Development and Zoning Review Committee - Regular Meeting

comment and I are, are we? Is it just going to be three of us? Do you know if the mayor's coming?

I'm not sure I did. I did hear from Councilmember Mabry that he was planning to attend. So I'll keep an eye out for both him and the mayor. But three is a quorum. Okay.

All right. Should we go ahead and get started then? Please, sir. All right. So I'd like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the city's Development and Zoning Review Committee. At tonight's meeting, this interested party will introduce and provide a presentation on a development proposal that would be located within the city of Wildwood. Tonight's meeting provides this interested party the opportunity to propose a concept and then hear feedback from this committee, which is composed of key city decision makers. One meeting is normally offered for this purpose. However, in certain instances, a second discussion may follow. It is very important to note this plan is in the very preliminary and informal stages of the city's review process, such as subject to changes if it proceeds to the formal submission process. The committee welcomes the public's attendance tonight via the Zoom platform or streaming on YouTube, but given the preliminary and informal nature of the presentation, public comment is not being sought at this time. If the proposed development does proceed to the formal submission process, members of the public will have numerous opportunities to address the City's Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council regarding it at that time. The committee would like to thank you for your attendance at tonight's meeting. I would like to now have the Department of Planning explain the meeting materials and offer any opening comments.

Well, Mr. Chair, before we get started, the department would respectfully request a roll call.

Yeah, please.

Thank you.

Council Member Trottier? Here. Council Member Mabry? Council Member Marshall? Mr. Marshall?

Well.

Mr. Marshall, if you can hear me, maybe if you could sign off and sign back in. Mr. Newberry, could you contact Mr. Marshall? See if I have his phone number. Okay.

All right, so I guess we'll wait for Mr. Marshall to get back on, I guess, or get his audio working at least.

Yes, Mr. Chair, without Mr. Marshall, we don't have a quorum. Right. So we'll need to wait either for Mr. Mayberry, Mr. Marshall, or both. Mr. Chair, I could hear Mr. Newberry talking, so I think he's reached out to Mr. Marshall and contacted him.

Okay.

So I appreciate everyone's patience.

No problem.

Just to give a quick update, Mr. Marshall spoke with him on the phone. He's going to try to pop off and pop back in. Okay. He was hearing some of us, but not all of us. But we'll just be patient and give it a second.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. And Mr. Chair, if you hadn't noticed, Mr. Brown, our Director of Public Works, is on as well as now Mr. Lee, our City Administrator.

Okay. I saw Thomas' iPhone pop up and wasn't sure if that was Mr. Lee or not.

Hey, Chair, it's me. Okay.

Sounds good.

And we're going to give Mr. Marshall another try. Mr. Marshall, can you hear us?

We've got video. I had that.

Can you hear me? Travis speaking.

Travis, would you send them that message to unmute?

Mr. Marshall, are you able to hear Travis speaking?

I can hear you now.

Okay, great. Okay, great. So we're in the middle of the, just to update you, we're just in the middle of the roll call and the chair's introduced the meeting. I'm here. Mr. Marshall, it's you. Thank you very much. Mary Guertano and Chair Beatty. Here. And we have a quorum. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Newberry and Mr. Chair, I did just talk with Mr. Mabry and he'll be joining here just two seconds. He's getting his computer hooked up.

Okay. Sounds good. Thanks, Tom.

Well, Mr. Chair, while Mr. Mabry is coming on to the meeting, I can go through the meeting materials and then hopefully Mr. Mabry will be on screen then. all right sounds good go ahead mr vunich thank you mr chair and to the members of the committee thank you for attending tonight we do appreciate it very much as is the typical practice of the department of planning there is a set of materials we provide for each of the development and zoning review committee meetings the materials obviously includes the agenda But along with the agenda, we provide the amended bylaws that govern the Development and Zoning Review Committee in case there's any questions about process, duties, responsibilities, et cetera. Also, Mr. Newberry has prepared two aerial photographs for the members. The photographs are one that is at a large scale, showing the subject site plus a lot of the area around it. And then the other is a smaller scale, kind of zooming in on the subject property and its immediate vicinity. Along with those two, the petitioner, in this case Lombardo Homes, has provided a concept plan that reflects how they would like to develop this 124 plus acre site. And along with that information, the department did take the liberty to provide several items relating to the discussion that was held by the citizen oversight group that's updating the master plan this year in 2026. Among those items is a description of the discussion that was held by the group relative to this particular property. And it's an 11 by 17 in portrait style and kind of goes through some of the key factors, existing land use category, proposed land use category, department's assessment, and then the action of the group. and then finally there is the set of minutes reflecting the motion second and vote of the group relative to this particular site and so that's the packet of information the department just has a couple of items that like to note the concept plan does does not and i'll repeat does not reflect a change in the zoning of the property The property, as presented tonight, would retain the NU non-urban resident district zoning that has been in place for 30 plus years, plus as recommended by the master plan citizen oversight group. Secondly, it is a combination of three-acre lots and one-acre lots. So the intent of the petitioner is to use the planned residential development overlay district on at least a portion, if not all of it. And I'll let Mr. Nance from Lombardo Homes explain that. So again, just two key points there I want to note. And then the third item is that the plan does show the use of one existing stub street that is part of Brentmore Place subdivision. And if there are any questions of any of the members of the committee, the department, be glad to try to answer them. And as noted, Mr. Brown, our director of public works, Mr. Newberry, our senior planner, and Mr. Lee, our city administrator, are also available for any comments as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vernich. Would the petitioner like to go ahead and present their ideas? I guess they need to be called. Yeah.

Mr. Chair, if you'd just give them a few moments, I sent them a prompt. If they'll accept that prompt, then they'll be in as panelists.

And Mr. Dance, does Mr. Nolan or Mr. Faulkner want to be a panelist? If you could let us know.

Okay. Good evening. Doug Nance with Lombardo Homes. Good evening, chair, committee. Appreciate you all hearing us tonight. So the plan is presented. We did talk with the city and we understand that we were at the master plan meeting with the city as well, where what we heard was less dense and low impact. And the planning presented before you tonight is just that. How do we reduce the density, which a little over 124 acres, three acre lots would yield about 41 lots, basically. for the site, which is what is shown tonight is 41 total lots on the site. So in order to get that low impact, it does show connection to Brenton or place on one of the stub streets, which would be 17 three-acre lots on that side. And then coming off of Valley Road, we would have 22 half-acre lots, which would equal your 41 lots. And you're probably going to ask, why do we need the Stub Street for the three-acre lots? Well, we put the three-acre lots over there on that side with the Stub Street to reduce the density that would have to go through Brentmore Place. And the reason for that, why we just didn't connect it to the other street, is the impact. The natural preservation of that creek that runs down through there. We're trying to preserve it. And the only way to do that is to connect to that, to Peppermill, Brentmore Place over there. In order to, if we were to not connect to Brentmore Place, it would require significant impact to the creek with some box culverts to go through there. So the plan that we presented tonight, we felt like was going to be the best for the low impact portion of it. Reduce the density that would have to stub through and only use one stub straight. that three acre lot so right now preservation wise trees were preserving 75.7 acres of 124 acres which is 70.2 percent um there is uh some grading on the the half acre site um A little bit more grading wise that we would have to do. It does come up from Valley Road up the hill to get up to the hilltop up there. But the lots and the streets are all on the ridge line. The same thing with basically as you go through the three acre lots, we're hugging the ridge line with just a little bit of cut. And what we would propose is basically some clearing on the three acre side just to get our lots prepped. but this would all be served by sanitary sewer. There is some offsite connections that we would have to do, but the easements are in place to do that. And it's all for the most part would be gravity fed, no pump station right now, maybe some low pressure systems that we would work through with MSD on that we might have to do to serve a few lots. But again, just trying to really reduce any kind of clearing preservation and low impact on this site. I think that right now that what we've laid out is the best from that standpoint. I'd be happy to hear any feedback that you all might have on it, any ideas and recommendations.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Nance. Do any of the panelists have any comments? Councilman Trottier?

Yes, thank you. That was a helpful explanation. When you say low impact in regards to the connection to Brentmore Place, you mentioned that if you were not connected to Brentmore Place, you would have to install box culverts on the creek. I assume that that would accelerate or could potentially accelerate erosion issues? Is that the impact you're speaking to?

Some of that, I mean, we'd have to mitigate some of that, but just getting into the creek-wise with those box culverts and the grading that would have to take place and the more clearing to get those box culverts in along with a road that has to go through the trees right there.

Sure, sure. I understand the disturbance to the land. I'm more curious if that option or if that proceeded, what would the impact to the creek and erosion? I mean, would that accelerate erosion? Would it decrease erosion? And you may not know this, but does that have any impact on the water flow itself?

I'm not an engineer, so it's hard for me to answer that question as far as, but I mean, we would have to size those box culverts to the appropriate size based off the water flow that comes down that creek with head walls and everything. So, I mean, it'd be done during the engineering process and improvement plans of how we would design that to reduce any kind of erosion that might happen. So that is not the case.

Okay. But in total, the objective, I guess, is to connect to Brentmore to reduce disturbance on the parcel itself, trees, etc.

That is correct.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councilman Marshall?

Yeah, I actually remember the other two proposals on that property. Mr. Funes would remember that. I guess one of my questions, any consideration of connecting into, is it Pleasant Valley Road down by log cabin? Initially, those were always part of the option to come in out of that subdivision and connect over. That used to be the right property. And the road coming out, it kind of dead ends at the end of that Pleasant. I'm not sure if I got that at Pleasant Valley. comes off of Valley Road and then comes back, goes back to that 120 acres. But several of those other proposals had contemplated having that access in, which would give you access out of Brentmore through a connection. But I don't see that you're doing that. You're going to have those people drive all the way back up into Brentmore and then all the way through that then subdivision back down on the Valley Road. And I don't, I'm not good on distances, but as you can see there, the other road comes right up against that property.

I'm trying to find Pleasant Valley.

So if you go to the top of Travis's sheet there, where it's a lighter gray.

Yeah.

Right, right to your right hand side there at about two o'clock.

Oh, Bear Valley.

No. Um, Maybe I'm wrong then. Pleasant Valley, the log cabin there along Valley Road.

Oh, I see Lone Cabin Drive, yeah.

Lone Cabin. That was always considered because it goes back there. The road's pretty wide back there, I think City Street, and it just kind of stops. And that looked right up onto that back 40 acres there, I believe.

Looking at the map, it looks like there. Sorry. I'm not sure who owns that property. to the north right there, and if there's right-of-way going from Lone Cabin into this property.

And maybe they sold it off. It used to be Charlie and Margaret Wright's property, but I thought they had all of that. That's a mansy property. Yeah. Just a question. It just seemed that that was kind of a natural connection, another alternative way to get down out of Brentmoor. And at the same time, it does grade down that way. And that other street was there. So maybe the creeks have changed and all that. But that was just a question.

Mr. Chair, if I may. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Brown, you said something I didn't quite hear at all.

Yeah, Joe, it's just, I was looking it up and that, that property to the north, that 40 acres is owned by Manchie. Okay. North of this proposed site. Yeah. Okay.

I'm more than happy to reach out to her and see it. And we can look at the topography and see if that's a viable connection as well.

I just know that that's the furthest drive into Brentmore all the way back clear to the end. And then you're going to get back into the higher, the bigger lots back in there. And if you lived clear at the bottom of the hill, you know, you're, that's like a mile and a half back in there.

Yeah. Looking at the map, Peppermill does really wind around through there.

That's it. Thank you. Thanks for checking out.

Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I personally, um, barring the potential distance for those backlots to get out. Um, I like that it, like you said, you're not, you're leaving a whole lot of it mostly untouched, especially along that Creek Valley where we probably want to leave it mostly intact. And, um, And I personally would kind of like to see a connection onto the other sub street in Brentmore, but that might be an unpopular opinion just because that... Valley Road pedestrian access isn't that great, and that would make that subdivision a little more walkable, provide access for kids if they had friends in the neighboring subdivision, make it easier for them to get to their friends' houses without having to go all the way out onto Valley Road. Yeah.

Well, the other thing we could look at too, if the objection was still not to connect to that road, is maybe a sidewalk common ground area that connects through there.

Yeah. Yeah. If you could provide some pedestrian access at least into Brentmore, I think that would be beneficial.

Okay.

But that's my comment. Does anyone have anything else?

Mr. Chair, I know the other council person for that ward, Mr. Mabry, is on, and I don't know if he has any comments.

Mr. Mabry, anything?

Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of things. Mm-hmm. I think I'm going to be the bearer of bad news for Lombardo Homes. Given the concept plan, generally didn't have acreages associated with any of the lots. The 24 lots that are served off Valley Road, They have to be minimum of one acre. The non-urban district with a planned residential development overlay district, the PRD, in the ordinance, it basically says they have to be a minimum of one acre. Obviously, that's going to influence the design there.

Yeah, I want to take a look into that to see what that does.

I'm sorry. Like I said, I wish I would have known or taken the opportunity to call you, but I just assumed they were one acre size.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, looking at the lots, the ones on the north side, you could easily just give them more of the common ground. Yeah. South side, you might have to spread a few of them out a little bit more. And I don't know, maybe just eyeballing it, maybe you could extend that cul-de-sac where lot 22 is out onto the next hill.

We just were trying not to with the half acre. But we can definitely extend some of that.

So Mr. Chair, just to summarize again, overall it's 124 plus acres in size under the non-urban resident district zoning. You divide the gross acreage by three and you get 41 lots. If the streets are intended to be public, they have to be deducted to create the net acreage and the overall number of lots would be reduced. But if they're private streets, then that deduction is not required. So as you mentioned at the start of tonight's discussion, this is very preliminary and obviously there's going to be changes to the plan. And again, if there are any questions of Mr. Brown, Mr. Lee, or Mr. Newberry, or I, we'd be glad to answer them at this time, too.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayberry. We can't hear you.

I think he said, I know.

Okay.

oh mr newberry can you send him that unmute message or have you tried he is unmuted i think there's just an issue with the which microphone he's trying to the computer is trying to use okay thank you mr mabry if you didn't hear us we're not able to hear your statements okay okay

Well, Mr. Chair, if there are no further questions of those individuals on the screen, I believe we can conclude the meeting.

All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. All right. Motion by Councilman Marshall. Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Trottier.

All right. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Thank you, guys.

Thanks, everyone, for attending.