Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Chair Dave Hton. I would like to call the regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Please join me now in the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America stands, justice for all. Commissioner Munos Morris here. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Kulie here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Vice Chair Tolley here. Chair Hton, I'm here. At this time, we'll hear public comments on any items that are not on tonight's agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff. And if action is required by the commission, would be referred to a later meeting. And do we have any public comment, city clerk? No, we do not. Okay. Next item is consideration of minutes from the June 25th, 2025 planning committee meeting. And um do we have any comments on the consent agenda from any of the commissioners? Seeing none, do we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Already asked for that. So, um all in favor say I. I. All oppose say no. Do we sometimes do a roll call for that or no? Okay, great. Thanks. We have a public hearing now. Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public meeting or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyspo at or prior to the

public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. The public hearing item before us is a review of a plan development amendment related to a project proposed at 1144 Churro Street. So, do we have any exparte disclosures to make? Looking to my right, none. Looking to my left, none. Okay. So, with that, um would associate planner Hannah Han please present the staff report. Thank you. Um good evening members of the planning commission. I'll be presenting uh on the hearing item tonight which is for a PD amendment uh to revoke the uh plan development overlay that's associated with the 1144 Chural project. This item includes a request to revoke the PD overlay that is associated with the development project proposed at 1144 Chural. The overlay affects seven properties in downtown on Tural, Hyera, and Marsh as uh shown on this image here. And revoking the overlay would reszone these properties back to CD and CDH as appropriate. To provide context behind this overlay, in 2018, uh, Jamestown had proposed a six-story mixeduse development at 1144 Churel, which is, uh, referred to as the 1144 Churel project. And as part of that project, a PD overlay was required to transfer unused density credits between different properties in downtown in order to consolidate residential development um, at that site. After a series of public hearings, the city council had approved both the development project and its associated uh PD overlay in 2020. Since the project approval in 2020, uh Jamestown had sold the 1144 Cheryl Pro

property to NKT in 2023. as the new owner of the site and KT is not pursuing the development project and has instead obtained permits to allow different uses that would accommodate Kalpali's future operations in the existing building. And as time passed, the approval of the development project expired in August of last year and staff has been informed that there is interest to develop other properties in the overlay on an individual basis. Uh based on the various changes and circumstances, uh the PD overlay would no longer uh be relevant because its adoption is specific to allowing the 1144 TUR project and that um development approval has expired. Uh all current property owners are in agreement and uh do not wish to reinitiate this project um as a cleanup effort revocation is now requested in order to remove the reference to an expired project um on the zoning map. uh doing so would provide clarity in the applicable regulations of new development projects moving forward. And so with that um it is recommended that the planning commission recommends the city council move forward with an ordinance to revoke the PD overlay that affects the seven um properties in downtown. Um this concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. The project representative, Mark Rosson, is also available um as well. Thank you, Miss Hun. I have a typo question before we uh get questions of staff. On page 11, approval of the project expired on August 28, 2025, and I think that means 24, right? It's on page 11 of the agenda of the um of our package or of the staff report. Is that right? Yeah, I saw that. Okay. Okay. Oh, yes. Sorry about that, but that is a

typo. Um, it had expired. Just want to make sure. Okay. So, um, with that, I'll um offer comments or questions from the commission. I'll start on this side of staff. Mr. Moz Morris. Thank you. Thank you. Had a couple of quick questions. First one, u you mentioned something about Kpali's needs. is what was the original project that is now expired working with Calpali to address some of the needs that because I don't remember reading about Kpali in the staff report. Can you briefly mention that? Yeah, no problem. Um, so in the staff report there are some footnotes that describe um some previous um project approvals that NKT had obtained. So, one of which is a minor use permit approval um that's processed at uh staff level uh for an office use um at that site. So, it's intended to um accommodate the the hot house. Gotcha. Understood. And seems like they found a way to accommodate some of those uses should we remove. Okay. And then this the second hopefully also quick question was there was mention of a property or another site that is not in in this map but that it was being preserved through the PD overlay that was approved. Correct. Can you kind of speak to what happens to that property now and whether the status changes in some way? Yeah, no problem. Um so I can show you here. So on this overlay, the uh specific red outlined area is the PD overlay, right? Um but there are some there were some offsite um historic preservation requirements for another property on Monterey. So it's not within the PD overlay, but it is um the buildings along Monterey between Churo and Moral Street. And so uh with the project not moving forward um those obligations would not be um would not be fulfilled. So no historic preservation. Okay. That's right. So the the

requirement to preserve that site would no longer be there. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So that was part of the project not the overlay. Is that the way to look at that? Yes. That's correct. Okay. More questions from this side. Miss Forest. Just to clarify, um, by removing the PD, if we didn't remove the PD, the property would could only be developed as was originally approved. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Okay. In that case, then how is it that NKT was already able to obtain permits? So the uh development project um for the PD overlay there were some specific um requirements or if you were to uh develop it for that project. So it's really for the density transfer. So if they were to initiate the construction of that new building, all of those requirements would be triggered. And so, um, if they were to come in with a different entitlement, that's really limited to the use of the building, um, you know, there would not, um, there wouldn't be any conflict, um, with, uh, uses associated with the PD overlay. If that's the case, it seems like it's not necessary to remove the PD overlay. Just trying to understand the process. the PD overlay um was specific to allow um to allowing like density transfers between properties. So um if there happens to be a new residential development project that would want to use their density credits um this overlay would encumber that that opportunity. Okay. Thank you. On this side, do we have any questions or comments? Yeah, Commissioner Flores kind of stole my questions. Uh, but that's that was what I was going to ask, like what's the

point of this? Because if the permits expired and they're not pursuing it and pursuing the development uh plan for this PD overlay, what's the point of revoking it? I guess just for the future development potential. Okay. Yes. Um I would say it's really like a cleanup effort. Um so the interesting thing about the um the project that was approved it was um kind of two main components. So one one is the development project which is really looking at the building any site improvements and so forth. And so because that's uh approved via resolution, there would be an expiration date for that approval if the applicant doesn't act upon it. And the accompanying PD overlay was to really allow for uh the density transfer between uh different properties. And so because that is a amendment on the zoning map that's uh adopted via an ordinance and so there is no expiration date that's associated with that. But just as a kind of a cleanup effort, um you wouldn't want um a reference on the zoning map that refers to an expired project because there may be conflicts with if let's say uh the various properties they change ownership in the future and then there are future u projects that may come online where they would want to utilize density um to like perhaps develop a parking lot into a mixeduse building. um you may create a conflict or an inconsistency because there's an overlay associated with like a different development project for a completely separate site. Okay. And so if we take it if it is revoked so that does that mean that of those projects that are outlined in red or excuse me of those properties outlined in red that they no longer have a requirement for certain amount of

density because they were transferring densities across properties. So we're effectively what? Saying that if we revoke it that we're not requiring we're no longer requiring a residential density limit within that zone or or minimum I should say. So the um all of the development standards for the zone would still apply. Um, so you would be uh taking a look at density on an individual um property basis versus having that credit allocated elsewhere. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thanks, Mr. Jorgensson. Well, just following up on Eric's question, at least to me, it's following up on Eric's um the the current project that's being developed there for which there were minor use permits and building permits issued uh certainly wouldn't be considered highest and best use of a property that's on one of the most important corners in downtown St. Lewis. So, is there anything that ought to be done to still encourage a greater development of this? I mean, if this is going to be the future, um, I don't quite see how we get to a place where we get something closer to what ought to develop there in the long run. Um I think for the PD overlay um revocation that's really revoking that specific project that was approved um and entitled in uh 2020. So if let's say there is another uh proposal that um uh comes in in the in the future SAP would

evaluate it at that time. And so um if let's say cowpoly um no longer occupies that building um that property owner um at the time is you know is able to uh you know propose a a development project that may be of a similar scale to this one. Um but for this uh PD overlay it's uh very specific to that project that was approved. Thank you. I have another question and maybe this is better for the a better question for the applicant but um okay so we know that the corner of Toro and Marsh is being developed now building permits were uh they're constructing now is there uh intent is there development intentions for the other buildings at this time? Uh so at this time uh what I do know is um so on this image here if you take a look at um there's a property to the very right um located on Hira. It's a um it's currently a parking lot that's right next to um uh it's in between two buildings um uh US Bank and um the building with Blue Mercury. So that um property specifically uh 9 uh 973 Hira has a you know a potential development proposal in the works. Okay. And so the revocation of this would help streamline whatever those plans are. Okay. Yes. Essentially not have it conflict with this PD overlay. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Everybody looks satisfied on both sides of me. So I will ask so the the thing that's been a permit improved is at the corner of choro and marsh right I have that right and that's where kalpali is going to be

involved in is that is that where the hot house is going now and some of their other functions okay it'll be at the hot house and also their um their downtown shop so that was a previously across the street next to right next to the surf shop there okay and I remember this project I wasn't on the commission at the time. But this was a big thing, right? A really big thing. It was like a sixstory building. Yes. Yeah. I remember seeing it in the newspaper. And so the way that that that project got there was by slurping up density from other areas within this red zone, right? And so the density So does the PD overlay does that continue to encumber the the density rights of the other properties that are within the the red zone here? Yes. So, that's a good reason to get rid of it. I mean, because the project now isn't going to do that. So, um I'm just looking for reasons why. And there that's been kind of some of the questions here is why are we bothering with this, right? Plus, we seem to be in the business of revoking things lately. Do you see as staff any downside to doing this? Um so, this is really a cleanup effort. Um, like I mentioned, the development proposal uh for that actual the actual construction of u that six-story building has expired. Yeah. And so because this PD overlay is really specific to that project, that is no longer valid, uh, revoking it and then um essentially uh allowing all of these affected properties to essentially go back to um needing to adhere to just the applicable development standards of that zone. Okay. um individually individually that right yeah so if we revoke this then the the we revert to the normal density requirements or opportunities uh granted by the zoning right right and so the PD the per um plan development overlay we have a zoning map

right and that defines so an overlay is something that allows modification of the zoning just within the the overlay area I haven't done one of these before. So I'm just trying to understand what the overlay idea is. Yes. Uh so the overlay, the specific um PD overlay for this project had allowed for um the transfer of density that was not used from uh properties that just had commercial uses and let's say that property never intends to uh utilize their residential development, they could, you know, in partnership with this site, you know, allow for that transfer of development rights. And there's other ones around town, I imagine. PD overlays or like dozens or hundreds or Yes. Three. Yeah. Okay. There's a lot. Okay. Uh there's a fair amount of staff time that's been taken up and doing all this and now in this revoking period, is is that staff time covered by permit fee, application fees, and stuff like that or um are we doing all this on our dime or what's going on with that? Oh, so this is an um application by the applicants. So it is something that they have paid for. Okay. All right. Great. And so that if we revoke then the density credits will flow back to wherever they would have been in the first place. Okay. I have no further questions. Um so I think we've covered everything up here. And is there an applicant presentation? Yes, sir. Okay. Step right up. Good evening, Mark Rosson, 1026 Charoal. I don't have much of a presentation. I think Hannah's already covered pretty much everything you need to know, but there are a couple of things I thought I would add. When we originally got this project entitled the flexible density ordinance that the city has now was not um it hadn't yet been passed. had been

discussed and we were in a position where we were trying to get this project approved but the density could not be achieved after the passing of that ordinance. We've looked at it and in fact when the property was sold to NKT they were originally thinking they may still go forward with the project and they were actually going to increase the number of units in the project because the flexible density ordinance is now a little bit more um I'm not sure if it's more but it allow it would allow the same thing to happen and part of the reason for needing to revoke the PD overlay also is that some of the requirements of the PD PD overlay were tied together. So for example, to utilize any density transfer within the PD overlay, it required certain things to happen. For one, that historic building preservation. There were also some requirements for the downtown center to dedicate some plaza and open space. And there were some other factors in there when we began. And of course, you know, the economy took a little bit of a turn a few years ago that um kind of started the the uh well, let me say it was kind of the first, you know, straw that broke the camel's back where the project was no longer looking attractive to Jamestown. And so they started entertaining selling the property. NKT bought it with the idea that they may still go forward with it, but with no requirement to, but some of the requirements that were embedded into the PD overlay were not something that, you know, now you have two separate property owners. So, it would be like asking, you know, your adjacent property owner to put some restrictions on their property to allow you to build something on your own property. And that was something that, you know, really didn't, you know, it wasn't applicable once you

split the ownership apart. And so we discussed that with NKT. They looked at the flexible density ordinance and felt that there was no reason that they couldn't achieve what they wanted to do without having to have the PD overlay. And in fact, I think the other part of well, I think that, you know, kind of started out and we were going to remove the PD overlay so that those restrictions on the adjacent properties weren't still tied into 1144 Churro since they now have two separate owners. But then the other um the other piece of that is that the Oh, see where was I going with that? Lost my train of thought. if you want one of the slides up. Yeah. Um with the PD overlay and I'll ask um go ahead Hannah to turn the screen sharing off if we're not using that screen anymore just for the video people that are watching unless we need to use to look at that. Okay. Sure. Um but any rate that's really just some supplemental information. So the density transfer is not required and in fact some of the other properties that have been looked at to develop at not only the downtown center but the one Hannah mentioned at 973 Hyera could still achieve you know a greater density than what would have been possible prior to the PD overlay. So, you know, I I think the you know, the Oh, I know the other thing I was going to add is that within the zoning regulations, and correct me if I'm wrong, Hannah, but a PD overlay is only something that can be um you know, that exists in conjunction with a PD. It's a plan development overlay. So, you have to have a plan development that goes with it. If you move the plan development, you kind of void the PD overlay at that point. Um the and to your question, Cheryl, the PD overlay requires certain things if you

want to utilize it. It doesn't mean that you can't build anything else on the project or on the site. It only requires that if you want to do the density transfer that you would have to fulfill the requirements within the PD overlay and the entitlement requirements. So, you know, and that's how Calpali is able to move forward with the project that they're doing regardless of whether the PD overlay exists or not. So, the project that's going in for Calpali, it's in the the place has been vacant for as long as I've lived here, 12 years. And is is it just a tenant finish on the inside that's or is it going up? No, it's just uh reutilizing the existing building. It's a two twotory building. It has a partial basement, so it's about 25,000 square ft. Okay. And so that has some residential deni density opportunity associated with it that could be traded off to somebody else if another PD were to come along. Uh I would say so, but the thing with the PD, it you have to have adjacent property. So you know, that's why that boundary is kind of wrapped around a contiguous area. But you can't take density from one side of town and move it over somewhere else. you have to have it all contained within. And that's where, you know, at the time Jamestown owned all the properties. Well, they didn't own 973 Hyera, but there was an intention that they were going to ultimately acquire that property as well. So, they were the original applicant or the original, you know, you know, the the party behind getting the PD overlay approved as long as they owned all those properties. But then when things shifted a little bit and pieces started being sold off, that's where it kind of complicates things to have the PD overlay still in existence. Okay. Do we have any other questions of the applicant from the commission? Yes, Mr. Jorgensson.

Did I hear correctly that you were saying um um that NKT would is in the process of thinking about a greater development of No, they're not. they were initially. Yeah. When they originally purchased the property, you know, the the thought at that time was that the entitlements and the ability to pursue that project would go with it, but they would have to pursue a a a revision to rev, you know, to amend the PD overlay and then show how density could be met now under the flexible density ordinance. So, the PD overlay would not be needed in that case. But now that the BDO if presuming we uh revoke it then doesn't that change that calculus? No because the density well not necessarily the density per se but what could be done with the property? No because the underlying u zoning regulations are still all applicable the same way they were before. The only thing the PD overlay allowed was greater density than what would be allowed. the flexible certainly allows more than a one and a half to twotory building. True. True. Yeah. That that doesn't the building that's there right now is not maximizing the residential density that would be allowed. Point of my question, right? But, you know, we're not able to, you know, that that's kind of uh, you know, tough and we would love to see the project get built, but unfortunately the, you know, powers that be decided that that was not something they were interested in pursuing. Thank you, Mr. Toy. Uh, yeah, Hannah, quick question. uh if this um okay so we revoke this from CDP PD to CD and CDH so all the density then goes back to the individual properties

could you mind would you mind stating like what that density requirement is like if we're all if this is designed at the time to concentrate all the density at 11:44 choro and it's no longer We're doing that. What is then the density requirements that will be by default? Yes. Uh so the standard density for the CD zone um is 30 uh 36 units per net acre. So, um if the PD overlay is revoked, um we would be taking a look at the lot size of each individual property and calculating um whatever it is that um the uh density calculation ends up being for each site. Okay. And so that's a requirement though like a residential like you have to have them it's to encourage mixed use. Is that the point or like you So that's the the maximum uh density potential of the site. So there's no minimum uh residential uh density that's required. So if that's there, let's say there's a new development proposal, it could be all commercial. Okay, that's what I'm getting at. Okay, cool. Thanks. Anything else? Do we have any public comment on this, city clerk? No, we do not. Okay. I will note that we did receive one written correspondence. Um so we all got access to that. So, okay. Um, do we have any questions before we call for a vote? Well, we need a motion, right? Well, yeah, before we before I call for a motion. Do we have a motion? I would be happy to make a motion to revoke the PD overlay, etc., etc., etc. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. No, Cheryl can take it. Go ahead. Oh,

okay. Okay. At the buzzer. All right. So, we have a motion and second. Do we have any discussion at all? Okay. City clerk, will you call the role on this vote? Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Vice Chair Tully, uh, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Chair Hton, yes. Okay. So, that passes and we've revoked yet another thing. All right. I know. Okay. All right. So, we are down to the end here and it's time for the update to the calendar from the deputy community development director, Tyler Corey. You're on. Thank you, chair, and members of the commission. Um, next regular meeting on 7:23 as well as 8:13, I do not currently have any items, so those will be likely cancelled, and you'll get a notification uh in the coming weeks on that. Looking out past um 8:13, we have the 8:27 regular meeting in August. And that is where we do have um scheduled item to review a response from the grand jury report related to the town and gown fraternity uh issue. And so that response um is also being requested of the city manager. So we will be working together to bring that response to the planning commission. um basically looking at the language and modifying, agreeing, and then reporting back to the grand jury on that response. Okay, thank you for that. So, it looks like that those aren't officially canceled, those next two meetings. Is

that right? They aren't officially cancelled. I mean, the 7:23 meeting um is very close because our notification timeline would be Tuesday. Okay. Coming up on Tuesday. And so I don't have anything and I don't expect um that meeting to happen. The 8:13 meeting, you know, something might come up that we need to schedule an item for. So I right now I don't have any. So Okay. Okay. So the script here says I'm going to read the script, but because it hasn't officially been cancelled. So the the next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled for July 23rd, 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers, city hall, right here at 990 Palm Street, St. Louis Abyspo. However, it is likely to be cancelled and so check back if you are interested in coming to that. And the 8:13 meeting is questionable. I'm going to be gone on the 27th and we can have the Do you want to hear about that now? Uh Teresa or Yeah, I will be gone at the end of August. So, uh we all just inform our city clerk of our planned absences. This is that time of year, right? So, and with that, uh we are adjourned.