Master Plan Citizen Oversight Group - 2026 - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody. Glad to see a huge turnout. That's excellent. Everything we talk about tonight will have a direct impact on all of us. So really appreciate the extra effort to come out. I want to welcome the team and concerned citizens to meeting number 18 of the 2026 master plan update committee. We have now turned the corner and our work is almost done. What we accomplish this evening will have a significant impact on how our city addresses future challenges and helps lay the groundwork for sound planning decisions. At this point, I'd like to open the floor to the mayor if he would like to add anything at this point.

Hello and uh good evening any everyone. I'm sorry that I'm not able to attend in person tonight. I'll be on Zoom for a portion of the meeting. Um, I want to thank everyone that's been serving on the master plan committee for the many hours that you've put in addressing the various components of the master plan and also to the residents of Wildwood for providing their thoughts on these matters that are before us. As you are aware, we're addressing some important matters that determine really the future of what we want our city to look like. Um, a lot of it too is grounded in where we've come from over the last 30 years. So, again, uh, important decisions are being made and we appreciate everyone's input to keep us on track. Thank you very much and look forward to talking to you all soon.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor uh Melanie, would you please call a roll? Mayor Gueritano. Uh he's here via Zoom. Chair Routton present. Vice Chair Loyel here. Member Avery. Member Baker. Member Batty. Member Boomer Schllegel. Member Borne. Member Clark. Happy to be here. Member Clayton here. Member Coleman. Member Deppler.

Member Hellfrey. Member Homeman present.

Member Rubis here. Uh, member Jackson, member Con, Council Member McCutchen here. Member Mets, member pick here. She's here via Zoom also. Um, Council Member Rambo here. Uh, member Ren here. And member Shiken. And we do have a quorum. Thank you.

At this point, I'd like to lead everybody through the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. At this point, any discussion or a motion to approve last month's meeting minutes? Teresa,

I will um move to to approve, but with one comment. Uh in my notes, the minutes were approved last time. The motion was made by Deb and seconded by me instead of me and Rob. I don't know that that matters, but that was the only thing I saw. No, we can look at that. Thank you. Do we have a second? Vince, all in favor?

I I All opposed. Thank you. Okay, we got a little heavy schedule tonight. we're going to have to stay on track and we need to discuss a procedure that I think that will help us stay organized. So in that regard to facilitate tonight's meeting, I would like to propose the following. Mr. Munich will lead us through staff's recommendation on land use categories for each parcel. After he speaks to us per parcel, the team will continue with a discussion and comment for each of the projects. After team discussion and comment, public comment for each parcel limited to five minutes each. Please submit a comment card if you have not already done so. After public comment, we will go to soliciting motions from the team for each parcel. Each motion will be considered equally for both content and allotted time. To assist in the event competing motions are presented, staff will help with keeping notes and counts. After all motions are documented, votes will be taken and tally. In the event of competing motions, which there very well could be, we'll talk about

multiple uh I'm sorry, in the event competing motions, each team member is allocated one yes vote per parcel. In addition to the team's yes vote, multiple no votes may be cast cast on additional motions on the same topic. But again, we assume that we'll have a number of motions. If there's more than one, say yes for one and say no for the other. It's your prerogative. A simple majority will Any questions? A motion to accept those rules.

We'll make that motion. All in favor? I. All opposed.

Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mr. Chair and members of the group, I too would like to extend the department's appreciation for being here at our 18th meeting. As you know, we started back in January of 2025 with our orientation. For the most part, have either met every month or twice a month to get to tonight's point. So, a welldeserved thank you, a job well done from the Department of Planning. As you know, these meetings are intended to be more informal than formal. So, we do provide coffee, water, and soda, and snacks. Thanks, Miss Clark. Um, so please to the members of the group. Please don't hesitate to get up and go and get what you need. And I extend that to the public as well. It's there for everybody. So, please, if you need water, coffee, or anything, help yourself. Just to summarize uh before we get into the discussions on the five areas, as you know, we spent the majority of our time working through the six elements. A key component of that effort was the survey that was conducted early on in March and April of 2025. That survey will reappear to you very shortly as we start going back over the elements, the goals, objectives, and policies to ensure that what the public told us is either something we've incorporated or if not, why the elements for all for all intents and purposes were finished just within the last month

or two. Along with that, as part of the transportation element, we talked about the arterial roadway system in Wildwood. And Mr. Brown, our director of public works, did a wonderful job of kind of explaining what the arterial roadway network means relative to prioritization, improvements, etc. Tonight, we have the final component on that as part of the agenda as well. So from that perspective the next step the third step of four is the land use. We had the initial discussions so to speak the public hearings on the land use last meeting and as you know we discussed four areas or properties collectively. A fifth property was submitted shortly after that meeting by Piglia Nursery. And given that if we don't consider it now, it's a potential 10-year weight, the department did include it, did not provide a specific recommendation regarding it because again, I think it's only fair that we have the group be able to digest it, ask questions like we did at the last meeting regarding the first four properties and move on from there. So, five properties and Mr. RIPO was kind enough to incorporate it into the map and that revised map now is at your chair as you came into tonight's meeting. The packet itself for tonight obviously included the agenda and the minutes. The minutes already being approved and Miss Clark will make that uh correction so

the record is straightened. We have the report that's been prepared by the department of planning on the four properties with the description of the Pacigia nursery site provided as well. We also did provide again the background materials provided by the applicants or petitioners for the first four properties. So that packet of different items, you've seen that already once, but we thought it uh appropriate to provide it to you again if needed tonight as part of our discussion. And then again, we have the arterial roadway discussion and the revised map. So again, thank you. Um, as I often say to our boards, commissions, committees, we can't do our job without you. So, you are a very intricral part what makes Swwood a great place to live, work, and play. So, area A, and I use area A because it's the largest of the grouping. Um, area A, as you know, is the 20 as we describe it, the 200 plus acre site that is defined by North Etherton Road and Centaur Road in the Wildwood portion of the Chesterfield Valley. It is now an agricultural operation, has been an agricultural operation for as long as I can remember, which is probably 45 to 50 years. So, it's obviously been a stable use, but the owners now have put it onto the market and as part of being on the market, there has been interest over the course of the last couple of years.

The interest I believe that was most serious was by North Point Development. North Point Development does a lot of warehouses with small offices. Think of Amazon, Hershey, those large warehouses where tractor trailers come and go all hours of the day and night. It's not necessarily a bad use for an industrial zone location, but certainly in that instance, North Point Development sought public incentives to make the project feasible to them. that or for the purposes of the discussion curtailed it. At the meeting in March, the applicant's representatives, Daniel Manning with the attorney and Dan Hayes with NI Desco explained that they were hoping to obtain greater flexibility with the offering of the property. It is designated under the master plan industrial. It's zoned M3 planned industrial district and that zoning the actual zoning of the property which allows the land use to be considered is fairly broad. It includes light industrial contractors storage yards, warehouses and offices and a full range of those types of uses you would associate with an industrial location. The request was very specific. They were hoping to obtain the set of land uses that are identified in our town center for the downtown district. That would include more of a commercial component in conjunction with industrial. Again, not wanting to leave the industrial designation behind, but to supplement or add to it.

In the packet of information for this particular property, we provided you the list of uses that have been identified in our town center plan for the downtown district. And that list is that color sheet that is at the end of the the tabloid page sizes. As you can see, it is a range. The department in its review of this particular request is recommending that the group consider it favorably allowing those downtown district uses to be incorporated into the industrial area and ultimately if a developer were to come forward to be considered as part of a specific ordinance for zoning purposes. The caveat to that recommendation and this came from Mayor Garitano is no residential and no residential. The rationale being first and foremost it's at the end of a runway for Spirit of St. airport. And despite warnings, signing letters acknowledging the fact that you're at an end of a runway of an active airport facility, I'm sure that at some point the city of Wildwood would hear from disgruntled residents that they can't sleep at night or they get woke up in the morning, etc., etc. It is also a very unusual area. It is flood protected. The levy after the 1993 flood exceeds the 500year standard. It's maintained very well and for all for the purposes of protection, I think it's the best that can be offered. However, the soils are great

for agriculture, but the water table's very high and so any residential project down there would be lab on grade and I believe there would still be water issues. So, the department's recommendation relative to to a area A is to retain the industrial area designation set forth now by the master plan and provide an accommodation for downtown district uses as part of it minus any residential type of activity. And with that, the department will conclude on area A and accept any questions and we'll do our best here to answer them if we can. Any questions from the group? Deborah. Um, we we are having a the city is having a lot of trouble keeping um our storefronts. Um, our businesses coming in and staying here. So what is the advantage to in in offering the downtown designation to this piece of property?

Well, your your assessment I believe is very accurate in many ways. Obviously, our downtown district, which is the area here by city hall, our workplace district along Manchester Road, certain portions of Route 109, haven't grown to the extent that we had hoped 30 years ago. Andre Dwani, the consultant, said, "Yeah, it's a 20 to 30year plan, but obviously I think we're all looking now at maybe a 40 or 50-year plan, if not more." So, here's what I've been told by many residents. I live north of Route 100. I'm 10 minutes from the valley. I live south of Route 100. I'm 10 minutes to Eureka in the Walmart. I live east of Striker Road. I'm 10 minutes from Ellisville and Baldwin. So, I don't think the issue of having a a latitude or flexibility uses down there is necessarily going to draw from our downtown area. What I think it'll do is at least let us compete with Chesterfield instead of having all the sales tax money go there and they disperse it and keep more under state legis state law of late. I think we I think it's just that it it makes sense to us to explore every feasible revenue source and if revenue source includes sales tax I think we ought to explore it. Additionally, certain uses like industrial have a substantial utility utility utilization. I'd like to think some of the commercial will. I just think the logistics of Wildwood 68 square miles in size having a node there is not necessarily a detriment to here. I think collectively

we're surrounded by heavy commercial utilization of other municipal property and that is what causes part of our struggle if not wine share and so what the department is proposing is a definite no residential development will be allowed in that area.

That's correct. I'll admit when McBride Homes looked at the site, it did seem like a potential that there be an opportunity to do more affordable housing. A key discussion that this group has had over many of its meetings. Again, because it's isolated, there's no other residential buy it. It would not impact other properties that have residential uses associated with them. But at the end of day, it's like what are we doing to the people that buy them? We may be offer to may be able to offer them affordability, but are we offering them a good environment? And I I can't say I would think so down there. You're welcome. M Joe, has our economic development commission looked at this? Do they have a recommendation? Are they concerned that it will take business away from our existing town center? They have not looked at it. Obviously, the charge that was handed to this group and the 23 volunteers was first you take a bite at the apple, tell us what it tastes like, and then we'll take it from there. So, it'll get to all of those decision makers, but you're going to help them understand the pros and cons. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? Teresa?

Yeah, just a question. Joe, when it when you talk about that the um the access is Cric Road with industrial and u businesses. Can we put anything in there um that says something about limited weight limits for Centure Road? because I'm afraid that, you know, if they think that's a main way to get one place or another or even wild horse to Creek Road.

Interesting question. And when North Point Development looked at that property, we actually told them that they could not access Centaur Road because our concern was we don't want tractor trailers even traveling a certain section of it. And so from that perspective, we control access rights. Mr. Brown can gr in principle grant them or not. If it grants them, make restrictions on turns into and out, things along those lines. North Etherton Road, as you know, Miss Clark is a county arterial. So, that'll be up to St. Louis County and their department of transportation. Thank you. You're welcome. Right.

Yeah. When I was a kid, that was Gumbo Flats and there was Ron Box and a barn and a feed store, I think, and then the bar that became uh the smokehouse and that's it. I personally loathe the very idea of paving over 100 foot deep aluvial soil with anything, but um I think this is a sensible approach as long as there's no residential, none of those kinds of headaches. But we give the folks that are trying to sell this and the folks that are interested in buying it a little more latitude. I I I think the most likely vision would be a warehouse complex with a little store there for the folks to patronize when they're, you know, when they're, you know, on breaks or, you know, maybe a, I don't know, fast food or whatever like that. I think it's sensible to try to afford the city the opportunity to get a few of the revenue, the the bucks that are currently going to Chesterfield. anyway and um it's the right place for it because it's down Monarch Hill and nobody you know the folks that live close will go there but otherwise I don't I don't see it just my personal opinion without any knowledge I don't see it as stealing any business from town center myself so I think it's a good idea I just wanted to say that thanks

and certainly no one in the group or in attendance tonight should take away from the discussion that we want to see the agriculture natural activity conclude. I had the opportunity to meet with one of the owners of an adjoining property, 34 acres, and walk it one Friday afternoon. It's just a wonderful setting down there. It's remnant remnant of the past as you've described, Dr. Rambo. But that property we understand is now under contract with place of worship. So change is going to come and I think the change in this particular instance given the size of the property could be beneficial to Wildwood.

Vince if a marijuana operation choose pumping wild this is where they Yes. As you know Mr. Ruis of your time on the planning and zoning commission. Medical marijuana, regular marijuana, sexually explicit businesses, vape lounges, tattoo parlors, and every other kind of use that we really didn't want in Town Center. We gave them the opportunity to settle in in the Chesterfield Valley Wildwood portion. Good.

Thank you. Um, you know, it's 30 years it's been industrial and now it's a beautiful piece of farmland and so not much has happened with that. So I I do support this change. I have a question regarding the downtown classification does allow for conditional residential. Are we can we carve out a special parcel that doesn't permit that component?

Yes. and we do it all the time either via now through zoning ordinances but we'll do it as a component here and you'll see the draft language that creates the exception so to speak and you'll be able to feel comfortable if it's strong enough or not strong enough then we'll make corrections. Thank you. All good. Any public comments regarding this parcel? If not, Mr. Chair, I do have Oh, are you Daniel Hayes?

Yes.

Hi. Um, Dan Hayes, NEI Desco. I'm a commercial real estate agent. I represent the property owner this evening of the 233 acres. Um absolutely just to feed off of Joe's comment. Thank you all very much for your efforts here. It's uh it's appreciated like Joe said the pro progress here can't be had without your help and support. So thank you. Um I'll be brief. Uh the short version is that we're uh very much in support of staff's recommendation here. I think it's fair. What we are giving up is probably some developers that may be more of a mixed use type where they like to have that and they it may they may have to just go elsewhere for that. But uh the industrial uses and the other uses that would be provided for if you um so elect just gives us that flexibility. And last time we were here um you know it was noted we're not being given anything here other than the right to have that flexibility and come in and and present as needed. Um I do a ton of retail development as well and with respect to the um animalization here. I I agree with Joe. They're really Rob as well. They're really two different um segments. If you can envision people that are at the volleyball and basketball complex down there, Neil Center, um they are um they're not going to stop and run up here to Manchester Road for a bite and a snack and then head back down there. If they have a facility there, they'll utilize it. Otherwise, they're going to be more inclined to head down Chesterfield Airport Road. But here to answer any questions if

there are any. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, at this time we're going to entertain motions regarding this change. Vince, I would like to make a motion that we support the recommendation of planning committee zoning comm uh to support the change in classification to permit the um downtown designation with the exception of the residential component.

Excellent. A second. Second. Teresa. Okay. Uh Melanie, you ready to take a voice call? I am, sir. And the motion I was going to say the motion is to support the department recommendation to include the um uh town center or the downtown uh regulations with the exception of residential. Correct. Correct. Excellent. Are we doing a voice vote or a roll call? Voice. Okay. No, go ahead.

Oh, roll. Uh, okay. Very good. Um, okay. And, um, Mayor Gueritano. Oh, he did. Uh, Chair Routton. Yes. Vice Chair Loyal. Hi. Uh, member Boomer Schllegel. Member Clark, yes. Member Clayton, yes. Uh, member Dubler, yes. Was that a yes? It was. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Thumbs up. Member Hman. Yes. Member Rubis. Yes.

Member McCutchen or Council Member McCutchen. Uh, member Pic. Yes. Council member Rambo. Yes. And member Ren. Yes. And it passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. The next location, with the permission of the chair, the department will present it. The next location has been identified as site B and it's the 120 acre uh tract of land that is located in what is described as the northeast quadrant of the city of Wildwood. This particular property, as was described during the presentation at the March meeting, is owned by the Boy Scout Council. It was donated to them by the Wright family and they've held it for approximately three years under the requirements of the donation. As was described by the representative from the Boy Scout Council, the the council is no longer building camps, retreats, etc. They are in a mode of trying to raise money to sustain their operations as they are today. Certainly, the presentation by Mr. Nolan from the Boy Scout Council is is a difficult one because I think everyone does support the council and the activities it provides for boys and girls. However, this is land use and others in the vicinity have invested heavily in their homes and other properties and certainly regardless of the nature or the individual or entity making the presentation, ours is to look at is what is best for the community and those in the vicinity. I'll start by just saying that over the past two updates, so 2005 to 2006, 2015 to 2016,

the department has always advocated for a split land use designation on this property. The advocation of that particular position has been relative to several conditions. First and foremost, the southern portion of the site has very similar topography and characteristics as the Bretmore Place subdivision and some of the other more traditional subdivisions in the vicinity. It also has all utilities in or near the location. Additionally, it is an area that was debated extensively with the original development of the master plan and certainly at that time it was not included in the suburban residential area but it was included in the non-urban residential area. What's that mean? Non-urban residential area, one unit for every 3 acres. Suburban residential area, one unit for every acre. So a substantial difference the split designation if I were to be asked where's that line go across the site I'd be hardressed to tell you right at the moment often times the department of planning depends on the middle of a preliminary development plan to give us an idea if it's an overutilization of the site or is it a compliant plan to all the regulations and etc. The department in its recommendation does acknowledge what it believes are key components in support of its recommendation for a split designation relative to land use. First and foremost, the plan residential development overlay district would have

to be used. It is the only zoning tool in the opinion of the department that accommodates the variety, the difficulty and the characters of wildwood sites whether it be soil conditions, topography, woodlands, drainage features, utility corridors, etc., etc. That tool allows the city to guide the developer to ensure that where improvements are located, they are suitable to the conditions of the property and where they are not, it is preserved. The area at least north of the transmission line rightway for Amron Missouri retain non- urban residential area. I do not see any portion of a higher density residential project going under that and into the area to the north. Thirdly, the stub street shall not be extended into this project or this property or project. The department describes that there are two stub streets that were required by St. Louis County when it approved the butore place subdivision. Department believes that those could be made culde-sacs and two to three new homes built there. Construction access would come from Valley Road at Bretmore Place, their streets, and ultimately would conclude the discussion about what's going to happen to them for the future once homes are built. Primary access would be off Valley Road. You may remember or you may not valley road under our department of public

works and through the support of city council will be going through a major upgrade in terms of surfacing some widening of the shoulders improvements etc. So from the standpoint of a suburban designated portion of the property plus retaining a significant area of non- urban residential area, the thought is is that the traffic volumes can be accommodated on the improved road so to speak. One of the tools we used with the plan residential development overlay district years ago when the Cherry Hills Golf Course developed is that we told the development community, those build homebuilders that around the perimeter of the site that there was a 30 per 30 foot wide protection zone. So, if you look at a map, you won't see a house um development, so to speak, in that 30 foot buffer around the perimeter. The department is recommending a 50-ft buffer for this particular area, and that would be with the exceptions of the two substrates. It worked effectively, I believe, in the case of the enclaves of Cherry Hills and allied many of the fears of adjoining property owners of having disturbance grading up to the boundary line of their property because what we said is you've got a 50-foot safety zone. And those of you that drive by some of the developments that are underway now, you notice that we have silk pens, orange construction fencing to ensure that mistakes generally don't happen. The preservation of woodlands would be required along all the ephemeral

drainageways. What's that equate to? If it's defined by top of bank, meaning the channel, the creek, it's a 50- foot distance off each side of topa bank. Therefore, again protecting the water transportation network, so to speak of the site. And one of the things we found over the last years, particularly with some of the larger developments in Town Center, no bio retention basins. That is a lug that you put on the homeowners association that'll never go away. And it's not fair to them to expect them to be experts in storm water management, native plannings, how to deal with maintenance of something that I believe is very difficult. So to summarize, the area north of the transmission line eastment would not be changed. The area to the south would not yet be determined, but some portion would be suburban residential. And at a minimum, the seven items just discussed by the department would be part of any action if favorable by the group relative to the recommendation. I'll conclude by saying if I've been wrong, I've consistently been wrong for the last 20 plus years. And I'm not necessarily here to cause upheaval in Brett Moore Place. It's a great subdivision. It's wellmaintained. Everything that is about it is good about it. But I also know that in the last 10 years during the analysis of the census, Bob would lost population and we're an aging community. And so from the perspective of the

department, growth for growth sake is not good. growth, vitality, and longevity is good. I think that's part of the rationale here tonight. And with that, I'll conclude. And if there are any questions or comments, the four of us will do our best to address them. Ben, yeah, Joe, just summarize my own mind. So north of the power lines you're suggesting it would remain the 3 acre minimum and and south would be one for one acre. Correct.

That's correct. But I don't know if it's using Brettmore Place its northern boundary as a subdivision. Is that is the depth of the suburban 300 feet or 500 feet or thousand feet? I don't know. What I will tell you is the best case scenario with the PRD, the overlay district, whatever amount of acreage, let's say it's 40 acres north of um the transmission line easement, those 13 lots divided into 40, those 13 lots get absorbed to the south and that stays open space. Another question.

In the in the two previous times that this has been visited when our group has met, has there ever been a suggestion for a split classification or has it always just been a change?

The department has been consistent a split designation and in each instance it was not supported by the volunteer group and was not supported by the commission or city council. Okay. Thank you. Mo for two. So, I had a really long discussion with Dr. Hammer about this property and he um he was he's a geo morphologist if you don't know who Dr. Hammer is and he um he was around with director when they all started this together and both of them know this land probably better than any of us in here. I'm sure they do. And he was he said you have to look at the the long range economical environmental sustainability of the land and um the original zoning intent he said was it wasn't particularly the lot size but it was where the homes would be built and um in the landscape itself. And he said you had to look at the landforms and the slopes and the slope deepness and the the position that the house would be on the slopes to determine how much disturbance you would make to that piece of property and um and to minimize the grading that would be done. the in the original intent as I understand were cluster homes on bridges and because that's the most stable place for building and uh we have the Cox Creek over there and there's so much erosion already and problems that we have with CS Creek that anything that we do delletteriously in any area around it could cause a problem. Um the

the only pro the only thing that I see about this recommendation that I would I just don't don't see the split giving us uh a absolute that the there's going to be a PRD and it's going to be adhered to the um I'll be making a motion later when it's motion time about this to to try to get back to whatever it was that we originally intended uh with an area so that we have a density of the whole the 3 acre density would be for the the development area not for and maybe it's south of the um power lines and nothing north of it but instead of having three acre minimums where um more damage can be done to the um to the land forms and and as Dr. Hammer said to cluster them and on the ridges maybe a higher density of homes but but hold them to that many homes and the city to be able to designate it um maybe a new a new zoning tool that we can use that verifies that's going to happen in areas like this. and we've had just the new development that's going on on 109, you know, that we thought that we wouldn't have all of that grading and now there's an awful lot of grading that's going on over there and to minimize it. Um, I just think that we need this to be a solid absolute zoning tool that we use um an addition to what we have so that

we don't we don't come back in 10 years later with the same problem again

with the permission of the chair. Miss Clark, your points are well taken. Dr. hammer, I believe, set us on the right foot relative to identifying environmental issues and also gave us solutions. Have we wavered over time? Certainly. Collectively, there's 16 of you make decisions regarding land use. Some of you may be experts, some of you may have the background, some may not. Collectively though, I think if you look at the landscape, we've done a pretty good darn darn good job because at during the election, prior to the election for the incorporation, the mantra was save the rural area and I think if you drive in the rural areas, particularly west of Route 109, the city councils, the mayors, the appointed commission members, etc. have done that. You drive out there, there's new homes, there's changes, places of worship, things that are permitted by right. All in all, I think when you drive out there, it's pretty scenic, quiet, still can see the stars at night, things like that. So, positive. I was asked 10 years ago, under the current land use classification, how many homes or lots could they have? 120 divided by three they could have 40. They've got three plot three lots now. So some on the group acknowledge that that's a pretty substantial increase just onto itself. And again I can't argue that. But I would never argue that the Levenson plan in 2005 and 2006 with 150 plus units was

sight sensitive. I would not suggest that the PY plan in 2015 and 2016 was any better because from their perspective they ignored the drainage tributaries draed across them through them to make connections between ridges and didn't follow the natural feel of the property. And I'll conclude with just one last comment. As I said at a coffee with the mayor two months ago when the project the reserve at Wildwood was being criticized, that's a development profile you won't see anywhere else but town center and center. We intentionally increase the density as you know in some instances it can be up to 11 units per acre such as the apartment complex under development by the theater. um that development profile um does not require the natural resource protection standards to be applied. We came to the party late with the tree preservation and restoration code was corrected after the fact relative to woodland groves, those clusters of trees that create a grand setting. So yes, we don't always hit the target. We like to think we get close. is will we miss the target here? I can't stand here and guarantee that we'll be 100% accurate but at the end of day I think there is some flexib um some of you may know me in the past. We spent a lot of time on this property a number of different times. So, I'm

pretty familiar with what's going on. Um, my main concern, we're all familiar with the past history of this site. Two previous update committees, the planning and zoning commission, and the city council all have rejected three previous attempts to change the land use category. Considering a land use category change for a fourth time requires us to take an objective look at the changes that have taken place since those past rejections. And what are those changes? Both positive and negative. Wildwood treasure protected pristine green spaces have systematically and methodically been disappearing over time. There's less green space today than there was when this was first evaluated. Past builder presentations included larger lots, 2,000 square foot homes with two to threecar garages. The latest proposal includes smaller lots with 3 to 4,000 square ft homes and 3 to four car garages. The non-permeable footprint of this trend greatly exacerbates the runoff potential. The Cox Creek watershed is in a state of systematic failure. Continued building within the watershed will only hasten its demise.

The city's ability to fix these existing problems is severely hampered by a recurring lack of financial support. If the city cannot fund the repairs for the damage existing home sites are causing, then the city therefore should not approve more of the same. Val Valley Road to Joe's point is a rural two-lane country road which has ne was never meant to handle today's volumes. Some safety improvements are planned, but they do not address throughput. Public settlement for the nonapproval of the proposed land use category change continues to swell documented by public comment as well as concerned citizens attendance for these meetings. Thank you. Mr. Chair, with your permission, just a couple of points. Um, Bucks Creek is stressed. Um, we had a volunteer group, the wershed erosion task force. We thought we had nine watersheds to study. We spent the better part of three years in Cox Creek trying to understand what we need to do. We have a list of priority projects. There is now funding from MSD that's allocated to each of the municipalities that have service from them. We expect anywhere from around $2.8 to $3 million a year. No. Yes. From them. That that's the wrong number. I can't bear with me. I think it somewhere

in that range. We also are working with our state legislature to fund critical improvements in Cox Creek. So, it's not that we're not trying to address Cox Creek. And I will tell you that 95% of the development that's caused the problem in Cox Creek was approved by St. Louis County. That was the first thing that Dr. Hammer identified and that's why we have a tree preservation and restoration code, a grading code, the natural resource protection standards. We eliminated any possibility of higher density residential other than one acre per unit per one unit per acre. So we took the steps necess necessary to at least what we had hoped stabilize it. It hasn't. But from the perspective of the city, we put in the tools to make it work. And we've also had changes at the regional level. Up until 1997, the stormwater management standards that the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District applied throughout their jurisdiction were for all intents and purposes in my mind written behind the homebuilders association. In 1997 that changed and now they have some of the most restrictive ones minus the bio retention basins which are not necessarily don't function but they're just a devil to maintain. So there has been a change. Are all those changes sufficient enough to basically take the risk on this property? I don't know. All I am telling you is is that there are enough factors in the department's mind to make it at least a discussion point. Thank you.

Regarding the current condition of Cox Creek today, we haven't spent any real money because we haven't had any real money. We petitioned the state three different times. Three different times that funding request has been denied. We have a watershed that's in crisis. We don't have any money today. There are no bulldozers driving up and down the creek fixing all of the problems that we have. And how can we continue to stress that problem before we fix something first? It's my only comment.

Certainly, and I appreciate it. Thank you, Deborah. Um, for those of you who know me, my first concern is always residents and resident input and resident wishes. So, I've seen more resident comments against this proposal than I have seen before. Doesn't mean that's what everybody's been told or has seen, but that's what I've been told

certainly. Um, and the MSD funding, it's certainly going to take a a while to, I think, make substantial improvement. And the kicker to that is it is only for those areas on Cox Creek that are served by MSD. So that that funding is not going to go, you know, across the wide part or any part toll in in total. So that that's a concern me because I live in a high density area and I know the ramifications and the negative on Fox Creek on those homes. Um some of the homes are losing their yards. You know, they have their their decks up on stilts and that's their backyard because the rest of it has been eroded. So erosion is is a very um concern of mine and the residents that I know that live in high density areas have made the same comments over and over. Um and then my other real concern and Joe I hope you address this if you know I I think that this piece of land that we're discussing should remain 3 acres but on if if we're coming in here and saying well they can have one house per acre and then we start using the PRD then we're getting increased density. Yeah. So we explain that

certainly. So view the PRD as the sheet on your bed. The bed is the underlying zoning. Whatever that underlying zoning is that establishes the density. So if it's non-urban resident district, that's one unit for every three acres. All the sheet does over the bed is allow to have some flexibility in terms of minimum lot size setbacks and as Miss Clark described be able to cluster the units and the lots in the areas of site most suitable for land disturbance and use. It doesn't increase the density. The density is set by the underlying zoning district designation. And if you don't change that, the PRD will basically survives with whatever that density is.

So then is there potential for that density to increase or is the smallest lot from here to eternity going to be one house per one acre?

Well, under the recommendation of the department, it could be partially one unit per acre. If you choose not to follow the recommendation, which is entirely within your purview, then it'll stay one for every three acres. The potential for the use of the PRD and the non-urban resident district still exists and I would encourage a developer to consider it. Besides working with the site and tailoring the project to it, it also it reduces the extent of roads by clustering. You don't build additional roadways, impervious surfaces. It reduces the amount of storm water runoff. So there are some other benefits besides just managing the site characteristics that come with the building and regardless if it's suburban, non-urban, combination, whatever the tool itself, the PRD is a great tool and um it's been abused by many but not necessarily here.

So let me make sure I understand. So there is potential for lot sizes on this land to be less than one acre. No, not if it stays non- urban residential. In the existing master plan, it says that that's one unit for every three acres and the minimum lot size if the PRD is used, the overlay district is 1 acre. If it becomes suburban, then yes, it's still a density of one unit per acre, but the lot sizes can be as small as 15,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you.

Any more questions? Confirmation from the the department. So, what you would suggest on the non-urban side or the one acre side would be how many acres? Just ballpark. Let's say 40. Okay. So essentially that'd be that would already meet what currently is 40 homes that would leave 80 acres divide by three about 27 homes or whatever up. Thank you Rob.

Yeah, couple of random thoughts and then I'll get to my point. Um doc Dr. Hammer is a is a nationally renowned expert and we were very lucky to have him from the very beginning of Wildwood. Um, I take what he I always take what he says very seriously. Um, uh, Joe Bunich has spent his life helping us build Wildwood. I think he was the first on employee or very near it and our planning department is spectacular and we're lucky to have all of them. I take their recommendations seriously as well. What I what I would say is um um if you do the clustering that that Miss Clark was talking about, you can do erosion control such that you have 100% on-site uh runoff retention. Um you do you can do a lot more tree preservation. You get the internal livability of having your neighbors a bit closer. you reduce imperous surf surfaces a lot by reducing the pavement required to get um all through this parcel and so forth. Um uh everybody wins in my view um the the northern part of that site is so problematic that um well actually Mr. and myself have had this similar conversations a number of times and he has said that there are some places in Wildwood that probably ought to be 5 acre minimum des minimum uh uh density. Um this the northern part of this parcel might be one of those. We uh we have the power line that everybody knows is problematic, but at the south end um near Brentmore, there's I think most of the homes in there are like roughly a half acre or something like that if I'm not mistaken. Um the um the idea that we could uh maintain the 3acre minimum density for the overall site of 120

acres and cluster homes on one acre parcels on the ridgetops. Do everything great that I've just been talking about provide much wider buffers of forest and trees for the for the um visual um uh protect the the the the view from the outside of the site in and um it's just it seems like a a win-win to me and it could be a um it could be a a great thing. And so Joe, my question to you is um can we specify um okay 1 acre lots for the southern 2/3 um south of the power line, let's say um uh that that that only add up to the same 40 that are permitted today under non-urban. But it's better in every respect and it would make it this this parcel 120 acres attractive to a developer because if a developer can't make money selling the the better part of 40 homes um uh they they need to get find a different business because we just did that in in West Eden out uh in my neck of the woods out west. 12 homes on 68 acres. You can't even see them. There's one place on Woodland Avenue where you can kind of see a couple of the new homes and the when you drive by on Melrose, you can see them today, but there is planned installed and planned landscaping that's going to block it completely. You'll drive by and you won't even know there's a neighborhood back there. I think that's what most of the folks that live in Brentmore would really like to see. That approach would work for the um the watershed protection of Cox Creek. it it just seems like it it it's eminently sensible. And so I'm going to I worked up to my question for the second time and I'm going to ask it

this time. Can we um uh impose that kind of restriction and say no more than um than 3 acre minimum density, but you have some latitude. Come back with come back with a plan that's environmentally more sensitive and and and um we will take it seriously. And the the the the kicker for that is it's already on public utilities, so we don't have to worry about septic systems and those kinds of things and people can have a nice one acre is a nice yard. And um so it seems like a win-winwin um to me. The only concern would be the traffic on Valley Road, but um that wouldn't change with 40 acre minimum density, no matter if the houses are on three acres or on one acre is my opinion. I think the group has that authority given the fact that you're a recommending body. Ultimately, the city attorney may say legally that's a stretch. But one of the things that Wildwood did with its first charter, the adoption of the charter, is that the city council cannot approve a zoning inconsistent with the conceptual land use categories for the property. So if you were to say this property has a maximum density of 40 units and each lot can be no less than one acre and it stays in the master plan and a developer were to come, city council can't approve that zoning because it would be contrary to the charter stipulation. So we made the conceptual land use categories map law which is very unusual. Most master plans, if you talk to planners and others, they're a guide. Ours has a law component.

So So that didn't I mean, maybe I'm dense, but that didn't answer my question because I'm trying to make this a a great win for the local area while still being a win for Cox wershed and um potentially for the Boy Scout. Well, and I apologize if I misunderstood. I thought I thought you said 40. Yes. Total. Yes. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. That's the But we can't do that. You said we could do that because this has the force of the law. And so No, you can't. Oh, we can. Oh, okay. I thought I said we could do that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um certainly that's okay.

You can say it stays in the non-urban residential area, but here's stipulations associated with this property because I think it's fair to do that given the fact that it's now been back three times in these 10ear spans. And so it there's there needs to be a final resolution regardless of what the decision is, I believe, for the benefit of the property owners around the area. Some won't be back in 10 years, but let's solve the problem now and get it right.

Sure. So, 40 homes with 80 acres of common ground surrounding it seems better than 40 um 40 homes on three acres a piece um to to me to me. And again, we can establish the buffers like we did at the Enclaves at Cherry Hills around the perimeter. We can use the top of bank elements protect the drainage waste. I think there's a lot of tools that we can use to achieve what you've described. Is that in your recommendation or what would we what would you we need to do to do that? Yes. But my recommendation takes the density higher. So you would have to modify that if you wanted to proceed in the direction you

that for sure. But um I would like to hear what either Jim or Vic about that. Well, time out. The mayor's got his hand up. I'm sorry. Oh, I I apologize. I apologize. Mayor's got his hand up. It's time for him to speak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yes. Thank you very much. Hopefully, you can hear me. Um, I did want to comment on this because I do think it's important that we keep in mind certain considerations. Uh, this is the master plan. It's a very critical document for our city and many residents as you may know and especially an elected position were often reminded that Wildwood has 3 acre minimum. In fact, it's so widely mentioned that many folks don't realize that the town center area has its own set of rules and therefore uh you know we have to let folks know that town center has a higher density as opposed to the area outside of the town center. So what I would like to uh make sure that we keep in line with this property is that we are um preserving that 3 acre rule. The three acres is critical and that uh the PRD as mentioned that is a tool that is available and I think we have discretion in how it's applied. Um we certainly do not want anyone to abuse the PRD. uh but it's there designed and I believe council member Rambo the scenario he was just laying out would leverage something like a PRD where we maintain the minimum of three acres per lot but it's designed for those situations where you may have some land that is not buildable. So at the end of the day, just like the analogy that director Munage mentioned, you still have that uh that uh sheet that protects I guess the overall 3acre minimum there. So I think it's important

that this commission recognizes that we are the front line of defense. Our city is constantly getting requests from petitioners, developers that are constantly challenging what we have lived by for the last 30 years. This is what makes Wildwood unique and therefore we need to make sure we do everything to preserve it. So do not we do not become just like any other community that's around us. It's the reason why Wildwood is special. the reason why we have open space, especially when you look outside of the town center area where the town center supports that high density. So, we are the front line of the defense and we have to protect that. Um, and therefore, I'm fully in support of preserving the 38 33 acre per lot minimum, which is the non-urban residential. If someone wants to come down the road with a proposal that it utilizes the use of a PRD, a PRD is nothing new. We've had it in our city. We do have discretion. So certainly we're going to want to make sure that whatever gets proposed preserves that unique character that makes Wildwood special. Uh but I would not be in support of anything that reduces the overall density under the three acres. If this falls, others will fall too in the future and that's why we have to protect this. Um, so that's where I stand and and I hope that the rest of the master plan team will see it the same way. Thank you.

Any more questions? Yeah, I have just have a question. Um Joe, the the the existing non-urban designation um combined with PRDS will will would allow for the type of development that I described earlier. Is that correct? Yes, sir.

Okay. and and the 3 acre we're talking I think we conflate density and minimum lot size um uh unfortunately more than we should and it really should be about the density and not necessarily the the lot size if lot if the smaller lots with larger surrounding common ground makes more sense for a site and for the for the neighborhood. So, I I I was going to ask one or both of the planning and zoning folks to weigh in on this question because they've seen it many times. Go ahead, Beck.

Well, should I say that I think you're brilliant. Um, I I like I like what he said. I like that it doesn't increase the density and I like the PRD. So, are you looking for a motion for this? Not yet. What we're going to do is all at the end. When we're done discussing, we'll have public comment and at the end of public comment, we will take motion. Okay. I apologize because I was late this evening. Um, so I like that what Mr. Rambo said and then the PRD would allow us to protect the water and the area around it. So, thanks. Perfect.

Any more comments? Theresa.

Yeah. And Joe, I know this you've answered this question a few times, but I just want to make sure that it when we when we say the PRD can do that. Will it set it up so that if we have this kind of situation again that we if you're gone and your group is gone and there's new people in that don't have the history that that you've given to us, what will they be able to know that this is the way to do it? So, in response to your question, Miss Clark, the last two times that this discussion has occurred with the volunteers overseeing the update of the master plan, we didn't transcribe it or memorialize it as part of the plan. What I would suggest doing is we memorialize it as part of the description of the non-urban residential area. So, it's in the plan and it survives. That's um that takes care of what um myself and Rob were both talking about, I think. Thank you.

Cindy had her hand up.

Yeah, I mean he was just asking for planning and zoning's, you know, kind of perspective on this. And I'll just, you know, re reiterate with heat and Vicki have said that, you know, we've run into, you know, these issues ad nauseium on planning and zoning and I'm fully supportive of utilizing the current zoning and, you know, have the ability of a PRD to um, you know, ensure reasonable density in the spots in the property that can handle that density. But I agree anything more than you know one every 3 acres I think is um over the total piece of the property I think is would be excessive. So I'm just sharing my opinion and support of what I think you know will will be a motion eventually.

Thank you. Any more comments before we have public? Any public input on this particular parcel? Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have two speakers cards. Uh the first one being from Steve Madden at 16358 Peppermill Drive.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the citizens committee again. Um, thanks for the time that's been taken and the thoughtful work, Joe, that your team has done on this as well as the thoughtful comments that we've heard tonight from the committees. After reviewing and I'm here representing the Britmore Police HOA and its residents, many of the residents are behind me right now. Uh we appreciate the attempt to address the constraints of this property through the spirit of land use uh designation. However, uh excuse me and split use uh designation, however, respectfully believe this approach does not address and resolve the fundamental issues associated with the site. We've heard a lot of those again and I'll be very brief just to remind everyone again that this has come up in previous master plans has been not supported and really the factors I think this is the key port haven't changed over those 30 years. It's still the same. um we don't believe that this is going to a change is really going to mitigate those issues. Um the site as we've talked about it's located in the watershed. I'm going to be very brief and kind of jump ahead. A couple things I'd want to point out to and has been mentioned is MSD you know potential for some funding there but we always know that government fundings can go away as quickly as they come. So I you know that that may be something that we may have an option to help but may not. Um also on the the roadway roadway is a concern valley road and even the runoff we've already experienced flooding last year in this area closed the road for a couple days. you know more development is not going

to eliminate that problem without some addressing of the controls that of the watershed. So you know that in closing I just want to kind of say that you know we respect what the committee is doing. We want to we recommend that we maintain the non-urban designation. It keeps consistency in the master plan and it really and I think Joe you mentioned that you kind of need to bring it to a head because it comes up every 10 years and to me it just seems like and I think many of the residents keeping it with the same designation is really the simplest and most appropriate course of action move forward with. Thank you.

Thank you. Speaker number two, please. Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh, speaker number two is Neil Burns at 2500 Pepperfield Court.

Thank you. And I'll try to be as brief as I can be. Sometimes this isn't true. Um this is my actually I've participated in the prior two meetings as well. This is my third attendance here. Please bear with me if I wax poetic. Um this year the country is celebrating the 250th anniversary of our incorporation as a country. We do so in recognition of our founders vision as laid out in the constitution. Wildwood master plan parallels that vision to change the course of what had been happening under Buzz the St. Louis executive and uh developers and uncontrolled growth at the expense of urban sprawl. Wildwood's master plan was developed to form a community dedicated to family, open spaces, natural beauty of trees, wildlife, and preserve that which we love. Minimize congestion, and unrestricted commercial growth, favoring financial gain. All we have to do is take a look at Ellisville, Bowwin, Chesterfield, Manchester, and see the jewel that we have in our hands here. We are standard stewards of a rare jewel in St. Louis County, carefully crafting something extraordinary. The timing of this meeting is somewhat humorous as we approach Arbor Day, having just been named a tree city and considering reducing uh the 3 acres to 1 acres, which would only do to end up in eliminating more trees. It's a beautiful piece of property, which I back up to. The new density would require massive

tree removal, disruption of wildlife, compromise a delicate drainage system which feeds, excuse me, feeding Cox Creek. I ask the committee, please don't open the door to temptation. Once you relax your standards, it sets a precedent for all future considerations and would lead to a domino effect to the adjacent open ground zoned. Also, in the same respect, in the land use staff recommendation, there's a reference rationale that this site has seen little development since 1995. Our subdivision is a more traditional subdivision was approved by S St. Louis City Council prior to city's incorporation.

You've got about one minute left. Thank you.

Rather than this fact being a catalyst for change, let tonight's vote be a reaffirmation of our collective commitment to our founders vision. In closing, your vote tonight as elected or assigned representatives or gatekeepers of Wildwood, let it be a reaffirmation of your pledge to uphold and protect the city's master plan. Thank you. Thank you. In the end, one at a time with a roll call. Thank you. Sure.

I would have to defer maybe to the trustee. Those online can't hear.

Cindy is correct. I cannot hear. Yes, I'm sorry. Um, Steve Madden speaking. Um there was a survey that was done in the last one whe was it 2016 and 97% of the residents did not support it and I would imagine the I can tell you that the sentiment has not changed as a resident group prepare for this discussion this meeting tonight and it was again overwhelming. It is not supported in Bitmore Place.

I know you indicate there's 110 residences. What What's the acreage that that 110 resident sits on? And I'd just be assessing a guess, so I'll avoid it. You think it's 120 acres? Um, at least. I'm just trying to get a feel for what's compatible and my guess is it's probably in a range of about 80 to 100 acres um because they have abundant common ground as well and some of that common grounds for storm water management etc. Thank you. So we're making motions now. Is that correct?

Yes. So if I made a motion to state what he said, we want it to be the incre the density to no to not be any more than the 3acre lots. Um and if it but but we want them to be able to build with a PRD to maybe cluster the houses at one area, but a PRD would allow the city the ability to make sure there's a good buffer around everything. Is that correct? So that it would also protect the watershed. It would protect the neighborhood. It would not allow any higher density than than the non- urban density is now. Correct.

Yes. Mry, your motion would be to retain the current designation. Yes. Which is the non-urban residential area. Yes. To include as part of that statement that the overlay district should be advocated to be utilized regardless of the proposal. Correct. And all of this should be recorded in the description in the master plan. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Vunich. You're very eloquent. Not really, but I took good notes. Okay. So, that's the motion on the floor. Any additional motions, sir.

Well, okay. So, we've got a second. It's a motion. It goes on the list. Another motion. anymore? No, not yet. We're going to hear them all. We all get one vote. So, we're going to vote for the one that we want to vote on, but we have to hear them all and consider them equally before we vote. And then the uh it's going to end up being I'm not true. No, we're gonna have we're gonna have the general. Do you think there's going to be additional motion?

Yes, I do. And if there's not, we'll finish and complete. So, let's finish. Are there any additional motions? Not additional motion, but just a clarification. Um I I had a question about the um process the procedure a procedural question and doing that and taking the motions and so I contacted um attorney Young and he said that it's likely that this is not Robert's rules compliant but if the motions are clear it won't render the action invalid. Therefore we will continue. Thank you. Mr. Chair,

no motions. There appears to be no other motion. So all in Would you please restate the motion? Yes, ma'am. I'd be glad to. The motion is to retain the current designation of non-urban residential area to advocate for any future proposal the use of the overlay district and to memorialize the action of this group as part of the text in the master plan. Yes, you betcha.

But does it also emphasize the possibility of a PRD and clustering? Do we have a net? Yes. Net three acres. Yes. Okay. Yes. Again, remember that tool although sometimes misunderstood really works well in wildwood. And is this be limited density limited to the density of the original non- urban? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yes, sir. And the non-urban designation remains in place with some noted caveats. Yes. Which only strengthen the proposal.

Yes. And I think the key of that besides obviously retaining the density at the one unit per three acres is just getting it in the plan at the right place. And that's part of this description in the conceptual land use categories. having it as appendix or as a set of minutes gets lost in the the noise. Teresa, yes. Does this is this still the split or is it for the whole thing? Okay, just whole thing. All right, Debra. Oh, so Joe, how does this relate to what the residents have been asking for?

I believe this is exactly what they wanted. a designation that remains unchanged and at a maximum the 120 acres could be used for 40 lots. Thank you. I think we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? I I the count I think we need a roll call. Let's clarify. Okay. Um, Mayor Geritano, is he gone again? Okay. Uh, Chair Routton, I

uh, Vice Chair Loyel, member Boomergel. Um, he left. Well, don't have you still. Okay. All right. Um, member Clark, yes. Uh, member Clayton, yes. Member Dubler, yes. Member Hman, yes. was member Helman. Yes.

Yes. All right. Thank you. Uh member Rubis, yes. Uh Council Member McCutchen, yes. Member Pic. Yes. Council member Rambo. Yes. And member Ren, yes. You forgot me. Oh, member Hellfrey. I had you cross out. My apologies. And member Hellfrey. Easy to do. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, the next location if you have a comment. Go ahead.

You know, I know the most if not all the people that showed up this evening were in regard to the Brentmore property. And just to convey to them, we're all volunteers up here as well. The fact that you guys showed up makes a difference. Participating your local government. If you hadn't been here, some of the discussions may have been a bit different. You never know. But so, I'm sorry you had to spend your Tuesday evening here. I'm sure you have other things you'd rather do, but it is a big deal that you showed up and we appreciate it as members of this committee. So, thank you. Absolutely. Thank you for your time. Uh you're free to leave at this point. You're free to stay. Whatever you guys decide, but uh thanks again for your support. Thank you for coming.

So, Mr. chair. The next location is identified by the letter C and that is a property that's located at the southwest, excuse me, southeast corner of Route BA and Route 109. The request was for an industrial designation from the non-urban residential area. The department is recommending no change. Do you need a motion?

Uh yes, ma'am. And the reason the presentation is short is the petitioner didn't attend the meeting in March to present the request. Uh we've got we've received no follow-up information. Um principally this is an area where we have established 3acre development single family and it's an area where we see development occurring with new single family homes on three plus acres. The industrial designation here would be inappropriate.

Yeah. I I mean there's houses around there and um so I don't see why why we would ever put industrial there. So I'm going to make a motion to uh to accept the city's recommendation. But I can't make a motion.

Oh, right. I take it back. I'm taking my motion back. Well, my point was that they didn't attend the last meeting to present their case. Yeah, this is just for my own personal edification. Joe, is this the um was this industrial because it's that um uh landscaping business or that nursery or whatever the heck is there on that?

Yes, the non-urban resident district, the zoning district category, not the land use allows plant nurseries with green houses and wholesale sales as a use permitted by right. And so Carl Gibble for years operated it there. There's been some transition sales, but I from the perspective of the department that might be the highest and best use because it has Bottom Creek through it, Flood Way and Flood Plane.

Well, they're trying to sell that that 6 acre lot or something like that as a pristine building site and it's been on the market forever as far as I don't know that it's been maybe it's been sold, but um but um it seemed pretty lowlying. There's a sign. There was a sign for a while that said it's out of the flood plane. I'm not so sure. Um but uh will what will this do to that? Um is it you're just Well, there's people that built massive homes right up to that property. So could you imagine building a massive home there than us saying industrial? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean I support the change completely, but I'm just kind of wondering what is what the practical effects will be

on the west side of BA. That was a property owned by Sally Hastings. It was a farm. She had horses. Yeah. It got subdivided, I believe, did like six or so lots. And as Miss Hellfrey mentioned, in there, there's substantial homes there. Across Route 109 on the opposite side from the tip of this property, a new home's been built. Um, Mr. Brown did a thorough job. We elevated it out of the flood plane. It's that white house with black trim. Very nice. So, it's an area where new growth is occurring, but again on large lots and single family and we'll cover the um the the possibility of flooding with the the normal process.

You Yes. I I have complete confidence in Director Brown because I hear it's like, well, you all take this flood plane stuff serious and we sure do. ready to use gunshot.

Look, you know, I was late and I'm trying to make up for time. I would like to accept the city's recommendation not to change the land use designation. I If you'd prefer a roll call vote, I'd be happy to take one, but pardon. Okay, perfect. Um, Chair Routton, Vice Chair Loyal, um, member Boomer Schllegum, uh, member Clark.

Yes. Member Clayton, yes. Member Deppler, yes. Member Helffrey, yes. Member Homeman, yes. Member Rubis, yes. Uh, Council Member McCutchen, yes. Uh, member Pick, yes. Council member Rambo, yes. And member Ren, yes. And it passes. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. The next site is identified by letter D and that's the existing business Kelp Contracting. As was described by Matthew Kelp at the March meeting, this particular business and property has been part of the Kelp family for many years. The business was established long before the incorporation of the city of Wildwood. And after the incorporation of the city of Wildwood, the board of adjustment granted a standing right to continue to use the property for the contracting company. Mr. Kelp made a convincing argument that it is a viable business, one of the one of the largest businesses in the city of Wildwood with over I believe 200 employees. 240 employees. 140 140 employees. And from the perspective of the owners of the business, they would like greater flexibility by retaining the non-urban residential area but adding as part of that the list of industrial uses that would be appropriate for this location. Also, Mr. kelp at that meeting in March identified that there is an adjoining property immediately to the north that's approximately one and a half acres in size. The Kelp family has the first right of refusal and wanted the group to consider including that as part of again the non-urban residential area staying unchanged but doing like we did for the Chesterfield Valley property an accommodation for some flexibility and uses. Those uses would be within the context of the M district. That's part of our zoning ordinance. And I would see it as just an extension so to speak of what is occurring at this time. The department

is recommending not only the existing business location be accommodated with that flexibility but the 1.6 acres. The logic being is with the addition of the 1.6 acres the entire property is surrounded by roadways and therefore creates its own perimeter or boundary. And therefore tonight we are recommending support of the request that's been provided by the Kelp family. First right refusal for whatever reason that deal doesn't happen. We've changed the designation. We've opened that spot up for another business. I guess my only question to the group is that acceptable.

Well and again as Mr. Kelp explained at the March meeting they the Kelp family are very good friends. They help the owner of that property. Um if that agreement were to not come to fruition, what happens? Um I would argue that it's not a very good residential lot. Not just because industrial next to residential, but I it just again it's surrounded by roadways, one of which is Route 100. I just think there's a limitation. Somebody may want to live in the house certainly and I would not begrudge them that right, but I think from a planning perspective, the best approach is to kind of close the gap and create the perimeter. Thank you.

Yeah, to to um Chair Ren's point, so if that was to happen, if the if the Kelp family, and I'm all for supporting them because they're they're great to have in W one. I love them. But the the if they were to leave and that place is open for other industrial to come in, um would that be open to these things that we've designated go to the the tattoo shops, the marijuana places, all of that could come in at that spot? So not knowing how the group would react to the recommendation, there is not a necess there is not that clean list of uses like we have for Chesterfield Valley. If the group supports it, the department will put together a list of those industrial uses that are most suitable for this kind of outlier. And certainly we put the our our our vices in the valley because it impacts no residential property in Wildwood. I would I would tell you that regardless if the kelps accept it or not, which I know they will not, we won't have the vices here.

Thank you. That explains it. Vicki, so I have a couple questions so that I un I understand this on this handout that you gave us um that obviously this is Kel, right? Okay. But is this the property that we're talking about in question? Is that the one that's you're looking for right on? I'm sorry. It's the one. Yeah. Oh, it's uh the one right next to Old Wild Horse Road. Yes.

Okay. So, here's my question. I and I truly truly uh defer to the city on most stuff because I just I I think that you guys know way more than I do. But if if he's already got a uh permission to run his business there, right, and it's already kind of grandfathered in, right? You said the board of adjustments gave him that, right? Um then why why would we change the designation if it's if it's our everything's working right now? Why can't we just leave it as is? Because there are homes over there, aren't there? I mean, there are there and those people that have homes over in that area have probably large spreads. I think I I can't remember if there's some people that have horses over there or not. And then you're asking us to approve an industrial before you've given us the uses for them. And I don't know that I'm I'm not willing to do that, I don't think. Well, again, I'm sorry.

Okay, one more. I have question because you can just knock me out all at once. And the last s thing is why what would be the benefit of if if we had to change the zoning, why would we change it to industrial and not um like a commercial use? I think that's I'm just trying to understand it. So, thank you, Mr. Vinnich.

Certainly. Um so from the department's perspective in making the recommendation the existing kelp business under the board of adjustment does have restrictions and they've reached the limit on those restrictions. The board granted them two additional buildings. Those two additional buildings have been added. So they're at or all for the purposes of tonight's discussion at maximum development. Maybe that's fine. But we also know that from Mr. Kelp's presentation at the March meeting, it's the his intent to continue the business forward for the next generation. And so are we basically hamstringing that business by saying the board of adjustment has given you the this set of tools and you've used them and now there are no others. So that's the first thing. It wasn't cart blanch. Secondly, um the two properties that are part of the recommendation, at least to the east, that's Rockwood Reservation. So that's the wildlife refuge. To the west is Route 100, an interstate designated roadway, but it has all the characteristics of an interstate, including the noise, the traffic, and just what comes with heavily traveled corridors. To the south is the JP Connell House, which the Historic Preservation Commission is looking at an incentive package to preserve that house. And part of that incentive package may be light industrial, commercial, or a higher density residential. We don't know yet, but that that property is in flux. So if the two properties are authorized industrial activity within the confines of reasonleness, the

most impacted property is the property north of Wild Horse Creek Road and that is a large tract of land but does have a residence on it. Joe, yes sir. That's the house. Would it be appropriate to grant approval for property A and put conditional approvement approval of property B based on the purchase?

I think that makes sense. I think you as the group have the latitude to fine-tune your recommendation and then as we conclude this process and you have the final draft of the document ensuring that what we've done is legal obviously with our city attorney but I wouldn't shy away from basically giving the direction you want within the reason the reasonleness of your concerns because Again, I had the unenviable task to stand up in front of the board of adjustment and say that they shouldn't approve the areas for the continued operation. Talk about feeling like lonesome in a room. Um, but they've done everything that the board asked and more.

Yeah, I spoke um actually I spoke strongly in favor of this at the last meeting. um place a little dusty, but the operation shuts down at evenings and weekends. It's never been a problem. Not going to get any worse. You can't pave a a parking lot where you have 30,000lb pieces of equipment rolling around all day long. Um I um uh my one concern was if the historic preserv preservation commission manages to pull a big old rabbit out of its hat and save the JP Connell House, um will there be adequate buffer? And I've driven it enough times to know that there probably would be and I have a feeling that if we ask those folks for you know some additional consideration or let us plan or something there they would do that. So I don't think we'd have any problem with that at all. Um I uh probably like kelps that was I think this is a very safe um a very safe if it's time for are quality of life

and I I think I made an error. I think the recommendation as I recall now and I apologize is the property is greater than 1.6 6 acres. What I'm saying is it's an undersized lot. It's not like we're doing the a threeacre property. So, but you'll get a chance. I'll sit down if you don't mind and maybe he can clarify. Uh I did you did you say there's a recommendation for the property? I did.

Did I? Okay. So here's a question for you with the industrial area. What about data centers? If we put this in there, we make it industrial. Can a data center come in? I mean, they're the hot ticket right now. So, let's just hit that while we're here. Well, as you recall, data centers are limited to the industrial area in the Chesterfield Valley. Well, it's they're listiced to the industrial area. So it doesn't matter as long as it says Chesterville Valley just they're well again remember we're not changing the land use category. It stays non- urban residential. All we're doing is giving them the flexibility of a certain list of uses.

We're not changing the land use. Okay. Then I misunderstood because I thought it was changing part of it to industrial. No. Okay. No, it's much like we did for the Chesterfield Valley site stayed industrial. We just gave it downtown district uses within the context of that list. Thank you very much.

Oh, let me get out of the way here. Good evening, members. My name is Tom Kelp and I am well, I am the owner of it. I think everybody has to have a has a uh acronym after their name. So, I'm CDH. That's chief debt holder. So anyway, uh we definitely unquestionably will buy. Ruth Anne Creger is the owner of that property. She I have she actually put it in the will that I have first right of refusal. Frankly, I'm in the process of telling her, why don't you sell it to us now? Um and then I will also tell you your concern of the property on the other side. Um I will buy that if I can also because I want the buffer. I don't want anybody around us. Uh so and I think that overall we're we're a good citizen. We're good neighbors and um anytime anyone needs anything 24 hours a day, we are there to do them. So I just okay, you can look at me and I don't think I'm much of a non-conformist, but I've never liked the idea that we're we had board of adjustment approval for non-conforming use. And it just feels like I'm just second class. And that's why as much as anything I'm a veteran. Um I'm a service disabled veteran owned small business. Um I love living here. My family came here in 1852. Um I'll stop rambling but anyway I I appreciate your consideration and the work that you have looked at. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Vicki or Rob? I'm sorry. You want to make a motion? Yeah, I was going to make that motion. Um, I take the recommendation. Yes, take the recommendation. I'll second that. All in favor? I I All opposed. And roll call. Chair Routton. Hi. Vice Chair Loyal. Hi. Uh, member Clark. Yes. Member Clayton. Yes. Uh, member Dubler. Yes. Member Hellfrey. Yes. Member Hman. Yes. Uh, member Rubis.

Yes. Council member McCutchen. Yes. Member Pic. Yes. Uh, council member Rambo? Yes. And member Ren? Yes. And it passes. Thank you.

Thank you. So, Joe, it's 8:26. What's your recommendation on going into the site E? Are you preparing a little bit more information and coming back next meeting? Um, with the permission of the group, I would like to prepare a little more information. Ensure that Chris Pigglyia, the owner of the property, can attend so he could give at least his presentation. Also, you'll have more time to review the arterial information that's been prepared by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning. And dog gone and I promise to have some of the narratives, maybe not all six for the elements, but some of the narrative for the next meeting. So, Mr. Chair, I'll say that um we were thinking along the same lines. We've accomplished a lot tonight. Maybe we should end on a high note and that would be we'll bring back the rest um at our next meeting.

Can I ask a favor um on all these summaries where it says uh low inensity neighborhood oriented non-residential land uses when you when we discuss this the next time would you please tell me what some of like give some examples just so that we understand what those uses are. Thank you so much Mr. Munich.

Certainly. Um and again we need to talk about the next meeting um on May 12th. Would there would there be an appetite to try to squeeze one in between now which is April 14th and May 12th? I'm Do we want to wait till May 12th or do we want to squeak in another meeting before then? May 12th. So if you I mean to another meeting prior to that.

Um because again I I'd sure like to take advantage of the momentum we have now and we've carried over through 2026. Um, but I don't know obviously any of your schedules and I don't want to impose, but maybe if we could do something near the end of April, um, and set out a couple of dates for you. Let's throw it out there. Addition, let's throw it out. Additional meeting late Aprilish. All in favor?

Do you have a date? Mine? Um, well, we're trying to pull together a joint session of the HPC, Historic Preservation Commission, and Planning and Zoning Commission. The two dates are 27th and 28th. Whatever one they don't take, I'm going to pitch to you. Thank you so much. Monday, Tuesday, I can make those two. I could not make Monday. I could do Tuesday. Monday. Let's shoot for the Tuesday. Okay. April 28th. April 28th.

Pencil it in and we'll follow up with you uh with an email. Travis, I think we already accomplished our public comment section. So, in that regard, do we have a motion to close? Teresa second. I'll second. Thank you. Great meeting. Thank you all. I think we got a lot done and I think what we did was very important. So greatly appreciate it. Thank you. and