Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Uh I would like to call to order the May 5th, 2026 uh city of Fenton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Our first item on our agenda tonight is the pledge of allegiance. Uh please stand if you can. Pledge allegiance. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next is our um roll call. Uh have our roll call, please. Secretary Abbott. Sir. Uh Chairperson Yman

here. Uh Vice Chairperson Cheryl here. Secretary Abbott is here. Uh, Alderman Herrell is excused. Mayor Morath here. Uh, Commissioner Wisrock is excused. Commissioner Vorhees here. Commissioner Glover here. Commissioner Nelson here. And Commissioner Viliki is excused. And we also have uh Robin Hules, one of our alderwoman. And we also have Mike Abbott from the uh Clarks Board in the audience.

Oh, we have a few on the phone, too. Oh gosh, I'm missing this. Okay. And we have Alderman uh Bruce Rogers on the phone and it looks like uh Alderman Scott Massang.

Great. Thank you. Thanks for those in attendance. Okay. Um moving along. Uh next we'll cover our notice uh to the public and ground rules. Um so first our ground rules. If you wish to speak uh please pick up a speaker request form. These forms are located at the sign-in table. Please complete the form and present it to Secretary Deb Abbott prior to the public comments section of this agenda. The chairperson will call your name during the public comments section of the agenda. Your comments and questions from the members of the public will be limited to 3 minutes. You will not be recognized to speak until you have filled out the form. Please address all comments to the planning and zoning commission. If you have a question for a petitioner, please address that question directly to the commission. All questions will be referred to the petitioners at the end of the public comment portion of the agenda. The commission demands respect and courtesy for others during the proceedings. Inappropriate behavior will result in the forfeiture of the speaker's allotted time and may result in removal from the proceedings. The planning and zoning commission wants to hear what you have to say about the items on today's agenda as it relates to cases at present. Okay. Next, we have some notices for the petitioners. Uh, first, a simple majority vote of the commission shall be necessary to constitute a positive recommendation to the board of alderman. Also, the next board committee meeting is Thursday, May 14, 2026. And the next board of alderman meeting and public hearing is Thursday, May 28th. Okay, that covers all of our notices. Next, we have our approval of minutes uh from the April 8, 2026 meeting. A little thicker this time around. Does anybody have any questions?

None. All right. I'll move that we approve the April 8th, 2026 meeting minutes. Can I get a second? I'll second it. Have a second. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Okay. The minutes are approved. Thank you. Next, we're on to uh public comments. Uh do we have any public comment form submitted? Okay. Um were there any members of the public looking to fill out a form that haven't yet? Did we have anything submitted uh via email? Okay. for those who are joining online. We do have one member of the public who's going to speak. We're just uh going to have the form filled out first. Thank you. If you could just present it to Secretary Abbott and um we do have members who are listening in online. So um if you wouldn't mind uh this is your turn to speak actually. Ma'am.

Ma'am. Sure. No, not a problem. We'll wait. What section? What are we referring to?

Oh, okay. Got it. Okay. All right. So, we will address that when it comes up during the um the particular item uh of business. Okay. So, we'll move on then to old business. Uh, first we have case 2026 SUP3, a petition by um, Ziko SACO Auto Limited Partnership for a special use permit to operate an automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility at 470 South Highway Drive. The property is zoned BP3 Business Park District. Uh, Amy, did you have a summary for us?

Sure. Um this case was continued from the April meeting um pending a traffic study um which was submitted along with revised plans. Um just as a reminder, the petitioner is under contract to purchase the uh vacant 2.24 acre parcel addressed as 470 South Highway Drive and it's located at the intersection of South Highway Drive in the exit to Rudder Road. They are proposing to develop the lot with a 15,620 ft automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility with an accessory fleet washing facility. The development will require site plan review which will be considered under case 2026 SP3 later on in the agenda. Um in lie of the two entrances that were reviewed um previously, the revised plan showed that the lot will now be accessed via um a new entrance off of Rudder Road. The existing curb cut um on South Highway Drive will no longer be used and a new right out only exit to South Highway Drive is proposed to the west of the existing curb cut. Um this will serve to increase the distance between the vehicles exiting the lot and the ramp to Rudder Road. Um the washing facility has been relocated to the north end of the building which will allow for over 300 ft of queuing space on site without impacting Rudder Road. Um, as stated at the April meeting, this is a washing facility for larger fleet and commercial vehicles that wouldn't typically fit um wouldn't be accommodated by a regular washing facility. But this facility will not accommodate semis or tractor trailers. Um, the traffic study submitted um was based off the operation of the only other 24-hour fleet wash facility in the area. So, they are anticipating 75 to 100 vehicle washes per month. that averages to about three to six per day with an anticipated uptick um after severe weather events. Um so following weather events 25 to 35 vehicles per t per day might be expected with four to five vehicles estimated during peak hours. So the uh 300 square

300 ft of queuing area would accommodate the estimated four to five vehicles um during peak use. The remainder of the expected traffic to the site is about 26 to 44 vehicles per day for service and all services by appointment only during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Um that was the information we were given at the April meeting. Um so the combined use of the facility is expected to add one or less trips to the adjacent roadway every two minutes during that peak time. So that would be the during the time um um where they would anticipate maybe 25 to 35 vehicles per day. The study concludes that low traffic volumes are not expected to have any impact on the adjacent roadways and to ensure safe safe site circulation staff would suggest that directional signage and pavement markings be provided um to indicate the flow of traffic on site. Um one other item to note that uh was included in the amended plans is the outdoor storage area for tires here within the rear yard. Um, that does include blind fencing and the code just requires that when an outdoor storage area is visible from the street, the materials for blind fencing be high durability and quality, require low maintenance, and be in earth tone black or green color. So, that information would just need to be uh provided on an amended site plan.

Thank you. Mhm.

Um, one question I have for the city, uh, I noticed with the, and this is maybe more of a site plan question, but I'll just ask it at this point in time, the, uh, change to the, um, northern exit is now an exit only. That is a right-hand turn onto South Highway Drive. And um does the city have any concern or position about like people still trying to make a right-hand turn into that area off of South Highway Drive, not realizing that it's intended as an exit only?

Um no. Um I think um kind of the orientation of the um end of the exit um is a pretty good indicator that there is no right turn into the facility. But um certainly markings or or signage could be um installed um to indicate that there's no um entrance. It's an exit only. Okay. I I'm not sure that that's going to be necessary. I just wanted to ask if the city specifically had an opinion. Yeah, it was reviewed by um Dan Howard and he did not have any concerns with it. Okay.

Yeah, my questions were pretty similar. Um we had entrances on the South Auto Road. My question is was that uh by nature of MDOT or was it because of the queuing and is that intended for the petitioners? Uh I I don't know if Amy has the answer to that or or the petitioner. So, okay. However you want to you have an answer for that Amy? I I don't but um any um installation or removal of uh the entrances along South Highway Drive is MDOT rightway and so they would need to have uh review and approval of those.

Okay. Other questions for Amy before we ask the petitioner to come up. Okay. And I see some familiar faces. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Thank you. Uh my name is Patrick Hensley. I'm with Hensley Construction. Uh my address 10880 Bower Boulevard, sweet 145 St. Louis, Missouri 63132. Um I am here representing Seikko uh for this development and um first of all, thank you for all for being here on a rainy night. Um but um we when we were here last uh we would we had re we've received our our tax zoning um the SUP was on the condition of the uh traffic study plan which which we've gotten to you and we feel is is very um is a good presentation of what is going to happen on the site. But part of this was we did revisit the site from when we were here last to look at the flow of it. And we so we we basically flipped the building around to make it a little bit easier for not only the customers to come in and pull off rudder and be able to park and come in and drop their car off, but if you look on our site plan, you'll see some illustrations of a larger vehicle going up the drive aisle. That's that's a 35- foot vehicle, just to give you an idea of how big that is. Um, and when we did that, we felt that by putting the fleet wash on the north side of the building, it would allow them to come around, go through the fleet wash, and then exit, and then they could immediately exit right out on the um South 44 Drive. So, flowwise, it really worked out. We think it worked out a lot better. We're moving that right uh out

about 150 feet from the existing what we had which is an existing curb cut and we we realize that MDOT has to approve all of this. Um so um and we have submitted a preliminary concept review from MSD and they also would like to have MODOT review it too in that letter we received from them. So um but I'm here to answer any other questions. I've brought with me my team. I have my architect. I have my traffic engineer. I've got my attorney. I've um got the real estate guy. And I've got the civil engineer. So, we can pretty much answer anything you got. Well,

so so I guess the answer to my question then is MDOT has not reviewed this yet. No, they didn't dictate that it's it's uh exit only. Yes, it it will mod will know that when we submit our plans and we will be meeting with MDOT, the civil engineer and MODOT will connect on that and and I think um you are correct. They they probably will have some sort of this is not an entrance sign, some sort of a signage that says do not turn right into here. So, um we would be expecting that.

So, can I ask one more question and I think I might know the answer to this. You know, we've we've kind of looked at these queuings through the years and learned by some of our mistakes where you have the uh traffic coming in off Rudder Road. It's directly across from the building and you make the right hand turn and another lefthand turn to go up, I guess, to get to your wash station. Yes. Would it make sense to come straight off that aisle or is it too close to the the sweep there that MDOT has?

I I think the idea is we were lining up the roads across from each other and and I do I I I do believe and Lee could Lee Cannon with uh Crawford Bunty would probably tell me it'd be too close to the intersection to to have that. So I just wanted to ask that question because Um, like I said, we've been down this before and only to find out it was probably a good thing. But in this case, I understand.

Yep. Not trying to do an engineer's job cuz I have no clue. Um so is the expectation that anyone who has completed the wash process or other service I mean would they still have the option to turn left coming out of the wash and exit on Rudder Road or is the intent to you know request that they go out onto South Highway Drive? Well, we've made that turning radius. I mean, they could they wouldn't make a left out of there because they they would uh run into that area where we have a our trash dumpster, but they could go make a right and continue to make a right if they wanted to and and go back through those,

right? those first few drive lines that aren't. Um, but I I think what you'll find is that these vehicles will probably want to exit. They're they're leaving unless I I unless they're in there for a service, but why would you wash the car and then go get it serviced, you know, right?

That type of thing. And these are, like I say, these are for larger vehicles. Um, I actually uh I was up at the place uh on Natural Bridge and and I just so happened saw an oversized van. I took a picture. I could I could give you copies of it if you'd like to just see what that looks like. Um, but that might kind of explain to you also, you know, this was like an airport type of a van. Okay. Going in. Oh, okay.

Okay. Oh, okay. Thank you. there. And and you can see there's there's actually no one. It's a nice day. There's no one behind it. And I noticed that this you can't see it on this picture, but it was an airline. It's like a It's It's like a van that would go pick up things at different areas. Uh PE maybe people and then bring them to the airport or something.

Sure. So, um well, thank you for the traffic study. Uh I did think that it was very helpful to have an idea of the uh expectated or expected number of trips that the facility would generate. Um, and I know that you guys are on a time uh crunch, so appreciate the extra work that went into this. Um, certainly.

Are there other questions that uh folks have for our petitioner about um remember this is technically the um so the site plan review would actually come uh at a later time. So, this is really about is this the right business for this location. Okay. So, uh without other questions, um I do have some conditions that uh we would like to read into the record and have you acknowledge uh before we would make a vote on this. So, the special use permit is solely for Seikko Auto Limited Partnership to operate an automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility at 470 South Highway Drive and as indicated on revised plans dated April 21st, 2026.

Yes. Uh, the proposed development will require separate site plan review through the planning and zoning commission and board of alderman. Yes. Directional signage and/or pavement markings shall be provided to indicate the flow of traffic to and from the washing facility. Yes. The outdoor storage area shall include blind fencing materials that are high durability and quality, require low maintenance, and be an earthtone black or green color. Yes. And compliance with all other applicable city of Fenton codes and ordinances. Yes.

Okay. With those conditions, I'll go ahead and move uh for a vote on um case 2026 SUP3. Second. Okay. Um and that's a petition by Seiko Auto Limited Partnership. All I know is that one bag. Okay. Um and uh if there's anyone on the phone who's not on mute, you may want to go ahead and mute your phones. Um Okay. So, we had the motion and a second. Uh, why don't we go ahead and do a roll call vote, please? Amy, Chairperson Yman, I, Commissioner Nelson, I. Vice Chairperson Cheryl,

I. Secretary Abbott, I. Mayor Morath, I, Commissioner Vorhees, I, Commissioner Glover, I. Motion approved. Okay. Thank you again for the extra work that you guys put in on this. Uh, again, it was very helpful. and we'll discuss the site plan review in a few minutes. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh next we have 2026 SUP04, a petition by Scandal Properties LLC for a special use permit to operate a truck terminal at One Premier Drive. The property is owned BP2 Business Park District. Amy,

yeah, this case was also continued from the April meeting. Um, just a reminder that the petitioner is under contract to purchase the property, which is the current office building that serves as the headquarters for Unigroup. The petitioner plans to redevelop the lot with a new 231,000 square foot truck terminal. That's where packages and parcels will unload from interstate trucks, be placed on a conveyor system before being loaded onto local delivery vans for distribution. Um they do anticipate approximately 18 interstate trucks to deliver to the site per day and 256 delivery vans would dispatch from the site daily as well. Access points to the lots will be the lot will be reduced from six points. Um there's currently two on Rudder Road and four on Fabic. It'll be reduced to two um access points, one on Rudder and one on Fabic Drive. And that's to reduce the conflict points along the roadway. Dock doors are proposed on the north and east elevation. um um angled away from the uh existing hotel uses and a sound wall is also proposed on the west side of the property for noise mitigation. So at the time the staff memo was written, we'd only received the technical memorandum which outlined the preliminary data data that had been received. Uh but a a draft of the traffic impact study was submitted late last week and a copy was provided to the commission yesterday. I know it was a kind of a lengthy document for you to um have one day to uh read, but I did do um a little kind of summary that I can go through. Um I know that the petitioner is here and he has a presentation as well and he can answer some of the the more um uh in-depth questions you may have. So um the study looked at uh the 2026 existing conditions, the 2027 forecasted conditions, which would be the redevelopment traffic plus the anticipated 1% annual growth rate. um the 2047 baseline horizon conditions which is just the 1% annual growth rate um projected out and then the 2027 and 2020 2047

forecasted conditions which is the 1% annual growth rate plus the redevelopment traffic. So the study concluded that the redevelopment will generate an average of 130 new trips um 86 arrivals and 44 departures during the peak morning hours of between 7 and 9 and 96 new trips um 55 arrivals and 41 departures during the peak evening hours. Uh the majority of the traffic is expected to utilize the access drive off of Rudder Road since most vehicles would be package and delivery vehicles. Um the most of the traffic off of Fabic would be employee and uh tractor trailer traffic. Um the study also concluded that a westbound turn lane at the intersection of Rudder and Premier Drive is warranted. So that would be um this area here. Um that portion of Rudder Road is MDOT. So the turn lane would require review and approval by MDOT. Um the traffic study uh also found that there is a need for improvement via a traffic signal at the northbound approach to the intersection of Fabic and Rudder even without redevelopment. So Dan Howard um who is our city's uh traffic engineer and public works director did review the traffic um report uh yesterday and he just wanted to note that even though Fabic is a city street that intersection is under the jurisdiction of MDOT as well. So any traffic signal would require review and approval by MODOT. Um it is recommended the traffic study recommended stop signs and a stop bar pavement markings to be added at the exit um for traffic exiting Rudder Road and Fabic um by the proposed drives. Um they do anticipate a slight increase in delay at the signalized intersection of South Highway Drive and Rudder Road, but the capacity remains adequate according to the study. And overall, when reviewing the long-term impacts of the redevelopment, all other intersections within the study area are expected to operate compare comparable to the 2047 baseline conditions. So that's the the

baseline um that includes just the 1% growth and not the the uh redevelopment. So there are no additional recommendations um as a result of the redevelopment on the remaining intersections um within the study. Okay, thank you for that. Does anyone have any immediate questions for Amy? Sounds like the petitioner has a uh few comments planned. So, we could always invite them to come up and then ask questions. So, uh if you could state your name and address for the record, please.

Yes. So, my name is Justin Alashik representing Scanel Properties here, 8801 River Crossing Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana. Um, so a lot of these slides you're going to see in this presentation are uh repetitive from our our last meeting, so I won't dwell on those in detail and and we'll uh dive into um the uh updated traffic information we've received since the last uh meeting. Um so again the uh previously we were here for the text amendment and special use permit. Text amendment was approved um via the board of alderman uh last month. Um that uh does allow for the truck terminal use in the BP2 zoning district with special use uh approvals here. Um again familiarizing yourself with one Premier Drive surrounding area. Here is our site plan. Um just as a refresher um what is shown on the plan southside here is where the vans will um load load uh from the uh the parcels that are are uh being uh distributed through the facility from the trucks which are shown on the plan north side of this site. Um the access point off of Rudder Road um will be the primary access point for the package and delivery vans while pedestrian traffic and any semi-truck traffic will enter in um along Fabic Drive. Um again conceptual elevations it'll be a architectural pre-cast concrete building with some renderings representing what it would look in the neighborhood with surrounding uses. So getting into some of this traffic impact analysis here. Um this represents the existing conditions that were studied by Loch Mueller group um as part of their traffic impact study setting the baseline for you know existing

conditions and how these intersections are operating currently. um working our way around the you know the I think the the most concerning point in terms of ma maintaining existing traffic would be Ruer Road and South Highway Drive which is the signalized intersection and the access point to Highway Drive. In its current condition, this intersection operates uh very well. um level of service for the overall intersection is a level of service B um in the AM peak hour and a level of service A in the PM peak hour which exceeds kind of what the the standard is. Anything above a C is considered a a fully functioning intersection. Anything above that B's and A's, you're doing great from a traffic perspective. Um you can see all the approaches operate at level of service B or better um in in both the AM and PE and PM peak hours. Um you can see access point 2 which is an existing cut um that is currently blocked off by Unirroup in their existing condition gated. So in both um the AM and peak peak uh AM and PM peak hours that were studied by Lock Mueller those remain closed. So they were ultimately excluded from the traffic analysis. Um you can see our uh proposed entrance point at Rudder Road and Premier Drive. Um the uh the westbound left turn approach um operates at the level of service A. So traffic is flowing freely through Rudder Road. And then that northbound approach which is the access point that employees would take to turn onto Rudder Road operates at a level of service C. um which means there there will be some delay for folks who are trying to exit and exit during these peak hours but um ultimately do not cause any uh real harm to the operations um ruer road and and fabic drive um that is what Amy had

referenced. Uh so the uh again the the through road ruer road operates at a level of service A because there's not restricted by any stop conditions. However, the northbound approach in the existing condition operates at a level of service E and a level of service F in the um PM peak, which just means that you're having that uh that tra uh traffic queuing um at that uh northbound approach as folks are trying to make their left or right on a rudder road. Um it's not an uncommon situation where you have a a single uh approach that is stop controlled while the other is is um free flowing. It's just the approaching vehicles have to wait for those gaps in the traffic in order to make their turning movements. Um similar to access point 2, access point 5 was also gated off during both the AM and PE and PM peak. So that was not included in the uh existing conditions analysis. Um the uh southern part uh southern access drive that Unigroup has um which is uh Faboc Drive and that southern parking access all is operating very well level of service A. Um a similar uh situation with Favoc Drive and Fabricator um which is at the southeast corner of our proposed site. Moving into that proposed condition, this is the the 2027 forecast. So this would be as we open um uh this facility here um that Rudder Road and South Highway Drive signalized intersection. The overall intersection remains at the level of service B and A, meaning that our impact here is minimal to that intersection. Um the Rudder Road and Premier Drive, which would be the the access point for the um the package and delivery vehicles. Um again, you're seeing the same situation where uh the the traffic and rudder operates very freely. Um and the northbound approach

operates with a little bit more of a delay. Um but would all be factored into the queueing lengths on site and all uh available um you know all all traffic that's queuing can be accommodated between the gated access point fencing and uh rudder road. So, um that will function adequately for our proposed piece. Um you'll note that um Rudder Road and Fabic, it's similar situation. Obviously, we're not going to make it better with our development, but it still operates in that level of service E and F. um in the uh northbound approach condition. Um what we should point out with this as I go back to the previous slide um that northbound approach uh vehicles are and you know experiencing roughly a 43 second delay from when they enter that intersection to when they could make their turn turning movement and roughly 50 seconds in the PM uh PM condition. um with our proposed use here um in the AM that 43 seconds turned into 45 seconds. So it's a two second increase um and the uh the PMP uh extends to uh 55 seconds in li of the the uh I'm sorry the 50 that was previously uh experienced there. So between a two and 5 second increase in the total amount of time that a vehicle is is operating at that uh at that uh intersection. Um the balance of the uh the drives here again continue to operate at level of service A and B operate very well. So as as a whole this this development isn't going to change um much of anything in terms of the the cha traffic generation here. And then I'll just touch on one last time um Amy had spoke to some of those those peak traffic conditions and where the uh traffic that is being added to

those intersections where that is coming is going to be um really solely from the package delivery um employees as well as the vans. Those are what are arriving to the facility um in that uh peak time frame between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4 and 6:00 pm. Um the shift workers who are are remaining at the uh the facility um to complete their shift um they do arrive at um uh kind of those off peak hours. So that is not contributing any the uh um any of the delays to the the peak conditions here. Um, again, those shifts start at uh between 2 and 4:00 a.m. Um, let out between 10 and uh 12:00 pm. And then the second ship coming in between 1 and 3 and leaving between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. Again, the rest of this is just reiterating we're we're complying with the the balance of the uh um of the uh the Fenton requirements for this this district here. Um I can kind of speak to um some of the other improvements that were mentioned in Amy's uh report there um specifically the left turn lane um on Rudder Road there. Um so that is a trigger based on the total volume of traffic that that Rudder Road experiences and there's a percentage that is assumed coming to our site which per the MODOT requirements triggers that left turn. Um in the existing condition the unit group site actually triggers that same warrant. Um, so that will just require a a conversation with MDOT to determine whether or not they would like us to pursue um that left turn lane. Um, that would require some fence relocation and shifting of some of the infrastructure closer towards Highway Drive and I44. Um, so we will uh MODOT has this traffic study and is going to

be reviewing it and uh offering up any of the uh um you know recommendations or whether or not they want us to pursue those. the rudder. Um, similarly to uh that left turn lane, the the traffic signal there. Um, I believe the report it's actually triggered in the 2047 condition for the the MDOT requirements. So, it's not an immediate need, but again, that would be a conversation with MDOT if they feel the delays to the east west traffic is warranted to include that signalized intersection to help with that northbound movement on Faboc Drive. So, that'll be a continued discussion with MODOT as well. Would that be Mod's responsibility

since it is anticipated to be a triggered condition without our development in the future? Um that would be a MDOT analysis of their infrastructure and they can make the determination if it's warranted. Um, not saying that's, you know, they there might be additional conversations on it. If we would like to pursue it to improve the northbound access, that can be a conversation. Um, I think the the concerns we we did have uh Lock Mueller run some very preliminary analysis and they had some initial concerns on the stacking of the westbound approach to that signalized intersection and causing impediments to some of the other, you know, adjacent signalized intersections. So, that's the calculus that MODOT will have to to uh analyze as they review these uh recommendations here. Um, thank you. Are I don't want to cut you off.

I I am I am all the rest of this repetitive, so I'm I'm happy to any questions.

Well, thank you um for all the information. Uh similar to the last group, you guys obviously had to come back with some additional information and I thought what you provided was very thoughtful and appreciate the extra work. Um, I have a few questions myself. Uh, the first one, I think Amy touched on it and you might have too. The expected growth rate uh of traffic was 1% chosen for the study. Um, which I acknowledge the city said okay to. And I guess the one question I have is we have another development that's going to go in and put trip traffic through that same intersection. And um if this is a draft study, would it be terribly difficult to run an analysis that includes the extra traffic from that additional uh business or is that something that is uh heavy lift? It wouldn't be a substantial lift. I think the way it would typically be handled is it would be it' be a separate analysis because we we have no guarantees that the other proposal will ultimately move forward,

right? Right. And and that's what the the 1% growth rate is supposed to to accommodate is just the the added development in the area, the the growth of the population, just the added burden to the infrastructure um created by the general growth of the area. Are based on Go ahead. Was that based on population that live here or businesses?

It's a general, you know, population is going to continue to grow. Um so whenever you look at these future forecasts, you can assign a percentage that is based in engineering reason. Um the city doesn't have a ton of developable space left, which factors into the the percentage that is um as applicable in the report. Um but but generally it's it's anywhere from 1 to 2% is the the annual growth rate. Um, and I'm I'm not in any way proposing that we would ask you to come back a month later from now. I guess a question I'm considering, we're a recommending body. So, if we approve this, um, it's a recommendation to the board of alderman, it might be helpful information to the board of alderman to have when they ultimately vote if the time frame makes sense and the city agrees that that makes sense. Um

um I just want to add that during our scoping meeting, we did make them aware that there was a development um coming because everything was kind of coming at the same time. So they were aware that that that 470 parcel was um proposed to be developed. Um so I I think that was factored in. Um, as well as any uh I think the uh proposed hotel, even though it's not immediately adjacent, we did let them know that that those um Yeah, I think we're selling short and saying that there's not a lot of room for development. That's my both sides of 44 will still be impacted.

You know, if I may, Mr. Chairman, you know, go going back to your comments on the growth rate. Um, we still have time. As you mentioned, this is a recommending body. I have a lot of questions on that. I quite frankly don't know totally how to read this. Um, I find it interesting. Um, so I'll ask those questions before the board meeting. But the one thing that I have to to believe is that the group uh of this magnitude picking this spot, I don't think they are going to want to uh incur any kind of problems with flow.

Yeah. I remember the day when um Unigroup was here and there were a thousand people that that work there and you know especially in the morning coming to work and in the evening and then right across the street we had 8,000 employees um at the Chrysler plant and we had a lot of traffic then and other the other businesses that supported Chrysler and it was pretty busy. pretty hectic. I can only believe that this group based on this study, you know, wouldn't have picked the spot if it wouldn't have planned out that way. But I think we have to do our due diligence. And again, this kind of came to us later and I think it's something like 45 pages long. Um, again, I don't pretend to be an engineer of any sort, but um, I think what we're trying to do is figure out what impact this will have on our community um, and the residents that are here. But I was here in those days when we were pretty full.

Sure. Can we go back to I I and I think I can actually think through the logic here with what we have. Can you go back to the um 2026 existing traffic? So the number in brackets for the very first line that says 95, that's the number of cars expected to go through. Correct. And then the the parentheses is the delay that they experience. 14.9 seconds.

Yeah. After they arrive at that intersection. And then I know in our report on page 22 we have the 2047 increase which is 133 cars I think. Do you have that information in the table? I I don't have it in the presentation.

Okay. This goes to the year after you Okay, fair enough. But that's point being is that we're still operating at that intersection at uh effective levels even with that level of increase over 30 years. Is that what we're doing here? 20 years. I'm sorry. I can't do math. It's late in the day. Uh, so point being, I don't I don't see that other business putting the an amount of pressure on the intersection greater than what this 2047 study shows. So, it's it's not I don't see any usefulness in asking you guys to actually um consider that extra piece unless somebody else disagrees. I just I wanted to make sure that there was a level of pressure testing that seemed a little more meaningful than 1% and I think there's enough information from the 2047 data to determine that personally. So, um and then you spoke about the left-hand turn being a kind of question mark uh that will be worked out with MODOT. Um, so I don't particularly have any additional questions on the traffic study. Does anyone else or with regards to other elements of this? I think the only other question I might ask is that um if you go to the slide that shows the trip count. It it did it did like resonate with me that most of the staff is coming at hours that are off peak and it it's another sort of curiosity of mine like well what if you guys shifted the timing on that? I mean, there's nothing that's stopping you from deciding once the SUP is awarded to say, "Okay, everybody starts showing up at 7:00 a.m. and that's another, you know, 150 cars coming in." Um,

again, I think I think we've got some good stress testing with the 2047 results, so I don't know that that means we need to do any other work here, but I wanted to at least call that out in case anybody else had any questions about it.

And I can kind of weigh in with the operation of that. So, you know, I stated at the last meeting, this is a 24/7 operation and just the way this facility operates and the needs that that um go into it, you know, those employee shifts, the staffing shifts that would be occurring at, you know, 2 and 3:00 a.m., those would not be able to to change um just based on what's happening at the facility where they are hand unloading parcels from trailers and putting them onto the delivery vans. So what you know should that shift to 7 a.m. that means that the delivery vans are then leaving 5 hours after that. So they're not leaving the facility till noon.

I see. So, you know, it's it's it's a you know, a sequence that has to occur to get those delivery vans ready to be able to deliver during, you know, 9 to5 hours. Okay. And so you're not getting a a package on your door at midnight and having your Ring camera go off. That makes sense. Okay. So, could you could you, for the record, could you tell us approximately how many uh employees this will be? I I forget. I think you said it last month. I believe last time I said it was roughly 400 full-time employees. Okay. Full-time jobs. There's no uh no tanks on no fuel tanks or anything. No fuel tanks.

So hopefully uh these several hundred uh delivery vans will utilize the new facility up the street for repairs and so forth. Yep. Repairs, fueling, all that. Good.

That's the side of me I have to think about. You're the mayor. You can ask questions if you want. Okay. Uh, other questions? I was just confused on what's the difference between table four and table 11. I still I'm just curious like probably just missing something. One's on page 22, the other one's on page 35. There's still they both say the baseline traffic operating conditions for 2047. something I must be missing. You said the other one was on which page? Uh 35 and 22. I just couldn't understand what the difference mean I mean obviously there's missing Fabic and South parking access. So maybe one.

Yes. So the the table on page 22 that is the 2047 projections assuming that we do not build our facility and the table on page 35 is those same 2047 projections with our added traffic. Okay, that makes sense. That's why there's fewer inter fewer intersections and about a 1 second increase

on each but more through traffic to even what I was looking at. So, okay, other questions. So, uh, we do have a, um, set of conditions that I would like to go ahead and read into the record related to the SUP or we would put this forward for a vote. I'm looking at the right one. Okay. Um, if you could acknowledge these, please. Uh, this special use permit is solely for Scanel properties to operate a truck terminal at one Premier Drive.

Yes. The proposed redevelopment will require a separate boundary adjustment plat to consolidate the lots and separate site plan review. Yes. A final traffic impact study shall be submitted to the city. The petitioner shall provide all traffic control measures as recommended. Yes. As reasonably determined by the public works director andor community development director, the petitioner shall provide additional traffic or sound mitigation measures in the future should it become necessary. Yes. and compliance with all other applicable City of Fenton codes and ordinances. Yes.

Okay. So, with those conditions, I'd like to move for a vote on case 2026 SUP04, a petition by Scandal Properties LLC for a special use permit to operate a truck terminal at One Premier Drive. Uh, the property is owned BP2 Business Park District. Can I get a second? You have a second. Uh, can we do a roll call vote? Chairperson Yman. I, Commissioner Glover, I, Vice Chairperson Cheryl, I, Secretary Abbott, I, Mayor Morath, I, Commissioner Borhees, I, Commissioner Nelson. Motion approved. Okay, thank you again. And we'll talk uh, in a few minutes about site plan.

Okay, next we have new business. And our first case of new business is a text amendment uh case 2026 TXT4 consideration of amendments to section 430.720 related to standards for marijuana testing facilities. Uh Amy, could you give us a summary?

Sure. Um this is just a bit of housekeeping um that we noticed um when we were reviewing the following case um for the special use permit. Um, so in 2021, the board approved amendments to the code to allow a medical marijuana testing facility as a use allowed by special use permit in the BP3 district and to require that those um testing facilities located in the BP3 district meet the requirements of the BP3 district. And that was under the standards for testing facilities section of the marijuana business code. In 2023 when the board made amendments to the marijuana businesses um businesses for comprehensive marijuana to comply with uh the state constitution um that was for comprehensive that included a medical and recreational use. The BP3 district was inadvertently omitted from the standards for testing facility section. So this amendment is just really to fix that inadvertent omission. Um otherwise the way the code reads they'd have to come in they'd have to be in compliance with the IP1 district even if they're located in BP3. So it's just it was just an oversight. Um we want to get that fixed um before we review the next case.

Okay. Adding anything additional. Okay. Any questions for Amy regarding this one? Okay. and the public comments was for the next. Okay. All right. So, we'll go ahead and uh move for a vote on case 2026 TXT04, consideration of amendments to section 430.720 related to standards for marijuana testing facilities. Uh, can I get a second? You have a second. Second. We'll do a roll call vote. Chairperson Yman, I. Vice Chairperson Cheryl. Hi, Secretary Abbott. Hi, Mayor Morath. Hi,

Commissioner Vorhees. Hi, Commissioner Glover. Hi, Commissioner Nelson. Motion approved. Okay, so next is case 2026, SUP05, which is a petition for a um special use permit. Uh, it's a petition by Acraabs, Missouri LLC for a special use permit to operate a marijuana testing facility at 1636 Headland Drive. The property is zoned BP3 Business Park District. Uh, could you provide a summary for that one, please?

Sure. Um on March 25th, 2021, um with the uh previous text amendment that we we spoke about, the board approved a special use permit for Cloud 10 to operate a medical marijuana testing facility within 1,400 square foot tenant space at 1636 Headland Drive. Cloud 10 is now transferring its testing facility license to Acre Labs. And since special use permits are non-transferable, a new special use permit is required. They are not proposing any changes to the existing facility or the existing operation. Um, in review of the code, it meets all general regulations for marijuana businesses, including spacing requirements as well as the standards for testing facilities with the proposed amendments that were we just talked about under the last text amendment. Um, a proof of state license will be required before the special use permit will be considered valid and an occupancy permit will be issued.

Okay. Thank you. Um, since we do have a member of the public who has an interest in this, I may take one step to just kind of summarize that in my own words. Um, so, but please correct me if I say something that's out of touch. Um, when when the state of Missouri passed uh marijuana laws, which was, you know, determined at the statewide level, the city of Fenton had nothing to do with that. We did have to accommodate those statewide laws within the city code to allow for some marijuana activity to happen within the city of Fenton. That's dictated at the state level and our code had to be uh properly amended to allow for certain types of activities. One of those activities is the ability to have a testing facility. And um a marijuana testing facility is held to uh very strict standards that are dictated by um I think state law in terms of how the materials are handled, what's visible from the outside, what smells or other nuisances could be created. And all of those apply to both distribution facilities, which is where people actually, you know, go to buy the uh marijuana, as well as testing facilities. All of this was done over a year ago when all of these laws were put into place. We had an existing business called Cloud 10, I think, uh, come to us, Cloud 10 LLC, uh, in March of 2021 asking to operate a testing facility within the BP3 district. We granted that right to them in 2021 as a special use permit. It appears as though they're now selling their business and the new owner does not automatically by right get the opportunity to keep operating that

business because a special use permit in the city is not transferable. So they have to come to us to make sure that we're still comfortable saying yes, that's an appropriate use for this business in this location. But they're representing to us that they're intending to operate it exactly the way that it's being operated today. It's just new ownership. So, is that a fair summary? Mhm. Yeah. Okay. With that background, um, does anyone have any questions for the city? You look like you want to talk. Mayor

Leverne, do you want to make any statements? Yeah.

And and Mr. Chairman, if you could uh recap what uh Leverne said for the record. So, because we do have people listening and for the Certainly. So, a member of the public has expressed a a concern that if there's a marijuana testing facility within close proximity of her home, will she be able to smell the marijuana? And um I think it is perfectly appropriate. We uh do we have a petitioner in the audience for this one? He's on Zoom. It's it's Brandon.

Okay. Um, I think we can uh invite the petitioner up and they can specifically speak to anything they have uh any comments they have to address the smell. I think before we ask the petitioner to do that, I will ask if there's any other questions for the city at this time regarding the summary. Okay. Could the petitioner introduce themselves, please, with your name and address? Sure. This is Brandon Thornton. Uh my address is 5019 Hawthorne Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, and I'm the CEO of uh Acre Labs.

Thank you for joining us. Um would you be willing to speak please to the question raised about any uh issues that may exist with an odor coming from your guys testing process?

Yeah, sure. Um, you know, so first thing is we have very small samples. Um, you know, we're going out and and picking up samples from from producers, people that are either growing or manufacturing products. Um, the typical sample size we get is one unit or 10 grams. Uh, you know, which is much smaller than what you would see at maybe a a cultivation facility. Um, we have all of our samples in sealed containers and then they're actually opened in in a fume hood um for sterility purposes when they when they reach the lab. Uh, you know, we also are inspected by the state uh on a quarterly basis and that's one thing that they they look for is any sort of odor. Um, we also have a a vault um that that all samples are stored in that's in the you know in the interior of this building. Um, and I can also say in checking with the uh previous business owner and also the owner of the building that we've never had a odor complaint.

Okay. Thank you for that. Sure. Any further questions? Sure.

Well, yes, we're we're all we're all adapting to that new reality. Understood. Okay. You're you're welcome. I mean, we h we have these meetings in public for a very specific reason and thank you for coming forward. Um, Mr. Thornton, I uh am uh going to ask you a few other questions if I may um just for the benefit of the commission as we consider this uh request. So, um I think you represented in your materials, uh which were very thorough. So, thank you. But can you just for the record confirm that um are you essentially going to be running this business in in effectively the same manner as it was run? I mean, I obviously you'll have some adjustments. You're a new business, but can you just give an idea of whether you're anticipating any big changes we should be thinking of? Uh sure I can address that. Uh operationally we're going to be exactly the same. Uh you know some internal processes uh SOPs on on how they're doing testing software systems. Um you know those types of things we're looking at as far as the you know the the building itself or any type of signage. Uh we're not changing any of that. There's also a process that we would have to go through uh through the state through DHSS uh for any type of changes. Um we would rather just operate it as is and that's our our intent um and attempting to or acquiring this business.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question for the petitioner? I don't think it packs my vote or anything, but I'm just curious. I thought there had to be I thought maybe the owner had to be a resident of Missouri for the testing facilities. Is that not I could be totally wrong. This is just stuff. I thought that was like part of the Missouri requirements. No.

Yeah, it's my understanding that originally that was part of the requirements. Um, however, that requirement's changed. Um and our uh application for a license transfer through uh the state through DHSS has been approved. Um however, we we have not received our actual permit yet. The physical permit. Oh, okay.

Okay. Good questions. Anything else? Okay. Uh, with no further questions, I do have a few um few conditions I'd like to read onto the record. If you could acknowledge these, please. Uh, this special use permit is uh or I'm sorry. Yes. The special use permit approval is solely for Acrolabs, Missouri LLC to operate a marijuana testing facility at 1636 Headland Drive in compliance with chapter 430 of the zoning code.

Yes. Uh, proof of state licensing as required under section 430.670 of the zoning code must be provided to the community development department before this special use permit will be deemed valid or an occupancy permit for Acrolabs Missouri LLC will be issued for the subject location. Yes. Any proposed interior renovations or signage at the subject location will require will require separate permits through the city of Fenton and St. Louis County. Yes. A separate occupancy permit will be required. Yes. And compliance with all other applicable city codes and ordinances.

Yes. Okay. Uh with those conditions, I'll move for approval of case 2026 SUP05, a petition by Acrolabs, Missouri LLC for a special use permit to operate a marijuana testing facility at 1636 Headland Drive. Uh, the property is zoned BP3 Business Park District. Can I get a second? We have a second. Uh, can we do a roll call vote? I'm sorry. Was that it was Secretary Abbott who seconded? Chairperson Yman. I. Secretary Abbott. Hi. Vice Chairperson Cheryl. I. Mayor Morath. Hi. Commissioner Whis. Uh, Commissioner Vorhees. I. Commissioner Glover. I Commissioner Nelson. Hi.

Motion approved. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, moving along. We are now to case 2026 SP2, a petition by Scanal Properties LLC for site plan review of a proposed truck terminal at One Premier Drive. The property is owned BP2 Business Park District. Amy,

uh, thank you. Um, we're going to go back to One Premier Drive. Um, um, just kind of an overview. They're under contract to purchase the property. Plan to redevelopment with develop it with a uh 231,000T truck terminal. It's uh noted that this location is actually two lots. So, the redevelopment will require a boundary adjustment to consolidate the lots and that will be considered by the board at their May 28th meeting. Um the boundary adjustment plat do I not have it in here? Uh I can you can see it here. The boundary adjustment plot does indicate um an existing 60- foot wide uh water and gas easement on the property and a portion of that easement has been vacated, but the proposed building will encroach on the remaining northern portion of the easement. Uh so evidence that the encroachment is allowed or that the easement will be vacated will be needed before a building permit will be issued. Um according to the site plans um after consolidation of the lot all setbacks, buffer areas, lot area and lot coverage requirements for the district will be met. The building will be below the maximum height for the district um which is 50 ft. Um the proposed building material is architectural pre-cast concrete which is in compliance with the code. Um, as we discussed earlier, the site will be accessed by two uh entrance drives in lie of the existing six. Um, and any installation or removal of the drive entrances within the MODOT rightway will require their review and approval. The proposed drive entrance along Fabic Drive um will need to be uh will need to be amended to provide a minimum 120 foot distance from the intersection of Fabic and Fabricator. And I did speak with um Jake uh with Jake Beaning with Stocken Associates earlier today and uh it appears that that can be provided. So um that will just need to be um that'll be covered in the conditions of approval, but it does uh doesn't appear that that's going to be an issue at all. The minimum parking

will be exceeded for the use and the parking area meets all um requirements of the code. Um, one item to note was the dumpster area will be enclosed with a six- foot tall sight proof fence and the fencing material will need to be provided with the amended site plan um, in compliance with the code. Landscaping and lighting for the lot will also be provided in compliance with all code requirements. Okay, I have a question. Mhm. Kind of a administrative question maybe, but um sometimes we indicate as a condition that like if there's any signage, we also it may be subject to our sign requirements and um yeah,

is it is it normally with a site plan that we would bring that up as a condition or is there a different context in which that applies? I don't know that I care, but I'm just more curious. um any sign will require um separate uh building permits and municipal zoning approval through the city. We can add that as a condition, but it would be uh reviewed under the under the administratively. Um unless Yeah. Okay. unless it it doesn't meet the requirements of the code, in which case it would come back um they'd have to come back for site plan review. I just noticed there's no signage on the building. So that's what made me think of it.

Yeah. Typically, if if I note signage on the building um and there's nothing in the site plan review to indicate that they'd like that reviewed under site plan review, I'll make a separate recommendation that um a condition of approval that the site to remind them that the the signs will require separate approvals. Okay. Well, we can talk about that here in a minute. Um other questions for Amy? Um at the last meeting, uh I think there was a representative from Fabic. Have we had any further correspondence or maybe petitioner or the petitioner may

No, I did provide him with um a link to the recording of the of the meeting. He was going to distribute it to people in his organization and we haven't heard anything else. Okay. Why don't we have the petitioner come back up if you could maybe just for formality sake if you could state your name and address again. Yep. So Justin Alashik uh Scandal Properties 8801 River Crossing Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Thank you. So do you happen to have any additional uh feedback on that last question? So the neighboring one of the nearby properties is the Fabic um cat dealership and have you by chance had any communication with that property owner? No, they have not reached out to us and in any way expressed any concerns. Okay. Um, any other questions on that? Well, they were here. They, you know, they certainly know what's going on. I think the biggest concern they had were the curb cuts, how that was going to affect them over there, but I see this is pretty clean.

Sure. Okay. Well, we've obviously talked about this property a lot. Uh, are there any questions that others have related to site plan review? Okay. Well, I think you heard the back and forth on the signs. I'm not going to necessarily read it in as a condition. Um, but obviously if you're adding signs to the building, just be aware that there are separate parts of the code that might bear on your signage. Yep. And that's always something that that comes along during construction. So, it's almost always a separate submitt. Okay. Are you at liberty yet to say who's going to occupy it?

I'd love to be not quite yet. Fair enough. Okay. Um, any other questions? Okay. I'll go ahead and read some additional conditions in and uh we can get a motion made. So, um, first, this approval is strictly for the proposed site development for a new truck terminal building at one Premier Drive as indicated on plans dated April 3rd, 2026. Yes. Um, approval approval of the subject site plan is reliant on the approval of case 2026, SUP04. Yes.

Um, the site plan shall be amended as follows. Uh first indicate the driveway along Fabic Drive is located a minimum 120 ft from the point of intersection of Fabic Drive and Fabricator Drive and indicate the width and radius of said driveway in compliance with section 430.180B. Yes. So, I I did want to just ask the the commission. Um, so Jake and I had had conversations and the only thing that we wanted to to triple check um with shifting that 120 ft north is just confirming our internal stacking um of the the truck traffic by by shifting that. Um we had already discussed moving this drive cut a little bit north. Um the previous goal was to try and align it with Fabricator best we could. Um unfortunately Fabricator kind of splits our two property lines. Um but there's also Amaran uh transmission lines there. Um that would require relocation with the the current location. So we we did want to shift that north. Um, I guess the only ask would be, um, if 120 feet, if we run into issues with that stacking internally, um, if there would be the ability to work with staff on a redu reduction of that 120 ft. Um, otherwise, you know, we'll we'll make it work and and and find a way to to manage the trucks internally. Yeah,

there are some instances where the public works director can review and approve and if that's the case then it could otherwise it's just a strict requirement but it might be the yeah it could we could we amend it to be 120 ft as produced by the public works director. Are you guys comfortable with that? Okay. Code allows him to wave it then he has the authority but we can't give him the fair. Okay. So located a minimum of 120 ft or as required by code. We go. Yes.

Okay. Uh that's good. It means you're actually listening to these. I appreciate that. Item uh item B is indicate the dumpster enclosure material is in compliance with section 425.210B4. I will say yes. I will also note there's no planned dumpster enclosure. Okay. So no dumpster.

Okay. Uh any follow-up questions on that? Okay. Uh next, a demolition permit will be required for the removal of the existing building and site improvements. Separate municipal zoning approval for building permit and land disturbance will be required for the proposed redevelopment. Yes. Uh, fifth, evidence will need to be provided to the community development department indicating that any proposed encroachment on the remaining portion of the 60 foot wide gas and water easement is permitted or said easement will be vacated before a building permit will be approved for the redevelopment. Yes.

Uh, six. When in compliance with the code, the community development director may administratively approve any minor changes to the site plan as required by another reviewing entity such as the Fenton Fire Protection District and MSD. Yes. And last, compliance with all other applicable City of Fenton codes and ordinances. Yes. Okay. So, with those conditions, I'll move for case 2026 SP02, a petition by Scanal Properties LLC for site plan review of a proposed truck terminal at one Premier Drive. The property is zone BP2 Business Park District. Uh, can I get a second? I have a second from Commissioner Nelson. Uh, we'll do a roll call vote. Chairperson Yman, I.

Commissioner Nelson, I. Vice Chairperson Cheryl, I. Secretary Abbott, I. Mayor Morath. Hi, Commissioner Borhees. Hi, Commissioner Glover. I motion approved. Thank you. Thank you.

Good luck with the rest of your development. Uh, all right. So, uh, the last item of new business is case 2026 SPR03, a petition by Hensley Construction on behalf of Seikko Auto Limited Partnership for site plan review of a proposed automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility at 470 South Highway Drive. The property is owned BP3 Business Park District. Uh, Amy, anything special you want to point out on this one?

Um, yeah. So, uh, I just want to just kind of note that according to the plans provided, all setbacks, buffer areas, and lot coverage requirements will be observed. Um, the height of the building is well below the MA maximum for the district. Um, I do want to point out that the proposed facade materials are architecturally designed metal panels, which is um, in compliance with the code as well as Ephus. Um, it is noted that the code requires that when Ephus is used on the facade, it needs to be located a minimum of 3 ft above grade. Um this the site plan does not show that the the Ephus will be a minimum of 3 ft above grave. However, exceptions may be authorized under site plan review when it's determined that the material is of high durability and quality, low maintenance, and compatible with surrounding uses. So that will be addressed under um the conditions of approval. Um the east and west elevations include eight overhead service bay doors and a fabric overhead door for the washing facility. Um we discussed that the washing facility will now be located at the north end of the building. Um the uh parking area meets all relevant requirements of the code including the number of spaces, drive out widths and propo proposed pavement materials. And uh one final item, the dumpster area, landscaping and lighting are in compliance with the code as well. And one final item, the dumpster area will be enclosed with a sight proof fence according to the um site plan. And that enclosure material will just need to be provided on the amended site plan as well.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Amy? Right. I know we have our petitioner here. Uh if you wouldn't mind uh taking the podium and stating your name and address again for the record.

Sure. My name is Patrick Hensley. My company's Hensley Construction. I represent Seikko. My address is 10880 Bower Boulevard, sweet 145, St. Louis, Missouri 63132. Okay. So, I know we've already talked a little bit about the um changes from when we last saw this and the site a little bit. Does anyone else have questions or other questions that didn't get discussed already? No. Okay. Um, so I don't think I have any questions either. Thank you again for working with us on everything thus far.

Certainly. I do have some conditions uh that we can go through before we approve. Okay. Um so first uh this approval is strictly for the proposed site development for a new automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility with an accessory automobile commercial motor vehicle washing facility at 470 South Highway Drive as indicated on plans dated April 21st 2020. Yes. Second approval of the subject site plan is reliant on the approval of case 2026 SUP3. Yes. Third approval includes exception of the facade materials the facade material requirement to allow ephus material less than 3 ft above grade.

Yes. Four, directional signage and/or pavement marking shall be provided to indicate the flow of traffic to and from the washing facility. Yes. Five, the site plan shall be amended as follows. Uh first, indicate the dumpster enclosure material in compliance with the section 425.210B4. 2110B4. Yes. And second, indicate surface materials for driveways, parking areas, and loading spaces in compliance with the code. Yes. Six, a separate municipal zoning approval for building permit and land disturbance will be required for the proposed development.

Yes. Seven, when in compliance with the code, the community development director may administratively approve any minor changes to the site plan as required by another reviewing entity such as the Fenton Fire Protection District and MSD. Yes. And last, compliance with all other applicable City of Fenton codes and ordinances. Yes. Okay. With those conditions, then I would like to move for case 2026 SP3, a petition by Hensley Construction on behalf of Seikko Auto Limited Partnership for site plan review of a proposed automobile commercial motor vehicle service facility at 470 South Highway Drive. The property is zoned BP3 Business Park District. Can I get a second?

I'll second. A second from Commissioner Glover. Uh, go ahead Amy, when you're ready with a roll call vote. Chairperson Yman, I. Commissioner Glover. I, Vice Chairperson, Cheryl, I, Secretary Abbott, I, Mayor Morath, I, Commissioner Vorhees, I, Commissioner Nelson, I. Motion approved. Thank you very much. You win the stamina award. Uh, but no, seriously, I appreciate that you guys want to do business in the city of Fenton and your willingness to work with us. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. Um that wraps up all of our new business and so we can move on to announcements. Uh first is our report from the community development department. We have only we only have one new petition for the June meeting. Okay. Nice. Um that was brief. Anything else? That's it. That's all I got.

Okay. Next is a report from the chairperson. I don't have anything special. Uh, as always, I want to thank everybody uh for their thoughtful review. I guess one thing I will say is um I would like to make sure that the minutes for this meeting reflect that we received traffic studies on both and they were reviewed and discussed just so that it's in the record. I'm sure you guys were going to do that anyway, but I think that is important from my perspective um since we want to just make sure the city has done its diligence and that it's reflected in the record. Um next is the report from the mayor.

Um echo your comments as well. Um yeah, I think uh I think what we viewed here, the developments will be really in the city's best interest. Um, anything that related? I'm I'm trying to think. I always come trying to think what else we have. Uh, if you've not had a chance, don't forget to go around and check all the pavilions. Uh, we have a really nice painter where he's painting who has uh received the award and they have done a great job and their lines are straight and they don't have paint all over the place. Excellent.

So, no, seriously. a really really nice job every all of our contractors have done and I think it's a testament to even those of us that sit up here, you know, and and do this this tough work. Uh, Alderman Hules wants me to announce the food truck is the 15th, right? John Jared will be playing. Fishing derby is this Saturday. Excellent. Don't bring hooks.

Okay. Those sound like two great events. Um I I have been to the food trucks and it's fun. Sure. Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um next is our report from the planning and zoning liaison and I know Ron's not here tonight. Uh do we I will just uh say that everything uh was approved by the board as recommended by the commission. Great. Uh so um next is our report from other commissioners. Question Amy where Jimmy Johns is going in down by the car wash. Are other businesses going in that building also?

Yeah, there was it was a a three tenant building. Um the other two spaces are office spaces but they have not come forward with any um uh occupancy for any tenant parking spaces accommodate. Yes. Uhuh. No, I just didn't remember. Yeah, that was part of the review. We did we did review the parking um based on uh the the proposed um office uses. Oh, yeah. I may not have been.

You excited for Jimmy John's? I said, are you excited for Jimmy John's? No, because I I watched um the queue lining up out on bowls Saturday night now or Sunday for the car wash. Yeah, I know that was a concern that the alderman had. What did What did I hear? What that there was queuing at the car wash either Saturday or Sunday when I was by there and I can't remember which was Saturday afternoon. I think we talked extensively about that. We did talk since that's why I don't remember those offices because I was here for that we met up maybe.

Yeah. No, we we we talked about it. I brought it up. I think others did as well. They were they were put on notice. And that's why I say, you know, I'm no engineer. None of us are. But, you know, we look at these these plans and we do the best that we can and they suggested that we should have switched the entrance to the car wash. Makes perfectly good sense. Now, but we live and learn, right? I have another question. the house that her ran in Utah not have a basement for um I thought it did water for

well it doesn't have it does the the um foundation looks like it's a por slab because there are no windows all the way around it you might be right I thought that would you know and I thought we weren't allowing anything I thought we had voted when somebody tried to sell that um or was that across the street on your No, what they tried to do was subdivide. That's what we shut down was that they couldn't do it on smaller lots?

Yeah. So, they they didn't they didn't propose any subdivision on that lot to build that new home. Um it it's an R1 lot and it was a minimum one acre. Yeah. I'd have to review the plans again. I don't know. It just didn't look like it cuz there aren't any windows. That's what Yeah, he did dig what looked like a basement, but it was a swimming pool for several. I know what they There is a basement. You're right. And they had to pump it if you They had to keep pumping it. There's a basement.

I'm just really concerned because you know that other house next to it, there's that hill there and well, they complained. They came and complained to us. It's going to be interesting to see how much water gets off. You can't worry about it. I won't. I got a Darius. I can get Yeah.

Yeah. That subdivision meeting was like the first one we had that was really interesting for when I had started with this group. So, I will never forget that meeting. Uh there was a lot of lot of talking. Okay. Other uh other other comments? Oh, good. Okay. Uh so with that, our next planning and zoning meeting is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 at 7 p.m. at city hall. Uh without with us now being at the end of the agenda, I will move that we adjourn tonight's meeting. Can I get a second? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Meeting's adjourned.