All right, we're going to open up our planning and zoning commission meeting for Monday, December 5th, 2016.
Let's start with our call to order. Mr. Carney.
Present. Ms. Hall. She's absent.
Ms. McGridder. Present. Mr. Robeck. Present. Ms. Silverman.
Friend, Mr. Hsu. It's absent at this time.
City Attorney Carl Lumley. Present.
Director of Community Development, Jason Jagge.
Present.
City Planner, Whitney Kelly.
Present.
And Planning Assistant, Recording Secretary, Jessica Stuttick.
Please note that Ms. Hall is with us, is present.
We're going to start with the acceptance of the agenda.
We have a motion.
Right, so moved.
Second.
Just a rollback.
All in favor?
Aye.
We have the minutes of our November 21, 2016 draft minutes, and also please note that Mr.
Shue is present.
If you all have had a chance to take a look at those minutes and if there have been changes
through the motion to.
I actually saw, I think it was agenda point five, the redesignation of the subdivision
And the last point we went over, I don't think my aye vote
was accounted for in the minutes.
I didn't have anything recorded next to it.
It's 0.5.
Yeah, it is 0.
Yes.
That does need to be agreed.
So we have a motion to amend that, a motion
to approve the minutes as amended.
Second.
Second by Mr. Kearney.
All in favor?
Aye.
Hi,
just a point of way of time for public comment.
If there's anybody who has a comment on something
that is not on the agenda tonight, please come forward.
If not, we'll go to our unfinished business, application
number 16-030, conditional use permit
and site building plan for a Panda Express restaurant
with ride-through service, a 10, 453-dollar boulevard
with free core, within Crete Core Pavilion Shopping
Center.
The applicant is requested to postpone the matter to the December 19th meeting, so a motion to continue the item would be necessary.
I still move.
It's like my Mr. Roeba.
We'll take a vote, Mr. Hsu.
I'm saying I'm refusing myself.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's right.
Ms. Hall.
Mr. Carney.
Hi.
Mr. Roeba.
Hi.
Ms. Silverman.
Hi.
Ms. McGregor.
I'm sure of her side.
So
I'll move to new business. We have a public hearing application number 16-031, a rezoning
conditional use permit, a site development and boundary adjustment approval, with a mobile
on the run convenience store with gas pumps and bright works, car wash facility located
at 11.109 to 11.141 all of Boulevard and 11.100 to 11.114 Oakley Court currently zone GC
general commercial and sees single-family residential. Any people who think they want to speak to
this matter tonight, if you could come forward and be sworn in, I'll just make it a little
faster when we get to the various points of comment during the evening.
Thank
you, good evening.
If you can start with your name and address.
Certainly will.
My name is Kevin Camp.
I'm with Civil and Environmental Consultants located in Hazelwood, Missouri.
I'm here tonight representing Wallace companies.
also with me are some several folks from Wallace and several members of the design team and tonight
we're happy to and excited to present to you the plan for the redevelopment of the existing
mobile gas station convenience store and car wash and Olive and Schulte the current station was
constructed in the mid-80s and then Wallace acquired the sites in the early 90s when mobile
sold their retail locations in this area to the Wallace family.
So the goals of this development are to modernize the service offer.
The convenience store there today is not only to provide the items or the offerings now expected
by the consumer, and the proposed plan will provide for a new on-the-run concept convenience
offering.
The pump area will be enhanced with improved circulation and traffic flow around the
pump islands, and the current automatic car wash on the facility will be replaced
with a state-of-the-art bright works tunnel wash facility the owner is is
further committing to the neighborhood by providing the high quality accessible
redevelopment that is feasibly consistent with the design guidelines and
the comprehensive plan while preserving enhancing the buffer between the
adjacent residents and the major state RTL highway of all of our the
The post site will reduce the current five full-access curb cuts onto Olive with one
full-access location with right-out egress on the western portion of the site.
The Schulte access will be slightly realigned and also will be constructed in order to
prevent left-turn movements into the facility.
The streetscape will provide for an enhanced pedestrian path that provides pedestrian openings
along the way, and access to the site, and large areas of open space adjacent to that
frontage will also provide ecstatic views from the passing traffic.
It will also feature a small mean wall that is constructed along the right-of-way with
with other street trees and other such elements along the street skate.
So this is a generated video from our computer model that developed basically for the design
of the site.
And the site provides for some safe and clearly defined vehicular pathways, an ample room
for backing, an ample room for circulation between the pumps, and the layout and the
The openness, while not typically found with this type of use, separates
the particular
components but keeps them connected enough to appropriately share access and circulation.
See, there's also circulation that is clear and separate entrance and exits for the wash.
I'm talking faster than the video's moving.
And I should note that careful design consideration was given to the locating the site elements
and how they are positioned to create visual interest and provide for the expansive green
spaces on the development.
And this open space and area recognizes and bridges the needs of revitalizing the current
uses with the guidelines for design and the concepts and the comprehensive plan.
This figure here shows the intensity as a percentage building coverage per the site
area.
And as can be seen in the existing mobile site, which is in the lower left corner there,
that represents about 12.3% of that site area of the existing site is made up and
comprised of those buildings and what we did was okay you have the canopy you have
the the sea store and you have the car wash if we look at the overall area that's
to be redeveloped and included in the redevelopment effort that overall
intensity or you know building area versus site areas around 13.1% and then
that compared to the proposed development we're looking at about 11% of building
coverage versus site area. It should be noted that the development overall has
about 50% green space, actually about 54% green space.
So building architecture, so
high quality, low to no maintenance materials are being used to maintain the
quality of the development for the city and the neighborhood. These natural
materials, which I have a small sample board up here and we can pass that
around consists of integral colors, split face bands,
and these materials are used in concert
with the massing to reduce the visual scale of the building
and to make it more of a human scale.
The materials are residential in scale, not commercial.
Material changes also emphasize the horizontal lines,
further reducing the visual scale of the building.
Massing changes are not only to add the visual interest,
but they help define the ends and the entrance of the building.
These massing changes are done both horizontally and vertically to be more human scale.
On the call wash side, it does utilize the same materials and the massing elements
as far as the store to maintain some consistency and the visual connection
between the two facilities as required by the design guidelines.
lines. And we also have provided several connecting elements on the site, which also some of them
act as vacuum stations.
And these visually connect the two principal buildings on the
site. And the building placement and the connecting elements on the site gives the
development a sense of welcoming and community.
So commercial buildings and residential
have different architectural styles and characteristics
in functional requirements.
Creating a commercial neighborhood store,
which looks commercial but feels residential in scale,
is what has been achieved through the material scale
and material selection in colors.
But most importantly, by building placement
in landscaped areas, similar to a park-like setting.
The design planning process also considered
several other important elements,
and we can go through in detail
any of these elements and answer all these questions but I think kind of
playing off of what Jason had asked in your packets that you know that there's
a lot a lot of elements that we have spent a long time kind of developing
and so just trying to give a broad brush overview first so the
landscaping made extensive use of the existing vegetation especially in
the buffer areas and the buffer areas are also enhanced with new plant
materials, a retaining wall, as well as a sound wall or masonry fence. Lighting has
also been designed and pole heights and light levels have been adjusted to customize and
customized for the security and safety needs for each component of the overall use while
maintaining and being very cognizant of the adjacent neighbors. A noise study was
also conducted with which concluded that the operation of the proposed redevelopment
with the proposed elements of the fence and the topography will have no negative environmental noise impact on the adjacent properties
Traffic study was also completed for this project by CBB and Lee Cannon. The CBB is here tonight
If we want to get into further details about this this particular component
But the commercial corridor of ala boulevard in Missouri State route 340 is a five-lane state maintained our tarot highway
With high existing vines, especially during the peak hours and the study found the proposed site access
We'll kind of go point-by-point in their study.
On olive boulevard, we'll consolidate those five existing curb cuts into two.
The new full-axis driveway will be further away from the signal.
At Schulte again, we'll have separate exit lanes for both left and right-turn movements.
And the throat of the stack and length will be about four to five cars.
The second curb cut on olive will be a ride-out only.
It's an egress mainly for the exiting car wash.
The current access on Schulte, as I mentioned earlier, will be reduced to limit the north
bound turns in from Schulte, and there is no access proposed from Oak Lake Court.
The new mobile is expected to have an increase of onsite traffic, however, there is available
capacity on olive and based on the convenience-oriented use of the high traffic levels, much of
this out of traffic will be captured trips from the existing flows in the traffic that
already exist on olive. Those captured trips will add to the terms in the site driveways
but will not increase the traffic flows away from the site. Less out of the site directly
on to olive will have during those highest delay periods have the option to make a
ride on a Shelby and then utilize the light onto olive. Some of the, there are
There are some signal timing changes that can be made to accommodate the additional traffic
efficiency.
And CBB has recommended potentially even changing the left-term signal heads to have
some flashing yellow indicators, which will allow for larger green times on that shorty
left-term.
CBB also did recommend that we mark a pedestrian crossing on the west leg of Boulevard.
and although findings of impact did not require any modifications to the existing
intersection, the re-development just by planning perspective does propose an
open space in the area nearest Schulte and Olive that could in the potential
be future right-of-way in the event it would be needed for a future improved
So the study itself has been reviewed by St. Louis County and the city's third party consultant,
both of whom have concurred with the findings. MODOT has yet to officially respond.
So this
redevelopment side area has been in the works for, I think, nearly 10 years, honestly, with
various uses, all of which contemplated far more intense, multi-tenant type of developments.
We are thankful for the opportunity to seek your favorable recommendation for the development.
We also very much appreciate the city staff, current and former, for meeting with this
current design team in this current proposal for well over a year now, and it has really
afforded us the opportunity to really listen, adjust, make some other modifications to the
proposal as we've gone along.
So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions,
understand the public here in nature.
There's going to be some back and forth,
but thank you for your time.
For the applicant before we hear from Jason.
Actually, you know what?
I do have a, sorry, Jason, can I ask one question?
I have some questions.
Could you give a little information
about how the size of this location
would compare to the one in all of that,
with which I think a lot of people here are familiar,
including, you know, number of palms,
number of amount of that area, acreage,
that sort of thing.
The site area itself is considered less,
and this is from the site area of the island,
and it's this is larger in acreage,
12 acreage of tract that normally
has different species.
As far as how it compares to the alabaster,
it's the same footprint except the differences
This is an all event setting and they call wash game alone.
All that internal circulation, everything goes in that
whole bunch of holes in the back of the building.
So, but the equipment interior in that car wash
is very similar, the offerings inside of the store
are very similar.
The pump and the spacing is something that we would
continue, that's something that we've done with
a lot of new on-run facilities.
It's similar to all that.
So the number of pumps is the same?
The number of pumps that are out of that, we have 18 here, and we have 10.
So it's, what, 20 to 25 percent there?
Yeah, 25 percent.
And square footage of the convenience store?
C store is the same as the previous one.
It's smaller.
A little bit smaller than out of that.
Thank you.
Good evening, Chair Kistner, members of Planning and Zoning Commission, Jason Jagger,
Director of the Department of Community Development on behalf of the City of
Creef Corp. I think Mr. Kemp provides you a good overview of the project in
terms of the specific aspects of the development proposal and how that
project may meet with the City's Comprehensive Plan and City's
design guidelines. I thought it might be beneficial for you to kind of
understand a little bit maybe of the context in terms of what's being
requested this evening on for you to look at this is a rather complex
proposal and that involves properties that encompass both city of pre-core
within our city limits as well as the unincorporated sections of pre-core and
also these properties have a mixture of zoning designations both inside the
city limits as well as within unincorporate St. Louis County so I
thought it might be beneficial to kind of break down these various elements
for you in a larger scale, and I'm certainly available to answer any questions you may have
as we proceed through my presentation or afterwards.
So, what we do, what staff's approach to this proposal, given the complexity, is we thought
it would be important for the Commission to look at this project initially from a
big-picture standpoint, namely in terms of, one, the rezoning, and two, the compliance
with the proposal as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan's larger objectives for
this area of the city. So as Mr. Kent mentioned, this proposal does include
seven parcels. You can see here on the mat, although I don't think I have a
pointer unfortunately, the red box does highlight seven, the project area which
does contain seven parcels. You
can see here, this is the proposed
development area. These are the residential uses that are partially
located in the city and then partially located on Incorporate County. The
the same holds true for these properties
that have a large degree of their frontages
within the city of pre-core,
but again, they're split with St. Louis County.
So this boundary here is the city county limits,
all this is county, all this is city.
The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of this
and upon conclusion of the project,
it would be located on one consolidated lot,
so all this would be proposed to be consolidated
it into one lot. That is also a request as in front of this evening.
So in terms of the zoning overview, again, this is the applicant submitted this. I kind
of touched it up a little bit just to further educate you on some of the context in terms
of the rezoning question that's before you this evening. You can see here these are
the properties. This is where the existing gas station sits on the existing parcel.
and then you have the Cree-Pore portion to the north.
There's also zone GC.
These areas are right now currently zone GC as we stand today.
The areas, the three parcels as we move further west on all of our zone residential,
although I believe there is some commercial use in at least some of them,
but they are zone residential right now.
As we move on the south side of Olive,
this map is a little out of date because it was pulled from our website
which is not exactly current, but this is the most current version.
We actually have this area zone GC as well.
This is the Masonic Temple that was subject to a proposed use in association with the Goddard School.
That project actually never resulted, however, the zoning, which was rezoned in conjunction
with that development application, remains.
So this is zone GC, this property here, and as we move for the West,
the actual Goddard Street school location is also Zone GC.
So that gives you a little bit of the context in terms of the zoning along this portion
of Free Force is all GC and this is all single family residential through here.
Based on that, if you look at the GC district in terms of the rezoning request, the purpose
of the GC district is to accommodate convenience retail shopping and services and offices
which are freestanding or part of a small-scale plan for partial development which are compatible
in scale and intensive use with adjacent residential uses. That is the purpose of the GC district.
And as I just described, there has been some history of rezoning some of these areas to
the GC district based on development proposals that have come forward to the city.
So in regards to the rezoning, I would say it's staffs, you know, and we touch on this in the staff report,
but we definitely understand the pattern of rezoning some of these single families with frontages along Olive.
But we do have some concerns with primarily two things with a rezoning request standing on its own.
One is we would, with this proposal, we would have this property here, which is 11.
One, I'm sorry, one one one four seven all the Boulevard right here that would not be subject to any rezoning that would remain residential
And then obviously we have the the woodshire properties which are zone residentials now
But those are a little more consistent with woodshire
But this is one thing that we didn't notice that this re rezoning were to move forward
We would have kind of a remnant parcel that would still have residential zoning, which means what's the future of that property?
It's a bit of an unknown at this point.
But what we also, when looking at rezoning, we think it's important for the commission to consider, you know, when we rezone properties, what are we rezoning it to, and what is the intent of the district into which it would be rezoned.
And that's where I think we have some concerns with this development proposal and the scale that it is being presented this evening.
So, that kind of touches base on the rezoning aspect of it.
Specific to the development proposal, you have a conditional use in a site development plan application request,
as well as a boundary or a subdivision plot that would consolidate all the parcels.
Our 2002 Comprehensive Plan, which is our existing Comprehensive Plan,
this area falls within the east aisle of Corridor.
This is an area that calls for small businesses with residential character and substantial
green space and landscaping.
It also is part of a key area, a specific area of the 2002 plan called Area Number
Two in East Olive, which also suggests that as this area redevolves, it shall remain
commercial with neighborhood-oriented commercial, and it's also to maintain that compatibility
with the adjacent residential area.
So in the staff report, which you have in the applicant has as well,
we've identified nine segments of the comprehensive plan,
nine policies, and we evaluated this project
based on those nine policies.
I won't go into each one of those, but I'll just try
to summarize that for you this evening.
And if you have specific questions,
we're available to respond to those.
I also wanted to touch on, and the staff report touches
on the 2030 comprehensive plan,
which is obviously under development.
It's been part of your review for the last several months.
And in a nutshell, that plan basically
emphasizes the existing policies of the 2002 plan,
but further those to accentuate or to recommend
additional walkability within the district,
but to essentially remain neighborhood-oriented
and service-type businesses with the introduction of also
multifamily as a possibility.
Envisioned that the east quarter
could be part of a larger rezoning in the future as well, based on an implementation
strategy of the plan, where, you know, this area, if it were to proceed as we're discussing
as under review, this area could be subject to a new zoning potentially as an implementation
measure.
So as we, as I've described, both of the comprehensive plans, the one official plan
and then the plan that we are under review, how does this application comport to those
ideals?
How does it match up with that?
And this is where we have a little bit of a concern.
One is on the pro side, the plan calls for pedestrian amenities, landscape buffers adjacent
to residential areas.
By and large, this application seems to meet with that on a bigger scale.
Also, the plan calls for saving some mature trees
and incorporating that into a site plan.
We think the applicant has also done a good job
with that as well.
But those are relatively minor issues.
Our larger issues basically boil down
to the scale and intensity of the proposal.
If you look at the comprehensive plan,
it clearly states that it's supposed
to be compatible with the residential character
of all the Boulevard.
Calls for smaller retail and service businesses
that cater to surrounding residences.
It also encourages residential design elements
to be incorporated as much as possible
with proposals that are in the commercial portion
of the East Olive Corridor.
And it could be questioned as to whether this proposal meets
with the scale and intensity of use's question
of the comprehensive plan and one
that respects the adjacent residential areas.
In terms of design guidelines, we did not prepare a detailed design guideline review
for you at this time based upon discussion of some of the larger issues, but we did have
a few concerns and I'll just touch on those just in general, you know, the use of EFIS,
the kind of corporate architecture look of the proposed submittal, as well as it doesn't
seem to incorporate some bit of a residential design element that the comp plan seems
to call for. Mr. Camp addressed the traffic impact study. I don't think staff has any
other comments at this point. You do have the CBB report. You also have the report from
GBA, which is a city's traffic consultant. By and large, there are some recommendations,
but those can be met. It appears with the proposed project. Now, the sound study
as well, we did receive that, and we haven't really analyzed that to a great degree
at this time, but we can certainly answer any questions you may have regarding those two
documents at this time.
So in regard to the motions, you do have this will be discussed, obviously, and then you
do have some motions that will need to be voted upon separately, and we can assist in
that as you move further in the proceedings this evening.
I think I'll stop there.
If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer those at this time.
I think if not, I'd like to hear from there's obviously a substantial amount of interest from my personal residents, the areas around.
So I think this would be a good time. I don't have any speaker cards.
So, I think, first of all, there were a few people who did, who were sworn in.
They don't have a way of knowing.
If you have already been sworn in, then if you could just start with your name and address.
I'm Cheryl Richards, I'm just one second too, especially because we have a lot of people.
We have a tradition of three minutes, so I don't have a clock on me, but if everybody could just be sort of cognizant of that.
Okay my name is Cheryl Richards I live at 842 Mary Meadows Lane and the issues
that I just wanted to make sure we're addressed had to do with the traffic the
first one is the whole issue of going straight through that intersection with
Mary Meadows because it's hard to do at this point it said on page 23 and one
these things that it's a de facto right turn,
lean to go on to all of them and that is true.
If you're in the lean and you want to go straight
into Mary Meadows, cars honk at you
because they can't believe that anybody
would actually want to go straight.
And I do not even try to go straight
from Mary Meadows through because of all the left turn,
turning cars that it seems like it's too dangerous.
So that's one issue in terms of
with how to address some of that.
The second issue is how to make sure
that the traffic is not going to go into the gas station
from the Schultz side.
We have a exit only sign on Mary Meadows
for the commercial strip that goes off of Mary Meadows
and people are not following that at all.
They go in when it's convenient for them
and so I'm not quite sure how it is
that this is going to get in force.
And the third thing that I was wondering about, because we had gone through the issues with
Walgreens and Fifth Third Bank at the top of Mary Meadows and Olive, was whether MODOT
is really going to agree to doing something in terms of changing how much time is allocated
in the traffic lights for Olive.
I thought historically they were really not in favor of reducing the time.
And right now with the cars that are turning left from Schulte on to Olive,
it's really dangerous if you're making a right turn from Mary Meadows.
There's now no right turn, so you're kind of turning right at the same time
that they're turning left, and it's really complicated.
We are still training our young drivers on our streets to be very,
very careful whenever they go out into the Olive intersection.
I'm just kind of concerned about having more traffic at that intersection.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker?
And have you been…
Sure.
And start with your name and address, please.
My name is Mark Huck.
I live at 906 Woodshire.
And my
property's right here.
I guess just the first…
Yes, my house sits right about here.
Woodchire Lane is not shown here.
It's just to the west of the property.
A few points, I think it was very well noted
that I really don't know how this development fits
within the spirit of the comprehensive plan
as far as small businesses with residential character.
I mean, it's just a massive plot.
Secondly, of course, I think all of us on Wicharalain
are concerned about the additional traffic.
And especially for those who live
towards the south end of Wicharalain,
my guess is there's going to be additional lights
because of the gas pumps, the parking lot,
the area where the the vacuums are. Additionally there are three lanes wide of
cars that line up for the car wash and you know as they're turning and coming in
they're going to be shoot right onto our property.
There was an elevation
study,
I guess, I don't know if I would call it a study, when we met a couple of
months ago, the people from mobile work had some elevations done, but we really
didn't get time to get into what effect it would have on everybody, so that's
just another concern. I guess lastly, when you're trying to turn into what
our lane coming from the west. We have to rely on the light at Shoalty and when the traffic
is stopped by a red light then typically there's a number of cars coming off of Shoalty that
are heading west and a few cars come out of the mobile on the run so it can be quite
to bear sometimes trying to get into which are laying.
And I really, I would guess they're doing this
because they anticipate having more cars coming in and out.
And I don't know how that's going to help our situation.
Additionally, where the existing entrances and exits
are to the mobile,
they're the first one is set up.
And these are rough numbers based off of Google.
735 feet before you can turn into the first entrance, and then
about 850 feet before you can turn into the second entrance.
So that means cars that are traveling eastbound are
starting to pull over into the center lane, which means,
of course, if you're trying to get out of Woodshire, you
can't because you have cars that are in the left-hand
lane heading east and of course you can't pull into the center lane that's
against the law to pull into the center lane and then try to merge on to these
bottom lanes. So with the new proposal when the traffic stops here of course
you're going to have people coming off a shoalty then you're going to have
an exit that is going to be 660 feet from Woodshire then another one
And that's going to be 340 feet.
And I can just, you know, the concern
is there's going to be, as soon as traffic is stopped here,
there's going to be a constant flow of people coming out
of the mobile station and out of Schulte Road.
And you're never going to be able to cross.
So I don't know how these studies are done.
But, you know, from a practical standpoint,
those would be my concerns as far as additional traffic.
We
have other residents,
people in the audience
who wish to speak.
I live down from Mark Huck on 9.10 Woodshire, which would be just north of his property.
I also have a parcel line that backs up close to this adjacent property.
You know, I think one thing I just want to expand upon what Mark says is if you look at what the existing businesses are there today, we're taking a vast jump from what that is.
We're talking about businesses that operate during normal business hours where we would have residents the way they are now with businesses shutting down during the normal business hours here, we will have a gas station, as Mark said, with life traffic and sound beyond those normal business hours.
And I think that's something that definitely needs to be taken into account when looking at this as you compare to the surrounding residential areas.
The other part, I'd be interested to see where some of the comparative numbers were drawn from as far as visits in the mobile numbers, to see if it's in the similar situated mobile stations.
I think one of the reasons that they're looking to expand upon this mobile station is to capture some of the city place traffic in the city place.
So my guess is what you would see here is a significant jump in the visitation.
Also, the comparisons on the number of things that weren't discussed,
things surrounding the car wash, the number of vacuums,
and all of those type of situations that actually increased the size of this plot drastically.
And so, in looking at all of that, I think the number one thing,
In the other part I didn't see, I saw a mention of a light study.
I don't know that has that been published or something that we could see as to the results
of that.
And so I saw the traffic and I saw the sound, but how that light study, what the results
of that light study were, I'd like to see those if at all possible.
They were on the C's website.
They were.
Okay.
Thank you.
We
have a lot of people, we
have a lot of interest,
we have a lot of interest, but not necessarily speakers.
OK.
With that, I think it's 30 questions
that anyone here has for, yes?
I have one small one.
On the photometric study, which I did not look at that
Usually what I see in those are the levels of intensity as you go both directions along the site.
Is there also, in terms of selection of light standards and fixtures, cutoff angles that are going to preclude spillage of light
so that if you're standing off from the site, you're not looking into bright lights?
We've seen sites that have had good control of the general lighting intensity but bad control
and they're not all, not necessarily the Crete Corps,
but others along Olive that I've seen that as you drive by,
you're looking into some very, very intense lighting.
Yeah.
So that's one of the things I'd like to ask.
Yeah, so you're right on the photometrics, so yeah.
We do comply with the code that the foot handles
as predicted and measured and all that meet there.
So the other thing that we did,
And then Mr. Hoppe actually talked about we,
and I showed you a video from this plan that we did.
We did some, both along Oak Lake and Woodshire,
and then we're proposing this masonry wall,
or what's called the masonry fence,
just to keep the terminology correct.
And that sits at the top, actually,
a retaining wall as well.
So what we did is, we modeled the top of this wall to be such that along Oak Lake, as you do get a small look into the site from back there, that you would not be able to see the underside of the canopy.
That's right.
So you get cut off.
Correct.
And then additionally, we spent a good amount of time really in this car wash area, which is not open 24 hours.
it's a 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. operation. We really customize the lighting to be only
effective enough for security concerns and those types of things on those off
hours. Additionally the site configuration, the building itself is
going to block this canopy from traversing west into the the
and the fence continues all the way around to meet that building as well.
Thank you.
Oh, and had that, yeah, I'm sorry, in the headlight part as well,
as you're coming into the, you know, the pay station area,
that fence there is going to block.
In tradition, and there's also a good amount of rain
between the two.
How tall was that fence?
It's six to eight feet and as we further refine that this particular masonry sound wall fence,
it's very, it's like a stone facade looking thing we've used it on.
It's the same fence that's at the all of that facility.
It can go up to 10 foot in height.
So as we start finalizing grades and get into construction documents, we're not limited at they,
but if there are areas that, you know, to prevent things like seeing the underside of the canopy
of being those kind of things we can add to it.
With general and a specific question,
and it may be better answered by staff,
but if you have an answer, I'm open to hearing it.
Any idea where the nearest gas stations are in relation
to the proposed site?
And then my question for staff is
going to be about whether there's
any averages per capita or per square mileage about whether
there's an average number of gas stations for those measures?
Well, typically, I don't think it's to have adjacent.
Definitely if there's particular statistics for Creve Corp.
But right now, the closest gas station is right here
in the corner where we're currently located.
There's one that's the Circle K. That's the Shell.
Going west, there's a facility right at Alvin Ballast.
and I'm sure you guys are familiar with how.
Challenging that can be to get in and out, because that is a small parcel property.
You know, and as far as locations of convenience stores, along a, you know, heavily traveled,
probably one of the larger arteries of the state route through the community on Olive
is a logical place that, you know, generally that's where they will locate.
And did that answer your question?
How about for car washes?
Car washes, in this particular, well, in all of that, it's, you know, I don't know.
They're a neighborhood use, so this is not a destination type of thing
where you're going to get people from all over the county
going to this particular car wash.
I mean, this is a neighborhood use, and that's why we feel like this is still a strong place
to be.
It serves the significantly large residential community, immediately adjacent behind, across,
and up and down Olive, and so this is not like a type of destination.
So as far as where they're located, and especially the style type, price points,
all those things, are really the demands of, serving the demands of the community
that's there, and that's how it's...
I have a question.
Yes, sir.
Has the study been done trying
to determine
what the traffic will be in and out of this particular site
that after it's built, it's going to bring a lot more
traffic than we now see.
I would imagine, has the study been done?
Yes.
And actually, I'll let Lee kind of address that.
If we want to talk about traffic for a little bit,
I can get it pulled up here, too.
Is that where we?
So do we want to get into the detail of traffic
I think the first thing for us to decide is there's sort of the larger issue of is the
plan itself consistent enough with our comprehensive plan?
Do we want to get into the detail of the building materials in the town?
I'll just draw my question for now.
And I'm not suggesting you need to.
But my thought was that we should address the sort of that threshold question of is this something that we want to work with and kind of, you know, get into that detail?
Does it meet the threshold criteria for something that fits and that we want to, you know, consider and move forward on?
Okay, I have something about that, two thousand and thirty comprehensive plan we've been working
on for a year, reads the vision of East Hollywood is to create a walkable corridor of destination
retail both in the neighborhood service business, small scale restaurants and attached townhomes
and a low density multi-family homes.
I don't see this as the same thing at all.
So it doesn't feel like, to me, it's where we're trying to go in that area in the upcoming
comprehensive plan.
I sort of hate to think we spent all that time on the comprehensive plan that ignored it.
And I guess, you know, because we, in looking through and going through the design challenges
of the site, those are things that we considered as well as the forward thinking comprehensive
plan.
And that is why the expansive green space,
this is a neighborhood service that's here now
and looking to modernize those service offerings.
Going from a smaller site to allow for the expansion
to of those services and increasing the ability
for more modern conveniences that you would find
at newer stations. We feel like by providing like those pocket parts those
expansive green spaces along that streetscape breaks up some of that
intensity and actually lets us have less coverage site coverage from a building
perspective on the overall site than exists now. You know architecturally
well you know we do have residential elements within it like the trellis
over the connecting elements and things like that that start to tie in some
of the residential, you know, there exist in the corridor
like Scotsman's and things like that,
there are commercial structures that's a community service
and a community business that's oriented
to the community or the community, so.
Well, just a quick question, I look forward,
maybe I overlooked if it didn't see it,
in the various site plans, say, beginning
with a demo plan, maybe you could expand on that,
Is there one where the proposed plan is superimposed on the existing site?
I was looking for it, and I can say I may have overlooked it, but that sometimes answers a lot of these kind of questions.
If I don't have it in this package, I do not think that's included in your packet, but I think I have something.
I do also have this that I can probably toggle back and forth on here so this is the the existing
site so you can see this is kind of where the landscape business operates now this is a moving
company type of thing the business operates here there's a little hatched
area that's a deed restricted area that's going to remain as is and
vegetated as is and then this is that these are the three houses which are
part in the county part in the city and then this of course is the existing
mobile station. This is the station of the car wash. Right. And then this is then the proposed site.
So the this building here is no closer than the residents are now and actually even from a great
perspective everything along here stays in tap all the way up into the edges of the fence. So
that way we're preserving trees and then we're protecting with some a little bit of topography
changes as well as the additional wall to help further keep even out of boulevard
noise from leading back through. Did that help? Yes it does. I think a lot of these,
particularly when we want to look at what the impact is, I like to compare what do
we have now and what direction these make us. Would it be helpful if we provided a
a plan that kind of related to for you?
I mean, let's see what we get to tonight.
So just for a comment for myself, there
was a paragraph in the staff report that really struck me.
And I want to read it.
Is staff's opinion that the proposal does not
need the significant elements of the comprehensive plan
and does not create a compelling argument for action
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan?
Nor are there public benefits unique to this project
that substantially justify the approval
of the proposal as presented.
Further, the scale of the proposal
is inconsistent with the stated purposes of the GC
district that calls for small-scale neighborhood
commercial developments that is compatible in scale with the adjacent
residences, nor leave a remnant parcel which would effectively prohibit any
future redevelopment potential of the property, that property, that funds
directly on to all of our just west of the development. For me, that's a pretty
compelling statements in the staff's findings. I think for me personally I
reached the same conclusion. I would like to that is that it's so overarching I'd
like to get some comment from others on the commission whether or not you
concur with that or not because if not then there's a lot of other things to
to discuss and continue on with but to me that's a pretty threshold evaluation and I'd like to see what other people think about it.
I agree with you there and I also agree with Mr. McGruder. We've been looking at this east dollar corridor for a year and I think we're actually maybe liberalizing things a little bit on that corridor but I don't think we're...
This is a step too far.
I don't think we're talking about allowing
general commercial development, like we
would have in the GC district, in this corridor.
So I don't think it meets the old guidelines,
and I don't think it's anything to do with guidelines.
Obviously, I feel the same way.
I want to say this, though.
I think mobile did a dynamite job
in trying to put together something that was well done,
as beautiful as it is.
I just don't think it fits here, is my issue, because we're not, the comprehensive plan isn't looking at a gigantic thing like this, is the way I read it.
But I want to tell you, I thought it was very attractive.
I just don't think it fits.
Well, and I appreciate the sentiment.
I mean, when I think intensity, I think
of some of those other uses, like multi-family,
those kind of things that are going to really
have a significant amount of site coverage
or proposals that have been made previously, which
are several multi-tenant buildings all stacked
up together with parking and things like that.
And while architecturally, maybe they'll
have a pitched roof or something like that.
But the true intensity and the site coverage, I feel, is not as compatible with potentially
what we're proposing as far as the open space, and that feel that it's more of a park-like
setting, and we have these uses that are needed in a neighborhood, and in a commercial
district that's adjacent to neighborhoods, you know, and even from a building scale,
there's the front door of this particular corridor, opens up with, you know, the
Scottman's jewelry facility, which is a nice looking building.
But it definitely has commercial elements,
and that's the front door of this thing.
So I'm trying to help understand what direction could we head.
I mean, we definitely envision adding this,
not having another user, not trying
to do this plus a fast food or this plus another sit-down
restaurant or whatever other part
on this this development but rather use that space to create some of that open
area in the the total effort of making it a more neighborhood facility to
me any
time you get to that kind of scale you're talking about that would be 20
that would be 20 locate fueling location that that is way beyond local
residential that is all about capturing traffic off of all of it's not it's not
a residential small-scale neighborhood commercial development when you get to
that kind of scale of development.
So I don't think there's any way when
you combine seven pieces of property
for a gas station, convenience store, and car wash,
by definition, you have gone outside
that kind of small-scale commercial development that
is envisioned in the, is defined in the commercial,
in the GC district, and is described in both the current
and the draft 20-30 competition plan.
So when I'm hearing you speak of scale,
it's the number of pumps.
Are there other elements besides the number of pumps
that you could point to?
Yes.
Okay, so a couple of things that I noticed is like for the car wash, you're going to
have 17 vacuum stations.
Yeah.
I mean, that's a lot.
So these are-
Right.
But then-
These are- it's a free vacuum service that's provided on that, the exercise-
But it's 17.
I mean, I haven't seen too many car wash gas stations that have 17.
And then 27 canopy stacking lanes, I guess, for them to dry the cars or whatever they're going to do.
No, that's the entrance to the wash. That's the queue for the...
Oh, okay. So just to support what we're thinking is a large scale.
larger scale meaning the number of linear feet in Long Island is probably triple what we now see with the mobilization that's there.
I think it's not just the amount of space that it's taking up but also the amount,
and I think we're also talking about in terms of, you know, 27 cars just being there to wash with the 17 that could be evacuating
plus there's, you know, 20-spec gas, I mean, that's certainly more cars
that are in the neighborhood, or maybe not in the neighborhood,
but more cars that are going to be utilizing that service
in the neighborhood at that time.
So I just have one other question.
Does, I notice this company, this energy company that has this gas station,
is there any other gas station that they built like this
that we can reference this to?
So, arch energy, is that what you're speaking of?
Okay, that's what's one of the Wallace companies, Wallace is a family owned business.
They're based in Cuba, Missouri, and they are the distributor of the wholesaler for the
mobile BP products here in eastern Missouri, and they have about 32 company-owned mobile
on-the-run stores here. Kind of the more recent ones are Olivet, the one here in the airport,
which is a BP on the run. And yes, so they've operated and developed several.
So, but do they have one that's this size?
So, this is that as far as the store itself, it's the same.
It's about maybe a little bit smaller than the Olivet store.
That's kind of mid-block between, same situation.
It picks up mid-block between Lindberg and 170 instead of Lindberg and 270.
Okay, so this is the last question.
Maybe this will kind of clear it up.
Okay, so at Olivet, how many vacuum stalls do they have there?
So all of that is a little bit different offering on the car wash side it's
bolted to the back and behind they have carpet cleaners and kind of vacuum
stations on the back side of it. The the operating itself for bright works is
similar to a standalone car wash facility that they have on in
fluorescent off of North Limburg and they also have an operating bright
Works location in Columbia, Illinois. Okay. Okay, so this is kind of like the first
test run of a station of this capacity? I wouldn't say that at all. It's basically two
successful business units that are under the Wallace umbrella, one being Bright Works
car wash and the other being the mobile on the run facilities. And rather than having
a wash attached to the building with the depth and trying to preserve some of that
that that buffer yard behind there's just simply not enough depth to get that
to work so just moving the wash over also provides for a much much higher end
offering from the car wash perspective and that's other places.
Okay thank you.
There's 25 percent more pumps.
I think you didn't answer about the vacuum station so they're either none or a lot fewer.
than the seventeen. Yeah it's a different thing because they're a pay for use at the
all of that location but at the floor set location I think there are 12 at the floor
set location currently and there's 14 at the Columbia Illinois location and this is
a free service is part of your wash so the use rate goes up a little higher as you
offered. The difference here compared to the fluorescent bright works and the
Columbia bright works is that those vacuums are not individual vacuums
themselves. This is a centralized type of system, so the only thing that's actually
in these stalls where the vacuums are is just a hose that is then concealed in
the architecture. So it's not, you know, the big machine that's sitting out at each
of those stalls. I think I saw a couple audience members with their
answer is we're still open to comment.
We are, if people want to come and be sworn in.
If you have something to say, you really have to come up. We're in a public hearing, so
it has to be recorded. So if anybody wants to come up and speak, just please do so.
Just quick swearing in and give us your comment.
This is Mary. I'll be swearing.
and do some reporting on the trip, the whole trip and everything on the trip, so I'll be back.
Thank you.
So Mary, just let her give her name and address.
My name is Mary DeWise, and I am the landscape architect on this project.
And I just wanted to clarify, there's been a few questions about the scale of the site,
and I think that's different from the conversation you're having about maybe the scale of the number of vacuums.
The scale of the site consolidating all of those parcels is actually a huge benefit to the residential scale of the project
because the buildings themselves are still regular gas station sites but they're put on a huge parcel so that there's so much protected.
There's a third of an acre of woods that aren't even touched behind this.
There's the park area in front, so you can't have a business with a lot of green space and
existing trees and those beautiful trees without expanding the actual parcel to make room for
all the landscape.
I
know you've already been up here to speak, but I'll bring you back one more time.
My name is Amy Blossett, 910 Woodshire.
You know, just listening to some of the rebuttals
or back and forth and the discussion points,
I mean, I've heard a lot about green space on the site plan.
I mean, to me, all I keep hearing is,
you can dress this up any way you want,
but it doesn't change the purpose of this site and this plan.
The fact that a gas station has green space on it
does not change the functional use.
As in comparison to what you've described to us here tonight,
as what the plan is going forward.
I've also taken a look in a short time
at some of the comparison gas stations that they've alluded to.
One of them's on Highway 67 in fluorescent.
We're talking about things that are not sitting
and surrounded by residential plans.
So I don't think that those reference points are accurate
as things to use when we're discussing this.
Thank you.
One quick point, highway 67 is north Limburg,
just like this is highway 340 and it's olive boulevard.
And actually the one in fluorescent
is does have residents immediately behind it.
And then we work with them in the same capacity.
Just, I just want to make sure that Ron's in the picture.
Thank you.
And I think Mr. Ross's point is correct.
I mean, we are providing this green space
And I think it's in lieu of these uses crammed in a smaller site with additional uses there,
or replacing the car wash with a multi-tenant building.
I mean, I think it's a blessing for the community to have such high property values,
but I think the reality is for this project to be revitalized in this area of olive,
to be revitalized at some point, it's going to take somewhere with all for that person
to whoever would redevelop it to invest in something
that makes sense for the return,
makes sense for the community
and still meets all the other merits of the design guidelines
and the comprehensive plan,
but finding that use has left this project
in this site area, whether it be the mobile
or previous developments,
it's left this with just the obsolete structures
that are there today.
So I mean, I would encourage that we love the opportunity to continue to hear the dialogue
about what is making the intensity and hearing that so we can have an opportunity to kind
of absorb that and see if there are still additional tweaks we can make to that plan
to lower that, this perceived intensity and things like that.
I
think at this point we, if there is no new information to take in,
Our question is to be asked that we will close the public hearing and continue our discussion today.
Now
for the following exhibits in the record of this public hearing.
Documentation of possession of the city clerk.
Reflecting public notice.
The staff's report.
The application and materials presented this evening by the city code of ordinances and charter.
Are there city companies that plan the public file or do they have to do
it?
Close.
So again, I think, come back to that threshold question.
I heard a few people comment that they agree with staff's opinion that it is not the,
that this plan is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan,
that the scale of the proposal is inconsistent with the GC district,
and that it doesn't meet that small-scale neighborhood commercial development
compatible in scale with the adjacent residential.
Is there anybody who has a different view of that
that would like to bring that into the debate?
Well, I'm not sure it's really a different view.
I guess it leads to the kind of answering the question
when the question is, where do we go from here?
Because two words were used interchangeably,
which are definitely not the same.
One is intensity and one is scale.
So we're seeing a tremendous lowering in intensity
by an increase in scale.
I haven't just discovered that.
I mean, I think that's one of the things
that the speaker pointed out.
You said you see a lowering in intensity here?
Definitely.
I mean, we're talking about an increase of maybe 25%
I don't remember what the numbers were.
But we're talking about having this over a much, much larger
piece of ground.
So intensity wise, I mean, intensity being anything
per acre, per square foot, is much lower than it probably
is now.
But it's still a much greater scale.
There's no getting away from that.
So then the question is, how do we balance it, or how do we ask the, you know, the presenter,
the applicant to, can he find a way to lower, not lower the intensity, which is low,
lower the, can we lower the scale?
You could call them all the way back to say, okay, keep what you have now just operated,
maybe make a more modern building.
It's not going to be any less intense than it is now.
The other – another approach – and again, I'm throwing things at – they're certainly not prepared to do or haven't looked at,
and it's kind of unfair, but just trying to throw out the ideas that would be required to make this viable
in terms of the comprehensive plan to say, well, it was a very nice attempt to add so much green space
and amenity, but maybe what we're really looking for is to take some of the space that they
are buying and putting in additional uses, just coming way out from left field night.
But that, you know, what direction do you have to go to say, how do we make this acceptable
to the comprehensive plan, but still be a revitalization of the existing site?
So in the acquisition of these many additional acres,
do we say, well, instead of just their convenience store,
there is a beef parlor, a shoe store, you know, whatever.
I don't know that they're even necessary practical,
but I think that's what it would have to be to try
to meet both of these objectives of trying
to revitalize this site, the site from where it is.
it, but justify the use of the additional space if that's not done by means of
amenities and green space.
That's how I see this right now because again I don't
want to confuse intensity with scope. One thing I would add though is you speak of intensity as you know intensity of what building...
Well, it's almost anything, it could be motions, it could be purchases, it could be anything you say, whether it's intensity of, for instance, pavement, when you look at a pervious area, it could be, if anything we say that is, takes place per unit area, so many widgets per acre, whether those widgets are gas pumps or people or number of vehicles or anything we do,
is how much of that occurs on any unit of space.
That is the intent of whatever we're measuring.
Scope is how large is the entire facility.
So sometimes one is a trade-off for the other.
But maybe it means if we want to have both, if we want to have.
And I do.
I've been in situations where I've
seen good sites that in our first comprehensive plan
that I had to fight against because we didn't need it.
And then I can't see another way out of this other than to say, can the applicant find
additional uses to add to his site rather than just the green space and amenities?
I just want to attack the problem that we see, or state the problem and say, okay,
what are the directions we can go with these?
And I very much appreciate the feedback.
Just hearing the discussion is helpful.
I mean, because if we add uses, then we
complicate the other end of the traffic concerns.
So it's kind of like, how much do we want to put in here,
and what is the particular trigger or breaking point
for that set of issues?
I just wanted to state the problem of the situation.
To me, just personally, when I talk about intensity,
It is one of the sort of type of trip generation where it is today versus where it would be
with an extremely large, largest, anywhere-increased core gas station, largest car wash, anywhere-increased core.
And probably the largest convenience store anywhere in Crete Corps and put them all on that site.
It is all about trapped in, trapped out, trapped in, trapped out, trapped in, trapped out, you know, all day.
You know, many hours in a day. That's when I talk about intensity in it.
That's when I read the comprehensive plan. That's the kind of intensity.
And I want to keep what we want with the comprehensive plan, too.
But the one thing is that this type of site use that I think
somebody used to term capture is because if you have an office
building, particularly a multi-story, multi-tenant office
building, you do generate more traffic than would have been
going, people are going from this point east on olive to a
point west on olive, and they stop to get a car wash or to
by gas, but they're the same people who we're going to.
We're not going to be taking people from University
City or Chesterfield to come to this site.
If instead we, none of us want big box,
I'm just using that as the extreme.
If we built a big box store for whatever
the maximum square footage and number
of stories of office space, we
We would then be attracting more movements, attracting more, and therefore causing, because
it would be a destination, we would be increasing the traffic flow.
I think when you're in the business of selling gas, you're trying to say, I want you to
come to my station instead of the one just east or just west, but it's the same traffic
going down.
people are not going to get in their car to go to a new gas station and take a trip that they would not have taken before.
I can't help but believe that mobile fix they're going to improve their profitability by bringing in a whole lot more business than they're bringing in right now, wherever it comes from.
Well, I don't think they own the shelf facility on the other side of the street for instance.
I mean, unless you would know what to do.
So that's where a lot of this is.
You want to get your station and not the competitor station.
There would be, I guess, and I'm not a marketeer.
So I'm sure they're looking at an increase in business
for this site than what they have now.
But as to where that's going to come from
and where they're going to generate X number 100,
more vehicles coming down olive per day, I would have a hard time comprehending that because I
certainly am not going to get in my car to go to a gas station that isn't in a direction that I was
already going. I don't think about it so much as bringing in new traffic on olive. I see it as
bringing more traffic off of olive that's already there than is now coming in. That's why I
asked earlier, what they thought the trips in and out would be?
So I did a quick calculation here.
If I read the traffic study correctly,
the current traffic generation is about 300 on that site.
And the projected was 820, so almost three times as many.
So that means in the middle of a neighborhood area,
you've got Wilshire, you've got the Lincoln
You've got all of the residences there on Schulte, Mary Meadows, all those areas around
here.
You're increasing the number of movements in and out of there, and at that life, from
300 a day, which I would call residential in scale, to almost triple that.
And that's what I think of as the intensive increase that we're seeing here, is bringing
bringing in something to that site that encourages so much more of that, you know,
it's almost like a giant fast food restaurant, you know, it's like that constant in and out,
which is, you know, appropriate in some parts of the city, but in this area that is, is still more
and walkable and is still more residential in the area,
that's a pretty substantial change in current situation.
And the comprehensive plan calls for creating
more walkability, not less.
And simply by increasing the traffic three times
or decreasing the walkability.
I mean, if you're having cars come in and out
that many more times, it becomes more treacherous to walk
and you could put all the green space you want,
But that's not going to change.
I mean, there has to be another way to.
I think currently, I think there's a shoulder right there.
Oh, sorry.
I'll let us have some discussion,
and then we'll give you another chance to read about it.
Yeah, I mean, I saw the same thing in the traffic study.
But I mean, before we talk about the traffic study,
the biggest issue is just the comp land,
whether it fits in with the comp land.
And if those spots next door that were residential and weren't designated that way, it may be
an easy decision, but at this point I think it speaks for itself.
It's a high hurdle to change that designation to accommodate this project.
Yeah, I tend to agree.
I think, I don't know, I'm thinking in terms of what the scope of it is,
One of the people in the audience came up and said that, you know, you're putting this
in in lieu of, you know, further commercial development that would potentially also be
a small business, but it's a gas station campus.
It's a very large campus of gas station amenities.
I don't know the Wallace family, but, I mean, they're not the first ones to put
but a gas station with a car wash and a vacuum station.
It's great, I think it drives business
for one to the other,
but they all drive business to each other.
It's very different than if you had,
perhaps like a coffee house as part of the lot.
Or someone mentioned a pizza parlor.
I think it's a beautiful site.
I hope you'll put it in somewhere in Kreep Gore.
Just not here.
I just, actually I don't see it
meeting the requirements of either cop plan.
I'm almost led to change my question from a rhetorical question then to a real question.
It wouldn't be possible to take this plan and rather than try to overly use the amenity of the green space per se,
Is it possible to add additional uses that you're acquiring
additional property?
Significantly more than they have now.
Is it possible to blend this in a campus, if you will,
but place additional uses there which would then
be directed in the direction that we're trying to go
with the complex. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Have a smaller gas station
complex with something that isn't gas station attached to it. Right because they spread this
out over an enormous amount of square foot. I just wanted to see if that's what you meant.
Thank you. So what we're asking what you're saying is maybe they might want to get into
some of the business other than gas station business, which surprised me.
It would except, you know, as property owners, as landowners that you will develop.
But I don't know, that's, I'm trying to see how do you get from here to there.
And I don't know.
And one of the things, when we come back to them, I'd like to ask, do they have,
I'd like to find a little bit more about the question of traffic generation.
I generally agree.
My name's Lee Cannon.
I'm a principal of Traffic Engineer with CBB here in St. Louis.
12, 400, Olive, Suite 430, proud business resident of Creek Court.
We did complete the traffic study.
it's part of the record, just before the record dated November 4, 2016.
First of all, I wanted to say that in general terms, I agree with everything that Mr. Rovac
said about traffic and captured traffic from olive, not creating new trips.
And to build on the discussion of intensity, I would like to maybe introduce the word density into that equation.
And this site, based on the size of the parcels that have been collected together, creates a low density development.
The traffic use, if we just talk about traffic, a site like this might be considered to have
a high intensity of traffic to and from the site or on the site, but the traffic, the
majority of the traffic that goes to these types of sites, over half, is typically traffic
that's already on the road, so they're just pulling the traffic from the existing
state highway.
All of Boulevard carries approximately 30,000 cars a day, and that's a very attractive
roadway to collect business from, because it's already there going from point A to point
B. It's a state highway, Missouri State Route 340.
One of the other issues that may be of interest related to the comp plan and traffic
is something that I would refer to as character.
If we're worried about the intensity of traffic,
then additional land uses added to this site,
such as coffee shops and restaurants specifically,
will add substantial amounts of traffic.
I know that typically we don't do a lot of drives
and facilities in Crete Corps,
or which tend to have their own additional traffic issues.
But I would like to also mention, I heard the chair mention
something about 800 trips.
I don't think that's correct.
On page 14 of the traffic study, we looked at the existing
mobile station, and it's currently generating the
morning, midday, and PNP hours, 80 trips in the morning,
120 in the afternoon of midday and 100 in the afternoon, and that's the total of all the cars that go in and all the cars that go out.
And so that 65 cars per hour in the midday peak, that's about a little over one car per minute on average.
It's not extreme level of volume to have one car going in and one car coming out every minute.
It's higher than residential use is obviously, but we are on the same highway and then the proposed mobile station is anticipated to go up to the order of 200 total 100 and 100 hours in the morning.
310 in the midday, which is 155 in, 155 out, and 240 in the afternoon, p and peak hour, 120 and 120 out.
Those numbers are a little different from, I read, 230, 310, 280.
Right, that is another estimate that's presented in Table 4 of the traffic study.
I was referring to Table 6, which are the actual numbers that were utilized in the work.
So, most redevelopment that makes it worthwhile to spend money to redevelop is going to generate additional traffic.
The question in a traffic impact study, and again, aside from the other issues that have been discussed tonight,
is can the proposed access and can the existing roadways accommodate that traffic?
So from the city's third-party traffic engineer that looked at our study,
they generally concurred that our study was appropriate and our findings were correct.
The St. Louis County who owns and maintains Schulte has also provided us
comment and feedback that they believe that our findings are appropriate and
correct. The State Highway Department is still reviewing the study and hasn't yet
It's important to consider when CBB is asked to do a traffic impact study, I assume you're
going to approve it and I assume that it's going to be successful because in order to
generate traffic, those two things have to occur.
So I'm assuming that it's approved and we're looking at how to mitigate any impacts and
how to make it the best site that it can be, assuming that it can be.
So, one of the issues today is that the driveway for mobile is offset with the
shell across the street and it provides full access. This proposal, if moves forward,
would have a no left in as requested by St. Louis County and what that's trying
to do is eliminate any backups that might occur for traffic headed northbound
on Schulte. It also provides the ability, because there's all this space, that there's
excess space here in this area which has been identified for long-term potential improvement
needs for the intersection of
Mary Meadows and Shulte, which as you heard from one of the earlier speakers, is offset
and creates some problems. And we've known about that for 10 or 15 years now. It's just
that there's a lot of obstacles, including a shell station sitting here in this corner
occupying the space and the fact that Mary Meadows is a private right-of-way. I'm trying
to work through those. This project would set aside that ground as provided the potential
for a future project and now the existing mobile station is not in the way of making a safer
and more efficient intersection.
Next thing is that there's five curb cuts along this roadway.
And one of the negative safety issues in roadways is poor access management, having too many
curb cuts too close together with people coming and going from all different places.
This site has what I'll call one and a quarter driveways.
It has one full-axis drive where you can make a right-in, left-in, right-out, left-out.
And then it has one right-out only, so I'm going to count it as a quarter.
It's a whole driveway, but there's no left-in, no left-out, and no right-in
because that's the exit of the car wash.
So we went from five driveways to one plus or two, however you like to use that map.
And this driveway now is set up with three lanes.
So there's one full inbound lane, one left turn out, one right turn out.
So at any time when there's a left turn waiting to get out,
and maybe he has to wait a little longer because you're turning left out on the olive,
there'll be an opportunity for the right turns to get behind them and move out.
and that's a much better intersection
of what's there today.
Next thing is, you don't see this at a lot of gas stations,
especially in urban environments.
We have a very long driveway throat here
which allows some cars to stack
while they're waiting to get out
and not impede the cars as they're coming in.
Again, you can't do that without lots of space.
If you look at the existing condition,
you'll notice you come in,
you're right in the apron for the gas pump.
And
then also, with the drive-through car wash, there's ample opportunities for stacking
such that folks that are waiting on the very busiest of days to get into the car wash won't
be impacting the people that are trying to get to the gas canopy or the sea store and
or in and out of the site.
So the density of this site has allowed much better flow and efficiency on the site.
It's also allowed the driveways to be spaced much further away from the signal and much
further away from each other.
And last thing, this area here currently is part of the mobile station and these areas
are the front yards and driveways to these homes being used as businesses.
is this area, as it's opened up, provides the ability to do pedestrian and green space
amenities that you can't do with what you have today. If you're trying to push the site
that exists, leave it there or maybe just renovate the existing facilities. There's
just not enough room to allow this kind of space which now projects across the entire
facility. So again, the track unit I said assumes you're going to approve the site, it's going
to generate trips, it's going to be successful, it's going to generate those trips at a successful
level and what, if anything, do we need to do the road system? Well, we've been working
on this site in different iterations for many years, so we kind of knew the civil
engineer Kevin Caspin, the same engineer. Wallace Oil has been involved as well as
as part of that development or all of that development depending on the iteration.
So a lot of those things are kind of baked into this site plan as we went through.
Some have been added on like the three-lane driveway and the restriction that was requested
by the county of the North Island.
So that's about all I have to say.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have at any level of detail in the
traffic impact study that you might want to know.
I do have one question for Jason.
Modot has not weighed in yet.
When is that expected?
And one question I have is whether or not
with a gas station car wash of this pretty significant size
taking the place of the small one that's there now,
Would they really be okay with a left out right in front of a signal like that?
Generally, you're looking to see less of those.
And is that a possibility that they would have a problem with that?
So I think the first question was in terms of the scale of it.
Was that your question, I guess, on the first part of it?
I'm sorry, just could you repeat the first question?
Just asking about MODOT.
Okay, I'm sorry, yes.
If we had a preliminary design review with the applicant,
their engineer as well as staff, Whitney and myself,
and MODOT at MODOT's offices probably about two months ago.
So we discussed in general terms the plan,
what the traffic impacts study should entail and so forth.
But they have, as Mr. Cannon mentioned to you,
Maybe they have not produced a formal opinion of it yet or a formal recommendation at this
time.
St. Louis County has and that letter has been included in your packet and in general they
concur with CBB's assessment of the traffic impacts associated with this proposed development.
Our civil, I'm sorry, our traffic engineer, the city's consultant, which is GBA.
They also, by and large, have backed the plan by CBB with some adjustments and some questions,
but overall, they don't have a big issue with it either.
When do you expect MODOT to speed that?
I don't.
Mr. Kana may know.
I don't.
They haven't been in direct communication with staff.
Typically, the applicant is the one working with MODOT in terms of getting their specific
approval.
Mr. Kana?
We were hoping to have it this evening.
We inquired about it last week.
They had some people out over the holidays.
So I hope to get it soon, speaking for another agency.
And so who controls these roadways?
MODOT for Olive and St. Louis County for Shilty.
They are the controlling jurisdictions for access
and traffic management concerns.
I would say our role is mainly looking at the zoning
and the impact to the surrounding areas and so forth.
We do have a role in it, obviously, it's in our city, but in terms of jurisdiction of
roadways, St. Louis County for Schulte, MoDOT for all.
Since something is going back a little bit different than the traffic, it's just looking
through and thinking about what about this doesn't fit with the comprehensive plan,
both the past and the future.
The size and the scale in terms of being useful to that local market and fitting
to that residential area, and then also in terms of creating that walkable corridor, there's
not necessarily a walking destination in this. I would see those as being two of the largest
issues.
To me, the big issues of not being consistent with the purposes of the GC district, the
the scale of the proposal are totally separate from traffic impacts.
And I think there are some.
There's certainly a concern to Marinetta.
There's probably some of the people who live back on Schulte.
It's a lot more in and out.
But that for me is not the determining factor.
It's not a traffic issue.
It is whether or not this fits in a neighborhood development kind of area,
they're likely to install a corridor.
Yeah, I would kind of agree.
I guess that the whole thing is how can we get
or what configuration of this or some successor
would give us this mixed use that we're looking for.
I think the walkability annulment is a problem.
Once you concentrate, you have all those,
right now you have all those curb cuts,
I do a lot of walking and a lot of running.
If everything's concentrated in one place,
I feel a lot more a lot safer a lot more comfortable going down and knowing where I'm going to see the traffic
So I think it all comes down to
What and how
What's going to lead to that
And where will we be what will be
And if we deny this or place other conditions, what will grow out of it, I think that's the answer I don't have at all.
I see that as the stumbling block because of the stated nature that we're looking for in this area.
So I think for tonight we have two choices, more or less.
I think if the
commission thinks that additional design considerations or other modifications
might be necessary, which could include reducing the scale,
we could make a motion to continue the proposal to their December 19 meeting later
and provide some more direction.
If we find that the proposal is simply inconsistent with the comprehensive plan with the purpose
and intent of the general commercial district, then we should make motions to approve each
of the applications and then individually vote to recommend denial.
So that's where they build
that second route because this just does not seem to
or do we think there is something to work with
and we want to try to talk about further modifications.
And I would say to do that, we would have to provide
some direction, some very specific direction
to with which staff and the applicants could work from.
I agree, we can't say come back to something else
if the applicant doesn't have something else,
there isn't willing to do that.
Well, I mean, we have heard some things.
And surprising, the more use thing actually
was not something that came up.
But that's something that, I mean,
we could potentially look at as far as, you know,
or used to kind of toy with the dialogue that we've
been able to have tonight.
But in general, this is the plan
that you're really here for.
You're not looking for something half this size.
Now I'm putting words in your mouth.
But are you flexible to the point of looking at something half
the size, or are you really looking for something pretty much
along this scale with maybe some small modifications?
I'm not sure to the extent the modifications.
I mean, I'm still just a representative of the client.
So to hear the feedback and understand that feedback,
You know, to continue the hearing or continue the motion and just leave it on the table to give us an opportunity to see if can we come with something.
I think it's probably a better avenue to give us some options in exploring that.
You know, but I, and just because I, you know, here on the fly, I can't lay out design and that kind of stuff.
But if we went the route of approving the applications
and then vote individually, and we decided it wasn't going to work,
then I'm not going to approve them.
Not to approve them, but I said motion to approve them,
which is what you have to do in order to turn up that order.
And my point being, if they want to come back with another proposal
and another time for something different, they can always do that.
If we do that, so if we continue this, it's just, to me, seems to be the waste of time.
Unless they wish to modify the plan to a point that would be more in conformity with the comprehensive plan.
I guess what I'm saying is that if we did the previous and they wanted to come back with another plan,
rather than modify the plan that's here, they could still do that.
I would only say to that, and I don't disagree with the sentiment, but there's a lot of work
of their time, the staff's time, have obviously gone into this, and we've conveyed obviously
some pretty substantial concerns, and staff has to, I mean they came here tonight with
the staff report is pretty clear where they were coming from,
but I would be OK with continuing it for one more meeting
to allow staff and the applicant to see
if there's any substantial revisions that they might
want to come back with, and if not,
then we'll go ahead and put on the application for us.
Well, just a couple of comments for you.
First of all, if you're going to continue the item tonight, which you would want to continue
all applications, it sounds like, rather than voting a separate way, you want to continue
all of it.
Okay, for further discussion.
One thing is I think the applicant would benefit from having your direction in terms
of how you're going to continue this.
Are you going to continue it to just have them throw out things that may or may not work
because that's not really, I don't think, what you should do. You do have an application in
front of you if you want to continue it and if there's specific direction where if you're
at the idea of scaling it down, which is what I'm hearing, you know, we just need
to give them, I think, a little bit marching orders if we're going to continue it. What
I've heard tonight is that this project does not meet with the concepts of the
comprehensive plan, and that's the biggest sticking point.
It's a matter of scale.
It's just too much for this site.
In this part of all the Boulevard, it's just too much.
That's what I'm hearing.
So they could go back and they could scale it back down,
maybe window it down to a much smaller gas station,
much smaller car wash.
That certainly is an option for you to consider.
But at some point, we're gonna have to re-notice this.
If this project is a complete change
versus what we have versus minor tweaking and adjusting I think we owe it to the
public to re-notice this as a separate application so if you don't like this
project you're recommending it first of all to the City Council they ultimately
will make the decision unless the applicant were to withdraw prior to the
Council's consideration but you are recommending body for the City Council
they make the ultimate decision on this so there's that I just I just wanted
to kind of give you a little context on this in terms of how much you
should probably adjust at this stage or whether you, if you do vote to deny, maybe the reasons
are can be articulated in that summary for them to come back with a new application at
some point in the future as well.
That's another option for you.
I haven't thought about the re-noticing of the picture, and just substantially, you're
basically talking about a new project anyway.
I think we're looking at a substantial change in order to set the conference.
One
thing that may be an issue is the new comp line.
I'm selecting after Christmas and maybe revisiting it after that new comp line is in and actually see what we're looking at.
It doesn't meet the old comp line.
I don't think it'll meet the new comp line, but it may.
So that might be an option.
Sounds like we're moving towards taking up each of the applications with motions and taking it right on individually tonight.
Do we vote to deny it, or do we vote to, or do we, does it die for lack of emotion or a second?
No.
We're going to take some of that.
Okay.
We
would either continue it to a future meeting for further revisions or vote it up or down.
Okay.
I think we're going to do all of them.
I mean, if we are going to vote on the applications, there are three of them, so we have to go through all three of them.
I've moved to approve applications 16-031 for the rezoning of properties at 111-27, 111-35, and 111-41.
All in boulevard currently zone C, single-family residential to GC, general commercial.
So discussion on this one is just the rezoning of it.
On my part I think the properties that are subject to this may or may not be appropriate
for GC and certainly in that area and it's not that they don't fit but I would not approve
of a rezoning without a use in mind in something we look at.
And since this particular one is not a plan that is appropriate
for the area, I would not approve the rezoning to GC.
But on that basis, not on the basis
that GC in and of itself would never be appropriate.
I would think that would
I be for vote?
Just to clarify, the motion was to deny the motion to be approved.
If we approve the motion as read, then we're saying it's okay to rezone it for C.
Correct.
Is that what we want to do?
You have to make the motion in the affirmative, and then the vote can be either to support
the motion which is in the affirmative, which would be to approve or to be not in favor,
which would be to deny the rezoning request.
And I had stated my reasoning that I plan to vote no is because the rezoning to me
is connected to the application behind the views behind it.
If I don't understand, thank you.
Okay.
All right.
So are you ready for a vote?
Mr. Shue?
No.
Ms. Hall?
No.
Mr. Kearney?
No.
Ms. Roeback?
No.
Ms. Silverman?
No.
Ms. McRuder?
No.
And the chair votes no.
Do we have a motion for applications 16-0-3-1 for the boundary adjustment?
I move to approve application number 16-0-3-1 for boundary adjustment and conditional use
permit for a mobile on the run convenience store with 20 gas pumps.
in a Bright Works car wash facility with 17 outdoor vacuum stations located at 1119, 1114,
four, one olive boulevard and one one one zero zero, one one one one four,
Oak Lake Court.
Second.
Discussion.
On this one,
I would say boundary adjustment is not the issue,
and although we didn't get into a great deal of detail on this conditional use permit,
I think a 20 gas station pumps and a very large car wash facility with 17 outdoors is not appropriate for that residential area.
But again, I'm looking at the context of this overall proposal, so for that reason I've been doing that.
Are
you ready for a vote?
Any other comments?
Comments from the public?
Mr. McGridder?
Mr. Silverman?
Mr. Rovac?
Mr. Kearney?
Mr. Schu?
Mr. Rovac?
And finally the last one.
To approve application number 16 to have 031 for site development plan for mobile on the running convenience store.
The 20 gas pumps and a bright works car wash facility.
the 17 outdoor vacuum stations located at 1109 to 11141 Oliver Bar and 11100 to 11114 Oakland Corp.
Second from Mr. Rebek, do you have any discussion?
I wish they'd put it somewhere else in Grief Corp. We could just strike the address.
The
landscaping and layout was really very nice but as the staff had stated, I don't think the proposal meets with significant elements of the comprehensive plan.
It doesn't create a compelling argument for being inconsistent with it.
There are sufficient public benefits unique to this project that substantially justify
the proposal is presented and specifically the scale of the proposal is inconsistent
with the stated purpose of the GC district that calls for small-scale neighborhood commercial
developments compatible in scale with the adjacent residents.
That's my reasoning and if anybody has anything to add to that.
I'm ready for a vote.
Mr. McGruder.
Nate.
Mr. Silverman.
No.
Mr. Roelach.
No.
Mr. Kearney.
No.
Mr. Hall.
No.
Mr. Shue.
No.
Chair Lozman.
Chair, if I could just add.
Now that the vote's been cast, this matter will be referred to the City Council for
final decision at Monday's City Council meeting, which is December 12th.
They will take up the application with a negative recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
I'm sorry, yes, as Mr. Dolomit said, for introduction, for first reading.
Thank you, everyone, for coming and for all the input.
Next is our work agenda.
Department reports.
Thank you.
Would you like to take a five-minute break to clear out the room?
Okay.
Wait a minute.
I do all the things.
I think we're close to the meeting.
I'm good.
Hi.
Okay, I do have a few items just to remind the commissioners of several of the upcoming
meetings that we have.
We do have this special meeting to discuss the comprehensive plan scheduled for December
15th at 6.30 p.m. so I just wanted to remind you of that.
That meeting we will go over revisions based on prior meetings for Chapter 4 and then
get into Chapter 5. I also want to bring to your attention, as you've noticed that we've
had some commercial property owners that have attended our public hearings from time to time.
Staff has made a concerted effort through this process to schedule review meetings regarding
the draft plan at different stages. We continue to get feedback that they still have some
concerns with this plan in the direction where it is heading and mostly in a couple
of the commercial areas, largely I think the central core, the town center kind of area,
olive and ballast, as well as the east olive corridor.
So at the request of a couple of them, several of them actually, staff is going to meet with
them tomorrow to just listen to their concerns and we'll report back to you on the 15th,
but I didn't want to let the commission know that that has been a request, that they
wanting to meet with staff, the city administrator, myself,
Whitney, and then I know Chair Kistner has also been
invited to that meeting as well.
And that will, yeah.
What time is the meeting?
That's at 1 o'clock.
I just wanted to let the commission know that that
is something that's been requested by several commercial
proprietors and real estate brokers, as well as, I
think, their affiliate with the Chamber of Commerce.
So relative to that, I believe we're still on schedule to hopefully wrap up the process
on the 15th with a possible resolution if directed by the Commission to prepare one for
the 19th.
We'll see where we head, obviously, with the next meeting, but I still believe at this
time that we're on track to do that.
So on December 19th we will also have four items on that meeting agenda.
So I think I tried to warn you last time. We're getting much busier, so this commission will be very busy for the next couple of months, I think, at least.
We have a lot of things on the horizon.
We're also going to cancel the January 3rd meeting, first meeting of January.
That's been canceled, so our next regular meeting after the 19th will be on the 17th.
And just briefly, I thought I'd spend, I know we've been here a little while, but yes.
Is it even remotely realistic to think that we could do four matters plus the comprehensive
plan on the 19th?
No, I would say what we're thinking of is we're dedicating the 15th for the comprehensive
plan.
So it'll also pain to explore.
No. No, the 15th is a special meeting. Special meeting just for the comp plan. Nothing else will be discussed.
Did the comp plan well take place on the 15th?
Correct.
But then the resolution?
The resolution would happen on the 15th.
Depending on where we stand with things on the 15th, and that's the question staff is going to ask of the commission on the 15th.
If we're at a place there, if you feel like we're ready, then we could potentially then request you address staff to prepare resolution to adopt on the 19th.
If we're not, if there are still things left to discuss, whatever the case may be,
the next available meeting would be the second meeting in January
because we're going to cancel the first meeting.
The four projects that we have coming up for the 19th includes the continuation of PANDF Express.
Priority is doing a site development plan approval for an addition to their multi-purpose thing.
thing, we don't foresee that it's a huge issue.
Deerbergs is looking for a master sign plan,
and the villas at Mosley subdivision
is looking to amend the RDD ordinance
to allow for a minor addition within the setback
of the rear yard.
Again, I'm not sure that that's going
to take a two-hour discussion.
So is the Deerbergs sign plan a substantial change
to what they have today?
No, not overly substantial, but I mean there could be some discussion, I don't
foresee it to be more a long discussion though.
It seems like if we're going to
be doing much to the comprehensive plan other than passing it as drafted that
that does seem ambitious to get through. Well that's where I think on the 15th, if everything seems to be in order then at that point there
there shouldn't be, at least coming from the commission,
a lot of changes.
If we're still getting a lot of disagreement,
if we're going back and forth on various elements
on the 15th, then it probably will be ready.
Yeah, and I think chapter four is obviously,
that's the bulk of where we're at now
with some of the comments we've received.
We will summarize all of this
like we did with the first round of revisions.
We had the meeting on the 7th and the 21st,
which were split.
you know Chapter 4 is kind of split between those two meetings so we've
gotten all the notes we're going to compile that and then our consultant
will issue kind of a memo of revisions based on all these discussions that
we've had if there's feedback from the commercial property owners that we think
that at least that will communicate that to you and if there's some further
refinements or whatnot that will be presented to you but my goal is to
to incorporate into the suggested revisions
for the final take on the 15th.
And actually the changes would be in the form of revisions,
and this would be going all the way back to chapter one,
you know, when we start going.
No, we've already looked at chapter one and two.
Well, I know we did, but you asked we were going through.
We would say, you know, that doesn't really seem
consistent with this whole point over here.
And he would say, yeah, that's a good point.
I'm going to clean that up, so.
The most changes were all made, and then you were,
in some rise, that made all the changes.
Have we read it? I mean, have we seen it read it?
I hope so.
No, I was always reading forward into the next section that we were doing.
I haven't gone back in seven years.
No, no. What we did was, so we took chapters one and two.
I think we did one and two.
One, two, and three.
Yeah, one, two, and three, at the first meeting.
And then we had some discussion.
There's some revisions we went through remember those strategies and we tweaked some of that
And then what we did was we had the staff kind of synthesized all that information
We sent that to the consultant and he prepared a memo of revisions that we discussed at the meeting
In November and so yeah, we've gone through all that we've already reviewed those chapters unless
Anything we're doing now whether we'd want to go back and clarify, but I wouldn't see that that would be a whole lot
I will say that I could double check with our current applicants to see if there's
anyone willing to postpone to the January, maybe the priori would be
willing to consider. I mean waiting, we did give them a heads up when they
were talking with us about how we were hearing that we'd get a lot at the
same time and to plan for an extra meeting just in case, so I can do
that if you wish yeah I don't think we're gonna have for yeah I mean given
where I mean we haven't really heard anything from them so we don't know I
mean in all likelihood they could be asking to postpone it additionally so we
or more than we could play it by year at that point as well.
That's the one if somebody were going to put a gun,
that would probably be the one.
We're still going to inform right with the,
since I'll have to be out on handed to.
All right.
Yeah.
OK.
Just weekend we used this, so the 17th is the next,
is the first meeting in January?
Correct.
Yes.
Yeah, we could present that to you for the 19th. We can incorporate all those changes as
attached to the resolution.
Could it be, could a consultant have incorporated that
into a PDF and we'd be able to look at that
before you basically give it to us at the meeting?
Yeah, we could do a summary of all the revisions
if that's what you're asking about.
The revisions have been made.
The revisions have been made is the document
that is, is there now a revised document?
No.
We haven't gotten through all of Chapter 4 and 5, so that's what we're waiting for.
I think my report is fixed. Ideally, I know we usually get it, you know, the Friday before, but once that document was ready...
We will try to get it, we can certainly try to get it to you as soon as possible, yeah.
I'm all happy. It worked fine.
Even if it was not with the complete packet, but it would be nice just to have that piece and hear this.
Yeah, I mean it is it is a here what you're saying it is aggressive it is the 15th
Going through the remainder of it. That is a very quick turnaround to try to get something to you on 19th
It is very quick, and maybe it's a little too quick
It's just
of the members, including both commercial property owners
and developers have expressed concern.
They really want to have time to consider or be heard
without regarding like-to requests to the final vote
be delayed 60 days.
Now, they've had this.
This did not suddenly get out there.
So we've been working.
they've had this plan for many, many months.
The idea that they're just now seeing it in the holidays
or upon them in 82 months, it needs to be taken in context.
But there is a, whether they're late to the game or not,
there's a feeling of concern in the businesses.
And if we do proceed quickly, may create issues or a lack of a sense that somehow people weren't
hurrying that they really did have a lot of opportunity and stuff.
And I wouldn't disagree with that feeling either.
I think it is important to take the time that's needed to ensure a good process.
I do feel like we have that.
I feel like we've had a very solid process with this.
So I don't have any concerns with that.
And I do echo some of your comments too of the timeliness of this.
Be it as it may, you know, we've got, I think we've got a couple things to consider.
I think, you know, we do need to take the additional time to hear further concerns a little bit more time.
I definitely do not disagree with that, and I hope the meeting tomorrow will be fruitful. I hope it'll be productive
so maybe
Staff can have an opportunity to kind of discuss some of these concepts in a greater in greater detail and clarify
So I do think there's a little bit of confusion
I think there's a little bit of uncertainty of what the plan actually says versus what I think they're trying to get out of it
But be it as it may I mean that's an opportunity for that to happen and I'll report back to you on that
But the 19th may just be a little bit too aggressive and that's fine.
We can continue it to the 17th.
I will also say just one more comment is we've had our consultant attend a lot of meetings
and there is a point where the scope of services and the work of the consultant will enter
the picture as to how many meetings are, you know, I'm going beyond what was approved
in the city's scope.
But if we were to say in advance that it's not going to be taken up on the 19th, then
the consultant doesn't have to show up.
That's right.
And we would just, now, you know, we've come so far, we've put so much intensity on the
one hand, I don't like the idea of delaying it a month, but what's the real downside
to waiting that extra period of time, it would certainly allow us to say to the businesses,
you know, not only did you have the 18-month period, you know, when it was being developed,
but we delayed it a month.
Yeah.
I think that's good.
Yeah.
I think it's good.
It's good.
Right.
60 days is a way overboard.
Yeah.
It is.
And they may have said the 60 days.
We don't have that, we know going into it that there is some breathing room between the 15th and the...
Okay, and I would say nothing's published during the writing that the 19th is going to happen.
It's just a thought process that we had with staff based on where we're in.
So that's fine.
If we, it sounds like 19th is probably a little too aggressive
based on the feeling of commission, that's perfectly fine.
So we will communicate that back to the consultant
and the people that we're gonna meet with tomorrow
and we'll go from there and see what we can,
see where we are in the 15th.
I think that's gonna be a real listening test
for us at that point to see where we are.
So the only other comment that I had, if there's no further discussion on the COMP plan,
and I appreciate the feedback, we'll go forward with that in mind,
is you did receive in your packet some information from an applicant that went through our process.
They were approved last December, December 21st, it's at shops at Westgate.
There had been several iterations of that plan to get them toward the stage
where the commission approved the project.
There was a lot of staff review time spent even before I arrived,
but I know Whitney was involved with it.
But be it as it may, there are some comments
of that I wanted to pass along to you.
They took the time to write them.
We had a phone conversation with the city manager,
I'm sorry, city minister, the mayor, myself and representatives
of the arts committee on just kind of their thoughts
on the process and what they think that the roles
of staff should be in the commission and so forth.
I mean, I'm available to answer any questions
if you had the time to read it, but I just wanted to pass it
along to you as feedback that we received based
on one applicant's review of our process.
Do you think?
Well, I think that some of the comments are right.
We, staff's role, though, we see our role as trying to,
you know, put applicants in a good position to comply
with the ordinances and with the objectives of our planning documents. That's our job to
do that and to seek compliance of those and that forms the basis of our recommendation.
At the end of the day, we are recommending, we are a recommending entity, staff has
no authority of ourselves unless you put it, you or the city council puts that authority
back to us. But otherwise these plans go before you and they either pass a test
so they don't know they comply or they don't.
When we reach this situation where we have some stalemates
or disagreements, my view is it's up to the applicant.
They can proceed and present their case to the commission.
That's normal.
That's a normal part of the process.
We are also not designers.
We are not the ones submitting the application
and designing it for them.
That is not our role.
Our role is basically as a recommendation
for professional staff.
So, I think this particular application had a lot of different elements that maybe weren't typical.
One is that they had the public art component that created a whole new process where the arts committee had to kind of look at that
and provide recommendations. That was a delay. There was a lot of concerns with how that site was being changed
and how to keep it in conformance with the city's requirements for landscaping, pedestrian activity and so forth.
But I also heard a little bit of frustration with the site bonus coverage that that's very discretionary and, you know, and it is. It is discretionary.
How much is it to get 63 to 64 percent? What do I need to do to get that 1 percent? But that is a discretionary measure that we do have in the code.
So I think there's, yeah.
That one was originally complicated
because the original plan had site bonus coverage
and they were taking away some of things
from that site bonus coverage.
And then that means new things.
So it was, by their own doing,
they complicated it substantially so that it was almost,
it was really hard to keep track of what he would lost.
And then in other cases, they were suggesting
that part of the bonus was that they were going to fix what they hadn't done in the previous
like bonus coverage. So I mean, there's a lot of push-pull from the previous one. It was
very difficult to make a clear comparison or decisions.
Yeah, there was. By the time it kind of came back after a year's break, it took two
meetings to get to get it approved so you know just it's just there for your
advisement your consideration I think that they make some points they're kind of
outside the process about you know what the city can do to help encourage
citizens to buy locally you know the importance of that because that's important not just for our commercial residents but also in terms of the city it would certainly benefit
people buying locally. I don't know how realistic that is in terms of implementation, but if there was a way to do that, I think that that would be great.
Some of these points that they make are just restates on some of your questions.
Is the case. So I'm not sure yet. There's a little sour grapes and some of it just...
All the students of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
They are the elected by it.
Yeah.
Well, OK.
That's true.
It's not a point that someone has to make.
It is what it is.
Did you move the decision?
I'm sorry.
It's not a decision.
Yes, that's right.
Nothing wrong with somebody speaking their mind.
I just thought it was a little less outbreak.
Thanks for bringing it.
Sure.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
That's the only comments I had for this evening.
Thank you.
To
adjourn.
Salute.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Oh, when is it?
It's tomorrow.
I gotta go to Kentucky to work first.
The rest of the week.
Oh, really?
Sometimes.
You win some, you lose some.