Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. It's six. Well, the clock says seven, but it's six o'clock. They haven't fixed our clock yet. So, I will call the uh uh November meeting of the Beaver Creek City Planning Commission officially to order. And if you would read the role, please ma'am. Mr. Fountain here. Mr. Jones here. Mr. Meyer here. Miss Palumbo here. Mr. Self here. U agenda. Um, are we good on the agenda, staff? Everything's good. Okay. Uh, I need a motion to approve the agenda. I move to approve the agenda as published. Second up. And I have a second. We'll do that by general consensus. Thank you very much.

Minutes from October. Uh, any additions, corrections, changes, praises to uh Melissa for her usual good job. Yeah. Nor did she do it. So, how could there possibly be a correction or amendment? So, okay. I move we accept the minutes as published. Okay, Mr. Chad, second and I have a second and we'll do that by general consensus. Got it. Uh, okay. This evening we have two public hearings, a decision item and a subdivision. So, without further ado, let's uh get going with the first public hearing.

This is case number PUD06-6. It's an amendment of 10 of 25. On an application filed by Pod Design, 100 North Woods Boulevard, Sweet A, Columbus, Ohio 43235. The applicant request approval to amend PUD06-6 to allow the maximum density for a part of the residential portion to increase from three dwelling units an acre to six dwelling units an acre. The property is located on the south side of Colonel Glenn Highway and west of I 675. Further described as book one, page three, part of parcel two on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh just so you will know uh the way we do our public hearings here. Uh first of all we have a presentation by the applicant. Then we have a presentation by our staff. Uh at that point I will open the floor to any input from folks who are here. I'd ask you to limit yourself to three minutes if you would. Uh once uh that's all done, we'll see if there's any written input. that point I'll close the public hearing and we will discuss it and uh hopefully come to a decision. So I presume we have someone here from the uh applicant. Uh good evening members of the commission. My name is Todd Foley. I'm with Pod Design. And I'm here on uh behalf of my client and uh also the property owner uh Jason Woodard here to discuss our request to as mentioned to amend the current PUD that's in place uh over the property uh that is on Mission Point Boulevard. Um that request is to uh increase the density uh to six dwellings the acre from what was previously approved uh at three to the acre so that my client a national builder who constructs singlestory attached uh apartments that have garages attached um market rate uh high quality um product uh to bring that to the the city of of Beaver Creek. they've been interested in trying to become a part of this community for a while and this opportunity presented itself. Um, and so we're here to to talk u about that, answer any questions that everyone might have. Um we're fully aware of what exists today uh on the project in the form of of the approved uh previous PUD and the steps that the city has taken to

um have that project mixeduse project that you know goes um north all the way up uh to Colonel Glenn all the way and south beyond our project. Um we're focusing on uh just approximately 31 acres gross uh acreage of that project. We're not here requesting anything that um affects the entire PUD that's uh previously approved. Um and as a part of our project as our map uh that was included with the presentation showed um we'll be also responsible for extending a portion of Mission Point Boulevard south. Um there's kind of two parcels uh that we're looking at um that will contain uh the residential product that I I mentioned. Um and so that's another positive with this is that we're going to get the city's going to get some additional infrastructure improvement that hopefully will continue to help spur development with this project as it was intended um from the very beginning. Um, I am going to pivot just slightly and ask the property owner to come up as well just to add some um characteristics and and thoughts from his perspective knowing that I believe you're familiar with with Jason and and um some of the work that he's been focusing on and then I'll circle back. We'll wrap it up and go from there.

Good evening members of the commission. Jason Woodard. Good to see you again. Um yeah, as the land owner uh just wanted to indicate our support for uh this change. It is consistent with the uses that were originally proposed just you know increasing the density but you know that original uh PD was approved approaching 20 years uh now. So you know things have changed a little bit uh but we feel that you know it'll be a great addition to what we're doing with the rest of the site. Uh will be complimentary to you know our efforts and I think will help spur uh the pace of that development. And so we're excited to have them. We feel fortunate to have a, you know, national developer with a great reputation that will do a high quality project that I ultimately will be, you know, additive to our site and I believe the be community as a whole.

Thank you. Thank you.

So just a few other uh comments here and then I'll um wrap this up. I mean, I think as the original PUD um was uh thought about, you know, this is a a great transitional uses type of um rental housing. We have, you know, single family to the west. And as we start to think about what makes up a good mixeduse kind of development with, you know, office uses and retail and all the things that were envisioned as a part of the original PUD, um these are market rate, um you know, high quality. So, these are not um a rental product that's um has any kind of subsidy or or low income. This is this particular developer focuses on market rate uh type of development um to the tune of you can anticipate rents of $2,000 a month per per unit. These are one bedrooms, two bedroom, three bedrooms. Every unit has an attached garage. So, these are um not when we when we talk about multifamily or apartments, the um they're not necessarily what you may think about in the traditional sense of going vertical. These are all single stories. So, we feel it's very appropriate um even with the request for the increase in density to to stay within the uh intent and um the goal of the original PUD. Um along that same lines, things like setbacks and buffering and all the things that were considered as a part of the PUD, we're not requesting to modify those in any way. We're able to work within that framework. So, um, you know, setbacks to the west, um, will be adhered to. Um, there's an existing stream that comes behind the office building and heads south. We're going to be preserving that, working around that area with even with the extension of Mission Point. Um, there's some easements that kind of bifocate the site right through the area that we're focusing on that, um, will present some unique challenges for whatever we're to develop there. we think we're a good use to to help navigate that area as well. Um, you

know, it's it's going to help with providing housing for the city um and also with the diversity of the type of housing that exists in the city. And um so um overall the staff report you're going to hear, we're in agreeance with all those comments. we don't have any um retort to those in any way and um definitely happy to answer any questions here when that time's appropriate, but we really appreciate the opportunity to be here and excited to potentially try to move forward. So, thank you. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. My name is Colin Carville. I'm the city planner for the city of Beaver Creek. Um once again we are here for the uh this requested amendment for the uh Mission Point uh residential portion of this PUD. Um it's PUD06-6. Um amendment 1025. Um once again the uh the proposal here is uh to increase that density um that was laid out for three dwelling units an acre um to six dwelling units an acre um for a portion of this residential area. just to get our bearings here. Um so the uh southern star, this is a map of kind of the western part of uh of Beaver Creek. Um that uh star at the bottom of your screen there is where we're at this evening. Um Mission Point, the PUB uh Z06-6 is in that uh northwestern star um at at the top of the screen there. Um this is just a a rough idea of who was all notified. Uh we notified all property owners within 500 uh square feet of the parcel. So um obviously it kind of crosses uh jurisdictions here into Riverside to the west um and and to the north and and south south and uh it's all highway to the east. So no one on the past the highway was notified because that was over 500 square feet. But that's just a general idea of of uh the radius of who was notified this evening. And once again, just going over that that summary uh request summary one more time. Um it's to increase that residential density from three dwelling units an acre to six dwelling units an acre. Um and it just applies to the portion of the residential um area of the overall development. Um here's a kind of a closeup of that PUD. Um so on on starting on the right side of the screen there um you can see it's it's called out that PUD in in kind of that uh that light blue and then there's just the aerial of the of the

GIS aerial of the of the PUD um with kind of that light blue borderline just so we kind of know where the uh area that encapsulates this whole PUD. Uh just going over the existing conditions um what was uh previously outlined. So this uh as mentioned it was uh previously approved on August 23rd 2007 uh almost coming up on 20 years now. The total sites plus or minus 134 acres. Um the majority is designated for office development. Um as it stands um there's currently 93,000 uh square feet of office uh space currently developed there. Um with an additional 137,000 that's uh that's been approved. Um hasn't broke ground yet, but it has been approved for that site. Um the approved land uses in the area 01 office um office research park, general research park. Um there's some provisions outlined for hotels and hospitals. Um retail use is consistent with our B3 zoning. Um and obviously that residential component that we'll get more into here this evening. Now, what was called out um in the uh original terms of the residential area within the PUD 0 uh 06-6 um it was up to 30 acres designated for residential use. Um once again, the current limit was three dwelling units which would give rise to approximately 90 units max. Um it's loc it was located in the southwest corner of the site. Um but it was de designed with the intent to be flexible um and may develop as residential or non-residential based on kind of market conditions. So let's jump into kind of what those market conditions are looking like. So obviously things change in 20 years. Um office demand has declined since 2007. Um that's a combination of the uh rise of remote hybrid hybrid work. um with sufficient uh office already. Uh there's

obviously some more developments going on on Colonel Glenn for office space. Um but obviously residential demand increase and the reason for that is we're running out of land. Um and there's also an appetite for more smaller uh maintenance friendly housing. Um, so we think that the the amendment um that's proposed here this evening uh it kind of current reflects those current market trends and uh it supports the the kind of the needs of and needs of our community and and kind of what we see as as planners as well. Uh so what we use for amendments and reszonings and things like that is our land use plan. Um our land use plan um this area was designated within VPA8. Um unfortunately it didn't give any really additional um guide guidance or in case of amendments. Um it really just kind of outlines what was approved um in the PUB um which gives staff a little flexibility here, but basically it calls out that was a mixeduse uh development um in proximity to Wright Pat Air Force Base. Um and it supports a variety of office, commercial, and residential uses. Um and it also outlines um the PD allowed up to 1.45 million square feet uh for total mixeduse development. I already kind of called out those additional statistics earlier on in my presentation. So looking at um the first context plan here. So that light blue is uh currently uh uh developed office space. Um the pink um in that northeast part of that uh image is uh proposed new office space that uh is technically already approved by planning commission. Um and then that yellow area to the south is uh kind of the area in discussion here this evening.

So the PUD amenment amendment will accomplish a few things. Um so it'll correct some inconsistencies within ordinance 07-01. Um it was my understanding that uh there was a lot of kind of changes that were made uh kind of on the fly by city city council uh during the approval of this ordinance. So some things were kind of lost in translation. For example, um in the concept plan that was approved. It only shows 15 acres of residential when it's uh in kind of the the text it calls out for 30 30 acres. Um so it'll clean up things like that. Um, and once again, it'll focus, uh, what they're proposing is focusing more on that singlestory apartment rentals, um, which will include an attached garage. Um, and it's designed to have that those maintenance-free lower impact housing. Um, that's kind of been voiced by our community um, in mind here. Uh while uh you know there there were some obviously good aspects of the PUD uh including that 50- foot landscape buffer to the west and south. Obviously the west is primarily where that residential component is uh in Riverside. Um so that will be unaffected and and maintained. Um so no changes in uh in that amendment to the uh PUD. It's just the density here. So, here's a side byside of the uh concept plan that was approved in 2007. Um, and then this would be the kind of the newly proposed concept plan. And I'll have a a blown up version of the 2025 plan on my next slide. Uh, but as you can see, there's uh kind of that that stretch of single family lowdensity housing uh to the southwest. I shouldn't say single family, it's up to three dwelling units an acre, but has the flexibility there. Um but then as you can see in the 2025 uh proposed concept plan and Randy did a wonderful job in

the staff report um in the little notation at the bottom there's a foot footnote there that kind of really outlined um the exact acreage changes to what would reflect um what's actually happening here in the in the concept plan. So he has the exact callouts there, but as you can see um on on the right there um just in that middle to kind of serve as that transitional uh density uh for residential um that's where that uh six dwelling units an acre would be uh would be allowed. Um and that that full southern um low density would remain at the three dwelling units an acre. So here's that blown up version. Uh this is just kind of turned on its head a little bit. um west far west of that would be on the northern side of the property and far east uh or your or the right side of the screen um is the southern end. So as you can see um that that southern end would still maintain uh that three dwelling units an acre um for that less dense uh residential properties. And it's already been referenced a couple times this evening, but as planners, um, we kind of look at these developments and, um, we were, uh, in favor of this higher density, uh, because it serves as a really good transition from, you know, office um, office dens or office uh, park um to a little more uh, you know, attached single family uh, rental properties to hope uh, hopefully in the near future u maybe some single family homes. homes um to the to the far south of the development. So, it's that nice gradual transition uh that we're looking for that we uh you know encourage as planners um which will minimize traffic, noise and and visual conflicts uh throughout the entire development. Um access and circulation um it'll be uh as already mentioned there will be an

extension from Mission Point Boulevard uh as as shown shown here. um there'll be kind of that continuation there and there's kind of we're going to stub that uh southern port part out to hopefully encourage more development um on frankly a a property that's um you know hasn't developed as quickly as as anticipated. So hopefully um this change would uh would kind of help spur some more development in in that area which which we're in favor of. Um and there at for this specific development um there will be no uh direct connection to the west neighborhood. Um obviously that may occur in future development but uh in what is being proposed um this evening um as far as a concept plan um there's no uh no proposed connection there. Um I can zoom out a little bit farther just to that doesn't capture it well. Well, I don't have a good slide for it, but um yeah, there's just not uh you can see kind of on that bottom southwest part of the screen here, there's an existing stub street that uh is not encapsulated by this envelopment here. Um one the only thing uh the slide that I did omit this evening that I that I forgot to include um is kind of the uh the outline of where we're at in this process. So, uh, this is the first stage of a pretty lengthy process for, uh, for kind of ultimate approval for this development. Um, we're going over obviously just this amendment to the density and and the concept plan this evening. Um, that will go on, uh, regardless of recommendation or unless, uh, it's tabled this evening. Um, it'll go on to our, uh, city council where they'll have another public hearing. Um, and then, uh, they'll have an additional meeting after that to to vote on the amendment. Then we're back here for the site plan uh which will go over kind of

the architectural develop uh architectural elevations um the uh the site plan layout itself where those uh homes will be kind of positioned on on the property um and kind of go into more detail here. So uh this is a very kind of surface level. um we do this intentionally just so um developers don't, you know, sink a lot of money into something that ultimately may not be approved. So, um that's kind of uh where we're at this evening. So, happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of this public hearing and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you. Guess got us really up to speed on that. Okay, public hearing time. Uh if there are folks here who wish to uh speak either in favor of, against, or simply have questions, don't be shy. Step right on up, give us your name and address and have at it.

Well, come you got to come up and talk to talk to the microphone and and introduce yourself. My name is Amy Clark. And you are from I live in Riverside. I live on Henden. Street number, please. 27. Thank you. I just It was hard to see on the I just was curious to to see it was hard to see from the It was kind of blurry. So, you're the question you're asking is I just I couldn't really see like where exactly it's proposed.

Okay. It's the It's the the amoeba that is outlined with the yellow with the yellow boxes. I just was trying to see like where I am in comparison to that. Okay. Well, that stubs you if you almost see that stub street right in the middle of the uh of the outlined amoeba. It's No, I'm sorry. It's to the left. That's the That's the street that's stubbed out. Okay. I didn't know if there was like a paper. I I can't make it out. So, do we have that Do we have that on paper that you can show her? Okay, good.

Fine. Thank you. Okay, now the eye chart is over. Um, other other comments, questions, etc. Please don't be shy. I knew I'd get somebody if I waved to gave around. Venice Donaldson, 272 Willist. Thank you. Um, so these will be apartments, correct? Single, not like double high, right?

Single story. That's what That's what they're telling us. You'll see more of of the specifics at the next public hearing, which will be the specific site plan. Okay. So, he spoke about a 50- foot buffer between this project and Riverside property. Correct. What about mature existing trees that run along? That's something that we look at at specific site plan, but we've been pretty good about that. Okay. Um, when do you think this project might get started? I know this is just the beginning, but I mean you guys have been doing this for years, so we'll ask the We'll ask uh the developer when it comes time for us to discuss this.

Okay. All right. Thank you. We've got your question noted. Thank you. Others, did we get any written input? Last chance. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and I will start on my right. No questions. Thank you. Okay, chairman.

So, I actually did have a question about the buffer because it says in the PUD it just is a 50ft buffer like it doesn't define what can happen in that buffer. Is that just a building? No building within 50 feet. Yeah. Yeah. And and we'll It's pretty loud. Um it's uh 50 foot no build zone. Um obviously we we kind of negotiate uh that landscape plan um at the site plan stage, but yeah, no no buildings within 50 foot 50 feet. So So we wouldn't need to put that into this this approval. I don't believe so.

Okay. That's all I have for you. Um I have one for the applicant though if you don't mind just addressing the timeline question.

Yeah. So um if we kind of fast forward to being approved through the all the necessary channels here, we would anticipate kind of that 12 month period of time. um from that approval and that's final engineering plans. It's permitting all that construction would start somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 months after that. Weather dependent kind of depends on where that falls but um and I think the ultimate um and and as was mentioned we're very early on this process. We're still evaluating the site plan and the design and all that. Um this would most likely be a singlephase project. You know, the construction of the road um and then construction of the both sides. This would not be something that would extend on, you know, for two, three, four years like it would be kind of a build and be done, which helps with kind of the low impact. And with this being single story product, the impact from a construct construction perspective is a little less intense than big office buildings and multi-story apartments, things like that. So,

thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Next uh question for staff.

Yes, sir. We'll probably get more into this at the specific site plan stage, but for runoff requirements, I'm assuming since since Riverside is is right on the border of this um potential development, same requirements that has to be contained. It can't it can't affect any any outside Correct. Yeah, it can't make their property conditions worse. Y Okay. Um, is there any concern at this point in time with the single in and out for office space, potential office space and um this this residential area on Colonel Glenn?

You know, that's a that's a great question. The ultimate kind of decider of that is is our fire department. Um, so I I think once he gets an idea of the layout, um, and how those homes sit and how that access is is determined, um, he'll kind of make that ultimate ruling. Um, if if Randy wants to speak on it, that's totally fine. But that'll be more at the specific site plan stage once he has eyes on how those houses sit. Sure. Okay. Um, I think that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I've got a number of questions. So, let's begin. Colin, as long as you're standing up there, can you quickly recap again? My apologies quicker. I could write it out. The sequence from today forward us to the council, then back to us, then back to council and so on. I want to make note of what we're here for today compared to future meetings.

Yeah. So, uh, today, uh, strictly looking at the the PUD itself and the language within that. So, we'll be uh kind of determining um if to make a det if we want to uh make that change to the to the density requirement as well as kind of the overall concept plan. Um and then uh that'll your recommendation will go on to uh to city council. Well, they'll have another public hearing uh very similar to to ours this evening. Um, and then it'll be a closed meeting, uh, or obviously not a public meeting, but they'll make the ultimate ruling at a at a following subsequent city council meeting. Um, and and that would, uh, kind of give give grace to the uh to the density change if it were to move forward in that in that regard. If it were to move forward in that regard, then it would go to the specific site plan stage where we go over the architecturals, um, things like that. Um that's one one reading here at planning commission and then one at

post. So going back to the then tonight um one of the issues that was requested by the applicant and you guys was the elimination of section 2 item to uh from the 2007 approval by the city council which stated the 30 acre limit for residential. And fortunately we got that in our materials. It was an August 23rd, 2007 meeting that the council approved section two item number two that limits it to 30 acres. So, is that what's asked to be removed by us tonight or by the next city council meeting? Uh, city council meeting. City council will make that up.

So, you're not asking us to comment even though the size of the residential development being proposed is greater than 30 acres. Um, so we we would have you uh the recommendation. Yeah, it it would be approval to to remove that and then um but it still goes to council since they're the ones that initially approved it anyway. Okay. Exactly. Thank you.

Um given that Thank you, Colin. That's all I had. So our council Lounsbury, I have a question for you. We've talked a lot about this tonight to Riverside. I'm familiar with the area and I've been there to the Riverside side and the Mission Point side both from when we approved the Mission Point way back a few months ago and then to the Riverside. What will we now or possibly the site plan area have the ability as the planning commission to really do that would govern the applicants might say approach to Riverside? I don't want to box Riverside in as a sister city or box uh the applicant in because of what we decide tonight. Uh specifically emergency accesses uh high multif family or single family development adjacent to an existing neighborhood not in our control. So our relationship to what we can do next to a city is is where I'm confused if anything.

So in ter I think there's multi-arts there. Yeah, it's all related to us being right next to Riverside and what can we do? Access points specific site plan would be a specific site plan issue um where we would get an opinion I think from fire about whether there was enough access and I'm sure they would consider both in and outs to getting in and out of Riverside and into our community. Um, second part of your question was our considerations towards what?

It basically says we're the planning commission. We make recommendations to our city council, but it all is at some point going to involve what our impact will be of our decisions on a neighboring city which abuts the site. we could make decisions that in in some ways possibly box in the city of Riverside or box in the applicant or both for what the eventual site plan will be. And I'd rather address it now than wait months down the road and the city of Riverside, wait a minute, we're not going to let you do any of that. I mean, Riverside can't stop us from doing stuff in Beaver Creek.

Correct. Um, so I guess I'm not following as to what we can do if if practical practically something that they they build there makes it so Riverside the people in Riverside don't want to build a property or do something next to it. That's that'll affect them, but that doesn't affect our decision here.

Well, a good part of this this great development and we've been involved with this for for months now. Uh, I'll just give a couple of quick examples because I'm familiar with the Riverside area. That's an extremely very narrow street, very old, small homes budding up to a middle school. It's only, you can't see it in that picture, but you can in one of the pictures we looked earlier. And I appreciate Mrs. uh Donaldson and Miss Clark who came up and mentioned it. uh Henden, the street where the arrow shows for the emergency access in the southern part of the that's an extremely narrow street with barely room for three cars and two cars are parking on each side and you have one car can barely make it down the middle and at the bottom of the screen of the picture is a middle school and I can tell having traversed the area in preparation for our discussion today the city of Riverside that whole left quadrant of the Riverside area is governed by right Pat housing the whole right is governed by streets with many closures already blocked off by fences they're all stubed streets and then you have the school in the middle I can see a lot of push back from riverside to us if we in any way infer here with a macro development macro development or in the site plan stage of agreeing to right up to the abupment which then gets into an ement issue along that edge as Miss Clark said so I'm wondering could we and should we as a planning commission start talking about things that abut or impact a neighboring city and it's it's an issue I've never dealt with because we've always dealt within Beaver Creek and I'm confused by what latitude we have.

So it sounds like you're concerned about the traffic in that area and traffic development easements the whole nation notion that it's abudding another city's perview and governance. So for traffic, whether this is inside the city, next to another city, crosses over into two cities, can never be considered as part of a decision in a a reasonzoning issue.

Specific site plan when we talk about ingress, egress, traffic becomes a topic that can be addressed. But if it's just to manage like a city street, are the city streets large enough in the city of Beaver Creek to handle the people who live in the city of Beaver Creek? that is not a zoning issue uh and not one that you can the Supreme Court's very clear cannot be considered as part of your decision in making a and there's nothing back to us the planning commission for the city council for a negative impact that we might create to a neighboring city's residents not when you're talking about tra once again or traffic there traffic within us even if it was just our own traffic we wouldn't be able to

could be traffic it could be landscaping it could be the the closeness of homes it's just another city issue and I've not had to face it. Maybe others here. legally there's nothing that that I mean cities try to work together and you don't want one community to be designed to look one way and the community across the street to look very different and I think both cities take that into consideration when they uh put in in developments because you you want it to be consistent and I think they're doing that in this case with that sort of a transitional period so that there isn't u high high density right next to low density um and so That's part of what why they're they're doing that is being good stewards and good neighbors.

Yeah, it'll definitely be improvement for for what we have. I just was not wanting to discuss or put us in the commission or the council and any possible negativity related to the city of Riverside and what they may feel towards their development. It's an extremely heavily focused right Pat area of single family multif family housing that entire lower quadrant with an extreme amount of closed streets and compact yards and street size being very small. And I I'm trying to anticipate now what could be coming for us and the council many months down the road.

I mean, I can't. So, there's political considerations that I would say are council considerations uh on being good neighbors and those type of things and getting along with communities. That's not part of the PUD process and determining what you guys are doing today. So, I don't think Thank you. the easements. I guess I'm having trouble imagining what issues could come up, but they'll be worked through. I mean, if there are easements, there are easements. You got to work with them.

Yeah. I didn't want to get too early into the game. We'll deal with that eventually. I just the whole notion of being adjacent to another city, a city's residential area is new to me and possibly for others here. And where do we stand legally as well as planning wise? I think it's you you take into consideration the same things you would as if this were in the middle of the city. I don't think it matters that it's adjacent to another city. The considerations you're supposed to take into account when making the determination.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarity. I do have one last question if I could. Going back to Colin or Randy, um, on the issues that we're talking about today compared to when we get to the site plan issue, the notion that the emergency access points were put on that one plan by somebody, either the applicant or yourselves, was that in any way part of the placement or is the emergency access points in that there's three of them, I believe. Oh. So you're talking about in the in the concept plan itself.

Yeah, that's that's nothing. In other words, uh the great for the the notion the applicant talked about that it's a buffer and stepping down. That's a great idea and I fully support that. But where you see in the upper right hand corner of the green area, the the middle where Henden Street is and obviously Mission Point uh entrance on the left, those were put by you folks or by the applicant or were they something governed by fire uh safety issues? I just wonder where they came from. I think those were incorporated in the in the 2007 concept plan. Um and and just for your awareness to uh this uh where that new uh low density um kind of blob in the in that southeastern part of this screen is that's owned by completely that's not owned by Mr. Woodard. Um it's uh it's owned by a completely different uh home uh property owner. So

that governing the upper right hand corner emergency access as well. Yeah, exactly. Y so we may see that a future meeting. Yes, correct. All right. Thank you, Colin. That's that's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me discuss that issue, sir. If I if if I missed your hand up while the public hearing was hearing was still on. My apologies. Come right on up here and ask your question. I don't want to I don't want to keep anybody short. And if you'd give us your name and address, please. Stacy Warner, 6039 Henden. Okay.

I've been here 35 years, and it's emergency access here. U this mayor come from Riverside and spoke to us about the property there eventually they're going to do something but he said that there's no way they're going to come through the road that I we live on you know and we live on the street my brother's stage four cancer and he had call a medic to tonight and the fire truck couldn't even come down the street they had to walk from the the corner to come down our street you know and they're wanting to put this big housing thing in there you know I understand you got to develop something you know but Um, you know, just the amount of houses that are going to be there, the access point, you know, I don't think I don't know. It's just a lot for that little area that we live in right there. I mean,

it'll be taken into consideration. We're not gonna we're not going to do anything that

exas exacerbates a situation. Okay, folks, my turn. Um, as long as we're talking about that emergency access while before we get off the subject, um, just we've had this situation before, not necessarily from city to city, but from one plat to another where the fire department really felt that they needed an emergency access. Uh so what it was was uh there was never a paved street put in, but there was like a bike path or a walking path. Uh because the kids that live in your neighborhood in Riverside are going to want to visit the kids that live in this apartment complex and vice versa. And they're going to be either cutting through people's backyards or if you give them an access then they'll walk down the bike path to get from one to the other. And that in a true emergency, think of a a tornado coming through and blocking access into your plant and the only way to get there is from the Mission Point side. So, it'll get worked out.

Right. But if it it it'll get worked out. Uh we're not gonna we're not going to do anything that exacerbates a an already uh difficult situation. Okay, a couple of other questions um for staff. Uh with the number of units that are being put in being more than we previously had, are the two existing accesses uh off of Colonel Glenn going to be sufficient for both the residential, the future residential, should it ever develop, and any additional um uh office space. Is that going to be sufficient for all of that? Our engineer Jeff Mormon will take a look at that the specific site plan stage. Um didn't have any red flags initially here on the proposal. Uh, and once again, just uh I don't mean to to speak uh for staff, but uh I know in the past where we've had an emergency access situation like this, we we figured it out so that it's not going to uh make a an already probable situation more difficult.

Yeah. Yeah, and I just want to reiterate too that um that connection um that gentleman is concerned about that's outside the scope of this project. So um that's a that's a separate land owner um what's what's being talked about this evening. Um does not have a southern boundary that would even come close to that that part of it.

Exactly. Okay. So it it won't be for the Riverside folks there on H. Hearnden. It isn't part of this application. So no don't worry about it right now. The green circle is not we're just and that was my other question just to just to make sure that I understand this. The the parcel that is outlined by the yellow boxes is what we're discussing tonight. Exactly right. The one outside by outlined by the green boxes is still three units to the acre and it is purely conceptual different person and uh is not under consideration tonight. Correct. Got it. Okay.

And if it were to ever become under consideration, everyone here would be notified the same way.

Exactly. Uh and the only other thing is um and I know this this came up uh just a foot stomp uh the um uh the no the no build zone and existing trees and so forth. We deal with that all the time. uh an existing boundaries and uh it's been staff staff has been very good about uh preserving as many trees as as possibly uh possibly done so that it um uh it and it's good for the developer too because he doesn't have to plant them. They're already there. Um so that's all I've got gentlemen. Um and our this staff member uh second helpings We all good?

Okay, then I guess I need a I guess I need a u a motion. Mike, just a quick thing I wanted to say. I'm just going to hand I'm going to pass around a legal pad that anyone in the audience can put their email on. I'd be happy to send over the staff report uh within the coming days here and and that will include these images here. So, great. Expect a legal pad coming around shortly.

Thanks. Great idea. Now, we uh if just out of just as a a quick point here, if you've ever wondered why the Meer store on Colonel Glenn is a reverse of all the other Meer stores in the area, uh that was because had it been built the other way around, all those loading docks would have been next to uh a condo complex on the Fairborn side, which is directly behind the Meyer store. And we persuaded Meyers to flip their store design uh so that the loading docks would not be loading and unloading at 4 am right next to existing condos. So we we we take good care of our neighbors and and they take good care of us. Okay. Now I need a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve POD uh 6-6 amendment 1025 uh with the attached seven conditions. Okay. Second that. And I have a second. And we will uh read the role, please. Ma'am, Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries. 50-0. And we'll be looking forward to that specific site plan. Okay. Second public hearing. PUD25-8, Club 27.

This is case number PC25-8, conditional use. An application filed by Troy Golf 2142 Lraange Road, Beaver Creek, Ohio 45431. The applicant requests conditional use approval to allow for a recreational facility located at 1261 North Fairfield Road. The property is further described as book five, page 5, parcel 93 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. And I have a feeling there's someone here who is going to make the presentation. That would be you. All right. Hello everyone. Uh Colin Carville, city planner. Um we are here uh for this case is a conditional use uh request uh for club 27. Um it is an indoor uh golf simulator. Um and we'll jump right into the into the presentation. I know the applicant is here this evening. Um, but I thought it would probably be best for me to just cover it. So, um, request is a a conditional use approval to occupy 1261 North Fairfield Road. Um, and, uh, for a recreational facility, uh, Club 27. Um, just getting our bearings here. Uh, it's right at that busy intersection at uh, Dayton Zen and North Fairfield there, right in the heart of our city. Um, that's that kind of eastern uh, star there, the right side of the screen. uh western side is the uh where we're at here this evening. Uh so the site and the existing conditions um it's once again we're familiar with the location. Um they're going to occupy an existing 1,550 ft uh commercial building. Um there are plus or minus 12 parking spaces adjoining uh the property. It's not specifically designated for that building. Um it's part of an overall PUB. Um, but uh the shared lot itself has plus or minus 137 spaces. Um, property has been vacant for several years. Um, I was kind of racking Ry's brain on what was previously in there. I guess it was a video rental store,

jewelry store. I'm sure Mike can chime in on on some of the other things that we have. So, um, but yeah, it's been been vacant and and storage for for a few years here now. Um this is just an overview of that PUD. Uh the yellow outline is uh the space that that will be uh occupied here um for this golf these golf simulators. Uh zoning for the property. Um it's zone CPU 883. Um it has the characteristics of a B2 B2 zoning district. That's kind of one of our lighter commercial uh zoning districts obviously because of that residential component. uh to the west. So, uh to the north, um it's another uh C uh CPU. I believe directly north of them is a AAA um service station. Uh to the south is the Beaver Creek Jeweler uh jewelers. In the uh in the same PUD, um east is a cryo massage and I believe directly to the east is storage um of it. And then to the west is kind of that R1A single family residential component that I previously referenced for the building itself. Um once again I've I've kind of reiterated a couple times. Um it's for golf simulator. So if you're familiar with that um I have a picture of it what it looks like on not what his will look like but what golf simulator simulators are. It's almost like a uh virtual virtual golf. So, um the uh kind of the business model behind his approach, um rentals will be uh by the hour via online booking. Um the building architecture will remain the same. He's just going to be proposing a sign that will be working with him uh following the B2 uh sign code uh

requirements. Um he is requesting it to be open 247 um seven days a week. Um, how that will operate is essentially you'd uh you would make your reservation online. You'd be given a unique keypad uh code um to access the property. Um he will have cameras monitoring the uh main entrance of the property as well as uh each individual bay. Um, so he'll have uh alerts on um who's who's in his facility or around his facility at all times um with with not having a a full service uh employee on on site at all times. Um he's also incorporated some uh some design measures to uh to reduce the noise impact. Um obviously uh trying to not not the having the neighbors hear you know golf balls being hit all day. So, um, some some components that he's utilized to, uh, to minimize those impacts. Um, he's incorporating drop ceilings, um, which will kind of almost kind of muffle and and reduce the the sound area, um, to reduce kind of the noise. Um, turf flooring, and then, uh, he's going to be adding padded foam panels, um, behind this, uh, hitting screens, um, to basically absorb that impact, um, and reduce the noise. um he's rough he's incorporating roughly 105,000 um in invested in in improvements um to noise and and the facility itself. And there's just uh kind of a internal look at what the uh what the site plan will look like. So there's the four bays. Um there's one kind of directly to the north and then there's the three that are kind of in in combination, like I said, similar to what what that'll look like. So, um, and I've kind of already briefly touched on the parking, but, um, there's no parking dedicated or reserved for

this build building. It's all just kind of, uh, combined within that PUD. Um, there's approximately 137 spaces. Um, and there's two points of ingress um, to to access the site and one point of egress um, to the to the far south um, which I can show you uh, show you here. So, there's kind of that loop that'll get you on to to North Fairfield there. So, uh staff is recommending approval of this, uh request. Um obviously Melissa will uh let us know if there's been anyone that's commented on it and and we'll see if we have any public hearing, but we're recommending approval subject to the five conditions outlined in your resolution.

Thank you. Um is there anyone here who wishes to speak? We're getting rather short on uh folks out in the audience. Uh but I have to ask it. Uh anyone wishing to comment about this questions, comments? Did we get any written input? Okay, then I will officially close the public hearing and remind everyone that since this is a conditional use, uh this lives or dies with planning commission. It does not go forward to city council unless we disapprove. and the the applicant wants to appeal it. So, uh, with that, I'll just open this to general questions.

Anybody? Okay, I have questions. Mr. Chairman, um, Colin, you said there's no one from the applicant here, so you speaking on your behalf. He is here this evening. If you have questions, I do. Yes. Um, since it's a conditional use, I want to make sure. Yeah, sure. Come on up. Introduce yourself, sir. Troy Golf 212.

So I'm curious uh drove by this weekend and see there's stuff going on already which is great to see. It's a kind of like a very Can you put the um before I give a question to Mr. Goff put the site plan that shows the uh building outline. There we go. Leave that up if you could. So was there and that'll be a great thing because at the end right there there's nothing and so it'll be great to see. Uh but when I read that you wanted to do 24-hour operation using security cams, I was just curious are if I'm right uh how would you figure monitoring that somebody coming in at 3:00 a.m. on a Tuesday morning to shoot you know some golf balls. How is that monitored if something happens to the person? because you don't have anybody monitoring your security at 24 hours a day. You just have the cameras.

Yeah. Um well, so I mean obviously the the cameras that I would want to put in there would be like like able to record or they would be recording but yeah I wouldn't have anybody that would be watching them I guess 24 hours. Um it's the whole business idea is based off of a very similar business in Centerville. I guess that question never or that thought never popped into my head so I'm not really sure. 24 hours. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. The the other question I had is the the location and the use of that is great. Um is there any thought on your end because of uh storage or vehicles coming in and out to deliver or equipment or whatever. I assume that would go through the front door then of like my spot of that spot there. So everything is going to go through that front door. the cameras are, whether it's customers or whether it's deliveries or whether it's Oh, yeah. So, there there's a side door on the other side. I figured I I mean, if I need to be in there, I would probably use that one just to keep like I don't know how it would work if I have uh Wait, hold on.

Yeah. Well, the reason I'm asking is your your great plans that you gave us the the drawings said that the capacity of 20 people and I'm trying to envision 20 people in there at 3:00 on a Tuesday morning, you know, all using the all using the same door. Yeah. Well, or the adjacent bays. And so the operations is what I'm trying to understand. If it can handle 20 people, which is a good size, it really will do great. I can see people getting in there at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday morning before they head off to work and wanting to get, you know, some practice in. And I wondered how that will happen with any deliveries or whatever that they may have if everything goes through the front door and that's where the cameras are, right?

Yeah. I So like the people that are paying to go in would be using the front door and anything else could go through the side door. The one on the side, I think, if I'm understand. Okay. I didn't ask. Yeah, my apologies. I didn't see a side door. Oh, yeah. I only saw a front door. That's why that's why I'm doing all this. Yeah, there's there's two doors. Sorry. Okay. I've been there and it's very restricted. Thank you, Mr. Go. That was the questions is trying to understand the security cam. Okay. I'm sorry I didn't get it. Oh, thank you for that. Thank you. Um Colin, I have a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Go. So, I look through our zoning code section 158 153 and I cannot find anything that governs ours for a recreational facility. Correct. Is that true?

Yeah. Not not to my knowledge. You can kind of implement them. Certain PUDs outline them. Um but uh like specific parameters, but yeah, we don't have anything in our code that because there's ours for every other use, but when you get to recreational facility, there was nothing. Yeah. So, what have we done in the past for recreational facilities, which specifically mentions golf simulators and other things? You know, I I uh I think golf simulators for our zoning code's a pretty pretty new concept. I don't think it was developed in with the with the thought of of having one. So, I can't comment on golf simulators in general. I don't know if Randy would have any idea of recreational facilities that we've done in the past.

I mean, there we have gyms um and we have some 24-hour gyms right in the city. So there there wasn't it's not an unheard of or unprecedented. So we've never had really a need to worry about hours of operation for no but if you look down the street the fricious now vacant I mean they had hours of operation attached to that when when a came through. So it's really on a case by case basis and up to the perview of planning commission if they want to limit the hours. All right. The only the only other question I had related to that is again the three o'clock Tuesday morning. um that's right adjacent to a neighborhood within a few feet.

Uh there's there's the houses are right there and if you'll have a lot of activity, usually the conditional uses govern where and the kind of activity you can have at certain hours, but maybe not. You can I mean because there's nothing in your in your your five

there's no no portion of the zoning code that says thou shalt have hours x and y but as conditional use I mean planning commission can certainly describe hours if they feel is appropriate. Um any patron would still be subject to noise ordinance laws that are found in the police of police. So if they're making noise out there that goes above and beyond what the noise ordinance allows and they're subject to the criminal prosecution. Yeah, it's really it's really well off the beaten track of North Fairfield Road. There's a lot of mature trees that are along the western side of this PED as well. They've been growing forever

and we would have included notifying them about this or even though it's a conditional use. Yeah, we we notify everybody within 500 ft. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ren. All right. Yeah. I just I just have a concern because of the uh 24 hours and and that it's abudding a residential street area and what would happen should something happen medically with any of the people get bonked by a golf ball or whatever. Could be anything. Um I've got some reservations about it, but I have no more questions, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I I just have one for uh Well, first of all, anybody else have questions? One quick question for staff, please.

Um is there currently adequate external or exterior lighting there and would there [clears throat] be any need to add additional lighting to the building given that it's 24hour? Um, I'm not super familiar with the uh existing conditions. Um, I would hope whatever camera um would be implemented at the main door would would be able to kind of capture it during the night. But Troy, do you want to speak?

Yeah. like so there's a a flat roof and then there's a a shingled roof that is like a overhang where you walk with the path. There's um there's lighting there's I believe there's four lights on the outside of my building underneath that overhang that light up that whole area where you'd be walking and then above the door there's a light above the door and then the parking lot all has brand new um like tall parking lights.

Okay, that's Thank you. Good point. Uh you might staff, you y'all may want to check and see if there is uh as part of that uh original uh approval or maybe changes since this was approved, actually approved before I was on planning commission. Um yeah, right. Yeah, that's why they're using candles um to see if there is our usual uh cut back to 25% uh on overhead lighting after all the stores are closed because we might want to look at that since this is a store that is not going to be closed and uh might want to check that out. Uh you've got a a really good point. and you don't want a dark parking lot at your your golfers coming in at 3:00 a.m. Um, the only other question I had had for Troy and that is um since folks would be coming in um uh making a reservation online getting their their um uh their code to get in. Uh what's to keep them from bringing their buddies and getting five in on on one number?

Well, that that's not there's nothing to keep That's kind of the idea. You can bring four people and you like But you would only use one. You would only use one. Yeah. You play around a golf with four people normally or however many people you go there play on one bag. So this isn't just practice. This is actually nine holes or 18 holes or whatever. Yeah, you can play nine holes. You can play 18 holes. There's like mini games. There's a driving range. There's all different things. And no walking. No walking. No either. What a deal. Good. You answered my question. Um Yes. I got a question for you. Um is there like food and drink? No.

So no. Is there club rentals? Anything like that there? Um Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. Um the uh the looks like the mac maximum occupancy is what what was it like 20 20 is there um I don't know 3:00 a.m. on a Tuesday morning it what's what's in place to make sure that we don't exceed that if if anything just the cameras monitoring

well yes but two I don't think that um I mean normally these type of simulators the most you bring is four just because of like I mean it's just kind of like a standard I feel like I don't think anybody I've never seen more than four simulator it's just too crowded would do that but I guess there's not anything stopping okay all right thank you

others ladies gentlemen okay if we're all set then I need a motion Motion to approve uh PC 258 for conditional use for club 27 with the I didn't even look how many five attached conditions. I have a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Let's read the role on this one. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, I vote no. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. yourself.

Yes. Motion carries. 51, sorry, 4-1. And uh we'll be looking forward to seeing our new business here. All right. We are finished with public hearings. We have one decision item and one um subdivision to go.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um as planning commission is is aware, um we're in the midst of a update to our land use plan and our zoning code. Um, in that process, we've had a steering committee focused on the land use portion of it, and we're starting to we're getting to closer to the finish line on that. And I appreciate Mr. Self and Mr. Meyer being uh volunteers on that steering committee. And over the coming months, we're going to transition into the zoning code phase um which build upon builds upon the land use plan. the zoning code is really the um regulations by which we achieve the visions that are going to be found in in the land use plan. So, we're going to have a another steering committee for the zoning code portion only. Um and our intent is to try to is to keep that more inhouse rather than um the the size of the steering committee that we have now for the land use plan. So, we're looking to um get two volunteers from the planning commission to be on that steering committee. Um probably be around the same commitment once maybe four or five meetings over the course of five or six months. Um probably still on Tuesday nights like we have been over the last several months. And so I wanted to ask planning commission if we can get two volunteers.

And the time period for this will starting and ending roughly. Um, it's anticipated probably around February, start around January, February, and go through July, August. Hope the intent was originally to hope to wrap it up by mid July, but I as we get closer and closer to the end of the year, I find that it's very ambitious to try to get it done by July, but um there hasn't been an official change to the schedule, but I would say January to July. Well, since I would miss the first several meetings, I would still be happy to tag team with somebody.

The zoning code is a little bit more technical based than the land use plan is more visionary. How do we see ourselves in the next 20 years where the zoning code is, as you all know, as planning commission is very detailed and and our legal council can attest, it's manu minutia oriented. Um, so if you don't like being down in the weeds, I I wouldn't volunteer because it can get I've read it several times that it's it's hasn't been it's not enjoyable from the first time I read it to the existing time. But so you're trying to build up excitement to get a decision now. Is that

I'm trying not to I'm not I'm not trying to oversell it as exciting, but uh but important nonetheless. Absolutely. Because it we have to change as things change. I mean, we had nothing for a golf simulator. We had nothing in our zoning code for video rental stores when they started popping up and we had to figure out where they went and now try to find one. There's there's a dynamic that's happening all the time. So, it it really is important. Barry, I'd be happy. Well, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Self have seniority, but I will fill in or tag team or whatever wants either want to share. We'll give you some names.

Yeah, there's no reason why actually why we all couldn't participate two at a time so we don't overwhelm and that way everybody that way everyone gets the experience the fun of going through the zoning code line by line. Yeah. Hours of operation. Here we go. Okay. We will we will get you some names that work. Okay. We have one last item, ladies, gentlemen. Uh, and that is uh S25-5 Brittlewood section one. Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself. All right. Recuse away.

Oh, this was tabled. That's right. Okay. Uh, I need a motion then to unt, please. Motion to unt uh S25-5 Brittle Bridlewood. Brittlewood section one. Wood. Does it need to mention the the August 6th 25 meeting? we table from the 6th August uh 2025 meeting. Okay, I have a motion. I second that motion. I have a second and we'll do that by general consensus. A on everybody. Okay. Thank you, ma'am, for keeping me honest.

Oh, hello. Uh Colin Carville, city planner. Um Bridalwood section one final subdivision uh S25-5. Just jumping straight into this. Um the request is for a final subdivision approval. uh area is 18.5332 acres. Um it's composed of 27 single family lots and three common area lots. There will also be 3.6533 acres um dedicated of right away across three different uh three different roads there. Here's a look at the uh subdivision uh for this first phase here. Uh just a little bit of the development history. Um obviously we we talked about the the tableabling history previously. Um but the site plan was approved in October 2024. Um this phase this first phase it represents 23% of the overall site plan. Um lots one through 27 which will be the single family residential lots. Uh they vary from 203 acres to 484 acres. Um with the three common areas being n25 9275 acres 2.4895 4895 acres and 3.6947 acres. Uh with again that right away uh 3.6533 acres being dedicated. Uh the conditions for approval are are pretty boilerplate with all of our uh subdivisions. Um as you can see on the screen um nothing nothing specifically changed there. Um but uh that's uh that's all I have. Uh staff is recommending approval uh with the uh limit listed conditions. Excuse me. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Colin, before we get into questions, uh would you refresh our memories on why this was tabled back in August? Yes. The uh the uh developer was pretty um far off from from breaking ground and with their engineering drawings. So, they really didn't feel comfortable with having a subdivision approved way long before they uh they started uh started going. So, it looks like they're getting close to uh to having everything wrapped up here. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm just going to throw this open to have at it. Probably your turn first anyway.

Okay. Well, I have a number of questions, so stay up there, Colin. Um, so memory serves because I've been at these meetings for a few years now, plus here on the commission. When this was first brought up in April 24 and eventually kept getting table tabled, and finally in October 24, it was brought before the commission. We approved 30 conditions and went before the uh look at my notes here. went before the city council who approved it. Uh they added a 31st condition and none of us got the conditions now. So I went back to the notes from last October. Sure. And got the 30, but the 31st condition which uh Vice Mayor Bales added it was approved and seconded or seconded and approved added that they wanted to change the minimum size to,400 square feet instead of 1600 square feet, allow more entry homes. So, I'm assuming that not only do the 30 conditions carry over, but the 31st condition of lowering the size amount carries over as well. So, this first development of 27 homes will include Vice Mayor Bale's motion and approved 1,400 minimum square feet, not the 1600, which has been so far only thing published.

Yes, sir. Yeah, that's uh that's going to be the amended version. Correct. Yeah, it it might be helpful for us to get the amended 30 or 31 conditions because that would those will be included for the 27 homes. Correct. Yes.

Okay. The the other thing that carried over from that October council meeting uh was a number and again because we didn't have it for the first 27 home was a large amount of discussion and possible amendments that were never approved for particular easements to the adjoining area. So those will come up for this first phase of 27 homes or are they to be brought up in a separate landscape plan because that was an open area of the October board uh excuse me October city council meeting October u 23rd or whatever it was city council meeting of 2024 about a a landscape buffer uh around the surrounding areas that councilwoman Garcia and others brought up more than once.

Yeah. So, the the landscape plan um isn't included uh in the subdivision. This is just kind of looking at what will be brought to Green County to to be platted. That's a separate document. But that's not something we will look at here.

Correct. Yes. That's something that that our director Randy approves um internally and and uh agrees upon with the developer. When we had when we had our meetings in 2024 with this developer and then uh uh the city council had their meetings, there was a number of discussions on construction traffic off of North Alpha Bel Road because of the size of the road and the traffic generation. That would not be something we'd have to revisit again for the 27 homes now. It's already been addressed.

Yeah, it's been addressed and they'd be held to that once uh construction commences. The uh the only other question I had, again I'm reaffirming because we didn't have the uh the packet here included. Uh I went back and I looked at all of the city council minutes and our planning commission minutes and they pretty much aligned on everything uh that I've been bringing up uh for questions to you and Randy. And the only other question was on the trees that we mentioned earlier with Mission Point. If a tree happens to be taken down in these 27 home developments and it's 4 feet 4 in or larger, they have to replaced with a 3-in tree or larger. Uh I'm assuming again it's landscaping which is topic that was brought up time and time again. Sure.

They're held to that for these first 27 homes.

Yes. as long as grading grading allows. Um we're working through kind of that that landscape plan with them, but as long as grading allows for for uh we're trying to agree upon um as per persevering or sorry preserving as as many trees as possible, but um if grading doesn't allow um they'll lose them and and we'll kind of go through the uh uh what kind of uh need what needs to be brought in place of that. So we won't have to again for my own uh education when they gave us back last year back in October and pulling this up so Steve can capture it on camera from phase one all the way through to the end. We're not going to be going through this every single time having to revisit the 30 31 conditions. It's going to be automatic.

Exactly. The only only thing will be those those specific uh easements when they they come up in that specific phase. Um that will reflect and appear on on the subdivision, but yeah, we don't have to rehash the uh the original approved conditions of the specific site plan. Okay. The only other last question I have is just for my own education, we don't have one up on the screen, but there was something about a parcel of property on the other side of North Alpha Bel which was not to be included in any of our discussions if I'm correct. Yeah, correct. That's a separate development and I believe it's in the township. It's in Beaver Creek Township, right? Correct.

So, it's not part of anything we'll have to deal with. It was just mentioned in the meeting minutes for our both council and ourselves October meetings. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. Welcome. No questions. No questions.

No questions. Um, I just wanted to to I guess make make sure every we we all understand when you have an overall development that is going to be built in phases, the the conditions for the entire development hold true for all the phases. We don't need to revisit them unless something has happened to possibly change one of those conditions. They've discovered that they can't do something because there's a sinkhole and they've got to move a road or something like that. Uh otherwise, those 31 conditions that city council passed will carry through to how many phases of this? Three or four?

Three. Four. Three or four. Pick. It will carry through to all of the phases of this development. So, basically, we don't need to worry about them because they're still there. Okay, second. Second helpings, folks. Okay, I need a motion. Motion to approve S25-5 Brittlewood section one. And I need a second. Second that. She got it in. There you go. Okay, we have a motion in a second. If you would be so good as to read the role. Miss Palumbo? Yes. Mr. Fountain? Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes.

Mr. S? Yes. Motion carries 40 and we are fresh out of we yet. Okay, we are we are fresh out of uh items on our agenda tonight. So I'll ask for a motion to dismiss ajourn. Mr. Chair, I move to Okay, I second the motion and we'll do that with our feet. Thank you very much. adjourned at 8.