Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 6 p.m., and I will call the June meeting of the Beaver Heap Planning Commission meeting to order. Can we please take the roll?

Mr. Fountain?

Here.

Ms. Palumbo? Here. Ms. Usher? Here. Mr. Self is absent. Mr. Meyer?

Here. With that, do we have a motion to excuse Mr. Self?

I move we excuse Mr. Self from this meeting only.

Okay. Second that. And we'll do that by general consensus.

Yes.

Agreed.

Next, the approval of the agenda. Staff, any corrections, changes? No. OK. All right. We'll do that also by general consensus. Thank you. And next, the approval of the minutes. Any corrections to those? No? Can we have a motion, please?

A motion to approve the minutes of May 6, 2026. Motion. Do we have a second?

And we'll do that by general consensus as well. Yes.

Agreed.

And with that, that brings us to our first public hearing. Melissa, can you please read the case?

This is case number PC26-2, conditional use, on an application filed by Beaver Creek Lodging, LLC, care of Pickrell, Schaefer & Ebeling, 40 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 1. Page 9, parcel 63 on the Greene County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Do we need to untable it first? Yes. So it was tabled at the last meeting, so can we please have a motion to untable?

I move to untable reference PC-26, Birch Hill, conditional use.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? I second. And we'll just do that by general consensus as well.

Agreed.

Okay. And with that, normally our public hearings, we start with the applicant, but we're going to start with our attorney real quick. Sure.

I can't remember. That's really loud. I don't recall if this matter has been heard once before a similar application, so I can't remember if we have all the same members or not. But a conditional... one thing so a conditional use application is different than how you normally sit we're doing zoning decisions in this case you guys will be sitting as a quasi-judicial body which essentially means that you're acting as both the judge and the jury in the case and you're going to base your decision upon the evidence that's presented during this hearing today so ordinary that's how the bza is always acting it's uh in our code the conditional uses come to the planning commission so this is the one time when you guys will be acting in that quasi-judicial capacity thank you and with that we'll hear from the applicant

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of Beaver Creek Planning Commission. My name is David Montgomery with Pickerel, Schaefer & Ebeling, 2700 Stratocash Tower, Dayton, Ohio 45423. I am here on behalf of the applicant, Beaver Creek Lodging LLC, who is the owner of the property. Excuse me, I've been fighting a bit of a cold, so bear with me. With me this evening, I have Anup Patel, who is the principal of Beaver Creek Lodging, LLC. He is also affiliated with the operation of the property. In addition to that, I then have Nick Martin and Liz Maubary, who are both with JP Hospitality Management, LLC, and that is the management company that facilitates the facility itself. So you'll be hearing from everyone today. I'm going to have some introductory remarks and then I'm going to turn it over to Mr Patel and then Mr Martin and his team and we'll go through and present the application for you. Having been through these before, I know you guys don't like to hear, not you in general, just government in general, doesn't like to hear just a reiteration of what's in the staff report. So for the most part, we defer to what's in the staff report. So I'm not going to go into necessarily, you know, the square footage and the acreage and all that stuff because I know that's part of Mr. Burkett's presentation. But we will sort of dive into the meat and potatoes, if you will, of the application itself. Just from a procedural standpoint, because this is a little unique, at least in my perspective, Mr. Patel had filed an application really as an outcropping of an inspection that took place at the property. This was back in 2025. With that application, it took on a couple various forms. Ultimately, it was, I don't want to, converted may not be the right word, Randy, but converted, if you will, into a conditional use application that application and went before this body. There was an issue is to notice in the essence receipt of notice by the applicant and as this commission is probably where you may not remember that if you do an applicant was not here to give the presentation. Plenty Commission went forward with that hearing we appeal that decision to City Council we requested a remand as councils permitted to do back to Planning Commission, but in essence they intended to go ahead and proceed based upon the record of the prior hearing. So I'm saying all this just for the general context of we are not looking to burden government by sitting here and refiling the same application or similar applications over and over. This was the only mechanism that we had in order to get the issue back in front of you. With that said, we do have sort of a two-piece application. The first is, well both really, are tied to the apartment use. That's a conditional use permitted within the B3 zoning classification, which is the district in which the property is located. The applicant's preference is that the entire property itself be permitted, meaning the entire structure and the property as a whole, be permitted for the apartment hotel use. As noted in the staff report, the property is an existing structure, it's an existing facility, and so there are limitations. I know that Planning Commission has some discretion, which we do touch upon in our application, as to modification of parking stall size, modification of parking count. That's not to say that any of those would ultimately get us to where we would need to be strictly from a parking standpoint. SO THE APPLICANTS, AGAIN, PREFERENCES THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD GET TO BE ENTIRELY USED FOR THE APARTMENT HOTEL USE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED WHAT IS IN ESSENCE A HYBRID MODEL. AND THE HYBRID MODEL IS REALLY TIED DIRECTLY TO THE PARKING COUNT THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. I WILL TOUCH UPON THIS IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE COMMISSION. AND WITH THAT, UNDER THE HYBRID MODEL, THE CONCEPT IS Again, sort of tied to the overall parking count, there would be a reduced occupancy to the property if it were to be used exclusively for apartment hotel use. As again alluded to, or not even alluded to, as overtly stated in the staff report, STAFF IS UNDER THE POSITION THAT THE PROPERTY QUALIFIES FOR AN EXTENDED USE. SO IF 100% OF THE UNITS WERE UTILIZED FOR EXTENDED STAY, HOTEL-TYPE USE, ALL UNITS WOULD BE ALL HOTEL UNITS, ROOMS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WOULD BE IN PLAY, AND THE PROPERTY WOULD JUST OPERATE AS IT'S DESIGNED TO OPERATE. THAT SAID, IT IS A DECREASING SCALE. the apartment hotel use would go up, the corresponding reduction in the extended stay hotel use would go down. And we'll talk about this in greater detail, but Randy's been kind enough to throw that up there. And I know that was included within the staff report. I mentioned all this because that you know a question came up at City Council and it was touched upon again and in Mister Burkett staff report that this is a similar application to the prior one. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S REALLY NOT, THAT IT'S ALMOST A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION, THAT WHILE THE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED REQUEST OR THE PRINCIPAL REQUEST IS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE OF AN APARTMENT HOTEL, WE, THE APPLICANT, WENT THROUGH AND THEY OBVIOUSLY OFFERED THE ALTERNATIVE THAT I JUST SPOKE ABOUT, WHICH IS A BIT OF WHAT WE WOULD VIEW AS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN WHAT THE CITY STAFF MAY SUGGEST AND WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD ULTIMATELY WANT. And then we've also gone through and we included within our narrative proposed conditions. So the level of detail, where I'm going with all this, is the level of detail within this application is significantly different and significantly greater than what was in the prior application that was before you. And with all that said, we simply ask for your open mind as we go through the application process. What I would like to do is I'm going to introduce Mr. Patel. He can tell you a little bit about himself, about his experience within the industry, and really sort of how this property operated when he acquired it and how it's operated since. It's going to be a little bit of a back and forth just from our perspective. I'm going to try to quarterback as much as I can. You're going to hear more of the detailed testimony that's going to come from the property management team. And then we'll be, you know, at the end, we'll sort of package it all together for you. And then we're available for any questions that you have. So with that, Randy, if you can queue up Mr. Patel.

Melissa, do you have an oath for them to take? Like it would for BZA meeting? I'll write you down an oath that you can administer, okay? One second. Okay. For the BZA, there is a place card. I didn't see one there.

AJ, can you hear me? Yes, sir. I'm here. Can you see the commission?

Yes.

Hang tight for one second. Thank you. or maybe an administration.

Give me one second.

I'm in my car, so I'm just gonna pause my video.

Okay, let's see if I've written this in a way you can read. Probably for each individual.

Okay. Can you please state your name?

Anu Patel.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

That is true. Thank you.

Okay, with that said, Anup, can you just introduce yourself and talk a little bit about your experience within the hospitality industry and your interest in this site, when you acquired it, and perhaps why you acquired it?

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So my background is I've been a corporate banker for 18 years. I worked for Bank of America. I was a commercial real estate lender, worked through multiple divisions and asset based lending, commercial lending, private wealth management and for sale residential housing and for commercial real estate. So I was a lender and then my family was always in the hospitality business since the mid 1980s. So we've been doing this for over 40 years now throughout the country. You know, we were always buying mid-scale hotels, and then in 2018, we acquired an extended stay hotel called a Woodspring. And since then, we've kind of expanded in that extended stay, kitchenette, long-term ESOC quasi-apartment. space by, you know, acquiring multiple hotels under different brands that were purpose-built with kitchenettes and circuit breakers in the rooms conforming to local, you know, code for long-term stays or sometimes even having apartment use available where there were not any issues with guests staying seven days or 30 days or six months. That's kind of how we run our business model, and we do this in 14 states, and the management company that I've engaged is probably in half the country, and they're the largest third-party management company under Choice Hotels that manages these kitchenette hotels for a lot of different ownership groups. So my business model and my family's history in this space and what we're trying to accomplish and do is kind of a very simple playbook and it's one that's been out there and it leans on affordable housing alternatives for people in the community because there's a shortage of it. There's not many people, especially with rising construction costs, inflation, skilled labor, site selection, the time it takes to find good quality, reasonably priced housing with kitchen nets where people can stay and call it their home in a clean, safe, affordable manner and still be patrons of the community. and the neighborhood and have little get-togethers there's just not enough there's a surge in demand and not enough supply so people revert to uh alternative housing and you're seeing this in pockets throughout the country the pandemic exacerbated that and it's not subsiding so the when i when i bought this hotel it was operating under the suburban studios flag and at one point i was the largest suburban studios franchisee in the country. I'm running a similar model to how some of these brands were where we focused on the average length of stay and build up true extended stay occupancy with guests that are staying there. And they can afford to stay on the premises, cook their own breakfast, lunch, or dinner, not have to worry about eating out. They can save money, reinvest that money in the betterment of their future. If they're under any type of financial duress, they can go and save for a vacation fund, a rainy day fund, get out and get groceries. And if they're under any type of hardship, find a way and a means to go and escape that. So it's really, you know, there's no leases here. Their utilities are included. It's fully furnished. And we're running this the same method that when this hotel was built, there were some conversations about having it have some sort of apartment zoning or multi-family use. And nothing has changed. So we're actually, the way I'm operating with a professional third party company that's certified, and this is all they do day in, day out, working with local communities and municipalities and officials and how to have best practices to manage this type of clientele and coexist with others in the community. I mean they've excelled. They're really best in class and that's through their training, their resources, their protocol, the brand standards and the processes and then having regional management that has oversight with these type of assets. That's how we've been able to grow and give back to the community in the same way. So I would say that if this property, I think it's ripe and perfect for a conversion to multifamily because that way you can do leases, you can get background checks, there's other apartments already in the area. and it's already kind of operating like it. So nothing's really changed from when I bought it. I was kind of taken aback when we got that letter where things were changing. So just trying to figure out what might have happened. We've actually seen a decrease in any type of incident reports. So that's kind of my background. I've been doing this for some time. I've got a great partnership with the management company. We've got best-in-class talent. We develop our talent. We reinvest into the assets. There's a lot of capex that goes into these type of properties, routine ongoing maintenance. And we just try to, you know, serve the need because there is a void in the community for true extended stay housing that's that resonates with the community and what's available, really, because people aren't building it at that price point. And you'll see during the pandemic all these big brands came out with introducing new extended state concepts like Hilton came out with Live Smart, Choice had Everhome, Marriott came out with Studio Res, Hyatt came out with Hyatt Studios. These brands did not exist. They came out because they saw how much of a need there was for this type of housing. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY BUILDING IT AT THAT TIME. SO THAT'S KIND OF MY SUMMARY ON THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

EXCUSE ME. DO YOU WANT HIM TO STAY UP HERE OR DO YOU WANT TO? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE YOU, BUT DON'T GO ANYWHERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, I MEAN, THAT PROVIDES A GENERAL SUMMARY AS TO THE OWNERSHIP. AND I DO WANT TO SAY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE NOTION OF TRYING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A MULTI-FAMILY USE WAS DISCUSSED WITH PLANNING STAFF, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, OKAY. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION, RIGHT? SO AS MR. PATEL TOUCHED UPON, THERE IS A NEED ON both just a general social scale, but City of Beaver Creek's not isolated or exempt from this, for a housing product that touches upon and addresses all the things that Mr. Patel talked about. And this conditional use application is the method for this property to be used for that purpose. So the rezoning's not a realistic option or not really a viable option, and so the conditional use application with the apartment use is why we're here. And with that said, I do want to turn it over to Nick and Liz. They're going to go through. They're going to talk to you about the operations. They're going to talk to you about the sort of guest profile, if you will, and just give you a rundown as to how this property operates, how it would operate should the city approve it for the apartment use. They will also touch upon some of the comments that were in the staff report I will jump back up and then we'll try to summarize for you fairly quickly after that. So with that, I'll turn it over to Nick and Liz. Hello.

Before we begin, can you state your name, please? Nick Martin.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do. Thank you. So I've been overseeing this property from an area manager standpoint for almost two years. And Liz has been my general manager the entire time. And you've been there for what, 18 years? So she has way more intimate knowledge of this property than I do. But from kind of how we operate and how this property runs right now, roughly 25% to 35% of the hotel has guests that have been there over that six-month mark is kind of where the line is for what is apartment use versus extended stay. The remaining guest mix there is there on what we would consider a transient basis. So even though we discuss about this being an apartment use hotel, we do not have a plethora of people using this as a permanent residence. A lot of the other properties we manage myself, I have properties in three different states. I have some properties where we have guests that have been there 10 plus years. Um, so, I mean, it's not uncommon that guests will use an apartment as a permanent residence longterm because they like the convenience factor, especially where we're at here. I mean, for, um, you know, the few elderly guests we have that have been there a while, there's shopping and quick walking distance, grocery stores, um, transit that helps. I mean, it is something that helps guests who, you know, might otherwise be in an assisted care facility to where they can come and stay with us and still have some of the freedoms in a community that they love where some options aren't really available to them. Uh, from I know the planning commission stuff, there was a big talk about the parking spaces. Um, The guest mix here, we probably average less than one car per room. I know the requirement from an apartment use standpoint is one and a half parking spots per room. I have never been to this property, even when it's sold out, and had the parking lot full because a lot of our guests here don't have automobiles or the married couples or the couples that are there. There's only one automobile for them instead of two is kind of what we're looking at. And then another portion of the conversation that we've had previously was surrounding the police calls. After speaking with the clerk records, some of the police call stuff we're still trying to get information on. I believe what is in the report that you guys receive might not be accurate numbers because we receive reporting of even when just the police rolls through the lot and not an actual infraction has occurred. So I have some of that here if you guys would like to see any of it that kind of shows just normal patrol versus police calls. but for the month of january and february of this year we had five police calls if we analyze that out we're nowhere near the i don't remember the number on there but somewhere in the hundreds of police calls that are shown for the year of 2025. so i don't really know what is getting shown in the planning commission stuff as far as police call numbers versus the actual case reports and stuff like that what we're getting any questions before i turn it over

Not at this time.

So we have, we just request usually on a monthly at least quarterly basis an incident search that comes from the clerk of records and it just shows The different incident types on here, just the first five are traffic stop, extra patrol, business check, business check, business check. Those business checks is just the police when they're doing the routine patrol, driving through the property, stating that I was at this property doing a check. Traffic stop, there's no case number with it. That was likely a traffic stop on the street in front of us that just turned into our facility. So for this is November and December of last year of the 31 rows on here, there's only one true one with a case number. Everything else are just incident numbers. So how many of these are actually police calls versus incidents of, hey, I was at that property like we had one in May where it's noted on this incident report and it says assist. they were there because we had a fire. Police came out, they put down, they came out as a police call. It has nothing to do with the police call as far as actual trouble at the property. They were just there assisting the fire department. So I think there's a lot of misinformation in my opinion there when it comes to the number of police calls that is reported in this zoning information.

And with that, unless I'll give this to you, let me just scribble

I'M NOT A TRIAL ATTORNEY, SO YOU WANT ME TO PUT, LIKE, EXHIBIT ONE?

MARK THAT AS APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT ONE.

THAT WAS NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER. AND THEN THIS IS, I THINK, THE LAST THREE MONTHS ON THAT ONE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR EYES MAY BE BETTER THAN MINE. DO YOU WANT TO AT LEAST READ THE DATES THAT ARE

months that are covered okay yeah this other one that we're going to submit covers from March 3rd of this year until May 31st and the highlighted represent just that was just us going through of ones that we remember why they were there when we were just trying to go back and recollect versus

What are you marking that one?

Applicants exhibit two. That works? You want them separately? I mean, I can do. That's one. Okay. Oh, gotcha, gotcha. Okay. All right. Then I'm going to leave that one with you. Sorry. Now I'd like to have Liz come up and Liz can talk about sort of her experiences with the property. As Nick indicated, she's been with the property for 18 years. Mr. Patel acquired the property in 21, I believe, 2021 per the deed. And as such, her knowledge and her experience with the property precedes this. But I think that that is important. So this commission has an understanding of how it's historically operated. SHE IS ALSO THE ON-SITE MANAGER, SO SHE'S REALLY THERE WITH THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, AND SO SHE CAN GIVE YOU A WONDERFUL PERSPECTIVE AS TO THE SECURITY MEASURES THAT ARE IN PLACE AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, HOW GUESTS ARE REGISTERED AND VETTED AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO LIZ, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

HI.

HELLO.

CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE?

YES, ELIZABETH MAYBERRY.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Thank you. Hi. I go by Liz. My name is Elizabeth. Nice to meet you all. I've been at this property since 2008. I have been through, you know, the ownership and management changes and through the whole process we have operated the same as we have since 2008. JUST WANT TO REAFFIRM THAT. I ALSO DO WANT TO TOUCH ON THE FACT THAT SINCE I HAVE BEEN THERE HISTORICALLY, THAT PARKING HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THE SAME EXACT WAY. AS NICK HAD STATED, EVEN WHEN WE ARE SOLD OUT, WE STILL HAVE AVAILABLE SPACES. We'd also be willing to have, you know, guests affirm to that fact that, yes, we don't have a car, you know, we're not getting a car. We are in a very convenient location where there's many places within walking distance. Many of our guests work in that local area within walking distance of either local hotels, restaurants, Meyers. We have a very diverse group of people at the hotel. We have anybody from traveling to do aerospace research from Singapore, for example, which we have a guest in for right now, from the Air Force Base to construction, Wright State students, especially at this time during the summer when dorms are closed. And then obviously our locals that, as David mentioned, THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO FIND APARTMENTS AND HOUSING RIGHT NOW. SO WE DO HAVE A VERY DIVERSE GROUP OF GUESTS. WITH THAT DOES COME A VERY DIVERSE GROUP OF BACKGROUNDS. WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED A SYSTEM OVER THIS PAST YEAR, AND IT'S CALLED GUEST BAN ID. AND IN THIS SYSTEM WE ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO SCAN confirm it's you know a legitimate id which is great but also the system stores the identification information that way we can report any problems that we have with the guests and that will go out to our entire company that uses the system and also at check-in it will tell us if they have a criminal background that we have deemed unsatisfactory that we would at that point deny service to the guests. We hand them a paper, let them know that they can look into it, and that's the end of it. I do have a report here if you guys would like to take a look at it. Names are excluded from it, but it just shows that you know, obviously a good majority of the guests that are scanned and are clean. It shows where we enter the guest bands that way cannot happen again at one of our properties. And then it also highlights that there was a criminal pop. It does not tell us what that is to protect the safety of our staff, but it is obviously something that our company is deemed unsavory for the hotel. Um, I do want to point out as well that the police calls, although were misrepresented in the numbers that are in the staffing report, Even if you take the police calls that were correct, there is still a significant reduction over the past six months using this guest fan ID system. And are there any other questions for me that you guys would like to know?

Not at this time.

Wonderful purse per shift. We only have a staff of seven employees total. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day, guys.

This is, is this what?

Okay.

Am I on three? Three, all right, thanks. All right, and we'll title this the guest ID Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Excuse me. Hey, Randy. Your computer is saying something. I can't see what it is.

Uh-oh.

I'm here. I'm listening.

I don't know what happened. That's not you. It's me.

It's the freeze-in version.

YEAH, I MEAN, REAL QUICK, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD?

THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY IS, LOOK, WE WANT TO CONTINUE BUILDING GOOD WILL WITH THE CITY, WORK WITH OFFICIALS, DRIVE THE NEED IN THE COMMUNITY, HELP OUT THE LOCAL PATRONS, AND SERVE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. We're a fabric within the community. We want to do the best we can and have a clean, safe, affordable place for whoever needs it. Because people aren't building this type of housing. It's too cost prohibitive. And at the price point we offer that, it's a value proposal where people can stay long term. And if we can convert that to real leases, I think it's for the betterment of everybody because we've seen this happen through other communities. It's essentially a partnership with the city where we can work in a collaborative way to identify any type of deficiency in housing and convert it to affordable on a more permanent basis. That's the common goal here. That's what we're trying to accomplish. So hopefully we can get it done. Okay, thanks.

The only concern I have is if he drops off, if any of the people on Planning Commission want to have a question for him during the question section, just be aware if he drops off, we won't be able to ask him those questions. So if he wants to stay on.

Oh, yeah. Actually, that's a good point. The city law director said you may want to be able to stay on, which might require you to log back in. JUST IN CASE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS. LIZ, ONE THING I DID WANT TO HAVE YOU SPEAK ABOUT OR MAYBE EXPAND UPON, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN THE WHEN THIS ISSUE SORT OF ROSE TO THE SURFACE RIGHT WITH THE CITY LEVEL I MEAN YOU DID HAVE SOME ENGAGEMENT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS THAT RIGHT AND AND HAVE YOU ESTABLISHED ANY I MEAN DO YOU MAINTAIN CALL LOGS OF YOUR OWN DO YOU YES WE MAINTAIN OUR OWN CALL LOGS UM WE HAVE ALSO BEEN ALWAYS A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH BEAVER CREEK PD

Unfortunately, you can probably ask any one of them and they know exactly who I am. They know that once the staff calls me and I'm on the phone, they're like, yep, she's not playing. So I do have a good working relationship with the PD as well as all of my staff does. Obviously, there's things that, you know, isn't really our business. So we don't get all of the details sometimes when they're there, especially if they're there on a call that You know, say, for instance, a couple of the fraud calls, none of those have been fraud done at the property or committed by somebody at the property. It's like somebody had fraudulent charges on their bank account, so they just happen to call from the property, so it gets logged that way. That would be something that would be none of our business unless the guest told us about it. But we're very good about communicating. We help out wherever we can within our limitations and have always had a good working relationship with them.

Thank you.

And so with that said, as you've heard, you know, the applicant's position is there is a real and needed use for the apartment hotel type property management use, which is the nature of this conditional use application. AND WITH THAT, I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD A FAIR AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PROPERTY ALREADY BEING OVERPARKED. I MEAN, IN THE SENSE THAT EVEN AT FULL CAPACITY, THERE REMAINS AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF THAT. WITHIN OUR APPLICATION, THOUGH, JUST TO TOUCH UPON IT, WE DID REQUEST THAT THIS COMMISSION EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY AS PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING CODE TO MODIFY PARKING STALL SIZE. AND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY ITSELF As you can see, if I have my directions right, Randy, north is actually at the bottom of the page, correct? And then east is north. Oh, sorry. Nope, I'm looking. Yeah, so north is at the top. So the modification of the parking stall size really affects mostly the east side of the property. If setting aside the ADA compliant spaces we're not talking about any modification to those but just for the normal parking stall size our application had requested a reduction of 18 I'm sorry from 10 to 20 which is what staff has confirmed the parking stall size is to 9 by 18. I'm not sure we necessarily need the 18 reduction but the 9 reduction if we could reduce the width THAT WOULD INCREASE JUST THAT PARKING FIELD ITSELF BY MY CALCULATION TO FIVE PARKING SPACES. AND THEN ULTIMATELY IF YOU MOVE AROUND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WOULD REALLY BE NO NET IMPACT BECAUSE THERE'S LESS THAN TEN SPACES UP THERE. SO YOU DON'T GAIN ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BY REDUCING THE WIDTH. BUT ON THE WEST SIDE, YOU WOULD PICK UP AN ADDITIONAL THREE SPACES. So again, by my calculation, which again should all be verified by someone more mathematically sound than me, but it would create a net result in eight additional spaces. Where that becomes important is again, sort of with the overall occupancy count as it relates specifically to the hybrid model. And again, I want to reiterate Mr. Patel and the applicant's primary request is for the conditional use of the complete property being utilized as a hotel apartment. However, to offset any burden that that would have and or under the hybrid model, again, if we could gain the additional extra parking spaces, THAT WOULD HELP RELIEVE ANY CONCERNS OR PRESSURES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE EXIST IN THAT REGARD. SO WITH THAT, I MEAN, WE'RE SORT OF DRAWING TO THE CONCLUSION OF OUR PRESENTATION. AS YOU'VE INDICATED, WE HAVE PRESENTED SOME EVIDENCE TO YOU DIRECTLY ON POINT AS IT RELATES TO AT LEAST 2026 PARKING, I'M SORRY, 2026 POLICE CALLS. IF YOU AMBITIZE THAT OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, well within the standard of any other hotel within the area. This property does receive a fair amount of drive-bys in the sense of, you know, they're just going through the parking lot, they're doing a business check, whatever the case may be. Those are all, again, documented on the exhibits that were provided to you. And so part of the argument here, I lack of a better word. Part of the argument is just simply that we do feel that within the staff report itself, we did not have the opportunity to go through and review all X number of police calls, if you will, or call logs over the course of the last five years. But the trend unequivocally, the trend is a downward trend. It has been reduced significantly over the course of the last three years to four years with 2002 being sort of an outlier. And then everything is on track from the records that we were provided by the police department and the custodian of records to be even well below anything that has historically taken place at the property. as identified in the staff report. So the property is trending in the right position. I think I speak for management and Mr Patel and saying that we are confident that if things remain as they are with the systems and the operation enhancements that are in place that we will continue to see a reduced number of parking. I'm sorry, a reduced number of police calls to the property. AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT IS THE ONE SORT OF BIG ISSUE THAT WAS PRESENTED AS TO WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE GREATER COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY BY ITSELF, IT'S ADJACENT TO I-675. IT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, AN INDOOR STORAGE FACILITY PROPERTY. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT NEXT TO IT'S A SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT. BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, I MEAN, THIS REALLY IS SORT OF A POCKETED PIECE OF PROPERTY. with minimal direct impact on surrounding property owners is one way to say it. The intensity of the use that would come with the apartment hotel use will have a negligible, if any, impact as it relates to the surrounding properties. And just to touch upon something that Liz said, you know, to reiterate, she's been with the property for 18 years. You heard from Mr. Patel and you heard from her. The property operates today as the property operated when Mr. Patel purchased the property. And according to Liz, when Mr. Patel purchased the property, it operated as it has for as long as she has been with the property. So what we are doing today is really bringing the property into conformance IF YOU WILL WITH THE ZONING CODE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE WE HAVE ASKED FOR SOME RELIEF ON BOTH THE PARKING COUNT AND THE PARKING STALL SIZE AND WITH THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE BUT IT'S OUR POSITION THAT WE'VE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL THANK YOU THANK YOU STAFF

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of Planning Commission.

Mr. Meyer, I'd put him under oath as well.

Can you state your name, please? Randy Burkett.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Yes, good evening. This is the conditional use reapplication PC26-2 for Birch Hill Hotel. Again, the applicant's requesting conditional approval to... to utilize their existing building, partially as a apartment hotel and partially as an extended stay hotel. Project's located on the northern end of Beaver Creek.

Could you ask Mr. Martin to take his call outside? I can't hear you. And hear him. But I can't hear both of them. And I'm six or seven feet away from him. So either he can take the call out or I think

I guess the property is located on the north side of Beaver Creek. I believe Mr. Montgomery did a good job on explaining the location, but this is where it is in general location in Beaver Creek. Seen here is an aerial photo of the property as it existed in March of 2025. And this was a copy of the plans that were approved in 2004. A three-story, 102-room hotel with 106 off-street parking spaces. Whereas 82% of the existing site is currently impervious surface. And that doesn't mean it was built out of balance in 2004. It's just our standards are a little bit different now where the max size of the site or the max impervious surface on a site under current standards is 75%. They are over by 5%, but that doesn't mean that they built too much. It's just that's the current standards. The property is on B3, which you see in red. To the north is a B2 construction company. To the south is some more B3, but ultimately right away in 675. To the west is CPUD 13-5 in a high-tech office building with warehouse component and government contractor component. And then to the east is actually outside of the city limits, but it is a storage unit facility. Just a recap of how we got to where we are. The applicant did apply in December of 2025 for conditional use for an apartment hotel. Planning Commission denied that application and the applicant appealed to City Council It was tabled at the early January, second January meeting and then came before City Council on February 9th and City Council upheld Planning Commission's December ruling. When I say no substantial facts that alter the findings, I mostly mean that it's the same site. They're asking generally for the same thing. There hasn't been an acquisition of property or expandable area where they're still at 82% impervious. And as Mr. Montgomery explained, they have proposed a hybrid hotel slash apartment use. So what has changed since the PC25-9? Again, the hybrid model, and it does show the more apartment units, because the more parking is required for an apartment unit, there is a sliding scale as the more apartment units you get, it's not a one-to-one decrease in hotel units. So the overall, as you increase the apartment units, the overall number of units will decrease. SINCE DECEMBER, WE DID PASS A LICENSING ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES ALL HOTELS TO GET LICENSED WITHIN THE CITY AND HAVE OPERATING STANDARDS, INCLUDING 24-HOUR ON-SITE STAFFING, 182-DAY RESIDENCY LIMIT IN A ROLLING 12-MONTH PERIOD, AND THEN SERIOUS INCIDENT THRESHOLDS AS REPORTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. That went into effect in April. The applicant did apply and has received their license, but that has no bearing on this conditional use application. And again, the site has unchanged. It's still the 32,000 square foot building with 102 rooms and 106 parking spaces. You saw this earlier. This is the sliding scale where you can notice that as you increase the number of apartment units from 0 to 10, you decrease the number of total units from 102 to 92. And that's just based on an existing parking count of 106. They have STATED THAT THEY CAN REDUCE OR INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BY RESTRIPING THE PARKING LOT AND MAKING SOME OF THEM ONE SMALLER. AND WE DO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE 9 BY 19 PARKING SPACES, SO IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF. TYPICALLY WHERE THERE'S AN OVERHANG WHERE YOU CAN PULL THE CAR UP TO A CURB, SO YOU HAVE THAT TWO ADDITIONAL FEET WHERE THE CAR OVERHANGS INTO A SIDEWALK OR INTO A PLANTER OR A LANDSCAPE ON THEM, BUT THAT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE. AND THERE ARE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE THAT SIZE. and I know the applicant and their representatives have talked about the crime data and where I got the data that I put in in the staff report I got it straight from the police department and I've got I printed this off DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING, THIS IS A LIST OF ALL 1,057 DISPATCH CALLS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN THAT REPORT, NOT JUST FOR DISPARTS HOTEL, BUT THAT'S EVERY HOTEL IN THE CITY. AND LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS, HISTORICALLY, BASED ON THE 1057, 44% OF THAT HAS BEEN BURCH HOTEL. NOW, YOU CAN NOTICE THE BURCH HILL COLUMN, THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF OVERALL CALLS TO BURCH HILL. SUCH AS IN 2025, IT'S A 61% DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CALLS. THESE ARE DISPATCH CALLS. THESE AREN'T OFFICER INITIATED CALLS. THESE ARE DISPATCH CALLS. So there has been a 60% decrease in number of calls since 2022. But it's still an outlier when you look at the remainder of the other eight hotels versus Burch Hill. So I just wanted to point that out. I have this if you'd like to take a look at it. But these are the raw numbers that I got from the police department.

I would suggest that be Beaver Creek Exhibit A and admit it into evidence.

19 pages. So one of the standards by which Planning Commission is to review conditional uses is found in 158.171. THE STANDARDS STATE THAT ALL THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE. ONE IS, ARE HOTELS PERMITTED, IS THE USE PROPOSED ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT? AND YES. ALSO THAT THE PARTICULAR USE CAN'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AND DETERMINAL EFFECT. NOW, I SAID NOT SATISFIED HERE, BUT REALLY THAT'S UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT this will have a substantial or detrimental effect. And then vehicular traffic, can vehicular traffic be accommodated? That's not a primary barrier. In order for us to make that argument that it's not satisfied, we would have to produce a traffic study. And so we're not contesting that vehicular traffic would be an issue with this application. Again, no, as stated, no substantial changes in facts. The parking shortfall, that can be mitigated with the hybrid motel at the sliding scale where we increase the number of hotel apartment units decrease, so you can make that work. The new licensing ordinance, they did get their license, but that doesn't have a bearing on hotel. This is still a conditional use regardless of you having a license to operate a hotel or not. But as I've shown in the previous slide, they do have a disproportionate number of calls. While exceptionally lower than what they had in 22, it's still higher than the... than their percentage of, more than one-ninth of the calls, much more than one-ninth of the calls that the police take are dispatched to hotels, and they're one of nine hotels. So, yeah, they're four of nine calls over the last four years. So before you this evening, you have two resolutions in front of you. Resolution A is a resolution to deny the conditional use application. And if that's denied by Planning Commission, then they must revert to a 182-day compliant hotel of all the rooms. And no guests can occupy a hotel room for more than 182 days in a rolling 12-month period. THERE IS A RESOLUTION B THAT IS ALSO CONCURRENTLY IN YOUR PACKET, AND THAT IS THE OPTION IF PLANNING COMMISSION WISHES TO CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. AND IT DOES LIST SEVERAL SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ABOUT CAPS, AND THIS IS A NUMBER JUST BASED ON THE SLIDING SCALE. up to 10 units if the applicant wants more. I mean, that can be something that they ask for, but we just went from zero to 10 on the initial if approved. We wanted to ease the property rather than see the whole thing turn into an apartment hotel. and require many of the things that are required on the license already. One of the different conditions is there's an open gate between this property and the office warehouse to the west. And one of the conditions in that resolution for approval is that they need to close that gate and make it a gate only for emergency operations and work with the fire department to make sure it's only open when fire department comes in or the police department comes in and needs it as an emergency access. So things to consider during planning commission's deliberation. One, the substantial change that I discussed, the disproportionate impact that I discussed in the police data, that the licensing doesn't substitute or negate the need for conditional use approval. AND THAT YOU HAVE, AS PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU HAVE A QUASI-JUDICIAL STANDARD OF REVIEW WHERE YOU MUST MAKE ALL THREE OF THOSE FINDINGS IN 170, OR 158, 171. AND THE DECISION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVIDED ON THE RECORD. SO WHAT THE DISCUSSION AMONG PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A, IT SHOULD REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND NOT OTHER FACTORS. SO WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO KEEP YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IN FRONT OF YOU. BUT PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE ONE TO DECIDE WHETHER The three they've already met too. So it's the second one where whether or not the the police statistics and data Still suggest a substantial detriment to the area. So I'll leave that to Planning Commission to discuss and decide.

Thank you. Thank you And this is a public hearing. So if there's anyone here to speak on this from the public Seeing none I will ask if there was any written input.

There was no written input.

And with that, I will close the public hearing, and I will start to my right.

Mr. Burkett, could I start with you?

Yes, ma'am.

These questions are going to be all over the place, so I apologize. So the applicant stated that they perceived only 25% to 30% of apartment stays were, of all guests, were apartment stays, about 25% of their hotel. In our report, it was previously reported that it was more like 38% to 45%.

That was the December number, and that was based off a report we got in October, so they may have decreased that. I have no reason to believe that that wasn't decreased. But as the zoning now allows, it should be zero, that nobody should be there for more than 182 days without approval of conditional use.

And if we were to approve this conditional use, if in the future All the conditions cannot be met. Can this approval be revoked? Or is this a permanent approval? So if we approve this use, but the security issue is not resolved in the future, can this approval be revoked?

that one of the specific uh which condition are you talking about i don't think it's in the conditions i mean they'll have to meet these conditions if there's still if the even if they meet all these conditions and there's still police activity there that you can't go back and take away the conditional use they've met all the requirements so if we think they've met them right now okay so if it's approved it's approved it's approved it's approved okay

Thank you. That's all the questions I have for you. OK. I appreciate it. Miss Mayberry, could I ask you a few questions? Hi. So I just wanted to confirm, you said you've been there at this hotel for 18 years. And you said since you started, it's always operated as an apartment hotel?

Yeah, as a mixed use extended stay and apartment use to where they were allowed to stay over the six months as well.

Okay.

If we allow them to. Yeah. Which we don't if they have police involvement.

Okay. And when did you start the guest band system?

Guest band was completely up and running by January of 2025 with the criminal checks. We were using it prior, but it was only for a logging basis of logging the IDs and reporting issues within the hotel. As of December, it went fully live with the criminal background checks. December 2025 okay and do you run those just when someone is first checking in or do you periodically no we only have a reason to run it when they first check in if something happens off of our property you know that's that's a little bit unfair most of the time statistically guess that we're gonna have a problem with show that within 14 days of their stay sorry it was implemented in December of 25 or 24 sorry 25 yes we started using it in 24 25 is when the criminal background check would have fully taken place okay so December 24 was when it started okay and then upgraded in 25 okay

And then last question, if we were not to approve this conditional use and you were to continue to operate as a hotel, would you continue with this guest band system?

Oh, absolutely. That's something that is not going away.

Okay, so this is part of how you operate?

It is part of our operating, yes, absolutely. Okay. GUESTS CANNOT CHECK IN EITHER WITHOUT AN I.D. THAT CAN BE VALIDATED BY THE SYSTEM. WE CAN ALSO MANUALLY INPUT INFORMATION FOR PASSPORTS OR OUT OF COUNTRY I.D.S AS WELL.

I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

I stuck around.

My question is for the seven employees that you have, what are your plans as far as for security? Are you going to have a security person on staff, especially at night?

There's always somebody on site on the property, and they have a phone for emergencies, lockouts. They periodically walk the building, check the parking lot before we close the desk down. And I periodically, quite often, drive through the parking lot at night myself before I go home for the evening.

And then that would be for the whole 24 hours, because you said they close the dust down.

Yes, but there's somebody on site 24 hours, absolutely, that can be made contact with. Yes.

OK, that was my question. Thank you.

Good, thank you.

okay um let me begin well since you're standing up there ms montgomery let me begin with you and i'll then i'll go to mr martin and uh mr burkett um you with your 18-year tenure i'm i'm looking at what we construe here in the city of beaver creek and on the planning commission is facts uh irregardless to the superlative read statement you've given to much of the facts that we had presented to you i'm going with those facts and it shows a continuing history of disproportionately high dispatch calls, which we call dispatch calls to your property. And you had pointed out during your initial overview that, and this is the first of what will be a number of questions related to security measures that possibly you have implemented, I'm trying to find out. You had related how you've worked with the police department of the city of Beaver Creek and with our continuing history year after year after year of disproportionately high reference to the other eight hotels in the city of Beaver Creek, number of dispatch calls, what is it specifically that you've actually done or the property or the personnel have done to work with city of beaver creek to reduce possibly in a favorable manner for your property the number of dispatch calls because it doesn't seem as if it's anything is working and in spite of your it went down from 100 and something to 71 even on mr burkett's paper recently but over the year trend since you and others have implemented, you've been operating in this way for year after year after year after year. I'm trying to find out what you've done or did do over the historical context of your operation there.

that shows a relationship to design to reduce police activity uh and maybe possibly recently you've only done it because we've now started this hearing but what have you done historically absolutely so historically anybody that has a police involvement we do ask them to leave immediately unless it doesn't warrant it you know i mean if somebody's car got hit then we're not going to kick them out because their car got bumped in the parking lot and i think that should be looked at too as some of them is you know a dog running through the parking lot Might not even be a hotel guest dog, but that accounts for a call as well. In the past, we have had some staff that was a little bit too quick to call the police to do our job on asking guests to leave instead of us doing that. So that is a big factor that has reduced it as well. We are very proactive and actually document every monthly room check to make sure there's no illicit behavior going on in the room that is evident. We are very helpful with police when they come in. and they have questions about a guest or would like to make contact with a guest, we do everything within our legal power to help make that happen. We don't hide any information from them or anything strange like that. We've always given all the videos that they might want from us. You know, say there's a break in at the storage unit next door. Well, because they come talk to me about it, now that's listed on my police report as well. But we still do what we can to help them out, provide video coverage and things like that. There are also times, like I stated in my first testimony, that they just don't tell us what's going on. For example, the one that was listed as a hang-up, we have it logged in our book that the front desk asked what they were doing in the hallway, and they said they were just walking around. So if we don't know anything, we can't be helpful. I have had multiple conversations with undercovers throughout the years that I've been at the hotel to ensure that if there's anything that they're looking at that we can keep our eyes open for them as well.

One of the other issues, I think Mr. Martin began by talking about the percent currently versus the historical percent that Mr. Burkett had pointed out of people that live in residency there over our internally documented 182-day limit. Do you in any way with your focus on security perceive that these people that are here in permanent residencies might be more prone to a way of life and a lifestyle different than a hotel guest who's there for days or extended time that could contribute or maybe improve upon your security measures so that we could see going forward should this be approved we could see a continuing reduction or if it's not approved we would still see a reduction because that kind of permanent resident looks at the stay there and what happens there different than people that are there in a traditional hotel manner which is measured in days instead of months and years

Absolutely. I do think there's a difference, but I think it's a positive difference. Our guests that have been there over 182 days have not had police involvement. Their rooms are clean. They've been checked multiple times a month. and we don't have excessive complaints from them. With the transient guests, which is what we consider the guests that would be anybody under 182 days, that is where a lot of our complications and issues with guests actually come from. Most of the time, if we have to call about a disturbance for a guest, it's somebody that has only been there a very short time, which is, you know, had it happen the first day, they get there. You don't know them. We don't know them. It can happen anywhere as far as that goes. But historically and percentage-wise, the guests that are under 30 nights are going to be more of an issue than our guests that have been there for 182 days. Our guests that have been there and do consider it an apartment use They report even the minor things. We preach a see something, say something. They all report things to us that they might even see in the middle of the night so that we can go ahead and take a look at it in the morning. I think they carry more of a pride about being there and wanting to stay there and continue to be able to stay there than somebody that's just coming in for a couple of nights or even a week.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Montgomery. I wonder if I could have Mr. Martin come up. Ms. Mayberry. Ms. Mayberry, thank you. My apologies. Mr. Martin, if I recall from notes I was able to capture, you had said that you're the head of operations for this and other properties or just this property?

This and other. I oversee currently nine properties.

And it's been for a couple of years? Correct. So in your top-down view, I will say, this is a property that's been in existence based on our data for It was constructed in 2006 and it's taken over by Mr. Patel in 2021. So it's been in existence, Mr. Patel's world for a number of years and it's been in existence for your world. Where in your operational view has the level of scrutiny occurred because of the high level of scrutiny security dispatch call count the types of calls whether they're drug related crime related or other related vehicle disturbances where is that measure with these other properties that you're dealing with and have you initiated any any uh measures possibly to help this property out such as miss mayberry had been talking about what she's tried to initiate

YES. SO WHENEVER I FIRST GOT TO TAKING OVER THIS PROPERTY, I HAD CANDID DISCUSSIONS WITH LIZ AS WELL AS MY OTHER GM'S WHEN I TOOK THEM OVER, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS NEEDED AT THESE PROPERTIES. AND A BIG PART OF IT WAS MORE OF A PRESENCE FROM AN AREA LEADERSHIP STANDPOINT. SO I DO FORTUNATELY FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY AND THE OTHER ONES IN THE AREA, I LIVE IN THE CINCINNATI AREA. SO I'M HERE FREQUENTLY PART OF THE ROOM CHECKS THAT SHE TALKS ABOUT. we are going into the rooms more frequently, guests are unlikely to do the unsavory thing. So as they know, there are more eyes on them constantly between our housekeeping, the monthly safety security inspections that Liz does, and then my random inspections whenever I come into rooms, their guests are not going to stay if they're trying to hide stuff. And that's where she has talked about, you know, it's the short-term guest that we see more issues with. As Mr. Patel mentioned at the beginning, we as an industry, not just us here at this, but the extended stay model that's like he said, the Hilton's, the Marriott's, they're all getting into. they cater to a different clientele than a typical transient business. So we'll run weekly specials, nightly specials, monthly specials that are much lower price point than if you were to go get a stay at a Hampton Inn. So we are sometimes getting people that may not have a criminal background yet that our guest band system cannot catch that are coming in, be there two or three nights, and then we're kicking them out. We just recently took over a property in Louisville, Kentucky. That was that Mr. Patel also owns. It was shut down if I recollect correctly from april of 2025 until he purchased it and reopened in december of 2025 the police department the fire department and the health department the police chief fire chief and the health department have all come talked to myself as well as my general manager there and commended us about how well we have done cleaning up that property it was shut down because it was a city nuisance part of the condition of getting that property to reopen was eliminating the police call, the drug activity, the traffic. So we can only do that by being present and making sure that we're involved.

Well, given your testament to the other properties' works, I'm confused because I look at this property, which has a history of of extended extended stays beyond the 182 day limit that we have yeah and you've known about it uh i'm sure all the participants there have known about it and only now it's coming to light but the attraction of the type of clientele that's in an apartment hotel which was never approved as an apartment hotel, but now exists as an apartment hotel, I'm wondering if you might have created your own dispatch on our concern, police dispatch issue, simply because of the extended stays and people that you're, as you talk about, attracting a certain kind of clientele. Is that how it has existed on your other properties as well, or is that something that's unique to this property and its history of extreme extended stays?

So, I mean, my other properties as well, we do have police calls that happen just like it. We're comparing... this property to the eight other hotels which are not extended stays. So when he speaks to 44% of the police calls, what is the occupancy of those hotels? What is the room count of those hotels? So it's very easy to manipulate statistics and have them look a certain way. So yes, we may have a disproportionate number of police calls, but how many rooms do those hotels have? How many nightly rentals do those hotels have throughout a year for our one property here? Our 12-month occupancy is about 83%, where the industry average is 44.9%. So if we just take those numbers alone, we should have at least or roughly double than anything else. So, I mean, if you compare it to an apartment, I have no data in this for the other apartments in the area, how many police calls are those apartments getting that are 102-unit apartment complexes?

think that's kind of what we need to look at instead of comparing it to the hampton inn down the road that has 21 night stays of a soccer team yeah have you ever uh i'm going to ask this to mr montgomery in a second but have you ever taken the consideration that possibly your property operating as an apartment hotel without approval as an apartment hotel is possibly creating its own issues with the attraction of the clientele, with the police dispatch calls, other things simply because you're operating in a way that was intended when this was approved as a motel back in 2004.

I don't think it's necessarily us operating as a way that wasn't intended because we have other properties that we manage that or have jurisdiction regulations. One of the properties I had in Mason, Ohio, we operated on a 28-day at max cycle because that was what that jurisdiction did. When I came to this location, I had no knowledge that there was a 182-day limit. That wasn't presented to me until the first meeting I came in, I think in February, whenever the first one I was able to attend. So since then, we've been trying to work with the city to find a resolution.

Yeah, and that's why I'm asking you as the operations manager. This has come to light, obviously, in the last year. Yeah. And Jonathan and myself have been part of this as well as Mr. Burkett. And I'm just looking for what has been the conduct.

by yourself and the rest of your staff your management for something that's been ongoing for years and only now we're having a chance to in effect bring it up to compliance yeah i i don't i don't think it's the the fact that we have been operating out of compliance per se um i definitely think you know it's it's with covid whenever we had a lot i mean across the nation we had a ton of people lose their housing and go into extended stay facilities It's not isolated to this property that in 2022 there were a disproportionate number of police calls in extended stay facilities. That's across the country. And once we get closer to larger cities, we see more of that. Our properties in Pittsburgh, we see more of that. Our properties in downtown Columbus, we see more. Two that I oversee on the suburbs, Columbus, get very little. And those are people that are all apartment alternative. We're not getting... the transient guest flow in the rural areas. And we have very little police calls in those rural areas. It really is the larger population size equates to more police calls.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Montgomery, are you able to come back up and... and let us posit a couple questions to you. I'm doing this because you're here and I can look at you and Mr. Patel may or may not be on the phone that Mr. Martin called a moment ago, but I'd like to ask you. So the history of this, which Mr. Mark and myself are familiar with because we've been involved with this for a while, um this is something that's that goes back obviously to 2004 when it was approved as a motel and the term extended stay or now apartment hotel which you've only recently uh the property has achieved officially uh trying to apply for department hotel i'm i'm looking for a trend since Mr. Patel acquired the property in 2021. I'm looking for a trend of how it's operated because as we've heard and as we've seen over the last year that we've been looking at this, it's operated with a number of extreme extended stays well past the 182 day limit that's usually assumed a custom unless it's an apartment that you're renting. So I'm looking for what has been the management ownership decisions that this is how we're gonna operate it regardless of what may or may not be the way that the hotels the other hotels in the city operate other apartment hotels operate but because this was officially approved as a motel back in 2004 and only now are we looking at updating it to an apartment hotel possibility so what has been the decisions of mr patel are you representing him since 2021 and how it's operating yeah so let me i'm going to touch on a couple things in response to this so um

It's touched upon in the step actually page 3 of the staff report. If you look at the footnote, I mean extended stay was not even a defined term within your zoning code when this property was approved correct right and and if Mister self was here. I give him a wink, I mean I've been doing this in the city of Beaver Creek for 28 years right and Mister self help me cut my teeth and land use planning with him and Mister work. So the the IN MY EXPERIENCE, OKAY, AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS GOES TO SORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, I THINK, THAT PERHAPS YOU'RE ASKING, IS THE CITY'S POSITION IN SORT OF PEELING BACK THE ONION IS THAT AN EXTENDED STAY WAS APPROVED IN 2004, OKAY, AS A CONDITIONAL USE.

And what gives you the basis that you think that's true? The staff report itself. It says motel.

No, the approval says motel. The staff report indicates that it was an extended stay. And when you review the zoning file for this, unequivocally, I mean in black and white, the entire presentation that was given in 2004 spoke to a, quote, new extended stay concept.

Well, I'm not going to go better. No, no, no, no. I'm looking for the, my point is going to your grandfathering, the grandfathering your aspect in the, initial letter you gave us looking for a grandfathering possibility and this can only be for mr patel from 2021 forward i'm still focused on the police dispatch height uh disproportionate to the other hotels and the extended time of many of the residents however percentages is and i'm trying to look for my understanding from your mr patel standpoint How were you thinking this was going to be operated since 2021 if it was approved as a motel, the term extended to stay didn't get approved in the zoning code in 2009, and now we're in 2021, it's still a motel, and it's only now operating possibly as an apartment hotel. So I'm trying to understand the thinking of how you, on behalf of Mr. Patel, were going to operate this that could have led to what we now see are some of the issues that back in December, why this panel, denied it, and now we're looking at it again. I'm trying to understand the operational decisions since 2021 to help us see where you are now versus where you've been for the last five years.

Yeah, and again, I'll answer that the best you can. I mean, you are touching upon arguments that relate to, or not arguments, but position statements that relate to a nonconforming use, a legal nonconforming use, and we have not placed that issue before you. I simply put that in the supplemental narrative as background information. So to be clear and for the record, we are not here tonight arguing that we're a legal non-conforming use. We're not here arguing that we're not a legal non-conforming use. But setting that issue aside, what you did hear tonight, however, was testimony that per Liz, she has been affiliated with this property for 18 years and during her entire continuous tenure of the property, It has operated in a similar or identical capacity to what it is today since her involvement. in that regard right or wrong i mean just right or wrong but from a functionality standpoint the property has operated as an extended stay apartment hotel more than 182 day concept maybe not in total maybe not in part but that the the use that we are asking for today again setting aside legal non-conforming non-conforming but the use that we're asking for today is consistent with how the property has operated for at least the last 18 years okay the property was designed with kitchenettes every room that's in there this is all in the staff report so i'm not providing new testimony the you know but within the staff report every room or nearly every room has a kitchenette in it i mean it was clearly designed for something other than a motel, right? And it has operated as something other than a motel since the day.

So Mr. Patel just carried that forward. Correct.

Correct. I mean, he acquired the property in 2021 and he looked at it and said, this is how the property is being used. This is how the property has been used. This is how I'm using the property.

Okay.

I mean, from an operational standpoint, I think the differences are, I mean, he is cognizant, obviously, of a property I DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS. HE IS COGNIZANT OF HAVING A PRODUCT THAT IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. I MEAN, HIS TESTIMONY TONIGHT SPOKE ABOUT BEING A COMMUNITY-INVESTED PERSON. HE HAS BROUGHT IN OR, SORRY, YOU KNOW, HE HAS CONTINUED TO ENGAGE A TOP-NOTCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP. THAT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP in conjunction with Mr. Patel, because they don't operate isolated, they have gone through, they have implemented new procedures, and they're trying to address the concerns of the city, which do tie, I think, to your question, your fundamental question, perhaps, which relates to the security and the operational aspect of the property.

Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. I appreciate that. That's it.

Randy, I have one more question.

this is going back to the new zoning audience that was approved march 9th and became uh officially adopted on april 8th of this year the licensing the licensing yes thank you um i want to find it because i had a question now that they have their license as of i believe it's the 28th of april correct so they're the license as a hotel and the the way the zone units that i had right in front of me but i can't find it now there is a clause in there that it's going to be subject to possible reviews without a defined time basis and I'm wondering based on how we're looking at this today or how sending it then to the council after today with an approval or a denial that then impacts this ongoing review of the license So that even though you said it doesn't apply for today, could this decision of approval or denial, which is then going to go to council, could this decision then impact this ongoing review of compliance to the 26-07? and what those terms are for the 182 days, for the detriment or enhancement of the community, all those terms in the 26.07, are they now somehow going to be impacted by us and the council after today?

Just to be clear, it's not going to council after this, right? Oh, my apologies. That was the whole basis of me doing this. It would only go to council if they were to appeal our decision. Okay. Is that correct?

So based on just today, and since we have the license, I'm concerned that what we do today then has an impact one way or the other to those conditions in the license review, which said that those will be an ongoing process now that it's been granted. Is that true? I don't think it will have an impact.

I think that they can run hand in hand. I think that what they're asking for today would be in addition to what the existing license requirements are. I don't think it would supersede or negate any of them.

Well, even in approval by us today, according to the license...

It wouldn't absolve them from any of the requirements to keep their license because at least a portion of it would be operated as an extended stay hotel anyways.

But that would still have the 182-day limit, correct?

Correct. The portions that's not being operated as...

Whether the hybrid is forward or not, that's where I'm going.

If Planning Commission approved the hybrid model and say up to 10 rooms were approved as an apartment hotel, the remaining available rooms would still be subject to the hotel regulations in the licensing.

There go our abilities today with an approval, let's say, or denial. Our ability to allow this property to go forward with either 100% now or some mixture less of extreme extent to stay beyond 180 today would require the city through our own inspection service and others to perform an increased, versus the other hotels in the city, an increased monitoring to ensure compliance with that less than or more than 182 day limit. So by approval or denial, because they have the license under the 26-07 that was approved back in March, we are in fact adding to the city an unusually higher than normal for the other eight hotels NEED FOR COMPLIANCE TIME TO ENSURE THAT 182-DAY LIMIT IS NOT EXCEEDED FOR THE ROOMS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED IN THEIR HYBRID MODEL.

CAN I JUMP IN REAL QUICK? IN THE PACKET YOU PROVIDED, IT SAYS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES ALL HOTELS, MOTELS, APARTMENT HOTELS AND EXTENDED FACILITY. SO THAT 182 DAYS, ACCORDING TO YOUR PACKET, DOES APPLY TO APARTMENT HOTELS TOO. IS THAT CORRECT?

I think that the intent is not to apply the 182 day limit to an apartment hotel by definition.

not the rooms that are being used as apartments it would have still applied to any room that wasn't being used as an apartment right they would have to designate certain rooms as these are our apartments and the rest of these are our hotel rooms so could you look at chapter 119 for us and verify that please where i'm going is to understand could we be additionally adding an unusually larger impact to the resources of the city for just this one property

because of the permissions that we would, by approval, be giving them for allowing these days to, since they've said for 18 years and now since 2021, Mr. Patel, that they just go full force with beyond 182 days. They don't care. But now under this new licensing, they have to care for the rooms that are designated to you.

I don't think it would be any additional work on the city in terms of, as we would do for any other project like when we approve a starbucks that particular starbucks is going to require us to do inspections and and we have to be cognizant of the uh parking out there i mean each property as we grow larger and larger as the city stretches staff thinner and thinner thinner So this would be no different in terms of special extension or expansion of our duties. I think it would just add slightly more based on what we have already with the license.

if i could uh tweaking a different subject but as long as you're up there sure there are a number we don't have a map up but there are a number of tech companies uh that who knows what goes on related to the base in and around that property there's one immediately to the west of it there's across the street uh there's so what's the limit for this that we can officially look at for those tech companies aerospace companies defense companies that are to the upper right, to the left obviously, I'm looking at the map I have, modern technology, soreness in communications, defense research, and then obviously the company additionally directly to the west. And I'm looking at the amount of activity that we've seen in our dispatch calls and then what you just gave us as an exhibit. How much of that are we including Our impact of this property and how it's operated for the last five years since mr Patel took it over to impact Those companies as well who are concerned about the surrounding area for their property. Where does our limit go?

I mean The report that you have before you the numbers are just based on the address It's what I asked the police to pull the numbers for that hotel if that's what you're asking about the crime rate numbers and I mean, it's a perception as well. I mean, you've got defense contractors coming in and out, and if they perceive an area to be... If they see, I don't, they don't see the numbers compared to other hotels, but I mean.

I'm just concerned with what we've seen and what the council has seen and conveyed to us about the concern of the tenants, the aerospace, high tech, classified contract tenants that are within x hundred of feet from the property because of the activity the police activity on that site which is rather large and disproportionate yeah they're aware of the activity i mean the tenants and guests of the tenants in those office buildings are definitely aware and the property owners are aware of the increased activity and we don't have a limit like we would for a zoning application in a residential area 500 feet or something like that?

No, there's no buffer requirement. And the other thing is it's an existing structure. So if that was a vacant lot, we would certainly have fencing that would go all around and maintain everything, contain everything in the property.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burkett. May I ask another question?

What was the code provision that you were having me look up?

Chapter 119. Chapter 119.

Of course, it's not codified on AMLAW for me to see.

I think the intent when I wrote it was that an apartment hotel is like a mixed use where it's part of it it's going to be an apartment part of it's going to be a hotel and we wanted to ensure that the hotel standards still apply for the hotel portion of the apartment hotel if it went 100 apartment then the standards wouldn't apply anymore but then it wouldn't be apartment hotel it would be an apartment randy do you remember when that that uh was adopted so maybe i could find the packet i want to say Thank you, Jim. Mr. Fallon.

Thank you, Randy. That's all I have. Thank you.

Randy, sorry. One more question. Um, in the license it says serious incident threshold. So can you explain what that means and what is the threshold? And if they, if virtual has already received the license, does that mean that there's security incidents there underneath that severe incident threshold?

I started when there is a threshold. I don't remember the exact numbers. I thought it was like, and Josh could tell me. I want to say it's 12 and a, what's the threshold to require a, constitute a security meeting with the police? I think it's in the ordinance.

Sorry, I was looking at 119.

Yeah, it's in there somewhere. There's a threshold that once a certain number of serious incidents have occurred, then it triggers a review by the police department and planning department. Whatever that number is, I started all hotels at zero at the licensing point. I didn't want to start them off at minus one and then suspend their license a week after I issued it.

Okay, so then this license does not reflect previous operations. Right. Clean slate. Okay, so and then there's also the license can be suspended or revoked. based on them not meeting these regulations. So in theory, if there is going to be serious incidents and they pass that threshold, there is already something in the original licensing that would address that.

It does offer the opportunity to suspend Now, I don't think it could suspend the apartment units portion of it, but it could suspend the hotel portion units of it.

So then this license would only apply to the hotel portion?

Right. It's like if 80% of the building is a hotel, then we can apply it to 80% of the building. We can't apply transient rental standards to permanent residences.

And so do we have a separate license?

No, we don't require a license for apartments.

Thank you.

12 or more serious incidents with any rolling 12-month period.

But I guess the question is, so does that apply to apartment hotels? Or is that only applying to the extended use portion?

That would only apply to the hotel portion. That would not apply. The dwelling unit portion... guess my i guess we don't know so for that particular part we don't know if the calls are being called for yes what what portions of those that so i would say that that's going to apply to the apartment hotel if there are 12 incidents they're going to get that review if they're an apartment hotel the part that doesn't apply to the ones that are acting as dwelling units. If it's a dwelling unit within the apartment hotel, there's no limitation on how long those people can stay because it's a dwelling unit. In the individual units where there's a limitation... 182 days. 182 days would apply to those extended stay rooms.

Okay.

So that ordinance was calling out dwelling units are... Well, an apartment hotel is defined as containing both dwelling units and individual guest rooms, so they're separated out. Okay.

and then so then it's talking about guest rooms can't be occupied them correct because i guess the point is if if that does apply right to the apartment hotel the 182 day limit well then what are we doing right because the 182 limit applies to those

those units that are individual guest rooms, it would not apply to the portions that are being used as permanent dwelling units. Here it's a permanent dwelling unit. I mean, you have to, an apartment hotel has, it's basically an apartment in some sections and a hotel in some sections is acting as both. And you can have a limitation on how many days people are staying in the hotel rooms. But if it's an apartment within the building, that there's no limitation on guest stays.

okay pretty good yeah okay all right um let's see so i just want to clarify so the city is not contesting the parking portion at all anymore correct what if

If they, with the sliding scale, then the parking counts are no longer applicable. Okay. So long as they stick within those thresholds.

Yeah. Just wanted to get that clear, because I know there was a lot of testimony about parking and capacity and all that. But that's not a point of contention.

Yeah, I mean, our last application, we didn't have a percentage that just wanted to go to a apartment hotel, and that required 60 more spaces than they had. So sliding scale, it fixes that issue. OK. And then, sure.

So two, I don't disagree with what Randy said. That said, if the commission were open to granting the reduction in parking stall size, the applicant's preference would be to have that. And the only reason I say that is should parking ever become an issue, if I understand Randy correctly, there's not a need to go in and restripe the property. But should parking become an issue, that condition would already have been approved by Planning Commission. AND WE COULD JUST GO IN AND RESTRIPE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO COME BEFORE YOU FOR A SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF PERKINGSTALL SIZE. SO WITH THAT SAID, I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF WHERE THE APPLICANT'S POSITION WAS ON THAT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WAS THAT A CONDITION ALREADY IN OUR RESOLUTION, RANDY, DO YOU KNOW? Yeah, I don't see it. OK. Randy, a few more questions, please. There was a lot of talk about the numbers of calls and everything. So I know the applicant submitted two evidences. You also provided evidence. But in your packet, because I know one of the sticking points was whether your numbers were correct or not. Do you stand by those numbers?

I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PART OF THE PACKET IS THE STAFF REPORT FROM DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE SECOND HALF OF 25 NUMBERS OR THE FIRST HALF OF 26 NUMBERS, OR THE SECOND HALF OF 25 NUMBERS. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBERS BETWEEN THE DECEMBER PACKET AND THE STAFF REPORT MEMO FOR THIS. Current staff report for PC 26-2, which states at the top, memo regarding updated application and police data, those numbers are based on that data.

And in the packet, so you say it excludes proactive patrols and business checks in your numbers. Is that correct? Right. Okay. Because I think that was one of the sticking points, right, of the applicant, was that...

They have no control over that, and I didn't want to ding them. I didn't want anybody to give the appearance that somebody's causing more criminal activity just because the police decide to drive around the neighborhood. I mean, a neighborhood's not more dangerous because there's more police driving around it. It'd only be more dangerous if there was crime at it. So that's why I discounted proactive patrol.

Yeah, police patrolling is a good thing. But even with all those taken out, it's still 71 versus 137, which if you do the math, that's more than four times on average any other hotel. that's the the total of for the year yeah and they're in their best year yeah right yeah it's four times yeah yeah four point one times yep so even though there was a decrease it's still four times and if we look at the applicants exhibit number two there's roughly 60 calls which I To be fair, those don't take out those same calls that you took out. So those numbers would be a little low. But that 60 was only March through May. Of this year? Correct.

Yeah, my numbers stopped at December of 25.

Correct.

I would imagine, just from memory, I don't want to submit this as... FROM MEMORY, THAT SOUNDS, IF I INCLUDED THE NON-DISPATCH OR THE PROACTIVE, THAT SOUNDS ABOUT, THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE ABOUT RIGHT.

AND THEN, LET'S SEE, SO, AND JUST TO REITERATE THIS, I KNOW MS. MAYBERRY MENTIONED, LIKE, AN EXAMPLE OF SECURITY VIDEO BEING GIVEN TO POLICE. THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN YOUR NUMBERS, CORRECT? It wouldn't be an additional crime. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it would not be in your numbers in that 71 or 25.

It might be in the officer-initiated one, but it would be in a dispatch number.

Okay. There was something on slide 12. Can you go to slide 12? I just wrote down slide 12, but I didn't remember what it had. OK, no, we talked about that. That was the 182-day thing. We talked about that. Thank you. And then we also mentioned was the example of a guest gets kicked out after two days. They cause a police call. That's still a burden on the police, that call. Regardless of how long they were there, it's still a call. And that's still a burden. Is that correct?

Yeah, anywhere that, I mean, anywhere you get a phone dispatches.

Yeah, I think that was all the questions that I had.

I have two housekeeping matters before we go on. Just so that we have a clear record, Melissa, can you mark the staff report Beaver Creek Exhibit B? and the powerpoint presentation is beaver creek exhibit c just for our record purposes

you also include the 119 that you reviewed so that it hasn't been officially so 119 is well it hasn't been published to american legal it is part of our code in effect since april 8th or thereabouts it's in our code of ordinances it doesn't technically need to be in there um it doesn't

Part of the law, current law.

Yeah, even though it's not showing up when I'm looking at American legal, doesn't mean that it hasn't been passed and is in full force and effect. There's a delay always in every municipality before it ends up, because there's a cost involved with getting it published to American legal.

But it's still part of the... Nine months or a year before we take all the ordinance that have passed in the last 12 months and codify them. Yep.

thank you second helpings just want to remind as you are making your motions and deliberation to articulate reasoning very clearly yeah I was I was gonna say that too after sorry the second helping so while you're up here Randy make sure that I'm not I think the position is they have so to get the conditional use approval they have to meet all the requirements of one five eight point one seven one C for B the first criteria a think there's no there's no quins questioning whether they it is a conditionally permitted it is conditionally permitted in that district so they meet that criteria b the applicant believes they meet and the city does not believe they meet c randy this is why i want you up here c they meet if condition 17 is met

about the approval. Condition C says there won't be a vehicular impact on the neighboring properties. In order for us to assert that, we would need to do a traffic study. Okay, sorry. So you're not arguing C either, then? Right. I'm just asking Planning Commission whether the thing B is satisfied or not.

Yeah, so your decision will be based entirely upon whether they, I think they do meet A and C. There's no, at least there's no argument on C. We're not arguing against that. so when you make your this decision whatever it is it should be before you make the motion say based upon a finding that the applicant does or does not meet condition b and then why you think they don't meet it i move to whatever you're going to do i'm not telling you Yeah, but I want based upon that finding and why you either think they meet or do not meet.

If we were to approve, do we need to address A and C at all?

So I would say for both A and C, you should say in your findings, we find that they meet A and C. We do not or we do find that they meet condition B because of the following. It's in, is it in the? Yeah. I mean, you can say the finding before you make the motion. You can say, I'm just going to use an example. You know, based upon a finding that the applicants meet A, B, and C, and I believe they've met the requirements of B because of whatever, I hereby move that and then make your motion to approve. Or if it's motion to deny, then you say, I believe they've met A and C, but I do not believe they've met condition B and it's our finding that they have not met condition B because of this, therefore I move. What? I mean, after the motion is made, there can be a discussion on whether they believe they met mattered, they agree or disagree with that finding. And then you'll know why they're they're making if Mr. fountain says, you know, in the discussion, I, I think they have met condition B and says then and then he votes to approve, you know why he votes to approve why he's doing it. So But yeah, each one of them should talk about in the discussion after the motion is made, whether they agree or disagree with the particular finding.

and then so hypothetically if we were to do the resolution of denial right are you wanting us to say we're voting for denial or against denial because it's confused it can be confusing right because you're voting in the affirmative to deny in that case whereas if you're voting to for the resolution for approval you're obviously voting an affirmative would be an approval

there's there's two resolutions in your packet one is for approval one is for denial so you would make a motion to prove the resolution of denial yes so then you're voting yes to deny correct yes there's always it's an affirmative vote it gets confusing when it's an i means no so but yes so you'd be voting on that resolution for denial okay with that i think we had a second yeah question miss mayberry could i ask you one more question please

Thank you. If we were to approve this and then the limit of apartments would be 10, if you currently exceed that 10 limit, do you have a plan for how you would choose who gets to stay and who would have to be released?

Yes. We're going to... by pretty much the same criteria that we've been talking over here. You know, who's the best of the best? Who causes no problems? Is it super clean? THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO GET TO STAY WHEN THE CUT HAS TO BE MADE WITHIN WHATEVER TIME FRAME WE'RE GIVEN TO ALLOW THEM TO FIND OTHER HOUSING. IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION. IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY SAD DAY IN OUR HOTEL. SO IF YOU ALL WANT TO STOP BY AND GIVE SOME PEOPLE SOME ENCOURAGEMENT AND WHERE TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN BEAVER CREEK, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT, YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE VERY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO CHOOSE. IT'S GOING TO BE THE WAY IT IS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

Second helpings over here, anyone? No? Okay. And with that, does anybody have a motion?

mr german i'm ready to make a motion first i want to preface the motion by saying how exemplary it is that the applicants have shown in the last half of the year and this year how they've worked to improve a lot of the conditions that were found in november of 2025 when the fire marshal made the initial review and then city beaver creek made the review which caused the violation which started you coming before us this panel this planning commission back in december of 2025. so that's that's a strong plus however part of this motion is a reflection of the role of this property in the citizenry citizenry of the city of beaver creek and how it relates to its other hotel counterparts and how it relates to the the neighbors, mostly high tech that surround it. And I'm concerned of a continuing and consistent trend, which albeit has improved of recent, but it's been going on since Mr. Patel took over the property that we have records for. which relate to conditions of extreme extended stay, of police dispatching, and of just very violations of the property with site coverage and parking, which I don't know that they are relevant anymore based on what the good stuff we've heard tonight. So my motion is to approve the denial of the applicant's request for conditional use per violation and noncompliance with 158.171 subset C for B only on the conditions that it does have a material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties to this property as demonstrated by the police dispatch calls, the feedback that has come into the city from the tech and other tenants who are in the surrounding area. And then secondly, we'll have a negative impact in this surrounding properties operation because of the type of police dispatch clientele that has been revealed. So my motion to approve the denial based on 158.171 4CB for the detrimental effect. it will have on the surrounding properties and the clientele that we are striving to attract here in the city thank you that is so the motion is to approve the resolution of denial which is the second resolution in your packet correct and an affirmative vote is to deny you know negative affirmative vote would be a denial of the application correct yes and i need a second please

With that, we have a second. Melissa, can you please take the roll?

I think there should be a discussion about the findings from everybody on why they're, whether they believe they did or did not meet that criteria. go around the table and ask you know okay do you believe that again no you're i think you're good i think we've we've heard what your your position is so um you would want from everyone to say whether they believe they either met or did not meet the criteria of 158.171 c4b and then why because they think they met it or did not meet it

they just do that right before they vote because what if somebody is disagreeing right they could say they think it does meet that and then that's why they're therefore I'm voting this way they can do that yeah sure yes and then sure that works miss Palumbo no

Well, I do believe the property does have a substantial disproportionate police demand. I don't see evidence where the apartment hotel portion is causing the police disturbance versus the extended stay portion. And because we can't distinguish between those two, I don't believe that is enough to deny their application.

I vote to deny. I feel that's an affirmative vote. That's a yes. Okay. Um, I feel at this time that b is not satisfied due to the properties i mean i i do commend for the fact that the numbers are going down but i do not feel that they're they're ready yet thank you mr fountain you already heard from me i made the motion

I vote to approve the denial for reasons aforesaid Mr. Meyer I vote to approve the denial for the reasons that the hotel remains a clear outlier on police calls and the level of chronic service chronic calls for service create a material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and city resources And with that, motion carries 4 to nothing.

3 to 1. 3 to 1.

3 to 1. 3 to 1. Sorry, I missed that. 3 to 1. The motion still carries. And with that, we are on to our next decision item, PUD 03-2, mod 526. Just, OK. We'll hear from staff when he's ready. Actually, I think it's, is it, yeah, John, okay.

Good evening, commission members. This is for Keller Williams wall signs. This is PUD03-2, minor modification. There we go. So here we are in Beaver Creek. It's in the southern half of the city, just north of Indian Ripple Road, close to the 675 interchange. Here's the building and here's two arrows where the signs will be. It's a long narrow building. It's two stories. It's an office building. The original use was a medical office. And then this would be taking one of the two tenant spaces. The new tenant It would be Keller Williams Realty Company Community Partners. It would be located at that 4172 building. They're requesting a minor modification to allow two wall signs. So this PUD specific site plan requires minor modifications for any signage, any time they add a sign. They did add a ground sign in 2005. or perhaps 2006, but mod 1205 approved that ground sign, which is existing. There's currently no wall signs other than, which doesn't count as a sign, the address label on two sides of the building. So here's a rendering of the sign with the location pointed out. This is one of two signs. This sign is flush-mounted, channel letters. They're one unit, a KW logo. And then this is the sign that would be facing the driveway, so facing the east side of the building, or facing out from the east side of the building. As you can see, this sign has flush-mounted general letters, that's the KW, and the other letters are actually on a raceway. Typically in the city, we prohibit raceways. There are PUDs that are allowed. This is not in one. And staff, we've addressed that in the conditions. So here are the conditions. Some of this is boilerplate, including this one. PUD 03-2 remains in full force. The approved renderings, this is boilerplate, except it's modified below. Those would be the approved renderings. And the main modification would be that raceways are prohibited. So the applicant would have to figure out a way to eliminate the raceway. Whether that be mount all the letters individually, or change the sign. And then they would need a zoning permit, a sign permit for the signs, and then any change to the ground sign. And then staff recommends approval with the conditions.

Thank you. Since this is not a public hearing, I'll just open it up if anybody has questions.

Jeff, can you come back up and put the slide up that shows the red KW?

So I'm confused on a couple of items. Yeah, that one's fine.

So the first one of the conditions talks about the use of raceways are not permitted. So excuse my lack of sign knowledge, but is all three of the elements, KW, community partners, Keller Williams Realty, are each one of them mounted on a raceway now in the drawing?

That's a good question. So the KW is not that's flush mounted. Building? Yeah, that's mounted on the building. What they do is they they mount it directly to the building. It has its own junction box, its own wiring. And that costs more. So like if they...

But the other two are are on raceways?

But yeah, there's actually three lines of raceway.

So community partners and then Keller Williams Realty.

Yeah, community is one line, partners is one line, and then Keller Williams Realty is another line. So it's three separate raceways.

Okay, so if raceways are prohibited, maybe you said I was listening to you to say it and I didn't catch it. What are we approving if they're not showing us what they're actually going to do?

So that's a good question. You're approving the general shape and message of the sign and the other sign and that those signs can be there.

I mean, they could come back with just a big box with all the words in there, you know, it's not a raceway, so they're gonna come back to us again with the final sign? I'm wondering now versus the future.

Yeah, no, it's a good question. What it is is these are the plans that are stamped, received May 14th, and then that condition says except as modified below. And one of the modifications is the removal of the raceways that you see.

So they're going to still come back to us?

No, no, no. When they come for the permit, they have to remove the raceways.

Oh, okay. So you guys will judge if their box that has everything in it or how are they going to do it and fix it to the building? is is it okay that were there before it can have a race okay that explains it then the second of two questions i have is the last time this is no temporary signs assuming this is not going to go up right away and it's not there now Are they going to try to put up a piece of paper sign or whatever? And we're telling them, no, you can't do squat until you're ready for the final sign when you come in for permitting. And that's what I mean when it says no temporary.

That's correct.

So they got zip until they're ready to come to us for the permit for the final sign.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

All right.

And they're good with that.

And that's boilerplate. That's standard. That's what we usually do.

There's nothing there because there's nothing there now. Okay. All right. Okay. I'm good. Thank you, sir.

Just to clarify, it says illuminated. Does that mean the individual letters are going to light up or they're doing like a spotlight?

The individual letters will be eliminated. Okay. Thank you. But they could do either or. But technically, in this plan, the letters are individually illuminated. They have internal illumination with LEDs. But the language illuminated sign could mean either. It could mean illuminated with a spotlight or illuminated internally.

OK. And is there regulations about if something's illuminated, It can't, the light pollution can't exceed passive building?

Okay. Yeah, they would have to maintain the lighting standards that we have. And they would also have to largely go by this plan, just modifying it only to remove the raceway, and then any other necessary modifications that go with that in terms of cost or anything like that. So it would still be probably that internally eliminated.

Okay, thank you. Did you? You're good. Just one question. The applicant knows that they can't do raceways, right? Just make yes, they've been informed. Okay. All right. Thank you. And with that, we don't have any more questions. Motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the request for two permitted or permanent wall signs of pod 03 dash two. As With the six conditions, my apologies. Five conditions.

Yeah. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second that. All right. And can we take the roll, please?

Ms. Usher? Yes. Mr. Felton?

Yes.

Ms. Palumbo? Yes. Mr. Meyer?

Yes. 4-0. The motion carries. And then we have one more item, the CRA board appointment. Okay.

Thank you. Yes, I do realize that when I talk CRAs or PACE or TIFs or TURCs or any of that, I know what it means in my own brain, but I should understand that not everybody else knows what that means when I just throw it out. THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA HOUSING BOARD. IT'S A CRA BOARD. THEY'VE EXISTED FOR A WHILE NOW. WHAT A CRA IS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE STATE APPROVED IN 1977, YOU CAN DESIGNATE AREAS FOR COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT, AND IT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTY WHERE THE FREEZE THEIR PROPERTY TAXES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT MAKING $100,000 IMPROVEMENT ON THEIR PROPERTY ONLY TO BE PENALIZED WITH ADDITIONAL TAXING RATE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WORTH MORE. IT WAS MODIFIED IN 1994, BUT REALLY FOR OUR INTENSIVE PURPOSES, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CRA'S IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW. IT WAS A TOOL AND A TOOL BOX SHOULD. should they're really only beneficial to a city when if and if we ever had an income tax so there it has not been pulled as a trigger yet but we want to keep that option open should should uh should an application warrant it um so and it's expiring now rather than us waiting to no what it is is the board is appointed for a term AND THE TERM EXPIRED FOR THE BOARD. AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT IN A SECOND HERE. THIS JUST KIND OF SHOWS THE EXEMPT PORTION WOULD BE THE GREEN. BUT FOR THE BEAVER CREEK CRA, IT WAS CREATED IN 2018. THE ENTIRE CITY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE CRA, AND THAT'S STANDARD. IT ALLOWS FOR UP TO 12-YEAR ABATEMENTS ON REMODELING AND RENOVATION AND UP TO 15-YEAR ABATEMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. Right now, our ordinance only allows it to be for commercial and industrial properties only and to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. You can go up to 100%, but anything above 50 would have to be approved by the school board as well. The board members are appointed in this manner, which was established by Resolution 1844, that two members of the board are appointed by the mayor, two members are appointed by the city council, one member is appointed by planning commission, and one member is the housing officer. And the planning and development director is designated as the housing officer. Once that board, those six members come together, then they would appoint two members of their own. so Planning Commission needs to appoint one of the members on the board and one thing I'm saying what I'm suggesting rather than appointing a person per se just as the housing officer has been appointed as the Planning and Development Director I recommend that the Planning Commission appoint one of the officers either the chairman or the vice chairman as their representative on the the CRA Housing Board so that if the if not saying you're going anywhere mr meyer or miss yourself's going anywhere but if you if that or anyone's going anywhere if a person is appointed then they decide to resign based on whatever reason we don't have a vacancy that there's always going to be a vice chair there's always going to be a chairman I THINK THE VICE CHAIR WOULD BE A GOOD PERSON TO APPOINT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPOSITE APPOINT AN INDIVIDUAL TOO. I'M JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU GUYS APPOINT SOMEBODY OR SOME POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE BUREAU CREEK COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA HOUSING BOARD. THANK YOU. Thank you.

Any questions? Oh, yeah.

Randy, so just a couple since I had zip knowledge of this. Seriously, when Melissa does the packet and sends out the meeting minutes when we come back for the July meeting, can you include those slides? Can you include those slides? Because I have no knowledge of any of this, and once this goes away tonight, I'll have no knowledge.

I'll send you a whole packet on CRAs. I've got all kinds of legislators. No, I mean just these slides. I can send you the slides, but I can also send you the resolutions and the ordinance that created it and the information that I gave to the CRA board at the first meeting.

Okay. Then the other question, since there's no one else in the room, since we know it's coming in November,

uh yeah uh since we know what's coming to vote on in november is this something that'll just be decided and then it's done and then it's resurrected in 2027 when we know the outcome of november no they're three-year board appointments so the cra remains it's just the members on the board uh have three-year terms and it's not impacted by the up or down no it wouldn't go away i assume it's never met right right we've had it since 2018 and there's never been

That was my question. Thank you, Randy.

Question.

To clarify, if there's three-year terms and we represent the chair to represent us,

how does that work if it's the same person over and over again and then whoever fills that position is the representative okay so regardless if it's one of you or john smith okay that's what you're saying if like it was the vice chair and if i left then it would be the new vice chair who would automatically take that and we wouldn't have to appoint somebody new

Yeah. So three-year term, they can have repeating three-year terms on the CRA?

Three years ago, I asked the Planning Commission to appoint somebody. I think Mr. Self was appointed. trying to get away from people and but more positions so that there's continuity should like like the planning director i mean i hope that i'm still planning director in three years but if i'm not there's there's no there's not a vacancy required because because the new planning director came on um so it wasn't me randy approved it was appointed it was the planning and development director was appointed to the board

But those terms, there's no limit to how many terms you can serve?

No, there's no term limits in terms of you can serve 40 times.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so we need a nomination. We would need a nomination and then a vote on that nomination.

I would not want to nominate Mr. Self in his absence, so I'll default to nominating Mr. Meyer to be this role.

To be clear.

Himself or the position he sits in? Vice Chair. I'm recommending that you appoint the Vice Chair.

The Vice Chair, not Mr. Meyer, who currently is. Correct. Okay. I nominate the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for the post representing the Planning Commission and the CRA.

And I second. Are there any other nominations? No? Okay. do we need to vote on if there's no other nomination yes okay can we take a vote please mr fountain yes miss palumbo yes miss usher yes mr meyer yes with that the motion carries so the vice chair will be appointed to the board With that, we're out of agenda items, but I had one thing since I'm chairing that I'm going to ask. Can we do a training? I don't think we did one since we have the new board at one of our upcoming meetings. Yes.

Sorry, you asked me about that previously and I just haven't put anything together, but when is the next meeting?

The next meeting will be like that right around 4th of July. So I'd rather wait till August.

Yeah, that's fine. Sometime. I believe I'll be in Costa Rica that week.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be in that week. We already showed it. We can do a Zoom.

I might not be in a condition to do any training.

How about is everybody, I just want to make sure everybody's going to be here for the August meeting, and then we can do a work session before it. If everybody could come at 5, and then we can go 5 to 6, and then have the regular meeting. That way you're not making. We can get you the slides at a time.

Thank you. And with that, we're out of items. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Mr. Chair, I motion to adjourn.

I second. Thank you. And with that, we are adjourned.