Planning & Community Design Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. We are going to call to order the August 20th, 2026 meeting of the Olivet Planning Community Design Commission meeting. Petrie, will you call the roll? Certainly. Sam Wallach. Present.

Laura Ragsdale. I think she'll be coming in later. Felicia Ford. The absent. Clark Hickman. Myself. Petrie Powell. Jenna Natt. She's not here. And Tim Spiegelglas. Present. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you, Petrie. We also have Carlos Trejo here. And no dawn tonight? No dawn tonight. No dawn tonight. Okay. Welcome, everybody. I see a lot of familiar faces, but I'm going to briefly go over the process here. We followed the agenda. There's a copy in the back. We'll go one by one through the items here. If you have public comments related to an item not on the agenda, there will be time right up front to do those. For anybody that's coming up to the podium, make sure that you press the microphone button on. The red light will turn on. Say your name and say your address. If you're representing a business, you can say your business address instead of your home address. Um, it looks like we've got a couple of people online, at least one person online. Um, if you are making, uh, want to make a comment while you're online, make sure you put your hand up. There should be a button at the bottom of zoom that allows you to do that at the appropriate time and then, um, Carlos will move you over to be a panelist. Once he does that, make sure that your microphone is on and your camera is on. And same procedure, say, please say your name and your address for the record. Did I miss anything, Carlos?

No, sir. Yeah, very think of it.

Okay. Oh, last thing on the comments, we ask that you keep them to three minutes or less to be respectful of everybody's time. Okay, great. Any announcements, Carlos? No, sir. Okay, fantastic. In that case, we'll move right to public comments for items not otherwise on the agenda. Any in the room? Not seeing any. Anybody online? Give you just a moment here. Okay. That being the case, we will move on to item 3A, which is 9091, Olive Crossing, Suite 100, the brass tap. Carlos.

Chairman, this was in our previous July meeting regarding the placement of the canopy on the brass tap. property patio. I'm not going to go over the specifics unless there's any questions, but there was concerns about the material use, specifically the roof and using the vinyl covering in there. The petitioner was going back to the designer and trying to get some revisions done to try to address the commission's concerns. These are the revisions we had. We don't have the the elevations and the aerials like we had here, but it will be a flat metal structure with the metal roof with the columns and placement will be here in the patio area. And then we have the specifications and they're sorry, I didn't get those printed out, but it will be a columnized structure, metal roof. And then during seasonal times, the potential to enclose that as you see here. Be glad to answer any specific questions. We have representatives here from the breast tap and the property owner.

That enclosure, that's like the black cloth material.

That's correct. It maintains the same as we saw in the original. Got it.

I mean, I think it's a lot better. I mean, honestly, I think that's what we're looking for all along. The only thing I would say is my personal opinion is I'd like to limit how long the full enclosure could be out there. Okay. Any thoughts on how you would limit it? I would like to hear from them, see what their plan is more than anything else.

Tim, what do you mean by, like, time limits?

Timing of that. We don't want that out all year long.

So they would take it down?

They would have to take it down.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize that.

Just to make sure that you're aware, Mr. Spiegel, last year, referring to the lower enclosure, not the roof.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Not the structure.

Correct. During the rigor season and nice season, it should look like the picture on the right-hand side on your screen. But then during the winter and during other times where they can get some more seating in there when it's not open, then yeah.

Okay, then I guess I'll ask the petitioner what material is that used removable part going to be? Is that going to be plastic? Is it going to be vinyl? Is it going to be metal as well?

Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Anybody have anything else before we let the petitioners talk? No. Okay, go ahead. Can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead and lift the mic up to your, there you go.

Hello. Hello. All right. My name is Kush. I'm with the Brass App, 9091 Olive Crossing. I can answer any questions.

The lower part there that's removable, that's going to be made out of that sort of heavy black cloth material?

Yeah, it's a very high quality. It's going to be thick panels. They're about this thick. They're not... It's not like a curtain. It's very thick pieces. They're very heavy. I think they're eight foot by something big. There's glass in them. There's windows, there's doors built into them. So they're, they're very high quality. Is there actual glass or is it plastic? I think it's glass, but like plastic glass. Okay. But it's not, it's not curtain. It's not like the see-through stuff.

Okay. Yeah. Dude. Do we have this actual, I assume this is from Lawrence group again. Do we have the actual plan of what they gave us? What do you guys, the original plan set or the proposed plan set? Yes. One second.

And then, so, uh, seasonal wise, what are you guys thinking? We would want it up as little as possible. So I don't know, November to February seems fair.

probably what i would have asked i would have said about four months we'd limit to it i would agree with that yeah i'd even try to do three months yeah i mean we the less the better and i think you guys will see the less the better will be good for you guys too as well okay oh i'm sorry i didn't see that was up carlos i got several pages if you need to i'm gonna go to page one I'm trying to find out what the material is for the windows.

And I don't believe that the detail or the calling out is there only for the frame. I went through trying to figure out.

Most of the time those are plexiglass, but I guess they do vary by manufacturer.

That, in my opinion, I think plexiglass would be okay. Rigor glass would be okay, too. What I wouldn't want to see is just plastic, basically. And you've seen that before in other places. But that's the only thing I would say that we wouldn't want to see. Okay.

And do you have a question? Where would you store these during the process? That's a challenge. That's a really good question. Lauren's Fabric, actually, they offer a service where they come whenever we're ready and they would take them off, store them for us. And then whenever we're ready again, they would come and put them back on. So we're not sure yet. But we wouldn't store them at the restaurant.

We just don't have space for that.

It's not shown on the drawings, but I'm assuming you'll have like fans or. heaters or something to extend the season so that the covers won't be...

Correct, yeah. Fans, heaters, TVs, speakers, cameras, everything.

Are they also used for extreme hot weather to cool the area? Or are you just thinking about using them in the winter to keep it warm? The walls?

Yeah. Just the winter? Just the winter. Okay.

So are we... going to have any kind of limitation on sound if you know with i'm seeing i'm hearing fans heaters speakers tvs and you know we do have residential area it's a good distance it would be no different than what we apply at chevy's the interstate unfortunately and all of us has such a high decibel okay uh it's it's pretty minimal you asked the question in the

materials do we want to you know restrict uh hours of operation i assume that that goes to maybe goes to that question correct and they do have restrictions within their their liquor license uh in in there but i'm not sure that would stay open the the full evening or not yeah we actually reduced our hours recently we were open till midnight on the weekends but now we're open till 11 every day and we won't be blasting music

Okay. Anybody else have any questions for the petitioner? I'll note for the record that Laura Ragsdale is now present. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any public comments? Seeing none here. Give a second for the folks online. Okay. All right, folks. Well, it sounds like we're feeling pretty positive about the changes. Anybody have anything else they want to discuss about this? No? Anybody want to make a motion?

Chairman, in that motion, if it can be noted, if you want to have a specific time slot or time, you know, months or No, three.

Laura, I can't remember if you're here for this part. They're talking about winter months. Okay.

Motion to approve the design and review for the outdoor canopy to be located on the eastern portion of 9091 Olive Crossing adjacent and attached to the brass tap addressed at 9091 Olive Crossing. Uh, suite 100 as noted in the memorandum from the Department of planning and community design development dated August 20th, 2026 subject to any staff conditions noted there in under the staff report, which would include. A limit of use for the winter months. November through February, November through February.

Motion's been made. Do I hear a second? Second. Second made by Commissioner Spiegelglass. Carlos.

Commissioner Spiegelglass. Approve. Commissioner Hickman. Commissioner Ragsdale.

Approve.

Commissioner Powell. Approve. Chairman Wallach. Approve. The motion passes unanimously. Five to zero. Great. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate it.

All right, wonderful. Then let's move on to 3B, tax amendment, coin-operated self-service laundromats in the COR district.

Okay. Chairman, this is another item we've talked for a while. So I would note, Commissioner Hickman, if you have any questions or want us to go through some of the background information, please let me know. And I think you were part of the discussions at the last meeting in there. So I'm going to kind of jump through the proposal. We've been talking about a proposed tax amendment to allow coin-operated laundry establishments. Right now they are prohibited under our current code in there. We've gone over the COR district and then the general requirements. Based on our last discussion, I got a sense that there was some consensus amongst the commission working some type of language to permit the coin-operated laundromats. Uh, in there, so I want to go through a couple of things and get to a point of what staff would propose for the commission to kind of discuss and consider in there. Of course, this amendment would go to the district. Now, the minimum lot size for a property in the district is 7500 square feet. So that's about 75 feet and with 100 feet in depth. So they're pretty small. And of course, we would be concerned of opening all the possibilities for every parcel or people creating parcels just for coin operated laundromats. Of course, we would put the items in place in here. So the way our code currently reads now is we allow only dry cleaning and laundry services, except point operated specifically says that. It's permitted by right if it's 5,000 square feet or less. Anything greater than 5,000 square feet requires a special permit. Currently, we only have one operating dry cleaner, and that's at the shops at Price Crossing. And they're roughly about 2,000 square feet or 1,500, 1,000. Okay, pretty small. Thank you. And then the special permit, if it was over 5,000, requires there's a location restriction. It could only be located east of Olivet Executive. So that's pretty close where Incada is at, eastward to 270, excuse me, 170, and then west of Indian Meadows to our corporate limits near Warson Road. The intent was, The east side is kind of a regional connection. The west side is our neighborhood connection. But the central area between Indian Meadows and Olivet Executive is more to create more of a town type of center component in there or light activity uses in there that exhibit more than a mixture of retail in there. The other requirement is that the lot has to be 80,000 square feet. So it's roughly about two acres, and then they have to submit a traffic report. So again, if a dry cleaning or dry cleaning laundry service was proposed in Olivet, if it's under 5,000 square feet, which a majority of them would be, they're permitted by right. But if they're over that, then they would require these three conditions to be applied. So a simple amendment would be, We use these digits that I'm highlighting here, or what we call the North Industrial American Classification System. They are the way that the U.S. Census and the government classify business entities, so you can break it down. And we use that code system in our COR district and other commercial districts. So the federal government has a big book and it assigns numbers to all type of business establishments. So dry cleaning is under this 81232 in there. Now, the way those digits work is that you have at the lowest end, a six digit, which is specific type of use. to a two-digit, which is a general use like retail. So you can go from retail all the way down to I sell books only, and that has the six digits in there, but it falls under the bigger umbrella. So in this case, 81 is other personal services. The 232 gets you to the dry cleaning and laundry services. If you go up one number, instead of from the five digits up to the four digit component you would include dry cleaning and laundry services that allow both this five digit coin operated and this five digit that we already permit dry cleaning and laundry services okay so if we do that amendment it's pretty simple it's just instead of doing the 81232 just go to 8123 but this all stays the same and that would you know if given that the petitioners kind of identified a location that they're looking at that may not work for their purposes. So an alternative amendment based on what I heard from the commission is okay. If we amend the district just going down to the four-digit code, the A123, to allow dry cleaning and laundry services, that would permit the coin operated. I would recommend reduce the square footage to 2,500 by right and over 2,500 by special permit use. And there's a reason for that. I can go over it in a second. But then you would maintain the special permit conditions about the location restrictions. Reduce the lot size from 80,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet. Maintain the traffic report. Limit the hours of operation. Require on-site attendant. And require, and this was the selling point, I think, that the commission... was willing to consider was to require them to provide wash and fold services at the facility. So I think that kind of addresses the points that the commission had brought from our previous meeting. Looking for any guidance, we do have the petitioner. We just shared the information with her. Make sure she understands why we would just go beyond of what the general request was from the application to something more like this.

Carlos, if we're reducing the permit by right to 2,500 square feet, why would we ask a business of this modest size to, you know, require a traffic report in that expense?

You won't. If it's 2,500 square feet or less.

Less, okay.

If it's over, you would.

But even so, say it's 3,000. I mean, traffic reports... You know, that's, I would imagine, considerable expense for any small business.

And it's on Olive Road. How much is that going to change on Olive Road? We're limited in any way. Personally, I don't think we should. I looked at that, too, and I'm like, this is a lot for a petitioner. I think so, too.

There are some things in terms of, yes, looking or doing an analysis on the Olive Boulevard corridor itself, but also within the site itself in there about the pickups, the proximity to the carts and things of that nature.

But the building that we're talking about already exists and already has a parking lot, so we know all that information already.

Correct, but not how it would function with this type of user.

It could go into one of our more stringent strips, and it could affect what's going on in there. I do see that point. I'm not sure how much, but I do. I'm sorry.

There's also opportunities for someone with that expertise to look at it, to figure how the site not just fits within itself and operates, but also with the adjacent sites. So in some cases, well, let's take a look at the property that's being proposed, just using this as an example. It is difficult to get in and out of. And I would, you know, I would, think a traffic report would give us some assistance to look at how to improve that access in there. They're limited on accessing all of that executive. There's multiple aprons on that portion of olive in there that there may be some insights that they could provide or shared cross access or things of that nature. So it's not necessarily, we want the vehicle counts And it's more how to make sure that site remains productive. The other aspects of these, these are also tools, general planning tools. They're not necessarily there to prohibit, but make sure that there's a process in place and not just, I don't want to call them obstacles, but they're tools we use.

Carlos, do we have any discretion to say we remove the traffic report as a condition, but we can add it as a condition as it relates to?

Yeah, as a special permit, it could be considered in there. It could be based on the lot size, the building size, or, you know, even if it wasn't acknowledged, the commission could always say we want to. This is a particularly trouble. So long as a special permit.

Okay. Can we maybe we can limit it to what we want to as well and that we don't want a full blown traffic study. We just want that lot. Right. Or something like that.

Right. Carlos, the square footage requirements, am I right to think that the primary purpose of having those is just to limit the amount of available locations within the city that could be used for these? Right. That's it's not that we think it'd be unsafe to operate in a smaller facility or anything like that, right? That's not the problem.

Okay.

I just wanted to confirm that there wasn't anything beyond.

No, because as we open up the corridor to permit more of these, because this would be applicable, looking on the end, not from a realty expertise, but from a planning perspective is like, again, for someone to buy a vacant parcel and be limited to 2,500 square feet. That's a pretty big expense for what that return is going to be. So odds are they're going to probably be a little bit larger, which we're going to try. We're going to push for a little bit larger size. So we actually do have some controls and limitations to minimize. They don't pop up all along the corridor.

Rose, why was the 5,000 square foot that existed before, that was just for what you were saying?

That is correct.

Okay.

And again, it seems like the largest one we had was 850 square feet. Okay.

How big is that building that it's under kind of sort of consideration?

I think it's about 8,500.

So it goes by not the customer space, but the whole entire building?

It depends on how it's crafted and defined.

Doesn't that have a second story on it? Yes. It's kind of an unusual building.

Okay. I mean, I think I like the alternative amendment formulation better than mapping it to the existing dry cleaner requirements.

So just do the 8123?

Yeah, what's showing, what's showing here, I am also open to removing the traffic report as being an explicit condition and just giving us the discretion to require one.

Yes.

Laura, thoughts? Okay.

Yeah, I do see, I do see the advantages of the traffic report with certain locations and that cross access, um, just because that location that we're talking about, I know is difficult from walking that stretch along olive, um, with a lot of cut in and outs. So that would be my only concern, but it's not going to have, I wouldn't expect it to have a lot of foot traffic. So I wouldn't think so. I mean, um, so I don't know that a traffic report is actually necessary for this.

Yeah.

And I think unless we leave it as a condition, but then we say like for this one, it's not nest. Like, can we do that?

Like leave it for future use wave and explicit condition. I mean, I don't know, to me, I'd rather leave it off and then add it later instead of getting into a decision about whether to wave it every time. Um, I think also, and we talked about this in the previous times, I know we've got this specific petition sort of in the background potentially, but this is really crafted for the entire city. So I don't want to tailor this text amendment just to one.

Well, except that if we're talking about dry cleaning and laundry services, we are talking about a very small universe of sizes. You're not going to get a 10,000 square foot you know, laundry service coming in. So I think it does just apply to, you know, overall the dry cleaning laundry is probably going to be under 2,500 square feet is my guess, because you don't go to the expense for all this other stuff. Um, but I mean, I personally feel like, you know, we should be encouraging businesses and, um, And I think there is a need. They obviously have done the analysis to decide that there is, you know, to conclude that there is a need. They're not like they all used to be. Clark, you probably know you have a nice one and had a nice one in Maplewood. So I think that what you were proposing is the way to go is to put the traffic report off as a,

Okay. Carlos, anything else you think we should talk about?

Okay.

Petitioner's here. Is there any questions?

This guy has something to do.

Yeah. We're actually talking about two issues, as I understand. One is this text amendment for the whole CR. And then there's a separate issue about Mary Julian's specific proposal, which is a separate issue.

That's right. And that's not before the commission right now. We're just talking about recommending the text amendment. Exactly. Okay. You're welcome to say anything that you want to. Does anybody have any questions for the petitioner? No? We don't have any questions.

I actually have a question. I'm curious. Are you intending to purchase that building and lot? Are you leasing it or purchasing the lot? Okay.

Okay. Yeah, I suppose public comments are in order as well. So any public comments, please?

Greg, I would six other Elaine. My comment is more conceptual, not specifically about this future proposal, but it's as it relates to the text amendments or text amendments in listening to your conversation about specifically in this case, the potential for requiring a traffic study. What I hope you will consider as you do these text amendments and look at the codes is not looking at applying different regulations to different properties based, for example, on, well, this one's hard to get in and out of, so therefore we need a traffic study. From the developer standpoint, the rules should all be the same for all properties. Now, different uses have different densities and things like that. So it struck me in listening, I just wanted to hear this this evening, that if you're going to contemplate a traffic study for a redevelopment, it should be for all redevelopments or redevelopments all over a certain size. But if there's a concern of access in one place, also remember our main thoroughfare in Olivet, is controlled by Modot. So we as Olivet could say, we don't like this access and we want the developer to change it. But unless Modot goes along with it, it can't change. So that was just my sort of two cents as you consider amending the code from time to time. Keep up the good work.

Thank you. I think that was very valid what he said. I mean, it would be nice to limit it for a certain size and everything like that. But on the other hand,

don't want developers just wasting money just to waste money i i mean completely agree we got to sort of balance interests here we don't want to make people spend money unnecessarily um at the same time it may provide utility to the city and that's i think our primary obligation here i think we we do have to you know make sure we you know common sense dictate so like for example i'm sure the ups store

over by Plant Haven is very small, probably less than 2,500 square feet, but that building generates a ton of traffic. And so I think while it's true, we should be applying the same standard for different, I guess, classifications, we also have to be smart enough to know that there's a difference between a wash and fold and a UPS store. And so to me, if somebody was proposing a UPS store, I want to see the traffic report. I'm not so concerned about the laundromat.

The other thing is potentially, and Carlos, I don't want to speak for you, so I'll let you tell me no on this, but somebody reaches out to you and they are considering something like this, and you know that it's a particularly difficult location from a traffic standpoint, you might clue them in upfront that, the commission might require a traffic study for that location.

That is correct. I mean, we'll be looking at the volume of what the existing conditions are. Right.

Okay.

And then we do have other plans in place, like all of our conceptual master traffic plan, the northeast quadrant traffic plan. And they're there to help kind of facilitate in terms when we have discussions regarding cross-access and easements. Right. Okay, very good.

I'd also like to just bring up from a council perspective that one of the council goals is to work on improving Olive in general. And that's big and broad, granted. But a part of that for sure is improving traffic flow and doing more to advance the Olive corridor plan that was established. And one piece of that plan was to reduce the number of cutouts and driveways that we have on Olive that then lead to just all of these roads that create traffic hazards. So just kind of another awareness as this body works through this particular text amendment, but also thinks through the relevance of traffic studies across the board for general improvement, long-term improvement of the Olive Corridor, that that's something that we want to be mindful of.

Okay. Very good. All right. Any other additional public comments? Seeing none in the room. We've got quite a few people online now. Give them a second. Doesn't look like it. Okay. All right. Unless there's any other discussion, does anybody want to make a motion?

No, the next step, Cameron, would be for us to kind of now codify how that language would read and what would be repealed from the existing thing. We'd hope that we can get that for the September 3rd meeting.

Okay, great. Then we will move on to new business 4A-1123 Hilltop Drive.

Chairman, back in 2023, this commission had approved the construction of three new homes right behind Chevy's on Hilltop Drive. And they're somewhat like towards middle, mid-COVID or so. One of the homes got built. Which was the, the 1 closest to Chevy's this 1 here with the other 2 didn't this 1 did get raised. The existing home was raised and then this 1 is still being occupied at the moment. But we have a section in our code that indicates that once a petition has been approved here in the commission, you have to pull a permit within 12 months. The approval was March 16th, 2023. The properties have changed hands and then the petitioner that is here today had applied to commence construction on this home here. For the most part, everything is pretty much exactly what the commission had approved back in March of 2023. However, given that there is this one-year requirement, I noted to them that they had to come back to the commission. I'm going to go over some of the highlights real quickly and then answer any questions on how specific the commission would like to get. But the property is on the eastern side, excuse me, the western side of Hilltop Drive, right behind Chevy's in there. And then back here, which would be towards the top, is where the Irvington Place apartments have been constructed. Three new homes were proposed and the way the developer provided the information is that they sought approval for all three homes at one time. Some of you may have been here at that point and they kind of showed the three homes that were proposed. We had a lot of back and forth discussions about this because there were front entry garages, limited amount of masonry, front porch, and very narrow lots. So we were trying to work with and assist with the petitioner. These were the three homes that were approved by the commission. Only this home here, 1119 Hilltop, was actually constructed right away. This is the proposed home in the middle, which is the one that is before you today, 1123 Hilltop. For the most part, it has stayed the same. This is the elevations that were provided to the commission back in 2023. These were the notations that we had talked about at that point, that these were front entry garages, which again, by code, we do not prohibit front entry garages. By guidelines, we You know, we try to encourage that the front entry garage does not dominate the front elevation. And that could be by stepping it back or so. And these do. And I'll go through that in just a second. And then these were the footprints. This was the footprint for 1123. And you can see they had like this porch component here that stuck out in front of the garages in each of the three units. And that was the projection outward. with the 5-foot setback for the garage doors in each case. They had detention in the back area. They had a patio in each one of them, and they both complied. We did note that we had concerns about the air conditioning pad that was located in the side yard setbacks, and that we'll see in just a second has been relocated. All right. This is now the proposed petition that's before you. You can see that here is the AC equipment has been located to the back end of the corner. But there's been a couple of modifications. One is that you can see this 25 foot setback aligned here with the front porch. And you can see now it's a 20 foot setback with the garage face 25 foot back and then the front porch up to the front. We just want to get that shifted back to the 25 foot line. And the reason we do this is we know that we are getting more and more vehicles. It's a two-car garage. Two cars should aptly fit inside there. It's pretty narrow though. It's about 20 feet in width, even though you see that 21 in there. And then you have the front pad. The goal here is not to have these cars overhanging on... on the sidewalk. That's why we want to push at least a little bit back 5 feet in there, kind of like they were originally proposed in this this to make sure that this detention pit, which is located here, gets pushed back as far as it can towards that northwest corner. The sole purpose here. So the our new resident will have a yard, a viable backyard, put a trampoline, put a swing set, maybe a pool or spot. Who knows what they'll do back there. So we want to make sure we kind of try to push this back As we can, there are electrical that wasn't considered or shown in the old plans. They're showing right here. So there may be some issues or so, but we would like to get that kind of shifted. So they have a little bit more viable area. The patio area was increased from a 12 by 12 to a 15 by 15. So it's become a little bit larger, but it makes sense. Again, it gives the resident some viable use of the backyard in that area. And then we want to make sure that the detention pit is connected to the MSD main. So all the stormwater that is generated on the roof will go to the detention pit. And then once it overflows, it goes directly into the MSD main. We found out that MSD does authorize and prevent those. This is under the old system where it goes into the detention pit and then just pops up once it falls out. Here's an opportunity to get that connected to the MSD main. And then we do want to acknowledge that there is an egress well in the side yard setbacks that was authorized in the 23 approval. I'm fine with it now, but we've been trying to dissuade them. So you want to make sure like somebody could get a lawnmower around there so they can go to the backyard just as easily. Be glad to answer any specific questions. We have the new property owners here and there. And again, this was one of those, again, we approved it in 2023. We did modify our building codes in the process in there, so they'll have to comply with that. But everything else was in place when the initial review went through. Okay, so there are no tree there were no trees in present to just I'll note that because I would that was something we didn't have in place at the time. So that area had pretty much been clear cut back here.

The the third house that's still standing that hasn't been knocked down. Correct. This well, what would be here?

Let me see if I can get there is Google questions for Carlos.

Anybody? Okay. Would the petitioner like to come up and talk a little bit and maybe address some of the changes that Carlos is recommending?

Hello, my name is Scott Paul. I am with Vanderbilt Homes, 2617 Windcrest Ridge Drive, 63005. Carlos, can you pull up my rendering with all three houses on there?

Sure.

Please. Obviously, we'll follow any and all rules. I know Carlos and I Told me about what he wanted to do with the wet. Well, we will tie it into the storm sewers. That is not something we'd like to do. What we fear for is when that system gets surcharged, it will also then surcharge the wet well system and then force that water to empty at the downspout connections next to the house and puts water around the house. However, I have done it both ways. That's just 1 of our concerns. So, whatever the city wants us to do, we will do it. I have no problem moving that wet well around as much as possible. On top of the masonry, I think we hit the masonry just as much as they did on the first one. And if you see the color rendering we did for it as well, that looks pretty nice.

Yes, I'll bring that. Bear with me. Sorry. That's okay. Here's the close-up, and then I do have the three.

Put it with the three there. That third house, I don't know what happened to that. We do not own that one. We did pick this lot up from the previous builder. If you have any other questions, please let me know.

What about the front yard setback?

That's what I was looking at on the plans there. I feel like we're 25 foot to the garage line there. Let's see this here.

Hello, Mark Kilgore with THD Design Group. So the 20-foot front setback, that is from the plat. That is from this block one of Baldwin Terrace plot, that 28 foot is the, that in the front yard, that's the setback from there. But we want to bring to your attention that we have respected the 25 feet. We've got our building ties in two locations shown and we're exactly 25 feet to the front.

Now, are you wanting us to move that back further?

Yeah, if you can see here, the neighboring property is the front porch is right at the 25 foot limit. Okay, that's what you want us to do there.

So you want us to push that front porch back a little bit more? Correct. And that will give ample... Let's do this right here, Mark. This little bit right here, that front porch back here. So we need to move it back about three feet. What's wrong, Carlos?

If you look at the 25 foot setback from the property line, property line here, and you see that 25 foot right here, it's to the point of the front of the garage. If you look over here, that 25 foot is the point of the front of the porch. So your porch kind of extends in front of this porch here. Let's push it back. We're asking to push it back.

Oh, you want the front of the porch to be 25 feet?

That is correct.

Okay.

That's no big deal. No big deal.

Yeah.

Okay.

I saw in the previous rendering about there looked like there's a fence on both sides, on the left-hand side. Is that existing or how are... I'm just worried about that well and making sure you could get back there to cut that.

I think there's a... I think there's a...

It looks like it's existing.

Yeah, there's two existing fences back there. We'll work with the property owners if they're encroaching on us. Sometimes we just let them go. They are not our fences. So the wet well, we can move it around. We probably want to keep out of the setbacks a little bit maybe.

I want to say on the position of the... First of all, Can you can you bring back up for me. And then can we pan to the rear, please, of the property. Thank you. No problem.

Bear with me one second here.

No problem. Yes.

All these things can.

Looking to zoom in on the rear of the yard here. So. Typically all municipalities require both the stormwater mitigation or detention to be at least 10 feet from the property line. And I believe that that's exactly what I am from the north property line to both the detention or mitigation. and also the edge of the level spreader where it discharges. And my level spreader is exactly 10 feet from the rear property line as well. And there's only five feet right now distance, which is pretty minimal from the mitigation chamber itself to the level spreader. So I feel it's already pretty crammed in there. Maybe it doesn't look like it. This is only a 5,000 square foot lot. Whereas the zoning typically is 15,000. So it is a small lot. And as far as the patio, the coverage allowances for this zoning and for lots under 6,000 square feet is 40% is the impervious allowed, and we're only 28%. So we're pretty significantly under that.

Carlos, is that... Considering the lot size, can that detention pit be moved closer to the rear of the... Mark brings a good point.

We've allowed it. What the code indicates is that the pop-up has to be... the way we've applied the code that the pop-up has to be at least 10 feet from the discharge of the property line.

So we can put the system over on the property line. We just got to discharge it the 10 and 10. That's correct. If we, yes. Okay. That's what you're saying.

The discharge, the discharge has to be 10, which it is, right?

Yes. That's fine. It's just the wet well. So in the wet well, we can put wherever we have no problem moving that wet well around.

Okay.

So will you go back to my question about defense? I just want to make sure that you guys are going to work with, that you're going to actually be able to get back there.

Oh, we'll be able to. This lot is narrow, but we have one going on right now. This one looks like an acre to me right now. Unfortunately, we just started getting into these smaller lots and getting into just different municipalities. We build a lot in town and country, De Pere, Creve Coeur, some pretty magnificent stuff. So we're getting into this stuff now a little bit. Yeah.

And I have a couple of questions, though.

One real quick thing, just so Commissioner Spiegel asks. So the neighbor has a fence right here. Yep. And then it runs all the way to the back.

Looks like it encroaches on the house there a little bit.

They've enclosed it back here. The house that has been built has enclosed the rear yard. And I think the color rendering you have shows that there would probably be some type of connection somewhere in that area. I mean, we can't.

And we might just very well do that.

It may or may not happen, but I think that's what's going on right here.

Yeah. We'll work it. I mean, it is what it is. We'll work around it.

Just pay attention to it. Yeah, I know. I know.

It's all kinds of fun.

Laura, thank you. Sorry.

No, I just say, I was just, oh, thank you. I was just over and looked at the Irvington Place apartments and I drove up and down Hilltop. Carlos, when you were on that other image of Hilltop.

This one here?

Yes. Okay. Okay. There's, okay. It does show the fence going around their backyard. Yes. Okay.

Okay. So I have a question about that fence. Are you saying that that's encroaching on the property you intended to build?

Per the survey. Okay. Yes. Okay. But we've had this surveyed a while back, so I don't know if they put up a new fence. We'll just double check it when we're out there. Okay.

Well, my experience and the reason I bring that up is that can lead to all sorts of potential problems with potential buyer of your house.

No, I understand. I would really get that straightened out sooner. It is more difficult to do that than it sounds. We'll do what we can with neighboring homeowners over there.

Can you tell me what the price point is going to be on this house?

We're probably going to be between $900 and $1 million.

With houses like this, new builds, I'm I'm very curious to know if there's ever consideration made to roof slopes and angles so that there is a potential for solar installation in the future. Just noticing that like the South base, there isn't a South facing roof on this house and just kind of thinking.

Well, One of the things is to respond to that question is we came, you know, we thought this was already approved. So we submitted a plan. So we're kind of stuck with this plan. So we didn't have that. Well, we since we did have to go back and get some stuff revised on it to meet the new codes. We do have what we do is. We're very big into energy efficiency, building a tight box of the house. We're actually going to be using zip panels that are automatically going to give it an R6, R value around the house before we put on our insulation. And then we seal everything very well. We use a specialized tape for the foundation. We're doing some new stuff with the tape. Trusses and gable ends where they hit the top plates of the house to help seal these up. So our houses are testing out when we do a blower door test. You're supposed to be point or 4.0 or below and we're testing out in like the 1.5 to 2.5 range on our houses. So these are already, we're building a high efficiency home here. Now to go back to the solar too, if somebody wanted to add this, I know their solar companies do have other options when the roofs are not always facing that because they're going back to existing homes, older homes and trying to do that as well. So, but to answer your question, no, we did not do any design work for that.

Any other questions for the petitioners? Carlos, anything else you think we should address as long as we have them? No, Chairman. Okay. Good. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.

Actually, I do.

Oh, sorry. Laura.

Going back to the fence, if that neighbor's fence is over, Carlos, would that be... Spivel. Well, my question is, it would have had to have been approved to...

We'd have to take a look at it. GHD does a really good job. I mean, it would be kind of interesting to do the comparison of where the markers were taken. And again, it could have been the, not necessarily the previous surveyor, but the contractor that put it in place.

Well, you know, so unfortunately, most fences, tallers do not get surveys done and they're just pulling the tape measures off and drives me nuts. So, um, like the house next door has a chain link fence. I understand that that's been there for a long time. It's probably, nobody ever thought about it. Nobody had any problems with it, but yes, somebody probably paid for that fence to be put in and it's encouraging. So we'll double check it and hopefully it's okay. If not, I will call Carlos up and work with them on that.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

I have a question. So what was said about the desire for our private storm system to connect to the MSD sewer? Was that mentioned? Yes.

Yeah, it was one of the conditions in there. We can talk with our stormwater consultant in regards to there's a concern that there would be a backflow in there. The previous petitioner provided it on the 1119 petition. That went through the review process, and we've been requiring that connection more and more. So it's a good point that you bring up, and it hadn't been brought up before, but we can check into it.

Right, that is a great point, is that it could endanger the house, and this is a large sewer pipe. This is a 36-inch sewer pipe that's going to the south, and it connects with the inlet below that to the south. It's got a 48-inch pipe coming from the left or the west, and to the east, it's a 60-inch or 5-foot diameter pipe. And so we think that there's a lot of flow in there, and there could be a lot of pressure. And we really would like to avoid establishing that connection. They would have, it's MSD's sewer, so that would also require an MSD submittal and approval, and that would be an extra expense. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if MSD would want it or allow it.

They have, and the neighbor next door has provided it.

They do. I just personally would caution against it and would question what really advantage it would cost for anybody, either the public sewer or the owner.

I'd be interested to see what our consultant says about that. He's going to want it tied in.

I know what Curtis is going to want. So we'll work through that. I mean, obviously, if we got to do it, we have to do it. I just want to get that's our concern. We do warranty our homes for one year. And then we actually there's a one, two and a 10 year warranty on our home. So I've had to go back and I have to monitor these things. Wet wells are awesome. They do a great job. They're better than the water gardens that we put in. People can actually take care of these a little bit easier because they're not going out there and having to maintain them. They do a great job. The problem is we have to worry about that water backing up to that foundation of that house.

Plus, I would open up the city to liability because, you know, if the city is the one who requires it and then there's damage that happens, then the city could potentially be liable. Whereas if it's left the way it is, whereas the private system is left private and the public system is left public, then the city is not opening themselves up to any liability.

Yeah. For the record, the city is not assuming any liability related to that right now. Okay. All right. Thank you.

I appreciate that.

On that particular point, Carlos, I guess maybe assuming someone wants to make a motion here, the connection of the detention pit to the MSD main will be subject to, you know, further review and approval by the stormwater consultant. Is that word for everybody? Okay. All right, public comments. Obviously nobody here, anybody online? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Other than what we've already discussed, anybody else have anything they wanna talk about? If not, anybody wanna make a motion?

Sure, I'll make a motion.

Thank you, Laura.

Sure. Motion to approve the site plan, community design, and concept stormwater management plan for a new home at 1123 Hilltop Drive, as noted in the memorandum from the Department of Planning and Community Development dated August 20th, 2026, subject to any staff conditions noted therein attached under the staff report with more information forthcoming about the detention pit and MSD connection.

Motion's been made by Commissioner Ragsdale. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Spiegel-Glass. Carlos.

Commissioner Spiegel-Glass. Approved. Commissioner Hickman. Commissioner Ragsdale.

Approved.

Commissioner Powell.

Approved.

And Chairman Wallach.

Approved.

The motion passes unanimously five to zero.

All right. you gentlemen all right then we will move on to 4b text amendment car condos in the lid district

Okay. Chairman, we've had discussions about this. There is an interest in property in the industrial park and a petitioner would like to do, it's a vacant parcel, small parcel, what they call car condominiums. And they're actually what they call privately owned high-end storage units for car collectors and hobbyists and of that nature in there. So we've been taking a look at this. for a while. One of the aspects of this is that they would condo the individual garages We did a tax amendment and that tax amendment is before the commission next week to start that first phase of the process. The second is I need to create some type of classification for these type of uses. So we've been working with the petitioner trying to narrow down what they would be called. Traditionally, you could call them car condos or we can try to go back to, again, we use the North American classification system quite a bit in our codes. So trying to find how that could work. in there. So the petitioner had submitted some language for our consideration. We put some stuff together and wanted to start the discussion on this process before drafting the final documents in there. We do have the petitioner in attendance too. But again, if I try to tie this to our NICIS codes or NACIS codes, 49319 is other warehousing and storage. And then we can note it's specifically a car condominium or garage condo for units that are privately owned for, you know, whether there is a description or not, or just say privately owned in there. Then that kind of gives us a narrowed down zoning classification for this type of use. We would consider it as a special permit because again, it may be appropriate in one location, but not in another location. So some of the thoughts and some of the suggestions working with the petitioner, again, whether there should be a minimum lot area. The lot that's being considered is not that big, so a little concern on that. But limitations on hours of operation, hours of access, security. Overall maintenance, uh, provisions for common areas, uh, restrictions on any commercial activity, uh, operating out of out of the condos, uh, insurances that there's no living or sleeping space within those condos, uh, consideration whether we should restrict any type of vehicles like RVs boats or so I would like Mr McLaren to kind of comment on that because that might be the purpose for these 2. restrictions on outdoor storage, you know, beyond the realms of the structure itself and they need noise restrictions. So these were simple points that kind of noted just kind of Googling different type of car condos and comments that they have. Mr. McLaren has also provided some information that you have as part of your packet and was posted on there. And again, this is just to kind of start that discussion and get some guidance on what direction the commission would like me to pursue.

I have some experience with car condos. I love them and actually needed one close to Olivet when I had a couple of classic cars. The only thing I would have any concern about is any attempt to do restrictions on access and hours and all that because these are condos and they are not where you live in them, but they are owned typically and they usually have an association among the owners and they have a condo fee. And I think that a real classic car enthusiast is going to want 27 access to their car. And I don't think that if you if you restrict that to 7am to 9pm, or something like that, I think that I have a hard time selling them. These people buy these cars because they're, they're insured, they're usually well maintained, and they don't have room in their own personal garage. for these automobiles. So they go out and they rent either a slot at the car museum down in Overland, or they go find a car condo, and there's a beautiful one out near Spears St. Louis Airport that's probably the model of how those should be built and operated. But anyway, I think the attraction to those is that I basically am renting a garage that I can get to anytime I want. I think that's just a real important part that if I was building a car condo and owning it and selling it, I would resist any kind of attempt to put restrictions on hours of operation on it. And most people will not be parking those kinds of vehicles outdoors. And I think... noise, unless they're doing power drilling at 11 o'clock at night, which could be kind of a nuisance. You know, that might be an issue that we'd have to save. But, you know, typically, these are storage units and people want to climate control shelter for their expensive collectible and they tend to be pretty well behaved overall.

I would say I'm inclined to agree on most of that. This is something that I think people are probably not likely to access very late at night, but probably are going to want that. ability to do so. I think I agree that I'm more concerned about noise restrictions than I am about people just going there and seeing their cars at any time that they really want to do that. Um, I think maybe Petrie brought this up when they initially came in here is that it's like a party zone. Well, we're not really worried about the people that own the cars. We're worried about their kids or, you know, people, people like that, uh, you know, who, um, may want to use it for activities outside of what we're sort of envisioning. So sort of like the loitering prevention and noise concerns. I think that's more where my, my focus would be on that. Um, Ezra, I see we've got security on here. I mean, I don't really know exactly. I think my understanding from the last time when they came in here, it was sort of like there isn't going to be somebody there all the time. It's just the responsibility of the owners to, you know, manage their own condos. And, you know, there isn't going to be additional security other than, I don't know, fences or that sort of thing. Maybe that's not the case. And I suppose the owners could hire their own security folks if they wanted to, but.

There's usually a gate in the perimeter on a drive-by, and the owners have a cone that they punch, and the gate opens, they drive, and the gate closes. That's the security. Right. I mean, anybody needs to come and jump on that. Sure. It's a blockade.

But there's nothing else in there. Then you've got to go to the garage where there's actually something or inside the building where there are lobbyists. There's nothing outside.

And the individual condos are also locked.

The other thing is I saw on, I just looked up the one at Chesterfield and they do do boats and RVs in those too. They specifically say that on there.

the one in chesterfield is quite a bit bigger site oh yeah yeah yeah but they they host they have some people have rv i have rvs in them and boats and right anything bosses just want to acknowledge mark we see your hand up just let us finish talking amongst ourselves for a moment and then we'll we'll get you on here um

I mean, definitely on the no living or sleeping space. I don't think that's what they're after anyway, but that would be an obvious one.

But I recall the picture or the renderings there was kind of, well, certainly was implied that this was going to be a place for congregation of the owners. And it looked like there was some kind of lobby, if I recall correctly, with bathrooms. And so to say no living space, I mean. I don't know, you have a bathroom and a lobby that, you know, with couches, it's living space. But, you know, I, you know, the way it was presented was this is going to be a great place for us to hang out with our co-rich people and look at our cars, you know, I mean, so, yeah.

I guess I differentiate between there's a lobby, which I suppose somebody technically could go in there and go to sleep, but it's not like there's no privacy. Right, right, right.

No, I don't consider it a sleeping space.

In those condos, they said that they could put a bathroom in there and you could have plumbing, you could have a wet bar, you could do those things. So yes, I agree with no sleeping, but yes, it's not just the lobby we're talking about.

Right.

I think the question would be, how do you enforce no living or sleeping? can't don't allow a lobby and bathrooms this is storage it's the same as self-storage yeah no i mean this is the same concept well i at least in the renderings that i remember seeing a few months ago or a year ago when it came through it it's not the same as a self-storage when it's it's it's definitely a higher end there's there's more that's in these um it's not just a garage it's

This is going through the special permit process, right? And so a condition of that can be essentially like you can't let anybody sleep there or use it as a domicile in any way. And if we find out that's violated, that violates their special permit.

And that would be part of that discussion. Yes. I mean, the answer is yes, but there's two components to that because as a condos, there would be the HOA group of regulations that they within themselves enforce that And then those that you're asking the city to enforce through the special permit in there and who's responsible for whom. As a staff enforcement individual, I prefer that they monitor that than us getting a call that somebody's sleeping there and we're trying to figure out whether there's, you know, is or isn't.

Can we make that a stipulation of their condo association bylaws?

Yes, because as they go through that process, they'll have to prepare those bylaws. Yeah.

And do we see those bylaws?

Yes.

But again, if somebody violates them, it's still up to them to enforce them. That is correct. We can't enforce their bylaws for them. Correct. Our method is to take away their special permit if they're violating the conditions, right? That is correct. Again, I don't think that's what they want, probably. I assume that they don't want people sleeping there, but... Realistically.

Yeah. But that complicates it because, again, it's easier... I shouldn't say it's easy... there are less obstacles in taking someone's special permit from operating a coin operated laundromat as opposed to dealing with 23 individuals and pulling a special permit because all of a sudden it's more than just that.

Okay. Anybody have anything else on these discussion points or anything else before we bring on Mark? Okay. Mark, we're going to bring you over now to answer some of our questions. Reminder to make sure your microphone and your video is on.

Sorry, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, perfect.

Mark, do you have any video access that you can turn on at the same time?

My camera is not working, so I apologize. I was trying to get it working earlier, but for whatever reason, it's not. So I apologize. Mark McLaren, KLM Develop. Again, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this project. I'm happy to answer any questions you guys had. I made several notes while you were talking that I'd be happy to address of some of the discussion points. One of the first points one of the members brought up was limits on access and his doubt that Somebody would want to buy with limits on access, and I 100% agree. My stipulation or thought process on our limiting the access is limiting the access for group-type events, and I think that goes to some of the noise concerns. I think under the bylaws, what we would say is because there will be events, you've got, you know, this is going to be 18 individual condo owners and, you know, five of them are going to get together and say, well, let's do a little weekend party thing and, you know, have some wine and enjoy and look at our cars. I think what we would, we, when we talk about limiting access and use, it would be to that. We put a time limit on how late that type of event could go. But somebody wanting to go in and look at, play with, work on, do whatever to their car, polish their car, could go in at any point in time to do that, whether it's 3 o'clock in the morning or not, which goes to overall access and security. We would not have on-site security. I think this was one of the items discussed just a second ago. We would not have on-site security, but we would have video monitored security. so from an access point and the only it would be controlled access only through the gate and only through an ownership code one of the other areas talked about was the facilities and could they be used for residential type sleepover type arrangements each individual condo would be established or built with the assumption that there's going to be a bathroom and plumbing in there. And not everybody's going to do that, but most of them probably are going to put a bathroom. We're going to plumb everything out for that. So they could have a bathroom in there and they could have a wet bar in there. Certainly under the bylaws of the association, we would have that there would be no overnight sleeping. There's no, you know, setting up a bedroom type thing and constantly using it. I can't say that somebody might have a couple of drinks and pass out on their floor overnight and wake up the next morning. That can always happen. But we certainly are not establishing that. And the group area, the lobby, I don't necessarily call it a lobby as much as it's kind of, it's their own little bar lounge, right? Where they, maybe they've got a little communal area where they can all get together and have their little their group discussion and drinks and happy hours and whatever they want in in that space that space is entirely glass so it is very very visible with no privacy that is not intended for anything other than group gatherings so and from the comparison or thoughts on on Chesterfield that's exactly what we're looking to do right a very high-end storage for enthusiasts and hobbyists and in the chesterfield or a unit called the place is a very good example of that and right now that's the only one in st louis i will say since i introduced this to you how what was this carlos three two months ago three months ago um there has been another one announced out at westport and quite frankly i'd like olivet to be the first other city to put one in, township to put one in. So I'd like to beat Westport to the punch, if you will. But that's where we are right now.

Mark, thoughts on other vehicle types?

Yes, we would absolutely allow RVs, but only two of the current designed units would allow for an RV. So right now we only have two spaces large enough. Outside of that, we would have no limitation on if they wanted to put a boat in there because maybe they've got a special beautiful boat and they're boat hobbyists and they wanted a garage condo. I don't have any problem with that and that's not part of our restrictions that we would think of. Now using it as a service garage, operating it as a repair garage, none of that will be allowed by the bylaws. This is purely about storage of personal items.

Mark, how much do you anticipate this is going to cost for a unit?

Great question. The build cost on this, which ironically, I just got an updated budget. You know, I do some other development budgets are going up as we speak all around. It's driving us a little bit nuts. But the build cost for the 18 units on that property, inclusive of the reception area, the little gathering space, is $6 million.

And what do you expect one unit to cost? To sell? Yeah. If I would buy it, how much would I have to pay you?

That's a very good question. I won't know until we kind of go to market. But the number we've kind of talked about is somewhere between 400 and $500,000. Okay. Other questions for Mark?

One of the things that was inquired about was about noise and noise controls. And again, kind of like we talked in the previous text amendment, the special permit is also a tool on how to discourage or limit Specific land uses 1 of the things and again, it's noise is really hard to. To control, I mean, you can measure it and it's like, what's appropriate. This is an industrial park, but 1 of the things the commission might consider. It wouldn't impact the site, but then provides a level of control and restriction is a buffer similar. Like, we did with the data center seals require a 1000 foot buffer from residential properties. This site's going to be fine or, you know, in there. But then now I've kind of narrowed my industrial park from this big to this big and kind of set it in there. So that might be one way to mitigate that than trying to come up with a decibel number or something. or the hours of quiet time or something like that. And this location would satisfy that? Well, we can work to see what that distance is. I mean, because this site is pretty well isolated in the heart of the industrial park.

Okay.

Okay.

Anybody have anything else? All right. Paulus, what do you see as our next step?

I just have a question because it came up at the last meeting. Carlos had mentioned, you know, just well, it came up two meetings ago or so when the health care facility for children's rehab presented. And the question was or the awareness was just recognizing how some of these different uses change the industrial, the light industrial nature of our light industrial district. And so I'm just curious to hear from Carlos's perspective, like the kind of like the value and the, um, not necessarily risks, but the disadvantages of converting space in our light industrial district to a use like this, that is not industrial in nature.

Well, it goes down to the activity that takes place is more compatible with that of a warehouse or storage, which is permitted in the industrial park. As an office type of function, you're kind of mitigating in between the two, and that was a concern with the pediatric facility. Is that the appropriate audience to be in an industrial park audience? I think this audience is closer to to that of the storage and warehouse. Narrowing it down, this is a site, you know, it was created like right before I started, so around 1998, this parcel was subdivided. They were looking at some microchip little facility at that time to do it, but it never happened. And then, you know, there was just no interest in developing that site. It's a destination place for sure because it's not visible from all over, even Duman Industrial in there. And it was kind of a remnant piece of a larger industrial user that was in front of it. So it was very difficult to get interest in that site. Then we did the NID and we created some of that right away in there. And that kind of narrowed down the depth of the parcel even more, make it a little bit more difficult. We had the last interest, I think was around 2020 or 2022, where there was somebody that wanted to do a dog park, more of a club, pub only thing. dog park that one I didn't think was the highest and best use, but this has been a difficult cycle. And there and I don't know I don't know whether it's the all the utilities are there so it's not an issue about utilities not an issue about soils. But it you know it's hard to find. And there, I think it would be a nice investment and an improvement. in there, but in terms of the highest and best use or an intensity use, it just doesn't have a good visibility to be up there. I think it's a good question, and I think there's various ways to look at it in there, but that's just my view on that.

Thank you.

Great.

next steps Carlos so the next steps would then again I'll work with Mr. McLaren and hopefully for our next meeting then we can narrow down what the code language would be the sections and all that and get that before the commission in that process and again I go based on the There appears to be a consensus of support, but that doesn't lock the commission in any way. But the crucial steps, especially for Mark, would be to get ahead of the game is, I mean, is start looking at your engineering, start looking at your architecture in there because I'm getting the sense that there is some support that still has to go to council. Can't assume that the council, uh, is said, I think he asked some good questions in there and that they'd probably be looking at too, from a different perspective than the commission would, um, and there, but, uh, that, that would be at, uh, I think we can get something codified for, for the commission for, I think it was September third, September 3rd. Okay.

Okay. Great. Um, I guess, did we ask about public comments? I guess we didn't, but is there nobody else here? No, there's one other person. Okay. DRWJR, if you want to speak, now's your opportunity. If not, then we will move on to Item 5, 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you for joining, Mark.

Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to provide. We'll try to get in line for us.

There's been interesting information.

There's been interesting information. If anyone gets a chance to read the federal housing bill that just got adopted in there and And looking at it, some of the goals are to make modular housing more prominent in their use. They're also using CDBG funds. There's a big discussion about CDBG funds in there where if you create more housing units, you would get more federal money. But if you create less housing units, you're going to get less federal money, which means if you're out in the exurbs, you're going to get what traditionally came into the inner city areas or so, because we just don't have the space or the availability or the numbers that they can produce in there. So that's been kind of interesting. And there, the state has also been talking about that, that every community will have to have some type of district that would permit alternative type of housing, like duplexes and modular homes and that nature to help expedite in there. But I think, you know, the bigger picture, I mean, And I'll stress continuously, we have to look at this holistically. We have what we control within our realm, which is through land use. But construction costs, we just had a home renovation, a pretty major one, where the estimated cost of construction was $1.7 million in there. And then we saw the orchards recently where they were doing this. pretty large renovation and addition in there. And those costs just seem to be getting going up and up and up and up. Then there are the financial components and the, you know, the, whether it's mortgage rates, financing and all these, and then direct assistance. And that's where the, you know, we're on this end on the, on the councils or governments can come to play providing subsidies and things of that nature. So again, we'll, Forward on our land use component of it, but think about there's a lot more pieces of this puzzle to try to address in addition to that.

All right, very good. In that case, we'll move on to number 6 a, that's other business 9, 3, 2, 1, all the Boulevard. This is the mercy ambulatory pharmacy.

This I had at the last meeting and I forgot. So I apologize. So when Mercy Ambulatory Care Facility came in at 9321 Olive Boulevard, the commissioner requested because of Chapter 428 and the amount of EFIS to get some alternative materials and then clean up the front elevation. You'll see the existing lower elevation here. All this pink area or what's kind of like a soft tone area is EFIS. And they're going to be replacing all that with hardy board, and then getting rid of the pyramid up here and creating all that area. And then again, all the ephus, it's hard to get a really close pickup because this building is so long, would be removed. All this would become more of a hardy board and a masonry panel type of system.

All right. Anybody have any thoughts on the aesthetics there? Tim?

Can we see a street view of that, like on Google Maps?

Sure. And that's what you're going to have down here. The building is so long, but we... Bear with me one second here. Is there a specific section?

No, it may be in my head. I was just that, yeah, perfect. Is that not brick up there?

This here is brick. This here is brick. And then this is like a split face. Right. Yeah. But this was, I believe, I know this was Ephus. Correct. I think here there was kind of an Ephus or coating in there.

Yeah. So, okay, now I understand. So we go back, I'm sorry. Absolutely. And maybe I missed, I thought you were saying that that brick was turning into ethos?

Oh, no, no, reverse.

Okay, that's what I heard. I just want to make sure.

More to a hardy board and masonry panels.

It's just that light part that's changing. Correct. Basically.

On here at the column and the interior, and then they'll clean up the split face down here.

Yep. I'm good. I just want to make sure we're still going to school.

Okay. They remove trees. So it's easier for us to see this or is this what their landscape plan is going to be a good question in there.

So we do have their landscape plan and I'll show you here not part of the process in here. We're trying to narrow that down. But they are required to do the streetscape improvements along all of them. You can see how they're doing that. There's like two sets of trees. The trees closest to the road will be impacted, whether within the sidewalk realm or because it's the adjacency. The ones closer to the back will kind of be maintained. So bear with me one second. I'm going to go back to the views here and there. So these rows should stay pretty well. Okay. These here, because if we require the sidewalk, which we are, it's going to widen and impact these along here. Now, we had some, you know, it was kind of brought up and there was some comments that, you know, that they were, you know, that there may have not been in the best of health. So these here will probably get impacted, but they will get replaced with the street trees. The ones further back will probably, I'm hoping they can maintain those as well. Okay.

I know as council, we approved the sidewalk along all of what the streetscaping and probably about 30 seconds after we approved it, I had Buyer's remorse. So I just feel like going on the record now for saying I really wish we had pushed to move the sidewalk in between those.

Yeah, I agree. This is a shame to have to get rid.

I think it's just, there's like perfect space for a nice tree line sidewalk there and get that darn sidewalk off of Olive and

Is there no way that we can push for that? And still meet are the intent of our guidelines.

We'd have to change the code. And I think if that's the, the intent of the council, and I get it getting a little bit better understanding, you know, that we're shifting away from what we've, what we've, we've traditionally done and codified in code wise. And let me show you and it's a good question. I. But it would be something if that is.

Bear with me here.

So this chapter 428, we adopted, uh, in there to further the, the, the vision of our 2004 strategic plan, which was more about identity, uh, in there. And there was specific things, I mean, down to the detail of what, uh, what the preference was at that point. And, you know, this is the thing that we require by code. It's not one or the other, with some exceptions that we found out on the south side of Olive because of the amount of utilities. But this, let me get to that detail.

It might have been just up.

I thought it was just a little bit. It might have been just up.

I think that was the buffer. And again, that might be something here, the streetscape profile. Well, you're right. Well, no, here it is. And here it is. I mean, we got pretty specific of what our expectation was along Olive was to provide a five foot transition area with a hardscape in there with the light tree, light tree, and then a seven foot wide uninterrupted pedestrian way. And then within the 10 feet to provide what we call the streetscape edge, which would include a landscape wall in there. So this has all been codified and this is what we kind of push into the process, especially like along the north side of all of it. I think, you know, if this could probably be where that, you know, the change would need to occur. Because we gave this, you know, the specific design, not the construction detail, but pretty close to what it had to be.

What was the date of this?

I'm going to say, well, about 2012 was the original. It's been modified in 2019, but I can't tell you, not that I can't tell you, I just don't know what specific part. But I think this was part of the original.

On this side, I would definitely caution against putting that sidewalk right through the middle of those two trees. You may not only lose the trees you're trying to save by putting that sidewalk, you may lose the other ones on the other side too as well. You're getting right in those root systems. And those trees weren't planted to have something right beside it where the ones that we want on olive will be made for a deeper root system.

Okay.

Good question. Something we can take a look at, you know, as we do our modifications to the new plan and there, but this would be probably the detail, you know, guidance from the council of like, whether this is something we still want to pursue or look at different alternatives, whether that this five foot becomes a green space and we push just the sidewalk. further down, or we narrow the sidewalk to five feet and increase the green space or the transition area to seven feet, or there's different things. What we do know for sure, if you measure from the curb, for the most part, we have 13 feet of right-of-way in there. So that's what this is designed, was based without, we were getting pushback of placing the public sidewalk on private property. And not from mercy. This is from in the past. And most property or developments did not want to have that sidewalk on the private grounds. And most of them didn't want to give it away as right of way.

Okay.

Uh, no action to take on this particular item though.

Well, it was, yeah, the commission's okay in there. So the overall commission requested after its approval, and this did also go to council, but it was, but the elevation was supposed to come back to the commission just for a final review.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay. Great. Um, All right. Election of officers. I assume we're going to skip that.

The election is fine. It would be nice to have the full group.

It would. Are we running up against any statutory requirements or anything?

I do not believe so. I think it is noted that the first meeting in August is the election of officers, but I haven't had the full group. I think we're okay.

All right. All right. Then we'll move on to see meeting minutes. Don't see any- No minutes would be provided. And then reports.

So you have the schedule of events here on the right hand side. Our next meeting is September 3rd, which is Labor Day week. Please let me know if anybody has any scheduled conflicts as we're getting back into the school season and then followed by September 17th. We do have quite a volume of petitions. I think I'm up to three or four homes that we're reviewing. in there, then we did get the first round of plans for Olive Crossing to create the opportunity to put the Texas Roadhouse and then the Texas Roadhouse proposed plan or layout in there. That'll probably come probably more towards the September 17th meeting in there. Work continues at Olive and North Price Road. There was some utility issues that have been holding up the project And there, it looks like those have been resolved. Hopefully work starts next week and it shouldn't take too long to get that, the remainder completed. And there, outside of that, I'd be, oh, and don't forget the Rexace hardware has a ribbon cutting schedule for Friday, September 4th. And there, they went to council for their public hearing last week. along with AIMS, ADAS, which is the auto facility that was on Bower Park. This coming week, I have three public hearings before the council, which includes the AIM indoor field hockey, the SSM pediatrics facility on Newman Industrial, and then the text amendment regarding the condominiums.

Any hotel updates? No, sir.

Great questions to ask when the next set comes up.

Okay. Great.

Kate? From council, there's two other things. Spire, the construction that Carlos alluded to on Olive that came to a halt is we have to do an easement to allow Spire in there to move the gas line, which is why things have come to a halt. um but that where are you talking so this is price and olive oh where the cbd craton little little building came down the road is widening um discovered a gas line had to stop work do the easement things are moving forward but you know you have to go through all the all the steps and and process channels um the only other thing at the council meeting that uh is worth noting is that we approved the purchase of a new fire truck. And those typically are about three years from approval to delivery. So that part is in motion, but it'll be a little while before we actually see the new fire truck.

Very nice. Okay, great. Unless anybody has anything else, then we will conclude the meeting at 841.

I have a question for you. Let me stop recording.