Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call this meeting to order. Order. This is planning and zoning. Tuesday, September 25th. Yeah. Yep. Chairman Steve here. Brian Green here. Here awesome. First thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes from July 22nd. A motion to approve. I'll second it. Everyone is here except for Brian because you're new. So you're welcome to abain. Abstain. All right. I'm going to do a roll call then. Okay.

Yes. Marcus. Yes. Brian Peele. Abstain. Brian Green. Yes. Yes. All right. Moving on down. Application 8-7-2. [Applause] Oh, I did. Public not on the agenda. Sorry. Public comment for items not on the agenda.

Hearing none. Let's go ahead and move on now. application 8-7-258 52 West Koxen Street variance for a sign. Let's start with Sean.

Sure. Trevor was not able to join us. Um he did put together, I believe, a staff report related to this particular packet. Um there are other signs in the area and I think he based his decision on that. Skipping right to the last page summary of the reviewer. Just simply read his comments. Uh reviewer recommends approval of this variance from chapter 1177.15 wall signs to allow for a maximum individual sign area of 32 square ft. Please note this variance if approved will apply to the entirety of the property and will set the minimum allowable sign area at a 32 ft regardless of the unit width. approval of this variance for the property should avoid any future need for variance related to the allowability or I'm sorry the allowable area of wall sign. So I think key of importance there is this would be applicable to the entire property. Um so any other signs associated with this particular um we'll call it strip center would not have to go through the variance process. There is some other provisions in our sign code relative to overall total signage related to square feet of the building that would have to be evaluated but that is not what's being requested for the variance. Uh the request for the variance is related to the linear feet. So you take the linear feet divide that by 1.5 um and obviously gives you the square footage of what should be which is 14. Their variance is is 32. And I'll stop there and allow for any questions or the applicant wants to.

Yes, let's move on to the applicant. If you could state your name in the Brilliant Electric Sign Company, appreciate the opportunity to present this evening. Um, we're actually working with another contractor that will hopefully be doing an install, but we're creating the sign um on behalf of uh Jersey Mike's. Um, so you should all have the sign package and I certainly appreciate um Trevor's report. Uh, but what we're proposing is um really just a basic wall sign for the front of the uh the building. Um, it fits really nicely in the sign band um at least as we're what we're proposing. Um, certainly very similar to the previous sign that was there. I believe it was Verizon. Um, so really I I don't have much more to add unless I' be open to any questions you might have. Um,

does anybody on the board have questions for our applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you. Those are my questions are be related to staff. Congratulations. I see. We appreciate you coming in though. Yeah, I mean um generally, you know, just going through the variance process, it's um it just seems like um you know, we feel that the what we're proposing doesn't is anything out of character with the area and actually will um present really nicely on the uh on the facility. So, thank you. Thank you.

We have questions for staff. Mr. Um, first first question, it didn't appear like the illumination of the sign was changing at all. It's going to be done as the same way as the existing sign, I believe. So, that would be a

question. What we're proposing is it's actually two types of illumination. There's going to be some halo illumination just on the sides. So, it just kind of it's like subtle on the sides and then the letters themselves will illuminate. And there will be a little halo effect. um projecting kind of on the side but it's very I guess I say it's kind of understated so it's pretty nice so I'll jump in R oh sorry that what it's meant by internally illuminated

correctly illuminated changes. Yeah, that changes it.

So, just so you know, that would not be allowed. We have a wall signs are not allowed to be internally eliminated. So, that's something that you would have to go back for variance for. Do you have the

uh so you'll notice the gooseenecks um in existence now and those are due to the requirements that all signs wall signs are externally illuminated. So the uh the sign as it's presented would not be able to be approved because of the internal illumination.

Would we be able to get a conditional approval for what we're going for here and that maybe I don't know that would be I know this didn't make it on the agenda like science was to attend that meeting. I don't know if that would have been brought to our attention that was violation. It's in the codified ordinance. Um, the most recent one

and I free to speak. I know that it was recently not recently added in the last 10 years or what's added. That's why you see some backlit stuff too, right? Yeah. Yeah. The the signs in the city are all various years. So, it just depends on when they came in. At one point two years ago that we changed this, right? Oh, it's been more than that because I've knew about it for years. So, I feel like we've addressed signage. Yeah. Probably at least three out of the last 10 years, maybe. Yeah.

I think it's addressed quite a bit. Um, okay. So, yeah, that was my one question of of lighting. If if you were just going to use the gooseenecks, I'm okay with that. Obviously, anything internal, we've had a lot of requests for that and we haven't we haven't been in favor of those. So, does that mean like you have to go back to your client for Yeah, I mean, we would have to um where where is it in the Sure, I'll find it. And I think I sent the uh section of the code to

whoever we had been going back and forth with.

No, it's been on the books for a while. taking all my internet, Brian. I know. Do you want to switch my phone? Just kidding. Are we racing to open up? I see Steve's doing it, too. So, yeah. Maybe I should open. It is running slow, though. But I think it's my computer. It just kind of is waking up. So, hold on. I have it here. Um 1177 something signs

menu board signs. Permanent signs per all kinds of signs. Reminds me of a song. Breathe out. Let's see if it's in the sign table or it's Is it prohibited under 117708 then G. [Applause]

Yeah. 117708. Did you find it? Oh, you're just guessing. Uh any sign of any reason? Size location? It's right. It's uh 7715 right here. General provisions unless otherwise. It's in the table. Internal illumination of a sign is not permitted. Internal UR UR1 UR1 AR1. But I don't know. Hope that's residential. I think we're getting close though. Yeah. Wall sign GCC2. That's GCC. That's the zoning district. LM's light, right? Window signs, window signs, wall signs.

New. There it is. permitted internal illumination prohibited. Uh it's uh section it's in the table uh 117715 sign table. If you go down to GCC2 that is the zoning district wall signs there it is. Yeah. Can that be corrected before? This is just

so it's up to the applicant to request the variance for anything that they would need in violation of the permitted requirement. So they would have moved forward with it. Obviously the the board here is approving the variance which was submitted correct for size. Yep. Um so that's what we identified um as a as an issue. So So they approve varants for size then it would move to DRB.

Correct. But what the applicant saying is is this this sign that they presented is is a internal illumination. Now, if they pro propose the sign without internal illumination, it would meet all the criteria um aside from the the sizing of it and they can move forward with the installation of it. If you don't have the internal illumination, will the sign will the size change? No. Okay. I was going to say because then the question can be added for the purposes of this variance for internalation letters.

I don't know if it would violate the public notice. I I'll be candid with you. I can tell you staff would not recommend it. Um and traditionally any internal illumination has in the past I think been denied. Um, but from a staff level, um, and I speak for Trevor and myself, we would not recommend internal illumination on that sign. Um, now the board doesn't have to go with staff's recommendation. Um, they can do as they choose. Uh, outside of that, however, uh, boards in the past have not given a variance for for those requests in the past. Um, now it's been a while since anybody's actually submitted a variance request for that, so I'd have to dig way back into the archives, but it would be it would be breaking with current president.

Well, so it's really for us to discuss the elimination. I mean, I think uh I always tell applicants they have the right and they're afforded the right to ask for any variance they want, but I give them the background information so that they can at least have some kind of temperature of of guesstimation of what the likelihood of of success would be. Um, but like I said, I never want to give a guarantee stamp. Yay, they'll say it or no, they won't. But I'll give you I'll give you past president and I'll give you what staff would recommend. You may want to approve. You want to change the size. Right. That's what I'm saying. That's why I was asking about the size.

You could always choose to table this conversation till next time and talk speak with your client.

Well, it's probably wouldn't be practical to table this particular variance request especially in light of the fact that if if we did go for a variance for internal illumination and I got disapproved, it would be a lengthy period of delay for no reason. I guess um if if you wanted to submit the application as presented without internal illumination, you could certainly do that right now and and at least get approval for that piece of it.

Yeah, we can strike the internal illumination portion and at least give you the sizing that you're after. Now, if you're not going to internally illuminate, does that change your sizing? No. Okay. It is what it is. I mean, yeah. Really? What Yeah, I think I look short. It fits very well.

Yeah. What you're requesting is a size variance. So, you would get a variance to the size. um which would mean that if you had minor modifications to the to the imagery or the material that's not reviewed by this board, that's reviewed by the design review board. So, um as far as materials and things like that, um if you changed it up a little bit, um you could do so. It's this board is just reviewing the size. So, I don't know if that tracks and makes sense, but really if you get the size permit tonight, the variance for that, you could probably do some modification to to the sign before it gets to design review as long as it's not internally illuminated. Um, and then be on your way with with a sign possibly.

Yeah, it's your decision. Well, if you'd like to proceed with at least the size while you're waiting to hear back, we can discuss that more. Yeah, let's let's see if I can get response from Yeah, this was so this the size isn't for me outrageous compared to the other properties directly next to it. Yeah. My question was, so we have variances on all the other signs that are in there if they're all larger than the 14 in because every one of them is. Yeah.

And that's my next question is, do we need to change the do we need to change the code? Yep. To have a new minimum maximum. Did fast braces have to go through anything? Because they just changed their sign up too like very recently. Really fast. Yeah, super fast. super fast. Yeah. Yeah. They went through the design review. I will tell you they probably building whenever it was reviewed just for the existing buildings. I can't see it was probably not calculated correctly. I don't have a problem with that either. It's harmonious with there. I'm just saying I'm just saying since we've allowed all the signs to be that large now, do we need to change code to GCC

to mirror that? You can um you would you would allow not just that shopping center but all GCC1. It's really uh up to the board. And uh that's two, right? That's two there. What's that? That's two though. Yes. Sorry. GCC2. Yep. Uh GCC2. So any any signage in GCC2 areas would uh would allow for larger uh square footage. So if you times it instead of divided it, which I'm wondering, Teresa and I reviewed this to see if it was like a scribner's error whenever it was done. Um maybe that was the intent but what's actually there is 1.5 divided time

it's usually ali yeah so I I don't know I wasn't here when the original that was probably 1904 no it was like five years ago whenever they drafted it um I I don't know the intent of the board at that time but if you would take it times instead of divide you would almost get to 30 something square would Do you know the linear footage off the top of your head? I think it's big. 31.8. Yes, they can get 31.8. That's square feet on this one, right? Yeah. If you were to times it, I'm talking about the linear feet of the building, right? Of the build. I can I can do the math backward.

This is great. Next door. Anyways, um we can revisit that later as you have time. We don't get a ton of those and I don't see many of those businesses turning over quickly. So, that's something we can put on on the back burner for when we have a light meeting to revisit that. Um, other than that, um, that's all I had. Just how we got to larger signs. That's all I wanted to know. So, what's a ratio of storefront edge to linear feet of the storefront to the size to the size?

If we're if we're going to do away with the illumination and strike that from the application, are we ready to

waiting on the applicant? move forward on the variance process for the area of the I you know especially if needed to be included application in terms of communication I don't know if it makes sense to to try to go for illumination as part of that.

Well, since there are there are lights there that's going to be

Yeah. gooseseneck lights there. Yeah. I don't I don't think it would be one and a half times the linear footage up front, right? Well, for the for the space maximum. Well, because if your if your store frontage is 10 foot, you're saying it's multiplied, not divide, right? It's going to give you a 15 foot sign, don't you? Right. No. So I just did finally got the math. So the linear feet of the storefront is 21 ft. So

take the 21, you divide that by 1.5, that gives you your 14, which is allowable. If you would reverse that mathematics on that and do 21 times 1.5, that would give you a 31.5 square feet allowable sign. So at that point, they'd be half a foot over, which could be subtract an inch from the assign height or width and you're you're there. So it's it's really if you guys are agreeable to every sign over there. Yeah.

If you all are agreeable to this and that's probably whenever Terry was evaluating these in the past he interpreted as times rather than divided. I would assume. Um I don't know. I'm not psychic. Um and that's why the other applications that came before in the last year and a half didn't get the scrutiny. This one came after Terry was gone. So, I did the evaluation and I actually had legal look at it to see if I could skirt around this in any way. I'm not trying to skirt around it, but just seeing, you know, what the options were. Um, and they said, "Nope, this is what it is. This is what it has to be. We've got to go through the variance process." So, if this is something you want to clean up, I've already got notes made. I can have Trevor do a revision based on 1.5 times instead of divided by 1.5. And if you wanted to grant the variance, you would have somewhat justifiable reasoning to do so because you're moving the code in that direction.

Yeah. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do that and and clean it up as you have time. I'll go ahead and make a motion. Do we need to have a caveat to strike the internal illumination? You don't technically need to because I say because this is for size, not the variance is for request. The fact that it's written in there, right? Well, it's not written in his permit. It's written just in his in his description of the sign description on the picture. Yeah. So, you don't need to. Okay. Make a motion to approve as written. I'll second. I agree. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I abstain. I'm gonna abstain. Uh, not enough information. I wasn't here. Is this the first time you're reading this? Yes. Yeah. Oh, not enough information on the actual code though because you've had it as long as we have. Okay. Well, I'm going to go back to I deny, but I don't think it'll matter. Are you um voting now? Voting now. Yeah. That's okay, too. Yeah, that's fine. Feel you're ready for it? Totally. Or if you have unanswered questions, certainly. That's fine.

Yeah. I'm the low man all the time. All right. Um moving on to I got recommendation to council on application 8-18-25 11 1730 Green Chapel Road zoning amendment development plan. Would you like to come up and talk about it? Please state your name for those that don't know you.

Uh Jamie McN with the Johntown Land Company. Um I know you guys have seen this PD kind of evolve over time. Um, this one seems to be uh somewhat of a lowhanging fruit, I think. Um, we have it's the last parcel that needs to get annexed in the city of Johnstown. We control the property. Um, we own the property and we um, the idea is to annex it in the city of Johntown and then zone it with the neighboring sub area to round out the edges to make nice clean site there that we're trying to use for economic development. Um, but everything else along Green Chapel excluding that little area on the southwest that goes to Clover Valley. Um, but that way we can get one continuous site and this small parcel is not on an island. So,

so this is the last property that I don't want to

that is there. It was my thought. Yeah. So, I can I I can uh it's it's I know it's not going to be the last property because the next one that we're probably going to annex is what is the LRE substation. It's about 9 10 acre site uh southwest corner of Mink and Duncan Plains. We will annex that in we'll put an annexation petition in a Johntown. Um as soon as we get control of that in probably a month or so when we close sometime this fall. Uh the idea there would be to probably zone that one as sub area four an extension of sub area three. Um but I today we're here just to talk about sub area 1D. Um and that way the the blue site is just nice continuous site. So, and then at I don't at design review an hour ago, they approved a demolition of a home uh that will be for the LRE substation that is in the on sub area 1C. LRE substation is in the northwest corner of 1C. LR is proceeding with the construction of that substation of service collogix just to the west. and LR's um uh substation. In order to transfer the land to them, we have to establish a legal lot. By doing so, we have to provide them frontage along Green Chapel. So, there's kind of a flag lot that then comes down um to Green Chapel. So, I know that's a little bit more information, just this one particular parcel.

You guys have any questions for you have anything, Sean? No, no questions. No. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll motion to approve. A recommendation to council. Oh, sorry. Motion. I'll motion to recommend to council. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. Yes, I'll second it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Green.

Yes. Yes.

All right. Again, uh review and recommendation to council. Moving on. This application, this resolution, this 2025-35 right-of-way agreement is I'm understanding should be with the safety and what's that board name? Service. Services board instead of ours. Does anybody disagree with that? We kicked it from council to here. We can talk about it here if you want. Either way. Yeah, we can talk about it, but I ultimately What is it? What was that? What's that? Which one are we talking about? So, page 27.

Thank you. So, this is that uh there's nobody here to speak on this from Nope. So, this is just for us um to make a recommendation. What would you like to discuss? I can provide some context. Sure. Can look to the people if people watch at home, they can't hear you back there.

So, after Intel got announced and they proceeded, uh, Green Chapel Roads alignment actually got realigned slightly. Um, and there's a few dips. Uh, there's a little dip uh at the roundabout in front of uh Intel's front door. Um so I think part the idea of this agreement is sorting out who is responsible for um what essentially including services, utilities, streetscape maintenance of street lights um and setbacks and things like that. And it's a little uncon I say unconventional but this is something that every city runs into when you abut another city. Um and the rerouting of Green Chapel made it a little bit more complicated because there's so many utilities in Green Chapel. Um cuz when it got rerouted the city of New Alby's boundary I believe was actually on the north side of Green Chapel I can't remember was the curb. Sean might know. Um

are you talking about specifically where the roundabout Yeah. kind of encroaches? Yeah. Yes, there was there was some there was some realignments uh necessary for projects on the south side of Green Chapel and uh there was additional rideaways that needed to be granted. It was easier obviously to to work in the rideaways and and grab maybe the wrong word but um get additional rightway to the south rather than to the north from the existing property owners.

So, and I'll jump in just for Jamie. Um, so this would allow New Albany, the city of, not New Albany Company, I just want to clarify, they would become the entire owners of pretty much the whole roadway there. Um, and in exchange for doing that, they would obviously maintain it. Um, and and do all the necessary improvements. Um, north of the rideway, we in this agreement identify multi-use path. uh an easement would need to be created which is part of the agreement which we would create an easement for the um any we'll call it furniture um they do fencing or design or any ornamental things street trees and things like that would uh would be granted uh so that those things could be achieved but at the end of the day comes down to is New Albany the city of would take on the ownership as well as the maintenance and upkeep of this particular area there's some provisions called out for when we need to make um when we need to make ingresses and egresses to uh to Green Chapel that we have that ability. Obviously, there's a checks and balances in place with the city of New Albany. Um they also have to have some coordination with the city of Johntown whenever there's ingresses and egresses um related to some of the projects that they they've got going on. Um so, in a nutshell, does that

Yeah.

Yeah. And uh two two things out of that. Obviously Sean said the if the city of New Alb is going to own and maintain on the north side of Green Chapel you Johnson does not want New Albany to be able to dictate the curb cuts on the north side and that's addressed in this this as well as um the other thing from a design and aesthetic standpoint. Now, the scope, the third party in this is the new Alb company because the scope of this um the good news is on the north side all that property now we control. So, we can get the the trails in place and the easements that we need to get done. As somebody drives down Green Chapel going east or west, the question is what do you like what does Johntown and do ALB want that to look and feel like? We don't think it's probably proper to have, you know, a b a clear border like a white horse fence on one side and a black horse fence on the other side or whatever it is, right? So, this is you. We want to establish some type of design consistency there um without it being like making it making it weird like a weird border. Um, so those are some design challenges that we're going to have to face. And I don't think we um have the exact answers in that in this document right now. But it gives it sets us up to have a partnership between John'stown, City of New Albany, and the New Albony Company to like work through these details in the future. So

you you said own the road, and I get that. What What any portion of land The land would be the the roadway, just the road, not we own the north of the rideway. So, what they're looking to do is take ownership of the rideway outside of the rideway. City of Johnstown would typically get an easement from the property owner to allow for us to put in a multi-use path. um as Jamie mentioned the appropriate fencing and then come to a conclusion later for some conformity that we're all um looking at something that's Can we go no fencing? Yeah. I I think that

Jamie already knows what we're going to say. Yeah. Well, you already know what we're going to say. Yeah. Could you go no fencing? I I don't mind no fence. Yeah. Yeah. I I I I don't know. And I think we'll probably look at it both ways. Um, I think cuz we have no intention of doing the new Albany white fence anywhere in Johntown with the exception of potentially a long green chapel if if it's like a for consistency. Um, but I think the city of New Albany I haven't we read the document just to see if we had comments, but um, Sean, if you remember, I can't remember. The city of New Albany would own and maintain the street lights on the north side of the road. Is that right?

I would have to check. Okay. I don't remember. So, this that was my big question was maintenance. So, you know, obviously mowing I know down there right now there's not business in there yet, but when you drive I drive down Mink daily. Um some of the mowing over the summer has taken a long time to get done and I didn't know who'd be

taking a look at that. street lights. Um, you know, my big thing is what are the benefits and detriments of us controlling that? The costs involved. Um, who will maintain the path? Obviously, the the no fence was was an issue there. I know that's going to be big for us and our constituents. Um, so I mean, that's that's something. The curb cuts, I'm glad that was addressed. I think I missed that in there because obviously if there's going to be more traffic on that road um due to curb cuts or less traffic on that road because we fill in curb cuts that were already there. That's something we want to look at. Um there's a few other things that I have on here that I wanted Oh. Um utilities. So utilities on the north side. I wanted to know what utilities had already been planned through there and if this opens up to utilities in the future that we didn't account for potentially going in there. So, uh, one with curb cuts, there's an exhibit with like some little dark dots on there that are essentially here's where the options are for curb cuts. You don't need to put them all in place. Now, could one shift one way or the other? potentially, but I think that's probably more than enough curb cuts for Johntown. Um, and then your question about utilities. So, the utilities, oh man, it's a lot. Um, and then LRE has the right to extend utilities. Um, as well, we're trying to work with them to keep the utilities on the north side of our property as best as we can so that we can keep them off Green Chapel. Um, so we're going to work with them as to how we can and whatever our options are. Um, because we'd like to keep Green Chapel as clean as possible. I don't know what going to be possible yet. Um, and it might be a while before we really know that. Uh, there is

like a spaghetti of utilities in Green Chapel right now. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I mean being that it's going to be a highly soughtafter area, every utility is going to want to have access down through there. So that's that's correct. Yeah. So at least on our side where we control the rightway, you know, giving up that right away, you I want to make sure we're not giving up potential control of utilities that we may want or not want in the area. I don't I don't know if I Well, is that valid, Sean? It's a good question. And I don't can't think of a way that it would hinder I've learned in zoning to to be concerned of the unknown.

Yeah. No, I know there's there's something that none of us are thinking of right now that's going to happen. Exactly.

Um typically the rideway split in the middle. So if a utility want to they could run and New Albany was agreeable to it, they would just run on New Alby's side of the rideway and they wouldn't have to submit any type of rideaway request through us. Um, but there's call outs in here that allow for installation of utilities by each respective party. Um, as far as the lights and things like that, that's called out in um, page two, ownership of Green Chapel right away. Um, pretty clearly delineates that New Albany is obligated to operate, maintain, repair, and replace all Green Chapel improvements located within the Green Chapel rightway. So, if those street lights or curbs or any additional pieces that are inside that rideway, they have to do all the maintenance associated with that. It's that uh shared use path that would be in the easement uh to the north. Uh and then again, the way we're structuring our agreement with Johntown Land Company, uh through our through our development plan is that um we'll have a we'll have a developers agreement that the associated properties will have to form some type of collaborative effort and functional monetary association to maintain whatever is put inside. if if it is a fence, if it's not a fence, um but any type of ornamental pieces. Um and that's how it's structured in New Albany. Um in fact, Jamie, correct me if I'm wrong. um a lot of the fences that you see uh the obligation to maintain those. Some of that does fall into New Albany, but there's um there's contracts and and agreements in place that actually place that burden on on the development uh or I should say the property owners uh connected with that development uh for long-term perpetuity of those particular improvements. Is

that that's correct? Some people describe it as like an HOA on steroids. So the I mean you know the industrial folks pay to maintain it and then we will often control the or manage or run the association that then coordinates the improvements. So

I remember we had talked about that and when I was going through this I that's what I thought there was some sort of committee like that. Um, I know when we did the PD district, I think in all of our buffering and and planning of the edges there, we had talked about how we were pro, you know, vegetation screening and and mounding on the edges there versus having an actual fence. So, I just want to make sure that we captured all that.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think we're interested in working with Johntown 2 to figure out, you know, are there signature design elements for John'stown? Is it a species of tree or vegetation? Uh is it a fence? Is it uh you know, some other cities uh will use moments as you enter the city with like um masonry or stone? Uh you can't do it like with a fence, right? because but you could do it when you enter and leave and stuff like that. So, um it's part of the branding of the area, the economic development, the marketing, and we're happy to like work with you guys, put together sketches and figure out um kind of what

what's like the right vibe and you know, so we're Johntown's marketing Johntown, you know. So, um we we'll we'll get there. Why did council kick it? Exactly what happened. There was a lot on the agenda that night and I think they wanted to have So we are we making the decision or a recommendation to council is bouncing right back to you. It's just a recommendation and we can recommend it on to safety and service. I recommend kicking it right back to you. I mean to be honest with you I hate to I hate to be like No, I think you're right. I got that. And is it is it common for I know it's not an application but help me understand the process. If you kick something to us, right, not point at you, but if council kicks something to plan

I was complicit. If that happens, is it typical that the person and like that we're supposed to be discussing the Swiss doesn't show up? Like should new Albany be here? Well, and so it is out of sorts for it to go to a planning and zoning. I mean, we're talking about a a rightaway which is Yeah. functionally all the things we just talked about like street maintenance, roadway, right? All of that is is more of a safety and service component. I would say to insulate council, I think there was some confusion. Um they heard Green Chapel, they immediately think of PD district development. So their mind went to let's kick it to planning and zoning. Um would it be best for the city if this went to safety and service?

Go to safety and service. That way they can evaluate it, ask any questions, and then kick it back. So your recommendation could be simply Yeah. recommend it go to safety and service for further review. How do we do that? just recommend it goes to safety. I like I make a recommendation. It goes to I'll just make a recommendation. All right. You second that, Steve. I will second it. Okay, Steve. Second. Thank you, Jamie.

No problem. The only reason why I was here is because I had the the TRA and annexation and I happen to like I have I've read this document just cuz in case we had comments or anything, we don't. But really really it's just really it's to the point where it's mostly redlinining. um if there's additional comments from or you know attorney time redlinining back and forth at that point I think because um if there are if there are any comments I feel like the documents at least 95 to 98% right this is the sixth iteration so our attorney me now we're talking conceptually I think both municipalities are heading in the same path right there was do you have to yes sorry Teresa

that's okay yes Yes. Brian, yes. Green, yes. Yes. Job done. Other business. Uh, other business. While we were all doing that, and sometimes I'm able to do this. Um, I should share my screen. If you all would like to make a recommendation to council to modify section 1177 of the codified ordin uh 15 of the codified ordinance. I have an example. Uh there other areas that are

of that I would just recommend at this point GCC2 GCC1 uh that's the downtown district. So um a little bit different situation there. Yeah.

But uh but the GCC2 hearing your conversations this is the simple red line. I would kick this red line to council with your recommendation. They would then set the wheels in motion. Um and I even did an example so there's no confusion. uh for for staff at a later date, but it would be removing the division sign and simply adding the time sign um 0.5. An example of that would be 20 feet* 1.5, which would equal 30 square feet, 30 allowable square feet for signage. So, if this is something you did want to move with, instead of it having to come back and then doing a public hearing because then we'd have to give notice, you could simply recommend it right now. If you

Well, I picked up on something. It says plus or -4 square f feet though somewhere. Where's it at? Uh on the application something. Yeah. I don't know if that was Is that from ours? This is from ours. Whatever they have in the application would probably be irrelevant. Well, maybe because if it's plus or minus 14 other cover it is. Yeah. Yeah. We were we haven't had to see a signed application here. And you talking about the the report? Yeah. Somewhere on here. So I think it's plus or - 14 square. So he's pulling this right out of 7 177 streets. Yep. 15 the sign table. Yep.

Yeah. So if it's plus or minus 14 and it's 22 square feet linear, it would have been whatever that number was. I don't know it was 28. Hold on. Um if you 28 28.6. So he wasn't far off with the 31 already. He would just minimize it by another three. So I do believe what's written in there is proper. I don't think I would change it to times 1.5. It's divided by 1.5. That's how it was meant to be. I wasn't here 10 years ago when it was written, but I'm gonna go with Where you at now? 22ide by So, you said 22 divided by 1.5 equals 14 though. Equals equals 14. Plus or - 14 squareable feet allowable. What's this? That's what I'm wondering. What is this? Plus orus 14 fair square feet.

You're talking to a math teacher's kid here, so he's keeping up with you. I'll be able to keep up. So, okay. No problem with the numbers. It's 14.66. Plus 148, I What he's what he's referencing is there's the point factor. So there is 14 but it's 666667. Um or if it was 21 ft then it would be 13.66. Yeah. It doesn't No, but typically you round up. So um when they say plus or minus allowable um I think it's because there's not a hard um measurement on that particular building. Um there is a an assumption that it's based on 21 linear feet. 21 linear feet. Um I think that gives him some was it 21 linear feet

I believe or 22 doesn't really matter but what it is if it's 21 divided by 1.5 is roughly whatever that number was 14ish 14 plus or minus so if you give another 14 if you're allowing another 14 square feet so then you're up to 28. So I think what they're referencing is the the decimal point uh factor, not necessarily the increase in square footage factor. That is not clear there. That means you can go up to another for someone might come in here someday and say I can go as big as another 14 square feet. That's what And I don't This is again So this isn't what's in the code though. Okay. That's what I was wondering.

Okay. So this right here is what's in the code. I think this is part of Trevor's staff report. I see where you're going now. Okay. So, this was Trevor's edition because of his um That's what I was I was trying to find it in the code and I couldn't No, it's not in the codified ordinance. This is Trevor Trevor's notes to give him um it gives him some uh grace whenever he's making the recommendation to say it's within the range of 14 square feet. Okay. So, then it might be written terribly. Okay. Yeah. Okay. The code is what's up here. Yeah. You can see it maybe. I was going to say and he's got I was going to say I would be shocked if we allowed plus or minus in a code somewhere. I would not recommend it. That's what I was like it says that

and we always round there's no way if it's 13.6 um then it's it's it's whatever is more limited actually. So then it goes to 13. Um but if it's a if it's a parking space requirement let's say it's 13.6 parking spaces are required then it's 14. So, it's it's whatever the more uh restrictive, right, uh of of the codified ordinance is the way the way we're changing as long as people like Steve only drive his golf car, we could keep 13.6 parking spaces. This is true. That we're going to make sure that Steve is is driving that golf cart, too. We're going to enter that into our city code coming up. I think it's Oh, golf cart thing. Oh, yeah.

Oh, it's awful. Do we do we want to recommend that just for you, sir? I submitted something to Rusty to try you and you and the two other people who drive golf. I wanted to like I was like, let's make some more rules. All right. You just completely switched. So, you're off the signs and now you're on the That's why I said, do we want to recommend signs before we go? Up to you. If you want another Yeah. So, I'll make a motion to make this recommendation and I'll second it. All in favor? I Teresa, I will forward this to you for public notice. Yep. for council. Any other business? Not the other business that I have. Can we pull up the food truck ordinance and permit? Can the food truck um permit that we have? Yeah. Can we pull that up? The ordinance.

Yeah. Um I will tell you it's let me let me find it here before I looking at the screen. That is cool. Wherever that is that is zoning and planning in part of golf cart tax as well. So we can yeah we can make a recommendation on it. Okay the annual registration fee toll it is in zoning it's not under zoning. So Brian asked the question since it's not under zoning is that under the purview of this board. Okay probably a really good question. I think it came out Did it come out of this board with Ben though when he created it

especially with uh making sure you're maintaining roadways? I am not certain. Yeah, I I'm pretty certain. That's what I want to check. I don't believe it's under the business regulation. It's not under planning. It's part seven which is uh which is typically what 7:30 7:30 is is the I'm not the one. I'm trying to so it's under the business regulation code which is enforceable by the police department um not necessarily code enforcement officers. So because it's outside

depends on the definition of code enforcement. Typically they're related to planning and zoning but um other business regulations such as the noise ordinances and things are enforceable um generally through the police department. So yeah, I'll leave it up to you guys, but it's definitely not on the planning and zoning section. I'll just look it up. Anyways, I was taking a look at it this week. Um, and I can take this to council and discuss it if you want. Um, it doesn't matter to me, but I was going to put a recommendation in from us. So, if we don't feel comfortable making that recommendation, I don't know what you're doing. So, taking a look at the at the food truck code. Yeah.

And what they require as far as the permit. So, down there it's 730.02. Permit required for operation. Yeah. Um, and if you take a look at it, a couple of the things, my vision's getting bad in my old days, but I say that's that's rough to there. Try to blow it up. So, I could read this but not the rest of it. Um, so anyways, where it says proof of the department, there's a transient food permit vendor's license in there. Okay. And from talking to some different food trucks, some of this is a little bit it's a little bit extra, okay,

in just talking to them. So, when they're trying to come here for v events and things like that, the spirit of the permit was to protect our brickandmortar businesses because we don't want a food truck to just sit here and operate day after day. Whereas if you're a bought in, you know, restaurant with a building, you're here. You're our guy, you know.

Um so we're trying to safeguard that. The other thing is we want to make sure that we have clean trucks um that are here and and operating in an efficient way that's clean and you're going to get good food. So if you come in here and you look at the transient, there's the transit permit and I'd have to look and see. I think it's number three right there. Um it says if required by state law. Apparently that's something that nobody else is asking for. Um there's also um there's fire prevention in there um which is something that we don't technically even go out and inspect but it's something you have to have per the state because you're checked by the fire marshal. Um and then the federal tax identification number or social security number. Um for that one they're doing to go food so they're not even taxed on that. Um, and if we want to have that in there so that we can capture income tax, which I'm not sure if we're asking every food truck for what they paid their employees while they were here, but we're talking two hours at a time. I think it'd be easier just to tack, you know, $5 or $20 onto the permit and make sure that you actually encapsulate the money because that'd be a lot easier than chasing it and finding out who they had employed. But um those were just some updates that I wanted to do to make it more reasonable. Those are the big ones that I mean I talked to several food trucks and also talked to Miss Hollis from council because she operates a food truck and those are the ones that were kind of ridiculous and they don't really safeguard us or or help. So wanted to just go through those and see what you guys thought. Well, I mean, my thoughts are I think you bring it up to council, I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's you present like that, it's going to be

like to be attracted and if you would like support from us, but if if it's not in our area, um, just from a committee standpoint, would this go to safety service as well? That might be a good idea. I kick it to committee of safety and service. Yeah, it all blurs together for me and then they could do the recommendation. That's another meeting for me. Yeah, because this would be a safety and service. There's a service compon there's a safety component obviously. So, um I'll add that too. And I think that'd be the appropriate committee. They could do a recommendation and all the stuff sounds warranted. So, yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we had a, you know, sometimes it's it's fun to put law on the books, but then when you see how it actually shakes out when it's applied and you're not really getting more or less of what you wanted anyway. So, if I had to guess, I would say this was copied and pasted from somewhere from Granville. So, I think Ben took a lot of it from Granville. Yeah. If I remember, I wasn't here at the time, but that would be my assumption. I think like one kind of carries into the other though, like I'm just doing some quick research here and like the transient license carries into being taxable or non-t taxable. Yeah.

So, it's almost like you need both of those in there because it it does list that most every single food truck should need one in the state of Ohio because if they don't have a brick and mortar, it's for temporary locations, right? But I think what he's saying is that it doesn't really apply to us. It applies to the state. It applies to the state, but not to us because we're not collecting on the two hours that those employees work. Like we're not Is that what you're saying? Like it's more of them operating. It's not necessarily us collecting any sales tax.

Yeah. We don't we don't get anything from them having that permit is is what I'm saying. So that's between them. It also keeps us having like legitimate thoughts coming through here and not that's what our food truck permit is. $5. That's what I was going to say. If we're worried about collecting tax money off of it, which it doesn't seem like we are at $5 rather than Sean chase down the employees of the food truck to make sure that they filed, I think you just you just add $20 to the permit and move on. Be our finest director. So, okay. We'll go ahead and make a motion to refer this to safety and service. I'll second. All in favor? I

That's all I have. Anybody have anything else? I have a question. Would it be possible to get a list of all the stuff we don't see before the meetings in the email? Is that difficult? There's a lot of things that get approved through the city and things we don't know about and help shape us as we move forward. you know, signs that get approved. Is it you guys are do a lot of work already, but I think it would help like we see everything that's difficult. I think it'd be help to see like, hey, there's three signs that I' that are new that popped in. Yeah. I think it'd be kind of cool to help guide us if we knew about that. Is that So, what's the request for

like for these meetings? Like new things that come up that go through that don't need to go through this board. So just a summary like either it could be in a report or just an email basically stating that these applications came in and were approved without without seeing planning and zoning. Uh I think what they're wanting is they want um they want So Ray Ray's got a sign, right? And we never saw it because No. Oh well, see that would help though. Yeah, but we don't we don't know because that's because if we look on the report and we don't see that then we know it would be helpful. So, well, and that one's that one's kind of hot, like fresh. Okay. So, um I was meaning to say another business sign and we didn't

So, they are going to submit and this is not uncommon especially with signs. It seems like they put it up and then then they submit the application. Um we're currently working with that particular property owner, not property owner but business owner. They are submitting an application associated with it. um we have expressed to them that it's out of compliance, but for everyone's sake, it's easier just to let's get through the process because by the time we send the notice, the violation court and all that crap, it probably is going to be corrected. Um however, there are some other businesses such as um I don't want to call out anybody. There's other businesses uh in town that we have sent notices to and there will be potentially the mayor's court situation associated with with their signage. Um so I think with Steve's uh I I think I

so like let me give you an example. I think we went down a rabbit hole like if if this sub shop that did a sign tonight Yeah. if they put up a sign that was compliance, we'd never know that they're coming. So you want and this is my assumption. Um they basically just want a list of all the approved zoning applications. Yes. That one is that easy? Is that like like the zoning report? No, just like standard zoning standard zoning approvals like fence permits, deck permits. It can be something very simple like a zoning report like we don't need the I guess it just I guess to understand what is happening outside of the planning and zoning meeting.

So most of the things that don't get seen here are seen by design board. True. Oh that's true. So Ryan House it would be deck it would be like sidewalk curb cuts. It' be basically any well not curve. Well you know it's a function of I'm not in that meeting. I'm not demanding it. I'm just saying would it like would it help guide us? like is there things in there we don't know about that would help us or is it I just want to know like is it just a lot of why don't we experiment with it and we'll uh we'll see if we can get you something uh associated with like a timeline you know the next three weeks all the zoning applications send it over to you um and then you can just basically review it um

uh and we can play with the complexity of it whether you want want the entire four course meal of the application or whether you just want. No, we don't need that. If it's complete, if you just want to report, honestly, it's easier for us to send the whole thing because then it's just a copy. Well, it's not even copy and paste. It's just we take it out of the file. We've created a common drive file. A lot. You're going to get a lot of stuff. I mean, I don't know about that. Um, now he's regretting his Well, you know, you know what I'm trying to do? Like, right. We only see these things. We don't see the other. Let's go a different approach. So in in the same vein of being educated because I think that's what what you know to learn from what is being approved, right?

Yeah, sure.

Um maybe we do and I might be unpopular here, but instead of like so if we have no applications and I know you two work a lot and these are late nights for you. Um instead of cancing two meetings in a row, that second meeting we have where we review stuff. We can review the code. We can go over education, anything like that that helps us make a better decision down the road as opposed to reading something from Friday to today, you know, and trying to educate ourselves during that time as well. So, we would take that meeting that could be cancelled as a time that we could learn how to make better decisions, I guess. Does that sound right?

I sounds I think you've articulated it well. So what I will do um is that will that will require and I'm not opposed to this. I think education is fantastic. Um so what I would hear you saying is you want to get educated. Uh got to get the right people in place for that. So whether it's Trevor or whether it's um you know legal counsel um but do some educational opportunities uh if they arise and I get council's blessing that hey we can appropriate you know Trevor to spend an additional hour and a half two hour whatever it may be well maybe there's a way to do it without spending more money I don't I'm just saying like if he's already

well he might already be here so it might not be might not be substantial um we could we could play with that a little bit if It's a design review meeting and you guys are canceled. So, let me at least what we can do is kick this to council is an idea that's been populated from you all and uh and see if there's uh kind of a an appetite for you guys to have some um opportunities to to be educated. I don't think it's a bad idea. I went to some classes. Uh the state put them on through how municipal league council members usually have to or sometimes go to these things and and they're really really helpful. Um and it's a round robin like hey I got a question.

Why can't you know we do this? Um and you wouldn't believe some of the questions that populated I'm sure at uh some of these meetings. um everything from trailer parks to um profanity or or obscene nudity and things like that. I'm just being brutally honest. And they say, "Well, how do how do we not have that in our community or cannabis?" So, it'll be a high level, but it'll be allowed for you guys to drill down and ask questions. I think it's a great thing. We have some new board members. Um and uh I think it'd be helpful. So, let me see if I can convince council to maybe maybe offer that opportunity.

Well, even Yeah. And that that would be great. Even during that time, we could address that stuff, too, you know, as far as this is what's been approved. So that way you're not putting together some mountain of paperwork or cliff notes, you know, to where it's just something that, okay, by the way, this is what's happened while you were out. Gives the public a chance to come weigh in, too. Yeah. We're going to have a meeting. they can walk in and if they have questions, concerns, whatever they Yeah. No, I appreciate that, Sean. If you if you look into

I'll uh I'll Ryan will he usually takes the the information from here to council. So, Ryan, you can or I can populate that idea with council. Um and uh like I said, I think I think education specifically on zoning, this is a this is a weird territory. And the more information you guys can get where you know your boundaries are, is this outside of where you can be? Is this inside? Um what are what are some Supreme Court rulings associated with and it's it's complex. It's it's fun though. Yeah. I mean if you're weird like me. So Amler realy versus I haven't found that. That's the number one court case you got to read. Amler realy versus city of Uclid. That's where zoning started.

Yeah. All right. Anything else for not on the agenda? We smash that today. So, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All right, Captain.