City Council - workshop

Do you want me to just run through it? Do you want to talk about it?

Mayor, if I can, just because it's on the same page and this was an ordinance, we had talked about in the impervious area limits in attempt to reduce impact, maximum impervious, what's highlighted in yellow, to be no more than 55 and no more than 70 percent for multifamily. We created the 70% up here on the dais that night we were talking about that. I have asked for and have received what developments that we have recently that cross different thresholds. All of the downtown Kirkwood buildings are higher, the multifamily mixed uses are surpass the 70%. Barclay, Hutton, Madison are all above that 70%. The area is higher than that 70%. So I'll ask us to consider either increasing that 70% or making an exception for downtown Kirkwood and inside of the zone of downtown business district. The thought is this is the cart before the horse, but the Offenburg properties, because of the setbacks, most likely are going to be close to that 70% as a pure multifamily. I was told it was going to be 60%. Well, there we go. Less than. That was going to be my point, that I did not think we were going to have to worry about that site where it was on this 70%. I either knew it was going to be closer. I'm not surprised it's more likely to be 60%.

So we need to carve out something for our downtown area.

Potentially. Okay. I mean, you had mentioned previous pavers also, and none of these have that.

But just as a site, because we're on that page, I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you.

I just want to confirm, and maybe this is Jonathan, does that 70% conflict with the zoning of all our business commercial sites? But since BMP goes to MSD, this is where I just want to make sure we're not putting something in place that's contradictory to what we allow from a zoning perspective, what we're allowing for commercial, that... If the setbacks, right, don't coincide with what we're saying on this impervious, like it seems contradictory. I think that may be what Councilman Lavender is talking about.

Yes. So I think in the downtown, because of the smaller setbacks, no setbacks in some places, the increased density that's allowed, you know, I think it is – advisable to consider a hire or exemption in downtown. To be clear, though, my understanding of the draft is that there's numbers for single family and multifamily. We're not talking about commercial. Okay, right.

So that's where I think it gets confusing when we talk about multifamily and that multifamily is allowed in commercial.

Yeah, so the – I mean, this is multifamily development, so it's what is – what the actual building – how the building is actually used, not what the zoning is. So, yeah, multifamily, you're correct, is allowed in our B2 business district, our R5. I don't know. It's not in B3, that's why. So there are multiple areas, and the language that's in there says a multifamily development, not zoning, right? So that would cover it. But another question to bring up or point to bring up in discussion with Councilmember Lavender is it's specific to single-family and multifamily. A mixed-use development would not fit in those buckets either. It has commercial, so... Just to be clear, that's not a multifamily. It has a multifamily component. If you want something to apply to that, I think it would need to have different language as well. But, sorry, to answer your question, I think you mentioned commercial specifically. So, again, neither of these, my understanding is neither of these apply to that. Okay. And then I think with the carve-out of downtown... That would align better with the development standards across the city. Does that answer your question?

I think. What is the new Plitman Place that hopefully will be built before long, where the old Commerce site is? Is that considered commercial because it's mixed use, or is that multifamily?

It would be commercial. Because it's mixed use. I mean, I guess it can be what you want it to be. I would say it's not multifamily because it's not just multifamily. So you could say there's a whole nother category of mixed use, but you have to think part of mixed use is it has a commercial component. So then you're talking about customer parking, employee parking, all these things that make the additional requirements a different category. just have different elements to them.

So if we were to implement this change, as it reads today, the 55% for single family and 70% multifamily development, no exceptions for downtown, just as it is. And then these guys, the Pittman place comes to you and says, here's what we're building. How would you treat them?

Well, so a couple things. Pittman's already approved, right? So these rules wouldn't apply to them. If a new development, mixed-use development came in and the way it was written, my interpretation would be that the 70% does not apply because they're mixed-use, and that's a commercial.

Sure, please. if I recall correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, the proposal for the Pittman's Place includes pervious pavements because when you, those types of projects have to go to MSD and MSD requires water quality and detention and all these other things. And when you have a lot of pavement, the only way you can get that is by using pervious pavements. So those pervious pavements would decrease their overall site impervious area.

i don't know what that numbers are though i don't think we looked at that because it's not developed yet jonathan with regards to the double eagle that was in planning and zoning what's their coverage right now do we know uh about 85 percent is what what we what was calculated yep So that, yeah, that's... That would be in conflict with this.

Correct, as drafted. Yeah, so the Double Eagle Project, 144 West Adams, which is Clay and Adams, the James, Barclay, Hutton, Madison... And again, ARIA is mixed use, but all of those pure multifamily would exceed 70%. Isn't James the mixed use? I'm sorry, the James is also mixed use. Sorry, sorry. So all of the recent mixed use and pure multifamily in downtown that we could think of and surveyed exceed 70%. And most of them by upwards of 10%.

Council Member McLean, the three across the street, if they were to come after this would pass in its written form, would not be allowed. The Barclay, the Hutton, and the Madison, because they're purely mixed family, multifamily, they are more than 70% coverage.

And so you're suggesting if they're in the downtown district, they're exempt from this. I would suggest that the problem is we have neighbors that aren't in the business district or may be in the business district, but if we're not going to subject, we're going to make an exclusion, there could be more water runoff to those neighbors than we get flooded. And I'll think, and I'll just use the one on Santa, was it Santa, Joe Roser's place. Santa, thank you. It gets flooded all the time. And so we're going to make an exception allowing perhaps downtown construction.

Well, but then what are the considerations from MSD? Did, I don't know, did the Madison, Barclay, and Hutton have to follow MSD rules?

I believe I would have to look back. It's been a few.

I mean, I appreciate it. I don't want anybody to have to have. Right. And we have differences in downtown versus I guess more anything else. It just brings that we need a little need to flush this out a little bit more to protect neighbors from flooding and not restrict what we're doing in our downtown to match zoning, which I think is what council member Burkett was speaking to.

There's actually ordinances, I believe, if I understand when we were going through this, that I feel like contradict in the downtown area this particular for setbacks so that's my concern is we've got ordinances that say in these certain areas the setbacks only have to be x right which contradicts 70 so that would be my i think we just need to understand which ordinances we need to look at if because they should be In my opinion, if I were doing a project, I would want to make sure if there was one in conflict, which one overrides.

You have to comply with all is the answer.

What was your answer?

I'm sorry. You would have to comply with all. There's our landscape buffer requirements. Sometimes they might be different than the setback. In downtown, if it's a perimeter of a parking lot, we require a seven-foot landscape buffer and There might not be, that's not the best example. Our response to everyone is you have to look at all the requirements and the most restrictive applies. You have to comply with them all. But it does, with that said, it does make it confusing and less clear on what you can do when there's that many layers and one might allow and one might not. Yeah.

So do you think that some more work needs to be done on this particular point then before we pass it? Yeah.

I think the question is, I mean, I think the research that you all requested at the last time, the discussion of this was what are recent developments, what percentage are they? And they're 80 to 90% for downtown developments. So the question is, If you want to, and granted, pervious pavement, and that can play a role in that. But it just, whatever, you just have to be aware that if you make a change that's less than that, the development that has been done could not be done in the same way at minimum.

Mayor, I think just this 170%, perhaps, Chris, you're knowing if MSD was involved with the three buildings across the street, if they were involved, and is that water being funneled right into a pipe so it would prevent flooding of any neighbors?

I would say it would have to be because you got parking below grade.

What are the numbers again? Can you tell me what the highest and kind of what these three over here that are close to?

So the highest is at 144 West Adams, which is 94%. Average throughout, well, Then 110 West Madison, which is the Madison, thank you, 91%. And then 204 South Clay, the Barclay, 84%. And the Hutton, thank you, 84%. What was that? Sorry. 84%. Then also the James is at 89%, but that's a mixed use.

And then the Holmes and the Big Bend, which are being proposed, which are not in downtown Kirkwood, are both in the 50-56% coverage. So that's what I was just looking at.

Are you thinking a higher number?

Yeah. that are excluding downtown, knowing, as Councilman Schaffer said, if you've got underground parking, you're going to have to have plugged into MSD. I know it's more than an acre, but all our lots in downtown aren't necessarily going to meet that threshold.

So we want to direct staff to work on... Just that, yeah.

It's not going to be an agreement. It's just one number to just make sure it's an agreement and MSD and...

I'm going to defer to Chris and.

Yeah.

Councilman Schaefer on this question. If MSD gets involved and it goes directly into the MSD pipes, say at the Hutton place, where do those MSD pipes ultimately go? And then where I'm heading with this is that that means now those pipes get filled up faster. So now there's going to be watered maybe downstream that doesn't, that doesn't flow into those pipes as efficiently as it once did causing flooding downstream.

So MSD, regardless of how much they have on their site, MSD will still require them to treat that water for their requirements. So they will still be required to meet MSD's requirements, which means putting in some detention or some retention on their site. So we're not, when we say it goes to MSD, we're not saying they get a free pass from stormwater. They can just go do whatever they want. That's not the case.

Okay. My concern, though, is this water, if we allow 94% of more of these places, How much more water than does that cause to downstream properties?

That's a differential calculation that you do. It could be currently 100%, and you're limiting it to 94%. But MSD... has rules and regulations. The way you design is you take the two structures down the top of that pipe because they're assuming that the system is running full and then you have to analyze the system and you have to keep the water in the system. If it's a critical area that has problems, they'll make you design to a 100-year store as opposed to the 15 years. It's not just... They're just dumping it into this structure that's right here. They analyze it to structure stuff.

So, Let me remind you, we first came with a different percentage to you two meetings ago. I believe it was 80% or 85%. So you could look at if there's concerns of the council going too low and to prevent some developments coming in, could raise it back to that 80% or 85%.

Well, my concern initially was we're treating single residence homes different than multifamily. So multifamily is getting a break to the detriment of single-family builders. And that was my initial concern. And I still kind of have that concern if we make an exclusion for downtown, only because I don't know enough of how that all works with the MSD and when they put water in their pipes. And that's something that I need to be educated on.

That's a difference in single-family. Yeah.

I'd feel better if someone said, oh, don't worry about it, Mark, because when MSD does this, like Jennifer just said, when MSD does this, they check this all the way through, and it ends up flowing into the Mississippi River, and there's no backups anywhere, versus, well, we check it for two or three properties down, and as long as there's no extra water coming in, we're fine. Well, what happens to the fourth or fifth properties down? Well, yeah.

That's a design parameter that MSD set up, and that's what they use throughout the St. Louis area, and it seems to be working for them. You know, I'm not going to... I don't know, you know, to question them based off of that. you know, to analyze the system all the way down.

I just know when you put more water into a pipe up here, it's going to cause more water down the way. Yeah. I know that much, but that's about how it affects it. I don't know.

Yeah, I understand your concerns about that. And I mean, all I can say is that this is MSD's design parameter. This is what they use throughout the St. Louis area. And if it, I mean, they're updating their manual. Yeah. They're updating their manual. If it didn't work out, I think that they would update it.

And just to go back, the reason why we separated it out from single family to a multifamily was if we kept it at the 55%, it would basically just not allow any multifamily. Right.

And I understood that. And that's why I think we agreed on 70%.

That's why it was broken out that way.

That's my receiver.

Thank you, Mayor. It's been very quiet, hasn't it?

Yes.

Thank you. So... Two different sewers we're talking about. First off, we're talking about sanitary sewer versus storm sewer. So to Jennifer's point, MSD, they have all these maps down there and they know exactly how big their vitreous clay is that's underneath the street. And they know when they put it in or somebody put it in and they know how much flow they can get through that. So storm is totally different than sanitary. So when you're hearing about backups and stuff like that, that's typically sanitary that's overcharged. because stormwater is getting into the sanitary sewer. So with that thought process, and I've just been reading this, I think that we need to make sure that we're distinguishing between storm sewer and sanitary sewer when we're putting this verbiage together, because there are municipalities that are, there is, you'll see. Just go through it, and then we clean it up, So that when somebody picks that up, they know storm sewer versus sanitary sewer. Because there are some municipalities in the county that do combine sewers. And so I don't want that confusion out there that they can combine the sewers here because we don't allow that. I know. I see you shaking your head, but people might not see that. So we're making sure that we're separating the two. So they shouldn't. I've not seen that where they, but there's those rains events where things happen, where storm sewers get overloaded, but that those storm sewers shouldn't be tied into a residential home ever, that it would be backing up. So to your point, you know, if it gets overloaded, it's because it's going to go out on the street and come out a manhole, I mean, a storm inlet or something like that, where I've seen it before. So it gets overcharged.

On the sewer side.

On the storm side.

On the storm side.

Right. Okay.

But now we're talking MSD. We're talking about storm water runoff.

Correct.

So if they put allow, we allow more water up here on top of the hill, how is that going to affect the storm water to the people at the bottom of the hill?

So layman's terms the msd correct me where i'm wrong msd requires a retention on the property they you retain it there and then you put a much smaller pipe for a discharge out you can go around and look at subdivisions that are built today that's exactly how it all goes all goes in there they have one but then they also have an emergency overflow, if it gets up to that height, it will fall into the storm sewer. So it's designed that the storm sewers where it's going to should be able to take that flow.

So in theory, you're okay with increasing the downtown area from 70% to something higher?

As long as MSD looks at it, and verifies that their storm sewers can take the flow. That's my only caveat to this, that they look at it and they say, because if they got an eight inch vitreous clay, they can't move as much water, obviously, as they can in a 12 or 24. And then that's what happens. You just got to get it to the right size. And they do all that. And they do a good job from what I've seen.

Okay, so we kind of need to wrap this up because we only have...

I would just say currently we allow them to do 100% today. So anything from reduction is a good thing.

I think that brings up a good point that in downtown it should be more generous.

Yeah, I just don't know if we want 94%. You know what I mean? I think some type of restriction is...

back to their 85%? Or do we want to say 80? I think 85.

Tom?

I would say let our staff come back to us.

Okay.

So based on the average of the list that Deb provided, that is just below 80%. So, I mean...

Well, you guys know those are outside of downtown. We would want to take a nap. That's true. Get those outliers.

Yeah, I think when I looked at it originally and I came up with the 85%, I just kind of eyeballed it and saw that there's a few of them above 85% and most of them are right at or below 85%. It wasn't mathematical. It was... Well, you can look at it and come up with a recommendation.

Okay. For downtown. Yeah. Yeah. Good idea. Okay. So then we need to move to the 75, 750 square feet, I think. Yes. Number one on the same page.

Yeah. As per the ordinance that was updated.

Yep. Okay, great.

Okay. Right there.

Yeah, and then number two, stormwater mitigation will be required to treat all impervious areas over 25% of the site? Mm-hmm.

Questions about that one, Mayor?

Okay.

So, Jennifer, I've been trying to visualize this in my head all day. So, currently, if your lot is under 25%, Mm-hmm. and you are doing something to your property, but it's going to stay under 25, you don't require treatment?

Ms. Unless you're adding over 1,000 square foot of impervious area.

Mr. And that? Ms.

So, if you add 1,001 square foot of impervious area and your site's under 25 percent? Mr.

But a small kind of, you know, project that's not going to be over, you know, okay. And that exemption continues?

Yeah. A lot is still under 25. You're not going to increase it.

Okay.

Yeah.

The other exemption currently is this kind of net or like replacement, right? Correct. If you have a lot that is, or if you, yeah, if you have a lot that has over 25% currently and you want to, you know, replace a, you know, a patio that's, say, 200 square foot, right? As long as it's a like replacement and does not increase past your current percentage, you would be allowed to do that without treatment.

Correct. Like as in impervious for impervious. It's not like it doesn't necessarily look at the different flow dynamics associated with piped roof as opposed to runoff from a patio. So it's just kind of.

Yeah, but if I'm just replacing my patio, that is the exemption that we're losing. Correct. Okay, so if I have a lot that has over 25% now, and I wanted to replace the patio, I would have to...

Is it replacing it because it's in bad condition? Because maintenance, and I forgot to add that, it's in the ordinance. I just realized I forgot to add this to this. Maintenance projects are exempt.

Okay, so maybe the patio isn't the best example. Say I want to improve my patio. Okay, yeah, correct. If I wanted to do that, and it did not increase my percentage, that would not matter. I would have to take my total impervious then under 25%.

Correct.

So, right. So, I mean, you're talking about taking not then, you know, taking away the ability to improve, but then you're also having to take away something that you currently have.

If you don't want to do stormwater mitigation, you can do stormwater mitigation.

But they would otherwise be allowed to do that under our current rules. Correct. For a small kind of replacement. That's the problem that I have with seven. I think those exemptions make a ton of sense. We have a ton of lots that are older that have not been treated, right? Because the rules came in at a later date. And so we're talking about, I mean, I think when we had this meeting before, when the new council kind of got the download, we were told, oh, that won't have too much of an impact. To me, that would have a lot of impact on some of these lots that have older properties that may be already over 25%. If they want to do anything, it's likely that they're going to have to go through a much bigger process than they would currently.

Especially the smaller lots. There's a lot of people that have added patios and extended driveways and added impervious areas to their lots that haven't been under any kind of review. We're not saying you gotta tear down your room over here to add a room over there. I think, you know. But you're saying you can't. But, you know, we've got to remove, maybe remove a patio.

Like rotting and then rebuild it. Pardon me? You're saying you can't tear down something that's rotted out and rebuild it. That's a maintenance project. If you tear it down completely?

Yes, it's maintenance. It's in the same footprint and the same size, same structure.

That's maintenance. If I have a cement patio and I wanted to replace the cement with bricks, that's maintenance.

If it's in the same footprint, that would be maintenance. If it's dilapidated, we're not going to dictate what kind of fixture that you're going to put on your patio.

But you couldn't get pervious, and then you'd be in really good shape.

So do you come out and look what a homeowner would call maintenance versus not?

Yeah, I think we would inspect it.

To me, that's just a very subjective question. You're taking the words out of my mouth. That's where I was going next.

Yeah, it's part of the review. When you apply for a permit, there's always inspections associated with that.

So wouldn't it be easier before you even get started?

I mean, they provide a site plan, a survey of the existing conditions of the plan.

You're just doing maintenance. You got to do all that. You got to jump through all that hoops. You're just doing maintenance on your own property.

you could sketch some you could sketch something up and show me what your is no no i'm yeah i understand no you know like uh currently people that you know removing places their driveways and you know they have a little hand sketch drawing of this is my house this is my driveway these are the widths these are the lengths i'm taking it out it's asphalt i'm putting it in it's concrete and they note it up as such let me verify and then they pull a permit and they pay a fee

And you come out and look at it and verify the size and everything. And then they finish it and you come back out and then that's it. Other than they pay a fee. You don't have to get an engineer or anybody else involved.

No.

I see shaking heads and I hear you.

So I just want to make, I mean, if you're, if you're building a garage, you're going to need an engineer.

Cause you're going to need, I get that. We just talked about driveways. Yes. The driveway. Yes. Yes. Yep.

Jennifer, what is the difference on our, in our manual that we're looking at? I know what the yellow is. What's the, all the red.

Red is added text for clarification.

Okay. Okay.

Some of it, the green is stuff I've moved from one place to another place. Some of the red is that way because the font was the wrong size or spacing. So it just marked it all as red. Okay.

All right.

That's why I highlighted the changes.

Moving on to number seven.

Oh, sorry. Well, we are on seven, right?

Yes, we are.

I mean, I would just... I guess to summarize, that one to me, I think has a lot bigger impact than we're giving it credit for. And given the number of older lots in Kirkwood and older small lots, I just have a lot of concern with us removing that exemption for people to do small projects like that on their property. So I would like to see that one removed ideally, but worked on if not.

Yeah, okay. What do you want to see happen with it?

I would like the current exemptions continue. So if you're not going to increase, if you're over 25% and you are doing something to your property that's just having the same kind of percentage replacement of that, that we allow you to do that without having to go through the...

So if I take out a patio and put a deck up, is that... Decks are not counted as... Right, that would still be impervious. So... What would be a concrete example?

Taking out a patio and putting on a home addition.

And you think the addition going on the same footprint should be allowed?

I mean, yeah, because it's under, we're still under the square foot requirements, right?

Yeah, let's say we're, yeah. Yeah. Let's say it's one for one.

We're still contemplating a small, we're not contemplating, you know, a major addition that's going to cause a huge impact.

And it's not bigger than what was already there. Already there. So it's just under, this example is under roof. Same roof.

Yep. If I have a patio, my patio is not necessarily under a roof.

No, but it's the same.

Yes, but it's not the same because it's a horizontal surface versus now a vertical roof surface. Doesn't that water...

The difference is on a horizontal surface, it'll sheet flow off, and it will be an even flow across, whereas a roof structure is going to have pipes, and it's going to be a concentrated flow. So there is a difference in the flow dynamics of each of them.

But it's the same amount of water, right?

Well, it is, it's the same amount of water, but it's, but you have, you know, a cup of water here or a cup of water over all of it. Can I ask, so

To just kind of be realistic, if I put a new small addition where I had a deck or a patio, didn't increase my footprint, and I put my gutters on, I put my little downspout, I still have to do all of that. I still have that flow going out. I still have whatever that goes to still has to go appropriately if I've added an addition, right?

Well, the thing is there'd be no stormwater mitigation, so it would just flow wherever it flows currently.

So into their basement, possibly. I mean, it's got to be away. I'm just trying to use logic here a little bit of if I did that, you could actually exasperate problems around your home and cause additional issues, which would need to be mitigated anyway. So I think I understand Council Member Arnold's concern. Mm-hmm. Why did you put this in? Was it to catch what we're talking about, or was there a different reason?

So in 2019, I was doing design when this ordinance came about, and that was the original intent. To catch those, right?

Mm-hmm. If it's got gutters and piping and all that, wouldn't it have to go into a BMP? Wouldn't that add to... Nope.

Because you're not adding any water to the... Yeah, you could... You just, as she said, it's the way the water flows off. So yes, you're piping it in and you're more concentrated, but it's the same amount of water.

Maybe there's a possibility that if it falls into that area that you treat for that runoff, and not necessarily everything over 25, but you treat for the roof structure? How would you do that?

What would that look like?

That would be like another BMP or something like that, but it wouldn't be for everything over 25%. It would be for the new structure. Because the new structure has different dynamics of flow.

It seems like we're penalizing a homeowner. A homeowner's got maybe a smaller lot, and we always talk about affordable housing, but yet now in order to do something, it's going to increase the cost for them to do this, of which they may not have the money to do. And so now they're stuck with not doing it. In my mind, I don't think it's that big a deal if it's the same footprint. And if they're going to run it off, off, off a roof into their yard, they're going to common sense tells you how to run it off into their yard. They can't run it off into the neighbor's yard. They have to run it off into, I guess I could, but you know, there's, we see that all the time.

So it's an eight feet to address why this was initial. I initially put in or initially thought about was people are paving their entire backyards. So, Then they're coming in to apply for an addition. So then it allows them to fill in the entire backyard with impervious surfaces. So I understand Council Member McLean's point of, yes, it's costing more to the homeowner, but you have to think about all the other neighbors that get water from those homes. people that want to increase the value of their home and they have to deal with their water.

This is just existing homes with existing structures.

Well, people can take it different ways. People have taken the lack of requirements that they can pave their entire site. And so this is another way that we can restrict that people Over 25%, we can reduce what they have to treat to 25%.

Can you tell me how they can pave their entire backyard now?

There's no restrictions on it.

Except for... Take it over 25%, though, right? And they're adding... I don't need a permit.

It's associated with that.

They can put a sport court in, they can put a patio in, that's not permitted.

I think the point is that people are... taking advantage of situations, working around our ordinances, working around our code in order to do things that they want to do with no regard to their neighbors. And as a result, people who wouldn't do that are being... penalized to your point by these rules because others are taking advantage of it and unfortunately, I think that's where we have to say You know unfortunately People are taking advantage and putting that in have made it hard for people who wouldn't do that and I mean it Is it possible that we could, say, raise that number a little bit so that we could move forward with this?

Or could we, if it goes under roof, then they have to add a VMP?

I'm still trying to understand how, if they could pave their whole backyard, if they, a thousand square feet, they would trigger treatment currently, correct? Correct.

When they pull a building permit. Only when they... We only look at plans when they pull any kind of a permit. So we don't know that they're, you know, having the, you know, that they're extending their driveway and putting a turnaround in and a sports cart or whatever, you know, unless we happen to be driving by and we see and we're like... But then we don't have any recourse because there's no permits required for those things. So, you know, there's no check on that.

There's got to be a middle ground. There's got to be a middle ground for... not punishing folks on smaller lots that are already over the 25% and all they want to do is put a covered patio or something additional. To me, that is totally different than paving your whole backyard and then trying to skirt through. We need to be able to find a way.

I agree. Or an addition on for your mom that wants to move in. Something. Yes.

I just refuse to believe that we are going to... um you know completely restrict the ability of those people in smaller lots to do those types of things because you know we've been unable to find a way to to deal with them

How about this? Because we are starting, I mean, our time is trying to run out, but we only have 15 more minutes on this whole thing.

That's all right.

No, this is good. How about if we ask staff to reevaluate this and maybe come up with some ideas?

Maybe Council Member Arnold would like to sit in on that and help them brainstorm how to resolve that.

How to resolve this one. Okay?

Mm-hmm.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you both.

Uh-huh.

All right.

Okay.

All right. We'll just go to the next page. Okay. Up at the top there, that's just changing from the 1.14 to 1.25 and updating the rain events, the 100-year and the two-year MSD rain events per the upcoming MSD manual changes up at the top, number seven. The next thing is just, the next one, January 2027, is just calling out the date of that effectiveness of the MSD manual. The side yard must drain, that's just, must drain to the back or front as the terrain dictates. It's just so people don't drain over the property.

Quick question, how about corner lots on that? I know corner lots have different front yards and all that, so how does that play on a corner lot?

I don't know what they call a backyard, but the front of the house is addressed on the street and the back is...

If you have a side yard, go on to a street though.

A corner lot has two front yards. In that instance, you have two backyards and two front yards. In that instance, we would We're trying to not divert water directly towards neighbors.

Right.

So it would be to the back corner is where we're trying to direct water or the natural discharge point of the site.

Typically when subdivisions are drawn up, they put in drainage channels in the backyard or they direct the drainage to go to the street. So we're basically saying you have to direct it to a drainage channel that's either in the back or to the street and not just over to your neighbor's property on the side.

I'm just asking if a corner lot, which is a side yard, which is under our code a front yard, and the drainage may go in this. And Chris is saying that could be considered a front yard for drainage purposes. That's all I was going to say.

Let's move on. Okay.

All right. We just want to make sure that if we're putting this in, that if we're draining to the front yard, that we don't have a draining across the sidewalk. that will freeze in the wintertime. So some verbiage needs to go in there that if we're draining it to the street or draining it to the front, that it's not going to impact sidewalk or walkability.

That's subjective, though.

That's a white attorney. So if you would do something with that and get back to us, that would be, shh. Thank you. That was easy.

That was. back at you. It's going to make it difficult. Okay. Now we're moving on to page three.

Right. Page three at the top there is sample calculations. People are confused about the calculations, so I provided some sample calculations, some sample different BMP options, how to size them. So that's That's what that is right there. So that's a new entity. It's not outlined anywhere. It's just to help for clarity in the document altogether. Next thing down, the sump pumps. That's from the ordinance. Just pulled through.

Oh, there's another example of what I'm saying about MSD sewer system. We need to spell out it's their storm sewer system, not sewer system. So two different systems.

Yeah, I mean, for that, they submit to MSD and have to get a permit.

I get you. But I would prefer it if we're doing it and trying to clean it up. Let's put it in the language so that there's no confusion of combined sewers.

Awesome. Yes. Below that is BMP separation. Currently it's 30 feet. This allows them the opportunity to put the BMPs closer together, which makes it easier for them to develop on those narrower lots.

Did we end up with an ability using only a certain kind to go under the driveway?

Yeah, that's somewhere else. But yeah.

Page four.

Page four is basement depths. Wait, hold on.

I'm sorry. Keep going. I had a question on that one. I thought that's where we were.

Great. Basement depths are limited to eight feet as measured from the top of the foundation to the basement floor. Is that how you're wanting to see that?

Finished floor.

From the top of the foundation to the basement finish floor.

Finish floor. Please.

Yeah. And then.

Sorry. So that now, because the previous language was specific to the groundwater table. Correct. Now we're saying eight foot across citywide.

Yep. And the only reason I say that is because hydrostatic pressure changes all the time, all the time. It can be, you can be up on a hill and you have hydrostatic pressure. That doesn't mean because you're the king of the hill that you don't have water under water tables high up there. Yeah. So this is kind of a simplistic across the board, easy for everybody to understand that's building water, I've gotten zero pushback and I've talked to a lot of people from the building industry that's sitting out here tonight, which are also residents. So they're, I think the majority of them are happy. They're not overly happy that they're going to have to use floor trusses to get their heights that they need versus they could do different things, but they can get their duct work in there and they can get their plumbing and electrical through those trust is they might have to do a different size duck work to be able to do what they need to do or they can run the duck work on an outside wall and box it in so but that still gets them legally if i'm correct it's eight foot is what you have to have clearance in a basement seven seven seven foot clearance i stand corrected eight foot four seven foot clearance okay

All right. Underground females should be placed under grass or planted turf areas, not buildings, except for the storm tech underground detention system designed by an engineer, which may be under driveways. So that's the special structure that we were talking about.

That's why my question, under driveways, but still required to be 10 feet from the basements and property lines. Most driveways are on property lines. So I'm wondering, are we really?

You could have the half moon circles out in front of the house that I didn't see that we should do. But there's more impervious space that we added. But they can put them underneath there now versus somewhere else. And so they have to be these. Explain to me again. I'm sorry. The tanks are of a different quality.

Yeah, they're egg shaped. They're load rated.

Load rated. There's the word. All these. One out here.

Yep.

Yep, all these technical terms.

You're okay with this, and you've talked to builders, and they're okay with this? Okay, then carry on, Jennifer.

All right. The next one is outside of the tree protection zone for trees to remain. Is that right? Hold on. Oh, these, okay, so this is talking about, sorry, this is talking about BMP placement. So another place that needs to be placed, the BMP must be placed is 10 feet outside the chief protection zone. The next one is BMP, so I'll be separated by the minimum distance, and we talked about the exhibit on the other side. This is all just under BMP placement notes.

Page 12. Yeah.

Thank you.

Page 12. That again is just restating. These are standard city BMP notes that I make the developers put on the plan so that everybody knows what we're doing. That's just restating that again about the BMP separation.

Jennifer, can you expound on that just a little bit so everybody that's watching understands?

Yeah, so currently BMPs are required to be 30 feet apart. And so this is requiring that the BMPs be separated by the one-to-one zone of influence to the bottom of it. So if it's five foot deep, that's five foot. And say the other one's three foot deep, that's three foot. And then 10 feet between them. So that decreases the amount of distance that they need to be placed. So it gives them a lot more tools to, you know,

For a smaller lot.

For a smaller lot and to make it so that they can, you know, make it long and lean or shallow or deep or however they want to do it. It gives them more opportunity for design. Thank you. You're welcome.

That's it.

In page 14, I believe. Trees used as a tree credit cannot have any construction activities take place within 10 feet of the protection zone from the tree as measured from the outside of the trunk. They're going to use it for stormwater mitigation. That's going to keep that tree in the best health that we can keep it in.

Why wouldn't we do it at the drip line instead of saying 10 feet, say, the drip line? Because that's a lot. Yeah.

That would, that would, that could, that could make some lots not buildable. I mean, you, you.

I understand. I killed the tree, but all right, whatever.

Yeah. Brandon didn't show. You're digging all around.

I would say typically the critical root zone is 10 foot of the tree. The drip line, that's not within the critical root zone.

Oh, okay. Thank you for that.

Yep.

Okay. Anything more about trees?

And then tree.

I like trees. Okay. Keep going. All right.

The trees will be noted and recorded on the BMP Maintenance Agreement. That's just something that we haven't been doing, even though people have been using trees for stem water mitigation. And then this is one, if the tree is removed for whatever reason in conjunction with, Brandon came up with, replace with two 2-inch caliber trees. you're not going to get the same stormwater mitigation immediately, but you'll get it in a reasonable amount of time. And then we're saying that those need to be replaced within nine months after being noticed.

So you guys will go back and check?

Yeah, we go back and we check one year, three, six, nine. So it might be a few years before we catch it. But if it's noted and it's on this checklist, we will catch it.

Okay, I think that this might be a good place for us to stop. So we're on page 16. But Debbie got that for us for next time, because we can bring it back next workshop. Okay.

Can I just confirm our action items to make sure we have them?

Yeah, yes.

So currently, I have the percentage for the multifamily and then the mitigation over 25%, which, Council Member Arnold, did I miss anything?

Yeah. Paul, didn't you have something?

I know the sanitary versus stormwater. Yes. Yep.

Yeah, basement finished floor. Finished floor. Add the word finished. Yes.

Wasn't there a little bit more on the side yard?

No. No, no, no. Just clarification.

The grading not to go over the sidewalks.

Yes. Yep. Please. Thank you.

Placidly state storm sewers. Recommend a percentage on this. Yep. And then I got an exemption.

okay thank you thank you okay thank you all right we are going into something new These are just ideas of things that you might want in work session. This is not a time for a discussion at all. It's just to get work session topics out there so that they get on Lori's wonderful planning list.

And we'll start sharing with all of you.

So, is there anything that anyone has that they would like on a work session?

Paul? Okay, we'll start down to this end. So, I would like to see if staff could come up with an ordinance that could be proposed in front of Council that... in the future if there's a multifamily or rezoning or anything commercial that the city council gets final review before it gets approved. So however way we need to change that in our code or however way we need to change that in ordinance form. I see some notes being taken, so thank you.

Yeah, and we got the recorder going too. Right, I know, I'm just teasing. Thank you, Deb.

I have two things. I would like a general catch-all, an update on all topic agendas over the last six months so that we can ask, what happened to that old couple that had a mosquito challenge?

Oh, I see.

It can be answered. So if it's been on an agenda for six months, the last six months, we can just have an update. And the second is I would like us to pursue Billy G's special use permit for noise. Okay.

Two things where I would like. I know you all have had it, but a presentation for this Council on the plan for the aquatic Center going forward.

Okay.

And then I would also like a status update from staff on where we are on a public financial dashboard.

I have a long list. I'm going to be gracious and only ask for two. How's that? My top one is I'd like a standing agenda item for financial updates and current cash and bank balances.

my second is to request that uh the landmark commission subcommittee be considered um to look at all our ordinances around historic preservation very good all right well we lost councilman mclean but go ahead he said go ahead okay well we're finished so um i think what we need to do next is go into closed session may have a motion reminder whoever states the motion if you read section from the agenda

I move that we go into closed session pursuant of RSMO chapter 610.021, one legal. I'll second that.

Thank you. All in favor say aye. Call. Oh, sorry. Roll call.

Mayor Gibbons. Yes. Council Member Arnold. Yes. Council Member Burkett. Yes. Council Member Jack Sedeck is absent. Council Member Lavender. Yes. Council Member McLean is currently absent. Council Member Schaefer. Yes. Okay.

Okay.