Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Clock on the wall says it's 6 p.m. So it is time for the regular October City of Beaver Creek Planning Commission meeting and I will officially call us to order. Uh please read the role. Miss Melissa, Mr. Fountain here. Mr. Jones here. Mr. Meyer here. Miss Palumbo here. Mr. So here we're all present and accounted for. Uh approval of agenda. Uh folks, do we have any any additions, corrections, changes to the agenda? Okay, we're good for the agenda. I need a motion to approve, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda. Second, third.

Don't fight over it. Uh and we'll do that by general consensus. Thank you very much. Um minutes from the September meeting. Any additions, corrections, changes, etc. Or did uh Melissa do her usual wonderful job?

Well, that's just it, Mr. Chairman. I would like to uh expand the uh the approval motion I'm going to give in a moment for the minutes. It was striking as I read the minutes for the past one which we're approving tonight just how accurate, how neutral and how focused and comprehensive Miss G uh excuse me Golaw's minutes are besides pronouncing of her name. But it struck me in all our planning commission meetings, we have uh members of the uh city residents here tonight with us. And there's some of the meetings get pretty heated. Some of the meetings get very uh somewhat pitchforks and things like that. And yet every time I read these minutes, they're not only accurate and comprehensive, but they're neutral. They don't they don't have a filling of emotion. They're just something that you can go back to a month or two or three later and you know you're going to get the straight scoop without any of the hyperbole that goes on. So our last meeting uh that we had that we're about to prove right now is one of those meetings and it was just communicated in the same factual comprehensive and kind of neutral manner that she always does so well on. So, I just wanted to call attention just how good she's doing a job to support us. And it really is a reinforcement of why the meeting minutes are just so automatically approved. And I don't want to let it go by one more time.

And she got that all down. Yes. I'm Yeah. Yeah. For the record. You're moving. Yes. So, as a result of that, I would like to make a motion to approve Miss Gog's Minutes for the September 3rd meeting. I second everything you said and the approval of the minutes. Thank you. And um I will I will add my two cents on uh as long as uh as long as I've been here. Melissa hasn't been quite here quite that long, but uh like like they said on Dragonet, just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. Just the facts, ma'am.

And uh she does a wonderful job and we're most appreciative. But this ain't her first rodeo, believe me. Okay. Uh by general consensus, thank you very much. Okay. This evening we have uh one public hearing, one decision item, and a subdivision. So, without further ado, let's start with a public hearing. Uh just so you all will know, um you know, we got to table it. But before we start that, uh the way we run our public hearings is um the uh uh the applicant will uh give their presentation, then staff will do their presentation. At that point, we'll open the floor to anyone uh uh from the public who would like to give their input. Uh once all that input is done, we'll see if there's any written input, then close the public hearing and we will discuss among ourselves and hopefully come up with a decision. So, we need to untab this from last month. I need a motion for that, please. I make a motion we unt um the public 25-3 SSP number one.

Okay. From the last meeting. Second up. I have a second and we'll do that by general consensus. Everybody good with that? Okay. Now you can read it. This is case number PUD 25-3 specific site plan number one on an application filed by Josh Long, 2550 Civic Center Drive, Sweet 500 Columbus, Ohio 45432. The applicant requests specific site plan approval to allow for the construction of a 510 foot beverage business with associated drive-thru on 0.64 acres. The property is located at 3919 Colonel Glenn Highway, further described as book one, page 9, parcel 44 on the Green County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Uh, I presume we have someone here from the uh, applicant's side.

Yes. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Wker. I'm a planner with McBride Clarion. I do have a brief presentation if you'll bear with me. Um, and as was mentioned, this is a request for a specific site plan. uh number one for the PUD. I do have Josh Long with me tonight. He's with uh Commercial Site Acquisitions, Casto Properties. Um so I'll go through my presentation. I do know that staff is going to go through the application in detail, so I'll skip a lot of those details. I will also note that we tabled this from the last meeting so that we could work with staff and we feel like uh that extra 30 days got us to the point where we can now say we're good with the conditions with one minor comment. So, uh, 3919 is the site location. We're on the south side of Colonel Glenn Highway, also on the north side of Germany Lane. Uh, this was approved as a PUD in August. It's an existing, uh, vehicle sales lot, relatively small, uh, 0.64 acres and proposed use is seven brew uh, coffee drive-thru. Um, this is that that property. So at the top of the slide you can see Colonel Glenn Highway and then at the middle bottom is uh Germany Lane. We are that triangular shaped property uh 0.64 acres and as you can see um it's irregularly shaped and there's an existing car lot there. The plan would be to demolish uh that um building. I will point out the driveways that are on Colonel Glenn today will not be there as part of our plan. Um this is the uh survey of the property. Again, we would demolish the existing structures and our plan is to build a new uh seven brew uh coffee store at this location. Um there would be an entrance on uh Germany Lane. That's the furthest to the east away from the intersection. Uh that entrance would be a oneway in only. And you can

see we have our uh dumpster circulation access there as well as our uh parking area. Uh we would have a double drive-thru lane. And you can see at the top of the slide on the Colonel Glenn side, there's a a canopy where our customers would pick up their uh their beverages. Uh, as you may know with Seven Brew, uh, they have an order point either at the the building at the pickup window or they have, uh, employees that take your order through the line with with touchpad. So, uh, they pride themselves in being quick turnaround of the service and a lot of that has to do with not having food. So, it allows them to, uh, process orders quickly and move through. Um and then the uh other driveway would be an exit only. So uh oneway circulation around the site. This is the same plan that you saw as a concept plan. Uh we've just been working through some some details on that. Um we think this is a good fit for the property. Again, it is consistent with the concept plan and and this we think will be compleimentary to uh the commercial uses on Colonel Glenn as well as the volume of traffic that's there. I mentioned we've been working with staff on the site design. Uh we've been working to to justify our stacking as well as access and we are requesting that planning commission recommend approval with the conditions. Uh we do agree with the conditions of approval. However, I would ask that you consider modifying condition 12. I know you haven't seen those yet, but I'm going to go ahead and talk about that. Um, that has to do with the uh in recommendation for internal downspouts. Um, this is the condition as written on the top and we would ask that the commission considered modifying that to say gutters and downspouts be painted to match the internal to match the building material

to which they are attached. making the downspouts internal to the building is a real difficulty for us. Um, part of that has to do with the fact that this is a modular building and um, so we have this is not stick built and and made made on site. Um, these are the plans that were submitted. Um, you also have a picture that I I took from the staff report. That's a picture of the North Fairfield site uh, that exists. We are building the same store, same design and image that's at the North Fairfield store. Um, and with that, there's a little bit of shadow on here, but but this is the back of the building. There are two down spouts on the back of this building. And again, on the screen, it's not real clear, but you can see to the left there's some um openings. There's a downspout that's painted the same color as the the building. And then the inside of the the outdoor area where there's some mechanical equipment also has a gutter, I'm sorry, downspout. And we we feel that if uh that allowing us to paint that uh alleviates some significant hardship that making this internal would create. Um and again, it would be the same as you've seen at the North Fairfield, and we believe our customers are pretty satisfied with that. So, um, I would ask that consideration. Um, we are, uh, acceptable to the other conditions that staff has presented. As I mentioned, we've worked with the city engineer pretty extensively on on some site and circulation issues, and we think we've come to good solutions there. So,

did you bring coffee? We asked you last time to bring coffee. I drank and that's why I'm so caffeinated now, but uh, perhaps next time. Thank you. Thank you. We we will most likely have some questions for you. Thanks, sir. Staff report.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission. Jonathan stole half my presentation, so I'll try to go through this fairly quickly here. Again, this is PUD25-3. It was a new PUD created earlier this year. Um, reszoned from a B2 um neighborhood business district to a PUB. Um and they're requesting again to construct a seven brew. It's two buildings combined total of 7 790 square feet. There's the main building and then the cooler building. Um we're in northern uh far northern Beaver Creek. Um and the advocate had already showed the u existing site with the uh several cars. Um and any redevelopment of the site I think will aesthetically be a major improvement to the area. Just to the east of that is another portion of the the auto dealer and that was approved the planning commission city council approved a um valvalene uh quick change um in the last couple months. So when both of these come together or should both of these be constructed I think it'll be a major improvement to this uh this corner here. Again the property is zoned CPU 25-3. Um, and again, the conditions in the PUB allow for a restaurant with drive-thru to be located on site. Um, as the applicant pointed out here, this is the proposed site plan. Um, you can see to the the western or southwestern corner of the site is where the entrance to the site will be. Um, and then they've got enough parking for their employees. Um the the unique um business model is there's no indoor or outdoor seating. It's it um they do offer some walkups, but that's a rare rarity. Um so really with the maximum employees on the shift, um they have

enough parking to account for all their employees. Um, and this is just a kind of did a colorized version to give you a better idea of how that would look um, overlaid with the existing aerial. Um, one of the biggest concerns um, with any drive-thru, particularly one that would have cars backing out onto public rideway is uh, the stacking. And so you go through the zoning code, the the code requires for this particular business 10 stacking spaces. And I do this with just assumed the cars were 19 by9 and I was able to fit 21 cars on site before they got to the edge of the site. Plus, we also added a proposed a condition in the resolution that states that Seven Brew or the owner occupying occupers of the building will be responsible to ensure that nobody's waiting out on public roads and it'll be up to them to um shoe them off, tell them to come back when there's room for them. Um the police would do that too and ticket anybody who parks um goes out into the road, but really we want to put it on the business owner since it would be there um they'll be there. Um and and so there's that condition in place to help prevent and if in the worst possible case scenario um cause them to uh to uh move customers along so we don't get the stacking. Also, one of the conditions um and this is an extension when Valving went in, we had them add a sidewalk on the southern end of their site. So, we're we had a condition that they put a 4 foot sidewalk along this south southern and around the corner of their site to to connect to the existing sidewalk on Colonel Glenn. Um it's like it's one of those um we we get everybody to do the sidewalk and eventually they all connect together. So, so now we'll be able to

get from Colonel Glenn all the way down to pretty much almost uh close to Zinc Road. Um I don't know if it's easier to see on this. You'll be able to get to that uh close to Zinc Road. There is sidewalk on the on the south side of the street in front of projectum. Um to the south back to where I was um when we were reviewing the site. Um, one of the city engineers concerns was cars coming off of Colonel Glenn and turning right onto German Lane. If you have cars stacking to go left onto Colonel Glenn and they're stacked back, you won't be able to see past them if you're coming out of the site because the exit site, you know, is right um only 90 70 to 90 feet away from that intersection. Um so we sent it out to a third party engineer and got their recommendation of the the separate parties so that we have um you know unbiased um information and their recommendation um well they acknowledge that you know that it does present challenges. The site is a challenging site being triangular. One of their recommendations that we make Colonel uh the Germany lane be a right out onto Colonel Glenn only. So in theory you can get cars faster through that intersection rather than having to wait to go left. So there's a condition that the applicant work with the senior engineer to build this as part of their their project. Um of course they already stated they agree to this. Um this is just my schematic. I don't know if there'd be any grass in there. I don't know if that's practical to begin with. I just thought it would look better with some multiple colors. But uh something similar to this or or some way to prevent cars or highly discouraged cars from trying to make a left out on the Colonel Glenn. Again, the applicant um as the applicant stated, this is going to be a mirror of the uh the existing build on on North Fairfield Road. And this is a picture

you already saw because you stole it from me. Um but um yeah, this is the existing one on on North Fairfield Road. You can see the multi- the tan brick on the top and the and the dark slate brick on the bottom and then the the several different colors of metal as accent features. Um so no surprises or questions about the architecture of the building. It's something that we've seen and continue to see in the city. Um in terms of landscaping, I mean if you compare what there is now with like no landscaping at all, any landscaping would be great. And what they're proposing is a is a good landscaping plan. You can see um some mulch beds on the southern end of the southern portion of the site and along the northern property line and then a various mixture of shrubs and trees and bushes and grasses throughout the uh the mulch beds and and then a few uh scattered throughout the site. In terms of lighting, uh a few wallpack lighting on on the building and then under the canopy and then there's some polemounted fixtures out on the parking lot. um reviewing the the the preliminary lighting plan didn't see any concerns with what they're proposing these full cut off LED fixtures. Uh just to go through a few conditions in the in the uh proposed resolution. One is the impact fees are applicable to the site. Um the final calculations based on it on a square footage. Um and so um we go through that. That's kind of the next step. After if should this be approved by city council, then we go and and when they get to the permitting stage, we figure out a list of all the fees and bonds and and get that to them before we would release a zoning permit. Again, they'll be responsible for making sure that vehicles aren't queuing out onto Germany Lane. Um any of the mechanical equipment, I believe it's roof mounted, um but any of that needs to be screened by either roof forms. If they do go with ground mounting equipment, then they'll have to use

landscaping to screen that. Um, and also, and we did this with the other seven brew and most PUDs within the city, is that no temporary signs be permitted within the development. Um, so planning commission or planning staff is recommending approval of the applications found in your staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions following hearing.

Thank you very much. the usual very comprehensive uh report from staff. It's public hearing time. Is there anyone here who would wish to speak for, against, or ask questions? Don't be shy. Okay, seeing none, did we have any uh any written input? Okay, last chance. I'll close the public hearing. And I promised our newest member I would not start with her. So I'll start with my vice chairman. Randy question, sir. So uh about the downspouts.

Um I went back and looked. We had condition 14 last time for the North Fairfield location. Gutters and downspouts shall not be visible on any elevation of the building and they shall be internally mounted. So what happened with that then? one of those things where we didn't notice it until Okay. So, so anyway, the point is then this what the conditions we have is compatible or it's the same as what we had last time and as you notice on that I mean they're really hard to see. Um they would be basically on the east end of this building. Um so you it would be challenging to see with the landscaping but I mean I'll I'll defer that to planning commission. Okay. Whether to keep that in or not.

Okay. Because I know we've had multiple cases in the past where some buildings it's really challenging to internally mount them. These pre-cast buildings are particular or the modular buildings are particularly challenging just because they show up like that and so to uh to add one I mean there's options you can do but really to make the building look very similar to the one that's out there now I mean it would be challenging. Okay. Um, so then, uh, I don't know if this would be more on the city to do, but so like a sign that says don't block the intersection, um, or like the on the exit. So a sign on Germany Lane that says don't block the intersection so people can continue to get out just in case for some reason that Germany Lane backed up.

Yeah, I mean, that's what the city would do. That could be our our um third party engineer recommended we don't put signage out on Germany Lane. that it it just becomes a distraction and nobody listens to it anyways. Okay. And really the onus is on the the drivers coming out for them to yield to the existing ride the existing traffic. So I mean we don't want to create a situation where they think someone might think well I've got a sign I'm all right or or things like that. So that that was the third party recommendation. That's just a recommendation. But

I I guess my concern was if Germany lane backed up, right? Then people couldn't get out of Seven Brew and then stacking becomes now an issue, right? If they can't get out. Sure. And that's I mean that would be it would be better to have cars move freely on the rightway than the cars move freely in in the site. And that's where just like if you go in the mall the stop signs they're all it can be confusing, but when you go in the mall there are no stop signs. So some some people stop, some people don't because you want traffic to get out off the public rideway as fast as possible and internally is where I mean congestion, you know, that's not good, but but it's worse out on the public rideways. Okay, I think that's all the questions I had. Okay.

Yeah. Question, and this is kind of two hypotheticals here. Assume that this goes in, assume the valve lane goes in to drive-thru services. Are there any I don't know if you talked with the third party engineer about any um amplification of traffic from both of those operating at the same time. I mean that that wasn't addressed specifically with our engineer. Both are required to contain their traffic on site um and and not allow spillage. I mean we had a very similar condition with Paline. Um, Seven Brew. While I I I I surmise that they're they they've got hot spot times in the morning and then that's when they get the most business and maybe in the evening. Whereas um Valvalinian is more sporadic. Um, and when we I went on the same tra um, stacking standards with them and they they're just kind of dumbfounded because they don't they would never expect to have that many people there at once. And and with with that kind of business, if you see if you think you're going to wait for 35 minutes,

you're going to go, you're not going to go because it's not a quick change anymore. Um, so being that they're self- sustaining, I I wouldn't see that they would amplify each other. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, number of questions. Eventually, we'll get to the traffic question, but uh, these are just some discrepancies, Randy. Maybe you can address them. So, the applicant submitted the set of plans that we all had a chance to look at, and he submitted two C2.1s. One was preliminary and one was the approved final. Both with the same date but with different information. And I wondered why we got both C2s submitted. I assume you go with the later C2.1 but at the same time they do say different information.

This the second C2 if you notice that was that was primarily so that they can show the distances of of the car stacking. um just be because you need 20 foot for car. So they just wanted to show that was for stacking purposes only. So for purposes of what we're approving from a site plan standpoint, I hate to say it this way. I don't know how else to say it, but I know Melissa will capture it in the minutes like she does so well. Um we are ignoring the first C2.1 and we are approving the second C2.1. I believe that because they both have the same date, same description.

I believe one of the C1s and Let me get through get to it. I believe one says for stacking purposes only. I'm just looking at the official demarcations in the right hand side. They they they convey different information and it's going to get to when I start talking about traffic. Am I supposed to totally ignore the first one and and agree to the second one? Yeah. The the second C2, if you don't notice in the top leftand corner, it says conceptual reference tracking. Yeah, it definitely says conceptual, but it's identified engineering wise and it's from a certified engineer the exact same way. No, I I get it. But for that particular one, you're only looking at the numbers. Okay. The distances for the stacking.

Okay. Um, I I know this is trivial, but being a registered architect myself and the professional engineer doing these drawings, Melissa, if we could put in the minutes that we are accepting the second C2.1 site plan as the final comprehensive version and the first C 2.1 is only for stacking. Yes. Descriptions. Okay. For record purposes only. Certainly. In the meeting minutes. Thank you for that. Or we can get rid of that second or get rid of it. Yeah. stacking on it. It's not It was more likely for your own reference.

Okay. Um then before I get to my my uh exit in the the island situation, which is my third question, the the second one has to do with the limited if any walk up. And let's assume that for whatever reason, I can't envision why, but somebody actually wants to park their car and walk up. um assuming they could do that or somebody has to leave early that's an employee or whatever. Knowing how well the one in North Fairfield is doing, assuming this would be just as well because it's even closer to base who supplies most of the coffee drinkers in Beaver Creek. Um how are they going to get out except for going through the vehicle canopy which is already servicing a group of cars? There's no reverse way out except if you're the uh the trash uh servicing company in the lower corner. So, how is that going to happen without creating uh unusable situations for the people that need to leave but are not there to buy coffee? They have to go through the vehicle canopy or not.

Yeah, they they'll just have to go through the drive through. I mean the but there's no drive around like you see at there's no room to do it like you do have in North Fairfield. Correct. And is that something you and the uh applicants have talked about on the occasion when someone actually has to leave and they're already stacked two, three, four, or five deep? Yeah, I mean I mean in reality the only people I mean there might be an occasional guests parked there, but really there or even an employee changing shifts or something.

I mean that'll be on them to make sure they get out through the drive-thru lane. I mean, well, the reason I'm saying this, knowing how creative people can be, I can see them parking at Valvalene and walking over or an employee parking at Valving just because they've learned with 15, 10, 15 cars stacking, there's no way I'm going to get out because it's it's too successful. And I've seen that under North Fairfield, but because it's in the middle of the massive parking lot, there are other ways to get around. Well, in that one there's also a reciprocal parking agreement where anybody in that development can park in anywhere and they can use really the cross parking agreements here. Here would have every right to say you can't park there. We'll tell you if you do. Whereas in shopping center there there's not that. Okay.

That ability with this one. It's just I mean in a perfect world if we had the room I'd love to have a bypass lane but it just site. All right. Then if I could Mr. ter my last question. This has to do with we go back to the um island. So there's a new condition you gave us which was not in our packet which is condition number 19. So looking at 19 now which was not in the packet that I was sent on Friday. I was sent up to 18. So it's in there now. Okay. It wasn't it's in the packet I have in front of me but it's was in the packet I got on Friday. I had up to 18 uh conditions. Not sure how that

So anyway, that's fine. But so here's a couple of questions I had knowing that we're going to be taking traffic and having them turn right as they exit. Since it's all traffic and since if I'm reading 19 correctly, it says the installation of necessary signage. I'm assuming the necessary signage has to do with the turning right and not signage advertising seven brew.

Correct. Yeah, that would be necessary sign where you would put it like at the end of the either in it or the little right arrow. A really dirty arrow arrow on the line on the The other question I had is given the success of seven north airfield which it is and the proverbial success on this one picking up the traffic going to the base which is going to be west or to the left of that drawing. Uh if most of the traffic coming in off of zinc road in into seven brew is then exiting and having to turn the opposite way they were going which was towards a base. um are we in effect exchanging one solution of a problem for a new problem which is now everybody's going to be going and doing a UEI or a loop or maybe having to go to Meyer and work their way back road. What we had envisioned they would do would be go um sorry

because I'm assuming the base would be a significant portion of the traffic right state or the base but yeah once you exit the site you would leave left on the site and go up to zinc road where you have a light to go left onto I mean you kind of backtrack a little bit but other than turning right and doing a U-turn in Meyer which I think would take even longer I think it'd be better just to go out to Zinc Road make a left on I I understand you know it's just I'm just looking at potential customers. North Fairfield customers from everywhere. But if you're in Colonel Glenn, you're Colonel Glenn either east side because of right state or west side because you're heading up to national road for the base. And it just makes me think we've traded one issue for another issue, especially with the traffic light being.

I think it f it funnels people down over to the traffic light rather than trying to make a left without a traffic light, which is a lot more dangerous. Yeah. If if even possible on Chron knowing the volumes of traffic on there. But if that's if you guys find that acceptable, I know it's a a tricky issue. Uh and you didn't want people turning left so much to come into that. But okay, that was my question. I just trade off one to the other and I thought, okay, but that is question n excuse me. Condition 19 does relate to just that island with the design and the width and all that. Basically, it's taking away the left turn lane for anybody in correct Germany. Okay,

that's the intent. I mean, you can't out plan people, some creative people that willing to jump curves. Yeah. Without coffee at 6:45 in the morning, I can see too late, you might jump a curve. I don't know. Okay. The intent is to try to encourage people to not go left. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now, it's your turn. Thank you. I'm sure this has been accounted for, but um looking at the plan and how we were talking about cars exiting, where assuming a full lot, where would a delivery truck be able to park and unload?

Yeah. I mean, well, they're a they would need to be doing it before after hours. There's no way they'd be able to fit in there and either pull into the drive-thru lane while there's nobody there when it's closed or before it opens or use the the pull in for the trash dumpster. Um I mean that's deep enough to where you could get a truck to sit there and they can walk it over to the cooler which is just only 10 12 feet away. Uh but I I the applicants here if you want to get a spec more specific answer but that's that's my Okay. Thank you. I'm reading it. That's all.

Um, I have a few questions. Uh, could you put the photo up of the uh of the North Fairfield Road? The one they pirated from you. There we go. Dang it. Um, the the two blue posts on the right have little legs at the bottom. Are those the by chance the downspouts? Maybe. Maybe our applicant would would know that they they're two blue posts that are supporting the canopy and they have little legs at the bottom that look suspiciously like the bottoms of downspouts. Is that what they are?

I don't know for sure. I would agree with your suspicion, but I don't know 100%. Uh and and as long as you're I'm sorry. And looking at this picture, my understand those would be inside the canopy or inside that column. Okay. until they get to the bottom is but again I don't know that for sure but that's my interpretation. Okay. And and my question is on your sites do you norm since you do have downspouts uh whether they be internal or external uh they all flow underground that you don't have a spillage out across the driveway or anything like that. I'm thinking about freezing weather and having an ice rink on your in your parking lot. I don't know that we have a standard because sometimes we probably do have some surface flow, but we'll we'll definitely meet standards with your

Okay. the engineer. Okay. It's a relatively small site for detention, but and and the site on North Fairfield does have external downspouts. It does. Okay. I just wanted to make make sure that we're clear. Uh you're you're figuring the the um employee parking will be along that east side on the side closest to Valvalene. Correct. Okay. Um what's your turn time normally from the time somebody uh pulls up to the order line to the time they pick up their their product?

They they've told me they try and do that in under two minutes. So like a minute and a half to three minutes. Okay. So, you know, in the discussion about someone trying to get out, worst case scenario is they may have to wait 10 minutes. You know, that's not optimal, but that would be if you've got both lanes both full, you know, because our our goal would be to have customers being served within one to two minutes, right?

And part of that is the the ordering point. So, being able to order by the time you get to the window, we've got more than one staff inside. So, it's not just a person doing the the service and the the beverage filling. You've got people doing multiple tasks inside. So, um you're able to make the flow quicker. So, the two order lanes actually flow to a single pickup window. Correct.

Okay. Um looking at my notes here, the um what are what what are your uh hours that you're looking at? Uh, so we just looked the one at Fairfield I believe is 5:30 to 10. Um, the manager and the franchises have some flexibility depending on demand. So if if that's too early or too late, you know, but I I my understanding it's typically, you know, 6ish to 9ish, but but that one at Fairfield is 5:30 to 10. So it's it's strictly morning. You're not I'm sorry, 10 p.m. Oh, okay. So it's it's through the day.

Okay. is through the day, but our our peak is definitely in the morning and then we get another peak in the afternoon when people need another cup of coffee. Okay. And um Okay, thank you very much. Uh just as a as a comment to my fellow commissioners,

this particular site is not in the middle of a shopping center uh like the one on North Fairfield uh that might well have walk up traffic. Uh, I would think the only walk up traffic for this one would be somebody getting their oil changed next door and hey, I'll pop over and get a cup of coffee while I'm waiting for my oil change. Uh, so you might you may well have some a few walkups, but uh not not very many. Okay, gentlemen, ladies, second helpings.

Sorry, I do have one more for I think it's pro probably for staff. the lighting that they're proposing. Um, considering that they're going to have employees out in the parking lot taking orders when it's dark out, do you feel that the lighting is adequate enough to support safety for those that are out there?

Yeah, I mean, you look at the the foot candles, which is the the it's the number by which you rate how bright something is. Um we require in normal areas of operation like driveways, drive, any of that kind of stuff a minimum of one and they meet that. Um it Colonel Glenn's pretty a bright street in itself too. Um and I believe that they wear very reflective clothing um for the evening hours. But uh um I'm not concerned with the light levels um in particular with this. I mean with Valvaline with Colonel Glenn it's a pretty bright area to begin with.

Thank you.

Sure.

I am Mike. Um Mike Mike Mike Mike. Um, do we have a requirement for the the lead off out of the down spouts on a commercial building like this so we don't have uh a problem with with water running across the the driveways and freezing in the wintertime? I'm all for, you know, with global warming, we may not have any more snow, but I kind of doubt it. Yeah. I mean, I don't think that there's any like anything in any ordinance that says you can't allow water to flow into the dry, but

there's certainly something that I can talk with our engineering department, see if we can get addressed and see if we can direct a flow. 100%. I think it would be it would be good from the from the uh applicant standpoint all over the place not to have that. We've all walked across a parking lot and and found a slippery spot and it's it's from a down spout. Yeah. It' be an ocean nightmare, I guess, for Oh, yeah. Slippery properties. That's what I mean. Yeah. They all have to wear ice skates. Um Okay. I just just wondered if we had any I didn't remember anything specific in the zoning code like that, but No, there's not that I am aware of. Well, I I trust staff will will work that out.

Do our best with that. Okay. Anything else, folks? Then I I need a motion. First of all, does anybody want to correct uh number 12 about the speaking of downspouts about the downspouts?

Can we go back to the slide that had what the applicants proposed uh condition number 12 looked like? And I would just for consistency sake, I know North Fairfield we did have the same 12 condition as stated here, but for consistency sake and due to modularity, I would propose to modify condition number 12 to match as stated.

Okay. We we'll need we'll need that as a as a modification. Yeah. And we'll vote on that and then if it passes, we vote on it as as modified. Yep. Uh so motion to modify condition number 12 to read requested modification condition number 12. Uh gutters and downspouts shall be painted to match the building material to which they are attached. Okay. I have a motion. Mike,

thank you, Steve. In the current condition of the North Fairfield, they do have, as we just found out, internally uh mounted uh gutters. They're for the support post for the canopy. And then on the building itself, because it's modular, they have externally mounted in. So, they have and they're showing it on the drawings that we're approving tonight. So somehow I just want to say that all external building mounted gutters shall be painted to match the building unless internally mounted because I don't want to lose that they're going to internally mount the supports which is what you found out and asked for when you looked at the picture. So I'm kind of tweaking what was saying.

Yeah. I mean, you can just change it to get gutters and downspouts that are on the external outside of the build or that are visible. Gutters and downspouts that are externally mounted shall be painted. There we go. To match the building material, would you accept that? Are you happy with that, Jacob? I am happy with that. Good. And I second that. And we have a second. And thank you. Let's read the role on this, Mr. Jones. Yes, Mr. Meyer. Yes, Miss Palumbo. Yes, Mr. Fountain. Yes, Mr. Self.

Yes. Okay. So, we now have a modified um approval here. So, I need a motion for that. Approve it as approved to approve as modified. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PD 25-3 SSP number one with the 19 conditions as modified. I second that. I have a motion and a second. Read the role. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Falton, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries 5-0. And we will be looking forward to uh getting yet another coffee place.

Okay, moving right along. Um, our second uh item tonight is uh PUD 03-4, minor modification to Tavern Salon.

You don't have anything, but I bet staff does. Good evening everyone. My name is Colin Carville. I am the city planner for the city of Beaver Creek. Um I will be do taking care of the presentation for both the uh applicant and uh city staff here. Um the applicant has a team here that can answer any questions after the fact. So um jumping right in. Uh we are here for a minor modification. Um the applicant is requesting a uh basically a 2,200 square foot salon expansion um to their site located at 4124 Colonel Glenn Highway. Um that sits on 2.454 acres. Uh just to get our bearings here, that's in our northwest part of the city. Kind of similar area where we were working with at the last case. Um just off of Colonel Glenn Highway there. Here's a look at the current site. um and pay particular attention to that green space just north of the uh the existing building. That's kind of where the uh expansion will be taking place um in that green space there. Um a little background on uh the site itself. Um it was reszoned from B2 to PUD 034 in 2003. Um it was originally intended to be a uh uh car wash. Um but that didn't those plans fell through. uh and Tavanir stepped up and uh they built and purchased a lot and built their 3,644 square foot salon. Um the uh site is de was designed that I'll show in the second uh slide uh for future expansion uh which is detailed in the uh next slide. Um and the request kind of qualifies as a modification because they specifically called out um at that time for that expansion. Um, typically from the square footage side of things, uh, it would rise to a a major modification, but because it was called out in those, uh, previous plans, staff was

comfortable with, uh, moving this forward with a minor modification. So, as you can see on the left side there were the previously approved plans um, in 2004. Um, on that northern side, uh, of that site plan, you can see it calls for that future expansion. Um, and then this is kind of the site plan that we're working with this evening. um on the right there. Uh and as you can see, it's pretty much mirrors slightly slightly larger than um that that previous iteration, but uh pretty close to what they're looking for. Um the only addition um or only kind of change from that site plan is a little additional parking. Um that was more of a staff request than what the applicant was proposing just so it would meet our our base uh standards here. Um and and staff was comfortable with what they've provided. Uh getting into the expansion itself, uh as I mentioned, it's 2,200 square feet. Um it'll create 11 new hairstyle rental stations. Um that's kind of the concept that they're moving forward with where it'll have uh specific kind of private areas for uh different butians to uh to rent that space out uh from Taaners and and kind of operate within kind of their their umbrella there. Um it'll bring the total building size to 5,844 square ft. Um we're continuing that salon use. Um and you can see uh in kind of next slide actually to that was a blown up here but you'll see a lot of kind of chairs um in here. Um it's a little deceiving because there's a a different kind of it's kind of using the car wash scenario. They have areas to cut your hair, but those same people will be utilizing kind of the nail salon area, the the shampooing stations. So it's not different people at each stations. it's kind of just one one uh

you know butician working with a client um throughout kind of their visit there. So, here's a look uh at the uh kind of internal um of what that will look like on the uh it's technically the northern side, but on the right side of your screen here, uh those can you can see those private rooms um design there and and as called out, there's 11 uh new rooms there. So, the main main concern um from this addition was was kind of the parking situation there. Um uh so our our code is pretty um pretty strict with pretty um requires pretty heavy uh a parking space aotment. Um it's three spaces per beauty chair um just with the intent of maybe someone's with them taking them in. Um it's a it's a little bit of a unique concept uh because adjacent to a uh a barber where people are kind of going in and out um their clients are with them for 3 to four hours at a time. So there's not that quick overflow uh in and out that you'd see at a typical barber. So um even even though uh you know they they do have that they still will meet our our parking requirements. So, um, from our staff's estimation, there'll be 24 separate separate stations dedicated to different, uh, but um, working with clients. Um, not all of them will be on at the same shift. Uh, but that we're just accounting for worst case scenario. I'm doing a little math there. Uh, 24* 3 brings the space to 72 uh, requirement to 72 with the 11 additional spaces. That brings their total count to 74. So they they are exceeding and meeting our parking requirements and and we're happy with that. So um and then finally the last slide here um they're not really reinventing the wheel as far as this addition is concerned. Um they're

mirroring what's existing um with kind of the same brick bottom uh wood siding above and a roof that matches the height and design. So uh it'll look very similar just you know a lot more of it. So, uh, and the only really, uh, setback that we're concerned with here that's going to be changing would be that rear setback. Um, they're going to be 185 ft. It's a big lot from that rear side, uh, or from that rear setback. Um, and the requirements 70 ft. So, they vastly exceed that. So, uh, once again, the proposal is very consistent with with the current building style, which we're which we're pleased with. So, uh, staff will be recommending approval of the request, um, subject to the six conditions attached. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Thank you. Another very comprehensive report. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mike. I'm just going to open this up. Questions, comments. So, on the parking, it do we feel like 72 spaces is necessary? I mean, that seems like a lot of parking.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's a requirement. So, we're planning for worst case scenario here. I they've shown me pictures that, you know, it it's never really come to that point where they're, you know, busting at the seams for parking. Um, but staff was just most comfortable with with having those 11 additional spaces just to just to accommodate in case, you know, they uh I mean, they've been a long-standing business in Beaver Creek, which we're really happy about. Um, they're obviously a well-known name in the area. So if if this uh the 11 new rooms really takes off and and there's a really high demand there um we we can't really foresee what will happen. So we just want to plan for for worst case scenario but definitely see your point.

Just thoughts on making it like conditional like if it's necessary then they could add it later on instead of forcing them to. I mean I don't know if it's a sticking point or not. I think from a uh from the city's perspective it would be kind of hard to hold them to that. um it would be just extra code enforcement from our officer and and be complaint driven. So I I think from from the start here I think we' we'd like to see that. Okay. And then what about runoff? Where's there's no pond obviously on this site. So where's all the water going?

Um so because of the the addition itself doesn't um doesn't take rise to to need those calculations done. I'll check with my engineer, but I remember walking it through and and looking through the comments. he didn't have any concerns with it. So, um I'm not I can't tell you exactly where that water's going, but uh I think I think engineering is uh is okay with where it is. Okay. All right. Thanks. Other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um let me stay on the parking issue. First off, to establish the 72 spaces, I'm looking with a packet that we received uh two different site plans and I'm wondering what is the correct site plan. There was parking in the back of the new addition and there's parking only on the side. So, is that the correct site plan for where parking is going to be proposed? Yeah. So, um I I think where the confusion I probably should have labeled those a little better. I think the site plan that you're looking at was probably those approved plans in 2004 that don't show. So, well, so the one on the right because they said they added 11 new spaces. I'm assuming that's the inside 11 spaces because it's only 10 parking spaces. Uh, it's technically so there's like a dumpster enclosure where

Oh, that's the 11th. Yeah, that's where they can kind of squeeze it in. Well, then let me ask it this way. Based on the state of Ohio handicap parking, they only have two and I was out the site as recently as yesterday. They only have two handicap parking spaces. Okay. If they're over 50 spaces, they have to have three. Okay. If they're over 75, they have to have four. So, you've kept them under the limit for four, which is good, but they still need one more handicap space. And do I need to make that a condition that they bring up to handicap ADA standards or is that something you guys will just take care of? It's a as Mike point out it's a state requirement. So it's not something that we would oversee. It would something that the state would have to um because right now they only have two. They need at least three. Sure.

So do we as a planning commission make that a condition or not? You don't have to make uh conditions for someone to be compliant with Ohio law. That's I think that's one of the things they're just expected to do. So that's not necessary. So when they're striping it, well, as to the size of the space and everything else, when they go through the striping, we assume that the state of Ohio will ensure that they have an adequately sized and painted handicap space or will we expect our inspector to note that they've added a third space? That will not be the problem of the city of Beaver Creek. If there typically the way that works is there would be a complaint and then the city then the state would come in.

I'm sure that they're going to try to avoid that by making sure they're meeting the requirements beforehand. Well, at least in the comprehensive minutes we have, we noted that they need three handicapped parking spaces. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. All right. Other comments, questions? Um I just have Go ahead. I am I am curious. So, um, staff has interpreted this requirement to apply to the existing 13 chairs. Was was the three spots per chair an original requirement back in 2004?

I'm not sure how the code has evolved over time. Um, so I'm I'm not I'm I'm just kind of looking at at at our current standards and and any type of new addition, that's what we have to hold them to. So, I'm not sure if they're compatible or if they over overused uh spaces at that time, but um yeah, I just I I just currently have to look at what we what we have. So, Okay. Okay. Thank you.

One quick question, and I'm not sure if this is for you or for for our applicant. Uh will the will there be a an entrance or an exit out the back of the new addition? Good evening. My name is David Helmers. I'm the architect working with the client. But uh yes, there's two new exits out the back. Okay, good. Yeah, I just I I can just picture these folks getting that that nice new hairdo getting absolutely drowned in a rainstorm, having to go all the way around the building.

So there there will be an exit out the back. Great. All I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay, folks. Uh if we have no more questions, I need a motion. I'd also like a second motion to approve PUD 03-4 minor modification for Tavern Salon. Second. Okay. And uh with the with the attached six conditions and correct me staff, correct me if I'm wrong with being a minor mod. This this does not go forward to to city council. This is this is us. So, uh without further ado, please read the role. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Fountain, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer,

yes. Mr. S,

yes. And I was thinking when um when I looked at this, oh, we just approved this a few years ago and it was 22 years ago, but we're tickled to death y'all are doing so well and looking forward to seeing the new addition. Okay, one more one more item here, gentlemen. Um, this is um a u looks like a lot split uh S25-6. Good evening everyone. Colin Carville, city planner. Uh we are working with Beaver Creek Town Center Replat here. Uh case number S256. Um essentially what's going on here? um Kohl's is is splitting off from the rest of rest of the uh parcel and just kind of creating two parcels there. So um total area is 9.376 acres. Um the first uh parcel will be 7.312 acres um which will contain Kohl's and the corresponding parking lot that that supplements Kohl's um and parcel 2 is 2.062 062 acres uh which is home to the Witchwitch and I believe a nail salon um and uh and their corresponding parking. So, um just kind of a a split there. Um and all parcels will remain currently zoned in the mix PUB 934. Uh and and then there's just uh the look at at our lot split there. Um you can see it's kind of taken place um along that southwestern side of the lot there. So, um, conditions are pretty boilerplate. Um, and just we're just approving the, uh, the plat from, uh, September 4th, 2025. So, happy to answer any questions that, uh, the board has. Staff is recommending approval of this

questions, gentlemen, ladies.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the the lot. So driving around there this weekend, um I was trying to understand the understand where they're incorporating Kohl's and the 7 something airriage and the other two tenant facility, but I was trying to understand how is that handled for the remainder of north of their parking lot area that they're including. So the seven point whatever it was is going to include Kohl's and that parking lot, but there's right north of it is more parking lot. So, does that mean we are assuming that the owner of the town center, Beaver Creek Town Center, or the applicant is going to be adding additional circulatory paths between the the breakup of the lot, the existing parking lot next to Kohl's, and the other part of the lot that's not included, which also feeds Kohl's. And so I just wondered if we're adding circulatory elements because of what this applicant is asking to do.

No. And and I can't speak to if um if Kohl's is going to take sole ownership of it uh or if it's just something that the be I mean it's a it's a quest from Beaver Creek Town Center. So um I'm not sure if uh what the future plans are, but we would not in effect then be forcing them into however they want to use the lot. The parking lot part, not Kohl's. Sure. forcing them into additional circulatory elements that they would come back to us and say, "You're now making us add this two-way traffic rightway between the two lots, the existing lot and the one north, and we expect you city to bear that expense."

No, they they would they would be held to the same elements that they were approved under that the specific site plan at that time. So, okay, that was my only question, Mr. Chairman. Well, that that whole area is a is a regardless of the lot split, it still is a big PUD and that can't be messed with without coming before planning commission, including messing with the parking lots. That's good to know. I was more concerned that the the Beaver Creek Town Center in this case would come back to us and say we are causing a change in how the lot is laid out that we then bear the expense for because of the approval. and I just wanted to prevent an unnecessary or unknown city expense.

Do we need to do anything with like cross access easements or anything like that? I don't think so. No, I think it's I think it's uh accounted for. So once again I that cross that cross access easement is an umbrella to the whole PUD. That's my understanding. Mess with that without changing the PUD and that would probably be a major mod, right? Further questions, gentlemen, ladies. Okay, I need a motion and a second, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve case S25-6 with the three attached conditions. Have a motion. Second that. And I have a second. And if we can read the role, please. Ma'am.

Mr. Fountain. Yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Palumbo, yes. Mr. Self, yes. Motion carries. 50. And being fresh out of u uh agenda items, I'll ask for a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chair, I'd move to adjourn. I second that. And we'll do that by general consensus. And we are adjourned at 7:02. Thank you folks. Thank you staff.