[0:03] Thank you. We'll call the meeting to order at 602 with roll called, Mr. Bielter, Mr. Brian,

[0:11] Mr. Potashnik, Ms. Richter, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Wang, Mr. Wendley, Mr. Jaggi, Ms. Moore, and

[0:22] Ms. Bollinger. Our first item is acceptance of the agenda. As part of the acceptance

[0:28] of the agenda. I'd like to propose a break after the Olia topic. And then also I'd like

[0:34] to propose a time limit of 9.30 p.m. this evening.

[0:38] Second.

[0:43] All in favor?

[0:44] Aye.

[0:46] Okay. The next is the approval of the minutes from our November 17, 2025 Planning

[0:51] and Zoning Commission meeting.

[0:54] approval of the minutes.

[0:56] Second.

[0:58] All in favor?

[1:00] Thank you. At this time, I'll open it up for public comment.

[1:04] Anyone who wishes to speak about something not on the agenda for this evening?

[1:12] Go ahead, yes, sir. Could you come to the podium and state your name?

[1:19] My name is David Rose. I live at 10335 North Sunspot.

[1:23] And what I would like to talk about is something that is not directly on your agenda regarding

[1:31] Olia, but slightly related.

[1:34] In the revision of the plan, the road that comes near the south of the plot line now turns sharply

[1:42] northward.

[1:43] It's a new entrance.

[1:45] And nothing wrong with that necessarily.

[1:47] But there will be substantially more traffic on that road than there's ever been before that road, Julie.

[1:54] Historically, it was very rarely used.

[1:57] And at the same time, as cars make that turn to go into the neighborhood, the new neighborhood,

[2:05] their headlights are going to sweep across the whole Sunsweep neighborhood.

[2:11] I think the remedy to that problem is very simple, not really expensive.

[2:17] I'm just simply asking you to consider asking them in the plan to consider putting in some trees and shrubs to take care of that arc so that, you know, all night just have lights come over and over.

[2:31] Okay.

[2:31] That's it.

[2:32] Thank you.

[2:33] Thank you.

[2:39] Okay, we're going to start with our new business and we'll open public hearing application 25036.

[2:46] A conditional use permit for Dewey's Pizza, located at 736 North New Ballas Road,

[2:52] within Creek 4 Plaza.

[2:57] If anyone's speaking this evening, please come forward to be sworn in,

[3:01] and we have on the line.

[3:05] Raise your right hands, please.

[3:07] Do you sound like we're starting to tell the truth, the whole truth,

[3:09] and nothing but the truth, so I'll help you back.

[3:11] Thank you.

[3:14] Thank you.

[3:18] All right.

[3:19] Heath, are you able to share your screen for your presentation?

[3:22] Thank you.

[3:46] Can you see that?

[3:47] We can, if you could please state your name and address for the record.

[3:51] My name is Heath Trossel at 605 Valley Woods Court in Cincinnati, Ohio.

[4:02] Thank you.

[4:08] Dewey's Pizza is a privately owned restaurant chain that's become a staple in the St. Louis community.

[4:14] Dewey's desires to expand its footprint and bring its history of quality food and service to the city of Creefcore.

[4:23] Dewey's has a history of community outreach and community service projects, and with the addition of the proposed facility, Dewey's will be able to accommodate an increasing number of customers while providing a more convenient pickup location for residents in the city, as well as lunch accommodations for local employees.

[4:42] As an interior tenant finished proposed project in an existing poor business

[4:49] district building, the proposed facility only provides positive impact on the

[4:55] surrounding residents and businesses and requires no change to the existing

[4:59] building exterior landscape design. As a quick service pickup location with

[5:04] limited seating, the proposed facility will not cause harm to the existing

[5:09] parking facilities and will operate as more of a retail food establishment rather than

[5:15] a full service restaurant.

[5:17] Dubies has a current example of this in Southampton, which they opened last year.

[5:25] They're kind of in a phase where they're doing some infill projects to make their

[5:29] product more accessible to the greater St. Louis area.

[5:33] So you can see the Creefcore Plaza. I think the majority of this information

[5:41] is a part of our application process. There's numerous parking around the

[5:47] building. Dewey's proposed tenant space is an existing or was an existing

[5:53] retail space and Dewey's would be operating it out of out of it as a

[5:58] Retail Center for Dewey's food service pickup. This is an existing site plan and

[6:07] survey and this is our interior floor print which shows 16 seats, counter service,

[6:19] a pickup point. So if you enter, this is more of your carry out pickup point

[6:24] and then customers would leave and those that want to dine in or order on the spot can order

[6:32] and then circle around and leave. It's a 27 underscore foot retail space that I read the

[6:43] staff report and it doesn't sound like there's any issues in the staff report that I need to

[6:50] address so I'd like to just answer any questions that you would have.

[7:02] Anyone have questions?

[7:05] Okay.

[7:07] No questions here at this point.

[7:08] Thank you.

[7:24] Great.

[7:25] Bethany Moore, City Planner.

[7:27] So this is a conditional use permit for Dewey's Pizza located at 736

[7:31] North New Ballas Road within Creek 4 Plaza.

[7:39] So the request is for a CUP for this location.

[7:43] It is a limited service restaurant, which is a conditional use in all of our zoning districts.

[7:47] There are no exterior changes to the site, so there will only be interior changes to outfit the area for the pizza restaurant.

[7:55] There will be 16 indoor seats and 10 employees at busiest shift.

[8:00] There was a proposal for 22 indoor seats, but because of the parking at this location, they did have to downgrade it to 16 indoor seats

[8:09] because there's not enough parking to accommodate that, and when there are 16 seats or less, parking required is 4 per 1,000 square feet, just like with typical retail.

[8:19] The hours of operation will be from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Friday through Saturday, and 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday.

[8:29] And this location is within our CB Corps business district.

[8:33] Again, just here's the site plan.

[8:36] Here's the location within Creep Court Plaza.

[8:38] And then the floor plan with the 16 seats.

[8:43] There's no exterior changes.

[8:45] The landscaping is in good condition.

[8:47] The parking lots in good condition.

[8:50] So the condition of approval just include the hours of operation.

[8:54] And then again, that maximum seating is limited to 16 indoor seats

[8:58] because of the available parking on site.

[9:00] Any questions?

[9:03] I appreciate it.

[9:06] Yes.

[9:07] Parking lots.

[9:08] Very large parking lot.

[9:10] It is.

[9:10] And there's parking constraints, right?

[9:13] There is.

[9:13] So some of the older restaurants, which would be Pasta House and

[9:21] First Watch.

[9:22] First Watch.

[9:24] And I think even

[9:27] Kadova.

[9:28] Thank you.

[9:28] Those have older CUPs, and those CUPs are based on total occupancy and not number of seats.

[9:36] So if the developer would like to come in and, you know, we could rework those CUPs so that it meets our current standards,

[9:45] our current way of counting seats, then maybe they would have some wiggle room with their parking.

[9:50] But currently as it stands with those existing CUPs, we have to count occupancy and not just seats.

[9:55] So they are tight on parking now, because of that.

[10:05] Any other questions?

[10:09] Would there be parking available if we recalculated?

[10:12] There might be.

[10:13] We would just have to check the number of seats,

[10:15] because that wasn't taken into consideration when their CUPs were approved.

[10:27] I think I just would say, I find it helpful when you put the chart in there

[10:31] so we can actually see the calculations, maybe in the future.

[10:35] Okay.

[10:36] In the staff report or in the staff report?

[10:38] Okay.

[10:44] Any other questions?

[10:47] Do we want to get this evening's board away with shopping some for the future?

[10:52] I

[10:55] guess the question would be, it's not changing their configuration really as it's set up today.

[11:01] So where it is, if they wanted to, we could come back to recalculate everything, right?

[11:08] Because it's not really changing their layout.

[11:11] Correct.

[11:11] It's just those older CUPs, if they would like to come in, we can amend them, basically,

[11:18] so that they would take into account the existing seating, but it's not required at this point,

[11:23] because they're continuously operating.

[11:25] So you mean the processes that the property would have to come into the fight

[11:32] or reintegration?

[11:35] They would have to – the individual CUPs would have to be amended.

[11:38] So we would have to amend all of those separate CUPs.

[11:40] and that's triggered by them.

[11:43] Correct.

[11:45] Jason Jagger, director of community volume.

[11:47] Just to add to the discussion a little bit here.

[11:49] So the existing use is a retail use, which is our four spaces per thousand.

[11:55] So that's not changing.

[11:56] And so we talked with the applicant about the need to perform a comprehensive parking study

[12:00] if they want additional seats beyond that.

[12:03] Like Bethany said, we have CUPs here that are really, really old,

[12:07] and we're not quite sure if they count them based on the interior, you know,

[12:11] the number of seats that says total occupancy.

[12:13] So we would be required to do a lot of research in order to answer that fully.

[12:18] So in the interest of time, and it was acceptable to the applicant,

[12:21] they agreed to just reduce it to 16, which our ordinance says we count that as a retail use,

[12:27] and that's how they want to move forward.

[12:28] But we do have the condition in the ordinance that says, you know,

[12:32] the zoning minister can approve additional seats with verification of parking.

[12:36] So if this is something in the future, I think, you know, we could look at to see, you know, do a very thorough review.

[12:44] And if there's access parking at that time, we could allow additional seats.

[12:47] So we do have that condition in there just so you know.

[12:51] But they're comfortable moving forward with 16 seats.

[12:55] Thank you.

[12:57] Would

[13:01] anyone, does anyone from the public have anything that they'd like to share about this

[13:07] public hearing for duees?

[13:12] Please.

[13:14] Following in the exhibition of the record of this public hearing.

[13:17] Documentation and possession of the city clerk reflecting the public notice that's been

[13:21] provided.

[13:22] Staff report and the two PowerPoint presentations that have been given.

[13:27] The City Code of Ordinances and Charter, the City Comprehensive Plan and the public file

[13:31] regarding the CUP applicants.

[13:35] I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for dewy speech that are located

[13:40] at 736 North New Dallas Road within Creve Court Plaza, subject to the conditions discussed

[13:46] in the staff report and draft ordinance for the meeting on December 1st, 2015.

[13:54] December 15th.

[13:55] December 15th.

[13:56] December 15, 2025.

[14:01] So, Mr. Hielter.

[14:03] Aye.

[14:03] Mr. O'Brien.

[14:04] Aye.

[14:04] Mr. Petashnik.

[14:05] Aye.

[14:06] Mr. Richter.

[14:07] Aye.

[14:07] Mr. Tomlinson.

[14:08] Aye.

[14:09] Mr. Wang.

[14:09] Aye.

[14:10] And I vote aye.

[14:13] Thank you.

[14:14] This item will be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting on January 12,

[14:19] 2026.

[14:20] Thank you.

[14:26] The next item on the agenda is a public hearing application 25038,

[14:32] A conditional use permit for Einstein Brothers Bay but also located at 12505 Olive Boulevard,

[14:39] Suite A within the Heritage Place Development.

[14:43] If anyone speaking could please come forward to be sworn in.

[14:49] Yes, I'm online.

[14:51] Thank you.

[14:53] Raise your, excuse me, raise your right hand please.

[14:56] Do you sound like we started to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[15:02] Thank you. All right, Peggy, you can share your screen now and then introduce yourself.

[15:14] All right, can everyone see that? Not yet. Now we can.

[15:18] Okay, awesome. My name is Peggy Schindler and I am the senior project manager with CSHQA.

[15:25] We are the architectural firm representing Einstein Brothers. Also on the line is Leslie Haver.

[15:31] She is the Senior Director of Store Design with Einstein Brothers Bagels.

[15:36] And just to give you a brief overview of the business, we are, again, looking at a space

[15:42] at 1-2-5-0-5, Olive Boulevard in Creepcore.

[15:48] And Einstein Brothers is the nation's largest fast-casual bagel brand, and is very excited

[15:53] to bring crevable coffee, bagels, sandwiches, and more to your community.

[15:58] Einstein's is quite passionate about what they do and feel that Creepcore Missouri is a perfect place and a perfect fit for their brand.

[16:07] The new store design is crafted with the intention of being a warm and inviting space for the community to gather in.

[16:14] And during construction, Einstein's works very hard to minimize the noise impact to its surrounding tenants, businesses, and to the community.

[16:22] For example, in this location, construction of the project will be completed during normal business hours, and the majority of the work will be done on the inside of the tenant space.

[16:34] The only exterior work planned for this project is new signage, identifying Einstein Brothers to their customer base in Creep Corps, and no other impacts to the existing building or landscaper plan for this project.

[16:50] And after Einstein Brothers opens, they really pride themselves in becoming members of the local community and being an open and accessible place for everyone to enjoy the space.

[17:01] Einstein Brothers plans to serve your community from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., seven days a week.

[17:10] And this slide shows an overall view of Heritage Place where the subject property is.

[17:16] And if you can see my cursor, on the upper right hand side, you can see the project location.

[17:23] And Heritage Place is anchored by other several large tenants such as Petco, Marshals, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, etc.

[17:31] And is surrounded by Ross Avenue and Olive Boulevard, which is the corner of the subject property, as well as Heritage Place.

[17:38] and zooming in a little bit on the location the area in blue located with

[17:47] a red dot and 12505 is a subject property and the end of the building that

[17:52] I sense is looking to build out and there are 18 standard parking spaces

[17:58] directly in front of the building and an additional two handicapped spaces

[18:05] right in front of the building. The accessible path between the two ADA spaces is a short

[18:12] walk from the center of the two ADA spaces across a flat sidewalk into the Einstein Brothers

[18:22] proposed space. And the location is accessible from Ross Avenue by taking it right into

[18:29] the drive aisle and a left into the center. It's also accessible easily from

[18:35] all of Boulevard taking a right and coming around and taking a right into

[18:39] the center. The former tenant of the 12505 space was a retail comfort shoes

[18:48] and the adjacent tenant is an America's best retail. And finally there is an

[18:55] existing trash enclosure that's in good condition right at the beginning of

[18:59] dry vial so easy access for the trucks to remove the waste from that enclosure.

[19:07] And then moving to the front of the building, the east elevation is the front.

[19:13] There's also a north elevation which is the side of the building and the west elevation is the

[19:19] back elevation of the building. Again there's no changes to the design of the building or

[19:24] landscape. The only change would be adding a sign to the building itself and then

[19:31] Logo signage within the window again identifying the business to new patrons and

[19:40] then moving inside and

[19:41] If Leslie is able to speak if not, I can take this Leslie. Would you like to talk about the interior design?

[19:50] Sure, if that's acceptable

[19:54] Can you hear me?

[19:56] Yes, we can okay

[19:58] Yeah, I just wanted to point out this this rendering is our new design. So we we just

[20:04] recreated our

[20:05] interior asset this last year so we only have four of these open around the

[20:13] country and this would be the first one in Missouri along we have we have a

[20:18] number of remodels we did in Ohio but so this is one of nine of this prototype

[20:25] that we have open to the public and it's as you could see it's just a new

[20:30] modern upgrade and creating some interior space for our guests and ease of operations for our

[20:39] employees as well as simplifying, you know, the order ahead and pick up portfolio that we've

[20:46] seen grow since COVID.

[20:51] Thank you, Leslie.

[20:54] So taking this rendering, this is a prototypical

[20:59] view of the new design that Leslie mentioned and now applying it to the

[21:03] actual space and creep core. When you walk in the front door that order pickup

[21:08] area is right to your left so it's an easy access in and out for any online

[21:13] orders and then if you choose to design to dine in you would queue to the left

[21:19] and right. This area is where you know the food and beverage displays would

[21:25] be where the orders would be placed directly behind here in the back

[21:29] service line is where you would see sandwiches being made or bagels being

[21:32] toasted to really the theater of the bakery and then continuing down this

[21:38] way is where you'd fill your coffee and sit down and there are several

[21:44] different styles of seating available for a total of 40 interior seats which

[21:49] includes three separate areas for accessible dining space,

[21:54] both at a bankhead seating, loose table seating,

[21:57] which can be configured for a single person,

[22:01] two people up to, you know, much larger,

[22:03] you know, be able to accommodate much larger groups.

[22:06] There are a larger dining table experience,

[22:10] as well as counter seating,

[22:11] and a lower counter space, again, for accessible seating.

[22:15] There's, of course, two restrooms that'll be available to the guests,

[22:18] And then there's a door that separates the back of house, so that's not really in view of the customer.

[22:23] So all of the bakery prep, cleaning, walk-in coolers, freezers, office area, dry storage, etc. would be hidden from view.

[22:33] So the total square footage is approximately 2,453 square feet.

[22:39] So in conclusion, ISEINs really starts to be the kind of place that builds up the community and provides a space where the community desires to come together.

[22:47] So we thank you for your time and let us know if you have any questions.

[22:56] Anyone questions?

[23:01] Okay, thank you very much.

[23:04] Thank you.

[23:05] Is

[23:22] that any more?

[23:23] City planner.

[23:24] So this is a conditional use permit for Einstein's brother's bagels located

[23:29] at 1205 Olive Boulevard Suite A within the Heritage Place Development.

[23:35] So this request is for this outlaw building here within the heritage place development,

[23:40] and that is the only portion of the property that is within Creepore.

[23:44] The rest is actually in St. Louis County.

[23:49] Again, it is a limited service restaurant, which is the conditional use in all of our zoning districts.

[23:55] There are no exterior changes.

[23:57] There are 40 indoor seats proposed and four employees at busiest shift.

[24:01] hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. every day.

[24:05] And it's within our CB core business district.

[24:10] So again, here is the proposed site plan.

[24:12] It is within the Heritage Place Development,

[24:15] which has all of this shared parking,

[24:17] which is shared amongst all of the users.

[24:19] And then the proposed floor plan here.

[24:27] So maximum seating permitted is limited to 40 indoor seats.

[24:31] And the hours of operation are from 6 to 2,

[24:34] And those are the conditions of approval.

[24:36] Staff doesn't have any other concerns with this location.

[24:40] Any questions?

[24:43] Questions?

[24:45] No.

[24:46] Thank you, Bethany.

[24:47] I'll open it up to the public for any questions.

[24:57] I offer the following exhibits into the record of this public hearing.

[25:00] Documentation and possession of the City Clerk,

[25:02] collecting the public notice that's been provided

[25:05] with two PowerPoint presentations in the staff report.

[25:08] The City Code of Ordinances and Charter of the City Comprehensive Plan and the

[25:12] public file regarding the CUP happened to you. I move to recommend approval of

[25:19] the conditional use permit for Einstein-Babel, Silkhead and 12505, all of

[25:26] Boulevard within Heritage Place Shopping Center. Subjects to the conditions

[25:31] discussed in the staff report and draft ordinance for the meeting of

[25:35] December 15, 2025.

[25:38] Second.

[25:39] Thank you.

[25:40] Mr. Bielter.

[25:41] Aye.

[25:42] Ms. O'Brien.

[25:44] Aye.

[25:45] Ms. Schnick.

[25:46] Aye.

[25:47] Ms. Richter.

[25:48] Aye.

[25:48] Mr. Tomlinson.

[25:49] Aye.

[25:50] Mr. White.

[25:50] Aye.

[25:51] And I vote aye.

[25:55] Thank you.

[25:55] This item will also be forwarded to the City Council with a favorable recommendation at their meeting on January 12, 2026.

[26:02] Thank you.

[26:03] Our next item on the agenda is application 25037, a site development plan and associated

[26:11] site concept plan amendment for building additions on the Wittfield School campus located at

[26:17] 175 South Mason Road.

[26:32] Good evening.

[26:33] I'm Lisa Griffin with Bond Architects here to describe the project.

[26:59] So this is a three-part project, part of which is the intellectual comments for

[27:04] library renovation.

[27:05] We are infilling the current pipe or courtyard to be an extension of that library.

[27:09] We're also adding a storm shelter, which is an athletic facility.

[27:16] So this addition is located on the mirror of the building here.

[27:24] So it maintains the same entry and exiting from the site.

[27:27] We're also working with MSD to determine any storm water runoff needs

[27:31] when we'll be fully compliant with any of their requirements.

[27:35] We're going through the conceptual review with them now, so we're getting all those

[27:40] details hammered out and look forward to completing that.

[27:44] So this part of the project is located, as I said, on the rear of the site adjacent to

[27:48] their existing gymnasium and their middle school soccer field.

[27:52] We will be extending the fire access road to maintain full fire access around the

[27:57] entire building.

[28:00] and internally the project is accessed from the inside of the school or from

[28:05] the rear side if you're just a visitor.

[28:09] So as I mentioned we're working with

[28:11] MSD. Originally we were thinking that we could just alter their existing

[28:16] stormwater runoff system. However there are a couple IOUs for previous

[28:21] projects and now we're disturbing over one acre of land and so we're going

[28:25] to a little bit larger drainage area. So we'll be incorporating a kind of landscape detention

[28:35] basin here with an outfall and connecting to the existing stormwater system.

[28:42] So again,

[28:45] this will be a landscaped area. Most of the time it will be dry unless we have a really

[28:48] heavy rain, in which case there will be water in the basin that will just be held

[28:53] until it can be filtered and gone back into the storm system.

[29:02] And plan-wise, as I said, it's a three-part project.

[29:05] So we have a renovation, which is located here.

[29:07] This is their existing library.

[29:10] Generally, we'll be adding offices and seating space

[29:14] for the students.

[29:15] And then we'll be infilling an existing exterior courtyard

[29:18] to be an extension of that library space.

[29:21] There will be a glass skylight to occupy most of the roof,

[29:25] and it will be a nice space that students can have presentations, and the school can

[29:29] use as more of a gathering space as well, in addition to the library essential.

[29:36] The storm shelter is adjacent to the existing gymnasiums and is accessed both from that

[29:41] intellectual common space and the existing gymnasium.

[29:45] So the lower level is mostly a wrestling gym, we will also have provisions for volleyball.

[29:51] And then, on the upper level, we have a small number of bleachers just for people to come

[29:59] watch.

[30:01] Additionally, there's also a climbing wall in this area to support the school's climbing

[30:05] club, but generally it's a practice gym, and it is sized as a storm shelter for all of the

[30:12] school occupants, in addition to if there was a full game up in one of the other gyms.

[30:19] If those bleachers were full, this storm shelter can accommodate all of those occupants.

[30:25] Exterior-wise, we'll be matching the existing building as closely as possible, so we've

[30:30] sent our masonry breath out to manage the berth.

[30:36] So we have a berth board that matches.

[30:38] It's a custom blend to match that existing gym

[30:41] that you can see over on the left.

[30:43] In addition to a red CMU, it's a split-based CMU

[30:46] been here.

[30:47] That'll be kind of in the center and the backside of this.

[30:51] So here is the CMU on the backside.

[30:54] And then each corner is brand to match

[30:56] that existing building.

[30:58] The top portion of the building

[30:59] is going to be an epist to match that existing adjacent as well.

[31:06] So here you can see the brickboard and how it matches the rest of the building.

[31:11] And then there is some exterior lighting that will just go over the exterior doors.

[31:15] That's really just an egress component.

[31:20] That's it.

[31:24] Questions?

[31:25] I had some questions about near work with MSD.

[31:28] Where are you exactly with that?

[31:30] And do you have the designs or how far along are you wanting to ask?

[31:34] We're within the conceptual review, so usually we like to get ahead of them or ahead of the

[31:39] bidding process as early as possible to make sure that we're on the same page with MSD.

[31:44] So our civil engineers have been working with them for about six weeks now,

[31:47] and we just got word in the last few days about that upgraded detention basin.

[31:53] So they're working to implement that, and then that'll all be wrapped into our final design.

[31:57] And where does, let's say the detention basin fills up, where does that water go?

[32:05] So the intention is that we don't create runoff for the rest of the community.

[32:12] So in an extreme rainfall, the water will pool in this area.

[32:18] And then there's an outfall structure that you can see here.

[32:23] So for that really worst case, the detention basin gets full, that water can flow into that

[32:29] fall structure and then into the rest of the storm system as it's connected to the

[32:33] south area, such as here.

[32:36] So that's really only in the worst case, you know, 100-year type event.

[32:43] Otherwise water is held here and it's filtered down through.

[32:46] So it's a little bit hard to see on this image, but this is showing kind of like

[32:51] that filtering component of the detention basin, so the water kind of seeps into the

[32:57] ground a little bit more slowly to filter and clean it before it goes on.

[33:00] So if you all done all of your engineering and design work for it, are you relating

[33:05] to your tremendous space to what they want?

[33:07] We've heard that this is their intention, this is what they want, and our engineers

[33:12] are working to implement that.

[33:22] Other questions?

[33:28] Okay.

[33:29] Thank you.

[33:29] Thanks.

[33:29] So

[33:52] this application is for a site development plan and associated site concept plan amendment

[33:56] for building additions on the Whitfield School campus located at 175 South Mason Road.

[34:04] So here is the location of the request.

[34:07] Here is the Whitfield School campus.

[34:10] It's 23.9 acres.

[34:12] It's within our single-family residential zoning district.

[34:16] It's a conditional use in AICS 611110, elementary and secondary schools.

[34:23] The applicant has submitted an application for the site development plan for the construction of those two new additions,

[34:28] as well as an amendment to their existing site concept plan.

[34:32] And this use is allowed to continuously operate as a conditional use without a CUP from the city,

[34:38] because of the way that it was developed and incorporated into the city.

[34:41] So it was developed in St. Louis County.

[34:44] And then when it was incorporated into Creve Corps, the city accepted their approved plan from St. Louis County.

[34:50] And they've been allowed to continuously operate as a conditional use per the requirements of section 405-210A2.

[35:00] So again, here is the existing site.

[35:03] They have these practice fields and then this building.

[35:06] Currently, there is this open area in the middle that will be filled in with the library addition.

[35:12] And then the multi-purpose storm shelter addition will be right here at the rear of the building.

[35:21] And here is Ladoo and here is South Mason Road.

[35:25] And these additions will not be visible unless you're coming around the school.

[35:30] There is single family residential adjacent down here.

[35:34] And then there is this existing tree buffer that will not be touched.

[35:40] So the Whitfield School is a private school with roughly 400 students, grades 6 through 12.

[35:46] It includes a parking lot with 312 parking spaces, sports fields for soccer and baseball,

[35:53] and it was incorporated into Creek Corps in 1995 after being developed in St. Louis County.

[35:58] So here is a site development plan with those two new additions that you can see.

[36:04] This one here for the library infill is 3,650 square feet,

[36:09] And this larger one here for the storm shelter slash multi-purpose is 7,250 square feet.

[36:17] There is also a new fire access drive installed to replace the old one,

[36:22] which was in the location where the larger addition is going to be.

[36:25] And so they have had that approved by the fire district.

[36:29] They've reviewed it to make sure that their trucks can get back here

[36:32] and there's a turnaround also being installed here for the trucks.

[36:36] There's no changes to the parking lot.

[36:38] There's no additional classroom space, which is what parking is based on,

[36:41] classroom space and students, and this project is not in proposing to increase

[36:46] classroom space or students.

[36:49] And there's no new site lighting.

[36:51] There is lighting on the building, and that lighting is compliant with our

[36:54] requirements for downcast and shielded and no more than 3,000 degrees

[36:58] Kelvin.

[37:00] And the site coverage is proposed at 33%, and conditional uses like this

[37:06] This one are allowed up to 50% site coverage, so they're under that.

[37:11] Again, here are the proposed elevations.

[37:14] This portion is not visible because it's interior.

[37:17] So these are the elevations for the portions of the larger addition that is visible.

[37:23] And again, as the applicant explained, they are matching the existing building, which

[37:27] does include BRIC, CMU, and EFIS, and so that's why those materials are being

[37:31] continued on the addition to match the not only the materials in color but also the style of the

[37:38] existing building. So this is the existing building here and then this is the addition if you're

[37:43] looking like right here and then this is from the rear or I have that confused this is from

[37:51] the side this is from the rear.

[37:56] So again just those materials that they are proposing match

[38:00] the existing building.

[38:03] And the additions do not project beyond the building because they won't be visible on

[38:09] either side of the building.

[38:13] So they are proposing six new landscaping trees along the fire access road to ginkgo

[38:21] trees and form maple trees, which will be installed here between the fire access road

[38:25] and the existing soccer field.

[38:28] Staff does not believe any further landscaping is necessary given the distance from the property lines.

[38:34] And irrigation is not required as part of this project per section 405-540.

[38:40] So conditions of approval include that all new exterior lighting shall not exceed 3,000 degrees Kelvin

[38:46] and that any ground or roof mounted mechanical equipment installed be properly screened with materials approved by staff.

[38:55] Any questions?

[38:57] Yes.

[38:58] The water, the tension, and all of that is part of the site development plan?

[39:04] Correct. It is part of the site development plan.

[39:06] And what was submitted had been reviewed by our public works department, and they didn't have any comments.

[39:12] The information that she mentioned about the comments that they've received from MSD, we haven't received that information yet,

[39:19] but that will also be reviewed at the permit stage.

[39:22] And they'll have to meet MSD requirements as well as city requirements.

[39:25] So that would be in the permit and not a condition of this?

[39:29] Correct. It would be in the permit stage.

[39:34] Is HVAC for the new building? Is that moderate on the roof?

[39:38] It's not shown on the plans. That's why we added the condition that all,

[39:43] whether it's on the ground or the roof, that it has to be screened with appropriate materials.

[39:46] Okay.

[39:46] And we'll check that again at the permit stage.

[39:53] Wait, wait, wait. It's not timing up. Sorry. Thank you.

[40:01] Anyone else have any questions?

[40:08] Thank you, Bethany.

[40:09] Thank you.

[40:11] Okay, now I will open it up if anyone from the public would like to come forward and ask any questions.

[40:16] And if you could please state your name.

[40:18] Yeah, my name is Fred Brooks. I own property directly to the south of the school in the Creek subdivision.

[40:27] And I'm here to ask some questions related to noise and light pollution.

[40:32] Now, I think my light pollution questions have been addressed.

[40:35] It sounds like they're going to be using downward-focused light fixtures, though.

[40:43] It should be noted that the properties to the south of the school are at a much lower elevation,

[40:47] so even though the light fixtures may be hooded and pointed down, it's still coming right at us

[40:53] because we're at a lower elevation, but it's definitely better than the existing floodlights

[40:58] on the south side of the building, which is just your industrial style, super bright light,

[41:05] everything up like the sun.

[41:07] So that's great, but I am a bit concerned about noise pollution.

[41:11] On the plan, it did show that the heating and cooling units are going to be located

[41:15] on the reef of the storm shelter.

[41:18] and it looks like they extend above the parapet height.

[41:24] So I'd be concerned that there's going to be noise from a very high elevation broadcasting south

[41:33] and also the existing gymnasium wall extends above the storm shelter.

[41:39] So that will provide another reflective surface that takes the noise that would normally be going towards Boudu Road

[41:46] and send it back south. Also the construction of the storm shelter will put

[41:55] a large brick very acoustically reflective surface that much closer to

[42:00] the people that live south of the school. There's a lot of mention made of

[42:05] matching the brick color. I'd actually be more interested in them being

[42:10] innovative and using some kind of acoustic treatment on that large brick

[42:14] wall. And I'm also concerned that on the plan that it looks like there's a new retaining wall,

[42:21] I couldn't quite tell how high it is. With that's another reflective surface,

[42:26] the sound bounces off of inches heads south. Of course, to live next to a school

[42:30] is kind of a noisy proposition anyway. But when you have these large brick surfaces or stone

[42:36] surfaces, it just makes it worse. So I'm not saying that I'm against the addition of the

[42:42] or the plans. But I would like to see some consideration made for addressing some of the noise perhaps either with acoustic treatment.

[42:51] There was mention of screening around the heating and cooling units.

[42:55] Visual screening often doesn't do anything about the noise.

[42:59] So I would hope that that screening material would be appropriate to direct the noise up and not allow it to radiate back towards the residences.

[43:09] So those are my concerns.

[43:11] Great. Thank you very much.

[43:16] Would you want to adjust the screening or should I have...

[43:19] Do you want to come up again?

[43:27] So there are three HVAC units on the roof.

[43:30] One is existing. It's currently on the ground

[43:31] and we're lifting it up and putting it on the storm shelter roof.

[43:34] And the other two are in between

[43:37] essentially that existing building in the end of the storm shelter.

[43:40] So they're kind of internal to the site itself,

[43:43] but we'll absolutely be providing screening

[43:45] on the roof for those.

[43:51] It'll be visually screened. It does extend over the

[43:53] parapet. Yeah, we're happy to make any any considerations. We need to for sound as

[43:58] well. Okay, I think that might be good too.

[44:00] Okay.

[44:02] Yeah.

[44:02] I'll do that.

[44:04] If they're visiting their analogues, they're going to rune.

[44:08] I don't know what I'm saying, but like so, you know.

[44:10] Okay.

[44:13] So, if you're free, you know.

[44:18] Okay.

[44:19] What's that?

[44:21] Would you like to speak to that if we wanted to add a condition for the sound as well,

[44:25] or?

[44:29] A little difficult to arch it.

[44:31] This would meet our ordinance requirements for screening.

[44:35] We don't require sound studies for rooftop mechanical screening.

[44:39] I think this is a 300, it's 300 feet away from a property line.

[44:44] So it's not something that drew our concern.

[44:47] And our ordinance does require them to be screened from view,

[44:50] and it sounds like the appnet is going to screening.

[44:53] I suppose we could take a look at some acoustical treatment

[44:56] of the panels when we review and discuss it further with the

[45:01] It's a little outside of the bounds of what we normally do for this type of application.

[45:06] Is there a sound limitation? Let's say it was making a big bracket. Could there be later on a sound study and if it was violating an ordinance of some kind, then they would have to do something about it?

[45:22] That is correct. The city utilizes St. Louis County's noise ordinance.

[45:27] So our ordinance says any type of sound transmission must not violate St. Louis County's noise

[45:35] ordinance requirements. So we actually defer to the county standards in our ordinance. So if there

[45:40] are any noise concerns, those would be reported to St. Louis County and St. Louis County actually

[45:45] administers that ordinance. It falls under the umbrella of the County Health Department.

[45:51] So noise issues is a countywide health concern. So yes, and there are standards and

[45:56] And they're basically, they're made at the property line and they're based upon the land

[46:01] uses.

[46:02] And it also involves duration of a noise.

[46:05] So there's a lot that goes into that.

[46:08] But if there are concerns about noise, I think we can work with the applicant to take a

[46:11] look at that and then see if there's any treatment that we may need within reason.

[46:15] But ultimately, I think to your point, there is that other avenue that the county

[46:21] health department can't get involved if there are noise complaints.

[46:32] Anyone else would like to come forward and speak?

[46:39] One question.

[46:40] Yes, sir.

[46:41] Did I hear, you were talking about the one resident who was speaking about issues, that there's

[46:52] some old-style lighting that reflects on your subdivision?

[46:57] Did I hear something like that?

[46:58] Sure.

[46:59] Could you come up?

[47:02] Thank you.

[47:04] There's at least one very bright floodlight mounted fairly high on the existing gymnasium wall that shines backwards to the south.

[47:14] If that's going to be eliminated and replaced with the downward-facing lights that are lower on the building, that's great.

[47:23] I mean, that goes a long way towards reducing the light pollution.

[47:26] I think all buildings should try to reduce light pollution.

[47:32] There are standards.

[47:34] There's an organization called the Dark Sky.

[47:36] They certify lighting from different manufacturers as to whether they're friendly towards

[47:42] looked-at-fars or towards the actatory birds and other wildlife stuff.

[47:46] So I think my light pollution concerns will be mitigated.

[47:53] Yeah, they're shaking their heads, yes.

[47:55] Yes.

[47:56] That's just the creation of a new reflecting sound surface and taking the existing giant

[48:05] frick facade of the gymnasium and pushing it closer to my property.

[48:11] I don't know if there's an easy solution for that.

[48:14] Certainly a flat brick wall sound bounces off of it.

[48:21] Maybe not a lot you can do with that.

[48:22] I mean, there are treatments that can be applied to the exterior of buildings that probably

[48:26] adds cost, probably the easiest thing to be for the shrouding of the heating and cooling

[48:31] equipment to choose something that's not just a vinyl visual shield, but something

[48:37] that has heft to it to block the sound transmission.

[48:41] So I think that's certainly within the realm of possibility and not excessively

[48:47] expensive.

[48:48] Thank you.

[48:49] Thank you.

[48:56] I move to recommend approval to amend the existing site concept plan for the Whitfield

[49:02] School and approve the site development plan for the two new additions to the building as

[49:08] bound together with application number 25-037 presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission

[49:15] subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report for the meeting of December

[49:19] 15, 2025.

[49:23] Second.

[49:24] Thank you.

[49:25] Mr. Bielter.

[49:26] Aye.

[49:27] Ms. O'Brien.

[49:28] Aye.

[49:29] Mr. Potashnik.

[49:30] Aye.

[49:30] Ms. Richter.

[49:31] Aye.

[49:31] Mr. Tomlinson.

[49:33] Aye.

[49:33] Mr. Wang.

[49:34] Aye.

[49:34] And I vote aye.

[49:38] Thank you.

[49:42] Next on the agenda is public hearing 25028 and 25039.

[49:49] Applications for a site development plan and preliminary plan on lot 16 for a 67-unit

[49:56] townhome development, along with an amendment to the Olia village plan makes use zoning district

[50:01] site concept plan and development regulations for the property at 10300 all of Boulevard.

[50:08] If anyone speaking, could please come forward to be sworn in.

[50:20] Good

[50:27] evening. My name is Rob Hayes. I'm a planning and entitlements manager for

[50:32] My address is 3940 Olympic Boulevard Suite 400, Erlinger, Kentucky, 41018.

[50:38] Thank you for your consideration and your time this evening.

[50:46] As I said, I'm Rob Hayes.

[50:47] I'm the planning and entitlements manager for Grand Communities.

[50:49] We are the land development company for Fisher Homes.

[50:53] This evening, we'll walk through a little bit about Fisher Homes,

[50:57] then talk about our proposal for Lot 16 of the Olia Village development,

[51:01] And then we're available also for questions, any questions that you might have this evening.

[51:07] I am joined this evening by our consulting engineer, Ms. Kate Stockito of Stock and Associates.

[51:14] So a little bit about Fisher Homes. Fisher Homes is a privately owned home builder.

[51:19] We are based in suburban Cincinnati. We were founded in 1980 by Henry and Elaine Fisher.

[51:25] We are one of the, we are in the top 35 largest home builders in the country.

[51:31] We are primarily a regional home builder.

[51:34] We are in nine different markets in seven states.

[51:37] We're very proud of our high customer satisfaction ratings.

[51:43] Additionally, Fisher Homes prides itself on giving back to the community.

[51:46] We're a big supporter of the St. Jude program.

[51:48] Also, we donate or we make in-kind donations to museums, ballparks, and other public areas within communities, within each of our divisions.

[52:02] So we did expand into the St. Louis market in 2021.

[52:06] We are currently building in a number of communities in the St. Louis area.

[52:10] Grand Communities is developing the Gateway Heights project in Richmond Heights,

[52:15] which has the product that we'll be talking about tonight, or pardon me,

[52:18] the predecessors to the products we'll be talking about tonight.

[52:21] And then also, Deer Hollow is currently, development is finishing up

[52:24] and vertical construction is starting to begin in town and country

[52:27] directly adjacent to Creek Corps.

[52:31] So, again, we're talking about the Olia Village property, Lot 16.

[52:39] On Lot 16, there are several notable site constraints

[52:43] that influence the design of this project.

[52:46] Specifically, the site has a significant amount of topography.

[52:50] It's 70 feet from the eastern part of the site at the former Bayer Drive,

[52:55] now Olio Drive ramps off of Lindberg Boulevard,

[52:58] down to the stream that runs through the site.

[53:01] There's also a stream buffer.

[53:02] And then on that eastern side there is the public primuse easement as well.

[53:10] This is a rendering of our proposed plan.

[53:12] There are two products that are offered that are being proposed for this site.

[53:16] At the northwest side of the rendering that you see, we have our rear entry products.

[53:22] So those products are facing and fronting on all of Cove.

[53:26] And then on the street that runs north, south, on the eastern side of the property,

[53:31] we have our front-loading product.

[53:33] So each of these products has a two car garage.

[53:36] In the products on the north, they present on all of Cove.

[53:40] without any vehicular access, whereas the products on the east side of the property

[53:44] present internally with both pedestrian and vehicular access shared internally.

[53:50] Additionally, the homes on the east side of the property are a reverse walkout condition.

[53:56] So all of these products are three stories, but the homes on the east side,

[53:59] on the eastern facade of those homes, two stories would be above grade,

[54:04] and the garage and lower level would transition.

[54:07] So one level of grade would transition between the front door and the backyard.

[54:13] Additionally, the site doesn't necessitate a retaining wall in the rear of several of the buildings between the ramps.

[54:21] And let me see if I can point this one

[54:27] up here.

[54:29] Your experience of retaining a wall on the max.

[54:35] So again, a mix of our Logan and Meridian products, 45 of the Logan products, which is that front entry, and 22 of the Meridian, which are the rear entry.

[54:45] The rear garage entry.

[54:47] This is our landscaping plan.

[54:49] We do have a significant amount of landscaping on the property.

[54:52] We have 334 trees.

[54:54] So a significant amount of landscaping, we really do pride ourselves on landscaping, helping to create a timeless community from the time that we install it as the community ages.

[55:08] Pedestrian connections, as you can see here, this is the pedestrian connection diagram through the site.

[55:14] As proposed, there is a sidewalk on the western side of the north-south street through the community, not on the eastern side.

[55:23] That was a conscious design decision that was made because of that topography,

[55:27] because of the topographic challenges that I talked about earlier.

[55:31] In order to accommodate a parked car in the driveway for guest parking that does not encroach upon the sidewalk,

[55:38] the sidewalk, the driveways have to be wide enough to have that 20 feet of car space than the sidewalk.

[55:45] because of the constraints between the creek and the public prim use easement on the east side of the property,

[55:53] it's very tight and that retaining wall, our goal is to keep that retaining wall on the east side of the property as low as possible.

[56:00] If we were to add a sidewalk on the east side of the property, that would cause that retaining wall.

[56:05] We would have to make that retaining wall taller.

[56:07] And so that was why that choice was made, why that is proposed as shown here.

[56:14] Excuse me.

[56:15] Yes, sir.

[56:16] That's a change.

[56:18] No, ma'am.

[56:22] Not from our proposal, no.

[56:25] So these are the products that have been proposed.

[56:29] These are the renderings of the products and their colors.

[56:33] And they would start at the 850s and go up from there.

[56:38] You see bedrooms and bathroom combinations can vary just based

[56:42] based on what selections a customer makes in customizing each of their individual units.

[56:47] These properties would be maintained, all exteriors would be maintained by the HOA, therefore

[56:52] landscaping on the exterior, yards in the exterior as well as the building envelope

[56:55] would be maintained by the HOA.

[56:58] Typically those would therefore attract young professionals as well as people who are

[57:04] downsizing and choosing to have a maintenance-free lifestyle.

[57:09] Again, the Meridian is at the top, and then the Logan on the bottom.

[57:14] And these are just some examples of what our interiors would like, just modern interiors as well.

[57:23] With that, I'm available for any questions that you might have as well as hate questions of either of us.

[57:30] So thank you so much, and thank you for your time. Yes, ma'am.

[57:35] I had a question. It had to do with the brick. There's something about a radius thing. I really didn't understand what that meant.

[57:42] And I apologize for not mentioning that.

[57:50] This area here, because of the mention between the site of the property and the central lines to be located here,

[58:04] In order to make this connect, we have to have the horizontal radius.

[58:12] Go ahead, Kate, if you'd like to speak a little bit more.

[58:16] Good evening. I'm Kate Stockjito with Stock & Associates.

[58:18] Our address is 257 Cheshirefield Business Parkway in Cheshirefield, Missouri.

[58:22] So what Rob is indicating, the site-specific ordinance for Olia,

[58:28] private streets require a horizontal minimum radius of 150.

[58:32] We are unable to achieve that 150 radius due to the alignment of the existing loop road,

[58:42] so only a drive, former bear drive that heads south.

[58:45] We are not able to get 150 foot radius in there.

[58:48] We are required by both city and fire to have two accesses into the site.

[58:54] In order to do that we are seeking relief to the city's code as well as the ordinance to go to an 80 instead of 150 foot horizontal radius where Rob had indicated.

[59:09] So does that just mean that the traffic will be slower going?

[59:12] Our intention with, it would be slowed down because we have incorporated a landscape island to divide north and southbound traffic.

[59:24] That was our intention, was to slow it down as you are making a little bit more of a sharp turn.

[59:32] And that all of the pedestrian walkability that was in our original plan is still maintained.

[59:40] So it's our understanding with Lot 16. It was left a little bit as a question mark.

[59:46] It wasn't quite determined who would be the end user for Lot 16.

[59:52] And part of us coming in with this particular plan, we needed to mend both the street and the pedestrian connection.

[1:00:00] Activity. So it wasn't defined in the overall concept plan what the pedestrian

[1:00:05] connectivity of lot 16 would look like relative to the overall oleothilage

[1:00:09] development. So what does it look like then?

[1:00:26] So highlighted in red would be our

[1:00:30] sidewalk connections. There would be private sidewalk connections to each of

[1:00:35] those units. But what is depicted in red is what would be the overall pedestrian

[1:00:40] and pay pass throughout the developments.

[1:00:43] If we look on the far left-hand side, over on the meridian side, there's a red sidewalk

[1:00:51] that would pick up that four-unit cluster, work its way northeast and then follow Olive

[1:00:57] Cove as you continue to work your way northeast.

[1:01:00] It would then turn south into the site.

[1:01:02] There would be a crosswalk to then get you to the south side of the western internal

[1:01:09] And that red sidewalk would follow behind four parallel parking stalls.

[1:01:16] As you work your way south and east towards the Logan product, there would be a mail kiosk there.

[1:01:23] So there's additional parallel parking spaces for that.

[1:01:27] The sidewalk would continue south to pick up the remaining Logan products.

[1:01:32] As you get to the southernmost point, we would have another crosswalk that takes you through that landscape island,

[1:01:38] And continuing east, you would then tie into the overall Olio village sidewalk on that

[1:01:46] side.

[1:01:46] There's also a crosswalk that would be proposed at our proposed northern access into the site

[1:01:53] at Olive Cove, which would then put you on the eight-foot wide multi-use trail as

[1:02:01] defined by the overall pedestrian plan of the Olio village development.

[1:02:08] And so those walkable red lines, are all of that, is that all private or let's just say

[1:02:16] a person's walking the dog, but they walk their dog on there?

[1:02:20] It is intended to be private. Rob, do you want to speak too?

[1:02:25] Privates as private for the residents of the family.

[1:02:33] So that would be gated and would not be not gated.

[1:02:39] So the sidewalk that's along Olive Cove that is public that would be in an easement.

[1:02:44] There's an existing easement there today but internal to lot 16 that is private intended to be private.

[1:02:50] Can you just use your subrediction?

[1:02:59] We got it.

[1:02:59] Okay.

[1:03:00] So this one wrong here is public,

[1:03:05] private, private.

[1:03:12] And then it would tie in to the public sidewalk.

[1:03:16] Here, there's also a trailhead in this location that could take

[1:03:20] residence to other areas within the Olio development.

[1:03:25] So is there a sidewalk then that goes up?

[1:03:30] Yes.

[1:03:31] Yeah, there.

[1:03:32] Yes.

[1:03:32] So it's tying into that.

[1:03:34] So with the six-foot sidewalk, that transitions to an eight at this intersection here.

[1:03:41] And then it is an eight all the way up to here.

[1:03:45] And then there's a crosswalk.

[1:03:47] And then the eight-foot wide multi-use sidewalk then comes and wraps back around.

[1:03:55] Okay.

[1:03:55] Thank you.

[1:04:01] Other questions?

[1:04:03] Okay.

[1:04:04] Recap the price points.

[1:04:07] They would be starting in the eight fifties.

[1:04:10] Yes, sir.

[1:04:11] And how much of an exercise would it be to put sidewalks on both sides of the street?

[1:04:20] So the reason that we did not include that was to minimize the height of the retaining

[1:04:28] walls and the east side of the property.

[1:04:29] And how much does that change the height of the team?

[1:04:32] So where it becomes a problem, we would need to make sure that we were able to construct

[1:04:37] six-foot walk and then park, be able to park a vehicle and not overhang that sidewalk.

[1:04:44] So we would be moving everything to the east.

[1:04:47] Grading would be updated.

[1:04:49] We would also need to make sure we're maintaining drainage whales to meet MSC requirements

[1:04:56] for 100-year overland flow path and thus the walls will get taller.

[1:04:59] We are limited with where we can place the walls because there's an existing 15-foot-wide

[1:05:05] public premium season that is a permanent roadway improvement, sidewalk utility type

[1:05:11] easement lasts forever dedicated to the city.

[1:05:15] As we increase the height of the wall, the length of the tie-backs, the structural

[1:05:20] support would then start to encroach into the city's easement.

[1:05:24] So we are limited with where we can place this wall, maintain a drainage easement,

[1:05:29] not encroach into the city's easement.

[1:05:32] I'd like to repeat what you said.

[1:05:34] Pardon?

[1:05:36] I didn't get that, of course.

[1:05:38] Oh, I'm okay.

[1:05:40] So how much would you have to raise the wall?

[1:05:44] I don't want to just spit out anything.

[1:05:46] Pardon?

[1:05:47] Give it to me in fees.

[1:05:48] So right now the wall is 10 foot tall, max.

[1:05:50] And as Rob mentioned, this product is their reverse walkout on the east side.

[1:05:56] So where it is adjacent to the wall, that's floor two.

[1:06:00] On the street side, it's floor one.

[1:06:03] So you're already two stories above the two stories, that's correct, on the far east side.

[1:06:12] And the taller you make the wall, the more difficult it becomes to sell those units because your view then becomes a very, very tall retaining wall.

[1:06:24] I don't want to spit out a number as to how much taller the wall is going to be, but right now it's 10 feet tall.

[1:06:30] All right, but I'd like to just add two or three feet to the height of the wall.

[1:06:41] Two to three weeks. 20 to 30 percent.

[1:06:44] Correct.

[1:06:47] And why wouldn't we want there to be a sidewalk on both sides of the street?

[1:06:55] I'm sort of asking that as a question.

[1:06:58] Well, I guess I'm trying to note it because there is a sidewalk there.

[1:07:03] It's just the only a village sidewalk, correct?

[1:07:08] Like in front of the other units.

[1:07:11] So, this would be the, does that work here?

[1:07:14] Yes.

[1:07:14] There is a sidewalk here, yes.

[1:07:16] These are the, this would be the rear of these units.

[1:07:18] And these units would sit.

[1:07:20] But we didn't have that sidewalk.

[1:07:24] So there's just the red sidewalk.

[1:07:26] So you can see it.

[1:07:27] It's on the left side from here.

[1:07:31] And then, but then there's an inside walk on the other side.

[1:07:34] But there is the oleodilic sidewalk on the other side of their home.

[1:07:38] The sidewalk here is not a sidewalk.

[1:07:43] And what to do if we – I asked them to go online.

[1:07:48] How many feet of sidewalk would you have if you could have both sides of the screen?

[1:07:56] Just guess.

[1:07:57] Just guess.

[1:08:01] How

[1:08:04] wide are the lots?

[1:08:07] Those are 24.

[1:08:08] The ends are 34.

[1:08:10] So you're probably 300 feet at that southern point where the road starts to then bend

[1:08:18] and the alignment of the homes kind of kink.

[1:08:30] Well, I'd like some help here.

[1:08:32] Yeah, I think we need another picture maybe of it.

[1:08:35] Maybe, Jay, you could edit for a while,

[1:08:37] but why wouldn't we want to have sidewalks on both sides of the street?

[1:08:42] I can cover that during my remarks whenever you're ready for that.

[1:08:45] I have some comments.

[1:08:50] Other questions?

[1:08:53] Okay.

[1:08:54] Thank you.

[1:09:13] Good evening.

[1:09:14] Jason Jagge, director of community development with the CFP4.

[1:09:17] Let's give Bethany a second to load up that presentation.

[1:09:28] Thank you.

[1:09:29] Okay.

[1:09:29] So as discussed, this application is for the development of lot 16 and it involves

[1:09:35] a few technical requests.

[1:09:37] But so the first thing is a site development plan.

[1:09:40] That's the instrument that approves the site layout, number of units, landscaping,

[1:09:44] architectural appearance of the buildings, pedestrian access, all of that.

[1:09:49] Then we also have the preliminary plot, which takes Lot 16, which has already been created

[1:09:54] within the Olio Village original Southern Platt, and it divides it into the 67

[1:09:59] individually owned lots for the townhomes as well as establishes common ground

[1:10:04] and the streets that are proposed to be private.

[1:10:06] And then we have the amendments to the site concept plan and the development

[1:10:10] standards as they apply to all of the Olio Village Plan District.

[1:10:14] So I want to make clear this is the mix involved with the request tonight.

[1:10:21] So that is, again, Site Development Plan 67, attached single-family townhouses on Lot 16.

[1:10:27] These would be four sale units on individually-owned lots.

[1:10:32] Primary plan for the residential component, like I said, the amendments to the overall site concept plan for Olio,

[1:10:37] as well as the development center's amendments for that roadway geometry that was mentioned there.

[1:10:42] So this, just taking you back in time, two years is when this plan was approved for Olia Village.

[1:10:50] And a few months ago, we were looking at Lot 1, which was a grocery store and retail building.

[1:10:56] That was approved by P&Z and City Council, and now we're looking at Lot 16.

[1:11:01] So this is the site within the Olia Village development.

[1:11:05] And it was talked about earlier that this area was sort of set aside and I would agree with that.

[1:11:10] You can see here this nothing was depicted in terms of the street layout.

[1:11:14] This is a concept but a very rough illustrative concept.

[1:11:19] This was not an engineered concept and it actually allowed up to 130 townhomes.

[1:11:24] But when the engineering has been done for this application,

[1:11:27] you really can't fit that many on here to account for stormwater and all the other challenges that I think you've heard tonight.

[1:11:33] So the proposal is to actually reduce that quite a bit lower than what was authorized by the Olia Village Ordnance.

[1:11:41] So this is what we're asking for.

[1:11:43] This is the approved council plan.

[1:11:45] This would be updated to implement all of the approved changes for the goal.

[1:11:51] So again, that's the ordinance number.

[1:11:54] That was November of 2023.

[1:11:55] Lot 16 was identified as that subcategory D, which does call for residential development,

[1:12:02] which can authorize up to 130 single-family units or attached towns.

[1:12:07] So this project is being referred to as the Vale at Olio Village.

[1:12:11] Lot 16, you can see it's 11.16 acres in size, out of the total almost 96 acres within

[1:12:19] Olio Village Development, 67 owner-occupied units.

[1:12:23] They will have been clusters of two to six attached townhomes throughout the site here.

[1:12:28] 13 buildings, three stories in height, and like I said, they're attached units.

[1:12:32] There are two different model types or formats, if you will, being proposed.

[1:12:38] The Logan as well as the Meridian is what they're being referred to as.

[1:12:42] They do have two-car garages as well as spaces for parking on the individual driveways.

[1:12:48] We did look at that to make sure that when cars are parked on the driveways that they're

[1:12:54] not going to extend onto sidewalks or as discussed, if it remains without the sidewalk on the

[1:13:01] eastern end of these townhomes, that the vehicles would not back out onto the street.

[1:13:07] So they have provided dimensions which do show cars can park there without obstructing.

[1:13:12] And then they also have 15 guest spaces, as was talked about earlier.

[1:13:15] They're scattered about in these areas by the mail kiosk and then over in this area.

[1:13:20] So even in addition to that, there's some additional guest parking that has been built.

[1:13:26] Site coverage you can see here for lot 16 is 27.6%.

[1:13:32] And I don't know if I mentioned it, but there's a lot of common ground as well as

[1:13:37] you can see here.

[1:13:39] This is an undisturbed area that's part of our stream bank buffer requirement so

[1:13:44] you can't develop in this area.

[1:13:45] They're staying out of it, but in turn that obviously restricts the site quite a bit in order to not utilize this portion.

[1:13:55] The pedestrian plan, a lot of discussion I heard about the pedestrian plan tonight and just a few comments that I might have on that.

[1:14:01] I think Kate with the project engineer explained it very well.

[1:14:06] We talked extensively about the sidewalk plan and in terms of the staff review.

[1:14:11] I think we've got a plan here that ties in very well with the planned sidewalk

[1:14:15] network for Olio Village. We are having a sidewalk here that will connect all of

[1:14:21] the units that are frontward facing toward the road. You can see the walkways

[1:14:24] will come out and you can go directly to a sidewalk and walk along the

[1:14:28] frontage and then that will tie into the rest of the development so very

[1:14:31] walkable in that regard. They also have sidewalks that enter into the

[1:14:36] development and serve the guest faces. And then as we talked about earlier

[1:14:39] on the western end here on the on one side of the street. Staff also ask for

[1:14:44] reasons why the sidewalk cannot be placed on the eastern bank of the

[1:14:49] buildings. And I think the response you heard tonight is the same reasons that

[1:14:52] we were given that would that it would impact the height of the wall. There's

[1:14:57] some site constraints here and so forth.

[1:15:00] But I would say that I think, based on what I've heard tonight, I think the commission should consider that a little bit further in terms of whether it is feasible or it's not like there would be some trade-offs.

[1:15:10] There are some concerns with that, but you can certainly consider that in your motion tonight if you're ready to move forward with it, that that be explored a little bit further.

[1:15:18] So there's cars that can drive in there too, or can you go through the way of finding from a car perspective versus a sidewalk?

[1:15:25] Yeah. So there are two entrances here. This is the northern entrance. It's a little hard to see here.

[1:15:33] This shows it may be a little bit better. So this is the entrance here. So you're coming – this is the bare interchange with Lindberg here.

[1:15:40] The bare overpass is here. And so you would come in through here and you can enter in this way as well.

[1:15:44] And there's a cul-de-sac. And these are the units where you will pull into the units in the rear right here, okay?

[1:15:49] So the frontage faces on to Olea Cove, this road.

[1:15:53] And so it's different when you come over these sides.

[1:15:56] These now front toward the internal street and the backs of the units are on this side.

[1:16:01] So that's the difference in the model styles that you're seeing.

[1:16:05] And then the secondary access that we talked about.

[1:16:07] Again, we had lots of discussions on this as well.

[1:16:09] And the fire district and city ultimately really required two access points to this development.

[1:16:15] But can you talk about where the road is versus the sidewalk down the middle of the others there?

[1:16:22] Yeah. So the road is going to be sitting right here next to it. It's a little hard to see,

[1:16:25] but it just sits right next to it when it comes through here. And this is the island that was

[1:16:29] discussed earlier where you can come in here. It splits with this landscape median,

[1:16:34] and you can make this turn and come into development. When you're coming out of the

[1:16:37] development, you're going to make this turn and come back out.

[1:16:44] And so this is the main

[1:16:45] This is sort of a secondary entrance, although, you know, it's full access.

[1:16:49] And so you'll come in, you can come into the side here, then you can also go into here to access the garages,

[1:16:54] and there's a court to turn around.

[1:16:57] Come back up.

[1:16:57] So where's the parking for the ones, say, on the right at the bottom?

[1:17:02] Right here?

[1:17:03] Yeah.

[1:17:03] So these units face inward toward the street.

[1:17:06] So both of these units, if you can pitch this, will face each other.

[1:17:10] Okay.

[1:17:11] And the parking is in the front.

[1:17:12] And the parking is in the front.

[1:17:13] So you'll pull in, you'll have a driveway, you'll park, and then you'll be able to go into the unit from here.

[1:17:17] And so the back of the units are facing this way on this side and this way here.

[1:17:23] The opposite is true up here.

[1:17:25] And this creates a nicer appearance, so the main road coming through here, you will have the frontage of the units facing this street.

[1:17:32] And you'll be able to enter the units in the back.

[1:17:34] Where are the guests parking?

[1:17:36] So yeah, like we said earlier, there are spaces to park on the driveway.

[1:17:40] Our code requires two spaces per unit, so they're meeting that.

[1:17:44] We don't have any code requirements for guest parking.

[1:17:47] However, they are accounting for that.

[1:17:48] And you can see here, here's banks of on-street guest parking,

[1:17:52] and there's some here as well.

[1:17:54] And then a couple of spaces near the mail kiosk.

[1:17:57] Jason, is that a public road that sort of wraps all the way around?

[1:18:02] Yes.

[1:18:02] Can you – let me jump there.

[1:18:05] better to understand it.

[1:18:08] This I think shows it here.

[1:18:10] Here's a street plan.

[1:18:12] So this is the public road.

[1:18:13] This probably shows it a lot.

[1:18:15] This is the public roadway system here in Hollywood.

[1:18:18] So everything you see in gray is a public street to be dedicated to the city upon completion.

[1:18:24] So this is the roadway network.

[1:18:25] Everything that you see in orange is a private street.

[1:18:29] So the city is not maintaining those streets.

[1:18:31] They're private.

[1:18:32] And that is the case here with these internal streets for this town hall.

[1:18:36] Is there going to be a lot of light and through traffic going to the town halls on the Orange Street there?

[1:18:41] No. We would not anticipate that. No. And that's why I think, you know, they will have some signage as well at these entry points to designate it as a residential area.

[1:18:51] And so I think, you know, I would not anticipate that you're going to come through here and either if you're going to the Schnooks area or the Main Street, you're going to come through here.

[1:18:59] You also have another access way through here to get you to the main street. So for pedestrians to be less traffic on the private

[1:19:05] I would yes, that would be the expectation. Yes, it's a private residential street

[1:19:10] They are not proposing it to be gated because I think they want it to be

[1:19:14] You know open to the residents, but it but it would be privately maintained and they are private streets

[1:19:19] and then why are the streets back to be dedicated?

[1:19:23] because

[1:19:24] Because a couple of things is our Pollock Works Department reviewed it and due to the configuration with the townhomes, with snow clearing, a little challenging with that, and just the maintenance of some of the lots in there.

[1:19:38] And the street really just only serves this lot.

[1:19:41] It doesn't serve any other portion of the development.

[1:19:45] We talked about the roadway network.

[1:19:48] You don't need these roads to be able to service the rest of the projects.

[1:19:52] And so the builders read with that, and they're proposing it to be maintained by the HOA as private streets.

[1:20:01] I said snow removal. I do want to check whether our public works for them.

[1:20:04] We might actually file this because they are a residential owner occupant, so I can check on it.

[1:20:12] But those were some of the reasons why it was decided and recommended that it be filed.

[1:20:16] Street 4 would provide services in the streets there, but they're not going to be dedicated.

[1:20:23] That's right. They would be privately maintained, and it would be up to the HOA to maintain those roads as a private street.

[1:20:29] But they're not going to maintain it for Smilton.

[1:20:32] I have to check on that, but I believe our policy with the city is that any street that is owner-occupied, as owner-occupied residential, the city does go ahead and plow those for safety reasons.

[1:20:44] And if we damage the streets with responsibility.

[1:20:48] It would probably be our insurance policy if it is a result of damage by the city.

[1:20:53] And that is something I think that our Public Works Department deals with some time to time with mailbox damages and things like that.

[1:21:00] Jason, what about fire trucks?

[1:21:02] Yes.

[1:21:04] So I'm jumping around here, but you're asking good questions.

[1:21:07] So this is the amendment for the turnrages.

[1:21:12] And so this is a discussion that we had with the applicant as well as the Fire District.

[1:21:17] There were some early concerns about this was going to originally be a CODIS Act.

[1:21:23] The Fire District had some concerns they would like access there.

[1:21:26] It was considered as an emergency only access configuration.

[1:21:29] I think working amongst all the parties, we prefer this to be full access.

[1:21:33] But in order to do that, we had to vary the ordinance just for lot 16 to allow a little bit tighter of a radius.

[1:21:40] But the fire district has reviewed the access plan, and they are comfortable with it.

[1:21:44] We have an email that says they're comfortable with this line.

[1:21:51] In fact, that says it like that.

[1:21:58] So just continuing, unless there's any other questions on that, I'll move forward.

[1:22:05] Okay, I think we covered the pedestrian plan well.

[1:22:08] The preliminary plan, again, it lays out all of the pertinent information in terms of access to the property.

[1:22:16] You can see here 6.6 acres of that is common ground or used for stormwater.

[1:22:21] The covenants for the subdivision indentures, those have been submitted and reviewed by Mr. Lumley, our city attorney.

[1:22:27] Those are acceptable in terms of the private indentures for the commoner association.

[1:22:34] And then lot 16, the tree preservation plan you can see here that has also been reviewed.

[1:22:39] And there are trees that will be removed, 55 viable trees, and then 72 will be remained.

[1:22:45] And that results in a 43.3% tree removal calculation.

[1:22:50] And then you can see here this is the landscape plan, heavily landscaped along the perimeter.

[1:22:54] So you'll have street trees around the whole perimeter of the site.

[1:22:59] And then these will be left undisturbed within the watercourse area, as well as on the perimeter

[1:23:04] outside of the technical boundaries of lot 16.

[1:23:08] All of the trees that are in this area, as you can imagine, those will have to be removed,

[1:23:13] but you can see all the new trees that will be planted in each and every six years.

[1:23:17] We do have a condition, however, to require irrigation.

[1:23:23] We have discussed that with the applicant.

[1:23:25] But we are expecting or recommending that the irrigation be provided along the frontages,

[1:23:29] as well as at the entry areas to be made within common ground areas to be maintained by the Agile.

[1:23:37] You can see here, these are just the typical details of how each of the entries would be landscaped.

[1:23:43] You can see there's landscaping within the lawn areas in between the units.

[1:23:47] This is a typical design.

[1:23:50] And then I think we've covered this pretty well, but this is the Meridian models.

[1:23:53] Like I said, these are the ones that face outward toward the street.

[1:23:56] And these are the Logan models that face inward toward the private street.

[1:24:01] And these are the building elevations.

[1:24:03] You can see here these are a more flat elevation, but they have percrusions with the box bays and other elements like canopies.

[1:24:10] These are what you're going to see along here.

[1:24:13] Okay, so this is what you're going to see along Ole Cove, the main road.

[1:24:17] And then when you transition here, you can see now how the entry also has the garages toward the street.

[1:24:24] So this is different because this has the garage behind it, but this is the main frontage on Ole Cove.

[1:24:32] They look very similar. This has a little bit more relief, which we do like.

[1:24:36] This one is a little bit more squared off, but it's because of the configuration I suppose with the garages.

[1:24:44] And then we do have a little material here,

[1:24:50] these would be the brick colors.

[1:24:57] You can see the upper portion here is going to be that white wash sort of whiteish brick.

[1:25:02] The lower portion will be the darker tan gray color here.

[1:25:07] It is consistent, we feel like with the kind of architectural theme of Ole Village having these shades of color,

[1:25:14] so we weren't any, didn't have concerns about that.

[1:25:18] I did want to touch base on the side.

[1:25:21] So the side elevations in the rear will be fiber cement lap siding.

[1:25:24] Those will not have the brick returns.

[1:25:27] However, discussing with the applicant, we do have a condition,

[1:25:31] and their plans do show this, that what they call the high impact area.

[1:25:35] So it's the end of these units here, here, here.

[1:25:40] As I'm pointing around, it's the ends.

[1:25:42] Those will have full return brick, okay, on all of the ends like that.

[1:25:46] So the ones that are more internal that you really can't see that aren't very visible, those will have to lap the siding on the sides and the rear.

[1:25:58] The lighting just quickly here, 16-foot poles that matches our ordinance. We'll have a modern fixture, again,

[1:26:05] complementary with the Olio Village design. You can see the detail of the fixture there.

[1:26:10] 3,000 temperature rating for the color, temperature, shielded and downcast as well.

[1:26:16] And then these are the entry signs that are proposed.

[1:26:18] One at each of the entrances.

[1:26:21] And we do have a condition of approval that the final design be approved by staff

[1:26:25] and that they have landscaping incorporated at the base of the sign.

[1:26:29] So we would like to have that achieved.

[1:26:32] And then when the master sign plan for all of Olia is developed,

[1:26:37] these would be folded into that master sign plan.

[1:26:39] So these would be the signs allowed for the residential.

[1:26:43] And then this is a design for the male kiosk.

[1:26:45] You can see it follows a lot of same design treatment as the individual townhomes,

[1:26:50] these were the mailboxes would be toward the front of the,

[1:26:53] front of the building.

[1:26:56] I think stormwater was discussed pretty well earlier,

[1:26:59] but they are required to detain water on this site

[1:27:03] in terms of water quality. You can see those areas here, but the entire

[1:27:07] old village development was planned under master stormwater project with

[1:27:11] So they're just required really to detain it for water quality on their site that would flow into the already designed system here.

[1:27:22] And then just the amendments, really, what we're talking about in terms of the site and concept amendments.

[1:27:26] You can see here this follows the updated plan that was sort of left to be determined until this was developed.

[1:27:33] So the amendments really are just limited to updating the entire concept plan for OLA Village to incorporate the site plan associated with this proposal.

[1:27:42] So do we have the tree preservation piece?

[1:27:45] Yes, we do, right here.

[1:27:47] So this was also, we also asked them to update this

[1:27:50] in accordance with the latest approved version,

[1:27:53] and they have done so.

[1:27:54] You can see these are remaining.

[1:27:56] That's green, and these are shaded blue or purple,

[1:28:01] depending on the size.

[1:28:02] All of these inside development will be removed,

[1:28:04] but as I saw you, as I showed you with the plan,

[1:28:07] all of these will be replaced with their trees.

[1:28:09] These on the outer portion?

[1:28:13] Replacement is per the oleavillage standard, which is any tree that it's viable,

[1:28:18] meaning good condition.

[1:28:19] Six inches or better is a one-to-one.

[1:28:21] If it's 20 inches or greater, it's two-to-one.

[1:28:27] And then I think I already talked about the geometry of the welding standard.

[1:28:34] Do have some recommended conditions for approval for you,

[1:28:39] Depending on any further discussion,

[1:28:41] I believe that's also in your staff, of course, as well,

[1:28:43] but we would need two separate motions for approval tonight.

[1:28:49] So I think I don't really understand the sidewalk.

[1:28:52] So if I walk out the front door and I don't have a sidewalk,

[1:28:58] I just go to the street or, like, that's super clear.

[1:29:02] That is exact.

[1:29:03] That is what's being proposed.

[1:29:06] So let me get back to that right here.

[1:29:11] So all of these units will have directly accessible to a sidewalk.

[1:29:18] So your walk, again, this is the front of the unit.

[1:29:20] So you will be able to walk onto a sidewalk here and then along here so you'll have direct access to a sidewalk.

[1:29:27] The same is true for these units here because this is where the sidewalk goes through the property on this side of the street.

[1:29:33] And then that takes you down toward the secondary entrance, and then it ties in with the main olias sidewalk system through here.

[1:29:40] So what's being discussed and what we have brought up as well is that, you know, we did ask for sidewalks on this side of the street as well.

[1:29:51] Because right now you would have a sidewalk from your front porch that would just end at the street.

[1:30:00] Is that what that was talking about?

[1:30:02] Well, there would be, I think there would be a walkway that would lead, like a walkway to the front of the home that would lead to your driveway.

[1:30:14] I'm trying to see if there's something that illustrates that. Yeah, you can see this. See here.

[1:30:19] So this is the entry. You can see this is the walkway up to the entry of the town home, and then it would just go onto your driveway,

[1:30:25] just like a regular single-family block where you had your driveway and then you can walk.

[1:30:30] There's a walkway that takes you up to your front door.

[1:30:38] So if there's concerns about this sidewalk night, trying to get there,

[1:30:50] break it.

[1:30:51] If there are concerns with this, I think that's something you all could discuss,

[1:30:55] and that could be a recommendation to City Council that the developer provide sidewalks.

[1:31:00] And then based on that, on the eastern end of the site, then that's something that they could explore

[1:31:06] and they could present to council, and if there's real engineering concerns or other concerns,

[1:31:11] they could present that information to the city council. That could be part of your recommendation

[1:31:14] if you chose to do that. Why can't they come back and present it to us?

[1:31:18] They could, if you wanted to continue that, they can, but if I think there's other...

[1:31:24] It's our job that we don't typically accept stuff that counts until it's done.

[1:31:30] Yeah, I'm telling you, you have the option. If you feel like that's the only thing that

[1:31:36] is outstanding. That's something I think I'm hearing the applicant tonight. They

[1:31:42] could review that, study it, and be prepared to probably present that at the

[1:31:47] City Council. But if you want them to come back, that is your program to do so

[1:31:51] as well. All right, see what that looks like. And also, I was looking at the

[1:31:56] condition. We don't have any irrigation. We do. It isn't? Yes. Okay. It is.

[1:32:04] And just a couple of comments.

[1:32:07] The first speaker who spoke, maybe not directly, not the project,

[1:32:13] but did mention some of the headlight concerns.

[1:32:16] I believe what's being discussed is this part right here.

[1:32:19] When you come out, you know, the vehicles will be turning here, right?

[1:32:23] And so that could also be a condition where there's some additional landscaping

[1:32:27] that is proposed to help shield that.

[1:32:30] I think that's something that could be worked into the project as well.

[1:32:33] Where is the trash or how is the trash damaged?

[1:32:37] I'll let the applicant speak to that, but my understanding is they will be just like a regular home.

[1:32:42] Your home, they'll be in the unit and they'll be taken out during trash days and put back.

[1:32:47] There is no common refuse collection for the individual trash collections.

[1:32:56] And are the garages big enough that they can be put inside?

[1:33:01] Because that would be a lot of trash bins everywhere in a small space if there's not room to put them somewhere.

[1:33:13] It would be our intention that the trash cans be inside.

[1:33:15] Typically our CCNRs or our indentures prevent the trash cans from being stored anywhere but the garage.

[1:33:22] And so are the garages large enough to have two cars and trash bins?

[1:33:26] Yes, no matter how they're designed.

[1:33:27] Okay. Thank you.

[1:33:33] Thank you.

[1:33:34] Any other questions?

[1:33:36] Okay.

[1:33:38] Yes, I'm sorry.

[1:33:40] Yes.

[1:33:40] That area that down at the corner of that,

[1:33:44] well, we had a nice question.

[1:33:46] Yes.

[1:33:48] About additional landscaping.

[1:33:49] Mm-hmm.

[1:33:50] Would you articulate what our suggestion might be

[1:33:53] if we were to move the lesson?

[1:33:55] Yeah.

[1:33:55] That the revised landscape plan be amended to provide evergreen shrubs

[1:34:00] to shield the headlight glare to reduce the headlight glare coming out of the southern

[1:34:08] entrance.

[1:34:12] And we're talking about this area right in here.

[1:34:15] So help me out here. I'm trying to answer for myself why we don't have sidewalks on

[1:34:22] those sides of the street. And the only reason I can come up with the

[1:34:27] it was at the convenience for the developer,

[1:34:33] not for the convenience of everybody who's

[1:34:35] going to buy a house to enter in and for what they think what the preference might be for

[1:34:41] Creev4 for our standards. I'm just going to have the thumb like stuck myself. And I like

[1:34:49] to see this, for me, I like to see this redrafted, I would call it up to Creev4 standards.

[1:34:59] and see what that looks like so that, and instead of guessing behind the fence,

[1:35:04] we would know what an advance is going to be, a foot taller or a 30 feet taller,

[1:35:09] so that we would have some specific answers so that we could come up with a specific response.

[1:35:15] Right now, to me, it's kind of negrous. It's got a lot of really good work,

[1:35:20] because it's a project, but I think we need just a little bit more help there.

[1:35:27] I think I can answer a little bit of that.

[1:35:30] Okay.

[1:35:30] So one is the retaining wall.

[1:35:33] It's right here.

[1:35:35] This is the retaining wall we're talking about.

[1:35:37] This retaining wall, the face of the wall faces inward towards the wall.

[1:35:42] So it's going to face this one.

[1:35:45] So I think the discussion you heard from the project engineer is, you know,

[1:35:50] these units are going to back up to that.

[1:35:52] And when you're looking out the back of your unit, you're going to see a wall,

[1:35:56] but there's also going to be some landscapes, as you can see right in here.

[1:36:03] From their perspective, in terms of cellability, it sounds like, you know,

[1:36:08] they don't want to get too close to that or they don't want the wall too high.

[1:36:11] They haven't engineered it.

[1:36:12] It sounds like they haven't engineered all the specifications.

[1:36:15] But for purposes this evening, if you're so inclined, you could make a recommendation

[1:36:20] because you are the recommending body to the City Council on this,

[1:36:23] if the final approval rests within.

[1:36:25] You could include a recommendation that a sidewalk be provided on the east side of the internal street

[1:36:31] to service all the units on that street.

[1:36:33] And that's something that they can explore and be able to present that to the City Council.

[1:36:39] And I would envision that it would follow the same configuration that you see here.

[1:36:45] You're going to see another red line up on the east side of that street.

[1:36:52] I'm not here to design it, but just one question, I guess, for the designer is that, so we're

[1:36:59] on the east side.

[1:37:02] Yeah, the sidewalk is actually on the opposite side of the street of that first half of

[1:37:07] the units.

[1:37:09] Is there a reason why that is?

[1:37:10] why can't we just put the sidewalk on the condo side of the street or the town

[1:37:17] home side of the street and then get all the way halfway down and then you could

[1:37:21] end up with sidewalk on both sides of the street from there. I just don't

[1:37:27] understand and me being trying to be logical here if I'm coming out of my

[1:37:32] home on top right I have to walk across the street to get to the

[1:37:38] sidewalk why aren't we just putting a sidewalk on I'm thinking tongue-in-cheek

[1:37:44] correct side of the street yeah I think and I would I would ask the applicant to

[1:37:51] come up and and state if they had any other thoughts on these on this on these

[1:37:55] questions but in my view that could be a situation that be added to the to the

[1:38:02] eastern side of the of the properties because then you end up with sidewalk

[1:38:08] And is anybody even going to use the one on the other side?

[1:38:13] Right now, you have, if you're in one of these units to your point, you're going to have to process the street to get to a side road.

[1:38:18] Right.

[1:38:19] Okay.

[1:38:20] Now, you know, it's a narrow residential street that doesn't have a lot of traffic going through it.

[1:38:26] So it's not, you know, you have that aspect of it.

[1:38:29] But it's, you know, certainly not as convenient as if you walked out and you have a sidewalk right in front.

[1:38:34] So it sounds like there's some engineering compromises, perhaps.

[1:38:39] Maybe that wall would have to go up a little higher.

[1:38:42] But if it's important to the commission, then I think that could be part of your recommendation,

[1:38:47] and then the applicant could speak to that as well,

[1:38:48] if that's something they are comfortable moving forward with as well.

[1:38:53] But it doesn't even affect the wall if you just move the single sidewalk to the other side.

[1:39:00] Correct. Push the street over, put the sidewalk over there.

[1:39:02] I would have to ask the engineer.

[1:39:05] And again, maybe there's some structural or civil thing that doesn't allow a string.

[1:39:11] I mean, the easiest path would be to ask to put the sidewalk on the Houston side of the streets.

[1:39:18] Then you could double up the bottom, perhaps.

[1:39:27] Please.

[1:39:30] We could, in speaking with our engineer, we could add the sidewalk on this side,

[1:39:35] And then we could investigate moving this portion of the sidewalk to the eastern side.

[1:39:41] Would that be amenable?

[1:39:43] If we looked into it, if we will commit to the southern half adding that sidewalk,

[1:39:48] and then we'll investigate, I know that there are some utility conflicts,

[1:39:51] and that's why that sidewalk was located on the western side of the street

[1:39:56] and not the eastern side of that area.

[1:39:59] But we can certainly look at that.

[1:40:00] It's good to say the eastern side gets a lot more bones.

[1:40:06] We will look at that. We will certainly look at that,

[1:40:11] and we can certainly commit to screening in the southern portion as well.

[1:40:21] I'd still like to see what this looks like. There's a lot of conjecture here, so can you draw it for us and bring it back?

[1:40:34] Ideally, with our schedule, respectfully, would it be possible for us to obtain conditional approval?

[1:40:44] And we will send a copy of what that would look like as well to Planning and Zoning Commission?

[1:40:53] Is that something that you would consider?

[1:40:55] I

[1:41:00] think you can just share the approval.

[1:41:02] We get complete plans and we vote for them.

[1:41:05] Don't get incomplete plans that are subject to open issues,

[1:41:12] which could be fairly significant.

[1:41:21] I like to vote for it.

[1:41:22] Just for me.

[1:41:23] I like to vote for complete.

[1:41:25] It is a major project.

[1:41:28] We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.

[1:41:32] Here, part of CREACOR is for the next 50 years on great development.

[1:41:39] You know, I think we're entitled to see something that's more complete.

[1:41:43] We want this to be the best it can be for CREACOR.

[1:41:46] So that's our job, I think.

[1:41:55] Other questions?

[1:41:58] No, Carl.

[1:41:59] I will receive them.

[1:42:02] Well, I think you want to see if there's any public comment since people might have

[1:42:05] come, I don't know if that's already or not, but you do a motion to continue to,

[1:42:11] and that's, you know, they may have an opportunity to make whatever change they

[1:42:15] want to make based on the special.

[1:42:19] Okay.

[1:42:19] See you then.

[1:42:22] But I think to their point just so you fully understand, so we don't have,

[1:42:26] and correct me if I've gotten this backwards, but I don't believe we have

[1:42:30] first meeting in January for P&Z so they would be coming back to the second

[1:42:36] meeting in January and so then they would not be finished with the City Council

[1:42:41] even on the two meeting assumptions until January. So that's one of their concerns

[1:42:46] is to square at the time of the year where the meetings aren't as regular.

[1:42:56] But I'm not saying that's influential or just giving me a footage.

[1:42:59] Like, I'd be happy to come back for separate meetings, but I think both many of us would,

[1:43:04] you know, to help the project move them on. But, I mean, we could have just

[1:43:10] approved the project and you didn't have to turn in any things. I mean, that's

[1:43:14] one possibility too, but that's asking, that's asking you for too much.

[1:43:20] Okay, speaking for staff, I don't think they're looking to have to prepare for a

[1:43:26] January meeting of the holidays.

[1:43:28] It's one of the reasons we're canceling.

[1:43:30] Yeah, okay.

[1:43:36] Okay.

[1:43:37] Thank you.

[1:43:41] Anything further from staff at this time?

[1:43:43] Or do you want to take all the comments?

[1:43:44] I think we'll open it up for public comment.

[1:43:46] I know Rachel is here.

[1:43:50] Do you want to come up and speak about the trees or?

[1:44:03] I'm Rachel Prozel.

[1:44:04] I live at 12 Spady Woods,

[1:44:06] which backs up to the development.

[1:44:08] And I just want to thank you for your comment about wanting to make it the best it can be.

[1:44:13] And I appreciate your consideration of all the factors involved.

[1:44:17] I was hoping to hear more about the tree preservation plan.

[1:44:20] That's sort of my primary concern because we were promised an undisturbed buffer,

[1:44:25] and that is not what we got.

[1:44:27] There's areas that he showed were undisturbed where there's no trees at all.

[1:44:31] And I'm looking at a 14-foot retaining wall in my backyard.

[1:44:36] And so the other thing I wanted to hear about this development, I mean, it doesn't directly impact my yard, but I think I'll be able to see it.

[1:44:42] So I'd like to hear a little bit more about how this is going to impact the existing neighborhood streets.

[1:44:49] What will our views be?

[1:44:50] I know he said they're going to add trees along the streets, but what are they?

[1:44:55] What's the elevations?

[1:44:57] Because on a different view from this, there's a...

[1:45:00] There's the detention basins, there's a square building, but I can see beyond that, so I think we'll be able to see this.

[1:45:06] So I'd like to hear more about the tree preservation and what the city can do to make sure that the developers are holding true to what they say, because thus far we haven't seen that.

[1:45:19] I know that there were irrigation issues. They haven't planted above the wall because there's no irrigation there yet, but part of that buffer they haven't done anything to replace the trees that they took.

[1:45:30] Thank you.

[1:45:31] Thanks.

[1:45:36] I think there was another gentleman if you want to come up and share your name.

[1:45:45] He was not smart enough.

[1:45:48] No.

[1:45:49] I live down Palo.

[1:45:51] Okay.

[1:45:53] My name is Tom.

[1:45:55] Okay.

[1:45:55] Rachel, can you come up and click?

[1:46:03] So you're going to have to do it separately.

[1:46:06] One, for the gentleman, what he's about to say isn't true.

[1:46:10] And for the lady, what she did say isn't true.

[1:46:14] Okay.

[1:46:15] One of the other time.

[1:46:17] Hang on.

[1:46:18] The gentleman first.

[1:46:21] Do you sound really swear?

[1:46:26] Do you sound really swear?

[1:46:27] The whole truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so hope you got it.

[1:46:30] Yes, I did.

[1:46:31] Okay.

[1:46:32] Thank you.

[1:46:32] Okay, Rachel, you're good.

[1:46:34] Do you somewhat swear that what you said was the whole truth and nothing but the truth,

[1:46:39] so hope you got it?

[1:46:40] Thank you.

[1:46:41] Thank you.

[1:46:41] Sorry.

[1:46:42] Okay.

[1:46:43] Item one is just a comment on private streets.

[1:46:49] We were a private street until just a few months ago, and we had snow removal for

[1:46:56] all that time.

[1:46:56] We moved in 1987, but we became a public street within the last few months.

[1:47:03] I'm sorry, sir. Could you share your name and what street?

[1:47:06] My name is Tom Sutterfield, and we live on Mary Meadows Lane.

[1:47:09] Mary.

[1:47:10] Okay. And so now we've become a public street, but we had snow removal all that time.

[1:47:16] The other question that I had, there was a lot of discussion on sidewalks on both sides of these private streets.

[1:47:24] How wide are the private streets supposed to be? I didn't catch that. Those were the two things I wanted to say.

[1:47:33] Thank you.

[1:47:40] Could you come up and answer how wide the street currently is?

[1:47:47] They're 24 feet wide.

[1:47:49] 24.

[1:47:49] Yes, ma'am.

[1:47:50] Thank you.

[1:47:54] And then, Jason, I know you flashed up. It looked like a grid of the tree plan, but I don't think I did.

[1:48:04] That wasn't in our packet or it wasn't in our packet?

[1:48:07] It was.

[1:48:08] So just a couple things on that.

[1:48:10] So one is related to lot 16.

[1:48:14] They have submitted a landscape plan as well as a tree removal

[1:48:18] and a tree removal plan just for lot 16.

[1:48:23] So we reported on that.

[1:48:25] And then as part of this process,

[1:48:27] our objective is that as we move along Olia Village,

[1:48:30] as the site gets developed over time,

[1:48:32] we are updating that master tree preservation plan.

[1:48:37] And so they have submitted that information as well so we can track it moving forward.

[1:48:42] The Olio Village ordinance requires any removal above 50% to be replaced on a one-to-one basis

[1:48:49] if they're a certain size, if they're 20 inches or more,

[1:48:52] then it's two-to-one like I reported earlier.

[1:48:54] So there's two different things going on, two different aspects of the tree.

[1:48:57] But I think in the one that we saw today, we were only retaining 43 percent.

[1:49:05] So I think 43 percent removal.

[1:49:08] 43 percent removal.

[1:49:11] Correct.

[1:49:13] For a lot, 16th.

[1:49:14] For a lot, 16th.

[1:49:15] Yes.

[1:49:15] Thank you.

[1:49:22] Okay.

[1:49:22] Okay. Are we requesting a continuance?

[1:49:33] How do you, yeah. Okay.

[1:49:40] So can we have a, I guess the motion for a continuance?

[1:49:45] I move to continue this meeting to end the meeting.

[1:49:50] No, not the meeting.

[1:49:51] I move to continue this public hearing to January 1

[1:50:03] of Tuesday.

[1:50:05] You can take it, Rachel.

[1:50:11] So good.

[1:50:12] Thank you.

[1:50:17] All in favor?

[1:50:19] All right.

[1:50:19] May.

[1:50:22] You got one, May.

[1:50:24] Any other names?

[1:50:24] No.

[1:50:25] Two, Nice.

[1:50:27] I will add.

[1:50:30] So.

[1:50:31] I'll take two.

[1:50:32] I'll take two.

[1:50:33] I'll take two.

[1:50:34] I'll take two.

[1:50:35] I'm track for you.

[1:50:36] Thank you.

[1:50:38] All right.

[1:50:39] We are going to take a quick.

[1:50:41] What?

[1:50:42] Recent.

[1:50:42] Recess.

[1:50:45] I'm back at, do you want to say eight o'clock?

[1:50:49] I think that sounds good.

[1:50:50] Okay. Well, we'll reconvene at eight o'clock. So meeting adjourned at 7.52. Be back at eight.

[1:51:06] And I'm very visible.

[1:51:13] I mean, not yourself. I mean, I'm on the wrong side of the screen.

[1:51:19] Well, yeah, I'm on the wrong side of the screen.

[1:51:23] That's why you don't have to worry about anything.

[1:51:27] You can do this laterally.

[1:51:28] Don't you do these on the screen again?

[1:51:30] I'm on the wrong side of the screen.

[1:51:34] I'm on the wrong side of the screen.

[1:51:37] I'm on the wrong side of the screen.

[1:51:40] That was an unexplained bullet in the face.

[1:51:42] I get it.

[1:51:43] I don't care what you did.

[1:51:45] I'm going to go on to see what you do.

[1:51:47] Yes?

[1:51:48] Both of them.

[1:51:49] We got them together.

[1:51:50] We got them from the hospital.

[1:51:51] We got them from the hospital.

[1:51:52] We're supposed to be solved.

[1:51:54] That's right.

[1:51:54] We got them from the hospital.

[1:51:55] What do you get in collect?

[1:51:57] I don't know.

[1:51:58] I'm just going to say it.

[1:51:59] This is for you.

[1:51:59] It's for him.

[1:52:01] That's how this is going to go.

[1:52:03] So they're going to be rated,

[1:52:05] and you're going to vote back to me.

[1:52:07] I'm going to vote back.

[1:52:09] He's a part of me.

[1:52:10] I could give him a request.

[1:52:14] I don't think that I'm a friend of mine.

[1:52:16] You know, aside from the bank.

[1:52:18] You can move in part of the sidewalk,

[1:52:21] but he was the only thing he could do.

[1:52:23] He said, well, you know, they should screen it at the bottom.

[1:52:27] No, no, no, no.

[1:52:30] It's a privilege that he holds to me.

[1:52:32] I just want to be good against him.

[1:52:34] He's built a process.

[1:53:07] And then, like, again, she said, oh, I just want you to know, hold on.

[1:53:13] Hold on.

[1:53:13] Just a moment.

[1:53:16] Just a moment.

[1:53:19] I'm sure it's on purpose.

[1:53:22] Yeah.

[1:53:23] I mean, organizing on the freeing of the elections was kind of the case.

[1:53:27] Right.

[1:53:31] If they send me, if they don't give a bill, I'll work all in.

[1:53:37] I think I'm going to remit other things.

[1:53:40] See you then.

[1:53:41] That's what you see.

[1:53:42] You want to have to get it?

[1:53:43] That makes sense, sir.

[1:53:45] This is the government system.

[1:53:46] We're on the dash of the day.

[1:53:47] We're on out.

[1:53:48] So be sure to send more of our air.

[1:53:52] We're on the dash of the day.

[1:53:55] We're on the dash of the day.

[1:54:11] So you're quite as different than light.

[1:54:13] Yeah, I'm just going to start with the light on.

[1:54:18] Then I thought, if the numbers of it's something we're going to do, the system maybe isn't there, so we're actually not going to do it.

[1:54:26] Because we're going to have so many to know, I mean, we should ask them.

[1:54:29] Okay,

[1:54:32] if you drive through Firmview, there's no sideline, but the minute you drive in far enough,

[1:54:39] we fulfill a range of states around it.

[1:54:42] Sidewalk stars. So you can see the newer 70 vision. They made a book. So the old women think back at 60s.

[1:54:52] Now, everybody walks up the street.

[1:54:56] Oh, I know.

[1:54:57] No, it's not the...

[1:54:59] I was making my...

[1:55:01] We have to work it out.

[1:55:03] No, we were actually...

[1:55:05] She goes to the meet, just to make that interesting.

[1:55:08] I was going to see a lot of people.

[1:55:10] I was going to be more of a three.

[1:55:12] That's what it was.

[1:55:13] Smallers are starting to sound like...

[1:55:15] Yeah.

[1:55:18] Yeah.

[1:55:18] Yeah, but it's a big one.

[1:55:21] We're fortunate for the Supreme Court to be the one that we made our peace with them.

[1:55:26] They're always full of courage.

[1:55:27] It's a very sensitive job.

[1:55:29] You want to be part of the Supreme Court?

[1:55:31] No.

[1:55:31] It's like, so they will take it really outside my house.

[1:55:35] I think they've got it.

[1:55:37] Thank you.

[1:55:40] No problem.

[1:55:41] I'm sorry.

[1:55:41] They'll take it.

[1:55:42] It's okay.

[1:55:43] It's okay.

[1:56:45] Yeah.

[1:56:46] Oh sure.

[1:56:52] Yeah.

[1:56:54] That's the same thing I was able to do.

[1:57:01] You can still take a break.

[1:57:05] You can stop me.

[1:57:05] They didn't say anything.

[1:57:08] The old social, who's the person most of it recently,

[1:57:13] who didn't say anything about Brown?

[1:57:15] Which much of the orality and greater of the score?

[1:57:19] I mean, the degree is more important than the definition.

[1:57:23] One, two, which are under the 20th, so you make your choice.

[1:57:27] Well, I didn't understand anything about that.

[1:57:30] I didn't understand what you were talking about.

[1:57:31] I know my mouth like you think is iron.

[1:57:34] But it's equal to support.

[1:57:37] They'll still may say something that's in the stream way.

[1:57:40] The second thing is to barricade shield.

[1:57:43] I just showed it's our aid.

[1:57:44] I said, but like last time, we're taking a mistake in creating a screen.

[1:57:50] We just started having to do a break production for the instrument.

[1:57:55] I'm staying near that.

[1:57:56] It's so cute.

[1:57:58] The structure, let me feel it, wouldn't that sound like you're going to be propagandist?

[1:58:02] I don't want to blame you for that.

[1:58:03] It's yours.

[1:58:05] It's yours.

[1:58:06] It's mine.

[1:58:07] It's mine.

[1:58:09] It's mine.

[1:58:10] It's mine.

[1:58:19] It's mine.

[1:58:21] It's mine.

[1:58:53] I just did once.

[1:58:54] Oh, that's okay.

[1:58:56] And then, okay, we'll get it started again.

[1:58:59] Okay.

[1:59:01] There's, you're only with seven spotting,

[1:59:03] who's got the direction?

[1:59:06] You got three.

[1:59:08] Yeah.

[1:59:09] I thought we were getting back to order at 801,

[1:59:16] and we'll open it with our public hearing application

[1:59:22] application 25034 and 035, applications for rezoning from a GC general commercial district

[1:59:30] to the Grazier Station PMD plan mixed use development district with a site concept plan

[1:59:36] and site development plan for 11004, 110026, 11032, and 11056 Aula Boulevard and 825

[1:59:48] and 827 Grazier Road.

[1:59:50] And just as a reminder, we're going to have the presentations, and then we will open it up for comments.

[1:59:57] Before we do that, I'll ask you to stand.

[2:00:00] If you have turned your sheet in, that would be great.

[2:00:04] And then the plan is to go until 9.30 tonight.

[2:00:09] If we don't get to everything, we will be continuing the discussion at our next meeting, which was January 20th.

[2:00:20] So if anyone speaking tonight could come forward to be sworn in.

[2:00:34] Yeah, anyone that has a card, if you want to go ahead and stand up and be sworn in.

[2:00:43] Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so how do you got it?

[2:00:49] Thank you.

[2:01:17] Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Jason Jaggi, Director of Community Development.

[2:01:22] Just a couple of introductory remarks and then I think, as you mentioned, the applicant's going to give their presentation and then the staff will do so as well.

[2:01:30] So just as a little bit of background information on this application.

[2:01:34] So the first time it came before the commission was in conceptual form back in August 4, 2025.

[2:01:42] Since then, adjustments have been made to the proposal based on feedback received.

[2:01:48] The applicant has also held a neighborhood meeting.

[2:01:51] The traffic study has been completed since that time, as well as the shared parking study by the applicant's consulting engineer.

[2:01:58] So if you recall, none of that information really was available, but it wasn't expected because it was a conceptual review just to introduce it and provide some initial feedback.

[2:02:08] But I can report that all of that work has now been done and the applicant has submitted these applications for formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[2:02:20] So tonight's objectives in talking with the applicant, you know, in my recommendation and thoughts tonight are,

[2:02:27] one, is I think, you know, a clear understanding of the submitted development proposal is what you're after tonight,

[2:02:32] understanding the project, all aspects of it.

[2:02:36] Reviewing the planning and zoning district requirements.

[2:02:38] So this is a rezoning to a planned development district.

[2:02:42] So basically what that means is it's taking the property out of the traditional zoning code structure,

[2:02:46] and it's placing it into a customized zoning district that's based on the site plan, the

[2:02:53] site, you know, the site plan and any conditions related to that in terms of regulation and

[2:02:59] SIS parking, what have you.

[2:03:01] So this project has to stand on its own merits and it will basically have its own zoning

[2:03:05] district that reflects the plan that is being submitted, should it be approved.

[2:03:12] Like I said, we'll also look at the traffic impact study. Our consulting traffic engineer, Mr. Dan Shane, is here as well.

[2:03:19] Should you have questions about the traffic impact study? And then the shared parking study that was performed by the applicant's consulting engineer.

[2:03:27] So I also want to just kind of conclude my remarks that, you know, there's been a lot of discussion, a lot of work put into this application.

[2:03:35] There's a lot to review tonight and understand that there's a meeting we'll end at 9.30.

[2:03:41] And then, you know, we'll see how things go.

[2:03:43] But there is no request for any approval tonight.

[2:03:46] There's no draft ordinance.

[2:03:47] There's no motion to approve.

[2:03:48] And I just wanted to be clear that that's not the objective tonight.

[2:03:51] So with that, I'll turn it over to the applicant to make their presentation.

[2:03:55] We'll go from there.

[2:03:55] Thank you.

[2:04:06] Good evening, commissioners.

[2:04:09] I'm at while she's pulling that up.

[2:04:10] I can go ahead and just introduce myself.

[2:04:12] I'm Cecilia Dvorak.

[2:04:13] I am managing principal at Steadfast City, economic and community partners.

[2:04:18] I am representing the development team tonight with the initial presentation.

[2:04:24] You all probably don't recognize me the last time we presented to you.

[2:04:28] You met with Joel Blaskock.

[2:04:29] I am happy to report that he just welcomed his second baby,

[2:04:33] and so he's happy at home cuddling the newborn for the next few weeks.

[2:04:38] So I'm here instead.

[2:04:40] Hope you will bear with me.

[2:04:42] But I think we just kind of want to give you an initial overview tonight.

[2:04:46] Again, not going to cover it too in depth because I know Jason just covered some of it.

[2:04:50] But the project history highlighting some of the major features of the project,

[2:04:55] and then we'll also cover how the project has evolved with the community input

[2:05:00] and how it is being addressed by the comprehensive plan and how it fits within that context.

[2:05:08] After I finish up my remarks, I will also open it up to Gary, who is the applicant and

[2:05:14] the developer, and he can provide you some context and a little bit about his background.

[2:05:20] And then we can also bring up here Julie to walk through the parking demand study so

[2:05:26] that you guys can get a better understanding of what that entails.

[2:05:29] And then we can obviously take Q&A.

[2:05:31] There's other people here as well to support the project who have been sworn in.

[2:05:37] Kent with HDA is the architect on the project.

[2:05:41] Rich Sharp is with Crime Consulting and is the engineer on the project.

[2:05:46] And Dan Shane is the city's engineer on the traffic impact study.

[2:05:51] So hopefully to cover all of the bases and bring up people who are specialized in your specific questions as we go.

[2:05:58] So, again, just showing kind of the timeline of what we have done since the inception of this project.

[2:06:05] We did initially start this project with the city staff in April of this year.

[2:06:10] And since then we've done two community meetings outside of the official process.

[2:06:14] We did one preliminary planning and zoning meeting ahead of the application.

[2:06:19] And so this is our second time before you, but this is the first time before you as a part of the sort of official application, if you will.

[2:06:28] We've also engaged with the city's traffic engineer and as part of the process. And so this timeline just iterates for you kind of what we've done through what we've done to date.

[2:06:39] And I'll kind of walk you through that a little bit step by step, just so you can see the evolution of the project.

[2:06:43] In April of 2025, we presented the initial concept to staff.

[2:06:48] The application at that time presented 172 units across two buildings

[2:06:53] with some first floor commercial retail space.

[2:06:56] And then we got some feedback from them and made some adjustments to the plans

[2:07:02] and came back with the conceptual plans that you all saw

[2:07:06] and the community saw back in July and August of this year.

[2:07:09] That plan at the time was 168 units across a single mixed use building.

[2:07:16] We did at that time also receive a lot of community feedback.

[2:07:20] And we have taken a lot of time to look at the feedback, look at the data,

[2:07:25] do the analysis, and make adjustments to the plans that we hope will be,

[2:07:29] you know, well received by the commission and the community,

[2:07:32] but recognize that there's still some discussion to be had.

[2:07:36] And this is the proposal that we see today.

[2:07:40] It shows 157 units across still a single building,

[2:07:45] but we have made some adjustments and tweaks.

[2:07:48] We have pulled the building back from Grazier to meet the same setbacks

[2:07:52] as any other commercial zoning district that would if they came before you

[2:07:57] under the underlying zoning.

[2:07:59] We have also further pulled the building away from the residential neighborhood

[2:08:03] in order to create a more continuous space for the single-family residential transition.

[2:08:09] And I'll walk you through some of the project features and elements,

[2:08:12] and then we'll talk about the comprehensive plan and go through some of that community feedback

[2:08:16] so you can see the specific changes we made.

[2:08:21] So project features.

[2:08:25] We have envisioned this as a mixed-use, high-quality development located at Olive and Grazier.

[2:08:32] It includes ground level commercial retail space, 157 apartments, and very high quality

[2:08:41] materials and high quality design with a lot of facade articulation and just a lot of care

[2:08:48] made into the design.

[2:08:49] I will say that is one thing that we have seen positive remarks on, so definitely hoping

[2:08:53] to lean on that as a positive.

[2:08:56] The architectural design is intended to be respectful, as I said, of the low density

[2:09:01] neighborhood at the rear with a step down of the building. We have also provided a full 35 foot

[2:09:08] buffer which we'll see more specifically later.

[2:09:13] The Plaza provides a public facing corner with

[2:09:17] seating and buffering plant material with a future art space as well as seating for the

[2:09:24] residents and visitors alike.

[2:09:29] We also have now a covered pass through for the building so that

[2:09:35] folks can enter and exit both sides of the building as a pedestrian and create

[2:09:40] some continuity from one side to the other.

[2:09:46] That's a rendering view of the

[2:09:47] pass-through.

[2:09:51] We've also provided a separate and fully enclosed commercial

[2:09:56] trash receptacle and a separate residential trash room within the

[2:10:01] actual building itself for the residential units.

[2:10:08] And then we have

[2:10:10] added a number of trees in the parking lot to be broken up with five-foot tree

[2:10:16] wells so that the hardscape can be broken up at the rear and soften the rear of

[2:10:22] the building as people are engaging with the parking lot.

[2:10:28] And then that's an

[2:10:29] example of kind of what a tree well would look like but the ones we're

[2:10:33] proposing are round.

[2:10:38] We also are providing four EV parking stalls and

[2:10:42] eight EV ready parking stalls for further EV expansion as the development continues to evolve.

[2:10:53] Well that did not translate well but along the south there is

[2:10:59] a buffer that is at least 35 feet along the entire south edge of the development and then

[2:11:09] And there is a significant amount of the property that is going above and beyond that 35 foot landscape buffer as well.

[2:11:22] We have included a number of very popular must have high quality amenities for the residents to engage residents in a way

[2:11:31] that attracts them as long term residents rather than a high turnover.

[2:11:35] This includes a game area, a gym, a business center, separate reception and mail area for deliveries at the front, a coffee bar and a lounge near the outdoor seating and plaza, and private tenant storage areas as well and a separately kept trash room.

[2:11:57] Additionally, we have a fenced dog park and pool that are placed away from the

[2:12:07] building so that it can be outside of the shadows of the building, but also

[2:12:13] being very mindful of the residential buffer that's present.

[2:12:18] That is a rendering of the pool as well.

[2:12:25] We have provided a dense and varied landscape plan and all landscaping

[2:12:30] areas have irrigation to ensure longevity and maximum growth.

[2:12:37] Again, that highlight isn't working the way I wanted it to, but we do have a future proposed

[2:12:44] cross access so that at the time which the property to the west is being redeveloped,

[2:12:52] they have an established cross access throughout the development as well.

[2:13:02] I can go ahead and cover now just the comprehensive plan.

[2:13:06] And then, again, we'll go through the community feedback and sort of what changes have been made in response.

[2:13:12] And then I'll hand it over to Gary and Julie from there.

[2:13:14] So just walking you along.

[2:13:17] So the site is located in the East Olive corridor of the Comprehensive Plan.

[2:13:22] As you can see here, it sits at the corner of Olive and Grazier and is surrounded by Olive on the north,

[2:13:27] which is designated as a primary street and Grazier on the east, which is also

[2:13:32] designated in the comprehensive plan as a primary street. Just to kind of walk you

[2:13:37] through what we see as we go around on the north, we have a commercial

[2:13:44] properties across Olive and the eastern most, which is a project that has

[2:13:52] setbacks that are very urban, similar to the ones that are being proposed

[2:13:56] proposed in this project.

[2:13:59] To the east is the existing credit union across Grazier.

[2:14:07] To the south is the residential single-family neighborhood.

[2:14:11] Here you see from the southeast, which also slopes to a lower grade from the subject site.

[2:14:24] This is actually a view from the development itself, looking southwest,

[2:14:30] so that you can see what it currently sits like today.

[2:14:32] There is a significant slope and the parking lot has their commercial trash enclosures there as well.

[2:14:45] To the west you can see the adjacent retail building and kind of where it sits in proximity to the existing development as well.

[2:14:56] So as it relates to the comprehensive plan fit,

[2:14:58] the comprehensive

[2:15:00] The plan talks about the East Olive corridor as a walkable corridor of destinations with a wide mix of uses that encourages pedestrian access from adjacent neighborhoods and prioritizes walkability between neighboring lots while still accommodating the car access.

[2:15:18] In addition to being in the East Olive corridor, the site is designated as being in the neighborhood commercial or NC district type, place type, which supports medium to low density commercial, retail, office, neighborhood, service businesses, and residential development.

[2:15:37] So there's been a lot of questions and discussion about density, so there's a few different ways that we'd like to break it down and just look at for consideration.

[2:15:46] First is the number of stories.

[2:15:50] The area is intended to serve as a transition between more intense commercial districts to the east and west,

[2:15:57] and the plan intends to allow for lot-by-lot redevelopment that builds towards that coherent corridor identity.

[2:16:04] The proposed development complies with that as this is just to the east of the nest building and the office building at 10845.

[2:16:15] Those are over here, and those both rise to three and four stories and are located in the same comprehensive plan NC district and the corridor, all of East corridor as well.

[2:16:28] And then to the west, the office building here sits just outside of the all of East corridor in the mixed-use district and is six stories.

[2:16:41] So the proposed development aims to really provide that transition to the two to four stories.

[2:16:49] And we are understanding that we need to be respectful of the adjacent residents on the other transition to the south.

[2:16:56] So that step back is really intended to provide that sort of respectful glide to the residential to the south.

[2:17:06] Additionally, the comprehensive plan provides some written guidance as well as visual guidance for the reader.

[2:17:15] And the comprehensive plan has a number of images as examples for that vision and best practices for character and the corridor of the NC district.

[2:17:23] So one of those images points to the Demune point development in Clayton, which is similar, has proposed development of commercial on the first floor

[2:17:32] and residential above with a total of 40.

[2:17:37] So at 157 units, another way to look at this is dwelling units per acre.

[2:17:45] As proposed, the Grazer Station is approximately 36 units per acre.

[2:17:51] Comparable projects like the Nest, the View, Vanguard Heights, King's Landing, and the

[2:17:56] Oliver, this project sits roughly in the middle of those comparable projects as

[2:18:01] as far as dwelling units per acre goes.

[2:18:07] In addition to looking at this from the perspective of units per acre, we like to look at this

[2:18:13] from the perspective of beds per acre comparison.

[2:18:17] This is a good way to assess how it actually provides the number of people who will be

[2:18:24] present on the site on a regular basis based on the occupancy of the building.

[2:18:31] So this demonstrates that the project's residential intensity is actually of the same comparable projects the lowest density of those nearby multifamily properties.

[2:18:42] So it is about 36.9 beds per acre, whereas the others range from 38.1 to 100.

[2:18:52] So they have much higher bedroom counts than this one being proposed.

[2:18:56] To

[2:19:00] further demonstrate the consistency with the comprehensive plan and the east olive corridor vision, we can look at the plan's guidance for frontage treatment and site design as well as neighborhood transitions and multimodal connectivity.

[2:19:14] So the primary frontage, as I said earlier, along olive reinforces a pedestrian oriented mixed use corridor.

[2:19:22] We're showing consistent urban setbacks that define the street edge.

[2:19:27] We have entrances that are oriented to the sidewalks.

[2:19:31] We are strengthening the relationship between the building and the public realm with that.

[2:19:36] We also have parking located primarily at the rear,

[2:19:40] ensuring that all of remains walkable but also visually cohesive to the rest of the development along the corridor.

[2:19:49] corridor.

[2:19:50] We also have provided an activated corner plaza with seeding, shade trees, and opportunities

[2:19:55] for outdoor dining.

[2:19:57] And the commercial restaurant frontage opens directly to the outdoor pass through, creating

[2:20:04] a natural extension of indoor activity and really encouraging the activation of the

[2:20:09] outdoor space at large.

[2:20:11] So these elements create a comfortable connected frontage consistent with the east olive

[2:20:17] board or recommendations and the comprehensive plan designates Grazier as a primary street as

[2:20:23] well but we have decided to make some slight adjustments to ensure that we're being respectful

[2:20:27] of the adjacent residents that really want to make sure that it's congruent with their

[2:20:35] neighborhood. So along Grazier the emphasis does shift toward the neighborhood compatibility.

[2:20:42] We are providing a deeper setback than we had previously proposed, one that is consistent with the commercial zoning district of at least 10 feet to the property line.

[2:20:53] But I would note that the sidewalk and the sort of narrow landscape strip that are at the edge of the street actually create a setback from the curb to 17.5 feet at the minimum and 19.5 at the most southern edge.

[2:21:12] of the building. Additionally, the 10-foot setback from the property line between the

[2:21:21] sidewalk and the building does allow for a more dense vegetated area so that it can

[2:21:25] be a pleasant walk from the neighborhood up to the commercial and mixed use building.

[2:21:35] We have ensured a continuous pedestrian connectivity that extends along Grazier into the plaza

[2:21:40] and all of the amenities that are being provided along the frontage.

[2:21:44] And as I previously mentioned, we do have that buffer, again, along the southern edge.

[2:21:50] So the entire building has been shifted in a couple of different directions

[2:21:55] to make sure that that gives enough room.

[2:22:02] The proposed development also supports safe, efficient circulation through coordinated access

[2:22:06] on olive as well as grazer, including curb cut consolidation.

[2:22:10] At the moment there are three curb cuts along these two sites or these few sites.

[2:22:16] So we are consolidating those to two.

[2:22:20] Additionally, it proposes a clear internal pedestrian network that includes the covered

[2:22:25] pass-through for folks who might park in the rear of the building and look to use the

[2:22:29] commercial on the frontage.

[2:22:32] And then we also are improving walkability via a new sidewalk along

[2:22:36] which currently is not present.

[2:22:43] We are also enhancing the frontage treatments that are appropriate for their context,

[2:22:48] given the site transition from the commercial olive at the front to the residential at the rear.

[2:22:54] The mixed-use project with a high-quality design and with pedestrian amenities reinforces

[2:22:59] the east olive corridor as a pedestrian-friendly reinvestment area for grid 4.

[2:23:06] So for the community feedback, again, I'll go last through the community feedback,

[2:23:10] and then I'll hand it over to the developer and applicant, Gary Hasenflu,

[2:23:16] who can speak a little bit to his experience, and then we'll go through the parking demand study.

[2:23:21] So through the multiple engagement sessions between the development team and the residents,

[2:23:25] as well as the commissioners, we've heard a lot of emphasis of various priorities

[2:23:30] that really allowed us to review and revise the development plans.

[2:23:33] So we heard a desire to see a more comfortable landscape area, improved building placement, enhanced landscaping and screening along the south property, and a concern for the density, particularly as it relates to traffic and parking considerations.

[2:23:50] So each of these points has been integrated into the revised plans and or addressed through various studies.

[2:23:55] In

[2:23:59] response to the community feedback for the plaza design,

[2:24:02] we are now including enhanced landscaping, shade trees,

[2:24:06] layered planting to buffer all of Boulevard,

[2:24:09] and a central focal area to include a future art installation,

[2:24:13] and a comfortable seating area as well,

[2:24:15] shielded by the vegetation from the traffic.

[2:24:17] The restaurant frontage opens directly onto the open pass through,

[2:24:22] which we saw earlier, and encourages outward dining

[2:24:26] and spillover activity into the plaza to consistently activate the space.

[2:24:33] And just to be clear, this is the previously proposed one that you all saw,

[2:24:38] and this is the updated one that's being reviewed this evening.

[2:24:46] With regard to building circulation, key revisions have been made to include the covered pedestrian pass-through

[2:24:53] that's linking the rear parking area with olive both visually and actively.

[2:25:02] The building subbacks, we have provided deeper building subbacks along Grazier to increase

[2:25:07] privacy and provide a software aesthetic transition to the residential neighborhood.

[2:25:12] We've also removed a number of the sacks to essentially shift the building further

[2:25:19] north and

[2:25:27] the residential neighborhood to the south.

[2:25:28] You'll see with landscaping and screening, residents expressed concern about the privacy

[2:25:35] and the southern edge of the building in response the design has been adjusted with additional

[2:25:40] layered screening of trees and shrubs and ground cover.

[2:25:44] Certainly we're open to additional changes if the commission has specific feedback on this

[2:25:49] which could include more opaque fencing along some of the amenities.

[2:25:53] But we do see the importance of the established 35-foot buffer for the neighboring residents.

[2:25:59] And we have exceeded that when and where possible while still ensuring that the amenities are

[2:26:04] needed and that the parking remains intact to serve the entire development.

[2:26:12] With regard to the density of the development, we heard a lot of concerns related to adequate parking

[2:26:17] and additional potential traffic generation.

[2:26:20] We'll talk about that a little bit in more detail later.

[2:26:24] Sorry, this is another rendering that is of the wall a little bit further south so you

[2:26:30] can see how the elevation changes from one side to the other.

[2:26:35] But with regard to the density of the development, the developer has hired a transportation engineering

[2:26:42] company.

[2:26:43] Julie Nolfo is here from Lockmular Group who will walk us through the specifics

[2:26:48] of her analysis and her findings.

[2:26:50] But overall, while the project's residential density falls within the medium density range, the parking demand analysis confirms that this level of density in addition to the commercial uses are fully supported by the parking supply on site with an hour by hour demand well below the private capacity.

[2:27:11] In addition to parking, we also heard concerns about traffic generated and the potential impacts on the surrounding roadways.

[2:27:18] And we have been working with HR Green, the city's consultant, on that analysis and the report that we received showed that there were no recommended changes.

[2:27:29] We understand specific concerns have been raised regarding the westbound left traffic.

[2:27:34] I'm not sure if we were planning to talk about that today specifically, but from MODOT, and we're prepared to take direction on that to ensure that the entrances and exits are safe for all users.

[2:27:51] Additionally, we have had a few reoccurring questions from the nearby neighborhood related to the location of certain site amenities, day-to-day operations, and potential neighborhood impacts.

[2:28:04] So with respect to the pool and dog park, these amenities are intentionally located toward the perimeter of the site

[2:28:10] so, again, that they can receive adequate sunlight throughout the day and placing them closer to the building would result in significant

[2:28:17] shadowing for much of the day and reduce their overall usability.

[2:28:22] Additionally, it would remove the benefit of having the tuck under parking areas to ensure that these amenities can remain both

[2:28:28] compatible and respectful of the

[2:28:30] nearby homes, they were

[2:28:32] buffered with the landscape

[2:28:34] buffer and the fencing, and the

[2:28:36] property owner is also amenable

[2:28:37] to reasonable limitations of

[2:28:39] hours and noise to ensure that

[2:28:42] they can function as a good

[2:28:43] neighbor as well.

[2:28:45] We've also heard questions

[2:28:46] regarding trash management.

[2:28:48] So to minimize the potential

[2:28:50] impacts related to the odor

[2:28:52] and visibility, all residential

[2:28:54] trash and recycling will be

[2:28:56] handled within a dedicated

[2:28:57] trash room inside the building itself.

[2:29:00] And then the commercial tenants will utilize a fully enclosed masonry trash

[2:29:04] enclosure on the west side, which will be screened with landscaping and

[2:29:08] intentionally positioned away from the adjacent residential properties as much

[2:29:12] as possible.

[2:29:13] So while trash service exists in a similar general location today,

[2:29:17] our goal is to improve that and make it, you know,

[2:29:22] an insurance not a nuisance for the adjacent residents.

[2:29:26] Finally, we have received questions related to the potential school impacts based on the proposed unit mix, which is heavily weighted towards studios and one-bedrooms.

[2:29:37] The anticipated number of school-aged children generated by a project like this really is expected to be very minimal.

[2:29:43] So this is consistent with data for similar mixed-use project developments, which typically attract really young professionals, couples sometimes,

[2:29:51] and downsizing households rather than families with children just because they

[2:29:55] don't really have the room for it. As such the project isn't expected.

[2:30:10] So I think I've covered quite a bit here. I know that's a lot to address. So obviously, if we can revisit anything and make anything more clear, we're happy to do so.

[2:30:18] I am going to pass it over to Gary Hassin, who though he is the developer and the applicant who can discuss the project's vision, his commitments, and then we'll hear from Julie to talk through the parking lot.

[2:30:29] I appreciate your guys' attention.

[2:30:32] I know it's late.

[2:30:33] Thank you.

[2:30:39] I don't think that's right.

[2:30:42] Thank you, Cecilia.

[2:30:45] And you do?

[2:30:47] Madam Chair, commission members,

[2:30:50] Gary Hassenflue, Garrison companies,

[2:30:53] 2001 Shiny Mission Parkway,

[2:30:55] Mission Woods, Kansas.

[2:30:58] We're a multi-family and mixed-use developer.

[2:31:01] There's a belt in over six states and all types of projects from historic rehabs,

[2:31:12] where we have old warehouses and office buildings and the loss to new construction, like what we have here.

[2:31:19] Our focus tends to be on infill development areas, which is what we look at this as.

[2:31:28] And we feel like with the type of design, type of project, we feel we bring a lot of value to the city, to the community.

[2:31:35] And that's what we hope you'll see here.

[2:31:40] We've had a great relationship so far with city staff.

[2:31:45] We've been at this with already eight months with them.

[2:31:50] But we really want to make it – we want to get it right with you all.

[2:31:54] And so it's going to take a number of more months, so be it.

[2:31:58] But, you know, we're here to present, to continue to listen to both your comments and the rest of the public to bring forth the best project, project we can.

[2:32:12] We started, as was illustrated earlier, with over 170 units.

[2:32:20] We heard the comments about density and we brought that down, way down, in our opinion, certainly 257 units.

[2:32:32] We brought the commercial down from 10,000 square feet to 8357 square feet, I believe.

[2:32:40] And then we went out and got a parking study.

[2:32:43] We wanted to know, just like you and everybody else, even with the staging of car trips during

[2:32:53] the day and during the evening, how we'd sit, and it displayed that we can adequately part

[2:33:01] this development.

[2:33:03] And then I know you'll be hearing more on the traffic study, too, on how to address

[2:33:08] that.

[2:33:08] But we think that this is a great thing in this community.

[2:33:12] I mean, we so far has been, over all the years, I think the owner has seen five commercial

[2:33:19] developments here, none of which ever got approved.

[2:33:22] And this is the first time that one has come forward where there's a considerable amount

[2:33:27] of residential use, more in line with, you know, the residential uses to the SAP.

[2:33:33] So that's why we feel this might be the best proposal for the community.

[2:33:40] I think Cecilia made it clear on the different things such as building materials and the life

[2:33:46] that we've considered in this development, which is very high quality, the last.

[2:33:54] We've developed over 20 communities in these six different states.

[2:34:00] and every one of them we've held for ten years or more.

[2:34:05] And so we're in this for the long run and we're in this to operate it and manage it proficiently.

[2:34:15] So in the long-term hold discipline we have, you know, commands that.

[2:34:24] So, I feel like everything else that was made clear, such as our compliance with the comprehensive plan and the like, was well put forth.

[2:34:35] And I'm going to be here to address any other questions you all have.

[2:34:41] And if you'd like me to also respond to a neighbor's comments, you know, please let me know whether you want me to do that, because I'd be happy to.

[2:34:51] But speaking of neighbors, we want to be a good neighbor, just making that very clear.

[2:34:58] And this is why we're here, why we're going to do what it takes to present the right project for you all.

[2:35:03] So with that, let me introduce Julie, Nolfo Blockmuller, and she'll go into the

[2:35:10] parkings today with you all.

[2:35:11] Thank you.

[2:35:12] Thank you.

[2:35:16] Good evening.

[2:35:17] I'm Julie Nolfo with Modular Group, and I'm here to talk to you about parking.

[2:35:22] It's not the most exciting thing, but it's basically just a lot of it is just

[2:35:27] math, and so I'm going to walk you through what we did.

[2:35:31] As Gary and Cecilia mentioned, the density was coming down.

[2:35:35] At the time that we did this test for the parking study, I do a lot of carbon studies too.

[2:35:41] At the time I was doing the parking study, we were at 160 residential units.

[2:35:46] And so that is what the parking study is based off of.

[2:35:48] So actually now that they're down to 157, that would bring the numbers down just slightly,

[2:35:53] somewhat it's presented in here.

[2:35:54] We also assumed that there was about 5,000 square feet of retail commercial type use,

[2:36:00] and just under 3,500 square feet of what we considered a quick service restaurant,

[2:36:06] no drive through, not like a traditional fast food, but a typical kind of fast casual restaurant

[2:36:11] where somebody would be in there for 30 minutes, 40 minutes, but not a long period of time.

[2:36:18] Okay. 250 parking spaces are provided on the site and the objective of any traffic or parking study, that habit of mine, any parking study is to essentially do two things.

[2:36:30] One is to compare the proposed parking to the city standards to help you all understand where what's being proposed and how that complies.

[2:36:39] And then secondly, to look at it as it compares to the anticipated parking demand.

[2:36:45] So with that, where we start off with is with the baseline code requirements.

[2:36:49] That is looking at each of the proposed uses as a standalone individual use

[2:36:54] and what the parking would be required for that.

[2:36:57] So you can see for multifamily, it starts out at two parking spaces for the first 50,

[2:37:02] one in three quarters for the second 50 dwelling units,

[2:37:05] and then any dwelling units in excess of that 100 is parked at one and a half.

[2:37:11] With respect to general retail, very typical for spaces per thousand.

[2:37:16] And then for a restaurant, you have one parking space for every three seats,

[2:37:20] and one parking space for every 250 square feet.

[2:37:24] So when we start with the baseline requirements and you add those up,

[2:37:27] what you're seeing there is table one from the parking study.

[2:37:30] They have the parking study.

[2:37:32] The table one from the parking study.

[2:37:35] When you add those all up, that comes up to 345 parking spaces.

[2:37:39] Now, as I mentioned, the site has 250 proposed parking spaces.

[2:37:45] That is obviously less than 345, and so that's a deficit of 95 parking spaces where we start with.

[2:37:52] But the city's code has some provisions for joint parking, shared parking, and we refer to them.

[2:37:58] And that allows some flexibility when you're going to be looking at a mixed-use development.

[2:38:03] And that is often where we go to look for consideration of a reduction in parking because what we're trying to do is not have this massive parking field where every use is at its peak at the same time and requiring all these spaces because then you end up with a lot of asphalt out there.

[2:38:21] So the joint parking provision in the city's code essentially is set up to allow consideration of a parking reduction.

[2:38:30] If you break down all the language in there, which we had a meeting with staff, and we talked through it,

[2:38:35] essentially what that says is it allows for up to 50% of the required parking to be jointly used by the various residential retail and

[2:38:43] restaurant uses on the site.

[2:38:45] So go back to that 345 parking spaces that each of them require, and that says that 173 of those, so 50% of them,

[2:38:55] can not be considered shared.

[2:38:57] But anything above and beyond that could be considered shared.

[2:39:00] So when you look at that we have 250 parking spaces on the site,

[2:39:04] there's about 77 that could be considered shared.

[2:39:07] Essentially, in a very simple form, it means there's some flexibility

[2:39:10] in how you can look at the parking on the site.

[2:39:13] So at that point, I turn my focus to demand,

[2:39:16] because really I need to make sure that the anticipated parking demand

[2:39:21] for these various uses isn't going to exceed the 250.

[2:39:23] Otherwise, my recommendation together would be that you need more parking.

[2:39:28] So with that, we used, we went to some national data, Institute of Transportation Engineers,

[2:39:34] has a parking generation manual sixth edition from 2023 with the last time it was updated.

[2:39:39] That gives us statistics that we can use for peak parking for all these various land uses that we were talking about.

[2:39:45] The other thing that it does is it allows me to look at the hourly fluctuation.

[2:39:49] So residential uses, such as the multifamily's proposed here, peaks overnight.

[2:39:55] Peaks in the nighttime and overnight when most of your residents are back in residence

[2:39:59] and their vehicles are parked on the site.

[2:40:02] Conversely, your commercial uses, your retail and your restaurants,

[2:40:05] those tend to peak during the daytime hours,

[2:40:08] predominantly lunch and afternoon and into the evening time period.

[2:40:12] And at that time, the residential peak is down

[2:40:15] and they're operating at about 70% of their peak.

[2:40:19] So we basically, we look at all this and again, like I said, it's just kind of math at this point.

[2:40:24] And you'll see table four and table five, that is in your report.

[2:40:27] And that goes through the various hours of the day.

[2:40:29] So you can see the residential demand, the retail demand and the restaurant demand.

[2:40:33] You add those up, you get your total demand.

[2:40:35] And we look at what percentage occupied the site is.

[2:40:39] So we reach a peak overnight, as to be expected, because it's predominantly some residential in there,

[2:40:45] for both the weekday and the Saturday.

[2:40:48] We looked at both of those time periods.

[2:40:49] At about 93% occupied.

[2:40:52] So at that time, you'd have about 18 to 20 parking spaces available.

[2:40:56] It's 18, but as I said, he's come down to 157 units,

[2:41:00] so you're probably picking up a space or two there.

[2:41:03] So essentially at that time, there'd be 18 available parking spaces

[2:41:06] open on the site that aren't even being occupied or used.

[2:41:10] If we focus on the weekday, table four to your left,

[2:41:13] During the day, you'll see that your residents, a number of them might be off-site with their vehicle.

[2:41:19] And you'll see that the fluctuation goes from a low of about 60% to a high of about 84%.

[2:41:25] And that's really as your commercial and your restaurant is sort of going up and down in its peaks,

[2:41:30] that you see that oscillation in there.

[2:41:33] Now on a Saturday, your residents' patterns are a little bit more erratic, right?

[2:41:39] not everybody leaves, likes to sleep in, likes to hang out at home, likes to be at home.

[2:41:43] So you don't see that residential come down as much as you do during a weekday,

[2:41:47] but you do still see your activity with your commercial, your retail, and your restaurant.

[2:41:52] So you'll see that our percentage occupied, if you look at table five over on the right,

[2:41:56] kind of varies between 70 and 70s up to even 92 percent occupied.

[2:42:03] So basically what we do is we look throughout all of these hours,

[2:42:06] And that then helps guide our conclusions.

[2:42:11] It's our opinion that the proposed 250 parking spaces is sufficient.

[2:42:15] The demand would be less than that.

[2:42:17] And at any given time, there's at least 18, if not more, open, unused spaces on the site.

[2:42:25] We recommend consideration of approval of proposed parking supply for Greater Station,

[2:42:30] which is allowed the 27.6% reduction based off of section 405-800G,

[2:42:36] which does allow for this concept of shared or joined parking, essentially.

[2:42:42] So everything that was done through there is in compliance with how the ordinance is set up to consider it.

[2:42:49] And so that is our recommendation that they would have enough parking on their site to accommodate the anticipated demand associated with the various uses

[2:42:57] and would have enough of a surplus to accommodate any fluctuation.

[2:43:03] So with that, you know, that concludes our presentation.

[2:43:09] But I understand you guys probably have a number of questions.

[2:43:11] So if you want to start with that, I'm happy to bring up the right person to answer it if it's not me.

[2:43:20] I have a concern about density.

[2:43:27] And it's really in some ways driven by the parking issue.

[2:43:34] And I understand that the statistics show that you can manage this.

[2:43:43] But they are statistics and they're based on averages.

[2:43:46] And that is over large populations of areas, et cetera.

[2:43:54] And, you know, just like the rain, you know, on your phone, it shows the percentage of rain there's going to be every hour, you know, in a day.

[2:44:04] And, you know, then the rain comes and it's totally different.

[2:44:07] So there has to be wiggle room.

[2:44:11] And I don't think 18 parking spots is enough wiggle room.

[2:44:15] And so then I think to myself, well,

[2:44:21] the retail, I mean, could say the restaurant can only operate during the day and if they all leave, if it closes in five, there won't be a problem because we know for sure those extra spots would be there.

[2:44:37] But who would rent? Who would lease a restaurant if they couldn't be open in the evening?

[2:44:45] So I wonder whether there really is enough parking.

[2:44:52] I wonder if it might be helpful to have Julie perhaps talk about what the underlying data is and what it covers.

[2:45:04] It is national

[2:45:12] data. We do tend to average out better than a meteorologist in general with our predictions, because they do take a pretty broad spectrum of data, and they sort of filter it down to different things.

[2:45:24] So we picked suburban and we picked it for about the same height.

[2:45:29] They break it between low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rises.

[2:45:33] And so you can kind of run it through these filters to try to get it as specific as you can to multi-family suburban.

[2:45:43] I think it's four to 10 stories.

[2:45:46] It's the category for mid-rise, if I'm not calling that correctly.

[2:45:50] It's not close to transit.

[2:45:52] Like all of these things are taken into consideration because obviously if we were in a more urban

[2:45:57] environment or more of a high-rise or more of a low-rise, things like that, it would skew

[2:46:02] the parking differently in one way or another.

[2:46:04] So we did run it through to basically try to get it as all the data as close to mimicking

[2:46:11] what was being posted on this site as possible.

[2:46:15] Thank you for the answer.

[2:46:16] Yeah.

[2:46:24] Well, I was going to say, do we have other questions about parking?

[2:46:27] Do we want to try, maybe, so we don't keep switching?

[2:46:31] Do we? I am well aware. I have worked with numbers all my life,

[2:46:34] and I am well aware that you could make them say anything you want.

[2:46:40] I don't think the parking's adequate. That's just my opinion.

[2:46:47] And if I'm a resident there and I come home and you're not giving me a parking spot, I'm going to be math.

[2:46:58] I guess I take a different perspective of it. When people approach me in parking, and Gary, I'll tell you this is what I call me.

[2:47:05] It's math, and there's not a lot of ability to manipulate the numbers, essentially.

[2:47:11] I mean, everything is – I am given, essentially, when you go into the data source, it tells

[2:47:17] you the hourly fluctuation for the land use by percentage.

[2:47:22] And that's what we apply to the peak parking.

[2:47:24] So, I mean, I don't have a lot of wiggle room in it in these numbers.

[2:47:29] I wish I could say it's more complicated than it is.

[2:47:32] It's pretty much just going and looking at what the peak parking demand is and then

[2:47:36] multiplying at times the order of fluctuation for the various land uses and adding it up.

[2:47:42] I will say we, 10 to 15 years ago, and Dan probably would back me up on this,

[2:47:50] there used to be a desire to provide such a surplus of perky that you always had

[2:47:57] 15, 20 percent extra of a cushion. And then I think as planning and design has evolved,

[2:48:04] There's been a lot of reflection on we don't want to see these big open parking

[2:48:11] locks that aren't being capitalized on.

[2:48:13] And so that cushion has gotten smaller from the sense of that depending upon the

[2:48:20] land use and when you have residential, you can have a smaller cushion because

[2:48:24] those are people who are continually using those spots.

[2:48:26] But do not have built-in 15-20% of surplus and then have it just in there

[2:48:35] unutilized most of the time.

[2:48:37] The only problem is there's nowhere for these people to go if they only know the parking spot.

[2:48:43] They weren't going to park in the Walgreens across the street,

[2:48:46] or the other part of it is that you're going to share, allow the property to the west access in there

[2:48:59] so that they can get to Grazer to go home or whatever.

[2:49:03] And I don't see that the traffic lanes in the back of the car are suitable for commuting through that parking lot.

[2:49:13] So my understanding is that the cross access is a future cross access.

[2:49:17] It's not being built at putting right now, but it will be there in the future.

[2:49:23] Yes, that is sort of the best practice to try and consolidate as many curb cuts as possible so that there's less access points to major roads like all it.

[2:49:34] So I think the thing is, even within the parking city that you gave us,

[2:49:39] It said that the parking generation manual peak parking demand would actually be 299 spaces.

[2:49:47] So I mean that's in the study that came from you.

[2:49:52] The other thing is that the property to the west actually uses that property to park today.

[2:50:02] So you also have overflow from the west property.

[2:50:05] That is primarily where they park.

[2:50:07] So I think, I mean, to me, based upon what we're seeing here, the parking is definitely not adequate.

[2:50:17] Even for the residents there, you're saying residential demand is 232.

[2:50:25] And I think when we look at residential demand, the initial required was 278.

[2:50:33] So we have 278 on the initial table, 299 peak parking across all of them, and we're at 250.

[2:50:42] So that's quite a gap.

[2:50:43] So you're kind of mixing apples and oranges there.

[2:50:46] So the 299 is if you assumed all three uses peaked at the exact same moment, which they don't.

[2:50:53] And that was the point it was trying to make in there.

[2:50:55] When you look at their individual peaks, that would add up to 299.

[2:50:58] But that doesn't account for any kind of temporal or hourly fluctuation,

[2:51:03] which the commercial is not open in the evening or in the nighttime, over nighttime,

[2:51:08] when the residential is at its peak.

[2:51:10] And that's why mixed use works when you have the right components there.

[2:51:15] When you have residential with retail or commercial, it works because of how they're peaking characteristics.

[2:51:21] So the 299 is just saying if they all peaked at the same time, it would be that.

[2:51:24] But the very next paragraph says, it doesn't take into consideration temporal fluctuations, which is appropriate at this location.

[2:51:31] So between 7 or 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock, you would normally never rest on open.

[2:51:39] And the people will be home.

[2:51:42] Some would be home, but not everybody's home.

[2:51:44] Like, for instance, I'm not home tonight.

[2:51:48] I mean, I'm a perfect example.

[2:51:51] I'm not home tonight.

[2:51:53] So, you know, not everybody is at home.

[2:51:56] And that is where, if you follow through, there is,

[2:52:01] it is assumption that as you get into the evening hours,

[2:52:03] more and more residents are home, but not all of them are home.

[2:52:09] And we assume full occupancy of this entire multi-family,

[2:52:14] but not everybody is home by 6 or 7 or 8 o'clock at night.

[2:52:18] But I mean, and then it bleeds over into the list of uses which are conditional or permitted.

[2:52:26] There's a long list of types of businesses that can rent in there.

[2:52:31] And I would think we would have to go through every one of those and really look at it and see when those businesses are open,

[2:52:37] because those would affect the study and I don't think it drill down to all of those businesses.

[2:52:46] Correct. The parking studies typically reflect the proposed – and I understand what you're saying.

[2:52:53] There's a difference between what you're being asked to approve versus parking studies normally,

[2:52:56] just like the traffic study does, reflects the proposal in and of itself.

[2:53:01] So there is that disconnect that there might be other conditional uses that might be allowed.

[2:53:07] One last thing I'll circle back to is the 278.

[2:53:10] So that, when I said apples and oranges, that 278 is based off the baseline code.

[2:53:17] So that has code and demand are different things.

[2:53:21] Code is just what is required for your code and demand is actually what is anticipated to be done.

[2:53:28] But our code, if our code, if we didn't have any retail and it was all residential, our code would be 278.

[2:53:35] Correct.

[2:53:36] And I would not be saying that there should be a shared parking study.

[2:53:38] I would have told Gary when he called it, it's nothing I could do because there's no

[2:53:41] share of parking element there because it was just the residential.

[2:53:45] Yes.

[2:53:45] However, and this is getting out of my area, it's Paterson, probably it's Jason's, but

[2:53:50] it is a planned development.

[2:53:51] And I've done parking studies for single uses, in particular, more often not multifamily

[2:53:57] when they're in a planned development that shows a lot of times that you can use

[2:54:02] a lower parking rate than what the codes require.

[2:54:08] So I'm not saying that's what's being done here, but it is a plan development and there

[2:54:11] is that flexibility to, I think it was said best, basically tailor the ordinance to the

[2:54:19] code specifically to the site and that includes parking.

[2:54:22] And it is not unusual that parking is one of the things that is considered in plan

[2:54:27] developments at something lower than the typical baseline Coder parks.

[2:54:32] So, again, there's that flexibility because they are doing a plan

[2:54:36] development.

[2:54:39] Yeah, I have another question.

[2:54:42] Did any of the study take in UPS, FedEx, Amazon?

[2:54:49] So the parking data basically is collective of the demand on the site

[2:54:54] So, for example, and I don't have top of my head how many studies this was based off of, but I know it was, it looked at it, it was quite, there was quite a few of them, but say it's 30.

[2:55:04] And so it doesn't differentiate who was a resident versus maybe running the front office or working with amenities versus delivery.

[2:55:13] What they do is they just basically count the number of vehicles parked on the site at any given hour.

[2:55:18] And so that captures anybody who's parked on that site at that time.

[2:55:23] So it includes that.

[2:55:24] Well, blueberries will take up four and five spots, and they don't care if they block everything.

[2:55:29] Well, that becomes more of a, yeah, that's a tight issue, but yeah.

[2:55:34] Yeah.

[2:55:34] I live in a condo, and I can tell you for a fact, they don't care what they block.

[2:55:39] Yeah.

[2:55:45] But there's going to be a line up a little bit.

[2:55:49] Okay.

[2:55:51] If I may address that, sir.

[2:55:53] about the topic at hand.

[2:55:58] Our tenant population are going to be single people and very small families or couples, really,

[2:56:07] because we're talking studio and one-bedroom units.

[2:56:11] Just a handful.

[2:56:14] Something like that.

[2:56:16] Six, thank you, of two-bedroom units.

[2:56:19] And what we're seeing in our communities now is a lot of tenants, especially in that demographic,

[2:56:28] they don't have a car.

[2:56:30] They don't need a car.

[2:56:32] They're cheaper not to have a car.

[2:56:35] It could be any more.

[2:56:36] I'm not using it.

[2:56:38] It may.

[2:56:42] And sure, we have to take into account the worst of the ones that will.

[2:56:46] But and this is just the start. I know I know maybe y'all think it's just sci-fi or something, but you know Waymo is out

[2:56:55] And and they're driving where you don't need a car. You just call it

[2:56:58] You can already use you uber to get around and

[2:57:02] It's a lot of a lot of people a lot of young people are finding that it's cheaper to just do that

[2:57:07] Where the own and pay the insurance the maintenance everything on a car the trend is go the other way

[2:57:13] that there's going to be less spaces needed.

[2:57:16] And certainly that's what we see as we start to plan our developments for the future.

[2:57:27] Mike, I had some questions about the genuine wall.

[2:57:32] It seems very high.

[2:57:34] I wasn't sure that the landscaping would cover it.

[2:57:39] It seems like it's taller than our revitalists would ever grow.

[2:57:43] And I wasn't sure about how it would look from the resident's point.

[2:57:54] It's much taller than we usually agree to in Grief Corps,

[2:58:01] and it doesn't have architectural interest.

[2:58:08] Yeah, I think we did do, you know, we tried to add some articulation with the, you know, the Hawaiians and adding, you know, the various layers of trees and things.

[2:58:23] The rendering that you see right now is intended to show about a three-year growth.

[2:58:27] So it's really just off the bat. It'll grow from there.

[2:58:30] but certainly you're not going to be able to cover the whole wall with the growth just because of how tall it is.

[2:58:38] And there is also a retention aspect, so it goes down a bit, which is why it's so tall.

[2:58:44] So I think that's something that we would be happy to take feedback on.

[2:58:48] It's, you know, we haven't really shown that we showed this to the community when we met with them a month ago.

[2:58:55] It wasn't exactly, you know, a point that was fixated on.

[2:58:59] There's a lot of things going on with this development, but if that's something that you all have feedback about, we're happy to hear it and, you know, see if there's anything that we can do about that specifically.

[2:59:11] Well, I think my feedback would be that it looks like a meadow, and if it would need to be heavily forested.

[2:59:20] Okay, that's helpful.

[2:59:25] The other thing is looking at the dog park in the pool is I wasn't sure whether we had a lot of information about the design element, what kind of fencing and all of that.

[2:59:42] I guess I would appreciate that that be in the next iteration.

[2:59:49] I think at the moment it's being proposed as kind of a wrought iron fence.

[2:59:55] But we've, you know, heard from others that maybe it would be good to consider.

[3:00:00] So, I think that's a little bit more dense so that there's a more of the visual barrier, particularly for the residents to the south, and I think that's something that we could, again, get some feedback on.

[3:00:09] And, you know, I'd love to present you with a plan that you all would support. So, if you have specific direction, we would love to hear it just so that we can try and get there for you all.

[3:00:20] On the landscaping, I would also say there isn't a lot of information about how it looks

[3:00:30] if you're driving from west to east on olive in terms of buffering plants and things and

[3:00:40] just visually.

[3:00:41] Sure.

[3:00:42] We have the landscape plan, but no rendering of the vegetation.

[3:00:46] Right. And then on OLLIP, when I look at the renderings, it looks like the parking for retail is like completely screened.

[3:00:58] And I didn't know if that was really the case because you can't see any cars there.

[3:01:03] So, I mean, if it can be done so that you don't see the parking, that would be good.

[3:01:11] Do you mean these areas up here?

[3:01:13] Yeah.

[3:01:14] Yeah.

[3:01:15] If you look at, there's like planter boxes and all kinds of things.

[3:01:18] I think we've got the planter boxes over here specifically.

[3:01:24] Let's see if I can find that rendering.

[3:01:30] And I, one other visual and it's not the plantings, but I was a little taken aback

[3:01:42] that you weren't going to replace the whole sidewalk on ours. I looked at it

[3:01:48] with the Ugo maps and some of it is deteriorated. Sure. I know some of it you

[3:01:53] will have to replace and then others and just all the colors. I think lots of

[3:01:59] sidewalk is different and I would think if you didn't replace it all at once

[3:02:04] within a few years you would have to replace some of

[3:02:17] those. Just a quick

[3:02:22] Another question you put the other, what do you want to call them, developments up and

[3:02:28] down Olive Street?

[3:02:29] Sure.

[3:02:30] Your current price point do you have on that?

[3:02:34] Where does that fall in the whole mix?

[3:02:38] That's something Gary will have to answer.

[3:02:39] And then the second question is, you know, with what you're doing with the study and

[3:02:45] take a look at demand in that area.

[3:02:47] What are you expecting for how full this kind of is, 70 or 100 or what are you talking about?

[3:02:54] Yeah, beyond RAM.

[3:02:59] To address the estimated project rents, studios we're looking at roughly 1,500 a month,

[3:03:06] two bedrooms, 20, excuse me, one bedroom, 2,100 a month and 2,700 a month for two bedroom units.

[3:03:13] And is that comparable with the other ones that you will hire?

[3:03:17] Right in there with Oliver and others.

[3:03:21] Okay. And with the demand that we have, what are you expecting or how full you're going to be?

[3:03:29] We're expecting 95 to 96 percent right now in terms of infill developments in St. Louis County.

[3:03:38] It's very low vacancy.

[3:03:42] Are there utilities included?

[3:03:45] I'm sorry?

[3:03:46] Are there utilities included?

[3:03:48] No, the tail is on top of sewer, a landlord would pay for sewer, water, trash.

[3:03:52] The rest of the utilities are on the test.

[3:03:54] So each unit is going to have their own RICO unit on the top, on the roof?

[3:03:58] Yes.

[3:03:59] Both condensers.

[3:04:02] Interesting.

[3:04:12] One for Jason.

[3:04:17] Could we arrange some additional parking from the Hall of East Corn?

[3:04:21] Was there a slot for sale?

[3:04:22] Is the question, can you obtain additional parking on other properties in the area?

[3:04:30] All of East Carter?

[3:04:31] Yeah.

[3:04:32] Yeah.

[3:04:32] Were there properties for sale?

[3:04:34] Yeah.

[3:04:34] So.

[3:04:35] They're walking easily, walking distance.

[3:04:37] So that is an option that could be considered.

[3:04:41] And that's off-site parking arrangements.

[3:04:44] I think our code says within 300 feet of distance, though it does limit the distance where

[3:04:49] you can obtain that additional parking.

[3:04:51] The issue with that is that the property owner who's the giver would have to agree to encumber their property to be able to support another devolve.

[3:05:03] And so while that is a provision in our code that does allow that, and there's agreement that would have to be drafted between the parties and our city attorney would have to review that,

[3:05:13] I don't see that being utilized very often because

[3:05:16] property owners don't want to encumber their property

[3:05:20] in the future based on somebody else's uses.

[3:05:22] But that is an allowable option that could be explored.

[3:05:25] The credit union, for example, you know,

[3:05:28] they don't utilize all that parking.

[3:05:30] It's across the street.

[3:05:31] Could that be something maybe where the employees

[3:05:33] can park for the commercial component?

[3:05:35] Potentially.

[3:05:37] I think you get into a situation where would users,

[3:05:42] would they appreciate parking over there if they're going to the retail?

[3:05:45] That's a little bit, that's off-site.

[3:05:47] So I think from a user standpoint, is that viable?

[3:05:50] I'm not so sure about that.

[3:05:51] But I think, you know, it could be an option in terms of a fail-safe,

[3:05:55] where if there was a situation where this lot is full, what do you do?

[3:06:00] Well, if there's an agreement where in those instances the credit union,

[3:06:04] and I'm just saying this for example, I don't think they've been approached at all,

[3:06:07] But they would be able to allocate some of their parking to be able to support this project.

[3:06:13] So conceptually, it's possible.

[3:06:16] But then the person has to cross Allen.

[3:06:19] The person would probably cross Grazier or all.

[3:06:21] That's right, where there's a pedestrian crossing.

[3:06:23] That's correct.

[3:06:24] How about one further question?

[3:06:28] I think when you go further east, then you're talking about vacant.

[3:06:30] It's vacant.

[3:06:31] So are the properties further east of the credit union or all vacant for a long stretch there?

[3:06:36] In my view, that's probably a little bit too far.

[3:06:40] And then it gets a little more complicated, I think, when you go further than that.

[3:06:46] But, I mean, these are things that could be considered.

[3:06:49] But, again, I believe the credit union owns that proper, that vacant lot next to them as well.

[3:06:54] So I feel like that would be unrealistic.

[3:06:59] There's some potential solutions here.

[3:07:01] I don't know if you'd be the way that's ever happened.

[3:07:03] Yeah, I mean, we did start to have some of those conversations on the front end

[3:07:08] and decided to not really pursue them just exactly for what Jason said.

[3:07:14] Certainly we'd be happy to reengage in those conversations and see if the adjacent properties are amenable,

[3:07:21] if that is something that would really help the commission.

[3:07:24] I'm not, obviously, don't know, haven't started those conversations.

[3:07:28] But then the other thing is, you know, just having people cross Grazier, not sure, you know, if that's something that people would do or if they would circle until they found something.

[3:07:38] I wouldn't want to live there and have to cross all up to get them.

[3:07:41] No, all of Grazier, just the credit union. But you're right, I would agree. That seems like a no thank you.

[3:08:03] I think Bethany is going to present the staff report.

[3:08:06] We can probably get through that tonight.

[3:08:08] If the commission is agreeable, it's your decision.

[3:08:10] And then I do feel like maybe public comments,

[3:08:13] this will take us right up to tonight.

[3:08:15] There are perhaps a little bit beyond that.

[3:08:18] And so that's something you want to discuss.

[3:08:19] whether you want to go ahead and do that, cover that aspect that can give us a stopping point.

[3:08:24] And then you could resume the public hearing and continue it to the next meeting, January 20th.

[3:08:29] And then we can go from there. But that's the decision of the commission.

[3:08:37] Well, if we can't finish, then we'll have people coming in again next month.

[3:08:43] Unload first.

[3:08:45] It's up to you.

[3:08:48] Okay.

[3:08:49] Thank you.

[3:08:51] No problem.

[3:09:04] Don't put that in the notes.

[3:09:09] Who is the very agreeable person?

[3:09:12] Okay.

[3:09:19] Okay.

[3:09:57] Bethany Morris, City Planner.

[3:10:00] So I am going to try and get through these and not repeat a lot of the things that were said previous by the applicant and give you that information.

[3:10:10] So this is for applications for rezoning from GC general commercial district to the Grazier station P and D planned mixed use development

[3:10:20] district with the site concept plan in a site development plan for the lots addressed as 11004, 110026, 11032 and 11056 all in Boulevard as well as 825 and 827 Grazer Road.

[3:10:35] So

[3:10:38] this is an existing aerial photo of the existing conditions.

[3:10:42] The last time we saw a project at this location, it was for the QT gas station,

[3:10:46] and that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied by city council.

[3:10:51] And there was, there used to be a commercial strip center here that has since been demolished.

[3:10:58] This existing commercial strip center still has some businesses in it that are operating.

[3:11:02] And then there are these two locks behind here, which are part of the proposal that used to have single-family residences on it.

[3:11:09] Those have since been demolished as well.

[3:11:16] So there are two applications that have been filed with this request.

[3:11:19] One is for rezoning from that GC general commercial to the planned mixed-use district.

[3:11:24] This would only be our second project that has gone through this process for the planned mixed-use development.

[3:11:29] The first would be Olia Village.

[3:11:31] And so that process includes a site concept plan for the site as well as development standards.

[3:11:36] And those development standards are the tailored zoning code requirements for this specific project.

[3:11:43] Then we also have the site development plan, which includes site clearing, demolition, grading, utilities,

[3:11:48] and the construction of the singular building, parking lot, retaining wall, and attention base and construction.

[3:11:55] There also will be a lot consolidation plat, a boundary adjustment that will be applied for at a later date as part of this development to consolidate those six lots.

[3:12:06] Again, here is just the overall site plan for the project, Olive and Grazer, and then there's parking in the front to the side, and then the majority is behind the building.

[3:12:19] Again, the request is for mixed use development on 4.42 acres called Graser Station.

[3:12:25] It will be constructed in one singular phase.

[3:12:28] And it's a four story mixed use building with first floor retail.

[3:12:32] It does taper down to one story when we get closer to the single family residential uses to the south.

[3:12:37] There will be 157 residential units ranging from studios to two bedroom units, the majority being one bedroom.

[3:12:45] All

[3:12:50] right, so there are provided 250 parking spaces on site.

[3:12:53] There were three curb cuts on all of and three curb cuts on Grazer.

[3:12:58] Those have been reduced to two curb cuts on all of one curb cut on Grazer.

[3:13:02] The building is set back minimum 20 feet from all of Boulevard right here at this closest point.

[3:13:07] And it is set back 10 feet from Grazer Road.

[3:13:10] And it does include a 35-foot residential buffer where the project is adjacent to single family residential to the south.

[3:13:20] The public amenities included are this plaza area, which has landscaping, public art, bench seating.

[3:13:27] And then there's this covered area that also includes outdoor seating.

[3:13:31] And then the residential amenities of the dog park and the pool area.

[3:13:38] Okay, so I'm going to briefly go over the comprehensive plan.

[3:13:42] Cecilia did a very good job of discussing the comprehensive plan and the requirements.

[3:13:46] So the comprehensive plan is our long-range planning document for this area.

[3:13:50] So I'm going to go through that quickly.

[3:13:53] So this area is located in our neighborhood commercial place type district, which is within our easel of corridor.

[3:13:59] As you guys are aware, our easel of corridor is a tricky area.

[3:14:04] There's a range of zoning and there's different types of developments.

[3:14:08] We do have some more dense developments and we have some stable family residential as well.

[3:14:12] So this is the location of the proposal.

[3:14:17] Because of the configuration of these lots and the number of lots that they have together for this proposal,

[3:14:22] it is a more dense site than we normally see along Olive.

[3:14:27] A lot of these sites along Olive here in this corridor are shallow,

[3:14:32] and they're adjacent to single-family residential.

[3:14:34] So that's what we're seeing here.

[3:14:35] These are all the single-family residential uses.

[3:14:38] These are the commercial up here.

[3:14:39] So this lot is, it does have more depth to it, which would seem to support more density.

[3:14:45] Yes.

[3:14:45] So the only thing is that's only because you took two single-family residential lots.

[3:14:52] Correct.

[3:14:53] They added those.

[3:14:54] But as you can see here.

[3:14:55] But if you think about that, it's only more dense because you have single-family residential that you're...

[3:15:00] Merging in with it. And I think this is exactly where we get to low density, multifamily, low

[3:15:07] density would be a couple of units per acre. Medium might be 5 to 20. We're at 4 and a half.

[3:15:15] So maybe we'd be at 100 if we were living by this here. And since we took two single families,

[3:15:23] really it should just be one and one, right? Like, so I think that's where, you know,

[3:15:29] And I think there's a lot of comments here, hopefully, that this is like a very big sticking

[3:15:37] point in that we're saying low-density multi-family would not be 36 units an acre.

[3:15:47] That's not called low-density multi-family per our definition of very big differences.

[3:15:55] Per our zoning code definition, that is accurate.

[3:15:58] So I did just want to point out that these two residential lots here that are part of this development are actually zoned commercial

[3:16:06] They were they did have a single-family residential use on it, but they are zoned commercial and they're included in this zoning district for neighborhood commercial place type

[3:16:15] And then yes, so you bring up a good point about the load and medium density and then what our zoning code requires for those definitions

[3:16:22] Our comprehensive plan does not provide a definition for what low density is, what medium density is, what high density is.

[3:16:29] So then we have to rely on our zoning code.

[3:16:32] And our zoning code does have a definition of low density being no more than six units an acre, which is very low.

[3:16:40] Medium is less than 20 units an acre, and then high density is 20 or more units per acre.

[3:16:47] So that is what our zoning code says.

[3:16:48] Again, that has not been updated since the 1980s, and that is not in line with the type

[3:16:53] of projects that we see being built today.

[3:16:55] But that is what Arzónico says.

[3:17:00] Okay.

[3:17:00] So then the neighborhood commercial place type district has some goals of like walkability

[3:17:04] for the neighborhood.

[3:17:07] It does have established, excuse me, retail boutiques, neighborhood service businesses,

[3:17:12] small scale restaurants.

[3:17:13] Those are all things that they want to see on that all of corridor.

[3:17:17] Encourage outdoor dining and retail site amenities.

[3:17:20] Encourage parking to be to the side or rear of the building or landscape if it's in the front.

[3:17:24] Building facade frontages should be oriented to the primary street, which would be olive,

[3:17:29] and easy automobile access and parking.

[3:17:32] So those are the things that the comprehensive plan would like to see in projects at this location.

[3:17:38] So this is going back to the comprehensive plan where we have that disconnect with what's proposed

[3:17:43] and then what our zoning code says for low and medium and high density.

[3:17:47] So the examples that our comprehensive plan shows for examples of projects in

[3:17:52] the area that would make sense in this area or in this neighborhood district are

[3:17:58] DeMine Point and Clayton and the townhomes in Station Plaza, both of

[3:18:02] which are high density by our definition.

[3:18:06] They are actually in line with the type of density that's

[3:18:09] that's proposed for this project.

[3:18:12] With demand point and Clayton being the most similar to what this project is,

[3:18:16] it's on the corner, it's multiple stories, it has commercial uses on the first floor.

[3:18:24] It also has 36 units per acre.

[3:18:26] So this would be considered high density, but it was used as an example in our comprehensive plan

[3:18:31] for the types of projects we want to see there.

[3:18:33] So there is a little bit of a disconnect with what it's calling for in terms of definition

[3:18:37] and then what it's showing as examples.

[3:18:41] Okay, and so then some considerations based on our comprehensive plan review for this project.

[3:18:49] Excuse me.

[3:18:50] So this project does meet a lot of the goals of the comprehensive plan,

[3:18:55] but there still are areas of consideration that need to be discussed.

[3:18:59] So the recommendations for the ESL corridor include low to medium density,

[3:19:04] but no definitions are provided.

[3:19:06] So then like I spoke about, we have to rely on our zoning code definitions, which haven't

[3:19:10] been updated since the 1980s.

[3:19:13] Example developments are high density, which would be more than 20 single family units

[3:19:17] per acre.

[3:19:19] So this site is 4.42 acres, which provides more lot depth than average along all of

[3:19:25] Boulevard.

[3:19:25] So it does have the potential to support higher density.

[3:19:29] It is a four-story building with 55 feet and it's 55 feet tall.

[3:19:33] It is adjacent to lower buildings, but there are taller buildings within the

[3:19:38] olive corridor, and I have some examples to show as well.

[3:19:41] There are other – oh, there we go.

[3:19:43] Okay, so this is the east olive corridor.

[3:19:45] That's what we're looking at here.

[3:19:46] As you can see, this is the zoning map.

[3:19:48] There are a lot of different zoning districts here.

[3:19:50] There's not one continuous zoning district.

[3:19:54] So that means that there's different requirements for a lot of these properties.

[3:19:58] And our property that we're discussing here is this cluster.

[3:20:03] And then we have this area right here, which does have some very dense residential.

[3:20:07] It's a different type of development.

[3:20:09] It's a different type of zoning district, but there is some density in terms of residential.

[3:20:13] And then we have this building here, which is also three to four stories.

[3:20:17] So it's a taller building.

[3:20:18] And then we have the building, the, I think it's down here, the HPE building.

[3:20:25] That's me.

[3:20:26] Further down, further down, which is also multiple stories.

[3:20:29] And so I have some examples of those.

[3:20:31] So this is that building that I was talking about that's further down all of its multiple stories.

[3:20:37] I think it's five or six.

[3:20:38] And then we have this building here, which is 10845, Olive Boulevard, which is three stories.

[3:20:45] And then we have the nest, which is another apartment complex that was built.

[3:20:50] Again, it's in a different zoning district, but it does have four stories,

[3:20:53] and it is a little bit less dense as well.

[3:20:55] I'm sure you can hold it fine.

[3:21:02] Then kind of switching gears, that's the comprehensive plan.

[3:21:06] So then we also have the three types of planned zoning districts.

[3:21:10] So they are requesting with this application to rezone from GC to the planned mixed use development.

[3:21:19] So we have three different types of planned districts.

[3:21:25] The first being the plan makes these development, which is what they are requesting with this project.

[3:21:30] Again, like I mentioned, this would only be the second project to go through this process, the first being only a village.

[3:21:35] We also have the planned residential development and the planned commercial district or development.

[3:21:40] And as the name states, one is purely residential, one is commercial, this type is a mix of both.

[3:21:49] Okay, so just a little bit of a background on the rezoning and then what's required for it.

[3:21:54] So the plan zoning district procedure provides a procedure to allow development that does not meet the traditional standards of the zoning code due to things such as project size, phasing, configuration, site conditions, or design features.

[3:22:08] It must meet several criteria that's outlined in section 405-390.

[3:22:13] I will be going through some of those.

[3:22:15] There is much too many to cover in one meeting, so I'm just highlighting some of them.

[3:22:18] But they are, I did go through all of them in the stack report.

[3:22:24] Final approval by ordinance of the city council based upon recommendation by the planning and zoning commission.

[3:22:30] And the site concept plan and plan district ordinance, which is the development standards will govern nearly all aspects of the development.

[3:22:36] So that's that tailored zoning code for the project.

[3:22:44] Okay.

[3:22:45] So this is where we talk about the criteria.

[3:22:48] There are four sets of criteria, and each of them have a different number of criteria with them.

[3:22:55] I'm going to try and highlight those for you so that we don't have to go through all of them.

[3:22:58] They do, I do go through all of them again in the staff report on page 10 of the staff report.

[3:23:03] I do not know what page that is in the agenda packet.

[3:23:07] I assume it's somewhere in the 300s.

[3:23:09] But if you wanted to take a look at that, it's all included there.

[3:23:13] So there are four eligibility criteria, eight public benefit options.

[3:23:18] Those are not criteria.

[3:23:19] Those are just options that it could meet, and they are not exclusive.

[3:23:23] There are other ways that they could include public benefit.

[3:23:26] There are 13 planned mixed use development design criteria and 14 review criteria,

[3:23:31] which is applied to all planned zoning districts.

[3:23:36] Okay.

[3:23:37] So starting with the eligibility criteria.

[3:23:39] I did want to mention, so there's four of those.

[3:23:44] Those being is located on one or more lots,

[3:23:46] totally at least three acres in size.

[3:23:48] This meets that.

[3:23:49] Cannot be approved under provisions of another zoning district.

[3:23:53] That meets that.

[3:23:54] Number three, the subject property is zoned for the eligible type

[3:23:57] of planned zoning district, which is the case.

[3:24:00] And then number four, which I've highlighted.

[3:24:03] So criterion four, the proposed development must substantially comply

[3:24:07] with the provisions of the section 405-390, which is the zoning code, and generally consistent

[3:24:13] with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan.

[3:24:16] So that's why we just went through the comprehensive plan and talked about the requirements there.

[3:24:21] So for this criterion, there are some areas of discussion related to density that do

[3:24:27] need to be discussed.

[3:24:28] In general, the proposed development substantially complies with the plan zoning code

[3:24:33] district.

[3:24:34] The proposal is generally consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, subject to further discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding density.

[3:24:46] And then we have public benefit.

[3:24:52] So, like I said, there are eight options that are outlined that I would go through in the staff report.

[3:24:58] They do not have to meet all of them, but those are just options that can be provided.

[3:25:01] This project does provide several of those options for public benefit,

[3:25:07] including quasi-public parking facilities for the retail component,

[3:25:12] new sidewalks for added pedestrian connectivity throughout the city,

[3:25:16] varying of new overhead utility wires where feasible,

[3:25:19] inclusion of landscaped plaza, which is that corner area with the benches

[3:25:23] and the public art, the covered outdoor dining area,

[3:25:26] and high-quality architectural design with quality materials.

[3:25:29] So it does meet a lot of those requirements there, present within this application.

[3:25:35] Okay. Then we have the design criteria.

[3:25:39] So there are 13 design criteria.

[3:25:42] And the project does meet the majority of the design criteria with a few areas of discussion.

[3:25:47] And so there seems to be two main areas of discussion that are touched on in criteria 2, 12, and 13.

[3:25:54] And that would be sufficient buffer adjacent to the residential.

[3:25:57] And so that's where that really tall retaining wall comes in.

[3:26:01] So retaining walls are allowed to be within the residential buffer,

[3:26:04] but the retaining wall that they are proposing is 38 feet in height,

[3:26:08] which is very tall.

[3:26:11] So that kind of comes up in criterion 2, 12 and 13,

[3:26:15] and we're talking about sufficient buffers and things like that.

[3:26:18] So the height of the retaining wall should be discussed,

[3:26:20] including additional screening measures such as landscaping,

[3:26:23] a solid fence or alternative design options to reduce that height.

[3:26:27] And then also criterion four, which is efficient use of parking.

[3:26:32] So discussion with based on the parking study to determine if the commission is comfortable

[3:26:38] with the proposed 250 parking spaces to be shared amongst all uses and if it meets

[3:26:43] the requirements of efficient uses of parking including cooperative parking facilities.

[3:26:48] And so that's where you have to discuss that shared parking agreement and see if

[3:26:51] I'm sorry, discuss that parking study and see if you're comfortable with the

[3:26:56] numbers that they've proposed.

[3:26:59] Okay, and then here's just a visual of the rotating law.

[3:27:01] I know that they showed that.

[3:27:03] I also thought this was helpful.

[3:27:05] So this shows this is one of the houses.

[3:27:07] It looks like three Martin Grove.

[3:27:09] And then it gets lower here because this is also going to be the detention

[3:27:13] basin.

[3:27:14] So what we're going to see of this wall is going to be about 8 feet

[3:27:18] shorter.

[3:27:19] So I think we'll see 30 feet where it's the detention basin because it'll

[3:27:23] be covered by the water and then this tree row.

[3:27:26] Then it goes up from here, here's the parking lot, and then here is the proposed building.

[3:27:31] So that's just another view of that retaining wall.

[3:27:36] Okay.

[3:27:37] So then our last set of criteria is the review criteria that all plan zoning districts

[3:27:43] have to go through, and there's 14 of those criteria.

[3:27:48] And the proposal substantially meets 13 of these criteria, and so I've only

[3:27:52] highlighted one to discuss today.

[3:27:55] So number one, the proposed development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent

[3:27:59] of this chapter and is generally compatible with and implements the planning goals and

[3:28:03] objectives of the comprehensive plan.

[3:28:05] So again, that just comes back to doesn't meet the comprehensive plan in terms of density.

[3:28:10] And so again, that's just the discussion that needs to be had.

[3:28:14] Okay.

[3:28:14] So then I also wanted to briefly cover the traffic impact study.

[3:28:18] So the study does note that the northbound left turn movement on Grazer will eventually degrade from the current level of service E.

[3:28:28] So that's what it's at now, level of service E, to level of service F by 2036 buildup.

[3:28:35] So that's what we're looking at.

[3:28:36] I won't change projected until 2036.

[3:28:39] And it would just change from the current LOS E to LOS F.

[3:28:45] However, corridor-wide signal timing adjustments by MODOT should address these concerns.

[3:28:52] The study did conclude that node modifications to the existing street network are recommended at this time,

[3:28:58] while noting that those timing modifications would help improve the intersection efficiency.

[3:29:04] Since this study has been made and since the staff report has been put out, we have heard back from MODOT

[3:29:08] And they have reviewed the traffic impact study and provided initial comments about the safety of the left turns on all of Boulevard from the development.

[3:29:17] So that would be here.

[3:29:19] These discussions are still ongoing.

[3:29:21] So we're still discussing those.

[3:29:22] We just heard from them last week about this.

[3:29:25] And the city traffic consultant Dan Shane is here to answer any questions if you have any additional questions about the parking city.

[3:29:32] I just wondered about the crosswalks for people who want to cross over.

[3:29:38] I will let Google will bring to it a smoothie or something.

[3:29:42] Could they repaint those?

[3:29:44] Because they don't look very good and I don't think they're safe.

[3:29:48] That is definitely something that we can discuss with them is repainting those existing crosswalks,

[3:29:54] which I believe you're talking about right here.

[3:29:58] because, yes, it is existing.

[3:30:00] But the paint has come off, so that's absolutely something that we can discuss with them is to maintain that.

[3:30:04] So are you talking with them about a left turn arrow or I think because right now it's just blinking yellow and the way that, I mean, regardless of anything new goes in there,

[3:30:18] the way that when you're trying to turn left, the other car comes straight and you don't really know where they're going and you can't see it all.

[3:30:25] I mean, it's a terrible intersection to go left from Grazier on top.

[3:30:33] Our traffic consultant is here and he can answer those questions.

[3:30:36] You can bring him up now if you want, but I do have a few more slides if you want.

[3:30:39] Okay, bring him up when we're done. Thank you.

[3:30:43] Okay.

[3:30:43] I just have like two or three more slides.

[3:30:45] Yeah, I appreciate it.

[3:30:46] So then we have the shared parking study.

[3:30:48] And so I feel like their consultant did a really good job of going through that.

[3:30:51] So what I would like to just go through is section 405-800-G4.

[3:30:56] And so that's our section of the zoning code that allows for this type of process to happen with the shared parking.

[3:31:02] So it allows for up to 50% of the required parking to be used jointly or shared amongst uses if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[3:31:10] So they are allowed to, you know, conduct this study and submit it for review to reduce their parking and have 50% of it shared because of this provision.

[3:31:20] So they are following a provision that is allowed in our zoning code,

[3:31:23] but it is something that has to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[3:31:28] So 345 parking spaces are required per our zoning code.

[3:31:33] 173 parking spaces cannot be considered shared.

[3:31:36] So 173 of those has to be provided on site cannot be part of the shared number.

[3:31:41] But any parking stalls beyond the 173 spaces may count towards more than one use.

[3:31:47] And so that's what we're looking at with those additional, I think it's like 77 to get to the 250 and so that's where that share is coming in.

[3:31:55] And then it's based on demand and not our code requirement by use.

[3:32:01] So it's just a little bit different way of looking at it and reducing that number of parking.

[3:32:10] Okay. And so I did just provide a summary of areas of discussion and I think some of those got cut off.

[3:32:15] So, oh no, they're all in there.

[3:32:18] Good.

[3:32:19] Okay, so conformance with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

[3:32:23] I feel like we've talked about that a lot along the east all of the corridor.

[3:32:27] The proposed density of 157 units at 35.6 residential units per acre within the four-story building.

[3:32:35] The overall site plan design and architectural quality.

[3:32:38] The retaining wall height reduction measures or alternative screening options.

[3:32:43] The parking study findings for the proposed 250 spaces to be shared amongst all uses,

[3:32:48] and then the traffic impact study findings.

[3:32:50] So that's kind of the summary that I put together based on our review at staff level of the proposal.

[3:32:59] Great job.

[3:33:00] Thank you.

[3:33:01] And so then just to remind you of what we're doing tonight,

[3:33:05] staff recommends that the commission provide feedback on these issues to the applicant,

[3:33:09] as well as any comments received by the public.

[3:33:11] Based on the direction given to staff and the applicant, any revisions to the plans can be made and submitted for further consideration in a vote at an upcoming meeting.

[3:33:20] Okay.

[3:33:21] Would you like to hear from Dan now?

[3:33:22] Yes.

[3:33:23] Okay.

[3:33:23] Thank you.

[3:33:37] Good evening, commissioners.

[3:33:38] My name is Dan Shane with HR Green.

[3:33:40] We are the city's traffic engineering consultant and we had a chance to do the traffic engineering study as an independent review for this development.

[3:33:50] I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[3:33:51] I know there's already one on the table.

[3:33:54] And that is a great question.

[3:33:56] If I can reiterate, the question, I think, was the northbound left turn has a flashing yellow arrow,

[3:34:04] which is something that MoDOT's doing a lot of nowadays.

[3:34:07] But right now, that is just a permissive movement.

[3:34:10] So it becomes more challenging when you got opposing traffic.

[3:34:13] Is that right?

[3:34:16] Because they go straight.

[3:34:18] And you don't know what direction you're going.

[3:34:21] So when we met with MODOT last week, that happened to be one of their concerns too, so they recognized that as well.

[3:34:28] At this point, we haven't done any analysis with it to change timings from the existing signal operations to make sure that would work or not.

[3:34:37] But again, as Bethany said, part of the overall plan in the future as that level of service starts to degrade to a level of service F for the 10-year planning horizon,

[3:34:49] Eventually, MODOT will have to come in, and they're agreeable to this, to come in and start retiming signals along all of Bulbar to make sure everything works together instead of just one isolated location.

[3:35:02] Okay. I just don't understand how we could put a cool development there without changing when it already isn't working for the neighborhood. So that would just be my feedback.

[3:35:13] Yeah, so we adjust the timing slightly, but if you think about all the traffic on all the Boulevard, it has a set cycle length that it just helps progress traffic through there.

[3:35:25] We really can't start changing the cycle length of this particular intersection to be different than the upstream or downstream location.

[3:35:34] So we're kind of confined to that, those parameters.

[3:35:37] But the individual green time for Grazer Road, we can make slight adjustments to that.

[3:35:45] So, as it turns out with this development and the additional traffic with, you know, compared to what the level service is today,

[3:35:54] you know, Bethany said it goes from level service E to F in your 2036 volume.

[3:35:59] It really accounts to about 10, an average of 10 seconds per entering vehicle of delay,

[3:36:06] additional delay.

[3:36:08] And that happens to kind of push it over that threshold from EDA.

[3:36:13] Yeah, I just think, I don't know.

[3:36:15] I mean, as someone who lives by there, I can't believe that because it's already very difficult to turn left

[3:36:21] on D'Ala from Grazier when there are people coming from Walgreens in the neighborhood across the street.

[3:36:27] So now, if everybody from – because you can't – with where the property is, we

[3:36:34] are saying we have it out on the olive, but you also cannot turn left.

[3:36:38] I mean, we say you can turn left, but it's not capable unless –

[3:36:42] it's a Sunday morning and there's no traffic, right?

[3:36:45] So everyone's going to have to funnel on to Grazier.

[3:36:48] And if now people are funneling based upon where that is, you can't –

[3:36:53] and people can't very easily turn left already.

[3:36:56] I just think it doesn't it doesn't make sense the way finding how that would even work

[3:37:01] Yeah, that could be that could be challenging and we brought that up today. Yeah to the applicant too

[3:37:06] But because of that is the difficulty and make that left turn out of the unset Western driveway

[3:37:11] Yeah, we did assign a lot of that traffic back through the site

[3:37:17] Maybe not ideal but back through the site to Grazier Road, right?

[3:37:20] And then make a left at Grazier

[3:37:22] Again, kind of compounding the problem that you already have.

[3:37:26] We understand that.

[3:37:28] Okay.

[3:37:29] Thank you.

[3:37:30] Can it be fixed to be like Greg and Olive where you get the full arrow?

[3:37:37] It can.

[3:37:38] And that's what MoDOT wanted us to look at.

[3:37:40] And we just haven't, we just met with them last week and we haven't had a chance to

[3:37:43] dig into that just yet.

[3:37:45] But it could be.

[3:37:47] But keep in mind that when you add a protected arrow, that green time has to come from somewhere,

[3:37:55] and it would likely come from Olive.

[3:37:57] Well, the one at Craig and Olive isn't very fast.

[3:38:00] Well, that's probably what you'd be looking for.

[3:38:01] It isn't very slow, and you've got a –

[3:38:04] But at least it gives the left turners a chance to get out.

[3:38:07] Yeah.

[3:38:07] So that's still on the table.

[3:38:10] There's a couple other things we're talking about about, too, and not that as well.

[3:38:13] Thank you.

[3:38:15] Other questions?

[3:38:20] Thank you.

[3:38:22] Go ahead.

[3:38:24] Sure.

[3:38:26] Where is it of him?

[3:38:28] Yes, okay, go ahead.

[3:38:30] The traffic study had an adder put in for future growth in Aeolia.

[3:38:36] Yeah.

[3:38:36] Aeolia traffic.

[3:38:38] Yes.

[3:38:38] It seemed to be often involved of an adorabt considering probably a couple of billion dollars

[3:38:45] in development that's going to go down there.

[3:38:48] So the added traffic was, from Olio, was just like it says, it was added to our background

[3:38:54] traffic volumes and those were specifically the numbers that came from the approved traffic

[3:38:58] study that was completed for that development.

[3:39:01] So those numbers were added to the background traffic.

[3:39:04] In addition to that, because we recognize that's probably not enough to incorporate all of the growth in the area.

[3:39:10] So we also applied a half a percent per year growth rate to background traffic, in addition to the old.

[3:39:19] You've just seen, well, not that I have any expertise to defend why I'm saying that, but just those are massive,

[3:39:28] of two massive developments, one that's already been opened and one that's in process.

[3:39:35] Again, we used the data from the previous study and that was directly imported into our analysis.

[3:39:45] Thank you.

[3:39:46] Thank you.

[3:39:47] So I think we're past 9.30.

[3:39:50] I'd like to propose that we open it up for a few comments and go until however many we can get until 10.

[3:40:00] Is that work?

[3:40:02] Perfect.

[3:40:03] Yes.

[3:40:05] Okay.

[3:40:06] I agree.

[3:40:08] Okay.

[3:40:09] All right.

[3:40:10] So I'm going to go ahead and open it up.

[3:40:13] We're going to take as many as we can take until 10.

[3:40:17] And then obviously we are not voting on anything tonight.

[3:40:21] You've heard a lot of feedback from here as well as from the city.

[3:40:27] So I would ask if you, if I call your name and you don't have something to share that hasn't come up, an issue that has not come up yet.

[3:40:40] So you saw Bethany's area of discussion here because we don't need to reiterate everything that we've talked about, right, right now.

[3:40:48] So it's in line with the goals of the comprehensive plan.

[3:40:53] We know that we need to talk about density here that it's higher than what their plan calls for today.

[3:41:02] We've talked about the retaining hall, the parking study here.

[3:41:06] We know we need to do more in traffic.

[3:41:08] So if I call your name and you, if you have something not already on our list, then I would ask you to come up.

[3:41:16] But if it's already on our list, then let's make sure we get to the topics we haven't talked about yet tonight.

[3:41:22] If that's okay, that's what I would ask.

[3:41:24] So, Jim, Cornelson.

[3:41:31] Jim.

[3:41:34] Okay.

[3:41:37] So if you could just.

[3:41:38] If you could please state your name.

[3:41:42] Jim Cornelsen, a ten-time manager.

[3:41:46] I'm a retired civil engineer, and at one point in my career,

[3:41:52] I was the vice president of marketing for a developer, those guys right there.

[3:42:00] I was directing them as what they should do with this.

[3:42:06] You've got two major problems in my opinion.

[3:42:09] One is the density. It's been discussed. It's out of code, so it should not be approved.

[3:42:20] You know, if you come to a board like this, then you need to pay attention to what the rules are.

[3:42:27] You don't just disregard the rules and hope you can make it through.

[3:42:31] That's not the way the game should be played.

[3:42:33] The second is parking. Parking, I think, is probably the major problem. They said

[3:42:43] they had 160 units, they're rounding up, and they had 250 parking places. The

[3:42:51] problem with this whole concept is the development is geared for young adults.

[3:42:58] let's say 25 to 35 somewhere in there. These are kids that have good incomes, most

[3:43:07] of them, but they tend to save money because they're buying cars so they

[3:43:13] would rather save money on housing. A lot of them live together. One bedroom units

[3:43:22] got two people in it. So if you have 160 units and 50 of those units are married

[3:43:33] couples then you're at 270 parking places and they're only saying 250.

[3:43:42] We're already out of bounds. I've seen, I was amused at the parking studies. I had

[3:43:50] in front of my desk on the day three parking studies for one project.

[3:43:56] And I said, what is this?

[3:43:57] And they said, you could just push data into it.

[3:44:00] Computer prints it out.

[3:44:02] That's the three, which wouldn't you want us to use.

[3:44:05] And that's what's wrong with parking studies.

[3:44:08] I have no idea what data went into that study,

[3:44:12] but I bet it didn't include an apartment project

[3:44:16] that was geared for young adults. And then that's just normal living day-to-day.

[3:44:24] Try Friday and Saturday night when they're partying and everybody comes over.

[3:44:30] Where are they going to park? There's no space for them.

[3:44:34] And if you park in a retail place, our police force is going to be spending days getting out tickets.

[3:44:42] there's no parking. This project, if it crossed my desk, I would never have

[3:44:49] approved it because there's too many things wrong with it. Thank you. You want

[3:44:56] to go to a group like this with so much

[3:45:00] Almost perfect plan. If you have to have a parking plan, you're already in trouble. And you know you're in trouble, so you're going to try to find some way to fix it.

[3:45:11] This project, had it crossed my desk, I would never approve for this piece of land. It might be good on a college campus, but not that piece of property.

[3:45:25] Thank you.

[3:45:29] Brett Berger.

[3:45:38] Thanks, everybody. Good evening. My name is Brett Berger. I reside at 10 Winfield Point.

[3:45:43] My wife Allison Berger resides at the same address. She's yielding her time to me,

[3:45:46] but I'll try to be as quick as I can and skip anything that's been gone over.

[3:45:51] I want to first mention that neighbors really do want responsible development.

[3:45:56] At this corner, we want to see this corner improved.

[3:45:59] We want something that enhances the neighborhood and compliments the city.

[3:46:03] The proposal before us is simply too dense, too tall, and too dependent on changing zoning

[3:46:08] to make it work.

[3:46:09] Our goal is something more correctly sized.

[3:46:12] This is the part that I want to mention.

[3:46:14] There's some important context that explains why the proposal feels so out of balance.

[3:46:20] This particular property has been owned and maintained by the same organization for

[3:46:25] for many decades, one of the most successful real estate developers in St. Louis.

[3:46:33] We're all familiar.

[3:46:35] Over time, many decisions made by the ownership of this property directly shaped the condition

[3:46:41] and the viability of the site.

[3:46:43] Years ago, tenants in both buildings in North and the South were placed on month-to-month

[3:46:47] leases, effectively preventing any tenants from making meaningful long-term improvements

[3:46:53] commitments to the property. Eventually, all tenants were moved out of the North Building, as you know, and it was demolished.

[3:47:00] And even today, active tenants like Tyneivis are not allowed long-term lease, they're on month-to-month.

[3:47:05] So when we talk about the property being vacant, dilapidated, old, out-of-date, it's important to remember that that condition is not by accident.

[3:47:14] It's current condition is the result of the deliberate ownership choices over many years.

[3:47:20] It's an extremely expensive property.

[3:47:23] They're asking a lot of money for this property and because the asking prices remained extraordinarily high over many years

[3:47:30] and all of the previous requests for development, different local developers have reviewed

[3:47:35] and they've passed on this particular site.

[3:47:38] They evaluated what could reasonably be built here.

[3:47:41] at a scale that would be appropriate surrounding single-family homes and

[3:47:45] concluded that numbers simply didn't work. And that's the heart of the issue.

[3:47:50] The proposed project is not high density because the property requires that to

[3:47:54] thrive. It's high density because the land price demands it. When a property is

[3:48:00] priced so aggressively that only an extreme zone-changing project can

[3:48:03] make the math work, the pressure inevitably shifts to city and its

[3:48:08] It shifts through zoning exceptions, increased density, and future requested public financial

[3:48:13] assistance.

[3:48:14] In fact, the developer has already noted and signaled on their website that they fully

[3:48:18] expect to receive similar help to the Olea Village project assistance that they've received.

[3:48:23] And I want to be clear, the developer has been really great in reaching out to the

[3:48:27] neighborhood, reaching out and working with us.

[3:48:29] They have been fantastic.

[3:48:32] But the sites are so different comparing a 95 or almost 100-acre site to something

[3:48:36] that's less than five acres, this particular site does not deserve or need the latitude

[3:48:42] that a general commercial district requires.

[3:48:45] It's just not appropriate.

[3:48:46] Also, let's not forget that this particular property owner litigated and sued the city,

[3:48:52] took the city to court all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, in fact, and that

[3:48:56] caused the city quite a bit of time and money after the city appropriately denied

[3:49:01] their high value, high volume, very high volume convenience sort.

[3:49:06] I have some concerns about where the heart of the ownership team is on this particular property, if it's in our best interest for the city or not.

[3:49:15] So now we're being asked to update zoning and we'll be asked to provide tax incentive or abatements, just like Olea Village, to make this project viable on this property, which I think is not a fair pattern.

[3:49:24] Residents should not have to subsidize the valuation that's out of alignment with what the site can reasonably support.

[3:49:29] The city should not feel pressured to approve density levels that have not previously been allowed adjacent to single-family residential Creefcourt homes.

[3:49:39] Definitely appreciate the developer's effort, softening the building along Grazier Road.

[3:49:44] But even with that the step down, four stories is just too tall next to single-family Creefcourt homes, which would be the first such adjacency in decades that I'm aware of.

[3:49:54] North Grazier and all tributary streets serve about 255 single-family homes.

[3:49:59] Adding 157 on one end cap increases that density localized by nearly two-thirds in a single project.

[3:50:06] It's insane. The proposed project is more than 12 times more dense than the adjacent homes.

[3:50:11] The single-family homes right next to there in Martin Grove, one house on about a third of an acre.

[3:50:16] So that's three homes per acre.

[3:50:19] This is 12 or 13 times more dense than that.

[3:50:23] That is not a gradual step up to higher density.

[3:50:26] It's a shock to the system in the area.

[3:50:29] Instead, neighbors want a development that's right-sized, not oversized.

[3:50:33] Planning and zoning should vote no, no change of zoning.

[3:50:37] A project at a reasonable scale still can succeed and revitalize this corner.

[3:50:41] Neighbors want this property developed.

[3:50:43] We want it improved, but it's got to be fair.

[3:50:46] It's got to be sustainable, and it's got to stand on its own

[3:50:48] without shifting the burden onto neighbors or the city.

[3:50:51] Thank you so much.

[3:50:54] Lynn

[3:50:58] Barry.

[3:51:05] Okay.

[3:51:07] Okay.

[3:51:07] Thank you, Lynn.

[3:51:09] Cheryl Richards.

[3:51:23] Hello.

[3:51:24] The one thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is the regulations that are going

[3:51:30] to apply to the dog park and the swimming pool.

[3:51:34] The dog park is supposed to be opening at five in the morning.

[3:51:37] and the swimming pool is going to have amplified music until 9 p.m. at night.

[3:51:43] So I'd like you all to really think about those regulations and whether they need to be adjusted.

[3:51:51] The other thing is the code that they used for the restaurant for doing the parking study.

[3:51:58] There are a whole bunch of different codes for different kinds of fast food restaurants,

[3:52:04] And it seems like the one they chose was deliberately designed so that it didn't have a PM peak.

[3:52:12] And so I think it would help to clarify exactly what kind of a restaurant they were going to put in next.

[3:52:19] Thank you.

[3:52:20] Thank you.

[3:52:23] Bo Shi.

[3:52:30] My name is Bo Shi.

[3:52:32] I'm on 1-0-1-1-margin.

[3:52:36] There's a particular point.

[3:52:37] One mention is that the swimming pool is closer to my house than to their own building.

[3:52:44] I believe they already said that it's in terms of – my following statement is focused on the supporting materials submitted for the application.

[3:52:54] Those supporting materials are inaccurate, unfair, and biased in my opinion.

[3:53:00] So.

[3:53:00] Hang on.

[3:53:01] She can't understand.

[3:53:03] Can you recognize your mask, maybe?

[3:53:05] I think it's difficult to understand.

[3:53:08] Thank you, sir.

[3:53:10] The plan failed to mention how its density is in contrast to the adjacent neighborhood

[3:53:16] sub-divisions and how that high density will impact the overall density of the area.

[3:53:22] In the density comparison, the apartment buildings used for the comparison are unfair.

[3:53:31] The plan used Vanguard Heights for comparison, however, the plan ignored the fact that there

[3:53:38] were no single family houses next to Vanguard Heights.

[3:53:43] The plan also ignored the fact that Vanguard Heights is in a community center district

[3:53:49] for the critical comprehensive plan.

[3:53:53] The same kind of comparison was used on King's Landing,

[3:53:56] which is a mixed use in innovation campus district.

[3:54:01] While again, there was no single family housing

[3:54:03] next to the end of apartment building.

[3:54:08] The next, which is also another apartment

[3:54:11] used for comparison,

[3:54:14] but it's in a similar scenario.

[3:54:16] So I think Brad already did the correct comparison.

[3:54:20] I'm not going to repeat that.

[3:54:21] But in the traffic study, again, the analysis is basically flawed.

[3:54:27] So it shows that out of the 160 residents, only 40 go to work in the morning if you look

[3:54:35] at the data close.

[3:54:36] So this is my estimate.

[3:54:38] I want to emphasize this is my estimate, but I believe I understand the number correctly.

[3:54:44] So I have no doubt whoever did the calculations use the science.

[3:54:49] But I thought they use the common sense.

[3:54:52] So how do you know that only one out of four residents who pay $1,600 a month doesn't go to work?

[3:55:03] Again, in the traffic study, the subject property is compared to only a village,

[3:55:08] which is a much larger development project that's not completed yet.

[3:55:13] So there's a lot of uncertainty there.

[3:55:17] So I skip a lot of those, but to summarize what I said, the supporting materials for the application basically are flawed and biased.

[3:55:29] Thank you.

[3:55:32] Linda Resney.

[3:55:43] Linda Resney, 104 Grazer-Agers. The developer has repeatedly proposed unsuitable plans for

[3:55:51] the neighborhood. The East Isle of Comprehensive Plan was developed by demand of the people

[3:55:58] in the neighborhood. It doesn't fit everything else that's going on in Crevecore, but this

[3:56:03] is what the neighborhood wants. At hearings that we've had at the rec center, there

[3:56:09] large articulate opposition that told the developer that this wasn't going to run and

[3:56:17] the reasonings for their opposition were much stronger than the things that have already

[3:56:22] been eliminated.

[3:56:26] You can play with the numbers for the parking and the traffic all you want to justify a

[3:56:31] goal.

[3:56:32] But we will have to live with it.

[3:56:34] It's not like a conditional use permit when if it proves to be a nuisance you

[3:56:38] can refocus.

[3:56:39] The number of cars will accelerate the gridlock on Olive and Grazer, and I have to live there.

[3:56:48] This hulking, I'm sorry, this is a monstrous building, and this hulking building will require far more services from the city than the small amount of return and additional taxes.

[3:57:00] If you want something like this, go to Olia, which brings up another point.

[3:57:04] Creek Corps may want to follow Olivet in development, like the Oliver.

[3:57:10] But you already have the view and the vanguard and now Olia.

[3:57:15] At this time, this could be excessive for the market for the number of people who are available

[3:57:20] in all of these buildings that are being built.

[3:57:23] You might not be able to cite all of my reasons as a way to oppose this,

[3:57:29] but you only need to deny the crazy parking scheme and that will stop this.

[3:57:33] And thank you for the vote. We want the best now and for the long term. Thank you.

[3:57:40] Thank you.

[3:57:44] John McGuire.

[3:57:50] And this will be the last one for tonight.

[3:57:53] Thank you. I'm John McGuire. I live at 836 Mary Meadows Lane. I've been there 46 years.

[3:58:00] But I want to specifically point out and keep the commission aware of,

[3:58:04] His merry meadows is not only downhill, but more importantly downstream from this project.

[3:58:11] And when the Martin Grove subdivision was built during the construction period,

[3:58:15] they did not mitigate the water flow, and people in merry meadows wound up the six to eight inches of water in their basements.

[3:58:23] So my request to the council committee is that you observe during the construction process and afterwards.

[3:58:30] We've been assured that MSD will make sure the final project meets all the standards,

[3:58:37] really requesting that you watch the construction process.

[3:58:40] Thank you.

[3:58:41] Thank you.

[3:58:42] Thank you.

[3:58:43] Thank you.

[3:58:46] I'm sorry.

[3:58:47] I'm sorry.

[3:58:48] I mean, we were taking the papers as we've gone through.

[3:58:52] And we're repping at 10.

[3:58:55] I'm sorry.

[3:59:06] I said when I stopped this, so you're going to need to come back

[3:59:09] to the next meeting on January 20th and that's okay. Okay. Thank you.

[3:59:18] Okay. Thank you, everyone.

[3:59:20] I appreciate everyone's time this evening. I'm going to go ahead and we'll continue this

[3:59:25] public hearing on January the 20th. I appreciate everyone sticking with us this late.

[3:59:35] You guys, what would you like to see, are we there?

[3:59:40] You said it was a very expensive property.

[3:59:45] Hang on, we've adjourned this piece and we need to get it so we can adjourn.

[3:59:51] That's okay.

[3:59:52] Okay.

[3:59:53] Okay, thank you.

[3:59:55] All right.

[3:59:57] Work Agenda.

[4:00:01] Tending applications. Done for the first meeting in January. So these items will roll over to

[4:00:11] January 20th. For both of these. Yeah, two items. Our deadline for that meeting is Friday.

[4:00:20] Okay. So we may have this one, but right now we're not aware. Okay, correct. Can we adjourn

[4:00:27] Department of Report? Okay. Meeting adjourned.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Transcript