Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 6 PM. I will call the the March Planning Commission meeting to order. Uh would you please take the role? Mr. Fountain, Miss Palumbo here. Miss Usher. Mr. Self is absent. Mr. Meyer here. Mr. Self is absent. Do we have a motion to excuse him? I move we excuse Mr. Self for one more meeting. Second. I second that. We'll just do that by general consensus. Agreed. Okay. Um the approval of the agenda staff, any corrections, changes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we

it's it's noted on the agenda, but I just wanted to call it out that the the YGIC we're going through some final um challenges and so they asked to table the case until the April planning commission meeting. So, um when it comes to that time in the agenda, if you can make a motion to table, um greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Before you leave, uh as long as you raise that topic a point of information. So, I wanted to raise a question to clarify the kind of tableabling. So, if you would uh when we do finally have this applicant come back, is it for just because I've been there. Is it just for that site or does it include the uh Hindu temple next? It's just the site that they're applying for.

Okay. Thank you. Because that'll be important context. And um when we advertised the project, the zoning map was a little wonky in that area and I had it labeled as PC PUD 961, but it's actually part of PUD08-1, which is the same as the Hindu temple. It's all one PUB. So, we'll correct it on the staff report. Um, but just wanted to make everyone aware that it's part of PDOA1, which is a Hindu temple, but we're only going to be considering those. Well, the reason certain acres within

the reason I'm asking is I don't have the the depth of knowledge that Mr. self does when he returns or that you probably do but it will help us in knowing how much to table this or when we finally do see that agenda to have the context because the Hindu temple is such a significant structure in a multif family residential neighborhood that any site work of just the youth center having been to the site uh will be impacted by the the sheer substance of the Hindu temple. Yeah, we would we would approve. So if you improve the context and like how did we get to this situation so that we can do and that would make me think is tableabling for one month enough or should we do like we've done some others and just table it indefinitely until they're ready.

No, we were getting close. It was just a few little things that need to be wrapped up. So I think one month will do it. And if it we are certain they're going forward in a month, it would be a motion to postpone to a the next meeting, not a motion table. Okay. It's just procedurally how you would handle it. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. All right. Before we approve the agenda, I did want to uh welcome our new member. Sorry, should have done that a minute ago, but welcome. Okay, with that, do we have a motion and a recurring member yourself? Yes, we have two two members. You might recognize the one. Thank you. Uh do we have a motion to approve the agenda? I move to approve the agenda. And we have a second. We'll just do that by general consensus.

Agreed. Okay. and the approval of the minutes. Any corrections, changes? I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 4th, 2026. I second that. Okay, we'll do that by general consensus as well. Agreed. Second. Thank you. And then let's see, that brings us to our first case, which I need a motion for. Uh, Mr. Chairman, given the uh clarification by uh Randy Berquette of the planning department on this applicant, I move that we uh postpone

postpone uh the applicant's uh request for PUD08-1 until the next meeting. I have a motion. Have a second. I second that. All right. And we'll do that by jump as well.

Agreed. And that brings us to our first public hearing. PC uh 09-5 mod 26 226 major. This is case number PC09-5 mod 2 of 26 on an application filed by Joe Yos 2800 Corporate Exchange Drive, Sweet 400, Columbus, Ohio 43231. The applicant requests a major modification to case PC09-5 to allow for the construction of a 3,975 square foot banking facility on 3.174 acres. The property is located at 1231 North Fairfield Road, further described as book 5, page 7, parcel 120 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. How we do our public hearings is first we'll have an application or a presentation from our applicant and then we'll hear from staff and then we will have a public hearing. So applicant.

Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joe Yos. I'm with CESO Incorporated. We're the architectural engineering firm that's representing Dayair Credit Union for this project. I have Janelle and Amy from Dayair Credit Union here with me as well. Um, as was stated, we're uh looking to redevelop the 1231 North Fairfield Road project. That's the old FR's um There we go. That's the old FR's site. Uh just a little bit of information as it relates to um Dayair. They currently have a branch in the Beaver Creek Market located at Dayton Xia Road. Uh this new branch is to better serve their current members. Uh they've purchased the former FR's Big Boy site located at 1231 North Fairfield which is highlighted there in the yellow. Um the plan is to demolish the existing FR's building in the drive-thru and build a new 3975 square foot branch with two drive-through lanes. Um we're going to create some additional green space and landscaping. Uh and we're going to reuse a lot of the existing pavement and sight lighting and restructure the parking lot for the new parking requirements. Wrong way. Um just to show the site plans. The existing site plan on the left is the as it sits today with the frises. The site plan on the right is what we're proposing. Um we would essentially wipe out the whole FR's building and the drive-thru that's there. Um and then our new building would slide forward approximately the first row of parking that's in front of the FR's now. The front of our building would basically sit there and then we would rework the parking around the building. Um, we'd also across right off of um Fairfield where the the lane goes through, there's some parking there. We're going to curb that off and add some green space. Uh, and then to the south of the property, uh, we're going to block off the front portion of the parking there, create

some green space, and then the back half, we'll put three or four parking spots in there just for, um, employee parking. Uh proposed fuller plan, like I said, 3,975 square feet. New build. It includes six offices, a conference room, a waiting area, break room, maintenance and storage rooms. Uh there's two teller pods with a work room and two drive-thru lanes that will have ITMS. Uh and then there's a night drop there as well. From the exterior side of things, uh we're using all masonry and glass uh for the exterior here. So there'll be two different colored brick with a stone base and then at the entry tower there's glass there to create um and inviting around the opening and and things like that. So that's that. And then same thing on the the two sides. The bottom image there shows you the drive-thru um with the ITM and the night drop. And then here's a couple renderings uh of the building as as we see you can see here with the signage and kind of how inviting that corner entry is with the glass and and opening. Fairly modern looking building. I think it'll be really great in that corridor. That's all I have. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission. My presentation is going to look quite similar to the presentation you just heard. So I might gloss over a little bit of it because I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, but this is a major modification to PC9-5.

Back in 2009, the property was a uh had a few houses and a couple of accessory structures and um FRES came in and wanted to demolish everything and put in the restaurant that you see today. there was some concern with the neighbors to the northeast. Um so we included a 50- foot buffer. There's no changes to that that existing buffer and the and the detention pond is to the west. Um and so that lends itself to having the building be uh quite a distance from any residential that's up to the northwest. Project's located on North Fairfield Road. It's just across from the intersection at um they at North Fairfield and Beaver View. Again, the site's about 3.2 acres. Um they have about 300 feet of frontage on North Fairfield. Um the reason we're here is an Azera. In our current land use plan, there is um this area is designated as part of the Dayton Zenia corridor planning area. And as such, anything that's in the Denzini corridor planning area, the Indian ripple planning corridor area, the Colonel Glenn planning corridor area, um triggers the need to go through an ASR, which is why we did it back in 2009. And then any modification to the Azeris, which is administrative site plan review process um is very similar in procedure to the the modification of a site plan for a PUB. So, we're looking at looking at architecture, landscaping, lighting, um all overall site site layout with with the modifications since they're typically um they overengineer the storm water detention ponds originally and that that was the case here. There's no concern especially since they're reducing the the amount of impervious surface. Um so, there's no concern with the pond not being sized correctly.

The property is zone B2 and has B2 to the north. To the south is a B4, a couple of B4 properties. One is formerly an auto parts store. It was open for a couple years and been sitting vacant for the last good eight or 10 years. Um, and then there's an insurance agent just to the south as well. To the west is R1A, but it's being you. It's part of um AES's easement of property that they have a substation not very far. You can see the beginnings of that substation in the bottom left corner. Um so there's a lot of vacant land to the west and then to the the northwest in that corner is the back side of a of a single family residential neighborhood. Applicant did a good job at talking about the site, but I just wanted to point out there's no change to the access point. Uh they're still having access to the light at uh Beaver View. We're actually going to be upgrading Beaverview Drive on the other side, but that won't interfere with this project. We're going to be adding two left turn lanes from that Beaverview Drive to head south on the North Fairfield Road. I believe that project's going to be later this year. Um but again, there's not going to be any interference because it's going to stay on that side of North Fairfield rather than on the side that this project is. Um, in terms of parking, when you go through the calculation on the required amount of parking, um, based on their square footage and number of employees, they're required to have 30. Um, they show 34 parking spaces. Um, not there's no concern about overparking with this. When you're within 10% like that, um, it most of the parking other than the four spaces on the south is to the north and east of the building. Uh so you'll have your predominantly your your customers parking there. Um there's also a very large drive-thru. Um when you when you get down to the number of cars that can be there, I mean you would you're

talking over 40 cars would need to be there before you get out into the access drive that's in front of this road. So there's not a concern about um stacking back into causing problems with the uh the transportation in and out of the site. Uh this is just an overlay showing how they're encapsulating the the site as it is now with a slight change to the building um being shrunken and the landscaping to the or what is now pavement to the west is going to be uh a few u landscape island. So there's some additional greenery. Now this is the architectural that the applicant already talked about. We we looked at these 3D perspective um photos. This is the the proposed landscaping and I I highlighted the existing to be remain in the darker green and in the lighter green I highlighted the the landscaping that they're proposing to add with this which is shade trees and ornamental um shrubs and grasses around the base of the building. So, they're maintaining the existing mature landscaping that helps buffer this from the residential to the northwest while um upgrading and refreshing the landscaping that's out in front of a building and visible from North Fairfield Road. In terms of signage, uh they're showing a 62 foot sign on both the east and north elevations. Um and then a um the ground sign out front will be replacing the fricious sign with the day air credit union um sign phase. So there's no concern with the the signage what they're proposing. Um just wanted to point out they're they're using the existing lighting on the site. Um there is going to be because there's going to be a canopy now for the drive-thru. There will be some canopy lighting underneath that canopy, but they're

required. Um, with the final landscape plan, which we review should this get approved and go to the permit stage, we review the the foot candles to ensure that they are using full cutff fixtures. It's recessed up into the canopy. So, it's not kind of a light bulb hanging down, spreading outward. It's it's shining down and staying where it needs to stay. There are 17 conditions in the resolution for your consideration. Uh this resolution would be a recommendation to uh city council as this is a major mod. So for planning commission is a recommending body and and the decision of approval or disapproval lies at city council. We anticipate that to go the I think it's the the 23rd of March for city council which is the last the fourth Monday in March. um should this be should this uh get through planning commission this evening. So staff does recommend approval of the request subject to the 17 conditions you see in the staff report and I'll be happy to answer any questions following the public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. And as Randy stated, this is a public hearing. So if we have anyone who would wish to speak on this? No. Did we have any written input? Okay, with that I will close the public hearing and I will start to my right. I have one question for staff if you don't mind.

Just regarding construction um is there any concern about construction um interfering with traffic on North Fairfield at this site? Um, given these sites that are existing, there's area for the trucks to pull. They're not going to be stopping and and trying to go on onto a gravel lot or a I mean, they have they'll have existing pavement to park on. So, so there the time that they'd be stopping would be very limited and plus there's a traffic signal there with a turn lane left into it. So, there's not really concern that we had or that engineering expressed in terms of traffic construction. That was my own construction traffic. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Felton.

Sure. Um, Randy, can I borrow your first get it to the overall aerial view, the larger one than that, and then I want to borrow your pointer because remember we talked about I don't have to walk up to the screen.

There you go. Right there. Uh, so if you look at to go with what Commissioner Palumbo just said, All I do is change it. Okay. I didn't want to change it. I just wanted to show Well, this one will work. Okay. To go with what uh Commissioner Palumbo said, I also have a concern with the uh entrance and egress of the site. And the reason is both for construction. Uh I'm at that site frequently because I patronize Beaverview Bowl and Sheets and all of us do. That's an extremely busy intersection with regulated traffic flows on the green arrow for left turns. And my concern is as the traffic is going into now what a site that has been vacant for years and that's great that they air is going to be coming in here. They're going to be generating both large vehicle construction traffic during demolition for x number of months and they're also going to be generating the traffic flow into the site that that will disrupt over the next from now February or March, excuse me, of the 26 through at least the end of this year a lot of disruptions to the people are acclimated to that traffic pattern. And I know our city engineers will be looking if not already looking at that. But I'm still concerned until the public gets used to in 2027 that day air is there that turning into that site, both construction traffic and vehicular traffic with already a heavy dose of left and right turns because it's such a intersection. Is there anything that that the city engineering might have looked at that says we how do we get through the next year without having all of a sudden uh some major traffic accidents that we just didn't think of because two years from now that won't be an issue but it has been now because it's been such a vacant site.

Sure. And that's a really big uh vehicle traffic intersection and so for the next year or so it's people aren't going to be used to it.

Yeah. It would be more concerning if there wasn't a traffic light there. Um, or if the traffic light didn't already attach to that access point. Um, and there is an existing bank uh that is on site that's just north that has their access point through this access drive. So, there is there's traffic going in and out of the site now. Not as much as there will be when a second bank opens up. Um, but I think that there there's the ability for the the engineer to look at timing if there's a need to adjust the timing of the light a little bit. Uh, because right now or after sheets opened up, we there was a slight adjustment so we could get more cars out of Beaverview and they'll have to revisit that when we get a second left turn lane south out of Beaver or from Beaverview to North Fairfield. So, they'll be readjusting the timing on that as well. Um but there's the ability ability if needed that they can adjust that and give more clearance. So later

what what does that do to us tonight for the eventual city engineers review uh so that we head off at the path so to speak construction vehicle traffic during the Fish Brothers demolition. There's not really a condition we can add um that would like prohibit them or limit them time wise. I mean,

um, you, as we talked about at the the the last residential one, if you start limiting hours of deliveries or construction hours, particularly, especially this being a commercial corridor, you stretch the project out longer. If you say they can only work a certain amount of time or they can only deliver and you got a guy delivering, he's not going to sit at be. Even if the city engineering would be to adjusting the timing of the lights if there was a problem that would happen after debut open or day air opens or

if there was a problem during construction we would get out and um adjust it as needed and look at that. Um but given there's a left turn lane into the site and there's a working traffic signal I think that there might be a some people looking over the first few days but I I think that it would be a shortlived issue. um once they start construction and they'll have a sign out there that says coming soon day air credit unions people won't constantly look into

sharing your optimism I'm thinking this cal the rest of this calendar year or into the 27 until the day air opens uh which will be a great success and a great ad to the community it's just people are not going to be used it because that is so heavily traveled at intersection especially from coming down Beaverview lane well fortunately demo only takes usually they can get that done within a day or two very short I mean, it doesn't take long for them to take down a building.

Okay. Uh, one other question going back to the great report you guys did, uh, which talks about the word, uh, which makes me wonder what we're looking at today. Uh, what caught me word was in the write up of the access ultimately accessing all the way up to Daytoni Road. And knowing we just finished with the plan Beaver Creek and the new approval for our our corridor focus area, are are we in any way supposed to be looking at the eventual access all the way up through uh the other credit union there and the strip services? Are we supposed to be taking that into consideration tonight to ultimately support that kind of access up to Dayton Zena? In 2009 when FIRE just came in, we had them add in an easement all the way from the south end of the property all the way to the north end. So there is already a current access easement that spans this entire property.

Do the green light thingy. It's hard to see on the kind of hard to see on the screen, but um it's the one in front of where day would be and then a new thing behind it. Well, our intent would be to extend this drive if this building eventually ever goes away and then if um the building that's north of of the existing bank goes away, then we would extend that drive parallel to North Fairfield. But we've got all we need from this site and the bank to the north in order to achieve that. But we're just waiting for the property south and north of that. So there's none of nothing our consideration additional. We've got it in place already.

All right. Those are my only questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Miss Asher. I don't have any questions. Okay. Thank you. A couple for you, Randy. Um, I don't want to get too much into, but condition number eight, the talks about the signage. So, I noticed that there was a so or I guess I'm confused because the six foot height and the 32 square foot per sign face. I my reading of it is that's B3 and B4, not B1, B2. Yeah. Was that intentional? Yeah. Um, and we did this with precious as well. Um, okay.

Because there it was more of a give and take there. There's no code that says they have to do all masonry building. So, they're upgrading the building. So, we're um kind of giving giving slightly larger sign. It's already an existing sign. They're just going to be replacing replacing the face. And then the same thing with the wall signage. Um, technically they'd only if we stuck strictly to the code, it would only be allowed wall signage on the the eastern property or east eastern elevation. But Azera does give some flexibility and so and that's kind of the the give and take where we negotiate in good faith on getting a little bit of extra signage for an upgraded building. And it's a win-win.

Yeah. Yeah, I was just because I went back and looked at the West Bank when we approved that and that was did match the B1B2. Yeah, they didn't different time, I guess. Okay, fair enough. Um, let's see. So, you said there's no new lighting. There's not They're not going to be changing any of the lighting in the parking lot at all. The parking lot's staying the same. Um, is it going to be repaved? They're going to resurface the parking lot. Yeah. Okay. Is there a dumpster?

No. Uh, we discussed that. Um their intent right now is to use residential style totes and keep them adjacent to building. Um if they want a dumpster in the future, they'll have to do a dumpster enclosure, but um a bank is a little bit different. They don't have the same kind of refuge that a restaurant would have. Yeah. In terms of decomposing and so they can they can get away with the uh the residential style.

Do they need to screen those bins? Um, typically they they would keep those adjacent to building and out of ordinary public view. So there's no there really if you look at the site there's not really any place for them to put them other than on the back of that building or inside the building. Okay. Thank you. Um uh so on when we were approving the West Bank there was a few things that I noticed in those conditions. Um like one was no outdoor speakers with the exception of the teller uh teller speakers. Is that something I was thinking about that but then we allowed the fricious to have the the speakers for their drive-thru. Um well yeah I mean yeah

and unless the the bank's going to play music. Um it wasn't it's not I I didn't see it being an issue if they were if it was another restaurant and they were having an outdoor patio. I could see where we would want to pro prohibit outdoor speakers. I think West Banko might have been a little bit of an overshoot on that, but they are definitely closer to the residential than than this property is too. Yeah. Okay. And then the other one was uh limiting construction hours from 7 to 7 exterior wise.

Yeah. Again, the West Banko they directly above I mean they're if I can get to somewhere where I can show it. Um you see the West Bank just the north. they share that property line where the building was right up close to the residential property line where this one they're well outside of that 50 foot buffer the nearest the building would be is going to be 200 250 ft from the property line um and this yeah I mean if planning commission wants to add construction hours but really I was trying to also think about the the length of the project and if we if you start shaving off the hours of the day um you extend the number of days that the project requires and and having not been right immediately adjacent to residential, I just didn't see that necessarily, but I'd leave that up to planning commission.

Yeah. I mean, there there is residential behind, right? Yeah. I mean, the existing pond's not going to change. That's I mean, I look at it as almost two separate lots even though there's no lot. I think the pond and the trees there, there's no change to any of that. All that changes is going to be um closer than the the existing pine trees. Okay. Okay, that was all my questions. Second helping anyone? Okay. With that, do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve uh applicant day air credit union PC09-05 major modification for approval with Excuse me. Thank you, Melissa. With the 17 conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I second that. All right. Please take the Miss Palumbo. Yes. Miss Usher, Mr. Fountain? Yes. Mr. Meyer? Yes. With that carries for nothing. Thank you, Melissa. You're welcome.

And we are on to our next item. Uh, this is a decision item. POD 529 mod 226 Minor B Hope Church. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, this is case PUD 529. Um the these older PUDs was established well before the city was a city. Um so that they're numbered a little different, but it's it's still a PUD. Um it was established I want to say in the late 70s. Um but is this is a minor modification. It fits the definition of minor modification. So on these these cases, planning commission is is that's what it's a decision where planning commission is to deciding this doesn't move forward to city council. Um it lives or dies here with the planning commission. So what they're looking to do is do an expansion a minor expansion of the building to the south of the existing building uh to create a new southern entryway into the into the building itself. And then they're going to do a small entryway on the west side of the building and change a little bit of the the parking lot lot layout. Um Be Hope Church is located on North Fairfield Road. It's about halfway between Kemp Road and um Dayton Zena Road. It's it's across from the Veterans Memorial. Um right near the intersection of North Fairfield and Fairwood Drive. Um this is the existing site. It has well over a thousand feet of frontage on North Fairfield Road. The building is about 119,000 square feet right now. And what they're proposing is about a 3200 foot addition. So we're less than that 5% uh that would trigger a major modification. So this is allowed to be a minor modification.

Get there. We go. Uh that's kind of hard to see. Uh it's an overlay. This will be easier. the what they're proposing the the the addition is colored in orange on this uh aerial photo. It's a small addition to the south. Um I put some green to the east of that. That's converting from existing parking lot to a kind of a green space um grassy area to the east of the the new entryway. There's going to be some slight changes to the the way you pull up and drop off. So, you lose that row of parking that's currently there uh just to the south of the building. And then they're also proposing um a larger landscape island to the northeast northwest of the building with a new entryway um that leads to the that's you drop off in front of that new entryway as well. Um this is a picture of the the southern entryway with the um you can kind of see the green area, but it's mostly um the sitting area to the the west of the entryway and landscaping between the the parking lot and the building itself. Um, and then this is the western entry area where you got the new landscape island out front and then again a covered entryway with the the matching black pillars to to prop up that new canopy that's out front. um one slight change in the condition because if you look at the site plan, it's a little unclear how they're going to match up the existing the new landscape island to the northwest and the drop off area to the south with the existing parking field. They were the the survey to know the existing it was challenging to do because of the snow lined up right when they needed to get that done. There was a foot of snow

on the pavement. So, um I change the condition a little bit to say that prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the expansion area, they need to submit some final construction drawings that show how they will still meet the the minimum parking requirements, which is one space for every three seats in the main auditorium and then one space for every vehicle that the site has. But also show appropriate connections to the remaining parking lot. That's the language I wanted to add. and make sure that they don't create sin, not that they would on purpose or even accidentally. Um, but want to ensure that they don't create some sort of dead end area where you you can't come in and out. Um, and so we added that as a condition prior to us releasing a permit for the the building expansion area. Um, we can do that at the staff level. If there was no building expansion, it was just parking lot. We would do that as an administrative mod inhouse anyways. So, um, no real concern with us being able to review the the parking lot layout, um, at the administrative level. Um, but also want to ensure that they're in full compliance with any of the applicable storm water requirements. They're not adding any impervious surface, but we just keep that in there for boiler plate language to ensure that we've got that as a backup. The applicant is here if you have any questions for him. Um always uh excited to see expansions of building and renew renewal and rejuvenation of of um existing sites. It's and continuing um investment into the the city of Beaver Creek. So staff does recommend approval of the aics request and I'll be happy to answer any questions that planning commission may have now or in a few minutes.

Thank you. This is not a public hearing, right? Okay. Just making sure. Okay. So, I'll start to my far left. Miss Usher, I have no question. Mr. Fountain, um Randy, I'm not sure you are the applicant, but uh leave that picture up. I have a a number of confusions. I'm very familiar with this side. I want to live a couple doors away from it. Um your green pointer won't work. Right.

Correct. So, Steve, I'm going to walk up to the You can leave the camera where it is. This is my existing 10 handicap parking station here where people can pull right up, park in the handicap, walk right into door number six, six, seven, four, five, six, seven, eight. That's all gone now. And now you put people to be dropped off here with handicap over here. And I'm I'm wondering from a wheelchair walker basis we're losing a lot of accessibility to be hope I'm thinking but I'm not sure because I'm not sure what the applicant's plans what's going on. So is that an Africa question your question but the whole handicap access issue because you're losing 10 spaces and now you're going to force people to go over here to come in. Is that what their intent was? There are minimum requirements in the code for the amount of handicap accessible parking spaces they have for a parking lot of a certain size. And if since they're removing those 10 to be compliant, they'll they'll have to relocate them other in another location there is um to the along the northwest kind of hard to explain but if I could get my right here is this area. There is a number of parking spaces here um that they can designate if if it's if that's appropriate. Um there are adding spaces here if if that's appropriate. It it really depends on um user preference. We don't have a there's nothing in the code that says it has to be the closest spot to the doors. I mean, that's what we generally do. Um, it just

I was just looking at the Ohio handicap code for a basis and knowing that they're taking away so many handicap spaces that are just right there, right by the door? And so, one of my two questions were, you're not just making it worse for people with a walker or wheelchair to get into your cathedral and is that your intent or am I missing something? It'll be I mean whatever they're removing they're going to have to put in in another location. And my bet would be that they would put it here along this. These are immediately adjacent that sidewalk as well. It's just relocating from here to here. All right. Well, it's just I'm not sure. It's really not our purview anyway because it's going to have to comply with Ohio code no matter what. But it just makes it uh confusing as to the intent. The other is on that area where the handy clips spaces are going away. There's two egress doors for emergency access, excuse me, emergency egress from uh the cathedral part of behind and emptying on now to the new patio or are they relocating emergency eress and aggress from the main cathedral portion because

they show there in these plans are that's the open patio area but they right now the the way people escape in a fire is right there. I I can leave I mean that operational those operational issues. I can leave the appetite to speak more to that. Those are my two issues. Mr. Chair, thank you sir. I'm just very familiar with your building. I live literally a couple doors away and I there all the time and I just think okay they must have a reason behind those two issues.

Well, good evening. My name is Steven Butler and I'm with Community Civil Engineers and I'm representing the client uh this evening. Um just to uh I guess address some of the parking concerns um where where we're expanding the building out. If you if you've been out there, you'll know that the parking lot is sloping away. So um I think Mr. Bquette has indicated that um our survey got delayed and we're trying to work out exactly how that is going to work because we're obviously coming out at the existing finished floor and we've got an elevation change that currently there isn't that issue. So, we've got some challenges to to meet. And as for handicap accessibility, we will absolutely be complying with the uh uh the ADA requirements and in more than more likely the case would be we'd be far exceeding that because we understand uh the users of our facility and the needs for um accessible parking for them for for our um members. Um the other was they accept the doors I believe it's four and five that are now the fire access or fire egress from the main cathedral portion right onto where you now show a patio. Right. So we're not going to my understanding and I'm the civil engineer. Um um I I typically stick to everything outside the building. um the architect wasn't able to uh make make it this evening, but my understanding from having to sit through all the meetings every Thursday and listen to all the other um u uh engineers and architects discuss uh the planning inside the building is that

those doors would that the egress is still remaining. the previously they they were thinking that they were going to have to expand the building to get the capacity that they needed and then uh they spoke with this particular uh architectural company who was able to look at their existing facility and say I think we can do everything within your existing footprint and then the only change as we've as we're here tonight is just to expand that building out approximately 3,000 square feet the entrance and create a um a wayfinding um point and um a better more uh substantial entrance to the building. Um as for existing egress points, my understanding is those egress points were going to remain. I think one of the the parts that are confusing is like there you can see all the the um parking spaces running running horizontal, right? They're running east to west essentially. Well, we actually are not wanting that because that's going to force people to have to walk between cars. So, we're wanting to rec configure those and turn them 90 degrees so people be able to better access straight to the um um main entry. Um so, that's that's some of the the parts of the jigsaw puzzle that uh we haven't necessarily been clear on. Um but as for handicap parking, absolutely we're going to meet ADA requirements and exceed them in more likelihood. Uh the area to the north, uh they're wanting to improve the drop off and kind of make the circulation better for people dropping off for the daycare. Um

and that's what that is about. Um, and you know, we we do realize that there's some uh circulation challenges and we just want to make sure that we we hit those circulation needs um so that uh members coming in and exiting um at the same time and people trying to drop off for the the kids. It's it's all part of a a challenge we feel that we're up to uh meeting uh and making this facility function really well. Thank you, Mr. Butler.

All right. Thank you. So, so Ste uh Steve, excuse me, Randy. Um does that mean that we are still approving this minor modification or are we going through a later on a separate site plan approval? No, essentially, um, tonight is more about the building, uh, expansion area and and the the parking lot layout and the drop offs. That's the they're conceptual. So, and and that's something staff can usually handles administratively. I just wanted to show more of what they're thinking on the on the circulation of the site. Um, but when they come when they've nailed down the engineering part of that, you know, that's something that staff would handle administr that that um, yeah, I can handle in the in the department. Um, if we're just talking shifting parking area around and adding some landscape islands or moving them around, but the building, I don't didn't have the authority um, from the administrative level to increase the size of the building. So that's why we're here.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Miss P. Um, one quick question. Is there any plan to have open fire pits in this outdoor new outdoor area?

Not that I've seen. Um, I mean, I I don't I can't think of a if I mean, they have a ton of land behind them, too. I mean, if they if they wanted to do that, they would just have to meet all the the uh fire codes. I can't envision them having one up front in the they want to get people into the building and not have to go around fire pits and stuff like that. If they do, if there is an outdoor area, it would be to the rear of the building or their large field that they have to the south.

So, we don't need to add any conditions about if they ever want to put in like um like an ornamental fire feature or anything like that. No, I would that would be more an administrative thing as well. I mean, it wouldn't Yeah, that'd be something like if they were doing a gazebo or something like that, that's more of an administrative thing. But, um, the physical build, the principal building itself, I just couldn't do on my own. Yeah. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Just one clarification. So, it calls it a cafe that they're put adding. Is that that's only open like during like the church services, stuff like that. It's not like an actual like restaurant. Okay. Just I mean it's not members only, but they're not going to be open when they're not open.

Okay. That's just what I was making sure. And then um what outdoor speakers? Are there are they putting like outdoor speakers or anything out there in that outdoor area? Uh I didn't see any. I mean they're five 600 feet away from the residential. Um if they do if they had outdoor I mean they wouldn't have it in a grassy field. Okay. it if they were it would be in that seating area to the west of the building and that's very very far away and with North Fairfield Road out there I mean the ambient noise from that would be louder speakers you would hear them

okay fair enough uh just one question for Josh do we need to make a motion to amend that condition that Randy was giving us or because it's in his presentation is that sufficient yeah the red language is what I added compared to what's in the staff for it. That's not in our resolution. Correct. Correct. Well, yeah. So, that's what my question is. Do we need to add that? Okay.

Right. Yeah. If someone can make a motion to change condition eight to add the red text you see up there, then you vote on that. And then, assuming that vote goes, then you would make a motion for the the general. Okay. You can do it that way or you can do it the opposite way where you make the motion to pass it and then make a motion to amend. My preference is amend it before see if you guys are in agreement with the amendment before you vote on the actual motion. Okay. Thank you. With that, do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve uh condition number eight as amended. There would be a motion to amend condition eight. Motion to amend condition eight. Match that language up there to match the addition of the phrase show appropriate connections to remaining parking lot, and be in. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a second for that? All right. And we'll just do that by general consensus. Yes. Yes. Agreed.

All right. And with that, do we have another motion? I motion to approve PUB529 mod 2-26 with nine conditions. As amended. Do we say as amended? As amended. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. And we have a motion in a second. Can you take the role, please? Miss Usher, Mr. Fountain? Yes. Miss Palumbo? Yes.

Mr. Meyer? Yes. With that, the motion passes for nothing. And we are on to our next item, S26-1 subdivision. Yeah, this is uh this is a proposed replplat of lot one of the Continental uh properties plat. It's it's across the street from um the mall at Fairfield Commons. And all of the shopping centers up there are some sort of Fairfield shops this or commons this. So we call it the Continental Plat because back in the day it was Continental Properties that originally did did the uh the proposal in ' 94 93. Um seen here is the it's about 30 acres. It's all one uniform lot. It's got the appropriate access easements throughout. Um but what they're looking to do is subdivide it into three lots. Um where you've got lot 1A which will contain the existing mattress firm building. It's down in the south southern end. Lot 1B about 0.9 acres will contain the existing seven brew. And then the remainder 27.3 acres uh would contain the existing shopping center and the outlot building that's in the northeast corner. Um no changes to the zoning. I mean, it would still function the way it's functioning. It's just um a lot of times properties will do this for leasing purposes or tax purposes. Um there's no concern about inaccessible lots because we've got all the easements in place. Um so just because lot 1B and lot 1A don't have direct access on the North Fairfield, they've got access through that private access drive. Um, and so we we've done that many many times in the city. There's a lot of lots at the mall that don't have access to North Fairfield. Um, so

the applicant is requesting approval of this splitting of one lot into three and and so we're here this evening at planning commission seeking approval of that. Thank you. And just to be clear, we're the final decision maker on this planning commission has the uh final authority on planning and creating a buildable lots. Okay. Thank you. Um I think I'll just throw this one open if anybody has anything.

I do. Um for council Lansbury given 1B and I have nothing for 1A but given 1B is a point of much discussion amongst many meetings and many entities in this city with stacking uh by approving this breakout of 1B which is seven brew. Are we in any way inhibiting any future attempts at resolution of stacking issues or forcing Seven Brew to come back to us and say, "Well, now we only have this rectangle and we can only do X and that's just it." I I don't want to box the city in because that's an ongoing issue that we talk about a lot, which is stacking at seven brew. And I'm fearing that we may live to regret a boxing in of lot 1B. Yeah, I I was thinking about that because when they first applied, we were going through the seven bur on Colonel and with the existing access easements that are along that access road um and throughout the site. I don't if they're going to come to a resolution, it's going to they're going to come to it on their as a private agreement

on their own property. Yeah. Uh well well they can't come back to us as a city and say you're boxing us in for solutions because you now have approved we only have this to work with. We can't the existing seven. Yep. We can't flood over to the other area 1C as a part solution because that's all on a private I I don't think this is going to matter. Um that's the short answer. I think Ry's right Bill. It's got it's going to have to be an agreement among the property owners in that area as to what to do

because I can see them coming back saying, "Well, we need 1 C as part of our solution for the stacking issue that you all keep talking to us about and we don't have that anymore because you took that away from us by allowing this subdivision." There's no city, we haven't heard any intent for the sale of that land. Um, not that it can't happen. Um, but whoever buys 1B would know what they're buying. um if they feel boxed in them and they would want more and we could move that lot line a little bit. Because we we talked about

it would be hard to condition saying in the future you have to work with the two owners if there are two owners. It I was trying to think of a way to word that and make it a legally defensible. But really it would the it would be the city becoming between two private owners to do a private agreement. I just don't want the city to get in the middle of something where we're trying to work with one lot owner 1B of coming up with a stacking solution and they say we can't because by your approval you've boxed us in and the city looks like the bad guy in all this. In in that scenario I think if anybody had a problem it would be the one who own lots 1 C rather than 1B and they would be

more than willing to if they had a problem they wanted a solution they'd have to be given up some of their property to do it. It wouldn't be 1B with with the want to expand. It would be 1 C would want 1B to expand. Okay. I just don't want the city to be in the middle of something. The other aspect of that is the public rightway. So customers going to one 1A or 1B. I don't think 1 A is going to be an issue, but going to 1B uh is because that's a public rightway, but it's shown in the property for 1 C. Are we in any way putting another burden on lot 1B by allowing one C to show that public right away is being under their control?

No, that those that's an access easement that they they can't just 1 C couldn't just unilaterally get rid of. Okay. I mean, it's there in perpetuity. Um unless for whatever reason 1B said, "We don't want to have access to our site anymore." But they would have they probably actually couldn't do that. it it the only thing they could do is if 1B got sold to 1C eventually then they could get rid of the access but you can't cut off someone's access. Okay. And there's nothing about the the stacking issue for 1B bleeding into 1C and then coming back to the city saying you caused this to happen with your breakup of 1B. Okay. I just trying to manage. Yeah. Because it's not a public road or anything. It's

understand but that's why we have Mr. Lbury here in the room. So anyway, thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Commission. All right. Thank you. That do we have a motion? I motion to approve S-261 with three conditions. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay, we'll take the role on that, please. Mr. Fountain, approve. Miss Palumbo approve. Miss Usher. Mr. Meyer. Yes. With that the motion carries for nothing and we are out of agenda items.

I move we adjourn. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. All right. And with that we're Thank you.