Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready.

Hey Teresa, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Gladly. Chairman Steve Dyer, I'm here. Mark Linduski here. Ryan Heel, here. Kyle Cook here. McConnell, yes. Wow, everybody's here. This is fantastic. Um, public comments on items not on the agenda. I did not get any speaker slips. No speaker slips. Nobody's raising their hand. Let's go ahead and to approval of the minutes for March 10th, 2026. I'll motion to approve. I'll second. Mark second. Kyle Cook. Yes. Todd McConnell. I'm going to abstain since I wasn't here for that meeting. Okay. Ran Heel. Yes. Mark Solinski. Yes.

Dire. Yes. Thank you. Tabled application 9225 conditional use the wall mural. Are they here? Have we heard any updates? I emailed them and I left a voicemail and let them know, especially since it was at 5:00. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to dismiss. I will second it. All right. With prejudice. I think we did our due diligence. Yes. That was a motion by Kyle and a second by by Steve. Kyle Cook. Yes. McConnell. Yes. Ryan Hayden, yes. No. Steve Dyer. Yes. Jamie.

I was like, or if he walks in. I know, right? If you walked in the door like, wait, no. And anybody watching, we we we definitely think this is a great idea. We just need the applicants to be here to approve. So, it's been hopefully they reapply. It's been Sorry,

yeah, it's been so long and we keep printing it. It keeps showing up. It keeps taking effort and with our situation, I think I mean, hey, if you want to do it, come on in. We want to support it. If the community wants it, we wants it. Okay. Application 31226, approval of subdivision plot, 395 West Jersey Street. Um, where do we where can we start with that? Do we want to start with Jesse?

Yeah. Hey guys, this is a pretty easy one. We're doing a lot split down here, 395 Jersey. Um, pictured in your head, it's the city's water treatment plant next to JYAA. Um, you guys have a land swap deal. You guys are getting 8 acres from JA on the other side of Mink and you're giving them a half acre um on the front corner of that parcel. Um Trevor can speak to the zoning. I don't think there's any um the frontage requirements like it it'll be part of it. They won't JA won't be able to do a lot combination because part of the city's part is in the city and JYA is actually in the township, but in for all um purposes they're going to have it's just going to be JA is going to use that as part of a parking lot extension or something like that for their fields. Um they haven't said exactly how they're going to use it yet. I don't know if they have any plans how they're going to use it, but um that was just part of the land swap deal. So not a huge piece of property. Um and that's the background on on that.

It's right where the dumpster is, right? Yeah, it's the very front corner. So if if you if you're pulling in Jay's parking lot, there's that there's a little triangle there right where the city's property begins. Um there's I think if you drive by it now it looks like there's a driveway going up a construction driveway about where that that lot split will take place. So maybe this is a question for Trevor or you. Um so this is already approved by the city. The contract signed by the city. Um so the lot split has to be approved by you guys. Um the lot split's not approved by you but the contracts approved by council. Got it. And and the contract's already been approved by council last year. Yes. I can't answer that.

Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's that that was my only question. I know the landoft's already approved. Yeah. Cuz we're getting like where development behind tractor supply basically like the down in the ditch all the way back on the where it meets mink power lines. Basically it's over that way. There's 8 acres that we are getting from them in the exchange. Cool. So, does that mean if cars are broken into on the city side, the JPD needs to respond? If cars are broken into the other side, the JA needs to respond. The the county responds, the county responds. Yeah, the county. That's probably better. You said, I mean, that's their issue, ours. I don't think it's that's JYa, right? Yeah.

Right. But I think it's benefit for the JA and our community. I don't see any reason to object this. Thank you, Jesse. Any comments or questions from people on the board? Any comments from the public from the city? Does the city have any comments? No, he said he didn't have anything. So, I'll make a motion to approve application 9225 conditional use. I will second. Well, lot not a conditional lot. Oh, lot split. Sorry, I read the wrong one. All right. Dyer. Yes. Kyle Cook, yes. McConnell, yes. Ryan Heel,

yes. Yes. All right. Application 3626. Is that the right one? Yeah. Approval of subdivision. Uh 11 1943 Johntown Unica Road. This we talked about this at the last meeting. Is that correct? Yeah. It's the parcel that needs to go to Granville Milling to do their extension. Yeah. So, this is a followup of it. Um, well, you stood up, so let's let's go for it. Let's do it. Well, if you could stop, say your name. And

I'm Jamie McN with the property owner of the Johntown Land Company 2 LLC, which is this strip of land. It is 2 acres. 267 acres. Uh we were approached by the Granville Milling Company to accommodate their expansion and new plan which I believe uh was reviewed at planning previous planning commission. Um they asked if they could acquire a strip of land from the Johntown Land Company. Um and being good neighbors, we absolutely said yes, we'll accommodate it. So we gave them we're we're selling them the minimal amount of land that they need to accommodate their site plan. Uh this plan is this strip is currently in the Johntown plan development. Um but once the lot split is completed, we will then transfer it to Granville Milling and this then this lot will be combined with John St or this lot will be combined with Granville Milling's um existing property and these legal descriptions have been approved uh by the county.

Okay. Okay. Any questions? Do we need to do anything to ensure that it gets combined with Granville Millings?

So, I think there's I don't maybe this is my question for Trevor, but I believe that there's two two possible two ways we can do this. One, the lot split can be approved conditionally that that it will then be combined so that it has street frontage. There's another way that is more complicated which is the Granville Milling Company could establish a access easement to its existing property that goes to this strip of land. Then once they acquire the land, combine the parcels, they can then get rid of that access easement. So I think guess I think the easiest way is approve it. If the planning commission desires to approve it, the easiest thing to do is approve it. approve it conditionally.

Yeah, I think this is what we did with a different one that we they added a driveway between the two and it was and I would agree because it's on Jersey Street going through the process of obtaining an access easement and things like that, an access easement doesn't count or qualify as frontage based on the zoning code. So, it really kind of doesn't solve the problem. I think approving, if you all choose to do so, approving with a condition that it has to be combined with the Granville milling parcel as I believe was illustrated on the conditional use permit site plan. That I think would be the probably the best path forward. Obviousion of the right and that's what illustrated from my understanding on that conditional use permit site plan as well. So at least you have something that kind of binds it to that. Um it keeps them under the percentage of the coverage of the property is the main reason why they're doing it,

right? Mhm. and the 25 or whatever feet to the Yeah, the 25 ft for side. Um, is the is is the Green Rainbow Mill is that part of the light manufacturing district on that edge of town? It's not. I think it's in the GCC2 district. GCC2. Okay. I was trying to look at the map and I couldn't tell they could which one that that is.

Yeah. The other question I have is that I've seen opportunities presentations for a bypass from Clover Valley going possibly going that way. So if that happens there's there's one that goes I'm going to say to the south then one that goes to the north. that that goes that way. I thought that I understood that it would be through that area through uh Denny Dodson that may there may be something that goes up that way. It's a big swath that they want to do a bypass from Clever Valley.

I know that goes over Duncan Plains, but is that going to be an issue? Is that a is that a consideration in this case? I wouldn't think so. mainly because property transactions are going to happen along any potential major roadway corridor over time and if that corridor is ultimately selected the property owners at that time would have to be engaged to determine where exactly the future road goes. Okay. Um so no in this case I wouldn't I wouldn't consider that a primary consideration for this split. Yeah. And actually the I I think this might be uh the exhibit that you're referring to.

Yes. So the property in purple and pink and I believe this is only schematic but this was shared uh from the T. This actually runs of Grand Mill would not go through their property. Okay. Okay. I think everybody watching is going to want to see that schematic. I know it's strictly

throw it on social media. Yeah. Well, I've been in a meeting in in New Albany when they had presentation for that as well as the expansion or the proposal for 62, the widening 62. So, there was something that was there that talked about that as well. Um, and I had lots of questions for them when I was there, but I just didn't know if that was I think the the genesis of the lot is just uh to accommodate Granville Milling's program and setback requirements. So, and we want to help them out however we can. Yeah. Yeah. You technically go in their driveway. So, all right. Any questions for any other questions?

That's all that I have. T Can you explain that again? That's the Oh, uh county transportation improvement district. That's it. Thank you. They are the one there's uh planning and funding responsible for like just what he said transportation so they make the recommendations

they are for example uh Bill Loer is running that um and he's responsible for coordination and um obtaining funds whether it's grants or other mechanisms to do some of these improvement projects believe it was really um with Intel's development was kind of what pushing the T or um the creation of the T. Um but they are the ones that are going to be doing the roundabout at Mink and Duncan Plains. Okay. I like the T. Thank you. Um thanks Jamie. Anything from the city?

No, nothing else for me. Any public comments? Seeing none. Um, questions for the board. Todd, you weren't here last meeting, but so I was not here last meeting, so I don't know what was discussed from last meeting. They're doing an expansion on the side of their building to do a drive-thru for feed and liquor sales. And the lot split helps them do that because they don't meet the minimum edge requirement. Sounds great to me. Well, and Kyle talked about trees. So, yeah, talked about trees. I'm not usually the tree guy.

I'll make a motion to approve application 3-6-26 with the condition that they merge it into the their existing the newly created lot is merged with the Granville building property. Yes. I'll second. Mark Solinski, yes. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes. Todd McConnell, yes. Brian Heel, yes. Section 1159, light manufacturing amendments.

Here we are again. Um, everybody had a when this this was presented by Trevor I don't know if I ever actually presented that, but I did.

Well, it was emailed. That's what I was gonna say. It was emailed to Trevor uh or from Trevor to us. He wasn't able to attend the meeting, but now he's here. I think this is a great place to start. So, what I was going to do, if this is all right with you all, is I was going to kind of walk through why we're here, what the initial conversations with this body was, um the summary of discussion. I think I would like to hear from you all some about the summary of discussion from the March 10th meeting, uh because I wasn't able to be here. And then I have ideas for potential pathways forward, but I want to see how how the conversation goes and how that may change. So, um, unless anyone has any concerns or questions about that, I'm going to jump into it. Um, so why we're here, uh, just kind of starting over. We have a couple new PNZ members and this was started, I think at this point well over 15 months ago. So, it's been some time has elapsed since it first started. Um, so the PNZ brought up uh to me at some point that the existing uses primarily in the existing light manufacturing district are antiquated and they don't really allow for the types of businesses that had been trying to locate in where most of the LM zoning, which is the industrial park just to the north of us here. Um, so I was asked to come up with an, you know, come up with an some ideas that the group could discuss and that sort of thing. And so that's what I that's what I started doing. So I just wanted to relay from that. This was an initiative that was started by the planning and zoning commission. This was not based on an application that the city received or direction from city council. It was simply the PNZ looking out for the future of the city and trying to make the code better. Uh basically is is why we started with this. Um, when I initially started the initial conversations with the PNZ, what I first recommended was, hey, there's the city has a relatively recent comprehensive plan. At the time, it was very new. Um, why don't we start adjusting the zoning district boundaries as is recommended in the comprehensive plan, meaning some of

the properties in downtown will get reszoned from LM to something else, whatever that was deemed appropriate at the time. Same goes for a couple of parcels that are uh zoned out in but further on the eastern portion of that uh that don't that are adjacent to Sportsman's Club Road. I recommended reszoning those parcels, align everything with the comprehensive plan and then at that time you can update your zoning standards to allow whatever uses you want because the zoning would only be applied to those properties that are industrial in nature. That wasn't uh appealing to the planning and zoning commission. So we I recommended a different path of if we're going to open the door completely, let's have a better understanding by having the city do some sort of at least traffic study to understand how much the volume of traffic would be, the types of trucks, and what that would mean specifically for uh the intersection of 37 and 62 in downtown. This was all about the time that um the study the intersection study for 37 and 62 had been released. there were more accurate traffic counts and it was pretty obvious that there's not a whole lot of excess capacity in that intersection before something serious has to be done to to mitigate that. So the uh PNZ at the time was not comfortable just recommending doing a traffic study to city council of like, hey, let's do this traffic study to help us do the the um to update the code. So, my recommendation was if you want to try and kind of take a peek through the door but not fully open it, we could put some limitations on what properties are allowed to have these expanded uses. So, you know, frontage on certain roads, minimum lot sizes, things like that. That's how we essentially arrived at the ordinance that was initially recommended uh for approval to council in that it's really just the properties on Commerce Boulevard and uh 62 that have a certain

lot size that are able to utilize these expanded set of uses. Um so that's basically kind of a very quick overview of how we got to where we we are. My one critique of where we're at is while there is a traffic study requirement in there for any new development that that um it would be established even on um Commerce Boulevard R 62. There's a traffic study requirement in there, but the code as written currently doesn't do a great job or sorry, the code as proposed doesn't do a great job of setting up how those traffic studies are utilized. Um so that's kind of where we're at today. I'm happy to answer any questions you all have about any any of that thus far. And then what I would like to do is kind of get a summary of of what the discussion was that you all had at the last meeting. So at least I can get brought up to speed and kind of at least maybe provide some guidance if I have any. Um so before we jump into that, do you all have any questions about kind of how we got to where we are today?

Oh, that was a nice summary. Thank you. Um thank you. Yeah. is does anybody uh think objective to his summary? It's very very accurate. What would help me then understand because it wasn't I was at the city council meeting earlier this year where it was where this ordinance was recommended to be sent back to um this body, the the planning and zoning commission, but it wasn't overly clear to me the reasons behind that. Um, so I would like to hear from you all what you've heard and also what you discussed at the last meeting just so that again we're all on the same page and having the same conversation. So I think I'll turn

I can take the floor on that if you want to make it easy on everybody. Um the the main point is the two parcels that were there that are frontage to sportsman's club. Okay. Those were not included, right? Because we didn't include sportsman's club road. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. So that was one of the main pieces and then Endeavor Court was the other call out. Okay. as another road that we hadn't included in the list of streets that we had. Okay. And let's see. Sorry, I'm just I think part of it was just that we were missing some all-encompassing four potential plots. Now, you referenced the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan calls that out to be residential, which of course we can't force upon the land owners because it is not currently zoned as such. It that's true. Yep.

And they obviously don't have that intention because it is more marketable as LM. So that's where we're now looking at if we encompass those two lots, what do we do for sportsman's club that doesn't put 50 curb cuts on it? Sure. And can we limit how do we limit what does that all look like? As well as on Endeavor Court, uh taking into account the development that is currently over there at Conquer Crossing, not putting a 50ft tall building in somebody's backyard. Sure. Yeah, I have something too, but And you can add to that. feel free. Yeah. So, my to add to it for your big long answer is look, this got sent to city council. Ultimately, it sent it back and I think the reason it got sent back is a little unclear.

Fair. Okay. So, um we can make assumptions or whatever, but ultimately, uh we needed to make some changes to it. Mhm. Fair. So, um and while So, there Okay. Um anybody else? Well, yeah. So, and I think this is probably me and Todd's biggest confusion because I think you guys have been here. So, those roads were just put on there because you wanted and you kind of hit on it. I think this is what we've missed. We don't know what the traffic's going to be like downtown and basically you said if we take any more it's going to already overflow it potent. There's the potential for that just based on existing traffic patterns. I I can't

I know you but that's the study, right? And so then it was a test. So you're saying we're only going to let light manufacturing on these roads and and applying with this code on these roads because uh this will then see if we get more traffic or that that'll give us like a sense of what traffic might come if something does get built.

Correct. In the absence of the reason that we went the way that we did is a mo like most of what's built out in the industrial park is already along Commerce Boulevard or not everything but most of it is or has direct access to Commerce Boulevard. So the thought process was there. You already have most of the buildings that could be built out there. Some of them I think are vacant or aren't fully leased out and so maybe could be better utilized. But at least that way it was an incremental approach of let's try this first and if you know if we have problems in a few years then maybe we know not to do anything additional like open that door any further sort of thing which is why I approach it that way. But again, the reason that we approached it that way is because initially there wasn't the the will of the PNZ to recommend reszoning some of those parcels or to conduct a larger traffic study to understand regardless whether it's industrial or residential use, what does that do for some of the other intersections throughout the city. So that's the reason that's kind of why we are where we are today is because other options to have better understanding weren't explored I guess is the best way I can put that. Okay.

If we were to open up 62, can we make it a stipulation to where there has to be a traffic study with anything that has frontage on or I mean a sportsman club?

Sure. I think I think there though the reason I brought up my concerns with it's one thing to require traffic study but unless the city has some sort of mechanism or some sort of code or even even policy in place of how those the findings of those studies are addressed because let's say that you got five five parcels that are being built and the last guy in the door all of a sudden they trip a threshold that you need a new intersection upgrade and a traffic signal. Well, is the last guy in the door paying for all that or are the the five people that actually created the problem paying for it or is it just the city paying for it? That's I think the issue with having something like that in the code without having some stipulations as to how those things are addressed. Meaning, what's the share of the burden of the city? What's the share of the burden for the developer? I think those sorts of things need to be maybe flushed out given the fact that we know there's constraints already present in the transportation network in the city is kind of where at least from my perspective how I look at that. Um so I'll leave it at that if that answers your question.

Couldn't language be added to is it a conditional permit that we be written or just changing the language? No, it would be changing the language but so you would be changing the byite zoning. So, could the language include for those parcels that the scenario you described where that fifth one triggers the other four have to share the cost because they're going to share in the benefit? I I think you can codify that. Yes. I don't know if the zoning code is the most appropriate for and what I'm getting at is

if you're going if you're going to have this sort of program in place, you really should have it in place citywide. It should be if someone's going to build 400 single family homes, they shouldn't they be responsible for their impact? If that's if that's going to be the overall goal of the city, everybody kind of pays their their fair share, then it should be applied across the board. So that's why I'm thinking I don't know that this particular ordinance is the right mechanism or got to start somewhere. You do. I agree.

And I agree that it should be citywide, but that's a much larger step that will take some time to put in place. it is if but keep in mind nothing that and I I'll keep bringing this up because there is no application driving any of this. So you you can walk or run or crawl as fast as you want with this. Um I'm just trying to explain any potential concerns from a long range planning standpoint there are agree. So that's kind of where we're at now unless you all have anything else to add. Go ahead. Ryan does. Yeah. Do you want to go there? Mine's kind of like a different question. So if you want to

So I'll stay on that same vein then. So my concern to tack on what Brian was saying is there's three streets that are listed in here. According to the map that I have that has light manufacturing, there's more than three streets in each of the in different light manufacturing areas.

This is only specifying three streets that are in the to your point the the bigger areas there. sportsman's club is not listed in there right now. And I know that we have people that are concerned about that. Um, good or bad or whatever they're wanting to do with it, whatever that is. But we have other light manufacturing districts that are included in Johntown. If we don't include those street names, I'm not saying that something has to be built there and that people don't want things built. I get that because there's residential in those same areas,

but you either to me you either have to list all the streets that are within light manufacturing that will allow everything that's right being listed or list zero streets and just say in the light manufacturing district, this is what is allowed and leave it at that. So that if anything was to happen in those districts, it wouldn't be, oh, well, my street's not listed. I've got to go back, which they're probably going to have. I mean, they're going to need permits anyways to build something. They're going to I mean, that whole different structure, but that's where that's where I've been since I've read this.

And what you just described is far and away my preferred approach to do this. I don't like creating little location. I call them location criteria, listing certain streets, things like that. I don't like doing that. I don't particularly think it's a great way to do zoning, but again, I was doing what was requested based on, you know, we were trying to come to a solution based on conversations that we've been having. So, but in order to accomplish what you just listed, that would involve the steps of let's get rid of that LM zoning in areas where it doesn't really belong like the uh mobile home park near downtown, that's all LM like some of those areas. Street takes longer. It does. It takes longer, but there again, I recommended that I wasn't sorry, I went trying to cut you off. He had said something. So,

no, you're good. Um, no. And so that's why I recommended that as a starting point of like, hey, if you want to do this, let's just change the LM zoning district across the board by right, but before we do that, let's get rid of the LM where we don't want it. Um, and so that's that's where we kind of had a I guess a party, not a partying of ways, that's strong way to say, but like the the strategy changed once I once the uh commission talked about the process behind going through and reszoning those, which would be a lengthier process certainly. Um, it was relayed to me that the preference would be just to try and have those location criteria in the code as a way to, like I said, incrementally allow some change to happen on those existing buildings primarily uh, within the industrial park, but not fully open the door to allow anything anywhere within that industrial park.

I think that's kind of the main point of it, right? is to try to do something now so we can get things rolling because we know that's going to come a lot faster than and then we have time to continue on after and not those that are buted right up against residential cuz we were that was part of the original conversation too was how do we protect that part of light manufacturing from anything we put in here because we do want it to be more attractive but we don't want to we don't want to affect that in a negative way yeah and infringe on that and looking at that um there was some guidance in the sense that it will take longer to split If we go this route to where we list roads, then we can still be more attractive in this area while remaining protective of the residents in that one.

And and I think taking the time necessary to come up with a maybe a better overall solution. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. In the long run. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yeah. Yeah. And that's kind of where we went with it. And bringing back up the point that you made about traffic studies and tying that to it. There is a piece in here and I'm so I'm curious if this is covering what you are suggesting because under the site requirements um section five if a traffic study submitted by an applicant indicates a traffic signal or other improvements may need may be needed in agreement with Johntown shall be reached to determine how these improvements will be funded, installed, and maintained.

That was put in there. I think I put that language in there as as at least something to cover the city in those scenarios. But there again, I still think that that if you're negotiating site by not sight by sight, but like application by application, I feel like that would be very difficult to evaluate any of those requests in the future like evenly or fairly, I guess, is what I'm getting at is sure that like let's say the city has a good year and they're like, "Oh, no, like we can take 80% of installing this turn lane, but you know, 5 years down the road that's not the case." And they're like, "Oh, actually we can't help you at all." Like I just think having that's not in a long-term perspective like the best way to protect the city. And so yes, it's in there and yes, it says that the applicant and the city will come to an agreement, but it's that's where it stops. like there are no criteria of here's how the city should evaluate those and that like so if you're comfortable with that approach we can try and tighten up the traffic study language to maybe better protect the city overall as a incremental way before a wider impact study or something like that can be done um

yeah because it calls out anything over 20,000 ft as well so I think that's kind of the going size of anything that needs to go in there anyway most. Yeah, I would say even honestly even additions and things like that would probably be picked up in a in that especially in that district. Yeah. Yeah. I think as time goes on, right, I don't think that zoning is necessarily the one who should decide how responsible the city needs to be on that end of it, right? So, to try to like leave that like this I think is great and covers and how I'm hearing it. I don't think we should be making a fiscal responsibility for the city. Right. Do you want to talk about endeavor report?

Yeah, we can bring that up. And I wanted to try to encompass everybody in here too. I don't know if Mr. Sheridan, you've been with us for a few weeks now. If you've looked this over and kind of had some go, can I ask a question? Yeah, I was just asking him in general an input, too. Oh, cuz he's Oh, acting city manager. Uh, I have a question about the the comment you just made. So, so you're what what you're saying is we don't we shouldn't take into consideration the traffic study part or the

No, no. I'm saying this piece that's already in here. I feel like is covering to where if we say the city should be responsible for 80% of any improvements that are needed as they come about. I don't think that that should be our responsibility to make. I think the financial think council needs to fix needs to figure that out because there needs to be an agreement between the city and the person building or the developer not developing not zoning shouldn't be making the money choices for the city. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. So I cut you off. Sorry. You were No, no. I was just looping in our acting city manager at this point just to see if you've read through this and if you have recommendations to make because

I have read through it. I don't have any recommendations in this time because I don't have enough information to make a good recommendation. Fair enough. So I I don't have anything else to add other than I do have some potential ideas moving forward. However, I'll defer to you all. There are members of the public here. Whenever you all feel like they should speak, feel free to bring them up. Yeah. Brian, did you have another question? I think you answered it. I was just It's the light manufacturing zones in the road. So, I think we're good. So,

yeah. And the one I think that's on the to the west kind of what I was asking about for Granville Mill doesn't really have a street. It's like in the middle of Yeah, it's middle of land. base, right? Yeah. It's just like in the middle of a circle. So, if we were to name So, if we just left it at late manufacturing, there's that area, but there's no road to associated it to. So, was you So, for my concern about naming the streets, naming roads in there in Denver Court or

uh Sportsman's Club, the light manufacturing that is around Ford and Track Street in that area. You said that there's an opportunity but would take a lot longer to reszone that area. Sure. And we'll probably I think that should be something we look at at some point. I would agree to it. We clean everything up. And I believe the I I believe that the big concern is the bigger area that's that's out here off of Commerce 62. That area, not necessarily these other areas. So, if we were to do that,

um, if we just left it at the light manufacturing area, then worked to reszone Ford and Track Street because that's where my previous my initial comments were like, well, why don't we add those? Why don't we add those? It's part of light manufacturing. So, if we removed any wording that had a street named in it and just said the light manufacturing district Mhm. That would encompass the area that's there regardless of what road was attached. Yeah, correct. It would across the board evenly to all LM properties. Yes.

I mean, the the downside of that of reszoning Ford and Track is that we have to approach the owners of those properties and they have to agree to reszone. We can't force them to reszone. I would agree with that. So, if they say no and we just blanket LM and all of a sudden we're we're screwing ourselves if we do it that So if we do that though, my understanding also is that the grand the mill that's off of track street is going to be taken down. That's already a plan to be removed. Yeah, correct. So that's already being done there. So if we don't name that street or we whatever what's the opportunity for anything to be

they still have the current LM zone for is for this is simply for the uh extras and anybody can always apply for variance. So we could still hear it at any given time and they could we could still see it as a case by case basis. So it allows a lot more control than we're not giving up all of it. What what gives what's the control? Keeping certain streets and certain tightness of we only want these certain spots and we only are allowing these extra uses in those certain areas as well as whatever we decided in terms of sportsman's club. But if we change if we left because of the limitations on the code. All this new code only applies to literally 20 acres of land. It's a little more than that, but yes. Yeah, it's a little bit more, but it's

the streets that are listed are only allowing the expanded set of uses. Any problem. This is not LM across the city. No, no, no. That's why we're listing those. This is why we want to apply this LM across the city because of the residential that butts right up here. Because it's going to affect Ford Street and all the But that's where we want to resone. Yeah. Not LM because we have residents who live there. But then we could get rid of the streets after we get them to reszone it. If if we did a bigger plan overall and and they agree to reszone like we can't resone because if it's if because they might want to keep it LM because they can make more money on it. They may in the future say we've sold this entire mobile home park to someone who fits and then the LM LM

and then we got all those extra uses that they have the ability to and they can still do it. So if we don't pass anything, everyone has to come to us for any extra use no matter what. Correct. But then we're still not attractive to sight selectors for our current area that we want manufacturing. Yes. So this all of this is a a midway project. So then it's ultimately do we want to have more control over these other streets that we're discussing. Right. This is just and then we could apply it to more streets or get rid of the street position if we get everything right.

Yeah. I think the idea and I Trevor proposed when we decided to go the route of adding streets was then once we have this passed we retool you know and reszone that area to where that's not like manufacturing anymore and we have no worries about that butdding right up downtown you know cuz there's a lot of you could leave it LM and potentially change your screening and buffering criteria so you don't have those issues as well it's just today the code doesn't do a good job of establishing uses it doesn't do a good job of protecting neighboring property like there's just a lot faults. We were trying to walk a very narrow path to get make things better without I'm sure I'm sure the code was great when it was written. So So if we if if we leave it as it is, 62 Commerce Boulevard and Greenscape Court.

Yep. That would What does that do to their interest that they've been here multiple times? It doesn't change anything. The the uses and rights they have today are going to be the same if this is adopter, if it's not. So, so I'm not sure who to ask this to. What is the consideration of having of wanting to add sportsman's club into this? Is their biggest thing is that we're so restrictive with novelties and clay ceramics that it's unattractive to buyers. And so really that's the the hard to sell. The main piece is sellability. So if we don't put that in there, then it'll be less attractive.

Correct. It would be just as attractive as it is today. It's not any more or less like because the regulations that are here today will continue to be applicable whether or not you take action. It's really it's a you guys are making adjustments right here in my backyard and I want those for mine as well. Mhm. Isn't it zoned residential? No. No. Okay. But you only res in the in the comprehensive plan. It is listed as residential. Okay. But it is that comprehensive plan is just an idea. You know, it's not it's not code.

So if Endeavor Court is not put into it, then there's no it's the same. I mean to me it's the same. So Commerce Boulevard dead ends into where Endeavor Court Mhm. I don't want to say starts, but where it is. So, there's one plot that affects Endeavor Court and Atrium owns that whole entire strip, right? So, really, it's and if we include it in Denver court, we want to only include the side that has atrium on it so that we're not affecting that marsh land and the residents on the other side. And that's something that you can't really write into. Okay. That's why that's Yeah. Yeah. And the thing on top of all of this is that this is really a recommendation to council. So council gets the last straw of

right ultimately if we don't add any streets then we didn't do any changes. Is that correct? Yeah. And so I mean taking three months.

I'll kind of walk you through at a very quick high level ways you could move forward. You could you could simply do nothing which is forget or like act like this was never brought up and that you all didn't want to do this and just life goes on as is. That's always an option. You could also, if you're happy with the if you feel like what was intended to be accomplished was accomplished by this, you could certainly just recommend this back to council and say, "Hey, look, we feel like this was always intended to be an interim step. It's still an interim step. You can approve this and we can keep working on other pieces." Or you can have discussion tonight and give me direction and we can start making changes this to bring back. It's those are really basically the three ways we can proceed to move forward.

Go ahead, P. Is that you have a question? Well, okay. So, I get the the the track street. We don't want LM because we don't want big we want to be restrictive here. Is there other LM districts that we should add roads into today? No, we looked at everything behind this Granville Milling Company. That's PD which is all it's all part of PD. Yeah. Anything else? Anything else that absuts PD can be grand I don't want to say grandfathered but can be automatically entered into PD if that's the right word. Yeah, there it's more flexible in the PD district anyway because there's a land set for annexation or up to be annexed in and that would be technically part of PD because it's a budding. Sorry.

Um for two plots in question on sportsman's club. Is there a way for us to I don't want to say dictate how they're developed but kind of like the question I had I had asked or like what I proposed last week is we basically put a road right up the middle of it and it's a right out and right in on sportsman's club. So there's technically one cut on Sportsman's Club.

I think not through the zoning code. You couldn't do that. I mean, you can do things like require buffering, minimize the number of curb cuts, things like that. But if you really wanted to have control over where the roadway was going to go across private property and the and the access with the interface to the existing public road that's sportsman's club, you have to enter into something like a development agreement or something similar that has stipulations of what the city's responsible for, what the uh what the developer or land owner is responsible for, any concessions between the two parties, things like that. That's really the only way to have any kind of concrete control over that. Um, and that would be a process between the city and the land owners as to working through what's agreeable to everybody basically. Yeah. So that that

I guess to answer your question succinctly, no, from a zoning standpoint, but it is possible. Yeah. So then if we were to add Sportsman's Club as a road on here, how do we best protect ourselves in the code to not add all of Sportsman's Club all of a sudden? Because Sportsman's Club is not a short road. Granted, we only have a very small portion for the city, right? So, it's only the city limits, but there's That's a good question. I can you protect it if it's if it's only the light manufacturing. It's only that's I guess it's only the zoning district by our limits, but but would we would we in the future annex stuff down sportsman club, right? And somebody could apply to reszone. I mean, technically they own the neighboring piece that's in the township,

too. I don't know what nothing would preclude someone in the future, I guess, from requesting annexation. I guess it's just something to think about, right? But in terms of how do you best control access or anything like that on a sportsman's club? I

it would be challenging to me I think to write any sort of code that controls access on a street by street basis. It's already difficult enough to do that on like a use basis as we're discussing tonight. Um, but having again short of having some sort of like adopted area plan or road plan or corridor plan, something like that that kind of dictates here's the parcels that are along this stretch of roadway. Here's how they should be accessed for best practices. Short of that, I don't know how you write that in the code other than I mean you can have good access management standards, but there again, they're generally applied citywide, not on a So, I think the gist of it is are we adding Endeavor and Sportsman's Club and do we want to hear from

Yes. the land owners further for the particular sportsman's club piece? Yeah. And just to clarify before they come up, this this recommendation is simply just a recommendation to city council. Is that correct? That's correct. We don't vote. I think we have to vote on that today. You don't have to. Okay. I didn't know if there was like a limitation. I thought we had like a time frame. We had it for a while. Yeah. Maybe I was thinking of something else. We did have it for a while, but something else that we had 30 days. That's what Yeah. Yeah. That was something else. This is was initiated by the city. Yeah. Long to discuss this.

Okay. Could we write it the reverse that we're really trying? We're writing I'm all for like the changes. I think it's great. Brings in business. I like what it's doing. Instead of writing in the road saying this road and this road are allowed to have it. Could we not write in like, hey, Track Street, you don't get this. You're excluded from this code. You go to the old code. I mean, yeah, you could certainly we reverse the That's all we care about is Track Street, right? Well, that or whatever. I think we'd have more roads to write in there than we would cuz we want I'm looking for the future cuz we're going to have light manufactur again. If we annex stuff in the future and by annex you mean the city is the city is asked to annex the property.

Yeah. Yeah. So if this is all we care about is LM and this that that really small plot of land. Why don't we just say you can never you have to come to us for the old code. The new people the new LM get the new code. I think with those because we have so much other changes written into development like currently for development and I think currently right is 400 acres. Oh for plan development yeah yeah or 350 but it's very high acreage. Yes. So then that falls under a plan development zoning which is basically alleviating us from having to worry about light manufacturing because it's encompassing multiple different things things. That's Yeah.

And I still think even with that approach, we're still not like we're still not achieving the end goal the way it really should be, which is ultimately only have LM applied to the properties where you want light manufacturing uses to go sort of thing. We still have other LM properties in the city. Well, at the end of the day, you shouldn't you should only have LM where you want it, right? But Right. But it's on the west side. The map we were given is the map we have to use. Yeah. But it's on the west side. Yeah. So, but it's on the west side behind Granville Milling. It's across the street where that Timberunes is and butts up to So, I don't So, we really only want LM in that 20 acres and this whole change is only there for those 20 acres.

Yes. If anything changes in the future, it automatically gets design plan. The size is a lot more than 20 acres. It's not that we don't want LM over there. It's that's still going to be LM. It's going to have the original uses. Yeah. And the additional uses that we're adding will only apply to the 20 acres. Yes, I got you. All right, let's hear from people from the public.

I've been nominated to go first on behalf of the sportsman folks. Uh Justin Fox, uh represent Rodney Johnson. I'm with Under Hill and Hodgej. We've obviously been here for a lot of this dialogue. We appreciate the discussion tonight. Uh I think that we're making some progress. I'm happy to have uh Trevor here tonight and Mr. Sheridan. This is your first opportunity to kind of hear our dialogue. Uh you know, I've been through a history of you guys with you guys of this property. The sportsman's club road parcels are the parcels that we've been here to discuss and you guys have find you guys have identified that and kind of honed in on. Really the question is, do we want these permitted uses? Does this commission want these permitted uses to apply to this to the sportsman's club road light manufacturing parcels? That's what we would like to see. That's why we've been engaged in this dialogue. When this went to council, we went to that meeting and we requested that it get a second look to include Sportsman's Club Road. So, that is certainly, you know, what the property owners and although I don't represent Mr. Benton, I've gotten to know him very well throughout this process and I can tell you that is that is what we would like to see. The reason for that really if we go way back in time uh when this ground was originally annexed at at the request of Johnstown it was brought into the light manufacturing district that was in 2014. The goal or the intent as it was conveyed to the property owners at that time was to become a part of the industrial park over there in Commerce Boulevard. um which then allowed it to receive the light manufacturing designation as you guys have identified and as we had identified several years ago as we started to review light manufacturing it just it it's antiquated it needed updated so I I really you know in the discussion with Trevor tonight and getting kind of some historical uh you know analysis from before we were even here a part of this I think the current approach I is a good one it's a it's a it's a solution to a problem that doesn't require a complete reasonzoning Um there are, you know, probably issues

that we need to address or to consider, but I think that including Sportsman's Club Road gives access and gives opportunity to the city for expanded permitted uses for industrial development in those areas, which is certainly what the two property owners here tonight would like to see. I think that there are ways to restrict the curb cuts or to restrict, you know, access points. I've uh relayed some information to Trevor. I think that the licking county access management plan probably applies to this. I think it's a county road um which is a I think it's a major artery or a major collector which actually limits the amount of curb cuts and and those were some questions that we had had in uh meetings earlier. But uh that would limit curb cuts to every 400 ft under the access management plan and even if those parcels were split um in the future that would not trump the access management plan. So there are some protections that exist uh from the county uh in my opinion. So I think that some of the discussion that we had before we weren't really ready to h to talk about that but they exist and I think that it's it's wise to make sure that you have those protections. I also want to just kind of point out to you know Trevor recommend mentioned development agreements and negotiations with the city. My interpretation of this text is that the traffic study that would be required for any 20,000 foot or greater development in the LM district that would be included in these new uses which we would hope would be sportsman's club road. we'll create a dialogue where we will provide you know where the access management plan will be provided to the city and there will be a negotiation or a discussion about what improvements are necessary and I think ultimately any developer is going to want to engage in that as well because you know traffic and access are going to be important to any end use there. So you know I don't want to I don't want to take two steps forward or one step forward two steps back. I think that we're on the right track here. I think

that the the real question for you guys is will you or do you want to include Sportsman's Club Road in this text as it's drafted? And if you do, if you have any recommendations for Trevor as far as how to protect or prevent, you know, traffic considerations. I believe that the text as it's drafted with the with the traffic studies probably creates a scenario where anyone who is going to develop on that property if they have these additional permitted uses is in here engaging in a dialogue with you all or with council about what needs to be done to improve those roadways, who pays for it, and it can be done on kind of a a a project bypro basis.

Any questions? Can we be able to verify the protections of the county piece? Does that apply? I can look into that. I don't know off the top. And is that something too we can make a motion to move up to council with something like that included? As long as something like that does get included, are we able to make a motion to move it and have as long as curb cuts are included, whatever that may be, even if we don't have it defined, meaning make a recommendation to council based on that. Yeah. that they included too. For instance, includes sportsman's club road with the condition with the conditioned. Yeah, I'm wording it wrong, but yeah,

with the condition that the curb cuts are restricted in some way, shape, or form or that it reverts to the county access management plan no more than every 400 ft, right? Just something like I guess that's better. And just just for reference, so there's two parcels. Mr. Johnson's parcel is 60 acres. It's got about 1,200 feet of frontage. So, under the access management plan, that would be three three curb cuts uh that the county would allow on that parcel in particular.

All right. Um, thank you. Looked like you had a question here. I did, but I think the the way you just worded that I I like the way that you just worded that including sportsman's club, but being able to limit the cuts if it's part of the county access standards because of that road if that's included with that. Yeah, I think for instance you could I don't know if you have to reference the access management plan and maybe Trevor will be able to provide some input on that but you know any curve cuts must comply with the King County access management plans probably accomplishes the goals of protecting the number of curb cuts which makes sense

and that's been a that's been a conversation point that we've had here is the number of curve cuts in that along that area. So, hypothetically speaking, if this goes through and adds and Sportsman's Club is added to that, what's the what's the five-year plan for these prop these two properties?

Well, I think that listen, with additional permitted uses, development is far more likely with those parcels. I don't have a timeline. I don't have, you know, in site plans. I don't know what that looks like, but I know that in my experience and working with Mr. Johnson, there's been a lot of interest in those parcels. and that interest has kind of died at the review of the light manufacturing text. That's that's what's happening in practice. So in order to really fully evaluate those sites and to determine what is it's the highest and best use. I mean that's what developers will look at in order to fully evaluate that. This does open the door to allow people to come in and bring their their consultants and their engineers to really study these sites and see what makes sense there. And so it's obviously for both of you. It's something that you'd sell if somebody came to you tomorrow and said,

"No, not necessarily. Not for me." Okay. So I can speak after he's done, but yeah. And I mean part of why I'm asking you represent a firm that's obviously heavily involved with the Albany company and all of that. So it's one of those like do we go through this and now all of a sudden it's already there's a a predetermined plan that's already here on behalf of Mr. Johnson, not on behalf of New Company. Do you have a buyer? Um there there is interest in this in this parcel. I mean that's it it's likely that something will take place. I don't know how long. I don't know what the plan will be. I don't what then the biggest change is that they're not interested because they have to come and apply for a variance. Well the restrictions allowable uses currently just aren't really

right. they but we would allow it if they planned for a variance that got No, you can't grant a use variance or else so it's it's just restricted. Okay. And in order to proceed with you know normal due diligence to really evaluate the site that's one of the first things they've looked at what are the what are the permitted uses? What can we do here? The answer right now quite frankly is is nothing. So it stops there. Yeah. And there's no there's no desire in all honesty, there's no desire to spend real money to evaluate the site because the permitted uses lead to nowhere. So that that's what happens.

And actually my parents and I back in 2014 when Jim Leonard, the former Yeah. village manager. He came to us and actually at that time a guy by the name of Jeff Mitchell owned

Allen's property came to both of us kind of there what he just said Justin said looking for a future and looking for you know uh grow business growth in that area. uh you know water and sewer was you know what every business was looking for you know it was going to be there so kind of our fault we never really looked he said we're going to we're going to designate that light manufacturing I think our our thoughts at that time was we never even looked at that just sounded good we never we didn't pursue looking at it and it was what pastries pastries and uh something else. It was

figurine. Yeah. But you know I guess at that time as time went on a little bit and there was kind of interest actually uh curly which used to be uh

Apex super critical Andy Joseph started the grow operation came to my parents and I about buying that 60 acres and uh that's kind of where that came about. But you know I guess in hindsight we thought you know if there's a good business come the area you know we just go say hey guys got a good business here you know can we change the zoning on this to if it benefits all and and and do that but uh here we are thing things have really because of everything out here uh has changed everything in this whole community And uh you know, one of my things I'll say, I I told Justin, I mean, I drove I've been on Sportsman's Club every day of my life because that's where I grew up. Uh the neighbors wouldn't be happy with me if I put in something really I I know all of them.

Yeah. Across the street, right? Yeah. But uh but you know with the interest and stuff you know that's kind of started the discussion that we had two or three years ago about at some point trying to get the zoning changed the descriptions and what you could put in there. Th this process for us started maybe four years ago and that's why we really took interest to this to these revisions because we saw that the city at the city's direction had said hey we should update this which which we were happy to see and then we we you know realized that it didn't apply to sportsman's club road and we thought this was the opportunity to come and get involved to try and bring those parcels into you know this this mix with those additional permitted uses and although we've we've kind of got stuck in the mud a couple of times. That's that's really what we're what we're asking. We want these additional uses to apply to the parcels on Sportsman's Club Road. That's at the end of the day in the in the simplest terms possible, that's what we would like to see.

All right. Well, thank you. Do we have anybody else who would like to speak?

So, uh, many years ago, I bought the property and Jim Wer was the city manager, Bailey was the planner, and u and then we had Blair was the zoning person. Right. So, I'm an industrial person, right? I own three factories over in Heath and Hebrin. So, they were really excited about my buying the property because what what we were looking at doing was putting a plant there. They actually gave me a quote for how much water and sewage would actually run to run water along the road because they had just run run it for the golf course. They were looking at running water and sewage out that way. So, they were all all excited about my putting a plant there, which I'm not going to do. I'm going to build my next plant on some property that I have in Heath because everything out here has really changed. Okay. So, so the the issue that I have with everything is when you have different people here at the city, the uses all change and what you're required to do on that property. So, you're talking about the property that's in the comprehensive plan. I have 82 acres that's next to that, right? that's not in the city. Okay, they want to do that in housing, too. Well, I'm telling you that that's not going to happen because I own the blue house that's on the hill there. My children are looking to build their homes on that 82 acres. And you know, when you say that the land will be developed, I don't know what's going to happen to the land. I have no intention of selling the land. No one has approached me to buy the land. Okay? So, all I'm trying to do is be consistent. Okay? And I have a real problem with every time everybody changes the rules kind of change. And since we've been going through this whole process, you know, I've been to meetings where where the council has approved variances, right? Like text edition out there that doesn't meet the requirements. So that had to be a variance. The the the steel structures addiction edition that

doesn't meet the requirements of the old code either. So you have all these things that every time you have to do something, everybody has to come and and get a variance or a change. And all I'm saying is it needs to be consistent and it needs to be something that that goes, you know, I if I had known that that property was not intended to be light industrial, I wouldn't have bought it. Okay? Because again, I'm a factory person. You know, I'm to the point now of building my another building. I built one in Heath a few years ago and I'm going to build another one in Heath because, you know, I've got water and sewage there. I've got the vacant land. It's near my other operations. But, you know, when you say, "What are you going to do with the property?" I have no idea. You know, we might sell it. You know, I don't know what Johntown's going to look like 5 years from now or 10 years from now, right? And when you look at the traffic study, they did a track traffic study on 62 and 37 and they're talking about putting in turn lanes and that's going to make it okay for the next 20 years. I I have no idea. Okay. And I have no idea how the traffic flow is going to go here in the city. I know um years ago I was approached uh by Udica to buy industrial property up in the industrial park in Udica. Okay. So you have no control over what's going to happen up there either, right? or what developments go up in Utica and all that traffic is going to come through Johntown. So all I'm saying to you is yes, there's a problem. I don't know if you guys have control over what the problem outcome is going to be because you don't control UDICA. You don't control places outside of Johntown, but all I'm asking for is consistency in what we're doing. So, I appreciate all your work and all of this and I appreciate your taking the time to really study this issue and and I appreciate, you know, all your service to the community.

So, you like the updates, right? Right. You guys are both in favor. I'm going to make sure I'm not missing the point here. You like the updates. They actually like just coming to hang out with us. Well, we just want cons I just want consistency, right? And I have no intention of annexing any more property in the city. Okay. Yeah,

at one time I thought about unanx unexing the property and uh Steve Layman who's one of my friends who's a industrial and commercial developer here in real estate person he said that I could do that at one point in time because right now the property is useless other than farming because you can't do anything with it right so so at one time I actually before intel and all this stuff I said well you know I could I think it was like 400 $100,000 to run water and sewage out there and there was two different routes. One was from the atrium property across there and one was along sportsman club. And they actually have plans. I think if you talk to Jack, I think he can tell you what the plans were. And at one time they were talking about even putting a road in between our properties, right? And they wanted to go into the I'm telling you, this has been the since I've owned this property, this has been the craziest experience I've ever had because they were talking about building a road and and having access to the development at Conquered Crossing. I had people from the city actually approach me uh to put uh residential housing on all my property and told me how many homes I could actually put on that property. So, all I'm saying to you is we need a con we need a plan going forward. I want it to stay um like manufacturing, but I'd like for it to be consistent and whatever we're doing as a city, I'd like for us to be consistent going forward. So, I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. questions. Anybody else? You guys think I've been coming to these meetings just for fun? Um, yes. Sweatshirt. Thanks. Nice shirt.

Uh, so I totally agree with what they're saying. There needs to be consistency. The fact that we have pottery and this old antiquated stuff into the zoning really needs to be changed. But I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. I I really believe that any changes we're make with this zoning is going to impact the 5,000 6,000 residents of Johntown because of the traffic issues. Traffic is already a huge issue. So my question is, can they make a recommendation to council to have a traffic study done of that whole corridor to determine what what information we have and know before we make these changes instead of making these changes then having a traffic study when a new developer wants to come here and then here so we have the full picture to know what to do in the future.

The answer to that question is yes. However, I will caveat that by saying just like these gentlemen don't know exactly what will be built on these properties, a traffic study won't won't have every answer either. So ultimately, you will get a range out of that. It won't be you're going to, you know, expect x number of trips and that's going to be an exact number because that's just not the way those studies work. Um, so I say that to say yes, you can certainly recommend that, but know that it won't ever be like a crystal ball of saying yes, you can approve this or no, you can't just from a traffic standpoint. But I think it would greatly benefit the city because even as part of the other uh traffic study that was done as part of the 3762 interchange, like they were already exploring ideas like connecting Leafyell down to 62 and things like that. And so a traffic study along that corridor of 62 and sportsman's club would have a better idea of if you do this meaning let's say you expand all these uses on sportsman's club you should also be prepared to do why over here somewhere else that may be seemingly unrelated but that's where the bottleneck appears. So I do think that yes, you can certainly recommend that and that would make this decision likely easier down the road because everyone including myself would have an expectation as to what will the impacts be downstream, not just all right, we're going to make these changes and hope for the best.

I'm a data I'm a data driven person so I like to have the data and and I like the idea of limiting curb cuts but if even if you limit the curb cuts you could have one curb cut to one issue or one place there that could result in 50 tractor trailers there a day going in that one spot even though you have that one curb cut. So while limiting the curb cuts is helpful, I'm not sure it it it's helpful for the rest of the city. And I think that's no offense to whoever designed the industrial park however many years ago. I I think it's an awful spot just for the fact that it's right next to your downtown. I mean it's it's I mean 21 gifts or 31 gifts when they were here it was a nightmare. So it's it's not the best spot for it. So if we could get the data to make the the correct decision here to me that would be the best thing possible. So thank you guys.

What was the traffic study done with 36 5 or 37? Yeah. What was done there? The the transportation improvement district as part of all the intel and the improve part of the intel announcement and the associated improvements with that. The T was funneled a significant amount of money from the state and one of those items was studying due to all the backups and the trucks routinely hitting the bells and things like that at this intersection was money was dedicated to a study specifically for that intersection because it's a state route and a US route. So um money was only dedicated for that not the increase in traffic. Correct. So it was looking at where where are these vehicles coming to where are they going or where are they coming from? where are they going to that sort of thing and so um

and it's at you can't say this but it was sort of at max capacity already or yes yes that the study found that I mean yes basically the reason for backups is because the intersection isn't configured properly for the volume of traffic that is coming through and the not only the volume but the types of vehicles as well so you can get a lot more passenger cars through an intersection than you can tractor trailers and not only that but that's my question tractor trailers require bigger turning radi there they require different things than a a typical passenger vehicle does. And sorry, one more question. What is there is there plans for any sort of bypass then? That has been talked about that in the TR 310 around that way, this way. So that gets rid of that whole problem, right?

There's nothing official though. So based on the few I'll just say I've attended a few of the T meetings where updates are given and things like that. There's certainly nothing set in stone. corridors have been chosen, but getting some sort of bypass around Johntown established is on the priority list simply because the study that was done for 37 to 62 revealed that almost 80% of the vehicles that go through that intersection do not start or end their trip in Johntown. So basically, it's a regional issue that's manifesting itself. It's a state issue. State needs a state chosen, meaning they would know where they want to put it. Is that what you mean when they say corridors are chosen?

Meaning like any future bypass rout there are ideas but there has not been a specific route chosen yet issues. Can I speak one more time about the traffic study? Yes. Okay.

Um the traffic study I went to the presentations on that and it's a time of day issue and it's a commuter issue going to Columbus. So they said really basically the if I if my memory is correct that it's a morning commute problem from the Utica side, right? people traveling and then it's the end of the day study uh with people going back home. So they said that it is it is uh at capacity or whatever and they were talking about moving the light you know in town because it's not enough time for you to go through the intersection but they said that that's not really something that they would address because it's only during that small portion of the day that the traffic issue on 37 and 62. And again, if you if you're looking at development, you're looking at people coming to work in the industrial park. They're either going to come from Utica and stop here in Johntown or they're going to come from Columbus and they're going to go opposite the the traffic flow issues that you have today. So, so you know, residential you're going to have all kinds of problems, which never made any sense to me why that was put in the comprehensive plan because that those that traffic's going to be here all day, all during the day. But if you look at an industrial site, the traffic flow I think is going to be the opposite of what you're having now as a congestion point based on what I heard at the presentation on the intersection and what's happening. So that's that was my take might be able to

more traffic is more traffic and and I think I agree and the point that you made is that outside of Johntown is the larger problem that we have to worry about. Like who's to say that they don't literally go the the fields that are owned by various different people from different investment groups and countries that are just north on 62 and that are not in city limits. They can easily change zoning out there to put a giant factory and now all of a sudden all state by not buying the land that I was offered to buy up in Udica. Yeah. Right. Who would have thought?

Yeah. I know there's a fairly large plot that New Albony Company owns that's up I think it's a a farm right now, but that could easily change and we're still sitting in the same spot. That's an outside influence market. So, do we then limit ourselves and not bring business into John'stown because of traffic? Traffic is going to be a problem no matter what we do everywhere. Yeah. So I think we end up severely limiting ourselves in pushing businesses outside of the city when we could garner them into the city and bring more tax revenue to the city.

So we have a what's what's to the board not the city guys what's in front of us? What are our options right now? I think tell me after all of this right the synopsis back to this was adding sportsman's club and endeavor court to the language. Okay. So, and moving that to council, right? Adding them. Uh, we also were presented with the traffic study. Traffic study. Yeah. Right. We had a traffic study. We have that lang prior to building. Well, do we need to change that because we have that language in there? Yeah. Yeah. Well, it is in there. If it's more than 20,000 ft, they had to do a traffic study, right? Correct. And it's a conversation with the city that then happens at that point. Correct. Correct. I think

so. I don't think that we need to put anything else in there because that piece is in there. Unless you guys think otherwise. Trevor, do you have a comment? No, no. I was going to say the um the traffic study that was just mentioned that we were just discussing that would be something that would be city initiated that would analyze that area before any development would go in. And council can add that to after if we make the recommendation to council. Council can always add that as a stipulation too, can't they? I mean they what leading it having the city conduct the study. So say we move this up to council for recommendation. Council then should have the opportunity to go I'd rather see a traffic study done before we make this decision.

Oh yeah sure. Yeah yeah we can we could make that recommendation with we approved this with re recommendation that council does a traffic study. Absolutely. Yes. That would doesn't have to be written in the LM code. Right. We already went down that road and realized that 80% of them are getting paid for it. So, right. The cost of it. Yeah. Well, I agree it maybe it should be done because it gives us data, but again, it's Well, I'm just thinking back like this got sent to us because city council they sent it back, right? Go over the reasons why. There's many reasons why. Can Can we tell city council our concerns and let them choose? Sure. I mean, is that a good idea? Is that is that silly? The reality is otherwise we keep going. We keep talking.

Well, I think that would be prudent. If you have concerns still and you want to make the recommendation to have them open it, you know, then you can tell them the concerns and they can decide then what to do with it. Okay. Is that what that's basically if if you if you as a board were not uh fully committed on one option but felt like there were let's say two options however many whatever the number is but both of them are going to require a little bit more exploration whatever that's modifying the code that's been prepared a little bit or doing a whole traffic study whichever it is you can make that recommendation and then yes it'll be up to city council whether or not to to choose to do that always do it yeah right Um, and so

but you could ask them, you could ask them which direction they would choose to go and then you all would still be responsible for shephering that the rest of the way through the process. So, you're kind of at crossroads and you're not sure which direction to go. Yeah, you could make a recommendation that way as to here's the two options we've identified. Please now tell us which one you would prefer us for. I mean, I mean, I lean more toward like what you just said, Brian, of let's let's go ahead and add Sportsman Club and Endeavor Court, move it up to council with the recommendation to do a traffic study, but I want to Yes. No, no, I'm just saying what I felt. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. And I agree on the first half of it. Add the two roads. The cost of the traffic study.

Honestly, I think the traffic study, while it's going to give us data at this point, is a waste of money. Agreed. Yeah. because we call out in here veterinarian as well as light manufacturing for let's say sporting goods. Well, I kind of disagree because I live right there and it's it's already crazy. All right. We can't predict the future. We don't know what's going to happen if the if the thing's going to go around. We don't know if Right. Can't do any of that. We have to figure we have to make an educated guess. What's the average cost of a traffic study? I really I American Structure Point does them on a routine basis, but I just I'm not part of that. I would struggle because a lot of it's going to depend on the area that's covered, how long the time frame there's variables in there that

I just think we have so many different uses that are in here. Like a veterinarian has an average of what, six employees where a warehouse could have 60 employees and could see 70 trucks a day or I think four trailers a day. and traffic recommendation of a traffic study. They don't have to do the proposed development if we do my recommendation right and then not coming out of the city funds unless there's separated accounts that I don't know of the accounting side of things that yeah we could do that roughly 50 to 30,000 1500 per intersection is what it's saying just I mean that's just like you know it's not 100,000 at least but then to add on who pays for the water and sewer that we can add more

the the new buyers cut to everything I'm not sure on that I'm not where I previously water and sewer are not available at the site but they can't develop but the city here could operate different can't be exception I like I like that alluded to when I was there cost associated

so you have a discussion he was just bringing up uh also if we're going to recommend the you know traffic study with it also recommend because it doesn't mean the council will have to say yes we're going to do it you know what I mean um but council recommend that with the traffic study and he was mentioning also adjusting the curb cuts to on sportsman club to a different code than what's in here cuz this is 120 120 ft that's why they called that the other right so I like the make sure the sportsman club is adhering to that as opposed to the 120 ft. Yeah. Yeah. So, I liked what you mentioned about that. Yeah. The licking county access. Licking County access. Yeah.

This 400 ft. We've we've discussed before the limiting the number of curb cuts. So, if we go to 400 instead of 120 Yeah. It's limiting, but it's also going by a standard that's already established by the county. That would follow that road plan, too. Yeah. So, I'm I'm good with adding adding two streets, making sure that's recommended in there as well. That's my Well, it kind of sounds like we're narrowing this down. So, do we recommend we get a a write up first and then we send it to council next meeting or do we do it all at this meeting? I mean, we can make a recommendation. Yeah, we can just do everything right now. We can make a motion right now. like I like if I made like

we have the list of stuff to add and send up. So, but if he adds it and we don't do a final review and just send it up to council, I mean, all we're doing is adding two roads and study recommendation and we trust Trevor. I don't know. I mean, if that's that's legitimately all you need to do is just add sportsman's club and endeavor, I think that can be you can make that clearly enough in a motion that I can go back and and adjust the language. But I'm still not sold that through the zoning code we can adjust the curb cuts. That's just a very odd way to go about that. So my recommendation would be

please give me direction. If you want the two streets added, that's fine. Ask that. Um and the curb cuts and I think it would probably be beneficial to at least for you all to review this one more time before you recommend it to council if that makes sense. kind of give me direction so that I can have I don't know if we have direction other than because if we can't do anything different with the curb cuts and all we're doing is recommending to council that there's a traffic study. I don't know. No, that's fair. I just want to make sure. I don't know. I may be able to do something with curb cuts. I'm just not confident in where or how that would look right now. So, I I I can't confidently tell you exactly what we are and aren't able to do, I guess, is what I'm getting at.

Cuz I think it's going back to where you mentioned we're doing this as like a one little spot here. So it's not really a great way to it works differently because access management is just applied across the city. It's not based on zone district and that sort of thing. So yeah, I wanted a little time to research that before I was confident in sending anything to city council. So I would think that where where is the traffic study going to be done at 62 and 37? No, that's one that's already been finished. any like I would recommend that if a traffic study was going to be done that that intersection is included in it but it should be focused on primarily the area right around the industrial park basically is if the rest of that ind commerce and 62

commerce and 62 would be a primary intersection but what you're actually looking at is okay of this these existing buildings and of this vacant land that's all in the same LM zoning district what could be the potential increase in trips if this were to be fully developed is basically what it's looking at wouldn't that have a huge dependency on what was put there. Correct. And that's why so if you have a shoe manufacturer versus a distillery versus Yep. And that's why you'll get a range. You won't get a you're going to have 5,000 more trips. It will be 2,000 to 50,000 or something like that because what was mentioned earlier is trucks. It may not be trucks. It may be cars because they're going into manufacturing. They're going to build stuff. I mean, you're still going to have trucks with them, but

right. It could be one truck a day versus 100 trucks a day depending on the uses as well. Well, to Donniey's point, like what he was saying is that you can have one curb cut and still have tons of traffic coming out of that one curb cut. Absolutely as it's drafted. So curb cut might not need to actually be adjusted.

Yeah. Yeah. But that assumes a peacemail approach. What I think what Donnie was recommending my take away from that was do a traffic study for the entirety of the area to get a baseline of here's the floor here's the ceiling roughly of what you can expect and then you can adjust your regulations accordingly. So it's kind of going about it in two different approaches. One is I mean you know a shoe manufacturer comes to you today this is how many trips we create. Okay, great. I'm in favor of the next time, you know, the next one is a distribution center for a major retailer, something like that. You do those, but you never look at what the impacts are. So, it's just two different ways to go. Yeah. But then we pay attention to right? But they haven't been here.

So, what are you thinking, guys? I'd say recommend the two the two roads and do the traffic study for that area. Can we do it if and only? I mean, yeah, recommend the traffic study. I I'm I'm going back and forth on the traffic study because I I you don't know what it's going to come in here, but yeah, that the floor and the ceiling and I guess it depends what it's cost. Council would have to approve it, right? I don't know what the cost is. I don't want to spend a lot of money on this. We we're not telling council to do this. We're recommending. Do you know what the cost is of a traffic study? It's expensive. I'm just focused back on the the whole intersection and trying to predict the future. Is this going to help with a bypass? Is this going to like

Yeah. I wish we knew there'd be a bypass and feel better. I mean, the reality is the downtown. I look I look at as an opportunity to maybe have more businesses. Yeah. That's going to bring in taxes. Yeah. I see that. And I I understand too. Yeah. The I I worry about the traffic. Um, you know, because when we started when I started on zoning, we were talking about the downtown area and we were focusing trying to make that more appealing and we worried about this PUB district and having two downtowns and and now we're now we're just like a highway like it that's that's what like you just said in the study show 80% of the people that go through here aren't stopping here. So our our problem with traffic now isn't necessarily our current businesses and the people that live here, right?

It's everyone outside of it. So, you know, I would like it to be people. I do too. I would too. Right. Well, and you know, Kyle, out here, they're just going to keep cranking out businesses and that's just going to keep growing and growing and that's just going to pressure Johntown. There's going to be more and more traffic. And the thing that I say all the time is they really don't care what the traffic problem is. No. So, by by adding these streets, we're going to increase No one cares about us getting to work which would benefit the city for more tax revenue. What kind? Like

ins we have control over that. We don't have data center ele manufacturer people like me are not going to locate here. The land's too expensive. Okay. And then what you really want is for the people that are coming through Johntown to stop in the industrial park. So you want the Utica people. So my employees are more local, right? So if there was a job that was closer and I don't have to go to Columbus. Yeah. You know what? I'm going to stop and not I do.

So you might see some of the traffic from the from cars decrease. And I don't think you're going to get a ware, you know, you're not going to get a warehouse. the the the you're too far away from 6161 or you know you're you're not in the warehouse. So this is going to be if I was to make a forecast of what kind of factories you're going to get here, it's going to be support for Intel. So it's going to be high paid jobs. It's going to be low low traffic because again you got to look at what they're making there. They're not making you know big things, right? They're making small things that have a lot of value. Yeah, I appreciate that. Appreciate that. So ultimately we don't know. Yeah, we don't know.

We don't know. Ultimately, we don't know. And ultimately, council can also decide to do a traffic study before making a decision on it, too, without the recommendation of us to do. Can decide to light this on fire. They can decide to light this on fire and throw it in the trash if they wanted to. True. Data centers aren't included in LM, right? No. No. Okay. That's for the south end. All right. So, what are we what are we doing? Uh, I think add the two roads.

Yeah, I I'll make a motion to um let's see here. How would I word this? Section 1159, light manufacturing amendments. Um, approve adding sportsman club and endeavor court. I word that right, Teresa? I believe so. Yeah. Is that okay? I'll second. And so you're recommending to council that chapter 1159 include sportsman's club road and endeavor court recommend correct council. Is that it? Yeah. Yep. With the Yeah. With the draft amendments already there, we're adding that to it

in the recommended track in a recommended traffic study. And they don't have to listen to us. We can add that with the recommended traffic study. Okay. And there's nothing we can do about the curb counts, right? Not that we want to. I don't know if it matters. Yeah. Do we want to narrow down traffic study to the LM district over like how do we you just mentioned to be more specific? So, give me an example of how you want us to be more specific there or how you would recommend that be more specific. Either a specific geographic area or a zoning district. I think those are the two best ways to limit it.

I I you know what, we can strike the recommendation and Donnie and I can voice the concern when we talk about it in council that a traffic study well Donnie even brought it up so I'm sure it'll be in conversation of of doing that. So strike that. Yeah, this is Kyle's recommendation. So Oh, that's Yeah, yeah, strike that. So the motion is just to add the two roads back into the draft, right? Your motion that's true. That's a good point, Steve. Sorry. Can't see your motion. My bad. It's however you want to see it. Motion.

So, I had a first by Kyle and a second by Mark. And the motion is to um add Sportsman's Club Road and Endeavor Court to the draft for 1159 and correct. Thank you. Thank you. Al Cook. Yes. Todd McConnell? Yes. Ryan Heel. Yes. Parking. Yes. Dyer. No. Back to All right. Thank you. Other business. Thank you. And I guess let's keep this thing rocking. Yeah. I have it. Okay. I'll I'll let you know if I don't have it. Other business not on the agenda.

I got nothing. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Hey, hey.