Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

uh was discussions came up in the in the discussions with right state and Fairborn that that one road because that's it since we're not obviously allowing anything Colonel Glenn is that going to be able to handle right state commercial traffic with a plethora of students going back and forth to hopefully a very successful development was the flow of students back and forth to that corner of the campus brought up at all

there was discussion on traffic um And it's it's a little premature to go into specifics about the the roadway and the future roadway, but I know um there's discussion about if you see the Fairborn sign, how how there's kind of almost a a cross crosssection in the northeast corner. Yeah. Um there's been discussion about having that be an intersection and and presidential kind of align with that and be a traffic circle or to that effect. But again, I I don't want to say that that's for sure because that's a that's a phase two discussion when you're at specific site.

Exactly. And and it's just that we're looking at a a joint situation with Fairborn right state and uh Mr. toward its firm and that's going to rely predominantly successfully on traffic coming to and from the university because it's not going to be able to get enough of the Colonel Glenn traffic general populace. It's getting right state traffic and as where is right state think about a traffic circle or something like that that doesn't impact our vote here but it does impact the development of a joint site I'm assuming.

Yeah. And when they do redo presidential drive, we're not when we get to that site plan stage, we're not going to have allow them to have entries into to like shopping centers or source inside the inside the new development without having at least a bypass lane. I mean, you don't want traffic stacking up either way. So, there would be at least a center lane for you to turn right or turn left into the uh into the future stores or restaurants that'll be on that side. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh just a quick question or two here. Um sure. The property is actually owned by Wright State, is it not? Okay. That explains the A1 zoning there because Wright State was once part of the old Air Force base uh and a cornfield. Um yeah, I don't know if it's ever officially been zoned. No, it apparently hasn't. Assumed the uh township days. Uh, and the second one, um, my second question is when we get to specific site plan, um, what happens if one of the one of the buildings crosses the city line, but so part of it in Beaver Creek and part of it in Bearborn?

That'll be interesting. Um, it'll be a new one for me. And, um, I always look at challenges as something to learn from. There you go. I I can't I I don't want to say that it won't happen. I mean, it probably will. And so, we'll we'll kind of cross that bridge as we go where it'll be probably a a an agreement or written a contract between the to the two cities, whether one take it or or one um be the lead and and uphold conditions at the other city. It's something that'll be new and I'm looking forward to the challenge.

Okay. At least it in the state line. Sure. I've seen them before. Believe me. Um Okay, gentlemen and Miss Palumbo, we have uh second helpings here. Anybody engender any new questions? Okay, then what I need is a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the application for PUD26-1 and its six conditions. Okay. I have a motion. Second that. And I have a second. And let's read the role on that. Mr. Official, Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Self,

yes. Motion carries. 5-0. And we'll be looking forward to u seeing a specific site plan on this. Okay, folks. Uh we are now at our second of four. This is PUD25-1, the specific site plan site plan for Creekwood Preserve. Uh and we have a representative here from the developer. Yes. Oh, yeah. Exactly. Oh, I'm so sorry.

Hey, first of the year. I I'm I'm allowed I'm allowed a mistake and I've made it for the year. Okay. Go ahead and read the read the case, please. This is case number PUB25-1, specific site plan number one on an application filed by Miranda Holmes, 4710 Interstate Drive, Sweet T, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246. The applicant requests specific site plan approval to allow the development of 53 single family residential homes on 25.195 acres. The property is located at 4040 Graham Drive, further described as book one, page six, parcel nine on the Green County Property Tax Atlas. Thank you very much. Now it's time for our uh developer to uh make his presentation.

Thank you. Thanks, Melissa. Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Brian Hosel. I'm the land acquisition manager for Miranda Homes. We are a regional home builder based out of Pennsylvania, but we have a local office here in Westchester. I'll apologize in advance. Some of this is going over some of the same stuff we talked about uh last year uh just because I was aired on the side of including more in that presentation. um even though a lot of it's relevant more so relevant to the stage two presentation today. Um so as I said we're a home builder based out of Westchester family-owned company. Our closest communities currently to here would be Springboro, Liberty Township in Lebanon. Um actually just opening uh last month. We have one in Troy, one opening next month in Huber Heights along with mult multiple other sites in Dayton that we're hoping to bring online uh this year. So here is the site that we're discussing outlined in the teal. Um so Graham Drive is the street that stubs into it. It will also connect to the north on Bay View Drive. So it'll connect those two communities. Um both um residential on the north and residential on the east. Um that is the zoning currently in place. Um so the site is largely surrounded by residential. to the south that's larger residential lots, which is what this is currently. There's one house on 25 acres. Uh land use plan for this area is all in that orange shade. It calls for residential under three per acre. We are requesting a max density of we're requesting a max unit count of 53, which comes to under 2.25 per acre. Um and you'll see over 40% of the site is open space. So this is the site plan as it stands now. It's been revised a bit just because we've gotten a little deeper in engineering on the site since the last meeting last year. Um there's been a few lots that have been lost just due to topography. Um a stream you see there

cut through the site that we have to make sure we avoid. Um and also trying to work with the engineers office to make sure all those roads are conforming to the city standards. Um we've also gotten a little bit closer to what we think the final layout will be of those storm water facilities. Um yeah, I think that's about all that's Oh, uh last piece, the um cell tower. So, I'm currently in talks with the cell tower company. So, right now it's just a gravel road with a old gate that leads up to it. And that's what is currently shown in that long kind of checkered um road that leads from Graham Drive. What we're proposing and they're on board with is a new asphalt drive that comes off that new culde-sac. It'll provide a better looking access point. Um, and it'll be a a shorter drive up to it and would provide landscaping around that. It'll just be less of an eyesore than it it currently is if we did not make that change. So, fortunately, they were on board with that. Um, so this is something that I do not think we talked about last week. So, this is the lineup of homes that we be proposing to build here. So the top three are ranch products starting at just under 1500 square feet going to over 2,000 square feet and then our twotory homes would start just under 1,900 square feet all the way up to the home that's shown which is the Carile um 2813 square feet but with um bumpouts and sun rooms that often gets above 3,000 square feet. We currently have other plans that are in development. Another one is over 3,000 square feet that would probably be offered here depending on when this community opens. Um, and I would like to note that just pursuant to the city architectural restrictions, all the sighting in the community would be cement fiber board. And we also tend to do like you see in this picture, stone or brick on the front just it just provides for a better looking house than an all hard all hardy front house.

um interior, just so I mean the folks who aren't familiar with our product, um 9 foot ceilings on the first floor standard, 42-inch tall kitchen cabinets, granite and quartz countertops, um everything on that list leading up to the final item, which was a warranty on craftsmanship. So, everything that goes into the home has a one-year warranty. Uh we're still a family-owned builder. We have a small footprint in this area. So, we take a lot of pride in keeping our customers happy, honoring the warranty, and trying to grow by actually building a quality home that gets good reviews. Um, I did a quick price comparison just to kind of give a visual kind of layout of the surrounding area. So the red box to the north, Garden View, the average sale price over the last two years in that community has been just over 260. And the green box to the east, the average sale price over the last two years of homes have been just under 260. I point that out because we would expect the average sale prices of these homes in this community to be between 450 and 500,000. Probably expect the average square footage to be around probably 24 2500 square feet. Um, we offer ranch and twotory. Uh, we expect more two-story, but we never know. Uh, because we are not a spec builder. We build the home that the customer chooses on the lot they picked, the home they picked with the options they picked. So, not a custom builder, but it it feels a bit custom because they can make all those choices themselves as opposed to just buying a house that's already built. Last point I'll make on this slide is um just to remind planet commission, we are not asking for any sort of tiff. We're not asking for a tax abatement. We're not asking for any sort of financing from the city. Um, so the full value of these homes would be providing a tax base to the community as well as folks who can afford to buy a home in that price range likely have a strong income and they likely are going to be um

patrons of local businesses in the area. Um, so what we have been working on over the past six months um is kind of listed here. So, we've been working with Green County on sewer and water connections. Um, looping the water where we can. Um, we kind of talked at the last meeting last year about removing a lift station for the sewer. Um, we have an easement that will connect us to gravity sewer so we can remove that lift station. That's up there on Bay View Drive. Um, and the whole system will work on gravity sewer. So, the pump station will no longer be necessary. And that's something that the developer will will cover as part of the development process. Um I walk through providing access to the cell tower. We've made progress on that. Um we've also refined the storm water management. Um something that comes up a lot is folks are worried about, you know, you take a a site that's currently all grass and woods. What's going to happen to all that water? Well, the answer is it has to improve the situation. The EPA will not approve a permit for us to do this development unless our engineers who are here answer questions if you need them. um our engineers will ensure that all that water is managed on the site. So if there is water that is running off that site on the neighbors properties, this project will improve that 100%. Because it has to according to the EPA in order for us to get a permit to do this development. Um the last thing is probably the thing we've talked about most at plan commission and city council and that's traffic. um just because the entry to this community will come through an existing community um that is an obvious concern um and a legitimate concern about traffic. So, um, the city asked us to do a full traffic study, which we've completed. Um, it's been presented to the city and actually our traffic engineer, Adam, is here if there's any questions from the planning commission about that study. But the result of the study is what we suspected it would be. With 53 homes, there's no turn lane necessary. there's no street light necessary and it will not

significantly increase the traffic in the area because with 53 homes um in the traffic study that they did, the expectation the expectation is that it will not have significant impact. And so there was a scientific study that was done by our traffic engineer um that was reviewed by the city engineer and he agreed with the conclusion. So here's a few examples of the ranch homes that we build. uh starting at the top left with the one that's just around 1500. Um leading to the bottom left, which is the one that's um just over 2,000 square feet, all both with a um full basement. And same with all the two-story homes, all come with a full basement. Um starting with about 2,000 square feet on the bottom right all the way up to about 3,000 square feet on the bottom left. Um so we provide a variety of elevations. Um, we ensure that the same house isn't built next to each other, the same siding color isn't built next to each other, just to avoid that that cookie cutter look in the community. So, I'm happy to answer any questions ahead of their presentation. Happy to answer the presentation. And like I said, if you have any questions about the traffic study specifically, um, please, um, any questions or concerns, Adam would be happy to answer questions about that. So, I appreciate your time. Staff's turn. Okay. All right. So, um, we've kind of known this in this case in the past as the Thman resoning and the Thman property. Um, it's officially called the Creekwood Preserve. So, that's what it'll officially be called, uh, if approved. Um, so just to get our bearings here

where we're at this evening. Um, we're kind of in that second phase, that specific site plan phase. Um, we're at the first, uh, first reading where we'll get a recommendation from our planning commission uh, this evening. Um there'll also be a public hearing um at city council probably uh probably later in the month um where they'd uh kind of render a final decision um based on the recommendation this evening. Um there will be an additional step once if if approved um for a for a subdivision just for for the lots that um isn't a public hearing but um just an additional step that we're to make everyone aware of. All right. Uh just to get I all probably pretty familiar with the property, but just to get our bearings here, um that southern star on the on the screen at the bottom of the screen, um that's where we're at this evening. Um that northwest star is uh is where this property uh is located. Um you can see the residential to the to the north and the uh to the east there. And that's just a zoomed in look of of the aerial of the property. All right. And uh this was our first look at the uh at the site plan. Um, a little tough to see on here, uh, but you'll see kind of a pink border on on the right side of the screen. Um, that kind of represents that phase one. And then you kind of see that blue border, um, along the the west side of the screen. Um, that represents phase 2, just to break down, uh, I guess jumping into density real quick. Um, so the overall, uh, acreage is 25.195 acres. Um, as Brian mentioned, um, they're at 53 units now, um, which equates to 2.10 one zero dwelling units an acre. Um two lots were lost um during the site plan creation um just based on kind of topography reasons and things like that. Um the uh during the reasonzoning phase uh it was capped at 2.25 dwelling units an acre. Um so they are underneath underneath that cap

and as I mentioned they are uh there's two two distinct phasing uh plans um for this. So, uh, backing up to that pink, um, outline, that's phase one. Um, they're expected, if if they get approval, um, from city council, they're expected to start in late 2026. Um, they'll be grading the entire site, uh, constructing the 12 single family homes. Um, they'll build one of three detent uh, retention ponds. Um, and then they'll also be connecting to the two access points on Bay View Drive and Graham Drive. Um phase two would conclude the 41 other single family homes um and the remaining two retention ponds. Um we kind of did our own study um base price obviously uh with the amenities and things like that. That kind of bumps the price up to the that $450,000 range um that Brian outlined. We did our own study u kind of increasing the radius a little bit. Um it's a 0.5 mile radius. Um and that equated to about 281,000. So a little bit higher than um just the immediate neighborhoods. Uh and um as far as the building designs, um you know, Brian shared that uh all all of them exceed kind of what were our minimum requirements are, but um we're requiring them to be at least 1,250 square feet um for a single story um and 1750 square feet for a twostory that is not excluding um garages and and things like that. So, uh those uh homes like I said will be uh constructed out of uh wood, brick and stone. Um with the exception uh we will allow kind of that uh cement, fiber board and and uh simulated wood um as as the two exceptions. Um the prohibited materials would be aluminum siding, vinyl siding, metal and concrete, which is pretty standard with uh all of our developments, at least newer

developments here within the city. Um Bri Brian can outlined already um some of the homes, but this is just an example of the ranch ranch style home um as well as the uh the twostory um and and like you said, we uh we kind of hold uh we have a great uh zoning team that uh holds them to not having, you know, those similar style houses um right next to each other to kind of give a little bit variety um in the sub within the subdivision. This was established at the um the Z resoning phase, but just reiterating here um all the lots have to be 60 foot lot width minimum. Um there is a 50- foot buff buffer if it is adjoining the R1A zones. Um the two R1A zones are to the north and to the east. Um so you can see on the on the site plan um if I back out um that there is that 50 foot buffer that's maintained. Um, as far as setbacks are concerned, um, pretty standard within within most PUDs. Uh, 30 foot minimum front yard, 35 in the rear, um, and five on each side. Um, but no house can be closer than 15 feet to to one another. That, um, is also approved individually by our zoning staff, um, to ensure that they kind of meet those requirements. Uh, Brian already mentioned um, storm water. We uh, we already kind of have that in our code as well. um developments like this improve the conditions of of the surrounding areas. So, there's storm water concerns uh within the area. Um it's the expectation by staff by our engineering team that this would alleviate some of those concerns there. Um and and part of that is uh all due to the uh three large kind of retention ponds that are out throughout the southern portion of the development that you'll kind of see on the site plan. talked quite a bit about the lift station. Um

and uh so the the lift station will be uh will be removed um as part of phase one of the development. Um it's it's the intent that um they'll the uh the developer will work with uh Green County Sanitary to um reduce any impact um of taking that offline and and and kind of moving towards that gravitational um flow. Um, so we're reducing any kind of impact um on the area to uh make sure there's, you know, minimal downtimes if any um throughout. Um I I had a co phone call with Green County um this afternoon um just kind of getting some more information on on the lift station, how it came to be and and things like that. Um and they kind of reiterated that um even though the lift station is being removed, um they are going to reutilize some of those parts. I know is a a relatively recent uh improvement. um they're going to reutilize that infrastructure and parts um for other lift stations and uh that uh their team over there um any chance that they can get to remove lift stations, they're all for because there's uh maintenance concerns and and uh you know issues that that come with the lift stations that um if there's the opportunity to add that underground infrastructure um that gravitational flow that is always um you know if conditions allow for it that's always kind of the preferred uh preferred route. So um unfortunately, you know, those improvements were done um you know, relatively recently. So it's just a product of of unfortunate timing with with development, but um with uh with this kind of development in place um that will allow for you know better kind of gravitational flow in the area. Um she reiterated to me um over the phone that uh they are happy to answer any questions um that uh residents have regarding that lift station and the removal. Um I have their

phone number on the screen. I'm happy to uh provide that to anybody if you call our office um or it's you know obviously very accessible online. So they'd be happy to kind of answer any questions um regarding that lift station because that is their jurisdiction. Uh Brian already kind of uh spoke about the uh traffic analysis. um uh study. So, I won't go too much in depth because we have the professionals to talk about that um after uh after public comment. Um but want to reiterate that there will be those two connections points off of Graham Drive and Bay View Drive. Um and uh there will be future connectivity. There will be a stub street um on the western side of Graham Drive um and to the south of Penny uh Penny Creek Drive in case um there were any more uh development um in the area. So um traffic study um it concluded the exact number I think is in the 600s but uh less than 700 vehicles per day is expected um and uh like Brian reiterated there uh didn't call for any improvements um for for traffic purposes um and uh just one more thing is that they are adding 4 foot sidewalks um with on all the residential streets within this development which is uh pretty standard with uh with our new developments here. Uh jumping into landscaping, um we are require requiring one uh tree per lot. Um lots that are are what we consider corner lots, they require a tree on each frontage. Um quarter lots will require uh already mentioned that um the existing 50-oot buffer um will be preserved and maintained. Um, I had a a conversation with a gentleman um that was concerned. Um, he kind of backs up there's like a almost I call it a bald spot um within that that line of uh of trees. Um, I add a condition that you see in the resolution to add uh

requesting the applicant to uh to add some more trees to kind of mirror what's already existing um along along the stretch there just so um it's uh it's uh fully kind of buffered there. Um, so that's kind of what we're requiring for the uh the buffer. And that lot specifically, I believe, is lot three. So it's the uh the Bay View Drive to the north. Um, it's that lot directly to the kind of northwest there um where that kind of bald spot is. So um that is uh what I um uh requiring for the landscaping. And just just want to kind of reiterate, we put this slide on, uh, you know, a different different projects and things like that. But, um, as far as the city's role in development, um, you know, we often hear, uh, that we, you know, we need to stop development. We shouldn't be bu building these homes. Um, just from our perspective, um, we don't have the ability to stop development outright. Um, we have a land use plan that kind of guides future development that we're we're hold we're held to. Um we're obviously going under some changes to that right now, but um if if if it calls for it, if it's zoned the correct way, um then, you know, we we have have no choice other than to make sure that if it does develop, it's developed in the best way possible, in the best interests of the city. So, um just want to reiterate that that um you know, staff is here um you know, to guide development. We can't stop it outright. So, uh, with that, um, we are recommending approval of this, uh, of this application. Um, there's 29 conditions in the resolution. Um, and happy to answer any questions after, uh, after our residents speak, uh, speak on the matter this evening. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Our usual, very comprehensive report from staff. Okay, it is time to open the public hearing. And I would ask you uh keeping in mind that that uh Abraham Lincoln didn't take very long to do the Gettysburg address. Um if you can limit yourself to three minutes, that would be highly useful. Um so and and Mr. Fountain here has his stopwatch and he will um uh he will let you know when you're nearly out of time. So I'm sorry.

Right. If uh if you really want to go over three minutes and someone is willing to seed you their three minutes, that is acceptable up to six minutes. Uh and if someone else steals your thunder and says what you were going to say, we heard it. So let's keep this as as succinct as we can and give everybody a chance to speak their peace. So go right ahead if you give your name and your address and then have at it. We'll start the timer.

I think you just spent three minutes telling us not to use three minutes. My name is Joshua Cahan. I'm at 23 Elsid Drive. I'm here to speak against the hotel project, but I wanted to also talk about this. Um, my first comment would be any kind of study that says 53 new homes wouldn't affect traffic is ridiculous. I work for Danis Building Company or a large commercial developer in the area. Anybody with any kind of rational logic knows that cars affect traffic and all that. Some of my concerns are EMS services and my other major concern which I think a lot of people have a concern with is the schools. Me and my family moved to Beaver Creek because of the schooling. It's a great school district, but we all know we are full of too many students right now. We have kids out in trailers in front of our high school and we can't just keep shoving houses all over Beaver Creek until we solve our school issues. I mean, I don't know how else best to word it or anything like that, but my son's two years old. He's going to go to Shaw. They're already kind of starting to preface us about, hey, we we can't really do this kind of development. We can't do this. There's some services they're talking about eliminating because of funding and stuff like that. And adding 53 homes right down the street, it's not going to alleviate that. My other concern would be the cost of these homes. Um 450 500,000 for residential homes, very expensive. Um putting those around a $281,000 home is going to significantly raise their property taxes. I know in 2026 you're you guys are going to go around and reevaluate all of our homes. So jacking a bunch of half million dollar homes right next to these is going to raise all the prices of all the homes around them. So take that into account. I get it. Everybody wants to grow their city. Every city wants to be the next Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, whatever. That's not why we moved to Beaver Creek. We moved here to the parks. We move here to the school district. I love this community. I don't want to see a bunch of homes shoved everywhere you can. I know we're talking about homes right off Grange Hall and farmland. We're talking about homes over near Lefino Park. At what point do we say this is enough? We need a new high school before we shove another two, 300 homes in this facility. And then I'd be interested to know if

there's any projects you guys don't put in for approval. I've been to four or five of these meetings. Seems like everything we just keep shoving down. Think about your citizens. Think about officer here. It's kind of our concept, my thought on that. But I won't go on too much of a tangent, but just think about the schools. Think about the EMS services, the fire services. I imagine that right state development is going to need EMS and fire services from us because I think right state only has their own police services. So that's another thing we'd have to support all that stuff with and there's there's only so many dollars in a budget. So just think about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Somebody's got to go first now. It's time for second. I I have a question. Please come up to the front and identify yourself so you'll be a TV star for the next three minutes.

I'm uh Desh Sha um and I live on 2179 Crystal Marie Drive. Um I have a question about the value that was discussed and this is these houses will be 400,000 which is like 40% more. Is there a upper limit to that? How far up where you where Denny would say no this doesn't fit in our plan because he's he came out and said uh we we don't have any control over we have to seed to whatever but we can just suggest to the uh developer what it can be. That's my question.

Okay. Thank you. We'll we'll pursue that. Hello, commissioners. I am Clayton Knip. I live at 2379 Graange Hall Road. So, just off the corner of the uh well, what will one day become a connecting street, I guess. Uh so my main concern about this is that when we came to zoning last year and then were being brought up to the city council for approval of that zoning, uh we talked about how this site plan, the initial one that we had had received, the one that was conceptual was conceptual and it shouldn't have even really been brought up until we got to this point. And what that raised was the 50-foot buffer zone uh concern which again was told to us that it wasn't going to be a major issue until the site plan yet it arrived at city council as an amendment to the zoning basically knocking out any chance we had to argue against it. Uh we would like to see those lots match wherever it joins or wherever it abuts. Number one reason and I know it's going to sound petty so it can shut this down. We're we're putting postage stamp size homes in areas two neighborhoods where the lot sizes are anywhere between 04 and point 6 of an acre on average. Our homes are modestly priced. I would say we've we've seen we've experienced a little bit of a boom. I moved in my house at 160 and now it's it's up there in that 250 range, right? But dropping a $450,000 to $500,000 house on there is going to force me out. It's going to force out a lot of other folks, too, because they're just not going to be able to make those property taxes. My property taxes currently are $4,600 a year. That's a quarter of my mortgage payment every month. It's outrageous. And it's only going to go up. We're in

an assessment year coming up, so understandably, it's going to go up for there. But as soon as these houses and this development hits completion, it's going to skyrocket. I got off of the the military train here because I found Beaver Creek. I liked it. It was rural enough but also city enough. It was a good combination. It's going away and I'm going to have back bags and leave. That's all I've got. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is David Dempsey. I live at 2451 Rolling View Drive. I am the backyard to those guys right there. We are going to have so much traffic going up and down our streets. Now, you said only 700 a day. 700 cars a day going down that two-lane road going out and it's pointed straight at Graham Drive going out the going out the range hall. There isn't going to be any way in the world that all of that and the construction traffic that goes up and down there too is going to make our plaque any better. It's going to make it worse by a bunch. And I'm really worried about whether or not this gravity drained sewer system is going to work because they had to put in a new sewer system in there before just to keep the other people most of the people coming up from the north of us their houses into our property. Right now we're okay, but they're going to add 50 houses to it. I don't see how that's going to work. And I don't know what kind of a thing they're thinking of, but that's a dead end street. They put dead end street in there. 50 houses on a dead end street. If you're going to go back into there, you're going to have to come back out the same street. Nobody's going to go through Garden View Plaque. Everybody's going to come down Graham. Somebody's got to do something about all of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mike. Mike. It's Wednesday. Mike. Mike. Okay. Um, anyone else wish to comment on this one? I knew I'd get somebody.

I don't know. I said it last time. I'm Rosie Dempsey. Same address as his. I I mentioned it last time. Kids in our neighborhood, they play on those streets on Graham Avenue every day. Matter of fact, this year they got new little motorbike things they ride in. Now, they're not your kids in your houses on the computers watching TV. Our kids are different. Our neighborhood kids, and I love watching them. They're out playing every single day. And you have 5 three houses. That's at least probably a hundred cars every day going up and down that road. So now you're forcing these kids to quit playing outside and going inside. I don't know if you can sleep that or not, but it would make it hard for me because these kids are wonderful kids. You put them inside and they're going to get on the computers and do all that and hear all that stuff on the internet. They're going to change. They're not going to be the sweet children they are now. Thank you.

Didn't know whether you were leaving or coming up to

But no, I'm Jill Batters. I live um 4083 Rushian Drive. My couple of things, and some have already been said, uh, I really hope Beaver Creek, the city of Beaver Creek's going to do their own traffic study. Um, I look forward and backwards just trying to get in and out of my neighborhood. It has become terrifying. People's speed. They barely merge with each other in that merge area coming from the base. It's it's very concerning. Um I personally I understand new development compared to current existing homes, but as a 17-year resident on Russian Drive, I find it offensive that it keeps getting pointed out that there's going to be no vinyl sighting on these new homes. Um, I have a little bit of vinyl siding. I'm proud of it. It looks quite nice. Um, I have brick. Um, reiterating, I'm still climbing out from the tornado. Major debt from the tornado. Major. It's nearly still crushing me. But I'm trying to stay here. Um, I know that's not a new builder problem. That's what happened to me. But then to hear that they did the surrounding area and then went and looked at additional area, the engineering to get a price comparison. I I find that a little concerning because you're dealing with the homes exactly around the perimeter and it our

homes are lowerpriced homes and they are great neighborhoods. So, as a resident, I don't quite agree with that. And I would like to know why these homes, if it's approved and they're built, would then have to raise our property significantly because since I was here last, I my property taxes, which I need to investigate myself, raised an additional $600 last year on top of the already increase that I got since the tornado happened. And it. Something needs done because it is about to push all those existing residents. They're considering I'm considering moving. It's It's too much. When does it stop? Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is James Williams. I live at 2511 Bay View Drive. Uh I am at the residence where staff briefed on the bare spot. I've got some concerns about planting some trees in that area. I'd like to get a little bit more specific plans as to what's going to go in there to cover that bare spot. Secondly, as a 40-year law enforcement officer and a senior crash reconstructionist, I have serious questions about how 700 vehicles is not going to affect the traffic flow in that area. I'd like to see the city do their own unbiased traffic engineering study. It's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Last chance then I will close the public hearing and ask if we had any written input on this. Um we did receive four emails and the commissioners were given a copy of each of those. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, public hearing is closed and I will start with my vice chairman Jonathan. I'll start with staff. Sorry, this might be all over the place, but no problem.

Okay. Um, so one of the things you had simulated wood is one of the sightings. What is that? It's just kind of one of those newer materials that we that we see that um kind of qualifies for uh what we're looking for. Is that like a fiber cement? Yeah, exactly. Okay. I don't think there I don't think the applicants proposing that, but that's just kind of what we've approved in the past. Okay. Um let's see. So, uh construction traffic. Yep. Do we know maybe this is more for the applicant, but where would we anticipate most of this construction traffic coming? Because unfortunately, there's not like access to a main road here.

Yeah, that's that's really difficult. I believe I've outlined some con um some conditions in the resolution that address the construction construction traffic, but I imagine um and the applicant can kind of correct me on that, but um I believe it's mostly going to come off of Graham Drive to start and they'll park it in the the new area. Um let's see. Do we need any conditions regarding the list station? I assume not because the county will handle all that, right? Correct. Yes. Um you said to min like you'll have to minimize disruptions. Are we anticipating disruptions? If so, like

they they uh the you know it's impossible to predict the um the uh Green County was confident that it would be it would be a smooth transition, but um obviously you you know you run into snags with all development. So, um, so kind of temper your expectations, but it should be should be a smooth transition there. Um, let's see. The 50ft buffer. Yep. What can and can't be done in that area? Um, can they grade it? Can they remove trees? Can

So, we we kind of ask that they they maintain it as much as they can. If there's dead trees, things like that, uh, we ask those to be removed. But um as far as you know as the grading shouldn't affect th those 50 50 foot buffer areas. So they should be left as is. Okay. So they can't grade in that. Correct. Yeah.

One question for Josh. Schools. Can we consider schools? So traffic. I heard a lot about traffic.

Yeah. This is not a zoning. We've already done the resoning for here. It's the specific site plan. But if it was the zoning decision, it's very clear. The Supreme Court will not allow you to consider traffic. There are not cases specifically on point to increases in in a reasonzoning issue for schools, but there are very similar cases where the court has made it clear you can't consider that schools and in impact in schools when you're doing a zoning decision. So it is very unwise to consider either traffic or schools in a zoning decision. I also heard I'm try anticipating questions talks about increased property value. I've never seen a case where someone complained that the value of their home increased before. Uh courts have considered whether uh zoning decisions decrease the value of someone's home. And even in that scenario where someone's the value of someone's home is being decreased because of a zoning decision, that cannot be the only factor. It can be one of many factors, but it cannot be the sole decision maker. Um, I think a court would find it very difficult to uh uphold a zoning decision that's based upon the neighbors making more money from their property uh than before the zoning decision um was made. That seems counterintuitive to what the case law I've read.

Thank you. Um and then one more. So what's the reason for giving like an estimated price range on these houses? Is that just to show that these are going to be quality homes and not? Yeah, I mean it was it no intention to be offensive at all. Um it's just kind of showing what's being proposed and then kind of what's what's surrounding to that. So and then last for you condition 29 is the one you added for the trees on lot correct three. I guess I'm just asking can we have more details on that because it just says additional trees shall be planted but is additional two or

Sure. So so that that is kind of coupled that's just drawing a specific attention to that lot um and then we'll be approving the final landscape plan which is a separate condition. So um that that will be reviewed uh by staff to kind of ensure that um it's kind of what our expectations are. Okay. All right. I think that's all I have for you. Okay. I have a question for the applicant. Let's see. So, on the construction traffic uh question. So, do you guys have any plans to try to mitigate that traffic? Um like what what hours are you anticipating that construction traffic? Um

so, yeah, we every municipality that we build in sets what hours we're allowed to do construction activities. Uh, I yeah, I don't want to speak for the city because I don't know what their hours are, but yeah, whatever they say the hours are, that's what they are. And we've also had municipalities say, "Hey, bring you have to bring construction traffic through here. If you bring them through there, you're going to get a ticket." And our guys will sometimes get tickets because they don't abide by that. But it's it's up to the city to enforce that and set that um standard and we try to enforce that as much as we can. So, would you anticipate most of the traffic being on Graham or

It's the quickest way in, so I would assume so. Um, so yes, because there's another access point from the um west or the south. I mean, there will be an access point through Bay View Drive in the first phase. This just has been pointed out, it's a longer way through, but if that's the way the city prefers traffic to come through, then we can do that as well. And then I guess I would just say ask like you can try to minimize any construction traffic during like school, you know, when the buses are coming through and all that. Yeah. And I mean they don't want to get stuck in the that traffic either. Yeah. Why not build all the ponds at once?

So it's it it's possible that this development would be all done at one time. It kind of depends if it's a development that starts in the spring, beginning of the year or the end of the year. Um so if it's if it is done all at the same time, then yeah, they would all be all storm water be done at the same time. It also will depend on whether we have to grade the site all at one time to get the dirt to balance or if it can be done in two halves. We just haven't got that far in the engineering to understand that for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think the preference would be do it at once, right? To minimize the impact on residents. Correct. It is it is our preference as well. Um it just comes down to timing.

I think that's all I had for you. Thank you. And then I had question for the city engineer.

Mr. Meyer. Good evening. Uh so on the ponds, any concern of if they do it in two phases that as uh the developer stated, we will look into that more once the construction drawings come in. that's part of their uh swift that they'll have to do to verify that they're able to that they're able to um trap all that sediment in the um appropriate areas so that way it's not uh an issue getting offsite. So that's something that we'll investigate further. Okay. Um and then would you be willing to just give an overview of the traffic study? I know we've heard a little bit about it. Sure. And then uh I know that there was some accusation of like a bias in that. Can you explain how that work?

Sure. Yeah. So the uh traffic study was done by choice one and engineering and I will let them speak on anything too that you have for them is to back for other questions with that too. Um the with the traffic study like what was brought up by the developer was about 643 cars per day um was what was generated using the um traffic generation manual um that everybody has to use for that. with that. Um, it found the delay. Um, based off off of that, excuse me, back up here a little bit. Based off of that, um, the level of service of the roadways is dictated by the delay at inter intersections. So, the delay at the major intersections that we're looking at are delays at uh, Graange View Acres or excuse me, Graange, that's the sub, Graange View Drive. Garden View Drive, sorry, Garden View Drive and um Graange Hall Road and then Graham Drive and Graange Hall Road. in that study um the delays um it sound from the delays uh if you look at the build and versus no build it does show that it already is it will be failing build versus no build in the PM peak hour um for both and then almost it's E and then to F in the uh on Graham drive um with that too. So those um are showing that that no matter what those two intersections are at F a level of service F uh if you have this build or not. The other thing that it had in it was um the uh signal warrants which were discussed in the zoning um phase there as well previously that Mr. Mormon talked about too. We did do our own traffic study back in what year was that? Five years ago uh for Garden View

Drive um and it did not meet warrants. Then the um consultant uh choice one also did a traffic study with the traffic study they did with this. They did check the um signal warrants again and it did not meet warrants again. The traffic volume on the side street was too low. So that's uh where we're at with that. So Okay. Did anything in the traffic study like look at the how much traffic is going to be on Graham um versus Yeah, it did. There was I'll let them You guys have the actual numbers for I'll let them speak to that. U but they did uh have a distribution for uh those. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

If you would if you wouldn't mind answering that. So what Adam Gil with Choice Engineering at 6279 Tra Boulevard um what Mr. Smith stated was all uh accurate from our study. Um sounds like the only outstanding one was you're questioning the splits between the two Graham Drive. Um it's it's roughly about 9010 90% of the trips are going to utilize um Graham Drive to the south and then about 10% is what we routed to the north garden. All right. Thank you. Yep. That's all my questions. Yeah. Question for staff.

Uh there were questions about the the gravity system. Um, so lift station. My question is, is are those common in residential neighborhoods like throughout the city, gravity suit system? Yes, absolutely. Yeah, they vastly outnumber lift stations within I think Green County as a whole. Um, but yeah, specifically that's kind of how most of it's operated. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um, the the hours I see in here we have I think it was 7 to 7 for the hours of construction. Um, is that standard for other developments we've we've seen? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Um, and that's something that we we can adjust if need be too, right? Okay.

Yep. Um, I asked this last year um before we got to the specific site plan. Staff's opinion is we do not need access directly to Kemp Road. Correct. Not at this time. It does the the size of this development um in comparison to our land use plan in that VPA area. Um it does not call for that. Okay. Um are there any concerns uh with emergency services getting back into this new development?

No. Uh not not here. And and that connection point um it is is great for emergency services. uh they they're actually would request that um because currently that subdivision to the north has about 160 homes that has one access point. So giving them another access point is very advantageous for emergency services not to get to not only this subdivision but um the one to the north as well. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, most of my questions relate to the traffic study and the lift station. So, if I could begin with the applicant or the traffic engineer first, I want to clarify some things since I was here back in March when this went forward and then at the city council meeting in April of last year. the traffic study when I look at your directional distribution talks about to and from uh Green excuse me Greenshaw Road and yet you just said a moment ago 90% you think will come from Graham and not from Garden View onto Green Road. This was at the end of the full development of the 53 homes.

Correct. So what you're looking at in the develop or the uh directional distribution is basically what percent of the cars are coming from north on Grand Hall and south on Grand Hall and then we have the internal distribution on the site that of those so so where is your 693 then based on um what I'm concerned with is there are only two access points into your proposed site Graham and eventually View and from that you're getting 693 per day. Correct. So where did you get your 90% on Graham if all your numbers are related to just Green Road?

So it it's in the appendix of the the study here. But what I'm getting at is of the 693 cars are coming in there from a day. We're expecting 60% of those to come from the north on Grand Shaw 675 area and then 40% to come from the south on Grand Shaw. So then the 9010 split, you know, just looking at the ease of access along Graham Drive. Once we split those, then 90% are going to come from the Graham Drive access with roughly 10% coming from the north.

And what's your reasoning for that? Since the majority of the traffic, whether they're going to the base up to the north or they're going to areas south, what's your determination that the main drive is going to continue to be Graham and not take Bay View to get a a shot going north on the base? Generally, just just driver expectation they want to take the the easiest route out of their neighborhood. Okay. So, that's putting of the 693 90% focused on Graham. Correct. That' be a correct assumption. Yes.

Okay. Then the other aspect I have on traffic of the 693 that's at the full buildout your projection is at the end of however many years from now it will take to sell and develop 53 units but the project is going to take from today early January of 26 one or two years at minimum to get to that stage. What's the projection during the construction time and phase one time where it clearly shows you want to go only 12 homes? Do you have that information?

I do not have that information. The standard traffic study procedure. Um so, so it looks at the 2026 opening year build is what we assume and the traffic study. It assumes that all 53 lots will be built during that 2026 year. And then we also have a 10-year horizon year um which includes some additional growth rate along Graange Hall. Um, and that also includes the full 50 53 lot buildout. Um, just basically to be conservative. Okay. So, your traffic, but I'm paraphrasing purposely, sir, but I want to make sure I understand. Um, you just said that the 90% to 10% Graham versus Bay View is based on a full buildout of 53 units in calendar 2026.

Correct. from today where you have nothing and by the end of 11 and a half months from now you're going to have 53 units with 690 a day. That's what that that's what the study assumes just to be conservative so that we can see you know the the no build versus the build. Well realizing that's not going to actually happen if this gets approved. What would be the realistic view of this calendar year given if it's approved and moves forward eventually to construction maybe by the end of this year. What would be the impact of Graham on vehicle count possibly? I'm trying to do a hypothetical here purposely, but it goes to the impact of Graham Road.

Yeah. So, we there will be zero homes built on that site this year because by the time we get approvals from Green County and EPA and everything, the these homes would not begin being built until 2027 in all likelihood. And with a two-year buildout, we wouldn't hit that 53 home number until likely 2029, if I had to guess. Okay. Yeah. The home construction would be 2027 to 2029. I mean, they're they can only deal with the data that they have, you know, right now it's hard to project what's going to be in 2029, but yeah, to answer your question that that won't be the case until 2029.

Now, Steph, let let's go to the lift station. Again, I want to clarify what uh you said and maybe the gentleman wants to come in on the traffic study. The lift station has already been in discussions as Colin Carville said our city planner with the Green County and that lift station is going to be according to the resolution and all the conditions that we'll put forth tonight will be removed during phase one but that lift station has no bearing and I'm I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me when I'm done. that lift station's removal will have no bearing on the development of the first basin, the first retention basin. Correct? Whether you do the other two or not, as Commissioner Meyer said,

so the first thing that will happen on this development is that sewer will be run all the way from Bay View Drive down to the gravity connection point. So that right now that station is pumping it back up, which is against gravity. Once that connection is made, it'll gravity all that uh point on Bay View Drive, sewer will gravity feed all the way to the south through an easement that we have a connection to. And then once that connection is physically made, then the lift station is removed and anybody whose waste is going to that point that was previously pumped out by the pump station, we'll just be flowing gravity through the sewer that we just installed. And that will have an independent relationship to the development of the first basin.

Correct. that that sewer has to sewer has to go in before any houses do because none of the houses that we build will be serviced by that lift station. It will all have to be serviced by the gravity sewer. So that'll have to go in immediately no matter how many homes we build. Well, thank you. That's it's going where I'm going eventually to Graham Road, but I just want to make sure for all the good residents in the audience as well understand the lift station being removed to the gravity feed that you are talking about at the south part of the site. That whole process and working with Green County will have no bearing on when you do the first basin in phase one. Correct. Correct. And whether you do two or three is a separate issue issue. Yeah.

So if that's true, when that lift station is removed at that point, View would be an open street. Correct. That's up to the city when that street opens, but yes, it would be a connection point that would be physically made. Yes. So where I'm trying to again look at the impact on Graham Road. If Graham Road is the primary independent from the traffic study uh and what will realistically happen a year or two or three from now, the construction traffic going into the site right now would only have Graham Road, but at point X when the lift station's been removed, debut would open up as another possibility.

Yes, that's a good point. So the construction traffic that would do the digging of the sewer and the grading would have to come through Graham Drive because right now there's a lift station that's blocking that. But once that sewer is connected and before the streets go in, that sewer would be working and that Bay View Drive would no longer have a lift station blocking it. So there would be two access points. But early on in construction, you're right, it would have to come through Graham Drive only because there's a lift station in Bay View Drive. So based on all the discussions you've had and possibly our city planner and city engineer have had with Green County, should this thing get approved then go to council and go through second reading the council as it did in March and April of 25. At what point in this calendar year, if possible, would that lift station be gone?

Uh it would kind of give you any estimates at all. Well, it depends on how quickly we can move through approvals. Um I mean so once we have all approvals and we start like closing the site and start moving dirt the lift station I'm not a construction guy. Um a matter of months. I'm just thinking you have had discussions with green. No I have not had that discussion yet. No have we certainly had an engineering but we have not had I had not been part of that discussion. All right. Has uh our city engineer or city planner or anyone had discussions with county to get an estimate of when the lift station could be removed should this thing go through approvals. Mr. Carville. Thank you Mr.

Yeah. Not to give you, you know, a vague answer, but it's it's completely dependent on their approvals when they can get their, you know, calculations to engineering for approval and and and things and they have to go through the subdivision process for that um you know, first first kind of 12 homes. So, um it's it's very dependent. We don't have a you know, an estimated date yet.

Well, hold that thought. Let me just go through one of the kind uh documents that the uh city department for the residents in the audience gave to us planning commissioners for consideration tonight was out of our current zoning code section uh zoning code sector 158606 what are the approval procedures for a site plan and that's what we're here tonight for for a site plan and in those approval procedures I'm specifically this is a page out of the zoning code uh specifically looking at procedures number three five and six which talks about the impact to the present residents inhabitants of that area that's under consideration the detrimental impact if possible to those residents of that community and what could be imposed by the development on those existing residents and I'm very focused on Graham Road two dozen or so homes that are on that road and if we're looking at a realistic time frame independent of the study and the study based had to use what it had to use for calendar year 2026 Six. This is going to go from us, should it get approved, it goes from us to council, which will go through first reading, second reading the following month, just like it did.

Just one reading at council. One reading at council. Correct. All right. So, that's still a couple months from now. We're looking at Green County not getting a chance at the lift and to move that drainage down. As Mr. Hul said that the development for phase one, those 12 homes would not go through until that lift station and that gravity sewer has been taken care of. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that gives me encouragement that the homes construction would not occur till that sewer is taken care of. That means the lift station would have to be gone before the 12 home construction could go through.

Correct. And that means from a impact on Graham, which is the three conditions I cited from our zoning code that we have to agree with for this to be approved tonight, the impact on Graham is not going to be felt yet until the sewer situation and the lift station is removed, which means View would open up, which would lower the impact on Graham, allow us unfortunately to put some more impact on View, but it would give two points of access to the site before we get heavy into construction later this calendar year should this be approved which would then allow 27 and 28 when they're into the phase 1 12 homes and phase 2 homes in 2027 the ability to use both streets. Now I realize there are some residents here from the View and Rushton side as well as the residents from the Graham but I'm looking at a minimizing of impact on the residents and one of the things we did back in March and April when we were all here we added a condition uh which I don't see in fact none of the conditions are replicated into these conditions because it's now site plan but one of the conditions that we added at this meeting back in March was that the special attention would be paid to any impacts to those residents on Bay View Drive because of the removal of the lift station. Nothing for the lift station is put on the impact on Bay View Drive into the current resolutions. So even though it's very exciting to get more development in the city of Beaver Creek, I'm looking at the impact on Graham and Bay View as a way of resolving the the current impact in 2026 on the residents of Graham because I don't want to have everything loaded on the residents of Graham should this get approved. and the lift station seems to be the lynch pin in minimizing any impact on the residents should this get approved. So, Mr. Commissioner, that's that's the the gist, Mr. Chairman, of all of my questions on the lift station and the

the uh traffic study. What I want to do when we get to that point is add another condition to put back special attention to the lift station in View. I've already written it out for Miss Billow. uh as another condition about how the developer would handle should this gets approved the removal of the lift station before construction traffic for the homes comes onto the site to spread it along Bay View and Graham and not force everything to be dumped on Graham irregardless of the traffic study. So I do want to hold to put that resolution added at the appropriate time. But that concludes my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Yes,

Miss Laura. I have a couple questions for the applicants. Thank you. Um, we had a citizen ask a question of is there a upper limit to the house sizes that you can put on your properties? You're not going to put a 8,000 foot house on any of these, are you? Is that a little better? Soft spoken. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, we had a citizen ask the question of what is the the upper house size limit that can be placed on any of these lots? Um, I think the largest one was 2,800. You don't anticipate going any larger? I think you even mentioned 3,000 potentially. Um,

our our largest home with, excuse me, with um like the sun room might be up to 3200. That's the largest we we build or offer in in in our entire company in this region. So, nothing probably really over 3200. No.

Okay. Um, and then another citizen brought up that um, their children play on Graham Road and a lot of children play on that street. It looks like you're offering a lot of green space in your neighborhood. Is it would there be any room to possibly put a park or like just an open play area um off of that Graham Road or even off of maybe a couple of the streets where children from both the new neighborhood and the old neighborhood could then play instead of being playing in the street.

We always discussed that with the engineer. the problem on this site and it's not reflected on this site plan in a way that I think demonstrates the conditions on the site. The reason that there's no houses along that stream is because there's a pretty big ravine. Yeah. Um so the space we're not using either has a cell tower or a stream on it. Um it it's open space. It looks nice, but it it's it's not going to be flat enough for any sort of um any sort of playground. I mean because we try to because our residents want amenities like that. We tried to include them where possible, but this site being uh kind of rolling as it is, I don't think that there's a spot where we could put anything significant. Okay.

Without it being right next to the cell tower, which I don't think we want to encourage it to be right there. So, yeah, we kind of thought through that as well and just didn't have a spot to do that. Um, this probably isn't in planning yet. There were some questions about trees. Do you have any plans yet about how many trees you're going to be planting as a buffer on that that back area for them the other neighborhoods?

So, and this again is something that our residents will want as much as the residents there is a robust buffer. So, I mean anywhere there where there is a blank spot. I don't have a strong opinion on uh what kind of trees the city oftentimes will um have an opinion on that and I mean happy to hear from residents because it's right behind their home. Um no I mean we want a robust buffer um I mean if you want to put a condition that the buffer has to be what kind of word you would use to describe it but I mean we want there to be a buffer as well both for for sound for privacy um and we put it there for a reason because because residents existing in future want that. So I there is not a specific plan though as it stands currently. No.

All right. Thank you. Thanks. That's all my questions. Thank you. Oh,

I can't help but get up. part of my personality, but um when I when I'm I'm I'm ultimately the one that approves the the final landscape plan and what I would typically look for um when we're trying to fill in a bald spot or whatnot um is we look to have them plant evergreen six foot evergreen trees and about 15 feet apart on center and that ensures that if you put them too too close together they're going to die and if you put them too far apart they're never going to grow together. So, we look at uh blue spruce, white pine, something like that, or stagger them. Um, whatever gap we're trying to fill. Um, but if the neighbors have a different idea, I'm always happy to hear that. But without any other input, I typically look for six foot evergreen. That those tend to create the most opaque screening wall. Takes time, but it gets there.

Thank you. Thanks for the explanation. My turn. Uh staff, couple of questions for you. Uh and we may end up with uh a little input from the developer also. Um the those perimeter buffers uh are they part of the HOA or will they be the individual owners for uh to maintain their slice of it? No, that'll be common area that will be maintained by the HOA.

That will be HOA. They'll do the mowing and so forth. That's typical in some of our other plats. I just want to I didn't quite see that. Um the And we do have stub streets to the south and to the west. Yes, correct.

Okay. Um, plat I live in had a stubbed out street from 1954 until 2021. And we had 300 and some houses in the plat with one outlet. And we were tickled to death to get a second outlet because uh if there's a fire or anything, it's a whole lot easier to get in and out. Um the this would be uh park fees would be paid in lie of uh dedicating parkland in this correct yes particular property. Exactly. And uh to piggyback off that I know there were some traffic concerns we are uh collecting traffic uh impact fees as well. Okay.

Um so when uh conditions warrant it um those fees collected will be put towards you know some of those traffic improvements. Right. And and that uh that portion of Graange Hall does uh is in the improved area, is it not? So there is a continuous turn lane. Correct. Yes. Okay. Um the uh the little creek that runs through there, is that seasonal or is that fulltime? I'm unsure of that. You have

Christy Marshall. Marshall 2633 Campbell Road, Sydney, Ohio. Um they had we had a environmental um study done and it was determined that that was a regulated stream. It was not not regulated. It was regulated. It was regulated. So it's it's it's not seasonal. It's year round. Correct. Okay. Flows into Little Beaver Creek, I believe. So that's correct. Yeah.

Okay. Uh are y'all gonna Yeah. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Okay. Uh, so it goes under 675. Okay. Interesting. Learn something new every day. Um, are y'all going to put uh uh on um uh on Graham? Is that going to be a culvert or a little bridge there or what? Uh there will be some it's not fully designed yet, but there'll be some sort of culvert. Okay. Conspan type thing. Okay. Um the ponds are they detension or retention? Are they wet or are they They will be retention. So wet.

So they'll be wet. They'll actually be water features. Correct. Okay, good. Um and I don't know if you would be the right person to ask, but uh I know you you've got a grading plan and there has to be some grading done, but uh how are you protecting any existing trees of any size? I'm not talking about little weed trees, but any trees of existing size, right? So along the north, so lots one through 20, um, we'll be grading and then at the rear of the lots, we'll do as minimalist grading as possible to end that grading more so toward the rear of the rear of the lots to minimize the impact on what those existing trees are. Um, and then

so you you won't really be touching uh most of that 50 foot buffer. That is the plan, correct? to minimize that impact on that video buffer as much as possible. Uh, and it's hard to tell from the aerials, but are there any other significant trees on the property? I'm thinking like along the west boundary since that's the boundary to another parcel. It is wooded. Um, I'm not sure exactly where the limits of the wooded area extend to, but if there are some on the rear on the outer boundaries of it, we would also try to minimize the impact on that as well. Okay. Um, we're obviously going to get into it at the two tie-in points

um to or the not the tie-in point, the substrates um but in the surrounding areas, we try to mitigate the amount of grading along the um boundary. Okay. And once again, I'm not sure if if this is not your uh your bailick uh bow out, but the the existing cell tower uh will that uh will the the cell tower leaser uh be responsible for uh maintaining the shrubbery and the screening and the maintaining that little stub street that's going to lead to it or will that be HOA? probably thanks for your information. I appreciate it.

So, we're working through that with the cell tower company, but it will likely be uh they will have an easement over that um asphalt driver that'll be maintained by the HOA and they'll have an easement to use it. Okay. Okay. Um you know offhand how tall the tower is. I don't mean to put you on the spot. I have no idea. Is there uh does it clear the nearest house? Oh, yeah. For it to fall. Oh. Oh. Um I was like it's much taller than Mera's house. Yes. Um I I have no idea. Okay. Yeah. I don't know. We've run into this before and and I was just asking for um information. Yeah.

We hope it won't, but we didn't we hope we we weren't going to have a tornado either. Um okay. Thank you very much.

Um gentlemen and and Miss Palumbo. Um, one of the things that has been brought up several times is um, the construction hours. And I would suggest that we might want not only look at construction hours, but truck traffic. Uh, I think that's going to be more pervasive since we have to go through existing streets. I think it's going to be more pervasive uh, when the cement mixers come through there uh, because they're going to be pouring a lot of concrete uh, the uh, the asphalt trucks, the paving and all that. Um, I'll leave it up to planning commission to modify the hours however they see fit. Just want to caution if you modify it too much, the shorter amount of time you allow them to do construction every day, the further you extend the construction on the site. So, I mean, instead of it taking nine months, it could take two years if you if they can only do it so many. So, it's it's a balance.

Understood. Uh, just wanted to make sure you're aware that understood. But I I think we can we can probably do something with the truck traffic because that can be scheduled if you're delivering enough lumber to do to do a roof uh or wall panels that can be done uh not just in time but within a within a time period. And since I can't add that I'm just giving the suggestion to you. Nice folks.

I wish Mr. Chairman, we had the wording of the development near north of Grumman on Colonel Glenn when we were talking about scheduling the construction, heavy construction traffic, the cranes along Colonel Glenn because of the base traffic in the morning and evening. And we phrased it either Commissioner Jacobs or somebody phrased it a certain way so those heavy crane trucks coming in near the north of Grumman building could be handled at proper time. That wording slips me now. We phrased it as if they would have to reach out and coordinate with the city. I I believe is how we worded it. I don't think we prescribed certain hours. I think here certain hours would be more appropriate because it'll be a lot more exactly

vehicles coming in and out for different purposes. Um, I wasn't thinking trucks in particular, but at least shortening the hours 8 8 to six and then maybe we can look at something for um some of the heavier vehicle traffic as well.

Well, that construction once the that some of those first houses are done mo well actually most of the first construction is going to be in an area that um doesn't really back up the existing houses. Um, but those big those big trucks are going to be coming through there. I'm thinking things like cement mixers and uh the delivery trucks that deliver lumber and so forth. Uh, not pickup trucks, but bigger than that. So, I will leave it to you you folks. Um, is there a second is there a second uh second helping on any uh questions?

Yeah, questions. Colin, sorry. Don't mean to put you on the spot. No problem. But yeah, but do you know approximately how many houses are in the neighborhood off of Garden View? That I do not know. I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't even have 130. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh, do we know how many off Graham? Off uh Oh, off Graham. Currently currently 70.

No, on Graham Drive. Yeah. 20-ish. Yeah, I would say. Okay. Because So my question is like is Garden View material materially different than Graham? Because right now we're saying that uh Garden View has 130 houses, right? And Graham has 20ish. Sure. Sure. And then we're going to add 53. So you're still well under what Garden View is today, right? And it's operating sufficiently according to our engineers. Yes. Okay. All right. That was just my question. Okay. Um and then in the written input. Yeah.

Uh there was somebody was asking about the notification to residents. Could you just go over that process real quick?

Yeah. So, um, we kind of take the borders of the, uh, of the parcel in question, um, and everyone within 500 ft of of that of those borders are notified. So, we kind of draw a big radius around that area, similarly to what we did with the, uh, um, half mile um, housing study. We do a and everyone within that radius gets notified. So, some people are, you know, few feet away, but if if it's outside those 500 feet bounds, um, they don't get that letter. And um you know I think there's enough we post on our website um you know there's Facebook posts about it and and things like that. So um you know we're hoping that if if you wanted to be here you'd be here this evening

and you just have to cut the line somewhere. 500 foot is Exactly. Yep. It just extra mailing extra money. Yeah. Okay. And then sorry last question. It it says T turn around. T turnaround. Is that just a subre? Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's on. Yep. Exactly. Circle. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Other second helpings, gentlemen, Miss Blombo. We good? Okay. It's motion time, gentlemen. Ladies, Mr. Chair, did you have a recommendation?

Yeah. I also want to make a recommendation on I can phrase the recommendation you suggested as well and give you two separate ones. Which would you I I think we it seems to me we could allow construction hours longer and and do more limiting on the truck traffic. Strictly speaking, there's not going to be there's not going to be much delivery on Saturdays anyway. Correct. I was going to make a recommendation to take resolution number two, which deals with 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and add a sentence to it to address the topics that you and Commissioner Jacobs talked about a moment ago.

Um, read it to you. I wrote it out. So, okay, read away. So, resolution number two, which deals with the 7 a.m. 7 p.m. would stay as is. This would be a sentence after that and the sentence would read heavy or tandem vehicles egress or entrance to the site shall be coordinated with city engineers to minimize current resident impact heavy or tent vehicles. Yeah, but I think we I think it would be better if we spent hours because I think so. Yeah, I don't think you want be a problem. Sure. I don't think you want to force them to

that would be fine for cranes and things like that on Colonel Glenn, but I think we're talking about a residential street here with cement mixers and asphalt trucks and and well, they would be tandem vehicles, right? I think I think it's not the classification of the vehicle, but the volume of the vehicles that would come in that that might be a logistical issue with coordinating with the city and trying to get approvals in place. So, okay, I think doing bl like a blanket time change would be appropriate or just heavy truck heavy truck traffic restricted between like 8 and five on weekdays and leave the construction uh

well I I I still think I think seven's a little bit too early at least for exterior construction for the heavy construction instead of giving them a blanket time when they can when they come would we just eliminate a couple of hours like school buses or like people coming home from work. So like I think I don't know when school buses run but maybe no heavy traffic from 7 to 9 and no heavy traffic from 3 to five 3 to five but they can operate as long as they're in the seven to seven then they can operate around those

somebody write something up. Melissa's looking like she's writing like crazy here trying to Did you get Did you get what Laura said? That that makes good sense. Yeah. Monday through Friday restrict heavy the heaviest traffic or the heaviest construction vehicles from no from I guess 7 to 9 a.m. and then 4 to 6:00 p.m. Oh, three. Three three to five is what?

Yes. Right. Correct. All right. So, so just so I'm straight, leave, leave condition two, how does 7 to 7 with the additional restrictions on heavy vehicle traffic from 7 to 9 and from 3 to 5 on week, Monday through Friday. You got it. Okay. And that will be a second sentence to section two uh to condition number two. Okay. any other uh additions or corrections or Oh, I bet you do.

Well, let's let's see what he has to say. We'll vote on Well, I'm the other. I'm going to focus on the lift station. I want to uh propose uh condition number 30 which would be after the 29 and to say the lift station at the end of View must be fully removed and allow so as to allow View to operate as a secondary construction entrance period. This would be done prior to the commencement of any residential construction. Well, just say don't say construction Entrance just say entrance entrance that that okay so there will be two entrances

the list stationation at the end of View shall be fully removed to allow Bay View as a secondary entrance period it shall be done prior to any to commencement of any construction residential construction which I think is going to happen anyway just to make sure hey foot stop it absolutely we don't spread the load off of Graham problem with the definition of residential construction. Would that stop grading? Well, they're going to have to do some construction to connect to the gravel or the um home construction. Put that in home construction. That's residential. Then then we'll be we'll be sure. Belt and suspenders. Okay. My key is not to have all traffic go on grail. Exactly.

Period. If it happens. Okay. So, we have two amendments here. Uh, first I need a second on the on the the U heavy truck edition. Second that. Have a second on that. And I need a second on Jim's I second station. Correct. I second that. I have a second on that. Okay. So, let's vote on the uh on the truck first. Uh, all in favor? I I All opposed. And then for the second one, all in favor?

All opposed. Okay. So, we have two uh two changes, two additions to the amendment, right? To the 30 the 30 conditions. Exactly. Okay. Now, I need a motion to to approve the whole thing. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PUD 25-1 FSP number one with the 30 conditions as amended. Okay. Second and I have a second. So, let's read the role on this. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Self,

yes. Motion carries 5-0. And it will go on to city council. And for those of you who are here, uh, city council will also have a public hearing. So, you get a chance, you get a second helping on this. Okay, we are halfway through. Uh the next uh the next two uh uh public hearings deal with essentially the same thing. It's uh PUB97-1. And the first thing we're going to look at is uh making sure that uh what is being presented agrees with the this whole long litany of of court and everything else. I'm sorry. Oh, and before we do that, let's take a five minute break.

Well, I'll I'll call the meeting back to order and uh now we will start on um uh PUD97-1 amendment 126. This is case number PUB97-1, amendment one of 26 on an application filed by High5 Development Services 202 West Main Street, Mason, Ohio 455040. The applicant requests approval to amend PUD 97-1 to accept multiple court changes that were made to the judicially approved PUD. The property is located on the north of Kemp Road, approximately 500 ft east of the intersection of Kemp Road and North Fairfield Road. Further described as book four, page six, parcel 123 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh I believe uh because of the unique part of this, the staff is going to do the presentation on on this part of the public hearing.

Exactly. Right. So um it is it is two separate public hearings. So there's uh first here the amendment um and if approved that would give way for uh the major mod to be able to be looked at. Um but essentially so uh the the amendment is adopting as Melissa stated um the multiple court approved uh changes um to modify uh the specific site plan um and and that would lead to the construction of a 160 room hotel on those 5.068 068 acres. Um, located uh just off Kemp Road to the north, approximately 500 feet uh to the uh to the east off of uh North Fairfield Road. Um so I'm going to try my best to um kind of walk us through the history of this site. It's very convoluted and and and challenging. Um so I'll try my best to navigate uh that through our through the PowerPoint. I'm sure we'll all have bunch of bunch of questions. So, um, happy to answer those, but, uh, just to get our bearings here. Um, once again, Southern Star is where we're at this evening. Um, this is the site. Um, it's not that's the entire PUB, but that is also the specific site where the hotel is is planned on uh planned on going. And just a quick zoom in here. Um, that's uh that's the specific site there. So, uh, walking through I'm going to do my best to kind of give a history lesson here on, um, all things about this PUD. So, um, it was initially approved, um, city council recent approved, uh, the reszoning of the property, um, for to a commercial PUD in May of 1997. Um, the reasoning was overturned by a voting a voter referendum in November of 1997 of that same year. So um essentially that commercial PUD reverted back to the

original zoning which was a hybrid of A1, B2 and B3 zoning. That like I said that was all in 1997. So now uh there was a uh a federal court settlement um that spanned from 1998 to 2000. um the property owner that was uh wanting the this commercial PUD, the original applicant, um he filed a federal lawsuit to reinstate the commercial PUD zoning. Um through uh mediation, uh the case was resolved um with an agreed upon order in May of 2000. Um the city was required um in that through that mediation to reszone that property to that commercial PUD um and approved the concept plan that corresponded with that. Uh city council adopted ordinance 0027 which uh should be attached in your packets um in July of 2000 to implement the order. Uh thus now we are working with this commercial PUD. there was uh you know various kind of developments throughout um but kind of highlighting some of the important ones um there was an assisted living proposal in 2015 um that was on approximately 19.47 47 acres of this PUD. Um the planning commission recommended approval um with some limited uses attached to that. Um the uh development did not proceed um and no and kind of a part of the uh part of this aspect. Um a unique aspect of this PUD compared to other PUDs is it since it has kind of that legal order attached to it. any kind of changes um kind of require that uh that go against um what's originally approved um require an additional order or

amendment um from from the federal courts. Um because this development did not proceed um they did not go ahead and file the federal court modifications that were requested um through this specific development. So, uh, even though they didn't proceed, uh, or proceed, um, city council still approved, uh, via ordinance. Um, but long story short, this is all null because they did not proceed and they did not, uh, file the federal court modification. So, those were no uh, we researched um, if there was anything filed with the courts. There was nothing that came up. Um so there was no uh anything associated with this proposal um did not get recorded um with the court system. Um and yeah so that's that's 2015. Jumping to 2018. This is the uh office building modification. Um there was a major site plan modification proposed for a 46,000 square foot office building. Um that was bought by Premiere. Um they added the uh emergency room in I believe 2021. Um but that's kind what we're talking about here is that Premier Health um planning commission and city council approved that modification. Um and they did pursue um because they went followed through with with this proposal and wanted to build this. They uh filed um a federal court approved uh the modification. they filed for that modification um to the 2000 agreed upon order. So, we're working with this new order that was approved in November of 2018 um that modified that original 2000 order. So, we're working with some new conditions here um in that the 2018 um order because it was filed after all of this was approved um by planning commission

and city council. there wasn't any other additional development that was done um that uh that caused them to to record this or it just was never recorded um to update the PUD and and the conditions with that. So that's specifically what this case is about is adopting this the 2018 court order so it's accurately reflects the PUD we're working with here this evening. Um, and uh, like I said, kind of the purpose of it, there was a condition in that 2018 court order um, that required the city to take all necessary actions to implement the agreement. Um, we are doing that just unfortunately seven years later. Um, but that's what this case is about. Um, the court order acknowledged that the city has fully complied with the 2000 agreed order. Um the uh paragraph two of that 2000 order was vacated except for the outlot. Um and then future development must generally conform to that newly hybrid 2018 court court order and 2000 agreed upon order as well. Um, and then like I said, this will just the approval of this will align uh zoning records and put PUD text with the federal court order that we're mandated under. um just to ensure consistent s consistency, clarity and forcibility with moving with cases moving forward like the case with the hotel this here this evening. We actually uh uh were kind of thrown uh this additional um court order today um that we're adding to the proposed resolution. that just came through the courts this evening that uh was prepared by our legal counsel. Um I can read that for everybody here this evening just to

to show what what is being amended. Um I do want to point out that the uh this this proposed resolution doesn't have any the the case the second case this evening still would have gone forward without this resolution. But that just adding this on would require less uh one less, you know, planning commission meeting in the future to adopt this. So, we're just trying to do a grab all um with with all the court order so it the PUD is accurately uh reflected here. So, um just reading off uh what what this states that were uh that's going to need to be added um as a third um condition to the resolution that uh here this evening. Um, it's paragraph 2A of the original agreed order modifying terms filed November 8th, 2018 is hereby amended to increase the total square footage of all buildings and structures allowed in this development from 185,000 square feet to 200,000 square ft. So just a 15,000 foot difference. The increase required to allow the increase in the total square footage outlot constructed structured. This amendment shall control over the provisions in the contrary uh in the agreed order modifying terms filed November 8th, 2018 uh doc 33. Um and then the uh the two kind of conditions um just kind of reflect that. So it says paragraph 2A as modified shall read as follows. 2 a the f uh total square footage of the buildings and square uh structures allowed to be constructed in the development shall not exceed 200,000 square feet and paragraph 2F as modified shall read as follows 2F the total square footage of all outlot structures shall not exceed 40 45,000 square feet no structure on any individual outlot shall exceed 14,500 square ft

um so given all that um that history lesson um and and kind of that brief analysis. Um we are recommending approval um of this amendment just so we can adopt this 2018 court order and this uh new court order that just came across our desks this uh this evening. So um happy to answer any questions after the public hearing.

I thought I would interject. Um so sort of get what you ask for when you end up in court. Um, the city had a lot more control over the development of this property uh when it approved the original plan back in 1997. When the referendum overturned that and it got thrown into court, the court has jurisdiction now to approve the changes within that area. There was a mediation where the parties came to an agreement on what to do with some of the area, but that didn't that didn't cover all of the entire development. So over the years as things have changed in that particular area has developed every time something changes rather than going through the normal process we end up going to court. Um I think the newest amendments is supposed to prevent us from having to go back to court again um as these things develop. But all that you're looking at today has already been approved by a federal judge. The same federal judge who's been overseeing this case since 1998. If you look at the attached orders from the court, all of them have the same case number. So, Judge Merse has been involved with the decisions and what happens with this property for well since I was a freshman in college. So, it's been a while. This this property was first brought up as a PUD when I was in high school. So,

and I was on planning commission. So anyway, our the short story is the city's hands are really tied and we're sort of have to rely on what the court is making us do with and it is an agreed entry. So we had to to go we have agreed to what they've the court hasn't implemented but the judge has signed off on that. So we're just making sure the city matches what the court has ordered. I'm happy to answer more questions.

And and and just to clarify on this that the actual parcel that is governed by this is the one that has the Premier Health building and this vacant lot, but nothing west of that private road where the uh the other stores are that face uh North Fairfield. I Randy may know that better than I do. So I think it's that the PUD encompasses Milanos and and all of that. So, it's all the way out to North Fairfield. Okay. So, but that is included in part of the of the federal uh court case.

Correct. Correct. And that's where the 14,500 square foot max outlet structure is because that's how big the Milano's building is. Right. Okay. So, it it it's the it's the whole it's that whole parcel. What was for those of you who's been around a long time, that was the original Cub Food store, if y'all remember. Uh but it's that entire parcel all the way down to Lake View from Lake View uh north to sorry north south to to Kemp and from the detention pond behind the mountain or m the mound um Freudian slip

to North Fairfield the Okay. I just wanted to clarify that it was that that whole parcel and the mound was actually one of the agreed upon. Oh, absolutely. In the original meeting. Absolutely. Uh folks, we we can open a public hearing here, but I think most of you are interested in in the actual development rather than uh trying to um uh go against a federal judge who's who's been gunning on this since 1997. So if there's someone wi who wishes to speak right now, this is a public hearing and we can do that. But I think most of you are more interested in in what has been proposed for the site.

Correct. That will be a separate public hearing once we finish this. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. My name is Monica McFarland, 3122 Donkeyote Drive. Good evening. I recognize you from way back. I was here in 1997, 98, 99, 2000. I can't believe I'm here again really. And basically what I want to do is just uh talk about this a little bit from the citizens perspective because yes it was um litigated and there's not much we can do to change what the um judge Merch has uh decreed. But um when we first started this um journey we were um the Lefino U family asked to reszone the property to a CPU and from B1 business which was those were basically the outlaws and then um agricultural they wanted to make it into a CPDU and actually in 1995 he the Lino family asked to have it changed to a CPU and um The staff recommended disapproval because it didn't comply with the land use plan. In 1997, again, uh, Lefino wanted to get a CPU on that property and again the staff said it didn't comply with the land use plan. And as if you look at the land use plan, it's intended to communicate to the residents, citizens, property owners, and development developers the type of development that the city is willing to

consider for the vacant land within the city. The main idea is of the plan is to promote and support community health, safety, general well-being through a wellbalanced community. So the land use plan and the zoning code work together. Um the the first sentence in the zoning code of the city of Beaver Creek reads, "This is an ordinance for the Beaver for the city of Beaver Creek, Green County, Ohio, for regulating in accordance with the land use plan the location, height, area, number, and size of the buildings and structures, percentages of lot area which may be occupied under This section in the section 1706 with the heading standards criteria for plan unit development zoning approval. The zoning code says plan unit development zoning classification shall only be approved when the following standards and criteria are satisfied. The plan unit development complies this is number one with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed development promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the city. The proposed zoning and the conditions and requirements incorporated within the ordinance provide for minimizing the impacts of the surrounding development.

Sure. I know this applies then to what we're going to talk about next, but I did want to give just a little bit of history in I I've been given three minutes by um

um

okay when when so we got the CPU it was uh passed And there were but there were restrictions put on the height of the building, the size of the buildings, etc., etc. And um we we took it to referendum. A lot of us went and collected signatures. Thousand um yeah, a couple thousand signatures we needed. Um well, we won and lost because Lefino sued the city and it ended up going to mediation. So during that mediation, we actually had recommendations for the height of the building and the size of the buildings and all of those things. Well, then what happens in 2018? We get a a new lawsuit, all the size of the building that that's so uh it's paragraph two that he was talking about earlier. There was supposed to be a total square footage, uh, maximum square footage of the anchor store, individual tenant space, setbacks, etc., etc. In this 2018 decree, paragraph two was completely considered null and void. What does it mean when the citizens take something to referendum and everything that we fought for disappeared? I just think that um we I feel a great sense of betrayal.

Thank you.

23 Elid drive. Um I guess I know we're going to have two sections on this. My first question would be is the city appealed the federal decision? I don't even understand why it is a federal decision for a local municipality. Has the city done any kind of appeal? This case has been pending since 1998 in the lower district court. There's been because there's been agreed entries with the judge and all the parties. There's been no need to appeal to a further higher court. And I'm frankly I'm not sure how that would happen at this point.

Well, I mean the appeal would be for the Beaver Creek residents to decide what we want to do with their own property instead of people just suing us and putting whatever they want to put there. I I would say at this point there's nothing to appeal. There's all the entries if you change the PUD to whatever this commercial development is. We can't appeal that. The court appeals that are current the agreed entries are nonappealable. You'd be appealing something that all the parties have agreed to. So who at the city of Beaver Creek agreed to it? Was it the commission, the planning, the mayor? Who who agrees to these changes? It was I don't remember the exact person at the city who would have been involved in the negotiations with the judge and with the other party.

Is this something you could follow up with the res approved by city council? Yeah. And ultimately it have to be approved by should be on. Yeah. It have to be council approved.

That would be my first kind of statement is why are we not fighting this? You would think as a city if we go into a referendum and take it to the vote and the city votes it down that means we don't want it. I would say that we fought it as best we could and that the case was mediated back in can't remember the year now 2000 or was it 1998 once a case is mediated it's like you come to an agreement that's why there's no appeal passed when you've come to an agreement now that allows for modifications to the agreement thereafter um because once it's in federal court you can't just go back to the city and pretend like there's not a federal court order so what makes it a federal case the appeal to the federal federal court.

But why is it a federal cases? We're talking about Beer Creek, Ohio. Not the type of appeal is it is a federal appeal regarding land use. So our own state legislator and stuff don't govern our own area in Beaver Creek. It's a federally this particular case the court the district court of I don't remember the is it the southern district of Ohio had jurisdiction over this case. We did not fight the jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand. It is a little confusing. This is a federal case. Why they're telling us what we can do? Fighting personal jurisdiction that is this train has left the station. That train left the station when I was back in high school. So you're telling me it's a federal case and there's nothing to appeal the two things you're telling me. Yes.

Doesn't sound accurate, but I will take your word for it. But for my three minutes, I'm going to come over here and talk again. I think the thing would be just I would like to know what we're doing as a council to to essentially support the residents and deny any kind of changes in this area because it obviously went to reform in 1997. We plan on doing it again. I'm sure it will pass because everybody I've talked to does not want a hotel in this area. So when we get to that stage, make sure you guys are supporting us in our decisions, things like that. Thank you. Not. So I should I'm not sure this can be overturned through referendum if it's already been approved by a district court. We would there would be I'm assuming another court appeal to Judge MS who would then have jurisdiction over the same exact issue. I I do not believe that's a possibility under these circumstances where we have an agreed entry from the court regarding these issues. It's already in court. We're just rubber stamping what the court has already told us to do.

Okay, folks. Um, we are still, if you wish to speak on this, go right ahead.

John Jones at 2236 Crabtree Drive. You're saying that there can't be an appeal on the modification because in the original court order, the judge in his opinion allowed Lefino to build his cub food. But he did stipulate that it had to be at the north end of that property giving a buffer zone trailing down from commercial res regional commercial to neighborhood community commercial which is what that end of the property should be. And just because it got modified to say CPU, it's the city council that is now allowing them to go 40t high because the assistant facility wanted to go three stories and that got turned down. They restricted them to two stories

and they said they could not make money with it only being a twostory building. But now we're gonna we've changed and we're going to allow a regional commercial building to go up to almost 40 feet. Just because you change the nomenclature doesn't change the real

judge MS agreed to raise that. Well, then I think we need to appeal that modification because his intent originally in n in 2000, he shielded the residents by restricting Cub Foods to be built at the north end of that facility, not the south end. And that's the reason Lefino did not build the facility.

Just saying that the city is bound by the decision of Judge MS. I think we should appeal the modification and I'd say we'll have another referendum. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on this? Okay, I'll close the public hearing and I'm just going to open this general. Yes, Mr. S, I did want to put into the record that we did receive two emails and you each received a copy of it.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh I'm just gonna throw this open. Um I'm probably the only one that was here. Yeah. Right. I do have questions. You all know about it. Yeah. I'm just going to throw this open. So I do have questions. You got something? Have at it.

So uh to our attorney Lounbury. So when I read this, not the the one when we talked the second one on the mod for the hotel, just on this one, and I read the uh the 2018 agreement, I did have a confusion and maybe you said this and I just didn't get it um since I'm from the school of north, but uh I was confused by the 218 agreement talked about vacating paragraph number two and yet which of the 2000 agreement talked about the 185,000 in the in the 45,000 ft and yet we are putting it back in to the agreement based on the slide that Colin Carville said. So are we accepting in the 2018 agreement and we are really dealing with 200,000 square feet or are we still because when I read the 2018 agreement it said that it vacated all except a couple of paragraphs none of which dealt with the 185,000. So, I was confused on that and make sure Yeah, that's the one I was talking about the column to put up. So, I'm looking at the 2018 agreement and it talks about vacating all but FK&m, which is not the 185,000 square feet. So, are we really when we get to the hotel in the next one, are we really talking about a 200,000 or was it vacated? And I think one of the residents that came up talked about that. So, I'm a bit confused if we vacated or I don't want to question Judge MS, but it was just a confusing point to make. because I'm reading the 2000 agreement and I'm reading the 2018 agreement and I thought, well, maybe the 185,000 was vacated in the 2018 agreement, paragraph 2, in which case we don't have 185 or 200,000. This is the modification done here is to increase the total square footage to 200,000 so that those other vacant outlots can be developed on otherwise they would remain vacant.

Yeah. And it clearly says it in the 2000 agreement in paragraph 2A which is what it stated. But in 2018 agreement it says it's vacated in its entirety except two paragraphs FK and M which is not 2A which made me think as the gentleman who was up a moment ago said it's wasn't that vacated. So that will govern what we do here and it will govern what we do for the mod the next one. So just I'm confused if we really do have a square foot limit anymore to wrestle with. Just to help Josh, are you on It says page 204, page ID number seven at the top.

So I'm looking at paragraph two of the 2018 agreement and paragraph two of the 2000 agreement. 2000 agreement. Paragraph A clearly shocks about 185,000. Paragraph two of the 2018 agreement both obviously by Judge Murders says that it is vacated in its entirety except paragraph 2 sections FK and M which is not the 185,000. I I don't want to get into a legal issue here especially because it's been resolved by Judge Mur. I'm just wanting to make sure for us as a planning commission are we really dealing with between what was vacated or not vacated and finally found 2018 agreement. Okay. As we're flipping, which which paragraph are you? Paragraph two of the 2018 agreement

or number two, I should say. Number two, it begins with paragraph two. I'm just wondering if we have a square foot requirement at all to deal with as a planning commission tonight. It's a confusion of mine. It's not something I'm for or against. I'm just confused. We we definitely have a square footage change because of the new modification that was done earlier today. I believe is today. Point is that it says it eliminates paragraph 2 in its entirety except for F, K, and M. And then it's talking about 2 A, but 2 A was eliminated. Exactly. How could it how could it do 2A if it's eliminated?

Where the confusion is 2F adds 15,000 square feet. with this new order. And so, um, where it said 185,000 square feet before, we need we needed to add 15,000 square feet to that. So, it's going to be a council issue anyway. I just wanted to make sure we weren't vacated in its entirety and we're still talking about it as if it's real. If it's been vacated, the 2018 agreement wording is where just comes in.

Yeah. I'm flipping back and forth right now to figure out to catch up where you're at. To me, it sounds like this new order reinstates to a that would I just want to make sure. I'm not a lawyer though. So, no. Is all this in vain if we don't have certainly that is the intention of the court is to today to put that was to add that Thank you. Right. square footage up to 200,000.

Okay. Yeah, irrespective of the wording in the 2018 agreement. Okay. So, if we have a two a $200,000 square foot agreement or limit, that is something we can deal with as a planning commission. I just wanted to make sure before we get into this and it was more a confusion question than I for or against. Yeah. So if you take out all of the even if you assumed two two was completely to uh A B C through E was gone. This is adding back into 2A. Okay, that's fine. That was one of two questions for council Lbury. The second question if I go to the again the 2018 agreement and that was number two of the 2018 agreement. I'm now going to number 12. of the 2018 agreement. The number 12 of the 2018 agreement on the next page is the same as the 2000 agreement talking about 6.572 acres of land deeded to the city. I just want to make sure now what is the 6.572 acres of land so that it turns out it's not the five acres for the hotel that we're going to be talking about in a few minutes.

This is the mound I believe but it's the mound or the mountain. Okay. So it's a different area length mound in the field. Okay, good. It doesn't clarify it and I just wanted to eliminate my confusion. That was to allow that was part of the original mediation to create a buffer. So that's why that's there. Okay. So it's not part of what will eventually be the next that Yeah. It's not it's not the mound, it's the green space to the other side. Yeah. So the the mound comes up and then there's also the mound's a buffer and then there's the green space buffer. Uh okay. to the west of that and it's that green space buffer okay that cannot be developed

and if I could one last question for Colin or Randy in the report that you prepared for all of us today this is my last question Mr. Under the analysis, it says even though it began by saying there the applicant is trying to resolve multiple court approved items, which is fine. Under the analysis, you say the purpose of this request is to satisfy condition 14 of the court 2018 order. Yes, sir.

Okay. So, I look at condition 14. It's kind of to me non attorney, but I stated holiday in express. It's basically mom and apple pie. It's parties agree to take any reasonable action to execute, which you said earlier. All we're doing in agreeing to number 14 is that they're doing the right thing by coming to the planning commission. Is that because it's is that why 14? I'm confused why we're focusing on just 14 of all these conditions of the 2018 14 is essentially our marching orders to bring to get this brought into the PUD. Okay. Right now it's just kind of in legal land. Okay. Now we're bringing it to the PUD.

All right. Thank you. That was my question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing that. Okay. Colin, question for just a point of clarification. Um, because we were talking about a PUD being approved and all that. What we're doing today is not approving a PUD. We're amending the existing PU. Absolutely. The PUD already exists. So, we're just updating the language within that. Uh, but it's the language that was that was put forth by the court. Correct. Okay. Which means we don't have a whole lot of choice. I mean, we can turn it down, but uh I'll defer to Josh on that.

I've thought about this and what the consequences would be of turning it down. One, I don't think it would have any effect. The court's jurisdiction supersedes yours, but it would put us in non-compliance with the requirements of the court. So, I don't know if it would be holding the city in contempt or a motion to force us to redo this. Our your hands are tied. Um, once the court has ordered this, I'm not, like I said, I don't think even if you turn this down, it would change anything. Um, there could be negative consequences. However, this is essentially proforma. Yes.

Okay. And Josh, just one more time, how can a city stop development? It can purchase the land and that's it.

That is the only way to stop development. Um the city has done that in some areas. The the park that the the city purchased, but the city is not with out there's there is limits to our funding. Um people are complaining about their taxes. It would take a lot more tax money if we were to stop developing, purchase all of the undeveloped land and hold it into perpetuity as undeveloped land. Okay, gentlemen, lady. Um, I guess we need a motion here unless unless all of the unless there's more discussion. Mr. Chair, I think our hands are kind of tied and our feet too. Agreed.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I move to approve POD 97-1 as amended or amendment 126 uh with the attached two conditions. Hold before you second that. We have to include today today's item. Do we need to move to add the third? Move to add the Yes. You'd want to make a motion to add condition number three as presented. Okay. Mr. I move to add condition number three as presented. Okay, I second that. Okay, so we're voting first to add three. We need to vote for that and we'll just do that by voice. All in favor? I

I. All oppose. Same sign. Okay, now we need Now we need a motion for the whole thing. Mr. I move to approve PU97-1 amendment 126 with the three conditions as amended. Okay, I second that. I have a motion and a second. Let's read the role on this. Miss Colombo? Yes. Mr. Fountain? Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Mr. So, yes. Motion carries. 5. Now we'll go to the public hearing on PUB 97-1 mod 126 major.

This is case number PUD 97-1 mod 1 of 26 on an application filed by high-5 Development Services 202 West Main Street, Mason, Ohio 455040. The applicant requests a major modification to the specific site plan to allow for the construction of a 160 room three-story hotel on 5.068 acres. The property is located on the north of Kemp Road, approximately 500 ft east of the intersection of Kemp Road and North Fairfield Road. Further described as book four, page 6, parcel 123 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh I presume there is someone here representing the developer. Hello, my name is Michael George. I'm a site civil engineer with the Kleinders Group, address 6219 Center Park Drive, Westchester, Ohio. I'm part of the design team for the new project, which is a 160 room Hilton Hotel, dual branded uh Hampton Inn and Homewood Suites. And uh Colin has actually introduced a lot of the site aspects. I I think I'll just add that it's south of the Premier Health just west of the Elsid neighborhood. Uh there's two site access points along the private drive in that development. And uh Colin, Melissa, um who else? Randy, Jeff have all been extremely helpful. Over the past year, we've been doing this uh mostly because we're trying to get a good Hilton pro product. Um but we've had questions along the way with the PUB zoning code and the courtordered uh stipulations which through their help city staff that is um we've put together a compliant plan. So thank you so much for your help and your patience and um after reviewing the staff report I think Colin's going to kind of cover everything I want to hit with regard to site. So, I'll just say I'm here to answer any site questions. And with that, I'll hand it over to Jason Williams, who's our lead architect for the building.

Commissioner evening now. Jason Williams, Phoenix Architecture, 9467 Kinwood Road, Blue Ash, Ohio. Uh, just want to let introduce myself, let you know if any questions with the building may ask me. Um, I agree thanks to the zoning uh department. They've helped us uh decipher the the rulings along with the PUD and we have proudly presented a plan here and building that does comply to all the court rulings. Whether or not we like how we got there or not, we do uh we do comply. Uh we had to make some sacrifices with Hilton in order to make this fit. It is a tight site. Um the court ruling does have some pretty big parameters that make this a tough site to build on. But I think we produced a aesthetically pleasing and building here that's going to um do well for the the community and I think it um meets all the requirements needed. So you have any questions in the future on that uh part of it, feel free to ask me. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello everyone. My name is Colin Carville, city planner. Um so just uh getting jumping right into this major modification request. So um and and clarifying um kind of what major mod means. Um we kind of talked about some of the previous developments um that were approved. Uh the one that wasn't uh that never came forward in 2015. This isn't modifying that or what was approved at at any other previous time. Um this is a new groundup development um on its own. the modification lies in the PUD. It's we're changing the PUD. So, um that's kind of where we get the terminology modification from. Um but it is a new building, not uh approving any or changing anything that was previously approved other than kind of all the the court orders and um ordinances that we've talked about um in depth already. Um so, nature of the request, uh they are constructing a three-story 160 room hotel on 5.06 acres. Um they are the additional imperous surfaces um will be 2.53 acres um that acreage I believe there's 2.54 open space so it's right around that 50% um 49% mark um for imperous uh surfaces um that remains under our 75% threshold for the entire PUD for that uh imperous surface um the hotel is a permitted use within this PUD um the uses that are allowed are B1 B2 2 and 01. Um, hotels are a permitted use in 01 um 01 uh zoning districts. Um, which obviously it's a PUD, but it has the characteristics of that B1 B21 uh for for permitted uses. Um, what we're working with uh with the surrounding properties um to the north, it's been mentioned already is the Premier Health. Um, it is within CU CPU 971. Um to the

south um it's a combination of B2 and R1A. Um there's the Freddy's restaurant um as well as uh some single family homes about two that uh directly adjoin the property. Um to the east uh is vacant land um owned by the city. Farther east is a big residential development um that is R1A. Um and to the west um we're still working within that CPU 971 um which has various retails establishments crumble u Milanos um etc. So um that's kind of the surrounding area uh for uh where this kind of hotel will sit. So here's a first look at that site plan um just to kind of get your bearings. Um the southern part of your screen is is the east. So, um that that and and that is all of this property. Um that that does not capture um the the city the city owned land. Um that is just working within the parameters of of this property here. The building design um the building height uh totals 37t 6 in. Um it complies with the 40 foot maximum established in the 2018 order. um is roughly 180 ft wide by 300 feet uh lawn. Um lawn is the kind of north to south um elevation there um that kind of extends the uh the burm. Um it's a modern architectural design um with various materials to reduce building mass. Um those materials include multicolored brick um fiber cement panels, woodlooking siding and caststone accents and trim. Um there's large windows, entry c uh canopies, um and recessed entrances, um which kind of define the main entry point, um which is to the west of the building. Main

entrances to the west. And here is a look at that west elevation. This is the front of the building. This is what you'll be seeing from that private drive um extended to North Fairfield Road. And here's a closeup of of of that. And then I believe that is the uh looking south kind of on that that north uh north elevation there. So um that's kind of what uh what the side of the building will look like. Um as far as the setbacks are concerned. So um to the east um there are n 193 feet um to the eastern property line. Um there's an additional 235 uh feet to the uh first residential property line. not uh and that's not, you know, the residential building itself. Um that's just kind of the the rough measurement there. Um that we this we used our GIS um to kind of get an aerial of of what that would look like. Um so like I said, it's around 427. Um and that that middle point within that lot is kind of the the back end of of where the hotel will sit. So, um, and then, uh, the hotel, um, will also be 111, uh,.92 ft from the southern property line, facing those, uh, facing Freddy's, um, and those couple single family homes to the to the south there. We had the architects produce, um, this this visual here. Um, this would be, uh, the view from the residential property line um, that 427 feet away. So you can see there uh there's the the burm there with with the trees that we're requiring to be uh installed on top of it. So that is kind of a a rough a rough look of what um residents up to the far east would would expect um uh to see um if this is approved.

Regarding parking, um parking standards, hotels are specifically called out. Um they call out one space per guest room uh and one space per 20 guest rooms um for for staff purposes. So, and then they also have one space per 250 square ft of public meeting area and restaurant space. Um there is none provided with this proposal. So, we're just kind of looking at those two two bullet points there. So, um, based on the, uh, applicant provided information, um, it requires 168 off- streetet parking spaces, um, the site plan provides 108, uh, 168, excuse me, off-street parking spaces, um, which also includes six ADA accessible spaces. Um, and it meets our measure uh measures. um you know we we try to uh reduce um ex way way more needed parking spaces than um than required. So the fact that they're hitting their ballpark is is what we're looking for in in proposals like this. Um as far as the landscape plan um has a mix of canopy trees, ornamental trees and shrubs uh proposed um provides adequate screening um from the dumpster enclosure which is kind of on the southeastern corner of the property. Um the enclosure itself will be com uh will be made of materials similar to the uh similar to the hotel. Um the existing 15oot burm is to remain and be enhanced with a row of evergreen trees for additional screening. Um as as you saw in that visual. Um the landscape plan shows extensive use of mulch beds throughout the site. Um and uh we are have a condition as we do with all of our developments that they'll have to propose a uh detailed site plan uh sorry a detailed landscape plan um that staff uh and the plan director Randy will will approve prior to uh staff issuing a zoning permit.

And here's just a look at the uh the landscape plan. Now, regarding lighting and signage, um the uh 14T uh light poles will be mounted on two-ft bases throughout the site. Um there'll be a full cut off wall pack um proposed on the buildings. um the existing eastern mound and additional landscaping will prevent any light spill into the adjacent residential areas. Um they provided a phototric plan that shows kind of we kind of look for those zeros across all the boundaries there um that face residential and and it's showing zeros there. So um we're we're confident in that uh what they've proposed. um and all future lighting. Um if they, you know, add extra extra security lighting or things like that, um that would either require um staff's approval or uh if it's large enough, it would we would have to bring that back to uh to to planning commission for for an amendment. Um signage, uh we are limiting um signage to 350 square feet. Um for wall signage um no signage is permitted on the eastern building elevation um which is facing um that big uh residential uh component to the east. Um ground sign is limited to a maximum height of six feet um with a maximum area of 30 square feet per side. Um that's been pretty similar with other developments um within that PUD um other language. So we're trying to stay consistent there. Um and the uh ground sign um will need to include a brick wrap that matches the the building materials. So we are uh recommending approval of of this proposal. Um it meets all of the uh all of our zoning requirements um that we require. Um thus uh we're we're recommending approval subject to the 22

conditions in the resolution. Um happy to answer any questions after we get uh input from our residents. Thanks. Thank you. Oh, some people are primed already, aren't you? Let's start the public hearing. I'm Sheila Holland, 2260 Elsid Drive. And I wrote down what I wanted to say so I wouldn't go off on a weird tangent or something. Um, we've lived in the same house at the corner of Kemp and Elsid since 1976. So, we're in our 30th year of living in the same house in Beaver Creek. And much as I would love to have back the two-lane roads, you probably know about that. The corn fields and the neighborhoods where we felt comfortable letting the kids roam free range that ship sailed a long time ago. I've come but I've come to appreciate the community focused businesses which have come in. I can get burgers, pizza, barbecue, ice cream, cookies. I can fill prescriptions, buy gas, get a haircut, buy a cell phone. I can shop for just about anything. Um, all the businesses in that whole swath, starting at Kemp and going all the way up to 675, all serve the community. I mean, we can all walk into one of those and come out with a good or a service that we can use. Um, I can also uh go there's a range of medical services. Now, I've used the emergency premier emergency room when I broke my foot. Um, but this application is not any of that. It is not a community focused business. It adds nothing new to the area. I can count at least seven hotels within shouting distance, including a Marriott, which is

clearly what this is trying to replicate. More importantly, the building would tower over everything in the strip north of Kemp and east of Fairfield going all the way up to 675. So, I believe it's incompatible with the the land use plan which specified community business and the fact of the size. Um, I ask that it be denied. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, she's coming back for another helping.

Want to come back? 3122 Doniote Drive. Um, I just want to say I'm I'm going to keep this pretty short that um the surrounding development of the parcel that we're talking about is supposed to um uh the development is supposed to taper uh according to the land use plan from uh 675 down. And even that property is um has a more dense commercial part of it and it was supposed to taper to a community development. And as our previous speaker said, the the um businesses that are around there are really community-based. One of the things that I want to point out is that in this 2018 agreement that was passed, it says the maximum height of the buildings within this PU uh this PUD, the maximum height shall be 40 feet. That doesn't mean they have to be 40 feet. It just means the maximum, right? So, we don't have to have a threestory building there. that ju it's in the in the legal papers from judge Merse the maximum height I want to make sure you know that the other thing that it says is this is number six paragraph two building plans designs and elevations shall be subject to final review and approval by the Beaver Creek Planning Commission and Beaver Creek City Council at the specific site plan pl stage. So you have a lot of options here to deny this request because according even to this lawsuit that you know is a moot point you we still have some choices and I hope you make uh ones that are beneficial to the citizens of

Bever Creek.

Thank you Josh 23 drive. Is there any way to pull up that image where you can see it from the mound? Yeah. So, that's my house. It's literally my house. So, I just want you guys to look at that before you approve this hotel. You're changing. My son plays out in that field back there. Roger's grandson plays out in that field back there. That is what we're going to see looking out of our house if you guys approve this. So, as Monica said, keep in mind there's a lot of consequences consequences of decision you make. There's a lot of areas in Beaver Creek you can shove a hotel. You do not need to shove one right outside of our neighborhood. There's no reason for it. I would also bring up safety aspects. So Premier Health's got a lot of emergency EMS that's got to exit out of that area. Now you're going to have hotel traffic in their way. I personally watch the ambulances pull out one to Kemp all the time. Now you're going to have 160bedroom hotel between Kemp and that hospital. They also I would look at the FFA because they fly helicopters through there. So, I can't imagine they can have a 40 foot tall hotel that close to a hospital that uses helicopters or whatever. It's one thing to accept a hospital. I the helicopter wakes my son up at night, wakes me up son at night, but you know, they're taking care of Beaver Creek residents. They're trying to keep somebody safe and alive. It's another to have a hotel out back your house. People that are in those hill hotel rooms will be able to see inside of my house. Like that's those tree. There's is pine trees out in that field. I'm not going to lie. But you if you're 40 feet in the air, you'll be able to see in my back door. And that's why I'm kind of passionate about this. And I'm sorry I come off abrasive sometimes as my wife tells me, but it's I don't want to look out my back door and have my coffee every morning and see that. Like that's not why I moved to Beaver Creek. That's not why we go to the parks and do stuff like that. And I I would just ask you to think if that was out the backside of your house, would you want to see it? Thank you.

Thank you. That slide there if you would. I'm Roger Richie and I'm from uh 3144 Kemp. Um, and that's basically looking out my driveway and backyard because I'm the very first house east of Milanos. So, that is my next uh what I'll be seeing every day. So, I have concerns about, you know, security a little bit because of having a hotel right there, you know, and uh transients coming through all the time and everything. I'm not saying everybody stays in a hotel's a crook, but you've got a lot of transients that'll be coming through there. Uh but that and the aesthetics, um I was glad at first I thought they the map showed they were going to remove that BM, but leaving it there at least that uh we need that. but you will still be able to see straight into the house and straight to our backyard and everything uh anytime we're out there. Um I also had a couple of questions. Um and that is deals more with the uh routing of traffic too because again I live right there in the first yard come right out and turn right on Kemp to go right straight to Fairfield. What are the access points going to be in and out of there? The parking lot, what's that going to do to the traffic? Uh I can't tell from that design exactly. Uh but do you do you know or the architect sleeve as far as

Okay. So I just like to know. Yeah. What's the access going to be there? Um and it did say the stipulations they would be putting more trees in there. And then also of course I like everybody You wonder also what's that going to do to my land or the value of my home and the taxes as a result and everything. I don't know if that's water under the bridge because we can't do anything about it. But uh at least that's that's some of the concerns I have and uh would like to know about the traffic. Thank you.

Annette baby 3101 Don Kyote Drive. Okay. I've written my stuff down, too, so I don't rant, but I probably will. Um, first off, we don't really need a hotel there. There are plenty of hotels on Colonel Glenn that don't impact residential areas. There's other hotels behind the Fairfield Mall, which is not really a mall anymore, but it's an entertainment type place. Um, there's hotels back there, too. I drive those roads frequently. They are never full. So, we do not need more hotel rooms. Um, again pointing to other people, um, this is a residential area. By putting a hotel there, it's ruining that residential feel. Um, all of us walk the neighborhood. There are no sidewalks in the streets. Um, we know each other. We wave at each other. By having a hotel there, we're going to have transient people and, um, indigent, honestly. Um, the hotel's farther down the strip. There are indigents that live in and around there. And boy, that little garden area, that little park area we've got behind that mound would be a perfect place for indigents to start living. Um, I've seen the people come from the red roof in, they walk up to the streets and they stand at the corner and they beg for money and they've made it as far as Aldi now too. And I'm sure as soon as we have the hotel, they're going to make a little bit farther and then have we'll have camps in that little park area that's behind the hills. I know that's all speculation, but I've seen it happen in many other areas. So, we don't need that in our neighborhood. Um the the location again is not a hotel is not beneficial to any of the residents in this area. We have homes. We've moved there on purpose to have a nice residential area that's quiet. It's neighborly. People know each other. Now, we're going to have strangers there and they're going to be walking. There's

sidewalks that lead right to Wordinger Park, crossing some houses that don't have sidewalk, but I assume a sidewalk's going to come. Winger Park is a historical park, as you all know. There already is problems at night because I live directly behind it of people being in there at night. They've broken into the buildings. I've called the police. I can just see more of that happening because the hotel people are going to say, "Where can we go? Can we go to Walgreens? Can we go to the pizza joint? Can we go here? Hey, let's walk down to that park. Let's sit in the park until 3:00 a.m. smoking cigarettes. And what's inside these buildings? Let's break into a window. So, there's going to just be more traffic of people who don't live in Beaver Creek. There's a preschool just down the road on Kemp. I worry about security and safety of that. I know they have a nice building that's that's secure and safe, but there's little kids playing in the little park in the little uh school grounds there. I worry about that. I worry about the neighborhood children who ride the bikes around there and now they're going to have people who aren't from Beaver Creek are just going to be passing through doing who knows what legitimate things sometimes not legitimate things. I'm worried about the children's safety and also my safety and my property safety. I've already had people in the park trying to get into my gate. Now there's going to be more chance of that. I'm getting a little emotional about this. So me personally Oh, and the 40 foot height. Yeah, it's definitely going to tower over the hills. Doesn't matter if there's trees there. Anybody want to donate?

Sure. Okay, great. Thank you.

Oh, thanks. Thank you so much. Okay, now I can read my notes a little bit clearer. So, traffic, it's going to be 247. A hotel is open 247. All the other things that are there, they're open in certain hours. They're not open at 3:00 a.m. They're not open at 5:00 a.m. They're open in regular hours that the residents can use. This is going to be a group of people being there 247. I see where the access point's going to be. What we call the alley is where they can leave the uh property, but then they're going to turn left to go on to Kemp. Kemp there is very busy. Rush hour. Sometimes trying to get into Elsid, the traffic is backed up to Fairfield Road, and I've been stuck in that traffic before. Then trying to turn left into El Sid, it's going to be impossible. Trying to turn right into the Crab Tree across the way. Same same deal. There's going to be so much more traffic there because Crabtree and Els are a little offset from each other. They don't line up. And that's fine. I like it that way because it slows things down. Um, so me personally, I've lived here. I've moved here on purpose because of the quietness, the quaintness, the little park there, the school, the churches. It's got that wide open feel, but it's still a close neighborhood. Um, we've got all the access to, all the things, like a previous person said that benefit us as residents. Hotel patrons, I don't care about them. They're not Beaver Creek. They're just going to be invading. It's not needed. There's plenty of other hotels that people can go to and it just it it destroys the neighborhood feel. It destroys the um atmosphere of Beaver Creek, which is why we all live in Beaver Creek. We like that atmosphere of the small town, but we have access to things that we need. Um and then the question is like somebody else said, would you like to look at that? If you looked out your window

right now, if you look west, sunset comes down. Where do you see the sunset? the hill and the trees. Now we're going to see the hill, the trees, and the building and people standing at the windows staring at us. Don't want it. Thank you very much. Thank you,

John Jones, 2236 Crabtree Drive. And what I said previously more or less applies to this, I guess, more so than the uh original one. But hey, this way I get another three minutes. Uh I I'm on the southwest southeast corner of Kemp and Crabtree. So I like to go out in my front yard and enjoy a cold beverage and watch the sunsets. Now, if this hotel is there, not only am I going to be looking at the east side of the building, I'm going to be seeing the south side of the building. The last thing I want to look at is a three-story building. And I commend the city council so far. They've managed to keep the regional commercial north of Lake View. And that's where it needs to be. And just because the land may be all taken and all the lots may be taken north of Lake View Drive, doesn't mean that we should allow regional commercial, which you can call it. A hotel is okay. It's still regional commercial to be south of Lake View. And just as the original judge's intent, he was going to put the cub food on the north end of that lot, not the south end. And that was to create the transition the residential area. So just because the building fits the land doesn't mean the building fits the neighborhood.

Thank you. If I wave this around, somebody come up.

Jean Ike Ey 2335 Wilson Drive. I am one of three residents that the city allowed to participate in the mediation in the year 2000. My husband and I have lived at in our current residence for 37 years. Um so I have been involved since 1995. So for 28 years we have been told that the land use plan requires a tapering of the um commercial activity as you proceed from 675 down northfield. You know a 160 room three-story hotel is regional not community commercial and it does not follow the land use plan that calls for a tapering of you know business activity. So, for those reasons, as well as other reasons that other residents have um brought up, I do ask that you deny this because it does not fit with the land use plan.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Oh, yes, of course. Back in 1997, my husband provided um staff with um data on noise pollution from any development. I saw that you had done a study on light pollution, but how about noise pollution and if not um how about doing a study on that or at least looking up the data that my husband provided that wouldn't have changed in 25 years. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I see no takers. So, I will close the public hearing and ask if we had any written input. We did receive two emails and commissioners were provided copies of both. Great. Thank you very much. And I'm going to start with Jacob on my left. Yeah. Question for staff. Yes, sir.

With the proposed plan, um, do you foresee any lighting issues with the neighborhood that that backs up to this proposed development? I don't believe so. I, uh, looking at the phototric plan, um, like I said, we kind of look for those zeros along the borders there. It's showing that, which which kind of shows how much light is hitting that spot. So, um it's it's a zero. So, it it should should not affect uh affect the adjacent properties. Is there any lighting on on the top of the building like along the roof line or is it just like I'm thinking on the back side of the building there any lighting on the top roof line kind of like how Freddy's has that neon

Sure. Yeah. Um I mean that's all calculated in that phototric plan. So, um even if there is um it's it's showing zero on the border. So, okay. Um, I think they're opting for white poles. Okay, thank you. Uh, are there any EMS concerns? I know Careflight does land in that vicinity frequently and ambulances going in and out all the time. I don't know if there's any concerns with traffic. That's a really good question. Um, that's something I'll I'll probably need to review before issuing the zoning permit um to see if um there are I I know we we deal with that with white right Pat um with the with the Air Force base with developments up there. So, um, we'll have to see if that that conflicts, but that's it's a very good point that I'll have to look at.

Okay. Um, privacy concerns. Um, is that something that we and this might be a question for, uh, Mr. Lounar, are there is that something we can consider? Uh, potential privacy concerns if for res people looking out their windows or

Yeah, essentially. Yeah. The considerations are the ones I think even you can go back to where Randy included the approval for procedures for specific site plan as to what consi things you should consider. Um you can I think consider some privacy concerns but there's a giant mound and along property separating them. So I think It's up to you obviously to weigh that issue, but Okay. All right. Um, and then there were some discussion on other hotels in the area that came up. Are we able to consider X number of hotels in a certain radius of this one as justification for potentially disapproving this?

We cannot. No. Um, and the the uh one of the residents brought up the the tapering agreements that it sounds like that was from 2000 or prior to the 2018 um agreement. Was that tapering in the 2018 agreement as well or was was opening that up?

So, I believe they're referencing the land use plan um with the tapering. So, the land use plan is uh determined in zoning issues. So it that doesn't uh once the zoning is established um it's with that in mind. Um so but even though it has the uh the o it has the 01 component um it's staff's interpretation that the tapering doesn't apply here and just so the the tape the land the land use plan would be considered in zoning. I don't know if the court considered or not but the court has told us what the zoning is. So okay so that's what we have to work with. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's all my questions for now. Thank you.

Uh couple of questions. Uh can you go to the uh the view over the mound or right there? So, when I looked at all the elevations, I didn't see any screening or any uh roof mounted equipment. I'm assuming there's going to be roof mounted equipment, but maybe not. If there is, where is it? And how is it screened to make that even higher? It's shielded by the parapit walls, which is the architectural features on on the building. So parapit walls we're looking at now will be the the top of what you see as opposed to seeing any equipment above that. Correct. Okay.

I did see the parapit, but I didn't see anything in the elevation drawings showing rough mounted equipment, and I'm wondering how that was. The other has to do with the site. If you could go to the site plan. Yes, sir. Uh not the um No, not the one that's the uh one of the site. Apologies. I wish. No problem. Uh this is the landscape plan. No, that shows the site contiguous to Kaiser and Yes, sir. Yeah. Sorry, that's in my top of the uh

There you have it. Okay. So looking at that uh that's going to obviously be increasing the solid state of the ground and I uh was reading the conditions and thinking of drainage now having that entire section with the mound on the east actually acting as a buffer for the heavy rainstorms we get and that land and ground used to absorb all that. Now with the hospital or the healthcare on the top, you've got the commuter show on the west, you've got the buffer on the right, and now you've got the the hotel with going and taking up all that property. Are we adequately handling drainage for the new site developed with the amount of solids coverage for that entire area or is that going to flow out on the camp and cause a flooding of Kemp? Would my engineering team be happy to or Randy talk about

because we've now taken where all the all the rain goes to and absorbed it away. Once again, I can't help it. But um the pond, as you can see on the the the city owned narrow strip. There's the channels. That's the bottom of the storm water detention pond. Uh that was sized. You point to it. You know what he's talking about? Oh, see the see the vertical? Yeah, it's the bottom of the concrete channel. There you go. There we go. Okay,

that was a storm water pond that was created with the original development, keeping in mind that it would be it was sized for full buildout of this development. So, it's sized appropriately to handle the continuation of that development. So the increase in heartscape would not cause the money to be the money the the water flow to be redirected either to Elsid area or to camp. No. And there's pipes there's actually some pipes underneath the mouth too that connect.

Okay. The only other uh aspect that one of the residents brought up about traffic uh going east west on Kemp Road uh with rush hour and given that hotel is a 247 situation uh would there in your mind or staff's mind any need for any kind of additional traffic study or signal study for camp road uh given the the nature of the commercial business there? Um well, one thing um with this application, it as with the other application, this property is located within the impact fee district. So, as prior to us releasing the zoning permit for the hotel, they would have to pay the impact fees that are associated with that. And the intent of the impact fee is to improve the system as a whole to accommodate any increased traffic or or mitigate traffic concern

or impact on Kemp Road as the entrance exit. So yeah, if there if something is warranted in the future or even with this development, that's the intent is they pay the impact fee to the city and the city uses that among some of our other um road money, okay, to construct those improvements that are required. All right, that's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. I have a question for the applicant. Um oh sites

um with the resident's concern of privacy or loitering in the green spaces would it be possible or I guess would it be possible to put up fencing at the back. I think I believe it be the back of the hotel to where it would discourage um anyone staying at the hotel. I think there's fencing on top of the mound, isn't there? Where is the fencing? Where's the fencing?

There's a line of green trees proposed to screen that. Well, beyond screening, it looks like there's the mound with the evergreen trees, but then there's still some green flat green space and then parking lot. Okay. So, I suppose you mean along Kemp Road is where you might be thinking. Oh, and the planting plan does also show trees proposed along the southside along Kemp for that purpose.

Okay. So, to clarify, that mound is covering all of that green space buffer and there there wouldn't be kind of like a flat green space where Oh, it's being Yeah, it's a long camp. It's a shortened height, but there's some mound along that side. Okay. Are you asking for a fence, a potential fence between the mound and the hotel if it would help with any loitering? Yes. To to try to prevent any loitering from the hotel into that green space.

Mark Davis 55. I'm sorry. 5518 Pawn View Court. Losing my voice. This is a Hilton property and uh people aren't paying $39 a night for a room here. They're paying 169 north of that up to $300 a night. So, we're not going to get transients in this hotel. It just doesn't happen. We've we've developed another a number of other hotels in Beaver Creek. probably familiar with some of them, including the new one at uh at the mall, uh which incidentally was just nominated for national award. So, we're very proud of that. We haven't found fences to be very helpful uh for those kind of things. Uh in in addition to that, u hotel ownership and staff that work there police the parking lots fairly regularly. Require the parking lots are required to be lit. Um, we we're the largest hotel developer in Ohio and I I don't think we've ever had a problem with any transients in our parking lots, period. I've heard it as a concern on some other places. I so I get it. Uh, but in these high-end, we only deal with Marriott and Hilton products and we just don't have those kind of problems.

So, follow-up question. Um, is it um in your policy that you would not allow since you are private property and you can allow whoever you want on your establishment, you have a policy where you would discourage loing if you if your if staff came upon that. So, for example, if someone wants to come and bake, you know, um bake for money. So, I have a guest going outside to smoke a cigarette. staff regularly polices the uh the parking lot. So if you're not a guest and don't have a key card, you'll probably be asked to leave. Okay, thank you. I believe that's all my questions. Thank you, John.

So question uh condition number 11 is talking about lighting. Uh, it says lighting in the parking lot probably reduced to no greater than 25% within one hour of closing, but do they close? It's a good point. Um, yeah, we could probably get rid of that. I I would imagine. Um, okay. That would be more question too if they close. So, Sure. Okay. Thank you. Um, the the dumpster location was any I mean thought given to that or just kind of that's where it ended up. That's kind of where it was proposed. Um,

my thought was, can we get it as far away from houses as possible to put it in like the north, what is it? Northwest corner instead of the southeast corner. Okay. North. So, northwest you're talking about that top corner. Yeah. Upper right on this map instead of the bottom left. I mean, I think our concern would be obviously there's it's it's near Kemp Road there. Um, on on currently um we kind of we're kind of I know it's away from residential, but it's near that road there. So, we probably if we were to change it, it would probably be the uh northeast corner.

Okay, that I'm fine with either. I just think it'd be better to get it away. And plus, that location I don't doesn't look like it would even fit well because half of it's blocked by that uh curb. Sure. So, I would think a dump truck there would have hard time getting in. Yeah. But Okay. So, I would propose that we move that make that a condition to move it to the western bound of the property. Let's see. Oh, and then what? There's a little square. Yeah, in the very upper right. What is that? Is that going to be a sign? You see what I'm looking Oh, top top uh top left or top right.

It's like a square. I don't know what it is. Okay. Um Yeah. I don't I'm not not I'm not certain. I I know the sign is on the fire department. Oh, super water maker pit. All right. Boom. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. That's all for you. Okay. So, Josh, where do we like we don't have any really grounds to deny it, right? Because So, you can obviously add conditions, but a hotel isn't allowed use in the area. It's part of 01, right? And that is is there allowed use in 01? That was part of the

you could not stop a hotel from being being built there. Once again, you can affect aesthetics and ingress, egress, move things around, but the actual hotels and allow juice, right? Okay. I like Oh, one more helping. Go ahead.

The maximum 40 foot. So, it says a maximum of 40T. Are we allowed to limit that to 30 35 like just bec because it says it in the settlement like can you go against that you know I believe when that was contemplated it was so that a building could go up to to 40 feet it would be contrary to the zoning requirements unless there was some real good reason why aesthetically you wouldn't want it I I can't see why you could you can't look they raised it for a reason using the specific site plan process to undermine what the zoning and the court decided I think would be not allowed. Okay.

I do have one followup for staff. Steph, sorry, one followup. Sorry. Um for I I I talked about carefied earlier and you said you have to look into that prior to um moving forward. Is it premature for us to approve that tonight until that conversation takes place? where we approve that with the understanding that that conversation would happen and be resolved prior to

Yeah, I mean ultimately we're we would we would look into that and um you know anything that uh you know goes against our zoning code or or whatever code that would apply to. Um if they can't meet that requirement, we're not going to issue that zoning permit. So um you can kind of approve uh whatever you decide um this evening. Um and then you know we kind of take that approval and then we make sure that meets everything including all the concerns that were here this evening heard this evening. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Don't run off Colin. Um I'm one of those people that was involved with this all the way back to 1997. And one of the big reasons that mound was built was the line of sight from people's backyards should not be able should not have been able to see anything of the cub food store that was proposed. Uh and my main heartburn with this whole thing is that that doesn't apply anymore. Correct.

Um and I'm not sure how to mitigate it. uh we can a suggestion to my fellow commissioners is that we could require the developer to plant those trees as the very first part of what they do. Uh and of course they're going to have to be maintained in perpetuity, but we can we can put that in that the trees be planted first and give them a chance to grow because it's going to take a while uh if the building is built for it to be built. Uh a second thing I would think of is is light pollution. Uh and uh we can aesthetically uh require uh minimal or no building mounted lights on the east side. Uh there'll be lights in the parking lot, but we can we can say no lights on the building. And I know a lot of motel and hotels, they will aesthetically light up their building uh vertically. Uh and uh it would be much there's no reason to have the third floor of the building bathed in light uh if you've got 14 foot uh posts uh light posts and a 15t BM uh and the lights are are properly um shielded. That shouldn't be a problem. The you do want a lit parking lot, but you don't there's there's no reason to light up the building. So, another suggestion um

with that, Mike, I would probably be super specific as as far because maybe they have some uh entrances in the rear. So, maybe like at the lower level it can be lit, but uh but yeah, at the at the top, certainly. I'm I'm sure they've got uh they've got uh uh doors to the backside because you don't want people having to hump their suitcase all the way around the building. Exactly. Right. Uh if those back doors if there no back doors.

Um let's see. Um question about the 200,000 square foot max. Is that footprint or is that number of floors? In other words, if this building uh had a 10,000 square foot footprint and it's three stories, would that count as 10,000 feet or 30,000 feet? 30. It would count as 30. And we still including the um uh the the healthcare building uh this three-story building. We're still under that 200,000. Yes, sir. Okay. And it's for the whole thing from Lakewood all the way to camp. Correct. The whole Okay.

Just want I wasn't real clear on that. Um, and this is probably for the for the applicant. Are y'all planning on having a restaurant there? I'm sure you have you have breakfast, but uh for the people stay in the guest.

Okay. Yeah. like the free breakfast but it will it will not be a a full service restaurant. Okay. Okay. Um oh one other question uh Colin for you. Um on the C 600 page, uh the grading plan, uh there will be more mound added to the south end of the big mound at so that it curves around and becomes a lower mound right along Kemp Road. Is that correct? Yeah, it will extend it'll extend out. Correct. Okay. And of course, that'll all have to be sided and

all the all the bells and whistles. Y uh are you planning any plantings along that lower mound because that does face um uh a a couple of houses on the other side of the street and there's parking in there. Yes, I Yes. Ah, okay. My poor old eyes can't see them. Okay. Big trees along there. Yes, sir. Uh deciduous or or evergreen?

I believe it's evergreen. Okay, good. Excellent. Okay, folks. Uh, second helpings. And I bet you've got one. Josh, is there anything that would prevent us from adding or limiting hours of construction on this since it is bordering a residential? I don't believe so. Okay. I think we should probably do that then.

Sorry. There are three things we can consider to add in terms of of um uh conditions. One would be construction hours. Uh one would be uh the tree planting and one would be decorative lighting on the east side and the dumpster location. Yeah. Like I say, three.

No, that was striking. Oh, that was just I mean we can leave it in. I don't think it's hurts anything because you're talking about the closing. I don't think it hurts anything to leave it in. Yeah. Yeah.

So, specifically for the building hours to keep consistent, we would want that to be any external work being done within these hours. I would just use the same language as we have them. Yeah. Uh so Mr. Chair, I would move to add condition number what was it 23 uh to read hours of construction uh for any grading and exterior work associated with this development shall be limited to Monday through sun Saturday from 7 a.m. 7 a.m. Okay. External exterior. Yeah. And exterior work.

I second that. Please vote on that one. Yeah. Okay. I need a second on that. Second. Thank you. And we'll do by voice. All in favor? I. All opposed. Same sign. Okay. That one passes.

Uh, Mr. Chair, I would move to add condition number 24 um to read the dumpster should be located on the western edge of the property. Um, uh, and with the approval of staff. What? Yeah. Sure. Sure. We can add that.

Just say final design and location of the enclosure shall be reviewed and and approved by planning by the planning um Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think you could do location on the western side and then also add the location to the staff approves it. So guarantees on the on the western side and then staff can figure out where it goes. So the final design of the closure shall be located on the western side and shall be reviewed and approved by the planning and develop the dire planning and development department prior to issuance of any zoning permit. I second that. Melissa.

Oh, Melissa always gets it. Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor? I All opposed. Okay, we got the dumpster taken care of. Um the the uh Do you want to modify three for the trees? Uh there's one more. The the uh No, look at 19. 19 talks specifically about the trees. Good point. Good point. what we we just simply need to add something in there that the um the trees will be planted uh at the time construction begins.

Yeah, but I was also thinking when are they going to extend that burm? Good point. The burm should extend the burm extend gentlemen Laura extend the question for the applicants. When when do you guys plan on extending the BM? Sorry. Thank you. We have a loyal audience on TV. That's fine.

Uh Ben Flmer, 4339 Marbal Way, Mason, Ohio 455040. Um when we would do the site work is when we would actually build the mounds early in construction and that's when you would plant the trees right after that. Okay. We just want those. The the point is to get the trees growing as the building grows and get a head start on them because I still got I've still got heartburn with um with the folks being able to see the top of this building. And if if the trees can do it uh then um that that may be our choice. Either that or make mound taller. Understood. Thank you.

And I think you prefer the I think you choose the trees. Okay. Somebody want to put some words in there. We're talking about 19. Yeah.

The uh just something to the effect that the um the additional mounding and the tree planting will take place at at the beginning of of construction. Shall be done before for construction. Oh, as construction begins. Anybody got good words for that? Oh, I can't. I'm You can help us with the wording. I'm not trying.

We're trying, folks. We're trying real hard. So finally portion of the mound and planting up the trees. What does what does that mean by uh their portion of the mount and the adjacent owner?

Uh that's very very difficult to do. part of the mounding what'll happen it would be a part of doing storm work cut and fill operation you're going to be doing part of that mound is all your excess that's coming from the building so you're almost doing them simultaneously but before the building goes really vertical that's when you would you kind of cap off the pound and put in so you're essentially because all that cut instead of it hauling off you're going to be putting it into that mound that's all your foundation Understood. Well, what we're what we really want to make sure happens is those trees get get going really good

before the building starts going up, right? And give them a ch give the trees a chance to uh uh to screen. No. Understood. Yeah, you definitely want to maximize the time for development. You don't want to make the mound any taller. Really don't. I I don't. No, I don't. We we we're just it but building the mound is contiguous with the Sure. But I we're talking about the existing mound. Yes. Okay. Sorry, I know I'm getting on a tangent here, but what what is that sentence? The applicant shall be responsible for their portion of the mound, but the adjacent owner shall implement the same design. Who's the adjacent? Can you can you explain that to the studio audience here?

Yeah, I mean that Uh that was probably written in mind uh of the um with the premier mound as well since it's kind of this lawn continuous mound. So um that's kind of where the confusion is. I' I'd be happy with striking kind of that um that that neighbor part that that you mentioned. Well, I mean I'd like to leave them. I mean I'm just wondering can we Right. Yeah. I mean, can you make an adjacent property owner do something? Well, the mound is they they have to maintain the mound. Yeah, but on their property, same design, so that would be a change, right?

That would affect a property owner that's not part of the specific site plan. Yeah. Because I'm like, okay. So, we need to take that probably strike that then. Yeah. We still don't have those trees in there, folks. Let's get some words in.

I don't know. I don't know if 19 is actually the right one to do because this is talking just about the landscape plan. No, not if you the very first sentence. The final landscape plan including 8 foot tall evergreens on top of the mound. Yeah, but that's just the plan to put them on there, right? the plan including shall be reviewed and approved by the planning department. I think it's probably best to add a new condition. Okay. Add a new condition. Would you agree with that, Josh? I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So, Mr. Chair, I would approve to modify condition 19 to remove the sentence uh or actually to remove part of the sentence. Starting with but yeah starting with but the adjacent owner. Right. Okay. So the last sentence will read the applicant shall be responsible for their portion of the mound. Mr. Chairman and shall implement. Mr. Chairman. Can we ask the audience to lower their voices? Uh could you all keep it down just a little bit?

Uh because you're you're feeding back through the uh through the TV. Don't make me use my gavvel on you. Did you get that, Melissa? So, the applicant shall be responsible for their portion of the mound and shall implement this uh the design as approved. Well, that's where No, just end it there and you could add uh and we'll um we'll install the required evergreens uh at the uh beginning of uh building construction. Add what? Sorry.

Okay. The applicant shall be responsible for their portion of the mound and install the required evergreens on the mound at the at the initiation of building construction. That sounds like you're graduating.

Yep. You're making Hey, you're doing a good job.

Yes. Everything after mound Correct. At at commencement of building construction. J, you got that motion. It's all yours. And now I need a second. Second that. No, you can't. You just I second that. Okay. Okay. So, this is this is changing 19. It's striking a sentence and adding a sentence. All in favor? I I. All oppose, same sign. Okay, we got the trees. Lighting. Lighting.

So, I think this one's easier. So, Mr. Chair, I would move to add condition number 24 to state no decorative lighting shall be installed on the east side of the building. Right. And that gives them by saying decorative lighting they can illuminate around the doors around any access doors on that side. It just won't light up the whole side of the building. Or do we modify number 11 that has I mean they're talking about all the light fixtures and I just leave it as a new condition. But I second that. Well, this kind of stops it. We have a second.

Second. I have a second. And okay, lighting. All in favor? I I. All oppose. Same sign. Okay. We have We now have 24 conditions. Correct. Correct. So, Mr. Chair, I would move to approve PUD 97-1 mod 126 major with the 24 conditions as modified. Okay, I second that. Second. I have several seconds. Take your pick. Either Jim or Laura.

Pick one. Okay. I have a motion to second. Anything for the else of the good of the order here before we vote? No last words. Okay. Call the RO, please, ma'am. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. a reluctant yes. Motion carries 5 and we are nearly out of agenda, but I think um our planning director has a word to say before we adjourn.

Yes, I'll make it brief. I know we've been here for a little while. Um Mr. Carville, our city planner, tonight's going to be his last meeting as as our city planner. He uh accepted a job in a suburb of Dayton as a as a planning director. So, he gets to take a seat at that table. And uh I just wanted to thank him for his two years of service with the city. Uh and we look forward to seeing you at the Miami Valley Regional the the planning conference. Still, fortunately, we still get to keep him in the Dayton area, but but we're losing him here at the city. So, just wanted to say

I'm sure I'm sure he appreciates y'all not beating him up too much tonight for his farewell night. Okay, gentlemen, ladies, anything else for the good of the order? Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. And we are at 10:15. If you think this ran long, we have gone past 1:00 a.m. before.