Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

accept the minutes and as published. All right. Anybody else have any problems? Okay, Mr. Shad second.

And we'll do that by general consensus. Thank you very much. Okay, we've gotten all that out of the way. We have two public hearings tonight. Um PC25-9 and PUD 541 mod 1125. So, uh just to let you know how we do our public hearings, uh we have a presentation uh first by the applicant. Then we have uh a staff uh presentation. Uh at that point, we'll open the uh floor to uh any public comments uh in favor of, against, or simply asking questions. Once we've gone through that, I'll see if Melissa has any written input on the subject. Then we'll close the public hearing and we will discuss amongst ourselves and hopefully come up with a vote. So, without further ado, have at it.

This is case number PC25-9, conditional use on an application filed by Beaver Creek Lodging LLC, 1537 Burberry Lane, Shamanburg, Illinois, 60173. The applicant requests conditional use approval to allow for an apartment hotel to be operated out of an existing building located at 3845 Germany Lane. The property is further described as book one, page 9, parcel 63 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh I presume there is someone here uh representing the applicant. Crickets. Okay. If there's no one here, we'll go we'll go with our staff report. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission. Is the case you remember this thing. Okay. The case you have before you is PC25-9, the Birch Hill Hotel conditional use approval. Uh the applicants requesting approval of a conditional use to continue to occupy an existing hotel that's at 3845 Germany Lane u to continue to um occupy the hotel as a as an apartment hotel which they've been running as um which wasn't was not as approved when it was approved in 2004. or it wasn't approved as an apartment hotel, which is a separate use than just a general motel. The property is located in northern Beaver Creek. It's north of 675. It's south of Colonel Glenn Highway. I've marked it here on the map with the the the green star, so you can see it's way up to the northern end of the city. Um, as you get zoomed in, this is the aerial view of the hotel. You can see it occupies majority of the site. To the north is a construction company north of Germany Lane. To the south is some parking lot for the professional office building which is to the west and then 675 exit ramp. To the west is that professional office building and a and a large parking lot associated with that office building. And then to the east is actually outside of the city. It's the it's an incorporated island of the township. Um and it's being operated as a storage uh a personal storage um facility.

Is that why it's in blue? It's incorporated.

Yes. I I Yeah, that's why it's kind of whited out a little bit and surrounded by the blue. That's actually the uh city boundary. This in 2004 when it was approved as a hotel, there was a site plan um associated with that. And this is a copy of that uh site plan. It's included in your packet. Um, it's a three-story 100 room 102 room hotel. Sorry about that. Um, they have 106 off- streetet parking spaces dedicated within the site. And the site, as I stated before, it's it's um mostly developed. Uh, 82% of the site is impervious surface. So, that includes the sidewalks and the parking lot and the building itself. Um, typically and with our current zoning code, we set the max in those zoning districts at 75%. So, they're even above that. Um, in terms of expandable area, um, it is zone B3 as is the properties to the south. Um, properties to the north are B2 and then there's a CPU to the west. Um, apartment hotels are conditional or allowed as a conditional use in B2 and or I'm sorry in B3. But again, in order to operate that, they have to get approval from the planning commission to operate as an apartment hotel. [snorts] Just a little bit of uh history of the approval process through for this site. Um, in 2001, they came forward to the board of zoning appeals. Um, back before 2009, the board of zoning appeals actually heard all conditional use cases, but when we updated the zoning code in 2009, we switched it over to the planning commission. Given that a lot of what planning commission sees in other cases are are similar to what you would look at in a conditional use, similar but not the same. So, we felt in 2009 it was best to have the planning commission review conditional use cases rather than

the BZA. So, in 2001, the BZA approved it as a motel. Um but their applications and all the material associated with the application and even the staff report referred to as an extended state hotel but the the the resolution that approved it in 2001 clearly stated motel. They didn't construct it within three years and so at the time if you didn't start construction within three years then that approval expired. That's down to two years now. Um, and so they had to come back in 2004 to get it approved again. And the at the time the staff used this the 2001 staff report and just said everything in it is substantially the same. Um, and again the the updated resolution again said motel um not extended stay but the all the applica the application materials and even the Sanford report in 2004 stated that they were looking to get a extended stay hotel. So staff is a little unclear as to what if they were approved as a motel or an extended stay hotel. Um but what we are clear is they weren't approved as an apartment hotel. Um in October of this year, the the state fire marshall uh did their uh general fire inspection and city um went along with the state fire marshall um just to um learn more about those the process in the fire inspection as well as as just see if there were any code enforcement um actions that or code enforcement violations. Um, we received a copy of that fire inspection and one of the items that was attached to the fire inspection and that we received was a roster of all the guests and I in your packet I included that roster. I redacted I took out all the names of the people but um I did include that roster and there were several people that were

staying that were guests of the hotel that were well in excess or in excess of 182 days in our hotel motel regulations uh in our code and warrant this is anything more than 51% of the year um staying at the hotel would be considered a permanent residence um and In our zoning code, an apartment hotel is defined as a hotel or a a building with dwelling units, which is a place for permanent residents. So, that's how we came to the conclusion that they are actually operating as an apartment hotel, not as as a motel or an extended stay because they have they have guests there that are are there for more than 51% of the calendar year. Um, initially we notified them that they were running an extended stay hotel um, without approval, but then as I stated earlier, it's kind of unclear if they were approved as an extended stay or a motel. Um, so we amended that code enforcement violation to state that they were running a um, apartment hotel without approval of planning commission. um and and told them that they need to either get approval of a conditional use or have the people that's been there for 182 days or longer vacate the property. And people and guests moving forward can't stay there for more than 182 days. [snorts] When looking at conditional uh use approvals in general, planning commission uh should make by resolution the following findings in deciding on conditional use. And that includes that it's located in a district where you can have that as a conditional use. Uh where that conditional use will not have substantial or material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and have negative impact or conflict with the surrounding properties. and also

taking in consideration the vehicular traffic volumes um and and any increase in volumes and how that would have an effect to the neighbors. Um just a little bit of history um we in the summer of this year we were looking to start a program to require all hotels to have licenses to operate within the city. And as part of that initial investigation, we looked at police reports for all hotels within the city. Um, and we came to the conclusion that um, Birch Hill has significantly much more um, calls for dispatch and reported crimes than all the other hotels in the city. And we're making the argument that that um it does not meet the standards of 158 171B or C4B um in the staff report. I accidentally said 172 or I'm sorry 72 C4B. It should be 158 171 C4B. I just want to clarify that um about the substantial material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. Um, so looking at the police reports and and all the police numbers, the dispatch numbers, um, between January of 2022 and July of 2025, of all the police dispatch, um, calls that went to all the hotels in the city, and there are nine of them, 45% of those went to Birch Hill. Um and so um that's a rate of six and a half times more than the average of all the other hotels. There's kind of if in looking in the staff report my chart this is the chart that you see except J in the top where it says January of 2022 in the st in the staff report it accidentally says

2023. So I wanted to make that point that that should say 23 and not 22. But also the text references a higher number because the text includes um when the police went out they initiated the call rather than dispatch. So I just wanted to point out that why it the chart says one thing and the text says another. It's because I was referring to two different things and I I see now how that would be confusing. So I wanted to point that out. Excuse me for commenting. So dispatch is just 911 or could it be

any? It's when our dispatch is called either by 911 or it could be the the non-emergency line, but it's when somebody makes a phone call to and and requests police assistance. Um the larger number that had like over a thousand rather than the 965 that included a couple hundred that were police initiated where they just um doing general patrol and initiated something that they saw something so they they initiated the stop. [snorts] Um, also if you look at an annual rate, um, over the I just did the full years of 22, 23, and 24 extended stay, I'm sorry, Birch Hill had an average of 131. It is decreasing since 22, but still on average over the three years, 131 calls. um whereas the rest of them combined um had significantly less and many of them had four to 10 times fewer number of calls in that time period as as Birch Hotel. And same thing with serious crimes and um they're higher at Birch Hill than they are the other hotels. Of the 965 that I listed in the chart, 147 are classified as severe. And the way we classify that is is the list I've got there where it's assault and breaking, entering, burglary, endangerment, dead body, domestic, those those reasons listed on the staff in the staff report and on this slide. Um and over the course of the three plus years uh between January 23 and July 25, Birch Hill had um 84 severe incidences and the other eight combined had 59. So it was a significant higher severe incidences at BHL as well. [snorts] And another reason um that we're uh looking at it and why it doesn't meet the standards is the the

limitations. um when they were approved in 2004 as a motel or or possibly extended stay hotel, the parking standards for that is one space for every room plus one for every 20 rooms. Whereas for an apartment hotel, it's three spaces for every three rooms or three spaces for every two rooms. It it's a much higher rate of parking. So based on um just the pure math, uh they are 47 parking spaces short of what they would need if they were running an apartment hotel. Um and given that their site is 82% impervious, they just there's not enough room to increase the the number of parking spaces to f to get to 47 or get anywhere close to 47 additional spaces. Um, so planning staff after reviewing the application and the police reports in the in the zoning code, we're recommending disapproval of the applicants request um given that it does have currently has substantial detrimental effect with the higher crime rates compared to their peer hotels and the fact that they can't meet the code uh the minimum parking standards uh within the code. So again, staff has recommend this approval. Um, one of the things in the the notice and I we included a letter the that November letter that they would have to have people vacate who there for 182 days and knowing that some of the residents I mean they've been there for a couple of years and six of the residents there have the hotel listed as their permanent residence with the Ohio BMV. That's where their car is registered. um knowing that it's not easy to just pick up. We we planning on extending this time a little bit and trying not to typically we would give somebody 30 days to to meet the standards and we don't

want to have somebody have to move out by Christmas Eve. So we were planning on extending that through the end of January if planning commission decides to disapprove the applicant's request for a conditional use approval. And that is not something that we have to include in any pos plus or minus.

No, that's just that would be just a administrative action by the department should this move forward as a disapproval. Um in your packet I've included both a pack a resolution for disapproval as well as if planning commission decides to approve the applicants request there is a a resolution for approval. Um, and just want to remind everybody that being a conditional use approval and planning commission, being a quasi judicial board in these type of cases to really state why you're making the recommendation or vote that you're making um, and really articulate that because it needs to be on the record um, as to why you're making the decision that you're making. So again, staff has recommended this approval um, and I'll be happy to answer any uh, questions following the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you for a nice complete report. Uh at this point, we'll open the uh floor uh since this is a public hearing. Uh if you uh would like to come up and uh uh state your piece, if you would uh limit yourself to three minutes, uh and um if you have questions for or against, have at it. Please come forward, state your name and address, and you got three minutes.

Hello. Uh my name is Stuart Smith. I'm the vice president of the self-s storage facility right next door and I think they pretty much teed it up. Um but we just wanted to let you guys know that there's constant um police activity on our site looking over at the hotel and monitoring what they're doing. Um they have set up for drug raids on our property to go in there. Uh there's constant loitering in the back parking lot. Um tenants are uncomfortable because people are using drugs in the parking lot. Um, and they're already using it as an extended stay. So, I think it needs to to end as soon as possible. Just want to make our points heard. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Hearing a lot of silence out there. One more chance before I close the public hearing. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Did we have any written input? We did receive one email. Thank you. It was in opposition of the conditional use request and planning commissioners did receive a copy of it. Thank you very much. Okay, now that the public hearing is closed, I will start with Jim on my

Actually, before we begin, I I just wanted to cover a little. Normally, you guys sit either as a legislative or administrative making those type of decisions. Legislative is when you change zoning. administrative. When you look at like an administrative site plan review, the BZA sits as a quasi judicial board all the time. You guys rarely do. This is the one exception to that where you're doing a conditional use. So, when you sit as a quasi judicial board, you need to think of yourselves as a judge in a a bench trial. So, you're making findings of fact and you're making the ultimate decision. Randy talked a little bit about this, but that's why you need to make findings on the record based upon the evidence that's been submitted. So, the staff report that's been submitted, the application that was submitted, as well as the testimony that was given today, and then Randy has done a great job putting forward the the administrative code or the zoning code provisions that they need to meet all three of those provisions in order to get the conditional use. And they have the burden of proof of proving that they've met all of those conditions. I do have to say though, I always take issue I always tell you guys about traffic. I know it says traffic is in there. You can't make zoning decisions based upon traffic. Um, I don't think there's any allegation that there is a traffic issue here anyway. It's mostly focused. I think the city's position is that they don't meet criteria B. I don't think there's Randy can correct me if I'm wrong. A and C are not an issue. It's the B and they have to meet all three.

Yes, that is correct. Um, our our reasoning is that it's B only. Um, and also, and Josh alluded to this fact that questions that come from the plan commission should be related to the evidence and not questions outside of what you're the evidence shows or you're or what you're going to make your decision based on. So, something that's irrelevant shouldn't be discussed upon uh by this committee. So,

thank you. This is something we we as a planning commission don't do very often. In fact, I think the last conditional use we heard was the uh medical marijuana facility and that was several years ago. Uh so, okay, Jim, have at it. Thank [clears throat] you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Randy, come back up. I'm going to verify my facts based on that comprehensive report that you gave and that you sent us. And just to verify, I've got uh seven or eight items. Okay. Going back to what our attorney asked us to verify. I want to make sure I've heard him right. I scared him away already. Just started. Okay. Think I memorized the report, but I want to have it just in case.

So, so I'm not going to go into uh the little subtitle on one of the slides. Can you go back to the site plan the the aerial view? I'm going to reference that more than once. And uh Thank you. Yeah, that's that was good. That's good too. So fine. So I just want to make sure of fact that a conditional use approval which is what we're talking about tonight for this applicant means that they have not been operating that way already and in effect the conditional approval would allow them to operate that way already. So is that true that a true conditional approval means that they are supposedly not have been operating that way

from a technical standpoint? If you were following uh the code, you would not operate until you got your conditional use. And yet, if I understood the summary right from the uh approval, then it expired in 2001, and then the new approval in 2004 by the BCA and then the construction in 2006. We don't know when they started operating with the people, the 85 people that you found of 106 rooms uh that were extended past the 182day limit. We don't know when that could have started, but clearly they've been operating in this conditional use without this approval for a certain period of time. Would that be true?

Yes. I mean, anyone who stayed past 182 days, if you look back and they've got 1500 days and they at least started operating that way 1300 days ago or whatever, whatever that number minus 182 is. So, it's been a while.

Uh, next verification item. So based upon our zoning code whether at the time it was constructed in 2006 or our current zoning code uh they are more than previously taken over the site. I think you said of the uh 85% or 85.3% of the site. So there is they were already in non-compliance of whatever approval they could get simply because the building and the paving have overseen the amount that we limit which is 75% I believe that's the amount that we limit now. Um, I'm not sure what it was in 2004. It might have been more. Um, I don't have that, but when it was constructed 2006, it might have been a higher.

It could have been 90%. But my point for showing that number is now they because they are technically grandfathered allowing themselves to operate at the 82% they don't have room to expand their impervious or impervious surface any under the current zoning code.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, next item going back to the number of people from the fire marshall survey in October where of the I believe 85 residents of the 106 rooms and the significant percentage of them were in excess of the 182 days u I'm assuming that that is a validation that the at that moment of the fire marshall's inspection they were clearly in non-compliance with the 182day limit. the the 18U daily limit is ours with the hotel motel. So what we're saying is anything more than 51% of the of a calendar year they're that's their permanent residence. So,

well, that's that's why I wanted to verify this fact because if they have not yet gotten approval as an apartment hotel, are they still held to the 182day limit for residence or less? If they have they're not allowed to have people there for more than 182 days unless they get conditional use approval for an apartment hotel. Okay. from a zoning perspective. The fire marshall um that's a whole different um we're not looking at from the fire marshall's perspective. We're looking at it from the zoning perspective.

Okay. And then that would then impact their parking which they clearly pointed out the 47 space deficit. Again, whether they had the approval or not to be short of the 47 spaces is they're just short. Yeah, there's no way with whatever we whether hotel, extended stay, apartment, hotel, whatever, there's still going to be 47 spaces short.

If yes, I mean, if you're doing a full math, even if they said only 20 rooms of the hotel were apartment, hotel, and everything else is traditional hotel, they'd still be short because you it' just be a mathematical number how short they are. But at the maximum, they're 47 uh spaces short, right? Yeah. And then the last verification in fact when you were talking about the police uh reports and what we found compared to the other eight hotels that exist in Beaver Creek and looking at the disproportionate share of uh dispatches that occur.

The trend is current um we had mentioned in the information through July of 2025. So just a few months ago, I'm assuming that that is something that the police have maintained for whatever it was going to be classified as whether it was apartment hotel, a motel, it's still in that category with the other eight properties of being a disproportionate share. And it's not something that exists solely because of where it is contiguous surrounded by all the other surrounding properties. It's that kind of a property and it's disproportionate for that kind of property.

Yes. We just had them look. We just said, "Hey, can you get us the the calls for service for ever for everything that's been operating as a hotel or hotel like property last?"

So, Mr. Chairman, to me, I'm finding that they have been operating in a particular way in non-compliance for the extended period of time undefined. They have vile non-compliance already in the parking area and the number of people that are extended and made it their permanent residence over the 182 days. They have a disproportionate impact because of the police uh dispatch calls. I'm already seeing multiple areas of non-compliance that I just wanted to verify and that would be my series of questions for tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jonathan. Um the number of service calls, does that include fire? Is that just police?

I just looked at uh police fire. I got their data as well and it's kind of they kind of combined it. It was just harder to disseminate, but this is this is police only. Okay. But there's a potential that there's even a higher burden on services on Yes. I mean, fire was there for different reasons and EMS was there for different reasons. I just wanted to go with what I could easily uh disseminate and represent. Okay. So, normally we hear like conditional use applications when uh a property is not in use or right. So, does anything change because they're already operating in them?

So, the answer is no. You're you're making a decision about future use. Their prior use may result in a zoning code violation being issued. That would go to the BZA if they were to appeal that. You're only looking at can they operate as an apartment hotel moving forward. Okay. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have. Thank you,

Miss Laura. Um, so if we were to not approve the apartment um the apartment hotel but as an extended stay hotel, does that um take care of the issue of the ambiguity of it being a motel versus an extended stay hotel? They now be designated as an extended stay hotel [snorts] like legally or under the zoning code? No. Um, our extended stay hotel just it doesn't have a defined number of days. So, we default back to the anything over 182 days is a permanent residence. Okay.

Um, and that if it has a permanent residence, it has a dwelling unit. And if it has a dwelling unit and an apartment, then it's apartment hotel. Um, so yeah, I mean, it wouldn't make a difference if it was approved as a extended stay or or a traditional hotel.

Okay. Um and then in terms of the parking and condition B approval standards. So parking spaces would not be considered part of the traffic um the traffic that we have to take in consideration of whether or not they meet all the standards. I mean you could make that um leap there some I guess if as part of the standards it said let me get back to it where it talks about taking in account vehicular turning movements in relation to where I find it that vehicular traffic to and from the conditional use can be accommodated by the existing so really I think it's focusing on B because they have to meet all three standards they can't just meeting two isn't enough.

That B is where we focused on. I was just showing um additional evidence that they can't meet the minimum standards in the zoning code um with the apartment hotel even if it were approved. And and I think the the amount of parking available goes to number B because if there's not enough parking there, what where are those people parking when they're then when they're not having enough room there? So, does that have a substantial or material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties if people from the hotel are prop parking on their property instead of where they're supposed to park? Okay.

Also, I wanted to throw add something additional that I didn't in my presentation. Um, I noticed that the applicant there was nobody here to represent the applicant. And I wanted to point out that we did they did get a a certified mail stating that the public hearing would be tonight. Um we mailed it on the 18th of um November and they did receive it. So I just want to point out that they did receive notice of this hearing. So I didn't want any claims that they didn't know about it. That's all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I think I was the only one involved with this back in 2001 when this was originally approved, although I was on planning commission and not on the BCA, but I seem to recall that this was referred to as a motel uh when the approval first came in. Um my question is did we have a in our zoning code in 2001 and again in 2004 did we have a separate category for extended stay as separate from motel?

No. And actually our table of permitted uses does not have uh extended stay hotels listed on them currently. Okay. So, well, but in 2004 when this when this was approved uh by the uh by the BCA as conditional use, it was approved for a quote motel unquote. Okay. Uh and according to our current then and our current zoning code, it is not complying with the requirements for a motel. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Um, if we were to approve this conditionally as a um as an apartment hotel, there's no way that they can meet the parking requirements. Uh and that uh usually is if we're looking if we were looking at this as a reszoning and someone came to us with a plan that did not meet the zoning requirements for parking or for height or for anything else that would be a valid reason to turn down the the resoning or the specific site plan. Am I am I right on that? It would be a reason for us to recommend disapproval.

Correct. You guys to take it as you may. Uh so essentially we have the same situation here. We have uh we have a a facility that is non-complying uh with what they were originally zoned for and there's no way that they can be complying with what they are asking for as a conditional use. Am I right on that? and without with their current plans. No, I mean they could build a parking garage, but I just I mean, right, they didn't they didn't mention anything about building. What they have applied for is essentially no change to the facility to the physical structure.

They asked to maintain an existing site and run it as what they've been doing. Okay. So, um seems to me that we don't really have a choice here, folks. uh at least from my standpoint. Um so second helpings additional questions. Jim, you're writing fe furiously. So I know you got another question. Just a really small really small one. We were uh one of the residents were kind enough Miss Smith to give us the email and she uh fortunately copied another Smith, Mr. Alex Smith on the email, but we had a Mr. Stewart Smith publicly participate. Is Steuart Smith still another Smith? My middle name is Alex.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to verify where you fit in the email that we got. So that was my question. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Okay. Other second helpings. More questions. Okay. Then what I need, gentlemen and lady, is a motion. Uh we have our choice of two here. So I need a motion and I need a second. And when you do make the motion, I'd say if you're saying to disapprove, state the specific reason why you're disapproving. And if you're approving, state that they've met all three of those criteria by a proponance of the evidence. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we uh deny the application for conditional use as an apartment hotel is submitted by the applicant for non-compliance with Beaver Creek zoning code 158.171 part C part B C4B C4B parenthesy parenthesy parenthesy Okay,

there'll be a quiz on this later. Okay. I have a motion. I think with what the findings what what Mr. Self said already that he didn't believe that they met the requirements because there was not enough parking. Um as long as you are all in agreement with that particular finding um I think that that's sufficient. Yes. saying C4B sufficient enough, but you have to base it upon the facts. So, you said they didn't meet those requirements, but you didn't say why you didn't believe they met met those requirements. And I've heard people articulate that, but it would be

Oh, I can I will then articulate because of non-compliance with Bury Creek Zoning Code 158.171 C4B as evidenced by non-compliance with inadequate parking, non-compliance with uh over uh coverage of the lot area in uh what's the word? Land that cannot be developed. I can't remember the the terminology for coverage between the building and the parking lot. Uh non-compliance and extended stays of residents as permanent residents and the high

that last part the fact that they've not been compliant is not it's whether they that they'll have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. That's the B. So that the parking would cover it, but I would not talk about the and I'll stop there at the parking. I was trying to include the site coverage, the 85%. But I can't remember the word that was used for sight coverage. Impervious. Impervious. Thank you. Okay. Period.

And anything about anything about the crime too? Increased crime rate. and the increased disproportional increase of police dispatches and as well as severe police dispatches to this site as compared to its other eight counterpart Beaver Creek hotels in the city. I think that meets the requirements for showing they didn't meet the subsection B and why they didn't meet it. You guys found facts. So, if you're going to vote in favor of the disapproval, it would be based upon those those findings. I still need a second.

And to be clear, it's a motion to approve a resolution that it's a motion to It's a motion to approve the the resolution of disapproval. I I made a motion to deny the application for conditional approval as an apartment hotel. Right, Melissa? Read back. I made a motion to deny approval of the conditional, but we have to approve a motion denying the conditional use. There's a resolution that you have to do that specifically says denial. It this is just nuance words, but

a motion to deny the approval of the conditional approval or apartment hotel. Did I say it wrong? as set forth in the res. Which resolution? Resolution for deny. Resolution A. Sure, that works. And so if you say a mo, this is where it gets confusing for the a resolution a proposal recommendation to deny is a de facto approval of the denial resolution.

So this makes it confusing for voting. So when you vote, rather than say I or nay, the motion is to deny pursuant to the resolution A, I would say I agree with the denial or something along those lines or I I don't agree with the denial because otherwise, this is a Robert's rule thing. Even when you're trying to deny something, you're supposed to make a motion in the affirmative.

Made an application for conditional approval. I'm denying the application. I make a motion to deny the application for conditional approval. And I I think I think we're fine with the way you've done it. I just want the vote to be clear. I had this issue at a BCA meeting previously where they disapproved something and people weren't sure if they were voting yes was disapproval or no is disapproval. So when you when you're voting for this, just make it clear on the record whether you're saying that their application should for conditional should be denied or whether you believe it should be approved when you're voting. You want to read back before we get a second? Read back what you wrote for me.

Okay, Mr. Ch. Second that. We have a motion and a second. And you can see we don't do this very often. And we ran into exactly the same situation with the um uh with the medical marijuana facility. It's something we don't do on on a very regular basis and they're very specific rules for uh for a uh conditional use and we want to make sure all the eyes are dotted, all the tees are crossed. So for without further ado, read the role. Mr. Meyer, yes to disapprove. Miss Palumbo, I agree to disapprove the conditional use.

Mr. Fountain, I approve. I agree to approve the denial of the conditional application. Always got to be one. Mr. Self,

I'm glad I'm going last. I agree to disapprove and it it is denied 40 and we will move on to our second public hearing tonight which is McDonald's. This is case number PUD 541 mod 11 of 25. It's a major modification on an application filed by Vanessa Stickle, 3595 Alrech Avenue, Akran, Ohio 44312. The applicant request a major modification to allow for the construction of a 4,192 ft restaurant on 0.9 acres. The property is located at 4380 Indian Ripple Road, further described as book 3, page 7, parcel 174 [clears throat] on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. And we are on much firmer ground now. We we've done these before. Um, so, okay. Do I need to state my name and address? Um, it's Vanessa Stickle, 3595 Aubreck Avenue, Akan, Ohio 44312. Um, and tonight I also have Colin with me. He's with McDonald's if he wants to. Colin Wnooki, construction manager with McDonald's Corporation, 3494 Telmore Road.

Um, so here tonight we're here to present the proposed McDonald's restaurant at Green Crossing located at 4380 Indian Ribble Road. Um, you know, just some quick information about McDonald's. I'm sure you're all familiar with the brand, but um you know, they're a global leader in the quicks service restaurant industry with locations worldwide. Each restaurant represents a long-term investment in a local community, providing jobs, supporting the local tax base, and serving as a consistent familiar neighborhood business. Um over the last several years, they've been focused on updating a prototype that's more modernized. It focuses on quality, safety, operational efficiency, and a more contemporary architectural experience that fits well within today's retail corridors. So, what we're proposing to do is to demolish the existing Burger King that's on the site. So, the building itself will come down and then the majority of the site itself will be reused. Um, and then it'll be reconstructed as a new McDonald's restaurant with updated architecture, circulation, and site improvements. And then here I'm kind of um just kind of depicting like each elevation and how it relates to the building so you can see how it orients. Um, the building itself is approximately 4,000 square feet and it does follow McDonald's current prototype with some modifications to adhere to uh the PUB requirements. And the intent here is to provide a modern efficient restaurant that fits well within the existing green crossing center. So, as you can see on the site plan, um I've oriented the building. So, the front elevation that's labeled there in the rendering view, that portion of the building actually faces the entrance to the shopping center. So, it comes into the private drive. So, if you come in the private drive and look to the

right, you'll see the front elevation of the building. The non-drive elevation is the part of the elevation that you're going to see along Indian Ripple Road. So, as you're driving up and down Indian Ripple, that's the part that you'll see. Um, both the front and non-drive sign elevations have the McDonald's wordmark, I'm sorry, have the McDonald's arch logo sign. And then the non-drive elevation also has the McDonald's wordmark sign. And then on the drive-through side elevation, that actually faces interior to the shopping center itself. Um, and then there's no proposed signage on those elevations. And then the rear elevation that kind of faces adjacent to the fuel station that's next door in the shopping center. And then down in the bottom, I've just shown a depiction of the trash enclosure. And the trash enclosure front of that building will actually be oriented more towards McDonald's building. So, and it'll have some screening around it. So, as you're driving along Indian Ripple, you won't be looking directly at the front of that trash enclosure and the side of it will be screened. Um, and then I do just want to acknowledge that McDonald's accepts all the conditions of approval in the PUB 541 modification resolution. Um, and we've already looked at some of the conditions that were addressed, specifically 818,19, and 20. And I just kind of updated the rendering to show for some of those items. Um, one of them specifically stated the roof line. um has to be the parapit has to be 3 ft above the roof line. So we're just showing here that the parapit extends 6'6 in above the roof line. So you can kind of see the mechanical equipment. Everything is screen so there's no visibility to any of the equipment that's on the roof. Um the McDonald's wordmark sign, we updated that to show the individually mounted letters. And then there was one question in there

about um the material on the trash enclosure gate. And so we're just calling out that the gate material was added in the specifications and that's pressuretreated wood. And then there's been some conversations with staff just about the drainage and downspout detail. I included that in here. Um McDonald's building roof drains through internal roof drains that tie into the underground storm system. So there's no scuppers or exterior downspouts on the main roof. Know that was important. Um, so I wanted to make sure we highlight on that. And then lastly, um, I'd really like to just thank you for your time and consideration this evening. We believe this project is compliant reinvestment with an existing pad that aligns with Green Crossing and your conditions of approval and we respectfully request your support. Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much. We may have a few questions later. Okay, stay off.

Good evening everyone. My name is Colin Carville. I'm the city planner. Uh we are here this evening for a major modification request um to PUD 541. Um and they are proposing a new McDonald's location. Um that McDonald's location is 4,192 square ft. Um it's going into uh an existing or they're going to be taking down an existing Burger King that is now vacated. Um it's located 895 acres at 4380 Indian Ripple Road. And just to get our bearings here, so the uh kind of northeast star on on this map um is where we're at this evening. Um and and the uh southwestern star on the map uh is where [clears throat] that new McDonald's location is going. Uh just directly north of the of the green mixeduse development. And here's just an outline uh look of of that lot um and where it sits within that PUB 541. As I already stated, uh the previous Burger King location was 4,245 square ft. So, very similar um layout of this new McDonald's location that's going in. Um they're out of business. Um and the existing parking area as well. Um as I mentioned, that building will be demolished. Um and uh the request uh a restaurant request is compliant with the CPU B541 um PUD itself. Um just some elements within that PUB um there's a BP gas station to the east. Um to the north uh there is the the new OnPar um as well as sake. Um and then to the west is a Waffle House. And then as I already mentioned um to the uh to the directly to the south um is the green development. And I believe the the Waffle House I said was to the south it's actually to the west. So here's a first look at the site plan of the new uh new development. Um, like you said, pretty pretty standard. Um, staff

didn't have any concerns with uh uh with stacking um at this location um as it was previously served um for that Burger King and and didn't have any noted uh issues in the past um there. Um the building design um like I mentioned 4,192 uh singlestory restaurant. Um it's approximately 90 ft lawn by 40 ft wide. uh roughly 2020 20 or 22.75 square uh feet to the top. Um and then uses uh materials that staff was is happy with um complnting brick ephus uh all that to kind of match surrounding development and uh kind of the be what what we look for in Beaver Creek new developments and redevelopments. And I like their slide so much I took it myself. So, um that is uh just another another look at the uh elevations um just at the each each different side um kind of what you'll look like look look at, but the applicant did a great job explaining um how that how that site will look um when you're kind of entering and entering the PUD and development. Some things that weren't touched on. So, when we look at parking um for for specifically our restaurants, um we kind of look at the customer area that's going to be utilized. Um so, breaking down that 4,000 plus square foot building, um we kind of determine that there's 1,36 square ft of customer area. Um so using our our parking code um zoning code for the parking requirement um it's the standard one space per 100 square feet of a customer area um plus one space for each employee on the largest shift. Uh so that would uh kind of break down um we would round up to 11 spaces to to service that customer area. Um and then uh I believe it's they're anticipating 10 10 employees on their largest shift. Um so that that brings

that minimum requirement to 21 spaces. Um they are providing 31 spaces which exceeds the requirement. Um that 31 number includes the three ADA um spaces uh proposed. And just uh unique to McDonald's, I know they have a lot of designated spaces for um online orders or overflow. That's accounted in the 31 in the 31. So, um those additional spaces are are included in that 31. So, um there's not you you're not seeing a higher number um of spaces provided. And here's just a look at the landscape plan. Um just you know a lot of a lot of landscaping kind of around the perimeter as well as some enhanced uh landscaping to the southeast um where their monument sign uh will be as well as shielding uh kind of that uh uh uh garbage uh entrance uh spot as well. So um staff is happy with the uh with what is being proposed for the landscape plan in this case. And finally, just signage. Um the the total wall signage is approximately 44 uh.75 square feet. So that's under uh a lot of what we look see in in PUB proposals. So we're we're happy with that. Um and then kind of the monument sign is a little little higher than what we typically approve. Um but uh there was a that new raising canes to the a couple couple slots down to the west. um their sign was approved at 6 point uh 6'3 in um what they're proposing would be 6.5 ft. So um ultimately I staff was staff was fine with with what they're being what was being proposed. Um and a lot of that's uh kind of tied to the base as well. So um other than that uh staff is uh recommending approval of of their application um subject to the 20 conditions. Obviously they're they're

doing their best to try and meet what we're outlining so we're pleased with that. But uh definitely want to hold them to those 20 conditions in the resolution that you have before you. I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of the meeting. Thanks. Thank you. Uh usual excellent comprehensive report. Okay. This is a public hearing so I will open the public hearing. Anyone who wishes to speak for against or ask questions. Boy, it's really quiet in here. Last chance. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and ask if we had any written input. Did not.

Did not. Okay, I'm going to start with Jonathan this time. Work my way down the down the list. Questions for staff. So, I believe I heard the applicant correctly. She said on the dumpster uh they were going to use or the gate they were going to use pressuretreated wood. Yes. Is that because I mean condition eight says constructive vinyl composite material or other material. I mean that that we would be okay with that.

Okay. All right. Um uh so one thing I thought about was like window signage. A lot of like fast food um restaurants put like big signs in windows and I know like I don't think we've approved a fast food in a while but like gas stations we've approved recently we put a limitation on how much uh signage the windows or window the signage could cover. Is that something?

Sure. So that's something that we don't um actually permit for uh or pull permits for. Um they're not allowed to go over 50% um of a window. So that's kind of the the standard that we hold them to. Um obviously it's excessive. If it's excessive we'll we'll cite them for it but um our our code's pretty pretty protective of that and and and pretty enforceable. So Okay. So that doesn't need to be conditioned because I know we've conditioned that before. Sure. Sir I I think uh I think with the familiarity with McDonald's too I think that helps. So um staff's comfortable with kind of not having a condition on there.

Okay. Um let's see. So, this might be better for the applicant, but uh what is that like room or whatever next to the dumpster? Yeah.

So, that they use um to put like decorations from like holiday, Easter, or any like community promotional events. just an extra area for them to store um items that don't necessarily fit within the footprint of the restaurant. Okay. Do you know approximately how tall that is? It just it just looks big in the renderings. I I think it matches the height of our wall um for our our trash corral. I believe it's we have that elevation was above. Yeah. Okay. So, see it just looks tall. So, I just didn't know if you had elevator. Let me um

I'll have to follow up on that. I think unless she's 9 ft 4 in top elevation. Okay. Okay. And then uh while I had you here, what what's the use of the second pickup window? Uh, sorry. The

the second uh drive pickup window, it's notated. It's the one to the Yeah. So, so your first window towards the back of the building, that'll be your your pay booth. So, where where customers pay for their food. And then the second window is the present window where we serve the food. And then if somebody's, you know, burger or drink is taking longer, they have that third window to pull forward. Okay. Um, so that the customer behind them can grab their food. And then there's that bypass lane that that customer can then go around the the waiting customer.

Okay, got it. Thank you. And then the last one I had for you guys was uh there's like three service doors on the street side of the building. Is there any way to reduce the number of service doors? Well, so um the service door closest to So I guess to the left, that's our stock room door. So that's where all of our dry stock comes in through the the door in the middle, that's actually our CO2 closet. Okay. Um so it's not, you know, during dur when we're filling CO2, that's the only time that that'll be open. Um and then the the last door, that's our freezer cooler. So all of our all of our food products going through that door.

Um so probably not a way to reduce that unless we brought the CO2 somewhere else. Okay. Just if anything we could do to screen that from the street would be nice. just so you don't see door. Okay. Okay. That's all I had for you guys. Thank you, Miss Laura.

Miss Dickle, if you don't mind coming back up. I have just a quick question for you. Um, since McDonald's is such a popular restaurant, are there any guidelines about competition in the area, meaning there's not an oversaturation of McDonald's within a certain square mileage to just so there's no competition from a similar restaurant? I'm sorry, I'm not understand.

So, in terms of we're building a new McDonald's, it's a pretty popular restaurant. Are there any guidelines about how many McDonald's can be built within a so many square miles or to eliminate that one new restaurant isn't just taking customers away from the same restaurant?

Yeah. No, of course. So, we we do an extensive uh research when we're, you know, driving the trade area to determine where our our newest locations will be. So that's that's obviously impact to our existing restaurant portfolio is something that we are not you know you know we would not consider putting another one right down the street from this one obviously. So this this location was thoroughly analyzed uh internally through McDonald's that we would not you know cannibalize our our neighboring uh McDonald as well. Okay great thank you um to both of you first before I get to Randy and Colin. Um, Vanessa, I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name and I'd rather Oh, yes. It's Stickle.

Stickle. Okay. Miss Stickle, I've Have you um Can you put up e the favorite one that you like that she did which is larger? I'm going to Steve, I'm going to walk up to the screen to point to something. I have a stacking question and it relates to the one that we already have on North Fairfield and 675 near Lowe's which is similar to this site. Something There we go. That one right there. That right there. So, hold on. Steve, keep the camera on this. I'm specifically looking at this area right here. I'm assuming this is the main entrance for handicap because this is handicap and they're going to come in through this door. Correct. Correct,

Vanessa. And the people cars are going to stack this way. Okay. This is my question. So based on the existing one that's similar to this property, meaning it's not directly on Indian Ripple like the one in by Lowe's and 675 is not directly on North Fairfield. They're kind of off. Have you any lessons learned that you picked up on stacking? Because stacking is where we have a lot of issues. When someone with a business establishment comes before this planning commission, we start talking about backup of stacking and how far can it go and what can it disrupt. Have you any lessons learned you picked up from that location on 675 in North Fairfield that's off the main entry similar to this one that have been applied to why you chose the stacking layout that you did or is this just independent of whatever is going on at the one at 675 in North Fairfield?

Can you answer that? Yeah, I'd say this is this is independent. We look at these uh scenarios on a case by case, you know, with our site layouts, I think, and we kind of talked to it a little bit earlier is that that third window and then, you know, so that keeps the drive-thru moving so that cars can continue to move through the drive-thru. There's also two um I think they're in the front there next to the um handicap stalls. I think note 11 is our drive-through pull forward. So cars can also be asked to pull forward into those parking stalls to keep that drive-thru moving. So as far as the concern of stacking uh beyond the front corner of our building, which I think is your your concern with with that kind of avenue of moving customers into either parking stalls or through the window um should not be a concern. Um with these new layouts and our new, you know, dedicated parking stalls that we utilize for drive-through customers, we we've seen a lot of benefit in that. Um um well, Mr. Wizooki, that that makes me even more concerned because in the end, stacking and handicap parking are not always in symbiotic relationship. I'm going to go up again and show you because we don't have a pointer here. As I'm understanding what you said, if you have to pull up, you're pulling up these spots here or these spots here?

The ones in the top.

The ones in the top. These two spices. Which means if I'm a handicap wheelchair or whatever and I'm trying to go here, I could be interfering with traffic coming in here or obviously traffic at hot meal times like lunch and breakfast uh backing up into how I'm trying to get into the building. Has that been taken into consideration in where you place the handicap? Because Burger King had a different layout and I so when I was out at the site I've noticed this is the issue and it's a stacking issue especially with that third window. Sure. Um, you know, it it could be uh considered and I think, you know, per per ADA code, you know, that the crosswalk needs to be to the closest point entry of the building.

Um, I think that's probably why we did not put it, you know, on the non-drive side. Um if that's if that's a solution you're so you don't anticipate uh the meal time traffic where the breakfast and lunch specifically breakfast where the stacking is going to go past where you've drawn it and even start to approach or encroach into possibly the handicap entrance area. Yeah, I don't I don't foresee it. it. I don't foresee our cars stacking down

because I have seen that at the one at North Fairfield and 675 at breakfast on the way to the base in the morning and how much they stack around that building because it's a very successful McDonald. Sure. And I can see the same thing here, which makes me wonder, is there any is there any way of looking at stacking that is in a different configuration that you might have looked at based on North Fairfield, but apparently not, right? Yeah. I think, you know, we're we're kind of limited by the the dimensions of the site to, you know, either add a lane, you know, and maintain that bypass lane around the building. Um,

all right. Well, I that pretty much tells me what I was I was looking for lessons learned and how it applies because in the end there could be an impact of the handicap parking there and people trying to get out, especially if they're wheelchair bound. Um, one last question, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'm going to go up again and point. This has to do with the sign that Colin Carville talked about. I'm assuming you're keeping your high sign here and not Yeah, it's going in right below right where you're

good because we can't talk about traffic. I've been there early morning. I just wondered if you had looked at your sign placement based upon people trying to leave the McDonald's in the morning. Correct. Yeah. So our our sign um as she had stated is placed right there in the the southwest cornertheast corner. Yeah. Great. Great. Yeah. Closer to BP. Okay. And then that pylon sign uh for the center is existing and will remain.

All right. Thank you both of you. That's all I have. Jim, thank you. Uh just to to build on what what Jim was discussing, I think um if if the uh if your stack starts to overflow outside of your um outside of your property that in the upper leftand corner, that is an entrance onto the site. you could simply put a an arrow pointing towards the beginning of the stack line and let cars back up into the adjacent parking lot rather than out onto the driveway because you have that option. You don't on North Fair on the North Fairfield store. So, yeah, North Fairfield is

that just might be a a suggestion to um uh in case you do get uh a long line there, people won't start to wrap around the building. Sure. Sure. or some sort of pavement marking or so.

Uh but uh what I would like to add is that that's a very attractive building. Uh and y'all did your homework. You know what our hot buttons are and you um and you got them all. So uh nice job. It's a It's very attractive building. Uh and I'm glad there's not a playground part of it. Y'all tried that before and it didn't fly. Okay, that's all I've got. So, folks, I need need a motion. Unless there's second helpings here, but yeah, I just had one for Colum. Oh, sorry.

I know we talked a lot about stacking. Isn't didn't the city pass a stacking uh like resolution or like ordinance or something? Uh, it's in our code. Yes. Yeah. So, basically, if there was a problem, they would have to fix it. Correct. Yes. That's on the public street. True. That only plus. All right. Which reminded me of something. Yep. We're good on the Sorry. We're good on the pvious surface. Yes. Correct. Percentage. Okay. And this is essentially the specific site plan. What we're looking at is is in fact a specific site plan. Correct. Just wanted to make sure we were clear on that. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Any second helpings, folks? Okay. I need a motion. Don't be shy. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve PUB 541 major modification to the site plan. I believe that's correctly what we're doing is the approving the modification to the site plan. Correct. With the with the 20 conditions. Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. We have the motion on the floor. Mr. T. Second. And we have a second. So, Read the role on this. Sorry, we have a motion and a second. So, we'll read the role on this. Miss Palumbo?

Yes. Mr. Fountain? I approve. Mr. Meyer. Yes. Mr. Self. Yes. Motion carries. 40. And we're looking forward to seeing another uh presuming of course uh the uh city council passes this. We're looking forward to seeing another uh McDonald's in Beaver Creek. Breakfast is big. Remember that. Folks, we are fresh out of um agenda items, so I'll entertain a motion for adjournment unless there's something else from staff. Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn. I second. I have a motion and a second, and we'll do that by acclamation. See