Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting of the site plan subcommittee to order.

Tonight, we're going to be talking about the reserve at St. Albans. Can I get a roll call of commission members, please?

Commissioner Boren. Commissioner Helfrey.

Here.

Commissioner Gettinger. Commissioner Clayton.

Here.

Commissioner Deppler. Commissioner Jackson.

Here.

Commissioner Rubis. Chair Beatty. Here. Councilmember Marshall.

Present.

And Mayor Garitano. Here. The mayor's here. I didn't have the speaker on.

I apologize. All right. Thank you. Does the Department of Planning have any opening comments? All right. So tonight we're going over the site plan for the reserve at St. Albans.

A little bit of a change. This is the preliminary plan for the reserve at St. Albans. Site development plans are in conjunction with CA planned commercial districts, M3 planned industrial districts, and the planned residential development overlay district. As you know, in this particular case, this is actually a large single-family subdivision under our subdivision and development regulations. no overlay district in association with this particular project. It's a little different. Okay. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'll begin my presentation and then move from the presentation to any comments from the applicant, which is Lombardo-Holmes. And then at the conclusion of the site plan subcommittee, the department will seek direction in terms of a preparation of recommendation for the commission's next meeting in September, if you all feel it at that stage. So thank you. All right, thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the Site Plan Subcommittee, first of all, thank you for being here tonight. We certainly appreciate it. And as I mentioned, representatives from Lombardo Homes are here, as well as Mike Faulkner, who represents the engineer of record, and that's Sterling Company. in preparation for tonight's meeting the department of planning did provide you information that has been prepared by lombardo homes via sterling engineering and that information is primarily the preliminary plat The preliminary plat has several components to it. I'm sure as you've gone through it, you recognize some of them. First and foremost, there's always the cover sheet, which gives information relating to just the general components of the project, the density calculations, the provided parking, public space requirements, compliance to public space requirements, and a set of general notes that we require regardless if it's a preliminary plat or a site development plan. It also provides you a index of the different sheets that are available tonight for our discussion. The sheets include the overall site grading plan, the natural resource protection standards map, the site distance study, which is a key component for this particular project, given it is on State Highway T, a fairly high-traveled state arterial and one that also has speeds that are probably greater than what they should be. just because drivers take the opportunity to make time there. Some section details, and I'll explain those in a little more detail as we get into them. Improvement details, the stormwater plan, which is a key component of our Department of Public Works. And then finally, tree protection plan, along with proposed landscaping that's to be provided. another key component of the submittal is a letter from the missouri department of natural resources this should look fairly familiar to all of you this was a key element that was discussed when we were doing the sanitary sewer discussion and the waiver to the centralized wastewater treatment plant And as many of you recall, this particular project started out with 16 total lots, all generally around three acres or just a shy above three acres. And after discussions relating to the waiver for the centralized wastewater treatment plant, the number of lots was reduced to a total of 14. That meant the lots got larger in size generally. They now range from, I believe, one is at three acres and the other on the opposite end is just over five acres in size. A good majority of the lots now are approximately four acres in size. So the reduction in the total number of lots increased the overall lot size of the remaining 14 that are being proposed tonight. Those 14 lots aren't necessarily imaginative in terms of their shape. They're generally long rectangles. And that's a reflection of the parent tracts of land. There are two parcels of ground that form this. And the parcels of ground are defined generally by State Highway T and a hillside that's very well defined on the southern end of the site. In between those two features, the roadway and the hillside, is the creek. And the creek is a key component of the discussions during the waiver of the centralized wastewater treatment plan. You may recall many of the residents that live on the north side of Highway T spoke to flooding that occurs during certain storm events. The fields being wet after those events, et cetera. That's all a component of the creek that, for the most part, bisects the site and it flows in a direction from east to west toward Wild Horse Creek. Tonight, the applicant is respectfully requesting the site plan subcommittee review the preliminary plan, provide any comments relative to the preliminary plan, and then ultimately obtain a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and its full membership. The department does want to identify just a few of the characteristics relative to the preliminary plan. The department mentioned first, it is now 14 lots in total, so well less than what the allowable density would be under the NU non-urban resident district. There is now a strip or a area of common ground. That common ground covers or is intended to accommodate the primary drainage finger that goes through the site in a north-south direction and intersects the creek that was previously described. That common ground area is also the intended public space for the project. And in our code, we can accommodate that. And it's approximately 25,000 square feet in size. As part of that, there is intended to be a parking location for the mailbox clusters. The natural resource protection standards were applied to this particular property and it is the intent of the, developer to preserve 24 acres of the overall site, which means approximately 30 acres will be disturbed. That disturbed area coincides with the current agricultural fields that have been farmed as long as Joe's been at the city of Walwood, so that's about 30 plus years, so a long time. of the sewer waiver has been mentioned and that was granted this year by the city council after a favorable recommendation from this planning and zoning commission. A couple of items that the departments of planning and public works have been talking with the developer, Lombardo Homes, about relative to this plat are as follows. First, as you know, State Highway T, relatively speaking, is at the highest elevation along the frontage of the property. So State Highway T is here. The property is here and slopes to the south toward the creek. To address concerns about driveways accessing State Highway T, the developer has identified from the onset of the project, which was the sewer waiver process, a parallel road to State Highway T just to its south. That parallel road would be private and is intended to provide that direct access from the individual home sites onto it and then at two points access onto or off State Highway T. The concern that the Department of Planning had with regards to this, and it's reflected in a couple of the cross sections that the developer provided for the purposes of this discussion, is the road's high The other road is a little lower. And then the home sites are at the lowest point, let's say. How will the landscaping screen those areas when we know that the elevation change is so different? And if we use deciduous trees, even if they're larger deciduous trees and given time to mature, at least six months out of the year, they won't have any coverage or leaves to provide that screening. And so we've kind of gone back and forth. The cross sections that I'm referencing are on sheet, I believe 6.2, yeah. And as you can see, they've tried to indicate that from the standpoint of the elevation changes, from T the high point to the private road to the middle point to the site itself low point. There is to be a landscape buffer that is to be installed and that buffer will be a combination of trees shrubs and other items. The concern is trying to do the best we can to create a green buffer along the edge of the road so as to continue to basically complement the three acre lots, but also retain some of that character along Highway T that we're altering now from an agricultural field to 14 home sites and from the hearings concerns from the neighboring residents. The second item is one that also came up during the waiver request for the centralized wastewater treatment plant. And that was a function of the creek flooding and concerns by downstream properties. In a conversation today with our director of public works, he mentioned that what we're finding when we have to analyze and provide input to individual property owners regarding creek erosion, it's never the best case scenario, meaning one person's problem can't be solved without the support of properties upstream and downstream from that particular property. So the Department of Public Works, with the concurrence of the Department of Planning, would like to place the creek in an easement. And the easement allows for collective ownership of the HOA. So there's 14 solutions to the problem, except versus one. The easement does not reduce the lot sizes because it is placed on top of the properties. And as part of the record plat and indentures, the easement will allow the HOA governance and from the standpoint of the city working with the HOA, the three trustees, or how many trustees there are, and the city, it's a much easier process. And collectively, the HOA has the best interest of all 14 property owners, which is what constitutes the HOA. So again, those are two items that kind of influx as we present tonight. Just making sure that the landscaping is sufficient to achieve the goal that the Department of Planning has set. And as I've mentioned, this late addition, the easement on the creek to the HOA. I hope that isn't an issue because, again, we're not reducing lot count. We're not reducing lot size. All we're doing is making sure that there's a single entity that can work with its homeowners and the city if a problem does arise. In terms of tree preservation, this is probably one of the first ones in 30 years that the director of planning has been doing where we have about 25 acres of trees or woodlands, and we'll have about 25 acres of trees and woodlands when it's all said and done. We're actually only removing two tenths of an acre. So if you do the math, about 8,000 square feet, and it's along one of the smaller tributaries that, again, bisects the site in a north-south direction. From the Department of Planning's perspective, based upon its review, the natural resource protection standard is compliant. The tree preservation plan is compliant. The grading plan is compliant. And as I've mentioned, there's just a couple of items outstanding. All of the lots are greater than three acres in size. All of the lots have the minimum frontage required. And from the perspective of the Departments of Planning and Public Works, the parallel road system is an expensive approach, but it's the safest approach for access to these 14 lots and from those 14 lots via the private road onto State Highway T. And with that, I'll ask Mr. Newberry if I've missed anything that him and I have talked over the time. And if not, the department will conclude its presentation. And if there are any questions of the department immediately, we can certainly respond to them. But Mr. Chair, I would offer the podium and microphone to the petitioner if they would like to add anything regarding the preliminary plot they've prepared for your consideration tonight or anything that the department's mentioned in its presentation. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Vunich. Are there any immediate questions?

On the line of sight, the drawings 5.1, it shows the existing ground. And then it has a line of sight. Is that we're not going to touch the existing grade on the ground as it is now for that private street?

If possible, I'd like Mr. Faulkner to answer that or Mr. Brown's on tonight. That would be the other alternative. Mike?

Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Faulkner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Mike Faulkner. I'm vice president of Sterling Engineering, offices of 5055 New Baumgardner, St. Louis, 63129. And what those are is the darker line is the actual line of sight, and the other is the lighter line is actually the ground level. So we demonstrate exactly that the line of sight is over and is not hitting the ground itself.

OK, so in other words, what you're showing for the existing ground is going to stay that?

Correct. That is the existing ground. That's the way it will be. And that is to demonstrate that we do have adequate sight distance.

OK. All right. And would you or the petitioner like to add any more comments to what Mr. Vunich said?

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioner Doug Nance, Lombardo Homes for Research Park, St. Charles, Missouri. I think Mr. Boonich did a good job explaining the site and the site plan, the preliminary plan. We are okay with what Mr. Boonich described as the easement over the creek and having the HOA manage that and putting the HOA easement makes sense and it's a good recommendation. So we are okay with that. And if there's any questions tonight for us, I'll be here. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Members of the site plan subcommittee, anything that seems awry to you relative to the plan set or anything that's been provided in the department?

The easement, is that just going to cover how far off the creek center line? Is it the water distance or the flood?

Good question, Mr. Chair. And what I will probably recommend to our director of public works And I think he'll support because it comes out of the grading code. The grading code prohibits disturbance along water features, whether it's a lake, pond, or a femoral drainageway, et cetera. And we usually require that protected area to be 50 feet from top of bank on either side. 50? 50 feet. So that's what I would encourage easement to be. knowing that the homeowners can't disturb within 50 feet of top of bank. It's not property that they could use regardless if the easement was there or not. In fact, it probably makes sense the discussion with Lombardo Homes a little easier. That's just the protected area. I think it's also, from my recollection, and we could verify this on the resource protection scenario, that's already protected under the natural resource protection standards. So the easement just provides a vehicle for access and a collective solution if a problem does arise. Okay.

And then, so that, that 50 foot, that's that on the plans, that's the line with the long piece and then the two short dashes.

Yes, I believe so. I was vain. I didn't bring my glasses down. So I'm going to have to depend on Mr. Newberry with his better eyes. Mr. Faulkner has better eyesight than me too. So he's saying yes.

All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. Ms. Schoenhofer.

I would just like to say that I like the fact that you have the good, the plantings along the street. I think that will be nice for the neighbors across the street who are very concerned that their view is going to be disturbed. How wide is that planting area between the two streets?

Based on the cross section, it's part of an overall, it's part of the overall easement, as I recall, for the private street itself. And I apologize, you should probably know that. I think we're looking at 1 to 20.

Eyeballing it, it looks like about 40 feet, but I could be wrong.

It's all slope, right?

Okay. So yeah, well, yeah. Yeah, that's just not clear. Private road. I think the overall area is about 20 feet.

The large scale plant is .

Yeah, it's actually the distance from State Highway T, the edge of its southern right-of-way to the edge of the easement is 45 feet. So we'll have the 20-foot road surface plus the remainder for the plant.

Okay, so we have, what is that, about 30 feet? Actually, you do this about 25. About 25 feet. So when you plant those things that you said the deciduous trees, so it would keep streetlight, I mean, headlights from going into the second or windows of the houses.

Well, the roads are parallel, so that shouldn't be too much.

But the house is lower, right?

Oh, yeah. I guess the side windows possibly.

So what I'd like to think is first and foremost, Grade difference will do a lot relative to when a new resident pulls out of the side entry garage, heads up the driveway to the private street. The elevation change will block those headlights from going across the street onto the property. As they turn onto the private street, what we'll be able to do, hopefully, is offset some of the light that comes from the roadway itself that would drift just because it was They're here and here. As you know, the LED headlights, they go everywhere anymore. So we're hopefully between the deciduous trees, the evergreen trees and lower shrubs, we can cover it all and do our best to mitigate the lights from vehicles.

Okay. So if I'm understanding correctly, how it's here, the streets here. So the entrances to that side street, will they go, will they be elevated like this?

Could you repeat it again, please?

If Highway T is here.

Got it.

And the sub street is here.

Got it.

To get from the sub street up to Highway T, will they have to go up?

There is a slight incline, yes.

It's not bad, right?

I would defer to Mr. Faulkner. I suspect it's less than 5%. Perfect. 4%.

Great. Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Jackson.

The only question I have, do you know what type of trees? I was kind of looking. Where I'm going, we had a meeting at one point where I think Bradford pears are going to be eliminated because they break it and all that stuff. Just pointing that out, the right tree, so there's no issues in the future. I'll leave that between you and them for sure.

It's always nice to have a reminder. And now that we have a full-time arborist on city staff, we get the plantings right. Just as a kind of a sidebar, I think over the years, you coming to City Hall, you've noticed that our street trees out along Main Street and the other areas here in Town Center, we replaced it. We were replacing them almost every year. We've had now one set of stock for two plus years and going on three. So Mr. Walsh has paid for his salary many times over just in terms of putting trees in that last. But Mr. Walsh will be the arbiter on what trees are best for that particular situation. The nice thing is, unless there's a lot of fall off by Lombardo Homes, that soil is agricultural soil, so the trees should do very well there.

Councilman Marshall?

Yeah, I have a couple. So when the state redid Highway T, did they do anything to those underground drains that come across?

In terms of the resurfacing work, I think the only thing that I was told is they were going to make sure they were cleaned out. That's what I was told. Mr. Nance may know more just because he's been out to this site more frequently than I.

There have been comments that they had backed up, and I just wondered when they were doing their work if they did clean them out.

Hmm.

I have been out there several times. They seem to be cleaned out. I haven't seen, and during heavy rains, it's been flowing pretty good.

There's no bears in there. Maybe a raccoon, but no bears. Thank you. My second question, Commissioner Halbridge answered the one about the space on the trees. And so now that we have the protected area down towards the creek, don't we have provisions where somebody is not going to come in and fence in a three acre lot? They can't put fencing in the national, in the protected area, correct? Correct.

And occasionally we have somebody and inevitably that does. then it's either the Board of Adjustment variance or it's a relocation of the fence. In this particular instance, as part of the record plat, and you'll see this at City Council, we'll basically put no obstructions in that easement that's to the benefit of the HOA. Obviously, trees, they want to do landscaping, but anything like that. As we know, it just collects debris, and then the debris causes the eddies to flow in the water, and then it just becomes another erosive agent.

It's just a lot easier to do it out front.

Yep, it certainly is.

Thank you.

I finally learned that after 30 years. Members of the Site Plan Subcommittee, are there any other questions for Lombardo Homes, Sterling Engineering, or the Department of Planning? If not, the Department of Planning would respectfully request a motion, second, and voice vote to proceed forward with the recommendation report for the Planning and Zoning Commission at its September meeting.

Motion to approve is presented.

All right, motion by Commissioner Jackson, second by Commissioner Rubis. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, voice vote OK. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion carries. Thank you.

Members of the site plan subcommittee, we are done at 6 o'clock. So you have a little bit of time to relax, if you like. Are we still on?

All right.

Yeah. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second by Councilman Marshall. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain?

All right. We're adjourned for 30 minutes. I'd like to welcome everyone to

Thank you. I must have double-clicked it or something. We're calling roll to those on Zoom. Mayor Garitano?

Here. I can hear you now. Thank you.

Thanks for the heads up, Mayor. Commissioner Boren?

I'm here.

I can hear you now.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Deppler? Here. Thank you.

All right, thank you. So can I get an approval of the minutes from the July 6 meeting, please? Motion by Councilman Marshall, second by Commissioner Helfrey. Any discussion? All right, seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? All right, motion carries. Thank you. So let's hear. Are there any public comments for tonight, Mr. Newberry?

Mr. Chair, if I could, please.

Oh, yeah, Department of Planning opening comments. I'm sorry.

No problem. Thank you. Again, I'd just like to acknowledge that Ms. Wheeler is standing in for Mr. Young tonight as our city attorney. So thank you.

And welcome back.

And we do have fresh coffee and water. So if there's anyone on the dais or in the audience tonight would like some, please help yourself. Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

Now, public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have one speaker card turned in here in the room, but we do have some on Zoom who may want to speak. If you would like to speak on a topic, if you're on Zoom and you would like to speak on an agenda item that is not listed as a public hearing, please use the raise hand feature, and then we'll acknowledge you at that time. The first speaker is Mr. Cummings.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Tom Cummings. I'm with KB Capstone Homes, and I'm here tonight representing the Route 66 crossing development that was before you, I think it was last month or a few weeks ago anyway. If you have any questions or are there any questions online, I'd be happy to answer them at this time.

All right. Thank you. I think we're good for now. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, no additional speaker cards for the public comment session. And again, we do have a few on Zoom, but none have raised their hand. The only item on the agenda off of Babel Park Drive, as was referenced, is the electronic message board sign, which is at public hearing. It's the next agenda item.

That'll be coming up next. Have you filled out a speaker card? Yeah, if you want to speak on that, there are speaker cards at the back table as you come in.

Mr. Chair, if she wants, she can speak and then fill it out before she leaves. So whatever is best for her.

Well, that's a public hearing. So yeah, go ahead and start filling it out. It'll take me a minute to get to that point. So if there's no more public comment, we'll go into our public hearings. In the City of Wildwood, public hearings are truly intended to accept comments and questions concerning these posted items. Since these requests are being presented at a public hearing, no action is planned on these items tonight, and consideration of them is to be taken no earlier than the September 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This approach ensures the members of the commission will hear all opinions before taking any action. The city's Department of Planning will address the comments, questions, and concerns that are raised tonight and include them as part of its formal recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anyone in attendance at City Hall tonight wanting to speak should fill out a speaker's card and leave it with Mr. Newberry. Those in attendance via the Zoom webinar platform should use the raise hand feature to indicate you wish to speak at these hearings. A team member will add you to the list of speakers, which will then be communicated to me as chair, and I will invite you to speak when it is your turn. The public hearing process is outlined in the public hearing guidelines pamphlet, which can be found on the table at the entry to the council chambers as well. The Commission will allow all parties adequate time to present their position. As outlined in the Public Hearing Guidelines pamphlet, those individuals representing themselves will be allocated three minutes to speak. Speakers who are designated as a group speaker representing more than five individuals will be allocated five minutes to speak. In addition, information on these items can be found on the city's website at www.cityofwildwood.com. The commission would like to thank you for your cooperation and participation at tonight's hearing. So, PZ 10-26, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first public hearing tonight before the Planning and Zoning Commission is PZ 10-26, Rockwood School District, Cara Piro Signs, Incorporated, 1818 Old State Road, Unit M, Barnhart, Missouri, 63012. a request for a conditional use permit cup in the nu non-urban resident district for a sixty eight point seven acre tract of land that is located on the north side of babbler park drive state route ba east of its intersection with pond road rockwood valley middle school Street address, 1220 Babler Park Drive, St. Louis County locator number 21W230062. Proposed use, a permanent electronic message center, EMC, IE sign, to be operated in association with the existing middle school with accessory uses. This particular property is located in Ward 3, And Mr. Newberry has a slide presentation that he would like to provide at this time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, what follows is a brief slides to show presentation, just showing some exhibits of the property. The first is an aerial of the location of the school property on State Route BA or Babler Park Drive. Next is just a closer image. And then the next slide identifies the proposed location of the sign where the star is. And it is where the existing monument sign with changeable copy is located, which you'll see in the following photographs. The first of the photographs is looking to the east on Babler Park Drive. And you can see the existing monument sign again. That is the proposed location of the EMC. That is just a closer view of the existing sign. And then this is looking towards the west. And that's Babler Park Drive in the front there. And this is standing at the location of the sign looking back to the east and to the west. And this is standing at the existing sign looking towards the school building itself, which is far removed from the roadway. And then this is just a view from across the street from where the sign is located. And this is an image that was submitted by the sign company showing the sign. There was some clarification that needed to be provided. What is proposed here is not the images on the sign are not permitted under the underlying regulations for EMCs. And that will be addressed through the process. And that concludes the department's presentation. And I would note Mr. Phillips with Piro's sign, who is representing the school district, is in attendance at tonight's meeting.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Are there any questions or comments from the commission?

All right.

Yeah. Mayor Garitano. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to comment because I wanted to make sure for any of our attendees, but also for the petitioner that the image, and I do thank Travis Newberry for pointing that out because that would be misleading as that's not a permitted use requirement. based on our regulations. The true spirit of the changes that Wildwood has enacted is providing an automation of what is already there today. And we've also enacted other regulations that prohibit the sign from changing. Only changes are allowed once every hour. And then the sign will turn off, I believe it is at 10 o'clock at night, and turns on, I believe, either at 6 or 7. But, Joe, if you want to just state those hours to correct me, that would be great. But I think it's important for our residents to know that these signs are being regulated so that we are automating what is already there today. This does not open the door for the kind of video graphics that you may see in some other communities that could be distracting to drivers.

All right. Thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. You may want to ask if Mr. Phillips would like to add anything during the public hearing since he is the petitioner.

Mr. Phillips, do you have anything to add?

Good evening, I'm Joe Phillips. I'm with Pyro Signs. Just to clarify, the image that is on there is a stock image. So I'll be honest, that is something that goes on basically every drawing that we do with this type of sign. The sign will be pre-programmed and is programmed to meet whatever city criteria there are out there when it comes to its function, how often it can change, the dimming of the light in the evening as well, as well as it'll be made to where it will turn off between, I think it's 10 to 6 is what I had read in the code for the operating hour. So it will be turned off at 10 p.m. and it cannot be turned back on until 6 a.m. That will be based on a time clock that will be set up for the sign itself. Basically, the sign will be programmed to meet whatever the criteria is, and we've gone through the criteria, and it's been provided to the school as well, not only for this sign, but for the previous one that the board looked at as well. So they will mirror each other as far as its function and its capabilities. So the sign is not meant to be a distraction. It's not meant to be a full video board. It's meant basically to, as the mayor had said, portray the messages that are currently on a manual reader board, just in electronic form to where they're not going out and changing them or people aren't changing them for them. So when people like to go by. But that is basically what the sign is going to be used for. It will not be used for video display purposes. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I have a question. I believe Mr. Rubis has a question as well.

Yes. Are you aware of any other Rockwood schools that are applying for signs or have the intention of putting these signs up?

Between Lafayette and this one?

Yes.

As of this moment, I do not know of any others. So these are the only two we've been contracted for at this moment.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Mr. And I want to be corrected by making the wrong assumption. These signs can be programmed.

I believe so on this one, this one may be yes, because of the distance between the building and the sign itself. I don't think it's going to be hardwired. I don't believe.

just wanted again that's one of the concerns we've heard from the school district over the years is just having two employees go out to the sign and struggle with it in all types of weather and conditions etc thank you thank you commissioner how free so since it's wi-fi how easy is it to uh for someone to get into it and hack it since we're worried about signs getting changed

We've been installing these on a regular basis that I know of since 2010. The first time, I think, a lot of the major universities, their football stadiums are done that way as well. They're not hardwired. They are done by Wi-Fi. And we've never been contacted over anybody ever hacking those. So they have a full security software package that's a part of those. The company we use is based out of South Dakota. They're one of the largest companies. electronic sign manufacturers in the world. They have an IT department to, I guess, be envious of, but we have never had one of our signs be reported as to being hacked by anyone.

Okay. And you did say that your signs are dimmable so that they meet our lighting guidelines, right?

Absolutely. They dim automatically. I'm going to say once again, a Daktronic sign is considered like the Cadillac of the electronic signs that you have out there. Once again, once the sign is put up, if the city goes out, if they've got a complaint over the brightness, the light can be checked. If it is deemed to be too bright, that's just a simple flip of a switch for us to dim the sign even further. So the basic dimming of the sign will go down to about 5% of its light usage in the evening automatically.

Thank you.

And so you said that there aren't any of the other schools in the city that are looking at these right now?

At this moment, I have not been contacted from any of the others. So I cannot speak to, we have a salesman who handles this account. He has not come forth to me asking about any further permitting for any other school in the city. Gotcha.

I'm just thinking, we've got two other middle schools and I figured they might be on their way, but...

Honestly, I really don't know. Okay.

That's fair.

It may have been Green Dines Elementary. I may have got an inquiry about that, but it's been a little bit of time and have not heard back from anybody.

Okay. I've heard the story about their message board being someone losing the key. But LaSalle and Wildwood Middle were the two that had come to my mind. Mayor Garitano?

Yeah, I mean, since this has come up about what other schools, I think it's a good time to make sure for folks that are watching or in attendance that the regulation that has allowed for signs is very specific. It limits it only to political subdivision. That means that They only have the ability to tax. And that means basically a fire protection district like a firehouse or a public school district or a municipal building. That is it. No other uses by any of the others that I haven't mentioned would be allowed. But I think that is a question that sometimes folks may have that, you know, this is a very limited facility.

population uh of use of areas that can use these signs all right thank you thank you all very much i appreciate it thank you um mr newberry do we have speaker cards um the uh person in the audience who mentions that they'd like to speak okay

I can maybe, thank you.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Stuckmeyer.

You have to come up to the microphone, sir. Are you on mute? Yes, sir.

Whichever one of you wants to speak, if you can come up to the mic.

Got the information.

in the mail. We were unclear as to what it meant that there was a center, a permanent message center. So we thought building was going to be put up right on our prop prop practically on our property. So this meeting has clarified that it's just a sign and I know exactly where that sign is. One question I do have

All right. Can you go ahead and give your name and address, please?

Sure. Mary Ann Struckmeyer, 1300 Babler Park Drive.

All right. Thank you.

Go ahead. And you may have said something about this already, but is that signed for purposes of school information only? The police department can't say school's in a lockdown or there's a fire situation. two blocks down or anything like that. It's just school information.

Correct. It's for the school and just to replace the manual sign that they have out there right now.

So that was our concern. Okay, thank you. You have any other concerns?

What I got?

Another

um there's something else later about about that tonight yeah thank you although yeah that's um in the public site development plans i believe mr vunich

To clarify, Babler Elementary School and Lafayette High School would like to add two small outbuildings, one on each campus, and the outbuildings are approximately 120 square feet in size.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Mr. Mr. Chair, the department's received no additional speaker cards in the room. Again, if you are on in attendance on zoom, they'd like to use the raise hand feature. We'll give them a moment. Not seeing any raised hands on zoom.

Okay.

All right. If there's no other questions or concerns from the commission, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? All right. Motion by Commissioner Rubis. Is there a second by Commissioner health free? All those any discussion? All those in favor of closing this first public hearing say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion passes. Thank you. And so now our second public hearing, PZ13-26, Mr. Newberry.

Easy 13-26 city of wildwood planning and zoning commission care of department of planning 1, 6, 8, 6, 0, main street, wildwood, Missouri, 6, 3, 0, 4, 0, a request for the consideration of the disillusion of the city of wildwoods architecture review board by deleting in its entirety chapter 415.220 architectural review board requirements of the code of ordinances while also evaluating other certain changes to chapter 415.030 definitions and also inclusive of chapter 415.380. miscellaneous regulations of the same code of ordinances specifically relative to section i two items a through e architectural review in all zoning districts accompanying these previously described items is the determination of alternative review processes and standards for architectural evaluations and actions within the city of wildwood all wards all right thank you mr newberry mr vunich

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight of zoning primer relative to this particular topic that was just read into the record by Mr. Newberry. As you know, with the adoption of the town center plan, one of the recommendations of the author of the plan, Andres Duany, and his team was to create an architectural review board for the city, given the complexity and the number of architectural guidelines associated with said plan. The city council must immediately follow through with that recommendation from Mr. Duany. and created an advisory architectural review board to address incoming or proposed developments within Town Center that almost immediately began after the adoption of the plan in February of 1998. Subsequently, a permanent architectural review board was established by city council It was memorialized in the zoning ordinance under its police powers and has been functioning since that time. One of the problems that Olmos was immediately faced was that finding qualified architects under the requirements of the ordinance to serve. And for many years, those architects served not just one term or two terms, but multiple terms, in some instances, almost 10 to 12 years. The reason being is, based on the St. Louis chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the AIA, there are only 14 registered licensed architects that call Wildwood home, and many of them had already served on the Architectural Review Board. Complicating this issue was the passage of a charter amendment that limited volunteers on the city's boards, commissions, and other entities to no more than two terms and thereafter had to step aside. What that meant was besides a limited pool of architects, now after those that had served two terms, they were no longer eligible for reappointment. Steps were made to address this consideration. One of the first amendments to the Architectural Review Board was to allow not only architects, but landscape architects, engineers, and urban planners. That solution worked for a bit, but again, getting those qualified individuals on the board, given many of them were in practice and busy, became difficult as well. Subsequently, the next change was to allow any resident to be part of the board. Unfortunately, what that meant is we had professional architects presenting to lay people. And oftentimes, the communications suffered. So most recently, as part of an effort by the city council to reduce the number of boards, commissions, ad hoc groups, and others, a decision was made to dissolve the architectural review board and replace it and ultimately the recommendation that came out of the planning and parks committee of city council eight of the sixteen members of city council and affirmed by the full city council was to engage a consultant on retainer that is a licensed practicing architect or architectural firm and have them provide that service. The cost would be borne by the developer, not the taxpayers of Wildwood. So tonight, the department is presenting to you the first step in that process, and that's a public hearing to obtain comments from you as the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as anyone in attendance, the public, on the proposed change. The process, very simply, would be as follows. Any project in Town Center, including single family dwellings, would be subject to architectural review. It would also continue to capture any institutional use outside town center and any other buildings or structures other than single-family detached dwellings. The applicant would submit to the Department of Planning. The Department of Planning would do a cursory review, ensuring that any components in the site-specific ordinance or the underlying code were met. Then that set of comments would be submitted back to the applicant. A resubmittal would follow, and then that resubmittal would be provided to the architect that's now the consultant to the city. That consultant would provide comments based upon the guidelines in the town center plan and the general guidelines for architecture outside town center in the zoning ordinance. Those comments would be returned to the Department of Planning, forwarded to the applicant. A resubmittal would be provided from the applicant to the city. That would be then submitted to the architect consultant. And then if satisfactory, the Planning and Zoning Commission now is the arbiter and decision-making regarding architectural review in the city of Wildwood. Thereafter, your recommendation and action would be forwarded to City Council for receipt and file. This has been discussed, as I said, by the Planning and Parks Committee of City Council and endorsed by the full City Council. And tonight, Department would like to present that process to you. accept any comments, and then ultimately with the assistance of the city attorney and Ms. Wheeler and the department, a set of requirements will be presented to you to form the new architectural review board process in the city of Baldwin. If there are any questions about the background that's been provided or the steps in the process as proposed, Mr. Newberry, Ms. Wheeler, and I would be glad to address them at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Are there any questions? Commissioner Halfrey?

Mr. Vinnich, you said it was everything outside of Town Center except for, with the exception of single-family homes. So would the architecture have anything to do with a large development project? Or would that just be engineers and such?

Architect would have responsibility for review of any building or structure in town center and any building and structure outside town center except single-family detached dwellings. So we do that now. So institutional uses like places of worship, schools etc outside town center those go under the review of the city from an architect would it be like a big neighborhood they wouldn't have to do anything with that no but like in the case of a site plan subcommittee's discussion tonight the reserve at st albans no architectural review is required okay so i just have one more question and it's about the money

I think that you said that the cost would then be passed on to the developer. So there's not a whole lot to develop, I guess, but maybe there is. But let's say we have one development in five years. That development is going to have to eat the cost for five years for an architect.

Well, each developer that submits a set of drawings for architectural review by the city would provide a stipend, so to speak. We're working on what that might be. So a couple of examples. Ms. Ripito, our assistant director in the department, was the director of planning at Town & Country. They did this for their board of adjustment, and they would obtain from the applicant $5,000 and draw down on that if any money was remaining after the conclusion of the board's action, it would be to return to the developer. We've asked the architect that submitted a response to the request for qualifications to provide us an estimate. And what we did is we provide them provided them a single family home on one lawn and the St. Louis Community College on the other. And they did their 500, almost 500,000 square foot new STEM and health sciences building to give them the context of what they might see to basically develop a fee rate. And then that fee rate would be reviewed by the city and ultimately authorized by city council. The intent is to forego the taxpayers paying for this service because our volunteers on the Architectural Review Board received no compensation.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Rubis? So the architect, the consultant architect, he's strictly going to be a consultant to the city, right? So the developer doesn't pick the architect.

No, this would be a architect selected through our request for qualifications process, submitting detailed information that was requested of them as part of our interview that we held last week. And then ultimately, yes, being a consultant to the city. The department did acknowledge in that interview to the architectural firm, if you do business with home builders, beware. They may not appreciate you working for the city. They don't. And then the other warning was, if you don't and plan to, you're probably not going to be able to because some of the developers may not like what you've told them they have to do, and that might poison the well for you. So they understand that. They do not do residential architectural work now and don't intend to. And they stayed on the interview after those two warnings.

So the process would be the city would put out an RFQ and build a bank of architects who are willing to do this for the city. And then when a developer comes in the city selects from this bank and assigns one of these architects to?

That would be a great scenario. What we did with the request for qualifications is we sent it to the St. Louis chapter of the AIA. We sent it to many of the architects that have presented to the board, many of the architects that have served on the board, and then placed it on our website, et cetera. We got one response. The response, though, is a very good response. In fact, I know one of, it's a pair of architects, husband and wife, and the husband, the architect of the two, the two architects, one, the husband, actually designed the pavilion in Community Park and did a wonderful job, I think.

Just out of curiosity, of the other municipalities in St. Louis, how many of them have a full architectural review board?

Very few. And in fact, if they do, oftentimes they allow architects that are not residents to sit on the board because they may have a business in town. They may have done projects in town. I think it's very unusual anymore. The way it was described to us many, many years ago is If you can have local architects review local projects, it's the best case scenario. But right now, we're just struggling with that. And it's no slight or criticism of our current architectural review board. It's just from the director's perspective. And I've sat in almost every architectural review board since 1995. It's just complicated, and you need to have architects talking to architects to really get the best product out of the process.

All right. And so as a follow-up, since you said most of the communities don't, which makes sense given how small so many of the cities in St. Louis County are, of the ones that don't, how many of them do something similar to what we're proposing?

We did an analysis for the Planning and Parks Committee. I want to say it was a handful that do it this way. Some do it, as I say, they allow architects that have offices in the community or have provided work to the community to do that service. um but i don't remember certainly as part of the report the information report that you'll receive will regenerate that survey and make it part of the information that you are provided but as i say um The other thing that separates Wildwood from other municipalities, I know of no other of the 87 municipalities that are in St. Louis County that have term limits on their volunteers.

I mean, yeah. I'll refrain from my comments on that move.

Well, I'm shaking my head, and you can take from that my comment on it.

I remember something you told me several years ago about this happening.

Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment department be more appreciative to hear.

Do we have any cards, Mr. Newberry?

Mr. Chair, no cards from the room. And we do have some folks with us on Zoom. They'd like to speak. Use the raise hands feature.

All right. Motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Helfrey and Commissioner Jackson seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Any abstain? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda, PZ7-26 and 7A and B-26, Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. PZ7-26, Route 66, Villas, Care of KB, Capstone Homes, 2646 State Route 109, Suite 100B, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change to the Town Center Regulating Plan from the Workplace District Designation to the Neighborhood General District Designation for a 12.17 acre parcel of ground generally located on the north side of Manchester Road across from Old Fairway Drive, St. Louis County, Locator Number 23U, one one zero zero six three property address one six seven zero one manchester road which is on c eight plain commercial district st louis county action from nineteen ninety one more eight p seven a and seven b dash twenty six sixty six villas care of k b capstone homes two six four six state route one o nine sweet one hundred b wildwood missouri six three zero four zero a request for a change in zoning district designation for a parcel of ground that is currently identified in the c8 plain commercial district town center workplace district to the r6a 4 000 square foot residence district with a planned residential development overlay district all being in association with a parcel of ground that is 12.17 acres in size and generally located on the north side of Manchester Road across from Old Fairway Drive, St. Louis County, locator number 23U-110063, property address 16701 Manchester Road. Proposed use, 39 attached single-family dwellings in clusters of two and three units, with the associated street and pedestrian networks, along with public rights-of-way dedications and improvements, stormwater management facilities, and required public spaces. Ward 8.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration its information report with recommendation regarding this particular set of requests. As Mr. Newberry read into tonight's record, there are three components to this request. First, a regulating plan change to the town center plan. As you know, the regulating plan is the land use map for town center. And in this particular instance, this particular site, the 12 acres that form the tract of land, has been designated workplace district since 1998. In that time, there have been proposals submitted relative to the 12-acre site, but none of those proposals were ever for a workplace-type use, a commercial utilization. They were for multiple family, market rate apartments, and then several proposals for senior care facility or senior care housing. This particular proposal, as was described by Mr. Newberry, is for attached villas. Those villas would be in the form of two to three unit clusters, forming the total of 40. As you can see from the preliminary development plan. The intent is to access the property at two points from Manchester Road, Historic Route 66, and there are two separate components due to those access points. The two access points and the two components of the proposal reflect a couple of features of the site. First, the creek that bisects it in a north-south direction, and the historic roadbed of Route 66. The intent is to avoid any disturbance in the creek area. The intent is to preserve the original roadbed of historic Route 66 and not disturb that. And in fact, the intent of the developer is to dedicate that particular roadbed and an area adjoining the roadbed in the northwest corner of the property to the City of Wildwood for its historic preservation efforts and public park purposes. The department has provided a favorable recommendation regarding the three components, noting in the analysis portion of the report that the regulating plan change is supported given the limited interest in commercial development in the city's town center, and in principle, the fact that this particular site is directly across the street from the enclaves at Cherry Hills, a well-established and beautiful residential area. Also, again, it is separated from the commercial core of this eastern part of town center, by the shape of the lot, the intersection of Route 100 and Manchester Road on the eastern tip. And then finally, the institutional uses to the west. Also, as part of the discussion, the master plan has designated the town center area as an area suitable for higher density residential And in this particular instance, the 40 units on 12 acres is a reasonable density relative to the master plan and its designation. The zoning changes in PRD are consistent with the neighborhood general designation. And in that particular instance, the description of neighborhood general allows actually from the R111 R1 to R1A, all the way to the R6A, which is being requested here. Street and other infrastructure are consistent with the town center. There are some alterations relative to the fire marshal, which is the 26.1 foot wide pavement areas, but that does allow for parking on one side of the street, which is a key component. There are some additional on-street spaces that are programmed as well. And the streets themselves align well with existing curb cuts to the south. and seem at this stage to meet the minimal site distance requirements, which we discussed relative to the reserve at St. Albans. Additionally, the design includes front porches. It does have front entry garages, but I believe the front entry garages more function of several factors, environmental factors. the desire of the Development and Zoning Review Committee of the City of Wildwood to retain as much of the existing woodlands along Manchester Road, the protection of the creek from any disturbance, and then, again, just the shape of the lot precludes a lot of flexibility. Architectural guidelines, again, will be based upon the recommendation before you. And then finally, as with any project in the City of Wildwood, any of the other service providers, that being the Metropolitan St. Louis Sur District, Metro West Fire Protection District, and all the utilities, and their requirements must be met. In the attachment B, the development conditions, all of the components that have been described in the analysis are addressed and expanded upon to the point that the Department of Planning believes design the proposal and all components associated with such are reasonable at this location and is recommending a favorable action by the commission tonight after a motion and second the department will be available to answer any questions and thank you again for your attention all right thank you mr vernich um any discussion or emotion commissioner halfrey um i'll make a motion

I'll make a motion to accept that we can discuss.

All right, motion by Commissioner Helfrey. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Clayton. All right. Question, Commissioner Helfrey?

Well, first of all, I just want to say thank you to the developer for answering specifically my two questions on pages 19 and 20 about the various creek areas. And the second was about how would Route 66 pavement be protected. So I'm grateful for that because they specifically answered my questions. However, You knew it was too easy, right? One of the things I have a question on is I see where you speak about and this may be for you or the developer, I don't know, protecting Route 66 during construction. But once construction is over and people are living there and trash trucks are going up and down the street and Amazon trucks are going up and down the street and Federal Express trucks and UPS trucks, all those major big trucks, how is that going to affect that strip of Route 66 that they will be going over? And how will the winter snow plows and the salt affect that piece of the road? So I do have a question about, that's my question about that. I noticed on this where it says better plan, we have just sub streets with turnarounds. Is that correct? Those are whatever those things like the choo-choo train does, the train. Okay, and then for the porch requirement for town center, is it that the garage has to start 15 feet back from the porch?

Well, yes, as it reads in the neighborhood design standards, when the plan was updated in 2018 by the volunteer group, one of which was you, we required the garage doors to be at least 15 feet wide. to the rear or to the back of the front porch. We've not obtained that in many instances. Typically, what we see is anywhere from six to eight feet is the distance. But to offset that reduction in distance, we require carriage doors with windows and other architectural treatments in the garage area. Very similar, for example, to Grover Crossing, which is on Manchester Road, McBride Project, where we added almost like a port-a-de-che or a treatment there to soften the look.

Okay, so my hope would be that we would really work towards getting towards that 15-foot setback. That's my hope. Okay, then the last thing I would ask would be how many parking spaces about for each home? And then is that the mailboxes, the area next to Route 66, is that what that is?

Yes, as you know, the Postal Service now requires mailbox clusters. There's no individual delivery to any of the homes, at least in Wildwood, anymore. So yes. And so each unit has a two-car garage, and each unit has two spaces as part of the driveway leading to the two-car garage. The city has been criticized by some relative to the distance from the garage doors to the budding sidewalk or adjoining sidewalk. So in the instance of the attachment, we're making sure that regardless of what type of vehicle, whether it's a small sports car to a large pickup truck, that there's ample space so as the sidewalk isn't blocked. So four per lot, which on a lot of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet is substantial. And also he advised that attached villas usually have a particular market or demographic market And they're not large families with lots of kids. They're usually empty nesters or seniors, those seeking a smaller footprint in terms of their dwelling and the ease of common maintenance.

Well, you said that on these streets, there will be one side for parking. Does that also apply to that strip of homes over on the other side as well?

Yes, and it's always the side of the street that's non-hydrant. So wherever the fighter hydrants are placed, that's no parking. The opposite side can accommodate short-term parking. And again, in our city code, the traffic code basically says you can't park on a street for over 24 hours. So it is really temporary parking, at least intended.

Thank you.

I want to talk to you about protecting the two crossings of Route 66. I haven't quite figured that out yet. What I will tell you, though, is the petitioner understands the importance of that and just not sure what type of protection will be best. There is no intent to salt because it parallels the street, but there will be a couple of areas, again, as you've noticed, that we just need to kind of feather it out a little bit more.

Okay, so I'm going to just ask a question. I'm not an architect. I'm not a planner. But if you took the, in front of, I think it's the Unit 24 building, and it's got that little turnaround in front of it, why could you not move that to the end of the street and maybe get at least just the turnaround off of Route 66? And then you'd only be crossing it in one spot.

I'm sure there's a couple of things. There's probably topographic considerations. And then also, I know they've struggled to figure out the stormwater basin situation, but I will ask. And before you receive the draft letter of recommendation, we'll have either a response saying it can be done or can't be done. And if it can't be done, why? It's a good question and we'll follow up.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich.

You're welcome. Looking at the map, it looks like there's a drop-off right there, if those are topo lines. Right.

Yeah.

Mr. Rubin?

I did have one question. Is there going to be a mailbox cluster for both streets?

That'll be the department's intent because having people drive out onto Manchester Road to get to the other section and then back, it's just not good planning.

All right. That's what I wanted to make sure of. Commissioner Rubis?

Attachment B, the list of conditions. Access roadways number C. It's dedicate the necessary amount of land area for right-of-way purposes with all easements and lights for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Old Fairway and Manchester. Is the developer just dedicating the ground? Who's building the roundabout?

Well, as you know, as a resident of the enclaves, when you pull up to the intersection of Old Fairway Drive and Manchester Road, it seems like there's a sea of asphalt there. In fact, if you use the stop bar, you can't see down the road. The reason being is we did get a dedication, an extra land area dedication for right-of-way purposes for a future roundabout. So the intent is to get an equal amount so a roundabout can be constructed. As I recall, we received a special escrow from the development entity of the enclaves at Cherry Hills for future construction. And that would be the case here. We would accept the special escrow funds for the construction of it by the city.

So I agree with the roundabout because that is a bad, bad intersection. But who's going to build it? Who's going to be the, is it a city project?

Yes, we'll use escrows collected from the two developers on either side, and the city would initiate and build the project.

Will the roundabout be part of the development?

That's a very good question. Timing, I don't know. That's something that the Department of Public Works, Rick Brown, our director, and the Department of Planning will have to discuss with our city administrator. Hopefully, I can give you more insights in about a month.

Because we've identified the problem, come up with a solution. But I don't want the solution to come after the development's in and we've exacerbated the problem.

That is a very logical approach, sir. And it's now part of the record. So thank you.

yeah go ahead premature shutdown uh i i sounds like an aeronautical turn i i see the retention area there is is there intended to be a water feature or lighted water feature or whatever always remember retention's wet detention's dry So there will be like a fountain or something.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, that was the intent. And as you know, fountains are aesthetic, but they also help avoid those algae blooms in the hot weather of summer. Mr. Clayton. Mr. Clayton.

We found that all the things that have been facilitated

That's a very good question. That's one of the higher voltage lines. Typically, the lesser, the 34 kV and above, they're just really, really expensive to underground. So we're going to do a little bit more investigation. The way the conditions are worded now, all new and existing utilities on the site have to be underground. But I think that particular line is going to create an issue. I don't know. I mean, you're my expert in electrical. I know it's the 34 kV, then it steps down to...

It's 34 kV.

I think they... Yeah, understood. They...

We can't hear online. Oh, yeah, sorry.

So sorry. The foliage nooks at the driveway seems to be built to have a lead go to the north across the highway, tie in, perhaps allow that segment to be eliminated.

Well, Mr. Cummings is here tonight, so we'll ask him to do that bit of homework and get another response. But I can assure you, years ago when Reliance Bank was developing the two lots in front of Village Plaza, we were going to require them to underground that line. And it was almost as much as the project. At least that's what I was told, and I can believe it. Because our first streetscape project on Manchester Road, we were going to underground all the utilities. And there's some major lines on the south side of Manchester Road. And it was the same cost as the project, so it doubled it. So we left the lines in place. We relocated them. And any of the lines that crossed Manchester from north to south that could be underground, we did. But the others, we didn't. Commissioner Rubis?

Yeah, if underground is not in the offing, at least replace the poles with something more attractive than... We'll see what we can do.

Certainly, that's a least cost option versus undergrounding what I know is going to be a very, very expensive process.

Any other discussion from the commission? Commissioner Depler?

Sorry, having trouble getting my camera on. So I was just curious if there had been any traffic studies or anything like that performed yet, because a lot of the public comment has been around the impact on traffic, because this is, you know, a pretty densely populated area in Town Center, and I can see their concerns with the additional houses along this thoroughfare.

Mr. Depler, good question. As you know, from 2018, when we updated the town center plan, we did engage HR Green to do an overall town center traffic study. We, as the city, provided HR Green what we thought was the the future development based upon the regulating plan land use categories. At this time, it was commercial here versus 40 dwellings. So we have a general idea of the traffic associated with a project like this and the counts on Manchester Road. But we are requiring a traffic study analysis as part of the recommendation. And as you know, we get that at the time of site development plan. If the traffic analysis indicates that additional improvements are needed or it brings the level of service to an E or F here, then you have the authority not to approve plan.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate that.

You're welcome, ma'am.

Commissioner Humphrey.

Mr. Vittich, where on the drawing is the pocket part?

Where the lake is. Yep.

Thank you.

All right. If there's nothing else. Thank you. Roll call vote to approve the plan as recommended.

Commissioner Clayton.

Yes.

Commissioner.

Excuse me. Make it easier for us. Commissioner Deppler?

No.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes.

Commissioner Boren? Yes.

Commissioner Helfrey? Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes.

Council Member Marshall? Yes.

And Mayor Garitano? No.

he may have stepped away um he texted me and said that yeah the mayor let me know that he might need to step away for a second um seven to to one with one uh two absent at this time all right motion passes thank you

All right. Next on the agenda, PZ 11 and 12-26, Mr. Vunich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PZ 11-26, Covert Coursera Building and Development Inc., PO Box 280, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change in zoning from the Indian Non-Urban Resident District to the R3 10,000-square-foot resident district upon a property that is one acre in size which is located on the east side of west avenue south of manchester road located number twenty four forty two zero zero six five street address seventeen zero five two manchester road the subject property is designated neighborhood edge district under the current town city regulating plan proposed use one single family dwelling on the existing legal nonconforming lot This particular property is located in Ward 8. And companion request, PZ 12-26, Corsair Building Homes Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, PO Box 280, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change in zoning from the NU non-urban resident district to the R3 10,000 square foot resident district upon a property that is 0.95 acres in size, which is located on the east side of West Avenue, south of Manchester Road. Locator number 24V420296. Street address 17058 Manchester Road. The subject property is designated Neighborhood Edge District under the current town center regulating plan. Proposed use, one single family dwelling on an existing legal non-conforming lot. This too is located in Ward 8. Thank you, Chair.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Vernich. Mr. Dumary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I came unprepared tonight. I don't have my clicker. So while I present, I'll only have one of the two properties highlighted. The other property in relation to this image is the corner property at West Avenue.

It's hit page down.

um so thanks for your patience with that um again mr chair members of the planning and zoning commission the department has prepared for your consideration a recommendation regarding the requested rezone change in zoning of these two properties both of these properties as was explained during the public hearing process are legal non-conforming lots they were platted in the early 1900s near their current size of one acre and slightly less than one acre And when the St. Louis County established their first set of zoning regulations in 1965, they were in the non-urban district. When the city incorporated in 1995, they were identified as the non-urban residence district. However, they are located in the town center and the neighborhood edge district. And that land use category anticipates a zoning that's different than non-urban residence district. So the petitioner is requesting that the properties have their zoning changed from the NU non-urban residence district to the R3 10,000 square foot residence district. Just to provide a few examples of similar requests in this immediate vicinity, similar situations were in existence on Lindy Lane. We had two lots that were changed in zoning from the non-urban residence district to the R3 10,000 square foot residence district. And then the developments that occurred along Center Avenue, Mr. Whalen's two subdivisions, Old Town Park and Wesley Park, as well as an individual lot on the west side of Center Avenue, again, had their zoning changed from the NU to the R3 10,000 square foot residence district. So the petitioner is proposing that with the change in zoning of the lots that there be one single family dwelling on each of the two lots, so a total of two additional homes in the area. Just to differentiate between the two properties, the property that's highlighted right now, the 17052, we'll call it the center lot, It will have access off of Manchester road, so there's not currently a curb cut there, but would need to be provided to access a new home. And then the 1 at the corner 1, 7058. The interested buyer is is proposing that the location be off of West Avenue, which is a partially improved public street. Also note that there are utilities in close proximity to these locations. And then, so as part of the department's recommendation, which is a favorable recommendation for the change in zoning of the properties, in its analysis, the properties, again, are located in the town center area. This type of zoning is anticipated in the town center. The lot sizes are appropriately dimensioned in size to accommodate the new homes. As part of the department's recommendation, it includes a 10-foot dedication along West Avenue to have the land area to complete the sidewalks and the town center streetscape on that side of West Avenue to complete the street, along with a special escrow to fund those improvements in the future. And then most importantly, as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the lots were platted in the early 1900s. They are legal but non-conforming, and the change in zoning of the property addresses this non-conformity. And lastly, I'll conclude by pointing out that in the report there is a table that identifies a number of items that are required by the town center plan and then the underlying zoning district relative to setback distances landscaping architecture review garage location porches etc and that's in the department's analysis and its report and again i will conclude by saying the department's recommending approval of the change in zoning of these two properties Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Commissioner Helfrey?

I make a motion to approve the department's recommendation on both.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Helfrey, seconded by Commissioner Rubis. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Commissioner Decker? Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

Commissioner Rubens.

Yes.

Commissioner Bowen.

Yes.

Commissioner Humphrey. Yes. Council Member Marshall.

Yes.

Mayor Garitano. Chair Booty.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Low key wish we were changing it to commercial, but that's just me. I live right across the street. I'd love a storefront I could walk to. All right. Next on the agenda, PZ25-97, Mr. Newberry.

A response to a site development plan SDP submittal regarding a telecommunication facility that is located upon a 115-acre parcel of ground, Marianist Retreat Center being on the east side of State Route 109 across from Alt Road. Locator number 26V310045, street address 4000, State Route 109. conditional use permit in the NU non-urban residence district, which seeks an allowance to replace a set of existing antenna with new types of telecommunication tower and facility authorized by PZ25-97 Sprint Spectrum LP Marianist Retreat Center, thereby allowing the exterior arrays to extend over seven feet in lieu of the required 18 inches from the tower structure itself. The city's Chapter 430 of its municipal code regulations of placement of wireless facilities and wireless support structures set forth thresholds regarding substantial modifications to existing wireless support structures which are which are exceeded in the submittal causing the need for a new public hearing Ward six.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry, Mr. vintage.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the department has provided for your consideration tonight its information report with recommendation regarding this particular item. The item specifically is the owner of the tower, Crown Castle, has a co-locator on the facility. That co-locator is T-Mobile. T-Mobile would like to replace its existing antennas with a new set of arrays. The existing antennas are no greater than 18 inches from the surface of the tower. The new antenna would be approximately 84 inches from the tower. The change in the antenna would take a flagless flagpole and make it a more traditional monopole with an antenna array extending from it. The Department of Planning is supportive of the change in the antennas, and as part of its recommendation, has asked that the antennas be studied further so as the likeless flagpole, or as described in our code, a disguised support structure, retains much of its disguise. I would note that this particular facility is on the Marinist Retreat Center's property. And as you know, the Marinist Retreat Center's property is on Route 109 and one of the more aesthetically pleasing and stunning valleys in all of Wildwood. So therefore, historically, it has been under scrutiny over the years since 1997 to ensure that coverage strength of signal, and all components of a cellular facility can be met that does not detract from the condition of the area. And that's been the consistent theme now for 29 years. We support the antennas. The report reflects such and the recommendation. It's just there needs to be further study on the best approach to achieve it. And the wording and the attachment, I think, gives that flexibility. So tonight, a favorable report or your action. If there are any questions after a motion to second, the department would be glad to respond to them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Commissioner Helfrich?

Motion to approve is presented.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Jackson. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Helfrich. Commissioner Rubis?

Did we do one of the... Didn't we do one of these before, another tower where they were replacing the antenna? I can't remember where that one was. I think that was on Strecker Road and Clayton.

So the practice of the department relative to disguised support structures the practice of the Planning and Zoning Commission relative to the same and other telecommunications facility has been, if the existing array already extends well beyond the surface of the tower, we authorize it. If it is a disguised support structure, we accommodate it if it's within the confines of the allowance, which in some instances is either 12 inches, 18 inches, 24 inches, and now 36 inches at Clayton and Strecker Road, as I recall. So we're accommodating the advancement of the technology as the providers offer it. We've never faced a situation like this, where we have a disguised support structure on a retreat center, a religious retreat center, wanting to basically take a disguised support structure and make it a traditional monopole. In defense of the city, we approved a traditional monopole. We did it at St. Albarn Row Catholic Church. We put it next to an elevated water tank and they seem to work together just fine.

It does, it does. Okay, thanks.

All right, Commissioner Halfrey.

So I read all this and it says, well, first of all, I don't understand how they're going from 18 inches to seven feet. I mean, that's massive. So are they actually going to use seven feet or are they just throwing caution to the wind and going, we'll see what we can get?

The advertisement reviewed the plans and that truly is going to be 84 plus inches.

Okay, and so it's, according to the picture, there's not like trees behind it. Is that overlooking the Merrimack River? And so it's up pretty high. And so, I mean, they've got pretty unobstructed. I don't know. I have a big problem with the state telling us what we can and cannot say yes and no to. So that's number one. Number two in here, it says that if we approve this now, that then if they decide to do any changes later, then, oh, I missed it now. We have the ability to say yes. But what did it say? It says in here, it's highlighted, it says a modification would defeat previously imposed requirements for camouflaging. So if they decide to change it ever in the future, we can say yes or no, or are we still tied by the state?

Well, certainly both the federal and state government have stepped into this particular area of telecommunications very strongly. And certainly from the perspective of the city, we recognize our authority is limited at a certain point. But from the perspective of the city, we're not saying no to the antenna. Just provide a better solution. And we think there is a better solution. For example, at the intersection of Route 109 and Interstate 44, there is a flagless flagpole, pretty substantial structure. It had been untouched for many, many years, much like this one. Most of the antenna, if not all, were inside the sheath of the tower itself. Recently, they upgraded it. The top of the tower now has a bulging sheath, but the antenna are still inside the tower and the flag is still on the flagpole. So if it can be done there, why can't it be done here?

So can we do that? I mean, is there any way, are we doing anything like that? Are we not able to say anything? I mean.

Well, certainly there's a couple of components here. In that same condition in attachment B, it says that if the tower is ever replaced, meaning let's say eventually there's so many co-locators it needs to be 150 feet, then we'll basically say it should be all inside the tower. You have a new, you have a blank slate. Fix it and do it. The other is each year we renew this particular conditional use permit for the tower. And if it gets out of hand, then the renewal can be called into question.

Well, I guess if we can tell them when they go to replace the tower that they have to put everything inside, why can't we say that now?

Well, we've kind of let the cat out of the bag. We have a lot of exterior within the confines of a relative distance. And Travis would return to the photo or the plan sheet.

I mean, I realize we've let outside ones before, but this is just a massive amount.

So as you can see in the current elevation, despite the fact that we have a lot of exterior antennae, or antenna, it still is a very, I would say, nondescript disguised structure. Certainly on the other side, the proposed elevation at the highest elevation available on the tower, certainly can't say it is. And do I understand that we're basically at a disadvantage, certainly. But I know for the better part of 29 years, the intent was never to have this.

Right.

And if the federal and state governments say it is, fine. But for now, the Department of Planning is practicing good planning practice. And that's a follow through with the intent of the original city council and the planning and zoning commission when this was granted. And until the commission or council tell me differently, I think it's the responsibility of Mr. Newberry and I to do what we were told to do.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich.

You're welcome.

The hand raise, that's not someone from, that's not the petitioner, is it?

It appears to be a representative from the Crown Castle.

Mr. Chair, I would recommend, unless the attorney tells us differently, the opportunity to comment on other items outside the public hearings. Was that the start of the meeting? Not now.

Okay. All right.

And we're not singling anyone out. That's been our practice for the past 10 years. Mayor Bowen was elected to that position. Certainly, I would recommend if they have any comments to submit them in writing, and we'll have that ready to go with the draft of the letter of recommendation relative to your action at the first meeting in September.

Okay. Any further discussion? Thank you. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Commissioner Doppler? Yes. Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Boren? Yes. Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes.

And Mayor Garitano is with us.

The motion passes, Chair. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Let's see here. Next on the agenda, Bendec Estates, Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Your recommendation of the site plan subcommittee of the Planning and Selling Commission regarding a plan or plot for a large, large single-family subdivision to be hereafter known as the Bendec Estates Subdivision in your non-urban resident district, west side of Christie Avenue, south of the intersection with Manchester Road. st louis county locator numbers twenty four w sixty one zero zero four five twenty four w fifty two zero one zero two and twenty four w twenty four zero zero one five street addresses twenty seven twenty five twenty seven thirty one and twenty seven ninety nine christie avenue which authorizes the proposed 15 three-acre lots in association with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them and required stormwater management facilities, along with a sanitary sewer waiver, all upon this 51-acre tract of land. And this tract of land is located in Woolman 1. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, before you tonight is a recommendation from the Site Plan Subcommittee regarding this preliminary plat for this large lot subdivision. Site Plan Subcommittee met on July 6th and gave direction to the department to prepare a favorable report. So that is what's before you tonight. Just a few information, a little bit of information about the project. It's a 51-acre tract of land. Fifteen lots are proposed. The lots range in size from three acres to 4.53, so greater than the requirements of the or meets and exceeds the requirements of the new non-urban residence district of special note that is identified on this plan in the purple pen that two of the existing dwellings are being incorporated into the overall fifteen lots those are identified as lots one and lot seven Um, as was mentioned, the, uh, developer was successful in getting a waiver to the sanitary sewer. So, each requirement of the city for a subdivision of the size. Um, so each individual lot will be served by a septic system for that. Treatment. The proposed private street is at 26.1 foot width of pavement within a 30 foot right of way. The width of the roadway was a requirement of the fire district in this instance. The neighborhood will be served by public potable water. So each lot having wells is taken out of the equation here. They will have public potable water to each of the home sites. A few other items of note that were discussed as part of the site plan subcommittee. The stormwater management is supposed to be managed by a series of piping, rock blankets, catch basins throughout. And then each individual lot, as they submit to be constructed, will have to address stormwater on that individual site based on the home that's planned to be built there. Just a few more items. There is a 25-foot wide pedestrian easement provided along Christie Avenue, which is a public street, which satisfies the public space requirements of a subdivision of this type. And I just wanted to note, there are proposed to be 22 grand trees to be removed, which sounds like a lot. However, they are being mitigated with 117 grand. new trees, most of which are street trees planted along the new private street. However, with the natural resource protection standards being applied, 32 plus acres of the overall site, the 51 acre tract, will be preserved with the natural resource protection. As part of the department's analysis, or excuse me, the site plan subcommittee's analysis and its report, this is a non-urban zoned area of the city. It anticipates large lot single family residences, which this is. The density of the proposal is less than what could be allowed. The proposing 15 lots, it could be up to 17 lots under the simple density calculation. And it would note that it's just compatible with the surrounding area being surrounded by other large lot areas, park property, et cetera. And then I just wanted to note that on the flat, are included the provisions of the resolution that granted the waiver, which had a number of considerations relative to the future maintenance or long-term maintenance of the individual septic systems. So with that, the report before you is a recommendation for the approval of this preliminary plat. And if anyone has any questions, the department's available. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Discussion or motion? Commissioner Halfrey?

I make a motion to approve.

all right so second by commissioner clayton any further discussion commissioner rubis is the private street will it remain private or will that eventually be taken over by the city the location is within the non-urban residence district so it's a little different than the town center so the private street is intended to remain private okay all right

Any other discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Boran? Yes. Commissioner Hofrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Commissioner Dupler?

Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes. Council Member Marshall?

Yes.

And I'll give the Mayor the opportunity if he's returned.

All right. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda, Sheds at Lafayette and Babler, Mr. Newberry.

A recommendation report of the Department of Planning to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration of authorizing the architectural styles and placements of two storage sheds at Lafayette High School and Babler Elementary School in Unan Urban Residence District, east side of State Route 109, north and south of Clayton Road's intersection with it. Street address is 17050 Clayton Road and 1955 Shepherd Road. st louis county locator numbers two two v two one zero two one five and two two v one four zero three three eight thereby allowing their respective installations at these two locations ward five all right thank you mr dewberry mr vernich

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning is asking you tonight to serve two purposes relative to this particular report. First is to approve the location of the storage sheds at the two campuses, Lafayette High School and Babler Elementary School, and also to provide architectural review of the two sheds relative to their design, style, materials, and color. The department has provided you a recommendation report that's favorable to the two sheds at the two locations relative to their design, style, colors, and materials. As you know, both campuses are located on Route 109. Both campuses are on relatively large parcels of ground, and they serve as community locations where not only educational functions take place but many others the two sheds measure ten by twelve for a total of a hundred and twenty square feet each both sheds are nine feet in height both will be constructed with lap siding and asphalt shingles The sheds will be anchored to the subgrade so as to provide safety. And both structures will have a pitch roof with a minimal, excuse me, peak roof with a minimal pitch. As is shown in the report and with the color selections, the Lafayette High School structure will have a delicate white for the lap siding and shingles that are a shakewood dimensional premium. And Babler Elementary School will have the facaded breeze white, with shingles being weathered wood natural shadow. The shed at Lafayette High School will be by the athletic field, screened from the road by an existing brick building or brick accessory structure, and the other is by the athletic field at Babler Elementary School and is in two parking spaces near its proximity. Tonight, the department is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the locations favorably, as well as for 120 square foot sheds, their architectural elements as well. After a motion and second, the department will be available for any questions or comments. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Commissioner Hoffrey.

I will make a motion to approve.

Second by Councilman Marshall. Any further discussion?

Thank you.

All right. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Boren?

Yes.

Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Commissioner Deppler? Yes. Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Chair Beatty? Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes.

of Mayor Garitano.

And the motion carries. All right. Last on the agenda, nominating committee's recommendation for our 2026 and 2027 officers. So I guess I'm presenting on this one.

Just one quick thing. Thanks to the nominating committee for meeting last week on a very short notice. Much appreciated. And Mr. Chair, the floor is yours.

All right. So, yeah, like Mr. Vunich said, the three of us met and we decided to present the board with a... potential officers of me continuing to serve as chair, Commissioner Jackson as vice chair, and Commissioner Rubis as secretary. At this time, we can accept other nominations from the floor or motion in a second to accept the slate as provided.

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

All right. So we have a motion and a second to proceed forward with the slate.

I want Vicki to stay.

Any discussion?

Yeah.

I'm okay to do it, just as long as everyone knows I travel quite a bit. But I do make, very few, I not make the meetings, but sometimes. Robert's Rules of Order coming into play.

Yeah. And I try to make as many as I can, but occasionally I get stuck traveling as well. So, um, so roll call vote. If there's no further discussion.

Sure.

Yeah.

Mr. Clayton.

Yes.

Mr. Depler.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Boren?

Yes. Thanks for volunteering, guys.

You're welcome. Chair Beatty? Yes. And Council Member Marshall?

Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Thank you. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Make a motion. We adjourn.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Rubis to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Helfrey. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.