Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I would like to call to order the August 11th, 2026 meeting for the City of Fenton Planning and Zoning Commission. The first item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you're able to stand, please do. Thank you. Okay. Next item this evening, we have our roll call. Secretary Abbott, you can call roll, please.

Thank you, sir. Chairperson Yeoman.

Here.

Vice Chairperson Sherrill. He's running late. Okay. Secretary Abbott is here. Alderman here.

Here. Here. Commissioner Wisbrock. Here.

Commissioner Voorhees. Here. Commissioner Glover and Nelson are excused. And Commissioner Billiken.

Here. And we also have in attendance Greg Dorman is with us tonight.

And Mike Abbott, Parks Board.

Great. Thank you. Next, we've got some notices to read off. First, our notice to the public and our ground rules. If you wish to speak, 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 the 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 three 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 comments 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 proceeding. 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, we also have some notices for petitioners. First, a simple majority vote of the commission shall be necessary to constitute a positive recommendation to the Board of Aldermen. Also, our next board committee meeting is Thursday, August 13th, 2026. Our next board of aldermen meeting public hearing is Thursday, August 27th, 2026. Okay, that covers our notices. So next is our approval of minutes from the July 7, 2026 meeting. Does anyone have any questions about the July 7 meeting minutes?

None? OK.

So I'll go ahead and move that we approve the July 7 meeting minutes. Can I get a second? Okay, I saw John raise his finger, so we're going to go with John seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, minutes pass. Or they're approved. Next, we have our time for public comments. Did we receive any?

I have none, sir.

No public comments? All right. So we'll move on to old business of which we have none. So we'll then move to new business. And our first item tonight is case 2026 TXT 06, a petition by Polo Downs Outlet LLC for amendments to the zoning code related to drive-through services adjacent to residential districts or residential uses. Amy, would you like to give us a summary?

Sure, the petitioner is requesting amendment to the code related to drive-through services located adjacent to residential districts or uses. This is in conjunction with case 2026-SUP-06. So currently the code prohibits drive-through services across the street from or adjacent to a lot with a residential district, in a residential district or with a residential use, unless the intervening street is an arterial or a collector street. So the petitioner is requesting to amend this section to allow drive-through services when located in the C1 district that are adjacent to the R5 planned residential district under a special use permit. As drafted, this proposed amendment would apply to two of the three lots that are located next to the R5 district. The R5 district is the district where the Polo Downs multifamily development is located. So it would only apply to the lot with the JC Penney's on it and the vacant lot west of the Polo Downs entrance. There is a third lot that is adjacent to the R5 district, and that is this lot here at 794 Graway Bluffs Boulevard, and that is where there is a multi-tenant commercial and retail building, but it is also adjacent to county-zoned R1 lots, which this proposed amendment would not address. So staff did take a look at all of the districts that would be adjacent to residential uses or residential lots and found that there are some additional lots in C1 that are adjacent to other county zoned residential lots, particularly along Gravois Road here. There's also, we did find that there are two existing drive-throughs in the C1 that are adjacent to the NU district, which is now a, the city's residential and new district. That's the Lions Choice and the ATM facility that's here across from Walmart. Also, the city in 2018 rezoned portions of its right-of-way to R1, and that affected lots in the BP3 district and nearly all of the OT1 district, which is also the mixed-use district that allows commercial and residential uses. So based on the large number of lots that we identified and because drive-through services can be incidental to restaurants, service establishments and retail establishments, the city may, the commission may want to consider expanding this request to allow drive-through services when they're adjacent to residential and there's no intervening street under an SUP and that would allow you to consider each location on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

So I will confess I read this more than once because I was trying to envision what an arterial or collector street is. Is there an easy example you can provide on how the way the code is drafted now is intended to work?

Yeah, so we do define an arterial and a collector street in our code. And an arterial street is a multi-lane facility designed for movement of a relatively large volume of traffic connections between minor and collector streets and highways. So that would be like both... avenue um if it's you know multi-lane um obviously the highways um grabway bluffs boulevard would be considered um an arterial street um and a collector street is a street located within a neighborhood or other integrated use area which collects traffic to minor streets and connects arterial streets so those would be the um other roads that would connect to subdivisions subdivisions to bigger okay arterial streets so is it fair to say that the

drafting of the original language was sort of like, if we have a drive-through next to residential property, we generally don't want that. But if it's got one of these streets that are appropriate, that are like sort of separating it from the residential, even though the lots are adjacent, we're okay with it in that case.

Correct. Yeah.

But here, that's not what we are going to have because what's proposed is essentially a road that leads into Polo Downs is going to be the street that connects the, well.

Right, that street is a private street. It's neither a collector nor arterial, plus it's adjacent.

Okay.

The lot itself is adjacent.

Which is why the text amendment is necessary to then consider the ultimate development.

Correct.

Thank you for walking through that. And it was well-written, by the way. It was just last night. My brain didn't want to...

It was an original request, but when we started looking at that, we thought that maybe it might be something that the commission would want to expand on.

Okay. And the point you made last about considering whether or not we would just want to allow a special use permit in all cases is an interesting one. maybe before we talk to the petitioner specifically about this text amendment, I might ask other members of the commission if anyone has a strong opinion about whether they would be interested in that sort of broader drafting of the language. Because as I understand it right now, it's been fairly narrowly crafted by the petitioner so that it would only really apply to the lot in question. but if we wanted more freedom, we could- That's correct. Choose different language. Is that appealing to anyone?

For me, I think it is the recommendation of staff and they've had an opportunity to look through this. So I probably am in favor of that. Of course, with a special use permit. Right.

Anyone opposed to that idea?

Pull your mic.

You're saying you're in favor of it?

Mm-hmm.

And I think that's the language that... That's correct, yeah. Special use permits are non-transferable, so they would have to...

And in some cases, you know, to your point, a drive-through, let's say it's just a drive-through, if that drive-through no longer exists and they want to have a sit-down, then it would have to come back to us for review. Right. Any changes. Any changes.

And that's the language proposed at the very end of the write-up, which looks different from what the petitioner's requesting, but will certainly cover their request by virtue of us being able to use a special use permit. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Amy? I do.

Is there a concern with the traffic off Highway 30? I mean, it's not tied to Highway 30, but it's going through Gravois Bluffs. I know there's been a lot of issues with high rate of speed traffic in there, all the way up through Sunset Hills.

So under the review of the special use permit, that's when we look at a traffic concern for a site-specific location. For the text amendment, that would be something you would look at on a case-by-case basis.

Yeah, to your question, Ron, if you're concerned, one could make the argument that we want to stick with the way the code is drafted today because we really don't want to have to make decisions every time somebody wants to put a drive-through next to residential. And if your feelings about Highway 30 were sort of universal regardless of the lot, then this would be the time to object. If it's really more specific to the lot, then I see Amy's point, like that's probably better to address. So I guess maybe I'm asking you that question. Are you concerned globally or more just about this one location?

I'm just concerned that whole corridor with the amount of accidents in there all the way up through Sunset Hills and the industrial park up there. I've seen many accidents.

Yeah. Yeah.

Just something I thought about. Okay.

I mean, this amendment would only pertain to those lots that are adjacent to residential districts or uses. If they're not adjacent to residential districts or uses, they would be permitted. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So I don't see any conditions, Amy. I think it's really just deciding on the language. I think just to bring this to a head, I'm going to go ahead and move that we vote to approve the broader language. I'll read it into the record so there's no confusion for the vote. So the language that I'm moving for approval on would say, no drive-through services shall be located across the street from or adjacent to a lot in a residential district or lot with a residential use unless the intervening street is an arterial or collector street or by approval of a special use permit in compliance with the provisions set forth in section 410.080 of the code, of this code. So that's broader than what's being requested, but that's what I'd like to ask the group to vote on. Maybe before I do that, do we have a petitioner present? Would you mind addressing the podium? And if you could state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, I'm Jeff Otto. My address is 230 Parkland Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, 63122. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and I understand all your questions in terms of the, obviously our approach to you was to suggest something as narrow as possible. recognizing that one, we're in a C1 district, which is a more intense district, so it would only apply to C1, whereas if it's broader, it could apply to various districts. The other was that we happen to be adjacent to the more intense residential use of R5. So that's another example of intense uses next to each other, so that would be. most applicable, but to the extent that you want to consider broadening it, you ultimately have the ability to review it and evaluate it through the special or conditional use process. So we don't oppose that. We think the drive-through, this use is ideal for this location. That lot's been sitting there for nearly 20 years. And in terms of immediacy of access, I think it's probably best suited of all the properties in the C1 for this type of use. And conveniently, the owner of the outlot is also the owner of the residential.

So it's their position that this is something they would want to do and won't have a material impact on the rest of the residential properties.

Thank you. Appreciate that extra context. I wasn't trying to avoid giving you a chance to speak, so I'm glad you were able to come up. I did also want to confirm for the record, since what we're proposing to vote on isn't exactly what you asked for, I think you said this, but could you just confirm that the modified language that I just read into the record would be adequate for what you're trying to do?

Perfectly workable.

Okay, so with that acknowledgement, Amy and Commission, I'd like to move that we vote for the language I read into the record. Can I get a second from anyone?

I'll second.

Okay, we have a second from John. Can we go ahead and do a roll call vote?

Chairperson Yeoman?

Aye.

Commissioner Bielicki? Aye. Vice Chairperson Sherrill.

Aye.

Secretary Abbott. Aye. Mayor Morath.

Aye.

Alderman Harrell.

Aye.

Commissioner Wissbrock. Aye. Commissioner Voorhees.

Aye.

Motion approved.

Okay, excellent. That takes care of item one on the agenda. Let's move on to item two, which, here we go. Sorry, looking for my agenda. Case 2026-SUP-08, which is a petition by Polo Downs Outlot LLC for a special use permit to locate a drive-through service adjacent to a residential district and residential use. The property is addressed as 1111 London Circle Lane and is zoned C1 Commercial District. Amy, would you mind giving us a summary?

The petitioner is proposing to develop the vacant lot that is located west of the entrance of the Polo Downs multifamily development with a drive-through coffee restaurant to be operated by Dutch Brothers Coffee. As you stated, this is conjunction with the previous text amendment to allow drive-through services adjacent to residential districts or uses under a special use permit. It is noted that the proposed development will also require separate site plant review. This proposed coffee restaurant will be drive-through only and is not expected to include any outdoor seating. So the only minimum parking that will need to be provided will be for employees. And that requires two spaces for every three employees on the maximum shift. The site plan indicates 16 queuing spaces are proposed, which exceeds the code requirement of 10 queuing spaces. The site plan also indicates that the minimum 12-foot lane width for queuing will be provided as well. The lot will be accessed by a new driveway off of London Circle Lane. London Circle is a private road within the Polo Downs development. The driveway does appear to be directly across from London Circle Lane from these parking spaces for the Polo Downs development. Section 425.070 allows the city to require a traffic impact study to be submitted with the site plan review when the drive-through service has the potential to have an adverse impact on traffic or parking on the property or on adjacent streets. So because of the location of this driveway and because drive-through services will bring additional traffic to the area that could impact traffic circulation, the city will require a traffic study with the site plan review. Additionally, because the intersection of London Circle Lane and Gravois Bluffs Boulevard is located within MoDOT right-of-way and the lot is adjacent to Highway 30, separate review and approval of the traffic study will also be required from MoDOT for any recommended traffic control measures they may also have.

Okay, thank you. Just to maybe clarify some of the administrative aspects of what you just mentioned on the traffic study as part of the site plan review, if we decide to grant a special use permit tonight and then later find that the traffic study is creating concerns at the time of site plan review, Does that, it seems like we're in an awkward position at that point because we've already provided, said the yes to the use in that location and we're really just trying to figure out like how to make traffic work through it. I mean, does that, can you help me understand sort of like what our options are at that moment?

You could add a condition under the site plan review that if there are any traffic control measures that are recommended or by MoDOT or through the traffic study that those be implemented and become part of the special use permit. You could also do what we've done with the previous FedEx facility and continue that case if you're not comfortable moving forward with special use permit until you get more information about traffic. Okay.

Okay. Does anybody else have a question for Amy before we ask the petitioner first?

I have just a little bit here. So I've had an opportunity to sit at Polo Downs and watch kind of the traffic patterns and all, and at times it seems to be a little intense. Have you had any concerns from residents that live in Polo Downs? Any inquiries?

I have not had any, no.

Notice was posted.

Notice was posted in such a way that any resident of Polo Downs would have had the opportunity to see it, right?

Yes.

Okay. Other questions for Amy at the moment?

Okay.

I certainly would open the floor for the petitioner. If you don't mind just repeating your name and address for the record, even though we see you still standing there.

I'm still Jeff Otto. My address is 230 Parkland Avenue. And with respect to the traffic study, we fully expect to have to do a traffic study. And what we really want to do is get We have no issue with making that a part of the condition. We have no problems with the list of conditions that staff has suggested. So we can address that. What we really wanna do is address the legislation, address the special use, and then at that point we can bring in the actual user and you'll have much more specific questions about their operations and how, and they'll be able to, and more definitive, provide a more definitive site plan. that will answer your questions or may generate more questions. But we're trying to get to that stage with the user. And we want to get these two items addressed and bring them in with their knowledge of their operations and more details to address the site plan.

OK. Thank you for that. Remind me, Amy, I'm sorry, since we're so zoomed in here, the entrance into Gravois Bluffs itself is not the same thing we're looking at right here, right? This is just the entrance to the apartments.

That's correct.

Okay.

this would be the entrance from Highway 30.

Oh, I see. So you come into Gravois Bluffs and then you take a right turn into... Onto a private street. Right. But anybody who wants to get the coffee is going to be sort of like hitting the Gravois Bluffs piece of that first and then going into... And there's no... For those who are wanting to come back out after getting their coffee onto that Gravois Bluffs... Is that an arterial road?

I believe it probably would be considered an arterial run, yes.

Okay, but anyone coming out after getting their coffee, they're obviously going to have to get back into the flow of whatever's coming and going through Gravois blood. Okay. Got it. So, Secretary Abbott, do you want to speak? I see you reaching for your mic. I don't know.

I do have a question. I just wanted to make sure, not been over there all that much, but when people come out of Polo Downs, they do have the option of turning left to go down to Highway 30.

There's no island in there or anything?

No. Just because we have a coffee shop in there and a few more people would be turning left there. I don't see that as... So from my perspective, there's one in and only one way out of this.

I'm a little concerned. We haven't heard what the impact would be. What does Dutch Brothers believe will be the criteria? How many cars? Those are issues that I have concerns with. And again, I think the people that live there, I understand the owner is wanting the same of these parcels. but you do have people that are gonna be heavily impacted or maybe they won't, or maybe they'll use that facility. I don't know, but I'm just trying to do our due diligence.

So would you advocate for continuing then and getting the traffic study before we issue a special use permit?

I think that to me, that seems the most logical approach.

But the other option is to provide the SUB, but if the traffic study comes back not positive, then the SUP.

We're more than happy willing to make the permit conditioned upon an acceptable traffic study.

Does that come back to you, Amy? I guess I just don't know in that, I'm trying to understand that flow. So does the traffic study come back to the city of Fenton and you guys are like, Oh, this didn't pass. We're pulling the SUP. I just don't know if it ever makes its way back here.

Can we acknowledge that it would be reviewed and approved as part of the site plan?

Yeah, it would be... have to be included as part of the site plan review.

The question is to, yes, you will review it again, and it will be a condition to be satisfied by a satisfactory review at the site plan process.

I don't know of a situation where we've approved a special use permit and then had something come and you know, make that special use permit null because of additional information that was received after an ordinance was approved.

How many times have we granted a special use permit and then reviewed the traffic study?

I can't think of a time that we've done that.

I can't think of it. The other concern that I have, what about MoDOT? I'm sure they're going to have to weigh in on this. Has anybody been to MoDOT yet? Do we know?

I don't believe so. I think, from my understanding, they were just kind of trying to kind of take the temperature to see if we'd even be open to the text amendment process. We'll allow this as a special use permit before putting the time, money, and effort into a full site plan review and traffic study.

Well, you know, if you're asking me from my perspective, you know, here's a vacant piece of property here that could be utilized. I just want to make sure that we're not going to create havoc with ingress and egress. I'm not opposed to it. But then again, what's MoDOT going to say? What will a traffic study say? So I don't know how you get around, you know, putting the cart before the horse. You're going to have to spend some money somewhere sometime.

Well, I mean, I might put that to the petitioner. Is your clients thinking that, if you're at liberty to say, that they need the special use permit to feel like they're willing to invest in a traffic study? Is that kind of approach?

Our approach is to get these two items accomplished. so that then we can turn it over to the end user. That traffic study will be generated by, I mean, I've done a number of different coffee users, including Dutch Brothers. They're amazing operations.

They know, they have it down to a science.

They'll be able to give the traffic engineers very, very specific data about their peak usages and their traffic. They're very much on top of how quickly they serve their customer. much faster than starbucks it's it's like a minute versus five minutes they so when we get to that we want to be able to get these two approvals done then then the user will step in with their background their information their details of their site plan and also be able to address all their operational history and implement and use that in in the traffic study

Which I guess the way you're saying that is implying that they would not be willing to step forward if you don't have a special use permit in hand.

They are not here tonight.

Not that they're not interested, but we really need to be able to get these two issues addressed so that they know that the door is there, that it can be accomplished subject to going through that process. OK.

Again, I'm fine with making it abundantly clear in the condition. I mean, one of the conditions is that MoDOT signs off on a traffic study. Again, your only question is, well, when do you sign off? And we can make it very clear. It's conditioned upon an approval of a traffic study as part of the site plan review process.

So, Amy, can I ask another question? Amy, who's the special use permit issued to?

It is to the operator of the business.

So it would be Dutch Brothers?

so if if we get to the site plan review we see the traffic study and it's just that seems no possible way that this could work and we've conditioned the special use permit on an acceptable traffic study as part of the site plan review then we could pull the special use permit

Are you asking legal counsel?

I'm asking anybody who feels qualified to answer the question.

If the board has issued, if Alderman has issued the special use permit based on the recommendation of the body, then at that point there wouldn't be revocation of the SEP.

It just looks like it would be unsatisfied conditions.

The applicant could not utilize the SEP.

satisfying that okay it'd be kind of dead in the water under okay i'm gonna interesting okay um so i would need to clearly state in the conditions if we move forward with that approach that the um that a traffic study will be provided with the site plan review and must be approved as part of site plan review.

All right.

Would you repeat that?

Yeah. So if we were going to move forward with what's being proposed, I would need to maybe add a condition on the record that a traffic study will be provided as part of site plan review and must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of site plan review.

That any traffic mitigation...

measure recommended in the traffic study seems like it's going to come back i guess unless everything's good i guess i just feel like it's going to come back to us but i guess if everything's fine it won't Because you're saying if there's issues with the traffic study, it would come back in front of the board? The mitigation come back in front of the planning and zoning?

The question was, can we word the condition? I thought that I understood the question as can we word the condition so that this board would see the traffic study and then make the recommendation about whether any particular traffic mitigation measures are satisfactory. to the board before the Board of Aldermen considers it. Procedurally, it does seem simpler to continue the STP, obtain a traffic study, and then you have less guesswork as to how you work the conditions.

All right. So that doesn't appear to be the preferred route. for you all because I guess there's some concern that if you don't have the SUP that we would ultimately deny it once the traffic study comes through and you don't want to spend the money on the traffic study if that's going to be the outcome.

Let me add that also there was some concerns raised about where the entrance is relative to parking across the side of the street. I'm not saying make changes, but it's the traffic study that would also generate

It works hand in hand with the site plan. We may make modifications to the site plan to accommodate issues that the traffic engineer uncovers in the traffic study. So that's why we're really wanting to have it addressed as part of the site plan process.

So let me ask another question, Mr. Chairman. For the record, For the record, following this procedure, would this set a precedent? Could it set a precedent?

That a special use permit be approved contingent upon.

I was just, you all know,

I'm not trying to trick you.

That my partner, Erin, does. Yeah, she timed it well. But yeah, I had asked at the start, how common is it that the SEP and flight plan are considered together?

That is often the case.

that I think should be taken into consideration. Acting on an individual SEP, there's often so many variances in real estate that it doesn't necessarily create a precedent. But I'm trying to understand how this fits into your existing practices, and that's what I just learned.

So I wanted to share that. No, that is a fair summary. I mean, it isn't common that if we have a traffic concern, we would issue the SUP before looking at the traffic study. I mean, it's just the conditions that we rely on in approving an sup include the potential impact on surrounding you know uh businesses as well as egress and um access for police and fire um and so you know, we're not trying to be overly difficult, but we do also want to make sure that we're satisfied before we issue the SUP in a location that does appear to have a potential congestion concern with the drive-through that we have the best information we have to make that decision.

So are you suggesting then that we process an SUP and site plan

Well, I'm saying that part of our consideration in issuing the SUP is whether we're going to have a traffic problem. Whether you bring the site plan a month later than from a continued SUP is up to you. I think it may help us to see both at the same time, and that has been our practice. But I think if we have a traffic study that shows that there is a conceptual idea here that that's not going to be a problem with traffic moving in and out of Gravois Bluffs and also polo downs, that would make everyone feel more comfortable. acknowledging that it would require investment and time on your end. And, you know, not everyone on the commission has spoken about their feelings regarding a coffee site here. I can tell you I'm also seeing that this should be able to work. It conceptually makes sense. But, you know, I'm also aware that like that Seven Brew right there off of Lindbergh backs up a lot of cars at certain times a day and i think we've had other experiences with drive throughs and car washes and other cases where we have seen traffic back up onto roads where it causes an issue and so uh... we've got a little bit of experience behind us that we don't want to just sort of uh... without the right level of diligence make sure that this isn't going to create some sort of traffic challenge with cars backing into what should be a clear path for people to get back and forth from their apartments. Or cause problems with people backing up, trying to get in and out from the main artery going into Gravois Bluffs. So...

If the commission is not comfortable moving forward with the SUP without a traffic study, you certainly could continue that and ask for a traffic study before making a recommendation to the board. And then following the results of the traffic study, any traffic control measures or any changes to the site plan could then be implemented into the site plan review if you would feel more comfortable doing that. Yep.

I mean, certainly anybody, I'm not the only one who can make motions, right? Like anyone can. And we could move on an SUP tonight and vote on it if anybody thinks that's the right course. I'm feeling momentum towards voting on a continuance instead, but I want to give everybody a fair chance that if somebody wants to move for a vote on the SUP,

I made two trips over there to just see where it was.

Never was there any traffic problem. And I was up in the air on what to do.

And I was going to make my decision on the number of people that came here.

Complain about it?

Complain. Because there was quite a few people in there. And my second trip was actually because I didn't see it.

I don't remember seeing it the first time. And then I thought, is there one? So I went back a couple days later, and there it is. It's there. I go up and down that way quite a bit. Sometimes it's easier to come out this end, I guess it'd be the Gravois end of it, rather than sit in the traffic at Walmart, because I can go right across, hit the old highway, and got a stop sign right in my subway.

I can't, if polo rounds don't have any problems.

Yeah, I walked in feeling the same way about it tonight, honestly.

I mean, if you've ever, but if you weren't riding traffic, go across Summit and try to make a left-hand turn on the gravel, I mean, that's like, you know?

Yep. Yep. So let me add one other thing, too, if I may. So it seems to me either which way you're going to pay for a traffic study. Either which way. To me, it's a little unprecedented that we approve a special use permit and then ask for that. And again, you're going to pay for it no matter what. I'd be interested in hearing, before we spend a lot more time, what MoDOT is going to have to say about the idea anyway, with or without a traffic study. Has anybody talked to MoDOT about it? I'm sure you have not. Well, it empties onto their arterial road.

That's in MoDOT right-of-way.

It's their right-of-way.

It is their right-of-way.

I assume it extends a certain distance. Not all of Gravel Lake Bluffs is a state road.

No, that's correct. And we fall within that. Yes. The intersection falls within MoDOTs right away.

Anybody else want to sort of advocate for just voting on this tonight as with a condition on the site plan review? Okay. Well, does anybody want to second that? Okay. How about this? I will move that we vote on the SUP tonight with a condition that a traffic mitigation study must be provided with the site plan review and any mitigation measures recommended be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Does anybody want to second that motion? Okay. Are you seconding that one? Okay. Continue. Yep. Right. Okay. So... uh let's put that motion out there uh so commissioner wisbrock has moved that we continue the vote on this sup pending a traffic study i will second that motion so can we go ahead and get a roll call vote commissioner wisbrock

Chairperson Yeoman.

Aye.

Vice Chairperson Sherrill.

Aye.

Secretary Abbott.

Aye.

Mayor Morath. Aye. Alderman Harrell.

Aye.

Commissioner Voorhees.

Aye.

Commissioner Bilicky. Motion approved to continue pending submittal of a traffic study.

So we've obviously, our recommendation to the Board of Aldermen has been to continue this. Now, Erin, just to make sure we get the procedural parts of this, I'm sorry, I called you Erin, Amy. Okay. To make sure we get the procedural parts of this correct, there is still going to be, is it, will this actually go to the Board of Aldermen if we've continued it or does it? Yes. It does still? Yep. Okay. Okay. So there is an opportunity still. We are a recommending body. We're recommending to the Board of Aldermen that this be continued. You do have another chance at the Board of Aldermen meeting to ask them to vote differently. And if the Board of Aldermen reach a different conclusion, they're the final say. So by all means, you know, marshal your efforts for that if that's the way you'd like to proceed. I think this group is generally in favor of trying to see this work. We're generally excited when new businesses come to Fenton. We just want to make sure we have an opportunity to understand the traffic.

I sense that as well. I appreciate your time. We'll come back to you with a traffic study and a site plan. I'm sure we'll find something that will be satisfactory to everybody.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Okay, so that wraps up our second case of the night. Next, we have case 2026 TXT 07, a petition by Shannon and Kyle Real Estate LLC to amend the definition of outdoor limited recreation facility under section 400.030 of the zoning code to allow indoor recreational activities related to the primary use on the lot. Amy.

This request will be in conjunction with the next two cases, case 2026, SUP 09 and 2026, SPR 05. An outdoor limited recreational facility is only allowed under an SUP and OT2 in C1 and the HP1 districts. And the current definition of an outdoor limited recreational facility does not address any affiliated indoor uses. So this is a request to amend the definition of outdoor limited recreation facility. to also include indoor recreational activities related to the primary use this the petitioner who operates swing around fun town is requesting the amendment so that they can expand their indoor facility to construct a building addition this request is very similar to an amendment that was approved by the board of aldermen in 2022 and that amendment was to include outdoor recreational activities related to indoor unlimited recreational facilities So if the commission feels that this expanded request is appropriate under a special use permit, staff suggests amending the definition to state that an outdoor limited recreational facility may include indoor activities related to the primary use of the lot.

Okay. Thank you. Kind of similar to the last one. Are there other... parcels that anybody can think of that like where this would also apply aside from just Swing Around Funtown?

It would be any parcel where an outdoor limited recreational facility is allowed by SUP. Currently, we only have one outdoor recreational facility in the city, but we do allow them under an SUP and OT2 in C1 and the HP1 districts.

Okay, so there's no other facility we can think of in the city that's considered an outdoor...

Correct. This is the only one we have currently.

Okay. Cool. Any questions for Amy on this one? Okay. Okay. Well, I don't wanna just vote on this without giving the petitioners a chance to speak. It looks like we have maybe them here with us tonight. Would you all mind approaching the podium and just introducing yourselves and writing your address, please? You can use business address. That's fine. It's a custom we followed since I started in this role, and I've never really asked why we need the address, but we do ask for that, right?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

It doesn't matter, home or business.

I'm Kyle Ruther. The address is... I'm Emma Holder.

I'm the general manager.

Great. Thank you for joining us. Um, did you guys have anything you wanted to say about the text amendment before we vote on it?

Well, I mean, other than, you know, what we're already doing there, I think we're just improving on it. I think, um, I don't, I guess our case is not really considered indoor recreational use, but we're trying to, um, add to our indoor facilities around the business right now. Because most of the public thinks of us as a summer home business.

So,

Very slow in the winter.

Our park. Gotcha.

Okay, I don't have any questions, anyone else okay i'll move that we vote to approve case 2026 txt oh seven a petition by Shannon and kyle real estate llc. To amend the definition of outdoor limited recreation facility under section 400.030 of the zoning code to allow indoor recreational activities related to the primary use on the lot as drafted in our materials. I get a second. Okay, Secretary Abbott has a second. Can we do a roll call vote?

Chairperson Yeoman?

Aye.

Secretary Abbott? Aye. Vice Chairperson Sherrill?

Aye.

Mayor Morath?

Aye.

Alderman Harrell?

Aye.

Commissioner Wissbrock? Aye. Commissioner Voorhees?

Aye.

Commissioner Billikey?

Aye.

Motion approved.

Okay, you guys are welcome to sit down for a minute if you'd like. We may, we'll probably... It's complicated. That's gross. You guys have been around for a while. Okay, so we're going to move on to case 2026, SUP 09, which is a petition by Daniel Sneed of Wallace Design Collective on behalf of Swing Around Funtown for a special use permit to operate an outdoor limited recreation facility at 335 Skinker Lane, the property zone OT2 Old Town Commercial District. Amy, do you want to give us a summary on this one?

Sure. This subject location consists of two lots. It's addressed as 335 Skinker Lane, and it's developed as an outdoor recreational facility known as Swing Around Funtown that's operated at this location since 1995. An outdoor limited recreation facility requires an SUP under the current zoning code, and there is currently no special use permit on file for Swing Around Funtown. So... It is now considered a legal non-conforming use. The owners would like to expand the building that houses their indoor recreational uses. That building was constructed in 1986. So before a non-conforming use can be expanded, it does need to come into compliance with the code, and that requires them to obtain a special use permit. The expansion of the building will also require site plan review approval, and that will be considered under the following case, 2026 SPR 05. In review of the required parking for the indoor and outdoor recreational uses on the lot, a total of 127 spaces are required. As stated, this location does consist of two lots. So the petitioner is proposing to expand the parking lot to the south onto the lot onto the tract of shown as track two on this plat included with your packet. in order to meet those parking requirements. This will require approval of a boundary adjustment plat to consolidate the lots, and that will be considered by the Board of Aldermen at their August 27th meeting. And after consolidation, the parking lot will provide 140 spaces.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for Amy? Okay, I guess if you all would not mind taking the mic again, please. I do have some conditions associated with this, but there may be questions first. So before we talk about the conditions, does anyone have questions for the petitioners? I won't make them read their name into the record again. I assume you've got that covered.

I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I think it – it really works well for them to increase their business model and all and be a little more competitive in the market.

Yep. It sounds like an exciting change. I'm curious, are you guys in order, this may be more appropriate for site plan review, but while we got you up here talking, are you going to gut the inside of the building completely or just push out?

Yeah, so it would be a full renovation inside the building as well.

Okay. It's a big project.

You're going to eliminate the batting cage.

Yeah.

Right. Right. Okay. And it looks like the parking meets our city's requirements. So thank you for like expanding the parking lot that obviously we care about parking around here. So that was nice to see. So I don't have any other questions. Okay, so I do have some conditions that relate to the special use permit that I'd just like you to acknowledge on the record. First, that the special use permit is solely for Swing Around Funtown to operate an outdoor limited recreation facility at 335 Skinker Lane, as indicated on plans provided with the application dated July 22nd, 2026. Second, a separate boundary adjustment plat to consolidate the lots and separate site plan review for the building addition will be required. And last, compliance with all other applicable City of Fenton codes and ordinances. Okay, great. With those conditions, I'll go ahead and move for approval of case 2026, SUP 09, a petition by Daniel Sneed of Wallace Design Collective on behalf of Swing Around Fun Town for a special use permit to operate an outdoor limited recreation facility at 335 Skinker Lane. The property is zoned OT2 Old Town Commercial District. Can I get a second? Okay, I'm not sure who seconded first. Did you see that?

He does it better than I do.

Okay, John's on fire tonight. We'll go to John. Okay, can we go ahead and do a roll call vote?

Chairperson Yeoman?

Aye.

Commissioner Bielicki? Aye. Vice Chairperson Sherrill?

Aye.

Secretary Abbott? Aye. Mayor Morath?

Aye.

Alderman Harrell?

Aye.

Commissioner Wissbrook? Aye. Commissioner Voorhees?

Aye.

Motion approved.

Okay, great. We also have site plan review. So case 2026 SPR 05, a petition by Daniel Sneed of Wallace Design Collective on behalf of Swing Around Funtown for site plan review of a proposed building addition at 335 Skinker Lane. The property is zoned OT2 Old Town Commercial District. Amy, if you could walk us through the highlights on this one.

Sure. This is the site plan review for the proposed building addition. It will be constructed on the existing building that houses their indoor recreational uses. The addition will be located where the current batting cages are currently located. The addition will be for bowling alley. They'll provide bowling lanes. An expansion to the parking lot is also proposed, and that's on to track two. on the plat included with your packet, and that will require boundary adjustment, as we previously stated. The proposed building addition will meet all required building setbacks, but it was noted during review that portions of the existing recreational amenities, such as the go-kart track, the go-kart maintenance building, and the mini golf course are constructed within the front and rear setbacks. So before the boundary adjustment can be approved, To combine the lots, variances from those encroachments will be required. It was also noted that the existing parking lot and the proposed parking lot expansion will encroach the 30-foot front buffer area. Staff is proposing amendments to this requirement under the following case. And if approved, the parking lot will no longer encroach. Otherwise, a variance will also be needed for this parking lot encroachment. The petitioner has applied for the necessary variances, and they will be considered by the Board of Adjustment at their August 18th meeting, which will be next week. In review of the elevation plans for the building, the overall building height will be 25 and a half feet, which is well below the 45 maximum for the district. The exterior facade materials is architectural metal panels and stacked stone accents. Metal panels are only allowed as an accent material in the district. However, the the commission and the board can approve alternative building materials under site plan review. So the alternative building materials are being proposed for consistency with the existing metal siding and stacked stone on the existing building. And that is the rendering of the existing building and the addition. The dumpster area will be located on the east end of the parking lot expansion. When dumpster areas are expanded, are visible from the street blind fencing constructed of masonry elements should be provided and non-masonry elements if they're not visible from the street so the site plan will just need to be amended to show the dumpster material um in compliance with the code as well as the paving material for the parking lot in compliance with the code before a building permit will be issued Finally, separate reviews and approvals will be needed from MSD for stormwater control and from the Fenton Fire Protection District as well.

Okay. Thank you. So I have a few questions. To the extent that you noted in your summary that there were some variances that are going to need to be approved for setback issues, Those are sort of like existing setback issues caused by structures already in place, right? Like the building itself is not going to create any new setback issues or?

That's correct. The building, the existing building and the building addition will not have any setback issues. They were encroachments that were noted that will need to be addressed before the boundary adjustment can be approved.

Okay. Okay. Got it. And that goes before the board of adjustment.

Next week. Yeah. Okay. This was like, I I'm sure that every time they saw my name pop up on their email or a phone call, it was like Pandora's box. It was like, every time I looked at something, I was like, Oh gosh, I have to give them a call. I don't know that they're going to need another, another application for something. But, um, I think we've got, they've been very easy to work with and they've been, uh, gotten everything they need. Um, in line to be reviewed and approved by the city.

That's great. I mean, you guys established Swing Around Fun Town in 1986?

Well, we established the one in St. Charles in 1980. Well, started construction in 87.

Okay.

And then this location we opened in 94. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Wow.

This is a second-generation... family business. So my sister and I ran it and bought it from my aunt and uncle and mom and dad.

Okay. Awesome. Well, it's a Fenton institution and we're glad to have you. So Amy, another, or actually this might be more for you guys. The drawing that's on the board right now, there's sort of like this half-high thing happening in one of the corners. Like there's this curved line.

This here?

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Okay, so the building itself, that's going to have like a curved wall. Ah, okay. Got it. Okay.

I was curious about that.

Okay, other questions for either Amy or the petitioner? Okay. I do have... more conditions that we need to go through because of some of the details of the site plan. So you guys could just acknowledge these two and then we'll go ahead and vote. First, this approval is strictly for the proposed building addition at 335 Skinker Lane as in, is that right, Skinker Lane? Okay, sorry, I think there was a small typo. At 335 Skinker Lane as indicated on plans provided with the application. Okay. Approval of the subject site plan is reliant on the approval of case 2026 SUP 09. A boundary adjustment plat to consolidate the lots will be required and a variance for the existing outdoor recreational structures to encroach the front and rear setbacks will also be required. approval of case 2026 TXT 08 will be required or a variance obtained for the existing off street parking area and proposed parking lot expansion to encroach the front buffer area. Number five, alternative exterior facade materials for the building addition as indicated on the elevation plans are approved in conjunction with this site plan review approval to be consistent with the existing building. Six, the site plan shall be amended as follows. First, indicate a total of six accessible parking spaces.

Oh, I'm sorry. I did not put that in my summary. Yes. So the total number of accessible parking spaces is based on the required parking. And the required parking, you need to provide six. Your site plan just shows five. You just need to add one additional handicapped space. Okay.

Okay, that's good, though. It shows you're listening. Second, indicate the dumpster enclosure material in compliance with the section 425.210B4 of the code and indicate pavement material for the off-street parking area in compliance with section 430.080A. And then 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. And last, compliance with all other applicable City of Fenton codes and ordinances. Okay, with those conditions, I'd like to move for approval of case 2026, SPR 05, a petition by Daniel Sneed of Wallace Design Collective on behalf of Swing Around Fun Town for site plan review of a proposed building addition at 335 Skinker Lane. The property is zoned OT2 Old Town Commercial District. Can I get a second? All right, we got Mr. Voorhees second. Can we do a roll call vote?

Chairperson Yeoman.

Aye.

Commissioner Voorhees.

Aye.

Vice Chairperson Sherrill.

Aye.

Secretary Abbott. Aye. Mayor Morath.

Aye.

Alderman Harrell.

Aye.

Commissioner Wissbrock. Aye. Commissioner Billigay. Motion approved.

Great. Thank you so much for hanging with us tonight and best of luck with the renovations. Okay, last we have case 2026 TXT 08, consideration of amendments to the zoning code related to buffer area requirements in the Old Town Commercial District. Amy, could you give us a summary?

Sure. If you recall, the board approved amendments to the zoning code related to the comprehensive plan in August of last year, and part of those amendments was to amend the title of the OT2 and OT3 Old Town District to Old Town Commercial District to reflect their commercial purpose. These districts were included in the commercial planning area of the comprehensive plan because their purpose... uses and characteristics were similar to other commercial, the city's other commercial districts. So during review of the buffer area requirements for OT2 and OT3, it was noted that the buffer areas are the same as the setbacks in these districts, meaning that they require a 30 foot front and a 15 foot side and rear buffer area needs to be provided and that no parking lot can project into those areas. So I did review each lot in OT2 and OT3 and found that only one lot developed with an electric substation can actually meet those buffer area requirements that we have in our code. So if you don't have any lots that are meeting your requirements, it's probably a good idea to take a look at what your requirements are. So staff is proposing to amend the buffer area requirements for OT2 and OT3 to mirror those of the C1 and the C2 commercial districts. so those commercial districts require that 15 of the lots be devoted to landscape or green space and it allows that landscape and grease space areas in the front yard including landscape islands within the parking lot can substitute for up to one half of the required buffer areas along streets and that's we have those regulations in our commercial areas to accommodate parking for retail and commercial uses so staff would just suggest that all the commercial districts have similar requirements

Okay, that makes sense to me. Any questions for Amy? Okay, hearing no questions, I will go ahead and move for approval of case 2026 TXT 08, consideration of amendments to the zoning code related to buffer area requirements in the Old Town Commercial District as those amendments are indicated in the materials we received. So can I get a second?

I'll second.

All right. Terry Abbott seconds. Can we do a roll call vote?

Chairperson Yeoman?

Aye.

Secretary Abbott? Aye. Vice Chairperson Sherrill?

Aye.

Mayor Morath?

Aye.

Alderman Harrell?

Aye.

Commissioner Wissbrock? Aye. Commissioner Voorhees?

Aye.

Commissioner Bielicki? Aye. Motion approved.

Okay. Thank you. And that concludes all of our new business. So we'll go on to the last part of our agenda, announcements. First is the report from the Community Development Department.

We did not receive any new petitions for the September meeting, seeing that we had one case that was continued. I'm not sure that they'll be able to get a traffic study in time. So I will just let you know whether or not we will have a meeting in September.

Okay. I'll just go ahead and put everyone on notice. I cannot make that Tuesday, September 1st date. So if we do end up having one, hopefully someone won't mind substituting. Thank you. Okay. Anything else?

You have your building permit and special use permit inspection logs that I provide every month. And then as requested last month, I've also provided the monthly financial update for the month of May that was submitted to the Board of Aldermen at their July meeting. So if that's the kind of information you were looking for, I can continue to do that every month. If you need something else, just let me know.

Great, thank you. Appreciate that extra information. Next is the report from the chairperson. I don't have anything special tonight. I guess maybe the one thing I'll say while I've got the mic for a moment longer is I know our motion practice was a little different today, but I'm assuming the record will reflect who moved based on, okay, good stuff. Thank you for stepping outside the box with me there, Warren. That was fun. Next is our report from the mayor.

Let's see, I'll put you on notice. Linda Nelson has decided to retire after, I don't know, 25, 30 years. I'm going to have to go back and look. So help me out, Ward 3, finding another competent individual. I will also put Alderman, or Alderman, Commission Member Sherrill on notice that I fully intend to appoint you. Your term is up. And unless otherwise... I'll continue on with you. And you've heard that?

Yes.

So that's about all I have.

Okay. Next, our report from our planning and zoning liaison.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last month, the Board of Aldermen approved with conditions case 2026, SUP 06, petitioned by Paul Riddell-Hilker Corporation of on behalf of Wind Water. That was approved. Case 2026 was the Fenton Land Investors and Fenton Logistics Park. That was withdrawn. That was continued. Continued. approval with conditions was case 2026 SUP 07, driveway bluffs on behalf of Aspen Dental for a special use permit. That was approved. And lastly, we had approval with conditions of case 2026 TXT 05, amendment to definition of public park. And that was also approved. And that is all I have.

Okay. I'm curious. So the Benton land investors seeking to rezone, for lack of a better term, that one section, that's been continued?

Yeah, it was continued at the request of the petitioner.

Okay. Anybody know why?

No, but it will be considered. It continued to the August meeting, so it will be considered again Thursday.

That won't require further action from us, right? Like what we decided is sort of stays on the record.

Your recommendation has gone to the board.

Okay, and then the Board of Aldermen will vote once. Got it. Well, thank you for that. I was curious. Okay, last is our report from other commissioners. Anyone else? okay so our next planning and zoning commission uh meeting is tuesday september 1st 2026 if we end up with uh items to consider we'll wait to hear from you amy but if it happens it'll be at 7 p.m uh at night um having reached the end of agenda of the agenda i will move that we adjourn our uh august 11th meeting can i get a second a second All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Meeting adjourned.