City Council - Regular Meeting

Are you guys done working over there on High Street? Yes. No. No. The bottom trees. Yeah. Do all I didn't know at all. You guys were the structure went in last week. It's a lot bigger than I thought. Seven. Gina's on. We're ready. You ready, Shar? Here we go, guys. Regular meeting of Washington, Missouri City Council, Monday, March 2nd, 2026, 7 p.m. Barracks here. Brings Coulter here. Hydrrim here. Patky here. Peps here.

Selled allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All the council members answer if they have or not read the minutes of the council meeting dated February 17th, 2026. Mayor, yes. Coulter, yes. Almire, yes. Patki, yes. Pepsil, yes. Solup, yes. Motion to approve. Second. Motion by PPY. Uh, and second by Coulter to approve. All those in favor say I. I. Passes. Approval and adjustment of agenda including consent agenda. You have a change order number one, riverfront trail connection project phase 2 area one and flag lighting. Flag plaza lighting. Motion to approve. Second.

Motion by Patky, second by Barer to approve the uh. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. It passes. Public hearings. Code change R2 family residence district.

Yes. Good evening, council. Uh this is a long time coming. I would say I've been working on this uh ever since I started with the city. Um, and these code changes are to address a myriad of issues we've been having with the R1C um, single family attached zoning district, but we're doing it through the uh, uh, duplex zoning district. So, I'll I'll go ahead and kind of get into a little bit of history here and uh, we'll get to the the changes as as they stand. So, um, the R1C zoning district is our uh, the city's zoning district for single family attached um, units. And the reason why we have this zoning district is um after the mortgage crisis um banks did not really uh have not enjoyed financing um ownerattached um condos. They are just not not a fan of it. They they get worse rates than um uh attached single family homes. And we'll kind of get into the differences of of those on the uh next slide. And so the thought of the thought at the time was uh we wanted to uh create a zoning district with larger lot sizes um uh to uh maintain uh some of the some of the same standards of single family zoning. Um and uh so any this district has a one-sided zero lot line set back um and a 6-ft um sixoot setback on the side and a 10-ft setback um on the on the other side. Um so getting into some of the differences between duplexes and attached single family homes. Um duplexes are what we currently allow in the R2 um zoning district. Um so a duplex is a structure with two dwelling units uh on one parcel of land. Um one owner owns or an association, a condo association uh owns

the underlying land um of a duplex and the individual units can be sold, rented out while the original owner/condo association possesses the underlying land. And even though they often might look the same, um an attached single family home is different from a duplex because each home is on its own lot. Um and the lot line runs down the middle of these these two homes. Whereas a duplex, uh both homes are just on one lot. Um and the owner only owns the structure itself and not the underlying land. Um so for an attached single family home um and yeah there can be more more than one unit uh on uh that that is attached to each other for an attached single family home whereas a duplex is just two homes next to each other. Uh so similarities, you know, these these look the same. It's just kind of how they're they're divided up. Um they have shared walls, shared roofs, and no shared entrances. So getting to some of the issues that we have seen with this zoning district, um minimum lot size. Um so when uh people will uh want to dissolve a condo association um uh because you know for for the financing uh they yeah the minimum lot size is is uh too too large. So for example um in the R1C zoning district the minimum lot size is 6,000 square ft. in the R2 zoning district. Um, we require uh uh

12,000

12 Thank you. 12,000 square feet. Um, in the broader R2 district, but um in the R2 overlay, we uh allow duplexes to be 6,000 square ft. So, we've run into a number of scenarios where uh and where where people have requested variances and uh other other things um to to get around this uh metric. So over the past 10 years, uh the planning and zoning department has received nine variants for nine, excuse me, nine variances for properties in the R1C zone, uh to bypass the minimum lot size, which is 10% of the total number of properties in the R1C uh zoning district. So when you have 10% of the properties uh in a zoning district that require a variance, there might be some issues there, right? Um, and the average lot size for these properties was 4,500 square ft. Um, which is much lower than the minimum lot size of 6,000 ft required for that district. Um, and so because we've, uh, gotten so many variances, um, for this zoning district, um, we came up with some modifications to the R2 zoning district to, uh, prevent some of this bureaucracy and, uh, make it a little easier for property property owners who want to dissolve their condo associations, um, you know, with existing duplexes, um, to go in and just make this change a little bit easier. Um because as as I pointed out, you know, these uh a duplex and attached single family home look the same. You know, the the change is really just the financing metric and how they're kind of laid out on uh paper. So, uh some changes that we're we're requesting for the R2 uh zoning district is to allow single family attached dwellings as a permitted use in the R2 district. um removing sideyard setbacks to uh allow

attached single family units in larger town home style developments. Um we're asking to lower the minimum lot size for a single family dwelling in R2 to 3,000 square ft and two family dwellings to 6,000 square ft. Um lower the minimum watt, excuse me, lower the minimum lot width to 30 ft. And um what this this what this effect will have is when uh a duplex owner in the R2 district wants to um uh dissolve their condo association and uh have their their home on uh their own lot instead of on a shared lot. Um, this will instead of needing to do a resoning and a subdivision and potentially a variance because of uh how large the the minimum lot size is in the R1C district, now they will only have to subdivide um in most cases. And so visualizing this a bit for you, uh this is a zoning map of the zoning districts that we're we're talking about here. Um so you can see the R1C is in orange here and it's kind of spread spread throughout. Um, and it's it's been uh no one has really come into the city of Washington and said, "I want to do a R1C development." It's kind of just as time has passed and people have wanted better financing opportunities, um, they've applied for this zoning district and uh, as as we mentioned, as people have gone through and requested this zoning district, um, that's when those variances have been popping up. So there's around 100 total properties or excuse me 105 total properties in the R1C zoning district and about 10% of those have variances. So we want to eliminate that in the future and uh uh move move forward with that. And um this me next map is just pointing out um the current vacant lots in the R2 uh zoning district. So we've

got about uh eight or so lots. Um, one of these is uh this lot down, let's see, this lot down here is currently in the uh currently in planning commission. Um, KJU has submitted a planned development for that lot. So, um, that lot will soon not be developable developable pending on approval. Um, so these are the places where you could see um 3,000 square feet attached um single family homes if the property owners um wanted to do that.

If I can, Erin, if I asked Aaron to go ahead and provide this map at the time when we were looking at trying to deal with what the banks were u felt they were limited with in financing these lots and we went with this R1C. A concern at the time from the planning and zoning commission was they did not want some developer to come in and request lots that were less than the size that were there. So now we're at a point where we've seen how many of these have been done and they have less concerns. In short, they have less concerns about that because in theory if you make this code change, just so you understand, somebody could request R2 zoning,

correct? do a single family uh unit on only 3,000 square ft. So, they could do that. So, that's why I asked Aaron to kind of highlight the areas in town where you still may see something like this. This does not take into account that if somebody would buy several blocks or a block or a half a block or and then tear down the existing homes and then want to put something back up. So, that would that's that's another scenario that we just haven't seen it historically, but that's something that could be there. But that's what the planning and zoning commission had the concerns with it back in the day. They did not want those lots. They just figured every one of those duplex lots was at least 12,000 square ft or more. And if you split it down the middle, it should be fine to have 6,000 on each side,

which which as we've seen that has not been the case. That's not always the case. And so what Aaron's telling you is that 10% of the time they need to go to the board of adjustment because they can't meet that minimum lot size. And there's not really been any grounds probably to to well, you could deny they could deny it, but they they've basically approved every single they they have not they have not in the past as far as I'm aware. And I mean, as as you saw last week, we had that preliminary plat for that uh duplex association on Apple uh excuse me, condo association on Apple Blossom Lane. And you know, those are all 12,000 foot lots. and you know like half of them came to be you know in the low 5000s for

so we will see if R1C is a zoning district that's viable to even have in the code after this change and if not then I mean we can always go ahead and change it but uh I just wanted you all to be aware of that you could take R2 zoning on a developable piece of ground and if you start seeing it and say hey wait a second how come they're putting these on uh each units only only needs 3,000 square feet it would be because of this change it makes it an an option at that time without planning and zoning or council approval. Correct. You would correct. Yeah. If it's zoned R2 and they come in, they could come in the subdivision plot and do 3,000 foot. So, you could take in theory Well, I guess I guess it would require planning and zoning approval. You would. Yeah, you need a subdivision approval, but you don't really have a reason to deny that.

Correct. Right. And and and and those areas that you see are the ones that are left that somebody could probably come in and possibly do that. I would think that what you might see if if there was one that was desirable to build on, you'd see something like that row housing where they've got six units all boom boom boom boom boom and they can go ahead and draw a line down the shared wall of each one of them and those could probably be you know closer to that 3,000 square foot. So it's not it's not bad. It's just I'm just saying but you're going to have a higher density possibly in some of those.

But in that case if you have the so okay my question was a duplex obviously zero lot line down the middle. If you have a forplex, then you have a zero lot line between one and two. Two and three have zero lot lines on either side where this here has six foot side. The the existing R1C district has a six-foot setback um for every so you can you can you can essentially only do a duplex attached single family style. With this code change, we would allow um you know you to do like a four units attached to each other and there's no sideyards required. Sure. It's written in your code. You're taking it out. Taking it out. Okay. I'm sorry. That was still staying in there. The six foot side

zero lot line. That's correct. Correct. On the side. You mentioned while ago uh setback six foot on one side and 10 on the other. Why is that? I you know I'm not I'm not sure why that was written into the R1C. I I might have I might have misspoke a little bit. Yeah, I that's what I I assumed it was one of the rear setbacks, but it was it was six foot on the side and then zero on the other. You could you had to have six on one at least one side. Oh, the the 10 foot is conditional on the the height of the structure. Yeah, I I misspoke earlier. I apologize.

And that's just to be clear, that's not what we're proposing. That's what's already written into the attached single family zoning district. So in short, back then they didn't want to go ahead and do less than 6,000 per unit. And now after basically 10 years of this or better, actually more than that. I mean almost 20. Yeah. Based on what your square footages you have to work with, 6,000 or more, right? But back to the map where we're we're only very limited on the options that are zoned or Yeah. I mean, I I'll I'll do I'll do I mean, the largest one is right below Turtle Creek, right? Largest one's down there by Mike Allen Drive at the at the dead end of Mike Allen Drive.

Turtle Creek. That's that's also in the flood plane. Yeah. I was wondering there's some other limitations on that. That's why I was wondering how buildable those lots were in there because kind of what I'm looking at is are we really looking at a detriment anywhere in town if we do allow this in those few spots? If that's what fits, maybe it is fine. I think that's that's why that's why staff made the recommendation to PNZ and PNZ is re making the recommendation to you. So, okay. I didn't hear that. PNZ has seen this. Unanimously recommended this. Yes. Gotcha. Yeah. And they've they've we this has been a a monthsl long process. They've looked at this. We've kind of been gone back and forth about you know what what to recommend to you all for since November. I I think so. Yeah. It's been been a while.

This is the simplest change you can make. So, does this help you? Sorry, Joe. Everything else has to come through PNZ. If they want to make a subdivision with 3,000 square foot lots, then PNZ could say, "No, can't do that." Well, PNZ, if it's allowed, I mean, in theory, as long as they meet your your your subdivision requirements, you have no reason to turn it down just because of the as long as it meets the density within your code. So, if they come in with 3,000 foot lots in these areas, if you make this code change in these areas. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, if they wanted to go ahead and take another piece of property that zoned some other zoning district and they wanted to go to this, you staff's going to make sure that you're aware of the fact here's the density requirements and how dense they could.

Yeah. And depending on depending on where that piece of property is, you know, we we would recommend like if it's in the middle of, you know, an area that's zoned completely single family, we would recommend against reszoning that because that's against our future land use map. It's, you know, it's it's pretty much anywhere that you see on this map that is already zoned are our well anywhere on this map or anywhere, you know, uh slightly adjacent to this map, you know, we would consider, you know, that that would be so spot zoning or whatever. No, I mean, like he's saying, if if it's next to any one of these areas already and and they then they applied for it, well, then you

there might be a case. It's by there could be a very good merit case to go ahead and reszone it possibly or whatever, but just be aware of the fact that this is what the the density could be. And how does this help that duplex owner that wants to now establish two have a zero? This absolutely helps. So yeah, you do not have you don't have to go get a variance on top of reszoning on top. I just want to hear said that's all correct. Correct. that's been slowing down the transition of someone buying a property for several of the things that have come in front of us. Correct. Absolutely.

I mean, there's there's times where if if the board of adjustment wouldn't have approved one of those, you wouldn't have even had a reasoning to even consider because they wouldn't have been able to go ahead and do it because they wouldn't have had the variance. So, right. Yep. So now the sale of a duplex zero lot line split to two people buying it separate wouldn't even come to council. Uh only the subdivision, right? Yep. Right. And again, we've done numerous ones of those and there's no uh hold up as far as I'm concerned. I just want to make sure Well, by the time it gets to us, there's no hold up. Point is everything that they have to do at P&Z and variance and everything to get to us is what's killing the sale.

Dragging out the process. Yeah, we're it's we're we're kind of dragging our own feet. We're we're kind of impeding ourselves with with with this. So, with with these changes, we would kind of get out of our own way to allow these folks to do what they want with their their property. Public hearing. Yeah, it's public hearing. So, you want to ask folks, uh this is a public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to come up and talk about this, please feel free. Jumping out of their seats, got to say. See, make a motion to accept it in the minutes. Second.

Motion by bear, second by Pat to accept in the minutes. Any of further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Post. It's accepted. An ordinance amending section 400.080 and chapter 400 attachment I of the code of the city of Washington, Missouri. Introduced by Holm. Any further discussion, guys? Second reading. Sure. An ordinance amending section 400.080 in chapter 400 attachment I to the code of the city of Washington, Missouri. Coulter, yes. Capsel, yes. Sentrip, yes. Meer, hi. Bear,

yes. Yes. By your vote, ordinance 3B passes. Next, citizens comments. If anyone in the audience would like to come address the council, now is your chance about whatever is not on the agenda. Thank you. Ordinances and resolutions. An ordinance authorizing and directing the execution of a temporary sightelic agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri and new Singular Wireless PCS LLC. Fair by Pair. This allows better reception out at the fair. We do it every year. This is the same lease agreement we do every year to get the cows to sell on wheels out at the fair. Questions, discussions? Is that permanent? Do what?

Going to be permanent. No. No. Be out of date in a year. Be nice. Okay. Second reading. Sherry. An ordinance authorizing and directing the execution of a temporary site license agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri, a new singular wireless PC LLC. Coulter, yes. Pepsel, yes. Meer, I. Mayor, yes. PKY, yes.

By your vote, ordinance 7A passes. B, please. An ordinance authorizing and directing an execution of an airport aid agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. Donald Trump introduced by Sentrip.

So this is kind of a unique uh situation here. So our 2023 2024 new hanger uh out there at the airport. Um I guess uh we had not received all of our reimbursement for that project and when MODOT was doing an audit uh I guess recently here they realized that there was $267,000 uh still that could have been reimbursed to the city. Um so first they had to figure out if they still had money to be able to give to us. They did find that, but since the project was closed out and the agreement, you know, the previous grant was closed out, we have to enter into a new one uh to receive that money basically. So that's what this new agreement is. So we can receive our

So in short, if you pass it, we get $267,352. It's not the like. Yes. Repair the hanger that hanger. We need to discuss this. We discussed it at the last meeting. Any other discussion, guys? Second reading. Sure. An ordinance authorizing and directing an execution of airport aid agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri, and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. Coulter, yes. Psel, yes. Solent, yes. Holmeer, hi. Bayer, yes. Yes.

By your vote. Ordinance 7B passes. C, please. An ordinance authorizing and directing the execution of a development agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri, and the Keith and Judy Ratcliffe joint revokable trust dated December 17, 2012. Padkkey. Introduced by PKY.

So, uh, the Red Cliffs are here tonight. This is the agreement with them. They are looking to subdivide their property. It's just outside of city limits here off South Point Road just south of Stone Crest there. Um we have a portion of the East West Parkway that runs through that property. So you can kind of see where the parkway comes in and then there in red um is the about half an acre that we are looking to purchase um to continue that uh East West Parkway going towards South Point Road. So we've been working with the Radcliffs um and they've agreed to allow us to have that as rightway. um they'll do their subdivision and as payment of that essentially we will continue that water line that's on South Point Road further south to where they are proposing their new entrance to the subdivision. Um so that's about $75,000 worth of value um in extending the water line. Uh the value we came up with for the half acre of rightway there is about 30,000. Um but we see value in extending that water line. Our future plan is to extend the water line down South Point and then loop it on Beaker Road and connect back where it's at on Rabbit Trail currently. Um, so we're looking to do that. They also requested to have future access to the East West Parkway from their subdivision. So, you can see that kind of at the end of their their culde-sac there. There's a uh corridor access for them to access the parkway uh in the future when they want to once that's out. Um, I think that's that's mostly what's in the agreement. We are going to pay for the 75,000 out of both the water department and the transportation sales tax since it's paying for um right away in this case.

I thought that was a roundabout. Not big enough. Other questions or discussions, guys? So according to this map, the parkway will run along the Stoner Crest property line. Is that right? No, not necessarily. It can go it could it could go either route. Uh that would be subject to negotiations with Jaspers. Ideally, you want a four-way intersection there at South Point where it intersects with North Goodsville Road. Okay, that was my question. We're not going to handicap ourselves from doing that in the future. That's a that's a future discussion.

Okay. The only reason why this for you is because uh Radcliffe's had submitted their subdivision to Franklin County. The county in turn sent it to us because it's within a mile and a half and that's when we started the discussions. And then if we had the water line there, then they would have to hook up to our water. Yes. They'll eventually would have to hook up to that water. Yes. Those lots would have to put water line. So we almost recoup our cost just by hookups and having them on the water. True. But like Charles said, there's there's an advantage to the city overall just by looping the system all the way down south point to be

I would like to well let Keith's coming on. Dr. Rick's coming out. Good evening. Judy and I came along mostly to see if Drop that mic down. There you go. Is that better? Yeah.

Okay. Um, thanks for letting us come and speak. we decided to come to see if there were any questions or concerns about about this plan. Um, you know, the city's been been very good about looking for ways for for this parkway to happen and frankly we were kind of in the way of that. Um, this does give us some some value for for cooperating with the city. And if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. It's fairly straightforward actually. There's not any questions. I would like to thank uh Keith and Judy for their their time and and meeting with us and working with the city to go ahead and uh make this as as you know, as we've said all along, we um there's no need for that corridor until there's development. And you know, so when development does happen or whatever, we want to be able to go ahead and utilize it piece by piece. It's going to take a little bit to go ahead and obviously we got more to do more work to do with Jaspers at a later date but still uh thanks uh you know for them sitting down and trying to work out this agreement. I I think both parties are happy with what we came to.

I would agree. Good luck. Thanks to further discussion guys. Second reading, Sherry. An ordinance authorizing and directing the execution of a development agreement by and between the city of Washington, Missouri, and the Keith and Judy Ratcliffe joint revocable trust dated December 17th, 2012. Coulter, yes. Peps, yes. Foler, hi. Bayer, yes. PY, yes. By your vote, ordinance 7 C passes D. An ordinance approving a boundary adjustment for Stwberg subdivision plaque 2 in the city of Washington, Franklin County, Missouri. Holm. Introduced by Holm.

Good evening, council. Um, this is a boundary adjustment for uh two lots, consolidation um of two lots off Nora and Sixth Street. Um, the applicant owns both lots and um just wants a wants a bigger lot. I I I talked to her at one point in time and I I believe she said that she wanted to put a garage where the lot line is. Um but I'm happy to answer any any questions. Their property, they got to do it. Yep. Amen. Okay. Second read. An ordinance approving a boundary adjustment for Stubberg subdivision plaque 2 in the city of Washington, Franklin County, Missouri. Coulter, yes. Epsil,

yes. Yes. Hi. Mayor, yes. Yes. Your vote 7. Mayor's report.

Um, is Tim still here? Sounds like the fire station's going to open the last week in March sometime. I bet you you guys would like to be there for the grand opening. We'll make sure you get in. I would just like to say in your prayers, please include the men and women who are at the tip of the spear over in Iran right now. They're putting our butts their butts on the line. Agree or disagree with whatever is going on, they're the ones that are risking everything. So, please keep them in your courage.

City administrator's report. No report. Council comments. Nothing. If nothing to journ every all everybody appre in favor of that say I. Thank you. Okay. here.