Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I keep this. I heard. I'm sorry. Well, yeah. Not my best couple months. Yeah.

See, we are I think he is. I have not received any.

You look like my students right there. That's the real phone and the burner phone. That's personal and work. Uh William, did you send me that message? For whatever reason, this phone all of a sudden has quit putting names in there. I thought it got your message. Is it an iPhone? Yes. It It needs to be updated. Okay. I don't have an iPhone. That's why I don't because you need to update. It's stop acting. I'll do that a little later. Are we good? We're good. Diane has a class tonight at UMSL for the chancellor's certificate for planning and zoning. She should be back in November. Okay.

Yes, sir. Great. Good on the left, everybody. Good on the right.

Already recorded.

I call this plan and zoning meeting to order. Commission meeting to order. Uh, Kenny Crowder, please call ro. Chairman William Hardrick here. Steve Olsen, Mark JRO here. Well, it says Patrick Oleski, but that's not you. Uh, Mayor Marty Little here. Ken Crowder is here. Councilman Lee Furnest here. Janet Dietrich here. Angela Williams here. Joe Bond, special counsel here. Katie Sanders, community development here. And we understand about Diane.

Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you, Ken. Uh, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Remain standing for our service members, please. I pledge allegiance

to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. It's good to see everyone here tonight. Commission also from the audience. Thank you all for coming. Um trust everyone had had time to read the previous minutes. I open the floor to for a motion to approve those. Make the motion. Second.

Thank you, Ken. Thank you for that. Second move and properly second. All those in favor? I. All those who oppose the motion does carry. So we will now begin we will now begin the public hearing. Please be advised the plan and zoning commission is an advisory board that makes recommendation to the city council. Final approvals are granted by the city council. So is anyone here from 23 2316 and 2318 Burns Avenue? Chairman Harbert, can you move your microphone a little closer? No problem. I got you.

Thank you. Come on up. Please state your name your business for the record, please. Hello, my name is Laura. I'm from Altia Lancer Bane. See you guys second night in a row. So, I am here to represent the um owners at Burn Square. Um just to kind of give you a little bit of information about it, there was a real estate closing. There were two separate lots. They went to get an occupancy permit and they were denied because the garage is on a lot by itself. And so um they wanted them to consolidate the lots obviously. So the building, the house and the garage were on the same lot so they could grant occupancy. So that is why we are here tonight to consolidate um these two lots into one lot so they can get occupancy for it.

Thank you Laura. I appreciate the explanation. Katie, please.

Thank you chairman. Um as Laura said that this is how this all initiated. It was during an occupancy inspection and the applicant actually filled out the application for 2316 burns, which is the parcel that just has a garage on it. So, it came to our attention that at some point a garage was built on a separate parcel and the lots were never consolidated. Per code 400.350.8.2 land and buildings, you can't have an accessory use without a primary use. So, lot consolidation then clears up this issue. the property had been vacant for greater than 180 days, so they lost any non-conformity that may have been there. Uh staff instructed the property owner that a lot consolidation of the two lots was required and they contacted Laura and they put the ball in motion. That's all I have at this time.

Thank you. I appreciate you. Yes, sir. Special counsel. Yeah. So, this is just another one of these quirky things um that we're finding more and more and just trying to clean up. So, so long as um the lot complies with the code, it's a ministerial task to approve it. So, I would recommend its approval. Thank you, special counsel. Any question or comments from the commission? Council Pers. Okay, never mind. Disregard that. Any questions or comments from the commission? This appears to be a no-brainer. Thank you, Mark. [laughter] Thank you, sir. Anything from the from the audience? [laughter]

I'm just here to answer questions tonight. [snorts] Okay. Well, seeing no questions or comments, I'll open the floor for I just have a curiosity. Yes, ma'am. How did this ever happen? I'm going to go to Katie for this one. So, direct directed to me or to the applicant? Anybody? Well, I I would start with that this house was built in 1913 before the city was even incorporated. There you go. So if I had to start somewhere, that's where I would look is that it's just been years and years and years and the owners own both. They own both lots. So they deal like you know I own the land.

So we're not talking a grand. Had they used the other address, would it have gone through? Um they did use the other address, not the garage. So when they sold when they were trying to sell the property, they asked for um the occupancy on both addresses. They gave them the the occupancy on the address 2318 2318 which has the residence, but then they obviously couldn't give occupancy on the other property because it's just a garage and you can't live there. So that's kind of how this

and and that was staff and our team trying to work with the buyers the best that we could. they bought a house that, you know, they were like, "Oh my gosh, are we not going to be able to occupy it? Well, we'll work with you. We'll get you in the house, but we need to get this property lot consolidated, right, so that you can use it in totality." And as Joe stated, it's a lot of little housekeeping issues, right? So, they're able to use the house, but not the garage right now, technically. [laughter] Yeah. So, essentially, once something's platted, you're not supposed to sell it by meats and bounds anymore. It's technically illegal. Uh if you are coming to my UMS presentation on Tuesday or this coming Tuesday. Oh

down. Yeah. Uh yeah, I go over stuff like this, but essentially once stuff is platted. The only way that you're supposed to sell it thereafter is if it's been replatted to kind of indicate what you're actually getting, right? That's why, you know, when we've done some of these, we've either consolidated or made them subdivided out so that they can make it clear what they're selling because once it's platted, you're not supposed to say, you know, part of the the in this instance, it's like part of the south lot, part of 50t of the of the southern lot, 22. It's like, no, what you're supposed to do is supposed to cut it

and then sell it. And what it's supposed to prevent is this sort of quirky stuff because if the garage weren't there, it's potentially an unbuildable lot, which would make it an illegal lot, which would then make it unusable, right? So really, once you pass a subdivision ordinance, this is to try to help everybody. It's just people kind of skirt through that over time. This isn't this isn't an Overland specific issue. It's it's everywhere. It's everywhere. Well, and the fact that the house was built, you said 1913. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. 1913. That That's not a grandfather clause. That's a great grandfather clause. [laughter] So,

yeah, we just see these sort of quirky things and obviously, you know, we try to clean them up where we can. Um, you know, it's technically illegal. It's not like

slap you with cuffs illegal, but it's it's you're not supposed to do this. It can really, you know, it can screw up your ability to get good title insurance. So, this is kind of a learn it like if you know anybody that's buying a house or anything like that, be on the lookout for stuff like this because that can invalidate your title insurance because, [clears throat] you know, they'll say, "Yeah, this is everything's fine, but make sure to check those exemptions because if they're exempting out things like uh improperly platted or sold lots, you might be stuck holding the beans with this sort of issue." I've seen it happen with [snorts] people get houses that I'm sure the title company made them take exception on this.

Yeah. Yeah. So there stuff like this happens. So this is why we're trying to clean it up so in the future a new purchaser isn't getting stuck with a uninsurable or less than insurable lot. So and and the perfect example Joe that you had pointed out was Lacklin and Gabler. And a few of you weren't on the commission at that time I don't believe but that was exactly what happened. They thought they had purchased part of property. It wasn't actually subdivided properly. And so that was what about six months that we spent on working through that. Yeah. You blocked it out. [laughter] Yeah.

Well, thankfully the explanation council definitely appreciate it. Okay. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, open floor for a motion. I'll make the motion reconcilation. Thank you, Ken Crowder. Second. Thank you for that second, Mark. Uh, all those in favor, I. All those who oppose, the motion does carry. Thank you so much. I'm pretty sure you'd be probably be in contact with K consistently. [laughter] Thank you, Laura. Thank you. Thank you. We're here to come back to the next council meeting. I should have the last one.

Well, technically there's no zoning change to this, so it's not a public hearing. It's just a matter of getting the ordinance approved. Yeah.

The 24th.

Yes. might occur earlier than that. Yeah, I I would say follow them on the dates, but uh that's Thanksgiving week. Yeah. And I have confidence that it will be approved. If you're not here, I can't guarantee anything. Listen to the attorneys. But if you're not here, I think everything will be just fine. If you understand what I'm saying, Thank you, Laura. Have a great night. Have a good night. Okay, next up we have the zoning text amendment for dentist screening and landscaping.

Thank you, chairman. I'm gonna um kind of turn this over to Joe. As you guys can see, we've worked on four different code sections with solar p panels actually being new text in totality to the code that we had nothing on solar panels before this. Um the one and only change from the paperwork that you have before you this evening because these matters did go to city council last night are on the fences. Um, the city council would like to see the cost of the permit reduced from $50 to 35. And so I will now turn it over to you, Joe, if you'd like to walk through.

Sure. So what we were doing is we opened up the fence rags to kind of get a handle on what we have been doing and make what we have been doing match what the language of the code is. I think the prior iteration was a little bare compared to what we were doing in terms of fencing. Uh I think that there was some language that was in this weird kind of passive voice about you know it may be up to this but could be up to that. It's like well no that's so there's some just kind of language change that doesn't really change the substance but I think makes it clearer to enforce.

Yes. Um, other than that, you know, the heights haven't changed. Uh, we are requiring permits for new fences and replacement fences. That should just make sure that, you know, when this goes through the process that we have kind of a clear chain of what's happening. Um, there is a requirement for boundary surveys for both new fences, um, but replacement fences, there's not. That's just to make sure that people are putting fences where they're supposed to be, not onto other people's property or stuff like that. Um, other than that, I my understanding is this is largely kind of just cleaning up how we were already approaching fences.

So, I would say the fence permit, uh, excuse me, the fence ordinance itself was like a little vague. it only talked about chain link and wood fences, but we have vinyl fences and iron fences and and so we wanted to incorporate some more of those materials and be specific within the code. Um the other thing we did um raise the height on the chain link in the commercial districts from 4 foot to six foot.

And then the other big I mean it's not a big change but special special fences. Yeah. which was limited to only the planned development districts. In the code currently, it says that special fences come to planning and zoning, not the city council, just planning and zoning. We've expanded that to basically all special fences that exceed what the code allows in all commercial districts will come to planning and zoning. Anyone that's that wants a variance residential predominantly will be heard by the board of adjustment. But in terms of commercial fencing or special fences, anything that exceeds the scope of the code will come to planning and zoning.

And there on materials, there was language about, you know, like chain link, uh, masonry or other typical fencing. And it's like, well, that's not really clear because when we want to stop people from doing certain types of fences, they would say, well, this is a typical kind of fence. you know, so it there were just issues in terms of yeah, vague language. Uh we've also added in some language about

fences used to include like landscaping BMS. That would be a fence under the old code, but when I was reviewing it, it became confusing because sometimes landscaping BMS or stuff like that is used for drainage and it's not really like a fence in the traditional sense. So, we've actually tried to pull that out and turn it into something that we're calling screen plantings, which is, you know, something that is is either earthworks, uh, vegetation, what have you, that is intended to screen property. um and kind of tried to make slightly different rules or slightly clearer rules as it related to those sorts of uses because, you know, putting up a hedro in your front yard is usually a slightly less offensive than putting up a sixoot picket fence in your front yard. So, there's kind of some flexibility if you're going to do a screen planting. Um,

and with that too, we we had to also consider nuisance. So, There was some tweaking and all of that because you don't want someone planting, you know, six foot hedges that when you back out of your back driveway, you can't see anymore, right? You know, you've created this site issue.

Yep. And then one other change that I think was kind of stood out was it used to be on corner lots that the fence was allowed to be had to be 10 feet from the street. Well, that language is now changed to five feet from the property line because, as you know, the rideway might be a variable width and you might, you know, have a wide sidewalk where the street is 10 feet from the property line. So, you could put your fence technically on the property line right up next to the sidewalk, but it didn't violate the code because there was uh the street was 10 feet away. So now rather than kind of remove that little guess of where the curb starts or how we interpret that, it's now just to the property line. It's 5T from the property line. So there is a slight reduction in terms of this overall setback, but in practice, it's probably roughly the same or an increased uh setback because of the way it's measured. It's now going to be measured from property line instead of the street, which is variable. um particularly there might be subdivisions where there's only sidewalks on one side. So those people would get a huge benefit

compared to the people across the street. So um other than that I it's largely what we've already been doing. Um, I'm happy to answer questions or if there are other fencing issues that you've seen or have been brought to your attention, I can potentially answer those that we've addressed or or take recommendations up to the city council. Two of my neighbors have large when I started reading this and it said screen, I thought, "Oh, that's a screen. That's what they have like a movie screen." Oh, two of them have those. Uhhuh.

And I guess they're using it so they don't want the neighbors to look into their house. So just like cloth. Pardon? Like essentially cloth. One of them is lattice work and the other one is some kind of wood. Uh and they're about uh 10 feet. I'm not sure. Maybe 8 to 10 feet tall. Is it attached to the house itself? No. Yeah, those wouldn't be. They're freestanding screen. I would call them screen. I would say that generally speaking those wouldn't those would not be permitted. They would not. It's essentially like a one section of fencing, right? That they would put around their patio or something like that. Yes.

We would still require a permit for that. It would be a fencing permit because they're putting post into the ground and connecting to it. So, it becomes a structure. Okay. So, what if you think someone put one in and they didn't have a permit? You can contact our office and give us the address and we'll check into it. Okay. And they would be cited and go through that process. But yeah, if it was like at a if it was like a pergola or something like that, I don't think we put that wouldn't even be touched by this. Not by screening. No, pergola is still going to be a building permit. It is a structure.

And those depending on the district you're in can probably be up to 10 feet, 12 feet tall. Well, depends on the height of the house. There's a lot of other things that come in to to play with your accessory structures not exceeding the size, you know, the size of the house, but yeah, 10 10 foot, 12 foot, you know, they're usually over a patio or something like that. And that's why I asked if it was attached because if it was attached but tall, it might fall under that. But if it's completely detached, it's essentially like

part of fencing. And I I think that our code used to say or have some confusion because it was you know six feet above level if you take the average of the height. Was that the issue? Well, we did it from grade. Okay. Um so that's that wasn't the issue here because I've seen other [clears throat] other cities codes will say as measured by the length of the fence and people will say well it's 10 feet here and then zero feet here and then 10 feet here. So when you average it it's fine. We don't have that issue. Yeah. In terms of height, the only time you'll see something like that is when there's a hill. Yeah.

And and again, that's by grade. So you'll kind of see that step, you know, stair step down. So it may appear really high on the back end where the hill is the highest, but if you measure it from grade, it's only six foot high. Yeah. Any other questions or concerns about the language? Joe, if I can make a comment. I I read through all this stuff and I also was at the council meeting last night and you and the staff are to be complimented. This really cleans up some messes. That's I was I was stunned. Um it I don't know how long it took. Uh but yeah, sometimes it's quite a job. Thank you. Sometimes things like this are Yeah, it's I think

that just started out a while ago and and then it got put on the back burner because we had other things going because we've we've made a lot of improvements to the code from the zoning perspective and and even the building code over the last few years as you guys have been privy to the reviews on. Um but sometimes they get put on the back burner for a little while and then we push them back forward again and we start digging back into it. And sometimes that's not a bad thing because you experience something in the field or my inspector comes in and goes, "Oh, I forgot about this." And so we have an opportunity to try to make sure we're putting everything into that code so we're not changing it every year or every two years. Yeah. Particularly with like the nuisance issues. I'm happy that we had some time to look at

Yes. There are some people that have planted large bamboo.

Well, it's not just that. And and you will note that a screen planting is like it's supposed to actually be like a full screen. So this wouldn't affect like trees. If you have a tree in your front yard, this isn't cut down your tree. You have decorative bushes. It's not that. It's more I've designed this to look a certain way to screen my property. Uh like rose bushes or something. Um so there are individuals that have kind of shrubbery or or sparse whatever in their front yard. um that is overgrown that that's still nuisance and that would be dealt with accordingly. So, so bamboo falls out of the nuisance potentially. Okay.

If it can become invasive and and I I mentioned that one because we have one on a particular street that unfort is another part of it that we discussed as folks get older. It's harder to maintain their yards. And when they first planted that, they would be out there every year and maintaining it and then it gets out of control. And in this particular instance, we have a gentleman that has some bamboo that we have to have him cut it down at least five foot back because the neighbor can't see when they're trying to get out of their driveway. Is that my house? Pardon me. My house. Okay. No, sir. [laughter] I'm not saying this public hearing. It's just a hypothetical property that might have bamboo on it. Yeah.

Bamboo grows very like this is an issue that I think a lot of people are facing countywide. we see it where I think it was initially used as kind of a low maintenance or lower maintenance fencing and now it's really really invasive and it'll go onto other people's properties and it becomes a frankly a headache. I've seen some cities even ban it where you can't plant bamboo. Well, it's a it's a grass, so it spreads like a grass, right? And if you don't realize that when you plant it, then you're going to have a major headache. Yeah. Then you have for thicket.

Yeah. And you can't Well, I eventually killed what my mother planted in my yard that I didn't want. I'm like, why? Oh, it was so pretty. [sighs] Any other questions about this? Anything else? Commission. Okay, we ready for to a vote. Open the floor for a motion to recommend approval zone and text amendment. Um staff initiated 400.30 360 and 4.450 45 as presented and discussed. Second.

Thank you, Councilman. Thank you for the second mark. All those in favor? I. All those who oppose? Motion does carry. Thank you. Next up, our zoning text amendment for the solar panels definition initiated. Should I go to you, Katie, or go straight to? Go straight. Special counsel. [laughter] This was his baby. I the only thing I had to do in this was I said we need an ordinance on solar panels ground mounted specifically.

Yeah. So so currently our code this issue came up because some individuals uh came to us and wanted to do groundmounted solar and we didn't really have anything in the code to address that. So what this is is kind of an omnibus solar ordinance. So, it'll address both stuff on your roof, stuff on your balcony, stuff on the ground. Stuff on the roof. Pretty simple. We just need stamped engineers plans that it's not going to make your roof collapse. We don't get up on the roof. It's, you know, I think those are pretty simple. It's just needs to maintain with the grade of the of the roof and be structurally sound. But other than that, there's no specific aesthetic requirements or anything like that. Um, for ground mounted, uh, well, for balcony, it's just very simple. You can put them on your balcony. Um, for ground mounted, it's a little uh more language, but the goal here is essentially to require them in the back in people's rear yards so they're not in front yards or sideyards to make it so they have to mitigate glare so you don't have a bunch of death rays when you're driving down wherever.

Um, and that's very standard. Um, and then, uh, essentially they need to be screened. They can't exceed 7 feet tall. Uh, I don't know how tall these typically are, but you kind of want to be able to get in under it so you can mow it and maintain what's underneath it. And it has to be at a not an engineer, but it has to be at a certain angle to get uh the most out of the sun. Um, essentially if there's going to be exterior storm water or electrical, it has to be, you know, done in a way that connects back to the principal structure. So we don't have a bunch of additional utility connections occurring in places that are harder to maintain or harder to shut off. Uh there is a solar kind of a electrical shut off. There was a question last night from the from uh the council regarding is community fire still going to be involved. They will

to the extent that they are they are not on residential. Okay. So so sorry about that but that fire district's completely out of residential sure

construction or building permits or anything there but if it was commercial they would be involved. Well, nothing here relieves them if it were to ever apply. If they ever changed their mind and got into the residential, uh they would just have to get all permits that are required from other local governmental entities or state or federal. Um other than that, um there were two questions from the council last night. one regarding the language that um this ground mounted should be substantially screened from addition from other properties and a coverage limitation of no more than 30% of the rear yard. Um I was when I was drafting this, you know, I just kind of screening makes sense because some people get really mad that this is an issue. It's like chickens like the mayor said last night. Some people are perfectly fine with it. Other people think it's really annoying or I don't know. Um, so screening is just kind of set up to try to mitigate uh people from being upset about it. Um, I don't think it necessarily requires screening if we don't want it to. Um, so I would leave that with you whether what recommendation you'd like to make. And then 30% I just picked a number. Uh I don't think a 100% makes a ton of sense because I think at that point you'd have to do some some storm water or some kind of irrigation control. I think this the number of 30 kind of balances out with a lot of our other lot coverage requirements where we've increased that lot coverage requirement um and then kicked in. Well, if you cover even more, you have to start getting storm water control. Obviously, you know, these are

going to sheet water off of them in a certain direction. Uh there are you are losing pvious surface even if there's grass underneath. It's going to still go in the direction the panels are tilted. So, like I said, 30 was just kind of a number so that people didn't run like a solar farm in their backyard. I don't personally care, but Again, some people do. Is it 30% of the loft or 30% of the of the rear yard? Because they can only be in the rear yard. So, it would be calculated in overall coverage. But so, not 30% of the grass, 30% of patio, garage, backyard, right? The whole dimension of the backyard,

right? So, if you if let's say you didn't have a patio or let's say you had like a a garden back in your backyard, uh, and then you had your solar s your ground mounted solar energy system. Anything that's impervious, that's all that would count. So, this would just be 30% of that. So if you had a bunch of permeable surfaces, whether it be, you know, even some patios are permeable, it it's really just to say, hey, don't turn your whole backyard into a solar farm. But but again, I 30% was a number I just picked. You know, it's not there's no scientific

decision based on that number. 30% just kind of hit that kind of you know and maybe it's over maybe it's under eye. Question council furnace uh on solar panels on the the presentation I'm looking at 400.387 solar energy system regulations. Um earlier it was mentioned that the fire district is not involved. Is this um F safety engine safety disconnect is that residential? So that might be actually something that the county electrical permits electrical permits are required through St. Louis County, right,

for these installations. So they would they would inspect the electrical disconnect because they do all the electrical permits for the city. That's community fire. St. Louis County does electrical. Well, I could um I'm asking for 400 387. Is this for residential because it was said it was said earlier that fire that the community fire

was not involved in residential. So in this instance, so the solar energy systems, the way this ordinance would work is it would cover all property in the city. Um the consultation with community fire as to location. It just seems like in residential, we wouldn't be in consultation with them because they don't care. They yeah they they have nothing to do with any permitting or installations in residential properties at all. That's been years ago that they've pulled out of being involved in any of the residential construction or installations.

So this language could be amended uh to say or other location is approved by the director in consultation with community fire district or St. Louis County uh as applicable. And this would be specifically for the safety disconnect.

I I think for a safety disconnect, we would still convey that information to community fire even if they're not involved because they still put fires out on residential structures. So, we would want them to know where it's at. Whether they have control over it, they would not like in terms of location. Um, but we can um we can amend the language about location approval to have the to have Katie have to consult with the county. Katie, what do you think about

Everything that we get is prepared by engineers. We have structural analysis and engineered plans. So, [clears throat] somebody's got their eyes on this for installation and safety purposes that is registered with the state and has a seal on it. Yeah.

Um I I you know, which is pretty typical of any kind of construction or anything that we do where they're basically putting the seal on it that says they've reviewed it for all all of the different codes and making sure that it meets the code requirements. Um, in terms of the safety disconnect, I I that's completely on the electrical side of things. We don't have anything to do with the installations on those or inspections of those. Ours is simply going to be structural. The permit that would be issued for these for the roof mounted or the ground mounted. So, you know, I I don't I'm not saying I couldn't share that information with Community Fire Protection District, but they have no say so or recourse in it.

Right. The reason that community fire would need to know those is in case there is a fire is they can disconnect the solar panels, right? That's that's what the issue is. Yeah. I think less the consultation or the less involvement more thinking about their involvement. Allen residential specifically, it would be to say, "Hey, the plans went through. Here's where the disconnect is if anything were to happen." Um, but that would be all done kind of informally. Well, and and is it the homeowner's responsibility or the city's responsibility?

I would say it's the homeowner's responsibility under this because the electric disconnect should be clearly identified to facilitate emergency operations. So, I don't know exactly how that's done. I mean, I can certainly make some some phone calls, but I I would think that it would be the homeowner's responsibility. The same premise is u you know, when there's like electric gates put in and they have to have a knockbox put on that gate for the fire district. It's their responsibility to contact the fire district and make them aware of it and then also make them, you know, give them the access as opposed to the city doing it.

In the right in the in the just in this line of this sentence, the electric disconnect shall be clearly identified to facilitate emergency operations by the city. Well, if there's ever an emergency that we're involved in because sometimes for EMS, our public works are still there. Police department. I mean, what kind, you know, really just

if there's a fire, it's not going to be us that shows up as far as community development. It's going to be fire district andor the police department. Police department and or the fire district. Um, you know, on some level, I would think that they have training on that if there's emergency service disconnect. Um, this is fairly new for all of us. This is the first groundmounted um, ordinance that we've had. And again, recently we had someone that came to us, which is what perpetuated this going into effect. Um, again, I have no issue or qualms with sharing that information with the fire district. just don't know how much responsibility the city wants to assume

with making sure the fire district that we're the ones that notify them. I don't think the code would require us to do it. Okay. as it stands. Is there any way under is there any way under the safety disconnect f um that you can just add a statement that it's the responsibility of the homeowner or business owner to notify the fire protection district? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean that would would that take the city of all of our concerns about this issue? I think so. Okay. Yeah. Um

just just because the city is is specific in this in this it ordinance. I have a question. Go ahead. About [clears throat] uh 460 where it says uh system shall not include any system which converts solar energy into thermal energy. Mhm.

What if down the road uh a person would want to do that? Well, I I think right now what we were wanting to avoid is if there's a techn converting to thermal might be difficult on a residential basis because that's a lot of additional heat that could cause fires that could and if community fire isn't involved in inspecting residential, I don't think we want to allow for systems that are designed to direct heat. You know, this is just essentially battery storage. Um, I don't know of very many thermal systems that are necessarily utilized in the home context. Um, I'm trying to think of a of a good example, but I I think the goal was to avoid, you know, things that could explode or things that could cause catch fire.

Um, because that's We're starting to draft stuff that is is maybe should be in consultation of the community fire district. Even if even if they don't do residential, I don't think we'd say, "Hey, put a giant magnifying glass and just I'm trying to think of what another thermal system would be." But, you know, I don't know if people geothermal from the Earth, right? But that would be a solar system, right? And that's it. I mean, I could see where if somebody really wanted to get off the grid y that they would not only have a geothermal, but they would also have a solar so that

use the solar and then when it's dark out, they can use the geothermal. But a prior iteration of this ordinance did include wind and geothermal as well. So essentially I have like the omnibus renewables right law and in consultation with staff we kind of cut those two out because I I think the conversation was mainly that the likelihood of people using geothermal was low because of the cost of those systems. Yeah. And especially the area that we're into, right? because you need a lot more space to be able to run the uh the system through essentially. You need it

pretty big. And then same with with wind where you need a decent amount of space to be able to do like a effective wind turbine. I've some people are starting to do um where you can do it on your roof like a weather man, but those really don't generate a ton of electricity such that we would probably regulate lawn ornaments that are a specific feet size windmill. Oh no, don't laugh. They're out there. One gets this visual image. It's just awful. Yeah, I know.

Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] It's a gnome that spins around. Yeah. Um but yeah, we were trying to target like structures and the structure right now is the panel. In terms of in terms of thermal, I think if somebody were wanting to do something like that in the future, we would just revisit the ordinance or maybe even grant variance depending on I you'd have I mean again it starts out with one I believe that solar panels are going to be more prominent which is why we push to

make the changes in the code. You know, is it possible that a lot of people would want to put thermal systems in? Maybe, but I would suggest that when we come there and cross that road, we consider it at that time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My concern was the heat, you know. I just am wary of batteries are one thing and those can explode too but having a system specifically designed to not store the energy but to essentially direct it is a little more then we are going to have glares and death rays and stuff like that [laughter] and these houses are just quite close together for that type of system.

Yeah. Yeah. Geothermal was considered at a time, but it was I had it I had it all ready to go and I [laughter] was like, "Yeah, I don't think people are going to build those." So, I'm not digging up my backyard to lay up usually, right? When they're doing new construction, right? Right. And honestly, those systems, I mean, so long as you're calling dig right and have a building permit, I don't even know how much regulation we would even do because it's all underground and so long as you're not interfering with other util It's not really a big city concern, you know. Thank you, Special Council. You have something else? [clears throat]

I just had a simple thought in my head. Yes, sir. I would not want to see Oakland become a wind farm. Yeah,

we'd have to lose our trees. That would be horrible. Um so I'm going to add in I'm looking for okay safety disconnect. Uh I'm it shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the solar energy system to communicate with community fire district as the location of the required safety discount. That resolve the concern.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I open the floor for approval of the motion. Recommend approval of the the motion zone text amendment with the uh with amendment as discussed with the modification for solar panels for solar panels. the modification that was on there. Correct. Okay. That was what Joe just Yes, ma'am. mentioned. So, the floor is open for a motion. So, moved. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Miss Williams. All those in favor? I I All those who oppose the motion does carry. Thank you. [clears throat]

Oh, and we were fine with the 30 and this fencing is 35. 35. It was 30. Say 30. talking about fee the permit yard because I I I just know that uh one council member was wanted to make sure there was a full conversation the number you pulled up. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll add that. We'll probably have another conversation with the city council about that substantially screened or whatever that means cuz if you look at like all the W three houses, if they wanted to put any solar panels in their backyard, there's no way they can really screen those at that part of town unless you have landscaping or something. But

but then that defeats the purpose of getting sun on your solar panels, right? Correct. Yeah. I again it was kind of just drafted as a some people get really hot under the collar about these. My opinion is if it's limited to 30% those yards are pretty small anyways. So even if you cover your yard 30% solar panels neighbor might not like it but they'll be okay. Yeah. Thank you. Uh next up is the zon and text amendment uh plan development fees. I will go to special counsel.

Sure. Yeah. Um, long story short, EDS are expensive.

We're losing. This isn't to be a money-making enterprise obviously, but you know, with certain reason, we've increased [clears throat] the cost to do a typical resoning and the PUD hasn't been updated in in conjunction with that. I think right now it's more expensive to do a traditional resoning than it is to get a PUD, which is a more expensive and intensive thing to do. Uh, essentially the PUD is we take their plan, we kind of talk about it downstairs and we find ways to make it work and kind of integrate it in with the community. um it does require more staff time, more legal work than a traditional reasonzoning. So essentially what staff is looking for is yeah, it almost 10xes, you know, but what we're trying to do with the PUDS is try to make it so people have actual plans that we then integrate into the document so we understand what is all happening on a property. does require a little bit more legal work up front to kind of get it done. But, um, as was mentioned last night, if there's a property that needs, you know, five cups to occupy a strip center, they're going to have to come back in front of you five different times to just get it fully occupied where they could go the PUB route and we could get it all cleaned up in one swoop.

And it would actually be cheaper $1,000. Yeah. Than five conditional use permits at $300 each. We have in the newspaper that we have to there's there's hidden costs in all of this and I think we're shouldering more of that than we should have.

Absolutely. In comparison to surrounding areas, I've St. Louis County charges 1,500 for a planned development. I was actually on a team's meeting two weeks ago um on an upcoming development at the corner of Paige and Woodson and the gentleman told me he was trying to rush a $3,000 check for a plan development for another city. So $1,000 is still under what the average is around the area and in the outskirts. Um, but in terms of staff time, legal meetings that we have with these folks to determine what their plans are, putting that in, integrating it into our paperwork and the ordinances, preparing everything for you guys, [clears throat and cough] it's still not this. It's still not equal to the amount of money that is, you know, in terms of salaries. And yes,

so as Joe said, this isn't a money-making uh venture. Yeah, it's it's too, you know, it's not putting such a huge dent into the city's cost for these projects.

And I think there's also a theory here that the more complicated the zoning is, not only should it, you know, it should cost a little bit more, but I think you deter people from having halfbaked plans from approaching this tool. [clears throat] Um, and I think that's been an issue in the past where we've kind of had to pull the plan out of them and then when it was 150 bucks and it took two months of staff time to get it, it's like, cow, [clears throat] this is

much higher, you know, whereas if we would have used a cheaper tool with the plan that they had at the moment or whatever, you know, it would be easier and less staffed. So, Well, and anything I would think from a business standpoint, anything that can keep say I'm I own a um a small little strip or an office center. So instead of having to come back for every single one of those that it's going to deter me from wanting to do business in Overland because all they want to do is get my money for every single, you know, ABCD unit within what I'm trying to redevelop

rent or something. We've been trying to to kind of find different ways to resolve [clears throat] that. We passed the administrative amendment that allows them to not have to wait a month and come through here and if it's just a change of ownership or stuff like that. Um they still have to pay a fee.

Yes. Because we're still performing a plan review and we're still looking at the documents comparatively. What was approved before? What do they have now? Does it meet the criteria? Can we approve this administratively? Has there been an increase in hours or de? you know, we're still looking at all the parking calculations and all that good stuff. Ideally, it's for, you know, the restaurant that's going to be a restaurant and there's no change to the operation. Instead of sending them back to you, we can approve that administratively based off of the previous conditional use permit that was approved by recommended by planning and zoning and approved by city council. But but to your point, if if you have a five suite strip center and each time you get a new tenant and the use slightly changes and you got to go back through this process and pay another what 250

um 300 for conditional use permit, 250 for the site plan, which we did raise those fees on on those applications and it was warranted as well. So essentially, you have free four units and you're doing the CU route. You're saving money doing this. And we in my opinion get a better development because we're able to kind of bespoke and kind of hue in kind of people's excesses, which has been an issue in the past. So this kind of we get what we want, they get what they want. We can all just go on down the road and just it's a strip center. It's going to have

it's gonna have different things in it. Thank you, special counsel. Any additional questions for him? I'd make a comment. This seems like a big increase, but as as we we've been talking about, there's a lot of work here and these are businesses. These are not residences, right? So, we're we're not putting stuff onto a residential property, right? And I think it's long overdue. We're helping them out. We're giving them giving them a larger tax deduction. Yeah. There you go.

Yeah. Uh, [laughter] and yeah, it'll it'll attach to largely commercial. There might be instances of like a mixeduse. Somebody's in the upstairs and someone is a bakery downstairs. There might be instances where it attaches onto a residentially used property, but it's not going to be anything that's solely residential. For example, the uh the one that we did last month where it's the 606 Midland. Yeah. the the warehouse building where they're living in it, but it's also a warehouse. Like, okay, well, yeah, they'd pay the PUD fee because it's multi-use, but

and it could potentially if we had a plan development residential where they were coming in to put apartment buildings in or condominiums, you know, something of that nature, but even more of the reason that you don't want it to be $150 for them to come to us, that that that's going to be even more work. Yeah. Yeah, it makes sense. Additional questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none, open the floor for a motion to to recommend approval of zone text amendment um 400.250 as presented and discussed. Thank you, Councilman Furnus. Second.

Thank you, Kim Crowder, for that second. All those in favor. All those who oppose. Motion does carry. Thank you. Thank you all so much for your hard work on those sir. Yes sir. [laughter] Yes. Director, you have any any comments?

I do. Uh thank you chairman. So per section 400.685.8 procedure to amend approved conditional use permit administrative amendment. I have approved the following amended conditional use permit. 1691 Witson Road, which is Witson Quickstop LLC, doing business as Quickstop Automotive Repair Facility. There was a building fire at this building in January of 2025. Subsequently, the business had to close due to the fire damage. The business owner has not changed. However, the building itself has changed ownership. The only notable changes to the business operation are the hours of operation which have increased by two hours a week which is less than 15% of the total hours of operation. There will be three employees as opposed to two employees. All other all other operations remain unchanged. So they will actually be constructing that building before they get occupancy. But we did review the conditional use permit and site plan so that they could get the building permit and start moving things forward before the weather got terrible. Terrible.

That's the one other side of Paige, right? Correct. To the south side. South of on what's in south of uh Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Any unfinish or unfinished business or new business want to express anything for the good of the group? Mayor question. We I'm assuming we haven't heard back from the two that you emailed me about recently, the dominoes.

Have not I actually spoke with Jason about that this afternoon and and had a quick combo with Joe about 2229 Woodson. Um I think we're going to pow-wow all three of us in the morning um just to go over that code section um because it's technically expired right now. um and how we want to address that and we want to how we how we want to move that forward. The other one is 10459 which is the page in Ashb development. We're about four five months in on that and there's been no movement. There's been no building permit application submitted at this point. It's not expired. I have nine months but I haven't heard anything. And usually you're getting some communication or they're telling you we're we're working with MSD and we're going to submit here. What do we need to do? you know. Um, so it was just stuff that I'm trying to keep on the radar and make sure because over the weekend I started thinking about 22 29 Woodson. So, you know, I or excuse me, last week because I sent that email on Friday. Um, just noting that I didn't remember approving a building permit for it. So, what's going on with it? So, um, we'll be uh discussing that a little bit further. It may be something that I bring to you um for an extension hopefully.

Furnace. Yeah. Katie, what's what's going on? This out of curiosity. What's going on with the the Legion Hall over on Mland? It was had a for sale sign up for a long time. So, to the best of my knowledge, that building's been purchased, but no one's made application with us thus far or in terms of the commercial occupancy. Best we can tell it's for a religious group. It's for a religious group that purchased. Thank you.

Any other unfinished business or new business? Anything for the good of the group? Okay. Seeing nothing again. Crowd, we got something. No, no, no. I'm just waiting. Okay. [laughter] See, we have none. Papers away. I will open the floor for motion to adjurnn. I'll make the motion. Thank Thank [laughter] you, Ken Crowder. Is there a second? Second. So moved in prop. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. It's been moved and properly second. All those in favor? I. All those who oppose meeting adjourned 703. William.