Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

starting good evening and welcome to the uh july 13th meeting of beaver creek city council i could i have a roll call please

Councilmember Kern. Here. Councilmember Dewar. Councilmember Bills. Here. Councilmember Littoral. Councilmember Bales. Here. Vice Mayor Upton. Here. Mayor Adams.

Here.

Do I have a motion? Move to excuse Councilmember Dewar and Councilmember Littoral.

Second. Second. I have a motion and a second to excuse Councilmember Dewar and Littoral. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Councilman Bills, we'll turn it over to you.

All right. If you would all stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

And if you'd stay standing for a quick moment of silence. These last couple weeks have been a difficult time for my family, and so my thoughts have been with those in our community that are going through hard times or have experienced losses. I hope we can all seek to find ways to comfort and support those that stand in need. Send the card, make the phone call, or give the hug. I'd like to take a moment of silence for those who are struggling and pray that they receive the strength they need to get to peaceful and happier times. Thank you.

We have an agenda before us.

Any corrections, updates, changes?

We approve the agenda, Your Honor. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? We also have a set of minutes for June 22nd regular meeting. Any changes, corrections, additions?

Move to approve the June 22nd minutes.

I have a motion and a second to approve the June 22nd regular meeting minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions?

One.

Thank you. Ordinances, resolutions, and PUDs. Ordinance 26-15. This has been tabled in the past, so we will have to untable it tonight.

Mr. Mayor, before discussion begins on it, as I had done previously, due to family tie, I need to excuse myself.

Move to untable Ordinance 26-15. Second.

I have a motion and a second to untable Ordinance 26-15. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

you would read the same ordinance 26-15 ordinance rezoning 22.3 acres from our 1a one-family residential and b2 neighborhood business further described as book 3 page 19 parcels 50 51 52 53, 54, 55, and 66 on the property tax maps of Greene County, Ohio, to the MX-PUD 26-2 mixed-use planning unit development.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Jake Shields, 6161 Oak Tree Boulevard, Independence, Ohio. Thank you again for taking the time, Mayor, City Council, staff, FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME UP HERE AGAIN AND TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE SINCE OUR LAST MEETING DISCUSSING THIS SITE. I WILL BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT, I MEAN, REALLY ABOUT OURSELF AS GREAT FOX CAPITAL. WE DO, AS A QUICK SUMMARY, WE'RE A MIXED USE DEVELOPER. THE RIGHT PRODUCT AND FOR THE RIGHT SITE AND THE RIGHT COMMUNITY. SO IT'S REALLY, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WE'RE TRYING TO BE FLEXIBLE, TRYING TO BE MEETING MARKET DEMANDS WHERE THEY ARE DEMANDED. SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY LOOK AT NOT TRYING TO FIT SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE FIT, BUT REALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS WELL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY. AGAIN, THIS IS MORE SUMMARY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF REMEMBERING. ALMOST 22 AND A HALF ACRES ON THIS SITE. THERE ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE ON GRANGE HALL, ONE OFF OF INDIAN RIPPLE ROAD, AS WELL AS A LARGER MIXED COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT I THINK WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OLD PHOTOS IT WAS KIND OF BUILT UPON OVER THE YEARS. This site was previously farmed back in the 40s and 50s, then kind of GREW WOODS SINCE THEN. WE DID A COUPLE QUICK UPDATES AS WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. WE HAVE DONE MORE ANALYSIS ON THE SITE ITSELF. WE'VE COMPLETED OUR GEOTECH TEST PITS AS WELL AS OUR PHASE 1. SO WE DO HAVE REC'S FROM OUR PHASE 1, SO WE WILL BE DOING A PHASE 2. THOSE REC'S ARE DUE TO THE NEARBY, THERE WAS A DRY CLEANING NEARBY CONTIGUOUS TO THIS AS WELL AS AN AUTO MECHANIC SO WE WILL HAVE TO DO THOSE PHASE TWO, BUT THOSE ARE OFF-SITE RECs. THERE WAS ALSO A CONCERN, I BELIEVE THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BACK IN PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THERE WAS SOME DEBRIS MATERIAL FROM A, I THINK IT WAS A 1978 TORNADO THAT PASSED THROUGH AZENIA, I BELIEVE IT WAS. I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING OF THAT. OUR PHASE ONE DIDN'T SPECIFY ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OUR GEOTECH DID FIND THAT THERE WAS SOME EXTRA TOP SOIL THAT WAS PRODUCED IN A SPECIFIC AREA, JUST KIND OF ON THE NORTH, LIKE CENTRAL AREA OF THE SITE. FROM AERIAL, LIKE HISTORICAL PHOTOS, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT WHEN THEY PUT IN THIS COMMERCIAL PAD. THEY JUST TOOK ALL THE TOP SOIL AND JUST DUMPED IT TO THE NORTH. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT. IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL FOR US TO FIND EXTRA TOP SOIL, SO WE WILL FIND A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR THAT, POTENTIALLY MOUNDING, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING OUR BUFFERING AS WELL. SO THE SITE ITSELF. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BACK, I BELIEVE, FEBRUARY, MARCH OF THIS YEAR. THIS IS THE DESIRED APPLICATION FOR THIS SITE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE PLAN. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE PLAN, THIS COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE LAND USE PLAN DOCUMENT, BUT IT REQUIRES, IT SEEKS OUT MULTI-FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED PRODUCT. IT SEEKS OUT ONE TO THREE STORIES, FIVE TO TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON THE SITE. THESE WERE SOME OF THE SAMPLES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE LAND USE PLAN FOR EXAMPLES. WHILE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THIS INTENSE ABUSE HERE. I did, we did talk about some, oh man, oh there it is, okay. We did talk about other existing MXPUD that are found within the city of Beaver Creek. I was able to identify, you see in the purple of the picture to the left here, the purple is the mxpud and it's actually contiguous to the exact same zoning that that we have to our north of this site i was able to take some measurements based from the the property line of the single family homes to the building the building itself on average it was coming around to be 65 feet OF A DISTANCE. SOME OF IT TO THE SOUTH, IT WAS CLOSER, MAYBE 50. IT WENT UP TO BETWEEN, I THINK, 70 OR 80 TO THE NORTH. BUT THAT IS AN EXISTING PROJECT IN BEAVER CREEK. OBVIOUSLY, MY CALCULATIONS FOR THAT PROJECT IS A TOWNHOME PROJECT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT, ROUGHLY 10, A LITTLE OVER 10 UNITS AN ACRE IN THAT MXPUD. So that's a precedent that's been set within the City of Beaver Creek, but that is not what we are trying to do here. We are, as I mentioned previously and I'm mentioning tonight, we want to work with the community AND WORK WITH THE CITY. SO WE'RE PROPOSING PRACTICALLY DOUBLE THAT, 125 FEET BUILDING SETBACK TO THE NORTH OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WAS A 50-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. SO WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THAT. IT IS, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY, WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND AT THE SAME TIME STILL OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT COULD WORK FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS SET PREVIOUSLY. NOW, OUTSIDE OF THAT, NOTHING REALLY HAS CHANGED. WE ARE STILL LOOKING TO DO TOWN HOMES. THESE WILL BE VERY NICE TOWN HOMES, ALTHOUGH I WILL BE HONEST, WE HAVE NOT FOUND A BUILDER YET. WE WERE JUST STARTING THAT CONVERSATION. IN TERMS OF THAT PRODUCT, AND I WILL SAY AS WELL, WE ACTUALLY JUST DIDN'T MEET WITH A GC AS WELL POTENTIALLY BUILDING OUR OWN PRODUCT BECAUSE SOME OF THE EARLY, JUST BEING HONEST, SOME OF THE EARLY PRODUCT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY SOME OF THESE BUILDERS JUST DIDN'T MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THOSE TOWNHOMES. THE COMMERCIAL AS WELL, TO BE DETERMINED, WE HAVE TALKED WITH SEVERAL COMMERCIAL BROKERS AND TRYING TO FIND SOME USERS, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS, WE'RE STILL AT THE REZONING PHASE. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GONE THROUGH THE PLAN, FLIP PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. SO WE'RE STILL EARLY ON, BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THIS SO THAT WE, ASSUMING WE GET APPROVAL OF REZONING, WE CAN PROVIDE GREAT INFORMATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOU AS WELL AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AGAIN, THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. I GUESS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED IN THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS 10 UNITS AN ACRE. WITH 22 ACRES, THAT'S ROUGHLY 220 UNITS. WE'RE PROPOSING 116 HERE AS A MAX. GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS, THAT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF DIFFICULT TO DO, ESPECIALLY IF ANY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ANY POTENTIAL RANCH ATTACHED OR MAYBE A COMBINATION BETWEEN RANCH AND TOWNHOME. SO WE ARE TRULY REDUCING OUR DEVELOPABLE FOOTPRINT IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO OUR NORTH. AGAIN, AS WE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, FOR COMMERCIAL USES, THERE'S A LIST OF RESTRICTED USES THAT WE HAVE, THAT THE STAFF HAVE RECOMMENDED, AND WE ARE COMPLETELY FINE WITH. SO WE ARE, THERE'S NO CONCERNS THERE FROM OUR END. AND A QUICK NOTE AS WELL, THE HEIGHTS OF THOSE TOWN HOMES WOULD BE TWO STORIES, MATCHING WHAT IS TO THE NORTH. SO THERE WOULD BE NO THREE STORY, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, REQUEST OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE ARE SEEKING TO DO. AGAIN, THIS IS STILL AN EARLY ON PHASE OF REZONING THIS. WE STILL HAVE PLAN APPROVAL TO GO THROUGH, WHICH WILL HAVE MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS, MORE PUBLIC DISCUSSION, AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY. AND FROM OUR STANDPOINT, ENGINEERING, TRAFFIC, ALL THOSE CONCERNS, THOSE WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING IN FUTURE APPLICATIONS, AS WELL AS THINGS LIKE STORM WATER AND ANY CONCERNS LIKE THAT. SO WE ARE SET TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND OF THE ENGINEERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING ALL THIS, BUT THAT IS FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION, ASSUMING AN APPROVAL OF THE REZONING. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS NOW OR AFTER A PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. THE ADVOCATE DID A GOOD JOB OF GIVING A GENERAL OVERVIEW, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER THAT TWICE, BUT I JUST WANTED THROW IN THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. WE DID RECEIVE AN UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN ON JUNE 25TH AFTER WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN IS REFERENCED IN THE ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET, THE NEW DATE AND THE NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO SHOW THE 100-FOOT BUFFER TO THE NORTH. AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING SET BACK BEYOND THAT. SO IT'S WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE WOULD GENERALLY SEE WITH A MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY. IN STRAIGHT ZONING, A COMMERCIAL BUFFER BETWEEN A RESIDENTIAL AND A COMMERCIAL IS ONLY A 50-FOOT BUFFER. SO THEY'RE EXCEEDING THAT BY DOUBLE. AND JUST THE PLANS ON THE LEFT KIND OF SHOWS WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY PRESENTED VERSUS THE PLANS THAT ARE UPDATED IN THE NEW ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET. ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE RELATIVE DISTANCES BETWEEN EVEN THE BUFFER, NOT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITTING NORTH, BEING 170 FEET, 230 FEET. AND THEN ALONG THE HOUSES ALONG GRANGE HALL OR EVEN FURTHER WITH 500 TO 600 FEET. FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING TO THE FUTURE BUFFER LINE. SO THAT'S IT. IT'S QUITE AN INCREASE. IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE, IN THE PACKET THERE, BLUE, YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES IN BLUE AND STRIKETHROUGH BLUE, WHERE THEY CHANGED THE NAME OF THE AREA TO SUB AREA A, SUB AREA B, AND SUB AREA C JUST TO ELIMINATE SOME CONFUSION AND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT SUB AREA C, WHICH WAS THE COMMERCIAL AREA, CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING OR IS SUB AREA A AND B CAN'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL IN IT, ONLY RESIDENTIAL. THEY DID DECREASE THE SIZE OF SUB AREA A FROM 10 ACRES TO 8.3 ACRES. AND THEY INCREASED SUB AREA B, WHICH IS THE SIX-DWELLING UNIT ACRE PORTION. FROM EIGHT TO NINE AND THREE-QUARTER ACRES, BUT THE OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED AT 116, WHICH GIVES AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 6.43 DUANG UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE RANGE WITHIN THE LANE USE PLAN OF 5 TO 10 DUANG UNITS AN ACRE RECOMMENDED FOR THIS AREA. THERE'S AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT NO COMMERCIAL BE IN SUB AREA A AND B, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLARIFIED. And then added a few things to the list of prohibited uses, which included a veterinary and animal daycare and veterinary clinic. There was concern, so we went ahead and addressed that. And then also established a minimum lot width of 60 feet. That's what's called for for MXPDs in the zoning code, so we wanted to just make sure that was clarified. So that added an 18th condition versus what Planning Commission saw. So there are 18 conditions in the ordinance. They meet all the requirements of the land use plan, the updated land use plan in terms of the usage and density and the ARE WELL BEYOND WHAT THE BUFFERS REQUIRE FOR OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, AND SO PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ATHLETICAL REQUEST SUBJECT TO THOSE 18 CONDITIONS IN YOUR PACKET. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING THE LAST TIME, AND THE PUBLIC PORTION WAS CLOSED, BUT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM COUNCIL TO OPEN IT UP AGAIN SINCE I THINK SEVERAL OF YOU HERE MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT.

I MOVE THAT WE ALLOW PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND.

I have a motion and a second to allow a second public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. This is the public portion of this, so you're welcome to come forward, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes and can be donated six more minutes from someone else in the audience. Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Mary Ann Sherrits, 3873 Eagle Point Drive. Mayor and esteemed council members, I'm speaking regarding the Concord Commons development. I appreciate your consideration of the concerns that I and others in the affected neighborhood have raised. I also appreciate the changes that the developer has proposed. I looked at the section 158.065, which are the approval procedures for PUD zoning. And there were a couple items that I had concerns with. And item two says, will the development promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the present inhabitants? And there are a couple of things that I think concern me. First of all, noise pollution, traffic aggravations, and it's going to remove much-needed green space. Green space is considered a waste, I guess, but it is essential for removing CO2 from the air. In addition, the traffic is going to be India Ripple is going to be affected by perhaps 200 plus cars, all in a very small area. And I feel that that is going to cause, it's going to require probably a traffic light, widening of the road, not to mention other traffic impact measures. And are these modifications planned for, which it mentions in that particular section, item four, that they should, you know, that should be planned for? In addition, noise pollution is a big concern since the addition of many HVAC units coming on all at once would be quite noisy. So is there any way to mitigate the noise that will be caused by that? That would certainly decrease the enjoyment of our area. Also, the increased setback has helped with the exception of the two houses that are closest to Harvard Drive, which still remain a concern. The backyard of these two houses have very little to no buffer between the current back of their yard in the proposed through street, a street close to their yards would significantly affect the usage, resale value and atmosphere of their house. While the setback has been increased, are there other plans to help shield these properties? And has the sight line from the tallest building to these properties been considered? So thank you for considering those measures.

You have somebody else.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Dar Bordell. I'm at 183 Grange Hall Road. Looking at the map up there, my property has more frontage to any of this proposed construction than any other property. I'm just on the right-hand corner above where that arm sticks out to the right. I guess there's a proposed retention pond that's going right there. I have a problem with that and the fact that right now I do get water that goes through there. There's a drainage that goes through the back of the property and then it runs to a dry creek that's on the other side of my property. So if that retention pond, if something were to happen to it, well my property is directly affected. It says on the proposal that that arm sticking out there is the lowest point of the property. That's why that retention pond's there. My property is even lower than that. So if there were an issue with it, my property is affected. Also, I worry about the runoff water that's coming out of there. Right now, all that runoff that's coming through there and coming through the back of my property is just water. It's got plenty of time to filter through the grass, the trees, the roots, and all that. and then if we put a retention pond there so now we we're catching runoff water we're getting waste from vehicles we're getting uh garbage waste that's that's being attracted and then what's that going to attract in the far in the form of bugs and insects all right so that right there affects me um So I'm very concerned at what that's doing to it. Talked about the change of the rezoning there. It doesn't move back any further away from my house. It stays exactly the same. It did move away from the people that's on Eagle Point, which was nice of them to do, but it does not change the distance that it's coming back away from my house. SO THEREFORE, I'M ALSO AGAINST IT FOR THAT AS WELL. SO FAR, I'VE WATCHED A COUPLE OF THE VIDEOS OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE PERSON COME UP HERE AND TALK POSITIVELY ABOUT IT BESIDES THE DEVELOPER. SO I THINK IF WE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS, THEN WE'RE ALL OPPOSED TO THIS. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT THEY'RE OPPOSED. THERE WAS A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE OPPOSED TO Anything there which I know is not feasible, but keeping it r1a with single unit homes would be The only suitable alternative I feel but going to these multi-unit properties we're we're affecting not only the Possibly my health and my health and my family and the possibly the health of the people and the safety around us as well. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, I will close the public portion of this. And Council, any input?

Councilman Bills? I would like to say to the developer, thank you for being so generous with the buffer. I really appreciate you being so willing to do that. I don't really have much to say. I think this is a good compromise. I know it's hard with development and It doesn't always happen the way I would like it either. I'm a five acre kind of girl. So I do understand the feelings. I also understand, you know, and Mr. Lounsbury can always, always likes to, you know, tell us what the loss is. And so we... You know, we have restrictions that we need to abide by. We are limited in what we can do. I just want to know that I appreciate everybody who came out, and I understand why you feel the way you feel, and I'm sympathetic, and that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Kern.

Your Honor, I wanted to have the developer come forward. I had a question just to ask him, and maybe also Randy. you could please is there any option there on the issue the pond or is that is there any mobility on that gentleman's concerned about water what impact upon would have on his existing property

Yeah, so typically you, for any development, you're going to want to find the lowest point, right? And yeah, I totally understand his concern. What I will say to that is two things. One, there are very VERY STRICT ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ON HOW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE STORM WATER PONDS ARE BUILT THAT ARE INSPECTED, NOT JUST WHEN IT'S BUILT, BUT THROUGH HOA DOCUMENTS, DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, THERE ARE INSPECTIONS THAT ARE ROUTINELY CHECKING THIS. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT HOA DOCUMENTS THAT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY BY EITHER, YOU KNOW, PAID UP FRONT, LIKE BE SET ASIDE, OR ANY FIXING TO THE STORMWATER POND. SO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THINGS HAPPEN, RIGHT? BUT THAT'S THE INTENT IS THAT THERE IS MONEY, THERE'S INSPECTIONS SO THAT NOTHING LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A FAILING OF THE STORMWATER POND WOULD OCCUR. NOW, IN TERMS OF THINGS WE COULD DO, I think we will have extra topsoil. We could absolutely put extra mounding on the north side. We can put in some trees, some plantings to help with that. That's absolutely something that we'd be willing to do. AGAIN, WE WANT TO, AND, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBOR AFTERWARDS, BUT WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS TO HELP MITIGATE THAT. BUT I DO, I WILL SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE LOCATION CAN CHANGE. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE, THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY JUST THE LOWEST POINT FOR OUR SITE.

GREAT, THANK YOU.

AND JUST IN GENERAL, THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF BE THERE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. SO THIS IS MORE THAN LIKELY, MR. SELF SAYS THIS I THINK AT EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MORE THAN LIKELY WILL HELP WITH ANY RUNOFF ISSUES THAT THERE HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA.

YES, YEAH. BUT I DO, WE WERE DEVELOPING A SITE IN NORTHEAST OHIO, VERY SAME CONCERNS, FLOODING CONCERNS, AND WE ARE USED TO DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN, GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE AT LEAST MITIGATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

But I encourage you to work with homeowner there and hear his concerns and see what can be done to alleviate that as much as you can. Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I think some of these were getting into some site plan studies, but thank you, Mr. Lonsbury, for bringing that up. And Randy, just kind of reiterate, if you would.

Yeah, when you get to traffic measures or HVAC measures or stormwater detention. Those are all part of the specific site plan. Then we got more definitive plans. I mean, in a lot of developments, it depends on the design of the building. If you have a flat roof, then you could, a lot of times they put HVAC on the roof and then we require SCREENING OF THAT WITH ROOF FORMS OR PARAPIT WALL. IF IT'S A PITCHED ROOF, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT'S REALLY A LOT MORE CHALLENGED TO PUT IT ON THE ROOF SO THEY WILL HAVE GROUND-MOUNTED HVAC UNITS. AND WE HAVE LANDSCAPING THAT HELPS SOFTEN THOSE AS WELL. TRAFFIC STUDIES USUALLY IS NOT REALLY DONE UNTIL THE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN STAGE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE BUILDING NUMBERS AND THE BUILDING TYPES AND ALL OF THAT SO YOU CAN RUN THE NUMBERS. SO THAT'S NOT DONE AT THE REZONING PHASE UNTIL THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING. THE REZONING IS MORE OF A BROAD PICTURE OF USES AND SETBACKS. And as was stated, we've seen a lot of instances where a stormwater detention pond, when designed, because it costs so much to go in and fix one, they over-engineer one the first time that they build it. And a lot of times we see it does help existing situations because of the cost to retrofit one if they didn't build it big enough.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.

RANDY, HOW LONG OR HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK PROVIDED INPUT INTO THE LAND USE PLAN?

WE HAD 50 OR 60 PEOPLE AT THE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, THE FIRST ONE, AND 30 OR SO AT THE SECOND ONE. NOT A WHOLE LOT OF WRITTEN INPUT. ALL THAT'S THE APPENDIX. IT'S WITHIN THAT YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE LAND USE PLAN ITSELF. HAD SOME WRITTEN INPUT, BUT NOT A WHOLE LOT WHEN WE GOT TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE PART TAKEN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY POINT IS THAT A LOT OF PRIOR PROPER PLANNING GOES INTO DEFINING WHAT WE WANT OUR CITY TO LOOK LIKE. AND THE CITIZENS GET INPUT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. whenever we have a development or an infrastructure improvement that butts up against developed areas there's natural conflict which we try and to anticipate in those plans and do what's best for the greater good of the community for lack of a better term And so I appreciate the input that we've heard from the public, all of the public here, and I know what we're going to hear tonight. But it's that bigger picture that I think that we need to, as council and the governing body of the community, need to keep in mind. And so last time, before this issue was tabled, we heard a ton of input about setbacks and buffer zones and quite frankly i really want to commend the developer for listening as as much as they did because when i got the new packet i was pleasantly surprised at the amount of area that they were going to dedicate compared to other areas in our community that have such a the same type of scenario. Sure. And other housing developments that have come in and kind of directly up to others and so on and so forth. So from my perspective, I think the plan has done a good job at incorporating the intent of the land use plan and the demands of the residents and the needs of the developer. And so I think we're going to get a really good development here despite its impact on a few. And I was going to have Mr. Moorman come up and explain detention ponds and runoff and everything else, but I think we've kind of beat that. I think we all understand how that is. So, Mayor, I don't have any more questions.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO COMMEND THE DEVELOPER FOR WORKING WITH US. WHEN WE CLOSED THE LAST TIME, IT SAID THAT YOU WOULD WORK WITH US, AND THAT'S WHY WE DELAYED IT, SO THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. AND I THINK WE ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE NEEDS AND CONCERNS. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. WHAT WE DO FOR HERE IS WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE AND MOVE IT TO A SECOND READING. AND AT THIS POINT, I GUESS I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

Yeah, Your Honor, I'd move Ordinance 2615 to a second reading.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to move Ordinance 26-15 to a second reading. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. I'll wait for Mr. Upton to rejoin us.

to get them. I'm glad you remembered them.

It was kind of buried over here. Yeah, right? No kidding.

I'll let people...

yeah so it doesn't affect too much let the people leave okay next up is ordinance 26-16 this is the second reading

Ordinance 26, excuse me, dash 16, an ordinance to authorize a speed limit of 35 miles per hour upon all portions of Shaker Town Road and to amend ordinance 80-50.

We got some staff. Council?

Yes, Your Honor, I move 26-16.

approval for approval no second I have a motion and a second to approve ordinance 26-16 okay we'll do that voice all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed ordinance 26-17

ordinance 26-17 an ordinance by the Beaver Creek City Council authorizing the special assessments to property owners for the 2025 sidewalk repair program pursuant to Ohio revised code sections seven to nine point zero nine they yelled some staff nope

Motion to approve ordinance 26-17. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve ordinance 26-17. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Ordinance 26-18.

Ordinance 26-18 to approve supplemental appropriations and certification for fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2026 AND TO AMEND ORDINANCE 25-26, 26-09, AND 26-13. MR. GRAHAM, HAVEN'T SEEN YOU FOR A WHILE.

HAVE A FEW BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO PRESENT TO YOU THIS EVENING. THE FIRST ITEM, AS A RESULT OF A DONATION TO OUR SENIOR CENTER, AND THERE WAS A DONATION RECEIVED FOR $30,000 TO REPLACE THE CHAIRS IN THE BIG ROOM, BUT DOES THAT ROOM HAVE A SPECIFIC NAME? NO, OKAY. BUT THAT MONEY WAS DONATED, SO WE'RE ASKING THAT THE MONEY BE CERTIFIED SO THAT IT CAN BE AND APPROPRIATED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE USE OF THAT DONATION AND GET THOSE CHAIRS REPLACED IN THAT ROOM. THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE PURCHASE OF TWO VANS FOR THE SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF OHIO AND ALSO FROM THE GREEN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING. COUNCIL ON AGING PORTION OF THIS HAD BEEN BUDGETED EARLIER. THIS IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING IN TWO SEPARATE FUNDS, THE PARK LEVY FUND AND THE SENIOR TRUST FUND, SENIOR CITIZEN TRUST FUND. So within the park levy fund we're asking for that state portion to be both certified and appropriated within the senior trust fund we received a number of donations that in order to help us purchase these vans and so We're asking that a portion of that was already included in the 2026 budget but we're asking for that additional money to be APPROPRIATED AND CERTIFIED SO THAT WE CAN PURCHASE BOTH OF THOSE VEHICLES. THE THIRD ITEM, LAST YEAR WE HAD REQUESTED THAT COUNCIL TRANSFER MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE ARPA FUND. As you're sure aware, the ARPA fund was a federal grant that we were able to utilize to do a number of projects, a lot of infrastructure and stormwater projects, in addition to some of our police projects and other infrastructure items related to the city. WHEN WE TRANSFERRED THAT MONEY, THERE WAS A CONTRACT AND AN ENCUMBRANCE OUT THERE RELATED TO THAT CONTRACT. WELL, THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY CAME IN UNDER THE BUDGETED AMOUNT. SO IT ENDS UP WE TRANSFERRED $10,000 ROUGHLY MORE THAN WHAT WAS NEEDED BASED ON THOSE SAVINGS. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE AUTHORITY TO APPROPRIATE TRANSFER OUT INTO THE ARPA FUND SO THAT THE GENERAL FUND CAN RECLAIM THE MONEY THAT IT HAD SENT TO THE ARPA FUND PREVIOUSLY. THERE WAS NO MATCHING REQUIREMENT. THIS WAS JUST AN ACCOUNTING FUNCTION THAT IT WAS EASIER TO MOVE THE MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE ARPA FUND THAN TO MOVE THE EXPENDITURES FROM THE ARPA FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND. ITEM FOUR. So at one point, we had some assessments on Dayton Xenia Fairfield Road for that streetscape project. And those assessments included two components, the lighting component and the actual improvement component. And debt was issued related to that project. THE DEBT WAS RETIRED IN 2021. HOWEVER, THE CITY HAS CONTINUED TO POST THE REVENUE FROM THOSE ASSESSMENTS TO THAT DEBT SERVICE FUND WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED TO THE LIGHTING PORTION, THE LIGHTING ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE GENERAL FUND. SO WE'RE JUST SEEKING APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE THAT TRANSFER OUT OF THE DEBT SERVICE AND INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND THEN FINALLY THIS ONE IS COMPLETELY ON ME. WITHIN THE 2026 BUDGET, COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS ARE BUDGETED, ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT HEAD. LESSON LEARNED. I WON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE IN 27. BUT SO NONE OF THE COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS THAT WERE PLANNED FOR 2026 WERE INCLUDED IN THAT BUDGET. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP OUR COMPUTERS FOR AS LONG AS WE CAN, BUT THE SOFTWARE AND the inner workings, make it a requirement that you update them periodically just for cyber protection and making sure you're running the latest software so that they can be updated. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

thank you very much uh this is an ordinance so as uh we'll open it up to public input to address any of that uh if you'd like please come forward state your name and address you'll have three minutes all right seeing none i will close the public portion council any input questions for mr graham

Mayor. Mr. Graham, just could you clarify, I know it's in our packet, but just for those listening at home. YOU MENTIONED THE COMPUTER REPLACEMENT AT $30,000. WE'RE NOT BUYING $30,000 WORTH OF COMPUTERS. THAT'S SOFTWARE, THAT'S EVERYTHING, CORRECT?

YES, THAT IS CORRECT. SO IN SOME CASES THESE WILL BE LAPTOPS, BUT IT WILL INCLUDE THE WINDOWS PACKAGES THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND ANY OF THE SECURITY, YOU KNOW, EVEN ACROBAT, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO DO OUR JOBS.

But I mean, that's the licensing fees, that's everything? Correct. All in.

Thank you.

This is a single reading, so could I have a motion?

I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2618. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance 26-18. Could I have a roll call, please?

Council Member Bills. Yes. Vice Mayor Upton.

Yes.

Council Member Bales. Yes. Council Member Curran. Yes. Mayor Adams.

Yes.

Next up is Resolution 26-28. Good evening, Mayor.

Oh, you've got to read the resolution. Yes. I got too excited.

Resolution 26-28, a resolution proving the dissolution of the Ohio Energy Special Improvement District Incorporated, formerly the City of Beaver Creek, Greene County, Ohio Energy Special Improvement District Incorporated, and authorizing related wind-up actions.

As the clerk stated, this is a resolution in order to dissolve a pace that we have IN 2016, THE OHIO SPECIAL ENERGY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WAS CREATED JUST AROUND THE MALL AREA SO THAT SPECIAL PROJECTS OR CERTAIN PROJECTS CAN BE DONE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. THE MALL DID AN HVAC SYSTEM, AND I THINK PART OF ONE OF THE HOTELS DID SOME UPDATES TO THEIR PROJECT USING THAT SPECIAL FINANCING THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN THAT DISTRICT. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, SEEING THE SUCCESS OF THAT, WE CREATED A NEW, DIFFERENT PACE THAT ENCOMPASSES THE WHOLE CITY. SO THE MALL PACE OR THE OHIO SPECIAL ENERGY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT KIND OF OVERLAPS AND IT'S CROSS-PURPOSES WITH OUR CITYWIDE PACE. ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THE MALL PACE HAVE BEEN PAID OFF AND COMPLETED. SO IT JUST SITS THERE NOT BEING USED. AND SO WE TOOK IT TO THE BOARD. WE ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE OWNERS OF THE MALL AND GOT THEM TO REQUEST THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PACE. PACE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND VOTED TO DISSOLVE THE PACE. SO THE NEXT STEP IS TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO DISSOLVE THAT PACE. SO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STAFF DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION WITHIN YOUR PACKET TO ALLOW US TO DISSOLVE THAT PACE. AND ANY FUTURE PROJECTS CAN GO THROUGH THE CITYWIDE PACE THAT WE HAVE ON THE BUCKS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Any input from council?

You're on all right. Move 2628.

To approve. Approval.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve resolution 26-28. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Resolution 26-29. Resolution 26-29, a resolution to reaffirm

a new original of the city official zoning map.

Mr. Burkett, we'll get you again.

Yes, the last time we had an official zoning map approved was 2021. We've gone through 15, 16 re-zoning since then, and those get added in on the map as a footnote and get graphically placed in the map. However, they don't become official until the zoning map is reaffirmed. And so in order to make those THOSE GRAPHICALLY OFFICIAL ON THE ZONING MAP WERE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING MAP AS UPDATED. I BELIEVE I HAD, MAYBE I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT, A LIST OF ALL THE PROJECTS, BUT THEY STARTED IN 2021 AND AS RECENT AS THE REZONING UP AT, ON COLONEL GLEN, THE RAIDER ROW REZONING. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION AND HAVE ME ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL?

LOOKS LIKE THE CODE OF MANY COLORS UP THERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, ZONING MAPS CAN BE A SALAD OF COLORS.

I MOVE TO APPROVE 2629.

SECOND. I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution 26-29. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Next up is Appeal A26-2.

Resolution number 26-30, a resolution to modify, reaffirm, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission denying the conditional use application of Birch Hill, PC 26-2.

Mayor, I'd just like to start, since we don't often hear appeals like this. We've actually heard a Burch Hill appeal once before. This is a bit of a renewal for you guys. But appeals are, there's no new evidence allowed at an appeal, whether it's written or testimony. However, a public may give their opinion as to the decision that's before you. So there is still public comment portion of this. But there is no ability to call new witnesses or submit additional testimony. After the public hearing, You have choices. You can do a decision to confirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the board or commission to the extent that the decision was supported by substantial and reliable evidence on the record. You can remand the case or you can grant a continuance. So essentially the planning commission was sitting as a quasi-judicial body, but essentially we'll call them the trial court for this particular issue, and you guys are now the court of appeals looking at whether their decision was supported by the evidence that was presented before them. I apologize to Burch Hill. I talked to their attorney earlier, and I said there was no 15-minute limit. I don't know if that's going to be a problem, but okay, good, because both sides are limited to 15 minutes for their presentation. So I apologize for not calling you back. I couldn't remember who I was supposed to call, so thank you. Thank you. Do we have an applicant?

YES. GOOD EVENING, YOUR HONOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MIKE SANDER. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR THIS APPEAL, BURCH HILL. AND, JOSH, I APPRECIATE THAT I DON'T THINK I'LL HAVE ANY ISSUE, BUT IF YOU SEE ME RUNNING LONGER THAN I SHOULD, PLEASE JUST GIVE ME A HIGH SIGN. SO PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS APPEAL. THE CHARGE BEFORE YOU IS TO SEE IF THE DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD UNDER 158 OF YOUR CODE. AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, SUBSTANTIAL, AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE. AND I'M SURE YOUR COUNCIL WILL GIVE YOU GUIDANCE ON THOSE TERMS, BUT THOSE DO HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME WEIGHT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROBATIVE EVIDENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD GO TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TEND TO PROVE OR DISPROVE IT. Having said that, I'd like to start with the question, which here was, will the proposed use, which again was as an apartment slash hotel complex, have a substantial or material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties? So the question is, will the proposed use not THE OPERATION, BUT WILL THE PROPOSED USE AS AN APARTMENT SLASH HOTEL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? SO FIRST THING, AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKET, IS THE ZONING MAP THAT SHOWS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS 675. TO THE EAST IS A STORAGE FACILITY. TO THE NORTH IS A CONSTRUCTION FACILITY. AND TO THE WEST IS, I BELIEVE, A SYNERGY FACILITY or some type of defense contract or operation. So 75% of the surrounding area around this particular property isn't anything that's really actively being used. There was no public comment in opposition to this proposal before the Planning Commission. The testimony before the Planning Commission by Mr. Patel, the owner, was that he operates several of these facilities around the country and that they fulfill a real and substantial need It has only increased since COVID for housing. And so, you know, there was no testimony that there was any issue of access. There was no testimony that there was any issue of congestion or anything pertaining to that use, that proposed use, again, keeping the focus there. And then While well-intentioned, I think the discussion got a little sidetracked and went down a rabbit hole in terms of looking at what was presented to be a disproportional number of police calls. And I think it's important to focus that those calls themselves are just that. They're records of calls. And I don't even know that that data is helpful in this council's analysis of whether the use using some of the hotel as an apartment has a substantial or detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. People can get police calls regardless of what kind of use the property is being put to. And there was no testimony before planning commission as to who those calls related to. And so let me say that again because that's pretty significant. We don't know if those were tenants Residents, by residents I would say someone residing in an extended stay, or someone who is simply a typical transient hotel visitor. All the evidence indicated was that there was historically more calls to Burch Hill than some of the other hotels in the city. But that's not apples to apples. First of all, for a conditional use application, you're looking at a proposed use. You're looking prospectively. You're looking forward. This case was an anomaly where there was this historical data that was used and considered. You don't have that when you're typically evaluating a proposed conditional use. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE USE AND HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY A DIFFERENT BETWEEN AN APARTMENT, A HOTEL, OR AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL? AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THAT IN THE RECORD. AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS, THE CALLS WERE THEN DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I NOTED IT WAS AT PAGE 5, AS CRIME LEVELS. WELL, AGAIN, THOSE CALLS AREN'T CRIME LEVELS. THOSE ARE CALLS. You call the police, and that's all that the exhibits before the council indicate is that there were certain calls. Some of them were hang-ups. That doesn't indicate crime. And it's, I think, a little dangerous to make that leap when you're supposed to be looking at substantial probative evidence as to how the use will impact the surrounding properties. for example there was no testimony that any increased calls at this hotel would preclude police from responding to the storage facility that could have theoretically been an example of how the use might affect surrounding properties but there was none of that It's also worth noting that in response to that data, Mr. Patel made the statement that his facility operates at about an 83% occupancy. Typical hotels operate at a 43% occupancy. So again, that's not apples to apples. I can tell you I'm downtown in the Stratocash Tower. We've had a variety of calls that you all have probably read about in the news. Water leaks, electrical fires, transformers blowing. There have probably been zero calls for the office tower across the street, the Meade Tower. But I can tell you the Meade Tower is empty. So that's not apples and apples. These facts then I think were, again, NOT SAYING ANYTHING WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE, BUT PERHAPS OVERSTATED IN THE POWERPOINT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS A REHEARING OF A DECEMBER APPLICATION. AND AT PAGE 10 OF THE POWERPOINT, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TOLD THAT THE CITY'S POSITION WAS THAT EVEN WITH THE 2025 DECLINE, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE crime calls or police report calls the hybrid model and the new hotel licensing ordinance birch hill remains an outlier with 44 percent higher dispatch calls that that's not accurate that can't be accurate if you look at the data in the report the data stopped at 2025. the city didn't provide any data to planning commission that was 2026. YOUR HOTEL LICENSING ORDINANCE DIDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND THE HYBRID PROPOSAL THAT MY CLIENT MADE WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS JUST SUBMITTED IN MAY. SO YOU CANNOT STATE THAT EVEN WITH THOSE STEPS IN PLACE, THERE WAS NO REDUCTION. THE EVIDENCE THAT MY CLIENT PRESENTED, WHICH WAS EXHIBIT 1 AND EXHIBIT 2, SHOWED IN FACT THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CALLS. AGAIN, EVEN ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THESE CALLS AS BEING SOMEWHAT INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING. AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ON EXHIBIT TWO THAT MY CLIENT SUBMITTED, THIS WAS A REPORT THAT MY CLIENTS OBTAINED AT A REQUEST TO THE CITY. AND THESE INCLUDE ALL PATROLS AND BUSINESS CHECKS. The staff report indicated, and it was testified to at the Planning Commission, that those are not things that should be included. You will note in exhibits A and B that those calls are scrubbed. Those are removed because no one should be penalized for the police doing what they're supposed to do and go on patrol. When you look at actual responses, there's only about nine on exhibit two that would arguably qualify as a call. So you're talking about three a month. You're talking about three a month. AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO TELL WHETHER ANY OF THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELATED TO A HOTEL, MOTEL, EXTENDED STAY OR APARTMENT COMPLEX USE. YOU THEN GET INTO THE PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHERE THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONING, BOTH OF MY CLIENT AND STAFF, ABOUT THE DATA. AND I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE, AGAIN, WITHOUT CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS ON ANY ONE INTENT, REALLY REFLECT MORE OF A BIAS TOWARDS THE CLIENTELE THAN THE USE. AND THE USE IS WHAT'S BEFORE THIS BOARD TO SEE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE. One of the members at page nine had talked about a perception relating to the defense contract business next door in terms of people coming and going and what that perception might be. Mr. Fountain had questioned the lifestyle of the tenants. These are not substantial probative facts that indicate how an apartment use is going to substantially or materially affect surrounding properties. I think that, and I'll quote her because it was not my line, but it was Miss Palumbo who, you know, understood the assignment to quote some of my younger kids. She said she did not see evidence where the apartment hotel portion is causing the police disturbance versus the extended stay portion because they can't distinguish between the two. She did not feel that was enough to deny the application. And that's spot on. That's spot on. EVERY OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WHO GAVE A BASIS FOR THEIR DECISION SIMPLY RESTATED THE CODE. IT WOULD BE LIKE IF YOUR KID ASKED YOU WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY AND YOU SAID BLUE. AND THEY SAID WHY? THEY SAID BLUE. THEY JUST SAID THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND THEN WHEN THEY WENT BACK THROUGH AND TRIED TO ELABORATE, THEY MENTIONED THINGS LIKE CITY RESOURCES AND CITIZEN WELFARE. neither of those two things are a criteria in 158. those elements are not even stated you can't find substantial probative evidence on factors that you're not supposed to be evaluating so i wanted to highlight those portions of the record that are before this council to review and i'm sure the council has reviewed and will review these materials but again If all we've got is a chronic service call history for something that wasn't even assessed in terms of the use of the property with no correlation or mention to how it's detrimentally impacting any of the surrounding properties, I think you must reverse the Planning Commission or at least remand the matter to the Planning Commission. And with that, I would answer any questions that council may have for me, if I can. Probably after the public hearing. Thank you.

Staff.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council. AS THE COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FROM THEIR JUNE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE PRESENTATION THAT I ACTUALLY GAVE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO I WANTED TO GO THROUGH THAT. THE PROPERTY IS IN NORTHERN BEAVER CREEK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CURRENT GLEN HIGHWAY NORTH OF 675. TO THE WEST IS AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. TO THE NORTH IS A CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, KIND OF CONSTRUCTION YARD DEVELOPMENT. TO THE SOUTH IS 675, AND TO THE EAST IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. IT'S IN THE TOWN. IT'S A SMALL LITTLE ISLAND OF TOWNSHIP, UNINCORPORATED AREA, WHICH IS A STORAGE FACILITY. ON SITE, THERE'S A THREE-STORY, 102-ROOM HOTEL. THEY'VE GOT 106 PARKING SPACES. 82% OF THE EXISTING SITE IS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND OUR PUD, OR DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES IN STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH THIS IS A B3 ZONING DISTRICT, ONLY ALLOWS UP TO 75% IMPERVIOUS. SO THE BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS OR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SITE. AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED B3. JUST A LITTLE HISTORY OF THE SITE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER OF 25 DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN APARTMENT HOTEL. CITY COUNCIL UPHELD IT IN FEBRUARY. THERE WERE NO NEW SUBSTANTIAL FACTS INTRODUCED FROM THE THE 2025-26 CASE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT INSTEAD OF A FULL-ON APARTMENT HOTEL, IT WOULD BE AN APARTMENT HOTEL SLASH HOTEL HYBRID WITH A SLIDING SCALE OF THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT ROOMS VERSUS HOTEL ROOMS. IN THAT PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, AS THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS INCREASED, THEN THE NUMBER OF OVERALL UNITS WOULD DECREASE BECAUSE OF THE PARKING FOR APARTMENT HOTELS. THEY NEED MORE PARKING FOR APARTMENT HOTEL PER UNIT THAN THEY DO FOR A HOTEL OR EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ROOM PER UNIT. WE DID UPDATE THE DISPATCH CALLS, UPDATED THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2025. AND WE DO AGREE THAT THE NUMBER OF CALLS TO BURCH HILL HAS DECREASED PERCENTAGE-WISE AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER HOTELS OVER THE YEARS. I MEAN, IT WAS MORE SO THAN IF YOU LOOK IN 2022, 182 VERSUS 141 FOR ALL THE OTHERS COMBINED. THEY WERE WELL OVER THE OTHERS COMBINED. BUT IN 2025, THAT DID DECREASE WHERE THEY'RE NOT EVEN OR CLOSE TO HALF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THE OTHER HOTELS PROVIDED. SO WE AGREE THAT THERE IS A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CALLS BASED ON RELATIVE TO THE OTHER HOTELS IN THE CITY. CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRE THAT THEY MEET ALL THE FINDINGS WITHIN 158, 171, C4, ONE THAT IT IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND THAT'S BEEN SATISFIED. IT'S A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THAT THERE BE NO SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT. I'M SURE THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR CAN EXPLAIN THOSE LEGAL TERMS TO YOU AS I'M FINISHED HERE. BUT OUR ANALYSIS STATED WHILE THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE, THEY STILL REPRESENT, THEY STILL ARE AN OUTLIER IN THE NUMBER OF POLICE CALLS TO HOTELS WITHIN THE CITY. THEY REPRESENT 44% OF ALL THE HOTEL-RELATED DISPATCH CALLS. IN 2025. SO THE ONE HOTEL OUT OF ALL OF THEM HAD 44% OF ALL THE CALLS. AND THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENT, WE DIDN'T ANALYZE THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BARRIER. THEY'RE ON A ROAD. SO THAT WASN'T AN ISSUE. AND SO WE ACQUIEST THAT THAT HAS BEEN SATISFIED WITH THEIR REQUEST. DID MENTION THE NEW HOTEL LICENSING. AS THE COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT STATED, OUR DATA DID STOP IN 2025. THE HOTEL LICENSING DIDN'T COME IN EFFECT UNTIL 2026, SO THERE'S NO REAL CORRELATION BETWEEN THAT DATA. WE DID GIVE PLANNING COMMISSION THREE OPTIONS. ONE THAT THEY DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS AND WHEN THEY APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS AND THEN WHEN THEY APPROVE IT AS REQUESTED. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATED AND AT THE MEETING IT WAS VOTED THREE TO ONE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. THE APPLICANT DID PRESENT ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE, AND THE CITY PRODUCED, OR I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT PRODUCED TWO, AND THE CITY PRODUCED ONE. AND THOSE ARE ALL IN YOUR PACKETS IN THE MINUTES FOR YOUR REVIEW. SO STAFF STILL STANDS BY ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS HOTEL IS AN OUTLIER IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DISPATCH CALLS WHILE THEY ARE DECREASING RELATIVE TO THE OTHER HOTELS, THEY STILL REPRESENT 44% OF ALL THE DISPATCH CALLS TO HOTELS IN 2025. SO BASED ON THAT, WE FELT THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT AND DIDN'T SATISFY THE SECOND CONDITION OF 158-171. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

This is a public hearing, so now we will ask for any public input from anyone out there. You can forward, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes. Seeing none, we will close the public portion, council. Okay, where do I start here?

Mr. Sander, thank you for presenting the information. This issue has been going on for some time at the hotel and obviously been documented by our police department for a long time, as well as other hotels. While I commend the staff at the hotel for working to reduce the number of calls, it kind of reminds me of whether if the police tell me I'm going to get a speeding ticket for continuing to go too fast, I'm going to slow down. The question I had for you is, you said you had scrubbed some of the police reports to take out some of the, what would you say, routine calls?

Yeah, my client did not. Their report exhibit EXHIBIT 2 HAS ALL CALLS. THE CITY REPORT, WHICH WAS EXHIBIT A, HAS SCRUBBED THAT. SO JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TWO. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SEE EXHIBIT 2 TALKS ABOUT A BUSINESS CHECK OR AN EXTRA PATOLE. THOSE KIND OF CALLS ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN EXHIBIT A. THOSE WERE ALL REMOVED BECAUSE THEY WERE Uniform, universal, I guess you could say, if that answers your question.

It does, it does. So my question then is for Randy. WERE THOSE CALLS ANALYZED AND SCRUBBED FOR OTHER HOTELS AS WELL WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE DATA? I MEAN, DID YOU TAKE OUT THE ROUTINE CALLS?

YEAH. IN EXHIBIT A IN YOUR PACKET THAT WAS INCLUDED, THOSE ARE DISPATCH CALLS FOR ALL THE HOTELS FROM 2020 OR JANUARY OF 2022. through december of 2025 and that shows only dispatch for each hotel um so when we say scrubbed i assume you mean taking out officer initiated yeah that's what i mean and this this uh list is only the dispatch calls AND THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PROVIDED WERE THE DISPATCH GOALS.

AND ON THAT LIST, THE BURCH HILL EXTENDED STAY VERSUS THE ONE RIGHT BELOW IT, BURCH HILL SUITES, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT?

I THINK THAT WAS... It's the same entity. It was just a...

I just wanted to be clear.

They're the same entity. I think I just changed the name of them in one set of data and put them into this database. But it's the same entity. Birch Hill Suites and Birch Hill Extended Stay are the same entity at that same address.

Got it. So there's been a dead body there.

And that not necessarily is enough. It could have been somebody passed away naturally. Of course. I'm not saying that that was anything.

Plenty of shots fired, though. Plenty of drug activity. A couple dead bodies. I guess what it makes me want to ask the question because the applicant has asked us to look forward, but it's hard to do that because the hotel's been operating in this manner in the past. That's correct. I mean, and so it's... He's asking us to look forward and saying we can't predict what's going to happen and what impacts it has on the surrounding property. But I haven't heard that the use isn't going to change. Am I missing something?

I'm trying to make sure how I can.

I'm just trying to understand the way he's asking us to look at it. But in my opinion, it's operating as an apartment hotel, part of it, some of it, not all of it.

I want to make sure I provided what I provided in the packet. One second here. Yes. It was attached in the minutes. It was part of the packet that I sent to Planning Commission. In August of 2025, the police department conducted a license plate check on vehicles in the parking lot and found that eight vehicles there had the hotel registered as their address on the BMV. So it's something that... It's been previously used as an apartment hotel.

And I don't even think the hotel owners are arguing that fact, are they? I mean, there are people living there for longer than 180-some days.

Quite, yes. I just wanted to make sure I stated that.

Yeah, no, we're on the same page. My last question I think is do we have any police reports from surrounding properties? Did we look at that from the Synergy property or the construction property?

I requested FROM THE POLICE, JUST THIS PROPERTY. OH, ALL HOTEL PROPERTIES SPECIFICALLY. OKAY. NOT JUST PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT.

I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE HOTEL. I DID GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE OWNERS OF THE SYNERGY PROPERTY, AND THEY HAD CLAIMED SOME VANDALISM THROUGHOUT THEIR PROCESS OF BUILDING THAT HOTEL.

I THINK IT WAS IN THE POLICE REPORTS. I think it was in one of the earlier police reports in the packet.

Now, whether that's a correlation or not, I don't know. But it is an impact.

I think that's all I have for now. Thank you. I just wanted to say, you've had conversations with the business owners around, just from the perspective of this being an appeal, they can't consider anything that was not put into the record before planning commission.

that's one of the bills well um i would agree with mr bales about kind of um his argument when it comes to looking forward i mean kind of past behavior predicts future action um i i i find it really hard to see this even with the improvement i think we're still looking at what like four times the calls of all the other hotels combined. I mean, it's still significant. So yeah, I mean, I think the efforts to improve are admirable. I also think they were late in coming. And like you were saying, right, if you know you're kinda about to get caught, you know, not taking care of business, then you're gonna start taking care of business and hope for the best. And I don't find that admirable. um so i guess that's kind of where i'm sitting so i'll pause for now thank you councilman kern i wanted to ask a question to the council while here have you been to the hotel i have not been to the hotel go around the back yeah i'm

While I appreciate that, the issue here is just based on the evidence that was planted in the Planning Commission. But while I am up here, if I could just briefly respond to Mr. Bales. And I get it. These are salacious, right? But on December 25th, there was a dead body at the Holiday Inn. On July of 23, there was a dead body at the Residence Inn. So it's not the only hotel in your city that has issues. The question is, are these issues because it's a hotel? how would an apartment change it? Because that was the application, to operate it partly as an apartment and hotel. The question is not whether we go around singling out hotels that there may be other means of enforcing issues with. The question is, on the conditional use application, to operate it as an apartment and hotel, was there any substantial evidence that indicated that that operation would affect the surrounding properties? Thank you.

I'd feel more comfortable, I'll tell you, if they had a security firm at that hotel. I realize, I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate it. But, you know, if you're going to correct a situation, I would think a security firm might be in order to see if they couldn't straighten up that issue personally.

Mr. Kerr and I appreciate those comments. But once again, I just want to focus council on we have to either confirm I understand reverse or modify based upon the evidence that was submitted at the Planning Commission so we can't take into consideration things that were not considered previously.

I Have another question For Randy, please So we recently passed, um, the new kind of licensing qualifications for hotels. Right. And there is a threshold of kind of, um, offenses, right. That kind of triggers where would Birch Hill fall if say they made it through this process and now we're subjected to this new policy, would it be immediately triggered? Would they be past the threshold already?

I'd have to, I mean, it's a rolling 12-month period, so I don't know exactly where their numbers are. So I can't give that answer definitively one way or another.

I'm just curious, kind of based on the trend.

Yeah. No, as I stated, they're much improved from 22 to 23. But I believe it was, I'd have to review that. I don't want to give an answer that I don't know 100%.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Adams. I want to make sure I keep my comments in my line of thought here with reviewing what was given at Planning Commission and further the discussion here tonight. First off, I think our Planning Commission did a fantastic job reviewing something that doesn't normally come before the Planning Commission, right? our legal counsel advised you know they acted as a quasi judicial board and that's not something that probably any of them signed up for and so I appreciate the due diligence that that organization put into that I'm something the counselor just said that really made me question a couple of things here tonight I if I understand everything correctly Birch Hills is looking to continue on as is right as an extended stay hotel and the numbers that he's saying we can't compare to or that are are out of line um are with other hotels and you know he keeps saying it's not apples to apples and i guess if he's going to be a hotel right if that was the intended use all along and and now it's kind of evolved in this extended hotel stay i don't know that we can't not compare to the other hotels if that makes sense I don't know if I'm talking in a circle here, but I just feel like the process has been played out. The Planning Commission heard it. We've gone through the appeal process. We've heard the initial applicant presentation throughout the steps. I don't know where further to go. I guess at the end of the day, I'm not in favor of remaining this back. to the Planning Commission. I think we as this body need to make our decision tonight, and it is what it is.

Mr. Robson, just for clarification, because there are terms of art at issue here, it's apartment hotel, not extended stay. There is separate code provisions for an extended stay hotel, and I believe they would be allowed to operate as an extended stay hotel. So we're comparing hotels and apartment hotels. Just once again, just for clarification, I think you understood, everyone understood what you're talking about, but since you mentioned extended stay, I just wanted to make that clear.

Anyone else? First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for being here. I still have an issue with what Counselor said. We need to look forward because it's been operating this. Public portion is closed. Public input has been closed. I apologize. Okay. But yeah, it said we need to look forward and not look backwards. But this hotel was initially put together as a hotel, possibly extended stay. Sometime during the last 20 years that it's been there, it became an apartment hotel. against regulations within the city and that's the way it's been operating and that's the way it was operating when mr patel bought it so if we you tell us we can't look at that because we don't it's not going to be the same well in actuality it is because that's the way it's been operated and uh and i i certainly appreciate the fact that the number of calls are down But I think they only went down once this process started. Had this process not been started, they would probably be still continuing at the rate they were. Because that's how I look at it. Because that's the history that it's shown. And that's pretty much where I am on the whole thing as far as B goes.

So I think everyone's given inputs. Once again, the decision is either to confirm, reverse, or modify the decision of Planning Commission to the extent that that decision was supported by substantial and reliable evidence on the record. Once again, you could also remand it or continue the hearing.

I would make a motion to confirm the decision of Planning Commission related to appeal 26-2.

Second.

I think you should put on the record whether you think that their decision was supported by substantial and reliable evidence on the record as contained in the file before you in the video that was shown.

So do I need to modify my motion?

Make the motion. Just say why you've made the motion, but give your reasoning and support for it.

I support confirmation of the Planning Commission's decision as they reviewed the material and found substantial evidence to deny the applicant. Am I saying that right, Mr. Lonsbury, to deny the applicant?

That is correct. And once again, their decision was they felt that it would have a substantial and material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and would not have a substantially, I'm sorry, that it was the, yeah, the proposed conditional use will have a substantial material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and will have substantially negative impact or substantially conflict with the surrounding properties, which is one of the requirements is that it not do that.

i'm not going to repeat that basically a motion to confirm what the planning commission based on that correct i have a motion second i have a motion and a second uh to confirm the decision of the uh planning commission oh let's do a voice vote or a uh roll call

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. But my confirmation is just to say I encourage the owner. I'd really think they ought to put some time in and security get a security firm out there. I realize that's not what is the main point here, but it's been the agitation that brought about some of the concerns in the Planning Commission, and I would really hope that that would be communicated back, and that we don't get back into a problem. So I confirm yes, Your Honor. Yes.

Motion carries.

resolution 26-31 resolution 26-31 a resolution authorizing submission of an application for the fiscal year 2027 ohio department of commerce cemetery grant mr weick good evening mayor vice mayor members of council i'm here tonight seeking a resolution to authorize the city manager to apply for a grant with the ohio department of commerce

in support of our opposition.

There were people that don't even live on this road that stated they never see any traffic concerns on Shaker Town Road. They also stated the sidewalk and shared use path were ridiculous because they ultimately lead to nowhere. It was amazing to see that we have the support of so many others and we are grateful to each of them for taking the time to comment on those posts. What's ultimately unfortunate is that we could literally have hundreds of people sign a petition in opposition of this project and it wouldn't change your minds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were sitting in those seats to represent us, to listen to us, to fight for us, and to do what's right, and to fix actual problems. Taking a step back from this project will not tarnish your reputation. In fact, I believe it would do the exact opposite. It would prove that you're willing to own up to your mistakes. There's something to be said for the city manager going on record during an interview stating, quote, this is the most pushback we have ever received on a project in 25 years. If traffic and accidents were of real danger on this road, none of us would be here today. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There have been zero rear-end accidents. Please refer to the information that we passed out to you during the last meeting. I'm curious if any of you took the time to review that information. Do you have an explanation for the sudden, dramatic claim that traffic increased on this road? According to ODOT, MVRPC, and the manufacturer of the traffic count device the engineers used, that seems very unlikely given the trends from the past decade. I HAVE CALLED EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES AND DISCUSSED THIS TOPIC AT LENGTH WITH THEM. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, ONCE YOU DETACHED OUR ROAD FROM 35, THE TRAFFIC ISSUE WAS IMMEDIATELY SOLVED, AS EVIDENCED BY THE TRAFFIC COUNT DATA AVAILABLE FROM ODOT AND MVRPC. ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT WHEN THIS GRANT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, THE CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNT MIRRORED WHAT WAS AVAILABLE ON THOSE SITES, WHICH WAS AROUND 3400. SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAVE DOUBLED IN ONE YEAR'S TIME. Last week, I asked Nick and Jeff to come out to my house so I could show them a few things. You would be happy to know they showed up wearing their bright yellow vests and all. While they were there, a couple of concerns came up. Number one, throughout all of our interactions with the engineers, they stated repeatedly that the right of way was 18 feet on the north side and 15 feet on the south side. I'm here to tell you that after they measured, the right-of-way stake on the north side is actually at 20 feet. When I questioned this, I was told, quote, well, a professional placed those, and they must have used your property pin, so it has to be right. Yes, I am here standing, arguing over two feet, because every last inch of my front yard is precious to me. It acts as the only buffer between my home and the idiots who are driving 75 miles per hour plus. It's concerning that the engineers looked off our road on a county site and told us it was 18 feet, and now we have pins in our front yards at 20 feet. This is yet another example of the discrepancies we've identified. And number two, per my request, I was told a new swale would be constructed to address the drainage concerns. It was explained to me that the ditch we currently have is referred to as a swale. When the engineers informed me that a new swale would be added in the temporary right-of-way, I thought we were getting a new ditch. Come to find out, we are not getting a new ditch, like I requested. Instead, the swale is just grating. Those of us on the north side face significant drainage battles as our homes sit lower than the road. It wasn't until the engineers actually stood at the corner of my property and walked down towards my driveway that they finally saw for themselves what I've been trying to tell them all along. They even stated it would get much worse moving forward because the shared use path would be built up higher. MY POINT IS, IN THE PROJECT'S CURRENT PHASE, THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED. I'VE CONSULTED SEVERAL STATE-LEVEL TREE ADVISORY BOARDS AND HOPE TO SAVE OUR TREES. ONE LADY KNEW OUR TREE BOARD MEMBERS VERY WELL AND IT SOUNDED AS THOUGH SHE HAD TRAINED THEM. SHE WAS SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT WE WERE LOSING SO MANY TREES OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SHE ENCOURAGED ME TO PUSH YOU ALL ON OTHER ALTERNATIVES AND TO GET CREATIVE. She informed me that the base has a policy dictating they must plant two new trees for every tree they remove. Does Beaver Creek have a policy like that? If not, why not? We already know that someone has been promised two trees. What about the rest of us? You have devastated the wildlife enough on this road by allowing those two new subdivisions to be built. Our trees offer much more than beautiful aesthetics. They provide sound barriers and light barriers. That lady also told me about a study published by a lady named Kathy Wolf that states trees help reduce speeds on roads, which I thought was quite interesting, seeing as how we already have a serious speeding issue. And according to the study, removing those trees will just make it worse. We've presented our concerns to you regarding the devaluation of our properties. and so far have received nothing in response other than a letter from the county telling us our property taxes are going up yet again. $750 more per month is outrageous. That's how much ours has gone up after the last two county reassessments. We're paying more for a property that will not sell for what it's worth. We've made no improvements to justify that increase. As a matter of fact, come next year, we'll have a highway and an eyesore of a path in our front yard that will lessen the value of our home. At the end of the last meeting, two of you looked at us and told us to trust you. You are listening. You are discussing this. How are we supposed to believe that when you don't share that information with you with us? Why can't we have an open discussion with you about this? You encouraged us to attend the citizens meeting at the senior center. So we did. We asked questions and guess what? They were never answered. Somebody took an insane amount of time to put together that response packet, but I'm here to tell you that I already had 97% of that information. It had already been shared with me or discussed with me. And truthfully, that packet never addressed my major concern, which was whether you all had been kept in the loop about all of this. It was evident that the city manager had the info, But was it shared with you prior to that packet? Lastly, I'm extremely interested to hear the rationale for why Gary and I were the only properties to receive our right-of-way acquisition packets first. We literally received this, and I actually received two. Sorry. This much. There's so much here. Like, tons of stuff here, right? You see this. And everyone else, like ours were mailed completely separately, about a week and a half before everyone else. Everyone else just got this. Ours has an amount, but they're claiming to only pay me $504. That's it. That's all they're proposing to pay me. Everyone else's doesn't have any number on it. Why were Gary and I singled out on this? Just curious. Because we're not bookends of the project. We're not neighbors. Neither one of us is one of the four properties that you have to actually purchase land from. So I'm a little bit baffled by that. We voted for you all. I ask that you keep that in mind. I respectfully ask that this project be immediately canceled. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

6, 5, 8, Waverly Drive, Shaker Town Road. I have a photo I'd like to pass around. This is the reason I'm against it. Next time it might bend, I'll be laying over here on Beaver Road.

It's lucky I wasn't home the day that happened.

So that's the reason I'm saying we should forget about widening it. You're going to make it more dangerous because we're going to have another lane to go across to turn if you're going east or if you're going west, whichever side of the highway you're on. So I hope the commissioner's here, the mayor, that you take this in consideration and table it. This is about the fourth or fifth time we've had this. And I just don't accept them widening the road and putting sidewalks in. And then people are going to be walking up and down them and hollering and screaming. And you're going to have them right in my front door. Because you're taking my property and I'm not going to have no yards. So are some of the other people along Checkertown Road. I think you need to leave it alone just like it is. And if you don't want, you're going to pass this, I'd like for one of you or all of you to come over and buy my place and live there. Because you're disgusting me by trying to put more traffic on the road and put them closer to my house And I've got to lay there and listen or sit there and listen to the traffic roar. Motorcycles with my new windows shakes now. They crank them on and away they're going. That's all I have to say. And thank you for your time. And I hope you take me in consideration and all other people who live along Checkertown. That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

so I had some questions I was curious about the whole thing having to be 10 feet I'm like why why does the city say we have to be 10 feet And is it any place else? So I did a little investigation, got my husband's huge tape measure. The sidewalk on Grange Hall that was put in just within the last few years, eight feet wide. The sidewalk across from the post office, like right by the... Lutheran Church, 8 feet wide. The sidewalk across on North Fairfield, which has just been recently completed, 8 feet wide, right there by Suburban Drive. The only 10-foot sidewalk I could find in Beaver Creek, and I didn't drive every road, but the main ones, was 10 feet wide, was on Dayton Xenia Road, which obviously has just been done over here by the dental cabin. We are not as busy as State and Xenia. I'm not on Sacred Town, my mother is, but I drive it every day because Carlsberg is right off of it. So I'm like, why? I would like to know why are we being asked, the people that live on the north side, to have this 10-foot I KNOW IT'S NOT A SIDEWALK, IT'S A SHARED USE PATH. SO FORGIVE MY SEMANTICS. SOMEBODY HAD SAID SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, WELL, SO TWO WHEELCHAIRS CAN PASS EACH OTHER WHILE THEY PASS. WELL, I LOOKED UP, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEASURE ANY WHEELCHAIRS LATELY. But I found out that your standard width wheelchair is just a little over two feet wide. So if you have two feet, you give them a foot to pass each other, you're looking at five feet, maybe six feet wide. So that is also doesn't seem to be a reason. And then I looked on in the packet that you gave us, if you look on exhibit 29, The second paragraph of the second page of that, it says on there that MVRPC reviewed and asked that the path be increased a tenth foot to better match ODOT and MVRPC path requirements. So the staff, I'm saying city staff, agreed to the change in order to secure the points necessary to secure the project grant funding. Which says to me, like, this project can't pass on its own. It's not a standalone. It has to have this huge... In front of it or this huge 10-foot sidewalk or else, you know, there's not really a need for it And the other thing is again, I live on Carlsbrook Which is on a bike path about ten days ago or so there were six kids and one scooter So seven all together going down there two of them doing wheelies right down the middle of the road one day and My husband and I were getting ready to turn on Shaker Town heading west, and there was a kid on an e-bike doing a wheelie right down Shaker Town Road. And I know they're not supposed to be using their e-bikes on the sidewalk, but unless the police is there all the time, I mean, that's going to happen, because they're right in the middle of the road already. And so they're going to be going down that 10-foot sidewalk and... and right in front of these people's yards, in front of their houses and so forth. So I think you're creating a problem that isn't there now, and I would respectfully ask you to cancel this project, let alone move Merrick over and all that. So thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Casey Beckall, 3000 Shaker Town Road. I've been up here before against the Shaker Town Road widening project. In the city engineer's comments, back to our comments in the public hearing, they never addressed my comment, which was the That section of Shaker Town is the narrowest where the houses are from front door to front door. I mean, that's a huge element in this thing, and I just wish everybody would think about that again. And then my only other comment was still no clarity. I'm going to get the 10-foot in my front yard proposed. Still no clarity as to what happens when it goes to the historical barn that is two doors down on Lisa's property where it's 13 feet from the EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT NOW. SO LIKE I SAID, I'M AGAINST THE PROJECT AND RESPECTFUL TO ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

BILL KELLER, 3140 SHAKERTOWN ROAD. KIND OF REITERATING SOME OF THE STUFF THEY SAID, WHICH WE ALWAYS DO, BUT THEN YOU GUYS COME BACK AND REITERATE THE SAME THING YOU GUYS ALWAYS SAY. SO, I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED ROAD WIDING PROJECT FOR SHAKEYTOWN ROAD SHOULD BE CANCELED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO OUR COMMUNITY. THE PLAN INCLUDES A 10-FOOT WIDE SHARED PATH, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO CONNECT TO ANYTHING USEFUL. OVER JUST A COUPLE OF MILES, THE PATH CHANGES FROM 5-FOOT TO 8-FOOT TO 10-FOOT. NOW, IF YOU'VE GOT A 10-FOOT WIDE AND YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE ON THERE, What are they going to do when they get down to the five foot? That's the problem. That's why you've got to have it so wide. It also switches from concrete sidewalks to asphalt sidewalks in about a two-mile radius. That kind of design seems confusing and inconsistent, and it's hard to see how it will benefit the people who live here. I'm also concerned about the amount of traffic and the number of accidents that have been exaggerated to justify this project. Before spending millions of taxpayers' dollars, we should make sure that the need is real and backed by accurate information. Shaker Down Road has worked well for many years without curbs, gutters, and wide side paths. Those features could change the rural character of the road and at unnecessary expense. Most of us choose to live here because we appreciate the way the road looks and feels now. Instead of spending money on a project that doesn't solve a real problem, I hope our local leaders will listen to the residents who use the road every day and cancel this proposal. If improvements are truly needed, they should be practical, affordable, and based on the actual needs of the community.

Thank you very much.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS KELLY CAMPBELL. I LIVE AT 4229 RIDGECLIP DRIVE. WHILE I DON'T LIVE ON SHAKERTOWN ROAD, I AM A BEAVER CREEK TAXPAYER, AND LIKE EVERY TAXPAYER, I CARE ABOUT HOW OUR CITY SPENDS ITS MONEY. I WANT TO START BY SAYING I SUPPORT IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. IF THIS PROPOSAL WAS SIMPLY ABOUT ADDING A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE IT'S TRULY NEEDED, I CAN SUPPORT THAT. But that's not what's before you tonight. The project widens two-lane roads to three lanes. It adds sidewalks on both sides. It requires taking private property. And it fundamentally changes the character of an established neighborhood. As taxpayers, we should ask one simple question. Is the benefit proportional to the cost and the impact? From what I've seen, I don't believe it is. What struck me the most as I reviewed public comments wasn't that residents were saying, do nothing. They were saying, do something smaller. And again and again, people suggested alternatives like one sidewalk instead of two, lowering the speed limit, preserving mature trees and minimizing impacts to homeowners instead of dramatically widening the roadway. Those themes are repeated throughout the city's own summary of public comments. And that distinction matters. We're asking for a solution that matches the actual problem. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SHARE ONE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD. MANY OF US HAVE ASKED THE CITY ABOUT INSTALLING SPEED HUMPS BECAUSE SPEEDING IS A GENUINE CONCERN. WE WERE TOLD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS LIKE SPEED HUMPS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THAT WITH SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON PROJECTS THAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE MOST AFFECTED ARE ASKING YOU TO SCALE BACK. It also raises an important question about priorities. If our resources are limited, and they always are, shouldn't we focus first on the projects that solve problems that residents are actively asking us to address? There are also costs that don't appear in the budget. Removing mature trees that have defined this corridor for generations. permanently taking portions of residents' property, changing the character of this neighborhood. And once those things are gone, they're gone forever. I think it's important to remember that outside funding doesn't automatically make a project the right project. Whether Beaver Creek pays 25% or 100%, those are still taxpayer dollars, and every dollar spent here is a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else. So respectfully, I ask council to reconsider the scope of this project. Keep the improvements that genuinely enhance safety. Pursue targeted improvements versus complete transformation. Good stewardship isn't about asking, can we build it? It's asking, should we build it this way? I don't believe that this project in its current form does that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, John Turner, 791 Fawcett Drive. Good evening, Mayor, members of City Council. I'm here regarding, again, the opposition for a proposed Shaker Town Road expansion. As city officials, you have the ability to review grant funding based on the needs and safety for the residents of our city. I respectfully request that you reevaluate the need to widen Shaker Town Road at this time. Over the past several weeks, residents along Shaker Town Road have given examples to city personnel on why there is not a need to pursue this project. I understand that engineering department is only pursuing funding for this project based on approval by city council. I applaud our city personnel in finding ways to save taxpayers' dollars. But I believe that at this time, current funding to widen Shaker Town Road IS NOT NECESSARY, AND I ASK CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER MOVING FORWARD AND USE THESE FUNDS ON OTHER MORE WORTHY PROJECTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M LISA NIBERT, 2970 SHAKERTOWN ROAD. I'm here to speak on the Shaker Town Road Logging Project, and foremost, I'm in complete opposition to this project and its entirety. Respectfully, I don't want to be here tonight. This is not my job. I worked my nine hours today and came straight from there to here to yet again stand here and plead our case to you guys. It upsets me that I feel like we're not getting anywhere with this. We speak week after week, but the results aren't coming to us. And I'm frustrated because I don't know how to get those results. Rather than come week by week and stand here and talk in a position where you guys can't answer us or respond in any way. It's kind of frustrating. This whole project is 0.6 miles. That's about 1,300, I'm sorry, 3,168 feet. THE $4 MILLION, WELL, $3.8 MILLION BUDGET FOR IT. THAT PUTS IT AT LINEAL FOOT, $1,225 PER LINEAL FOOT TO DO THIS PROJECT. IT'S KIND OF PRICY, AND I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT IT COULD BE SPENT BETTER. THIS PROJECT WAS OFFICIAL IN MARCH OF 2023. THE RESIDENTS WERE NOTIFIED IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, TWO YEARS LATER, ALMOST TWO YEARS LATER, 23 MONTHS LATER. public comments or it was open to public comments in September of 25. Now we're looking at two and a half years later, well past the point when any of our comments or opinions could have made a difference because the money has already been spent. You're already about 400,000 deep in the preliminary designs. And as we've been told over and over, this funding is coming from outside funding. However, Preliminary engineering is 100% paid for by our tax dollars and our current levies in place. So without advising us, without taking into consideration anything with us, you planned it, you designed it, you began it, and effectively you spent our money without any concern for our opinions. Respectfully, I would like to ask you to reconsider the project and consider canceling the project completely. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Tara Stites. I live at 3111 Kemp Road. So this is going to probably be my nightmare next summer when Kemp Road is supposed to be widened as well. But I'm actually here to speak as someone who drives Shaker Town Road pretty much four to five times a week because my mom lives in our childhood home back in Terra Estates. So I'm always going down Shaker Town Road because once the 35 factory Turnaround debacle thing came about I stopped going factory and started going North Fairfield to shaker town to koi I've never had a problem turning left out of koi So it traffic hasn't been that bad. I've also never had a problem turning left out of the cedarbrook farm Neighborhood, which I sometimes cut through from Newton on North Fairfield because the main issue I think is the North Fairfield shaker town intersection and which has just caused more backup than anything because there are no right-turn lanes, and what left-turn lanes there are have no separate lights, so everything gets completely backed up. So if any surveying had been done prior to this, you probably would have known that that was the main issue. The only issue I see with Shaper Town is that it needs repaved, but traffic has never seemed to really been any worse and actually a little better since the debacle at 35 and factory was put in. THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE IS I JUST THINK IT'S VERY RESPONSIBLE TO GETTING GRANT MONEY, IT SEEMS, FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING GRANT MONEY. WE DON'T THINK THIS IS NEEDED. THERE REALLY I DON'T THINK IS A REASON IT'S NEEDED. YOU'VE GOT ALL THE RESIDENTS TELLING YOU IT'S NOT NEEDED YET. YOU KEEP GOING OUT AND GETTING GRANT MONEY I THINK BECAUSE YOU CAN GET IT WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING WHETHER WE NEED IT OR NOT. AND IN ADDITION, THE 25% TAXPAYER FUNDED PART OF THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY. THAT'S 25% OF OUR TAX DOLLARS THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE REALLY DO NEED, NOT A LANE WIDENING. AND LIVING ON KEMP ROAD, I CAN TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE fly by there it's the reason why the cops are usually sitting across from the fire station two or three times a month because people just feed so if it's widened it's only going to be worse because when people aren't going to have to slow down for those turning they'll just zip around the middle lane and it's just i think a waste of taxpayer money thank you thank you very much

I'M LINDA TURNER, 791 FAUCET DRIVE, AND I'M GIVING MY MINUTES TO GARY DUNKLE. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GARY DUNKLE. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND BEAVERCREEK CITY COUNCIL. I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON A QUICK COMMENT BY SARAH. FIVE ACRES, SARAH? YEAH? YOU KNOW HOW MANY FIVE ACRE PLOTS OF LAND ARE ON SHAKERTOWN ROAD IN THIS TWO-THIRDS OF A MILE SECTION? SEVEN. So I want you to keep that in mind as you're listening to the concerned residents here. You want a five-acre plot? You can get it pretty cheap if you guys vote this thing through, you know, because it's going to devalue all seven of those five-acre plots of land. Again, Gary Dunkel, 3040 Shaker Town Road. I am before you here this evening in 100% opposition to the Shaker Town Road Project ID 119964. I personally want to express my dissatisfaction with you, Mr. Mayor, and the rest of City Council for refusing to act on the recommendations of the citizens of Beaver Creek THAT IS SPECIFICALLY TO SHUT DOWN THIS WORTHLESS PROJECT THAT BENEFITS NO ONE OR NO CAUSE AND USE THE FOUR PLUS MILLION DOLLARS ON BENEFICIAL PROJECTS FOR THE CITY OF BEAVERCREEK. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR GUYS' ATTENTION BEFORE, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME REPEAT FACTS. NUMBER ONE, THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS BASED ON BEAVERCREEK'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATED 2019. 2019, SHAKERTOWN ROAD RAN ON THE U.S. 35. In 2019, traffic counts were twice what they are today. So this rationale to do this road expansion, sidewalk expansion, was all based on traffic counts that were twice what they were today. Beaver Creek, Shaker Town Road is built out. There's nothing else you can build on Shaker Town Road. So the traffic we have today is maxed out, and it worked just fine on the two-lane traffic we have. There's no sidewalks there, but there's nowhere to go. I don't know where you're going to go. You're going to run a 10-foot sidewalk on the north side of the street down to Southern Bell and stop it. It just empties into a field. So why would you even spend the money to do that? It's just crazy. One of the big reasons for roadway improvements is, again, as I said, traffic counts were 50% down where it was before. Another reason is safety issues. We presented you just on the meeting back in June, safety data for the last six years, it said Sacredown Road had six accidents. SIX ACCIDENTS IN THAT TWO-THIRDS OF A MILE AREA, AND SEVEN OF THE, OR EXCUSE ME, 12 ACCIDENTS, 12 ACCIDENTS, AND SEVEN OF THE 12 ACCIDENTS WERE DEER STRIKES. SEVEN OF THE 12 ACCIDENTS WERE DEER STRIKES. NOW, YOU KEEP TAKING ALL THESE TREES FROM US, YOU'RE GOING TO CUT DOWN DEER STRIKES. THAT'S KIND OF A CRAPPY REASON. NUMBER FOUR, YOU'RE ALLOWING THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY TO OPERATE WITH MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF INACCURACIES and non factual actions and statements made in public venues and the members of this opposition group over the last 16 months since we started this opposition back in February of 2025. I would think that you, Mr Mayor and you, the City Council would get a handle on this activity by your employees and our city appropriately. Um, it's every day we get repeats of this. EVERY FACT IS ON THE EDGE. NUMBER FIVE, YOU ARE ALLOWING THIS PROJECT TO CONVERT THE TWO-THIRDS OF A MILE AREA FROM CARTHAGE TO SHAKERTOWN, OR EXCUSE ME, TO SOUTHERN BELL, A TREE-LINE PICTUREX AREA TO CONVERT TO AN ASPHALT CONCRETE HIGH SOAR. SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE 125 TREES, YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE LIGHT POLLUTION, INCREASE SAFETY ISSUES, INCREASE NOISE POLLUTION, destroying the homes of wildlife that live in those trees and shrubbery areas and creating an absolute mess for the 18 months of construction. They want to make this two-thirds of a mile, 18 months to do it. I mean, seriously? I mean, Lisa just told you how many 3,000 square feet in 18 months. What is that, like 60 feet a month? I mean, I don't know how it can take 18 months to do this, but that's your engineering department. And again, in closing, Mr. Mayor and city council members, we've given you facts time and time again by multiple residents as to why this project benefits no one or nothing for the residents in the city of Beaver Creek. I again ask you to move quickly to discontinue this Shaker Town Road project and use the effort and money in a matter that creates benefits for the citizens of Beaver Creek. This project does not. And again, five acres here. I mean, it's an example of what's going on in Beaver Creek, and I wish you guys could just put a, a moratorium on all new development in Beaver Creek. Leave Beaver Creek the way it is. It's a great place to live. Great place to live, but you're making it a concrete jungle that people are just getting tired of. You've got to put a moratorium on this stuff. Leave it alone. It's a great city to live in right now. Thank you for your time.

My name is Delbert Corn. I live at 3200 Shaker Town Road. I hadn't really planned on talking here tonight because I was going to donate my time. Gary got up here before I did. I've lived on Shaker Town 78 years, and I haven't seen that many problems on Shaker Town. And I'm against this project for having that 10-foot sidewalk in my front yard coming over in there. I don't plan on selling the place, but my kids might after I'm gone. So I don't think anybody will be looking for it, that kind of sidewalk and road. I don't think it's necessary.

Thank you.

Jim Sansobrino, 1603 Countryside. I don't live anywhere near Shaker Town. I want to reiterate my disapproval of this council in continuing this Shaker Town widening. It seems like a poor waste of money, and you're directly going against all the citizens that this is going to affect directly. These aren't the citizens that live far away. This isn't going to affect me, except I gotta pay for this project. The poor stewardship of our tax money has got to stop in this town. We have got to be better stewards. You have got to be better stewards of our money. Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor. I certainly want to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Chin who were recognized as the leaders, so to speak, in the Beaver Creek Parade. I thought the Beaver Creek Parade went very, very well and nicely attended and was glad to participate. Thank you.

Especially after the cloud cover came out. Please. Especially after the cloud cover and got a little cooler. Councilwoman Bills.

I was able to go to the Miami Valley Little Watershed Network's leadership float. Unfortunately, the weather did not cooperate, so we were not able to do the float, but we still got the presentation about the importance of protecting watersheds. And that was very enjoyable. I would encourage the rest of you to join me next time. I was the only one there. Otherwise, it's been kind of quiet. Like I said, I've been having some family stuff go on with the help of my mother. So that's it.

Thank you. Councilman Bales.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any prepared comments, although I did appreciate the 4th of July parade and activities that our Parks Department and the rest of the city and Police Department, Public Service helped put on there. I have three comments and three questions as a result of public comment tonight. And so my comments are largely about Ms. Harvey's comments. I think you're right. I think if we took a step back on this project, it would help our reputation. I think no one would, you folks would be happy. I don't think any of that would hurt. I agree with that comment. And I do think that we should be compensating owners for trees that are outside the right-of-way, and I do think that we should either be doing that or replanting trees as a part of the project within the right-of-way, outside the right-of-way, excuse me. So I would encourage the staff to consider that if they haven't done so already. And then finally, my last comment is I would encourage a discussion with our finance director, Mr. Graham, about the property tax appeal process. Because I think he can talk to you about how you can discuss with the county auditor um how to appeal those property tax increases that that you just got your letter on so very good my questions and i would direct those these to the city manager and if you could please um at your convenience as soon as you can let me know uh i am curious about the surveyor pin question that was brought up by miss harvey and why there might be a difference between... Yeah, that's fine. You can either address them now, I don't want to put you on the spot, or you can put them in writing, but I'd like to know...

As far as the survey, the stakes that are out there today, we went through and developed the right-of-way plans. Sometimes it's hard to tell from a sheet of paper exactly what's going to happen in the field. We had a registered professional surveyor who works for our consultant go out and actually place those stakes. Everything that's out there where it delineates the existing front property lines, existing road right-of-way, location of temporary easements, et cetera, where there's an actual physical stake in the ground was set by a registered professional surveyor.

And you're confident that they align with the property pins?

Right. And they also mark some of the existing property pins out there. I think Ms. Harvey's property in particular. I think one of her rear property pins was marked.

As you may know, when they set these stakes, they have to go from known points.

When they take those known points into account, that's how they can check in based on county records and make sure what they're placing in the field is correct and accurate. So it's important to get those existing monuments in the field before they place these new stakes up there.

And so just for my own edification, if I have my numbers correctly, There are four total properties that need permanent right-of-way acquisition in order to make this project. Correct.

In order to construct the project, everything for the lion's share of the project is within the existing road right-of-way. You're correct, there are four properties where we have to purchase additional land for the project. TO THOSE PROJECTS, IT'S FAIRLY MINIMAL. IT'S TO AVOID RELOCATING A UTILITY POLL LINE, WHICH WOULD BE VERY DISRUPTIVE. There's two properties where it's a little bit more extensive. Mr. Corn's property is one and the other one at the corner, the intersection where the tree has been taken out.

Thank you. You might as well stay up here because I think that most of my questions probably relate to you. So Ms. Harvey brought up the fact that she has already received her right-of-way acquisition documents along with Mr. Dunkel. AND IT WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF A PACKET. SO CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?

SURE. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET THESE, I'M NOT SURE, NICK SMITH, THE CITY ENGINEER, HAS HANDLED THE RATIO ACQUISITION PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU GENERALLY WHEN WE GET THE APPRAISALS BACK, THEY COME IN BATCHES. SO WE'LL GET LIKE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE HERE, A COUPLE THERE, AND WE'LL SEND THOSE OUT. SO, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WHY THEY GOT THOSE FIRST OR A DIFFERENT METHOD, I REALLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT HERE. EVERYBODY ON THE PROJECT WILL BE GETTING A COPY OF THE APPRAISAL AND THEY'LL BE GETTING A PACKET. THE OHIO REVISED CODE SPELLS OUT EXACTLY HOW THESE OFFERS HAVE TO BE MADE AND WE HAVE TO CHECK THOSE BOXES IN ORDER TO RESERVE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY VIA EMINENT DOMAIN IF WE NEED TO.

OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. YES. It's okay. It's okay. All right. So my next question is maybe it's more clarity. WHO DICTATED THE SIZE OF THE SIDE PATH, THE WIDTH?

SURE. YEAH, WE'VE BUILT AN 8-FOOT PATH FOR MANY YEARS, AND THIS IS A REQUIREMENT FROM THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THEY HAVE A NEW MULTIMODAL GUIDE THAT THEY'VE PUBLISHED. NWRPC, WHO ADMINISTERS THE GRANT FUNDING, THEY'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT WIDER PATH, THE MULTIMODAL PATH. in order to get the funding. You'll see that more and more as projects come out. Granted, in the past, it's been more of an eight-foot side path. Going forward, you'll see more and more of these 10s as we utilize the MVRPC grant money and meet their requirements. You'll see more of these 10-foot paths.

Public portion is closed.

And as a follow-up to that, were there any discussions had with MVRPC to try and modify that?

Yes, there have been. We've had multiple conversations with both ODOT and MVRPC. I think some of the residents along Shaker Town Road have contacted ODOT as well. Those efforts weren't successful. They're holding a firm on the 10 feet, which we're seeing through.

Okay.

Well, I appreciate you addressing my concerns tonight.

Thank you.

The citizen comments are closed, please. Vice Mayor Upton.

Thank you, Mayor Adams. I also want to pass along my thanks to the Fourth of July Committee and also the Parks Department. While I didn't actively participate, I was able to watch the fireworks with my kids, and it was a fantastic show. So thanks to the Joshi family as well for helping make the fireworks what they were. I just want to reiterate a comment I made earlier, guided towards the Planning Commission, and I see Mr. Zahner out there. You know, just thanks for the professionalism you guys showed in that hearing that you all had. And it really speaks to just our boards and commissions that we have in general and how well that they operate and the professionalism that they all bring. So I appreciate that. It's been a couple weeks since I was here last. I missed our last meeting for family vacation. But I was going into Cardinal Hill's 50th anniversary celebration. I'm happy to report that the pool celebrated it. We actually had a number of former members come out to the pool that were very impressed with the updates that have been made. and a couple of lifetime members that haven't been around since the eighties popped back in and they're talking about rejoining the pool. So we're excited to see that growth, uh, in that section of Beaver Creek. Um, and then, um, You know, I want to also give another shout out to Safety Town. I know we were talking about that once before, but my daughter still talks about it every time she goes by Ferguson, not middle school, freshman building. That's where my Safety Town was. So the memory with my five-year-old is strong with Safety Town. She keeps me honest when we cross the street now to make sure I'm looking both ways. That's all from me tonight.

Thank you very much. Out of respect for time, I've got six pages here. It'll be in the minutes, so I'm not going to bore you all with what I've done over the last three weeks. So I'll turn it over to City Manager.

Council Member Kern, if you'd want to do that.

anniversary? Well, thank you, Mr. Manager. Happy anniversary. This is Alon Harris, Police Department, one year. Matthew Prendergast, Police Department, two years. Mike Trommel, Police Department, two years. Sidney Miller, Police, two years. Megan Kael from the Police Department, three. Brandon Domney, Police Department, four. Deb Barber, Police Department, nine years. Kristen Fields, police, nine, and Justin Tolley, 16 years with the department. We also have Matt Barber with 30 years. Mike Hummel, 30 years. And with public service, Ryan Castor, three years. Joe Zuella, public service, three years. Steve Eisen, public service, four years. Aaron Harris, 11. With the parks, Phil Henson, finance, two years. And Diane Gould, human resources, 20 years. Congratulations to all of our employees.

Thank you. And just a couple of little things. The Summer Entertainment Series free event, Party on the Patio, is the next one this coming Saturday with DJ OK from 6 to 9 p.m. at the golf course. The next one after that is Sunday, July 26, 6.30 to 8.30 at Dominic Latino Park. So more information can be found on the Beaver Creek website. Coming at the end of this month is the Police Department's Night Against Crime. Thursday, July 30th from 6 to 8 30. It is here in the parking lot of the Beaver Creek Police Department and usually we share parking lots because it's a pretty good size event. Join us for a family-friendly event to meet the first responders who work hard to keep our community safe. Food trucks, live entertainment, inflatables, and a variety of municipal and emergency response vehicles will be on display. This has been updated on the Shout Park slide fundraiser. More information can be found on our website. The goal is approximately $100,000 for the slide, but as of today, earlier today, thank you to 172 donors who have contributed $14,289 so far. As of, like I said earlier today, more information can be found on our website. And that's all I have tonight.

Thank you very much. Councilman Curran.

Move to adjourn, Your Honor.

Second. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?