Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

the delay, but I think we're ready to get going. Um, Good, Travis. Oh, I don't want to hear my voice in the background. Testing, testing, testing, testing, testing. All right. Can you hear me? Yep. All right. Yeah. All right. Um, I'd like to welcome everyone to the February 2nd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tonight on the agenda, um, just two information reports and two new correspondence items. Um, can I get a roll call of commission members, please?

Commissioner Borne, Commissioner Hoffrey here. Commissioner Cohen, Commissioner Clayton here. Commissioner Dler here. Commissioner Deppler's here on Zoom. Um, Commissioner Jackson here, Commissioner Rubis here, Chair Batty here, Council Member Marshall present, and Mayor Gerano. Thank you. Um, can I get an approval of the minutes from January 20th, please? Motion by Commissioner Hry, second by uh, Councilman Marshall. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

Any abstain? All right, motion passes. Thank you. Um, so we'll go into the public comment session now. Um, so Oh, sorry. Sorry, Joe. I'm Mr. Chair. Usually I don't have anything to say regarding the meeting, but I would like to welcome Mr. Prior. He's standing in for John Young, our city attorney. So, thanks for being here tonight. And Brad Prior is his name. Thank you. I believe we've seen you a few times.

Yeah. Welcome back. All right. Um, so all right, we'll go ahead and go on into the public comment session. And just as a reminder, individuals get three minutes and groups get five. And Mr. Chair, if I could add to that, if you're on Zoom and would like to speak during the public comment session, uh, use the raise hand feature. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first speaker is Miss Link. Hello. Is this on? Okay. Yep, you're good.

Lyn Link, ward six. Um, with regard to the Lombardo Homes, um, last week or last month, um, the creek which abuts the backs of these lots is actually a branch of Wild Horse Creek, maps verify this, including the 1878 and 1911 plat maps. when you use the Hart Farmhouse as the landmark. Last month, many residents um said that the entire parcel to be developed has been under flood uh water in the past. Uh Friday, I called SEMA to find out why the entirety of the property to be developed was not listed as being in flood plane. And I was advised that residents uh should report this to Rick Brown at the city. And she also said that SEMA was having their CCO meeting tomorrow to edit the flood plane mapping and would welcome public input regarding flooding that they've witnessed. Uh the contact person is Cindy Roberts, uh engineering and mapping section manager. The phone number is 573-526-9383. With regard to data centers, um the planning and zoning will be reviewing information in the future and making recommendations to determine how our city will move forward in protecting citizens from the known adverse health and environmental effects of them. Many municipalities and counties have already enacted laws limiting data centers. Some are doing it proactively and others are doing it um to mitigate further damages. data centers target rural areas uh because the wellwater is cheaper and and as is the land and smaller municipal governments don't have the ability to pro provide proper oversight despite the specs um the fact that data centers are owned by the richest individuals and corporation in the world virtually all

of them receive tax abatements from municipal and other governments the average length of a state abatement uh on a data center is 10 to 20 years with some municipal and others lasting 40 years. In Missouri, to qualify for abatements, developers only have to invest 25 million and create 10 jobs. The installations within the data center reach the end of their functionable functional lifespan within 14 to 20 years. Many data centers have been completely abandoned after adverse health effects of local residents were linked to increased miscarriage and cancer rates leaving communities environ and the environment devastated. As tax abatements are given virtually in all data center development [snorts] um which actually have a probability to outlast the actual life of the center. Making sure that Wildwood gives no abatements can help protect our citizens. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Mr. Chair, the next speaker is Mr. Manfort.

Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Montford. I live at 18 627 St. Alvin's Road, which is at the eastern end of the property that they're proposing tonight. Um been there over 30 years. My children, my grandchildren have grown up walking those fields, looking for arrowheads, hiking through the creek, you know, summertime, swimming, things of that nature. I'm spoiled, you know, wide open spaces across the road. And I wish it'd be like that till I'm not around anymore, but I understand what what progress is. But I want I like it to be done properly. And you know, 3 acre lots, that's great. Is that a Wildwood rule or is that a county rule? And and they must have made them that size for a reason. Every lot across the road that I can see, a lot is what they can build on. Half of some of those lots, a third of some of those lots are straight up and down behind the creek. So, they're not going to do anybody any good. 16 septic systems. That's a lot. Some of them are going to be pretty close to that creek. Now, we have a septic system. We have two houses there and we we have two septic systems and they require, you know, some policing and and they can go bad and which is not a good thing. So, anyway, my concern is 16 houses is a lot of houses. The entrance, I think, is going to be in front of our house on the eastern end and another one down the western end. Again, concerned about coming out of our driveways. So, I of course am against it, but I understand again progress. Somebody's

going to do something with it across the road and um I just like it to be done properly. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, the next speaker uh is Mr. Hart. My name is Rich Hart and I live at 18721 Highway T and almost all my property is on the northern side of the proposed property and been in it was in my family like I said the last meeting 140 years and 170 almost 170 years as the farm it is left that I reside on. And the question was brought up about the flood plane issue and in the time that we that I formed it and so forth, that creek did flood into those fields. Now, I'm not saying that it was 9 ft deep all the way to the highway, but it was back probably 30, 35, maybe more feet in there, and that is when we maintained that creek. We were in there all the time. Cut. Like I said the last meeting, cutting trees out of there. I have not trespassed on the property to look, but I can see visually driving down the road and looking at it from my place that that creek is a mess. And with all those tornado trees laying on those hillsides, you know where they're going to wind up? They're going to wind up in that creek. Now, a few years ago when we had that flood situation when forests got flooded out and people down there, that was uh all because of probably debris farther down where the creek crosses Highway T. But it also backs up all the way back.

Uh I think that all needs to be addressed to be honest with you. Uh years ago people make that they had property along that creek that was their deal. when you had a a windstorm, if you had water come down after spring thawing or whatever, you got down in there and you cut it out because you didn't want it to flood. And that I can't see any way, but that's just not going to make it worse. then um you know uh I don't know what you're going to decide on on the sewers, but in common sense if you put in the central sewer system, it's going to be on the western end of the property, which will probably be in that western field, which is across from my my home. And uh the wind always comes out at or 85% of the time or more comes out of the southwest. And we all know that those septic systems remit the sewer gas. And I set above that. And when that breeze comes out of her or the wind comes out of the southwest, you know where it's going to put? It's going to put all the smell right on me. I don't want it. We haven't lived there for 100 had it for 170 years. Be stunk out. You know, and if you think that's not true, I left Big Chief three times this summer because I didn't want to sit on their patio and smell sewer gas. And it's anybody who goes there knows what it smells like. And then the water shed across that property is huge. It's probably more than Lombardo realizes. But, uh, I think this all really needs to be looked at pretty darn hard because you're the people that are going to be making this decisions on this stuff.

One minute.

And, uh, you know, and with the, um, archeological dig part of it and everything, I just don't really feel that putting uh, 16 homes on there is the answer. you know, uh maybe 30 years from now if sewers come out or something farther on or whatever, maybe then something will happen or maybe somebody would buy three three parcels and put a lot on each one or something. But I just think it's it's not the right it's just not the right thing for that property. I know I've been on it. I know what it looks like. And uh I also my creek alongside of my driveway goes into that and uh I can tell that that creek's running slower because it's starting when it rains hard it's backing that up and that's a pretty good size creek and I do keep it clean.

All right. Thank you for your comments. That's time. Mr. Chair, there are no more speaker cards that have been submitted [clears throat] in the room, but we do have a few on Zoom. if we could just give them an opportunity to use raised hand if they would like to speak.

Not seeing anybody any right um that'll end the public comment session. So uh thank you everyone and first on the agenda we have um the request from uh Mr. Whan uh Mr. Newberry.

A request from Mland Custom Homes, Inc. care of Mike Wayland, 338 South Kirkwood Road, sweet 105, St. Louis, Missouri 631122-6166 that is seeking a waiver to the city's requirements that all large w large lot single family subdivisions installed packaged wastewater treatment plants in areas of the Wildwood community not currently served by public sanitary sewers which if granted would thereby allow the use of individual household wastewater treatment systems for service on each of the proposed lots of record. This large lot single family subdivision is being proposed upon an approximately 51 acre tract of land that is situated on the west side of Christy Avenue south of its intersection with Manchester Road. St. Louis County located numbers 24W610045,24W520102 and 24W240015. Street addresses 27252731 and 2799 Christy Avenue in non-urban residence district. proposed use a total of 15 single family dwellings on individual lots that are being requested on the sub tract of land each being 3 acres or greater in size along with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them. Bendic Estates subdivision ward one.

Thank you Mr. Newberry Mr. Vinich. Mr. Chair, if I could have a moment with Mr. Newberry.

Yeah. We did a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight. The letter of recommendation relating to the request that was just read into the record by Mr. Newberry. I would note that the letter of recommendation does have a change relative to the department's position. As you know, at the January meeting approximately two weeks ago, there was a discussion that ensued by the commission members with the applicant custom homes and the department of planning about additional steps that the applicant was willing to undertake to ensure that if individual household treatment systems were authorized on the 15 lots that there would be guarantees in place regarding maintenance. Also, the applicant Whan Custom Homes had noted that they had prepared individual soils reports relating to the locations of the proposed systems on each of the proposed lots. As part of the information report with recommendation, the department has provided you those soil analyses for the 15 lots as well as memorialize what the applicant have proposed via an email that was submitted to the department by Mr. Whan himself. The department is recommending that individual household treatment systems versus a plant be authorized at this location. That recommendation is premised on several factors. The first

of those factors again is the protections that would be part of the resolution that the city council would consider based upon a favorable recommendation from the planning and zoning commission. Those protections include $5,000 per lot to be collected and provided to the homeowners association for maintenance purposes, the tertiary level of treatment, and a number of others that are listed in the report. These conditions or protections should look familiar to the commission members because when you utilize them in West Eden and as was referenced by Mr. Whan at the January 20th meeting of the commission they have been successfully implemented and they and from the perspective of the department seem to be working as well. So that's the first the protections that are provided. Secondly, as you know the department of n natural resources with the state of Missouri has provided an analysis. That analysis indicates that individual household treatment systems can function on this property based upon soil and ge geologic conditions. So the department does take a great deal of of satisfaction so to speak in that the state through its review by department of natural resources is recommending that they can be adequately provided. The final is the actual individual soil analyses. Then from the perspective of the department, a lot of information was provided in those reports relative to

bedrock depth of bedrock refusal, the types of soils versus concerns about others. And so that information seems to indicate that there has been forethought into the location of the systems. There's been test tolls done to ensure the systems are at the right location relative to the the lots themselves. And so again, the sight specific nature that was provided of the analysis makes the department feel comfortable in changing its recommendation. So therefore, tonight you have before you the recommendation, letter of recommendation that now supports individual household treatment systems versus a single plant based upon the ration provided in the report. After a motion and second, if there are any comments or questions, Mr. Newberry and I would be glad to try to answer them at that time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Uh is there any em motion or discussion? All right. Motion by Commissioner Clayton. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Hellfrey. All right. And question.

Mr. Ridditch. I I don't know. I just have a question. We at home, I have something, you know, on our on our irrigation systems when we have our backflow devices. We have to have those inspected every year in order to be able to turn those on. So, is there not something that we we could do that would require them to pro to submit uh proof that they have had their their septic systems maintained so that it kind of takes the owners off of the city. And I mean, obviously, you can't tell them that's it. You can't flush your toilet if you don't turn that in. it. I mean,

well, at at this time, irrigation systems have more protections relative to inspections, local inspections versus wastewater treatment systems on individual lots. Um there's approaches. One is with a reoccupancy of single family detached dwellings on the change in ownership. There's um some communities do inspections that include the household treatment systems to guarantee at least on sale that there is an inspection and if there are issues they are corrected. Um from the standpoint of the state of Missouri, nope. It really is just if a problem arises then the department of public health with St. Louis County and the city of Wildwood can be asked to do an inspection, make a determination, and ensure a correction is made. But that's based upon a complaint or some type of public health issue arising that's identifiable. The good news is as part of this recommendation and as supported by the applicant Leeland Custom Homes, there will be reporting requirements to the city relative to the ongoing maintenance. And so from that perspective, if the homeowners association follows through with that, we'll have a general idea that the systems are being maintained at their required level for sure. And then for the most part, we're doing whatever and and what we can to protect the environment, including the aquifer. But I guess my question is, is there anything that we can do as a city, not necessarily as planning zoning, but as a city that has a little more teeth?

Because what's what is what happens? What's what's the slap on the wrist if if they don't maintain it or if there is a problem? I mean, what recourse is there?

Well, there's a legislative approach. the city council could pass legislation that requires um inspections of systems or the reporting of inspections of the systems on a one year, three year, 5year basis. Um that's unlikely. Um, we just talked about doing reoccupancy inspections on owner occupied single family detached dwellings and that didn't get much traction and in fact city council didn't want to do it because of the age of housing. So I wouldn't anticipate us legislatively requiring some type of inspection program. There's also just the logistics of undertaking something of that nature given the scale in the city of Baldwin. So again on a case-byase basis where waivers are granted if we if the waiver is granted to the plan I think we can at least from that perspective have the at least the the knowledge that we have a vehicle to ensure that there is some inspections being done and maintenance is on an ongoing basis.

Right. Thank you Mr. Lee.

Thank you chair. Um, I just wanted to point out something that Joe had just mentioned, uh, at the point of sale, if that's something that could be considered and could be considered by the city council. And just as a, you know, you know, part of the natural process when purchasing a home, especially if it's on septic, typically, uh, the homeowner, um, the person looking to purchase the home would have an inspection done on that septic system itself, unless it's brand new or was serviced recently and is in good working condition. So if we were going to maybe find an approach that would be a little bit more laxed but also be able to get a accurate accounting of the current septic systems available, we do see about 700 different uh houses that are transferred in ownership in title over the course of a year. So over time, I do believe if that was a policy the council would like to look up, um having a copy of that, the most recent inspection report and obviously seeing that it passed, uh would be a great way to ensure that the um the septic system is working properly, but that would cause be a cause for legislative change. That would also probably be the best way to not be a burden on the city staff. Uh just considering that any type of program like that where we're conducting the inspections, we would outsource them most definitely. Uh but at the end of the day, it would still take time to process it and then document those conditions. But overall, uh this has been something that's been consistently brought up. A large majority of homes are on septic here in Wildwood, especially on the larger larger acre lots and could be something considered if the board would like to give direction to the city staff. We could definitely bring it up at subsequent committees and relevant committees. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Commissioner Jackson. [clears throat] So, are any of these um septic systems that I I assume it's not in a flood plane right now, but if things change, would they be in a flood plane? Um the lady I sorry I don't remember your name. This is not the same property. Oh, it's not. Oh my gosh, I am so embarrassed. Never mind. Disregard

this property is the one on Christy Avenue. This is not the one on Highway T. Mus Joe, they're asking for 15 lots. I understand that two of the lots are occupied now and on a sepic system. Correct.

So there would be just a total of 15, not 17. Total of 15. And under the email the department of plann and received from Mr. Whan, I believe the two existing residences will also be included in this overall maintenance requirement and managed by the homeowners association once the funds are all collected. So it would be their intention to maintain the septic system that they have. Now,

the the description that Mr. Whan provided states that they'll have a central provider, a single source that'll be negotiated by the homeowners association. I don't know if it's yearly, every 3 years, but there'll be a single source provider and then that provider will have the responsibility to check the systems on what are cycled that is ultimately decided. And from that perspective, I think that's a real positive that you have one entity responsible for all of them and there's a guarantee of funding if someone were not to pay. And then from that perspective, that single provider will be able to ensure a consistent approach to the inspections that are included. Anything else? All right. Uh, seeing none, uh, seeing no more discussion, roll call vote.

Commissioner Clayton, yes. Just one moment. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hry, yes. Chair Batty, yes. And Council Member Marshall, yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Yeah. If this property floods, we're all in trouble. Now I know why I could find I was trying to find the K. My question was [laughter]

Oh. All right. Now, the one more people here are concerned about the Lombardo request. Mr. for Newberry. You're welcome. Good luck.

A request from Lombardo Homes of Missouri LLC for Reach Church Park Drive, Sweet30, St. Charles, Missouri 63304-5638 that is seeking a waiver to the city's requirements that all lot single family subdivisions install package wastewater treatment plants in areas of the Wildwood community not currently served by public sanitary sewers, which if granted would thereby allow for it, excuse me, allow the use of individual household wastewater treatment systems for service on each of the proposed lots of record. This large lot single family subdivision is being proposed upon an approximately 55 acre tract of land located on the south side of St. Albins Road, State Route T West of its intersection with State Route 100. FPNU flood plane non-Urban Residence District and Inu Non-Urban Residence District. Street addresses 1604 and 18604 and 1870 St. Albins's Road, St. Louis County. Locator numbers 24x440014 and 24 Y640022. Proposed use. A total of 16 single family dwellings on individual lots are being requested on the subject tract of land, each being three acres or greater in size along with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them along with a common ground area with visitor parking spaces. The reserve at St. Albins's ward six.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the Department of Planning has provided for your consideration tonight a letter of recommendation relating to the request from Labarda Homes for a waiver to the centralized wastewater treatment plant to serve up to 16 single family dwellings on 3 acre or greater sized lots. The department would like to give a little background before describing the recommendation itself. The background I believe is necessary because after the meeting in January, several of the commission members asked questions relating to septic systems, centralized wastewater treatment plants, flood plane, and the actual geology of the area. And so there is a cover memo associated with the draft letter of recommendation that is before you tonight. So just a quick context um the department provided a simplified map. So my apologies I know we are in the era of um computer generated mapping sometimes um expeditious responses are necessary and it's easier to do it this way. So as you can see this is for the most part the western half of the site. There is an eastern half that has many of the same characteristics, but in this particular instance, the department wanted to show the location of the common ground. And so to describe the features of the map, the two yellow lines are state highway T on the northernmost portion of the map itself and then the private roadway that is being proposed which would serve the individual lots. So key

amongst this design is the fact that there are two access points. one on the eastern end that I believe one of our public speakers addressed and then one on the western most end that um trends through the common ground area and is also intended to be the location of a few parking spaces to accommodate the mailbox clusters the centralized location for the delivery of mail and other items. Common ground is at the lowest portion of the site elevation wise. So, as you can see, the dashed line with the arrows is the drainage feature. It drains from east to west and through the site and on into Wild Horse Creek, the main the main channel. The low elevation is typically essential for the treatment of waste water from dwellings, commercial buildings, whatever. The reason being is most systems function best when on gravity and so elevation plays a key role. Water flows downhill. Waste water flows like water downhill. So the common ground is the logical location for the wastewater treatment plant. As you can see based upon the information provided by the petitioner and the petitioner's engineer the flood plane is the kind of purple or darker line and it is in this instance a limited area based upon the nature of the drainage feature. It's not the main channel of Porars Creek. The property is relatively or upstream in the watershed itself. Route 100 actually is the ridge line for all intents and purposes. But

there are several other drainage features that um provide runoff into this into this creek that is located on the subject site. And you can see those they come from the north side of highway T but generally through culvert pipes or some other type of of system of piping and they drain through the site into the drainage feature and then down into Waldor Creek. So that kind of gives you the perspective. The drainage feature, the creek, the flood plane limits as shown based upon the petitioner's information, the common ground area, generally speaking where the plant would be most suitable based upon elevation, lack of flood plane, and general topography, a relatively flat area to install.

Um, can I ask one question real quick? the red line of the flood plane that's going up towards the roadway is that when I up is that this area where there's trees right now. Okay. Yes, sir.

Thank you. So, the impact of flooding on wastewater wastewater treatment facilities, it's not good. Whether it's an individual household treatment system or a plant itself, once a system is flooded, the treatment component is generally lost. So what does that mean? On individual household treatment systems, when they are flooded, it's typically the drain field. The tank itself is an enclosed structure. It's a large structure. It's generally a concrete type um material. And so the solids stay in place, but the drain field itself can't treat. And so it's flooded. The the waste water, the effluent just goes into that flood water. And when the flood water drains, it takes that with it. Now there's a component of the volume of water. And so that's a key one. In terms of a plant, when Marramac floods, it floods a lot of treatment plants from Pacific through Eureka through Wildwood, etc. And the plants then shut down. There's no treatment until there's repair. And again, the key component is the volume of water that the fluent is deposited in helps to lessen its environmental impact. So, it dilutes But flooding is not good because you lose first of all the treatment function itself. There's a downtime between repair and so you're releasing untreated fluent into the environment. So it's imperative that you not put wastewater treatment facilities in the flood plane and you try to anticipate the flood

plane as defined by the federal government and then what is that safety distance from that edge of flood plane. We use two feet of freeboard or an elevation. And two feet in a flood plane situation is actually quite a bit. And so we try our very best to ensure that if we authorize something, whether it's a drain field, a plant, a home, that we've done everything we can to ensure that that feature will not be flooded. So flooding impact on wastewater treatment facilities, it's just it's not good and we should do everything as a city to ensure it doesn't happen. Finally, geology. Wildwood is primarily underllaying by limestone. There's two primary systems or groups or formations um with Burlington Kak and Kinsswick. We aquifer is abundant out here because of that that rock. Those limestones are fractured um and cracked. They're soluble and the water the groundwater flows through them and fills the aquifer. We are very lucky in a to have such an aquifer. It's very deep as well and it produces um very good water source for potable purposes. But we have to be cognizant If if it is cracked, if it is fractured, if it is um allows the the percolation of water, we make we want to make sure that everything that goes into it is treated as much as possible, particularly waste water. And so that's why the state, the county, and the city require a tertiary level. If you believe what you read, tertiary level treated

waste water is drinkable water. don't I wouldn't try it but that's what they say. So again just some background um common ground area in this particular instance would be the location of the plant flooding of of wastewater treatment facilities is not good. um the kind of layout of what we're looking at in terms of this particular project in the geology itself. Interestingly part of the presentation the department has not heard from homes relative to its two reports on this matter. Um, as you know with Whan Custom Homes, they engaged at the public discussion on on January 20th. Mr. Whan was here tonight. Mr. Whan provided a great deal of information in support of his waiver request. Cannot say that the same has happened with Lombarda Homes. I can assure you that Mr. Newberry and I provided them the links and information on the two meetings and the reports associated with both. So from the perspective of the department, I'm not sure if this is a satisfactory recommendation or not. Obviously, they would prefer to do individual household treatment systems on the in the individual parcels of ground. The department is still recommending in this particular case one location for the treatment of the affluent so as we can guarantee that we don't have 16 different locations not being absolutely sure how they are ultimately placed and installed despite our best efforts through the engineering and plan processes and for the most part getting that extra protection because a plant of this

nature in size requires a conditional use permit. It also will require state oversight. And so from the perspective of the department, the best approach at this location given the features that we know exist is a single plan. And that's the recommendation tonight to the residents in the area. This is just a discussion on the wastewater process for the ultimate project. As I mentioned, will be conditional use permit required because the plant will accommodate more than 5,000 gallons of effluent a day. And there is a preliminary plan. And there are issues um with the design that will need to be addressed. We'll not say this is the perfect design. The lots are three acres in size. They're at the density that's allowed by the non-urban resident district, but we've heard information from the neighbors that the ground is wet a lot of the time. There's springs. There's runoff on the north side of the street. There's executives. There's archaeological items. And so really tonight, this is just the first step in many. And ultimately, will there be 16 lots? I don't know. that will sure make a city that will surely um do everything in its colors to [clears throat] provide project that's respectful of the environment and the neighborhood where it's located. So tonight though, a plant versus household treatment systems on each of the 16 lots. After a motion and

second, Mr. Newberry and I will be available for any comments or questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vinich. First, can I get a motion first? Motion. I'll make a motion that we uh follow the planning department's recommendation. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor, second by Commissioner Hellfrey. And you have a question, M. Commissioner Rubis.

Yes. the the wastewater we say that we should go with one. He wants to put individuals which would be 16. So the only issue that we're considering right now is wastewater. Not not the plan, not the development or anything like that.

That's correct, sir. And the only way that would change is if Lombardo Holmes came back to the city and said, "We only want to do seven lots, not 16." Then the Department of Planning can issue that waiver to the plan under legislative changes that occurred many, many years ago. So, and then you said something that I think is very germanine. You said the logical placement of a single plant would be in the common ground area. Would that be enough placing it in there somewhere? Would that be enough safety based upon all the other factors that we've discussed?

Well, certainly if you look at the description that's provided on the map, that particular area, the common ground has some of the most extensive flood plane, but it also has an area that is relatively level. It has access already via the private road and for all from the perspective of the department we think we can find a location there that is safe from flooding can be well screened and landscape and for for the purposes of operation we'll use the conditional use permit process to ensure that they uh a contractor with knowledge in the maintenance and operation of a plant that that operator is within a 50 mile radius that that operator um will respond to emergencies due to the design of the plan. So we have a long list of requirements relative to these types of individ these treatment facilities centralized [clears throat] and we've applied those other locations. Um the weak link in all of this is just making sure the homeowners association does what they're supposed to do and that's the contract up to date and maintain that facility.

Okay. And one last question. Whose responsibility is it to designate flood planes? Is that a federal authority or is that does Missouri have any sway?

Starts at the federal government, works its way through the state of Missouri, SEMA, and then our director of public works is also our flood plane administrator. And a lot of the responsibility um is his the department of public works Rick Brown that directed that Mr. Brown is the flood plane administrator. So the decisions made by him are reviewed by the state federal government in some instances, but it's very much a responsibility that lies with the city more so than most would think. So, I'm explaining the So, the flood plane line is marked in pink on this display. Yes.

I'm curious. Um, is that a consistent contour line through there? Generally, it is. I'd have to have my glasses. I'm just I'm mostly asking because I'm not like the way it suddenly gets wider on that common lot versus the rest of them. Is is that is the pink overlaying a contour line that through that whole lot? The pink is overlaying where the engineer has define the 100year flood plane limit. Typically that follows a topographic line and renovation. Okay. And

I'm I'm just wondering why it gets so wide wide on that last slot compared to the rest of them. Again, it may be a feature of the the the drainage tributary. It may be the topography of the property if it really is like a lower valley in that area. I understand. Go ahead.

So, Mr. Vunich, essentially at some point in time, somebody is going to build on this land and eventually they're going to have to have some sort of a septic system because there isn't public sewer out there. And so the plant right now is is our best guess. That was the situation that we've been presented with. So one of the questions I have is um it's kind of a what if thing. You mentioned that if the builder came back and said, "Well, we won't do 16 lots. We'll do just seven." And and you said then at that time you could wave the plant. But would you I mean is there would it would seven individual septic tanks be be good on this property?

Well, certainly seven lots all from the perspective of the department means that it probably be five to six to seven acres in size.

So certainly we could find a location somewhere on that lot for the treat facility. And yes, I would grant the variance because from the department's perspective, there's a key component that was brought up at the January meeting during discussion and that's plants need a certain amount of flow to operate effectively and what we what the city determined when the when it required the plan is that basically you need eight lots to make a system a plant work in terms of flow. Less than that it's there's not enough flow the fluid sits it and then that's when they get into the concerns about sewer gas and sewer odor. Um so yes I would grant the waiver in that particular case.

Okay. And then the last thing was um one of the things that keeps being brought up is the the sewer smell. Is there anything that we can do to mitigate that? When I say we, I mean the person paying for the plant, Miss Hy, what I will tell you is when we were doing the project at Pond Road Route 100, Payne Family Homes had um proposed a plant because they were doing 25 lots on the 70 plus acres. And as you may recall, I think you were here. Um, a lot of the residents in the area expressed concerns about the plan as well. They visited the one and three sister farm. They visited the one and homestead estates. And in each instance, it wasn't necessarily that there was smell of of fluent waste water. It was the fact that they just hadn't been maintained well. that the recirculating sand filters had some um vegetation growing on them because it is rich water so to speak from a a growth perspective. Um and there was just concerns about regular maintenance particularly in homestead estates. That particular instance the developer had defaulted. We had seized the letter of s the letters of credit and we were trying to get the plant back up online and it just so happened the timing didn't work. Um ultimately the plant now functions well and quite surprisingly Missouri American Water Company maintains their sewage treatment facility uh because they provide palable water to the project and that's what I had hoped um would happen here was that Lombardo Homes is extending Missouri American water public water to the site and I

encouraged them to talk with officials at the water company see if they would take on the plant and its maintenance. There's a guarantee there that I don't think exists anywhere else other than MSD is and so is that still a possibility? According to Lombardo Homes um they the Missouri American Water Company declined to proceed in that direction. They will provide potable water but the treatment of wastewater fluent will be to the HOA the homeowners essentially. Okay.

So my last question to you is you stated that um you know like Mr. Whan had been here. Lombardo Homes has not been here uh throughout any of this. Would would you recommend uh postponing to see if they would come out and speak with us and have a comment or should we just go ahead and what would your recommendation be?

Thank you for asking. And from the department's perspective, I'd sure like to have a conversation with the petitioner and just have an understanding if the if the recommendation is reasonable or not. Um are the concerns they have about the conditional use permit process. I guess what I'm saying is is is that if we work through the different stages of this project, ultimately Lombardo Homes may want to reduce the lot count and a reduction in the lot count gets them closer to a waiver in my mind and certainly I'd like to have that conversation with them. I think a little time may go a long way to making the project better, making it more acceptable to the neighbors, and from the perspective of the department, ensuring we have a good way to manage waste water. So, we have a motion in a second, but um can I amend mine to maybe ask for a postponement for 30 days to see if we can get Lombardo homes in?

What I would suggest is a postponement motion is a primary motion. So, it um would allow it would supersede your original Mr. Rubis' and your second for approval. So, you can make that motion now um for a postponement, but I would note that Miss Deppler's had her hand up for a bit. I'll wait. I'll wait on my motion. Let me think about it. Let me chew it over a little bit. After Miss Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Deppler.

Yeah. Hi. I guess it's [clears throat] been a while. So, if I remember my original question, it was around the concerns of um where this common ground area is in relation to the pictures of the flooded street. Um that seems closest to that actual um location for the proposed development. Um, I think you kind of talked around kind of those um, questions, but you know, the the red line of the flood plane, how does it relate um, leading up to the area that we have the pictures of flooded roadway?

Miss Deppler, if Mr. Newberry would put the aerial photography on the monitor. Yeah, I was wondering if you know the flood plane if it you know became closer to uh St. Alburn's road or you know kind of veered back away from it. Well, the images that were provided to you of the flooded road is from Questto Canyon. Mhm.

So there is an intervening parcel owned by Amaran Missouri. Then there is far greenhouse excuse me in between that is Questo canyon. So it is relatively close to the site. Um what I will tell you is is that from the perspective of the department we will require stormwater management improvements as part of each of the laws. We're not, as we did years ago, just accommodating the three acres because it's three acres and we have the natural resource protection standards, the tree preservation and restoration code, and the grading code as protections will actually require improvements that manage storm water and try to keep as much of the storm water on the lot and the least amount possible draining into the the creep the drainage future. Um but yes um some of those photographs were probably from some of those rains where we had six to seven eight inches in a matter of a day or less. And there's no system I know of that can manage that.

No. And that happened with no development. So obviously development's not going to make it better, but right we'll do our very best to address it. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Jackson.

So, I just kind of feeding off Miss Hell's commentary, but I would take it a little bit different angle. So, if they haven't been here, um, would it help if we if we we kept the motion, take your recommendation, um, put some sort of resolution or something that if they don't get back to you within the next 20 days, this thing's over. like I I'm thinking they know the writing's on the wall and I would hate for you to have to waste your time if they they're not even showing up. And so I could make we could I we can make a an addendum that says, "Hey, after you send out a letter, they don't get back in whatever time frame that you feel is right, 20, this thing's over. We don't have to see it again." Well, certainly I appreciate the desire to optimize u the department of planning's time, but it the motion is if the original motion proceeds forward, it goes to city council from there. Um and I would prefer to have the working discussion here at the planning and zoning commission. Um that that's where it seems to work best. Um the city council has a number of items on their agenda and so it's just not the best loc it's not often the best location to have detailed discussions about this that or the other in this case wastewater treatment flood plane common ground topography runoff etc. So, I appreciate it, Commissioner Jackson, but I would suggest if we really want to see if there's a way to make this project better, probably includes having a postponement and getting an opportunity to meet with Lombardo Holmes can.

Mr. Chair, this is this is not typical, but as the keeper of the Zoom, I feel obliged to share the information. Mr. Nance with Lombardo Home has his hand raised and the attendees, so Okay. It's at your discretion to allow him to speak. Um, let me ask one question real quick. This picture right here, is this Highway T in the back or is

Well, is that Quest over Canyon Road? All right. So, at the very back, is that Highway T up against that? Yeah.

Is that highway right there? Highway Key is in the background.

Okay. You're talking, right? Yes. Yeah.

Well, I mean, I feel like there's enough space, Mr. Chair. No one can hear you on Zoom. Okay. Um, yeah. Uh, Mr. Lombardo, if you're if you want to Mr. I'm sorry, Mr. Nance. Mr. Nance. Yeah, if we could we I'm willing to promote him. He's on the way in. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Nance, if I'm going to send you a prompt if you'd like to speak, you'll need to accept it on Zoom.

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Doug Nance with Lombardo Homes. Um, so I I was in attendance um in person at the last meeting. I I apologize for not being able to make it this this evening. Um, so we we did get the response on Friday from this city um with with their recommendation. We understand uh the concern with the some of the flood plane. I did uh have a chance to overlay not only the 100year but the 500year and look at that today. um with where that lays and only one septic field actually lays in within the 500year flood plane that I was able to lay out. None of them of the fields that we have laid out so far that are shown on that preliminary plan are in any of the flood plane um within the 100year. Um the one that was in the 500year could actually be pulled out. Um it was just barely encroaching into that space. Um and when we looked at a centralized system, if that's the direction the board board decides for us to go, uh would not be in that 100-year either or the 500 year. It' be outside that um that zone. I would uh appreciate the recommendation that you all had um for me to sit down with Joe and go through the what I was able to find out today with that information uh and show him what we're looking at and he can show me uh his concerns as well uh in more depth if that's the way the board would recommend for us to go forward.

All right. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Um, Commissioner Humphrey, I'm going to make a motion that we postpone this for 30 days to give the city a chance to meet with the Lombardo Homes representative, see if we can get things kind of hammered out a little bit better. Second. All right. Um, any discussion on the motion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor of a 30-day postponement say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Actually, Mr. Chair, my apologies to Mr. Nance. I didn't know you were on Zoom. I don't have my computer on, so my apologies. That's okay. Mayor Gerano. Yeah, your microphone. February

microphone. Yeah, sorry. My apology. I just want to make sure that motion is appropriate with 30 days since February is a short month. Four weeks instead of 30 days. Perhaps just as simple as it would have been uh better to say to the next meeting. Uh I just don't I'd have to do the math to figure it out, but I know there's 28 days in February. So yeah. So we're gonna I'm gonna postpone it for 28 days. No to the next meeting to the next to to the next meeting attorney. Is that appropriate now? Would that be appropriate since the vote already took place or would do we need to just re resend the last motion that we did and uh re reconsider the last motion and fix it?

Right. I'm looking up the math right now. And I believe Yeah. So that would push it out until looks like the fourth. All right. Just to keep us official, Commissioner Rubis is making a motion to reconsider our motion. We need uh So the process would be first someone you have to make a motion to reconsider which would be then everyone And I will in favor then you can make your next motion which would be the correct version. Correct. Okay. Go ahead. All right. So all those in favor of reconsidering say I. I. All those opposed.

Any abstain? All right. So we'll reconsider it. And I reconsidered it and I'd like to make a motion to our to postpone to our next meeting. March 2nd. No, I'm not saying that till our next meeting. Second. All right. All right. So, new motion and a second of a postponing until the March meeting to make it official. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Any abstain? All right. So, we'll redisuss this at March at our March meeting. All right. Thank you. All right. Um, so next on the agenda, PZ 1517,

the recommendation report by the Department of Planning to the Planning and Zoning Commission in association with the request regarding an existing conditional use permit CUP that was granted for PZ5-7 Babler Farms LLC care of Tom Roberts 550 Lori Lane, Wildwood, Missouri 630005 in non-rurban residence district with conditional use permit CU terminus of Lori Lane south of Wild Horse Creek Road located number 20X630001. 15 and 20x6300024, street address 500 and 550 Lori Lane, which seeks amendments to it to be to eliminate the maintenance bond requirement for the large water feature and the review and renewal clause to ensure compliance to established conditions ward one. Thank you, Mr. Newberry, Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the planning and zoning commission, the department has prepared for your consideration a recommendation relating to the two items that have been identified by the property owner relative to an existing conditional use permit that he would like amended. The department has considered the two items and is recommending that the requirement for an escrow or bond be eliminated. It is obvious to the department that this particular petitioner will take very good care of the lake and ensure it is an asset to the community but and also to himself. The past visits to the property have indicated that the maintenance is at a very high level and as is noted in the recommendation report. The petitioner has done a lot of other maintenance items to the roadway leading to his property from Wildfires Creek Road and the properties adjacent to that private street. It's indicative of his care for the property in the area. And so again, the department believes the monetary guarantee is no longer necessary at this time. The department, however, believes that at least one more review cycle on a three-year period is justified just because of the history related to the site. and to ensure that for one last time in that period that we'll have an opportunity to visit the property uh do an assessment and if um if it is what I believe it to be um then we would look at amending the CUP to remove that requirement as well. As you know, most if not all of our conditional use permits have some type of review

component to it and they have worked well for us and in this particular instance I think it was essential early on when we had concerns from neighboring property owners. Um it appears that things have um been addressed and at this stage I think to remove it now would be premature but certainly at the end of the next threeear cycle I think the planning and commission certainly could consider it at that time. There any questions or comments relating to this particular item? The department be glad to answer them uh after a motion and second. Thank you. All right. Thank you Mr. Vunich. Mayor Garano.

Yeah. Thank you. And I'll I'll make a motion to that. I appreciate uh addictive petitioner. We've seen him enough times come to the meetings here and uh it sounds like it's a very respectable well-maintained property. So, uh I I agree with you about the uh nuisance bond and I would say maybe to make it easier um and I'll look to the department to recommend I understand your point of view allowing for one more three year one more review and or reinspection in three years but uh if it's satisfactory that we would then you know eliminate that as well. What my question would be, do you want to maybe do we make that as part of the motion or how would we handle that piece there?

Actually, if you wanted to add it to the motion in three years, I may be dead. So, well, I I was like there might be some of us not here three years. So, I think it certainly would help anybody that follows me and therefore they would have that as part of the motion when they reviewed the paperwork. Yeah, I would say include I apologize. I just I'm having difficulty hearing it. I could ask for refrain from speaking in the room uh because we could hear you up here too. Thank you. Uh so uh with with regards to that, yeah, we'll make it then as part of the motion then. Um right.

Yeah. So it could be uh you recommend approval of the department's recommendation relative to the nuisance bond and that if in three years when this uh conditional use permit is reviewed and if satisfactory the u the review period would be eliminated. Yeah. and and and I think everything we heard about it um you know about I guess some of the claims that were made uh the petitioners here and and for the record appears in good health. So I think uh we're good uh to do that. So um I'm happy to go ahead and make that motion just so that we can hopefully end this chapter regarding this.

All right. So we have a motion by the mayor and a second by Commissioner Rubis. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, seeing none, uh, roll call vote. Commissioner Hoffrey, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Um, Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Chair Batty. Yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Mayor Geritano. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you.

All right. And last on the agenda, um, Mr. Newberry, Melos Heights,

a recommendation report prepared by the Department of Planning in response to a request to the Planning and Zoning Commission that seeks the reapproval of the preliminary plat for the proposed Moss Heights subdivision with it being submitted by St. Alburn's Property L Properties LLC. The property is located in the Indie Non-Urban Residence District. Street address 1 19936 Melrose Road, St. Louis County, Locator number 24Z340053. The prepared information does support the allowance of additional time to complete the record plot process with the city council for this six lot residential subdivision on 55.68 acres acre tract of land with each plan lot to be at least 4 acres in area W.

Thank you, Mr. Benberry. Mr. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the planning and zoning commission, the department has prepared for your consideration a recommendation regarding this particular preliminary plat. As is referenced in the report itself. This particular preliminary plat is for a six lot subdivision uh is located on the west side of Mill Rose at its intersection with Highway T. The property is approximately 56 acres in size and the owners are proposing six lots on that particular site. The lots range in size from 4 acres to over 11 acres in size. The lots would be served by a private street meeting the requirements of the city's rural roadway standards and dedication is proposed along Milrose Road as well as an easement for sight distance considerations. In January of 2024, approximately two years ago, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of this preliminary plat. And that preliminary plat was used to ultimately authorize the record plat. The record plat was presented to city council and an ordinance was approved authorizing the six lots to be recorded and ultimately sold. There were delays associated with the project by the owner St. Albins's Properties LLC, but I believe based upon the engineer working with the owner, they are ready to proceed forward at this time. However, two years had passed and the department believed it was appropriate that the planning and zoning commission re-review the plat see it one more time and if there are any questions regarding it those questions could be answered. Tonight, the department is recommending reapproval of the preliminary plat. As you can see, is substantially less dense than the

underlying zoning district designation would allow and it will ultimately connect into Franklin County and other properties held by St. Alvin's Properties LLC. So, it is part of Wildwood and will be part of a much larger development called St. developments. If there are any questions or comments, after a motion and second, the department will be glad to respond to them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vinish. So, that northern street that appears to be a stub, that's what's going into Franklin County.

Yes, the the owner owners own property above a few lots on that side as well. All right. Thank you. Um, Commissioner or Councilman Marshall, sorry. Um, all right. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Hilfrey. All right. Go ahead with your question. Mr. Rich, how many homes in Franklin County?

I do not know that answer, but I can certainly find out for you by the time we bring it to city council. I think maybe in the writing I only talked about four uh under the fire district and that but I was just curious. I thought there was a lot more property there than that but there is but I also know the golf course is in close proximity to that particular location as well. Just curious I that doesn't change my vote on it. I just thought it would be interesting to them. Well, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Newberry and I have this item. If approved tonight by the planning and zoning commission as a receipt file at city council next Monday, I will have an answer for you at that time. Thank you. Then I will email the rest of you with it as well.

Right. Thank Oh yeah, looking at the map, the golf course does appear to be like right there because there's there's the road is golf course. Any other discussion? All right, seeing none, uh, roll call vote. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rubis, yes. Um, Commissioner Hry, yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Sher Batty, yes. Council member Marshall.

Yes. And Mayor Artano. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. And that brings us to the end end of our agenda. Um Mr. Greenwich, I just have one item for you. Uh the department has been in discussions with Monarch Fire Protection District. And at the March meeting, we will have our public hearing for our first electronic message. S. Thank you. the one they installed preemptively,

right? Um, all right. I make a motion to adjurnn. Commissioner Helffrey, seconded by Commissioner Jackson. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. We're journ. Thank you everyone.