Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

That one says 6:30 now. So, now we're really official. Um, I'd like to welcome everyone to the March 2nd meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tonight on the agenda, we have two public hearings, one letter of recommendation, and three information reports. Uh, can I get a roll call of commission members, please? Commissioner Borne here. Commissioner Hilfrey here. Commissioner Clayton here. Commissioner Deppler here. Commissioner Deppler's here on Zoom tonight. Uh, Commissioner Jackson here. Commissioner Rubis, Chair Batty here, Council Member Marshall, Mayor Garitano. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Um, can I get an approval of the minutes from February 2nd? Uh, motion by Councilman Marshall. Is there? Second by Commissioner Hellfrey. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion carries. Um, does the Department of Planning have any opening comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. First of all, thank you for approving the minutes. We appreciate it. And if you hadn't noticed, Mr. Young is not with us tonight, but Miss Rutherford is, and she'll be standing in for Mr. Young. And we just wanted to acknowledge that and show our appreciation and thank her. Welcome.

Thank you for being here. All right. Um, so, uh, we'll open it up for public comment. Uh, just as a reminder, um, if you want to speak on either of the two public hearings, this will not be your time, but any other of the agenda items, this will be your time. Uh, please submit a card at the back to Mr. Newberry here, and he will call it call you up when it is your turn to speak. And friendly reminder, um, individuals get three minutes. Oh. Okay. All right. And so, Mr. Newberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the first speaker is Mr. Nance.

Good evening. Doug Nance with Lombardo Homes for Research Park, St. Charles, Missouri. Here to talk about the reserves of St. Albins's. Uh, represent Lombardo Homes for the development. Uh we were able this past month to meet with uh the city and discuss some of the concerns from the last meeting uh and address those issues. Uh we were able to um get the HOA and we'll set the HOA up to manage the individual septics uh with $5,000 escrow going into an account um and then a central service provider uh to service and uh inspect the systems on an annual basis. Uh in addition um our engineer overlaid uh the flood plane on the lots. So we showed the 100 and the 500year flood plane which I sent to the city as well. Um and what it shows is not only will the septic system and fields be out of the 100-year flood plane, but it'll also be out of the 500year flood plane. So no concerns necessarily outside that 500 year of any inundation with the septics on that portion of the property. Um, and then of course the houses are also out of the flood way and flood plane as well. Uh, up on the hills. They're all walkouts. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have if they come up during the meeting tonight. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Chair. The next speaker is Miss Brian. Good evening, Sandra Bryan, Ward 8. Um, I'm here because I am concerned about the continued approval of highdensity development in this area without clear independent geotechnical oversight. Approving projects is within your authority. Determining soil stability, subsurface water movement, and loadbearing capacity is not a policy judgment. It is a matter for licensed geotechnical engineers. We are already seeing flooding, drainage issues, and soil instability. These are not isolated problems. They suggest cumulative impact from increased density on land that may not be designed to handle it. When development intens uh intensity increases, engineering standards must increase with it. Otherwise the risk shifts the neighboring homeowners to infra um it it shifts to the neighboring homeowners to infrastructure and to the city itself. So I am asking as an independent geotech has an independent geotechnical study evaluated the cumulative impact of these approvals. Has subsurface water migration been assessed under current density levels? who assumes liability if soil failure or drainage collapse damages surrounding properties. This is not about opposing growth. It is about responsible growth. Progress requires engineering. Without it, we are simply taking chances with people's property and safety. I am respectfully requesting that this council require independent geotechnical review and full public transparency before approving any

further highdensity development in this area. The residents who live here deserve to know that decisions are being made uh are based on science not assumptions. Thank you. Thank you for your comment, Mr. Chair. Next speaker is Miss Nofo.

Good evening. Julie Nula with Lock Miller Group and I'm here to answer any questions about traffic as as it relates to PZ 1025 luxury latitude and 38. We completed a traffic assessment at the request of the petitioner um that looked at the impact associated with 44 attached vlets. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them for you. All right. Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Next is Miss Link. Lin Link, sorry, Lin Link W six. The residents who live near for some some of them for generations the proposed Highway T Lombardo development know that it's too dense of a development and will increase the amount of flooding that is already seen on the property. Those same residents recently overwhelmingly welcomed the Challei Garden Center to their neighborhood. So, it's not about not wanting change. It's about not wanting change that adversely impacts them. The citizens of Wildwood have been appearing since the summer of 2023 objecting to the latitude development for a myriad of reasons including parking. Looking at the complaints online from other Benton rentals, the fact that the site plans have been edited um to position the outflow water runoff onto our new village green says a lot about what we can expect from them. Since they first came before the commission, the city has approved 190 Wildwood luxury apartments. This high density should be the reason to limit the development of nearby property. Sandra Bryant noticed the land behind her home um near other ten in Manchester has been sinking since the construction of the Wildwood Luxury Apartments and it is connected via a water drainage path um to the land that's sinking and um the drainage also bifurcates and goes to Tim uh Kumer's property that where he has said he's lost inches of soil. I do commend the city for taking preemptive measures to address the risks of that

data centers could pose to our citizens and environment. As most data centers uh receive tax some form of tax abatement, having our municipal code reflect that no municipality uh or we will not give tax abatements or chapter 100 to data centers um would increase uh the citizens trust in our government. Um, Franklin County citizens also found that their government officials actually sign non-disclosures with potential uh data center developers. Perhaps uh making it um making it mandatory that any city employee must uh disclose the fact that they're entering into an NDA would help to uh

Thank you. would help to have residents from all over Wildwood would um improve the trust in their city. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chair. Next is Mr. Doster.

Thank you, Travis. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, mayor, uh, council member, uh, my name is Mike Doster, 16150 Main Circle Drive in Chesterville, Missouri. I'm the land use attorney on the development team for latitude and that is on your agenda later this evening and I'm here to speak uh on that subject. Uh as you probably know an information report was issued uh last Friday afternoon. Uh the development team conferred over the weekend and we developed a written response uh to that information report which uh was sent to the city late this afternoon. I believe it may have been emailed to all of you. There are also paper copies available. Um, I'm sorry it came out so late, but uh, we had to get together over the weekend to put our thoughts together and come up with a reasonable response to the information report. Um, I can go over some of the contents of the packet which I think are important. Uh, one of the contents ha has to do with the traffic assessment that Julie Noel said she prepared. uh and its conclusion basically says that no improvements are required, road improvements are required from this development that the existing road system will handle the traffic easily. There's also uh as a part of the packet uh a color version of a revised plan. Uh the plan that uh is currently under submission has been revised. Uh we've been in the process of taking a look at it and trying to improve it. and Dave Vol, the civil engineer who's on the development team has signed up to speak. So he can give you some of the detail on that. We believe as the packet states that we've complied with all applicable regulations. Uh and I realize we may differ from the department in that respect, but we've done a thorough

review of the requirements and we believe we comply with them. Ideally, what we are looking for is a positive recommendation. So, we would like to move forward in this process. We're happy to answer any questions when we get to the part of the agenda that we're on uh that you may have with respect to anything that's in our packet. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chair. Next is Mr. CR. Tim CR, 2460 Otherton Road, Ward 8. I'm speaking into opposed North Latitude. Um, this is just a wrong project. We've been here for years tackling this process. And for so many reasons, it's wrong. But I'm going to give you the biggest reason. It's erosion. And I've lived at my house for over 25 years. And I've lost the lowest part of my land. I've lost a minimum of 6 ines of soil. I had a 50-year-old tree ripped out of the ground because of erosion from a minor wind and rainstorm. Just pulled it out by the roots. That tree should have lived for 100 years. No problem. a totally healthy tree. Um, I have erosion that comes right through the middle of my backyard. That's what took out the tree and that's where I've lost 6 in. I have erosion that runs parallel in between my house and I believe it's 2454 Road. And this is not just a a little bit of water. This is a 4 to 6t path in deep when it rains. There are no storms system drains on Etherton Road except on the main street crossing sign side and my yard takes an enormous amount of water. And if you want, you can drive down Etherton Road. You come knock on my door. I'll I'll walk you through the yard. Um, even the front yard starting to sink just from the water that runs off the the road. As far as parking and their traffic survey specialist, whoever they are, that's nonsense. Heatherton Road can't handle the traffic it has now. And this project also wants to park cars on Heatherton

Road, which is a really bad idea. There's a a line of sight problem. Um, you can't park any more cars on Etherton Road. You can't you can't take the Etherton Road can't take any more traffic. It's barely passable two-lane road. Um, and if people park on Etherton Road, it'll get it'll only be worse. And you you'll hide the stop sign cuz that's where they all want to park. And now I want to talk just a little bit about the project. It's way too dense. There's way too many homes. We're here to They're asking to change zoning. You shouldn't change the zoning at all. There's no reason to change the zoning. It's way too high dense. These are rental homes. There's no one on site to patrol these folks that he puts in as residents. And I'm here to tell you that he doesn't pick very good ones because I've had to take the blunt of all these problems. The property immediately next to me was perfectly manicured since the 1950s. his last resident moved in. The only time he cut the grass and took care of the property is when the city forced him to look and you can look it all up because I am the complainer. He had 5 foot weeds growing in the front yard all along the side of his house. They never pick up the leaves. The leaves are 5 in deep in the backyard. There's tree limbs that are five, six inches around. They're just laying there in the yard. one minute

and you know this and now he wants to build 44 and then we'll have 44 more problems and the city's going to go and tell him cut the grass at what three times this summer cuz that's what he did this summer. He cut it three times. Three times. That's ridiculous. And there has to be supervision on this property if he's going to be all rentals. Who's I mean what if they have problems? Who are they going to call? He's out of town a lot. There's nobody that takes care of his places. And this is just wrong. And we've been here. It's getting tiring. We've been here too many times. Do not change the zoning for this guy. It will destroy my property. It will destroy my well-being. Everything about my property is parklike. And now you're going to dump a a massive big complex right in the middle of my yard. I It's just ridiculous. I mean, we can do better. We need to do better. It's all I have.

Thank you for your comment. Uh, next speaker is Miss Donaldson.

Hi, I'm Debbie Donaldson. I live in W 8. Um, I understand traffic studies are important, but they're studies. I drive road at least two or three times a day, and I'm very familiar with traffic patterns, and I'm very familiar with pedestrian traffic. I have almost hit one or two people while on Athetherton Road. There's no sidewalks. You cannot see when you get to there's kind of a a rise in the street. You can't see people that are there. And I I drive below the speed limit. Not everybody does. People use it for a running path, especially from the gym. Um and a walking path. People walk their dogs. It's a very busy little country road that happens to be in a town, a city that has grown up around it. I respect the capabilities of an engineer. I'm married to one. Sometimes he drives me crazy. Data is important, but so is reality. And if you're not if you don't live in that area, you cannot really uh be a testament to how the traffic is and it's going to be just fine. I'm worried about the the citizens who use that road constantly. I don't think it's a good idea at all. And I also uh the Eureka leader came to my house. It does every couple weeks and there was an article in there about um Mr. Bosworth has proposal to put up the same type of development in Eureka at 109 and Highway W, but that's being called luxury town houses. I know what

luxury villas are. This is not a luxury villa. I think the city made a grave mistake when he first came years ago and wanted to put in villas and he was turned down. I understand why he keeps coming back, but you can't go back and unring that bell. That's what I'm saying here. Once you put this through and don't improve Etherton, you can't go back and unring that bell. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next is Mr. Vols.

Good evening. My name is David Volos. I'm with Vols Engineering and our address is 10849 Indian Head 63132 and I'm here to talk about latitude 38. And uh the first thing I'm going to do is briefly go over the comparison charts I think were in that packet that you may have gotten. And I went over this at the public hearing, but I think it's important just to mention it again that if you look at the current petition versus the one from 2020 24, the number of units has dramatically changed. This one has 44 units. That previous one that you guys saw actually had 60 and then we were down to 55 when it was at the council. So there was a 20 to 25% reduction in the number of units. Both plans had the same amount of dedication on Main Street. The plan back then had 37 which is enough to build Main Street. This plan has 37 which is enough to to uh sufficient to build Main Street. The parking both plans had uh two spaces in the garage, two in the driveway all either way. And so this plan with the extra parking has 4.25 parking spaces per unit. 4.25 parking spaces per unit that that are assigned to this site. Uh one of the big concerns is that buffer to the south. And previously we had a 20ft buffer with a and it actually had a a fire drive in it. Now we have 83 feet of common ground with with this current plan. So it's a significant change from from the from the 2024 plan. And then last is the common ground. this this site plan has a 50% increase in in common ground over the other plan and and that's basically by dropping the units. So, the next thing I wanted to go over was was the second exhibit that you had there, which was the changes that we made after the public hearing, this new plan that you see. And the main one is um in an effort to try to p pull the storm water totally away from the park, we shifted the detention basin and everything to the

west. Um and and then we actually put in um um instead of doing we put in HDS which are hydrodnamic separators instead of having water quality basins and that gives us more room and so by shifting everything to the to the left we were able to pull everything off the uh off the park's property. Um then and then obviously we took the entrance and we lined it up with the with the drive across the street and we eliminated any access to the north. But but I wanted to go over the the detention and the storm water a little bit more. So this site, as everybody knows, it's the highest place around. That's why they wanted to put the observation tower there. I mean, this is really high. It's around 800 ft. So there's not a lot of off-site water coming coming off. In fact, our site has about three acres that goes to the south and three acres that goes to the north because it's pretty evenly split. And so it's it's not a significant amount of water going onto the park property. And in fact, I looked at the drainage area maps from from the park's development, and it takes takes this site into account. It already has proposed ditches on the south and on the north that would bypass the park that that would bypass the detention basin in the park. So, this was accounted for when the city did their their uh park plan. So, I don't think there's a problem. And by pulling it back, it on the north side, in fact, it's going to discharge and go into the roadside ditch. It's already there. and and on the south it'll go into a proposed ditch that the city I think had on their plan that'll that'll go to the south. So, um there should be very little no impact. In fact, because we're doing detention, there's not even going to be an increase. So, it's there's going to be no impact at all. And that's something I could go over with your city engineer. MSD is going to have to review this. So, I'm very very confident in those statements. Um and with that, again, we're here to answer any questions. And uh thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, as we come down to the last few cards here in the room, if I could could just mention for those on Zoom, um if you'd like to um speak during the public comment session, please use the raise hand feature. And back to the cards in the room, uh Mr. Hart. I'm Richard Hart. Uh 18721 Highway T across the street from the Lomb Lombardo project they're talking about. And uh we had farmed at for 140 years, but I brought that up at the last two meetings. But anyway, I was listening to what Lombardo guy said there and he's talking about moving the septics out of a flood plane. Well, I don't know that that would be the real issue. But I think the real issue is the real is the every rain waterhed that crosses that property. There's a lot of water pro crosses that property on any major rain. And uh I just don't think uh with the and oh another thing is is when I look at the site plans and which I brought up before about those uh springs in the major one in the middle of that middle field. Nowhere on that site plan do I see where the engineers said anything about um that that major wet area in there. And it's easy identified because there's been no crops growing there. Even like last year, you can drive right down tea and you see a big grassy area. Uh no corn was planted there because you can't go through it. You get stuck. Now, are you going to build a house on on something like that, you know? And uh I

don't know. I just don't think with everything that I know about the property with probably what's underneath the top soil, if you're going to put septics in there or whatever, sooner or later the lowest part is that creek. And I just think um eventually sooner or later that's where everything's going to eventually leech to. I just don't think it's the right plan. So um I don't know what else. I brought up a bunch of stuff the last couple meetings and uh I just hope that uh u use your good common sense when you're figuring this thing out. And uh there was something the other day I thought was pretty good. There were three Eagles playing in the fields on two separate days and cars were stopping, people were taking pictures and everything. And I'm thinking, you put a bunch of uh nail gun shot together houses there, you're never going to have eagles back. And I thought it was that's what Wildwood's about more than a bunch of houses. So that's all I'm going to say about it. So thanks for letting me express my opinions.

All right. Thank you for your comments. Um, the next and final speaker card in the room is Miss Heron.

Hi, my name is Linda Herren. I am Ward 8. I am one of the two properties that run along the south side of the Latitude project. And other than dittoing basically everything that we've ever said about this project, um other than the fact that yes, I am opposed to the rentals. Um basically because we've got owners, I'm sorry, tenants who will be living there who are not necessarily invested in their property. I'm not knocking tenants. I've been a tenant myself. I've been a good tenant. Uh but I still never had a vested interest in the property. But the thing I'd like really to talk about most of all is shortterm that if you decide to go with this, because it is a commercial property, should Mr. Bosworth do very very well with this property and it becomes a wonderful revenue generator, that doesn't mean that somewhere along the line someone else wouldn't want to come in and decide that this it could be a wonderful generator for themsel and make him an offer that he would be more than willing to accept. And the problem with that is no one says that offer is going to come from someone who's from Wildwood or St. Louis or Missouri. And now when this council is long gone and other people are in and we are still in our home, we perhaps have an outside owner who has no vested interest in what is going on in our community. Um so just looking down the road, you've got this beautiful park. You guys have put millions of dollars in this and we're going to have this wonderful lookout tower that looks out on that development right there. Um, I do have to also speak to the water. I I am south and uh I have only lived on our property for about three years and I have got gullies that come from Mr. Kumer's side down. I've got them from

the far side over here. I have got divots and rivets that I'm just losing ground everywhere. Um, and also Etherton, there's so much to be said about the reality. Um, I also do drive much slower on that road. There are two blind spots that you do not see pedestrians. And God bless the people who walk. They're not walking single on the edge. They're spread out with their strollers and their dogs and their other people.

Thank you. And it is just it it's an accident waiting to happen. So anyway, just please reconsider all of these things and just don't change the zoning to rentals. Let's just keep people there who are invested and interested in what goes on in Wildwood and our communities. So thank you very much. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chair. We have no more speaker cards I received in the room. We do have some on Zoom. We had a hand raised, but it's no longer raised. So, if we just want to give the folks on Zoom a moment. Okay.

No one's raised their hand on Zoom, Mr. Chair.

Okay. All right. Well, in that case, we'll go ahead and close public comment at this time and go into our uh two public hearings. In the city of Wildwood, public hearings are truly intended to accept comments and questions concerning these posted items. Since these requests are being presented at a public hearing, no action is planned on these items tonight and consideration of them is to be taken no earlier than the April 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. This approach ensures the members of the commission will hear all opinions before taking any action. The city's department of planning will address the comments, questions, and concerns that are raised tonight and include them as part of its formal recommendation to the planning and zoning commission. Anyone attendance at city hall tonight wanting to speak should fill out a speaker card back there and leave it with Mr. Newberry. Those in attendance via the Zoom webinar platform should use the raise hand feature to indicate you wish to speak at these hearings. A team member will add you to the list of speakers which will then be communicated to me as chair and I will invite you to speak when it is your turn. The public hearing process is outlined in the public hearing guidelines pamphlet which can be found on the table at the entry area to the council chambers. The commission will allow all parties adequate time to present their position as outlined in the public hearing guidelines pamphlet. Those individuals representing themselves will be allocated three minutes to speak. Speakers who are designated as a group speaker representing a group of more than five individuals will be allocated five minutes to speak. In addition, information on these items can be found on the city's website at www.c cityof wildwood.com. The commission would like to thank you for your cooperation and participation at tonight's hearing.

All right. Uh PZ3-26, Mr. Newberry. PZ3-26, Monach Fire Protection District, 13725 Olive Boulevard, Chesfield, Missouri 63017. A request for a conditional use permit in the NU non-urban residence district for 3acre tract of land that is located on the south side of Wild Horse Creek Road at its intersection with Etheertton Road. Street addresses 18304 Wild Horse Creek Road and 18304 Wild Horse Creek Road, unit A, St. Louis County. Locator numbers 1 19W510215 and 1W510194. proposed use a permanent electronic message center EMC to be operated in association with the existing fire station ward one.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry, Mr. Vinich.

Mr. Chair, we have a few slides that we'd like to present to the commission as well as those in attendance tonight at the hearing. But before the department describes those slides, it would like to enter into the record the following items. the city's charter, the city's master plan, the zoning ordinance, chapter chapter 415 of the municipal code inclusive of the conditional use permit process as well as the NU non- urban resident district and a file that has been maintained by the department of planning relative to this particular request and all contents contained therein. Along with those items, the department would also want to enter into the record any testimony or evidence provided as part of tonight's meeting. Mr. Chair and members of the commission, the first slide represents an aerial photograph of the general vicinity relative to the subject site. The subject site is identified by the light red color and it is at the intersection of Etherton Road and Wild Horse Creek Road. The second slide is a representation of the new fire station that is at the location that was just described. At the front of the building next to the south side of Wild Horse Creek Road is the proposed electronic message center. This particular structure was built as part of the development of the fire station, but it has not been operational since the fire station opened. This is a view of the electronic message center looking west on Wild Horse Creek

Road from Etherton Road. This is a view of the electronic bestate center looking east on Wild Horse Creek Road from the unnamed driveway that provides access to a residence to the south of the fire station. This is a closeup of the proposed electronic message center. As you can see, it has a message centered board and relatively in the center of it. And the board is approximately, I believe, about 40 square ft. This is just the opposite side. Now, looking to the west again, this is the rear of the proposed electronic message center. And this is the front of the electronic message center. So the electronic message center is incorporated into a brick monument sign and the brick matches that of the fire station. Mr. Chair and members of the planning and zoning commission, the only other item of the department wants to identify is that as part of our discussion on electronic message centers, there now are two lighting zones in the city. The first is the rural area and that's lighting zone one and then there is lighting zone two. This particular site is in lighting zone 2 which means it can have an increase in the illumination levels due to surrounding development that's much greater than the rural setting that characterizes much of the remaining city. With that, if there are any questions regarding the slides or any of the items identified as part of the slides, Mr. Newberry and I'd be glad to answer them at this time.

Right. Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Um, does anyone on the commission have any comments? Do we have any speaker cards?

Yes, Mr. Chair, the petitioners representative Chief Chief Cruz is is here to speak. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, mayor and councilman, my name is Les Cruz. I'm the assistant chief for the Monarch Fire Protection District. And the reason I'm here tonight, obviously, is to ask for your uh approval and support in the advancement of our additional use permit for the sign that Mr. Boonich just referred to. Uh, you know, I could stand up here and speak for a long time, but I think it's pretty simple and pretty straightforward. We have this signed. Uh we've got the ordinances and we've worked with Mr. Boonich on this and we're just asking uh for your uh advancement of this for the conditional use permit and I'll try to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you all for your time and have a good evening. You too. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, no additional speaker cards have been submitted regarding this hearing. Okay, we do have some on Zoom. Again, um, we could just wait just a few seconds.

Commissioner Huffrey. Okay. I'm not going to speak a lot tonight. Um, this sign was built before they had permission to build it, right? So, does it meet all the guidelines that we have as far as setbacks, size, and all of that?

Yes. The sign was in place prior to the new regulations governing electronic message centers. The package of the site development plan, the sheets that form that submitt, probably number, I think there's 33 of them. Um and so as part of that package, the sign components were included. What the department had done is just advised the Monarch Fire Protection District that that particular component of the overall development is done separately. I don't know if that message obviously got forwarded and it was constructed. fire district was notified and they agreed not to operate the sign until such time that a decision was made by planning and zoning commission and city council. To answer your second part of the question, yes, it complies with all the components not only of the electronic message centers but the monument type signs in the residential or non-urban districts.

Okay. So you had we had a gentleman come and speak to us about all these light studies. It was very informative. And so according to this it says that there are two light zones and it's in the one that can have hot brighter lights. So one of my questions is when that gentleman spoke with us he talked about if it is a certain brightness that when you look away from the sign it takes your eyes so many seconds to readjust. And that's that area there has got a lot of woods and deer and such and so would that requirement how will that mesh how will the brightness mesh with the safety of the area and will the sign be static

certainly apologies for interrupting. First and foremost, we the the base set of regulations is our outdoor lighting requirements which are contained in the zoning ordinance. And for the most part, we limit the Kelvin to 4,000K or less, which is a soft warm yellow light. So just we've already got protections in place. Secondly, oftentimes we limit the LEDs to 100 watts or less. So we'll first view it from that perspective. Then as part of the recommendation that came from the planning and zoning commission, we also establish other requirements relating to intensity operational parameters and etc. I'm confident that lighting zone two, although it may be greater than lighting zone one, it is still a very um what I would consider um low light area. It's just that the rural areas, which are dark, a dark environment. We protect those because obviously they don't have the level of traffic that Wild Horse Creek Road does, doesn't have the development patterns that both St. Louis County and Chesterfield have proved over the years and St. Louis County prior to the city. So, for the most part, we just know that there's more activity and more lights in those areas that are part of lighting zone 2 and therefore they can accommodate a little increase, but we're not talking about a substantial one. Okay. Um, we hold up. Um, Commissioner Deppler.

Yeah. Hi. I just had one quick question. So, in one of the photos you shared, I don't know if it was just the perspective of the photo or not. It looked like the sign was pointing at a house on the one side. Is that correct or was that just kind of a anomaly of the photo? Miss Deppler, the closest residence is across the street across Wild Horse Creek Road and that the sign has the least amount of exposure there. It's the north end of the sign or the slimmest part of it. The actual message centers face east and west and for the most part face toward the fire station and then Etheon Road. And there's no house on the other side of Etheon Road.

There is. There is, but it's um across Etherton Road and it sits further back to the south on the lot, not on the north end of the lot, nearest Wild Horse Creek Road. Okay. Yeah, I think I thought it was just potentially in that photo you shared, it looked a little like there was a a house kind of in the background, but it like I said, it could have been just the perspective was strange.

Mr. Newberry would bring up the aerial photography and so maybe the aerial would be best here, Mr. Newberry. And if you could zoom in just a bit. Thank you. Not a great image. Um, so there the the ab budding lot across Etheon Road. The the dwelling is about midway down. Mr. Newberry, but put the cursor on it might help. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. So again, Miss Deppler, across Etheon Road from the site, the dwelling that's being referenced is right there and the sign is next to Wild Horse Creek Road. So there is a bit of an offset between the two. Um to the east is the RNR ranch which is the mini horse facility that is on Wild Horse Creek Road and in that vicinity it's the barn and some of the out buildings as I recall and as I mentioned across the street there is a residence but the exposure to the sign is very limited.

Yep. Thank you. Yeah, I think it was just one of the pictures, you know, you could see kind of the side of a house it looked like in the background, but um it could have just been the way the shot. Well, certainly I appreciate the question and it's a key component to ensure that whatever we end up doing with the electronic message centers, we do it right the first time out. So, thank you. Yeah. And one of those might have been the barn. um from the uh horse facility. Yeah, the RNR ranch actually has expanded and primarily expansion has been to the west toward Etheton Road and the new fire station.

Yeah. Um so if no one has anything else, a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Chair, before that motion and

action is taken, the department would respectfully request from the planning and zoning commission authorization to prepare the letter of recommendation for the April meeting and forego the typical second step in the process which is the information report. Given the extensive work we did on electronic message centers and the components of the governing ordinance in terms of transitions, operational characteristics, location department believes that in this particular instance we could consider it in a final form instead of having an intermediary step.

Thank you, Commissioner Hoffrey. I will make that motion. and then make a motion to close the meeting. Thank you. Is there I think it's a resolution. Yeah. All right. Um all those in favor of that motion and closing the public hearing say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh PZ4-26 Mr. Brunich.

Mr. Chair, the next item is PZ0-264-26. City Involvement Planning and Zoning Commission Care of the Department of Planning, City Hall, 16860 Main Street, Wwood, Missouri 63040. A request for the review and consation of modifications to chapter 415.030 definitions. Chapter 415.090 090 NU non- urban resident district and chapters 415.110 through 415160 such being inclusive of all our districts of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance specifically regarding the city's existing review standards processes and requirements associated with outdoor game courts parenthetical sport court along with their corresponding review processes by the planning and zoning commission and subsequent and permitting steps by the city. This particular request is applicable to all wards. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunish, Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, and members of the planning and zoning commission. As Mr. Vunes just described into the record, tonight's public hearing is regarding the city's regulations on outdoor game courts. Uh the you the department prepared a zoning primer for you um for tonight's hearing that kind of outlines the history of how we uh got to regulations um for outdoor game courts um back in 2013. um the department or the city treated these types of facilities prior to 2013, excuse me, um as standard accessory structures and then it was um brought to our attention that they created more issues than your standard um patio or swimming pool. And so the planning and zoning commission, city council at the time put these regulations in in place. These regulations have been implemented um for the past 12 years by the planning and zoning commission. Um, and the department in its primer states that we think it's been very successful and that the proposals that have come to the planning and zoning commissions are either compliant or are improved upon through the review process by the commission relative to the impact on neighboring property owners and other considerations um such as noise, light, um projectiles trespassing onto other uh neighboring properties. Um with that um successful implementation um the department kind of reviewed the files of what we what the commission has reviewed over the those past 12 years and thought that now is a good time to um take another look at at the regulations, how they've been working and if we can make modifications to improve upon them. In the primer, we list um eight items that the department is recommending that the commission um take a look at as part of of that review process. Um, and I'm not going to go through each of them, but the two that I'd like to point out, um, the most which are new, um, types of information is the consideration of, um, taking a different, uh, pro process approach when considering outdoor game courts on large lots in the NU non-urban residence district um, compared to the more dense areas of the city. And then

the other one is, uh, specific provisions to address pickle ball courts. Um, we've seen a few of those come through and as part of the department's research and preparing the recommendations, we've identified issues relative to the unique characteristic of the noise that's created by the pickle ball activity. Um, so those are just two of of the eight. The others are listed in the primer. If you have any questions regarding any of those items, the department's available to answer them. Um, but tonight's hearing is just to gain any input from commission members and any members of the public that wishes to speak regarding the topic. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Um any discussion I think

and we have received no speaker cards regarding this matter as well. Okay. So thank you for that. Um Miss Hrey, Commissioner Hry, you're just looking for a motion to say to go ahead and study this, right? Yes, Miss Hrey. So, it would be to if there are no questions or comments from the commission members, um it would be a motion to close the public hearing and then the department will um prepare its information report kind of based around those criteria that were listed in the primary. Okay. Thank you. I make a motion to close. All right. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Marshall. Um all those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Um, next on the agenda, uh, let's see here. Um, Mr. Newberry for, uh, Wayland Custom Homes. A request from a request from Wayland Custom Homes, Inc. care of Mike Wayland 338 South Kirkwood Road, Sweet 105 St. Louis, Missouri, 63122-6166. that is seeking a waiver to the city's requirements that all large lot single family subdivisions install packaged wastewater treatment plants in areas of of the Wildwood community not currently served by san 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. Staint Louis County Locator numbers 24W6100045 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 are being requested on the subject tract of land each being 3 acres or greater in size along with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them. Bendic Estate Subdivision Ward One.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Newberry, Mr. Vinich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight the draft letter of recommendation that reflects the planning and zoning commission's action relative to this RAER request from its meeting on February 2nd of this year. The department would first note that the discussion and the action at the February meeting and tonight are all relative to the request for wastewater treatment. Whether to have a centralized wastewater treatment plant serving the 15 lots or to have 15 individual household treatment systems collectively on the 15 lots. This is not about the preliminary plat that for all intents and purposes relates to what we typically see as the site development plan. And the preliminary plat will address access, infrastructure levels, tree preservation, resource protection as well as many other things that we typically as the commission undertake and review. Again, as mentioned, the planning and zoning commission authorized the waiver at its February 2nd meeting. That vote was 8 to zero. The support, I believe, was premised on the list of conditions that have been developed over the course of time relative to these types of requests. And in this particular instance, the developers commitment to increase what has been typically required by the city for this particular development. Those relate to a $5,000 per lot uh escrow that would be de

deposited in the homeowners association's name. inspection requirements, administration requirements, and acrewing reserves. Those are in conjunction with all of the other items that have been typically set forth for waiver requests of this nature. So, tonight, the letter of recommendation in draft form is ready for final action by the planning and zoning commission. with final action. If granted, this matter will be received and filed by city council at its Monday, March 9th meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Verich. Um, any discussion or a motion?

Commissioner Hellfrey, I'll make a motion to approve the city's recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Hellfrey. Is there a second? Seconded by uh Commissioner Clayton. Any discussion? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. If I may, could I correct the motion? It's actually the commission's recommendation, not the departments. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, seeing no nothing, roll call vote. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Hoffrey, yes. Commissioner Clayton. Commissioner Deppler,

yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Chair Batty, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. And Mayor Gerano, thank you. Motion carries. Thank you.

All right. Uh, next, Mr. Newberry. Um, request from Lombardo Homes. A request from Lombardo Homes of Missouri LLC for Research Park Drive, sweet30, St. Charles, Missouri 63304-5638 that is seeking a waiver for to the city's requirements that all large lot single family subdivisions install packaged waste water 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 largest lot single family subdivision is being proposed upon an approximately 55 acre tract of land located on the south side of St. Albins's road state route T west west of its intersection with state route 100 FPNU floodplane non-urban residence district and INU non-urban residence district street addresses 18604 and 1870 St. Albins's road St. Lewis 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 3 acres or greater in size, along with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them along with the common ground area with visitor parking spaces. The reserve St. Albins's subdivision ward six.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry, Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the department has prepared for your consideration tonight an information report with recommendation relative to this waiver request regarding wastewater treatment. As with the item just acted upon by the planning and zoning commission relative to Whan Custom Homes, this particular discussion does not relate to the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat, as you know, contains all of those components that the commission typically looks at relative to access, infrastructure, tree preservation, resource protection, and other items. Tonight, the matter just relates to wastewater treatment. Lombardo Homes is requesting the right to install individual household treatment systems on the allowable number of lots versus a centralized wastewater treatment plant. At the February meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission postponed action to allow Lombardo Homes, the applicant, to meet with the Department of Planning and discuss particular items that had been identified by the commission members. As Mr. Nance noted during public participation, that meeting was held. The outcome of that meeting was the submitt of several pieces of information that have been incorporated into the report and provided to you tonight. I think key amongst those items is a report from one of the state's geologists that did a geohhydraulic evaluation, excuse me, a a analysis. Yes, a geohhydraulic evaluation of the

property. that is the set of pages that are at the top of the information you received. In that the geologist notes that the final water source for homes in this development has not been selected at this time. If the development is completed with individual domestic water wells, the minimum lot size must be 2.2 acres. Here's the part I find interesting. If the development is served by a public water system, the minimum lot size would be 1 acre. Obviously, we're not considering 2.2 acres or 1 acre. Our minimum requirement is 3 acres. I note it though because from the geologist standpoint, actual soil characteristics and the underlying geology, the bedrock are actually very good. They're saying that smaller lot sizes can be accommodated here because the medium for the treatment of wastewater is better than what we see in most instances in the city of Wildwood. So that's the first key component that the department used to alter its recommendation in this regard. The second key component is that the department as a component of the waiver is recommending only 14 lots instead of the requested 16. The department's rationale for such is that by reducing the lot count, the individual remaining lots can be wider in width and the septic systems can reflect that greater expanse in terms of width and instead of being designed in a north south direction and east west direction which even pulls them further away from the flood plane. both the

100red-year and 500year. And the third key component that led the department to alter its recommendation is the fact that Lombardo Homes like Whan Custom Homes has agreed to the conditions set forth by our typical waiver process. And in this case, as Mr. Nance noted during the public participation. They too will deposit $5,000 for each home to the benefit of the homeowners association for maintenance of these systems in the future. collectively the information from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding the site, the reduction in lots and Lombardo Homes willingness to participate in a very rigorous process relative to the individual household treatment systems. The department now believes that the waiver should be granted and the planning and zoning commission should authorize individual systems on each of the lots versus one centralized wastewater treatment plant. After a motion and second is made, the department will be available for any comments or questions regarding this particular matter and its recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Any discussion or a motion? Um, so thumbming through this, you said they're going to reduce it from 16 to 14 lots.

That's the recommendation. Mr. Nance didn't mention anything about that during his comments during public participation. I'm making the assumption that it's acceptable with Lombardo Homes. Certainly, if it's not, planning and zoning commission is the ultimate authority. Um, and so where I was going with that is the graphics on here still show the 16 lots. We just don't have the updated plans yet, but we will see them down the road.

Certainly. Again, always remember this is about the the wastewater, not the actual preliminary plaque. Also, I would note that the waiver request is the opportunity for the planning and zoning commission to actually attach conditions. The preliminary plat is more like a recipe to cook a cake in that if they comply with all the requirements set forth for large lot single family subdivisions, there's really little latitude to say you can or can't do something. here in the waiver. This is our opportunity to basically take a hard look and say, "Yes, if this waiver is important enough to the applicant, here's the things we think needs to be done to ensure it minimizes its impact."

Okay. And then and just for my benefit, how big are septic tanks usually? Does it is it dependent on

Well, again, remember the calculation both under the MDNR requirements and St. Louis Countyy's plumbing code, which we adopt as the city of Wildwood, each bedroom must um generates about 120 gallons of waste water over a typical day. So, a four bedroomedroom house, which is I think fairly typical of some of the large lot single family subdivisions, that's 480 gallons of wastewater. Most of the systems are 12 to,500 gallons, meaning the tank itself accommodates a much greater amount of wastewater than what is anticipated to be generated from each home. Part of that is the solid settle, so there has to be ample room to accommodate the solids. And then there must be ample room for the liquids as well. Yeah,

I I was going for like dimensions of the tank. Don't know. They I'm sure there is a standard dimension. I don't know. I certainly can find that out and let you all know. All right. Do it. Okay. I was I was just curious. Commissioner Hillefrey. Okay. I know I said I wasn't going to talk a lot, so I was saving it for these couple ones. Okay. So, I read this and I got a little bit different information out of it than you did. So, I I would like for you to explain it to me, please. First of all, to be clear, this paperwork says Creekide Estates, but this is in fact the Lombardo um development, correct?

Yes. Uh, I'm sure that's the initial name that Lombardo Holmes assigned to it or provided to it for the purposes of getting the ball rolling, but yes, this is the location.

I just wanted to make sure I was reading the correct stuff. Okay, so on the page that is the geological survey uh page dated 65 and the paragraph above where you read about the 2.2 2 acres or 1 acre. The very last sentence on that says it is located in a geomorphic flood plane and it is possible that treatment systems will be inundated during flood events. Now I understand that this probably can't be undeveloped forever. I am a realist about things, but I also remember all of those pictures and um about the flooding. And so my question is we I I lived here in St. Louis when we had the flood of 93. So I remember what havoc those floods caused. And I realize this is only a creek. And I know that they're saying it's a hundredyear flood and a 500y year flood, but the types of rains that we have now, we have many pictures that showed that those roads got flooded from those creeks. And so my concern is would the would it be better for the environment if it's possible that these treatment systems could be un inundated? would individual treatments be better than um one individual one? And I'm asking because I am not a septic system expert, but I also am asking for all of these people that have come every week and and um I want to make sure that we all understand it together. So, if you could help us with that.

So, I'm going to ask the fair question of Mr. Brown. He is our flood plane administrator. If you want a definition of what a geomorphic flood plane is, I would ask him as the administrator of FEMA regulations for the city of Wildwood. Um, in terms of the risk, certainly citing 14 septic systems increase the risk that one, two, or more would flood versus a single treatment plan. Um, so that's a risk assess assessment. Um, Lombardo Homes will have a complement of professional engineers that do the analysis of concerns that you've spoken. Um, the city of Wildwood will also do the same. will be in contact with Missouri Department of Natural Resources as part of the preliminary plat to ensure that the information that we've been provided and now reflects in the preliminary plan is addressed. I'd like to think there's enough checks and balances that we minimize the risk, but I will never say we eliminate it.

And I thank you for that. Um the other question I was going to ask was these are all enclosed contained septic systems. So with individual ones you won't have the odor that was a big concern with a single unit one. Correct. It al they won't be seen also. Correct. That's correct. Okay.

The the the this the system the tank itself is buried in for the most part a closed system quite frankly. There's there's uh caps on them. That's how they basically clean them. They remove the caps, stick the vacuum hoses in and um maintain them in that fashion. It's the drain field that is the consideration. Now remember, the drain field doesn't have solids in it. That's just the liquids that come from the waste water. The solids are deposited in the tank and that's what is vacuumed out. what we'd like to think on a on an annual basis or certainly not every five or 10 years which we've heard is the circumstance in some instances.

Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Vinnich. Mr. Vinich I have a question talking about a closed system where the drain field is obviously underground the tank is underground and sealed right. Yes. Um, to my knowledge, the only pipe that is open is actually on the roof, which is your vent on the home. Correct. That's correct. So, even if you have a flooding event, as long as it isn't a flooding event that stays and affects your drain capability through the drain field over a week, multiple weeks of time, I can't see how that would really result in an environmental issue. Is there is there something I'm missing?

Well, I'll give it a parallel. It's it's just it's substantially different. But when the Marramac River floods, it impacts the wastewater treatment facilities in Pacific, Eureka, and then if you go east of Wildwood, others all of those systems have open those are open systems. Correct.

Right. And so what the concept is is that the flood water is diluted and render it less impactful than it is if not the volume of water as part of the flooding river. The same would hold true here. If there is ination there's a lot of water that water is intended to dilute. Again remembering we've eliminated the sal sol solids and there is primary treatment in tank usually chlorination or something akin to that and in some instances now many people are putting ultraviolet lights in there to address other contaminants

and it's usually bacteria based breakdown of the solids is my understanding I mean so even if we have a flooding event to my knowledge if it's a closed system even if you have multiple closed systems that should be a safer situation than an o one open system

and in principle That's true. But again, as I've tried to explain, maybe not as well as I had hoped. One system we hopefully will get it right. And that system originally was thought to be on the western most end of the site in the corner up near T or in proximity to T, the highest point on the site. So again, I think Lombardo Holmes has stepped back, has been accepting of the requirements, the list, the long list of requirements. And I think a key component again is we're only dealing with 14 lots now. And remember, this is a development that could ultimately have 18. So we we're seeing a reduction that I think is favorable to the the waiver request.

Commissioner Jackson. Okay, I that was going to be my question. So, are they still planning to build on the highest point for the septic or is that going to change now? It's the 14 because this is where we put conditions. In this particular instance with the 14 systems, they'll be behind the house. So, on the the lower portion of the lot, not where the plant was proposed where I would consider on the highest point of the lot. So remember, we're doing with the waiver, we're doing 14 systems on each lot. Okay. It's for Okay. Thank you. All right. I thought we were going back. Never mind. Thank you, Councilman Marshall.

So, two questions, Mr. Zich, if I read it correctly, there'll also be easements set aside in case the individual systems don't work that there could be a packing system put in down the road. So the houses will be built to where you could still come back in and put a primary sewer system behind that. We always kind of plan for the future. And so if something were to occur, let's say the systems fail because there's some unknown circumstance, I feel comfortable that MDNR addresses those with the geology report and the efforts they undertake now relative to large lot areas. Secondly, um if public sewer were to become available, we now have the easements in place.

One one last question. The um common ground now will be in the area that we've heard so much about flooding. So there won't be a house built right there. That will be the area that that uh has has allowed for a lot of that uh runoff.

Mr. Marshall, my guess is the common ground will disappear now because there doesn't there's not a need for it. And I believe the um mailbox clusters can fit within the confines of the private roadway easement. So I think we'll have 14 lots. Um all of the lots will increase in size and width and hopefully mirror better the the character of T relative to the width of Great. Thank you. I believe we're still looking for a motion.

I I'm going to make a motion then. And I have to find my page. Sorry. I am going to make a motion that we accept the recommendation um granting the waiver so that they have individual septic system 14 lots correct. Okay, it's my move. Is there a second? Second. Should I say no more than 14 lots? No more is usually we always write it as not to exceed.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So motion by Commissioner Hellfrey, seconded by Commissioner Borne. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Hilfrey, yes. Chair Batty, yes. Council member Marshall, yes. Mayor Gerano, thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Next on the agenda, PZ 10-25.

Mr. Chair, I'll be reading uh PZ 10-2 and Newberry and 11-25. Okay.

They see they relate to the same matter. Um PZ 10-25 luxury villas at latitude N38 care of latitude N38 LLC 11605 ST Avenue sweet 102 Crecore Missouri 63141 a request for a change in zoning from the NU non-urban residence district to the R6A 4000T residence district town center neighborhood general district for 6.9 acre tract of land that is located at the southeast corner of Ethet Road and Crestview Drive. Locator numbers 23V 2110140, 23V 2110151, 23V 211021, and 23V 2200022. Street address is 24422448 25454 Etheertton Road and 16928 Crestview Drive W 8 PZ 11-25 Luxury Villas at Latitude and 38 Care of Latitude N38 LLC 11605 Stut Avenue sweet 102 Creve Core Missouri 63141 request for a planned residential development overlay district PRD in the R6A 4000T residence district town center neighborhood general district for the same 6.9 9, a contractive land that is located on the southeast corner of Ethereton Road in Crescue Drive. Locator numbers 23V 2110140 23V 2110151 23V 211021 and 23V 2200022. Street addresses 244248 25454 Etherton Road in 16928 Cresby Drive. Proposed use is a total of max of a maximum of 44 single family attached dwellings in clusters of three, four and six units along with the associated street and pedestrian network off streetet parking areas required public space and storm water management facilities ward 8.

Thank you Mr. Newberry, Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight an information report with the department's recommendation relative to the request that Mr. Newberry just read into tonight's record. I do want to note a couple of items before the department begins its presentation relative to its report. First, I believe Mr. Daster during public participation noted that they had provided additional information in support of their request for the change in zoning and the application of the overlay district. That information was received late this afternoon. Mr. Newberry was kind enough to email that information to all of you as well as we provided you copies at your chairs tonight. Certainly, I understand when u applicants or developers say receiving the report on Friday afternoon um is difficult to review and make assessments and judgments, but certainly um those on the commission realize just how busy we've been and how many meetings we have, master plan, etc. So, we do the best we can. The intent is not to forgo the applicant's ability to thoroughly review the information. It's certainly it's the process we have and we've had it for 30 years. Additionally, besides the information provided by the developers attorney, we have received a number of additional comments via our website. Those comments were forwarded to you via email today as well as I believe Mr. Newberry left a few of them your chairs tonight. So, a lot of information still uh so to speak

streaming in and we just want to make sure you knew of it and certainly if you need time to review it, the department would understand. The department thinks that a brief overview or history of this particular project is worthwhile. I believe one of the speakers during public participation noted that the original request was for 12 single family detached buildings on individual lots on approximately 3 acres. That particular request um was reviewed by the planning and zoning commission and ultimately was delayed a number of months, quite a few months while the town center update team reviewed land use considerations along what would be future Main Street. The applicant at that time, Mr. Bossworth was patient with the process and ultimately was rewarded with a change from the properties being designated downtown district similar to what we see with the Walgreens, the Starbucks, the hotel to the neighborhood general. So from the perspective of the regulating plan of town center plan the ultimate use changed from high intensity commercial to higher density residential. Ultimately that particular plan the 12 single family detach dwellings on individual lots was endorsed by the planning and zoning commission but failed at city council. Subsequently and years later, a second proposal was submitted and that proposal is very familiar to all of you. Over the course of many months, variations of that plan were submitted to the planning and zoning commission and ultimately the

planning and zoning commission recommended denial. That denial was forwarded to the city council. The city council under a a appeal from the developers reviewed it again and that review for the most part took approximately one year. Ultimately though the city council did not endorse the proposal which leads us to tonight. Over the course of those reviews, property has been added to the subject tract of land, going from three acres now up to almost 7 acres. Units have been changed from single family detached to single family attached. The densities have varied from over 60 on the 7 acres, now in this particular proposal, down to 44. So suffice to say, there's been a lot of changes, a lot of discussion, and certainly tonight, the department is breaking with its past recommendations. In both of those instances, the department supported the change in zoning and the overlay district due to compliance through the town center plan, the zoning ordinance, the design criteria handbook, and other items, regulations, standards, guidelines that the department uses when formulating a recommendation to present to the planning and zoning commission. Principally tonight, the department believes that this particular proposal is the furthest any of them have been from what we hope to achieve in new urbanism. And new urbanism, as you know, has been with us since 1996 when the town center component of our master plan conceptual land use categories was adopted.

Subsequently, approximately two years later, the town center plan and the development manual were approved, adopted, and put into place. Certainly, in the letter that's been provided by Mr. Doster, he questions some of the outcomes relative to streetscapes, front entry garages, etc. And certainly we could argue how interpretations are made, but I can assure you the department of planning's interpretation was made from the development manual and the town center plan. I think from the perspective of the department, it identifies seven components that support its recommendation for denial. Certainly, we can go through each of the seven, but from the perspective of the department, three stand out. The developer has chosen to do a very gracious thing. Dedicate 37 ft of private property purchased at market rates for the purposes of our future main street. That is no small grant, no small allowance, but from the perspective of the department, that is all they are doing. And with the assistance of Mr. Newberry. I want to assure the planning and zoning commission and anyone in attendance tonight that when the master plan for Wildwoods Town Center was revised and for the most part submitted to the public in April of 1997, this is the cover sheet that the next slide please. Main Street was a component of it. So now it is 29 years later and I find it

hard to believe that any entity, private property owner, developer, city official, elected appointed or anyone that deals with the city of Wildwood did not know that Main Street was required. And as in the instance with Wildwood Town Center, the theater, Main Street crossing, the reserve at Wildwood requirements were you build your portion of it along your frontage. I'm not underestimating the dedication and the release of rights to Crest Drive, the private street, but we've required everybody else to dedicate and build. And from the perspective of the department, Main Street through this area was supposed to be 104 feet width. We've reduced it from that to 70 feet. That's what Main Street crossing had to dedicate and that's what ultimately the reserve at Waldwood dedicated in a different way 30 and with easements. So that's the first component. The department can't support a project that doesn't require either the construction or establishment of a special escrow for the cost of what half one half of Main Street would be relative to its construction. Secondly, I have a great deal of respect for the Lock Mueller Group. They provide services to the city of Wildwood. We've used them extensively, but from the Department of Planning's perspective and our Department of Public Works may disagree because our director is a PE and a PTOE. But any street we won't center line

tells me it's a real street. We do that with Orville Road, Bouquet Road, etc. and adding 44 units and additional traffic just doesn't equate to a successful project to the department of planning. And finally, storm water. The department is very appreciative of the change in design and bringing the outfall structures and the rip wrap blankets off park property and onto the subject site. But I will still say where does that water go? and it goes onto our site. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Bosser showed me a plan for our village green that showed two swailes at the general location where they intend to discharge onto their property and from that that property drain onto Village Green. One has completely changed due to the playground that now is being designed and developed and will be built in 2026. The other is still consistent. But again, the limited information we have and the ongoing changes made it impossible to do a fair assessment. And you trust the Department of Planning to be cautious, not risky. And when it comes to the taxpayers's property and as one of our speakers said, investing millions of dollars into the development of it, the department's going to be cautious for those reasons and the other four identified in the analysis of the information report. The department is recommending the that the requested reszoning and the overlay district not be supported by the planning and zoning commission. After a motion and second, the

Department of Planning will be available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Runich. Discussion or motion?

All right. U Councilman Marshall. Motion to discuss from Mr. Marshall. Is there a second? All right. Second by Commissioner Hellfrey. This is a motion. Yeah. So I think the motion under Robert Tuples would be you you approve it, accept it. There's a second then it's discussion correct. She said I've done this. So is your is your motion to approve? My motion. I'll Okay. I'm going to make a motion to approve the city's recommendations.

Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Clayton and and chair, could I a point of information, can you clarify when you state approve the city's recommendation, which means to not prove. Okay. Just want to make sure that's crystal clear. Thank you. All right. Um, all right. Did you have I was just gonna ask that's that question asked the motion based on so

Okay. All right. No, you're good. Thank you, though. All right. Commissioner Hilfrey, I just wasn't sure if you had any Commission.

Um, I guess I'm just a little First of all, I I uh I agreed this should not be approved for all seven of those reasons, I believe. But I guess I'm just I'm I was looking at this this drawing earlier and uh the last time this came in front of us. I I I I could not I would not ever support water going onto the city park. It just looks like they just shortened the arms of that outflow. Is that what I'm seeing? So the water would still dump there. It would just they just shorten the arm so it would stop on the land on their land. Miss Alfie, I believe Mr. Vos described that they actually changed the type of facility from a bio retention which are problematic for the city to I believe he described it as compartmentalized which is an improvement in terms of the management of runoff. Yes, they did pull, so to speak, the arm back and have it on their property, but it still has to go

right east, which is the lower elevation versus the site. Now, as you know, with detention retention, the intent is to retain the water and release it at the pre-development condition. So, you're not getting a surge or more water, you're just getting the same amount of water over an extended period of time, right? Thanks, Mr. Reich. You're welcome, ma'am.

Oh, anything else? I just had one quick question. Commissioner was right in my head. The way the motion was put out, if a if a yes vote means we do not approve it moving forward, correct? That is correct. Thank you.

All right. If anyone has anything else, roll call vote. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Dler votes yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Helffrey, yes. Chair Batty, no. Council member Marshall, yes. Mayor Gitano, yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you.

All right. Uh, PZ1-26. Mr. Newberry PZ1,

excuse me, PZ1-26, City of Wildwood, Planning and Zoning Commission, Car of Department of Planning, Wildwood, City Hall, 1 16860, Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request to consider amendments to chapter 415 of the code of ordinances of the city of Wildwood to regulate and restrict the use of land for operation of facilities commonly referred to as information technology and data procing processing facilities or data centers and establishing specific performance to standards to address potential adverse impacts including noise pollution utility infrastructure demands, visual aesthetics and environmental footprint and other matters relating to the general health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city and other matters related there too. All wards.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think it deserves that I say there are no active data center proposals in Wildwood. However, knowing what we know relative to surrounding communities, not only in the St. was metropolitan area but elsewhere across the outstate location. Um, can you keep it down back there, please?

Thank you. So again, no data centers. what the city of Wildwood is doing per the direction of our citizen oversight group that has been the last year

thank you

the citizen oversight group over the last year that has been reviewing the master plan had urged the planning and zoning commission to consider proactively addressing these before a submittal of a request was received by the city and in some instances having to react versus understand. So tonight the department has prepared for your consideration its information report with recommendation regarding data centers or as Mr. Young has described them information technology and data processing facilities. I've said it. It'll be the last time. I'll call them data centers for the benefit of our discussion tonight. Along with that information report, the planning and zoning commission had asked the department of planning to institute additional research regarding these types of facilities. And so, Mr. Newberry has provided you different sets of regulations and reports relative to this particular phenom. right now and there is a cover member memo memorandum associated with it that identifies them as exhibits A through I and inclusive of the different locations and different entities that were contacted for the information. The department is working under a key assumption relative to these facilities and that key assumption is is that the city of Wildwood cannot prohibit them. As you know, over the course of time, we have dealt with medical marijuana sales, now medical now non-medical marijuana in the five components, sexually explicit

businesses, vape lounge, tattoo parlors, and etc. Suffice to say, any of those in some of the opinion of our residents should be prohibited and not authorized anywhere within the boundaries of Bobwood. Certainly, I'm not comparing data centers to some of those. But again, if those uses can't be prohibited, the logic or the the the thread is that data centers cannot either. Data centers have drawn a lot of attention. They are obviously to some an economic development boon because of the potential revenue sources they bring along with a limited number of new employment opportunities. On the other hand, we know that they bring with them noise, light, pollution, impacts on utility services, etc. So again, from the key assumption, the department is recommending that the city of Wildwood proactively address them. How would that be done? First and foremost, we limit data centers to the industrial area of the Wildwood portion of the Chesterfield Valley. And Mr. Newberry, I think, is going to pull up. And that is the area to the west of Spirit of St. Louis airport. It's shown in kind of a light turquoise or blue color and Mr. Newberry's basically showing you the boundary. It's about 500 acres. One parcel down there parcel ground is about 250 of that 500 acres. So first and foremost per our master plan an industrial

activity will be in the industrial conceptual land use category. How that is managed? The department is recommending that the M3 planned industrial district accommodate data centers as a conditional use. Recall our PRD, our SCOD, our C8 district, those are all zoning categories where individual sightsp specific ordinances are prepared based upon a submitted design plan. And the department believes that's critical that if we see a Danish center proposal that we get a very specific plan for how that particular use will be placed and used on the property. Key component. Secondly, the conditional use permit gives the city more flexibility in how it manages those proposals. First and foremost that flexibility is the burden of proof shifts somewhat from the city to the applicant. Remember when we do conditional use permits the applicant has to prove it meets the four criteria that is set forth in that particular section of the zoning ordinance. Secondly, any underlying regulations of the zoning district designation cannot be reduced beyond what is set forth at that time. Meaning that if there's a 50-foot front yard setback and the property is governed by the conditional use permit, the planning and zoning commission nor city council can reduce that 50 foot distance to anything

less than that. So the cup sets a base level relative to the underlying regulations and the base level cannot be reduced. That's a key component. Also, the department identified a list of six performance standards it believes are critical that again if part of the underlying regulations for data centers cannot be reduced but the city can make them more restrictive and those relate to groundwater resources. In this instance, the department is saying that any water utilization must come from a public source, not groundwater. Secondly, storm water management. Any data center would have to follow the Chesterfield Valley storm water management plan that's been implemented for now almost 50 plus years and meet also the requirements of the Metropolitan St. Louis tour district and the city of Wildwood along with the levy district and the corores of engineer. Thirdly, wastewater treatment must be provided through a public entity that being metropolitan St. Louis sewer district. Much of that area is not served by Metropolitan St. Louis Sew District. Noise levels number four must comply with our noise code. 55 dB between 7 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 45 dB between 7:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. 45 dB is a very moderate to low sound level. Lighting levels must comply with our outdoor lighting requirements and any lighting must be

dark sky certified. Finally, electrical consumption. This is particularly a difficult one in that we know from a lot of discussions both in newspaper on other media social outlets that there's always a risk that as the day as electric consumption increases the other customers end up paying more. So in this particular instance, the department is recommending that any state action be the minimum requirement for the city of Wwood and the state legislature did pass legislation for the larger centers last session and I don't know if they're doing anything this session but again kind of lock step with the state of Missouri. So again to summarize any data center would be a conditional use permit in the M3 indust planned industrial district. It would be limited to the Wildwood portion of the Chesterfield Valley and minimally have to meet the six performance standards set forth in the report. After a motion and second, the department will be available for any comments or questions. Miss Ruffford has sat through many more of these of late at other communities. So she is our expert at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Vernich. Uh Commissioner Hillefrey. Okay. So then have recommendation but I don't quite understand what the recommendation is. So I guess I want to recommend if we make changes to the reg regulation then I have a lot to so um what we are doing is we're identifying data centers as a use right now there is nothing in there but in the industrial districts there are things like warehousing manufacturing so interpretation we're basically identifying it as a standalone use in the M3 district as a conditionally conditional type.

Okay. But I want to I want to talk about the condition. So I guess I can make a recommendation to um from the perspective of the department. We'll need a motion on the floor. Then we can amend the motion by either changing the wording, adding wording, whatever the case may be. Okay. Then I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation. All right. Is there a second? Second.

All right. So, motion by Commissioner Hry, second by Commissioner Borne. And just for my benefit off the top, where at what point does a computer inensive business say where I work uh become a data center? So, between now and the action of the commission, if the motion is approved tonight, you'll have a definition a definition of a data center. I noted in the report that's that's not part of it. I need some assistance from our city attorney. Okay. All right.

So, I'm obviously data centers are I think readily defined. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll find out and you'll certainly know. If we can't define them to preclude let's say a sirex that is computer driven with great deals of storage then obviously we need to step back and we'll figure it out. All right. Thank you. All right commissioner help.

Okay. Thanks. All right. So I read a lot of this stuff. I've read a lot of stuff before which is why I wanted to bring this all up and I realized that in today's world we need computers. It's a little unfortunate that every single thing we do is run by computers now. So when AT&T, my internet provider, is giving me a terrible signal. Maybe I can't watch TV sometimes. I can't use my phone. So I get that computers are here. I don't necessarily think the data centers are as necessary as they've all of a sudden decided that they are. Um, and I I when I read this stuff and it talks about climate change and I listen to the people who have data centers around them there, it's not this happy happy thing. And so I see all I read all the things that we that you put in here and I want to know if we can go further before we change the rules and then have to go back and amend them. And so here are some of the things that I wanted to do uh or I would like for this city to do. Um first of all define the data centers. In the document, one of the documents you gave us, it defines the different types of data centers. A major data center, a a micro data center, a standard data center, and a large load data center. So there's different requirements for each one of those. Um, and I think that that would benefit us tremendously. Um, I'm pretty sure that on the news a couple weeks ago, uh, I I heard that Amaran approved a data center bill where they would only be required to pay 80% of the electric, which I if that's the case, I I that's absurd because I'm pretty sure that you and I can't pay only 80% of the electric that we use.

Um, so I would hope that somewhere in all of this, um, I don't know if we can at a city level, but to say that they can't use more than they pay for in the electricity. Um, I appreciate that we've answered the the uh noise level because I know that there's humming and there's vibrations and there's light and I'm getting all of this that I'm talking about tonight just from the information that you gave us, not from any of the information that I compiled in my own. Um, I know that it talked about a closed loop for water impact, but that also will then take more electricity. Um the electric impact of these data centers should not be allowed to adversely impact the rest of the city. So there shouldn't be uh a brown out or our electric be um contained our use diminished because the data center needs more. And I get that this we're talking about a small area of wildwood but I am trying to be proactive to address the problems before they happen. Um let's see emissions. What kind of emissions uh these these uh data centers put off should be addressed. Um and another thing that was in this document said define uh the APA requires says that you should request specifics in writing uh design requirements, site requirements. Um, I don't think they should be allowed within a certain amount of feet of any type of residential area. And, uh, that's all I have for now, but I just really think that if we're going to do this that we should, um, cross as many tees and dot as many eyes as we can at the front of it rather than having to come back later and play catchup. And I I so I appreciate your time and thank you,

Mr. Chair. if I could respond just to a couple. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Range.

Certainly, I've mentioned that the definition of data or data centers is forthcoming and as soon as I have it available, I'll send it off to all of you. Hopefully, not wait to the Friday before the April meeting. Um, I think Miss Roenford, Mr. Newberry and I would tell you that trying to regulate um public utilities under the guidance of the Missouri Public Service Commission is a tall task and probably one that would end up being for the most part feudal. That's why as part of the performance standards the department relied on in a state statute or the Missouri public service commission to provide that guidance of what we can or can't do. Certainly Miss Ruerford and Mr. Young will take that under advisement. Uh emissions again all of these standards are the proposed standards are under the performance standards. If you look at our zoning ordinance which I should have probably provided that section emissions odor all of those things are identified and basically um for the most part defer to the St. County Department of Public's Health requirements. Um, and then finally, setbacks. That's the beauty of the M3 planned industrial district and the conditional use permit. We can set setbacks based upon a good design.

So, Mr. Vunich, when we talk about these vibration noises, and you know, I know that we've heard them when we drive under those big power lines, right? you hear kind of that humming and and some of the research that I've done in these data centers, people that live on the East Coast buy these state that there's a lot of humming noises and I know there's not a lot of houses down there, but there's some. And so, um, you know, to say that they can't build within a certain feet of the edge of their property, um, is there anything we could do to regulate the impact of them past their property boundaries? Our noise code and most noise codes limits the regul regulatory authority of the entity to the property boundary not beyond saying that if a noise analysis is provided and beyond the property line there is a noticeable increase because our code says zero zero at the property line then they have to implement sound mitigation I don't know if that's sound walls sound dampening materials things like we did with Fisher frictal at the point you've got to upgrade your sighting, you've got to upgrade your windows, you've got to upgrade your installation insulation so that ultimately we can manage the sound. So I again I think there's a limit to what we can do relative to public utilities and I think if we try to extend beyond the property we're probably invalidating the effort eventually because I think there's a likelihood we couldn't stand a challenge.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Vinnich. Yeah, Commissioner Jackson. Okay. So it it appears that in anticipation of if any or more state legislation on this matter, we can designate that area as the only area in Wildwood that may you may put a data center. Correct.

Okay. So this is putting it in this area. Okay. Part two of that question. We I think don't we have uh someone wanting to get a conditional use permit to build homes on 240 acres or something along those lines? If we did that and we take the land that is needed for a data center, does that then put us in any jeopardy that we've basically through a residential approval taken away where they can get data center which would open up the door to move somewhere else.

Well, Mr. Young has said in the past, we just have to make something available. We don't have to make it perfect. Please, Mr. Rutherford. Oh, there we go. Can you hear me? Yep, you're good.

Perfect. Um, so yes, that is correct. that is analyzed under the premise that a property doesn't have to be the highest and best use. But I mean, if someone gets to you first and it looks good for XYZ property, maybe not even specific year, but just in general, then it gets through the process before that, then there you go.

I will use lay person's terms and say problem solved. Well, it sounds to me like this is a pretty good idea, pretty good format that you guys came up with. I was a little concerned because the Franklin County thing, if that goes, that butts up against us, that they can just creep right on over. Now, I don't know what the geog geography is, hills, hollers, all the other stuff, but I was worried that they could just come right on over and there wasn't much we could do about it. And again, I'm going to defer to Miss Rutherford and we hadn't I hadn't but there is a provision somewhere that says we can extend our zoning authority outside our boundaries for like a half mile. I recall this with Mayor Bolan when the wedding venue opened near his property and ultimately it was creating noise and Mr. Young and I had a conversation. and he said actually there might be a way to address that because uninccorporated county versus a charter city and the state statute right so speaking just generally statutoily there is there's a certain list of uses in which you can extend outside of your boundary but I can't recall all of them off the top of my head if I remember correctly generally it's some kind of public use like it's a wastewater treatment facility in one case or things of that nature, but they are listed uses in which you can go that far. I do not know off the top of my head if a data center is included in that, but we can certainly look into that.

I would suspect it's not because like the this particular topic just seemed to blow up overnight. So, go ahead. I'm just going to say I'm done. Thank you. And I am going to have to leave here in about 5 minutes. So if there isn't a vote before there, I'm I'm in agreement with everyone. So

I just have one more question. So in a lot of these things we're reading there, they're talking about um all these people that are passing these are signing non-disclosure things. So just this is actually just a question. What are they not disclosing? And don't say that you don't know because it's non-disclos I mean are they are they not disclosing a cost or a use? I mean

and how do we not let them do that to us? I'm really bad. They're pulling all kinds of stuff. So, from what I'm aware of, um, a lot of the circumstances surrounding those certain municipalities, certain entities that are signing NDAs, at least the elected officials and the decision makers that are, that has the potential to raise some sunshine law concerns, and I would strongly recommend against it, whether it be here or literally any other municipality that they

and I I'll comment on that being the mayor, we will abide by the sunshine law and make sure that everything is transparent as we have always operated. Amen, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um, Councilman Marshall. So, Mr. Vage, how many acres are in the valley in our industrial area? Is that around 500? Yes, sir.

But that's a very small I mean, I'm sure that Vicks and other places would sell out for the right price. So the issue of the micro and the standard and all that the industrial zone itself and then they could certainly look at Chesterfield across the road and and go through that. I just don't have a whole lot of faith in in the state and the power companies. If you remember, that's where uh 64 was going to go right down across the river down in and Bipad or 109 was going to connect down to 44 there and every oh it's so close to Labidy and then I saw today I think in a paper where Mastercard had a flag up for their tech center which would be closer to the valley than any place else. So I think whatever we can do, but I I just think we need to keep in mind that there are people there in at the state who have a whole different interest and we've seen this two or three times just in our existence as a city that when they change the regulations, we kind of lose anything. So the more we can put in to to make it work that way and I wouldn't really just worry about the deluge property. I'd worry about the whole valley uh to see if we can make sure that there's something there that if that's the place they could go in an industrial area that it would not be as easy for them as they like.

So over the last year I have heard multiple times for the volunteers on our citizen oversight group regarding the master plan thing that makes Wildwood special, the thing that makes people move here and stay here for generations is the rural area. And so that rural area is governed by the NU non- urban resident district. And so from I think collectively our collectively all of us if we do one thing and we do one thing right that's to protect the non-urban and keeping data centers off the large tracks of land that are zone non- urban is the goal of all of this. Right.

All right. Well the motion's on the floor I think. Yep. Anyone have any more comments before a vote? Um, all right. Roll call vote. Commissioner Borne, yes. Commissioner Hoffrey, yeah. Yes. Commissioner Clayton, yes. Commissioner Deppler, yes. Commissioner Deppler votes yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. Chair Batty, um, point of order. This will come back before us one more time, right? A letter of recommendation, good definitions. Yes. Council member Marshall. Yes. Mayor Gerano.

Yes. All right. Motion carries. Thank you.

I think so. Motion to adjurnn. All right. Second. All those in All right. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Thank you very much. It's much appreciated. Thank you everybody.