Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, do you understand? We good over there? Okay, city attorney? You gonna be good down there? Yes. We good on the right? Is this name still on there? I know, but who am I gonna say? Is it her? Fellas. Abacostello. Fellas. It's a hard mic moment.

It's a hard mic.

I'd like to call the May 26th plan is on the commission meeting order. Ken Crowder, please call roll.

Chairman William Hardrick.

Here.

Mayor Marty Little. Here. Steve Olson. Mark Giroux. Here. Ken Crowder. I'm here. Councilwoman Jessica Raquel.

Excused.

Excused. Janet Dietrich.

Here.

Angela Williams.

Here.

City Attorney Joe Bond. Here. Katie Sanders, Community Development.

Here.

Diane Robinson, Community Development. Here.

Thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. We remain standing. And the members of our service members, please. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

Thank you all. Please be seated. It's good to see everybody this evening. Thank you all for joining us. This plan is on the commission meeting. I hope that everyone had a good weekend, safe holiday. So thank you for all those who have served and have lost. So thank you. I will open the floor for, trust me, once we're at the previous minutes, I'll open up a floor for the approval of those minutes. So moved.

Second.

Thank you, Mark, for that, and thank you, Ken, for that second. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose, that motion does carry. Next, we'll begin our public hearing. We will now begin the public hearing. Please be advised, the plan is under commission. It is an advisory board that makes recommendations to the city councils. Final approval are granted by the city council. Anyone here from 9465 Midland Boulevard?

Chairman Hardrick, 9465 Midland has been withdrawn.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, anyone here from 9620 Midland Boulevard? Please step forward, state your name, nature of your business.

Ben Seaman, I'm the GM of Mack Contractor and Landscape Contractors. Well, tell us about your business. We do the commercial right-of-way maintenance in and around St. Louis, and then we do your commercial mowing, landscaping, a lot of municipality work, not much residential, but mostly all your, like I said, government municipality work.

Well, thank you for joining us tonight. Go straight to Katie for additional comments. Thank you, Chairman.

This is an application to amend an existing conditional use permit to include a shipping container on site as well as fuel tanks for a fuel station. The original conditional use permit was approved July 25, 2025 for a lawn and garden light business. The fuel tanks are above ground, located behind the screened fencing on the east side of the lot, and the shipping container is proposed to be located on the west side adjacent to the rear garage. Neither the fuel tanks nor the shipping container will encroach into setbacks, and due to the screening in place, will not impact the visual compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has applied for a building permit related to the fuel tanks. However, the permit will not be approved until all necessary approvals are in place, including the fire district, obviously planning and zoning city council, and DNR. the applicant will also need to apply for a building permit related to the shipping container if approved. Nothing further.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

City Attorney Joe Bond.

Yeah, this is fairly straightforward. If you look in your packets, there were some typological issues or errors that I would like to clean up. Specifically, there was discussion of an automotive repair facility. That's not happening here. I think that was just an oversight in drafting. I would recommend that those be changed to, the amended CEP is solely for Lawn and garden like commercial operations that would mirror what is actually being requested and that would kind of carry throughout so any reference to an office warehouse or Automotive repair would be struck and changed into that correct use definition Um, other than that, I don't really see this as being that problematic. I, I did add language that the outdoor storage, it all has to be behind that screened in area and, uh, screen from view. So, okay.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commission? Yes, Mark.

Katie, we determined that the MSD easement is on the back of the property.

The MSD easement?

Yes.

And also, please be advised, we're having technical difficulties, so we anticipated being able to have the site plans up on the screen, but we're having some issues this evening.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commission? Anything from the audience? Okay. We'll say none. I will open floor for a motion to recommend approval with amended conditional use stipulations as presented from our city attorney. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor.

Aye.

All those who oppose. That motion does carry. Motion to recommend approval with site plan with stipulations as presented.

Make the motion.

Thank you, Ken. Second. Thank you, Angela. It's been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? That motion does carry. Thank you so much for your time here this evening, sir. We'll have a council meeting here in the chamber June 8th at 6 p.m. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Katie will keep in contact with you. Or Ms. Diane. Diane will. Sorry about that, Ms. Diane. I want to respect you, Ms. Diane. Ms. Diane's gone.

Thank you.

Thank you all. Anyone here from 9737 Lackland Road? Please step up, state your name, nature of your business, please.

Hello, my name is Al Mingudo. I'm a retired architect from HOK . No, I did a new project for Mr. Martinez.

Yes, sir.

He owns the tire shop. Yes, sir. All I did was a small little garage two years ago. Now he's going to build it. And then the other architect, he's creating some shaded areas because some of the employees, they work outside. And then in order to give them a little shade, you know,

Thank you for coming tonight. Thank you for having a business here in Oakland. Very good. Very much. So I'm going to hand out something. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Diane. Go straight to Katie for additional comments.

So Diane just handed out, um, site plans that are a little more clear for you to see and then the front cover page of the construction plans that give you that visual in the top left corner once these proposed awnings would be put on the building so you can kind of see what it looks like. So this is an application for site plan approval related to building additions. The applicant is proposing to construct three separate additions, which include an addition to the garage, a carport, and an overhang. The proposed garage addition is 425 square feet at the north rear of the building. The proposed carport is 1,150 square feet at the west side of the building. And the proposed overhang at 520 square feet will be on the south front of the building. In 2023, a building permit was issued for the rear garage addition only. It's under 500 square feet and is not required to be presented to Planning and Zoning, which is why you didn't see it at that time. Um, a footing inspection and a foundation inspection were performed, but no further inspections were called in and us the application expired. So they've now submitted a new application with additional construction on it and just the sheer size of all three together. And that it's a little unconventional, the awnings and the carports on a commercial business. It was my decision to have it presented to the planning and zoning commission. so that you have an opportunity to review it and weigh in on the decision before we issue the permit.

Thank you, Katie. Yes, sir. City attorney, additional comments?

No real comments. It's all kind of site plan review stuff, so I defer to them.

And just to note, this doesn't go to city council. This is strictly just presented to planning and zoning for your review to make sure it falls in line with ordinances and so forth before we issue any building permits.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the commission?

Mark.

Hey, Mark, can you pull your mic down close to your mouth?

I believe that in the narrative there were some points that this is an unusual request. Can you elaborate, please?

In the staff report?

The, and I think you were reading from the old ordinances. Is there anything unusual about this though?

In terms of what I was just stating on my director's comments, The size of these carports are a little unusual, and when we call the front one an overhang, it's 520 square feet. So, you know, I certainly understand what you're proposing is because they're working outside on the vehicles. That's a little unusual, too, when we're talking about automotive repair. Tire shops sometimes, though, will do that where they're just – they're doing them right there outside of the actual bay. So – Again, while we're not here for the use per se, we're here for the construction, the additions. And I wanted to point that out and make sure I had planning and zoning support before we issued those building permits. You're talking about over 1,000 square foot carport on the side of the building. And then, of course, like I said, an overhang on the front of the building that's over 500 square feet. That's a large overhang. I would almost call that another carport, in my opinion. I wanted to present it so that you guys could take a look at it. It's not encroaching on any setbacks. They're not going over their lot coverage for the zoning district either. We did check into that. But it's a little unusual for this type of construction to have the carports. Generally speaking, you have additions, right, that they're putting on the back of the building. So I just wanted you guys to have the opportunity to weigh in on that. And that's why we also made sure to pass out the front cover of that building plan, because it does show you the visual, so that you can see it. I mean, aesthetically, I don't think it looks bad. But I just wanted to allow you guys the opportunity to weigh in, because we're talking about three separate construction projects, all on the same permit, of course. But by code, I have the discretion to refer it to you guys, and I've chosen to do that.

Katie, is it metal or canvas?

Metal. Metal roof, steel, steel legs. And of course the building addition is beyond that. On the back of the building. You know, brick and mortar on the back.

Similar to a cover you might see at a quick trip, covering the pumps.

Yes. Kind of similar, yes. How will it be anchored?

Most of the employees, they usually work outside.

Yes.

by creating these some kind of a paragraph.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Summertime, wintertime, that's it. That's the idea.

Yes, sir. Got you.

Jen. How are these objects going to be anchored?

It's done, very well done, according to the code. Everything else is according to the code.

So will they be in the ground or will they be on the ground?

Yeah, but 30, 40 feet under the ground. We're good. I got you.

Again, they'll get a building permit. We just haven't issued that building permit at this point because we wanted to make sure that Planning and Zoning Commission could look at aesthetically with the zoning and that sort of thing. We wouldn't issue a building permit that wasn't properly or anchored into the ground properly.

Katie, what hours are they gonna be working under there? When they close, that's closing time?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that because we're not here for the use. We're here for the site clean. The building additions.

Go to Angela. I can tell you, I live right around the corner from the shop. And I drive by there almost every day, coming home from work. I come down the way. I go down that, go by that way, going to Walgreens. Since you've been there, I've never seen an issue. I've never seen anybody in the street. I've never seen or experienced any negativity at all when I drive by, and I'm like, wow. And I'm really happy that business is good. Definitely. Yeah.

Very good business. Very much so. Yes, sir. Right.

Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am.

Well, and coming from a half my family was in automotive, the last thing they wanted to do was work in the heat or, you know, and they'd rather work outside on a car because it's just more freedom room to move. So I understand what you're conveying. Mayor. Yeah, so thanks for being here with you guys.

You actually repaired my zero-turn lawnmower when I have wheel issues, so thanks for helping me out. But my question is, with these overhangs, are you anticipating doing more work outside than current, or just having something to cover the current work? Yeah, I know they pull up next door. That's where you guys help me out. But my only concern is those tire wrenches can be pretty loud, and you're right next to a residential property and across the street. So if you're moving your whole operation outside under the covering, we might get some complaints about, you know, noise issues. But if you're not changing the scope of work and you're just putting a canopy over the work you're currently doing, I've not received any complaints. So I don't have any issue there.

I think it's very, very secluded. It's a very nice site. And I don't think we don't have closer neighbors than complaints.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Additional comments from the commission?

I think it's a novel use of the property.

I cannot disagree with you, Mr. Ken Crowder. Any questions? Any questions or comments from the audience?

And moving forward, we'll try to make sure we have the construction plans in the packet for you also.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Mark, any comment?

This is a no-brainer, let's do it.

Thank you, Mark. I will, hearing that it's a no-brainer, open the floor for motion to recommend approval of site plans for stipulations as presented.

Make the motion.

Second. Thank you, Mark, for that second. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? That motion does carry. Thank you all so much. Thank you for coming here tonight. I'm pretty sure Katie will contact you with any additional piece she needs. No. I'm sorry, Ms. Diane? Let me put this in here. I ain't going to contact her. Thank you all for your time.

I think that has a count. Thank you.

Anyone here from 2128 Woodson Road? It's good to see you.

Me too. Jim Colburn. I'm the owner of that property. Yes, sir. 2128, it's St. Louis County registration, the whole strip mall. Basically, it's 2126-46. So this is why everybody say 2128. So me and Katie, we work very hard for, what, one and a half, two hours, something like that. So we discuss a lot of issue to expand variety for me to rent the spaces, especially in the back. We discuss a lot of stuff, and of course, most of those, it's a service businesses, like a roofing construction company, HVAC, plumbing, electric. Of course, they're going to use only what we discussed, as a business office. So no new trailers or big trucks or materials, storages, absolutely nothing. Only strictly business offices. So this is why we create a new development with Katie, and you got in the front of you, and now we are here.

Thank you for coming in tonight. Thank you. Yes, sir. Go straight to Katie.

Thank you, Chairman. As Gene said, we've had several discussions actually previous to our meeting, and I think some of you may remember Gene had come up here before. He was getting very frustrated with the CUP process, and so I was trying to convince him that there was another way to go about this. For us that work downstairs in community development, we work with Gene, and Gene's one of those property owners that when he says, They're not going to have trucks and trailers here. We know they're not going to have trucks and trailers there. But our code applies to everyone. So with that being said, we talked to him about planned unit development for his strip mall. He has a strip mall. I'm sure everybody's seen it down on Woodson Road. Gene's there usually every day cleaning it up himself. He has businesses at the back of that strip mall too. And sometimes these people are just getting, you know, a 600-square-foot office, and they're like, frustrated that they have to go through our processes. So after several discussions, Jean, um, and I sat down and, um, decided to, he decided to apply for the plan unit development to effectively change the zoning of the existing property to planned development commercial and allowing specific land uses as outlined within the, excuse me, proposed ordinance as permitted uses. The site has adequate parking based on the requirements for indoor retail at five spaces per every 1,000 square feet. It meets the setback requirements and has existing variances on file relating to the perimeter landscape and parking style design requirements. The property owner sent a notice of public hearing to property owners within 300 lineal feet of the subject property by certified mail and provided proof of same to the zoning coordinator. I then would like to turn it over to Joe, as he actually was the one that prepared that ordinance. And I don't know that that was shared with Jean. So we may kind of just want to go over those uses and how you wrote that up too, Joe.

Yeah, so if we're looking at the ordinance itself, sorry to jump right in. If you look at kind of the first two conditions are essentially they have to maintain The C-1 commercial setbacks, I don't have any concern about that. The next condition discusses the variances that were already granted. So those are included in here. They would be included anyway. The uses are essentially what had been talked about in the conversations with Katie. I did have a few items to kind of flesh out. One was restaurants. One would be up to 100 or more, and then that would be limited to one. So you could have other smaller takeaway places, because I think you'd included both of those but I don't think we'd want like six 100 seat restaurants and I don't think you want that but this right but this kind of says you can have one of a larger restaurant and then you can have like takeaway places and stuff like that The other is the tattoo establishment. So in our code, we've got a provision that it has to be 5,000 feet away from other tattoo establishments, 1,000 feet away from schools. I don't know if we've measured that. The way I've drafted it in this is you'd still have to comply with the 1,000 feet from schools, but not the 5,000 from a different one. I will say that's something that we're looking at just internally. I don't know the spacing on schools that we can.

I don't think that there's one. Hyland would be the closest school I believe. And that's certainly way beyond a thousand. And I don't believe that there's a daycare in the area either.

Right. So that would be not difficult to comply with. We just want to make sure that that's maintained. And then as of right now, it is drafted in that the property hours are from midnight to 5 a.m. all the way around. I don't know how exactly we structure those hours because obviously, you know, I don't think all those businesses would want those sort of hours anyway. So I kind of, I don't know if it makes sense to just strike the hours and then have that be contained within, like, Like liquor licenses, you can only sell liquor for a certain period. And I believe there's like a small grocer there. Again, I don't know if... What's in grocery?

The grocery store operated from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Okay.

That's it.

So maybe there's a different way to draft this, or maybe, you know, with the commission's prerogative, we can drop out that hours requirement because... those might be dealt with via the liquor licensing aspect.

And Jill, were you just talking about parking hours or business operation hours?

Oh, I guess it's parking hours.

Yeah, you have the parking hours number.

I don't say anything about business operation hours. Because why would I? Because that's complicated in the zoning ordinance. Yeah, so maybe strike that, because I don't think there's going to be cars that need to be parked overnight.

Sometimes they love the car, but they drink in the bar. Sure.

They drink the car, yes, overnight. Sure.

It's happened occasionally.

I think this is more for like, we wouldn't want it to just be filled with a bunch of the businesses' vehicles. Obviously, if people are too drunk to drive, we're not going to make that a zoning problem.

No.

Um, but other than that, uh, you know, I'm happy to take questions about what I've drafted or kind of how I've tried to mirror what those conversations you have with Katie were and make this functional for everybody. So yeah.

Question with your list of uses here, does that cover everything it's currently operating?

I believe so. It covered, well,

Well, not currently operating. These were proposed uses also that he suggested. So if you look at number 3A through J, those are all proposed uses, correct? That would be permitted.

Those would all be permitted. Let me rephrase. I think there's a business there that does not fit in these categories. Is that on purpose?

Right. No. Well, not based on what I was trying to draft. I only got the list of uses. So are there other operations on?

The liquor store? Is it a liquor store technically or is it a? I thought we categorized that one. I could be wrong.

The convenience right there in the corner?

Yeah. Let me, do we have access through BDNet to see what their license is?

Do you know what the address is of the grocery store, Gene? 2146.

2146. It's called Woodson Grocery.

I don't think that I have that.

What we could do.

Bear with me, sorry. I mean, that's from 2011, 2146.

What we could do to address that is say, you know, whether it's neighborhood grocery or slash liquor store, that it's capped at one. You know, it wouldn't be our desire to close that down via this, obviously. That just must be a miscommunication we had in terms of the uses.

I mean, a liquor store wouldn't be a permitted use anyway. We would never, I don't think ever, is that, am I miss, sorry, I gave him my paperwork, but we're not discussing that to be a, Well permitted use. You're good. I just pulled it up. Thank you.

The liquor store itself would be fine to be permitted. It would still just be licensed through the liquor licensing. Because there's not like a tiered thing in the PUD. It's here's what's allowed to be there. Which is the whole.

I think that answers my question too. So if they'd be permitted anyways then we don't have to include them as an approved or permitted use.

Well it would be a conditional use wouldn't it. Yeah.

Well, this eliminates all that. These are all the things that are permitted. And you can add in, conditionally, these can be uses, but I thought the goal was to just permit.

Am I missing it? Do you have this in the ordinance?

I don't, no, because that's why I'm asking, because, again, there's something there that's not on the list. And if we're going to approve this, I'd rather have everything set.

Well, a liquor store would be a conditional use.

Joe, is there any way to rewrite this legally? I know. I know. Sorry. Hey, I've been grading all day, OK? Is there any way to rewrite this without it being so specific?

So the goal, I would say generally, is that it is specific because What a PUD essentially does is it creates its own district in and of itself. So we usually work with the property owner to come up with what is your long-term plan, how can we make that work, and what is doable? Which is why, for example, like the restaurants, we can say you're allowed to have one of this size and then the rest have to be takeaway. So it allows something that's a little bit more flexible. The problem is if it's kind of also miscellany, it's like, what do we do with that and how do we enforce that?

I guess what I'm asking, because there's restaurants and then there's taverns and lounges. They're two different categories. Correct, because they're technically two different uses. Okay, so they're technically, under the ordinance, it's two different functions.

So tavern lounge would typically be a, where food and drink are not the primary use. thrust of it. It'd be like a bar that might serve like fires or something, which is there already. Correct.

Right. Right. Absolutely. Yeah. Um, only alcohols. They don't serve any food.

Okay. Right.

Or they might do like, right.

Well, I'm, I'm thinking to make sure that convenience store convenience slash liquor store right there on the corner that it gets,

added in here in a way that is yeah that you know like the mayor says we don't want another we don't want to cause another issue yeah so we do have those new definitions that are based on square footage um i don't know what the square footage of that is at the moment i can't find it i i can tell when is 600 square foot Okay, perfect. Katie, do you know what that spits out into definition?

I don't. I'm having difficulty finding the definitions. Sure.

What I will do, just because we're in the interest, assuming that this is what the commission would like to recommend, what I can do is I can draft in, you know, whatever the appropriate definition is for that kind of convenience store or grocery slash liquor store capped at one. That way, whatever is in business right there is permitted.

And also subject to approval for everything we've done the past two years, meaning if that place closes and there's another liquor store in towns that takes up that permit, then it would no longer be a permitted use there because it's not

it wouldn't be it would be permitted from a zoning perspective but it wouldn't be eligible for a liquor license because they're capped at life so long as it solves that problem yes yeah this wouldn't create any additional number of liquor store licenses so if they were currently graded as a liquor store and then they were to lose that designation either because of floor space or something else and somebody were to take that you know liquor store license that's available they wouldn't be eligible to reapply regardless of what we do here because this is just a zoning. So essentially it's saying we're going to allow that to be either a grocery or whatever and it can be a liquor store if it already can get that licensure. So they're two interrelated things but they are separate.

I don't have the list of. the four liquor stores, but I did finally find the definitions. And under, which occupies less than 5,000 square feet of gross square area, grocery neighborhood, so anything under that 5,000. And then a liquor store is just defined as a liquor store in the zoning code. A retail establishment or place of business primarily or exclusively engaged in retail sale or consumption off the premise of alcoholic beverages.

And then there's a convenience store which now is specifically defined and includes gas So What I would propose to resolve this issue is I under tobacco vape shops a sub K, that would be one neighborhood grocery store or liquor store provided such operation maintains all appropriate licensure from all applicable federal, state, and local entities, just like it says for vape stores in the line above. And that way we don't inadvertently zone a business out inadvertently. Were there any others that anybody saw? I'm sorry, I didn't have the list of what's there. I just had the list of what was proposed. I think miscommunication.

Laundry service there?

Laundromat, yes. I was going to ask that question. Where does that fall, then, on what we have here? Is that commercial services?

No, it's defined. Laundromat experiment.

What is the definition? Bear with me.

I'm jumping back and forth, you guys.

Yeah.

Hey, Mark, your questions pertain to this, too?

So let me go to the table of uses first. And a laundromat. in C-1 as a permitted use? And then you want the definition, Joe?

I just, is it a defined use? Because I think to step back from what we're talking about, this has to comply with C-1? terms of its spacing and everything but this is not a c1 district that this sits on top of what this is is essentially its own thing it needs to meet all the spacing and size requirements but these are the only uses permitted that we're talking about right now so I want to and I apologize it's alright I didn't provide what was there existing so a laundromat is permitted in the c1 district it's also defined a business that provides washing drying or ironing machines and

and professional type cleaning and pressing equipment for hire to be used by customers on the premises.

Is the alteration shop still there?

And we also have a hair salon.

Yes. I have hair salon and braiding shop. I mean, they're similar to each other, but a little different.

And those are now permitted. Yeah.

Is that defined as a barber shop?

Under commercial service.

Okay. Okay. So I guess here's a question. Let me look. Right now it says commercial services, massage therapy. Do we just want to say commercial services generally?

Because there's other like light commercial there as well.

Right. Because commercial services might cover that whole universe of things, and then we can just simplify this. I just want to be sure that we're.

By definition, a commercial service, they reference generally insurance services, repair services, business, professional, scientific, and technical services, and professional. for personal services but excludes other specifically defined uses. So I think is it under spa?

And that there's other commercial as well that I think we need to add. Like a wireless store and there was the guy on the end with the.

Oh, it is.

Barbershop, beauty salon, or spa, Joe.

Okay, give me one more.

Forgive me, we switched that.

And other commercial would, Mayor, other commercial would cover the beauty salon, the hair braiding, and the laundromat?

No, I think they're going to be separate points. I think laundromat's going to be one. Barbershop or those type services is another one. And then some, I don't know how we define it, but like light retails. We have that wireless service.

store i think it sells stuff and there's also the guy in the end who i think is no longer there but who's selling plants and such mark you had a comment also you had a question i did first of all i think this is a wonderful solution to a difficult problem and i think what all this all this conversation is is really over some definitions but that should not stop us this is a very good solution

I do believe it would be retail establishment light would probably cover all those.

Yeah, you're right. Definitely agree.

We just want to make sure we have everything here that way you're covered.

Just to keep you from having to come up and stand up in front of us.

We know you enjoy coming back, though. Yeah, you love us. We understand this. We know you like coming on back, hanging out with us for a little while.

The most important is that we find the solution. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. So what I've recommended is now a sub K through N which is the one neighborhood grocery store or liquor store with appropriate licensure barbershop hair salon spa light retail establishments laundromat. And I think that should cover the universe of things. I guess what I would propose to the commission is if when we go back downstairs once this is recommended if you could recommend just approving if there are any other operations that don't fit within those strict definitions that we have at least some leeway to take your recommendation add those in. put them before the council, just because I hate to do battlefield medicine here, but I want to make sure we have enough authority to do what we're trying to do to its extent. Yes, sir.

I'm comfortable with that approach.

Okay. Thank you.

Sounds good. Sounds good, Joe. Thank you. Okay. Clears mud. Glad we didn't have much discussion on that one. Any additional questions or comments from the commission? Anything from the audience? Yeah, sure. Seeing none.

We're just here to make everybody happy. Him, his clients, and us, and the mayor.

Quality customer service. No, see no additional comments. I'll open the floor for a motion to recommend approval.

Uh, the plan developed with stipulations as presented and Joe said about say that again, essentially giving staff additional power to, uh, make sure that the recommendation covers all active uses on the site.

Yes.

I'll make that motion.

Thank you, Mayor. Second. Thank you, Mark, for that second. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? That motion does carry. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you so much.

This does require a second public hearing before City Council. So Diane will contact you and let you know that date. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Thank you.

I can't go behind and see the attorney. I'm not even going to try to. I'm not even going to try to tonight. Not tonight. Anyone here from 9074 Overland Plaza? Come on up. State your name. Make sure you're business. How's it going?

I'm Rem Eiler. I'm the director of development for Seven Brew. Tell us a little about your business. We are a fast-paced drive-through coffee and beverage company.

Okay.

Well, let's read to Katie on this one.

Thank you, Chairman. So this is actually an application to amend the Overland Plaza redevelopment plan to include new construction of an outbuilding, which will be the location of the drive-thru coffee shop located within the northeast quadrant of the plaza just west of the existing McDonald's restaurant.

Okay.

For the zoning coordinator, it appears the amended development plan addresses the required criteria outlined in section 400.250, plan developments, and section 400.710, with exception of providing an anticipated development schedule and construction timeline. We have not received that yet. The parking requirements for the entire site were calculated based on indoor retail requirements of five spaces per every 1,000 square feet for the entire development, not just for this particular construction or development. For the zoning coordinator, there will be adequate parking for the entire development. There will be no changes to any of the entrances or exits to the plaza. Therefore, we don't need any approvals from MoDOT or from St. Louis County Transportation. The sign package, which is included in your packet this evening, is extensive and goes beyond the limit of allowable signs per section 400.840 commercial signage. However, the proposed package is branding that is the same across the country. I believe they have 700 stores across the country, somewhere in that range? That's correct. The applicant is requesting the signed package to also be considered within the planned development approval. The applicant did send notice of public hearing to property owners within 300 lineal feet of the subject property by certified mail and provided proof of same to the zoning coordinator. And I can turn it over to Joe.

Sure. Thank you. So your turn. So yeah, looking at this, It's obviously a little bit more complicated than just the Seven Brew. What had initially been proposed was that there would be a subdivision associated with this. Essentially, they would make that out lot come off. And we had kind of a simpler PUD for that. Well, it wouldn't have necessarily even been a PUD. But in the process of looking at this, we realized that the zoning for the old Overland Plaza didn't necessarily mirror the forms that we're currently using, obviously. And there were just some sort of inconsistencies with how it had been put together. So the goal was to kind of, hey, while we're here, let's fix all this all at once so we don't have this weird stacked CUP that would go for Seven Brew or something like that. This is kind of fixing everything for Overland Plaza kind of all at once. So that's why it's a little longer than just a coffee shop. But you will note there are some sort of MVOB specific provisions that kind of need to be tweaked or slightly waived to make this make sense because of the closeness of the McDonald's, I believe. The McDonald's is also not part of the Overland Plaza property, even though it's like sitting right there. So again, if they were both on that property, this would be a simpler ordinance, but we have to kind of zone from what is in existence. So yeah, it's, it's definitely a more complicated CUP or PUD than just for seven brew, but this should accomplish both fixing the underlying zoning for the whole Overland Plaza in light of what they are doing and intend to do. And also allow us to move forward with the seven brew without a, uh, Subdivision of land and all that sort of stuff running in tandem.

So Yeah, that's the long and the short of it Thank you Any questions or comments from the Commission yes mark Joe I'm gonna ask you to run that by again I Understand that you did not want to create the subdivision. Yep reasons, okay But you said that this packet will also address the underlying problem with Overland Plaza. I don't see where that is here.

So if you look down at the sub for the following uses, if you get past the fast food restaurant with the coffee, then we talk about the other uses of Overland Plaza currently, that being, you know, restaurants, retail establishments, light retail, secondhand merchandise stores. There should probably also be a grocery store that is there. Which would be a supermarket, so supermarket. Put that in there, my apologies. But essentially what's happening here is The subdivision, I believe, was going to go through when there was going to be different owners of the properties. And for reasons that are not disclosed to me, that is no longer occurring. But they still wanted to be able to move forward with Seven Brew with that little out lot without having to go through kind of multiple transactions. And since we were already doing a PUD, since there's already a PUD that's pretty flexible on the property anyway, you know, how do we get this there without creating too much additional friction that would slow down Seven Brew, but also be able to fix, I hate to say problem, but kind of an inconsistency with how Overland Plaza had been zoned. And unfortunately, I would hope that the owner of Overland.

Sure. And maybe I'm wrong, but. The original plan development was done under a different law firm for the city. Does that sum that up? And the way we handle these now and do them as part of the ordinance and not the findings separate from the commission, this cleans it all up and puts it in a nice package together?

Ideally, yeah. I think there was some confusion as to how it had actually been zoned and what that zoning looked like. And I think maybe that got lost in the more complicated transaction. This doesn't mean that anybody did anything wrong or illegal or untoward or anything like that. When we looked at it, it's like, wait a second, does this accomplish what it actually is trying to do? Does it actually talk to that development agreement? And if you recall, when we had KPOT, part of it was, well, this is a little confusing, but let's not stop the development, because in the end, KPOT being there with that outbuilding wasn't problematic. This would kind of resolve those issues, and this would be the document going forward. So we wouldn't have to say, well, what were they doing in however long ago Overland Plaza was initially set up, this would say, here's what we're doing going forward.

I can comment. I was on the original commission for the redevelopment. And this was brushed under the rug. And that's about as gratuitous as I can answer the question. Sure. It was a mess.

Sure. So this is trying to take what is there and say, well, this was always the plan. Let's just make sure that that complies with zoning.

I think you've done a good job just trying to put all these pieces more so back into code. I mean, over the year. Two years you've been here? I think it's five years now. It's been five? It's been five years, 2020.

My beard's getting a little whiter. I think that's my kids, not you guys.

Any additional questions or comments from the commission?

I have one. This is a very professional plan. You are to be complimented on the documents that you've presented.

Thank you. Thank you. I agree.

And if you're in charge of development, I'm not jealous of your hours. I've seen about ten of these things go up in the past three years.

Mr. Chair I would request a very similar if there are other uses that we are made aware of that are active on the site when talking with the property owner if you would give us the authority to also make that part of your recommendation obviously I'm not gonna add you know tattoo shops and bars and stuff but you know whatever's there because I think we were trying to contact

the owner and as you know there's been a purchase of that property and it's been kind of touch and go so we want to make sure that this is doing everything that they need to definitely thank you thank you we will still need the construction narrative with the timeline yeah i have it on my phone um email yes please and i i will say everything is kind of tentative you know weather happens this happens that happens so with it being a couple months out it you know I can't say with 100% certainty these dates but it looks like we are planning to break ground on the 10th of August ideally and then from the day that we break ground to the moment that we're opening is usually about 12 weeks at the absolute maximum so it's It's incredibly fast. Prefab buildings makes it kind of easy. But we'll have a building set on, let's see here. Pardon my lack of being prepared. Be on the 28th of August. And then everything from there is usually pretty straightforward.

i'm not on the construction side though so yeah it's hard to say thank you yeah make sure you send it over to katie i know she'll probably reach out to you about that an additional question or comments it involves coffee i'm okay thank you yeah the comments are questioning the commission anything from the audience thank you for the applause Okay, seeing no additional questions or comments, I will open for the motion of record and approval with plan stipulations as presented and discussed. And please note what city attorney said. You know what he said. Okay.

So moved.

Thank you, Mark. Second. Thank you, Angela. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? That motion does carry. Thank you so much, sir, for your time and your patience. I know you'll be talking to Kayla a little bit more and Ms. Diane. As we move forward. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Okay, anyone here from 1800 Woodson Road? Thank you for your patience this evening. Thank you so much. Not a problem at all. Please state your name, nature of your business, a little about the company.

Yes, sir. My name is Mark Hunter. I'm the director of development for Net Lease Properties. We are acting on behalf of Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken as development consultant. Um, first of all, thank you for having us here, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Um, this has been a long time coming. I think we reached out to Katie probably about a year ago to start this process when we started doing our due diligence. Um, and it hasn't been at all on city staff. It's been, uh, as noted in the staff report, working with, um, DOT, working with St. Louis County. So it's been trying to balance the needs of all three of those jurisdictions and come forward with a coherent plan. So. You know, with that, you know, as we zoom out big picture, Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken has been around since 1966. They've spent a lot of money in trying to reinvigorate and reenergize the brand to compete in a very competitive fast food chicken market. And so the documents and plans you have in front of you today are a product of all of that design work. So we're very proud of that. What we are trying to solve, I think, and as Katie has explained and as we've heard tonight, the PD district is really ideal tool for this type of development to where the existing conditions are three, let's call them legacy commercial buildings on the corner of Woodson and Page Road, if I'm putting it politely, and access is, I don't know if there's any coherency to the access, it's kind of all over the place, there's really no, and so, Solving those with this development is, I think, in the interest of obviously us as prospective developers, prospective operators, but also for the city as well in reinvigorating that, bringing a large-scale investment into that important intersection, but also refreshing from an aesthetic plant standpoint. I did wanna also lay out that, and going back to the juggling three different agencies at the same time, from submittal, there's a deviation from the plans that you have in front of you that actually benefit traffic control even more. So if you look in your packets to the site plan, I think we're showing the right in, right out, John. He's our civil engineer. He's probably nodding his head.

And again, I apologize that we don't have this to pull up for you this evening.

Not a problem at all. So right now, we're showing a right in, right out onto Woodson Road. After we submitted to the city, St. Louis County came back to us and said, hey, can you turn this into a right in only? So further traffic control along Woodson Road. So that's what we are going to have to change our plans to the city with, but that's what we're going back to St. Louis County with, if that makes sense. So I know I've been a little bit long-winded here, but I'm really happy to be here. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak. Happy to answer any questions that you may have, and our civil engineer as well, if you have any technical questions, he's happy to speak. Our last question at the end. I'm going to go straight to Katie for additional comments.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mark. In your packet, there are actually two applications being presented this evening related to 1800 Woodson Road. One application is for a rock consolidation, which includes three parcels, 1800 Woodson Road, which is currently Freeway Insurance, 1810 Woodson Road, which is the Juicy's location, and 9395 Page Avenue, which is the Street Cruisers upholstery shop. The parcels are, and Mr. Crowder, you won't have anybody to do your car upholstery anymore.

Yes, I do. Okay. You found a new one.

The parcels are located on the northeast corner of Page Avenue and Woodson Road and consolidated will be under one acre. It's about three-fourths of an acre total. Additionally, there's an application for a planned development, as Mark had explained, to construct a new fast food restaurant at this location. For the zoning coordinator, it appears the preliminary development plan addresses the required criteria set forth in section 400.250. And this plan development also gives us, as Joe had stated about the previous one, the flexibility to allow for MVOBs to be within so many feet of each other because we have the Captain D's that will be next door. You have the MVOBs with the other every corner. You've got an MVBO. and VOB on every corner. The consolidated lots in the proposed development will have street frontage along Page Avenue, again, as Mark had kind of touched on, which is maintained by MoDOT, and Whitson Road, which is maintained by St. Louis County, as well as Minerva, which is maintained by the City of Overland. Both MoDOT and St. Louis County approvals will be required related to access design. Additionally, MoDOT Project JSL-0186 proposes installation of sidewalks and 80-day ADA improvements along the Page corridor. This is similar to what we discussed when we were talking about the 10459 development at Page and Ashby. As with previous plan developments along that corridor, should MoDOT fail to install the sidewalks, the applicant shall be required to install new ADA compliant sidewalks along the entirety of the property adjacent to Page Avenue. Previously, we used a deadline date of June 30th, 2028, I believe, Joe. Not sure if we wanna make sure that that language is included in there.

I have it set as June 30, 2029. Okay. So I just see the project numbers and all that. This is placeholder provision just to make sure.

That works for me. 2028 will be here before we know it, right? The new sidewalk shall be connected to the existing sidewalk on the west side of the property adjacent Well, the existing property sidewalks on the west side of the property are adjacent to Woodson Road However, the applicant themselves are actually going to put in the new sidewalks along Woodson Road and that was one of the requirements that we had discussed early on about making sure that we had accessibility at that corner and St. Louis County also has a project going on but they're a little tighter with things and so it's falling back on our applicants to put those sidewalks in um and they're aware of that we've all we've all discussed that when in the meetings that we've already held with them um per the site plan the site will provide 21 parking stalls as well as 10 stacking spaces for the drive-through however based on the parking requirements for a fast food restaurant 27 spaces are actually required so we'll need to make sure that we incorporate that into our plan development as well In an effort to meet the tree preservation requirements outlined in Section 420, the applicant is proposing to keep some of the existing trees on site to do their best to meet that requirement. Those trees are pretty shabby, and they're still trying to make sure that they keep some of those, so we appreciate that. The exit on Page Avenue is being reduced from the required 24 minimum width to, I believe it's 17, and that, is that going to change, or is that... Okay, perfect. And that's to discourage vehicles from entering through that egress access. So it's strictly supposed to be going out to the right, and we're trying not to make sure that we have anybody coming in there.

Understandable.

Yeah. The construction timeline provided notes work to begin in August of 2026 and be completed within approximately 120 days, dependent upon necessary department approvals. Again, the sign package is extensive. and goes beyond the limit of allowable signs per section 408.40 commercial signage. However, the proposed package is branding that is the same across the country. The applicant is requesting the signed package to also be considered within the planned development approval. Again, the applicant did set notice of public hearing to the surrounding property owners within 300 lineal feet and provided by certified mail and provided proof to our zoning coordinator. I have nothing further.

Thank you, Katie.

Yes, sir.

City Attorney Joe Bond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, we'll talk the subdivision ordinance. It's very straightforward. It complies with the code. It's ministerial. This cleans up a ton of stuff so we don't have to do it on the tail end like we've done it with other developments. This is going to ideally be kind of the standard going forward with future developments, that we make sure all this stuff is taken care of right at the jump. So that's pretty simple. If we have any questions, we can talk about that. Obviously, the PUD is, there are some waivers related to the MVOB ordinance, but obviously, you know, There are, it's a drive-through restaurant. They've done things to mitigate kind of the impacts of the traffic and whatnot. So this would essentially allow them to move forward. I do have no vehicles parked on the property overnight from 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. I don't imagine you need any amount of overnight parking. Other than that, you know, I think this is a pretty straightforward application of the PUD that gives them some flexibility with the signage plan and things like that while also, you know, not being as complicated as the other two PUDs you had before you. So any questions, happy to entertain that.

Thank you, city attorney. Any questions?

First of all, another great solution to a very, very unsightly corner, very much so. And can you be open next Thursday? Well, you can try, but I don't know if we're going to make it.

There'll be no building, but they'll be popping it on the grill for you.

Any other questions? The question I have about the, the turn in turnout, it was clarified in the explanation. So I understand that's the question I had initially. Any additional questions from the Commission or comments? Any questions or comments from the audience? Yes, sir. Please step forward. State your name. Thank you so much.

My name is John Moyle at 2412 Spencer Avenue. Yes, sir. Just a quick question. I was a little confused. What's the egress and entrance and exit plan for this property? Katie, would you explain this to me?

You go ahead.

Go ahead. Just make sure you speak to the commission on the microphone. Sure.

Good evening. So access is right out onto Page Avenue, right in northbound on Woodson Road, and then full access at Minerva.

Full access on what? Minerva. Minerva.

Minerva. Minerva. To the back street. That's what I was questioning to you. I had the same question earlier. Definitely not. Thank you.

I didn't catch my nerve apart. That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Any additional questions or comments from the commission or the audience?

I'm really glad this is happening.

Janet, I cannot express my agreement with you as strongly as I want to. My wife is going to dislike this so much. What about your kids? I'm not worried about them. They don't have the coupons in the car.

I'm going to like this. I can go across the street for coffee.

And then on the way to work, and then on the way home, I can go. In additional comments or questions from the commission. Thank you all also for a great packet, too, once again. I know Mark already mentioned tea, but that's a really good packet tonight. So go ahead, Mark.

Once again, we have a no-brainer.

Thank you. I was waiting for that. I was waiting to thank you, Mark. I appreciate it. So seeing no additional comments, open the floor for a motion to recommend approval, make the motion plan development with stipulations as presented and discuss Ken Crowder. Second. Thank you, Angela. All those in favor. All those who oppose that motion does carry, um, motion record approved with the yep.

There we go.

Do I consolidation with stipulations as presented and discussed?

That motion.

Thank you, mayor. Second. Thank you, Mark, for that second. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? That motion does carry. Thank you so much for your time. We'll have a council meeting here in the chamber on.

No, it's probably not going to be June 11th because we don't have time to post it. Right. So Diane will contact you at that date once we speak with the city clerk who will publish that.

Thank you for your time. Okay. So we have a two, two, two, nine Woodson road plan development extension request. We already touched base on that one, right? The type of Ms. Diane that was removed. No problem, no problem at all.

We had a few different versions of this agenda, and actually Diane was out of town today, and so I had to remove something from the agenda, so I must have pulled.

No worries at all. That explains the problem. No worries at all. I'm like. I will go straight to the director's comments.

Thank you.

Directors, before I go ahead. Katie, thank you.

Speaking of Overland Plaza redevelopment, the final development plan for the Overland Plaza redevelopment has been reviewed and found to conform with the approved preliminary development plan. Therefore, I have approved that plan. As per section 400.250.C.5.A, I am providing written notice to the commission of approval and requesting the chairman's signature on the plan. So I know it sounds a little backwards because we're doing the amendment. That plan had been finished up. We had a certificate of completion that was provided, but we had never finalized it through that written letter and the signature. Diane has a copy of that letter. Did you already pass that out to them? And then we'll also need your signature on the plan so we can close that chapter.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, sir. And that's all I have this evening.

Thank you, Katie.

Thank you.

Do we have any new or old business we need to discuss? No.

I'll just give a comment here. So I went to Swade's ribbon cutting and they wanted to thank all the boards that were part of that approval for making it easy on them and being very clear as to what's needed and they're up and running. So they just wanted me to send thanks to everybody involved to make that process work.

Thank you for your comments, Mayor. Anyone else? Additional comments? New or old business?

I have one comment yes Mark this this was the best use of the U.D. I've seen. And it was repeated over and over and staff Joe you really to be complimented on this great job.

See no additional comments. Well on the floor for motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Mayor.

Second.

Thank you for that second, Ms. Angela Williams. All those in favor? Aye. All those who oppose? Meeting's adjourned at 7-11. Thank you.