Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. 6 o'clock so it's time for the May city of Beaver Creek Planning Commission meeting and I will officially call to order. Uh and uh if you'd please read the role. Mr. Fountain here. Mr. Meyer here. Miss Palumbo here. Miss Usher is absent. Mr. Self here. And I would like a motion to excuse our missing member today. I'll make a motion to excuse Commissioner Usher from this meeting. All right. Second. And we'll do that by general consensus. Thank you. Um agenda. Uh staff. Do we have any additions, corrections, or changes? Or are we good? We're good. Okay. I need a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Motion to approve tonight's agenda. Thank you. Second.

And I have a second. And we'll do that by general consensus. Thank you. Okay. Uh minutes from the April 1st meeting. Any additions, corrections, changes, complaints? No, no complaints. They're always perfect as as as usual. Then I need a motion to approve. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the April 1st, 2026 planning commission meeting as as written. As written. Thank you. I second.

Okay. And we'll do that by general consensus. Okay. We got all the got all the paperwork out of the way. Uh tonight we have uh on the agenda we have two public hearings uh and three subdivisions. So without any further ado, go ahead and read the uh first public hearing, please ma'am. I know, but we still still need to read it. All you need to do is just the very first part of it just in case somebody is here for that. This is case number PC26-2 conditional use on an application filed by Beaver Creek Lodging LLC care of Pickrol Schaefer and Eveing 40 North North Main Street Suite 2700 Dayton, Ohio 45423. The applicant requests conditional use approval to allow for an apartment hotel to be operated out of the existing building located at 3845 Germany Lane. The property is further described as book one, page nine, parcel 63 on the Green County property tax out.

Thank you. Uh we have had a request from the uh applicant to table this until the June meeting. So uh first of all, we need to unt, don't we? We don't. Okay. I'm sorry. Uh so I'll have a motion to table. Just one question, Randy. There's no chance this goes past June, right? Like or do we like in tableabling indefinitely versus tableabling every meeting? Like most I would anticipate it coming in June and not being continually repeatedly tabled. They were getting close, just not all the way there. Okay. All right. Thanks,

Mr. Chairman. Can I clarify as well if Commissioner Meyer is not so Randy um can we assume uh going one more month since we we negated this back in December's meeting that is compliance happened yet since it was all based on a conditional approval which they're still not really complying. Correct. Well, we wanted to put a stay on any enforcement until we get the issue settled. So I wanted to um other than the people staying there, the rest of the property is mostly brought up has been brought up to compliance. There are code enforcement issues like the dumpster and the junk vehicles.

We had talked about parking as well. And I just wondered by tableabling it tonight, we're basically continuing their current state through June at least. Correct. Okay. In that case, I I still need a motion to table till June. Mr. Chair, I move to table PC 26-2 until the June meeting. All right, I second it. I have a motion and a second. Let's read the role on that, please. Mr. Meyer? Yes. Miss Palumbo? Yes. Mr. Fountain? Yes. Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries. 40. Now we'll get down to our second public hearing. That's PUD26-2. Concord Commons reszoning. This is case number PUD 26-2 on an application filed by Jake Shields, Grey Fox RE LLC 6161 Oak Tree Boulevard, Sweet 260, Independence, Ohio 44131. The applicant request approval to reszone 22.4 acres from B2 Community Business District and R1A1 family residential district to an MXPUD, a mixed plan unit development. The property is located at 3870 Indian Ripple Road. Further described as book three, page 19, parcels 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 66 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh just so y'all will know how we do our public hearings. Uh first of all, we'll have a presentation by the applicant. Uh then the uh staff will give their staff report. At that point, I'll open the uh floor to uh comments from uh from the audience either in favor, against, or simply with questions. Uh once everybody has had their say, and I we'd ask you to limit it to three minutes if you would. Um we'll see if there's any written input. Uh at that point, I'll close the public hearing. We will discuss it amongst ourselves and hopefully come up with a a vote. So without further ado, who is uh who is here representing the uh applicants? Step right on forward here.

Hello, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and staff. Thank you. My name is Jake Shields. Uh should I give my uh address or Okay. 6161 Oak Tree Boulevard, Independence, Ohio, Sweet 260. Okay. All right. Well, again, thank you for taking the time to allow me to present this project. Um, this request for a reasonzoning. Uh, a little bit about myself and Gray Fox. We have been in business for roughly 15 years. We're out in Independence, which is just south of Cleveland, Ohio. Uh, we do a lot of uh, development work, residential and commercial, uh, in Northeast Ohio and in southwest Ohio. We're actually uh currently doing a large uh luxury uh ranch community in Beaver Creek Township uh which is under construction right now uh with our partner Pride One Construction. Uh we also have uh a lot of partners that we use. One uh is simple plug here, but uh PMC Financial Services. They work with us on uh essentially trying to uh make deals pencil financially. Um, and they not only work with us, but they also work with other developers and cities as well. So, uh, for example, the, uh, the Browns moving to, uh, the new stadium, that's they're the ones working through that whole process. So, um, they have put together an economic impact study. Happy to share that for this specific project. Obviously, this is just a resoning, very preliminary. Uh, but we uh we are obviously looking at uh the big picture what this uh what kind of impact this could this could bring to the community. Uh one thing that I would like to say too is just uh these are just some of our uh current and prior projects, but one thing that we really pride ourselves on is not just being a I guess a stereotypical developer. Um, we we really like to work with communities and

we're very flexible in what we end up building. So, uh, and I and I say that like we're not trying to force feed some type of project to the city and say we have to do this, right? We we really want to work with communities because ultimately it's a whole lot easier for us too and the city um, if if we can all work together and and build something that everyone can be proud of. Uh so from our from our standpoint, we're obviously coming with our best idea, but really would love to hear from the city in terms of what uh what should go here, what what it should be like. Um and so uh we're very open to that and we want to work with the community to make sure that that it's done right and uh and and people can be proud of it. So the site itself uh 20 22.4 four roughly acres. It's a Yeah, several different parcels, mostly wooded. I I was looking back in some historical record, historical uh imagery. It was farmed, it looked like, previously, then kind of overgrown. Uh we have a old uh commercial building and two homes uh included as part of this. One off of Indian Ripple and one off of Graange Hall Road. Uh I have not actually personally had the opportunity to walk through those homes, but I did walk through the commercial building uh because from our standpoint, and we'll get into the our request and what we're kind of thinking for this site, but the frontage would remain commercial. So, it's it's really for a matter of, you know, is it is it something that we can reuse this building um and and continue what the existing structure or do we need to tear it down and start start new? Um my the way we're leaning obviously want to hear from the city but the way we're leaning is is demolishing the that commercial building as well as the house off of Indian Ripple Road and

uh and essentially bringing pad ready for a commercial or multiple commercial users um which we can we can discuss um in a little bit. The house on Graange Hall, not really sure what we're doing yet with that. Again, haven't walked through it, so I'm not too sure what state it's in. Uh we do foresee that back if if this was to be developed. Uh the back parcel or back portion of that parcel that the house is off of. Uh that would most likely be storm water if like a storm water pond. It's the lowest pl like portion of the site. So that's likely where it would uh end up going which would be nice a nice buffering for the residents on the east side. Um, okay. The reasoning request is MXPUD. Uh, the reason why we went this way. So, recently the city approved a future land use plan, I believe just a matter of months, a month ago. Um, and which has this site designated for mixeduse neighborhood. Uh essentially what from reading that future land use plan what it what it calls for is attached single family multifamily you know mix retail mix office and uh 5 to 10 dwelling units an acre uh with 1 to three stories tall. Um, so looking at that future land use plan, what was just approved, obviously we want to go right in line with what the city's thinking uh on on this site. MXPud is the closest actual district that I could find that allows both for residential and commercial. Um it it has very strict requirements obviously in open space. Architectural requirements um the way that it's laid out and um uh density obviously would be associated with the future land use plan of 5 to 10. Uh but what what's nice with the PUD

as I'm sure you you know it does offer the city a lot more uh more ability to make sure it's done the way that the city wants it to be done. not just a a typical straight zoning where we can, you know, the developer theoretically can come in and do more and have more power, right? This is really something that the city can take advantage of it throughout the entire stage of this project to say what they want to see and m make it happen. Um, which is I think a very positive thing. The MXPud does not allow it doesn't allow tall apartment tower buildings, um, heavy industrial warehousing. um it's not uh manufacturing uses. So this is really what we believe is the closest district to what the future land use plan is is asking for here. So obviously that with that being said uh we try to be proactive in how we go around doing a development. Uh we understand there's residents to the north, to the east, there's commercial to the west and to the south. And so what we see is kind of this middle ground area that uh really we kind of see as like an intensity of use. You have the more intense uses of commercial um some manufacturing I think or car wash whatnot. And uh and then you kind of as you go further north you reduce density. Uh so obviously we have we we are looking to have commercial on the south side of Indian Ripple. We would have a higher density right behind that commercial and then as it goes closer to the residential we're dropping down that density even further. And you can also see kind of on this it's a little uh small but we are also putting and and committing to putting in uh 55 50 ft basically a buffer area against all the existing residential. So that could be you know mounding that could be you know heavy plantings aride fencing that's

obviously to be determined. Um but we we are we understand you know the the neighbors they probably don't want to see this development uh or anything be touched back here right so we want to be sensitive to that and give that that boundary. Um, we're also, as I mentioned, we're we we're uh already going ahead and and just saying we're not we're not looking to do 10 units an acre here. You know, 22 and a half or 22.4 whatever um acres, 10 10 units an acre, you're talking 230 units uh with that could potentially go here as the future land use plan states. Uh we are trying to limit that actually almost by half. Obviously, we're just at the resoning stage. We haven't fully, you know, flushed out how this how this plan will be uh done and and and uh obviously that's going to be the next step, but we are already looking at limiting that uh residential density down to 116 units. Uh the specific to the commercial and I and I believe uh planning director will also go into this too, but we are uh there is restrictions or are restrictions on what type of commercial can actually go in here. Um, so no bars, discount stores, hotels, those are things that um are pretty high intense use. It it's it's too high of an intensity uh off of this road, we believe. And uh I happy to commit ourselves to that. So again, this is just the beginning stage. We are uh we still have the um council. We have specific site plan approval process that we have to go through. Um, and so we we do have a lot of time for city and uh neighborhood engagement. Uh, we really do, and I I really mean this, we really want to hear from the community, from the city what uh what needs to be changed, what needs to be

altered as we go through this process. We're really trying to make sure that it's done right. Uh we do believe that this type of product which is attached town homes is kind of what we were thinking obviously to be determined but it would be an attached product. It would be uh whether again for sale or rental. We have the ability to do both. We own and operate our own communities for rentals. We also have the ability to work with uh home builders and sell finished lots to home builders. Uh but if it was for sale, my guess would probably be, you know, $350 to $400,000 town homes. Uh for rent, we're we're in Beaver Creek, we're we're doing uh 24 2500 average a month. And so I would I would assume it'd be somewhere uh similar to that. Um again, we are pretty early on with the planning stage. I'm happy to answer any any questions of that because obviously first we have to get through the resoning but uh you know from our standpoint we want to make sure that we hear from the city and and and make sure that whatever we do come back with is what the city's asking for and what they want what you want to see. Um with that I I I'll hand it back hand back my time again. Just thank you for the opportunity and uh happy to answer any questions. Thanks for a nice uh concise presentation. Staff,

that would be you, Randy.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission. Uh the case you have before you is PUD26-2. Again, this is the reasoning phase of about 22.3 acres. uh in order to the applicants requesting this resoning in order to as he stated um have mixed use res mixed density residential and mixed use commercial residential uh within the site. Um just to go over the overall process um the PUD process is two steps. The first is a reasonzoning phase and the second is the specific site plan phase. Um the public would be notified of in the first phase they'll be notified of this planning commission meeting and then they're also notified of the first reading at city council if it if it gets past planning commission. In the second phase uh we're more of site plan related questions and concerns come up where we look into architecturals at that point and street layouts and landscaping and buffers and and and the like. um being at the second phase, the the members of public within 500 feet will also get notification of the planning commission meeting and the city council meeting for that second phase. So, we're here at the first phase of the first step um looking at uses, looking at um densities and and the general overall site without getting into the details that you would get into in the site plan. Uh the property is located in southern Beaver Creek. It's about uh a half a mile east of the inter west of the intersection of Indian Ripple and Graange Hall. Um and you can see here's the uh existing site. The the applicant did a pretty good job of explaining what was going on on the site with the uh two houses, one on Graange Hall and one on Indian Ripple and the 20,000 foot uh commercial building that's along Indian

Ripple as well. There is a telecommunications tower uh in the southwest corner area. Um and there's no plans to uh change that at this time. That's intended to stay with the on the site wrong but again the property has two zoning designations uh currently with the two oneacre parcels or two two acre parcels along Indian ripple being B2 zone. So, um, any of the uses allowed in a B2 could currently go in those B2 zone districts and then the remainder of the site being R1A single family residential or one family residential. Uh, as the applicant stated, the uh the recently approved land use plan has the the majority of the area to be designated as neighborhood mixed use, which encourages small-cale walkable development. that blends residential, retail, office, and service within or near the existing neighborhood. So, um that's what they're looking to reszone this to. And and in the resolution, you can see um the and on the concept plan, you can see a separation of the uses somewhat um where you've got the higher intense in the south, slightly less intense in the middle, and then slightly less intense uh around the perimeter. Um, so what they're proposing and what they're asking for this evening is uh compatible with the the newly approved land use plan. Uh, you've already seen this. This is the uh proposed concept plan um where they show 50oot building setback around uh the north and the east perimeter and then a 25 ft buffer along uh anywhere where the project abuts existing uh residential.

Um and then a 50-ft buffer. It's it's it's not on the concept plan, but it is a condition. and a 50ft buffer between the commercial area and the residential that's immediately to the east of that. Um the concept plan also shows the uh about 04 acres to remain as one family residential along Graange Hall. Um there's slight change in your resolution. I was I'm proposing to make a slight change to the condition number four and you can see it in red where I'm proposing to um just call it out where it's in the associated 0.4 acres. So we know now and in the future what the area associated with that is and say that it's um entitled to uh all the rights that you'd find in an R1A single family district because I didn't want should that house remain and they want to put a pool while a pool accessory pool is not allowed in a commercial district. So you didn't want to see give somebody a half of a house with no rights to do anything other than what's existing. So, um, wanted to keep that 0.4 acres as a single family, uh, designated and the and the one of the conditions in the resolution states that no access shall be provided from this site out to Graange Hall Road. Um, so that would even if the house were to be removed, there's still not going to be an extension of the road or anything like that. Uh, that stays the only access would be through Harbor and Indian Ripple Road. A few of the conditions in your resolution for your consideration. one is um a a delineation between residential A and residential B. So residential A is the orange and then residential B is the yellow where you can have up to eight dwelling units an acre on residential A and up to six dwelling units an acre in B but then combined it can only have 116 units

which yields a density of I think 6.6 six dwelling units an acre or 6.7 dwelling units an acre overall which is on the lower end of what the middle to low end of what the land use plan calls for the area of five to 10 dwelling units an acre. Um also that the residential buildings in residential area A and B limited to two stories um 35 ft in height but um that's found in every R1A district in the city. So the residential surrounding it has the ability to go up to 35 ft. So we wanted to keep it consistent with that. Um but wanted to limit it to two stories um so that we didn't see a three-story uh building be constructed surrounded by twotory buildings. Also um in area residential area A in the in the orange limit the the building sizes to no more than four units in one building. Um and in residential B, limit it to three units in one building so that we don't uh should this developer um decide on a different project and and transfer it to another developer, they could wouldn't come in with one 16 116 unit building on the center and then um the surrounding parking. So trying to get that mixed size so it's not a conglomerate of one large building. Um again we talked about the buffers and no access granted from Range Hall Road. So in your resolution um it shows um the commercial to be allowed to have a a vertical residential component with that commercial. So you would have a first floor, first two floors being commercial office or combination thereof and then the potential for a residential to be on the third story. Um because there wasn't the two story limit in the commercial area. Um there's also a list of uses. Uh

started with the B3 uses and then narrowed it down uh struck through in red some uses that we felt that were um not appropriate given the location or the scale of of the buildings looking to be built here. Um so that list is the starting point if planning commission wants to add or subtract from that list. Um but there are 18 conditions in the resolution for your consider consideration. Well, actually 17. That's correct. 17 conditions. And I'll be happy to answer any questions following the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, it is public hearing time. Uh before I open the floor, I I do want to remind you what we're looking at tonight is reszoning. We are not looking at anything that remotely resembles a specific site plan. It is an amoeba right now other than the delineations that you see. So, if you have questions about the resoning, uh if you want to speak in favor or against the the mixeduse reszoning, great. But hang on to your specific site plans until you see what the specific site plan is. And just as a uh as a quick reminder, we already have a mixeduse development in Beaver Creek that has been quite successful. It's called the green. Uh it has a mixture of residential and commercial and it's been quite successful. So this is not anything that is super pioneering. The green's been here what 15 years 20 been a while I I think so. So uh it this is not a a a new concept to Beaver Creek but it's it's kind of new in our land use plan. So that's enough for me. Uh, anybody who would like to speak in favor, against, or simply have questions, step right on up to the mic, give us your name and address, and have at it for three minutes. Don't be shy.

Somebody's always got to be first. Okay. Some of the Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the commission. I appreciate you having this hearing. Can you hear me? All right. I hear you fine, but you need to give us your name and your address, please.

Certainly. My name is Maryanne Sheretsz. I live at 3873 Eagle Point Drive which directly will abut the uh this area. Um we've lived at Beaver Creek for 40 years and our property will adin the new development. Beaver Creek is considered one of the most attractive and desirable locations in the Dayton area and it's characterized by spacious ruling environment providing a very attractive setting for many residential neighborhoods. I am not sure that well okay I am positive I do not want businesses behind me because it's got to raise the noise pollution the light pollution and um as well as increase the demand on the fire department and the police department and our schools well that the business isn't going to affect the schools but uh increased population will um I do there is one thing that may not be appropriate to uh consider at this time. But that particular what section that he that our gentleman called wooded has been home to many species and I would prefer a much larger uh buffer between the back of our lot and the uh incoming development. Um that there's you know wild there's something called a wildlife quarter that are very popular right now. the federal government endorses them, which may or may not be popular with you, but um it connects fragmented habitats and so on. And um so we're requesting an additional buffer. The back of our yard is not allowed to be developed by us or anyone else that's supposed to stay wooded. And I would like to increase that area if possible to allow for the species that will be dis displaced by this, including many birds and and so on. Um, also I would request that this be zoned for not

for renting but for privatelyowned homes. Um, I I think that the care that someone takes of an area is directly proportional to their ownership in it. So I would much rather see ownership of homes and perhaps private all privately owned in this area and uh exclude as many businesses as possible. Um, and since that's about all that I think is appropriate to say at this time, I will end it there. Thank you. Thank you.

See, somebody broke the ice.

I'm Richard Sherz, 3873 Eagle Point Drive. Um, my main points on what I've seen presented tonight is there's been promises made about setbacks, densities, etc. that those need to be put in writing, not just in a briefing package that goes with the zoning, but it needs to become part of a legal document. And secondly, one of the reasons we booted Beaver Creek 40 years ago is the density of housing on acreage. And one of the things that I'm not comfortable with is over the last 20, 30 years is we've increased the density per acre and that's taking away from some of what we found attractive to this community. So, I know something's going to happen to this area. That goes without saying, but I don't want the green in my backyard. So that's what I got.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Patrick Savory, 153 Greenaw Road. I moved to Beaver Creek like some of the guests here said about the land mass proportionate to the housing. I owned one acre of land and I'm opposed to any of this development because of the wildlife that inhabitates that and the fact that the resident or rental unit would not be proportionate to the land value in the area. All the surrounding homes are single family homes. No mixeduse homes are in that area. The only business corridor is along Indian Ripple. South of that is single family homes. And has the soil samples or soil surveys been conducted or is that after this zoning is approved? Does anybody know about soil samples?

We'll we'll bring that up when it's when it's our turn to talk because half the Zenaia tornado they searched everywhere to dump debris. That's a landfill. It's got couches, appliances, and shingles protruding out of all the ridges back there. You haven't walked the site. I have that's going to take a lot of remediation and it could be contaminated with asbestous. Who knows? So, I'm opposed to this resoning. Thank you. I've learned if you're quiet long enough, somebody will

We'll give you a second helping. We don't normally, but we'll give you a second helping.

Uh the other concern I have is about Indian Ripple Road that as things have developed with the green moving in 675 completion. Um, has is the city considering some sort of renumeration from the builder as well as the city to widen or bring Indian Ripple up to standard for the traffic flow, especially with that housing density because that's greatly Indian Ripple's already a busy stretch and some of the right-hand turn lanes that cut off just before it gets to this property. Uh end up being zoom zones, so to speak. Everybody trying to get into the straight line and jump in line and you know all this constant merging I think is a hazard to the community. So I think something needs to be looked at in terms of the road structure and in general infrastructure around that entire area. Um flooding, water, electricity, we lose power occasionally, not very often but so thank you.

Okay. Thank you. others that wish to speak. Your chances are diminishing. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and ask if we had any written input. We did receive one email and the commissioners did receive a copy of that. Thank you. I believe that's from Mr. Seavoy. We just se we just heard from, right? Yes, it was. and thank you for speaking and also sending the sending the uh paperwork in. So, it's time for us now and I'm going to start with Miss Palumbo. I don't have any questions at this time.

All right. My vice chairman. I bet he does. I do. Randy, sir. Uh, okay. Let's see. Uh, where does the number the 116 come from? Was that just something city and the developer agreed upon or where?

Yeah, I mean we were trying to come up with a middle ground between allowing not quite a a full buildout of either one in terms of the the max density allowed, but giving the flexibility to shift it from one section to the other should they need to put a three building unit here and a four building unit here. We wanted to make sure that there was some flexibility. So we added two points. One is for each section there's a max density but and but then overall it's combined it's a little less than the the uh the sum of the whole. Okay.

The the buffer is it determined now at the site plan like what can be done in that buffer? I mean the size of the buffer we would do now or

well we define a buffer in our zoning code um stating you can't have any kind of construction there. It can only only be used for uh screening landscaping andor uh storm water detention. Um the building setback which is slightly different just means the building can't be any closer than that. they could put parking back there um not within the buffer but in the the area between the buffer and the in the building setback. Um with other um single family residentials um or other multif family residential we require the 50ft spacing between um the uh the existing and in the future and if it's a commercial then we require the 50 foot on straight zoning. So that's what we were modeling that after. Um I I mean I I can let the applicant speak whether or not the buffer can the the 50ft building setback can be converted to a 50ft buffer instead. I mean that and then have a grading limit or something like that at the 25 ft. But what we found and and we we have those kind of areas between Sky Crossings and Terra and between Ella's Garden and Hawthorne Glenn. And if you have those no great areas, what's left, you might have some mature trees, some 3-in larger trees, but a lot of what's left is honeysuckle, poison ivy, poison oak, just the under brush that you would find. and and yeah, it stays there, but we found that they're not really appropriate areas to have between two developments because that's where you could get where the raccoons, the skunks, that's where they would go is they would find that area between two

developments. Um, and so we'll leave it up to uh planning commission whether that be a no-grade area or a I hate to call it a a permanent woodland easement or anything like that because that makes it really challenging to clean up invasive species. Um, but yeah, I'll leave it at that. Okay. Um, and then this is kind of a site plan thing, but just I want to throw this out there. The alignment of the like an access on Indian Ripple. Can we make sure those like line up so we don't have because there's already a a like a access on the south side, right?

So, if we that's the intent when we get to that stage. Okay. Um and in response to one of the the citizens um if and if and when we get to the site plan stage as part of that there'd be a traffic study done to see if there's any improvements such as adding del lanes on Indian Ripple to ensure the flow of traffic past the site stays. But that's it's hard to do that if you don't know what you're going to be able to do. um you need to know your limitations before you can study as to what the effects they'll have on it. Perfect. That was one of my questions. And then I guess kind of on that this is not an impact fee, right?

No, the impact fee zone is basically Kemp Road North. Um just thinking of it, another point, one of the citizens was asking about this being recorded as part of the legal document. um the the resolution that you guys uh review and either approve or disapprove or table. Um 99.99% of the time the exact language gets into the ordinance and the ordinance is and that's what city council will review and the ordinance is the legal document that be bound to whatever the conditions. So conditions 1 through 17 of this resolution um would be copied and pasted into the ordinance uh if it gets to city council and those those are the law

just to expound upon that in in our resolution to to council density height buffer and the sub setbacks are in that resolution. Yes.

Um one question for Josh. So, kind of goes with what Randy is saying about traffic, like can't consider traffic and resoning, right? That's what the courts have said. So, I pulled this up in in anticipation every single time. The Supreme Court of Ohio has weighed in on the issue of traffic more than once, specifically stating that while traffic regulation might happen to be a byproduct of zoning activities, increased traffic flow is not a sufficient reason to strike down a zoning ordinance. That case dates back to 1942. Uh a more recent case from a court of appeals indicated that admittedly traffic patterns should be taken into consideration when a municipality designs a comprehensive zoning plan. However, the problem of additional traffic hazards must be secondary to the right of the property owners. So case law very clear traffic cannot be considered in a zoning consider in a zoning decision.

Thank you. Um then Randy there was uh some questions about the landfill. Are you aware of that? Was that I mean I've heard um anecdotally I think from the same gentleman. So um if that's the case they will have to like remediate or whatever. They'd have to follow any Ohio EPA guidelines uh for any remediation required or anything like that. I mean they wouldn't have done soil samplings until they get an idea of if they can do the project or not. Um, but any I mean there's all kinds of Ohio EPA and building code regulations on compaction and site development that they'll have to follow.

And the last one, um, I know that they asked about like differentiating between a private home and a rental. Is that really something that can even be done? It's not something I've touched on. Um, I leave it to Josh, but I I that would be really hard a to regulate. And then you somebody's got to own it. So it' be either an individual owner or a bunch of owners. Um I don't I don't I've never put that into a zoning reszoning. Agree with that. Yeah, we wouldn't do that. Okay, that's Thank you. That's all my questions. And I just know Jim's got questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um while you're up there, then I'm going to ask the applicant to come back up. So the kind of memo that we all got about condition number four, the 17 conditions, is that something that we should now assume it's replaced already or voted in?

I'd need a motion to from one of the members to make the changes then you vote on that and then assuming that passes then you vote on the resolution as amended. So we can do that to tail end before we vote on the overall motion then. Okay. Thank you. Um, second question going back to what uh, Commissioner Meyer said, uh, if I remember right and as your memory better than mine, when we did the age friendly survey last year as well as the plan Beaver Creek, uh, information we got, we I thought learned that as a city, given our alignment with the base and with the need for short-term situations, uh, because of the base and even Wright State University, we had a a lack of rental compared to the homeowner partnership and not only do we need more housing, but we also needed more rental because there were people that wanted to live in Beaver Creek, but because of the base situation, the right state situations, they didn't have a place to rent, they had to go to other cities. Do you remember if that was true that we were a city that was greatly lacking in high-scale upscale rental capabilities? When we had the um public openhouse for the first round of the the first public openhouse for the land use plan um update, one of the things we asked was what what kind of projects do we need or what kind of housing and and there was a good bit of the answers that you know multiple options. Um because right you know a very large lion share of the city is single family residential um and a small portion is the rental and multifamily. And so to diversify our our housing uh mix

that was something that came out of the the the two uh ser uh the two customer not customer uh citizen uh openings that we had for plan Beaver Creek. I remember that. So thank you for reaffiring that. Um only two questions going back to what we heard from the uh participants and I had in my own questions. The the notion that we are going to be looking at a mixeduse development not similar to the green but where we had the the green has already had mixeduse development. That's something that will be developed in a very thorough manner and discussed when we do the site plan at the next meeting should this go forward. So it'll go past council with their input and come back to us for the site development plan. Correct. That's correct.

So the residents here even tonight will have another opportunity in even more detail to look at the housing unit mix that's being proposed even though it's very conceptual tonight. Yes. At the next stage we would see building layouts uh road roadway layouts any storm water detention any of that that would be in the next phase and that would be available to the public before the meeting. The the only other question I had was going back to the 17 conditions that we have included for tonight. Uh without getting in the number four condition on that house in the upper right hand corner yet. Um the the pointed out I can't remember the name of the road that goes on the left hand side of the drawing. Harbor Lane.

Harbor Lane. Thank you. Um there is nothing in our looking at the zoning aspect tonight because of the increased residential vehicle load that this could generate on that street which is mostly business commercial right now that would drive us to make any kind of a uh street lighting or any kind of drainage modifications at this stage to accommodate a different mix of vehicular traffic if should this go ahead. There's nothing that we need to put in tonight.

No. Um when we get to the second phase, that's where you would know specific layouts. Um I mean 116 is the max. They might when they go in to engineer, they might find that they can only get 108 or something. And so you you you don't want as the street width or street lighting or anything that we have to look at whether or not they I mean whether it's one main street or with offshoots or if it's a whole curve linear subsection in there. I mean the design of that it's hard to you could come up with a million different scenarios so to try to regulate whatifs is challenging.

Thank you. Can I ask one question to the applicant Mr. Shields if you could come back up. So when you were giving your very detailed presentation going from Indian Ripple Road on our slide that we're looking at here all the way north to the top uh residential beach. Uh, did I hear you right that as we move from commercial on Indian Ripple Road into the the the bottom half of the slide, which would be a higher density to as we go farther north, it would be progressively lower densities. So, as we get to a lot of the existing homes in the area, we're getting increasingly lower densities of units. That would be even though we're not at the site plan stage.

Yeah, that would be correct. uh the way and and that's also how we have I think in residential A we're allowed four unit buildings and in residential B it would be three unit buildings. So it's even even in um footprint would even be less. So not only would there be less uh density in that residential B area on the north and the east side, but there would be less footprint area as well. So you're not going to have like this long line of attached town homes again against uh the single family

and presumably the number of units being lesser less vehicle traffic uh less or more opportunity possibly in the site development stage for amenities under the site as you go farther north to the top of the page where a lot of the existing residents sit.

That's correct. And and I will also say too is that is the the north side and the on the east kind of in this residential B area. Um that's the that's a low part of this site. It's a it's a low part and that's actually where we're planning on putting if we were to you know move forward. We'd be looking uh having storm water. So kind of behind the Graange Hall Road that that little arm that sticks out and in there would be a most likely a large storm pond right there. And then probably right near the I can't even see with glasses the therapy building. Um there would be another storm water pond right there as well. Um so it is just going to naturally be less dense.

Thank you sir. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes. Thank you. Uh that's all I have Mr. Chairman other than at the end before we make a motion to do the Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the applicant. Absolutely. Please. Thank you Mr. Shield. In our documentation, um, there's a paragraph and it says, "The applicant highlighted in their letter of intent the public benefits of the project, including greater housing diversity, a walkable and internal connected community with significant open space and landscaping. Could you talk a little bit about that since there's concerns about taking away all of the the greenery that's there now?"

Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, from our standpoint, we're not just trying to slam houses in here. Obviously, we're even trying to reduce the number of units uh that could be allowed. We're trying to make it so that this is a livable and livable community that can be really enjoyed by the people who live there. Um so, we're going to we're looking at like little pocket parks like a dog park like those options like amenities um and like pavilions at gathering spaces and utilizing as much as what you know what what what we have to offer. So, um, and on top of that, what we're really excited about too is with the commercial, we're really trying to think of like how, you know, we we don't we haven't talked to anybody. We don't have any users yet, um, so early on, but we are trying to think like what kind of uses that could easily, you know, these people can easily come down to and enjoy these the these more commercial areas. So, um, you know, having that walkability is going to be really important to us. But it is something that we want, you know, we want it to look nice. We wanted to to keep as many trees as we can and plant as as many as we can too. Um, you know, whether that's in uh like Arbite for the neighbors around us. I mean, honestly, for from our standpoint, we're planning on putting a lot of uh Arbite or keeping as much trees as we can on that uh the building to the west side near the cell tower. We're try we're going to try to buffer that as well. Well, I mean, we want to make sure that it stays um, you know, open and enjoyable. So,

thank you. That's all my questions. I'd be remiss if I didn't have a few questions. Randy, uh, I'll start with you. Um, more or less, how deep is this property? Indian Ripple to the northern end, how many feet? I know I'm putting you on the spot. Roughly, if the width of the lot on Indian Ripple is 560, then I would say it's probably 1,600 ft.

Okay. So the uh actually other than the house that is directly east of this parcel on Indian Ripple the nearest commercial development to existing single families is anywhere from 300 to a,000 ft other than other than the existing house that's medium. Yeah. Yeah. I mean they've it would be quite a long distance.

Okay. So for for those of you who live in Eagle Point, you're not going to see anything but the buffer zone and maybe a few houses through there the uh on this on this development. The the commercial is way up towards Indian Ripple, which is the smart thing to do because you want people to see the commercial development as they go by and stop in and buy something. Um okay, question number two. um the the zoning uses, and I'll get into those in just a minute, but uh the zoning uses that are shown uh in the um uh in our uh packet here, uh the ones that are permitted, conditional, or not permitted, are do those still jive pretty well with I know we're in the throws of redoing our zoning code. Uh, is there going to be a problem or will this have to be revisited if this goes to specific site plan after our new zoning code is approved?

That's going to be addressed when we do the zoning code itself because I've got a 100 plus peeds out there that has very similar lists. Okay. and we'll have to address that as

um now for the and and developer doesn't need to get up but uh just a couple of thoughts and I know this starts to sneak into specific site plan but um one of the things that I think would really be useful is a a a walkway andor bike path out to in out to Graange Hall Road that would give the folks in this plat and the folks in adjacent plats a an easier your way to get to Lfino Park. Uh, as it is now, you would have to go all the way up to the intersection of Indian Ripple and um, Graange Hall Road and take your life in your hands going down Graange Hall Road because there's no sidewalks. But that bike path uh, andor sidewalk would come out much closer to the northern end of uh, southern southern end of Lefino Park. Uh, and a second thing is, and I'm sure staff will work with you on this, is to really look carefully at the the trees in this buffer zone, however wide it's made, uh, and see if they are worth saving or whether you want a burm. You've got two choices there. And you you hate to pull down trees that are perfect that will give you a good buffer without having to put in a burm. So, these are just some thoughts uh to look at. And uh I don't know if I'm speaking for my fellow commissioners, but I have a feeling I might be. Um and of course you'll be checking out that that landfill. That that might be a that might be a problem. So, okay. Uh that's all I've got for right now. Are there second helpings, gentlemen? Miss Columbbo, are we good? Randy, just uh one or I guess two questions about some of the uses. One of one of them that's listed is like hospital and grocery stores. Those seem like they'd be a little I don't know

intense of a use. Yeah. I mean I especially the hospital. It could go one way. Grocery if it was neighborhood. You can always size you could size limit them. Well, the the site itself is going to be self I mean don't use that word too much, but the site is self-limiting because I mean they they'll have to have parking and there's not going to be a Kroger supertore there.

No, you're talking 3.89 acres of commercial. I I understand the hospital aspect. I was thinking about that and it's still health clinics but I'm not clear where a hospital becomes a health clinic or a health clinic becomes a hospital if you have some inpatient it's just not clear in our code is that do we have something for uh urg for an urgent care or an emergency care facility I would call those medical clinics and doctor's offices okay um we don't have a specific uh urgent care no we don't we don't make that distinction So,

or one of these um basically an emergency room that's not attached to a hospital. It's more than urgent care. Uh you would get the same treatment that you would at a hospital, but there are no beds. There's no hospital attached to it. And so, and and that's why I didn't want to particularly eliminate hospitals because you may have a a small medical clinic that doubles as a hospital if they have if they do some sort of in or outpatient surgery. Sounds like it's something we need to look at in our zoning code redo the delineate between hospital and and urgent care or clinic or standalone emergency room something like that.

But we won't see a soy medical center there if that's what you're asking. No, I was thinking more of like the facility behind Chick-fil-A. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's I think that's a 14,000 foot ER, but it's attached to a 80,000 foot doctor's office. So, okay. And as long as we're at it, uh, do any of you all have any any things you want to change because this becomes part of the We used to say you didn't condition zoning, but uh, the this list here will become part of the reasoning. Is that correct? That is correct. It becomes part of the legal

document. This is this is our opportunity, gentlemen and Miss Palumbo, to make any any changes that we want to either add or subtract. And we're kind of stuck on hospital because that um I ask the applicant if he has any heartburns if we would remove hospitals as a definition. That's an issue.

And it took me a while to figure this. I not figured out, but I was curious for a long while. A legitimate theater. That's a different That's a live performance. That's Yes, that's a theater where you'd go and see plays or opera because I was thinking the antithesis of an illegitimate theater, right? That's not No, the the antithesis is a movie theater. Yes, that's the difference. Don't worry, folks. No illegitimate theaters in Beaver Creek.

Okay. Any other changes here? Um, okay. So, I need a I need a motion and we already have one correction there and this is the time if we want to make any changes to this uh either conditional use or um permitted use. Now is the time to do it. Mr. Chair, I would move to strike hospitals from attachment A. Okay, we might as well vote on these separately. Um second that. Okay, I have a motion and a second. I'll just do that by acclamation. All in favor? I I All oppose same sign. Okay. Hospitals are struck.

Anything else? Okay. Now, how about that change to condition four to clean up the language? Josh, what what's the best way for us to make the motion since Randy gave us like a memo? Can we just say on the screen right there um that that bottom paragraph where you see red is the new text and red strikeout is the old is the remove text. Just do a straight replacement. Yeah, I would just do a straight replacement motion to amend condition for to read and then read that out loud and obviously don't read the struck out portions.

All right. Okay. Mr. Chair I move to amend condition number four to read the existing single flame of the house and its associated point4 acre area on Graange Hall Road shall be permitted to continue to be used only as a you scratch out to continue. There's a difference between the handout you gave and what's written up on the screen.

To continue to be is what's in the the paper and not to continue kind of redundant of too many to be used only as a single family res takes four of us but we'll get it. Shall be permitted to be used only as a single family residential dwelling unit. shall not be counted in density calculations. It shall be considered a conforming use within the PUD and shall be entitled to all rights, regulations, and allowances permitted in the R1A zoning district. Okay, everybody got that? Including Melissa. Okay,

before we take a vote, let me clarify two things quickly. Uh, and the suggestion you made when we get to the site planning stage about the bike path and getting the Lina Park, were you thinking that the only way the developer could get through to that would be through the house property that we're just voting on right now? Well, no, we have but we we have precedents of of plats where there is a like a 4-foot path between two existing um parcels. I just want to think our vote now would exclude your your wellphrased suggestion. We wouldn't be excluding there's help us out here, Randy. I want to make sure we're not excluding

if they want to put we we have that in in several plats right now where there is a a walkway between two existing lots. So you take 8 feet off of that property, it would still be a half acre. I mean, I don't want to I'd rather just leave the verb if at planning commission's leisure, but to leave the verbiage as it is because right now we're not procluded from doing that, but we're not forced to do it either. Um, and without really engineering the site, I I don't want to require something that's not possible

um and or um precluded if it is desirable. So, right now it's it could go either way with the language I have. I I only mentioned that along with a burm versus keeping the the trees that are there now. It was a good suggestion. I just wanted to make sure we weren't blocking it. We're not. Thank you. Okay. So, um we we still haven't voted on this. Need a second. I'll second that motion. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. And we'll just do this by acclamation. Also, this is for just a change of four, right? I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Uh amendment to four. All in favor? I. I.

All oppose, same sign. I said I. Okay. Now, we are voting or we are I'm asking for a motion to uh on this for approval or disapproval uh with the two changes eliminating the hospital and changing the verbiage in um uh condition four. I need a motion.

Is it possible, Mr. chairman to again point my second point of clarity for the benefit of the residents here and the residents watching before we take a vote just for you all I'm sure you know this already so I'm being redundant but I just want to make sure you know everything that we see up here what we go through we talk about you have available to you at every meeting uh it's published uh the week before on beaver creek Ohio just go to the planning meeting for tonight and you'll see every document that we're looking at you have access to the same document so We're talking about conditions to the developer. You can see those conditions ahead of time or uses. You can see those uses ahead of time. The plans for increasing or reducing density that we talked about tonight through that plan. All that's available to every citizen just going to be creek.gov and looking for the agenda for tonight's meeting. You'll see the same stuff we have. And it helps yourself to be more informed and it helps us at the same time to know that you've had a chance to look at the things that we are now going to vote on. And just a just a point of clarity, you might know about that already, but we really are transparent in everything we're doing, what we say here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excellent point. Okay. I don't have a motion yet. Mr. Chair, I move to approve MX uh PUD 26-2 with the 17 conditions as amended plus the change to attachment A. Great. I have a motion. I second that motion. Thank you, ma'am. I have a motion and a second. Now we really will read the the uh role. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Self,

yes. Motion carries. 40 Z. And there will be a uh eventually there will be another public hearing on the specific site plan, presuming city council approves what we just approved. And that also will be available, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for yourselves to see ahead of time before the meeting reading the same stuff that we see. Okay. Now, we are we have three we still have three subdivisions to do. Um just one one point. Oh, yes.

For the residents since they're already here, uh I anticipate the city council hearing this case the Tuesday after Memorial Day. Normally have meetings on a Monday, but Memorial Day is a Monday. So, they'll hear the first reading um as they everybody will get a letter still, but unofficially from my understanding it'll be on that Tuesday after Memorial Day. from city council review. Great. Thank you. And you'll be able to look it all up online thanks to Jim's reminder.

All righty. We now have a the first of our three subdivisions. This is S26-2. Sure. If you could identify yourself, please for the Hi, my name is Jeff Gourd. Uh, I give you my address, 3135 Worooster Drive. Um, you must be new.

I know. I know. Uh, but, uh, it's good to see everyone. I'm the new city planner. I've been here for two months now. Very so glad to be here. U, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the commission. uh pleased to present uh these subdivisions. The first one is uh case number S26-2 uh Ellis Garden section 1. So here I've superimposed uh this section plan um onto the the map. Uh this is situated on Swagert Road on the very souththeast corner of the city. Uh right down there at the bottom um former Turner property. Uh the planning commission um approved the specific site plan uh for this last year. Uh the applicant requesting approval of a final subdivision for this it's 18.888 acres. Uh it's approximately 40% of this site. Uh it' be 28 uh single family residential lots and then five common lots. Uh one of them being the storm water retention pond there at the bottom on the south side. Um the total specific site plan is 46.864 or basically 47 acres. Uh there'll be two more phases after this one. Um all parcels will retain the current zoning designation of RPV23-5 and there'll be 4 uh basically four acres of rightway devoted to streets within the subdivision. Here's the actual plat. I made a super image of it, if you will. It was split across several pages and kind of somewhat difficult to read. Uh there's some temporary easements in there uh for utilities as they built the site. Uh but but otherwise, all appropriate easements uh are are in there. Um and then the the engineer will have to we'll also review it uh for anything else that needs to be

put in. Uh the conditions for approval uh there are seven conditions. Um first three are normal. Uh the fourth condition is a re restatement of a condition from the specific site plan. Uh that those northern lots that border R1A need to have a 50 minimum 50 foot rear yard setback. Uh the the fifth condition um I had put in there, but talking with the engineer and with the developer uh we decided that it's already been addressed. Um, I can go back to the map. So, you see the the main entrance there on Swagert Road. It has been shifted south since the specific site plan. Um, it was directly lining up with that uh driveway and kind of beaming into the house potentially. And now it's shifted so that the any cars coming out their headlights would be hitting the trees so it wouldn't be causing disruption for the houses across the street. Um, so I would recommend removing that uh since it's already been addressed. And then park fees, they'd have to pay park fees and then the law director would have to review any covenants and restrictions. So staff recommends approval uh with list of conditions and removal of condition five. Okay, I'm basically going to open this to anybody who has a question about this since it's

Sorry, what was the addition to condition two? Uh, I left that in there. That's a mistake. Okay. Okay. There is no addition to condition two that I'm uh proposing. I do have one question. Uh when when they open this up, the deceleration lane on Swagert Road will be built when that street is open. Is that correct? When Yes, that's correct. What is it? Watering watering way. Uh that will they will they will construct that deceleration lane as part of the uh the road construction. That's correct. Okay, good. Other questions, gentlemen? Miss Colbo?

I do have one. Uh Jeff, um this might be for you or or Randy because this goes back to May of 24, but when this was originally approved by ourselves, which was May 1st of 2024, it had 33 conditions,

which I know you've memorized already, but condition number 33 was number five, which was already taken care of, which left 32. But I just for the education of people watching or for the people here tonight about Ella's garden, uh I want to make sure that people know that these conditions do carry forward, especially the design conditions because in the original now remaining 32 from May 1st of 24, conditions 15 through 19 got into the design of the actual units, how they're going to look, the use of uh stone and wood materials. And I just want to let people know that even though that was now two years ago, those conditions for the design of units in Ellis Garden do remain and do carry forward. And I'm looking for you guys to affirm that without going back and rereading the, you know, the 15 through 19 conditions of May 1st of 24.

That's correct. They do carry over. They stay as the ordinate, the original ordinance for the specific site plan. And that is one of the this goes back to the one we just had earlier. one of the residents raised about codifying and making sure legally it goes forward these conditions. Can you use this as an opportunity to reinforce to people what makes sure to the eventual developer that they have to comply with these conditions? They're legally complying the enforcement mechanism. Yes.

Uh well, we as staff will review them uh as they as they put things in at points like this. Uh one of the first things I did to review this uh subdivision plan was check those original conditions. Uh and that's why I put um condition four in for example um so that so at any point where they're doing any significant improvements or changes to the site uh we'll review and make sure those conditions are being met. Thank you sir. That's all questions.

Okay. Um further questions then I need a motion. Please. Yes. Please come on in. long as you're here, we might as well hear from you. Don't wanna don't want to do something that causes a problem. I think you take break overall plan. Uh yes. Um if you tell us who you are and your and your address, please.

I'm Shane Dong with RVP Engineering and we're at 6236 Center Park Drive at Westchester, Ohio. Um lots 14 and 15, which are those two corner lots. Because they're corners, they don't have rear setbacks, but they're listed in that in that 50 foot setback comment and it was basically anything abuing the R1 but since they're corners they don't have rears they have two frontages and two sides is that okay you can okay you can take that out as well okay great so we'll need to tweak it

uh thank you Shane for the question uh in this particular uh circumstance with the double frontage lot and Ry's actually drawn them on what it will look like is Um, and Shane, I I didn't have a chance to to talk with you about this before, uh, but essentially if you take those points where the corner is and you draw, uh, but essentially you draw a 50-ft circle, uh, and where that circle overlaps the parcel, that's that rear yard. So, so it would be a semicircle rear yard or the two the two little red lines on those two lots. Yep. So, so it's not as um, so you still have some room on the lot to build and there is that, right? and and they and that should be conducive to that, I think.

Do we do we need to change the um the wording or is that are those circles drior? Is that how you handle that on that's that's the standard way we'd handle it on the corner lot. Okay. But thanks for bringing that up. Got to make it right the first time. Okay. Now I need a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval for S26-2 and the seven conditions with uh the I think we need to remove one first, right? Oh, do we have to vote to remove number five first? Thank you. Okay, I move that we remove condition number five. Okay. From S26-2. Sorry,

I'll second that, Mr. Chair. And we'll do that by voice vote. All in favor? I I I. All oppose, same sign. Now we can do a motion with four conditions. Fix your head. It's been a rough day. Mr. Chairman, I move we approve S-26-2 with the amended seven conditions. Now six denoting the removal of condition five. Okay, Mr. Charles. Second. And we have a second. Let's go ahead and be formal and read the read the role. Mr. Fountain. Yes. Mr. Meyer. Yes, Miss Palumbo. Yes, Mr. Self.

Yes. Motion carries 40 and uh we'll be looking forward to seeing uh construction starting there. Looks like looks like it's coming right along. Okay, we have a second um subdivision item. Uh something is familiar to us because we just heard this pretty recently. Uh S26-3.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh S26-3 is for Raider Row uh section one final subdivision. Uh this actually encompasses uh the the Chick-fil-A um specific site plan that the commission heard recently. Um and what the what the applicant is requesting is approval for a final subdivision uh to divide uh this one lot into three separate parcels. Uh, and they'll also set aside a teeny like 03 uh acres of rideway. Um, and I'll just outline it here. Uh, this top lot uh is for um mostly detention and also that road. Uh, and there's there's easements throughout this. We'll we'll have an image of the what the actual um plat looks like u in a little bit, but there's several easements here and I'm really only highlighting one and that's this cross access easement between lots one and two. So lot one is where Chick-fil-A is. Lot two uh is where a future uh development will be. Um and there's that permanent cross access easement that's there in perpetuity. Um, so that uh Chick-fil-A or whatever restaurant is there in the future uh has a way in and out uh that isn't just their their right in um which is what's currently planned. So that right in and then uh that easement to get out out and in. Um and those two little purple pot spots are um rightway. Uh one of them is a is a little corner. Um it'll be a a place to stand and some nice brick there on the corner. And the other uh part will be um a bike rack and a nice uh little enclosure area for it. Um

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Lot one uh will be 1.9 acres. Lot two about 3.6 acres. Lot three 34 acres. and then that little little bit of right of way. Um, all in all, it's just under nine acres and they all retain the current zoning of CPU 26-1. Here's what the actual uh plat plan looks like. As you can see, there's quite a number of easements on there for access and utilities as well as storm water uh detention. Um, so that's why I simplified it a little bit on the front end. Uh, this one is pretty simple in terms of conditions. um just the standard conditions that those plans uh are the ones that will be uh recorded. Uh and then uh they have to address all the concerns of of the various stakeholders including the engineer uh and then the other normal stuff and staff recommends approval with the list of conditions. Thank you. This is a pretty straightforward thing folks. This is straightening everything out from uh from the initial one. And I'm glad to see that that uh perpetual uh cross easement. We don't have to fight for it. And it's always a good idea when you have two commercial properties next to each other. Make sure that you can access one from the other and vice versa. Questions, comments? Somehow I need just one. Just one. Just a clarity question uh for you or or Randy Jeff. So, uh, when we this got approved, uh, for Chick-fil-A for site number one, uh, at our last meeting, uh, Commissioner Meyer, uh, raised a condition 18, which was for a sidewalk access, but that was a full site development plan. And then it went to council at the April 27th meeting where council member Bales re changed the language to make it at the discretion of how the city engineering would make it

fit to have more sight sidewalk access from Colonel Glenn Highway. My question concerns now site number two. Should this get approved, would we in any way at this stage as opposed to the site development stage for site number two want to recommend a expansion of the approved condition 18 to say that sidewalk uh entries into the sites plural for one and two be a part of the city engineer discretion or do we wait till we get to an eventual site development stage for property number two? Yeah, that would be something that would be better addressed when we actually have plans to look at because I'm not sure exactly how they're going to want to develop the

other words keeping an individual and I just didn't know if we wanted to mention the notion of Yeah, I mean it wouldn't be something it's a lot harder to enforce those kind of site plan conditions on a re on a plat subdivision case than it is to enforce those conditions on on a uh specific site plan K. So, okay, sounds good. Thank you. That's Are there other questions, comments? Okay, guess I need a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve S26-3 uh with the three conditions listed. Okay, I have a motion, Mr. Charles. Second.

And I have a second. So, we'll read the role on this. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Self,

yes. Motion carries 40 and we move right along to Hickory Woods Estate S26-4. All righty. Uh this is S26-4 for Hickory Woods Estates. It's a final subdivision. Uh just like the other two, um the applicant is requesting approval of a final subdivision for a 4.637 acre lot. Uh they'll be dividing into three separate parcels and 07 acres will be dedicated to rightway. Um so here's where the site is situated. It's uh along Hickory Drive um in the kind of the central part of Eure Creek. If you look at the s south or bottom part of that image, uh you'll see the bus depot for that's at main elementary. Um so it's kind of right there smack dab in the middle of the city. Um this site would be divided into three uh different parcels for single family residential. Um they'd all retain their current um they're well they'd all be R1A zoned. Ignore my CPD26-1 that's from the other one. Um but they there would also be um there would be additional review after this. Uh so after the just for clarity after the planning commission whatever the planning commission does if the planning commission were to approve it uh there would be additional review uh which is normal of the the drainage and other things on the site in terms of storm water uh detention. Go ahead.

Can I while you're giving this presentation because that was not in the in our report. So that's great news. Can you go the bottom there? So even though the applicant mentions the 1,700 ft for the water connection, the storm storm water and sewer are less than 1700 ft apparently in our in close range. Is that's a big item that was

so two separate there's two separate issues. Sorry. Um I was speaking about drainage on the site. Storm water there. So there is a storm water um tie-in nearby. There's also a sewer nearby, but there's another issue which is the the applicant's also requesting a variance. So, I'll go back to right here. Uh the applicant is also requesting a variance uh because our subdivision regulations require uh that they tie into uh water connection, which would be county water uh when they're platting a new subdivision for residential. Um, in this particular case, the applicant's requesting a variance saying that they have a particular uh a practical difficulty uh because the tie-in is uh over 1,700 ft away uh which is which is quite a distance. So, um so that's a separate issue, but we're talking about both right now. The the variance and the subdivision uh and they can both be done at one time. Um so I'll show you what the plat looks like. Does that answer your question, Commissioner F? Well, my apologies for getting granular here, but the applicant made a point multiple times of the 1700 feet number.

So, and you use the word nearby, and I'm trying to get a little granular here by saying I'm assuming nearby is less than 1700 ft. Correct. Uh, that's correct. And yes, the other the other tins are are much closer than 1700 ft. I don't know exactly where they are. Um, and this is something that would also be um, yeah, but it would not be an undue hardship, which is what the applicant's claiming for the water. Uh, it Yeah, it wouldn't be. Yes, that's right. It wouldn't be. Sorry. The terminology here since they made a big deal of the 1700 and the word hardship. I wanted to make sure we were clear on the others, which is really a big item.

Of course. Um, so given the the request, so there's the there's a subdivision and the variance. Uh given the request for a variance, um staff has added a condition uh and the proposed conditions um that the applicant uh get a uh a letter from Green County Sanitary Engineering that corroborates uh their their case for a practical difficulty um specifically uh the distance. So, uh, these are the conditions that, uh, we're proposing. Um, the main ones that are other than the ones I've already mentioned, uh, being the park fees, uh, and then the log law director will review the covenants or restrictions just like any other residential subdivision. Uh, and staff recommends approval with the listed conditions of both the variance and the the plat.

Okay. Thank you. Uh question for our for our lawyer. Should we uh consider and vote on the conditional use separately from the subdivision plan? Yes, the variance. I'm sorry. Yeah, the the variance for the for the water. Should that be voted on separately or do we package it all together since one is conditional and the other is simply a a subdivision approval? I think I would do them separately since one's a much there's different standards. Yep. That's what I thought. Approval. Okay. Good point, Jim.

Okay. So, if I'm I didn't step on it. You were finished with your presentation, right? Got it. Okay. So I will open this up to discussion on either the u either the conditional use having uh allowing wells rather than um city water and this the um uh the development itself. Are you are you the up by all means come on up. As long as you're here, you might as well say it. If you give it, if you would give us your name and address, please.

Derek Muny at 409 East Monument Avenue. Uh here on behalf of the applicant, I just want to make a a quick point of clarity. Um the variance we're requesting is just as it relates to the water, the theured water to the property, not for the sewer line. I believe the sewer line is on um I got look see what street that is. uh whatever street I believe it's to the to the west that's hickory is it flat and there's storm storm water there so the only

um the only question as it relates to the variances is whether or not that the um 1700 foot mainline extension would would create a uh a I want to get my language right um would be a practical difficulty um just just we have one quote around 200 feet a square foot or not square foot of linear foot which would be about $350,000 for three parcels. None of the other parcels in in the area have a um pressured water supply right now. So um but the we don't need to do a mainline extension for the sewer. Um and I believe that those plans are already being put together. So, so all I would ask is that the last condition from the Green County um sanitary department um as far as I'm aware, I don't I don't know if they actually have a say in what if they could determine or would be available to determine what's a practical difficulty as it relates to the to the water mainline. Now, the sewer mainland is obviously that's a different question, but I'm not sure. Um, at least in other developments I've been a part of, you get your sewer approved, you get your pressured water approved separate. Um, so that would be my request. And um, I would ask for that to be removed as a condition.

Okay. And that would be it. And then to to address the concerns about storm water, those are going to be on later plants. Okay. Thank you. Well, uh, if we have any questions on that, I'm sure staff can clarify it for us. Um, but since we're looking at at a subdivision approval and a conditional use, um, we probably ought to vote on that first because it becomes a moot point if that doesn't pass. So, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Please,

do we need to ask for a water test for those wells before we approve that condition? I threw up a map. You could see it's kind of the colors don't translate very well, but the blue lines around this property are the sewer lines and then the y the green lines are the water lines in the area. So, um, a lot of the properties have access to sewer or I'm sorry, water other than this 5 acre lot here. um because it goes up and down um Haynes Road and then it's over in the subdivision to the to the um east, but they tie on the perimeter of each of those areas and not through the middle of either of those areas. Um in terms of a well test, you know, they'll that's not something that we would really get into. I mean, they'll have to meet any kind of uh Ohio EPA standards when it comes to drilling a well, but that's not something that really we don't have a mechanism in zoning code to try to to regulate that. Um there's not there's no standard by which we could turn something down if it's not enough water or too much. You know, that's really an EPA thing. So, I I don't want to I I would be concerned adding a condition that I have no way to say it's good or bad, if that makes sense. But you can add the condition that uh any wells have to meet all I mean, it goes without saying, but any wells have to meet all Ohio EPA requirements.

I was just thinking if we approve this condition, but then something happens and the well water is contaminated, then they probably wouldn't get an occupancy permit. Yeah, that's true. Okay. And then back to the letter uh question really rather than having the county verify the hardship really what we were looking to do is have a letter that just states that the county is okay. I mean it's their system and if they are adamant that it be a connection but from my understanding that they were they weren't opposed to this but I just had nothing in writing. We were just looking for something from the county saying that they're okay with this non-connection. That's really what we were looking for. not for them to determine the hardship or not.

Clear. It's the county because it's county water. It's county water system. And there's still several goodsized plats in water. County water. Yeah. I'm sorry. Well, county water other than wellwater as we both know our plat there are like 200 and some houses in our plat are all on wells and we have very good water. So Randy, is the connection requirement is that from the county or is that from the city? Our subdivision regulations state that any new lot created in a final any new residential lot be connected to a public water source. Okay. Unless from

unless they get a variance from planning commission stating it's an undue hardship. This may and once undo hardship is the wrong standard for variance but practical difficulty that's illegal terms of art. Sure. Um so as long as they meet that practical difficulty planning commission can can approve a variance but that's where the requirement comes from. Green County has their own has their own set of rules and regulations. Okay. Do you guys want to know what the requirements are for variance now or later? probably now since we don't now would be a good time. Okay, it's the Duncan factors from the Supreme Court of Ohio, but they're codified in the zoning code.

Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Whether the variance is substantial. Three, I should number these that the variance is substantial is number two. Three, whether the essential character of the neighborhood be would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions uh in place at the time he or she purchased the property. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obiated through some method other than the a variance. and whether the spirit and and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting a variance. And this is not a you must meet all seven. It's you take all those factors into consideration. They can absolutely not meet some of them which in general when you're requesting a variance, no one's going to hit all seven of them, but just consider those. Sorry, following up on that in in our packet, it's going through section 155 134 and it says where the planning commission finds that practical difficulty may arise from strict compliance with these regulations due to exceptional topographical or other physical conditions. So are we looking at both those the things you just laid out and those two things physical or exceptional topographical conditions or other physical conditions? the practical difficulties. I would definitely say those seven factors I I gave you are a almost verbatim quotation from the Supreme Court of Ohio and the conditions or the factors that you must consider in a variance. So definitely have to consider those seven factors. I think topography those type of things go into that. I mean, if that's that would probably fit under one of the um I mean

that a variance that typically the the stereotypical variance is I've got this river running through my property and how can I meet a setback requirement with that river I need a variance from that. So topography is included in one of those factors and if you want me to go through and look at it quickly I can probably tell you which one of those it would fall under. So really, we should be looking at the Duncan, not the what the our code says about just those two things. So the the code says one thing in one area and then it's got the Duncan codes in another area. So um let's pay attention to the Duncan codes, Duncan factors. Uh Randy, what is the current zoning of that parcel? Is it is it R1A?

I believe it's R1A. Okay. I could I could be sure 100% if you give me a second, but I believe it's R1A. I'm getting a yes from the audience here. I'm 100% sure it's one ROA. Okay. So, basically, one of the conditions is that it would be economically undevelopable. You can't have a house without water. Uh it's already zoned residential and it would cost more to put a water line in than he could get for selling the lots. That sounds like a hardship to me. Sounds like a practical difficulty. Practical difficulty. Absolutely. That's why we have a lawyer here. Practical difficulty.

So, we should probably if there we have more more discussion on this, then we should probably take a look at this first before we uh before we vote on the um uh on the the subdivision. Yes. So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Okay. I'm confused by the path you're following here. So, I fully agree to do the variance first before dividing from five to three and handle that because it may not be necessary based on the first, but you have I'm sure your knowledge better than mine. You keep mentioning the word conditional and I don't see the word condition. Variance. I am sorry.

Yeah. Oh, there there we go. Because it's a variance. We're pursuing not a conditional use. It's a variance. There we go. Use is another term of art and we're not talking about We are not talking about conditional use. We're talking about We are not talking about conditional use. It is variance. And my apologies. That clarifies 99%. Okay. Randy, do you happen to have those Duncan that you could throw up there? The Duncan just so we can look at them. No, we we approved this for five lots previously. What were they going to do about water then? Mr. the chairman if I could add to that what you just asked.

My understanding uh and the applicant can comment separately if they'd like. My understanding is that uh the you know once it goes through the planning commission it was approved for five lots. This time they're coming in for three uh which will obviously have decreased impacts, but um there is a a the current lot has a lot of drainage um that lot it's a low spot and a lot of water drains to it. Um so there's there's a lot of requirements there in terms of drainage that um they have to meet after uh in order to get the plat recorded with the engineer. So the engineer would have lots of comments. My understanding is that they got to that phase um of the the discussion uh and hadn't quite gotten to the the drinking water connections yet before deciding that five lots wasn't going to work and they'd rather do three.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, essentially we have uh we have property that can't practically be developed the way it is without the variance. Just what just to add to what uh Jeff our city planner said. Uh this was approved back for the five laws back in the January of 2022 meeting of this planning commission that you and Mr. Self or Mr. Meyer were on. And looking at the meeting minutes which was sent to us by our extremely accurate uh Melissa Gil looking through it there was absolutely no mention of water being discussed in the meeting on January of 2022. So that goes to what our uh council legal council advised that if it was purchased possibly without the knowledge of the difficulty or leadership or difficulty or hardship that could add credence to possibly justifiable ignorance on the part of the developer of not having an awareness of the portable water situation because it would have been brought up in 22 and it wasn't according to our minutes. Once again, that that's only one of the factors and frankly almost always people when they purchase the property should have been aware of it. So, I mean, once again, you don't have to meet all the requirements. And to Mr. Meyer's point, um, it would be number six when you talk about having to go however far they have to do, whether the property owner's predicament uh feasibly can be obiated through some method other than the variance. the only way would be to send that water line way way way like what what they're requesting the variance from because of the physical location of the the current water line. So that's what we're that's the that factor six that leans in favor of granting the f the the variance and then of course they're talking about whether they can yield a reasonable return. We're talking about the cost. They can't sell homes.

They would make no money if they had to run a water line that far. Okay, folks. Just one question for the applicant. Just just curious if you've talked with like the county or anything to see if

I believe there's been a discussion with Birkhard Engineering and and even the prior engineer that there was a change in engineers on this. Um and uh I think there was discussion but I don't know if they've given us approval or denial one way or another. Please correct me. I I don't think the county has given an opinion at all on whether or not the sir you Yeah, you need to talk into the mic.

Talk to him real quick just to double check. Okay. There hasn't been a discussion about connection to the to the supply water. Uh just just the sewer lines.

Okay. Yeah. I was just curious if you guys had talked with the county and saw if they would be, you know, amunable to adding the water line or anything, but don't know that answer. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Mensor. Um given that situation that would presume that this is going from five to three, however many lots the applicant wants to have is for residential sale, which would mean if it's not going to be connected because of hardship, who would be expected if they were to purchase for residential use the property to pay for the water connection or would they would they buy it knowing it would be a wellwatered situation? Has that been breached done from a marketing standpoint for the lot? I think well we don't even have construction drawings approved right but the construction drawings would include you know the the well the water connection situation so before the property is even marketed that the question is going to be answered before the plans are even finalized this is this is just the the record plat plan uh so there have while we do have drawings that are being worked on that were drawings that I believe were already submitted the thing the drawings are going to change Um,

but they're thinking that it's going to be a wellwater situation. Yeah. Yeah. That the houses are going to be built before it's marketed or at least that the plans are going to be submitted before it's marketed for sale, which means it would then go for our approvals in the city engineering office and everything else with the wellwater situation. Okay. Thank you, sir. Record is um if the county doesn't approve the sewer connection that this plan's done. and it's dead on arrival. And that's our problem, not correct. Well, it's not my problem. It's his problem, not anybody else's. Got it. Thank you. Okay, just one more question for Randy.

I'm just curious. Does the county ever come and like say we'll put in a water line or is it always on the developer or whoever wants to do an improvement to pay for it? The county never extends that. That would be up to the developer to extend the water. the county. We got them to extend one once by paying them back their own grant money. That's how we got water lines from the county one time. It's rare that the county would just build out a water line on their own dime. Just wanted to make sure, you know, all options were explored. Yeah. No, I it pretty much that there's not much of a chance at all that the county would be willing to provide the water line.

Okay, got it. more questions. Okay. Now, what we're voting on is the variance to allow uh a residential development of three lots with no city water connection.

I know. Well, whatever. The parcel. Thank you. The parcel. Jeez. I got two lawyers here. One real one and one who thinks he is. Um, okay. So, we are we are looking to for a motion to approve conditional you variance on this parcel to allow residential construction without city water connection. And I need a motion for that, please.

I motion what you just said. to approve the variance for the Hickory Grove parcel under applicant S264 for the variance for the against the requirement for water connection but that's too many words without city water is there any like wording that we need to follow I think we we know the gist of what what's happening here say yeah

we can word miss it afterwards, but it it's a variance allowing for uh the development without the requirement of connecting to the county water. Okay, I have a gist. I need a second. I second that. Thank you. Okay, we are now we are voting on the variance. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Falton, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. S,

yes. Okay, variance motion passes. And as you can see, we don't do a lot of variances. So we we have to relearn this every time we do a variance. Okay. Now, I need a motion for S26-4 as as stated with the however many conditions we've got. One question. Yes. Question. Go ahead, Randy. Do do you recall when we originally did this uh subdivision few years ago? There was some something about like a a walkway or some

Yeah, there was a requirement for a 8 foot easement through the middle of the property. I think it was 8 foot or 15 foot or 20 foot a distance a width that uh connected where the stub street ends to uh Hickory Lane or that the street that is the frontage along this um that wouldn't carry over to this. We'd have to add that, wouldn't we? Right. Okay. Yeah, that I was trying to do you remember the rationale of why that was added?

I think it was just to get pedestrian access through there. Um the challenge will be there's a river that goes through there and the city would have to build that and given the it's on a city basically a block we would say well people can go around it instead of building a bridge over it. Um if it were a span of miles then yeah a bridge would be practical but the distances I just wouldn't see a bridge being p practical even a foot bridge but um we'll leave it up to plan commission if you want to add that back in. Thank you.

All right. So are you Mr. Uh, Meer, are you saying that the easement that you put forth those years ago would probably not be needed any longer with three instead of five parcels? I don't I don't think I put the easement forward, but um I mean it's up to the plan. The reason I'm I'm raising it is when we had the five parcels and the easement going through it uh which was voted on by us as an additional condition that is still present. So if we change it from five to three all those conditions 18 conditions we had in 2022 and if five were approved those now go away if we make this will supersede that approval.

So what we would be whatever conditions are for just tonight those none of those 18 including easement would be here. Correct. Thank you for clarifying. I think the only reason we considered that is uh mainly for the kids in the neighborhood because it's a long walk around to go around this property and the chances are fairly good that kids have been cutting through it all this time. Um but if you just looking diving more into the topo, it's not just a short creek. I mean it's a ravine. I mean you'd have to build a pedestrian version of the Sunshine Bridge. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be practical to do that. Okay,

that was probably not a known factor in 2022. Okay. All right. Now, I need a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve S26-4 uh with the six conditions listed. All right, Mr. Charles, second that. I have a motion and a second. And it's roll call time. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Silk, yes. Motion carries 40. And it looks like we are fresh out of topics tonight and items. So, I ask for a motion to adjurnn.

I move to second. And we'll do that by general acclamation. We are we are dismissed at 7:52. Thank you very much.