Todd Foley, principal with POD Design, told the Beavercreek City Council on Nov. 24 that his client seeks an amendment to PUD 06‑06 to increase maximum residential density on a roughly 31‑acre portion of the Mission Point development from three dwelling units per acre to six. "The increase in density will allow this project to end up somewhere in the vicinity of 150 to 160 dwelling units," Foley said during the applicant presentation, noting the team plans to extend Mission Point Boulevard and preserve an on‑site stream.

City planner Mr. Burket reviewed the zoning history and maps, saying staff and the planning commission recommended the amendment. He told councilors the request would reconcile conflicting 2007 concept‑plan language and change roughly 2.25 acres from low to medium density, about 3 acres from retail to medium density and add approximately 26 acres of medium‑density residential on the updated concept plan. "Planning Commission reviewed the case and unanimously recommended approval of the applicant's request," Burket said.

During public comment, Riverside resident John Ziegler asked whether the development is near Gerloff Cemetery and whether graves would be relocated. "How close is this to the Gerloff Cemetery, and are they gonna be moving the graves?" Ziegler asked. Jason Woodard of Woodard Development, representing the property owner, replied that a prior acquisition process and close‑out documented no human remains were found. "There was no remains actually found... So there is no remaining gravesite," Woodard said.

Council members pressed staff and the applicant on outreach to neighboring Riverside residents, traffic and whether any FEMA floodplain or wetland issues would affect future construction. Staff said notifications were mailed to properties within 500 feet of the highlighted area, construction access would be required from Mission Point, and wetlands or other environmental constraints would be addressed at the site‑plan review stage and follow Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA requirements.

After questions and discussion, a councilor moved to send Ordinance 25‑25 to a second reading; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (ayes). No final rezoning or site plan was approved Nov. 24; those details will be resolved in subsequent hearings and the city site‑plan review process.

Next steps: the amendment will return for a second reading under Ordinance 25‑25 and, if approved, the applicant must complete site‑plan review where surveys, any environmental permitting and construction‑traffic conditions will be determined.