Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

could be used. Yeah, like a chat should be. I'm cool with that. Like ask some people like whenever you start like they're managing like public works, let's say, or they're doing all that kind of stuff. Then you get to the Skynet Terminator stuff and they're like that's that's a little creepy. Yeah, because it could happen. I mean honestly I mean right now where you're seeing a lot of cyber security stuff focused on fully AI stuff the stuff you see out there I was watching news last night. Good evening. I'd like to call the meeting of the planning and zoning commission uh in order on Monday December 8th at 2:25 at 7 p.m. Gina roll call please. Roco Gonzalez here. Mark Clesner. Mark Pontek

here. Mayor Hegedorn here. John Borman here, Chuck Watson, Chad Briggs, Kellen Wit here, Mike Wood, Ken Shear here, Aaron Beckton here. Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I aliance 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. The first order on our agenda for this evening is the proclamation proclamation recognizing Tom Hotmar. And I know his family is all here. Please come up to the podium and the mayor will uh present and read that proclamation. Okay. Thanks for coming you guys. It's an honor to read this. Honoring the life and service of Tom Holdmmyer. Whereas the city pauses with deep respect and gratitude to honor the life of Tom, a dedicated public service whose recent passing is felt by all who had the privilege of knowing and working with him. And whereas Tom began his distinguished service to the community as a member of the planning and zoning commission in April of 99 and through his leadership and sound judgment was appointed chairman in June of 2003. A position which he served with integrity, professionalism, and a steadfast commitment to responsible community development. And whereas Tom further contributed to the city's progress through his service as a board member of the Washington's 353 Redevelopment Corporation from December 2012 to March 2023 and continued to lend his expertise as an advisory member in March of 23. And whereas Tom also served the broader community. It's a member of the

Washington area Chamber of Commerce board from 2008 to 2016 and as chair from 2015 to 2016, helping to strengthen partnerships and promote the long-term success of the Washington area. And whereas throughout all his service roles, Tom embodied the qualities of a true civic leader, commitment, humility, fairness, fairness, and a sincere desire to help his community thrive. And whereas Tom's legacy will endure through the many improvements he helped shaped the respect he earned from colleagues and residents and the meaningful impact his lifelong dedication to public service. Now therefore, be it proclaimed that the city honors and remembers Tom for his decades of dedicated service, leadership, and devotion to the community, and extends heartfelt condolences to his family, friends, and all who mourn his loss. In witness thereof, this proclamation is issued with appreciation for a life spent in service and a legacy that will not be forgotten.

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

Thank you, mayor and family. And you all are excused, but if you want to sit and listen to hear what goes on at a meeting, you're more than welcome to. Okay, that's fine. [clears throat] Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the November 10th meeting. I entertain [clears throat] a motion. Motion to approve the minutes. Motion made, second and seconded to approve the November 10th meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Eyes have it. Next item on the agenda is election of a co-chair. Uh and I would like to nominate Roko as uh our co-chair and entertain that as a motion.

I'll second. Motion made and seconded that we elect Roko as our co-chair. All those in [snorts] favor? I opposed. Eyes have it. Welcome and thank you. I can't fight it now. [laughter] Appreciate it. Okay. Next item on the [snorts] uh agenda is file number 25-1201 preliminary plat for Grant Lake Estates Plat 3. Aaron,

good evening commission. Um this is a minor subdivision of um two unplatted tracks. Um and the applicant is wanting to um only plat one lot here. Um we'll get a full picture here. Um maybe Maybe um there we go. Um yeah, so they're wanting to uh plat uh one lot here, which is this uh lot three. Um and this is being done to uh preserve the uh the house here. and uh the applicant wants to uh sell off the rest of this land um to another buyer. So, this is just so they can maintain their house and uh sell off the rest of the the land. Any questions?

Any questions for Aaron? I did uh point out I talked to Aaron the other day about that under the analysis uh that the applicant is an engineering firm and that's not the case unless that Mrs. Zado got her engineering firm. I don't think that's the case here. So, uh, just clarify that just so everyone knows. Oh, keeping everything open there. Any comments from commissioners? Makes sense to me. Straightforward. None. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move that we approve.

Second. Motion made and seconded that we approve file number 25-1201 the preliminary plat for Grand Lake Estates plat 3. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed have it. Next item on the agenda file number 25-1202 a special use permit at 432 MacArthur.

Yes. So this is a uh detailing business that's looking to go in um at that highlighted parcel on the map. Um this is off Fifth and MacArthur. Um and usually detailing businesses are a permitted use in the uh commercial uh C2 district. Um in this case the C2 overlay. Um but uh we there's a provision in our zoning code that says if this use is within 50 ft of a residential district um then it's a special use permit. So as you can see there's a a home uh to the north that's in the R1 uh B district. And so this is a uh they require a special use permit. Um didn't look like it was going to be too extraneous. The applicant is here tonight if uh you want to hear from him. And um yeah.

Okay. Uh any comments from commissioners? Uh just a question about parking I guess a little bit. Um will the business be using uh any street side parking? I guess do you want to call in? Anyone come up and answer that? Please state your name and address. The address for the business. Your actual your actual? My actual um I just moved to Manchester, so I'm still remembering, but it's I think it's 15970. Uh and your name? Colin Blacker. Sorry. Thank you. [snorts]

This is new to me. That's new to me, too. So, we're good. I can state the whole address real quick for you if you need it. That's 15970. That's okay. Yeah, I'll pull it up if you need to. That's okay. Um, the parking. So, we have spots pretty much everything fits in the bay. So, we pull everything in the bay and then I use the spots that are allotted to me in the front. Um, the only time that anyone parks on the street is when a client is literally dropping off a car and then I just walk out and grab the car and pull it inside. So there's no like overnight cars sitting on the Nothing on the street. Everything's in the business. Okay. We only schedule out about two a day. So everything that comes inside is under lock and key on the garage. Okay.

Will [snorts] you be the only occupant to that building? I have two other employees that are with me there, but they're just part-time help. Okay. But you you'll occupy the whole building. Yes. Okay. Or sorry, the whole the building's shared. There's a a heating and a cooling right next to us. That's what I thought. And then we're on the further end. Okay. Have you heard from any of the neighbors? Just I I just had one neighbor walk out to me and ask me to turn down the music and I turn it down immediately. That was that was about it.

Just filming it out. Okay. Any other questions for Colin? [snorts] Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the commission on this matter? Okay. Hearing none. If we don't have any objections, I would entertain a motion. Motion to approve the special use permit. I'll second. Motion made and seconded that we approve the special use permit at 432 MacArthur. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it.

And I believe that goes to council. Yeah. Right. So, whatever that's scheduled, do we know what that date is yet? I think it's the 15th if that sounds right to everyone. December 15th, I think so. Okay. So, it will be on the council agenda for that. Yeah. Next item is file number 25-1203, preliminary development plan approval or Baker Point PDR residential development.

Yes. So, uh, last month we went through the, uh, the, uh, sketch plan review, um, of, uh, Beaker Beaker was at that time was Beaker Point. Now it's Beers Point, um, which is a plan development residential that's, uh, aiming to be annexed, uh, into the city um, of Washington. And, um, there have been a few changes um, to the uh, development plan since then. Uh, uh, and I will pull that up um, here. This is the the latest latest and greatest iteration of um Beakers Point. So um we've got some street names now. Hunter Hollow is the uh loop road around um and then Schultter's Close is the culde-sac um coming up through the uh middle here. And uh still got 57 lots um uh minimum lot sizes uh of 7,500 ft and above. um 25 front and rear yard setbacks, six ft uh side setbacks. Um and uh these uh just a reminder um these streets are 30 ft wide. Um we've got a 40ft rightway here and then a 5-ft um access easement on each side of the road. So in effect, it'll it'll be 50 foot 50 foot rightway, but um just kind of structured uh a little differently there. Um let's see. Um, street grades are um 12 along um most of Hunter Hollow. Um, and then it kind of flattens out here towards the bottom. Um, and we also require uh turnarounds um for lots 55 through 57 um because they're along a major street. Um, so we just have the have the uh applicant uh have turnarounds and that's not part of the plan development process. that's in our subdivision

regulations. Um, and I guess I can uh let's let's have Cameron uh talk about this one. Uh, fill in the gaps.

Good evening. Cameron Lukan with Wonderlick Surveying Engineering. So, that was a good introduction by Aaron. Make sure I got my clicker going on here. Is it gone? There we go. Yep. Okay. So, thank you Erin for the introduction. As as Aaron said, the purpose is to annex the 18 acres as a PDR 57 lot, single family homes. And uh Vick's here uh tonight with us to answer any questions. This is just basically a continuation of his of his successful building out there. Uh Northern Star. Uh let's see. I got There we go. So, does this have a pointer on it, I guess, too, right? That it.

Yeah, I think it's the Yeah. Okay, perfect.

So, well, I'm going to speak. So, it's south of the existing East West Parkway and let me click the next one here so we can see it pop up. So, that's the 18 acres there. So just not to dive way back into what we previously talked about, but basically we were constrained in an east to west fashion with the layout. And so that's uh what kind of launch uses in launches into the PDR. I am not get this thing here. There you go. Look. There we go. No, that went back or did it?

No, it was it was forward. Forward. Okay. you want to hear.

Okay, go ahead and go again, please. And again. Yeah. So, as Aaron mentioned those, that's the overall layout. And I guess as I'd mentioned before was the market had previously dictated basically culde-sac lots but based upon the constraints of the property east to west based upon the city's recent desire for higher interconnectivity. Um we work with the city Vic worked with the city to say hey here's what we can do that makes uh it kind of work out for everybody. And as Aaron had mentioned on the west side there, you know, headed northbound, there's a 12% grade working with Charles at at the city and whatnot. As you went around the northwest side and made that curve, you'd probably seen a previous plan where it was more of a a sharper curve. And basically he said, "Hey, can we make that curve more gentle? Can we flatten the grade?" We did all that. So going in there to the basically the point of curvature begins to flatten out. So that way if uh EMS is headed northbound on that road, you're they're not going through a 12% grade around the curve. Uh so we got a viable plan for everyone there. That worked out well. And then on the outsides, the on the outside, you'll see a a red line. That red line is basically a no parking on the outside. We work with the city on that. As Aaron mentioned, uh it does allow for um you know a flat 5 foot area uh to um oh we took that out. Never mind. Um but as far as the water line, storm sur line, sanitary line, all that as far as the buildability of all the houses, uh the kind of the outlines of all those houses are on that next actually while I'm here. So, back to the north side along the south side, the east west gateway, there's that big green area. That's some common ground there. There's

a gas line that runs through there. There's also going to be a, you know, water control structure there. As far as inter interconnectivity goes, back that uh brown line between lots 11 and 12, that was a trail that was talked about. Uh we work with the city to get the trail nearly almost all the way to an ADA compliant trail. Uh meaning that ADA compliant trail ramp is 8.3%. And we nearly got all of that run to that. Um to give you an idea like out at Phoenix Park, some of that trail that's on the northern section is nearly 15%. So it's going to be much better than that. So I think we got a a viable trail there. Um, so I think we've done a pretty I I appreciate the city. There was a lot of back and forth that you guys I think John knows a little bit about it, but perhaps some other people don't know. We worked with the city for probably uh this is probably going on three months now or so, something like that.

Yeah, just about. Just about. Okay. So, it's a lot of back and forth, but I think at the end of the day, I think it's a good project, a great project for the community, and I think it's going to work out well. Any questions for me or the builder? Thank you for taking that bump out out of there. Taking that bump out out. I think that really does help with the flow around there. And I'm sure the street department appreciates that. Not trying to figure out where to go with the snow in that space. Yeah. Uh did we work out anything on the maintenance of

Yeah. So, it's still being talked about, but basically the the last meeting we had was we had the trail at about 10%. and and Charles is like, "Hey, can we get it down to manageable standards?" So, as you can imagine, these guidelines for trails um in a urban area versus a rural area versus the So, I guess I'm saying is John, we're working towards making a publicly if we build it to the city spec then the city would own, operate, and maintain the trail is where we were headed. Now, that's open for discussion, but we thought it might be confusing if you had a publicly maintained street, then a privately maintained trail, then a publicly maintained street. We were just trying to make it all public, if we can get it built to the specs the city desires, is what our thoughts were

because I know there was some discussion at our last meeting about that and whether or not the city would take that over. So, I was just curious if that had been resolved or not yet. I think we're getting there. Okay. Very Yeah, I think we need to have some conversations with the parks department and street department and just see where we're all at with all that. So, yeah, there's there's still some work to do on that. Madam, one of the other things just for the rest of the commission that I also was concerned about was the elevation in relation to the water system.

Uh, so I called Kevin and found out that water pressure should be about 40 PSI on those houses at the top of the hill at Beaker Road. So that's okay. It's not optimal. I noticed there's a couple hydrants up there towards the top of that, but uh just so the commission knows that there will be enough water pressure out there to work the system. So any other questions for u Cameron? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. Come on up. State your name and your address, please.

Hi, my name is Janet Roth. My address is 2336 Matias Close in Washington. Our house is directly on the other side of East West Parkway from this planned development. and we moved in approximately uh a year and a half well a little less than a year and a half ago in September of 2024 and we were um pursuing and negotiating um the purchase of the house in early 2024 and at that time um this development was not disclosed to us. Uh the East West Parkway was mentioned and we had inquired about what was going to be developed around us, especially because um one of the things at the top of their list on the features for Stonebridge is the stunning views. I think it would be hard to argue that a huge development behind us um is going to be a stunning view uh replacing what we have currently. Now, we're not naive enough to think that that area was never going to be developed, but had we known, had it been disclosed to us that that was a planned development um at that time, we would have chosen to build elsewhere. And I know some of our other neighbors feel the same. Um, one of our neighbors has um uncovered information that this has apparently been in the planning stages since well before 2024 when we were negotiating and we do feel like that shouldn't proceed until that has been addressed with us and and resolved accordingly.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? [cough]

Hello, my name is Sandra Ay and I live at 2332 Matias Close. Um, this is the first time I heard from Aaron that there was going to be a development behind me, but honestly with 10 houses on Matias's Close, that's we're kind of a small group of voices that probably won't make a difference. I know this development was planned or at least discussed in 2023 at the uh end of the year. Um, and I I think it's great in in the respects that it kind of joins in the rest of the neighborhoods, but at the same time, I feel a little disappointed that out of all the communications I've had with the realtor and some with the builder that it was never disclosed. Um, I'm okay with it because, you know, progress has to go forward. Uh, I know it's been a long time coming, but the tree line is probably all we have left to have some stunning view left. And, um, I would appreciate if the builder would consider um, maintaining that as much as they can and perhaps even incorporate some green space besides the trail. Uh maybe coming off the trail, a little green space might be nice, like a little park with a some where kids can play in a playground or something just to kind of make it more family oriented and um not so dense. It just looks very dense from looking at the map. But um I wish them good luck. Um and I I hope it all works out that we still have a beautiful place to live. Thank you.

We do too. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?

My name is Matt Mastersonson. I live at 1425 Beaker Road. So, I'm just on the south side there, straight across. Um, I just had a concern for lots 55 through 57 with the uh driveway entrances trying to come off Beaker. So, I've lived out there about 10 years now, and uh pretty much everybody and their brother when they get to that straight stretch, whether they're going east or west, hits the gas, and it's a daily occurrence. I mean, there there's people do 60 80 miles an hour on that straight stretch. Um, in addition, pretty much we get four to six runoffs a year. Um, several in my front yard. Fortunately, they haven't taken out the trees too much. It's mainly in the winter time, too, that these occur because of the slight curve of a beaker coming up the hill there. That seems to catch some people, and if they drop a tire, they're going off. They're there's there's just no other spot to go. I have seen vehicles also go off the other side and literally spin around where lot 55 and 56 out into that field. So, you know, it's still a possibility there. With it being a county road yet, too, as far as speed limits, I don't think would really make a difference. So, I just have a concern for those three driveway entrances. People trying to back out and just the fact that it it's pretty much a freeway through there yet to this day. A lot of people cut through there uh to Union on a daily basis as well now trying to avoid 47. So, Okay. Thank you.

Is there any else one else in the audience that would like to speak to this? [snorts] Evening guys. My name is Jeffrey Roth. I also live at 2336 Mias. The first young lady was my lovely bride. First I want to say real quick to you Aaron. I communicated with you via email. I was very impressed with your response time. I mean, it was we used to live in the area when we left and came back. We came back to Washington for a reason. And the only thing that I would like to add is I know we're not going to two people are not going to stop this development. Progress has to be progress. We were a little bit taken aback when we found out that this was in the works before we spent our rather substantial lot premium. And we love our view and we know it's going to go away. But I just hope somewhere in the notes if the only thing we can add and hopefully do is like the second young lady said, keep the tree line in. I hope this will allow for that cuz you know the joke I made when we bought the lot which there was nothing there 15 months ago when we moved in. My front door I'm looking at roofs. I'm cool with that. I expect that. My backyard I used to call it heaven and for another probably six months I will. And then then I also thought too we'd be done with the construction phase. Well, now we probably have two more years of that we get to listen to. But again, that's progress. But we again, we were aware of the East West Parkway easement and we know eventually it'll probably go through. I hope I'm long dead before that does, but progress will be what progress will be. I just hope again that a note could be added that hopefully that the existing trees that are there because they're right at the edge. So, I don't know how far down the hill they're going to come with these 57 homes, but that would take some of the sting out of a rather substantial lot premium. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Sarah. Anyone else would like to speak to this?

Yes, go ahead. I I would like to thank you all for coming because even if you know you're not necessarily stopping the tide, it's always good to be able to express your opinion. And I'm glad to know that the city paid attention that they responded to you because that doesn't in the past that's often well occasionally it doesn't happen. And it's it's really good that you get recognition by city employees who are terrific and work hard. Um, and I like to second that about the trees. I'm a tree person and we have a tree board and so if in any way we can help the developer work with that um I remember when when they built the parking lot for um where they took the lot out there across from the doctor's building. I spoke up for the trees, real trees, not fufu trees. So, um I would appreciate if I think that is a viable response to request and I hope the the we'll consider that because um so often these developments you come in and especially if it's a it's a open field you don't have anything to save but at the same time landscaping takes an awfully long time and it's nice if you can treasure some of that we have. So that's my that's my tree spiel tonight. So

Cameron, would you come back up to the mic, please? Sorry. Yes. I'll answer Caroline's question in the um related to the common ground. So thank you for pulling that up. So you can see there you've got about 2.6 acres of common ground. And so that's the area that we'll have to in the bottom down there where that detention basin is shown. We'll have to disturb the grass down there. It's hard to see it, but along the north side there's that tree line that's they're mentioning. Yeah, there you go, Erin. Yes. And that's the only planned excavation of those trees would be to build the trail.

Uh I take that back. There's going to be a sanitary sewer run through there. So, there's be a couple penetrations for the trail andor basically infrastructure for the sanitary sewer and the uh uh trail. But we can be careful to I mean obviously we don't want to tear down any trees more than we have to because it's to your point it's an amenity. Uh but I just wanted to there's almost there's well over 10% of common ground being set aside um which is pretty unique in this case you know so I think that's I'm grateful to see that. Yeah. Yeah. So we're going to be cognizant of that trying to keep that tree line as much as we can.

Erin, do you have the aerial view? I think we probably saw it in one of the first last month maybe um where it showed the showed that creek and that tree line a little bit more. We could maybe get an idea of where that's at or I guess I'm not there. Yep. I think you had just on maps or Yeah. Yeah. There you go. So, which tree line are you referring to? That one there? Yes. Okay. So where do these residents live then in rel to that right there right there? Okay. Okay. It's close. Thank you for pulling that up.

I think it makes sense. I mean agree to everyone that the commission said around preserving trees, preserving landscape. I mean we don't want to mess up the heavenly view that we talked about, right? Yeah, but I do think it just requires a conversation really with whether it's a parks and reccks department, whatever the city would be for how we can then develop this common space because I we could do a lot of things with it. See technology mayor, isn't it great? Look at that.

But I do believe there's a lot of opportunity for what we could do with that space. Obviously, we've talked a lot about Phoenix Park, and I mean, I frequent that park quite often, but it seems like a pretty good blueprint, you know, having a very pretty non-invasive walking trail from the subdivision into the park. I think it's just figuring out how do we do this? Well,

so as long as we keep continuing the discussion with the city, I don't see why it would be an issue. Just so the commission knows, this is a PDR, so we can require them to add tree buffers or whatever along that if if we want. And I was just that that view is phenomenal there, just to give you an idea. Um, so in that green common space, say to the north of the water retention, uh, I see you have a gas man there. So that's that's is there a rideway there? How big is that right away? 50 ft. So you have to stay off of that. Yes.

So could we go to the north of that with the tree line? Yeah. I'm I'm just Yeah. Is that something that you might consider? Yeah, we can absolutely look into it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think conversation is good. Yeah. Right. I think so, too. you know, whether or not it's it's viable, but at the same time, if you're talking about it, at least you're making a recognition. Sure. That so this is good.

And and I'm I'm not thinking of, you know, a tree that's only going to get 10 feet tall. I'm thinking of oaks or something that would be more substantial. Yeah. You folks may not be able to see it, you know, in your lifetime yet, but it would be something that, you know, for the future generations would have some uh some kind of a buffer maybe along that line. Yeah.

So, I guess my question with that then to the commission is do we require that because we can do that in the PDR. Are we comfortable with uh letting the discussions go as they are and trust that the developer and uh will get that worked out.

One one hates to make arbitrary decisions but at the same time encouragement, you know, do we do we need to make a ruling or can we just encourage and have good faith? I don't know. What do you think? I'm more naive than your average person. So, well, since this is a PDR, I think if we want to have the trees there, I think we need to require that. Okay.

I think so. I think if they're willing and wanting, excuse [clears throat] me, with like the ongoing communication, it would be appropriate to just make it a specification like a requirement that we wanted it from what all the different residents have said north of there. And just knowing I think for our vision of what from the interconnectivity piece with the walking trail, this can continue to be kind of like those the condo, the duplexes that we keep uh approving, hopefully a blueprint for what we can do in the future as we see more and more voluntary annexations happening in Washington. Cameron, I think there would be enough room there, wouldn't there, in the property line yet to plant some trees north of that gas line easement?

Yeah, there is a section that's north of the gas line easement outside that that uh could could accommodate some trees. Yes. Can you show it on that view that we're looking at right there? Yeah, Aeron's on it pretty close right there. So, you can almost see the mole line. Mhm. you know, right there on the south side where maybe perhaps the gas line came through. I don't know. Yeah, Erin's highlighting right there. So, the area north of that would be the area that would be and that's where you're going to be keeping some trees anyway. Correct. Yeah. Like I said, the all those trees that are along that there's no intention for us to take them out, right? It's just the ones south of there that I cut kind of like, you know, southeast just because that's in the middle of the lot.

Yeah. Those trees based on grading will come out. Yeah. Yeah. And those are low enough that those would not be the high value trees for the screening you'd want anyway. Right. Right. Because you'd be looking over top of them anyway. So the the trees that are closer to the north line would be more advantageous. So would it be appropriate that we require uh Missouri native trees and to get together with the tree? Yes. Uh the urban forestry board forestry division. We have people and [laughter] work out some type of an arrangement that would be applicable, a consultation. [laughter] Yeah. So, put you on the spot. I'm just trying to

Yeah. Yeah. And so, if it's any reasonable request, you know, is is is what we're looking for, right? And when you look at how the drip lines of oak trees mature, you know, they they don't they're not like they're every eight feet, right? Right. So, um, as long as we understand that, you know, this is a 25-y year plan. Yes. Not an immediate screening type thing, right? That's exactly right. Yeah. I think I think I think we're okay with that. I think Yeah. I I wouldn't want you to just put up a couple of evergreens that in 10 years from now are going to be gone, right? We're talking something more substantial. Yeah. How does that sound with the rest of the commission?

Makes sense. I mean, we they've already had, like I said, really strong communication with the city. So, it's really just a a way of maintaining that with a little bit of structure from us,

Vic Horse Camp. Um, just so you know, we like to keep all the trees we can too. And one one thing that I'd like to consider is to the east of our property are Yeah. And I think which is behind some of the folks in Stonebridge is not our property. I not I think that line just so you know there's some of it that it's either owned by the city or I think Bark Pepsil. So we wouldn't have any control there. Um but the rest of it I think So you're talking about that larger forested area right there where he's kind of going through. Correct.

Yes. May maybe I'm wrong in saying that. I see that line now, the pepsil's. Okay. So, it is further east, so not an issue, but it is I guess the city's property comes right along there. So, yeah, the city owns this East West Parkway. Yeah, this is future East West Parkway right away right here directly. Sorry. And that is that is fairly fairly wooded in there. Um, so, so some of those houses at the end of that culde-sac would lose their backyard uh, shrubbery when the East West Parkway would go through there. That's correct. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Vic and Cameron. Any other questions for Cameron or Vic? Um, I guess the only other condition um I was uh recommending that um the uh the commission um uh put on this this PDR was uh mandating that uh these lots 55 through 57 um have 30-foot setbacks um you know because we require the turnarounds and you know these are pretty substantial turnarounds and it will do the trick but just and these these lots 55 and 56 are already set back um 30 ft, but just requiring uh those lots to have a 30- foot setback um would I I believe is appropriate and we've staff has talked about that. So

So Aaron, those three lots, they won't have to back out onto Beaker Road when they're leaving. That's correct. Okay, that's good. Good.

Okay. So basically then we uh would entertain the PDR uh following the recommendations of staff on the second page uh and a requirement to work with the uh urban forestry committee and develop a tree line buffer on their Missouri native trees uh to kind of buffer the other residential neighborhood in Stonebridge. from that. That sound okay to everybody? That sounds good. I'll move that. Okay. Motion. We do that.

Motion second and seconded. That that's what we uh include with the PDR. All those in favor? I I opposed. I have. Thank you Vic and Cameron for putting this together. I think we've between the conversations. I think it's going to be a great development again. Thank you. We do. [snorts] We still got the annexation. We do, don't we? So, next item on the on the agenda is the annexation of 18.1 acres, file number 25204, which is this piece of property.

Yeah. So, I mean, pretty much everything we just talked about, two two tracks uh coming in as uh one for uh Beaker's Point as as we've uh talked to death here. proposed zoning is uh plan development residential. So yeah, and Bea Road will continue to be a county road, correct? That is correct. Yeah, the special road district, I believe, has manage

special road district. Yeah, that's right. Any questions from the commission? Is there anybody in the audience that would wish to address the annexation? Okay. Then I would entertain a motion. I entertain I I move that we accept the annexation the voluntary annexation request. Second that motion. Motion made and seconded that we accept the annexation request uh for 18.1 acres of beers. Is it Beaker Point? Beakers Beakers Point. Beakers Point. Uh PDR. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

I. I. And that goes to council for approval. Again, I guess on the 15th. Okay. All right. Uh, next item is the annual comprehensive plan implementation update.

Yes. So, um, this is something that I've, uh, been working on, um, for a while. So, um I believe a couple months ago, uh Sarah and Aaron uh gave a update about um how the implementation of our comprehensive plan that we adopted a couple years ago, um was going and uh I was uh looking through the implementation items and for for the comp plan when I first uh uh came on with the city and one of those was to create a a reporting measure. And so uh what I'm about to show you is that reporting measure and this is the uh grow implementation dash dashboard. This is a website or that is uh linked to the uh city's website currently accessible to the public um on the comprehensive plan page. Um so this is a website that um tracks um every single goal um and strategy and action item um for the comprehens for Washington Missou's comprehensive plan. Um and uh so uh how it's set up is you've got the uh action item um the desired the original implementation time frame uh the department that is responsible and then um how uh how how uh how close we are to getting this thing done. Um so um as as I said one the the first goal is establish an outcome reporting system and that's this this dashboard. So I won't go through it all. There's there's a lot of lot of stuff in here, but um in in preparing this, I talked with uh Darren, Charles, um Lori, uh Aaron, and uh the mayor. We we we we talked as well. And uh yeah, there's a lot of lot of neat stuff in here. So, I implore you all to um go and uh give this a look sometime and I can send you the link if need be. I believe Aaron's here if you want to. Um I don't know if you had anything specific to talk about or

just here for any question.

Yeah. No, it looks good. I mean obviously it'll be good to see it. I feel like as we've talked about it, right, we want to make sure it's not something our implementation plan's not something that just hangs on a shelf. We want to be very practical and very relevant. So the only thing I would say because I'm a big fan of dashboards do a lot for work. If you could create like a one-pager or something that you could be as condensed as possible to say like these kind of, you know, buckets as you already have, but just basically say like maybe a red, yellow, green. And that could even be on the front page of the web like some part of the website which shows where we are like red meaning not really started yellow in progress and green completed

because then that would make it very easy for us to very easily see all the different items at a glance. Um do you're you're saying for each sort of uh subheading you know like for community history we have were were this this completed for all the goals. Was that kind of what you're you're thinking or Yeah, I know there's just there's a lot of an action items. So, if it gets a little bit convoluted, but as much as you think would be appropriate, yeah, buy those headings and then a group of like a dozen or so of the action items.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah, I hear you. I hear you. But anyh who, this is uh live live on the website. So, um feel free to check it out and I'll be uh updating this uh annually to semianually. So, um, and I'm I'm I'm looking at the book. I'm not not ignoring it. It's on my desk. So, so I have a question, though. And some of the I know there were some short-term goals in there.

Have those been uh handed off to the appropriate city departments for implementation and getting that done? Or for instance, if there was and I remember it's been a few months since I've looked at it, but we well that first one there you got 12 6 months and the next one's 12 months from the implementation. Well, we're already past that 12 months and we're only 25% complete. Yep. So my point is we should have been done 100% of that particular item 1.2. Sure. As of today. Sure. See what I'm see what I'm getting at? Um, and I just don't want us to get so far behind that we don't keep it current.

Sure. Sure. Does that make sense? Uh, yes. I mean, because we talked about it when we adopted this thing that it was we it we were going to have to have accountability for it. And that's where I think if you create that one pager, we just would know. So let's say if something takes 12 months and like I said if that let's say the 12 months should have ended as John's saying like now then that's a red or a yellow or something just so we can have basically have an understanding of like I said hasn't begun in progress and then it's completed with those then you could see I don't know we could talk offline about this there's a lot of ways [laughter] that we can do this but

we just want to make sure that like John's Everyone's kept accountable. It's getting done. Yep. And now the the stuff's getting done. Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And what I'll say is that, you know, when I went around everyone and said, "Hey, how's this uh goal progressing?" Usually, compared to our our last update that Aaron and Sarah prepared, we had made pretty significant progress in uh some well, a lot of our a lot of our our goals. Um, once again, I too much to get into specifics, but um, we're getting things done. [laughter] Well, and I know it's not high on the priority list probably because there's a lot of things that goes on dayto day. Who knows things happen. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Some of these topics evolve.

Yeah. Right. I mean, and they're not going to be I mean, it's not like, oh, we have to get this, this, this. Some of these evolved, but we should we should go ahead and and mark which one of those that we said, h this kind of morphed into this goal, this kind of changed and here's the reason why. You can provide some kind of That's why that's our responsibility to make sure that we're we're keeping that all meshed together as a commission. Yep. So, very good. Yeah. There's there's some of these that I've marked as like not interested. you know, we've we've discussed the goal and just said, "Hey, this is, you know, there are better uh action items to to focus our our energy on rather than, you know, an outdoor athletics complex, athletics complex." You know, never say never, but better places to focus our energy. So,

okay. Very good. Great. Any other questions from commissioners on this topic? Good. Okay. Moving on to the last item on the agenda, code changes. R1C zoning district code change recommendations.

Yes. So, um I you all uh had me do my homework last month and I sent out a uh Excel spreadsheet um about the specific changes um that I was uh talking about. Um and I've uh kind of condensed my presentation from uh last month and I'll just go over it with you real quickly and then hopefully we can have a a good discussion about about this. So, um, as as you all know, uh, R1C is our single family attached, uh, zoning district, and, uh, over the past year or so, um, staff has kind of noticed that there might be some issues with this district, uh, due to a variety of things, which, um, I'll get into. So, um, when people are looking to, uh, reszone and subdivide their property, uh, from R2, um, they often run into a, uh, a minimum lot size that is too large, um, which, uh, ends ends up in them, uh, uh, applying for a variance. Um, this is often the case in the R2 overlay district where they allow 6,000 square ft for duplexes. So, if you chop that right down the middle, um, you end up with 3,000 foot lots. Now, that's there have only been like one or two of those, but you know, it has it has happened before. Um, so important to consider that. Another issue is uh the maximum lot coverage requirements. Um, the R2 district does not have maximum lot coverage. Um, but the R1C district has uh a 35% uh maximum lot coverage. So, you know, you can only use 35% of the lot to uh put buildings on. And uh this is not an issue that staff has run into yet, but it it could be. and probably will be in the future as um you know the whole reason why this district was established was because you know condo financing was uh made quite difficult as a result of the 2008 recession and it doesn't appear to be getting any easier. So you know I I person I think it's my professional opinion that I expect uh

more of these as time goes on. Um you know ultimately staff feels that there's excess bureaucracy involved with this whole process. Um, you know, if you want to, you know, let's say you own a duplex and, uh, you're like, "Okay, well, I just I just want my land and my my half of the house and, you know, the other person can do do with it as as they will." Currently, you're going to need a reszoning and you're going to need to subdivide your land. Um and that's uh not if you have any of these number of things like your lot has your lot is too small so you need a variance for the lot coverage or um well I mean you know same same for the minimum lot size. Um so there there are ways that we can fix some of this excess bureaucracy um with a code change. Um and uh as as I uh brought out me mentioned last time, uh currently properties zoned R1C are dispersed uh amongst the R2 areas uh around town. Um these properties have similar impacts and there are cases I think I pointed some out last time where uh properties directly next to each other. Um you know, one property zoned R1C, one is R12 have the same floor plan. So um you know, from an impacts perspective, that's something that zoning is trying to mitigate is the impacts of different properties to each other. and uh their their impacts are often very similar. Um over the past 10 years, uh the PNZ department has received nine variances for properties in R1 the R1C to bypass the minimum lot size, which is around 10% of the total properties in R1C. I'm I I don't think there's any other zoning district that comes close to that. Um you know, that's that's a pretty pretty large percentage of uh your your total number of properties. And uh just something of note, the average lot size for the properties that underwent a variance was 4,500 square feet. Um that's much lower compared to the moon lot size of 6,000

square ft. Um and so you know that being said, um you know, if these were the only things that uh you know were uh important to address, there would be a pretty clear-cut solution here, which is uh solution number A um in your your packet. Um and that would be reducing the minimum lot size and eliminating uh the maximum lot coverage requirements um from the R1C district. Uh that would be a pretty clear-cut solution to uh you know stop any variances or to stop excess variances um and the the burden that uh that would place on uh the property owner. Um but I believe that there's something else that we can address um while going through these code changes and that's uh town home style development. And so, um, Washington has seen a fair amount of town home style development over the past couple years. I've I've brought up a few examples here. Um, the villas, uh, along High Street. Um, there's this, uh, subdivision off 14th Street that has a few, um, triplexes in it. And, uh, of course, the, uh, the condos downtown, u along Front Street. Those are also, you know, town home style where, uh, the the owner owns the underlying land. And uh um any all that to be all uh all that to say there's there's been a fair amount of town home style development um in Washington over the past 20 or so years. Um and the only way that you can do town home style development is in the C3 zoning district um or through the plan development residential uh process which um you know was was how these these two um outside of downtown were done. Um and I I believe that you know in terms of impacts um you know uh allowing more than two owner attached homes um by right in uh R1C R2 would allow uh is essentially the same in terms of uh impacts as uh existing uh R1C

development has similar density transportation needs um and land use as a town home style development. The only difference really is, you know, you just don't have that that sideyard. Um, so you just have uh you don't have the six six foot setback um there. And then another added benefit of allowing this by right would be um you would uh allow for increased affordable housing um by right, you know, if you have uh smaller lot sizes, uh smaller homes, uh you have a lower sales price because there's less to sell. Um so that would just be something to consider. And uh getting to the potential solutions, this is what I want to discuss with you all tonight. Um option A is, you know, the most uh clear-cut here. You know, just change the current R1C zoning district. Um remove the lot coverage uh requirements and uh drop the lot size down to anywhere between 3,000 to 4,500 ft. This would remove the need for uh most variances u when reszoning from R2 to R1C. Um option B is um allowing that town home style development um in the R2 district and also allowing um the the current level of uh R1's uh single single it would allow for single family attached homes in R2 um as well as town home style development. Um and then uh that would be done by uh adding single family attached housing as a uh permitted use, lowering the lot size um in R2 to uh 3,000 ft for single family attached dwellings um and two family dwellings to 6,000 ft um and removing the side setback. Option C is very similar to option B. Um but we just there would be no uh um there would be no town home style uh development. So we would keep the we

would transfer the side setback the current side setback requirements for the R1C district um to R2 for uh single family attached housing which is you know you're allowed to do um a single family attached uh dwell you're allowed to have a zero lot line setback if you have a sixoot setback on the other side um and that would only be for um single family attached. Um, so I guess with all that said, um, I would like to get your get your feedback on this and see, you know, what you're what you're comfortable with. And, uh, yeah,

Aaron and I talked about this, uh, when he when he presented, kept going through this. I think B gives you your greatest flexibility of what you can go ahead and do. um you're allowing those single family uh units to be a permitted use like like Aaron said by Wright and the R2 zoning district so you don't have to so in essence in some of those situations they would not have to come to you to reszone the property all they would have to do I for correct yeah that that's the advantage of allowing single family attached in R2 is you would have you would eliminate that need to reszone um a lot of these duplexes

so what would set the district apart though is that you would still allow duplex boxes to go ahead and be built or two family units to be built. Um, so that would separate it from R1A, R1B, your single family zoning district, but this they would just basically to shorten this hopefully, you know, with with lowering the square footage. Uh, they don't have to go to the board of adjustment for variance. um by allowing this by right with the single family and I'm going with the B solution with that that he talked about by going with that um you don't have to go ahead and resone the property and basically all they'd be coming to you with would be a subdivision plat. Now keep in mind if you have a zoning district map that kind of goes around if you can pull that up. Um, just keep in mind that a lot of them when we came up with this, I think the concern and why they wanted to keep the the square footage at that time was they I guess there there was some concern about, yeah, that's fine to retrofit the existing development, but what if somebody comes in and wants to do that development, you know, or they want to take raw ground and go ahead and do that. I guess our concern is we don't see that necessarily as a concern. I mean, I think this just get gives the diversity of housing and what you could go ahead and do. And like Erin said, you could do that town home style development where you have zero on each side. I mean, you may have I mean, if you look at um um West Fifth Street, what was that development? Um it's on West Fifth Street and it goes down the hill and it's it's right

Oh, Birch Birchwood. Birchwood. Thank you. There you go. Right there. So, those are all but they had to do a plan development in order to get that approved. That's that's what they had to go ahead and do. But if you we anticipate you're going to see more of that style of of development. Um and people are going to want that. So that option B gives this gives you this option to go ahead and allow this as a permitted use. And that's the difference between B and C. those and and these options

just just to note we these Birchwood Court could still not be built under the current or what's what's being proposed in R2 because these are like 2,000 square foot lots. We're saying, you know, 3,000 is probably a good a good minimum. Yeah. And if you go back to the zoning district map, Aaron, thank you. U you see all those areas in um pink, I guess, for lack of Yeah. Yeah, calling it a different color. Um, that's all zoned R2. And most of those lots were built, especially on the west

side of town where I live, it's it's close to the shoe factory, those are all built with 6,000 square foot lots. And they were encouraged to be two family. So, you have a lot of them there that are already 6,000. And if you cut it, now the difference, and we were talking about this, but the difference between them is they're not, you know, they're above and below uh type two family units, not ranch style horizontal type, you know, duplexes that you see on like Pika Road or uh some of the other places in town. But all of those lots, if you see, just about every single one of those, especially west of downtown, most of those lots are all 6,000 square feet. So that's why that 3,000 and 6,000 makes sense.

Yeah. And like these these in here I I know for a fact all required variances to reszone. The orange is R1 that you could go ahead and do those at that time because of the fact that they they didn't the lots weren't that that large. So that would cut out that that additional board of adjustment variance. That's one thing. But it this would also option B would give you the opportunity to not even require them to reszone the property. So if we would have that type of construction that would come in more than what we have now. Does do you know how the building code addresses those type of structures when you put you had a picture there a while ago where there was four or five of them you know four or five in a row two story tall.

Yep. Like well like that. I mean you know I mean that was obviously built under a previous building code but I mean um I know there's different options now. Yeah. I I think you know the developer has to go ahead and just get that firewall protection in between the the units just like they do today. You just you're just going to have it on both sides, right? And sometimes they may want to go ahead and even I mean it's not uncommon now we're seeing it where they'll sprinkle sprinkle. I know that's that's why mentioning that because I think that's otherwise, you know, you could have a confrontation go across there and and instead of just having two people, you know, out of a home, they've got

Now, what you may have though is like on where we're seeing [clears throat] development on the south side of town, uh either southwest, southeast, either way, uh somebody would come in and want to go ahead and do that zoning district at that location, which you really haven't seen too much of that. I mean they've either done the plan development or they've done the single family 7500T homes but another option there was talk about out by uh Bernes though that there was going to be a transition out there and and at one time there was talk about putting in some multif family or duplexes or something there as a transition. So

I feel like anything we can do to reduce the administrative burden of allowing homes like this to be built is a good thing in my mind align to create you know more entry- level housing [snorts] and honestly is it the best use of our time to you know basically approve these changes because it's not like they don't make sense. So we can just put in the code already that it

the only thing I can see is if somebody wants to propose that in a newer part of development and I think that's a discussion for you all as a as a group to go ahead and make a recommendation. Uh if if you know you may get complaints from an existing single family development and if it's right next door that they're down to 6,000 you know square feet 3,000 per unit. I mean, you may get some push back on that, but you can deal with those on a, you know, one-on-one basis, or maybe that's when you steer them towards a PDR where you've got some, you can put some buffers in or something else to go ahead and help.

I've I've got my fair share of experience with town houses. Uh, it's a type of housing that I think our community needs. I think it's a density level that our community at some point needs. Um, from that standpoint, I I'm very much in favor of the idea. U, but I do think there's some issues with the fire and the building code that probably need to be discussed a little further. So, we've got some some clear language about size and access involved. Um because once we make it regulatory to the district then it really doesn't come before us. Right. It just it's it's allowed.

It's building. Yeah. Simple building administrative building permit. Exactly. So, I think there's some stuff there um that that needs to maybe be looked at as far as as scale and and access and things like that that I I think the fire chief is probably going to want to have some say in as I don't know how much discussion we've had with building codes on this issue.

Uh I mean, you know, the the building code is going to apply. I they they you know we have uh we've had uh you know I I guess I'll say that the Villas on High Street was built or well it still is being built you know and that's that's built to uh you know our current uh adopted building code and fire code and there's you know a a sixunit um a sixunit town home that's going to go right here. I have a photo. I took a photo of it the other day. Um, that's all single family or single story. Single single story, single family attached. Um, not that you don't still have the square footage there, but

I think my my my bigger concern there really is just pure length of development of building. Sure. you know, because like when we did the ones on Front Street down there, you know, between Jefferson and and Lafayette, you've got roughly 280 ft, 286, something like that, feet of uninterrupted building, right? And unless and I haven't done one under the new building code. My town houses were done under previous codes, but the concern I have a little bit is each one of those is in the building code is designed as a separate building. Correct. So what limits a person or do we want to limit you know is there a limit for how long

right that can be that's that's where I'm saying we talked about yeah this is the discussion that I I wanted to have and I've I've got some slides here um to just talk about that you know um so this is a uh this is kind of an extreme example but this is in uh you know an uh kind of the the inner city of uh Denver Colorado and this is 20 attached single single family unit. So, almost a whole block. Um, you know, and, uh, we've got, um, at the top here, um, six attached single family units. This is in, uh, Wentzville, I believe, and you got a whole whole neighborhood of them. And then 10 single family attached Birch Birchwood Court,

which is interesting. Um, so I, you know, just to show you some different examples of, uh, the, you know, the the mass of, uh, you know, these this this style of development and, uh, you know, if you had any, if you had any thoughts about that. So, and if you want to see a couple examples local, obviously I mentioned the town homes on on Front Street there. Another example is the uh, the Willows off of Fifth Street by the car wash. Yes. Uh, one of those buildings is Yeah, you're right. I think it's 10 units. Is it 10 or 10 foot wide? So that's a 280 foot long residence essentially. That's that's this is that this right here. Exactly. Yep. Yeah.

Yeah. So I guess I guess you know that that is that is a question that I I do want to discuss with you all is you know what what what what does what do you as the commission feel comfortable uh as allowing uh by right versus you know having making them go through a PDR? I mean, from my perspective, you know, I think we can see it in town. The the town houses on Front Street are almost a city block. They're almost 300 ft. Me personally, I start struggling when I a little bit with scale when I start getting above that dimension. When I start thinking about 400 foot long,

you know, or something like that, I I start to I start to think the scale maybe is getting away from us a little bit. Yeah, that that development right there was a PD that was a plan development plan. Yes. I think that was the only way that you could do that type of development. So, have you talked to building department Blake and got his input into this at all? Yeah, I don't think Well, I guess the thing was is that we didn't see it as a well, well, let's just go back to, you know, the simple ones where the people got a condo and they want to divide it up. That's never been an issue. That's not a bit I mean it's it's the buildings are built. It's that's that's just more of a financing. We're opening up the door. Yeah. Now that

but I don't know. We can we can talk with Blake or whatever and see what what input that they have if the codes have changed that would that would you know and I would say the the one thing when Aaron and I were talking about this was possibly just limiting maybe the number of units together or andor maybe a a length or a number of units and just say you know what this is if you want to go beyond this you're going to have to get a variance or whatever you know or go the PDR route then it becomes more of a density issue at that point. Correct. I would I would feel more comfortable with that, too.

We'll definitely do that. We'll talk with them and see what the building codes, what requirements that they would have or whatever. But, I mean, um, like I said, just based on what everything that Aeron's researched and looked into. I just I think that B route is the way for us to kind of go and we can put some limitations on the items that you addressed, but we'll check into that. Perfect. Okay, great. Well, thank you. I'll come back to you next month with something. So, [laughter] well, and we've got time, right? I mean, it's not that we're not in a hurry. We need to think this through and make sure we've been doing it for eight years, right? [laughter] Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Any other comments or questions of Aaron?

Uh, I was remiss in saying anything earlier and Ken, I apologize for welcoming not welcoming you to our first meeting tonight. There was a lot going on at the beginning and I forgot to make a note until I got to the end. So, welcome. Pleasure to have you here with us. Thank you. Welcome to the dream team. Uh, hearing I don't have anything else on the agenda and so I would entertain one last motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second that motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:12. Thank you. Excellent. I see. See, you're already contributing all of you.

Why? That's why my homework, right? Now I got somebody else looking out for stuff too. Kind of from a different perspective. [laughter]