Planning & Community Design Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, so you're live and coming as soon as you're ready to start.

All right, let's call to order the Olivet Planning and Community Design Commission meeting for September 3rd, 2026. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

Tim Spiegelgeles.

Present.

Clark Hickman. Present. Petrie Powell. Present. Sam Wallach.

Present.

Kamala Ragsdale. Jenna Natt and Felicia Ford are absent.

Thank you very much. We also have Carlos Trejo, Director of the Planning and Community Design Department, along with Doug Doty, Senior Planner, and we also have Council Member Kate Pishon-Hellman joining us today. Welcome, everybody. Thank you for being here. I think everybody's probably been here before, but I'll quickly go over How we operate, we follow the agenda. There should be a copy in the back of the room. The way that it'll work is that we'll go through the agenda items. Typically, staff will give a report. The council members will have an opportunity to ask questions. Then we'll bring on the petitioner, if there is one, to also talk and potentially answer questions from the commission. After that, public comments related to that agenda item and then the Commission may discuss a little bit further and potentially take an action related to that item if necessary. If there are public comments related to any items, not related to any items on the agenda. There will be time right after this for that. For any comments, we ask that they be kept to three minutes or less to be respectful of everybody's time. And when you come up to the microphone, please make sure it's on, that the red light is on, and that you say your name and address for the record. Looks like we've got a couple of people on Zoom as well. If anybody on Zoom wants to speak during the public comment periods or if they're a petitioner, please just raise your hand and then Carlos will move you over to be a panelist. Once he does that, make sure that your mic is unmuted and that your camera is on and similarly state your name and address for the record.

um did i miss anything carlos no sir okay any announcements before we just a couple of quick announcements we'll kind of uh prep the commission up here the city council did approve special permits for rick's ace hardware which has their grand uh opening tomorrow their ribbon cutting uh they also approved the special permit for ads which is the uh the uh the sensor calibration facility for cars at 10401 Bauer. They held public hearings for the SSM permit, special permit requests at 9375 Duman Industrial, and also for Ames Indoor Hockey at 1220 North Price. And also for the tax amendment to chapter 405, the subdivision regulations regarding councils. At the council's next meeting, they will be considering the tax rate or starting the tax rate process. And then in general, the price and olive intersection work has commenced in there. There's been some utility issues in there, but they started working on that this week. And hopefully that would lead to another couple of weeks of work for completion and then public works has completed the draft stormwater management plan, which will be bringing to the commission for for review and amendments to the code for that. That will address and there's been talks from the commission of looking at things a little bit more holistically and then also narrowly within the individual lots. And it's going to re, codify our stormwater. chapter and the conditions that need to be submitted.

Excellent. Very good. Okay. In that case, we'll do public comments now. Does anybody who's present here or online have any public comments? Not seeing any in the room. I'll give everybody online just a moment. It doesn't look like it. Okay. In that case, we'll move on to item 3A. This is old business, and this is text amendment, coin-operated self-service laundromats in the COR district. Carlos?

Chairman, we've had this discussion on this item since July 23rd, and we've been kind of going through the process. Just going to go real quickly on the summaries, the slides that we've seen already. We had a request to... for the city to consider coin operated laundromats, which are right now prohibited through the code. And so the commission has been looking at the comprehensive plan and the catalyst strategy as key discussion points. We looked at what the code right now kind of says, and it has this except coin operated section. We talked about this and then, but we do allow dry cleaning. So long as it's under 5,000 square feet and anything greater is a special permit. There are locational requirements and lot area requirements. We considered a simple amendment of just authorizing dry cleaning and laundry services and exempt or taking out the coin-operated component that you see here and there. And we've been having some discussions on what type of conditions would be placed if we were to consider coin-operated laundromats in our COR district. And we talked about hours, on-site attendant, and wash-and-fold services. Commission then asked us to take a look at what other apartments, the apartments and what type of facilities they have. We talked about that in our previous meeting and then look at, you know, within a five mile radius, how many other establishments are in close proximity to Olivet. And then we talked about that at the previous meeting. Then we looked at the COR district, which represents all this red or salmon color that you see here along Olive Boulevard with 170 being on the far right. So where we're at is I think we've drafted something for the commission to consider in there. And we think it's pretty simple, but every time we take a look at it, it impacts other components of the code and we need to make sure it's consistent. So in this case, again, we're looking to rename references And what we use is North American Industrial Classification System, NAICS code, to just allow dry cleaning and laundry services, which under that umbrella, coin operated, would fall. under. We talked about reducing the square footage from 5,000 to 250 square feet. That would be by right. So anything larger than 2,500 square feet would require a special permit. Anything smaller would be permitted by right. So they could locate in an existing building in that process. When we do that, We would have to change the conditions in our special permit procedures. One is about the location requirements and the land area requirements to exempt the the exempted coin operated, so they would not be subject to the land area requirements. Now, if a laundromat were to be proposed with a drive-through window or drive-through service, they would be subject to the location requirements and the land area requirements. And then we talked about conditions that would be placed not just for coin-operated, but for all dry cleaning and laundry service establishments. And that one, the limitations on the hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., that they would have an on-site attendant present through the hours of operation, that they would provide wash and fold services on-site. Uh, and then we started looking, going back to our comprehensive plan and some of the sustainability efforts is to ensure that, you know, all the, uh, washer and dryer units are certified, uh, energy certified or energy star certified models. And then we threw out whether the commission wants to consider any conditions on electrical use or power use, uh, in there. And that subject, we're looking for the commission to give us some guidance on that. And then we also looked at, you know, how does parking work with these under our current code? Uh, dry cleaner or dry cleaning establishment is considered a personal service and therefore there would be no need for any modifications in parking in there. And what kind of parking do they provide? It's based on the size of the space that's leased out. For anything under 5,000 square feet, I think you need four four stalls per thousand, and then it starts to drop to 3.5 to three as you get a larger building in place. Be glad to answer any additional questions. Again, we tried to make sure that we were taking a look at how this kind of has that ripple effect throughout the code and make sure that we addressed all the other sections appropriately. We do have the petitioner here and that's it.

Okay. Anybody have any questions for staff?

Just one, sorry. I was going to talk. The 2021 Energy Star models, are those, we certain that there is such a beast in a commercial grade washer and dryer?

According to just general internet searches, yes.

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

John Lundquist, On the solar power use since that seems to be I think it's a new issue for us, I guess, maybe i'd like a little bit of feedback from the other Commission members or staff as well about. John Lundquist, Like is that a non starter to have something in there, certainly that's something that i'd love to say almost always but. I also don't want to put in a requirement that's going to be overly prohibitive. So just like some feedback, maybe on that, Tim, if you have any thoughts on that.

Make sure your mic's on. I'm not sure if all buildings could do that, could physically do that. So now you're going against something and it may not be energy efficient to do it on some buildings where they're just doing it to do it. And then the question is, now you're getting into how much of an energy do you have to have to fill in that requirement too as well? I'm under the assumption now that you do it if it makes money sense and a business owner is going to do that. The other part of it is most likely the business owner is not going to have the money to do that up front. So now they're going to get into a lease deal with these solar people and that's not exactly the best thing to do either. So I personally would let it be up to the business owner if they want to do it or not is my personal opinion. Okay. Carlos, any thoughts? Thoughts on that?

On that one, it was difficult to get the cost estimate in there. And then now without the rebates, I know we had some buildings that only applied the maximum size that was permitted under the rebates. So when you would look at the aerials, you would see maybe 2% in the roof area that they had solar panels. So they only did it because that was... the amount that they were going to get rebated for. And I'm not sure like what, you know, how, what, whether that supplemented 5% or 50% of the power in that run, it's still a little bit difficult to try to get into the details of that. And that's probably something again, through our comp plan, eventually we, you know, if anything, the exercise kind of, opened up that there are some things we need to start looking at as we start going through that process.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, in theory, it's something we want to push for, and I think the comp plan supports. We just need to be thoughtful about how we're going to exercise our power to make that happen.

And we did provide that application for data centers. We use a percentage in there, but there was a lot of data that was going out, you know, that was available about the renewable energy. There were conditions being imposed throughout different communities that they were asking for some type of renewables to help facilitate the energy demand that they had. So that one was easy. It was a little harder when you go down to laundry services.

One of the things that struck a nerve here is that while we expect them to be fairly energy-intense individuals, usage for a laundromat. We don't seem to be requiring solar power on any other business that may use just as much energy due to its size rather than maybe its function. So I'd like to have a more comprehensive approach to any requirements that we're going to put on applicants. This would be just another expense that I think I think could bar entry to a lot of businesses, especially this particular business. But I don't know. I feel like it would be premature for us to require that now in this particular use and not address all the other uses where, you know, that should be done as well. I mean, I'm all for requiring alternative energy use, but I don't want to just pick out one category of one type of business and say, well, just because you use a lot of electricity, you have to do solar power. I don't think that's fair. No. I agree.

Carl, if I had another question. When we have considered laundromats in other cities, the city reached out to the utilities such as MSD, Ameren, and Missouri American Water to make sure that the building under consideration had the infrastructure to accommodate those demands, because I'm sure it doesn't now. So has that been done and.

No, not that would be the next phase once the specific sites identified. Okay. And that is a risk that they do take. I know that we talked and we know a certain location that they're, they're considering in there. And many times that's somewhat done in the permitting process, but it's something I think for the petitioner to be aware of.

And that's with, that's with any commercial building or any, even a home that you're going into that before you sign on that dotted line, it's up to that leaseholder to know what they're signing up for and that they have the utilities to get what they need to do.

Okay. Well, I guess, does the petitioner have anything that you want to say? You don't have to, again, but you're welcome to if you'd like to.

Okay. There would be, Chairman, if you don't mind. Julian, if you don't mind coming in and speaking. Hi. Hi. One of the, and we kind of did talk a little bit about it, but about, you know, you probably have more experience with these type of facilities, but are there any that are using like alternative energy standards in place?

No.

And you said primarily, so some of that was the cost and their city. And then the dryer units are usually run by natural gas. Correct.

Gas. So the dryers will be gas and the washers will be electric. There is currently a one inch water line in the building. So it will need to be upgraded to at least a two to a two and a half inch water line.

Is there any special grease trap or anything like that that you have to put for dissolving the chemicals or anything that goes through the washer?

No, there's not. And all machines will be top-of-the-line machines. So they will be high-efficiency machines, washers and dryers.

Okay, very good. Any other questions for the petitioner? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Appreciate it.

I had a question just real quick with the drive-through window because I don't know, have we just, have you all discussed drive-through options? I feel like the drive-through piece is new this time around. Is that, is my memory correct?

Yeah, I don't remember discussing that part.

So I'd be curious to hear, Carlos, what are the specific additional things that would go along with a business that might have a drive-through window?

Okay. Bear with me one second. So this is just a quick summary in terms of how our code is set up electronically on our website. Our zoning regulations are under chapter 400. And then as you've seen, we're working on the COR district and the special permit conditions. Under the special permit conditions, There's the intent and purposes, authorized uses, and then some of the amendment procedures and then standards and conditions in there. As you go through special permits and the standard conditions and procedures, there is a section here that is specifically for any type of establishment that has a drive-through or a standalone ATM or kiosk. and the conditions are that, and this is already part of the code, and the windows should not be facing all of that, or all of Boulevard, excuse me. One menu board, one accessory board per aisle, no temporary signage on the site, some landscaping, if it's located within 50 feet from originally zoned property, some additions on the menu board and vehicle stacking, um and then and it goes down and then it has conditions on the drive aisle sorry placement and then atm and kiosk in there so those are already part of the code and the way the the ordinance right now reads is uh because it was just based on the traditional dry cleaner uh if there was ever a dry cleaner that provided some type of window service uh they would well

whether they yeah they would be subject to those conditions and they're let's get that address what you're looking for or do you want to go through the the one piece that i had in my mind from a previous discussion was that there was a land area requirement is that right if a drive-through were to locate on a business any business whether it's a laundry or a fast food that there's a a land area requirement so i'm going to go back through through the standards and conditions uh

And there, so when we look at our standard, these apply to all special permits and there, there are general conditions. And that's compliance with the zoning district. You know, further is a comprehensive plan and then we start looking at the parcel shape and size. We start looking at character. And then, you know, mitigation, and then that the city has the right to consider additional locations. So that that's going to be B. Then we add condition C, that these type of uses, convenience stores, limited service restaurants, bars, dry cleaning and laundry services, and standalone ATMs, there is a location requirement. That's what the C represents. And then the location restrictions in there. Then we get to D, minimum land area requirements. And it goes again, these type of uses, auto-related uses, convenience stores, beer, wine, liquor, motion picture theaters, outpatient care centers, nursing care facilities. It goes on and lists a variety of different uses. D is saying that any of these uses, and that includes dry cleaning and laundry services, have to have a minimum land area requirement of 80,000 square feet. And then it goes, okay, it creates E and it talks about access and traffic. And it says these uses, convenience stores, beer, wine, liquor, motion picture, limited service restaurants, dry cleaning and laundry services, anything with a drive-through or ATM, they have to provide essentially a traffic report. in that process. And then it goes with F. Any drive-through and standalone ATM or kiosk has to meet a design, a drive aisle, a placement, and then there's additional conditions for the ATM or kiosk in there. Then you get to G, and then G starts individualing. It starts calling out each individual use and then provides additional conditions that are only associated to that use. So in an automobile parts and accessory tire store, it is subject to maybe A, B, C, D, and then G, that there should be no auto repair or installation of parts on the grounds itself. Go ahead.

Carlos, then is it fair to say dry cleaning and laundry services without a drive-through window are not subject to that minimum land requirement? That is correct. Okay. So that 80,000 square feet requirement only applies if there's a drive-through. If there is a drive-through, yes. Okay. Does that answer it?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? What's our next step, Carlos? Okay.

So, Chairman, if those conditions are well, and again, we're renaming it to just dry cleaning and laundry services, which coin-operated falls under that umbrella, we're going to reduce that square footage from 5,000 to 2,500 square feet. And what that does, that still gives us some type of control. It would be difficult that somebody is going to buy a lot on Olive Boulevard just to put... 2,500 square foot. It's probably going to be about 5,000 square feet or so. And we want them to go through this process and then approved by the council. The location and the land area requirements, we're going to just make sure that the 81232 number that was designated goes down to the 8123, just like they're shown here. And then these conditions for the exception, if I understood the commission, E, so A, B, C, and D would be applicable to this type of use going forward. If that is correct, then there is a suggested motion for the commission to consider. And again, we can note that E would not be applied If I understood the commission, correct.

Okay, yeah, I think that's correct. Anybody have any.

Objection the only thing I see is in there. It's it's got the car condos. Yeah.

So, it should be. What did you see that 1? I'm sorry service.

Oh.

I think that was just an accidental cut and paste of just that title. So yeah, I think I inserted that accidentally. So if you can just ignore the green, why I'm pointing here, the green part on the third bullet point.

Okay. All right then, would anybody like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Great. A motion to recommend a stay here to change the text to a coin operated here. Yeah. Motion to recommend to the city council approval a text amendment under Article eight co our commercial office retail district specifically Section 400.740, Authorized Use Exhibit Table A, Attachment 2, changed the reference to 2007 NAICS Code 81232, Dry Cleaning and Laundry Service, except coin operated to read as 2007 NAICS Code 8123, dry cleaning and laundry services and reduce the square footage limitation from 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and conduct the same changes to reference noted therein. Article 7 special permit section 400.1223C location and 400.1223D minimum land area requirements and eliminate the condition for a traffic study under section 200.1223e, Access and Traffic, and add the following conditions for 2007 NAICS code 8123, Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services under section 400.1223g, Additional Conditions by Special Permit Use, Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services. hours of operation limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. An on-site attendant must be present through hours of operation. Wash and fold services must be provided on-site. All washer and dryer units must consist of the 2021 Energy Star certified models. Being part of the Chapter 400 zoning regulations of Title I, for land use of the Olivet Municipal Code to authorize corn-operated laundromats as presented in the staff memorandum dated September 3rd, 2026. Thank you.

Motion's been made. Can I enter a second? Second. Second has been made. Carlos.

Commissioner Spiegelglass? Approved. Commissioner Hickman? Approved. Commissioner Ragsdale?

Approved.

Commissioner Powell? Approved.

Commissioner Wallach?

Approved. Okay. So the motion has passed unanimously. And then the next step is that the motion will be drafted in an ordinance form and then forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and their first reading. And that would not occur until... I'll have to take a look at a... at a calendar 14. Bear with me one second, Chairman. Till October 13th. Okay.

Thank you. All right. Move on to item 3B, text amendment, car condos in the LID district.

Chairman, again, I'm just going to quickly go over what we've talked about in the past regarding this item has been before the commission. We initially started talking about the concept on May 7th, 2026. And then at the July 23rd meeting, we had a discussion about the condominium platting. And then at our previous meeting on August 20th, we talked about a potential tax amendment that's been submitted by the petitioner, Mr. McLaurin, that's in attendance today. So in our discussions in the past, we talked about how would we classify this type of use, lot area minimums, hours of operation, access, security, maintenance, commerce areas, commercial activity. no living or sleeping spaces, vehicle types prohibited, whether we were going to prohibit RVs, boats, and that discussion led to know that this was part of that umbrella of what's stored in the garage. We talked about outdoor storage and noise. What we looked at is, It seems like a predominant amount of municipalities call these garage condos. They use car condos a lot, but my concern was that people then think that it's for cars only. So there were several communities that used the term garage, and I think it was more appropriate to do so in there. But I think it still needed to be defined, and we provided a definition we found from a community in Minneapolis and some other areas. In there that they're individually owned or leased private garage space inside a purpose-built multi-unit garage facility where you can store, display, customize space to store exotic cars, motorcycles, boats, and other items, often with a clubhouse amenities and 24-hour security. In there that that would define what garage condos are. A lot of the times we use these NAICS codes like we did with the coin-operated, but this isn't a... Well, it is a... At the end of the day, it doesn't become a business establishment. So I was too concerned about trying to put it into warehouses in there because that might give an opportunity for other types of uses that we would want some type of control in there. So in this case, we're just going to call it garage condos. We're going to define them. And when you see that, you won't see them associated with a numeric number from the NAICDS. Given that this is a whole new use, unlike the coin operating, we already had personal services. Since this is a whole new use, we had to go look at our parking, make sure we developed some type of parking criteria for these type of facilities. We used the petitioner's conceptual layout to make sure that that... That it was appropriate. We also reviewed what other places were doing in that process also. And then we had to amend the ally district. This is the district that it would be proposed for to authorized garage condos. While we were there, there was an opportunity to clean up some auto related uses. and relocate some conditions for commercial kennels and do some touch up work that I think is minor. I look to the commission if they agree or disagree on there. I wasn't trying to rewrite the LID code. Eventually we do need to do that sometime down the future, but this was an opportunity to just kind of make sure everything was in a more legible and readable friendly format. And then we amend the special permits section to add specific standards that would be applicable to garage condos. And those standards are that the site has to have at least 60,000 square feet, that the minimum unit size of each condo unit is 1,250 square feet, We talked about noise at our previous meeting and talked about whether we would apply a buffer and I'm noting to the commission that we could require that there be a buffer distance from residentially zoned or public activity districts. If we do 300, what this does again, it gives us some type of control. It would minimize these type of facilities in a couple of our bigger buildings in there. It kind of concentrates them or centers them in the industrial park, but it does impact the Oman Rock Island and parts of Bauer. And that might be a good thing. And again, ordinances are organic and they can change over time. If this becomes the next big thing that we want to reconsider that, we can always come back. But I think to address it, you know, having this 300 foot at a minimum buffer will help us keep some control where the use would be permitted. We would restrict overnight sleeping and living quarters in there. And the second one is, this next one is kind of redundant. We could use one or the other that the premises should not be used for or customized for residential living purposes or public community gatherings or events that are open to the general population. Meaning like they can't have a huge car show within those facilities. They can have their friends over, they can have a party, a birthday party with the members, but it's not something that just you or I or anyone can just kind of walk in to and enjoy. That there'll be no exterior parking or storage. for more than 24 hours. The premises not be used for the operation of the business or retail purposes, that the management use and customization of the garage condos, including common areas and individual units, shall be governed by an association which the condo planning will require them to put together some type of HOA. The premises are maintained with adequate access to individual units and common areas or office spaces for emergency response, snow removal and storage. And the premise contains sufficient lighting and security measures to deter or mitigate criminal activity. The way we got to these, again, we looked at several other communities and what they've adopted within their codes regarding car condos and garage condos. And they put the whole list together and then kind of looked at which ones were most applicable to that and then which ones we discussed ourselves. I believe that that concludes... the changes that are in there. I hope everybody had an opportunity to take a look at that. In that process, be glad to answer any specific questions. And then we do have Mr. McLaren, who's the petitioner in attendance.

I have a question about the concept of prohibiting car shows. First of all, I don't know how that would be enforced. And secondly, A lot of these, if you look at, there's only one other car, condo, garage, condo, whatever you want to call it in St. Louis, and that's called The Place out in Chesterfield. And the people who own that frequently get together and have a, it's basically a neighborhood party or neighbor party. And I know that that's not what you're talking about here. And those have always been Well received, it's one of the perks and benefits of having a place like that. I don't know that anybody would go out of their way to invite the general public to something like that. Normally, owners of exotic cars, and I was one of them, are pretty protective about who knows where it is and what you have. that confuses me because I wouldn't want something like that to be a deterrent for either a builder or a potential owner to say, Oh, well, you know, this is too strict. I can't show my car. You know, at what point does it flow over from neighborly get togethers to, I want to bring in six friends of mine. And I, I just don't know how it can be defined and I don't know how it can be enforced. I,

i not sure that that's a provision that's necessary is what i'm getting down to i guess i look at like a car show being hundreds upon hundreds of people my son is very into cars he we used to have to go to all of them like you see one driving or sign that there was going to be a car show on the weekend. It was like, mom, can we go? And there'd be thousands of people there. I think having a garage condo and inviting six friends to come see your exotic car is totally different than a car show. I mean, there's a company in Fenton that puts a car show on every, A few times a year. There's also down in Kirkwood, there's a car show happening almost every weekend. But there's that one as well. So there's quite a few like what I would typically call like car shows. I don't think. having a few friends come over and see your cars, what I would consider a car show, though.

It's not a hell I'm going to die on because I don't believe it can be enforced anyway.

I guess I think of saying strange language that could impair. Maybe it should be like no residential living or large events that are open to the general public?

I mean, to me, I think the distinction is, you know, publication or advertisement, right? If you're communicating that a sign out on Olive that says, Saturday, come down and, you know, to the, you know, thing that's open to the general public versus invitation. The other thing as far as enforcement goes, I mean, I think the practical reality is, people are only going to enforce it if it becomes an issue, you know, in that it's going to need neighbors or someone to say, this is not operating like a private small group of individuals sort of looking at their expensive vehicles. This is becoming, you know, a festival. Right. So, I mean, I, my guess is that that's how, you know, enforcement of that particular issue might, might happen. Um, Again, to your point, I mean, the other thing is like also with a car show, I think of that as having a commercial purpose, which would otherwise be restricted here. So you couldn't do that anyway. So anyway, I think I'm okay with the language as written because I just think that's how I draw a distinction between a general opening versus invitation only. Okay.

And again, it's a great conversation and that discussion should occur. And I'm sure that some community had it because they had something to address it to. I will kind of note that like something to associate it with is a condominium complex with a pool. Again, the pool is... accessible to the residents of the condominium complex. They may invite friends in there, but I think where they would cross the line would be if somebody started charging for pool access that doesn't live in the pool. Then it leads to the next question, how does that get enforced? And again, in these, there will be an indenture system, so that indenture system can take care of that or address that privately. Or do you have to involve the city in that process? Our preference always is we would prefer to stay out because that, you know, that's something those are rules and regulations they could control within themselves. But I wouldn't want to not provide it here for the commission to talk about and then find out like I should put something. And it might be something Mr. McLaren can also kind of address because he did have some concerns about that.

Okay. We can talk about that. Anybody have any strong feelings on 300 feet versus 500 feet? I think I'm fine with 300 feet unless anybody feels strongly otherwise. Okay. Any other conditions anybody's got concerns about or want to add? Nope.

Okay. Okay.

Then I guess we'll bring up the petitioner coming up and say your name and address, if you don't mind. And in particular, we want to know about the general population question we've talked about, but anything else you want to say as well?

Mark McLaren, KLM Development. Appreciate being here. Address as well, you said? Yes, please. 5731 Waterman Boulevard, St. Louis. Thank you. Absolutely. I'm happy to answer any questions. So you want to address the public? Yeah. I mean, do you see the language here as... I do not see it as problematic for me. Carlos and I went through the language here and we adjusted a little bit. I'm okay with this. I think it works fine. My concern is, just like you were saying... People want to show their cars, but they don't want to show them to public. They don't want everybody driving down the road to come see their car. They want to show it to their friends and their five buddies or the kids or whatever it happens to be. I definitely foresee them saying, hey, we're going to do a condo association party this weekend. Everybody park your car out in front of your garage and bring your family over and let's just have drinks and wine and cocktails and sandwiches and look at everybody's car. That would not be a public event. and under our bylaws that the condo association would likely have, which we've not drafted at the moment, but it would likely preclude anybody from having a public event because I look at where I have lived in a condo, a residential condo. I don't want a big public event in my amenity space. And we would do the same thing here. Condo association approved events, yes. You and your family, yes. Public space, selling tickets, anything of that, say no. Okay. Very good.

Anybody have anything else? Did we talk about the RVs and boats and everything? I know it was brought up last time, but I don't know if we ever addressed it.

Under this scenario, they would be permitted. Okay. And that would be our desire too. Okay. I would think so. Okay.

And are these typically pre-purchased and then built for whoever has bought them? I'm just thinking very different garage door sizes. for an RV versus a motorcycle?

Correct. Correct. There will be right now, the plan is for three different size garages. We will have a limited number that could handle an RV. Most of them could handle a boat depending on your boat, right? And there's some big boats down at Lake of the Ozarks, but most of them could handle a boat, not a huge boat. but only two of them would be able to handle RVs at the moment. The rest, you're within that 50 foot by, or 25 foot by 50 foot design, or a 25 foot by 75 foot design, or even if we go to the bigger one, that's for the RVs. So you get that standard pick. We build basically a white box, and then the individual owner tailors that to their goodwill, to their desires, whatever it happens to be inside.

And for vehicles that might come on a trailer, like a boat or, you know, just a classic car that doesn't actually, is not roadworthy or road legal, do the trailers usually or the parking, the entrance to the garage, does that normally happen on an interior drive or exterior?

You would not allow the trailers to sit outside the garage. So the trailer could be in the garage, but not outside the garage. They could have it there while they're working on it, delivering it, that type of thing.

But as a consumer... Spatially, if the amount of room that's needed in order to back up a trailer and spatially how... Let me explain why I'm thinking about this spatially. It's because of the minimum land area of 60,000 square feet. I'm thinking, oh, well, we require 80,000 for a drive-thru, and I know that's the COR as opposed to the LID. So I'm just thinking through the logistics of bringing in vehicles on trailers and having enough turnaround space if the 60,000 square feet is sufficient.

Within the footprint we're talking about and we've proposed so far, there would certainly be limitations on what size trailers brought in. But certainly somebody could bring a trailer and back it into a spot in the current format that we've got. We're looking at 18 units on that entire property. So we're not densely packing that. This is an exclusive community for this particular group of owners. And there is ample room. I can't remember the square. linear feet between my two garage sections right at the moment but there's ample room for a trailer to be backed up and into a garage there again depends on your size of your trailer right and are the garage entries on the interior like i think i remember seeing a drawing this was months ago yep where it was

you know, kind of built like this, are the garage entries on the inside or the garage entries on the garage entries are on the inside.

So you drive into an alleyway, if you will. Alleyway sounds a little rough, but it's a nice parkway, let's call it. Right. And you have parallel garages facing each other.

Okay. Because I do think in the LID district where we have lots of larger vehicles that are coming in for commercial purposes and warehousing and If the driving was happening on the exterior, it could potentially pose issues just depending on where it's located and how.

What you'll see on the outside facing the road or the back or anything else would be nicely designed building with windows and landscaping. That's all it'll be facing out. Okay.

Okay, great. Other questions?

Are you going to plan on building these all at once or are you building them in sections and phases?

Great question. We will not start building them until we have pre-sold 50% of them and then we will build them all at once.

Then you'll build one shot? One shot. Okay.

One shot. Would you like to see the layout? I know it's early on. In the process?

Is that okay? Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Another question I have not related to the layout, but related to the distance from residential areas. In your experience and your experience, Commissioner, do individuals who have potentially loud vehicles like to demonstrate their horsepower in a non-moving way? If you get what I'm saying.

Yes, there are those.

There are engines.

Yes, there are those individuals out there without question. Quite frankly, that vehicle mindset and group is not the group that's most likely being targeted for us. But certainly some people with the big exhaust like to show off for their friends a little bit. So I think that's a valid thought that that could happen. No, I don't think they're doing it for a half hour straight. I think they probably rev it a couple of times and chest thump a couple of times and move on.

Once in a while, you'll have an error kind of always connected to a drill that is loose on lug nuts. That kind of stuff that you hear about car show. And once in a while, it's very funny because the car is going to be like this. they need to rather a few times to make sure. But most of the time, serious car collectors who would run to a unit like this know that running a car is bad for them. So they will only be doing it during a testing phase or to make sure that something is fixed. But usually the testosterone has left them home. They're really pretty serious collectors, you know.

I would agree with that completely.

Yeah, I just think it's a consideration for location close to residential areas.

And certainly the location we have selected is outside of any residential area.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

Two notes on that if I can. Carlos, your microphone. If this addresses some of the content of the questions in there. So when we put these together, these conditions, they're both used as a... There was a little bit of reference when we talked about the coin operator too. There are also tools and tools in how we can try to control or regulate or... Direct types of developments of where there should be. So the consideration on the, the land area, we know that Mr. McLaren is looking into specific site and that kind of sets the bar and it's the only empty side to have in the industrial park. So that that kind of. allows it. But once it was noted, I had to look at, okay, how many other sites of that size do I have and where can they be located at? And in the smaller industrial parks, there was an opportunity that these could be located a little bit closer to some residential properties or parks in there. So by applying the three or 500, it gives me an ability to use a zoning mechanism to control their placement. So then now Dillman Rock Island would not qualify as a space. Now we've allowed motor vehicle uses in those spaces, but we wouldn't allow condos in there. As we recodify our code down in the future, we will probably kind of integrate something like that again, because we can use it to try to control or regulate where these things should or shouldn't be. The same with the land area. You had talked about the 60,000 square feet to the 80,000 square feet. We use that as a means to, again, control what is available, especially on olive because the larger the lot, the more expensive the lot, the odds are to do a standalone is not going to happen. We've gone in different ways. When I first got here, if you wanted to do a drive-through, I think you needed five acres. Uh, uh, in there and that, and so when you go down page and you drive down olive, you can notice why one has more drive-thrus and the, then the other one doesn't. And that was a purposely used and a, a legal, uh, zoning mechanism to try to make sure that there weren't many, um, in that process. And sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're not. You look at the McDonald's now, you know, it's got so much space. in there, but you know, that it was probably a less expensive time. And they're saying with the Taco Bell, I think Taco Bell kind of hides in the space that it has, but it was a criteria that, that, that, that was kind of set. So that's how those are, are used, you know, in there. And I hope that kind of addresses like, I think it was a good question because yes, the 80,000 is to control some of that circulation, but it's also a mechanism to try to make it more difficult to, uh in in finding those smaller spaces that you'll see in other communities where like the the coffee shop just pops up and there's cars in the street to try to get in uh and all that or that they become we start creating a dominant corridor that there's a whole bunch of little standalone buildings that's supposed to be being integrated uh in that process and i know that wasn't what you were kind of taking that but i think it was a good thing that you brought up to kind of bring forward to the commission so Okay.

Any other questions? Public comments. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you. Okay. Public comments. Nobody else is here. There's two panelists. Are those both you, Carlos?

Me.

And Dawn. Okay, great. So we can move on from that. Any further discussion from the commission? If not, would anybody like to make a motion?

Chair, just to note that this is going with the buffer being 300. Right.

Right. Yes. Do I hear a motion?

I'll make the motion. Motion to recommend to City Council approval of a text amendment as follows. Section 400.020 definitions. Article 9, the LID, close quote, Light Industrial District. Section 400.1223, Standards and Conditions for Special Permit Uses, being part of Article 12, Special Permits, and Article... Okay, what is that? Article 14, off-street parking and loading, being part of Chapter 400 zoning regulations of Title IV land use of the Olivet Municipal Code to authorize, quote-unquote, garage condo as presented in the staff memorandum dated September 3rd, 2026.

Motion has been made by Commissioner Powell. Do I hear a second? Second. Second has been made. Carlos, please call the vote.

Commissioner Spiegelglass.

Approved.

Commissioner Hickman. Commissioner Ragsdale.

Approved.

Commissioner Powell.

Approved.

Commissioner Wallop.

Approved.

Motion passes unanimously. All right. So the next step in the process is it will recodify this in an ordinance form, and then it would be forwarded to the city council for a public hearing and a first reading on October 13th in there. However, this doesn't preclude you now if you are closing in on the site to start that process of getting your plans in so we can start review. All right.

Fantastic. Let's move on to new business number 4A. This is 9440 Harvest Court.

Chairman, I have a petition here. We received the building permit for the placement of the fence when the staff was reviewing it. They noted that a portion of the fence, which is right along this area here, would be up against the harvest lane right of way. So I'm going to give you a quick aerial shot of that and This is the house here. Harvest Lane connects from Olive Boulevard here up to the north and Engel Lane right here to the south. Engel Lane goes out onto Dillman Road. In there, there's a small court that has about eight to 10 homes in there. This corner lot would like to place an ornamental fence right along here on the edge of the property to close their backyard. And there we allow ornamental fencing, but only up to 36 inches. They're proposing a 48 inch fence. They are not going all the way up to the right away. They're going to be about five. Five to seven feet from the actual property line, and then you'll have another five or seven feet of. green area before you get to the curb. So this is roughly, you know, 10 to 15 feet from the curb in there. It is open. They do have some existing landscaping. It looks much better in person than it does in the Google streetscape that runs here. So the fence is going to be on the backside of the bushes, not in the front. And there, and then this is a, oops, of you looking to the back of the...

Sorry about this.

This is Harvest Lane going north to south. So all of them being towards me and then towards the photo would be Engle Lane. You can see the utility poles, the bushes, and then they would have a four foot fence that would be a black aluminum ornamental fence placed on their yard. Within our code, there is a section that allows, I call it a variation. It's kind of a variance process. But what the council did was they wanted it to be more of an aesthetic review than a hardship type of review. Therefore, fences don't go to the Board of Zoning Appeals because usually that's based on a hardship. It is assigned to the Planning Commission or the Planning Community Design Commission because it becomes more of an aesthetic discussion and whether it's appropriate within the character of the neighborhood and such.

Could you draw on the map here where the fence should go if we stick with the existing rules and make it not? Yes. Can you tell us exactly where, I mean, how much do they lose, if any?

All right, if it was required to go by code, it would be right here.

And is there a particular reason why other than they just have this dog and dog has issues? I mean, I don't see why we should deviate. This is the second fence we've dealt with like this and I don't see any reason to deviate. I don't think the particular occupant has a dog and that's all fine and good, but I don't see that as a rationale for changing our existing rules. I just don't agree with that. So I would suggest that we make them push the fence back to where it should be per our code.

The petitioner's not here. No. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Petrie on this and voted similarly on the last fence, which is that I know you said this is no hardship thing. It's more an aesthetic thing. But somebody made a choice based on aesthetics that we want three foot fences at some point. And that's the rule that we have. Whether that's right or wrong, I think that's the rule that we have. And to me, having a dog is not sufficient justification to deviate from that. If that's going to be enough, then we just need to change what the rule is. So... I'm sympathetic, I guess, but I feel like there are other ways to address the dog issue, and I don't feel like that's sufficient justification to change it from three feet to four feet.

And the location, not just the location of the fence.

I have more of a problem with the location, I guess, versus the height. just because I have like a big dog and I've always had a big dog. A three foot fence won't typically keep like a golden retriever or like a lab or something like that in. I mean, they will be able to put their feet up at the top and go right over. So the four foot fence doesn't really bother me as much, I guess that, but I'm leaning more towards like This is where it's supposed to be according to code. Let's keep the fence where it's supposed to be. Tim?

I definitely don't think they should have both of them. No question about it. I don't think you should put a four-foot fence right up against the street. I think that's asking too much. I would go with Petrie, I would say, unless they can say some hardship, then that's what it is.

I'm curious with the fences that you've, you said there was another fence that came.

It's a farmhouse across from your house. They put up that white fence all the way to the front of the property. The front yard. It was a front yard. We don't typically approve. So they wanted to replace a non-conforming use. And we all voted. Well, some of us voted in favor of them being allowed to replace the old farm fence with a white wrought iron looking aluminum fence. It's right across from where you live. You know which one I'm talking about.

I do. But I'm curious to know, since I wasn't here part of those discussions, what was the discussion like that That allowed that fence to go in its current location.

And at, I don't know if the applicant said they didn't want kids cutting across their property, even though on the other side of the street is an actual sidewalk and that they've had their fence there for so long. I don't know how they would surmise that you're going to have a bunch of kids cutting through your property. So that was their rationale for it.

I'm curious about the commission's rationale for approval.

That was based upon that. They decided to go ahead and allow the fence to go, replace exactly where it was currently, a nonconforming use.

It was not a unanimous decision. It was not unanimous.

Anybody who approved it wants to speak up for this. In my mind, at least somebody was there to show us their hardship. Right now, we're just getting a piece of paper that says, hey, change us.

No, they have wrote a letter and it says because they have a dog. that they need to contain.

I mean, you should be here saying your hardship.

I'll take some responsibility on that because it was something we were trying to coordinate with our schedules. So their intent was to be in attendance, but by the time and I did post this on Friday, didn't give them enough time to know that they were going to be on in there. So I would request if there is, you know, action to defer to give them an opportunity to speak to the commission.

That's right. And going back to the one on off of price, it was replacing a fence that was already there, which I think makes a little bit of difference in my mind. I mean, they already had a nonconforming fence. And so, I don't know, like, I see both sides of that one. Like, you know.

From a staff perspective, you know, I think 75% of them get approved in there. And the overall explanation of the requests has varied dramatically. I think none of them have ever been the same. But we have recognized it because it does make it more difficult for staff when we tell somebody, no, you can't do that. It was like, well, they got it over here, so I'll pay my $150,000 and go to the commission. And it's a pay-to-play type of system in there. What needs to be done is like if there is like an instance where 75, you know, for the zoning board of adjustment, if 75 percent of the same code section is being granted a variance, we quickly pick up like that. That needs to change. I mean, if they're going to be doing that, then we should be changing the code. And we do. And they're. the way it's written here, the flexibility is just given to the commission's discretion. And again, they could be for those 75%, each one could have a specifically or unique issue. A majority of them have always been corner lots. And whether the intent of the ordinance was, and I think the person that drafted the ordinance was an interior lot that wanted to put a fence in place and created those conditions. And so probably prior, there might have not been any fences on the street side. But over time, there wasn't any consideration. Like every subdivision has different setbacks. Like in Oak Estates, the properties on Mansfield have a 50-foot setback, where Hastings, Payson, Radford, Ashmont have a 40-foot setback. So you're, you're, and then a property like this has a 25 foot setback. So there isn't, it isn't a purpose of trying to keep consistency because the subdivisions change. I always look at it as like, you know, are they up against a, you know, what type of road are they up against? You know, if somebody was up against Olive, I think that's a reasonable request, both for sound and for safety and for security. And they're, you know, this one's a little bit different, but Harvest Lane is a connector road. It connects all out to Engleton Lane and Engleton connects to a lot of subdivisions in the process. I also look at the across the street is the perfect example of why these just generally don't work or what we want to try to avoid. Bear with me one second. All right. is is this uh this is as you walk towards olive you know you create conditions like this these property owners because they don't access onto harvest lane the code exempts them so they can put a six foot tall privacy fence in this case there's no gate to the fence so nobody ever walks out here and looks at the brush uh and all that these people don't somebody over here has a wired fence laid out in there. And I think these over here have a chain link fence. And it doesn't address our question, but those are the type of conditions or scenarios that we're trying to avoid in there. Here, the mortuary runs their fence all the way up to the property line on the right of way. This is the property owner, the petitioner. But this is their neighbor. They put up a fence compliant with what that setback was. And they had that brush and such.

So is the setback there a certain number of feet? The line that you had drawn earlier was like right straight off of the side of the garage, whereas that other fence had a little bump out and then went over.

It's based on... Let me go back one second. Question. It's based on this line right here. It has nothing to do with where the front of the house is. The way the code is written is that you can't extend it in front of the building line. So even if this house was, let's say, over here. You know, they could run a fence all the way up, you know, 25 feet to the roadway and kind of enclose what we would have thought would have been the front yard, but it's not. They just built the house further back. And that's where it doesn't create, the purpose of it doesn't create a consistency because we're measuring the wrong thing.

In light of what you said about the house right across the street, who is in compliance, it would be hard to justify not bringing this subject property into compliance unless they were here to voice some sort of hardship as to why they couldn't be in compliance and I mean I don't get constipated over fences I don't hardly ever notice them and this one has a bar in it and it's not a solid fence I don't believe it's a rod fence yeah I mean that's not something I even notice going down the road but You know, sitting back, if you look at this diagram, a dog has plenty of space in there. I would be curious to know why they want that extra five feet of yard. Maybe there's a very good reason given their brand of dog or the dog's behavior or whatever. I don't know. But When the house right across the street is in compliance, it's a little bit tricky to say, okay, well, you don't need to be in compliance.

No. And for, for staff again, I think, you know, I appreciate the commission looking at it from this perspective. It makes our job easier if it's a consistent process. However, the history, not nothing against the commission has been, it's difficult for staff to kind of assess how to direct them because all, all the requests have always been different to what the purpose was for, whether it was an old existing farm fence or, you know, you know, I have a dog of this size, or I'm up against Old Bonham, or I'm corner lot, or I need a bigger backyard in there.

Okay.

But Carlos, I think you're right. I mean, all those things that you just said created a hardship. They came and they said what the hardship, I just read the letter. I don't see anything in the letter that states why that needs to be farther back or why it needs to be four foot. It just says that we need a fence, which I, that's all right with code, but it doesn't say, Hey, why do you need it different than what the code says? And that's what we need. I think as a commission is what we're talking about.

Great.

All right. Yeah.

So, Carlos, will you ask them to come next time and maybe give them a heads up about some of our concerns?

I do want to say about the dog situation, though, is that, you know, dogs don't last forever. like fences do. And so I would be remiss in saying, well, you got, I have a big, you know, they have a big dog and that's why they need the forefoot. That's always going to be the case. I mean, most of these people have fences because of dogs, I would imagine, or kids or both. But the dog dies and now he's got this fence and, you know, for another 20 years or 30 years. And if they want to replace it, they still got to come back to us. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me that why we would even have any, I mean, I think it would be easier for staff personally, if we didn't have discretion up here to override, you know, the code, it would be much easier if you could just tell somebody, no, this is where you have to put your fence. If you want a fence, this is where it is. And a discussion.

But you got to always be able to, there's always conditions in construction.

Well, that's where a variance comes in. That's where a variance comes in. If there are conditions on the ground that make it impossible for them to comply with the strict letter of the code, then they can go to the board of adjustment and get a variance. But that's not the case here.

I will say from a council perspective, the more consistent that the commission is, And the clearer the reasoning that the commission is, the easier it is for council people to, when we get people who come to us and say, and this is things that I have heard from people, the commission just decides based on what they're feeling that day. And obviously you don't, but it's important, like the consistency and the reasoning and the rationale is really important. I think just from a community perspective in general. And yeah. I don't know that there's much more I can say about that.

Can I ask one more question? Based on their letter, Are they wanting to fence the whole yard or just the one line of fence? Because it talks about them having an underground fence already and this being a four-foot fence to provide an additional layer of safety. So they're asking to approve the variance to allow us to install a four-foot side yard fence. So it doesn't sound like they want to fence the whole yard. It sounds like they just want just that one piece.

looks like they want the side and the thing is well that's what this looks like yes but that's not what this letter says all right well we'll ask them next time like that's i mean definitely i agree can i just add one more question carlos if if the fence was located on that building line on that side there would the height be an issue or is a four-foot height still an issue even if it's located?

Once they get to the building line, they can go as high as six feet and solid.

Okay.

It can become a privacy.

Okay.

Yep. Okay. Well, we'll table this one for now. Just for the record, there's no public to make public comments, so we're going to skip that. Okay, let's move on Carlos. So we're going to do comprehensive plan update tonight.

There are a couple of things because we kind of push this off a couple of times, but initially we do have to get back to it. However, we were kind of readjusted staff wise to be able to address some of these issues. There was a couple of things. I just want to bring the commission's attention or either. seed for discussion in there. Clayton has some regulations where they allow two units in one lot. Call it a duplex, call it townhouses. I think they use the term townhome or attachment. Yeah. In there now, the way the district is set up is like there are some conditions in there. So anyway, as we get, you know, we've been approached, of course, but for different projects that are coming towards there, you know, starting to throw, throw that concept out and seeing what type of interest or what kind of reaction I would get from the developers. And there seems to be like, well, you know, some consideration. The big thing that we're looking at is we're looking at housing types is the land cost. I mean, for us in Olivet, you know, typical, the land cost should be 60 to 70% of the overall value. And we're reversed, like, you know, excuse me, the the dwelling unit should be 60 to 70% of the overall value, uh, because of the Ludo school district where we were reversed, the, the house, the, the, the, what's assessed in the dwelling unit is, you know, 30% of that, that overall. So, you know, it was looking at a couple of properties, um, it was down on, uh, on Downey where there there's a, uh, home from a former parents of a former commissioner member. And the house is appraised at 500,000. But the but the land value is like 399,000 in there. So someone that's going to be to look at that house, it was built in like 1965, or it was 1955. I know that's a 10 year difference, but going that it was set that far back in there has no basement is just a carport. And it's been maintained by a widow for over 10 years. In there, you know, trying to look at okay, hot, you know, there, there aren't any significant issues that are visible to conduct code enforcement, you know, like, hey, this is falling apart. But the amenities within the house or whatever it looks like in the house is like is, is where that's going to determine what happens with that home in the future, because you're gonna be paying more for land and you're you're paying for that that house. We had that situation up at the orchards where they did that. They bought a home there. I think it was, I think they paid like over $800,000, but the, the addition that came before commission, it was about two or three months ago is 1.5 million. And that's an addition. It, And again, that just gets that dwelling unit up because it's the land, and the land is only because it's the Ladue. And how do you control that? What are our mechanisms to be able to control that? But the way, at least I think in Missouri, it is set up is we don't dictate how the assessor works. in that process. We don't send out the tax bill. We don't set out the tax bill. Now, we'll set our own rate, which the council is working on right now, but you know, we represent 13% of that tax bill. So it's not like we're going to have a significant difference that we cut ours down or not. And then there are mechanisms like the county's implemented, like seniors and things of trying to control that. And it works in some areas, it doesn't necessarily work in all areas in there. So having that discussion is, you know, what are the, as we look at, you know, this thing holistically, you know, whether it's direct assistance or the financial ownership models, you know, that are out there to try to control it. We can do, you know, land use reform. We can look at, you know, talk to somebody about, you know, would you consider doing two houses on this one lot? And their thought was yes. But all I did was all that would do would be instead of a 1.8 million house, it would probably be to 800,000. And I don't know how to get it lower unless I say, hey, can you do three? Can you do four?

Couldn't you restrict the size of the house to control the cost? So, for example, if you did, you know, house can't be more than a thousand square feet. They're not going to get eight hundred thousand dollars for a thousand square foot house. I mean, that may be one. Couldn't that be one mechanism is by us limiting the footprint of the houses? to that, that could be, it could be like two or three on a lot at that point.

But again, it raises that value, the, the, the land value. And again, what are the repercussions of something like that? And I think that's a discussion we have to have. Uh, what is the impact if we're saying that, you know, like you, if you tear down, you can't put a house that's, that was as big as that was there before. Uh, And again, looking at viability of some of these homes, you know, the house without the basement, without the carport, is that, you know, how to preserve in that. Other things that they kind of discussed were, you know, the code enforcement mechanisms being more vigilant, but then they go, you know, instead of doing more vigilance, maybe it's more of, kind of coordinated with direct assistance. You know, hey, your gutters are falling, your eave is falling, and the city has a program or assistance for those type of repairs and trying to catch those up to meet certain standards and all that. But, you know, was looking at the different options in those. We are still looking at the hilltop arrowhead area in a means to make the the lot's more viable, but then the concern is opposite of what Commissioner Powell was kind of talking about. Then does that open it up that now I can put a bigger house and maybe it's starting to look at it reverse and say, no, we want to keep that house, but we want to be able to make sure that you can get that garage in there. So we'll continue to take a look at those. We just hadn't had an opportunity to kind of put this all together in a format for the commission to discuss. Okay. All right, great. Thank you, Carlos.

Can I say just one other thing or one thing on the attainable housing types that I was surprised to learn as a new council person and with the recognition that this commission, large numbers of this commission are fairly new and four out of five of the council is new within the last year and a half. I was surprised to learn that when we had the three big apartment complexes that came in, that my understanding is none of those apartment complexes included any affordable housing units in them. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yeah, and I was like, what? We had this opportunity for all these... these big apartment buildings and we didn't require. And the only reason it came to my attention was having a conversation with the developer at the Irvington place open house and the developer saying, yeah, pretty much every time I build one of these things, I have to put at least 10% affordable housing units in them. But all of that didn't make me, I was like, Oh, what a missed opportunity. And, you know, I'm saying that knowing that sometimes you don't know the thing until you know the thing. And our comprehensive plan was different at the time when all of those building projects came through. But I do think that should more of the larger apartment complexes come before us, I think that is another lever for building in some additional affordable housing that is an option.

Great. That's a good point. Okay. Carlos, anything else on the comprehensive plan?

Nope. That's all I have, Don.

Okay. Then we can move on to other business. Election of officers. What do you think, Carlos? Are we going to do it tonight or are we going to skip?

I think we have to do this. I'm sorry. I think I'm going to be in a position always a member too short. Okay. I don't foresee that it's going to change drastically.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I guess I'll give the Rob Dragell speech here where I say, if anybody wants to be chairman, and maybe I'll even speak for the other officer positions too, please. feel free to volunteer. I know there are very glamorous positions, but anyway, so I, you know, I've been serving in the interim capacity as the chair. I'm happy to continue doing it if nobody else wants to, wants to do it, but I would welcome anybody else who wants to do it. This is the part where Tim starts looking at his phone and everybody else is looking down at So I'll say that about the chairman part. And then I don't know if anybody wants to say anything about the other positions as well. Okay, well, what about the secretary and or do we have to do this one at a time?

The slate.

Okay. Um, All right. Well, my recollection is somebody has to nominate somebody. Is that right, Carlos? Or how does that work?

Can we just place a nomination board and then a second vote?

I can't remember, Carlos. Is there a certain way we have to do this?

I don't think it would be as formal as the council process. I would place a nomination for Chairman Sam Wallach, Secretary Laura Ragsdale, Vice Chairman Petrie Powell. Second.

Second.

Okay, on the motion. Commissioner Spiegelglass?

Approved.

Commissioner Hickman?

Approved.

Commissioner Ragsdale?

Approved.

Commissioner Powell?

Approved.

Commissioner Wallach? Approved. And the motion passes unanimously, so.

Congratulations. Thank you.

And thanks for your patience on that. I appreciate it.

Yep. Okay, great. Then meeting minutes. We do have meeting minutes somewhere.

I acknowledge the receipt of meeting minutes from August 20th, 2026.

Thank you very much.

Note before in there, because I did not note in there, but if it's okay for the acknowledger that I add for the brass tap, I note that the question was asked that they would have it four months out of the year. I think it was in there, but in the motion, that I put in the minutes, I didn't include that. So if it's okay to add that your motion included. Yes. The December, January and February.

Yes. But if they're outdoor canopy is for four months. Yes.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

All right, reports. The main thing, of course, you have a list of activities. And our next meeting is on September 17th, which will be after the Rosh Hashanah observance and prior to Yom Kippur. Keep Don or I updated. If you do have a conflict and can't attend, the meetings are going to kind of pick up. I got four new houses that are in various stages that are scheduled for the commission for review. We also have lot 5 of all of crossing that will probably schedule for a discussion on September 17th and then have the petitioners here October 1st. And those are always commercial projects. So we give them a little bit more time and. and all that. And if we do have the other outstanding homes trying to fit those in, our agendas might be a little long. And they're still get prepared for that. And again, please keep us posted. And there are a couple other things. I think I noted earlier on in the meeting, but the main thing up at Price and Olive, the work started. The more important thing is like, What we found, and this was a small segment, is like there are a lot of utilities that run up and down those sidewalks and up by the right of way. And what we thought we had addressed, which was a gas line, a main gas line that was not marked in there that we were trying to avoid. Now, once the construction commenced, there's a fiber optic wire. in there that was not marked. And according to our public works director, you know, already had tape around it. So it had been hit before in the process when they dug it up in there. So the utilities are always interesting. And that's, you know, that does impact how we plan and manage for the streetscape. And that will be another discussion when we do the streetscape updates and on what works best in there. We receive the permit plans for Mercy in there. They're under staff review right now. in there. We're looking at the streetscapes, but we do anticipate that the trees that are closer to the sidewalk will be getting cut down soon in that process. And then we're going through the list of the species that they're proposing for the new replacements. The ones that are in the middle should stay and would be protection measures will be placed out on those. And I think that's all I have. Be glad to answer any specific questions. Seeing none, Kate.

We have a new finance director that started this past week. Julie O'Gwen is her name. Just nice to have that position filled. That's Darren Mann left a few months ago. Today we had a blood drive battle of the badges. Did you hear? Did fire or police win?

Not sure. I don't know.

Fire usually wins, but I don't know who won this year. Okay. And then Ace has their ribbon cutting opening tomorrow morning. Olivet Night Out, where the fire truck police will come out to your neighborhood if you're having a, you do a little party in your neighborhood, and council as well, that's September 15th. So if you're not on the list yet and your neighborhood does that, make sure you get on the list so we can come by and shake hands and kiss babies. And then Trivia Night 2, great community effort at Five Oaks on September 18th. I think they have, I don't know, six or seven tables left to sell if you're not already going. But nothing really to report from the meeting.

Okay, great. Well, unless anybody has anything else, we'll call the meeting to a close at 834.