[Ordinance C-20-24 Accept the Annexation of 0.897+ acres located at 2232 Edwards Road in Jackson Township to the City of Grove City, Ohio. Second reading and public hearing.]

THE FIRST ITEM UNDER LANDS THIS EVENING IS ORDINANCE C 2024. TO ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION OF .897 ACRES LOCATED AT 2232 EDWARDS ROAD AND JACKSON TOWNSHIP TO THE CITY OF GROVE CITY, OHIO. THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AS APPLIED FOR IN THE PETITION OF STEVE REINHARDT ON BEHALF OF REINHARD JACOB EDWARDS, LLC, BEING THE OWNER OF THE TERRITORY, SOUGHT TO BE ANNEXED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON FRANKLIN OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO ON JANUARY 3RD, 2024, AND WHICH SAID PETITION WAS APPROVED FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF GROVE CITY BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2024. ONE NOTE THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO STEVE REINHARDT AND AMY REINHARDT ON JULY 1ST, 2024, THE ZONING ON THIS ANNEXATION SHALL BE F SF ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SHALL BE PLACED IN WARD FIVE IF APPROVED. THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO DO IS WELCOME UP THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. REINHARDT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. STEVE REINHARDT 4642 HEATHER GLEN COURT, GROVE CITY.

THIS IS FOR 2232 EDWARDS ROAD. THANK YOU. SO WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AS FAR AS, YOUR POSITION ON THE ANNEXATION AND TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT YOU WISH. YES SO, MY NAME IS STEVE REINHARDT. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT TWO, TWO, THREE TWO EDWARDS ROAD. I'M NOT A PUBLIC SPEAKER, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME FACTS THAT I PROVIDED TO ALL OF YOU VIA EMAIL. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THROUGH ALLEGATIONS AND HALF TRUTHS AND YOU MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. SO ON JANUARY 3RD, THIS PROPERTY WAS ISSUED TWO TWO NEW ZONING VIOLATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE ONE THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS. THE FIRST ONE WAS A CLEAR ZONING VIOLATION, IN FEBRUARY, I HAD AN AEP COME OUT TWICE, REMOVE ONE LIGHT, ADJUST ANOTHER LIGHT PER MY PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST FOR JACKSON TOWNSHIP. THE LAST INSPECTION THEY DID ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE JANUARY 3RD WAS MAY 23RD, 2023. THAT IS 225 DAYS BEFORE THIS VIOLATION WAS ISSUED. I HAVE AN EMAIL I SENT TO YOU THAT THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY STATED ON APRIL 25TH. QUOTE, THE PRIOR LIGHTING CONDITIONS THAT WERE IN VIOLATION HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. I

[00:10:02]

CANNOT GET JACKSON TOWNSHIP TO CLOSE THIS VIOLATION. I HAVE ASKED NUMEROUS TIMES. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY I CAN GO TO MAKE THEM DO IT. I GAVE YOU PROOF THAT IT'S NOT THERE. THEY WILL NOT RUNNING THE BUSINESS VIOLATION. THIS IS PROBABLY THE HEART OF THE MATTER FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. I NOW OWN EDWARDS ROAD AS OF JULY 1ST CAME TO AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTNERS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY REINHARD JACOB EDWARDS LLC. EVEN THOUGH THE AUDITOR'S WEBSITE DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. I PROVIDED YOU THE DEED CLAIM THE SALES CONTRACT LOCAL ATTORNEY IS HANDLING IT, PART OF THAT SALES CONTRACT WAS PRO SWEEP. CHIMNEY HAD UNTIL JULY 14TH REMOVAL ALL SUPPLIES AND VEHICLES. THEY HAVE DONE SO I PROVIDED SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE SHOWING THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER THERE. JACKSON TOWNSHIP IS AWARE OF THIS AS OF THE JULY 9TH COURT HEARING, WHICH WAS POSTPONED SINCE THERE WAS AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE, AND I'VE ASKED THEM TO REMOVE THAT QUOTE CODE VIOLATION. I CANNOT FORCE THEM TO DO IT, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU PROOF THAT IT'S NOT THERE. THE FINAL ONE, ZONING PERMIT FOR A SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING AGAIN ISSUED ON JANUARY 3RD, WHICH IS THE DATE I DROPPED OFF THE ANNEXATION, REQUEST TO THEM. THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN EARLY DECEMBER 2023. IT WAS DISCUSSED AT A JACKSON TOWNSHIP ZONING MEETING THAT WAS ON THE BOOKS FOR THE 18TH, AS I STATED ON THEIR RECORD, AND I'LL SAY IT ON YOURS, I THOUGHT I HAD ALL THE PROPER PAPERWORK IN PLACE FOR IT. JACKSON TOWNSHIP ISSUED ME A ZONING VIOLATION WITHIN 16 DAYS OF THAT MEETING OVER THE CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY, AND DID NOT INSPECT THE PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WITH THEM. THEY NEVER WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT IT. FRANKLIN COUNTY ISSUED ME A BUILDING PERMIT. I PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. FRANKLIN COUNTY INSPECTED AND PASSED THE BUILDING. I PROVIDED THAT TO YOU. THE BUILDING WAS INSTALLED BY A REPUTABLE BUILDER WITH OHIO APPROVED PLANS. THE WELL, YOU CAN IGNORE. YOU CAN IGNORE THAT. ALL RIGHT. THE PROPERTY HAS TWO 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS THAT ALIGN WITH JACKSON TOWNSHIP CODING CODE.

SAME PROPERTY ON THE STREET, 2154 AND 2142 ARE JACKSON TOWNSHIP RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

THEY HAVE MULTIPLE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND NO PERMITS FROM JACKSON TOWNSHIP. 2167 EDWARDS ROAD IS A GROVE CITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON THAT BUILDING, WITH NO PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE 7200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT GROVE CITY ALLOWED SPECIAL PERMISSION TO BE BUILT. SO MY PROPERTY WITH THESE TWO BUILDINGS IS NOT OUT OF THE NORM FOR THAT ROAD. ONLY ONE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY CAN SEE THE BUILDINGS THEY'RE LOCATED IN THE BACK. I'VE ALWAYS SHOWN MY NEIGHBORS ON EDWARD ROADS RESPECT AND HAVE POLITELY LISTENED TO THEIR CONCERNS AT EVERY MEETING I'VE BEEN AT. I PLAN TO CONTINUE TO DO SO. I HAVE NO OWNERSHIP STAKE IN PRO CHIMNEY. THAT WAS OUT OF THAT PROPERTY. THAT BUSINESS WAS OWNED BY A PARTNER THAT OWNED THE PROPERTY. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN IN PARTNERS, THERE'S SOME LEGALITIES TO WHAT I CAN DO AND CANNOT DO. WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT. THEY'RE BOUGHT OUT. NONE OF THE VANS OR BUSINESS IS ALLOWED ON THAT PROPERTY, AND THAT'S VERY CLEAR TO THEM. QUESTIONS THANK YOU, MR. REINHARDT. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO ALSO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO TALK, AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, THE FIRST PERSON UNDER THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THIS EVENING TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK IS A BETH VANCE. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BETH VANCE, I LIVE AT 2218 EDWARDS ROAD. I AM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THIS LOT, THEY'RE WANTING TO ANNEX INTO GROVE CITY, US. AND MANY PEOPLE ON THE STREET. WE HAVE A SIGNED PETITION THAT STATES NONE OF US WANT IT TO BE ANNEXED TO GROVE CITY. THERE'S MULTIPLE REASONS, ONE, THE HEART OF THE ISSUE WAS THE COMPANY THAT THEY WERE RUNNING OUT OF THERE, THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RUNNING OUT OF THERE. WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, THEY KNEW IT WAS JACKSON TOWNSHIP. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. SO WHY THEY WANT TO SWITCH IT TO GROVE CITY IS BEYOND ME. BUT PART OF OUR PROBLEM IS, IS THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS ANYWHERE ELSE TO GROVE CITY OTHER THAN OUR STREET. SO WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A DEAD END STREET WHERE YOU ARE THE LAST PARCEL AND ANNEX IT TO GROVE CITY? WHEN THERE'S NO OTHER ACCESS TO GROVE CITY EXCEPT TO GO BACK THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP THAT YOU ARE A PART OF. THE HOUSE ON THE END OF THE STREET THAT HE MENTIONED IS GROVE CITY IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ANNEX BACK IN TO JACKSON TOWNSHIP, WHICH WE ARE ALL FOR, THAT VERY SAME HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET WAS ALSO,

[00:15:03]

COMMERCIAL THAT WE ALL VOTED TO CHANGE BACK TO RESIDENTIAL. SO WE TRY TO KEEP OUR STREET A VERY WE ARE A CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITY. MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN ON THAT STREET 30 PLUS YEARS.

WE'RE THE NEWEST ONES SO FAR AT EIGHT YEARS. THERE'S CURRENTLY A HUGE HOUSE BEING BUILT. IF YOU'VE EVER DROVE BY EDWARD ROAD, YOU HAVE SEEN IT, AND THEY'RE A SMALL FAMILY. THEY HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN. THEY LIKE TO PLAY IN THE ROAD. IT'S WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CHIMNEY COMPANY IS, IS THEY DID NOT HAVE A CARE FOR WHO WAS ON THAT STREET, SPEEDING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD, TAKING TRAILERS, WHOEVER WAS ON IT. A LOT OF THIS STEMS FROM A CAR ACCIDENT THAT HAPPENED THAT INVOLVED MY DAUGHTER IN THE, PARTNER THAT IS NO LONGER A PART OF IT. AND PART OF IT IS THEY WANTED TO SAY THA, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND PART OF THESE VIOLATIONS. WELL IN ANOTHER JACKSON TOWNSHIP MEETING, HE SAID THE REASON WHY THE SECOND BUILDING WENT UP BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS LOSE THEIR DEPOSIT OR PUT IT UP. SO THEY PUT IT UP, CLEARLY THEY WERE AWARE THAT THINGS LIKE THIS NEED TO HAPPEN. THEY JUST REFUSED TO UNTIL, HEY, THERE WAS A CAR ACCIDENT THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH. AND THEN WE STARTED TO PUSH THE ISSUE OF THIS NEEDS TO STOP, DURING THAT CAR ACCIDENT ISSUE, THERE WAS FROM THE OTHER PARTNER THAT'S NO LONGER THERE. THERE WAS A HE TRIED TO PUT A PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST MY HUSBAND, AND THEN LIED TO PICKAWAY COUNTY AND SAID THAT IT WAS ALREADY A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND IN TURN TRIED TO MAKE IT BACK, THAT WE WERE HARASSING THEM, SO UNFORTUNATELY FOR THESE GUYS, AND I'VE TOLD THEM BEFORE, THEY ARE GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION FOR WHO THEIR PARTNER IS. SO I UNDERSTAND THE SEPARATION. SELLING IT, KEEPING IT JUST THEIRS. I HOPE IT WORKS OUT DANDY, BUT DOESN'T MEAN I WANT YOUR PROPERTY TO STILL BECOME PART OF GROVE CITY. IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT MAKING IT A RENTAL, WELL, YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S NO WAY TO DO A SEPTIC AND. WELL, SO OUR GUESS IS THEY WANT TO GO GROVE CITY SO THEY CAN PUT WATER DOWN. IT WHICH NONE OF US ARE. ARE FOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THE NEXT ON THE LIST TO SIGN UP ON THIS ISSUE IS NANCY WHEATON.

AGAIN. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. NANCY WHEATON, 2178 EDWARDS ROAD. I'M BETH'S NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS THEIR NEIGHBOR. OUR ONLY CONCERN IS HE HAS, MR. REINHART STATED THAT, THE OTHER OWNER IS NO LONGER AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT, THE CHIMNEY CLEANING COMPANY WAS THEIRS, NOT HIS OR HE DOESN'T OWN IT ANYMORE. SO OUR ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL STREET. WE CAN'T PASS TWO CARS IN IT, YOU KNOW, VERY LOW COUNTRY ROAD IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN. BUT ARE THEY GOING THAT WAY? ARE THEY GOING TO BRING BACK THE BUSINESS THE WAY THEY BROUGHT IT OUT THE FIRST TIME? YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUR CONCERN IS WE DON'T WANT I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S IN GROVE CITY OR I DON'T CARE IF IT'S IN JACKSON TOWN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. WHY YOU GUYS WANT IT? I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYS RESIDENTIAL. AND AS BETH HAS SAID, THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO ROAD. OKAY, THAT'S. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. MADAM CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? SURE, YES. AM I AM I CORRECT ON THE SECTION TWO OF THE OF THE ORDINANCE? IT SAYS THE ZONING ON THIS ANNEXATION SHALL BE SF ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO LET'S BRING BROUGHT. IF IT WAS ANNEXED, IT'S BEING BROUGHT IN AS RESIDENTIAL. CORRECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I HEARD IT A COUPLE OF TIMES JUST TO MAKE SURE. RIGHT HE WOULD COME INTO THE CLOSEST ZONING. IT WOULD NOT BE COMMERCIAL. IT WOULD COME IN AS RESIDENTIAL.

YES. YOU MAY MISS MISS WHEATON. CLEAR THAT SO, THIS ALL STARTED IN JACKSON TOWNSHIP TWO YEARS AGO, WHERE IT WAS RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN THEY SNUCK THE BUSINESS IN ON US. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THIS GUY DID. I DON'T CARE WHO DID. THE BUSINESS WAS BROUGHT I. WE'VE BEEN TWO YEARS GETTING THEM SHUT DOWN. THEY'VE BEEN OUT OF COMPLIANCE FOR TWO YEARS. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING CONFUSED. AND WE JUST DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO THE CITY OF OUR CITY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE ZONING VIOLATION. THAT IS RIGHT. ONE OF THE ISSUES OKA.

THANK YOU BOTH, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NEXT BRING UP MR. TEDFORD. OUR SAFETY DIRECTOR.

MADAM PRESIDENT, CHAIR BURROW, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE.

THE BUILDING DIVISION, WHICH IS PART OF THE SAFETY DEPARTMENT WHO REVIEWS AND POLICES THE

[00:20:02]

ZONING PORTION OF OUR CITY, HAS REVIEWED A LETTER THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED A DATE OF JULY 24TH, 2024 THAT, ASSUMES THAT OR THAT WRITES THAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING VIOLATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED AND ARE STILL OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE PROPERTY. THEY CONSIST OF OPERATING A BUSINESS AND A RESIDENCY, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS WITHOUT ZONING PERMITS, AND THE GLARE OF LIGHTING SHINING INTO NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN REMEDIED ON NO DIRECTION FROM JACKSON TOWNSHIP. AND SO THEREFORE IT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU THAT, THAT THE ANNEXATION WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT MEET OUR CURRENT ZONING, ZONING REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TEDFORD? THANK YOU. NO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE OWNER. I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL. SILENCE AND MISTER STAGE. ANYBODY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL MY COUPLE COMMENTS. I WILL BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE IS I ALSO AGREE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF THAT THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. IT'S NOT A HE SAID SHE SAID GOING ON, I DO APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE AND THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE, TO WORK ON THAT TO RESOLVE THAT WITH JACKSON TOWNSHIP. WITH THAT SAID, THIS ORDINANCE HAS HAD A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE THAT IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MR. SIEGRIST? YES, MISS.

HOUK? NO. MR. HOLT. NO. MR. BARRY, NO. MR. DUE, NO. MISS BURROWS, NO. MISS ANDERSON, NO, ONE QUICK CAN. MR. SIEGRIST, HE ANSWERED IN THE WRONG. YES, HE WAS. MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE HIS VOTE? DID YOU MISSPEAK? MR. HE DID. HE MISSPOKE. NO. SORRY. I REALLY MEANT TO SAY NO, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, NO, THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL UPDATE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ITEM UNDER LANDS

[Ordinance C-25-24 Rezone 0.1893+ acres located north of Rose Ave. and west of Broadway from R2 to PUD-R with zoning text. Second reading and public hearing.]

THIS EVENING IS ORDINANCE C 2524 TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF 0.1893 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF ROSE AVENUE AND WEST OF BROADWAY, FROM R2 TO PDR, WITH ZONING TEXT ON ZOOM. EXCUSE ME.

JUNE 4TH, 2024. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED RECOMMENDATION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM R2 TO PDR. WITH THAT, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. CASTRO, PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, PATRICK CASTRO, 4016 ARBUTUS AVENUE, GROVE CITY, OHIO, 43123, I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR ALL, YOU KNOW, THE BACKGROUND AND YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REZONING. ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE REACHED OUT TO SOME OF YOU GUYS ON CITY COUNCIL AND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, WHEN WE FIRST CAME TO CITY COUNCIL TO DO A DUPLEX, THE DENSITY WAS DEFINITELY TOO HIGH, WE HAD PARKING IN THE FRONT. WE TOOK ALL THAT INFORMATION BACK. WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE DUPLEXES FROM THREE PER SIDE DOWN TO TWO. WE ELIMINATED THE, APARTMENT ABOVE THE GARAGE. THAT IS JUST GOING TO BE STORAGE FOR US PERSONALLY, WE MOVED THE PARKING FROM THE FRONT OF THE STREET, ALL PARKING TO THE REAR, BECAUSE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT OVER PARKING ON THE STREET AND LOSING THOSE SPOTS, SO WE SIGNIFICANTLY CUT DOWN THE OCCUPANCY THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO BE IN THE DUPLEX, WE'VE EXCEEDED THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. IT'S 2.5 PER UNIT, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX, THREE FOR EACH UNIT, AND THEN THAT WILL ALLOW US TO USE ONE BAY IF WE WANT TO, FOR STORING A CAR. AND ALSO STORAGE ABOVE THE UNIT. AS SOME PEOPLE MAY KNOW, THIS IS THE THIRD PROJECT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING. HOPEFULLY, WE'VE BOUGHT EMPTY LOTS. WE BOUGHT A JUNKYARD OFF ARBUTUS AND TURNED IT INTO A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, WE TOOK WHAT WAS A FALLING DOWN GARAGE AND TURNED IT INTO WHAT YOU GUYS SEE TODAY, FRANKLIN AND SUNSHINE. WE TOOK A EMPTY LOT AND JUST

[00:25:08]

COMPLETED A NEW BUILD ON THAT, THIS PAST WEEK, I KNOW I SHARED THAT ADDRESS WITH SOME OF YOU GUYS. LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS APPROVED AND GETTING THIS CONSTRUCTION STARTED TO HELP WITH THE 2050 PLAN THAT GROVE CITY HAS FOR MORE DENSE HOUSING IN THE TOWN CENTER CORE, WHICH IS WHERE ROSE AVENUE IS LOCATED, AND TO HELP WITH THE, HOUSING HOUSING SHORTAGE THAT YOU KEEP HEARING FROM MID-OHIO PLANNING COMMISSION. FRANKLIN COUNTY IS CURRENTLY FACING A DEFICIT IN HOUSING, AND AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE BECOMING OUT OF REACH FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT WE STILL NEED TO PROVIDE SPACES FOR THEM TO LIVE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THANK YOU, I'M GOING TO GO TO MISS SHIELDS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING. YOU CAN JUST KIND OF GIVE US A LITTLE HISTORY ON THE REZONING, HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SURE. SO, THIS IS A REQUEST TO GO TO A POWDER, AND AS YOU'RE AWARE, ANY NEW PUD DOES REQUIRE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH THE APPLICANT SPOKE TO, THAT PLAN DID SHOW THE DUPLEX ALONG THE FRONT ON ROSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UNIT ABOVE, THAT PLAN WAS, RECOMMENDED FOR DISAPPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL. IN NOVEMBER OF 2022. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF SINCE THEN TO DRAFT THE ZONING TEXT THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE MAIN CHANGES ARE WHAT MR. CASTRO DESCRIBED. THE UNIT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DETACHED GARAGE, SO RIGHT NOW THE REQUEST IS JUST FOR THE DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON ROSE. WITH THE DETACHED STRUCTURE ACCESSED OFF OF THE REAR ALLEY, ALSO, THE PARKING WAS RELOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, IN TERMS OF THE ZONING TEXT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PUD, THE APPLICANT WAS REALLY GOOD IN WORKING WITH US TO ENSURE THAT THE, THE STANDARDS WITHIN THIS TEXT WOULD CREATE A STRUCTURE THAT IS VERY IN CHARACTER WITH THE AREA. SO WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE STRUCTURES UP AND DOWN ROSE AVENUE. WE LOOKED AT WHAT KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES REALLY CAPTURED THE CHARACTER OF THAT STREET, AND LISTED THOSE OUT IN THE ZONING TEXT, THE ZONING TEXT REQUIRES THAT I BELIEVE THREE OF THOSE FEATURES, BE EXHIBITED IN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE STEPS THAT WE TOOK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT THIS WOULD, CONFORM WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. MR. CASTRO MENTIONED THE 2050 PLAN. THIS IS WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER CORE NEIGHBORHOOD. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH DOES ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND SIZES, WHICH WE FELT THAT THIS THE ZONING TEXT WOULD RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT. SO THEREFORE STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THIS, ZONING TEXT AND PLANNING COMMISSION DID MAKE A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL, FOR ZERO FOR THIS ZONING. THANK YOU. MICHELLE, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M GONNA THERE'S ONE PERSON, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SCOTT HOY. IF YOU COULD AGAIN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. HI, MY NAME IS SCOTT HOY, AND MY ADDRESS IS 5003 49 MARY BELL LANE. AND, I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY AT 3290 ROSE AVENUE FOR 24 YEARS NOW. ALMOST. AND I LIVE THERE FOR TWO YEARS, AND I AM CURRENTLY RENTING IT OUT. MY TENANT HAS BEEN THERE WELL, NINE YEARS GOING ON TEN SOON. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE RECEIVED THE PETITION, BUT WE HAD A PETITION SIGNED. A LOT OF RESIDENTS ON THE STREET DON'T FEEL THIS IS NECESSARY TO CHANGE THIS ONE SMALL LOT FROM A RESIDENTIAL TWO TO A PUD. SO I'M JUST GOING THROUGH SOME POINTS HERE, CHANGING THE SLOT ZONING FROM AN R-2 SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO A PUD, WHICH IS LIKE A MULTIFAMILY IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE DUPLEX AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS LOT IS TOO LARGE FOR THIS 46.5FT, YOU KNOW, WIDE LOT DUPLEXES TYPICALLY REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT OF 70FT.

THE TWO MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS THAT EXIST ON ROSE AVENUE ARE ON DOUBLE LOTS AND WERE BUILT BEFORE THE 1975 R-2 ZONING CODE WENT INTO EFFECT ON ROSE AVENUE. THE CURRENT VACANT LOT WAS ALWAYS CONNECTED TO 3300 ROSE AVENUE, GOING BACK TO 1949. IT WAS NEVER AN INFILL LOT THAT NO ONE WANTED TO DEVELOP OVER THE YEARS, AS 3300 ROSE WAS BOUGHT AND SOLD, THE VACANT LOT WAS ALWAYS PART OF 3300 ROSE AVENUE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN JUNE OF 2021, THE OWNER, WHO HAD BEEN LIVING AT 3300 ROSE AVENUE SINCE 1991, WAS FORCED TO SELL. THEY SOLD IT FOR $95,000 INITIALLY AND THREE WEEKS LATER ANOTHER INVESTOR BOUGHT IT FOR 130,000, FAR BELOW MARKET VALUE. BY OCTOBER OF

[00:30:07]

2021, THE INVESTOR OF 3300 ROSE AVENUE APPARENTLY DID NOT WANT THE VACANT LOT, SO HE SOLD IT TO MR. CASTRO, ANOTHER INVESTOR, FOR 59,800. NO FOR SALE SIGN WAS EVER PUT IN THE YARD. ACCORDING TO THE NEIGHBORS I SPOKE WITH, IT APPEARS THAT THE LOT WAS SOLD BY WORD OF MOUTH FROM ONE INVESTOR TO ANOTHER, AND THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK SOMETIMES. IN CLOSING, THIS LOT HAS NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DEVELOPED AS INTENDED. ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH MANY BABY BOOMERS READY TO DOWNSIZE, YOUNG COUPLES WANTING TO FIND A STARTER HOME, AND WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY BEING TIGHT, HAVING A VACANT LOT TO BUILD, A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A QUIET, DEAD END STREET WOULD PROBABLY BE IDEAL FOR MANY PEOPLE. MOREOVER, IF MR. CASTRO WANTS TO BUILD A SMALL, SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT AND RENT IT OUT, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. SO I URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE NO. CHANGING THE ZONING OF THIS LOT FROM R-2 TO PUD. THANK YOU, MR. MISS SHIELDS, CAN YOU TALK TO THE POINT ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE LOT? IS THAT AND HOW THAT AFFECTS ZONING? YES SO THIS LOT IS ZONED R2, WHICH IS OUR SMALLEST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT WE HAVE, THE ZONING STANDARDS THAT ARE IN OUR ZONING CODE RIGHT NOW DO NOT HAVE A LOT SIZE THAT IS REFLECTIVE OF THE HISTORIC TOWN CENTER LOT SIZE, THIS R2 ZONING IS THE SAME THAT YOU WOULD FIND IN THE HOOVER PARK SUBDIVISION IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTHS AND SIZES. SO, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP ANYTHING, EVEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE R2 DISTRICT. SO BASICALLY, ANY STRUCTURE BUILT HERE WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCES, HOW MANY? I CAN'T SPEAK TO, OBVIOUSLY. BUT, AS I SAID, IT'S A IT'S A HISTORIC LOT THAT IS NOT ZONED REALLY APPROPRIATELY FOR A HISTORIC LOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT IS VERY CONFUSING. AND IF I MAY ADD, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THIS WAS PART OF A CITYWIDE REZONING THAT WAS MADE INTO A CLASSIFICATION THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE PUD IN THE CODE, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO KIND OF GET CREATIVE WITH THE ZONING WHERE WE HAVE A LOT THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD FIND IN OTHER AREAS. SO THE PUD ACTUALLY GIVES COUNCIL MORE CONTROL OVER THE ZONING VERSUS THEM TRYING TO DEVELOP IT WITH JUST OBTAINING A LOT OF VARIANCES THAT WOULD THEN RUN WITH THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE IT THROUGH THIS TYPE OF PROCESS. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. THANK YOU, MISS SHIELDS. ALL RIGHT EVERYBODY THAT'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS HAS HAD THEIR TIME. ANY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. IF I MAY, BEFORE I JUST WANT TO MENTION BECAUSE SHE JUST REMINDED ME WE DID RECEIVE VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCES AT THE CITY RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THOSE ALL HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH COUNCIL. WITH THAT, COMMENTS. EVERYBODY SO QUIET TONIGHT. MISS HENDERSON, I'LL MAKE SOME COMMENTS. SO I THINK THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE ON. AND YOU CAN SEE I HAD A FALSE START EARLIER. OR MAYBE IT WAS, THERE ARE TWO INVESTORS, PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY, ON THIS STREET AND SOMEONE THAT'S NOT GOING TO LIVE ON THIS STREET THAT WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOME ALTRUISTIC THINGS FOR SOCIETY AND TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT. AND WE I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE LIVING ON THE STREET CAME TONIGHT AND THAT'S THEIR BACK THAT SPOKE. YEAH. SO YEAH. SO, IF I I'LL FINISH AND YOU CAN GO FROM THERE. BUT SO I THINK IT'S HARD BECAUSE I'VE BEEN UP THE STREET MANY TIMES AND IT HAS NO SIDEWALK FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY SINGLE PERSON UP HERE AT THE DYESS HAS LIVES IN A HOUSE THAT HAS SIDEWALKS IN THIS TOWN. AND IT'S A IT'S A BIAS. I THINK, OF WHAT'S GOOD OR WHAT'S BAD OR WHAT'S OKAY OR IS IT IN THE 2050 PLAN WHEN YOU GET REAL GRANULAR, THERE IS NO WAY FOR CHILDREN TO WALK ACROSS YARDS OR DOWN THE STREET SAFELY OR ANYTHING. SO I'M REALLY TROUBLED BY THE JUST THE IDEA. IT'S A NET ONE, A NET ONE MEANING FROM R2 TO A MULTI UNITS, A NET ONE HOUSING AND IT IS MORE CARS AND NO ONE HAS A CRYSTAL BALL. WE CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT WHAT KIND OF TENANT THAT'S GOING TO BE. IS IT GOING TO BE BED AND BREAKFAST IS IT GOING TO BE SENIORS. IS IT GOING TO BE YOUNG ADULTS? IT IS GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE THOUGH. SO AND TO MR. CASTRO'S CREDIT, I MEAN IT IS GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE. SO THIS THIS ISN'T AN EASY VOTE. AND I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GET IT OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK

[00:35:01]

IT THAT ROAD IN PARTICULAR, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE THAT MADE AN INVESTMENT HERE AND THEN HAVE SIGNED A PETITION, MAY MAYBE ONE PARTY IS HERE TONIGHT, BUT ANYWAY, JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THANK YOU, MR. SIEGRIST. MISS ANDERSON, THANK YOU. YES, I CAN GO NEXT, SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU RAISING YOUR HAND. I WAS KIND OF THINKING THE SAME THING.

ALTHOUGH I DO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, AS AS MR. SMITH SAID, WE DEFINITELY GOT, INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK AND EMAILS FROM A COUPLE OF THE RESIDENTS. I DID SEE THE PETITION THAT WAS SIGNED, AND I AGREE THIS ONE IS NOT AN EASY ONE. IT'S NOT EASY WHEN THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT'S NOT AGREEABLE AMONGST COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A IN AN AREA FOR A WHILE. THEY'VE INVESTED IN THAT. I THINK, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU LOOK AT WHAT ARE WE WORKING TO BRING TO OUR CITY AND WHAT ARE WE WORKING TO? HAVE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY. AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION BEYOND THE 2050 PLAN AS TO WHAT THE TOWN CENTER IS, IS GOING TO END UP BEING, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT A CARRIAGE HOUSE OVER THE GARAGE.

AND WHILE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS PROPOSED AT THIS POINT. THERE'S NOT A LIVABLE SPACE OVER THE GARAGE, THE, THE REZONING WOULD OBVIOUSLY ALLOW A MULTIFAMILY, BUT YOU'LL SEE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NEXT, THAT IT'S STRICTLY WITHIN THE DUPLEX.

I THINK THE OTHER PIECE AND AS I'VE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE AND RESEARCH INTO THIS, IS, IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER DUPLEXES ON THE STREET. I, I DO UNDERSTAND THEY'RE ON DOUBLE LOTS. AND I THINK THAT WAS, SOMETHING THAT WAS FEASIBLE IN THE 70S OR WHEN IT WAS BUILT THAT WE HAD MORE LAND. AND I THINK WE'RE NOW SEEING WHERE OU, OUR URBAN AREAS AREN'T, THAT THAT'S JUST NOT A FEASIBLE PIECE THAT'S COMING WITHIN OUR URBAN AREAS. AND SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE NO LONGER WANTING, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING AND MULTIPLE UNITS? BEING THAT IT'S IN, YOU KNOW, A TOWN CENTER CORE NEIGHBORHOOD, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SIGRIST ABOUT A SIDEWALK IN GOING UP AND DOWN THAT STREET. I TO THINK THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES A SIDEWALK. AND I THINK THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF, IT'S COME AROUND IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION A NUMBER OF TIMES. IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN ONE THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED SINCE, AT LEAST FOR, GOSH, THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, KNOWING HOW MANY TIMES IT'S COME BACK, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE TALK ABOUT THE 2050 PLAN AND AS WE TALK ABOUT THE AMENITIES, AND I KNOW THERE WAS A COUPLE PIECES IN HERE, I THINK A SIDEWALK IS A COMMUNITY AMENITY. AND RIGHT NOW THAT COMMUNITY DOESN'T HAVE IT.

SO THEY ARE, I THINK, VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR KIDS RIDING UP AND DOWN THE STREET, WHICH IS OF CONCERN FOR THEM, HOWEVER, AGAIN, THEY THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO THEY DON'T HAVE A SIDEWALK RIGHT NOW. AND SO THE KIDS ARE NOT ABLE TO RIDE UP AND DOWN THE STREET ON, ON A SIDEWALK AND THEREFORE IT'S IT FEELS CHALLENGING FOR THEM. SO I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT. I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME FORWARD ON BOTH SIDES. AND AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IN THE PLACES THAT ARE CLOSE TO OUR, OUR TOWN CENTER CORE. SO THANK YOU. THANKS, MISS ANDERSON. MR. BERRY. YES. WELL FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MR. CASTRO. I MEAN, HE YOU BUILD GREAT PROPERTIES AND, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR CREDIT, I'VE LOVED SUPPORTING THEM. THE, YOU KNOW, AND YOU REACHED OUT AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. WE TALKED FOR A LONG TIME. THE MY ISSUE WITH THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT ROSE AVENUE, IF YOU EACH BLOW UP THAT AREA, I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE REPRESENTED THIS AREA MY ENTIRE TIME ON COUNCIL. AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES IS FOR ME IS NOT ONLY IS IT KIND OF LANDLOCKED, WHERE THERE'S LITERALLY WE MENTIONED SIDEWALKS, BUT I ALWAYS SAY, WHERE DOES THE SIDEWALK GO? IT CAN ONLY GO TOWARDS BROADWAY. IT CAN'T GO ACROSS TO, IT CAN'T GO ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS. SO THE ZONING FOR ME BECOMES AN ISSUE SIMPLY BECAUSE, OKAY, IF WE ALLOW THIS ONE PUD, THEN ANOTHER ONE GETS BOUGHT UP AND BECOMES PUD AND ANOTHER ONE GETS BOUGHT UP AND BECOMES PUD. SO YOU HAVE THIS TREND OF, OKAY, THEY DID IT, NOW WE CAN DO IT, WE CAN DO IT, WE CAN DO IT. AND NOW THE WHOLE, THAT WHOLE STREET ENDS UP BECOMING THE ABILITY TO HAVE TO HAVE MULTIFAMILY HOUSES WHEN THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT OF THIS, OF THIS PARCEL. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M SITTING HERE THINKING, YOU KNOW, IF I WAS LIVING THERE, WHAT WOULD I WANT? AND, AND I, AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHY THE RESIDENTS WANT TO KEEP IT THE WAY THEY WANT TO KEEP IT, AT THE SAME TIME, I UNDERSTAND MR. CASTRO

[00:40:05]

BUILDS A WONDERFUL PRODUCT, TOO, AND EVERYTHING. SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT'S A HARD DECISION. BUT I LOOK AT THIS AND SIDEWALKS WOULD BE GREAT, BUT AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME, WHERE DOES THE SIDEWALK GO? IT'S A DEAD END STREET. AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES BECOME OVERBUILT IN THAT AREA AND EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, THAT CREATES A PROBLEM, THAT MEANS THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER HOUSE TO LOOP IT AROUND TO THE NEXT STREET. AND SO IT CHANGES THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF THE OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE I MEAN, IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, I WHEN I, WHEN I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS OVER THERE, I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN. I THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE YOU THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE AS YOU WELL KNOW, IS THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS AND, AND I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT THEY NEVER COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING. I MEAN, OTHER THAN, OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAD FLOODING, I HELPED PEOPLE CLEAN OUT THEIR BASEMENTS OVER THERE, AND EVERYTHING. AND THEY'RE JUST WONDERFUL PEOPLE, AND EVERYTHING. SO MY VOTE TONIGHT HAS TO GO WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA, SO I'M JUST, MR. CASTRO, YOU DO A WONDERFUL PROJECT, AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TAKE THAT AWAY, AND I HOPE YOU CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THE CITY, BECAUSE WE NEED YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU, MR. BERRY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS? NO, MISS BURROWS, IF I MAY, AND I YOU'RE HEARING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ALL HAVE GRAPPLED WITH, REALLY? THAT WORLD OF WE HAD AN AN OUTPOURING OF COMMENTARY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT, THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH AND, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY I'M, I'M A PUT, PUT MYSELF IN YOUR SHOES PERSON. SO I'VE, I'VE PULLED THOSE THINGS OUT THE ENTIRE WAY ALONG, WEIGHING THIS WORLD OF THE WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF HOUSING, YOU KNOW, AND I'LL SPEAK TO THE I'M AN EMPTY NESTER AND I'M CLEANING A MUCH LARGER HOUSE THAN I NEED TO BE CLEANING. I'M NOT TO BRING UP A BITTER SUBJECT, BUT, BUT I BUT I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE. IT'S A IT'S A, YOU KNOW, DOWNSIZING WOULD BE UP PRICING AND SO REALLY, I THINK WE'RE WORKING IN A WORLD RIGHT NOW WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO WRAP OUR HEAD AROUND HOW TO BALANCE WHAT WE OFFER IN TERMS OF HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND IT'S DIFFICULT AND IT'S GOING IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A LEVEL OF DISCOMFORT AND GROWING PAINS FOR ALL OF US. TRULY, WHAT I THINK I COME BACK TO IN, YOU KNOW, AND I, I'VE BEEN ON THE STREET, I'VE BEEN ON GOOGLE WITH THE LITTLE YELLOW GUY DRAGGING HIM ONTO THE STREET TO RELIVE THE DOOR TO DOOR EXPERIENCE ON THE ROAD, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IT'S IT IS A IT'S AN INTERESTING LOT. IT'S INTERESTING HOW IT'S GOING TO EXIST WITH REGARD TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE POSITIONING OF THEIR STRUCTURES. BUT I KEEP COMING BACK TO, IF THIS ZONING STAYED AS IT IS, A PERSON COULD BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THERE AND FOLLOW ONLY THE MOST BASIC STANDARDS FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION. SO BY GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING A QUALITY PROJECT IN THAT ON THAT SITE, ONE WHERE SOMEONE HAS TO DOT THEIR I'S AND CROSS THEIR T'S VERSUS JUST FOLLOW THE ZONING TEXT THAT THAT IS THERE TODAY, THE FACT THAT THE PERSON WHO IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY HAS UNDERTAKEN THIS EXERCISE. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS TO GET TO THIS POINT TODAY, AND THEN OF COURSE, WHAT WHAT I THINK WE ALL LOOKED AT AS KIND OF AN OVERUTILIZATION. AND I THINK THAT SET THE PROPERTY OFF ON THE WRONG CONVERSATION FOOT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT THE PERSON DEVELOPING THE PROJECT, MR. CASTRO, HAS BEEN OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION, LISTENING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW TO SCALE THIS BACK, HOW TO GET RID OF THOSE CURB CUTS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE CARS COMING IN AND OUT OFF OF ROADS ANY MOR. SO ESSENTIALLY, A PERSON DEVELOPING A PROJECT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO FIX AN EXISTING ENVIRONMENT. IT'S TO NOT WORSEN IT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE LANDED. WE GOT WE HAVE A GOOD COMPROMISE POSITION. SO, IN THE WORLD OF IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A RENTAL DUPLEX IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD OWNER AND SOMEONE THAT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME BY AND CHECK ON IT AND SEE WHAT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MISS CHAIR. YES. CAN SOMETHING BE CLARIFIED? PRESIDENT HAWK, YOU STATED ABOUT NO CURB CUTS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY GOING TO ROSE AVENUE. THE DRIVEWAY IS IN THE BACK TO THE ALLEY THAT IS OWNED BY GROVE CITY. CORRECT? OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. MISS SHIELDS IS NODDING YES. YES. MR.

[00:45:01]

MAYOR, IF I COULD, MADAM CHAIR, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM, THIS THING IS CONTIGUOUS IN A ONE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS RIGHT BEHIND IT, AND IT'S WITHIN 1000FT, PROBABLY OF WHAT'S AN EXISTING PDR. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AS TO WHY IS THIS GOING TO BE POSSIBLY REZONE, I MEAN, IT IS NOT THAT RADICAL BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF APARTMENTS. AND IT'S ONE, AS I SAY, WITHIN 1000FT OF AN EXISTING PDR. AND THE FACT THAT THIS HOUSING IS A UNIQUE HOUSING AND AS WE'VE ALL ADMITTED, THE NEED FOR THAT KIND OF HOUSING IS PRETTY PREVALENT. SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT OUT, THAT THIS IS NOT THAT FAR OFF. I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MULTIFAMILY AND PDR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE FROM COUNCIL? OKAY, SOME OF MY FINAL COMMENTS, I AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF US ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS. REZONING TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT. BUT I DO HAVE TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT SAID THIS EVENING. I REALLY BELIEVE, MR. CASTRO, YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE OVER. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN OVER TWO YEARS WORKING ON THIS AND LISTENING TO OUR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOING COMING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD FROM I THINK IT WAS THREE UNITS TO TWO UNITS, AGAIN, WORKING WITH NO CURB CUTS, THE YOU MENTIONED THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT. YOUR LOCAL YOU LIVE IN GROVE CITY, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING OUT OF STATE AND INVESTING IN HOMES AND LEAVING THEM IN DISARRAY OR NOT, WHO THEY EVEN RENT THEM TO. AND THEY'RE JUST NOT TAKEN CARE OF. SO I GIVE YOU KUDOS FOR THAT. AND THE TIME, IF THERE'S NO OTHER OTHER COMMENTS, THIS ORDINANCE HAS HAD A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE THAT IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MISS HAWK, YES, MR. HOLT? YES MR. BARRY, NO. MR. DU.

YES MISS. BURROWS. YES MISS ANDERSON. YES MR. SIGRIST. YES THANK YOU. THE FINAL ITEM UNDER

[Resolution CR-24-24 Approve the Development Plan for Rose Castro Duplex with detached garage located north of Rose Ave. and west of Broadway.]

LANDS THIS EVENING IS RESOLUTION CR 2424 TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ROSE CASTRO DUPLEX WITH DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT ROSE AVENUE AND WEST OF BROADWAY ON JUNE 4TH, 2024.

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED ON 2 TO 2. MR. SMITH, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? YEAH, IF I MAY, 2 TO 2 IS KIND OF A UNIQUE VOTE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET A RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS. AND WE ONLY HAD FOUR PRESENT. I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THE 2 TO 2 VOTE, I BELIEVE IS PROBABLY NOT FAIR TO MR. CASTRO IN THAT, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. CASTRO AND ON A SIDE NOTE, HE'S INVOLVED IN SOME LITIGATION WITH ONE OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND I WOULD HAVE ADVISED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION, JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS TO MR. CASTRO. SO HE AT LEAST GOT A FAIR SHOT. AND I'M IN NO WAY AM I SAYING THAT OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY. HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS FAIR TO MR. CASTRO, TO HAVE THAT GOING ON WITH THE TRIAL SET IN THREE WEEKS. WHEN CONSIDERING HIS APPLICATION. SO I WOULD ASK COUNCIL THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, I WOULD JUST CONSIDER IT BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANY DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S LACK OF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH, MR. CASTRO, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A LITTLE BIT? I KNOW YOU KIND OF REFERENCED A LITTLE BIT IN THE REZONING PORTION, BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE AND THEN JUST RESTATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. PATRICK CASTRO, 4016 ARBUTUS AVENUE, GROVE CITY, OHIO, TOUCHING ON THE NO SIDEWALKS ON THE STREET, ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WE HEARD FROM THE FIRST GO ROUND BACK IN 22 WAS NO CURB CUTS AND MOVE ALL THE PARKING TO THE REAR. AND WE DID THAT TO TRY AND ELIMINATE PEOPLE DRIVING ON THE STREET, ARE WE GOING TO KEEP AMAZON TRUCKS OFF THE STREET? NO, THEY'RE LIKE ANTS. THEY'RE MULTIPLYING ALL THE TIME. BUT THAT'S I CAN'T FIX THAT PROBLEM.

SIDEWALKS. I UNDERSTAND WITH A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS, SIDEWALKS ARE MANDATORY, THE NEW BUILD WE JUST DID, WE HAD TO REPAIR SIDEWALKS THAT, WERE DAMAGED FROM TREES IN THE PAST. BUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NO SIDEWALKS AT ALL, WOULD IT BE GOOD FOR THE KIDS? YES, BUT ME DOING MY PART,

[00:50:09]

I MOVED ALL THE PARKING TO THE REAR OF THE UNIT TO TRY AND ELIMINATE THAT, THE LOT IS UNIQUE THAT THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO GET TO THE HOUSE. ONE ON ROSE AVENUE OR ONE ON THE ALLEY CONTROLLED BY OR OWNED BY THE CITY, THE OTHER THING IS, THE WAY THIS HOUSE IS DESIGNED IS IT'S DESIGNED MOSTLY FOR FIRST FLOOR LIVING, WITH, FULL BATHROOM AND A BEDROOM AND THE LAUNDRY ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SECOND FLOOR IS ANOTHER BEDROOM AND ANOTHER BATHROOM, FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO DOWNSIZE OR PEOPLE STARTING OUT OR IS WE'RE SEEING NOW, MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S TAKING CARE OF A PARENT NOW OR SOMEBODY HAS A KID THAT MAY NOT BE MOVING OUT YET. IT IT'S THE SANDWICH GENERATION RIGHT NOW FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. AS YOU GUYS SAID, THE ONES I HAVE DONE ARE QUALITY. I CAN WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. AND NOT ONLY DO WE TAKE CARE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ONES, WE'VE BUILT OUR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOWN IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ARE PROBABLY SOME OF THE BETTER TAKEN CARE OF ONES ON THE STREET ALSO. SO I'M HERE, WHEN I WAS HERE FOR THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I CAN MENTIONED OUR MAYOR STAGE. SORRY COMING BACK HOME, THAT'S WHAT I DID. I RAISED MY KIDS IN HILLIARD, AND THEN I MOVED BACK TO GROVE CITY, AND I PLAN TO BE HERE FOR THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, AND IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU DO UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THERE ARE IS NO THIRD UNIT ABOVE THE CARRIAGE HOUSE, AND THAT RIGHT. IF ZONING WOULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, ALLOW THAT YOU WOULD GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND THAT THERE IS WATER ONLY TO THE CARRIAGE HOUSE? NO WATER AND SEWER WATER. WATER. I'M SORRY. WATER SEWER ELECTRICITY. RIGHT. YES, YES. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS AND ISSUES AND WITH THAT IN THE PAST. SO MISS SHIELDS, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO. YES I'LL MAKE IT BRIEF, I PROMISE. I JUST WANT TO REMIND, COUNCIL THAT REALLY THE MAIN THING TO BE CONSIDERING IN REVIEWING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A PUD IS THAT THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS THAT YOU JUST APPROVED IN THE PUD ZONING TEXT? SO IN STAFF'S REVIEW OF THAT, WE FELT THAT THE ELEVATIONS, THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE LAYOUT OF THE STRUCTURES, ALL COMPLY WITH THAT PUD ZONING TEX.

AND THERE ARE NO STIPULATIONS WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CORRECT STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION AS SUBMITTED, THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT PLANNING COMMISSION, A STIPULATION REGARDING THE UTILITIES WAS PROPOSED. BUT IT WAS DEFEATED, WELL, IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN A SPLIT TWO TWO VOTE. SO IT WAS NOT APPROVED, SIMILAR TO THE ACTUAL FINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION OF A SPLIT VOTE OF TWO TWO. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS SHIELDS. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. I HAVE A QUESTION. ANDERSON DID THIS. THIS DID GO BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, THOUGH IN THE PAST, IN 2022 OR 2023, IT IT DID THE ORIGINAL WITH THE ORIGINAL. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED THIS TIME.

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN PASSED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. DO WE KNOW THAT INFORMATION? OKAY. IT DID NOT DID NOT OKAY. IT DIDN'T PASS THAT AND IT DIDN'T PASS COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU, SO AGAIN, I THINK I JUST WANTED TO NOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND I, WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT, BUT NOT ONLY HAS THE DENSITY BEEN REDUCED AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY THREE UNITS, I BELIEVE THAT THE BEDROOM COUNT WAS ALSO REDUCED. RIGHT. IT WAS THE DUPLEX WAS A THREE BEDROOM REDUCED DOWN TO A TWO BEDROOM, AND THEN NOTHING OVER THE CARRIAGE HOUSE. OKAY. AND PARKING IN THE BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. MR. SEGARS, THANK YOU.

JODY. THANK, PRESIDENT HAWK, IF THIS IS OUT OF CONTEXT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. BUT I'M CURIOUS, OFTENTIMES WHEN WE HAVE BIG DEVELOPERS DOING BIG THINGS, WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT AMENITIES THAT GO WITH THE THING, IF YOU WILL. WHAT ABOUT IN THIS CASE? I MEAN, THE WHAT I FIND WHEN I KNOW MR. BERRY SAYS, THE SIDEWALK, IT GOES NO, NOWHERE. WHERE WOULD HE GO? AND I'M LIKE, WELL, A SIDEWALK ALLOWS YOU TO GO FROM ONE YARD TO THE NEXT YARD WITH YOUR KID, YOUR DOG, WHATEVER, AND AT LEAST THE WHOLE STREET WITHOUT BEING ON THE STREET. AND I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO REQUIRE OR MR. GO HALFWAY TO PUT SIDEWALK IN WITH REQUEST THAT OF THE DEVELOPER, MR. SEAGER'S SIDEWALKS ARE IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COUNCIL. AND IF THIS COUNCIL DECIDES THAT SIDEWALKS ARE NECESSARY IN THAT AREA, IT'S THE SAME PROCESS WE DO FOR OUR ANNUAL SIDEWALK PROGRAM. COUNCIL CAN MANDATE THEY BE BUILT AT THE

[00:55:03]

HOMEOWNER'S EXPENSE. WE COULD IF WE WANT TO. AND OBVIOUSLY AS PART OF THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM, WE BEAR SOME OF THE COSTS FOR THAT. OR WE COULD BEAR ALL THE COST FOR THAT. BUT SIDEWALKS ARE COMPLETELY UP TO COUNCIL. ONCE YOU DEEM THEM A NECESSARY UNDER OHIO LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS EITHER HAVE TO PUT THEM IN OR WE WILL PUT THEM IN AND SEND THEM A BILL FOR IT, AND WE CAN DO IT IN A FRIENDLY WAY, LIKE WE DO THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM, WHERE THEY GET A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS INTEREST FREE. WE PAY FOR PART OF IT, BUT THAT IS ALL WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION, SIR. BUT IN THIS EXACT EXAMPLE, IN THE EXACT OF PROVING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT, COULD WE MANDATE THAT WE WANT A SIDEWALK ON THIS PROPERTY EDGE TO EDGE? YOU COULD, HOWEVER, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MANDATE SIDEWALKS IN THIS AREA, IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE MORE SENSE TO DO IT IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER, SUCH AS WE DO WITH THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD INSTANCES IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE HAD, QUOTE, THE SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE THAT DON'T CONNECT ANYTHING, USUALLY THESE TYPES OF SCENARIOS, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A WHOLE ROAD THAT IS CHALLENGED WITH THIS ISSUE, YOU WOULD DO IT COMPREHENSIVELY TO ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THERE JUST BECAUSE A, IT TENDS TO BE CHEAPER TO DO IT IN BULK, LIKE WE'LL GET A BETTER COST IF WE DO IT AS PART OF OUR PROGRAM, LIKE WE'VE DONE WITH THE OTHER SIDEWALK PROGRAM, JUST BECAUSE YOU BUY IT. YES, SIR.

I'M JUST JUST CURIOUS. AND BY THE WAY, I'M NOT IMPLYING THAT COUNCIL HAS TO DO THIS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT'S JUST WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, SIR. MR. SIEGRIST, WAS ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MR. BERRY, GOING OFF OF WHAT MR. SECOR SAID? I REALLY WANT TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO FIND OUT IF THEY WANT SIDEWALKS, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO ANY UNFUNDED MANDATES, YOU KNOW, ON THEM, YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY WAS OFFERING TO PAY FOR THEM, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY MANDATES THAT WE'RE NOW BECAUSE WE'RE BRINGING ANOTHER HOUSE IN OR DUPLEX, AND WE'RE NOW TELLING EVERYBODY THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR A SIDEWALK. SO I'D WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST. THANK YOU. IT'S A GOOD PLAN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. YES MADAM CHAIR, AN EXCELLENT POINT, MR. BERRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF YOU GO DOWN PASTEUR AVENUE FROM PARK STREET TO KINGSTON, YOU WILL SEE ONE HOUSE WITH A SIDEWALK. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE OTHER 40 OR WHATEVER NUMBER WAS IN IT SAID, YOU KNOW, OUR KIDS CAN WALK ON THE STREET. WE DON'T CARE. SO IT IS SOMETHING YOU JUST DON'T GO, IN MY OPINION.

AND, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MANDATE AND. RIGHT, SO A PIECE OF HISTORY. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE THAT IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MR. HOLT. YES MR. BERRY, NO. MR. DU. YES MISS BURROWS. YES MISS. ANDERSON? YES MR. SIEGRIST. YES, MISS HOUK. YES ALL RIGHT, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT IS ALL I HAVE UNDER LANDS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS BURROWS.

ALL RIGHT. MR. WELL, I'LL ADDRESS HIM, LET HIM KNOW IT'S NOT TIME TO SPEAK. OH OKAY. MR.

[Resolution CR-32-24 Support the Ohio Commission for the United States Semiquincentennial - America 250-OH. ]

DO THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE FIRST, RESOLUTION IS A RESOLUTION CR 3224, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE OHIO COMMISSION FOR THE UNITED STATES SEMIQUINCENTENNIAL AMERICA. 250 OHIO. THIS IS A RESOLUTION TO, GET STARTED ON CELEBRATION OF 250 YEARS IN EXISTENCE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY DISCUSSION? MR. MISTER, IF I COULD, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT THIS THIS IS ALL ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE STATE IS SPONSORING A PROGRAM WHERE WE CAN FOCUS IN ON A MORE ENCOMPASSING CELEBRATION.

THEY THEY HAVE ASKED DIFFERENT ENTITIES TO BE, IN CHARGE OF DIFFERENT AREAS. AND WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT THE CITY OF GROZNY STEP UP AND FILL IN THAT THAT, OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THIS IS THE ONLY READING AND PUBLIC HEARING, AND I ASK THAT IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MR. BARRY? YES. MR. DU? YES. MISS BURROUGHS. YES MISS

[01:00:12]

ANDERSON. YES. MR. SIGRIST. YES MISS HOUK. YES, MR. HOLT? YES AND, MR. DU, CAN YOU PRONOUNCE THE NAME OF THE CELEBRATION? I'D LIKE THAT, THAT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S A LONG ONE. THE NEXT RESOLUTION

[Resolution CR-33-24 Establish a Charter Review Committee for the express purpose of reviewing the City's form of government. ]

IS RESOLUTION CR 3324. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE CITY FORM OF GOVERNMENT. WHEREAS THE CITY OF GROVE CITY CHARTER WILL INITIALLY WAS INITIALLY INITIALLY ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER 4TH, 1958 AND THE LAST AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 1917 OR 2017. AND WHEREAS GOOD GOVERNMENT MANDATES A PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CHARTER TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY OPERATES WITH EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS.

RULES OF GOVERNANCE. GOVERNANCE AND WHEREAS GROVE CITY FEBRUARY 24TH, 2024 GOVERNANCE RETREAT INCLUDED IDENTIFICATION OF COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES AND EXAMINATION OF THE NECESSITY NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE CHARTER FOR A TRANSITION TO THE CHARTER COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT EMERGED AS THE TOP PRIORITY, AND WHEREAS COUNCIL HELD A FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WORK SESSION ON MAY 13TH, 2024, LEADING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EACH PREPARE A LIST OF CHANGES THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED AND COUNCIL MET TO DISCUSS THESE SUBMISSIONS DURING A JUNE 10TH, 2024 WORK SESSION. AND WHEREAS COUNCIL WORK WORK GROUP OF THREE MEMBERS, MOST SENIOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CHARTER TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES DISCUSSED BY COUNCIL DURING THE PROCESS AND FURTHER ASSESSMENT THAT PERHAPS THE MOST IMPACTFUL WAY TO ADDRESS THE AREAS OF CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE WOULD BE TO BEGIN THE TRANSITION TO THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY CREATING A SPECIAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WHEREAS COUNCIL IS READY TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF TO REVIEW THE CHARTER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE GROVE CITY'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE. IF I COULD, MR. DALE, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS AT THE PODIUM, BY ALL MEANS, MAYOR.

IF I COULD, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I PASSED OUT THE, WRITTEN COMMENTARY. THIS IS DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF, HAVING IT, EMBEDDED WITHIN THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING, CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE CITY'S FORMER GOVERNMENT. FIRST ITEM IS THE CITY COMPLETES A STATISTICALLY SOUND COMMUNITY SURVEY BIENNIALLY. AND I THINK ALL OF YOU KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1992. THE LATEST SURVEY OF NOVEMBER 2023 INCLUDED OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS TO GET BROADER FEEDBACK AND ANALYZE IT AT A MORE BROADER FEEDBACK, AND ANALYZING MORE THAN 400 COMMENTS. ONLY ONE REFERENCE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS A CHALLENGE. THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN OF OUR CITIZENS IS TRAFFIC, FOLLOWED BY TAXES AND SCHOOLS. OBVIOUSLY, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PRIORITY IN THE EYES OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND BY THE WAY, THE OTHER TWO WAS CRIME AND A COMMUNITY CENTER, A MISNOMER THAT I'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT BEING THAT ONCE THE CITY REACHES 40,000, POPULATION SHOULD GO TO A CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT AN ELECTED MAYOR. DATA WITHIN THE STATE OF OHIO DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT THEORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE 32 CITIES THAT ARE THE LARGEST IN OHIO AND MEMBERS OF THE MAYORS ALLIANCE ONLY EIGHT HAVE A CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IF YOU ADD HERE IN WESTERVILLE THAT WHO ARE NOT PART OR THAT THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE ALLIANCE, IT BRINGS THE TOTAL TO TEN OUT OF 34, OR ABOUT 70% THAT HAVE A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

SEVEN OF THE TEN STILL HAVE A CITYWIDE ELECTED MAYOR, WHICH WAS A SURPRISE TO ME. AND THAT ELECTED MAYOR IS FOR A FOUR YEAR TERM. THE ELECTED MAYOR SERVES AS A COUNCIL PRESIDENT, AND THE

[01:05:04]

BOTTOM LINE IS POPULATION IS NOT A DETERMINANT. NUMBER THREE COMMENTS MADE OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS HAVE IMPLIED THAT CITY IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT UNDER THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AGAIN, THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT THOSE OBSERVATION. THE CITY IS QUITE PROUD OF THE 81 BOND RATING AND CURRENTLY HOLDS BY MOODY'S. THE MOST RECENT RATING SHEET FROM MOODY'S INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING COMMENT. THE CITY'S GOVERNMENTS, EACH ISSUER PROFILE SCORES OF THE NEUTRAL LOW. CITY MANAGER MAINTAINS STABLE OPERATIONS THAT POINT TO HIGH DEGREES OF BUDGETARY RELIABILITY, ALONG WITH THE CONTINUANCE OF HEALTHY RESERVES AND LIQUIDITY. THE CITY'S INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE IS SOUND, THOUGH IT MUST REQUEST VOTER APPROVAL, AND THAT'S ONE REASON THAT WE GOT A NEUTRAL TO LOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE VOTER APPROVAL INCOME TAXES. THE CITY DEMONSTRATES GOOD TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSES PRACTICES THAT ARE IN LINE WITH OTHER SECTORS. SECONDLY, THE FINANCIAL REVIEW TASK FORCE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 19 WITH 13 OF OUR CITIZENS, THEY HAD A FINAL REPORT IN MARCH OF 20, WHICH SAID AFTER THOROUGH AND EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CITY'S SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL NEEDS, OPERATING EXPENDITURES, SERVICE LEVELS, REVENUE STREAMS AND BUDGET, THE TASK FORCE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATE AND SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTS. THE CITY HAS BEEN CONSERVATIVE IN ITS SPENDING PRACTICES, WHILE MAINTAINING A STRONG, SUPPORTIVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR GROSS RESIDENTS. THE LAST ITEM IS THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTION RESULTS OVER THE LAST FIVE MAYORAL RACE IN REVIEWING THE VOTER PATTERNS, THE NUMBER OF VOTERS FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR IS HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT. THE ONLY TIME THAT DID NOT HAPPEN WAS NOT WITH THE CANDIDATES, BUT WITH ISSUE ONE AND ISSUE TWO.

THE FALL OFF IS VERY, VERY DRAMATIC WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL LARD, WHICH IS ALSO A CITYWIDE SEAT. THE ONLY HIGHER VOTER RESPONSE OVER THE LAST FIVE MEMORIAL ISSUES OR MORE RACES WAS ISSUE ONE AND ISSUE TWO, REMOVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A CITIZEN TO HAVE A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE MANAGER OF THE CITY AS A STEP BACKWARDS IN GOVERNANCE. I THANK COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO SHARE THESE OBSERVATIONS AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR GIVE ANY MORE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER, COMMENTS BY COUNCIL? OKAY, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. CHAIR I, I THINK JUST HELPING GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT AND, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS THAT WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS. INCLUDING, A COUNCIL RETREAT THAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AFTER, SOME OF US NEW MEMBERS WERE SWORN IN AND STARTED AND, THAT PLUS SOME OF OUR OTHER, OPEN WORK SESSIONS WHERE WE DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED, AND I JUST WANT TO BRING IT TO THIS, TO THIS, TIME HERE TONIGHT IS THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN OUR CITY'S HISTORY, ALSO OF HAVING SEVEN ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT AND KNOW THAT IT WAS A CHARTER UPDATE APPROVED ON THE BALLOT, THAT GREW OUR COUNCIL TO SEVEN MEMBERS, KNOWING THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS GROWING, I THINK I ALSO WANT TO SEE A SUCCESSFUL, EXCUSE ME, A SUCCESSFUL SUCCESSION PLAN IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE IN THE MAYOR FORM OR IF WE DETERMINE, EXCUSE ME IF THIS, COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT OUR CITY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED OF CHANGING OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO BRING COMMUNITY MEMBERS TOGETHER TO DO THAT.

WE'VE SEEN IN PAST ELECTIONS, PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS RUN, AND I QUESTION OUR SUCCESSION PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE. AND THEREFORE, IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE OPEN THIS UP TO RESIDENTS WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I JUST WANT TO YOU'VE GIVEN US THE NARRATIVE VIA THE WHEREAS CLAUSES, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST

[01:10:01]

BRIEFLY SAY THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS FOR ME, AS WE HAVE NAVIGATED THE MONTHS FROM JANUARY WHEN PEOPLE WERE SWORN IN, NEW TO THEIR SEATS, AND WHERE WE ARE THIS EVENING IS THAT WE CONVENED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY AND HAD A GOVERNANCE RETREAT, AND THE EXERCISE WAS REALLY DESIGNED AROUND OUR GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER. AND WITH THE GOAL OF GETTING TO WORK TOGETHER. AS EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY AS WE COULD. AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY I THINK WE ALL CAME IN, FROM DIFFERENT PLACES. WE ARE, WE ARE. WE RAN FOR OFFICE. SOME OF US WE HAD WE HAD THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH RESIDENTS, YOU'RE FULL OF OPTIMISM FOR WHAT YOU CAN GET ACCOMPLISHED. AND SO IN THAT EXERCISE, WE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WE HAD A FACILITATOR AND WE NAVIGATED A CONVERSATION OF WHAT ARE OUR CONSENSUS GOALS, WE'VE CONTINUED AS A BODY TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS IN TERMS OF CONSENSUS BUILDING, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE IT'S MY POLLYANNA VIEW OF THE WORLD, BUT I'D LOVE TO US TO GET AWAY FROM THE FOUR VOTE MENTALITY, WE USED TO BE THE THREE VOTE MENTALITY. NOW THE FOUR VOTE MENTALITY, AND MAKE IT NOT SO MUCH ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE LAND WITH THEIR VOTE, BUT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS AND WE ENGAGE IN AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS, AND THAT WE ALL FEEL LIKE THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS, IT'S NOT ABOUT ALL OF US BEING OF ONE MIND. IT'S ABOUT OUR HAVING THE TOUGH DISCUSSIONS TO DO WHAT WE THINK IS THE BEST FOR THIS COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT WAS WHAT I WALKED AWAY WITH, I AM VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE WITH SIX PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR THE CITY OF GROVE CITY. AND SO, THE PATH TO THIS EVENING, WHICH WE ALL KNEW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS LEGISLATION AND ACTUALLY VERY APPROPRIATE THAT THE CLERK OF COUNCIL, MISS KELLY, WHO WASN'T WITH US THIS EVENING, LABELED THIS AS ORIGINATED BY COUNCIL BECAUSE THIS ORIGINATED WITH COUNCIL, THIS IS A TOUGH DISCUSSION. IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF WORK, AND IT'S CERTAINLY IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IT IS A COMMENTARY ON FUTURE PROOFING THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS CITY AND ALWAYS STRIVING TO BE BETTER BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS BE BETTER, THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THIS RESOLUTION HAS HAD ITS READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AND I MOVE IT BE APPROVED. SECOND. MISTER, DO YOU KNOW MISS BURROUGHS? YES, MISS ANDERSON? YES, MISTER SIGRIST.

YES MISS HAWK? YES, MISTER HOLT. YES, MISTER. BARRY YES. THANK YOU. MISTER DUE. AND WE'LL MOVE

[Ordinance C-28-24 Approve the Purchase Contract for 3387 White Place and appropriate $320,000.00 from the General Fund for said purchase and declaring an emergency. First reading. ]

ON TO FINANCE WITH MISTER SIGRIST. THANK YOU. SO TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO, TOPICS UNDER FINANCE. ONE IS ORDINANCE C 28 DASH 24 TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR 3387 WHITE PLACE AND APPROPRIATE $320,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR SAID PURCHASE. AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. AND THIS WOULD BE CALLED THE FIRST MEETING. AND IF WE APPROVE THE EMERGENCY, THEN WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A CHANCE TO APPROVE, VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THIS. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THIS, I WAS WONDERING IF THE CITY WOULD SPEAK TO THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IF I COULD, MR. SPEAKER. YEAH. THIS IS A PROPERTY. AS WE LOOKED AT THE GLOBAL VIEW OF THE ENTRYWAY INTO BEULAH WAS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION. BUT BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF FINANCES THAT WE NEEDED TO IN ORDER TO DO THE OTHER ACQUISITIONS AND THE WORK, WE DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO STEP FORWARD WITH IT, AND IT WASN'T FOR SALE. AND MR. BERRY POINTED OUT TO US IT WAS FOR SALE. AND WITH ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY WE OWNED JUST WEST OF THAT SITE, IT COMPLEMENTS WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE, IN THE, IN THE WAY OF PARKING. SO IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE STRATEGICALLY. AND JUST FOR EVERYONE'S VISIBILITY HERE, THIS WHITE BOX WITH A STAR, IF YOU JUST KIND OF GO TO THE RIGHT AND DOWNWARD THAT APPROACHES BUSINESSES AND MERCHANTS TOWARD BROADWAY, THAT REALLY OFTEN HAS EBBS AND FLOW OF DEMAND, THAT NEED, NEED PARKING AND TO SUCCESSFULLY ATTRACT THEIR CUSTOMERS. SO IT IS A VERY STRATEGIC PIECE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY,

[01:15:04]

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM CINDY, IT PROVIDES 30, 30, 40, 32, 32 ADDITIONAL 32 PLUS 15. SO IT WOULD BE 47 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR THAT AREA. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF COUNCIL TO DECLARE THIS AN EMERGENCY. SECOND. MISS BURROWS? YES MISS ANDERSON? YES MR. SIGRIST. YES MISS HOUK. YES, MR. HOLT? YES, MR. BARRY. YES, MR. DU. YES. AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN, THE REASON WE LIKE IT AS EMERGENCY AND WE JUST PASS IT AS EMERGENCY SO WE CAN ACT ON THE EXISTING SALES CONTRACT AND NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. OKAY, SO THIS, ORDINANCE HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING, AND I A MOTION FOR IT TO BE APPROVED. SECOND. MISS ANDERSON. YES, MR. SIGRIST. YES MISS HOUK. YES, MISS HOLT? YES, MR. BARRY. YES, MR. DUKE. YES, MISS BURROWS. YES. OKAY. THANK

[Ordinance C-29-24 Authorize the City Administrator to convey excess personal property that is no longer needed for City business. First reading.]

YOU. SO THE NEXT ORDINANCE IS, ORDINANCE C 29 DASH 24 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO CONVEY EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT'S NO LONGER NEEDED FOR CITY BUSINESS, THIS IS, A PROCESS BY WHERE WE GO THROUGH PERSONAL PROPERTY AT TIMES, AND WE MAKE DONATIONS TO THE LOCAL CAREER ACADEMY. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE VOTING ON IT TONIGHT. HE WANTS AND THAT'S THAT'S THAT. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING. THE SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING STORIES WILL BE, AUGUST 19, 2024. PERFECT ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SIGRIST, MR. SMITH, IS THERE ANY MATTER THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE AT THIS TIME? YES YES, IF I MAY, I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO MATTERS, ONE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD ON THE LAST ONE WITH REGARD TO THE, PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THAT IS A PURCHASE OF PROPERTY THAT MR. BOZZO AND I NEGOTIATED FOR THE OBVIOUSLY BENEFITS OF THE EXCESS PARKING, I DID TALK TO MISS HOUK. SHE DOES DO ACCOUNTING FOR THE LANDOWNER. HOWEVER, I DID ADVISE HER SHE WAS FREE TO PARTICIPATE.

THAT IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SHE PLAYED NO ROLE WHATSOEVER IN US NEGOTIATING THAT PURCHASE. SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD, SECONDLY, I HAVE A MOTION FORNDE TO TELL A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKSTORY WITH THIS. IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, THE CITY HAS VARIOUS INCENTIVE DISTRICTS. AS YOU KNOW, WE DO COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS. TIFS INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESSES TO COME LOCATE HERE. THE COUNTY DOES AN ANNUAL MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THESE ARE GOING WELL. AND FRANKLY, OURS ARE ALWAYS GOING WELL BECAUSE WE HAVE A GREAT STAFF WITH KIM AND KYLE AND BRITTANY. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES IS THAT THIS ANNUAL MEETING THAT THEY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS BODY MAKES COME TO COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL APPROVES THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IN THE 15 YEARS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, THEY'VE NEVER HAD A SINGLE RECOMMENDATION. ALL THEY SAY IS PRESENT. YOUR CASE. GOOD JOB DONE. AND I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT SAY THAT. BUT WE GOT A THIS YEAR. THE COUNTY HAS TOLD US THAT WE NEED TO PASS SOMETHING TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE DID NOT GET, OR ELSE THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE A ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY ALREADY ISSUED THE CITATION, THEY CALLED US AND TOLD US THEY'RE GOING TO SEND IT, WHICH THE LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE. SO WHAT I WOULD ASK COUNCIL TO DO TONIGHT IS TO MAKE A MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE MEETING OF THE TAX REVIEW COUNCIL AND THE REVIEW THEY CONDUCTED FROM THE 2023. AND THEY FOUND IT ALL TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. SO MOVED.

SECOND, I I'M SORRY I KNOW IT'S SILLY, MR. SIEGRIST, JUST TO CLARIFY. SO A YES VOTE MEANS WE YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE MEETING TOOK PLACE AND THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ABIDE BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU DID NOT GIVE US, OR THAT WE AS A CITY ARE NOT USED. I BELIEVE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL WAS PRESENT FOR THAT ONE LAST YEAR. I WENT LAST YEAR, YES. SO IT I CAN ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT'S. YEAH. SO MR. SIGRIST. YES MISS HOUCK. YES. MR. HOLT? YES SUSPENSE. SPENCE,

[01:20:02]

MR. BARRY. YES, MR. DU. YES, MISS BURROWS. YES, MISS ANDERSON. YES. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR PUTTING YOU THROUGH THAT, BUT I HAVE LOST THIS FIGHT WITH THE COUNTY, AND IT'S JUST EASIER TO DO THIS AND MOVE ON. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. SEEMS WISE. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF OUR BUSINESS AGENDA THIS EVENING. IF THERE IS ANY NEW BUSINESS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF COUNCIL, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SO. I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN PASSING THE SIGN IN SHEET AROUND, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WAS THERE ANYTHING ON THERE. OKAY. BUSINESS, NO NEW BUSINESS.

[Call for Dept. Reports & Closing Comments]