WITH A FIVE FOLD CUT OVER IT. FOR FOR APPEARANCE. SURE. RECOGNIZING THE MAIN ENTRANCES ARE IN THE BACK. YEAH. WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE THAT ADDITIONAL. YEAH. FRONT COVERING SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ON THE BACK WITH THAT APPROPRIATE PITCH THAT MR. MALTZ MENTIONED. OKAY, SO AGAIN, MR. MEYER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR AS I EXPECTED, YOU CONVINCED ME. I THINK I CAN GET AROUND ON THE WAIVER. AT LEAST I THINK I THINK I FIND THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SATISFIED BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A CAMPUS. SO WE'LL THANK YOU. YOU HAVEN'T LOST. OKAY. JUST REAL QUICK. AND I LOST YOU THERE. I WAS TALKING TO CHIEF JONES HERE, SO APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME. BUT TALKING TO CHIEF, THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO ADD THAT SHED ROOF ON THAT ELEVATION. HE DID SHARE THAT. THAT DOOR ON THAT ELEVATION IS IMPORTANT FROM AN OPERATIONS STANDPOINT FOR THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING. IT IS EXIT ONLY. YOU CAN'T OPEN IT FROM THE EXTERIOR. SO KIND OF LIKE THE CHURCH AND THE POST OFFICE. YEAH. AND THE POST OFFICE. AND WITH THAT SHED ROOF, IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE DOOR THERE TOO. YEAH. AN OFFICE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WE, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE IT, THEN I'D LIKE TO PUT A SHED ROOF ON IT AGAIN WITH SO. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEY REALLY DON'T NEED THE WAIVER. WELL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE IT. YEAH, THAT'S THE QUESTION. I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION. DO GIVEN GIVEN OF COURSE THAT I DON'T THINK WE GAVE A WAIVER TO THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DID WE? I THINK WE DID. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK. BUT I THINK IF I RECALL IT'S IT'S OPERABLE AND ACTIVE DOORS THAT. RIGHT. SO IN THE ESTATE'S IN KEEPING WITH THE TRADITIONAL PRACTICE, THE ENTRANCES TO CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE ORIENTED TOWARD PRIMARY STREETS AND ROADS AND SHALL BE OF A DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER THAT MAKES THEM EASY TO LOCATE. AND ENTRANCES SHALL BE SCALED AND DETAILED TO MATCH THE SCALE AND DETAIL OF INTERIOR PUBLIC SPACES. I'D SAY WITH THE ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING, THEY'VE DEFINITELY MET THE INTENT OF THAT. WHETHER IT ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS AS A PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS NOT THERE, WHICH STRICT INTERPRETATION. I DON'T THINK WE GAVE A WAIVER TO THE JEWELER. WE MADE HIM A FAKE. WE PUT WE MADE HIM PUT AN AFFORDABLE DOOR. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TOO. REGULATIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, THOUGH, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL VERSUS INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. THOSE THAT REGULATION JUST SAYS YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE AND OPERABLE DOOR, OKAY, NOT THAT IT HAS TO BE DRESSED UP. I'M HAPPY. I'M HAPPY TO GIVE A WAIVER BECAUSE I, AT LEAST FOR ME, I'VE NOW SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS, THANKS TO MR. MEYER'S EXPERT ADVOCACY. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONDITIONS. WITH THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT LOOKS LIKE WILL TAKE PLACE WITH THE TREE REMOVAL, WITH THE DETENTION BASIN CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS FUTURE SIGNAGE NOT BEING REQUESTED HERE, I. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST REMOVE BOTH OF THOSE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AND THEN YOU JUST COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND THAT'S PREPARED TO BE REVIEWED. SO ITEMS TWO AND THREE, WHAT'S THAT. ITEMS TWO AND THREE. AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. EXACTLY. YEAH. SO YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO SEE SIGNS. AND THAT'S A LOT OF WORK THAT'S GOING TO GO ON FOR THAT FUTURE BASE. AND WHENEVER THAT'S READY TO ROLL, I HAD A REAL QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A CAMPUS GROWING CAMPUS AND EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK THE SAME, THE BASIS OF DESIGN FOR THE WALL PANELS AND THE ROOF PANELS FOR THE THREE STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED ARE ALL DIFFERENT, AND I'M SURE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO LOOK VERY CLOSE TO THE SAME, BUT THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS. IS THAT BEEN REVIEWED BY YOU GUYS? EVERYBODY'S COOL WITH IT. I MEAN, IT MAY NOT BE A BIG DEAL, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D BRING IT UP. THERE'S DIFFERENT MATERIALS BEING USED FOR THE ROOFS OF BOTH THE STRUCTURE AND THE STORAGE STRUCTURE AND SAYING THAT WALL PANELS. SO THE CITY ARCHITECT REVIEWED ALL THE ELEVATIONS AND HE HAD NO COMMENTS ON THEM. WE WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD FIT THE ESTHETIC AND THE CHARACTER OF THE FARM STYLE THAT'S OUT THERE. AND MAYBE THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THEM LOOK SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT BUT STILL VERY, VERY SIMILAR. SO OKAY, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION ALSO. AND TALKING TO CHIEF JONES ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SO NUMBER TWO, I THINK WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT JUST COMING BACK. AND THEN NO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SIGNAGE ON THIS BUILDING SO THAT ONE CAN JUST GO AWAY AS WELL. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? I THINK WE'RE READY FOR MOTION. I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF ARB OH SIX 2026. AND THE REQUESTED WAIVER THEREIN. JUST REAL QUICK, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. YOU JUST [00:40:08] WANT TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT JUST BEFORE WE. OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT. OH, GOOD. GOOD REMINDER. THANK YOU. I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF ARB OH SIX 2026. AND THE WAIVER REQUESTED THEREIN. ON WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE ANY ROOF MOUNTED OR GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. THE AWNINGS OVER THE TWO DOORS ARE FIVE SLASH 12 AND NUMBER THREE THAT. THE CENTER DOOR ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION ADDS A55 SLASH 12 AWNING MATCHING THE ONES ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. I'D LIKE TO ADD NUMBER FOUR THAT THE APPROPRIATE HEADLIGHT SCREENING PER CODE IS ADDED TO THE EAST END OF THE PARKING LOT. YES. AND CONSIDER THAT PART OF MY MOTION, PLEASE. I'LL SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MISTER. YES, MISS MOORE? YES, MR. HUTCHINSON. YES, MR. STROLLER? YES. MR. BROWN. YES, MR. DAVEY, ABSTAIN. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH SIX VOTES TO APPROVE THE WAIVER, TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THE WAIVER WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED HERE AT THE MEETING. THANK YOU. NOW, MOVING ON TO ARB 24, 2026, THE PUBLIC SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. I, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THAT RELATED TO, I NOTICED IN OUR IN OUR PACKET, THERE WAS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM DAVE WARD AND IT REFERENCED SETBACKS. YEAH. IS THAT DID PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE CARE OF THAT? THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH US. SO THAT THAT LETTER CAME FROM DAVE. BEFORE STAFF HAD EVALUATED DEEPLY THE THE SETBACK FOR THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND TALKING WITH OUR ZONING ATTORNEY, THE SETBACKS FOR THE OVERALL CAMPUS IS WHAT'S REALLY EVALUATED IN THE CODE. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S C THE POLICE FOR THE SORRY, THE SERVICE FACILITY IS ALREADY ZONED C F THE PARCEL NEXT NEXT TO THE SERVICE FACILITY IS ALSO ZONED C F. SO IT'S COUNTED AS LIKE A WHOLE CAMPUS AND NOT A SINGULAR PARCEL. SO THERE'S NO SETBACK ISSUES BUT. CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. AND I HAVE THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. I THOUGHT I HAVE NO COMMENTS. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. I NOTICED THAT THE PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY WILL CONSIST OF FAUX SHUTTERS, ALTHOUGH I SAW NO FAUX SHUTTERS WERE THOSE REMOVED AND DECORATIVE CUPOLAS, WHICH ARE CLEARLY MATCHING THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS. I THINK THEY'RE RENDERED. OR MAYBE JUST NOT CLEAR. BUT YES, I THINK THESE ARE THE FAUX SHUTTERS THAT CAN BREAK UP THE MASSING ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING HERE. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE FACING. THOSE ARE ACTUAL WINDOWS. THOSE ARE OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH, OKAY. I THOUGHT THEY WERE LIKE LIKE LITTLE CURTAINS AND STUFF. I WAS KIND OF VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT. LOVELY BUILDING. I HAVE NO COMMENTS MYSELF ON THE BUILDING. LOOKS GREAT. I'VE ALREADY DONE MY WORK WITH MOTION. I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY ELSE'S ANYONE FOR THE PUBLIC. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? I'LL MOVE TO SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ARB APPLICATION. ARB 24 2026. SECOND, I WAS BORN ON THE SECOND. MR. MR. STROLLER? YES. MISS MOORE. YES. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. HENSON. YES. MR. BROWN. YES. MR. DAVID. YES. MR. MALITZ. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. NOW, MOVING ON TO 25, 2026, WHICH IS THE RESTROOM FACILITY CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? WOULD IT BE IN A VERY NICE BATHROOM FACILITY? LOOKING FORWARD TO USING IT. MY ONLY COMMENT IS, I [00:45:10] THINK ONCE AGAIN, ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. THERE'S NOTHING REQUESTED. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE NEED THAT CONDITION. BUT YEAH, IT'LL JUST BE THE TYPICAL REGULATORY GENDER IDENTIFICATION, SIGNAGE, SIGNAGE. IT'S LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SIGN OUT FRONT, BUT I WOULDN'T THINK. BUT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO NAME IT, YOU KNOW, THE RESTROOM AND PUT A SIGN ON THE ROAD, THEY CAN COME BACK TO THE NEW TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. SO BROWN. RIGHT, EXACTLYLYLYLYLYLYK YOU. SORRY. WHERE IS IT? I SEE THE APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION, BUT IT'S HIGHLIGHTS A LARGE PORTION. THANK. YEAH. SO IT'S OKAY THERE. SO THE WATER FOUNTAIN AND THE DOORS ARE FACING EAST AROUND THIS. SO THIS IS REALLY THE BACK OF THE BUILDING HERE WHERE THERE'S LIKE A SERVICE ENTRANCE. PERFECT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE ARB 25 DASH 2026. I'LL SECOND. PLEASE, MR. BROWN YES. MR. DAVIS. YES. MISS MOORE. YES. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. HENSON. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. MALIK. YES, YES. ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU EVERYONE. IT'S GREAT SEEING YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. DELIGHTED TO SEE YOU. MOVING ON TO ARB 13, 2026 IS BAR SIGNAGE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. APPLICANT SIGN. KYLEE COCHRAN TO HAVE STAFF REPORT. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 160 WEST MAIN STREET. AND AS YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS HAD COME IN FOR A RENAMING TO THE GODDESS MAINTENANCE CO IN MAY OF 2025 AND BEFORE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CALLED THE W NAIL BAR. SO WE'RE JUST GOING BACK A DIFFERENT NAME AGAIN. SO LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED WALL SIGN, IT LOOKS MORE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS W NAIL BAR SIGN THAN THE CURRENT SIGN ON THE BUILDING. THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL BE 26.63FT■!S AND LOCATED ALONG THE WEST MAIN STREET FRONTAGE, AND THERE ARE EXISTING GOOSENECK LIGHTING. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE THAT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE SIGN, AND IT IS MATCHING SIGNS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. NOW, LOOKING AT THE WINDOW SIGN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TOTAL OF THREE WINDOW SIGNS ON THE SAME NUMBER THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE BUILDING. FOR SOME BACKGROUND, THE WINDOW SIGNS WERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED IN 2021 AND THE 2021 PERMIT, WITH A WAIVER TO HAVE FOUR SIGNS THAT WERE LARGER THAN ALLOWED BY CODE AND THE APPLICANT. THAT WAIVER WAS DENIED. THE APPLICANT HAS HAD THREE WINDOW SIGNS THAT ARE MEETING CODE SIZE REQUIREMENTS SINCE 2021, AND HAS CHANGED THEM WITH THE RENAMINGS IN THOSE WISHING TO DO THE SAME. AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. ALTHOUGH MEETING CODE LIMITS MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE THAN NECESSARY WITH HAVING THE TWO WINDOW SIGNS AND THE WALL SIGN ON THE SAME FRONTAGE, THE WINDOW SIGN WILL BE 28 BY 17.54IN AND BEING UNDER THE MAXIMUM 15% WINDOW AREA COVERAGE AS REQUIRED BY CODE AND THE SIGN WILL ONLY BE WHITE LOGO WITH THE WHITE LETTERING. THE BLACK BACKGROUND IS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE IMAGERY. AND THEN JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. SO THE GODDESS MAINTENANCE CODE ON THE LEFT IS THE EXISTING SIGN, AND THEN THE W NAIL BAR IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. AND THEN THE SAME FOR THE EXISTING WINDOW SIGNS RIGHT NOW AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IN SUMMARY, THE SIGN DOES APPEAR TO BE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED IN SIZE TO FIT THE DESIGN OF THE STOREFRONT. THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. ALTHOUGH MEETING CODE LIMITS MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE THAN NECESSARY IN THE SIGN, SIGNS ARE SIMILAR TO EXISTING SIGNS IN THE AREA AS WELL AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNS FOR THIS PROPERTY ITSELF. AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ONE QUICK QUESTION IS THE GODDESS THE SIGN? THE GODDESS SIGN THAT'S THERE NOW IT'S TALLER, NOT AS WIDE. YES, THAT'S EXISTING NOW. YEP. OKAY. [00:50:03] SO ANY CONCERN AT ALL THAT THERE MIGHT BE VISIBLE FASTENERS OR DAMAGE TO THE MASONRY THAT WILL NOW BE VISIBLE WITH A NEW SIGN? THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS TALL. I THINK THAT THE LAST TIME WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW, MISS MOORE ACTUALLY PUT A CONDITION THAT THEY FIXED THE STAIRS. I WOULD ECHO MISS MOORE'S REQUEST ONCE AGAIN. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I DO HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT ON SCREEN, I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE THE WET. YOU INDICATED THAT WAS THE WEST ELEVATION, BUT THE CURRENT, THE THE OLD W NAIL BAR SIGN THAT WAS FACING THERE A WALL SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION? SORRY, IT'S RUNNING ALONG WEST MAIN STREET. THAT MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN A TYPO. OKAY, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A TWO SIDED. YES. THERE'S NO WALL SIGN ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE, JUST THE SIGN JUST ON THE ON THE WHAT I'M CALLING THE EAST ELEVATION OF THAT STRUCTURE. YES. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. SEEING NONE I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A OR B 13 2026. SECOND. MR. HENSON YES. MR. BROWN YES. MR. DAVIES YES. MR. MALITZ YES. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MISS MOORE. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO RB 18, 2026 FOR THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION PARKING LOT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. WE HAVE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. SO THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION IS REQUESTING A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT TO BE LOCATED IN THE AREA OUTLINED HERE IN YELLOW. THIS AREA IS WHERE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PARISH LIFE CENTER BUILDING IS TO BE LOCATED, AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT APPLICATION PACKAGE. SORRY, THE CHURCH IS ASKING FOR THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT UNTIL THE FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARISH LIFE CENTER CAN BEGIN. SO JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND REFRESHING, THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION. AND THIS IS WHERE THE PARISH LIFE CENTER IS LOCATED, WHICH IS WHERE THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT WILL BE PLACED. AND THEN THIS JUST SHOWS IT WITH THAT TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING. THE PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE ASPHALT, AND IT DOES MEET THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND THERE IS NO PROPOSED LIGHTING AT THIS TIME. THE CHURCH DID PROVIDE A PARKING JUSTIFICATION LETTER THAT EXPLAINS THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT WILL ALLOW THE CHURCH AND SCHOOL TO CONTINUE OPERATING EFFECTIVELY, WHILE THE CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDRAISING IS GOING ON. DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, STAFF NOTED THAT CHAPTER 1167 .03 H OUTLINES REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY PARKING LOTS, INCLUDING THAT SUCH LOTS MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SITE AND PRIMARILY SORRY OF THE PRIMARY PROJECT. COMPLY WITH SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND BE PROPERLY GRADED. MEET APPLICABLE LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE STANDARDS AND BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM DURATION OF THREE YEARS. THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY PARKING LOT GENERALLY DOES MEET ALL OF THESE CODE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CODE. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR REMOVAL, ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE PARISH LIFE BUILDING HAVE BEEN APPROVED, CONSTRUCTION IS CONTINGENT UPON SECURING ADDITIONAL FUNDING, LEAVING THE PROJECT SCHEDULE UNCERTAIN. AS A RESULT, THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE PARKING LOT CANNOT BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME. SO DUE TO THIS, STAFF IS SUGGESTING THAT THE PARKING LOT BE EVALUATED TONIGHT AS A PERMANENT PARKING LOT AS TO AVOID THE TIMELINE ISSUES, AND THIS WILL REQUIRE THE CHURCH TO COME BACK AGAIN FOR A RE-APPROVAL OF THE PARISH LIFE CENTER AT A LATER DATE. ONCE THE FUNDING IS SECURED. IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED LOT WILL BE PAVED WITH ASPHALT AND INCLUDE LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PARKING AREAS ON SITE, ENSURING A COHESIVE APPEARANCE. GIVEN THE SHARED USE OF THE PARKING BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL, THE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL SPACES WILL HELP ACCOMMODATE BOTH USERS, PARTICULARLY DURING ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND THE TEMPORARY LOT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT'S DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY WITH THE SURROUNDING SITE. AND I'M HERE AS WELL AS [00:55:04] THE APPLICANT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SO. A QUESTION, IF WE APPROVE THIS AS A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AND WE PUT TEMPORARY PARKING LOT IN OUR APPROVAL, DOESN'T THAT BY DEFINITION MEAN IT'S A THREE YEAR APPROVAL? YES. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUGGESTING HAVING IT AS THE PERMANENT PARKING LOT INSTEAD, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SURE IF THEY WILL HAVE THE FUNDING WITHIN THE THREE YEARS. AND THE CODE STATES THAT THEY CANNOT COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION, SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR A PERMANENT PARKING LOT, THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR A PERMANENT ONE LATER. I MEAN, I'D RATHER RATHER THAN HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LIFE CENTER AGAIN, I'D RATHER JUST HAVE YOU COME AND ASK FOR A PERMANENT PARKING LOT. LIKE WHAT? THE APPLICANT SPEAK. BUT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LIFE CENTER AGAIN. THANK YOU. SUZANNE LARSEN, CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, 6300 EAST DUBLIN, GRANVILLE. SO WE CAME TO YOU WITH THE ENTIRE PLAN LAST YEAR, WHATEVER IT WAS, ALL CONTINGENT ON FUNDRAISING. CURRENTLY, YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SITE. WE NEED ABOUT ANOTHER $15 MILLION TO STAND UP THE PARISH LIFE CENTER. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT TO LEAVE IT IN THE CURRENT CONDITION. IT IS NOW IS NOT USEFUL FOR US, NOR WOULD THE CITY BE HAPPY THAT WE LEFT UGLY PARKING. RIGHT? SO CURRENTLY THAT PAVEMENT IS BEING RIPPED UP AS WE SPEAK WITH THE SCHOOL THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL. WE STILL WILL BE ABLE TO HELP THE SCHOOL WITH EXTENDED PARKING FOR THEIR STUDENTS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE TEMPORARY MOVED IN PERMANENT. IN THREE YEARS, WE COULD BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THREE YEARS WE WILL BE READY TO HAVE A BUILDING PERSONAL OWNER. I THINK THEY WOULD AGREE SO IT WILL LOOK SEAMLESS LIKE THE REST OF THE LOT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING AND FOLLOW ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE BASED ON CITY REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, SO DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU RAISE, MAYBE IT LOOKS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MONEY OU RAISE, MAYBE IT'S DIFFERENT. YEAH. AND AGAIN, YEAH, THINGS COULD CHANGE IN THREE YEARS. A LOT OF THINGS COULD CHANGE. SO. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY LOT BEING REDEFINED AS PERMANENT THAT DOESN'T MEET CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE PAVING DEPTH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IS EVERYTHING CONSISTENT? YES, EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT. YEAH. OKAY. THIS MAY NOT MATTER. I MEAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WHY WAS IT NOT? COULD IT HAVE JUST BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AS A PERMANENT PARKING LOT? YES IT COULD. I THINK IT WAS MORE OF WE, THE THE THREE YEAR TIME LIMIT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AFTER THE APPLICATION HAD COME IN AND AFTER SHARING IT, IT WAS KIND OF THINGS WERE OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. FROM THE OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED THAT BUILDING. WE WE NEED THE SPACE. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. SO. OKAY, SO IS YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE A PERMANENT PARKING LOT AND HAVE TO BRING THE LIFE CENTER BACK? OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR. WE WOULD LOVE NOT TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN THREE YEARS. HAVE YOU GUYS MAKE IT A PERMANENT LOT IN THREE YEARS? THE EXPECTATION FOR THAT SITE COULD CHANGE. WHEN WE BROUGHT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT TO YOU, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF IS THAT THE RIGHT SPACE ON THE LOT FOR THAT? IN THREE YEARS, A LOT OF THINGS COULD CHANGE, SO IT WOULD JUST BE EASIER TO HAVE IT PERMANENT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M GLAD YOU TORE IT UP. I JUST TORE UP THE PARKING LOT. NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ONE BACK IN, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, IT NEEDS TO BE REDONE. IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN ON THAT SITE, THE PARKING TO THE WEST IS GRADING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER, RIGHT? YEAH. SO. MY ONLY QUESTION IS CIVIL ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED FROM A STORMWATER PERSPECTIVE, EVERYTHING IS COOL WITH THAT, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. I'M GOING AFTER THE. THE CONDITIONS TONIGHT SINCE NO LIGHTING IS BEING REQUESTED AND NO SIGNAGE IS BEING REQUESTED. I THINK WE JUST DROPPED THOSE CONDITIONS. AND IF YOU EVER WANT TO ASK FOR THAT, YOU CAN COME BACK AGAIN. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. OUR PLAN IS THOUGH TO INCLUDE LIGHTING IN THERE BECAUSE I CAN'T HAVE THAT PART OF OUR SITE DARK. OKAY. AND WE WILL HAVE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE LIKE WE HAD BEFORE WE STARTED THE PROJECT. SO I'M FINE WITH THE SIGNAGE COMING BACK AND ASKING WHOEVER DOES OUR SIGNAGE, BUT WE WILL. I THINK THE PLAN IS LIGHTING. I BELIEVE WE HAVE LIGHTING INTENDED. YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY APPROVE THE LOT. AND THEN IF YOU GET THE LIGHTING AND THE LANDSCAPING OR WHATEVER ELSE SIGNAGE PUT TOGETHER, YOU CAN COME BACK AND. OKAY. YEAH. SO YOU'D LIKE TO SEE A LIGHTING PLAN IS WHAT I HEAR. I LOVE TO SEE YOU GUYS COME BACK TO THE BOARD. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST OUR OUR AMAZING STAFF. THAT'S FINE. [01:00:02] THAT'S MY OPINION. SO WE'RE REALLY NOT APPROVING A OR B 18, 20, 25. WE'RE ACTUALLY APPROVING A WE'RE APPROVING THE LOT DESCRIBED IN ARB 18 ACTUALLY, HANG ON. WE HAVE TWO THINGS. 1820, 26 SORRY, THE THE SUGGESTED MOTION HAD 25 IN IT, BUT IT'S REALLY. 1820, 26 WE'RE APPROVING THE THE PARKING LOT DESCRIBED IN 18 2026 AS A PERMANENT LOT, BECAUSE THE ACTUAL APPLICATION HERE TALKS ABOUT A TEMPORARY LOT. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. WE'RE APPROVING A PERMANENT ONE. YES. OKAY. ANY ANY PUBLIC HERE, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? SURE. KEN WOULD SUPPORT THE PARTY. YEAH. HEARING NONE, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE OF THE PARKING LOT DESCRIBED IN ARB 18 DASH 2026 AS A PERMANENT PARKING LOT PERIOD. SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. HENSON. YES. MISS MOORE. YES. MR. DAVID. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. MALLET YES. MR. BROWN YES, THE AYES HAVE IT. ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE PERMANENT PARKING LOT. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO RB 21, 2026 FOR THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION SIGN CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. YES. THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN, AT THE CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION, THEY ARE REQUESTING A WALL PLAQUE ON THEIR NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING, WHICH IS OUTLINED HERE IN YELLOW FOLLOWING A REQUEST MADE BY THE FIRE MARSHAL DURING AN INSPECTION. LOOKING AT THE BALLPARK, THE PROPOSED PLAQUE WOULD BE SIX FEET, SORRY, SIX SQUARE FEET AND HAS NO LIGHTING PROPOSED. THE SIGN WILL BE MADE OF METAL AND HAVE A WHITE BACKGROUND WITH BLACK LETTERING, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN MEETS ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS. IT WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE WEST FACING FACADE OF THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING ALONG MORGAN ROAD. THE PROPOSED SIGN APPEARS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPACE, SINCE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING AND THE SIGN IS FOR IDENTIFICATION AS REQUESTED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND APPEARS TO FIT WITH THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING AND SITE AS A WHOLE. AND I'M HEARING, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. NO, I HAVEI MOVE APPROVAL OF A OR B 21 DASH 2026 SECOND. MR. BROWN YES, MR. DAVIS. YES. MISS MOORE YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. MALLETS YES. MR. HENSON YES. MR. ITEM. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SIGN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO RB 20, 2026 FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, RELOCATIONS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WAIVERS. THE APPLICANT, SHAW ARCHITECTS. CAN WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES, ABSOLUTELY. AS YOU SAID, THIS IS FOR THE RELOCATION OF A PRESS BOX AND STORAGE STRUCTURE IN THE NAPLES CAMPUS AREA. THIS INCLUDES TWO PARCELS WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN RED HERE WITHIN THE NAPLES CAMPUS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. SO THE STRATEGIC PLAN IDENTIFIES THESE AREAS FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AND FOR CAMPUS FUTURE LAND USES. THIS APPLICATION IS IN REGARDS TO TWO STRUCTURES CURRENTLY ON THE HIGH SCHOOL SITE, WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE STRUCTURES IN THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE AREA WAS RECENTLY APPROVED AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW NAPLES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SO STRUCTURES ARE BEING MOVED TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE. A STORAGE STRUCTURE WAS HERE NEAR THE SOFTBALL FIELDS SHOWN IN BLUE, AND A PRESS BOX WAS HERE NEXT TO THE DUGOUT AT THE BASEBALL FIELD SHOWN IN RED. THE PRESS BOX CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD IN 2019. WE COULDN'T FIND A COA ON FILE FOR THE STORAGE STRUCTURE, THOUGH HISTORICAL IMAGERY DID SUGGEST IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE EARLY 2022. A SET OF BLEACHERS IS ALSO BEING RELOCATED TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE. THE STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED TO BE MOVED TO THESE LOCATIONS AGAIN. THE STORAGE STRUCTURE IN BLUE HERE BETWEEN THE SOFTBALL FIELDS AND THE PRESS BOX IN RED. HERE NEXT TO THE FOOTBALL FIELD, THERE ARE UNIQUE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS HERE. ACCORDING TO THE CODIFIED [01:05:01] DEFINITIONS, THE FRONT YARD OF THE LOT IS THE PORTION ON A PUBLIC STREET. HOWEVER, THIS PRIVATE DRIVE, IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE, SO THERE'S NOT A DESIGNATED FRONTAGE TO THE LOTS AND THUS NO DESIGNATED FRONT, SIDE OR REAR SETBACKS. TYPICALLY, THIS SORT OF USE IS SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITE AS A WHOLE, RATHER THAN IN PARCELS, AND THE LOCATIONS OF THE STRUCTURES ARE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE USE OF THE SITE IN THE OPEN SPACE THAT COMPRISES IT. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE STORAGE STRUCTURE NEAR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SOFTBALL FIELDS AND THE PRESS BOX NEAR THE FOOTBALL FIELDS. THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE STRUCTURES. THE PRESS BOX SHOWN IN TWO PARTS. IT WILL BE STACKED WHEN IT'S PUT IN PLACE.N HERE. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 525FT■!S AND BOTH STRUCTURES ARE APPROPRIATELY USING MORE MODEST VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DGS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE EXISTINGTRUCTUTRUCTURE NEAR THE SITE, WHICH I HAVE SHOWN HERE. SIMILARLY, THE PRESS BOX ALSO APPROPRIATE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECREATIONAL SITE. IT IS 240FT■!S, ABOUT 21.5FT TALL. IT HAS WHITE VERTICALLY ORIENTED STEEL SIDING, WHICH MATCHES THE VERTICAL SIDING OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, WHICH I'VE ALSO PICTURED HERE. BOTH STRUCTURES ARE SET BACK WELL OVER 500FT FROM THE NEAREST PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS NEW ALBANY CONDUIT ROAD. YEAH. AGAIN, HERE ARE THE WAIVER STANDARDS THAT WE WANT TO ABIDE BY. AND THERE ARE TWO WAIVERS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED HERE. FIRST IS TO THE STORAGE STRUCTURE SIZE. THE URBAN CENTER CODE ALLOWS STRUCTURES TO BE NO MORE THAN 500FT■!S. THE INTENT IS TO ENSURE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DO NOT DOMINATE THE LOT, AND TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT IN A CONSISTENT SCALE AND FORM. IN THE UNIQUE CONTEXT OF THE LARGE SOFTBALL FIELDS AND OPEN SPACE, THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT APPEAR OVERSIZE AND WITHOUT ANY PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, IT WILL NOT DOMINATE THE SITE OR CAUSE EXCESSIVE LOT COVERAGE. IT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH CODE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE DGRS. CONSIDERING LARGE OPEN RECREATIONAL CONTEXT OF THE SITE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE STANDARD, THE STRUCTURE STILL PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT. THE SECOND WAIVER IS FOR THE PRESS BOX. IT IS TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE GARDEN STRUCTURE ON A SINGLE PARCEL. THE URBAN CENTER CODE CURRENTLY ONLY ALLOWS ONE AND THEY WANT TO HEAR. THE INTENT IS SIMILAR TO THE MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT. IT IS TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE COVERAGE AND TO ENSURE CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. THE INTENT IS MET AS MULTIPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LACK OF MAJOR STRUCTURES ENCROACHED UPON. THE RECREATIONAL AND CAMPUS SETUP OF THE SITE AND THE LARGE OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT. SO TO REITERATE, THESE SITES ARE UNIQUE IN THEIR SIZE AND COMPOSITION, AND WAIVERS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS DUE TO THE UNUSUAL SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. I INCLUDED THESE PHOTOS FROM THE URBAN CENTER CODE BECAUSE IT STATES EARLY ON IN THAT IN THE BOOK THAT THE IMAGES SHOWN THE MAIN INTENT, THEY SHOWED THE MAIN INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE INTENT OF THESE STANDARDS, THEN, IS TO REGULATE THESE SECONDARY STRUCTURES TO A LARGER MAIN BUILDING ON A DENSER, SMALLER LOT. THERE IS NO PRIMARY BUILDING THAT COULD LEAD TO OVERCROWDING ON THE LARGE LOTS. THE RECREATIONAL USE OF THE AREA IS APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATELY SERVED BY THE RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH CODE. THERE IS A SINGLE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. UPON OUR REVIEW, WE FOUND THAT THERE ARE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING WHICH WERE NOT APPROVED IN THE COA IN 2019, SO WE HAVE INCLUDED THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT IT WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PRESS BOX, OR THE APPLICANT WILL RETURN TO THE IRB FOR A CODE FOR THE SIGNAGE. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ONE QUESTION I REMEMBER. I REMEMBER THE PRESS BOX. I THINK THE OTHER 1ST MAY HAVE JUST HAPPENED, BUT FOR THE PRESS BOX I. HOW DO YOU GET UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR? THERE ARE GOING TO BE STAIRS NEXT TO IT, WHICH WE'RE CONDITIONED FOR APPROVAL IN 2019, JUST TO BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. THEY COME OUT, I WOULD SAY I TRY TO REMEMBER HOW FAR THEY COME OUT. IT'S LIKE AN ALUMINUM ARE EXTANT. THEY JUST DON'T. I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE OF THEM. THEY'RE THERE. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO REATTACH THEM. OKAY. THEY MIGHT I THINK THEY'RE IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE IN THIS. OF COURSE THEY'RE SO TINY. BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE ZOOM. OKAY, BUT BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO THEY, THEY DESTROYED THEM AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE NEW STAIRS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE SOMEWHERE IN THAT PICTURE IN THE SITE PLAN. THEY ARE THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED AT THE MOMENT OR IF THEY'RE BEING BUILT INTO THE STAIRS. WE APPROVED. THEY WERE [01:10:01] INCLUDED. YEAH. OKAY. I HAD ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. THE SOFTBALL FIELDS, THE SITE PLAN, AND I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS C 110 LANDSCAPE PLAN INDICATES THE LOCATION AND IT'S DIMENSIONED OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF CONCRETE PAD OR THERE WAS NOTHING INDICATED? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME PLEASE? YEAH. SO IF THERE WEREN'T A CONCRETE PAD, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD. BUT BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE A CONCRETE PAD FOR BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, IT WILL NEED A BUILDING PERMIT. AND SO THIS IS HERE TONIGHT. AND IS THAT PAD PROPOSED OR IS IT EXISTING. IT IS PROPOSED. OKAY. THE THE THERE WAS A NOTE ON WHERE THE PRESS BOX GOES. PRESS BOX IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED THAT SAYS EXISTING CONCRETE WALK. SO THAT WON'T BE THAT'S EXISTING. THAT WON'T CHANGE FOR THE PRESS BOX. I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER BUILDING, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A NEW CONCRETE PAD. YES. AND WILL IT WILL IT EXTEND BEYOND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FACILITY AND BY HOW MUCH? YES. LET ME PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK. YOU KNOW, FOUR FEET. OKAY. ON ALL SIDES. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU. MY COMPLIMENTS TO STAFF ON THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVERS. WELL DONE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. AS AS MR. WAIVER. I'M GOOD WITH THIS. YEAH. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? THEY ALL LEFT. HEARING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IRB 20 2026 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PRESS BOX, OR THE APPLICANT SHALL RETURN TO THE ARB FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. FOR THE SIGNAGE, I WILL. SECOND. MR. ITEM. YES, MISS MOORE? YES. MR. HENSON YES. MR. BROWN YES. MR. MULLINS. YES. MR. STROLLER. YES. MR. DAVIS. YES. ANY OTHER [VIII. Poll members for comment] BUSINESS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. I HAVE A COMMENT AND THAT IS I'D LIKE STAFF TO SEND A LETTER TO CVS PHARMACY. OH THANK YOU. I JUST THEIR SIGNAGE IS NOT WHAT WE APPROVED. IT SAYS HARMACY. IT SAID THAT FOR MONTHS. I'M TIRED OF LOOKING AT IT AND THEY NEED TO EITHER TAKE IT DOWN COMPLETELY OR FIX IT ONE OF THE TWO AND CLEAN THE PIER LIKE WE ASKED FOR YEARS AGO WHEN WE APPROVED IT. PUT IT UP. YEAH. THANK YOU. SECOND DAD. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION, MR. HENSON. YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. DAVIES. YES, MR. MALIK. YES, MISS MOORE. YES. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.