Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'll wrap the gavel to make it official for the August City of Beaver Creek Planning Commission meeting. Let's have a roll call, please.

Mr. Fountain.

Here.

Mr. Meyer.

Here.

Ms. Palumbo. Here. Ms. Usher. Here. Mr. Self.

Here. We are all here. So agenda approval. Staff, anything, any additions, corrections, changes? We're good to go. I need a motion, please.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda.

Second. Don't fight over it. We've got plenty of seconds. Okay. And we'll do that by general consensus.

Agreed.

Okay. Minutes from June. Any additions, corrections, changes? We're good to go.

Mr. Chair, I approve the move that we approve the minutes from June 3rd, 2026. All right.

Second. And I have a second, and we'll do that by general consensus. Yes. Agreed.

Mr. Chairman, if you would, I just want to give one additional accolade for the staff here as not noted, but for the people at home watching and for the people in the audience. We see we go through every week or every week every month when we go through these meetings You see us go through the agenda and we go through the meeting minutes and everything looks pretty rudimentary and pretty normal it's further from the case and it reinforces the reliance we have on staff and such as our deputy clerk, Melissa Gillough. We had the June 3rd approval meetings for tonight. We had an extremely difficult and sensitive issue with over 100 plus pages of information that we had to digest. We had exhibits thrown out at the meeting and additional exhibits later. That then, because we did not have a July meeting, that's over 120 pages right there. And we had to digest that. We didn't have a July meeting. It went before the city council in their July 13th meeting. Again, all these pages of notes and all these exhibits and everything had to be in exactly the same order, attention to detail, and that was Melissa Gillogg's job to do in supporting the city council group. Then that went to us tonight to approve, and I literally, just to make sure, because of the extremely sensitive nature of the issue we talked about on June 3rd, I went through every page of June 3rd every page of the July 13th City Council notes, and every page of tonight. And they are spot on, accurate, in order, in the same sequence, in the attention of notations, and it reinforces the thoroughness and the attention to detail, in this case Melissa Gillogg does to us and the Planning Commission, but it reinforces what the staff does to make things go smoothly. And because of the difficulty in the 120 pages of notes, we had to deal with for the last two months. I just wanted to give a special shout out to Ms. Gillogg and thank her for the kind of work that we do that makes it seem so effortless. And it is not rudimentary, even though that's how we make it sound at the beginning of every meeting. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to say that.

And it ain't the first time either. She's the one that keeps us on the straight and narrow, not to mention staff. OK. Now that the accolades are done, this evening we have a public hearing and a couple of decision items. And just a nickel's worth of how we do our public hearings. We ask the applicant to come up and give us a presentation on what they have in mind. then staff will follow that with their report. Once we've done that, we'll open the floor to y'all to come up and speak your piece, but speak your piece within three minutes, please. Once everyone has had a chance to do that, and that means speak in favor, speak against, or simply ask questions. Once that's over, I will bang the gavel, we'll close the public hearing, we will discuss it, and then vote on it. So, without further ado, read our first case, please, ma'am.

This is case number PUD 08-4, Amendment 7 of 26. On an application filed by Hay Howard and Elizabeth Hahn, 2084 Prudence Drive, Beaver Creek, Ohio, 45434. The applicants request approval to amend PUD 0842, add place of religious assembly as a permitted use within the PUD. The property is located at 3044 Dayton Senior Road, further described as Book 5, Page 6, Parcels 5 and 6, and Book 5, Page 8, Parcel 90 on the Greene County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. And just so you all will know, one of our decision items directly affects the public hearing that Melissa just read. So we will be considering those together, but we will be voting on them separately. So don't leave until we, if you're here to hear the Bethel case, don't leave until we've done both. Okay, who's here to speak for Bethel Church? Step right on forward.

Hello. My name is Thomas Hahn. I'm here speaking on behalf of Bethel World Mission Church. I'm here along with Ms. Hale Coward and Elizabeth Hahn as leadership and officers of the church, and also a member and my wife, Joy Hahn. We're here today requesting approval to use the property at 3044 Dayton Senior Road to be used as a religious Christian church where we may hold services, weekly services, and prayer meetings. Services would be on Sunday mornings and last probably until like 1 or 2 in the afternoon and then possibly daily morning prayer services during the weekday Monday through Friday and also Friday evening and then Saturday morning also and we welcome any questions from anybody so I look forward to hearing them we'll probably have some questions as we go along okay thank you very much staff

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. WE'RE GOING TO DO, LIKE YOU SAID, BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. I'LL BE PRESENTING ON BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, PUD 08-4 AMENDMENT 07-26 AND MOD 07-26 MINOR. SO IT'S A LITTLE BLURRY. LET'S SEE. Hmm. That is a little blurry. Maybe we can try to recast it. Oh, there it is, there it is. That looks better. Huh, maybe it just needed a minute. Okay, well, it's working now, so. Like I said, there's an amendment, and then there's a minor modification. I'll be kind of presenting both at once, but I'll parse them out as we go. So the request for the amendment is to add places of religious assembly to the list of permitted uses in that PUD 08-4. And then the modification request is to change the garage on site to a principal structure. It would be the sanctuary for the church.

Okay, well, we're blurry again.

This one... so there we go uh we're this is a little bit of a complicated thing since there's two things going on at once so this is just a little diagram to show the process from here so those red boxes are where we are tonight there's a pud amendment it's at the planning commission it's before you to do a resolution potentially to recommend to city council potentially to then city council would have a public hearing and first reading and then they would have a second reading and a decision on whether or not to approve that amendment and then the PUD modification that is approved directly by Planning Commission so that is a decision tonight and there's some things we'll get into it towards the end that to help rectify that time difference so here's kind of a zoomed out view that star is where we're looking it's On Dayton Xena Road, it's east of North Fairfield. It's very close to Main Elementary, but it's on the western side of Haynes Road. So we'll zoom in a little more. And we'll wait for it to figure itself out. So the site, it's long and skinny. It's approximately 1.88 acres, but it only has 120 feet of frontage on Dayton Xena Road. And then the actual office, the existing office, which is a converted residence, it's a little over 2,000 square feet. And it's a little over 370 feet set back from the right of way. So it's back in there. And there's a long driveway that leads to it. There's also a 2,100 square foot garage and a 100 square foot shed. There's the garage. There's that shed. And then the house is south of them. Yeah. And it's clearing up just as we're ready to go to the next slide. Okay, there's this slide that looks nice and sharp. So on that bottom left photo, you see the house there. Well, former house, now office. It has been a medical office and then an attorney practice. And then on the top, there's that garage. And then the right-hand side is the interior of the garage. You can see that it's partially finished. It has several ancillary rooms, including bathrooms. Oh, and I should say, back on this slide, that garage is where they would be having their main gatherings. And in our zoning code, that's important. We call that the principal structure. So that's what the minor modification is for, is to allow them to have those gatherings in that sanctuary, which would be the garage.

We're blurry again.

I wonder why it's doing that. This one is just to show the surrounding zoning, which is simple enough. Mostly it's R1A, single family residential, on relatively large lots. That's abutting the property to the north and all the way on the eastern side. And then the western side, it's abutted by R01, which is office, residential office. So that is a medical office that's next to it on the western side. And then there's a lot of R01 along that corridor. And then that big space of A1, that's the school. That's Main Elementary School.

All right.

And here's the site plan superimposed over a satellite photo of the site. North is going to your right. This site plan is from the original PED application, but nothing's changing from it. All that stuff that is now existing, they have that parking lot with 10 spaces. They have that long driveway. They have additional area behind the structure that was employee parking that could be converted to parking if necessary. That 10 spaces allows them to have 30 parishioners, 30 people in that sanctuary. Which right now, they're only projecting needing 20 in the near term. So I think that's pretty adequate parking. And then here's a snippet from our land use plan. You can see that star right over on the edge of this Dayton Xenia Center focus area. And it describes it as mixed-use commercial. These mixed-use commercial areas are intended for retail, restaurant, service-oriented businesses. It does say Haines Road, that's right. And with opportunities for residences and offices, all of those uses are uses that, anywhere you could do one of those things, you could also do a church as a conditional use. So we see this as consistent with the land use plan, especially given it's a mixed use environment. A place of religious assembly, not a church, a place of religious assembly, potentially a church, certainly consistent with that the land use plan then so going to the amendment itself SAS proposing an addition to the amendment the first condition is pretty boilerplate the second condition would be that the addition of places of religious assembly The third condition is just saying that the Planning Commission thinks that it's compatible with the land use plan. And then the fourth, that is in front of you in red, THERE'S A CONDITION ON THE ORIGINAL PED THAT SAYS BASICALLY YOU CAN'T HAVE ANOTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO USE THIS FOR ANOTHER USE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY, SO WE WOULD NEED TO REPEAL THAT. EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANTS WERE POSING, SO WE WOULD NEED TO REPEAL THAT. SO THAT'S THAT FOURTH CONDITION THERE. THEN TO THE MODIFICATION. THESE ARE ON THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE MODIFICATION. are pretty boilerplate. But the two that are being added, the first one fixes that timing issue that I referenced before, where you're approving this modification. You are approving or disapproving this modification tonight. We're tabling it. But then council would be hearing the amendment later. So this makes it so the modification is contingent upon the approval of that amendment by council. which allows the Planning Commission to approve or disapprove it tonight. And then that fifth condition is to address any concerns of noise. And it's saying that the garage has to be insulated or have other features to prevent sound from getting past the property line when they're doing religious services. So staff recommends approval of both the amendment resolution and the minor modification with the proposed conditions. Any questions?

Thank you. Usual, very comprehensive report. So, public hearing time. Are there folks who would like to speak in favor of, against, or simply ask questions? Don't be shy. Step right on up here. Give us your name and address and speak your piece in three minutes. See, somebody's got to start.

My name is Janice Jacobs and I live at 3040 Dayton Senior Road right next door. I have lived there over 60 years. My family and I moved here in 1965. I was a little girl and our first neighbors were Taylor Plumbing. They were quiet even when they were coming and going on their business days and emergencies on the weekends. The next was Dynamic Solution. Again, they were quiet. Actually, I thought they were vampires. Never saw anybody around. And the third was the Bitcoin, whatever they did. Again, they were quiet. Not a lot of traffic coming in or going out. And the fourth was a very short-term attorney. Never saw any traffic going in with him. I am not against any type of organized religious assembly, whether it be in a church, a temple, a synagogue, or out in a field. But I really do not care to have this next to me. When you put what is considered a storefront church assembly next to a place, your property values go down they don't go up the traffic and the parking that's another good good subject to bring up i do not care whether it's in the garage or whether it's in the house the brick building that's facing dayton xenia you are still going to have A lot of traffic coming in and going out during the week, from what I understood, on the weekends especially, when they have their church service or their assembly service. No thank you. The noise. I know that's said that they are going to have to insulate. Well, which are they going to insulate? The garage? the house or both, so noise doesn't bleed out. I do not care how well you insulate something against noise. You're still going to have noise. I sleep still with my windows open. I really do not wish, hope, or consider to have a religious place next to me and my property. I don't want to have to drink the Kool-Aid. I don't know anything about them or if they're even from a church or assembly or whatever it may be. I know nothing about them. I really don't care to have them in my backyard. And literally, they would be in my backyard. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I learned a long time ago, never say, is there anybody else? So I won't say that. I'll say, who else would like to speak?

Danny Crouch, 3069 Ranchfield Drive, Beaver Creek, Ohio. Just a quickie question. It was briefed. Section 0846 shall be repealed. I didn't understand what that really meant, if that could just be explained. That's all I had.

Great. We'll make sure that gets explained when we start discussing, because we're a little confused, too.

Thank you.

Next. I'm going to wave the gavel around. Anybody else? Last chance. Okay, I will close the public hearing and I'm going to start to my left tonight.

Okay, most of my questions had to actually do with if we were to approve Um, as far as the exits with the garage, are there enough exits, you know, if something was to happen or, you know, any kind of emergency? Because I only saw the one and then the front, the actual garage door when I actually looked at it, so. Is there anything in question now?

Yes, of course. They would have to meet the building code and they'd also have to address any concerns of the fire marshal.

Okay. And then the next question I have was about as far as waste. If there was a dumpster, did they have any plans as far as to build anything with that? Where would it be?

That's a good question. And I don't know off the top of my head. I believe there was an enclosure or at least a requirement that the trash be stored inside.

the facility but I could check on that for you could be okay and my last question that it's in part two section two on the second one the hours it did say from seven to nine and then said as new things came in the hours would be eight to eight so is that would that infringe on any kind of worship service. And is that specific to any days of the week?

That is not specific to any days of the week. And whether or not it would have infringed on a worship service, I don't know. If the applicant wanted to change that, they'd have to go before commission and counseling.

And then the last question I had was about the lighting. It did look like it was dark on the outside.

Yeah.

I know that was number 11 on section 2. It did talk about lighting and how it would have to go through the commission planning to the zoning to be updated.

Yeah. And I'm not aware of what the lighting on the site looks like. But I can check on that.

OK. That's all I have.

You're up, Jim. Oh.

Jeff, can you come back up for a second? I'm going to ask some clarifying questions and then try to get to the detailed questions. First off, I'll help Mr. Crouch here. That's a good push. Back, Mr. Crouch and Michael has more of the history when this was the plumbing place. It was zoned differently. It was zoned R1A and had to be rezoned to CPUD. And that was in November of 2008. And that had a lot of conditions. one of those eight conditions we're going to be talking about tonight or one of those conditions is number eight and we'll be talking about that tonight but that's a november 2008 decision by this planning commission at the time and then the city council now that relates to my question to jeff there are a number of things jeff we're talking about tonight and um Since we're dealing with first the religious assembly situation on the existing home and garage, first with the religious assembly and then second with the garage, are you wanting us to ask questions on both now, even though we're taking our votes separately, or do you want us to solely go through the religious assembly first and then vote and then do all the questions, should that pass, on the garage and then vote? I didn't catch that in the beginning.

There will be two separate votes, but all the questions and discussion can happen now.

Both of them, even though we're voting separately?

Yeah, we'll talk about them both now, but there will be two separate votes.

Well, then let me ask the applicant to come up for a number of questions before I come back to you, Jeff. So, Mr. Hahn, could you come back up, please? I'm going to ask a series of non-religious questions. questions, but they relate to the situation. So you have, as you saw tonight, I'm sure you concur with the accuracy of how far it is back in the distance and surrounded by R1As and everything that the city went through. You have the house and then you have the garage that exists here now. Excuse me, this sounds like a dumb question, but it pervades everything else. Why do you want to, in the second of your Why do you want to change the principal structure to the garage? Even though you're going to use that for the assembly, got it, noted, but why do you formally want to change that as the principal structure, which is your second request? We're coming to first for designating religious assembly. The second, can we make the prime structure of the garage? Why do you want to change? What's the point?

I understand the question. Thank you for the question. I believe the reason we would like to convert the garage into the primary structure place yeah whatever you use it for is a separate issue but why do you formally want to change it as the principal structure why that designation because it's a larger building and so we would like we we feel that that's a better fit for an actual worship service for us than the home itself so we thought that as a place of worship that would be a better fit for that for us

And it may just be because of its size and the openness of it, but why formally change? Is there a law or some requirement that this has to be a missing? Why are you doing that? I know how you want to use it. That's fine. I'm trying to find out why you want to formally change the designation.

If we did not change it here today and we wanted to eventually move forward with using that garage as our place of worship, would we need to go through another process of...

applying is that true maybe I asked the wrong person sorry mr. hunt essentially it boils down to you can't run a religious service through in an accessory structure anywhere so we want to make sure that it is also designated as a principal structure I mean there'll be two I mean I guess principles are our primary structures on the site one will be the house and got it That was I didn't catch it.

That was a I couldn't see it in the zoning I couldn't see it in the in everything that I was able to look up as a planning commission member why the need for the formal change other than obviously the November 2008 Change that we did other than that. I couldn't see any reason why we wanted to change it

Yeah, it would be a dangerous precedent to allow people to start doing religious services in excess.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Hahn, could you come back up? So a couple of things. This November 2008 ordinance, we were talking about both changing the religious assembly and then the changing of the principal structure. You had said you wanted to operate until 9 o'clock. Well, this ordinance that was passed in 2008 said you can't do anything past 8 o'clock. that's what uh fellow commissioner irish is saying um that would mean a totally separate thing we'd have to look at and vote on if you wanted to do something past eight o'clock right now that ordinance stops you every day on eight o'clock are you were you aware of that or did you even see the november 2008 ordinance when you made your initial application i believe so it was provided to us and we looked over that um

I guess they were unaware. Yeah, it basically says everything stops at 8 o'clock. I think as of now, yes, I think we're fine with that. Okay.

The other aspect you had put in your application and the very helpful information you gave us that you did not intend prior to what we are talking about tonight, which is probably your first time, you had not intended putting any money into it. And if you look at the layout, your handicap spaces are south or towards Indian Ripple, where the house is, and you're talking about having the assembly even farther into your site, which is already 370 feet where the house is, closer to 400 feet. Are you going to anticipate doing anything different to allow the handicapped or other ADA-compliant people to get to your garage space knowing it's farther away from where the parking is now, especially the handicap parking. Have you thought of that yet?

As I understand it from our discussions, we would need to put a lot of improvements to the building itself. And so our goal initially would be to get the primary house in order for us to meet initially. And then once we can meet there regularly, we don't feel like we would be able to start right away. and so we would feel like we need to make improvements to the to the roof to the windows um yeah i'm thinking more than handicapped in ada for parking but you're right there will be ada compliance possibly for your structure for them for the primary for the house and then we would be after that's up and running that then we would look to the garage and then fix that up to like with the insulation the windows need to be fixed um so that is like a LONG-TERM PROJECT FOR US. SO IF NEEDED, THE PARKING, THERE ARE, THERE IS, like blacktop in the back area. And so I believe it was mentioned that it was an employee parking there when it was a law office. So we would be able to consider further making handicapped spots.

Yeah, right now your handicapped spots are pretty far away from your church, a good 30 feet or more, which is putting an undue burden of anybody that comes to your church in an ADA compliant or handicapped requirement. I didn't know if you were aware of that.

I think we would be able to, if needed, convert the back area to a parking area for people who have difficulty walking. I thought the parking lot itself was a little bit difficult for people who might have difficulty walking. And so I thought that...

okay we could consider that yes the my last question to you mr. Hans earth and thank you for being so informative and this goes back to the difference in terms that our staff had conveyed to us both in writing and then they heard verbally tonight I want to make triply sure because we're gonna be voting on this the first thing we're looking at in our vote is are we designating the garage as an acceptable religious simply use for that structure and the words religious assembly are important this is why i want you to clarify for all of us because the word sanctuary has been used religious service has been used church obviously has been thrown out but can you clarify this is not a sanctuary this is not a church this is not a temple this is just in a religious assembly or is synagogue and the other terms we've heard tonight appropriate

When you say other terms like synagogue being appropriate, are you asking... Or something of a religious term that designates a particular faith or what goes on inside.

We're basically looking at modifying this November 2008 zoning rule for specifically religious assembly, period.

Jim, I think the assembly term is made to be a catch-all. I'm not sure we necessarily need to nail down...

yeah so i think we stay consistent with using assembly i don't think we need to go further into defining exactly and in that case then that's thank you mr hahn um that case it clarifies for me that pretty much whatever mr hahn and bethel would do is pretty open at this point and how they would use you would use that facility all different things that you were kind enough to list for us of all the different celebrations and experiences and services that would go on in there.

That would be our goal too, our hope, our desire to use that facility for all, I guess, religious activities as a group. So be it celebration, worship service, prayer.

Okay.

I guess I was a little curious if you thought that we intended to only limit it to Christian religious services?

Or any faith or any religion. Jordan said, our counsel, said the clarifying thing. This is really a catch-all term, which means you could really be open to using it for a whole wide range of events, services, or what have you, without becoming...

I think the inquiry is just whether assembly is the catch-all term would... capture what you intend on doing. And I think in the legal counsel's opinion, I think the term is sufficient.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Heim, for coming back up. Jeff, could you come back up? Mr. Gord? So, just a... Just again, even though it clarified it, we've had some of the additional things today. Our first attempt tonight in voting will be to simply add the term religious assembly to a permitted uses for the voting ordinance, which was passed in November of 2008, correct? That's our first vote.

That's correct. That's the amendment. There is that other part of the amendment which would repeal the proposed part of the amendment.

Well, that's why I'm asking you up, or maybe you or Mr. Burkhardt. For me as a member who's going to vote, we have an existing zoning ordinance now. That was a change in zoning from R1A to CPUD back in November 2008. All we're doing now is adding a permitted use to an existing zoning ordinance. It's either yes or no on religious assembly. We're not doing anything else until we get that religious assembly added, I'm asking. Or do we have to do, for some reason, deal with Condition 8 of all the conditions before we can vote on religious assembly?

You'd be doing it simultaneously. So the same amendment can both repeal Condition 8 and allow...

I don't understand why that's even possible. I thought we had to do the religious assembly first, and then we talk about the structure second, because that's condition eight.

Right. The first item up for you guys is the resolution of recommendation to city council, and that recommendation has two components. One is adding religious services, and the second one... Religious assembly as a permitted use.

I'm very focused on that term, and you'll see it in a couple questions.

So the action is, one, to add places of religious assembly as an allowed use in the PD, and second, it's to remove the Condition 8 of the original ordinance.

But is that not the whole point of the second request by Mr. Hahn and the others?

The second request is specific that here's what they want to do. It's got...

I'm sorry, this is, to me, maybe for my fellow commissioners, this is really confusing. The ordinance says, the November 2008 ordinance, for number 8 says, the principal structure currently on the site, and it's currently, I'm reading verbatim from number 8, currently in its current location shall be the only main structure allowed. Got it. So for us to approve their request to make the garage the principal structure... We have to avoid number eight.

And that's being done within the same action as adding the places of religious assembly.

But that is their second request. Their first request was adding religious assembly. Their second request for tonight, which is... PUD 08 mod 726 minor is to change the principal structure, which we would have to eliminate number 8 to make it the principal structure. Got it. But we can't, that's a separate action in my mind. I'm thoroughly confused why they have to be done together. They should be a separate vote.

They are a separate vote.

so elimination of eight is a separate vote from adding religious assembly no those are the same vote and then there's another vote on on the minor mod to the existing site by allowing it was presented to us it just doesn't seem legal it doesn't seem correct and i'm what we're voting on is the resolution yeah and in the resolution it tells you what we're voting on the resolution i mean we didn't read section one if we need clarification on what we're So the resolution, even though they only applied in the PUD Amendment 726 to have the religious assembly added, that's all they applied for. We're still giving them more than what they applied for by also voiding number eight of the original 2008 zoning ordinance.

After reading through the ordinance, I mean, they didn't ask for it specifically, but when I read through the ordinance, if we left eight in, that would be contradicting to the minor modification.

That explains it to me, but I just strongly disagree because that is their second request. That's not the first request. They're separate votes, separate votes in my humble mind.

We can only amend the ordinance that was approved in 2008 by, City Council can only amend an ordinance by another ordinance. Correct. So the resolution is to City Council, hey, you should amend this ordinance by adding places of religious assembly and removing condition number eight that precluded them from using the accessory structure as a place.

You're clarifying for me. I appreciate that. I strongly disagree. And that will govern my vote. But at the same time, I do understand now where you're heading. So let me ask you one last question, then I'll yield, Mr. Chairman. The terms rezoning were used in a lot of our material tonight. And as far as I could see, we were not rezoning. It's still a CPUD. We're just adding another permitted use.

Correct. It's amending the existing zoning.

We were not rezoning.

Correct.

Okay. Because that was in the number of the materials that I wanted to clarify. Okay. That is all I have for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to go on.

Just a nickel's worth of, now that we're all totally confused, just a nickel's worth here of background. And that is that for a long, long time, places of religious assembly, formerly known as churches, were quite restricted in terms of where they could fall in a particular zoning category. That was broadened some years ago, but it was broadened after this PUD was originally approved in 2008. I was here when we did it. And so were this to come up now, Place of Religious Assembly would probably have been there to begin with. And so we're basically updating this particular PUD to match what a new PUD that would be brought before us in 2026 would say. It would probably allow a place of religious assembly as a permitted use. So I just wanted to clarify that. It's how things change. Zoning codes are a very liquid thing. We have to update them as things change. 25 years ago, there was no such thing as a place where you could go rent VHS tapes. And we had to put that in. 15 years ago, there was no such thing as a vape shop. We had to figure out where that would go. You don't see too many video rental stores anymore. But it's still in our ordinance in case somebody comes up with one. So... It's a constant change and a constant update, and we're in the process right now of doing kind of a major overhaul to our entire zoning code. So I'll quiet on that, but just a little bit of history. Fire away.

Oh, okay.

I'll go to my next commissioner. Commissioner.

So one of the conditions talks about noise and says noise can't be discernible from the property line. What's the remedy for that? How's that judged? You know what I'm getting at? Because that seems almost arbitrary.

Yeah, that's a good question. We did a very similar provision for the Midwest shooting range that went into CJ Drive and If you go past that site, you could even be in the building and you wouldn't necessarily know that people were shooting in the room next to you. The installation necessary would be not that, because it would just be a church service, which is a lot less loud than a gun range. But that's kind of the judgment that we would take. Is it quiet when you're at the property line? Can you hear it?

And if it's not, then they have to stop operating? Is that how it would work?

There would be, we would work with the applicant to figure out a solution that allowed the quietness to happen at the property line. So whether it be more insulation or less loud services, those types of things.

Was there any thought about a condition not allowing outdoor services? Because I know some churches do like an outdoor service.

That's something that... It's something that Planning Commission could decide to add. In my report, I considered the possibility for outdoor services. It's something that a lot of churches around here do. Not all of them. I don't know what the percentage is. Some do, some don't. But I decided to leave that up to Planning Commission whether or not they thought it would be necessary. Technically, I left everything up to Planning Commission, but I didn't add it in.

Are we creating two primary uses on this lot then?

So there would be two primary structures. Yeah, the converted house, office, and then the garage. And that would allow them to flexibly use the house and then the garage instead.

Does that create any issues? Do we have other lots with two?

Yeah. All right, I think that's all the questions I have for you.

I do have a question for the applicant.

The lighting on site, do you guys plan to change any of that?

Yes, I think so, yes. Maybe for security purposes.

And then trash I know came up. What's the status of trash? Is there a dumpster? Is it going to just be in like a roll-away bin?

We have a very small group of people, and we have limited waste that we use. As of right now, we could just take it with us to our own personal homes. But if needed, I believe we could get into a commercial agreement with either Rumpke or Waste Management as needed.

Yeah, I thought based off the scale that you probably wouldn't have much, but just was curious. Okay. I think that was all I had for you. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I do have a question for staff then. Apologies if I missed it. So they are going to change lighting. So you guys are going to review that plan?

Yeah. So if they need any additional lighting, we would have to, well, really, they'd have to get a zoning permit to do this. And as part of the zoning permit, we would review a photometric. we would review a photometric plan and make sure that there is enough lighting or there isn't too much. Make sure that it matches the standards.

Okay. I think that's it.

I'm sorry, can you come right back up?

Getting in is 10,000 steps. Always happy to come back up.

for the fourth time, just to clarify. So what Jonathan said, there will be two primary structures. We're not voting to take away the one principle structure and make it at the other. It's both. Okay. So they can operate in both at any time if this is passed.

That's right.

Okay. Um, and I believe I read that before they can use the second primary structure, the garage, It has to be modified to be compliant with plumbing and HVAC and all of those things that a house would need. It would have to be completely renovated before they could use that site.

The garage, and I didn't go on site or anything, the garage is partially finished, if not fully finished. It has a lot of the stuff that it needs. They would have to get a permit from the building department. They'd have to follow all their regulations. Same thing with the fire department. So they wouldn't have to get a permit from the fire department, but they'd have to follow their regulations as well. So any of that stuff that's needed, it would be addressed at that stage.

Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you.

You caught me looking through something. I guess this is more of a comment than a question for the applicant. You are aware that there is a landlocked parcel behind you. And is that part of what you all are getting? Okay, that is a separate parcel, and in the original PUD, there is an access requirement for a, in case that was ever sold separately, there's an easement across the main parcel to get to that. I just want to make sure you all were aware of that.

Out of curiosity, would that easement be required if we sell the parcels separately, or would that need to be done when we purchase both parcels?

Well, the easement, and help me out here, staff, if I've got it wrong, the easement remains regardless of whether it's one parcel or two.

What I was thinking they can do is combine all the lots into one lot, and then there's no need for easement.

That would solve the problem, yeah.

And if they ever wanted to sell off that back, they'd have to come back to Planning Commission and ask to split it off, and at that point we would say you need to put an easement on. Really, the easement's important if they don't combine it all into one lot.

Correct. So the suggestion would be if you – it would make sense to do a lot combination, and that's a pretty straight – it won't require public hearing and a whole lot of conversation.

No, I mean – It's usually pretty straightforward. Staff can do that administratively. Okay.

And I quickly looked through the 2008 PUD. Was there anything in there about light? I know about light cutoff, but I'm talking about requiring lights to be taken down to a certain number within an hour or so after the last, in this case, the last service rather than having... I realize there needs to be security lights on all night, but I'm talking about more lighting. Do we need to put something in there, or was that in the original PUD?

I don't believe it was in. Normally, we wouldn't put that in the zoning. We'd put that in the minor mod or major mod or something like that. So you could add a condition.

So the place to put that then would be in this minor mod? Correct. Correct. Got it.

Okay. Same if you want to try to shore up any outdoor activity, you can certainly add a condition that it can only be a certain time of the day or has to be a certain distance away from residential lot lines or anything like that.

And just ballpark figure, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, how far away from Dayton Xenia Road is the, in terms of feet, how many feet is the... existing garage structure from Dayton Xenia Road.

I want to say the house is like 330. Okay.

Okay, so it's 400 and some feet from Dayton Xenia Road. Okay, good. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Second helpings, ladies, gentlemen.

Just a quick one. Okay.

There's, oh sorry, thank you very much. We've got the resolution that you clarified for me without my feelings towards it, but you're saying we don't need to add conditions to the approval because whatever conditions you were thinking of are contained in the resolution? We're not looking at new conditions to do first before we take a vote on the motion to add religious observances as an activity?

We'll need two separate votes, one for the resolution for the PUD amendment, and then there'll be a separate vote for the minor modification.

This one first.

Granted, but the voting for the amendment, the resolution you gave us, has some modified conditions to it. But we've been talking about things here related to lighting, sound, or whatever.

Those are going to be in the second one. Those kind of details would typically be in the second minor mod.

Okay. The first action is just what's in the resolution. And the resolution simply states that adding the Places of religious assembly to approve.

That was just submitted. We're making a recommendation that you would make a motion first before you make a motion to approve the resolution. Make a motion to add condition number four, which states condition number eight of the original should be repealed. So that would be your first motion. You vote on that. Then you would, if that, assume that's put into the resolution, then you would make a vote on the resolution.

And you're going to make sense of this? Okay.

She knows what I'm saying. We've been working together long enough. She can interpret it. Okay.

Then a small question without calling up on the screen. You had the land use plan, which shows this property on the very edge of the land use plan. And we are talking about religious assembly, a catch-all term. And we already include St. Luke's and other spots in there. As I read the land use plan for that section, uh i just printed out a copy of it here it's not in color like you had up on the screen it talks about very much mid-use mixed use and services and whatnot in the land use plan i can't recall that we even defined religious experiences whether it's a saint luke's or it would be bethel world or we we never really defined what that meant correct

Yeah, no, we didn't go into that far deep. You don't go that in-depth in the land use plan. You stick with categories such as neighborhood or community-wide or regional commercial, things like that. So a small church would fit more into a neighborhood type setting.

My apologies for getting granular here, but Jordan, please stop me if I need to. That's my whole point. We're not dealing with a church, which is a structure specifically dedicated and built and constructed for religious observance. We're talking about a garage that's going to be used as religious assembly. That, to me, is a big deal.

That's why I was calling on you.

I'm sorry, I'm going to jump in. I think this is a good, delicate topic, but I think if the building is used for religious assembly, it is for all intents and purposes. A place of religious assembly. A place of religious assembly.

I mean, whether it was constructed at the beginning doesn't matter.

The original intent of the construction is not to take what we would categorize as under the use. Right. If it's a barn and they want to use it for religious assembly, that's great. If it's an old office building and they want to use it for religious assembly, that's great. The use of the building, not the intent of the construction. That helps.

Thank you, Jordan. Thank you, Randy. That was where I was going with that. Okay.

The first ones in Beaver Creek were log cabins anyway, so probably somebody's house. Okay, if we are ready for voting time, ladies, gentlemen, first of all, we need to add or to vote on adding this section one, number four, condition eight of section two of ordinance eight, 46 shall be repealed. We need to vote on that to add it to the resolution.

Mr. Chair. Yes. I would move to amend and add condition 4, which states condition 8 of section 2 of ordinance 8-46 shall hereby be repealed. Okay. Just for the audience. Sorry. Yeah. What that says is that what we're repealing is, in the original, it just says the principal structure is the house. So we're basically just getting rid of that. So that's what the... What we're voting on is in the original ordinance, there was something that said the principal structure currently on the site is the house, and that shall be the only principal structure. So we're just removing that language. That's all this is doing right now.

Otherwise, the rest of it wouldn't make any sense. And we do want to make sense out of this, I hope. Okay, I have a motion. I need a second.

I second that.

I have a motion and a second. Let's read the roll on this.

Mr. Meyer? Yes. Ms. Palumbo? Yes. Ms. Usher?

Yes.

Mr. Fountain?

No.

Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries 4-1. Okay, now we are looking at the resolution. amended PUD 08-4 amendment 7-26 with the section 1 number 4 added to it mr. chair I move to approve PUD 8-4 amendment 726 with the four conditions as amended okay I have a motion I second that and I have a second thank you and let's read the roll again

Ms. Palumbo?

Yes.

Ms. Usher? Yes. Mr. Fountain?

No.

Mr. Meyer?

Yes.

Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries 4-1. Now, is there any, before we leap right into this second resolution, is there any further discussion on that? Because this is the minor mod, and if we want to add anything about lighting or outdoor activities, we need to be a little careful on outdoor activities because they may want to put a swing set out there. We don't want to... I can understand the need for a giant revival tent to be looked at carefully, but we've got to be careful in what we do. But y'all are planning commissions, so let's see what you have to say.

Mr. Chair, I would just say to try to take into consideration some of the neighbors' views that we would prohibit outdoor services.

Okay.

I don't know if there's better language for that.

Okay.

The rationale being that outdoor services would... Noise, yeah. Currently there's conditions on noise already.

Yeah, that says you can't hear anything at the property line, right?

Right. Have really quiet outdoor services. The noise is a concern. The condition already satisfies that. I don't want to treat this parcel differently than similar used properties that would allow for outdoor activities. So like I said, I think there's some sensitivity to wanting to limit religious activity if noise is already mitigated by the conditions and outdoor activities would be acceptable in other similar related properties.

Okay. In that case, though, condition number five says to ensure sound from religious services or events inside the sanctuary. So do we need to amend that?

I think if noise is the concern... um maybe broadening that to just the property generally that an indoor component i think would make sense okay folks do we need um

I'll ask for a little guidance from staff on this. I'm talking about the usual boilerplate that we put in on non-residential property about lights being turned off after a certain time. Is that going to come with the zoning permit, or do we need to specifically address that?

I mean, you're more than welcome to put that as a condition number six. I mean, there's two conditions we're already proposing to add on the number five if you want to say get rid of inside the sanctuary and change the is to an are. So it would be religious services or events are not discernible from the property line. That would work for both inside and outside if that's the case. And you could add a sixth condition and say light shall be turned down to 25% of or standard operating within one hour after the property closing. That's fairly boilerplate we've done in a lot of places.

Can you state that one more time, please?

I'm trying to remember exactly what the language of it is. The lighting shall be reduced to 25%. In an hour of closing. Within one hour of the...

Which is according to the ordinance of 2008, 8 p.m. Yeah.

I mean, we could say 9, but it's within one hour of the place closing.

Okay. Any other discussion on the minor mods?

Just a clarification. Sure. When we had talked about outside activities, even though the structure which we're voting in now is to change it to allow religious activities, we are not precluding an activity outside, noise or otherwise. Like if they get together with a coffee area and stuff like that, like we've had at eHopes.

Right. I mean, there's nothing that says they can't do stuff outside. Okay. Other than the condition that the sound can't be discernible from the property line.

Okay. Did we not talk about the, because it's surrounded by R1A and R01 on the west. uh did we not talk about some of plantings trees shrubs buffers like we had i thought we had done that in the presentation by mr goff i don't remember anything i know we did just the attenuation of the building or did we also talk about the the 2008 the 2008 pud requires a row of of evergreens along the back property line the back property line that's right it's just the back

I don't think it says which back property lines. Right, but they're two parcels. So I don't know if that means...

If we combine them into one, then they're all in one.

Right, right. But that was in the original ordinance.

Okay, that's all I had.

Okay, folks. If we have flogged this one sufficiently, do I have a motion? And if you would read it with the additional thing about the lighting.

We haven't moved on that yet. No, I know we haven't. Okay. Mr. Chair, I would move to add condition number six that reads lighting shall be reduced to 25% within one hour of closing.

Okay.

I should say outdoor lighting.

Okay. Do I have a second on that? Wait a minute, wait a minute. We got a flag on the play here.

Okay, I need to add four and five.

I think the motion is to add a condition that is not currently... Right, correct. It'll entertain their... the ones that aren't in the staff report and so we would need a motion add four or five and then now six yeah if they're not in the staff report and we're gonna vote based on the staff report we need to add what's in four or five and then each individually I think is part of the question though or because add the whole thing that one or five were not included in your packet yeah and that's what you'll use as the basis to make your next motion Let's go ahead and, as part of this motion, to amend what's in the packet to add four and five and six as the commission sees fit. Okay, so you're good with one motion? Yes. Okay.

That's why we have a staff and lawyer.

Okay, I'll start over. So, Mr. Chair, I move to – do I need to read the whole thing?

Since we're making changes, I'm going to do one. All right.

Mr. Chair, I move to add condition number four to read, this modification is contingent upon approval of PDE 8-4 Amendment 726 and shall be null and void unless the amendment is approved by City Council. Condition number five, the conversion of the garage to a sanctuary will include the use of insulation or other features to ensure that sound from religious services or events are not discernible from the property line.

and six that outdoor lighting shall be reduced to 25 within one hour of closing okay so we're adding we're adding three correct that's motion modifications okay i have a motion a second just not fast enough okay i have a motion in a second uh let's read the role on that miss usher yes mr fountain no

Mr. Meyer?

Yes.

Ms. Palumbo? Yes. Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries 4-1. Okay, we now have a resolution with six, count them, six requirements. Yes. So, now I need a motion on the whole thing.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve PC26-3 mod 7-26 minor with the six conditions listed.

Thank you. And I need a second. A second. I have a motion and a second.

Sorry, that may have been a correction. It's PUD 8-4 mod 727 minor. You were looking at the next piece. Okay.

So sorry. That's why we have staff and a lawyer. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve PUD 08-4 mod 726 minor with the six conditions listed.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I'll second that. I'll second.

Don't fight over it. Okay, we have. Take your pick as to who got there first. Okay, now that we have the right motion with the right title, let's vote on it.

Mr. Fountain.

I still believe we are not proceeding correctly for the applicant, so I continue to vote no.

Mr. Meyer. Yes. Ms. Palumbo. Yes. Ms. Usher. Yes. Ms. Urself.

Yes. Motion carries, 4-1. And we are through with Bethel Church, and we welcome you all to the community and looking forward to a successful starting. Can't have too many churches. Sorry, we can't have too many places of religious assembly in Beaver Creek. But apparently we have too many beavers. Okay, let's move right on. We have next case is the PC26-3 mod 7-26. Hello again.

This is PC 26-3 mod 726. It's a minor mod. And it's site improvements at 4028 Indian Ripple Road. So here we see the southern half of the city of Beaver Creek. And there's a star there on Indian Ripple Road where the site is. It's right across from the beer barn and the resident sciences facility that used to be a venue church. It's a little blurry here. But that blurry line, oh, wait a second. It's getting a little better. So there's a... Indian Ripple Road is that very blurry line in the middle there. And then D'Arche Road is that road going south. So it's about 200 feet west of the intersection of D'Arche Road and Indian Ripple Road. There's actually two more curb cuts there, which you can't really see, but there's two more curb cuts in between this site and Darce Road. That's a lot of curb cuts. And then it has a curb cut right on that eastern side of the parcel. And then there's the house in Blur, but it has shingle roof, siding, tan siding. It has a gable on the front there. And it has that garage. Go to the next one. Hopefully this looks better. It does not. Let's see if I can go back. So... Zoning-wise, this is on an R01 parcel. And this use is very consistent with R01 use. It's a residential office. It's sort of a transition between single-family residential and business uses. And basically, it's a lot of situations where you have an office operating out of a former house. Those typically involve expanding the house. And they would also, any time you have an R01 use, you're going to have to add a parking lot and add a detention area and have some landscaping. That star is where the site is. It's next to an R01 with some more R01 next to it. And then to the east is a multi-zone parcel. But it is also R01 on the southern part of it. And that's a current residence planned office. And then to the north, you have R1A, which is single family residential. And then to the south, you have that CPD and also B2, which is that lighter business use. So the request is to make a 340 square foot addition to the structure at 4028 Indian Ripple Road. change the location of the curb cut, which I'll explain later, and then add a new parking area. Yeah, go ahead. And the reason that this is before planning commission, normally this type of thing wouldn't necessarily be, but this is in the Indian ripple planning area. Because it's in that Indian ripple planning area, it needs to go before planning commission for any significant changes to the site or structure. In this case, we have significant change to the structure and a significant change to the site. So it's before planning commission as a ASRA modification. Now let's see if we can get... That's so weird. Oh, this is better now. That's a little better. There you go. So there you can actually see it. And then will this still work? Oh, it will. It looks like it will. There you can actually see it, so I'll give you a minute to, or a second to digest that. There we go. Here's the request. Now here's the site. First thing I'll call out, well here we have the site plan superimposed over the satellite. It's not exact, the lines aren't exact, but it's close. That curb cut you see on the right side of the parcel would be moving to right south of the now black parking area or now gray parking area. That's a good move for us and for the engineering department. We like to move that away from the intersection. There's still a couple there, but maybe someday down the road those will be eliminated. Those can be moved or eliminated too. That just makes the intersection safer for everybody. That parking area would have 12 spaces. That and then There would also be a detention area to the north of it, right there. And you'll see that on the next slide, I believe. There would be that 300 square foot addition to the house, which would be on the northeast side right there. It would be adding on to the garage. And then I think that's everything for this slide. There would also be that parking lot that connects the, sorry, there would be a sidewalk connecting the parking lot to the house right there. And that would be the main entrance, the current main entrance And that way they could go in under that gable. So you can see there the detention area in the top left of the parcel, the northwest side. That would be to offset any runoff from the parking area and the addition. And then this is the landscape plan, so they're putting a line of bushes along the parking area to screen the office next door from any lights or anything like that from cars parking. They're also keeping two mature trees, one on the north side of the parking lot and one between the house and the road. And then they're also adding five trees to the bottom property line, as well as some Forbes and small, there's some small landscaping around the house itself. So here's the building design. They would be taking off this, they would be redoing the outside of the building, doing a metal roof, black metal roof, white ethos, and then with stone wainscoting, stone veneer. And then the garage structure and the addition would be hardy board or other cement board. THAT GARAGE WOULD BE CONVERTED INTO A CONFERENCE ROOM, AND THEN THE ADDITION WOULD BE AN OPEN OFFICE SPACE BEHIND IT, AND THEN THE GARAGE DOOR WOULD BE REPLACED WITH A NICE FLOOR TO CEILING WINDOW. AND THEN IN THAT FLOOR PLAN, YOU SEE THERE'S SPACE FOR FIVE DIFFERENT OFFICES, AND THEN THAT OPEN OFFICE AREA, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SEVEN EMPLOYEES WORKING OUT OF HERE. They'd also have a lobby, bathrooms, and other ancillary areas you'd expect. The office itself, the prospective user would be a mortgage firm. They would have some visitors every now and then, but it would be very much an administrative office use, not so much open to the public. There's a lot of conditions on this one. It's a little different than the other two we're talking about today because they're actually doing significant work to the site. But these are just some selected conditions. The existing site would be the site plan. The existing site as it is today. And then they'd be modifying that site plan. The gutter downspouts would have to be painted to match siding. The landscape plan would have to be reviewed by staff. Any disturbances to the site when they demolish the driveway and curb cut and apron that are existing and then they move it over, any of those would have to be remedied and put back to landscaping or lawn. And then there would be a development agreement with Bond and everything. And then the lighting plan would get reviewed by staff. And then staff is also recommending the thin stone veneer Wayne Scott should wrap around the whole building. So with those conditions, staff's recommending approval of the modification.

Thank you.

I'm just going to throw this open to general questions rather than going around the room. Questions, anyone?

Good to meet you. I'll ask a couple. Oh, I know you will, Jim.

Just to make sure they would come up. So, Jeff, can you come back up? I'm assuming we don't have the applicant here tonight, correct?

Oh, there they are.

Okay, I'm going to ask about the curb cut, the new curb cut.

So can you go back to the great site plan you had? Not that one, that one right there.

So I just want to make sure, I know we can't let traffic weigh in on this, but given Indian Ripple Road and the traffic there, the bottom parking spot, in fact, That's probably the wrong plan. The plan should be looking at is the one that shows the parking spaces. That was where my concern lies. Yeah, those bottom two spaces, the handicap and the bottom one, which gives you the 12. Thank you for doing that. I'm concerned as that traffic is coming in off of Indian Ripple. Let's say they're going eastbound Indian Ripple. They want to make a left-hand turn. They zip in right at the person and that bottom spot is backing out. or the handicap is backing out. And even though there's a great deal of space, would the applicant have considered possibly taking the handicap, moving it to the other side of the walkway, taking the 12 spot, moving it farther up to not have cars coming in and out of the parking spaces as traffic is zipping in let turning left into the site or turning right directly in the site and even though there's the distance of the 10 feet minimum and all that looks great i'm just concerned we're allowing a possible fender bender bumper comfort situation and i was asking you if you talked to them or ask the applicants come up because that curb cut is is a great location but because of those two spots right there can we move the two spots or i'm just concerned we're allowing a fender bender to come up and then you know what do you do i'll just say one thing before i open the applicant if they want to speak to it but um the they would have to um

address any safety concerns coming from the fire department?

Well, I don't know that anyone would see that, because it's definitely past the limit, so it's in a safe, the parking spaces are in a safe spot, and they're definitely past the sidewalk and far enough away from Indian Ripple. But you just know how traffic is in Indian Ripple, especially if they're going eastbound, and they want to make a quick left turn into the mortgage services place, right as the handicapper, that person in the bottom spot, is backing out. Boom. And we allowed that because we didn't ask him to just go a little bit farther north with that parking and eliminate those two spots to make it perfectly safe for people, especially the handicapped person. If they just flip the handicap to the other side of the walkway. I don't know if you've talked to him about that. That's why I wanted to raise it to you.

I have not spoken to him about that.

Would you guys, one of you mind, what do you think of that? Because I'm just concerned of future fender benders, especially for the handicapped spots.

So my name is Steven Butler. I'm with Community Civil Engineers, 2440 Dayton Xenia Road, Beaver Creek, Ohio. Suite B, just in case you go there, there's a lot of different suites.

You'll get the spam mail, yeah.

Okay, so I understand your concern. I mean, if you look directly west, you can see that they've got the same situation. What we're trying to do, we actually had a couple of different site plans here, and we did have some parking on the other side of the drive. However, that gorgeous tree is, is that beautiful tree. It's a 30 inch diameter. And then we were trying not to go further back because then there's another tree. So my client was wanting to try and preserve an established, uh, residential feel and not destroy those trees. So the goal was, to keep them to meet zoning requirements with the number of spaces that are required. And this is kind of what we, after a couple of different sessions that we came back with that seemingly met all those conditions. If there was like 30 spaces where we've got like several different users coming in, we're only anticipating approximately seven employees and then a few guests. So it's not like there's going to be traffic coming and going constantly. They're going to have a couple of clients show up here and there during the day, but it's nothing where we're anticipating high traffic. traffic volumes coming in from that drive. I don't personally see it that it's going to be a big issue. I understand the concern.

How familiar are you with traffic on Indian Ripple?

Well, I understand traffic on Indian Ripple, and like as we've already pointed out, we have moved the drive further away from the intersection. I haven't spoken with Mr. Moorman yet about that, but I'm sure he's going to be happy with me.

Well, all I'm looking at is the upper right-hand corner of the parking area where you've got the two spots Just adding another spot up, or two spots up there, and flipping that handicap to prevent the people, because I've watched people in Indian Ripple. I sat across the street where Resident Sciences is, and I've watched the traffic, and I can just envision someone making a left-hand turn right into Mortgage Services, right as somebody's backing out from those two spots. Would you consider their look at that?

I personally, I mean, I I don't see it being an issue with the low volume of traffic. What we're trying to do that almost to his detriment, the owner kind of drove me a little insane with the trees. I was, I shouldn't say I was all there for, let's just cut this tree down and put them right here. And he was insistent that we save the trees. So we worked around it. The tree on the north side, I think that's approximately 24-inch diameter. And we're really concerned, as I am with the other one, that our curb line is getting closer to it. If we extend the parking up, we're going to go another 10 feet.

Yeah, just exactly where there is.

We're trying to minimize the amount of work that occurs underneath that canopy. There's already going to be an amount of work underneath it. But the more we can minimize, the more chance that tree has of surviving.

The... I get the idea that you all don't, at this particular location, you're not having mortgage applicants coming in to be interviewed and do the paperwork and so forth. It's more processing than interviewing prospective mortgage applicants.

My understanding is a really low volume. That's probably the answer there.

Yeah, I just, I read that the 12 spaces are great and probably one or two more maybe than you really needed. And I thought, I just was envisioning having sat there, as we all do, we kind of get to pack it and we go look at the sites. And I was watching traffic in Indian Ripple, trying to envision what that was going to be like. And I'm thinking, that's a fender better waiting to happen. Just because they're so close to the turn-in spot of the curb cut. The curb cut location is great. It's just those two spots. And maybe even flipping the handicap to the other side. That could be done. That gives the handicapped person a little bit more buffer to whatever facilitation they may need.

Absolutely. I'll flip it onto the north side of the striping. I have no issues there. I am 99% sure that the... cross slopes as you cross over the drive aren't going to exceed in that location or where the parking will go won't exceed the ADA maximum requirements. So I have no issues. I'm just flipping that over and make that change absolutely.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Thank you for allowing me to ask that.

Okay. Anything else, folks? I guess I need a motion.

Please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PC 26-3 mod 726 minor with the attached 17 conditions.

Okay. And a second?

Second.

Gotcha. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's read the roll. Please, ma'am.

Mr. Meyer.

Yes.

Miss Palumbo? Yes. Miss Usher? Yes. Mr. Fountain? Yes. Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries 5-0 unanimously, and we're looking forward to seeing a nicely new remodeled building joining us here in Beaver Creek. Okay, one more item, ladies, gentlemen, and that is the signage at Sam's Club.

You're receiving a, you probably have realized, but you're receiving copies of the updated elevations that we've gotten since we did the staff report. Without the blue. There's also, well, there's also a tire icon that's not there, a tire graphic. Would you hope the Chevron? Well, yeah, there's a Chevron, but there's like a tire. I'll show you. I don't know if I have a picture of. I don't, but I'll show you where it was. So, well, first let me go up and introduce what we're talking about. This is PD92-1 modification 726. It's a MITRE modification for signage at Sam's Club. So Sam's Club, they're doing a renovation of the interior of the building. And along with that, they want to do a refresh of the signage. So the interior renovation, there wasn't anything that needed to come before planning commission because there wasn't much spilling out onto the site or the exterior of the building. But the signage is certainly something that needs to be looked at. Here's the site. We're looking at Northern Beaver Creek, right south of 675, next to Walmart and north of the mall. So here's the Sam's Club building with Walmart there on the right side. And you can see I put a plethora of arrows to show where the signage is being changed. They're changing out all the signage. And then there's also, I put four little arrows around the gas canopy because they're changing the four signs on the gas canopy. They're not changing the price signs. There's four price signs that they won't be changing. So it's located at 3446 Pentagon Boulevard. They're requesting a minor modification to allow these new illuminated wall signs. They currently have illuminated wall signs. The reason that they need to come before the Planning Commission is because they're requesting more sign area than currently allowed in the PUD. So here's that. Here's what they have existing. They have 376.2 square feet of signage on the main building. and 144.84 square feet of signage on the fuel canopy. And that's based on our, like, permit data that we have. And then they are proposing, they were proposing in the neighborhood of 800, 870 square feet, square footage of new signage, which, you know, speaking with them, we were able to kind of get them down to 538, THAT WAS BY DROPPING THE BLUE BACKER PANELS UNDERNEATH THE SIGNS, AND THEN ALSO BC STANDS GARAGE THERE, DROPPING THE TIRE GRAPHIC. THERE WAS A TIRE GRAPHIC THERE THAT WAS ABOUT 78 SQUARE FEET. AND THE APPLICANT ELECTED TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. OUR PROPOSITION TO THEM WAS THAT WE WOULD PROPOSE A LIMIT OF 600 SQUARE FEET, AND SO THEY VOLUNTEERED TO REDUCE IT TO 538.22 FOR THIS APPLICATION. And then the fuel canopy would also have an increase. It would go to 181.44 square feet. And staff is proposing the limit for the building to be 600 in the conditions. And then the fuel canopy would just be, the limit would be what is proposed here today. And here's the updated elevations. You can see the signs are very similar to the old, or the existing signage. But the letters are bolder, the signs are larger, and there's no diamond or opposing chevron symbol. And you can see this sign on the top left right here that's represented on the elevation in another place because it's kind of a cut-off corner, a dog-eared corner. There it is right there. And that's the main entrance. That's the largest sign. It's a little over 150 square feet. And then every other sign is much smaller than that. And there are some ancillary wayfinding signs that will also go up. Then here's the fuel canopy. These signs are very similar to the existing signs, but they're, once again, bold. They don't have those opposing chevrons. And then they're a little larger than the existing signs. So the conditions for approval in the staff report, the first couple are pretty much boilerplate. The third one would be limiting the signage to 600 square feet of commercial signage. And then the fourth one would be saying that no sign could be larger than 200 square feet, no individual sign. And staff is recommending approval with the listed conditions.

Thank you. I'll just throw this open again.

Just one question, Jeff. Jeff, just one question. The 600 limit, is that consistent with other properties of similar size and all that?

Yeah, it is. The Walmart next door has around 670 square feet of signage.

Okay, thank you.

Don't sit down. I got one more question for you. The 600 square feet does not include the gas canopy.

That's correct.

Okay. That is 180, whatever, 181 on top of the 600.

That's correct.

Okay. Now, they have not done this yet. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Just want to make sure.

That's correct.

So what is up there now was the signage they put up, what, about three or four years ago? Yeah, 2023. It was not the original signage, but what they have now still met the original requirement from 91 or 92. Yes, it did. Okay.

And they actually had signage up that they were approved for 470. I have it written down, but 470. The neighborhood of 470 square feet because they actually added, when they had those old blue signs, those blue diamond, they actually added one to the north. And that brought them up into like 470 square feet. And now they're much under that.

Okay, so they're asking for permission. They're not asking for forgiveness. That's correct. Okay, just want to make sure. Okay, additional questions.

Mr. Chairman, Jeff, my questions are not on the signs because that's a really good clarification of what we were... Talking about what I discovered over the weekend. It's on the quantity. So I'm looking at the revised sheets you just passed out to us. It still shows tire being included on the sheets you just gave us, even though you said it's not.

There is a tire installation sign.

But it's not the tires. It's not the tires.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah, it says tire installation sign. Okay.

Okay.

And it's just text that says tire installation. It's right underneath Sam's Garage. You can't see it. It's not rendered well on the presentation, but that's what it is.

I read that. That was the clarification.

The grammar on Sam's Garage is different than all the other grammar on the apostrophe for the S on the opposite side. Oh, yeah, that's interesting. That might be just a correction to point out for approving. That's post-production there.

Somebody wasn't paying attention in fourth grade. As a lawyer, grammar is important. Maybe there's more than one Sam.

And so we don't, given the revised plans, which we are approving tonight as of the plans we got passed out, we don't have to add a condition to formally exclude blue backing, correct? Because the current, the ones you just passed out have no blue backing.

My understanding is that if you wanted to formally exclude blue backing, you would have to add that. Right now, the condition is just that

Well, if we did, that would be included in the signage square feet, so they'd have smaller signs.

Right, they would have smaller signs, which I think would be a different scenario that would also be. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Jeff. That's all I had. Of course.

All right. Have we discussed this sufficiently to ask for a motion? Don't be shy.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve PUD 92-1 mod 726 minor with the four conditions listed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll second. I have a second, and we will read the roll.

Ms. Palumbo? Yes.

Yes.

Ms. Usher?

Yes.

Mr. Fountain?

Yes.

Mr. Meyer?

Yes.

Mr. Self?

Yes. Motion carries 5-0, and we'll look forward to seeing some new signs. Anything else of the good of the order, ladies, gentlemen?

Good to go?

I need a second. I second that. And we'll do that by general consensus at 7.32. Thank you, ladies, gentlemen.