Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

on. Let's call this meeting to order. Way too much fun. We can hear you. Wow. Right here. Um Red Bull. Chairman Steve Dyer here. Ryan Green here. Cook here. Mark Zante here. Ryan Heel here. Lively on live. Steve works third shift everybody. about 7 a.m. right now. I just had coffee. Starting your day off, right? We'll give them a little room. All right. Public comments on items not on the agenda. Any speaker slips? I did not receive any speaker slips.

Seeing nobody move in the audience. I don't think we have any. Let's go ahead to item number three. Let's do approval of the minutes. September 23rd. I'll motion to approve. I will second it. Okay. Are all I think everyone was you were absent. I'll do a roll call. All right. Kyle Cook, yes. Mark Zolinski, abstain. Absence. Ryan Heel, approve. Ryan Green, yes. Dyer, yes. Thank you.

Wow, look at that guys. Really good work. Um public hearing recommendation to council application 9225 zoning amendment 265 West Kosakton Street. Look like they have the application and the staff report. You want to start with staff report? Sure. I'm going to kick it to Trevor. He's the one that put this together.

Sounds good. Yeah. So this application is for reszoning at 265 West Kashakton Street. Uh the property is currently within the UR1, the urban residential lowdensity zoning district. Uh the site is currently used as an auto repair center and is currently a non-conforming use, meaning that the use is occurring there, but the zoning code does not allow for it. So it could not be expanded or it could not be replaced if it were ever to discontinue for an extended period of time. Uh the total property area is about a little under a half of an acre, 045 acres per the Lincoln County auditor's map. Uh the applicant is requesting to replace the UR1 zoning with GCC1, which is general community commercial one. Um the map that is on page 11 of 61 in your packet, there's a zoning map in there. Uh the properties to the north and north, south, and west are all within the same UR1 zoning. uh properties to the east right across I believe that's Meadow um are within the GCC-1 zoning district and also on that map you'll see some darker purple areas that's what's called village commercial which does allow also for a variety of um commercial uses. So the the requested zoning the GCC1 zoning uh would allow for similar uses to what goes on downtown. That's the same zoning as most of what goes on down there. Uh this corridor is slowly starting to transition. I'm sure most of you are aware many of the old houses have been converted into offices or other types of commercial structures. This request is to bring the zoning in line with what the property is currently being used for which is not residential. Um so I'm going to go down to the conclusion uh page which is on page 13 of 61. Again I'm happy to answer any questions. I just want to do a high level overview up front. Uh based on the review, the requested zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan

and is similar to the existing zoning in the area. Um approval of this resoning request to replace the UR1 zoning with GCC1 zoning uh based on the criteria in the code does not will not impact the health, safety or welfare of the city. Um I did add a note in the conclusion that any future development or redevelopment on this property will be required to comply with the codified ordinances. Meaning if they were to re like tear that building down, replace it, it would have to meet all current setbacks, landscaping, storm, all of those sorts of things. Um, so with that, I will try and answer any questions. Sean, unless you have anything else you want to add. Okay. So, questions from the board. We want to hear from the applicant.

Yeah. Unless anybody has questions from Trevor. There's applica applicants here. Would you like to come up and speak to us? What do you want to know? Oh, tell us your name and um can you tell us anything about this? Why you're applying for Okay. My name is Ray Spec. I own Kaps Auto Body and that was my former service center and right now, as you said, it's just limited to the service center before I invest money in it. I want to know what I can put there. So, right now, we're very limited. And I don't want to put a house back there, and I'm not going to put a service center back there. So, trying to do it which way you guys want me to do it. So, wow.

I don't have really no plans of what's in there yet, but Well, cool. I uh you whatever it's going to be, it's going to be nice, but I just want I just want to do it right. So, we appreciate that. That was going to be my question is what your plans were. I don't know. I got some ideas. So, um it needs rehab. I know that. So, yeah. What is What does GCC1 limit it to or allow it to do? Give me a second. I can pull up the city's code. It it is fairly the purple one. Well, it says yeah, I'll just read through them. It's fine. That's for sure. Is the purple better. So, village says,

okay, so allowable uses within the GCC1. I'll just read through. There are subcategories. I'll read through the high level categories because there's quite a few. Uh administrative business and professional offices. Uh professional offices engaged in providing services to the general public. organizations and associations organized on a profit or nonprofit basis for promotion of membership interests, retail stores primarily engaged in the selling of merchandise, uh personal services involving the care of the person and his or her personal effects, and I think the last one down there is theaters. So, it's kind of theaters kind of a wide variety of of commercial uses are allowed in Jesus. There you go, Ray. put a theater there

and just across the street too. I see it's GCC1 already. Yes, it is correct. Oh, we really are doing would be expanding it across the street. And what's the purple? Did we figure it? It's village commercial or village commercial. What's the difference there between GCC1 and Vilcom? Village commercial was from what I can tell was initially adopted to support more urban development meaning it has like maximum setbacks instead of minimum setbacks and things like that. But as far as uses go, it allows pretty similar to GCC-1 just with different development standards.

That was going to be my question is cuz I know for the area and we had talked about this on zoning. Um when we had talked about that area, we talked about the doctor's offices that came in, you know, some of the other usage in there. When you look at them at face value, GCC1 is more for the downtown village center. And you know, that's kind of how it was designed. We've seen that in the past be a mess. I'd agree. I think everybody would agree it's something that we'll probably overhaul in the future. So, I don't know that we want to see expansion. Hearing Ry say that he does not want to put a garage back in there. That's the main difference. I mean, they're very similar in their usage except for the garage and and the ability to do automotive things. And if your plan is not to put automotive things back into there, I think that would be a safe use to go um with the village commercial because that ensures that we're not going to have that type of business come back into there. So, I think we're going to have more businesses that'll be harmonious with a residential area around it. And also just some of the development standards that are different between the two. GCC1, you can go right up to the lot line. I know that village commercial, you're going to have setbacks which are going to ensure that we're not worried about necessarily what Ray is going to do there. We're worried about 20 years, 30 years from now when somebody buys it that's not, you know, Johntown native or something like that. You know, what what will they do? This ensures that they at least have setbacks and things that they have to adhere to to keep the area somewhat relevant.

I mean, go ahead. No, you started first. Go. I mean, you raised a good point about the setbacks and and other things. I don't know what those differences are. Yeah. Off the top of my head. Yeah. So, I mean, I can go through them if y'all are interested. So, let's reasonable for the property.

I'm in GCC1 currently. So reading through the lot requirements in 1155.04, there's no minimum lot size required, which that's not problematic here. The lot's already existing. No minimum lot width is required other than to meet all other required setbacks. Uh each lot shall have a front setback of not less than 15 ft. Each lot shall have a rear setback of not less than 25 ft. Um, and then your side setbacks have to be a total of 30 feet with a minimum of 15 feet on one side. Good lord. So, um, is that lot even big enough for that? I would say so. Yes. I know. I'm just

But yes, and to be honest, the setbacks for GCC1 are a little bit less stringent than the ones for UR1. So there actually will be a little bit more flexibility there with GCC1 in terms of where you could put a building on the site, but it's existing. You can go up to 90% lot or what's the percentage of lot coverage on GCC1, but I know you can cover a full lot. Uh permitted in permitted in conditional uses or sorry permitted in conditional structures, pedestrian sidewalks, and parking shall not cover more than 65% of the lot.

Yeah. So 65% maximum coverage. I guess if we went with the other, right? Not GCC1, are we then requiring him to get those setbacks and do all of that too? Unless he alters or expands the current footprint of the existing you try to build a new building on it, you'll have you'll have to adhere to whichever one or alters the original one or Yeah. I guess for me, I don't have a problem with the current layout, you know, like to me it's always been right. But there will be like there is parts of it that need to come down. No, no, no. I know that. I'm talking about like the setbacks, the difference in the setbacks

for me. I don't have a problem with it. But I do that's a valid point and I do agree GCC1 needs to be overhauled. I I will say since we're talking about this, the village commercial, if that were to be applied, that would look different because it has a maximum setback. So the setback in that case can only be between 2 feet and 12 feet where so GCC1 you're going to be a minimum 15t back. Okay. In Vilcom, you cannot be more than 12 feet away. Meaning that building eventually once part of it comes down or whatever is rebuilt, we'll have to meet those current setbacks, which means that building will be very close to the street compared to the other ones along Kashakton right there.

So I think so I think in terms of a harmon I I think from a har a harmony standpoint and creating something that looks more like what else is along Kashakin right there, GCC1 will give you that. Yes. Yeah. And we also got applicant coming in to do the right thing, right? Like like he's it is what it is. No, no, no. I'm not trying to run Ray through the ringer at all. No, I don't. Yeah. I want to make sure I'm not worried about Ray. I'm worried about the people. I understand where you're coming from. He's not worried about you. No. I mean, it was valid. Yeah. So, that's what I just want to know what's going to keep us with more of what's there already. So, village commercial has to be closer to the street. Correct.

Yes. Interesting. But but the Johntown point is like feedback. It was not built in compliance with our codes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I'm new. No, you're good. Well, I could really throw a wrench in you. So, uh Oh, yeah. No, I like GCC1. I think it's good for him.

Just just for fun. This would wouldn't be relevant, but this is a good learning moment. So, defining what you want on that corridor is going to be important. Um, so sometimes you think, you know, setbacks are good, sometimes they're bad, whatever the case may be. Uh, if you look, keep going on 62, there's there's a situation when you get into a town, if you just keep going 62 that have buildings close to the roadway. Um, typically that produces a more pedestrian friendly uh different downtown corridor effect. So, um, I'm not saying one's right or wrong. I'm just saying that having the buildings up front, much like our downtown, is not always out of line with maybe the master plan of the area. So, um, it's probably for a longer conversation, but this was an opportunity to insert the differences between Village Commercial and GCC1.

I mean, it would look really weird in this area if it was 15. I disagree. It's a it's a weird spot, too, because it's a corner. So, I know what you're talking about. Like the new Chase building, kind of what we tried to do with some of the other ones down in that area. We wanted them to be up up closer to the road. I was referencing more like you get all the way into that other town, New Albany. Um, and you've got you've got those offices right before you get to the the Eagles Pizza that are all new. Um, but they're designed to look um and feel more older, more twotoryish. Um the destroyer like if the road needs to widen though then you really limiting your road width going in the future.

So good question. Uh council and I don't disagree doesn't want 62 to become a five lane five lane highway. They want it to be more um quaint um of a downtown. So um in our rideway Johntown gets to dictate whether it's going to be three lane, two lane or six lane. And right now the current climate is it ain't happening with six lane. People are going to have to figure it out and get us a bypass so we can have a downtown. And I think that's probably good logic. So I'll support him on that. Well, I just like like I look like grand village or GCC1 basically is what we're deciding. I mean the application that's been presented before you is for GCC1. Give us

similar to what we have now. Give him more freedom on there. Yeah. I would Sounds like Sounds like um I'd like to make a recommendation to approve to council. Oh yeah, you got We need a My bad again. Public published public hearing. Come on up and Okay. Thank you. Please. Thanks, Ray. Thank you, Ray.

My name's Jeff Gilbert. I lived across the street from that location we're talking about for 38 years. Uh, I've seen a lot come and go through the town in those 38 years. Um, I see I kne I knew it when it was Ohio station and every time somebody pulled into the station, it ran over a rubber hose that ding ding, you know. So, yeah, I can remember those days. Um, my biggest concern is number one, traffic. whatever goes in there. If it's a business that, you know, is going to be a lot of traffic, if it's staying open at 9:00 in the evening, you know, that that can that can deter your evening, you know, watching a good movie or something. So, uh, ASEPS wasn't a horrible neighbor. Um they were out of there at 5:00 and they didn't work on the weekends which was great as living in a residential area. Um 38 years ago you know the the town wasn't what it was it is now. You know five lanes 62 being five lanes that would be a nightmare I think. you know, depends on how much they want to give me for my property, I guess. But, uh, I just I just wanted to put in my opposition, you know, for that. Um,

uh, it's, if I might ask, what is the opposition to? It's to changing the the u the zoning. You know, it's it's what it is now, the urban residential, and I've lived with that for 38 years. you add something in and like uh Ryan was saying what's going to come in after him, you know? You know, it's just GCC1 expands it to a whole new level, it seems to me, you know. So, that's basically all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. No offense. Just

friendly banter. Jump in a little. Yes, you want. Um,

I think it's worth noting that, and I completely understand what he's saying. Um, it's worth noting that the GCC1 of today is drastically different than the GCC1 of yesterday. Um, the council has taken steps probably over the last two two to three years to significantly reduce the intensity of uses for the GCC-1. And I'm not saying that should dissuade your your your concern, but what I will say is that drive-thru um types of businesses are, if I'm reading this correctly, Trevor, are not permitted. So vehicular oriented businesses are no longer desired in the GCC1 as to where you know, rewind the clock 10 15 years ago that was that was an acceptable use. So, a lot of the current uses that you see there now are what we would call grandfathered in and they're no longer allowed to be there. So, again, that GCC1 of yesterday is definitely not a reflection of what it is today. And I would like to get you a list of what's permitted. Not saying that that would change your mind, but if the board does approve it, at least you know what could go in there as opposed to what couldn't go in there. Um, but I I completely understand if if I was looking at what was downtown or approved already, I would have a high level of concern. So, I think it's warranted.

Thank you. Yeah, I lived in Hillyard when they expanded it to five streets, so I'm familiar with this process. Um, and just to just to explore that exercise, currently it is zon UR1, correct? Yes. So under UR1, Ray rents it out to another business. How does that work? Just to explain for the public. I mean any other watching at home or in the audience.

Any other commercial use wouldn't be permissible. Any new use has to comply with the UR1 zoning which is residential single families. So I mean potentially you could transition that property to someone else doing service work and they could potentially continue doing that. But that's I mean that's what the grandfather is. You can continue doing that specific use until it stops and then it's done, right? Basically grandfathering is is a way to let something continue understanding that the code has changed, but once that use ceases or changes, then the current code applies to that,

right? I just want to make sure for anybody watching, we're all not zoning experts. So, want to make sure that we know leaving this property as is, the only thing that you could use it for other than housing would be a a garage if they moved that in there today. If it was not used as a garage for two years, two years, then if there's no use and no activity for two years, then the there's an expiration on the grandfather clause um called conforming equal non-conforming. Um there is an expiration on the non-conforming use being allowed. So

reszoning this to whichever one that we decide to go with does allow usage for the property in any of these permitted uses in here. GCC1 pretty much what you're getting downtown. We've moved most of the automotive services, veterinary, um gasoline, um any of the other ones that are going to yield a lot more traffic, those are under conditional use. Mhm. So, a lot of the non-attractive uses are conditional use. So, they would have to come in for an extra permit if they did decide to go into there

under GCC1. So, essentially everybody, you know, hears what you were saying and it sounds to me like the new code is set up in a way that we shouldn't have those problems as far as late night and a lot of traffic in and out of that location at the wrong hours. it the new uses are designed to be more uh res downtown center or oriented.

Yes. For full disclosure, whenever we redid this two years ago, knowing that the council's desire was to have more restrictions on the downtown areas and knowing GCC1 was specifically the downtown area, um I copied a lot of what was out of village center and village commercial

and placed it into this provision and then put in conditional pieces. That way it gave the board and the council more uh more oversight on some of those more intense uses. Um, so like I said, I borrowed from Village Commercial Village Center and a couple other um ordinances or I'm sorry, a couple other um drafts from neighboring municipalities on uh on what their downtown districts look like, folded them into the uses that are here. So that's helpful. I ripped off and duplicated. So yeah, no, it was it was more so to just say that that I think uh the uses now are more residential friendly. Shouldn't be a problem.

I have a question. If we leave at UR1, what would you do with it? We allowed to ask that. If we left at UR1, what would you do? I mean, if I run it out to another service, another service center and just be another service center. Yeah. Yeah. Is it Is the building like I mean, I got So, you're not going to use it yourself? Yeah. Is it Does it need It's not like It's not like in um condemned mode or anything, right? No. No. Okay. Another service center can go right in, but that's shooting myself in the foot. So, but if I have to do it, that's what be done at the 9:00 at night. That's up to them. Yeah. And that's them moving in. True. Yeah. It's not you because you're definitely not going back in there from Okay. No.

All right. Thank you. Since this is a public hearing, any other comments from anybody want to mess that up again twice. All right. Any other comments or questions from the board? I'm going to go ahead with my re recommendation to council to approve this application. I'll second Kyle. All right. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes. Maruski, yes. Ryan Heel, yes. Ryan Green, yes.

This will go to council. Just so everyone in the audience knows that was here for this. This is a recommendation. This is the process piece. So, doesn't mean that it got approved tonight. Um, this board doesn't have enough power. Whoa. It's true. So excited I got to say that. Yeah. No, we appreciate this piece. Well, Ryan does because he's on council. Yeah. Usually, we don't have a crowd, so this is great.

Ryan will be a part of council. So, this is a recommendation to council. Council will have two readings on this. Uh I would encourage you to show up to council, voice your concerns, uh and council has three options uh afforded to them. They can deny it, they can approve it, or they can approve with modifications. Um so those are those are the next steps in the process. There'll be a 30-day public notice period again. Uh so it'll likely go to council sometime. He's taking notes, too. I think it'll probably be December. It'll be the 11:18 meeting. I could get it advert that'll be it'll be get in the paper for the 30th

second meeting in November or the first meeting in December in which it'll be heard at council. It'll have to have two readings uh before it's approved. We'll have a public at the first one um and second one they would they would vote. So I think I have to have the public hearing not less than 20 days but not more than 45. So, I think it'll be a public hearing on 11:18. Yep. Looking at it. Oh, there's two. So, yeah. So, there's two. I've printed off that. I'm going to run over and grab it real quick so you guys can have it. Does anybody else want a copy of the permitted uses in GCC1? Okay. Oh, I printed them for him actually.

Perfect. When I just killed a tree else, thanks. I don't feel bad now. Awesome. I appreciate people coming up and speaking. It doesn't happen very often, but it does influence us and we still have hard decisions that we have to make and sometimes unpopular, but it it is what it is. Uh, moving on to application 10825 Lotz, 59 South William Street. Um, I think we should hear from the applicant first. Yeah. Oh, this one's complicated. Yes, I was I I read all the points and uh I was confused.

Howdy. Hi. If you can state your name,

Caleb. I live at 49 South William Street right next to it. Um this was 2 years ago. We bought the nastiest house in Johntown and we have made it a very nice place. So, it's not an isore anymore. Um, the driveway was a single driveway where I had to basically play uh musical chairs every time we pulled out. So, we I was corresponding with a guy named Terry Wymer. I'm sure you guys are all familiar. Um, I I don't think he works here anymore, but he gave us a preliminary approval to put a fence in. and he gave us a fence approval for the piece of property I bought from my neighbor, which was 4 ft by 93 ft, which extended my driveway wide enough so I could put two vehicles in it. Um, but now I found out through the through the engineer through the county that they never approved it because they actually needed a lot split from you guys, but Terry sent them an email saying that it was already approved. Like basically like we we don't need to do a lot split. to be too much of a headache. Like, we don't need to do it. So, just it's good to go and I have the email if you guys need it. But basically, yeah, I just want to get the driveway so where it's big enough where I can just drive. I've already purchased the property. It's notorized.

Um, yeah, there will be a Appreciate that. That's what I kind of thought. And I'll build a fence one acres. Sure. What? Yeah, it's very small. It's I want Yeah, I was trying to think of reasons you'd want a piece of property that big and that's what I figured it was for. just to make it bigger. Y basically. So then once if I can can I jump in? Yeah. For a minute. Okay.

So my initial Terry consulted with me. My initial response was there's no lot split needed because there's really no new lots being created. This gentleman's buying a piece of property from his neighbor. It's immediately being added to his property. There is no new lot being created. So in my opinion, there's no new lot being created. Why do we need a lot split? So my thought was if you can revise the deeds for both those properties, get them to the county, they can re-record that, adjust the property lines accordingly, nobody's worse for where the property transaction has occurred. No big deal. It seems like the county now needs some sort of document from the city that the lot was created, split, things like that. Um I don't have any issue with this personally. I was trying to avoid bringing this through a public process just because mainly there's no new development or anything like this going to happen on this.

No, no, no. It's just I've already built the fence too, the fence approval. I mean, that's like where I'm like, ash, this is not good. Like, um, and so in this case, like I don't have any issue with this lot split because really, in my opinion, it's just to satisfy the needs of the county probably for them to ensure that that property transaction happened even though it already happened. Um, so do with that what you will, but it's very John. I mean I I don't think that in my opinion the city's lots split process is not needed here but this is being requested to satisfy the needs of the county. Sure. Easiest solution to then it's going to be combined with it. Right be because it will be immediately combined with this gentleman's lot. There will be no new lot permanently in existence. Okay.

Well that's good because Yeah. Right. Because this lot would not create a lot that was a sliver. And this happened dude. This was so long ago. I don't even Do you remember when it was like this was like 6 months ago? Something like that. Or it has been. Yeah. And I I ago February. February on the auditor. Oh, well, it won't be on the auditor. They haven't approved it yet. They're waiting for this. He needs this. Cuz they're actually selling their property. And then the surveyor came and they're like, "Hey, why is this fence on their property?" I'm like, "Dude, I promise." Like, it's it's not what it seems like. and and then he was, you know, he was cool about it, but still it was just kind of and I was like, "What are you talking about?" He showed me the auditor's website, your uh True Val or whatever it's called, the the True View.

True View. Yeah. The property search and it showed clearly that it wasn't. And I was like, "Oh, that's Yeah, that's not good." So, question for the applicant. Yes. So, kind of housekeeping in process. Um, hypothetically, let's say the board approves a lot split tonight. Um, the only thing I would ask is that whenever you come into the city uh to get all this paperwork organized, do you currently have a lot combination teed up with the county? The reason I asked that is I will actually sign that first.

It'll happen at the same time, but I'm going to sign that document first. I'll need that document before I would before I would want to sign the lot split because the last thing I would want to have happen is we end up with this little teeny tiny little lot. That's right. Um so it really needs to have the combination with it. I'm totally for them approving this. Um but whenever we do the paperwork in the background, we got to have a lot combination. It'll happen simultaneously with the lot split.

They'll approve the lot split. I can internally approve the lot combination. So, I don't know if you've had that discussion with the county auditor yet or the recorder, but we can walk through that and try to help out in any way we can. I don't know that it'll be terribly challenging, but it'll just be a lot combination. Do you know if I've uh done that yet or I mean, I'm just not familiar with the whole process. Just been a letter a letter request from the applicant or combination? I think it's just you request it. So, you just call up the county uh say, "Hey, this is what's happening. and this is what we want to do. I want to combine this lot that's going to be created with mine. They'll probably say we just need a letter. Um

well, that's what it was. That's that's actually how it started, weirdly enough. And then they were like, well, before we can do that, they basically just their parliamentary procedure or however the procedure works. It just wasn't aligned with the way you guys did it or I don't know. Like so they we'll probably just need they'll they'll probably need it's more on them. I got to find out what they need or you would want to call and find out what they need. I would assume they just need the the same documentation that you have and it's a representation of your lot, the new lot and then just the combination of the two and then they just combine it. I don't know the exact process but I wanted to put that out there. Um I would not want to hear what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Is that is that uh is that something that he might get push back on or is that

I don't from the county? No, I don't think they'll just end up then we would approve this. Would we approve this with a condition then? you could um that it has to be combined um and then I'll know internally that I can't sign this or you can't legally sign it until that provision has been met. Again, how long the whole process will take? I was going to have to be approved by another house. Yeah, it doesn't have to be approved by council. Yeah. Can I sell my house? No. Yeah. Um, I don't know when you're planning on closing, but I've talked to Caleb here over the last couple weeks. But, um, as soon as this is approved, you can go to the county. Yeah.

And have it recorded and then the combination. In the past, we've done a couple of these with different properties, but um, literally in a day. Yeah. I mean, you can probably have it all done at the same time. We just need like a letter requesting the combination and a copy of this survey basically and you would sign off on it just saying that it's going to be combined. Hold that title agency to the fire. Make them close. Well, it's it's if we've got all the paperwork and it's just the process, just hold their feet to the fire at the title agency and say, "Yeah, title title could have this done." Yeah. In and out. Should be quick. They should be able to call down there and say, "This is what we want to do. What document do you need?"

Oh, they have. They've corresponded a lot. like it's they they basically the county told me basically this is all I'm waiting on is just this lot split and I don't know and then I think you do like a a quick request to combine request combine give them that same picture you sign it that satisfies everybody take it all down I think they'll do it all one day probably I don't know how long the county I can't speak for how long the county it takes to record something but as far as being officially recorded it you can take it down there to the it's already been pre-approved by engineer. Yeah, there's a pre-approval stamp on it and everything. All you have to do then is take it um down to the recorder. It should be done the next day technically. And they really know that they should be that should be everything that the title agency

give it over without a motion to approve without the combination. We have the risk of I don't know that that's Yeah. Yeah. I'm like I don't know that part as far as recording the the split and the combination that can be done next day. All right. Any questions from the board? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Oh, it's just so I'm new here. So, all right. So, you own the property uh the existing residence. You're looking to buy like a 2 ft by 4T by 93 ft. Yeah. Just a little bit bigger for her. Yes. Yeah. Not. And then that's the lot split we're talking about here. And you're looking to sell. So, she wants to And you're the current property. Yeah. It's already happened. It's money's already been transacted. Like, it's already been notorized.

Are you buying the the whole property next to you? No, just a little sliver of her property. Yeah, she's looking to sell the rest of her property though. Well, she sells completely separate transaction. Yeah. Yep. I think as long as it doesn't hang them up, I'm okay with doing that addition. Yeah. Doesn't sound like it will. No, just just for learning stuff. Um something that you would want to check. We've done the background on this. This doesn't create a non-conforming lot. So, that's what Yeah, that's what I was worried about. So, as long as we're doing the combination,

this this does not make one lot non-conforming. Actually, it's probably going to clean it up a little bit. You got some setbacks, a little bit more room to breathe. Um, so we would never recommend a situation where you're you're creating a lot that all of a sudden doesn't meet except back except green space. Spend a lot of time cleaning up crazy lots from the early 1900s of somebody sold this and part of a building and you can't post. We just don't want to leave a mess for somebody 20 years down the road. Awesome. Is there any reason it wouldn't go all the way doesn't really matter. Is there any reason why it wouldn't go back? That would be a question for them.

We didn't look at that because it's still stay for the ride. Create a little bit of an oddity. It's changed a lot in 60 years. Lines aren't perfect. Yeah, that's not a big deal. More of a personal problem. This and this is not like a this is a UR1 or whatever, right? So, we're not dealing with anything, but it is residential. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The surveyy's been done, too. I've paid a title company to deal with it and they it just got to this one teeter spot here. Was there any reason to go all the way back? Um it was more money. Yeah. I I want Yeah, but Oh, gotcha. All right. Good. You good? Yeah. Sounds like um I would have approved it 20 minutes ago. But huh, we're good. I'm good. I'm ready. Yeah. Sorry.

Ready? Make a motion. Do I need to make a motion or do you Let's do it. Go ahead. I don't know if I have. Um, hold on. Now, is there like an official number I have to say here? Hold on. No, no, you can. I'll make a a motion for uh the flat adjustment here, I guess, is what I'll call it for the lot split for the Ah, there is an application number uh application number uh 10825 lot split 59 South William Street. There we go. Do you want to add the condition that it is combined? Yes. Yes. Yes. I'll second. Okay. Ryan Hevil, yes. Ryan Green, yes. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes. Mark Zolinski,

yes. Thanks, E. Nice mustache. Thank you. Yeah. Have a good night. All right, moving on. Moving on. Application 8725. Famous words from Steve. All right. Do you want me to jump in? Um, we have Thank you. several applications. Thanks for coming in, folks. Have a great night. We appreciate you guys coming in. I'm 78, so I've been in fourth grade. Oh my gosh. What year did you graduate? Uh 65. 65. 1995. You know, you know any daggs? Do I know any what? Daggs. Oh, yeah. Do you like them? Well, do you know the janitor, Howard Chanel?

Yeah, that was my dad. All right, there you go. Chanel, we do get around. Yeah. Do you know there's still people tell me how great he was? I don't doubt it. Last week there was a lady in Kroger's and she said, "I just loved your dad." There you go. See, you remember. See, I'm just like him. So, you guys are all in trouble. Thanks for everything. His name's on signs all around town. You're easy enough to find them. Thank you. Chanel was Chanel. Yeah. Chanel. All right. We got an application now. One person in the audience. So I have a question before we move on. Teresa. Yes. These are all related.

They are. So I think Trevor was getting ready. I also have Jacob's engineering phone number. If there's questions, they weren't weren't planning on attending because we have city representation, but if there are questions, he is available. Oh yeah. Do we have the applicant present? There is no applicant present. The city of Johntown is the applicant. So Sean doesn't have to get up there and stand there. You can make him. I mean, I could have Jack, me, whoever you want, Teresa. I mean, yeah, call Jack. Anybody? We're going to have questions about sighting. Yeah. Questions on them separately in case um Okay, that's all. One was fine and one wasn't. All right, let's move. I don't know where Ryan went. Um hopefully he's okay.

I do believe that we will. All right, let's discuss application 8725 conditional use 395 West Jersey. All right, I'm gonna jump in, Sean, unless you No, I'm gonna You do that. Um, just for reference, I sent out an email really close to meeting time tonight. Okay. That has the site plan on it. Oh, good. Okay. Um, so I'm going to pull that up while Trevor's doing his bit, but you have your laptop. I like pictures. Okay. So the conditional use permit and the associated variances will go through the cup first then the variances because there's no need for a variance if the use is not ultimately recommended for approval. So give any

the existing water treatment plant uh on Jersey Street. Is that right? Yeah. Or Mink Street, Jersey, wherever the transition we're going to call it.

Um so that plant's been there for some time. The current code that's in place though, uh, the zoning on the property is UR2, which is a residential zoning district, but it does allow for public infrastructure as a condition use. I would consider a water treatment plant infrastructure. So, that's why we're here. Um, I assume the the or I assume there's no CUP on that property currently because I bet the water treatment plant predates the city's zoning. So, it was just one of those things that happened over time. Um, so that said, the cup is for an expansion of the water plant and also to legitimize the use of the water plant itself. Um, so that said, let's see. Of course, went through the normal review of the comprehensive plan. I didn't see anything in there that would preclude this from happening. Um, there are some issues with setbacks and things like that which we will address during the zoning or the variance portions of this, but um, I did note those in CUP. Um, let's see. I'm just going to skip down to um the last page, which is 32 of 61 on your packet in the staff report. So, compliance with the codified ordinances. Um,

if the CUP is approved, the the expansion will still have to do a formal site plan review and also get a certificate of appropriateness from the design review board. Um, also wanted to note that the approval of this cup in no way waves any requirements to comply with the comprehensive plan or the code. It's just I always like saying that. Um, let's see. And then in the conclusion section towards the end there, I didn't find any inconsistencies between the the use itself and the adopted comprehensive plan or the UR zoning district. Uh, I did note in there the exception of the front yard setback, the roof pitch, and the street tree requirements. Those items all have a variance associated with them. So, we'll address those later. Um, my takeaway though is that approval of this request in no way negatively impacts the health, safety, or welfare of the city. Uh, I'll keep it brief like that. If y'all have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I didn't want to.

No, you address the variances that are going we're going to talk about later. Yep. You hit them in there. Yep. So, it's not like a Yeah. So, really, this application is just for the use itself. Do you all feel that expanding the water treatment plant where it is is an acceptable use for that area? Okay. I don't know. I mean, traffic Yeah. Did they get a traffic? I I I rendered my opinion. You all can What colors painted? What? How's this going to affect the water? Does anybody even use water? Yeah. Any any comments that are real? No. So, if there's no comments, no questions. We're at a

Sean, do you have anything? I saw you. Um, I'll jump in. I was reading an email, but um relative to the site design, some things. Oh, you're going to show us. Yes. Show and tell. Show and tell. Add some trees someplace else in lie of a park. Yeah. I mean, there's got to be a check in lie of trees added. So that's owned by the city, but the the Bell Park is county. You can make it for $500,000. Township. So it's just like we own this little circular circular cutting. I think on that pretty heavily we're just making sure we get trees.

Should we if it's you are too, why don't we something that would be more appropriate? Is that coming up later? Yeah, I don't think that there's not a zoning district that would allow by right that sort of use. It's pretty common to have big public infrastructure projects be a conditional use permit. That's not uncommon in cities. That's not complicated. Just in the future, if we get rid of it though, it would just be wrong. UR2 allows general public facilities. Lost me. So, it's be a better version or is there not? I heard you get really close. I don't what? None of them were good in my opinion. Can we put this under a condition making do with a good idea of having a public swimming pool come off of it? Splash pad.

What are we looking at? There's the splash pad. I know. No, we need we need a dog park with water treatment. That would help the smell. That the one you're looking for? That one is a little more clear. This doesn't have the street trees and the red bubbles. No, that's what I was bubbles. So, I can probably kind of walk you all through that if you Okay. Um, well, and I'll tee it up. So, what you're looking at is front setback. Obviously, it's already in the encroachment. So, this is just a continuation of it. Uh, roof pitch again, a continuation of kind of what's there, right? We're waiting for wiggle it. Jiggle it. This computer's on. I'm just warning y'all. I love technology.

Yeah. When we do the budget, you're quite a bit of money for Okay. new technology. So, this is this is somewhat challenging to read. Basically, Jersey Street right away is right here.

The existing um the existing building is basically right here. The new building will be kind of an L-shaped addition onto this. So, that's where the encroachment into the front setback occurs. And we can go ahead and talk about these. I'll reiterate this as we go back through. The reason for the variance is sure you could just say, "Oh, why don't you put this equipment whatnot back here?" My understanding is the way that these different pieces of equipment are set up inside the building and the way that the like process of water treatment, it basically needs to go up front here closer to the street due to where all of the underground connections are as well. So that that's the reason for the encroachment into the front setback. The street trees, there are some, but you'll notice they're kind of very sporadically placed. again water treatment plant. There's a lot of stuff underground, too. The concern from the engineers was that you plant a bunch of trees that ultimately get quite large that could impact your ability to repair things in the future. It could cause issues that need you to repair things ahead of time. So, I think in this case, that's a fairly reasonable request. Um, they are putting in the ones that they can in areas that there aren't conflicts with other things. Additionally, we worked with the engineer as Sean Sean.

Sean, are you messing? But uh the bulk water station. No, you're good. Leave it there. We're going to do all our presentations for we'll have a fence put up in front of it along with some landscaping to provide some screening for that new bulk water station. And I think is there a little bit of landscaping going between the building, Sean, and the street? I can't remember. Um right here. I thought so. Just there. Just the two trees um that were added. And I will tell you, Trevor and I had to fight for trees and landscaping and and fencing. Um, we did not get a warm reception from our engineers or our water department. So, no, we didn't. They were bought. What kind of fencing?

I think it's wood. A wood um per the detailing, which is somewhere white or black. Um, and then the other will have and then there'll be shrubbery around it as well. Around the building. That's what it is. Yeah. shrubbery. Let's see. Where's it at? Shrubbery to be placed in front of fence. Um, we're gonna have the fence and we're gonna have shrubbery. Um, and then over um on the other side where there's currently a fence privacy slats to be placed along existing and new fence color. So, that will be chain link fencing with privacy slats slid into it to make it opaque. Yep. Ripped off.

Where's that going to go to? that will basically I think that will run more or less where the current chain link fence is along the street. It will be parts of that will be moved to accommodate the new construction and then they're going to put the privacy slats in that chain link fence. Yeah, currently so you really can't see through it. My computer wants to cooperate. Look like a we could do Google Earth. Um and then so the trees that we've got in there, those were those were hard fought. Unless you don't want the trees then

No, we do. I try to do that because I try to make every effort to keep the city on the same playing field and the same expectation that we have for our residents and so it is going to go before design review board. Um it's going to go through the same process and so they're going to have to defend its position. um infrastructure related to you know water lines that is a plausible variance situation but we we made every effort to put as many trees in as we possibly could. Uh if we're going to expect it out of you know other property owners then by golly we should do the same.

So the the moving the building out in the front versus the back is I mean it could be moved out back but we're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. You're you're you're then going from like expanding the building itself to digging up underground infrastructure, moving it, relocating it to the right place just to set that building back to I'm just thinking about somebody watching who's like, "Well, what is the difference between the front and the back?"

Yeah. Yeah. It's a good question. So, if there was ever a time to move it to the back, that would have been before the current plant is in existence. Because the current plant is there, all the guts in the infrastructure is there. So, to tie it in at a different location, anything's possible and possible. Um, however, there's an additional cost associated with that. Um, and so trying to be um trying to be good stewards of the resources that we have, trying to find a balance between obviously encroaching in setbacks versus uh adding additional cost to a facility that ultimately um is for the public well-being um is what we were trying to balance. So, right, I can't think of any safety concerns. There you go. Let you drive.

Only if they expand the road in front of it. That was my only question. How much does this allow? How much more capacity does this give us? And good question. Oh, now you're getting into the fun stuff. So, we're going from a 1 million to a 3 million. So, we'll have 2 million additional gallons of capacity. Is there any What do we use today? It's not that much water when when you're talking about stuff that's happening.

Let's see. So, what do you we use today? Is it big enough? We use around 700,000 uh es and flows. We have leaks uh sometimes that that cause it to spike. Uh and then other times when we've identified those leaks, uh it obviously drops down. So, and that's just with aging infrastructure and we're taking a a good initiative right now to identify those leaks. Uh what I will tell you since we have an audience of one and maybe somebody online cares um the costs associated with this are not totally for the new additional gallon in um a lot of what's happening here um at least 50% is taking a very aged plant um which needs it needs retrofitted it needs remodeled Um, so whether we add the additional capacity or not, this plant needs to be redone. We have lime silos that have rust holes in them. Um, that's that's a situation. We have pumps that uh that need to be replaced and we have redundancies that aren't included now that are going to need to be implemented. Uh, so that if one section goes down, we can utilize another section. So, uh, as we grow, we obviously will have the thought that we're going to need additional countage. So if there's a time to add the additional capacity, it's now when we're doing uh a plant revitalization. So this is a package deal. So people are like, why why are you spending this money, you know, for for an additional plant for additional gallonage? Not all of the money being spent here is is for new capacity. 50% at least is probably just for um water plant maintenance and a higher level of redundancy. So

that's the sales pitch associated with all the information related to the water plant. Just cost of doing business. Just like your house, you got to do improvements along the way. Doesn't last forever. That's where we're at as a city. Same thing's going to happen with the sewer plant. Not quite right now. So we got a little bit longer. Um but we're putting that one on a shelf and working through the engineering on that one as well. Yeah. All we're approving is that this is an okay location to do it. Correct. the the first I was like that all is so I mean I'm trying to be yeah no that is a good question so yes this probably January Kyle's problem this application is just for the use itself the following ones will be for the variances that are associated with it yeah okay

okay good call Kyle this is a chain you don't want to own this is when you say chain link that's what a chain link any more questions or comments from the board I'm just asking stupid questions we can answer later so I'll make a recommendation to approve application 8725 conditional use. I second. All right. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes. Mark Zelinski, yes. Brian Heel, yes. Brian Green, yes. Awesome. Application number 7, 9225A varants for 395 West Jersey Street. Front set back. Yes. Go ahead, Trevor. Did I not put this one together? You did. I put

Oh, okay. Sorry. Report for all three variances at the very end. Oh, okay. Sorry. All right. I'm going to go down there then. No, you're good. You're good. The same page. Yes. For the variances.

Okay. So, I wrote a staff report. I forgot I did it this way. I wrote a staff report for all three variances since they were all for one site. I figured it'd be easier to review it that way, even though it escaped my memory. Um, so I'll go through quickly. I'm on page 46 of 61 in your all's packet. Um, okay. So, let's see. The applicant is seeking variances related to the proposed buildings. Um, the zoning is UR2. The properties located at 395 West Jersey Street. Um, let's see. The parcel is about a little over 5 acres. Features significant topographic constraints towards the rear rear of the property, including grade changes that limit feasible facility expansion towards the rear of the lot. Adjacent lots include residential properties along Jersey Street and the JYAA sports and recreation fields to the east. Uh the variances that are being requested are the front yard setback encroachment. Uh the required roof pitch and the third and final is for the required street tree standards established in the code. Um I'm going to go through I'm not going to read all of these because these are long lengthy

for the first the first setback related to front yard setbacks. Um, the reviewer recommends approval of this variance uh to allow for a minimum setback of 11 ft. Uh, let's see. Oh, there's an error in how the engineer interpreted setback versus how we did. But in this case, the um the front setback would be allowed to be 11 ft instead of the I believe 25 feet, which is 35 feet, sorry. So, they're the code requirement is 35 foot setback. They were requesting to be able to do an 11 foot setback. Um, right. And I can stop if you want to. It would probably be better if you made motions on these as we went through them. Probably. Oh, so

if I had to because you're going to have either you can make them now or you can make them all at the end. It doesn't matter. But they each need a separate vote because you could approve one and not approve the other. That's why we had to break them down. Yeah. Is there concern with road expansion in the future? I think in this case the if I had to bet that fence that's illustrated on the screen there is probably right at the property line. So if anything the road could go up to that and anything beyond that then would be a negotiation between probably the county and the city. I don't know if that's your rightway. It's our feel that that that the building is going to come out to the fence line there. No, no. There there will still still be at least 11 ft between the fence and the building

even with the proposed expansion. So the road it wouldn't be weird for the road to come out that far then. That would be I'm not saying it wouldn't be weird. I'm just saying that I think that even if that roadway was expanded given that you can expand on both sides. That would be a major expansion if you needed to go all the way to the that'd be like taking that from two lanes to like six. I don't really foresee that happening. Bypass has to go somewhere. Oh, are they going to protect the building somehow if the road if it's going to go up to that building is going to go up to that fence? Two trees. I think we'll worry about that later. Yeah, we've got two trees. We got two trees right there and a sidewalk. That was my question. Is there going to be a sidewalk? There will be a sidewalk. Yes. Everybody else put a sidewalk.

Oh, yeah. I mean, considering what what needs to be done and the cost saving, like if you if you look at all that kind of stuff, it's just like the setback is what it is and I'm personally okay with it. Yeah. We're getting two trees and a sidewalk. I like it. Wouldn't believe the applicant. It's a good book. Whiny whiny like do a sidewalk motion to So well before I continue, I I will continue going if you want, but if you would rather stop talk about the front setback first and make a motion on it, we can certainly do it that way too. It' probably be the way. Can we do all at once? Let's do it. Let's do it like you were saying that we should do individually. Yeah, good suggestion, Mark. Just trying to get you to work early. All right, let's do it that way.

Okay, so that's really all I had on the front setback. The need is there because because of what we talked about before, the equipment's in the ground. The cost would be very prohibitive. Also, moving everything further back on the site. The topography drop off would kind of preclude that from happening anyways. So, this is kind of the only place that can go on site. Yeah. I was saying so you were saying Brian, what was I saying? I have no idea. What was I saying? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. There you go. Awesome. Good. Thank you. I thought it was a question you're asking me. Mark and Kyle, our new Well, never mind. There's a motion on the table. Motion on the table. Go ahead. Mark Zansooi. Yes.

Brian Heel. Yes. Brian Green. Yes. Steve Dyer. Yes. Cut. Yes. All right. Moving on to trees or roof? Roof. Roof. The next one. Roof it up.

So, roof number two, 1149.04 B2E. Minimum roof pitch. Uh, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a propo a proposed roof pitch less than 712 to match the existing facility on the property. Uh the proposed facilities will have this a roof pitch at a 112 slope which is the same as the other buildings that are out there currently. Uh chapter the code states roof pitches shall be a minimum of 712 unless a lower pitch is appropriate for the architectural style. Um in this case after reviewing everything I didn't see anything in this case that would create a health, safety or welfare issue if you were to approve a lower roof pitch. Yes, I would agree that a higher roof pitch generally would be more in line with the residential the residences around there. However, building's been there for some time. The new building aesthetically will look very similar in terms of materials, things like that. So, in a way to try and avoid adding additional cost, continuing to allow that to to exist kind of seems the most reasonable path forward. Additionally, I don't really a variance is required because the code says what it says, but I don't think in this case that you're creating any issues long term by adopting something like this, especially given that the building has been there and is continuing to be there

be better than a flat roof. Yeah. So, unless you have any questions, that's what I got on that one. Any questions? I like bigger roof. But being that it has been in ex on the basis of existence of the building for so long, it's kind of on an island. I'll make a motion to approve. All right, I'll second that. Okay. Mark Solinski, yes. Ryan Heel, yes. Ryan Green, yes. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes.

Ryan, it's your turn to motion about trees. So, so the the last variance is for uh chapter 1183.08 street tree requirements. Um, as I I pointed to earlier with the plan that was on the screen, the applicant or the engineers have agreed to put in some trees. However, due to presence of underground utilities, things like that that would probably either cause the trees not really to grow or cause problems in the future. Um, they are proposing to have more distance between those trees than would typically be allowed per the code. Um, so with that, again, applying the review criteria, they're in the code, I didn't find anything that I feel like would create an issue long-term health, self health, safety, welfare for the city, those sorts of things. So, I I recommend approval of this variance as well.

We're getting we are getting the recommended amount of trees. So, we're getting the amount that are feasible to put in, correct? It's been a while since we had that conversation. Yeah, I'm trying to pull back memory. Um I think there's the ability to put in a few more. However, because of the driveways and the sight clear distance, there are some restrictions um within our code. That is why a variance is needed because we're not able to actually do the amount of trees required. Um so we have to apply for the variance. Uh I cannot remember the calculations on what I don't either. It's like one per every 24 24 to 36 feet.

36 feet. Um so so per conversation that we had earlier there was in a separate meeting because I've been here for three consecutive meetings um there was talk about planting trees in another area of town. So if we made a condition in this that trees would be planted in another area of town.

The only reason I didn't recommend that you could certainly go that way. I have no issue with that at all. The only reason I didn't recommend that is because the way we've been doing or the way the code is written for the tree replacement, which is what the code section I was referencing earlier, that's really for when you're clearing trees. Like let's say let's say you had a green site and it was fully covered in trees. You wanted to cut them all down to build a house or whatever. The code requires that you first the goal is to replant them on site. If you can't replant them on site, you can do it on adjacent properties. If you can't do that, then you can pay into a tree mitigation fund. I haven't been we haven't been applying that to street trees yet because I feel like those are only intended to be next to the street. Now, you could argue a tree is a good tree regardless of where it is,

but that's the reason I didn't recommend um that approach in this regard is because there's no there's no clearing going on. It's just they're not providing the same number of trees as required by the code. That that was the only difference I had with that. Yeah. And it is more than what's there now. It is more than what's there now. um some shrubs in maybe that's in the plan and those will be those will be between the building and like around the perimeter of the building and there will be shrubs and that sort of thing. So there's there's going to be actual landscaping on the new building as opposed to I thought there was you mentioned it at least on the street frontage. I thought it's not that I want to add additional cost to this already. What are those little circles in front of? Yeah, that's true. But

we are get us any money to put I love how you city money to cut down some trees. Okay. counterintuitive to what they're they are, but it does cover the cost of because otherwise you'd clear cut all your trees because you don't want to take care of them, but Okay. Yeah. So, as far be right back. Yep. All right. As far as shrubbery goes,

there's it doesn't appear minimal. It's over near the water station where there's a fence to screen that particular hill station. And there'll be some shrubbery put in front of it to actually provide some natural vegetation as well as some uh physical. All right. Well, in the name of shrubbery. Can we make a motion without the chairman? I would like a full vote. Yeah. Where' Steve go? Restroom. He announced that he had to pay. Can I take a fiveminute recess? I have to use the rest. So they go to the bathroom. We're going to take a fiveminute recess. I've been

Okay, back from recess. So, in the name of shrubbery, I uh I make this motion. Second. All right. This is the street tree variance that you're approving. 9225C. Okay. Yes. Ryan Green, yes. Steve Dyer, yes. Kyle Cook, yes. Mark Zolinski, yes. Brian Heel, yes. Moving on to action item number eight. Application 9225B variance 395 West. No, we went through all those. Item number 10. Oh, roof pitch.

We're on 10. You on number 10. Sorry. uh draft discussion chapter 1159. Yes. Let me try to get back into this really quickly. Yes. Took all the comments. Yeah. So, basically what I did is I took the the comments from our conversation last time, made those changes, sent it back to Sean and Teresa. Really just to get back in front of you all uh to see if you had any additional comments or anything else you wanted to um bring up. I also did add in just so that we didn't this kind of a procedural thing but I added back in the recently adopted paint and powder coating use that was adopted because of not basically it would have removed it had we adopted this one without it.

What was the thing I brought? So that's in there not strike through underline because that's currently adopted in the code but it is different in case you saw it. Okay. So yeah, I don't even recall now what the changes were which is terrible. Yeah. No, you're I don't either, but I I I did go through it. I didn't see anything new. Okay. Why didn't we remove baked goods and candy? What's that? Why did we remove baked goods and candy? If you have a massive bakery over there, it's going to waft through that neighborhood. Well, the smell of the smell bad. Yeah. I mean, you mix that with the other Yeah. smell that's over there.

Sausage man like meat packing. anyone who's gone to Columbus State for any amount of time like you had the you had the Kroger we did talk about we talked about the reason it was something else it wasn't that well I think it's because so bakeries and confectionaries are now an allowable use oh okay that's why is that what yeah so we we had the conversation about food products and that certain things are less noxious or less irritating to be around so things like meat packing sausage anything that deals with like meat products or things that can rot we felt like definitely should be in a condition But things like bakeries or candy, while they do have smells associated with them, it's less, I guess, offensive than other uses, which is why we made that change. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. B. Okay. Okay. So, those are now allowable at by right so long as you're on properties that are 2 acres or greater. Ice cream. Yeah. Like ice cream. I love how we all approve the minutes, but none of us remember what we said. Not at all. You're right. We did. That's what you have a Trevor. That's okay. That's clutch. You need a Yeah, but you just got to hope my brain's working. Got a Trevor good refresher. So, if there's area work through the process on this, how this would work is if you all liked these revisions, you would make a motion to recommend to council and then it would go to council and then council would have two readings and then they would be adopted. Yeah, go ahead.

Or are they going to deny Yeah, I think we talked about this as much as we could talk about. Yeah, I think so, too. So, I'll make a motion unless there's any small tweaks. I'll make a motion to put it to I will second. Sounds good. Kyle Cook, yes. Mark Zolinski, yes. Brian Heel, yes. Brian Green, no. Steve Dyer,

yes. other business. The only other thing that I had was a brief introduction. Um, this kind of came out of our ARB. Is it AB ARB or ABR? Anyways, I get the acronym mixed up, but ARB. Yeah.

Yeah. AR. Anyways, so it came out of that Dakota board. Um, in short, so I had noticed upon review of the lighting that we're not very specific across our lighting in the commercial areas. So, it's something that I just want to highlight and at least briefly introduce. Um, I had taken a look at how they do this in some other states. Um, what is that? Dark sky, um, is what I had looked at. I don't think that we need to get that in depth, but if you guys want to take a look at that, it's probably something I'd like to discuss here in the future. Um, it calls for a lot of down lighting. It calls, which we already do some of that. Um, it calls for specific um limits on lumens and uh other things in lighting so that uh when we all look up at the night sky here in the city, we're not going to see a massive um light bubble on one corner of the city. for since we have since we have multiple business districts, we don't want to see that. So, I mean, I know it's it's not going to be what it is today

um always. Once the construction dies down, I hope that that lighting, you know, kind of dies down as well, but if we do this, at least through attrition, we'll be able to do that and as new things come in, we can do that. So, um it's it's easy. Trevor could probably share the link or I can share the link or Sean um to everybody, but it's something I want to take a look at. So, I think it's easy to implement.

Um I think a lot of businesses that are going to be coming in from other areas, this is something they're probably somewhat familiar with. We don't have to go as indepth as this program goes because I don't know that it'll fit Johntown. But I think at least some of along some of these lines, you know, limiting the amount aluminum lumens um aluminum say that's their board if it's aluminum.

So yeah. Yeah, that's their board. But anyways, down lighting, limiting on the lighting, those sorts of things. I think we want to see that if we're going to have large business parks here in the future, that's something we're going to have to do. Um, right now we at least stop lighting on the edge of property lines, but when you're going to have another business right on that property line and keep going down the line, you're going to have a massive Good call, you know. So, it's something that making it LED lighting, too. Is that anywhere? It goes into all that. So, it it talks about all that. It calls for softer lighting colors like it. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't I don't see anybody in the community taking a look at that and going, "Wait a minute. Pretty good. 1175. Is it there? Is it? 117505 says lighting. And look at that. Off street. What are we We researching stuff. Yeah. Oh, for off street parking. Yeah. So, in all honesty, the city's code currently there's lighting provisions kind of sprinkled throughout. Um,

street lighting. Generally, what Ryan's talking about is focusing lighting on only where it's essential, using downlit fixtures with cut offs, things like that. Um, reducing the the like the wattage or lumens, how much light they put out. The dark sky, like the link that Ryan had provided me, the true dark sky, like when it was founded, was ma was really to help with like wildlife migration and raiding and things like that. So, that sort of stuff wouldn't apply here. I wouldn't think you could take it to that level if you wanted, but I think with some fairly minor changes, you could probably do a bit of good. To Ryan's point, most lighting manufacturers already generally only have downlit fixtures anyways. You almost have to go out of your way to find a not down lit fixture. Um, so I don't think it would be that big of a change. It will take time to cycle out. I think you mentioned this like especially for commercial properties, industrial properties, it you won't really get the opportunity for those until they come in to renovate or something like that. But it can still be done. But at least anything new moving forward would comply with that.

It was just something that I brought up because I asked I asked when we were taking a look at the current application that we were looking at and I asked, you know, how does this translate? This program, how does this translate? And uh Trevor gave me some ideas. So we'll keep working along those lines to spot the inconsistencies in our code and and try to fix those. Have to provide like a photo uh in the PD. Yes, because I was able to ask for one there, but I don't know in the rest of the the rest of the district. So, there is a provision I pulled up. Any lighting to illuminate a parking shall be so

to arrange and reflect the light away from the adjoining property owner. So, in there there's enough provision that would allow us to request a lighting package um be given to the city

to confirm that indeed the light is not being spread onto the adjoining property. So, we have some provisions We don't have any specifications necessarily. So, what I would ask um to keep everybody in the loop um at the next council meeting, Ryan, if this board would like to recommend that, uh Trevor would review and propose some type of lighting um to council. That way, we get the the green light from council to task Trevor to do this. I hate going away from something that maybe they don't have the goal set for. So, I I think it's reasonable to ask. Um, but Ryan, in your report to council, you could

you could say, "Hey, the rest of the board made a recommendation. Uh, we'd like to ask council to allow Trevor to to put something together um as far as a lighting plan and then bring that to this board to review and then you all could could weigh in on it, review it, and then ultimately make a recommendation to council for acceptance if that's okay with you guys. Recommended. I'll make a motion to make that recommendation. I'll second. That's good. All in favor? Hi. Good idea. Yeah, totally recommend that. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's good. I find a cool name. Um, call it lightsaber. I think dark I think dark sky is pretty cool. Well, we call Well, we call green sky

taken already. Ryan recommended it. So, green is green sky. Green sky. Green sky. Why is the sky blue? Only ominous glows are allowed. Any other business? No. Motion to It definitely sounds like you all are having make a motion to adjourn. I second. I want to hear the rest of that. Yeah. What was that? I was coming up with names. So I ask