[I. Call to order ]
[00:00:03]
READY? YES. COMMISSION MEMBERS READY? YEP. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MONDAY, JUNE THE 15TH, 2026. THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. KIRBY. PRESENT. MR. WALLACE. PRESENT. MISS. BRIGGS. HERE. DOCTOR. SEIGEL. HERE. MR. LARSON. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER.
WILTROUT HERE. FIVE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY, THANKS. ITEM
[III. Action on minutes: May 18, 2026]
THREE. ACTION ON THE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? YES, I HAVE ONE CORRECTION. FOR THE VOTE ON THE HAMLET PHASE THREE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION ON THE VOTE ON THE MOTION. THE NOTES INDICATE THAT MR. KIRBY VOTED YES FIRST, BUT IT WAS DOCTOR SIEGEL. OTHER THAN THAT, NO CORRECTIONS, NOTHING. THAT'S FOR ME. I HAVE ONE ON PAGE ONE. CALL TO ORDER.MONDAY, MAY 18TH. THE DATE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO MAY 18TH. 18 AND 19. YEAH. AND ON PAGE FOUR. SECOND LAST PARAGRAPH, THE FDP 31. IT SAYS 20206. THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO 2026. PAGE FOUR. SECOND LAST PARAGRAPH THE BOTTOM. OKAY. THANK YOU. 26.
YEAH. OTHER CORRECTIONS. A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY MEETING. MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 18TH, 2026 MEETING AS CORRECTED. SECOND. A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ON THE MINUTES. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. WALLACE. YES. MR. LARSON. YES, DOCTOR. SEIGEL. YES. MISS. BRIGGS. YES. MR. KIRBY YES, YES, I HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES
[IV. Additions or corrections to the agenda]
WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA? NONE FROM STAFF. OKAY. WHATEVER. I'M WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT.PLEASE RISE. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. LET US ALL SILENCE OUR PHONES. ITEM FIVE IS HEARING OF VISITORS FOR ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
[VI. Cases]
DO WE HAVE ANY SUCH VISITORS? SEEING NONE, WE MOVE TO OUR CASES. OUR FIRST CASE IS ZONING CHANGE 33 2026 YEAR FROM STAFF, PLEASE. YES. SO THIS IS A REZONING OF 22.6 ACRES FROM BOTH AG AND LCOD TO IPD TO BE KNOWN AS THE BEECH INTERCHANGE. SOUTHEAST EXPANSION. SO THE LOCATION HERE ON THE ZONING DISTRICT IS GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST AND ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 161 AND BEECH ROAD INTERCHANGE, AND THE NEIGHBORING USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS INCLUDE L, G, E AND I PUD. THE SITE IS MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, WITH THREE LOTS HAVING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THEM. AND THEN JUST TO CALL OUT 9.6 ACRES, WHICH IS THIS LOT HERE. AND THEN THIS LITTLE RECTANGLE HERE ARE ACTIVELY BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. SO THAT'S THE LOTS THAT ARE COMING IN, AND THE REST OF IT IS ALREADY IN THE CITY. AND THEN JUST AS A REMINDER THAT IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED TONIGHT, THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW FOR ITS FIRST READING. SO THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CONTAINS THE SAME LIST OF PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES AS OTHER SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS, SUCH AS THE EAST BEACH INTERCHANGE SOUTHWEST ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH CAN BE SEEN HERE. SO AGAIN, THE BLUE LOTS HERE ARE ALREADY IN THE CITY, AND THEN THE ONE WITHOUT A BACKGROUND WILL BE THE ONES ANNEXED IN. SO THE SETBACKS FOR THIS REZONING FOR STATE ROUTE 161, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A ZERO FOOT SETBACK FOR LUCILLE LIND. THERE WILL BE A 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR BUILDING AND PAVEMENT FROM THE EXISTING CENTER LINE. WORTHINGTON ROAD WILL HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK AND A 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. AND THEN FOR THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, THERE WILL BE A 25 FOOT SETBACK AND 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, AND THEN THE WESTERN BOUNDARY WILL HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK. AND THESE DO MATCH THE SUGGESTIONS THE APPLICANT AND AND THE CITY CREATED FOR THE AREA, WHICH I WILL GO OVER MORE IN THE NEXT CASE THAT WE GO OVER. OVERALL, THE ZONING DISTRICT FACILITATES THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUSINESS AND RETAIL USES, AND. THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CONTAINS A SIMILAR LIST OF PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES AS OTHER SIMILAR ZONING TEXTS IN THE PROPOSED TEXT IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE ENVISION, EMPLOYMENT AND MANUFACTURING USES FOR THE[00:05:03]
AREA IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THE ONLY CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE FROM ENGINEERING, SO I WILL LET THEM ADDRESS THEM. ENGINEERING? YES. 50FT OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. BE DEDICATED, MEASURED FROM THE ROAD CENTER LINE ALONG LUCILLE LIND ROAD AND THE PARCEL FRONTAGE. PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT ALL EXISTING PRIVATE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE PERMIT SUBMISSION. PROVIDE TRAFFIC STUDY. TREE STUDY, PHOTOMETRIC AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT ODOT AND THE EPA HAVE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE PROJECT. THANK YOU.WRITTEN UP. SOME OF THOSE WERE. HE WAS. SOME OF THOSE GOT CALLED OUT, GOT COMBINED. YES.
FROM THE APPLICANT. TOM RUBY, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT WITH SMALL COMPANY. WOULD YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE AERIAL. THERE WE GO. SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF ON THIS PROJECT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. QUITE SOME TIME I'M GOING TO SAY 4 OR 5 MONTHS NOW. AND IT STARTED WITH WITH DETERMINING ANNEXATION. WHAT AREAS ARE GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS OVERALL PROJECT AND WHAT IS NOT. THERE'S ACTUALLY A ZONING OF THAT BRIGHT GREEN AREA THAT WAS DONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. YOU MAY REMEMBER, FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THE STRATEGIC PLAN ACTUALLY SHOWS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL USES. COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL USES, EXTENDING TO A POINT ROUGHLY HERE, SO THAT EVERYTHING FRONTING ON BEACH ROAD WITHIN THIS ZONE WOULD ALLOW FREEWAY ORIENTED USES. MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE CITY. AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING LUCILLE LIND ROAD, IS THIS ALL GOING TO BE ANNEXED? IS IT NOT GOING TO BE ANNEXED? ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, YOU'LL NOTICE, TALKED ABOUT DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY. WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY DONE THAT TRAFFIC STUDY AND WORKED WITH CITY STAFF ON THAT. AS A RESULT OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, A REQUEST WAS MADE THAT LUCILLE LIND ACTUALLY BE EXTENDED DOWN IN THIS CONFIGURATION, LOOPING INTO WORTHINGTON ROAD. THAT ROAD SECTION WILL BE IN STAFF. I'M SAYING SOMETHING WRONG. WE DISAGREE. PLEASE SPEAK UP THAT THAT ROAD SECTION BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY PUBLIC SPECS. 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. I FORGET THE DIMENSION OF. THERE WERE 24FT IN WIDTH, CURVED GUTTERS, ALL THAT JAZZ. LUCILLE LIND ROAD, IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS DOES NOT MEET THOSE SPECS.
SO AS WE WENT THROUGH THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND THROUGH THE STUDY TO TO COME UP WITH WHERE WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR THIS ZONING REQUEST, A REQUEST WAS MADE THAT WE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL ORIENTED RETAIL USES TO ONLY THE WEST SIDE OF THAT ROAD, NOT THE LARGER AREA. AS AS WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THAT THE BALANCE OF THE SITE. BOTH THIS GREEN AND BLUE AREA, AS WELL AS THE AREA ON THE NORTH OF LUCILLE LIND ROAD, BE TAX GENERATING, YOU KNOW, USES FOR, FOR, FOR THE CITY. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND I THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS YOU START LOOKING INTO THIS. ALL OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH. THE SETBACKS. I SUGGESTED THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION HAS SUGGESTED THIS IS AN OLD TOWNSHIP ROAD. SO THE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS A LITTLE WONKY. SO WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE WORKING THROUGH STAFF AS WE STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT SO THAT IN FACT, IT IS A TOTAL OF 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY AS MEASURED FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THAT ROAD. WE WILL THEN COME BACK TO THE CITY WHEN THERE ULTIMATELY IS AN END USER WITH ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS AS WE WORK THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER WITH THOSE THOSE ISSUES, IT LOOKS LIKE DATA CENTER USES ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE PROPOSED TEXT. CORRECT. OKAY. THEY'RE PROHIBITED IN THE NEW PART. YES, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TOO. IT SAYS THAT THEIR DATA CENTERS USE IS. CAN BE UP TO 20% OF IT AS LONG AS IT
[00:10:02]
SUPPORTS THE, THE USE. AND SO WE DID A ZONING IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO UP NEAR 62 AND BEACH ROAD, WE WERE ASKED TO COME UP WITH A, A SOLUTION FOR DATA CENTERS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THEY WANT ME TO BE THE PRIMARY USE. AND WE CAME UP WITH THAT LANGUAGE AND SO ON. THE LAST COUPLE OF LG ZONINGS WE'VE DONE SINCE THEN, WE'VE WE'VE ALLOWED THIS JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE USERS THAT SOMETIMES WANT TO HAVE THEIR OWN DATA CENTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND THIS WOULD ALLOW THAT. BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT YOU CAN'T JUST BUILD THE DATA CENTER FIRST. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ANOTHER BUILDING IN PLACE OR IN PROCESS BEFORE YOU COULD YOU COULD DO THAT. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED. IT'S NOT THE PRIMARY USE OF OF THE FACILITY THAT'S LIMITED TO 2,020% HAVE TO BE AN ACCESSORY COMPONENT TO THE OVERALL MAJORITY USE. YEAH. AND THEN IT SAYS IT'S NOT OPERATED PRIMARILY TO SERVE USES, BUT IT WOULD BE OPERATED ONLY TO SERVE THE USES ON THIS PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO YOU COULD TAKE THE WORD PRIMARILY OUT, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT IT COULD SUPPLEMENT SOMETHING TO A SMALL EXTENT. RIGHT? YES. SO I WOULD SUGGEST TAKING PRIMARILY OUT AND THEN YOU SHOULD BE FINE. CORRECT. THAT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE TEXT. FIRST PARAGRAPH. JUST ANOTHER NOTE ON THE SETBACKS. ONE OF THE ONLY REASON WE'RE DOING A PUD HERE RATHER THAN A STRAIGHT LG IS BECAUSE THE SETBACK CONDITION ALONG STATE ROUTE 161 AND WORKING WITH STAFF, WE DETERMINED IT TO BE ZERO. IT'S KIND OF STRANGELY SHAPED AREA UP THERE. THERE'S PLENTY OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG 161 TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DISTANCING FROM THE ROADWAY, BUT WE'RE KIND OF GETTING SQUEEZED THERE ON SOME TEST FITS OF BUILDINGS. WE NEEDED THAT FLEXIBILITY. AS TOM MENTIONED, THERE'S SOME A FEW JOGS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY HERE. WE'VE GOT TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE COULD NOT GET WE COULDN'T GIVE OURSELVES RELIEF FROM UNDERLYING CODE WITH A LIMITATION TEXT. SO WE DID THE PUD. BUT WE ALSO. IT'S ALSO GOING TO FUNCTION BASICALLY LIKE AN LG WHERE THERE'S NO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMING THROUGH THIS COMMISSION. ONE OTHER JUST SORRY, ONE OTHER BACKGROUND PIECE OF INFORMATION I THINK IS HELPFUL AS THE COMMISSION EVALUATES THE APPLICATION. WE ACTUALLY HAD A USER AT ONE POINT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO FOR THE FOR THAT GREEN AREA. AND IT BECAME VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IT WAS THE ANALYSIS OF THAT WAS BEING DONE. I'M GOING TO SAY, IN A VACUUM, RIGHT, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE SITE CIRCULATION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, VEHICULAR CIRCULATION FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT, IT BECAME QUITE DIFFICULT AND LIMITING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PIECE. SO THAT'S REALLY THE IMPETUS. WHAT BROUGHT US HERE TO COME TO YOU WITH A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT ALL OF THE GROUND THAT WE OWN WITHIN THIS AREA, UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THOSE THINGS. STORMWATER WILL BE HANDLED REGIONALLY. THERE'S A BIG OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT THAT YOU CAN SEE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH THROUGH THE THE WESTERN THIRD OF THE SITE. AND SITE ACCESS OBVIOUSLY IS A REAL TRICKY ISSUE. SO THAT AS WE DUG INTO THAT, IT BECAME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT EXTENDING LUCILLE LIND ROAD DOWN, CONNECTING IT INTO WORTHINGTON WOULD BE CRITICAL FOR FOR THESE USES AND THE SITE TO TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, THE CITY MADE THAT REQUEST OF US. WE WILL BE DOING THAT. SO WE'LL CERTAINLY BE BACK HERE BEFORE YOU WITH A PLAN FOR THE EXTENSION OF THAT ROAD AND ULTIMATELY THE OVERALL CIRCULATION. YOU SAID THAT THE IT'S AN OLD ROAD AND NOT UP TO CITY STREET STANDARDS. YEAH. I SHOULDN'T SAY IT'S NOT UP TO CITY STREET STANDARDS. IT'S AN OLD COUNTY ROAD. I BELIEVE THE CITY INTENDS ON GOING IN AND RESURFACING IT AT SOME POINT, NOT REBUILDING IT AS IF IT WERE A NEW ROAD, AS WE WILL NEED TO WHEN WE COME IN WITH THE LUCILLE LIND ROAD EXTENSION, IT WILL NOT BE BUILT CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECS OF EXISTING LUCILLE LIND. IT WILL BE BUILT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY SPECS FOR NEW ROADS. BUT WHAT WHAT PARTS? AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT'S THE BASE, WHAT'S THE. THERE ARE CURBS. I KNOW THAT OKAY. SHOULDERS. YOU SAID TOWNSHIP ROAD EARLIER ON AND I WAS THINKING THERE'S A LOT OF LESS THAN STELLAR TOWNSHIP ROADS OUT THERE. YEAH, YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A PLAN TO RESURFACE THE ROAD. YEP. THAT'S RIGHT. YEP.AND WE'LL DO AN EVALUATION. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE ROAD IS NOT IN HORRIBLE CONDITION BY ANY MEANS, BUT IT WILL BE LOOKED AT FOR RESURFACING. JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS THE IS THE EXTENSION GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING ROAD WHEN IT'S. YES.
WELL, WELL AGAIN, WE'LL COME BEFORE YOU WITH A PLAN. THE PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
[00:15:09]
HAS THIS AS A THREE LANE SECTION TO ALLOW TURNING MOVEMENTS. AGAIN THE THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL PIECE LIMITED TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE, WILL ALL FEED INTO ONE CURB CUT ONTO WORTHINGTON ROAD SO THAT LUCILLE LIND EXTENSION WILL SERVE AS A PUBLICLY DEDICATED ROAD FOR. ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC TO FUNNEL INTO. IT WILL BE BUILT TO A STANDARD NEW ALBANY SPEC, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE EXISTING LUCILLE LIND ROAD IS PRIMARILY CURBS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT PAVEMENT WIDTH. KNOW WHAT I WHAT I'M WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS IF YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CIRCULATE THROUGH THE SITE. YES. RIGHT. SO ARE YOU GOING TO GET A THIRD OF THE WAY THROUGH THE SITE, AT THE TOP, AT THE NORTH PART, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENT ROAD. NO CURBS, NO SIDEWALKS, JUST I MEAN, TO ME, THAT STRIKES ME AS NOT WHAT WE WANT IN THE CITY, BUT. WELL, THE EXTENSION OF PATHS AND STREET TREES AND SETBACKS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS WILL BE THE SAME. HOW THAT NEW ROAD IS BLENDED INTO THE NEW LUCILINBURHUC. NO ONE'S DONE ANY ENGINEERING TO DETERMINE THAT YET. WE'LL CERTAINLY BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE CITY STAFF WHEN THAT IS READY TO COME BEFORE THEM AND BEFORE YOU. I IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS OR NOT. BUT NO, YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. BUT THAT'S OKAY. WE COULD SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A CHANGE IN PAVEMENT WIDTH. IF THAT'S NOT YES, AS WIDE AS, SAY, INNOVATION OR SOME OTHER ROAD THAT THE NEW ROAD WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 12FT IN WIDTH. OKAY. IS THE CITY SPEC. SO YOU YOU WON'T SEE US COMING IN ASKING FOR VARIANCES TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDARD IS FOR THAT EXTENSION. LUCILLE. BUT I'M NOT WORRIED. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE EXTENSION. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD THE EXTENSION TO AS YOU'VE COMMITTED TO THE TO THE CITY STANDARDS. BUT WHAT I'M WONDERING IS ONCE YOU GET THE EXISTING ROADWAY IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT. AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF I GUESS WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT WHEN WE GET THE PLOT. AND WE COULD PROBABLY DISCUSS WHETHER THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF RETROFIT TO THE EXISTING ROAD TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE OLD ROAD, EXISTING ROAD HAS TO BE DEALT WITH HERE. WELL, IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN QUICK, AS TOM MENTIONED AND KYLIE MENTIONED EARLIER IN OUR PRESENTATION, WE DID. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH NICO PRETTY EXTENSIVELY, AS WELL AS MK SK TO STUDY ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ROADWAY SECTIONS. THE NEXT APPLICATION ACTUALLY INCLUDES THOSE STANDARDS OF WHAT THOSE ROADS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT KYLIE PUT ON YOUR DESK JUST MINUTES AGO, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE THE ROAD WILL BE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARILY LAID OUT, AS WELL AS THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS FOR THE ROADS. YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD WHAT WE WOULD CALL OLD LUCILLE ROAD, THE TRANSITION AND HOW THAT TRANSITIONS INTO THE NEW SECTION. WE WANT TO DO THAT CAREFULLY AS YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, CAUSING OR CALLING ATTENTION TO HERE TONIGHT. BUT SOME OF THAT WORK IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED, BUT THERE IS AT LEAST A FRAMEWORK IN PLACE TO GUIDE THOSE FUTURE DECISIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS. WE IT'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE CAN'T DEMAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXTENSION BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING RESOLVED THAT THE GREEN PARTS NOT BEING REZONED. WE HAVE THE ASSURANCE, BUT WE CANNOT DEMAND IT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT THIS PROPERTY. BOTH THE NEW ALBANY COMPANY'S APPLICATION THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW AND THE NEXT APPLICATION REFER TO THIS DOCUMENT. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE THESE STANDARDS TO BE IN PLACE. SURE. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE NEW ROAD, AND I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL GET EXTENDED. ALL THE REST, IF WE WANTED TO MANDATE REBUILDING, SAY, OF THE EXISTING ROAD TO THE CURRENT STANDARD WHILE WE'RE REZONING BOTH SIDES OF IT WOULD BE THE TIME TO MAKE SUCH REQUESTS. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING, A THAT WE CAN DEMAND. AND I DON'T SEE LEGAL STAFF HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD WELL ENOUGH TO BE TO KNOW IF IT'S WORTH DEMANDING. MY QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE A REBUILD OF PART OF THIS ROAD IN OUR FUTURE? AND IF SO, WHAT TRIGGERS IT? YEAH, FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ROAD NEEDS TO BE REBUILT. WHAT WE DO, WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, IS MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE STREETSCAPE AMENITIES GET INSTALLED. SO TREE, LAWN, HORSE FENCE, LEISURE TRAIL. AND THIS DOCUMENT DOES REQUIRE ALL THOSE THINGS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE WHOLE THING. CORRECT? YEAH. AND I WILL ALSO SAY TOO QUICKLY, THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE'VE APPROACHED BUILDING THESE AMENITIES ON OTHER ROADS IN THE MEDIA AREA LIKE WORTHINGTON ROAD. WHAT YOU'LL SEE DEVELOPED ON LUCILLE LIND ROAD IS VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE'VE HANDLED THOSE OLDER ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BUSINESS PARK WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD, THERE'S A LARGER SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STREET CURVE OR THE STREET EDGE AND THE LEISURE TRAIL. YOU KIND OF HAVE TO FIT IT IN WHERE YOU CAN, WHERE THERE'S RIGHT OF WAY. BUT WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD. IT'S MORE JUST MAKING SURE THE[00:20:03]
STREETS COMMUNITIES ARE INSTALLED OKAY. AND WITH THE TEXT THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK TO THE WEST WAS THE BASIS FOR THIS ONE. SO THOSE SAME COMMITMENTS THAT ARE IN THAT TEXT ARE IN THIS ONE. YEP. AND THE CITY STANDARD FOR ROAD IS THE LANES ARE 12FT. IS THAT THE STANDARD? THAT'S CORRECT FOR NEW ROADS. YEP. OKAY. SO THIS SECTION IS EXISTING AT LEAST FOR A PORTION OF IT WOULD BE 11FT WIDE. SO YOU'D BE ONE FOOT ONE FOOT NARROWER. THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH WILL BE THE SAME YOU HEARD IN THE STAFF REPORT THE 50 FOOT FROM FROM CENTER LINE. SO THAT DIMENSION WILL REMAIN THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AT THE INTERSECTION, WE'LL HAVE TO WIDEN OUT TO ACCOMMODATE TURN IN THERE. SO THE TOP PART WHERE CARS PASS EACH OTHER, IT'LL BE 11FT EACH WAY VERSUS 12. YEAH. AND THAT ENGINEERING WISE IT'S FINE. YEAH. WE HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THAT. NO. OKAY. A BIG YELLOW ARROW THAT TELLS PEOPLE THAT'S NARROWING UP. I'M BEING A LITTLE FACETIOUS. I WAS GONNA SAY I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M NOT. BUT AS YOU CAN TELL, I'M NOT REALLY I HAVEN'T SEEN IT, BUT I'M NOT A FAN OF THIS. BUT BUT THE CITY IS NOT THAT CONCERNED ABOUT IT, I GUESS. I GUESS, AND, AND NEIL'S QUESTION IS NOT I'M NOT SURE I QUITE HEARD THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE. WHETHER WE HAD THE CAPABILITY OF MAKING SUCH A REQUIREMENT IF WE WANTED IF WE WANTED THE LANES TO BE 12 INSTEAD OF 11, IF WE WANTED IT TO BE A CONTINUOUS VISUAL ROADWAY THAT DIDN'T HAVE A CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, IF WE WERE TO IF WE HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO THAT, I, I THINK YOU GUYS CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. OBVIOUSLY, BULLDOZING THE ROAD AND REDOING THE WHOLE THING WOULD BE ALSO VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE FOR A PROJECT FOR THE CITY TO TAKE ON SO THAT THAT COST IMPLICATION OF THAT WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH HOW THE ROAD TODAY. YEAH, WE HAVE REQUIRED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF ZONING BEFORE YOU HAVE. AND I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY, SINCE IT'S A ZONING APPLICATION, WOULD BE A COUNCIL FUNDING DECISION. AND AGAIN, I'M SORRY, ONE LAST THING. AND I'LL. BE BEYOND WHAT WHAT THIS COMMISSION'S PREVIEW IS, BUT CERTAINLY PART OF THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DID WITH MK, SK AND THE CITY STAFF, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTING SHORTLY, IS IS A A REQUEST OF US TO EXTEND. LUCILLE LYNN, I TOLD YOU BEFORE THERE WAS THERE WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS IMMINENT THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE IN THE GREEN AREA THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED NOTHING. WE COULD HAVE COME IN AND JUST PULLED A BUILDING PERMIT WAS THE WRONG THING TO DO. THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE CONVERSATION.WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AREA REGIONALLY. WE WILL BE PAYING FOR PLANNING AND BUILDING, BEARING THE EXPENSE OF EXTENDING LUCILLE LYNN ROAD. IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL. THE CITY IS COMMITTED TO A RESURFACING AND IMPROVEMENT TO LUCILLE LYNN ROAD, BUT IS NOT WILLING. AND WE HAVEN'T REQUESTED BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ARE TELLING US NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO LUCILLE LAND BEYOND ITS EXISTING CONDITION. I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE BEYOND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE REZONING, BUT IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. I'VE TALKED ABOUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT GO BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS SITE, BUT THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND IT, THE REASONING BEHIND IT, IS WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND AND. MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO DO. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. ANY FROM THE PUBLIC? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT YOU EXPLAINED THAT, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE STATE ROUTE 161 HOW IT HAS TO BE ZERO SETBACK ON THE BEACH INTERCHANGE SOUTHEAST. THERE IS SETBACK OF 25 AND 50 FOOT. TAKE ME THROUGH THIS DIAGRAM. WHY? WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL REASON WHY THEY CANNOT BE A SETBACK ALONG 161. SO TO BE CLEAR, THE ZERO FOOT SETBACK IS FOR BUILDING IS IS FOR PAVEMENT. THERE'S A BUILDING SETBACK. I BELIEVE IT'S 25FT, BUT THE PAVEMENT SETBACK WOULD BE ZERO IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED. SO JUST CHECK. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT WAS GIVEN. IT'S BOTH. WE CAN WE CAN WE CAN COMMIT TO A 25 FOOT BUILDING. YEAH. THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD PUT THAT. AS LONG AS THERE'S A ZERO FOOT PAVEMENT SETBACK. WE WENT THROUGH A SERIES OF ANALYZES FOR IS THIS GOING TO FIT JUST THINGS GOING TO FIT? HOW IS THIS GOING TO WORK COMPREHENSIVELY? THE. THERE IS VERY LITTLE GRADE CHANGE
[00:25:01]
BETWEEN THE. THE PAD, THE AREAS THAT ARE BEING REZONED AND. 161 THERE'S A FAIRLY WIDE BERM ALONG. 161 THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING OR THINGS THAT MAY NEED TO BE INSTALLED. ONCE WE HAVE A PLAN OR SOMETHING TO RESPOND TO. SO THAT WAS THE BASIS BEHIND IT. HAPPY TO ADD THAT CONDITION OF A BUILDING SETBACK OF 25FT, IF THAT'S OKAY.THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YEAH. AND THIS STUDY BY MKSK IMPACTS THAT ROAD. THAT'S PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY WASN'T DONE BY THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE BY M T AND REVIEWED BY THE CITY STAFF. THE MKSK ANALYSIS LOOKED AT AS YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY HERE ROAD SECTIONS FOR LUCILLE LIND. IT TOOK THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND THEN TURNED THAT INTO AN OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS. OKAY, I DON'T THINK STORMWATER SHOWS UP IN THAT, BUT THERE IS A PAGE ON REGIONAL STORMWATER AS WELL. AND JUST KIND OF PUTS FORTH THE FRAMEWORK FOR RIGHT OF WAYS AND LEISURE TRAILS AND FENCING, TREE LINES AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. IT INCLUDES WORTHINGTON ROAD AS WELL AS THE EXISTING LUCILLE ROAD AND THE PROPOSED. OKAY, ARE WE GOING TO SEE THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS ONE, OR IS THAT AFTER IT FEELS LIKE IT WOULD, IT RELATES, AND I WOULD BE NICE TO SAY IT AHEAD. WE COULD. YEAH, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE PRESENTATION IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE. WE CAN DO WE NEED TO TABLE THIS AND THEN COME BACK TO IT OR NO, KEEP THIS IN THE MOTION. WE WILL KEEP STRAIGHT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WHAT WE'VE DONE, LIKE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND OTHER THINGS WHERE WE'VE DONE IT SIMULTANEOUSLY, LIKE VARIANCES. AND YEAH, THAT'S BEEN DONE AS, AS A COMBINED HEARING. AND THEN WE BREAK THEM BACK OUT INTO SEPARATE MOTIONS WITH DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. OKAY. QUICK QUESTIONS. TOM, WOULD YOU COMMIT AS A CONDITION TO IMPROVING THE EXISTING ROADWAY TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE TWO B TO BE ADDED ROADWAY? IF STAFF INDICATED IN THE FUTURE THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND AND WANTED THAT. NO, I COULD NOT COMMIT TO THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT I'D ASK. I THOUGHT I'D ASK BECAUSE YOU ASKED TO SEE IF YOU WOULD WOULD COMMIT TO THAT. RIGHT NOW, STAFF IS SAYING THEY DON'T THEY DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. AND THEY EVEN THOUGH SOME COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE INDICATED SOME INTEREST IN THAT STAFF IS NOT INDICATED THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK IS IS IMPORTANT AT THIS POINT. IT IS. IN LICKING COUNTY. I'M ALWAYS SENSITIVE TO. TO THE APPLICATIONS IN LICKING COUNTY AND MAKING SURE THEY DON'T LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THE APPLICATIONS AND THE RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN FRANKLIN COUNTY AND CITY IN THAT PART OF THE CITY. SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS. SO I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD COMMIT TO THAT.
AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN THAT'S THAT'S FINE. I ASKED YEAH, AGAIN, A LOT THE NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN GOING ON WITH STAFF. WERE HERE BEFORE YOU PRESENTING THE RESULTS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ANDOME THINGS WE C. OTHERS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GROUND THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THERE IS A CITY RESPONSIBILITY, THERE'S A DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY, AND I AM HAPPY WITH WHERE THINGS CAME OUT. AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THINGS LAND HERE AS WE AS WE PROGRESS THROUGH THE APPLICATION. RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND I GET IT. THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, EXCEPT THAT THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO, TO DO SOMETHING YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IN THAT AREA BECAUSE BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE WHAT WAS EMERALD STORAGE? I THINK IT WAS CALLED PREMIER STORAGE NOW. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE ONE. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. IT'S ALSO CAUSED QUITE A BIT OF CONSTERNATION WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, ALL THAT ACCESS. HOW THAT FOLDS IN CONTINUES TO BE A BIT OF A OF A DIFFICULTY. BUT I THINK AS YOU'LL SEE, WE'VE COME UP WITH A GOOD SOLUTION. LET ME I'M BEATING A DEAD HORSE HERE A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU HAD BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THAT PIECE, WOULD YOUR POSITION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? PROBABLY NOT. PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S AN EXISTING ROAD. IT USED TO. SO IT HAS THE EMERALD STORAGE. THERE WERE SOME OLD 1950S 1960S HOMES. THERE WAS A FRUIT FARM IN ONE LOCATION. SO THE EXISTING ROAD IS NOT IN BAD SHAPE. IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S HAD TRUCK TRAFFIC AND AND A LOT OF TRAFFIC. I DON'T ANTICIPATE
[00:30:02]
MOVING FORWARD THAT ULTIMATELY IT WILL HAVE A LOT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC. IN FACT, THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE ILLUSTRATES THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE RETAIL TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED FROM THIS PROJECT ON THE NEW ROAD, AND HOW THE INTERSECTION OF LUCILLE LIND AND WORTHINGTON ROAD WILL BE HANDLED. THE NEW INTERSECTION. THE INTERSECTION, YES, BUT THE THE EXISTING INTERSECTION IS GOING TO BE TWO. YEAH. YES. THE NEW ONE. YES.YES. YES. YES. CORRECT. SO YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THE RETAIL TRAFFIC IS GOING TO IS GOING TO ENTER ON THE NEW INTERSECTION IS GOING TO BE CREATED. THERE WILL BE NO CURB CUTS. AGAIN, THERE WILL BE NO CURB PART AS PART OF THIS STUDY, NO CURB CUTS HERE, NO CURB CUTS HERE. ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC WILL BE FUNNELED IN THROUGH A CONTROLLED INTERSECTION HERE.
BACKING INTO THOSE TWO. BUT WHAT I MEANT WAS, YOUR SENSE IS THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS SUGGESTING THAT MOST OF THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IS GOING TO BE THROUGH THE NEW ENTRANCE OFF WORTHINGTON ROAD, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ENTER ON THE OLD ENTRANCE, MOST LIKELY. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. OTHERS ON THIS. CAN WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TEXT MODIFICATION 39? AND TOM, LET ME JUST SAY I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR VERY MUCH. SO OF COURSE, CHAIRS AND STAFF. SO YES, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ZONING SECTION JUST TO THE WEST OF THE ONE WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT. SO THE TEXT MODIFICATION AND SETBACK DOCUMENT, WHICH YOU HAVE, ARE A RESULT OF A JOINT EFFORT UNDERTAKEN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE EXTENSION OF LUCILLE LIND AND SETBACKS AND STREETSCAPES. JUST AS A GOING THROUGH THE ZONING TEXT ITSELF, THE RED LINES, WE'RE JUST ADDING LUCILLE LIND ROAD INTO THE LIMITATIONS, AS WELL AS TAKING OUT THAT THEY CAN ONLY HAVE THE ONE FULL ACCESS. AND SO WE'LL BE GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE ZONING DISTRICT INSTEAD OF JUST AT THE NORTH SIDE. NOW. THIS ONE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO LOOK AT ON YOUR PACKET, JUST BECAUSE THE LINES AREN'T AS BRIGHT AS THEY APPEAR IN THE PRINTED VERSION. BUT THIS JUST SHOWS KIND OF THE GENERAL STREETSCAPE. STREET TREES ENVISIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT. AND THEN THIS IS JUST CALLING OUT THOSE SETBACKS THAT I DISCUSSED WITHIN THE FIRST REZONING, AND THAT ARE THE SAME IN THIS CURRENT ZONING. SO NOTHING WILL CHANGE THERE, AND THEY WILL BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE SITE. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE STREETSCAPES FOR THE NEW ADDITION TO LUCILLE LIND AND THEN THE EXISTING STREETSCAPES OR PROPOSED STREETSCAPES FOR THE EXISTING ROAD ARE IN THE PACKET. I DO NOT HAVE BLOWN UP VERSIONS OF THEM IN THE POWERPOINT. BUT WE CAN GO OVER MORE IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE OF AS TO WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE BUILT OR MODIFIED? IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN. I DON'T KNOW THAT NICO HAS A TIMELINE YET. WE WERE WAITING TO GET THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. WE HAVE NOT STARTED MARKETING THE RETAIL PIECES. THAT WILL BE THE TRIGGER, I THINK. OKAY, THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR US TO COME IN AND PLAT THE ROAD. AND WILL THOSE REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND THOSE? YEAH. SO WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMES IN FOR THOSE RETAIL PIECES, THAT WILL BE THE TRIGGER FOR, FOR PLANNING AND BUILDING THAT ROAD. OKAY. AND WOULD IT REQUIRE CHANGE OF ANY EXISTING SETBACKS OR JUST NEW SETBACKS WILL BE ADDED. IT WOULD BE THE NEW SETBACKS BECAUSE OF THE ROAD GOING THROUGH THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST? YEAH. CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WORTHINGTON ROAD HERE? SORRY.
ONE MORE TIME. SARAH. WHAT'S ON THE SOUTH EXACTLY IS THE AXIOM RECYCLING PLANT. PLANT. OKAY.
AND THIS IS THE A P SUBSTATION RIGHT DOWN HERE. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE IS BEING MARKETED OR NOT, BUT THIS MIGHT BE OWNED BY META. META OR NO, THAT'S OWNED BY THE LICKING RURAL ELECTRIFICATION COMPANY. SO THAT'S A SUBSTATION PARCEL AS WELL. THIS IS AN OPEN DEVELOPMENT SITE HERE. THIS IS THE CUPERTINO BUILDING HERE. THIS IS THE LICKING COUNTY PARK AND RIDE. THANK YOU. AND I GUESS THE FOLLOW UP. SO WHEN THE NEW INTERSECTION COMES IN THAT THERE WILL BE A LIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION. CORRECT. I, I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THE
[00:35:05]
TRAFFIC STUDY. I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE WAS WARRANTED, BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY WOULD PRESENT THAT INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR SURE.OKAY. WELL, YEAH, WE GET PLATS. SO YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. AND WE WOULD SHOW THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL. YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE KIND OF WORKING AHEAD OF OURSELVES, WHICH WE LIKE TO DO WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BUT THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU SEE ON THESE DRAWINGS, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF DRAWING YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE ON THE ON A PLAT APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE AND COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. SO ROADS GOING TO GET PLANTED, PLATTED, THE INFILL PUD, WHICH IS ALL OF THE GREEN ZONE IN OUR PRIOR DRAWINGS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, OWES US A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE RETAIL, THE RETAIL PORTIONS TO THE LGBT PERSONS JUST GET PERMITTED THROUGH OUR REGULAR PROCESS. AND CAN I POINT OUT THAT THAT GREEN AREA, ALL OF THAT ALLOWED RETAIL USES. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE RETAIL ENTITLEMENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WORTHINGTON ROAD, EAST OF BEECH ROAD THAT WE SAID, LET'S NOT DO THAT. LET'S AGAIN, LOOK AT THIS REGIONALLY AND LIMIT THE RETAIL TO THE AREA BETWEEN BEACH ROAD AND THE NEW LUCILLE LIND ROAD. ELIMINATE ALL OF THOSE OTHER. FREEWAY ORIENTED USES. RIGHT. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THIS THING. GREEN IS IPD. YES. AND MAKING SURE THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ANY OF THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED. AND SO WE WILL SEE A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON ANY OF THAT. THERE'S ALSO FOR RETAIL USES. CORRECT. AND JUST TO VISUALIZE THAT. SO THOSE RETAIL USES WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS NEW LUCILLE ROAD EXTENSION. THE REMAINDER OF THE BALANCE OF THIS GROUND WILL BE DEVELOPED AT WHAT GE USES, WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WE'LL STILL GO THROUGH THE SAME. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE USES, THE USES ARE UNDER THE ZONING. UNLESS THERE'S A SPLIT HERE. THAT'S. IF THIS IS CORRECT ON THIS ALL BEEN CORRECT. THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING IT SAYS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS COME TO US FOR THE RETAIL SECTIONS ONLY.
OKAY. IS THAT WRITTEN INTO OUR TEXT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THAT GOES TO BEING SHOVEL READY.
THE WHOLE THING WE ALWAYS DO WITH GE. YEAH. RIGHT. I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS CLEAR ON PROCESS. THAT'S COOL. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF INCONSISTENCY ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES. THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THERE ARE THREE HOMES ON THE LOT IN THE FIRST APPLICATION.
AND THEN AT THE IN THE SCHOOL LETTER IT SAYS FIVE HOMES OR FIVE LOTS. SO YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THERE. THERE USED TO BE SOME HOMES HERE THAT WERE PROBABLY DEMOLISHED, I WOULD SAY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS. SO YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE A DISCREPANCY THERE. IT' HARD TO SEE ON THIS IMAGE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY WERE LIKE JUST DEMOLISHED THERE. YES YOU DID. YEAH. OKAY. ALWAYS LOOKING. I'M ALWAYS LOOKING AT OLD AERIALS. YOU KNOW, I NEVER KNOW WHEN THE COUNTY IS UP TO DATE. SO THAT MIGHT BE WE'VE GOT THE NEW ONES. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? OKAY, THAT TAKES US BACK SO THAT WE'VE HEARD EVERYTHING. WE'VE GOT OUR QUESTIONS. I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR ZONING CHANGE. 33 2026. DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION? OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE, MR. KIRBY? YES. MISS. BRIGGS. YES. MR. LARSON.
YES. MR. WALLACE. YES, DOCTOR. YES. YES. MOTIONSESSES WITH ALL VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHO'S TAKING NOTES BESIDES ME ON ME. OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS A 25. BUILDING SETBACK WOULD BE 25FT. I HAVE 25. 61. RIGHT? RIGHT. THAT'S. YEAH, THAT IS MY FIRST ONE WAS THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS. B YES. AND I DID NOTICE INCLUDED. SO ENGINEERING IS THE FIRST CONDITION. SECOND WAS BRUCE'S COMMENT ABOUT PRIMARILY DROPPED OKAY ON PAGE TWO. AND THE THIRD ONE I HAD WAS THE BUILDING SETBACK AT 25FT ON THE 161 RIGHT OF WAY.
OKAY, THERE WE GO. OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR ZONING CHANGE 33. WHAT WAS THE ENGINEERING COMMENT? OH, ENGINEER'S COMMENTS BE ADDRESSED AS PART AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICATION Z, Z OR ZC332026. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT
[00:40:03]
AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS BE ADDRESSED. NUMBER TWO ON PAGE TWO I, I I THAT WE REMOVE THE WORD PRIMARILY AS IT RELATES TO DATA CENTERS AND ITEM NUMBER THREE, ALSO ON PAGE TWO, SECTION TWO, B ONE THAT THE BUILDING SETBACK IS 25FT MINIMUM ON THE 161 RIGHT AWAY ON THE SIX ONE. YES. OKAY. WE HEAR A SECOND, I SECOND.DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE ZONING CHANGE TO THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. LARSON. YES, DOCTOR.
SEIDEL. YES. MR. WALLACE. YES. YES. MR. KIRBY. YES, MISS BRIGGS. YES, YES. HAVE IT ALL VOTES TO RECOMMEND THE ZONING CHANGE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, ENGINEERS COMMENTS TO BE INCLUDED. NUMBER TWO, I, I, I. THE WORD PRIMARILY BE DELETED FROM PAGE TWO. THE ZONING TEXT AS IT RELATES TO DATA, DATA CENTERS. AND THE THIRD B ONE BUILDING SETBACK OF 25FT ON 161 RIGHT OF WAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORTS RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR THE TEXT MODIFICATION 39, NOTING THAT THAT INCLUDES WHAT WAS PASSED OUT TONIGHT. DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS? I SECOND.
DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS. MOTION THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. KIRBY. YES, DOCTOR. YES, MISS BRIGGS. YES. MR. WALLACE. YES. MR. LARSON. YES, YES. HAVE IT WITH ALL VOTES. GOOD. WITH THE DOCUMENTS AND NOTING THAT THE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN UPDATED, MR. KIRBY, I MIGHT HAVE. I MIGHT HAVE MISHEARD YOU, BUT DID YOU OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ONE? AND I KNOW YOU DID. FOR THE FIRST ONE. YES, I FOR BOTH OF THEM. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALLED FOR ON BOTH OF THEM. OKAY. JUST TO MAKE SURE. PRETTY SURE I DID. OKAY. THROW YOUR MOTION FOR THE TEXT MODIFICATION ITSELF. I MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICATION TM392026 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR THE MODIFICATION ROLL, PLEASE? YES, MR. LARSON YES. MR. KIRBY YES, MISS BRIGGS YES. MR. WALLACE. YES. YEAH, I HAVE IT WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE TEXT MODIFICATION. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? WE DO NOT PULL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT, BRUCE. OKAY, DAVE. NOTHING. NOTHING FOR ME, SIR. NO, NOTHING. OKAY
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.