Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to tonight's planning and zoning meeting. Um, can we have a roll call of the commissioners, please? Just one second.

[clears throat] Commissioner Con here. Commissioner Clayton here. Commissioner Deppler just came in on Zoom here. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Jackson here. Commissioner Rubis here. Um Chair Batty, Commissioner Hoy here. Thank you. Commissioner Borne, I'm here. Thank you. Then Council Member Marshall present. And Mayor Garano here. Thank you. Okay. Can we have an approval of the minutes from October 6th? So moved.

Council member Marshall. We have a second. Uh Commissioner Clayton. All in favor? I I All opposed. [clears throat] Any abstain? Okay. Thank you. Uh we we're going to review the agenda. Okay. We have two public hearings. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then we have three four letters of recommendation and three information reports. Mr. Vinc, does the department have any opening remarks?

Well, we just like to thank Mr. Prior for stepping in tonight in John Young's place. So, he will be providing us legal counsel. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, right now we have the public comment session. These are public comments on the active agenda items. These are not on the public hearing items. Mr. Newberry, do we have any speaker cards? Madam Chair, we have one speaker card of for the public comment session. It's Mrs. Sheerholtz.

Wanted to let you know. We have your name and address, please. Sure. Lisa Sherholtz, 967 North Guyire, Kirkwood, Missouri 63122. Um, I just want to say good evening and let you know that I'm here and present if you have any questions and my daughter and son-in-law will be here soon and may live on. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. No additional speaker cards for um any item that's not included under the public hearing. So, no additional speak for the public comment session.

Okay. So, then we should move on to the 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 December 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. 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 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 this hearing. A team member will add you to the list of speakers which will then be communicated to me and as chair I will invite you to speak when it is your turn. The public hearing process is outlined in public hearings guidelines pamphlet which can be found on the table at the entry area to the council chambers. The commission will allow all parties adequate time to present their position as outlined in the public hearings guidelines pamphlet. Those individuals representing themselves will be allocated 3 minutes to speak. Speakers who are designated as a group speaker representing a group of more than five individuals will will be allocated 5 minutes to speak. In addition, information on these items can be found on the city's website at www.c cityof wildwood.com. The commission would like to thank you for your cooperation and participation in tonight's hearings. Okay, Mr. Munich.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madame Chair and members of the commission, the first public hearing tonight is PC 10-25, Luxury Villas at Latitude N38, Care of Latitude N38 LLC 11605 Stout Avenue, sweet 102, Creek Court, Missouri 63141. A request for a change in zoning from the NU non- urban resident district to the R6A 4000 foot resident district town center neighborhood general district for a 6.9 acre tract of land that is located at the southeast corner of Etherton Road and Crestu Drive. Locator numbers 23V 2110140, 23V 2110151, 23V 211021, and 23V 2200022. Street addresses 2442, 2448, and 2454 Etheton Road and 16928 Crestu Drive. These particular properties are located in ward 8 and PZ11-25 luxury villas at latitude N38 care of latitude N38 LLC 11605 Stew Avenue suite 102 Creekore Missouri 63141 a request for a planned residential development overlay district PRD in the R6A 4000T resident district town center neighborhood general district for the same 6.9 acre tract of land that is located at the southeast corner of Etherton Road and Crest View Drive. Locator numbers 23V 2110140 23V 2110151 23V 211021 and 23V 2200022. Street addresses 2442 2448

2454 Etheton Road and 16928 Crest Drive. Proposed uses a total of a maximum of 44 single family attached dwellings in clusters of three and four and six units along with associated street and pedestrian network off streetet parking areas required public space and storm water management facilities. Again, these three properties are located in Ward 8. Madam Chair, Mr. Newberry will do a brief slide presentation now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, and members of the planning and zoning commission, um department slides presentation is just to provide a a reminder of the location of the property as well as the way it looks today. Um the property is located to the west of city hall. It's highlighted in red here. Slide is just a little closer up identifying the village green property and city hall where we're at today. And this is the preliminary development plan um that the petitioner will present on um at the conclusion of the department's presentation. The next are just a series of photographs. Um this is standing at the south um west corner of the site looking south onto Etherton Road. So standing at the same location looking to the north. The houses you see on Etherton Road to your left is Main Street Crossing subdivision. This is a little further down Etherton Road to the north. This is a where an intersection of an alley of Main Street crossing with Etherton Road across from the subject site. And then the next is standing at the corner of Main Street, Cresview Drive and and Etherton Road looking to the west on Main Street as it goes um towards 109. This is standing at that same corner looking to the north. Um you can see some development activity there with some one of two new homes that are have been approved by the city. And then this is at that same corner looking towards the south. Again, Main Street crossing is to your right in the photograph. And this is standing at that same intersection looking toward the east on Press View Drive. Uh the subject property um is in the right hand side of the photograph with the garage and a portion of the home. And this is um standing further east on Crestview Drive, kind of more towards the Village Greens, closer to the Village Green site than the subject site, but gives a good view of Crest View Drive. And then this is standing um at the corner of the de proposed development site looking to the west on Crestu

Drive. Um what you see in the photograph is all the subject site um to the south of Cresview Drive. And the next is just a series of photographs of the um existing dwellings that are are on the the properties that make up the subject site. This is on Cresview Drive. Um, standing again at that same location I just described in the previous slide. This is the home at the corner of Etheertton and Crestview Drive. And then moving south down the street, the existing dwellings on the site. And with that, that concludes the department's brief presentation. And as Mr. Vunich mentioned, I think the petitioners are in in attendance to provide presentation. And madame chair, under the rules of the planning and zoning commission, the petitioner has up to 15 minutes to present their proposals and then thereafter the public the department will provide you an acknowledgement when one minute is left.

Hey, thank you. Would the petitioner like to speak?

Yes, thank you. Uh my name is Mike Doster, 16150 Main Circle Drive in Chesterville, Missouri. Uh I'm a land use attorney on the development team for the petitioner. And I have a few opening comments. Dave Vols, who's on the team, will present the plan uh in detail. Uh Tony Bosworth is here. He's the developer. William Levenson with Benton Homes uh is the homebuilder. As I mentioned, Dave Vols is uh the civil engineer on this project. Uh I'm new to the history of this site. Um and we have a new plan which Dave will present. Uh a quick summary of of the history of the site in terms of attempts to uh develop it. Uh originally there was a plan presented with 12 lots that was denied by council in July of 2021. Uh, another plan was submitted showing 65 lots and I believe that was recommended to to be denied by the planning commission in December of 2023. Uh, there was another plan after that showing 55 lots and that was denied by council uh earlier this year uh, April 2025. The current plan uh, shows 44 lots. As I mentioned, Dave will present uh, uh, the plan. He'll also present changes from the previously denied plan, the one showing 55 lots. Uh we understood that there were various reasons for the denial and we've addressed every one of those reasons we believe. And so he'll detail those for you when he presents the plan. Uh we believe the current plan complies with all of the city's requirements. And at the end of the process in front of you, uh, we would ask that you recommend approval of this plan. So, with that, I'll introduce Dave and he'll take you through the plan, but we're both

available to answer questions. Thank you very much.

Yeah, good evening. My name is David Vols. I'm with Vols Engineering and our address is 10849 Indian Head 63132. And I'm know that everyone's pretty familiar with the site. Um but I just want to present what we're doing here. So this is an aerial um site there is 8 point sorry 6.86 acres and oldton is up and down and then Crest View Drive is is to the north of our site and our site is actually made up of four parcels. Um and you can see Village Green which is the city property to the east and then the city hall further. And again, the northern northern road which is Crest View, there's actually seven parcels of property on the north side of Crest View and there's five on the south. So two of them are owned on the south side. Two of them are owned by the city and the other three along Crest View are part of this development. So between the city and us, we control all the properties from city hall all the way to Old Etherton Road. The site actually falls to the east and I just wanted to point that out. So the western side from the western old Leatherton all the way to where Village Green is, it's about 20 ft of fall and it pretty much all that direction. So if uh you would change to the site plan, the site plan is right here. There's 44 lots and they're all fe simple lots. So uh this isn't a condo development. These are all on the simple lots. Um the the road pattern you see there, it's 40ft rideway and 26T of pavement. The garages are all off the internal street. So So each one of those units has a garage that comes off that internal street with two two u twocar garages and also two spaces in the driveway for each one of those. And um in addition to that along that long long elongated culde-sac that you see there, we put off- streetet parking because I know parking was one of the issues on the other plan. So there's actually 11 spaces there that that are in addition to the four that go with each home. And then actually if you

go over to Etherton Road, there's also going to be I think five or six parallel spaces that'll be on Etherton Road. So there's going to be a lot of additional parking. In fact, that that uh culde-sac there would be sufficient to even add more parking, but um we we had 11 extra places there. So one of the other things is we were trying to get a larger buffer to the east to the to the park. And with this layout, the the detention obviously is on the low spot. So the detention separates our development and the park and it's 100 ft now from the backs of those units to the property line with the park. Another issue there were walls because if you remember originally that was a wall detention basin and because we have more room now by spreading it out there there are no walls. Uh there there are some walls on the eastern side of one of those patients but you will not see them from from uh from the park. So we were able to eliminate that by just basically spreading that area out. Um another area of concern was always the the separation between us and the southern southern border along there. So in so right now we have 83 feet from those from those units um I can't see the numbers but from those units down to the southern property line is 83 feet. Um and also that area right there that is common ground area. So, we've added a half acre of common ground in that area. Um, I mentioned the 11 spaces that we added as well. Uh, one other thing I wanted to point out is along the northern property line, you see that gray area, that whole strip, there's a 37 foot strip of property along the entire northern area that we're dedicating that would that would allow and sufficient for the future main street expansion. So, uh, we're giving enough right away for that to be done and completed in the future. Um, and then we're building two, the gray area is what we're building of of Main

Street, and that's about 205 ft of Main Street to to get to that entrance right there. In addition to that, there's also 12 12 ft of rightway dedication for Old Leton along the western side. And that's going to mirror what you see on the other side of the road with the parallel spaces. So, what you see on the other side is mirrored there. and we're given enough dedication to do that as well. And the entrance off of Old Edithan, that is a right in right out. So people going north on Oldton could go in and then come out and they'd have to go north when they pull out with with this layout. Um, one of the things that that uh this is a vast difference from from what some of the previous plans that you saw and I want to do a comparison of the last plan. So, the last plan that you saw was a 50, not you, but the last plan that the the city council saw was a 55 unit plan, and this is it. I had plenty of plans to choose from because at one time we had one that had 65 lots and then we did a revision. It had a little commercial piece in the northeast if you remember. Then we revised that to a 60 lot layout and then we took away all the pieces along Etherton or uh Main Street up there. And after many, many, many, many changes, we got down to this plan, which was the last one that was considered by the city council. Um, and you can see from this plan just some of the differences along the southern border, which was an area of concern. You can see that our units there are pretty close to to the southern border, and we're now we now have a half acre of common ground there. And then on the east where the detention basins end, that that is about 25 ft further away to those units and those are no longer walled basins. So this is the plan that uh was the last one that was considered. And if you go to the chart, I'm going to show you this chart of of the uh changes we made. So first the number of units. This the current plan that you have before you is

a 44 unit plan. the last one that was considered uh the previous plan had 55 units. So we have an 11 unit reduction which is a 20% reduction from from the last plan that you saw and the plan that was presented before had had 60 units. So it's about a 25% reduction. So it's a significant reduction in the number of units. The main street dedication is actually the same. So, so this uh is sufficient dedication for the main street plan that you have and the other plan was as well. Um parking spaces. So, both plans had had two two spaces in the garage, two spaces in the driveway. This plan though, I know one of the one of the comments was there was there wasn't enough overflow parking. So, this plan now has 11 additional spaces. So, that comes out to 4.25. If you count the four that's assigned to each unit, there's 4.25. 25 spaces now for every unit here. Plus, there's that's not counting the six additional spaces that are on Old Etherton Road. So, there's lots of lots of parking now. And like I said, the culde-sac, you could actually add more, but at some point you are just paving for no reason. So, um the buffer to the south. So, the current plan is 83 feet of buffer plus a half acre of common ground area. Previously, the the closest unit to that southern line was 20 feet. It was 20 feet. And if you remember, we had a a fire drive which was pretty much, you know, just a few feet off the property line. So now there's nothing no hard surface at all within 83 feet of the uh of the southern property line, which is also going to affect the drainage down there. So it's so that's a significant uh change. Common ground. This plan has 1.8 acres of common ground, which is basically 30% of the site. So 30% of the site is is now common ground. And when you see that when you see that color rendering, which will pop back up here in a second, that's the area around the lots, that's

not counted in that because because they're fe simple lots. That's just the common ground, 30% of the site. Previous plan had 1.2 acres. So we've increased the common ground by6 acres. And that's that's basically 50% increase over the amount of common ground we had before. So, uh, that's a pretty significant change and I know that's that was important. And then the last thing I wanted to address here, uh, was the coverage. So, I calculated the the amount of pavement, the amount of streets and and the hard surface like that. And in in that, we've reduced that by.3 acres, which again, it's a small site. So, we've reduced the pavement by.3 acres. And by reducing the number of homes and number of driveways that are associated with that, we've reduced that paving by half an acre. So this site has has 08 almost almost an acre less coverage which which translates into less storm water obviously. So that's a significant decrease and a significant change that we've made to to this plan as well. Uh if you go back to the uh the so these are the renderings of go to the renderings. Sorry. So the this this is just a a um a representative rendering. So uh we don't have all the renderings done for for all of the units, but but I just wanted you to see these. So these these rep these uh are brick. Some of them are brick, some of them are stone. They all they have porches on them. This this would be from a a main street view, but they have porches on them with steps coming up. They have projections that go around them. If you go to a couple more slides here. Okay. So, you can see how the porches are set back and and there's bumpouts on them. If you go one more, you can really see the the different how it undulates back in and out. And uh I think they they look pretty good. I was really pleased with these renderings. And then there's one rendering from the internal area. So, this is the internal area where the where the uh where the

garages will be. So, that's the renderings. and um that so you go back to the site plan and that's that's pretty much I that I um have to say. So if you have any questions I can answer them or maybe Mike has something else he wants to close with.

Commissioner Rubis, just a point of I don't know if you can hear me. Can you hear me? Okay. Uh just a point of order is is the are the 15 minutes up already that we can begin discussion or commissioner has about two and a half minutes left if they wanted to use that time otherwise if you want to open it for questions that's fine too. Yeah I would just check to see if the petitioner is done with their presentation before we get into questions. Yeah we're done. Okay thank you. Okay M chair M Comm Mr. Rubis, the detention areas are are those dry basins?

They are dry. And I I What's are is each unit similar in square foot? The the size of the units. There's actually interior size there. What we're showing right there is is two different types of units. Um and I don't actually know the square footage of the units. Um but they do differ. 1,200,500 and 2,000 square feet. So you have three different all twotory.

No, no, I think those units that are on the south are are one-story units. Um the the tenants who will be required to pay for trash removal? Is that covered by the developer or is that covered by each individual tenant? That that's that's a community thing. That the trash is a community thing. So each each person will will I I think put a trash can out and

Yes. But I mean, as far as paying the bill, who's who whose responsibility is it to pay trash company for trash removal? I I think that, you know, it depends how it's set up. The Camberry subdivision, they have one centralized bill that is paid for by the HOA and therefore uh they [clears throat] manage it that way. Um I understand here it's the residents each each resident will pay. I mean ultimately it is it is uh the occupants the residents that do pay for that service there but yeah are you asking about if it's an individual by home payment or if

somebody doesn't pay they don't collect their trash. That typically is yeah what happens in the city. Yeah. The other thing, my last question is, is there as far as landscaping and all that that's covered by the owners, not the tenants, cutting the grass, trimming the things, planting flowers, putting in the landscape or anything like that. That's all extraneous to a tenant. All he does, correct? All he does is use the space to live. Correct. That's all.

Any other questions, comments appear? Mr. M, uh, Mr. Newberry, do you have any speaker cards? Um, Mr. Borne, actually, just Commissioner Borne just raised his hand. Thank you, Commissioner Borne. Council member Marshall raised his hand as well. Okay. Yeah. Hello, Commission. I've just got a few questions. Uh, so these units, they're going to be owned or they're rental units.

They're all owned by the developer owner of the property. They will be rented to tenants. Okay. So, this is a rental facility, not not a this is not a condominium where people own individual condos. It'll be for rental like an apartment detached home apartment type complex. Okay. And I suppose the one technical difference is what was pointed out by Dave Vols. Each unit is on its own lot. These are all fee lots. What are owned by the developer owner? Okay. What what significance does that bring

in terms of whether it's rental or owned by the tenant who occupies? If it's if it's rental, then how I've heard this I heard you mention fee simple a few times. How does that play into a rental arrangement? It it doesn't affect the rental. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Marshall. Yes. Two quick questions then. Because they are see um simple, they could be sold off individually in 10 years from now, 5 years from now. Each property could be sold if the market would turn around. Technically, that's correct.

Thanks. My second question is, um, Mr. Mayor, can we go back to the layout? I I had a question about where the road is. It seems to me that there's 14 units there, but the road is um cut in at four. So if you had 16, why wouldn't the road be like around eight or nine to divide to come in instead of having it that far down? It just it seems like it's impractical for the other people on the east side to have a road that's like two units in instead of coming in halfway through the longer strip. have the same distance, but you could put say put it between uh units 10 and 11 instead of between four and five.

You like me to address that? Yeah.

Okay. So, there's there's lots of moving parts with this road. Whether you should put it here, whether you could put it further down, whether the grades are going to work, where where it connects. Uh, one of the concerns that I've always had with this is um, the detention basin, and this is maybe too technical, but the detention basin has to have an outfall. So, what sets that road elevation is the detention basin, then the water quality, and then the road. Meanwhile, you have Etherton Road down here. So, there is a limit to how far I can go down and get and get that connection to work. So, again, there's a lot of moving parts. Um, I think there's moving parts with when the city can acquire other property, when when uh how much of the road do you want built because I know there's a plan out there that has a one way this way and one way this way. So, there's so many moving parts that I feel like we but I can meet with the staff and talk about it.

I I just think it when you just look at it seems to me the road would be further to the east would make a little more sense. No strong opinion. I just thought it looked kind of lopsided. Thank you. Sure, Mr. Newberry. It looks like it's hard to see from your angle, but um Mr. Miss Deppler, um Okay, Mr. Lee and Deppler.

Hi. Um I just had a quick question. So looking at the rendering, it looks like lots like 29 30 31 they're looking at the side of 33. Um it just seems like kind of a a strange um setup of those particular lots. Um and you know how they're facing essentially the side of another building. any concerns about that and being able to, you know, sell those as um units for people to be interested in?

Yeah, no concern at all. This happens in every subdivision you do on a corner lot where you have the back of one house against another house. Happens on every subdivision, every corner lot. So, it's that's not a concern. Yeah, it looks it looks more to the extreme on those particular lots, but just thought I would highlight that because it seems kind of strange since they're not facing the road. Yeah. Commissioner Borne.

Yeah. Just just a followup to my question earlier. Uh since you clarified that the purpose of the fee simple lot ownership is to have the option to sell these units in the future, what would be required between you and the city and between you and I guess just how the legal structure would be set up to do so? I mean the only time I'm I've seen these sorts of facilities for sale was usually under a condominium structure since there's common walls between those units, common shared roofs and so on. So could you could you walk me through how that would work if in the future you wanted to carve these off and sell them as individual units?

Well, that's not the business concept now. So we really haven't looked at that. Uh the technical question that was asked earlier was could you in the future sell a fe simple lot? And technically that is possible. We're that's not our business model so we haven't looked at it. Okay. It just seemed that you all have mentioned it a few times. So I assume there was a purpose behind mentioning that these were fe simple lots and not structured otherwise right it's the flexibility but we haven't looked at selling any of these lots.

Okay. So, so to our chair, if we if we're doing a you if we approve this, what what would be required between the developer and the city if this changed from a rental to a sellable situation? Well, I I will defer to Mr. Vunich and let him answer that.

Okay. Thank you, Sure. A lot of it will have to do how the conditions if this is supported by the planning and commission are fashioned. Certainly with the principle before this particular item tonight there discussions of trying to manage, how the leasing would go forward, how rentals might occur, notification to the city. So, as we get a little further into this, if there is a favorable vote, we can certainly look into the d the mechanics of that and bring in our city attorney to assist. Thank you.

Uh, Mr. Lee, did you have a question?

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair. I just wanted to quickly point out that something [clears throat] that we'd like the Department of Public Works, Department of Administration have wanted to coordinate to potentially move that um that entryway off of the future main street further down. So, that is something that has been discussed. Uh it typically would be what we were looking at was between lots 15 and 16 was something that was pushed forward. So, we'll still continue to have those conversations. The only other thing I wanted to point out um was just the dispersement of water from those retention areas, water retention areas. So that will go on to the city park property. So just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

Mr. Commissioner Rubis, did you have something? Okay. Well, I'll take this one. So I have a couple questions for you. Um, first of all, I you continually mentioned that you said there was about 85 ft between the houses and the southern property and then but I'm looking at this uh unit number 27 and it looks to be right up against the property. So I don't see you're right. I I meant that mass. Could you say that louder so my husband could hear that? Sorry. You are correct. Okay.

You're you're correct. I I was I was speaking specifically about those the ones that are come off that road, but Okay, unit 27 is is closer than that. So, how close is unit 27? Uh probably I'm going to say 15 feet or so. 15 feet. Yeah.

So, um I guess I would I would question how if that's too close to the property line that it would cause runoff issues for the adjoining property. And I don't know what the build line is. I don't know. I'm just bringing that up. Um, another question I had was I see on my drawing, I have notes all over it and one of the drawings is actually the one up on the TV screen would be fine. From the detention basins, you have an arm shooting out and it's on property that isn't yours. And I'm just wondering what those things are from the two detention basins. Yeah, those are the discharge that uh Tom was was talking about. That's discharge pipe from the the detention basin. So, it would discharge onto somebody else's property on the city's property.

Correct. With this with this layout, it would Okay. Uh, and then, uh, my last question was, um, previously when this property came in front of us before, one of the questions that we, um, struggled with was the HOA and, um, who was going to be responsible for this property because there was not going to be somebody living there that was going to be responsible for main making sure that the property was maintained and and and kept up. Um, so I I'd like for you to address that if you wouldn't mind. Okay. Addresses the runoff runoff question. Yeah. Thank you.

So So whenever we're doing development like this, we have to catch the water and run it through our our water quality basin if it's coming off of a hard surface. So there's always been even the other plan, there was a plan to catch the water and run it through the the water quality. So, the other plan wasn't going to increase the storm water going to the south. But this plan, there's actually a couple inlets right there by unit 27 that takes that water into that that oval thing that you see there looks like a racetrack. That's actually the water quality basin. So, it's going to go into there and then it leaves there and then goes into the regular detention basin.

Well, I will tell you from my own personal experience with water runoff at my home, right? So I'm I'm I just am always cognizant of somebody's water running off onto somebody else's property and so that's the city's property and that's by then if it's the city's property then it's my property too. So water's going there now and the way the way it always works is the reason you put the detention basin is you meter the water out but but you discharge the water in the same the same watershed that it was going to currently. So again that's like a ridge that comes off. So some of the water is going to the north, some of it's going to the south. So that's where the water is going right now. And what we're doing is we're detaining it

so that it's not going at a greater rate, which is the same thing we do at at every development that we do, every community we do. So well, that was going forward. I would just like to maybe um maybe you can kind of give us a little bit more numbers and explain that a little bit more. Sure. I would be grateful for that. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I will tell you this has to go through the city and we're in MSD's district here. So, we have to go through MSD also on on this for the storm water chair. Uh, can I speak? Well, he was going to answer you were going to answer the other question I had about the HOA and somebody not living on the property and being responsible and maintaining property.

There will be an HOA as such. All of the property, all the units will be owned by the owner developer. And so the owner developer will have responsibility to take care of everything. And so when there's a problem with uh the out the exterior of the property, who would the city contact for that? It's the owner developer. Okay. Right. You'll have be a person. Yeah. You'll have uh contact information. Right. Thank you, sir. Uh, Mayor Gerano,

thank you. Um, can you hear me? All right, we're Okay, great. Uh, yeah, my my question or comments really do pertain to those detention basins that are on the far eastern edge of the property because as uh the acting chair tonight mentioned, uh, we have the city's village green there. That that's a place where people are going to use as a park. Sure. and you're channeling water and sending it there. I mean, it's like, how would you like it if we channeled the water from Etherton Road into your subdivision? You wouldn't like that. So, that's where the water goes now. You're not piping it through, though.

We're we're discharging it in the same in the same waterhed, the same ba basic location that it's going for right now. You're telling me there's a pipe there today? No, there there's no pipe. So, you're putting a pipe now that's going to flow water into that field and it's sheet flowing that direction right now. Well, I think that's a crazy idea. I don't think that makes any sense at all. I would I would fight that because you're going to damage property and also damage the future of what we're going to use on that side of the village green. And that is not our goal at all. And this is

that doesn't look good. I mean, either that or you got to build bigger detention basins to hold more water. Well, we we can we can look at that, but I can I can guarantee you our goal is not to destroy the park because that's a huge asset to us and this is how it's commonly done. But I will look at options and looks at look at ways that we can we can make this in acceptable to the city. Yeah. That it's not our it's not our desire to do something here that that uh hurts hurts the city at all.

I mean, I'm not aware I'm not I haven't seen where we have one subdivision that channels water into another. But if that happened and again I say specifically channeling water like this this outfall I mean I understand that there is you know just a natural flow of water across uh grass or whatever terrain there is but when you have these detention basins and we have a very heavy rainfall event that water is then going to start flowing into what is the village green and that would cause damage to the city's property. Sure. I I'd be happy to sit down with your city engineer and and talk to them about this. I think this is commonly done and I think we could work work through this with them.

I mean, I've seen it where it's done where it's channeled into, let's say, a creek that's adjoining [clears throat] the property, but I don't see that anywhere where we did that in the adjoining subdivisions there that we channeled water from one subdivision to another. So I think usually the detention basins are built enough that they can hold the water for those significant rainfall events, not send it overflowing.

And that's what we're we're designing this to do. And then eventually though, the basin has to discharge. And if we have to go down to wherever that location is, I I actually don't I've looked at those plans, but I'm not familiar with them as as I stand here. wherever that connection is because at some point you're collecting the water and taking it into the underground basin that that the park has. If we have to go and connect into that storm sewer system that's doing that, that that's a possibility and then then you wouldn't see the discharge. So, there's there's ways that we can we can work that out and I'd be more than happy to think that through a little more and talk to the city staff, but I think that we can deal with that. Yeah. Because otherwise, I mean, you have to get D to build.

Totally understand. Runoff system like many subdivisions have had around here where they collect the water and then it goes into the piping that then eventually takes it to a nearby creek. Yeah. Uh I don't see that here. I mean, I'm concerned too with the property that's right adjoining there. I mean, you got one that's channeling right to where it says Hayes, Larry, and Diane and their property right there just about a foot or two from that. um that you know I guess where that outfall is what you call it.

Now you need to remember this is the preliminary plan. There's been zero design actually done on the the flow which which you've asked for more information. So so you know we've sized the basins but we haven't run any hydraulic calculations on them at this point but I I understand what you're saying and I think we can address that. And then the other question is I appreciate that you did listen to the feedback about parking. It looks like you added some parking spaces there. Uh but the only other thing and I would ask really this is my question for his director Vonage. Uh you know when we have uh developments I've always understood it that they're responsible for the frontage uh and development of the frontage along their development there. So, have we ever had anything like this where we're not going to require that [snorts] that frontage that's not along the future main street there?

The requirement is the dedication of land area to accommodate the design of the proposed road plus construction of half of the improvements. And so from this perspective, they're showing the full dedication but only a partial construction. The only other alternative is we still require the construction per se, but we collect in escrow to construct later in conjunction with another project whether it be city or private. So yes, the construction component is just approximately 200 feet versus the length of the site which is in the range of almost 750 ft. And then the other thing it's I believe what the director of public works may have raised previously is uh those two roads that do connect one to portion of the future main street and then the other one to Etherton road. I believe we had concerns that they were too close to that intersection of Maine and Etherton. So, I'm assuming I'll look for what the department feels regarding that uh when you prepare the information report. certainly consult with our Department of Public Works, but I do want to identify that the right in right out from the internal street that's proposed as part of this development onto Etherton Road is intended by the Department of Planning to reduce trips. A fully functional intersection may end up directing more traffic south on Etherton Road than to Main Street. And so again, it's some attempt to recognize that Etheton Road isn't as um capable of a street as Main Street that goes through Main Street Crossing.

That that sense and thank you for that. Take that. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Uh I see Mr. Lee, but before I call on you, Mr. Lee, Mr. Vinich, I have a question. Um this they the gentleman that was speaking said that unit 27 is 15 feet off of the property line. What is that? Um how how close are they allowed to be building next to a property line

along the the realtor of the property unless there's a separation by common ground. The more restrictive setback in this case a sideyard setback would apply and generally in the R6A 4,000 foot resident district the worst case scenario is anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. So, it appears they're doing more than what would be required even along the perimeter of the property. We'll verify that for the planning and zoning commission as the mayor said when we prepare our information report with recommendation.

Okay. Well, when they when they come back, I would like to see where the sidewalks are that lead to the fronts of the houses. Uh especially on the sides of the houses that front to the detention. Are they detention or retention ponds? Which are they? detention. Detention. They're not.

So, I'd like to see how that's going to look because I I mean I don't know if I would want my house to the front door to look out on one, but that's I'm not that's that has doesn't have anything to do with it. And then I would like more information on the um the water um where it shoots out because I I'm not in favor of dumping out water on anybody else's property. Well, certainly in most instances we don't see the discharge from the basins daylighting onto adjoining properties. Typically see them being connected to other developments where the existing network of pipes and area and curb inlets exist. Regardless, they need an easement to access the city's property and that easement has to be granted by city council. Okay. And and um I just the other thing I was going to ask I know that this the street would that be a public street when it's done when it's dedicated after it's been built?

Yes. All streets in Town Center intended to be public. Okay. So then that street there whatever that is called Avenue I guess would that have any parking available on it under this revised design? I believe they've removed the on street spaces to the benefit of those 11 spaces they've shown now in the common ground island. Okay. And then where would the mailbox do will we have a common mailbox? Yes, it'll be a cluster box and it's on the southern end of that large culde-sac oval. I see it. Good. All right. Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Lee, did you want anything else?

Yes. I uh Mr. [clears throat] Everyone has covered this briefly, but just wanted to reinforce that the easement an easement would be needed for the discharge pipes that would go on to the village green site and that would have to be approved by council. The other component I just wanted to mention here is that the city is currently under the process for engineering and designing its all-inclusive playground and it's right where it's right ne the site of that playground is right next to one of those discharge pipes. Um, this is g that engineering effort is going to take a lot of work with MSD since it will have a decent amount of impermeable surface and I don't think we have the capacity with the underground storm water uh tanks that we have currently. So that said, there's it's almost as if this development were to move forward, it's going to need to be closely coordinating not only with the Main Street extension project that the city has planned, which would be something to push for to have that connection pushed further to the east. And then secondly, um coordinating to make sure that storm water control and storm water mitigation efforts are put in place to tie all three projects together considering that the village green will be the premier site here in town center that we're trying to promote as a city. So just wanted to add that in and add in the fact that that easement will be needed. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jackson. Yeah. So I remember when this came up the first time I was very much engaged asked a lot of questions. I just have one and I've read through the documents saw the presentation. What has sign what in your opinion is the biggest the top maybe one or two significant changes you made that would make us reverse our decision of the last no vote? What what would you say is the biggest thing for me? I'm I'm trying to figure out what less residents or less rentals 55 to 45 or whatever it was.

Yeah, originally it was 65. So, uh that's a significant significant reduction in the amount of units. I mean, it went from the the last plan that was before the council was 55. You guys, I think had a 58 and this is a 44 unit plan. That's that's 20 25% reduction in the number of units. In addition, there's quite a bit and because of that, there's a lot more common ground. There's a lot more um there's a lot less almost an acre less of paved area. So, and the concern, the separation from the property owner to the south, I mean, now that's 83 ft. And I would point out that where you're talking about that one unit that is closed, the house is is uh is way up by Edton Road. So I mean this is really far back from where any residence would actually be. So but it's it's a significant reduction in the number of units uh the amount of pvious or imperous surface and we've added a lot of common ground half acre of common ground to buffer the area to the south. So if you look around the whole thing where where we border other other than roads to the south we have this half acre 83 feet and to the east to going over the park we have 100 ft. I know that's where the detention basin is but it's a low area but the concern was well we have a wall detention basin which we no longer have. I mean if I built a walled basin maybe I could bring that pipe back onto my own property but we didn't want to do that. So this this is it's going to look a lot better from the park. We at one time we had a drive going up next between the the back sides of those units that's no longer there. So I think there's been a lot of improve imp improvement over the course of time. Um you know the amount of parking that was that was a concern and we added 11 spaces. We could add more along that road and we could even add more in the in the culde-sac but at some point you

know how much more additional parking do you want to put in? And maybe we want to put in more. I I don't know. That was a but we could do that if you if you wanted more parking for the residents overflow parking there's there's ability to do that. So you answered exactly. I needed a good summary. Okay. And you did it and we you went step by step. I just need the summary so I could understand it. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Do we have any public speakers?

Yes, Madam Chair. Uh the first speaker is Mr. CR. Hello, my name is Tim CR. I live at 2460 Etheton Road. I am the immediate property facing this development. Um I want to touch base real quick on erosion. I can 100% tell you that this will cause erosion to my property. It's all grass back there now. And I have lots of erosion. I've lost at least 2 ft of property running down the middle of my back backyard. I've lost a tree that was 50 years old because of erosion. It just eroded it right out of the ground. And it be it comes from next door. Um, I've even put in a French drain system to stop the water. And and on heavy rain days, you can see it just pumping it, taking it from these fields over here. And let me just give you a little idea on what this looks like here. This is on one side was Main Street. They developed an old farm property. That makes sense. It was one giant piece of property. On the other side, these are all one to three acre lots. And here, this guy has slowly accumulated these rental houses and now he wants to dump in 40 homes. 44 homes. That's crazy. You're ruining my property. You're ruining every aspect of my property. Every view, out my front window, out my side window, out my backyard. Now will be full of lighting. I'll see all these homes. Hopefully they still put the fence if this ever gets approved. Um, but there's so many bigger topics here.

There's a property not even a fourth of a mile down the street, 3 acre lot. Went through planning and zoning and they wanted to build I think at one point 11 and then nine and then eight and they said no. And so now there's three houses on that 3 acres and they've kept in line with the way the street looks and this just ruins it. And Etheton Road is an old road. Um it can't take it and it surely can't take any on street parking for this development. It one minute.

It's impossible. And it's impossible for me to to conquer every aspect of this. How far how what is the setback of these driveways? Uh is it 20 ft minimum? I thought that all developments in the city of Wildwood would have to mimic the other side. So there's no front-facing houses on Etherton. So these poor people in Main Street that bought houses, now they'll look at the side of a building. Um you know, and we defeated this. And one thing I want to touch on, we shouldn't even be here today because we defeated this in planning and zoning twice. We defeated it at city council and it was a big deal. The news was there. The city attorney, Mr. Young, paused with Joe, with Mr. Voonage, and they all took a fivem minute break, read through all the documents, and they said, "Okay, he cannot come back for one year and present or build anything." Here we are three months later. The city lied to me. The city lied to every resident of our city

and if the city attorney is wrong then he should be fired. Thank you sir. Mr. Newberry

next speaker is Miss Link [clears throat] Lin Link. Ward six. Here we are only a few months into the required one-year postfinal um denial waiting period with the same developer, same parcel, now with different luxury name with 44 units. The developer previously argued 55 was the minimum units to make the numbers work. I want to remind the commission that density was not the only issue with this proposed development. Benton Homebuilders has several rentals already in St. Charles County where there have been numerous complaints from former residents about parking issues as well as poor construction and poor maintenance. Whether 55 or 44 units, water runoff is already an issue for nearby homeowners with some of the homes on our historic preservation list. Even the best water abatement procedures cannot stop all water runoff. The houses which would be need to be demolished were built from 1949 to 1973 with asbestous in insulation, brick and mortar adhesives, drywall, roofing and flooring. Demolition poses a threat to all nearby residents as asbestous fibers once disturbed can travel over a mile. As proper asbestous removal can be cost prohibited for any project, the city should require the developer to submit the DNR as bestus abatement report and plan prior to any approval. Parking is now more of an issue with the recent approval of the nearby Wildwood luxury rentals, a 1, two, and threebedroom 188 unit with multi- a multi-story complex which allowed a reduction of the required perunit parking. The developer

was told that their tenants and their visitors can park on our streets in our public garage. Reduction of tax revenue, especially to our schools, is even more concerning as a developers of the Wildwood Luxury Apartments were given 10 years of tax abatements. Commissioner Healthy, you asked at a prior hearing why this developer would have a homeowners association when there are no homeowners, only home renters, and the business owner, the landlord. The Secretary of State shows that Mr. Levenson is the registered agent not only of Benton Homebuilders, but over 30 LLC's, including several of their developments in St. Charles County. Several of these developments also have incorporated HOAs as a 523 nonprofit corporation, which it holds title to portions of their developments. IRS code 523 allows HOAs to have tax exemption on real estate property held in their name as well as tax exempt status of certain portions of their income. There are many reasons to still deny this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry.

The next speaker is uh Miss Parsons. Good evening. Hello. My name is Julie Parsons and I live at 2425 Etherton Road in Ward 8. And uh I was a big opponent of the last uh proposed project and probably the same reasons. Uh we really don't want a rental community in our neighborhood. I there. And I have a few questions about this development if it does go forward. Um, in terms of construction, will it be constructed all at the same time or will, you know, several units be um built and then rented out like they like homeowners do, they get the funds to build a home and then they fill the home and then they move on to the next one. Um, we have one home being built across the street from our house that is it's unsightly. It's their their lot is full of debris and everybody that passes by is like what is it that they are building there? So, I'm really concerned about all the potential uh construction coming down a road, especially dump trucks and um large trucks that are bringing equipment for the construction area. So, I'm really concerned that there will be, you know, strict limits on construction traffic into the Cambury neighborhoods should this go forward. Um, I just that's all I want and I know a lot of people have told me they are opposed to this project and I hope their their voices will be heard

at some point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Chair Hoffrey, we do not have any uh speaker cards for this item um here in the room, but if we could just give a moment for the folks online uh on Zoom to use the raise hand feature if you would like to speak. You just give that a few few moments.

No, not seeing any. Would it be appropriate for me to ask one more question? Is that okay? Okay. Uh, a question I would have would be because Road has been such a big conversation over the uh the years about how it's an older road and it's narrow and um a lot of traffic. How would the construction traffic, I'm talking to the large equipment, the earth moving equipment, the the dump trucks and things, how would they access this property? And if they did use other and damaged that road, um which is a very good possibility, who would be responsible for repairing that road? Just

typically in many of the order district ordinances the department prepares for the commission and the commission forwards to city council. We establish restrictions on construction traffic and the use of certain roads. In this instance, we would try as best as possible to direct them to Route 109, then Main Street to the site, avoiding Etherton Road and Cambury and the streets that are part of Cambury.

Okay. So if those construction vehicles damaged the road, for example, the center islands, the curbs on the center islands on Main Street, or if they ended up going down Edton Road, who would be responsible for repairing the roads for those things?

Typically, there's a special use permit that's issued by the Department of Public Works, and there's an escrow associated with that. There's also an escrow process relative to the subdivision itself. So all in all the process is we videotape the improvements before construction starts so that we know the current condition and if there is damage and it's related to the project then there's no question it was not there when you started it's there now you're responsible ultimately we hope that we get cooperation most of the time we do but that's not to say all the time. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, Commissioner Jackson,

my only followup, you require a bond on these things, right? Anyway, there's a number of escros. Bonds are typically not preferred. They're hard to obtain. Um, it's not like having letter of credit or cash. And those are the two that are more accessible and easier to draw upon if we need it. And you have that record. Okay. That's

And madam chair, just one thing. Um when this all when the previous proposal concluded with the denial of the the appeal by city council, there was a question about the 12-month blackout period relative to any similar proposal being submitted. The department's impression was is that would apply once the appeal was denied. Both the city attorney and the department of planning reviewed the materials, the code, and for the most part, my understanding, and I concur with this, is that the receipt of the denial, the report from the planning and zoning commission was done at the hearing on the appeal on May of 2024. The appeal was denied approximately one year later, and that was the blackout period. And so that's why we're here tonight. If the residents feel they were lied to, I apologize. But again, we went through it very thoroughly. There was concurrence on the part of our attorney and the department, and that's why we're here today.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Okay. Do we have a motion? Mr. Commissioner Rubis made a motion to close the hearing. Do I have a second? Commissioner um Clayton. All in favor? I I All opposed. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Uh Mr. Newberry, would you like to read the next?

Yes. PZ13-25, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, Care of Department of Planning, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri. A request for the consideration and issuance of a subsequent recommendation by the planning and zoning commission regarding its consideration of a moratorium on the processing and or issuance of authorizations and associated permits for the demolition of historic elements as defined by the city's historic survey due to the city's historic preservation commission completing Wildwood's first historic preservation plan which is intended to provide guidance and steps to assist private owners of these assets in preserving them through their guidance and steps to assist p excuse me through their rehabilit ation, restoration, and reuse. This action would be in place for no longer than 8 months from the date of the city council's action on the approving ordinance for the same alls.

Thank you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair and members of the planning and zoning commission, tonight for your consideration, the department is presenting a request. The request is prompted by two things that are underway simultaneously at this time. The first is ownorous. Recently, Mary Cliff resident which was located on the Marinus Retreat Center site was demolished. The Mary Cliff residence had a very very long history in excess of 125 years. It had in many instances some of the key elements that any historic asset would have that would be listed with the National Park Service, the state of Missouri, St. Louis County in the city of Wildwood. The owners of the Mariners Retreat Center did allow the city of Wildwood and its historic preservation commission time to try to find options in terms of its preservation. Options were presented and ultimately those options were not sufficient for the owners of the property to forego the demolition. The demolition has occurred and the asset is lost forever. Along with that particular instance, there is the JP Connell House at Route 100 and State Highway T. Another prime example of a historic asset that could be rehabilitated and reused. The owners of the property, which are the developers of St. Albins's, want to do demolish it. Again, to their credit, they have given ample time to find options from the city. The city has offered those options and most recently the request was asked for the demolition permit to be issued. Fortunately, there appears to be an entity that has stepped

in, submitted a contract, and does now intend to try to rehabilitate the home and turn the remainder of the property into a cattle ranch. Positive. Out on the horizon is the Lasal Retreat Center, probably one of the most important historic assets in all of the region. We don't know the future of that. It is on the market for sale and for all intents and purposes, the department feels it's a property that's in peril. So that's the one thing that we're dealing with right now. Not just homes that are just 75 years old that have not been maintained, fallen into disarray and are in the best interest of the community to have removed. Now we're seeing these examples of historic assets that cannot be replaced and have been part of the community for hundred or more years. While that is all being trans being managed, the city of Wildwood through its city council and its historic preservation commission has begun the city's first historic preservation plan. And part of that plan is to assess the priorities related to our assets and also to come up with strategies to help owners of these assets understand grants, tax credits, rehabilitation opportunities, etc. along with the city's incentives. That plan will be completed in about 6 to 8 months and may hold keys to successful preservation of these assets. And so from that perspective, it would seems from the city's perspective that if we have a plan that might ultimately help

in our efforts and convince property owners of these assets to maybe consider another option. The thought was why don't we wait till the plan is done. How do you institute that weight? It's called a moratorum. And tonight the department is presenting for public comment the a recommendation or a moratorum on any further demolitions of any of the assets listed as part of our inventory until such time the city council endorses and ratifies our preservation plan. With that plan in hand, the intent would be to be better prepared to address situations that have arisen like the Mary Cliff resident. The next step if there is um favorable responses from the planning and zoning commission members tonight is to pre prepare a resolution for your action at the next meeting. So if there are any questions of the department in this regard, certainly it will be glad to answer them at this time. Mr. Rubis at one time was a leazison to our historic preservation commission and has been on the front line of some of the demolitions we've had to address. And so from that perspective, he may be able to add a um more information from a different view. And thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Commissioner Jackson, I I I had to miss the last uh 10-year planning. Surely, this will be part of the 10-year plan proposal. This will be inputed into that.

As you know, when we were in the planning element of our master plan, we spent a great deal of time talking about historic preservation and steps. In fact, we did notify at least three new steps to add to the plan and that was just with regards to the objective and not the policies. So yes, we have endorsed the development of the plan and the group the volunteer group doing the master plan have also basically um endorsed doing more to preserve the these assets than we have been in the past. Thank you. You're welcome. So you'll see it again. Commissioner Rubis,

I I was on the commission when we dealt with Mary uh Cliff and that was really a tragic thing that that was had a lot of history to it. It was a subject of of a best-selling book. Um, and I understand the problem. The the owners couldn't afford to keep keep the building up. And we tried to come up with u some options for him and and unfortunately it didn't work out. uh there was no uh angel that stepped in to uh to purchase the property so that it could be preserved. But one of the problems with our historic preservation is we don't really have any teeth to force anybody to do anything. All we can do is cajul suggest and um I think this plan that we're in the process of developing will bring in some new ideas especially is what other municipalities uh governmental agencies that have control over what do they do and you know I hope that there's some Lel, the JB Connell House, and the U. What was the third one that you talked about?

Well, we lost the Mary Cliff residence already. We we lost the uh Pond Hotel, which yes,

was really part of this area, the pond of of portion of Wildwood. and it was gone by a process we called demolition by neglect. Uh the owner just wouldn't do anything to it. He knew that it was in bad shape and it finally collapsed on itself and we had we lost it. So I I I'm I'm I would be in favor of a moratorum and until we get a plan and and may maybe we won't be able to solve the problem but at least this will give us some time to maybe make ourselves smarter than we are today about historic preservation.

Thank you Commissioner Rubis. Anyone else? [snorts] Mr. Newberry. Um, m Madam Chair, we've received one speaker card in uh the council chambers for from Miss Link. Okay, Commissioner Borne, I see you. I'll get you next.

One of the many things that makes Wildwood such a uniquely beautiful place in which to live is that we still have many of our historic buildings. These buildings still exist thanks to the founders of our city who had the vision to incorporate and took the extraordinary effort to do so. Part of this vision was establishing the Historic Preservation Commission to help ensure the preservation of these one-of-a-kind assets. The Wildwood Historical Society works with the city to provide valuable local historical information on these properties, some of which is housed only in our library and museum. Historical assets generally won't be preserved unless their historical value is known. St. Louis County Assessor lists a year built of properties within their jurisdiction. However, the older the structure, the more likely the assessor is to underestimate the age. Hanken House, home of the Wildwood Historical Society, we know was built circa 1852, but the assessor lists it as built in 1930. I recently met a woman in her 70s who grew up in a home near Hanken House, which the assessor lists as being built in 1959, who said that the house was at least 75 years old when her parents bought it in the 1940s. In Town and Country, during a demolition in the 1990s, a pre-Ivil War log cabin was discovered as the original structure of a house that was listed as being built in the 1950s. Luckily, the builder recognized the historic value and it was moved to Drace Park. Preservation of our historical assets is an imperative part of ensuring preservation of our own unique history and assets for future regeneration which is which have miraculously survived until this day. We only

preserve what we value and we only value things if we know their important history. Civic planning with historic preservation in mind and resoning and the approval process requires not only attempting to ensure that historic properties are not demolished, but also keeping in mind the possible adverse effects of demolition and construction as well as potential runoff and erosion on foundations of nearby historic properties. The assessor shows the north adjacent property to the luxury latitude villas listed as 242 24 as a home that has been built in 1936. However, it is shown on the 1930, 1909, and 1878 plat maps at that exact location. Thank you to the city of Wildwood for trying to preserve our past.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Borne. Mr. Dr. Vunish, could you speak a little more about the historic preservation plan that you were mentioning that would be available here in 8 months or so? And and specifically, what what's the goal of the plan? Is is the goal to offer those land owners options before they go down the road of demolition, or is the goal for us to truly prevent them from destroying these homes? I'm not sure I fully understand what we're what we're going to be doing in eight months.

Commissioner Bourne, I will tell you that in many instances where we've talked about modifying our current historic preservation and restoration code to make it more mandatory. They have not been um they have not been supported. Um the thought is is that the true benefit of historic preservation should be a partnership between the governmental entity in this case the city and the property owner. So in 2014 when we did a major update of our regulations relative to this subject area that was the first question that was asked should we move from a voluntary approach to something else and it was a resounding no. We think we can make this work and do a good job with the cooperation of the property owners. What the plan is intended to do is to address a number of different components of historic preservation. But in the case of the moratorum and trying to work better with the property owner in terms of preservation, rehabilitation, reuse is to kind of gather together all those different grants, tax credit programs, incentive packages that are available and put them in one place and then once in that place ensuring that they are up to date each and every month, each and every year etc. There are successful ways to do this process. It's not to say that we haven't, but for the most part, when someone comes to us and asks what's available, we give them multiple sheets of things. We send them to the state historic preservation office. We send them to the National Park Service. And the intent of the plan is to bring it more closer to home and give us the tools to make that first impression a good impression.

Thank you. Um I I I'm not against a moratorum at all. Um however, I I do believe it should be a little more limiting in scope. Um if I understood what I read correctly, it was 75 years, which would only be back to anything constructed prior to 1950. Is that correct? Yes. The way our code reads now, Commissioner Bourne, any property over 75 years of age has been surveyed and is part of our inventory. That is approximately about 450 of the 13,000 um lots that exist, so to speak, in Wildwood.

I mean, 19 1950, 1949, that you know, I'm not sure that was my understanding of historic. I I would be under the impression that, you know, to be truly historic, something might need to be more like 100 or 125 years old, you know, uh possibly built prior to 1900, you know, that still be in salvageable condition and and that it would have the potential to be economically viable if it is, you know, retained and and and uh and kept up, you know, but um you know, in general, I'm in favor of it as long as it's I'm not sure about 1950. That that concerns me a little.

Well, Commissioner Bourne, I can give you kind of a fun fact. The National Park Service actually has it at 50 years. So, we're 25 years plus. Um, and there's been discussion about lowering it. But for the most part, when you start thinking about if we, you know, if we do 50 years, that means homes built in 1975 would be historic. And that would be like the Evergreen subdivision in West Glenn Farms. And although they're wonderful subdivisions, don't know if they're ready to be designated historic at this time. I I agree. I feel the same way about the 1940s and 30s, but we'll we'll agree to disagree on that one, but thank you, sir. I appreciate it. My pleasure, sir.

Mr. Lee,

thank you, [clears throat] Chair. And I just wanted to quickly note just some of the things that others I we've been doing some research the department the departments have been doing this and um this obviously needs to be investigated further as part of the historic master plan but just some of the things that you could introduce not necessarily saying these need to proceed but really you know right now there's not too much documentation that a property owner would need to provide to destroy some of these assets like the Mary cliff um some things cities you know around US and also across the country have been able to, you know, enact is that you have to prove some type of financial hardship or financial need that the building can't remain there because it costs too much to be able to keep maintaining. Um, it has provisions in there, some cities have provisions in there that pretty much address if there's um individuals that are, you know, letting the property go on purpose in order for them to obviously get the uh the demo permit allowed. Um there's also you can look at it like Mr. Bunich has mentioned is it voluntary or involuntary there's obviously that discussion is much more widespread but just wanted to note a couple things that this moratorum while also doing the historic master historic preservation master plan will allow the department time and also the team time with uh the consultant to be able to come up with some recommendations to bring back for this group's consideration and ultimately the city council. So, just more so just trying to help before we get another Mary Cliff that would come in um relatively soon. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion? Uh Mr. Manubry, do we have any comments? One moment. I don't see any hand raised on Zoom and I only the I've announced the one speaker card that we received. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Madame chair to restate the motion. The department will respectfully request authorization to prepare a resolution relative to the commission's position on the moratorum for the next meeting. I make a motion to approve. Sorry, M. Okay, there we go. So, we have a first by him and a second by him.

Would you like a roll call vote? Commissioner Borne. No. Was that a Sorry, can you restate that? No, please. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Con? Yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Chair Hoffrey, yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Mayor Garitano. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. For our letters of recommendation, Mr. Newberry. Well, Mr. Bun is going to read. Mr. Newberry will read and you'll have to bring me drone on with the presentation.

Okay. Thank you. PZ7-25 West Mill Wayland Custom Homes Care of Mike Whan 338 South Kirkwood Road Sweet 103 Kirkwood, Missouri 63112. A request for a change in the zoning district designation of three designations of three properties that form attractive land that is 1.74 acres in area from the R6A 4,000T residence district town center neighborhood general district to the R4 7500T residence district which are identified by the following street addresses and St. Louis County locator numbers 1 17002 1706 and 170 17010 New College Avenue and 24V 420351 24V 420340 24V 42033 Ward 8 PZ7A-25 Westmand Custom Homes Care of Mike Whan 338 South Kirkwood Road Sweet 103 Kirkwood Missouri 63112 a request for a change in zoning district designation of two properties that form a tract of land that is 6 acres in area from the NU non- urban residence district suburban residential area to the R1A 22,000T residence district which are identified by the following street addresses 26232631 West Avenue and St. Louis County locator number numbers 24V 420153 and 24V 420186 also located within Ward 8 and then PZ 7B-25 Westmill Whan Custom Homes Car Mike will 338 South Kirkwood Road sweet 103 Kirkwood Missouri 63112 a request for the application of a planned residential development overlay district PRD in the R1A 22,000t residence district in the R4 7500T residence district for an overall and combined tracks of land totaling a size 8.05 acres in area with the following street addresses in St. Louis County. Locator numbers 1 17002 1 17006 and 1 1710 New

College Avenue 26 23 and 2-631 West Avenue 24V 420351 24V 420340 24V 42033 24V 420153 and 24V 420186 proposed use a total of 17 detached single family dwellings on individual lots of record with common ground areas access accommodations required public spaces and storm water management facilities W 8. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madame Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight the draft letter of recommendation reflecting your action that occurred at the last meeting of this body. That action was to support the components of the reszoning request as well as the application of the overlay district on this particular site. Again, the site is approximately 8 acres in size and ultimately under the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission would be authorized for up to 16 single family detached dwellings on individual lots. The unique feature of this particular property is a portion of it approximately one plus acre is in town center while the remaining seven acres is in the suburban residential area of the master plan. Ultimately there will be two types of dwellings constructed both consistent with the designations under the master plan. At the conclusion of the discussion and prior to the vote at the October meeting, the petitioner asked if there was a potential for a 17th lot. The department met with the developer and also spent a great deal of time looking at the density calculations per the requirements of the zoning ordinance and ultimately the number came to 16.2 2 but we round down and that means the recommendation as presented tonight remains at 16. Certainly, if there is a way to address the town center portion, that might be a benefit, but again, that would require the denial of the R4 resoning request and the retention of the R6A that is in place on the town center

portion of the project's boundaries. Given that the vote from the planning and zoning commission was to support the resoning department felt it couldn't change that without at least identifying it tonight and receiving direction from the commission members themselves. So tonight the letter of recommendation and draft form reflects the action of this commission and is ready to be forwarded on to city council. Uh, Commissioner Jackson.

So, a motion covers A, B, and C. It's all combined. We're not we're not taking one of those at a time. I was just a when I was reading the agenda. Yes. It's it's that collective process. We've got Okay. Town Center, we've got Suburban, and then to make it all work and ultimately achieve the 16 lots, we need the overlay district. So without one the other can't move forward so to speak right and if the and and on the other part is the petitioner is once 17 and we would have to deny it are they okay with 16 as presented or

well certainly Mr. Whan is in attendance tonight, but we've talked it through. I I other than denying the first part, which is that 7-25, which takes it from the R6A to the R4, there is no way to obtain that additional lot under the way it was advertised.

M Commissioner Rubis, did you have something? Anyone? I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Okay. The part that you would say that we would need to deny, is it the row of houses there and that's where the extra house would be if they can make it work. But as you can see, they're showing a the a storm water management facility generally speaking in that area where that additional lot would go. So, I don't know if it can all work.

Okay. Yeah. So, I'm looking at this And this one that says revise submitt. Is this the right one? Am I looking at the incorrect one? So if I count what's on here, 1 2 3 4 5 6 seven. So this drawing here shows 17. That's wishful thinking. So which one would get would be six? Um well at this stage there's five new urbanism lots. those in town center and there'll be 11 of the regular lots versus 12. So we if we if we approve it as is this drawing that's on the screen we would lose one of those full-size houses

and if we deny the part that the first part that you talked about that would deny the zoning change for the top five houses and they would try to put one in there but no matter what we would still be down one full-size house. Is that what I'm understanding?

Yes. And the reason all of this is occurring is that only in the non- urban areas of the city can you have private streets. Our master plan identifies town center and the suburban as having public streets. The original [snorts] plan showed that street as private. that private nature does not require that amount of land area to be deducted for the determination of density. And when it became public, it has to be deducted. And regardless if the code didn't even require that, I can assure you that once 11 owners were in in their homes and realized they had to maintain that street, a street that's built to a higher standard, more expensive standard, they'd be knocking on the mayor's door and city council asking it to become public after the fact. and then we'd have a problem because we have one extra lot that shouldn't be there. And so the safe approach and the approach that the department recommended in October is 16 lots.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone Commissioner Jackson? So if we approve [snorts] this as as is as presented at 16 and if Mr. Whan wanted to get add the 17. He could with he would then withdraw and then resubmit. Is that how that would go down? Actually, the city council could add the 17th lot if it chose. Your re yours is a recommendation and you're not denying anything at this stage. It's only under denial that there's a bit of a a different time to figure it out. Great. Motion to approve is presented.

Do I have a second? Commissioner Rubis seconds. Roll call vote. Any other discussion? Council Mr. Bunage. Does that with the changing of the two different zonings is is that actually a master plan change? Not in this case because again the town center boundary isn't being modified. The suburban isn't being modified. All we're doing is what's allowed and the town center portion is designated neighborhood general which in that description in the master plan says it can be anywhere roughly from the R1 one acre up to the R6A.

Great. Thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Con? Yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Commissioner Borne, yes. Um, Chair Hilfrey, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. And Mayor Gerano, thank you. Motion approved. Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Newberry. Madam Chair, I'll be reading this one. Sorry. It's all right. Mr. Bunish, go ahead.

Thank you, ma'am. BC2-03 amended Tom and Lesley North Car Steven and Abby North 1682. I think we're missing one. We missed I'm sorry I jumped ahead. Mr. Newberry, please.

Thank you. PZ9-25 Field at Clouds End LLC 850 Babler Park Drive, Wildwood, Missouri 630005. A request for the consideration of a conditional use permit CUP in the NU non-Urban Residence District and FPNU floodplane non-urban residence district for an 18acre tract of land that is located on the southeast side of Baba Park Drive north of its intersection with Guy Park Drive. Street address 840 and 850 Baba Park Drive, St. Louis County. Locator numbers 21X64309 and 21X 640291. Proposed use for sporting facing and training facility including a riding stable and an indoor riding arena. W three. Mr. Reyn, my apologies to the commission. Got ahead of myself there.

Madame Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight. The letter of recommendation regarding this requested conditional use permit. The letter of recommendation is in draft form and reflects your action on the matter from the October meeting. The department would note that it has made a couple of mistakes in the conditions of the conditional use permit. The department used the word consolidation relative to the existing fracks of land and it should be adjustment. And the 50-foot setback from the edge of flood plane only applies to residential structures. And in this case, although the horses are very valuable and have great value, it is not a residential structure. So the department is presenting to you in final form the letter of recommendation, but would ask that the word consolidation be made adjustment and the 50-foot setback from the flood plane be 25. And with that, if those two changes are amunable to the commission members, the letter of recommendation can proceed forward to receipt and filing with our city council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Anyone, Mr. uh Commissioner Rubis? Yes. I make a motion that we approve with the adjustments of the planning department. Do we have a second? Commissioner Clayton seconds. Roll call vote or any discussion? Thank you. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Con, yes. Chair Hoffrey, yes.

Council member Marshall, yes. And Mayor Garano. Thank you. Motion approved. Okay, Mr. Vunich, you're up.

Well, thank you. And I practice. I should do this very well. The next item on the agenda is PZ2-03 amended Tom and Lesley North, Care of Steven and Abby North, 1682 Manchester Road, Wild, Missouri 63040. A request for the change in the zoning district designation of this 0.4 4 acre property that is located on the south side of Manchester Road, west of Village Hills Parkway. Street address 16828 Manchester Road, St. Louisis County locator number 24V630341 from the CA plan commercial district parenthetical ordinance number of 1750 to the amended CA plan commercial district which would then allow the for its use as a single family dwelling along with retaining the existing provisions for professional offices as well as extending the time frame for its connection to public sanitary sewer in lie of the individual household. treatment system that currently serves the site. Proposed use professional offices in a single family dwelling and this particular property is located in ward 8. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinage. Mr. Newberry.

Thank you. Um Madam Chair and members of the planning and zoning commission, the department is prepared for your consideration and information report with recommendation um regarding this um the what was just described into the record. Um I've pulled up the the location of the property on the aerial view here. Um it's that small blue square in the middle just to remind you where the property is located. It's the um existing blue house on Manchester Road. Um that was a former insurance agency. Um just to give some zoning history on the property, it was formerly zoned in inu non- urban residence district under the city's regulations. Um the home was built long before the city was incorporated. Um and the former property owner and petitioner petitioned the city to change its zoning designation from the NU non- urban residence district to the C8 planned commercial district uh to accommodate uh professional offices again specifically an insurance agency. Um that zoning was completed back in 2003. Um and the facility has been um in operation as a professional office since that time. Um as part of that zoning um the city put in a provision that the home the structure um that is on that was on a sanitary individual sanitary sewer system a septic system um be connected to the um public sewer system within a year of its occupancy as a as a professional office of commercial use. Um between the time of the zoning approval and um up until today that connection has not been made. Uh many several waiverss were considered by the city for various reasons um including uh the difficulty with which it is to connect to the uh available public sewer um as well as the development pattern around the property not proceeding as was anticipated at the time that the the change in zoning was um approved. So re recently the uh property has changed hands. Um there are new owners and they

those new owners contacted the city expressing that they would like to offer the structure as a single family residence um for rent in this instance but the owners certainly might want to live there as well. Uh they were advised that that the current zoning the C8 plan commercial district only allows for professional offices. Um so this is the process we've entered into today to add to the um permitted uses um to consider adding to the permitted uses um a residential use of the property as well as the retention of the allowance for the commercial uses. Um a second component as Mr. Mr. described when he read it into the record is the extension to uh or a request to extend the requirement to um connect to this public sanitary sewer which is a component of um the department's recommendation. Um so the department is recommending that the um that a residential type use be added to the permitted uses but still retain the commercial zoning the plan C8 plan commercial district that would also allow for its future use as a professional office if they uh chose to do that. Um but again just adding the allowance to reutilize the existing structure as a single family residence. Um and then regarding the second component of the request, um the department would just like to emphasize that uh it will be important to connect this property to sanitary sewer in in the future um which has been outlined in numerous reports that have been prepared by the department over the years. Um but it is uh stating in its recommendation in the conditions of the amended um conditions that it not be required at this time. Um and that it be but that it be required if the surrounding area develops or if the existing um septic system fails and cannot be repaired, it would have to be connected at that time. Um and then also in kind of some of the protections that are in place in the

ordinance regarding the um individual septic system is that yearly inspection reports be provided by the property owner um to ensure that it's in in working order as well. Um and with that, the department is putting forth a favorable recommendation to allow for a residential type use as an accessory use with the commercial use at this property as well as the um provisions that I've described regarding the connection to the sanitary or to to the public um sanitary system. With that, the department concludes it presentation. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Anyone? Uh, Mayor Garano, I'm prepared to make a motion to to approve.

Okay. Do we have a second? Uh, it's council member Marshall. Any discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Mer.

So, Travis or or Mr. Munich, the lot behind that, is that landlocked? I mean, if somebody wanted to build on the actual lot that follows behind that over to the private road, is that even buildable or is that not that's not part of that front property? If I understand your question, Mr. Marshall, and apologize. Um that particular lot is abudded to the south by a portion of the property that was owned by New Community Church. So it's an Lshape.

Okay. And then further to the south, there's a strip of common ground that's part of the Seven Villages of Cherry Hills. Interesting.

And that's the problem. When Tom and Lesie North first petitioned to reszone the property, they had to get an easement from the property owner at that time, Mr. Cross, and then another easement from the homeowners association in the seven villages of Cherry Hills. Neither of which wanted to grant such easement. The other location of Sanitary Maine is behind New Community Church along that blue line. That's a tributary, drainage tributary. It would have to have born under um Manchester Road and then go through either New Community Church or Mary K. Corsair's property. So, you would have thought in the time that's passed now almost 20 plus years, some development would have happened on either side or across the street, but it really hasn't. So, when we talked to the Norse, we thought, well, until something changes around you, it seems reasonable.

I just I remember that. I was just trying to figure out that back lot. It would have access to that private road though, correct? It's not as if the north it's not landlocked. So that's fine. Thank you very much. Anyone else? M commissioner Rubis that Mar about is that owned by the new owners of the comm the old community church property.

Yes. The when the mosque became interested in the new community church property where the place of worship is located. New community church wouldn't sell that property without the other four acres going along with it. So, and as far as you know, there's no or anything about what they might want to do with that.

Well, the owners of the mosque, the membership, u proposed a development on that four acres. It was four fourstory buildings with like 160 units total. Um the development and zoning review committee, which is the mayor, Mr. Marshall, two ward representatives, and the chair of the commission. Brownley said that's not going to work. They have submitted a recent plan that has yet to be to the development and zoning review committee and it's now 40 um attached single family villas and the intent is to basically sell those villas as owner occupied. If they did that, would that then create a sewer connection?

Yes. Because in that instance, you 40 villas, and I've said this in a review letter to the mosque leadership, is too many on a 4 acre site. When you take into account public space, storm water, parking, etc. But any number more than one would justify making the connection because they can access the connection I think. Thank you. Anyone else? No. Do we have a We don't have a Do we have a motion? We have a motion to second. U Mr. Newberry, we do a roll call vote, please. Mr. Jackson,

yes. Mr. Rubis, yes. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Conn, yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Chair, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Mayano, thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, we now have some new business to cover. Uh Mr. Vunich is at the podium so or but Mr. Newberry is going to read. Okay. A request for the ongoing operation of an existing telecommunications tower and facility authorized by PZ25-97P Sprint Spectrum LP Marinus Retreat Center. Conditional use permit CUP and in in the and obtain the planning and zoning commission's action on in excuse me um east side of state route 109 south of Old State Road under a one-year renewal allowed by the existing conditions of this site specific permit W six. Thank you Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Madame Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration a favorable recommendation regarding the extension of this conditional use permit to allow this particular telecommunications facility to stay in place and continue to provide service to this portion of Wildwood. The department did a site visit and generally speaking, the conditions at the site were very good. We're missing a few landscaping elements. Nothing too serious. So, the department does have before you tonight a favorable recommendation. If the recommendation is supported by the planning and zoning commission, we will see this again in November 2026. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Uh, Mayor Gerano. Yeah. Uh I think this is the typical routine annual renewal and believe the state uh doesn't give anyway much flexibility to cities. So I'll go ahead and make a motion for approval. Thank you. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Rubis. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Um Commissioner Borin, yes. Commissioner Conn, yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Chair Hoffrey, yes. Council member Marshall,

yes. And Mayor Geritano, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Motion passes. Okay. Mr. Newberry. A review and determination regarding the renewal of an existing conditional use permit CUP and the amended C8 plan commercial district granted by the city council via resolution on May 13, 2002 for a telecommunications tower and related equipment shelter PZ16-99 Brent Spectrum LP. The commission must consider renewing this permit on an annual basis. This facility is located on the north side of Clayton Road, east of Shreker Road, St. Louis, excuse me. Locator number 21U120327 street address 16497 Clayton Road W 2. Thank you Mr. Newberry. Mr. Winnich.

Again, thank you Madam Chair. Madame Chair, members of the planning and zoning commission. The department has prepared for your consideration tonight a recommendation report reg relative to this particular request. The request is made by Crown Castle via T-Mobile. T-Mobile, a major provider of telecommunication services, and the request relates to the extent the antenna arrays can extend from the surface of the tower. Currently, under the conditional you excuse me, under the amended C8 plan commercial district with a conditional use permit, that distance is limited to 18 in, the petitioner is requesting 24 in. The department is supportive of the request and is also asking the commission to allow it some flexibility as telecommunications services mature now from 5G to 6G. We do not know exactly at least the department of planning some on the dismay what those antennas are going to look like. And so in this instance, the department is also recommending not only the 24 in, but that the department have flexibility if antenna rays would grow up to 30 in thereby forgoing an immediate review by the commission and lobing the that review occur internally with the department of planning and the department of public works. saying that if over 30 in, we would return to the commission and present the recommendation report. We have the photograph by any chance. So, I I know we've been at it for a bit, but there's a couple of photographs I want to show you, and I think they're important for you to see for a very positive reason.

This is the cat. Sorry, I apologize. I thought it be a little quicker. Well, never mind. Mr. about in the packet of information. If you look on page 12 and 13, there's a couple of photographs that were provided by the department. One is from the center turn lane on Clayton Road, which I would not encourage you to do too often, but I was staged there and I took a picture of the south facing area of the site. And as you can see from the photograph, what you all do works. That's why I wanted you to see it. You require landscaping. When landscaping matures, that's what it looks like. And other than the tip of the tower, you can't see the equipment shelter at all. And good job. The next is the page right after it. And that is the tower structure itself. And as you'll recall, originally we required all of this stuff to be inside the tower. So it was not visible. Ultimately through your guidance we allowed different iterations of antenna to be added. And when you look at it it's not that intrusive. In fact it's a working tower that provides excellent communication services. So you again you've done a good job. I wanted you to see it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Vich's hor. Well, I can certainly there are if you go on the internet, you can get either side, but Mr. Jackson's RX [laughter] not on cat. [laughter] People come back and says, "You damaged my calf." Do we have a motion? Uh, Commissioner Clayton, make a motion to approve as recommended. We have a second. Council member Marshall. Thank you. Uh, do do you would you like a roll call vote or roll call vote? Mr. Vicberry.

Mr. Borne. Yes. Commissioner Con? Yes. Commissioner Clayton? Yes. Commissioner Deppler? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Chair Hilfrey? Yes. Council member Marshall? Yes. Mayor Gotano? Yes. Thank you. Okay, guys. We have one more item for consideration. Mr. Newberry, planning and zoning commission's preliminary consideration of the city's 5-year capital improvement plan as required by chapter 89 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which states this administrative body must review and act on this planning program so as to ensure consistency with the city's master plan all.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. village.

Madame Chair, the Department of Planning along with assistance from the Department of Administration, our city administrator, Thomas Lee, and our director of public works, Rick Brown, have prepared for city council, the five-year capital improvements plan. That plan must be reviewed and endorsed by the planning and zoning commission under state statute, and that is your charge tonight. In the report, the department identifies certain major projects relative to all of the different disciplines, whether it be road, bridges, streets, trails, parks. The funding of all of this, Mr. Lee can go into detail as much as you'd like or as little. And Mr. Brown has stuck around with us, which we appreciate, to talk about any of the public works components. But I can assure you that a lot of work has gone into this via our city administrator, the mayor and city council to ensure that we do quality projects within the bounds of our revenues and expenditures. And so tonight you have a report that I think the most part continues the tradition of Wildwood of doing quality projects through grants and capital improvement sales tax to the benefit of all of our residents. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Lee and Mr. Brown to add anything they would like at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Would you like to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Uh, yes, Madam Chair. Thank you so much uh for the introduction there, Mr. Bunes. And [clears throat] just wanted to add a couple quick notes, some highlights as was recorded in the memorandum prepared for tonight. But a lot of the items that were originally prepared for 2026, they will be proceeding forward. Um, I did want to note just the process that the city council uh has kind of painstakingly went through over the last year going through our cap 5-year capital improvement fund and really putting it through a priority matrix. And this is a new system that we have put together. it is included in the attachment uh the methodology and some ranking scores that were included for 2026. Um this process is supposed to simplify and streamline and really help the city keep within its constraints financially. Um overall we had been finding that we were overprogrammed in some of the upcoming years. So, one thing we wanted to do was identify each project that was included in our 5-year capital and then run it through this matrix while also assigning scores based off of um 17 different uh excuse me [clears throat] 17 different criterion. And those criterion are listed and have explanations on their weights included. That is page just for your reference if you're looking the matrix is on page 12 and page 13 and the methodology follows there. That said, um, some projects did have to be removed from our five-year capital. The reason behind it is not necessarily that they are gone. They didn't disappear. They were placed on an unfunded needs list. And what this means is that these projects without action from the council will remain on this list and they will serve as a repertoire for us to go back in the future and be able to pull projects out of almost a bullpen of different ideas that we know need to be done, but we just do not have the funding currently. So, this is the real goal. And there's also an unfunded

needs document that's included. It's the last attachment the very bottom of the page that explains the rationale where the project recommendation came from. Um and the color coding green, yellow and red indicate tier one, tier 2 and tier three. So that said the [clears throat] department's available to answer any questions but this has been a very method methodological approach and it has been pretty time inensive. I appreciate the team's um ability to come in and really work hard on getting this done. And overall, I'm happy to report that in the five years, we will have a positive fund balance at the end of each year for the next five years. And if grant opportunities do do emerge and for some of these projects, we can most definitely assume that some grant opportunities could be there. the department will start working and coordinating with the separate committees to identify if there are any grants available, go after them and that should [clears throat] potentially help us add more projects to the list if possible. But a big emphasis and a big portion of the grading rubric is is it included in our master plan? Is it included in the five-year strategic plan and is it specifically identified as a goal? And then secondly, uh [clears throat] is there external revenue? And just to give everyone an update, and I know this doesn't necessarily tie directly to the projects itself, but uh the city gets a little bit less than $3 million per year from its halfsent capital improvement sales tax. And that money is used entire in its entirety to fund all capital projects within the city. We do have a road and bridge fund that is dedicated to more so street maintenance, but not necessarily capital improvement. Um that said, going through these projects, it's it's not fun having to remove them, but some of them, but at the end of the day, uh to get the get the projects in order and having expenditures be less than revenue, some difficult decisions had to be made. The

council has been reviewing this every step of the way and more than happy to answer any questions if uh you have any on the documentation that's provided tonight. I wanted to make sure that um our director of public works if wanted to speak on any of the specific projects or if you have questions on on any of the specifics projects listed for 2026 or beyond more than happy to answer tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown, would you like to speak? No.

Thank you. I'll just say briefly I would like to mention so we do have our uh project old state road shared use path that we've been working on for quite a while now that is going to be in front of council on Monday night for first readings. So we have a contractor that's been selected a low bid teill construction. And so we're hoping that after award of that through the city council, we'll be moving forward with construction shortly um sometime this winter. And then you should be seeing construction start on the route 109BA roundabout. That project was awarded earlier this fall to Gersonson Construction. And uh we're hoping to have a pre-bid meeting here in or excuse me, a pre-construction meeting here in a couple weeks with notice to notice to uh proceed. And with that, I'll address any questions if you have any. Thank you. U chair Commissioner Rubis

on page three the fiscal the last column fiscal year estimate year and expenses that's going to be spent this year for our fiscal year or is that a uh are we on calendar year that's if you're sorry no I was just answering we're on a calendar year Mr. Rubis I'll let Mr. respond to the the numbers.

Yes, and that is estimated. There could be a couple slight changes as in the right of way for Main Street Extension. Um, and a few of the other ones. Let me see here too. Uh, there are a few here that probably will not be reported when we do the end ofear financial audit. Uh, just based we wanted to have those monies available in case we needed to make the purchase of right away on the northern end of Main Street for the Main Street extension. So, just a quick note there. But yes, this is luckily [clears throat] um somewhat in 2025, we had a ton of different federally funded projects come in at the same time, including well, not necessarily federally, but um the village green phase one expenditures tied to Village Green phase 2, also having our high friction surface treatment project that was added in late last year, and then on top of that, completing the entirety of the Manchester Taylor Road uh project as well. So, we've had quite a few projects go out the door, not to mention we had to make direct payments to MODOT in excess of what was initially required from them uh for the Route 100 J turns and the Route 100 left turn lanes. So, that said, that page is reflecting of what is anticipated for the end of fiscal year 2025.

Thank you, Mayor Gerano. Yeah, I was just going to echo that, you know, a lot of great work went into this and uh being on the council and knowing the work that the various committees put in to get to this point, I'm happy to make a motion. Uh do we have a second? Discussion. Uh do we have a second? No. Have a question. Okay. Or have to wait. Do we need a second? Commissioner Clayton or Jackson. Okay, Commissioner Jackson seconds it and then discussion. Mr. Con?

Yes. Uh, in previous budgets, there was a number in there for pickle ball courts in the town center and I guess that's one of the items that's been cut and if so, is there a chance that it might be there in 2027? It has not been removed from the unfunded list and certainly if in the future there is a grant opportunity or expenditures lesson and revenues increase, it's certainly on the list. It's not forgotten, but it's not in the next 5-year plan.

I I have a question. Uh on on page 13 when I'm looking at this uh the red the items in red line item number 26 says Route 100 109 sound mitigation pilot program and that's no longer in there. My question is does that have anything to do with the properties that are being built uh at the corner of 10 and 109? Well ma'am all of those sound mitigation steps are under the requirements of the ordinance the city council passed and will be done by Fischer Fal. Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Con? Yes. Commissioner Clayton?

Yes. Commissioner Deppler? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Borne? Yes. Chair Hoffrey? Yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Mayor Garano. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any closing remarks? We always appreciate your assistance and being here tonight. So, thank you all. Can I say something? I want to say Can we have a motion to see if Mr. Commissioner Jackson can say something? Go ahead.

I told everyone what a great meeting you ran. You did not You run You did not disappoint. Right to the point. Right. This is the second time in my entire tenure that you've done it when I was here. Excellent job. That's all. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Motion to compliment you is what it should be. All right. Can we have a motion? Thank you. Do we have a second? Amir Gerano. All in favor? Thank you very much.