Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order for 01/05/2026. Can we have a recording first, please?

Uh-oh. If I can get this thing to work.

The Westlake Planning Commission complies with Ohio's Sunshine Law. The procedure. The meeting will be called to

order and the clerk

will take the roll call. The commission will then approve the minutes of the previous meeting. The council representative will then present the council report. Commission business. When your project is called, please come to the building. Place your drawings on the document table, and they will then be projected on the screen for all to see. The applicant or representative making the request state their name and address for the record. Please make a short presentation speaking into the microphone. Everyone making comments or presentation to the commission must speak into the microphone. City staff will give a staff report on the project.

We will then hear from the audience. Any member of the audience that wishes to speak will have to speak into the microphone and state their name and address for the record. We ask that audience members speak one at a time after giving their name and address. This is for the purpose of the minutes for the meeting. Please speak clearly. The applicant will respond to the public comments. Again, we ask that people speak one at a time. The Planning Commission members will have an opportunity to make comments and ask any questions that they may have.

Sorry.

I was like, what happened?

That's enough information.

Is that it? Alright. Thank you very much, mister Bedell. Can I have a roll call, please? Del Reigno? Here. Smith?

Here.

Jones? Here. Belcone? Here. We do have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Can I have approval of minutes? Motion for that for 12/01/2025.

I'll make a motion. Yep. Second.

Roll call, please.

Smith?

Yes. Jones?

Yes.

Elcomb? Yes. Del Ragneaux? Yes. Motion carries. Great. Do we have

a council report, Councilman Del Reigno?

We do not.

Okay. Thank you. And welcome back, Councilman Del Reigno. And I just wanna thank Councilman Van Dyke. He did a great job for planning commission all those years. And unfortunately, he's not here to thank him. But I hope he reads this or sees it. We do appreciate all the help he gave us over the years. So great. We'll go into new business Dover Village townhomes fee simple flat first item on the agenda

yes and as he's stepping forward I'll run through my slides quickly so this is a fee simple title flat it's for recording purposes only. It allows the land under each townhome unit to be a separate parcel with a fee simple title plat. This is due to financing challenges since 2008 that's made this really necessary. Something the council has been the county has been requiring actually. We used to do condominium lots before that before about 2019.

So it's been very routine for the last seven years to go ahead and do it under this process. In fact, every multifamily development we've had since 2019 has had a fee simple title plat. And so the thing that this is actually what it looks like From my perspective, I want to make sure that everything is staying where it should be in terms of what you approved. And so I did do an overlay right here. And I don't know if you can see that, but the key thing is that nothing changes in terms of where the approved units are being located.

They've just drawn boxes that will include the units themselves, the driveway, patios, if they have patios, and a little bit of land around the sides as well. So very typical of what we would expect to see. And with that said, I think that pretty much covers everything. This is something that you're able to make a recommendation on. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Bedell. Welcome. Can you state your name for the record?

My name is Eldar Zarbevel. I represent RealLife or Dover Village Townhomes.

Great. Your address too, please.

21380 Lorain Road, Suite 210, and that's in Fairview Park, Ohio 44126.

Great. Thank you. Would you like to add anything that mister

Brown Well,

we actually we already got finally approval from the county. The actual plan, I just we just got it today, and, we'll submit it tomorrow probably for all the signatures. Okay. And, again, like mister Bedell said, nothing changes everything as it was before.

Great. Thank you. I'll ask my fellow commissioners for comment, then we'll just make sure there's, no one the audience that wants to speak on this one. I'll start with you,

missus Smith. I have no comment on this one.

Thank you. Mister Jones?

No comment.

Councilman Doregno?

I'm good as well.

Okay. Thank you. Would anyone from the audience like to speak on this project? Seeing none, can I get a motion?

Yes. Based upon the fines of fact, I move to recommend approval of the Dover Village townhomes fee simple title plat for recording purposes.

Second. Roll call, please. Jones? Yes. Del

Cohn? Yes. Del Reigno? Yes. Smith? Yes. Motion carries.

Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is Carhartt sign plan.

Yes. This is at the promenade. The request is for window murals to cover the entire westernmost display window on the north facade, as you can see at the bottom there outlined in yellow. And while this is technically part of Block K within Crocker Park when that when it was adopted into that development, it did remain part of the master sign criteria for the Promenade Shopping Center. So it does fall under that sign criteria.

So it's an image applied to block out film across the four windows that you see. Very similar to what you see in that middle area. It's obviously different display. The middle one is you know large kind of industrial looking bridge. This is a laborers on a coal train.

Potentially representative of the tenants clientele. But there's no text or branding directly identify this as Carhartt. So we really view this much the same as we did the center area as being a mural and not being something that's advertising and would fall under the sign code. In fact, I went ahead and pulled the approval from November 2015 and saw what you know, how that was actually approved. And there was a modification at that time.

Chris, we're talking a couple different things. At that time, they approved what you see in the the far left there, which is a window that and that actually does include their logo in the middle. So that one actually counted against signage. The middle one did not count as against signage. But it did require modification though, the middle one.

And this one would too. And that's to prevent more than 30% of the window to be covered with block out film, provided the film is not used for advertising. So that's the first one. The next one, that it was a waiver from the Promenade sign criteria to allow as the as same the left, that's counting towards their same sign area. And so it's basically saying that you're gonna allow both sides of this tenant space to provide the allotment for this tenant in terms of square footage.

And with this particular window, the way it it exists today, there's about 25 square feet of signage that's in it. So I just took that number previously and I I lopped off 24.67. So you're not actually adding any additional signage. It's just making that number reflect what will actually be on the outside of the building. So they're not gonna have extra signage somewhere else for example.

And condition that the modifications and waiver applied to this tenant only and that would be the same as well. Here's the box score for this. And as I mentioned there's currently a changeable poster, light box, and vinyl window logo. It's about 25 square feet. And that's where I was saying we'll just adjust this number accordingly so that it's reflects the the actual total allotment. And with that said, this is something that you are able to approve. Obviously, it does require the waivers and modifications that I just mentioned, and they're on the screen as well. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Riddell.

I don't

know where the mic feedback is coming from. I don't know

if it's from your

move your mic. It might be a phone.

Moved right

around and it wasn't that bad.

I don't know if it's from over

there then.

I can hear it.

Is it this mic?

It's over there.

It's usually usually when that happens, it's

a somebody will have their next to the mic.

Yeah. It's usually a phone.

No sounds here.

That will do it.

I'm still over

there. Let me close this.

That's not it.

I don't hear you.

Would it be from the tables over there?

No. No. Because those mics aren't on over there. No. Okay. We'll figure that out over the next couple hours. Alright. So

Thank you. Welcome. Your name and address, please, for the record?

Yes. Adrian Tafoya. I work for RGLA

Can you move over to the mic?

Sorry. Thanks. I work for RGLA Solutions, who's Carhartt's architect.

I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name because you were off the mic.

Yes. Adrian Tafuella.

Thank you. Mhmm.

And your address too?

Address is 129 Coral Lane In Wheeling, Illinois 60090.

Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Do have anything to add to mister Riddell's report?

No. I think you guys captured it pretty well. I mean, we're just focusing on that one window, just swapping the box for basically the full glazing that's that's there and that's basically the the limit of the scope of work here.

Great. Thank you. Mhmm. Councilman O'Rigno, any comments on this?

I do not.

Mister Jones?

No. I'm good with it.

Is this it? Basically good with it, but I saw a caption on your imagery that said that the two workmen on the train, that that was a possible image. Is that the image that's gonna be there?

Yes. That's exactly the image. Yeah.

Okay. Then I have I have no problem.

Great. Thank you. I also don't have any comments on it. Would anyone from the audience like to speak on this one? Seeing none, can I get a motion, please?

Sure. Based upon the fines of fact, I move to approve the Carhartt sign plan with the following. One, waiver from the Promenade sign criteria to permit the window vinyl depiction of railroad scene. Two, modification permitting more than 30% of the westerly window on the north elevation to be covered with blackout film provided the film is not used for advertising. Three, modification permitting the north frontage to be included in the tenant's total signage allotment not to exceed 152 square feet. And four, condition that these modifications of waiver shall apply solely to this tenant.

Second. Roll call, please.

Jones? Yes. Falcone? Yes. Del Reigno? Yes. Smith? Yes. Motion carries.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Abercrombie and Fitch sign plan in storefront.

Yes. This is 175 Crocker Park Boulevard. And when I'm done talking, I'm gonna play with the mics and see if I can make that feedback go away. So the purpose is to remodel the former Our House store. They're moving over Main Street, as you know.

It will be two separate tenant spaces, Abercrombie and Fitch and Hollister, which is also under consideration at this meeting. They'll occupy the new tenant space fronts Crocker Park Boulevard between the planned Hollister space and the pedestrian alley. This is a corner store. And they're going to remove the existing storefront facing Crocker Park Boulevard, replace it with an entry feature that's aluminum composite material, ACM, and classic black finish to contract with the main wall material. There will be a canopy projecting four feet from the wall to provide protection and also a location for signage and give some presence to the entrance.

Wall sconces and matching black aluminum to flank the entry really for accent lighting. And the main wall will be a metal slat wall of extruded aluminum, fine texture ured powder coating, and flat matte tan color. Storefront systems of black ACM above and below the aluminum storefront system. It's that will be in a matching color. And the existing storefront facing the alley, it's essentially unchanged.

There's a small area that you see that will wrap the corner of the same metal slat wall material terminating at the first window bay. And the proposed design does comply with the Crocker Park mixed use area design guidelines. It does allow contemporary treatments as storefronts. So the other part of this is, of course, signage. So there's a variety of sign types: canopy, two projecting blade signs, window decals, banner sign to advertise and enhance the visual interest of the storefront.

A canopy sign is about 25 square feet. It's face lit interior illuminated channel letters on a raceway that will match the canopy. White acrylic faces overlaid in vinyl for black day color and white night color. And all other materials are aluminum and black satin finish to match the canopy. So just what we typically see.

Projecting blade sign of 16 square feet, aluminum face, satin black, and it matches the canopy and entry features and push through illuminated acrylic letters in white. Mister Farrest done enough of these yet he knows what you like to see and so it's been designed with both of them. The next one too you're gonna see everything's been designed appropriately. There's some window decals, small, you know, eight square feet and seven square feet. And there's two per window that at eight square feet, one on each door.

The seven square foot one, there's two per window and additional decal reserved for future exit door installation that's not there yet. Banner sign, meets the sign criteria for banners. It's allowed. It's, although it's right sized and everything like that. In fact, smaller than what it could be. And, so in fact, pursuant to the master sign criteria, proposed signs, they do meet all the requirements. It's about half of the amount of signage that they're allowed to have at this location. So no issues with that. And so two things. You'd be making a recommendation on the storefront.

I don't have any conditions or modifications except the condition that the fire department comments are addressed. And sign plan, same thing with that except, you know, that one, there's no conditions or waivers or anything like that. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, miss thank you, mister Vidal. Welcome.

Hi. Mick Farr, Stark Enterprises. 629 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland 44114.

Great. Anything to add?

Nothing. Thank you.

Okay. I'll start with my fellow commissioners. Missus Smith?

I think it's a handsome storefront, coordinates nicely with the what is that next door? Hollister. And I like the fact that you wrapped around the corner to take it down that kind of alley. Those are my comments. Thank you. Mister Jones?

Yeah. I don't have any suggestions to make it any better. It looks good to me. You know, it's I I would I also kinda tried to look at this and Hollister at the same time to try to see how it would work together. And I think actually the Hollister submittal had one that sort of showed them both. It you know, I I I think just overall, I like the I like the look of it, I think it'll be a nice enhancement to that area. No no no issues

with it. Great. Councilman Del Ragneaux?

No no issues.

Great. Thank you. Would anyone from the audience like to speak on this one? Seeing none. I have no comments either. I'm excited to see both of them, both of those stores. So can we have a motion, please?

Sure. Based upon the findings of fact, I move to recommend approval of the Abercrombie and Fitch storefront with the condition that the fire department comments are addressed.

Second. Roll call, please.

Falcone? Yes. Del Reigno? Yes. Smith? Yes. Jones? Yes. Motion carries.

Great. And based upon the findings of fact, I move to approve the Abercrombie and Fitch sign plan.

Great. Thank you. Second, please. Second. Roll call.

Didn't we do roll call already?

Second. There's also for the sign plan.

Oh, the

sign plan. Sorry. Yeah. Del Rego?

Yes.

Smith? Yes. Jones? Yes. Belcombe?

Yes. Motion carries.

Great. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the Hollister sign plan and store front.

Yes. 195 Crocker Park Boulevard. This again is the same, space that's being subdivided, and it's the tenant space fronting Crocker Park Boulevard between the planned Abercrombie and Fitch and, the existing altered states as you see on the screen today. I think our clerk has fixed the microphone situation.

Thank you.

Okay. Excellent.

So again they're going to remove the existing storefront. This will have a tile wainscot and blue Roka tile with sterling silver grout. Entry features clad in steel blue aluminum composite material that ACM is very popular these days. Well, it's designed to complement the tile wainscot. Main wall is a direct applied finish system shown in light tan color.

This is similar to a decorative coating like stucco. And it is permitted per the Mixed Use Area Design Guidelines. And one question I don't know if you can answer is if the color if it's a color that's applied directly to the material or if it's something that's painted on. I was just curious if you know the answer to that.

It's very similar to an EFIS. It's it's rolled on at the end. So it can be any color.

It can

be This one's very similar to what Apple has across.

And there's not an issue with peeling or fading or anything like that with the the final coating? Okay. Thank you. There's wood trim, beam style trim to frame and define the storefront windows and entrance doors. And you know give it some character and personality that's different from other storefronts. Storefront system, it's blue ACM panels above and below the aluminum storefront system in a matching color. Very similar to what you just approved. And it does comply with the design guidelines. Again, this is a contemporary treatment and allowed. Signage as well.

You can see wall sign and there's an illuminated blade sign. I'll go over that in a minute. There's some ins and outs as you can see. It's a little it doesn't show up as well, but you can actually see with the trim around the windows, the trim around the entrance area. So it's not a completely flat panel design.

Sign plan, a variety of signage, projecting blade, window decals, and a banner sign. Facial wall sign, only 19 square feet, 20 inches high channel letters, logo, aluminum faces, white vinyl overlay. Projecting blade sign, it's only four square feet for that. And again, push through illuminate it's an aluminum face with push through illuminated letters in blue satin finish to match the entry feature color. Window decals four square feet. Two per window. Bay one per door. Banner. Again that's allowed. The size is is fine.

It's less than 50 square feet. Meets all the criteria. And in fact, all the signage for this, it's another one of these instances. Signs are it's it's undersigned, which we like to see. It's not an excessive amount, only 52 square feet of signage.

With that said, essentially it's the same thing that you just did, just with different names for condition that the fire department comments are addressed that are in the report and then the sign plan is no conditions or modifications or anything

great thank you come again name and address

McFarr, Stark Enterprises. 629 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, 44114.

Anything to add? No. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Doregno, anything on this one?

None other than I I just hate tile on exterior in Northeast Ohio. What's the plan for that with freestyle and salt and everything else popping it? Do you have it anywhere else?

Well,

yeah. I mean, think we I think we have tile low at the base of LensCrafters. We have and that was it's been four years now. No issues there.

Okay.

I mean,

there have been a a few that we've done it lower on. K.

I've seen it I've seen it fail frequently, if not installed properly and maintained, I guess. So is it sealed then after installation?

It'll be sealed.

Okay. Alright. And then I think

And they're on the hook for it forever.

Yeah. But the so the tenant is responsible for if they do the tiles do pop off or something?

If if it does, yes. K.

Other than that, I'm okay.

Thank you. Mister Jones?

Thank you. Yeah. I think, actually, I like far as from an appearance standpoint, think it provides a nice contrast to the two that it's between the altered state and the future, Abercrombie. So it's a it's a nice look. I have no concerns.

Great. Missus Smith? I think it's a nice look. I had a question too about the tile. It was that a porcelain tile?

Good question. That is a good question. Is is there

Or I guess we could assume that, or is it a quarry tile with a glaze?

It'll be It's

something resistant. Okay. And then the wood doesn't always hold up very well in our weather outside. Do you have a plan

Yeah. I think this trim is very similar to what's what altered state has next to it, which seems to have held up pretty well.

Oh, okay.

Some of that picture framing.

Okay. Was

there on one of those sheets there, Jim, that blue ROCA? Because if you had any other information

on that tile. The presentation, it it showed it just showed the the color.

Okay. I I can certainly find out exactly what that tile is.

Okay. I'm

Yeah. It just said just says blue Roka tile. I can I can look it up? The wood is white oak exterior rated wood beam. Let me see if I can figure that out while you're talking.

Well, those were the end of my comments. If if you could review that administratively, I wouldn't have any problems with it. I'm okay, mister Whittall?

Yeah. Just you wanna know the if it's a porcelain tile? Me see if I can

Yeah. Porcelain or a like a quarry type tile with a glaze would hold up as well. I guess I

had a question. Are both these and I should know this. Are both these businesses moving within Crocker or are they new?

They're coming back.

Back? Okay.

They're not currently there.

They're okay. Great.

They were years ago.

That's what I thought.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I'll follow-up on that because I you know, they it does say they're ceramic, but I I don't know if

they Almost like a generic term, though.

So Mhmm. Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay.

We'll look at it.

Okay. I don't have

I mean, there's a million tiles out there. We'll find a compliant tile. I

don't have any other comments. I think it's a really attractive building and signage. Yeah. Very simple, but stylish. Anyone from the audience have any comments on this project? Seeing none, can I get a motion?

Yes. Based on the findings of fact, I move to recommend approval of the Hollister storefront with the condition that the fire department comments are addressed.

Second.

Roll call.

Smith? Yes. Jones? Yes. Falcone? Yes. Del Reigno? Yes. Motion carries.

And based upon the findings of fact, move to approve the Hollister sign plan.

Second. Roll call, please. Jones?

Yes.

Falcone? Yes. Del Reigno? Yes. Smith? Yes. Motion carries.

Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the Scheibond Park revised preliminary development plan and also design guidelines and master sign criteria.

Yes. And I will just run through quickly my understanding what has been changed recently. And now I will let them of course go through this in more detail. So the changes the most recent changes to move the buildings further away from the residences to the north and east. I've also included the total of all buildings 54,000 square feet.

The preliminary development plan does indicate retail and restaurant operations to be closed by eleven p. M. I don't recall if we discussed that at the last meeting. Surface parking coinciding with phase development. So Phase 1 Buildings 1 And 2 would be 133 spaces. Phase 2 Buildings 3 To 6 is 143 spaces. And then land bank spaces for 80. So three fifty six total. And I've got an analysis of that in a minute I'll get to. The current proposal adds a 10 foot berm with six foot high fence to the north and east of the property.

Provide a significant buffer. And I'll tell you that 10 foot berm alone provides a 100% of the buffer that's required completely. Parking along at the south and east ends of the property was eliminated and the amount of land bank spaces were decreased to allow a larger buffer to the adjacent residences. The current proposal provides additional parking north of Buildings 2 And 4 and between Buildings 1 And 3. You'll see that in a minute.

South setback Buildings 1 Through 6 and associated parking were moved south by 20 feet and updated south building line setback to 40 feet. Dumpster enclosure areas were added to the north of Buildings 4 and to the south of Buildings 5 to minimize disruption to the residences. So this is the 2024 PDP. And then what you saw in December. I tried to overlay these as as I could.

And now you see just by shifting that to the south, they've been able to add some parking to the north. And then some of that parking moves farther away from the residence. It's a little hard to see the land bank parking in in this view here. But about from there's some text about midway there where that berm is. And so you can if you take a look at know kind of take a look at where the parking was previously.

Like I said, sorry, it's a little hard to see, but a little bit south of where that text is, you can see it sort of jogs over to the east. And in the new arrangement now, that jog has been eliminated so the park so that becomes more green space instead. That was how I cropped it. This is actually what received today. And these, I don't think these have changed from last time, but they're here if we need them.

And this of course is showing the berm and the fence along here. There'll be a 10 foot high berm with a fence on top. I'm just trying to get to the end of this at this point. Let's see. I think we've gone through most of these.

Parking, as I mentioned, has changed. Assuming we always assume that 20% of the total gross floor area includes things like corridors, restroom, storage, and service. We take that off the number. That gets us to three twenty seven parking spaces required. They are at two seventy six if they land bank 80 spaces.

That puts them well over the requirement. They'd be able to have three fifty six spaces. Of course, we don't want them to develop any more parking than what they will actually need. We would prefer that to be remain green space if possible. So with that said, basically it's the same conditions as what we had before except as noted condition.

And anybody in the audience just to let you know, these are this is not recommending approval or against something. It just helps the Planning Commission as they are creating a motion at some point of some things that we don't want them to forget about. And this is from their motion with the existing PDP. It's where it's coming from. So number one is a condition regarding the lighting zone for the exterior lighting.

That doesn't change. Condition that the uses are permitted except for residential and hotel use is not permitted. Limited to one restaurant. Just earlier today we were chatting and wondering if you might want to note a building for that restaurant or if you want to give them a range of buildings so that you know it's better defined where on the site that restaurant would be. That's something you're able to do if you would like to do that. Condition of future development plans include the 10 foot high buffer mound and six foot high fence shown on the preliminary development plan and constructed concurrent with phase one development. And then four has not changed. And thank you. And are you you're on your laptop over there. Okay.

So let me figure this out here. You're you're plugged in. Right? Okay. So let's try this.

Got nothing. Laptop. Let's turn PC. You might be let me try like Made it work last time. Here we go. Great.

Welcome. Make sure you use

the mic when

you talk, please. Yep.

Welcome. You can turn it if

you need to. I can adjust it.

Thank you.

If we can get your names again and addresses for the record.

Jason Chivan. 16394, Pepperwood Court, Strongsville, Ohio 44136.

Leo Spellosi. I'm an attorney with Thrasher Dinsmore and Dolan. 1282 West 58th Street, Cleveland, Ohio.

Roberto Vega Peralta, architect and practice director at Vulcan at 32506 Curtis Road, Avon Lake, Ohio 44012.

Great. Thank you.

I'll I guess I'll start.

Go ahead.

As you know, we've this is our third time here. We've been tabled twice. As mister Burdell indicated, we've tried to work with the the commission and the residents to make some modifications that would satisfy some of the concerns. And I think mister Medell highlighted most of them, not all of them. But, obviously, since the last meeting, we've added that 10 foot berm with a six foot fence.

We've moved the dumpster enclosure areas North of Building 4 and South of Building 5 to minimize the disruption of the to the residents. We've shifted Buildings 1 And 6 associated parking south by 20 feet and updated the south building line setback. We've removed some parking spaces, the land bank parking spaces to create more green area to to to the east. And, you know, we've done all of this even though the redevelopment plan met all the criteria of the PUD, including the proposed setbacks and the uses. So we're trying to to the extent possible and feasible in connection with making this development viable, we've tried to meet the concerns that have been mentioned to us.

And Roberto can show you, I guess, visually what mister Bodell also showed you, but just a little bit differently.

Yeah. As you were as you were presenting it, I was pointing it out in the highlighting it in the screen. So if there are any questions, I'm happy to go through that.

Great. Anything else you'd like to add?

Happy New Year.

Thank you. Welcome back. Happy New Year. So I think we'll go ahead and let the commissioners, discuss it, and then we'll invite the audience up with the questions, if that's okay,

as we did the last two times. I'll start with, missus Smith. I appreciate the changes that you've made. I I do have a question. The the restaurant, would it be possible if we could work out which building that was gonna be in?

So the I I know that's been a point of of discussion in the past. It's gonna be really hard to narrow that down just to the front. I think we're all on the same page that we would like it to be more front. But without having set tenants yet and without being able to sign set tenants yet, we really can't be restricted any more than what we've already put forth. I mean, we've went back and forth. We actually had a meeting about it earlier today to see if we could even do something like that. But at the end of the day, we wanna make sure that this is a viable build. Right? We wanna make sure that we're respecting the residents to the rear and doing what we can. But at the end of the day, we have to be able to build what what we're set out to build.

So I I can tell you I could do my best to make sure to push the the restaurant to the front building or even possibly to the to the front or south building. Right? Mhmm. But I'm just not willing to commit to that right off the bat. I mean, there's just I don't know how else to answer that for you.

Are you committed to it not being 5 Or 6? In Buildings 5 Or 6?

See, even that was brought up today and it's just very difficult to do that because the Building 6 has so much square footage. Right? Again, we're doing this in phases. Mhmm. And we've we've already been in conversation with restaurants. So I'm hoping in phase 1, we would just put it in that front. Right? And Right. This will all go to bed. But I I just can't promise anything right off the bat. I'm not here to blow smoke at you guys or I've always been a pretty straightforward person.

Okay. Another question. Buildings, is it too early then to designate, say, Buildings 5 And 6 for restricting, well, retail out of those buildings and just having them for office or a bank or training, something that's quiet that has daytime hours, no evening hours.

Again, that's gonna be the same thing. Restricting the rear buildings with the the square footage that's in them is just gonna be really difficult. Essentially, what you're asking is to essentially have Parcel 2 be executive office or office and have the front be what we originally got zoned, which was PUD, which, unfortunately, I can't I I wouldn't be able to again, we we need a little bit of flexibility to make sure that this this project is gonna be viable. We're looking at 54,000 square feet on 8.5 acres. You look at north, you look at south, it is extremely less square footage than south, north, or even, the west would have.

Right? So we did all this to to give more of a luxury experience. We did all this to appease the the residents in the rear as well as withhold the setback that you guys put forth in in the front. Mhmm. There's only so much that we can give.

Okay. I guess you you kind of answered that the other question that I had, so I'm ready to k. Let's see what else

we have over here. Mister mister Jones?

Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate the changes that you made in this last iteration. I think sliding the buildings to the south and getting rid of some of that land bank parking in the back, which really wasn't, in my opinion, necessary at all based on the based on the counts, you know, that are required for this for this use. But and I appreciate that you're leaving a lot of it land banked.

Pardon me. I'm talking as little as I can because I'm having some trouble with my throat here today. The I would not be in favor of pushing this forward with any possibility of restaurants and buildings five and six. So I mean, if I'm if I'm the one that's making the motion, my motion is going to include a prohibition on restaurants in 5 And 6. I will say this, this, I don't think that we need to take it quite as far as the possibility of you know trying to restrict those rear parcels to just office.

I I don't think that that's necessary. Think that I think that your typical your retail uses that are that are the ones that are going to be attracted to a development like this knowing full well like what your you know what your business is and that you're going to be looking to put things in that are complementary to your business not not you know, just detracting from it, right? So I'm very confident that the the types of retail uses that this development will attract are not going to be something that's going to be, you know, detrimental to the residential as restaurants are another story. I I I really have an issue with the possibility of a restaurant going in those back two buildings and I'm and I would insist that that not occur. Otherwise, everything on this looks great.

I think this is I think this development is gonna be a a real nice addition to this area and and I'm looking forward to see it to seeing it get going. That's all I have.

Thank you. Councilman Del Reigno?

Yeah. Again, thank you for your patience. Thanks for your hundred and fifty second rendition of this. The the as far as the timeline goes, you're talking two phases. What in your mind, what is this? What's that look like time wise?

So at the very minimal, we're looking at buildings one and two. I know we split up phases to buildings one and two and then Buildings 3456. But even I would I would love to see if we can get enough signatures on paper to develop the first four buildings. Or again, if we get enough, would love to do all of them all at once because it's just gonna save me money.

Sure.

Right? Right. Sure. So ideally, as quickly as possible. But at the very minimal, phase one is gonna be Buildings 1 And 2. And the reason

I'm asking that is I think your the restaurant would be a is probably one of the on your top of your list of tenants you would want at this point in my opinion. That would That's your drive to come in. That's your drive to get people there. It's a central. It's a destination, if you will. With that being said, if we're looking at it and saying, Okay, you can go in that Building 2, which is 10,400 square feet and probably not gonna be a need that much space. I'm not a 100% sure, but there it would go keep it away from five and six. Right? Because it's gonna be the one of the first you're gonna sign with. You're going to build 6 And 1 And 2, right?

That wouldn't make sense to do that. So you're working progressively west to east on your build, on your phases. So if you're lucky it goes one through six and it all comes in at once. But if it's going to be a true phase project, it's going to be one, two, three, four. And by that time, you probably would want that restaurant in order to make your return at that point. I think that's your drive is in my head. So we're well, I agree with Mr. Jones. I don't want to see it in five and six. And I recognize and I appreciate it, and you're trying to turn something into this. Bear in mind our if we do our flop back and forth between 2024 and what we are seeing today,

and I brought it

up at our last meeting, we've increased the square footage from that original

proposed to six.

Five buildings to six. We've gone from what appeared, I believe, and I have to go back and look, single stories on the back buildings to two stories on all of the buildings. So and I can appreciate your you don't wanna pigeonhole yourself into it, but and you wanna give and take, but we're also working with a give and take here. So yeah. And I do agree.

I I think the shift visually, it looks good. I think it's the you know, it made sense and it helped give us a little bit of distance from the neighbors. And I think that the berm, I really appreciate you guys going forth with that and offering that up there. I think that's a great visual for us. So, I think, you know, I I really don't wanna see five and six with restaurants in it. I think that's your that's your my biggest heartburn with it. I mean they're always a little bit noisier coming and going. There's parties coming out of the door and not that they're and again like mister Jones says, I know you're not. I have full faith and confidence. You're not putting in something that is going to be detrimental to your business.

You have the opportunity to pick your neighbors at this point. So you're going to do what's best for you. And looking at your business and reading up on it, I think you're always going to do what's best for the family. So I don't have any issues there. I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that.

Right. I mean, I will tell you this. The the the people that are front runners to to put signatures on paper, especially for buildings too, probably shouldn't be saying this, but the first half of it is a financial institution is looking to take that. So it it unless we could put a restaurant in the second half of Building 2, it's most likely not gonna be Building 2. So we're looking at Buildings 3 And 4 at that point, which again, I'm gonna do my best to front load that restaurant into Building 2.

But the closest sign is gonna be a financial institution. Yeah. And they're very, very aggressive in that front area. So it it is what it is. I mean, just like everywhere else, you look at Huntington right right to the north. You look at what is it? Bank of America to the West. I mean, they want that frontage. So, again, I understand your concern of you don't want it in that those rear two buildings. It's something that I mean, is that the only contingency really, I guess is my question?

I mean, I'm just one individual on this commission. So but I would say that's a that's a pretty

It's a pretty big one.

For for us.

Yeah. Yeah. It's important to me personally and I think other than that, I mean, don't disagree with any of the other recommend other than the other recommendations that the planning department made on this but that that's one thing that I feel needs to be added. That's really the only thing I intend to add at this point.

And I and you will acknowledge that we went from five to six buildings, our square footage increased and our and our heights increased. Is that a fair I

completely understand where you where you're coming from. I I do but also I mean we look at the the rules that were originally set for the PUD when we first got approval. There was no restriction on where the restaurant would be. And I know that was a a point of contingency on the previous approval. That's why again it's it's

So when we say six is off? If because if six wasn't on the original, we only had five. Right. Right now if we said six is off because it was never there and we didn't force you into one. I don't know.

I think that would make it a lot easier for me. Can we can we go through any additional questions? Then I would make a call because, again, this is not just my decision. Decision. And then maybe we just circle right back. No. I gotcha. You're good. If that's okay with you.

Yeah. Yeah.

I'm I'm good from there.

Okay. Thank you. And my comments my first comment was no food in five and six restaurants in five and six because that, safety and smell and noise are the number one complaints of the residents or concerns. I won't say complaints. Concerns of the residents. My second question was the fence and the buffering. I think you've addressed both of them. I know one resident did not want to see a fence, but I think fences equal safety maybe. And I think that we need to think about the buffer with this fence, and you've agreed to that. Lighting and signage, I think we can talk about, in the design plan or design guidelines.

But then the other thing I went back and looked in 2024, someone had a concern about trash pickup. They wanted it after 08:30AM. Is that too early to talk about trash pickup? I mean, that would be something I'd wanna put in the conditions too, that trash pickup would be I I think it's later than 08:30. Yeah. Yeah. No earlier than 08:30.

Right. The only thing I would say is we'd follow suit with probably everybody else that's getting their trash pickup, north, south, and west, because they're gonna be the same exact companies that we're gonna use. Right? I think that would be more probably a city guideline for

for Yeah. There be a city. Yeah. Yeah.

So but can we put something in there or no? We shouldn't?

It's already it would already be covered under the city's noise ordinance.

Okay.

I just don't know if I can

Right.

Tell the trash company when to pick up my trash. That's the

only thing. Okay.

And I I have to check. I think that's I don't regulate that. That's through the building department, but I think it's through the city's noise code they can't dump before a certain hour.

Yeah. I just that was a a comment from the twenty twenty four emails.

It's probably likely earlier than 08:30 too. I'll let you know that. Okay. But and I can tell you it would be a very tough thing to enforce.

Okay. Yeah.

And and it would be a requirement for this development that isn't not required for Crocker Park or any of the other uses,

to the north or south? Well, I think the biggest thing that we can do from a planning standpoint is just to ensure that the that the enclosures are in the location where they're least likely to be disruptive. I mean, I realize sound can carry, but, you know, they're we're somewhat limited as to what we can do about that. I think the more important thing is to make sure and we have identified you know, that the applicant has now identified where the enclosures are gonna go, and they're not gonna be on that backside next to the residence.

They're well placed.

It should help. Yeah. And then my other comment was 11. I guess I'm just thinking of those back buildings, five and six, and 11PM is noisy. If it's noisy at 11PM, I don't know if that's something that concerns anyone else, but I think that was just another one. Look. Going through all the residents' emails about the noise and the, concern for that. So I just wanted to bring that up.

Yeah. I mean, again, that would maybe be something that we would probably hold our ground on. The only reason being is we would roll out rules and regulations for all the buildings, not saying, hey

That just works.

Building 6, you have to close down at at, you know, x y z time, and the other buildings can stay open until eleven. You know? So I I just

It's too much. Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I guess, you know, thinking about what we did with Cracker Commons, I mean, we did tell them where they could put their restaurants or where they put the uses. So I don't think that's unheard of. And again, we're trying to balance being a good neighbor. I understand this development is going to be amazing. And I'm excited about it. I was just on the East Side over the weekend. And there's some really neat developments that are very similar to what you're proposing over there. So I'm excited for that, to come to Westlake. But I think we do still need to hear from the residents and make sure, we can get to this common ground.

Understandable.

Great. Anyone from the audience like to comment on this project?

I I do have something for clarification. So on the comment about two story buildings, that it relates to the height because 30 feet 30 feet that'd be too you know 15 foot for the first floor and then 15 for the second. So you you know could theoretically do two story buildings. Nothing that they have designed has actually actually looks like or is a two story building except for the actual jewel jewelers store that they have for their main use.

So everything else is one one story.

It's well the design guidelines indicate one story and Roberto's nodding his head up and down so that's

the idea.

With the two nice thing about having the two the 30 feet like that is you can you can hide all the rooftop mechanicals. You have very high, parapet walls and and really hide that up there so you don't you're not gonna see any of the ugly stuff. And I also helps with sound

as well. Yeah. And the reason that we we you're you're seeing a two or one plus on that now is most likely just in case anybody else wanted a mezzanine for any any reason whatsoever. I know some medical facilities use a mezzanine. Different offices do as well. So we were just putting that in there as a just in case.

And I think probably as far as neighbors might be concerned if there's second floors and you would have apartments, well they said there will be no residential or apartment uses, not apartments, hotel uses. And there'd be nothing like that. That's more of a 24 use of those 2nd Floors. They would, again, would be closed at the same time as the rest of the development, 11PM.

Got it. Thank you. Audience members, I know you're back there. Come on up.

Hi. My name is Dan Redish. I'm at 2008 Farmington. I don't think I'm new to the crew here. First of all, I I would like to say that a lot of the comments I'm gonna bring forth are ones that have been formulated in meetings and calls and discussions with my neighbors, several of whom are here.

My second comment is that it's always interesting to come to these meetings and find out that the arguments kind of shift and change. So I'm gonna kind of free form from what I was originally gonna say. I greatly appreciate a couple of things. One, that the Scheiben team has been very open and very conversant, especially on things like the berm, which, by the way, we are far more in favor of landscaping versus a fence, but we can maybe come back to that later. But also, the intense objection to restaurants in Billings 5 And 6, which is pretty much at the top of the list of most of the residents we talk to, right behind what the berm is.

And that really is something that we hold near and dear, and we think should be a restriction, and absolutely gives them plenty

of

flexibility. That was a point of contention on the plan that was presented last year in 2024. I guess that's two years ago now. And further that we we have more buildings, more square footage. We also don't feel that the one and a half or one plus is appropriate.

Keep it at one. More, mezzanine adds to the traffic. It it's more usage within the same building, and we don't think that it needs to keep growing. It's already grown, but I think the math is either 41 or 51% from what was approved a year ago. The, the land bank parking, we appreciate that that's been moved.

It looks like now from the drawing, yes, it is hard. The the white lines make it really hard, but I think it's about 85 feet. We really like better the 125 feet that the land bank parking was from the property lines in the '24 plan, which was the one that was approved. And then the the last thing is that, actually, there's two things. What happens in phase two?

And and I certainly appreciate the desire for them to make this happen as quickly as possible, but we also are concerned where if it stretches out and they're not filling those buildings, especially five and six, as quickly as they would like, then what additional variances do they request at that time? So we're really looking for this to be locked down and not have all that flexibility on the back end. Because when we started all of this development on the Eastern Side of Crocker, we moved an inch and then another inch and then another inch, and, you know, we're now a mile apart from what that used to be. And I don't wanna go back to what you know, I'm not suggesting we go back to executive office. I'm not saying that at all.

But let's not let it go too far. And then the last thing, that I'd like to bring up is that, at the end of last meeting, there was kind of a scramble at the end. We talked about moving, shifting to the south. I thought there was also some willingness to consider the move inside that one fifty five, don't go in there zone. It sounded like there was flexibility to that. I didn't watch the video, but I thought there was gonna be some dialogue about moving it south and or west, which might help alleviate some of these other issues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Sorry. I'm also struggling with a cold here as well. I'm Becky Williamson at 2047 Farmington Turn. We're in agreement with the thoughts that Dan has shared. Just a couple of things that I wanted to reiterate, and I apologize if some of this is a repeat.

But we just wanted to reiterate our concern for some of the significant changes from what was approved in 2024, specifically the significant expansion to the East. And like Dan said, from my memory from the last meeting, I thought that there were the team was supposed to develop two different alternatives moving the plans back to the West to alleviate some of that land bank parking closeness. But the plans approved in 2024 showed the land big parking further away than the 100 foot building setbacks it looks I don't have an exact measurement but approximately 130 feet maybe then today's plan has closest point of that parking at around 80 feet from the property lines so as a homeowner directly behind that area that's I just wanted to reiterate that as that decreases one of our biggest concerns and I understand that the hope is to never have to use that land bank parking but if the plans get approved today then you know come time that they do need to use it we wouldn't have any recourse at that time if it's already been approved, especially if there is a restaurant in Buildings 5 Or 6. So all these changes from the 2024 plans that were approved, I think, combined amount to big changes overall.

And and if, like Dan said, if come phase two or whenever that happens, if the restrictions continue to be stretched, as the Warren Cracker comments, that's just a concern of ours that, you know, if you give them us a cookie now, then it'll come back for more later. So again, if we're able to restrict them to no restaurants in Buildings 5 And 6, we would all appreciate that. And so I just wanna say we're not naive to the fact that the undeveloped land that we've enjoyed behind our house will stay on forever. So we're just we're respectful of the rights that the Scheibing team has to develop their property and just hope that that's not at the expense of our property values quality of life.

Great. Thank you. Hello. Welcome. Good evening.

My name is Elena Bodova. I live at 2011 Farmington Turn. I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns about the Sheban Park, and I completely agree with Dan and Becky. Again, my concern will be a lot similar to theirs. First, I strongly request that Buildings 5 And 6 do not include a food service.

This will help minimize late night traffic, odors, and waste issues near our homes. Second, these two buildings should face west with no signage on the east Side. This will preserve the privacy and visual integrity of the residential area behind them. Third, Buildings 5 And 6 should remain one story, not exceed that height. Taller structures would significantly impact our sidelines and neighborhood character.

Fourth, please reinstate the land banked parking back to 125 feet as outlined in 2024 plan. This was a reasonable compromise that balanced development needs with residential concerns. Fifth, we ask for dense evergreen landscaping on the berm planted closely instead of the fence to provide year round screening and noise reduction. Finally, operating hours should end no later than 10PM to maintain peace and safety for the nearby residents. I urge committee to incorporate these changes to this development to have positive addition to our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We appreciate it. Would anyone else like to speak? Hi. Welcome.

Hi. Jared Williamson. 2047 Farmington Turn, Westlake 44145. I'll keep it brief, just not completely echo what everyone else has said. I wanna reiterate that the concerns we are raising today are not excessive demands or nice to haves. They represent minimal expectations for a project of this scale, especially given how directly it will affect not only the value of our land, but our day to day life. These restrictions are not about stopping development. They are about ensuring development is done responsibly with respect for the people who already live here. I thank you for listening, and I appreciate all of your hard work.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else that want to speak on this one? Alright. Can we have the, applicants back?

And I guess there are a few questions in here. I think where I wanna start here. The mezzanine adding traffic, I personally, I don't think that's gonna happen. I mean, it's more for storage or space. I mean, it's people aren't gonna be in the mezzanine, like, at our customers.

They're most likely gonna do exactly what we're doing. Offices, like, personal offices are gonna be upstairs with with our service centers.

Storage, utility.

Storage, utility.

That's what I was thinking. It'd be storage. Yep. And as Jim mentioned, mechanical. Let's see here. I I guess where we landed, and maybe this is more for the commissioners, where we landed after the last meeting, I thought we agreed the one fifty five was gonna stick.

Yeah. I think I might have been the one that brought up the possibility of shifting west because I think that had come up in the 2024 discussions. But I think We could do

a one fifty three run. You know?

Split in

the metal. We'll be happy to go straight to the street.

Yeah. Straight to the street.

No. I think the but, yeah, your recollection, I think Yeah. Mirrors mine. I I think that the the consensus was that, you know, we wanna hold what we have out there now Right. On that side of the road versus necessarily trying versus trying to, like, mirror what's on the other side because it doesn't really work with the with the alignment of the development on the east side of the road.

Let's see.

Face And I and I'll admit, I did go back and forth on that personally.

Okay.

But I but I think that ultimately where we landed was it should be in line.

Okay. And you heard loud and clear, no one wants restaurants on 5 and 6. I mean, that's unfortunately, that seems to be the consensus between us and the residents as well. Yep. I don't know. Some of the other questions they wanted to answer, phase two lockdown. It doesn't sound like we can lock phase two down. It just depends on when the the tenants are secured.

Correct. Yeah.

Let's see here. There was talk about the 20 the land bank parking distance, and I guess maybe address that question on how you how you designed it based on what you had.

Yeah. I mean we're trying we're trying to pull that land bank parking as far away from the residents as possible and you know we were able to salvage some of those parking spots in the North But even with removing all that land bank parking, we did reduce the parking altogether Uh-huh. From our original plan, which is something we're trying to avoid to do, but we wanted to we wanna at least show good faith to to the residents that we are really trying to push everything to the to the other side. Mhmm. Now if we had that setback reduced

The other thing in response to the to the comment comment from from the the young lady was about the signage and everything on Buildings 5 And 6 pointing

towards Yes.

West. That that is exactly what we're doing. So that is totally in line with

Okay.

So the

request was.

They're facing the two buildings are facing West. Which two buildings?

Yeah. West or south. I mean, I don't know if that Building 6 would have something right on that corner. But yeah. It's not gonna be facing the residents.

Let's put it that way.

And, actually, like, I'm assuming that we will be that this is a preliminary development plan. So we're gonna see detailed development plans for 5 And 6 once they're actually designed. So then at that point, that's when we'll take a look at, you know, how these buildings look on the East Side and what their impact would be to the residents in the back so. Correct. But that's certainly something that you know the commission will absolutely take into account because we're we're hyper aware of the you know the sensitive nature of Buildings 5 And 6.

And regarding the height concerns, the sidelines that were created for the residents were just taking into consideration. The full height of the of the buildings. So The back to the

Yeah. If you could show I think you showed it at the last meeting. It was very helpful.

Yes. So so there are, in effect, no no buildings poking out of the bermint vents if built to their maximum height from any of the residences

both, Okay.

Ends.

And I guess, question for the commissioner is about the fence. I mean, it sounds like no one wants none of the residents want the fence.

I mean, I'll be honest with you. That's really surprising to me. If I lived back there, I'd want a And and and I'll tell you why. It's because the Lance while while the Evergreens True. May look a little softer and they might have arguably some, you know, little bit different acoustic effects, there's gonna be gaps there.

Mhmm.

A fence has no gaps. I have a theory.

If they wanna walk over

Maybe that's it.

I just Can

you put a

little I

don't know.

I mean so I know. Yeah. Yeah.

And we're happy to

We'll put a door if you want.

Yeah. We're happy to accommodate, I think, Either either case is fine with us.

Many So it

sounds like the app so it sounds like the applicants are flexible on that. So, I mean, I guess we

Yeah. Are you guys open to we can discuss. When we get closer to it going fence or green?

Whatever will make the residents happy. Thank you. Yeah.

And I did see some residents enter. Were you guys here for the Sheiben project? Did you wanna make any comments for that? The residents in the back or that just came in? Because does anyone else wanna comment on this from the residents' standpoint? Okay. Any other comments from my commissioners?

No. Oh, mister Biddell?

Did you find something?

Yeah I did.

Good.

A little something to add to the presentation. So there's been you know some comments and they're absolutely correct. A small portion, as you can see right there, circled it, this is the actual area where it's about 85 feet to the land bank where it's less than 100 feet. Code does call for 100 foot for the setback. Now they could just as easily just cut out those one, two, three, about four spaces and not have to worry about that at all.

And that would be fine. They still would have enough parking per the code. This is land banked. So that would be one way of addressing that. Another way of addressing it and I have to go and change it, but the very last slide with the recommendation, I just added a modification to allow the land bank parking to encroach into that setback. Again, it's just those five spaces.

I thought that the blue line was for the parking setback.

Well that's the setback that's required for the buffer is 60 feet. But if you actually because I actually looked that up too and I was thinking the same thing. But if we look at 1212.05A yards and setbacks for buildings and uses of the district any R1F80 shall be provided. And then areas developed with any non residential use or mid rise multifamily dwellings is a 100 feet. So it really just ends up being those there's like five spaces that it really affects.

It doesn't affect anything else. But yeah that 60 feet the only thing that I'm thinking of with the 60 feet is it probably pertains to the setback for the buffer. And even with that I'm not I have to go back in our notes and figure out where 60 feet came from that might have just been something that was agreed upon last time.

Okay.

That might be where that came from.

Okay. Any other comments from the applicant?

Good point. Sorry. Yeah. And so modification four or five spaces, easier probably the cleaner approach, like I said, would be just to redraw it and just you could easily find five more spaces somewhere around the site to replace them or probably do a small shift. And again this is a preliminary development plan. With the development plan everything's going to be refined and changed and so on and so forth. Not really concerned about it but certainly it would be probably cleaner to recommend approval without any modifications if possible.

Definitely. Yeah that would be great. Okay. Does everyone under you understand that how we're gonna you're gonna find five more spaces somewhere else Right?

Yeah. It's I I don't think it's gonna be I I don't see where that and again, they're land bank spaces.

Or they just eliminate them because they're still they they would meet code Yeah. Even without those five spaces. Way over there. It's up to it'd be up to them, I guess.

And against just land bank spaces. Yeah.

I can do it too early.

They show you the replacement space if you wanna see it.

You know, whole intent of the allowing

spaces isn't if we can approve it with the five space, that'd be great. So we don't have to redesign the whole thing. But if if you want us to move those five spaces, I'm not I mean, this is not gonna be the hill I'm gonna die on. Right? It's a

Thank you.

Yeah. Understand.

I mean

I get it.

So we're talking, what, eight feet? What would it be?

Yeah. We we've even Yeah. What would be identified

you and I have it there.

Well, the first few spaces are Right

next to

fully to our the whole space is within that setback. So it's more than it it's a varying number.

But Okay.

Yeah, it's five, maybe six spaces. It depends. And again, this is a preliminary development plan. When you actually do as Roberto knows, when you do that development plan, things are going to move around on this site. Things are going to really be they're going to be more compact than what you're showing there. And the audience should know that too. These are big this is a master plan essentially is what it is. So they're big outlines, big boxes. But once you refine this, things are going to get closer. They're going to get tighter together. Together, and you're probably going to have 10 more spaces than what you're showing right now.

That's correct. A

question for Mr. Scheven. I think in one of the previous meetings you mentioned you have a tenant lease out of a space before you start building, right? You have What's that number that before you start building a new space for someone, you want it at

50% or more.

50% or more.

Probably 100%. But I won't put a shovel in the dirt until 50%.

Correct. And I think that's kind of where one of the residents mentioned, you build it and you don't have the ink, people signed up or lessees. Right? I want to make sure that they understand you're not coming back to us saying, now we want to put in another restaurant or a hospital or anything like that. You'll be 50% under occupancy before you start the build.

Correct. My preference is to never come back to this meeting. We're not offended. No. Essentially, it's just a rule of thumb that we're going to be going by is 50% or more. And then if you really want to dissect it, don't sign anything at a ten year or I'm sorry, a five year or lower in lease terms. And our goal is to get a ten year lease term for every signature. So this isn't something we're not looking for fly by tenants. We're not looking to turn these tenants. We're looking for true partners in tenant family. And that's what we've done with other developments that we've done.

Thank you.

Great. Anything else from the commission? Alright. Do we have a motion? Yes.

Let's see here. Just wanna make sure that I've got everything. Good luck. So I think the only thing and just in in in draft condition number two, we'll just have to indicate that one restaurant use in not within buildings in well, we can say in Buildings 1 Through 4. So it'll be permissive and say in Buildings 1 Through

44

only.

That was still a point of contingency for us. I mean, I did get a chance to at least go outside and have a call. They're still pretty resistant on doing restrictions on Building 5 And 6 because of the sheer square footage that is back there, and with the interest that is in the front. I mean, we we obviously want this to be feasible. I can promise you that we'll do our best to keep it to Building 1 Through 4, but we really are comfortable restricting Buildings 5 And 6.

I think that's a hill we're going die on, right?

I think so too, yeah. I would say this, if you end up in a situation, because possibility to come back to us always exists. Right? I mean, we're gonna we're gonna set it this way. Would you be If you you end up in a situation where you absolutely you know, where you have a tenant that absolutely has to be in one of those two and you need to come back to us for a change to this, then we would consider it on its merits at that point. But think as a guideline, as a preliminary development plan, we're all very well set on that we do not want to see a restaurant use in Buildings 5

We're and stripping the permitted uses on Buildings 5 And 6. That's correct. Consistent with the PUD

That's correct.

Chapter in your ordinance.

That's exactly right.

Yes. I want to make

that clear. Would

you be willing to again, I would hate to table it, and would you be willing to restrict just Building 6?

Can I

And I

hate that right quick? Can we recess real quick and get legal counsel talk?

Yep. For what purpose to turn into executive session? Pardon? What is the purpose for turning into executive session?

I just wanna get some more guidance on restricting use.

You can only go in executive session for certain things.

Okay. So no? Alright. We'll keep moving forward.

I mean, that that would help me a little bit as well trying to Sorry.

Keep it legal.

Can we bring the site plan back up then since you're asking for

Yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna send it back to you.

The the point here that Jason is making is Building Building 6 is the one that's closest to the residence. Right? So by Correct. By moving Building 5 farther 20 feet to the south diagonally

here

to the Southwest then this Building 5 is even farther from the from the residence now. Closer to that.

So you're showing a dimension that Building 5 is over 500 feet from the nearest house.

That's that's correct. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I'm trying to show that on the on screen now. Thank you for for that.

But then Building 6 gets as close as 290 at its nearest point.

Yeah. And and now it is farther than three three hundred at this point. This is pre the 20 foot.

This is the right. This this is before you made the adjustment, so it's slightly more than that now. Correct. Okay. Right. Because Building 6 now has slid Building 5 now has slid closer to the cul de sac, so in reality, that distance is even greater than five sixty.

Exactly. Yeah. So we're looking at something that's close to 600 feet where

Mhmm.

Every other neighbor, to the north and South, you know, has 260 Mhmm. 110. So making Jason's, you know, comment about the Building 5 to still be in their consideration fairly blossable. I I definitely understand your concerns about Building 6 because that corner, but Building 5 is is well within the the distances.

So Building 5 would be for restaurants or could be for us.

Could be is what they're saying.

Yeah. I mean, ideally, 1 through 6. But, again, I yeah. I mean, if if, you know, if there's something that we absolutely have to I mean, I go back to saying, I mean, we we got this PUD approved with one restaurant restriction. That was it. There was no where is it gonna go. And that was with the idea that the original plan that we proposed to you guys was not gonna be or could not be the final plan. Right? We we put it together because we originally wanted to put a jewelry store in the corner. We would develop the rest later.

Right? Mhmm. At that moment, we got pressed to put together a design for the whole the whole PUD. So I guess what I'm trying to say is going full circle to restrict a restaurant to now buildings 1 through 5, I understand there wasn't a six building, but we also were kinda pushed to put together a whole design, right, with the understanding that that design could change, not necessarily could change, and then we're gonna have more restrictions on the PUD that we originally got approved. So I I mean, I put that back in your guys' court of just making sure that we're I originally thought when we put this design together and we proposed this to you, everything met all the PUD requirements.

In no way, shape, or form did I think that we would come come back three more times to to get it approved. So I'm trying. We're trying here, but it has to also be feasible. So, I mean

We can't have

people, yeah, talking. Sorry. If you want to yeah, I think we've already had our public comment. We understand the public's concerns. Obviously, we've heard them, and we've seen the emails. So I think the question is one of our modifications or one of our conditions, sorry, with restaurants.

And I would I mean again I would agree we only had five in the original plan and we were what was our what was our setback in five in the original plan recognizing that you we made you come together with this plan. But that setback was 200 plus I don't know, 400 feet. I don't know what that was. But it was substantial, right? It's been reduced. We've got the water main. We've got a disk. We've talked through this, right? So we went up to six buildings from the original five. We've increased the square footage of all of the buildings.

We've expanded and gotten closer to the areas that we were trying to avoid. So Right. And as you said, it needs to work for you, it needs to work for us.

Right?

Correct.

So we're trying to come to an amicable solution here, recognizing where you're at with it. The reason I bring up restaurant being probably the primary focus of the next tenant you want in there after your next one is going to be a restaurant. If we excuse me. If we do this in a phased approach, you're not going to end up with five or six because three and four need to get filled with the restaurant. Your next tenant should be a restaurant in a business aspect.

So I am kind of leaning saying, if you end up putting in retail in the other, I don't know how many square feet of space without a restaurant, I can't imagine that happening, to be honest with you. From a business standpoint, it just doesn't make sense. Retail shops are not going to come there without some form of place to eat, especially on a high end retail that you're looking to do. They're going to want to have lunch when they're coming to shop. They're going to want to have a destination besides purchasing jewelry at that point.

So your committal or your team's committal to say five and six are off limits. I just from a business end, it doesn't make sense. It should go you you would want it in one through four because those are the first ones you're going to build.

Correct. But, again, it's not about what because we're doing it in phases, we really are unsure where the restaurant would go at the time. If I had signatures on paper, this would be a lot easier, I think, for all of us. In fact, for all we know, we're not even gonna have a restaurant. Right? And we did all this for nothing. But I I guess what I'm trying to say here is to restrict the one Through 4 with one being our building. It's not like we're putting a restaurant in our building. And I think one doesn't even allow a restaurant. I think it's just what we labeled it was retail.

Right? So it's not like we're gonna be putting a restaurant in our building. So that really restricts us for two Through 4. And that's really where we're sitting here is when I have a financial institution looking at Building 2 and a good portion of it, I would either have to split that and then the center buildings really do not have the bulk of the parking at all, and a restaurant needs parking. Right? So that's where my mind goes. Now, again, ideally, if restaurant wants to take a center building, have no problem with that. I really don't. Me, personally, sign the paper. Let's do this.

Right? But I just look at what the restaurants in the past that I've signed with are looking for, and they want optimal parking as well as visibility. And that's why I'm saying, ideally, Building 2. But if we can't sign Building 2 in that second half of the restaurant, where are we at? Right? And then I go back to saying

the same doesn't work for them then either.

What's that?

Six wouldn't work for them either. The the visibility is just not

want any visibility back there.

Well, we designed visibility for straight line. Again, if if we're okay with with pausing for five minutes so I could at least just go get approval for for what I'd if we restrict just building six. I know they're not gonna let me restrict five and six. At that point, we could just table it. Yeah.

And I think as a commission, we need to come up with whether we're willing to go five and not six.

Personally I'm really struggling with it and and I think do we I guess just a procedural question is there any reason why the board can't make that restriction? Yeah. Procedurally. Is there any reason why we can't do

that?

Get on your mic, please.

So three things I guess for you to consider as a board, right? Number one, the PUD is approved with the conditions already set. Number two, the code and the ordinances, I. E. The laws, spell out the enforcement and or govern the restrictions of noise, food service. You know, you you can't the commission can't circumvent that. Well, that being said, the commission also doesn't enforce that.

Right. Okay.

Is that helpful?

Yeah. Sort of.

It's I go back down to asking the same question. If the PUD was approved with one restaurant use with no restriction in which building or where within the two parcels outside

of

the setbacks, why is it being restricted now?

Can I speak to that? I mean, I've got a copy of the the previous plan. It looks like everything was to the west of the 30 foot drainage.

Right.

So that would be you know, that's those five four buildings are now, one through So basically what we're what we're I think we're talking about is that we'd like to see the restaurant to the west of the 30 foot wide easement.

Basically within the area that you originally proposed the development be in, which is what we approved in 'twenty four.

And

we're here looking at a much larger development we Correct. Originally

And we did discuss that. Mean, if you go back and look, we did did discuss the placement of that restaurant in the original plan even and said it should be up front. And I think we went back and we just discussed here. I think we've done this at other locations on Crocker Road where we said the restaurants need to be up in the front of the buildings.

Yeah. Including in the development to the south where where it's the restaurants are in the front.

Yeah. Yes. Was that done through the master site plan or was that done through the acceptance of PUD?

I guess I can't answer that. I I just know what ended up I just know where they ended up, right, in relation to what's behind them.

So do you wanna I mean, do we want him to step out and make the call, or do we wanna table?

I'm okay with giving him five minutes.

Okay. Do you

wanna go ahead and make that call? Thanks. Yep.

Not without them. I'll present.

Are we taking a break or going to the next one?

The next one is

There's time are there guidelines for time plans? Would you want a table chance light while they're stepped while they stepped out?

Yeah. We could can

Table chance light. Yeah. Can we

go ahead and do that?

Yep. Okay. So pause and we'll go back to Chancellor Light or Chancellor Light Site Improvements. That's the playground in the parking lot. That has going to be tabled, correct? App per applicant's request?

Yes. I did speak to the applicant. They are aware that the deadline for the next meeting is on the fourteenth and they expect to be ready to make application for that meeting.

Okay. So we'll go ahead and table to the February meeting.

What's the date of that meeting? February?

February 2.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So motion to table the Chancellate Site improvements playground and parking lot to the February 2 meeting.

Second. Roll call, please.

Falcone? Yes. Del Reigno?

Yes.

Smith? Yes. Jones? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

And then I think the center, people are here for the center. Is that correct? The

Oh, we got the ordinance.