Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. 6 o'clock so it's time for the September city of Beaver Creek Planning Commission meeting and I will officially call it to order. Miss Melissa, would you please read the role? Mr. Fountain here. Mr. Jones here. Mr. Meyer here. Miss Palumbo here. Mr. Self

here. And uh before we even get any further, I'd like to welcome our newest member uh is uh Laura Plumbo. Uh this is her first meeting, so we promised to be gentle with her, and I promised her I wouldn't call on her first, but we're we're really pleased to have back to five members now, and looking forward to working with you. So, with that, uh agenda, any additions, corrections, or changes to the agenda? We're good for that. No, as you can see on the agenda, there was one case uh seven brew that was tabled. The applicant requested tableabling. So,

we would recommend that you table that application when we get to it or I can do that. Thank you very much. So, I need a a motion to uh approve the agenda. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda. I second. Don't fight over it, guys. Okay. Uh okay. Okay, I have a motion and a second. We'll do that by general consensus. Great. Thank you very much. Uh minutes from August 6th. Uh any additions, corrections, changes, gentlemen? Miss Blumbo? No. Okay. Seeing none, I ask for a motion, please, to to approve as as written. Motion to approve the sixth August planning commission meeting minutes as as noted. Mr. Chad, second and we'll do that by general consensus.

Agreed. with Miss Palumbo uh abstaining because she wasn't here. Uh so it was that would be by four with one abstension. Um okay, tonight we have uh on the on the agenda we have three public hearings. Uh and as you heard uh one of them is uh the applicant has asked for a tableabling till next month and we'll we'll vote on that when we get to it. But the first one is PUD88-18 mod 825. This is case number PUD 88-18 mod 825 on an application filed by Paula Hubert 86000 West Bin Mau Avenue Sweet 800N Chicago Illinois 6631. The applicant requests a major modification to allow for the construction of a 7,15T restaurant on 2.02 acres. The property is located at 2799 Center Drive, further described as book four, page 2, parcel 11 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh for those of you uh who are in the audience, uh the way we do our public hearings is uh first the applicant uh gives us a presentation, then we ask uh for the staff report. Once that's finished, uh we'll ask for any public input and uh we ask you to limit that to three minutes if you would. Uh once everybody has had their their chance to speak, we'll see if there's any uh or or any written input uh that came in uh after the announcement, then we'll close the public hearing and we'll turn to our folks for uh discussion and a vote. So without further ado, I presume there is someone here representing um uh Bubba's 33. That would be you. Step right on up.

Hi, good evening everyone. I'm Paula Hubert. I work for Greenberg Pharaoh and I'm here on behalf behalf of Bubbas 330. I have a very short I wanted to hit on highlights for the project. I know Randy and Colin will have a complete presentation, but if you're not familiar with Bubbas 330, wanted to just talk about that a bit and highlight that it's going to be a moderately priced casual dining experience. Scratchmade food for all, burgers, pizza, wings. Really something for everyone. You're going to have a lot of good beverages, cold beer, fun atmosphere. And um if you haven't been to Abubbas, great food and scratch made. Um the restaurant will be open for lunch and dinner, and the operations team is really looking forward to welcoming the community to this new location. I do want to highlight too that um I worked very closely, our team worked closely with Randy and Colin. We made some improvements on the site plan, the parking, increased some landscaping. Do want to highlight on the building elevations. We increased the masonry that we have really looking at a cohesive design on all four elevations. And so I do want to thank them for the time and input and really um I think our team brought together a really great um site plan and elevations to go with that. I do want to highlight You'll see in the submittal documents, parking is key for this restaurant. Everyone loves I don't know if you're familiar with Texas Roadhouse. They love Texas Roadhouse. They love Bobas. It's going to be crowded. And so the parking you see here, it it is over what the minimum requirement is for the site, but it's right about where you know where Bubbas wants to be for the site. And it's really key to have that parking as part

of this project. So that's really concludes the highlights I wanted to share with you all but happy to respond to any questions or discussion points later in the evening following the presentation. Thank you. Thank you

staff. Good evening planning commission. My name is Colin Carfl. I'm the C planner here. Um once again we are here uh for a the Bubba's 33 uh application. Um they requesting a major modification uh to PUD 8818 um to allow for the construction of a 7,15 square foot uh restaurant on 2.02 acres. Um that project is located at 2799 uh Center Drive. Um just to get our bearings here, uh that southern star is kind of where we're at here this evening. Um that's our government office. Um to the northeast of us uh is where that new Bubba 33's location uh will be going. Uh just a little northeast of the uh the main uh mall at Fairfield Commons. Uh here's a look of the existing uh site layout. Um this was home to a uh TGI Fridays uh that has been vacant for for some time now. Um, so the uh the proposed application is actually proposing a complete tear down um and rebuild uh to to support this new uh Bubba 33 restaurant. Uh that previous TGI Fridays was uh 6,500 square ft. So just a slight uh uptick uh in square footage for for this new restaurant here um as well as uh more parking spaces um will be allowed. Um the surrounding zoning is very compatible. Uh there's a Skyline to the east. Um there's a Geodano's Pizza to the to the north. Um North Fairfield Road is obviously uh there's no access to North Fairfield Road, but that's kind of the main boundary to the west and to the south there's just a variety of retail stores uh there. Um and a restaurant is uh is compatible with

that. Um here's a first look at at the uh site plan layout. Um like I said, uh it's a a lot of large emphasis on on the parking to support um uh you know, a restaurant uh that is expected to be well well traversed and well populated. U but that's like I said the first first look at the uh the restaurant. Um as you can see there's uh full ingress egress to the north and south locations that that kind of feeds into Center Drive there. Um and then there's a one-way uh exit um kind of in the middle of that development um just kind of o improving circulation. Um as you can see from the previous uh old location there was there was uh there wasn't full access on both sides. So um a little bit better placement uh for this building here uh will will allow for a little better circulation throughout the whole uh development there. Uh, as the applicant referenced, um, we went a lot of back and forth with, uh, with the building design. Um, we're really happy with the, uh, the end result. Um, previously previous iterations, uh, were a lot more, uh, kind of fiber, cement, clad on on on a facade, but now we we have a good mix of of brick and and mortar and as well as kind of that fiber cement as well. Uh, so we're really happy with the end result. Um, like I mentioned, the the materials are uh face brick, fiber, cement, uh, metal canopies, um, accent banding, um, etc. So, uh, that's just kind of the look at the front uh, elevation. Um, I believe that will be from the, uh, North Fairfield, visible from the North Fairfield side. And here's a look at all of the, uh, the elevations, uh, as well. So you can see that uh that kind of

brick kind of wraps wraps the building entirely. So uh as far as a parking breakdown, uh the proposed building 7,15 square ft. Uh zoning code requires one space per 100 square foot uh feet of floor uh floor area. Um and one space for each employee on the largest shift. Um that comes out to roughly 112 spaces. um they are providing 145 spaces. Uh in previous um obviously applications we try and try and get the uh provided provided spaces a little bit more closer to the minimum required um just to kind of reduce a lot of uh the impact on imperous surface and and things like that. But uh I I think the applicant makes some good points with with kind of uh what we've seen with Texas roadouses in the past, how they're heavily traffked. Um, I think some extra parking would would do this area pretty good and uh leave some congestions in a a pretty busy area. Uh, here's a first look at the landscape plan. Um, they utilize a lot of the pre-existing landscape, but also uh incorporate some new landscaping um that'll keep the area uh looking good and and a good good neighbor for uh for the surrounding properties. And finally, uh wall signage will follow the uh standards for a B3 zoning district. Um that's that basic uh um standard is 1.5 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. Um each sign will require its own zoning permit uh which will be approved by myself uh once once we're kind of ready to proceed with that step. So um I think that that covers everything. Uh staff is recommending approval of this submission. uh subject to the 13 conditions in the resolution. Happy to answer any questions that planning commission may have of me. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Our usual uh very comprehensive report, but you forgot something. I did forget one thing. Um I would love to make a recommendation um to amend the resolution. Um there's a little discrepancy um with the uh the site plan um over a couple site plans. Um, so I would love to amend the uh resolution to make sure that the um the approved square footage of the building is 7,15 square ft. Um, I believe it was referenced as uh maybe 6800 um in at the top of the resolution. So I'd just love to update that. Thank you so much.

Colin, before you before Excuse me, Mr. Mr. Chairman, before you leave it, since you're going to talk to us about making an amendment, in all uh tongue and cheek, but at the same time seriousness, should not the plans reflect that this is in Beaver Creek and not in Fairborn? If they're going to make the change of the plans, let's change the address, the proper address. Yeah. So, the the address is actually correct. It it is technically it's in Beaver Creek, but uh for whatever reason, um it has a Fairborn address, Fairborn zip code. Why? Uh but it is it is within our juris. We are not outside of our jurisdiction on this property. Certainly not. No. Not going to be in competition with fairboard wanting to take our property. No, sir.

It's very confusing, but yeah, it's it was correct. We double checked that. Colin, before you sit down, what was the what was that number of square feet again? Yes, it's a 7,15 square feet. 105. Make sure we we change that. Since we have had our report, uh I will now open it to the public for any uh comments, questions for or against. Seeing a der of folks coming forward, I will ask if there was any written input. No, there was not.

No written input. And since I promised Laura I wouldn't start with her, I'm going to start on my left this time. Question for staff. I'm sure this came up during um the development of these elevations, but with the with the trash being um towards the on the east side, so so facing North Fairfield, do you foresee any issues with um trash trucks getting around to that point there in the parking lot?

That's it's a it's a fair comment. We looked at that. I don't think there should be any issues with with them traversing there. Um, it was the most logical sense and and that will be enclosed as well, so it won't be an eyesore to the to the west there. Right. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Colin, could you come back up? I have a similar question in the same spot. Could you put up the pipeline because I'm a bit more

feeling stronger than my compatriate here. that area which is just uh in the southwest corner I guess along North Fairfield that's hardscape and that's obviously where you're going to be loading and unloading. So if I'm looking at the restaurant plan the way it's laid out the main entrance is in the east side of the property. That's the only way in and out for customers. Correct.

The loading in and out is on the west side. So if you think of restaurants operationally, the customers are coming and they're parking on the whole east side. You've got all the parking up front. You've only got one entrance. The handicap is there. That means the employees are going to be parking in the back. So they're going to be parking along North Fairfield that they can say they'll park somewhere else, but they're going to be parking along North Fairfield. Sure. So now you've got that whole back row along North Fairfield lined with employee cars. You've got trucks coming in and a fire breaks out.

So when I look at the uh recommendation, I think it was number eight when I talked about the fire department and the city engineers sanitary going to sign off. I'm concerned how could they sign off if they look at the use of the building in the way it will functionally be used given the constraints of should a loading or unloading occur during operation fire breaks out emergency response truck won't be able to get back there and have you is this too soon to talk about it uh has the fire department weighed in at all in this site plan review process because I'm concerned that we are going to be boxing our responders in to not being able to get to the Um I it's not looking like I have a comment sheet from um from the fire department yet. Um we would we would need their approval prior to releasing the zoning permit. Um

how can we assure that that I I don't want to modify condition A because it's a standard condition to make sure that they look at the operation during the afternoon and evening because that uh Mrs. Hubert said that it's when it's going to be operating. You're going to have employees in the back. You're going to have service trucks loading unloading because that's the only place. Sure. and all of a sudden a fire breaks out. That's probably where the kitchen is. And I'm concerned that we are going to be taking away the space a fire truck needs. Okay. How do we get that message out without making it a a requirement for the owner? Yeah, I I will certainly speak with Mr. Groan um regarding those concerns and make sure that those are addressed.

I do have one small one. Thank you, Mr. Carville. I do have one small one for the uh Representative, Miss Hubert. Could you come back up? This is a small item, but I I have not seen this in all the ones we've reviewed. So, there's a number of veterans here in the counter uh and the council and it shows that you're going to have special vet parking. I don't know where in the site plan it would be, but I'm wondering how is that happen for those of us vets on this commission and others listening to the live audience now that would want to park in that spot or spots. How is that going to work? I've not seen that before.

How will you know that I'm a vet or not a vet? Well, I think it's on the honor system, obviously, and I think it's a that's a fair assumption to say that, you know, the veterans that would be parking there would, you know, utilize that parking and be able to park there. There's no one policing. Okay. But it would not be one of the one of the handicap spaces that would be earmarked for veterans as well. Good. Good. Yes. Yes. It'll be we would have the accessible parking, the veteran parking. That's where that's where I got the idea. Both not taking away from that.

I tried to find it on the map and I thought that's a great idea. How are they going to make that happen? And this town a lot a lot of people taking advantage of the veteran parking. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a I have a question back for for her. Okay. Really quick. Yeah. One question. Um I was looking at um these documents and I see uh 40 employees anticipated. Is that 40 employees at one time or total like total staff? I believe that's the maximum at one time. Maximum at one time. Okay. Yeah, that's well that that's why they've got 112 parking spaces.

Okay, I'll turn to my vice chair. Just one question. Was all the equipment um ground mounted in this case that I'm not sure or the mechanical are you aware of that? Yeah, it's on the roof. Okay. So, it will be screened. Yeah. Just I guess I just had one comment about that then. So, like I know the North Fairfield is very elevated right from this site. So, any thing we can do to make sure it is screened from you know on North Fairfield being at a higher elevation? Yep. Certainly. Okay. Thank you. Now, our newest member, I left her for last. No questions. Okay.

Sorry. Uh, please explain to me what the crosshatch area is in the lower left hand corner. Sure. That that's where the uh the dumpster is going to go. Okay. Is that it's concrete though? opposed to asphalt. Okay, that I I couldn't quite tell what it is. Oh, there's a key. Look at that. My eyes are so bad they couldn't see it. Um I presume this meets the the percentage of pvious service surface. So, so they're slightly over. Um but the but we take that calculation for the entire PUD and the entire PUD is under that 75% benchmark.

Okay. Uh, and uh, I didn't see anything specific on signs. Uh, are you uh, are they planning on having uh, and maybe Miss Huber, this may be a question for her. Are they planning on having entry and exit only signs to keep people from going backwards through there? We would certainly probably want some wayinding signs. Yeah, certainly with with just the layout of of the site, we'd probably want some there. So yeah, because the one in the middle is a is a gazala and the other two are goa or goes both. So that's a suggestion that great suggestion needs needs to be done.

Um second helpings, gentlemen, Miss Palumbo. Okay. Uh if you don't then I need a I need a motion. Mr. Share, I would move to amend the resolution um striking 6686 ft and replacing that with 7105 square feet. Okay, motion to second that. Second that motion. Okay, I have a second on that and we'll do that by acclamation. All in favor? I I. All oppose. Same sign. Okay, so we have passed the amendment. Uh Colin, there was something that you wanted. Was there a change to one of the conditions that you mentioned earlier?

Just want to make sure we get that in there. It was just the change to the square footage. It wasn't in the condition, so that was all I needed. Great. Okay. So, I have an amend amendment for the motion. Now, I need Mr. Chair, do we need to add anything about your signage or just let staff deal with that? It's up to you. Does staff have a preference on that? Okay. All right. In that case, Mr. Chair, I would move to approve PD uh what is this? 88-18 mod 825 with the attached 13 conditions as amended. Okay, I have a motion. I second that motion. I have a second. Was there a motion for the amendment first with Yeah, we passed that.

That was so quick. I missed it. Fast movers. We uh we did that. We we did that by an AA. We didn't do a roll call on it. That works. That's how I missed it. Okay. Uh, so we will read the role this time. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries. 5-0. And we're looking forward to the new building. Uh, what's your construction? Uh, when do you think you'll once it's presuming it's approved by council?

March. So, so for for folks who are listening, uh they're hoping to get started uh next March. So, thank you very much. Uh, okay. Our second um public hearing tonight is PC uh-25 25-7. Uh, it's an Azra for Tudi's Bar and Grill.

This is case number PC25-7 Azra detailed site plan on an application filed by Pinnacle Care of Mike Taylor 480 Vantage Point, Miamiisburg, Ohio 45342. The applicant requests an administrative site plan review and approval in Azra for 0.6996 acres of land to construct a 1,350 square foot patio cover addition to the existing Tudis Bar and Grill. The property is located at 3982 Colonel Glenn Highway, further described as book one, page 9, parcel 99 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. I presume there's someone here uh representing I was going to do the presentation for both the applicant and and ourselves. So, um once again, Melissa

stated it perfectly. It's a uh 13 thou 1350 square foot uh patio addition um to the existing Tudi's Bar and Grill. They're located at 3982 Colonel Glenn Highway. Um this is in Azera. Uh that is kind of in the northwestern part of our city. Um that southern star is just indicating where we're here this evening. Uh here's first look at the uh existing conditions of the lot. So as you can see it is a very unique lot. Um and it is zoned uh I believe B2. Um so development for a lot like this is very very difficult. It's challenging. um which is kind of why we were pursuing the Azer route because while it doesn't meet the black and white conditions of a B2 zoning district, um we thought that the request was uh fair and and uh worth hearing at at a at the public uh at a planning commission level. So that's kind of why we were pursuing an Azra here. Um, as you can see, kind of that southeastern part of that building, um, is an existing uh kind of concrete patio. Um, that's loosely used as as kind of an outdoor eating area, but uh, you'll see from the proposal this evening, they're really trying to revitalize that and make it a space that that people can utilize outdoors. So, here's a first look at that kind of conceptual of the the proposal. Um you can see it's it's a covered patio. Um they're not expanding the footprint of what's existing. Um but what is existing is uh the patio kind of goes up into that property line. So u meeting setback requirements was next to near impossible. Um here's just an outline of the design. What is being proposed? Um it's a new roof with wood frame. Um they're utilizing columns with stick on

stone uh veneer. Um there's going to be a decorative metal screen coming from the top um to add a little little kind of buffer there. Um but they're also trying to keep and maintain a lot of the existing elements of the building. Um the brick veneer on the the main building, the glass store front uh storefront doors um and the ra the existing railing system as well. So they're trying to keep a lot of the elements already but just making it a more usable space. Um here's just kind of an overlook of the site plan um for that property. So that red area would be kind of that uh that patio. Um it is not enclosed. Um and uh yeah, like I said, that that red area is kind of going to be the uh the the concrete pad that'll be covered by the roof. um as far as our analysis is is concerned. So the B2 zoning requirements um a 40 foot minimum front yard setback um and that setback um as you can see from kind of the uh the site plan here that setback is actually that um that kind of slanted line. That's where we kind of take that front sap set back from. It's not from uh that southern uh southern property line that you see that's that's that kind of goes out onto Colonel Glenn. um we're taking that from that um that kind of slanted line to the east there. So um that's why meeting that setback requirement was next to near impossible for any type of development. Um and that's why we're here for an Azra. So um like I mentioned multiple times, the lot shapes uh makes compliance impossible. Um it's not fully enclosed. Um, so it's if it was a enclosed edition, um, it might be a different conversation in our eyes, but since it's not fully enclosed, um, we thought that that was appropriate use of the space. Um, and they're, you know, they're

making, uh, an existing structure uh, uh, better a better use. So, um, staff is going to support, uh, applications similar to that. So, um, we're recommending approval of this um, the five conditions in the resolution. Um there was one note that I did want to talk about. Um they had a uh fireplace component. Um that has since been removed. Um they are not proposing a fireplace anymore. Um in conjunction with the patio. Um I did reach out to uh the township uh fire chief Randy Grojan. Um on the conceptuals they do have uh I guess kind of a couple fire open pits. Um that was kind of a red flag to staff um waiting to hear wi with kind of the covered roof. Um waiting to hear from Randy uh if that would be allowed permitted um and if not you know that's that's a minor element of of the overall proposal. So um that's something that we can work with um with there. But uh still waiting to hear from Randy on um whether or not that fire pit would be permitted. No. uh Randy Randy Grojan, the uh Beaver Creek Township Fire Chief,

but uh h I I believe our uh applicants are here in the crowd as well, so happy to answer any questions um at the conclusion of the public hearing. Excellent. Thank you. Uh once again, this is a public hearing, so if uh anyone here wishes to speak uh for, against, or simply ask questions, now is your time to do it. I'm hearing deafening deafening silence again. Did we have any written input? We did not. No written input. Last chance. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Get along with my my folks here and I'll start to my immediate left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Colin, could you come back up just to close the loop on the kindness of raising the uh fire issues that we had?

Yes, sir. So, I'm going to pull that string a little bit more and maybe the people in the audience if they represent these can answer. Uh, the open fire pits, what what we call them for the two that are there and shown in the drawing. Um, would be an issue especially in winter if there's a hanging element to close from the wind as you would see some places with outdoors, they have the I don't want to say drapes or tapestry, but they're Yeah, I've certainly seen that. Y

and there's nothing that mentions those enclosures, but I can't imagine a restaurant in the winter in February not having those and yet they sell the open pit. So, how do we kind of take yours one your kind remarks one step further and say we're looking at not only the open pit under the enclosure? Uh is it treated properly? But just the notion of having them because that's going to be an enclosed space in February whether like it or not. And we would certainly welcome uh any kind of condition that planning commission would come up with. Uh but I'm sure the uh the applicants can speak more to their business plan and model um as far as utilizing the space if possible.

Yeah. What what's what's the plans for the and if the space is enclosed the open pits if the open pits go away or they the fire they go away then it doesn't really matter what we do because the the fire pits are the only issue. Mike Taylor with vice president at Pinnacle Architects 480 Vantage Point Williamsburg. Um the bottom of of the set is going to be a cement fiber board. We want it to be smooth. Uh so it is that's fire resistant.

But the wood framing the rest of the building is all 5B construction uh combustible. So yeah, we'll definitely work with with fire department if if that's allowed as far as having uh any kind of roll down screens. I don't breakers or Yeah, I don't I don't for February. Dean would like that. Thank you. I have I have uh Dean Leah Leos here. He's the owner. But we we're going to use the screen. It's a metal screen up there. That's just whatever really sun that would come. And that's that's kind of from I don't know what direction. This is the most unique property I've ever worked on. Yeah. See, the

the issue, Mr. Taylor, is there could be the potential in winter of an open flame in an enclosed space. Yes. And it looks tremendous because I drive by there a lot in the way of the base. And I'm telling you, that's going to be a tremendous improvement. But you have an open flame in an enclosed space. That's

that's a lot of trouble. if he would do and we would recommend like a mechco shade type system. The the actual face of the columns and that metal band is on this side of the glass railing. So it would come down on we would have um side channels for it to to come down on and it would be in front of the the bottom rail which is glass. So it it will be able to be fixed in there, but and it's class A material, but again, if it's an enclosed space or it could be in February. Um, Mr. Taylor, as long as you're kind to come up, let me ask one related question. Prior to what Mr. Carville said about removal of the chimney.

Yes. Um, the documents that we had read said that the obviously the new construction is going to be a new roof, right? But the existing roof on the existing building was going to stay the same. Yes. And does that remain? The existing roof is not going to be touched. Even with the chimney gone, it's still not going to be touched. Still not going to be touched.

And we're trying to come in under the set with the new flat plane metal, black metal canopy. He just like a new more elegant look. He's going to rename the bar. It's not going to be toudies anymore. It's going to be 3.9 82 kitchen and bar. And okay, Dean will be presenting his new logo, but he he has turned a couple of other bars in the region into the really fun places to be. And he very creative and this will help him take this the old stigma. It's close enough to the base, you'll have a great lunch crowd. Definitely. And and he's missing out on that because he has the

the space, but we no cover. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. to my right, vice chair. Question for Colum. So, would we want to just put in a condition that says like all concerns of the fire department um should be met or something? Sure, that that could help. I mean, the as Randy kind of mentioned to me to the side, uh this this will require uh a building permit from from the county and ultimately they have to meet fire code for to get approval for that. So, we're covered a lot of different ways, but I'd certainly welcome a condition as well if you'd see fit.

Okay. And then the other question is, so our packet says a new masonary fireplace will be constructed, right? But now we're saying it's not. Yes. Yeah, that literally just came in today. So, yeah, they they disregarded that. So, that that is not included anymore. Okay. So, if we approve this, that wouldn't be included. So, they could not then change their mind later and then it in our packet. Correct. Yeah, I know there staff had some concerns with that as well. So, um yeah, that would not be included as as is. Okay. All right. That's all the questions I had. Miss Laura, I don't have any questions. All right.

Yeah. Question for staff. Um in the past um for uh cases on Colonel Glenn like Valvalain um there's a a pretty major office building that was being built across um uh national. Yeah. Um we had uh a condition in there to work with the city, work with you guys on um delivery times for heavy equipment, things like that. Just just with base traffic. Um would this be a candidate for that? This doesn't seem as major as um some of these other construction activities. I don't think so. I don't think it would rise to that.

Okay. Thank you. My turn. Um quick question. Um, since since this uh uh new roof goes right up to the property line, the parcel next to it when it develops, which it will eventually, I presume, um, what kind of a setback are we going to have to have from them? So, I believe that parcel is uh a sonic, I believe, to the east, directly east. So, um I believe it is developed. Um Okay. So, it's unlikely that that they're going to do any building near

Correct. Yeah.

Okay. Good. That's good to know. Um now, Tutti has been here a long eating there as a first lieutenant, and that was a long time ago. Y'all had a fire there, too. Uh and they they rebuilt. Um, so it it it's been a fixture in Beaver Creek since before Beaver Creek was a city. I know that. Um, my suggestion, gentlemen, when we're talking about the fire pits and the fireplace and so forth, is to add a condition that would permit a fire pl any any anything with a flame has to be in an open in a fireplace and that would that would prelude a fire pit. and just put that in there. Uh, and it still gives them the option to do it if they want to without having to come back to us again. And it would have to be approved by by fire code.

Would that work? Could you say that one more time? Okay. Uh, adding a condition that says that any any open fire in this area would have to be in a fireplace, not an open fire pit. And it would have to be approved by the fire fire department fire code, however you want to put that. Just externally vented to the outside. Yeah. I I think fire code will cover us because then we'd have to what's the definition of a fire pit versus a fireplace kind of thing. So I think Okay. Do you think that through the um approval process?

I I trust the approval process. Definitely. I just want all I'm say the reason I'm saying that is is simply to give them the option if they decide before they start construction dang I wish we had put that fireplace in it'll give them the option to do that without having to come back here that was my only that was my suggestion about that so but it to the sense of planning commission so just the issue the issue is the external venting of an inside the patio area heating source right? Whatever heating source they use, open pit, fireplace, then it's externally vented, which they can't do if it's a fully enclosed, but a fireplace would do the deal.

But if you say that, then you would have to say that electric ceiling heaters or those propane ceiling heaters like they have at um uh at at City Barbecue, uh you need to specify an open flame. Yes, I agree. So, but it's it's up to planning commission. You guys Melissa, word it for us. I my opinion is if we do anything just to say, you know, all concerns of the fire department shall be met prior to the lease of a release of a building permit. Yeah, I think. Okay.

All right. So, I would make that motion, Mr. Chair, uh that all concerns of the fire department shall be uh met prior to release of the building permit. Okay. Condition six. Position six. Melissa is typing away. So, and we need to vote on that, folks. I have a Okay, I I second that addition. Have a second. And we'll do that by acclamation. All in favor? I

All oppose, same sign. I uh not that was a a four, not an against. So mo uh the uh amendment passes 50. And now I need a motion to approve the or sorry the uh the motion to approve PC25-7 ASRA for Tudi's Bar and Grill with the six attached conditions. Okay, I have a motion. I have a second and be so good as to read the role. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Self,

yes. Motion carries 5. and we're looking forward looking forward to uh the uh new construction there. Okay, folks, we are down to our third public hearing. Um PUD2-3 specific site plan number seven Brew. Uh that the applicant has requested that to be tabled till the October meeting. So I need a motion to table. M M Mr. Sure. Can we just table to indefinitely and then just in case they don't, you know, come back in October, we don't have to retable it. There we go. Okay, that's fine. I was just reading what's put in front of me.

Yeah. I mean, generally, if we table it one month, then we won't revertise. But once we get past a month, then we'll need to readvertise. So, it's fine if you want if they if they come back next month, then we don't have to revertise. If they table another month, then we probably will revertise. It's there's not a whole lot of people to advertise out in that area, but uh we just want to make sure that you don't advertise something and then have it four months later. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Okay. So, we're going to leave it alone. We're okay. Do it for a month or do it for You can do it. You can you can just say table it in indefinitely. Okay. Just want to make sure that I had it right. Not sure why I'm speaking anyway. So,

Mr. Share, I would move to table uh POD 25-3 SSP number one indefinitely. I second that. I have a motion and a second and let's read the role for that. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries 50. And we are down to the last item which is uh a decision item uh dealing with PUD93-6 mod 825. It's a minor modification and it's Canterbury Trails Buffer.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is a minor modification to the existing site plan. Amberwood is the is the name of the development. It was approved, I believe, in the summer of 2021. Um, and construction then began in 2022. It's it's been a u it was a challenging site with a lot of grading, a lot of grading and a lot of uh vegetation to to uh to move around to make the uh the development work. Um just for uh get your bearings straight. Um it's up in the northeast corner of Beaver Creek. It's actually on the norththeast side of hole number seven off the golf course. Um this is the site plan as it was originally approved in 2021 where you've got in the green area with the orange buildings. So that's the multif family portion. Um and then you've got in the in the center of the project is single family residential with the the yellow lots now along the entire western property line. Um, and it's kind of hard to see in this in this map, but there's a 25 foot area that's designated as as a non or I think it's no disturbance area or non-disturbance area. Um, and that that's what brings us here this evening. Um, as as uh our city engineer was out doing inspection on on one of the southern roads, kind of looked up the the uh the hill and you could and he noticed that there was one house where there was patio that was kind of sticking further into the property than than the rest of the houses. Um so we went out and took a look and in fact um you can see I kind of superimposed what we measured out there but some of of a retaining wall and some of a of a concrete patio um encroaches into that 25 foot non-disturbance area. Um and the patio

is it's it's it's a nice looking patio. These were taken in the summer and while it was under construction um and there's still a lot going on, but it it's a nice looking structure and so trying to work with the the property owner to try to find an amicable solution to this encroachment. Um and as I was going through the what Bent Creek has, what Canterbury Trails has or Woodlands of Canterbury Trails and the other single family neighborhoods in the in the area. Um, you can see on the on all the the yellow lines that I have on there, it's actually labeled as a no cut zone. Um, and then the red is labeled as a non-disturbance area. Um, and both reds were done by Fiser Homes. Um, and the the the problem is we don't have a definition for non-disturbance area in the zoning code. Um, we have a definition for a no cut zone which basically states that you can get rid of scrub, you can get rid of weeds and um, brush um, and non-native species, but you can't get you can't cut trees that are 4 in or larger. We also have a woodlands easement where it basically it needs to stay as it remains um, remain as it is. Um, it needs to be a non you don't touch it kind of area. We try to discourage those uh abuing residential neighborhoods um just because you get all that underbrush and poison ivy and it's it can be an attractive nuisance for um small animals and and the like. Um and so um but um reading the two definitions I made the inference that you know a non-disturbance area is closer to a woodlands easement just based on the title than it is to a no cut zone. So we're treating it as a woodland easement

which is what we we're kind of not really for when it comes to next to residential neighborhoods. So, I brought the idea of reclassifying the no the non-disturbance area to a no cut zone to city council in the summer. Um, and council was kind of they were hesitant to uh to go forward with that. Um, they said if we're going to do that, it needs to be a major modification. It requires all the public hearings and and the like. Um but when we talked to him about rather than changing to to a no cut zone rather allow a small encroachment into that non-disturbance area modify the language in Amberwood's PUD. Um so this would be only applicable to Amberwood. It's not to every PUD or not to every neighborhood in the city. um where it allows a small encroachment of uncovered um structures into that non-disturbance area and and they were more receptive to that idea and thought that that um that can be a minor modification rather than a major modification. Um and so that's why we're here this evening. Um what they're propos what we're proposing with this application um in general is that um allowing up to a five foot encroachment only for uncovered patios and uncovered deck. So you can't have a Florida room. You can't have a you know a covered patio or anything like that into the into the non-disturbance area. But have up to five feet encroachment for uncovered patios or decks. And then also recognizing that when you put a deck next to a non-disturbance area which is tantamount to a woodland easement. You need to have some clear area around it so you can maintain the deck and you don't have poison ivy growing onto your deck. So in addition to the five foot encroachment for that you allow up to a three-foot encroachment into a lawn. Um and so basically with the deck or patio

and the lawn it's an eightoot encroachment into the area. um specifically to the applicant because this is a deck that was um a patio that was already the construction already begun. We want to try to claw back some of the the area that was cleared. So um I kind of showed it on on this one here where you can see and it I just put five trees on the back. They don't necessarily have to be equidistant or placed there. It's just a representation that you know five trees be placed on the property line between the golf course and this um encroachment and then um rewing I guess is the term for the other area of the property that was in the non-disturbance area that's not part of the maintenance lawn. Um so basically they need to get a permit for the the retaining wall. There's no retain there's no permits required for a patio but we do require them for decks. uh they have a patio, but we do also we require a permit for a retaining wall. Um and so they need to within three months of approval, if this is approved here this evening, they'll need to get a permit for the retaining wall. But prior to us releasing that permit, they need to install either five deciduous trees or five evergreen trees along that back property line. Um and also within three months they need to um rewild that area that's not part of the maintenance lawn. The applicant is here and not sure if they wanted to say anything but I want to give the opportunity like to speak. Um but we're recommending approval of this. Um, I think it's a good compromise between having a woodland easement, which is we try to discourage next to residential because it does severely limit what a property owner can do, but this allows for some use of the backyard. Um,

or that's what otherwise are pretty uh shallow lots back there. Thank you. Thank you. Um, do you all have anything you would like to add? I'm sure we're going to have some questions for you, but if you'd like to to uh speak your piece, uh it may uh answer some of our questions ahead of time. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. So, um Mr. Bquette did a a phenomenal job explaining the situation. Um so, let me just kind of read a little bit of what we had prepared and then I can answer any of the questions. Um sorry, could you just for the record, could you identify yourself? We know who you are, but we need it for the record. John Cherry. I'm I'm I'm the perp um lot 14. Okay. In Amberwood. Okay.

Um so so first of all, I want to make it clear that we never intended to do anything that was not in keeping with the planning or zoning commission's direction. Residents of Beaver Creek for 35 years. We we kind of know the process pretty well. Um our intent has always been to enhance both Amberwood's subdivision and our property to create a backyard that's visual visually pleasing to golfers. has no impact on golf course operations and increases the overall property values of Amberwood. We are very sorry for the issues this matter has caused. However, we truly believe we are aligning our property enhancements with the setback buffer requirements as we understood them, especially since there wasn't a zoning code definition for no disturbance area. Um, it seems to be open to interpretation of, you know, what that actually means. Um, Mr. Briquette has has thrown up there some some trees on there. Um, what I would like to do is I would like to offer that in in selecting lot 14, my wife and I went out there and and we actually videotaped 15, 14, and 13, a 360 pan just to see what it would look like before we even u build on there. So, I have a 360 degree pan of that area and no trees were touched. Um, city council had some heartburn saying we had cleared the area. The only thing that we've done is taken out poison ivy as Mr. Bquette mentioned, um, honeysuckle. Um, you know, there are invasive I think they call it oriental bittersweet. And I really would encourage Beaver Creek to get some sort of um you know tree commissioner, some arborist out there to look because the intent is to preserve that area. And what you're doing by making this no disturbance area is you're allowing that

to just take root and kill all those trees right there. You can look and see that they're all covered with these vines and they're dead. Um so back to my point um while we did not take any of the trees down we're willing to plant the trees as you know as um as mentioned we do have a permit in the system um with the builder of of our patio and I think it's waiting um approval of this board's decision on whether to go forward with the permit. Um the the company that did it has got a 40-year track record in Beaver Creek and surrounding areas. Um, so I can tell you it's a it's a fine job. You know, Pavers by Design, just a phenomenal organization. I think that's probably all I wanted to to mention, although I will echo and foot stomp Mr. Burquette's comments about, you know, the degradation of a no disturbance zone around uh residential properties. You can see back there that it's it's really not what I, as a golfer, you know, envision. you know, I just retired after 33 years in the Air Force. This was the house that that we built. This was our dream home um on the golf course. We paid a premium to have a golf course lot through Fiser. And I think that's counterintuitive to have a golf course lot on on number seven and not be able to see the golf course. So if you stand on either property and look back, you won't like what you see. You stand on my property, it's very pleasing both directions. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments. Yeah, Randy.

Yes, sir. Uh just some random questions, I guess. So, was there notice given for this hearing? Because Gohead. Right. This is not a public hearing, so it didn't require notification. Okay. Because I just know when council heard it, what in July or something like that, there was a few people there who Yeah. Um Yeah. Um there was a there was a few public inputs because there was public opportunity at those. Okay. Um and then just for my ignorance, why why not BZA for this? like couldn't they

uh it was a it was a it's not a boilerplate condition. It was something that was established by planning commission and city council as part of the PUD process. So really felt that if we're going to allow a slight modification of uh PUD um condition established by planning commission city council and it should be at least modified by planning commission. it. Sorry. I guess so. So, I I don't want to call it a variance because we're we're looking to do it not just for this property, but allow that encroachment for all the the property. So, I guess my question then is why not a variance and why do it this way instead?

Well, a variance is going to be property specific. So, that means everybody wanted to do it have to apply for a variance that way. And um those are public hearings and require a lot more um I guess application lead time. I mean they're a lot harder to do. Um and so we wanted really it's an it's a it's a way to try to fix what is an a woodland easement because it's not title. It's not named right, I guess. I I guess I see that a little bit, but then at the same time, we're allowing stuff to go into that. That's where I have a problem with this. And so we, you know, every time we hear a development, right, we have packed room of people here, you know, with very strong um you know, concerns about things and then now to come back later and then modify those conditions. that gives me I don't know a little anxiety or heartburn because I mean

no I I understand and it's it's kind of an odd situation because if you look like I say if you look at the this map here and it shows like just on the same golf same hole just on the other side of the hole that's a no cut zone and so I was trying the the intent for me to do the originally to think that we could just reclass classified as a no cut zone. I'm just trying to create a like by like situation, you know, level the playing field. Um but at the same time trying not to get a entire room full of people um worked up on on a on a no cut zone. Um or well what is is a green woods is is a woodland easement but trying to reclassify it so it matches what what Bent Creek has and what um Woodlands and Canterbury Trails has

but in their HOA right it's more similar to what is in the PD right that's correct but that's that can be changed by the HOA at any time so I'm trying to trying to get it closer to where we're we're enforcing the same rules on both side of the hole. And this kind of gets it towards that direction. Yeah. And then how does how would this compare then to all the other PUDs that we've done recently for developments?

I don't have I don't have wooden need in any of them. I I specifically like for Bridalwood. I specifically they they accidentally put woodland easement on the concept plan and it had already been shared with the neighbors and I pulled that back at the resoning. said, "We need to reclassify that as a no cut zone because woodland easements just don't belong in a single family neighborhood because of because of the poison ivy and the cud I don't think it's cudu but the Virginia creeper whatever um what is it the cottonwood the vines that grow everywhere really fast Virginia creeper um

and with rightwood that we just took here last last month um it's a no cut zone with um Turner that we did last year. That's a no cut zone. So, I'm really really wanting to pull away from any kind of woodland easement next to single family residential. It's I just don't think it it's a good mix. And then refresh my memory. So, on those ones, could they build something in that? Um Yeah.

Yeah. Because um in a no cut zone, in the definition of no cut zone, it says you can have passive or active recreation. um if you're not taking down a tree that's 4 foot or 4 inches or larger. So you can have um landscaping fencing, you can have um sheds as long as it's not you're not having to take down the 4inch tree or larger to do it. Um so but on a woodlands easement, you can't do anything. Um it's just basically wild untamed area behind your house. All right. Yeah. I guess I just have concerns about changing it now after that.

Yeah. And this this is one of those ones where I pushed that around in my head for a month before I brought it even to city council on what best to do and it wasn't that there's no easy choice on this one. All right. Thank you. Next. No questions. Okay. I'll go to my far left. I don't have any questions. TV. Oh, yes. Hey, you'll be up there for a while, Randy. That's fine. Um, in the packet, for those of you in the audience on TV, this is one of the diagrams we got. Is this able to be called up on the screen? I believe I have it right there.

Well, there it is. Okay. So, uh, Steve, I'm gonna ask Randy to repeat the question because I'm going to go off mic for a second. I need to get closer to the screen. when we looked at the looked at the numbers or looked at the what was happening. That's Yeah, you were just asking did he encroach into the city property? My

that is city property and It appeared that yes, some of the um some of that area was cleared as well. Um now, we didn't survey the property. We didn't have the property survey when we went out and looked and measured. Um we want to would want to clarify what was done on the city property, but talking with the golf course people, they didn't have a problem with what was going on, but but at the same time, we can't Well, it looks great, but we can't have the the rock creek or whatever on city property. I mean,

so so so here's my concern. Can you go back? Oh, to that one right there. So, the retaining wall, as I'm I'm purposely summarizing this, and this is just a suggestion. I know how hard you and Colin and Melissa are overburdened already by us, but when an item comes to us from the council, it especially with our our new member Laura today, it would really help us if you gave us the dates when it was at the council so we can look up the meeting minutes. And I only know because as you know I've been to all the council meetings as Jonathan has and I've sat through all this. So I called up the June 16th minutes, the July June 23rd minutes, the July um 16th minutes, excuse me, July July 14th minutes and I reread plus I sat in the room when Mr. Mrs. Cherry were here and I've seen all this already but to the audience and to others here they may not have. This is something that's gone for as you correctly pointed out from major modification to minor modification. And now it's back to us. And I'm unclear in a legal term, Mr. Lbury, what precedent, excuse me, what preference we can do if a bigger issue has not been resolved first. And that's where I'm going with my question. If this retaining wall was in the 25 foot area, how much ballpark because we didn't have it surveyed as you said, how much additional did their developed area, clearing area, whatever, go into our property, the city property, 2 feet, 3 feet.

We'd have to measure, but I we can make a a boil condition that says any any Well, I'm just trying to get a ballpark. Was it 3 feet, 13 feet, 20 feet? How much past get to the golf? I don't think it would it was much if if I mean you're talking five feet.

Yeah. So it's it's just a couple feet. But it reinforces having sat through all the meetings as the cherries did and you did and I did of the the June two meetings, the July meeting of just how much this is an issue of someone coming into an area even if they did the tremendous work that it looks tremendous and they did it without a permit but okay so the permit's in process now but they went into an area that they shouldn't have and they not only went into an area they shouldn't have they went into an area that's cityowned. So now I'm torn as Commissioner Garcia or Councilwoman Garcia was, Councilwoman Schwarz was, uh, Vice Mayor Bell was, I'm torn having sat through all these meetings and seeing how do we address an issue that involves uh, making city land to their betterment, the Cherries, when the permit issue that we might rule on or rule on whether it's a minor modification is so far into the future because we haven't yet resolved what to happen to the city land.

I would just say that and I know you guys could do to allow someone to build on city property.

There's no BCA variance request that could come to allow you to build on that is our property and there is no legal right to build on city-owned property by anyone other than the city or someone the city gives specific permission to do that which I can't envision that ever happening. So, I mean, regardless of what happened at council, regardless of what happened here, they were going to have to remove anything that they had done on city property. And this happens from time to time when people, you know, put out a playground into city property when they don't realize where their property line stops. And when they don't, they just got to move it. It's not their property.

Yeah. We we've we've removed like you said playgrounds, we've removed gardens, we've removed hunting blinds, and that would that would be what I would expect. However, for our purposes of what we have the purview to do today, as as uh we were mentioning in the conditions, the well-written conditions for going forward if should this be approved, none of it addresses the reconciliation and putting back to its prior state, the city-owned property that they made betterment of. Yeah. All we talked about was the non I can't remember the term. You know, it's a better non-disturbance area.

Yeah. All we talked about was the non-disturbance. Now, I only know that because I looked at all the meeting minutes that Miss Haynes developed for the June 16th, June 23rd to July 14th. I read them all and nothing talks about the city land. So to me, hence where I started, how can we go forward as a planning commission to make any decision on this quote minor modification that was given to us if we haven't first resolved possibly through just another resolution if not through city council to put the city property back to its state first

then it comes to the planning commission for a permit issue. There is nothing that requires planning commission BZA that the city has the right without any to have its property changed back to the way it was okay to begin with. I see that as we're not in a sequential uh state of can't do anything till after. Okay. Right. That's more of an administrative function between the golf course and the parks and that was that was my main concern. Are we I don't want to say out of step but out of sequence for what should be happening. what you're deciding will only affect what happens within the PUD. That land, that city-owned property is not part of the PUD. It may be, but not subject to the PUD reg. Certainly not.

So then going back to this helpful diagram you have, and again, this stuff that they that the Cherries did is outstanding. It looks great. It's just not in their area that they had the right to do it. So now I'm trying to verify what we're talking about today for the planning commission is what's going on in the 25 foot area only. Correct. And only the first eight feet of it and only the

five foot encroachment and then a five foot for the this property in particular. There'll be some rewing but really the the the PUD modification is for Amberwood in general. So any of the houses along that property line. So going back to the recommendation, the recommendation, excuse me, the resolution uh conditions that we have, do we need to direct a recommendation specifically to the future HOA so that what the cherries will possibly be permitted to have done is not replicated in future 20 foot areas. I plan on taking whatever you guys decide tonight to the HOA. So us adding a resolution to the HOA is viable the future.

No, I'm just letting them know what's that there was a modification if you pass it. There was an amendment modification to the site plan and that modification is an allowance of encroachment into the non-disturbance area. Maybe that's where I end up is making an HOA recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh don't run off. U building on what you said. Um the it it seems to me if whatever we test tonight. The HOA could not make any looser, but they could tighten. Oh, yeah. They could basically the HOA could could go into more detail and define this term that that we won't use again

or we'll put it in the news the next time. still wouldn't it would whatever the HOA came up with would still be would be grandfathered uh if if we came up with a definition that didn't match theirs. Yeah. I mean they we don't enforce HOA regulations um because that's basically an agreement between two private property owners but and there's a lot of cases I mean we don't reg that in neighborhoods all throughout the city where we have general conditions and then they come in and say well your house has to be right they tighten them up

all mailboxes have to be blue. I mean we don't put we wouldn't put that but the HOA might. So that's not we wouldn't enforce the blue mailboxes. Um but that's HOA if they want to. That's up to them. I I seem to recall a a a similar kurfuffle on uh along Willow Run a number of years ago. Yeah. The um where there were a bunch of dead trees back there and they couldn't cut them down because they would be it was a no cut zone and we we changed the definitions at that time to allow them to cut dead trees down. Yeah. I mean Yeah. because I was out having to go out there every day and say, "Yep, that one's dead. Yep. Yeah, that one's dead." And I I remember that became the the fodder between two neighbors.

We went through this long a discussion on that. Um, now the Could you put the the uh the the aerial up of Okay. No, no, no. You you had it to begin with that one. The dotted red line is the edge of the nondisturbance area, but it is still part of the Cher's lot. Yeah, that correct. Okay. The line where the where the the puditive trees are is the actual lot line between their property and the city, right?

Okay. So, I just want to make sure that that I had that right. Um, so the only the only little bit of heartburn I have here is that um it's it was a case of the owners just didn't check before they started swinging the machete. And uh I don't like to I'm not big on even though I was Air Force 2 and know about asking for forgiveness rather than permission. uh and uh I I don't want to make this look like it's something that we would do on a regular basis and we've already made it very clear that this would apply only to this one development and not in general. So, um,

and that was that's kind of also the intent of the reilding condition, correct? And the, um, correct, the trees back there make sure, uh, and I would presume though that the, uh, whatever was whatever was cut on city property, that will be part of the of the replanting, the golf course or whatever they require, they require. That's what I mean. Okay. I I I try to stay out of the golf course as world. Oh, absolutely. That that's very smart. uh you you don't want to get between you and golfers. No. Um any further questions? Any further helpings, gentlemen? Yes. Yeah. Going back to uh possible at least one, if not possibly two recommendations.

Uh if I understand Amberwood correctly, as with typical HOAs, a certain percentage of the homes have to be sold before the HOA is formed. And the cherries have the benefit of being one of the early ones, pre HOA. That would be correct. I'm not sure as the status I don't think the Hamwood has has an HOA yet. Oh, they do. Oh, well, typically developer will run it until they are ready to leave the property.

So, can we with an HO and I understand what he Mr. Cherry just said because that's common with any development until you sell a certain number of homes, you don't turn over the operation of the community of the HOA to the residents. Uh, but if that be true, could we write a recommendation that would bind Fiser development?

I don't think we could we could um require Fiser to do anything without Fiser being here to answer it. But if we're talking about something to prevent this going forward so that the cherries are the only ones that will have this should it go ahead. We can't say and never more because we'll write an HOA requirement if the HOA can't be held accountable because it's run by the developer. The intent here is not is to allow that five foot encroacher for anybody along that property is to or is not is is two. If approved the precedent would be set. That's why it's a minor mod rather than a variance. A variance would be property specific. Minor is changing the parameters of

this would allow every property owner to do what they've what they've done. Essentially, the HOA could eventually put stricter requirements. They couldn't put looser requirements than what we are having in the in the PUD. So your 5 foot and three foot uh is a reflection of what could happen on all the adjoining lots along hole seven golf hole 7 but not in effect go into the city. No it doesn't we would never get permission for anybody to do anything on the city property. Okay for example hence do we need a second recommendation to make sure that the cherry's put back to its current or prior state. I didn't

the the golf course. I mean, they'll they'll are going to work with cherries on making sure that amends are made on city property. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that the the the um the cherries would have to correct is is the the trees replanting some of the wild vegetation on their property. Not any not touching the golf course as it pertains to this case here. Yeah. But the golf course and whatever the golf course and then does that's more of an administrative function that planning commission or city council really doesn't get into. We're only looking at their property.

Right. For example, if once the once the U Amberwood HOA gets gets up and running by the by the property owners, they could, for example, allow uh property owners to clear poison ivy and vines and non-native species, uh which would be the the honeysuckle, that Asian honeysuckle, uh without without violating the HOA. And it would not violate what we are what we have put in because we have no definition of the the specifics of what a non-disturbance area is. Am I am I correct on that? That's correct. Yeah. Officially I don't have a definition.

That's why we that's why it would be a good idea to leave this and uh as it is and then let the HOA uh fill in the details. So it's like an AFR versus a a MAGCOM uh rag. I'm not in there, done that. Mr. Chairman, I'm still trying to clarify here in the recommendations, it does not address the city- owned property. And I know a moment ago earlier, Mr. Briquette, you said that's something between them and the city golf course. Yeah, that's an administrative thing.

So, it's not something you think that by putting a recommendation in here and us requiring them to resolve, we're just going to leave it up to them working with the golf course. Yeah. Because I mean, if you did put it in, then you're putting a condition that requires me as the planning department to try to enforce something on another department in the city. And that's more of the role of the city manager rather than planning commission. It it begs what I started all this with of 20 minutes ago. I'm trying to make sure that no one goes onto city property again. And I see nothing that prevents anyone on lot 13 or lot 15 or any other lots long hole 7 from saying, "Well, the cherries got away with it. I can get away with it. I'll just talk to my friends at the golf course."

Any anytime somebody encroaches on somebody else's property, that's a wrong that they have to make make right through legal entities, not necessarily our commissioning. It' be akin to them putting the their uh patio onto their neighbors property. We wouldn't address that in a minor modification. Not in a planning commission, but are we by not addressing it, at least a recommendation, no burdening adjoining lot orders by saying, "Okay, they'll just work it out with the golf course because they'll probably try to do it." They're not they're not supposed to be on golf course property in the first place.

Like I mentioned, this has happened multiple times throughout the city throughout the years. And whenever someone encroaches onto city property, we we don't need to come before you. We don't need to come before anyone. We have an independent legal right to tell them, "Get off of my land. Restore to the way it was before." just as if someone had built something on your property. In this case, as far as we know already, well, we put a hold on until we wanted to see what how this this progresses before we Thank you for addressing it. As Clint Eastwood said, get off of my yard. Okay. Uh any help any further helpings, folks? Just just one more.

Sure. So in just taking Bridalwood as an example, so could they build more than three feet into sorry five feet like a patio or a deck? No, the patio deck can only encroach up to five feet. Sorry, I'm like in bridal wood as an example, right? No, this is only for this flat. I know. Well, bridal I mean that would be specific because it's a no cut zone. If they don't have trees, if there wasn't trees,

if there weren't any trees, it was just scrub, then they could build up to um I mean, a patio can go all the way up to the property line. On a R1A, you can build a patio right up to your property line. Um if there's no intervening, no cut zone or no non-disturbance area or woodland ement or green space ement or what any other many names you can call it. in in an older neighborhood that doesn't have these kind of protections. You can put your patio right up on the property line. Um at Bridalwood, you can do that if you're not taking out a 4 foot 4 inch or thicker tree. Like if you live on a a grassy lot that has no woods, you could patio right up to your property line. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying not

get a comparison of what we what this would change to versus what other that we've done recently. Well, when we rewickered when we and correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory serve my memory serves me when we redid the no cut zone portion of the zoning code after all the all the dead trees that you were having to go out and look at. Yeah. Uh the point was to keep either the developer or property owners from cutting trees along old fence lines because that's where they generally occur. Yeah. the big mature trees that we're trying to

and we the developers were were sometimes the bad actors. They would come in. It was so much easier to bulldo everything than to try to work around the trees. And that was as much for them as it was for the property owners. And particularly if it was if it was adjacent to an existing plat and the folks are used to seeing all those nice big trees just outside their reach on the other side of their property line and they didn't want them cut down either. So that was the point of the and and we learned our lesson about the undergrowth and the the Virginia creeper and the poison ivy. And that's why one of the reasons that this was rewritten and that that's the whole point of a no cut zone.

And and and we could when we redo the zoning code, we could lump non-disturbance area into no cut zone rather than lumping it into woodland easement. That would be up to planning commission and city council to define um probably would be my recommendation at the time is to allow maintenance of but that's that's for another day. I don't want to confuse the issue here but uh eventually we'll have a definition of non-disturbance area.

Yeah. Yeah. No thanks. I'm again I'm just torn between whether this should go to like BZA and just be a oneoff versus make the change for every property. I can say that as an area variance, this would not fly in front of the BZA because then you'd have to establish that there was something unique about that particular property aside from the other ones that would made it so that they had to have a variance in order to do what they wanted to do. And I just don't see that ever that would never meet the requirements for a variance. So the only way that this can be addressed is this way. BZA is a lot more boxed in with the rules and regulations because a quasi there being a quasi I can't say that word. Quasi judicial board,

right? Whereas planning commission has more flexibility on modifications. Can I Mr. Chair, she Thank you, Cindy Cherry. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to verify with Randy this only affects seven homes, right? Seven or eight homes. The whole Yeah, it's very few of us.

No, it'll be the ones. It's the ones on the left, the ones on the west side of the neighborhood. Um, really the the non-disturbance area stops, I believe. I can't use the pointer, but it stops at that crossroad. It's just the seven lots. the orange building and then right not a whole lot. Sorry, that's correct.

That was me. Uh my mic was off. So it it's just the the the ones that that face Well, all the way down the uh Oh, all the way down to I guess the dog leg, right? Okay. But yeah, so it I think I see. So there there's no Well, I guess there wouldn't be on the other side, would there? Because that's No, those have a 100 foot buffer because of the power lines on side.

Okay. Okay, got it. Thanks for pointing that out. Okay, folks. We need a motion. Do we need to put a condition in there? Uh, getting the HOA involved or not? I mean, I'm going to send this to the HOA. If you want to add a condition that I'd send it to the HOA, okay, but I plan on doing it because it's a lot easier for me to

get out in front of it than react to it later. Okay. Well, Then we'll need a ninth condition that the planning uh the HOA shall be informed of the decision of planning commission informed and and an explanation of course. Yeah. Okay. If that I mean it's your guys's such would include the meeting minutes from today or do you whatever whenever it's ready. Yeah.

I mean yeah I know I know Amber Wood pretty well. So if if somebody will make that as a as a motion for a new condition before we vote on the minor mod for Melissa's benefit. So I this would be condition number nine that said decision by planning commission shall be made known to the HOA of Amberwood. I was just going to say the HO I just reversed the words, but the okay

the Amberwood Homeowners Association shall be notified of the decision of planning commission as it pertains to this case that this decision relates to only this case. This case this case. Yeah. I mean this minor mod. Yeah. What he said. I would make a motion for how Randy phrased it if you caught it. I'll give you the verbiage. Okay. Okay, I have a motion. Second that. Oh, sorry. Okay, that's all right. I'll I'll withdraw I'll withdraw that. Okay, I have a motion and a second on edition. Edition number nine. And I will I'm sorry. Yes. Let's do a roll call. Mr. Fountain.

Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Meyer? No. Miss Palumbo? Yes. Mr. Self? Yes. carries 441. Uh now I will ask for a motion uh to approve the minor mod with the now nine conditions. Motion to approve PUD 93-6 uh minor mod campary trails buffer with the nine attached conditions. And a second. I second that motion. Thank you, ma'am. We have a motion and a second. Uh let's Read the roll call on that. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes.

Mr. Fountain, no. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries 41. And gentlemen and Miss Palumbo, we are fresh out of items on the agenda. So, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chair, I'd move to adjurnn. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. And we'll do that by general acclamation. Thank you very much. Agreed. See you in October. Motion meeting is a