City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 13th meeting of Beaver Creek City Council. Could I have a roll call please?

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

Here.

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

Second.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to excuse Councilmember Dewar and Littoral. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Councilman Bills, we'll turn it over to you.

All right. If you would all stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance, please.

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

We have an agenda before us. Any corrections, updates, changes?

We approve the agenda, Your Honor.

Second. have a motion and a second to approve the agenda all those in favor signify by saying aye aye aye opposed we also have a set of minutes for june 22nd regular meeting uh any changes corrections additions move to approve the june 22nd minutes have a motion and a second to approve the june 22nd regular meeting minutes all those in favor signify by saying aye aye aye opposed abstentions one thank you Ordinances, resolutions, and PUDs. Ordinance 26-15. This has been tabled in the past, so we will have to untable it tonight.

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

Move to untable Ordinance 26-15. Second.

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

you would read this hands ordinance 26-15 and ordinance rezoning 22.3 acres from r1a one-family residential and B2 neighborhood business, further described as Book 3, page 19, parcels 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 66 on the property tax maps of Greene County, Ohio, to the MX-PUD 26-2 mixed-use planning unit development.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much.

Randy? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. THE ADVOCATE DID A GOOD JOB OF GIVING A GENERAL OVERVIEW, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER THAT TWICE. BUT I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. WE DID RECEIVE AN UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN. ON JUNE 25TH AFTER WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT. AND THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN IS REFERENCED IN THE ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET, THE NEW DATE AND THE NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO SHOW THE 100-FOOT BUFFER TO THE NORTH. And then an additional building set back beyond that. So it's well above and beyond what we would generally see with a multifamily product next to a single family. In straight zoning, a commercial buffer between a residential and a commercial is only a 50-foot buffer. So they're exceeding that by double. AND JUST THE PLANS ON THE LEFT KIND OF SHOWS WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY PRESENTED VERSUS THE PLANS THAT ARE UPDATED IN THE NEW ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET. ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE RELATIVE DISTANCES EVEN THE BUFFER, NOT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE, BUT THE BUFFER WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH BEING 170 FEET, 230 FEET. AND THEN ALONG THE HOUSES ALONG GRANGE HALL OR EVEN FURTHER WITH 500 TO 600 FEET. FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING TO THE FUTURE BUFFER LINE. SO THAT'S IT. IT'S QUITE AN INCREASE. IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE, IN THE PACKET THERE, BLUE, YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES IN BLUE AND STRIKETHROUGH BLUE, WHERE THEY CHANGED THE NAME OF THE AREA TO SUB AREA A, SUB AREA B, AND SUB AREA C JUST TO ELIMINATE SOME CONFUSION AND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT SUB AREA C WHICH WAS THE COMMERCIAL AREA CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING OR IS SUB AREA A AND B CAN'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL IN IT ONLY RESIDENTIAL THEY DID IN DECREASE THE SIZE OF SUB AREA A FROM 10 ACRES TO 8.3 ACRES AND THE INCREASED SUB AREA B WHICH IS THE SIX DWELLING UNIT ACRE PORTION FROM 8 TO 9.75 ACRES, BUT THE OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED AT 116, WHICH GIVES AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 6.43 DWONG UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE RANGE WITHIN THE LANE USE PLAN OF 5 TO 10 DWONG UNITS AN ACRE RECOMMENDED FOR THIS AREA. THERE'S AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT NO COMMERCIAL BE IN SUB AREA A AND B. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLARIFIED. AND THEN ADDED A FEW THINGS TO THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES, WHICH INCLUDED A VETERINARY AND ANIMAL DAY CARE AND VETERINARY CLINIC THAT WAS CONCERNED, SO WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDRESSED THAT. AND THEN ALSO ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 60 FEET. THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED FOR, FOR MXPEBs IN THE ZONING CODE, SO WE WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLARIFIED. an 18th condition versus what Planning Commission saw. So there are 18 conditions in the ordinance. They meet all the requirements of the land use plan, the updated land use plan in terms of the usage and the density and are well beyond what the buffers require for other zoning districts. And so Planning Commission and staff do recommend approval of the applicant's request subject to those 18 conditions in your packet. Thank you.

Thank you very much. we had a public hearing the last time and the public portion was closed but i'll entertain a motion from council to open it up again since i think several of you here may want to speak to that so i move that we allow a public hearing second I have a motion and a second to allow a second public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. This is the public portion of this, so you're welcome to come forward, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes and can be donated six more minutes from someone else in the audience.

Good evening.

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

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Dar Bordell. I'm at 183 Green's Hall Road. Looking at the map up there, my property has more frontage to any of this proposed construction than any other property. I'm just on the right hand corner above where that arm sticks out to the right. I guess there's a proposed retention pond that's going right there. I have a problem with that and the fact that right now I do get water that goes through there. There's a drainage that goes through the back of the property and then it runs to a dry creek that's on the other side of my property. So if that retention pond, you know, if something were to happen to it, well, my property is directly affected. it says that on the proposal that that arm sticking out there is the lowest property, lowest point of the property. That's why that retention ponds there. My property is even lower than that. So it, if there were an issue with it, my property is affected. Um, Also, I worry about the runoff water that's coming out of there. Right now, all that runoff that's coming through there and coming through the back of my property is just water. It's got plenty of time to filter through the grass, the trees, the roots, and all that. And then if we put a retention pond there, so now we're catching runoff water. We're getting waste from vehicles. We're getting garbage waste that's being attracted. And then what's that going to attract in the form of bugs and insects? So that right there affects me. So I'm very concerned at what that's doing to it. Talked about the change of the rezoning there. It doesn't move back any further away from my house. It stays exactly the same. It did move away from the people that's on Eagle Point, which was nice of them to do, but it does not change the distance that it's coming back away from my house. So therefore, I'm also against it for that as well. So far, I've watched a couple of the videos of the council meetings, and I have not heard one person come up here and talk positively about it besides the developer. So I think if we listen to the residents, then we're all opposed to this. I haven't heard anybody say that they're opposed. There was a couple of people that were opposed to building anything there, which I know is not feasible. But keeping it R1A with single unit homes would be the only suitable alternative, I feel. But going to these multi-unit properties, we're affecting not only possibly my health and my health and my family, and possibly the health of the people and the safety around us as well. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, I will close the public portion of this. And counsel, any input? Counsel with bills?

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

Thank you. Councilman Curran.

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

Yeah, so typically you, for any development, you're going to want to find the lowest point, right? And yeah, I totally understand his concern. What I will say to that is two things. One, there are very... VERY STRICT ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ON HOW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE STORM WATER PONDS ARE BUILT THAT ARE INSPECTED, NOT JUST WHEN IT'S BUILT, BUT THROUGH HOA DOCUMENTS, DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, THERE ARE INSPECTIONS THAT ARE ROUTINELY CHECKING THIS. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT HOA DOCUMENTS THAT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY BY EITHER YOU KNOW PAID UP FRONT LIKE BE SET ASIDE OR ANY FIXING TO THE STORMWATER POND SO THAT IS UM OBVIOUSLY THINGS HAPPEN RIGHT BUT THAT'S THAT THAT'S THE INTENT IS THAT THERE IS MONEY THERE'S INSPECTIONS SO THAT NOTHING LIKE A YOU KNOW A FAILING OF THE STORMWATER POND WOULD OCCUR NOW IN TERMS OF THINGS WE COULD DO I think we will have extra topsoil. We could absolutely put extra mounding on the north side. We can put in some trees, some plantings to help with that. That's absolutely something that we'd be willing to do. Again, I'm happy to meet with the neighbor afterwards, but we can come up with some ideas to help mitigate that. But I will say I don't think that the location can change. It's just going to be – that is, unfortunately, just the lowest point for our site.

Thank you.

And just in general, the law requires that the drainage and runoff – BE THERE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. SO THIS IS MORE THAN LIKELY, MR. SELF SAYS THIS I THINK AT EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MORE THAN LIKELY WILL HELP WITH ANY RUNOFF ISSUES THAT THERE HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA.

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

Well, I encourage you to work with a homeowner there and hear his concerns and see what can be done to alleviate that as much as you can.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

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

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

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.

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

WE HAD 50 OR 60 PEOPLE AT THE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, THE FIRST ONE, AND 30 OR SO AT THE SECOND ONE. NOT A WHOLE LOT OF WRITTEN INPUT. ALL THAT'S THE APPENDIX. IT'S WITHIN THAT YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE LAND USE PLAN ITSELF. Some written input, but not a whole lot when we got to the actual legislative part taken through Planning Commission and City Council.

My point is that a lot of prior proper planning goes into defining what we want our city to look like. and the citizens get input throughout the process. And whenever we have a development or an infrastructure improvement that butts up against developed areas, there's natural conflict, which we try to anticipate in those plans and do what's best for the greater good of the community FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE INPUT THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, ALL OF THE PUBLIC HERE, AND I KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TONIGHT. BUT IT'S THAT BIGGER PICTURE THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO, AS COUNCIL AND THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COMMUNITY, NEED TO KEEP IN MIND. AND SO LAST TIME, BEFORE THIS ISSUE WAS TABLED, WE HEARD A TON OF INPUT ABOUT setbacks and buffer zones and quite frankly i really want to commend the developer for listening as as much as they did because when i got the new packet i was pleasantly surprised at the amount of area that they were going to dedicate compared to other areas in our community that have such a THE SAME TYPE OF SCENARIO. SURE. AND OTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN AND KIND OF BUTTED DIRECTLY UP TO OTHERS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I think the plan has done a good job at incorporating the intent of the land use plan and the demands of the residents and the needs of the developer. And so I think we're going to get a really good development here despite its impact on ON A FEW. AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE MR. MORMON COME UP AND EXPLAIN DETENTION PONDS AND RUNOFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT I THINK WE'VE KIND OF BEAT THAT HORSE. I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS. SO, MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

Thank you very much. I want to commend the developer for working with us. When we closed the last time, it said that you would work with us. And that's why we delayed it, so that you have the opportunity. And I think we addressed a lot of the needs and concerns. This is the first reading. What we do for here is we would take a vote and move it to a second reading. And at this point, I guess I'll entertain a motion.

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

Second.

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

I might have to get them.

I'm glad you remembered them, honey.

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

I'll let people...

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

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

Any else from staff?

No.

Council?

Yes, Your Honor, I move 26-16.

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

Ordinance 26-17, an ordinance by the Beaver Creek City Council authorizing the special assessments to property owners for the 2025 sidewalk repair program pursuant to Ohio Revised Code sections 729.09. Anything else from staff?

Nope. Council?

Motion to approve ordinance 26-17. Second.

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

Ordinance 26-18, to approve supplemental appropriations and certification for fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2026, and to amend ordinance 25-26, 26-09, and 26-13.

Mr. Graham, haven't seen you for a while.

Have a few budget adjustments to present to you this evening. The first item is a result of a donation to our senior center, and there was a donation received for $30,000 to replace the chairs in the big room, but DOES THAT ROOM HAVE A SPECIFIC NAME? NO, OKAY. BUT THAT MONEY WAS DONATED, SO WE'RE ASKING THAT THE MONEY BE CERTIFIED SO THAT IT CAN BE AND APPROPRIATED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE USE OF THAT DONATION AND GET THOSE CHAIRS REPLACED IN THAT ROOM. THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE PURCHASE OF TWO VANS FOR THE SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF OHIO AND ALSO FROM THE GREEN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING. THE COUNCIL ON AGING PORTION OF THIS HAD BEEN BUDGETED EARLIER. THIS IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING IN TWO SEPARATE FUNDS, THE PARK LEVY FUND AND THE SENIOR TRUST FUND, SENIOR CITIZEN TRUST FUND. AND SO WITHIN THE PARK LEVY FUND, WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT STATE PORTION TO BE BOTH CERTIFIED AND APPROPRIATED. WITHIN THE SENIOR TRUST FUND, WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF DONATIONS IN ORDER TO HELP US PURCHASE THESE VANS, AND SO WE'RE ASKING THAT A PORTION OF THAT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 2026 BUDGET, BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY TO BE APPROPRIATED AND CERTIFIED SO THAT WE CAN PURCHASE BOTH OF THOSE VEHICLES. THE THIRD ITEM, LAST YEAR WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT COUNCIL TRANSFER MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE ARPA FUND. sure aware the arpa fund was a federal grant that we were able to utilize to do a number of projects a lot of infrastructure and storm water projects in addition to some of our police projects and other infrastructure items related to the city WHEN WE TRANSFERRED THAT MONEY, THERE WAS A CONTRACT AND AN INCUMBRANCE OUT THERE RELATED TO THAT CONTRACT. WELL, THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY CAME IN UNDER THE BUDGETED AMOUNT. SO IT ENDS UP WE TRANSFERRED 10,000 ROUGHLY MORE THAN WHAT WAS NEEDED BASED ON THOSE SAVINGS. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE AUTHORITY TO APPROPRIATE A TRANSFER OUT INTO THE ARPA FUND SO THAT THE GENERAL FUND CAN RECLAIM THE MONEY THAT IT HAD SENT TO THE ARPA FUND PREVIOUSLY. THERE WAS NO MATCHING REQUIREMENT. THIS WAS JUST AN ACCOUNTING FUNCTION THAT IT WAS EASIER TO MOVE THE MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE ARPA FUND THAN TO MOVE THE EXPENDITURES FROM THE ARPA FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND. ITEM 4. So at one point, we had some assessments on Dayton Xenia Fairfield Road for that streetscape project. And those assessments included two components, the lighting component and the actual improvement component. And debt was issued related to that project. THE DEBT WAS RETIRED IN 2021. HOWEVER, THE CITY HAS CONTINUED TO POST THE REVENUE FROM THOSE ASSESSMENTS TO THAT DEBT SERVICE FUND WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED TO THE LIGHTING PORTION, THE LIGHTING ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE GENERAL FUND. SO WE'RE JUST SEEKING APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE THAT TRANSFER OUT OF THE DEBT SERVICE AND INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND THEN FINALLY THIS ONE IS COMPLETELY ON ME. WITHIN THE 2026 BUDGET, COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS ARE BUDGETED, ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT HEAD. LESSON LEARNED. I WON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE IN 27. BUT SO NONE OF THE COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS THAT WERE PLANNED FOR 2026 WERE INCLUDED IN THAT BUDGET. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP OUR COMPUTERS FOR AS LONG AS WE CAN, BUT THE SOFTWARE AND THE INTERWORKINGS MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU UPDATE THEM PERIODICALLY JUST FOR CYBER PROTECTION AND MAKING SURE YOU'RE RUNNING THE LATEST SOFTWARE SO THAT THEY CAN BE UPDATED. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC INPUT TO ADDRESS ANY OF THAT. IF YOU'D LIKE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. Seeing none, I will close the public portion. Council, any input? Questions for Mr. Graham?

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

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

BUT, I MEAN, THAT'S THE LICENSING FEES. THAT'S EVERYTHING ALL IN. CORRECT.

this is a single reading so could I have a motion and motion to approve ordinance 26 to 18 second I have a motion and a second to approve ordinance 26-18 to have a roll call please yes yes yes Next up is Resolution 26-28. Good evening, Mayor.

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

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

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

dissolve that pace and any future projects can go through the uh the city-wide pace that we have on the bucks thank you very much any input council here on our move uh 2628 to approve approval second i have a motion and a second to approve resolution 26-28 all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed Resolution 26-29.

Resolution 26-29, a resolution to reaffirm a new original of the city official zoning map.

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

LOOKS LIKE THE CODE OF MANY COLORS UP THERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, ZONING MAPS CAN BE A SALAD OF COLORS.

Your honor, I move to approve 2629.

Second. I have a motion and a second to approve resolution 26-29. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Next up is appeal A26-2.

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

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

Thank you. Do we have an applicant?

Yes. Good evening, Your Honor, members of council. My name is Mike Sander. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for this appeal, Birch Hill. AND JOSH, I APPRECIATE THAT. I DON'T THINK I'LL HAVE ANY ISSUE. BUT IF YOU SEE ME RUNNING LONGER THAN I SHOULD, PLEASE JUST GIVE ME A HIGH SIGN. SO PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS APPEAL. THE CHARGE BEFORE YOU IS TO SEE IF THE DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD UNDER 158 OF YOUR CODE. AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, SUBSTANTIAL, AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE. AND I'M SURE YOUR COUNCIL WILL GIVE YOU GUIDANCE ON THOSE TERMS, BUT THOSE DO HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME WEIGHT. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROBATIVE EVIDENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD GO TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TEND TO PROVE OR DISPROVE IT. So having said that, I'd like to start with the question, which here was, will the proposed use, which again was as an apartment slash hotel complex, have a substantial or material detrimental effect on the surrounding properties? So the question is, will the proposed use not be operation but will the proposed use as an apartment slash hotel have a substantial impact on the surrounding properties so first thing and it's in your packet is the zoning map that shows the surrounding properties and i think it's worth noting that the surrounding property to the south is 675 TO THE EAST IS A STORAGE FACILITY. TO THE NORTH IS A CONSTRUCTION FACILITY. AND TO THE WEST IS, I BELIEVE, A SYNERGY FACILITY OR SOME TYPE OF DEFENSE CONTRACT OR OPERATION. SO 75% OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AROUND THIS PARTICULAR property isn't anything that's really actively being used. There was no public comment in opposition to this proposal before the Planning Commission. The testimony before the Planning Commission by Mr. Patel, the owner, was that he operates several of these facilities around the country and that they fulfill a real and substantial need that has only increased since COVID for housing. And so There was no testimony that there was any issue of access. There was no testimony that there was any issue of congestion or anything pertaining to that use, that proposed use, again, keeping the focus there. And then, while well-intentioned, I think the discussion got a little sidetracked and went down a rabbit hole in terms of looking at what was presented to be a disproportional number of police calls. And I think it's important to focus that those calls themselves are just that their records of calls. And I don't even know that that data is helpful in this council's analysis of whether the use using some of the hotel as an apartment has a substantial or detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. People can get police calls regardless of what kind of use the property is being put to. and there was no testimony before Planning Commission as to who those calls related to. And so let me say that again because that's pretty significant. We don't know if those were tenants, residents, by residents I would say someone residing in an extended stay, or someone who was simply a typical transient hotel visitor. All the evidence indicated was that there was historically more calls to Burch Hill than some of the other hotels in the city. But that's not apples to apples. First of all, for a conditional use application, you're looking at a proposed use. You're looking prospectively. You're looking forward. This case was an anomaly where there was this historical data that was used and considered. You don't have that when you're typically evaluating a proposed conditional use. LOOKING AT THE USE AND HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY A DIFFERENT BETWEEN AN APARTMENT, A HOTEL, OR AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL? AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THAT IN THE RECORD. AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS, THE CALLS WERE THEN DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I NOTED IT WAS AT PAGE 5, AS CRIME LEVELS. WELL, AGAIN, THOSE CALLS AREN'T CRIME LEVELS. THOSE ARE CALLS. You call the police, and that's all that the exhibits before the council indicate is that there were certain calls. Some of them were hang-ups. That doesn't indicate crime. And it's, I think, a little dangerous to make that leap when you're supposed to be looking at substantial probative evidence as to how the use will impact the surrounding properties. for example there was no testimony that any increased calls at this hotel would preclude police from responding to the storage facility that could have theoretically been an example of how the use might affect surrounding properties but there was none of that It's also worth noting that in response to that data, Mr. Patel made the statement that his facility operates at about an 83% occupancy. Typical hotels operate at a 43% occupancy. So again, that's not apples to apples. I can tell you I'm downtown in the Stratocash Tower. We've had a variety of calls that you all have probably read about in the news. Water leaks, electrical fires, transformers blowing. There have probably been zero calls for the office tower across the street, the Meade Tower. But I can tell you the Meade Tower is empty. So that's not apples and apples. These facts then I think were, again, NOT SAYING ANYTHING WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE, BUT PERHAPS OVERSTATED IN THE POWERPOINT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS A REHEARING OF A DECEMBER APPLICATION. AND AT PAGE 10 OF THE POWERPOINT, Planning Commission was told that the city's position was that even with the 2025 decline because there have been significant improvements in these crime calls or police report calls The hybrid model and the new hotel licensing ordinance Birch Hill remains an outlier with 44% higher dispatch calls That's not accurate. That can't be accurate. If you look at the data in the report, the data stopped at 2025. The city didn't provide any data to Planning Commission that was 2026. Your hotel licensing ordinance didn't go into effect until March of this year, and the hybrid proposal that my client made was part of the application that was just submitted in May. So you cannot state that even with those steps in place, There was no reduction. The evidence that my client presented, which was exhibit one and exhibit two, SHOWED IN FACT THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CALLS. AGAIN, EVEN ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THESE CALLS AS BEING SOMEWHAT INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING. AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ON EXHIBIT TWO THAT MY CLIENT SUBMITTED, THIS WAS A REPORT THAT MY CLIENTS OBTAINED AT A REQUEST TO THE CITY. AND THESE INCLUDE ALL PATROLS AND BUSINESS CHECKS. The staff report indicated, and it was testified to at the Planning Commission, that those are not things that should be included. You will note in Exhibits A and B that those calls are scrubbed. Those are removed because no one should be penalized for the police doing what they're supposed to do and go on patrol. When you look at actual responses, there's only about nine on Exhibit 2 that would arguably qualify as a call. So you're talking about three a month. You're talking about three a month. And there's absolutely no way to tell whether any of these would have been related to a hotel, motel, extended stay, or apartment complex use. So YOU THEN GET INTO THE PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHERE THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONING, BOTH OF MY CLIENT AND STAFF, ABOUT THE DATA. AND I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE, AGAIN, WITHOUT CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS ON ANYONE INTENT, REALLY REFLECT MORE OF A BIAS TOWARDS THE CLIENTEL THAN THE USE. AND THE USE IS WHAT'S BEFORE THIS BOARD TO SEE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE. One of the members at page nine had talked about a perception relating to the defense contract business next door in terms of people coming and going and what that perception might be. Mr. Fountain had questioned the lifestyle of the tenants. These are not substantial probative facts that indicate how an apartment use is going to substantially or materially affect surrounding properties. I think that, and I'll quote her because it was not my line, but it was Miss Palumbo who you know, understood the assignment to quote some of my younger kids. She said she did not see evidence where the apartment hotel portion is causing the police disturbance versus the extended stay portion because they can't distinguish between the two. She did not feel that was enough to deny the application. And that's spot on. That's spot on. every other planning commission member who gave a basis for their decision simply restated the code. It'd be like if your kid asked you what color is the sky and you said blue, and they said why, they said blue. They just said there's a substantial impact on the surrounding properties. And then when they went back through and tried to elaborate, they mentioned things like city resources and citizen welfare. neither of those two things are a criteria in 158. those elements are not even stated you can't find substantial probative evidence on factors that you're not supposed to be evaluating so i wanted to highlight those portions of the record that are before this council to review and i'm sure the council has reviewed and will review these materials but again IF ALL WE'VE GOT IS A CHRONIC SERVICE CALL HISTORY FOR SOMETHING THAT WASN'T EVEN ASSESSED IN TERMS OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH NO CORRELATION OR MENTION TO HOW IT'S DETRIMENTALLY IMPACTING ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, I THINK YOU MUST REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AT LEAST REMAND THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE FOR ME. Probably after the public hearing. Thank you.

Staff?

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. AS THE COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FROM THEIR JUNE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE PRESENTATION THAT I ACTUALLY GAVE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO I WANTED TO GO THROUGH THAT. THE PROPERTY IS IN NORTHERN BEAVER CREEK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLONEL GLEN HIGHWAY NORTH OF 675. TO THE WEST IS AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. TO THE NORTH IS A CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, KIND OF CONSTRUCTION YARD DEVELOPMENT. TO THE SOUTH IS 675, AND TO THE EAST IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. IT'S IN THE TOWN. IT'S A SMALL LITTLE ISLAND OF TOWNSHIP ON A CORPORATED AREA, WHICH IS A STORAGE FACILITY. ON SITE, THERE'S A THREE-STORY, 102-ROOM HOTEL. THEY'VE GOT 106 PARKING SPACES. 82% OF THE EXISTING SITE IS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND OUR PUD, OR DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES IN STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH THIS IS A B3 ZONING DISTRICT, ONLY ALLOWS UP TO 75% IMPERVIOUS. SO THE BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS OR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SITE. AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED B3. JUST A LITTLE HISTORY OF THE SITE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER OF 25 DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN APARTMENT HOTEL. CITY COUNCIL UPHELD IT IN FEBRUARY. THERE WERE NO NEW SUBSTANTIAL FACTS INTRODUCED FROM THE THE 2025-26 CASE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT INSTEAD OF A FULL-ON APARTMENT HOTEL, IT WOULD BE AN APARTMENT HOTEL SLASH HOTEL HYBRID WITH A SLIDING SCALE OF THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT ROOMS VERSUS HOTEL ROOMS. IN THAT PROPOSAL, AS THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS INCREASED, THEN THE NUMBER OF OVERALL UNITS WOULD DECREASE BECAUSE OF THE PARKING FOR APARTMENT HOTELS. THEY NEED MORE PARKING FOR APARTMENT HOTEL PER UNIT THAN THEY DO FOR A HOTEL OR EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ROOM PER UNIT. WE DID UPDATE THE DISPATCH CALLS UPDATED THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2025. AND WE DO AGREE THAT THE NUMBER OF CALLS TO BURCH HILL HAS DECREASED PERCENTAGE-WISE AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER HOTELS OVER THE YEARS. I MEAN, IT WAS MORE SO THAN IF YOU LOOK IN 2022, 182 VERSUS 141 FOR ALL THE OTHERS COMBINED. THEY WERE WELL OVER THE OTHERS COMBINED. BUT IN 2025, THAT DID DECREASE WHERE THEY'RE NOT EVEN OR CLOSE TO HALF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THE OTHER HOTELS PROVIDED. SO WE AGREE THAT THERE IS A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CALLS BASED ON RELATIVE TO THE OTHER HOTELS IN THE CITY. CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRE THAT THEY MEET ALL THE FINDINGS WITHIN 158, 171, C4, ONE THAT IT IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND THAT'S BEEN SATISFIED. IT'S A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THAT THERE BE NO SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT. I'M SURE THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR CAN EXPLAIN THOSE LEGAL TERMS TO YOU AS I'M FINISHED HERE. BUT OUR ANALYSIS STATED WHILE THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE, THEY STILL REPRESENT, THEY STILL ARE AN OUTLIER IN THE NUMBER OF police calls to hotels within the city. They represent 44% of all the hotel-related dispatch calls in 2025. So the one hotel out of all of them had 44% of all the calls. IN THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCOMMODATION REQUIREMENT. WE DIDN'T ANALYZE THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BARRIER. THEY'RE ON A ROAD. SO THAT WASN'T AN ISSUE. AND SO WE ACTUALLY ASKED THAT IT'S BEEN SATISFIED WITH THEIR REQUEST. DID MENTION THE NEW HOTEL LICENSING. AS THE COUNCIL FOR THE AFRICAN STATED, OUR DATA DID STOP IN 2025. THE HOTEL LICENSING DIDN'T COME IN EFFECT UNTIL 2026, SO THERE'S NO REAL CORRELATION BETWEEN THAT DATA. WE DID GIVE PLANNING COMMISSION THREE OPTIONS, ONE THAT THEY DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ONE THEY APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS, AND THEN ONE THEY APPROVE IT AS REQUESTED. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATED AND AT THE MEETING IT WAS VOTED THREE TO ONE TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. THERE WAS THE APPLICANT DID PRESENT ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE AND THE CITY PRODUCED OR I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT PRODUCED TWO AND THE CITY PRODUCED ONE. AND THOSE ARE ALL IN YOUR PACKETS IN THE MINUTES FOR YOUR REVIEW. um so staff still stands by its recommendation that this hotel is a outlier in terms of the number of dispatch calls for While they are decreasing relative to the other hotels. They still are represent 44% of all the dispatch calls to hotels in in 2025 So based on that we felt that it was a substantial and detrimental effect and didn't satisfy condition the second condition of 158 171 Thank you very much

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

Mr. Sander, thank you for presenting the information. this issue has been going on for some time at uh at the hotel and obviously been documented by our police department for for a long time as well as other hotels while i commend the the staff at the hotel for um working to reduce the number of calls, it kind of reminds me of whether if the police tell me I'm going to get a speeding ticket for continuing to go too fast, I'm going to slow down. the the question I had for you is you said you had scrubbed you had scrubbed some of the police reports to police to take out some of the what would you say routine calls sure yeah my client did not their report exhibit

EXHIBIT 2 HAS ALL CALLS. THE CITY REPORT, WHICH WAS EXHIBIT A, HAS SCRUBBED THAT. SO JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TWO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SEE EXHIBIT 2 TALKS ABOUT A BUSINESS CHECK OR AN EXTRA PATOLE. THOSE KIND OF CALLS ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN EXHIBIT A. THOSE WERE ALL REMOVED BECAUSE THEY WERE

uniform universal i guess you would say that answers your question it does it does so my question then is for randy um were those calls analyzed and and scrubbed for other hotels as well when you looked at the data i mean did you take out the routine calls yeah when i uh uh in exhibit a in your packet that was

Those are dispatch calls for all the hotels from January of 2022 through December of 2025. And that shows only dispatch for each hotel. So when we say scrubbed, I assume you mean taking out officer-initiated. Yeah, that's what I mean. And this list is only the dispatch calls. And the numbers that were provided were the dispatch calls.

And on that list, the Birch Hill Extended Stay versus the one right below it, Birch Hill Suites, those are different?

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

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

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

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

I'm trying to make sure how I can.

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

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

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

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

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

I requested FROM THE POLICE, JUST THIS PROPERTY. OH, ALL HOTEL PROPERTIES SPECIFICALLY. OKAY. PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT.

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

Pardon? I think it was in one of the earlier police reports.

Now, whether that's a correlation or not, I don't know. But it is an impact. I think that's all I have for now. Thank you.

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

well um i would agree with mr bales about kind of um his argument when it comes to looking forward i mean kind of past behavior predicts future action um and i i i find it really hard to see this even with the improvement i think we're still looking at what like four times the calls of all the other hotels combined. I mean, it's still significant. So, yeah, I mean, I think the efforts to improve are admirable. I also think they were late in coming. Kind of like you were saying, right? If you know you're kind of about to get caught, you know, not taking care of business, then you're going to start taking care of business and hope for the best. And I don't find that admirable. So I guess that's kind of where I'm sitting. So I'll pause for now.

Thank you. Councilor Kern. I wanted to ask a question to the councilor here. Have you been to the hotel? I have not been to the hotel.

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

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

mr kerr and i appreciate those comments but once again i just want to focus council on we have to either confirm i understand reverse or modify based upon the evidence that was submitted at the planning commission so we can't take into consideration things that were not considered previously i have another question um for randy please

So we recently passed the new kind of licensing qualifications for hotels, right? And there is a threshold of kind of offenses, right, that kind of triggers. Where would Birch Hill fall if, say, they made it through this process and now we're subjected to this new policy? Would it be immediately triggered? Would they be past the threshold already?

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

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

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

Okay, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Second.

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

So do I need to modify my motion?

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

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

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

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

yes yes yes but my confirmation is just to say I encourage the owner I'd really think they ought to put some time in and security

get a security firm out there. I realize that's not what is the main point here, but it's been the agitation that brought about some of the concerns in the Planning Commission, and I would really hope that that would be communicated back, and that we don't get back into a problem. So I confirm yes, Your Honor. Yes.

Motion carries.

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